place, or neighbourhood of his refidence, and fent to the hofpital for the examination of the phyficians and furgeons who belong to it; on whose judgments it refts, from the inspection of the state of his cafe, to determine whether the object recommended labours under a disease in which these waters are found to be beneficial.

All fuch cafes as are deemed proper for admiffion are registered. Minutes are taken of each patient's difeafe, age, parith, time of admiffion, ftay in the houfe, when discharged, and what degree of benefit he received. The original hiftories of their feveral difeafes, which are fent upon their petitioning for admittance, are alfo carefully preferved; and thus an exact account of our patients has been kept from the foundation of the hofpital to the prefent time.

'Tis from these records I fhall collect the vouchers which are to determine the subject in difpute; and fhall lay before the reader a state of our paralytic patients from May 1751, to May 1764. A period of time fufficient for the purpose: for it cannot be doubted, but that the fame effects, which thefe Baths have produced in the courfe of thirteen years, may at all times be expected from them, in like circumftances; as they are invariable in their qualities, and not liable, like most other remedies whether prepared or unprepared by Nature, to change or adulteration *.'

After producing a number of histories from the hospital books of different cafes of the palfy, and proceeding from different caufes, Dr. Charleton thus concludes: It is apparent from these cases, that the patients ufually recommended to our hofpital labour under palfies which have refifted the powers of medicine, and whofe original obftinacy has, of course, been augmented by time; yet the table informs us, that out of 969 paralytics, in fituations fo unpromifing, 813 were benefited.

It cannot have efcaped the reader's notice, that BATHING in these waters makes an effential part of the hospital practice.

It is well known that the Romans were extremely careful to preferve, by great works, their most celebrated medicinal waters. We have a remarkable inftance of this fact, in the Bath waters : whofe fource and manner of conveyance to the places of eruption are fo carefully concealed and fecured, as not only to have remained undifcovered, but to have been alfo preferved from any the leaft injury, though buildings were erected every where round them, and wells dug, for the fupplies of common fpring water, in every point of the compafs.-They have continued unhurt by the ordinary ravages of time; and change of feafon does not affect them: for chemical experiments are attended, in every part of the year, with the fame phænomena, if made with equal exactnefs: and their heat is fhewn by the thermometer to be invariable.'

< We

We bathe all our paralytics, where no particular circumftances forbid. When a patient is fent to us whose limbs from a long continuance of the disease are totally relaxed, warm immerfion in fuch a ftate would be manifeftly improper; and he is, therefore obliged to refrain till by drinking the waters, or, if neceffary, by the aid of medicine, he acquires a fufficient degree of strength to venture on its ufe. Where no fuch objections occur, he enters on this regimen after a fhort preparation. If the bath weakens, as it fometimes does, he intermits it, and in the mean time has his limbs pumped. Some are able both to bathe and pump at the fame time, or elfe to use each alternately; while others ftand in need of pumping alone; and thus the external application of thefe waters is ufed in all fuch complaints, though varied according to the particular nature of the cafe, and the conftitution of the patient.'

ART. IV. Letters to the Honourable Mr. Juftice Blackstone, concerning his Expofition of the Act of Toleration, and fome Pofitions relative to religious Liberty, in his celebrated Commentaries on the Laws of England. By Philip Furneaux, D. D. 8vo. 2 s. 6 d. Cadell. 1770.

THE

THE Commentaries of Doctor Blackftone have been fo frequently mentioned and applauded in the course of our Review, that it is needlefs to enlarge upon their character and merit. Every one who is acquainted with them must be fenfible of their great utility, not only to ftudents defigned for the bar, but to Englishmen in general; as leading to a clearer and fuller view of the conftitution and laws of our country, than could otherwife have been readily attained. But the more justly and deservedly any writings are held in eftimation, and the more probable it is that they will be tranfmitted to pofterity, the more neceflary is it become that the errors in them fhould be pointed out, efpecially if their errors be not the flight inadvertencies and mistakes which are almost unavoidable in a long work, but fuch as will probably mislead the reader in points of confiderable moment.

⚫. It is with concern that we have observed, in Sir William Blackftone's Commentaries, feveral things that betray narrower fentiments with regard to the original and natural rights of mankind, than ought to have been advanced in this enlightened age and kingdom, and which favour of principles that could only arife from the early prejudices of a bigotted education. Not to mention certain matters relative to civil liberty, which might deferve to be remarked upon, his ideas concerning religious liberty have given just offence to men of enlarged and liberal minds. Some of his opinions, with refpect to this fubject, have been animadverted upon by Dr. Priestley and other writers; but

we

we are indebted to Dr. Furneaux for a full and complete difcuffion and confutation of the learned Judge's errors in a point of fo important a nature. The method, too, in which Dr. Furneaux has conducted his attack, does no little honour to his temper, as well as to his understanding; for his treatment of his antagonist is peculiarly candid and genteel.

Our ingenious Author's first letter is employed in confidering the doctrine of the commentaries with regard to the Act of Toleration. According to Sir William Blackstone, this act only frees Diffenters from the penalties, and not from the crime of nonconformity. In his opinion, mere nonconformity is a crime, though not fo great as fome others, and is fo confidered in the eye of the law, notwithstanding the Toleration Act: the penalties, indeed, by that Act are susPENDED, but the crime fubfifts ftill. In oppofition to these fentiments, Dr. Furneaux has clearly fhewn that, with respect to those who are qualified as the Act directs, the crime of nonconformity is abolished together with the penalties; and his firft argument to this purpofe is drawn from the mode of expreffion in that claufe of the Act, which repeals the penal ftatutes with regard to fuch perfons. Sufpenfion of penalty is not the language of the Toleration Act. The A&t ufes a comprehenfive and forcible expreffion, which excludes the crime as well as the penalty; it leaves thefe penal statutes no operation at all, with relpect to the Diffenters, who are under the Toleration Act; it repeals and annihilates thofe ftatutes, with regard to fuch Diffenters. The words of the Toleration Act are, that thofe ftatutes fhall not be conftrued to EXTEND to fuch perfons. And if they are not to be conftrued to extend to them, nothing can be plainer, than that they are not to be conftrued to affect them at all, either as to crime or penalty.'

