tion for it could not subsist without gross injustice, ex cept where the Reason of all and of each was absolute Master of the selfish passions, of Sloth, Envy, &c.; and yet the same State would preclude the greater part of the means, by which the Reason of man is developed. In whatever State of Society you would place it, from the most savage to the most refined, it would be found equally unjust and impossible; and were there a race of Men, a Country, and a Climate, that permitted such an order of things, the same Causes would render all Government superfluous. To Property, therefore, and to its inequalities, all human Laws directly or indirectly relate, which would not be equally Laws in the state of Nature. Now it is impossible to deduce the Right of Property from pure Reason. The utmost which Reason could give, would be a property in the forms of things, as far as the forms were produced by individual Power. In the matter it could give no Property. We regard Angels and glorified Spirits as Beings of pure Reason: and who ever thought of Property in Heaven? Even the simplest and most mo ral form of it, namely Marriage, (we know from the highest authority,) is excluded from the state of pure Reason. Rousseau himself expressly admits, that Property cannot be deduced from the Laws of Reason and Nature; and he ought therefore to have admitted at the same time, that his whole Theory was a thing of Air. In the most respectable point of view he could regard his System as analagous only to Geometry. (If indeed it be purely scientific, how could it be otherwise?) Geometry holds forth an Ideal, which can never be fully realized in Na ture, even because it is Nature: because Bodies are more than extension, and to pure extension of space only the mathematical Theorems wholly correspond. In the same manner the moral Laws of the intellectual World, as far as they are deducible from pure Intellect, are never per fectly applicable to our mixed and sensitive Nature, be cause Man is something besides reason; because his Reason never acts by itself, but must cloath itself in the Substance of individual Understanding and specific Incli nation, in order to become a Reality and an Object of Consciousness and Experience. It will be seen hereafter that together with this, the Key-stone of the Arch, the greater part and the most specious of the popular Argu ments in favour of universal Suffrage fall in and are crushed. I will mention one only at present. Major Cartwright, in his deduction of the Rights of the Subject from Principles "not susceptible of proof, being self-evident-if one of which be violated all are shaken," affirms (Principle 98th; though the greater part indeed are moral Aphorisms, or blank Assertions, not scientific Principles) "that a Power which ought never to be used ought never to exist." Again he affirms that "Laws to bind all must. be assented to by all, and consequently every Man even the poorest, has an equal Right to Suffrage:" and this for an additional reason, because "all without exception are capable of feeling Happiness, or Misery, accordingly as they are well or ill governed." But are they not then capable of feeling Happiness or Misery, according as they do or do not possess the means of a comfortable Subsistence? and who is the Judge, what is a comfortable Subsistence, but the Man himself? Might not then, on the same or equivalent Principles a Leveller, construct a Right to equal Property? The Inhabitants of this Country without Property form, doubtless, a great majority: each of these has a Right to a Suffrage, and the richest Man to no more and the object of this Suffrage is, that each Individual may secure himself a true efficient Representative of his Will. Here then is a legal power of abolishing or equalizing Property: and according to himself, a Power which ought never to be used ought not to exist. Therefore, unless he carries his System to the whole length of common Labour and common Possession, a Right to universal Suffrage, cannot exist; but if not to universal Suffrage, there can exist no natural right to Suffrage at all. In whatever way he would obviate this objection, he must admit Expedience founded on Experience and particular Circumstances, which will vary in every different Nation and in the same Nation at different times, as the Maxim of all Legislation and the Ground of all legislative Power. For his universal Principles, as far as they are Principles and universal, necessarily suppose uniform and perfect Subjects, which are to be found in the Ideas of pure Geometry and (I trust) in the Realities of Heaven, but never, never, in Creatures of Flesh and Blood. PENRITH: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. BROWN, AND SOLD BY No. 10, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1809. "And it was no wonder if some good and innocent Men, especially such as He (LIGHTFOOT) who was generally more concerned about what was done in Judea many Centuries ago, than what was transacted in his own time in his own Country-it is no wonder if some such were for a while borne away to the approval of Opinions which they after more sedate Reflection disowned. Yet his Innocency from any self-interest or design, together with his Learning, secured him from the extravagancies of Demagogues, the People's Oracles." LIGHTFOOT's Works, Publisher's Preface to the Reader. ESSAY VII, ON THE ERRORS OF PARTY SPIRIT OR EXTREMES MEET. I HAVE HAVE never seen Major Cartwright much less enjoy the honour of his acquaintance; but I know enough of his Character from the testimony of others and from his own Writings, to respect his Talents, and revere the purity of his Motives. I am fully persuaded, that there are few better Men, few more fervent or disinterested Adherents of their Country or the Laws of their Country, of whatsoever things are lovely, of whatsoever things are