of

His

a British Houfe of Commons are known; and they are known not to be what Lord Archibald Hamilton chufes to maintain that they are. Lordship talks of "a capricious exclufion," and "an unwife appointment," on the part of the Crown, but feems to have no notion of an interested rejection or a factious opposition in the Houfe of Commons. Two trifling objec tions to other parts of his statement we fhall take leave to fuggeft, for his information. He takes it for granted that if the House of Commons perfifted in refusing fupport to the minifter, and the King perfevered in retaining fuch minifter, anarchy muft enfue. In his depreciation of the Regal authority, and in his elevation of the democratic authority, he seems totally to have loft fight of the King's power of diffolving his parliament; which is generally a fovereign remedy for the evil which his Lordship fuggefts. As to his curious claim for the House of Commons of a virtual participation of the right of chufing the minifters of the Crown, we would ask him how that right could be exercifed, if a change of minifters were to take place, when there was no Houfe of Commons in existence, that is, after a diffolution, and before the meeting of a new parliament? and, farther, whether, as the constitutional eligibility of men is made to confift in the fupport of a party in ths Houfe of Commons, it would be neceffary for the minifters appointed at fuch a period to have a party in the old House, which has been annihilated; or in the new House, which is not yet in being? The researches into which a ferious attention to these questions, and the reflections that would naturally arife out of it, would lead his Lordship, would, we are perfuaded, be of infinite use to him, in his polítical progrefs through life. And, in order to correct his crude notions and mistaken conceptions of a constitution of which he talks a great deal but evidently knows very little, we would advise him to read Mr. Reeves's "Thoughts on the English Government," and fome of the Elementary Treatifes on the English Law.

The limits of a Review will not allow us to extend our remarks to other objectionable points of this very weak, and very ftupid production. The author is evidently very angry with Mr. Pitt for having acted, as every good and faithful fubject would have acted, under fimilar circumstances; and he reproaches him for not having refused to come into power without Mr. Fox, and for not having told the King a flagrant falshood, namely, that an adherence to his determination of not admitting Mr. Fox into his cabinet, "muft, of neceffity, be maintained in oppofition to the wishes of the public, the interefts of the country, and, in defiance of the Houfe of Commons." The clamours and the fneers of fuch a writer, Mr. Pitt will, undoubtedly, treat with equal contempt; confcious of having difcharged his duty to his 'king and country, he will alike despise the malignant infinuations of selfconceited impotence; and the more daring machinations of difappointed ambition.

We cannot difmifs thefe thoughts without adding that their tendency, though certainly not the intention of their author, is to degrade the dignity of the regal character, and to weaken kingly power, by affigning an illegal preponderance to the democratic part of the conftitution. It is this that has induced us to pay more attention to the pamphlet before us, than the weakness of the compofition could poffibly claim; for, as an eminent judge mot justly observed," As every Englishman has an interest in our conftitution, fo it is every one's duty to defend it when attacked,"

Letter

Letter to Lord Archibald Hamilton, on the Occasion of his late Pamphlet, in which the fatal Consequences of the King's melancholy State of Health are particularly considered. 8vo. Pr.52. 2s. Harding. 1804.

THE writer of this letter approves of Lord A. H.'s " Thoughts" for the very reason for which we difapprove of them; and cenfures his Lordship for an omiffion which, if defigned, entitled him, in our estimation, to praife. He fays, "the principles you lay down I admit to be conftitutional, and the doctrines you inculcate to be thofe ufually maintained by the Whig party." The former we deny, but the latter we admit. And he then cenfures his Lordship, with a fneer at his "Public Spirit," for not entering into a discussion of his Majefty's illnefs, with a view to thew its influence in political events; a difcuffion into which no man of common feeling or delicacy, no man who entertains juft fentiments of loyalty and refpect for his Sovereign, could prevail on himself to enter, without the ftimulus which im perious neceffity could alone fupply. It is needlefs for us to follow the author through his various and vague reflections on this melancholy fubject, which certainly display inconteftible proofs of ability, together with a malignity of mind and purpose veiled beneath an hypocritical profeffion of candour, fince, by his own confeffion, the difcuffion has become ufelefs:"The exercife of the royal prerogative, in matters of life and death, would, perhaps, form the most convincing proof that could be given to the public, of the re-establishment of his Majefty's health;"-that proof has been given, and the author's anxiety, therefore, we hope, is at an end. As to the parliamentary precautions which he recommends, we concur with him in lamenting that they were not adopted long ago; and we have little doubt but that when the rage of party fhall have fomewhat fubfided, and the dread of attack from the enemy have ceased, the minifters will call the attention of the legislature to that important fubject.

