tion fo far from being tedious or difgraceful, is perhaps the most expeditious and the moft honourable, which we ever concluded with the kingdom of Spain; it is befides concluded to a tittle on the terms demanded by Lord Weymouth, notwithstanding the mumberiefs affertions to the contrary, and the whole merits, complicated as they feem, are comprifed in these few words, even upon Junius's principle, "His Britannic Majefty receives what he claims; his Catholic Majefty refigns what he claims; which does commonfenfe pronounce the conceffor, or to which allow fuperiority in the dif pute?"—But it is needless to trefpafs farther upon the reader's patience, where his time has been already too much taken up; I do not write to convince Junius, for I know he fins against conviction, and is no lefs a rebel to his heart than to his fovereign: I write merely to break the fpell with which he has fo long enchanted the unreflecting, and to refcue the ignorant from thofe dreary caftles of gloom and difcontent in which he has hitherto fo fatally confined them. I thall therefore conclude, with fetting a few of his opinions in oppofition to each other, from the very letter I have answered, and just ask a question or two in confequence of their amazing confiftency. "If our king had difcovered the fpirit of a man; if he had made a peremptory demand of fatisfaction, the king of Spain would have given him a peremptory refufal." "There are no terms to which the (Spain) might not have been compelled to fubmit." "A foreign war might embarrass, an unfavourable event might ruin the minifter." "At the worst, a war with Spain alone carries the fairest promife of advantage." "One good effect at leaft would have been immediately produced by it, the desertion of France would have irritated her ally, and in all probability have diffolved the family compact." "In vain did the Catholic king folicit him (the king of France) to take a part in the quarrel against us." Where is the danger of the compact then, when it cannot oblige one branch of the Bourbon family to affift the Feb. 1771. other, and when both may at any time join their forces against us by a temporary alliance? Spain joined France against us in the laft war, and yet we did not find it "a conjuncture which threatened the very being of this country." "In thefe circumftances we might have dictated the law to Spain." "A clear unblemished character comprehends not only the integrity 'that will not offer, but the fpirit that will not fubmit to an injury." "The miniftry, it feems, are labouring to draw a line of distinction between the honour of the crown and the rights of the people." "This new idea has yet been only ftarted in difcourse." "To depart in the minuteft article from the nicety and itrictness of punctilio, is as dangerous to national honour as to female virtue." "Public honour is fecurity." How is our honour loft then? are we not fecure when in a condition of dictating law to Spain, and when France is utterly unable to resist us? "If the actual fituation of Europe is confidered, the treachery of the king's fervants, particularly Lord North, who takes the whole upon himself, will appear in the strongest colours of aggravation-Our allies were mafters of the MediterraneanThe king of France's prefent avertion from War, &c." 65 Under the prefent administration, or if any thing like it fhould continue, it is of very little moment whether we are a conquered nation or not." Has the reader enough? He doubtlefs has; and his aftonithment, nay his indignation must be roufed to find fo defpicable a cafuitt celebrated as a masterly writer; but the patriots of this country, though they highly boast of independence, are utterly without minds; they deem it flavery to think for themielves, and imagine that every individual is the tool of the minister, who delires them to make use of their reafon. If this was not unfortunately the cafe, Mr. Printer, how could this Junius, with the glare only of diction, with the mere flatulency of words, acquire fo capital a reputation in polemical literature? Good writing, f does not confift in the number of fine things faid, but in the number of just M ones: Remarks on modern Oxford Philofophy. go His own Iam, Sir, your's, &c. ALCIDES To the AUTHOR of the LONDON. SIR, Feb. mudan fcheme the following elegant 'Tis he from words first rids philofo- And lays the dull material fyftem by. His only fortrefs from the atheist takes, In: And, if I be not misinformed, a very fenfible lady has, in a late performance, ridiculed the materialists with much wit and humour. truth, fir, fince opinions as well as fashions are obferved to defcend, I am. under no fmall apprehenfion that, in a few years, our college grey-beards will become the laughing-stock of their wifer bed-makers. Fie upon it, gentlemen, it is furely high time to lay afide these fooleries: if you continue to think thus grofly, what will wife: IT is about a twelvemonth fince I men think of you? what will polterity. came to Oxford, and although born to a title and large eftate, have, incredible as it may feem, an inclination To to improve my understanding. this end I read fuch authors as my tutor recommends, and alfo conftantly attend lectures; but alas! to my no fmall mortification, cannot find myfelf one jot the wifer for all this application: to speak freely, fir, was it not for an intimacy contracted at Eaton with certain old writers, with whom, and one favourite modern, I fometimes even here converfe, this feat of the mufes, as it is