Political disquisitions; or, An enquiry into public errors, defects, and abuses. Illustrated by, and established upon facts and remarks, extracted from a variety of authors, ancient and modern. : Calculated to draw the timely attention of government and people, to a due consideration of the necessity, and the means, of reforming those errors, defects, and abuses; of restoring the constitution, and saving the state. / By J. Burgh, gentleman; author of the Dignity of human nature, and other works. ; Volume the first [-third and last].

POLITICAL DISQUISITIONS, &c.

BOOK I. Of Places and Pensions.

CHAP. I. Idea of a Parliament uninfluenced by Places and Pen|sions; taken from the best historical and political Writers, &c.

AFTER wading so long in the Serbonian bog of corruption, after having,

Escap'd the Stygian pool, tho' long detain'd In that obscure sojourn, whilst in our flight Through utter and thro' middle darkness borne, With other notes, than to th' Orphean lyre We sung of Chaos and eternal night; MILTON.

[ministerial influence in parliament will soon bring chaos and eternal night upon England, if not dissipated by the exertion of the spirit of a brave people] to speak plain prose; after tracing out such a multitude of foul and shameful instances of the ascendancy ob|tained

by fl••gitious courts over parliament, it may be some relief (it will certainly be some instruction) to the reader, to observe the difference between the conduct of corrupt, and that of uninfluenced parliaments.

What a parliament compleatly independent would be; and what parliaments accordingly have sometimes been, may, in some measure, be conceived from this chapter, which he who can read, comparing the idea here given of incorrupt parliaments with what we have seen in our debauched times; the Englishman, I say, who can read what follows without grief and indignation, must either be incapable of forming any judgment, wherein the interest of his country lies, and ignorant of what intimately concerns every subject of the British empire; or he must be void of all re|gard for his country, and consequently of every vir|tuous attachment; or he must be attached to an in|terest contrary to that of his country, by the sordid love of money, as being himself a dealer in rank bribery and corruption.

Every free Briton has reason to wish that darkness may overshadow the anniversary of his birth, who first introduced places and pensions into parliament. When I have made a few observations on the complexion of parliaments in those times, in which it is certain that the court did not, because it could not influence them by emolumentary means, every reader who recol|lects any thing of the politics of modern times (the present always excepted) will, on making a com|parison, join me in saying

Hoc fonte derivata clades In patriam populumque sluxit. HOR.

From this impure fountain flows the stream, which is likely to poison our country and posterity.

In ancient times, when the parliaments of England were unpensioned, we find them, even in spite of Popish darkness, and of the extravagant notions of prerogative which were the disgrace of those ages, ever faithfully labouring for the public good, and especially seizing all opportunities for obtaining an enlargement of liberty.

So early as 1290, we find a set of unjust judges mulcted by parliament, to the amount of 100,000 marks. The parliament obtained of Edw. I. a promise, that he would contrary to the usage of former times) quit all pretension to the right of levy|ing taxes by his own authority, and would raise none but with consent of the

archbishops, bishops, and other prelates, earls, barons, knights (of shires), bur|gesses, and other freemen of this realm.

The nume|rous confirmations of Magna Charta were obtained by parliaments, and always with reluctance on the part of the kings, as the first grant was extorted by the barons (which, by the bye, shews the justness of the obser|vation, that parliaments are as naturally friends to liberty as kings are to prerogative.) So high was the reputation of the commons, in the same reign, for integrity and judgment, that the barons proposed to the king, that they should have the choice of the chancellor, chief justice, and other great officers of state. To which that prince answered them by ask|ing, Why they did not demand his crown? That they chose their own servants: Why might not he enjoy the same privilege? [not considering that the people are deeply concerned in the choice of the king's servants; whereas no body has any thing to do with these of a duke or an earl.] In Edw. IIId's time, we find the commons refusing to grant an aid, till they had consulted their constituents. [In those days, they con|sidered

themselves as responsible not to the ministry, but the people.] In the same reign we find it recorded by historians,

That since the aids given in the last parliament were not duly answered to the king by those who had the care thereof, certain persons were appointed to take the accounts of William de la Pole, and others, who had received the money, wool, [taxes were, in those days, often paid in wool] &c. and they had a day assigned them to produce their accounts, and in the mean time several noblemen and gentlemen of fortune became bound, &c.

[This was the true way of preventing complaints against defaulters of millions.] In the same reign (about four hundred years ago) we find the commons refusing to grant supplies till grievances were redressed; fixing by law what shall be deemed treason; proposing regulations for preventing the subjects being compelled to make loans to the king, for that it was

against reason, and the franchise of the land;

making an act for holding annual parliaments [no ministerial schemes to be gained by rewarding, with places and pensions, those who voted seven years together as they were bid] limiting the power of the clergy and the lawyers; preventing the union, in the same persons, of legislative power and of court emoluments, by a law prohibiting any collector of taxes to represent any place in parliament; [so early were our ancestors aware of the usefulness of a place-bill, repeatedly rejected in our degenerate times.] In Rich. IId's days, we find the commons requesting that he would inform them how the public money was laid out, and who were to be his counsel|lors and great officers; to which request they insisted on, and obtained an answer. In the same reign the commons refuse to lay any taxes on the people, because they were disgusted, as had just before appeared by

Wat Tyler's insurrection. [In those days some regard was shewn to the sense of even the lowest of the people.] The commons request the removal of Michael de la Pole. The king gives them an answer in character, that is, a silly one. But they insist on compliance, and after some struggles, not only over|throw the minister, but at last dethrone the king him|self. The parliament appoints a commission of en|quiry to try the favourites. They impeach them of engaging the king to stand by them, right or wrong; of excluding all persons without the circle of the junto; of embezzling the public money, of laws dis|pensed with; of unjust punishments and pardons; of bribes taken of both parties, &c. In consequence, the archbishop and others are declared guilty of high treason, Michael de la Pole is impeached, the high treasurer, Tresilian, Brembre, and many others, are hanged. [Thus in the heat of their honest zeal for the public good, overleaping their due boundaries, as a third part only of the legislature, and breaking into the sphere of the executive. See vol. i. p. 205. et seq.] Yet this very parliament, in the midst of severity, remembers decency. They make an express resolution for exempting the king, and laying the whole blame on his ministers. Happy had he stopped while his ruin might have been prevented! They oblige him to renew his coronation oath. [Kings often want to have their memories refreshed on this subject.] He shews a mighty desire of holding the reins of government in his own hand. He ••o sooner gets power, than he shews his incapacity for being trusted with it. He displaces all the faithful servants of the state, to make room for his worthless favourites. He seizes the charters of London, im|prisons the mayor and sheriffs, fines the city, and

losing the inestimable affections of the inhabitants of the capital, hastens his own destruction. He tries to pack parliaments, to influence returning officers, to force elections, to raise money without parliament; obtains, by unfair means, the opinions of his servile judges in favour of his wicked measures; the very proceedings which afterwards brought Charles I. to the block. [If the old saying be true, experientia docet stultos, it is plain, that kings are not fools; for experience does not teach some of them.] The parliament impeaches him for unwarrantable liberality to worthless favour|ites; encouraging a junto to take upon th••m par|liamentary power; causing the parliament roll to be altered and blotted at his pleasure; forbidding his subjects to petition him; sending into the house men not elected by the people, but nominated by himself; biassing members by threats and promises; refusing the faithful advice of his subjects, and threatening those who offered it, &c. The parliament formally dethrones him, as is known to every reader.

Uninfluenced parliaments, instead of giving, as we have seen, the people's money by millions upon every call of the minister, have been remarkably delicate upon that point.

Hen. III. A. D. 1255, demands an aid. Parliament requires two conditions, viz. 1. Observance of the two charters; and 2. That parliament have the ap|pointing of the justiciary, treasurer, and chancellor. Henry, instead of complying, prologues the parlia|ment * 1.1.

The struggle between Ch. I. and his brave and free parliament is one of the most striking instances in the history of the world, of the glorious effects pro|duced

by the love of liberty and their country in the uninfluenced minds of a set of honest and courageous representatives. Let us contemplate a few instances of what is so much to the honour of human nature.

When that prince begun to demand money of par|liament, there was great opposition made. Pym, and the other patriots, said, the war was entered into rashly, and therefore the nation was not obliged to support it. He demanded an account of the money raised by Iames I. by resumption of crown-lands, and sale of titles and places. The commons accordingly, instead of supplies, proceeded to the consideration of grievances * 1.2. The king dissolves the parliament, because they would grant nothing * 1.3 When he sent repeated messages to the commons, pressing them to go upon supplies, and let grievances alone, Sir Robert Philips proposed to address the king, and let him know what they intended to do, if he would not interrupt them. If the king would not suffer them to go on with the public business, they must then depart in peace, and every man betake himself to prayer, that the confusions to be apprehended might be averted. The speaker, by the king's order, interrupts Sir I. El|liot in his remarks on the conduct of the ministry. Upon this, Sir Dudley Digges said,

If we must not speak of these things in parliament, let us be gone.

A mournful silence, for some time, ensued. Then Sir Nathaniel Rich observed,

That it was necessary they should take care of those, who sent them to par|liament;

and proposed to go to the lords, and, with them, wait on the king. The commons resolve, that neither Sir I. Elliot (who was interrupted by the slavish speaker) nor any other member, had spoken any

thing undutiful during that parliament. A committee is ordered to consider what may be done for the safety of the kingdom, and that no member leave the house, on pain of being sent to the Tower. The speaker desired to go out for half an hour. Mr. Kirton ob|served, that this was unprecedented and ominous. It was observed by Mr. Kirton (with too much good-nature) that the king was a good prince; but per|suaded by enemies to him and the nation.

Let us try to discover them,

says he,

and I doubt not, but God will lend us hearts, hands, and swords, to cut all his and our enemies throats.

Sir Edw. Coke observed,

That greater moderation never was known, than theirs had been, considering, that their liberties had been so shamefully violated. That former parliaments had boldly pointed out evil coun|sellors about the kings.

[He mentions several in|stances; but, as they occur in other parts of these collections, I shall not enumerate them here.]

How shall we answer to God and men,

says he,

if we do not make proper enquiry into the abuses of our times? Nothing grows to abuse, but this house hath power to treat of it. All men agree, that the duke of Buckingham is the cause of all the evil,

&c. The slavish speaker, who had stolen to the king (which was what he meant by asking to go out for half an hour) returned, and brought a message from the king, adjourning the house, and all committees, till next morning * 1.4. The speaker, by the king's command, adds, That he did not mean to restrain them in their just privileges; but only, that they should avoid reflections [no matter how just] on him|self and his ministers * 1.5. What would have been ac|cording

to this monarch's idea, restraining, if it was not restraining, to stop the commons from enquiring into the conduct of bad ministers? A power, which, as Sir Edw. Coke shews, had been so constantly assumed by parliament. Which shews the common apology for Charles I. viz. That he did not abridge liberty; but only refused to grant new privileges; to be greatly too indulgent to the violences of that des|perate tyrant.

The commons instructed their speaker to answer to one of his threatening messages, That it is the ancient right of parliament to debate in their own method, without interruption from the soveraine. That it is their ancient custom to consider of grievances fi••st, and supplies afterwards. That they thought it abso|lutely necessary to join with the supplies a due care of the essentials of liberty, without which there is no government, nor any thing great or valuable that can be done either in peace or war * 1.6.

In one of their remonstrances to the king, A. D. 1626, they express themselves in these words:—

Your faithful commons, who can have no private end, no object but your majesty's service, and the good of our country * 1.7.

[Had there been in that house of commons two or three hundred placemen, they would not have dared to say,

We can have no private end.

]

It hath been the ancient, constant, and undoubted right and usage of parliaments to question, and com|plain of all persons, of what degree soever, who have been found grievances to the commonwealth in abusing the power committed to them by their sove|raine—without which liberty in parliament, the

commonwealth might languish under the pressure [of those grievances] without redress.

The intractableness of his parliaments (an honest parliament will always be intractable, because a court will always be making exorbitant demands) made him determine to govern without them. When he could no longer put it off, he called one; but, says Voltaire* 1.8,

C'etait assembler des citoyens irritez;

this was calling together a set of enraged subjects, and giving them an opportunity of consulting about the destruc|tion of his tyranny. For the court had not then, as now, millions to dole away, by which to put a grum|bling house of commons in good humour.

The fashion was not in those days, as we have seen it since, to stifle all enquiries into the disposal of the public money. Therefore it was

ordered, A. D. 1648, by the house of commons, That the com|mittee of Goldsmith's Hall do print all their receipts for compositions, and how the moneys have been disbursed, that aspersions upon parliament may be cleared * 1.9.

In those tyrannical times, the instruments of the tyranny were the grandees of the court, who were gainers by it; and the vindicators of the public liberty were the commons of England, who had no share in the spoils, but were losers, and had nothing to make up their losses. Had the commons of those days had a fellow-feeling with the court; had there been two or three hundred placemen in the house of commons, would they have stood up so boldly for the interest of their country? It was the court that imposed ship-money, that condemned Prynne, Bastwick, Burton,

Leighton, &c. It was the brave commons that reversed the cruel sentences, and cast their enemies in damages for unjust imprisonment, tyrannical seizure of papers, exorbitant fines, cruel pilloryings and mutilations, star-chamber, court of York, &c.

Resolved, (A D▪ 1647) That no member shall receive any profit of any office, grant, or sequestra|tion from parliament: That whatever any members have received shall be repaid for public use, and the estates of members liable for their debts * 1.10.

A day was appointed for hearing complaints against members, and no member to receive any reparation for losses, till the public debts be paid. [Our gamblers are wallow|ing in the public money, while the nation is in debt 130 millions.] And tho' the self-denying ordinance was not strictly kept; (for Ireton, Fleetwood, Harris, and others, were elected into the house) a few cor|rupt men could carry no point; and the ordinance itself shews the sense of the times, and of all times, and all men, who pretend to have any regard for their country, concerning placemen in the house. And the many regulations made since for the pretended pur|pose of making parliament free, though ineffectual, and perhaps not always intended to be effectual, yet have a decent appearance, as coinciding with the gene|ral sense of mankind on this point.

The commons under Ch. I. were almost always unanimous. No wonder: they had no indirect in|terest to divide them; no places, no pensions, &c. to put them upon opposing what was plainly for the public good. Therefore we do not find in those times any abandoned speechifiers in the house, like our Walpoles and our P••lhams, supporting the useful|ness

of court-influence in parliament, in direct opposi|tion to common sense and common decency.

Resolved, (A. D. 1640) That no monopolist or patentee shall sit in the house.

Many were expelled, and new writs issued * 1.11. Parliament, A. D. 1645, pub|lishes a declaration,

That it would be an acceptable service, if any person would inform of any members taking bribes for any matter depending in the house* 1.12.

The brave commons under Ch. I. brought the lord keeper Finch upon his knees before them, and proving inexorable, obliged him to make his escapc * 1.13. They prosecuted Strafford and Laud to death, they forced Windebanke to fly. They struck with terror all the tools of the tyrant, and punished all their proceed|ings, however supported by precedent, which were not warranted by some express law * 1.14. They condemned the monopolies restored by Charles after their being, by a former parliament, solemnly declared illegal; and punished those concerned in them, expelling some members of their own house on that account. They changed, in less than a month, the face of affairs in England, from the most absolute monarchy to a demo|cracy, without other disturbance than a scuffle be|tween the king's army and the Scotch at passing the Tyne; and roused that spirit in the nation, which brought the bloody tyrant, commonly called the blessed martyr, to his merited end * 1.15.

Sir Harbottle Grimstone thus describes a parliament answering the design and exhibiting the true spirit of a parliament.

Of such awful predominancy is the

very name of a parliament to the nation, that it strikes with terror and despair all evil doers, and enriches and comforts the spirits of many groaning under the bur|den of oppression, inflicted on them unjustly and maliciously by unmerciful and wicked men, who have usurped to themselves places and offices of power and authority in church and state. It is not only the powerfullest of all courts, but the wisest; made and compacted not only of men found in religion, and well learned, but ripe in their judg|ments, selected from all parts of the kingdom, chosen with the free consent of the whole body politic of the kingdom.

[A man must be out of his wits to describe parliaments in our times in this manner.]

This great and high council is not only of such power and wisdom, but endowed with the greatest privileges, that not only the meanest of his majesty's subjects, but the greatest persons of the kingdom are in danger, if infringers of the same, to be called in question, and punished.

Crimstone's speech on occasion of Charles's demanding the five members * 1.16. He then mentions the privileges of parliament: viz.

To speak or debate, vote, impeach, condemn, acquit, protest, or remonstrate according to evi|dence, and the state of things,

[in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of ministe|rial, or regal interposition.]

No member to be pro|secuted but by the house for things said in the house, nor to be apprehended, his stu••y broke open, or his papers seized, but by order of the house. To make or unmake laws, raise taxes, do what business they please first, without superior compulsion or influence; nor to be dissolved capriciously when they are redressing wrongs and framing good laws,

or prosecuting delinquents.

To Grimstone's speech may be added the answer of the commons in their declaration, A. D. 1642. The king pretended, that the measures he pursued, were more for the good of the kingdom, than those, which they proposed, on which account he rejected all their wise and pacific proposals, and was not to be satisfied, 'till he made his country a sea of blood.

Is it likely, say they, that those, who are especially chosen

[electors were then unbribed, and unterrified by ministers or by grandees]

and introduced for the purpose, and who themselves must needs have so great a share in all grievances of the subjects

[no member had then any idea of indemnifying himself, by a place, or a pension, of the burden he brought upon his country by voting according to the minis|ter's direction]

should wholly cast off all care of the public good, and the king only take it up?

Heretofore, says Mr. Holles, in his speech before the lords, A. D. 1641. parliaments were the catholicon, the balm of Gilead which healed our wounds, restored our spirits, and made up all breach••s of the land. Of late years they have been without fruit, &c.

Parlia|ments were then become ineffectual because dissolved by the tyrant. Now we often wish them dissolved.* 1.17.

Sir William Iones answered Ch. II's proclama|tion, and apology for dissolving his parliament at Oxford in a pet, and says, inter alia,

The cou••t never dissolved a parliament abruptly and in a heat, but they found the next parliament more averse, and to insist on the same things with greater eagerness, than the former.—A parliament always participates of the

present temper of the people * 1.18,

Those times differed from ours (the present always excepted) for we have seen the times, when the true account of the matter would have been, that parliament is what the court (not the people) would have it to be.

When Mr. Holles impeached the nine peers before the lords * 1.19, in his speech he shewed the importance of parliaments, and that the enemies of the public tranquillity, have always sought the destruction or diminution of the power of parliaments.

Parlia|ment, says he, is the foundation of government; it creates and perserves law; watches over religion

[the members in those days had some religion,]

pre|vents licentiousness of manners; preserves the rights and liberties of the subject; provides for common ne|cessities; prevents public fears; the kingdom can rest on no other foundation, than that of parliament.

It is remarkable, that, when he mentions the arts of enemies for defeating the use of parliaments, as refusing to call them, diverting, obstructing, interrupting, or abruptly dissolving them; he never mentions corrupt|ing them by places, pensions, &c. the most effectual of all means for destroying their usefulness. What had been done in that way before those times, had answered little purpose. Ch. IId's pension parlia|ment was the first successful experiment of that black art, so fatally improved since. When Ch. I. (says lord Lyttelton, in his speech on the Spanish convention * 1.20)

told the commons, who were prepar|ing complaints against Buckingham, that he would not allow any of his servants to be questioned in

parliament, he spoke the language of despotic power, and such as this house would never endure. But if instead of speaking so openly, he had a little softned his style; confessed their right to question his ser|vants, but at the same time denied them the means: if Buckingham himself had challenged them to exa|mine his conduct, or the conduct of those who acted by his instructions and under his orders; and then refused them the sight of these instructions, and the regular methods according to the usage of parlia|ment of examining into these orders; the appearance indeed would have been fairer, but the proceeding itself would have been equally dangerous, equally fatal to the rights of this house. Sir, that parlia|ment would not have borne it; for it was composed of such men as had no influence upon them to abate the spirit and zeal with which they proceeded to en|quire into and punish mal-administration: such men at their first meeting, before they would give one penny of money to support the king in a war with Spain which had been begun at the desire of par|liament, appointed a committee to consider of secret affairs, and another for grievances. They resolved to enquire into the misemployment of the public treasure, and dishonour brought upon the nation, before they voted any supply, without apprehending any reproach of want of zeal for the king or the war; but that they might know the true state of the nation, and carry on the war with more chearful|ness when justice was done upon those who had involved them in so many difficulties, the same parlia|ment declared, and it stands uncontroverted yet upon your journals, That common fame is a good ground of proceeding for this house either by enquiry, or if the

house find cause, by impeachment. Accordingly queries were drawn up to enquire into the conduct of Buckingham, which were afterwards turned into articles of impeachment against him; and the king to save his minister had no other way than dissolving that parliament; for the art of softening them by corruption was not in use in those days. Sir, I hope I have not mispent your time in calling back to your memory the proceedings of a former house of commons which deserve, I think, the greatest re|spect, and are mentioned with reverence by the most impartial historians. How history will mention ours, I wish we may think worth our concern; but how the nation will judge of them now, I am sure we ought to consider. Sir, if a king has lost the esteem and the hearts of his people, the interposition of par|liament may awaken him to a sense of his error, and by healing counsels reconcile and restore them again; but if parliaments themselves act so as to lose their own dignity and by consequence the esteem and love of the people, who shall then interpose or what mediator is left? It is such an evil as admits of no remedy: it is the worst misfortune that can ever befal a free government. To have approved the convention, to have rejected a motion for laying before parliament the instructions of the minister who concluded and signed that convention, and then to deny the means of examining into these negotia|tions upon which Spain grounds these very preten|sions, which we are now fighting to destroy—these measures will certainly do us great honour in the opinion of those who are this year to pay four millions for supporting the war. What they will think of all this I do not know; but I am apt to

believe they will never think about it, without hav|ing at the same time in their thoughts that the same house of commons has three times rejected the place bill.

In the short, the too short period of the republic (for how happy had it been for England if she had been governed by the republican parliament during the period of her disgraces under Charles II. and Iames II.) in that short period we see what may be expected from a set of un-bribed, un-biassed men assembled together to consult for the public good, without fears, and without hopes, from a bribing court, and free from the imcumbrances of such kings, or houses of peers, to negative, or at least to entangle and impede their measures for the general advantage. How unfriendly to liberty kings and lords have been, will too plainly appear on perusing the articles Kings and Lords in the sequel. I write in this seemingly republican strain, not that I have the least thought of suggesting the necessity, or propriety, of changing the form of govern|ment in Britain, from regal to republican, though the latter is undoubtedly preferable to the former, suppos|ing a state to be settling its form of government; but to caution kings and lords, not to bring on, as they have formerly done by their misbehaviour, their own exclusion. But let us hear our incomparable female historian.

On the subject of the glory acquired by the English republic in this infant state, we shall observe the fol|lowing incautious testimonies of its inveterate ene|mies.

Heath, on entering into the subject of the parliament's forced dissolution, and the ruin of the republic, breaks out in the following exclama|tion.

Now to the reproach of Fortune and her

glorious pageant of an English commonwealth, which she had set up for another wonder of the world, to brave the pyramids of stone, and colossus of brass, as to the defiance of time's injury, having subdued all likelihood of danger from without; all princes being ready to entertain their friendship.

—Clarendon, who with a heart replete with selfish malice, in prospective saw and sighed over the future grandeur of his country, on speaking of the political conduct of cardinal Mazarine, makes the following observation:

After the battle of Naseby was lost, and the king seemed so totally defeated, that he had very little hope of appearing at the head of an army which might be able to resist the enemy, the cardinal was awakened to new apprehensions, and saw more cause to fear the monstrous power of the parliament, after they had totally subdued the king, than ever he had to apprehend the excess of greatness in the crown.

Treating of the Dutch war he observes:

The United Provinces now discerned, that they had helped to r••ise an enemy which was too powerful for th••m, and which would not be treated as the crown had been.

Guthrie, an historian of monarchical principle•• makes the fol|lowing observation:

Mazarine imagined, and that not without good grounds, that the natural interest of France led her to wish Cromwell to be at the head of the English, rather than it should be formed into a republic of brave and wise patriots.

On this act of violence,

[Cromwell's turning out the republican parliament]

Coke (an enemy) ex|claims, Thus fell the victorious parliament, whose mighty actions will scarcely find belief in future generations; and to say the truth, they were a set of

men most indefatigable and industrious in business, always seeking for men fit for it, and never prefer|ring any from favour and importunity. As they ex|celled thus in civil affairs, so it must be owned they exercised in matters ecclesiastic no such severity as others before them, upon such as dissented from them. Guthrie, an anti-republican, expresses the following favourable opinion of this parliament: The English republicans by their vigor and spirit, struck Europe with consternation; and the English flag was such a protection to commerce, that the trade of the world seemed now to center in Europe. Had this vast expence been drained from the sweat of the people, the furnishing it would not have so much alarmed the Dutch: but there had been a great reduc|tion in taxes, the customs alone furnished 250,000 l. clear of all deductions; the people scarce felt their burthens; and even the greatest enemies the government had, were pleased with the figure which England made abroad. Historians in general, esti|mating things by events and prejudices, have repre|sented the late parliament in a pitiful light, despised and disregarded by the people, which gave Cromwell the boldness to act as he did. But the reverse of this is true; for Cromwell dissolved them because he knew they must in time win upon the people; that the spirit with which they proceeded would soon render him and his army useless; and that they were pointing towards an establishment which must check the carreer of all inordinate ambition. This parliament (says Trenchard, in the History of standing armies in England) made their name famous through the whole earth, conquered their enemies in England, Scotland and Ireland; reduced the kingdom of Portu|gal

to their own terms, recovered our reputation at sea, overcame the Dutch in several famous battles; secured our trade, and managed the public expences with so much frugality, that no estates were gained by private men upon the public miseries, and at last were passing an act for their own dissolution and settling the nation in a free and impartial common|wealth. Ludlow on the praises of this renowned assembly writes. It will appear to unprejudiced posterity that they were a disinterested and impartial parliament, who though they had the sovereign power of the three nations in their hands for the space of ten or twelve years, yet did not in all that time give away amongst themselves so much as they spent for the public in three months. In a Discourse of the national excellency of England, here is the following honourable character given of the English government during the short time it remained a republic. If you respect its infancy and beginning, it out went in warlike atchievement all other common-wealths. I lay before me the exploits of Sparta, Athens, Car|thage, and Venice; and know that the Venetians Switzers, and United Provinces at this day, being contemptible for territory, are those only that appear fittest matches for the greatest empires. I know also, that Rome, the only mistress of the world, was justly celebrated for large conquests; and yet none of these states gave such starts, and made such acquests at their rise as our English common-wealth. Certainly so many advantages conduced to its great|ness and increase, and at its first appearing so large were its territories, that it may well be affirmed, never was a common-wealth in that respect laid on so large a foundation; and if in our conceit we should give it an answerable growth, we could not assign it

less than the whole globe at last for its portion. At first, if you will judge by the affections of the people, it had not the hundredth part of England itself, and was to go through difficulties which would have con|founded any but a free state; yet how quickly had it brought the nation to somewhat a better understand|ing and a fair way of settlement: so that there are some who question whether any natural prince of England had ever been assisted on any occasion with such great forces so suddenly and with such alacrity raised, as they were at Worcester; and on the other side, how few went over to the king of Scots, though generally looked on as a rightful prince, deserves consideration. It lived not out a lustre; yet con|quered Scotland, (introducing more liberty and greater privileges than they had before) Ireland, and several other smaller islands; made other nations feel its force, as the French and Portuguese; and was going on in such a carreer of action as was not to be stopped by human power. This government began a war with the Dutch, which it would have ended with absolute conquest, or fallen in the attempt; and after this pro|bably, it would have entered on more honourable enterprizes, and not suffered the nation to grow effe|minate by ease and vice. In a word, it had brought in an instant the nation to a full glory, and such a splendour as cast a darkness, as it is affirmed by some, on the greatest actions of former times. This is certain, that the neighbouring states trembled at its sudden and prodigious greatness, and remote poten|tates did court and seek a good understanding from its hands; and its dissolution brought no ordinary content to those who had cause to fear it. The agent from the Stewarts (as a late writer reports) at

the first appearance of this commonwealth urged the United Provinces, that if England were free, it would be formidable to them not only by interrupting their fishing, and all other maritime advantages, but by robbing them of traffic, as they had done the Venetians; and not only so, but give law to all Christendom by reason of the commodiousness of its harbours and the number of its ships. To the just and high elogiums which have been made on the government of the par|liament it is to be remembered, that to them is due the singular praise of having pursued the true interest of their country, in attending particularly to its ma|ritime strength, and carrying on its foreign wars by its naval powers. This example, which raised Eng|land to so great an height of glory and prosperity, has never yet been followed, and in all probability never will, by the succeeding monarchs. The aim of princes is to make conquests on their subjects, not to enlarge the empire of a free people. A standing army is a never-failing instrument of domestic tri|umph; and it is very doubtful whether a naval force could be rendered useful in any capacity, but that of extending the power and prosperity of the coun|try * 1.21

If the very rump of a parliament

(says a writer in STATE TRACTS, time of king William)

even in the midst of domestic discontents, and beset on all sides with foreign assaults, and invasions at home; if that small and broken number without any head, and under so many disadvantages, could by this only means secure our peace, and so widely extend the repute and honour of the English name; what country or what region could ever give limits to the un|bounded

reputation of a full and legal parliament so nobly qualified? What nation could there be so powerful as to resist our forces, or so politick as to infatuate our counsels? There is nothing within the compass of human wishes of which we might not assure ourselves, from the wisdom and virtue of such a disinterested assembly * 1.22.

Fairfax's plan shews what an idea people had in those times, (viz. before parliamentary corruption prevailed) of the safety of confiding in them. He proposes that the two houses have the supreme judg|ment of offenders, with power of exposition and application of law without appeal. No state-criminal to be pardonable by the king, without their consent. The house of peers no longer to be alone the supreme court, grand juries to be nominated, not by the under-sheriff, but by the people of the counties mutually. Militia to be under power of parliament for ten years, and not under the king alone. The public treasure the same. Regulations for the militia or army to be made in parliament. Great offices of state to be dis|posed of by parliament for ten years. Afterwards parliament to give in to the king three names, and he to appoint one. No new-made peer to sit without leave of parliament. All declarations against parlia|ment to be void. In modern times, it is altogether the same to the people, whether the command of the army, treasury, state-offices▪ &c. be in the court, the lords, or the commons. For these three are one.

When a reward was proposed for Mrs. Lane, for saving that blessed saint Charles II. some of the mem|bers said, the house had no right to give away in this manner the people's money to any but the king for

public use * 1.23. On the contrary, in modern times we see our parliaments so motherly to our ministers, they know not how to refuse them any thing they ask; at one time our kings are to have their civil list (for|merly granted annually) settled on them for life; at another 500,000l. voted to pay the civil list debts; at another an account of 250,000l. of 60,000l. of 35,000l. passed unexamined, because the court gave their word of honour the money was all spent in the public service; of which more elsewhere.

Clarendon says, Charles II. despaired of his restoration, when he heard of the resurrection of parliament after Richard Cromwell's resignation. An incorrupt par|liament is never very courtly, and contrariwise, a corrupt one can deny nothing to kings and courts. But if Charles had recollected, that his friend Monk had an army at his command, he would not have despaired. Armies and kings have a great tenderness for one an|other, and are particularly useful to one another. Both depend more upon power, than upon justice; both love to rule without controul; kings love armies, because an army can support them in tyrannical measures without the trouble of satisfying the subjects; and armies love kings, because they are indulged by kings (on account of their usefulness) in a different manner from what they experience under republican government. But of this I shall have occasion to treat fully in the article Army.

There is nothing of greater importance to the safety and good of the kingdom, (says Mr. Pymme, A. D. 1641) than that this high court of parlia|ment, which is the fountain of justice and govern|ment, should be kept pure, uncorrupt, and free from

partiality and bye respects. This would not only add lustre and reputation, but strength and authority to all our acts. In this the lords are specially inte|rested, as being a third estate by inheritance and birth-right. The commons are publicly interested by representation of the whole body of the commons of this kingdom, whose lives, fortunes, and liberties are deposited under the custody and trust of the par|liament * 1.24.

—

Least of all will it be swallowed by a parliament,

says Thurloe, in one of his letters, speaking of certain schemes proposed for keeping Cromwell in power * 1.25. In our times we never hear of any body afraid of parlia|ment, but writers on the side of the opposition.

There were not wanting court-sycophants in the time of Charles II. who celebrated him to the skies, and justified all his ruinous proceedings. But his parliaments did not always eccho back, as in our times, the false panegyric.

Long, long, may that royal tree live and flourish, upon which those fruits do grow!

says Shaftesbury, in his speech to parliament, A. D. 1673, with a great deal more to the same beslobbering purpose, to blind the eyes of both parliament and people, and to incline them to be contented with the proceedings of the times. Shaftesbury in this rhetorical flourish hits off one undoubted property of Charles. He was so very fruitful of bastards, that the wags of the times ob|served, that he might be said almost literally, as well as figuratively, to deserve the ancie•••• most honourable title of pater patriae, the father of his people. Both lords and commons however shewed themselves very

much discontented at the continuance of the Dutch war, the exorbitant power of France, prevalence of popish counsels, &c. which they take care to signify to the king in an address for a fast * 1.26. And the commons seeing at last his worthlessness in joining France against Holland, and that the design of his five villainous tools, whose initials form the famous word CABAL, was to make him absolute, oppose him openly. They resolve, that Lauderdale, and the French alliance, are grievances. The king prorogues them immediately. On their meeting again, they address him against his guards; and impeach Buckingham and Arlington. Charles finding that they were too honest to grant him further supplies for an odious war, makes peace with the Dutch * 1.27.

Were the house of commons

(says a writer in the STATE TRACTS, time of king William)

a true re|presentative, and free from external force and private bribery, nothing could pass there, but what they thought was for the public advantage. For their own interest is so interwoven with the people's, that if they act for themselves (which every one of them will do as near as he can) they must act for the common interest of England. And if a few among them should find it their interest to abuse their power, it will be the interest of all the rest to punish them for it: and then our government would act mechanically, and a rogue would as naturally be hanged as a clock strikes twelve when the hour is come. This is the fountain head from whence the people expect all their happiness, and the redress of their grievances; and if we can preserve them [viz. parliaments] free from corruption, they will take care to keep every

body else so. Our constitution seems to have pro|vided for it by never suffering the king (till Charles Ist's reign) to have a mercenary army to frighten them into a compliance, nor places nor revenues great enough to bribe them into it. The places in the king's gift were but few, and most of them patent places for life, and the rest great offices of state enjoyed by single persons, which seldom sell to the share of the commons, such as the office of a lord chancellor, lord treasurer, privy seal, lord high admiral, &c. and when these office•• were possessed by the lords, the commons were severe inquisitors into their actions. Thus the government of England continued from the time that the Romans quitted the island to the time of Ch. I. who was the first I have read of that made an opposition to him|self in the house of commons the road to preferment, of which the earls of Strafford and Noy were the most remarkable instances; who from great patriots became the chief assertors of despotick power. But this served only to exasperate the rest; for he had not places enough for all that expected them, nor money enough to bribe them. It is true, he raised great sums of money upon the people; but it being without authority of parliament, and having no army to back him, it met with such difficulties in the raising, that it did him but little good, and ended at last in his ruin; though by the means of a long and miserable war which brought us from one tyranny to another: for the army had got all things into their power, and governed the nation by a council of war, which made all parties join in calling in Ch. II. so that he came in with the general applause of the people, who in a kind fit gave him a vast revenue for life. By this he was enabled to raise an army,

and bribe the parliament, which he did to the pur|pose: but being a luxurious prince, he could not part with great sums at once. He only fed them from hand to mouth: so that they found it necessary to keep him in a constant dependance upon them, as they were upon him. They knew he would give them ready money no longer than he had an absolute necessity for them, and that he had not places enough in his disposal to secure a majority in the house: for in those early days the art was not found out of splitting and multiplying places; as instead of a lord treasurer, to have five lords of the treasury; instead of a lord admiral, to have seven lords of the admi|ralty; to have seven commissioners of the customs; nine of the excise; fourteen of the navy-office; ten of the stamp-office; eight of the prize-office; six|teen commissioners of trade; two of the post-office; four of the transports; four for hackney-coaches; four for wine-licences; four for the victualling-office, and multitudes of other offices which are endless to enumerate. I believe the gentlemen, who have the good fortune to be in some of those em|ployments, will think I compliment them, if I say, they have not been better executed since they were in so many hands than when in fewer: and I must confess, I see no reason why they may not be made twice as many, and so on ad infinitum (unless the number be ascertained by parliament) and what danger this may be to our constitution I think of with horror. For if in ages to come they should be all given to parliament-men, what will become of our so much boasted liberty? What shall be done, when the criminal becomes the judge, and the malefactors are left to try one another * 1.28?

The commons, A. D. 1673, vote in a grand com|mittee that no more supplies ought to be granted dur|ing a certain period, unless they see necessity, on ac|count of the Dutch war, and till the kingdom be secured against popery, and grievances redressed * 1.29.

The commons, A. D. 1678, vote supplies, but with strict limitations * 1.30.

The commons, A. D. 1678, give a direct denial to the king's request in his speech for an additional revenue of 300,000 l. a year * 1.31.

A supply was granted, A. D. 1679, but with an appropriation to certain purposes only, and penalty in case of misapplication * 1.32.

The commons complained of unaccounted millions, A. D. 1701 * 1.33. Now the people complain, not the commons. Why, indeed, should the commons complain? The court and they divide the spoil between them.

It is remarkable, how directly in the teeth of the court, the commons often proceeded in former incor|rupt, or less corrupt, times. In former times the court and commons were generally opposite; in ours the constituents and representatives. There was much corruption in king William's time; but we sometimes see the stream of parliamentary proceedings in those days run very clear. King William had given away immense grants of forfeited estates in Ireland. The commons resolved, A. D. 1699, that a bill be brought in for reversing every one of those grants, and

applying all the forfeited estates and interests in Ireland, to the use of the public, and that a judi|catory

be erected for determining claims, and that they [the commons] will receive no petitions con|cerning grants.

The courtiers in the house moved, That some part of the forfeited estates might be left in the king's disposal. It passed in the negative; and they made a resolution condemning the advising and procuring those grants to be passed * 1.34. The commons addressed the king on these resolutions. The king answered, that his intention in giving those grants was to reward those, who had behaved well, particu|larly in the reduction of Ireland, which he thought himself in justice obliged to do. The uncourtly commons thought he was more justly bound to pay the just debts contracted in the late war; and they thought the forfeited estates a very proper fund for the purpose. How did the Romans, in their best times, reward their heroes? With a wisp of hay round their heads, or a ride through the town, and up to the capitol. The commons, provoked at this answer, resolved, That whoever advised it, intended to create a misunderstanding between the king and people * 1.35.

All the proceedings were ordered to be printed, and it was resolved,

That the procuring, or passing exor|bitant grants by any member of the privy council, to his own private use, is a high crime and misde|meanor * 1.36.

Those brave men were jealous even of our great deliverer, and would not bear mis-govern|ment even by him. The lords (generally on the wrong side) oppose these brave and wise measures. Conferences followed, and warm disputes between the houses. At last the good king desires the lords to yield the point. Lord Sommers was found to be at the bottom of all this opposition. The commons put

the question, that the king be desired to remove him. This was not carried; but a resolution was made, that no foreigner (except the prince of Denmark) be admitted to his majesty's counsels in England, or Ireland. The king, to avoid this address, prorogues, and afterwards dissolves the parliament.

The commons, A. D. 1700, went upon a scheme for applying the value of forfeited estates, granted away since 1688, to the payment of the public debts. The value of them was thought to be almost two millions. The commons resolve, That these grants were against the king's honour and the public good. This resolution was presented to the king in form of an address; to which the king gives an answer, justi|fying the grants, as given to deserving persons. The commons, enraged, make a resolution against the king's advisers. They proceeded to a bill of resump|tion. Thirteen trustees are appointed to hear claims, &c. None to be trusted, who had any dependence on the king. An address proposed to the king that he would remove lord Sommers from his councils and presence, because he had opposed the bill of resump|tion. The king, provoked, wants to overset the bill. But many of the king's friends were for passing it to prevent mischief, the commons being set upon it. The commons in those days were too mighty for the court. It is true, that, according to Tindal * 1.37, it was found afterwards, that the bill was not well contrived, and was therefore spontaneously dropt by the commons. But the bold opposition of the com|mons to the court, so different from what we see in our times, is what I mean to point out.

Incorrup•• parliaments, instead of being slaves to ministers, have kept ministers in constant fear of

being called to an account by them.

In former times, parliaments were every moment upon the wing, and kept this noble band [the privy council] in awe, by taking them into their cognizance, placing, or misplacing some, or all of them, directing, or bind|ing them by oath, as they saw occasion; of which the records are full * 1.38.

It is observed by Mr. Kirton * 1.39, in his speech in the time of Ch. I. that

former parliaments had boldly pointed out evil counsellors about the kings, as 30 Edw. III. Iohn of Gaunt, the king's son, lord Lati|mer, and lord Neville, who were sent to the Tower. 7 Hen. IV. and 11 Hen. IV. parliament complained of the king's council, and obtained their removal, for besetting the king and dissuading him from the public good. 4 Hen. III. 27 Edw. III. and 13 Rich▪ II. parliament moderated the king's prerogative.

Lord Middlesex was accused, in the time of Iam. I. and convicted of gross and sordid griping, and of procuring good regulations to be altered, as those concerning the court of wards, &c. of extortion in creating new places, and enhancing the perquisites of the old, &c. All the commons to a man joined in the impeachment. Not one to stand by a public rob|ber * 1.40. Hereby was fulfilled the prediction of lord Bacon, A. D. 1624, who, meeting Middlesex soon after his advancement to the head of the treasury, congratulated him, and wished him, and all great state-officers, always to remember, that •• parliament will come * 1.41. [In our times, you may as well tell ministers of the day of judgment, as of parliament.]

To the same purpose was the saying of lord Coke, That no subject, however potent, or subtile, ever jostled with the law, but it broke his neck. But, in our times, it may be said, as Remus remarked to his brother Romulus,

Laws serve only as cobwebs, to catch the small flies: the great ones break through them.

The worthy and sagacious Davenant * 1.42, in the end of last century, wrote concerning parliamentary corrup|tion, as if his pen had been guided by a prophetic inspiration.

Our wealth and greatness, says he, depend absolutely upon keeping the legislative power to future ages untainted, vigilant for the public safety, jealous of the people's rights, watchful over ministers, unawed by armies, unseduced by prefer|ments, bribes, or pensions. That we are safe at present; that this important post is well secured, is granted,

[some honest hearts, on reading this, and comparing the state of things in latter times, will, perhaps, bleed for their degenerate country]

but writing for posterity, to which these papers may, peradventure, be transmitted, I think it need|ful to give these cautions.

Let the injured resort to the courts of law, and if there they fail of justice, in parliament they may be confident to receive it.

Smith's speech on the state of the nation, 1641 * 1.43.

Sir Robert Naunton ascribes the happiness in Eliza|beth's days, to the wisdom and patriotism of the mem|bers of the house of commons. There was nothing then to give them. Therefore they had nothing to draw them from the good of their country * 1.44.

Members of parliament

(says the learned judge Blackstone * 1.45)

are not thus honourably distinguished from the rest of their fellow subjects, merely that they may privilege their persons, their estates, or their do|mestics; that they may list under party banners; may grant or with-hold supplies; may vote with or against a popular or unpopular administration; but upon considerations far more interesting and important. They are the guardians of the English constitution, delegated to watch, to check, and to avert, every dangerous innovation; to propose, to adopt and to cherish any solid and well weighed improvement. Bound by every tie of nature, of honour, and of religion, to transmit that constitution, and those laws to their posterity, amended if possible, but at least without derogation.

Camden observes, that no tax disgusts the English which has the sanction of parliament. This is true in general. In former times, parliaments had the confidence of the people. Have parliaments the con|fidence of the people in our times?

The nation naturally loves parliamentary cures: but is jealous of all others * 1.46.

If, therefore, at any time, the nation is jealous of parliament, it is to be supposed there is reason; because the prejudice of the people is in favour of parliament.

Colonel Lundy (though excepted out of the indem|nity by the commons, A. D. 1689) desires to be exa|mined by the commons * 1.47. The commons had then the confidence of the people; as juries, or arbitrators, have now. We have seen the times, when an honest

and consequently obnoxious, man, who would have feared nothing, if to be tried by a jury, give his cause for lost, if ordered to appear before parliament. G. Grenville, a few years ago, told the house of com|mons, their manner of deciding contested elections was so gross, that not one of them would chuse to have any part of his property at the mercy of the house, if a jury of porters or carmen could be had.

While the commons were raising money, [A.D. 1695] they wisely enquired into the disposal of former taxes, and discovered so much corruption, that they thought it was high time to punish, and prevent farther * 1.48.

King William celebrates this parliament for form|ing the national revolution-association; for remedy|ing the debasement of the coin; for restoring credit; for giving supplies for the war; for paying off debts; and for settling the civil list * 1.49. A great deal of business done in one parliament. We too have seen a great deal dispatched in one parliament, but business of another sort. We have seen in one parliament the power of election of members taken from the peo|ple, and usurped by the commons; the colonies irri|tated by taxing them without representation; the mother country so dissatisfied, that 60,000 petitioned to have parliament dissolved; 600,000 l. of the peo|ple's money given, sorely against their will, to pay debts, which none, but the ministry, knew to be real, or if real, how contracted; the East India company deprived of her rights and privileges, without pretence of transgression against government; religious liberty refused to two different sets of petitioners humbly

requesting what all mankind have an unalienable right to enjoy, &c. of all which more fully elsewhere.

From these few pages may be formed such an idea of what parliaments ought to be, of what they have been, and of what, it is to be feared, we shall not quickly see them restored to, as may incline us to adopt the antient prophet's complaint;

How is the gold become dim! How is the most fine gold changed! The precious sons of Zion, comparable to vessels of fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hand of the potter* 1.50!

The true value is only to be restored to our debased parliaments by putting them into the refining furnace, and purging them of the gross alloy of places and pensions, which have so long debauched and dis|graced them.

CHAP. II. Placemen and Pensioners unfit for Members of Par|liament, because not likely to be uninfluenced.

ONE of the oldest, if not absolutely the oldest, writer in the world, threatens

a fire to consume the tabernacles of bribery* 1.51.

A parliament filled with placemen and pensioners is literally a tabernacle of bribery. For it is impossible to give an honest reason for any number of placemen's or pensioners having suffrage in parliament. The house of commons ought to be the people in one room. And why must the people be bribed to consult their own interest? If indeed the

court has schemes to carry, directly opposite to the people's interest, it may be convenient for the court, that many placemen croud the house of commons.

It is not easy to imagine, even stretching charity till it cracks, that any one ever seriously thought the admission of place-men, pensioners, and officers, into the house of commons, safe, or decent; that any man of common sense can think of it otherwise, than as an open and impudent defiance of the sense of the whole independent people of England.

Our court advocates, however, sometimes divert themselves (on a too fatally serious subject) by treat|ing the independent people like children, when they tell us, it is good policy to drop some douceurs among the members of both houses, to attach them more closely to their country's good. As if it were necessary to bribe mankind to consult their own in|terest. Take away your douceurs, and every mem|ber's interest will be the same with the public. Suppose I give out, that I will not eat, or drink, unless the court bribes me. Would the court think it necessary to settle an annual pension on me, to make me eat a dinner every day? or would it be thought proper to give me a place—any where, but in Bed|lam? The court knows full well, that the direct contrary of their scandalous pretence is the truth; and that the members of the legislature would natu|rally consult but too well for their iniquitous purposes, their own interest, in consulting that of their country, did not they byass them by throwing another interest and advantage in their way; which for that reason they accordingly do, at an immense expence to the nation.

He knew human nature well, who said, The love of money is the root of all evil. He, who can resist

the love of money, may be said to be tried as gold in the fire.

Quisquis ingentes oculo irretorto Spectat acervos. HOR.

