view of the circumftances ftated, and of the conduct of the Ad. miralty Court, can fupport his own reprefentations, and fhow that the Court has not varied its principles of law, but, to prevent evafions, has become from time to time, more ftrict as to the evidence which it requires of facts and intentions.

In the latter part of this work, the author argues at length against the reafonings of Sir William Scott (in his Judgments) and of Mr. Ward, and Mr. Brown, of Dublin, in the Treatifes by the last two authors. We do not find any mention of "War in Difguife," a work, the arguments in which he would, in our opi nion, find it very difficult, or rather impoffible, to overthrow. The letter of Mr. Monroe fubjoined is temperate and judicious. We do not affent to Mr. M.'s reafonings, but flatter ourselves that the difpute will be fettled to the fatisfaction of both coun, tries.

ART. 16. Belligerent Rights afferted and vindicated against neutrel Encroachments. Being an Aufwer to an Examination of the British Doctrine, which fubjects to Capture a Neutral Trade not open in Time of Peace. Svo. PP. 90. 3s. Johnson. 1806.

In the account which we have given of the two preceding tracts, we intimated that, fpecious as fome of the arguments contained in them might appear, it would not be difficult, with due attention, to meet thofe arguments by complete and fatisfactory anfwers. This task has been ably performed by the writer before us.

He firft difcuffes the authorities produced by the author of the Examination, from the most received writers on public law; who, he afferts, will be found to fanction the principle of the rule of 1756, beginning with Grotius, who pronounces that "he is to be reputed as fiding with the enemy, who supplies him with things neceffary for the war." Things, the author contends, "include not only fubftances, but fervices and actions.” "Who then (he adds) can hefitate in declaring, that he ought to be reputed as fiding with the enemy, who fupplies him with the fervice or action, which enables him to carry on the war with more vigour and effect ?”

The paffages cited from Puffendorff, Rynkerfhock, Vattel, &c., by the American author, are next examined by the fame teft; and it is fhown, that all thofe writers (excepting Kenning, one of the most hardy and extravagant champions of neutral claims) deem it a departure from neutrality to render one of the belligerents a fervice in preference to the other; while the author (of the Examination) himfelf acknowledges, that the trade prohibited by the rule of 1756, aids the profperity and revenue of one of the belligerents, and enables him to carry on the war with more vigour and effect,"

The

The writer before us alfo juftly remarks on the affertion of the American author, that "the writers of moft modern date make no allufion to the British principle," that all those moderns wrote fince the rule of 1756 was enforced and avowed, and moft of them fince the Royal Inftruction of 1793. It is therefore im poffible, but that this rule fhould have efcaped their notice; yet they ftate the general principle, " that when war arifes between fome nations, the nations at peace with all are to proceed in their trade with all on the fame footing in time of war, as they did before the war broke out.

The reafonings of the American author on the feveral treaties are next confidered, and very different inferences drawn from those treaties with much ingenuity and effect. But the whole depends (as the author of this Anfwer admits) on the queftion, whether the law of nations is, or is not, violated by the rule of 1756? If the rule is confonant to the law of nations, any ftipulation different from it must be confidered as an exception, which, ac-` cording to an old adage, “proves the rule."

On the conduct of other nations" this author remarks, that no nation has been in a condition to be injured by neutral interference in the colonial trade of her enemy, but Great Britain."

As to the conduct of Great Britain herself, it is with juftice afked, in what do the remarks, that "he is governed by the fame policy of eluding the preffures of war, &c." (fo much dwelt upon by the American author) impugn the rule of 1756? "Does Great Britain deny to her enemy the right to open her colonial ports in time of war?-No: But fhe fays this to the belligerent-Open your ports and welcome; but I will in tercept your own trade with them, and all neutral commerce with them too, which you have admitted contrary to your cuf tomary peace regulations." The author inftances the cafes of contraband of war purchased, or fupplies (in the cafe of a blockade】 procured, of a neutral nation. "No one," he admits, "denies in either cafe this right to the belligerent; but the right of affording this fupply, help, and fuccour is by all denied to the neutral. It is not the right of the belligerent to receive af sistance, but the right of the neutral to give it, which is the queftion. The relaxations, therefore, of her colonial monopoly by Great Britain afford no argument against the right of capturing a neutral trade fhut in peace, and opened in time of war by her enemies."

