which they call affumptive arms, from their being affumed and borne by perfons not properly intitled thereto. This, indeed, as Mr. Porny justly obferves, is a great abuse of heraldry; but yet fo common, and fo much tolerated, almost every where, that little or no notice is taken of it.'

He next proceeds to explain the effential and integral parts of arms, viz. the fhield, tinctures, charges, and ornaments.

When he comes to speak of the differences of coats-of-arms, which armorifts have invented to diftinguish the bearers of the fame coat from each other, he divides them into ancient and modern, the former confifting of bordures only, the latter of the label, crefcent, mullet, martiet, annulet, &c.-But of all thefe marks of diftinction, he obferves, that none but the label is inferted into the coats-of-arms belonging to any of the royal family, which the introducers of this peculiarity have, however, thought proper to difference by diftinct charges on the points of the label; fuch as a red cross on the [late] D. of Cumberland's, erimine on the Princefs Amelia's, &c.'-To the above inftances he might have added another distinction, viz. that the label in the D. of York's arms is of five points.

He fays that fifters have no differences in their coats, therefore are permitted to bear the arms of their father, even as the eldest fon does after his father's decease.' But how does this agree with his own account above, of the ermined label in the Princefs Amelia's arms?

Mr. Porny feems unwilling to allow of any fuch diftinctions as are ufually ftiled abatements of honour for which he affigns this reafon; that- arms being marks of honour, they cannot admit of any note of infamy; nor would any body bear them, if they were fo branded.'-But it is generally allowed that the bâton is placed acrofs the arms of baftards as an abatement, without which they cannot bear their paternal coats;-and if the bâton is not an abatement, then is there no difference between baftards and children lawfully begotten. To avoid allowing the bâton to be an Abatement, Mr. Porny in his Dict. calls it a Rebatement, but this is a diftinctim without a difference.

Chap. IV. gives a great variety of examples of all the various charges, as diftinguished by the names of honourable ordinaries, proper ordinaries, and common charges. Among the firft is included the faltier, which, he fays, p. 86, may, like the others, be borne engrailed, wavy,' &c.-but though he gives a whole plate of examples, yet not one amongst them is to be found wavy.And here we are obliged to obferve, that his plates, and the explanations of them, do not always agree fo exactly as the nice diftinctions of heraldry feem to require. Thus, in Pl. V. No. 20. (arms of the bishopric of Raphoe) the first part of the chief, hould have been the fecond, and vice verfa. agreeably to the • REV. Feb, 1766.

I

blaze

t

blazon at p. 44.-At p. 106, the arms of Hoblethorne are thus blazoned, fable, a mascle within a double treffure flory, argent :' whereas in the plate the treffure is only fingle, but at the fame time counter-flory.-In the fame page, the E. of Sutherland's arms are properly blazoned, and the bordure faid to be charged with a double treffure flowery and counter-flowery,'-but in the plate the treffure is flowery only. Pl. 18. No. 3. the gauntlets, in the E. of Weftmoreland's arms, are engraved for the left, inftead of the right-hand, fee p. 149.-Pl. 19, No. 9. the mermaid holds her mirror, and comb, in the contrary hands to what he ought to do. See p. 161.

-

At p. 17, TENNE, or orange-colour, is faid to be marked by diagonal lines drawn from the finifter to the dexter fide of the fhield, traverfed by perpendicular lines from the chief:'-but in the figure there referred to, the diagonal lines are drawn from the dexter fide of the fhield to the finifter :-juft the reverse.

In Chap. VI. [mif-figured, VII.] the external ornaments of efcutcheons, intended to denote the birth, dignity, or office of the perfons to whom the arms belong, are well defcribed and accurately engraved. These are crowns, coronets, mitres, helmets, mantlings, chapeaux, wreaths, crefts, fcrolls, and fupporters. The feroll is placed at the bottom of the efcutcheon containing a motto, alluding fometimes to the bearings, or the bearer's name; and fometimes it has reference to neither, but expreffes fomething divine or heroic, as that of the E. of Scarborough,-murus Eneus confcientia fana.

Chap. VII. gives us the rules or laws of heraldry, drawn up in a clear, though concise manner and in the 8th, we are inftructed in the methods made ufe of by heralds in marfballing coats of arms. Amongst other pertinent obfervations on this head, the following deferves particular notice. If a lady of quality marry a private gentleman, or one inferior to her rank, their coats-of-arms are not to be conjoined paleways, as those of baron and femme, but must be set aside of one another in two separate efcutcheons, and the lady's arms ornamented according to her title.'-As an inftance of this, we have the arms of General Ch. Montagu, and Lady Eliz. Villiers, Viscountess Grandifon, engraved feparately, and set aside of each other: but the lady's arms are in a lozenge, which we apprehend to be wrong; that method seeming to belong only to unmarried ladies.-See p. 12, where Mr. Porny himself speaks thus, The efcutcheon of maiden ladies and widows is, or ought to be, in form of a lozenge.'

Upon the whole, however, we really think the work before us a judicious compendium of the science of heraldry; and may be of great ufe to fuch as have not leisure to confult the many larger treatifes upon this fubject; and which Mr. Porny has

h

made

!

made fubfervient to the completion of his own defign, by ex-. tracting from each what he thought moft for his purpose, without loading the reader's memory too much with pompous trifles. The fhort Dictionary of Technical Terms, at the end, is very concife, yet tolerably full: though fome words, made use of in the book, are not explained in the dictionary; for instance chappé, p. 108.-Dia. Archbishop of York, he fays, writes himfelf [only] as bishops do, by divine permiffion. In this he is wrong; as well as in ftiling the Abp. of Cant. the Primate of all England: the particle the not being used in his style.-Diet. Marquis, his title is, faid to be, most noble, inftead of most honourable.

