תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

themselves kindly leading them towards affociating, or incorporating with each other; though (what is rather strange) Providence had ordained, that this way of life was to be fo effentially neceffary towards their happiness, that they must be miferable without it: nay, they were driven by neceflity, and not drawn by inclination, to feek for any fort of civil government whatever. And, what is ftranger ftill, it feems they were fenfible, that this kind of inftitution, called Government, to which they had no natural inclination, but rather an averfion, and whofe good or bad effects they had not experienced, might easily procure advantages which they then wanted, and protect them from many dangers, to which they were continually expofed, in their independent, unconnected ftate. All these things, I own, are ftrange paradoxes to me: I cannot comprehend them.'

Now the effential diftinction between that firong and original law of nature, which, previous to all reafoning, draweth men into SOCIETY, and that fubfequent conclufion of reafon, which produces POLITY, as a fecurity against thofe inconveniences which the imperfections of human nature muft neceffarily occafion in fociety prior to the existence of LAW, are here, and almoft every where throughout the book, confounded together, as though there were no difference. If our Author can fee no fuch diftinction, we prefume it is evident enough to other men: but we will not venture to attribute to him this blindness, fince he ftates the diftinction fo fully in p. 151, as what will be objected to his doctrine; although in our opinion, inftead of giving it a fair and candid anfwer, he inftantly flies off from the point, and very difingenuously frames a cafe which is not fimilar, nor will admit of the fame anfwer. By this artifice of affuming, that inftinctive fociety amongst men, and civil government, are one and the fame thing, our Author, by fhewing that the Lockians, as he terms them, reprefent the latter as the effect of mere compact, very candidly infers, that they deny the former to be natural to man. See p. 378. But that this inference is a grofs mifreprefentation, appears from the very paffage which he has felected from Dr. Priefly; for, if we can understand plain Englifh, the foundation upon which the Doctor erects his fuperftructure of civil government is, the inconvenience of living independent and unconnected' in a fociety merely inftinctive, which he evidently, nay exprefsly fuppofes to have taken place; lo far is he from fuppofing, as his commentator will have it, that they did not feel any inftincts within themselves kindly leading them towards affociating, or incorporating with each other.' The paffage under confideration feems a very extraordinary one indeed, for proving that the writer, together with all the Lockians, deny an innate propenfity in mankind to focial life; but it was the best our Author could pick out to ferve his purpose. His fairness in this particular we fhall hereafter fhew more at large. Had Dr. Priestley fuppofed men and tygers, Sheep and REV. Oct. 1781. wolves,

T

wolves, pigeons and hawks, as existing together in one society, and, in confequence of infults and wrongs, common amongst them, to have entered into a compact, eftablifhing a civil government for the future regulation of their community, it would have been fair enough, we confess, for a learned commentator fagely to have remarked, that the fuppofer did not reprefent fuch a government, or fuch a previous fociety, to have taken place, in confequence of inftincts within themselves kindly leading them towards affociating or incorporating with each other;' but to draw fuch an inference, when men with men were supposed exifting together, is not very natural furely. This very cavil, however, is the principal ftone in the foundation of that fyftem, by which our Author moft triumphantly boasts to have beaten down the fyftem of Locke!

[ocr errors]

Our Author farther collects, p. 25, from his aforefaid quotations, II. That the Lockians do most strenuously infift, that every man, every individual of the human fpecies, hath an unalienable right to chufe, or refufe, whether he will be a member of this, or that particular government, or of none at all.' For,' fays he, they have extended the privilege of voting, or of giving actual confent, in all the affairs of government and legiflation, beyond what was ever dreamt of before in this, or in any other civilized country ;-nay, according to their leading principles, it ought to be extended ftill much farther, than even they themselves have done. Before this new system had made its appearance among us, the right of voting was not fuppofed to be an unalienable right, which belonged to all mankind indifcriminately: but it was confidered as a privilege, which was confined to thofe few perfons who were in poffeffion of a certain quantity of land, to perfons enjoying certain franchises (of which there are various kinds), and to perfons of a certain condition, age, and fex. Perhaps all thefe numbers put together may make about the fortieth part of the inhabitants of Great Britain: they certainly cannot make much more, if an actual furvey and enumeration were to be made. Whereas the great mafs of the people, who do not come within this defcription, are, and ever have been, excluded by the English Conftitution from voting at elections for members of Parliament, &c. &c. And heavy penalties are to be levied on them, if they should attempt to vote.'

