And, ox-like, meanly take the galling yoke? And freely on your wisdoms cracks her joke. How dare ye on the men of labour tread, That hold in ev'ry stitch a tear. Who fent you?-Not the Lord who rules on high, "To gull the mole-ey'd million at this rate; "How is it ye preferve that folemn grace, "How can ye meanly grov'ling bow the head Fetch, carry, fawn, kneel, flatter, crawl, tell lies, Though you think otherwife, I do prefume: Open the warehouses of all your brains; Come, Sirs, turn out-let's fee what each contains: Shut, quickly fhut again the brazen doors; Yes, fhut them, fhut them, we have seen enough. Are thefe the Beings to beftride a world? To fuch fad beafts, has God his creatures hurl'd? G Proud Proud to be gaz'd at by a reptile race: Charm'd with the mufic of their clanking chains, "Behold your GODS!-down, rafcals, on your knees; Though a Rump's humble fervant, form'd for need, Though merely mortal, lo, you feem divine!" Who would not quick exclaim, "The TAYLOR's mad!" We were particularly pleafed with the Ode to the Poor Soldier, the Diamond Pin and Farthing Candle, a Fable, and the Sun and Peacock: but for thefe we muft refer to the book. The irony, which breathes through all the lines that relate to his Grace of R.-profe as well as verfe, is conceived in P. P.'s happiest manner i in which we always obferve a turn of fentiment, and a drollery of allufion, perfectly original. There is fomething like this turn in Mr. Hall's Crazy Tales, &c. elpecially when the friend of Sterne writes about Kings, And fuch like things:" but it is as the wren to the eagle, or as a mole-hill to a mountain. MONTHLY CATALOGUE, For DECEMBER, 1793. LAW. Art. 26. Modern Reports; or Select Cafes adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas, and Exchequer. Vo lume the First; containing Cafes adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, and Chancery, from the Refloration of Charles II. to the 30th Year of Charles II. The fifth Edition, corrected, with the Addition of marginal References and and Notes, by Thomas Leach, Efq. of the Middle Temple, Barrifter at Law. Royal 8vo. gs. Boards. Robinfons. 1793. THE work, of which the prefent volume is a part, has been frequently published, and contains reports of cafes adjudged from the Reftoration to the end of the reign of George I. Mr. Pickering enriched the laft edition with a great number of references; perhaps with too many, because fome were frivolous, and others inapplicable; that edition, however, was much valued,-and, becoming fcarce, has occationed the appearance of the prefent.--The work confitts of twelve parts, compiled by various hands, and with different degrees of merit; four of them are now republished, in four volumes, and the remainder is promised in the courfe of a few terms. The public are certainly much indebted to Mr. Leach for the pains which he has taken in this publication :-his notes are frequent and judicious. Art. 27. Reports of Cafes in the Reign of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, taken and collected by Sir James Dyer, Knight, fome Time Chief Juftice of the Common Pleas. Now firft tranflated, with additional References to the latest Books. of Authority, marginal Abstracts of the Points determined in each Cafe, and an entire new Index to the Whole. By John Vaillant,, M. A. of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. To this Edition a Life of the Author is prefixed; and from an original Manufcript in the Library of the Inner Temple, feveral new Cafes of his are introduced in the Notes. In three Parts. Royal 8vo. Two Guineas bound. Butterworth. 1793. Chief Juftice Treby published an edition of Dyer in the year 1688, and introduced many notes and references, which were always confidered by the profellion as forming an important addition to these valuable Reports. All thefe Mr. Vaillant has very properly retained in the present work; yet we think he has been much too fcrupulous in continuing the former index, at the fame time declaring it to be fo imperfect that he has deemed it neceffary to fupply its deficiencies by another drawn out by himself. Nearly eighty pages are thus filled with useless matter. We are of opinion that the translation might have been more liberal without diminishing its fidelity; and that it would have been more intelligible to the English reader, if the French idiom had been lefs closely adopted.-The publication, however, evinces great accuracy and minutenefs of attention in the editor; and will be found to poffefs many recommendations to public acceptance. Art. 28. The Debtor and Creditor's Affiftant; or a Key to the King's Bench and Fleet Prifons: calculated for the Information and Benefit of the injured Creditor, as well as the unfortunate Debtor; including Newgate, Ludgate, and the three Compters. To which are added, Reflexions on perpetual Imprisonment for Debt, and Outlines of a Bill for abolishing the fame, &c. 12mo. pp. 93. 15. 6d. Riley. 1793. This account of the interior of each prifon in the metropolis, and of the regulations by which they are refpectively governed, will be found G 2 found useful by every perfon imprisoned for debt.-Indeed the work may juftly be confidered as and termed a Vade Mecum for unfortunate debtors. Art. 29. A Letter to the Earl of Lauderdale, to prove that the High Court of Parliament has a Jurifdiction in Cafes of Appeal against the Judgments of the Court of Jufticiary in Scotland. By John Martin, of Richmond Buildings, Soho, Attorney of the Courts of England, and Solicitor of the Courts of Scotland. 8vo. pp. 96. 2s. 6d. Ridgway. 