« FöregåendeFortsätt »
and fyftem without reality or life, and which is not half so much con. nected with the Gospel as with Aristotle's Categories. They seem to have light without heat, faith without love, hope without charity ; believe, but obey not the truth; say much, but do nothing; are every where speaking well of religion, but ill of one another; perpetually chiming the greatest of all truths, and as perpetually dishonouring them in their practice :'- with a great deal more of the same kind and charitable fort ; and which, if it were true, would, in some measure, juftify his inference, that the worst we could do against them * would not surpass their deserts.
From these specimens, our Readers might conclude that this railer could only rail; but we must do him the justice to acknowledge, that, though inaccurate in his language, he can occasionally cleath his sentiments with great plausibility, even where he seems to be pleading the cause of despotism; and that he sometimes expresses himself with uncommon force and spirit. He has many threwd. observations on mankind, as they land related to one another in society, and on the nature of government in general : but a tincture of Toryism gives a colour to the whole, that will by no meang appear lovely in the eyes of those who are friends to liberty. His pamphlet is chiefly intended to refute the Doctor's fantastic notions of government,' to repel his ‘ violent attacks on the prevailing party in parliament, and to item that indiscriminating torrent of abuse which' (according to our Author) the Doctor - pours fo liberally on all who differ from him.' Art. 21. Cursory Obfervations upon Dr. Price's Essay on Civil
Liberty, particularly relating to Specie and Paper Currency ; by which several of his Positions are proved erroneous, and most of his Deductions utterly fallacious. Published with a View to remove the Prejudices which might affect the Minds of uninformed Readers, from a too ready Allent to his Doctrine. 8vo. 6 d. Carnan. 1776.
This Writer coolly and rationally argues the above-mentioned points with Dr. Price, in order to prove chat paper-corrency is not, as the Doctor maintains, merely the representative of a representative (coin),-the sign of a sign,-but really the representative of fubitan
tial property : that consequently no danger is to be apprehended · from its circulation--that there is room for more in the market
that it is capable of being governed by fixed rules and criterions, so as to prevent the evils arising from an immoderate flow of accommodative paper-at the same time that, by its means, a ready assistance can be given to government by occasional advances upon such pledges as government offer, and merchants or Bank directors think proper to lend upon.'
• If Bank-notes,' continues the remarker, were visionary, iffued out without property somewhere deposited as a pledge to che Bank corresponding to the nominal value of such notes, then much mif. chief might be expected. But upon every inquiry I can make, I cannot find any note issued without corresponding security. If to goverpment government securities are pledged, certain duties arifing
from taxes or levies of one kind or othe: are made over. The idea of property ftill is annexed to the paper7 208, Tuch loans are in the abstract no more than the anticipasion of property, paid to govern ment through the medium of paper, Tome little time before the property was due or receivable.' * With respect to the national debt, our Author thinks that, epor. mous as it may be, the Doctor's estimate of it is equally erroneous with his estimation of paper. It is usually compared,' he observes, • with the circulating specie. From the smallness of this, and the largeness of the other, many horrible consequences are drawn.Would it be fair in private life to estimate a man's riches by the money he carries about him, or lays by in his bureau ?-No-in private life we make different and more rational eftimates. The worth or riches of a man are judged of by his possessions of all kinds.—Wby should we not in public concern take as wide and liberal a ground to argue upon ?
On the whole, this moderate and sensible Writer concludes, • That the idea of national poverty is not founded upon fact or argument.--That our resources are great, and nearly inexhaustible. That our prospects upon entering into a war are far from gloomy and unpromising, in what respects the raising supplies.- That the national debt, however great, is not out of proportion to the immenfe property and riches of the nation at large. - In short, that we are a much happier and more flourishing people than can be met with throughout Europe--and therefore, in all respects, a sturdy march for any adversaries who may rise up against us. Art. 22. The plain Question upon the present Dispute with our
American Colonies. 12mo. 2d. Wilkie. , · One great purpose of this little ministerial hand-bill, is to prove that there is nothing new or unprecedented in the exercise of parlia. mentary authority over the Colonies. How far, this is a fact, has been sufficiently and fairly explained by us in the ist Article of our Catalogue for Nov. 1774: and the truth respecting this subject will juftify conclusions very different from those which the present Writer and his employers chuse to infer. The Author is indeed aware that • it may poffibly be said, that the power of subjecting the Colonies to a revenue, and the claim of binding them in all cases whatever, though no innovations of the present reign, were nevertheless arbi. trary exertions of our authority, which can receive no validity from the length of their ufurpation; and that there is but little difference between the continuance of an oppression and the institution.'
To obviate these remarks, therefore, the Author goes on to af sert (what he does not attempt to prove), that the first adventurers to our American settlements were permitted to colonize,' under an express condition of always continuing subject to the acts and au.thority of parliament. This, however, is not true, nor was any such thing intended by the Kings who granted the more carly Ames rican charters, or expected by thofe who settled under such charters.
The Writer appears indeed to have been very ignorant of the subject, and very badly instructed by his employers; and therefore his random assertions diverge from the line of truth in all poffible directions.-- The Colonies,' says he, 'may abuse the indulgence, but
they must not impotek wpór the understanding of the Britilh nation; and so little are they feaily authorised to resist the parliamentary. claim of taxing them, that they have not a legal power to tax thema Selves without the permillion of Parliament.' The province of Maffachuset's Bay individually incurred a forfeiture of charter in the reign of Charles the Second, fof exercising this power without proper authority; and so well aware were the Colonies colleatively, of this circumstance, that in the year 1755, when a Congress assembled at Albany, to consider upon the best means of supporting the last war, a proposal was made to petition Parliament for leave to raise internal taxes, as the readiest mode of opposing the ravages of the common enemy. It is remarkable also,' that this proposal was made by General Shirley, the delegate from Massachuset's Bay, the first province which has risen in arms against the supremacy of the British legislature.
It is scarce poffible for so short a paragraph to contain more untruths than the present. The Colonies have constantly taxed them. felves, without having ever obtained or even desired any permillion from Parliament; and their right of doing so was never questioned. On the contrary, Parliament itself has granted considerable sums, to recompence the Colonies for having taxed themselves beyond their equitable proportion of the public expence--Neither was judgment given against the charter of Massachuset's Bay, because the people had taxed themselves, but because having no wings they did not cross the Atlantic and appear to the writ, before any potice of it bad reached America. At that period, many unfair tricks and pretexts were devised for cheating as well the people of England as those of America out of their chartered righés :-and one of the frivolous pretexts urged against Massachuset's Bay was, indeed, that they had taxed themselves, not without permission of Parliament,' but with. out that of the King. But it certainly was not circumspect in the Author to stumble upon this circumstance ; because if there be any justice in that pretence, it must nécessarily confirm what the Colo. nifts have often alledged, viz. that a right of making laws does not include a right of imposing taxes; and that Parliament might be authorised to exercise the former of these rights in America, and not to exercise the latter ;-- for the charter of Massachuset's Bay contained ample powers of legislation, which, if the ministerial allegation were true, must have involved the power of taxation also.-In truth, however, the inhabitants of Massachuset's Bay wanted no permillion either from King or Parliament to grant their own monies;-they were necessarily entitled to do it by the natural and inherent rights of property :-that which is a man's own, he can need no permission to dispose of. And therefore feveral of the American Colonies, and particularly Connecticut and Rhode Island, whose charters make no mention of any authority to tax themselves, have notwithstanding constantly done it, without question or complaint.
Concerning the other parts of this curious paragraph, it must suffice us to say, that there was no Congress at Albany in the year 1755, nor any propofal for petitioning Parliament to grant the Colonies
leave to tax themselves;—and that General Shirley never was a delegate for Massachuset's Bay, or any other Colony, at any Con
gress in America - A plan was indeed offered by Dr. Franklin, in the year 17:4. for a general union or conkderation of tbe Colonies, of which perhaps the present Writer had iwbibed fome confused ideas.
