prefence," where no manner of proof is taken, you ought to give him a day-By way of confifcation, or attainder, you give time, but as to Removal from counfels," you need give none."

While this debate was depending, a letter was brought to the Speaker from the Duke of Buckingham, who defired to be heard before the House of Commons, with regard to fome complaints against him; and a chair being fet for him on the left-hand of the bar, he spoke in his own juftification. Being withdrawn,. the House fell into the following debate on his fpeech, and we may perceive, that the Speakers on this occafion pushed their arguments to as great lengths as intemperate zeal could carry

them.

"Sir Thomas Clarges.] The Duke told you, "He had no hand in the French alliance," and at the fame time, that "he would have no fhips, but towns:" averfe from the war, and yet would have towns and no fhips! When he told you, " he was not for breaking the Triple alliance;" a thing of great honour! but for putting moft of the towns into the French hands, it was one of the elegancies of fpeech, which men call a Bull.-" Would have leave to fell his place."He has under the fignet two thoufand four hundred pounds a year, in com penfation of what he has given for the place of Mafter of the Horse; and yet he affirms," he has nothing from the Crown." The method we take is by common fame here; the wifest Parlia ments have taken it before us. Henry the fourth, in the cafe of the Abbot of his Confeffor, removed him for no other reafon but for not being loved by the people, though the King know nothing against him--Many more have been removed at the inftance of the Commons-Would not have a hair of his head touched; but a learned Judge (Atkins) faid here, in Lord Clas rendon's cafe, about removing him, "Was he a young Gentleman, and came to town with money in his pocket, and gave it to a Gamefter to improve it for him by play, and he lost it, believes he should not put another bag into fuch unlucky hands to play for him." Would have the queftion, "That he is not a man fit to be about the King." Whom will you impute your grievances to? No man will fay, to the King; but if fuch a man's crimes must be alleviated, he is for the King and the Commonwealth.-Would, perhaps, move you, that no Member for the future, whilft Parliaments fit, fhould have the temptation of offices.-Moves for the fingle queftion, as before."

From the language of thefe Debates, we may conclude, that the ftyle of oppofition is, at all times, nearly the fame; and

K 2

that

that exuberance of zeal is ever an enemy to truth, candour, and common fense.

It is true, indeed, that the King may appoint his own Servants; yet, at the fame time it must be allowed, that fuch of his Servants as act in a ministerial capacity, are no less Servants of the Public than of the Sovereign. Therefore, though he is intrusted with the appointment of them, yet if they become obnoxious to the people by their mal-adminiftration, or, if their private characters are fo immoral and flagitious, as to give room for apprehending danger from their adminiftration, in fuch case, however the Sovereign may be perfonally attached to them, yet it would be unreasonable and unjuft in him to support them in office, against the general sense of his people.

But though we admit this, nevertheless, if an outcry is made against a Minifter, by the artifice of party, and they who raise it are incapable of alledging any facts to juftify their prejudices, it does not follow, that his Sovereign, who knows nothing against him, is under any obligation to difmifs him from the public fervice. It would be fomething ftrangely abfurd and capricious, if the people were allowed to make objections against a Minifter, in the fame manner as a criminal may challenge a Juryman. We have heard a story of a prisoner who, with an air of jocularity unfuitable to his fituation, objected against a Juryman, affigning no other caufe, than that, "He did not like his face." And the reasoning in the foregoing debates, seem to be founded on principles no lefs whimsical.

The next Debate, which our limits will allow us to take no'tice of, was occafioned by a petition from feveral Masters of fhips, who, with their Seamen, were preffed contrary to law. This was juftified by the Courtiers, and as ftrenuously oppofed by the Patriots.

"Mr. Sacheverell.] Preffing is not, by law; "taking by force," but upon hire."

"Mr. Attorney North.] The abufe is fit to be examined; he will only fpeak to the glance given at the law. It was never doubtful, but that the King, upon an actual invasion, might "prefs; but there is a difcretion in all things. Though the King may compel people, yet when they take prefs-money, they are within a capital law for running away.

Mr. Sawyer.] Will fay nothing to the "neceffity" of preffing men: the "legality" is only within his fphere; unless in "Peine forte et dure, knows no other fenfe in which the law ufes the word prefed;" but all statutes call it prest-money, and "impreft"

"impreft" is an Exchequer term: impreft account of money delivered out to any particular ufe; a Soldier or Captain that took fuch money is faid to be preffed, and Soldiers either for fea or land the law diftinguishes not. "Tenure" extends only to land fervices, as the Marches of Wales, or the Borders of Scotland. Whenever the King made war, he agreed with certain Captains, by indenture, for fo many men; in the Exchequer, there are multitudes of them, betwixt the King and the Cap-tains, the Captains and particular men. In the Exchequer Regifter-book, regifter 91. " Certificate, being contracted in Commitiva with the Admiral." It appears the fea affairs were under the fame contract with the land. 18 Henry 6, chap. 18. penalty there, after contract, if the Soldier fhall leave the Captain, or the Soldier be not paid by the Captain, feverely punished. Then in Henry the 7th's time, when they contracted with the King's Commiffioners, not the Captain, there is the penalty if they fhall depart; but now that the Captain fhould pay them is a mistake; they are not obliged to pay them, unless in cafe of invafion, as in 1588. The neceffity of the time may justify it. In a war, "without advice of Parliament," it is a volunit.—In tary thing, and that voluntary way of going to war, the law: prefcribes. They extend the ftatute of Henry 6 to the Marches of Wales, and Borders of Scotland. If the party will refufe, his "preffed money," he is not liable to any of thofe ftatutes. The power of the militia alters not the manner of doing it; that is no confequence to prefs and carry men beyond the feas. If an action be brought against a man about preffing, the necef-, fity excufes it in point of law; but who must judge of that neceffity?