But as we know, the number of men capable of standing this fiery trial, is very small, we ought to be the more cautious of laying temptations in the way of those, whose failure is to be apprehended, and whose failure may be of such ruinous consequence to the public. To trust our all, without account, to a set of frail men, and then put those men in such circumstances as are likely to lead them to betray us—what can be imagined more contrary to wisdom? Several millions a year laid out in supporting the power of the court! And this not sufficient; of such a growing nature is corruption! Nothing of this boundless unaccountable waste could have place in a republic. I do not mention this as any reflection on our kings. It is but a small part of this immense sum, that is consumed by them in their propria persona, or that is laid out on their families. But in a republic, judge Blackstone * 1.52 would not have written as follows;

It is impossible to sup|port that dignity, which a king of Great Britain should maintain, with an income in any degree less, than what is now established by parliament.

Ac|cording to the learned judge, whatever is, is right. But, surely, with all due submission, the dignity of a British monarch does not consist in his spending large sums of his poor people's money; but rather in his sparing their purses, and setting them an example of frugality. With the learned judge's good

leave, it is the dignity (if dignity it may be called) of the ministry, and their crew, much more than the king's, that devours the civil list. So that the plain English of what the learned judge has written, will be what follows;

It is impossible to support that influence which a British ministry should maintain, with an income in any degree less than several mil|lions per annum:

Than which I cannot conceive a more ruinous political doctrine.

When Sir W. Temple dissuaded Ch. II. from all thoughts of making himself absolute, he observed to him, among other things, that it would be impracti|cable: for that England was quite a different sort of country from France, where absolute government was established. That in the land of slavery there was no such independent body as our middling gentry; and that, on the contrary, that country was full of priests, of needy noblesse, military officers, and revenue-men, all naturally devoted to the support of arbitrary power, as being all interested in it themselves; that Charles had but few places and pensions to give, and no army of considerable force * 1.53. [We have now innumerable places and pensions to allure, and a formidable army to threaten our members into court-measures.] Accord|ingly the pension parliament was very compliant to the court at first; but grew more patriotic afterwards, most probably disappointed in their voracious expec|tations.

Ch. I. A. D. 1628, gave out, that it belongs only to the judges to declare the meaning of the laws * 1.54. But Rapin justly remarks, That this was making those men the interpreters of the laws, who depended

on him; for the king could then make or unmake the judges, as he pleased; which was throwing the liberties, properties, and lives of the subjects into the hands of the king or ministry. Is not the reasoning the same with regard to membe•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 parliament? If they hold places, and expect preferments from the ministry, are they not the dependents on the ministry as much as Charles's judges were on him? And is it not as much to be expected, that they should be slaves to the ministry?

Whitelocke, in opposing the self-denying ordinance, observes, That the Greeks and Romans gave the greatest employments to their senators. But there is always a great difference between a monarchy and a republic. The latter has checks for overgrown power, which the former knows nothing of. And it is the peculiar evil of monarchy, that ministers screen themselves behind the throne; and, as kings are sacred characters, as our kings can do no evil, and parliaments are bribed, ministerial crimes go unpunished. Again; Whitelocke says, the English have always given great places to the members of both houses. But in those times, the number of places was so small, they could seldom produce any great effect. Accordingly we see how staunch parliaments were in Ch. Ist's time.

The proposals for more effectually putting the self-denying ordinance in force A. D. 1648, were at that time over-ruled, because many of the members held very profitable places. Yet it is certain there were not in those days places for a majority of the house, and all depends on the majority * 1.55. How then came the minority to gain such a point?

This shews, that the effect of places and pensions given to parliament-men extends much wider than the places and pensions themselves reach to. There are always in parliament a multitude of gapers, who hope to catch a sop by and by, and are therefore ready to ••urry court-favour by shewing themselves to be on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 side. It is to be supposed, that was then the case.

The author of Faction detected by Facts, says, a pension-bill is impossible, because members may take the money, and conceal their crime. But why may not things be put on such a foot, that a minister should not know how to find money enough to bribe 300 men of fortune every time he has an unconsti|tutional point to carry? Besides, were a double penalty set upon both giver and receiver, the frequency of detection, in consequence of party-alter••ati••n, would render bribin•• very dangerous. And were parliaments annual, with exclusion of a certain number by rotation for three years, as the law requires in the case of sheriffs, it could be worth no minister's while to bribe.

Our house of commons pretends to have an absolute controul over elections, to determine who shall sit in their house, and who shall not. Why then have they never determined, that no member shall sit, who ha•• given victua••s, or drink, or money, to be elected? Why do they not determine that no man shall sit in their house, who has a dependence of any kind upon the court? The answer is plain. This would only be for the advantage of the people, and would ruin the trade of parliamenteering; 〈◊〉〈◊〉

courtiers and king's servants (says Whitlocke) sit in parliament rather to promote their master's ends [and their own] than their country's rights * 1.56.

On this grievous subject, cruel is the sneer of the courtiers upon us, when we complain of placemen in the house, viz.

That the people themselves are in fault; Why do they re-elect them?—Ah, ye traitors, who 'grin horrible a ghastly smile,' while ye are stabbing liberty to the heart! full well do ye know (at the very time ye are mocking us with this unjust and wicked recrimination of a fault, which owns yourselves only for its authors) that the wretched people re-elect upon the same principle as they elect. A handful of beggars either tempted by a bribe, or awed by the threats of a man in power, elect and re-elect as they are bid. And so the house comes to be filled with the tools of a minister. Nothing can there|fore be imagined more farcical, than our pretending to make a law rendering it necessary to re-elect every member, who has accepted a place. The only law, that could, to any purpose, have been made, was utter disqualification.

One would imagine, there could not be much room for accusing the republican parliament of places and pensions. Yet it appears, that reflections were even then made upon that account, which shews the delicacy of those times.

What does the enemy say, nay what do many say, who were friends at the be|ginning of the parliament? even this. That the members of both houses have got great places and commands, and the sword into their hands, and what by interest in parliament, what by power in the army, will purposely continue themselves in grandeur, and not permit the war speedily to end, lest their own profit and power should determine with it. This I speak to our own faces. It is but what others do utter abroad behind our backs. I hope we have such true English hearts and zealous affections toward the

general weal of our mother country, that no member of either house will scruple to deny himself and his private interest for the public good, nor account a dishonour done to him, whatever the parliament shall resolve upon in this weighty matter.

Cromwell's speech, (the only sensible one he ever made) which led to the self-denying ordinance * 1.57.

It was reckoned, there were 232 members of the first parliament of Geo. I. who had places, pensions, or titles, besides a great many brothers, and heirs apparent, of the nobility, or persons otherwise likely to be under undue influence; the number of which was not below 50, which added to the 232 makes 282 * 1.58. A frightful majority on the side of the court. And there is no reason to suppose the Augean stable is gene|rally cleaner now than it was then.

Had our new barrier been well fortified, [that is, the independency of parliament secured at the revolu|tion] had the representative of the people been con|trived to answer to the name, all our kings had been queen Elizabeth's. But our elections in inconsider|able boroughs, and our members being qualified to serve two masters, were such mistakes in our funda|mentals, that, as they have produced our past misfor|tunes, they must produce the like under bad princes, or evil projecting ministers. With a house of com|mons chosen truly by the people incapable of pensions and places, the king and kingdom had been incapa|ble of misfortune: they had been out of the reach of all human power, and with due submission, above fate; since such a government would have made us the proper objects of divine protection, and not only

have secured our greatness and glory, but our reli|gion and morals too, which I fear are all going toge|ther * 1.59.

A parliament is not necessarily a security more than a court, (as the French king's court) against sla|very Iames II. A. D. 1689, assembled a parliament in Ireland. But what sort of parliament? Let Tindal* 1.60 answer. Slaves to the king, packed by him, bigotted to popery, and furious against the protestants, king William, and the revolution. Suppose a parliament thoroughly attached to the court by bribery, the effect would be the same as if attached by a false principle.

We have seen and heard,

says lord Bolingbroke,

in a nation hitherto free, such maxims avowed and pleaded for, as are inconsistent with all the notions of liberty. Corruption hath been defended, nay recommended as a proper, a necessary, and therefore a reasonable expe|dient of government; than which there is not perhaps, any one proposition more repugnant to the common sense of mankind and to universal experience. Both of these demonstrate corruption to be the last deadly symptom of agonizing liberty. Both of them declare that a people abandoned to it are abandoned to a repro|bate sense, and are lost to all hopes of political salva|tion. The dependence of the legislature on the execu|tive power hath been contended for by the same persons, under the same direction, and yet nothing surely can be more evident than this; that in a constitution like ours, the safety of the whole depends upon the ballance of the parts, and the ballance of the parts on their mutual independency on one another; agreeably to which, Thuanus makes Ferdinand say in answer to the Castilians, who press'd him to take away the independency of the

states of Arragon; That the public safety depends on the equal ballance of the power of the king, and of the power of the kingdom, and that if ever it should happen that one outweigh'd the other, the ruin of one, or of both, must undoubtedly follow * 1.61.

It is pleasant to observe a set of writers charging others with forming republican schemes, when they themselves are the persons who in effect, and by the necessary consequence of their way of reasoning, have been placing our excellent constitution in a most ridiculous and contemptible light. According to them it is no better than a jum|ble of incompatible powers, which would separate and fall to pieces of themselves, unless restrained and upheld by such honourable methods as those of bribery and corruption; for how is it possible for any man under any other notion, to plead for the necessity or for the fitness of places and pensi••ns, or any pecu|niary influence among the members of the house of commons? If any dependence or biass created by such motives were really necessary, it would prove that the form of our government itself was defective to a degree of ridiculousness; that it was a constitu|tion having a representative of the people which must be engaged not to represent them, nor to vote and act if uninfluenced by private interest or corrupt motives. Now if such an influence or dependence was univer|sal and unlimited throughout the whole house, the monarchy would be absolute; and whenever this in|fluence prevails in any degree, it tends to arbitrary power. For this reason the true friends of liberty must perpetually guard against such influences, which

is not setting up a new form of government, but pre|serving the old * 1.62.

That placemen in parliament, are in our times a serious evil, appears from this, that

the minister, before he introduces a bill, can foretell, almost with certainty, its fate in the house; and by means of the influence which he has over the members, can com|mand, in most cases, a majority of votes. Nor will this influence appear in the least surprizing, if we consider the great number of lucrative places which the sovereign, that is, the minister, has to dispose of. For though the property of the subjects be much larger than that of the sovereign, yet is the property of this last by no means inconsiderable; and it is well known, that much less property, in a single hand, will counterballance a greater in several hands. Ac|cording to the most exact computation, there are near three millions at the disposal of the crown. The civil list amounts to near a million, the collection of all taxes to another, and the employments in the army and navy, along with ecclesiastical prefer|ments, to above a third million: an enormous sum, and what cannot fail to attach to the court an im|mense number of dependants; and as few placemen are excluded from seats in parliament, the sovereign

[say rather the minister]

must have a mighty influ|ence upon all the deliberations of that a••gust assem|bly. It ought also to be observed, that the great in|crease of our dominions, and the consequent necessity for the proportionable increase in our military esta|blishment,

[there is no need of a military establish|ment, a militia is every way preferable]

are both of them pernicious to liberty; for seldom or never has it

been known, that any nation has preserved its liberty, after having greatly extended its conquests, and still less after having established a large standing army. And though the increase of commerce, which is likewise the consequence of extensive dominions, be favoura|ble in some measure to the cause of liberty, by intro|ducing among the people a greater degree of equality, and by drawing them into large towns, which always breathe a republican spirit; yet does it also by this very circumstance of drawing them into large towns, tend evidently to corrupt their minds, and to enervate their bodies, and thus to prepare them for the recep|tion of that slavery, which a variety of other causes is likely to bring upon them. With regard to the people's jealousy of the crown, which is said to be inherent in the British constitution; this jealousy, however great, may yet by an artful minister be laid asleep. The power of the crown is certainly upon the increase, but it advances, at the same time, with such slow and imperceptible steps, as not to awaken the jealousy of the public; and before this jealousy be effec|tually awakened, the power of the crown may have be|come so great, as to be altogether irresistible. Every new tax that is imposed upon the people, every foot of ground that is added to our dominions, every increase that is made in our military establishment, all conspire by their united influence to increase the power of the crown; and if things be suffered to proceed in their pre|sent course, and no extraordinary convulsion happens in the state, the British liberties must at l••st be swallow|ed up in absolute monarchy. Might I presume, amidst these opposite arguments, to deliver my own senti|ments, I would affirm•• that the British government tends immediately neither to a republic, nor an abso|lute

monarchy, but to an aristocracy; though this last will in all probability only pave the way for the introduction of monarchy. The very essence of our liberty consists in the people's having the right and the power to chuse their representatives in parlia|ment; that is in other words, in being their own legislators. But should we ever come to have a great number of hereditary legislators, or those who are such independent of the people's choice, and should these hereditary legislators be possessed of the whole, or of the greatest part of the national property, and should they, by means of that property, be able to influence the elections, and to controul the proceed|ings of the members of the lower house, though we may be still amused with the pleasing sound of liberty, and though the lower house may be permitted to sub|sist in its present form, the national liberties are from that moment ruined. For it is well known, that the forms of a constitution may long remain, after its spirit has been entirely extinguished. How far this is our case at present, or how far it is likely to be our case, in some not very distant period, any one may easily determine, by considering the great number of wealthy commoners, who within this half century past have been advanced to the peerage, and the spirit which still prevails of advancing others to the same dignity. The moment a commoner becomes trou|blesome in the lower house, if he is possessed of a competent fortune, he is immediately transplanted to the upper, where he at once strengthens the aristocra|tic, and proportionably weakens the democratic part of our government. And how great an influence the members of the upper, have upon the elections, and consequently upon the proceedings of those of the lower

house, may be easily collected from perusing a court calendar, where we shall see, that almost all the noblemens sons in England, who are of a proper age, are members of the lower house, and that many commoners have obtained their seats there, by the in|terest and countenance of some powerful nobleman. In a word, we seem to be in a fair way of becoming in a short time, a nation of great lords, and of needy vassals; the consequence of which must infallibly be, that the people, harrassed by the oppressions of the great, conscious that their liberties are already ravish|ed from them, and chusing rather to submit to one mild master, than to two or three hundred petty ty|rants, will petition the sovereign, as the last favour he can grant them, that he will be graciously pleased to establish an absolute monarchy. This was very lately the case in Denmark, and if nothing extraordi|nary happens, it will in all probability be very soon the case in Great-Britain. How to prevent the im|pending calamity, or if it cannot be prevented, how it may at least be for some time warded off, I will not take upon me to say. A peerage bill was some years ago attempted, or an act to confine within certain limits the number of peers. Perhaps such a scheme may again be revived, but there seems very little likelihood in the present disposition of parties, that it would meet with success * 1.63.

No one ever knew human nature better than He, who said,

No man can serve two masters.

It is a romantic expectation, and unsuitable to what we know of the frailty of our species, to think of a placeman's or pensioner's being altogether unbiassed in favour of the ministry, to which he owes his emolument, and

consequently of those gentlemen's consulting in their speeches and votes the good of their country, with the same impartiality as they might be expected to do, if wholly independent.

The wife of Caesar ought to be not only innocent, but unsuspected.

Why must the wife of Caesar be more unsuspected, than a British legislator? Could the British legislators think of passing unsuspected, if there were in the house of commons more than two hundred notorious dependents on the cou••t? as we go on, this shocking sight may soon be seen.

The courtiers argue, that excluding placemen and pensioners from parliament, would seem to establish an opposition between the crown and people; as if those, who were employed by the one, could not be en|trusted by the other. But indeed there seems to be no occasion for mincing the matter. Let us fairly own, that we do not think the same persons, who have the laying out, ought likewise to have the laying on of taxes. Since it is easy to imagine, that a member, who has a place, will be under little concern how heavily the people are taxed, as his income indemnifies him, and the heavier the taxes, the more money there will be for the court blood-suckers.

Ch. I. fairly declares his expectation of indirect ser|vice from his convention parliament at Oxford, A. D. 1643.

I think most of you, says he, are in my s••rvice, either in a civil or a martial way * 1.64.

To what purpose does he mention this, but to put them in mind, that they ought to express their gratitude, by promoting his wicked schemes at any rate?

Whitlocke tells us * 1.65, that Charles, being disappointed in his schemes,

took another course to gain eminent parliament men, who were against him, to become of his party, and to do him service. He took Sir Tho. Wentworth and Sir Io. Saville into favour, and made them privy-counsellors. Sir Dudley Digges was made master of the rolls; Noy, king's attorney, and Littleton solicitor.

His dependent judges declared ship-money lawful. On which occasion the pious and virtuous lady of judge Croke (whose fame be immor|tal!) said to her husband,

she hoped he would do nothing against his honour, for fear of danger or loss, and that she would be content to suffer want or misery with him, rather than be an occasion for him to do, or say, any thing against his judgment or conscience* 1.66.

Lord Digby, in his speech, A. D. 1640, for fre|quent elections, mentions Noy as once a great patriot, and promoter of the petition of right. Afterwards, when made attorney general, he proved the very in|ventor of ship-money. He likewise calls Wentworth a shameful apostate * 1.67.

St. Iohn, one of the patriots in the time of Ch. I. was made solicitor general, and others were to be taken into places; but refused them, and stood by the par|liament. It was afterwards suspected, that some, if they had accepted places, would have done the king's cause more harm than good, by betraying the court-schemes to the people* 1.68. Besides, the king had not then places enough to bribe a majority of the commons. This, however, shews what the court then thought, as well as now, the true means for making members

knaves. And it was to take off the imputations, under which the republican parliament fell, on account of placemen being in the house, that the self-denying ordinance was first broached * 1.69.

Scripture directs to shun the appearance of evil. And whoever does not fear the appearance, is not far from the reality. On this principle the brave com|mons of the republican parliament write as follows to the Scotch commissioners.

We know your lordships can and will witness with us, that since our covenant and treaty, we have not received any dignities or offices from the king * 1.70.

When members of parliament are placemen, that is, when the same men have both legislative and execu|tive power, how are we to expect that offenders in administration should be punished, the criminals being the judges? Can we think any set of men will be public spirited enough to hang themselves for their offences against their country * 1.71?

Wolsey's ambition (says Elsynge) first brought the privy counsellors, and others of the king's ser|vants, into the house of commons; from whence they were anciently exempted. The effects are, the commons have lost their chief jewel, freedom of speech * 1.72.

It is a maxim in Richelieu's Testam. Polit. That a king, that is, a minister, should never part with a tax he has once got established, even though he has no use 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the money; because by giving up the tax, he

loses the officers employed in collecting it. And these officers in parliament are sure car••s.

Hen. IV. of France gave the marshal d'Ornano a staff to turn papist, and afterwards asked him which of the two religions he thought the best.

The pro|testant, undoubtedly, repli••s the marshal; else your majesty would not have given me a marshal's staff to boot, to engage me to quit it.

I have forgot to set down the original writer of this anecdote. It is told in Cato's letters, &c.

A British minister gives places and pensions to those who vote for him. Suppose one of those members were asked, Whether the service of his country, or voting always with the court, is best; if he were as honest a knave as the marshal, what could he answer, but,

That certainly voting for the country's good was preferable to slavery under a minister; else the minister had no occasion to give him a place or pension to boot, to engage him to quit his country's service for the minister's.

And is not this giving up the point?

The Emperor, and bloody Mary gave public pen|sions to the members of parliament.—With what view? To engage them to vote for the good of their country? No. To establish popery; To vote the queen's mar|riage with a papist, Philip II. of Spain; which that venal parliament did accordingly; thereby manifestly shewing how soundly Philip and Mary judged of the effect of bribing parliament * 1.73. What difference does it make to me, as a subject, whether I am voted into slavery for gold sent from the continent to bribe par|liament, or for gold drawn out of the exchequer of

England? Of the two, modern bribery is the most disgraceful. It is making us pay for the road, which is to beat us, and the chain, that is to bind us.

Sir Ch. Wager, first lord of the admiralty, Fox, sur|veyor general of the works, and Pelham (I do not recollect what place he held at that time) we•••• the speakers against lord Limerick's motion, A. D. 1741, for an enquiry into the conduct of affairs during Wal|pole's 20 years administration, which was carried in the negative 244 against 242 * 1.74. And it is, in general, the same in all debates of the kind. The placemen always speak and vote in one tone; so that before you begin their speeches, you are certain, by only reading the name of the speaker, and knowing, that he held a place, what the strain of his speech will be.

An unpensioned subject will always give the most faithful counsel to his prince. And it is the true interest of the prince to have about him those, who will not flatter him, or be the slaves of his passions for the sake of his money * 1.75.

When Mr. Pulteney resigned his place, A. D. 1720, he said in the house,

He might now act with the freedom which became an Englishman;

which im|plied, that a place was incompatible with freedom * 1.76. The same gentleman was struck out of the list of privy counsellors by Geo. II. with his own hand, for his uncourtly behaviour. The duke of Argyle, the earl of Stair, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Legge, and many more, have been disgraced and displaced on the same account; which shews what courts expect of placemen. And are placemen then fit to be members of parliament?

An omrah of Shaw Iekan's army having presumed to fit in his presence, the prince deprived him of his command. The disgraced officer went to the palace next day, and sat down in the presence chamber. Upon the Shah's reproving him, he answered boldly,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 I am not in your majesty's pay, I may use the freedom, which belongs to every independent man.

The emperor approved, and restored him * 1.77.

Treby moved, A. D. 1721, for the mutiny bill, which is not commonly brought in till the end of a session. Iekyl was for going on with the more necessary regu|lations for supporting credit. Craggs said, he wondered that a person who had received signal favours from the crown should oppose a bill so necessary for the safety of government. Lord Molesworth stood up, and said,

Mr. Speaker, Is it come to this,

[I believe it is come to this]

that every man who has a place must do all the drudgery that is enjoined him * 1.78?

On which principle, officers have been (as elsewhere observed) sent for from Flanders to vote for the minister.

In the year 1766, the governor of New England (Bernard) in his speech to the council and house of representatives, took occasion to blame their wise and patriotic conduct in excluding from the king's council the principle crown-officers. This proceeding (at all times proper, as the people cannot be too much on their guard against court-tools, nor too apprehensive of the danger of trusting power in their unhallowed hands) was peculiarly necessary at a time when the colonists had so lately seen a rapacious minister disposed to en|croach in the most shameless manner on their liberty by loading them with taxes, to the payment of which

they had not given, nor could give their consent, as having no representative in parliament, where those taxes were imposed.

Those brave Americans defended their conduct upon the principles of their charter right to choose and re|fuse as they please, which they should certainly not give up either to their governor, or to the secretaries of state. They insisted, that their governor's pretending to make observations on their elections, was a high breach of their privilege. That, while they observed the direc|tions of their charter, they were accountable only to God and their own consciences, for the manner in which they gave their suffrages. And that their charter itself would be of very little value to them, if it required that they should in their elections be under the controul of their governors. It is with regret I find myself obliged to give only heads of this spirited piece, the strain of which is worthy of the most elegant, as well as the freest age or nation * 1.79.

A resolution, A. D. 1683, passed the assembly of Pennsylvania,

That no person appointed by the go|vernor to receive his fines, forfeitures, or revenues whatsoever, shall sit in judgment in any court of judi|cature, when a fine may accrue to the governor * 1.80.

No man could be a magistrate at Florence if he had a brother or near relation in the magistracy * 1.81.

Tous ceux qui possedent, &c. All military officers are excluded from sitting in the assembly of the states general by a resolution, A. D. 1625 * 1.82.

Tindal observes * 1.83,

It was a very unusual thing i•• England for gentlemen who held such posts

[of pay|master general and chancellor of the exchequer, held by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Legge]

to oppose a secretary of state, who was supposed to know and to speak his royal master's sentiments,

in favour of continental connexions. Accordingly Mr. Legge was quickly, in reward for his obstinacy against the court, turned out. Yet our daring court-jesuits are ever sounding in our ears the usefulness of what can alone overthrow the British empire; I mean, court-influence in parlia|ment. So little do they dread the tremendous curse of heaven pointed directly at the heads of those who put light for darkness, and darkness for light, who call good evil, and evil good.

The court-tools say, the influence of the court in parliament is necessary, and that places, pensions, and sinecures are necessary. But what did honest old Epaminondas say to the embassadors of the king of Persia?

If the king wants me to do any thing for the good of my country, I am ready to do it without a bribe. If he wants me to betray my country, his kingdom is below my price. * 1.84.

There might be some pretence for court-influence in parliament when there were many jacobites. There might in the time of Charles I. when there were many on the side of the tyrant. Yet the patri|ots of Charles's time established the self-denying ordi|nance, on purpose to break through it. And they gained their point more effectually than William's bribing ministry by the contrary conduct. It is true, he used to say, If he had places and pensions enough

to give, he should soon reconcile whigs and tories * 1.85. But what did he mean by enough? A place for every jacobite of consequence in the three kingdoms? This is romantic. But this corrupt policy will go a certain length. And if ministers can but shuffle on a little and a little longer, they do not much care by what means, because the money is flowing in all the while.

Sir Robert,

(says a friend of the arch-corruptor, whispering him in the house)

what are you doing? This fiction will be detected to-morrow.

No matter,

says the other;

it will stop that fellow's [Pulteney's] mouth to-day, and let to-morrow take care of itself.

Judge Hales would not suffer a gentleman's cause to be heard, till he paid him for a buck sent him by the gentleman, though the present was a customary one. Compare this delicacy of sentiment, which would not suffer those great men so much as to seem byassed, with th•• execrable grossness of our times, in which we see hundreds of court dependents sitting with grave and modest face in the house of com|mons, where there ought not to be the shadow of an influence likely to byass the members against the in|terest of their constituents.

Some of our court-writers own, that

pensions and bribes cannot be too vehemently decryed;

but openly declare their opinion, that the crown ought to have employments in its gift to engage support. I own I do not understand what need there is of any support, but rectitude of measures; or how a lucra|tive place can be considered otherwise than as a bribe, if it inclines a man to support what he would not otherwise support.

Why do we refuse a right of voting at elections to those who receive alms? Because we suppose, that such persons, being needy, will of course be depen|dent, and under undue influence. Why do we suffer men to sit in the house of commons who do receive alms, that is, pensions, and are upon the parish, that is, the nation? Because—we have schemes to carry, which are inconsistent with the public good.

Your lordships

(says the earl of Chesterfield in the debate on a bill for making officers independent of the ministry, A. D. 1734 * 1.86.)

are, I am sure, all con|vinced, that the happiness, the essence of our consti|tution does not depend upon outward forms, but upon realities. Our constitution does not depend upon our having always a parliament; but upon that par|liament's being independent of the administration; upon its being in the power of parliament to examine severely, and judge impartially the conduct and the measures of those employed in the administration, to represent the grievances, and watch over the liberties and the properties of the people of this nation, and to take away evil counsellors from before the king. But if ever a majority of both houses of parliament should come to be composed of gentle|men whose daily bread, or at least their chief sup|port, depended entirely upon the favours of the crown, can it be imagined that it would then be in the power of parliament to examine freely, or judge impartially, the conduct of these favourites; to relieve the people from the oppressions brought upon them by such favourites; or to tell their sovereign any ungrateful truths about those whom he had thought fit to employ as his ministers? Would not

an arbitrary negative be then put upon all such ques|tions in parliament? Would not the best designs of the uncorrupted and independent few be baffled by a corrupt and slavish majority? And shall any question which tends towards the preventing such a misfor|tune, have now the ill fate to be rejected by your lordships?

It is well remembered how much, and how justly, all ranks in the nation were pleased with the act made at the instance of the present king (whom God pre|serve!) A. D. 1762, for preventing the removal of the judges at the demise of every sovereign, which naturally tended to put them on courting the heir apparent, to the violation of justice in their sentences. But why were we pleased with this regulation? Ac|cording to the opposers of all schemes for restoring independency to parliament, there was no need of any such regulation. According to them, there is no corruption, no dependency, no need of any schemes for making either judges, or members of parliament independent.

It would be ridiculous

(says the excellent Tren|chard * 1.87)

to throw away reason upon those banditti, who go into parliament with the execrable intention of carrying to market a country, which trusted them with its all. Such men are worse than cannibals, who only eat their enemies to satisfy their hunger; but do not sell and betray their countrymen, who have trusted them with the protection of their per|sons and property.

In the debate, A. D. 1742, about bringing in the place bill * 1.88, Sir W. Will. Wynne said,

Gentlemen

often change their sentiments with their situation, and that a gentleman, after he becomes a placemen, begins to entertain notions of the prerogative of the crown and the liberties of the people, very different from those he had whilst he was a plain, honest, country gentleman. If any thing like this should happen in the present debate, it may tend to dis|appoint the motion; but with all those who are neither placemen no pensioners, I am sure it ought to be an argument in its favour; and, I hope, it will prevail with some gentlemen, who in former ses|sions opposed this motion, to alter their sentiments and their way of voting upon this occasion, when they have such a plain proof before their eyes, that, if a place does not induce a man to vote against his honour and his conscience, it at least byasses his judgment, and makes him conclude that to be wrong, which he before thought and declared to be right.

Lord Strange's speech in answer to that of Edw. Walpole, A. D. 1742 * 1.89, is close to our present purpose.

As we seem to improve every day in those doctrines that are introductory of arbitrary power, the doc|trine of corruption has this day been pushed farther than ever, I believe, it was in this house. It has been represented not only as a harmless, but a necessary implement of government; and all the laws we have for excluding pensioners, and several sorts of officers, from having seats in this house, may, by the same sort of reasoning, be proved to be subver|sive of our constitution, and introductory of anar|chy, confusion, and arbitrary power. If a gentle|man of a small estate, or an estate, however large,

that cannot supply the wants of his luxury or ava|rice, cannot be supposed capable of being induced by any mercenary motive the crown can throw in his way, to consent to grants or regulations, or to approve of measures that tend towards the intro|duction of arbitrary power, or that appear to be inconsistent with the public good; why should we exclude pensioners, why should we exclude the com|missioners and officers of our customs and excise, from having seats in this house? If the power of granting pecuniary and mercenary rewards to mem|bers be so necessary for the managing of this house, and for answering the necessary ends of government, why should we, in any respect, abridge that power, which if ever so extensive, can do us no harm, and which, if too much abridged, may overset both our government and constitution? Surely, no man of common sense would make the least approach towards a precipice, if he could keep his distance without the least danger or inconvenience; therefore, if we admit this doctrine, we must suppose those par|liaments void of common sense, in which the laws we now have for excluding pensioners, and several sorts of officers, were agreed to. But experience in all ages, and all countries, must convince us that this doctrine is false, deceitful, and pernicious. In all countries where arbitrary power has been, or is now set up, corruption was the footstool upon which it mounted into the throne. By corruption men are induced to arm their magistrates, or supreme magi|strate, with such powers, as will enable them to de|stroy first the essence, and afterwards the very face of public liberty.

[His lordship then shews, that nations are enslaved not by a coup de main, but by slow and imperceptible, but therefore more formidable degrees. That design|ing men begin with flattering and bribing, in order to obtain of the people the necessary advantages; that, by this means, they accordingly do obtain first one degree of power, and then another; till at last they find bribery needless, and that they can carry their designs by main force. He then goes on as follows.]

Let us consider, Sir, in what liberty and pro|perty truly consists, and we shall see, that where any one man has in his power a large fund for cor|ruption, both may be absolutely destroyed, and an arbitrary power established before people become generally sensible of their danger. A man's per|sonal liberty consists in its not being in the power of any man, or magistrate, with impunity, to im|prison or kill him, or inflict any personal punish|ment upon him, unless he has been formally tried, and justly condemned by that method of trial, and by those laws, which have been established, and are approved of by the majority of the society to which he belongs. Property again consists in a man's being secure of enjoying, and transmitting to his posterity, what has been left to him by his ancestors, or acquired by his own industry, unless the whole, or some part of it, be taken from him, in pur|suance of laws that have been established, and are approved by the majority of the society to which he belongs. Whilst this is the case, every man of the society enjoys liberty and property in their full extent; and this will be our case as long as our

elections and parliaments remain free from any influ|ence either compulsive or corrupt. But, suppose, Sir, a majority of our house of commons consisted of such as held lucrative places from the crown, and suppose a judge were to be brought before them who for the sake of some corrupt consideration, had, at the desire of the crown, illegally and un|justly condemned and imprisoned many of his fel|low-subjects; would not the crown, I mean the ministers of the crown, endeavour to protect such a judge? Would not they give hints to their officers in this house, that a dismission would be the cer|tain consequence of their giving a vote against this tool? And can we suppose that many of these officers would chuse to lose a place of 500 l. or 1000 l. a year, rather than give a vote in favour of this judge? Sir, I have a very great opinion of our present judges, but, without any reflection upon them, I will say, that it is upon the independency and integrity of our parliaments that we must depend for the integrity and impartiality of our judges; for the crown has many ways to reward a pliable judge, and as many to punish an obstinate one. Nay, if parliaments were once become depen|dent upon the crown, an obstinate integrity would of itself be sufficient for getting a judge removed by the address of both houses of parliament; for if the majority of parliament were such as depended upon the crown for getting or holding some lucrative em|ployment, they would easily be persuaded that such judge had done injustice to the crown, or had fomented sedition by shewing favour to the seditious, and under this pretence they would vote for ad|dressing to remove him, without considering that they thereby established arbitrary power; and

made not only their own estates, but their lives and liberties dependent upon the arbitrary will of their sovereign; for by this precedent, all our judge•• would be convinced, that they must take direction•• from the ministers of the crown in all prosecutions▪ trials, and causes that might afterwards come before them; and what man could say he had any liberty or property left, if the ministers of the crown had it in their power to take his life, liberty, or estate from him, whenever they pleased, by a false accu|sation, and a mock trial? Even after such a fatal turn in our constitution, as long as a spirit of cor|ruption prevailed among the people, and the cour•• kept within the bounds of common decency, there would be no occasion for any compulsive methods, either at elections, or in parliament, because the ministers would always find people enough, that would be ready to take their money or their favours, and in expectation or return would agree to vote 〈◊〉〈◊〉 directed; but if by the ridiculous conduct of the court, a spirit of liberty should arise among the peo|ple, the violent and compulsive methods usual in such cases would be made use of. Informers, or delatores, as the Romans called them, would be found out and retained, and spread over the whole nation, in order to bring false informations against those who dared to oppose the court either at elections or in parliament; and in both, men would be found to vote according to the directions of a minister, i•• order to preserve that property by a slavish subjec|tion, which they had before been endeavouring to increase by a villainous corruption. After what I have said, Sir, I hope I need not particularly men|tion all the other methods by which a corrupt de|pendent parliament may sap the foundations of

our constitution. Ensnaring laws may be made, or the laws we have for securing our liberties may be repealed, or suspended under various pretences, without a corrupt man's being sensible that he is thereby exposing his own estate to the precarious tenure of arbitrary laws. On pretence of a sham-plot or a pretended disaffection, the Habeas Corpus act, that corner stone of our liberties, may be sus|pended for a twelvemonth, and under the same pre|tence that suspension may be renewed for another, and a third twelvemon••h, till at last the annual sus|pension of that salutary law may go as glibly down as the mutiny bill, or malt tax, now does; for when these two bills were first introduced, no man sup|posed they would ever become bills of course, to be passed without opposition in every succeeding sessions of par••iament.

Lord Strange then goes on to shew how, among other particulars, a designing ministry might gradually increase the army to such a pitch as would easily over|throw liberty.

Can we suppose, says his lordship, that any man would risque his losing a lucrative employment by voting against a small augmentation of the army? This, Sir, must convince every true lover of liberty, how necessary it is, that no member of this assembly, or at least as few as possible, should be under such temptation. I shall grant, that in most points, which come to be debated before this house, some of our members may have a private interest in opposing, or agreeing; but as long as this private interest does not proceed from the favours they enjoy, or expect from the crown, it can never injure the public good; because if some have a private interest in opposing, others will have a pri|vate

interest in agreeing to what is proposed; and those whose private interest is no way concerned, will always cast the balance in favour of the public good. The granting of money is the only case where we can suppose the members generally engaged by their private interest, to oppose what is necessary for the public service; but this interest is so small, with regard to each particular member, that it can never be of any weight. This is demonstrated, Sir, from the whole course of our history, for I defy any man to give me one instance where the parliament denied granting what was necessary for the public service, unless they were denied justice with regard to the redress of grievances, or unless they had well grounded apprehensions that the money would be misapplied. But let us see, Sir, how this argument will stand upon the other side of the question. It is certain that the parliament ought never to grant more than is absolutely necessary for the public service. It is likewise certain, that we never ought to grant even what is necessary, till all grievances be redressed, and our former grants regularly and strictly accounted for. This is our duty as mem|bers of this house: but shall we perform this duty if a majority of us be greatly concerned in interest to neglect it? And this will always be the case if a majority of us hold or expect some lucrative office or employment at the pleasure of the crown, because it will always be the interest of ministers, and even their safety may sometimes be concerned in our not performing this duty. Suppose they ask from parliament 500,000 l. or a million for carrying on some whimsical, perhaps pernicious scheme of their own; will a member of this house, who is to pay for his share not above 50 l. of this sum, refuse

granting it, when he is to get or hold 500l. or 1000l. a year, by consenting to the grant? Will a member of this house insist upon first redressing a grievance by which he suffers little, perhaps no sensible prejudice, when he is to get or hold 2 or ••00l. a year by letting it remain? And finally, Sir, will a member of this house call ministers to a strict account by which he can never expect to put a farthing in his own pocket, when by neglecting to do so, he may get or hold a good post or employ|ment, and perhaps procure a round sum, which he himself has purloined from the public. Sir, I was sorry to hear a young gentleman talk so much of mens private passions and affections, and of every man's having a view to the service of some favourite passion, in every vote he gives in parliament, or at elections. I hope the case is far otherwise; but if it is not, we ought to endeavour to make it so, by putting it out of the power (at least as far as we can, by such laws as this) of any man to serve him|self by his way of voting in parliament or at elec|tions, any further than may result to him from the general good of his country If we can do this; if we can put it out of the po••er of the selfish and mercenary to sell their votes in p••rliament, no man will purchase a seat there at any high price, and this will of course put an end to bribery and corruption at elections; for no mercenary soul will purchase what he cannot sell; and those who are prompted by their ambition to purchase, will never go to any high price, nor will they submit to be the slaves of a minister after they have purchased. Even ministers themselves would cease their bribery at elections, because they could not depend upon hav|ing their candidate's vote in parliament, if he had

no lucrative office depending upon his voting always with the minister; and if the flood-gates of the treasury were not opened at any election, I am con|vinced we should soon have little or no bribery in the kingdom. Whilst there are purchasers, Sir, there will be sellers; I am afraid there are at pre|sent too many of both: but if you can make it worth no man's while to purchase, you will put an end to the traffic; and this is the design of the bill now proposed. I have shewn, that if you do not agree to it, there will be, there must be, a cor|rupt dependency in parliament; that by such a dependency our constitution may be overturned, without any compulsive dependency: and that the latter may be made use of by an arbitrary govern|ment, and certainly will be made use of, as soon as it becomes necessary for the support of its arbi|trary power. Upon this side, Sir, the danger is certain and inevitable. Let us then consider the danger pretended to be on the other. If we exclude officers, or the greatest part of them, from having seats in this house, it is said, it will introduce anarchy and confusion, because it will be impossible to govern such a numerous assembly as this with|out a power in the crown to reward those who appear zealous in its service; and that as soon as this impossibility i•• perceived, all our officers, civil and military, will join with the crown in laying aside the use of parliaments. What the honourable gentleman may mean, Sir, by governing such a numerous assembly, I do not know; but according to the common acceptation of the word, I should be sorry to see it in the power of ministers to govern either house of parliament, by any other method than that of convincing the majority that nothing is

proposed or intended but what is for the public good; for if either house were to be governed by the hopes of reward, I am sure it could be of no service to the people, and of very little even to the crown itself; because the design and use of parlia|ments is, that they may be a check upon the con|duct of ministers; and no man, whose behaviour in this house is governed by his hopes of reward, will ever set himself up for a check upon the conduct of those who alone can bestow the reward he expects. We must, therefore, suppose that ministers may prevail with a majority of this house to approve or agree to what appears to be for the public service, without having it in their power to give a title, post, or pension to every one that approves of their measures; otherwise we must conclude that no such house ought to exist, and, consequently, that the very form of a limited government ought to be abolished in this selfish and corrupt nation. What effect some late corrupt practices may have had upon the genius and morals of the lower sort of people, I do not know, but I hope it has as yet had little or none upon the generality of those that have any chance of being members of this house; and unless they are become very much degenerated, we must, from experience, conclude, that when our ministers pursue popular and right measures, they may depend upon the assistance and approba|tion of parliament. This, I say, we must from experience conclude: for in former ages our mini|sters had few rewards to bestow, and yet they never failed of having the parliament's approbation, when their measures were such as were agreeable to the people. Nay, from the very nature of the case, we must draw the same conclusion; for a house of

commons freely chosen by the people must approve of what the people approves of. If from selfish motives they should disapprove or oppose such mea|sures, the opposing members would be sure of being turned out at the next election; and as the king has it in his power to bring on a new election whenever he pleases, his ministers may easily get rid of such selfish mean spirited members, and may consequently, if they desire it, always have a par|liament generally composed of gentlemen of true honour and public spirit; but the contrary is what most ministers desire, as has of late been mani|fest from the characters of those who were generally set up as candidates upon the court interest. We can never, therefore, be in danger of anarchy or confusion from its not being in the power of a mini|ster to bribe a majority of this house into his mea|sures. When bribery and corrupt motives prevail within doors, they will certainly prevail without, and then we may see a member burnt in effigy one year, in the public streets of his borough, and re|chosen the year following as their representative in a new parliament. We may see the most notorious fraudulent practices by the underlings in power, and these underlings encouraged by the minister, and protected by a majority in parliament: we may see the most unpopular and destructive measures pursued by our ministers, and all approved, nay, applauded by parliament. These things we may see, Sir: these things we have seen within these last twenty years; and this has brought affairs both at home and abroad into the melancholy situation which is now acknowledged by all, and will soon, I fear, be severely felt by the whole nation.

So just are these observations of lord Strange on the powerful effect of places and pensions on members of parliament, that the very next speech confirms them. For in it we see Mr. Sandys (lately made chancellor of the exchequer) opposing the very bill which he himself was concerned in bringing in last sessions * 1.90.

What makes all doctrines plain and clear? About two hundred pounds a year. And these, which were full plain before Obscure again? Two hundred more. HUDIB.

Sandys was very severely handled by Mr. Cornwal. And Sir Iohn Barnard diverted the house with the following sneers upon his ductility.

From what has been said * 1.91, by some gentlemen in the debate, I foresee, that if our parliaments continue in time to come, as complaisant to our ministers as they have been in time past, the fate of the question under this administration will be the same with that, which was the fate of the question about reducing our army under the last. The worthy gentleman who was at the head of our former administration, and is now so deservedly sent to the other house, had, whilst he was a country gentleman, so strenu|ously opposed keeping up a numerous standing army in time of peace, that after he became a minister, though excess of modesty could never be reckoned among his foibles, he had not the assurance directly to oppose a reduction. No, Sir, during the first part of his administration, he always declared himself for a reduction as soon as a favourable opportunity should offer. But he always endeavoured to shew, that the present, was not a proper opportunity; and at last

both he and his friends gathered assurance enough to tell us, that even in times of the most profound tranquilli|ty, a greater number of regular troops was, and always would be necessary, than that he had so strenuously opposed in the year 1717, when there was the high•••••• probability of our being soon engaged in a war, bot•• with Sweden and Spain. This, Sir, was the conduct of our former minister, with regard to the annual question about reducing our army, and this I could almost lay a wager will be the conduct held by our present ministers, with regard to the bringing in, and passing this bill. They cannot directly oppose a bill which they have upon former occasions so often and so strenuously patronized: but though last ses|sion did, yet this session does not, it seems, afford us a proper opportunity for applying a remedy to an evil which they themselves allow, has brought Europe, as well as this nation, to the brink of destruction; and this I am afraid will be their way of reasoning as long as they continue ministers, or at least until they become as hardened as their predecessor, which they may probably do, if they continue as long in power, and then like him they will freely declare, that they have actually changed their sentiments, and that no such bill ought ever to be passed.

The corporation of London shewed their opinion of the precariousness of the principles of placemen and pensioners, in their remonstrance to the king, A. D. 1770.

The forms of the constitution, like those of religion, were not established for the form's sake, but for the substance. And we call God and men to witness, that, as we do not owe our liberty ••o those nice and subtle distinctions, which pensions, and lu|crative employments have invented, so neither will

we be deprived of it by them: but, as it was gained by the stern virtue of our ancestors, by the virtue of their descendants it shall be preserved * 1.92.

In 1774, the house of representatives of the province of Massachusets bay, presented a petition and remon|strance to the governor and council, for the removal of Peter Oliver, esq from the superior court. A court wholly erected and constituted by the general assembly, which power was granted by the royal charter.

They complain that the said Peter Oliver had taken a salary and reward from the king, which was con|trary to the plain meaning of their charter, and against the known constitution of that province.

The governor refused to comply with their request, as it would be, he said, counteracting his majesty.

They pray that he would take the advice and assist|ance of his majesty's council on the above petition and remonstrance, without which advice, he, they said, would act directly contrary to the most evident design of their charter.

CHAP. III. That Placemen often hold a plurality of Employments, incompatible with one another.

PLURALITIES in the state, as in the church, may be for the advantage of those, who hold them; but they are certainly a disadvantage to the public. Let a man's abilities be what they will, he will certainly not fill six employments at the same time, with the same success as one.

Aristotle blames the Carthaginians for giving different public employments to the same men. What should we think, says he, of a legislator, who should order the same man to be both a shoemaker, and a musician * 1.93?

The Guises, when they had power in France, in order to gain popularity, made a regulation, that no person should hold more than one employment at a time * 1.94.

It was one of the charges against Buckingham, that he had engrossed more offices, than could be duly filled by any one man. That, by that means, he had too much power to do mischief; and too little to do good* 1.95.

When the first land-tax was laid on, in the time of Hen. IV. it was provided, that no member of par|liament should be a collector, comptroller, &c. * 1.96

The old writ of parliament for the knights, says ex|pressly;

Nolumus quod tu nec aliquis alius vic' dicti reg' nostri aliqualiter sit electus [electi sitis, it should be]

We will, that neither you [the sheriff, to whom the writ is directed] nor any lieutenant of the king's be by any means elected.

Because it was supposed, in those simple times, a man could not be in two places, serv|ing his country in two capacities, at the same time. We make nothing of a gentleman's being at the same time colonel of a regiment warring in Flanders, gover|nor of a fort in North-Britain, and member of parlia|ment at Westminster. The duke of Shrewsbury was in king William's time, lord treasurer, taking care of the king's money; lord chamberlain, taking care of the

palace; lord lieutenant of Ireland, governing that unruly, and (in those days) rebellious country; and an English peer, trying causes in the last resort; and voting in the greatest national concerns* 1.97. What abili|ties he must have had, to manage such great and widely distant affairs, at the same time!

A soldier goes altogether upon force. A senator ought to be as cool as a judge. It is therefore very unlikely, that a good officer should be a proper person to make a member of parliament.

Mr. Wynne, afterwards Sir Watkin Williams Wynne, in the debate on this subject, shews that placemen and officers are very unfit for being members of par|liament.

The business of the commons * 1.98, says he, is to represent to his majesty, the grievances of the people; to inform him if any of his ministers, or offi|cers, makes an ill use of the power he delegates to them, and to impeach and present such evil ministers. Now I would be glad to know who are the most pro|per representatives for these purposes, gentlemen who have large properties in the country, who are inde|pendent of the ministers and officers of the crown, and who by living in the country, are perfectly acquaint|ed with the circumstances of the people; or gentle|men who for their chief support, depend upon the ministers and officers of the crown, who know nothing of those they represent, and are not only ignorant of their true interests, but are really indifferent about their welfare. I hope it will not be controverted, but that the first sort of gentlemen are the most proper representatives of the people.

The brave and free-spirited Fletcher of Scotland, who wrote A. D. 1698, speaks of the returning of military men for members, as a thing of a most for|midable nature, and dangerous tendency * 1.99.

