СС

66

coal-pits;" who defcend into the bowels of the earth, not in fearch of wealth it seems, but of wisdom, and who have the prefumption to imagine, with Polonius, that they "can find where truth " is hid, though it were hid indeed within the centre." "These are not the men," fays Mr. J. very cautiously and prudently, "whom I fhould "chufe to trust with unlimited power;" and, for my part, I cannot but think them the more dangerous, on account of the astonishing fecrecy with which they diffeminate their fentiments, and carry on their defigns; infomuch, that I really did not know, or even suspect, that there were any fuch men in existence, till I was informed of them by Mr. J. happy for us that his warning voice has founded in our ears; "Let no fuch men be "trufted." It is now high time to pafs on to the Fourth Propofition, which Mr. J. undertakes to confute, and which alfo, when fairly stated, as he affirms, confutes itfelf: The propofition is

this:

4thly, That all Government is a compact between the governors and the governed. Now it may be remarked, that as all the pofitions which Mr. J. has undertaken to confute, confute themselves when fairly ftated, it would not have been good policy, by any means, in Mr. J. to aim at making a fair statement of them, which would of courfe leave nothing for him to do, he therefore indulges himself in a fort of liberty not unusual amongst authors of very high reputation: I mean a liberty

a liberty of mifrepresentation, by which contrivance he has acquired abundant fcope for ingenious ridicule, as well as ferious argument. Thus in the present case we may observe, that Mr. J. affects to confider Locke, and the rest of the pretended patriots whofe principles he oppofes, as maintaining, that at fome remote period a formal agreement was actually entered into by the two contracting parties, by which the latter gave up part of their natural independence, in exchange for protection granted by the former; without which voluntary furrender no one man, or body of men, could have a right to control the actions of another; "but all this, fays he, is a ridiculous fiction, intended only to fubvert all government, and let mankind loose to prey upon each other." Mr. J. best knows what purpofe this ridiculous fiction was intended to anfwer, for he is indifputably entitled to the honour of the invention. Those pretenders to patriotifm who inculcate the doctrine of a political compact, mean by it nothing more, than that the relative fituation of the governors and governed in every civil community neceffarily partakes of the nature of a compact. There is an original, a virtual, an implied compact, fubfifting between the two parties, and which muft ever continue to fubfift. The two grand conditions of this compact, and which conftitute the reciprocality of it, are, on the one fide protection, and on the other obedience. It is from the very nature of the cafe as effentially binding on the two parties

as if it had been executed with all the formalities of an agreement between two individuals. Obedience can never be due where protection is previously withdrawn; neither can protection be due where obedience is caufelefsly withheld. "But," fays Mr. J." compact is repugnant to the very

nature of Government, whofe effence is com<< pulfion, and which originates always from ne"ceffity, and never from choice or compact; and "it is the most egregious abfurdity to reason from "the supposed rights of mankind in an imaginary "state of nature; a state the most unnatural, be"cause in fuch a ftate they never did or can fub. "fift, or were ever defigned for." Now I confefs, with great deference to the judgment of this profound ftatefman and politician, that in my fimple apprehenfion, compact is fo far from being repugnant to the nature of Government, that it is effential to the idea of an equitable and legitimate Government. If the effence of Government is com→ pulfion, I fhould be glad to know in what the effence of tyranny confifts: That a certain degree of compulsion must be exercised by every Govern. ment, in order to secure the salutary and beneficial purposes of Government, cannot be difputed; but it no more follows froin thence that compact is inconfiftent with or repugnant to the nature of Government, than it follows in the bufinefs of common life, that a master who is intitled to exercife authority over his fervants, and in fome inftances to difpenfe punishments amongst them, is not at

the

the fame time obliged, i. e. bound by compact, expreffed or implied, to protect them from injury, to provide for their welfare, and to treat them with every proper and requifite indulgence. The effence of Government is not compulsion, but protection; i. e. protection is the fole end and object of Government; compulfion is entirely fubordinate to it, and is no otherwise justifiable or admiffible than as it is capable of being made fubfervient, in fome mode or other, to the advancement of thatend.—Again, "Government," fays Mr. J." originates always from neceffity, and never from choice or compact." If by neceffity Mr. J. means only a political neceffity, or an urgent and obvious want of fome common bond of union, in order to maintain peace and order in fociety, I am far from difputing it; but then fuch a neceffity is very confiftent with fuch a virtual compact as Mr. Locke contends for; nay, it implies it; for this neceffity is either only another term for public utility, or else it arifes from, and is founded wholly upon it: therefore, if that Government which is founded upon public utility implies that certain conditions are to be observed, the Government that is founded upon political neceffity implies exactly as much; the diftinction is merely verbal. But if Mr. J. means by neceffity lawless force, then the idea of a compact is indeed excluded; but it is to be hoped that Mr. J. does not mean to infinuate, that this is the foundation on which Government ought to rest. If any sovereign fhould prefume to affert fuch a claim,

M 2

a claim, there is no other remedy than to oppofe force to force. "If he has rifen by force, then "force muft pull him down." "But it is a most egregious abfurdity," fays Mr. J. " to reafon from the fuppofed rights of mankind in an imaginary ftate of nature, &c." Now here I have again the misfortune to differ from this ingenious writer: for what he regards as an egregious abfurdity, ap pears not to me any abfurdity at all; but on the contrary, a very natural, eafy and fatisfactory way of analyzing the complex idea of Government, and of reducing it to its original principles. What fhould we think of a mathematician who should object to Sir If. Newton's demonstration of the theory of gravitation, because it is ultimately founded upon a few self-evident axioms? With juft as much reafon does Mr. J. object to Mr. Locke and others, that their fyftem is founded on certain supposed abstract truths. It is as true, that all men are born equal, as that all the parts are equal to the whole; and Mr. Locke is as much at liberty to argue from the former axiom, as Sir If. Newton from the latter; and it is no more neceffary for one philofopher to show that men ever actually exifted in a state of equality, than for the other to prove that a whole was ever actually divided into parts. Mr. J. may perhaps think that both axioms carry their own refutation along with them; butLocke and Newton wrote for those who thought they both carried their own evidence with them. Few perfons certainly will be found hardy enough, like Mr. J. to

call