few give promifing indications of fhining talents, or great abilities, They feem more attentive to the external ornament, than to the internal furniture, of their heads; spend their time in dress, public exhibitions, hunting, races, and other amufements; and few feek to do honour to their country, or to their elevated ftation, by encou raging ufeful arts and fciences.'

We fhall leave thofe whom it may moft concern to judge of the truth of these reflections; though we are much inclined to think that the exceptions are more numerous than the cenfure feems to admit.

That the younger fons of a noble family fhould engage in commerce, and enrich themselves by traffic, while in other countries they languish under pride and poverty, is defervedly noted with the higheft approbation. Bufinefs is frequently tranfacted at Change with a merchant whofe rank is not known, the furnames of his father and elder brother being fupplanted by the titles they bear as Lords and Earls. By the collateral branches being thus blended with the people at large, it fometimes happens that a man, born in obfcurity, and fubfifting by manual labour, rifes to wealth and dignity. Not long fince a poor perfon, who plyed a ferry-boat between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, became an Irish Peer: and if the prefent Earl of Chesterfield fhould die without iffue, a fhopkeeper at Bath or Briftol will fucceed to his titles.'

Under the article of People, Dr. W. takes occafion to give a particular account of the House of Commons, the rules and forms obferved in paffing an Act of Parliament, the freedom of debates, &c. If ever an opportunity prefented itself of rivalling the eloquence of Greece and Rome, it is here. A Member of Parliament enjoys the utmoft freedom of fpeech; and I muft acknowledge, that I have often heard fpeeches delivered, both in the Upper and Lower Houfe, that would reflect no difhonour on a Cicero or a Demofthenes. The debates, in either Houfe, excite, in a stranger, who has a competent knowledge of the language, the most agreeable aftonishment; when he is witness to that freedom with which each member delivers his opinion, and with what forcible terms he delineates the influence of the Court militating against the liberties of the People. But when at length the queflion is called for, and they proceed to vote, the ftranger learns that the whole conteft was little more than a form, a kind of mock battle, and that the iffue of the debates was predetermined before the members were affembled.'

Obfervations on the British Conftitution form a separate article. Dr. W. does not appear fo warm an admirer of the British Conftitution as moft other learned foreigners who have written on the fubject. On the contrary, he expatiates on its manifold defects. He is apprehenfive that the power given to the Crown, and its poffeffing fuch various means of corruption, connected with the partial reprefentation of the People in the Houfe of Commons, and the long duration of Parliament, may, under an ambitious prince, lead to defpotifm.

6

Having made fome pertinent remarks on the difadvantagea attending the Monarchical, Ariftocratic, and Democratic forms of government, he obferves, that, as they are all fo very imperfect, it is eafy to imagine that a fourth, built with fuch imperfect materials, cannot be free from imperfections. This is the cafe with the British conftitution; it is a medley of all the others. The fabric may poffibly be confidered as a mafter piece of human wisdom, and in this light the English in general confider it; yet manifold are the faults difcoverable in it. The inceffant contefts, and permanent parties, that keep the nation in a fpecies of ferment, and the revolutions that have taken place, are indubitable proofs that a conftitution, compofed of fuch jarring elements, contains within itself the principles of commotion. Before I had acquired a more accurate knowledge of affairs, I was used to think, that if the maxims of the conftitution were strictly adhered to, the People might be happy, and the King both beloved and honoured. Yet as often as I expreffed thefe thoughts, the aniwer was invariably, this is impoffible; England muft be governed by parties. Indeed, confidering the form of government, it is fcarcely poffible to do without them. Power and authority are things which have too much influence upon mankind; and the defire of limiting the power of fovereigns is as ftrong as their eagerness to rule uncontrouled. The King's power is in itfelf, according to the conftitution, very great; and although the power and privileges of Parliament, particularly of the Lower Houfe, appear great, yet the influence of the Crown will always be fo prevalent as to fecure a majority of votes; and thus it may become in fact the chief legislative power, acting uncontrouled under the appearance of a perfect conformity to the principles of the conftitution. It is therefore evident, that, if the King did not enjoy an influence that both furnishes the means, and prompts the defire to corrupt; and if there was not an Upper House perpetually inclining to the fide of the King, the Houfe of Commons would be more patriotic, and the will of the community at large would be the grand object of every motion and of every

law.'

The truth of fome of the above pofitions will be readily allowed; but others will be litigated by almoft every Englishman. That feveral millions of people cannot be fully and properly reprefented by a Parliament, chofen by merely 260,000 votes, of which fome thoufands, from their offices, are at the beck of the Court; and fome thousands more liable to be feduced by the most unworthy candidates, who generally bribe the higheft and that an ambitious King, wicked Miniftry, and venal Parliament, may endanger our liberties, are truths which few will deny; and they prove that the conftitution is not fo perfect but it is ftill capable of fome amendment; which is the cafe with all human affairs. But the question is, whether, with all thefe difadvantages, the form of government be not upon the whole better than that of any other hitherto established? Can the vices of one man, or of a few individuals, fo fpeedily produce the most fatal effects? Muft there not be a general depravity

of

*

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 care 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 moft other ftates, 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 Blackflone 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 interefted individuals, who affume the garb of patriotifm?) "In Ariftocracies there is more wifdom, but lefs honefty and lefs ftrength 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 oppreffive 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 withstood by one of the other two; each branch being armed with a negative power, fufficient to repel any innovation which it shall think inexpedient or dangerous, &c. &c."

MW. 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 state 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 justly 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 largeft army, but alfo 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 boast 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 Register of the Admiralty, it appears to confift of no less 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 liberties; and of treating thofe as felons, who fupport the national glory. And he juftly expreffes his aftonishment that men, compelled to the fervice, fhould yet be fo ftrongly actuated by the amor patria; a truth this, which renders oppreffive measures ftill more unjuftifiable.

In treating of the national debt, and expenditures, the fe fubjects are circumftantially ftated, from the beft poffible informa

tion.

The Poor pafs next in review. Their alarming increase 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 adverse seasons 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 l.; in 1764, they ftood at about, 1,200,000; and in 1773 they were estimated at 3 millions! He ftrongly recommends the plan of a poor-house erected in the county of Norfolk as a model worthy of imitation, and as the most likely remedy against this growing evil. Suppofe (fays he) that in England there are 10,000 parifhes, and that a workhoufe 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 ftate.

On the fubject of Population, our Author ftates the conteft 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 increafed, as depending on premifes too precarious. The increase of houfes, afferted by Mr. Wales, is chiefly taken from a furvey of Yorkshire and Lancashire; where, as new manufactures have been eftablished, the number of buildings must have increafed 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 Commiflioner 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 number 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 obferves, that the power and wealth of England, which excite the envy and aftonifhment 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 increase, 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,oco; 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 3,356,4117. It appears also, from different tables, that the average of gains for the space 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 eftablishing plantations in North America and the Weft India islands, and partly exported for the payment of intereft for monies vefted by foreign

ers