attacked Mr. Hume's premifes, and the principles of Locke upon which they are founded: infifting that reafoning holds. of common fenfe, not common fenfe of reasoning; and that by the very force of natural conftitution we are led as certainly to believe the permanent existence of things, and certain connections among them, as we are to be fenfible of certain impreffions and ideas. This therefore is the point in queftion: which our author has not fo much as touched. He has not, therefore, of courie, obferved, that Mr. Hume allows all that Mr. Beattie contends for, and yet preffes his own conclufions. Hume admits that when he leaves the ftudious fhade where all things appear loofe, unconnected, an enigma, a dream, and comes into the bufy world, he feels the power of nature which makes him in fact, feel, and think, and act, like other men. But he ftill infifts that by reasoning he cannot fee any neceffary connexion between caufe and effect, and as this relation is that on which we found the belief of permanent exiftence, that the permanent existence of every thing is dubious and uncertain.

At the fame time that our author has by no means entered into the views and reafonings of Dr. Beattie, and Dr. Reid of Glasgow, the father of that philofophy which Beattie adopts, he has given a very faithful abftract of the reafonings of Mr. Hume which he thinks unanfwerable, and therefore leaves it to fpeak for itself.

He proceeds to prove, by the common arguments, the exiftence of free-will or liberty, a providence and a future state. He lays great ftrefs on a weak argument, taken from the fhort period that lies within the reach of hiftory and tradition. Here he reafons on Hume's principles, that as we have had no experience of fuch deluges or other natural convulfions as might have deftroyed more antient traces of human kind, therefore we have not evidence that they ever exifted.

ART. XV. A Collection and Abridgement of celebrated criminal Trials in Scotland, from A. D. 1536 to 1784. With historical and critical remarks. By Hugo Arnot, Efq. Advocate. 4to. 18s. boards. Printed for the Author, Edinburgh. 1785.

TO fpring forward, and to illuftrate the ancient criminal

records of a nation is a tafk not only laborious, but of extreme utility. It exhibits materials for the hiftorian, the lawyer, the philofopher, and the antiquarian. It shows -fociety in its progreffion, and throws a light upon manners, jurifprudence, civilization, and government. It is furprifing of confequence, that collections of this kind are fo rare.

They

They fuit not, indeed, the jealousy of defpotical kingdoms; but they are peculiarly calculated for ftates where known and established laws fecure liberty to the fubjects, and teach the prince that there are limits which he cannot overleap with impunity.

In turning over the public monuments of his nation, Mr. Arnot has not employed merely, a laborious diligence. He is by no means deficient in penetration; and he appears to have made a very confiderable progrefs in the ftudy of his profeffion. From a defire of rendering his publication the more generally entertaining, and that he might not disgust his reader with the uniformity of judicial details, he has avoided to furnish exact tranfcripts of the records which attracted his attention. In general, it is his care to give abridgements of them; and in the execution of this undertaking, he endeavours with anxiety to feparate the gold from its encircling rubbish. In confequence of this method, he certainly gains the point he had in view of accommodating his publication to the most common capacities. But to us, it is obvious, that by this means he has detracted infinitely from the authenticity of his performance. An ancient hif torical and legal record is not eafily understood, and will be interpreted very differently by different perfons. Mr. Arnot, we doubt not, has explained with entire fidelity, ac. cording to his understanding, the records he has examined. But it does not follow that he is therefore right. On this account we could have wifhed that instead of abridging them, he had published them exactly in the form in which. he found them.

If the Scots are defirous of having an authentic hiftory of their law and of their nation, they must hold out to the public their archives in their real nakednefs and purity; and not in abridgements and defcriptions. This has been the cafe with regard to England. The records, preserved by Madox in his various publications, comprehend the moft valuable materials of the Englifh ftory; and they may ferve to illuftrate the remark we have applied to Mr. Arnot. For when Mr. Madox comments upon his own collections he often misinterprets them. Grateful for his penfion as hiftoriographer he not unfrequently explains, as favourable to the prerogative, vouchers which are decidedly descriptive of the majefty of the people.

The criminal trials which Mr. Arnot defcribes are curious in themselves, and of great variety. They have a reference to treafon, leafing making, parricide, murder, tumult within burgh, piracy, forgery, breaking of gardens, inceft, adul. tery, fornication, blafphemy, irreligion, and witchcraft.

Some

Some of the trials in this collection are of high importance. Of this fort is the trial of Mr. Archibald Douglas, parfon of Glasgow, for the treasonable murder of Henry King of Scots. The fame obfervation will apply to the trial of John Earl of Gowry, and Mr. Alexander Ruthven for confpir ing against the life of James VI. But our bounds do not permit us to enumerate and characterize the cafes of our compiler in their fucceffion. In general, it is to be observed that inftruction and amufement are afforded in all of them. As a fpecimen of the prefent publication, we shall submit the following paffages to our readers.

OF INCEST.

Alexander Blair taylor in Currie.

Alexander Blair, taylor in Curry, was criminally profecuted by his Majefty's Advocate for inceft. The fact charged against him was, that he had carnal knowledge of one Catherine Windrahame, his first wife's half brother's daughter. And being admo nifhed by the kirk to abftain from this connection, instead of yielding obedience, he fled to England with the woman, and there married her. The jury unanimoufly found him guilty, and the court ordained him to be beheaded.

James Wilfon coal-grieve at Bonhard.

The prifoner was tried before Mr. Alexander Colvil Justicedepute, at the inftance of Mr. Thomas Nicolfon, his Majefty's Advocate. The indictment accufed him of having committed incest with Janet Carfe, daughter of Agnes Brown his wife, about thirtyfive years fince, or thereabout, his wife being then alive; also, of having committed adultery with Jean Walker during the lifetime of his faid wife.

The prifoner with great penitence confeffed his guilt before the court and jury; and a verdict being returned against him, the court ordained him to be taken on the next day to the Catlehill and beheaded, and his perfonal eftate to be forfeited.

William Dryfdale and Barbara Tannabill.

• William Dryfdale and Barbara Tannahill were ferved with feparate indictments, accufing them of having committed inceft with cach other. The crime libelled was, that the prifoner William Dryfdale, a widower, (whofe wife, a fifter of the other prifoner, had been dead for two years), had layen with the faid prifoner, Barbara Tannahill: And that, by an act paffed in the reign of King James VI. parl. 1. chap. 14. and by the 18th chapter of Leviticus, this crime inferred the pain of death. The charge against Barbara Tannahill was the fame, mutatis mutandis.

-

Informations, neither ingenious nor elaborate, were lodged for and against the prifoner, Dryídale. The court repelled the defences,and found the libel relevant.

THE

THE PROOF.

Barbara Tannahill judicially confeffed that he had layen one time only with the other prifoner, Dryfdale, and that she was now with child by him.

'Mr. Samuel Semple minister at Liberton depofed, That Barbara Tannahill confeffed her guilt before him and the kirk-feffion; and that he interrogated the other prisoner Dryfdale, who expressly disavowed the charge.

Robert Hardie depofed, That one evening going by the house where the prifoners lived, he heard Barbara Tannahill's voice calling out, once and again, O dear! and did hear the other prifoner ufing expreffions of entreaty, or rather violence, towards her. And that the prifoners lived in a houfe by themselves. Two other witneffes fwore to Tannahill's confeffion, and Dryfdale's denial, of guilt: That Dryfdale's wife had been dead for two years; and that the prifoner, Tannahill, was her fifter.

The jury found the indictment proved against Tannahill, but found nothing proved against Drysdale but the woman's judicial confeffion, which is a great prefumption of his guilt.'-The court adjudged Tannahill to be hanged, and Dryfdale to be banished for life.

"Even according to the Mofaick law these unfortunate perfons could not have been legally convicted, and the Scottish statute de clares the Mofaic law, as laid down in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, to be the rule for determining inceft. In the information for his Majefty's Advocate against the prifoner Dryfdale, an unwar rantable and abfurd extenfion of this crime was attempted. That as it is there commanded, Thou shalt not lie with thy brother's wife, fo from the degrees of affinity being the fame, the command muft likewife be underflood to be, Thou shalt not lie with thy wife's fifter. To this it may be answered, imo, That to fuppofe a penal law reaching life not to be exprefs but implied, is to deem us to be go verned not by law but by defpotifm. 2do, To lie with a brother's wife occafions an uncertainty as to the progeny. 3tio, To do fo is not only inceft but adultery. 4to, It is not commanded-Thou fhalt not lie with thy brother's widow. 5to, This connection by affinity is diffolved, and the furvivor is loofed by the death either of husband or wife. 6to, This argument is completely illuftrated by the command in a fubfequent verfe of the fame chapter,-Thou fhalt not vex thy wife by lying with her fifter in her..... lifetime. 7mo, To marry a brother's widow was an exprefs injunction of the law of Mofes; and if the furviving brother declined the match, the widow was entitled by that elegant and dignified fyftem of jurifprudence to-Spit in his face.-These arguments however were either omitted or over-ruled.

A rancorous deteftation of irregular commerce between the fexes, has diftinguished those religious fects which pretend to an uncommon degree of fpiritual purity, and in a peculiar manner the ENG. REV. OCT. 1785. rigid

T

rigid difciples of Calvin. Indeed the Apostle to whofe myfterious doctrines they are peculiarly attached, has barely tolerated the giving obedience to that impulfe, with which nature has directed every animal to the propagation of its fpecies.

The inftructive page of history, and the fatal warnings recorded in criminal courts, fufficiently evince what public mischief, what private conflict, what dark and atrocious crimes have proceeded from a mistaken notion of religion, inculcating a perpetual warfare with the dictates of nature.

The prefervation of morals, by debarring a union between perfons whose frequent opportunities pave the way to debauchery The preventing a perplexity in the degrees of kindred-Perhaps alfo, the preferving a strong and healthy breed, have induced civivilized nations to prohibit as incestuous, commerce between perfons nearly connected by confanguinity. It does not appear that the fame reasons apply to the debarring fuch union between those who are connected by affinity.-After the husband is dead, the wife furely is not guilty of adultery by entering into a fecond marriage; for, if the bufband be dead, he is loosened from the law of her husband. If fo, I do not perceive how the connection thus diffolved by death, can imply against the furvivor, the crime of inceft, any more than that of adultery.

A more rigid degree of Calvinifm than what now prevails, was established in the reign of William. The judicatories of the church poffeffed a jurifdiction. The flightest informalities between the fexes excited zealous abhorrence. To avoid the difgrace of the repentingfool, many a miferable wretch dared a guilt which was to be expiated by the pain and ignominy of the gallows. The presbyterian clergy, in matters of fcandal and witchcraft, arrogated to themfelves the office of public profecutors, of inquifitors general; and fo late as the 1720, the ministers, in behalf of themselves and their kirk feffions, publicly exercifed this office in our courts of justice. Their bufy zeal in hunting after young women whom they fufpected of being with child, and after old women who lay under the imputation of witchcraft, was productive of the most difmal confequences. In the one cafe, their perfecution was directed at unhappy women who had obeyed the impulse of nature; in the other, at those who incurred the imputation of doing what nature rendered it impoffible for them to do. In both, the pains and the piety of the clergy were productive of the fame iffue, the driving miserable creatures to the gallows. And the recorded convictions before the Court of Jufticiary at Edinburgh, of twenty-one women for child-murder, and three men pro venere nefanda cum brutis animalibus, in the fpace of feven years, afford a melancholy proof that the infulted dictates of nature, when checked in their regular courfe, will burft forth in a torrent that will fweep away every feeling of humanity, and every fentiment of virtue.'

In the course of his volume Mr. Arnot found himself un⚫der the neceffity of delivering his opinion upon a variety of difficult and important cafes; and here, we must do him the

juftice