DRAMATIC.

The Sheep-fhearing: a dramatic Paftoral. In three Acts. Taken from Shakespeare. As performed at the Theatre Royal in the Hay-Market. 8-va. 15. Kearfly.

A Fairy Tale. In two Acts. Taken from Shakespeare. As it is performed at the Theatre Royal in the Hay-Market. Svo. 61. Kearily.

These two pieces (to ufe his own language) are Shakespeare
chopt into meffes.' Our modern managers, like Macbeth,
Would both the worlds disjoint, let all things fuffer,
So they may eat their meal.

CORRESPONDENCE.
To the Publishers of the Critical Review.

GENTLEMEN,

I THOUGHT myself much obliged to you for the candid account that was given in your Review, of the first and fecond volumes of my Hiftory of Great Britain, written on a new plan. I am forry that the account which is given of the third volume of that work, in the firft article of your Review for July last, doth not feem to me to have been dictated by the fame candid fpirit. As I am perfuaded, that it is not your intention to injure authors, or mislead the publick, I hope you will give a place in your next Number, to the following fhort remarks on that article.

My Reviewer begins his ftrictures on my third volume, by acquainting the publickthat my diligence and labour feem to relax.' That this hath not been the cafe I can affirm with the greatest truth. My friends have often blamed me for my too great application; whatever may have been my fuccefs, my diligence hath been unabated. It doth not belong to me to pronounce any judgment on the comparative merit of my volumes, but I have the fatisfaction to know, that feveral gentlemen of the greatest reputation for genius, tafte, and learning, are of a different opinion from my Reviewer on that subject.

I am blamed for adopting the opinion, that duke William atchieved a conquest of England. I have declined entering upon that controverfy, as my plan and the variety of my fubjects do not leave room for controverfy; and contented myfelf with modeftly expreffing my opinion, after having read what the two very refpectable authors mentioned, and feveral others have written, on that question.

As,

I am accused of having fallen into several contradictions. 1ft. By contending that all the lands of England had been given to the Normans by duke William, and at the fame time affirming, that on one occafion, he had an army which confifted chiefly of his English fubjects. There is certainly no fuch expreffion in my volume as this-That all the lands of England had been given to the Normans. There are feveral declarations

to

to the contary, particularly p. 327, it is faid, that many AngloSaxon ceorls and thanes were allowed to retain their poffeffions. There could therefore be no contradiction in saying, on the authority of the Saxon Chronicle, that William had many English in his army, A. D. 1072. The truth is, there would have been no contradiction, though all the lands of England had been given to the Normans, for there were many perfons in the armies of thofe times, who had no lands. But with this I have no

concern.

It is reprefented as a contradiction, that in one place I fay. that duke William at one time had an army of mercenaries; and in another place, that I contend that Stephen was the first king of England who had mercenaries. I confefs, I fay p. 25. on the authority of Henry of Huntingdon, that duke William had an army of Normans, and of adventurers or mercenaries, once, for a few months; and when I come to give a defcription of the armies of thofe times, p. 471, 1 mention certain foldiers of fortune, called by various names, as commonly making a part of thofe armies, and add That Stephen feems to have been the first English king that took thefe mifcreants into his pay.' By which I plainly mean, that Stephen was the first who had fuch mercenaries fo much in his pay, as to entitle them to be mentioned among the military forces of the kingdom.

It is alfo mentioned as a contradiction, that I defcribe the extirpation of the Brabanzons or mercenaries, A. D. 1182, and yet fay that king John had Brabanzons or mercenaries in the years 1212, 1213 and 1215. It is true I fay, on good authority, that an army of Brabanzon's was destroyed by a Croitade, A. D. 1182, but it is no lefs true, that mercenary foldiers of the fame kind, and called by the fame name, appeared long after that period, and were taken into pay by king John and other princes. If all the mercenary foldiers in Europe were deftroyed. A. D. 1777 (which God forbid), would there never be any more mercenary foldiers?

The other things reprefented as contradictions are fo easily reconciled, that I fhall truft them with your readers. There is one thing which merits a moment's attention, because my Reviewer fays, that it hath the appearance not merely of confufion, but of the most direct inconfiftency.' I fay that the changes in the ranks of men, introduced at the Conquest, were rather nominal than real. By which I plainly mean, that as there were four ranks in fociety before the Conqueft, called, 1. ferfs, 2. frelazin, 3. ceorls, and 4. thanes; fo there were four ranks in fociety after the Conqueft, though they were called. by different names. But do I say that all the changes introduced at the Conqueft were rather nominal than real, as my Reviewer fays I am affured, and firm in conceiving? I fay the direct contrary in the following words, p. 329. Though the acceffion of William duke of Normandy to the throne of England, produced no remarkable alteration in the ranks and orders of men in fociety; it produced many important changes in their political circumftances.' Is there either confufion or inconfiftency in this?

1

But the heaviest charge brought against me by my Reviewer; and which, he fays, affects my integrity as an hiftorian, and is a piece of difingenuity fo glaring, that no proper apology can be offered for it, is this: that I make direct and frequent appeals to Domesday Book, which hath never been published, and which confequently I could not have an opportunity of consulting. But doth not all the world know, that Domesday Book was never published? Is it poffible to conceive, that I defigned to make my readers believe, that I had the original of Domesday Book in my clofet at Edinburgh? Do not all writers of Euglish history make appeals to Domesday Book? Have not many descriptions of that book, and of its contents, and feveral large portions of it, been published? Is it not univerfally understood, that when a writer appeals to Domesday Book, he appeals to thofe defcriptions of it, and extracts from it, that have been published? I am fo far from having exceeded in this particular, that I have made fewer appeals to Domefday, than any writer of English hiftory, who is equally voluminous.

To convince you, Gentlemen, that I am not difpofed to deny or defend my errors, I frankly acknowledge that I have mistaken the meaning of the expreffion, per vultum de Luca. I either. never read the article Vultus in Du Cange's Glossary (a book of fix large folio volumes), or it had efcaped my memory. But fome good-natured criticks would have confidered this as one of thofe fmall flips, which are unavoidable in a long work, If I had found any weight in any of the other obfervations of my Reviewer, I would have acknowledged it with equal franknefs. I hope, Gentlemen, you will have the goodness to excuse my anxiety, about a work which hath cost me the labour of many of the best years of my life. By giving a place to the above remarks, you will do honour to your own impartiality, and very much oblige, Gentlemen,

Edinburgh,
August 14, 1777.

Your conftant reader,

And humble fervant,

ROBERT HENRY,

ANSWER.

WHEN the Reviewer faid, that the diligence and labour of Dr. Henry feemed to relax, he offered his proofs in fupport of this cenfure. That the Doctor and his friends fhould express a different opinion is not a matter of any wonder.

The Reviewer ventured to find fault with the Doctor for adopting the notion, that duke William had conquered the people of England, and mentioned it as a circumftance which will not be contradicted, that fir William Blackftone had given its death-wound to this conceit. Dr. Henry defends himself by faying, that he was contented modeftly to exprefs his opinion to the contrary. But there is no modefty in adopting an exploded fancy, without advancing in its favour any new argument. It

even argues a want of modely, when a Scottish author oppofes his naked affertion in oppofition to a received opinion in English aptiquities.

6

The Doctor afferts in his Hiftory, that duke William feized all the lands and treasures of Harold, and his brothers, which were very great, and confifcated the eftates of all the English nobles, who had fallen fighting against him in the battle of Haftings. P. S. he fays, The far greatest part of the ancient English noble families were extinguished, or reduced to poverty; and those who remained, faw themselves defpifed, diftrufted, and in daily danger of ruin from the fufpicions of the Conqueror, and the rapacity of his Norman favourites.' P. 12. he affirms that the two brothers, Edwin and Morcar, were by far the most powerful of all the English nobility who furvived the battle of Haltings, having about a third part of England under their own authority, and that of their friends.' P. 11. he contends, that all their great eftates were confifcated, and either vefted in the crown, or granted to the Normans.' P. 16. in fine, he defcribes the English as nearly in a state of ruin. From thefe paffages, and above all from the fpirit of his narrative, it appears decifively as his opinion, that all the lands of England had been given to the Normans. That in a diftant part of his work, he: departs from this fancy is indeed true. But it was not the bufi-t nefs of the Reviewer to reconcile Dr. Henry to Dr. Henry.

