tortions which in fact we shall find to have been practiced upon them. In the year 1241, 20,000 marks were exacted from them two years after, money was again extorted; and one Jew alone, Aaron of York, was obliged to pay above 4000 marks in 1250, Henry renewed his oppreflions; and the fame Aaron was condemned to pay him 30,000 marks upon an accufation of forgery: the high penalty impofed upon him, and which, it feems, he was thought able to pay, is rather a prefumption of his innocence than of his guilt. In 1255, the King demanded 8000 marks from the Jews, and threatened to hang them, if they refufed compliance. They now loft all patience, and defired leave to retire with their effects out of the kingdom. But the King replied: "How "can I remedy the oppreffions you complain of? I am my"felf beggared. I am defpoiled, I am ftripped of all my re"venues: I owe above 200,000 marks; and if I had said 66 300,000, I should not exceed the truth: I am obliged to

pay my fon, prince Edward, 15,000 marks a year: I have "not a farthing; and I muft have money, from any hand, "from any quarter, or by any means. He then delivered over the Jews to the earl of Cornwal, that thofe whom the one brother had flead, the other might embowel, to make use of the words of the historian *. King John, his father, once demanded 10,000 marks from a Jew of Bristol; and on his refufal, ordered one of his teeth to be drawn every day till he should confent. The Jew loft feven teeth; and then paid the fum required of him."

The barbarity exercised toward this race of men, will not fo greatly furprize us, when we confider the feverity of the antient law of England, by which, if a christian man married a woman who was a Jewefs, or a chriftian woman did marry with a Jew, it was felony, for which the offending party was to be burned alive. This strange and inhuman law was made in the infancy of chriftianity, and we might almost doubt its real existence, did we not confider that zealots have ever been forward to violate the dictates of reason and humanity, in defence of a new and favourite fyftem, against an opposite fect.

The reign of Edward I. who has been celebrated as the English Juftinian, affords abundant matter of fpeculation. Under this prince, the English conftitution acquired fome tolerable confiftence. Knights, citizens, and burgeffes were now more regularly fummoned to parliament, and the commons beheld the gladfome dawn of independence, It fuf Matthew Paris.

G 2

fered

fered many eclipfes however, before it rofe fo near to the meridian as it has fince advanced. Our Hiftorian makes a digreffion in this reign, in which he gives a fuccinct and ingenious account of the progrefs of the commons' authority. Nevertheless it is too long for us to give it entire, and to felect any particular part, would be injuftice to the whole. We will only obferve therefore, that Mr. Hume seems to rely too much on the authority of Brady, who, though very ingenious and intelligent, is, in many inftances hafty and partial and we are by no means perfuaded by the authorities he cites, that the knights originally fat apart from the commons, and that the latter, even in the reign of Henry IV. had not any legislative authority. Were we however to enter into a regular confutation of thefe propofitions, it would carry us too far into the cobwebs of antiquity, whither few of our readers, perhaps, would chufe to follow us. We therefore refer the examination of these niceties to the learned and curious.

It would be needlefs to enter into the military exploits of this prince in France and Scotland, against the latter of which he was actuated more by principles of policy than justice, having violated the confidence repofed in his friendly arbitration, to promote an ufurped dominion. The civil government of this reign is moft worthy of our attention, and is indeed well defcribed by our Hiftorian. Here however he is clearly mistaken, when he fays, that "Edward feems to have been the first Christian Prince, who paffed a statute of mortmain;" for this was one of the articles of the Great Charter paffed in his father's time.

Our Historian's reflections on the reign of that weak and unfortunate Prince, Edward II. are well worthy of observation. Mr. Hume has foftened the character of this unhappy Monarch, and takes notice, that it is a fhameful delufion in modern hiftorians, to imagine that all the antient Princes who were unfortunate in their government, were alfo tyranical in their conduct. This reflection is certainly juft: but we must add, that if a prince is ever fo innocent and inoffenfive in himself, yet his weak attachment to a tyrannical and oppreffive minion, is as reasonable a ground for oppofing his authority, as if the tyranny was perfonal in himself. It must be confeffed nevertheless, that "the facility and weaknefs of this Prince, more than his violence, threw every thing into confufion;" and thefe confiderations, more than any real grievances, gave birth to the fedition of the turbulent. Barons; whoke conduct and influence is admirably described

in the following extract, which opens with fome curious particulars, relative to the elder Spenfer, father to Edward's favourite.

