an opinion, left we should embarrass a controverfy which the parties themselves may perhaps renew. In order that our Readers may form fome idea of its prefent ftate, we fhall lay before them the following extract, from p. 38, 39. "No people, fays the Doctor [Price], can lawfully furrender their religious liberty, by giving up their right of judging for themfelves in religion, or by allowing any human being to prefcribe to them, what faith they shall embrace, or what mode of worship they fhall practice." "I agree with him mo heartily on that head :-but then I add [and I am fure, what I add in this cafe, Dr. PRICE will readily allow] that no one individual can depute anyther to judge for him, what faith he shall embrace, or what mede of worship he shall practice. And then what is the confequence? Neceffarily this, That if the cafes between religion and civil government be fimilar, as the Doctor fuppofes them to be, no one individual can appoint another to judge for him, what Jaws fhall be propounded, what taxes fhall be railed, or what is to be done at home or abroad, in peace or in war:-but every perfon, who has this indefeasible, this unalienable, incommunicable, and untranfferrable right of voting, judging, and fighting, muft vote, judge, and fight for himfelf.-This, Ifay, is a neceifary confequence from the premifes and I defy the acuteft logician to deduce any other inference from the above hypothefis.'Again, p. 362. On the other hand, were he [Major Cartwright] to maintain [which he and Dr. Price really do], that these two rights are fuch exact parallels to each other," that the perfons who are to judge for themselves with refpect to religious falvation, EQUALLY ought to be the judges of their political falvation" (which are his own words, at page 134 of The People's Barrier, in order to prove, that the very lowest of mankind, fuch as footmen, draymen, and fcavengers, whom he there particularifes, as having aa unalienable right of voting), he then muit allow, whether he will or not, that the wives of thefe footmen, draymen, and scavengers have, in civil, as well as religious concerns, the fame unalienable right with their hefbands.-Either therefore the cafes are parallel, or they are not :--- -Let him take his choice.'

But when our Author imagines he has proved (as we think he has, and poffibly Price and Cartwright always thought the fame), that the cafes of religious and civil freedom are not exact parallels, we do not understand why he is thence to infer, as he really does, that mankind have no unalienable rights at all in refpect of political freedom; but that life, liberty, and property, in every country, muft always depend upon the difcretion of the ruling powers in every State,' (p. 32.) by what means foever they may have acquired the fovereign dominion,' p. 417. The whole force of his argument turns upon this diftinction, that in the affairs of confcience no man can act, or be fuppofed to act as proxy for another; no man can be a deputy, fubftitute, or representative, in fuch a cafe; but every man muft think and act perfonally for himfelf:' and his rights in this refpect are unalienable, because they are untransferrable,' p. 33. Hence he infers, that, as the right of legiflating in civil concerns is con

fefledly

feffedly transferrable to reprefentatives, therefore it is not unalienable. But we apprehend the queftion lies fomewhat deeper; whereas our Author, as he has managed it, has made it a mere difpute upon words; although things effential to the morals and happiness of mankind are involved in it. We cannot but affent to what Major Cartwright, in the first and second section of the Legislative Rights," lays down in refpect of mankind; viz. "The firft and great end, then, of their exiftence, is, by the ftudy of wisdom and practice of virtue, to be conftantly approximating towards moral perfection; in order to the attainment of that future exaltation and happiness [fpoken of above]: and the next material, and indeed only remaining point, is, to render themselves, individually and collectively, as happy as poffible during their term of mortality; to which they are alfo invited by the whole law of nature and religion. They have, therefore, neceffarily been created FREE. Were it otherwife, neither virtue nor vice, right nor wrong, could be ascribed to their actions; and to talk of happinefs, would be to talk nonfenfe.

