was rather less than it had been in 1727, when he was first elected into it.

These two circumflances in Mr. Onflow's character, are of themfelves fufficient to render the memory of that character revered and refpected by all the world; but the recollection of them is peculiarly pleasant to the Editor of this work, who, amongst the many fortunate events that have attended him through life, thinks this one of the most confiderable, that, in a very early period of it, he was introduced and placed under the immediate patronage of fo refpectable a man; from whofe inftructions, and by whofe example, he was confirmed in a fincere love and reverence for those principles of the conflitution, which form the basis of this free government; the strict ob fervation and adherence to which principles, as well on the part of the crown as of the people, can alone maintain this country in the enjoyment of thofe invaluable bleffings, which have deservedly drawn this eulogium from the best informed writers of every nation in Europe, That as this is the only conflitution which, from the earliest history of mankind, has had for its direct object "Political Liberty;" fo there is none other, in which the laws are fo well calculated to fecure and defend the life, the property, and the perfonal liberty of every individual.'

The information contained in this volume is arranged under the following titles: MEMBERS, RULES OF PROCEEDING, SPEAKER, CLERK, FEES, KING; each of which is fubdivided into different heads, accompanied with many useful ilJuftrations by Mr. Hatfell. Of a work fo little connected in its parts, it cannot be expected we should be able to give our Readers any thing like an uniform abridgment. We fhall, therefore, content ourselves with felecting one or two paffages that appear moft applicable to fubjects immediately interesting to the Public.-The following obfervations on the prerogative of the King, to give or with- hold his affent to bills that have paffed the two Houfes, acquire fome importance from the intimation lately faid to have been thrown out by a certain great minifter, relative to the revival of this power, which has now been fuffered to lie dormant almost a century.

Bishop Burnet gives the following account of the bill, which in 1680 was not offered for the Royal affent: There was a fevere a paffed in the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, by which those who did not conform to the church, were required to abjure the kingdom, under pain of death; and for fome degrees of non-conformity, they were adjudged to die, without the favour of banishment. Both Houfes paffed a bill for repealing this act; it went, indeed, heavily in the Houfe of Lords; for many of the Bishops, though they were not for putting that law in execution, which had never been done but in one fingle instance, yet they thought the terror of it was of fome ufe, and that the repealing it might make the party more infolent. On the day of the prorogation, this bill ought to have been offered to the King; but the Clerk of the Crown, by the King's particular order, withdrew the bill. The King had no mind openly to

deny

deny it, but he had lefs mind to pass it; fo this indifcreet method was taken, which was a high offence in the Clerk of the Crown."

This was certainly a very fhuffling proceeding in the King; for if he had no inclination to pafs the bill, he undoubtedly had the right (which he had exercised but two years before, in the cafe of the Militia Bill, and what he himself, and his predeceffors had done in a variety of other inftances) to have refufed the Royal affent. For there is no doubt, though it is now almost a century fince it has been exercised, but that this is, and always has been, confidered as an inherent and conftitutional prerogative of the Crown: It ought, however, to be exercifed with great difcretion, as the King is never fupposed to act, in his political capacity, but by the advice of counfellors. The refufing the Royal affent to a bill, agreed upon and offered to the King by both Houfes of Parliament, is in fact prefer.. ring the advice of his Privy Council, or of fome of his Minifters, to the advice of the great council of the nation affcmbled in Parlia

ment.

There was a very long debate upon King William's refufing the Royal affent to the "bill touching free and impartial proceedings in Parliament;" in which (however angry the Houfe of Commons might be with the perfons who had advised this measure, and whom, as appears from their refolutions, they voted to be "enemies to their Majesties and the kingdom)" nobody prefumed to question "the right" of doing it; and the reprefentation, drawn up upon that occafion, puts this matter upon the proper and conftitutional ground, in praying his Majefty, "that, for the future, he will be gracioufly pleased to liften to the voice of Parliament, and not to the fecret advice of particular perfons, who may have private interests of their own, feparate from the true interests of the King and the people."