In the chapter of PRECEDENCY, the Lord Conftable is forgot, and the Secretaries of State faid to precede all of their own degree; which is the cafe, only, when the latter happen to be barons, or bishops. And, at prefent, the Lord Great Chamberlain of England takes place only according to his creation, and does not precede thofe of his own degree. These inaccuracies are pointed out, with a view to their being amended in a future. edition; and to prevent their being re-printed, as is too often done, even where books are faid to have been corrected.

Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Firft. By William Blackftone, Efq; Vinerian Profeffor of Law, and Solicitor-General to her Majefty. 4to. 18s. in Sheets. Worral.

I

T has long fince been a complaint, that the ftudy of the law is of all others the leaft inviting, especially to a student of any genius and vivacity: and this may feem the more extraor dinary, when it is confidered that the life, health, reputation, and property of mankind are preferved, nay that their very pleasures are regulated, by the law, which embraces within its circle quicquid agunt homines. One might imagine that in fo wide a field, the livelieft imagination might find fome path in which to exercise its faculties; nevertheless, dull plodding drones, whofe minds never entertained a bright idea, have been diftinguished as the moft fhining luminaries of the law. The illuftrious Bacon, though Chancellor of Great Britain, is little spoken of as a lawyer, while his cotemporary and competitor, Coke, is adored as an oracle.

We are inclined to think that this general averfion to the study of the law, cannot be owing to the nature of the fcience itself, but is rather, among other reafons, to be attributed to the inelegant and uncouth manner in which it has been treated. Lawbooks being chiefly compiled from reports, which have been

I 2

penned

penned from the mouths of the court and the bar, are full of all the inaccuracies attending common speech; and our compilers having moft of them religioufly adhered to the very letter, lawbooks have become the folemn fanctuaries of barbarifm, and cannot fail to difguft a reader of correct and elegant taste.

But the learned and ingenious Author of the commentaries before us has, to ufe the expreffion of a popular judge, brushed away the cobwebs of the law, and placed it in fo clear a light, that, under his aufpices, the ftudy becomes at once agreeable, elegant and inftructive.

It is to be obferved that the Writer has not discharged the task of a mere lawyer,-than which perhaps there is not a more circumfcribed and infipid character. A mere lawyer contents himfelf with knowing what the law is in given cafes, and but feldom applies his thoughts to difcover the rationale on which legal principles are founded; much lefs does he extend his ideas fo far as to confider what inftitutions are capable of improvement. What perfeverance can conquer, he will furmount; what ge nius muft fupply, he will want for ever.

Our masterly Commentator takes a wider range, and unites the qualities of the hiftorian and politician, with those of the lawyer. He traces the first establishment of our laws, developes the principles on which they are grounded, examines their propriety and efficacy, and, with that decorum which attends good fenfe, he fometimes points out wherein they may be altered for the better.

It affords us a fenfible pleafure that we have this opportunity of giving our Readers fuch an abstract of so able a performance, as, we think, muft neceffarily induce them to perufe the work at large. At the fame time, we fhall, with all the freedom of impartial criticism, take notice of fuch errors and inaccuracies as may feem to require animadverfion. But, whenever we find occafion to differ from our Author, the respect due to his merit, nay, the refpect due to ourselves, will oblige us to express our diffent with candor, with politenefs, with delicacy.

The introduction to these commentaries is divided into four fections. Of the firft, which treats of the ftudy of the law, we fhall take no notice, having already expreffed our fentiments with respect to this meritorious treatife, which was long fince

Here, as members of, and well-wishers to, the republic of letters, we cannot forbear lamenting fome late inftances, wherein men of acknowledged learning and genius, who ought to have been masters of themselves and examples to others, have unhappily fhewn that the ad vantages of literature, inftead of ferving to moderate pride and affwage relentment, only fupply the means of conveying their effects with greater poignance and acrimony..

4

published

published separately*: we shall therefore proceed to the second, which treats of the nature of laws in general.

This fection very properly opens with a definition of law in general. Law, fays the Writer, in its most general and comprehenfive fenfe, fignifies a rule of action; and is applied indif criminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we fay the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prefcribed by fome fuperior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.' In this definition, the learned Author does not seem to have expreffed himself with his ufual correctness and perfpicuity. In the first place, it may be deemed rather, inaccurate to talk of inanimate ACTION; to this we may add, that the definition feems to confound law in general, with law in a more confined sense: for, after having faid that it is applied indifcriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational, the paragraph concludes thus: and IT is that rule of action, which is prescribed by fome fuperior, and which the inferior is bound to obey. Now, the terms fuperior and inferior imply certain relations not ftrictly applicable to any thing inanimate or irrational: and this part of the definition is rather defcriptive of law, as denoting the rule of human action, than of law in the general fenfe here intended t.

"

From this general definition of law, our Author proceeds to an explanation of the law of nature, which, as he observes, is • founded on those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things, antecedent to any pofitive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator himself in all his difpenfations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to difcover, fo far as they are neceffary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are thefe principles that we should live honeftly, should hurt nobody, and fhould render to every one its due; to which three general precepts, Juftinian has reduced the whole doctrine of law.'

But if the difcovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reafon, and could not otherwife be attained than by a chain of metaphyfical

See Review, Vol. XIX. p.. 486.,

It may be added, that it is in fubftance the fame with the definition of law given by Puffendorf and Hobbes. Puffendorf fays, In genere autem lex commodime videtur definiri, per decretum quo fuperior fibi fubje&um bigat, ut ad fius prefcriptum actiones fuas componat. So Hobbes, to the Lame effect, A law is the command of him or them that have the fovereign power, given to thofe that be his or their fubjects, declari publickly and plainly what every of them may do, and what they m forbear to do.'