While the writer of this letter accufes the nobleman to whom it is addressed of a want of candour, he deals largely himself in the most uncandid, and groundless infinuations. His attack, alike fcurrilous and falfe, upon the Chancellor, whofe character stands too high to be affected by the impotent, blows of fuch puny affailants, marks the fecret calumniator; while the jefuitical compliment to an illuftrious perfonage, paid at the expence of candour and of truth, befpeaks the unblufhing parafite. The weight, the delicacy, and the correctness of his affertions may be fairly estimated by the following pallage: "The public fee, with alarm and apprehenfion, that the prefent minister has excluded from power every perfon of weight in. the county but himfelf; and, feeing this, they tremble left a still more important exclufion, if it ever thould become his object, fhould be found within his reach." With what propriety the minifter can be faid to have excluded from power thevery perfons whom he folicited to accept it; but who rejected alike his folicitations, and the invitation of their Sovereign, we leave that public to decide. As to the infinuation at the clofe of the fentence, it is fo bafe and infamous, that it muft extort the reprobation of every honeft man.

Letter to Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. on the Folly, the Indecency, and the Dangerous Tendency of his Public Conduct. By the Rev. Edward Hankin, M. D. 8vo. Pr. 58. 25. London, Rivingtons, St. Paul's Church Yard; Faulder, New Bond Street, &c. 1804.

IN this able and well-written pamphlet, Dr. Hankin, with the gravity and dignity of a clergyman, and with the honeft zeal of a fincere patriot reprehends Sir Francis Burdett, for having, particularly in the Houfe of Commons, on the 18th of July, 1803, and at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, on the 29th of the fame month, grofsly abused the freedom of parliamentary debate, uttered a libel on the character of his Sovereign, and acted in a manner that had an exprefs tendency to excite the people to withdraw their allegiance from their King, to refufe their confidence to the two Houles of Parliament, and to proceed, in fact, to all the licence and guilt of fedition, treason, and rebellion. We would, gladly, and in huma nity, recommend the falutary leffons which this piece affords to the serious confideration of Sir Francis himself, if he be capable of admitting that it is poffible for him to be in the wrong, or of aiming for himself, perfonally, at moral or political improvement. But, if this be a loft hope, we fhould, at leaft, with the letter to be carefully perufed by all the electors, and all the members of parliament, with whom this hopeful knight-baronet is likely to have intercourfe in matters of public bufinefs!

POETRY,o de

ไ

The Powers of Genius, a Poem, in Three Parts. By Folin Blair Linn, A, M. Small 8vo. Pr. 156. 5s. Plates. Williams. 1804,

IT appears that this gentleman is a native of America. It is a painful

vourite purfuit. We feel, however, the lefs reluctance on the present occafion, from the confidence which the author feems to have in his own powers.

We hardly ever read fo many verfes put together with fo few inftances cf fpirit, the profe (for according to the cftom of the day, this poem is accompanied with notes) is much more poetical than the verse. We were at fome lofs, at firft, to find the caufe of that monotony which fo fatigued us in reading, but on inveftigation we difcovered what we do not recollect to have found in any other poem whatever, that the paufe, almost without exception, through the whole work, falls after the fifth or the fourth fyllable, as in the firft couplet:

Say what is genius?-words can ne'er define
That power which fprings-from origin divine.

The firft inftance of a different arrangement, except in one Alexandrine, occurs at v. 37:

Forth at her magic call-the scene appears.

This the future attention of the author may remedy, but to infufe in his poem, the Powers of Genius, which he fings, will not be so easy.

The

The following couplet infulated (for it has the fame pauses) we should cite with pleasure, were it not for the very improper epithet given to the the Danish Prince, who the poet exprefsly fays was not a foldier.

When Hamlet's ghoft, the bell then beating one,

Stalks pale and fullen by his warlike fon.

But the admirers of Shakespeare will hardly thank Mr. Lian for the following travesty of a beautiful paffage:

Genius finds fpeech in trees, the running brook

To her speaks language, like a favorite book.

As a proof of the author's felf-opinion, as well as an example of his ftyle, we felect this paffage from his defign, as he terms it :-"The author Jball not fupplicate the candour or indulgence of any individual in favour of his poem. He is willing that it should stand or fall by its folitary merit." He would have confulted his literary reputation more had he followed the advice he puts into his friend's mouth in the following lines, we can hardly call them verfes :-

21

Before you read, methinks I hear you say,
"My friend is toiling in his ufual way;

The Powers of Genius-there my friend beware,

I fear your fate-like Phaton you may fare."

