proceeds to confider how the cafe would then fland. He fays that It must, of neceflity, be admitted that, at this day, writs of error, and appeals, and all matters in which the Lords act in their judicial capacity, excepting this in queftion of impeachments, do not abate on a diffolution of parliament, any more than on a prorogation that impeachments do not abate on a prorogation; and that the three following rules refpecting their proceedings may be fairly collected:

1. That all judicial proceedings, when once lodged in the Houfe of Lords, remain in full force, not only from feffion to feffion, but from parliament to parliament:

2. That all legislative proceedings are terminated with the fef fion; And,

3. As a corollary from thefe propofitions, that a prorogation and a diffolution, (as far as they affect bufineffes in their houfe,) are equivalent to each other, and are the fame thing.

Being in poffeffion of thefe general rules, under which the cafe of impeachments would naturally be comprehended, the author infifts that it is incumbent on those who contend for the exception, to fup. port it by argument; and he proceeds to difcufs what effect a diffolution can have, either on the court, on the profecutor, on the proceedings, or on the accused, fo as to be deemed fufficient to difcontinue an impeachment.

The author having fully difcuffed thefe points, and having declared his opinion, that the impeachment is fill pending, concludes his pamphlet with fome obfervations on the weight that is due to hofe very eminent lawyers, who fupported the contrary propofition in the Houfe of Commons; and this point he treats with fo much delicacy and judgment, that we fhall conclude the prefent article with citing his own words:

When I think of the men from whom thefe objections have principally come, and feel (as I do feel) thoroughly fatisfied in the integrity of their intentions, and fully convinced of the ftrength of their understandings; when I further think how painful a difcharge of their duties it must have beer, to have contended against the inclination of thofe friends, with whom they generally act, and against the weight of the most tranfcendent abilities, for what, to common understandings, appears inconfiftent with every defirable end of justice; I cannot but acknowledge an apprehenfion, that they must have proceeded upon fome grounds, which were beyond The reach of my comprehenfion.

But in doing justice to their characters for integrity and understanding, we must remember that justice is alfo due to the caufe -and that the authority of the man fhould not be suffered to fup. ply the deficiency of his arguments.

And upon the review of thefe obfervations, when it appears. that a fair examination of the precedents affords decifive authority for the continuance, or if there is a doubt upon them, that upon analogy and principle it is moft clear, and that the arguments to the contrary are unfound and defective; the public will probably conçur with the House of Commons in concluding, that it is a moft

indifputable

indifputable propofition of clear, conftitutional, parliamentary law, that impeachments do not abate upon a diffolution of parliament.'T. Art. 19. Efay on the Effect of a Diffolution of Parliament on an Im peachment by the House of Commons, for high Crimes and Mifdemeanors. By Capel Lofft. 8vo. pp. 88. 25. Johnfon.

Mr. Lofft's ardent zeal in the cultivation of conftitutional knowlege, muft be well known to many of our readers; and he has now turned his attention to the queftion re pecting Mr. Haftings's im. peachment. This question, he declares, mult depend on the precedents; and if thefe fhall be found doubtful, on the conftitution and powers of the two Houfes; on the nature and end of this mode of trial; and on the means moft fuitable to the attainment of that end, which is, juftice to the party accufed, and to the public. The refult of his inveftigation is, that the impeachment continues unabated by the diffolution of parliament. On the whole, this is a very fuccinct and luminous effay, and is written with great spirit and vigour of fentiment. Mr. Lofft treats it as a queftion, in which ftrict precedent and legal analogy, the fpirit of the confli tution, the most unexceptionable and comprehenfive policy, the firmeft, cleareft, and most decifive reason, and the facred claims of juftice,' appear to him to concur; and he leaves the refult of his researches to the judgment of thofe, whom it may in any degree affift in fatisfying themfelves, whether the termination of an impeachment by the diffolution of parliament, or its continuance, be the better proved, the more fafe, and the more conftitutional doctrine.

6

T.

Art. 20. State of the Queftion, how far Impeachments are affected by a Diffolution of Parliament. 8vo. pp. 156. 2s. 6d. Egertons. The author of this tract appears to be fully fenfible that it comes too late in the difcuffion of the fubject, to entitle him to any great claim to originality, either of argument or illuftration: but as a different arrangement of the fame materials, and placing the arguments in different lights, may have fome effect, he has thought proper, though with much modefty, to produce his fentiments to the public. He concurs in the conclufion adopted by the two foregoing writers. That part of the fubject which relates to precedents, is difcuffed with laborious attention, and great minuteness of inveftigation; and we apprehend that Mr. Chriftian, to whose publication he frequently alludes, will find it no eafy matter to answer him.

