man," fays another; "then damn him," cry out half a million at once s aye aye, "damn him" fays Mr. F," damn him for not ftanding to bis agreement with me."-and indeed, fuch a breach of honour as Mr. M. is here charged with, feems to be really a worfe thing than writing an indifferent tragedy, or even than being a Scotchman.'

I.

"T

SINGLE SERMONS.

HE Work of a Gospel Minifier recommended to confiderationbeing the fubftance of a charge at the Ordination of the Rev. Meffrs. John Gill, James Larwill, Ifaac Gould, Bonner Stone, and Walter Richards. By John Gill, D. D. Keith.

z. The univerful Concern of Saints in Communion-at the Ordination of the Rev. Mr. Walter Richards to the paftoral office, and of feveral perfons to the office of Deacons; at the Meeting near Devonshirefquare. By Benjamin Wallin. Buckland.

3. The Wisdom of being religious at St. Thomas's, Jan. 1, 1763, for the benefit of the Charity-fchool in Gravel-lane, Southwark. By Samuel Morton Savage. Buckland.

4. On the words, Give me neither poverty nor riches, &c. on occafion of the late fevere season, and the generous collections for the Poor :-at St. James's, Clerkenwell, St. Giles's, and St. Andrew, Holborn. By Mr. Sellon. Flexney.

5. Before the Society for the Reformation of Manners, January 30, 1763, at the Chapel in Weft-ftreet, Seven Dials. By John Wesley, M. A. late Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Flexney, &c.

6. The Ignorance of the Jewish Church, as to the Intent of their Infiitution-before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's. By John Bilftone, M. A. Chaplain of All Soul's College. Rivington.

*

*The Letter figned a Confiftent Proteftant, earnestly expatiating on the fevere treatment Mr. A. has met with, for writing against the Pentateuch, cannot be inferted in the Review. We difapprove all fuch profecutions as much as our worthy Correfpondent does; but we think he expreffes his abhorrence of them too ftrongly for the prefent Times. We highly esteem the honeft warmth and benevolence of his difpofition; and therefore we cordially advise him to be very cautious what criticifims he may publicly offer, on this delicate fubject, as he may poffibly be reviewed by a too powerful Hypercritic.-His Letter is left with our Publifher, and will be re-delivered to the perfon who brought it.

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For

MARC H, 1763.

A Digeft of the Laws of England. By the Right Hon. Sir John Comyns, Knt. late Lord Chief Baron of his Majefty's Court of Exchequer. Folio. 11. 7 s. fewed. Knapton, &c.

HE Law of England, that Rudis indigeftaque Moles, has

fettled and regular form: for the materials of Jurifprudence have lain fo wide and confufed, that few men of genius have been able to fubmit to the drudgery of collecting the fcattered fragments. Undertakings of this kind have generally been executed by plodding Compilers, who have induftriously travelled from folio to folio, and returned laden with a farrago of juridical lumber; which they have diftributed as chance, or their own dull fancy, directed; and, by fuch means, have formed a kind of literary patchwork, not unlike an Harlequin's. jacket, or a Jofeph's coat, of many colours.

The title of the work before us, therefore, must have raised high expectations in those who are engaged in the ftudy of Jurifprudence. A digeft of the Law by a learned and able Judge, seemed to promise that, which has fo long remained among the Defiderata of the profeffion. But, alas! it is not always that men of knowlege are happy in the faculty of communicating that knowlege for the benefit of others and many who are very apt to learn, are, nevertheless, very unfit to teach.

From the high character which our Authar bore, both as an Advocate and a Judge, we may fafely prefume that the works published fince his death, were never, by him, intended for the VOL. XXVIII.

N

prefs,

prefs, in the form wherein they have been presented to the public. The Reports which bear his name, do no credit to his memory, and appear to be crude and imperfect collections, made only for his own private ufe. The fame may, in fome degree, be faid of the volume before us, which seems rather to have been defigned as a kind of common-place book, to affift the Author in his ftudies, than as a compleat Digeft intended for the ufe of the public.

With respect to the general divifions, they differ little from Vyner's and other abridgments: as to the fubdivifions, indeed, the analyfis is, in many inftances, entirely new. But the cafes referred to, are fo briefly stated, that they are little more than notes or memorandums, or quafi Dicta Sapientum; and it requires no inconfiderable degree of previous knowlege, to be able to extract the learning they comprize.

To make a Digeft of general ufe, we apprehend that, the term defcriptive of each general divifion, fhould be first clearly defined. 2. The rules and principles of Law relative to each head, fhould he laid down with precifion and perfpicuity. 3. The reafons of thofe principles fhould be explained. 4. Thofe reafons fhould be illuftrated by examples, or adjudged cafes. 5. The exceptions to the general ruies fhould be ftated in the laft place.