We shall

The Reviewer calls it a contradiction in the Doctor, to affirm that duke William had an army which confifted chiefly of his. English fubjects, and to affert, at the fame time, that all the lands of England had been given to the Normans. make a large conceffion to the Doctor. We shall fuppofe, that the greatest part of the lands only were poffeffed by the Normans. Yet, with this position in his favour, it is fill to be faid, that he has fallen into a contradiction. For, if the bulk of this army was English, it is obvious to a demonstration, that all the officers at least muft have had estates, in confequence of which they gave their fervice. It is an acknowledged fact,. that armies were then, throughout Europe, conflituted by the tenure of knight-fervice, or by the grants of land under military attendance. It is a mere abfurdity to infinuate that this army. might confift of perfons who had no lands. That such persons were known in thefe times is certain; but they were fervants, and of fuch low condition, that no account was made of them, and they could conflitute no regular army.

The Doctor allows that duke William had mercenaries, and he allows that he has yet imputed to Stephen the introduction of mercenaries into England. It is in vain to urge, that because mercenaries were more frequent under Stephen, their first use in English armies is to be imputed to him. When we would afcertain the ara of a cuftom, we muft fix on the age of its appearance, and not on the age of its prevalence.

It is confeffed by the Doctor, that the Brabanzons were extirpated in the year 1182, and that he yet makes mention of them

in the years 1212, 1213, 1215. It is now too late to explain to us his meaning, and to fay, that he intended to inform his reader, that an army only of the Brabanzons had been extire pated.

The Reviewer affirmed, that the Doctor had faid, that the changes introduced into the ranks of men on the Conqueft were rather nominal than real. This affertion was made by him on an authority which ought to be decifive. In a word, it was on the authority of Dr. Henry himself. The changes,' fays the Doctor, in the ranks and degrees of men in fociety, that were introduced into England at the Norman conqueft, feem to have been rather nominal than real.' p. 324. In controverting this opinion, the Reviewer appealed to the feudal law, which, according to Dr. Henry, was then properly introduced into England, and of which it was the nature to alter all the ofual forms and orders of fociety. Dr. Henry defends himself, by denying the accufation altogether, and by afferting, that his opinion is in direct oppofition to the charge; and yet the charge is fupported by his own words. We have faid, that the Doctor's diligence has relaxed: we wish alfo that his memory be not impaired. It is of no confequence to the Reviewer, that the Doctor. has an oppofite opinion in another part of his work. This, in fact, is a new imperfection; and it is ftrange, that an author who is compiling a fyftem of English hiftory, fhould submit to fupport a frivolous tenet, by expofing himself to the cenfure of a violent contradiction.

The Doctor's vindication of his appeals to the book of Domes day is without force. Having neyer feen that work, he had no title to hold it out to his reader. That he may have seen the tranfcripts from it, which have been published by different authors is, indeed, probable; and to thofe it was his duty to appeal, by citing the page of the author, or publication in which he found them. This is the practice of all those writers who wish to authenticate their information, and who quote for ufe; and not for oftentation.

As to the expreffion per vultum de Luca, it was not neceffary, that Dr. Henry fhould perufe the fix volumes of Du Cange, in order to find out its meaning. Our own historians have explained' it; and if Dr. Henry will take the trouble to confult my lord Lyttelton, he will meet an account of this expreffion.

The articles or cenfures in the Review, to which Dr. Henry has refused to reply, are of more importance than those to which he has given his anfwer. And this will appear to be the cafe to the reader, who will perufe it with impartiality. When the Doctor is difpofed to write another letter, we intreat that he will be fo kind as to endeavour to be better informed.