PREFACE.

THE following Poem was written in the courſe of the laſt ſummer. Why it was not offered to the Stage, it is unneceſſary to mention. If it could in any degree anſwer the purpoſe, for which it was originally de⯑ſigned, it would not be, as perhaps now is the caſe, a mere trifle offered to the Public. The Author is conſcious that his powers are neither equal to the ſubject, nor to the zeal with which he undertook it. Removed though he is from the political world, he could not, in his private retreat, be altogether inattentive to the various events, which in the laſt ſeven years have changed the face of Europe, and, under the ſavage conduct of a Nation of profeſſed Atheiſts, counteracted the order of Providence in the formation of [vi]Civil Society. Nihil eſt illi Principi Deo, qui omnem hunc Mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat acceptius, quam Concilia Coetus que hominum jure Sociati, quoe CIVITATES appellantur ^(a). He ſaw the Monarchy of France overturned by the fury of a Demo⯑cratic Faction, who have ſince reduced their whole Nation to a ſtate of Slavery not to be paralelled in the Records of Hiſtory. FIVE MEN called the DIRECTORY, have ſilenced the Legiſlature of their country; they tranſ⯑ported Seventy of the Members to periſh on a foreign ſhore, and from that time have not ſuffered their NATIONAL ASSEMBLY to enter into a Debate, or to paſs a ſingle Law.

The Uſurpers at firſt covered their ambition with the maſk of Patriots ſtruggling for Li⯑berty; and, as ſoon as they found themſelves poſſeſſed of Power, they deſtroyed LIBERTY ITSELF. With men of their ſtamp the prac⯑tice has been uniformly the ſame from the days of Tacitus to the preſent hour. Ut Im⯑perium evertant, LIBERTATEM praeferunt; ſr Everterint, LIBERTATEM IPSAM aggredi⯑untur ^(b)

[vii] When the Revolution began in France, the People of England did not look much deeper than the ſurface; the love of innova⯑tion was for ſome time thought to be zeal for civil liberty; and by great politicians and eminent orators it was called The FABRIC OF HUMAN WISDOM. That doctrine was ſpread far and wide, and honeſt men were deceived by appearances. In the mean time a JACO⯑BIN PARTY was formed in various parts of England by CONSTITUTIONAL CLUBS and CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES. Republicans in their hearts they pretended to act with ar⯑dour for the Conſtitution. They talked of the RIGHTS OF MAN, of REFORM OF PAR⯑LIAMENT, and UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, while in ſecret they wiſhed for nothing ſo much as to ſee the horrors of French Anarchy intro⯑duced into this kingdom. They knew that in a thunder-ſtorm the dregs of the barrel riſe to the top. They had read in the fable, that when the oak and the cedar were felled to the ground, the bramble reigned over the foreſt. Having nothing to loſe, they hoped in a convulſion of the ſtate, that they ſhould find their private advantage. The ſame views and principles in every age and coun⯑try [viii]have been the motives of all pernicious citizens. The Engliſh JACOBINS, as well as the FRENCH, may find their picture drawn by the maſterly pencil of Tacitus. Falſo LIBERTATIS nomen obtendi ab üs, qui PRIVA⯑TIM DEGENERES, in publicum EXITIOSI, nihil ſpei niſi per diſcordias habeant ^(b)

While our home-bred Factions were em⯑ployed at Sheffield, Norwich, Mancheſter, London, and other places, in laying the ſeed⯑plots of Rebellion, this country was on a ſudden involved in a juſt, a neceſſary, an UNAVOIDABLE War. Unavoidable it muſt be called, ſince the REGICIDES thought fit to be the AGGRESSORS. This point has been warmly controverted, and much ink has been laviſhed on the ſubject. The preſent writer does not mean to enter the liſts with any perſon whatever: he only claims a right to think for himſelf, and, with all poſſible brevity, to exhibit the light in which things appeared to him.

