determine which queftion, the author prefents us with abftracts from the firft, fecond, and third of thofe charters, and makes pertinent remarks upon them. He examines in the fame manner the privileges granted by the crown to the people of New England, by the firft charter of Maffachufet's-Bay; likewife the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island, the fecond charter of Maffachufet's-Bay, with that of Maryland, and Penfilvania.

Having examined thefe fubjects at confiderable length, the author next enquires, what power did the parliament exercise over the colonies from their first establishment to the time of the commonwealth ? To answer this question, he has recourfe to the parliamentary records; from which it appears, that

The patentees and planters, prefent divers petitions to the commons of England: they are heard by their counfel: no objection is made to the jurifdiction of the houfe, except by the fervants of the crown. The patentees, who were members of the upper houfe, were prefent at the debates: the patentees who were members of the lower houfe, were allowed to debate, and vote for this reafon, because the matter regarded the common-wealth as much as would a debate concerning any English county. The houfe declares, that laws made in parliament, were binding in the colonies: afferts their power of prefcribing to them what products they should, or fhould not cultivate: diftinguish between the colonies and Norman poffeffions and actually do pafs bills, difpofing of the property of the colonies.'

Continuing his enquiry, the author next examines, what power did the parliament exercife over the colonies, from the beginning of the civil war to the reftoration ? In this section the evidence produced to support the fupremacy of the British legislature over the colonies, is equally explicit with that in the preceding period of the records. Nor let it be forgot, fays the author in the conclufion of the fection, that these were the opinions of men who ftand high in the estimation of the world; men whofe names are delivered down to us with the endearing epithets of champions of liberty, and defenders of the rights of mankind,'

The opinion of men like thefe, on fuch a subject as this, muft furely have its weight with the friends of freedom. Let it not be forgotten then, that these architects of virtue, thefe reftorers of glory and of wisdom, these creators of human happinefs, confidered our colonies in America as fubject in all things to the fupreme power of England; treated them as fubjects; regulated their internal rights; laid on them internal, taxes.'

In the three fubfequent fections the author treats refpec tively of the following fubjects.. What powers did the par liament exercise over the colonies from the restoration to the acceflion of his prefent majefty Of the deference paid by the colonies to the authority of parliament, and to the requifitions of the crown previous to the reign of his prefent majefty. Of the conduct of parliament with reference to the colonies from the beginning of the prefent reign, to the commencement of the laft parliament.

In the third part of the work, the author profecutes, with his ufual accuracy, an examination of the acts paffed by the thirteenth parliament of Great Britain relating to the colonies. As these transactions are fo recent, it is unneceffary to give any detail of them in our Review; but we cannot pafs over the fubje&t without obferving, that the author's remarks are every where pertinent and judicious, and highly deferve the attention of an inquifitive reader-With refpe&t to the plan of Reconciliation propofed, he fuggefts, amidit a variety of other confiderations, that when Great Britain raises any given fum by a land-tax, the colonies fhould raife each a proportionate fum; by which mode the fame relation would be creat* ed between the house of commons, and the colonies, as be tween the house of commons and the inhabitants of Great Britain.

On taking a general retrospective view of the fubjects treated in this work, it must be acknowledged, that the ingenious author has conducted his enquiry with great difcernment and precifion, refpe&ting not only the matter of right, and the principles of fpeculative inveftigation, but likewife the matter of fact, and the more convincing teftimony of hiftorical records. He feems to have clearly evinced the constitutional authority of parliament over the colonies by rational abstract arguments, as well as by the evidence of prefcriptive, and, till lately, unqueftioned fupremacy. As he has not endeavoured to enforce his conclufions, either by raillery or farcafm, the juftnefs of his reafoning will be the more readily admitted, even by thofe whom prejudices may render averfe from the acknowledgement of conviction; and unbiaffed readers cannot fail to receive fatisfaction, at feeing a fubject of fo great, national importance treated by a writer whofe abilities juftly entitle him to eftimation and applaufe. There is ground to expect, from the preface of this volume, that the work wilf be continued, and we doubt not that the future part will prove equally interefting and acceptable to the public with the prefent.

XIII. Speech

XIII. Speech of Edmund Burke, Efq. on moving his Refolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775 870. 25. Dodfley.

THE

HE Refolutions moved by Mr. Burke on the occafion of delivering this Speech, confifted of fix propofitions, intended to establish the equity and juftice of a taxation of America, by grant, and not by impofition Of thefe it may be fufficient to mention the firft, as a fpecimen. It is expreffed in the following terms: That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America, confifting of fourteen feparate governments, and containing two millions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilege of electing and fending any knights and burgeffes, or others, to represent them in the high court of parliament.' Previous to moving the refolutions, the fpeaker fuggefts the neceffity of confidering diftin&ly the nature and circumstances of the object in question; fince according to that nature, and those circumftances, in his opinion, the adminiftration of the colonies ought to be conducted, and not according to abstract ideas of right, or mere general theories of government. He therefore proceeds to lay before his hearers fome of the most material of these circumstances. The limits of a Review not affording room for a particular examination of the subject, we muft content ourselves with enumerating the principal topics which the speaker has advanced.

In confidering the nature of the object, the firft circumftance he mentions is the number of the people in the colonies ; which he supposes not to be under two millions of inhabitants of our own European blood and colour, befides at leaft 500,000 others; a number of subjects, to which no partial, narrow, or occafional fyftem of government can be fuitable. He next delivers a comparative state of the export trade of England to its colonies, as it ftood in the year 1704, and 1772; and afterwards a state of the export trade of this country to its colonies alone, as it flood in 1772, compared with the whole trade of England to all parts of the world (the colonies included) in the year 1704. Of thefe accounts, that relative to the latter period is taken from the official registers which lay before the house and the earlier from an original manufcript of Davenant. Both accounts clearly fhew the importance of the colonies to the commerce and profperity of this country. From five hundred and odd thousand, which was the amount of the exports to the colonies in 1704, they had in 1772 increased to fix millions.

VOL. XXXIX. May, 1775.

M m

The

The speaker afterwards endeavours to expofe the impropriety of Great Britain having recourfe to compulsion in the difpute with America, upon the following confiderations: 1. that force alone is but temporary; 2. that it is uncertain; 3. that it impairs the object; and laftly, that we have no fort of experience in favour of force as an inftrument in the rule of our colonies. The policy which, in his opinion, ought to be purfued in the management of America, fhould have refpect to its temper and character, even more than its population and commerce; and the two former of thefe circumftances he reprefents as being strongly tinctured with a love of freedom, which he deduces from fix capital fources, namely, their defcent, form of government, religion in the northern provinces, manners in the fouthern, education, and remoteness of fituation from the first mover of government.

----

The fpeaker then enters upon the confideration of three feveral ways of proceeding, relative to the spirit which prevails in the colonies. There are to change that fpirit, as inconvenient, by removing the caufes; to profecute it as crimi nal; or to comply with it as neceffary; the laft of which he infifts is the only falutary expedient; declaring it to be his opinion, that we ought to admit the people of our colonies into an intereft in the conftitution.'

The fpeaker afterwards endeavours to invalidate the apprehenfion, that the colonies would rife in their demands, fhould Great Britain totally renounce the object of the prefent contention; and for this purpofe he has recourfe to the cafe, of Ireland, Wales, Chefter, and Durham, all which he delineates at confiderable length. He is, however, no advocate for a representation of the colonies in parliament, and only infifts for their being allowed the privilege of taxing themfelves. He concludes with moving and explaining, separately, the feveral refolutions he had framed; and with fome remarks on a propofition, which had been made by a noble lord a fhort time before.

Whatever opinions may be entertained of the plan of accommodation propofed by Mr. Burke, it will, we doubt not, be acknowledged, that, amidst the fallies of imagination, natural to this gentleman, the prefent Speech displays greater inge nuity of argument, and more extenfive reflection, than any of his former rhetorical productions.

FOREIGN

FOREIGN ARTICLES.

XIV. Drey Predigten von Georg Chriftoph. Dahme. Three Sermons. 80. London. (Germán.)

XV. Eine Predigt gehalten den 2. Jan. 1774. an dem Tage der Einweihung der neuen Deutschen Lutherifchen Dreyeinigkeits-oder fogenannten Hamburger Kirche, in Trinity-Lane zu London, von G. Ch. Dahme, Paftor an obiger Kirche, nebt dem Einweihungs Gebete, &c. A Sermon preached Jan. 2d, 1774, on the day of the Confecration of the new Lutheran Hamburgh-Church in Trinity-Lane, &c. 8vo. London, (German.)

THE first of thefe Sermons, which was preached on Jan. 1, 1775, contains an exhortation to the audience to recollect the divine bleffings enjoyed during the preceding year, and to return God their fincere thanks; to review their paft conduct in order to its future amendment or improvement; and to rely on God's providence, with regard to their future fate.

The fecond was preached on Eafter Sunday, 1775. From remarking the importance of the proofs of our Saviour's refurrec tion, the rev. Mr. Dahme proceeds to a confutation of one of the numberless cavils raised by infidels against the truth of his hiftory and religion." If the author of your religion has actually rifen from the dead, why did he appear only to his friends and difciples? Why did he not show himself publicly to the whole nation? Or at least to the Jewish senate and the Roman governor, by whofe contrivance and orders he had been crucified ?"

To this objection, fo often and fo confidently urged by infidels, he replies, in fubftance: that our Saviour did not show himself to the whole nation, because his refurrection was one of thofe events whole credibility depends not on the number, but on the quality and intrinfic weight of evidences: of a numerous and mixed crowd we could not have been informed, whether they were poffeffed of the capacities neceffary for afcertaining the identity of his perfon; most of them could not have been perfonally and fufficiently ac quainted with his characteristics; and their very numbers would have obftructed their attempts for recognising him. The vague report of fuch a multitude, therefore, could much lefs déferve and command our faith than the evidence of a fmaller, but fufficient humber of witnesses, his disciples, who before his death had been long and intimately acquainted with his perfon and character, and who, after his refurrection had at once the most preffing motives for enquiry into, and the completeft opportunities for convincing themselves of the reality of that refurrection.

Had he appeared to all the nation, and had the truth of his refurrection been acknowledged by the whole people, then the apostles would have run no rifk in afferting it. Their favour and intimacy with their mafter, would have raifed them to eminence and wealth; and their temporal prosperity would have weakened the force of their evidence in the eyes of other nations and fucceeding ages. Had the majority of the nation, on the contrary, or had its governors, notwithstanding the perfonal and public appearance of Chrift, ftill perfifted in queftioning the reality of his refurrection, their doubts would have furnished infidels with a yet more specious pretence for denying its truth.

M má