« PreviousContinue »
it, we cannot imagine ; fince it has now very little puritanical gloom and stiffness of which we can complain. It is, even among good Chriftian people, very different from the melancholy sabbath of " a Praise-God Pare bones”; and if we have not our Play and Opera-houses open on this day, the Vulgar continue, notwithftanding, to pass it without heaviness. As to a decent observance of Sunday, we are at a loss to conceive how it can contribute to lefsen the general reverence for religion, and im. pede its progress: we have been accustomed to attribute to it the contrary effect. Admitting it to have no Divine authority, there is a propriety, as this author allows, in having a day let apart for the public worfhip of the Deity; and we apprehend that the repetition of divine worship must have a tendency to recall the wandering attention of the vulgar to religion, and afford them a frequent opportunity of being instructed in its nature and importance, its duties and encitements. But ibis tendency would be greatly counteracted, by authorising sports and revels after divine worship. Ebriety, which would often happen under every possible regulation, cannot promote the moral application of a sermon. All absurd rigour, all reftraiot on cheerful conversation, and on healthful and sober exercise after the church service, may be exposed; but if a Sabbath is to be observed, we think it should be with decency. This writer may be assured that the multicude will always be inclined to make it a jolly, rather than an holy, day.
How far Christians are strictly bound, by the Gospel, to observe a Sabbath, is a question which we have not leisure to discuss; but this we shall leave to theologians, whose bufiness it is to come forward againit this learned and sensible, though, perhaps, in fome poinis mistaken, writer. We cannot, nevertheless, quit the fubject without hinting, that it might stem, that as the Sabbath is the only positive appoiotment in the Decalogue, it is one of fingular importance and utility, approaching perhaps to something like a moral duty *; and ebat as the Author of Christianity laid down a maxim with a view to regulate its observance (The Sabbath was made for man), it is not unreasonable to preluine, that he designed, that some sort of Sabbath should be kept by his disciples. As, moreover, this institution is interwoven with the moral law delivered in the two tables on Mount Sinai, he must conclude his followers would observe it without a prohibitory injunction, which there is no intimation of their ever having received.
In what particular manner the vacant hours of the Sabbath should be ipent, it might be deemed presumption in us to preferibe; but we apprehend, from the libertinism observable
With respect to the resi which it enjoins for the labouring cattle, is has all the finess and propriety of a moral duty. 17
among the common people of England, that if this writer's ideas were adopted, we should see our English Sunday too much an HOLIDAY.
The extraordinary scheme which he recommends (for the particulars of which we must refer to his book) to the author of the Thoughts to adopt for Sunday entertainments, in order to yield much pleasure without licentiousness, appears to us wild, and romantic, to the last degree. It might fuit Arcadia, or the Golden age ; but it is not calculated for Great Britain, anno Domini 1789.
His observations at the beginning of his Letter, relative to the interpretation given by the author of the Thoughts to a parable or two in the Gospels, and to the story of Ananias and Sapphira, are juft; and we hope they will be properly attended to in the next edition of the much-read pamphlet, on which this writer bas made his remarks.
To the PUBLIC. It is with pleasure that we inform our Readers, that we are, at length, enabled 10 RESUME our Review of Publications relative to the several branches of the Law, which hath been long interrupted by the tedious indISPOSITION of one of our most respectable associates.
We mall now enter on the payment of our arrears in this department, which we hope to complete in the course of another month or two: after which, we intend to proceed, regularly, with the earliest possible accounts of the vew Law-Books, as they isue from the Press.
ARREAR ACCOUNT, No. I. Art.XV. Reports of Cafes adjudged in the King's Bench from Hilary
Term the 14th of Geo. lll. 1774, to Trinity Term, the 18th Geo. III. 1778, both inclusive. By Henry Cowper, Esq. Barsister at Law, of the Middle Temple. Folio, il. 16s. bound,
Brooke. ART. XVI. Reports of Cases relative to the Duty and Office of a Justice
of the Peace, from Michaelmas Term 1776 inclusive, to Trinity Term 1785 inclusive. By Thomas Caldecott, of the Middle Temple, Esq. 4to. Vol. I. 85. 6d. Boards. Vol. II. 108. 6d.
Boards. Uriel, 1789. Art. XVII. Reports of Cafes argued and determined in the High Court
of Chuncıry, beginning with Trinity Term 18 Geo. III. 1778, and ending with the Sitting after Trinity Term 25 Geo. III. 1765. By William Brown, of the Inner Temple, Esq. Barrister at Law. R 3
Polio. l. 88. Brooke. 1785. Continued in 1786. 6s. 1787.
78. 1788. 73. 6d. Art. XVIII. Reports of Cases argued and determined in the Court of
King's Bench, from Michaelmas Term 26 Geo. III. to Michaelmas Term 28 Geo. III. both inclusive. By Charles Durnford and Edward Hyde East, of the Temple, Esqrs. Barristers at Law. Folio. Vol. I. 21. 7s. bound. Vol. II. 21. 2s. bound. Whieldon. НЕ reign of his present Majesty will, probably, be a rea
markable æra in the History of English Law. No period of our annals has given rise to the discuffion of more important points of constitutional learning, or been more remarkable for interesting decisions on matters of private right. It is to be lamented, that' we have not yet been supplied with a well executed history of the Parliamentary proceedings and debates of the present reign. But the law reporters of our times leave us little to regret, in the accounts which they profess to give, of the proceedings of out courts of justice.
In a former Review, we have had occasion to mention the Reports of Sir James Burrow. They were succeeded, in order of publication, by the reports of Sir William Blackstone. These contain an account of cases determined in the Court of King's Bench, from the 20th to the 24th year of his late Majesty ; and from the 30th of bis late Majesty to the 10th of his present Majesty ;-and an account of cases determined in the Common Pleas from the nth to the 20th year of the present reign. For a further account, see Rev, vol. Ixvii. p. I.
