Page images



For JANUARY, 1766.

HETHER the British parliament has a right A to impofe taxes upon W the British plantations in America, being a question now inuch agitated both in writing and converfation, we fhall give our readers the following extract from the learned Mr. Blackiftone's commentaries upon that fubject. That gentleman, after treating of Ireland and the other islands fubject to England, proceeds thus :

"Befides thefe adjacent iflands, our more diftant plantations in America, and elsewhere, are alfo in some respects fubject to the English laws. Plantations, or colonies in diftant countries, are either fuch where the lands are claimed by right of occupancy only, by finding them defart and uncultivated, and peopling them from the mother country; or where, when cultivated, they have been either gained by conqueft, or ceded to us by treaties. And both thefe rights are founded upon the law of nature, or at leaft upon that of nations. But there is a difference between these two fpecies of colonies with refpect to the laws by which they are bound. For it is held*, that if an uninhabited country be difcovered and planted by English subjects, all the English laws are immediately there in force. For as the law is the bath right of every subject, fo wherever they go they carry their laws with them t. But in conquered or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the king may indeed alter and change thofe laws; but, till he does actually change them, the antient laws of the country remain, unless fuch as are against the law of God, as in the cafe of an infidel country ‡.

Our American plantations are prin

tained in the last century either by right of conqueft and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I fhall not at prefent enquire) or by treaties. And therefore the common law of England, as fuch, has no allowance or authority there; they being no part of the mother country, but diftinct (though dependent) dominions. They are fubject however to the controll of the parliament; though (like Ireland, Man, and the reft) not bound by any acts of parliament, unless particularly named. The form of government in most of them is borrowed from that of England. They have a governor named by the king, (or in fome proprietary colonies by the proprietor) who is his reprefentative or deputy. They have courts of justice of their own, from whofe decifions an appeal lies to the king in council here in England. Their general affemblies, which are their houfe of commons, together with their council of ftate, being their upper houfe, with the concurrence of the king or his representa tive the governor, make laws fuited to their own emergencies. But it is particularly declared by ftatute 7 & 8 W. III, c. 22. That all laws, by-laws, usages, and customs, which fhall be in. practice in any of the plantations, repugnant to any law, made or to be made in this kingdom relative to the faid plantations, fhall be utterly void and of none effect."

We wish this gentleman would give his opinion upon the old ftatute De Tallagio non concedendo, on which feems to be founded the reason why the Britih parliament ever attempted to impofe a tax upon Ireland, the Ifle of Man, or upon Guernsey and Jersey.

Arguments in Behalf of L. G. S.

cipally of this latter fort, being ob- GREAT stress is laid on his late

* Salk. 411, 666.

Jan. 1766.

majesty's declaration against + 2 P. Wms. 7.5.

‡ 7 Rep. 17 b. Calvin's cafe. Show. Parl. C. 31.
B 2

[ocr errors]


Arguments for and against L. G.-S.—

L-G- S-
Did not the
fame authority which cenfured L-
, protect Admiral Lestock?
And was not Leftock equally, if not
more guilty? If the one was protected
through the prejudice of minitters,
might not the other be cenfured under
the like prejudice? Did not two thips
under Leftock break from him, and
engage, and were applauded for doing
fo? And might not lord G- have
done the fame at Minden, if the duty
had appeared preffing? Is the fuffer-
ing an enemy to retire unattacked, al-
ways culpable? And did not the
duke of Marlborough at Blenheim,

uffer a body of Bavarians to retire, in the face of his victorious army, without the leaft hindrance? Did not Sir, John Mordaunt, and the prefent fecretary of ftate, come back from the coaft of France, without landing the troops? And yet, does any man impute that affair to any want of fpirit in either? Is it not most probable, L- G

S -, embarraffed with contradictory orders, was neceffitated to elapfe the time of engaging? And is it not most likely, the court-martial degraded him more to fet an example to others, than from any conviction of his guilt? Which is plainly the fenfe of a British K---, towards an injured British fubject; and the court-martial free him from either cowardice or difaffection, otherwife they must have palled a different fentence.

Arguments against L. G. S.

