ART. 15. Sir Frantis, the Reformer; or, The Humours of the Crown and Anchor: a Poem in Two Cantos. By Sc. &c. Eƒq. Author of "Nothing." 8vo. 3s. 6d. Stockdale. 1809. This is a very good fpecimen of Hudibraftic verfe, and poffeffes confiderable humour. The object is to ridicule the overweening zeal of fome modern patriots, and to point out the mifchiefs of mifleading the popular mind, by reprefenting all per. fons in power, without diftinction, as vile and vicious, who "Strive to throw afperfions black Upon each minifterial back; Juft as when children try for fun, This is kept up to the extent of almost a hundred pages, with a great deal of fpirit and facetioufness, LAW. ART. 16. A Difcourfe on the real Principles of the Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement, &c. in which the Representations of Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. Maddox, and others, are confidered, their Ignorance and Falfood expofed, and their real Vies detected; being the Subftance of three Lectures, delivered in Trinity Term, 1809, by the Gresham Lecturer in Civil Law. 72 PP. 2s. 6d. Hatchard. 1809. 8vo. The real grounds of the revolution of 1688, and of the ftatutes paffed, in confequence of that event, for fecuring the Proteftant fucceflion to the crown, and preferving the liberties of the fubject, have been explained by Mr. Juftice Blackstone, with a perfpicuity that feemed to remove all doubt, and a precifion which (one would have thought) precluded all future cavil. Yet there were not wanting, even on the publication of his commentaries, enthufiafts who deemed his explanations too narrow and reftrictive, and pretended patriots who reprefented them as hoftile to public freedom. By thefe politicians, the revolution of 1688 was confidered as affording a proof that the British monarchy is not properly hereditary, but elective; that our king is not (what the law emphatically terms him)" our fovereign lord," but the creature of an undefined body, which they call "the people;" and, in fhort, that he holds his crown and dignity " arbitrio popularis aura." Never perhaps were fuch pernicious doctrines more frequently infinuated, if not more openly maintained, than by the felf-deno minated patriots of the prefent day; never were they blended with more more popular topics, or more fpecious objects, fuch as reforms of government, of parliament, and of public expenditure; objects indeed of flattering promife, but which, we have no doubt, in the hands of the prefent reformers, would (inftead of the benefits predicted by them) produce anarchy and revolution. Under thefe circumftances, the public lectures on law, appointed by particular inftitutions, cannot, we think, be better employed than in refuting doctrines which tend to fuch pernicious effects; the Gresham lecturer would, therefore, have deferved our praife for his intention, had he not shown (as he certainly has) confider◄ able ability in the execution of it. He begins with a remark on the Reftoration of Charles the Se cond, and on the Revolution of 1688, which must have great weight in determining the character of both thofe memorable events. "The times," he obferves," feem to have afforded no unfa vourable opportunity of declaring it to be of the right and power of the people to elect their king." "But (he adds) matters were conducted on the furer and the fafer ground; furer, in refpect of argument; fafer, in refpect of experience." Maintaining the great principle that the throne of England is hereditary, the author admits, and indeed afferts, the competency of Parliament to limit the fucceflion, as afferted by the Houfe of Commons in the bill for excluding the Duke of York, and afterwards carried into effect by the Revolution, and the act of fettlement. The author's opinion of that revolution is fo juft, and fo well expreffed, that, as a fpecimen of the work, we will give it in his own words. Yet the Revolution is a fubje&t of too great importance to be paffed over without further comment; cfpecially in these times, when its true principles are fo grofsly perverted and mifreprefented, and when under colour of its authority the main affertion of, I know not what, opinions, by fraud, or force, to the perverfion of the minds of the people, the confufion of their prefent peaceful and happy ftate, and the overthrow of good order and regular government, is held forth as just and glorious. Glorious indeed was the revolution, which placed the Proteftant line upon the throne of thefe kingdoms: glorious, not merely as a revolution, and an affertion of the people's