bodies diftorted and difeafed; fome with minds fraught with the feeds of wifdem and genius, others with thofe of idiotifin and madnefs; foine are born to affluence and honour, others to la bour and poverty. Now how fuch perfons can be faid to be born equal, meaning, no doubt, in the inftances fpecified, Mr. J. defpairs, and I do not know who would not dispair of being able to com. prehend.-What a negligent writer was Mr. Locke not to advert to thefe common and obvious cafes of inequality, and to content himself with re ftraining his meaning to one precife idea; which, as the greateft geniuses are liable to trifling overfights, does not feem to have occurred to Mr. J, but which may ferve as a falvo for Mr. Locke, and as a proof that Mr. J. was a little too hafty in afferting, that the propofition would bear no other fenfe than that very ingenious one which he may juftly claim the merit of pointing out. In fhort, I will venture to fuppofe, that by afferting the natural equality of mankind, Mr. Locke meant nothing more than to intimate, that all the diftinctions of rank and power which prevail in civil fociety, are artificial diftin&tions; they are all founded upon the bafis of public utility, and muft invariably be con‐ fidered as fubfervient to that purpofe. Where is the man who has a right to fay, I poffefs inherent authority; and what fpecies of authority can that be which he does not derive from the community of which he is a member? and to that community he must confequently be refponfible for the juft

and

and proper exercise of it. "But fuppofing," fays Mr. J." that they were all born equal, would "this prove what is always intended to be proved

by it, that they ought always to continue fo?" Here Mr. J. feems to be chargeable with another trifling inaccuracy: inftead of always intended, truth required him to fay, never intended; and this amendment may fuperfede the neceflity of an anfwer to the queftion, which he seems to put with fome degree of triumph. Mr. Locke certainly never meant to infer from the natural equality of mankind, that civil and political diftinctions were unlawful, or unjuft; nor do I recollect the most distant intimation of fuch opinion in the writings of any of his difciples with which I happen to be acquainted. But Mr. J. perhaps thought, that as general rules admit of fome exceptions, Mr. Locke's principles, in this inftance at leaft, admitted of a better refutation by being unfairly, than even by being fairly, ftated. But,

2dly, Another pofitien, as monftrous as the former, is, That "all men are born free." This, Mr. J. affirms, is fo far from being true, that the first infringement of this liberty is being born at all, which is impofed upon them without their confent, given either by themselves or their representatives. Now here I apprehend that this great politician falls into an error, fimilar to that which misled him with refpect to the former pofition; for as in that cafe, by all men being born equal, he imagined nothing more could be rationally meant

than that all men were equally born, fo in the prefent inftance, by all men being born free, he feems to understand that all men are freely born; but though, in the former cafe, he would not take upon him to controvert the truth of the propofition when explained in that fober sense which he affixed to it, in the latter he ftrenuously denies, that even in this fenfe the pofition can feriously be defended, and takes much pains to expofe the absurdity of it. "How can a man," he exclaims with a mixture of difdain and indignation, "born free, who, during the firft nine months of "his existence, is confined in a dark and fultry "prifon, debarred from light and air, till at "length by a habeas corpus brought by the hand "of fome kind deliverer, he is fet at liberty. And "what kind of liberty does he then enjoy? He is "bound hand and foot, and fed upon bread and "water for as long a period: he is afterwards placed "in a state of the fevereft difcipline, first under

66

"be

a nurse, and then a schoolmaster, both equally "tyrannical in their feveral departments: in this "ftate of flavery he continues, till he commences "involuntary fubject of fome civil government, "to whofe authority he muft fubmit, however in"geniously he may dispute her right, or be juftly

hanged for difobedience; and this is the fum “total of human liberty." Now though I have undertaken, unworthy as I am, to offer a vindication, or an apology at leaft, for Mr. Locke, and though his system is upon the whole that which I profefs

profefs to embrace, yet I do not fcruple to acknowledge in the face of the world, that if Mr. Locke meant to affert, that man, by the conftitution of his nature, has a free option whether he will be born or not, or that he can be confidered, in any fenfe, as a free and independent being during his clofe confinement in that dark and fultry prison to which Mr. J. alludes, I muft decline offering a fingle fyllable in his defence: and if Mr. Locke was so ignorant as to fuppofe, that an infant is in a capacity to enjoy the free use of his limbs for fome months after his birth, we must charitably impute it to the misfortune of his being an old batchelor, and of course but little converfant with children. As for nurses, schoolmasters, and we may add kings, Mr. Locke certainly did not mean to deny that they were all tyrants in their feveral departments; nor did he attempt to infinuate, that flogging would not be the probable confequence of resistance in the one cafe, or hanging in the other;-nay, he was far from denying that these punishments might be even justly dispensed;—all that he pretended to shew was, that the authority of the great and of the petty tyrant stood upon the fame general foundation: that as there was no natural diftinction between the scholars and the fchoolmafter, fo there was juft as little between the monarch and his fubjects ;as the schoolmafter was not born with an inherent right of flogging, fo the monarch was not born with an inherent right of hanging, but that all were born equal and free, i. e, that no one man had

a right

a right to affume a power of controuling, or of punishing another; but it did not follow, at leaft Mr. Locke did not feem to fufpect that it followed, from thence, that it was not lawful or expedient for the community to inveft certain individuals with different degrees of power, which they would be under an indifpenfable obligation, arifing from the nature of the truft, to exercise for the benefit and advantage of the fociety to which they belonged, and to that fociety they must be ultimately responsible for the due and faithful execution of it,

3dly, We now proceed to the difcuffion of another fhocking maxim; a principle false, mifchievous, inconsistent with common sense, and fubverfive of all civil fociety, but a very favourite maxim notwithstanding with fome well-meaning fimple people, who are fo much in the dark as to be totally incapable of difcerning its pernicious nature and tendency it is this: That "all go"vernment is derived from the people." There is, indeed, a fenfe in which Mr. J. admits even this maxim to be true. "It is true," fays he,

that all government is fo far derived from the people, that there could be no government if "there were no people to be governed." This, it must be owned, is a moft ingenious and happy explanation. How completely and dexterously is this pernicious maxim, upon which Mr. Locke, that blind guide, rafhly placed fo great ftrefs, divefted of its venomous quality! How unspeakable are the obligations of an author to a fagacious and

able