COVER 
or inheritance of lands, to the poOTeflion of wliirh, alle¬ 
giance to the date is annexed, as the very fervice and 
condition of the tenure.—Smootlily as this train of ar¬ 
gument proceeds, little of it will eiidure examination. 
The native fubjedrs of modern dates are not confcious 
of any dipulation with their fovereigns, of ever exer- 
cifing an eledion whether they will be bound or not by 
the ads of the legidature, of any alternative being pro- 
.pofed to their choice, of a promife either required or 
given ; nor do they apprehend that the validity or au¬ 
thority of the laws depends at all upon their recognition 
or confent. In all dipulations, whether they be ex- 
prefTed or implied, private or public, formal or con- 
drudive, the parties dipulating mud both podefs the 
liberty of affent and refufal, and alfo be confcious of 
this liberty ; whicli cannot with truth be adirmed of 
the fubjeds of civil government, as government is now, 
or ever was, adually adminidered. This is a defed, 
which no arguments can excufe or fupply : all pre- 
fumptions of confent, without tliis confeioufnefs, or in 
oppofition to it, are vain and erroneous. Still lefs is it 
poflibie to reconcile, with any idea of dipulation, the 
pradice in which all European nations agree, of found¬ 
ing allegiance upon the circumdance of nativity, that 
is, of claiming and treating as fubjeds all thofe who 
are born witliin tlie confines of their dominions, altliough 
removed to another country in their youth or infancy. 
In this indance certainly the date does not prefume a 
covipaS. 
Again, when it is contended that the taking and hold¬ 
ing poli'edion of land amounts to an acknowledgment 
of the fovereign, and a virtual promife of allegiance to 
his laws, it is necelfary to the validity of the argument 
to prove, that the inhabitants, vvlio fird compofed and 
condituted the date, colledively podelfed a right to the 
foil of the country—a right to parcel it out to whom 
they pleafed, and to annex to the donation what condi¬ 
tions they thought fit. How came they by tliis right ? 
An agreement amongd themfelves would not confer it : 
that could only adjud what already belonged to them, 
A fociety of men vote themfelves to be the owners of a 
region ol the world ;—does that vote, unaccompanied 
efpecially with any culture, inclofure, or proper add of 
occupation, make it theirs ? does it entitle them to ex- 
elude otliers from it, or to didtate the conditions upon 
which it ihall be enjoyed t Yet this original collective 
right and ownerlhip, is the foundation of all the rea- 
foning, by which the duty of allegiance is inferred from 
tlie polfeflion of land. 
The theory of government which affirms the exidence 
and the obligation of a Ibcial compadt, would, after all, 
merit little dilcudion, and, however groundlefs and un- 
iiecelfary, I'hould receive no oppofition from us, did it 
not appear to lead to conclufions unfavourable to the 
improvement, and to the peace, of human fociety : 
id. Upon the luppoiition that government was fird 
eredled by, and that it derives all its jud authority 
from, refolutions entered into by a convention of the 
people, it is capable of being prefumed, that many 
points were fettled by that convention, anterior to the 
edabliihmenl of the liiLliding legidature, and which the 
legidature, confeqiuntly, has no right to alter, or inter¬ 
fere with. Thele points are called the fundamentals oi 
the conditution j and as it is impodible to determine 
liovr many, or what, they are, the luggeding of any fuch 
ferves extremely to embarrals the deliberations of the 
legidature, and adbrds a dangerous pretence for dif- 
jiuting the autliority of the laws. It was this fort of 
reafoning that pioduced in this nation the doubt, which 
fo much agitated the minds of men in The reign of the 
fecond Charles, v-. hether an abl of parliament could of 
light alter or limit the fucceffion of the crown. 
idly. If it be by virtue of a compadt, that the fub- 
jett owes obedience to civil government, it will follov/, 
- that he ought to abide by the form of government which 
N M E N T. 743 
lie finds edablidied, be it ever fo abfurd, or inconve¬ 
nient. He is bound by his bargain. It is not permitted 
to any man to retreat from his engagement, merely be- 
caule he finds the performance difadvantageou's, or be- 
caufe he has an opportunity of entering into a better. 
