a creature of the people." It is, if we allow your definition of freedom. i. e. if we allow you to beg the queflion.

66

But before we can move a ftep further, I must beg you to define another of your terms. This is the more neceffary, as it occurs again and again; and indeed, the whole question turns upon it. What do you mean by the people? "All the members of a state?" So you exprefs it, p. 8. "All the individuals that compofe it?" So you fpeak in the next page. Will you rather fay with judge Blackstone, "Every free agent?" Or with Montefquieu, Every one that has a will of his own?" Fix upon which of thefe definitions you pleafe, and then we may proceed. If my argument has an odd appearance, yet let none think I am in jeft. I am in great earnest. So I have need to be for I am pleading the caufe of my king and country; yea, of every country under heaven, where there is any regular government. I am pleading against those principles that naturally tend to anarchy and confufion; that directly tend to unhinge all government, and overturn it from the foundation. But they are principles, which are incumbered with fuch difficulties, as the wifeft man living cannot remove.

This premifed, I afk, who are the people that have a right to make and unmake their governors? Are they "all the members of a fate?" So you affirmed but now. Are they "all the individuals that compofe it?" So you faid quickly after. Will you rather fay, "The people are every free agent?" Or, "Every one that has a will of his own?" Take which you will of these four definitions, and it neceffarily includes all men, women, and children. Now, ftand to your word. Have all men, women, and children, in a ftate, a right to make and unmake their governors? They are all free agents, except infants; and even thefe have a will of their own. They all are members of the flate: they are all and every one, "the individuals that compofe it." And had ever the people, as above defined by yourfelf, a right to make and unmake their governors?

Setting Mr. Evans's witticifms afide, I feriously defire him, or Doctor Price, or any zealous affertor of the king-making right of our fovereign lords the people, to point out a fingle inftance of their exerting this right in any age or nation. I except only the cafe of Thomas Aniello, (vulgarly called Maffanello) in the last century. Don't tell me," There are many," but point them out: I aver, I know of none, And I believe it will puzzle any one living, to name a fecond inftance, either in ancient or modern history.

And, by what right, (fetting the fcriptures afide, on which you do not chufe to reft the point,) by what right do you exclude women, any more than men, from chufing their own governors? Are they not free agents, as well as men? I afk a ferious question, and demand a ferious anfwer. Have they not a will of their own? Are they not members of the fate? Are they not part of the individuals that compofe it? With what con

fiftency,

fiftency, then, can any who affert the people, in the above fenfe, to be the origin of rower, deny them the right of chufing their governors, and "giving their fuffrages by their reprefenta

tives ?"

"But do you defire or advise, that they fhould do this?" Nay, I am out of the question. I do not afcribe these rights to the people; therefore, the difficulty affects not me; but, doj you get over it how you can, without giving up your principle.

un

I afk a fecond question: by what right do you exclude men, who have not lived one and twenty years, from that " alienable privilege of human nature," chufing their own governors? Is not a man a free agent, though he has lived only twen ty years, and ten or eleven months? Can you deny, that men from eighteen to twenty-one, are members of the ftate? Can any one doubt, whether they are a part of the individuals that compofe it? Why then are not these permitted to "chufe their governors, and to give their fuffrages by their reprefentatives?" Let any who say these rights are infeparable from the people, get over this difficulty if they can; not by breaking an infipid jeft on the occafion, but by giving a plain, fober, rational anfwer.

If it be faid, "O, women and ftriplings have not wisdom enough to chufe their own governors:" I answer, Whether they have or no, both the one and the other have all the rights which are infeparable from human nature. Either, therefore, this right is not infeparable from human nature, or both women and Atriplings are partakers of it,

I ak a third queftion: By what authority do you exclude a vast majority of adults from chufing their own governors, and giving their votes by their reprefentatives, merely because they have not fuch an income; because they have not forty fhil lings a-year? What if they have not? Have they uot the rights which you say belong to man as man? and are they not includ. ed in the people? Have they not a will of their own? are they not free agents? Who then can, with either juftice or equity, debar them from the exercise of their natural rights?

But, who are the people? Are they every man, woman, and child? Why not? Is it not one fundamental principle, that "all perfons living are naturally equal? that all human creatures are naturally free? mafters of their own actions? that none can have any power over them, but by their own confent ?” Why, then, fhould not every man, woman, and child, have a voice in placing their governors, in fixing the measure of their power, and the conditions on which it is intrufted? and why fhould not every one have a voice in difplacing them too? Surely they that gave the power, have a right to take it away. By what argument do you prove, that women are not naturally. as free as men? and if they are, why have they not as good a right to chuse their governors? Who can have any power over free, rational creatures, but by their own confent? and, are

they

they not free by nature, as well as we? are they not rational creatures?

But fuppofe we exclude women from ufing their natural right, by might overcoming right, what pretence have we for excluding men like ourselves, barely because they have not lived one and twenty years? 66 Why, they have not wisdom or experience to judge of the qualifications neceffary for governors." I answer, 1. Who has? how many of the voters in Great Britain? one in twenty? one in an hundred? If you exclude all who have not this wisdom, you will leave few behind. But, 2. Wisdom and experience are nothing to the purpose. You have put the matter upon another iffae. Are they men? that is enough. Are they human creatures? then they have a right to chufe their own governors; an indefeasible right; a right inherent, infeparable from human nature. "But in England they are excluded by law." Did they confent to the making of that law? if not, by your original fuppofition, it can have no power over them. I therefore utterly deny, that we can, confiftently with that fuppofition, exclude either women or minors from chufing their own governors.

But, fuppofe we exclude thefe by main force, are all that remain, all men of full age, the people? are all males, then, that have lived one and twenty years, allowed to chufe their own governors? Not in England, unless they are freeholders, and have forty fhillings a-year. Worfe and worfe! After depriving half the human fpecies of their natural right, for want of a beard; after having deprived myriads more for want of a ftiff beard, for not having lived one and twenty years, you rob others, many hundred thousands, of their birth-right for want of money! Yet not altogether on this account neither: if fo, it might be more tolerable. But here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the eftates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the people, because he has not two or three acres of land! How is this? By what right do you exclude a man from being one of the people, because he has not forty fhillings a-year? yea, or not a groat? Is he not a man, whether he be rich or poor? has he not a foul and a body? has he not the nature of a man? confequently, all the rights of a man, all that flow from human nature? and, among the reft, that of not being controlled by any, but by his own confent?'

In the fucceeding part of the pamphlet Mr. Wefley makes remarks on other paffages of the Obfervations in the fame argumentative ftyle; expofing the weakness of Dr. Price's crude and erroneous reafching, in a ftriking, animated, and fatirical point of view.

Reflections on the most proper Means of reducing the Rebels, and what ought to be the Confequence of our Success. 8vo. I5. Wilkie.

The method principally recommended by this writer for vanquishing the Americans, is to prevent them as much as poffible

from

from receiving any fupplies, either of amunition, or the necef faries of life, without which they muft in a fhort time be reduced to abandon their enterprize. He alfo thinks it expedient that we harrass their main body by defultory irruptions into different parts of the provinces. He is however of opinion, that the deftruction of the towns on the fea-coaft fhould be industriously avoided; as this ftep may gratify a majority of the rebels for two reafons. 1. Because they confider the maritime towns as fome fort of fecurity in the hands of government to inforce their obedience. 2. They have an hatred to most towns, because the officers and friends of government chiefly refide and have property in them. The author's reflections on what ought to be the confequence of our fuccefs, are rational and worthy of attention. American Patriotifm farther confronted with Reafon, Scripture, and the Conflitution: being Obfervations on the dangerous Politics taught by the Rev. Mr. Evans, M. A. and the Rev. Dr. Price. With a fcriptural Plea for the reveled Colonies. By J. Fletcher. Vicar of Madeley. 12mo. 91. Buckland.

This pamphlet confifts of five letters, in which the author, with much fpirit, impugns the arguments advanced by Dr. Price in favour of the Americans; and alfo thofe of Mr. Evans in answer to Mr. Wefley's Calm Addrefs. The minute examination with which Mr. Fletcher prefents us, of many paffages in those writers, will not admit of an abridged detail; and we can therefore only fay of his remarks in general, that they are founded on juftice, and enforced in a ftrain of reasoning, no lefs decifive than well adapted to the principles and declarations of his antagonists. In the fcriptural plea for the revolted colonies, with which the pamphlet concludes, the author recommends a conciliating difpofition towards the colonifts, as foon as they return to an acknowledgment of the fuperiority of the British legi

flature.

Political Sophiftry detected, or brief Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Fletcher's late Tract, entitled "American Patriotifm." By Caleb Evans. 12mo. 3d. Dilly.

From the title of this production we might be induced to imagine that Mr. Evans had clearly refuted the obfervations of the vicar of Madeley, with respect to American patriotiẩm. ftead of any detection of Political Sophiftry, however, we meet with nothing more in this reply, than a dull uninteresting recapitulation of the principal arguments which have been fo often advanced in the controverfy.

On Government. Adared to the Public. 8vo. 25. Stuart. The contest with America has given rife to many crude productions on the nature of civil liberty and government. But what now lies before us is perhaps the most Utopian of all that have been written on the fubject. It is no less than a scheme of univerfal empire, acquired without arms, and maintained without military power.

An Efay on the Rights of the East India Company to the Perpetuity of their Trade, Pofffions, and Revenues in India, &c. 800. is. 6d. Payne.

This pamphlet is written with the view of afferting the rights and privileges of the Eaft India company, in oppofition to any plea of encroachment, which it is apprehended may foon become the object of the legislature. After reciting the various charters and acts of parliament on which the conftitution of the company is established, the author proceeds to obferve, that the fums expended by the company, in obtaining and preferving their acquifitions in India, at the rifque of their whole property, under the idea of parliamentary protection, ought to be repaid, before any pretext can, with the fmallest degree of juftice, be urged in violation of the bafis on which their fecurity is founded.

The writer of the Effay next prefents us with an account of the pecuniary tranfactions between the company and government, from the year 1730; in the close of which detail, he enters into an eftimate of the expences incurred by the company, for the maintenance of their trade and poffeffions in India: endeavouring at the fame time to evince the great importance of the company to the welfare of the nation; with the propriety of their being allowed to appoint their own officers abroad, and of poffeffing, in their corporate capacity, the territorial acquifitions which have lately been ceded to them in India. Thefe being fubje&s which will doubtless obtain the mature difcuffion of parliament, it would be unneceffary to fay any thing further of this Effay, than that the author pleads the cause of the Eaft India company with much force of argument; though he has not justified the folecifm of a corporate company being endowed with uncontroulable power, independent of the legislature from which they derive their prote&tion.

MISCELLANEOUS. Critica Sacra; or, a fhort Introduction to Hebrew Criticism. 8vo. 6d. Bowyer and Nicholls.

As it is now almoft univerfally allowed, that a multitude of errors and mistakes have gradually crept into the text of the Hebrew fcriptures, the author of this tract recommends a methed, by which, he thinks, thefe corruptions may be difcovered, removed, and rectified. The fcheme he proposes, is to compare together, in the original text, the feveral correfpondent paffages of fcripture; to note their variations; and then to adopt thofe particular readings, which beft agree with the tenor of the context, and the rules of grammar.

Thefe parallel or fimilar paffages are of different forts, and lie difperfed at a distance from each other,. Our author therefore claffes them under the following heads: 1. Genealogical regifters, muster-rolls, &c. doubly inferted. 2. Hiftorical narrations repeated. 3. Sentiments. Meffages, &c. twice recited. 4. Quotations made by one prophet from another. 5. Que

I

tations