printed in this collection, appears to great advantage, from the judicious amendment which our editor has bestowed upon it. In his note he says:

These four stanzas appeared to the editor to be all that are genuine of this elegy. Many additional ones are to be found in the common copies, which are rejected as of meaner execution,'

Lady Bothwell's Lament, as it now ftands, is perhaps one of the prettiest elegiac poems in our language, as it excels every thing of the kind in nature, pathos, and fimplicity. It may be read over and over, with the greatest pleasure;

decies repetita placebit.

We shall therefore infert this elegant morceau, for the entertainment of our readers.

It may be neceffary to premife, that the old Scottish word balow, in the first line, fignifies hub. The afflicted and deferted mother is fuppofed thus to addrefs the infant in her lap.

'LADY BOTHWELL'S LAMENT.

Balow, my babe, lye fill and fleip,

It grieves me fair to fee thee weip;
If thou❜lt be filent I'll be glad,
Thy maining maks my heart full fad;
Balow my boy, thy mither's joy;
Thy father breids me great annoy.
• Whan he began to feik my luve,
And wi his fucred words to muve;
His feining faufe, and flattering cheir,
To me that time did nocht appeir;
But now I fee that cruel he
Cares neither for my babe nor me.

Lye ftill, my darling, fleip a while,
And whan thou wakeft fweitly fmile:
But fimile nae as thy father did

To cozen maids: nay, God forbid,
What yet I feir, that thou fold leir
Thy father's heart and face to beir!

Be ftill, my fad one: fpare thofe teirs,
To weip whan thou haft wit and yeirs';
Thy griefs are gathering to a fum,
God grant thee patience when they cum
Born to fuftain a mother's fhame,
A father's fall, a bastard's name.

Balow, &c.'

Two Difcourfes; on Sovereign Power, and Liberty of Confcience & Tranflated from the Latin of G. Noodt, formerly Profeffor of Laws in the Univerfity of Leyden, by A. Macaulay, A. M. 800. 55: Dilly.

THE

HE defign of this work is to enquire into the nature and extent of fovereign power; and into the true principles of toleration in matters of religion. The judicious manner in which the author treats thofe fubjects, foon recommended both the Difcourfes to the attention of the public; and they have fince been translated into different languages.

In the former of thofe difcourfes, the author fets out with delineating the difference between a prince and a tyrant.

I have often been astonished, fays he, gentlemen, that fome men of great and eminent abilities, who have profeffed to treat of fovereign power, fhould afcribe the fame rights to a prince and to a tyrant; than which no two characters can be conceived more widely oppofite. The one governs his fubjects by their own confent; the other against their confent: the one has the public good folely in view; the other only confults his own advantage: the one obferves the laws; the other tramples them under foot: the one regards the life, liberty, and property of every individual as facred things, and from which he withholds his hands, his looks, nay his very defires; the other imagines that he poffeffes an abfolute right to all thofe, and that he may difpofe of them according to his own pleasure. In short, the one refembling the Supreme Being; and, according to his example, defirous of promoting the happiness of mankind; is beloved, respected, and adored both at home and abroad; all flock to him, as to the fource of their felicity, with a determined refolution to devote themselves to the fervice of a prince, whose foul, they perceive, animates, unites, and governs them, by whom they are rendered flourishing and happy the other, born for a public plague, never promotes the happiness of any worthy citizen, but rather does all the mischief he can to the whole world; therefore becomes an object of univerfal difguft, abhorrence, and execration; and wherever he goes, like a beast of prey moving from his den, he fpreads fear, terror, and desolation all around him. But it is an evident dictate of reason, that a prince fhould not be confounded with a tyrant; and also, that the power of the former fhould not be allowed to operate according to his own caprice, but be confined within the limits of justice and the laws yet, notwithstanding, it happens, by I know not what fatality, to be a generally-received maxim, that it is effential to the nature of fovereignty, that the prince should be raised above the laws; infomuch, that if he regard nothing but his VOL. LII. Sept. 1781.

:

Р

own

own intereft, to the entire neglect of his subjects, they have no other remedy than the glory to obey, and to fuffer patiently; and, that he is refponfible for his conduct to God alone, from whom, according to them, all fupreme authority is originally derived. Few there are who in this question take the part of the people. The caufe of the tyrant is generally maintained under the fpecious appellation of prince; and, if the interefts of the prince and people fhould happen to clash, fo as to render neceffary the diminution, or even entire deftruction of one party; in fuch a cafe, thofe people would fain perfuade themfelves and others, that to allow the prince a full liberty of oppreffing his fubjects by acts of injuftice and enormous cruelty, would be more juft and advantageous, than to permit the fubjects to reprefs the violence of a prince bent upon their ruin as if they who have been allotted to live under the authority of others, were not of the fame species with thofe who exercife that authority; or, as if those alone were to be regarded upon the footing of men, to whom the confent of other men has delegated an authority over themselves! For my own part, when I enquire into the reasons of a fentiment fo illiberal and inhuman, I am at a lofs to reconcile them in any point of view to the law of nature. Whoever you be that entertain fuch fentiments, whether princes or courtiers, give me leave to fay, that you pervert what is in itself excellent and facred; and that by means of your ambition or mean adulation, civil government, which was established to fecure the peaceful enjoyment of the conveniences and pleafures of life, is turned to the deftruction of mankind: that you reject truth, juftice, and public utility, and adopt maxims that are deftructive, unjust, and precarious; for an unlimited power can never be fecure nor durable.'