The author next adverts to the fecond pofition of his American adverfary, namely, "that whilft Great Britain denies to neutrals the right to trade with the colonies of her enemies, the herfelf trades with her enemies, and invites them to trade with her colonies." This he answers by obferving, that "Great Britain h ́s a cear right to interdict fuch commerce, but finds it for her inereft to let the right fleep. In fo doing, fhe does not the leaft

PP 4

injury

injury to any neutral state whatever, nor does fhe invade any one neutral right." He enlarges upon this argument with ability, and, we think, with juftice.

Our limits will not permit us to go through the remaining arguments in this fenfible tract; in which it is thown why the rule of 1756 was not fooner adopted; and that, although it was occafionally relaxed, it never was abandoned. This author alfo replies to his antagonist's arguments, in anfwer to Mr. Ward, and again goes into the principle of the rule afferted by Great Britain, and justifies her Courts of Admiralty from the cenfures caft upon them. In the appendix to this work, the arguments of Mr. Monroe (the American Plenipotentiary), in his letter to Lord Mulgrave, are referred to and ably anfwered. Upon the whole, the tract before us deferves much praife for its ingenuity and patriotic fpirit; and it will be found ufeful in enabling all whom it may concern, to form a right judgement of this important controversy.

ART. 17. Thoughts on the Prefent Situation of England. 8vo. 24 PP. IS. Hatchard. 1806.

This fhort and well meant pamphlet confifts of three letters. In the first (which states the mischiefs that might refult from an infecure peace) the author propofes a ftipulation, to be infifted upon, in any negotiation with France, that the navy of that power fhould be limited to a certain number of ships of war, and that her flotilla fhould be deftroyed; for, he remarks, England

cannot injure France unless France has a fleet at fea; confe. quently the fleets of England are no objects of jealousy to France. England cannot be injured by France, unless France has a fleet at fea, confequently the fleets of Erance are objects of jealousy tó England. The author feems to forget Buonaparte's celebrated déclaration, that he only wanted "fhips, colonies, and commerce;" and we imagine it will require more than this writer's eloquence to perfuade the Ufurper that the two laft of these can be preferved without the firft, and more especially to procure his confent to a ftipulation, which he would deem degrading in the extreme. Even upon that condition, we doubt whether it would be a wife policy in England wholly to abandon the interefts of the Continent. We, however, agree readily to the author's general doctrine, that, "if a treaty of peace be figned while the caufes of jealoufy continue, it is impoffible that it can be permanent, or beneficial to England.”

The fecond and third letters relate to the defence of the country, but do rot contain any fuggeftion ftrikingly new or important. Upon the whole, we confider this writer as entitled to the praife of good intentions rather than of ingenuity or dif

cernment

ART.

ART. 18. A Letter to the Independent Ele&ors of Westminster, from Henry Maddock, Junior, Efq. Barrister at Law. 8vo. 54 PP. 2s. Miller. 1806.

The return of a general election never fails to produce a hoft of monitors, who conceive themfelves qualified to inftruct the electors in their duty. To keep pace with their labours would require a daily, or at leaft weekly, publication; but the unavoid able delay need not occafion much regret for (with the exception, perhaps, of Dr. Johnfon's "Patriot") we do not recollect one of thefe occafional effays from which the electors of Great Britain have derived one particle of ufeful information. The profeffed object of the writer before us, is, to convince the electors that Earl Percy, lately the object of their choice, was an unfit perfon to be elected. "He is," fays the author, "the youthful heir apparent to a powerful Nobleman, without any dif tinguishing perfonal qualities, and is forced upon them."

To fupport the last of these objections, no proof is attempted to be given. The first (which would in effect disfranchise the eldeft fons of Peers) involves a doctrine, against which many folid, and we think convincing arguments, might be, and indeed have been produced. But the fubject has been so often agitated, that it is fufficient at prefent to say, that the conftitution of parliament is oppofed to this author's opinion; which has neither novelty nor ingenuity to recommend it. So ignorant indeed is this writer of political hiftory, or fo inattentive, that while he accufes (without the leaft proof) Earl Percy of trampling on the rights of electors, he boldly adds, "fuch was not the be ginning of Mr. Fox's glorious life.". Now (though we are far from intending to fhow difrefpect to the memory of that admired ftatefman) we muft beg leave to refer the author to the debates of that period, for proof that Mr. Fox's earliest fpeeches were in earneft fupport of perhaps the most unpopular measure of the House of Commons fince the revolution. We mean the refolutions on the Middlesex election, (fince refcinded,} by which Mr. Luttrel was feated in preference to Mr. Wilkes. We mean not to give any opinion on the merits of that determination, but merely to ftate it's notorious unpopularity, and peculiar hoftility (in the general opinion) to the rights of electors.

We have faid already too much on fuch an ephemeral production as that before us; but, in juftice to the writer, will add, that he difclaims democratic principles, profeffes great refpect for the king, and feems to cherish a firm attachment to the conftitution.

LAW.

LAW.

ART. 19. Obfervations addreffed to the Public, in particular 19 the Grand Juries of thefe Dominions. 8vo. 73 PP. Is. 6d. Booth, &c.

1806.

Moft well intended, and zealous, are the admonitions which we here meet with, though not in all points judicious, nor even tolerably well expreffed. Very juft is the complaint at p. viii.

It is not without concern I have to remark, that, notwith. anding the great increase of population, and the evident want of churches in many parts of this kingdom, I do not find that any reprefentation or application has been made to parliament on this head, although it must be admitted to be the highest and first confideration of national importance and political confequence." Poffibly the author (whom we do not know) may allude to a ftrik. ing inftance now exhibited in the fens of Lincolnshire, where (as we are moft credibly informed) 9,000 acres have already been fold (and how many more will be fold, no one ventures to conjecture) to defray the expence of draining 42,000: which 9,000 acres, and all that may be added to them, will be extraparochial; that is, will have no place of public worship, (except meeting-houses already fpringing up) no provifion for the poor, for peace officers, for highways, or almoft for any purpofe of civilized fociety. If thefe defects are not remedied by fome fubfequent act of parliament, here will be a grand refuge for mifchief and licentiousness.

"The labourers of this country are ruined in morals and conAitution by the public houfes," p. 40. We believe this complaint to be well founded, and we believe, that the mifchief is greatly accelerated by this circumftance: that public houfes are rapidly becoming the exclufive property of common brewers. If parlia. ment can obviate this evil, they could hardly (in common regu lations) be more ufefully employed.

The author's cenfure of the education of "our female youth," (at p. 46.) is too indifcriminate. We hope that they generally receive much ufeful, as well as fome fuperficial inftruction. About fifty years fince, (for we lived many years before we became critics) we knew a great number of ladies who had never learned to fpell their native language. Such ladies (we hope) are now rare indeed and we would rather that a few fhould have "the frivolous accomplishments of mufic and finging, Italian and French, dancing, drawing, and painting," p. 46. In the fol lowing judgment we entirely agree with the author: "When I contemplate one of our fafhionable females, tricked out in the indecent tranfparencies of modern drefs, fetting at nought all precautions of health, and affuming a boldness and effrontery, totally inconfiftent with that unobtrusive modefty in which is comprised the greateft charm of female excellence; I must confefs

that