the fame Baron, which he is faid to have used 28 Edw. I anno 1300.

[To be concluded in our next.]

H.

ART. III A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Rochester, in the Year 1779. By John Law, D. D. Archdeacon of Rochefter. 4to. Is. Payne, &c.

I

T is an unequivocal proof of the progrefs of a liberal spirit, in the prefent times, that fo many of our clergy adopt, and have the courage openly to avow, the principles of univerfal toleration. There are, we are perfuaded, not a few refpectable names among this Reverend body, who, with the judicious and candid Author of this Charge, have not oppofed the late meafures for the extenfion of religious liberty, merely from a deference to legislative authority, but from a conviction that these indulgences were juftly granted:' and who affure themselves, that this liberal, tolerating difpofition, will fecure to them the public eftcem, instead of subjecting them to the groundless charge of inattention to the cause of genuine chriftianity.'

It is the intention of this Charge, to vindicate the equity and propriety of the late acts of the legislature, in favour of Proteftant Diffenters and Roman Catholics.

Dr. Law, at the fame time that he acknowledges the neceffity of rigorous measures with refpect to the Roman Catholics at the beginning of the Reformation, when the revival of perfecution, and the deftruction of civil liberty, would have been the probable confequences of indulgence, judges it perfectly reafonable, that the feverity of the laws against them should be relaxed, when the political dangers arifing from Popery are removed. "Let a diftinction (fays he) be always obferved between the political and religious tenets of a party, and where they are not fo neceffarily joined, as to prove hoftile or dangerous to a state, the toleration of the latter is furely warranted by every rule of diftributive juftice and general benevolence. Nor, if experience is to be our guide, need we fear any great political inconveniences from the allowance of the Romish worship, fince we find that this has been long admitted, without any apparent ill confequences, among the zealous Proteftants in Hol

land and America.'

With respect to Proteftant Diffenters, Dr. Law pleads for them, both on the ground of equity and gratitude. As the happy restoration of civil liberty at the Revolution had been effected by the joint efforts of the members of the Church of England, and of those who diffented from it, was it not fit, independently of other arguments, that as each party had been equally zealous in the recovery of legal rights, each fhould be equally intitled to every privilege compatible with the fecurity 3

of

of the ftate? And, as it is well known, that no privileges are more highly efteemed, than thofe which relate to the exercife of religion, had not the Diffenters a claim, from gratitude, to be indulged in a liberal toleration of their modes of religious worfhip.'

To the objection, that withdrawing fubfcription to articles of faith, is removing the ftrongest barrier against falfe doctrines, herefy, and schifm, our Author makes this manly and judicious reply:

However a fubscription to our articles of religion might feem, in theory, an adequate mean to prevent the rife and incurfions of error, and to guard the boundaries of religious truth, yet, in fact, neither of thefe ends was anfwered by it. The non-fubfcribing teacher was indeed fubject to heavy penalties for his wilful contempt and difobedience; but fo unreafonable did it appear to inflict these penalties upon him, that fearcely an inftance can be heard, of late, of their being put in force; and if the diffenting minifters and fchool-mafters had not publicly complained of cruelty, in being fubject to fuch heavy punishments, it is more than probable that the very fubfcription required from them would have been unknown to the generality of their own perfuafion, as well as to thofe within our pale. Whenever, then, a law ceafes to operate to its intended defign, whether from the general difapprobation of it, or from its fuppofed inexpedience, there cannot, I think, be any great hazard in repealing it; efpecially, if a part of the community folicit its reverfal, and the part wifhing its continuance admit that they have regularly declined to carry it into execution. If laws are not obferved, and we think it prudent not to enforce them, to what purpose are they retained? For, in general, it may be obferved, and particularly on this occafion, that nothing tends more effectually to abate the reverence due to our laws, than the formal maintenance of fuch of them, as, from a change of circumftances, are not only allowed, but even wifhed, to be tranfgreffed with impunity.Admitting then, that the Diffenters differ from us in fome points which we deem effential, yet have they not heretofore as freely propagated their heterodox opinions, whilft exposed to the terrors of the law, as they poffibly can in future, when exempted from them? And if no mifchief has enfued from an utter relaxation of legal coercion, can more be apprehended from the removal of it? Truth wants not for its defence the fanction of pains and penalties, but may be confidently trufted to its own efficacy.'

From this frank acknowledgment of the rights of toleration," we cannot help entertaining an expectation, that the fame liberal principles will lead our Author to question, what he feems at

I 3

prefent

prefent inclined to maintain, the neceffity of fubfcription to particular articles of faith in the established church, and of Teft Acts, to exclude Diffenters from places of civil truft. For there feems no reason to expect, that fubfcriptions will be more efficacious to prevent the rife and incurfions of error, and guard the boundaries of truth, or to preferve the common people from being distracted by a variety of opinions,' within the pale of the church, than without it; and there appears to be a manifeft injustice, in excluding peaceable and useful members of fociety from places of truft in the government which they contribute to fupport, on account of opinions or practices which are not inimical to the state.

ART. IV. Military Memoirs of Great Britain: or, A Hiftory of the War 1755-1763, with elegant Copper-plates. By David Ramfay. 8vo. Edinburgh, printed for the Author. 1779.

