17. The Twelve Letters of Canana; or the Impropriety of peti tioning the King to diffolve the Parliament. 8vo. 15. R. Davis.

Mr. Canana tells us, that he has been extremely alert, and uncommonly fuccefsful, in proving the impropriety of the late petitions, and the unworthiness of those who promoted them; and it will, perhaps, fays he, fcarce be credited, but it is not the lefs true, that a perfon unfolicited, and to this hour unknown, has published thefe, merely from a love of justice, and from the feelings of humanity.'

We are forry that moft, or all, of thofe letters, having already appeared in print, do not properly fall within our review. As to the difinterestedness of Mr. Canana's loyalty, it has been prophetically foretold in Hudibras an hundred years ago:

For loyalty is still the fame

Whether it win or lofe the game;
True as the dial to the fun,

- Altho' it is not fhone upon.'

18. A First Letter to the Duke of Grafton. 8vo. Pr. 15, 6d. Fell.

There is a remarkable fimilarity of ftile between this letter, and that of the letters published in the public pa pers under the name of Junius; but a ftill greater fimilarity as to the matter and manner of handling the fubject. Neither writer, if they are different authors, pretend to proof or argumentation. The private amours of a great statef man, which have been acknowledged to the honour both of his candour and understanding, and were followed by the best of all reformations, are dragged into light as impeachments of his public character; and matters which neither king nor minifter could be concerned in, are dreffed up into Philippics against both, and fupported at the bottom of every page with quotations from thofe of Cicero against Marc Antony, From the manner of its being printed, and the evidences of its inaccuracy, we are tempted to think, that fome bookfeller has made free with the writing-defk of Junius.

19. The Free Briton's Supplemental Memorial to the Ele&ors of the Members of the British Parliament; wherein the Origin of Par liaments in Europe, and other interesting Masters, are confidered. 410. 15. 6d. Williams.

If we mistake not, we have already reviewed fome of this author's pieces*, and we cannot refufe him the encomium of being a fincere friend to liberty; and that the British nation is

* See vol. xxviii. p. 380.

highly indebted to him for the pains he has been at to illuftrate, from the Roman and other antient hiftories, the danger he is in at prefent.

20. The Question, (Whether the Right of the Elector hath been violated by the Rejection of Mr. Wilkes, and the Admission of Mr. Luttrel or not?) examined, in a Letter to John Brown, Esq. and its Negative proved, from the Nature of the Conftitution Bladon.

8vo. Is.

The reader in this publication will find many fenfible arguments for preferring the 296 votes in favour of colonel Luttrell, to the 1146 for Mr. Wilkes; for, fays he, it is not the number of votes, but the number of proper votes that in this cafe muft prevail on the comparifon. The reader will find feveral other very fhrewd obfervations advanced on the fame fide of the queftion by this writer, who fubfcribes himself Thomas Stevens,

21. The Decifive Trial; or the Proceedings in the Court of Common Senfe, in the great Cause between the Supporters of the Bill of Rights and the Petitioners of Middlefex, London, and Surry, Plaintiffs; and the prefent Adminiftration, Defendants. 8vo. Pr. Is. 6d. T. Payne.

This publication is not without its merit. The patrons of the petitions for a diffolution of parliament are fuppofed to be plantiffs, and the minifterial party, defendants. The judges are, lord chief juftice Reafon, lord chief baron Candour, and Mr. Juftice Right. Pleadings are heard on both fides, and the fum of what the plantiffs contend for is, that the prefent adminiftration is ignorant, corrupt, weak, inconfiftent, wicked, odious, detefted, tyrannical, oppreffive, contemptible, and dangerous. This charge is fupported with fome humour from the words of the petitions, till the court calls for Mr. Accufer-general, who is council for the plaintiffs, for his records, which he accordingly produces under the following title.

"A catalogue of many original, valuable, and authentic records, which have been collected at very great pains and expence, to prove the feveral charges of high crimes and misdemeanours against the prefent administration."

The Catalogue itself is briefly this;'

"The Daily Gazetteer,

"The Public Advertiser,
"The Public Ledger,
"The St. James's Chronicle,

The London Chronicle,

The

"The London Evening Post,

"Lloyd's Evening Poft,

"Baldwin's Weekly Journal,

"The Middlefex Journal, &c. &c. &c."

Together with fome hand-bills and papers not generally known, which have been printed for the benefit and inftruction of the good people of Great Britain, from the month of April 1768, to the present time inclufive."

The decifion of the court, after hearing both parties, is as follows.

It is the opinion of this court, that no part of the charge against the DEFENDANTS has been proved, by any argument or evidence, adduced by the PLANTIFFS; that the MATTER of the PETITIONS proves nothing against the DEFENDANTS; that the PRAYER of them is UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and that a groundles profecution, conducted with so much vehemence and acrimony, leaves an impreffion in favour of the DEFENDANTS, as it proves no more, than that they have enemies, who are become fo, from fome cause or motive, FOREIGN to their CHARACTER and PUBLIC CONDUCT.'

22. A Defence of the Proceedings of the House of Commons in the Middlefex Election. In which are confidered two late Pamphlets, viz. "The Sentiments of an English Freeholder on the late Decifion of the Middlefex Election,” And “ An Essay on the Middlefex Election." By the Author of the Anfer to the Quef tion flated. 4to. Pr. 25. 6d. Wilkie.