A thould be, Crefar

wifhed his wife to be, non folum fine crimine, fed etiam fine labe, not only without a crime, but also without the imputation of one. Whether LG S was ever really guilty of any mifbehaviour, or not, I will not take upon me to determine. His country found him guilty; to fuppofe, therefore, he was not, is to im peach the justice, the honour, the integrity, of many brave, not German, but British officers, who on their oaths after impartially hearing the beft defence he could make, found him fo. The late king, whofe peculiar talent was war, thought him fo; nay, thought him fo eminently fo, that he commanded his fentence to be read at the head of his troops in all parts of the world. The judicicus, therefore, mult


ftill give greater credit to the evidence of his fellow officers, and the fentence of his compatriot judges, both taking on oath, than to the bare affertions or idle queries of a few nameless writers, who may be, and who are suspected of being his creatures.

I muft, therefore, beg leave of these writers to fuppofe he was actually guilty of fome misbehaviour, as I cannot conceive fo many worthy officers perjured, or the experienced good old king mistaken. And on this fuppofition I cannot be over much elated at his approaching adminiftration. His abilities may be great, but should he likewike prefer PRIVATE PIQUE, as it is fufpected he did at Minden, to national advantage, they will in fo exalted a ftation enable him to do the greater mifchief. And if fuch fhould be the cafe, what have not they to fear, who had honefty enough to bear teftimony against him, or integrity fufficient to find him guilty or how, in any cafe, can they ferve under him in one station, with honour, who was by the voice of his country thought unworthy to command them in another? I would not, therefore, for their own fakes in particular, and for their nation's in general, have a perfon of fufpected character employed in any place of truft till there cannot be found one to fill it, whofe ability, honour and integrity, have never been impeached. While we have fo many of this character, I cannot help faying of LGin the words of

Queen Hecuba,

Non tali auxilio, nec defenforibus iftis
Tempus eget.

ADVICES from the EAST-INDIES. Extract of a Letter from Baneres, February 10.


HE 6th of laft month Major Munro left the army; and the command devolved on Sir Robert Fletcher, Major in the company's fervice. As he was to have the command but for a fhort time, Major Carnac being ordered by the governor and council to proceed to the army for that purpofe, he was refolved to make the beft ufe of his time, and has indeed done great things. About a month before Major Munro's departure, we had met with two fevere repulfes in our attacks against a fort fituated on the top of an


Succeffes in the Faft-Indies.

high hill, and on the river: We had made a breach in the walls, and a ftorming party was ordered to mount it, but from the fteepness of the hill, and the torrent of ftones that were rolled from it, it was impofficle to get up it. The next night another trial was made but to the fame effect: We had many men killed, and many officers wounded, and almost all the cadets, who went upon the fervice. Major Munro upon this withdrew all the forces fent upon this expedition, in order to ftrengthen the ar


Sir Robert was not lefs fuccefsful against Eliabad; fo that little now is wanted to complete the ruin of Suja Dowlah.

We daily expect Lord Clive, and hope the next campaign will conduct us, under his aufpices, to Delly, to establish the emperor, who is again in our poffeffion, on the throne of his ancestors."



HE conclufion of the first book

my which he was then putting in order of the Divine Legation of Moles

to withstand Suja Dowlah's, who on hearing our repulfes, had flattered himself that he should stand a good chance of beating us. We encamped under the walls of Baneres, waiting his approach. His infantry and artillery did not come within fifteen miles of us; but his horfe were continually skirmishing with our advanced pofts. It was thought improper to move our fituation; we fecured Baneres from the ravage of his horfe, who would certainly on our movement have plundered it. In this fituation were our affairs when Sir Robert came to the command. He refolved to attack them. He left a party in Baneres to defend it against whatever might come against it, and on the fourteenth, at twelve o'clock at night, marched off with the army towards the enemy, who lay about fixteen miles from him. The third day he came up with them. They three times drew up to fight him; but would not ftand at last. When he had routed them, he fent a large detachment against the fatal fort. The governor of which, after there were three practical breaches made in the walls, delivered up the keys of the fort, with tears in his eyes, and with thefe affecting words, in the fight of all his troops.

