an act was passed for that purpose upwards of two hundred years ago. Art. XX. "For abolishing the free fyftem of English laws in a neighbouring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and extending its boundaries fo as to render it at once an example and fit inftrument for introducing the fame abfolute rule into these colonies."—Answer. What have the revolted colonies to do with his majesty's government of another colony? Canada is not dependent on, is not affociated with, them. Do the mighty heroes, who defy the united force of Britain, begin to tremble at a fingle province? Are they, who pledge their lives, their fortunes and their facred honours in defence of liberty, fo fearful of the ftrength of their own attachment to liberty, that they dare not look on men, who have fubmitted to what they call arbitrary government; left they too catch the contagion, and follow the example? Or are they fearful, that their deluded followers may at length difcover, that whilst their leaders are alarming them with acts of pretended tyranny, they are really bringing them under fubjection to the worst of all tyrantsartful, felfish demagogues? No regulation concerning another colony can have any right to find a place in the lift of their own pretended grievances. This would be anfwer fufficient to this article. Let us however see, if the going thus out of their way to make a charge fo foreign to their own concerns, be compenfated by any degree of candor ? What is their objection to the act for regulating the government of Quebec ? The firft is, that by this act, the bounds of Canada are extended. There are little circumftances which materially change the nature of a tranfaction: thefe a skilful narrator tells, or fuppreffes, as beft may fuit his purpofe. It fuited the purpofe of the congrefs to fupprefs, that in this act it is exprefsly provided, that "the boundaries of no other colony shall in, any wife be affected!" that all rights, derived from preceding grants and conveyances shall be faved! Had this been told, their charge was anfwered. That which had not been granted was the property of the king. He might do with it as he pleased; erect it into a feparate colony, or annex it to any colony already established. So far then no injury was done. But this act has abolished the free fyftem of English laws, and eftablished an arbitrary government. That could not be abolished which had never been established. The truth is this. Soon after the conqueft of Canada, temporary provifions were made, by a proclamation of the king, for the government of Canada. These provifions were in many cafes found inapplicable to the state and circumftances of the province. They were therefore repealed; and this act was paffed re-granting to the Canadians the free exercife, unchecked by any civil difqualifications, of the religion in which they had been educated; re-establishing the civil laws, by which, prior to their conqueft, their perfons and their properties had been protected and ordered. Do the Canadians complain of this alteration? No. It was made in confequence of their petition. To disobey the mandates of New-England, and to liften to the humble petitions of Canada, are equally crimes in his majesty. It is a crime to make the minuteft change in the conftitution of the revolted provinces; and it is a crime of the fame nature not to Overturn the whole conftitution of a dutiful province. Not to deviate from the spirit of a charter, and to obferve the fpirit of a treaty of peace, are both acts of ufurpation. To check innovations at Boston, and to respect the customs, and prejudices, and habits of thinking in Canada, are acts of the fame tyranny.' Art. XXI. " For taking away our charters; abolishing our moft valuable laws; and altering fundamentally the forms of our government."-The author remarks in regard to this article, that were the allegation really true, it would be an object of praise, rather than of cenfure. That the alterations made in the form of the government of Massachuset's Bay, go not deep enough into the foundations. That, fuppofing charters to be as facred as treaties of peace, this charter was rightfully forfeited. But, in fact, that charters were never confidered in fo high a light; but have been frequently changed by the king alone: and that all charters under which the colonies now claim, are acts of the king repealing former charters. In proof of these affertions the author produces fufficient evidence from the hiftory of the colonies. Art. XXII." For fufpending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legiflate for us,in all cafes whatsoever." In our author's obfervations on this article, he fhews that it is a compofition of manifeft artifice and deceit ; blending together two diftinct acts, and reprefenting them as one general law intended to operate in all the colonies. Art. XXIII. “He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us."-The fubftance of the remarks on this ridiculous article is, that acts of fupreme authority are here given as proofs of abdication of government. That the Americans are no more out of his majefty's protection than outlaws, not releafed from allegiance. That they may re-enter under the protection of the king. And that war is no more waged against them, than by the fheriff, at the head of the posse comitatus, against rioters. Art. XXIV." He has plundered our feas; ravaged our coafts; burnt our towns, and deftroyed the lives of our people.”—The answer to the preceding article may serve as a reply to this. Art. XXV." He is at this time tranfporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, defolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumftances of cruelty and perfidy, fcarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages; and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation."-For the anfwer to thefe allegations, as being of confiderable length, we must refer our readers to the work, where they will find them Lufficiently refuted. Art. t Art. XXVI. "He has constrained our fellow citizens, taken captive on the high-feas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themfelves by their hands."-The alleviation of punishment, our author obferves, is in this article urged as a proof of tyranny; and what is here reprobated as an act of feverity in his majefty against rebels, is inflicted by the congrefs on men allowed to be innocenr. Art. XXVII." He has excited domeftic infurrections among us; and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian favages, whofe known rule of warfare is an undistinguished deftruction of all ages, fexes and conditions."