fenate is a confiftory of kings, whofe appearance fills alf fpectators with awe and reverence." • Pyrrhus renewed the war with vigour; but, finding the Roman fortitude unconquerable, withdrew his troops from Italy, and left his allies to be fubdued by the enemy.' On this event our author makes the following very judicious reflections : The patriots (fays he) of the prefent day have distinguished themselves chiefly by a zeal to depress the spirit of the nation, to depreciate its fuccefs, to aggravate its misfortunes, and to fpread terror and difmay.-How different was the conduct of the Roman patriots!' He then illuftrates his comparison, by relating the conduct of the brave Scipio after the battle of Cannæ, and his animated speech to Cæcilius and his defponding companions; the refult of which, as he very fenfibly obferves, was, that in a little time after, Hannibal was forced to abandon his conquefts, and Carthage at laft to fue for peace. After enforcing his argument, by reviewing the fituation of the Dutch when their territories were invaded by Lewis XIV. and the conduc of the prefent king of Pruffia when oppreffed on every fide, he remarks, that, By examples like thefe, a brave people may learn not to defpond in adverfity, but to have recourfe to that fortitude and vigour, which (under Heaven) will generally furmount the greateft difficulties. Happy (fays he) would be the effect of our public dangers, the perfidy of our enemies, and the unfaithfulness of our allies, if they produced a clofer union among ourselves, more vigour and aclivity, and a warmer zeal for our country. This is the proper ufe of national misfortunes. Defpondence and diftrüft only render them more deftru&tive.' In the fubfequent part of this addrefs, our author gives his opinion with great freedom, and, in general, with good judg ment and difcretion, of affociations and public affemblies of the people. As what he fays on this subject is well worthy the attention of every candid and impartial friend to his country, we fhall fubmit the following paffages to the confideration of our readers: To affemble the people, and to make their judgment and determination of public queftions final, may, at first view, appear friendly to liberty: yet, whoever confiders the arts by which popular affemblies are managed, how liable they are to impofition, how much influenced by addrefs and declamation, and the difficulty, delay, and diforder, of obtaining the fenfe of of a nation by appealing to individuals, especially in an empire of any extent, will pronounce fuch a fcheme to be vifionary; or tending to faction and anarchy. In a free state, (to use the words of an excellent writer *) every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be in fome measure his own governor, and therefore a branch at least of the legislative power should refide in the whole body of the people. And this power, when the territories of a ftate are fmall, and its citizens easily known, fhould be exercised by the people in their aggregate or collective capacity, as was wifely ordained in the petty republics of Greece, and the first rudiments of the Roman state. • But this will be highly inconvenient when the public territory is extended to any confiderable degree, and the number of citizens is increased.-In fo large a ftate as our's, therefore, it is wifely contrived, that the people should do that by their reprefentatives which it is impracticable to perform in perfon; reprefentatives chosen by a number of minute and separate diftricts, wherein all the voters are, or eafily may be, diftinguished. Such is the admirable provision of our conftitution for the fecurity of public liberty: and can any man doubt whether this is a fafer and better method of afcertaining the fenfe of the people, than by the crude decifions of tumultuary affemblies ? Such conventions, fummoned by popular leaders, will generally confift of a party, disposed implicitly to affent to the refolutions prepared for them, and recommended by a few inflammatory declaimers. Free debate and deliberate difcuffion cannot be expected in such assemblies; the multitude will accordingly be expofed to deception, and made the inftruments of faction. -Or, fhould men who are lovers of their country endea vour to stem the torrent, they will contend with every disadvantage in affemblies called together by the heads of the faction, composed of their dependents and adherents, and prepared to confider and adopt fuch resolutions only as their leaders may please to propofe.-Or, fhould they purfue the fame method of convoking the people and addreffing them on public measures; what a scene of contention and confufion must neceffarily enfue! Committee would be opposed to committee, affociation to affociation, county to county, or a congrefs perhaps to parliament. It is idle then in oppofition to tell us that their scheme is not attended with danger. It must subject the nation to vioJent contests; or the people must speak the language which they and their affociates may be pleased to dictate. • Let us not be deceived by a mask of patriotism, and a pretended appeal to the people. Is it confiftent with freedom of determination and the order of society, that peers and powerful commoners should awe and influence popular affemblies, by their prefence and inflammatory addreffes, into an approbation of petitions addreffed to themselves as members of the legiflative body? Is it a fair method of collecting the fenfe of the people, when fuch partizans apply to the interefts of their dependants, and employ their engines through the country to folicit a concurrence in their measures? Can the dignity and authority of parliament be preserved, when its members countenance and prefide in committees formed to dictate measures to the legislature, and awe it into fubmiffion by the dread of popular refentment? Such affemblies, according to the doctrine of their advocates, will be, in effect, vefted with fupreme authority; and parliament will be made the mere echo of their refolves. For whatever may hereafter come recommended and enforced by the grand confederacy, will want only the forms of law; and a committee man, or a member of a county congrefs, will