The gentlemen wore sky-blue coats, with silver button-holes, and huge cuffs extending more than half-way from the middle of the hand to the elbow, short breeches, just reaching to the silver garters at the knee, and embroidered waistcoats, with long flaps which came almost as low. The most indispensable part was the wig, which, in the case of Dr. Dove, was a modest medium between the bush-wig of the apothecary, and the consequential foretop of the physician. The ladies of this era wore large hoops, peaked stomachers, and modesty-bits; their riding habits and waistcoats were trimmed with silver, and they had very gentlemanlike perukes for riding in, as well as gentleman-like cocked-hats. "Yet, young ladies, they were as gay and giddy in their time as you are now; they were as attractive and as lovely; they were not less ready than you are to laugh at the fashions of those who had gone before them; they were wooed and won by gentlemen in short breeches, long flapped waistcoats, large cuffs and tie wigs ; and the wooing and winning proceeded much in the same manner as it had done in the generations before them, as the same agreeable part of this world's business proceeds among yourselves, and as it will proceed when you will be as little thought of by your great-grand-daughters, as your great-grand-mothers are at this time by you. What care you for your great-grand-mothers!" Continuing the narrative of Dr. Dove's life, the author tells us that he never played cards, that therefore he was not frequently a member of parties where cards were played, but that to compensate for this, he was a frequent guest at Netherhall, the seat of Mr. Copley, where he had the opportunity of meeting with some choice company. Netherhall was classic ground, for both Gray and Mason were guests in it. Here too, Dr. Miller, of Doncaster, organist, and subsequently historian of that town, was received, with his particular friend, Dr. Dove. We introduce this explanation, in order to usher in a remarkable fact, which occurred to Dr. Miller. About the year 1760, he was dining at Pontefract, with the officers of the Durham militia, when " one of them knowing his love of music, told him they had a young German in their band as a peformer on the hautboy, who had only been a few months in England, yet spoke English almost as well as a native, and who was also an excellent performer on the violin; the officer added, that if Miller would come into another room, this German should entertain him with a solo. The invitation was gladly accepted, and Miller heard a solo of Giardini's executed in a manner that surprised him. He afterwards took an opportunity of having some private conversation with the young musician, and asked him whether he had engaged himself for any long period to the Durham militia? The answer was, "only from month to month." "Leave them then," said the organist, "and come and live with me. I am a single man, and think we shall be happy together; and doubtless your merit will soon entitle you to a more eligible situa

tion." This offer was accepted as frankly as it was made: and the reader may imagine with what satisfaction Dr. Miller must have remembered this act of generous feeling, when he hears that this young German was Herschel the astronomer.

An occasion accidentally arises in the course of his narrative, which brings to the author's recollection, some general thoughts on eccentricity of character, and after stating, that eccentric characters are probably more numerous amongst the people of England, than in those of any other country, he observes, that two causes may be described as accounting for this phenomenon. The first is, that spirit of independence which is so peculiar to English pride, and which brings about a sort of bravery, that is very often made subservient to the strongest impulses, Persons who are eccentric, feel a sort of perverse pleasure in acting preposterously, just to satisfy themselves, and perhaps to convince others, that they are at liberty to do as they please. The other cause is, that our madhouses are rather stimulants to the continuation of any insane tendency, than means of alleviating the disease. He mentions particularly the case of a gentleman, who, growing weary of the world, fled in the mortification of a satiated mind, from the world, whose pleasures he found palling on his senses, and burying himself in his estate at the parish of Bolton-on-Darne, near Doncaster. His property was 1,400l. a year he kept no servant, and no company, but lived on water-gruel and celery, except at harvest time, when he eat sparrow-pies made of the birds just fledged. His only business was to collect about a dozen boys and girls every Sunday, when he heard their catechism, and read to them a chapter in the New Testament. He gave each of the children twopence. He stood god-father for the offspring of many persons round his estate, and apprenticed them when fit. His name was Bingley, and he used every week to lock himself up in the church, and paced up and down the aisles for two hours, from ten o'clock in the morning till twelve. He ultimately died in lodgings at Rotherham, whither he had removed when he felt himself ill, in order to save expence, by getting nearer a physician. The author gives Doctor Dove's judgment as a medical man on this case, which was to the effect that Bingley would have been happier in a convent or hermitage, not that the choice of the latter would have been more rational, but because there would have been a more worthy motive for chosing it, and if not a more reasonable hope, certainly a firmer persuasion, that it was the sure way to salvation.