"Mr. Sacheverell.] The ftatute of Charles I. for preffing men for Ireland, plainly tells you, the King has no fuch power, by the paffing that statute, but as especially given him."

These arguments afford a very clear and fatisfactory account, of the true origin and meaning of preffing: and we the rather take notice of what was urged by the Patriots of these days, as their fentiments, in fubftance, perfectly coincide with those which we have expreffed concerning this fubject in a former article*. Indeed we cannot but wonder how custom could ever have tolerated a practice fo flavish and inhuman, in a kingdom. which boasts of political Freedom as the principle of its constitution.

We must not omit taking notice of the following curious reAlections concerning Bribery and Corruption, which, though See Review for Auguft laft, page 144. K 3

then

then in their infancy, appear to have been well grown for their ftanding. In the courfe of the debate concerning the Duke of Lauderdale, Sir Nicholas Carew afferted, that five thousand guineas had been difperfed to procure an adjournment: which occafioned the ensuing propofitions.

"Colonel Strangways.] If Carew knows any Members that " have received thefe guineas, he should name them; and would have a teft upon us. If any man be fufpected of guineas or penfion, let him purge himself.

"Sir Thomas Lee.] Was told, that one Mafters of Lincoln's Inn, had reported, "That this feffion a Member had said, that he hoped to get five thousand guineas."

"Mr. Harwood.] Both Giver and Taker manage their bufinefs very ill, that will discover Giver or Taker. If any man's condition here be fo, that he cannot live without a falary, let him have it from the place that fends him. Here is common fame in the cafe, but fince the great men were talked of here, many thoufand guineas have been paid out in Lombard-street, which you may enquire into-Would have a test to acquit every Gentleman of any thing fo unworthy.

"Lord Cavendish.] Many are accused of being Penfioners to the Court, for giving money here, and from the States General for their interest."

The examination of this matter was referred to a Committee; where every artifice, no doubt, was employed to suppress the truth but, without farther comment, we leave every intelligent Reader to make his own obfervations and comparisons.

We cannot conclude this article without repeating our wish, that the Editor had taken greater liberty with his original: for the Reader will find from the extracts above given, that, for the want of due connection, and even of common grammatical correctness, many paffages are obfcure, and almost unintelligible, [To be continued in our next.]

R-d

Obfervations on Mr. Rouffeau's new Syftem of Education: With Some Remarks on the different Tranflations of that celebrated Work. In a Letter to a Friend. 8vo. 6d. Nicoll.

W

E could with the Writer of these Obfervations, inftead of confining his fuperficial remarks to the narrow limits of a fix-penny pamphlet, had undertaken a more profound investigation

investigation of the performance in queftion: a work that affords ample room for the exertion of critical abilities, as well as for the difplay of political and philofophical fagacity. Some abler hand, however, may probably engage in fo ufeful a defign; for fuch we cannot help thinking it; as we conceive it of fome importance to fociety, that many of thofe uncommon fentiments which Mr. Rouffeau hath lately obtruded on the world, fhould be confirmed or refuted, by men of lefs fingularity and more fober reasoning. The prefent Obferver does little more than endeavour to exculpate his Author, in general terms, from the charge of being wanting in a due respect to Religion and Government..

"That Mr. Rouffeau, fays he, does not treat the characters of either civil or ecclefiaftical Governors with the politeness of a Courtier, or the obfequioufnefs of a Sycophant, is very certain; neither doth he pay that diftant reverence to the Crown or the Mitre, as might be required from the cringing flave of a defpotic Prince, and an implicit Believer in the Church. For my part, however, I do not find that he advances any thing unbecoming the refpectful subject of an equitable fovereign, or a faithful believer in the rational tenets of true religion. And, how a Writer can be faid to undermine the foundations of civil Government, who takes fo much pains to investigate, and settle on a firm basis, thofe of fociety, appears to me more paradoxical than any thing I have met with in his book.

"If to explode the little arts, and mean refources, of partial and ill-founded adminiftrations, be conftrued into a defign to undermine the foundations of civil Government, we muft never expect to see politics reduced to a fcience; but, while the meaner concerns of life are duly arranged in order, and conducted with the utmost regularity, the government of mankind muft continue under the influence of adventitious refources, and the artificial management of local fhifts and temporary expedients."

The Letter-Writer proceeds next to expofe the weakness of the apology made for Mr. Rouffeau by Mr. N-, who has published the tranflation of Emilius, mentioned in the fubfequent article; pretending that his Author ftood in need of no apology for any thing he hath advanced in the Curate's Creed, the principal fource, however, of the reproach caft on his work. His reafon is, that Mr. Rouffeau exprefsly tells his Readers, that he therein propofes his doubts, and not his fentiments; adding, that no perfon of candour will charge a man with believing or maintaining propofitions which he lays down as dubious.