The next Reports, in order of publication, are those of Mr. Douglas: which begin with the 19th and end with the 21st of his present Majefty. No reports have been received by the profession more favourably than there. They do great bonour to the judgment, skill, and professional learning of the author; and the value of the work is confiderably enhanced by the very accurate and important observations, which the author has occasionally inserted in it by way of notes. We fino cerely hope the learned gentleman will favour the Public with a continuation of his Reports. He must be sensible that it is the universal with of the profeffion. For a further account, see Rev. vol. lxix. p. 318.
Mr. Cowper's Reports begin with the 14th, and end with the 18th, of his present Majesty. The cases contained in them, appear to bave been taken with great accuracy,
Mr. Durnford and Mr. Eaft commenced their publication with the cases determined in Michaelmas term 1786; from which time they have continued them to the present, much to the satisfaction of the Public, and to their own credit. We understand that they are generally known in the profeffion by the appellation of the Term Reports.
Sir James Burrow, beside the Reports which we have noticed, published Reports of settlement cases, from the time of the death of Lord Raymond in 1732, to the year 1776*
From that time, to Trinity term 1785, they have been continued by Mr. Caldecott, in two volumes of reports, which bear great marks of attention and accuracy.
There are the principal reporters of the cases determined during the prefent reign, in the courts of law.
It is impoflible for the reader to petuse this important series of judicial determinations, without feeling great respect for the noble personage who, during this very long period, presided in the court of King's Bench. The extent and sublimity of his underftanding, and the charms of bis eloquence, are universally acknowleged. His punctuality in the discharge of his high office, bis dispatch of business, his affability, and his readiness to accommodate the suitors of the court, have never been denied. A multitude of points of legal learning have been settled by his decisions ; several important cases on real property, the whole system of the poor-laws; and a great part of the doctrine of insurance, reft solely on his determinations; and their general propriety has not been questioned. But whether he possessed that profound and extensive knowlege of the law of England, for which Lord Coke, Lord Vaughan, Lord Hale, Lord Holt (and we may fay, his predecessors in general), have been deservedly famous, may, perhaps, be called in question. He has been generally accused of treating precedents with too little respect, and making the court of King's Bench a court of equity. Even the style of his oratory has not escaped animadversion. It has been said, that his mode of speaking was often desultory, that his sentences were often ungrammatical, and his expressions often low. But his defects bave been universally considered to bear no proportion to his excellencies. It seems to be admitted, that, in knowlege, he was equalled by few of his profeffional contemporaries;- and that in eloquence, he was surpassed by none. In stating a case, in discriminating it from cases of a fimila impresion,-in divesting it of all extraneous matter,--in prefenting it to the attention of his hearers, reasoning with their understandings on it, and convincing them, without appearing to argue, it may be questioned if he ever had his equal. Such is the impreffion given of his judicial merits and abilities by the Reports now under consideration. To his praise, it may be added, that, amid the fury of contending factions (to which no one was more exposed), neither his general abilities, nor his integrity in his judicial capacity, were ever called in question. -As
See Rev. vols. xxxv. xlvi. and lxv.; or consult our General Ladex to the fire seventy volumes of the Monthly Review.
a specimen of his manner of thinking on judicial subjects, and delivering his sentiments on them, we present the reader, from Mr. Cowper's Reports, with his argument, in giving bis opinion, in the case of Jackson and Hogan.
. By the Roman law, a will constituted the bæręs or heir, and was the appointment of him. He was the same person as in our law is termed the executor. But the nomination of an heir was so effential an ingredient of the Roman testament, that there could be no complete will without him; and from his name and office, he was considered, at the death of the testator, as universal successor to all the goods, rights, and property of the deceased, without any ree gard or diflinction as to property acquired by him, prior or subsequent to the time of making his will.
• But that is different from the nature of a devise of land by the law of England, which formerly admitted of no testamentary disposition, in cases of real property. This restriction took place upon the introduction of military tenures, and was a branch of the feodal doctrine of non-alienation without the consent of the Lord. But when the rigour of the restriction came by degrees to be relaxed, tenants were permitted to make dispositions by teftament, a devise of lands operated as an appointment to uses, in nature of a legal conveyance. As such, the courts of law in the construction of them held, that a devise affecting lands could operate only upon such real estates as the teftator had at the time of executing and publishing his will, and not upon any after purchased or acquired lands: because there could be no legal conveyance at common law of what a man lhould acquire in future.
* Another distinction, founded upon the notion that a will affecting lands is merely a species of conveyance, and derived from the fame source, is this. The law of England, in the conveyance of real estates, requires words of limitation in the donation or grant, to the creation of a fee. Without the word heirs, general or special, no man can create a fee at common law by conveyance. When wills, therefore, were introduced, and devises of real property began to prevail, being considered as a species of conveyance, they were to be governed by the fame rule. Therefore, by analogy to that rule, in the construction of devises, if there be no words of limitation added, nor words of perpetuity annexed, which have been held tantamount, so as to denote the intention of the testator to convey the inheritance to the devisee, he can only take an estate for life. For instance, if a teftator by will says, I give my lands, or such and such lands to A; if no words of limication are added, A has only an estate for life.
• Generally speaking, no common person has the smallest idea of any difference between giving a person a horse and any quantity of Jand. Common sense alone would never teach a man the difference ; but the distinction which is now clearly established, is this: If the words of the teftator denote only a description of the specific eflate or Lunds devised ; in that case, if no words of limitation are added, the devisee has only an estate for life. But, if the words denote the quantum of interest or property that the ceftator has in the lands deviled; there, the whole excent of such his interest passes by the gift to the devisee. The question, therefore, is always a question of cor