called, would be infupportably dull. I have faid, I attend lectures; but pray, fir, what do you think thofe oracles teach? why, truly, I am stunned with material fubftance and its effence, with abfolute time, abfolute fpace, abfolute nction, and a world of fuch stuff equally unintelligible; what are thefe philofophers ftill to learn that the late moft excellent Dr. Berkely has, long ago, kicked thefe trumperies out of the universe? Even the women of fenfe now laugh at thele impoftures. The ingenious Mrs. Pilkington, in her memoirs, quotes with pleasure from Mis. Grierfon's poeta en Dr. Borkely's Ber. think and fay? I beg not to be fufpected of intend Pierides vitulam leori pafcite veftro. Oxford, Feb. 10. To the PRINTER. N the London Magazine for No vember a writer, figning Ariftarchus, has been pleafed to exprefs himself with abundance of freedom on Dr. Priestley's publication, but whether whether he has done fo with equal justice, it shall be the business of this letter to examine.-I do not queftion his having looked into the Doctor's pieces with a critical eye, for a genius, like his, leaves nothing unexplored, and I may add, a difpofition, like his, would fcarce overlook any thing that might leffen the public efteem for a refpectable character. After the ftrictest inquiry, which a low jealoufy feldom fails to make, he thinks he had at laft difcovered that the Doctor has confuted or contradicted himfelf and yet I would not have him plume kimielf too much upon the difcovery, as it may prove to be a difcovery only of his own want of judgement. - A rapid writer, as he is pleafed to file the Doctor, may eafily make and even multiply mistakes-but furely the pen of judgement and deliberation this Ariftarchus is bleft with, will always keep clear of them-no charge of this kind can be fuppofed to lie against the man that knows what he is doing, and revifes every thing he writes.I am afraid, however, this fame Ariftarchus will be found as unequal to the correction of Dr. Priestley, as his predeceffor was to the criticiting of Homer. The obnoxious paffage referred to is in the introductory part of the effay on government, where the Doctor, ipeaking of the people's deputies or reprefentatives, fays, that no power on earth has a right to coatroul their judgement, and yet in the next fentence but one, he affirms that their own reason and confcience are their enly guide, and the people their only judge. This is the curious contradiction charged upon the Doctor, and yet I can fee no contradiction at all in it-Had he read the prilage as it stands in connexion, he could not have miffed feeing the confiftency of the Doctor's Mdeas, and at the fame time the impertinence of his own remark. In finall tates he fays it might he eafy for the people to affemble on every occafion in which the whole body was concerned, but this being impracticable in large ftates, they muft affemble by their deputies-Now like the people in whole place they stand, no power on earth has a right to controul their pia emeats, but when their term of prefentation expires, they are fure accountable to the people in whofe name they act as their only judge. Whatever reprefentatives do in their legislative capacity, obliges the people they reprefent, otherwife fociety and government would be at an end-and yet thofe very people may turn out their deputies and elect others in their room. There is neither abfurdity nor contradiction in faying, that the people are both the fovereign and the jubjects,for in certain circumitances they undoubttedly are. The most fuperficial reader could hardly miftake to plain à cafe as this, nor could the Doctor have expreffed himself otherwife than he has done, without a manifeft impropriety, I am afraid this remark of our critic was dictated not by his judgement, but by his malevolence; what elfe could be the meaning of his introducing it with to much low and illiberal abufe, as he beftowed upon the writer he cenfures? who or what he is I pretend not to fay, but think the fpecimen he has given of his abilities and temper, will not do much honour to either. Were I to indulge a conjecture, I fhould fancy him to be a young academician, who never having had any diftinction in life befide the difagreeable one of being flogged for fooltying himfelf in print, is refolved to obliterate the remembrance of it as much and as foon as he can-Like a galled horfe he winches and kicks, and yet, alas ! is all the while kicking against the pricks. I mut needs tell him, though not with any view of difcouraging his growing parts, that he has many hard battles as yet to fight with his books and his brains, before he can hope to figure in controversy with eclat, efpecially where Dr. Priestley happens to be his opponent. In the clofe of his letter be threaters the repository with his critical correction, but if we are to judge of his theological abilities by the ftandard of his political ones, the authors and conductor of that work may folace themselves with the comfortable hopes of fleeping in a whole tkin. I am, fir, &c. Jan. 12, 1771. I SIR, EBORACENSIS. To EBORACENSIS. Have not feen your feeble attempt to defend Dr. Prieftly without a confiderable degree of pity for the impotence of the effort. Your letter M 2 contains 92 the commons affembled in parliament You have undertaken the more than like the people in whofe place they fand, no power on earth has a right to controul their judgements, but when their term of reprefentation expires they are furely accountable to the people in whofe