« הקודםהמשך »
an opinion, left we should embarrass a controversy which the parties themselves may perhaps renew. In order that our Read. ers may form fome idea of its present state, we shall lay before them the following extract, from p. 38, 39. “No people, says the Doctor [Price), can lawfully surrender their religious liberty, by giving up their right of judging for themselves in religion, or by al. lowing any human being to prescribe to them, what faith they shall embrace, or what mode of worship they mall practice." .I agree with him molt heartily on that head :--but then I add sand I am sure, what I add in this case, Dr. PRICE will readily allow) that no one individual can depote anyther to judge for him, what faith he shall embrace, or what mode of worship he shall practice. And then what is the consequence? Necessarily ibis, That if the cases between religion and civil government be similar, as the Doêlor supposes them to be, no one individual can appoint another to judge for him, what Jaws shall be propounded, what taxes shall be railed, or what is to be done at home or abroad, in peace or in war:--but every person, who has this indefeasible, this unalienable, incominunicable, and uniraof. ferrable right of voting, judging, and fighting, muft vote, judge, and fight for himself. This, I say, is a neceilary consequence from che premises : and I defy the acutest logician to deduce any other infeyence from the above hypothesis.'- 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 such exact parallels to each other, “ that the persons who ale to judge for themselves with respect to religious falvation, EQUALLY ought to be the judges of their political salvation” (which are his own words, at page 134 of The People's Barrier, in order to prove, that the very loweit of mankind, such as footmen, draymen, and reavengers, whom he there particu. larises, as having an unalienable right or voring), he then must allow, whether he will or not, that the wives of thee foormer, draymen, and scavengers have, in civil, as well as religious concerns, the fame unalienable right with their husbands.-Eisher :herefore the cases are parallel, or they are not :--Let him lake his choice.'
But when our Author imagines he has proved (as we think he has, and posibly Price and Cartwright always thought the fame), that the cases of religious and civil freedom are not exact parallels, we do not understand why he is therice to infer, as he really does, that mankind have no unalienable rights at all in refpect of political freedom; but that lile, liberty, and property, in every country, must always depend upon the discretion of the suling powers in every State,' (p. 32.) by what means foever they may have acquired the sovereign dominion,' p. 417. The whole force of his argument turns upon this distinction, that ' in the affairs of conscience no man can act, or be supposed to act as proxy for another; no man can be a deputy, substitute, or representative, in such a case; but every man must think and att personally for himself:' and his rights in this respect are unalienable,' because they are untransferrable,' p. 33. Hence he infers, that, as the right of legislacing in civil concerns is con
felfedly transferrable to representatives, therefore it is not unalienable. But we apprehend the question lies somewhat deeper; whereas our Author, as he has managed it, has made it a mere dispute upon words; although things essential to the morals and happiness of mankind are involved in it. We cannot but assent to what Major Cartwright, in the first and second section of the “ LegiNative Rights,” lays down in respect of mankind; viz. “ The first and great end, then, of their existence, is, by the ftudy of wisdom and practice of virtue, to be constantly approximating towards moral perfection; in order to the attainment of that future exaltation and happiness [spoken of above] : and the next material, and indeed only remaining point, is, to render themselves, individually and colleEtively, as happy as porsible during their term of mortality; to which they are also invited by the whole law of nature * and religion. They have, therefore, necesarily been created FREE. Were it otherwise, neither virtue nor vice, right nor wrong, could be ascribed to their actions; and to talk of happiness, would be to talk nonsense.
- Hence, they are doubtless under an eternal obligation to preserve their freedom to the utmost of their power; because, by parting with it, in any degree more or less, they so 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 posterity, Jubfervient also to the wicked designs of those, to whose power they have submitted. That people, who have suffered their prince to become a tyrant over themselves, soon find themselves employed as the instruments of his lawless will, in extending the limits of tyranny, and spreading devastation among their fellow-creatures. How base and degrading is such a condition !” We hope, therefore, the Dean will allow that moral freedom, as well as religious, is unalien. able; and then he will have made all the concession that his antagonists desire : because poliical freedom, we see, is essential to moral freedom ; and it is essential to political freedom, that a man Ihare in common with his fellow-citizens in the appointment of those without whole ailent no laws can be enacted, and no part of the public property granted for the support of government; because all persons excluded from such a share in their own government (which is all that Locke and his followers mean
* These expressions do not indicate a denial that men have a narural propenfity to social union, ascribed by our Author to all the Lockians; and yet he informs os of this writer, that 'respecting ing Lockianism, he is a very juft and confittent writer, advancing nothing but what is fairly deducible from his master's principles.' P. 3;8.
by a man's being his own legislator), are governed by persons whom other men have set over them *. A right which is essential to freedom, may still perhaps be thought, an unalienable right, notwithstanding our Author's unwillingness that it should be so, Nor can we help observing, that although he has made war with such uncommon animofily, upon the idea of subjects having an unalienable right to political liberty, yet, when he quotes Judge Foster, p. 48, in favour of the allegiance due to Kings, he prints the word, unalienable, in Italics, as meaning, we prelume, to lay a particular stress upon it ; for, in this place, he certainly does not endeavour to explain it away. The clore of the quotation runs thus; “ and, consequently, the duty of allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseparably connected with it, is in con fideration of law likewise unalienable and perpetual."
On the subject 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 Cæsar,' merely because he is in actual possession of the sovereign power,' p. 417. We believe the doctrine of the inseparableness of taxation and repre, sentation to be founded in truth and justice; which are more than antient, for they are eternal and immutable.
