MONTHLY CATALOGUE, For MA Y, 1775.

AMERICAN CONTROVERSY.

Art. 12. An Anfwer to a Pamphlet, intitled, "Taxation no Tyranny." Addreffed to the Author, and to l'erfons in Power. 8vo. I s. 6d. Almon.

HIS production difcovers its Author to have been well acquainted wish the fubjects of our American difpute, and with the principles of the British conftitution; but his arguments are too folid and incompreffible for much abridgment, and therefore we can only cite a few of them for the fatisfaction of our readers.

In page 21 & feq. he maintains that the right of parliamentary reprefentation is conftitutionally an incident of property, freehold and perfonal: that anciently Peers were not created by the Crown, but became fuch in right of their respective baronies; a man who had a certain portion of property becoming of course a peer: that a number of smaller properties belonging to other men, combined and centered in one man by election, gave him a right of fitting in parliament as reprefentative of the property of feveral; whilft the baron fat as representing his own property alone: that the barons in old time fitting by their property, taxed themselves, that is, taxed their own property. But now, fitting by the act of the crown merely, without reference to property, the commons who continue to fit by property, have claimed the whole of taxation, and the lords have ceded it to them. This (continues he) thews to a demonftration, that the body which is conftituted by the property of any country, is the only body conftitutionally qualified to tax that country.' And after feveral arguments in fupport of this doctrine he proceeds:

Had the Norman conqueror returned to Normandy, and made that the feat of empire, the Norman ftates would have been the imperial legislature. Would he have been intitled, Ioafk, to tax his English fubjects in his ftates of Normandy? You will not affirm it. Yet might he not fay, "My Norman ftates made laws for all my fubjects, when I had no fubjects beyond Normandy; and why may they not continue to do fo ftill, though my condition is altered in that refpect? My Norman law has made no diftinction concerning my fubjects beyond fea; (for the prince might forget, that till he had fubjects beyond fea, no mention of them could be expected.) I am too moderate to make thefe fubjects beyond fea dependant on my felf. They fhall be dépendant on my Norman ftates; and there will be this comfort in it befides, that I can do what I please with my Norman ftates, whereas the popular affemblies beyond fea might be lefs manageable." This speech, no doubt, would be highly relifhed, the Norman flates would be flattered; a great majority would vote for the doctrine; the minority would be called an English faction and decried; and all would be harmony and fatisfaction in Nonancy. But how would it have gone in England? I will anfwer this queftion for you He must have conquered it again, and again, and again. If he were once worsted, he would have been M

undone,

undone, and every paufe of bloodfhed would have been a renewal of war.

England, however, as I hope it always will, continued to be the feat of empire to him and to his defcendants. Did any of them attempt to tax their dominions beyond fea in the legislature of England? Never. The Scotch have afferted, that they conquered England; the English have afferted, that they conquered Scotland. Did either nation, though contiguous, ever think of taxing the other in its domeftic legiflature? No fuch thing was ever thought of. Henry the Fifth conquered France. Did he or his fon ever attempt to tax France in the English parliament? Or if they had refided in France, would the ftates of France have been the conftitutional legislature for taxing the English fubject? You will not fay it. Was Wales, though conquered and contiguous, ever taxed by the English parliament till it fent reprefentatives thither? Never. When the crowns of England and Scotland were united in the person of James the First, who made England the feat of empire, did the parliament of England ever think of taxing Scotland Or in queen Anne's reign, when the Scotch were averse to a union, were they ever told, that the English parliament could do the business, if they were refractory; for that Scotland was represented in the parliament of England, though all the property on the other fide of the Tweed did not conftitute one vote towards conftituting one member of that affembly? No man ever dreamed of such a thing. Did Henry the Second, or any of his - fucceffors, ever attempt to tax Ireland in the English parliament, though conquered, and not very diftant? No, you confefs. But the judges, you fay, have mentioned a diftinction to account for this exemption, viz. that Ireland had a parliament of her own. But why was a parliament given to her? Because no man thought at that time, that the English parliament was a conftitutional or adequate legislature in ordinary, for dominions beyond fea. Nor can I believe, that the judges grounded their decifion merely on the trifyllable," parliament;" or that they had any other idea, than that Ireland having a legislature, by whatever name, competent to taxation, it was not fitting that she should be taxed by the English parliament, in the conftituting of which the property of Ireland had no fhare. Now this holds equally as to the provincial affemblies, and to the legislatures or ftates of every kingdom or province which I have before mentioned; and therefore it is clear, that this univerfal practice was founded on a univerfal principle, that the parliament of England ought not to tax any part of the dominion, the property of which had not its due fhare in conftituting that af fembly."