Our Author's fecond argument is taken from those clauses of the Toleration Act, which protect the Diffenting worship. Thefe claufes, in the words of a great lawyer, have rendered the Diffenters way of worship," not only innocent, but law. ful; have put it, not merely under the connivance, but under the protection of the law have established it. For nothing can be plainer, than that the law protects nothing in that very respect in which it is, at the fame time, in the eye of the law a crime. Diffenters, by the Act of Toleration, therefore, are restored to a legal confideration and capacity.' And this is a view of their condition under the Toleration Act of great importance. For many confequences will from hence follow, which are not mentioned in the Act, and which would not follow, if the Act amounted to nothing more than fufpenfion of penalty.'

REV. May 1770.

A a

This

This liberal interpretation of the Toleration Act is farther argued from the unanimous judgment of the commiffioners delegates, and of the house of lords, in the fheriff's cafe; the grounds of whofe judgment are fully ftated by Dr. Furneaux, and fhewn to be, that Diffenters are freed from the crime as well as penalties of nonconformity. In the final determination of the cause between the city of London and Allen Evans, Efq; when the lords took the opinion of all the judges, except thofe who had already given it as commiffioners delegates, they all agreed in their opinion, except one. The whole, too, was fummed up, and the reafoning on the oppofite fide examined and confuted, with his ufual perfpicuity and force of argument, by Lord Mansfield; and upon this ground the House of Lords affirmed, nemine contradicente, the judgment of the commiffioners delegates.

Whether, fays our Author, the Toleration Act is extenfive enough as to thofe who fhould be its objects, is one queftion; what is its meaning and intent, with refpect to thofe who are its objects, is another. Mere nonconformists, with respect to the worthip, difcipline, and government of the churches, are certainly its objects; and I think it ought not to have been limited, as it is, in regard to the doctrinal articles of Religion. But fill, with refpect to thofe perfons whom it does comprehend, that is, the mere nonconformifts to the conftitution and rites of the church, it puts them on a very liberal footing, not on that of connivance only, but of protection alfo. And the more the idea of legal protection is examined, the more will it appear to justify the ftrong expreffion, which the noble lord before mentioned ufed concerning the Diffenting worship, that it is ESTABLISHED. If the juftices of the peace at the quarter-feffions, or the regifter of the bishop's court, fhould refufe to regifter a Diffenting place of worship, a mandamus always is and muft be granted, upon application, in Westminster Hall, to compel them to the discharge of their duty. And is it not abfurd to fuppofe, that a mandamus mut iffue in a cafe, which the law regards as criminal? Is not the law to be confidered as giving its whole fanction, and exerting its whole energy, in refpect to whatever justifies and requires a mandamus? And does not this amount, ftrictly fpeaking, to the idea of the word established?

When the late incomparable Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Onflow, was informed of the expreffion, which the learned and noble Lord ufed on this occafion, he obferved, in a converfation with which he honoured me, that this was the language he himself had always held; that, as far as the authority of the law could go in point of protection,

the

the Diffenters were as truly established as the Church of England; and that an established church, as diftinguished from their places of worship, was, properly fpeaking, only an endowed church; a church, which the law not only protected, but endowed with temporalities for its peculiar fupport and encouragement.'

Our Author's fecond letter confiders the fentiments which have been advanced by Mr. Juftice Blackftone with regard to Herefy. His opinion is, that it fhould be punished with temporal penalties; only that care fhould be taken, that what is Herefy be first fettled by proper authority. But here, says Dr. Furneaux, the queftion occurs, what is proper authority? And where is it lodged? I fuppofe, Sir, you will place it either with the Ecclefiaftical Governors, or with the Legiflature. But in the hands of either, it will certainly amount to nothing more than human authority, the authority of fallible men; which, I apprehend, upon examination, will be found to be no authority at all in the prefent cafe, that is, in defining what is true Faith, and what is Herefy, and marking out their refpective boundaries.'

This point is established by our learned Author, both from fcripture and reafon, and the right of private judgment afferted; after which he fhews, that, confidering the lenity of the times, it is an advantage to religious liberty, that Herefy is not fufficiently defined by our laws, though Sir William Blackstone looks upon it as a defect. Dr. Furneaux then proceeds to enquire, on fuppofition that Herefy is cognizable and punishable by human authority, what that punishment fhall be? According to the doctrine of the commentaries, it seems neceffary, for the fupports of national religion, that the officers of the church fhould have power to cenfure Heretics, but not to exterminate or deftroy them." In this affertion, continues our Author, is it not plainly fuppofed, that the cenfures of the church are to be attended with temporal penalties? Only not fo as to exterminate or deftroy the Heretic. In the name of humanity, Sir, is this the only exception to the extent and effect of the church's cenfures, that they shall not reach to utter extermination? Are all other pains and penalties proper, in whatfoever degree they are inflicted, which affect only a man's liberty or property, provided he is not deftroyed thereby? If this be your meaning (and, I think, you should have left no ground for fufpicion that it is your meaning, if it is not) what more ample fcope could any perfecutor defire for his wanton cruelty, than you allow; unlefs, like another Bonner, he thirfted for human blood?-Excufe me, Sir, the warmth of my expreffion. This fentence of yours muft,