It has been ſaid that Great Britain pro⯑voked the war by the recall of her Ambaſſador. But that event took place after the 10th of [ix]Auguſt, 1792, when the King of France was ſuſpended from all the functions of his office, and ſent, with the Royal Family, a priſoner to the Temple. The credentials of the Ambaſ⯑ſador were then no longer valid. With whom was he to tranſact buſineſs? Was it to be matter of indifference, whether he negotiated with the King, to whom he was ſent, or with the BRISSOTS, the MARATS, the ROBE⯑SPIERES, and the reſt of that Pandaemonium? Would ſuch a conduct have been ſuited to the honour of the Britiſh Nation? It would have been nothing ſhort of a decided part in the internal affairs of France. Had LORD GOWER remained at Paris, he would have been in a precarious ſituation. He had ſeen the maſſacre of the 10th of Auguſt: Was he to wait for that of the 2d of September, when no leſs than three thouſand men, women, and children, were moſt barbarouſly murdered? The French have lately ſhewn that they can trample on the rights of ambaſſadors: They confined the ambaſſador of Portugal in a priſon, and might have behaved with equal inſolence to LORD GOWER. In ſuch a junc⯑ture, his Majeſty thought it became his dig⯑nity to ſend letters of recall, declaring, at the [x]ſame time, that he would not interfere in the internal government of that kingdom. If the French, who are now affiliating, that is en⯑ſlaving GENEVA, will enquire for the works of BURLAMAQUI, they will find that the re⯑call of an ambaſſador, or a refuſal to receive one, may proceed from various cauſes, with⯑out being deemed a ſufficient provocation of war. It ſhould ſeem that the French them⯑ſelves were of that opinion, ſince it appears, that M. LE BRUN, at that time Miniſter for Foreign Affairs, in his anſwer to the com⯑munication made to him by LORD GOWER, expreſſed his wiſh, that a full reciprocity of juſtice and good-will might ſubſiſt between the two countries.

With what ſincerity the Republican Anar⯑chiſts acted on that occaſion, may be inferred from their Decree of the 19th November, 1792, by which they promiſed fraternity and ſupport to the People of every country, who wiſhed to overturn their Government. It is almoſt ſuperfluous to add, that in anſwer to Froſt and Joel Barlow, the Preſident of the Convention hoped the day was not far diſtant, when he ſhould ſend congratulations to a ſimilar National Convention in England.

[xi] It is well known, that an inundation of French Jacobins, whom their o'ercloy'd coun⯑try vomited forth to propagate their deteſtable principles, infeſted every part of London: In ſuch a period the ALIEN BILL was a wife and neceſſary meaſure: and it may now well be a queſtion, whether it ought not to be declared perpetual. Whenever a Peace ſhall be con⯑cluded, a banditti of Frenchmen, under the pretext of trade and commerce, will be ſent over to wage a war of principles againſt the Government.

In the latter end of the year 1792, the demagogues of Paris were reſolved on two grand objects, namely, the murder of their King, and a war with Great Britain. The former was executed on the 21ſt of January 1793; on the 24th of the ſame month M. Chauvelin received orders to depart. Though it was well known, that long before that time he had renounced his King, who had ſent him hither, and ſworn fidelity to his new maſters; and though his machinations in this country were well known, he was, notwithſtanding, ſuffered to remain as long as Lewis XVI. was permitted to live. His [xii]credentials expired with his martyred Sove⯑reign. His character of ambaſſador was ter⯑minated by the fatal murder of his moſt Chriſtian Majeſty. To have received him with new credentials from the regicides, would have been incompatible with the moral dignity of the Britiſh Nation.

The rulers of Paris, having deſtroyed their, King, proceeded to their long-projected war againſt Great Britain. In their debate on that ſubject, on the 1ſt of February 1793, it was aſſerted by one of their orators, That the watchful conduct of the Britiſh Miniſters, their fears, and jealouſies afforded proofs of the progreſs of the opinions and principles of the French Revolution ^(c) Is not that avowal from the mouth of an enemy, a full juſtification of the ALIEN BILL? It was further aſſerted by Briſſot, that the Britiſh Miniſters, for the ſake of the trade and commerce of England, ob⯑ſerved a STRICT NEUTRALITY. If corrobo⯑rating proof of this pacific diſpoſition were ne⯑ceſſary, we have the authority of the MARQUIS DE BOUILLE. That great Officer, known and [xiii]reſpected throughout Europe, informs us, that he attended the King of Pruſſia and the Emperor Leopold at Pilnitz, on the 22d of Auguſt, 1791, when theſe two powers formed a Treaty of Alliance; and in the month of September following, he was received in the Cabinet at Vienna, and there the Emperor told him, that he had been waiting for an⯑ſwers from the Courts of Ruſſia, Spain, Eng⯑land, and the principal Sovereigns of Italy, and had at length received them, and was aſſured of the aſſiſtance and co-operation of all thoſe powers, EXCEPT ENGLAND, which had expreſſed its determination to OBSERVE A STRICT NEUTRALITY ^(d)

