• well without an edging.' He seems, happily, not to have suf fered these vexations to prey on his mind. He lived until the 25th of February, 1723, on which day, taking his usual afterdinner nap,

the servant who constantly attended him, thinking he slept longer than usual, went into his apartment, and found him dead in his chair.'

Sir Christopher Wren was twice married, but the dates are uncertain. Mr. Elmes fixes the first marriage early in 1674; and the second could not have taken place at a much greater interval than that of two years. In 1681, he was chosen President of the Royal Society; and in 1685, he was returned to parliament as member for Plympton.

Of the school formed towards the close of this great man's life, Vanbrugh, Hawksmoor, and Gibbs, were the greatest ornaments. As Mr. Elmes seems to have discriminated their respective abilities with much skill, we shall insert the leading features of his estimate. The first, he styles

'a bold and erratic genius, picturesque and poetical in his imagination, but neither learned nor refined in his art. He rather resembled the painter-architects of Henry the VIIIth's time, than a follower of Palladio, Jones, and Wren.'

Gibbs, the best successor of Wren, aspires, in his St. Martin's in the Fields, to the title of an architect; but his blunderings at the Ratcliffe Library, Oxford, take away from him all character for science; and his New Church in the Strand does not say much for the purity of his taste.'

Of Nicholas Hawksmoor we are informed, that

this highly original architect was born in 1666, the year of the great fire of London; and was placed in his seventeenth year, as a domestic clerk, or pupil, with Wren. His genius is unquestionable, but his taste not of the most refined order; nearer approaching the bold flights of Vanbrugh, than the chastened correctness of his master. His knowledge of every science connected with his art is allowed, and his character has been spoken of from authority, with commenmendation. He was deputy surveyor, under Wren, at the building of Chelsea College; clerk of the works at Greenwich Hospital; in which offices he remained during the reigns of William, Anne, and George I...He was appointed superintending surveyor to all the new churches, and of Westminster Abbey, after the death of Sir Christopher; and designed many that were erected in pursuance of the statute of Queen Anne, for building fifty new churches. Among others, besides the church above-mentioned (St. Mary Woolnoth), are Christ-church Spitalfields, St. George Middlesex, St. Anne Limehouse, and St. George Bloomsbury, which has been condemned by hasty critics, from not falling within their narrow rules of This church is a bold, original, and striking composition, built

art.

in a masterly and scientific manner, and designed in a masculine style. The interior is commodious, appropriate, and picturesque; worthy of its author, his master, and his school. The portico is remarkably handsome, and the tower is placed in a judicious and proper situation. The steeple is novel, ingenious, and picturesque.' Hawksmoor assisted Vanbrugh in the erection of Blenheim and Castle Howard, and died in 1736.

The decorations of this volume are not quite so numerous or so ornamental as we could have wished. There are no finished views of any of Wren's works, nor are any diagrams given in illustration of the structure of St. Paul's as it now stands. A plan and section, at least, should have been inserted. The portrait of Sir Christopher, from Kneller, is well executed, but a little deficient in depth and richness. Appendix of important papers closes the volume.

An

Art. V. Details of the Arrest, Imprisonment, and Liberation of an Englishman, by the Bourbon Government of France. 8vo. pp. 148. Price 4s. London. 1823.

THE case of Mr. Bowring, of which the details are here given to the public in an authentic form, has been so generally made known by means of the daily press, that it cannot be necessary for us to state it to any of our readers. The grounds on which was rested the decision of our Government not to interfere, were, that nothing had been done in Mr. Bowring's case, according to the opinion of the most eminent French lawyers, which was not warranted by the laws of France; and that whatever remedy a French subject might have, if proceeded against unjustly on such charge or suspicion, was equally open to him. The opinion of one of the counsel was given in these words:

1

Upon the first question, the Counsel perceives nothing in the papers submitted to him, which indicates any irregularity in the arrest of Mr. Bowring. The Counsel has not at present to examine if our criminal laws would not admit of great melioration. He has not to explain himself as a writer on public law, but as an Advocate. In his private opinion, he thinks that the liberty of individuals in France requires other securities than those which exist; but having to pronounce upon what is, and not upon what ought to be, he declares that nothing has been done to Mr. Bowring, but what might have been done to a Frenchman under similar circumstances. Doubtless, it is cruel to deprive a person of his liberty for suspicions which in the end prove unfounded: it is a rigour which I do not approve in

abstracto. But, in the existing state of legislation, nothing is more frequent than arrests of this kind.'

It is probable, that the discussion to which this atrocious arrest has given rise, the indignation it has excited on both sides of the water, and the contemptible light in which it has placed the French Government, will answer all the purpose which might have been served by a direct remonstrance from our Ambassador. We shall not, therefore, discuss the policy of abstaining, in this particular instance, from diplomatic interference. But it seems to us that the principle on which that policy rests its justification, is an unsound one. It is quite clear, that a foreigner is, equally with a native, bound to obey the laws of the country in which he sojourns. If a Frenchman residing in England, be found guilty of one of the very many crimes which our penal laws have made capital, he must suffer the penalty; even though, in his own country, the same crime would subject him to a minor punishment. The only condition on which a foreigner of any nation can be allowed to remain in a country, must be, that of observing its laws, or abiding the consequences of breaking them. Had Mr. Bowring been convicted of breaking any of the French laws, we do not see that our Government could have interfered on his behalf with any propriety, unless it had been to solicit the clemency of the Crown towards an English subject; an application which only very extraordinary circumstances would justify. But it does not appear that Mr. Bowring was guilty of violating any statute of either the civil or the criminal code of France, or that his conduct rendered him obnoxious to any law whatsoever, except what are indefinitely termed by M. Batonnier Billecocq, les lois de police et de sureté; that is, the secret by-laws of the French police. Now, to fall under the operation of these unknown and arbitrary laws, it is only requisite that the individual should become an object of suspicion to the Police; and he is liable, therefore, to be deprived of his liberty, without having knowingly given any occasion of offence.

The right which an arbitrary Government has to deal thus arbitrarily with its own subjects, must not be disputed: at least, no other nation has any right in such a case to interfere. Whether it be to incarcerate the suspected person in a Bastile, to torture him in the secret chambers of a Holy Office, to apply the Turkish bowstring, or, according to the politer custom of Japan, to send the gentleman a court order to rip himself up with his own sword,-the right to proceed in either way towards its own happy and devoted subjects, must be held

Let

perfectly legitimate. In all such cases, no irregularity is com mitted; all takes place according to the laws, and nothing is more frequent than occurrences of this kind. Now the simple question is, whether such wholesome local laws as authorize these proceedings in the countries alluded to, may or may not be applied to Englishmen without justifying any diplomatic interference on the part of our Government. The degree of atrocity makes no difference in the principle. Does the protection of his own Government cease, or does it not, when an Englishman sets his foot on a foreign territory, where the Government maintains an amicable relation with our own? us suppose a case; that some cousin of Mr. Planta's, or of Mr. Secretary Canning's, had become, under the old legitimate reign of Ferdinand and the Inquisition, obnoxious to the Holy Office, at a time when we had a minister residing at Madrid; or, in the days of Louis XV. and the Bastile, had become an object of jealousy to the prime minister or the prime mistress in that country; would it have been thought a sufficient reason for passing over such an outrage on a British subject, that nothing was done to him, but what might have been done to a Spaniard or a Frenchman, that it was warranted by the local laws, that nothing was more frequent than such arrests, and that whatever remedy a native subject might have, was equally open to the foreigner? If this be Mr. Canning's principle, it is fit that the country should understand it. We judge that his conduct in such a case would have been different.

But here is the true difficulty-our Alien Bill, which creates in this country precisely the same kind of arbitrary power, though the nation and the laws would not tolerate a similar exercise of it, as that against which, awkwardly enough, our Ambassador would have had to protest.

That Bill,' says Mr. Bowring, that inhospitable and un-English Bill, was constantly quoted against me in the progress of the proceedings. When I complained of their illegality and violence, I was constantly asked, "What protection from your laws has a foreigner in England?" Could I do aught but hang down my head in silence? It was the second time that this Bill had been used to justify acts of oppression and outrage committed on my person. It was employed against me in 1820, in Spain, when I was detained by the arbitrary mandate of a petty magistrate, who, however, afterwards apologised for his mistake. The Alien Bill,-which has scarcely ever been employed at all to banish those against whom it was directed, has been a constant weapon to be used against Englishmen by other Governments. Our own countrymen are its victims. We have forged arms, useless for our own defence, but terrible when employed against us. Few individuals have had more extensive opportunities than myself for ascertaining the general estimation of the English character through the

different countries of Europe; and I may truly assert, that no one circumstance ever tended so much to diminish our national reputation, as the existence of the Alien Bill. To England-amidst the vicissitudes and calamities of political events-men were accustomed to look as to a haven, where the distant storm might be heard, but dared not reach. I know the terrors of the Alien Bill have been exaggerated; but such terrors exist; and whether they have misrepresented, or not, the temper of the British Government, certain it is, that the charm of perfect confidence is broken ;-this asylum, which was formerly sacred, may now be violated. Who shall guaranty to the fugitive stranger that it will not be violated? To be instrumental in removing this foul stigma on the character of my country, I would cheerfully pass over again the days of my imprisonment, even though they had been tenfold; and should that imprisonment lead to a repeal of this most obnoxious statute, it would be to me a proud privilege so to have suffered.' pp. x-xii,

'

may

Bad, however, as the Alien Bill is in its principle, the right of dismissing a foreigner from the soil, even though it may involve his ruin,-inequitable, arbitrary, disgraceful as such a proceeding may be, would not afford the same ground for diplomatic interference as the detention and imprisonment of an innocent individual. The safety of the State be made a plea for the former: it is an insufficient pretext for the latter. The one is obviously the exercise of a discretional power vested in the Executive: the other is a judicial act, a sentence implying alleged guilt, and, in the absence of real criminality, however legal, is an outrage both upon the individual and upon his nation. If diplomatic interference can neither prevent such wrong, nor remedy such wrong, nor obtain reparation for such wrong, then, indeed, as Mr. Bowring observes, it is perfectly chimerical. A man may be impaled in Turkey, knouted to death in Russia, or hanged in Austrian Italy, and all according to the laws, and yet be innocent, since the laws give 'arbitrary power to the judges.' We cannot agree with Mr. Canning.

Art. VI. Sermons on Infidelity. By the Rev. Andrew Thomson, A.M. Minister of St. George's, Edinburgh. 18mo. pp. 442. Price 5s. Edinburgh. 1821.

WE apprehend that sermons on Infidelity, however excellent,

are not likely to obtain the attention of a very numerous class of readers. They who are already infidels, will have little disposition to read sermons of any kind, and still less, to read those the professed object of which is, to cure them of their infidelity; and with regard to serious Christians, among whom