rights, as fome feem to think; but rather glorious, as a great public meafure involving a nation's weal, undertaken for a juft caufe, and purfued with temper andmoderation; and although by arms, yet with peaceful intent ;--a measure indeed of the last moment, fraught with extreme peril, and bleffed by Providence with complete fuccefs. Thefe are the glories of the revolution. Let thofe, who have been ever fince the advocates, as it were, of revolution upon revolution, who feem to with reformation itfelf reformed, and in the greatness of their zeal, and magnanimity of their patriotifm, ftep forth-to enfranchise even the free;-let them confider what they have in Ss 2 common common with the promoters of that great event. Let them con fult hiftory, if they can, with an unprejudiced mind, and perceive the folly and abfurdity of their attempt. Or, if they apprehend no danger in loofening the restraints of government, from a people too far advanced in profligacy of mannners and corruption of fentiment, but abounding in wealth and means, let them but eaft their eyes beyond the circle of this favoured land, and behoid to what refults a revolution, though foftened under the name of radi cal reform, in fuch a state of things muft lead;-a fenate for the houfes of Lords and Commons ;-a code de la confcription for a ftanding army and a militia;-a man worshipped as a God;and a people at his word, fpreading violence, fubjection, and de. folation through the earth." P. 7. The remainder of this fpirited and conftitutional tract confifts of clear and able comments on the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement, (the latter of which the author fhows to have been, in some respects, grofsly mifreprefented) together with an expofure of the falfe reafonings, and a detection of the mifchievous views of Sir Francis Burdett, and his affociates, at the Crown and Anchor tavern; from which it is inferred, that “no reform would fatisfy that faction. A change, a radical change, in the conflitution is their object; which is not reform, but revolution." POLITICS. ART. 17. A Letter to the Viscount Folkestone on the Unlawfulness of the Votes of Thanks to Mr. Wardle and the late Minority. By John Pern Tinney, Efq. 8vo. 26 pp. 1s. 6d. Bald. wins. 1809. We have already noticed, with deferved approbation, a very fenfible tract* by this writer. In the Letter before us, he addreffes the noble reprefentative of Salisbury, as one of his conftituents, on the fubject of his Parliamentary conduct, and particularly on that part of it which related to Mr. Wardle's accufation of the Duke of York. With refpect to Mr. Wardle, the author justly (in our opinion) condemns the means by which he acquired the private and confiden tial correfpondence of the Royal Perfonage accufed, as not being "thofe which any one of very correct notions would be anxious to avow," and he thinks that Mr. Wardle's "very equivocal tettimony, when examined before the Houfe, was calculated to leave upon the mind no very certain conviction of his correctness of recollection, or veracity." He then pays a candid tribute to the worth and independence of Reflections on fome Questions relative to the prefent State of the Nation, in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Randolph. See Brit. Crit. Vol. xxxi. p. 663. Mr. Huffey, the other member for Salisbury, and to the private character of the noble lord addreffed, but ftates the ground of his diffent from the vote of thanks paffed by the Corporation for his conduct on Mr. Wardle's charges; to which vote of thanks he objected, as impolitic, unjuft, cruel, unconftitutional, and dan gerous." Without profeffing here to difcufs the merits of the cafe, the author remarks, that "the Houfe of Commons, which was the only tribunal competent to decide the important queftion, acquitted the Duke of York of corruption, or connivance at corruption;" that" "in refpect to all thofe who might have diffented to [from] that judgment, the Duke voluntarily bore the utmoft punishment to which the fevereft juftice could fubject him, and retired from his high office in the ftate." That "we have all a common interest in the character of the great ;" and that," at a time when the ftability of government, and the fafety of fociety, render that character peculiarly important, it were better to withdraw from the public confideration whatever might tend to their dishonour and reproach." After thefe and fimilar reflections on the policy. of the late proceedings (with which we, in the main, agree) hẹ argues in the following manner on their justice. "In