fhould be as cautious of rendering himself too cheap in the eyes of the public, as a new Beauty, of being too commonly feen in the Mall. But, after all, what parent does not behold his own children with more favourable regard than others view them? Milton is faid to have preferred his Paradife Regained to that immortal poem which but to name with the fupplemental production, would be to difgrace it. Inftances of the fame fort are, indeed, fo common, that we need not wonder if the ingenious Author of All in the wrong, and the Way to keep him, fhould be no more ashamed of his Citizen than Sir Jasper* was of his girl. Before we take leave of this lively Writer, we must fo far affume the cenforial character, as to give him a friendly caution, against a fault, in regard to which, we are perfuaded, his good fenfe will never fuffer him to incur a fecond admonition: he is not, in general, an unchafte Writer; and any man may be liable to an escape.-In this Farce, he has unwarily fuffered his pretty Mifs Maria, in the height of her levity, to utter an exclamation which certainly approaches too near the borders of prophaneness: LORD OF HEAVEN! is, furely, an expreffion too folemn, too awful, for the trivial occafion on which it is introduced, in this ludicrous fcene! One of the Characters in this Farce. Art. 26. The Discovery. A Comedy. As it is performed at the Sentimental and moral in the conduct, eafy and correct † in the language, various and entertaining in the characters: the greatest fault we obferve throughout the whole, is the length and languor of fome of the scenes, which almoft deviate into preaching. The luxuriances, however, might be easily pruned without prejudice to any of the branches; as, indeed, hath been judicioufly done, in the representation. Mrs. Sheridan: whofe husband performed a principal part in this play. + Some have objected to the word either (which ftands in the place of neither, p. 57.) as an Irishism; but we rather suppose it an error of the prefs, However either of them are Juperfluous. We do not remember bow it was spoken. Art. 27. An A&t before the first Act of the Tragedy of Elvira. By Contains a fhort ftate of the cafe, with relation to a claim made by Richard Franklin, printer, on Mr. Mallet, on account of the copyright of fome tracts which are inferted in the works of the late Lord Bolingbroke, published by Mr. Mallet, and which were originally printed by Mr. Franklin.-We remember to have feen a state of this ca e fome years ago; why it is now re-published, under the foregoing fingular title, is not difficult to guefs. Revenge is fweet to revengeful minds. Mr. Mallet's play of Elvira has called forth all his own and all his country's enemies. "'Tis a bad play," fays one; "the Author is a Scotch6 inan," man," fays another; "then damn him," cry out half a million at once: aye aye, damn him" fays Mr. F-, " damn him for not ftanding to his agreement with me."--and indeed, fuch a breach of honour as Mr. M. is here charged with, feems to be really a worse thing than writing an indifferent tragedy, or even than being a Scotchman." i. SINGLE SERMONS. HE Work of a Gafpel Minifter recommended to confideration Tbeing 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. 2. The univerfal Concern of Saints in Communion at the Ordination of the Rev. Mr. Waiter Richards to the paftoral office, and of several 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 severe 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 Inftitution before the Univerfity of Oxford, at St. Mary's. By John Bilftone, M. A. Chaplain of All Soul's College. Rivington. The Letter figned a Confiftent Proteftant, earneftly expatiating on the fevere treatment Mr. A. has met with, for writing against the Pentateuch, cannot be inferted in the Review. We disapprove all such prosecutions as much as our worthy Correfpondent does; but we think he expreffes his abhorrence of them too strongly for the present Times. We highly esteem the honeft warmth and benevolence of his difpofition; and therefore we cordially advise him to be very cautious what criticifms 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 Publisher, and will be re-delivered to the perfon who brought it. THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For MARCH, 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 a fettled and regular form: for the materials of Jurifprudence have Jain fo wide and confused, 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 induftrioufly 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, muft 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, feemed to promife 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 Author 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 feems 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 use of the public. With respect to the general divifions, they differ little from Vyner's and other abridgments: as to the fubdivifions, indeed, the analytis 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 be 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 rules 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 Gownsmen should have the care of our purfes. . 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 Abridginents. As practical Law is extremely dry and unentertaining to any but the Profeffors, our Readers, we are persuaded, will not expect that we should 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 those, 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 itfelf is a fubaivifion of the general heads of Baron and Feme; that is, in plain Englifh, Hufband 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 answer 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 féntence, that A do marry B, without a fentence 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 flat. 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 stat. 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 husband 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 uni. verfal Impotence; as if he be an Eunuch. Or, for a perpetual Impotence previous to the marriage quead 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 fhall be legitimate; for the N 2 firit |