The gentlemen of the sword, are not proper re|presentatives of a people, whose civil constitution abhors standing armies, and cannot subsist under them. The fortunes and expectations of those gentlemen de|pend upon observing the word of command; and it is but natural, that they should support power, i•• which they are sharers. It is not to be expected that ever they should concur in a vote, or an address, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 disband or reduce themselves, however desirable or necessary the same may be to us * 1.100.

My lord's steward is a very honest man; but if I had an affair to settle with my lord, I would choose my neighbour for a referee, rather than the steward * 1.101.

Sir Charles Sedley observes, in his speech, A. D. 1699, that there were then 9 commissioners of excise 7 of admiralty, 3 of the post-office, and 6 of the customs; and that great part of these places must be superfluous; but that all were members of parliament; and that many gentlemen held two offices, while they had seats in the house * 1.102.

It has been said, it might be dangerous to deprive the greatest part of those, who hold civil, military, or naval employments, of a share in the legislation, lest they be irritated against that institution from which they are excluded. The answer to this is very simple. Take away the infamous emoluments annexed to a

seat in parliament, and you will presently remove all eagerness after seats in the house. Why should gen|tlemen want to be in parliament? To have a trouble|some, unprofitable, expensive office. Do men want to be church-wardens, sheriffs, &c. Do they drink with clowns, kiss old women, and expend thousands in obtaining places, by which there is nothing to be got?

It was an article against the earl of Orford in king William's time, That he had held several inconsistent offices at the same time, by which means he avoided being called to account for his embezzelments * 1.103.

In the time of the late war in Flanders, the ministry were, on some occasion, likely to be so hard pressed, that they thought it necessary to send to Flanders for some officers, who were members (hopeful members, who had not the opportunity, in several years together, of once saying Aye, or No, in St. Stephen's chapel) to vote for the court. Some of them came accordingly. Others the duke of Cumberland would not suffer to leave the army * 1.104. This shews, that the court looks upon officers as bound to obey the commands of the minister, and to vote as ordered by him.

A. D. 1773, the duke of Leinster opposed his brother lord Ch. Fitzgerald's being member for Dublin,

be|cause he was an officer in the navy, and therefore might by his necessary attendance on his naval duty be prevented from doing that of a representative * 1.105.

CHAP. IV. Places and Pensions not given according to Merit.

IF the nation is to be plundered, it would be some comfort to think that the spoil was divided among the deserving, if it might be supposed any deserv|ing person would be concerned in plundering his poo•• indebted country. But it is too notorious, that courts reward according to a different system of morals from that which the antient philosophers, prophets, and apostles taught; which makes Dr. Iohnson's definition of the word pension * 1.106 appear but too accurate, viz.

Pay given to a state-hireling for treason to his country.

Aristotle * 1.107 observes, that it is of great consequence in a state, that the persons employed in public busi|ness do possess not only valuable qualifications in general, but those particular qualifications which are necessary for the successful discharge of their re|spective duties. A man's being honest and benevolent, for instance, is not enough to recommend him to the office of a commander either by sea or land, if he is timid, or unskilful in war; and another's being full of military courage and conduct, is no reason why he should be a financier, or a treasurer. We consider very little, whether the man be fit, or unfit, for the place. We consider chiefly whether the place, that is the salary, is fit for him; we consider what power he has, by parliamenteering, or otherwise, to support, or to prejudice, the schemes of the court. If he is likely to

stand in the minister's way, we kick him up stairs, if not, down.

Aristotle observes * 1.108, that those who enjoy the honour of great offices in the state, may expect to be envied by those who have no share in them. But that if, besides, they load themselves and creatures with the spoils of the public by turning their duty into a mere matter of emolument, they will be doubly hated by their countrymen, who find themselves excluded from this double advantage.

Pendant qu' à Rome,

&c.

While at Rome [during the first Punic war] the public employments were obtained only by merit, and were of no advan|tage to those who obtained them, but in so far as they gave a greater opportunity of being useful; at Carthage all was venal, and every service done by particulars to the public was paid for * 1.109.

The Carthaginians allowed no man to fill any im|portant post, unless he was poss••ssed of property as well as merit. And surely, if it were not, that rich men are too commonly admitted to important stations merely in virtue of their wealth, without regard to merit, the Carthaginian regulation (with all due sub|mission to Aristotle, who blames it) is not amiss. For power ought certainly, in some degree, to be annexed to property. Yet the Carthaginian law undoubtedly tended, as the philosopher observes, to exclude merit, which is often poor, to excite avarice, and promote bribery * 1.110.

Before Tarquin's time, nobody solicited for a public employment * 1.111. Among us, all sorts of profitable em|ployments

are solicited for (excepting the office of dissenting ministers only.) Every man holds himself duly qualified for the place, so the profits of the place be suitable to his circumstances.

Augustus ordered, that all, who bribed for offices, should be incapacitated for five years * 1.112. And for pre|vention of so great an evil, he ordered, that every candidate for an employment should deposit a sum of money to be forfeited, if he was convicted of cor|ruption * 1.113.

Antony advanced to honours and emoluments all his friends and relations * 1.114. He gained Lepidus by making him pontifex maximus. So Walpole got places or pensions for all, who could claim the most distant relation or connexion with him.

The emperor Antoninus deprived many persons of pensions settled on them by Adrian; saying, he could not bear to see the state devoured by those who were of no use to it * 1.115.

The emperor Iulian proposed only to employ mea of merit, without paying any regard whatever to re|commendation or interest * 1.116.

Constantius used to sell employments, which tempted those who bought them, to oppress the people, in order to indemnify themselves * 1.117.

The antient Gauls used to fight for posts and places. If our place-hunters should take to this practice, in|stead of the present method of obtaining them by selling their country; we should, besides other advantages, get rid of many worthless individuals. Yet the crime

of shedding blood about a place would be the same as that of our duellists murdering one another about a point of honour, or a wh—.

Abu Beer, Mohammed's successor, used to reward merit with money. Omar gave money only to the necessitous. We give, or rather heap money upon those, who have neither merit, nor necessity to plead. Omar thought, merit was to be honoured, not paid.

King Iohn III. of Portugal rewarded all services himself; by which means he knew that they were not over-looked, nor overpaid. He rewarded mo|derately; for the approbation of a wise and good king, who saw with his own eyes, was to be reckoned up as a prodigious enhancement of a moderate reward. He commonly made an apology, for that he had many to be bountiful to; which shewed, that he was well served. He created no new employments on purpose to gratify a set of court blood-suckers. He did not heap several employments upon the same persons. For he said, One public post, and a man's private concerns were business enough for any one man * 1.118.

The barbarous Abyssinians have a better notion of encouraging merit, than the civilized English. They do not allow a youth to cut his hair in the manly form, till he has done some feat of valour, and his honours increase according to his behaviour * 1.119.

The Dutch East-India Company do not prefer ac|cording to seniority merely, but according to merit * 1.120.

Cardinal Ximenes was very curious in enquiring into the characters and abilities of those, to whom he gave employments * 1.121.

Cath. of Medicis, the mother of the Parisian massa|cre of diabolical memory, introduced into France the practice of selling court-places, and of mortgaging the revenues for ready money * 1.122.

How mean does lord Bacon appear in his letter to Iames I * 1.123▪ in which he sings his own praises, and labours to shew himself fitter for the place of chan|cellor, than the great and good lord chief justice Coke, or lord Hobart.

Dr. Pinto, who first set on the revolution in favour of Portuguese liberty and the duke of Braganza, was never advanced by him, never envied, nor looked upon as a favourite. But he had what he wanted, the king's private friendship and esteem * 1.124. How much di••gust and contention had been avoided, had a certain noble earl of our times, very useful * 1.125 in conducting the education of one, who was made for a good king, contented himself with being the king's learned friend, a station for which he was very fit, and had never

aspired to that of a statesman and treaty-maker, for which he was very unfit!

One Cunningham was made governor of Iamaica for saving Walpole's bones, when attacked by the London mob, on account of his excise scheme * 1.126.

A man totally unqualified either by abilities or experi|ence, and who owed his preferment entirely to the partiality of the minister.

He died six weeks after his arrival of a fever contracted at an entertainment, be|ing habitually intemperate.

While worthless pushing men obtain rewards for small services, often for cruel injuries, done their country, modest merit declines its deserved recompence.

Piso, the conqueror of the formidable insurrection of the slaves, modestly declined •• triumph on the occasion.

Cicero, for saving the commonwealth from the fury of Catiline, was rewarded and satisfied with only a corona civica, that is, a wisp of hay put round his head. He had neither floating, nor fixed pension. Yet Cicero's times were not the simple ages.

The moderation of Sir Henry Vane was truly admi|rable. Finding, that, as treasurer of the navy, his income, at the low rate of 4d. in the pound com|mission, amounted, in the Dutch war, to 30,000 l. a year, he said, it was a shameful robbery of the public, and desired to give up his patent, which he had re|ceived from the late king for life, and to have, instead of it, for an agent he had brought up to the business, a salary of 2000 l. a year. Several of our blood|suckers, I mean commissaries, in the late German war, got from 50,000 l. to 500,000 l. and have never shewn any compunction on account of robbing the public.

Gratuities were given to sufferers in the troubles under Ch. I. 5000 l. offered Mr. Hollis, were refus•••• by him. 10,000 l. were given Mr. Vassall for the damages he suffered in opposing ship-money; and 5000 l. to Mr. Hampden on the same account * 1.127. In this way the public ought to have compensated a popular gentleman for his late sufferings by ministerial oppression, and the truly laudible stand he made against a tyrannical court, by which the public is bene|fited, and therefore ought to shew its gratitude; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not by pushing a man into the station of a legislator, who so far from being qualified according to law, was at that very time collecting money to pay his debts; not by forcing into the office of a magistrate, a man, whose private conduct was notoriously obnoxious to the magistrate's just censure. But this by the by.

Dr. Walker, who defended Londonderry against Iam. II. and his popish army, when those, whose duty it was, deserted the place, was rewarded with the thanks of the commons. We do not hear of any money given him * 1.128.

William Sacheverell was offered by the king the place of one of the commissioners of the admiralty. He re|fused, saying,

He would not accept the salary, be|cause he did not understand sea affairs * 1.129.

A bill was ordered in A. D. 1653, making those persons incapable of holding places who should solicit for them. A bill was proposed, A. D. 1692, against buying and selling offices * 1.130. It was found after the revolution, that there had been a most shameful selling of places under Iames II. A committee was therefore

appointed to enquire into it, and a bill to prevent the like for the future * 1.131. The commissioners for public accounts found, A. D. 1713, that one Hutchinson had paid 1000 l. for the office or register of seizures to the earl of Wharton.

Resolved, That giving or taking money for procuring offices relating to the manage|ment of the public revenue is a scandalous corruption, and highly detrimental to the public. But the offence having been committed before the queen's pardon was published, the house proceeded no farther in the matter * 1.132.

To suffer the buying and selling of places is one of the most effectual methods that can be invented for plucking up by the roots out of the minds of the people all emulation, or desire of excelling in any thing either useful or ornamental to a country. If I know, that 5000 l. properly distributed will procure me a place of 500 l. a year, and that unless I carry in my hand the necessary douceur, I may in vain solicit, and employ friends to solicit for me, though they could with truth affirm, that I possessed every accom|plishment that enriches the human mind; if I know all this, what am I naturally led to, but to endeavour by all possible means to get the necessary 5000 l. not to lose time in acquiring a set of unprofitable accom|plishments. Thus a deadly damp is struck to all laudable ambition in a people; and an endless avidity after sordid riches excited. The noblest disposition is checked, and in its place the basest encouraged. Our state-gardeners cultivate the weeds, and pluck up the useful plants.

Purchasing of places tempts the purchasers to extort from the people exorbitant perquisites in order to re|imburse

imburse themselves. And then the business comes to be, not how to perform the duties of the place in the most faithful and effectual manner, but how to make the most of it.

By 12 Edw. IV. and 5 Edw. VI. any person, giving money, or reward of any kind, for any office, which, in any way, toucheth the administration of justice, the keeping of towns, or castles, &c. is disqualified for holding such place * 1.133.

There was a difficulty about the officers of the court of wards, if the bill abolishing it should pass, because they must lose their places. One said they ought to have nothing, because they had bought their places contrary to law. There was no provision for them * 1.134. This is the very argument in our times, for keeping up a multitude of burdensome places; that the anni|hilating them would ruin innumerable families. But it is a very frivolous pretence, because they may be put upon half-pay, with a provision for widows, and then to be abolished; instead of which, we are con|tinually multiplying them.

Cardinal Richelieu, in his TESTAM. POLIT. (which the Abbé de S. Pierre thinks the greatest political work ever published before his times) condemns all buying and selling of places; because it leads the sub|jects not to emulate one another in merit, but in riches* 1.135.

The Abbé de S. Pierre's proposal, of ch••osing by scrutiny to all places of power and trust, would make the office of a prime minister, a secretary of state, &c. much easier, and less exposed to envy, and animosity. For, if a candidate's companions in office did not re|commend

him, there could be no reflection made upon the minister, if he was not advanced. Walpole was always sorry, when a place fell vacant. By filling it, he gained one friend, and 20 enemies; any one of which could injure him, more than the person advanced could serve him. When men are gratified without merit, they are not so easily satisfied, as when they are rewarded in some proportion to their deserv|ings. For this very proportion will in some degree regulate their expectations. Whereas those, who obtain what they have in no degree deserved, are led to form imaginary pretensions to unknown merits, without all bounds.

The Abbé S. Pierre thinks the French custom of making the great offices of the state, and even the descent of titles and honours, hereditary, hurtful and inconsistent with sound policy. All honours and pow|ers (except, for plain reasons, the regal) ought to be personal only, and to be given to no individuals, but such as, upon scrutiny, were found to be men of such distinguished worth, as to deserve to be raised to distinguished places, though sprung of mean parents * 1.136. Suppose the silly son and heir of a truly great man, who had, by his conduct, raised himself to the rank of a duke, to have 500 l. a year settled on him out of the estate, would not that be sufficiently rewarding him for all the merit he has, in taking care to be the son of a duke? And would not this policy give greater scope for laudable ambition, than our present, which insures the most worthless and most uncultivated blockhead of a dukedom, and a seat in the house of peers, if he hap|pens to be born by a duchess, wh••ever may have begot him? The eldest son of the archbishop of Canterbury,

(who ranks above the first duke in England) is only Iohn, or Thomas such-a-one, esq. Yet the son of an archbishop, has as good a natural claim to be an arch-bishop, as the son of a duke, to be a duke.

Kings, and king's favourites often read their sin (in this as in other respects) in their punishment. If they will employ unqualified persons, their business will be done accordingly. The great Dutch Nassau fleet, fitted out by prince Maurice against the Spaniards in Ame|rica, and officer'd according to the court interest, did nothing. A fleet of ships fitted out at private expence, and officer'd according to merit, did great feats* 1.137. The French affirm, that their disgraces in the last war, were occasioned by madam Pompadour's filling all the great posts in their fleet and army, with her creatures, and those who gained her interest by money.

That the merit chiefly regarded in our times, is the merit of seconding the views of the court, and that the greatest demerit, according to our modern way of esti|mating demerit, is opposing court measures; appears from the court's late proceedings against my incompa|rable friend, the great Dr. Franklin, whom they have deprived of his place of deputy post-master of North America, which place he himself improved from be|ing a burthen upon the government, to its bringing in a revenue of several thousands a year;—all because that faithful trustee would not sit silent, and see his constituents betrayed.

CHAP. V. Profusion in Places and Pensions.

IT is not a little to the disgrace of human nature, that in any age, or in any country, any member of society should require to be paid, like a hireling, for serving his country. Every state is a great family. The ki••g is, or should be, the father of it; the gran|dees, the elder brothers; and the people the younger children. But what should we think of a family, of which we saw the head, and the elder brothers, plun|dering the younger children of their portions, and reducing them to a starving condition; insisting that themselves ought to be supported in their grandeur, and recompensed for taking upon them the charge of domestic affairs, in such an exorbitant manner, as the younger part of the family could by no means support. If this head of a family, or these grandees, should de|mand a recompense for services done to a neighbouring family, we should not so much wonder or blame them for a sordid disposition. When the people of Poland wanted to have our celebrated Sir Philip Sidney for their king, it had been no matter of wonder, if he had required an ample civil list revenue, as a recompense for the innumerable disgusts and fatigues of the regal station, or that, like the German generals whom we have employed in our continental wars, he had been less sparing of the purses of the Polish people. If we were to do the Dutch any material service, it might be expected, that we should demand a proper compensa|tion; but that Englishmen should hesitate about serving Englishmen, that a lord, who has no necessary business

to fatigue him, but drinking, whoring, masquerad|ing, and New-marketing, should grudge a few hours in a week to serve his country, unless his country will recompence him ten thousand times above the worth of his service,—this gives a shocking idea of the sordid disposition of the grandees of modern times. At the same time the public ought not to be, and hardly ever is, ungrateful. But public rewards ought rather to be honorary, than pecuniary, and if they must be of the latter sort, they ought to be frugal, not profuse; else they do more mischief than good.

The salaries annexed to those places, the holders of which do real service to their country, naturally lead people to a very wrong way of thinking, viz. That we are not obliged to serve our country, unless we be paid for our service. Whereas, the truth is, that serving our country to the utmost of our power, is (like obedience to parents, providing for our wives and children, and worshipping God) our indispensible duty, previously to any emolument we may expect on that account. See Mr. Southwel's speech below.

As for the holders of sinecures, and those men who receive annual pensions for nothing, they may be com|pared to Pluto's three-headed mastiff, Cerberus, who gobbled up the sop thrown to him by the Sibyl, and immediately stretched out his hairy bulk in his kennel, and fell a snoring.

Cerberus haec ingens latratu regna trifauci Personat, adverso recubans immanis in antro. Cui vates, horrere videns jam colla colubris, Melle soporatam et medicatis frugibus offam Objicit; ille fame rabidâ tria guttura pandens Corripit objectam, atque immania terga resolvit Fusus humi, totoque ingens extenditur antro. VIRG.

The quoting of this passage from the famous sixth book of the Eneid inflames me with a desire to display a portion of the spirit of our learned bishop who has found in it a mystical sense, which nobody ever dreamed of before his DIVINE LEGATION, nor since. Were my genius brightened with a spark of his fire, I should shew (with no less success, than he has had in proving Moses's divine commission by what will equally establish Lycurgus's, viz. his designed neg|lect of the mention of future rewards and punishments, and with no less success than he has had in establish|ing the alliance between the two things in the world which ought the most carefully to be kept separate, viz. the state and the church)—were my mind, I say, tinctured with the true Warburtonian spirit of criticism, I should shew that by the sl••eping mastiff Virgil intended to point out an idle hanger on at court; by Vates, (the old prophete••s, as lucus a non lucendo) the prime minister, as statesmen are less remarkable for their prophetical sagacity, than for their resemblance to old women; by the snakes on Cerberus's neck bristling up at the approach of the Sibyl and the hero, I would shew, that the poet meant the speechifying, and opposition made by the place-hunter. Being got so far as this, the offa, or sop, composed of honey, &c. would spontaneously explain itself into the place, and its douceurs. The dog's opening three throats to swallow one morsel, does most beautifully set forth the disproportion between a placeman's voracity and the richest income the mini|ster can afford to give him. In this manner would I attempt to imitate, non passibus aequis, this great discoverer of secret meanings, who has left us one thing to regret, among so many things to admire, viz. That he has taken so much pains to find senses

where no body was at a loss, viz. in the Eneid, and has declined pointing out sense, where no body has been able to find any, I mean, in the XXXIX ARTICLES, the CREEDS, and the HOMILES, which he has subscribed, and therefore must understand. But to return to our subject, the profusion in places and pensions.

Lord Molesworth thinks, the servants of the crown should be paid by appointment of parliament. It may be said, all monies expended are subject to parliamen|tary enquiry. But there is a very great difference between appropriating beforehand, and finding fault afterwards, when the money is spent, and all that can be done is passing a vote. And even that is not to be expected, if our parliaments, instead of checks, are to be sharers in the plunder.

A king, as such, ought not, of all men, to grant bounties; because what he grants is not out of his own, but the property of others * 1.138.

All that a king is, and all that he has as king, is on account of the public, whose servant (to use king Iam. Ist's expres|sion) he is. Therefore, whatever he gives to his wh—, or his minion, is a robbery of the public, because his wh—, or his minion, are of no advan|tage to the public, and have not earned any part of the public money; but on the contrary, deserve the strapado, or the gallows. And whatever a king gives, or suffers his ministers to give, to the undeserving, or what they give too profusely to the deserving, is a robbery of the public. A king's income is not as a gentleman's rent, a private fund at his disposal. For a kingdom is not a private estate; but a trust for which the holder is accountable to his people. And

wo to those kings and ministers, who betray so awful a trust. A king is to dispense, not to spend the pub|lic money. There are many persons necessarily to be employed in a state. Them the king is to pay. How then (says St. Pierre * 1.139) can he have bounties to grant? unless he robs some of those who serve the public? Every guinea he gives to one, who has not deserved it, or who has not deserved it all, is so much kept back from one, who has deserved it, or would, if he had not been discouraged by seeing a traiterous king or ministry embezzling the public money, by throwing it away on the worthless, to the injury of the deserving. A king, as a gentleman, and out of his official and accountable character, may bestow upon his lawful pleasures, or upon those who have served his lawful private interests, more than a duke may lay out; but not more than two dukes may spend. If he lays out the public money, or suffers his crew to lay it out, in bribing villains to betray liberty, I have only to say, I lictor, deliga ad palum, virgis caedito, caput obnubito, infelici arbori suspendito.

Our courtiers find the parliament too ready to give. Therefore, according to the common saying,

Lightly come, lightly gone,

they care not how they dissipate their ill gotten riches. Ch. VII. of France, a prince of an excellent character, was, at his accession, so low in both cash and credit, that he had not ready money to pay for a pair of boots, that were brought him; and the maker, not caring to trust his poor majesty, carried them away. This narrowness of circumstances gave that wise and good prince a handle to retrench unnecessary expences, and

set out on a foot of great frugality, which he con|tinued after his finances were more flourishing * 1.140.

The enormous emoluments annexed to our great offices of the state, are big with every evil. They render the sincerity of real patriots suspected, and expose the administration to the certain execration of the people, who, by this means, are often re|duced to an uncertainty whom to trust. Pensions and places are rightly bestowed in very few in|stances. They are a disgrace to men of family and fortune, be their services to their country what they will. For pensioning such men is making them appear to the public not noble, not generous, not magnanimous; but greedy, sordid hirelings. A pen|sion may perhaps be rightly given to an ingenious, but poor man, to support him in his pursuit of arts, science, manufactures, commerce, or whatever may be for the public advantage. But care ought to be taken, that he be not over-fed, and by that means become lazy.

There is no magnanimity without some degree of self-denial. But what self-denial do our nobility and gentry shew, when they scramble for the profitable places, and will not serve their country, unless they be overpaid immensely beyond the worth of their services? If a nobleman has in his mind nothing more noble, or disinterested, than an artizan or a plough-driver, what claim has he to more respect than they would have, if they had as much money in their pockets, or as much lace on their waistcoats, as he has?

If the nobility were to serve their country in the great offices of the state gratis, the heroism would be

nothing more than is shewn by private trustees, arbi|trators, church-wardens, overseers of the poor, and other parish-officers. Are those poor low-bed crea|tures, whom our polite courtiers call the scum of the earth, more disinterested than the nobility of the land?

By 43 Eliz. any person elected overseer of the poor, and refusing to do the duty, is punishable, though he has no reward for doing the duty. Why should not all public officers be filled in this manner* 1.141? If it be alledged that this would be troublesome, and fall heavy upon the nobility, let them take the offices by rotation.

Even in the law some things are appointed to be done gratis * 1.142. It is hard, that our nobility should be loth to do for their country what the lawyers (a sordid enough set of men) do every day.

If the nobility and gentry declined serving their country in the great offices of the state, without sordid hire, let the honest bourgeoisie be employed. They will think themselves sufficiently rewarded by the honour done them.

Why should not our kings, when a court-place falls vacant, publish, that they want a secretary of state, or a lord chamberlain, or a lord steward; places which any man of common sense and common honesty can fill; the public business being all a mere routine. And why should they not order all persons desirous of the vacant employment to send in their proposals sealed (as when there is a fleet to victual, or a pub|lic work to be done) and accept him, who offers to serve his country on the most reasonable terms? Let

the person chosen, bring in his bill of expence••. There is no reason why the public should not repay what is fairly laid out for the public benefit. If it be thought proper to give a statesman, who has shewn himself able and honest, five hundred guineas for a ring, as was given the brave admiral Drake for ser|vices of greater danger and more importance, than those of fifty state-secretaries, I have no objection. But that half our nobility should be upon the parish, I mean, upon the public, I own I see no manner of reason; nor that a set of places, which might be filled at the expence of a few hundreds a year, must cost the nation many hundred thousands, while we are sinking in a bottomless sea of debt.

The grand Turk, when he thinks a wazir, an aga, a teftardar, a pasha, &c. has, by oppression, spunged up a good deal of money in his service, squeezes him till he has reduced him to his former condition, which often helps up the sultan's exhausted treasure. If we were to introduce such a custom as this in Eng|land, the squeezings of a thousand or two of our over-drenched court-spunges, might do somewhat toward preventing the dreaded necessity of applying a spunge to our public debts.

It is commonly reckoned, that five or six of our places or pensions are equal in their annual amount to all that is paid in the three provinces of Holland, Zealand, and Overyssel, to placemen and pensioners. The burgomaster of a great town has perhaps 20 l. a year salary. The deputies or members of parlia|ment have 200 l. a year. One happy consequence is, that there is

little aspiring to preferment in the state, because there is little to be got that way * 1.143.

No servant of the Dutch East-India company has so mean an appointment, as to be pinched, nor so afflu|ent, as to be above his business * 1.144.

Ask the courtiers, what produces the present cla|mours, and all clamours against government, which is always immaculate. They will answer, The desire of places and preferments. Which may be partly true. But why then do they not reduce the incomes of the places as low as in Holland? Why do they not abolish all that are useless? They do the very contrary. They are continually increasing the num|ber, if not the value of them. They are constantly heaping on fewel, and then they swear and blaspheme, because the fire continues to rage.

I may suppose,

(says Mr. Southwel in his speech on a motion for a deduction from salaries during the continuance of a war)

that our salaries and pensions above 50l. a year, amount to at least a million sterling. If I said two, I believe I should not be mistaken,

&c. If our place-men and pensioners consume 2,000,000l. a year of the public income, they swal|low up at once the whole land-tax at four shillings in the pound.

Mr. Pelham, brother to the duke of Newcastle, used to say, he grudged the great incomes enjoyed by the great place-men; for that the business of the nation was done by the clerks in the offices, who have but 50l. a year, even as the business of the church is not done by the bishops and deans, but by the curates of 20l. and 30l. per annum.

Immediately after the treaty with Portugal, which settled Ferdinand and Isabella on the throne of Spain, the deputies from the cities insisted on a repeal of

grants made by Hen. IV. of crown lands (among other particulars, Gibraltar was granted to the duke of Medina Sidonia) and of pensions out of the revenues. They gave orders accordingly, and such reforms were made, that 30 millions of maravedis arose annually from the savings * 1.145.

The whole revenue given by the Poles for the sup|port of their king's royal dignity, does not exceed 100,000l. a year * 1.146. Five or six of our courtie•••• devour as much annually; for which they do nothing, but what were better let alone, as buying votes, and mis-governing the public affairs.

In the kingdom of Siam, the great officers of the state have no salaries. Therefore there can be no scrambling. But there is great injustice in the courts of law, because the judges have it in their power to enrich themselves by extortion * 1.147.

The governor of the Dutch East-India Company at Batavia is employed from day-break till night in the business of his office, so that he can hardly allow him|self half an hour for dinner * 1.148. Our tinselled place|men we

—stretch on the rack of a too easy chair, And hear their everlasting yawn confess The pains and penalties of idleness. POPE.

Pope Sixtus V. cut off at once an expence of 600,000l. per annum, which it cost the apostolic chamber before his time in pensions and gratuities.

When the Spanish finances were low, A. D. 1608, and the ministry would not retrench the sums laid out on spies and pensioners, the nation was offended, and

the historians have handed down to posterity their in|famy * 1.149. Let our posterity likewise read, for the honour of our ministers, that toward the end of the eighteenth century, when the public debt was greater than had ever been known, there was at the same time more pensioning, than ever was known.

With a laudable frugality, they

[the Spaniards, in the year 1739, when Britain declared war against them]

retrenched all their extravagant pensions and salaries, and reduced their expences in all the depart|ments of their government * 1.150.

The Spaniards grew wiser, at last, than they were at first. Let us see, whether the English will go and do likewise.

Alphonsus V. of Arragon, surnamed the Wise, put off an extravagant, greedy courtier, who was always asking somewhat, by telling him, That a king, who thinks to satisfy his spendthrift courtiers, employs himself in a manner as fruitless, as he who should think to fill a hogshead, which had holes in its bottom. He may impoverish himself, but will never enrich them.

When Hen. III. complained, that his revenues were hardly sufficient, ad simplicem victum, &c. for victuals, clothing, and the accustomed charities, much less for warlike expeditions; his counsellors faithfully told him, his poverty was occasioned by his giving so much away. The king took the hint; called many to account, and made them refund * 1.151. We give our ministers half a million on demand, to make good the pretended deficiencies of the civil list, without so much as asking how there comes to be a deficiency,

much less calling any body to account, or making any one refund.

The counsellors, and all officers, both great and small, (in the time of Hen. III.) were to swear, at their creation, that they would, to the utmost of their power, execute their offices, without any other reward than meat and drink* 1.152.

Many a great place-man in our times has, from 500l. to 5000l. a year. If a minister, in our times, takes this oath, and if he calls 5000l. a year meat and drink, he must have a very hearty appetite, or a very nice palate; for, even in these dear times, a man may have for 50l. a year, as much mutton and small beer (and there is no better meat and drink than mutton and small beer) as any Christian can decently consume. But it will be an|swered, Our statesmen do not take this oeconomical oath. Upon which our statesmen will perhaps give me leave to observe, or, if they do not, I will make the observation without their leave, viz. That we have as much occasion for parsimony, as our ancestors in the time of Hen. III. The public debt was nev•••• in those times so high as one million, whereas we have seen the nation indebted to the value of 140 million••.

All the incomes of the government-places in Eliza|beth's reign, amounted to only 18,000l. a year 1 Ch. I. they were computed at 120,000l. a year * 1.153. In those days, the navy and army cost but little. In our times, it is computed, that the government has the disposal of 2 or three millions per annum, taking in the navy, the army, and the church: of which the first is our strength, and our glory, and therefore we can hardly cherish, and maintain it too nobly; the second

is worse than useless; for it is dangerous to liberty, as every officer is a court-place-man, and as the army is the necessary and natural instrument of tyranny; as for the third; the mere expence it costs the nation, is hardly an object of consequence enough to alarm. Of which more in the sequel.

The yearly salary of the lord high treasurer of Eng|land in the time of Hen. III. was 100 marks. Harley, in queen Anne's time, said, a lord high treasurer of England, if he were indifferent which of the two places he went to in the next world, might get 5,000l. 10,000l. 50,000l. or what he pleased by his place * 1.154. Lord Bacon writes to king Iam. I. that the place of attorney general was honestly worth 6000l. a year * 1.155.

The lord high treasurer Middlesex, in the time of Iam. I. declared, that the gains of that office had been 8000l. per annum, nay more than he could well tell * 1.156.

In the time of Hen. IV. the profits of the hanaper in chancery were only 2000l. a year * 1.157. The earl of Wiltshire, father to queen Anne Boleyn, had 20 shillings a day, as lord privy seal * 1.158.

Queen Elizabeth enriched none of her favourites at the expence of her people. She pretended, that her people were her only favourites. She had sense enough to observe a spirit of liberty rising, and humoured it prudently. Iam. I. and Ch. I. had not the sagacity to imitate her.

Parliament grants a large subsidy, A. D. 1606, which enabled Iames to gratify his favourites, (his great joy)

out of the money granted by parliament * 1.159.

In this, Iames acted upon principles directly contra••y to those of Elizabeth.

Elizabeth's wisdom kept her fleet and forts always in good order. Her frugali••y displeased her avaricio•••• courtiers; but pleased her people. She bore gre•••• national expences with the ordinary revenues, and helped her neighbours; which her predecessors had never done. Most of them beggared themselves by gorging a few greedy courtiers. She

discharged and the great expences of government, (which must be great, considering the number of enemies around her) out of the crown revenue, for she did not lavish her money upon the court-leeches like her predecessors* 1.160;

[and her successors, Rapin might have added.]

The pensions of 4l. per week (settled on about 70 members of the commons during the civil war, because their estates were sequestrated by the king [Ch. I.], or did not yield a subsistance) were afterwards take•• off to relieve the public * 1.161. Compare this integrity and disinterestedness with our monstrous profusion in places and pensions needlessly bestowed on the worth|less tools of the court, and k••pt up from year to year, from father to son, while the nation is sinking under a load of debt.

The queen sends a message, A. D. 1702, to the commons, That in reward of Marlborough's services, she had made him a duke, and given him 5000l. a year during her life, out of the post-house revenue, and wishes the house would think of means for continuing to him and his heirs, the pension, as well as the title. The whole house were struck dumb. The speaker stood up to see if any body would speak to the queen's

proposal. At last a member opened. The debate ran very high, and it is said that an old member spoke thus:

Though I have accepted an employment at court, I did not do it with the design that my mouth should be shut in this house, when any thing is offered that I think detrimental to my country.

The house sent an address to the queen, in which, after approving the esteem she had expressed for the duke of Marlborough, they beg leave to lay before her the consequences of making a precedent for future alienations of the revenue of the crown, which had been much reduced by the exorbitant grants of the last reign, &c * 1.162. The commons in those days hesitated about settling a pension on a hero, whose actions will be celebrated as long as the world stands. We make it a rule to pension every man we employ, deserving and worthless. Because a scoundrel has received 5000l. a year for many years, for doing the business of a place, in which there is no business to do (that is, in plain English, 5000l. a year for pocketing 20,000l. a year) therefore we are to settle 2 or 3000l. a year on him for life, after he has resigned his sinecure; and perhaps continue the same to his booby son after him, while thousands of our people are flying, for want of bread, to America, and the nation in continual danger of bankruptcy.

Instead of the challenge * 1.163, Whose ox, or whose ass, has the king [or the minister] taken; we may ask the crew, Whose farthing candle, or whose draught of small beer, have they not taxed? A poor hard-work|ing man, who has a wife and six children to maintain,

can neither enjoy the glorious light of Heaven, nor the glimmering of a tallow taper, without paying the window tax and the candle tax. He rises early, and sits up late; he fills up the whole day with severe labour; he goes to his flock-bed with half a belly full of bread and cheese, denying the call of natural appe|tite, that his wife and little starvelings may have the more. In the mean while the exactors of these taxes are revelling at Mrs. Cornelly's masquerade, at the expence of more money for one evening's amusement, than the wretched hard-working man (who is obliged to find the money for them to squander) can earn by half a year's severe labour.

Thysius ascribes the continuance of the Athenian state, to their strict observance of the laws; their severe punishments for bribery, which was always ca|pital; and their severity against offending magistrates* 1.164.

Noble was the answer of Curius Dentatus to the Samnite embassadors, when they offered him as a bribe a large quantity of plate: they found him sitting on a wooden bench by the fire, cooking his victuals. He rejected their present with disdain, and said, My poverty * 1.165 inspires you with hopes of corrupting me, but your attempts are vain. I had rather command the rich, than be rich myself. Carry back with you this fatal metal, which men make use of only for their destruction; and tell your countrymen, that they will find it as difficult to corrupt, as to conquer me.

The Achaeans declined to their ruin, from the first violation of the salutary law, by which the whole con|fedrcy

was bound to take no present, from any of the neighbouring kings * 1.166.

Epicrates, the Atherian, was, according to law, capitally condemned for taking a present in his em|bassy, though he had done great service to his country. Callias was fined 50 talents or several thousand pounds, for the same crime, though he had made a glorious peace for his country. Philocrates was punished for taking a present of Philip of Macedonia * 1.167.

Nulla aut admodum exigua, &c. Pecuniary re|wards were scarce known among the Athenians. Virtue was its own best reward; and was thought to contain all that was desirable. The Athenians were greedy of nothing but glory. Therefore, an olive wreath was the highest of all prizes * 1.168.

Nihil opus pecunia, &c. There is no occasion for money; (says the great and good Epaminondas to Diomedes, attempting, by order of Artaxerxes, to cor|rupt him) for if your king wants any thing of me, that is for the advantage of my country, [Thebes] I will do it for nothing. If he desires the contrary, he is not rich enough to bribe me; for I will not sell my country, for the wealth of the world * 1.169.

The Athenians had their logistae, euthyni, and heli|astae, or public auditors of all accounts, to whom all, who touched the public money, were answerable annually * 1.170.

Isti quos paverant, &c. Those who had been en|riched by the public plunder for many years, when * 1.171

deprived by Hannibal of this unjust gain, thought themselves injured, and in revenge, instigated the Romans against that illustrious chief * 1.172.

It is capital for a Venetian embassador to receive a present in his embassy * 1.173.

The duke d' Epernon, upon a stop of the exchequer in France, was advised to raise an income from the people under his government, as other grandees did. He answered, that it was not his business to condemn the proceedings of others; but that he could not think of extorting a subsistence from the miserable people, who were in want of bread * 1.174.

He afterwards refused to lay impositions on the people for the public service, and wrote to the king, desiring to be excused the odious office of oppressing the poor. The villainous courtiers immediately set up a clamour against him, that he only aimed at po|pularity, and was imagining treacherous schemes a|gainst the government.

When M. de Voisin, chief clerk of the parliament of Paris, received orders to resume his office, A. D. 1771, the parliament having been before arbitrarily changed by the tyrant, he declared, that his honour, duty, and consci••nce, did not permit him to perform the functions of it. He therefore resigned his place, and was rewarded for his integrity by banishment, and confiscation of his office, which cost a million of livres, and brought in 100,000 yearly.

The great duke de Sully,

instead of making his ministry useful to himself by gaining friends, never hesitated making himself enemies, by standing be|tween

his master and those importunate courtiers, who were perpetually craving in a degree out of all porportion to their merit * 1.175.

By the spoils of conquered nations, Caesar was enabled to corrupt the Roman people, and bribe them to be instruments of their own ruin, by erecting an absolute monarchy in his favour* 1.176.

The states of Arragon told Don Pedro IV. their king, that

pensions given to courtiers, are wages paid by the subjects to those, who labour for their destruction * 1.177.

By 29 and 30 Car. II. a tax of 2 shillings per pound was laid on places, and one of 3, upon pen|sions * 1.178.

In the year 1600, to the last year but one of queen Elizabeth, the whole of the ordinary public revenue amounted to no more than 600,000 l. per annum; in 1633, the 8th of Ch. I. to 800,000 l. in 1660, the 12th of Ch. II. to 1,200,000 l. in the year 168••, 2d of Iames II. to 1,900,000 l. in 1714, the 12th of Anne, to 3,200,000 l. in 1751, the 25th of Geo. II. to something short of 6,000,000 l. and in the 5th of his present majesty, the year 1765, to full 10,300,000 l. Thus from queen Eliz. to Ch. II's time, our public burdens were doubled, being a space of about 60 years; and from thence to the last of queen Anne, about 54 years, near treble; from 1714 again, to the year 1751, that again nearly doubled; and what is still more extraordinary, this last enormous burden encreased from 6 to upwards of 10,000,000 l.

in the narrow compass of 14 years, from 1751, to 1765 * 1.179.

There was one million of debt contracted on the 6 d. per pound tax, laid A. D. 1760, on pensions * 1.180. The interest of a million, at 4 per cent. i•• 40,000 l. per ann. Therefore the pensions must have amounted to 1,600,000 l. per ann. at least. For 1,600,000 six-pences, are only equal to the 40,000 l.

A. D. 1744, a motion was made, that the incomes of places and pensions should be taxed, at least during the continuance of the war, at the rate of 8 shillings in the pound. Objections were made to the motion, as might be expected. To these what follows was replied by Robert Vyner, Esq.

I do not wonder, Sir, to hear a placeman affirm|ing, that our public employments are attended with vast trouble and expence, and the salaries and per|quisites belonging to them are no more than they deserve; but most other gentlemen in the kingdom are convinced, that few or none of our public em|ployments are attended with any expence, and that the business in every one of them might be performed for much less that it is at present; for as to the expence, we all know that every shilling of it is, in most of our public offices, defrayed by the public. The officers are not obliged to furnish themselves with so much as pens, ink, and paper out of their salaries; but have these and many other articles provided for them at the public charge.

[In the year 1773, it was found, that the public has long been charged near 5000 l. a year for pens, ink, and paper for the house of commons.]

And as to the business, it is well known, that in all our offices,

those who do the most business have the smallest salaries. Nay, in many of our public posts, the man who has the place with the salary annexed to it, gets a deputy to do the business for, perhaps, a tenth part of the salary, and sometimes the deputy has no part of the salary, but the perquisites only, or, perhaps, but a share of them. These being facts notoriously known, I shall very readily agree with the honourable gentleman, that a strict parli|amentary enquiry into all our public posts and offices is very necessary, and might be of great ser|vice to the nation. If such an enquiry were strictly and impartially carried through, we might not only reduce the salaries and perquisites of most of the officers and placemen in the kingdom, but a vast number of useless officers and placemen might be laid aside, and several of the offices that have been of late years erected, might be entirely abolished; which would not only be a great saving to the pub|lic, but a great security to the liberty of the people. But such an enquiry, Sir, I despair of ever seeing set on foot, and much more of ever seeing it carried on with effect; therefore, since we cannot remove the evil, I am for making the most we can of it, by subjecting all salaries and pensions to a double tax; nor am I in the least afraid of doing injustice to any placeman, by not leaving him a sufficient compensation for all the business he does for the public; for in all our offices there is so little business done, or such a number of persons employed, that one moiety of the salary, and in many cases much less than a moiety, would be a sufficient reward for all the business they do. With regard to pen|sioners, I am so far from being afraid of doing them injustice, that, as to most of them, I believe, if we

stripped them entirely of their pensions, we should do a piece of signal service, as well as justice to the public; for I have a strong suspicion that most of the pensions that have been granted of late years, were granted for what ought rather to be called ministerial than public service.

The customs and sentiments of a people always depend upon the customs and sentiments of the rich and great families amongst them. If the rich and great are selfish and mercenary, the same spirit will soon prevail generally among the people. Prevent its being in the power of the rich and great to be selfish and mercenary, and they will soon begin to be actuated by motives of ambition and the desire of public esteem; and from them the same spirit will diffuse itself through the whole body of the people. The monstrous salaries that have been of late years annexed to all the high offices in our government, and granted without distinction to the rich as well as the poor, have raised such a selfish spirit among the people, that a man is now reckoned a fool or a madman if he gives himself any trouble about serving his country without some pecuniary reward. Quis nisi mentis inops oblatum respuat aurum? Diminish those salaries, Sir, and grant them to none but such as stand in need of them for their support, or for supporting the dignity of their office, and you will put it out of the power of the rich to be governed by pecuniary motives. Among them the motives of ambition and public esteem will soon resume their proper seat, and a generous desire to serve one's country without any pecuniary reward will from them diffuse itself through the

whole body of the people, insomuch that it may very soon become scandalous to desire any of the public money if a man can serve his country and support himself without it. I know, Sir, it may be said, that unless you grant such salaries as may be a temptation to men of fortune to serve the pub|lic, no man of fortune will ever enter into the public service. This I take to be a very severe satire upon our men of fortune. It is supposing that they are governed by nothing but sordid and mean pecuniary considerations; that they have no regard for their country, nor will do it any service unless they can thereby supply their luxury or satisfy their avarice. But I have not so bad an opinion of our men of for|tune, or the men of fortune of any country. Put pecuniary considerations out of the way, and mere generous motives will take their place. Nay, men of fortune would engage in the public service, if it were for nothing else but to have something to do, for a state of mere idleness is, above all others, the most irksome; of which we may be convinced, by observing the many inventions of men for pre|venting their being in such a state. Many other motives would engage them in the public service, and even in that service which, above all others, is the most dangerous and toilsome; I mean the army, especially in time of war. This we may be con|vinced of from what is now the case in France: The pay of the officers of their army is so small, that it can be a temptation to no man of fortune; and the colonel of a regiment must always, in that service, be at a much greater expence than his pay will answer. Yet there is hardly a man of fortune in that country who is not, or has not been, in the army, unless it be such as have been b••ed to the law. The case

would soon be the same in this country, Sir, if pecuniary temptations were once removed, or very much diminished; and besides the public saving, it would contribute not a little towards putting an end to the luxury and extravagance that now prevail•• among our quality and chief gentlemen; for among men of fortune the public money, like money got by gambling, is generally spent in luxury and ex|travagance. I may say it is always so, except when it falls into the hands of some covetous, avaritious creature, and then it contributes, perhaps, to enrich a family, that was before richer than is consistent with the happiness and constitution of this king|dom; for it is our business to have many rich fami|lies amongst us, but none too rich: and I am sure it is not the business of any state to contribute, at the public expence, towards the supply of luxury or the satisfaction of avarice, neither of which can ever be fully supplied or satisfied, nor will ever say he has enough. To a luxurious man, the more you give the more methods of expence he will always invent; and money to an avaritious man is like water to a drop|sical, the more you give the more he will desire. I believe no one who hears me will say, that public spirit and disinterested regard for our country is not now at a very low ebb among the people of this kingdom. What is the cause of this? The cause is plain and evident. The great salaries, and many unlawful, I may say, cruel, perquisites that have been of late years connived at, or by law, or custom, annexed to most of the high offices in the kingdom, have introduced this spirit too generally amongst our noble and rich families; and as such families may be called the heart and vitals of the people, the corruption has from thence diffused itself through

the whole body. This is the true cause, Sir, and the remedy is as obvious as the disease. The rich and great will have a concern in the government of their country, if they can. You have no occasion to invite them by lucrative temptations. If you do not invite them by such temptations, they will take that concern from motives that are generous and consistent with the public good. Public spirit, and a desire of esteem, will then be their only motives for engaging, or desiring to be engaged, in the pub|lic service; and when this spirit begins to prevail generally among the rich and great, the people, as they always do, will soon begin to follow their example. As men are naturally fond of power, though attended with no sordid gain, ambition may still cause a contention who shall serve their country in the highest offices; but that contention will never be so violent, as to produce faction, nor can it pro|duce any dangerous opposition to a wise and upright government, because among a people generally governed by virtue and public spirit, no ambitious man can form a party against such a government; and much less can he form a party for overturning the liberties of his country, because the ambition of one man will always be a check to the ambition of another; for no man who is actuated by ambition only, will ever consent to give himself an abso|lute master; but a luxurious or avaritious man may very readily consent to give even himself an absolute master, if he may thereby hope to supply his lux|ury or indulge his avarice. We may thus see, Sir, that a stop must be put to the selfish mercenary spirit that now prevails among the people, if we have a mind to preserve our liberties. Such a law as I have mentioned would certainly be the most

effectual method for this purpose. It must be con|fessed by every one who can talk impartially of matters relating to government, that officers and placemen are proportionably more numerous in this country than in any other on earth; and the profits so vastly exceed the service required, that every man is fond of getting a place under the government, because in no sort of business he can earn so much for a little service. Justice, therefore, can require of us no exception, but that mentioned by my ho|nourable friend who made you this motion, I mean that of the judges; and no compassion can prompt us to go further than to places or pensions of 50 l. a year and under. These are all the exceptions that either justice or compassion can require of us, and admitting these, I am convinced the additional tax proposed would produce a very considerable yearly revenue, especially if the commissioners of the land-tax should fall upon a way of subjecting perquisites, as well as salaries, to this double tax; which, I think, they might easily do, and ought to do; for the perquisites of offices are very different from the fees of lawyers, physicians, or pa••sons, and still more different from the wages of journeymen. These are the price, and the only price they have for their labour or attendance; but the perquisites of offices are not the price of labour or attendance. They have their salaries for the price of their labour and attendance; and their perquisites are the price only of their impudence and imposition, commodities which, I am sure, ought to be taxed as high as any that are produced or imported; and that they may be highly taxed is one of my chief reasons for approv|ing this motion * 1.181.

Mr. Southwel speaks excellently on this subject, as follows * 1.182.

Sir, As reformation of abuses in the church has always been a most frightful word to priests, so re|formation in government has always, for the same reason, been equally terrible to ministers: Those abuses in religion which make a reformation neces|sary, have generally been introduced by the cunning of priests, for increasing their own power or their re|venues; and those abuses in government which render a reformation necessary, have generally been intro|duced by the cunning of ministers, in order to encrease their own power or profits. These two orders of men have therefore the same reason to dread a refor|mation, because it must be attended with a diminution of their power or their profits, and probably with a very great diminution of both. For this reason, Sir, when I hear a minister running out against refor|mation, and dressing it up in all the hobgobling shapes his fancy can suggest, I always think of the priests of Diana at Ephesus: It is not the danger that threatens the public, but the danger that threatens their shrine, which they are afraid of; and as the over-grown power of ministers is of as pernicious consequence to free government as the over-grown power of priests is to true religion, a reformation is as often necessary in one case as the other. This is the foundation of that maxim laid down by Machi|avel, that in order to preserve a free government, it often becomes necessary to bring it back to the first principles, which is a maxim the friends of liberty will always take care to observe, and we may ex|pect that it will be as constantly opposed by ministers,

who always have been, and always will be, grasping at arbitrary power. Upon this principle, Sir, let us examine the motion now before us, in order to see whether it is not returning a step back toward our ancient constitution. I am sure, no man, who has read the history of the nation, will say that our ancestors the Saxons ever thought of inviting men to serve the public by great salaries or pensions. On the contrary, we know that all those offices that are of the true Saxon originals, such as sheriffs, parish offices, and most of our offices in cities and boroughs, are attended with an expence, instead of being of any advantage to the officers. At least if they now make any advantage of them, it is by some innovation unknown to our ancestors, and such a one as they never would have allowed to be introduced. But the crown, having, by some means or other, got into its possession the arbitrary disposal of almost all offices and places, ministers soon found that the more valuable these offices and places were made, the more their power would be extended; therefore they resolved to make th••m lu|crative as well as honourable, and from that time they have been by degrees increasing, not only the number of offices and places, but also the profits and perquisites of each. Not only large salaries have been annexed to every place or office under the government, but many of the officers have been allowed to oppress the subjects by sale of the places under them, and by exacting extravagant and un|reasonable fees, which have been so long suffered, that they are now looked on as the legal perquisites of the office. Nay, in many offices, they seem to have got a customary right to defraud the public; and we know how careful some of our late ministers

have been to prevent or defeat any parliamentary enquiry into the conduct and management of any office. By these means, Sir, the expence of our civil government is become so great, that it is hardly in the power of the people to support it. At least it is not in their power to support the expence of our civil government, and at the same time to support a foreign war with that vigour which is necessary for bringing it to a happy and speedy conclusion. But this is not the only inconvenience that attends the multitude of offices and places under our government, and the large salaries and perquisites annexed to them: They not only render it impossible for us to support or carry on a foreign war with vigour, but they render it impossible for us to preserve our liberties without some great reformation in our constitution. The motion now before us does not therefore proceed from any extravagant spirit of reformation, but from a just sense of the danger we are exposed to, if we do not reform. As to the danger that threatens our liberties, I do not much wonder at our ministers not being affected with it; because from the whole course of our history, as well as from late experience, I have observed that as soon as a gentleman becomes a minister, or, as he calls himself, a servant of the ••own, he shakes of all concern for the liberty of his ••ountry; and what|ever professions some of our present ministers may have formerly made, I am afraid it will be found, that they have no more virtue than their predecessors. For this reason, I say, Sir, I do not wonder at our ministers not being affected with the danger our liberties may be in from the number of our officers, and the high salaries annexed to their several offices; but as to the danger we are exposed to by our in|ability

to support a foreign war, I wonder that even our ministers are not affected with it. My wonder does not arise, Sir, from any high notion I have of their virtue or love for their country, but from my being convinced that they have a great love for them|selves, and a paramount regard for their own safety and interest.

Mr. Southwel observes, that the ministry were in some danger, left the people, provoked on thinking how they are taxed, while the curtiers are wallowing in places and pensions, might make an insurrection to the danger of their plunderers. Then he goes on as follows:

Men, Sir, who are capable of judging without pre|judice, I am sure, must be sensible of the great danger our liberties are in from the vast influence the crown has of late years acquired by the multiplication of offices, and the increase of officers as well as the increase of their salaries and perquisites; for surely no gentleman will say that our monarchy would continue to be a limited monarchy, if the crown were sure of having always a parliament at its devotion; and that this may be the case, that this will be the case, is I think absolutely certain, if some effectual methods be not very soon taken to prevent it. A reformation therefore of some kind or other is become absolutely necessary, if we intend to preserve our liberties. A place-bill, and a bill for excluding officers of all ranks and degrees, with a very few exceptions, from voting at elections, would have some effect; but it is very certain that the most effectual method would be to diminish the number and value of those gifts which the crown has a power to bestow; and the motion now before us, is, I think, the most obvious step, and the first step we ought to take for this purpose. The motion

is in itself so reasonable, and the honourable gentle|man who made it has chosen such a seasonable and critical conjuncture for offering it to our conside|ration, that if it be not agreed to, I shall despair of ever seeing any effectual law made for preventing that corrupt influence which the crown has a power to make use of both in parliament and at elections. A new administration may, in order to gain a little popularity, at their first entrance into power, connive at the introducing and passing, or may themselves introduce and promote, some bill, that has a specious appearance of being in favour of liberty; but I shall never expect an effectual bill from that quarter. I have such an opinion of ministers, that I cannot be easily convinced, that they will ever consent to have their power effectually abridged; therefore I must be of opinion, that if ever any such bill be passed, it must make its way through this house against the power and influence of the administration, and must be forced through the other two branches of the legis|lature, or one of them at least, by the obstinate virtue of this assembly. Thank God, we have still the power in our hands, in some measure, to compel a compliance with what our constituents as well as ourselves think absolutely necessary for the preser|vation of our constitution. But in the case now before us, we have no occasion to make any extraor|dinary use of our power: no tacking is proposed: no refusal nor any delay of the supplies is desired: What my honourable friend has proposed, comes not only naturally but necessarily into a supply-bill, and consequently must be agreed to by the other two branches of the legislature, or the whole of this branch of the supply must be lost. If therefore such a natural and such a well-judged proposal as

this in favour of our liberties be rejected by this house, can I suppose that ever any other can make its way against the torrent of ministerial favour?

Mr. Southwel then goes on to shew the particular propriety of a saving scheme at a time, when the na|tion was engaged in a war against France and Spain▪ with no allies, but such as were more a burden than an advantage, overloaded with debts and taxes, the incomes of the sinking fund on the decline, foreign trade lessened, &c. Then he proceeds as follows:

In these circumstances, Sir, and when we are in so much danger of being run out before the war can be brought to a period, will any gentleman say, that we ought to allow our ministers, placemen, and pen|sioners, to enjoy the same salaries and pensions they were provided with in time of peace? Or that we ought not to deduct some part of their salaries or pensions, or subject them to some higher tax than any other sort of people? But this, it is said, is the practice of arbitrary governments, or of princes that are aiming at arbitrary power; and we ought not to make their conduct a precedent for ours. Can this be called reasoning? Because an arbitrary govern|ment does a just or a right thing, therefore we are never to do so. If we can find no precedent for this in any of the free governments of Europe, it is be|cause their ministers and officers have either no sala|ries at all, or no more than is absolutely necessary for supporting the dignity o•• their office. But our mi|nisters and officers have higher salaries and perqui|sites in proportion, than the ministers and officers even of any arbitrary government in Europe; and since we imitate them in granting high salaries and pensions, we ought to imitate them in making deduc|tions, when we are involved in a foreign war. This

was done by the court of Spain, as soon as war was declared against us, if there is any credit to be given to our gazettes, and news-papers. In order to pro|vide for the expence of the war, that court began with reducing the appointments of all their officers, both civil and military, and with annihilating the perquisites of many others. The same thing was done by the court of Vienna, when they found them|selves attacked by France and Spain. In Russia like|wise, they made large deductions from the salaries of their officers during the war with Sweden; and even lately in Denmark, when there was but the appearance of a war with Sweden, his Danish majesty began with laying a tax upon all salaries, in proportion to their yearly produce. If no such thing has been practised by France, it is because the quality in that kingdom are proud of serving the government both in the civil and military offices, especially the latter, without any considerable pecuniary reward. As many of our nobility and rich gentry are able enough to support the dignity of any public office, they can be preferred to, out of their own private fortunes, surely no man will say, that it would not be generous in them to do so at a time, when their country is in such danger and distress. And even when an officer has no private fortune of his own, but has a good salary from the public, surely it would be generous and right in him to contract his way of living, and give up one half of his salary in a time of public dis|tress. If our public officers will not voluntarily do what is generous and right, they ought to be made to do so by some public regulation, for which pur|pose nothing better can I think be contrived, than the proposal now under consideration. The opposi|tion made by our ministers to this motion, is in

my opinion a most convincing proof of the corrupt influence that proceeds from the lucrativeness of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 public offices and employments. This of itself alone, ought to be a prevailing argument with every lo•••• of liberty, to render them less lucrative, even supp••••••ing that the public distress did not make it necessary▪ Ministers may perhaps think, that nothing but lucr••••tive motives will prevail with men to accept 〈◊〉〈◊〉 places or employments in the government of their country, because nothing but a mercenary spirit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prompt a man to accept of any such, upon the term•• they are generally offered by ministers, I mean upon condition of betraying their country in parliament, or at elections; but if we have a mind to prese•••••• our liberties, I am sure we ought not to enable the crown or its ministers, to get any servants upon such terms. If the country is to be served by none but such as will agree to betray its liberties, I had rather chuse it should not be served at all; for anarchy is better than an established tyranny, because from confusion, order may be brought forth; whereas from an esta|blished tyranny, nothing but irretrievable oppression is to be expected. Therefore, if it were true, that nothing but lucrative motives could in England pre|vail upon men to serve their country, it would with me be no argument against rendering the temptation less cogent; because a small salary may prevail upon a poor man to serve the public, and a poor man is not so able to support an oppressive government, as an avaricious or luxurious rich man may be. But, Sir, whatever our ministers may think, whatever bad opinion they may have of their countrymen, I have no such opinion of them. If nothing but honourable services were required, men of honour would engage in the service of their country, with|out

any pecuniary reward. And I do not think it in the least difficult to introduce such a custom, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 would make it dishonourable in any man of for|••••ne to desire or accept of a sordid pecuniary reward 〈◊〉〈◊〉 salary, for any service he did, or could do his country. To talk of a man's right to a pecuniary reward for serving his country, is to talk in that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mercenary style, which has been designedly in|troduced of late years, in order to propagate minis|••••rial corruption; but to talk justly, no man has a right to a pecuniary reward for any service he can do his country. Sir, the service of our country is like the service of God; when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and no man can have a right to a reward, for doing no more than his duty. The rewards therefore bestowed for public services, are not what any man has a right to demand, but such only as generosity, charity, or prudence, may induce the country to bestow: and I am sure neither generosity, charity, nor prudence, can be pleaded for giving large, or indeed any pecuniary rewards, to those who are already possessed of exor|bitant riches; and when a country is itself in the utmost distress, surely it ought not to grant such high pecuniary rewards, even to those that stand in need of them, as it may do when it is in affluent circumstances; but our conduct in this country, seems to have been directly contrary to these maxims. I am sure it cannot be said that we have been in affluent circumstances for th••se thirty years past: I believe every impartial man will grant, that we have been for that whole time in a declining condition; and yet in that time, we have not only augmented very needlessly the number of our public officers and servants, but we have greatly augmented the salaries

and perquisites of many of them. We may easily guess, Sir, with what view these augmentations were made, and we may be convinced that the same view now creates an opposition to their being reduced. It is not the danger, Sir, of drawing men of fortun•• from the service of their country, but the danger of drawing men of fortune from the service of ministers, that creates an opposition to this motion; but this is so far from being a reason for me to oppose it, that it is one of the strongest arguments I can think of for agreeing to it. I wish we could draw every man of fortune from that service, for none but men who are entirely governed by their avarice or luxury, will ever enter into the service of ministers, upon the terms they require; and in the hands of such men, neither the counsels nor the treasure of the country can be safe. A poor man may be honest and faithful, but an avaricious man will be neither, if he can safely indulge his avarice by being otherwise. A poor man may live contented upon a small salary, but a luxurious man no income can satisfy, therefore he will endeavour by any means to get a supply. Can we expect, Sir, that either the counsels or treasure of our country will be safe in the hands of those, who in order to get them into their hands, have agreed to betray the liberties of their country. Sir, if they do not sell the counsels of their country, it is because they cannot find a purchaser; and if they do not convert the treasure of their country to their own use, it is because they are afraid of punishment. There is more danger therefore, with regard to the public counsels or treasure, in having such men of fortune employed, than in having men of no fortune employed in the public service; and with regard to our liberties, the danger is infinitely greater, because

men of no fortune could not betray the liberties of their country by getting into parliament, nor could they so powerfully assist an oppressive administration in corrupting our elections. For this reason, Sir, we ought not to provide any ministry with the means of ••••mpting the avaracious or luxurious rich to accept of places or employments in the government; and much smaller salaries or profits, than are annexed to most of these places, would be a sufficient temptation, because they would be a sufficient support for gentle|men of no fortune. There is therefore no weight in the objection made to this proposal, That it would drive all gentlemen of fortune and character out of the public service; because it would drive no gentleman of fortune out of the service, but such as ought not to be allowed to enter in to it; or who at least ought not to be tempted by lucrative consi|derations to enter into it, especially as long as such temptations are at the disposal of our ministers, and as long as a lucrative place in the government is no objection to a gentleman's being a member of this house. The only remaining objection I have heard made to this proposal is, That it would make but a very small addition to our public revenue, if we make those exceptions which justice and compassion require. I have already shewn, Sir, that justice has nothing to do in the question, because no man has a right to any pecuniary reward from the public; and as to compassion, it cannot I am sure carry us farther, than the honourable gentleman who made the motion has mentioned. Suppose then we except all salaries and pensions of 50l. a year and under, will any gen|tleman say, that 4s. in the pound upon all salaries and pensions above 50l. a year, would not produce a very considerable revenue? I shall not pretend to

determine, or even to guess at what it would produ•••• but I may suppose that our salaries and pensions abo•••• 50 l. a year amount to at least a million sterling; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I said two, I believe I should not be mistaken; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 suppose no more than one, it would produce an ad|ditional annual revenue of 200,000 l. a year, without any additional charge; and such an additional reve|nue is I think far from being inconsiderable; at a time when our government finds itself under a neces|sity of indulging even the most destructive vice of th•• people,

[the drinking of gin under licence]

in or|der to raise money by taxing it.

The court-sycophants pretend, that the dignity of the crown [the voracity of their extravagance, they should say] requires a great expence to support it, and particularly a numerous attendance at court. But the truth is, the greatness of a prince is never estimated according to the splendor of his court, unless it be by women and children. All mankind agree to pro|nounce him a great prince, who makes his enemies fear him, and his allies and subjects love him. And this is done by a procedure directly opposite to an unbounded expence laid out upon a set of idle hangers-on. But I shall have occasion to treat of regal parade hereafter. In the mean time, on the exorbitant num|ber of placemen, let us observe in what light the court-list exhibits that abuse. There we find plac•••• piled on places, to the height of the tower of Babel. There we find a master of the houshold, treasurer of the houshold, comptroller of the houshold, cofferer of the houshold, deputy-cofferer of the houshold, clerks of the houshold, clerks comptrollers of the houshold, clerks comptrollers deputy-clerks of the houshold, office-keepers, chamber-keepers, necessary house-keep|ers, purveyors of bread, purveyors of wine, purveyor••

〈◊〉〈◊〉 fish, purveyors of butter and eggs, purveyors of confectionary, deliverers of greens, coffee-women, spicery-men, spicery-men's assistant-clerks, ewry-men, ewry-men's assistant-clerks, kitchen-clerk-comptrol|lers, kitchen-clerk-comptroller's first clerks, kitchen-clerk-comptroller's junior clerks; yeomen of ••he mouth, under-yeomen of the mouth, grooms, grooms chil|dren, pastry-yeomen, harbingers, harbingers-yeomen, keepers of ice-houses, cart-takers, cart-takers grooms, bell-ringers, cock and cryer, table-deckers, water-engine-turners, cistern-cleaners, keeper of fire-buc|kets, and a thousand or two of the same kind, which if I were to set down, I know not who would take the trouble of reading them over. Will any man say, and keep his countenance, that one in one hun|dred of these hangers-on is of any real use? Cannot our good king have a poached egg for his supper, unless he keeps a purveyor of eggs, and his clerks, and his clerk's deputy-clerks, at an expence of 500 l. a year? while the nation is sinking in a bottomless ocean of debt? Again, who are they, the yeomen of the mouth, and who are the under-yeomen of the mouth? What is their business? What is it to yeoman a king's mouth? What is the necessity for a cofferer, where there is a treasurer? And, where there is a cofferer, what occasion for a deputy-cof|ferer? Why a necessary-house-keeper? cannot a king have a water-closet, and keep the key of it in his own pocket? And my little cock and cryer, what can be his post? Does he come under the king's chamber window, and call the hour, mimicking the crowing of the cock? This might be of use before clocks and watches, especially repeaters, were invented; but seems as superfluous now, as the deliverer of greens, the coffee-women, spicery-men's assistant-clerks,

the kitchen-comptroller's first clerks and junior clerks, the groom's children, the harbinger's yeomen, &c. Does the maintaining such a multitude of idle•••• suit the present state of our finances? When will frugality be necessary, if not now? Queen Anne gave 100,000 l. a year to the public service. We pay debt•• on the civil list of 600,000 l. in one article, without asking how there comes to be a deficiency.

The pretence, that a king ought to have a number of attendants about him, to keep up his state, and strike the people with an awe of government, wants no answer. Was ever the parade of government kept up at a higher expence than in our times? Was ever government more despised by the subjects, than our•• is now? Compare our times with those of Queen Elizabeth, who refused supplies, when offered her, saying, the money was as well in the people's pockets as in hers, till she came to want it.

Iulian reformed the Roman court, dismissing many thousands who had pensions for no service * 1.183. Yet we do not find, that he lost the good-will of the people on that account. Our courtiers cry, There is no pos|sibility of keeping things quiet without places and pensions. I own I am inclined to think there is another and better method of keeping things quiet, viz. By government's shewing, on all occasions, an unvarying uprightness and disinterestedness of con|duct. And I am sure, that bribery is a very pre|carious instrument of government. For the more the court bribes, the more it must bribe. Nor is there any impossibility in diminishing the number of places. It is often done; though they are much oftner in|creased. In the year 1709, a third secretary of state was

appointed, viz. the duke of Queensbury; and Rowe, the poet, was made under-secretary * 1.184. The number was since reduced again to two, without bad conse|quence. But there is always a lion in the way, when the reformation of an abuse is proposed▪

Sir Edw. Coke complains heavily, about the begin|ning of Ch. I. of new-invented offices, with large fees, and useless old ones very chargeable; of a plurality of offices held by single persons; of extravagance in the king's houshold; of new tables set up in the palace; of voluntary annuities and pensions; of unnecessary charges in the king's living; of costly diet, apparel, buildings, &c. * 1.185. Were he to see the proceedings of our times, he would soon forget those of Ch. I.

The commons address the queen, A. D. 1708, that the number of the commissioners for paying the Scotch equivalent money be reduced; the greatest part of the business being done * 1.186.

CHAP. VI. That Places, Pensions, Bribes, and all the Arts of Corruption, are but false Policy, being endless and insufficient.

AFTER all the shocking accounts here given of the enormous expence the nation is put to by the villainous art of a succession of ministers, it must be owned, that bribery and corruption are false policy at best, as being endless and ineffectual.

In the most antient of all writings, I mean, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacred, we find wisdom and virtue, synonimous term••, and vice and folly put promiscuously for one another▪ Wisdom is pursuing the noblest ends by the most pro••mising means. But the ends a corrupt minister 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in view are raising himself and his friends to power, and filling his own and their pockets, Are these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 noblest ends a being formed for glory, honour, and immortality can propose to himself? And is bribing the most promissing scheme for obtaining these noblest ends? I trow not.

He was a shrewd observer, who remarked, that whoever first introduces treats and presents among a people, to obtain their favour, paves the way for the destruction of that people * 1.187.

The free states of Greece were ruined by Philip of Macedon, more by bribery than the sword. The Asiatic riches gained by the Spartans, corrupted and ruined them. The Roman commonwealth was over|set by corruption, in consequence of Lucullus's con|quests in the east. Till then honour was the reward of virtue; afterwards sordid wealth filled the place of honour in the minds of the Romans; which rapa|city continued and increased, till the emperor's throne was fairly bought by Didius Iulianus.

No prince ever bribed more than Philip of Mace|don. But the persons he bribed were his enemies; or foreigners. When he understood, that his son Alex|ander was endeavouring to gain the affections of the Macedonians by gifts, he checked him severely * 1.188.

Though, as a politician, he had a great opinion of the force of gold; and was wont to say, that no city was impregnable, through the gates of which an ass

laden with that metal, could pass; though he was accustomed to retain pensioners in every state, and naturally lavish of his money to domestic flatterers; yet he checked this humour, as soon as he perceived it, in his son. He wrote him a letter on the subject full of excellent philosophy.

How came you, young man, said he, to reason so wretchedly with yourself, as to fancy those will serve you faithfully, whom daily you corrupt with money? Do you this, that the Macedonians may hereafter take you, not for their king, but for their steward or paymaster. If you dis|charge these offices well, you must make but a piti|ful prince. They are spoiled who take gifts, by being taught thereby an habit of taking.

Sylla, in the true spirit of a corruptor (of an Eng|lish borough-candidate, I was going to say) feasts the whole Roman people * 1.189. Will any man pretend, that Sylla was at that expence for an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 purpose? Some of our court-sycophants pr••••end, that our borough-hunters are no way blameable for the same proceeding. But the sense of our wise ancestors was otherwise, who have made laws against giving victuals and drink to electors, as much as against bribing with hard money.

There never was a greater corruptor than Caesar, who destroyed the liberties of his country. He in|vented new pretences for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and bribing the people of the city. He gave unusually magnificent shews, and largesses of corn without measure, presented many leading men with slaves and land estates, lent to needy senators large sums of money at low interest, or without; he descended so low as to bribe favourite slaves and freemen, and to crown all, he doubled the

pay of the army * 1.190. By these extravagancies he run himself into debt to the amount of above 250,000l. of our money, and he found, that bribing was end|less. At last the wages of iniquity were raised so high, that it cost him 310,625l. to buy off Aemili•••• Paulus, the consul, from Pompey's party * 1.191.

When he stood candidate for the consulship with Lucceius, the patricians fearing, that two such con|suls together should overset the republic, agreed to support Bibulus's interest against that of Lucceius, by buying votes with the public money; even Cato him|self countenancing the scheme * 1.192 [ne Catone quidem ab|nuente.] But did this temporary expedient save the state? Could Cato think it would? How, indeed, could he miss seeing, that it must hasten the ruin of liberty, because it hastened the destruction of the peo|ple's virtue, without which no people ever preserved their liberty?

Brutus and Cassius found the Romans so debased, that they thought it necessary to bribe on their part, as the triumviri did on theirs. And after all, the Roman legions (unworthy of the name of Romans!) basely deserted them to join the triumviri * 1.193.

Octavius (afterwards Augustus) gave undoubted and repeated proofs of his cowardice. Yet his army, the Roman legions, the despisers of cowardice, stood by him. Why? Because he bribed them with money, corn, and lands. See Lipsius's chapter of the gifts of Augustus, &c.

The Roman legions, accustomed to have the public money distributed among them, were much dissatisfied with Galba for leaving off that good old custom * 1.194. When princes once begin bribing, their tools will not suffer them to leave off. There never was a better pre|tence (if any pretence were good) for bribing, than that of king William's ministry, viz. buying off the jacobites. Yet who, that considered what a door it opened, would have advised such a measure?

Ambitious and avaritious men are insatiable. At the beginning of the reign of Ch. VIII. of France, the duke of Lorrain made very high conditions for himself and his party. They were granted. He seemed for some time contented. But soon after, he, and the constable de Bourbon, and many others, begun to hatch mischief * 1.195.

When the electors become universally corrupt, as well as the elected,

the fate of Rome will be renewed in Britain. The grandeur of Rome was the work of many centuries, the effect of much wisdom, and the price of much blood. She maintained her grandeur while she preserved her virtue. But when luxury grew up to favour corruption, and corruption to nourish luxury, then Rome grew venal, the election of her magistrates, the sentences of her judges, the decrees of her senate, all was sold; for her liberty was sold when these were sold, and her riches, her honour, her glory, could not long survive her liberty. She who had been the envy, as well as the mistress of nations, fell to be an object of their scorn, or their pity. They had seen and felt that she go|verned

other people by will, and her own by law▪ They beheld her governed herself by will; by the arbitrary will of the worst of her own citizens, of the worst of both sexes, of the worst of human kind▪ by Caligula, by Claudius, by Nero, by Messalina, by Agrippina, by Poppaea, by Narcissus, by Calistus, by Pallas, by princes that were stupid or mad; by women that were abandoned to ambition and to lust▪ by ministers, that were emancipated slaves, parasi•••••• and panders, insolent and rapacious. In this mis••r|able state the few, that retained some sparks of the old Roman spirit, had double cause to mourn i•• private; for it was not safe even to mourn in publick. They mourned the loss of the liberty and grandeur of Rome, and they mourned that both should be sacrificed to wretches whose crimes would have been punished, and whose talents would scarce have re|commended them to the meanest offices in the virtuous and prosperous ages of the commonwealth. Into such a state (the difference of times, and of other circumstances considered) at least into a state as miserable as this, will the people of Britain both fall and deserve to fall, if they suffer, under any pretence, or by any hands, that constitution to be destroyed, which cannot be destroyed unless they suffer it; unless they co-operate with the enemies of it, by renewing an exploded distinction of parties; by electing those to represent them, who are hired to betray them; or by submitting tamely, when the mask is taken off, or falls of, and the attempt to bring beggary and slavery is avowed, or can be no longer concealed. If ever this happens, the friends of liberty, should any such remain, will have one option still left; and they will rather chuse no doubt

to die the last of British freemen, than bear to live the first of British slaves * 1.196.

The members of the Polish diet oppose the most▪ salutary measures of the court, till they are bought off * 1.197. The court ought not to have begun buying off. If they had not, the expectation of being bought off would never have come into the heads of the members. And their requiring unanimity, is a great disadvantage, as making each single vote of too much consequence. Indeed nothing can be more absurd than giving one a negative against one hundred, in any case, where the interest of all is concerned. Did ever any man in his wits think of putting one guinea, or one ounce, in the balance against one hundred guineas, or one hun|dred ounces?

About the time when the ill-advised measure of taking off the jacobites by places and bribes was pro|posed to king William III. the earl of Braidalbin formed a scheme of quieting the highlanders by distributing money among them. A sum of 15,000 l. was sent him. It was offered to be distributed among the chiefs of the clans. But it did not content them. On the contrary (as when a villain, instead of being set at defiance, is offered a bribe to prevent his setting up a false accusation) they rose in their demands. They thought their own importance must be very great, that the government should think it worth while to take them off. This is a weighty lesson to all courts and ministers, not to begin bribing; for once begun, no one knows where it will end; but to set the heads of parties at defiance, and trust, for the public appro|bation, and security in their places, not to bribes of

any kind, but to a clear conduct, which will always support them, or enable them to sink with a grace.

Most sins are their own punishment even in thi•• life. The court-corruptor may read his sin in his pu|nishment, in the distress and vexation he brings him|self into by raising a nest of hornets about his own 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by disappointing (for he must disappoint) a multitude of expectants. And every disappointed man becomes a mortal enemy; and one enemy does him more mi••|chief than ten friends do him service. Then he find•• all his measures, even his most laudable ones, embar|rassed.

Walpole often said, the vacancy of every place gave him anxiety; for he could only oblige one (the pers•••• to whom he gave it) and must disappoint many. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 would therefore imagine, that even the court itsel•• should wish the number of places diminished.

The market-price of a borough 30 years ago was 1500l. Now they are thought pennyworths at 3000l.

He who undertakes to govern a free people by corruption, and to lead them by a false interest a|gainst their true interest, cannot boast the honour of the invention. The expedient is as old as the world, and he can pretend to no other honour than that of being an humble imitator of the devil. To corrupt our parliaments hath been often attempted, as well as to divide our people in favour of prerogative, and in order to set the arbitrary will of our princes loose from the restraints of law * 1.198.

When pensions grow common, and are promiscu|ously given to those who have deserved them and those who have not, the demand and application for them will grow universal. Every one will esteem it a sort

of contempt to him to be left out, and think himself as well intitled as another who is not intitled at all. So that what is taken from the people's industry and given for the people's protection, will be squan|dered away to support laziness, prodigality and vice, and the bread of the children will be thrown to dogs * 1.199.

As the crown never was, so it is ridiculous to believe it ever will be better for such irregular sup|plies. The demand upon it will rise in exact pro|portion to their fancied riches, and the weakness of the ministry. Every one will think he has a right to share in the profit who has had a share in the guilt; and endless importunities must distract the court, as well as exhaust the nation. Whereas a general▪ good husbandry will soon put an end to all wild and im|pertinent solicitations. No one will pretend to what no one has. Worthless men will not spend their substance in hopes to repair themselves out of the kingdom's ruin; but the direction of public affairs will fall naturally into hands who have no interest but in the public happiness * 1.200.

When it happens that the spring head shall be tainted, from whence are to be drawn the men of experience, action, and counsel; busy persons by different arts, some by abject flattery, others by per|plexing matters to be bought off, will soon prevail to be let into many of the chief offices and dignities of the state, which they will so pollute with their foul dealings, and weaken and make contemptible by their ignorance, that cleaner and abler hands will afterwards be hardly invited in to restore things, and give them a better complexion. And in such times,

the worst of men, who insinuate best, and are ever the most active, will get into many posts of trust and importance, and endeavour, if possible, to engross the whole commonwealth to themselves, and invade all her posts, where they will lie strongly intrenched and watchful to oppress virtue and merit of any kind, with which they are at open war; for if endowments of the mind, love to the nation, integrity, experience, conduct, and solid wisdom, should once obtain, get ground, and be taken notice of, they who shine, and are recommended by no such qualities, must quit their holds and withdraw, or remain the universal contempt of that people, whose affairs they are so little able to administer * 1.201.

Bad men have ever given a false colour to their proceedings, and covered their ambition, corruption, and rapine, with the pretence of their master's service▪ they make him believe their greatness advances him; whereas truly it tends to his diminution, and he is often weak for want of that wealth and power which they share among one another. Their riches have frequently brought envy upon the prince, but we can hardly meet with an instance of any who in his dis|tress has been assisted from the purses of his ministers: for they are commonly the first who fly from his misfortunes, and though they pretend that his power is revered in them, and that they make him strong by the benefits he lets them bestow, yet a wise king sees through all this artifice, and knows that he, who would reap any advantage from his favours in the opinions of men, must make them sensible that they owe them singly to his goodness, and not to the in|tercession of those about him * 1.202.

Kings reduced to streights either by their own or by the negligence of their predecessors, have been always involved in dark and mean intrigues; they have been forced to court such as in their hearts they abhor, and to frown upon those whose abilities and virtues they secretly approve of and reverence. In|stead of being heads of the whole commonwealth, as in law and reason they ought to be, they have often been compelled to put themselves in the front sometimes of one and sometimes of another party, as they saw it prevalent, a policy in the end ever fatal to rulers. Being entangled, they have been constrained to put into the chief administration of their affairs, projectors and inventors of new taxes, who being hateful to the people, seldom fail of bring|ing odium upon their master; and these little fellows, whose only skill lies that way, when they become ministers, being commonly of the lower rank of un|derstandings, manage accordingly; for their own ignorance in matters of government occasions more necessities than their arts of raising money are able to supply * 1.203.

Ill conduct in money matters of itself is sufficient to raise a strength against them in power; and where parties are already formed, it renders those the bolder who design mischief to the state, because they know how difficult it is for a government to resist its enemies, when it is without treasure, and has not the affec|tions of the people; which was the case of Hen. III. of France, a prince full of natural valour, blessed with early victories, and adorned with eloquence, which was said to be irresistible; yet one of his own subjects, not of the royal blood, came to his capital city at the head of no more than seven persons, in

order to begin a rebellion, which aimed at wresting the sceptre from him. How came a man of the duke of Guise's caution and sagacity, to take in hand an enterprize at first sight so unlikely to succeed, but that he knew how low this king had brought himself by a long series of mis-government; that France impoverished by taxes was grown weary of his rule; that the minds of the people were quite alienated from him; that his riots and profusion had quite exhausted that treasure wherewith his crow•• was to be defended. And without doubt, this view gave the house of Lorrain, the council of sixteen at Paris, and the general faction of the league, courage to begin that war * 1.204.

If it is asked, how it came to pass that so ma•••• commonwealths and monarchies have been sub|verted, the answer is easy; they did not sink under invasions, or perish by foreign force, till the way to conquest had been first opened by their own misgovernment. But to come to particulars, and to examine into the origin of these various mischiefs, which have disturbed government, whence is it that there have been factions in a state? In commonwealths it was because they did not hold a strict hand over their great ones, and took no care to keep out cor|ruption. Hereupon the manners of the common people were depraved, and they followed those whom they thought most willing and most able to support them in their vic••••; and this first divided Rome. In a monarchy, parties thus took their rise; either the prince was weak, unable to exert the regal authority, and so private men grew upon him, and not being in a condition to suppress both, he was

compelled to court first one and then the other side, as his necessities required; himself nourishing that disease, which, in the end, wasted his power; or if he had false cunning, and meditated in his mind to overthrow the laws underhand, he encouraged par|ties, kept them equally poised, and suffered them to consume their strength one against the other, in hopes they should be both so impaired by their mu|tual strivings, as to be unable to give him opposi|tion, and thus to become master of the whole at last. Whence came it, that countries have been ruined, by not consulting national interest? Either the prince himself had bad designs, or not being endowed with royal virtues, and destitute of wis|dom, he committed the administration of his affairs 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unskilful or corrupt hands. Whence was it that affecting arbitrary rule has so often thrown this kingdom into civil wars? The fault lay in the judges, who wrested law, and made it serve the turns of power; and in the ministers, who did not perform their duty in representing to the prince the danger of such measures. From whence have arisen those schisms by which the church has been so often rent asunder, but from neglect or unskilfulness in the general administration? From neglect, when the temple was suffered to be profaned by the licen|tious living, the pride, ignorance, and vices of the clergy, which might induce many to separate from such whose lives, they thought, were a blemish to their doctrine. From unskilfulness, when the government has believed that diseases of long growth could admit of a sudde•• cure, that to sharp humours it was better to apply ••••••••oding medicines than ••eni|tives, and that persecution was the only way of reclaiming non-conformists from their errors. What

has most frequently been the cause of public wants, but a complication of mismanagements, as well in the prince as in his ministers? He omitted his part, which was to overlook them, and his negli|gence produced their corruption. They encou|raged profusion, as getting most by it, and he neg|lected oeconomy, because it gave him present trouble. In governments ill administred, public wants lead the way; but private poverty follows close after; and when both happen together, which must always be the case at last, then is ruin near at hand. Which way soever we look, when any thing has been out of order in a state, generally speaking, the mischief did proceed from some omission in the executive power, either from above or from below; when vice abounds, we find the laws have not been put in execution; when impiety and irre|ligion prevail, they have not been sufficiently dis|countenanced; when there is an uncommon decay of trade, it is either not encouraged or not protected; when the law is tedious and expensive, some great corruption has been suffered to creep into the courts of justice; in naval matters, when good conduct and courage are wanting, negligence and cowardice have met with too much impunity. Thus, in these instances, and in many others, which have been ever the subjects of complaint, as at first they were de|rived from a bad, so they are to be corrected by a better administration of affairs * 1.205.

[Consequently not by bribery and corruption.]

Much nobler it is to enjoy the praises of an uni|versal people living in plenty and at their ease, no•• bur••hened by taxes and duties, than to have the good

words of a few flatterers, or those harpies which commonly haunt a court, to gripe all they can; who, ••hen they are gorged themselves, pollute all the re|••ainder with their obscene claws, so that nobody else desires to touch it. Besides, we have hardly an ••••••tance of any prince that in time of need was truly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and defended by his minions, and the crea|••••res of his bounty and favour; but a king beloved for wise, just, and careful government, has been very ••••••dom deserted by his people * 1.206.

I wish (says the excellent Mr. Trenchard) our ••••bblers in corruption would count their gains, and balance their losses with their wicked advantages. Let them set down in one column their mercenary gifts and precarious dependencies; sometimes half purchased with money, sometimes by dividing the profits with parasites, and always with the loss of their integrity and reputation; and on the other side let them write down expensive contentions, and con|stant attendance in town, to the neglect of their fami|lies and affairs, and a manner of living often unsuita|ble to their fortunes, and destructive to their health, and at least one fourth part of their estates mortgaged, and liable to the discharge of the public debts; and above all the rest, the insecurity of what remains, which must be involved in every species of public misery. And then let them cast up the account, and see where the balance lies * 1.207.

Let them consider, on the other hand, (says he) what a figure they make in their several countries, among their neighbours, their acquaintance, their former friends, and often amongst their own rela|tions.

See how they have been hunted and pursu•••• from place to place, with reproaches and curses fro•• every honest man in England; how they have be•••• rejected in counties and rich boroughs, and indee•• only hoped for success any where, by the mere fo•••• of exorbitant corruption, which has swallowed u••▪ great part of their unjust extortions. Then let the•• set against all these evils, a good conscience, a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reputation, a disengaged estate, and being the hap•••• members of a free, powerful, and safe kingdom; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which was once their case, and might have continued so, if they had acted with integrity. Sure it is worth no man's time, to change an estate of inheritance, secured to him by steady and impartial laws, for a precarious title to the greatest advantages, at the wi•••• of any man whatsoever * 1.208.

The public can never have a firm existence, unless all the different ranks of men co-operate to its preservation, not faintly, but with the utmost spirit and vigour. For if among those in high stati|ons, there is not an affection which warmly embraces the honour and interest of the commonwealth, and if the same genius does not universally possess the inferior order of people, such supine negligence and giddy administration will creep into the state, as must be attended at last with sudden ruin. If it be the interest of a great many to promote disorder, the affairs of a country will proceed amiss, notwithstand|ing all the endeavours of a wise and virtuous prin••e, and a good senate. Therefore, to mend things rightly, the whole people must be mended. To bring this about, in all likelihood, the best ways are by precepts and examples to inspire as many as

possible with a true zeal and affection to their na|tive country; to cultivate in the minds of the com|mon people, a due reverence to religion; to advance morality among the better sort; to give all men in general, an honest interest; and to make virtue and merit the only road to greatness and preferment. It may perhaps be beneficial and safe in a tyranny, ••o let all things loose, and deprave the manners of the people; for the light is thereby extinguished, that would otherwise be troublesome and too discerning; but it is not so with lawful governments, where the prince and people compose one body; since if the inferior members are there infected, the disease will produce such unwholesome fumes and vapours, as may reach and hurt the head at last. After a country has been long afflicted with calamities occasioned by foreign or civil wars, the minds of the people will take different turns, sometimes to great piety, and at other seasons to the height of vice. The Rom••••••, after the Gauls had sacked and burnt Rome, were presently kindled with new devotion. They revived their an|cient justice and discipline, they restored those old and almost obsolete laws, that were the chief strength of their constitution, and they reassumed their former virtue. But after the civil wars in the times of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, they were not at all bet|tered by their miseries, (which is the worst symptom of a depraved people) and rather plunged deeper into wickedness. For when Vespasian's party seized the city, there were in some streets rapine and murders, and in others, feasting and prostitution; so that one and the same town, gave the view of a raging war, and a riotous peace. Wise lawgivers and directors of a people, may make advantage of a favourable crisis. As for example, when a long war is at an

end, they may take that time to reform the vices of the age; for at such a season, when poverty is grown upon them, men will probably be more willing to listen after virtue, and those methods, by which thei•• condition is to be restored. Nothing prevails mo•••• with the multitude, nor operates better towards thei•• amendment, than the example of the great ones; if such are seen to content themselves with moderate power, wealth, and honours, it teaches those belo•• them to be temperate in their desires; by which means, faction may be quite rooted out, which in most soils is but a weed that grows from the disap|pointment of ambitious hopes; and where faction can be destroyed, government is rendered much more easy to the rulers, and without doubt less expensive; for when that reigns, men expect to be highly courted, and largely paid, for looking after their own safety. Dishonesty has nothing in it so very charm|ing, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mankind might be persuaded to lay it quite aside, at least in relation to the public, if they could do their business in the world with other aids, and by any other way. For why in the late reign•• did so many protestants help on the designs of popery?—Because it was the only means of obtain|ing greatness and preferment. Why in former times were we betrayed by some persons?—Because the court had made selling the peoples rights, a gainful traffic. But if men could have mounted up to wealth and honours by any other steps, if those who were then at the helm, had employed and rewarded such as they had seen zealous for the religion of their country, jealous of its liberties, and careful of its safety; if general integrity had been taken notice of, and called into the offices of the state, by degrees the age would have mended of itself; vice and folly

must have withdrawn, and been out of countenance, and virtue and good sense might perhaps, at last, have gotten the upper hand. Any body of men that have but one way to honours and advancement, will take that cou••se, though it be never so much out of the road of honesty; and if there is but one place where offices and dignities grow, and are gathered, thither men will get, whatever it shall cost them. Any faculty of the mind, whether for use or for pleasure, which is in great vogue and estimation, will be cultivated and improved; and men will bend their whole study to excel, in what they see most pleasing or most advantageous. It is the same thing with vice and virtue, either of them thrive, as they are encouraged or discountenanced. Bar but the gate to vice, and men will desire to enter and ad|vance themselves in the world by courage, prudence, temperance, integrity, zeal for the public, magnani|mity, and true wisdom; but if another mark be set up, and all their aims directed thither, they will endeavour to rise and prosper as others have done, by fraud, se••vile compliance, treachery, artifice, bribery, tricks, and corrupted eloquence; and when a com|monwealth is thus abandoned, even some of those in good esteem are contented to come in, and take their share of the plunder. In a free country, it is the concern and interest of princes, that virtue should be restored to her just value, and rightful dominion; and that vice should for ever be deposed, and especi|ally banished from the place in which are bred up the men of action and counsel. When men quit the paths of virtue, which lead to true wisdom, they are presently bewildered in error; and 'till they get again into the right road, and observe her dictates and directions, nothing is to be expected but misery and

confusion. When men leave honesty, wisdom for|sakes them, and mixes no longer in their counsels; and the general immoralities of a people, embolden weak and ill persons, to thrust themselves into the administration of business, who, void of all skill and art, cast the commonwealth upon rocks, where she is like to split and perish; and in such a country, un|less there be an universal tendency in the whole, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be guided by the principles of former honour, i•• affairs must impair daily, till at last, in the course of a few years, it shall be quite lost, and utterly extin|guished. In a free country, if a few of the mo•••• conspicuous persons, do but agree to lay to heart the honour and safety of the public, they will go very far towards its preservation, or at least keep off the evil day for a while. For when fortune had un|dertaken to destroy the commonwealth of Rome, the single virtue of Cato held her long in play, and gave her a great deal of opposition; much more then, in a nation where many yet remain untainted, may these good patriots, if they will exert themselves, preserve its constitution against the attempts of de|signing men; who are very far from having the wealth of Crassus, the fame of Pompey, or Caesar's conduct, and who indeed resemble the subverters of the Roman liberty in nothing, but the luxury and rage of Clodius. When things go amiss in a state, men are apt to blame the ministers; though such errors, (the corruption of the people considered) per|haps were not to be avoided. For a country may have been so depraved, in a long process of time, that its affairs cannot suddenly be capable of a good and sound administration. But if any corruptions are crept into the subordinate parts of this govern|ment,

they will be undoubtedly corrected in times of peace and quiet.

Nor could it be difficult for former princes to cor|rupt both the electors and the elected; for in most kingdoms, the court has been a shop with wares in it to fit all kinds of customers; there is hope for some, which feeds many at a small expence; there are titles for the ambitious; pleasures for the young and wan|••on; places for the busy; and bribes ••o be clearly conveyed for such as desire to maintain an appearance of honesty, and to betray their trust but now and then in important matters. With these baits and allurements, princes might easily draw into their net the unthinking gentry of the land, and thereby poison the fountain head of the laws, and sap the very foundations of the political constitution * 1.209.

Let us hear, on this subject, Sir Francis Dashwood in the house of commons. A. D. 1745 * 1.210.

That there is a difference, Sir, between our con|stitution and establishment, that under the latter the former may be destroyed, and consequently the people divested of their rights and privileges, no one can deny, who considers the fatal effects of corruption; nor can any man pretend, that the people are not sensible of this difference, if he reflects upon the instructions that have been given by the people in all parts of the united kingdom, to their represen|tatives in this house. That the danger to which our constitution may be exposed by the success of the present rebellion is more imminent, no man, I believe, will openly deny; but that the danger to which it may be exposed by the success of corruption is more certain, every man must grant, who is not

biassed by the post or pension by which his head is con|founded, though his heart may not perhaps be as yet corrupted. Should the rebellion be crowned with success, which I think we are in very little danger of; our constitution may be preserved even by the good sense of the pretender himself, if he has any, because a constitutionally limitted monarchy is more secure, and consequently more elegible to a king of good sense, than the most absolute one; but the sin|gular misfortune of corruption is, that a king may thereby be rendered absolute, even without his de|signing or knowing any thing of it, till it becomes im|possible for him to govern by any other means. Gen|tlemen I see, Sir, are surprized at such a new and ex|traordinary doctrine; but there is nothing more plain, if we consider the nature of government, and the only two methods by which it can be supported. No man, I believe, ever supposed that a government can be supported by a king or other supreme magistrate by himself alone. He must have a majority, or at least a great number of people, engaged with him to support the government, and these men must be en|gaged by the public interest, or each man by his own private interest. The multitude, I shall grant, may be kept in awe by their fears; but the most absolute, the most arbitrary tyrant must have a number of men engaged by their private interest sufficient to impress that fear. One single man may, by his authority, persuade a multitude; but a single man never can frighten a multitude. Every government must there+fore have a number of men for its support, and thos•• men must be kept engaged to do so by the public, or by their private interest. When those who support the government are engaged to do so by the public ••nte|rest alone, or by that chiefly, it is a free government,

even though by its form it be supremely administered by one sole monarch. But when they who support the government are engaged to do so by their private interest alone, or by that chiefly, it is an absolute government, even though by its form it be supremely administered by a king, lords, and commons; and such a government can be supported no way but by corruption. If such a government be supremely ad|ministered by a sole monarch, he must have a merce|nary army for his support, and money enough to hire or corrupt them; and if such a government be by its form supremely administered by a king and parliament, he must have money enough to hire or corrupt his mercenary parliament, as well as his mercenary army. To apply this, Sir, to our con|stitution, and to shew that by corruption our king may, without his own knowledge, be rendered not only absolute, but unable to govern by any other means; it is very certain, that the freedom of our constitution consists in every man's being directed with respect to his voting both at elections, and in parliament, by the public interest alone, or by that chiefly: Whilst this continues to be the case, our constitution will be preserved, and we shall continue to be a free people. For this purpose, a public and disinterested spirit must be propagated and preserved among the people, and it will always be the king's interest to do so, because he can have no interest sepa|rate or distinct from that of his people. But ministers have often a private interest which is distinct from, and opposite to that of the people; and when any such man happens unfortunately to become the king's prime minister, he will make it his business to root out all public spirit, and to plant a selfish spirit in its stead. All the favours of the crown, and all the

posts and offices in the kingdom will be bestowed, not upon those who deserve them, or are qualified for them, but upon those that vote in parliament, or at elections according to his direction, and without any regard to the national interest. This a cunning minister may do without its being possible for the king to discover it; because the king can know the merits or qualifications but of a very few of his subjects. By such means, a selfish venal spirit may be introduced into parliament, and from thence propagated through the whole nation; and then if the king has but money enough, or lucrative places and offices enough at his disposal, which a corrupt parliament will always take care to provide for him, he becomes, without his designing it, as absolute as if he had no parliament at all, and may act in a more oppressive manner than any sole monarch can venture to do, because he has the sanction of parliament for every thing he does, and has the principal families in the kingdom en|gaged to justify his measures. Thus, Sir, our king may be made absolute without his having ever en|tertained any design against our liberties; and the poison being once thoroughly diffused, which it may by such a minister's continuing long at the head of the administration, it will then be impossible for the king to support his government without corruption; for when the public interest is considered by no man, or but by a very few, when the whole or a great majority of the people are actuated by nothing but selfish mercenary views, can the king expect to have his government supported by a majority in parlia|ment, let his measures be never so much calculated for the public good, unless▪ he makes it their private interest to do so? While he can do this, he may expect to reign absolute, and yet according to law;

but the moment he ceases to do this, or ceases being able to do it, he must either put an end to par|liaments, or the parliament will put an end to his reign; for all those who find they cannot make their market of him, will join against him, in hopes of making a better market of his successor. I must therefore think, Sir, we cannot do a better service to our sovereign, than by passing such laws as are neces|sary for putting a stop to the progress of corruption, and reviving a public and disinterested spirit among the people; and as the people have loudly called for some such laws being passed, we cannot take a more proper opportunity for introducing them, because it will confirm and strengthen that spirit which now appears among the people without doors in ••avour of our present establishment, and will make them more ready to venture their lives in support of the govern|ment, should any future success of the rebels, or the landing of any foreign troops, make it necessary for us to call for the assistance of their hands as well as their purses. What our ministers may think, Sir, I do not know, having little or no correspon|dence with any of them; but as they enjoy the greatest advantages under our present governmeat, and as the people have so generally shewn themselves zealous for supporting that government, under which they in particular enjoy so many advantages, I am sure: every other man thinks they are in gratitude bound to give satisfaction to the people with regard to those laws which they think so necessary for secu|ring their liberties against the fatal effects of cor|ruption. Therefore I do expect in this session to see a very extraordinary change in the conduct of our ministers. Though in former sessions they have opposed every such law, yet now I hope they will

themselves be the introducers and the promoters of every one of those laws which the people have so long called for in vain; and if I should have the pleasure of seeing such a change in their conduct, I make no doubt of having the pleasure to see every one of those bills passed into laws, without any opposition in either house of parliament. These, Sir, are the hopes I conceive from that spirit which has appeared among the people for supporting our present most excellent government, and our present most wise administration. This is the return of gratitude I expect from our ministers, who have always shewn themselves most grateful to those who have served them in this house or at elections; and I hope they will not be less grateful to those who have shewn themselves ready to serve their king and country at a time of such imminent danger. This return, I am sure the people expect; and I think we should take this first opportunity to give them some hopes of their not meeting with a disappointment. As we do not know how soon the rebels may enter England, as we do not know how soon an army of foreign troops may be landed amongst us, we ought not in prudence to let slip this first opportunity of convincing the people, that there is nothing they can desire for securing their liberties, but what they may expect from this government, and from this session of parlia|ment. For this reason, Sir, I think it necessary to add something to our address on this occasion. Therefore I have prepared an additional paragraph; and I must humbly move, that it may be added to what the honourable gentleman has been pleased to propose. The additional paragraph I have prepared is in these words.

And in order to the firmer establishment of his majesty's throne on the solid and truly glorious

basis of his people's affections, it shall be our zealous and speedy care to frame such bills, as, if passed into laws, may prove most effectual for securing to his majesty's faithful subjects the perpetual enjoyment of their undoubted right to be freely and fairly repre|sented in parliaments frequently chosen and exempted from undue influence of every kind. For easing their minds in time to come of the apprehension they might entertain of seeing abuses in offices rendered per|petual without the seasonable interposition of parlia|ment to reform them, and for raising in every true lover of his king and country the pleasing hopes of beholding these realms once more restored to that happy and flourishing state, which may reflect the highest honour on his majesty's reign, and cause posterity to look back with veneration and gratitude on the source of their national felicity.

CHAP. VII. The common Apologies for Corruption, as a suppos|ed necessary Engine of Government, shewn to be false.

LORD Walpole, in his speech, A. D. 1739, labours to shew, that

the sovereign's power of rewarding merit is one of the most funda|mental and most useful parts of our constitution:

[so a learned bishop tells us, in his Alliance between Church and State, that an established provision for the clergy is the very foundation-stone of a church. I like those honest men, who fairly own, that money is their great object.]

There are many sorts of public services

(says lord Walpole)

which cannot be immediately explained, which it would be inconsistent with the public good to divulge; and yet, if this bill [the pension bill] should pass into a law, his majesty could reward no services in any member of the other house without explaining and divulging these services; nay, and putting it in the pow•••• of that house to judge, whether these services deserved such a reward, which might occasion disputes between that house and the crown, and would certainly discourage every member of that house from rendering any secret services to the public. [The Dutch carry on their government very successfully without this waste of the public money to reward secret services.] This, my lords, would be a great prejudice to our civil government; and the frequent oaths that are to be introduced by this bill would be of the most dan|gerous consequence, not only to our established religion, but even to natural religion itself. In our antient polity, both religious and civil, it was a wise maxim, never to oblige or allow a man to swear in any case where self-interest was concerned, especially when the circumstances of the case were such as made it impossible to convict him of perjury, even though he should be guilty of it; but this maxim seems to be quite overturned by this bill, and, therefore, I am convinced it will introduce amongst us an utter con|tempt of perjury, which is always followed by an utter contempt of religion * 1.211.

But will the unrestrained practice of peculation, with|out oaths, be found consistent with religion and mora|lity? Government, we know, never hesitates about exposing the merchant, tradesman, manufacturer, or

shipmaster to the danger of perjury for the sake of the revenue.

Some of the tools of power insisted in Mr. Gordon's time, A. D. 1722, as he tells us * 1.212, that

matters are come to that pass that we must either receive the pre|tender, or keep him out with bribes and standing armies. That the nation is so corrupt, that there is no governing it by any other means. And, in short, that we must submit to this great evil, to pre|vent a greater; as if any mischief could be more terrible than the highest and most terrible of all mischiefs, universal corruption and a military govern|ment. It is indeed impossible for the subtilty of traitors, the malice of devils, or the cunning and cruelty of our most implacable enemies, to suggest stronger motives for the undermining and overthrow of our excellent establishment, which is built upon the destruction of tyranny, and can stand upon no other bottom. It is madness in extremity, to hope that a government founded upon liberty, and the free choice of the assertors of it, can be supported by other principles; and whoever would maintain it by contrary ones, intends to blow it up, let him alledge what he will. This gives me every day new reasons to believe what I have long suspected; for if ever a question should arise, Whether a nation shall submit to certain ruin, or struggle for a re|medy? these gentlemen well know which side they will chuse, and certainly intend that which they must chuse. I am willing to think, that those im|potent babblers speak not the sense of their superiors, but would make servile court to them from topicks which they abhor. Their superiors must know, that it

is raving and phrenzy to affirm, that a free people can be long governed by impotent terrors, that millions will consent to be ruined by the corrup|tion of a few; or that those few will join in their ruin any longer than the corruption lasts. That every day new and greater demands will rise upon the corruptors; that no revenue, how great soever, will feed the voraciousness of the corrupted; and that every disappointment will make them turn upon the oppressors of their country, and fall into its true interest and their own. That there is no way in nature to preserve a revolution in government but mak|ing the people easy under it, and shewing them their interest in it; and that corruption, bribery, and ter|rors will make no lasting friends, but infinite and implacable enemies; and that the best security of a prince amongst free people, is the affections of his people, which he can always gain by making their interest his own, and by shewing that all his views tend to their good. They will then, as they love themselves, love him, and defend him who defends them. Upon this faithful basis, his safety will be better established, than upon the ambitious and variable leaders of a few legions, who may be cor|rupted, disobliged, or surprized; and often have been so; and hence great revolutions have been brought about, and great nations undone, only by the revolt of single regiments. Shew a nation their interest, and they will certainly fall into it. A whole people can have no ambition but to be go|verned justly, and when they are so, the intrigues and dissatisfactions of particulars will fall upon their own heads. What has any of our former courts ever got by corruption, but to disaffect the people, and weaken themselves? Let us now think of other

methods, if it is only for the sake of the experiment. The ways of corr••••••ion have been tried long enough in past administrations. Let us try, in this, what public honesty will do, and not condemn it, before we have fully proved it, and found it ineffectual; and it will be time enough to try other methods when this fails.

That all-beholding eye which controuls the uni|verse, pierces through all disguises, and perceives, that the diffusion of vice through this nation is derived from one source, the corruption of the great; which, promoted by the most assiduous arts, and vindicated by venal eloquence, has, at length, absorbed all regard for the community into the two selfish passions of ambition and avarice. And when the most vigorous effort [by a place-bill] was made to purge that place [the house of commons] which once cleansed, would have transfused its own purity through all orders and degrees of men, did not the f••agitious opposition to that attempt, so essential to the very being of virtue, and solicited by the earnest and universal cry of the whole people, produce an instance of supererogatory prostitution, which drew wonder from a minister? For want of this barrier to confine corruption, honesty has been put up to public sale, and found its price, to the cost of a nation twice betrayed; hence a loose has been given to public profusion, and rapine, unchecked, and unchastised; and the illicit gains have been as profusely squander|ed by individuals, in luxury, sensuality, and every unmanly gratification; and hence the means of obtaining these ignominious emoluments have been purchased by involving the nation in perjury, treachery, and a general dissolution of manners * 1.213.

Only able men are equal to the weight of just government. Every blockhead 〈◊〉〈◊〉 capable of the scheme of government we have seen carried on in this country (not in the present incorrupt times) because every blockhead can pay a set of hirelings, while he can find the assets. To make straight what is crooked, to level mountains and raise vallies, to redress what is wrong, is matter of labour, as well as of genius, and ministers love ease better than toil, and the card-table and bottle of Burgundy better than reading and thinking. Then they cry out, You must not expect that statesmen should make them|selves gally-slaves. Thus even laziness is dragged in as an apology for corruption. And then they pay on and drudge on in the beaten track, and all is well so long as they can hold their places; for their poc|kets are growing fuller and fuller every day. But the excellent Davenant shews this manner of reckon|ing to be fallacious, and that statesmen could not make such conclusions, if their calculations were just.

What great hazard is there for a minister to con|tend with the intrigues of here and there a courtier, discontented because his immoderate hopes of getting are not gratified? Or to suffer the obloquies of a devouring crew, who may, perhaps, be angry be|cause the public is no longer exposed to be their prey, and that they cannot make their wonted gains by the high interest of money, large premiums, and by dis|counting tallies? Is it not much more safe and easy to bear all this, than to have an army mutinous for want of pay, seamen clamorous for their wages, the family officers grumbling▪ for the want of their arrears, and at the same time, the whole people groaning under the weight of heavy taxes? All

which are the sad effects of negligence and profu|sion in a court * 1.214.

It is true, an honest and wise minister, who ob|serves this conduct, and is more frugal for the pub|lic than in his own private affairs, cannot avoid raising many enemies. In a bad age it is a virtue not without its dangers. They who have been so long fed with corruption, that their stomachs can digest no other diet, will dislike such measures; and a man treading these st••ps must arm himself with patience, for his temp••r must be often tried. They who would steal the golden apples, will hate the watchful eyes that are upon them; and he who undertakes this post, is to expect that secret malice will be working in the dark to undermine him: Perhaps he may be pursued by the most interested part of mankind with open clamours. Advantages will be taken of the least trip he makes. He must look for traverses, to be traduced, and to have his actions scanned and misinterpreted. However, let him persevere, for if a state be not quite devoted to ruin, he who acts thus uprightly for it, and with such care, will overcome all difficulties; and the wisdom and justice of his counsels will, at last, meet with universal approbation * 1.215.

When such as have this post are vigilant and fru|gal for the public, those in lower stations think it needful to tread in the same steps. When they who sit at helm have clean hands themselves, they can compel those below them to be honest; and hope of reward, or fear of punishment, working more than sense of duty, men begin to find it their interest to quit the ill courses they were in, especially when

they see they have not the corruption of those above them to resort to as a refuge. Thus great examples from chief ministers may, by degrees, restore the affairs of a whole kingdom. Besides, their vigi|lance and frugality give such credit, and add such real strength to any state, that they who rule it will soon be able to reform abuses. On the other hand, where there is a corrupt, negligent, and profuse administration, does any thing go right? Is not the bad influence of it felt from top to bottom? Who, is there that thinks it worth his while to serve well? When the public is exposed to plunder, does not almost every man forget the duties of his office, and employ his whole thoughts in contriving how he may have as large a share of the booty as any of his fellow robbers? And do not the great thieves pro|tect the less? In a state so disordered, what is there to induce men to discharge their duty, but some|times honour * 1.216?

In the year 1711, when the tories were endea|vouring to overturn the whig administration, which had reduced the power of France so low, and were projecting the infamous treaty of Utrecht, Burnet says, They finding the house of lords could not be brought to favour their designs, resolved to make an expe|riment, which none of our princes ventured upon in former times; a resolution was taken of making twelve peers at once. What has been the conduct of the minister under similar circumstances? has he not advised the creation of sixteen new peerages, not, indeed, at once; that would have been too explicit a declaration of his motives, but all in the space of two years; and not content with

this, he has likewise advised the giving pensions to a great number of that house, under the denomina|tion, indeed, of lords of the bed-chamber; but as the number of these lords has been increased in the present reign from twelve to twenty-two, the fact is, that by what ever name they are called, the king has so many more servants in his pay in that house, and the m—has the rod of deprivation hanging over their heads, which has lately fallen most heavily upon those who have presumed to exercise their free|dom of voting against what he recommended. But in the other house, and where it is more mate|rial, this measure has been carried much farther. We are informed by history, that from the time of the revolution, it has been the characteristic mark of those who opposed any increase of power in the crown to contrive by-laws, and every other method, to prevent the influence of the crown in that house. Several acts of parliament have been passed to limit the number of officers who received their places from the crown, to have seats in the house of com|mons, and one particularly during the whig admi|nistration of queen Anne, which declares that no person possessed of an office, created after such a period, should be capable of a seat in that house; and this was afterwards enforced by another of 1 Geo. I. which was proposed by Mr. Stanhope, secretary of state, and restrained persons having pensions dur|ing pleasure, from sitting in the house of commons. These laws were passed to be a restraint on the crown, they are now in force, and mean to provide for the liberty of the people, by preventing the crown from creating a dependance upon it in the representatives: but, like other human institutions, they have been evaded; when a minister shall pre|sume

to advise, in the teeth of those acts of par|liament, the creation of such a number of grooms of the bed-chamber, clerks of the green cloth, and other officers of the houshold, each with a salary of 500l. per annum, as to be double the number of these of his late majesty; and when some gentle|men have been removed from these employments with pensions, to make room for members of the house of commons, that the law might be only evaded, not openly violated; and when we see gentlemen of the first fortunes, and who have the two last reigns prided themselves in their indepen|dency, eagarly and meanly thrusting themselves into this pitiful pension; I say, when we consider these things, where is the security of laws, or upon what principles of the constitution can these measures be defended? The reason, I understand, the minister gives for pursuing this measure, is the union of parties; the larger the source of bounty in the crown, the more general will be its dues. This may be plausible reasoning, but the fact is, and of this I confess myself jealous, that by these pensions, the crown has increased its influence in the house of commons; and with regard to the act of queen Anne, if a list of new erected places should, as was done the beginning of the late reign, be ordered to be laid upon the table of the house of commons, I cannot see but that those of the supernumerary offices of the houshold must be of the number; otherwise the crown may, in any future emergency, create as many as shall then be found necessary to answer the pu••poses of the minister * 1.217.

There arises infinite michief from the ambition of particulars. But what ambition? The ambition of shining in the eyes of men of discernment? Of excelling in knowledge, or in virtue? Of being bless|ings to their country, and tutelar gods to mankind? Nothing less. Their ambition is only to get into ranks and places, which are distinguished; not to be men of distinguished characters in those ranks and places. They have not the sense to consider, that the cringing of the multitude is not to the man, but to the star and garter, the long wig, or the lacquered chair.

Compare a true great man, with a mean man in a great place, an Epaminondas with an Alexander, a Scipio with a Caesar, a Trajan with a Ch. V. the effect will be the same, as that of placing an oriental diamond by a Bristol stone.

When vanity, luxury, and prodigality are in fashion, the desire of riches must necessarily increase in proportion to them: and when the power is in the hands of base, mercenary persons, they will always (to use the courtiers phrase) make as much profit of their places as they can. Not only matters of favour, but of justice too, will be exposed to sale; and no way will be open to honours or magistracies, but paying largely for them. He that gets an office by these means, will not execute it gratis: he thinks he may sell what he has bought, and would not have entered by corrupt ways, if he had not intended to deal corruptly* 1.218.

However we shall venture to affirm, that if this nation should ever be under any great disorder, the truest course to mend it, will be to plant in the

minds of the better sorts morality, and the shame of doing ill to their country; and we shall presume to assert, that observing the rules and dictates of virtue, does not only lead to heaven and a blessed state here|after, but it is the best way of securing to a people in general, prosperity, peace, safety, and happiness, in this present world * 1.219.

CHAP. VIII. Bills, Statutes, Resolutions, &c. shewing the Sense of Mankind on the Evil of Placemen and Pensioners in Parliament.

THE general principle, says the author of the DISSERTATION UPON PARTIES, p. 198. That parliaments ought to be independent on the crown, hath not only been always the same, but it hath been always so declared in the most authentic and solemn manner; and parliaments have not been more intent on any national concern whatever, than on maintaining this principle, and securing the ef|fects of it. I say, parliaments have been constantly thus intent, and especially in the best times, during more than three centuries at least; for I would not go back too far, nor grope unnecessarily in the dark. What else did those laws mean, that were made in the time of the Lancaster kings to regulate the elec|tions, and to prevent the influence, which Rich. II. had illegally and arbitrarily employed, and which there was room to fear that other princes might employ? What else do all those resolutions, all those acts of parliament mean, that have been made so

often, and enforced so strongly from time to time, and from those days to these, against the influence of the crown, either on the elections, or on the mem|bers of parliament?

There is another question which I must ask. If this be so, what do these men mean, who are em|ployed, or rather what does he mean [Walpole] who employs them, to plead in all places and on all occasions, even the most solemn, in favour of this very influence, nay of the very worst sort of it; of that influence which is created immediately by cor|ruption; for to that their arguments reach, by unde|niable consequence. Reason is against him and them, since it is a plain absurdity to suppose a controul on the crown, (and they have not yet ven|tured to suppose the contrary that I know of) and to establish at the same time a power and even a right in the crown to render this controul useless. Expe|rience is against them, since the examples of other countries, and at some times (former times I mean) of our own, have proved that a prince may govern according to his arbitrary will, or that of his mere arbitrary minister, as absolutely, and much more securely with, than without the concurrence of a parliament. Authority, even the uniform authority of our whole legislature is against them. The voice of our law gives them the lye. How then shall we account for this proceeding; this open and despe|rate attack upon our constitution, and therefore upon our liberty? Have these great men made any nice discovery that escaped the sagacity of our ancestors, and is above the narrow conceptions of all other men except themselves at this time? Is it less fit now, than the wisdom of this nation hath judged it to be for so many ages, that kings should govern

under the constitutional controul of two other es|tates * 1.220?

The XXXIst article of Magna Charta restrains the king's officers from holding pleas of the crown. Nullus vicecomes, constabularius, &c. * 1.221

So early as A. D. 1375, the commons were sensi|ble of the necessity of a place-bill. For in that year, they petitioned the king, that no member for county, or city, be a collector of taxes * 1.222.

The sense of our ancestors on pluralities, and incom|patible places, appears by an act made, A. D. 1413. That no under-sheriff, sheriffs clerk, receiver, or bailiff, be attorney in the king's courts, while in any of those offices. At the same time was passed an act to prevent frauds in elections * 1.223.

In the parliament of A. D. 1451, it was provided, that no member should be a commissioner or collector* 1.224.

We know,

(says the brave Fletcher of Scotland) that the customs have been taken from the farmer•• [the customs were then farmed in Britain as now in France]

only to bestow the collectors places upon parliament men [in Scotland.] Shall we make good such funds as are exhausted by bribing men to betray our liberty? If any justice were to be found in this nation, the advisers of such measures had long ago been brought to a scaffold. There is no crime under heaven more enormous, more treacherous, and more destructive to the very nature of our government,

than that of bribing parliament * 1.225.

What would this staunch old Scot have said, if he had seen some hundreds of notorious placemen sitting in the British senate, and voting 600,000 l. at once out of the pockets of the poor people, to make good deficiencies in the civil list, exhausted by * * hiatus * *?

On occasion of the king's attorney being elected a member, A. D. 1614, Sir Roger Owen said, No at|torney had ever been chosen, nor antiently any privy counsellor, nor any who took livery of the king. That, 7. Rich. II. a knight banneret was put out of the house. Sir Thomas More, who had been himself chancellor, and speaker, says,

The eye of a courtier can endure no colour, but one; the king's livery dazzling his sight.

He compares them to clouds gilded by the sun's rays, and to brass coin, which the king's stamp makes current. After searching of pre|cedents, it was resolved, That Noy should sit the remainder of the parliament; but no attorney-general after him * 1.226.

Pensioning was got to such a height, A. D. 1618, that an order was obtained from the king to the officers of the exchequer to pay no pension that he shall grant for the future * 1.227.

Even the king-killing parliament (Que Dieu m'en conserve, the French say, when they are frightened, et la sainte Vierge) proposed that no person serving for wages be a voter. How absurd then that members themselves be servants receiving wages of those whose interest it is to plunder and enslave their fellow sub|jects. They likewise exclude all members of councils

of state, officers in army or garrison, treasurers, or re|ceivers of public money, and lawyers,

to the end all officers of state may be certainly accountable, and no factious men to maintain corrupt interests.

They likewise propose very good regulations for carry|ing on elections, and restrain their proposed parliament from several things, as impressing men for foreign service, making void public securities, punishing ar|bitrarily without authority of law, men before the offence; giving up or taking away any of the common rights of the people * 1.228.

A. D. 1643, an attempt toward a place-bill was made. There was no great want of it in those days, the court having few places to dispose of. Yet Ch. I. tells his Oxford parliament, that most of them were in his service. This probably gave rise to the self-deny|ing ordinance * 1.229.

The self-denying ordinance, A. D. 1645. was a signal exhibition, and instar omnium, of the sense of parliament, on this subject. It enacts by the authority of lords and commons, that all members of both houses be at the end of 40 days discharged from holding any place, civil or military, granted by parliament since Nov. 1640. All other officers, commanders, &c. to continue as before. The benefit of all offices, neither military nor judicial, hereafter to be granted by par|liament, to go to such public use as parliament shall appoint, leaving to the persons holding such offices only such a competent salary as parliament shall ap|point. Some places and offices are excepted * 1.230. But Mr. Prynne severely accuses the members of violating the self-denying ordinance.

There is scarce one

day, says he, or week at least, doth pass, but we are still bestowing some place or office upon members, for which we are censured in pamphlets,

&c. * 1.231

What do the enemy say? Nay, what do many say who were friends at the beginning of this parlia|ment▪ Even this, that the members of both houses have got great places and commands, and the sword into their hands. What by interest in parliament, what by power in the army, they will perpetually continue themselves in grandeur, and not permit the war speedily to end, lest their own power should determine with it.

The words of Cromwel on the self-denying ordinance * 1.232. The self-denying ordinance passes the commons, is rejected by the lords, sent again to the lords, and passed by them after four months * 1.233; which, says Whitelock, began the fatal dif|ference between the two houses, which ended in cutting off the lords from parliament. Shameful that the lords with their great estates should be more greedy than the commons.

Parliaments were thought by the known laws of our nation to advise and regulate unruly kings * 1.234.' [Not then surely to hold places under kings.]

Leave was given, A. D. 1679, to bring in a bill for vacating the seat of members, accepting places * 1.235.

The commons concluded the year 1680 with a vote worthy to be inscribed in letters of gold on the most conspicuous place in St. Stephen's chapel; That no member of the house should accept of any office o•• place of profit from the crown, without leave of the house, nor promise of any such office, or place o••

profit, during such time as he continued a member of the house* 1.236.

Against pensioners in parliament, A. D. 1681, an anonymous speaker argues as follows.

The name of a pensioner is distasteful to every English spirit; and all pensioners, I think, are suf|ficiently despised by their countrymen * 1.237.

He ex|patiates on a pensioners breach of trust; his pocketing what is given by the people for the necessary charges of government. He observes, that receiving a pension is plundering the people, and distressing the king, and putting him and his ministry on wicked shifts, to satisfy a set of blood-suckers, which is endless; for the more the court gives, the more it must go on to give. That it naturally leads a king to think hardly of the most faithful counsellors, and incorrupt parlia|ments, who restrain the boundless waste of the public money. That it lays us open to our enemies abroad by exhausting our treasure, which should arm us against them, and disables us for paying our heavy debts. He observes, that the pensioners of the pension-parliament called themselves the king's friends, and so they do now. That endeavours were used, but ineffectually, about 10 Rich. II. to get a corrupt par|liament* 1.238. That there was another unsuccessful at|tempt about A. D. 1459, or 60. That about 20 Hen. VIII. many of the king's dependents were in the house. But it does not appear that any parliament gene••ally took money to vote, till the pension parliament, under Ch. II. [Every mischief must originate from a Stuart.] That parliament

perverted the very end of parlia|ments,

which have been and are the great refuge of the nation, which cure all its diseases, and heal all its sores. But those men

[the pension-parliament] had made it a snare to the nation, and at best had brought it to be a mere engine to get money,' Every parliament which allows this evil practice is partaker of this sin * 1.239. He proposes that the pensioners be obliged to confess their fault on their knees, before the house of commons, one by one, and that they re|fund.

Our law, says he, does not allow a thief to keep what he has gotten by stealth, but of course orders restitution. And shall these proud robbers of the nation not restore their ill gotten goods?

He then proposes that every one of them be voted incapable of sitting in parliament, or holding any office, civil or military;

For it is not fit, that they who were so false and unjust in that trust, should ever be trusted again * 1.240.

He says their ought to be a

sufficient mark of infamy set on them, that the people may know who has bought and sold them.

A debate in the house of commons, A. D. 1689, about excluding placemen from thence, proved warm and obstinate. Carried for the placemen, because

otherwise the fittest persons for public employments would remain excluded, and be deprived of the oppor|tunity of serving either king or country * 1.241.

Some lords protest, A. D. 1693, against the speaker of the commons being allowed to sit, though he had taken a place, because the speaker, if corrupt, could do more mischief than a private member* 1.242.

A bill was sent from the commons, A. D. 1693, for incapacitating several persons holding places civil and military from sitting in the house of com|mons. The court lords oppose it vehemently. The earl of Mulgrave spoke for it. It appears by the speech, that the act was not then made which va|cates the seat of a placeman, and obliges him to be re-elected. The courtiers brought, instead of this, a bill for the frequent meeting of parliaments. But William having no mind to part with the present du|ring the war, refused his assent, though passed by both houses * 1.243.

A bill was brought in, A. D. 1690, to enable com|missioners to take an account of all public monies, to be nominated by the commons, and might be mem|bers; but none to be dependant on, or accountable to the king or queen. To be chosen by ballot. Every member to put into a glass a list of the nine gentle|men he judged the fittest. Sir Samuel Barnardiston being chosen, owned, that he was one of the ac|countants to their majesties; on which another was put in his room. Some time afterwards, however, a new set of commissioners being to be chosen, Sir Samuel was one. Whether he kept his accountant's place at the same time, does not appear * 1.244.

One of the heads of the bill of succession, made in king William's time, was, That no placeman or pen|sioner under the king shall be a member of the house of commons.

Resolved, A. D. 1699, That no person be a trustee for the forfeited Irish estates, who has any place of

profit or trust, or is accountable to the king, or is a member of parliament * 1.245.

A bill was passed by the commons, the same year, for restraining the number of officers in parliament * 1.246. Rejected by the lords.

Resolved, the same year, That no member of the house of commons be a farmer, or manager of ex|cise * 1.247.

A bill to prevent parliament men taking places, was sent to the lords, A. D. 1692. It was proposed, that those who accepted places, should be incapaci|tated. The bill was committed by the lords to a grand committee. Thrown out in the house of pe••rs by two voices. This parliament was called the officers parliament, from the great number of them in the house. The people began to be afraid of falling under military government. Ambitious men aimed at popu|larity by promoting the place-bill. Government pre|ferred them. They then went over to the court. Then the cry was, That the court was corrupting the house. The bill was rejected by the lords for a profound reason.

It seemed to establish (they said) an opposition between the crown and the people, as if those who were employed by one, could not be trusted by the other.

And who can deny this? The very idea of a representative should be, one wholly detached from every connexion with all but his constituents. Can a representative be too free? Another employment is many times inconsistent with a seat in the house. An officer ought to be keeping his men in order. Or is the busine••s of an officer in the army, like that of a church-officer? Some places

depend for their profits, on the quantity of money given by parliament. Is not this a temptation to vote away the people's money? Is not parliamentary privi|lege enough for one person to hold, without his having a place and pension besides? Have not the nobility and the court power enough, without lording it in the house of commons too? What good or lawful design can a king or minister have, in giving a place to a member? Will it attach him more to his coun|try's interest? or to that of the court? which two are almost always opposite. One vote may determine the fate of a nation * 1.248.

William III. A. D. 1693, rejects the place-bill, though approved by both houses, and though it only hinder••d members taking places while members. The commons resolved,

That whoever g••ve the king advice to refuse the royal assent to a bill, which was to redress a grievance, and take off a scandal from the proceedings of the commons in pa••liament, is an enemy to king and country, &c.

A representation to the king was drawn up, in which was a paragraph (afterwards rejected) signifying that members of par|liament are responsible to their constituents; that the constituents will probably be offended at the refusal, and the commons knew not how to appease them, &c. Instead of this, such was the prevalency of court-in|fluence, that they put a paragraph, praying that for the future, the king would follow the advice of his parliament, and not that of private and interested persons. The king gives a general answer, the mat|ter drops* 1.249.

The commons order in a bill, Dec. 13, 1696, That no person be elected member of parliament, who holds any office, or employment of profit under the govern|ment,

nor any member accept a place or employ|ment * 1.250.

There are two clauses, 12 and 13 Will. III. cap. 2. by which all offices of trust, and all pensions from the crown, are made disqualifications * 1.251. This is the very salvo we wanted. But (behold the misfortune!) this excellent regulation never came to be in force: for it was not to take place before the arrival of a certain event (the Hanover family's succession, I suppose) and was too good for this nation; therefore was re|pealed before that time. B••t the author of FACTION DETECTED says, the cause concerning pensions has been restored since, viz. A D. 1715; by a statute in which year a pena••ty was appointed of 20l. a day for any person sitting, or voting, who has a pension from the crown for any term, short of life.

The lords having by the regency-bill rejected the clause inserted in an act passed some years before for settling the succession, by which all civil and military officers were made incapable of sitting or voting in the house of commons after the queen's decease, and hav|ing sent down that bill to the commons, they seeing the barrier against court power thrown down, resolved in some measure to repair it by admitting only 47 civil and military officers into their house, and among them 10 privy counsellors; 5 flag officers, and as many generals. The bill thus amended, was sent up again to the lords, who (to shew themselves always ••••iends to integrity, and enemies to corruption and tyranny) altered it, excluding only the commissioners of the prize-office, and all such new officers, as the court might create in time to come. Debates and conferences

followed * 1.252.

The court party endeavoured to shew the injustice of excluding those, who were actually per|forming services to the nation. [If they were, how should they serve in the house of commons?] That this would be a restraint on the liberty of the counties and corporations, [it would restrain them indeed from injuring their country]; that it would discourage brave men from serving their country in war, when they found they were to be disgraced by exclusion from the house of commons. The opposite party argued, that a bad prince might make a bad use of his creatures and dependents in the house of commons. The bill was once likely to be carried, postponing some of the lords amendments, [i. e. their amendments the wrong way] but the court party being reinforced by some coming round, who used to be on the contrary side, [bribed most probably] the lords amendments were approved with a few alterations, to which the lords agreed * 1.253.

A. D. 1704. To mortify some members, who had taken places, a bill was brought in

for excluding out of the house of commons, all persons in any offices or employments erected since Feb. 6. 1684, or to be erected * 1.254.

Passed the commons immediately, but the lords (who had nothing to do with it) must go to tinkering it, and the commons not liking (as they had not much reason) their amendments, the bill was lost. There was likewise another bill, immediately after, set on foot by the commons,

to prevent persons entitled by their offices to receive any benefit by public an|nual taxes, to be granted, from being members of parliament: which being levelled against many brave and deserving members, who serv'd the nation by sea and land, occasioned some murmurs; to stifle

which, the commons empowered their committee to receive a clause, for excepting flag officers and cap|tains in the navy, and all general officers and colonels of the land forces and marines; [a foolish excep|tion; they are some of the most dangerous people in parliament.]

The bill passes in the negative.

A bill was brought into the Scotch parliament for securing the succession, in case of queen Anne's death. It proposed among other things, that no person shall have a vote in regulating the succession, who has any place, mediately, or immediately, under the crown. That all election be by ballot. A lesser baron to be ad|ded to parliament, for every new created nobleman, to balance the two houses. The crown not to have the power of making peace and war without parliament. All the males between 16 and 60 to be trained. No indemnity for state-crimes without consent of parlia|ment. No place or pension in Scotland to be given, but by parliament * 1.255.

Motion in the Scotch parliament, 1704, by lord Anstruther, that no officer of the customs or excise, or collector, surveyor, manager of customs, nor any farmer of any branch of the revenue, shall be a member of parliament * 1.256; which was afterwards enacted * 1.257.

A general self-denying bill was offered, A. D. 1705, by those very men, who, in the first session of parliament, when they hoped for places them|selves, had opposed the motion for such a bill with great indignation. Now the scene was a little altered. They saw they were not like to be favou|rites, and therefore pretended to be patriots. This

looked so strangely in them, that it was rejected, but another bill of a more restrained nature passed, dis|abling certain officers from serving in parliament.' To this a general clause was added, which disabled all who held any office created since A. D. 1684, or any in future. Passed readily the commons. The lords thought it too comprehensive. Altered it to some particular disabilities. The commons refuse their alterations. The excellent bill drops. So the public good is bandied from party to party * 1.258.

It was resolved, A. D. 1710, even under the tory-ministry, that no person be a commissioner (for stating the public accounts) who has any office of profit, or is accountable to the sovereign * 1.259. So suspicious were they of the effects of clashing interests. They allowed commissioners, however, to be chosen from the house of commons; not apprehending any effect from mem|bers holding such a ••o••t of places, because they were not lucrative. They were chosen by ballot. One gentleman had 246 suffrages.

A bill was ordered in A. D. 1711, for securing the freedom of parliaments, by limiting the number of of|ficers in the house * 1.260.

A committee was appointed by the house, A. D. 1711, to enquire what new offices or places of profit had been created or erected since the 30th Oct. 1705, and whether the number of commissioners for execut|ing offices is increased, and to examine how the laws stand in respect of officers sitting in the house * 1.261.

A bill (formerly often attempted) for disabling members from holding places, was brought into the

tory parliament, A. D. 1711; but dropped. The qualification of 600l. a year, for a knight of the shire, and 300l. for a burgess, passed. The design was to exclude courtiers, military men, and mer|chants, and to increase the influence of the landed interest. The qualification was not extended to Scotland* 1.262.

The bill for limiting the number of placemen in the house of commons was brought in and passed, A. D. 1712.

The scandal of corruption was thought to be more flagrant than ever; for it was believed that men were not only bribed for a whole session, but had new bribes for particular votes.

Bill for securing freedom of parliaments, by limit|ing the number of placemen in the house, read a se|cond time, and committed. And because several bills for the same unquestionably salutary tendency had been lost in the blessed house of peers, it was proposed to tack it to a money bill. Question put. Passes in the negative, 160 against III * 1.263. This smells strong of a collusion between the two houses, and that they both twisted the same cord, though seemingly contrary ways and at opposite ends.

The self denying bill was brought into the house of commons, A. D. 1712, and passed. Many of the lords being irritated at the late creation of twelve new peers at once, it was expected it would pass their house too. But their lordships seemed suddenly to alter their way of thinking of it; and whereas it was drawn to take place after the present parliament, they altered it, to take place after the death of the queen; so that it was no more thought of * 1.264.

The commons resolved themselves into a commitee of the whole house, A. D. 171••, to consider of the several lists of accounts, of annuities, pensions, boun|ties, &c. granted by the late queen, or his present majesty. Several were mentioned by the discontents [that is, those who had none themselves] which were bestowed on those who had no need of them. A motion made for an address to the king against them [because we have no share]. When it was moved to address the king to retrench unnecessary pensions; Walpole (in character) said,

You ought not to stint the king's benovolence, nor debar his majesty [the minister] from the exercise of the most glorious branch of his royal prerogative, which is to bestow his favours [in sordid pelf, and paltry pay] on such as distinguish themselves in his service * 1.265 [that is, in do|ing dirty work].

Walpole and Pulteney resign, A. D. 1720, because lord Townsend was removed from his post of lieute|nant of Ireland; and it was thought he influenced several members to oppose the supply against Sweden, which Walpole and Pulteney were for* 1.266. Walpole and Pulteney took care, both of them, to let the house know they had resigned. What does this shew? That places are odious, and the honour is to resign them. Why? because of the filthy lucre attending them. Were they only laborious, or were men voted into them by their country for merit, it would be no brag to resign them * 1.267.

A. D. 1728, the famous self-denying bill passed the commons, which provided, that no member should sit, till he had taken an oath, that he had no pension

during pleasure, or for any number of years, nor any office in part, o•• in whole, from the crown, held by any person for his benefit, and that he would not re|ceive any such emolument, during the time of his being a member, without giving notice to the house within 14 days after accepting the same, if parliament was sitting, or after its first sitting, on pain of wil|ful perjury, and incapacity of holding any office. Whoever refused, or neglected taking the oath, was to lose his seat, and forfeit 30l. each day he sate with|out taking the oath. It would have been very bare|faced for the commons to have refused this bill; for it only enacted, that no member should be a court-tool without leave of the house. But, as the bill, if it had passed into a law, might have been trouble|some, it was contrived, that it should be thrown out by the lords.

It was now the opinion of the public, and not without foundation,

that the minister [Walpole] suf|fered the pension-bill to pass in the house of com|mons, only because he knew it would be thrown out in the house of lords * 1.268.

The following is the oath to be taken by members, if the pension-bill, passed, A. D. 1731, by the com|mons, and rejected by the lords, had passed into a law;

I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely swear, that I have not, directly or indirectly, any pension during pleasure, or for any number of years, from the crown, nor any office in part, or in the whole, from the crown, held for me, or for my benefit, by any person whatsoever. And I do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will not receive,

accept, or take, directly or indirectly, during the time of my being a member of this parliament, any pension during pleasure, or for any number of years, or any other gratuity or reward whatever, &c. with|out signifying the same to this house, within fourteen days after I have received or accepted the same, if the parliament be then sitting, or within fourteen days after the next meeting of the parliament. So help me God * 1.269.

Any member taking the oath, if found to have had a pension at the time, during pleasure, or for any number of years, &c. [as in the oath] without sig|nifying the same to the house, was to be held guilty of perjury, and to suffer accordingly. Any member refusing to take the oath, was to lose his seat; or sitting and voting, through oversight of the house, to forfeit 30 l. each day, and to be incapacitated for holding any office, &c.

A motion was made in the house of peers, A. D. 1730, to call for a list of pensions payable by the crown. Passes in the negative * 1.270. Several lords pro|tested, Because no instance can be given, that the list of pensioners was denied, when called for by either house.

Because we conceive, the refusal will be misinterpreted without doors, as it will raise a jea|lousy that there are too many members upon the list, which aspersion ought to have been obviated, by pro|ducing those lists, as in former times has been fre|quently done.

A. D. 1731, it was moved in the house of com|mons, that a committee be appointed to enquire,

whether any members of this house have, directly

or indirectly, any pensions during pleasure, or for any number of years, or any offices from the crown, held on trust for them in part, or in the whole * 1.271.

Walpole said, this was turning the house of commons into a court of inquisition: That if it was made effec|tual, it would oblige members to accuse themselves * 1.272. This, however, was trifling; for enquiry might have been made, and discoveries gained, as in all other cases of roguery, by means entirely consistent with liberty and the constitution.

Sandys moves, A. D. 1731, for a committee to en|quire whether any member had any pension, directly or indirectly, during pleasure, or for years, or any office from the crown, holden in trust for him in part or whole * 1.273. This motion was vigorously opposed, though the pension-bill met with no opposition. It was carried in the negative, 206 to 143.

They did not choose, I suppose, to have it known what knaves they were. So a prudent pickpocket, being accused of purloining a missing watch in the company, where he was; declared himself very willing to purge himself by oath; but strongly refused standing the search. It was observed, however, on that occasion, that many members suspected to be on the black list, voted for the enquiry, to save appear|ances, well knowing that it would not proceed.

A motion was made in the house of peers, A. D. 1732, for restraining officers concerned in the salt-duty from interposing in elections. Passed in the negative; though the same is established with respect to other duties. Nineteen lords protested, because the officers of the customs are immensely numerous, and

have a prodigious influence in elections * 1.274. They form a second standing army, and often supply the place of the other, whose attendance at an election would be too gross a violation of the law. A house of commons influenced by the servants of the crown (it is observed by their lordships) might be

a representative of an administration, or of a minister; but could no longer be a true representative of the people.

Parliaments are so great a check on ministers, that they have always endeavoured either to enable the crown to govern without them, or to influence their elections, or to corrupt them so thoroughly, that their efficiency shall be lost. The antiquity of the statutes for preventing these evils, shews how early they begun to prevail. There is little danger, since the revolution, of any attempt to govern without parliaments.

The wisdom of this house has seemed, by rejecting the pension-bill three times successively, to think the laws already in force sufficient to prevent corruption in the mem|bers, but the influence of the servants of the crown in elections, must, in our opinion, be looked upon as a growing danger, whose consequences require the utmost watchfulness to prevent them, as the great multitude of the tax-gatherers are solely directed by the treasury. The number of these creatures of the court was too great before; and by the new estab|lishment of this duty, it is to be increased, and, at the same time, no restraint laid on their power, which is the more dangerous, as it does no violence openly to parliaments; but operates secretly, silently, and securely.

A pension-bill passes the comons, A. D. 1733; lost again among the worthy lords, as before * 1.275.

Several precedents were brought, A. D. 1733, of officers seats in the house vacated on their being pro|moted to governments of towns, forts, &c. Yet general Wade was allowed to sit after his acceptance of the government of three forts in Scotland * 1.276. N. B. Wade was on the orthodox side.

Mr. Sandys moves, A. D. 1733, to bring in again the pension-bill thrown out by the lords * 1.277. Which he said had passed for two or three sessions without opposition, and had as often been thrown out by the lords; that it had been observed, that there never was any thing brought into either house, that was in itself for the public good, but what by perseverance was at last carried into a law. Truth and reason will prevail at last; which encouraged him again to renew this motion; that the bill was ready, and he desired leave to bring it up. It was objected, That it was a new sort of motion to ask leave to bring up a bill. That the constant custom had been to move for leave to bring in a bill. It was answered, that on occasion of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, the bill was brought up ready drawn, and passed without opposition.

The remembrance of the excise scheme and the convention was revived [A. D. 1739.] and it was suggested, that they might have been fatal to the minister [Walpole] had he not had a majority of placemen in parliament, and therefore it was neces|sary to obtain a bill for excluding placemen and pensioners from sitting in parliament * 1.278.

Accord|ingly at a court at Guildhall, instructions were given the London members,

that they should make the

passing of a place and pension-bill a previous step to the passing of any money-bill whatsoever. The ex|ample of the city of London was followed by the cities of York and Salisbury, and other great corpo|rations all over England, though many of their mem|bers were known to have voted always on the side of the minister * 1.279.

The year 1739 is, above all others, famous for the place-bill then brought in, which occasioned a thorough agitation of that question, and produced many of the noblest harangues ever uttered in parlia|ment or any where else; some extracts from which I have placed in this chapter * 1.280.

A. D. 1740, a motion was made in the house of commons for a place-bill, with exception of 150 places, which were to have leave to sit in the house. Rejected, 222 against 206 * 1.281.

In the Devonshire instructions, A. D. 1741, is the following article:

Use your utmost endeavours to limit the number of placemen in, and to exclude pensioners from the house of commons * 1.282.

It was ordered, the same year, that leave be given to bring in a bill for making more effectual the laws for disabling persons from being chosen members of or sitting or voting in the house of commons, who have any pension during pleasure, or for any number of years, or any office held in trust for them * 1.283. A place-bill was sent up to the lords the same year * 1.284.

A bill for limiting officers in the house of com|mons was read a second time in the house of peers,

A. D. 1741. Moved to commit it. Passes in the negative.

Several lords protested, because they conceived that the constitution points out this bill as one of its principal securities to preserve the independency of the three several constituent parts of the supreme legisla|tive power; for if any one of these becomes dependent on the other, the constitution is dangerously altered: But if any two become dependent on the third, it is to|tally subverted, and the wisest establishment that ever was formed of a free government, shrinks and dege|nerates into a monarchical, an aristocratical, or demo|cratical faction; and should the number of employ|ments continue to increase, we may live to see a con|stant majority of placemen, meeting under the name of a parliament to establish grievances instead of redress|ing them; and because the freedom of parliament is not secured, by the law, which obliges a member who accepts a place to quit his seat, since experience shews, that he will be constantly re-elected. They observed, with concern, that a bill of this nature, had been thrice rejected by the commons. They said it was near the end of the present parliament, and therefore it was particularly seasonable, to provide for the freedom and independency of the next * 1.285.

A. D. 1760, some new regulations were made by an act relating to a tax of one shilling in the pound on all places above 100l. a year; and the ministry took that opportunity of adding to the influence of the crown, by erecting a needless new office, and offi|cers, while the commissioners of the land-tax might have done all the new business, as before * 1.286.

In a commitee of the whole house on the state of the nation, A. D. 1770, it was proposed,

that leave be given to bring in a bill to disqualify certain officers of the excise and customs for voting at elections for members of parliament* 1.287.

The ministry gravely opposed such a salutary bill, though it was observed to them, that our wise ances••ors had enacted,

that no commissioner of the customs, or excise, should sit in the house of commons, or use interest in any elec|tion.

If this question could have been carried, it would have been productive of great advantage to the constitution, as the influence of the crown in elections is very alarming indeed: many sea-port boroughs are almost entirely carried by the numbers of little places the court disposes of there; and even in cities and counties the antiministerial candidate feels the power of the crown an heavy weight against him.

We are not surprized at the court's carrying the question, but a good deal so, that the country gentlemen, who have so long been exclaiming against the undue influence of the crown, should join with them in this vote* 1.288.

A. D. 1772, Mr. Sawbridge moved the house of commons that a new writ might be issued for chusing a member for Warwick, as lord Greville, the mem|ber for that town, was, according to the Gazette, ap|pointed a commissioner of trade, which, by 6 Anne, c. 7. § 26. vacated his seat. That young nobleman was in the house. The ministry would not let him answer, whether he had accepted the place, or not. Mr. Sawbridge insisted, that his silence was sufficient reason for concluding, that he had accepted. That

it must often be difficult, if not impossible, for the house to prove, that a member has accepted a place (most of them being sinecures,) that therefore the house had a right to demand of the person, so charged, a categorical answer.

As the ministry durst not give a flat negative to the proposal, the words of the act being pretty clear, they were reduced to the chicane, that legal proof was not before the house. On this ground the matter was left. The ministry then moved for the order of the day, and carried it against issuing the writ, 117 to 7 * 1.289.

Had I been at Mr. Sawbridge's elbow, I should have desired him to move, that the Statutes, which lie upon the table before the speaker, might be immediately carried out and burnt.

A. D. 1773, Sir William Mayne, moved for leave to bring in a bill for limiting the number of place|men and pensioners in the parliament of Ireland, and for enquiring into charges of government in Ireland, and what might be retrenched.

Placemen excluded from the house of commons, and not re-eligible by the laws now in being, sum|med up by the author of FACTION DETECTED BY FACTS, are the following, viz.

Commissioners, and farmers of excise; commis|sioners, comptrollers, auditors, of appeals; seven commissioners of revenue in Ireland; seven commis|sioners of the victualling office; the commissioner and clerk of the pells; all the deputies, inferior officers, and under-clerks of these offices; commissioners of the treasury, exchequer, and admiralty; secretaries of state, paymaster of the forces; great part of the Gib|raltar

and Minorca establishments; all new revenue-officers, established since 5 W. and M. all new place|men since 4 Anne, except those in the army or navy; commissioners, sub-commissioners, secretaries, re|ceivers of prizes, comptrollers of the accounts of the army; commissioners of transports, of sick and wounded; agents for regiments; commissioners for wine-licences; governors, and deputy-governors of plantations; commissioners of the navy in the out|ports; pensioners of the crown during pleasure, or for a term of years. Riding, or spliting of places, is contrary to law. 500 l. fine for sitting contrary to the law, by which places vacate seats. The fine reco|verable by any person who shall sue. No revenue-officer of the post-office is to persuade, or dissuade, any voter, on pain of 100 l. penalty, by 9 Anne. A law, 9 Anne, against fraudulent conveyances, with a view to elections, with oaths and penalties.

On one hand, to view the number of places which exclude from the house, one would imagine there could be no placemen in it; on the other, to think of the number of placemen in the house, as appears by the annual COURT CALENDAR, one would ima|gine there was no law for excluding placemen. How great then must the number of placemen in this country be upon the whole?

CHAP. IX. Speeches on the Danger of Placemen and Pensioners in Parliament.

FROM the strain of the following speeches in parliament, and quotations from books, may be collected the sense of many of the ablest and best men of this country, on the danger of place|men and pensioners in the house of commons.

Hear Sir Francis Winnington, in his speech on this subject, in the house of commons, A. D. 1680.* 1.290.

Mr. Speaker. Sir, The last house of commons being sensible how narrowly this nation escaped being ruined by a sort of monsters, called Pensioners, who sat in the late long parliament, had entered into a consideration how to prevent the like from coming into future parliaments; and in order thereto re|solved, that they would severely chastise some of those that had been guilty, and make the best laws they could to prevent the like for the future; and for that purpose a committee was appointed, of which Mr. Sergeant Gregory, now Judge Gregory, was chairman, by which many papers relating to that affair came to his hands. Sir, I think it a business of so great importance, that it never ought to be forgotten, nor the prosecution of it deferred. I have often heard, that England can never be de|stroyed but by itself; to have such parliaments was the most likely way that ever yet was invented. I remember a great lawyer said in this house, when it was debated in the last parliament, that it was trea|son;

and he gave many learned arguments to make it out. Whether it be so or no, I will not now offer to debate; but I think, for those that are the legislators of the nation to take bribes, to under|mine the laws and government of this nation, that they ought to be chastised as traitors. It was my fortune to sit here a little while in the long parlia|ment; I did observe that all those that had pen|sions, and most of those that had offices, voted all of a side, as they were directed by some great officer, as exactly as if their business in this house had been to preserve their pensions and offices, and not to make laws for the good of them that had sent them hither. How such persons could any way be useful for the support of the government, by preserving a fair understanding between the king and the people, or rather how likely to bring in arbitrary power and popery, I leave to every man's judgment. They were so far from being the true representatives of the people, that they were a distinct interest from both king and people; and their chief business was to serve the ends of some great minister of state, though ever so opposite to the true interest of the nation. Sir, this business ought never to fall (though there should be ever so many prorogations and dissolutions of parliaments) before something be done in it; I think it is the interest of the nation that it should be prosecuted from parliament as if there were an impeachment against them. And therefore, Sir, I would humbly move you to send some members of this house to Judge Gregory for the papers he hath in his custody relating to this affair, that so you may in convenient time proceed farther herein, as you shall think good. And, Sir, being there is a report that some of this house have now

made a bargain at court for great offices, in order to vitiate and corrupt their votes in this house; which, though but a project to cast a reflection on such members, however, to satisfy the world, I pray, Sir, let there be a vote past that no member of this house shall accept of any office under the crown du|ring such time as he continues a member of this house.

Lord Mulgrave in the house of peers, A. D. 1692, spoke as follows on the subject of placemen in parlia|ment.

My lords, I beseech you to consider the meaning of that word representative. Can representatives do any thing contrary to the mind of their constituents? It would be absurd to propose it: And yet how can it be otherwise, if representatives, after being chosen, may change their dependency, and engage themselves in employments plainly inconsistent with the great trust reposed in them? And that I will take the liberty to demonstrate to your lordships they now do, at least according to my conception of the matter. I will instance first in the least or lowest incapacity they must be under who so take employments. Your lordships must know but too well what a general carelessness there appears every day more and more in the public business; if so, how is it likely that men should be as diligent in their duty in parliament as that business requires, when employments and other business shall take up both their minds and their time? But then, in some cases, it is worse, as in commands of the army and other employments of that kind, when they must have a divided duty: for it does admirably become an officer to sit voting away money in the house of commons, while his soldiers are perhaps taking it away at their quarters

for want of his presence to restrain them, and of better discipline among them. Nay, perhaps his troop or regiment may be in some action abroad, and he must either have the shame of being absent from them at such a time, or from that house where he is intrusted with our liberties. To this I have heard but one objection by a noble lord, viz. That if this act should pass, the king is not allowed to make a captain a colonel without disabling him to sit in parliament. Truly, if a captain has only deserved to be advanced for exposing himself in par|liament, I think the nation would have no great loss in the king's letting alone such a preferment. But, my lords, there is another sort of incapacity yet worse than this; I mean that of parliament-mens having such places in the exchequer, the very profit of which depends on the money given to the king in parliament. Would any of your lordships send and entrust a man to make a bargain for you, whose very interest shall be to make you give as much as he possibly can? It puts me in mind of a farce where an actor holds a dialogue with himself, speaking first in one tone, and then answering in another. Really, my lords, this is no farce. It is no laughing matter to undo a nation; but it is altogether as unnatural for a member of parliament to ask first in the king's name for such a supply, give an account from him how much is needful toward the paying such an army, or such a fleet, and then immediately give by his ready vote what he had before asked by his masters's order. Besides, my lords, there is such a necessity now for long sessions of parliament; and the very privileges belonging to members are of so great extent, that it would be a little hard and unequal to

other gentlemen that members should have all the places besides.

All the objections that have been made may be re|duced to these: First; it is told us, that it is a dis|respect to the king, that his servants or officers should be excluded the house. To this I desire it may be considered, that it is in this case as when a tenant sends up a person to treat for him: Would any of your lordships think it a disrespect; nay, would the king himself think it any, if the tenant would not wholly referr himself to one of your own servants, or the king's commissioners in the case of the crown? And if he chuses rather some plain honest friend of his own to supply his absence here, will any man blame such a proceeding, or think it unmannerly? Another objection is, That this act may by its con|sequence prolong this parliament, which they allow would be a very great grievance; and yet suppose the king capable of putting it upon us, which I have too much respect for him to admit of; though I am glad, however, that it is objected by privy counsellors in favour, who consequently I hope will never advise a thing which they now exclaim at as so great a grievance. But pray, my lords, what should tempt the king to so ill a policy? Can he fear a freedom of choice in the people, to whose good will he owes all his power, which these lords suppose he may use to their prejudice? Give me leave to say, as I must not suspect him of so ill a design as the perpetuating this parliament, so he cannot, he ought not, to suspect a nation so entirely, I was going to say so fondly de|voted to him. My lords, no man is readier than myself to allow that we owe the crown all submission as to the time of calling parliaments according to law, and appointing also where they shall sit. But

with reverence be it spoken, the king owes the nation entire freedom in chusing their representatives; and it is no less his duty than it is his true interest that such a fair and just proceeding should be used towards us. Consider, my lords, of what mighty conse|quence it may be, that so many votes should be free, when upon one single vote may depend the whole security or loss of this nation. By one single vote such points may be ca••ried as I almost tremble to think of. By one single vote a general excise may be granted; and then we are all lost. By one single vote the crown may he impowered to name all the commissioners for raising the taxes; and then, surely, we should be in a fair way towards it. Nay, what|ever has happened may again be apprehended; and I hope those reverend prelates will reflect, that if they grow once obnoxious to a prevalent party, one single voice may be as dangerous to that bench, as a general dissatisfaction among the people proved to be once in a late experience: which I am far from saying by way of threatening, and mean it only by way of caution. My Lords, we may think because this concerns not the house of lords, that we need not be so over careful of the matter; but there are noblemen in France, at least such as were so before they were enslaved, who that they might domineer over others, and serve a present turn perhaps, let all things alone so long till the people were quite mas|tered, and the nobility themselves too, to bear them company. So that I never met a Frenchman even of the greatest rank (and some had 10,000 pistoles a year in employments) that did not envy us here for our freedom from that slavery which they groan under; and this I have observed universally, excepting Mon|sieur de Louvois, Monsieur Colbert, or such people,

because they were the ministers themselves who occa|sioned these complaints, and throve by the oppressing of others.

See Danger of Mercenary Parliaments, first printed, A. D. 1698 * 1.291.

Let us see

(says that judicious writer)

whether a house of commons full of officers and court-pen|sioners will answer those noble and laudable ends of their constitution. And here indeed I begin already to be ashamed of my undertaking; the proof of the negative is so ridiculous, that it looks too much like a jest to ask any one in his wits, whether a parlia|ment filled with delinquents will ever call themselves to an account, or what account will be given if they should? Whether an assembly of public robbers will sentence one another to be punished, or to make resti|tution? Whether it is possible our grievances can be redressed that are committed by persons from whom there is no higher power to appeal? whether there is any hope of justice, where the malefactors are the judges? Whether his majesty can be rightly informed in affairs relating to himself or the public, when they are represented to him only by such persons who design to abuse him? Whether the public ac|counts will be faithfully inspected by those, who embezzle our money to their own use? Whether the king's prerogative can be lawfully maintained by such who only pervert it to their own sinister ends and purposes? Whether a parliament can be a true balance where all the weight is only in one scale? Or lastly, Whether a house of commons can vote freely, who are either prepossessed with the hopes and

promises of enjoying places, or the slavish fears of losing them?

The same writer goes on * 1.292 faithfully to alarm his country against what was in those bashful days very alarming, because it was new. In our times (the present always excepted) as hackneyed wh—s thieves, murderers, and the like, are proof against shame, we read and hear arguments every day gravely brought in defence, or at least in alleviation of the very prac|tice which alone can, and must ruin liberty, if it has not already.

Here I must confess there are not many instances to be given; the project of corrupting parliaments being but of late date, •• practice first set on foot within the compass of our own memories, as the last and most dangerous stratagem that ever was invented by an encroaching king, to possess him|self of the rights of a free born people; I mean Ch. I••. who, well remembering with how little suc|cess both he and his father had made use of open arms and downright violence, to storm and bat••er down the bulwarks of our excellent constitution, had recourse, at last, to these mean arts and under|hand practices of bribing and corrupting with mo|ney those who were entrusted with the conservation of our laws, and the guardianship of our liberties. And herein he so well succeeded, that the mischiefs and calamities occasioned by that mercenary parlia|ment, did not terminate with his life and reign; but the effects of them are continued and handed down, and sensibly felt by the nation to this very hour.

The same judicious writer goes on * 1.293 to observe, that the parliament which succeeded to the pensioned parli|ament, was, fortunately for the nation, composed of different men, who accordingly pursued different mea|sures. That Iames II. was greatly advantaged in his designs against liberty, by having a way paved for him by the pensioned parliament. That he did not succeed in his laudable endeavours, to corrupt his parliament. That, accordingly he was precipitated from the throne, and driven, with his execrable race, into perpetual banishment from his country, which made way for the revolution. That the revolution did not produce the expected advantages, because its effect was blasted by corruption in parliament.

We were filled, (says he * 1.294) with golden dreams, not only of a bare security for our estates and lives; but an inexhausted affluence of all manner of bles|sings, a nation is capable of enjoying. But tho we have dreamt the dreams, yet we have not seen the visions. And the nation is by this time sadly sensible how wretchedly they have fallen short of their expected happiness, yet are they not all ac|quainted with the true spring and fountain from whence all their misfortunes flow, which is indeed no other than that bare faced and openly avowed corrup|tion, which, like an universal leprosy, has so notoriously infected and overspread both our court and parliament. 'Tis from hence are plainly derived all the calami|ties and distractions under which the whole nation at present groans: 'tis this that has changed the very natures of Englishmen, and of valiant men made them cowards, of eloquent dumb, and of honest men

villains. 'Tis this can make a whole house of com|mons eat their own words, and countervote what they had just before resolved on: 'tis this could summon the mercenary members from all quarters of the town in an instant, to vote their fellow cri|minals innocent: 'tis this that can make the parli|ament throw away the people's money with the utmost profusion, without enquiring into the ma|nagement of it: 'tis this that put a stop to the exa|mination of that scandalous escape of the Toulon fleet into Brest: 'tis this that has incouraged the mis|management of the admiralty in relation to the loss of so vast a number of men of war and merchant ships, as well as other miscarriages which were by all men judged not to proceed from their want of understanding in sea affairs: 'tis this that has hin|dered the passing a bill so often brought into the house for incapacitating members to bear offices: 'tis this that could not only indemnify, but honour a leading member for his audacious procuring and accepting a grant of lands, which, by the parlia|ment, had been set apart for the public service; a vote that shall stand recorded in their own journals to the never dying infamy of that mercenary assem|bly: 'tis this could make the same person most con|fidently affirm, that he was sure the majority of the house would agree to what he was going to propose: 'tis this that could make men of peaceable disposi|tions and considerable estates, vote for a standing army: 'tis this that could bring admirals to confess that our fleet under their command, was no security to us: 'tis this could make wise men act against their own apparent interest. In short, 'tis this that has infatuated our prudence, staggered our con|stancy, sullied our reputation, and introduced a

total defection, from all true English principles. Bribery is indeed so sure and unavoidable a way to destroy any nation, that we may all sit down and wonder that so much as the very name of a free government is yet continued to us. And if by our wa••y choice of members we should happen to recover our antient constitution, we shall with horror and amazement look back and reflect on the dreadful pre|cipice we shall have so narrowly escaped.

The same patriotic writer observes * 1.295, that

the ex|ecutive power ought not to be lodged in the house of commons, because it would deprive the kingdom of that which is the noblest and most useful work of their representatives, the calling ill ministers to account, and the preserving a steady administration in the subordinate officers of the government.

But in a house of commons abounding with officers, if any one of them be attacked, it alarms the whole fraternity, and they all engage to bring him off, though it be by the scandalous way of putting the question for candles, and carrying it in the negative. This was the case of the admiralty last parliament, and may be of the treasury this sessions, if fortune proves so propitious, that one of their members be made speaker. This point gained, the next will probably be to establish the army, and then to sus|pend or repeal the triennial act.

A. D. 169••, the following remarkable paragraphs appeared in the famous HUSH-MONEY PAPER, as it was called, published by Iohn Lawten, Esq.

Two hundred thousand pounds a year bestowed upon the parliament has already drawn out of the subjects pockets more millions than all our kings

since the conquest have ever had from this nation. And that this should be done without any rude com|plaint, is a proof, that if a king can manage well Mr. Guy's office, he may, without much ado, ••et up for absolute. Venalis est Anglia, for Venale est Par|liamentum. Heretofore, indeed, it was necessary only that they should give reasonably, as Flamock's rebellion, and others in Hen. VIIth's reign witness; and I believe our ••olls will not furnish us with many sessions, wherein money was given, and no one country bill granted. But our ancestors were wise enough to instruct their members, and our constitu|tion so regular that we had frequent elections. The house is now so officered, that by those who have places and pensions, together with their sons, brothers, and kinsmen, and those who are fed with the hopes of preferment, and the too great influence these have upon some honest mistaken country gen|tlemen (who are possibly over frighted with the French) the king can baffle any bill, quash all grie|vances, stifle accounts, and ratify the articles of Limerick. When I find the money the nation gives to defend our liberties from foreigners abroad, i•• like to undermine them at home, in a word, when I see neither the one nor the other house can with|stand the power of gold; I say, when I perceive all this, it is time to give warning, it is time to look about us. If the members of parliament are to overlook all the ill husbandry of the government, that they may share in the profuseness and bribery of it; if our rights are to be set to sale by some and neglected by others, when the very being of the go|vernment depends upon our being satisfied, what amendment, what confirmation shall we have of our constitution, when all our dangers are over? This is

a thought which deserves our most serious reflections. I could name a certain gentleman, who exactly re|sembles Hen. Guy, who the last sessions▪ when the house was a little out of humour, disposed of no less than sixteen thousand pounds in three days time for secret service. Who are in places we may find out, but God knows who have pensions, yet every man, that made the least observation, can remember, that some who opened loudly at the beginning of the last sessions, who came up as eagar as it is possible for reformation, had their mouths soon stopped with hush-money. It has been of some time whispered, that if this will not at first pre-engage to do what will be exacted at their hands, we shall have a par|liament. I cannot tell whether a new parliament will not be practised upon by the Carmarthen art; how|ever, it is our last and best remedy: for if this con|tinues, God have mercy upon poor England. Hitherto we have been, and we are like, for ought I see, to be repaid for all our expences of blood and treasure, with the smoke whch Boccalini mentions in his ad|vices from Parnassus, whereby the enemies of the government have but too great advantage given them to ridicule us for our foolish credulity?

If men are to make fortunes by being of our senate house, says the same gentleman * 1.296, we had better ourselves pay the disbursements of those we send, we had better ourselves allow them plentiful salaries for sitting there; each particular county would save by it in the public assessments, and find their account in it, whilst they preserve their mem|bers from the temptation, of being hired out of their interest, and consequently get good laws for what

they give. We can scarce pay too much for good laws, and if we have not some that we have not yet, we shall not, when the war is over (let it end which way it will) be able to call what we have our own. In the late times, the city of London often petitioned for passing of laws: will they always lend money now, and never expect a thorough alteration of the ministry, and securities for the future, against court projectors? In Iames Ist's time, there were certain sparks, who undertook for parliaments, that were called undertakers; and there is a certain secret that has stole out of our cabinet, that one of these, im|mediately on the king's refusing the triennial bill last sessions, undertook that it should be thrown out the next time they sat, with as much scorn and contempt as was the judges bill. It is time to have annual par|liaments instead of triennial, since privy counsellors and lords of the treasury, (both which stations this person enjoys) can so perfectly feel the pulse of a par|liament during an interval.

Sir Charles Sedley in his speech, A. D. 1699, thus sets forth the danger from placemen in parliament.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, when we come to consider of it, we shall find that it is convenient not only to lessen the officers of the court and state in point of profit, but in point of number to. We have nine commi|ssioners of excise, seven of the admiralty, three of the post-office, six of the customs. I know not why half may not do the business as well. But when I consider, that all these, or most of them, are members of parliament, my wonder is over; for though it may be a dispute whether many heads are better than one, 'tis certainly true, that m••••y votes are better than one. Many of these gentlemen have two offices besides their seat in parliament, which re|quire

attendance in several places, and abilities of divers natures; but members of parliament, though well principled, have no privilege to be fit for any thing they please to undertake without practice, study, or application. Sir, we are called by the king, and sent up by the people; and ought to regard no interests but theirs, which, as I told you before, are always the same: let us therefore proceed accord|ingly. The late proposals of the courtiers them|selves to save the king money was, by applying the profits, salaries, and fees of their places that exceed 800 l. per annum, to the war. Thus will the pub|lic charge lie easier upon the people, and the present reign be more and more endeared to them. What is necessary we shall chearfully supply, when we see all men set their shoulders to the burden, and stand upon an equal footing for our common defence, and that what we give is applied to those uses for which we give, and the army paid. This offer, Sir, as I re|member, began when an observation was made by you of the long accounts, and that a great part of the king's revenue remained in the hands of the receivers; to which a worthy member answered, It could not be helped, by reason some receivers were members of parliament, and stood upon their privileges. To which another member answered, That we could not deprive members of their privi|leges; but that to remedy the like for the future, we were ready to pass a vote, that no member of par|liament should be a receiver of the king's revenue. This alarmed the whole body of men in office; so that some stood up, and to prevent the house from harping any longer upon that string, said, They so little valued their own profit, that they were willing to resign all their fees, salaries, and perquisites ex|ceeding

300 l. per annum, towards the next yearly charge. This, if really intended, was very generous; but if it were only a compliment, a shift, or expedi|ent to avoid the present vote we were upon, that no member of parliament should be a receiver of the revenue, nothing was more disingenuous; nor could a greater abuse be offered to the house; for we pro|ceeded so far as to vote, that judges, and some others, should not be comprehended. People abroad, who received our votes, will think strangely of it, if after all these preparations we do nothing in it, and suffer ourselves to be thus gulled. But I hope better of the worthy gentlemen, and cannot but think they were in earnest with this house upon so solemn a debate * 1.297.

Mr. Trenchard proposes, in order to check corrup|tion, that parliament establish a commission for enquir|ing, by oath, into all abuses of the civil list and other revenues; into useless offices, salaries, perquisites, bills of offices, pensions, &c. excepting only the king's privy-purse; report to be made to parliament. And that all members of parliament receiving pensions, purses, &c. in a corrupt or clandestine manner, be guilty of high treason * 1.298.

Thus harangues▪ on the same subject, the excellent Hutcheson, in the house of commons, A. D. 1716 * 1.299.

In the late reigns, and particularly in the long pensionary parliament in the reign of Ch. II. the nation became very sensible of the mischievous con|sequences which had already happened, and the more fatal which might still result, from the dan|gerous

breach which had been made in our ancient constitution. It was now evident to the meanest capa|city, that a designing prince, who, with the assist|ance of a wicked ministry, should be able, after several trials, at last to procure a parliament to his purpose, would have the liberties of the people en|tirely in his power, and might govern them at pleasure; from which state of slavery it was evident, that nothing less than a revolution could rescue them; and if they failed in that experiment, that then their chains would be riveted for ever. Under this melancholy prospect of affairs the nation groaned, and complaints were heard in every corner of our streets; and even the very pensioners in that par|liament were not arrived to such a pitch of impiety as to take pleasure in the drudgery they had en|gaged in, but acted with reluctancy and remorse, and, as we have been very lately told in this place, betrayed the cause they had so wickedly espoused, and frequently gave notice to the friends of England of the attempts which were to be made on the liberties of their country. This pensionary parliament was at last dissolved, but with what view, and by what advice, I will not pretend to say. Certain it is, that that prince never had it afterwards in his power, in a parliamentary way, to destroy the liberties of the people. The resumption of charters was then put in practice, with many other expedients towards the establishment of an absolute monarchy, which had been long in view; but by the death of that prince, and the unskilful conduct of his next suc|cessor, an end was put to these designs for that time, the people having unanimously applied the only remedy in such cases; and this brought about the late happy revolution.

In the year 1734, as above-mentioned, a bill for securing the freedom of parliament, by limiting the number of officers in the house, was read twice; and when it was moved that it should be committed, and that motion opposed, Mr. Sandys spoke as follows:

Sir, As this * 1.300 bill met with no opposition, either when it was moved for, or when it was brought in and read the first time, I was very little apprehensive that we should have had any debate upon it; and much less was I apprehensive that our going into a commitee upon it would have been opposed; for as yet it can be called little more than a blank; it cannot well deserve the name of a bill, till it has gone through the committee, where the many blanks which are now in it are properly to be filled up. I was indeed surprized to hear the worthy gentleman, who spoke last, say, that he thought it the most ex|traordinary and unreasonable bill that he had ever seen brought into this house; for if the gentleman will look into our Journals, he will see that this very bill has been often brought in, and has almost al|ways been passed in this house; [in confidence of its being thrown out by the lords, which looks more decent] and I am sure, if ever it was thought reasonable by this house, it must now be thought much more so, when the number of placemen is much greater in this house than it was heretofore. The worthy gentleman has likewise told us, that he thinks the bill unjust, both with respect to the crown, the people, and the gentlemen who have the honour to be employed by the crown. As to which I shall take notice, in general, that by the same method of reasoning he may pretend to shew us,

that all the laws that were ever made for regulating elections were unjust, and were encroachments upon the rights of the people. I shall readily agree with him, that the people are the properest judges who ought to be chosen by them for representatives in parliament; and I am confident, that were they left to a free choice, we should not see so many civil and military officers brought into parliament. The people, I believe, would always think themselves more secure in being represented by country-gentle|men, with whom they are well acquainted, and who can have no interest separate from them, than by clerks of offices, or such other persons, whom they perhaps never saw, or heard of, before they came down to be chosen their representatives, and whom probably they may never see again, till they return to ask the same favour; which every gentle|man here knows to be often the case of many of our little boroughs in England. But to say that it would be any injustice to lay a restraint upon the people as to the choice of their representatives, seems to me very extraordinary, when we consider the laws now in being, by which the people are restrained from chusing any gentleman for their representative who is not possessed of such an estate. Surely we may, with respect to elections, without being guilty of any injustice, lay what restrainsts we think necessary for the good of the public, and the preservation of our constitution; for I am sure that whatever is for the benefit of the people cannot be justly said or thought to be injurious to the crown. It is extra|ordinary to say, that what is proposed by this bill would be an injustice done to those who are thereby to be made incapable of being elected; for have not

we already a law, by which all the officers con|cerned in the collection of the customs and excise, are rendered incapable of being chosen members of parliament, and yet I have never before heard it urged that there was any injustice done to those gentlemen by excluding them from having seats in parliament as long as they are in an office, which is inconsistent with their being members of this house. I will allow, that the choice made by the burgesses of a little borough, or by the freeholders of a county, if it falls upon an officer, civil or military, shews that the majority of those electors, at that time, did not think the office he then enjoyed incompatible or inconsistent with his being their representative; but I hope it will not be said that the burgesses of a little borough, or even the freeholders of a county, are better judges in this respect than the representa|tives of the whole people of Great Britain met in this house, especially when the opinion of this house is approved off and confirmed by the other two branches of our legislature. As to the alternative pretended, that if this bill should pass into a law, it would render either the officers civil and military contemptible, of this house contemptible, in the eyes of the people; I cannot imagine how it could produce either of these effects; for a•• to the officers, civil or military, is it to be imagined, that a suc|cessful general or admiral, a brave and ••xperienced captain by sea or land, or a civil officer, honest, expert, and diligent in the station he is in, would be contemned because he was not capable of being a member of this house? Were the clergy ever brought into contempt by their being excluded the privilege of being chosen members of parliament? On the contrary, I believe they never got any ho|nour

by being members of either house; and I believe there are very few officers, civil or military, in the kingdom, who ever gained much honour or much repute among the people by their being mem|bers of either house of parliament, unless when their being such was the occasion of their being turned out of the offices they enjoyed, and might have continued to enjoy to their own honour, and the advantage of their country, if they had not been members of parliament. As to the other part of the alternative, that this house may be rendered contemptible by what is now proposed, I am not in the least afraid of it; but I am very much afraid, that if some bill of this nature is not speedily passed into a law, this house will become contemptible in the eyes, not only of our own people, but of the whole world. Gentlemen may pretend that no man is influenced in his way of thinking, or in his man|ner of acting, in this house, by the post or the office he possesses, and from which he may be turned out, whenever a prime minister may have a mind; but while men are men, I am convinced there will always be a great number, by far, I fear, the greatest number, who will rather vote accord|ing to the directions of the prime minister for the time being, than run the risk of being turned out of the lucrative post or office they then hold at the pleasure of the crown; and if ever a majority of this house should happen to be composed of such men, I am sure it will become as contemptible as ever the senate of Rome was, after it became the political tool of their arbitrary and tyrannical em|perors. I will likewise agree with the honourable gentlemen, that it may be necessary, at least it may be convenient, for this house always to have in it some of those gentlemen, who belong too, and are

conversant in, the methods of transacting business in the several great offices of the kingdom; and therefore I am not for excluding from seats in par|liament all those who are in offices, civil and mili|tary. I believe no gentleman in this house ever had any such thought in his head; and if gentlemen will but peruse the bill, as it stands now, they will see that there is to be an exception, which is now left blank, as in all such cases is usual, in order that when we go into a committee, gentlemen may then propose the filling up in that blank as many officers, or as many sorts of officers, as they have a mind. About this, indeed, I expected there might have been some debates; but considering the great num|ber of officers of all sorts we have now in the house, considering how greatly the number may be encreased in times to come; considering the great clamour al|ready raised in the nation against so many officers being in this house; I really did not expect that any gentleman would have opposed the committing of the bill, or would have pretended that the passing of some such bill was not become necessary, both for the honour of this house and the safety of our consti|tution. To conclude, the bill is at present but a blank; but I am confident it may be made a good and reasonable bill, and agreeable to every gentle|man in this house; therefore, I hope, the house will agree to the going into a committee upon it, because, if gentlemen do not like it after the blanks are filled up, they may then drop it, or throw it out upon the third reading * 1.301.

In the famous year 1739, a place-bill, as above mentioned, was proposed to the commons by Mr. Sandys in the following speech:

Sir, I am now going to lay before you a proposal which has already been several times made to you, without meeting with that success which I thought it deserved; but as I think it a good one, and abso|lutely necessary for the preservation of our consti|tution, I am far from being discouraged by its former bad success, nor shall I be discouraged from a future attempt, even though it should now meet with as bad a reception as heretofore, because I am fully con|vinced of the truth of that observation, which was long ago made by one of our best lawyers: That a good bill or motion once proposed in parliament, and entered upon our journals, can never die: It may at first meet with bad success: it may meet with repeated bad success; but, unless our constitu|tion be absolutely and irrecoverably destroyed, it will by its own merits, at last force its way through the several branches of our legislature.

[This crite|rion, if applied to the present times, when we have reason to think no merits whatever would carry a bill through the houses, unless it were favoured by the ministry, is so shocking, that it will hardly bear to be thought of.]

The proposal, I am to make, Sir, is plainly and in short, this, That criminals may not be allowed to be their own judges; and that our liberties may not be committed to the keep|ing of those who are retained to destroy them. It is the duty of parliament to redress all public grie|vances, and punish all high and heinous offenders, who have been artful or powerful enough to evade the laws of the kingdom. It is the duty of parlia|ment to grant no more money for the public service than what is absolutely necessary, and to see that money properly applied and duly accounted for. And it is the duty of parliament to watch over the

liberties and privileges of the people, by taking care not to pass any laws that are inconsistent with the liberties and privileges of the people, and by pro|viding speedy and effectual remedies against all en|croachments that have been, or may be, made by ambitious princes, or guilty ministers. These, Sir, are among the chief of the duties of parliament; but how can we expect a performance, if a majority of the members be such, whose self-preservation or security depends upon their neglecting or acting con|trary to these duties? Can we expect, that public grievances will be redressed, if a majority of par|liament be such as have themselves been, or such as are the friends and confederates of those that have been the cause of these public grievances? Can we expect that any high offender will be punished by parliament, if the majority of it be such as have been companions and sharers with him in his crimes, or such whose chief subsistence depends upon screen|ing him from justice? Can we expect that any sup|ply demanded by the crown will be refused, if it is to be granted by those, whose chief subsistence de|pends upon making the grant; or that the public money will be properly applied, or duly accounted for, if those who have applied or may apply it to their own use, are to be the only inspectors of the public accounts? Or, lastly, Sir, can we expect that a parliament will guard against the encroach|ments of an ambitious prince or guilty minister, if the majority of that parliament be such as have the whole, or a necessary part of their subsistence, from the places or pensions they hold at the arbitrary will of that ambitious prince, or guilty minister? These are questions, which, in my opinion, can be answered in the affirmative by no man who will

and dare make use of his reason; and yet every one of these questions must, I think, be answered in the affirmative by those who affirm that our constitution can never be in any danger from a majority or near a majority of this house being composed of such as hold places and pensions at the arbitrary will of the crown. I shall grant, Sir, that it may be necessary for us to have amongst us some of the chief officers of the treasury, admi|ralty, and army, as well as several others of those that are employed by his majesty as chief officers in the executive part of our government. These, I say, it may be necessary to have amongst us, in order to give us such information, as may often become necessary in the several branches of business that come regularly before this house.

[Here Mr. Sandys might have observed, that even supposing the presence of some of the officers of state necessary occasionally in the house of commons, it does not follow, that their voting is necessary. The judges sit in the upper house, as skilled in the laws; but they do not vote.]

But I am sure it is no way necessary, but on the contrary, quite inconsistent with the dig|nity of this house, to have it filled with ••••erks of of offices, and inferior officers of ou•• ••avy and army. I confess I have the greatest regard fo•• such of those as we at have at present amonst us; because I hope they have all so much honour, that they would disdain to sacrifice their duty, as members of this house, to any selfish consideration; but we cannot be sure that those who succeed them in their offices and employments will be gentlemen of so much honour; and as they may likewise succeed them with regard to their seats in this house, our constitution may be thereby brought into the utmost danger; for if I were not

well assured of the honour of those officers we have now amongst us, we have a••ready such a number, that I should think our constitution upon the brink of destruction; and as the number may increase so as, in a short time, to become the majority of this house, whilst we have it in our power, we ought to take care to provide against this danger by limit|ing the number of officers that are to have seats in this house; for if the majority of this house should once come to be composed of officers, and these officers such as had a greater regard to the places they possess, or preferments they hope for, than to the liberties and constitution of their country, it would be ridiculous to think of getting the approba|tion of this house to any such regulation. There|fore, Sir, as this is not yet, I hope, our unfortunate case, I shall beg leave to move, that leave may be given to bring in a bill for the better securing the freedom of parliament, by limiting the number of officers to sit in the house of commons * 1.302.

Mr. (late lord) Lyttleton, spoke in defence of it as follows.

Sir, while this house is full of independent gen|tlemen, or of such placemen only whose places are not so much the best of their property, that they cannot risk the loss of them without a spirit of mar|tyrdom, who have something of their own sufficient to outweigh their employments, and while the num|ber even of these shall be confined within some mode|rate bounds, a minister must regard this assembly as an awful tribunal, before which he is constantly to account for his conduct: He must respect your judg|ments, he must dread your censures, he must feel

your superintendency. But we can imagine a future house of commons so crowded with placemen, that a specta••••r in the gallery might be apt to mistake and think himself at the levee of a minister instead of a parliament. The benches here may be covered not only with officers of rank in the government, not only with the servants of the crown, but with the servants, perhaps, of their servants; and what senti|ments, Sir, have we reason to think the sight of a house so filled would excite in a minister? Would he think himself in the presence of his country, or in the midst of a guard that would enable him to defy its justice, and de••••de its resentment. The possibility of this happening hereafter is the ground of this bill, which therefore the people of England do not only consider as a single point to be gained for them upon any present necessity, but as a general security against all they apprehend for the future. Sir, my worthy friend, who made you this motion, in the opening of it explained to you sufficiently, that there is no intent of running into any extremes. If I thought there was, I would oppose it as much as any man here. I know but one thing more preposterous than such a general place-bi••l as would exclude all persons in office from a seat in this house, and that is to leave the number of them under no limitation at all. But for fear of starving, must we die of a surfeit? Be|tween these two absurdities, can no medium be found? Cannot we continue those amongst us who are of any use to the house, who can give any assistance, any weight, any facility, any grace to our proceedings, and shut the door against others, whom it is neither decent, nor safe, to admit? Sir, the doing this is easy; it will be done by this bill, it is what the wisdom of former parliaments would have

done long before now. But the reason they did it not was, It never entered into their thoughts to conceive that some, who have since sat in parliament, would attempt to come there, I do not mean, from any personal incapacity, but from the nature itself of their offices, incompatible almost with the very idea of a member of parliament. It is a surprizing thing; but it is verified by what we see every day, that the common practice of some ages goes beyond even the fears of the past. We must, therefore, supply from experience what our predecessors failed to foresee; and we are called upon to do so by the unanimous voice of the nation. Sir, the greatest affairs before us are of less importance than this. It is better Spain should invade the freedom of the American seas, than the crown of England violate the independence of parliament. It is not Spanish or French arms, but Spanish and French maxims of go|vernment, that we should have most to fear from, if the vigilant caution, the jealous spirit of liberty in this house did not concur with the goodness, the natural goodness of his majesty, to secure our free constituti|on. Let the cortes of Spain, let the parliament of Paris, be a warning to us; let them shew us what we may come to, if we do not prevent the growth of corruption, before it produces here the insensible, gradual, fatal change it did there.

Sir, I am trying to recollect what objections have been made to this bill, and I protest I can find none that seem to me to want a reply. One chiefly in|sisted upon is, That it carries an air of suspicion. Sir, in all the states that I have read of antient and modern, the most suspicious people have been always the latest enslaved. To suspect human frailty in tempting circumstances, is a very natural jealousy;

and a too secure confidence will hardly be thought a parliamentary virtue. It is painful indeed to be sus|pected, but the greater the pain, the greater the desire should be to remove that suspicion. But, Sir, against the present house of commons, no such sus|picion can be conceived—Upon what grounds should it be founded? Upon what probability? Has the private discourse of such gentlemen here ever been different from their public behaviour? Have they ever talked one way and voted another? Have there been any indications of a private interest, that of any one man ever prevailing over that of the nation, against fact, reason, or justice? Have not the ma|jority here constantly shewn the strongest conviction, that their conduct was strictly conformable to the most disinterested love of their country? Such a house of commons ought not to be, is not suspected: But granting such a doubt to have been formed, Is this the way to remove it? Will the rejecting this bill clear our character, or can all the art and power of calumny give half the weight to an imputation of that kind as such a proceeding? Sir, to those who treat this bill as chimerical thing, an idle specu|lative project, I will say but one word, That the most chemerical thing in nature is the notion of a free constitution, where the restraining powers are not entirely exempt from dependency. Such liberty is indeed a speculation fit for school-boys; for what would terms and appearances avail, if independence were lost? You might retain the vain ensigns of your former authority, but would they give you any dignity? Would they be of any use to the public? The mace there upon your table, what would it signify? It might be born before you with ridiculous pomp; but it would be what Cromwel called it once,

a mere bauble; or, if it had any weight, it would be only to oppress, not to protect. Sir, the present form of our government, k••ep it but free from cor|ruption, is so wisely constitu••ed, the powers in it are so happily mixed, that it has all the advantages of a republic without the defects and evils attending o••e. But, on the other side, I must say that if it should be corrupted, if the contracts of parliament should be bought off by the crown, the very reverse w••uld be true; and it would h••ve all the defects, all the evils of an absolute monarchy, without the ad|vantages; it would be a more expensive, and worse administred abs••lute power. Sir, I h••pe it is under|stood that in what I have said I am only contending for a provisional security against a mischief not yet felt in all its malignity, but yet of so increasing a nature, and such ruinous consequences, that we must be b••ind not to foresee, and worse than carele••s, not to pr••vent them. I will only add, that every year we delay this security, may probably add both to the neces••••ty and difficulty of obtaining it; and that peo|ple 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of doors may be apt to doubt, from the success of this question to-day, whether even now it does not come a little too late * 1.303.

Mr. Pulteney, on the same occasion, spoke as fol|lows.

Sir, The opposition made to this motion, is, in my opinion•• one of the strongest arguments that can be made us•• of in its favour, and must I think appear so to every man, who considers the persons conce••••ed in that o••position, and the arguments they make use of for s••pporting it. Who are the persons ••hat

oppose this motion? Who were they that have al|ways opposed such motions? Placemen, ministers, and the favourites or pensioners of ministers. What do they say for justifying their opposition? They deny a principle, a maxim, which in all ages, in all countries has hitherto been acknowledged; and upon which many of our laws now in being, are founded. That a gentleman's behaviour in this house may be influenced by a place or pension, is a maxim univer|sally acknowledged, and in this kingdom so much established, that we have already by law excluded many of the former, and all the latter, from having seats in this house. We have, I say, already by law excluded all pensioners from having seats in this house, and I should be glad to know the difference between a pension of 1000l. a year, and a place with a sallary of 1000l. a year. I know of none, save only that the latter is generally more valuable than the former; and therefore a gentleman will be more loth to lose it, or to give a vote in this house, that may disoblige a minister, who can take it from him. I say, Sir, that a place with a salary of 1000l. a year, is more valuable, than a pension of 1000l. a year; because a place furnishes a gentleman with an opportunity to serve his friends, and perhaps to provide some of them with little places, or offices under him. To which I must add, that a place often furnishes a gentleman who is not very scrupu|lous, with an opportunity of plundering his country yearly, of twice, perhaps ten times, the value of his salary; and this, I must observe, makes another very material difference, between a place and a pension. A placeman may very probably be a person, whose conduct this house ought to enquire into. He may be a public criminal, and therefore he will certainly

be against an impartial and strict enquiry into the conduct of any minister, officer, or placeman, lest the enquiry should at last light upon himself. There is therefore greater reason for excluding all place|men, than for excluding all pensioners from having seats in this house. Our admitting some of the for|mer, does not proceed from an opinion, that a gen|tleman's behaviour may not be influenced by a place, as much as by a pension, but from the necessity we are under of having some great officers amongst us, in order to give us proper information and direction in many affairs that must come under our considera|tion. For this reason, when I hear gentlemen who have very good places, gravely telling us, that no gentleman of family or fortune can by any place he may enjoy, or expect, be induced to join in measures that may be of dangerous consequence to the consti|tution or liberties of his country, I think it is a clear proof not only that the behaviour ••a gentleman of family and fortune may be influenced by the posts he enjoys or expects, but also that his judgment may be byassed. He may thereby be induced to think those things indifferent, or of no moment, that are far from being so. He may be thereby induced to think the liberties of his country in no danger, when they are upon the very brink of destruction. Sir, let us consider that of the 513 members who represent England and Wales, there are but 92 chosen by counties, and of the remaing 421, there are at least 350 chosen by cities, boroughs, and cinque ports, where the administration would have the absolute command and direction. If this should ever happen to be our unlucky situation, can we suppose that any gentleman would set up to be a member of this house, or a representative even for any of our coun|ties,

but such as resolved to submit with regard to their behaviour here to the absolute direction of the prime minister? No gentleman of honour would put himself to expence, or expose himself to the resent|ment of an all powerful minister, if by setting up us a candidate at any election, he were absolutely certain that he could thereby do his country no service. Instead of gentlemen of family, fortune, character, or interest in their country, we should then see this house filled with the lowest tools and vilest sycophants of absolute power. Instead of this house's being a check upon ministers, it would then, like the parliament of France, or the Roman senates un|der their emperors, be an instrument for the oppressions of ministers, and a cloak for their crimes. The most rapacious plunderer, the most tyrannical oppressor would then insolently boast, that he did nothing but according to law, that the public treasure was regularly accounted for in parliament, and that he was at all times ready to submit his conduct to a parliamentary enquiry. Surely, Sir, no gentleman can think that the liberties of this nation consist in our having the resemblance of a parliament. We may have a parliament, that parliament may be chosen once every seven years, may sit annually as it does now, may pass laws, grant money, receive accounts, and even make enquiries, and yet we may have neither constitution, nor liberty left; for if it should once come to be in the power of the administration to have always a majority in parlia|ment, ready to obey the directions given them by the ministers, there would be no necessity for destroying the form of our constitution, or for making a direct and absolute surrender of our liberties. Without either of these, our sovereign would be as absolute,

and might be more tyrannical, than the Grand Signior himself. Such a parliament would grant him as many saphis and janiza••••es as he thought necessary, for keeping his slaves in subjection; would give him any revenue he pleased to demand, and would pass whatever laws he might please to propose; and the judges being under no parliamentary restraint, would in every part of his dominions give judgment accord|ing to the directions of the prime vizier, or govern|ing bashaw. Thus oppression would be countenanced by the forms of law, the people plundered, and the innocent murdered, by the administration of justice. It is this sort of ruin, Sir, we have chiefly to ap|prehend, and this sort of ruin we may step by step be led into, without our being sensible of the several steps. We shall certainly be led into it, if we trust any longer the guardianship of our liberties to those whose foresight is dimmed by the places they enjoy, or expect. If a minister were to propose a law for giving the crown a power of sending to every county, city, and borough in the kingdom, such a c••ngè d'elire for the choice of members of parliament, as is now sent to a dean and chapter for the choice of a bishop, I believe very few gentlemen of family or fortune, would, for the sake of any place, ag••ee to it. But an equivalent power may be got by multiplying penal laws, and increasing the number and power of officers; and a gentleman of fortune, family, character, and interest in his country may, by a good place, be induced to believe, that such a law, or such an increase of the number and power of officers, is necessary for preventing fraudulent practices, or the like; and may therefore agree to it, without seeing the danger our constitution may be thereby exposed to. Thus, by degrees, he may be made to agree to such propo|sitions,

one after another, till he has thereby esta|blished in the crown the absolute direction of most of the elections in the kingdom. This, Sir, would have been the certain consequence of the late excise scheme; and yet there were many gentlemen of family and fortune that approved of it. I am con|vinced they did not foresee this consequence; nay, I have so much charity as to believe, that the chief patron of that scheme did not; but every impartial man in the kingdom is now, I believe, sensible of it. That scheme was indeed, such a large step towards giving the crown the direction of most of our elections, and by good luck was so thoroughly considered before it was brought into this house, that most gentlemen became sensible of the danger before it was too late; and that was the cause of its meeting with the fate it deserved; but its fate will be a warning to future ministers not to attempt making such a large step at once: they will from thence see that they must grasp at this power by little and little, which they will certainly do, and as certainly at last accomplish, unless we take care to exclude from this house most of those who, by the places they enjoy, are induced to have a better opinion of ministers than any man ought to have, that is entrusted with the guardianship of the constitution and liberties of his country. The question is not, Sir, whether a gentleman may be induced by the office or place he holds or ex|pects, to make at once, and in an open and direct manner, an absolute surrender of the liberties of his country. No prince, or minister, of common sense will ever desire such a surrender, because, if he can get into his hands an uncontroulable power over most of our elections, and consequently the

direction of the parliaments chosen by this uncon|troulable power, his power will in every respect be as absolute, and may be exercised in a more arbi|trary manner, and with greater security to himself, than it could be without the appearance of a par|liamentary authority; for every unpopular and op|pressive measure would then be made the act and deed of the parliament; and the lenity of the minister in the execution of those penal laws enacted by parliament, or in the exercise of those powers granted him by parliament, would be set forth and extolled by his tools in a Gazetteer, or some such paper, published by his authority, and dispersed through the whole kingdom at the public expence. The question, therefore, now before us, is, Whether a gentleman's eyes may not, by a lucrative and honourable post of employment, be so overclouded as to prevent his seeing through the plausible pre|tences that may, from time to time, be made use of by an artful minister, for getting into his hands, or into the hands of the crown, such an uncon|troulable power as I have mentioned; and this question, even with respect to Gentlemen of family and fortune, will, I am sure, be answered in the affirmative by every man in this kingdom, who does not possess or expect some post or employment, or some of those titles of honour which, by our constitution, as it is now modelled, the crown has absolutely at its disposal. To tell us, Sir, that our liberties can never be in danger from a majority of placemen in this house, unless the people be gene|rally abandoned as to all principles of virtue and public good, and unless the crown has, at the same time, formed designs against our liberties; and that the only method for removing this danger, in case

we should at any time be threatened with it, would be to take proper measures for restoring virtue and public spirit among the people, and for removing evil counsellors from about the throne—to tell us this, I say, Sir, in a serious manner, is something very extraordinary: It is mistaking the effect for the cause, and desiring us to begin at the wrong end. Corruption, Sir, is not the effect, but the cause of a general depravity of manners among the people of any country, and has in all countries, as well as this, been first practised and encouraged by ministers and courtiers. It would therefore be ridi|culous in us to think of restoring virtue among the people, till we have once made it impossible for ministers and courtiers to corrupt them; and I am sure it would be still more ridiculous in us to think of removing an evil counsellor from about the throne, till we have once removed his creatures and tools out of this house. I hope, Sir, there are at present no evil counsellors about the throne; if there were, I am sure no such counsellor has a majority of his creatures and tools in this house. If this were the case, it would have been very ridiculous to have made such a motion as this now before us. It would be very ridiculous to think of restoring our constitution by any legal method. It is this mis|fortune we intend to prevent by the bill now moved for. It is a misfortune now foreseen by all unpre|judiced men in the kingdom. I hope it is not yet too late to think of preventing it by a legal method; for after we have once fallen into this misfortune, it will be impossible to recover. If an ambitious minister should once get a majority of his creatures and tools into this house, can we suppose they would consent to impeach or remove him from the

throne Can we suppose they would ever consent to any bill that might tend to distress the administra|tion of their master? Can we suppose they would refuse any thing that might tend to prolong his ad|ministration and increase his power? Every attempt to restore the constitution would be branded with the name of republicanism. The discontents of the people would be called disaffection and jacobitism; every opposition would be said to proceed from malice and resentment; and the misfortune would be, that many honest well-meaning men, induced by their places to have a better opinion of ministers than they ought to have, would give credit to these pretences, and would believe that by agreeing to the minister's arbitrary schemes, they were only strengthening the hands of the government against republicanism, jacobitism, and sedition. If it were possible to be merry in a debate of so great import|ance, it would be diverting to observe the contra|diction in the arguments made use of against this motion. By some our gentlemen of family and for|tune are represented to be men of such strict honour and such clean heads, that no place or pension can mislead their judgment, or misdirect their will; no selfish consideration can make them overlook the danger our liberties may be exposed to, or consent to any thing they think may in the least endanger our constitution. By others, again, our gentlemen of family and fortune are represented as such selfish mercenary creatures, that unless the government would give them posts or pensions, they would refuse to consent to those things that are absolutely necessary for the ends of government and the pre|servation of their country. Now these two contra|dictory positions, though they cannot be equally

true, may be, and I believe they are, equally false. We have, I believe, some gentlemen amongst us whose judgment cannot be biassed, nor their will directed by any selfish consideration. Such men, I hope, we shall always have in some of our highest offices, and these are not designed by this bill to be excluded from having seats in this house; but their number will always be small, and therefore not sufficient by themselves alone to support the constitution against a combination of all the fools and knaves that may hereafter get into this house; therefore we must en|deavour to prevent this combination, and this can only be done by such a bill as is now proposed. On the other hand, I believe, here may be some amongst us, who propose nothing by their service in this house, but their own private advantage; and whilst we have placemen and pensioners amongst us, such men will endeavour all they can to get into parliament: Nay, it may become so customary for every man that votes with the court to have a place or a pension, that no man will do so without some such reward. But if ever this selfish spirit should get into parliament, our constitution will be undone; and to prevent this is the design of the bill now moved for: If no man could, by being a mem|ber of parliament, propose to get any place, or office, or any advantage to himself, the mercenary and selfish would seldom endeavour to get themselves chosen, at least they would never be at any expence for this purpose; and as such men have seldom a great natural interest in any part of the kingdom, there would always be such a small number of them in parliament, that their opposition could never ob|struct or retard any thing that seemed necessary for the just ends of government, or for the preservation

and happiness of the society. The public good would then be the only aim of ministers, as well as members, because neither of them could hope for success in any other; and as men of good sense and strict honour are the best judges, and the most ready to agree upon what is necessary for the public good, it would then be as much the business of ministers to get such men chosen, as it is now their business to get such members chosen as are men of mercenary tempers or shallow understandings; for all ministers will have jobs to do in parliament as long as they have any hopes of success, and the weak or mer|cenary will always be the most proper for this pur|pose. I am indeed surprised, Sir, to hear it said by an honourable gentleman, whose attachment to the present establishment is not to be doubted, that if most placemen were excluded from this house, there would soon be a majority of Jacobites in it. Such a supposition is not to be made, without first sup|posing that a great majority of the people are Jaco|bites; and to suppose this is, I am sure, no com|pliment to our present royal family, and much less to the king now upon our throne. As long as our parliaments are independent, and our elections free, there can never be any considerable number of Jaco|bites either in this house or in the nation; but if there should once come to be a majority of place|men and officers in the house, that majority would soon create a majority of Jacobites in the nation; and in that case, though the majority within doors might be a good security to ministers against parlia|mentary prosecutions, yet it would be but a bad security for the royal family against an insurrection of the whole people without doors. The army,

upon which we now seem so much to depend, or a great part of them, would probably join with the people, and the certain consequence would be the overthrow of our present establishment. This dan|ger, I know, a guilty minister will always choose to expose his master to, rather than expose himself to a legal trial before a free and independent parli|ament; because, in a general conflagration, he may possibly escape notice, or may perhaps be able to sacri|fice his master by way of an atonement for himself; but those who support him in thus exposing his mas|ter, can have no great regard for their sovereign, and in such an event would certainly meet with the contempt and punishment they so highly deserved. For this reason, Sir, as I have a greater regard for the security of the royal family than I have for that of our present ministers, or of any set of ministers, that shall ever get into the management of our public affairs, I shall be for putting it out of the power of any future minister to over-turn our con|stitution, by getting a majority of placemen and pensioners into this house. This, I think, is now become absolutely necessary for preventing our being brought under one of the worst sort of tyrannical governments that was ever contrived, or established. For this purpose the bill now moved for is one of the most certain, and one of the most obvious me|thods that can be thought of. It can be attended with no inconvenience. It is impossible to shew so much as a plausible reason against it; and there|fore, if this motion be rejected, it must afford a most melancholy reflection to every one that understands our constitution, and has a regard for the liberties of his country.

It was urged by Mr. Southwell, and others, that the voice of the people called for this bill; and that voice called for the serious attention of a wise legisla|ture; and that voice would be heard, first or last, and will have its effect; that it could not be smothered, much less rejected with contempt. In that house, they said, they ought to see with the same eyes with their constituents, and ought to feel what the nation feels, which was a good reason for not admitting placemen or pensioners; for the seeing and feeling of those who receive and those who pay will be very dif|ferent. That they had heard it delivered in that house, that no man ought to be allowed to keep his place under the crown, who voted against the minis|ter's measures, or jobs, in parliament. it was said, that it was well known that many boroughs were so publicly venal, that their brokers dealt as openly for the ••ale of them, as bawds for the sale of a prostitute.

A post in the army having fallen vacant, A. D. 1741, the gentleman, who had the next right to it, happend to be a member of parliament, and one that had opposed the court, which few officers do now a-days: the ministers, as usual, were against his preferment, because he had opposed the king's [that is, their own] measures in parliament; but the king told them, the gentleman had always behaved well as an officer, and he had nothing to do with his behaviour in parliament; so gave him the commission he had by his rank a right to * 1.304.

The ••ense of the city of London, on this subject, appears from the following instruction to their repre|sentatives, A. D. 1741.

As nothing can effectually secure the freedom of our happy constitution, except an uncorrupt, and independent representation of the people, we insist on your utmost endeavours to procure a proper bill for reducing and limiting the number of placemen in the house of commons, especially as so many gentle|men, in a situation of manifest dependence, were known to have seats in the last parliament * 1.305.

A motion was made, A. D. 1742, by Mr. Corn|wall, that leave be given to bring in a bill for the better securing the freedom of parliaments, by limit|ing the number of officers in the house of commons. Sir Watkin Williams Wynne seconded the motion to the following effect:

Sir, As this motion was last session agreed to, and as the bill itself was brought in, and in every step approved of by this very house of commons, I should with great confidence of success rise up to second this motion, if I did not, from experience, know, that gentlemen often change their sentiments with their situation; and that a gentleman, after he be|comes a placeman, begins to entertain notions of the prerogatives of the crown, and the liberties of the people, very different from those he held whilst he was a plain honest country gentleman. If any thing like this should happen in the present debate, it may tend to disappoint the motion; but with all those who are neither placemen nor pensioners, I am sure it ought to be an argument in its favour; and I hope it will prevail with some gentlemen, who, in former sessions, opposed this motion, to alter their sentiments and their way of voting upon this occasion, when they have such a plain proof

before their eyes, that if a place does not induce a man to vote against his honour and his conscience, it at least biasses his judgment, and makes him con|clude that to be wrong which he before thought, and declared to be right. Another strong argu|ment in favour of this motion, Sir, is, the melan|choly and distressed condition which the affairs of Europe, as well as of this nation, are now reduced to. We have, for near thirty years, been in a course of approving and supporting almost every political measure the crown seemed resolved to pur|sue. With regard to foreign affairs, we have ap|proved and supported every one of them without exception. Thank God, I have had no concern in this general uninterrupted approbation. I have, at the respective times, publicly declared my dislike of many of them, and yet I am far from thinking that any of those who approved voted at any time against the plain dictates of their conscience; but I am convinced that many of them were biassed in their judgments by the fears of losing the places they pos|sessed, or the hopes of getting the titles, places, or preferments, they expected. In disputes on parti|cular subjects in politics, it is very easy to impose upon gentlemen who have never made that science their study, and are never let into any secrets of state, unless with a design to deceive them; therefore, in all such cases, I have great charity for those who hap|pen to differ from me in opinion. But when the wickedness or folly of the measures begins to appear from the fatal consequences they have pro|duced, my charity begins to cease with respect to those who persevere in their opinions, and refuse coming into any method for preventing themselves or their successors in this house from being deceived

by the same biass towards a court. I have, Sir, as great an opinion, as any gentleman ought to have of the honour and impartiality of those who are members of either house of parliament; but it is arguing against common sense, and common ex|perience to pretend that no member of this house will be biassed in his opinion, or influenced in his voting by 500 or 1000, or perhaps, 5000l. a year. It has in all countries, and in all ages, been held as an established maxim, that no man ought to be allowed to sit as a judge, or even as a jury-man, in any cause where he is to get or lose by the event of the suit; and as we sit as judges almost in every case that can come before us between the people and their sovereign, or those employed by him in the executive part of our government, surely no man ought to be allowed to sit here, who is to get or lose the whole, or the chief part of his subsistence by the judgment he passes upon any affair de|pending in this house. In former times, Sir, when we had no standing army, nor any officers of our army kept in continual pay; when we had no excise, nor excisemen; when we had few or no taxes, and as few tax-gatherers, it was not neces|sary to have any such law enacted; because no public officer then ever thought of getting himself chosen a member of parliament; whilst he remained in pay, he was obliged to attend the duty of his office, and consequently could neither attend the business, nor be chosen a member of parliament. This is the true reason why the high-sheriff of a county cannot even now be chosen a member of this house; and when this maxim was first established by common law, or, as the lawyers call it, common reason only, it fell by degrees into disuse, and public officers of

all ranks and degrees may be, and are, now chosen members of parliament except high sheriffs, and some few others, who have been disqualified by express statute. Thus, Sir, our constitution stands at present; and as the number of our public officers of all kinds, and in all stations, has been of late years vastly increased, and is every day increasing; as their yearly profits and emoluments have been vastly augmented; and as their power is growing every year more and more extensive, they have now a great sway in all our elections, especially those for our cities and boroughs; so that in a few years, we may, nay, we must expect, that a majority of this house will always consist of such as hold or expect offices, places, or private pensions at the pleasure of the crown; and what justice or mercy the people can expect from such a house of commons, common sense, I had almost said, common experience, may instruct. For this reason, Sir, if we have a mind to preserve our constitution; if we have a mind that parliament should ever be of any use to the king or his people; if we have a mind to prevent a parlia|ment's being a cumbersome clog to a good king, and a cruel instrument of oppression in the hands of a tyrannical one, we must pass a Jaw for limiting the number of officers in this house; and this we ought to be the more ardent to have speedily done, because if we are once caught in the share, it will be impossible for us ever to escape; for if a majority of this house should ever once come to consist of officers and placemen, it is not to be supposed they would pass a bill for their own exclusion. On the contrary, if they should entertain the least jealousy of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being able to get themselves, or a majo|rity

of such as themselves, chosen at a new election, they would, by the authority of a late precedent, continue themselves, or they would pass an excise-bill, or some such bill, for giving the court an absolute command over a majority of our elections, and thereby establish an arbitrary power of the most extensive, cruel, and tyrannical kind, I mean, an arbitrary power supported by a corrupt parliament and a numerous mercenary army. To prevent this, Sir, I rise up to second the motion made by my worthy friend. I shall always endeavour to prevent it by my vote in this house, and if ever it should become neces|sary, by the risk of my life and fortune in the field * 1.306.

There is a curious speech of lord Raymond on occa|sion of the second reading of this bill; in which he declares against a place-bill, because it would prevent young men of fortune from accepting employments, when they found they could not sit in parliament. [But the independent people do not chuse they should have places, and sit in parliament at the same time, because their places may biass their votes, and the people do not approve of lay-pluralities and non-residence any more than of clerical.] He says, if young men of fortune do not accept employments, they will not understand business. [If they be mem|bers of parliament, and placemen at the same time, they will certainly understand neither the business of parliament nor that of their places.] He says, the bill will exclude all young men of fortune from the army. [The independent people would be glad, that there were no army, and that, instead of it, we had a well regulated militia.] He says, the security of the na|tion consists in having the army officered by men

of fortune. [The security of a nation consists in the people's being armed, and capable to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic * 1.307.]

Lord Sandwich, on this occasion, speaks as follows:

In antient times, my lords, nay, I may say, till after the restoration, we had no occasion for such bills. The crown had but a few lucrative employ|ments to bestow, and many of those it had at its disposal, were such as were generally granted for life; consequently, no minister could hope by such means to gain, much less to preserve, a corrupt majority in either house of parliament; and the impossibility of success prevented their making any such attempt. We had then no mercenary stand|ing army, nor had the crown any lucrative military commissions to dispose of. If an army was at any time raised for foreign service, no officer employed in that army could look upon his post as an estate for life; therefore, though a commission in the army was considered as an honour, it was never looked upon as a favour; but on the contrary, those landed gentlemen who had acquired a character in their country for conduct, courage, and military knowledge, were often solicited to accept of com|missions in the army which was to be raised, and when the service was over, they returned to live upon their estates in the country without being at any further expence to the public. We had then, my lords, but very few customs, and no excises; consequently a minister could not spread his excise-men over the whole kingdom to influence elections in counties, or to govern them in most of our inland boroughs; and the salaries of custom-house-officers

were so trifling, that no man of any great character or fortune would accept of them; so that such officers had but very little influence in any of our sea-port towns. But now, my lords, the case is quite altered; the posts in the army, and in the collection of the public revenues, and the other places in the disposal of the crown, are become so numerous and so lucrative, that they must have a great influence upon the members of the other house, if there be no restraint upon the num|ber of placemen allowed to have seats in that house. This, I say, must be the consequence, unless we suppose, that men will judge and determine as im|partially in a case where they are to get 500l. or 1000l. a year, as in a case where they are to get or lose nothing by their judgment or determination; and to suppose this is so contrary to the nature of mankind, and to the established maxims of all soci|eties, that I am sure none of your lordships will make any such suppositions. Parliaments, we know, are designed to be a check upon ministers; we like|wise know, that almost every post in the disposal of the crown, is left to the arbitrary disposal of ministers; and we also know that no minister ever did or ever will give a lucrative post or employment to a man who opposes his measures in parliament. From late experience we know, that some of the highest officers in the kingdom have been dismissed for no other reason but because they disapproved of the measures pursued by our ministers, and had honour enough to declare their disapprobation in parliament. Can we then expect, my lords, that the other house will be a check upon the conduct of our ministers, as long as there is a majority in that house who enjoy, or expect, lucrative and honour|able

employments from the benevolence of these very ministers? I shall not say, that in such a case the members would all be corrupt in their determi|nations, but I will say, that in many cases they would be biassed in their judgments, and thereby induced to approve of what, in duty to their country, they ought to have disapproved of; or to put a nega|tive upon what, in duty to their country, they ought to have given their consent to. Therefore, my lords, if we intend that the other house should answer the end of its institution, by judging impar|tially, and determining wisely and justly in every case that comes before them, we must pass this bill, or such a bill as this; or we must pass a bill for taking from the crown the disposal of those posts and employments that are necessary for the execu|tive part of our government; and surely those lords who seem so mighty jealous of any incroachment upon the prerogative of the crown, will agree to the former rather than to the latter of these two expedients. The latter, I shall grant, would be an infringement of one of those prerogatives now enjoyed by the crown; but I cannot, for my life, see what the former has to do with the prerogative of the crown, nor can I conceive how any one pre|rogative of the crown is to be in the least affected by this bill. There is no confinement, nor the least restraint, proposed upon the power the king has to dispose of offices or employments. He may grant them as fully and freely as before: he may even grant them to members of parliament, notwithstand|ing any thing proposed to be enacted by this bill; and the member may enjoy the office or employ|ment so granted to him; only if it be such a one as is not excepted in this bill, he is not to be re|chosen.

Is this, my lords, an infringement of any pre|rogative of the crown? Has the king a power to tell the people whom they are to chuse, or whom they are not to chuse? No, my lords; but the legislature has, and has already in many cases exercised that power. The people are already, by law, restrained from chusing a man for their representative who is not possessed of 600 l. or at least 300 l. a year: they are already restrained from chusing any man concerned in collecting the public revenue: they are already re|strained from chusing the high-sheriff to be their repre|sentative; and now they are to be restrained from chusing any placemen besides those excepted in the bill. This, 'tis granted, is a new restraint; but it can no more be said to be an infringement of the people's li|berties, than confining a madman can be said to be an infringement of his liberty; for if the people were not mad, or something worse, they never would chuse a man as the guardian of their liberties, who must either forfeit the lucrative post he enjoys, or betray his trust to ministers, who can, and probably will, take his post from him, if he does not; and who have always, by experience, been found to be the greatest enemies to the liberties of the people.

—

No inconvenience, but great benefit, has accrued from that law which disables commissioners and offi|cers of our customs, or excise, from being members of the other house. Experience must therefore give a favourable opinion of this bill. Can it be said, that in the year 1693 we were influenced by any factious discontents? And yet in that year, such a bill as this, which was intitled, A Bill touching free and impartial Proceedings in Parliament, passed both houses; but by the advice of the ministers was re|fused the royal assent; as several others had been

during the beginning of that reign. Can it be sup|posed, that in the year 1701, we were governed by any factious discontents; and yet in the act then passed, there was an express clause for excluding all placemen from having seats in the house of commons after the settlement then established should take place; which clause met with the approbation not only both houses of parliament, but of the crown itself. And surely no man will derogate so much from the known courage of king William, as to say, that he would have allowed himself to be bubbled by any faction or party into a regulation which he thought would strike at the root of our constitution. This clause, it is true, was afterwards in the queen's time repealed; but I wish the noble peers who were the promoters of that repeal had considered a little more their own characters as well as the constitution of their country; for if they had, they might perhaps have made some such exceptions as are contained in this bill; but I am sure they would never have a|greed to and much less proposed a general and abso|lute repeal of that clause * 1.308.

On occasion of the debate on the pension-bill, A. D. 1730-31, an oath was proposed to be taken by mem|bers, purging themselves of the guilt of receiving any pension from the crown. Several lords protested against its being rejected in their house;

because the bill would, if committed, have been regularly the subject of debate, and amendments might have been made as this house thought proper; and because the commons had passed the bill with so much honour to themselves; and because this bill only enforces the observation, and prevents the evasions of former laws.

By one of these laws, no person who has a pension from the crown during pleasure, can sit in the house of commons; but the effect of this law was or might have been evaded, in great measure, by grants of pensions for certain terms of years. To remedy this abuse, it was enacted by another law; that no person who enjoys a pension for any number of years, shall sit in that house, under certain penalties; but the effect of this law may be evaded by giving gratuities, or making annual presents; and the commons would find it difficult to obtain those accounts which can alone shew what pensions are paid to particular per|sons. By the laws now in force, whoever accepts any office or employment under the crown, cannot sit in that house, till he has been re-elected. But an office may be held by some person who is not a member of that house, in trust for one who is. The arguments used for the necessity of preserving an influence to the crown by the power of rewarding; are not to the present purpose, or if applied, they prove what is not much to the honour of this house; as rejecting this bill looks like approving all the evasions that have or can be invented or put in practice.

Strictly speaking, all influence over either house, except that which arises from a sense of these duties which we owe to our king and country, is improper; for although this influence appears to be that of the crown, it may become virtually that of the minister; and if ever a corrupt minister should have the dispo|sition of places, and distribution of pensions, gratui|ties, and rewards, he may create such an influence, as shall effectually deprive the prince of the great advan|tage of knowing the true sense of the people, and a house of parliament being prevailed upon to approve such measures as the whole nation dislikes; he may,

for the sake of an unworthy servant, lose the affec|tions of his people, whilst he imagines that he both de|serves and possesses them; and this improper influ|ence will always be most exerted in the support of ill measures and weak ministers.

The trust reposed in parliament is much greater than it was, in respect to those heavy taxes which have been for many years past, and which must be, for all succeeding times [unless the national debt could be paid] annually laid by parliament, and also the im|mense debts which have been contracted.

The service of the house of commons was for|merly a real service, therefore often declined, and al|ways paid for by the people; it is now no longer paid for, no longer declined, but sought after at a great expence. How far these considerations, with that of the vast increase of the civil-list, and of the debts con|tracted on it, deserve to enforce the reasons for exact|ing some stronger engagements, from members of the house of commons to those whom they are chosen to represent, is we think sufficiently obvious.

Although the multiplying of oaths ought to be avoided, yet an oath being the most solemn engage|ment men can lay under, we judge it on that account the more proper to be imposed; nor will the proba|bility of its being broke by the iniquity of mankind be an argument of greater force against this bill, than against any other law made for preventing any other crime * 1.309.

It is well known, my lords, (says lord Chesterfield in the debate on a bill for making officers independent on the ministry, A.D. 1734 * 1.310) that there are many officers of the army who have nothing, or at least very little to subsist on but their commissions; and it

is likewise well known that there are many gentle|men of the army now in both houses of parliament. There are now, my lords, more officers of the army in each house of parliament than there were when we had on foot an army of above 60,000 men: These are facts which will not, I believe, be controverted. It is, I do not know how, become of late years a pre|vailing opinion, that the only way of getting prefer|ment in the army is to have a seat in the other house of parliament: This, it is true, my lords, must be an erroneous opinion. It is impossible that any man can justly and honourably acquire any preferment in the army by his behaviour in either house of parlia|ment, and therefore this must be an opinion for which I hope there never was any ground. I am sure there can be no ground for it under his present majesty; but erroneous as it is, it is become a gene|ral opinion, and we know that mankind always were, and always will be governed and influenced by general opinions and prejudices; and according as the pre|valence of this opinion increases, we may expect an increase of the number of officers in both houses of parliament. We may expect, my lords, that in future times, as soon as any gentleman has once got a commission in the army, he will next employ all his money and credit, and all his friends to procure him|self a seat in parliament; he will perhaps pawn the last shilling's worth he has in the world, besides his commission, in order to procure himself a seat in the other house of parliament; and how dangerous it may be to our constitution to have such a man de|pending for the continuance of that commission upon some future enterprizing minister, I leave to your lordships to judge. No man has a better opinion than I have of the gentlemen who are at present the

officers of our army; but I must say, that I think it too hard a trial even for their virtue, especially in this degenerate age, to have it in the power of a desperate minister to tell them upon occasion of an important question in parliament, 'If you do not vote, Sir, as I direct, you shall starve.'

In the debate on the famous pension-bill, A. D. 1739 * 1.311, lord Walpole observed, that a bill with the same title had been four times sent up to the lords, and as often rejected. That it was an affront to the lords to send them the same bill five times. That it is dangerous to make alterations. [The bill, how|ever, was no alteration, but intended to inforce an old law.] That the bill supposes corruption in the other house, which is a slander on the house, and a reflexion on the government. That it is impossible there should be any pensioning; because no pension can be granted but by warrant from his majesty, and all monies are to be accounted for to king and parliament. [So that, in short; corruption is, like the stories of ghosts and goblings, a mere non-entity, at which only silly people are sacred.] That besides, the ministry have no inclination to corrup•• the members of the house of commons.

I have the honour, says his lordship, to be nearly related to some of those employed in the administration: From thence I have had an oppor|tunity of knowing their most secret thoughts; and from thence I have formed my opinion. Therefore, if it is neither in the inclination nor in the power of any one employed in the administration to corrupt the members of the other house, what occasion can we have, would it not be altogether imprudent in us to make an alteration in one of the most funda|mental

parts of our constitution, in order to guard against a grievance which is neither felt, nor can be, in his present majesty's reign, so much as supposed?

Lord Talbot answered lord Walpole, that the com|mons, by sending up the bill, shewed, That they believed not only the possibility, but the reality of corruption. That there were two statutes before cal|culated for the same purpose; but

that ministerial craft working upon abandoned prostitution could evade them.

That the commons, if in earnest, might justly be offended, if the lords rejected the bill, which might produce a rupture between the houses, and might set the whole nation against the lords; if the commons meant only to delude their constituents by a pretended zeal against corruption, trusting, that the lords would throw out the bill, would it be con|sistent with the dignity of the house of peers to be accessary to such abominable craft. That a private pension is not a reward of merit, but a breach of trust; and to reject the bill would be giving a sanction to breach of trust. That it could not be said, that the lords passing the bill was a slur on the commons, when the commons originated it. That a parliament 2 Hen. VIII. passed an act to cancel all the debts the king had contracted upon loans; and the historians account for this iniquitous proceeding from that par|liament's being filled with the king's servants, with whom justice had not so much weight as complaisance to the crown.

The numbers of placemen in that parliament, (says his lordship) are not specified; but I believe they did not amount to near three hundred in both houses; nor is there mention made of a single pen|sioner. The parliament, stigmatized by the name of the pensionary parliament, proposed an expurgatory

oath to clear themselves from that aspersion, con|taining many particulars, one of which was, that each member should swear he had never given his vote in parliament for any reward or promise what|soever. I sincerely wish, that to gratify the people the same or such another oath should now be taken; and as the oath proposed by this bill will, I think, be rather more effectual, therefore, I am for the bill's being committed, and hope it will be passed into a law * 1.312.

To pretend

[alluding to lord Walpole's speech]

that we are not at present in any danger from the private pensions that may be given to members of the other house, must appear absurd to every man that considers the nature of ministers, or the nature of mankind. My lords, it is a danger we can never be free from; nor can we sufficiently guard against, as long as it is in the power of a minister to give, or of a member to receive. It is absolutely necessary for a minister to have the consent or approbation of parliament in almost every step of his conduct. Therefore from the very nature of ministers, we may suppose, that if he cannot obtain such consent or approbation by his authority, he will endeavour to obtain it by his power; and from the nature of man|kind we must suppose, that among such a number of men as are in the other house, the minister will always find some ready enough to prostitute their consent or approbation for a considerable bribe, or annual pension. Thus we must always be exposed to this danger; and now we are a great deal more exposed to it, than ever we were heretofore; because our ministers now have infinitely more to give, and

custom or example has, I am afraid, greatly added to the number of those, that are ready to receive * 1.313.

By the very act of settlement itself, my lords, it was expressly enacted, amongst other things, That no person having a pension from the crown, should serve as a member of the house of commons; and though this clause was in general repealed by an act of the 4th and 5th of queen Anne, yet it was then again thought so reasonable to exclude pensioners from having seats in the other house, that it was a-new enacted, That no person having a pension from the crown during pleasure, should be capable of being a member of any future house of commons; and by an act of the 1st of the late king, their in|capacity was farther extended to all persons having any pension from the crown, for any term or number of years, either in their own names or in the name of any other person in trust for them, or for their benefit. Thus your lordships see, that by the laws now in being, all persons who have pensions from the crown during pleasure, or for any term or num|ber of years, are rendered incapable of having seats in the other house; and by these laws, great penalties are inflicted upon those who presume to break through them. But as no provision has been made by either of these laws for discovering secret offenders, and as every man must be sensible that such pensions may be given privately, the gentlemen of the other house have thought it, and I hope your lordships will think it necessary, to provide the best remedy that can be thought of for this defect, which is the chief, and indeed the sole intention of this bill. I cannot help t••••refore being astonished at its being pretended,

that this bill will occasion any alteration, or innova|tion in our constitution; and there is nothing con|vinces me more of the necessity there is for passing it, than the circumstances of the noble lords, who I find oppose it. To the honour of the administration in the first year of the late king, I must observe, that the law passed at that time for excluding pensioners from the other house, was introduced by a secretary of state, and approved by most of those in the admi|nistration; and it was prudent and right in them to do so. A minister that has no intention to make use of bribery and corruption, has no occasion to oppose any bill that can be thought of, for preventing such infamous and illegal practices; and therefore, when I find such a bill opposed, by those who are the known friends of a minister, it will always be a pre|vailing argument with me, not only to think that there is a present and pressing necessity for such a bill, but also, that the bill proposed will be in some measure effectual. It will at least raise the price of prostitutes, because the more risk a man runs, the higher wages he will of course expect; and the higher you raise the price of those who are liable to be corrupted, the more difficult will every future minister find it to corrupt, notwithstanding the many and great boons our ministers have now to bestow; and then they must think of gaining the consent or approbation of parliament by their autho|rity in persuading, and not by their power in corrupt|ing * 1.314.

I find (says the earl of Carlisle) some lords are, upon this occasion, extremely apprehensive of corrupting the morals of the people, by a multiplicity of new oaths,

I wish the same apprehensions had prevailed, when such an infinite number of oaths were contrived, for collect|ing our customs and taxes. Most of these oaths are to be taken by multitudes of people, and in cases where there are great temptations for perjury. The oath now proposed, is to be taken by none, but members of the other house; and the temptations to perjury can never be great or frequent, but when our consti|tution is in the utmost danger. It is therefore some|thing strange, that we should be so little apprehensive of corrupting the morals of the people, by a multi|plicity of oaths, when we are contriving methods for preserving the revenue of our sovereigns, and so very apprehensive of the like effect, when we are contriv|ing methods for preserving the constitution and liber|ties of our country. A foreigner, upon considering this behaviour, would be apt to judge we had very little concern about the latter, provided we could but enjoy a share of the former; and if we should reject this bill, without much Letter reasons than I have yet heard against it, I fear most of our own people will join in forming the same false opinion of this honourable and august assembly. Your lordships must be all sensible how prevalent the jealousy at present is, of there being a great number of pen|sioners in parliament: the gentlemen of the other house have endeavoured to allay that jealousy, and to vindicate the honour of their assembly, by sending us up this bill. If it should be thrown out here, what will the nation think? Will it not be generally supposed that this is the house, in which the number of pensioners prevails, and that here the pensions have the most infallible effect? Or perhaps it will be supposed, that there are pensioners in the other house as well as in this, but that the pensioners in the

other, for the sake of recommending themselves to their constituents, had leave from their masters to agree to this bill, because their masters knew they could depend upon the number and submission of their pensioners in this, for throwing it out. I am very sensible, my lords, there is no real ground for either of these suppositions; but those without doors, who do not know the reasons upon which your lordships proceed, when they find a bill rejected which makes no alteration in our constitution, which does not so much as make an alteration in any former law, which contains nothing but an inforcement of the laws in being against pensioners; such persons, I say, may think they have reason to make one or other of these suppositions; and should not we be extremely cautious of giving the least shadow of reason for judging so un|worthily of our assembly * 1.315?

My lords, as the laws now in being for excluding pensioners from the other house, must to every man that considers them, appear to be altogether inef|fectual, if this bill be rejected, I shall, even in my time, if I live but a very few years, expect to see the other house full of pensioners. I shall expect to see a minister in that house, out of a wantonness of power, by his single veto, or the monosyllable NO, throw out a bill of the utmost importance, without design|ing to give his slaves so much as one reason for what he obliges them to do. This indeed, if it should ever happen, I shall look upon as a sign of his power, but not of his prudence; and I may prophesy, that if ever a minister should get such a power over the other house, his power in this will be as absolute and equally insolent * 1.316.

The bishop of Salisbury [Sherlocke] opposed the bill, because it gave the commons the means of finding out transgressors more effectually. Perhaps his good lordship might think this was taking the business of reforming mankind out of the hands of the bishops, whose indefatigable labours, in season and out of sea|son, in word and doctrine, in teaching and preach|ing, are equal to the pulling down of any strong holds of Satan. See bishop Burnet's panegyric on the diligence of the clergy, at the conclusion of the HISTORY OF HIS OWN TIMES.

By this bill, says the bishop, the commons are to become

superior to the chief branch of the legisla|ture, to the crown itself; for they are to judge of the actions of the crown, and may determine, that a well-merited reward, given by the crown for the most eminent public services, was a corrupt reward, given for a gentleman's corrupt behaviour in their assembly.

Here his good lordship seems, with submission, to make a distress where there is none. For the supposed eminently serviceable gentleman had nothing to do but quit his seat in the house, and then the crown might give him a pension of 100,000l. a year. But it does not seem easy to understand why a bishop should be so zealous about this supposed encroachment on the crown, so long as it did not break in upon the power of the king to manufacture parsons into bishops.

By what follows, one would imagine his lordship was disposed to be merry.

If, says he, the other house should once render themselves superior to the crown, they would of course become superior to this house likewise, and would soon engross, as they have done before, the whole power of our govern|ment.

They would either vote this house useless, [what a dreadful thing it would be if they should vote the inestimable bishops useless!] as they have once done already, or they would render it insigni|ficant, by making it entirely subservient to them.

All this power the commons would acquire by the single circumstance of having power to demand an oath of their members, that they were not the mini|ster's hirelings.

The bishop afterwards expresses an anxiety about too many oaths, as if corruption were not as bad as perjury; but he says nothing about too many unintelligible and self-contradictory articles to be sub|scribed by the clergy.

The laws of this kingdom, says the bishop, have always been extremely cautious of subjecting a man to an oath, in any case where his interest may be concerned.

Therefore the good bishop ought to have been a great enemy to clerical subscription; for that, surely, is subjecting a man to an oath, where his interest is concerned, (so is his taking the oaths to the government.) Yet the lan|guage of the bishops is, subscribe, or starve.

The oath proposed by this bill, says the bishop, is, I think, such a one as can be understood by no man. [Is it more unintelligible, my good lord, than the Athanasian creed, or the doctrine of predes|tination to eternal torments; which is so full of sweet, pleasant, and comfortable matter * 1.317?

Some readers may observe, that these remarks are rather ad hominem, than answers to the bishop's objec|tions. True: but the bishop's objections are so frivolous, and besides so peculiarly unsuitable to the character of a bishop, who ought to have rejoiced in

an opportunity for setting his face against corruption, that my treating him and his objections with contempt, where every friend of virtue and his country has a right to express indignation, ought to be considered as no small degree of candour. For the same reason I take no notice of his pretence, that it must be difficult to determine, what is a corrupt pension; that the in|nocent would have been in danger from this bill; that there was no danger from placemen or pensioners in the house of commons; that neither king nor ministry, were capable of corrupting any members of the com|mons; that those who are for putting a stop to cor|ruption, are enemies to the constitution; that the opposers of Ch. Ist's tyranny▪ were only a disaffected party, &c. So much for a specimen of pontifical politics—sic digerit omina Calchas. VIRG. * 1.318

Lord Carteret observed, that nothing would cast a worse slur upon the house of peers, than their re|jecting this bill; that corruption cannot be too soon guarded against; for that the only time to guard against it is, before it becomes prevalent, as after a majority in either house becomes corrupt, it will be impossible to get a good bill against corruption passed; that 99 persons in every hundred throughout the kingdom, thought there was real danger from cor|ruption; that the passing of the bill would quiet the minds of the people, &c.

I shall conclude (says he) with observing to your lordships, that if you reject it, all those who think we are in danger from corruption, will conclude, that it is already become impossible to guard against it by any legal means, and will therefore begin to think of some other method for preserving our consti|tution,

which may prove of dangerous consequence to the illustrious family, now upon our throne.

On the same occasion, the duke of Argyle spoke as follows:

My lords, we are now upon a bill, for putting an end to, or at least preventing, one sort of corruption in the other house; and from the opposition the bill meets with here, and the imaginary dangers that were suggested for supporting, or rather excusing that opposition; those who are not personally acquainted with the noble lords, who have spoke upon that side of the question, would I think be apt to suppose their opinion to be either, that corruption is now become a necessary evil, without which the forms of our government could not be preserved, or that it is an evil of very little consequence, and not at all incompatible with the subsistence of a free govern|ment. Corruption my lords, has always hitherto been allowed to be vile, to be dangerous. I have for my own part discouraged it in all stations: I shall always disdain the obedience or the parasitical sort of assent, that is to be gained only by corruption, and I have always been sorry, when I have observed, it was not equally discouraged by others; for if it were no way encouraged by those in high stations, it would never be possible for the mode in any country to cover that infamy, which naturally attends the corrupted; nor would the quality of the offender ever atone for the wretched meanness of the offence. Corruption, my lords, is of all dangers the greatest our constitution can be exposed to, and the most to be apprehended. Its approach is imperceptible, but its blow, if not prevented, is fatal; and you cannot prevent its blow, unless you prevent its ap|proach. The laws now in being for excluding

pensioners from having seats in the other house, are designed as a safeguard, against corruption's entering in one shape at least within the walls of that house; and when we are considering whether these laws ought to be enforced, we have no occasion for examining into late measures, or for supposing that any late practices have been made use of for cor|rupting the members of either house. We have now as much reason to guard against the approach of corruption as we had when these laws were made; therefore we are now to consider only the laws themselves, and if they appear insufficient, they ought to be amended, whether any corrupt prac|tices have lately been made use of or not. That these laws are insufficient for the end intended, must, I think, appear to any one that peruses them. There are penalties, 'tis true, inflicted upon pensi|oners that shall presume to sit or vote in the other house; but it is evident that these penalties can never be recovered, because the fact can never be proved. A pension or a bribe may be given in such a manner, that even he who gives it can be no direct witness against the receiver; and it is always given in such a secret manner that the criminal may have good reason to think his crime can never be discovered. For this reason no penalty you can inflict will ever have a great effect; and this makes it necessary, in cases of suspicion, to require an oath from the party suspected. I shall not say, my lords, that the oath required by this bill will have all the effect that could be wished. There may be some so abandoned as to despise the religious ceremony of an oath; but it will have an effect upon a great many; and even the most abandoned will be shy of denying their having a pension upon oath in the

very face, perhaps, of the man who pays them their pensions. Nay, even prudence itself will make men shy of being guilty of perjury, lest the concealment of their crimes should afterwards be imputed to them as a favour, and made use of as a handle for obliging them to do as much dirty work afterwards, without a pension, as they had done before for the sake of a pension. It is an old and a true proverb, That when I trust a man with my secret, I make him my master. An avaritious, or an extravagant and necessitous man may accept of iniquitous wages from a minister, and yet he would not, perhaps, chuse to be such an absolute slave to that minister, as he must be, should he put it in his power to con|vict him of perjury. Therefore the oath prescribed by this bill will certainly have a very great effect; and as the laws proposed to be enforced by this bill evi|dently appear to be insufficient, this method of en|forcing them ought to be chosen, at least till a more effectual one can be thought on * 1.319.

My lords, I look upon the present question to be a trial of skill, the fate of which is to determine whether or no our constitution is hereafter to be destroyed by corruption, and the people reduced to the fatal necessity of endeavouring to restore it by the sword. If this should ever come to be the un|lucky fate of this nation, those who now oppose our making use of legal means for securing our con|stitution, whilst it is yet in our power, will have no great reason to rejoice in their past conduct. Let us consider, my lords, the vast sums of money that are now at the disposal, or under the direction of the crown; the infinite number of lucrative posts,

places, and employments, most of them unknown to our ancestors, now depending upon the sole and arbitrary pleasure of the crown; and the great variety of penal laws, by one or other of which the most innocent may be made to suffer, the most cau|tious may be entrapped, and from which the most guilty may be screened by virtue of that disposing or mitigatory power, which, with respect to many of them, is now lodged in the officers of the crown. Let us, I say, my lords, consider these things, and we must acknowledge that the present danger we are in of having our parliaments converted into a Turkish divan, is far from being imaginary; and when we are under such well grounded apprehensions, shall we rack our invention for visionary dangers, in order to ex|cuse our agreeing to any method for guarding against a danger so real, and which may, upon the first change of ministers or measures, become inevitable and irresistible * 1.320.

In the end of the late queen's reign, there was just such another bill brought into this house, which at that time met with so good a reception here, that it was thrown out by only one vote; and its meeting with that fate was occasioed by the fault of one noble lord, who, at the time the question was put, hap|pened to be in the court of request, with two proxies in his pocket * 1.321.

The duke of Newcastle said, he thought this bill unnecessary, as it was well known that the members of the other house were gentlemen of the best families and fortunes in the kingdom. The preservation of their estates, depended upon the preservation of the constitution; and as bribing would destroy the con|stitution,

and render even the bribe precarious; no member could be guilty of taking a bribe, because there could be no temptation to it. And he thought it would diminish the prerogative of the crown, there|fore he could not agree to the bill.

He was answered by lord Chesterfield, that there was a suspicion of some such practices, because that house had frequently sent this bill to the lords. To pretend that this bill encroaches upon the prerogative of the crown, is somewhat strange. Has the crown a prerogative to infringe the laws? To say so, is destroying the credit and authority of the crown; but the crown has nothing to do with pensions, it is the minister's affair. Men of family and fortune may be avaricious or luxurious, and may not think of the dangerous consequences of corruption; certainly if they did, there would be no occasion to make laws against it; it would appear so horrible, that no man would allow it to approach him. The corrupted ought to consider, that they do not sell their country only: that perhaps they may disregard; but they sell likewise themselves: they become the bond-slaves of the cor|ruptor; who corrupts them, not for their sakes, but for his own. Therefore if people would but consider, they would always reject the offer with disdain. But history shews, that to satisfy the immediate cravings of some infamous appetite, the alluring bait is swal|lowed. This makes it necessary in every free state to contrive, if possible, to prevent corruption. The sooner a remedy is applied, the less will be our dan|ger of falling into that fatal distemper; from which no free state, where it has once become general, has ever yet recovered * 1.322.

In the committee on the bill for taxing places and pensions, A. D. 1744, Mr. Archer spoke as follows;

'Sir, There is a short but material amendment which, I think, should be made to this question. It is so adapted to the necessities of the present times, and so much for the honour of the committee, that I am satisfied it will be agreeable to you, and to every other gentleman here. We are now so happy as to enjoy a most profound calm without the least ruffle of wind or weather. All opposition lies hushed; but least a storm should soon arise, I am for making use of this happy juncture, this favour|able opportunity, of proving to the world that this extraordinary unanimity does not proceed from any selfish views or expectations, but from a true disin|terested public spirit; and if the amendment which I shall beg leave to offer, should pass with the same unanimity, as all other questions have hitherto done, it will be a proof of it beyond contradiction. Sir, what I propose, is to lay a double tax upon places and pensions in ease of the landed interest of this kingdom; and who is there in this committee that can have any reasonable objection against it? As for the gentlemen in place, they cannot but be sensible what an uncertain and precarious situation they are now in; and that they hold their places by the weakest of all tenures, by nothing but the smiles of a great man, which are more fickle and inconstant than those of fortune. Perhaps it may soon be proper for some of them to follow the ex|ample of a noble earl, and resign; therefore it can|not be worth their while to oppose it. Besides, it may be some consolation to them that their landed estates will receive some benefits from their places which they themselves are so likely to lose; it is

impossible, therefore, that any objection can come from them. As for the gentlemen who are to suc|ceed them, if they are the same as I have heard mentioned, they are persons of such exalted notions of honour and patriotism, that you could not put a higher affront upon them than to imagine, that the sordid lucre of the place has any share in their thoughts. No, Sir, their patriotism, like virtue, is its own reward, and the only one they desire; and therefore, it is equally certain, they will not oppose it. And as for the great man who has the disposal of these places, it will be doing him a very fignal piece of service; for by lessening the value of places, you will lessen the number of candidates, and so far take off from that immense trouble and fatigue, which he is forced daily, nay, hourly to undergo from innumerable solicitations, visits, let|ters, messages, and importunities; and besides this, it will be a great honour to his administration, not to stand in need of the mean assistance of places to support it. Those gentlemen, therefore, who have any regard for his ease or his honour, must all espouse this motion. As for the rest of the house, they are country gentlemen, who feel too much the weight and burden of this tax upon their lands not to wish for some relief; it is, therefore, fairly to be con|clud••d, that neither they nor any other gentlemen in the committee, can disapprove of this amendment. But, Sir, if all these reasons, strong as they are▪ more particularly at this juncture, were laid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the case, the thing is so evidently right and jus•• in itself, that it cannot be opposed. Sir, it is •• fundamental rule of justice, as well as policy, that all taxes for the support of the government, should be laid with equality; and how can it be pretended

that 4 s. in the pound upon land, and no more upon places, is an equal tax? The land is taxed in pro|portion to the rent, which is generally the full value, every body being desirous to let their estates for as much as they can get. The place is taxed in pro|portion to the salary, which is seldom a quarter part of the income, the fees and perquisites generally amounting to five or six time•• as much. The rent is subject to deductions for repairs and losses by the tenants; the salary is subject to neither. Nay, the land-owner is sometimes forced to pay the tax for rent which he does not receive; whereas the placeman never pays it, but upon the receipt of his salary. The land subjects the owner to the expence and trouble of serving many offices, particularly the high-sheriff's, grand-jury-man's and others; the place is so far from being liable to any of them, that it is of itself an indemnification and excuse against all. Then how can it be said, that this is acting fairly and impartially? It is therefore high time for us to rectify this unequal oppressive method of taxation; and if you lay 8 s. in the pound upon places and pensions, it is very obvious how many advantages will flow from it. 1st, It will in some measure operate as a place-bill; for by lessening the value of the places, it will lessen that undue influ|ence which is supposed to arise from them. 2dly, It will coroborate and strengthen that favourite law, the qualification act; for if it is necessary that the members of this house should have an estate in land to a certain value, the less charge you lay upon the land, the more likely they will be to fulfil and answer the intent of that good law. 3dly, It will in like manner fortify the laws of election; for if every freeholder is required to have 40 s. a year,

to entitle him to a vote, do not take away a fifth part of it from him by a tax of 4 s. in the pound upon the land, but rather lay it upon places and pensions. In short, Sir, almost all the good laws made for the freedom and independency of parlia|ment, will be in some measure assisted by this amend|ment. But I do agree, that some places are of too small value to admit of a double tax, as the excise officers, and others, of 50l. a year and under; but they might easily be provided for out of the contin|gencies of the year; and a few other places are of too great importance and service to the state to undergo any diminution, I mean the judges, upon whom I am so far from levying a double tax, that I would rather except them from all taxes whatsoever; for I think it a great dishonour and reproach to any government not to support their magistrates with splendor and dignity; and if any other exceptions should be thought proper, they might all be pro|vided for in the body of the bill. But upon places in general, a double tax is the true and just propor|tion to be observed; and that you may be fully satisfied that this amendment is not only founded upon reason but also upon precedent, I shall beg leave to refer you to an act of parliament made 29 and 30 Ch. II. when, for carrying on the war vigo|rously against France, 1s. in the pound was laid upon personal estates, and 3s. upon pensions; and it is amazing to me, how so wise and useful a law came to be so much neglected. Perhaps, Sir, some gentlemen might think it better to appropriate a greater share of the profits of places and pensions to the service of the war, which I am far from disap|proving of; and indeed I have heard, they have already done so in Spain and Turkey; but at present

I chuse rather to move it in this unexceptionable way to avoid all dispute, and to preserve that una|nimity which has hitherto so happily subsisted amongst us. The amendment, therefore, that I beg leave to offer is, to insert in the question, after the 4s. in the pound upon lands, &c. these words,

and the sum of eight shillings in the pound upon places and pensions.

CHAP. X. Of Qualifications for Members of Parliament.

THE wisdom of our ancestors, and their anxiety about the safety of the state, put them upon endeavouring, by all possible means, to prevent the mischiefs likely to arise from bribery and corrup|tion; and, for that purpose, suggested the necessity of place and pension-bills, as we have seen in the forego|ing chapter. To exclude corruption still more effec|tually, they added qualification-acts. They thought a member of parliament, who was himself a man of for|tune, would both be less liable to ministe••ial influence, as being above want, and likewise would be more soli|tous about the fate of his country, as having him|self a considerable prize at stake. On this subject, various views are to be taken, and various considerations to be attended to. Experience shews us, that men are not always more or less obnoxious to corruption according to their circumstances; and that their greediness of the public money regulates more by their dispositions than their fortunes. The man, who loves money, whether with a view to hoard or to dissi|pate it, is the dangerous man, either as an elector or

a member. And of the two, the spend thrift is more likely to sell his country for money, than the miser.