We are unable to determine which of the Writer's questions is to be considered as the Plain Quejt:on. There is one, however, of the plaineit nature, which the Colonits, as he tells us, bare afked, but which he has not yet satisfactorily answered, nor do we think he will ever be able to do it.-' The United Provinces are extremely fond,' says he, ‘of travelling into the glocmy resions of apprehenfion, and frequently ask, as the claim of univerial supremacy leaves their property, freedom, and lives, at our mercy, what security they can poftibly have against the abuse of 10 boundless a dominion i I fhall answer them in a word, the best of all securities, our own in, tereft ; for we have no:hing to gain by their distress, but every thing to hope from their prosperity.' · But does our Author really think this the best of all securities : Have not the flaves of the most despotic prince on earth the same security; and do they truly find it an eligible one? And does not this very security, in its moft eminent degree, belong to the enslaved ex atriated Africans, who are doomed to perpetual labour and wretchedness in our Weft- India isands ? They certainly compose a great part of each planter's property ; their lives and healths are effential to his wealth and prosperity; and whatever they acquire becomes an addition to the riches of their respective masters: buc yet, with this best of securities,' their situation is not yet become an object of envy.-And indeed, if nothing but confiderations of intereit were to restrain the people of Great Britain from taxing these of America, it would not seem reasonable to expect the former ever to part with any of their own property, in the shape of taxes, fo long as the latter have any property left. To do this, would be to love strangers better than ourselves. Art. 23. De Tumultibus Americanis, deque eorum Concitatoribus
- Mecitatio fenilis. -8vo. 9d. White, This is a pompous declamatory production, occasioned by the farcastic observations that were lately made in a great assembly, on the conduct of the University of Oxford respecting their Address to the King.
The Author extols the University, praises the Ministry, and reviles the Americans, but without any novelty of sentiments or ideas. His meditation is, however, suited for the meridian where it was written, and will there, doubtless, find admirers. The same railing accufa. tions against the Colonies, which have been already often delivered in the English language, will be now read in the Latin, by jure divino pedants, with renewed pleasure. Art. 24. Reflections on Government, with respect to America.
8vo. 1 s. Lewis. 1776. These Reflections are favourable to the claims of the Colonists, But they afford nothing which, in the prefent advanced stage of the · American controversy, demands particular notice.
Art. 26: Remarks onla Pamphlet lately published by Dr. Price, in. · tituled' Observations on Civil Liberiy,' &c. 8vo. 1 s. Cadell.'
These Remarks haie been ascribed to Dr. F-g-n; and though they do not materially invalidate the conclufions of his antagonist, they are yet commendable, in some respects, and particularly as being written with less iovective, and more decency, candour, and modesation, than have lately appeared, in the productions on that side of our American dispute. --Sometimes, however, the Author imputes unjust meanings to Ds. Price's words, in order, perhaps, to render his portions more disputable: and he frequently assumes and argues from very erroneous suppofitions, a few of which we hall instance.
ist, The fact (says he) in our history, I believe is, that there never entered into the hond of any person able to bring it about, except Oliver Cromwell, the idea of having the people of Great Britain represented.' But if by the people of Great Britain those of England are to be understood, nothing can be more untrue or more une worthy of a writer' on the History of Civil Society' than this aslertion. It is directly contrary to the express recitals of numerous acts of Parliament, and to the very principle upon which the English House of Commons was formed. It was from the idea of having the people of England reprefented,' that Edward the First summoned repretentatives from the cities and burroughs of the realin to parliamen:, and this idea, he caused to be most Itrongly expressed in his writi of summons-and for a number of years afterwards, particuJarly in the reigns of Henry the Fourth, Henry the Fifth, and Henry the Sixth, every man in England was actually represented, because every man however poor was legally entitled to voce at the elections of representatives.
zd. · The Parliament of Great Britain, (says he) has made laws for the Colonies from their firit establishments. The Charlers of the Colonies subjected them to taxes, and they have been taxed, by acts of the Briciih Parliament.'-But (excepting the fact of which the Colonies complain, that of having been taxed by Parliament) the contrary has been so often proved by us, that we are surprised the Author would hazard such an upwarrantable assertion.
3d. The Colonies, says he, have hitherto faid to the King of Great Britain on his own territory, as the Romans said to Pyrrhus and to Hannibal, “ You must evacuate this land before we will treat ;' and continues he, if this were granted them, it is likely they would be ready to declare what farther concessions they expect from the crown and legislature of their country:'- Nothing however can be more unjust or cruel than this affertion. It is from the pride and obftinacy of Government, and not of the Colonists that the present dettructive social war ftill continues. They were so little averse from treaty, that even in their last rejeEted Petition after the actual commencement of hoftilities, the King was humbly befought to prefcribe fome mode for receiving the dutiful applications of his American subjects for a reconciliation. But even at this hour uncondi. tional submillion is the demand of the court.
4th, The Author tells us that the Americans have never once complained of the ' declaratory law,'-Nothing can be more ge. nerally notorious than that they have often folemnly ftigmatized it