"The petition of the elder Spenfer to parliament, complaining of the devastation committed on his lands by the barons, contains feveral particulars, which are curious, and discover the manners of the age. He affirms, that they had ravaged fixty three manors belonging to him, and he makes his loffes amount to 46,000 pounds; that is, to 138,000 of our prefent money. Among other particulars, he enumerates 28,000 sheep, 1000 oxen and heifers, 1200 cows with their breed for two years, 560 cart horfes, 2000 hogs, together with 600 bacons, 80 carcaffes of beef, and 600 muttons in the larder; ten tuns of cyder, arms for 200 men, and other warlike engines and provifions. The plain inference is, that the greateft part of Spenfer's vaft eftate, as well as that of the other nobility, was farmed by the landlord himfelf, managed by his ftewards or bailiffs, and cultivated by his villains. Little or none of it was let on leafe to husbandmen its produce was confumed in ruftic hofpitality by the baron or his officers: a great number of idle retainers, ready for any diforder or mifchief, were maintained by him: all who lived upon his eflate were abfolutely at his disposal : inftead of applying to courts of juftice, he ufually fought redrefs by open force and violence: the great nobility were a kind of independant potentates, who, if they fubmitted to any regulations at all, were lefs governed by the municipal law, than by a rude fpecies of the laws of nations. The method in which we find they treated the King's favourites, and ministers, is a proof of their ufual way of dealing with each other. A party, which complains of the arbitrary conduct of minifters, ought naturally to affect a great regard for the laws and conftitution, and maintain at least the appearance of juftice in their proceedings: yet thefe barons, when difcontented, came to parliament with an armed force, conftrained the King to affent to their measures, and without any trial or witness or conviction, paffed, from the pretended notoriety of facts, an act of banishment or attainder against the minifter, which, on the first revolution of fortune, was reverfed by like expedients. The parliament, during factious times, was nothing but the organ of prefent power. Tho' the perfons of whom it was chiefly compofed, feemed to enjoy great independance, they really poffeffed no true liberty; and the fecurity of each individual among them, was not fo much derived from the general protection of law, as from his own private power and that of his confederates. The au

G3

thority

thority of the monarch, tho' far from abfolute, was very irregular, and might often reach him: the current of a faction might eafly overwhelm him: a hundred confiderations, of benefits and injuries, friendships and animofities, hopes and fears, were able to influence his conduct; and amidst these -motives a regard to equity and law and juice was commonly, in thofe rude ages, of little moment. Nor did any man entertain thoughts of oppofing prefent power, who did not deem himself itrong enough to difpute the field with it by force, and was not prepared to give battle to the fovereign or the ruling party."

We are here prefented with a very just and lively picture of the manners of these times, and this may serve as a key for the more perfect underftanding of the diforderly and violent tranfactions of these reigns. Such comments difplay the true characteristics of an Hiftorian.

The reign of Edward III, affords little more than a romantic fcene of chivalry. The much celebrated victories of Crecy and Poitiers, only ferve, among other inftances, to prove that heedlefs temerity frequently triumphs over fupine confidence. The treatment however, which John, the captive King of France received from the Black Prince, his conqueror, difplayed a noble generofity and humanity, which thewed the Prince to have poffeffed a mind fuperior to the little ambition of falfe heroifm. The military exploits of this reign have ever been the theme and boaft of vulgar admiration; but we find little improvement in civil polity, which is more worthy of attention. The government, as our Hiftorian obferves," at beft, was only a barbarous monarchy, not regulated by any fixed maxims, nor bounded by any certain undifputed rights, which were in practice regularly observed, The King conducted himself by one fet of priples; the barons by another; the commons by a third; the clergy by a fourth. All these fyftems of government were contrary and incompatible: each of them prevailed according as incidents were favourable to it: a great Prince rendered the monarchical power predominant, the weakness of a King gave the reins to aristocracy; a fuperftitious age faw the clergy triumphant: the people, for whom alone government was inftituted, and who alone deferve confideration, were commonly the weakest of the whole. But the commons, little obnoxious to any other order, though they funk under the violence of tempefts, filently reared their head in more peaceable times; and while the ftorm was brewing, were courted by

all

all fides, and thus received fill fome acceffion to their privileges, or, at worst, fome confirmation of them."

The reign of that weak Prince, Richard II. affords little matter worthy of commemoration. Our Hiftorian, though he warns the reader not to give entire credit to writers who composed their works during the reigns of the Lancastrian Princes, acknowledges nevertheless, that "he was a weak Prince, and unfit for government, lefs for want of natural parts and capacity, than of folid judgment, and of a good education. He was violent in his temper, profufe in his expences; fond of idle fhew and magnificence; devoted to favourites, and addicted to pleasure: paffions, all of them, the moft inconfiftent with a prudent ceconomy, and confequently dangerous in a limited and mixed government."

The enfuing reign, though busy and active, was chiefly employed in defending a bad title to the crown, so that Henry IV. had little leifure to look abroad, or perform any actions which might redound to the honour or advantage of the nation. "It must be owned however," adds our Hiftorian," that his prudence and vigilance and forefight, in maintaining his power, was admirable: his command of temper remarkable: his courage, both military and political, without blemish: and he poffeffed many qualities, which fitted him for his high ftation, and which rendered his ufurpation of it, though pernicious in after times, rather falutary, during his own reign, to the English nation." We confefs that we cannot readily fubfcribe to the propriety of this concluding fentiment. It is difficult to conceive, in what refpect Henry's ufurpation was falutary to the kingdom, even during his own reign: neither does fuch a reflection seem confiftent with what our Hiftorian had before acknowledged, viz. "That Henry had little leifure to perform any actions, which might redound to the honour or advantage of the nation."

His fon however raised the nation to the highest pitch of honour to which martial merit and fuccefs could exalt it. This conqueror of France, it is well known, was, while Prince of Wales, wild and diffolute to a fhameful excefs; and his extravagance is thus, not improbably, accounted for by our Historian.

"The many jealoufies, to which Henry IV's fituation naturally expofed him, had fo infected his temper, that he had been perfuaded to entertain unreasonable fufpicions with re

G 4

gard