of manners amongst us before our liberties can be fubverted? If we can only be flaves by felling ourselves, then muft our morals be more in fault than our government. It were devoutly to be wifhed that fuch regulation could be made, as to remove all temptations to corruption; in the mean time, we muft deem ourfelves peculiarly fortunate in a conftitution that fecures us from every thing but our own depravity. In fhort, if better eare be taken to check that luft of power fo natural to man, and if the means of redrefs remain much longer in our hands than in most other states, the fuperiority of our government will be manifeft. The axiom, that a conftitution formed out of the union of three others muft in its nature be imperfect, is by no means conclufive. This was the opinion of Tacitus, and it is, according to our judgment, fatisfactorily confuted by Blackstone*, who obferves, that although, in a Democracy, public virtue is more likely to be found; yet popular affemblies are frequently foolish in their contrivance, and weak in their execution;" (and, may we not add, are liable to be under the abfolute direction of a few interested individuals, who affume the garb of patriotifm?) "In Ariftocracies there is more wildom, but lefs honefty and lefs frength than in a Monarchy. A Monarchy is the most powerful of any, all the finews of government being knit together, and united in the hands of the prince; but then there is imminent danger of his employing that ftrength to improvident and opprefive purposes. The imperfections of each," he adds, "are happily avoided in our conftitution. The executive power being lodged in a fingle perfon, all the advantages of ftrength and dif patch are enjoyed and as the legislature of the kingdom is entrufted to three diftinct powers, actuated by different fprings, and attentive to different interefts, no inconvenience can be attempted by either of the three branches, but will be withftood by one of the other two; each branch being armed with a negative power, fufficient to repel any innovation which it fhall think inexpedient or dangerous, &c. &c." Mr. W. enumerates, with the warmeft approbation, the methods propofed, fome years ago, to render the Parliament more independent of the Crown. He then enquires into the ftate of patriotifm; the different parties that fubfift among us, the origin of Whigs and Tories, and the motives which influence the different denominations of men to incline toward monarchical or republican principles. Our Author next proceeds to give a circumftantial account of the land and fea forces of the kingdom. Under this head, he obferves the great caution which is taken by our laws against the bad effects of a ftanding army. He traces the origin of a na *Vol. i. p. 49. tional militia, the changes this eftablishment has undergone at different times, and ftates the laws by which it is now regulated. He juftly obferves, that the fecurity of a nation, fituated like Great Britain, muft confift in the force of its navy; which is not only better calculated to protect its extenfive coafts from invafion than the largest army, but also renders the use of fortifications unneceffary; which too frequently prove treacherous friends, and may be employed to enflave a people, as well as to protect them. Speaking of the ftate of the navy, he obferves, that Sir Edward Coke thought that England had reafon to boat of the ftrength of her navy in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when it confifted of 33 fhips of war. But what would he have faid, had he lived in the prefent times; when, according to the Regifter of the Admiralty, it appears to confift of no lefs than 170 fhips of the line! He gives his countrymen a circumftantial account of the number of failors allotted to each fhip; the divifion of the navy into fquadrons, the different ranks of Admirals and other officers, with their appointments; the order of battle, various modes of engaging, &c. Under the article of Manning the navy, he takes occafion to make fome very pointed obfervations upon the horrid cuftom of preffing freemen to protect our Jiberties; and of treating thofe as felons, who fupport the national glory. And he justly expreffes his aftonishment that men, compelled to the fervice, fhould yet be so strongly actuated by the amor patria; a truth this, which renders oppreffive meafures fill more unjuftifiable. In treating of the national debt, and expenditures, thefe fubjects are circumftantially ftated, from the best poffible informa tion. The Poor pafs next in review. Their alarming increafe he partly afcribes to their being infected by the common contagion of luxury and extravagance, and to their total inattention, in