PREFACE. As the prefent publication is defigned for the benefit of thofe who intend to lay a foundation for future ftudy, or defire to refresh their memories upon the old, or who think a moderate fhare of history fufficient for the purposes of life, recourse has been had only to those authors which are are best known, and those facts only have been felected which are allowed on all hands to be true. Were an epitome of history the field for dif playing erudition, the author could fhew that he has read many books which others have neglected, and that he alfo could advance many anecdotes which are at present very little known. But it must be remembered, that all these minute recoveries could be inserted only to the exclufion of more material facts, which it would be unpardonable to omit. He foregoes therefore the petty ambition of being thought a reader of forgotten books; 5 1 book; his aim being not to add to our prefent ftock of hiftory, but to contract it. The books which have been used in this abridgment are chiefly Rapin, Carte, Smollett, and Hume. They have each their peculiar admirers, in proportion as the reader is ftudious of hiftorical antiquities, fond of minute anecdote, a warm partizan, or a deliberate reafoner. Of thefe I have particularly taken Hume for my guide, as far as he goes; and it is but justice to fay, that wherever I was obliged to abridge his work I did it with reluctance, as I fcarce cut out a line that did not contain a beauty. But though I muft warmly fubfcribe to the learning, elegance, and depth of Mr. Hume's history, yet I cannot entirely acquiefce in his principles. With regard to religion, he seems defirousof playing a double part, of appearing to fome readers as as if he reverenced, and to others as if he ridiculed it. He feems fenfible of the political neceffity of religion in every ftate; but at the fame time he would every where infinuate, that it owes its authority to no higher an origin. Thus he weakens its influence, while he contends for its utility, and vainly hopes that while free-thinkers fhall applaud his fcepticism, real believers will reverence him for his zeal. In his opinions refpecting government, perhaps, alfo, he may be fometimes reprehenfible; but in a country like ours, where mutual contention contributes to the fecurity of the conftitution, it will be impoffible for an hiftorian, who attempts to have any opinion, to satisfy all parties. It is not yet decided in politics, whether the diminution of kingly power in England tends to increase the happiness, or the freedom of the people. For my own part, from feeing the bad effects effects of the tyranny of the great in those republican ftates that pretend to be free, I cannot help wishing that our monarchs may ftill be allowed to enjoy the power of controlling the incroachments of the great at home. A king may easily be restrained from doing wrong, as he is but one man; but if a number of the great are permitted to divide all authority, who can punish them if they abuse it? Upon this principle, therefore, and not from any empty notion of divine or hereditary right, fome may think I have leaned towards monarchy. But as in the things I have hitherto written, I have neither allured the vanity of the great by flattery, nor fatisfied the malignity of the vulgar by fcandal, as I have endeavoured to get an honeft reputation by liberal pursuits, it is hoped the reader will admit my impartiality. Of the BRITONS before the Arrival of the ROMANS. IT is fortunate for mankind, that thofe periods of history which are the leaft ferviceable, are the least known. It has been the ftudy of many learned men to refeue from obscurity, and throw light upon thofe early ages when the Britons were wholly barbarous, and their country uncultivated. But these researches have generally terminated in conjecture; fo that from whence Britain was at first peopled, or took its name, is ftill uncertain. The va |