and fyftem without reality or life, and which is not half so much connected with the Gofpel as with Ariftotle's Categories.-They seem to have light without heat, faith without love, hope without charity; believe, but obey not the truth; fay 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 fame kind and charitable fort; and which, if it were true, would, in fome measure, juftify his inference, that the worft we could do against them would not furpass their deferts.

From thefe fpecimens, our Readers might conclude that this railer could only rail; but we muft do him the juftice to acknowledge, that, though inaccurate in his language, he can occafionally cloath his fentiments with great plaufibility, even where he seems to be pleading the caufe of defpotifm; and that he fometimes expreffes himself with uncommon force and fpirit. He has many threwd. obfervations on mankind, as they ftand related to one another in fociety, and on the nature of government in general: but a tincture of Toryifm gives a colour to the whole, that will by no means 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 ftem that indifcriminating torrent of abufe which' (according to our Author) the Doctor pours fo liberally on all who differ from him.'

Art. 21. Curfory Obfervations upon Dr. Price's Essay on Civil Liberty, particularly relating to Specie and Paper Currency; by which feveral of his Pofitions 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 Affent to his Doctrine. 8vo. 6d. Carnan. 1776.

This Writer coolly and rationally argues the above-mentioned points with Dr. Price, in order to prove that paper-currency is not, as the Doctor maintains, merely the reprefentative of a reprefentative (cain), the fign of a fign,-but really the reprefentative of fubftantial property: that confequently no danger is to be apprehended from its circulation-that there is room for more in the marketthat it is capable of being governed by fixed rules and criterions, fo as to prevent the evils arifing from an immoderate flow of accommodative paper at the fame time that, by its means, a ready affistance can be given to government by occafional advances upon fuch pledges as government offer, and merchants or Bank directors think proper to lend upon.'

'If Bank-notes,' continues the remarker, were vifionary, issued out without property fomewhere depofited as a pledge to the Bank correfponding to the nominal value of fuch notes, then much mifchief might be expected. But upon every inquiry I can make, I cannot find any note iffued without correfponding fecurity. If to government-government fecurities are pledged, certain duties arifing

• P.54.

Rev. Apr. 1776.

from

from taxes or levies of one kind or other are made over. The idea of property ftill is annexed to the paper and fuch loans are in the abftract no more than the anticipation of property, paid to government through the medium of paper, fome little time before the property was due or receivable.'

With refpect to the national debt, our Author thinks that, enormous as it may be, the Doctor's eftimate of it is equally erroneous with his estimation of paper. It is ufually compared,' he obferves, with the circulating fpecie. From the fmallness of this, and the largeness of the other, many horrible confequences are drawn.Would it be fair in private life to eflimate 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 poffeffions of all kinds.—Why should we not in public concern take as wide and liberal a ground to argue upon?'

On the whole, this moderate and fenfible Writer concludes, That the idea of national poverty is not founded upon fact or argument. That our refources are great, and nearly inexhaustible.— That our profpects upon entering into a war are far from gloomy and unpromising, in what refpects the raifing fupplies.-That the national debt, however great, is not out of proportion to the immenfe property and riches of the nation at large. In fhort, that we are a much happier and more flourishing people than can be met with throughout Europe-and therefore, in all refpects, a sturdy match for any adverfaries who may rife up against us.'

Art. 22. The plain Question upon the prefent Difpute with our American Colonies. 12mo. zd. Wilkie.

One great purpose of this little minifterial hand-bill, is to prove that there is nothing new or unprecedented in the exercife of parliamentary authority over the Colonies. How far this is a fact, has been fufficiently and fairly explained by us in the 1ft Article of our Catalogue for Nov. 1774: and the truth refpecting this fubject will juftify conclufions very different from those which the prefent Writer and his employers chufe to infer. The Author is indeed aware that it may poffibly be faid, that the power of fubjecting the Colonies to a revenue, and the claim of binding them in all cafes whatever, though no innovations of the prefent reign, were nevertheless arbitrary 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 oppreffion and the inftitution.'

To obviate thefe remarks, therefore, the Author goes on to affert (what he does not attempt to prove), that the first adventurers to our American settlements were permitted to colonize,' under an exprefs condition of always continuing fubject to the acts and authority of parliament. This, however, is not true, nor was any fuch thing intended by the Kings who granted the more early Ame rican charters, or expected by thofe who fettled under fuch charters. The Writer appears indeed to have been very ignorant of the fubject, and very badly inftructed by his employers; and therefore his random affertions diverge from the line of truth in all poffible directions. The Colonies,' fays he, may abufe the indulgence, but

་

they must not impofe upor the understanding of the British nation; and fo little are they felly authorifed to refift the parliamentary claim of taxing them, that they have not a legal power to tax themJelves without the permillion of Parliament. The province of Maffachufet's Bay individually incurred a forfeiture of charter in the power without pro

reign of Charles the Second, for exer the Colonies collectively, of

per authority; and fo well aware were

1755,

When a Congress affembled

this circumftance, that in the year eans of fupporting the laft

at Albany, to confider upon the best war, a proposal was made to petition Parliament for leave to raise internal taxes, as the readieft mode of oppofing the ravages of the common enemy. It is remarkable alfo, that this propofal was made by General Shirley, the delegate from Maffachufet's Bay, the first province which has rifen in arms against the fupremacy of the British legislature.'

It is fcarce poffible for fo fhort a paragraph to contain more untruths than the prefent. The Colonies have conftantly taxed themfelves, without having ever obtained or even defired any permiffion from Parliament; and their right of doing fo was never queftioned. On the contrary, Parliament itself has granted confiderable fums, to recompence the Colonies for having taxed themfelves beyond their equitable proportion of the public expence--Neither was judgment given against the charter of Maffachufet'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 notice of it had reached America. At that period, many unfair tricks and pretexts were devised for cheating as well the people of England as thofe of America out of their chartered rights:-and one of the frivolous pretexts urged against Maffachufet's Bay was, indeed, that they had taxed themselves, not without permiffion of Parliament,' but without that of the King. But it certainly was not circumfpect in the Author to stumble upon this circumftance; because if there be any justice in that pretence, it must neceffarily confirm what the Colonifts have often alledged, viz. that a right of making laws does not include a right of impofing 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 Maffachufet's Bay contained ample powers of legiflation, which, if the minifterial allegation were true, must have involved the power of taxation alfo.-In truth, however, the inhabitants of Maffachufet's Bay wanted no permiffion either from King or Parliament to grant their own monies;-they were neceffarily entitled to do it by the natural and inherent rights of property :-that which is a man's own, he can need no permiffion to difpofe of. And therefore feveral of the American Colonies, and particularly Connecticut and Rhode Island, whofe charters make no mention of any authority to tax themfelves, have notwithstanding conftantly done it, without question or complaint.

Concerning the other parts of this curious paragraph, it muft fuffice us to fay, 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 Maffachufet's Bay, or any other Colony, at any Con

Z 2

grefs

grefs in America -A plan was indeed offered by Dr. Franklin, in the year 174. for a general union or confederation of the Colonies, of which perhaps the prefent Writer had imbibed fome confufed ideas.

We are unable to determine which of the Writer's questions is to be confidered as the Plain Question.' There is one, however, of the plainest nature, which the Colonists, as he tells us, have afked, but which he has not yet fatisfactorily answered, nor do we think he will ever be able to do it.- The United Provinces are extremely fond,' fays he, of travelling into the gloomy regions of apprehenfion, and frequently afk, as the claim of univeríal fupremacy leaves their property, freedom, and lives, at our mercy, what fecurity they can poffibly have against the abufe of fo boundless a dominion? I fhall answer them in a word, the best of all fecurities, our own in, tereft; for we have nothing to gain by their diftrefs, but every thing to hope from their profperity.'

But does our Author really think this the best of all fecurities? Have not the flaves of the most defpotic prince on earth the fame fecurity; and do they truly find it an eligible one? And does not this very fecurity, in its moft eminent degree, belong to the enslaved expatriated Africans, who are doomed to perpetual labour and wretchednefs in our Weft-India islands? They certainly compofe a great part of each planter's property; their lives and healths are effential to his wealth and profperity; and whatever they acquire becomes an addition to the riches of their refpective masters: but yet, with this best of fecurities,' their fituation is not yet become an object of envy. And indeed, if nothing but confiderations of intereft were to reftrain the people of Great Britain from taxing those of America, it would not feem reasonable to expect the former ever to part with any of their own property, in the fhape of taxes, fo long as the latter have any property left. To do this, would be to love ftrangers better than ourselves. Art. 23. De Tumultibus Americanis, deque eorum Concitatoribus Meditatio fenilis. 8vo. 9d. White.

This is a pompous declamatory production, occafioned by the farcaftic obfervations that were lately made in a great affembly, on the conduct of the University of Oxford respecting their Address to the King.

The Author extols the Univerfity, praifes the Miniftry, and reviles the Americans, but without any novelty of fentiments or ideas. His meditation is, however, fuited for the meridian where it was written, and,will there, doubtlefs, find admirers. The fame railing accufations 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.

Thefe Reflections are favourable to the claims of the Colonifts, but they afford nothing which, in the prefent advanced stage of the American controverfy, demands particular notice.

Art.

Art. 25 Remarks in a Pamphlet lately published by Dr. Price, intituled Obfervations on Civil Liberty,' &c. 8vo. I S. Cadell. Thefe Remarks have been afcribed to Dr. F-g-n; and though they do not materially invalidate the conclufions of his antagonist, they are yet commendable, in fome refpects, and particularly as being written with lefs invective, and more decency, candour, and moderation, than have lately appeared, in the productions on that fide of our American difpute.-Sometimes, however, the Author imputes unjust meanings to Dr. Price's words, in order, perhaps, to render his pofitions more difputable: and he frequently affumes and argues from very erroneous fuppofitions, a few of which we shall inftance.

ift, The fact (fays he) in our hiftory, I believe is, that there never entered into the hord of any perfon able to bring it about, except Oliver Cromwell, the idea of having the people of Great Britain reprefented.' But if by the people of Great Britain those of England are to be underflood, nothing can be more untrue or more unworthy of a writer on the Hiftory of Civil Society' than this affertion. It is directly contrary to the exprefs recitals of numerous acts of Parliament, and to the very principle upon which the English Houfe of Commons was formed. It was from the idea of having the people of England reprefented,' that Edward the First fummoned reprefentatives from the cities and burroughs of the realm to parliament, and this idea, he caufed to be most strongly expreffed in his writt of fummons-and for a number of years afterwards, particu larly in the reigns of Henry the Fourth, Henry the Fifth, and Henry the Sixth, every man in England was actually reprefented, because every man however poor was legally entitled to vote at the elections of reprefentatives.

zd. The Parliament of Great Britain, (fays he) has made laws for the Colonies from their firit establishments. The Charters of the Colonies fubjected them to taxes, and they have been taxed. by acts of the British 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 furprised the Author would hazard fuch an unwarrantable affertion.

3d. The Colonies, fays he, have hitherto faid to the King of Great Britain on his own territory, as the Romans faid 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 conceffions they expect from the crown and legiflature 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 prefent deftructive focial war ftill continues. They were fo little averse from treaty, that even in their last rejected Petition after the actual commencement of hoftilities, the King was humbly befought to prefcribe fome mode for receiving the dutiful applications of his American fubjects for a reconciliation. But even at this hour unconditional fubmifion 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