ordinary anecdote upon this occafion, taken from a manufcript Life of lord Herbert, written by himself. By this we are informed that his lordship, doubtful whether he ought to publish this work, humbly fupplicated the Deity, if the publication was for his glory, to favour him with a fign from heaven; and that immediately a diftinct, but gentle found came from above, and fo cheared and comforted him that he took the petition for granted. Lord Herbert produced feveral other works, and appears to have been that uncommon character,—a confcientious drift.

The more enlightened views of liberty which had taken place under the reign of Elifabeth, had, as we have already remarked, been extended and improved under that of James. Charles I, unhappily afcended the throne with prejudices in favour of hereditary and indefeafible right, fimilar to thofe of his predeceffor; and what the father had only been called upon to defend by words, the fon was compelled to affert by action. The exhaufted ftate of the finances (that moft fatal fource of all national diforganization) the anticipations of the revenue of the crown, and the neceffity of additional fupplies for defraying the expences of naval and military armaments, afforded an opportunity, which was eagerly feized, of contracting the exorbitant power claimed by the monarch. The enlarged minds of many among the first parliament of Charles readily comprehended that it was neceffary, either entirely to abandon the privileges of the people, or to fecure them by firmer barriers than had yet been provided. Their fittings, however, paffed in complaints of grievances, which at that time had not always the best foundation, and in entire uncompliance with the demands for money, which were made by the king. The fecond parliament was fill more refractory, and was foon diffolved; but the anger of the comons was excited by the imprisonment of two of their members, who had

ventured to accufe the favourite, Buckingham; and their obftinacy' was confirmed by the king's releafing them without further punishment.

The fupplies which the king was unable to obtain from his parliament, he endeavoured to procure by compounding with the catholics for difpenfing with the peral laws in their de favour, by loans and benevolences, and by the famous expedient of fhip-money. In the extreme want of money which fucceeded, the councils for fupply had recourfe to a general loan; and each man was required to pay that precife fum which would have fallen to his fhare, had the vote for four fubfidies paffed into a law. The people were, however, informed, that this was not to be called a fubfidy, but a loan; and the nation could not but feel that fuch meafures rendered parliaments fuperfluous. Many who refuted compliance, were imprifoned by an order from the council, and afterward, by a petition to the king, procured their liberty. But fir Thomas Darnel, fir Walter Earl, fir John Corbet, fir John Heveningham, and fir Edmond Hambden, refused this fubmiffion, and demanded their release, not as a favour from the court, but as their right by the laws of their country. The queftion was brought to a folemn trial in the King's-bench; and the king was afstonished to obferve that a power, which his corrupt courtiers had perfuaded him was a part of his legal prerogative, was found, upon trial, to be directly oppofite to the cleareft law, and fupported by no undoubted precedents in courts of judicature.

The third parliament, irritated by the imprisonment of their former members, by forced loans, and the tax upon tonnage and poundage, feemed refolved to grant no fupplies till their grievances were redreffed. For every fupply, therefore, which was granted to the crown,' fome conceflion in favour of civil liberty was extorted. The fycophants of the court loudly exclaimed against the contumacy of the commons; but their power did

not appear formidable: the English annals had not yet furnished an instance of a revolution effected by the third order of the ftate. The lofty claims of prerogative on the one hand, and of privilege on the other, were urged with vehemence and acrimony, but investigated with precifion. So thoroughly, indeed, was the fubject then examined, that modern times have not produced one argument in favour of liberty, which was not repeatedly adduced and inforced by the enlightened politicians of the reign of Charles I. The policy which has fince been purfued, of chufing minifters from their parliamentary intereft or talents, and of conferring offices upon those leaders who encroach too much on royal authority, in expectation that they will become more careful not to diminish that power which has become their own, was first adopted in this reign; a fure proof,' fays Hume, that a fecret revolution had happened in the conftitution, and had neceffitated the prince to adopt new maxims of go

vernment.

