from the kernels of fruits and wine-lees burnt together. The coal from vine-twigs is nearly the fame with that from the fmall branches of other trees; but from the kernels of fruits, a coal confiderably more foft and mellow is obtained.-There is this difference with respect to the rolling-prefs and the printing-prefs work; in the former the impreffion is received from figures hollowed in a copper-plate, in the latter from prominent types: the rolling-prefs ink therefore must be made with thinner oil, and fo affifted by the heat of the plate, as readily to fink into the cavities, and easily be wiped from those fmooth parts of the plate which leave the paper white.

[To be continued.]

D.

Bp. Ellys's Tracts on the Temporal Liberty of Subjects on England. Concluded.

IN

N the Appendix to the laft volume of our Review, published in January, we entered upon an examination of this work : and as it is a fubject of great importance, in which every Briton is immediately interested, we confined ourselves, in that article, to our Author's first tract, wherein he confiders the legal provifions made in favour of the liberty of the fubject in judicial proceedings, as to matters both criminal and civil. We fhall now day before our Readers fome account of the remaining part of this ufeful work, and felect fuch specimens as appear to be moft generally inftructive and entertaining.

His Lordship, in the fecond effay, treats of the manner of impofing taxes; and the other privileges of parliament: and represents the illegal attempts of our ancient kings to levy money without the confent of parliament. William the Conqueror, contrary to a charter granted in the latter part of his reign, and several of his fucceffors, revived and levied various taxes in an arbitrary manner, and in too high proportions, by their own bare authority, or with only the advice of their privy council. A variety of inftances of oppreffions of this kind are mentioned as practised by almost all our kings from the Conqueft down to the happy Revolution, when the fole right of railing money was finally vefted in the parliament. But, fays our Author, the most exprefs and avowed claim of right to this prerogative, was in the reign of Charles I. who infifted that tonnage and poundage were due to the crown by hereditary right, without any grant from the fubjects; that he could, by his own authority, not only make impofitions upon merchandizes, but alfo could, in cafes of danger, of which he was the fole judge, oblige the maritime, and even the inland counties, to find a proper number of Ships for

4

for the defence of the feas, or levy the fums of money upon them, that should be requifite for the fame purpose. But in oppofition to these practices, the house of commons made ftrong remonftrances, founded upon evident and ancient facts; and the king, in his anfwer to the petition of right, found himself obliged to acknowledge, that the Crown had no right to levy any money, without the confent of the Lords and Commons in parliament.'

Befides actual impofitions, there were other methods of accomplishing the fame end, more indirect, but in their confequens equally oppreffive and injurious, which were practifed by bur kings, and which have generally been deemed illegal, and deftructive of the liberties of the people. Of this kind the Bishop mentions the king's debafing the coin, fo as to endanger the property of his fubjects, without their confent in parliament. This was done by Henry I, Stephen, Henry III, and several other of our ancient kings. "One of the most remarkable alterations in the coin was made in Edward III's reign, by the Bp. of Winchester, then treasurer of England, who caufed new groats and half-groats to be coined, lefs by five fhillings in the pound than the fterling value; whereby victuals and merchandizes became dearer through the whole realm. Henry VIII. abased his coin more than one half of its value. Several proclamations were iffued out in the reign of Edward VI. for finking the value of the coin one third part, and sometimes one-half. And in Queen Mary's reign, a proclamation was iffued for raifing the currency of the teftoons above their intrinfic value. Q. Elizabeth altered and debafed the Irish coin, which was greatly complained of; and the Mirror of fuflice fays, that, according to the ancient Saxon conftitution, changes of this fort in the coin ought not to be made, without the affent of parliament (a); and Lord Coke was alfo of the fame opinion (b). Sir Thomas Smith, in his Treatise on the English Commonwealth, reprefents it to be the king's right, to put what value he pleases upon his coin. And Sir Robert Cotton was not of opinion with the Mirror of Justice, that the king cannot abafe his coin without affent of parliament. Even Lord Chief-Juftice Hales fays (c) it is true the embafing of money, in point of allay, hath not been very frequently practifed in England; and it would be a dishonour if it should; neither is it fafe to be attempted without parliamentary advice: but furely if we refpect the right of the thing, it is in the king's power to do it."-" Hence therefore, as our Author well obferves, it is highly probable, that by our ancient conftitution, the crown was trufted with the executive

(-) Chap. 1, Sea. 3. P. of Crown, Vol. I. p. 193.

(b) zd Inft. p. 576.

(c) Hift.

power

power of afcertaining the value of money but then it was undoubtedly intended, that the king fhould do it for the benefit, and not for the ruin of his people. For it was always a maxim in law, as Lord Coke fays (d), that the law hath so admeasured the prerogative of the crown, that it cannot justly injure any one, unless doing fo may be for the public fervice. -Dr. Blackstone acknowledges that the denomination, or the value for which the coin is to pafs current, is in the breast of the king, but that his prerogative doth not extend to the debafing or inhancing the value of the coin, above or below the fterling value(). But whatever debate there may be among the lawyers about the extent of the royal prerogative in this respect, it hath been made ufe of as a mode of oppreffion and impofition in this and other nations; and is what no administration will now attempt unless supported by parliamentary authority, which it would be vain to expect.