Art. 21.

IMPEACHMENT OF MR. HASTINGS.

T.

The Speech of Major Scott in the Houfe of Commons, 14th Feb. 1791. With authentic Copies of the Orders, iffued by the Board of Controul, in approbation of thofe Syftems that are pointedly condemned in the Articles of Impeachment, voted by the late Houfe of Commons. And Extracts from the Journals, proving the Increase of the Revenues of Bengal during the Adminiftration of Mr. Haftings. 8vo. pp. 38. 1s. 6d. Debrett. The indefatigable Major Scott vindicates his friend, Mr. Haftings, from the fuppofed guilt of a breach of treaty with the Begum,

by

by fhewing that Lord Cornwallis has violated a folemn treaty made with the Nabob of Arcot; a measure, Major Scott contends, infinitely ftronger than any Mr. Haftings ever took; and that Lord Cornwallis has received the fupport of Mr. Dundas, THE INDIA MINISTER, as he is here called, while he (Mr. Dundas) votes for the continuance of the impeachment against Mr. Haftings. This argument, our readers will perceive, is rather argumentum ad hominem, and more adapted to produce an effect in a popular affembly, like the House of Commons, than to carry conviction in the clofet. On fimilar grounds, Major Scott defends both the arrangement made by Mr. Haftings with the Nabob Vizier, and the contracts drawn, during the last war in India. He afferts that the expences of the war in which we are now engaged, are on a fcale far beyond any former war; and that, in particular, the bullock-contract at FortSt. George is about 15 per cent. higher than that of Bengal, under Mr. Haltings's government; with this addition, that there are, in the Carnatic army, above 40,000 bullocks, whereas the number for the whole Bengal army was only 6700.

Art. 22. Letters to Mr. DodЛley, by Major Scott, in Refutation of - certain Mifreprefentations contained in the Hiftorical Part of the Annual Regiller for 1788. With an Appendix, containing various important Papers, not inferted in the Annual Regifter. 8vo. pp. 39. IS. Stockdale. 1791.

Major Scott is as fevere in his animadverfions on the publisher of the Annual Regifter, for certain partialities with which he charges the writer of that work, in his reports of the proceedings on Mr. Haflings's impeachment, as he has hitherto been in vindicating that gentleman against his profecutors; and we own ourselves forry to find him pointing his artillery against a worthy bookfeller; becaufe Major Scott is not an enemy to be defpifed. Mr. Dodsley we believe to be an honeft fair dealing man of bufinefs; and we may venture to pronounce him wholly unconfcious of the offence imputed to him. The truth of the matter is, the political department of the chronicle in queftion has long been fuppofed to be conducted by the principal manager of this trial; and Major Scot ufes the name of the bookfeller for convenience: well knowing that all which he addreffes to the vender of the book, will be understood and applied to the reputed writer; and that he could take more freedoms with the former, than he perhaps chofe to do immediately with the latter.

Major Scott never miffes an opportunity for expatiating on the fingular nature of this profecution. To arraign a British governor at the bar of a court of justice, for bringing deftruction on a great kingdom; to keep him at that bar for three years, while the minifter was telling parliament each year, that the fame kingdom had been in a progreffive ftate of improvement under that British governor; and which is much more than telling them fo, proving it by the evidence of figures; are circumftances fo extraordinary in their nature, that they will hardly obtain credit with pofterity.'

T.

Is there not reafon then to admire the fortitude that can fo fteadily purfue its purpofe, through all difficulties, heedlefs of that admonition in fcripture, which declares it hard to kick against the pricks? N

FRENCH

FRENCH REVOLUTION.

Art. 23. Temperate Comments upon intemperate Reflections: or a Review of Mr. Burke's Letter. 8vo. pp. 67. 25. Walter, Piccadilly. 1791.

This reviewer afcribes Mr. Burke's prejudices against the French revolution, to the excefs of his humanity; fhocked by thofe calamitous, and horrid, no doubt, but, at the fame time, few in number, and inevitable, outrages committed by the ungoverned fury of an emancipated populace, eager to revenge the infults and the injuries which they had fo long and fo patiently endured; and to his education at St. Omer's, which he thinks must have infpired the Right Hon. Gentleman with a partiality in favour of the Roman catholic faith.