In page 53 our Author proceeds, Though every part of your publication breathes nothing but the fpirit of tyranny, yet there is one paffage fo audacious, that it deferves to be diftinguished. In your 24th page you have thefe words; "An English Individual may by the fupreme authority be deprived of liberty, and a Colony divested of its powers, for reafons of which that authority is the fole judge." If one Individual, or one Colony, can be thus deprived, fo may all the Colonies together; fo may every man in the community. For I defy any man to fhew where any limitation exifts, if any fuch power

Gg 4

power le admitted. By this doctrine, the Parliament, for reafons of which it is the fole judge; that is without affigning any reafon at all, may make every man in the British Empire a flave in one day. That is to fay, a body of men, taken from amongst ourselves, in number not above a thousand, collected in one fpot of the Empire, under the most facred trust for the fervice of the whole, are intitled to do that which no power on earth has a right to do, viz. to make flaves at one blow, and without faying wherefore, of fourteen millions of fellow fubjects, and of their pofterity, to latest time, and throughout every quarter of the world. Is fuch language to be endured? Or can be be a friend to human nature who uses it?

With equal humanity, in your 60th page, you fay, "If the Boftonians are condemned unheard, it is because there is no need of a trial. All trial is the invefligation of fomething doubtful." Your ideas of legiflation we had before, and your judicial ideas are as intolerable. To fay that a crime's being notorious, or afferted to be notorious, will justify condemnation unheard, is too infolent an impofition. Where is the Caligula who would not fay that the guilt of the man, or of the province that he wanted to deftroy, was notorious? If the affertion of the tyrant will convert cruelty into juftice, no tyrant will ever be cruel. But the law of England is fo different from your fentiment, that it prefumes every man to be innocent, till his guilt is tried and established. That is, inftead of condemning unheard, fo long as any man is unheard, it acquits him.?

The tumour of your style, (concludes our Author) the infolence of your manners, your rawness in the great principles of the fubject which you treat, and your univerfal inaccuracy, or unfairness in arguing, are inferior confiderations, and faults that may be forgiven. But let it be remembered, at all events, that with respect to this point, you confefs, that if the Americans are right, it is robbery in us, not rebellion in them. Now I ask any man, whether on this ftate it is fo clear that America is wrong, and that it is not robbery in us, as that we fhould lightly run the rifque of becoming murderers alfo; and murderers of our fellow-fubjects into the bargain? Every lover of truth and liberty, every honest and confcientious man will feel this queftion. The foldier will feel it; the failor will feel it; the free fubject will feel it: the King and his minifters will feel it.' B. Art. 13. Tyranny Unmasked: An Anfwer to a late Pamphlet, intitled, Taxation no Tyranny." 8vo. 15. 6d. Flexney. This Pamphlet contains fome good reafoning, but it is, in general, inferior to the former: The following extract may, however, in fome degree enable our readers to judge for themfelves.

The next fiep our Author takes, is to ridicule, with all his might, the idea of the Bostonian heroes betaking themselves into other parts of that continent, and turning fishermen and hunters, rather than fubmit to illegalavation. So magnanimous a proof of an indomitable free fpirit might give them credit with mankind, and represent them as heroes indeed and therefore 'tis his bufinefs to make them fick of it, by converting it into a full proof of flavery. He fays, who can be more a fave, than be that is driven by force from the comforts of life, and comped to leave his home to a cafual comer? This is certainly a and unheard of defcription of flavery, reserved for this Author

new and

:

to discover. I beg to know where is there a ftronger demonftration of freedom? It is the very trial of a free mind to renounce all comforts of life, rather than fubmit to lawless power. It is the conftant evidence of a bafe and flavish one, to accept the laft for the first. Every revolting, relaxing, corrupted patriot, in every age, proves the melancholy difagreeable truth. A man takes a place: he thenceforth

Votes a patriot black, a courtier white.

Perhaps in doing this, he contradicts a series of his own exertions in fupport of liberty. What is the motive? The comforts of life, or what he thinks its comforts. What fhall we pronounce him? All - will agree, a slave. Another man bears many difficult circumftances, . and foregoes many real comforts of life, rather than unite in establishing oppreffion upon himself or his potterity. Who is the free man, if he is not? If thefe terms belong not refpectively to these circumftances, then have we been wrongly taught the ufe of words; and I would advise our author to prevail with Dr. Johnson, in the next impreffion of his Dissionary, to define a lave to be one, who retires from all the comforts of life, rather than fubmit to illegal power.- Here, we fee, there is but the choice of evil. And therefore, when our Author thinks he has hampered the idea of freedom, by leaving it only that choice; I beg leave to tell him, that in the choice of evil is freedom; nor can this have any other poffible choice, where oppreffion shakes its rod. But then there is no other furer proof, that oppreflion rules, than when freedom has but fo fad a choice.

