ticular mention of this noble column; but an effectual reply to 1 Section II. details the opinion of Brotier, the learned editor of Tacitus, on this curious fubject, which apparently comes nearer the truth; but happens to be founded on a mistaken, or rather misrepresented, paffage of Father Sicard, as is made fully evident by a quotation of the very paffage alluded to in that Father, and which, though afferted to have reference to an infcription, affigning it to Ptolemy Euergetes, certainly has no fuch reference. Great merit is doubtlefs due to the French writer for his ingenious conjecture, as, in our opinion, Euergetes, that renowned warrior, who, according to the famous Adulitic infcription, fo ably commented upon by Dr. Vincent, fubdued the greatest part of Afia, and whose love of juftice and the arts led him to restore to Egypt the 2,500 pictures and STATUES, ingloriously plundered from her temples by the ravaging hand of Cambyfes, is the only perfon at all worthy to contend for the honour of raifing this column with the monarch, to whom, by the Profeffor, it is ultimately affigned. But to proceed in examining the contents of this fection, which are principally to fupport and corroborate the former pofition, that no legible infcription, nor indeed parts of any infcription, except a few ftraggling unconnected letters, fcarcely vifible but when the fun fhines ftrongly upon them, has for above a century exifted upon its bafe. Maillet, Norden, Niebuhr, and Pococke, the most affiduous copyift of them all, and whofe pages exhibit the unintelligible remains, are fucceflively brought forward in atteftation of this truth. It is remarkable, however, that though all these authors bear witnefs to the appearance of certain characters, evidently Greek, on the western face of the bafe of the column, and to their unintelligibility, yet that, though engaged in measuring that particular fide of it, our learned countryman, Greaves, has omitted even to notice that there there exifted any fuch letters, or fragments of them, especially because, as Dr. W. obferves, the uppermost of his lines of menfuration of the diagram, defignated in his page, muft have directly traverfed the fpot affigned by Pococke to the infcription itfelf. (p. 24.) In the third fection of this differtation, the hypothesis of Profeffor Michaelis, who, tranflating the Arabic name of the column as given in Abulfeda's Geography of Egypt, calls it the Pillar of Severus, is candidly examined by this author; who expreffes his regret at being under the neceffity of differing on any point of literature from an Oriental of fuch diftinguished talents, and of fuch profound erudition. Yet as truth is at fake, and an important queftion among antiquaries to be determined, he hesitates not positively to affirm, that its Arabic denomination of Amûd Iffawari, is erroneously translated by Michaelis "the Pillar of Severus"; his own peculiar investigation into the meaning of the phrafe, added to Arabic anthorities of the middle centuries, has fully convinced Dr. W. that it ought to have been rendered the "column of the pillars." The expreffion being rather fingular, we fhall permit the Doctor to explain himself on this term, referving our review of the three following fections, and the learned Appendix, to a future article. "To an English ear this phrafe will perhaps appear rather tautologous. Our language affords no correfpondent term, no word equally extenfive with Amûd; which includes both the round and the fquare Pillar; and may be applied to a Grecian column, or an Egyp tian obelisk. At the time when the Arabic language firft prevailed in Egypt, there were only two extraordinary objects of this kind remaining in Alexandria; Cleopatra's Needle, and Pompey's Pillar; and the inhabitants appear to have diftinguished them by their local fituation; calling the one, Amûd il Bahri, " The Column of the Sea," and the other, Amûd Iffawâri, "The Column of the Pillars," "It is, however, neceffary to fhew that fome reafon existed for the ufe of this appellation, as defcriptive of the Column. Now Bp. Pococke informs us explicitly, that there ftill remain fome fragments of granite Pillars, four feet in diameter, near the Column of Pompey: and we have the moft pofitive teftimony of the Arabic writers of the middle ages, a teftimony as much to be depended on in this inftance as that of any Greek or Roman writer, that, in the time of Richard Cœur de Lion, there were more than four hundred of thefe Pillars ftanding in the immediate vicinity of the Column. So that this magnificent Monument at that time might evidently be called, with fingu. lar propriety," THE COLUMN of the Pillars." "It appears, therefore, that neither the fufpected Medal of Vefpafian, the illegible Infcription on the bafe, nor the mistaken Version of the paffage in Abulfeda, can afford any fatisfactory information with refpect to the hiftory of the Column. But having now, I trust, re moved moved at least fome of the impediments that obftructed our way, it is time to quit this part of the fubject for another; in the investigation of which, while I endeavour to present the reader with an interefting object of curiofity, fome difcovery may perhaps be made, which will facilitate the remainder of our INQUIRY." P. 31. (To be continued.) ART. II.Dr. Croke's Report on Horner and Liddiard. (Concluded from our laft, p. 514.) THE cafe of Horner againft Liddiard is well deferving the confideration of the public, and perhaps of the legislature itfelf. Mifs Liddiard was the natural daughter of John Whitelock, Efq. This gentleman died when Mifs L. was of the age of eleven years, and devised a confiderable property to her by will. This he directed to be paid to her when the thould attain the age of twenty-one, or be married, with the confent and approbation of her mother, Sarah Liddiard, and George Afhley, or the furvivor of them; to whom he further gave "the tuition and care of his daughter during her minority." Mifs Liddiard, being a minor between eighteen and nineteen years old, was married, by fpecial licence, to Thomas Strangeways Horner, Efq. who had then arrived at the years of legal difcretion. The licence ftated, "that the marriage was folemnized by and with the consent of Sarah Liddiard, there ftyled Sarah Whitelock, widow, her mother and guardian, and which confent was in fact obtained*." In Feb. 1779, three years after the confummation of the marriage, Mr. Horner inftituted a fuit in the Confiftorial Court of London, for a fentence to declare the marriage null and void, by the 26 Geo. III. ch. 33, That ftatute, fect. 11, enacts, "That all marriages folemnized by licence, where either of the parties not being a widower, or widow, fhall be under the age of 21 years, which fhall be had without the confent of the father of fuch of the parties fo under age (if then living) firft had and obtained, or, if dead, of the guardian or guardians of the perfon of the party fo under age, lawfully appointed, or one of them; and in cafe there fhall be no fuch guardian or guardians, then of the mother (if living and unmarried) or, if there fhall be no mother living and unmarried, then It is prefumed that Mr. Ashley was dead; but the circumftance is not adverted to in the Report. 