"Hence, they are doubtlefs under an eternal obligation to preferve their freedom to the utmost of their power; because, by parting with it, in any degree more or lefs, they fo far deprive themselves of the means of doing their duty, and of performing those actions which the laws of virtue [or religion] may require of them; and because they will thereby make themselves, and frequently their pofterity, fubfervient alfo to the wicked defigns of those, to whofe power they have fubmitted. That people, who have fuffered their prince to become a tyrant over themfelves, foon find themfelves employed as the inftruments of his lawless will, in extending the limits of tyranny, and spreading devaftation among their fellow-creatures. How bafe and degrading is fuch a condition!" We hope, therefore, the Dean will allow that moral freedom, as well as religious, is unalienable; and then he will have made all the conceffion that his antagonists defire because political freedom, we fee, is effential to moral freedom; and it is effential to political freedom, that a man share in common with his fellow-citizens in the appointment of those without whofe affent no laws can be enacted, and no part of the public property granted for the fupport of government; because all perfons excluded from fuch a fhare in their own government (which is all that Locke and his followers mean

Thefe expreffions do not indicate a denial that men have a natural propensity to focial union, afcribed by our Author to all the Lockians; and yet he informs us of this writer, that' respecting ing Lockianifm, he is a very juft and confiftent writer, advancing nothing but what is fairly deducible from his mafter's principles." P. 358.

by a man's being his own legiflator), are governed by perfons whom other men have fet over them*. A right which is essential to freedom, may ftill perhaps be thought, an unalienable right, notwithstanding our Author's unwillingness that it should be fo, Nor can we help obferving, that although he has made war with fuch uncommon animofity, upon the idea of subjects having an unalienable right to political liberty, yet, when he quotes Judge Fofter, p. 48, in favour of the allegiance due to Kings, he prints the word, unalienable, in Italics, as meaning, we prefume, to lay a particular ftrefs upon it; for, in this place, he certainly does not endeavour to explain it away. The clofe of the quotation runs thus; and, confequently, the duty of allegiance which arifeth out of it, and is infeparably connected with it, is in confideration of law likewife unalienable and perpetual."

On the fubject of taxes, our Author is quite voluminous; but, notwithstanding his ingenious rakings into antiquity, we do not acknowledge ourselves converts to his doctrine,—that they are not the gifts and grants of the people; but what they are compellable to. • Render unto Cæfar,' merely because he is in actual poffeffion' of the fovereign power,' p. 417. We believe the doctrine of the infeparablenefs of taxation and reprefentation to be founded in truth and juftice; which are more than antient, for they are eternal and immutable.

Not content to treat the notions of Locke and his difciples, on liberty and property, with that peculiar kind of derifion, which by our news-paper combatants is fo commonly poured forth upon their political opponents, our Author, p. 81, proceeds to inform us, that what feems the most unaccountable in this whole proceeding is, that they have adopted almost every thing into

"To be enslaved is to have no will of our own in the choice of law-makers, but to be governed by rulers whom other men have fet over us." Peop. Barrier, p. 20. On the contrary, it is our Author's doctrine, that a man is only enflaved, when the laws are cruel and opprefive; and that he is free, when the laws are good and mild. P. 140. Let him then answer thefe plain questions:

1. When a jamaica planter purchases a Negro, and instead of working him in the fields takes him into his house, and treats him with all poffible kindneft, fo as to attach the Negro to him by the ftrongest ties of gratitude, reverence, and affection, is that Negro a free man or a flave?

2 Suppofing the wifeft and most amiable of mankind were to be, come Emperor of Morocco, and his whole power were employed to make the people under him happy, but without making any alt ration in the DESPOTIC FORM of their government, would the fubjects of that empire be therefore a free people P

It is not the definition of flavery, that we juffer from an arbitrary ppwer, but that we are subject to it,"

their own fyftem, which is exceptionable in Sir Robert Filmer's, and against which they have raised fuch tragical exclamations.

Thus, for example, Sir Robert, and all the patrons of an indefeasible, hereditary right, declare with one voice, that no length of time can bar the title of the right heir. For whenever he fhall fee a fit opportunity of fetting up his claim, every subject is bound in duty and confcience to renounce their allegiance to the reigning Prince, and to refort to the standard of the Lord's Anointed :-just fo, mutatis mutandis, is the ftile and declaration of the Lockians: the people are the only right heirs; or rather, they are the only perfons who have a right to appoint right heirs; and no length of prefcription can bar their title. For every fettlement of a state, monarchical, or even republican, whofe title is not derived from a popular election, or doth not exift at prefent by virtue of fome exprefs and previous contract, is a manifelt ufurpation of their unalienable rights; and therefore ought to be fubverted and deftroyed as foon as poffible; moreover, the authors of fo daring an attempt on the liberties of a free people deserve to be punished with exemplary vengeance, and to have their goods and eftates confifcated for the benefit of the public, alias, to reward the patriots. Now, if any one should ask, what that is which conftitutes the people in this cafe? or who are thofe perfons that are invented, jure divino, with these extraordinary powers, thefe Kingcreating, and King-depofing prerogatives ?-The answer, I own, in point of theory, is attended with very perplexing difficulties :-but in respect to practice, and as referring to a matter of fact, it is the eafieft thing imaginable. For the perfons, or the people in this cafe, are no other than the firft mob that can be got together, provided they are firong enough to undertake, and execute the work; if not, the next mob, or the next to that, and fo on, ad infinitum. For this is a fubject which, it feems, ought never to be loft fight of by a trueborn patriot: though he may allow that the efforts of the people for regaining their native rights may be delayed for a while, or may be diffembled, and postponed till he and his friends fhall find a more convenient feafon for executing their laudable defigns.'

