known abilities, and conformably to the fentiments of the govern. ment, which are ours alfo, upon that fubject. With all our appro bation of this difcourfe, in general, we muft declare that, in the three or four concluding pages, there is a want of precision, both in thought and language, that ought to be noticed.

In P. 15 his Lordship has this fentence :--

"I cannot think thofe men profitable fervants to their country, nor do I think their country difpofed to regard them as friends, who would weaken, in the breafts of Englishmen, the native and rooted love of our boasted government and laws, and direct the fettled allegiance of the happieft people upon earth from the established Sovereignty of Parliament, in which, however, is infeparably bound up the whole of the fecurity, profperity, and freedom, prefent and to come, of the British nation."

Surely his Lordship, who is a lawyer, will not, upon confideration, think that allegiance is due to the Parliament, in any sense in which Parliament can be used. Allegiance is due, not to the Parliament, but to the Sovereign on the throne, who is the object of the oath of allegiance taken by all Members of Parliament, upon their coming to fit there; in what fenfe, then, can allegiance be due to the Parliament of which they are members? And in what fenfe is the Parliament Sovereign, when the members of it fwear allegiance to the King, as their Sovereign? This is all mifconception, to fay no worse of it; but it may lead to worfe; for, a little lower down, his Lordship has these words :

"The dearest birth-right of Englishmen, which confifts, according to me, in the right to be governed by their Parliaments, and by no other human means."

Now, we had always thought, that government was an active principle; and that Parliament, being a deliberative affembly, was not looked up to, as the government of the country, but that the term executive had been invented, to fignify thofe powers of action, which were repofed in the hands of the King's Ministers, and which, in the understanding of all men, conftitute the government. Hence, "according to us," (to ufe his Lordship's French phrase,) it is the birth-right of Englishmen not to be governed by Parliament, but by "fome other human means," namely, the executive power of the state.

Thefe errors of his Lordship are not merely in language, but in principle, and they are fundamental. He might have expreffed himfelf otherwife, and attained the full effect he propofed by his argument. He is contending for the competency of Parliament, to con fider and determine on the Union; no doubt the two Houfes are competent to propound fuch a meafure to the King, and the King is competent to pafs any fuch bill into a law; and all his Lordihip wanted was, to maintain fuch deliberative power in the one, and Sovereign power in the other, without any transfer or participation of allegiance, as seems to be made in the first of the fentences quoted. The true notion of our conftitution is, that the Sovereign power of.

the

the ftate refides in the King; this he exercifes fometimes in Parlia ment, as in the making of laws, by and with the advice and confent of the Lords and Commons; more ordinarily out of Parliament, in carrying on the various concerns of the whole government, with the advice of his Ministers and other officers. Any notion of allegiance, or fovereignty, or government, not conformable with this fundamental principle, we venture to pronounce falfe and unconftitutional; and fo we think the two paffages quoted from his Lordship's fpeech.

It is perceivable, from what his Lordship fays in P. 153, that he values himself upon being an Old Whig; and he paffes a proper cenfure upon the counterfeit Whigs of the prefent time, as well as the fpurious philofophy and fophiftical principles, fo fatal to liberty. We agree with him entirely in this preference, and are glad to fee Whiggifm, or any thing elfe, fubfcribe to maintaining our happy establishment. But we cannot help faying, that if Whiggifm gives countenance to fuch mittakes as his Lordship has been hewn to make, there is a want of correctness among that party which is very much to be lamented; and we fhall, more than ever, recommend perfons not to look either to Whigs nor Tories for found principles, but to that which neither Whigs or Tories feem much to ftudy ; namely, "the conftitution as established by law," and as it is to be found in public records, and in daily practice. We should not, then, fee fuch errors committed, both in fpeaking and writing, by perfons of rank and confideration. We shall never fuffer errors of this grofs and unconstitutional character to pass without condemnation.

ART. X. Subftance of the Speech of Lord Auckland, in the Houfe of Peers, April 11, 1799, on the propofed Addrefs to His Majefty, refpecting the Refolutions adopted by the two Houses of Parliament, as the Basis of an Union between Great Britain and Ireland. 8vo. Pp. 70. Price Is. Wright, London.

The

THE mode which has lately prevailed of printing Parliamentary orations, replete with political and commercial information, is highly favourable to the propagation of useful knowledge on the one hand, and to the correction of mifreprefentations on the other. fpeech before us contains a most able difquifition of a moft interefting fubject, neither weakened by declamatory rant, nor difguifed by affected pompofity of diction. It is highly interefting to all who with to acquire a correct idea of the Irish trade, and of the nature of the commercial connection between the two countries. All the facts which his Lordship adduces, and all the calculations into which he enters, clearly demonstrate the neceffity of an Union, and the immenfe advantages which Ireland must derive from such a connection.

ART.

