•No man has a right to inflict a punishment with a view of ⚫ deterring others,'

Thus all the laws, human and divine, that authorise punishment for past offences, are inconfiftent with our author's principles, but are at once reconcileable to that of general expediency. For how can we reconcile the execution of any penal laws but as it may deter others from the commiffion of fimilar offences?

Having, in these few inftances, fhewn our fentiments of the fyftems before us, we fhall take leave of the prefent articles by ftating the opinion of each author on civil government, which leads Mr. Gisborne to a comparative view of the two fyftems.

Mr. Paley refuses to admit all ideas of any original or existing compact, between the governor and governed, as the grounds of civil government, but fubftitutes general expediency as the rule of action on both fides; as authorifing the interference of the magistrate, and the refiftance of the fubject, without any regard to exifting laws. As it must be admitted that the only purpose of government is for the happiness of all; it is truly a matter of furprife how fo many able writers have confounded the end with the origin of the inftitution. Let us even fuppofe an original compact, which we know exifted in Egypt between Pharaoh and his people, under circumftances the most unjust to the latter, are we to conclude from thence that the people are not to emancipate themselves whenever they please? Even in America, where a compact has been formed on a broader fcale; or fuppofing any future one fhould exift by the most unequivocal confent of the governed; for what purpofe, may we ask, were they formed?-for the happiness of the whole. Whenever, therefore, they are found unequal to that end, can we for a moment doubt the right of the governed to new model the ftate, provided, as Mr. Paley always excepts, that the means do not appear to be more difaftrous than the imperfection of the existing government:

As Mr. Paley profeffedly refts his moft powerful objections to the doctrine, which afcribes the rights of government to the confent of the fubject, on the pernicious confequences with which he apprehends that doctrine neceffarily to be burthened; and recommends his own principle of civil authority as peculiarly favourable to human happinefs; I fhall ftate the characteristic features of the two fyftems. The reader will judge whether the refpective reprefentations be fairly drawn; and will decide whether the principle of expediency or confent is the most favourable to the juft authority of government, and to the peace and welfare of the people.

According to the pofitions which I have maintained, fubjects have a right, not only to refift the legislature, whenever it proceeds

1

to an act of power unauthorised by the laws, but, further, to resume at any period the authority which they have delegated (unless they have entered into an exprefs ftipulation to the contrary), and to inftitute a new form of government, according to whatever plan they fhall be inclined to adopt. Thefe rights form a barrier against defpotifm, and afford ample fcope for improvements in civil polity.

At the fame time confiderations are not wanting by which the ftability of the fovereign power is fecured from the danger of unneceffary changes in the conftitution, and the community from the ca lamities of inteftine difcords and civil war. Every fubject is bound, as long as he continues a member of the ftate, to obey all fuch laws as the ftate has a right to enact, and determines to continue; and in eftimating the propriety of refifting the encroachments of the magiftrate, or of abetting any change in the conftitution, he is highly criminal in the fight of God, if a regard to the welfare of his fellow-fubjects be not one of the motives which have a principal influence on his mind.

But, though the profperity of his country must be one of the leading objects of his care as a member of civil fociety, he is bound, as a being accountable to his Maker, to abstain from all attempts to promote it at the expence of juftice. He is to remember the facrednefs of the rights of others; and this confideration will preferve him from being misled by mistaken patriotism in his conduct towards foreigners; it will preferve him from being deluded by mistaken ideas of allegiance to concur in acts of tyranny towards his fellowcitizens.

