the colonies within the realm; which is not the case, nor ever was. This, then, is the spirit of the constitution, that taxes shall not be laid without the consent of those to be taxed. As the Americans are without the realm, and not of the jurisdiction of Parliament, the spirit of the British constitution dictates, that they should be taxed only by their own representatives, as the English are by theirs.

This (Dean Tucker's) position supposes, that Englishmen can never be out of the jurisdiction of Parliament. It may as well be said, that, wherever an Englishman resides, that country is England. While an Englishman resides in England, he is undoubtedly subject to its laws. If he goes into a foreign country, he is subject to the laws and government he finds there. If he finds no government there, he is subject to none, till he and his companions, if he has any, make laws for themselves. And this was the case of the first settlers in America. Otherwise, and if they carried the English laws and power of Parliament with them, what advantage could the Puritans propose to themselves by going, since they would have been as subject to bishops, spiritual courts, tithes, and statutes relating to the church, in America as in England? Can the Dean, on his principles, tell how it happens, that those laws, the game acts, the statutes for labourers, and an infinity of others, made before and since the emigration, are not in force in America, nor ever were? . . . . . The colonies carried no laws with them; they carried only a power of making laws, or of adopting such parts of the English law, or of any other law, as they should think suitable to their circumstances. The first settlers of Connecticut, for instance, at their first meeting in that country, finding themselves out of all jurisdiction of other governments, resolved and enacted, that, till a code of laws should be prepared and agreed to, they would be governed by the law of Moses as contained in the Old Testament. If the first settlers had no right to expect a better constitution than the English, what fools were they for going over, to encounter all the hardships and perils of new settlements in a wilderness! ...... The American settlers needed no exemption from the power of Parliament: they were necessarily exempted, as soon as they landed out of its jurisdiction.

Is it not a just prerogative of the Crown, to give the subjects leave to settle in a foreign country, if they think it necessary to ask such leave? Was the Parliament at all considered, or consulted, in making those first settlements? Or did any lawyer then think it necessary? Parliament had not even pretended to such a right. But, since the royal faith was pledged by the King for himself and his successors, how can any succeeding King, without violating that faith, ever give his assent to an act of Parliament for such taxation?

*

The Americans are by their constitution provided with a representation, and therefore need not desire any in the British Parliament.' pp. 232-237.

'Writers on this subject often confuse themselves with the idea,

It is curious to find Franklin at this period recognizing the hereditary principle so far as to contend that a king could bind his suc

cessors.

267

that all the King's dominions make one state; which they do not, nor ever did since the conquest. Our kings have ever had dominions not subject to the English Parliament. of which Jersey and Guernsey remain, always governed by their own At first, the provinces of France, laws, appealing to the King in council only, and not to our courts or the House of Lords. Scotland was in the same situation before the Union. It had the same King, but a separate Parliament; and the Parliament of England had no jurisdiction over it. Ireland the same in truth, though the British Parliament has usurped a dominion over it. The colonies were originally settled on the idea of such extrinsic dominions of the King, and of the King only. Hanover is now such a dominion. Their only bond of union is the King.'

Here appears the excellency of the invention of colony government pp. 252, 3. by separate independent legislatures: by this means, the remotest parts of a great empire may be as well governed as the centre; misrule, oppressions of proconsuls, and discontents and rebellions thence arising, being prevented. By this means, the power of a king may be extended without inconvenience over territories of how great soever. America was thus happily governed in all its difany dimensions, ferent and remote settlements, by the Crown and their own Assemblies, till the new politics took place, of governing it by one Parliament, which have not succeeded, and never will.' pp. 252, 3.

• The arbitrary government of a single person is more eligible than the arbitrary government of a body of men. afraid or ashamed of doing injustice: a body is never either the one or A single man may be the other, if it is strong enough. It cannot apprehend assassination; and, by dividing the shame among them, it is so little apiece that no one minds it.' p. 254.