days of profperity, to adverfe feafons that may arrive. The provifion made for them, he obferves, exceeds the revenues of many princes, and the number of the poor amounts to about one feventh of the inhabitants. In the year 1680, little more than a century ago, the poor's taxes produced no more than 665,392/ in 1764, they ftood at about, 1,200,000.; and in 1773 the were estimated at 3 millions! He ttrongly recommends the plan of a poor-houfe erected in the county of Norfolk as a model worthy of imitation, and as the moft likely remedy against this growing evil. Suppofe (fays he) that in England there are 10,000 pa rishes, and that a workhouse was established in each parish containing 20 poor, every one of whom fhould be able to earn by labour but four pence per day; and allowing three hundred days in the year for labour, they would fave a million per annum to the state. On the fubject of Population, our Author ftates the contest between Dr. Price and his opponents, and inclines to the calculations of the former, as being drawn from lefs dubious data. He confiders the statements given by Meffrs. Wales and Eden, and from which they conclude that the number of houfes is increased, as depending on premifes too precarious. The increase of houfes, afferted by Mr. Wales, is chiefly taken from a survey of Yorkshire and Lancashire; where, as new manufactures have been eftablished, the number of buildings must have increased in particular towns. But if the account of Mr. Wales be accurate, and there be no decrease of dwellings in other provinces, then muft the reports of the fworn Commiffioner be falfe. But it is moft probable, that the cottages of the poor decrease very much, while thofe houfes which are fubject to the window-tax may be upon the increase, particularly in quarters where trade flourishes. So that when Mr. Wales afferts that, in the year 1756, the numher of houfes in the North-riding of Yorkshire was only 1716, and that within 25 years there was an increase of 269 families, no notice is taken of the number of farm houfes and cottages, which have been deftroyed; and which (though they make no figure in the estimates of window-rates) are more favourable to population than palaces. Our Author concludes by expatiating, with all the warmth of genuine philanthropy, on the abfurdity of thofe laws that are unfriendly to population. Treating of Commerce, he observes, that the power and wealth of England, which excite the envy and aftonishment of other nations, proceed chiefly from its commerce. This feems not to have been attended to before the days of Queen Elizabeth; but from that period the riches and power of the nation have made a rapid increafe. The famous Navigation Act, that paffed a little before the restoration of King Charles, had an amazing effect. Eftimating the merchant ships by the tons they carry, there was an increase of 95,266 tons in one year. At the time of the Revolution, they amounted to 190,000; and towards the end of King William's reign, to 320,000. In the years 1773 and 1774 they were estimated at 800,000. Taking Sir C. Whitworth for his guide, our Author gives a circumftantial account of the different exports and imports of England to and from every part of the globe; by which it appears, that before the laft deftructive war the balance in favour of the country was no less than 3,356,411 l. It appears alfo, from different tables, that the average of gains for the fpace of thirty years may be reckoned at 5 millions per annum, which gives a fum of no less than 150 millions of clear profit. If it be afked, where this immenfe wealth remains, he anfwers, it has partly been employed in establishing plantations in North America and the Weft India iflands, and partly exported for the payment of intereft for monies velled by foreign ers ers in the public funds, which makes a deduction of 3 millions per annum, Notwithstanding the great lofs which, it is natural to imagine, England muft fuftain by the independence of the colonies, and the free trade of Ireland, yet he remarks, that it is yet in her power, by commerce, and by virtue of her own natural products, to maintain her refpectability, and increase her riches, fuppofing that she was alfo deprived of her poffeffions both in the Eaft and Weft Indies. He next proceeds to enquire with what countries the balance of trade may be fuppofed to be againft, or in favour of England. By Ruffia, Sweden, and Denmark, the lofes. It is much difputed, refpecting Germany, on which fide the balance lies. It appears, at first, to be decidedly in favour of England; both the quantity and value of goods exported from hence to Germany, being much fuperior to thofe imported. But