Page images
PDF
EPUB

ART. III. Letters to the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, on Politics. By Edward Tatham, D. D. 8vo. pp. 111. 25. Rivingtons. 1791.

THE

HE two Letters here publifhed, which, we are told, form but a part of a feries that is to follow, treat of the first principles of government, and of civil liberty. The defign of them is, to maintain the fyftem of Ariftotle, or rather to use Ariftotle's aid and authority in maintaining the fyftem of pasfive obedience, against that fyftem of civil and religious liberty, which approved itfelf to the penetrating genius of a Milton, a Sidney, a Locke, and a Hoadley; and which has been adopted in later times by thofe who were proud to be numbered among the difciples of the greatest masters of reasoning that this land ever faw.

After complimenting Mr. Burke, among other things, on his zeal for the purity of the British conftitution--which, to those who recollect what that gentleman has, of late years, faid and written in defence of rotten boroughs, and of a corrupted reprefentation, will appear like complimenting a bigotted Papift on his zeal for the purity of the Chriftian faith *,-Dr. Tatham proceeds to tell us, that the fyftem of liberty erected by the moderns is a bafelefs fabric; that it has no foundation to fupport it but an affumption gratuitously formed, the most unphilofophical that ever was advanced; and that, therefore, however fpecious and fplendid it may feem, the whole edifice, when shaken by the hand of Truth, muft fall, crumbling, to the ground.

It is fuppofed, fays Dr. T. by the hypothetical advocates for liberty, that "men originally exifted and lived independent and unconnected, antecedently to every fpecies of fociety; and that the inconveniences which they experienced in fuch a ftate first induced them to establish a civil government, on a voluntary refignation and conceffion of their natural liberty and rights." This fuppofition the Doctor affirms to be falfe in fact;-and what if it be? nothing depends on its being true. It is a fuppofition taken up for the purpofe of illuftration only, not for that of proof. It is adopted to render the argument more eafy and intelligible, not to prove it more certain and juft. It refembles the hypothefes, which mathematicians fometimes introduce into their algebraical or fluxionary calcula

• We must, however, do Mr. Burke the juftice to acknowlege, that it was not always thus. There was a time when that gentleman called on the House of Commons "to return to their proper home;"" to belong wholly to the people ;"-a time when he thought every thing went wrong," because the turnfpit of the King's kitchen was a member of parliament."

Dd 3

tions.

tions. The affumption facilitates the procefs: but its truth or falsehood in no wife affects the truth or falfehood of the conclufion. If it were to be granted that mankind had never existed out of a state of civil government; nay, if we fuppofe them never to have been in any other ftate than that wherein we now see them, even in the moft defpotic country of the world-where, instead of MAN, "that beauty of the world, that paragon of animals, fo noble in reafon, fo infinite in faculties, in action fo like an angel, in apprehenfion fo like a god," nothing meets the fenfe but the hoofs of a swinish multitude, or the foul stench of an ulcerated ariftocracy * :" if, we fay, mankind had never existed in any other ftate than this, yet all for which the advocates for liberty contend would remain in full force, unimpaired by fuch a supposition.

Taking men as we find them at this day, in this, or any other country, we would afk Dr. Tatham, what it is that gives any one man, here or elsewhere, a right to command another? what authorizes any one to prescribe rules for the conduct of another? or what is it that binds a man to fubmit himself, and his actions, to the direction of his neighbour, which does not equally bind his neighbour to fubmit to him? We cannot answer thefe queftions to our fatisfaction, otherwife than by faying, that all right and authority to govern is derived from the confent or acquiefcence of the governed; and that whenever this acquiefcence ceases, the authority ceafes alfo :-nor can we fee any thing in Dr. T.s letters, that enables us to give any other folid or fatisfactory anfwer.

It will not do, to fay that the conftitution authorizes one man, or fet of men, to govern the reft; because the question is, how comes the conftitution itfelf by its authority to control the actions of any individual whatever? Neither will it do, to say with the Doctor, that men are endowed with different mental and corporeal faculties; that fome are wife and fome foolish, fome ftrong and fome weak, fome young and fome old.' Nothing of this kind will authorize civil government. Were we to take wisdom, which feems to be the ftrongest plea, and difcufs the titles of the paft and present governors of the world, on the ground of their being wifer than their fellows, we fear that many of their claims would not abide the teft. Befide, where fhall we find the man who can fay, that he is wiser than every man in the community? If he

Our readers must remember that we fpeak figuratively. We mean that "tench of arrogance," and thole "mental blotches,” of which Mr. Burke makes mention.

be only wiser than fome, this will only entitle him to govern fome, not to govern all. Then wifdom is of various kinds : though a man may be more wife in one refpect, he may be lefs fo in another. On this plea, therefore, he could not govern any man in general, but only in fome particular things. Again, how long would authority, founded on fuch a title, laft? Though the governor may be the wifeft to-day, it is not improbable that a wiler may start up among the governed tomorrow; to whom, therefore, he ought to refign his power.

Superior strength is a weaker plea for dominion, than fuperior wisdom. Most of the objections urged against the one, may be urged against the other. Indeed there is no argument to, prove that a ftrong man has a right to govern, or dictate, to a weaker, which will not equally prove that he has a right to knock him down, or to take away his liberty, or even his life, at pleasure. Superior endowments, either of mind or of body, confer no right of civil government on those who poffefs them; and if they did, Dr. T. has ruined his argument by appealing to fo many different kinds of fuperiority. If one fpecies of fuperiority could confer a right of government, how are its claims to be adjusted with the claims refulting from fuperiority of another kind? Were we to grant that fuperior wisdom, or fuperior ftrength, could, either of them fingly, give a title to authority, yet they could not both give it for here a new difficulty would arife, to decide whether wifdom fhould govern ftrength, or strength govern wisdom.