The celebrated Petition of Right, which was framed in this parliament, exhibited all the claims of the fubject to fecurity and protection. The rights of the people were accurately

Sir,

defined; and the difperfion of the petition throughout the nation made the arguments on thefe fubjects familiar to every rank. The eloquence of parliament, now well refined from the pedantry of the preceding reign, animated with the fpirit of liberty, and employed in the most important interefts, commanded general attention. The illegality of levying war without the confent of parliament,→→→ of imprifoning the fubject at the will of the monarch, of quartering foldiers, and executing martial law con trary to the laws of the land, which form the bafis of this petition, having received a tardy and reluctant affent from the king, the royal prerogative was confequently confiderably circumfcribed, and additional fecurity was given to the liberty of the fubject.

The political difcuffions which fo univerfally prevailed, probably had fome effect in improving the reasonings of the judges, refpecting the law of the land. When urged by the monarch to put Felton to the torture in order to difcover his accom、 plices in the death of the duke of Buckingham, they declared, that, though the practice had been very ufual, it was certainly illegal.

[To be concluded in our next.]

certain relation and agree ment between two or more things, which in other refpects are totally different. It enters, therefore, into all our reafoning, and ferves to explain and illuftrate, and where there is really a great fimilitude in the things compared, there may be a confiderable degree of reliance placed on conclufions drawn from analogy. But I am afraid, that like many other valuable things in common ufe, analogy is liable to be employed where it can be of no fervice, or where it rather

than informs it. It too often allumes the form of wit, and thus inftead of our difcovering any actual relation between the objects compared, we are only tickled bya whimfical coincidence which has no foundation but in the fertility of the imagination. Such perhaps was the argument of an ancient phyfician, againft exercife. Men, fays he, fhould not take exercife, because trees, which never move out of their places grow much fafter and ftronger than men.

I have been led into thefe reflec

tors have taken is to impugn the right of fucceffion, and to place the female on the throne, not in default of the male, but actually in competition with him; not because he deceafes, or is infane, or incapable of governing, but because they choose to place a rival on the throne, and take the reins of government out of his hands. Hence, fir, do we hear in fo many families, doubts ftarted on the divine right of hufbands to govern their families, and thefe doubts, however humbly propofed, and with however much apparent delicacy, very foon fap the principles of the fubjects, incite them to fedition, and often occafion an actual rebellion, which is feldom quelled without great mifchief and lofs to both parties, and unfortunately almost never without conceffions from the monarch, which ferve no other purpose than to harden the difaffected and make them unreafonable in their demands.

I have, hitherto, allowed fome indulgence to analogy,, because the authority quoted is venerable and great, but if we, with these innovators, push our analogy any farther, we fhall doubtless find that, as the logicians fay, the fimile balts. We can bring no more resemblances between the king's throne and the father's arm chair, and muft either combine a number of particulars which have no na. tural connexion, and therefore the combination will be abfurd, or we must fit down quietly with allowing that the government of a family is monarchical, and no more can be faid of it, and no more ufe made of Ariftotle's pofition. But if the dif turbers of families are refolved to go farther, I would ask them what kind of monarchy, it is which is conftituted in a family? Is it an abfolute, or a limited monarchy ? Wherein lies the executive power? How are the fupplies raifed, and by whom applied? Long before they have come to the laft of thefe queftions, they will perceive that analogy has no more weight, and that the management of a family

bears little or no refemblance to the government of a kingdom. The father of a family makes his fubjects. A king finds them ready made, and has nothing to do but to make fucceffors. In a family, the father is first lord of the treasury, chancellor of the exchequer, paymafter-general, and fills almost every office from fovereign to executioner. When he delegates any part of his authority. it is ftill performed under his eye, and according to his command, and in very few cafes does he grant difcretionary powers. But what above all

conftitutes him fupreme is, that he is not indebted to his fubjects for his revenue, but they owe to him whatever they poffefs. Another reafon why he should be fupreme is, that he is the founder of his monarchy; he elects his confort. If the elected him, the cafe, I grant, would be quite different; but nothing of this kind occurs, except, I am told, in very few inftances, during a ftrange period of time which is called leap year, probably because then certain perfons overleap the bounds of delicacy. But even this exception occurs fo feldom that I may allow my antagonists the full weight of it, without weakening my argument.