ART. XI. The Wrangling Philofophers; or, Volney's Answer to Doctor Priestley, on his Pamphlet, entitled "Obfervations on the Increase of Infidelity," Er. With Notes by the Editor. 8vo. Pp. 16. Price 6d. Chapple, London. 1799.

THIS is a republication of the letter which appeared in our former numbers, with the addition of fome notes by the editor, principally relating to the ufe, or rather mifufe, which Mr. Volney has made of Mr. Locke's principles. One of these we fhall extract. The author having ftated his conftant disbelief of every thing he does not comprehend to have originated in the adoption of the fentiments advanced by Locke, in his difcuffion of the Affociation of Ideas, the editor obferves :

"Much perverfion of intellect, we knew, had been occafioned by an hafty and inconfiderate adoption of the crude and undigefted political tenets of Locke, whofe promulgated fentiments on civil government refulted more from a with to crufh an adverfary, than from a defire to establish truth; but we were not aware that his religious principles could be fo open to misconception, as to be thus publicly urged as the ground of infidelity. We were firft difpofed to think that Mr. Volney had not read Locke's Effay on the Human Understanding; but admitting him to have read it, it is clear, that he did not understand it. In the chapter on the Affociation of Ideas, there is nothing which can lead any fober mind to make human comprehenfion the ftandard of human belief in fpiritual affairs. But there is much to fhew the facility with which human reafon may, by early impreffions, by the force of education, by long custom, by a variety of fortuitous circumftances, in fhort, be perverted, and rendered wholly inadequate to the purpofes for which it was defined by Providence.

"In the chapter Of Reafon,' Locke exprefsly points out cafes in which reafon, that infallible ftandard of infidels, ' fails us," and among thefe he mentions infinity, and the operation of God, which are certainly above human comprehenfion, and yet fubjects of human belief-that is, to minds not infected with the philofophifm of infidelity. But this rejection of all that exceeds the comprehenfion of men is, as was before obferved, founded in vanity: it refults from a mistaken notion, nurtured by pride, that the human mind is the standard of perfection; and hence, inftead of feeking to acquire improvement by elevating itfelf to a contemplation of the Divine Nature, it arrogantly feeks to reduce omnipotence to a level with its own circumfcribed faculties." P. 11.

Mr. Volney reprobates adherence to a firft received opinion, as productive of fanaticifm and falfehood, and fcepicifm as favourable to the caufe of truth, which pofition draws forth the following re mark from the editor :

"Humility is affuredly well fuited to the weakness of the human mind; but Mr. Volney feems to confound humility with fcepticifm, which is, moft commonly, the offspring of arrogance. It is a curious fpecimen of infidel-logic to infer that a man who adheres to a first received opinion muft, of neceffity, fall into error or falsehood. It has been the conftant aim of the modern philofo phers of France to deftroy all fettled notions of religion and politics; to unhinge, as it were, the minds of men, and to keep them in a perpetual ftate of reftlefincis and doubt. By the fuccefs of their schemes, in their own country, they first converted a nation of Chriftians into a nation of feeptics, and a nation of focial beings into a nation of licentious democrats; what has enfued? the fceptics have become atheists; and the democrats political fanatics. A Spirit of Doubt,' —we make the affertion at the risk of incurring the high displeasure of Mr.

Volney

Volney is neither calculated to make men good fubjects nor good Chriftians; while a fpirit of confidence' in the divine truths of Revelation will at once render them useful members of society, and qualify them for a better life."

ART. XXXI.

Confiderations upon Frauds on the Revenue. Addreffed to the ferious good Senfe of the People of Great Britain. 8vo, Pp. 40. Price is Hatchard, London. 1799.

THE conduct of fome leading members of Oppofition, relative to the triple affeffment of last year, and the language of the fame gentlemen in the two great councils of the nation, on the right of tricking the revenue, under the prefent Income Bill, have arouzed the indignant feelings of a found moralift and learned civilian, who has here inflicted fuch fcourges on thefe defenders of public fraud as mult agonize all thofe advocates that have not " feared confciences.” This writer traces the fource of the general criminal evasion of taxes to the civil wars, the difputed fucceffion, the revolution, and the rebellion which followed it. The Royalist would not be taxed at Westminster, nor his enemy at Oxford or Newcastle. Thefe, when compared with the prefent, he confiders as pious frauds, and, during the protectorate, the evafion of the cavaliers cannot be deemed as very criminal. He then proceeds to the other periods, and, defcending to the present times, he obferves, that-

"With the ceffation of the cause it might have ceafed, had it not become, in every fenfe, effect, and tendency, the great engine of oppofition; and been nurfed, in the spirit of fecret hoftility, to Minifters, as it began in avowed hoftility to the Crown." P. 17.