The volume concludes with an account of the birth and parentage of Mrs. Dove, and in such a manner as to satisfy us that another volume at least is intended to be added. But we are by no means sure of the fact, as the eccentricity displayed by the author, prepares us for almost any singularity.

369

ART. X.-Theory of the Constitution compared with its Practice in Ancient and Modern Times, with an Enquiry how far the late Reform of Parliament is, or is not Consistent with the Principles of the Constitution, either in Theory or in Practice, concluding with Plans for Relieving the Public Disorders, and for Changing the Present System of Government in a Manner to Prevent such Disorders from ever Happening Again.—By JAMES B. BERNARD, Esq. Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 1 vol. large 8vo. Ridgway. 1834.

WE live in fearful times; this nation, at the hour in which we write, is running headlong towards a revolution of the most terrible kind without knowing where it is going, and the contentions of its public men of all parties alike tend to promote one, so that if new men do not speedily make their appearance to give a totally new direction to the government, our destruction is inevitable.

Such are the woful sounds which the prophet Bernard stands up to trumpet forth, setting himself up as one of the inspired; one of the new lights that are to give a fresh direction to the government. In what a dark mass of blind ignorance has this nation been immerged for the last half century, when it believed that the malignant influence which has degraded it to its present state of destitution, was to be found in rotten boroughs, and in bribery, and in the corrupt ascendancy of the Aristocracy! Vain, and illusive notions! they amused the country, they occupied its thoughts, which if rightly directed, would have found the root of the evil much deeper seated than is generally imagined.

What will our readers think of the revelation of the new prophet, when they are told that the real enemy of England, the genuine foe of prosperity was the Revolution of 1688!! when was established a wicked system, which having deprived the monarch of all substantial power, and transferred the executive to the House of Commons, vested in that House the real sovereignty? It is then, the preponderance of power corruptly acquired by the House of Commons, which has led to the virtual overthrow of the ancient constitution of the land, distributed as it was proportionally between the King, Lords and Commons, and as for the Borough influence of the Crown and Aristocracy, that instead of being a curse, stood to the country as a blessing, by limiting the extant of the devastation which the absolute power of the Commons would ultimately have effected. Here then, we behold a prophet, a commissioner from above, an apostle destined to preach the tidings of a new political gospel, a very evangelist of despotic authority coming amongst us, to revive the ancient idolatry of crowns and sceptres, and to convert the population once more into the serfs and vassals of the middle ages. Let us listen with becoming respect to the gifted

missionary of the new doctrines; let us hear the words of inspiration with awe, and be obedient to the arguments that are now revealed to us.

Mr. Bernard commences the first part of his lengthened homily by an attempt at settling in an exact manner, the true import of the theory of our constitution: he next shows, that that theory was carried into practice up to the era of the Civil Wars, in the reign of the First Charles, when it was interrupted; and then he proceeds to point out what has been the character of the constitution, as practised during the period which has elapsed since that great disturbing cause, the Revolution of 1688. The British constitution, derived by us from our Saxon ancestors, is such a union of the several powers of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as will combine in one system the advantages of each of these separate forms of government, without the defects of either of them. Such is the theory, and if carried into practice, no doubt it would prove excellent, for it would make the government what it ought to be, that is to say, the government adhering strictly to the theory of the constitution, would protect the weak against the encroachments of the strong; it would provide good laws and regulations for the general settlement of disputes and differences, it would exact securities from those who make the laws, and from those who administer them, so as that no man should be unjustly molested in his person or property. These are the plain obligations which are imposed on every government. But the theory of the British constitution is not to be satisfied with that much, for it aims at a higher purpose, namely, that it should comprehend what its title imports, a fixed or permanent arrangement of machinery, so contrived as to be the means of guiding the people to those employments and pursuits which will secure to them the greatest degree of happiness. For example, if a given country is so circumstanced as to present numerous peculiar facilities for carrying on trade, in such a case the theory of the constitution, if acted on, would induce the rulers to take advantage of such facilities.

