volumes?-The Reminiscent knows as little as the rest of the world,—but thinks it was not unknown to the founder of a noble house, to which the public owes an edition of Homer, which does the nation honour.

Of HIM, Junius thus expresses himself:-" It is "impossible to conceal from ourselves, that we are, "at this moment, on the brink of a dreadful precipice; the question is, whether we shall submit to "be guided by the hand that hath driven us to it,"

-(General Conway),-" or whether we shall fol"low the patriot voice," (George Grenville's),"which would still declare the way to safety and to "honour *."

Mr. Charles Lloyd, a clerk of the treasury, and afterwards a deputy teller of the exchequer, was, for some time, private secretary of Mr. George Grenville, and always possessed his confidence. He was strongly suspected by many of being the author of the Letters; and several respectable persons,among whom we may mention Dr. Parr,-ascribe them to him.-One strong argument in his favour is, that, when Lloyd died, Junius ceased to write. Junius's last letter is dated on the 19th of January, Lloyd died on the 23d.

His advocates have, however, to encounter the explicit declaration of Junius-" I have not the "honour of being personally known to Mr. Gren"ville t."

* Is not this passage perfectly decisive against Mr. Burke's authorship? + Letter 18.

VIII.

COMPLETION OF MR. HARGRAVE'S EDITIOn of coke

ON LITTLETON-CHARACTER OF LITTLETON AND COKE.

THE next literary exertion of the Reminiscent was of a professional nature,-the continuation and completion of Mr. Hargrave's edition of Coke upon Littleton.

The merit of Littleton's Tenures is great; neither England nor the continent can produce any contemporaneous work on the subject of law, of equal or éven approximating merit: but a general want of definition and some want of order may be reasonably objected to it; and it is not wholly free from error.

The Commentary of sir Edward Coke is an extraordinary work: the language of it is every where most clear; but the doctrines and illustrations are often so subtile and abstruse, as to require the utmost stretch, even of the strongest understanding, to comprehend them. A profound algebraist once mentioned to the writer, that he had never found in that science, a problem, the solution of which required greater mental exertion, than passages occurring in almost every page of this celebrated commentary.

Both lord Mansfield and lord Thurlow expressed the highest opinion of Littleton, and a very different opinion of Coke.

It is objected to his commentary, that it is defective in method: but it should be observed, that a

want of method was, in some respects, inseparable from the nature of the undertaking. During a long life of intense and unremitted application to the study of the laws of England, sir Edward Coke had treasured up an immensity of the most valuable learning on the common and statute law of this country. This, he wished to present to the public, and chose that mode of doing it, in which, without being obliged to dwell on those doctrines, which other authors could explain equally well, he might produce that extensive and profound learning, which he felt himself to possess above all others.

It must be allowed that the style of sir Edward Coke is strongly tinged with the quaintness of the times in which he wrote; but it is accurate, expressive and clear. That it is sometimes difficult to comprehend his meaning, is generally owing to the abstruseness of his subject, not to the obscurity of his language.

It has been objected to him, that the authorities, which he cites, do not, in many places, come up to the doctrines which they are brought to support. There appears to be some ground for this observation yet, it should not be forgotten, that the uncommon depth of his learning, and acuteness of his mind, might enable him to discover connections and consequences which escape a common observer.

Lord Bacon objected to sir Edward Coke, that, in his writings, he did not sufficiently distinguish between decided points of law, and his own legal conclusions. For this observation also, there is ground; but the character of sir Edward Coke is now so high

as to give to his opinions the weight and authority of judicial decision.

It is sometimes said, that the perusal of his commentary is, at this time, useless, as many of the doctrines of law, which his writings explain, are become obsolete; and that every thing useful in them may be found more systematically and agreeably arranged in modern writers.-It must be acknowledged, that, when he treats of those parts of the law, which have been altered since his time, his commentary partakes, in a certain degree, of the obsoleteness of the subjects to which it is applied; but, even where this is the case, it generally happens that the doctrines laid down by him serve to illustrate other parts of the law which are still in force. It may also be observed, that, notwithstanding the general tenor of the present business of our courts, cases frequently occur, which depend upon the most abstruse and intricate parts of the ancient law. Thus, the case of Jacob v. Wheate led to the discussion of escheats and the nature of uses, as they stood before the statute of Henry the eighth; the case of Taylor v. Horde, and the still later case of Cholmondeley v. Clinton, turned on the learning of disseisins.

But the most advantageous, and perhaps the most proper point of view, in which the merit and ability of sir Edward Coke's writings can be placed, is by considering him as the centre of modern and ancient law.

The English, like the Roman law, has its jus antiquum, jus novum, and jus novissimum. The jus novum may be supposed to have taken its rise at

the end of the reign of king Henry the seventh, and to have assumed something of a regular form towards the latter end of the reign of king Charles the second, the period, which may be assigned for the commencement of the jus novissimum.

The principal features of the jus novum are, the introduction of recoveries, conveyances to uses,the testamentary disposition by wills, --the abolition of military tenures,-the statute of frauds and perjuries, the establishment of a regular system of equitable jurisdiction,-the discontinuance of real actions,--and the mode of trying titles to landed property by ejectment. There is no doubt that these produced a material alteration in the jurisprudence of this country, and form the basis of modern law: but they operated not so much by superseding, as by giving a new direction to the principles of the ancient law, and applying them to new subjects. Hence, a knowledge of ancient legal learning is absolutely necessary to a modern lawyer. Now, sir Edward Coke's commentary upon Littleton is an immense repository of every thing that is most interesting or useful in the legal learning of ancient times. Were it not for his writings, we should still have to search for it in the voluminous and chaotic compilation of cases contained in the Year Books; or in the dry, though valuable, abridgments of Statham, Fitzherbert, Brooke, and Rolle. Every person, who has attempted, must be sensible how very difficult and disgusting it is to pursue a regular investigation of any point of law through these works: the writings of sir Edward Coke have considerably abridged, if