military offences, has almoſt an abſolute legiſlative power. "His majeſty, ſays the act, may form articles of war, and conſtitute courts martial, with power to try any crime by ſuch articles, and inflict ſuch penalties as the articles direct." A vaſt and moſt important truſt! an unlimited power to create crimes, and annex to them any puniſhments, not extending to life or limb! Theſe are indeed forbidden to be inflicted, except for crimes declared to be ſo puniſhable by this act; which crimes we have juſt enumerated, and, among which, we may obſerve that any diſobedience to lawful commands is one. Perhaps in ſome future reviſion of this act, which is in many reſpects haſtily penned, it may be thought worthy the wiſdom of parliament to aſcertain the limits of military ſubjection, and to enact expreſs articles of war for the government of the army, as is done for the government of the navy: eſpecially as, by our preſent conſtitution, the nobility and gentry of the kingdom, who ſerve their country as militia officers, are annually ſubjected to the ſame arbitrary rule, during their time of exerciſe.
One of the greateſt advantages of our Engliſh law is, that not only the crimes themſelves which it puniſhes, but alſo the penalties which it inflicts, are aſcertained and notorious: nothing is left to arbitrary diſcretion: the king by his judges diſpenſes what the law has previouſly ordained; but is not himſelf the legiſlator. How much therefore is it to be regretted that a ſet of men, whoſe bravery has ſo often preſerved the liberties of their country, ſhould be reduced to a ſtate of ſervitude in the midſt of a nation of freemen! for ſir Edward Coke will inform us[1], that it is one of the genuine marks of ſervitude, to have the law, which is our rule of action, either concealed or precarious: "miſera eſt ſervitus, ubi jus eſt vagum aut incognitum." Nor is this ſtate of ſervitude quite conſiſtent with the maxims of found policy obſerved by other free nations. For, the greater the general liberty is which any ſtate enjoys, the more cautious has it uſually been of introducing ſlavery in any particular order or profeſſion. Theſe men, as baron Monteſquieu obſerves[2], ſeeing the liberty