I am surprised that a writer who, in other respects, appears often very reasonable, should talk of our sovereignty over the colonies! as if every individual in England was a part of a sovereign over America!* The king is the sovereign of all.... America is not part of the dominions of England, but of the king's dominion. England is a dominion itself, and has no dominions.' p. 254.

These constitutional doctrines harmonize but ill either with American republicanism, or with English radicalism. power of the Crown has become a phrase almost obsolete, since, The in this country, government by the prerogative has to so great an extent been merged in government by parliament. It seems forgotten, to how large a portion of the British dominions the representation contained in the above extracts will still strictly apply. The subject is uninviting and unpopular, but is highly deserving of a more than superficial consideration.

Arguments similar to those employed by Franklin, have been adduced by the advocates of Slavery, to shew the injustice of

*Does not this shew the absurdity of the favourite American notion of the sovereignty of the people?

Parliamentary interference with the West India Colonies. Although the cases are by no means parallel in all respects, we must concede, that the arguments of the Colonists have not been fully and fairly met. The points of difference are, indeed, most striking. The West India Colonies are garrisoned and protected, at the expense of this country, by British troops: the North American Colonies were not. The West India Colonies have claimed to be represented in the British Parliament, and have actually exercised a powerful influence over the House of Commons by the number of members returned in the West India interest: this was not the case with the Americans. The British Parliament has never claimed the right of taxing the West India colonies,―the usurpation of which the Americans complained; whereas the people of England have been grievously taxed, to protect and perpetuate the West India monopoly. The right of the British Parliament to legislate for the West India Colonies, has, we conceive, grown out of the fiscal burdens which the West India monopoly has entailed upon the people of England. Withdraw the British troops from Jamaica, repeal the restrictions and bounties which exclude the sugars grown by free labour, annihilate the West India monopoly, and then, for our own parts, we shall readily admit, that the inhabitants of the chartered colonies will have a moral claim as well as a legal right to be governed by 'the Crown and their own assemblies.' Nevertheless, if the negroes should in that case rise, and conquer the island of Jamaica, they will have the best right in the world to hold it.

Art. VII. Ecclesiastical Lectures; or, a Series of Discourses on Subjects connected with Nonconformity. By John Sibree. 12mo. Second Edition. pp. 310. Price 5s. London, 1831.

THIS volume, like most of the publications in defence of

Dissent, appears to have been called for by the intolerant and arrogant assumptions and aggressive spirit of the endowed order. In the first lecture, Mr. Sibree thus meets the question which he supposes to be put to him, Why do you take up the 'subject of Nonconformity?'

6 I answer, that I have been induced to do so, because this topic has been brought before the inhabitants of this city, in such a way, as to constrain them to examine their principles. You all know that a set battery has been opened against the Dissenters, in certain quarters, for some months past. Both from the pulpit and the press, they have been represented and attacked as fanatics, sectarians, and schismatics; and their ministers described as "reverend artizans;" "unwashed artificers of schism ;" and I know not what. The weapons of abuse, of sarcasm, and of ridicule, and indeed almost all other weapons, ex

cept those of argument, of reason, and of scripture, have been employed against them. The Bible Society, the Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews, the Tract Society, Missionary Societies, and the recently projected Infant School, founded on Catholic and Anti-Sectarian principles, and all persons who support these institutions, have been misrepresented, condemned, and anathematized; and thus the harmony of the peaceful inhabitants of our city has been disturbed; "strifes about words" have been engendered; and a party spirit created; and the message periodically brought to the sanctuary, has been any thing but that which angels delivered on the plains of Bethlehem," Glory to God in the highest; peace on earth; good will toward men!" We have been reminded rather of the object and manner of the intended visit of the disciple of Gamaliel to Damascus.