• On Mr. Paley's principles, the fubject has a right, and is alfo bound in point of duty, to refift the exifting governors, whether ufurpers or not, and to join in affecting a change in the constitution, then, and then only, when fuch fteps will, in his opinion, conduce to the public welfare. According to this pofition, however tyrannical, unjuft, or impious, the commands of government may be, if he fhould be ordered to deftroy an innocent fellow-citizen; to ravage the territories of an ally; to embrace a religion which hẹ knows to be idolatrous; in all these cases, if he conceives that compliance will promote general expediency, compliance is his duty. Nay, he would act as meritorious a part in betraying his country, in fetting fire to her dock-yards, or in blowing up her legislature, to promote the defigns of a foreign invader, if he fhould imagine that fuch a deed would, on the whole, be productive of advantage to mankind, as if, with contrary fentiments, he had hazarded his life in the breach for her defence. In like manner he is authorised to violate every law, even though he should have perfonally engaged by promife or by oath, on no plea whatever to difobey it; he is empowered, like Cade, to head a barbarous rebellion; like Felton, to murder the favourite of the monarch; like Damien, to affaffinate the monarch himself; whenever his paffion or his fanaticism induce him to believe that thefe outrages will in the end be fanctioned by utility. Nor is lefs latitude allowed by Mr. Paley to the difcretion of the governor than to that of the subject. The reafoning which deduces the authority of civil government from the will of God, ⚫ and

X 4

and which collects that will from public expediency alone, binds us to the unreferved conclufion, that the jurifdiction of the magiftrate is limited by no confideration but that of general utility: in plainer terms, that, whatever is the fubject to be regulated, it is lawful for him to interfere, whenever his interference, in its general tendency, appears (to the magiftrate himself, as Mr. Paley afterwards fays exprefsly) to be conducive to the common interest.' He is therefore authorised to violate at his discretion all the rights of his fubjects, by whatever folemn engagements he may have bound himself to preferve them; he is obliged in confcience to trample on every law, human and divine, whenever fuch conduct accords with his notions of general expediency. If then he should be of opinion, that by affuming power in oppofition to the will of the nation, and maintaining it by an army of mercenaries, he should promote the good of the people without impairing the happiness of mankind in general, he would be juftified in his ufurpation. If he fhould alfo think that lavishing the blood of his fubjects in a crufade, and feizing half their property to defray the charge of the enterprife, would be an additional advantage to them, he would do no more than his duty in turning a deaf ear to their remonstrances, and in enforcing fubmiffion by the bayonet. Nay, though he should not be able to fatisfy himself that these proceedings would be for the intereft of his people, yet, if he fhould fancy that general good would in fome way be promoted by them; or if he fhould endeavour to promote it by putting his fubjects into the hand of a neighbouring potentate as vaffals; by felling them for flaves to a company of foreign merchants; or by introducing among them Popery or Paganifm, and enforcing its reception by inquifitorial perfecution; in each of thefe inftances, according to Mr. Paley's principle, he would merit the gratitude of mankind, and the approbation of his God.'

On this statement we fhall only observe, nothing could be objected to Mr. Gisborne's ideas of the right of the subject, were it not for the little unqualified parenthefis (unless they [the governed] have entered into an exprefs ftipulation not to refume the delegated authority). This we have already shewn makes no exception at all.

Mr. Paley's, at first fight, feems alfo liable to a fingle objection That the magiftrate may interfere whenever he conceives his interference in its general tendency will be to the happiness of the whole.' But, whoever reflects on the imperfection of human laws, will allow that, in the most perfect code, contingencies will occur which may make fuch an interference neceflary. The executive power of Great-Britain has, in many inftances, received the thanks of the legiflature, or reprefentative body, for acts by no means authorised by law, but abfolutely contrary to the conftitution. The fame has occurred in Holland, and in all free ftates, not excepting Rome itself.

As

As to the other objections of our author, they unfortunately all make against himself. All the wild atrocities he apprehends likely to follow from making general expediency the rule of our conduct, have, on the contrary, arifen from mistaken opinions of the will of God. Who ever pleaded general expe diency for crufades; or which of the two is most likely to produce fanaticifm, to introduce popery, or paganifm, or inquifitorial perfecution? It was furely in thofe days when men fancied the Almighty delighted in, or enjoined human penance, that these abfurdities prevailed, and in countries where the language of general expediency would have been punished as heretical.

