:p y¥. CJbJi2_ &Qh r- R E M A R K s U P O N N E S S A Y, &c. REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY, INTITULED, THE HISTORY OF THE COLONIZATION OF THE FREE STATES OF ANTIQUITY, APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CONTEST BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND HER AMERICAN COLONIES. BY JOHN SYMONDS, LL. D. . Profeffor of Modern History in the Univerfity of Cambridge* LONDON: Printed by J. Nichols, Succeffor to W. Bowyer; And fold by T.Payne, Mews-Gate; W.Owen, Temple-Bar; P. Elmsly, Strand; T.Evans, Pater-nofter Row ; J. Woo dyer, Cambridge; and J. Fletcher, Oxford. MDCCLXXVIII. [ REMARKS UPON An ESSAY, Intituled, The Hiftory of the Coloniza tion of the Free States of Antiquity. INTRODUCTION. IT is related of Lyfimachus, who had been a captain in Alexander's army, and an eye-witnefs of all that paffed in the courfe of his victories, that, after he had heard fome exaggerated memoirs of that prince's exploits recited, he calmly obferved, and Where was I, whilft thefe feats were atchieved ? To a fimilar cenfure do thofe writers ex- pofe themfelves, who, be their end what it will, pervert the records of antiquity. Were this learned artifice con fined to queftions of curiofity, or verbal criticifm, it would do little or no differvice to the world ; and a man, who attempted to refute it, might poflibly be blamed for an idle and frivolous zeal ; but when dodtrines of importance are eftablifhed upon fo falfe a foundation, it becomes a B matter I » ] matte* of great and general concern : and it cannot be thought improper for any one, who has applied himfelf to the fhidy of antient literature, to bear his teftimony againft fuch reafonings, whenever they are offered to the public. This muft be my apology (if the reader fhall think that I ftand in need of any) for examining the leading prin ciples of tbe biflory of tbe colonization ef tbe free flates of antiquity, &c. The author appears to be a man of fenfe, and knowledge ; and competently verfed in the beft writers of Greece, and Rome : but, whether we may afcribe it to too much hafte in reading, or whether we are tp look for any other caufe, it is certain, that he either has not carefully inquired into fadts, or has not ftated them fairly and honeftly. His readers maaft have obferved, that, though he has fallen into feveral errors, he has not once miftaken in favour of the antient colonifts : a circumftance, which they will be led to impure to fomething more than accident; for though it cannot be denied, that many actions of thofe colonifts are deferving of cenfure, yet k is highly difingenuous to put always upon them the worft conftrudtions. The main drift of our Author, as it appears from his introduction, is to invefligate tbe nature of the connexion which fubflfkd between tbe Carthaginians, Greeks, and Romans, and their colonies-, and particularly to afcertafn the praSlice of antiquity with regard to the much contro-, verted article of taxation, p. 3. He fays farther, that the •chief reafon which .induced Inm to undertake this tajk, was becaufe he wiflhed to prepare the nation for the parliamen tary fettlement on the Jubmifflon of tbe colonies^ both by fug^ [ 3 1 gefling to tbe legiflature itfelf all tbe information ivhich can he derived from tbe purefl precedents of antient biflory, and by attempting to reconcile the minds of the people in general to that fettlement, when tbey fhall find it, perhaps, fupported by the policy of thofe ages, which enjoyed the mofl perfecl civil liberty, p. 4. I apprehend, that our Author's zeal has betrayed him into an inconvenience, which he did not forefee. Great indulgence is due to a writer, who fub- mits his opinions with modefty to the public : but when any one profeffes to inflruSl the legiflature, he gives up his claim to fuch an indulgence : and the errors, which in others might eafily be pardoned, would in him be deemed inexcufable. Our Author's argument for taxation, which is the very hinge upon which his whole effay turns, is nothing more than this : the free ftates of antiquity taxed their colonies : Therefore Great Britain hath a right to tax her's. An extraordinary inference indeed ! which brings to my mind an argument employed by Swift in his digreflion con cerning madnefs ; " There is, fays he, in mankind a cer- " tain * * * * * * * hie mnlta defiderantur — and this I " take to be a clear folution of the matter." On a point of fo great confequence, as the right of taxation, it would have become our Author to have been more cautious, or more candid. He ought either' not to have ufed fuch an argument ; or not to have left his readers to find out the exceptions, to which it was liable. One may ven ture to fay, that, by his mode of reafoning, it would not be difficult to juftify the moft flagrant abufes of power, that are to be found under any government in Europe. B 1 It [ 4 3 It hath been often obferved, that nothing is more dangerous, than to guide ourfelves by particular ex amples, unlefs we are precifely in the fame circum-- ftances, as the models propofed for imitation. If this is true with refpecl: to individuals, it may be applied in a much ftronger degree to a government ; for when individuals are deceived, or milled, the mifchief can hardly be of very great extent; whereas a govern ment cannot take a falfe ftep, without drawing after it a long train of evils and misfortunes. Will our Author fay, that there is fuch a refemblance between Great Britain, and the free ftates of antiquity, that fhe runs no rifk in- conforming herfelf to their conduct ? I wifh not to da him any injuftice : I think I do him none in afcribing to him thefe fentiments ; for almoft all the powers which he can find any republic to have exercifed over her co lonies, thefe, he fuggefts, as patterns, which we may fafely copy^ without confidering, in what circumftances, and for what reafons, they were fubmitted to. But, it feemsy he means to fpeak of free flates ; of the nations of an tiquity the mofl remarkable for virtue, refinement, and po litical liberty; and for whofe opinions and praclice, in matters of government, all civilized nations have entertained the highefl regard. Thefe are, it muft be confefled, very fmooth and enfnaring terms ; but they will have no weight with thofe, who prefer folid reafoning to unmeaning founds. It might eafily be proved, if it fhould be judged neceflary, that the great ends of government were not provided for in the antient republics. The Author will excufe me, if I fubmit to his confideration a very few queftions upon 5 this II 5 ] this' head. Were the legiflative and executive powers placed in different hands? Were they mutual checks upon each other, fo that either of them could be reftrained, or reduced at pleafure within its due bounds? Were the channels of juftice pure and uncorrupted ? In fine, were the perfons, as well as the property of individuals, fecure? Till I find all thefe circumftances center in a government,, I never will prefume to call it free. The republics of antiquity wear a very different afpect. They were for the: moft part either licentious democracies, or tyrannical oli garchies ; extremes equally unfavourable to liberty. Com pared with- the defpotifm of the Eaft, they might appear free and- moderate : but, compared with the conftitution of this ifland, they were arbitrary and violent. Let us be cautious therefore, how we are amufed by a pomp of words. We live: not under the commonwealth of, a Car thage, an Athens, or a Rome : but (thanks be to the virtue of our anceftors !;) we live under a monarchy, where the meaneft fubjedt may afiert his rights, confiftently with the duty, which- he owes to his fovereign ; and yet where nothing is wanting to a neceffary authority, any more than to a- rational liberty. This is a fhort anfwer to a thoufand precedents of antiquity : but every good Englifh— man will think it a; fatisfadtory one. But fhould we allow our Author, for argument's fake,, that he m,ay, as he pleafes, conclude from the practice of one government, to that of another, there is ftill a mate rial queftion to be refolved : whether the republics, which he fpeaks of, deftined their colonies to the fame ufes and purpofes, as Great Britain hath clone her's ? for unlefs he can make good this point,, it is impofiible for him to con vince [ 6 ] "vince us, that they ought all to be governed by the fame laws and maxims. He has indeed attempted to fhew, that Carthage fuperintended the commerce of her colonies ; and eflablifhedfucb regulations concerning it, as might fecure mofl effectually tbe benefit, of it to the parent flate ; p. 131 : but he fcarce fays a fyllable of any commercial intercourfe be tween the Greeks and Romans, with their colonies, though he has drawn out his account of them to the formidable length of a hundred pages. He has likewife been very fparing in his remarks upon the plans of Britifh coloniza tion. Inftead of explaining himfelf largely and openly upon this fubjedt, he has done little more than introduce a fhort far-fetched dialogue between Great Britain and America, p. 94 ; fomewhat after the fhip-fhap manner re commended by Mr. Bayes, who makes even his prologue to be a dialogue. I will endeavour to fupply the Author's omiflion as briefly as poflible. That the Britifh colonies were chiefly planted for the fake of trade, no one who is converfant in our hiftory will affirm. Many of them owed their exiftence to the folly of hunting after gold : fome to the eagernefs of pri vate adventurers : and fome to religious perfecution, which of all poifons is the moft baneful, that can taint fociety. But though the colonifts were fettled in very diftant re gions, and for very different purpofes, their connexion with the mother-country was never dropt ; they were fur- nifhed by her with the necefTaries of life ; and made their returns in the produce of their lands, as foon as the im proved ftate of agriculture would permit. Increafing in ftrength and population, they attradted the attention of the legiflature, which never loft fight of that grand objedV, the C 7 3 the engrofling all the fruits of their induftry. The Adt of navigation completed this. From that period, they have been obliged to fend hither all the commodities,. which they do not want for their own confumption ; even fuch as are defigned for the ufe of other countries ; and they are compelled to take from us the products of foreign growth, as well as our own goods and manufadtures. It is true, that they have obtained a partial relief from the legiflature ; but ftill it may not improperly be called a mo nopoly of their trade *, which, whether it be agreeable to found policy and juftice, neither my fubjedfc, nor my in clination leads me to examine ('). It is fufficient to ftate thefe fadts, that the reader may be better able to judge^, what degree of credit is due to our Author, who afferts, that no colonifts were everfubjeSled to fewer reflraints, than* the Britijb ones. p. 143. From what has been obferved, it naturally follows,, that there are two capital points, which our Author is obliged to eftablifh, if he really means to defend the treatment of our colonies by the examples of the antient re publics. Firft, it muft be proved, that they not only taxed their colonies, to raife a revenue, but alfo monopolized their trade. Secondly, that (fuppofing thefe fadts to be afcertained}; their proceedings were fo juft and equitable, that they aught to direct the councils of our own country at tbe prefenP conjuncture, p. 123. (•) See this fully difcufled in Dr. Adam Smith's Inquiry into- the na ture and caufes of the wealth of nations, whidi is a very valuable txeatiffe: «pon national oeconomy* in, I 8 1 In the following chapters I fhall chiefly attend to thefe points ; and, whatever motives may have induced our Au thor to write his effay, I wifh, for my own part, that the queftion may be confidered merely as a literary inquiry, which the learned alone muft decide. .Concerning the Carthaginians. Our Author hath highly extolled the Phoenicians for their fuperior fkill in trade and navigation : and indeed too much cannot be faid in praife of that induftrious and enterprizing people. They were the firft who reduced commerce into a fcience; and were, in fact, the merchants of .the world ; but, in proportion as they inriched them felves with the products of other nations, they freely im parted to them the benefits of civilization. Among their eminently good qualities, their indulgence to their colonies was not the leaft. Why then has our Author ftudioufly collected fo many inftances of oppreffion towards colonies, without hinting at the milder conduct of the Phoenicians ? We learn from Herodotus ('), that Cambyfes was obliged to defift from his plan of invading the Carthaginians, be- caufe the Phoenicians refufed to attend him on the expe dition ; generoufly alledging, that to make war againft their own children, would be an act of injuftice and im piety. They treated them upon all occafions with a pa rental tendernefs : and when Hannibal quitted Carthage, •through the virulence of faftion, and the pufillanimous jealoufy of the Romans, he was received at Tyre with un- (') L. 3. p. 167. ed. Gronov. common t 9 3 common marks of affection ('). It is natural to expect fome fmall returns of gratitude on the fide of the Cartha ginians ; yet our Author ufhers in his account of them by faying, that tbey engroffed the territories of their mother- country in Africa ; and, perhaps, allowed only emigrations from Tyre, without admitting any more colonifts. p. 6. A moft aufpicious entrance upon the hiftory of a people, who are propofed, as patterns, to the Britifh legiflature ! One would imagine, that his defign was to write a fatire upon the Carthaginians, inftead of a panegyric. It was a common faying of the Romans, that there never was a better fervant, nor a worfe mafter, than Caligula; but Carthage muft be viewed in a more unfavourable light. Our Author owns, that fhe was a very undutiful child ; and fhe will appear, in the fequel, to have been a very barbarous parent. As our Author profeffes to have fearched all the antient writers of reputation, who mention the affairs of the Cartha ginians, p. 1 6. it is matter of furprize, that he has been fo inaccurate in his defcription of their colonies ; for he has not precifely marked out any, which were planted by them. He fpeaks of their colonies in Africa Propria, p. 18. and cites Polybius for that purpofe. I have looked over that writer with fome attention ; and cannot find an expreffion, which correfponds to that of a colony. He fpeaks alfo of their colonies in the iflands of Sicily and Sardinia, p. 1 1 . as mentioned in the treaties between the Romans and Cartha ginians ; but neither the Greek, as it ftands in Polybius, nor Cafaubon's Latin tranflation, quoted by our Author, (0 Liv. 1. 33. ¦§ 49* C give r 10 r give us the leaft intimation, that they were colomes. Her. has recourfe likewife to Appian (') p, 7. to prove, that thefe- were Carthaginian fettlements; ; but no fuch proof can be; drawn from the general and indeterminate expreflions in the pafTage) to which he has appealed. Nor has he had' better fuccefs in fhewing us from Appian (2), p. 7 . that . the Baleares were fettlements of Carthage ; for- no men tion is made of* them in 'the paflage which lie has cited;.. and. we learn from no lefs authority than Strabo Q}, that': they were poffefTed by the Phoenicians. Again, in a mar ginal note, our -Author fpeaks of . the colonies of Leptis, ... Utica, and Hippo, (p. 14) as if they had.been Carthaginian ones; whereas, he had before informed us, that they were. fettled by theJRhcenidans, (p. 5),. which is unqueftionably true; but to fuppofe, . that the Carthaginians converted into colonies all the territories that they conquered, is a wild and . unwarrantable, inference, The . text and the -x margin look contrary ways, like Janus upon the Roman* . coins;, and furnifh an argument, of fo peculiar a nature^., that one. is tempted^to apply to it the fame words, with - which Ovid has addreffed Janus, himfelf (4) : Quern tamen efle deum, te dicam Jane biformis ? Nam tibi par nullum. Graecia numen. habet.. . Our Author has laid a considerable ftrefs upon the twa great, naval expeditions of tbe. Carthaginians, which were directed to.pafs the Straits,, and to fleer their courfes, one •srotepovs zg$svov eg HmKuxv, wet 2a$w> noti vwovg u7\X*g o clearly proved, that the writer has defcribed places which ex- ifted only in the imagination Q ; and that the Periplus itfelf was ufed proverbially by the antients to fignlfy a fabulous legend (2). What are we then to conclude, but that it ought to be. ranked in the fame clafs, as the voyages of a GemeJU Carreri — and, perhaps, as the letters of. a Monfieur Montcalm ? The reader will forgive, me, I truft, for detaining him in my inquiries into the fuppofcd colonies of the Car thaginians ; Jince here the controverfy feems to be at an end ; for if our Author has not fufficiently fpecified any colonies which the Carthaginians planted, and yet it be the drift of his effay to perfuade us, to draw our rules from their practice, it is all built on a falfe foundation,; and, when that fails, the fuperftructure, of courfe, muft fall to the ground. "I "fhould be forry, however, tobe thought fo. captious an adverfary, as to take advantage of his inattention, great as "it is : I will freely acknowledge, what indeed is indif- putably true^ that the Carthaginians formed a great number of fettlements ; but it will be neceffary to inquire into the nature of them, in order to place the queftion in its proper light. Our Author fays, that tbe Carthaginians had in Africa 300 cities under their jurifdi&ion ; and poffeffed a line of the flnefl ,-coafl in the world, near 2000 miles in lengthy .extending from the Syrtis Major to the pillars of Hercules, p. 7. Had our Author contended, that there were as many cities (0 Geogr. vet. ed. Hudfon, p.u, vol. I (;) Ibid. p. 12, 4 in C is 3 in this country, as in antient Egypt, I would not have difputed the point ; but why doth he perplex us with fuch a multitude of colonies? It may reafonably be ex pected of him to point them out with accuracy, that he might the better diftinguifh them from fuch people, as became fubjedts,of Carthage by* right of'conqueft. But this is not* agreeable to his defign. The word colony is an univerfal remedy applied to all difficulties. It feems highly probable, that the whole tract of Africa Propria was fubject to the fame laws ; that it paid the fame kinds of taxes and contributions ; and that it was under the jurifdiction of the fame fortv of Governors; in fhort, it formed,' if I may fay fo, the territorial do mains ~ of the republic. One would" imagine, that the Author is in jeft, when he palms thefe countries upon us for colonies ; whereas, he ferioufly propofes them as fuch ; and thinks he does wonders in comparing them with thofe of America.1 It is now above forty years, fince the French acquired the dutchies of Lorraine and Bar ; but I 'have never heard, that they have as yet dignified them with the name of colonies. What an addition of colonies muft accrue to Europe from ^ the tripartite divifion of the territories of Poland ! They have hitherto borne the humble name of provinces ; but moft probably there will be found fome fagacious writer in after-ages, who, dis daining fo mean an appellation, will harangue upon the importance and utility of the colonies, that were planted1 ; byWienna, Berlin, and Petersburg. But to purine this fubjedt farther — Nothing is\ more certain, than that Sardinia and Sicily, as well ass many places upon the coaft of Africa, mentioned by our Authoiy as colonies of Carthage, were well inhabited long before this [ 16 -J this republic -figured in hiftory ; and though it be admitted, that the Carthaginians, made fettlements at one time or other in thofe refpedtive countries, yet it is evident, that they made the greater part of them by right of conqueft ; and it cannot be inferred, that every fettlements, eftablifhed by violence in a well-peopled country, ought to be ho noured with the title of a colony. An inftance will ex plain my meaning ; and will ferve to illuftrate the •material difference between fome of the moft celebrated antient co lonies, and thofe of modern ages. Canada was fettled by the French ; but, during the laft war, was conquered by the Englifh ; and, by the peace of Paris, was ceded to the crown of Great Britain. One hundred thoufand fubjects were transferred to us by that treaty. An Englifh garrifon has been maintained ever fince in Quebec ; and many Eng lifh families have fettled there, and in other parts of the province. Now furely it would argue an impropriety of expreffion to fpeak of Canada, as an Englifh colony, though often comprehended under that idea : and it would be erring againft the moft approved principles of civil polity, to circumfcribe the rights of the American colonies within the fame limits, which the unconditional will of a conqueror has thought fit to fet to Canada. The natural rights of a free-born people are diftinct from the federal ones of a conquered ftate, not only with refpect to the fource from which they fpring, but alfo with refpect to the bounds to which they reach : and the practice of antiqui ty, as to the treatment of colonies, is very weakly appealed to in the prefent controverfy, unlefs it be proved, that they were analogous to our own, at their firft eftablifhment ; that they then refembled New England, rather than Ca nada : [ 17 3 nada: in fine, that the parent ftate furnifhed the whole, or the greater part of the inhabitants ; and not merely a few garrifons to fecure her conquefts, againft the na tives. I believe, our Author wiLl be at a lofs to fhew, that many of the colonies defcribed in his effay fall under the predicament which I have mentioned. The whole current of hiftory appears to be fet againft it : however, I will exa mine the colonies of the Carthaginians in his own man ner ; and confider his account of the mode, by which they governed them, both as to taxes, and reftridtions upon their trade. The republic of Carthage feems to have been at the height of her wealth and grandeur at the opening of the firft Punic war. It is obfervable, that this was the firft foreign expedition undertaken by the Romans ; and re- folved upon by the people, in defiance of the authority of the fenate. During this war, Carthage had almoft ex- haufted her fubjects ; but the burthen fell heavieft, ac cording to our Author, upon the colonies and cities in Africa Propria. The inhabitants of the towns were obliged to ad vance double the fums they had formerly been accuflomed to pay under the name of taxes ; but, of the fruits of the field, procured by the labour of the hufbandman, there was required no lefs than half the produce, (p. 1 9.) And now what would one expect fhould have been his end in relating thefe facts, but to commiferate the fituation pf a people, who had groaned under the hardfhips of fo calamitous a war? whereas, he has mentioned them, only to enforce the propriety of taxing our own colonies. It is impoflible to read Polybius upon this head, without feeling for that un happy people. He allures us, that the moft abject po- D verty [ 1 8 ] vertyoSdHot exempt them from the harfheft ufage ; and' that the merits of the provincial governors were eftimated "by their, fuccefs -in railing contributions (")• After the. Carthaginians liad concluded a peace with the Romans,-, the ruinous ftate of their finances put them upon requeft- ing the mercenaries, to give up part of the arrears of their pay; but. they were fa far from complying with the terms, , that they inftantly mutinied; whence Polybius takes occafion to remark, that the example of Carthage ought to be an inftmdtive leflbn to all governments, not . to truft the fword in the hands of mercenaries (*). They were quickly joined by the colonies of Africa., who were ripe for a revolt; having been provoked no. lefs by tbe quan- - tity of the. exaclions during the war, than by the ' fever ity of ; the manner in which they were collected, (p. 18.) and our.,; Author obferves farther, that, the reader will not be fur- prized at fuch convulflons, when he is informed, that the chief burthen of the -war was laid on thofe provinces, (p. 18.).* Thus far his narrative, is clear and intelligible; but when he comes to reafon upon the hiftorical grounds, .which he v had laid down, he has not the good fortune to make him felf fo eafily underftood. This will appear; from the 'fol lowing obfervations, which occur in the fame chapter. He tells us, that Carthage levied large contributions both op money andjsr corn from her colonifts in Africa, wbofubmit- ted readily to her authority, and complained only of the exor bitancy of her demands, or of the feverity of her farmers of the revenue, (p. 131.) In a few pages after, almoft all is unfaid; for he informs us, that tbe colonifts of Africa can- C) L. i. c.72. (>) L.i. c. 65. mt I *9 3 not be imagined to have rebelled againft the Carthagiriititis oh account of the .exorbitancy of exaSlions, to the impofltion of ktihich they biad themfelves cdnferited, (p. 1 37,) I profefs myfelf utterly incapable of reconciling thefe ftrange contradictions. Our Author, whofe ruling paflion is example, hath, in this inftance, copied after the immortal Don Quixote himfelf; who, to try the ftrength of his pafte-board helmet, gave it two ftrokes with his fword; and undid in an inftant what he had been a week in doing. — We have fcarce ever heard of a civil war, fo dreadful in its effects, or fo pernicious in its confequences, as this defcribed by Polybius : and though Carthage at laft crufhed the rebellion, it was long before fhe recovered from the fevere fliock which fhe had fuftained. I beg I may not be mifunderftood in the reci tal of this melancholy event. God forbid! that a word fhould drop from my pen to juftify the behaviour of the colonifts ! The war with Rome had brought Carthage to a very low ebb of riches and power. In that feafon of public diffraction, fhe had a right to call upon every on® of her fubjects to expofe his life in her defence; much more had fhe a right to demand even the whole of his pro perty, if the fafety of the ftate required it : but ftill I will not fear to fay, that to argue, in favour of perpetual taxa tion, from a temporary and urgent neceflity, is a rafh and arbitrary conclufion. The treaties between the Romans and Carthaginians, recorded by Polybius, have furnifhed our Author with his obfervations upon the mode, by which the Carthaginians managed the trade of their colonies. I entirely agree wifh him, that thefe treaties are very curious remains of an tiquity : and for this reafon, I have followed his example, D 2 in C *o 3 in reciting them at large, as they are tranflated by Ca- faubon ('). It is certain, that Livy and Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus have committed grofs miftakes, for want of a proper attention to them. We fhould have been igno- (') Amicitia Romanis et Romanorum fociis cum Carthaginienfibus, et Carthaginienfium fociis, his legibus et conditionibus efto. Ne naviganto Romani, Romanorumve focii, ultra Puichrum Promontorium ; _ nifi tem- peftatis aut hoftium vi fuerint compulfi. Si quis vi delatus fuerit, emendi aut accipiendi quicquam, praeter neceflaria reficiendis navibus et facris faciendis, jus ne ei efto. Intra diem quintum qui navem applicuerint abeunto. Qui ad mercaturam venerint, ii vedtigal nullum pendunto, ex tra quam ad praeconis aut fcribae mercedem. Quicquid hifce praefentibus fuerit venditum, publica fide venditori debetur, quod quidem in Africa aut Sardinia fuerit venditum. Si quis Romanorum in earn Siciliae partem venerit, quae imperio Carthaginienfium paret, jus aequum in omnibus Romani obtinento. Carthaginienfes ne quid noceant Populo Ardeati, An- tiati, Laurentino, Circeienfi, Tarracinenfi, neve ulli alii e Latinis qui fub ditione erunt. Etiam eorum urbibus, qui fub ditione Romanorum non ervmt, abftinento. Si quam earum acceperint, Romanis fine ulla noxa tradunto. Caftellum ullum in Latino agro ne aedificanto ; fi cum armis infefti pedem in regione pofuerint, in ea ne pernodtanto. " Amicitia Romanis et Romanorum fociis, cum populo Carthaginienfi, Tyriis, et Uticenfibus, eorumque fociis, his legibus efto. Romani ultra Pulchium Promontorium, Maftiam, et Tarfeium, praedas ne faciunto ; ,ad mercaturam ne eunto, urbem nullam condunto. Si in Latio urbem ali- quam Carthaginienfes cepermt, quae fub ditione Romanorum non erit, pecuniam et captivos ipfi habento; urbem reddunto. Si qui Carthagi nienfium aliquos ceperint queifcum foedere fe'ripto jundti fint Romani ;, qui tamen fub Romanorum imperio non erunt ; hos in populi R.omani por- tus ne deducunto ; fi quis erit dedudtus, et manum Romanus injecerit, liber ello. Eodem jure et Romani tenentor. Si Romanus ex aliqua regione - quae fub imperio Carthaginienfium erit aquam commeatufve fumpferit ; cum his commeatibus ne cui eorum noceto quibufcum pax et -amicitia eft Carthaginienfibus ...... facito. Si qua injuria alicui fadta erit, privato nomine ejus perfecutio ne cuiquam efto ; fed ubi tale quid admi- ferit aliquis, publicum id crimen efto. In Sardinia et Africa neque nego- t'ator quifqnam Romanorum, neque urbem condito ; neve eo appellito,. ni!i commeatus accipiendi gratia, vel naveis reficiendi. Si tempeftas de-. tulerit, intra dies quinque excedito. In Sicilia, ubi Carthaginienfes im- peraverint, item Carthagine omnia Romanus facito, -vendito, quae eivi jkebit. Idem Romae Cartliaginienfijus efto," rant [ 21 ] Tant of this intercourfe between Rome and Carthage, if it had not been for Polybius ; and what can give us a more convincing proof of his exact diligence, and impartial ad herence to truth ? He informs us, that the firft treaty was concluded the year after the expulfion of Tarquin ; and he adds this remarkable circumftance, that the words of it were hardly underftood by the beft antiquaries of the age.; fo confiderable a change had the Roman language undergone ! Our Author obferves, that it breathes a jealous commercial fpirit', eager to guard againfl the dangers of invaflon, but forward to encourage navigation for the pur- pofes of trade, p. n. It exhibits fome claufes indeed in favour of the Roman merchants; but, as he allows that it laid no reftridtion upon the trade of the Carthaginian colonies, it is unneceffary for me to dwell upon it. p. 13. The title of the fecond Treaty runs thus; i( Amicitia Xi Romanis et Romanorum fociis cum populo Carthagini- •" enfi, Tyriis, et Uticenfibus, eorumque focEs, his legibus ¦** efto." This demonftrates, that the people of Utica were at that time independent of Carthage, and treated with the Romans as principals .; whence it follows, that the Car thaginians were not then matters of the whole coaft of Africa Propria. In this treaty (the date of which is not known) we find it ftipulated, that the Roman fhips of war fhould not fail .fonthward of the cities of Maftia and Tarfeium, which were not far diftant from tbe Straits of Gibraltar ; and that their merchant fhips fhould not enter :i,nto the harbours of Sardinia, or any part of Africa, ex cept Carthage. I will readily grant, that this was a re straint upon the trade of the, colonies in. Sardinia and Africa-; [ 22 ] Africa ; out it feems moft probable, that the Carthaginians inferted this claufe, not with a view of monopolizing the commerce of their colonies, but from an apprehenfiori, that the Romans, under pretence of trading, would form fettlements in them, and increafe their naval power. The treaty fays, u in Sardinia et Africa neque negotiator quif- quam Romanorum, neque urbem condito." This appears to have been a very wife precaution ; for if the Romans had once acquired a fafe port, or built a fortrefs either in Sardinia or Africa, they might not only have deprived the Carthaginians of fome branches of their commerce, but alfo have annoyed them with greater facility, in cafe of a rupture between the two nations. The Romans them felves were not inattentive to this circumftance ; for the treaty likewife fays, " Si in Latio urbem aliquam Car- " thaginienfes ceperint, quae fub ditione Romanorum non " erit, pecuniam et captivos ipfi habento, urbem reddunto." This manifeftly proves, that the Romans wifhed to pre vent the Carthaginians from eftablifhing any fettlement in Latium; even in that part which they themfelves had not conquered. The barren rock of Falkland's Ifland affords a recent inftance of thejealoufy, which nations en tertain upon this head. Of all the republics of antiquity, Carthage was the moft diftruftful. She threw an im penetrable veil over the fecrets of ftate ; and purfued both her fubje&s and foreigners with undiftinguifhing cruelty, whenever her fears or fufpicions were excited. Her treat ment of Sardinia is an indifputable evidence of this truth. We are told, that it once abounded with Greek buildings ; and was not more famed for the richnefs of its foil, than C 23 ] than for the goodnefs of its agriculture ; but the author,,. from whom I have received this information,, tells us, that the ifland was in a very different fituation, when he wrote ; for after the Carthaginians had conquered it, they ordered all the fruits of the earth to be rooted up ; and denounced pains of death againft thofe, who attempted to cultivate it ('). Let this fact be compared with the treaty above- mentioned; and, I believe, it will be thought, that the Car thaginians had fomething in view beyond the purpofes of trade;. at- leaft it muft be acknowledged, that they took vejfy improper methpds to promote it. The Carthaginians have been accufed not only of converting iflands into defarts, but likewife of extirpating the inhabitants. We learn from the fame authority, which I lately alluded to, that they difcovered an ifland beyond the Straits,, which was uninhabited, though exceedingly fertile ; and that fomf members of the republic fettled there, and married ;, bit an order was iffued, that no one fhould enter into it under pain of death \ and thofe who had fixed their refidencei there were deftroyed (*)., It appears evidently from this^ writer, that it was done merely to prevent the .forming of an eftablifhment in the ifland : and there is no doubt, but that the Carthaginians were prompted by the fame principle to treat the Sardinians with fuch unjuftifiable rigour. If our Author had intended to fuggefl to the le giflature all the information which can be- derived from the (!) Ariftotl. de Mirabilibus (or whoever was the author of that trea- tife), p. 1159- v. ii. ed. Duval.. 1 6 19. (") Ibid. p. 1157. raj svoixgyjug 'mmijcx.g a. It is a little furprizing, that thefe wonderful feats fhould; have been performed, when the Greeks were ignorant of naval affairs ; for our Author confeffes, that before the Perflan invaflon navigation and Jbip-building were almofl unknown in Greece-, (p. 29.) and we learn from Herodotus, that it was almofl: unknown for fome time after it ; for, not long after the victory at Sala- mis, the Athenian's declined failing farther than Delos, to aflift the Ionians,- under an apprehenfion of danger ; and the hiftorian adds, that it was a received opinion among' the Athenians, that the ifland of Samos was as far diffant from Athens, as the Straits of Gibraltar (*). But though it be probable, that fome roving bodies from Ellas crofled the feas at different times, and invaded the Afiatics, yet there is a decifive proof, that they did not build the twelve famous cities of Ionia. Thefe cities were coseval with Greece herfelf % they enjoyed the advantages of a fettled government, before any regular ftates were formed in Greece : and they flourifhed in all the arts and- refine ments of civil life, when Greece herfelf was over-run with the groffeft barbariim. From the moment that I began to read the Greek writers with attention, I fufpected that Ionia was not planted by Athens ; and I am happy to fee my opinion confirmed by the ableft fcholarof the age; who has purged profane hiftory of its drofs; and, what is of the utmoft importance, has evinced the truth of the Mofaic hiftory by arguments that are inconteftable (j). (') Achaic. p. 523. ed. Kuhn. *• L. iii. p. 502. (J) See the Analyfis of Antient Mythology. But C 2$; J But whatever may be my fentiments with refpect tar< Ionia, and many other eftablifhments, which are fuppofed by our Author tb have been made by the Greeks, I ihair chearfully wave all objections ; and confider them as fo many real colonies ; for nothing can be farther from my defign, than to preclude him from entering into the merits of the queftion. Our Author in his review of the colonization of Greece comes to- this- conclufion : the biflory of Greece affords no inflame of any flate which ^ad power to levy contributions or taxes from its colonies, and did not put that power in execu* tion, (p. 76.) This I take upon me todeny ; and do not fcruple to affirm, that our Author throughout his effay has confounded' allies and. colonies with a great deal of ar tifice and< fophiftry. Having- proved that the allies of Athens contributed to her fupport upon1 fome occafions, he makes his conclufion more general than his premifes ; he does not infer, that her allies were obliged to fupply theiir quota of expence in time of war ; but that her colonies were fubject to perpetual taxation : The neceflity of ob- ferving this diftindtion appears from: our Author's manner cf treating the fubject1. He tells us, that the ALolians and1 lonians were 'tributaries of Athens at the commencement of the Peloponneflan war, (p. SS-) Be ** f° » but his own words will' fupply us with an anfwer to this remark r All the ALotian colonies came originally from Peloponnefus, and were finally fubjeCted to Athens, (p. 48.)- What their hath this to do with the taxation of colonies?- The Athenians conquered colonies, which they had: not- planted ; and impofed. a tribute upon the people, whom; they had. reduced: to their obedience. Though it be: t granted^, [ 30 ] granted, that the lonians were originally colonies of Athens, yet it is certain, that little or no intercourfe had fubfifted between them and their mother-country for fome centuries : they were all independent ; p. 49. they were after wards compelled to fubmit to Perfla ; and remained under the dominion of it till the invaflon of Xerxes, p. 50. What happened after they had emancipated themfelves from that yoke ? The Athenians prevailed with them to enter into a treaty, ratified by folemn oaths, in which a promife was given of perpetual attachment to Athens, p. 51. I fee in this no authority of a parent ftate over a colony ; but only a treaty of alliance and defence between two independent powers; and from this period the lonians muft be con- fidered under no other character, than that of allies. The Ionian colonies became the zealous friends, and the JELolians the fubjeCls of the Athenians. Both followed their flandard in war, and advanced contributions to the public expence. p. 53. It is undoubtedly true; but it muft be obferved, that the lonians did it in confequence of the treaty which they had made ; and the ./Eolians in confequence of the dominion to which they had fubmitted. Our Author- has been very particular in defcribing the rebellion of the ifland of Samos, in order to explain the manner in wbich the Greeks treated their colonies on fuch occaflons. p. 53. It appears from Plutarch, that Pericles took a part in the quarrel between the Samians and Mile- fians from very difhonourable motives Q ; however, fuc cefs juftified his meafures in the eyes of his countrymen. He punt/bed on the fpot the authors of the rebellion with (') Vit. Pericl. 4 death ; C 31 ] death', exacted a fine 0/200 talents to replace the expence of the war ; flripped the Samians of all their fhips ; de- molifhed their walls, and reflored the democracy, p. 55. Had it been the defign of our author to have fet this matter in a true light, he would have fhewn us from unqueftionable authority, that the Athenians had ty rannically governed the Samians, and broken their agree ment with them (x). But fuppofing that the Samians were not to be juftified for refilling the oppreflions of the Athenians, how can this be applied to the prefent queftion ? The Samians were the principal colony of Ionia ; p. 33. they had entered into a treaty with Athens ; and were as in dependent a ftate as Athens itfelf; fo that whatever vin dictive meafures were purfued, affected the Samians, not as colonifts, but as allies. We are prefented with the revolt of the Lesbians, which is called an unnatural and ungrateful rebellion, p. 57. The Lesbians were defeated by the Athenians, and their whole ifland was reduced to fubjedtion ; and though the laft fentence paffed upon the inhabitants was not near fo cruel as the firft, yet no one, who has a tincture of hu manity, can read it without horror (*). It is obferved, that it is the felicity of the American colonies, that the mo deration of a Britifh parliament will not permit them to punijh flmilar crimes in a flmilar manner with the republic of Athens, p. 56. Doth our Author mean by fuch loofe and general expreffions to impofe upon indolent and un wary readers ? Were there no circumftances that alleviated the guilt of the Lesbians ? Was not the infurrection founded (») Ariftot. vs-ipi vrsh'il. U iii. c. 13. . (z) Thucyd. 