It was formerly a matter of great doubt, whether (as we have feen that the Royal aflent to a bill, pafied by both Houses, is neceffary to conftitute a fellion) the Royal affent, when given, did not conclude the feffion: So long ago as the 2ift of November 1554, on a question asked in the House, Whether, upon the Royal affent, the parliament may proceed, without any prorogation " it was agreed by voices, that it may." There is alfo a debate upon this fubject, in the Journal of the 7th of March 1625, from which it appears, that the ableft parliamentary men of that time had not formed a clear and deciâve opinion upon it. Even Mr. Glanvyile fays, "Though I think the law to be, that the Royal affent to a bill, without a prorogation, endeth not the feilion, yet, to avoid all queftion, it is best to have a provifo in the bill."-On the 31st of May 1621, the Lords paffed a bill in a very extraordinary manner, having brought it in, and read it thrice in the fame day; the purport of which was, "that the feffion fhould not determine by his Majesty's Royal affent to bills;" but it does not appear that it paffed the House of Commons. In the year 1625, however, a bill to this effect paffed both Houses, and on the 11th of July received the Royal affent.-This question is now no longer matter of doubt; the uniform practice of above a century has decided, that nothing concludes a feffion but a prorogation, or diffolution of the Parliament.'

03

Under

Under the head of the King's calling the Parliament, Mr. Hatfell combats the notion of thofe who have imagined, that by virtue of the ftatute of 4th Edward III. and 36th Edward III. intituled, "A Parliament fhall be holden once every year," the King is obliged to call a parliament once at leaft in every year; and thofe perfons who maintain this doctrine do not mean, that, according to thefe ftatutes, a feffion of parliament fhall be holden every year, but that a new election fhall be had; that is, that by the ancient law and conflitution of this kingdom, the King ought to hold parliaments elected annually.

If there is any foundation for putting this conftruction upon thefe ftatutes of Edward III. it is rather remarkable, that in the famous parliament which was elected in 1620, and in which Sir Edward Coke took fo great a part, and of which Mr. Glanvylle, Mr. Noy, Mr. Crewe, Mr. Hakewill, Sir John Davies, Sir Edwin Sandys, and Sir Robert Phelips, were members-all men, than whom there never were perfons better acquainted with the history of the English conftitution, or more anxious to preferve it in all its purity-that these great and able men, throughout all the debates of that parliament, which are very accurately preferved (and have been lately printed), fhould never, amongst their other fpirited endeavours to maintain the rights and privileges of the people, once affert, or even allude to this doctrine. On the contrary, though the parliament of 1620 was called in January (after an intermiffion of parliaments for fix years), when an acjournment was propofed, and which took place from June 1621, to the November following; though much doubt arofe about the mode of this adjournment; yet, fo far from any idea being entertained of its illegality, or that the parliament ought to be diffolved, to give an opportunity for the calling of another to meet in the next year; Sir Edward Coke himself drew up the refolution refpecting the privileges of the members during this very long adjournment: And when the Parliament met again in November, and, after fitting fome time, adjourned till the February following (before which the King diffolved them in disgust), fo far from the House of Commons fuppofing that by law, and the ftatutes of Edward III. a diffolution ought to take place, they address the King, on the 18th of December," not to prorogue them at Christmas, but that he will confider what time will be fitteft for their departure and re-access, to perfe& thofe beginnings which are now in preparation." And not a hint is dropped throughout this very long feffion, that by the ftatutes of Edward III. they ought to be diffolved in January 1621, and that a new parliament ought to be fummoned.

It is as remarkable, that after an intermiflion of parliaments for twelve years, when a parliament was fummoned, and met in April 164c-2 parliament of which all the historians fpeak in the highest terms, and of which Lord Clarendon fays, "It could never be hoped, that more fober and difpaflionate men would ever meet together in that place, or fewer who brought ill purposes with them;"—and when a committee was appointed to confider, amongst other things,

of the liberties and privileges of parliament," and when that committee report, on the 24th of April, three heads of grievances,

and

and the fourth, "Laftly, as that which relates unto all, and is a great caufe of all the former grievances-the not holding of parliaments every year, according to the laws and ftatutes of the realm;" -the committee itself, and afterwards the Houfe, lay by this point for the present, and agree not to put it to the queftion. Afterwards, on the meeting of the Long Parliament, in November 1640, an act, commonly called "the Triennial Bill," was paffed; which, according to Rapin's History (for the act itself, being repealed, is not printed in any edition of the Statutes), fo far from declaring the law to be, that parliaments ought to be elected annually, ordains, "That a parliament fhould be held at least every three years, though the King fhould neglect to call it. in order to prevent the inconveniences arifing from a too long intermiffion of parliaments."-The claufes in this act, compelling the fending out of writs, even without the King's confent, being, as Lord Clarendon fays," derogatory to Majelly, and letting the reins too loofe to the people," were repealed by the ftatute of the 16th of Charles II. chap. 1. but the principle was retained; for this act alfo declares," That the fitting and holding of parliaments shall not be intermitted for above three years."