Now, the author is of opinion that agriculture ought to be preferred in this country, and cherished too as the basis on which the national prosperity should rest; but afterwards, he shows, that a permanently prosperous and improving state of agriculture is connected in an eminent degree with an aristocracy, and that therefore the maintenance of an aristocracy is essential to the welfare of the whole of the agricultural interest, yet that the democratical principle is altogether favourable to an opposite view of the question, looking with a far more partial eye on the interests of trade. The inference then is, that the aristocratical principle is as much connected with agriculture, as the democratic principle is with manufactures and commerce, and unless the aristocratical basis remains for the protection of agriculture, it must be ultimately destroyed by the superior ascendancy of trade. Here then, we see the funda

mental principles of the British constitution: resting as it does on a high aristocratical basis, it admits at the same time the principle of democracy, but only to such an extent as is suitable to the preponderance assigned to agriculture. The author however shall be allowed to state his own conclusions as to the effect of the theory:

"Had England been a country adapted to manufacturing and commercial purposes only or principally, it might have been right to erect the Government upon a democratical basis, rather than upon an aristocratical one; in which case the ends of good government might have been answered by a House of Commons only, without a House of Lords, and by a President instead of a King. But England is a great agricultural, as well as a great manufacturing and commercial nation; and this makes all the difference. The utility of a House of Lords consists in the tendency it has to maintain and preserve the aristocratical part of the Constitution, in opposition to the democratical, which last is ever seeking to gain the ascendancy. It is difficult to discover any other object, in fact, in a House of Lords, but this. The original constitution, too, intended for the House of Commons itself, must also be looked upon as of a high aristocratical tendency, for the same reason; destroy this, and the House of Lords becomes of no further use; for a democratical House of Commons is utterly inconsistent with a House of Lords, as is sufficiently exemplified in France; the two forming a contradiction that can never exist together. Nor indeed does a democratical House of Commons want any assistance from any other House, under the name of either Lords or Senate; for, as the House of Peers is a contradiction to the established order of things in France, so is the Senate of the United States of no use in America, as far as one can discover from this distance, since the Government there appears as if it might go on just as well without it.

"With respect to the utility of a King, it consists in his being placed in the command of a sufficient power and authority to control and regulate so diversified a machine of Government as that which is here portrayed, and to keep its several parts in subordination one to another. It is his duty to take care that the Aristocracy loses no ground in the position wisely assigned to it for the common benefit, whilst at the same time he watches over the interests of the Democracy, and ensures to it every advantage that does not interfere with the fair preponderance of the Aristocracy. Now for these purposes larger powers are wanted, than where a Constitution is settled upon a democratical basis; and in this lies the principal utility of a King. But allow the democratical principle to prevail, and the King ceases to be of any use; for a President will then answer equally well every purpose required in a Chief of the State.

"Such, then, appears to be the real theory and character of the British Constitution, as far as we are able to discover it amidst the mass of contradictory interpretations which it has received; and if the view we have here taken of it be correct, it will readily be seen how extremely liable it must be to derangement, when its leading principles, bearings, and purposes, are not all thoroughly understood; and how such derangement, it not corrected in due season by those who have both sagacity to perceive, and wisdom to repair the injury, must terminate eventually in its entire overthrow."-pp. 28, 29.