honourable! It would give me great pain, should I be supposed to have introduced disrespectfully a Name, which from my early youth I never heard mentioned without a feeling of affectionate Admiration. I have indeed quoted from this venerable Patriot, as from the most respectable English Advocate for the Theory, which derives the rights of Government, and the duties of Obedience to it, exclusively from principles of pure Reason. It was of consequence to my Cause, that I should not be thought to have been waging War against a Straw-Image of my own setting up, or even against a foreign Idol that had neither Worshippers nor Advocates in our own Country: and it was not less my object to keep my discussion aloof from those Passions, which more unpopular Names might have excited. I therefore introduced the name of Cartwright, as I had previously done that of Luther, in order to give every fair advantage to a Theory, which I thought it of importance to confute; and as an instance, that though the system might be made tempting to the Vulgar, yet that, taken unmixed and entire, it was chiefly fascinating for lofty and imaginative Spirits, who mistook their own virtues and powers for the average character of Men in general. Neither by fair statements nor by fair reasoning, should I ever give offence to Major Cartwright himself, nor to his judicious Friends. If I am in danger of offending them, it must arise from one or other of two Causes : either that I have falsely represented his Principles, or his Motives and the tendency of his Writings. In the Book from which I quoted ("The Peoples Barrier against undue influence, &c." the only one of Major Cartwrights which I possess) I am conscious that there are six foundations stated of constitutional Government. Therefore, it may be urged, the Author cannot be justly classed with those, who deduce our social Rights and correlative Duties exclusively from Principles of pure Reason, or unavoidable conclusions from such. My answer is ready. Of these six foundations three are but different words for one and the same, viz. the Law of Reason, the Law of God, and first Principles: and the three that remain cannot be taken as different, inasmuch as they are afterwards affirmed to be of no validity except as far as they are evidently deduced from the former; that is, from the PRINCIPLES implanted by GoD in the universal REASON of Man. These three latter foundations are, the general customs of the Realm, particular customs, and acts of Parliament. It might be supposed that the Author had not used his terms in the precise and single sense, in which they are defined in my former Essay: and that self-evident Principles may be meant to include the dictates of manifest Expedience, the Inductions of the Understanding as well as the Prescripts of the pure Reason. But no! Major Cartwright has guarded against the possibility of this interpretation, and has expressed himself as decisively, and with as much warmth, against founding Governments on grounds of Expedience, as the Editor of the Friend has done against founding Morality on the same. Euclid himself could not have defined his words more sternly within the limit of pure Science; for instance, see the 1st. 2d. 3d, and 4th. primary Rules, "A Principle is a manifest and simple proposition comprehending a certain Truth. Principles are the proof of every thing: but are not susceptible of external proof,. being self evident. If one Principle be violated, all are shaken. Against him, who denies Principles, all dispute is useless, and reason unintelligible, or disallowed, so far as he denies them. The Laws of Nature are immutable." Neither could Rousseau himself (or his Predecessors, the fifth Monarchy Men) have more nakedly or emphatically identified the foundations of Government in the concrete with those of religion and morality in the abstract: see Major Cartwright's Primary Rules from 31 to 39, and from 44 to 93. In these it is affirmed: that the legislative Rights of every Citizen are inherent in his nature; that being natural Rights they must be equal in all men ; that a natural right is that right which a Citizen claims as being a Man, and that it hath no other foundation but his Personality or Reason: That Property can neither encrease or modify any legislative Right; that every one Man shall have one Vote however poor, and for any one Man, however rich, to have any more than one Vote, is against natural Justice, and an evil Measure; that it is better for a Nation to endure all. adversities, than to assent to one evil Measure; that to be free is to be governed by Laws, to which we have ourselves assented, either in Person or by a Representative, for whose election we have actually voted: that all not having a right of Suffrage are Slaves, and that a vast majority of the People of Great Britain are Slaves! To prove the total coincidence of Major Cartwright's Theory with that which I have stated (and I trust confuted) in the preceding Number, it only remains for me to prove, that the former, equally with the latter, confounds the sufficiency of the Conscience to make every Person a moral and amenable Being, with the sufficiency of Judgement and Experience requisite to the exercise of political Right. A single quotation will place this out of all doubt, which from its length I shall insert in a Note.* "But the equality (observe Major Cartwright is here speaking of the natural right to universal Suffrage, and consequently of the universal right of eligibility, as well as of election, independent of Character or Property)-the equality and dignity of human nature in all men, whether rich or poor, is placed in the highest point of view by St. Paul, when he reprehends the Corinthian Believers for their litigations one with another, in the Courts of Law where Unbelievers presided; and as an argument of the competency of all |