lumes quarto. A great number of engravings will be added by the moft eminent artifts. The obfcenities will be left out of the common copies; but printed feparately for the ufe of the curious and critical readers. The paffages that have an improper political tendency will be carefully omitted; fuch as— -Sed magis Pugnas, et exactos tyrannos Ďenfum humeris bibit aure vulgus. "The clustering mob is more delighted to hear of battles and the expulfion of tyrants." Or that addrefs to Fortune Purpurei metuunt tyranni, Stantem columnam; neu populus frequens Concitet, imperiumque frangat. "Purple tyrants dread thee, O Fortune, left thou shouldst kick down the standing pillar [of exifting circumftances]; left the thronging populace should fummon the loiterers TO ARMS, TO ARMS; and demolish the empire." But thefe paffages, thank God! are very few, and fhall be ftudioutly, fuppreffed. Luckily, Horace is full of loyal effufions, which I fhall endeavour to render with fpirit as well as fidelity. What, for instance, can be more applicable than the following paffage to the prefent holy war? -Diu Lateque victrices catervæ, Confiliis Juvenis repreffe, Senfere, quid mens rite, quid indoles Nutrita fauftis fub penetralibus Poffet-quid Augufti paternus "The "The armies, fo long and fo far victorious, were checked by the conduct of a young Prince, and became fenfible what could be done by a mind and a difpofition duly nurtured under an aufpicious roof-what could be achieved by the paternal affection of Auguftus to the young Neroes." But it is time to release you from this tedious preface, and give you my fpecimen.-Why, thus it runs, then : HORACE, LIB. I. ODE XXVII. TRANSLATED. "Pistols and ball for fix!" what sport! Why, though your ftuff is plaguy heady, You won't?-then, damme if I drink! What Lapland witch, what cunning man, St. George himself, who flew the dragon, HORAT. CARM. I. 27. Natis in ufum lætitiæ fcyphis Pugnare Thracum eft; tollite barbarum Vino et lucernis Medus acinaces Et cubito remanete preffo. Vultis feveri me quoque fumere Ceffat voluntas? Non alia bibam Ignibus, ingenuoque femper Amore peccas. Quicquid habes, age; Digne puer meliore flamma! Quæ faga, quis te folvere Theffalis [From the Morning Chronicle.] QUESTIONS FROM A MAN OF KENT. BEING plain countryman, and mafter of a farm of two hundred acres of land, though I fay it, as good arable as any in the parish, I have neither time nor opportunity to look into old records of State Trials or books of law, by which many things that are paffing at prefent might be rendered intelligible to me. fhould therefore be very glad if any of your larned correfpondents would answer a handful or two of queftions that I am going to put to them. I Was Was there as much talking on the trial of Algernon Sidney, who was talked to death by the Crown Lawyers, as on the trial of Horne Tooke and Hardy? As the Attorney and Solicitor General affirmed, that all attempts to reform the Commons Houfe of Parliament were treafon by clear law, what made them talk ten or a dozen hours each to prove it? Is there fuch a term in the language of the courts as legal botheration? The Crown Lawyers and the Bench admitting that Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Richmond are criminal, as well as the perfons at prefent under trial, can the Attorney-general, confiftently with his duty, neglect to profecute them? How happens it, that the meaning of the law of treafon, which was enacted by a Parliament where no lawyer was allowed to fit, fhould be a legal question, and not to be understood by any man, who has not a big wig upon his head? When Judge Fofter faid, that " The prison and the grave of a King are not far diftant," was it a witty faying, or a pofitive truth, fufficient for the conftructing of a new fpecies of treafon? If to confpire to depose a King, neceffarily implies his death, how comes it that the laft King whom we depofed lived to a good old age in France, and at last died quietly in his bed? Were the English affociates of King William, who depofed King James, and fettled the fucceffion on the houfe of Hanover, guilty of high treafon in fo doing?. If they were, what fort of a title has his Majefty, God bless him! to the throne? When Edward the Third's parliament declared that nothing was treafon but levying war against the King, compaffing his death, or adhering to his enemies, did they mean that any thing else was? How happens it, that the Court Lawyers, one and H 4 all, all, are fure to find treafon, where Juries can see no fuch thing? Is this oppofition of fentiment always the effect of chance, or of the influence of the ftars, or is it the effect of influence of any other kind? Is there any law against confpiring, by judicial chicanery, to take away a fellow-citizen's life? As it is admitted on all hands, that a nation has the right of changing its government, how happens it that it is treafon in a part of the people to propose the reform of fuch abufes as may exist in theirs? If the individuals that have ufurped the rights of the people, refufe to restore them, after being requested fo to do in a polite way, is it treafon for the nation to endeavour to recover them by means less confiftent with urbanity? Have the good people of England any right to their rights ? If they have, has any body a right to withhold them? Does the right of the people in this country to be freely reprefented depend upon the pleasure of thofe who reprefent them against their will? If it does not, is there any punishment for those who invade the privileges of the people? And is it likely that Mr. Attorney-general will profecute the delinquents? If he does not, who will? And, laftly, would there be any remedy for a man who fhould be firft kept up for fix months, like a bagged fox, by minifters, and afterward hunted down. by the Court Lawyers, for no other reason than because corrupt majoritics of the Legiflature might call it treafon to refift corruption? I truft, Mr. Editor, you will forgive me for being rather minute and particular in my queftions, for I was always mortally afraid of law-fuits, and fhould be |