To the members of my own congregation I can appeal, that I am not in the habit of delivering discourses on the subject of Dissent. Though I have exercised my ministry in this place upwards of ten years, I have not, during the whole of that period, brought the general principles of Nonconformity before my hearers. This, some will say, was wisdom, prudence, charity, liberality. But I doubt it. I covet not the commendation; for I am more than ever convinced of the great importance of entertaining and propagating correct views of the constitution of the Church of Christ. I am more firmly persuaded than ever, that the diffusion and the very existence of pure Christianity in the earth, are essentially connected with the grand principles of Protestant Nonconformity; and that Christianity will never recover its primitive glory, and beauty, and usefulness, until these principles universally prevail. Let me exhort you then, my brethren, still to maintain your principles with firmness; and while you 66 prove all things," to "hold fast that which is good." It has been contended, that it is but of little moment what views we entertain of the constitution of the Church, or, whether we are Catholics, Churchmen, or Dissenters, if we are but personally interested in Him who is its foundation; that it matters little whether the Church is connected with the State, or is preserved in its pure, original, independent form, provided we are sincere in the cultivation of its spirit, and diligent in the exhibition of its truths. But from such a sentiment we are constrained to withhold our assent. It betrays a laxity of principle, which cannot be too seriously deprecated; and opens a door through which innumerable evils may find their way into the Church of Christ. If then we are his true followers; if we reverence his authority, are jealous of his honour, and are concerned for the purity and prosperity of his Church, we shall pay a serious regard to his own solemn declaration, contained in my text, "My kingdom is not of this world.", pp. 9-11.

We must certainly express a decided opinion, that it is the bounden duty of every Christian minister to take a fitting opportunity of instructing his flock into all the principles which regulate our faith and practice. Dissenting ministers are bound to justify their practice by the explicit announcement of their principles; and some of the points at least which are treated in

VOL. X.-N.S.

I I

these Lectures, are of that importance which renders it a serious omission of duty when they are not distinctly brought before a congregation. The way in which they should be treated must depend, of course, greatly upon circumstances. A polemical style is to be deprecated, when controversy is not provoked; but a reply to calumnious attack must needs be polemical. The circumstances under which these Lectures were called forth, appear fully to justify Mr. Sibree in faithfully laying open those unreformed errors and pernicious doctrines of the Church of England which still exert so fatal an influence on the minds of the vulgar. There is too much truth in the following representation, although something might be said on the other side.

6

Too long and too generally have Dissenters been silent and indifferent on this important subject. They have been too much influenced by the fear of man. They have been scared from their duty on this point, by the apprehension of subjecting themselves to the reproach of bigotry and uncharitableness. They have seen destructive errors substituted for saving truths; popish superstitions for spiritual worship; the doctrines and traditions of men, for the commandments and ordinances of God; and have either winked at these evils, or have only sighed over them in secret. In their attention to the weightier matters of revealed religion, they have been chargeable with a considerable degree of culpable neglect respecting those topics which relate to the constitution, the order and discipline of the Church of Christ. consequence has been, that many have been induced to believe that the subject is left at large in the New Testament, and that no kind of importance is attached to it.

The

Several causes have tended to produce this indifference, and laxity of opinion; but we conceive it has been principally occasioned by a mistaken notion of the true nature of Christian charity and liberality. The various religious and benevolent institutions, which are the ornament and glory of our land, having been, for the most part, founded on catholic principles, have produced a coalition among different denominations of Christians, and have brought Episcopalians and Dissenters into closer connection than in former times. The result has been, that while a greater spirit of union has been created between the laity in the Church of England, and the laity in Dissenting Churches, many of the Evangelical Clergy, fearing lest their orthodoxy as Churchmen should be suspected by their connection with Dissenters, have become more rigid, and less truly catholic; and Dissenting Ministers, in many instances, apprehensive that their charity as Christians might be questioned, have become less rigid and more latitudinarian. Thus the Clergyman has become a higher Churchman, and the Dissenting Minister a lower and laxer Nonconformist. Sacrifices and concessions have been made; but by whom? Not by the Episcopalian, but by the Dissenter. It cannot be denied, that since the establishment of the British and Foreign Bible Society, after all that has been said of the unity that it has promoted among Christians in general, (of which I do not for a moment doubt, and in which I most cordially rejoice,)