Not content to treat the notions of Locke and his disciples, on liberty and property, with that peculiar kind of derision, which by our news-paper combatants is so commonly poured forth upon their political opponents, our Author, p. 81, proceeds to inform us, that what seems 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. Bassier, p. 20. On the contrary, it is our Author's doctrine, that a man iş only enslaved, when the laws are cruel and oppre:live; and that he is free, when the laws are good and mild. p. 140. Ler him then answer there 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 poflible kindnesi, so as to attach the Negro to him by the strongest ties of gratitude, reverence, and affection, is chat Negro a free mag or a llave?
2 * Supporing the widest and most amiable of mankind were to be, come Emperor of Morocco, and his whole power were employed ro make the people under him happy, but without making any alt ratior in ihe DESPOTIC FORM of rheir government, would the subjects of that empire be therefore a free people?' ." It is not the definition of slavery, that we juffer from an arbitrary ppver, but that we are subject soii."
ebeir their own system, which is exceptionable in Sir Robert Filmer's, and against which they have raised such tragical exclamations.
• Thus, for example, Sir Robert, and all the patrons of an inde. feasible, hereditary right, declare with one voice, chat no length of rime can bar che title of the right heir. For whenever he shall see a fit opportunity of setting up his claim, every subject is bound in duty and conscience to renounce their allegiance to the reigning Prince, and to resort to the standard of the Lord's Anointed :- just so, mutatis mutandis, is the file and declaration of the Lockians: the people are the oniy right beirs; or rather, they are the only persons who have a right to appoint right heirs; and no length of prescription can bar their title. For every fecilement of a state, monarchical, or even republican, whose title is not derived from a popular election, or doth not exist at present by virtue of some express and previous contract, is a manifeit ufurpation of their unalienable rights ; and therefore ought to be subverted and destroyed as soon as possible;-moreover, the authors of so daring an attempi on the liberties of a free people deserve to be punished with exemplary vengeance, and to have their goods and estates confiscared for the benefit of the public, alias, to reward the patriots. Now, if any one should ak, what that is which conftitutes the people in this case? or who are those persons that are invested, jure divino, with these extraordinary powers, these Kingcreating, and King-deposing 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 fait, it is the eafiest thing imaginable. For the persons, or the people in this case, are no other than the first mob that can be got together, provided they are strong enough to undertake, and execute the work; if not, the next mob, or the next to that, and so on, ad infinitum. For this is a subject wbich, it seems, 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 sights may be delayed for a while, or may be dillembled, and postponed till he and his friends shall find a more convenient season for executing their laudable designs.'
How it is reconcileable with candour, to consider Locke's indefeasible right in all men to political freedom, and Filmer's indefeasible right in one to absolute dominion over all other men, as one and the same thing, we submit 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 so contrary to their own ; but when untruth and rancour unite in an attempt to involve the virtuous Locke, and his disciples, in the odium and detestation which are justly due to the unprincipled leaders and tools of faction, base and insensible 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 also revived by the Lockians. For, whosoever dares to reign wiih. out, or in opposition to, the Lockian title, is only a King de fatto :ibe rightful King, or the King de jure, being yet in petto, and not to
be brought forth, till the people can assemble together to allert, and exercise their unalienable rights with safery.
• Moreover, the persecuring and intolerant spirit of the sylem of Sir Robert Filmer, and of the Jacobites, is another very just reproach to it; and none inveighed more bicterly, or more juftly against it on this account, than Mr. Locke bimself, and his disciples, - Ye: such is the inconlillency of these men ;--that they tell us so plainly, that we cannot mistake their meaning, that they would allow do goverament on the face of the earth to subøtt on any other cirle but their own, had they a power equal to their will in these cases. For says Dr. Prieilley (and all the seft join in the same sentiments), “ This fthe Lockian, or popular title] must be the only true and proper foundation of all governments subfilling in the world ; and inai 10 which the people have an unalienable right to bring them back.”“ This is a blefling, says Dr. Price, which no generation of men can give up for another; and which, when lott, the people have alwoys a right to resume." So that oothing less will content these men than the universal establichment of their own principles, and the renunciarion or abjuration of all others. Yet there are the champions who fand up for liberty of conscience, and are the only friends to reconciling measures, to universal toleration, to peace on earth, and good. will among men.'
These are the men, it is true, who, like Sir Robert Filmer and the Dean himself-have endeavoured to shew, 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 solved, is, which of the three, the Filmerian, the Lockian, or the Tuckerian is the true system. Provided the last should prove to be the only one which hath a
true basis,' we do not comprehend how the Dean could give his consent to the establishment, or, if established, to the continuance, of any other that should essentially differ from it; excepting as the Lockians and Filmerians themselves do, that is, because they cannot help it : for lax indeed must be his morality, if he would suffer injustice, tyranny, violence and oppreslion, to prevail over his country, provided he poffefed the means to expel them, and establish in their room, justice, freedom, peace, and prosperity. If this be fair reasoning, then it will follow, that the sentence he has pasled, p. 81, on the Lockians, for maintaining the truth of their system, must equally apply to himself, for publicly teaching that his is the only species of government which has a 'true bafis ;' viz. That it is proclaiming war against all the governments upon earth, and exciting their subjects to rebel,' so far as such governments respectively differ from that system.
But as we approve not of following ill examples, we will candidly acknowledge, that on this occasion our Author has a manifest advantage over the other parties; inasmuch as, according to him, every government now in the world, or that ever was;