What, in the mean time, was the real diſ⯑poſition of the French towards Great Bri⯑tain? Mr. HARPER, one of the Repreſenta⯑tives in the American Congreſs, has laid open the intrigues, the ſtratagems, and over-bear⯑ing inſolence of the French, from the very beginning of the Revolution. He tells us in expreſs terms, that their grand object was to deſtroy the trade of Great Britain. ‘And [xiv]this was to be effected by ſetting fire to the four corners of Europe, and exciting the People in every quarter to inſurrection againſt their Go⯑vernment. A project ſo atrocious in its end, and ſo abominable in its means, has never been conceived before. And while all this was going on, the Convention, in order to hood⯑wink England, was making to her the moſt ſolemn aſſurances of pacific intentions. It even carried its diſſimulation to the almoſt incredi⯑ble length of requeſting the mediation of Eng⯑land to bring about a Peace with Pruſſia and the Emperor. In the mean time, their in⯑ſtructions to GENET, (their Envoy to Ame⯑rica) ſhewed, that it was their manifeſt ob⯑ject to draw the United States into a war with Great Britain. Thoſe inſtructions were dated January 3d, 1793. Supplementary inſtruc⯑tions were delivered by the ſame perſon, Ja⯑nuary 17th, 1793. Louis XVI. was guillo⯑tined January 21ſt, 1793; Chauvelin was ordered to quit England, January 24th, 1793, and war was declared againſt England on the 1ſt of February following. If the diſmiſſal of Chauvelin was the occaſion of the war, as France alledged, why thoſe inſtructions on the 3d of January ſo long before the diſmiſſal? [xv]The Leaders of Oppoſition in England have long perſiſted in the error of regarding only the DECLARATIONS of France, and wholly over⯑looking her ACTIONS ^(e).’

If the war was at firſt unavoidable, it is now juſt and neceſſary, as appears from the behaviour of the Directory to LORD MAL⯑MESBURY. That Nobleman, inveſted with the character of Plenipotentiary, offered in the very outſet of the negotiation at Liſle, the terms of Peace drawn up in the form of a Treaty, which the enemy, had they been in earneſt, might have embraced with little or no delay; but, contrary to all precedent, they recalled at the end of near three months, the Plenipotentiaries, who poſſeſſed the thread of the whole negotiation, and ſent two new Agents to Liſle, with a ſettled deſign, in the moſt abrupt manner, to end all further Treaty. Thoſe new Agents by a note, dated the 16th of September, deſired to know whe⯑ther Lord Malmeſbury had powers to give up to France and her Allies, all places con⯑quered by Great Britain. They were told by his Lordſhip, that a deciſive anſwer in the [xvi]negative had been given on the 24th of July preceding. This was of no weight. A Peer of Great Britain, and a Plenipotentiary Am⯑baſſador, was ordered in the moſt inſolent manner to go and return, that is to fetch and carry for an inſolent Directory, who have emerged from obſcurity, to be the ty⯑rants of their country. This demand of a general reſtitution is the more extravagant, becauſe after the three great and glorious vic⯑tories, unparalleled in the Britiſh Annals, by LORD HOWE over the French, by LORD ST. VINCENT over the Spaniards, and laſtly, by LORD DUNCAN over the Dutch, it is not in their power to retake any one place that has been conquered from them. Rafts and gun⯑boats will not be able to cope with the Britiſh Navy.