any common cafe, a meafure fimilar to that which fo large a portion of the nation purfues, with regard to the Duke of York, would be confidered an intolerable violation of equity, and a breach of a fundamental rule of criminal juftice. If the indivi dual members of a grand jury, which had liberated a prifoner, and recorded in their court, after an examination of the accufer's cafe, that it afforded no ground of inculpation, fhould afterwards declare their conviction of the truth of the accufation, and fubje& the criminal to a feverer punishment than would have refulted. from their charging him with guilt; in as much as the infamy of reproach, which cannot be obviated, is more to be dreaded than that penalty, which would be an atonement for tranfgreffion, is there an honeft heart which would not reprobate fuch procceding as palpable and infufferable injuftice? If the accufed perfon having faftained the procefs of criminal inquiry, and obtained, after mature inveftigation, a conclufive acquittal, fhould ftill be ftigma. rized by his jurors, and by others, as a culprit acquitted but not exculpated, might we not complain of the unavailing authority of the judicial law, or reprobate fuch ftigma as flanderous and illegal? After the acquittal of the perfons charged with treafon 1794, did not the perfons, then liberated by the judgment of their peers, manfully affert their recorded innocence, and was not the reproach caft upon them as " acquitted felons," confidered as unlawfully fevere? The Duke of York must be entitled, at least, to equal privilege with perfons accufed as traitors, and acquitted or liberated by due courfe of law. The English nation, by its reprefentatives in Parliament, has heard the accufation and the Ss3 evidence evidence of his enemies, and has recorded its judgment of acquittal. Can any part of the nation yet maintain the accufation, and juftly caft upon him the penalty of guilt? He has patiently awaited the judgment of the country, and is exculpated by its voice, WHERE ONLY ITS VOICE CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY HEARD. Is it the fate of his royal dignity to be excluded from the common benefit of the procefs of judicial inquiry, and to bear a heavier punishment than that of convicted crime, when our higheft national tribunal has adjudged that he is not fubject to fufpicion? Such a proceeding is, at least, unjust.” P. 8. He next adverts to the cruelty of ftill purfuing the Royal Duke, and aggravating every unfavourable circumftance, after he had "yielded to the vengeance of his enemies, though fortified by a lawful adjudication of innocence." The author then contends, that the votes of applaufe conferred upon the minority, and of cenfure expreffed or implied upon the majority, of the House of Commons, are unconftitutional; and this opinion is maintained upon arguments drawn from the nature of the cafe, and from the tumultuary manner in which fuch queftions are ufually decided at public meetings. He objects alfo to "the right affumed at thofe meetings of diftinguishing individual Members of Parliament by their approbation or cenfure." Without taking upon ourselves to deny, which furely we might, the existence of fuch a right, we can clearly affert this author to have shown, that in the prefent inftance, it has been greatly abused. Upon the whole, Mr. Tinney deferves much attention and praife for the candour and good fenfe of his remarks, and their beneficial tendency. ART. 18. A few plain Obfervations upon the End and Means of Political Reform, and the Meafures adopted by the prefent Sup porters of that Cause. In a Letter to a Member of Parliament. 8vo. 48 pp. 2s. 6d. Cawthorn. 1809. The advocates for what is called Parliamentary Reform may, generally fpeaking, be divided into three claffes; namely, enthu fiafts, who confider it as the panacea for all political maladies, and would deem fuch an event the commencement of a millennium in government; party-men, who ufe the popular cry for reform as a mere inftrument for the advancement of their own faction; and difaffected or democratic men, who justly confider fuch a mea. fure as the prelude to a republican revolution. In neither of the two latter divifions (perhaps not even in the firft) are we inclined to place the author before us. His opinion, indeed, of the neceffity of fuch a reform, and of the vaft benefits likely to accrue from it, appears to us by far too fanguine, and neither warranted by reafon nor experience; but the means by which he propofes to effect it are more conftitutional, and his plan more 5 temperate, |