The author next proceeds to fhew, that unlimited power is no neceffary.confequence of greatnefs; that though God himself were the author of fovereignty, yet would that give princes no right to claim an unlimited power; that all men are by nature equal; but that this natural liberty does not authorize licentioufnefs. He fhews that men have been led by nature to live in fociety; and proves from the nature and defign of civil focicty, that fovereign power fhould not extend beyond what is neceffary for the public good. He contends, that it matters not, whether a prince have folemnly engaged to follow certain laws or not; and that a people who fübmit to the difcretionary authority of a prince, do not therefore inveft him with unlimited power.

The fecond part of the firft difcourfe is chiefly an illustration of the Lex Regia of the Romans, or that law upon which the

fu

fupreme authority of the emperors was founded. In treating of this fubject, the author makes several juft obfervations, tending to elucidate and afcertain the meaning of Ulpian, in regard to the extent of the fovereign power. He maintains that the Roman emperors were not exempted from the obfervance of all the civil laws; and for this opinion, he pro duces ftrong arguments in oppofition even to the authority of Dio Caffius.

It will be replied, however" that the authority of Ulpian is no lefs exprefs, who in general terms afferts, that the prince is difcharged from all obligation to obferve the laws." Granted but when, I pray, and by what law, was he exempted By the Lex Regia, it will be faid, which was enacted under Auguftus, and by which the Roman people are faid to have transferred to that prince, in his own perfon, all their empire and all their power." I muft beg leave to inform thofe who build their opinions upon this point, that most of the emperors who fucceeded Auguftus, received their government by a fingle decree of the feaate, or by a single law, to which the ancient civilians afterwards gave the name of the royal or imperial law; that Auguftus never received the empire under any fuch name, but by a variety of laws, and ordinances of the fenate, paffed at different times. Should you be furprized at this, I would have you attentively examine the whole courfe of Auguftus's life, trace all his confulfhips in the order that Dio Cafius hath related them, and you will be convinced of the truth of the above affertion: I could adduce a variety of arguments in proof of it, had I not been anticipated by a writer of diftinguished eminence, one of the greateft ornaments not only of this univerfity, but of the republic of letters; I mean Gronovius. I will only add one remark, which feems not to have occurred to that illuftrious writer, nor to any other author, fo far as I recollect, and it is this: that by whatever ordinance of the fenate Auguftus might have been exempted from the laws, it was not the fame by which the fupreme government of the empire was conveyed to him; for this (if we believe Dio Caflius) took place in the feventh confulfhip of Auguftus. But it was in his tenth confulfhip, according to the fame author, that the fenate paffed a decree by which he was exempted from the obfervance of the laws and even in that decree to which our author refers, the emperor was not fet above all the laws, but only above one, and that was the Cincian law; although Dio in this place expreffes himself in terms too general. And this I ground upon the narration of our hiftorian himself; for, fpeaking of the reafons which induced the fenate to ex

empt Auguftus from the laws, he informs us, that the emperor having promifed to diftribute a certain fum of money among the people, pretended afterwards that the laws would not permit him to perform his promife, without the confent of the fenate; in confequence of which, that this emperor might be enabled to extend his liberality beyond the limitation of the Cincian law, Dio fays "that the fenate discharged This form of exhim from the obligation of the laws." preffion, according to the ufual modes of fpeech among the Romans, ought to be confined to the Cincian law; but Dio, who was a Greek, extends it to all laws in general, whether from ignorance or flattery I cannot fay, but he certainly had no right nor reason to take fuch liberties.'

The learned profeffor feems clearly to evince, that Auguftus was not freed from the observance of all the laws, but of those only which the fenate had nominally difpenfed; and that he was under equal obligations to obferve the reft as any other private citizen.

In the discourse on Liberty of Confcience, the author fhews, that by the law of nature and nations, religion is not fubjected to human authority; that by the law of nature, every man is at liberty to conduct himself according to his own judgment, in matters which relate only to himfelf; that the nature of religion requires, that every one be free to follow his own judgment; and that this freedom is abfolutely neceffary, on account of the unavoidable diverfity and infinite He remarks, that to revariety of fentiments among men. fufe liberty of confcience, is, to encroach on the rights of God, and to counteract his intention; and that intolerance He contends, cannot be vindicated by any reasonable motive. however, that every man ought to fubmit to the eccléfiaftical difcipline of that fociety of which he is a member; and he afterwards defines, with precifion, the extent of ecclefiaftical authority.

The fecond part of this difcourfe contains anfwers to the objections against toleration. The whole of the author's obfervations and arguments, in both discourses, evinces a clear uuderstanding, an attentive examination of the fubjects, and a trong attachment to the principles of civil and religious liberty.

Eight Sermons preached before the University of Oxford. By James Bandinel, D. D. of Jefus College, and Public Orator 45. Cadell. of the Univerfity. 8vo. THESE difcourfes were preached before the University in the year 1780, in purfuance of the will of the late rev. and pious John Bampton, M. A. canon of Salisbury; who

left