pureft intentions, been made from Mr. Locke's principles. And as the best things are liable to be perverted to the worst purposes, I fhould think myself happy if, by fuggesting a few falutary hints or cautions, I could in any degree contribute to prevent the noble and generous maxims of that justly celebrated writer, fo favourable to the liberty, dignity, and happiness of mankind, from being abused or made fubfervient to the vile purposes of faction, anarchy, or licentioufnefs,

I have now before me a very able pamphlet, published at the commencement of the late war with America, which bears the name of a most refpectable man, who has equally and honourably distinguished himself in the different capacities of a divine, a philofopher, and a politician, The publication I allude to, in particular, contains very ftriking marks of wisdom and penetration: happy would it have been for this nation, had the liftened to his voice, and been guided by his counfels; but alas, "the things that belonged to "her peace were at that time hid from her

eyes." There are, however, fome general remarks on the nature of Civil Liberty prefixed to this publication, which were, I think, justly regarded as exceptionable by many zealous friends of Liberty, and which gave occafion to much animadverfion at the time they firft appeared, and upon which I now propofe to offer fome impartial ftric

tures.

Liberty is a term of very comprehensive import, and the celebrated author I refer to, Dr. Price, chufes

chufes to confider it under four general divifions -ift. Phyfical liberty; by which he means the principle of fpontaneity. 2dly. Moral liberty; or, a freedom from the internal control or dominion of vice.-3dly. Religious liberty; or, a freedom from external constraint in matters of conscience: and-4thly. Civil Liberty; which he defines to be the power of a civil fociety or state to govern itfelf by its own discretion, without being subject to the impofitions of any extraneous will or power. It is very obfervable, that Civil Liberty, according to the definition here given of it, however just that definition may be when applied to a state or civil community, is not at all analogous to the other kinds of Liberty here enumerated, which are entirely of a perfonal nature; and it seems to me that the Doctor has greatly confufed his argument, by not fufficiently attending to the distinction between that species of Liberty which belongs to a ftate, and that which is the right of a fimple individual. Civil Liberty in the latter fenfe is, according to the accurate definition of Archdeacon Paley, "the not being reftrained by any law but what con"duces in a greater degree to the public welfare;” but the restraints which the public welfare indifpenfably requires every government to impofe, are fo numerous and important, that it is very evident the Liberty of the individual must be extremely circumscribed, in comparison of that of the community. I do not mean to enter into the queftion,

question, whether one state or community may lawfully exercise authority over another; or to what limitations fuch authority ought to be fubject: all I pretend to fhow is, that Civil Liberty, confidered as a perfonal right, is incapable of being enjoyed in that extensive and romantic fenfe for which Dr. Price feems to contend. I agree with Dr. Price then, that a civil fociety, as fuch, enjoys Civil Liberty, ftrictly and properly speaking, when it is not fubject to the control of any foreign power; but when he afterwards takes occafion to affirm, that Civil Liberty, in its most perfect de. gree, can only be enjoyed by small states, where every member is capable of giving his fuffrage in perfon, I confefs I am perplexed and embarraffed. Is it the Liberty of the ftate, or of the individual, which the Doctor is here speaking of? Not of the ftate; because Civil Liberty, when applied to a community is, agreeably to his own definition, but another word for independency. Not of the individual; because every citizen enjoys Civil Li berty in its moft perfect degree, who is fubject to no other reftraints than fuch as the public welfare, and confequently his own happinefs, render neceffary. In fhort, the Doctor feems to me here evidently to confound the moft perfect degree of Civil Liberty with the most perfect mode of establishing and fecuring that Liberty. I as readily acknowledge as Dr. Price himself can do, that all just Government is derived from the people, and that their happiness is the fole end and object of it; but I cannot comprehend

comprehend how, under any form of government, the people can rationally defire or aim at any thing farther, than the full poffeffion of Liberty as above described, and the best security which the nature of the cafe will admit for the continuance of it. If we apply these observations to the reafonings of Dr. Price, we shall find that he is chargeable with a grofs error; he has confounded the Liberty of the people with the power of the people. If the enjoyment of Civil Liberty is, as Dr. P. afferts, and all allow, what every man has a right to claim, it must be of fome importance to ascertain in what that Liberty confifts. Dr. Price feems to imagine, that Liberty confists in a man's actually sharing in the powers of Government, either in his own perfon, or in the perfon of his reprefentative. I maintain, that Liberty confists in a total exemption from all unnecessary restraint; and that power is no otherwife defirable than as it contributes to the fecurity of Liberty. It is very certain, indeed, that a degree of power is abfolutely neceffary for the accomplishment of that purpofe; and a Government administered by the reprefentatives of the people is on this account, and on this account only, preferable to a defpotic Government; because under fuch a Government there is a moral certainty that Liberty will be better promoted and fecured. Civil Liberty is a natural indefeasible right; but no particular form of Government can pretend to ftand upon fuch a foundation. Government is an institution for the benefit of the people

governed;

governed; and that form of Government which best conduces to the advancement of public hap piness, is the best government, whether it be monarchical, ariftocratical, or democratical; and dif ferent nations, in different states of fociety, may require very different modes and forms of go. vernment. But if Liberty confifts in a man's being his own legislator, then all forms of Government but that of a pure democracy are unlawful. But Dr. Price allows that there may be the best reasons for joining to a popular affembly an hereditary council, and a fupreme executive magistrate; but what reasons can those be which will authorize a violation of the first principles of Liberty? For if perfect Liberty consists in a participation of the powers of Government, by a delegation to a body of reprefentatives chofen for a fhort term, and fubject to the inftructions of their constituents; the eftablishment of an hereditary legislative council, invested with equal or nearly equal powers, must be a flagrant encroachment on Liberty, and the negative voice of a single individual upon the refoTutions of the representative body must be absolutely irreconcileable with the fainteft image of it. Again, if the effence of Liberty confifts in a man's being empowered to give his fuffrage on public meafures, either perfonally, or by the intervention of a reprefentative, then it follows, that those who do not actually enjoy this privilege, and who conftitute a very great majority even in this country of freedom, are in a state of flavery; and the fe

male