it, we cannot imagine; fince it has now very little puritanical gloom and ftiffness of which we can complain. It is, even among good Chriftian people, very different from the melancholy fabbath of "a Praife-God Pare bones"; and if we have not our Play and Opera-houses open on this day, the Vulgar continue, notwithstanding, to pass it without heavinels. As to a decent obfervance of Sunday, we are at a lofs to conceive how it can contribute to leffen the general reverence for religion, and im pede its progrefs: 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 fet 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 inftructed in its nature and importance, its duties and encitements. But this tendency would be greatly counteracted, by authorifing sports and revels after divine worship. Ebriety, which would often happen under every poffible regulation, cannot promote the moral application of a fermon. All abfurd rigour, all reftraint on cheerful converfation, and on healthful and fober exercife after the church fervice, may be expofed; but if a Sabbath is to be obferved, we think it should be with decency. This writer may be affured that the multitude will always be inclined to make it a jolly, rather than an holy, day.

How far Chriftians are ftrictly bound, by the Gospel, to obferve a Sabbath, is a queftion which we have not leisure to difcufs; but this we shall leave to theologians, whose business it is to come forward against this learned and fenfible, though, perhaps, in fome points miftaken, writer. We cannot, nevertheless, quit the fubject without hinting, that it might feem, that as the Sabbath is the only pofitive appointment in the Decalogue, it is one of fingular importance and utility, approaching perhaps to fomething like a moral duty; and that as the Author of Chriftianity laid down a maxim with a view to regulate its obfervance (The Sabbath was made for man), it is not unreasonable to prefume, that he defigned, that fome fort of Sabbath fhould be kept by his difciples. As, moreover, this inftitution is interwoven with the moral law delivered in the two tables on Mount Sinai, he must conclude his followers would obferve 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 fhould be ipent, it might be deemed prefumption in us to preferibe; but we apprehend, from the libertinifm obfervable

With respect to the ref which it enjoins for the labouring cattle, it has all the fitnefs and propriety of a moral duty.

among the common people of England, that if this writer's ideas were adopted, we should fee our English Sunday too much an HOLIDAY.

The extraordinary fcheme 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 licentioufnefs, appears to us wild, and romantic, to the laft degree. It might fuit Arcadia, or the Golden age; but it is not calculated for Great Britain, anno Domini 1789.

His obfervations at the beginning of his Letter, relative to the interpretation given by the author of the Thoughts to a parable or two in the Gofpels, and to the ftory 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 has made his remarks.

Moo-y.

To the PUBLIC.

It is with pleasure that we inform our Readers, that we are, at length, enabled to RESUME our Review of Publications relative to the feveral branches of the LAW, which hath been long interrupted by the tedious INDISPOSITION of one of our most respectable associates.

We shall 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 poffible accounts of the new LAW-BOOKS, as they iffue from the Prefs.

ARREAR ACCOUNT, No. I.

ART. XV. Reports of Cafes adjudged in the King's Bench from Hilary Term the 14th of Geo. III. 1774, to Trinity Term, the 18th Geo. III. 1778, both inclufive. By Henry Cowper, Efq. Barrifter at Law, of the Middle Temple. Folio. 11. 16s. bound. Brooke.

ART. XVI. Reports of Cafes relative to the Duty and Office of a Justice of the Peace, from Michaelmas Term 1776 inclufive, to Trinity Term 1785 inclufive. By Thomas Caldecott, of the Middle Temple, Efq. 4to. Vol. I. 8s. 6d. Boards. Vol. II. 10s. 6d. Boards. Uriel. 1789.

ART. XVII. Reports of Cafes argued and determined in the High Court of Chancery, beginning with Trinity Term 18 Geo. III. 1778, and ending with the Sitting after Trinity Term 25 Geo. III. 1785. By William Brown, of the Inner Temple, Efq. Barrier at Law. Folio.

R 3

Folio. 11. 8s. Brooke. 1785. Continued in 1786. 6s. 1787. 75. 1788. 75. 6d.

ART. XVIII. Reports of Cafes argued and determined in the Court of King's Bench, from Michaelmas Term 26 Geo. III. to Michaelmas Term 28 Geo. III. both inclufive. By Charles Durnford and Edward Hyde Eaft, of the Temple, Efqrs. Barristers at Law. Folio. Vol. I. 21. 7s. bound. Vol. II. 21. 2s. bound. Whieldon.

TH

HE reign of his prefent Majefty will, probably, be a remarkable æra in the Hiftory of English Law. No period of our annals has given rife to the difcuffion of more important points of conftitutional learning, or been more remarkable for interefting decifions on matters of private right. It is to be lamented, that we have not yet been fupplied with a well executed hiftory of the Parliamentary proceedings and debates of the prefent 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 occafion to mention the Reports of Sir James Burrow. They were fucceeded, in order of publication, by the reports of Sir William Blackftone. Thefe contain an account of cafes determined in the Court of King's Bench, from the 20th to the 24th year of his late Majefty; and from the 30th of his late Majefty to the 10th of his prefent Majefty;-and an account of cafes determined in the Common Pleas from the 11th to the 20th year of the prefent reign. For a further account, fee Rev. vol. lxvii. p. 1.

The next Reports, in order of publication, are those of Mr. Douglas: which begin with the 19th and end with the 21ft of his prefent Majefty. No reports have been received by the profeffion more favourably than thefe. They do great honour to the judgment, fkill, and profeffional learning of the author; and the value of the work is confiderably enhanced by the very accurate and important obfervations, which the author has occafionally inferted in it by way of notes. We fincerely hope the learned gentleman will favour the Public with a continuation of his Reports. He must be fenfible that it is the univerfal wifh of the profeffion. For a further account, fee Rev. vol. lxix. p. 318.

Mr. Cowper's Reports begin with the 14th, and end with the 18th, of his prefent Majefty. The cafes contained in them, appear to have been taken with great accuracy. Mr. Durnford and Mr. Eaft commenced their publication with the cafes determined in Michaelmas term 1786; from which time they have continued them to the prefent, much to the fatisfaction 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, befide the Reports which we have noticed, published Reports of fettlement cafes, 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. Thefe are the principal reporters of the cafes determined during the prefent reign, in the courts of law.

It is impoffible for the reader to perufe this important series of judicial determinations, without feeling great refpect for the noble perfonage who, during this very long period, prefided in the court of King's Bench. The extent and fublimity of his underftanding, and the charms of his eloquence, are univerfally acknowleged. His punctuality in the discharge of his high office, his difpatch of bufinefs, his affability, and his readiness to accommodate the fuitors of the court, have never been denied.A multitude of points of legal learning have been fettled by his decifions; several important cafes on real property; the whole fyftem of the poor-laws; and a great part of the doctrine of infurance, reft folely on his determinations; and their general propriety has not been questioned. But whether he poffeffed that profound and extenfive knowlege of the law of England, for which Lord Coke, Lord Vaughan, Lord Hale, Lord Holt (and we may fay, his predeceffors in general), have been defervedly famous, may, perhaps, be called in queftion. He has been generally accufed of treating precedents with too little refpect, and making the court of King's Bench a court of equity. Even the ftyle of his oratory has not escaped animadverfion. It has been faid, that his mode of speaking was often defultory, that his fentences were often ungrammatical, and his expreffions often low. But his defects have been univerfally confidered to bear no proportion to his excellencies. It feems to be admitted, that, in knowlege, he was equalled by few of his profeffional contemporaries; and that in eloquence, he was furpaffed by none.In ftating a cafe,-in difcriminating it from cafes of a fimilar impreffion,-in divefting 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 confideration. To his praife, it may be added, that, amid the fury of contending factions (to which no one was more expofed), 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 confult our General Index to the first feventy volumes of the Monthly Review.

K 4

a specimen

a fpecimen of his manner of thinking on judicial fubjects, and delivering his fentiments on them, we prefent the reader, from Mr. Cowper's Reports, with his argument, in giving his opinion, in the cafe of Jackfon and Hogan.

By the Roman law, a will conftituted the hares or heir, and was the appointment of him. He was the fame perfon as in our law is termed the executor. But the nomination of an heir was fo effential an ingredient of the Roman teftament, that there could be no complete will without him; and from his name and office, he was confidered, at the death of the teftator, as univerfal fucceffor to all the goods, rights, and property of the deceased, without any regard or diftinction as to property acquired by him, prior or fubfequent to the time of making his will.

But that is different from the nature of a devife of land by the law of England, which formerly admitted of no teftamentary difpofition, in cafes of real property. This reftriction took place upon the introduction of military tenures, and was a branch of the feodal doctrine of non-alienation without the confent of the Lord. when the rigour of the restriction came by degrees to be relaxed, But tenants were permitted to make difpofitions by teftament, a devife of Jands operated as an appointment to uses, in nature of a legal conveyance. As fuch, the courts of law in the construction of them held, that a devife affecting lands could operate only upon fuch real eftates 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 should acquire in future.

Another diftinction, founded upon the notion that a will affecting lands is merely a fpecies of conveyance, and derived from the fame fource, is this. The law of England, in the conveyance of real eflates, requires words of limitation in the donation or grant, to the creation of a fee. Without the word heirs, general or fpecial, no man can create a fee at common law by conveyance. When wills, therefore, were introduced, and devifes of real property began to prevail, being confidered as a fpecies of conveyance, they were to be governed by the fame rule. Therefore, by analogy to that rule, in the conftruction of devifes, if there be no words of limitation added, nor words of perpetuity annexed, which have been held tantamount, fo as to denote the intention of the teftator to convey the inheritance to the devifee, he can only take an eftate for life. For inftance, if a teftator by will fays, I give my lands, or fuch and fuch lands to A; if no words of limitation are added, A has only an eftate for life.

Generally speaking, no common perfon has the smallest idea of any difference between giving a perfon a horfe and any quantity of land. Common fenfe alone would never teach a man the difference; but the diftinction which is now clearly established, is this: If the words of the teftator denote only a defcription of the specific eftate or lands devifed; in that cafe, if no words of limitation are added, the devifee has only an estate for life. quantum of intereft or property that the teftator has in the lands deBut, if the words denote the viled; there, the whole extent of fuch his intereft paffes by the gift to the devifee. The queftion, therefore, is always a question of construction