It has been aſked in the Houſe of Com⯑mons, "Are we to perſiſt in the war for the poſſeſſion of the Cape of GOOD HOPE, the Iſland of CEYLON, and Trincomale?" The following Extract from the Marquis de Bouille's Me⯑moirs, will be a ſufficient anſwer to the queſ⯑tion. "In the ſummer of 1784," ſays that great General, ‘when I was preparing to ſet out from BERLIN to RUSSIA, I received an [xvii]order from Government to return to Paris. On my arrival there, the Miniſter ac⯑quainted me with a project relative to the Eaſt Indies. The object was, to unite the French and Dutch forces in an attack upon the Engliſh poſſeſſions, to reſtore to the Princes of the Country the Provinces conquered from them by the Engliſh, and to obtain and ſecure for the two nations Factories and Commercial Eſtabliſhments, which were to be free to the whole world. The means employed to ſecure ſucceſs to this enterprize, were an army of 18,000 men, independent of the garriſons already in that country; twenty millions of livres in ſpecie, and a Naval force able to op⯑poſe that of the Engliſh in the Eaſt Indies. TRINCOMALE, in the Iſland of CEYLON, was the place deſtined for the rendezvous of the troops, and the repoſitory of the military magazines. One third of the forces, as well as of the ſums neceſſary, and the ſtores and proviſions of every kind were to be furniſhed by the Dutch, who requeſted that I ſhould have the command of the expedition. In 1787, the Revolu⯑tion broke out in Holland; but was ſup⯑preſſed [xviii]preſſed by the entry of a Pruſſian army under the command of the DUKE OF BRUNSWICK. All the bonds which united FRANCE and HOLLAND were diſſolved, the former baſely abandoning her Ally, and thus the vaſt project of the conqueſt of the Indies vaniſhed into air ^(f).’

It is to be obſerved, that the above project was in 1784, not more than a year after a General Peace, when nothing had occurred that could give umbrage to France. The ſame rooted averſion to this country 'ſtill ſubſiſts, and is openly avowed by the Direc⯑tory: and, after this ſtatement, is TRINCO⯑MALE an object of importance to this coun⯑try? Shall it be given up to be the rendez⯑vous of the enemy's troops, and the repoſi⯑tory of their magazines? To do it, were to be felo de ſe.

Ever ſince the return of Lord Malmeſbury, the Directory have waged a war of Billinſ⯑gate againſt this country. With ſcurrility, calumny, and the groſſeſt falſehoods, they have attempted to traduce and vilify a great nation, celebrated throughout Europe for its [xix]humanity no leſs than its valour. They have declared that the Engliſh are a generous people labouring under a bad government, and they are determined to give them on the the Royal Exchange a better conſtitution. Infatuated men! They had in the begin⯑ning of their Revolution the Britiſh Conſti⯑tution as a model to imitate, but they pre⯑ferred Anarchy. As Monteſquieu expreſſes it, they had BYZANTIUM before their eyes, and they built CHALCEDON. They have af⯑filiated HOLLAND, BELGIUM, the States of Italy, and GENEVA, and they have robbed and plundered them all. It now remains for them to deſtroy the Commerce of Great Britain, and to erect their TRI-COLOURED FLAG on the Royal Exchange. For this pur⯑poſe they have ſolicited ſubſcriptions in their own exhauſted country, but by that meaſure they rouzed the ſpirit of the Britiſh Nation. All degrees and ranks of men have conſpired with emulation to ſtrengthen the hands of Government, and from the Contributions paid in at the Bank, three things are mani⯑feſt: Firſt, that the people are united, with one mind, one heart, one hand, againſt the [xx]attempts of a French banditti: Secondly, that this is an opulent country, ready and willing to ſtrengthen the hands of Govern⯑ment: And thirdly, the Voluntary Subſcrip⯑tions ſhew, that all ranks and orders of men repoſe entire confidence in his Majeſty's Councils, and his preſent Miniſters. The conſequence of this unanimity and firmneſs, it is hoped, will be the ſupport of the exten⯑ſive commerce of this country, and the em⯑pire of the ſea.

