now ascertained, however, that he lately died on the continent.

Of his life I have been unable to procure any account, except a few meagre hints. In imitation of some pretended biographers, I might eke out my scanty stock of materials (or rather supply the deficiency of materials), by inventing anecdotes, discussing fictitious points, and drawing conclusions from imaginary incidents and circumstances; but sober truth would disdain such figments, and execrate such idle impertinence.

JOHN LOUIS DE LOLME was born at Geneva, of respectable parents, in the year 1745, or perhaps at an earlier period. He received a liberal education, and embraced the profession of the law; but he did not long practise as an advocate before he formed the resolution of quitting his country, that he might display his lively talents and his literary attainments on a more conspicuous theatre of action, and might personally observe the constitutions and customs of more powerful states and more dignified communities. The English government, in particular, excited his curiosity; and he resolved to study its nature, and examine its principles, with particular care and attention. He even endeavoured, in the first work which he published after his arrival in England, to lead his readers into an opinion that he was a native of this favored country. It was written in our language, and appeared in 1774, with the following title: "A Parallel between the English "Constitution and the former Government of Sweden; "containing some Observations on the late Revolution "in that Kingdom, and an Examination of the Causes "that secure us against both Aristocracy and absolute

"Monarchy." Many of our countrymen were apprehensive, that our constitution might be subverted like that of Sweden; but the learned doctor (for M. de Lolme had previously taken the degree of LL. D.), by contrasting with the polity of England the government which Gustavus III. had overturned, plausibly argued that such fears were ill-founded.

He soon after commenced that work which now re-appears in print, and which established his literary and political fame. It was applauded, on its appearance in the French language, as a very ingenious and spirited performance, combining originality of thought with justness of remark and perspicuity of expression. A translation of it being earnestly desired, the author enlarged and improved it, and published the first English edition of it in June, 1775*.

In the Monthly Review, which, although some of the writers employed in it have been both illiterate and illiberal, may be considered as the best of our periodical vehicles of criticism, the following character was given of M. de Lolme's production.

66

Upon a careful review of this work, we can venture "to pronounce, that it is an admirable performance. "The view given of the English constitution is exact

It is supposed by many readers, that M. de Lolme was the translator of his own work from the French; and his great knowledge of our language has been the subject of high encomium. But, if the general style of the work be compared with that of the dedication, which, in every sentence, bears marks of a foreign pen, it will readily be concluded, that the body of the publication was chiefly translated by an Englishman, under the author's eye.

"and perspicuous; and the peculiar advantages of it are "pointed out with uncommon sagacity and penetra❝tion. The writer hath derived benefit, in this respect, "not merely from his own excellent understanding, but "from the circumstance of his being a foreigner. It is "hence that he hath been enabled to behold some pe"culiarities of the British government in a stronger "light than the natives of this country, who are not so "powerfully stricken by objects which are continually "before their eyes." The reviewer adds, that he entirely coincides in opinion with Junius, who had praised the work as "deep, solid, and ingenious:" yet he properly observes, that it is "not totally without defect," as the author seems to refine too much in his comparisons between England and other states," and to be "far too sanguine in his expectations of the stability ❝ and durableness of the English constitution."

.66

66

It might have been expected, that, instead of merely introducing into this work occasional remarks on the polity of Geneva, he would have composed a separate history of that republic, or have given a distinct survey of its constitution, particularly as he had some share in the government, being a member of the council of two hundred. For such a work he was well qualified; and his abilities would have rendered it both pleasing and instructive. It can scarcely be alleged, that he thought it too insignificant for his pen, as he amused himself with writing upon some of the taxes imposed during the administration of Mr. Pitt.

Being an enemy to superstition, he ridiculed its glaring absurdities in a volume which appeared in 1783,

entitled, "The History of the Flagellants; or, Memo"rials of Human Superstition;" partly borrowed from the abbé Boileau. A bigot might conclude, or pretend, that the author of such a performance had no sense of religion or piety: but it is as unreasonable to impute a profane or impious spirit to the opposer of those superstitions which corrupt true religion, as to accuse the adversary of a pernicious minister of being an enemy to all government. He who merely censures the abuse of an institution, cannot justly be said to argue against the use of it.

In

Our author's attention being called to the subject of the legislative union between England and Scotland, by an intended re-publication of De-Foe's history of that memorable transaction, he wrote, in 1787, a judicious essay, calculated for an introduction to that work. the following year, he published observations relative to the tax upon window-lights, the shop-tax, and the impost upon hawkers and pedlers. He condemned the first as absurd and unjustifiable, being a tax on the light of day, and not on property, but on the absence of property-on apertures, holes, vacuities, emptiness. He reprobated the second as a tax upon the very reverse of property; upon a debt,—that is, on the rent payable for the house to which the shop belonged; and the third he disapproved, as injurious and oppressive.

The momentous question of the regency could not be expected to escape his notice, or elude his inquiries. He therefore, in 1789, presented to the public some "Observations upon the National Embarrassment, and "the Proceedings in Parliament relative to the same." He denied that the king's political situation was suffi

ciently analogous to any of the cases stated by the leading members of the two houses; and affirmed that it bore a greater resemblance, in effect, to the case of Don Sebastian, king of Portugal, who after he had been defeated by the Moors, was "a captive* in an unknown

land, in unknown hands; an access to his person being "deemed impossible, and even not to be thought of." He proceeded to argue, that the act of the sovereign, when he originally convoked the existing parliament, amounted to the delegation of a general trust to govern the realm in his name; that the meeting of the lords and commous implied an acceptance of such trust; and therefore, that the royal authority resided, upon the king's incapacity, in a convention of the two houses. This fair and legitimate conclusion met with the concurrence of the majority of the nation.

I have now mentioned all the works of M. de Lolme, of which I could either procure a copy, or meet with an account. Like many other literary men, he did not. so far profit by his labors as to secure himself against the evils of poverty. He certainly deserved a greater degree of patronage than he appears to have received; and, if a pension had been conferred upon him for his able elucidation of the principles of the English government, it would have been better bestowed than those donatives usually are: the giver and the receiver would have been equally honored.

How long M. de Lolme remained in England after the commencement of the French revolution, I cannot inform the reader. What opinion, however, he enter

* It is more probable that this prince was slain in the conflict.

་