Dormer, who had feen her at a distance, and was enamoured of her person. This gentleman lived as a companion with the son of Sir Harry Bloffom, a whimsical knight, and mar ried to a lady of the fame difpofition, but friendly, generous, and rich. The fon's character refembled thofe of his parents; and his life having been faved abroad by Mr. Dormer, who had no fortune of his own, he prevailed upon his father to give his companion a draught upon the Bank for ten thousand pounds. By this time, Mifs Bamfted having vifited Sir Harry with Mrs. Haynes, a reciprocal paffion grows up between her and Mr. Dormer, who is relieved from the anxiety he felt about his circumftances by the knight's noble prefent. Upon paying a vifit to Mrs. Haynes's family, he is thunderftruck when he understands that Mifs Bamfted's father had carried her away. Mrs. Haynes receives a letter from Mrs. Bamfted, acquainting her that her husband did not difapprove of Dormer for a fon-in-law.

4

Dormer goes privately in fearch of his miftrefs; and in this fituation are things at the opening of the fecond volume. From fome ambiguous words dropt by Mr. Bamfted, Mr. Shipton offers to take his daughter without a fhilling; but while preparations are making for the wedding, the young lady drops down, to all appearance, dead. The reader will eafily conceive that he recovers, and that Mr. Dormer is loitering in the very farm-house where Mrs. Morton had been lodged by Mrs. Bamfted. Upon receiving the account of Mifs Bamfted's intended marriage and real illness, he difcovers himself to his landlady, Mrs. Woodly, to be Almeria's (that is, Mifs Bamfted's) lover; and the communicates the difcovery to Mrs. Morton, who undertakes to pay a vifit in his favour to Mrs. Bamfted. Dormer happens to fall in company with Mr. Bamfted at Mr. Shipton's houfe; and the latter informs him that he had prevailed with Mr. Bamfted to confent that his daughter fhould marry Mr. Dormer, to whose perfon he is an enftranger. In leaving Mr. Shipton's houfe, Dormer finds Mr. Bamited lying at the foot of a tree in an apoplectic or Lome other fit, and gives intelligence of it to his wife and domestics time enough for the carrying him home, where he recovered. Dormer, at his return to Mrs. Woodly's, found that M Morton had been fuccefsful in her negociation: but what was his furprife, when he found his own mother in the perfon of that lady! He relates to her his adventures among the ruffians who had carried him off; how he had been obliged to turn pirate; how he efcaped from that infernal crew, and arrived in France, where he met with a great deal of good and bad ufage, d

Mrs.

Mr.

Mr. Bamfted, after his recovery, treated with Mr. Dormer, now Morton, about his marrying his daughter. The reader can entertain no doubt, after this, that floods of love, happinefs, and wealth break in upon young Morton; who is foon in fuch opulent circumftances by the appearance of his father, who is reconciled to his mother, that he is enabled to return Sir Harry his draught for ten thousand pounds; and then he marries his Almeria.

We have already obferved, that the ftory of this novel is fimple and uniform; we fhall only add, that it has no immoral tendency, unless there is a deficiency of poetical justice with regard to our hero's father.

MONTHLY CATALOGUE.

11. Letters from a Farmer in Pennfylvania, to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies. 8vo. Pr. 25. Almon.

T

HE author of thefe Letters, which are generally afcribed to one Mr. Dickenfon, tells us, that he has had a liberal education, and has been engaged in the bufy scenes of life; that his affairs are easy; that he has money at intereft; that he has a library, with fome friends who are gentlemen of abilities and learning; and that he believes he has acquired a greater knowledge in hiftory, the laws and conftitutions of his country, than is generally obtained by men of his clafs.

Thus much Mr. Dickenfon fays for himfelf; but without impeaching his veracity, we cannot help thinking that he would have proved a much better member of fociety, had he never learned either to read or write. The work before us is feditious in its principles, fuperficial in its execution, and tending to the perdition of the country for which the author is fo furious an advocate. People on this fide the Atlantic ocean, of generous benevolent difpofitions, imagined that our American fellow-fubjects, when indulged with a repeal of the ftamp-act, would rather exceed than fall fhort in their expreffions of duty and gratitude to their mother-country.

The

publication before us proves the reverse to be the cafe. It has been adopted, if we are rightly informed, as the political creed of North America; and whatever fulfome, unmeaning compli-ments the author may pay to the legiflature of Great Britain, yet his arguments, when stated in the true point of light, tend to prove that the North Americans are as independent upon this country as the Moors, Tartars, or Chinefe. We may even venture to go farther (and we can appeal to the Levi

dence

dence of the common fenfe of those who read his pamphlet for the truth of what we affert), by faying his real meaning is, that Great Britain is dependent upon her colonies.

The letter writer fets out with arraigning an act of the British parliament, as being as injurious in its principles to the liberties of the colonies as the ftamp-act was; meaning the act for fufpending the legiflation of New York. This fufpenfion, he fays, is pernicious to American freedom, and justly alarming to all the colonies. Speaking of the act about making provifions for American troops, The affembly of New York (fays he) either had, or had not, a right to refufe fubmiffion to that act. If they had, and I imagine no American will fay they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it. If they had not this right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and therefore no right to fufpend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New-York cannot be legally taxed but by their own reprefentatives, they sannot be legally deprived of the privilege of making laws, only for infifting on that exclufive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in fuch a cafe, of the privilege of making laws, why may they not, with equal reafon, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the fame manner, when any of them fhall dare to deny their affent to any impofitions, that fhall be directed? Or what fignifies the repeal of the flamp act, if these colonies are to lofe their other privileges, by not tamely furrendering that of taxation.'