The ſituation, it muſt be granted, forms an awful period, and requires collected vi⯑gour, nothing leſs than the whole force of the community. And yet, at the ſame time, we ſtill hear a clamour for RADICAL RE⯑FORM. That men of eminence in the ſtate ſhould at length join in ſuch a cry is not a little ſurprizing. It may, therefore, not be improper to remind them, that on the trial of HARDY at the Old Baily, a letter to him [xxi]from the Society at Norwich was produced, containing the following paſſage: ‘Whether it is the private deſign of the ſeveral Societies to rip UP MONARCHY BY THE ROOTS, and place DEMOCRACY in its ſtead?’ What was the anſwer? ‘The Committee offer you every aſſiſtance in their power, but requeſt that your queſtions for the future may relate chiefly to REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.’ ^(h) This the Correſponding Society avow as their oſtenſible object, but conceal their intention with regard to Monarchy. When men of rank and ability allow themſelves, after all their efforts, to adopt the ſame clamour, they run the riſk of being thought to follow HARDY'S advice. Whoſe advice they follow. when their voice is raiſed againſt every mea⯑ſure of Government, it is impoſſible to ſay. The ſuſpenſion of the HABEAS CORPUS ACT is called a violent ſtep, nothing leſs than a violation of the Conſtitution, an encroach⯑ment on the liberty of the ſubject, and, in ſhort, a manifeſt prelude to the reign of terror. The reaſon aſſigned for this intem⯑perate language is, that no proof of exiſt⯑ing [xxii]plots againſt the State has been produced in Parliament. But that the Jacobins at Mancheſter, and other places, have been en⯑gaged in a conſpiracy againſt this country is evident beyond the poſſibility of a doubt. And ſurely, the power of providing for the ſafety of a whole people is inherent in the frame and ſpirit of the Conſtitution. Let us hear what a WHIG of the OLD SCHOOL has ſaid upon the ſubject. ‘It is an abſur⯑dity to imagine that thoſe, who have the au⯑thority of making laws, cannot ſuſpend any particular law, when they think it expedient for the public. When, therefore, any law does not conduce to this great end, the very obſervation of it would endanger the commu⯑nity, and that law ought to be laid aſleep for a limited time by proper authority. Every government muſt in its nature be armed with ſuch a power. There cannot be a greater in⯑ſtance of this, than in the old Commonwealth of Rome, who flattered themſelves with an opinion, that their government had in it a due temper of the Regal, Noble, and Popular Power, repreſented by the Conſuls, the Sena⯑tors, and the Tribunes. Nevertheleſs, in this government, when the Republic was threatened [xxiii]with danger, they thought fit for the common ſafety to appoint a Temporary Dictator, in⯑veſted with the whole power of the Three Branches; who when the danger was over, retired again into the community, and left the government, in its natural ſituation. The HABEAS CORPUS ACT was paſſed towards the end of Charles II.; and ſince that time has been ſuſpended, twice under the reign of William and Mary, once under King William, and once in the reign of Queen Anne; and again in the year 1715 And beſides, every unprejudiced man will conſider how mildly and equitably this power has been uſed. The perſons confined have been treated with all poſſible humanity, and abridged of nothing but the liberty of ruining themſelves and their families. ⁽ⁱ⁾’ What Mr. ADDI⯑SON has ſaid of the Miniſters of GEORGE I. may be applied to the Councils of his pre⯑ſent Majeſty, when the Habeas Corpus Act was ſuſpended four years ago. The whole body of the people have equal confidence on the preſent occaſion. But after all, ADDI⯑SON, it may be ſaid, was a party writer. [xxiv]MONTESQUIEU was neither WHIG nor TORY. His words are: ‘Si la puiſſance legiſlative ſe croyoit en danger par quelque Conjuration Secrette contre L'Etat, ou quelque Intelli⯑gence avec les Enemis du dehors, Elle pourroit, pour un tems court et limité, per⯑mettre à a puiſance Exécutrice de faire arrèter les Citoyens ſuſpects, qui ne per⯑droient Leur Libertè pour un tems, que pour la conſerver pour toujours ^(k)’

The clamour of a few againſt the preſent ſuſpenſion of the law is not the only miſ⯑chief of the times. A MONSTER IN POLI⯑TICS has lately ſtalked forth as formidable as that deſcribed by LUCRETIUS,

Horribili ſuper aſpectu mortalibus inſtans:

This Phantom is, ‘The SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE;’ a FOURTH ESTATE ſet up in a country, that has been for ages governed by the Legiſlative Autho⯑rity of THREE. If there is ſuch a new order, it is of courſe paramount to KING, LORDS, and COMMONS, and, by conſequence, [xxv]there is an end of our boaſted Conſtitution. But where has this ‘SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE’ ever exiſted? At ATHENS the people had a ſhare in the go⯑vernment, and the citizens of Rome, by their TRIBUNES, aſſumed and exerciſed enor⯑mous influence; but they had no SOVE⯑REIGN MAJESTY. In proceſs of time they both wrought their own ruin. The ſubjects of Great Britain are much wiſer; they dele⯑gate their whole authority to their Repre⯑ſentatives, and beyond that power they claim no authority. If ‘The SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE’ ever exiſted in any part of the known world, it muſt have been in a pure, unmixed, and perſect DEMOCRACY. And where can ſuch a go⯑vernment be traced? Polybius ſays, ‘Ruſt is the inbred bane of iron, and worms of wood; and as thoſe ſubſtances at laſt fall a prey to the evils that are congenial to their nature, in the ſame manner every SINGLE KIND OF GOVERNMENT breeds within itſelf ſome certain vice, which ſoon cauſes its deſtruction. Thus, ROYALTY de⯑generates into Tyranny; ARISTOCRACY into Oligarchy; and DEMOCRACY into Savage [xxvi]Violence ^(l).’ Such is the natural progreſs of the ſimple forms of government. A mixed limited Monarchy has, in its well tempered contexture, the means within itſelf of checking every miſchief: and till a wild Democracy has overturned all whole⯑ſome laws, ‘The SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE’ is gigantic nonſenſe, ‘full of ſound and fury, ſignifying nothing.’.

The REFORM projected by the JACOBINS of this country, would, beyond all doubt, rip up the Conſtitution by the roots. At ſuch a time, the Author of the following Scenes thought, if he could recall the minds of men to the origin and antiquity of the Conſtitution, under which the people have enjoyed their rights, their property, and their liberty for above five hundred years, his labours might have ſome tendency to ſtop the progreſs of the new philoſophy, and check the ſpirit of innovation. Our form of government, as Moteſquieu has truly obſerved, came to this country from the woods of Germany ^m. GAUL was reduced to a ſtate of ſlavery, while Germany diſplayed a ſpirit of inde⯑pendance. [xxvii]Arminius was the Great Hero of Germany. TACITUS tells us, That ‘he fought with alternate viciſſitudes of fortune: a man of warlike genius; and, beyond all queſtion, the deliverer of Ger⯑many. He had not, like the Kings and Generals of a former day, the infancy of Rome to cope with; he had to ſtruggle with a great and flouriſhing Empire: he attacked the Romans in the meridian of their glory; he ſtood at bay for a number of years with equivocal ſucceſs, ſometimes victorious, often defeated, but in the iſſue of the war, STILL UNCONQUERED. ⁿ’ It was from that northern hive that our Saxon anceſtors brought with them the ſame ſpirit of liberty, and a plan of civil government. They had experienced in their own country the diſadvantages of the general ſuffrage of the people in a maſs; they had occaſionally tried the more practicable mode of repreſen⯑tation: Ut miſſis Legatis in Commune Conſulta⯑rent, Libertas an Pax Placeret. They had recourſe to the ſame expedient in England. The WITTENAGEMOT was accordingly eſta⯑bliſhed, [xxviii]conſiſting of the King, the Barons, and the Saxon Freemen. The inferior orders of the people were ſtill in bondage, but the remedy was ſoon applied. Letters of enfran⯑chiſement were granted not only to individu⯑als, but to the inhabitants of towns and cities, who were admitted by their Repreſen⯑tatives to a voice in the Great Council of the Nation. The conſequence was, that the kingly power, the privileges of the nobility and clergy, and the rights of the commons were ſo happily blended, that "I believe," ſays Monteſquieu, ‘ſo happy a form of Go⯑vernment never preſented itſelf to the mind of man ^o.’ The Great Council of the Nation, called under the ANGLO SAXON GO⯑VERNMENT, the WITTENAGEMOT, in proceſs of time took the name of PARLIAMENT, and from that period has been the Palladium of Britiſh Liberty; a noble fabric, which our internal enemies would fain demoliſh by what they call a RADICAL REFORM.

It is, however, to be hoped that a venera⯑tion for the antiquity of ſo glorious a Con⯑ſtitution, and a due ſenſe of the bleſſings, [xxix]which mankind have enjoyed under it, will animate all true Engliſhmen againſt their enemies, whether foreign or domeſtic.

The Author of Arminius has had the pleaſure of working under a great maſter, and in the Notes annexed to the Tragedy, he has cited the paſſages which he has imitated, becauſe he knows that the ſentiments will come with weight and authority from the great writer of political hiſtory. That he has not been able to execute up to his own ideas and wiſhes, he is too conſcious; but for a well-meant endeavour no apology can be required.