On the whole, we have perused Mr. Gisborne's performance with much pleasure. The language is eafy and correct, the arrangement logical and agreeable, the arguments ftrong and pointed; but in this, as in moft other cafes, it is more easy to fhew the imperfections of a fyftem, than to form a new one. Till therefore our author removes all the objections against his own fyftem, instead of barely hinting to us what it is, whilft he feems only fhewing us the infufficiency of another, we shall still remain advocates for general expediency.

ART. III. Archæologia; or, Mifcellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Published by the Society of Antiquaries of London. Vol. VIII. 4to. Il. Is. White. White. London, 1787.

[Continued. ]

VI. Miscellaneous Obfervations on Parish Registers. By John Bowle, F. S. A.

MR. Bowle here derives the origin of our English registers from Spain. Thomas Lord Cromwell firft enjoined them. He had lived abroad,' fays our author, and consequently • had much intercourfe with men of different countries." This argument, however, points not particularly to Spain. But another does. Lord Cromwell's injunctions were fet forth in September 1538;' when, from fome inquiries that have been published by Spanish writers concerning the place of Cervantes's birth, regifters appear to have been used in Spain, thirty-two years before their introduction into this kingdom." But were they not in France too? We apprehend they were. Nor does there appear the leaft fimilarity in the mode of keeping the registers; between the Spanish and the English. Mr. Bowle points out none at all. And the only circumftance

which carries the flighteft air of fimilarity, that of recording the names of the fponfors; was not enjoined till the days of Cardinal Pole, and the year 1557, and is therefore fuppofed by Mr. Bowle himself, to have originated from his own fug• gestions.'

The origin of parish-regifters then, is ftill to be traced from the continent to our island. From the continent, no doubt, we derived them. But from the French part of the continent, rather than the Spanish; from that which was near, which was vifited, which was familiar to us, rather from that which was diftant, unvifited, and unknown, we fuppofe them to be derived to us. And we now pursue the hiftory of them, with Mr. Bowle, in our own country.

(

Lord Cromwell ordered the regifter to be kept, in one fure coffer with two locks and keys, the parifh-cheft of the prefent day; which regifter the clergyman fhall every Sunday take forth, and in the prefence of the wardens, or one of them, write and record in the fame all the weddings, chriftenings, and buryings, made the whole week afore; and, that done, to lay up the book in the faid coffer, as afore. In 1603, the 70th canon, directs the minifter and churchwardens to fubfcribe their name to every page; and orders the latter to fend an nually a true copy of the names of all perfons chriftened, married, or buried, within one month after the 25th of March, fubfcribed with their hands.' In 1557 Cardinal Pole inquired in his articles concerning the clergy, whether they kept their refpective registers, with the names of the godfathers and god'mothers' recorded in them. Accordingly we find three inftances of fuch námes recorded, in the regifter of Thatcham, Berkshire, fo early as 1579, 1565, and 1564; and one inftance in that of Idmifton, fo late as 1611. Under the presbyterian parliament of 1641, the birth was ordered to be registered as well as the baptifm. In Barebone's parliament of 1659, when the banns of marriages were ordered to be published, three feveral Lord's days in the public meeting-houfe commonly called the church or chapel, or on three market-days-in the market-place next to the faid church or chapel,' at the option of the parties; the register was committed to fome able and honeft perfon,' chofen (we apprehend) by the minifter and parishioners, but fworn and approved by one juftice of the peace,' who 'at• tended the juftice to fubfcribe the entry of every marriage.' Mr. Bowle then proceeds to notice fome remote marriages extraordinary events in local and natural hiftory, and even extraordinary perfons, recorded in regifters. From these trifles, we shall select only one for our readers. In the third regifter of the parish of Great Durnford, Wilts, is this entry, John Cunditt