name they act as their only judge." If you are here fpeaking only of the members of the Houfe of Commons, the world is much obliged to you for the novelty of the dif covery. But you are then fpeaking of one thing and the Dr. of another. For he fpeaks of all those whom he very properly calls deputies of the people, as the people have either expressly or tacitly deputed to them the power of governing. If then the Dr's affertion be true, that no power on earth can control their judgements," the Dr's allertion must be false, "that the PEOPLE or ONE power on earth can controul their judgements." Both propofitions certainly cannot be admitted, unlefs to fave the Dr's credit as a reafoner, we can reconcile contradictions. But ftill more unfortunately for the Dr's fame, we can neither admit both the propofitions jointly, nor will you fuffer us to admit either of them feparately. For if we admit the former and reject the latter we must then fuppofe the Dr. to maintain, that PASSIVE OBEDIENCE is due to the most arbitrary and tyrannical government on earth. And if we would admit the latter and reject the former, this we cannot do, becaufe you tell us the Dr. means that the deputies are not accountable to the people till the term of deputation expires, and as there is no expiration of the term of deputation to king and lords (for inftance in our government) it follows, according to your explanation of the Dr's meaning, that the deputies of the people are never accountable. This, fir, is but one of the many fpecimens of Dr. P's refutation of his own opinions in his Elay on Government. The others I fhall proceed to point out in fome future numbers of the London Maga zine, zine, without the leaft dread of the abilities of Dr. P. or the abufe of Eboracenfis. To explode error is a debt we owe to truth, and it is as equally inconfitent with benevolence to beltow encomiums upon a writer who does not deferve them, as it is to withold them from one to whom they are due. You fay, I threaten the Theological Repolitory with my critical correction: read, fir, my effay once more, and try if you can understand and remember it. If you fucceed in that endeavour, you will then know I did not give any threat of that kind. Molt of the effays I have feen in that work are far too trifling to deferve notice. I intend by no means to except the firft letter from your friend Clemens, and I was aftonished to find by the first number, that any men of character would demean themselves fo much, as to lend their names to usher into the world fo contemptible a production. The authors and conductor of that work, nay, as you happily obferve, fleep," and dream on," in a whole ikin," without fear of disturbance from me in that most excellent dormitory. Whether you are not mistaken in your opinion of the abilities of the modern Ariftarchus, as it is very evident you are ignorant of the talents of the antient one, I thall leave to the public to decide, for you feem to have mistaken your fellow mind ZOILUS for the antient critic of my name. This, however, I will affure you, that in one at least of your conjectures concerning me, you are totally wrong. I never yet, to ufe your expreffion, foolife myfelf in print, but by controversy I have foolified others, and becaufe Eboracenfis is now added to that number, he muft blame himself, not houfe in Soho Square; the following account both of the motives which gave birth to the Soho fcheme, as well as to the profecution, will, we fatter curfelves, be agreeable to our readers. The friends of the Soho undertaking tell their ftory thus: The Hon. Mr. Hobart to the great diffatisfaction of the nobility, as well as to the great mortification of the principal performers, has been for fome time the chief director of the opera; the prefent deplorable state of the opera is the best proof of his mifmanagement. From his first commencing the prime minifter of a public amufement, his conduct, like that of many other prime minifters, has been a conftant round of tyranny or deception: the performers, who before his time were treated with civility at leaft, were, from the era of his adminiftration, confidered merely as fo many miferable menials, over whom he was to exercife an unbounded authority. Being engaged to him by article he looked upon them as if they were the domefticks of his hall, and did not employ them in fuch a manner as was conducive either to the entertainment of the town, or the advancement of their reputation; but in fuch as coincide with the prepoffeffions of his own attachment, or the ftarts of his caprice. To juftify this aflertion, 'tis only neceffary to mention the fhameful preference which he gave his favourite Sultana Zamperini to perfons infinitely fuperior in mufical excellence, and to add that this preference was the caufe of fuch frequent cornmotions in the houfe, as once actually led him to introduce the military power upon his benefactors the public -upon the very people whofe fervant he himlelf immediately was; and whofe generous protection, fo far from exciting his gratitude, intoxicated him to an act of temerity, which a lefs temperate audience would have chaftiled with the inftant demolition of his theatre. His mifconduct, however, was not confined to the oppreffion of his performers, to the difturbance of the entertainment, or to the outrage offered to his auditors; on the contrary, his pecuniary engagements were as irregularly fulfilled, as his power was wantonly exerted, and he İlimfelf well knows who was obliged to employ |