In the debates in the House of Lords, in confequence of the very long prorogation in 1677, for above a year-the fubitance of which are reported in Burnet's Hiftory of his Own Times-though Lord Shaftesbury was at this time the leader of the oppofition party, and as fuch would readily have caught at every argument and fuggeftion that could feem to fupport the cause he adopted, yet he never urged this doctrine, "That the parliament fhould be elected annually. What he maintained was, that the parliament, not having met and fat within the year, was virtually diffolved, and its acts were therefore illegal; for that, according to the true conftruction of the ftatutes of Edward III. which were cited, a feffion of parliament ought to be holden once every year.

Add to all this, that in the Bill of Rights, that new Magną Charta, by which the true and real conftitution of this country was fettled and established at the Revolution-and in which every grievance, under which the people had fuffered during the preceding reigns, was condemned, and the claim of the nation afferted to their undoubted rights and liberties-the claim upon this fubject is expreffed in the following terms: " And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, ftrengthening, and preferving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently." This word frequently, which in its meaning is very vague, is, by a ftatute paffed a few years afterwards, viz, by the act of the 6th of William and Mary, chap. 2. explained in the following manner: "That within three years at the fartheft, from and after the determination of every parliament, legal writs fhall be iffued under the Great Seal, by direction of the King, for calling, affembling, and holding another new parliament."

From all these fources of hiftory, that is, from the feveral acts of parliament paffed in the reigns of Charles I. Charles II, and William and Mary (all expreffed in almoft the fame terms); from the debates and refolutions of the best and moft jealous parliaments that have fat fince the beginning of the last century; from the practice, during a

Q 4

courfe

course of above two hundred years; but, above all, from the declaration of the Bill of Rights, I fhould imagine the true intent and meaning of the words ufed in the ftatutes of Edward III. might be best explained; and that, where the expreffions of acts of pari:ament, paffed above four hundred years ago, are doubtful, nothing can clear up and fettle thefe doubts, but the opinion of all the wifett and bestinformed perfons upon the fubject, uniformly expreffed as well by their acts as fpeeches, from the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth to the present time.'

Notwithstanding the accuracy of the preceding deductions, and their cogency as to hiftorical evidence, we prefume nothing can be hence inferred against the arguments of a very respectable set of men in this country, who contend, that the shortening the duration of parliaments would be really an improvement of our conftitution, and which, if admitted, would leave no other question, than whether it might be called more properly a restoration of its true principles, or a revival of its ancient forms?

ART. II. RUSSIA; cr, A Complete Hiftorical Account of all the Nations which compofe that Empire. Vol. III. 8vo. 5s. fewed. Cadell, &c.

THE

-

HE fame unaccountable filence of which we complained, with refpect to the origin of this work, when we gave an account of the two first volumes [M. R. Sept. 1780, p. 184.], is ftill obferved by this unknown Author or tranflator; - for we know not by which of thefe titles to defign him. It is probable enough, however, as we before hinted, that it is an abridgment of the Journals of Profeffor Pallas, Gmelin, and others. Once only, in his introduction to his account of the Kamtfchadales, the Author speaks of himself; and fays, that he has collected every particular that had the least relation to his defign, from Meffrs. Steller, Kratscheninikaff, and Muller, of the acadamy of St. Petersburg, and trom fome travellers, who, though they are not literary men, have furnished accounts as true and as interefting. The character which we gave of the two former volumes is, in a great meafure, applicable to the prefent; which feems to us-for the Editor fays not a word on the fubject to be the laft, We fhall, however, prefent our Readers with a few short sketches of the various human brutes here described, and which are claffed into nineteen nations.

The Samoyedes, who are at the head of the prefent filthy. groupe, inhabit and defile even the horrid coafts of the frozen fea, fome of their fettlements extending to the 75th degree of Jatitude. North of the 67th degree, not a tree of any kind is feen to grow; and fcarce even a little bruth-wood is to be found; and yet, in this defolate and ungenial climate, fo early