6:3 
an 2€tual reckoning and account taken by 
the revenue officer of the quantity really 
produced by the diftiller. The obvious 
defeét in this latter fyftem is the difficulty, 
er to fpeak more accurately, the abfolute 
impoffibility of afcertaining that real quan~ 
tity. The dcence fyftem, therefore from 
its facility of execution and apparent cer- 
tainty of adequate receipt feemed in ever 
refpeét preferable : it was not, however 
long in ufe before its imperfection was 
mof ftrikingly exhibited; for the prefent 
rapidity of diftillation far exceeds what- 
ever had before been praétifed or conceived. 
The legiflature had been taught to believe 
that the procefs could not be completed in 
lefs than 24 hours; whereas modern im- 
provements have carried that art to fuch 
perfeétion that, inftead of 24 Lours, notmore 
than five, probably not morethanthree, 711 - 
nutes are now required for the procels of 
@iftillation ! This wonderful rapidity in 
the operation, effected by aferies of mventi- 
ons which were prompted, no doubt, by the 
Bcence fyftem, has been found produétive 
~ of very ferious evils; it is faid to create a 
wafte, not only of fuel, but of grain; it 
injures moreover the quality of the fpirit 
and renders it more noxious. The com- 
mittee therefore have propofed a combina- 
tion of the two fyftems as a fubftitute for 
beth: they have fketched the outline, 
which they conceive, if properly filled up, 
will in a great meafure unite their advan- 
rages and avoid their defeéts, As it was 
no part of the inftruétions of the com- 
mittee that they fhould confider how far in 
a moral and political point of view the 
diftilleries fhould beencouraged, they have 
but flightly touched upon that important 
inquiry: they feem to be ef opinion how- 
ever, that if it were thought proper to at- 
tempt a total fuppreffion of the manufac- 
ture, its practicability is very queftionable ; 
fill they think fuch a duty fhould be im- 
pofed as to prevent the excefflive ule of 
ipirits among the poor. 
? PoLiTics. 
‘Mr. Reeves, whofe well-known 
pamphlet, entitled ‘* Thoughts on the 
Englith Government, &c.”’ was profecuted 
as libelous by order of the Houfe of 
Commons, has undertaken a defence of 
his publication, in a ‘* Second Letter’’ on 
the fame fubjeét. The political tenets of 
this author are generally known, and the 
doétrine which he attempts to eftablifh is 
generally execrated. It often happens 
that, in order to bring about the fame end, 
oppofite meafures are fuccefsfully purfued, » 
and the fame meafures occafionally adopt- 
ed to efect very different and contsa- 
Retrofpee of Domeftic Literature— Politics. 
diétory purpofes. No one will ferioufl? 
queftion Mr, Reeves’s loyalty or the fince= 
rity of his attachment to our conftitution 5 
he exprefsly fays, indeed, in this prefent 
publication, that afl is now right in this 
country, and he would bave nothing altered; 
Mr. Reeves is in the notorious enjoyment 
of fo many finecures that there can bg no 
doubt of his indifpofition to any alteration. 
Still however had we been difpefed— 
which we certainly are not—to excite dif- 
atfeétion againft the government of this 
country and bring the parliament into 
contempt, we could have devifed no more 
efieG&ual method, in our efimation, than 
to have written fuch another pamphlet as 
that which is before us. We fhould have 
told the people, as Mr. Reeves has done, 
that the Englifh government is a fimple 
monarchy; that the monarch creates the 
two houfes of parliament ; that they (the 
people) were utterly deftitute of ail claim 
to fovereignty, and of courfe that they 
appointed no part of the legiflatute> that 
the King might rule without any parlta- 
ment, and yét violate no law, and finally 
that he is the fole maker and executor of 
the laws! Fhefe are precifely the dec- 
trines which, in our opinion, have the 
ftrongeft tendency to promote difaffeétion 
among the people again{t the perfon and 
high office of the Sovereign: thefe more- 
over are the exa&t do€trines which Mr. 
Reeves with very wnfuccefsful athduity, 
labors to eftablith. He contends —con- 
fiftently indeed—that in no imftance where 
the fucceffion of the crown has been in- 
terrupted by any violent change, has the 
people or the parliament appointed a King : 
on every fuch occafion the reigning mo- 
narch Jas either made bimielf or beex made 
by forie other king! This pofition, fays he 
with becoming gravity of countenance; 
ought to ftartle nobody, when ir is con- 
fidered “that a fettlement of the crown 
has no force, unlefs it is made in parlias 
ment; and the King, deiag the maker of 
law, AS HAS BEEN PROVED, he mnt of 
courfe make the limitations and fettle- 
ments of the crown, whether upon him- 
felf er upon others: further, in order te 
fuch parliamentary fettlements where the 
defcent is interrupted there muft be pre- - 
vioufly an acceptance and afiumption of 
the crown. Mr. Reeves then endeavours 
to fhow that the acceflion of Henry 1V. 
of Henry VII. and of William ILL. all 
roceed upon the fame principles.. 
The hypothefis of Mr. Reeves has been 
controveried in all its parts by the Vinerian 
Profeffor in the Univerfity of Oxford, Dr. 
Wooppeson, ina pamphlerenntled, ‘tA 
brief 