"I have endeavoured to act like a ldier; but deferted by my prince, and left with a mutinous garrifon, what could I do? God and you (laying his hand on the koran, and pointing to his foldier) are witneffes, that to the faith of the English I now truft my life and fortune."-What a noble behaviour! Becoming the braveft and moft polished European. His troops had been without pay for above fix months.

contains fome reflections on the intermediate ftate of the foul-which feem liable to the following remarks:

1. Dr. L. by an appeal to the fcriptures, and by pofitive declaration toward the end of his book, is averse to confidering the question in a metaphyfical light, as tending only to perplex and confound, not convince the understanding. So that whatever difputant is now defirous of bringing the question to a fair iffue with that learned gentleman-has only to oppose that chain of scripture arguments produced by him, by one of the fame metal as ftrong- -for the cobwebs of metaphyfics will not answer his purpofe.

2. With regard to the Sadducean principle of the foul being but a quality, which makes way for a moft notorious argument, thus I answer; prefuming I enter into the meaning of the foul-fleeping profeffor at Cambridge. Dr. L. confiders the foul as an effential part or quality, if you will, of the compound, conscious being, man. Now upon the diffolution of this being, its parts or qualities ceafe to be, until God fhall be pleafed, in conformity with his gracious promifes, to revive it again.

This intermediate ftate is aptly enough expreffed by the fleep, not applied feparately to the foul, but to the whole man. So that all Dr. W.-.-'s notable reafoning against the fleep of a quality, is but buffetting the air.

3. Next comes the fophifm of the polytheift: Dr. Law fays, "All philofophical arguments drawn from our notions of matter, and urged against the poffibility of life, thought, and agency, being fo connected with fome


portions of it as to conftitute a com-
pound being or perfon, are merely
grounded on our ignorance" (here the
unfair quotation ends, to make way
for an odious unmeaning comparifon)
"And will prove equally again't
known fact and daily obfervation." And
this he confirms by natural history.

Remarks on the Divine Legation.

Juft fo, fays, W--, the polytheift argues. All arguments from metaphysics for the unity are manifeftly vain and merely founded on our ignorance." Now to make this ill meant comparifon hold, he ought to have added as does Dr. L." And will prove equally against known fact and daily ob fervation." But this would have spoiled all, for in this cafe the metaphysical arguments are confirmed not contradicted by experience, from which may be deduced many moral arguments in fupport of the unity.

4. But the very texts which might feem to give a handle to the polytheilt are found likewife afferting the unity as "we three are one," &c. But how few and inconfiderable are the texts if we read the appendix with an open heart, which can be oppofed to the conttant tenor of the fcripture as there dilcovered to us!

5. Dr W, makes the believers anfwer the polytheift, by aflerting that the fcriptures take the unity and existence of God for granted, as truths demonftrable by natural light.

To this though not immediately belonging to this question, I answer, that the christian fcriptures do in general take the existence and unity for granted, and upon that foundation raise their christian fuperftructure. But wherefore take them for granted? Not, I believe, becaufe reason can de. monftrate them, but because God has dealt with man from one revelation. lels, to another more perfect. He had from the beginning revealed himself to the earlieft inhabitants, of this globe, and kept up a long communication with them, teaching the knowledge of himself and of other duties. After this he felected a people to keep up thefe two grand truths in the world. It is reasonable to believe that human wit added nothing worth the addition to thefe gracious difcoveries. God created man with fuch an understanding as easily to difcern the juftice and conformity of these truths to


her nature as foon as they were piopofed. This knowledge, thus fpread abroad, it was needles for christianity to go back to the elements---and fo far they were taken for granted. But even here, in cases where this knowledge was well nigh obliterated, as at Athens and Lycaonia, they did go back to that foundation. In fhort there are many things beyond the reach. of our understandings, and fo I believe is the knowledge of our bleffed creator beyond what he is pleafed to reveal. Finally, if we confider the extreme ignorance of the wifeft pagans on this fubject, fubftract from what they have faid of the value of tradition, and carefully attend to Leland's Refutation of W's dream concerning the unity as a doctrine of the myfteries in the pagan worthip---it will not I. think appear that thefe truths are demonftrable by reafon or as fuch, taken for granted in the fcripture. Nor does this appear to me to contradict St. Paul's reafoning to the Romans. It is fufficient for his argument_that having a traditional knowledge of the existence and unity they did not keep thefe truths alive in their minds by the obvious arguments of the order of the creation, &c. Otherwife what tolerable account can be given of idolatry? There can be no instance produced of any ufeful difcovery of reafon fo abfurd and loft in the world, as was the knowledge of the deity. The fame moderate thare of reafoning which led the first men to this great difcovery would have kept it uncorrupted.

6. Juft fo much then as thefe are fuppofed in bis fente, fo much is the foul fuppofed an immaterial substance in the fcriptures. For was it fo, why are there fo many texts afferting the contrary which have never been anfwered.

7. The dreamers (fays Warburton) are aware of this (that the foul is fuppofed immortal, &c.) and therefore hold with the unbelievers (the old cant) that the foul is no fubftanc but a quality only," As to the foul's being a quality I have already spoken so far as it concern's Dr. L. But who are the dreamers aware of this; Dr L. the gentleman here aimed at, has, unluckily for the bishop's candor expreisly told us, where he speaks of illot

[ocr errors]

Dr. Cook's Intelligencers doubted.

1766. fon (who likewife thought the natural immortality taken for granted in the fcripture, when he could not find it afferted there) "that had he confidered the point more fully, he prefumes he would not have found the fcripture taking this natural immortality for granted, but rather taking down the contrary; and the new teftament every where infifting on it as the very ground of the whole chriftian cove nant, through which alone we attain to immortality or everlasting life." Is this fair dealing *?

8. Next comes a quotation from Dr. Taylor of Norwich. The intent of Taylor in this part of his letter to Dr. Law, from which Dr.W.quotes, is to fhew that the foul cannot by any arguments be proved independent of the body, and it appears that he had in his eye thofe analogy men who from the foul's being le-cure amid the confufion of fome diforders argued its independence on the bady. To thefe he oppofes ancther analogy. "But (fays he) we can never prove that the foul of man is of fuch a nature, that it can and must exift and live, think, act, enjoy, &c. feparate from and independent of the body. All our prefent experience fhews the contrary. The operations of the mind depend constantly and invariably upon the ftate of the hody; of the brain in particular. If fume dying perfons have a lively use of their rational faculties to the laft, it is because death has invaded fome other part and the brain remains found and vigorous." This is Taylor's trafh which be it exploded or not, feems effectually to overthrow all independance of foul and body as analogically deducible. For if the foul is fo affected through the feveral ftages of difeafe as at last to be loft in madness and diftraction, what fort of logic will conclude that in the laft ftage it shall acquire inftant vigor and independent activity.

As to Clarke and Baxter, if any authority can be of weight in fuch a question, to them we oppofe Locke and Hartley who, in the two beft hiftories of the human mind, have proved that the motions of the mind are dependent on the body.

9. As to his mushroom fleep, &c. the Dr. may divert himself with them


as long as he pleafes, provided be allow that, after the diflolution of this being, God is able to call us again into exiftence. That he will, we truft our


10. But this is the fame nonfenfe with which Bishop Bell long ago perplexed the question; as may be feen in his fermons, where Dr. Warburton's concluding argument is drawn out in form. But the misfortune is that it will prove equally against the fleep of the body, which all our adverfaries allow to be an expreffion of feripture, though they did not perceive the confequence when they called it jargon---and against the refurrection of the fame body which I take to be a doctrine of fcripture. For thus the argument may be retorted:

A body is a certain quantity of organized matter; whenever then this organization'ends, as at death, there is an end of the body. It follows then, that between death and refurrection there is interpofed non-entities of this body as fuch. Therefore (upon the fame principles) there cannot be a refurrection of the fame body and to talk of its fleep is abfurd. This thews how wifely men confider this question in a metaphyfical light!

11. A to the confequences of this doctrine, however flow the prejudiced may be of conviction, they are clearly favourable to it: Nor do men fo readily take up with the gloomy profpect of annihilation as is imagined. I doubt whether there ever was a man, (a few fanatic or hypochondriac cafes excepted) who had fo bad an opinion of his life, as not rather to rifk his damnation, than fly deliberately to annihilation for comfort. Instead of Warbur ton's practical confequences, rather say, "convince the philofophic unbelie ver of his inherent immortality, and he will laugh at the doctrine of refurrection as unnecessary."

To the AUTHOR of the LONDON


has readers

with accurate accounts of many dangerous disorders, and has at laft given his own cafe, the most obftinate of any he has hitherto mentioned, and it may justly be deemed incurable.

If I may venture on a definition I

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »