fubmit, in order to avoid a greater.

But this objection appears to have very little weight in it; and what the Dean fays may be admitted, without any just censure of Mr. Locke's principles, or those of his followers. Dr. Tucker is difpleased, that they do not represent men as having a natural propensity to government. The fact is, that they have no fuch propensity. Men have strong natural propensities for friends, for companions, and for other focial connexions; but no man feels a ftrong propenfity for a mgiftrate of any kind, or for any species of laws, till he experiences, or is convinced of, the inconveniency of living without them.

In order to enforce his charge against the difciples of Mr. Locke, that they represent men as naturally fhewing an aver

fion, and a repugnance to every kind of fubordination, 'till dire neceffity compels ⚫ them to enter into a folemn compact, and

to join their forces together for the fake ⚫of self preservation,' he gives a quotation from Dr. Priestley's "Effay on the first "principles of Government ;" and on

which

Dr. Priestley's words are: To begin with first principles, we must, for the sake of gaining clear ideas on the fubject, do what almost all political writers have done before us; that is, we must sup· pofe a number of people exifting, who experience

the inconvenience of living independent and uncon'nected; who are expofed, without redrefs, to in' fults and wrongs of every kind; and too weak to procure themselves many of the advantages, which they are fenfible might easily be compaffed by united · ftrength. These people, if they would engage the ' protection of the whole body, and join their force < in enterprizes and undertakings calculated for their

⚫ common good, muft voluntarily refign fome part of " their

which he makes the following remarks: • It is very obfervable,' says the Dean, ‘that 'the author (Dr. Priestley) fuppofes go⚫vernment to be fo entirely the work of art, that nature had no share at all in forming it; or rather in predisposing and inclining mankind to form it. The inftincts ' of nature, it seems, had nothing to do in 'fuch a complicated business of chicane and artifice, where every man was for the best 'bargain he could; and where all in ge'neral, both the future governors and go'verned, were to be on the catch as much

as poffible. For this author plainly fup'poses, that his first race of men had not

any innate propensity to have lived other

⚫ their natural liberty, and submit their conduct to ⚫ the direction of the community: for without these 'conceffions, fuch an alliance, attended with fuch advantages, could not be formed.' P. 9, 10. edit. 1768.

wife, than as fo many independent un⚫ connected beings, if they could have lived ' with tolerable fafety in fuch a state: in fhort, they did not feel any instincts, within * themselves, kindly leading them towards affociating, or incorporating with each other; though (what is rather ftrange) ' providence ordained, that this way of life was to be fo effentially neceffary towards 'their happiness, that they must be mife♦ rable without it :-nay, they were driven by neceffity, and not drawn by inclination, ⚫ to feek for any fort of civil government 'whatever'. All that the Dean fays here about chicane, and artifice, and driving bargains, and being on the catch, it must be remarked, is entirely of his own fabrication; nothing fimilar occurring in the quotation that he has given from Dr. Priestley: and it is manifeft, from the whole of this paf

fage, that Dr. Tucker confounds the natural propensity of men to fociety, with a fuppofed natural inclination for government, of which we know not that any traces are discernible. It is a defire of fecurity, and not focial affections, that leads men to government. Experience, and the dictates of reafon, will convince them of the ne ceffity of fome mode of civil government: but they are led to fociety by the propenfities of nature.

In another part of his work, the Dean has pointed out fundry particulars in the human species, which naturally lead them to associate with each other, and which he confiders as amounting to fufficient evi

dence of their propenfity to government ; and here he expreffes himself with more clearness than at the beginning of his book. For here he does not abfolutely confound a propenfity

VOL. I.

C

1