-It appears from the examination of this paragraph, that the exciting domeftic infurrections can have no other meaning than the offering freedom to flaves; and with respect to the engaging of Indians, which was certainly a very justifiable measure on the fide of government, it is inconteftible that the authors of the Declaration were the first who had re. courfe to that policy. Art. XXVIII. In every ftage of thefe oppreffions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." This allegation is fo palpably repugnant to truth, as hardly to deserve a serious anfwer. It is however fully refuted by the author of the reply, with his ufual 'precision and force of argument. Thus far the writer has profecuted the difcuffion of what the authors of the Declaration have fubmitted to the public as fats. He next prefents us with a fhort review of the maxims and theory of government, exhibited in that wild effufion of political fanaticifin. But we have already fo much exceeded the limits allotted to a pamphlet, that we shall not pursue the fubje&t any farther. From the penetration which is every where difcovered in the Anfwer, a juft opinion may readily be formed of the fubfequent part of the analyfis. To the approbation occafionally expreffed of the author's arguments, in the course of our review, we have only to add in general, that he has, with great acuteness and much pains, unravelled the ftudied confufion in which the American demagogues have endeavoured to involve both the principles and progress of the conteft; and that he has exposed the abfurdity, detected the artifice, and refuted the falfehood, of a Declaration which teems with the moft impudent and injurious affertions, that ever were invented to impofe upon the credulity of mankind. An Account of the Life of George Berkeley, D. D. late Bishop of WHEN men have diftinguished themselves, in their respective generations, by their patriotic virtues, their illuftrious actions, their useful inventions, or their excellent writings, their names ought to be tranfmitted to posterity with honour and applaufe. This pofthumous approbation, this confentiens laus bonorum, as Tully calls it, this incorrupta vox bene judicantium*, in future ages, is a tribute due to their merit, and an incitement to others in the purfuit of glory. On these accounts, biography is a most useful and inftructive fpecies of history. Lord Bacon regrets, that the lives of eminent men are not more frequently written for, adds he, though kings, princes, and great perfonages be few, yet there are many other excellent men, who deferve better than vague reports, and barren elogies.' As this is unquestionably juft, it is alfo to be wished, that their lives were written in the courfe of a few years after their deceafe, while it is eafy to trace every doubtful circumftance, and every anecdote to its real fource, and discover truth from falfhood. The work before us is not an elaborate performance; but, as far as we know, contains an authentic account of every memorable incident in the life of bishop Berkeley. We shall endeavour to give our readers the fubftance of it in a more compendious form, with fome occafional remarks. Dr. George Berkeley, the fubject of thefe memoirs, was the fon of Mr. William Berkeley of Thomaftown, in the county of Kilkenny. He was born at Kilcrin, near Thomastown, Mar. 12, 1684; and at the age of fifteen was fent to Trinity College, Dublin. In 1707 he was chofen fellow of that college; and the fame year publifhed a fmall tract, intitled Arithmetica abfque Algebra aut Euclide demonftrata. This was a promifing fpecimen of his literary abilities, and his early tafte for the mathematics. In 1709 he published his Theory of Vifion. This work, as Dr. Reid affures us, was the first attempt, that ever was made to distinguish the immediate and natural objects of fight from the conclufions, which, from our infancy, we have been accustomed to draw from them. A diftinction, fays that learned writer, from which the nature of vifion has received great light, and by which many phænomena in optics, before looked * Tufcul. Quæft, lib. iii. § 3. VOL. XLII. Nov. 1776. 2 upon upon as unaccountable, have been clearly and distinctly refolved. The boundary is here traced out between the ideas of fight and touch, and it is fhewn demonftrably, that though habit has fo connected these two claffes of ideas in our minds, that they are called by the same names, and are not, without a strong effort of attention, to be separated from each other, yet originally they have no fuch connection; infomuch that a perfon born blind, and fuddenly made to fee, would at first be utterly unable to tell how any object, that affected his fight, would affect his touch; and particularly would not from fight receive any idea of diftance or external space, but would imagine, that all the objects he fees, are in his eye, or rather in his mind. See Phil. Tranf. No. 402. In 1710, Mr. Berkeley publifhed his Principles of human Knowledge. The object of this tract, and likewife of the Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, is to prove, that the commonly received notion of the existence of matter is false, and inconfiftent with itfelf; that thofe things, which are called fenfible material objects, are not external to the mind, but exift in it, and are nothing more than impreffions made upon our minds by the immediate act of God, according to certain rules, termed laws of nature, from which, in the ordinary courfe of his government, he never deviates; that the fteady adherence of the fupreme Spirit to thefe rules is what conftitutes the reality of things to his creatures, and fo effectually diftinguishes the ideas perceived by fenfe, from fuch as are the work of the mind itself, or of dreams, that there is no more danger of confounding them together, on this hypothefis, than on the common fuppofition of matter. The not attending to this diftinction, which is repeatedly inculcated by the author, has led many to fuppofe, that he rejected the testimony of his fenfes; when, in fact, the dif pute is not about the reality of our fenfations, of which he was fully convinced, but concerning the causes of thofe fenfations; whether they are excited by the operation of inactive material beings without us, or by an infinite and almighty Spirit. Berkeley thinks it a contradiction to fay, that inert, unthinking matter can be the caufe of ideas; for caufality fuppofes action. The author of his Life replies, that the whole is an argument ab ignorantiâ, grounded on our inability of fhewing the manner by which body operates on spirit; an inability however, which cannot take away that, of whose existence we have otherwife good reafon to be fatisfied. This good reafon, he tells us, is the very fame that Dr. Reid first pointed out, the conflitution of nature, or inftinct, which compels us to believe the existence of a number of beings |