How it is reconcileable with candour, to confider Locke's indefeasible right in all men to political freedom, and Filmer's indefeasible right in ONE to abfolute dominion over all other men, as one and the fame thing, we fubmit to the judgment of our impartial Readers. When opinions are only weak, or merely erroneous, they are to be heard with complacency by the liberal and more informed part of mankind, although ever fo contrary to their own; but when untruth and rancour unite in an attempt to involve the virtuous Locke, and his difciples, in the odium and deteftation which are juftly due to the unprincipled leaders and tools of faction, bafe and infenfible must be that mind, which feels not emotions of indignant contempt!

In p. 83, our Author proceeds thus; Again: the notion of Kings de facto, and Kings de jure, that opprobrium of the Jacobites, is alfo revived by the Lockians. For, whofoever dares to reign without, or in oppofition to, the Lockian title, is only a King de facto :— the rightful King, or the King de jure, being yet in petto, and not to

be brought forth, till the people can affemble together to affert, and exercise their unalienable rights with fafety.

• Moreover, the perfecuting and intolerant spirit of the system of Sir Robert Filmer, and of the Jacobites, is another very just reproach to it and none inveighed more bitterly, or more justly against it on this account, than Mr. Locke himself, and his difciples.-Yet fuch is the inconfiftency of these men ;-that they tell us fo plainly, that we cannot mistake their meaning, that they would allow no government on the face of the earth to fubfift on any other title but their own, had they a power equal to their will in thefe cafes. For fays Dr. Priestley (and all the rest join in the fame fentiments]," This [the Lockian, or popular title] must be the only true and proper foundation of all governments fubfitting in the world; and that to which the people have an unalienable right to bring them back.”. "This is a blefling, fays Dr. Price, which no generation of men can give up for another; and which, when lot, the people have always a right to refume." So that nothing lefs will content these men than the universal establishment of their own principles, and the renunciation or abjuration of all others. Yet these are the champions who ftand up for liberty of confcience, and are the only friends to reconciling measures, to univerfal toleration, to peace on earth, and goodwill among men.'

·

These are the men, it is true, who, like Sir Robert Filmer — and the Dean himself-have endeavoured to fhew, which kind of government has the only TRUE BASIS:' and it is evident, that if any one of these kinds is, the others cannot be, the true one. The only question then to be folved, is, which of the three, the Filmerian, the Lockian, or the Tuckerian is the true fyftem. Provided the laft should prove to be the only one which hath a 'true bafis,' we do not comprehend how the Dean could give his confent to the establishment, or, if established, to the continuance, of any other that fhould effentially differ from it; excepting as the Lockians and Filmerians themselves do, that is, because they cannot help it: for lax indeed muft be his morality, if he would fuffer injustice, tyranny, violence and oppreffion, to prevail over his country, provided he poffeffed the means to expel them, and establish in their room, juftice, freedom, peace, and profperity. If this be fair reafoning, then it will follow, that the fentence he has paffed, p. 81, on the Lockians, for maintaining the truth of their fyftem, muft equally apply to himself, for publicly teaching that his is the only fpecies of government which has a true bafis;' viz. That it is proclaiming war against all the governments upon earth, and exciting their fubjects to rebel,' fo far as fuch governments respectively differ from that fyftem.

But as we approve not of following ill examples, we will candidly acknowledge, that on this occafion our Author has a manifeft advantage over the other parties; inasmuch as, according to him, every government now in the world, or that ever was;

whether