Here we cannot but obferve, that if it be a fufficient objection to the conclufiveness of doctrines, that they were never before dreamt of in this or any other civilized country,' that Bacon, Boyle, and Newton, as well as every other perfon who hath enlarged at any time the fields of fcience, must have laboured altogether in vain; for the laws of nature, which they feverally unfolded to us, had not in many cafes been dreamt of' before: ergo, according to this mode of reasoning, they ought not to be received. In like manner, we must reject, as law, all those rules and maxims which have refulted, from time to time, from the improvements in our jurifprudence made by the Lytteltons, the

7

Cokes

Cokes and Hardavickes, who, as occafions arofe, interpreted the law and conftitution contrary to the prevailing, though erroneous, opinions of the times in which they lived: and the modern republican notions of Lord Mansfield, in particular, in the celebrated cafes of Somerset and others the Negroes, pronounced to be free men the inftant they had fet foot on English land, must be reprobated; becaufe, upon our Author's principles, before this new fyftem had made its appearance among us, the right of' holding our fellow-creatures as flaves, in this land of liberty, was fuppofed to belong to every perfon who had bought a black man, and brought him to England. And as our learned Author, towards the fupport of his own fyftem, has been very careful to inform us, p. 302, that under England's former Gothic Conftitution, the villains in grofs, who were by far the most numerous class, seem to have been on the fame footing with the Negroe flaves at present in the Weft Indies ;'-ergo,-Lord Mansfield is no lawyer; but a factious republican, who, under the vile pretence of unalienable rights, deprives the mafter of his legal property in his flave, on the mere authority of an argument which, weak and trifling as it is, may nevertheless become a formidable weapon, in the hands of defperate Catilinarian men, for establishing a real and cruel tyranny of their own (according to the example which the American rebels have already fet), instead of that harmless, imaginary tyranny, of which they fo bitterly complain at present.'

It muft, we conceive, be obvious to readers of the flightest difcernment, that, were fuch arguments as thofe we have quoted from our Author to be admitted, there is no fpecies of tyranny, no corruption, no degradation of the human fpecies but what might be justified: for at one period or other, there have, in all countries, been precedents for the violation of every law, human and divine, by thofe in power. It is not, however, for fuch -frothy cavillings as thefe, to weigh down the folid reasonings of the venerable Locke. But we do not admit the fact, that the - great mass of the people ever have been thus excluded by the English Conftitution from voting at elections for members of Parliament,' as our Author fo confidently afferts: we maintain, that there is not a principle of that Conftitution which authorises any fuch exclufion; and as to the practice of former times, it has differed at different periods; although in itfelf it is utterly incapable of affording any proof either one way or other; for that muft ftill depend upon reafon and our notions of natural equity. The introduction of the Norman line of Kings was, we know, attended with an almoft total extinction of all liberty, but particularly of the elective franchife. So deeply, however, was it rooted in the minds of the people, that it foon again prevailed; and, in the 7th year of Hen. IV. it was exprefsly enacted, that "At the next County [Court] to be holden after the delivery

[ocr errors]

of the brief of Parliament, proclamation be made in full county, of the day and place of the Parliament; and that all thofe that be there prefent, as well futerez duly fummoned for this caufe, as others, fhall attend to the election of their Knights for the Parliament." Vide Cap. 15. A writer who will indulge himfelf in a grofs mifreprefentation of facts, fo long as he remains uncontradicted, may prove any thing. Now our Author muft know, that it was not till the 8th year of Hen. VI. that the great mafs of the people were excluded'-not, as he infidiously afferts, by the English Conftitution, but-by the English Parliament; expreffions which are not understood to be fynonimous. He must also know, that at the prior period, the 7th of Hen. IV. villainage had very greatly declined in England. Were he difpofed to allow the people any rights, either natural or legal, he would find it difficult to explain, upon what principle of juftice or equity the reprefentatives appointed by the great mass of the people," could pass a law to exclude from thenceforth that very mafs of the people' from the exercise of that franchise which conferred on them their delegated authority in truft. A power in the reprefentative to annihilate his principal, is, we confess, above our comprehenfion. But, by firft denying to the people any unalienable rights to fhare either immediately or remotely in their own government, it is then eafy to refolve every thing that belongs to their government, the election of legislators, as well as the appointment of magiftrates, into matters of a prudential nature *; and as eafy to pronounce, that thefe things being matters of a prudential nature, they must be difpofed of according to the difcretion of the ruling powers in every state ↑.'