Tliis law of contradis is univcrfal ; and to call the re¬ 
lation between tlie fovereign and the fubjedts a contradf, 
yet not to apply it to the rules, or allow of the efi'efts, 
of a confradt, is an arbitrary u(e of names, and an un- 
fleadinefs in reafoning, which can teach nothing. Re- 
fidance to the encroachments of the fupreine magifirate 
*iiay be jufiified upon this principle ; recourfe to arms, 
for the purpofe of bringing about an amendment of the 
conditution, never can. No form of government con¬ 
tains a provifion for its own dillblufion ; and few gover¬ 
nors will confent to the extindlion, or even to any 
abridgement, of tiheir own power. It does not there¬ 
fore appear, how defpotic governments can ever, in con- 
fiftency with the obligation of the fubjedt, be changed 
or mitigated. Defpotifm is the conltitution of many 
Ifales ; and whilfi: a defpotic prince exadls from his lub- 
jeCts the mod rigorous fervitude, according to this ac¬ 
count, he is only holding them to tiieir agreement. A 
people may vindicate,. by force, tlie rights wliich the 
conditution has left them; but every attempt to narrow 
Uie prerogative of the crown, by new limitations, and 
in oppolition to the will of the reigning prince, w'haW- 
ever opportunities may invite, or fuccefs follow it, mud 
be condemned as an infrattion of the compadt between 
the fovereign and the fubjedt. 
3dly. Every violation of the compadt on the part of 
the governor releafes the fubjedt from his allegiance, 
and difiblves the government. It is impofiible to avoid 
this confequence, if we found the duty of allegiance 
upon compadt, and .admit any analogy between tlie fo- 
cial compadt and other contracts. In private contradts, 
the violation and non-performance of the conditions, by 
one of the parties, vacates the obligation of the other. 
Now the terms and articles of the focial compadt being 
no where extant or exprefl'ed ; the rights and offices of 
the adminidrator of an empire being fo many and va¬ 
rious ; the imaginary and controverted line of his pre¬ 
rogative being fo liable to be over-fiepped in one part 
or other of it : .the pofition, that every fuch tranfgref- 
fion amounts to a forfeiture of the government, and 
confequently authorizes the people to withdraw their 
obedience and provide for themfelves by a new fettle- 
ment, would endanger the dability of every political 
fabric in the world, and has in fadt always fupplied the 
difaffedted with a topic of feditious declamation. If 
occafions have arifen, in which this plea has been re- 
forted to with judice and fuccefs, they have been occa¬ 
fions in which a revolution was defenlible upon other 
and plainer principles. The plea itfclf is at all times 
dangerous, and ought to be regarded with the eye of 
watcJifulnefs and caution. Wherefore, rejecting the in¬ 
tervention of a compadt, as unfounded in its principle, 
and dangerous in the application, we aflign for tlie only 
ground of the fubjedl’s obligation, the will of Goo, 
AS COLLECTED FROM EXPEDIENCY. 
The deps by which the argument proceeds are few 
and diredt. “ It is the will of God that the happinefs 
of human life be promoted —this is tlie fird dep, and 
the foundation not only of this, butof every moral con- 
clufion. “ Civil fociety conduces to that end —this 
is the fecond propolition. “ Civil focieties cannot be 
upheld, unlefs, in each, the intered of the whole fociety 
be binding upon every part and member of it:”—this 
is the third ffep, and condudls us to the conclufion, 
namely, “ That fo long as the intered of the whole fo¬ 
ciety requires it, that is, fo long as tiie eftablifiied go¬ 
vernment cannot be redded or changed without public 
inconveniency, it is the will of God (w hich will univei;- 
fally determines our duty) that the cflablifhed govern¬ 
ment be obeyed,”—and no longer, 