However, let not our author go off with treating fuch defigns in the Boftonians as contemptuous. For whatever they may do, as much and more hath been done at all times for liberty in every way. The Vaudois Proteftants, in the valleys of Piedmont, and their ancestors, did and fuffered as much for liberty of confcience, as the Boltonians can do this way for liberty of property. Every martyr'd patriot, who has bathed the fcaffold with his blood, has done and fuffered much more. When the Boltonians themselves fhall execute this design, they will only do and fuffer the very fame things which their ancestors did before them. And I have no doubt, if no better alternative be given them, that not only the heroes of Bofton, but the much quieter heroes of Philadelphia, will fhew themfelves ready to fuffer all things, and be free.

Art. 14. Taxation Tyranny: Addreffed to Samuel Johnson, LL. D. 8vo. 2$. Bew.

The style and arguments of this performance frequently deferve commendation; but paffages fometimes occur in it, which difcover the Author to have been net fufficiently inforund of the fareiating to the fubjects in difpute.

Art. 15. The Pamphlet intitled Taxation no Tyrannysondidly confidered, and its Arguments and pernicious Doctrines expoled and refuted. 8vo. 29. Davies.

·

This refutation is extended to almost every fentence of its antagonist's performance. It is, however, generally too curfony and the Writer frequently haftens from one argument to another, before he has exhausted the fubject; and we fear fometimes before he has conyinced his readers,

Art.

B.

B.

Art. 16. Refiftance no Rebellion; in Answer to Dr. Johnson's Taxation no Tyranny." 8vo. 18. Bell.

The Writer of this Pamphlet, instead of methodically fcrutinifing, paragraph by paragraph," the performance which he means to refute, has chofen a fhorter and more compendious method of reply; by way of Parody," which appears to be in general well conducted, and capable of affording much entertainment, with fome information.

If the learned Author's arguments, thus reversed, shall recoil upon himfelf (fays this Writer): If, from fuch of his general pofitions as are admitted, inferences directly opposite to his are fairly drawn, the doctrine he has delivered cannot be true; the whole of his "operofe deduction" must then appear to be either falfe, or neither true nor falfe.-In the first cafe it is an "unfound" fubtilty calculated to mislead and deceive; in the other it correfponds to the school definition of nonsense.'

*

Art. 17. The Subflance of the Evidence on the Petition prefented by the Weft India Planters and Merchants to the House of Commons, as it was introduced at the Bar, and fummed up by Mr. Glover, March 16, 1775. 8vo. Is. Cadell.

We have here many important facts and obfervations respecting the fituation, mutual relations, and commerce, of the British American Colonies; but the language in which they are delivered is not always elegant or perfpicuous; and in feveral places the Writer's ideas are too indiftinctly arranged, and too intricately expreffed, to have their proper effect, either on the judgment or imagination of a reader.

It appears from the evidence which this performance recapitulates, that the exports from England to the West Indies, during the feventeen years intervening between Christmas 1756 and Christmas 1773, exceed in value the fum of nineteen millions, and give an annual medium of more than eleven hundred thousand pounds; of which two-thirds in value were British goods, and one-third only foreign: that the exports from England to North America (fo improperly called, to diftinguish it from the West Indies) during the fame term of feventeen years, exceed the value of forty millions, which afford confiderably more than two millions and three hundred thousand pounds at an annual medium; of which the value of three-fourths was British goods, and one-fourth foreign: that the exports to Africa (whofe commerce with England owes its very existence to the Colonies) during the fame term, amount nearly to eight millions, which give at an annual medium 470,000 l. of which, two-thirds were British, and one third foreign goods.

Buto rapidly have our exports to all thefe places lately increased, By than in the last three of the feventeen years, the goods fent to North America only have amounted to three millions and a half at an annual medium; thofe fent to Africa to 700,000l. yearly, and those exported to the Weft Indies to one million three hundred thousand pounds making in all the medium fum of five millions and a half per annum and the exports of England to the whole world amounted in the fame three years to fixteen millions annually, but of thefe more than a million confits of the Colony produce carried through

England;