This able author then fubmits, with fome degree of confidence, (as he ftates,) thefe important queftions to the good fenfe and honesty of the British character :

"Is the prefent a lawful government, and are we bound to obey and maintain it? Can it be maintained without public contributions? If we withhold our due proportion, do we not both defraud the government, and fuch of our fellowcitizens as are more juft and honourable than ourselves? Muft not the deficiency of one tax be made up by the produce of another? Do we, therefore, make profit of the whole fum we withhold, or only of a fmall part of it? Is it, therefore, fo much for our advantage (even if we escape detection and our fine) to commit this fraud, fince we muft contribute to another tax, to fupply the deficiency we occafion in this? If we owe duty and allegiance to the government, and are bound to maintain it, and to pay the taxes; if our religion commands it; if reason, common fenfe, and the experience of all the world, convince us of the neceffity and the right-can we think it no crime to avoid or refufe its performance? Does the levity with which this crime has been treated proceed from a ferious opinion of its innocence, or from malevolence and defign against a government to which we owe duty and fupport? Did it originate in any juft or formal examination; did it follow any precedent enquiry or decree; has it been declared trifling and venial by any competent authority, or any ftate, church, council, or even political affembly? Did it not originate in avowed difaffection to the Sovereign on the throne, and to the eftablishment in church and state? Has it any root, but in civil blood, and the worst calamities of our country? Has it been watered by any fhowers but the tears of hypocrites, or fanned by any breath but that of faction and malevolence? Are thofe perfons good fubjects of the state, or the people's friends, who defend the public crimes, and encourage the people's immorality? Can the ftate be profperous, or the

people

people happy, if the one be cheated and the other guilty? Can the effential quality of crimes be diminished, or be changed by any fashionable or party-mode of confidering them? Is fraud a crime? Is falfehood one? Is perjury? Can we lay this unction to our heart, that we are ready to defraud the government, to which we owe every thing, and incapable of defrauding the customer, or the neighbour, or the ftranger, to whom we owe nothing? Would we, or could we, repofe confidence, or give credit to any one, whom we knew or fufpected to have defrauded another? Is there any material difference, if this other is the King or the public? Is it not rather the first and most incumbent duty to acquit our debt to the state, before even that to an individual? If our duty to our country is ranked in morals even before that to our parents, is not our debt to our country more facred than what we owe to any other creditor? Are we not indebted to the ftate the moment we are born? Does not our debt increase with the protection we receive in our helpless state, with our childhood, and our education? Does the ftate guard our life, even in our mother's womb; does it feed our infancy; does it appoint our guardians, preserve our inheritance, cover us with protection and benefits, and we owe nothing in return? Is it not our own intereft and advantage to maintain our benefactor in our turn? And are we not falfe to one another when we defraud our common parent? Can our private opinion of men or measures alter our public duties to the ftate? Can fuccefs, or failure, or wisdom, or error, in the measures of the government, alter his duty to the fubject? Does being in oppofition, or connected with it, induce any right to withhold our contributions, and defraud one another? Was it not defect in the King's title, not difapprobation of his Minifters or his measures, that made the first defaulte s eafy and fatisfied in their confcience? Do not they, therefore, who affert the right and innocence of defrauding the revenue, imply, and virtu ally confefs, their difaffection to the conftitution, and their defire of change? Can any one, confiftently with common sense, (to leave confcience out of the queftion,) refufe fupport to the conftitution, if he acknowledges and loves it ?— If he acknowledges it to be lawful, and loves it for the benefits he derives from it? Is it not naturally and practically disloyalty to refufe or evade our contingent? Does it not favour the enemy; does it not confpire with the traitor? If we have no motive in difaffection and hoftility to the government, for refufing our contribution, how can we diftinguifh this from any other fraud? What right, then, can we poffefs, to think of it with levity, if we will not treat every fraud with levity? and, can the manner of our treating it alter the nature of one crime more than of another?" Pp. 21-25.

We certainly concur in opinion with this writer relative to the moral guilt of cheating the revenue, a crime which has been treated with too much lenity, both by divines and civilians, in our pulpit and our fenate. The church has declared no penalty against it, the legiflature has not ftamped it with any marks of infamy. But every good man must be convinced that it is not poffible to elude our public duties, the duty of "rendering unto Cæfar the things that be Cæfar's," without incurring guilt, and the reproaches of a guilty mind. Having fhewn that the fyftem of the evafion of taxes originated with the malcontents and rebels, he thus concludes :

"I truft we shall no longer, in any general and public fenfe, partake this dif graceful crime with a few confpirators, as much beneath the virtues of former rebels, as they are in numbers or in talents-Men that can only be compared in their principles, and in genius or abilities, to the Cades, and Straws, and Tylers, of the fourteenth century-men who have not even the merit of invention in their wickedness, but have blindly borrowed, and impudently stolen, their difcoveries from unacquitted felons and philofophers, whom the ignorance and injuftice of English juries, four hundred years ago, miftook for traitors, and condemned to be hanged, and drawn, and quartered, upon gibbets, and hurdles, and fcaffolds :-Juft as if they were not the friends of humanity, and the benefactors

of