nation of the house of Lords, in the case of Hodgson and Wife versus Ambrosef-where the decree of the court of chancery was affirmed, although the intention of the testatrix appeared to have been violated by adhering to the antient rule of construction.

Before I conclude these observations, it will however be necessary for me to take notice of an objection, that appears strongly to militate against the rule which I have offered.-In attempting to distinguish Precedents from Authorities, I have supposed it essentially necessary, that the latter should not contradict any prior decision upon the same point-Many modern determinations may, however, be found expressly contrary to former judgments, and would therefore, if my idea were strictly followed, be considered only as illegal precedents—But since many of these determinations have been for some time received as law-it may be urged, "That to revive the authority of the former judgments, would now be attended with the same bad consequences, which I have before pointed out as likely to ensue from their alteration or reversal."

Far be it from me to wish that any alteration should be made in what is now considered as law, except by an act of the legislature-But I humbly apprehend, there are many cases where the rule which I have attempted may be attended to, without endangering the property of individuals, and with real advantage to the community. There yet remain many antient decisions which have not hitherto been shaken by any modern determinations-to these therefore the rule which I have stated, if in other respects proper, may be safely applied-and whenever it appears that two contradictory judgments have been given upon the same question-if the latter has been acquiesced in, or considered as better law-I have no objection that it should now be regarded as an authority-so that it be adhered to in future. It would be to me a matter of indifference whether old or new determinations were preferred, provided the

† Vide LONDON GAZETTE February 17th, 1781.

E

legal rules by which every person was to conduct himself were certainly known-Nor should I wish to support the authority of antient judgments, or exempt them from judicial alteration, if I did not suppose this absolutely necessary, in order to preserve that uniformity of decision, which I think, ought to be the prevailing character of the law in every free state-All I have attempted, by submitting these observations to the judgment of the public, has been-to point out those circumstances which I apprehend ought to distinguish precedents from authoritiesand to check, if possible, that dangerous spirit of innovation, which if not carefully attended to and restrained, may in time substitute discretion in the room of positive law,-and.establish the opinion or caprice of a Judge as the only rule of equity and justice.

FINIS.

LETTER

TO A

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT,

CONTAINING A

PROPOSAL

FOR

BRINGING IN A BILL

TO REVISE, AMEND OR REPEAL CERTAIN

OBSOLETE STATUTES,

COMMONLY CALLED

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

THE SIXTH EDITION.

LONDON:

Printed for Jacob Loyseau, at the Bible in St. Clement's Church Yard, in the Strand.

RE-PRINTED BY W. A. WRIGHT, FULWOOD'S RENTS, HOLBORN.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the present age when licentiousness, habits of intoxication, and the profanation of the sabbath, are so generally deplored, the pamphlet now reprinted, written about a century ago, may afford some amusement, and may also suggest serious reflections on the times and passing events.

The author was the Reverend John Hildrop, M. A. formerly Rector of Witham, near Rippon, in Yorkshire. Of its merits more need not be said than that, for some time, it was ascribed to Dean Swift, and that the present publication is copied from the sixth edition.

The same author wrote several other pieces, particularly "An Essay for the regulation and improvement of free thinking," and "The contempt of the Clergy considered," both printed in 1739. The last mentioned is a composition of much ecclesiastical learning; in which the writer, who seems to have been a high churchman, argues against the union of church and state, and maintains that the powers and functions of both bodies, are in their natures distinct, and ought to be kept separate in this respect agreeing with some of the Dissenters. He concludes with a curious speech of Archbishop Whitgift, made to Queen Elizabeth, which will be found at the end of this pamphlet.

We believe the best answer to the advocates for separation, is Bishop Warburton's work on the Alliance of Church and State.