character of the Chinese, I dare not positively affirm that it would be better. When the fifteen millions, which form our present population, shall have attained to the same purity of morals and of primitive christianity, and shall be capable of being governed by the same admirable discipline, as the Society of the Friends, I doubt not that we should be all Quakers in this as in the other points of their moral doctrine. But were this transfer of employment desirable, is it practicable at present, is it in our power? These men know, that it is not. What then does all their reasoning amount to? Nonsense!

ESSAY IV.

I have not intentionally either hidden or disguised the Truth, like an advocate ashamed of his client, or a bribed accomptant who falsifies the quotient to make the bankrupt's ledgers square with the creditor's inventory. My conscience forbids the use of falsehood and the arts of concealment: and were it otherwise, yet I am persuaded, that a system which has produced and protected so great prosperity, cannot stand in need of them. If therefore Honesty and the Knowledge of the whole Truth be the things you aim at, you will find my principles suited to your ends: and as I like not the democratic forms, so am I not fond of any others above the rest. That a succession of wise and godly men may be secured to the nation in the highest power, is that to which I have directed your attention in this Essay, which if you will read, perhaps you may see the error of those principles which have led you into errors of practice. I wrote it purposely for the use of the multitude of well-meaning people, that are tempted in these times to usurp authority and meddle with government before they have any call from duty or tolerable understanding of its principles. I never intended it for learned VOL. II.

G

men versed in politics; but for such as will be practitioners before they have been students." — BAXTER'S Holy Commonwealth, or Political Aphorisms.

The metaphysical (or as I have proposed to call them, metapolitical) reasonings hitherto discussed, belong to Government in the abstract.

ence.

But there is a second class of Reasoners, who argue for a change in our Government from former usage, and from statutes still in force, or which have been repealed, (so these writers affirm) either through a corrupt influence, or to ward off temporary hazard or inconveniThis class, which is rendered illustrious by the names of many intelligent and virtuous patriots, are advocates for reform in the literal sense of the word. They wish to bring back the Government of Great Britain to a certain form, which they affirm it to have once possessed; and would melt the bullion anew in order to recast it in the original mould.

The answer to all arguments of this nature is obvious, and to my understanding appears decisive. These Reformers assume the character of Legislators or of Advisers of the

Legislature, not that of Law Judges or of appellants to Courts of Law. Sundry statutes concerning the rights of electors (we will suppose) still exist; so likewise do sundry statutes on other subjects (on witchcraft for instance) which change of circumstances have rendered obsolete, or increased information shewn to be absurd. It is evident, therefore, that the expediency of the regulations prescribed by them, and their suitableness to the existing circumstances of the kingdom, must first be proved: and on this proof must be rested all rational claims for the enforcement of the statutes that have not, no less than for the re-enacting of those that have been, repealed. If the authority of the men, who first enacted the Laws in question, is to weigh with us, it must be on the presumption that they were wise men. But the wisdom of Legislation consists in the adaptation of Laws to circumstances. If then it can be proved, that the circumstances, under which those laws were enacted, no longer exist; and that other circumstances altogether different, and in some instances opposite, have taken their place; we

have the best grounds for supposing, that if the men were now alive, they would not pass the same statutes. In other words, the spirit of the statute interpreted by the intention of the Legislator would annul the letter of it. It is not indeed impossible, that by a rare felicity of accident the same law may apply to two sets of circumstances. But surely the presumption is, that regulations well adapted for the manners, the social distinctions, and the state of property, of opinion, and of external relations of England in the reign of Alfred, or even in that of Edward the First, will not be well suited to Great Britain at the close of the reign of George the Third. For instance: at the time when the greater part of the cottagers and inferior farmers were in a state of villenage, when Sussex alone contained seven thousand, and the Isle of Wight twelve hundred families of bondsmen, it was the law of the land that every freeman should vote in the Assembly of the Nation personally or by his representative. An Act of Parliament in the year 1660 confirmed what a concurrence of causes had previously effected:--every English