TH

HIS volume contains an account of the principal events that occurred during the courfe of the laft war, collected, as the Author informs us, from the Gazettes, published by both nations moft of the periodical publications-Smollet's Hiftory of England- -Entick's Hiftory of the late War

-Molyneux's Conjunct Expeditions--Lloyd's History of the German War 1756 and 1757-Orme's Military_Tranfactions of the British Nations in Indoftan-Annual Regifter, &c. &c.' The work will ferve to give a general idea of the transactions of that bufy period, in a manner that may prove fatisfactory to those who do not defire to inveftigate matters with a fcrupulous degree of attention; but it will not, we imagine, be equally acceptable to those who wish to penetrate the fecrets of the cabinet, or to fee the characters of the principal actors in these events, pourtrayed in lively and difcriminating colours. In the firft department, we meet with little more than a fuccinct recital of the oftenfible motives for action, that have been made public by the feveral actors themselves, or their partizans; and in the laft, a few touches of general praise or difapprobation, which are not fo appropriated as to conftitute a particular likenefs. The narrative is in general concife, and the ftyle unembarraffed, though not entirely free from provincial idiomatic phrases. But in fome cafes, the Author affumes a fort of enigmatic myfterioufnefs, which must be confidered as a very material blemish in a work chiefly calculated for the ufe of thote only who want to be informed, not puzzled.

As a fpecimen of the work, we select the following account of the ftate of parties in the British court, in the year 1757.

• As

As the politics of this period were complicated and myfterious, it will be neceffary, in order to form an idea of them, to delineate the characters of the different parties who laid claim to the direction of ftate affairs. They confifted of three different factions. The firft, highly refpectable as to rank and fortune, poffeffed of a confiderable fhare of parliamentary intereft, and the greatest fway with the monied people, was composed of those who had grown into place and power under the old miniftry. Their adulation, and courtly complaifance, had likewife rendered them greatly respected by the king; but in fome very material points their weakness was confpicuous; they were deficient in popularity, and their political abilities were but indifferent.The fecond faction, though fuperior in point of abilities, was poffeffed of lefs parliamentary intereft, and much more unpopular than the firft. They derived their power from their influence at one court *, by means of a then powerful_connection; but which only tended to make them less respected with the other court, and even added to their unpopularity.-The third party had little influence in parliament, and lefs at court; but they poffeffed, in the highest degree, the confidence and fupport of the people. The thining abilities of their leader, and his fteady adherence to an upright, difinterefted conduct, claimed veneration, even from his opponents.-Thefe factions differed extremely in the general fcheme of politics. The two first agreed in opinion, that the increafing power of France was much to be dreaded; that it was abfolutely neceffary to maintain a balance of power; and that this was to be done chiefly, by keeping up a close connection with the powers of the continent, by efpoufing their quarrels, and even affifting them with troops if required. This furnished an argument for a standing army; and though they thought the navy should by no means be neglected, yet it only ought to be employed in fubferviency to the continental fyftem. In their opinions of conftitutional liberty they were likewife fingular. Though they pretended to be ftaunch friends to the liberties of the people, yet, as government must be supported, they looked upon it as juftifiable to fecure a majority in Parliament, by creating many lucrative places and em

Can any thing be more ridiculous than this air of mysterious fecrecy in a work evidently calculated for the young and ignoranc only? How many, among fuch readers, will be puzzled to discover who were the principal perfons meant to be included in each of thefe factions,-which would have been entirely cleared up by naming, as is ufual, the parties from their leaders-Newcastle, Bute, and Pitt. Or could any harm have arifen from mentioning, in plain terms, the court of the Prince of Wales,-although an apology would perhaps have been unneceffary for applying the term COURT in this inilance.

I 4

ployments

ployments at the difpofal of the crown; alleging, as a palliation of this mode of ruling, that the particular form of our government, and the general depravity of mankind, rendered any other lefs excep-. tionable method impracticable.

The third, and popular party, was actuated by principles of a different nature. They viewed, indeed, the increafing power of France, in the fame light with the two former, and. acquiefced in the neceffity of fetting bounds to it; but they differed widely in the means to be used for that purpofe. They were for making the military operations of Great Britain entirely fubfervient to our naval ftrength, as a more natural, fafer, and lefs expenfive plan of politics. Our fituation as an island, said they, points out to us a conduct different from that of other nations. The fea is our natural element, and to quit that, and involve ourselves in continental quarrels, is acting diame trically oppofite to our real interefts. The fuperiority of France lies entirely on the continent, and the attacking her on that fide would be evidently dangerous, and like (to ufe a strong, though vulgar expreffion) taking a bull by the horn. Our government, they faid, flood in no need of fupport from a standing army, which was ever dangerous to freedom; and that a well trained militia would prove our beft protection against an invafion. From a higher notion of human nature, they judged it poffible to influence the minds of men by nobler motives than that of interest. A minifter who governs uprightly, will never be opposed by the people.'

Our Author feems really, and honeftly, to think that Mr. Pitt was in very deed what he pretended to be, and to believe, in good earnest, that the British Parliament were actually fincere and unanimous in the character they all agreed to give of that great man after his death. If fo, Mr. R. is certainly ill quali fied to develope the intrigues of the cabinet. The miniftry, before Mr. Pitt's adminiftration, were weak enough, in truth; but we never heard that they were fo exceedingly weak, as to avow the principles we have diftinguished by italics, although there is no doubt that both they, and Mr. Pitt, and every adminiftration fince, and before them, for half a century paft, have privately adopted thofe principles, and purfued that mode of conduct. Mr. Pitt had abilities fufficient to perfuade the nation, at large, that his opponents were actuated by motives which their own imbecility hardly enabled them to discover, and to make them believe, that he alone was poffeffed of fome excellent qualities, to which no other politician could, with justice, lay claim. A well-informed hiftorian would do juftice to his abilities-although he would often find occafion to condemn him in other refpects.-But the time is not, perhaps, yet come, for an impartial hiftory of that period.

Mr.