Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) TWO TRACTS ON CIVIL LIBERTY _Published by the same Author_, And printed for T. CADELL, in the Strand. I. OBSERVATIONS on REVERSIONARY PAYMENTS; on Schemes for providing Annuities for Widows, and Persons in Old Age; on the Method of calculating the Values of Assurances on Lives; and on the National Debt. To which are added, Four Essays on different Subjects in the Doctrine of Life-Annuities and Political Arithmetic. Also, an Appendix, containing a complete Set of Tables; particularly four New Tables, shewing the Probabilities of Life in LONDON, NORWICH, and NORTHAMPTON, and the Values of two joint Lives. The 3d Edition, with a Supplement, containing (besides several New Tables) additional Observations on the Probabilities of Human Life in different Situations; on the LONDON Societies for the Benefit of Widows and of Old Age; and on the present State of Population in this Kingdom. Price 6s. II. A Review of the principal Questions and Difficulties in MORALS. Particularly, those relating to the Original of our Ideas of Virtue, its Nature, Foundation, Reference to the Deity, Obligation, Subject-matter, and Sanctions. The Second Edition corrected. Price 6s. III. FOUR DISSERTATIONS.âI. On Providence.âII. On Prayer.âIII. On the Reasons for expecting that virtuous Men shall meet after Death in a State of Happiness. IV. On the Importance of Christianity, the Nature of Historical Evidence, and Miracles. The 4th Edition. Price 6s. IV. An APPEAL to the PUBLIC, on the Subject of the NATIONAL DEBT. The 2d Edition; with an Appendix, containing Explanatory Observations and Tables; and an Account of the present State of Population in Norfolk. Price 2s. TWO TRACTS ON CIVIL LIBERTY, THE WAR WITH AMERICA, AND THE DEBTS AND FINANCES OF THE KINGDOM: WITH A GENERAL INTRODUCTION and SUPPLEMENT. By RICHARD PRICE, D.D. F.R.S. LONDON, Printed for T. CADELL, in the STRAND. MDCCLXXVIII. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. The first of the following tracts was published in the beginning of the year 1776; and the second in the beginning of last year. They are now offered to the public in one volume, with corrections and additions. All the calculations, in the _Appendix_ to the first tract, have been transferred to the _second_ and _fourth_ sections, in the third part of the second tract. The section on PUBLIC LOANS, in the second tract, has been revised with care; and a _supplement_ to it, containing additional proposals and some necessary explanations, has been given at the end of the whole.âThis is a subject to which I have applied (perhaps too unprofitably) much or my attention. I have now done with it; and the whole is referred to the candid examination of those who may be better informed, hoping for their indulgence should they find that, in any instance, I have been mistaken. I have not meant, in any thing I have said on this subject, to censure any persons. That accumulation of artificial debt which I have pointed out, and by which the dagger of the kingdom from its growing burdens has been so needlessly increased, has, I doubt not, been the effect of inattention in our ministers; and the scheme, by which the loan of last year has been procured, gives reason to hope that better plans of borrowing will be adopted for the future. The principal design of the first part of the second tract was (as I have observed in the introduction to it) to remove the misapprehensions of my sentiments on CIVIL LIBERTY AND GOVERNMENT into which some had fallen. It gives me concern to find that it has not answered that end in the degree I wished. I am still charged with maintaining opinions which tend to subvert all civil authority. I paid little regard to this charge, while it was confined to the advocates for the principles which have produced the present war; but as it seems lately to have been given the public from the authority of a writer of the first character,[1] it is impossible I should not be impressed by it; and I find myself under a necessity of taking farther notice of it. There are two accounts, directly opposite to one another, which have been given of the origin of civil government. One of them is, that âcivil government is an expedient contrived by human prudence for gaining security against oppression; and that, consequently, the power of civil governors is a delegation or trust from the people for accomplishing this end.â The other account is, that âcivil government is an ordinance of the Deity, by which the body of mankind are given up to the will of a few; and, consequently, that it is a trust from the Deity, in the exercise of which civil governors are accountable only to him.â The question âwhich of these accounts we ought to receive,â is important in the highest degree. There is no question which more deeply affects the happiness and dignity of man as a citizen of this world.âIf the former account is right, the people (that is, the body of independent agents) in every community are their own legislators. All civil authority is properly _their_ authority. Civil governors are only public _servants_; and their power, being _delegated_, is by its nature _limited_.âOn the contrary. If the latter account is right, the people have nothing to do with their own government. They are placed by their maker in the situation of cattle on an estate, which the owner has a right to dispose of as he pleases. Civil Governors are a body of _masters_; and their power is a commission from Heaven held by divine right, and unbounded in its extent. I have espoused, with some zeal, the first of these accounts; and in the following tracts, endeavoured to explain and defend it. And this is _all_ I have done to give countenance to the charge I have mentioned.âEven the masterly writer who, after a croud of writers infinitely his inferiors, seems to have taken up this accusation against me, often expresses himself as if he had adopted the same idea of government[2]. Such indeed is my opinion of his good sense, and such has been the zeal which he has discovered for the rights of mankind, that I think it scarcely possible his ideas and mine on this subject should be very different. His language, however, sometimes puzzles me; and, particularly, when he intimates that government is an institution of divine authority;[3] when he scouts all discussions of the nature of civil liberty, the foundation of civil rights, and the principles of free government; and when he asserts the _competence_ of our legislature to revive the _High-Commission Court_ and _Star-Chamber_, and its BOUNDLESS AUTHORITY not only over the people of _Britain_, but over distant communities who have no voice in it. But whatever may be Mr. BURKEâS sentiments on this subject, he cannot possibly think of the former account of government that âit is a speculation which destroys all authority.ââBoth accounts establish an authority. The difference is, that one derives it from the _people_, and makes it a _limited_ authority; and the other derives it from _Heaven_; and makes it _unlimited_.âI have repeatedly declared my admiration of such a constitution of government as our own would be, were the House of Commons a fair representation of the kingdom, and under no undue influence.âThe sum of all I have meant to maintain is, âthat LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT, as opposed to OPPRESSION and TYRANNY, consists in the dominion of equal laws made with common consent, or of men over _themselves_; and not in the dominion of communities over communities, or of any men over other men.â Introduction to the second Tract, p. 9.âHow then can it be pretended, that I have aimed at destroying all authority? Does our own constitution destroy all authority? Is the authority of equal laws made with common consent no authority? Must there be no government in a state that governs itself? Or, must an institution, contrived by the united counsels of the members of a community, for restraining licentiousness and gaining security against injury and violence, _encourage_ licentiousness, and give to every one a power to commit what outrages he pleases? The Archbishop of York, (in a sermon preached before the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, Feb. 21, 1777,) has taken notice of some loose opinions, as he calls them, which have been lately current on civil liberty; some who mean delinquency having given accounts of it âby which every manâs humour is made to be the rule of his obedience, all the bad passions are let loose, and those dear interests abandoned to outrage for the protection of which we trust in law,â 4to edit. p. 15 and 16. It is not difficult to guess at one of the delinquents intended in these words. In opposition to the horrid sentiments of liberty which they describe, but which in reality no man in his senses ever entertained, the Archbishop defines it to be simply, the supremacy of law, or GOVERNMENT by LAW, without adding to _law_, as I had done, the words _equal_ and _made with common consent_;[4] and without opposing a GOVERNMENT by LAW to a GOVERNMENT BY MEN, as others had done.âAccording to him, therefore, the supremacy of law must be liberty, whatever the law is, or whoever makes it.âIn despotic countries government by law is the same with government by the will of one man, which HOOKER has called _the misery of all men_; but, according to this definition, it is liberty.âIn ENGLAND _formerly_, the law consigned to the flames all who denyed certain established points of faith. Even _now_, it subjects to fines, imprisonment and banishment all teachers of religion who have not subscribed the doctrinal articles of the church of England; and the good Archbishop, not thinking the law in this case sufficiently rigorous, has proposed putting Protestant Dissenters under the same restraints with the Papists.[5] And should this be done, if done by _law_, it will be the establishment of _liberty_. The truth is, that a government by law is or is not liberty, just as the laws are just or unjust; and as the body of the people do or do not participate in the power of making them. The learned Prelate seems to have thought otherwise, and therefore has given a definition of liberty, which might as well have been given of slavery. At the conclusion of his sermon, the Archbishop adds words which he calls comfortable, addressed to those who had been _patient in tribulation_,[6] and intimating that they might _rejoice in hope_, âa ray of brightness then appearing after a prospect which had been long dark.â And in an account which follows the sermon, from one of the missionaries in the province of New-York, it is said, that âthe rebellion would undoubtedly be crushed, and that THEN will be the time for taking steps for the increase of the church in America, by granting it an episcopate.â In conformity to the sentiments of this missionary, the Archbishop also expresses his hope, that the opportunity which such an event will give, for establishing episcopacy among the colonists, will not be lost; and advises, that measures should be thought of for that purpose, and for thereby rescuing the church from the persecution it has long suffered in _America_. This is a subject so important, and it has been so much misrepresented, that I cannot help going out of my way to give a brief account of it. * * * * * It does not appear that the lay members themselves of the church in _America_ have ever wished for Bishops. On the contrary, the assembly of _Virginia_ (the first episcopal colony) some years ago returned thanks to two clergymen in that colony, who had protested against a resolution of the other clergy to petition for Bishops. The church _here_ cannot have a right to _impose_ Bishops on the church in another country; and therefore, while churchmen in _America_ are averse to Bishops, it must be persecution to send Bishops among them. The _Presbyterians_, and other religious sects there, are willing, from a sense of the reasonableness of toleration, to admit Bishops whenever the body of episcopalian laity shall desire them, provided security is given that they shall be officers merely spiritual, possessed of no other powers than those which are necessary to the full exercise of that mode of religious worship. It is not Bishops, as _spiritual_ officers, they have opposed; but Bishops on a state-establishment; Bishops with _civil_ powers; Bishops at the head of ecclesiastical courts, maintained by taxing other sects, and possessed of a PRE-EMINENCE which would be incompatible with the equality which has long subsisted among all religious sects in _America_. In this last respect, the colonies have hitherto enjoyed a happiness which is unparalleled, but which the introduction of such Bishops as would be sent from hence would destroy. In _Pensilvania_ (one of the happiest countries under heaven before we carried into it desolation and carnage) all sects of christians have been always perfectly on a level, the legislature taking no part with any one sect against others, but protecting all equally as far as they are peaceable. The state of the colonies north of _Pensilvania_ is much the same; and, in the province of _Massachusettâs-Bay_ in particular, civil authority interposes no farther in religion than by imposing a tax for supporting public worship, leaving to all the power of applying the tax to the support of that mode of public worship which they like best. This tax the episcopalians were, at one time, obliged to pay in common with others; but so far did the province carry its indulgence to them, that an act was passed on purpose to excuse them.âWith this let the state of Protestant Dissenters in this country be compared. Not only are they obliged to pay tithes for the support of the established church, but their worship is not even tolerated, unless their ministers will subscribe the articles of the church. In consequence of having long scrupled this subscription, they have lost all legal right to protection, and are exposed to the cruellest penalties. Uneasy in such a situation, they not long ago applied twice to parliament for the repeal of the penal laws against them. Bills for that purpose were brought into the _House of Commons_, and passed that House. But, in the House of Lords, they were rejected in consequence of the opposition of the Bishops.âThere are few I reverence so much as some on the sacred bench; but such conduct (and may I not add the alacrity with which most of them support the present measures?) must leave an indelible stain upon them, and will probably exclude them for ever from _America_. On this occasion, I cannot help thinking with concern of the learned Prelateâs feelings. After a prospect long dark, he had discovered a ray of brightness shewing him _America_ reduced, and the church triumphant: But lately, that ray of brightness has vanished, and defeat has taken place of victory and conquest.âAnd what do we _now_ see?âWhat a different prospect, mortifying to the learned Prelate, presents itself?âA great people likely to be formed, in spite of all our efforts, into free communities, under governments which have[7] no religious tests and establishments!âA new Ã¦ra in future annals, and a new opening in human affairs beginning, among the descendants of _Englishmen_, in a new world;âA rising empire, extended over an immense continent, without BISHOPS,âwithout NOBLES,âand without KINGS. _O the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God! How unsearchable are his judgments!_ But to proceed to another subject. * * * * * In the second of the following tracts, page 48, I have observed, that in former times it was the custom of parliament to pass bills for appointing commissioners to take, state, and examine the public accounts. I have lately had it in my power to inform myself more particularly on this subject; and I shall here beg leave to give a brief recital of some of the principal facts relating to it. The first bill for the purpose I have mentioned was passed in the times of the commonwealth, and in the year 1653. It was called an âact for accounts, and for clearing of public debts, and discovering frauds and concealments.â Seven commissioners were named in it, and the necessary powers given them. In 1667, another act was passed for the same purpose; after which I find no account of any such acts till the beginning of the reign of King William. At this time complaints of mismanagement and embezzlements in the disposition of public money were become so prevalent, that the _House of Commons_ thought it necessary to enter into measures for effectually preventing them, by obliging all revenue officers to make up their accounts, and bringing defaulters to justice. With these views, six of the acts I have mentioned were passed between the years 1690 and 1701. Another was passed in the first of Queen _Anne_; and _three_ more in her four last years. In King _William_âs reign they were always passed by the _House of Commons_ without a division. In _Queen Anneâs reign_, not _one_ passed without a division. In 1717, a motion for such an act was _rejected_ without a division; and since 1717, only one motion[8] has been made for such a bill, and it was rejected by a majority of 136 to 66. The preamble to these acts declares the reason of them to be, that âthe kingdom may be satisfied and truly informed, whether all the monies granted by parliament have been faithfully issued and applied to the end for which they had been given; and that all loyal subjects may be thereby encouraged more chearfully to bear the burthens laid upon them.â The number of commissioners named in them was generally nine or seven, all members of the _House of Commons_. It was particularly ordered, that they should take an account of all the revenues brought into the receipt of the Exchequer, and all arrears thereof; of all monies in the hands of the receivers general of the land-tax, customs and excise; of all the public stores, provisions, &c. as well for land as sea service; of all ships of war, and the sums of money provided or paid for the use of the forces by sea and land, and the number of them respectively; and of any briberies or corruptions in any persons concerned in the receiving or disposing of the national treasure. And, for these purposes, they were impowered to call before them, and to examine upon oath the officers of the exchequer, the secretary at war, paymaster of the forces, commissioners of the navy and ordnance, and all persons whatever employed as commissioners, or otherwise, in or about the _Treasury_. The reports, which the commissioners thus appointed delivered from time to time to parliament, contain accounts of a waste of public money, arising from the rapacity of contractors, and many scandalous abuses and frauds in every part of the public service, which must shock every person not grown callous to all the feelings of honesty and honour. In consequence of these reports, the _House of Commons_ addressed the throne, and remonstrated; several great men were accused, and brought to shame; some were dismissed from their places, and ordered to be prosecuted; some expelled, and some committed to the Tower. Thus did our representatives in those times discharge their duty as guardians of the public property; and it is, in my opinion, only by such means that they are capable of doing this properly and effectually. It must, however, be acknowledged, that these commissions of enquiry did not produce all the good effects which might have been expected from them. The influence of the crown, and the interest in parliament of many great men entrusted with the disposition of public money, rendered the proper execution of them extremely difficult. This led some even of the _Tories_, at the time of the great change of ministry in 1710, to propose, that the receiving and issuing of the public money should be taken from the crown; and, in defence of this proposal, it was urged, that the issuing of public money, being in some of the most despotic countries left in the hands of the people, it was by no means a necessary part of the royal prerogative. This would indeed have provided a complete remedy; and it might have perpetuated the constitution. But, even in these times, it was a reformation too great and too impracticable to engage much attention. Ever since those times the public accounts have been growing more complicated; and the temptations to profusion and embezzlement have been increasing with increasing luxury and dissipation. How astonishing then is it that every idea of such _commissions_ should be now lost; and that, at a time when the nation is labouring under expences almost too heavy to be borne, the passing of accounts by the _House of Commons_ is become little more than a matter of form; our representatives scarcely thinking it worth their while to attend on such occasions, and MILLIONS of the public treasure being sometimes given away, in a few hours, just as proposed by the _Treasury_, without debate or enquiry. I must not forget to mention particularly on this subject, that the commissioners named in the acts I have described, were always declared incapable of holding any place or office of profit under the crown; and directed to take an account âof all pensions, salaries, and sums of money paid or payable to members of parliament out of the revenue or otherwise.ââNot long before this time, the _House of Commons_ would not suffer even the _Attorney-general_[9] to sit and vote in the house because he was the kingâs servant; and in 1678, a member, as Mr. _Trenchard_ says, was committed to the Tower, for only saying in the house that the king might keep guards for his defence, if he could pay them.âSuch _once_ was the House of Commons.âSo jealous of the power of the crown, and so chaste.âSince the reign of Queen _Ann_ and the passing of the _Septennial Act_, a great change has taken place.[10] A change which is little less than the total ruin of the constitution, and which may end in a tyranny the most oppressive and insupportable. It is, therefore, the greatest evil, which could have happened to us; and the men, by whose abominable policy it has been accomplished, ought to be followed with the everlasting execrations of every friend to public virtue and liberty. * * * * * I now withdraw to the situation of an anxious spectator of public events; but before I do this, I must leave with the public, at this threatening period, the following sentiments. Not long ago, the colonies might have been kept, without bloodshed or trouble, by repealing the _acts_ which have made us the aggressors in the present war; but _now_ it would be great folly to expect this.âAt the same time I think it certain, that they may be rendered more useful to us by a pacification on liberal terms, which shall bind them to us as FRIENDS, than by any victories or slaughters (were they possible) which can force them to submit to us as SUBJECTS.âI think it also certain, that should the offer of such terms be delayed till they have formed an alliance with _France_, this country is UNDONE.âSuch an alliance, we may hope, is not yet settled.âOur rulers, therefore, may _possibly_ have still a moment for pausing and retreating; and every dictate of prudence and feeling of humanity requires them to be speedy and earnest in improving it.âBut what am I saying? I know this must not be expected. Too full of ideas of our own dignity, too proud to retract; and too tenacious of dominion, we seem determined to persist: And the consequence must be, that the colonies will become the allies of _France_; that a general war will be kindled; and, perhaps, this once happy country be made, in just retribution, the seat of that desolation and misery which it has produced in other countries. January 19, 1778. * * * * * Since the publication of the preceding Introduction, the event referred to at the end of it has been announced to the public. A memorial from the _French_ court has been delivered to our court, declaring, that the former has concluded a treaty of commerce and friendship with the colonies as INDEPENDENT STATES; and acquainting us that, IN CONCERT WITH THEM, the King of France is determined and prepared to defend his commerce against any interruption we may give it.âA new turn, therefore, is now given to our affairs of a nature the most critical and alarming. Would to God there were any concessions by which we could extricate ourselves. But the opportunities for this have been shamefully lost, and cannot be now recovered.âWith a judicial blindness in our councils which has hitherto carried us uniformly from _bad_ to _worse_âWith near half our strength torn from us, and our vaunted dignity in the dustâWith our resources failing; our credit tottering; and a debt threatening to overwhelm us of more than a HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLIONSâIn these circumstances, we seem to be entering on a war with the united powers of _France_, _Spain_, and _America_.âThis, should it happen, will complete the measure of our troubles, and soon bring on that _catastrophe_ which there has been all along reason to expect and dread. April 24, 1778. ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMS FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS. In the following tracts I have reckoned, among the destructive consequences of the war with _America_, the loss of a considerable part of our trade. In consequence of several accidental causes, particularly the demand created by the war, this effect has not yet been so much felt as was generally expected. The truth, however, is, that the war has operated in this way to a degree that is alarming, as will appear from the following account of the CUSTOMS for the last six years. Gross Receipt. Debentures. Net Receipt. Payments into the Exchequer. 1772 5.134,503 2.214,508 2.441,038 2.525,515 1773 5.159,800 2.463,767 2.221,460 2.431,071 1774 5.068,000 2.132,600 2.455,500 2.547,717 1775 5.146,900 1.904,900 2.709,340 2.476,302 1776 3.726,970 1.544,300 1.633,380 2.460,402 1777 3.293,200 932,860 1.846,390 2.199,105 It should be observed, that though, in 1776, there had been no importation of _tobacco_, yet the duties on _tobacco_ brought into the _Exchequer_ as much as ever, these duties having been paid for old stock taken out of the warehouses for _home consumption_, instead of _exportation_. This is one of the causes which kept up the payments into the _Exchequer_ in 1776, notwithstanding a sudden fall of near a MILLION AND A HALF in the gross receipt, and a MILLION in the net receipt.âIn the last year, or 1777, the duties on tobacco fell very short; and this contributed to diminish the payments into the _Exchequer_ near a _quarter of a million_. But what seems of more importance is, that the debentures (or duties returned at exportation) which had fallen in 1775 and 1776 above a _fourth_, continued to fall in 1777; and did not then amount to more than _two-fifths_ of the usual sum. I have examined the customs from the Revolution to the present time; but cannot find that any thing like such a fall in them has ever happened before. FIRST ADVERTISEMENT. The present state of the public funds makes it necessary for me to acquaint the reader, that when the _Supplement_ to the following Tracts was written, the 3 _per cent._ annuities were at the price which the calculations in it suppose, or nearly at 78. They have since fallen to 72, and once even below 69, which is a lower price than they were ever at during the whole last war, except just at the pinch of the loan of twelve millions in 1762.âThe difference of price also between them and the new _4 per cents._ is fallen, (for no reason that I can discover) from 14 to about 10Â½.âI find, likewise, that in consequence of a distressing scarcity of money, the subscribers to the last loan of _five millions_ have not yet been able to complete their payments.âThese facts afford a dark prospect; and make it doubtful whether, if things donât mend, it will be possible, by any schemes, to procure the money necessary to bear the expence of another campaign.âShould it happen, for these reasons, that what I have written on loans can be of no use; or, though capable of being of use, should it be neglected; I shall still reflect with satisfaction, that I have now given what I wished to offer on this subject with more correctness; and proved, beyond a doubt, that a great part of the National Debt is an _artificial_ debt, for which no money has been received, and which might have been easily avoided. Jan. 19, 1778. SECOND ADVERTISEMENT. Since the foregoing Advertisement in January last, the price of the 3 _per cent._ annuities has fallen from 72 to 60Â½. But the difference of price between them and the 4 _per cent._ annuities created in 1777, has risen to near 18l. agreeably to the true comparative value of these annuities, as computed in page 14 of the Supplement.âIt is necessary I should farther mention, that there has been a new loan of six millions for the service of the present year; but that, contrary to my hopes, the managers of our finances have returned to the old modes of borrowingâThe consolidated 3 _per cent._ annuities being, when the loan was settled on the 6th of February, at 66Â½; one hundred 3 _per cent. stock_ estimated at this price, was given for every 100l. in _money_, with FOUR-FIFTHS of the profits of a lottery ticket reckoned at 2Â½l. and an ANNUITY of 2Â½l. for 30 years, reckoned worth 14 years purchase (or 135l.) but really worth above 15 years purchase. This made a profit of 4l. on every 100l. advanced. But the 3 _per cent._ annuities falling immediately to 64, and in a few days to 60Â½; and the short annuity also happening to sell for no more than 13 years purchase, this loan has been constantly at a discount, which has fluctuated between 2 and 4Â½ _per cent._ The scheme of this loan is the first of the old schemes described in the following Supplement, page 2d; and it is apparent that by including the value of the _douceurs_ in the capital, it brings on the public an artificial debt, for which nothing will be received, of above two millions.âThe sum to be lent, should it be ever paid, might have been as well obtained, without making any material addition to the annual charge, by selling separately the two _douceurs_ worth 2.244,000l. and offering for the remaining sum necessary to make up six millions, an interest of five _per cent._ subject to the regulations proposed in the Second Tract, page 98, or in the Supplement, page 24. April 24, 1778. The following accounts have been laid before the House of Commons since January last. _Account of the Gold Coin brought into the Mint from Great Britain and Ireland by the Proclamations in 1773, 1774, and 1776._ Â£. _s._ _d._ First Proclamation brought in 3.806,435 7 2 deficient more than 6 grains in a guinea. 2d Proclamation brought in 4.876,171 18 3 deficient between 3 and 6 grains. 3d Proclamation brought in 6.880,986 5 3 deficient between 1 and 3 grains. ------------------ Total 15.563,593 10 8 Compare Second Tract from page 56 to 64. _Account of the Expence of calling in and recoining all the Gold Coin deficient more than a grain in a guinea._ Â£. _s._ _d._ Expence to the Bank for melting 16,786 14 6 Deficiency in melting 317,314 6 11 Interest of money advanced to the holders of gold coin 231,982 17 7 To master of the Mint for the charge of recoining and other charges 115,459 12 9 To several persons who were appointed in the several counties to take in and exchange the gold coin, and for other charges and expences 72,476 8 0 ---------------- Total 754,019 19 9 Towards defraying this expence there have been applied the following sums: Â£. _s._ _d._ Out of the supplies in 1774 250,000 0 0 in 1775 69,671 8 3 in 1776 92,421 14 11Â¼ Out of the million vote of credit in 1776 30,000 0 0 Out of the million vote of credit in 1777 206,699 8 3Â¾ Provided for in 1778 105,227 8 3 ----------------- 754,019 19 9 These accounts shew, that in the note, p. 63 of the Second Tract, the words _16 millions and a half_ should have been _15 millions and a half_; and that in p. 69, 2d line, 650,000l. should have been 754,019l. 19s. 9d. * * * * * _N. B._ The loss attending the deficiency in the coin brought in by the first proclamation amounted nearly to 300,000l. but having been thrown on the holders of the coin, it could not be brought to account. FOOTNOTES [1] See Mr. _Burkeâs_ Letter to the Sheriffs of _Bristol_, pages 53, 54. [2] âTo follow, not to force the public inclination; to give a direction, a form, a technical dress and a specific, sanction to the general sense of the community, is the true end of legislature. When it goes beyond this, its authority will be precarious, let its rights be what they will.â Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, p. 49. [3] Ibid. p. 55. Thoughts on the causes of the present discontents, p. 67. âGovernment certainly, is an institution of divine authority; though its _forms_ and the _persons_ who administer it, all originate from the people.â It is probable that Mr. _Burke_ means only that government is a divine institution, in the same sense in which any other expedient of human prudence for gaining protection against injury, may be called a Divine institution. All that we owe _immediately_ to our own foresight and industry, must _ultimately_ be ascribed to God the giver of all our powers, and the cause of all causes. It is in this sense that St. Paul in Rom. xiii. 1, 2. calls civil magistracy the _ordinance of God_, and says that _there is no power but of God_. If any one wants to be convinced of this, he should read the excellent bishop HOADLYâs Sermon entitled _The Measures of Submission to the civil Magistrate_, and the defences of it. It is further probable, that when Mr. _Burke_ asserts the _omnipotence_ of Parliaments, or their _competence_ to establish any oppressions (Letter, p. 46, 49) he means mere _power_ abstracted from _right_, or the same sort of _power_ and _competence_ that trustees have to betray their trust, or that armed ruffians have to rob and murder. Nor should I doubt whether this is his meaning, were it not for the passage I have quoted from him in the last page, the latter part of which seems to imply, that a legislature may contradict its _end_, and yet retain its _rights_.âSome of the justest remarks on this subject may be found in the Earl of ABINGDONâs thoughts on Mr. _Burke_âs letter, a pamphlet which (on account of the excellent public principles it maintains, and the spirit of liberty it breathes, as well as the rank of the writer) must give to every friend to the true interests of this country particular pleasure. In p. 46, Mr. _Burke_ says, that âif there is one man in the world more zealous than another for the supremacy of parliament and the rights of this imperial crown, it is himself; though many may be more knowing in the extent and the foundation of these rights.â He adds, that âhe has constantly declined such disquisitions, not being qualified for the chair of a professor in metaphysics, and not chusing to put the solid interests of the kingdom on speculative grounds.ââ_The less knowledge, the more zeal_, is a maxim which experience has dreadfully verified in _religion_. But he that, in the present case, should apply this maxim to Mr. _Burke_, would, whatever he may say of himself, greatly injure him. Though he chuses to decry enquiries into the nature of liberty, there are, I am persuaded, few in the world whose zeal for it is more united to extensive knowledge and an exalted understanding.âHe calls it, p. 55. âthe vital spring and energy of a state, and a blessing of the first order.â He cannot, therefore, think that too much pains may be taken to UNDERSTAND it. He must know, that nothing but usurpation and error can suffer by enquiry and discussion. Mr. WILKES, in an excellent speech which he lately made in moving for the repeal of the declaratory law, observed, that this law was a _compromise_ to which the great men, under whose administration it was passed, were forced in order to obtain the repeal of the _Stamp-act_. I think so highly of that administration and of the service it did the public, that I have little doubt of the truth of this observation. But, at the same time, I cannot help wishing Mr. _Burke_ had given no reason for doubt by defending the _principle_ of that act; a _principle_ which, unquestionably, he and his friends would never have acted upon; but which others have since acted upon, with a violence which has brought us to the brink of ruin. [4] In p. 19. he calls liberty âa freedom from all restraints except such as established law imposes for THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.â But this addition can make no difference of any consequence, as long as it is not specified _where_ the power is lodged of judging what laws are for the good of the community. In countries where the _laws_ are the _edicts_ of absolute princes, the end professed is always the good of the Community. [5] âThe laws against Papists have been extremely severe. New dangers may arise; and if at any time ANOTHER DENOMINATION of men should be equally dangerous to our civil interests, it would be justifiable to lay them under similar restraints.â Page 17.âIn another part of this sermon the great men in opposition (some of the first in the kingdom in respect of rank, ability, and virtue) are described as a body of men void of principle, who, without regarding the relation in which they stand to the community, have entered into a league for advancing their private interest, and âwho are held together by the same bond that keeps together the lowest and wickedest combinations.ââWas there ever such a censure delivered from a pulpit? What wonder is it that the Dissenters should come in for a share in his Graceâs abuse?âTheir political principles, he says, are growing dangerous.âOn what does he ground this insinuation? He is mistaken if he imagines that they are all such delinquents as the author of the following tracts, or that they think universally as he does of the war with America. On this subject they are, like other bodies of men in the kingdom, of different opinions.âBut I will tell him in what they agree.âThey agree in detesting the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance. They are all WHIGS, enemies to arbitrary power, and firmly attached to those principles of civil and religious liberty which produced the GLORIOUS REVOLUTION and the HANOVERIAN SUCCESSION.âSuch principles are the nationâs best defence; and Protestant Dissenters have hitherto reckoned it their glory to be distinguished by zeal for them, and an adherence to them. ONCE these principles were _approved_ by men in power. No good can be expected, if they are now reckoned dangerous. [6] That is, the missionaries of the society in America.âThe charter of the society declares the end of its incorporation to be âpropagating the gospel in foreign parts, and making provision for the worship of God in those plantations which wanted the administration of Godâs word and sacraments, and were abandoned to atheism and infidelity.â The chief business, on the contrary, of the society has been to provide for the support of _episcopalianism_ in the northern colonies, and particularly NEW-ENGLAND, where the sacraments are more regularly administered, and the people less abandoned to infidelity, than perhaps in any country under heaven. The missionaries employed and paid by the society for this purpose, have generally been clergymen of the highest principles in church and state. _America_, having been for some time very hostile to men of such principles, most of them have been obliged to take refuge in this country; and here they have, I am afraid, been too successful in propagating their own resentments, in misleading our rulers, and widening the breach which has produced the present war. [7] I am sorry to mention one exception to the fact here intimated. The new constitution for _Pensilvania_ (in other respects wise and liberal) is dishonoured by a religious test. It requires an acknowledgment of the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament, as a condition of being admitted to a seat in the House of Representatives; directing however, at the same time, that no other religious test shall _for ever_ hereafter be required of any civil officer.âThis has been, probably, an accommodation to the prejudices of some of the narrower sects in the province, to which the more liberal part have for the present thought fit to yield; and, therefore, it may be expected that it will not be of long continuance. Religious tests and subscriptions in general, and all establishments of particular systems of faith, with civil emoluments annexed, do inconceivable mischief, by turning religion into a trade, by engendering strife and persecution, by forming hypocrites, by obstructing the progress of truth, and fettering and perverting the human mind; nor will the world ever grow much _wiser_, or _better_, or _happier_, till, by the abolition of them, truth can gain fair play, and reason free scope for exertion. The Archbishop, page 11, speaks of christianity as âinsufficient to rely on its own energies; and of the assistances which it is the business of civil authority to provide for gospel truths.ââA worse slander was never thrown on gospel truths. Christianity disdains such assistances as the corrupted governments of this world are capable of giving it. Politicians and statesmen know little of it. Their _enmity_ has sometimes done it good; but their _friendship_, by supporting corruptions carrying its name, has been almost fatal to it. [8] In 1742, after the resignation of Sir _Robert Walpole_. [9] Sir FRANCIS BACON was the _second_ ATTORNEY-GENERAL who sat in the _House of Commons_; but, to prevent its being drawn into a precedent, the House would not admit him, till they had made an order, that no Attorney-General should for the future be allowed to sit and vote in that House.âIn conformity to this order, whenever afterwards a member was appointed Attorney-General, his place was vacated, and a new writ issued. This continued to be the practice till the year 1670, when Sir HENEAGE FINCH (afterwards EARL OF NOTTINGHAM) being appointed Attorney-General, he was allowed by connivance to preserve his seat, which connivance has been continued ever since.âI give these facts not from any enquiry or knowledge of my own, but from the authority of a friend, who is perhaps better informed than any person in the kingdom on every subject of this kind. [10] The following facts will shew, in some degree, how this change has been brought about.âFor ten years ending Aug. 1, 1717 (a period comprehending in it a general war abroad; and the demise of the crown, the establishment of a new family, and an open rebellion at home) the money expended in secret services amounted only to 279,444l.âFor TEN YEARS ending Feb. 11, 1742, it amounted to no less a sum than 1.384,600; of which 50,077l. was paid to printers of News-papers and writers for government; and a greater sum expended, in the last _six weeks_ of these ten years, than had been spent in _three years_ before Aug. 1710.âSee the Report of the COMMITTEE appointed March 23, 1742, to enquire into the conduct of _Robert Earl of Orford_, printed in the Journals of the House of Commons, vol. 24, p. 295, 296, 300.âOne passage, in this report, contains remarks, so much to my present purpose and so important, that I cannot help copying it.ââThere are no laws particularly adapted to the case of a minister who clandestinely employs the money of the public, and the whole power and profitable employments that attend the collecting and disposing of it, _against_ the people: And, by this profusion and criminal distribution of offices, in some measure justifies the expence that particular persons are obliged to be at, by making it necessary to the preservation of all that is valuable to a free nation. For in that case, the contest is plain and visible. It is, whether the Commons shall retain the _third_ state in their own hands; while this whole dispute is carried on at the expence of the people, and, on the side of the minister, out of the money granted to support and secure the constitutional independence of the three branches of the legislature.âThis method of corruption is as sure, and, therefore, as criminal a way of subverting the constitution as by an armed force. It is a crime, productive of a total destruction of the very being of this government; and is so _high_ and _unnatural_, that nothing but the powers of parliament can reach it; and, as it never can meet with parliamentary animadversion but when it is unsuccessful, it must seek for its _security_ in the extent and efficacy of the mischief it produces.â P. 395. The obstructions which this committee met with in their enquiry proved that the crime they here describe in such emphatical language, had _even then_ obtained that very security, in the extent of the mischief it produced, which, they observe, it was under a necessity of seeking. OBSERVATIONS ON THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIBERTY, THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE JUSTICE AND POLICY OF THE WAR WITH AMERICA. _Quis furor iste novus? quo nunc, quo tenditisâ¸º_ _Heu! miseri cives? non Hostem, inimicaque castra,_ _â¸º Vestras Spes uritis._ VIRG. By RICHARD PRICE, D. D. F. R. S. THE EIGHTH EDITION, With CORRECTIONS and ADDITIONS. LONDON: Printed for T. CADELL, in the STRAND. M.DCC.LXXVIII. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. _In the following Observations, I have taken that liberty of examining public measures, which, happily for this kingdom, every person in it enjoys. They contain the sentiments of a private and unconnected man; for which, should there be any thing wrong in them, he alone is answerable._ _After all that has been written on the dispute with America, no reader can expect to be informed, in this publication, of much that he has not before known. Perhaps, however, he may find in it some new matter; and if he should, it will be chiefly in the Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, and the Policy of the War with America._ February 8th, 1776. PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION. The favourable reception which the following Tract has met with, makes me abundant amends for the abuse it has brought upon me. I should be ill employed were I to take much notice of this abuse: But there is one circumstance attending it, which I cannot help just mentioning.âThe principles on which I have argued form the foundation of every state as far as it is free; and are the same with those taught by Mr. Locke, and all the writers on Civil Liberty who have been hitherto most admired in this country. But I find with concern, that our Governors chuse to decline trying by them their present measures: For, in a Pamphlet which has been circulated by government with great industry, these principles are pronounced to be âunnatural and wild, incompatible with practice, and the offspring of the distempered imagination of a man who is biassed by party, and who writes to deceive.â I must take this opportunity to add, that I love quiet too well to think of entering into a controversy with any writers; particularly, NAMELESS ones. Conscious of good intentions, and unconnected with any party, I have endeavoured to plead the cause of general liberty and justice: And happy in knowing this, I shall, in silence, commit myself to that candour of the public of which I have had so much experience. March 12th, 1776. CONTENTS. _Page_ PART I. SECT. I. _Of the Nature of Liberty in general._ 2 SECT. II. _Of Civil Liberty and the Principles of Government._ 6 SECT. III. _Of the Authority of one Country over another._ 19 PART II. SECT. I. _Of the Justice of the War with
{'title': 'Two Tracts on Civil Liberty, the War with America, and the Debts and Finances of', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}