Perhaps, however, it may be thought more beneficial to the Profeffors, that the fcience fhould remain perplexed and confufed, in order that the Gentlemen of the long robe may be well paid for clearing the rubbish: Et multis utile Chaos. Were the Law fo plain, that he that runs might read, it might be thought productive of many inconveniences. It is pretended by fome, that in the Law, as well as the Gospel, the grand Arcana fhould not lie open to the apprehenfion of the vulgar: and as the Clergy have, time immemorial, been entrusted with the cure of our fouls, it is but fit that their brother Gownfmen fhould have the care of our purses.

But, amoto Ludo, though this Digeft is, by no means, what might have been expected from the reputation of the Author, yet we are very far from condemning it as wholly ufelefs and it is but juft to acknowlege, that, in fome articles, it is more full and fatisfactory, than many of our voluminous AbridgAs practical Law is extremely dry and unentertaining to any but the Profeffors, our Readers, we are perfuaded, will not expect that we fhould epitomize this huge folio; the following fpecimen, therefore, may fuffice to give a general idea of the work and we the rather felect it, as it is one of thofe, which, in our judgment, is moft accurately divided. Add to this, that it relates to a fubject which does, or may, concern our Readers

Readers of both fexes; namely DIVORCE, which is treated of as a fubdivifion of Marriage, and which itself is a fubdivifion of the general heads of Baron and Feme; that is, in plain English, Husband and Wife.

DIVORCE.

A VINCULO MATRIMONII.

"A Divorce is a Vinculo Matrimonii, or a Menfa & Thoro.

A Divorce will be a Vinculo, when the husband or wife was pre-contracted to another; and a Divorce for pre-contract may be made without fummoning any to anfwer in the fpiritual Court, except the Parties to the precontract as if A be contracted to B, and afterwards marry C, the Divorce may be by a libel by B against A, without process against C.

So a Divorce is well made by a sentence, that A do marry B, without a sentence to declare the marriage void between A and C.

But by the ftat. 32 H. 8. 38. All marriages in England, folemnized in the face of the Church, and confummated, &c. shall be valid, notwithstanding any precontract of both or either Party not confummated.-But this claufe was repealed by the ftat. 2 and 3 Ed. 6. 23. and not revived by the stat. 1 El. 1.

So by the ftat. 33 H. 8. 6. In Ireland. But it being repealed in Ireland, by the ftat. 3 and 4 Ph. and M. nothing was revived by the ftat. 2 El. 1. there, except what concerns the degrees of Confanguinity.

So, if a Marriage be diffolved by a fentence upon a precontract, the man and former wife are not compleat hufband and wife, till the marriage be folemnized.

So, a Divorce, Caufa Confanguinitatis, aut Affinitatis, is a Vinculo, though it were for fpiritual affinity, when that was allowed.

By the Law of the Hebrews, there was no Divorce for inceft; for the marriage was null.

So a Divorce, Caufa Impotentiæ, will be a Vinculo.

A Divorce for Impotence, or Frigidity, may be upon an univerfal Impotence; as if he be an Eunuch.

Or, for a perpetual Impotence previous to the marriage quoad banc, be it natural or accidental.

If there be a Divorce upon evidence, which fhews a perpetual Impotence quoad hanc, and the hufband afterwards marries, and has iffue by another wife, the iffue fhal! be legitimate; for the

N 2

firft

first sentence shall be in force till repealed, and the second marriage good, unless it be diffolved in the life of the Parties, and a man may be habilis & inhabilis diverfis temporibus.

So, if the woman afterwards marry, and she and her fecond husband levy a fine, and then the former husband by a fecond wife has iflue, the fine shall not be stayed.

So, if the hufband bring trefpals pro uxore abducta cum bonis viri, and pending the action, the husband and wife are divorced caufa Impotentia, the action does not abate; for it is founded upon the poffeffion, and ne unques accouple is no plea.

So, a Divorce propter Metum,

Or, propter Sevitiam.

A Divorce for Severity is grounded upon the Law of Nature. And it will be a caufe for it, if the husband ftrip his wife of her apparel, and other neceffaries.

But a Divorce for Severity, is not a Vinculo, but a feparation « Menfa & Thoro only.

And a fubfequent marriage, after fuch Divorce, is not lawful.

A MENSA & THORO.

A Divorce Caufa Adulterii, will be a Menfa & Thoro only. For fuch a Divorce arifes upon a caufe fubfequent, not antecedent to the marriage.

So, a Divorce, Caufa Profeffionis, does not baftardize the

iffue.

And, therefore, if a man, after a Divorce a Menfa & Thoro, marry another woman, the fecond marriage is void.

If the hufband releases a legacy, given to the wife during the Divorce, it will be discharged.

But if the hufband fells a term, for years, which he has in right of his wife, Equity will grant an Injunction.

How a DIVORCE fhall be OBTAINED.

A Divorce cannot be profecuted after the death of the parties. So, a marriage cannot be drawn in queftion, upon any collateral furmize, after the death of the parties; and if it be, a prohibition goes.

So, a Divorce by fentence, in the life of the parties, cannot be re-examined after the death of the parties.

So,