[ocr errors]

The third thing collected by our Author (p. 27.) out of the extracts produced, is, that, If all mankind indifcriminately have a right to vote in any fociety, they have, for the very fame reafon, a right to reject the proceedings of the government of that fociety to which they belong, and to feparate from it whenever they fhall think fit. For it has been inculcated into us over and over, that every man's confent ought first to be obtained, before any law whatever can be deemed to be valid, and of full force.-We have been alfo affured, that all, and every kind of taxes are merely free gifts which, therefore, no individual giver is obliged to pay, unless he has previously confented to the payment of it. From thefe premifes it undoubtedly follows, that every individual member of the State is at full liberty either to fubmit, or to refufe fubmiffion to any, and to every regulation of it, according as he had predetermined in his own mind. For being his own legiflator, his own governor, and director in every thing, no man has a right to prefcribe to him what he ought to do. Others may advise, but he alone is to dictate, refpecting his own actions. For, in short, he is to obey no other will but his own!'

Page 26 & 32.

+ Page 3z.

Here

Here the Dean unhappily forgets thofe two wholefome cautions of Locke, which he has himself adopted in his Preface, and given to us Reviewers and all other critics, who shall make free with the work before us; " Firft, that cavilling here and there, at fome expreffion, or little incident of his difcourse, is not an answer to his book. Secondly, That he fhall not take railing [nor mifrepresentation] for argument," &c.; for, had he paid a due attention to thefe falutary cautions, he could not thus have misrepresented either Locke or his difciples as he has done. That "every individual member of a state is at full liberty either to fubmit, or to refufe fubmiflion to any, and to every regulation of it, according as he had previously determined in his own mind,' and that he is to obey no other will but his own,' are not the doctrines of either Locke, Molyneux, Priestley, Price, or any Lockian that ever we heard of. The extracts do not prove it; and if the Dean's readers will carefully confult the works from which thofe extracts are made, they will be aftonished at our Author's mode of proceeding. There was a time, we have been affured, when our Author himself was fo far in the contrary extreme to that in which we at present find him, as by his fellow collegians, to be called Locke-mad: but, even then, when youthful fire and animal fpirits might be fuppofed to urge his Aights fomewhat beyond his more fober mafter, we cannot fuppose that he maintained fuch grofs and puerile abfurdities, as he now attempts to fix upon Locke and fome of the most eminent of his difciples.'

[ocr errors]

The title of our Author's fecond chapter is 'Several very grofs Errors and Abfurdities chargeable on the Lockian Syftem." For inftance, p. 29. I. They maintain the indefeasible right of private judgment, in matters of a mere civil nature; (30.) II. They teach that every man muft of neceffity be his own legiflator; III. p. 33. That civil government is not natural to man. Now we readily confefs, that on the two firft pofitions he has difplayed fome ingenuity; nor can it, in our opinion, be maintained against him, that religious and civil freedom are exactly parallel cafes; although we apprehend it is fufficiently apparent, that in points of great importance there is a ftrong fimilitude. If the advocates of civil liberty have illuftrated their arguments by fimiles and allufions, they have only employed the fame means of conviction and perfuafion that all writers, all orators, all difputants (excepting on mathematical and other subjects where it is of no ufe), in all ages, and in all countries, have employed before them, the Dean himself not excepted. If indeed. they have ever called thofe parallel cafes which are only fimilar, they have erred. This is charged by our Author upon Doctor Price and Major Cartwright; and as the question turns upon a right interpretation of their words, we fhall not take it upon us to give

« הקודםהמשך »