2 of a guardian or guardians of the perfon appointed by the Court of Chancery; fhall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." The fole queftion therefore was whether, under this act, the confent of a guardian appointed by the Court of Chancery is not in all cafes neceffary, to render the marriage of an illegiti mate minor valid, when it is celebrated by licence? ·་ Dr. Croke apologizes, in the commencement of his Effay,' for having given the arguments of the learned advocates on both fides in an imperfect manner. He affigns for an excufe, that the idea of publishing the cafe did not occur until after the argument was concluded." But the fentence of Sir William Scott feems ably given. The learned Judge decided, that the marriage was null and void, for want of that confent which we have already ftated. His excellent judgment cannot, with propriety, be made the fubject of our criticifm. It is part of the law of the land, until reverfed upon appeal by a fuperior tribunal. We feize this opportunity to bear an humble teftimony to the great judicial talents of this excellent perfon. The maritime law over which he prefides particularly involves the interefts of foreigners, and our connection with the reft of the world. It is an honour to the country, to have it adminiftered with uniform precifion, and unfolded with claffical eloquence. It is peculiarly fortunate at this eventful period, when we may be called upon " to maintain against an unjust combination the honour and independence of the British empire;" when questions, which involve "our maritime rights and interefts, and on which both our profperity and fecurity muft always effentially depend," require to be not only well decided, but to be placed on their proper bafis, If fuch arguments do not ftrike our opponents with conviction, they will at least give spirit and confidence to the United Kingdom, called upon as it is, to maintain fome of our dearest and beft afcertained rights as a belligerent power, by an appeal to him who can alone arbitrate; when the rafhnefs, or felfifhnefs, or infanity of rival pations, fhuts their ears against temperate difcuffion. But, having formed an opinion on the point agitated in the cafe before us, it cannot be construed into the flightest disrespect, -if we embrace this opportunity to declare it. We are the rather prompted to do fo, as the parties appear to have acquiefced in the fentence, from perfonal and private confiderations, though the propriety of further investigation, by appeal, seem hinted to them in the latter part of the judgment itself. No fewer than three different conftructions may be given to this claim in the ftatute, fo far as it refpects bastards. ift. That all its provifions extend to illegitimate as well as legitimate legitimate children; and, confequently, that this right of confent belongs to the putative father, as fully as to him whofe children are born in marriage. 2. That by parents, to whom the power of confent is given by the act, are meant those only who are strictly fo in the language of the law, namely, whofe children are born in lawful wedlock; that bastards, being nullorum filii, have no parents; the jurifdiction of the Court of Chancery attaches therefore in the firft inftance upon them, and the marriage of fuch a minor by banns is null, even in the life-time of his father and inother, without the fpecial appointment of a guardian, and His formal confent. 3. That the cafe of illegitimate children is wholly omitted in the ftatute; their right, therefore, of entering into matrimonial contracts remains as it did by our law, prior to the pafsing of the act, and is neither effectual nor annulled through any want of confent by the parents or guardian. If either the firit or laft interpretation are right, the marriage in question is valid; because, in the firft cafe, the confent of the mother was obtained, the putative father being dead. In the laft, no confent being neceffary at all, that of the mother was fuperfluous; and the interference of the guardian, fo far as refpected the marriage contract, would have been impertinent. The Court of King's Bench have decided in favour of the first interpretation, while the Judge of the Admiralty and Confiftorial Courts have adhered to the fecond. Profeffing all the reverence which is fo juftly due to living and great authority, we feel compelled to fay, that the interpretation given to the Act, by the Court of King's Bench, feems to us to be the better founded. Further, if we were at liberty to confide in our own judgment, we fhould be inclined to adopt the third expofition; namely, that the cafe of an illegitimate minor is untouched by the ftatute; and that any confent to their marriage, when of an age to contract, is altogether unneceffary. We cannot difcufs the reafons on which the judgment of the Confiftorial Court is founded, from the confiderations already ftated; and it would occupy too much fpace to bring forward all the arguments upon which we ground our private opinion. We thall reftrict ourselves to one that arifes upon the very words of the claufe, and it is unnoticed in Dr. C.'s Report. It is, that this power of consent vested in a Chancery guardian is not given positively, but eventually and conditionally. It is made to arife folely from the Occurrence of certain contingencies, namely, the death of the father, his not appointing a guardian, and there being "no mother living or unmarried." If the words of the Act had run, |