We have already reviewed the two pamphlets that have given rife to this publication*. A late decifion in an august affembly in favour of the fide which this writer espouses, we are afraid will no more be final in preventing heats both within and without doors than his arguments; though it must be acknowledged they are very conclufive, and contain full answers to the pamphlets he atracks. In reply to the author of the Sentiments the author lays down the following political principles as his parliamentery creed,

The law of parliament, founded upon the ufage of parliament, is under no constitutional controul, but that of the fupreme legislative power; and when declared in any particular inftance by a refolution of either house of parliament, is as binding upon every fubject, as any other branch of the law of the land, declared by any other court of judicature, in a cafe of which it has competent jurifdiction.

• See vol. xxviii. p. 362, & ibid. p. 455.

• The

• The judicature of the house of commons is without appeal, and without controul, in all matters that come within its jurisdiction, whether civil, or criminal, that is, in all matters of election, and over its own members as fuch. Whether it be fole and exclufive in the latter cafe, is of no confequence. I affert that its judgments in both cafes are dernier. It is very obliging in this gentleman to remind us, that the houfe of commons have no claim to infallibility; and that their decifions are still to be tried at the tribunal of reafon, natural justice, and common fenfe. So too he will allow, may the judgments of every court. So alfo may the acts of the whole legislature. But, I fancy, our author will be hard put to it, to find even the form of a writ of error, from the determination of the house of commons in either of the above cafes, or indeed in any cafe. If he fucceeds in this search, I will engage to find him, in return, writs of the fame kind, from judgments of the peers, in cafes of appeal, and even from acts of parliament. The legiflature may, doubtlefs, at any time, limit the jurifdiction of either house, or alter their rules of proceeding. Still however the judicature itself, till it is rendered otherwife by the fupreme authority, is, as I faid before, without appeal, and without con troul.'

This author next attacks the Essay on the Middlefex Election, who contends that the general power of expulfion, as claimed and exercised by the house, is inconfiftent with the known established conftitution of government in Great Britain.

I cannot fee, fays this author, that the power of expulfion is in any fenfe a power against the people. It is ftrictly a power of the whole body of the house against every particular member of it. The general exercife of this power is clearly in favour both of the people, and of the particular conftituents of the expelled member. The latter have thereby an opportunity, which they could not otherwife have, of electing a worthier reprefentative; and the people will reap the benefit of fuch a choice. The freeholders of Middlesex have indeed thrust themfelves into the present dispute, as a kind of feconds to their expelled member. They took up his caufe, and abetted his crimes. Nay, they have assumed to be judges, as well as parties in this conteft. But by what right do the freeholders of Middlesex call themselves the people of England? By what authority do the whole body of electors affume that name? They are not the thousandth part of the fubje&s of this realm. The conftitution has entrusted them with the power of electing what perfons they pleafe, qualified to be elected. Here their truft ends. Let them be satisfied with it. Let them discharge it as they ought. The conftitution has not left it to them to judge

who

who are thus qualified. It has entrusted this power, we think, in fafer hands. And we too, though perhaps neither freehol ders nor burgeffes, are of the people.'

Our bounds do not admit of following this elaborate and accurate writer through all the reasoning and arguments with which he supports the above opinion, and therefore we are obliged to refer the reader to the performance itself.

23. A Poftfcrift to the Essay on the Middlefex Election. 8vo. Pr. 6d. White.

Laft month we expreffed our approbation of the ingenious performance, to which we are now favoured with a postscripts by the fame hand.

Here the author unfolds more, at large, certain principles, which from the compreffed form they were delivered in, might be liable to mifreprefentation. New matter alfo feems to arise from a clofer difcuffion of his fubject, which gives birth to fome very pertinent diftinctions and ingenious illustrations.

With the Poftfcript is delivered a loose half fheet, containing the writer's reply to the author of a Defence of the Proceedings of the House of Commons. This we regard as the beft commentary upon certain paffages which have been misunderstood of the Ef fay on the power of expulfion; and shall therefore give it a place in our Review, in hopes of preferving it from the too common fate that awaits the best pieces carelessly written upon fugitive fcraps of paper.

To the Author of a Defence of the Proceedings of the House of
Commons, &c.

SIR,

Saturday, Jan. 6.

I laft night perufed your pamphlet, in which you fay, my Effay was put into your hands while you were writing, &c. Had not your thoughts been otherwife employed, you might poffibly have underflood what you read; for I cannot fufpect a gentleman of your rank to be capable of wilful mifreprefentation. When I am fpeaking of the authority of precedents, you misapprehend my meaning, or you would not have charged me with maintaining that the house of commons, as a judicature without appeal, ought not to be governed by precedents. I faid,

In the exercife of acknowledged powers, efpecially the judi cial, thefe are justly allowed the greatest authority." See rea fons for this, page 31. et fparfim. But that any body of men affuming a power, without drawing the attention of those whofe rights might be thereby affected, cannot, by fuch ufurpation,' gain a legal title to fuch power. The house of commons frequently applied by humble petition to queen Elizabeth, for the

release