His comments are principally confined to what has been done by the National Affembly, and to the caufes of their conduct. Of Mr. Burke's general principies of government, civil or ecclefiaftical, he takes little notice; feeming to think thefe, and what is faid of the English revolution, the best parts of the book. The British cftitution, both in ftate and church, (with the fingle exception the inadequate reprefentation of the commons, which he justly reprobates,) he deems, with Mr. Burke, to be a model of perfection. His attachment to it is fo ftrong, that he here lofes fight of his temperance: confidering it as fomewhat criminal to difapprove of, or diffent from, any thing established, religious, or civil; and ftigmatizing those who do io, as aliens, and factious priefts.

That the French did not adopt fome middle way between defpotism, and the entire fubverfion of their old government; that they did not accommodate their reform to the plan of the English conftitution; he fuppofes to be the effect of neceffity. The court and the Aristocratical party had formed a defign to diffolve the National Affembly; and to get rid of their fiical difficulties by a general bankruptcy, preceded by a war with England. Thefe dark and deftructive defigns, he fays, compelled the Affembly and the nation to go the lengths which they have gone, for their own fecurity.

On the fubject of appropriating the revenues of the church to reduce the debt of the ftate, he cenfures Mr. Burke as being much too violent and intemperate, when he calls it facrilege, rapine, and robbery. To maintain that the property of the clergy, as a body corporate, is as facred as that of individuals, is, he fays, a libel on the past conduct, not only of England, but of Scotland, Holland, the reformed states of Germany, and most of the proteftant powers in Europe: all of which have, for various purposes, at various times, affumed a right of difpofing of that property; and have shewn, by their conduct, that they confidered it as the property of the public. To take away the fuperfluities of the clergy, who, by fuch a meafure, would lofe only a portion of a life eftate,-or to take away the all of the public creditor, or stockholder,-who would thus have nothing left of a perpetuity, the fole dependence of himself and his family in generations to come,-was the alternative to which the French nation was reduced. They have therefore wifely lowered

the

the exorbitant incomes of the fuperior clergy; at the same time that they have railed thofe of the inferior, who were deftitute of a maintenance, while their brethren were rioting in profufion; and after every diminution, the reformers have left to the church a revenue of between five and fix millions fterling; which makes them a more wealthy body than any proteftant clergy in the world, that of England excepted.

Our temperate commentator alfo juftly expofes Mr. Burke's caricature of the National Affembly: applauds its lenity toward the refugees, in permitting them to draw, unmolefted, thofe pecuniary refources from their native country, which they employ in caballing against the fovereign will and power of a moft decided majority of its inhabitants: admires its wifdom in the conftitution of the new representation; commends the abolition of the ancient parliaments, and of fome oppreffive modes of taxation; and juftifies the army for refufing to draw the fword in the caufe of defpotifm.

What is urged on these several points, though not marked by any great acuteness nor profundity, difcovers good fenfe, and a love of liberty, in the author; whofe ideas would have appeared to greater advantage, if he had been lefs folicitous to dress them out in verbofe language, which fometimes confounds by obfcurity, and fome. times offends by affectation.

Pear.

Art. 24. Strictures on the Letter of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, on the Revolution in France; and Remarks on certain Occur. rences that took place in the laft Seffion of Parliament relative to that Event. 8vo. pp. 59. Is. 6d. Johnfon. 1791.

Taking an oppofite path to that of the Temperate Commentator, this writer (who, in a pamphlet which he published on the Teft Ac, [fee Review for Auguft laft, p. 471,] called himself a diffenter;) pays very little attention to the French affairs, but confines himself chiefly to matters at home, and examines fome of Mr. Burke's general principles of civil and religious polity. He differs alfo from the Commentator, as to the motive of Mr. Burke's violent declamation against the French revolution; which he fuppofes to proceed, not from wounded feelings of humanity, but, partly from the apprehenfions of the fenator, left that revolution might introduce a parliamentary reform in this country; which would affect the intereft of himself and his Ariftocratical friends; and partly from refentment against the diffenters, and the other friends to liberty, who oppofed Mr. Fox's India bill, and thereby eventually deprived Mr. Burke of a fhare in the patronage and difpofal of twelve hundred thousand pounds per annum.

Accordingly, this author employs the greatest part of his ftrictures in vindicating the political principles and conduct of his diffenting brethren: in evincing the expediency and neceffity of a parliamentary reform; and in expofing the ignorance and vice that have over-run the world from the once univerfal, but now pretty generally exploded, and daily more and more declining, practice, which Mr. Burke would revive, of making all men draw their knowlege from the general bank and capital of nations and ages; inftead of putting them to live and trade, each on his own stock of reafon, and private judgement.

5