ordinary anecdote upon this occafion, taken from a manufcript Life of lord Herbert, written by himself. By this we are informed that his lordship, doubtful whether he ought to publish this work, humbly supplicated the Deity, if the publication was for his glory, to favour him with a fign from heaven; and that immediately a diftinct, but gentle found came from above, and so cheared and comforted him that he took the petition for granted. Lord Herbert produced several other works, and appears to have been that uncommon character, a confcientious deift. The more enlightened views of liberty which had taken place under the reign of Elifabeth, had, as we have already remarked, been extend ed and improved under that of James. Charles I, unhappily afcended the throne with prejudices in favour of hereditary and indefeasible right, fimilar to those of his predeceffor; and what the father had only been called upon to defend by words, the son was compelled to affert by action. The exhausted state of the finances (that most fatal fource of all national disorganization) the anticipations of the revenue of the crown, and the necessity of additional fupplies for defraying the expences of naval and military armaments, afforded an opportunity, which was eagerly seized, of contracting the exorbitant power claimed by the monarch. The enlarged minds of many among the first parliament of Charles readily comprehended that it was ne ceffary, either entirely to abandon the privileges of the people, or to secure them by firmer barriers than had yet been provided. Their fittings, how ever, paffed in complaints of grievances, which at that time had not always the best foundation, and in entire uncompliance with the demands for money, which were made by the king. The second parliament was fill more refractory, and was foon diffolved; but the anger of the commons was excited by the imprisonment of tive of their members, who had ventured to accuse the favourite, Buckingham; and their obstinacy was confirmed by the king's releasing them without further punishment. The fupplies which the king was unable to obtain from his parliament, he endeavoured to procure by compounding with the catholics for difpenfing with the peral laws in their disfavour, by loans and benevolences, and by the famous expedient of ship-money. In the extreme want of money which fucceeded, the councils for fupply had recourse to a general loan; and each man was required to pay that precife fum which would have fallen to his fhare, had the vote for four fubfidies passed into a law. The people were, however, informed, that this was not to be called a fubfidy, but a loan; and the nation could not but feel that fuch measures rendered parliaments fuperfluous. Many who refufed compliance, were imprisoned by an order from the council, and afterward, by a petition to the king, procured their liberty. But fir Thomas Darnel, fir Walter Earl, fir John Corbet, fir John Heveningham, and fir Edmond Hambden, refused this fubmiffion, and demanded their release, not as a favour from the court, but as their right by the laws of their country. The queftion was brought to a folemn trial in the King's-bench; and the king was aftonished to observe that a power, which his corrupt courtiers had perfuaded him was a part of his legal prerogative, was found, upon trial, to be directly oppofite to the clearest law, and supported by no undoubted precedents in courts of judicature. The third parliament, irritated by the imprisonment of their former members, by forced loans, and the tax upon tonnage and poundage, seemed refolved to grant no fupplies till their grievances were redreffed. Forevery supply, therefore, which was granted to the crown, some conceffion in favour of civil liberty was extorted. The sycophants of the court loudly exclaimed against the contumacy of the commons; but their power did not appear formidable: the English defined; and the dispersion of the annals had not yet furnished an in- petition throughout the nation made stance of a revolution effected by the the arguments on these subjects fathird order of the state. The lofty.miliar to every rank. The eloquence> claims of prerogative on the one hand, of parliament, now well refined from and of privilege on the other, were the pedantry of the preceding reign, animated with the spirit of liberty, and employed in the most important interests, commanded general attention. The illegality of levying war without the confent of parliament, of imprisoning the subject at the will of the monarch, of quartering foldiers, and executing martial law con trary to the laws of the land, which form the basis of this petition, having received a tardy and reluctant assent from the king, the royal prerogative was confequently confiderably circum scribed, and additional security was given to the liberty of the fubject. urged with vehemence and acrimony, but investigated with precision. So thoroughly, indeed, was the subject then examined, that modern times have not produced one argument in favour of liberty, which was not repeatedly adduced and inforced by the enlightened politicians of the reign of Charles I. The policy which has fince been pursued, of chusing minifters from their parliamentary intereft or talents, and of conferring offices upon those leaders who en croach too much on royal authority, in expectation that they will become more careful not to diminish that power which has become their own, was first adopted in this reign; a some effect in improving the reason fure proof,' says Hume, that a fecret revolution had happened in the conftitution, and had neceffitated the prince to adopt new maxims of go Sir, The political discussions which so universally prevailed, probably had ings of the judges, respecting the ON DOMESTIC MONARCHY. To the Editor of the Universal Magazine. ANALOGY, fay the philofophers, dazzles and furprizes the judgment, than informs it. It too often allumes the form of wit, and thus instead of our difcovering any actual relation between the objects compared, we are only tickled bya whimfical coincidence which has no foundation but is a certain relation and agree ment between two or more things, which in other respects are totally different. It enters, therefore, into all our reasoning, and ferves to explain and illustrate, and where there is really a great fimilitude in the in the fertility of the imagination. things compared, there may be a con- Such perhaps was the argument of an fiderable degree of reliance placed on ancient phyfician, against exercise. conclufions drawn from analogy. But Men, says he, should not take exerI am afraid, that like many other va- cife, because trees, which never move luable things in common use, analogy out of their places grow much fafter is liable to be employed where it can and stronger than men. be of no fervice, or where it rather I have been led into these reflec tions by observing the application that his has been unfortunately applied has lately been made of certain political doctrines to objects of domestic economy, with which they never were intended, by their original authors, to interfere. I need not say how much the principles of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy have lately been canvassed, with what warmth of zeal, with what strength of argument, with what asperity and with what industry they have been alternately supported or impugned. The whole world appears as if its existence depended on coming to an immediate decision on these weighty matters; all old things are done away; and we are to start from the post of political consequence to run the great race of national happiness in a manner never before attempted, and which is expected to produce unheard-of confequences. Had these matters been discussed as matters which concerned kingdoms and states only, I should not have been inclined to object to them, because too much scope cannot be given to fair discussion; but when I find that analogical cunning has embraced objects with which politics have no necessary connexion, and when I find that revolutionary sentiments are attempted to be disseminated in families as well as in kingdoms, it is high time for us to look about for some means to prevent domeftic anarchy, and matrimonial mutiny. I am aware that those who compare a family to a government have Ariftotle on their fide, who has said that the government of a family is naturally monarchical, but that great man, I am perfuaded, meant not that this expression should admit of any very great latitude, or that, because he compared a family to a monarchy, we should hunt the fimile through all its mazes and intricacies. He probably had an eye to the patriarchal begin nings of slates, when the head of a family poffeffed that power over the lives and fortunes of his children which is now with great wisdom veited in the state. Yet this fentiment of lately to introduce a complete analcgy between a family and a government, and because certain nations have from necessity or sedition thrown off the monarchical form, it has been dangerously infinuated that the same may be done in families. Mr. Editor, this is an innovation which we ought to refift: it comes home to men's bosoms and businets,' and no one can say where it may end.. With Ariftotle, then, we will agree that the government of a family 'is monarchical. The first innovation. which has been attempted by the moderns is to set aside the natural order of succession in the male line. I have ever been an admirer of Pharamond the (fuppofed) author of the salique law in France, by virtue of which mates only are to inherit. And before I proceed farther, I beg leave to set some of my readers right in their opinion of this law. It has been thought to have a particular regard to the crown of France only; whereas in fact, it imports generally that no part of the inheritance shall fall to any female, but the whole shall be in the male line, and it extends to private persons as well as to those of the royal family. I am not, indeed, of opinion that it ought to extend so far, but as far as regards the inheritance to the family crown, it is a natural and just law, and I am persuaded that if Ariftotle were now at my elbow, he would say that when he constituted a family into a monarchy, he meant that the man was to be the monarch. With regard to a nation, I am also of opinion that either the salique law is good, or the general tenour of our laws is bad. For why should a woman be supposed more fit for the office of queen, than that of member of parliament, churchwarden, or exciseman? yet the former is faid to be right and proper, and the latter would be scouted as abfurd and ridiculous. But this by way of digression. I fay, fir, the first step our innova tórs have taken is to impugn the right of succession, and to place the female on the throne, not in default of the male, but actually in competition with him; not because he deceafes, or is infane, or incapable of governing, but because they choose to place a rival on the throne, and take the reins of government out of his hands. Hence, fir, do we hear in so many families, doubts started on the divine right of husbands to govern their families, and these doubts, however humbly proposed, and with however much apparent delicacy, very foon fap the principles of the subjects, incite them to fedition, and often occafion an actual rebellion, which is seldom quelled without great mischief and lofs to both parties, and unfortunately almost never without conceffions from the monarch, which serve no other purpose than to harden the disaffected and make them unreasonable in their demands. I have, hitherto, allowed some indulgence to analogy,, because the authority quoted is venerable and great, but if we, with these innovators, push our analogy any farther, we shall doubtless find that, as the logicians fay, the fimile balts. We can bring no more resemblances between the king's throne and the father's arm chair, and must either combine a number of particulars which have no na. tural connexion, and therefore the combination will be abfurd, or we must sit down quietly with allowing that the government of a family is monarchical, and no more can be said of it, and no more use made of Aristotle's position. But if the dis turbers of families are refolved to go farther, I would ask them what kind of monarchy it is which is conftituted in a family? Is it an absolute, or a limited monarchy ? Wherein lies the executive power? How are the supplies raised, and by whom applied? Long before they have come to the last of these questions, they will perceive that analogy has no more weight, and that the management of a family bears little or no resemblance to the government of a kingdom. The father of a family makes his subjects. A king finds them ready made, and has nothing to do but to make fuccessors. In a family, the father is first lord of the treasury, chancellor of the exchequer, paymaster-general, and fills almost every office from fovereign to executioner. When he delegates any part of his authority. it is still performed under his eye, and according to his command, and in very few cafes does he grant difcretionary powers. But what above all conftitutes him supreme is, that he is not indebted to his fubjects for his revenue, but they owe to him whatever they possess. Another reafon why he should be fupreme is, that he is the founder of his monarchy; he elects his confort. If the elected him, the case, I grant, would be quite different; but nothing of this kind occurs, except, I am told, in very few instances, during a strange period of time which is called leap year, probably because then certain perfons overleap the bounds of delicacy. But even this exception occurs so seldom that I may allow my antagonists the full weight of it, without weakening my argument. The monarchy of families is not, however, an abfolute monarchy, because then it would be a tyranny. It is a limited monarchy. The fovereign's power is bounded by a large code of laws, infinitely too large for me to quote. What particularly circumscribes his authority may be found, by referring to the index, under the heads, Good Senje, Affect.on, Parental Love (and even) Self Interest, Conjugal Fidelity, and others. The reader, by consulting these chapters only, will see very accurately laid down the laws and maxims by which he is obliged to regulate his conduct. And although there is no written compact between the subjects and their sovereign, he takes an oath very solemnly, and generally in fome church, when he enters upon his government, and he never breaks either that oath, or any part of the abovementioned laws, with impunity. Should he do fo, should he require any of his fubjects to commit an act that is wrong, or even very absurd, they may refufe, and although he may take a tyrant's revenge upon them, he has no power to compel them to do what is contrary to their confcience. Thus much for the laws which limit his authority. With regard to all the really useful branches of government, he may be confidered as absolute. Should any of his subjects rebel, he has the means either to enforce obedience, or to expel them from a society of which they are not worthy to continue members. Should his confort depart from the allegiance due to her lord, and go so far as to carry on a criminal correspondence with the enemy, he may drive her from him altogether, and elect another in her room. Instances of this, although never done but upon the cleareft proof, have become, of late, very frequent, and I can attribute it to nothing but the feditious sentiments circulated with so much freedom against the power and dignity of family monarchy. These fap the foundations of obedience, teach a contempt of the perfon of the fovereign, and incline the ear to listen to the infinuations of any ufurper, who may form designs against the crown and honour of the lovereign. I must observe, however, that such are the terms upon which the family monarch preserves his authority, that if it can be proved that he has neglected or ill used his confort, has placed inflammatory writings in her way, or has exposed her to company where her principles of allegiance may be corrupted, due allowance is made, and although he may exile her from court, he must provide her with a. fuitable establishment, and cannot, doring her natural life, elect another in her room. So admirably poised are the various powers which conftitute family monarchy. Yet Now, fir, what kind of men muft they be who would change this form of government, who, deluded by a nalogical fophiftry, for I will not call it reasoning, would introduce anarchy under the disguise of reformation? Surely they must be the very worft of men, since they cannot be ignorant that the form of government adopted in families, has fubfifted for 6000 years with as much advantage as can poffibly be derived from any constitution, and with as few abuses as can well be expected from the imperfect state of human nature. if we are fo deluded as to admit innovations; if, for instance, instead of a monarchy, we establish a gunarchy, or what old John Knox, the reformer, called the regiment of women,' the order of nature will be reverfed, the weaker vessel will be the stronger, and innumerable inconveniencies must arife, not to speak of a great deal of licentiousness. Yet this fatal reverfe has actually taken place in many families of fashion, as they are called. The papers tell us every day that lady Tunbelly gives a rout, or that Mrs. Blazon has cards and a supper, but no more notice is taken of their lords and masters than if they were spinsters. And what has been the consequence? Why, fir, the confequence has been fuch a dissolution of moral principle, and so many nefarious acts, as to draw from the lips of the lord chief justice of the king's bench, a threat, that if ever they are brought before him, he will make them ftand in the pillory! These are the precious fruits of innovation. Such are the changes which are produced by a pretended liberality of fentiment. Another confequence which arises from attempting a revolution in domestic government, is the creation of a spirit of faction. Instead of unanimity and loyalty, we find the house split into factions, some taking part with the monarch and fome with his confort; where the latter faction predominates, it is sure to be attended |