This is a kind of logic which, we will venture to fay, amounts to neither more nor less than that Great Britain has no coercive power over her American colonies. That the writer's meaning may not be misunderstood, as if he was piddling at the prerogative, or any fet of men, minifters or courtiers, on this fide the water, he bravely throws off the mafk, and declares war against the British legislature itself. The crown might have reftrained the governor of New-York, even from calling the affembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. This ftep, I fuppofe, would have been taken, if the conduct of the affembly of New-York had been regarded as an act of difobedience to the crown, alone; but it is regarded as an act of “difobedience to the authority of the BRITISH LEGISLATURE.” This gives the fuspension a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamen ary affertion of the Supreme authority of the British legislature over thefe colonies in the paint of taxation, and is intended to COMPEL New-York intó a submission to that authority.'

In his fecond letter Mr. Dickenfon next fays, that the co

lonies are as much dependent on Great Britain, as a perfectly free people can be on another. Here we believe he has spoken the real fenfe of too many of his countrymen; tho' it is either nonfenfe in terms, or implies that our colonies are entirely independent; for how can a perfectly free people depend upon another? In this letter the author attacks the act for granting duties on paper, glass, &c. and evidently proves, if it proves any thing, that Great Britain depends upon her colonies, because she has no power to impofe a tax upon those manufactures of her own which are exported to America. Here then (says he) my dear countrymen, ROUSE yourselves, and behold the ruin hanging over your heads. If you ONCE admit, that Great Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money' on us only, fhe then will have nothing to do, but to lay thofe duties on the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture-and the tragedy of American liberty is. finished.'

This reasoning is the more curious, as the letter writer all along admits that the manufactures of glafs and paper are not prohibited in North America. The remaining letters of this publication tend to prove the wisdom and neceffity of the Americans taking arms, rather than subject themselves to the operation of any British act of parliament. We fhall not be at all furprized, if this author and his fellow-labourers in the vineyard of fedition, fhould infift upon the repeal of the navigation aft; for if any one of Mr. Dickenfon's arguments are valid, it will hold perhaps more ftrongly against that act than any which has been made fince: for when analyzed, it will be found to lay the feverest tax that ever was impofed upon the produce and commerce of our American colonies. But tho' the inhabitants of that continent refuse to be good fubjects, we hope they do not difdain being honest men. Let the mother-country draw out her account fince their firft fettlement in America, and let us fee whether the fee fimple of all their poffeffions in America can repay her.

12. The True Sentiments of America: contained in a Collection of Letters fent from the House of Reprefentatives of the Province of Maffachufett's-Bay to fever al Perfons of High Rank in this Kingdom: together with certain Papers relating to a fuppofed Libel on the Governor of that Province, and a Differtation on the Canon and the Feudal Law. 800. Pr. 2s. 6d. Almon.

This (if we miftake not) is a republication of papers originally printed in America; and the whole composes a moft daring infult upon the British legiflature. How far or in what manner his majesty and his minifters may answer the doctrine

of its contents, which is neither more nor lefs than a bold difayowal of all dependence of our American colonies upon the mother-country, becomes not us to fay.

The libel mentioned in the title page relates to governor Bernard, and was printed in the Boston Gazette, February 29, 1768. The reader, from the following tranfaction, may form fome idea of the decency as well as loyalty of the Bottoni ns; for in England a grand jury could not have hesitated a moment in prefenting it as an incendiary letter. The governor, by advice of the council (who behaved with great duty and affection to him, as being invested with his majefty's authority) laid it before the houfe of reprefentatives, as being carried to a length which, if unnoticed, must endanger the very being of government.' That fagacious affembly, upon a divifion of fifty fix to eighteen, were of a contrary opinion, and refused to take any notice of it, as the grand jury did to prefent it as a libel. The rest of their proceedings were of a piece; and, if we are not misinformed, they continue to be fuch as threaten a diffolution of all connections between Old and New England.

The Differtation mentioned likewife in the title, is faid to have been written by Jeremy Gridley, Efq; attorney-general of the province of Maffachufett's-Bay, member of the general court, colonel of the first regiment of militia, president of the marine fociety, and grand mafter of the Free masons, who died at Bofton September 7, 1767.

Mr. Gridley, in this Differtation, treats the canon and feudal law as the off-pring of all tyranny, the dread of which drove the Bostonians into the wilds of America. The whole performance is a flimfy but lively rhapfody, and concludes as follows:

The first step that is intended feems to be an entire subverfion of the whole fyftem of our fathers, by the introduction of the canon and feudal law into America.—The canon and feudal fyftems, though greatly mutilated in England, are not yet destroyed. Like the temples and palaces, in which the great cont ivers of them once worshipped and inhabited, they exift in ruins; and much of the domineering ipirit of them ftili remains. The defigns and labours of a certain fociety, to introduce the former of them into America, have been well expofed to the public by a writer of great abilities [the late Rev. Dr Mayhew] and the further attempts to the fame purpofe that may be made by that fociety, or by the ministry or parliament, I leave to the conjectures of the thoughtful.But it seems very manifeft from the ft-pa-t itself, that a defign is formed to ftrip us in a great measure of the means Vol. XXVI. July, 1768. F

of