be better able to inform us what measures and plans of reformation will be adopted, than our ordinary and conftitutional reprefentatives." Did the nature of our work, and the limits within which we are obliged to confine ourselves, permit us, we should gladly lay before our readers fome larger extracts from this fenfible and fpirited addrefs, which, though the croakers, the growlers, and democratic leaders will not admire it, is written in a nervous and animated ftyle, and contains many excellent reflections well adapted to the prefent pofture of public affairs, together with some very useful and falutary admonitions, that deferve our most serious confideration. To this Addrefs are fubjoined two Odes, one on the Miferies of Diffenfion and Civil War; the other called the True Patriot, and infcribed to Lord Cornwallis, and Admiral Rodney. These are by no means capital performances, being too diffuse and allegorical; though fome parts of them are not void of poetical merit, as our readers will fee by the following stanza extracted from the first: ‹ -O thou, beneath whofe genial ray Sweet Peace! return;-our wounds domestic heal, Infufing Pity's balm, and love attemper'd zeal! Thy Thy bleft return brown Industry invokes, Ás o'er the plains the fword and fpade he wields, Robb'd of the scanty gleanings of his fields. Then drops a tear, fweet Peace! for thy return." Thefe lines are eafy and harmonious: we wish however to meet this author, for the future, rather in the humble vale of profe than in the exalted regions of Parnaffus. An Effay on the Population of England, from the Revolution to the prefent. Time. With an Appendix, containing Remarks on the Account of the Population, Trade, and Refources of the Kingdom, in Mr. Eden's Letters to Lord Carlifle. By Richard Price, D.D. F. R. S. 1. 6d. Cadell. ΤΗ HIS Effay was published in the fummer of the year 1779, at the end of Mr. Morgan's treatise on the Doctrine of Annuities and Affurances on Lives and Survivorships. Mr. Eden hav ing, in his fifth letter to Lord Carlisle, made several objections, Dr. Price now offers it to the public in a separate tract, with an Appendix containing a reply to that gentleman's ob jections. At the end of the Appendix are added a few obfervations on Mr. Eden's account of the trade and refources of this kingdom. I feel myself deeply impreffed with a conviction of the importance of thefe obfervations; but, at the fame time, I know that I may poffibly be under the influence of thofe undue byaffes to which Mr. Eden afcribes the apprehenfions which many now entertain of the public danger. I therefore refer all I have faid to the candid attention of those who may chufe to confider it, wifhing them to pay no more regard to it than the evidence which will be laid before them fhall render unavoidable.' This, it must be acknowleged, is at leaft a modeft declaration from a man who has been fo long converfant with calculations of this nature, and who has thence imbibed the strongest conviction of the truth of his pofitions. It would ill become us to decide on such a subject as this, were it even poffible for us in a fhort space of time, to become as intimately acquainted with the matter in debate as the two eminent perfons concerned in the conteft; our duty being only to ftate fome of the principal facts laid down by our author, with an account of the manner and contents of his book. The The effay commences with accounts of the number of houfes in London and Middlesex, at different periods, with obfervations. Hence it appears, that the number of houses in London, Westminster, Southwark, and all Middlefex, in the year 1757, was 87614, and in the year 1777, it was 90570; fo that, after making fome neceffary allowances, our author concludes there must have been an increase within the last twenty years of ten thousand substantial houses in and about London; a number that falls little fhort of the whole number of houses in Liverpool and Manchester. On this increafe, our author adds this reflection; The increase of buildings in London has for feveral years been the object of general obfervation. It deferves particular notice that it is derived entirely from the increase of luxury; an evil which, while it flatters, never fails to destroy. It has been fhewn from authentic accounts, that the decrease of the lower people in London and Middlesex has kept pace with the increase of buildings. The annual deaths alfo in the Bills of Mortality have for many years been decreafing, and are now near 6,000 per annum lefs than they were fifty years ago. In particular; it is obfervable with respect to that part of London which lies within the city walls, that, though always filled with houses, the births and burials, and, confequently, the inhabitants, have decreased one half.-The just account of this must be, that those who cannot now fatisfy themselves without whole houses, or per. haps two or three houses to live in, used formerly to be fatisfied with lodgings, or with parts of houses. The number of houfes in London, Westminster, and all Middlesex, in 1690, was 111,215, according to Dr. Davenant's account from the Hearth-books. I will only further obferve concerning the preceding accounts, that they demonftrate that the number of inhabitants in London has been greatly over-rated. They have been fometimes eftimated at a million. In an Effay on the State of London, on population, &c. in the Treatife on Reverfionary Payments, I offered evidence, which I thought little fhort of demonftration, to prove that they fell fhort of 651,000, But it now appears, that, allowing fix to a house, and including the whole county of Middlefex, their number in 1777 was only 543,420.❜ Tables are then fubjoined of a great number of towns, all fhewing that the average allowance of fix perfons to a house, is too great; and thence it is inferred that the real number of people in London and Middlefex cannot exceed half a million, We next find accounts of the number of houses in England and Wales at different periods, with obfervations; from which it is inferred, that, 6 First, the first of these accounts makes the number of houses in England and Wales in 1777 to be 952,734. Let it, however, be |