Another method of breaking in upon the property of subjects without their confent, was, by granting patents for monopolies. Lord Coke defines a monopoly to be " an institution by the king, by his grant or commiffion, or otherwife, to any perfon or corporation, of and for the fole buying, felling, making, working, or ufing of any thing, whereby any perfon or corporation are fought to be reftrained of any freedom or liberty they had before, or hindered in their lawful trade." Of this practice we have innumerable inftances from the reign of Edward III. to much later times in the reign of Elizabeth there were great and repeated complaints on this fubject, which occafioned many petitions and debates in parliament relating to the prerogative of the crown and the liberty of the people. James continued the fame practice, in whofe reign, however, an act was made to put an end to all grievances of this kind, by which it is declared, That all monopolies are contrary to the laws of this realm; and fo are, and fhall be, utterly void, and of none effect, and in no wife be put in ufe or execution. And that all fuch grants of monopolies fhall be ever hereafter tried according to the common laws of this realm, and not otherwise. The party grieved, by fuch grants or monopolies, fhall recover treble damages and double cofts, by action in the courts at Westminster. And whoever stays, or procures judgment to be stayed or delayed upon fuch actions, fhall incur a præmunire: and that the crown fhall only grant exclufive patents for fourteen years, to new manufactures and inventions. One would have imagined that this ftatute would have put an entire end to fuch oppreffive and injurious measures; but in the reigns of Charles I. and Charles

(d) 2d Inft. p. 36.

Book I. Ch. 7.

(e) Comment. on Laws of England, II.

II. ever tenacious of prerogative, feveral patents were granted, in the way of monopoly, equally detrimental to trade and oppreffive to the fubject, of which fome continue unrevoked to this day; though it hath been proved in the fulleft manner, that they directly contradict the very purposes of public utility for which they were profeffedly granted.

Having fet forth fome of the illegal methods that many of our former kings purfued, for raifing money by their own authority, 'without the Confent of parliament, Dr. Ellys proceeds, in the fecond fection of this tract, to point out fome other practices, which were no lefs oppreflive to the subject; and which, though then deem'd legal, have fince been declared otherwife. The first he mentions is purveyance, an oppreffion, fays he, fo big, that all other oppreflions feems to be swallowed up in that one. This was originally, without doubt, a legal right in the crown; being of a like nature with fome prerogatives ftill enjoyed by fome foreign princes: it was intended for the making more plentiful and choice provifion for the houfholds of princes, and for their better accommodation when they travelled. We are told by Lord Coke, that the infolence of the purveyors, bearing themselves fo proudly under the great officers of the king's houfhold, grew to that height, that they would take what and as much as they pleased; and many times where it might least be fpared, and for others befides the king's houfhold; and fometimes would pay nothing, and many times lefs than the true value; and many perfons would make purveyance without any warrant at all. These grievances were perpetually complained of in parliament, and many ftatutes made to prevent and restrain them, but in vain: they were practifed not only in the reigns of the Richards, the Edwards, and the Henrys, but were continued in the times of Elizabeth, James and Charles. The advantage arifing to the crown from purveyance, was estimated, in 35 Elizabeth, communibus annis, at 25,000l. per Ann. in James's time at 40, and in the following reign at near 50,000%. per ann.'

• Some perfons were of opinion, that this prerogative was infeparable from the crown. Lord Coke and Sir Robert Atkins fay it in exprefs terms, and fo does Sir Robert Cotton; and Fabian Phil ps, in Charles the Second's time, wrote a long treatife, in which he profefles to fhew the antiquity, and among other things the neceffity of it. But, happily for this nation, the members of the first parliament after Charles II. was reftored, were of a different opinion, and were able to prevail upon that prince to give it up: accordingly the right of purveyance was then entirely abolifhed.

Another confiderable advantage which we have gained over our ancestors is, that the king cannot billet or quarter any foldiers,

foldiers, or other perfons, upon private houses, unless by the Of what advantage it is to be exfree confent of the owners. empted from this burthen, any one may judge, from his own imagination of the inconveniences of them. In the two first reigns after the conqueft, it seems to have been the practice to give free quarter in private houses, against the will of the owner: we hear of it again in the times of Edward III. and Henry IV. and in the reign of Charles I. this quartering of foldiers was not only practifed, but that in fuch a degree, that the house of Commons complained loudly of it to the king (f); "that in apparent violation of the ancient and undoubted right of all your majesty's loyal fubjects in this your kingdom in general, and to the grievous and infupportable detriment of many countries and perfons in particular, a new and almost unheard-of way hath been invented, and put in practice, to lay foldiers upon them, fcattered in companies here and there, even in the heart and bowels of the kingdom, and to compell many of your majesty's fubjects to receive and lodge them in their own houses, and both themselves and others to contribute to their maintenance; to the exceeding great detriment of your majefty, the general terror of all, and the utter undoing of many of your people (g)."

Left it might be imagined that this was permitted only amidst the confufion of civil war, or practifed upon fuch as were enemies to the royal caufe, our Author judiciously adds a quotation from the fame hiftorian, relating what happened only in the fecond year of that unfortunate prince.

"The foldiers broke out into great diforders, they mastered the people, disturbed the peace of families, and the civil government of the land: there were frequent robberies, burglaries, rapes, rapines, murders, and barbarous cruelties. And unto fuch places, as did not tamely fubmit to the counsellors of this prince, (though there was very little oppofition to the measures of the court at that time) the foldiers were fent for a punishment; and wherever they came there was a general outcry: the highways were dangerous, and the markets unfrequented."

But in oppofition to these practices, the commons in parliament affirmed, that every fubject in this kingdom had a full property in his goods; and in the petition of right, they demand it as their known freedom, to have the foldiers and mariners quartered upon any private perfons, contrary to their confent, withdrawn, to which the king anfwered, Soit droit comme il eft defire. -By a claufe in an act of parliament, 31 Charles II. it is declared and enacted, that no officer, civil or military, nor other perfon whatsoever, fhould from thenceforth prefume to place, quarter or billet any foldier or foldiers, upon any subject or inhabitant (g) Id. Vol. II. p. 424.

(f) Rufhw. Vol. I. p. 548. Rev. March 1766.

O

of