1. iii. c. 49. on I 32 1 on grievances, which they had aright to have redreffed" Yes : for we learn from Arittotle, that the Athenians liad- been guilty of exorbitant abufes of power, and had in fringed the treaties ('). Thus, all that is faid by our Au thor, relative to the Samians and Lesbians, is altogether foreign to the fubjedt. But I cannot difmifs his account of the Lesbians, with out mentioning a circumftance, which feems to be the completeft inftance either of want of candor, or of want of memory, that ever appeared in print. When he firft fpoke of the revolt of the Lesbians, he called them, what in truth they were, an JfLolian colony, p. 55. and he in formed us not long before, that the ALolian colomes came originally from Peloponnefus ; p. 48. whereas, at the clofe of his effay, he makes Lesbos an Athenian colony, which certainly is more convenient for his purpofe. I defire the reader to truft his own eyes in confulting the following paffages. Tbe exemplary punifioment inflicted on tbe colonies of Samos and Lesbos by tbe Athenians, p. i4£. what is this, but faying, that Lesbos was planted by the Athenians ?. flmilar views of emancipating themfelves from the dominion of the parent flate excited tbe Lesbians to revolt from the Athenians, p. 127. Again he fays, the Lesbians alfo, like the Americans, had formed a plan to r-ender themfelves inde- dependent of the parent flate. p. 128.. The moft favour able excufe that can be urged in defence of our Author, is, that he has an exceedingly treacherous memory. It is (') L. iii. ¦3Tc'£f ZaToKn. c. xiii. chv ASijvtxiot py zss^t 2«p«j xut A-c-giag' etth yap BcxtJov tyKftxrug zyj>v jyjv ugfflv, ztovkhvoxtix,)) oaurag sr^a (rvvS^Kotg. Our Author has quoted this treatife (p. 23) upon another occafion,, and alfo the very fame chapter ; but he thought it prudent to omit, what made maniteftly againft him. the I 33 3 the, fir ft time I ever heard that Athens was in Peloponnefus ; and I know no anecdote in the Graecian hiftory that is more remarkable. Were our Author to fpeak of Mi norca and Corfica, he would with equal propriety call Great Britain the parent ftate of the one, and France of the other. The reader muft now perceive, that he has to do with a writer, who is wonderfully expert in the- management of his fcenes. Modo me Thebis, modo ponit Athenis, like a true Magician. There is a happy confufion of colonifts, allies, and fubjedts : they are brought upon the ftage, ac cording as it may beft fuit his purpofe : they take one ano ther's places at the word of command : in fliort, they dance The Hay, like the earth, fun, and moon in the Rehearfal. Though our Author contends, that every flate of Greece^ -which zvas able to do it, levied taxes from its colonies, (p. 7 6) yet he acknowledges, that none levied them from them tilt the time of the Perflan invaflon-, and that, even poflerior t& that ara, regular taxes were demanded from the colonies by no flate of Greece, except Athens (p. 132.); for Sparta only demanded occaflonal fupplies (p. 1-3.4). A wonderful difco- very indeed ! as if it was probable, that the right of taxa tion fhould have fubfifted fo long in Greece, without being exercifed till the Perfian invafion ! and as if it fhould have been confined to Sparta and Athens after that period ! Yet we hear him crying out,r/Eu^<*, and wantonly reprehend ing an able writer, who formed a much better judgement of the queftion (x). This favourite pofition of our Au- (') See the Inquiry into the nature and caufes of the wealth of nations, vol.. ii. p. 193* F thor [ 34 ] thor is not only contrary to the tenor of hiftory, but is alfo overturned by the moft decifive way of confutation,., his own remarks. We find in his Eflay a very exact account of the rup ture between the Corcyraeans and Corinthians, defcribed i by Thucydides. Unfortunately for our Author's fyftem, it not only appears, that the Corcyraeans never paid any.^ taxes to Corinth their parent ftate, but that they even re- fufed to allow her the ufual marks of refpeCl offered by colonies to their mother-country, (p. 60.) It is likewife evident, that the impofing of taxes upon Corey r a was never thought of by Corinth. Jt is faid, that the Cor cyr deans contemned tbe Corinthians, from whom tbey defended, becaufe tbe latter were not fo opulent as themfelves (p. 59): and thence it is. inferred, that the Corinthians did not levy taxes from them, becaufe they were not powerful enough to enforce the right; but had not Corinth other colonies? Was not fhe the parent ftate of the Leucadians and the Ambraciotaf (p. 69) If fhe was not able to tax the Corcyraeans, there can be no doubt, but that fhe might have taxed the co lonies abovementioned, who never rivalled her in riches or ftrength ; but that fhe never attempted it, appears from? our Author himfelf; all that Jhe ever afked of any of her colonies was, the common and decent marks of refpeCt, and' to* join her as allies in war, (p. 64.) Thefe are the words of the Corinthian deputies before the people of Athens : and from this conceflion we may form a better idea of the manner in which the Greeks ufed to treat their colonies, than from any thing that our Author has faid elfewhere on this fubject. He infifts however, that it appears from tbe arguments and cancluflons in this difputey that the- re- fpeCthe. I 33 1 JpeBive rights and privileges, both of tbe metropolis and the colony among the Greeks, were flill extremely undetermined. Even the claufe apparently moft precife and definitive, that tbe colonifts Jhould, in time of* war, mufter themfelves under the flandard of the mother-country, and acl as her friends, is expreffed in terms fo general and ambiguous, and might be fo extended or reflriCied, according to the views or necefftties of the parties, that it is difficult to decide, whether it included any obligation on the part of the former to furnifh affiftance to tbe latter, (p. 64, 65.) Why doth our Author take fuch pains to unfay what he had" before delivered with fo much precifion? Is it from an apprehenfion that he had fhewn more honefty than art in the management of the queftion ? We may fafely affirm, that Thucydides has thrown more light upon the Graecian colonization, in the paffages that are referred to, than any other antient writer whatever. I can fee no general and ambiguous expreflions ; but, whatever obfcurity there may be in the original, there is none in our Author's tranflation ; upon which I entirely reft my argument. The Corinthians did not require of their colonies a monopoly of their trade : they did not compel them to levy taxes for the maintenance of their civil eftablifhment : much lefs did they endeavour to ex tort from them a revenue for the fupport of the govern ment of the parent ftate: they left them in poffeffion of their own property; and only afked of them the common marks of refpect, and their alliance in time of war. If Great Britain had faid to America, " We afk nothing of " you but the common and decent marks of refpect, and " your alliance in time of war," does our Author think, that a fingle drop of blood would have been fhed in this F 2 unhap- C 36 3 unhappy diipute ? Far am I from infinuating that it would have become Great Britain to have been fatisfied with fuch terms ; but I will take upon me to affert, that,, had fhe fol lowed the example of Corinth (and, I believe, the cuftorn generally eftablifhed in Greece,), fhe would have made no- other demands. Let not the reader imagine, that this is dictated by an improper warmth. I wifh to be thought not to write under the influence of prejudice or party r truth is my only aim : and had I not been fully perfuaded,. that the practice of antiquity had been mifreprefented by our Author, I would not have troubled either him or the public with thefe remarks. I might properly flop here ; for, as it is evident that Corinth did not tax her colonies, above forty years after the Perfian invaflon, and when fhe was in a very flourifhing fituation, our Author's fyftem is entirely deftroyed: and why fhould I purfue him through all its particulars ? How ever, as he has roundly afferted that the right of taxation maybe defended by the examples of Sparta and Athens, I will put the caufe upon that iffue, and freely give up what has been already proved. Our Author makes the following obfervation upon Sparta. Even Sparta, tbe only other flate of Greece, except Athens, which poffeffed ability to levy contributions from her colonies, would have treated the Americans in a manner nearly the fame, as has been done in Great Britain. She would not, indeed, have required any annual tribute ; but fhe " would have demanded very heavy occaflonal fupplies, whenever the exigencies of her flate made them neceffary, (p. 134.) Now, if it fhould appear that every kind of taxation was repugnant to the principles of the Spartan government, it 6 ¦ .. muft C 37 ] muft; neceffarily decide the point againft our Author. To prove this, I need not recur to antient writers ; for he has been fo obliging as to furnifh us with proofs, that turn againft himfelf in this, as well as in other inftances. He has informed us,, that the conflitution of Sparta prohibited all taxation. Even tbe domeflic expences of her government were fupplied by private contributions,, and her foldiers ferved without pay, (p. 75.) If this is true (and unqueftionably it is), how could they tax. their colonies, without a manifeft breach of their conflitution ? Let us fee the manner in which our Author defends them. When tbe Spartans contended for the fo'vereignty of Greece, in the Peloponneflan war, and when they extended their eonquefls in Afia under Agefllaus, they found it neceffary to grafp at every pretence for raffing money, while they feemed to maintain the fpirit of their conflitution, by impoflng no taxes, (p. 47) What ? did they feem to maintain it, when they were fapping its foundations ? •Was it not a fyftem of oppreflion, in whatever words it was coloured over, or whatever evafive expedients were wfed ? But how did the Spartans raife this money f not by regular taxes, indeed, but by means equivalent as to the ef fect, .though more dif agreeable and deflruCtive as to the man ner ; by heavy contributions demanded of their allies and co lonies, by depredations, and ignominious contrails, (p. 76.) An excellent model of imitation for the Brkifh parliament ! Our Author, however, acknowledges, that had tbe Spartans contented themfelves with levying a reafonable tribute from their colonies, it is improbable they fhould have alarmed tbe jealoufy of their neighbours, or that they fljould have been challenged in the exercife of fuch rights, (p. 76-) This looks as if he rather difapproved their proceedings ; but ftill [ 3* 3 ftill that he intended to argue from them, cannot be de nied ; for, after he had mentioned their depredations and ignominious contrafts, he added; this practice they, con tinued above flxty years ; in a word, tbe biflory of Greece af fords no inftance of any flate which had power to levy con tributions or taxes from its colonies, and did not put that power in execution. This fentence is printed in Italics, (and it is the only one that is fo in his Effay) in order to fhew us, that we ought to draw our regulations from their practice. Xenophon was an eye-witnefs of thefe ar bitrary and unconftitutional adts.; and though for the moft part he is too partial to the Spartans (which is the only defect in his hiftory), yet he expreffes himfelf on this oe- cafion with a noble indignation. " There was a time, fays this accompliflied writer, when this people had no other ambition, than to be thought worthy of governing ; whereas now they ftrive much more to govern, than to ap pear worthy of it ; whence it has happened, that the Greeks, who once courted their alliance, and folicited their affiftance, exhort one another at this time to prevent them from ever recovering their power (x)." Our Author, on the contrary, relates their violent and unjuft meafures,, without teftifying a proper abhorrence of them ; and means to produce them as good and lawful precedents. Utri creditis, Quirites ? Let us now examine, whether our Author has better grounds for arguing in favour of taxation, from the tri bute, or rather the voluntary contribution, which Ariftides, the firft treafurer of Greece, was commiflioned to col- (') Lacedsemon. Refp. p. 690. ed. Leunclay. 1625. lectu C 39 ] Ffect ('). As this is our Author's darling point, I will con- fider it with due attention ; and endeavour to ftrip it of the veil, under which he labours to difguife it. After the victory at Plataea, the Spartans took the lead in Greece ; but foon forfeited their claim to it. The lonians, and almoft all the cities- without the Ifthmus, as well as thofe in the iflands, provoked by the arrogance and tyranny of Paufanias, detached themfelves from their engagements with Sparta, and formed an alliance with Athens ; an alliance not unlike: that which now fublifts under the name of the Helvetic Union ; unlefs with this difference ; that the Swifs Cantons have wifely declined giving to Berne any precedency in rank or power; whereas, the Greeks imprudently in veiled Athens with the com mand of their naval forces, which enabled her to trample upon their liberties.. The. colonifts and allies, who were eontradting parties "in the league, were comprehended under the general name of confederates. They were feverally governed by their own laws ; and, as occafion re quired, -held public diets (") ; in which the proper meafures for the fafetyof Greece were, debated upon and refblved. They were all animated by the fame fpirit ; an eagernefs to retaliate the injuries which, they had received from their common foes- the Perfians. To. do. this effectually, it was neceffary to- create a public fund. . Our. Author (') This payment of the confederates was peculiarly calLed (po^og. Har- pocration fays of Demofthenes, " sXsy; h sxagag (pc^g o-vvjx^ag, swf&ri s of the Perfians, (3) ; which, in my humble apprehenfion, was an offenfive, not a defenflve war. No man could have extracted from the original, the fenfe which our Author has given it, unlefs he had written to ferve a particular pur pofe. It is needlefs to obferve, that, were we to grant that the tax was levied by the order of Athens, our Author's hypothefis would ftill be overturned ; for it was done not with a view to raife a revenue for the fupport of the parent ftate, but for the fole purpofe of carrying on a particular war. Such was the original contract between Athens^ and her confederates : a charter of rights eftablifhed in the (') Ifocrates, fpeaking of the tribute, fays, ¦srpojov psv yap, » zvpoa-- T0i%6sv v) Plut. vit. Ariftid. p. 322. (') Ibid. (!) Ibid. Eothv skhvov, oog a Sixuiov psv,