The monarchy of families is not, however, an abfolute monarchy, becaufe then it would be a tyranny. It is a limited monarchy. The fovereign's power is bounded by a large code of laws, infinitely too large for me to quote. What particularly circumfcribes his authority may be found, by referring to the index, under the heads, God Senje, Affect on, Parental Love (and even) Self-Intereft, Conjugal Fidelity, and others. The reader, by confulting the fe chapters only, will fee very accurately laid down the laws and maxims by which he is obliged to regulate his conduct. And although there is no written compac between the fubjects and their fovereign, he takes an oath very solemnly, and generally in fome church, when he enters upon his government,

and he never breaks either that oath, or any part of the abovementioned Jaws, with impunity. Should he do fo, fhould he require any of his fubjects to commit an act that is wrong, or even very abfurd, they may refufe, and although he may take a tyrant's revenge upon them, he has no power to compel them to do what is contrary to their confcience. Thus much for the laws which limit his authority.

With regard to all the really useful branches of government, he may be confidered as abfolute. Should any of his fubjects rebel, he has the means either to enforce obedience, or to expel them from a fociety of which they are not worthy to continue members. Should his confort depart from the allegiance due to her lord, and go fo far as to carry on a criminal correfpondence with the enemy, he may drive her from him altogether, and elect another in her room. Inftances of this, although never done but upon the cleareft proof, have become, of late, very frequent, and I can attribute it to nothing but the feditious fentiments circulated with fo much freedom against the power and dig, nity of family monarchy. Thefe fap the foundations of obedience, teach a contempt of the perfon of the fovereign, and incline the ear to liften to the infinuations of any ufurper, who may form defigns againit the 'crown and honour of the fovereign. I mut obferve, however, that fuch are the terms upon which the family monarch preferves his authority, that if it can be proved that he has negJested or illufed his confort, has placed inflammatory writings in her way, or has expofed her to company where her principles of allegiance may be corrupted, due allowance is made, and although he may exile her from court, he muit provide her with a fuitable eftablishment, and cannot, during her natural life, ele&t another in her room. So admirably poifed are the various powers which conflitute family monarchy.

Yet

Now, fir, what kind of men muft they be who would change this form of government, who, deluded by analogical fophiftry, for I will not calı it reafoning, would introduce anarchy under the difguife of reformation ? Surely they must be the very worst of men, fince they cannot be ignorant that the form of government adopted in families, has fubfitted for 6c00 years with as much advantage as can poffibly be derived from any conftitution, and with as few abuses as can well be expected from the imperfect ftate of human nature. if we are fo deluded as to admit innovations; if, for inftance, instead of a monarchy, we establish a gunarchy, or what old John Knox, the reformer, called the regiment of women,' the order of nature will be reverfed, the weaker veifel will be the ftronger, and innumerable inconveniencies muft arife, not to fpeak of a great deal of licentioufnefs. Yet this fatal reverfe has actually taken place in many families of fashion, as they are called. The papers tell us every day that lady Tunbelly gives a rout, or that Mrs. Blazon has cards and a fupper, but no more notice is taken of their lords and mafters than if they were fpinters. And what has been the confequence? Why, fir, the confequence has been fuch a diffolution of moral principle, and fo many nefarious acts, as to draw from the lips of the lord chief juftice of the king's bench, a threat, that if ever they are brought before him, he will make them ftand in the pillory! Thefe are the precious fruits of innovation. Such are the changes which are produced by a pretended liberality of fentiment.

Another confequence which arifes from attempting a revolution in domeftic government, is the creation of a fpirit of faction. Inftead of unanimity and loyalty, we find the houfe split into factions, fome taking part with the monarch and fome with his confort; where the latter faction predominates, it is fure to be attended