There is not a boy at one of our great schools who would not be flogged for writing Phaeton for Phaeton, it is not only an error in pronunciation, it fhews an ignorance of the derivation of the name.

We have one thing more only to notice, in a note on the Earl of Chatham's death, p. 63. Mr L'.s partiality to his native country has induced him to mifreprefent the immediate caute of it moft grofsly. He fays,

The Earl of Chatham laft appeared in the House of Lords the 2d of April, 1778. He was then ill and debilitated. He spoke in favour of a motion of the Duke of Richmond, for an address to his Majefty to difmifs his Minifters, and make peace with America." The fact is exactly the reverfe. Lord Chatham had always been decidedly adverfe to the American war, and the cause of it, but he got up to oppose the motion of the Duke of Richmond, for acknowledging the independence of America, with all the thunder of his eloquence, when the ftroke of death filenced it for ever.

MISCELLANIES.

The Volunteer's Guide; or, Complete Military Instructor in the Drill, Manual, and Platoon Exercises; with various necessary Directions for Marching, IVb eling, &c. embellished with Twenty-six Engravings, neatly cut in Wood, in which every Motion of a Soldier under Arms is exemplified. By an Officer of the Third Regiment of Loyal London Volunteers. 24mo. PP. 64. 1s. 6d. Vernor and Hood. 1803.

'O announce this publication is all that can be expected from a Critic, who understands neither drill, manual, nor platoon exercises.

The Impolicy and Impiety of Sunday Drill considered. 24mo. Pr. 24. 3d. Ogle. 1804.

WE fo far agree with the writer of this little Tract, as to be decidedly of opinion, that nothing short of necessity can poflibly juftify such a breach of the fabbath as that which he here so ftrongly dep.ecates; and we farther concur with him in opinion, that they who truft folely to the efforts of men for their delivery from threatened deftruction, or who utterly defpife the notion that God may interfere for the punishment of a finful nation, must be entirely ignorant of Scriptural Hiftory, and entertain very imperfect ideas of Divine juftice and wrath. At the fame time we muft obferve, that, if we were to neglect any of thofe means of prefervation and defence with which God has provided us, we fhould neglect a very material part of our duty, and even be guilty of ingratitude to our Creator, in acting as if the bleffings which he has beftowed on us were not worth the trouble of preferving. To afcribe all things to fecond causes, instead of afcribing them to God, is undoubtedly a great error; but is it not alfo a great error to impute every worldly occcurrence to God's fpecial interference, without any regard to the immediate agents that produce them? We know, indeed, that not a fparrow can fall without the permission of God; but are we, on that account, to impute the lofs of the battle of Marengo, or the murder of the Duke D'Enghien, to God's interpofition? If so, what blame can a Chriftian attach to the perpetrator of that atrocious deed?Indeed, our author appears to be confiftent on this point, for he feverely cenfures all thofe who have the prefumption to hold up Buonaparté, as a monfter of iniquity, to the reprobation of mankind. That he may be an inftrument in the hands of Providence, for the punishment of the wicked, we are not difpofed to contest; but we must submit to the imputation of blindness, for we certainly do not fee any authority which the author has for the following affertion:" For JEHOVAH faith of Cyrus (or of Bonaparte), be is my shepherd, and shall do all my pleasure." The mole is not fo blind as he who perceives not this! That it is faid of Cyrus we know ; but that it is faid of Buonaparte also, we certainly are fo blind as not to per ceive, and fhall continue to doubt the fact until we have the authority of a prophet for its truth.

That the contempt of religious duties has rendered France what the now is, is a melancholy truth not to be contested; and that fimilar crimes will produce fimilar effects in other countries; it is very natural to fuppofe.

Already," fays the author, "does the capital of our own country begin to wear this ftrumpet-face, so that many of those denominated the Great,

When a writer quotes Scripture, he fhould quote it correctly. This paffage is cited as from Isaiah, c. 46, v. 11; whereas it is from c. 44, v. 28; and the author, too, has taken the liberty of altering a word of the original, by fubftituting do for perform. In the fame page he quotes the following paffage, "calling a ravenous bird from the East, and creating the waster to destroy," from Ifaiah, we fuppofe; but the paffage c. 46, v. 11, "Calling a ravenous bird from the Eaft, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country." Such liberties are highly unwarrantable.

runs thus

at