it must be obferved that Germany is a confiderable gainer upon many of thefe articles, by difpofing of them again to the adjacent countries; and alfo that feveral forts of goods are entered at the Cuftom-houfe, as imported from Holland and Italy, which are the produce of Germany. With France the lofs is very confiderable; for although the balance appear in the books of the Cuftom-houfe much in favour of England, yet the immense contraband trade greatly preponderates in favour of France. He further fuggefts, that by the fuppreffion of smuggling, and a prudent commercial treaty, both nations might be benefited, and the occafion of perpetual contentions taken away. Both these objects are now accomplished; and every friend to humanity, every lover of his country, muft with them to answer the intended purpofes. This chapter contains much interefting matter, which cannot be further noticed without exceeding our prefent limits. In his account of the manufactures of the kingdom, he expreffes his admiration at the high degree of perfection to which they are arrived; at the incredible number of hands employed; and the expedition, elegance, and cheapnefs of the goods. We think, however, that he is mistaken when he afferts, that the foreign woollen cloths are fcarcely inferior to the English, and feems furprised that the latter fhould be fo much preferred. Nor can we agree with him in the affertion, that foreign dies or colours, are in general preferable. It is readily allowed, that in the black die we are much excelled by the Dutch; but as to moft other colours and particularly fcarlet, blue, and garnet, we excel them both in the vividness and fixedness of the colours. The foftness of the feel, which he commends in the Dutch cloths, proceeds merely from their loofer contexture, and this again proceeds from their not being fo firmly milled; in confequence of which defect, though there manifeftly arites a confiderable faving of materials to the manufacturer, yet the cloth is by no means fo ftrong; and, the nap being eafily fretted off, a coat appears much fooner threadbare. (The remainder of this work to be confidered in a future Article.) MONTHLY CATALOGUE, For SEPTEMBER, 1787. PHILOSOPHY. Art. 20. An Examination of the 3d and 4th Definitions of the First Book of Sir Ifaac Newton's Principia; and of the Three Axioms or Laws of Motion. By Robert Young. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Becket. 1787. 'THE HE whole account of the vis inertia,' fays this writer, is a feries of inconfiftencies; and the more it is attempted to be explained, the more incomprehenfible it will be found.' The very name in his opinion is a contradiction, and fignifies nothing. Á force of inactivity,' he afferts, is the fame as a forceless force.' Sir Ifaac Newton defines the term vis inertie, without the leaft ambiguity or obfcurity, to be, that innate tendency qua corpus unumquodque, quantum in fe eft, perfeverat in ftatu fuo, vel quiefcendi, vel movendi uniformiter in directum;' i. e. by which every material body whatfoever, as much as is in itself, perfeveres in its proper ftate, either of reft or uniform rectilineal motion. Mr. Young forces into the definition the word endeavour, and the definition implies, in his opinion, that every body at rest endeavours to continue at reft.' This endeavouring to continue at reft, caufes a long metaphyfical difquifition, at the end of which our Author concludes, That bodies do not endeavour to remain at reft while they are at reft.' Newton never had any fuch thought; he plainly meant, that every body has a na-, tural tendency to perfevere in the state in which it is. If a body be at reft, it will remain at reft; or, which is the fame thing, it has in itself a tendency (but it does not endeavour) to remain at reft. From this view of the fubject, Mr. Young feems to have been engaged only in a logomachy; and his mistake, probably, arifes from a mifapprehenfion of Sir Ifaac's idea. LAW. Art. 21. The whole Proceedings on the Trials of twa Informations exbibited ex officio by the Attorney General against Lord George Gordon: one for a Libel against the Queen of France, the other for a Libel on the Judges. Alfo The Trial of Thomas Wilkins for printing the laft mentioned Libel, Tried at Guildhall, June 6, 1787, before Judge Buller. Taken in Short-hand by Jofeph Gurney. 8vo. 2s. Gurney. Cagliostro received a meffage from M. Barthelemy (the Charge les Affaires at our court in the abfence of Count d'Adhemar) rewefting that he would attend at the French ambaffador's, in confe sence of a permiffion granted to Caglioftro, to return to France. ord George Gordon went with Caglioftro. The next morning' a paragraph |