fit mihi fas audita loqui. His preventive of gambling is, as in the cafe of duelling,-fhame; but where all ranks are fond of play, who will join in decreeing a punishment, of which each legiflator may be the victim? Who will fay, that he never will be a gambler? It is a vice, which grows with indulgence; and, when the game is trifling, it foon ceases to intereft the mind. The ftake is increased, and, in time, lofes its influence. Like the dram-drinker, the gamefter continually increases the ftimulus, as his former draught becomes infipid. We know but one game, which is of itself fufficiently interesting to preclude the neceffity of a stake: it is chefs.

We cannot perhaps, on the whole, add any thing to the character, which our reader will collect, of this author. We must leave him with the best confolation to an amiable ingenuous mind, having earneftly endeavoured to ferve mankind in their dearest interests, both temporal and eternal. His time has been employed in an attempt to do good; and whatever may be the event, the labour, from a confcioufness of the benevolent defign, will cf itself be an ample reward.

Efays, Philofophical, Hiftorical, and Literary. Vol. II. 8vo. 6s. Boards. Dilly. 1791.

WE

E reviewed our author's firft volume in the LXVIIIth of our Journal, and if we failed in conveying to the world. our opinion of its excellence, the fault was not intentional. On referring to our account, we can fcarcely reconcile it with the accufation we have more than once heard, that Mr. Belfham's Effays (to Mr. Belsham we understand we are indebted for both volumes) have not been treated by the periodical critics with fufficient refpect. We mean not most diftantly to infinuate that the accufation came from him; and though we have employed a line or two in our excufe, it will be difmiffed immediately from our thoughts without the smallest influence on our conduct.

The first Effay in this fecond volume is on Immaterialism, and chiefly relates to one argument. The power of fenfation and perception never having been found but in conjunction with a certain, organised fyftem of matter, we ought, as philofophers, to conclude, that this power neceffarily exifts in, and refults from, that organised system, unless it can be shown to be incompatible with other known properties of the fame fubftance.' This argument, which we have transcribed in the words of Dr. Priestley, quoted in this volume, is the object of Mr. Belfham's attention in the prefent Effay. The answer depends on this principle, that divifibility is the property of matter, and whatever is the property of the whole must be the pro

Dd 3

perty

of each feparate part; but perception is indivifible. It perty is not our bufinefs to engage in metaphyfical contefts; but, as we muft alledge that, in our opinion, Mr. Belfham has mistaken. the argument, it is neceffary to explain our idea of it. The force of the obfervation depends on the word organization or arrangement; and it is intended to prove that, allowing matter to be inert, motion may arife from the conftruction of the machine; if, therefore, any one quality, not effential to matter, may be thus fuperinduced, another may be added. Mental functions are not more explicable if we admit of an immaterial principle. The fpring of a watch, for instance, is material, but from the organization in a peculiar ftate, it is the caufe of motion. This we admit is no explanation of perception, but it is an illuftration of the argument, which is defigned to prove that, as perception is always united with a particular structure, it may be philofophically fuppofed to depend on it: the connection is, in no view, accidental or arbitrary. But it is easy to come nearer to this fubject: fteel is a material fubftance peculiarly organized: in particular circumstances it is attracted and repelled either by other steel or by the ore of iron. It will not admit of this action when rufted, and other external caufes will modify or prevent it. This peculiar organization may admit a fluid to circulate through it; or it may put the fluid exifting in it, as a fluid probably exists in all bodies, into a particular active state. These are circumstances which our author's reasoning does not affect. Again: in chemical compounds, he contends, that the effects confift only in different directions of the common actions of matter, for all action is reduced to attraction and repulfion. This is true, and the organization does not in this inftance influence the event. While the properties, however, are different, we may style thefe compounds new ones. Our author, in this Effay, combats alfo Mr. Cooper's arguments for materialism, noticed p. 142. of the first volume of our New Arrangement, fometimes with fuccefs, for we have already obferved, that they are not all of equal force. But, on the whole, he has not cleared up any of the obfcurity which, in our review of Mr. Cooper's Effay, we obferved hung over the subject.

The fecond Effay in this volume is on the reign of James II. and this is followed afterwards by Effays on the Reigns of King William and Queen Anne. It is eafy to fee our author's object in thefe hiftorical details. The chief defign is to trace the origin and various fortunes of the test act, and to defend the revolution from the indirect infinuations of fir William Blacktone. We always with great regret differ from our very able author; but when he combats opinions oppofite to our own, we cannot be fo complaifant as to yield to him what we have

contended

contended for with other writers. His hiftorical details are, however, in general, candid, and often correct. His account of the irregular, inconfiderate, and rafh conduct of James, is a well-connected reprefentation of facts, though fome authors will not agree with him in one point, that the great majority of the more intelligent and refpectable Diffenters viewed his grofs and palpable attempts to deceive them, by general indulgences, with contempt and indignation.' The addreffes of those who were flattered by the conceffions are before us; the marks of contempt and indignation we have not witneffed; and it would have been better if Mr. Belfham had refted on his first plea, and alledged that, after so many fufferings, it was not furprising that they were for a time flattered by thefe favoura ble appearances. A little reflection would furely have thown that fuch conciliating measures were not defigned by James to be continued; and that they were very inconfiftent with his temper and his decided plan. Mr. Belfham has preferved the answer of the prince of Orange refpecting the teft laws, when he was confulted on the fubject by James, in its full force. He thought them a juft and neceffary precaution for the security of the established religion, while he difapproved of the penal laws as a kind of perfecution :-those who contend that, William afterwards wifhed to repeal the teft act, should show some reafon for a change in his former opinions. We cannot see the force of our author's distinction in the note; for if it was a proper precaution for the fecurity of the established religion at one time, it certainly was fo at another: whatever may be alledged refpecting the innocence of the political tenets of the Diffenters, cannot be in force against their religious opinions, and the fecurity of the established religion would require fuch precautions as well after the Revolution as before. We cannot but agree in the principle of the following paffage, though we could wifh that fome parts of its language were changed:

Such was the expedition, and fuch the facility with which a revolution was accomplished, which, in its confequences, must be acknowledged one of the most interefting and important in the annals of history. From this period, a government was established, which had for its basis what no other government had ever before expressly affumed --the natural and unalienable rights of mankind. From this period, the grand question, whether government ought to be exercised for the advantage of the governors, or the governed? was finally decided. Government was by the highest authority allowed, and even virtually afferted, to be a trust. And the inference could not with any degree of plaufibility be difputed, that the men in whom this traft is vefted, by whatever names or titles they may be diftinguish.

ed, are ultimately refponfible to the community for the right and proper exercise of it. Though many defects and imperfection were fuffered to remain, even under the new conftitution of go-. vernment, much that was evil was remedied, and much that was good confirmed. But, above all, a principle of melioration and improvement was introduced, which has operated, and which still continues to operate, notwithstanding all external obstacles and impediments; and which, ftrengthened and fupported by the arduous and unintermitted efforts of the enlightened friends of civil and religious liberty, will, as there is good ground to hope, at length purify and refine the conflitution from the dregs of defpotifm which yet remain.'

In fome of the fubfequent remarks our author blends his views of reformation with more moderation, and much founder reafoning than we have obferved in those whom we have been obliged to ftyle vifionary innovators.'

We fhall pursue this fubject in the Effay on the Reign of King William. The character of William may be given comprehenfively, He poffeffed calm, good fenfe, which furveyed every thing with coolnefs, and balanced the fubjects placed within his choice circumfpectly and judiciously. He was the fupporter of liberty, probably from choice; but it certainly was within the fphere of conduct which his difcretion would otherwise have dictated. His unconciliating severity, and his harth inflexibility, were alloys mixed with his better qualities; nor can we grant Mary any thing more than mild submissive affection, and attention in following the line pointed out by her husband. Our author fees with different eyes, and draws a more pleafing, we think a flattering likenefs. If we allow to William's actions motives fomewhat lefs favourable, and confider Mary's conduct as the refult of William's direction, we fhall not greatly differ from Mr. Belfham. The Reflections on Sir William Blackftone's View of the Revolution, we think ju dicious and correct. Our opinions have been fo often mifre prefented, that we think it neceffary to repeat that the revolution appears to us a measure dictated by adequate motives, conducted with judgment and propriety, and ultimately highly advantageous to the kingdom; it is not a precedent, as has been contended, of an elected monarch, because the nearest of kin was preferred, who did not labour under the political difqualification fpecified by the former legislature. We must not forget our author's obfervations.

This is indeed most excellently faid: But did not the revolu tion originate in a crifis of this nature? Why then have recourse to the plea of authority, when it may be defended upon principles fo

much

much more noble and fatisfactory. We may, for our instruction and amufement, it feems, read and reflect upon the hiftory of our native country. By this means, we fhall probably be convinced, that the revolution was an act of the highest political wisdom and rectitude. But the grounds of this conviction we must carefully conceal; and if we engage in its defence, the learned judge counfels us to reft the whole tranfaction upon the footing of authority. Is might, then, the best foundation of right? Or could this diftinguished writer flatter himself, that a man of honour, who confidered the revolution as an act of injuftice and ufurpation, would not exprefs his indignation at being told that he was nevertheless bound to fubmit to it as an act of authority? This language, at the period of the revolution, would have been infulting; it is now merely ridiculous, fince the authority of the prefent government is queftioned by none. But, confidering the revolution as an historical event of high importance, upon the merits of which it is neceffary to decide, fir William Blackftone is, in this inftance, chargeable with timidity and injuftice; for, though he clearly intimates, that emergences may arife of a nature fo tranfcendent as to fuperfede all legal forms and pofitive inftitutions, he hefitates to affirm that the revolution is of this clafs-thus leaving us in doubt whether the authors of that revolution are to be venerated as pa triots and heroes, or execrated as rebels and traitors.'

The conduct of the prince during the debates of the convention parliament, the outlines of which, with the principles of the different parties, are excellently delineated in the Effay before us, was that of the cool, decided politician. The moderation, of which our author boafts, feems to us only the conftitutional phlegm, that, on every occafion checked the impetuofity which more ardent spirits might have felt. We wished to have found fufficient authority for the following observation: we apprehend William's folicitude related only to the penal laws.

That no real additional fecurity, however, could be derived from this measure, appears from the very small number of those, who were incited by a principal of honour and integrity to refuse compliance, and who, upon that account, obtained the appellation of Non-jurors, though it had an obvious and unhappy tendency to inflame and irritate the minds of that great and formidable body. Of this the king was fully fenfible; and he would willingly have exempted them from this obligation, could he by this indulgence have carried a point he had much at heart in favour of the proteftant nonconformists, whom he ardently wished to relieve from the oppreffion of the facramental teft. Such, however, was the prevalence of High-Church principles at this period, and fuch the jealousy entertained