1793. Mr. Martin here endeavours to prove that a reduction of a writ of error in Parliament against the judgments of the Court of Jufticiary in Scotland is abfolutely competent; though he acknowleges that no appeal lies in fuch a cafe. His reafoning on this fubject is rather ingenious than fatisfactory; he adduces no authority to fupport his opinion, and vainly attempts to fhake and invalidate those authorities which appear to us to decide the question against him. Lord Mans field, in the cafe of Bywater, which came before the House of Lords in May 1781, concurred in fentiment with Sir Thomas Miller, (then Lord Advocate of Scotland,) who afferted that there was neither an inftance of an appeal to the Scotch parliament before, nor to the Houfe of Lords fince, the union ;-and, in the cafe then before their lordships, he advised them that no writ of error could be brought: the petition for that purpofe was rejected. Art. 30. The Law and Practice of Diftreffes and Replevin, by the late Lord Chief Baron Gilbert. To which is added an Appendix of Precedents. The third Edition, with confiderable Additions, taken from former and later Reports, and other Books of Authority; and full practical Directions, from the Seizure of the Distress to the Sale and fuing a Replevin. By William Hunt of Lincoln'sInn. 8vo. pp. 340. 5s. Boards. Brooke. 1793. This work by Chief Baron Gilbert is a very ufeful publication on an important branch of English law, and its contents have been confidered as authority in our Courts.-The prefent editor has enriched the book with a large addition of valuable matter, and has fhewn great judgment and ingenuity in his illuftrative notes. Art. 31. The Trial of the Rev. Thomas Fyfhe Palmer, before the Circuit Court of Jufticiary, held at Perth, on the 12th and 13th September 1793, &c. &c. taken in Court by Mr. Ramfay, an eminent Short-hand Writer from London. With an Appendix. 8vo. Pp. 195. 2s. 6d. Edinburgh, Skirving.-London, Ridgway. This is a fuller, and appears to be a more accurate, account of Mr. Palmer's trial than that which we mentioned in our Review for December laft, P. 453. In the Appendix is given the defence which the prisoner had intended to have delivered, if he had not employed counsel for the purpofe: this defence is manly, judicious, and fenfible; and the cafe, on the whole, is a very important one. Art. 32. The Astorney's New Pocket Book, and Conveyancer's Affiftant; containing a Collection of the most common and approved Precedents in Conveyancing, with practical Remarks; to which is fubjoined a fhort Treatife on the Nature of Eftates, &c. By Frede ric Coningefby Jones, of Gray's Inn. 2 Vols. Boards. Brooke. 1794 This will prove a commodious and useful work to those gentlemen for whofe fervice more particularly it was compiled. Art. 33. A Treatife of Equity. With the Addition of marginal References and Notes: By John Fonblanque, Efq. Barrister at Law. Vol. I. 8vo. pp. 450. 8s. Boards. Butterworth. 1793. The original work, of which Mr. Fonblanque has here become the editor, was printed, anonymously, in 1737, and was always confidered by the profeffion as poffeffing great merit.-The notes and illuftrations, which have been collected with great care and industry, and which will be found to apply to and explain the subject-matter, are fo numerous that the volume is nearly filled by them, and the text occupies but a fmall part of it. The work is divided into fix books, of one of which only Mr. Fonblanque has already given his commentary; which he has executed in fo malterly a manner that we look forward with pleasure to his promifed continuation.-We shall extract the following note for the purpose of enabling our readers to judge of the nature of the performance.-In treating of those agreements which a Court of Equity will enforce, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. II. c. 3. the text obferves that if it be carried into execution by one of the parties, as by delivering poffeffion, and fuch execution be accepted by the other, he that accepts it must perform his part; for, where there is a performance, the evidence of the bargain does not lie merely on the words, but on the fact performed.'-The doctrine contained in this fentence is thus illuftrated by Mr. Fonblanque : To allow a ftatute, having the prevention of frauds for its object, to be interpofed in bar of the performance of a parol agreement, in part performed, were evidently to encourage one of the mifchiefs which the legiflature intended to prevent. It is therefore an established rule, that a parol agreement, in part performed, is not within the provifions of the ftatute. See Whitchurch v. Bevis. This exception, however, leads to confiderable difficulties. Part performance is clearly a relative term; and in ftating acts of part performance, the plaintiff muft neceffarily ftate the agreement to which he refers. The defendant, by the above rule, seems bound to confider the cafe stated as out of the ftatute: fuppofing him, however, to deny the acts alleged to have been done in part performance, would he be bound to admit or deny the parol agreement referred to or, admitting fuch acts to have been done, fuppofing him to deny the agreement, or the terms of the agreement, to which fuch acts are referred in part performance; would the plaintiff, in the latter cafe, be at liberty to refort to evidence aliunde, in order to fabftantiate fuch parol agreement? In the first cafe, I conceive that the plaintiff would be entitled to go into evidence, to fhew that the acts alleged were actually done; and if he fucceeded in this particular, it feems to follow as a neceffary confequence, that he might prove the agreement to which such acts referred but fuppofe the plaintiff not to be able to prove the agreement, the terms of it being confined to his and the defendant's know |