In short, of all the various inequalities, and multifarious talents, which fo mix and diverfify the whole community of mankind, that there are hardly to be found two perfons in all refpects exactly of the fame defcription, or qualified for the fame ufe and office in the fociety of which they are members,' we know not one that can be confidered as a warrant for exercifing the fmalleft civil jurifdiction, in oppofition to the will of him over whom it is affumed *. Human excellences and defects are not badges of civil diftinction, by which fome are marked out for political command, and others for political fubjection. Nature knows no fuch badges. Nothing can give fanction or validity to civil government, but the voluntary confent of thofe who fubmit to it. To grant, or to withhold,

[ocr errors]

Dr. Tatham, like many other writers, confounds that equality in point of natural endowments, which is " never found," with that equality in point of political authority, which obtains in all." though th'Almighty Maker has throughout Difcriminated each from each, by strokes And touches of his hand, with fo much art Diverfified, that two were never found Twins at all points-yet this obtains in all.”

Dd 4

this

this confent, one man is as free as another. In this refpect all are on a level; all are equal; and this is all that is meant by political writers, when they contend for the natural equality and natural freedom of mankind *.

Dr. Tatham, however, fays, "The powers that be are ordained of God." Yes; and what is the meaning of these words? Surely not that God originally invested particular persons with a right to govern the rest of the world; that their authority has been regularly tranfmitted to their defcendants, or fucceffors; and that fuch perfons cannot be depofed or refifted without fin. This is divine, indefeafible right, which all fenfible men have long fince exploded, and which, were we to adhere to it, would dethrone perhaps all the powers now exifting in the world; as we believe it would be no eafy task for any one of them to prove a divine commiffion, either by regular defcent, or otherwife, Neither can the meaning be, that into whatever hands power may fall, or however it may be obtained, with or without confent, it is the will of God that it fhould be obeyed. It is enough for the power to be: no other circumtance is requifite to prove it juft. From that alone it is evident that it is ordained of God. This would juftify Cromwell and his adherents, whom we confider as ufurpers. This would juftify the late National Affembly of France, whom Dr. Tatham confiders as ufurpers. Nay, it would juftify a Tyler or a Cade. It would not only vindicate, but inflame and foment, rebellions of all forts. This is blowing up the fire of lawless violence with the bellows of fanaticifm. In this cafe, fuccefs would not only be used as a veil to prevent men from feeing the wrongs which they were doing, but would be taken as an evidence that their caufe was the immediate care of Heaven itfelf. The meaning of the Apoftle we take to be this: "Civil government, though administered by heathens, as we now fee it to be, is an inftitution which God approves. It promotes many moral and good ends. We Chriftians, therefore, are not to fuppofe that it is unlawful or hateful in the fight of God, that we should obey heathen magiftrates. It is not the defign of Providence to inveft Chriftians, as fuch, with temporal dominion. Submit yourfelves therefore to the powers that be, for they are moral and godly ordinances." There is nothing here that forbids either Heathens or Chriftians to frame a government for themfelves, nor to fet up one form of it to-day,

What Dr. Tatham urges against Mr. Gibourne, to fhew that all the arguments for the natural freedom of mankind are equally applicable to other animals, and would set aside man's dominion over the brutes, is not found reafoning: but we have not room to expofe the fallacy of it.

and

and change it for another to-morrow, if they think fit. There is nothing, therefore, in the Apoftle's words favourable to Dr. Tatham's argument.

Having attempted to deftroy the natural equality and natural freedom of mankind, Dr. Tatham attacks their natural rights. Men, he argues, have no natural right to their lives, their liberties, or their properties; because, in a state of nature, there is no fecurity for the poffeffion of these things. If men were not reftrained on the one hand by the authority of fociety, and guarded on the other by its protection, they would foon devour and deftroy each other.' What is this to the purpofe? The queftion is not concerning power and ability, but concerning right. Whenever one man was able to preferve his life, liberty, or the produce of his own labour, from being torn away by the violence of another man, would he have a right by nature fo to do? or would he have no right, unless he could produce fome pofitive law of a particular fociety, authorizing his refiftance? The advocates for liberty maintain that every man, independently of fociety, has fuch a right; and that, by exercifing it, he violates no law of God, nor of nature. Nothing, that Dr. Tatham has faid, has convinced us of the contrary.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In his fecond letter, the Doctor treats of civil liberty, which he makes to confift in obedience to the law.' He is not very folicitous about the nature and quality of the law, provided only that it be general and equal. If all do but fubmit, he feems to think it of no great confequence to what they fubmit. It is the fubmiffion, and not the nature of the thing to which they fubmit, that conftitutes the liberty. Civil go. vernment,' he says, is a feries of fervitude.' He even fuppofes that men may fubmit to what is endured by the Negroes. in the West Indies, without being flaves, or being deprived of the liberty of British fubjects. Pleading for a perpetual continuance of the wrongs of that injured race, he fays, From the natural state and condition of their minds and bodies, it must be to the extreme of fervitude, to the hardest, to the meanest, to the ignobleft offices of fociety, to be the servants of fervants, that they are fairly deftined,' [without their own. confent.] But, whilft they do all this, let them be no longer flaves; let them be British fubjects, and taste the fruits of that liberty which every other man enjoys in his proper station and fphere of life. A curious and inquifitive mind might here afk, how it were poffible for men to be compelled to all this, and yet be no longer flaves? A ftupid and ungrateful Negro might fay, "If this be the liberty of a British fubject, give me back the flavery of an African favage."

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »