apon the tenfe of the auxiliary verb made ufe of in its compofiAfter mentioning this propofition, which is of great importance to his argument, we fhall fubjoin his farther obfervations on the subject.

But, that we may not be thought to determine the queftion by theory only, let us confider the common ufe which we make of these tentes. We do not fay, I have been writing at ten o'clock; I have been writing yesterday: but we fay I was writing at ten o'clock; I was writing yesterday. This tenfe therefore evidently belongs to prefent time: for though it denotes fomething paft, yet it implies that it paffed in a period of time, fome part of which still remains unexpired.

This compound expreffion I have been writing, is of a fingular nature, and perhaps cannot cafily be tranflated into other languages. It confifts of the verb, I have, in the present tenie; which confines the action to prefent time; of the imperfect participle, writing, which points to the continuance, or progreffive tate of it; and of the perfect participle, been, which indicates the completion of, at leaft, fome part of the action; though it does not determine whether the whole be completed or not. The proper ufe of this tenfe is to exprefs an action that has been begun, carried on for fome time, and continued to (or at least nearly to) the prefent inftant: but it does not decide, whether it be now finifhed, or is to be continued longer. If I fay, I have been writing a letter, I intimate that the letter is just now finished; but if I fay, I have been writing tavo hours, I leave it undetermined whether the action of writing is to be continued any longer or not. This tenfe is always definite: for it means a fingle action, and confines it to the point of time immediately preceding the now, or prefent inftant.

The other tenfe likewife, viz. I have written, as evidently belongs to prefent time. We do not say, I have written yellerday; I have written the firit of Auguft; but we fay, I wrote yesterday; I wrote the first of August. This tenfe may pro perly be called the prefent perfect, or perfect indefinite. It always expreffed a perfect or complete action; but an action that has been completed or perfected in a prefent time, i. e. in the prefent day, the prefent year, the prefent age, &c. If we fpeak of the prefent century, we fay, philofophers have made great difcoveries in the pretent century; but if we speak of the last century, we fay, philofophers made great difcoveries in the last century.

This tenfe, preceded by the words when, before, after, as foon as, &c. may be applied to denote the relative time of a furuse action; as, when he has dined, he will write a letter.

It is always definite with respect to action, i. c. it means a fingle or individual act; and, in one cafe, it is definite with refpect to time, i. e. when it fignifies a thing done in the point of time immediately preceding the prefent inftant; as, I have juft

now written a letter. But in all other cafes it is, with refs pect to time, indefinite; for it only limits the action to a period of time, fome of which is not yet expired, without referring to any particular part of that period. For, if I only fay, Dr. Priefly bas published an English grammar, I do not hereby afcertain whether he published it yesterday or thirty years ago.'

Notwithstanding the very ingenious remarks with which the "author fupports his doctrine, we are not fatisfied that those two tenfes ought to be confidered as ftrictly applicable to prefent time, in a grammatical fenfe. That any tenfe may, as he obferves, be properly called the prefent perfect,' seems to us a contradiction in terms. According to the propofition above mentioned, the expreffion, I have been writing,' must neceffarily, by the tense of the auxiliary verb with which it is con nected, be referred to a time that is paft, and therefore cannot belong to the prefent time.

With refpect to the other expreffion, I have written,' which our author likewife affixes to the prefent tenfe, we think it has 'ftill lefs any real pretenfions to that diftinction; as written,' beyond all doubt, is the participle of the perfect, and relates to an action which is past.

Mr. Pickbourn, indeed, conveys his meaning more precifely, when he obferves, concerning the tense which he calls the prefent perfect, or perfect indefinite, that it always expreffes a perfect or complete action; but an action that has been completed or perfected in a prefent time, i. e. in the prefent day, the prefent year, the prefent age, &c. We admit the juftnefs of this obfervation; but the expreffion, I have been writing,' and I have written,' ought not, on that account, to be referred to the prefent tenfe, in the fame manner as I write, I do write, I am writing; as the three latter are in the first tenfe abfolutely, and the two former only relatively fo. The following remark on this fubject is very properly fubjoined by our author:

• A learned friend has remarked that this tense may be made ufe of when we are speaking of the works even of authors long fince deceased, provided they be fill extant; but if thofe works do not remain, we cannot with propriety use it. We may fay, Cicero has written orations; but we cannot say, Cicero has written poems. In the first instance, by a bold figure, we fuppofe Cicero, as it were, fill exifting, and fpeaking to us in his orations; but as the poems are loft we cannot men. tion them in the fame manner.'

"This remark was made by the Rev. Dr. Kippis, about five years ago, when the author had the honour to read a part of this Dissertation before a literary fociety, as mentioned in the preface."

Mr. Pickbourn, in his obfervations on aoriftical tenfes, combats the authority of great grammarians; but his opinion, in general, coincides fo clofely with our own fentiments on the subject, that we cannot help thinking it well founded.

The author's remarks on fome other points of grammar, with thofe relative to the origin of language, are equally judicious; and, on the whole, he has treated the fubject with much difcernment, as well as perfpicuity and precifion.

Hiftorical and Critical Memoirs of the "General Revolution `in France, in the Year 1789: from the Opening of the States General, on the 25th April; 'till the framing the Conftitution on the 6th Auguft following. By J. T. Dillon, Esq. 410. 1. is. Boards. Robinsons.

THE

HE occurrences recited in this volume, confidering their importance and stonishing effects, may justly be confidered as among the moft memorable in history. Being, however, already generally known, the narrative of them, it is probable, will prove lefs interesting at prefent than after a lapfe of many years. It muft, nevertheless, be agreeable to inquifitive readers, to have a faithful detail of the whole of thofe extraordinary proceedings, collected from authentic paMr. Dillon ap.pers; and fuch is the work now before us.

pears to give an accurate account of every tranfaction, accompanied with the public fpeeches of thofe who bore the principal fhare in their accomplishment. The hiftory is very properly introduced with a general view of the defpotism of the French monarchy, at the period preceding the late revolution in its government; and the author afterwards, in the courfe of the work, intermixes an animated abstract of the history of a number of the French kings, for the purpose of thewing the profligacy of their characters, and the tyranny which they exercifed over the nation. As a fpecimen of the narrative, we fhall present our readers with his account of two or three of thofe princes.

To go no higher than Philip le Bel, we find him reprefented as one of the most wicked kings that ever fat on a throne; a covetous, violent prince; without faith, justice, or mercy! › He confined the earl of Flanders and his fon, after his word given for their fafety; he feized on the coinage and altered the fpecie as he thought proper. No auto da fè was more cruel than his punishment of the Knights Templars; he was the first who granted patents of nobility for money; his vexations and adulterations of the coin were endlefs, by which he greatly encreased his revenues.

£....

After the example of the king, all France became a fcene of corruption

corruption and avarice: finally, he died of grief, the refult of his mifconduct.

Louis Hutin, Philip the Long, and Charles le Bel, his three, fons and fucceffors, inherited all the vices of their father. They continued to offer nobility and offices of magistracy to public fale, and degrade the kingdom; they deprived the nobles of the right of coining money, and levied taxes on the people by their own authority without the confent of the states. Of these three princes, it is a difficult matter to decide which was the worft; their extortions,—their cruelty, and the numbers of people they put to death, give ample proofs of the badnels of their characters: one inftance alone will fufficiently how how little they valued their fubjects: in all inftructions given to the commiffaries, when they were fent into the provinces, not a fingle word refpecting the public good, but only injunctions to raise money, and fleece the people by every fratagem they could devife.

Philip de Valois arrefled fourteen lords of Britany and Normandy, whom he had invited to Paris, to honour the marriage of his fecond fon the duke of Orleans, and caufed them to be beheaded without any trial, and this in the midft of the rejoicings and pleasures of a tournament.'

Louis XI. was called the companion of the hangman. We need only look on the actions of this pince, to hold abfolute monarchy in abhorrence; nothing were feen near his palace but gibbets, fays his apologist Duclos. Thefe were the fignals by which you diftinguifhed the manfion of the king. He delighted in constructing iron cages; and they gave the name of the king's fillets, as an object of his affection, to enormous chains, which he had made to torment his fubjects. When he ordered perfons accufed to be put to the torture, he used in view them behind a fcreen, for fear the judge fhould be compaffionate, and not have an obdurate heart like himself."

He caused four thousand people to be put to death on a public fcaffold, and was prefent at the execution of many of them, and most of them without legal procefs. He brought his coufin-german, the duke de Nemours, to a trial without the concurrence of his peers. He cenfured the indulgence of the judges, who permitted him to come out of his cage to interrogate him, whereas the king wanted to have him tortured. When the duke was beheaded, he had his two fons placed on the fcaffold, that they might bear marks of the blood of their father. Reader, fearch in vain the annals of Bufiris, you will not find a deeper fcene of cruelty. This execrable king afterwards raft the duke's fons into a loathfome dungeon, the floor of which was crouded with iron fpikes, which rendered it impoffible for them to have any repofe, from whence they were taken twice a week to be chastized with rods, and every three months a tooth drawn from them. The eldest lost his fenses: the other was fo far fortunate as to furvive the tyrant;

and

and by his petition, prefented in 1480, we learn the statement of these horrid deeds, fcarcely credible, without the authenti city of fuch proofs.

Francis I. ruled the kingdom as if it was his private eftate. He ungeneroufly perfecuted the Conftable de Bourbon. Guilty of fimony, he negotiated with Leo X. He destroyed the liberty of the prefs, and fet the magistracy to fale; by which he infulted the nation, in giving them the best bidder for their judge; worse than Caligula, who decreed the honours only of a conful to his horfe, whereas the judges who had bought their places, paffed fentence of death; he figned the death warrant of Semblanfai, who was innocent, at the folicitation of Louifa of Savoy; and granted the life of St. Vallier, culpable, in return for the proftitution of his daughter.'

The proceedings of the national affembly fince the fixth of Auguft laft, will form an interefting fequel to the prefent volume; and we doubt not that Mr. Talbot Dillon will comprise it in a contiuuation of the present work.

Reports of the Royal Humane Society; with an Appendix of Mifcellaneous Obfervations on the Subject of Sufpended Animation. 8vo. 5s. Boards. Cadell.

THESE Reports confift of narratives of the fuccefsful,

and lifts of the unfuccefsful cafes, with every public document which relates to apparent death, from drowning, hanging, or fuffocation by noxious fumes, including the fumes of charcoal, the fire-damp, mephitis, &c. They are fpun out to an useless length, by quotations, repetitions, trifling obfervations, puffs, and pious ejaculations. The editor feems to think that he never can collect too much.

The cafes are related in the usual affected ftyle, which has hitherto rendered these Reports fo difgufting: nothing is added to the means of recovery, except what we formerly had occafion to notice; and an air of mystery pervades the whole, which the commentaries and notes render, if poffible, ftill more obfcure. This volume might indeed have been included within the compass of a little pamphlet ; but our author, afraid of lofing his confequence, fpeaks of the immenfity' of the labour of compilation, and apologises for the hafty language of the narratives. We could with him in future to leffen his fatigue and ours; yet it has been hinted that he has an affociate, and the introduction, as well as a few of the quotations, we are inclined to attribute to a different pen. The language of the narratives is indeed hafty, and fome of the pupils feem to adopt the peculiarities of the mafter; but in the most hafty deVOL, LXX. Aug. 1790. scriptions

M