Again, it must be owned, that in the present dis|orderly state of things, qualification-acts are likely to be of advantage; for every little check on corruption is wanted, and all too little.

But if representation were put upon an adequate foot, the power of commissioning legislators so divided, that it would be impossible to fill the house by corrupt means (which it would be, if it were necessary to bribe 206,000, the major half of 410,000, instead of 5,723; see vol. i. p. 39, et seq.) and if parliaments were annual, with exclusion by rotation, &c. it would be of much less consequence, that electors and mem|bers were men in independent circumstances, than as things are now.

No minister would find it for his advantage to tempt either elector, or member; and if there were no buyer, there could be no sellers. The only advantage, which would then appear to kings, lords, commons, mini|sters, electors, members, &c. would be that of the public; and that advantage every man would plainly see he might as well pursue as not; because his own advantage would be included in that of the public; and he would find that he could no other way seek his own private advantage, than by consulting that of the public.

The Romans, in the republican times, shew, that they thought it useful to see that those, who were entrusted with the care of the general safety, should be men of property. Accordingly, the qualification of a Roman senator was 6458l. 6 s. 8 d. raised by Augustus to 9687 l. 10 s.—which if a senator impair|ed, he lost his seat * 1.323.

A quali••••••ation-bill was rejected by the lords, A. D. 1697. They thought the nation should be at liberty to chuse honest men, though poor, and pay them wages * 1.324.

The qualification-act, requiring members for coun|ties to be men of at least 600l. a year, and burgesses of 300l. in land, was passed in the year 1711. when the majority of the commons were tories * 1.325.

The de|sign, Burnet says, was to exclude merchants and tra|ders. But that, he thinks, was bad policy, because landed men are generally no judges of the interests of commerce, which is an object of great importance.

It was enacted 9 Anne, that every member for a county should have an estate at least for his own life of 600l. a year, and every member for city, or borough, 300l. (a most ridiculous difference! as all members have equal weight in the house) and that every elec|tion of a person not so qualified, should be void; every candidate, if called upon at his election, to be obliged to give in his estate upon oath. And the commons read twice a bill for explaining that act, and increa|sing the qualification of members * 1.326. It was dropped.

A. D. 1713. the commons, in a grand commitee, considered the act of the ninth year of her majesty's reign, intitled, An Act for securing the Freedom of Parliaments, by farther qualifying the Members to sit in the House of Commons; and came to the follow|ing resolutions:—

I. That notwithstanding the oath taken by any candidate on or after any election, his qualification may be afterwards examined into. II. That the person whose qualification is expressly objected to in any petition relating to his election, shall, within fifteen days after the petition read, give

to the clerk of the house of commons a paper signed by himself, containing a rental or particular of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments, whereby he makes out his qualification; of which any person concerned may have a copy. III. That of such lands, tenements, or hereditaments, whereof the party hath been in possession for three years before the election, he shall also insert in the same paper, from what person, and by what conveyance or act in law, he claims and derives the same; and also the considera|tion if any paid, and the names and places of abode of the witnesses to such conveyance and payment. IV. That if a sitting member shall think fit to question the qualification of a petitioner, he shall, within fif|teen days after the petition read, leave notice thereof in writing with the clerk of the house of commons; and the petitioner shall, within fifteen days after such notice, leave with the said clerk of the house the like account in writing of his qualification, as is required from a sitting member. * 1.327.

The eldest sons of peers, the members for the uni|versities, and the 45 members for North Britain, are exempted from the qualification-law. Yet I should think, it would not be easy to shew why any man, whether he be the son of a duke or a cobler, should be trusted in a station, where he is likely to be tempted, if he is in circumstances which render him obnoxious to temptation. Nor is it easy to imagine, why a member for Middlesex must shew his circum|stances to be above temptation, while a member for Clackmannan, whose vote weighs as heavy as any other's, may be a dependent beggar.

An estate, or income, for life only, is not a security against corruption. Yet it is admited as a qualifica|tion. But a member may be tempted to seek, by in|direct means, a provision for his family, who must come into distress after his death; if the income is for life only.

A. D. 1761, a bill was brought into parliament, by which it was proposed, it should be enacted, that every member, before he sat, or voted, should be obliged to give into the house of commons a rental or schedule of his estate, with all particulars, signed and sworn to, on pain of a severe fine in case of falsification, to be levied by any person suing for the same as an action for debt, in spite of privilege, &c. And, on every dimunition of his annual income, during the sitting of parliament, to give an account of the same to the house. Eldest sons, or heirs apparent of peers or lords of parliament, members for the two universities, and for Scotland, (for no known reason) to be excepted from this salu|tary regulation; as if 50 or 60 members obnoxious to bribery were no grievance.

But when this bill came to be passed into a law, it was so amended (the wrong way) that it might as well not have been passed. For, first, it was not to be in force, till the determination of the then sitting parliament; and besides, it was so whittled down, that a member might give in a mock schedule or ren|tal to the house, in the same manner as at his electi|on; and he could not be challenged concerning his qualification any more during that parliament: Where|as by the bill, as first proposed, it would have been very dangerous to give a mock-qualification for seven years; and members would have been at any time li|able to be accused of having reduced themselves to a condition obnoxious to bribery.

BOOK II. Of taxing the Colonies.

CHAP. I. That the Object, our Ministers have had in View in taxing the Colonies, was, enlarging the Power of the Court, by increasing the Number of Places and Pensions for their Dependants.

THE subject of our late broil with our colonies, the greatest evil that has arisen in the state for these many centuries past, is doubly entitled to a place in a work which contains an enquiry into public abuses, both as being itself one of the grossest abuses, and also as being particularly the consequence of par|liamentary corruption.

It is the exorbitant voraciousness of the court-tools, the great number of those needy persons, and the fear our ministers are constantly subject to, from the hos|tility of their opponents, with the consciousness, that they hold their places by the tenure of interest, and not of merit; that has lately misled our ministry into the most fatal measure of laying taxes upon our colo|nies, who have no representation in the house of commons which taxes them. Our ministers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 made a breach perhaps never to be closed; they

have opened a wound perhap•• never more to be healed—all to get a few more places for their wretched de|pendents.

Upon the modern plan of government, viz. Buying every necessary vote, a British ministry must be so dis|tressed for money, as to be at any time ready to dig up the very foundations of Pandaemonium, if they thought there were either gold or diamonds to be found in that soil. Ye••, when Walpole was at his wit's end for money to stop the mouths of his harpies, it was suggested to him, that the colonies could afford to pay taxes as well as the mother country, and that from thence a large income might in time be raised for the use of elec|tioneering and pensioning, and that there might be many good posts and places ••stabli••hed in the colonies for the advantage of the court-tools; even Walpole had, on that occasion, some consideration. He an|swered to those, who made this proposal, That the colonists, by the profits of our trade with them, enabled us to pay our taxes, which was the same as paying taxes to the mother country; and that, by the restrictions, under which we have laid their commerce, all their money com••s to the mother-country; and the mother-country can at most have but their all. His successors, however, have seen this object in a different light, and have considered a small advantage to themselves as of more consequence than a great be|nefit to the public. But so long as we see such villain|ous uses made of the public money by our ministers, we ought to discourage all the arts we see them using for bringing money into the treasury, or increasing their own influence, and therefore we ought to oppose their taxing the colonies, as an abuse, in which we are deeply concerned, and which may prove fatal to ••s, as well as to the colonists.

Bad ministers always shew an inclination for multi|plying taxes. It gives an opportunity for them to embezzle; for in much handling of money, some will stick to the fingers. And a bad ministry want, above all things, money, to dole about, in order to keep in power. If they gain their present point, the spoils of the colonies will help up the supplies, and the in|fluence of the court will be increased; they will have more trumpeters to defend their measures; success will sanctify rapine and bribery; the free spirit of the colonists (who seem at present to possess a larger measure of that virtue, than the mother-country) will be broken by the iron rod of oppression; and Cor|ruption, like another leud Cleopatra, as described by Dryden,

(Her galley down the silver Cydnos row'd, Her tacklings silk; the streamers wav'd in gold, &c.)

will sail in triumph through the whole British empire in Europe, Asia and America; her false and sophisticate charms will bewitch all eyes, and debauch all hearts, and all will be willing to sell their country, if a pur|chaser can be found.

It is not yet, but it will soon be, too late to ward off this horrible ruin.

In the year 1754, when our profound govern|ment, always too busy in the wrong place, pro|posed to tax the colonies by act of parliament, and to direct the governors to concert measures for their defence against the French, instead of leaving both to the colonists themselves, this wise scheme was communicated by governor Shirley to a gen|tleman of Philadelphia, then in Boston, who has very eminently distinguished himself, before and since that time, in the philosophical world, and whose judgment, penetration and candour, as well as his

readiness and ability to suggest, or carry into exe|cution every scheme of public utility, have most deservedly endeared him, not only to his fellow-sub|jects over the whole American continent, but to mul|titudes on this side the Atlantic, and now suffers for that integrity which should have procured him reward. This sagacious gentleman (whose friendship the col|lector of these papers will ever account one of the most fortunate circumstances of his life) sent the governor a set of remarks, of which the following are the heads; and which do almost exhaust the subject.

That the people always bear the burden best, when they have, or think they have, some share in the direction.

That when public measures are generally distasteful to the people, the wheels of government must move more heavily.

That excluding the people of America from all share in the choice of a grand council for their own defence, and taxing them in parliament, where they have no representative, would probably give extreme dissatisfaction. [How soundly this extraordinary per|son judged of the sentiments of the colonists, let the history of the subsequent proceedings of our incorri|gible government in attempting, in spite of this wise premonition, to tax them in parliament, bear witness.]

That there was no reason to doubt the willingness of the colonists to contribute for their own defence.

That the people themselves, whose all was at stake, could better judge of the force necessary for their defence, and of the means for raising money for the purpose, than a British parliament at so great a dis|tance.

That natives of America would be as likely to con|sult wisely and faithfully for the safety of their native

country, as the governors sent from Britain, whose object is generally to make fortunes, and then return home, and who might therefore be expected to carry on the war against France rather in a way, by which themselves were likely to be gainers, than for the greatest advantage of the cause.

That compelling the colonies to pay money for their own defence, without their consent, would shew a suspicion of their loyalty, or of their regard for their country, or of their common sense, and would be treating them as conquered enemies, and not as free Britons, who hold it for their undoubted right not to be taxed but by their own consent, given through their representatives.

That parliamentary taxes, once laid on, are often continued after the necessity for laying them on, ceases; but that, if the colonists were trusted to tax themselves, they would remove the burden from the people, as soon as it should become unnecessary for them to bear it any longer.

That, if parliament is to tax the colonies, their assemblies of representatives may be dismissed as use|less.

That taxing the colonies in parliament for their own defence against the French, is not more just, than it would be to oblige the cinque ports, and other coasts of Britain, to maintain a force against France, and to tax them for this purpose, without allowing them representatives in parliament.

That the colonists have always been indirectly taxed by the mother country (besides paying the taxes necessarily laid on by their own assemblies) inasmuch as they are obliged to purchase the manufactures of Britain, charged with innumerable heavy taxes; some of which

manufactures they could make, and others could pur|chase cheaper at other markets.

That the colonists are besides taxed by the mother country, by being obliged to carry great part of their produce to Britain, and accept a lower price than they might have at other markets. The difference is a tax paid to Britain.

That the whole wealth of the colonists centres at last in the mother country, which enables her to pay her taxes.

That the colonists have, at the hazard of their lives and fortunes, extended the dominions, and increased the commerce and riches of the mother country, [so much that in Iosh Gee's time, it was reckoned, that our colony trade was almost the only commerce, by which we were gainers] that therefore the colonists do not deserve to be deprived of the native right of Britons, the right of being taxed only by representa|tives chosen by themselves.

That an adequate representation in parliament would probably be acceptable to the colonists, and would best unite the views and interests of the whole empire.

A headstrong minister made afterwards so good use of these masterly observations, as to improve upon the stupidity of the blind pilots of 1754. For he almost set America in arms, by proposing to tax them in a time of peace, the money to be applied, not to their defence, but to the general purpose of all the British taxes, the support of a standing army, and gorging the rapacity of the state-bloodsuckers. He had the influ|ence afterwards to obtain a parliamentary confutation of the colonists doctrine, and a declaration, that

the king and parliament of Great-Britain ••ad, have, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to

make laws and statutes of sufficient force to bind the colonies, and his majesty's subjects in them, in all cases whatsoever;

and consequently in the case of taxation without representation. This was literally Pope's divine right of governing wrong. And the wor|thy gentleman above referred to, being asked in the house of commons, what he thought of the declaration, answered frankly, He thought it, and supposed that all

the colonists would think it, arbitrary and unjust.

Some of their blundering doings our profound mini|sters were afterwards obliged to undo, to the diver|sion of three kingdoms, and the colonists.

Grenville would have considered, had he been a man of conceptions large enough for a tradesman's clerk, that by confining our colonists to trade only with us, we make them pay our taxes, without directly laying upon them any internal tax. For, if half our manu|facturers are maintained by them, do they not pay the taxes, which we charge upon those manufacturers? Does not the consumer pay the whole charge of the article he consumes? But that short-sighted politician exclaimed, that our chargeable colonies ought not to expect immunity from those taxes, which come so heavy upon us, and of which charge a great part is occasioned by the defence of our colonies. Would Grenville then have approved of our getting rid of this chargeable appendage? I believe the French would have thanked him for a part of the incumbrance, and I believe his own countymen would have ••orn him to pieces, if he had proposed alienating any part of what all considerate persons know to be of inestimable ad|vantage to us, if we do not, by injustice and false policy, disappoint ourselves of the advantage.

The object which a commercial nation ought to have always in view, is the enlargement and establish|ment

of its commerce: nor is there any plan more promising for this purpose, than that of colonising. For colonists proceeding originally from a mother country, come into the world with a prejudice for that country, which will naturally lead them, in the con|duct of their commerce, to favour that country above all others; and this happy prejudice can only be di|minished, or eradicated, by ill usage on the part of the mother country. Nothing brooks constraint so little as commerce: nothing is more delicate, nothing more spontaneous. Whatever proceedings of the mother country therefore break in upon the freedom of com|merce, defeat the very intention of colonising, and overthrow it to the foundation. By this rule let the wisdom of our ministers in taxing the colonies be judged of, or rather the distress they are in for a lit|tle money, and a few posts and places for their crea|tures.

CHAP. II. Our Colonies of great Advantage, and therefore deserv|ed better Treatment.

GRENVILLE's party, in order to defend their own folly in opening a breach between the mother-country and the colonies, endeavoured to depreciate the value of the colonies to Britain, and to shew, that were we even to lose them, the damage would not be great. They pretended, that colonies are naturally prejudicial to the populousness of a mother-country. But they only exposed their own ignorance. Devenant, if they had ever read him, (and they must be deep politicians who never read that

capital author) would have saved them the trouble of falling into this absurdity.

It will peradventure (says that masterly writer) be a great security and encou|ragement to those industrious people

[the colonists] if a declaratory law were made, That Englishmen have right to all the laws of England, while they remain in countries subject to the dominion of this kingdom * 1.328. The colonists, the noble discoveries and settlers of a new world, from whence, as from an endless source, wealth and plenty, and the means of power and grandeur unknown to former ages, have been pouring into Europe these three hundred years!' What encouragement, what security do they not de|serve to enjoy! With the design of setting up, and keeping up a standard, in favour of civil and religious liberty, did the heroic ancestors of the colonists fly from persecution in their native country; they crossed the vast Atlantic; they pierced those woods where no humanised foot from the creation had trod; they roused the deadly serpent in his hole, the savage beast in his den, and the brutal Indian in his thicket; they encountered all the danger and difficulties of forming those settlements which have made the British empire what it is.

Generally speaking (says Devenant * 1.329) our colo|nies, while they have English blood in their veins, and have relations in England, and while they can get by trading with us, the stronger and greater they grow, the more this crown and kingdom will get by them; and nothing but such an arbitrary power a•• shall make them desperate, can bring them to rebel.

Colonies do not naturally produce depopulation in the mother country; but rather the contrary. For

many individuals emigrating, cause cheapness for those, who stay behind. They marry, and carry on popu|lation. The mother country thus coming to swarm with people, they find themselves obliged to cultivate trade and manufactures, &c.

Devenant accordingly shews* 1.330, that England is grown both more popolous and richer, since the improvement of the colonies, than before; that, particularly, from the restoration to the revolution, viz. 28 years, the number of inhabitants was increased 900,000. What indeed has increased the wealth and power of the na|tion so much beyond queen Elizabeth's 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but the colonies?

"We cannot but wonder, says that excellent author, at their policy who were the first promoters of that law in 1693, which puts a difficulty upon, and re|strains the sale of any plantation or parcel of land in America to foreigners; whereas indeed we should in|vite and encourage aliens to plant in the West-Indies, whereby the crown gains subjects, and the nation gets wealth by the labour of others. This statute does peradventure want revising. And countries that take no care to encourage an accession of strangers, in a course of time will find plantations of pernicious consequence. It may be computed that there have gone from England to the West-Indies for many years by a medium about 1800 persons annually; but then there is reason to think, that for some time the perse|cutions abroad have brought over to us by a medium about 500 foreigners every year; and there are grounds to believe, that for these last 20 years the West-Indies

have sent us back annually about 300 persons of their offspring with this advantage, that the fathers went out poor, and the children came home rich. But if such measures should hereafter be taken as will hinder the accession of strangers, or discourage the planters from returning back; then these colonies would drain us every year of 1800 persons.

We shall shew, that the plantations are a spring of wealth to this nation; that they work for us; that their treasure centres all here; and that the laws have tied them fast enough to us; so that it must be through our own faul••, and mismanagement, if they become independent of England.

Sir Iosiah Child, thinks, the New-Englanders, in his times, consumed ten times the value, in English manu|factures, of what they sent to England. Yet he reckons New-England the least advantageous of all the colonies. He thinks, two thirds of all the English shipping was, in his time, employed in the American trade, meaning chiefly the continental colonies.

Postlethwayte thinks half the English manufactures go to America.

At the time of the stamp-act, it was computed, that the Americans owed Britain four millions sterling: A proof of a prodigious commerce.

The king, A. D. 1721, recommended encouraging the colonies to furnish naval stores, which would not only be advantageous otherwise to both countries, but would divert the colonists from setting up, and carry|ing on manufactures, which directly interfere with those of Britain * 1.331.

A. D. 1723, the exports to Pennsylvania were 15,992l. In 1742, they were increased to 75,295 l. From 1744 to 1748 inclusive, our whole Exports to America.

Northern Colonies. £.		West-India Islands. £.
1744, 640,114		796,112
5, 534,316		503,669
6, 754,945		472,994
7, 726,648		886,463
8, 830,243		734,095
Total 3,486,266		3,363,333
	Difference	122,933
	Total	3,486,266

From 1754 to 1758, inclusive.

Northern Colonies £.		West-India Islands. £.
1754, 1,246,615		685,675
5, 1,177,848		694,667
6, 1,428,720		733,458
7, 1,727,924		776,488
8, 1,832,948		877,571
Total 7,414,055		3,767,859
	Difference	3,646,196
	Total	7,414,055

From this view of our whole exports to our American colonies, it appears, that our trade to the islands 27 years ago, viz. A. D. 1744 amounted to 796,112l. and thirteen years ago, viz. A. D. 1758, to 877,571l.

That in 1744 our whole exports to the continent of America amounted to 640,114l. but in 1758 to 1,832,948 l. So that in 14 years, viz. from 1744 to 1758, our ••sland trade has been neither much increased nor diminished; but that our trade to the continent was in the same period increased almost three-fold. And in the year 1758, we had not got possession of all North-America. For the peace, by which we have excluded the French from all that part of the continent, which is east of the Mississippi, and are become masters of a territory, whose extent baffles arithmetic, was made in 1703. Supposing our trade to the continent of America to increase at the same rate, which nothing was likely to hinder, but our enraging our colonists by Grenville's mad and unjust project of taxing them, without representation, it is evident, that this alone would have been an inexhaustible, and endless fund of trade. For, if in the last of the above quoted years, viz. 1758, our trade was increased three-fold beyond what it was 14 years before, it was to be expected, that in another period of 14 years, viz. A. D. 1772, the present year, it should be again increased more than three-fold, because our dominion, and number of people in the continent, have received an addition from an extraordinary cause, viz. the peace of 1763. If so, the amount of our exports to the continent of America, in 1772, ought to be 5,498,844l. And in 14 years more 16,496,532 l. So that, if the fatal Grenville had never been born,

—patriae et Trojae communis Errinys.

VIRG.

here was a fund of trade, which might have employed more manufacturing hands, than would have made this island as populous as Holland. For many ages will be past, before manufactures can come to be cultivated in

America to any such effect as to supersede those of the mother-country. Because for many ages to come, it will be more advantageous for the working people to take land, settle, and marry, than to be journey|men manufacturers. Which likewise secures a pro|digious and still growing and accomulating increase of people. It is found, that, on the continent of America, the number of the people is at least doubled every twenty years. Therefore, if the number of British people on the continent of America be now two millions, (I put the lowest computation) twenty years hence it will be four millions. Let the reader only consider one moment, what sort of head that m••n must have had, who could think of risquing the loss of four millions of customers for the manufactures of his country—all for the sake—of making a few places for collectors, and commissioners of duties and taxes, that he might have somewhat to stop the Cerberian barking of a pack of hungry court-curs. Statesm••n have no right to expect our putting a more candid construction upon their proceedings. If they really meant the public good, we should see them aiming at the pub|lic good; we should see the national debt lessened, the army reformed, the number of places and pen|sions reduced, &c.—But to return.

More than one-fourth part of the English ship|ping is supposed to be employed in the trade to America * 1.332.

The excellent Dr. Franklin says, the force of the American privateers in the last war, was greater, as to both men and guns, than all queen Elizabeth's royal navy * 1.333. He thinks Britain can want no trade, but

with her American colonies, which must be continu|ally increasing.

I am aware, that, in diminution of the value of our colonies, the Grenville party have alledged, that the colonists, are very deeply indebted to us, and that they have ever shewn a backwardness to acquit them|selves of those just debts; so that our commerce with them is much less to be desired. But is it not no|torious, that for many ages together the mother-country had no shadow of complaint of this kind against the colonies; and that the first cause of the interruption of payments from America was our mi|nister's stopping the trade between our colonists and the Spaniards in that part of the world.

Such have our colonies been to us, and such, and more than we can imagine, they would have been to us.

And now it is a favourite object with us, to enslave and destroy those whom we ought both from gratitude and prudence, to support and cherish. For, whilst I am writing these lines, Hear, O Heavens, and give ear, O Earth; or rather may the memory of the transaction be annihilated both from heaven and earth—At this very hour, we are meditating to deprive the city of Boston of its port during an unlimited period, by which 25,000 people are to be punished, many thousands utterly beggared, and a loss of half a mil|lion brought upon the inhabitants of that great city for a riot committed by certain individuals unknown; the inhabitants offering to make up the damages. We are proposing to punish the innocent with the guilty, and to punish the guilty for acting somewhat outra|geously, after we ourselves had by our tyranny put them out of their wits.

In the NEWS PAPERS of April, 1774, was pub|lished the following comparison between the proceed|ings

of government against Boston in New-England, for a riot committed there by persons unknown, and the proceedings of government against the city of Edin|burgh, on account of a riot, A. D. 1737, in which captain Porteous, of the town-guards, was, by persons to this hour unknown, taken out of prison, and put to death, for the slaughter of several people at an exe|cution, for which he was condemned as a murderer, and afterwards reprieved by the queen regent, the king being abroad.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

Edinburgh,

Began the 10th of Feb. 17••7, and ended the 21st of Iune, having continued near four months.

The provost and magi|strates of Edinburgh, the judges of Scotland, and many other witnesses ex|amined at the bar.

Counsel and evidence for the magistrates and city fully heard at the bar.

Two members for Edin|burgh, forty-five for Scot|land in the lower house, and sixteen in the upper house.

Charge—An overt act of rebellion, and an atro|cious murder—proved on a full hearing, and by competent evidence.

Frequent conferences held between the two houses to compare the evi|dence, &c.

Punishment—A fine of 2000 l.

for proof, see the JOUR|NALS of the Lords and Commons in 1737, and the BILL against Edin|burgh.

Boston,

Began the 14th, and ended the 31st of March, 1774, being in all seven|teen days.

Witnesses examined at the privy council, and their evidence suppressed.

The agent refused a hearing at the bar.

Not one member for Boston in either house, nor for all or any part of Ame|rica, nor even a voice in electing one.

Charge—A riot and trespass—no evidence, and no hearing.

Not one conference.

Punishment—The loss of their port, to the injury of the town, at the lowest and most favourable esti|mate, of 500,000 l. the restoration of their port, and of the use of their property, left at the king's mercy, after they shall have paid for the tea the full price, and all damages, to the amount, we may pre|sume, of 30,000 l.

JOURNALS of the Lords and Commons 1774, and the BOSTON PORT BILL.

CHAP. III. The Colonies, though so valuable to Britain, have been greatly oppressed by the Mother Country.

EVERY act of authority of one man

[or body of men]

over another, for which there is not an absolute necessity, is tyrannical * 2.1.

Our colonists have long complained, that we have needlessly hampered and restricted their trade; that, like awkward parents, we have exerted too much au|thority over our children; while the whole art of ma|naging them consisted in letting them alone.

The colonists complain, that the governors we send them are generally needy men, whom we send thither chiefly to fill their pockets; that both governors and judges depend more upon the British court than upon the people whom they are to govern and to judge; that our court gives authority to the commissioners of customs to appoint and pay, at the expence of the people, without their consent, as many officers as they please, to the multiplication of placemen, the plun|dering the people, and the danger of liberty; that the whole people of America are put to expence and trouble merely to put a little money in the pockets of a few Portugueze merchants in England. The colo|nists must not import directly from Portugal even a little oil or fruit, without having them loaded with the expences of a voyage three thousand miles round by England, which, in war time, increases every arti|cle 30 per cent. and imporishes the colonies. They

must not make a nail, a penknife, or a hat. We empty our jails on them, and fill their country with our rogues and thieves. We oblige their assemblies to provide quarters for our soldiers, and find them firing, bedding, candles, small beer, or rum, salt, vinegar, &c. at the expence of the provinces, in a time of profound peace, though they have little occasion for a military force at any time, being themselves all trained to arms. The colonists were, however, so pleased at the removal of the stamp-act, that they agreed to the quartering of troops, hoping that it would be only a temporary grievance. But that they might not give place to authority where it was unconstitutional, they made acts of their own assemblies, leaving out some of the small articles, as salt and vinegar. Even this was found to be rebellion, and the province of New-York had its assembly annihilated for the offence.

The house of representatives of Massachuset's-Bay petitioned the king to remove Sir Fr. Bernard, their governor; because, amongst other things, he had misrepresented the colonists to the ministry in such a manner, that it was thought necessary to send a mili|tary force among them (Instead of sending them sol|diers, they should have removed grievances.) Those military men turned the assembly room into a barrack for the common soldiers, and planted the centinels in such a manner, that the councellors and justices of the courts were interrupted and challenged in passing on their business. They endeavoured to quarter their troops in the town of Boston, while the barracks were useless. He dissolved the assembly at the most improper time, and arbitrarily refused to call another, though often petitioned for ten months together.

The colonists complain of general warrants, under which any officer or servant of the customs may

break open any man's house, closet, chest, &c. at pleasure; of our court's establishing the arbitrary and oppressive power of the excise laws in the customs; of appointing judges, during pleasure, to try all reve|nue causes without jury; of compelling his majesty's subjects in all revenue matters to take their trials in any of the colonies, however distant from their respective habitations, where their characters are known; of a secretary of state's sending a requisition to the assembly at Boston, with threats, tending to force their determinations, which ought to be free; of threatening and punishing the American assemblies for petitioning the king, though the act of settlement expressly secures this right to the subject; of misap|plying several American revenues; of impowering the crown to seize and send over to Britain, for trial, those of the colonists who become obnoxious to the court, without legal indictment, or bill found by jury; of suspending the legislative power of the province of New-York, so as to destroy that freedom of debate and determination which is the necessary, unalienable, and constitutional right of such assemblies, &c.

Governor Bernard complains heavily and repeatedly, that the election of the council at Boston in New Eng|land, gives the people too much power* 2.2. What idea, upon the principle of salus populi, can be formed of too much power in the hands of the people? Suppose a people should chuse to keep all the power in their own hands, and delegate none? Oh, then, we the court, must be content to be a part of the people, and have no opportunity of wallowing in wealth and pleasure, and raising great fortunes from the spoils of the industrious.

So Walpole opposed all reformations of parliamen|tary abuses; because they tended to throw too much power into the hands of the people. This is the true spirit of courts and court-tools; and they, who can|not see the cloven foot, when thus uncovered to the knee, must obstinately shut their eyes.

Dr. Franklin, in his examination before the house of commons, declared, that the causes of the British parliament's having lost, in great part, the respect of the colonists, were, the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of gold and silver into the colonies was prevented, the pro••ibition of paper-money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps, taking away at the same time trial by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions * 2.3.

Governor Bernard of New-England, having refused to call a legal assembly of representatives, as above hinted, the people of a great many towns sent to Boston commissioners to meet and treat of public affairs, and prevent anarchy and confusion; but disclaiming all authoritative or governmental designs or acts. This committee of convention petitioned governor Bernard for a regular assembly as usual. The gover|nor would not receive the petition, because that would have been acknowledging the legality of the committee of convention, which drew it up. He afterwards sent them a message, that he could not suffer them to continue sitting, after the assembly of the province was, by authority, dissolved and forbid|den to sit; and that the committee of convention was, to all intents and purposes, an assembly under a dif|ferent name. He therefore warns them of the con|sequences.

The committee of convention afterwards remonstrated to the governor against lodging troops in the city, while there were barracks fit for receiv|ing them, and not full, as contrary to act of parlia|ment. The committee of convention afterwards pub|lished a manifesto, signifying, that the design of their meeting was to preserve the peace, and to petition the king in favour of the province, that a regular assembly might be called, and grievances redressed. The members of the council of the province of Mas|sachusets Bay addressed general Gage, commander of the forces sent to Boston, excusing their own conduct, and the disturbances in Boston, and begging that the military might be moved to the Barracks.

I believe they, who are so violent for loading our poor fellow subjects in America with taxes, would think themselves hardly used, if they were hampered in their manufactures and commerce by a people beyond the occean, in the same manner as the colo|nists are by us in many instances, severe, useless, and impolitic. Such are our restraining them from the use of slitting mills and steel furnaces; our prohibit|ing them the cutting of white pines; our regula|tions, which oblige them to bring to us all their pro|ducts, though they might find better markets else|where; which is obliging them to sell to us all their products at our own price; and those other regula|tions, by which they are prohibited manufacturing many necessary articles, or purchasing them of other nations, only that they may be obliged to have them of us at an advanced price; for we can afford no goods but at an advanced price, loaded as we are with 140 millions of debt, the interest of which, amounting to above 5 millions per annum, must be raised in great part out of the profits of our trade.

Thus we make the poor colonists sell to us as cheap as we please, and purchase our goods as dear as we please. This alone is taxing them with a vengeance.

The Carthaginians obliged the people of Sardinia (vae victis!) to buy corn of them exclusively, at the price they set upon it: but we do not hear that those tyrannical conquerors forced the enslaved Sardinians to sell them their products at a price of their own fixing; while we impose this law, not on the con|quered Welsh or Irish, or the once restless and rebel|lious Scotch; but on our colonists, our once tractable and obedient children, to whom we are under greater obligations than to Scotch, Irish, and Welch, all put together.

The colonists complain, that their trade is peculi|arly restricted by laws made in a parliament, in which they are not represented; that they are taxed in the same parliament; therefore have no opportunity of giving, or with-holding, their consent; which pro|duces a confusion of taxes, as their own assemblies are obliged to lay on taxes for defraying the necessary expences of their respective provinces, at the same time that the mother-country may be laying on other taxes so heavy, that both together may be beyond the abilities of the people. They complain of being obliged to find quarters, firing, bedding, candles, rum, &c. for the army, though they are obliged to keep up a militia of their own. That their money raised without and contrary to their consent, is to be applied, likewise, without and contray to their appro|bation, viz. in paying the salaries of governors, judges, and other officers appointed by the court, and remov••able at its pleasure. They affirm, that several of their original charters are, by late laws, set aside; so that the settlers are deceived out of the

privileges, on the faith of which they first left their native country, crossed the ocean, and established those colonies, which have been of so great value to the mother-country. They complain of having been restrained by the ministry from the privilege of peti|tioning against these oppressions, and having their assemblies annihilated for doing what the Bill of Rights allows to every Englishman; a stretch of power very much resembling that of Ch. II. in seizing the char|ter of the city of London.

The act of parliament, by which the stamp-act was repealed, asserted a power in king, lords, and com|mons to tax the colonies. But it seems, the secre|tary of state alone has power to dissolve, annihilate, and interdict their assemblies. Thus, if our proceed|ings against America are viewed on one side, the colo|nists are subject to king, lords, and commons; if, on the other, the secretary of state alone is their master.

Can it be with a favourable design to the colonies, that the ministry always recommend to the governors, who are generally their creatures, to obtain permanent salaries for the government-offices? Is there any bet|ter means for securing good behaviour in officers, than putting them upon the foot of quamdiu se bene gesse|rint? Stopping supplies our ancestors thought the only sure way to obtain redress of grievances. Give the American governors and other officers permanent sa|laries, so as they shall be independent on the people, and you give them the hint to erect themselves into petty despots and tyrants.

The colonists have long complained, that we need|lessly hamper their trade with the ports of Europe. Why may not, say they, the colonists be allowed to fetch and carry in their own ships, to and from the several ports of Europe, whatever articles do not inter|fere

with the trade of the mother-country? Are the people of Britain afraid, lest the colonists be too thriv|ing? They will only, in that case, be the better customers to the mother-country. For the more luxurious they grow, the more they will want of the British manufactures, unless we drive them to other shops by our ill usage, or exorbitant prices. Nothing requires more to be free and unconfined than com|merce.

The duty of 3 d. per gallon on melasses, they say, is more than the article will bear, and therefore ope|rates as a prohibition; stopping their exportation of horses, lumber, flour, and fish, to the French and Dutch colonies; and the vent for them in England and the West-Indies is not sufficient to take them off. The stopping the exportation of melasses into the continen|tal colonies, hinders their distilling, and is a prejudice to the rum-trade with Africa, and throws it into the hands of the French, and hurts the fishery. There used to be imported into Rhode-Island only 1,150,000 gallons of melasses annually; the duty upon which is 14,375 l. sterling, a larger sum than ever was in circulation at any one time in the colony. The money to be sent out, never to return. How is this drain to be kept running? If the colonies be, by our clumsy laws, disabled from purchasing British manu|factures, who will be the gainers? The restricting of the colonists from sending their products to better and more convenient markets, than Britain, is a loss to Britain of all the difference; for all the profits, the colonists get, have always come to Britain; and the more considerable their profits, the better for the mother-country.

The courts of vice-admiralty, they say, are a great grievance. A custom-house-officer may seize, for

what he calls probable cause, in Georgia, and carry the trial to Halifax, 1500 miles. The unfor|tunate owner of the seized goods must follow. When arrived there, out of the reach of his friends and acquaintance, he must give bond, else he cannot reclaim his goods. If the judge, perhaps with ini|quitous views, pronounces, that there was probable cause for seizing them, the unhappy man may be ruined, and all his comfort will be the same with that of the sick man, who dies, secundum artem, of the doctor, that he is undone according to act of parlia|ment. The patience of the colonists, for so many years, under such severe laws, deserved at our hands other treatment than we have lately regaled them with.

CHAP. IV. Precedents respecting Colonies.

THE conquered nations generally had each a protector in the Roman senate, as the Allobroges had for their patron Quintius Fabius Sanga, and they were wont to send ambassadors to Rome * 2.4. Our American colonies, though not conquered countries, have, constitutionally, no person in our senate to plead their cause, when we lay taxes on them, without knowing whether they are able to bear them. For the house of commons receives no petitions on money-bills, because it is to be supposed, every place, that is taxed, is represented by a member, or members. The rebellions of the Germans, Pannonians, &c. in

Augustus's time, were owing chiefly to the extortion of the governors set over them, by the Romans. A lesson for our instruction with respect to our colonies * 2.5. And see Tully's orations against VERRES, praetor of Sicily.

King Iohn IV. of Portugal (formerly duke of Bra|ganza) consulting the states about raising two millions for the war with Spain, for the preservation of their lately recovered liberties, they desired the king to give out an edict for raising them in whatever way he pleased. But that magnanimous prince answered,

That he would have no money, but by the grant of his people.

The people immediately raised him four millions * 2.6.

The city of Ghent refused, about 200 years ago, to pay its quota of a tax, laid on in the states of the united provinces, because, they pretended, they had a stipulation with Charles's ancestors, that they were to pay no tax, unless they gave their express consent to the laying it on. It was answered, that the subsidy was granted by the states of Flanders, in which their representatives sat. They resist; and are totally de|prived of their liberties by Charles* 2.7.

The Spanish Netherlands were taxed last century by the imperial court under the denomination of the cir|cle of Burgundy. But this was thought unjust, be|cause they were subject to the states of the united pro|vinces, and were taxed by their own government, as the Americans by their assemblies; so that they must have had the charges of two governments to defray, if they submitted to the imperial tax; which was

imposed on the pretext, of their having a voice in the council of the empire; whereas the Americans have no voice in the British Parliament. They refused to submit to the imperial taxation * 2.8.

The Spaniards do not make the best of their colo|nies. They give their gold to the industrious nations for those manufactures, which themselves should make, and which would have rendered them a great maritime power * 2.9. Philip II. by sending vast sums into the Netherlands when carrying on his wars, enriched those countries, and made them powerful against himself. Thus the Spaniards are only factors for the rest of Europe. The king and grandees only see the gold, and then spread it all over the industrious nations, and their poor are the poorest in the world. The Spani|ards have several times made attempts towards a spirit of manufactures, but wars have interrupted them. And now, 1771, it has been said, that the king has sent two merchants to travel through all Europe, and learn manufactures and commerce. The continual importation of metal into Europe, must in time defeat its own intention. Specie is now 32 times less valua|ble, than when the Spaniards discovered America * 2.10.

Batavia is more populous than Holland; yet conti|nues subject to Holland, and of prodigious advantage to the mother country. Why then should we dread the defection or rebellion of our colonists, unless we mean to force them upon it?

Portugal holds almost her existence by her posses|sions in Brasil * 2.11.

Every nation in Europe gains by colonising, the Spaniards excepted.

The once prodigious power of the Portuguese in the East, dwindled through the corrupt, effeminate, and unjust conduct of the viceroys they sent to Goa * 2.12.

The viceroy of Manilla continues in office only three years. His successor has power to examine him rigorously. Sometimes the successor has let himself be tampered with; to prevent which the people have taken the trial and punishment of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 governors into their own hands * 2.13. If the people wish their business done, the sure way is to do it themselves.

Davenant, II.8, thinks, the only danger we are to guard against, respecting our colonies is, their becom|ing powerful at sea; because, while we are their masters in naval force, we can secure their obedience to our commercial laws. But surely, in all cases of commerce, there is somewhat necessary, besides mere compulsory government. We may oblige our colo|nists to submit to our laws, and be very little the better for our colonies, if there be not a cordiality kept up between them and us.

CHAP. V. Of Taxation without Representation.

IT appears by Chap. III. above, that our colonists have at all times had sufficient ground of complaint against the mother-country; and that if they had been of that turbulent disposition, and as desirous of shak|ing off the connexion with us, as the Grenvillians falsely pretend, they must have given repeated proofs of those bad dispositions. On the contrary, we know, that no

people ever were more peacable, or better affected, than the colonists have all alone shewn themselves; 'till we bethought ourselves of insulting them with taxes imposed upon them by our parliament, in which they have no representation, and with the direct design of raising money upon them for our own advantage.

To impose taxes, is one of the most dangerous parts of a king's, or government's business.

Periculos•••• plenum opus aleae Tractas, et incedis per ignes Suppositoa cineri doloso. HO••.

New taxes have raised sundry rebellions, and dis|turbances in England, as 9 Edw. III. 4 Rich. II. 9 Hen. VI. 4. Hen. VII. 16 Hen. VIII. &c. A parliament was summoned, 39 Hen. III. A demand was made by the court. The commons thought it exorbitant. Would grant nothing, so much were they offended; though they assembled with the design of granting. So the people of Carolina lately, at the very time, when they were expressing great rage against the government's proposing to tax them with|out representation, voluntarily taxed themselves, to a considerable value, to make a present to a person in England, whose public conduct pleased them. The Roman senate, when Hannibal was at their gates, knowing that people will do more voluntarily, than by force, for carrying on the war, proposed, not a tax, but a benovolence. The consequence was, that the Mensarii (tellers) could not receive the money, it c••••e in so fast.

Nothing produces so much ill-blood, as touching people's money. The malt-tax, in Scotland, A. D 1712, because thought contrary to the union, had almost broke the union, before it was 10 years old.

It was an unjust tax that produced the terrible insur|rection under Wat Tyler and Iack Straw, which had almost ovorturned the state. It was an injudicious tax that put the whole kingdom of Naples in confusion under Massaniello the fisherman. What effect the at|tempt to tax our own colonies may produce, remains to be seen—and felt. God forbid that it should equal the fears of wise and thoughtful men. To provoke three millions of people to their utmost rage, is no slight affair.

The two counties palatine of Chester and Durham, had (says Petyt, RIGHT OF THE COM. 45.) par|liaments of their own, before the conquest, and were not subject to any of the laws of the land, unless they agreed to them.

It was debated, A. D. 1621, whether the county palatine of Durham should have representation in par|liament, as the rest of England. It was agreed, that it should; but it did not pass into a law, 'till 25 Car. II. when it was settled, that the county should have two members, and the city of Durham two * 2.14.

Time was, when the city of Chester had no repre|sentation. The privilege of sending members was granted to that city,

because (says the act 35 Hen. VIII. c. 13. the inhabitants thereof have often been touched and grieved with acts and statutes made in parliament, as were deragatory unto the most antient jurisdiction, liberties, and privileges thereof, as preju|dicial unto the commonweal, quietness, and peace of his majesty's subjects.

In the same manner representation was granted to the bishoprick of Durham; and it was not taxed 'till represented in parliament.

Mr. Molyneux (the gentleman, I suppose, with whom Mr. Locke corresponded) wrote a pamphlet, A. D. 1698, to prove, that Ireland (though a con|quered country) ought not to be taxed by the English parliament * 2.15. In our times it is not. How much less our brave colonists, who never were conquered?

In the reign of Hen. III. says Devenant, we find where parliaments have not been consulted, they have not thought themselves obliged to pay the ex|pence; for as we learn from Mathew Paris, king Hen. held a parliament at Winchester, where he de|sired an aid from his people, in regard his own trea|sure had been exhausted with paying his sister's por|tion to the Emperor, and by his own wedding. The parliament replied, That these things had been done without advising with them, and without their con|sent; and seeing they were free from the fault, they ought not to participate of the punishment. The Poictovins, to serve their own turn, had at another time engaged him in an useasonable war with France; upon which he called a parliament, and desired an aid. The barons told him, he had undertaken it un|advisedly; and that his parliament wondered, he would undertake so difficult and dangerous a business, with|out their advice and assent.

In antient times, the lords have given the kings subsidies out of their own property. 13 Edw. III. the lords granted, for themselves, a tenth of all the corn growing upon their demesnes, the commons granting nothing at that time. At other times the knights of the shires, have granted separately from the other commoners; and at other times, the representa|tives of cities and boroughs have granted by them|selves.

But still they granted only what was their own to grant. They did not grant the property of people at the distance of 3000 miles, who had not one re|presentative among them.

Gee, in his excellent piece on trade, remonstrates against all measures, which tend to hamper our colo|nies. What would he have said, if he had been told, that the time would so soon come, when we should, with horror, see our administration eager to send an armed force to dragoon them into submission to unjust laws, by which their property was to be seized con|trary to their own consent, and those brave people by authority declared traitors, seditious, rebels, &c. for defending their property?

It has been said on the subject of taxing the colonists in parliament; Why may not the colonists be taxed by the same assembly, which has an unquestioned power of making laws for them? But this is a confused and undistinguishing way of reasoning. It is hard|ship enough on the colonies to find their commerce hampered by laws, in the making of which they had no hand, nor could even remonstrate against them, while they were under consideration. But there may be pretexts for making laws, whose operations may eventually bring inconvenience upon the colonists; while no pretext can justify taxing them, so long as they continue unrepresented. Legislation and tax|ation, are very different things. The lords cannot alter a letter in a money-bill, though they may amend any other. And it is always to the commons the king has recourse for supplies, and to whom he returns thanks for them. The reason is plain. The lords have no power over the property of the people. The members of the house of commons are the represen|tatives of the commons of England; and as such have

a delegated power to grant supplies out of the property of the commons. the lords may at any time raise a sum of money for the crown out of their own pro|perty; but they cannot grant out of the property of the commons, because the commons have given them no such power, and because they sit in parliament upon their own account, and not as representatives.

The British house of commons proposing to tax the unrepresented colonies in America involves, there|fore, in my opinion, some striking absurdities. What is, for instance, to be the business of the provincial assemblies of representatives in America, if the power of taxing the colonies be in the British parliament at Westminster? Is it not obvious, that these two powers are incompatible? It is notorious, that by their charters several, if not all the provinces have the right of laying on taxes. And how then is the provincial assembly of New-England, for example, to lay on a tax of half a crown in the pound, at the same time that, for ought that is known in New-England, the house of commons in Old England may be voting a tax upon the people of that province of seventeen and sixpence in the pound? If we may put any trust in the first rule in arithmetic, here is the whole pound gone. Again: What could be more absurd than the commons giving and granting what was neither their own property, nor that of their constituents, what they had no more right to give and grant, (no man can give away a free subject's property, but himself or his representative) than they had to give and grant the property of the people of Holland or France? Again: The king was, according to custom, to thank the commons for granting the American tax. But how was he to thank them? For sparing their own pockets, and taking out of those of the colonists against their

consent? Or was he to thank the colonists, who were to pay the money? Certainly not. They were to pay it against their inclination.

The taxing of the unrepresented colonies is so un|just, that were it ever so prudent, it ought not to be done. It is so impolitic, that were it ever so just, it ought not to be thought of.

If the king is to take at his pleasure, what have we to give?

was the common argument against Ch. Ist's raising money without consent of parliament; and may, with equal propriety, be used by our colonists against their being taxed by the British parliament, in which they have no representation.

Edw. I. summoning one of his parliaments, uses these words, Ut quod omnes tangit ab omnibus probetur. He would have them consult about public affairs,

that what concerns all, may be approved by all.

A sound maxim surely. But would our taxing the colonists contrary to their approbation, be acting upon this principle?

Some short-sighted defenders of the late oppressive measures taken with our American brethren have at|tempted to wheedle them into a persuasion, that their being taxed by the British parliament, in which three millions have not one representative, is no greater hardship than what is suffered by the mother country, in which, though representation, as I have shewn in the former volume, is as far from adequate, as can well be imagined; yet six millions have 558 representatives, and in which every man, woman, and child, by living in one county or other, is represented by one or two members, who cannot tax them without taxing them|selves, their children, their friends, dependents, tenants, &c. If the three millions of colonists had 279 representatives in parliament (the half of 558) it

might then be time to make comparisons between their case and that of the mother-country. Till then, or till they have some shadow of representation, nothing can be more absurd.

We have lately seen all England besetting the throne with complaints, that one county is deprived not of representation, but of one particular favourite indivi|dual, as one of their two representatives, while they may chuse any other individual upon the island in his place; and this not to perpetuity, but only during seven years at most; this we have lately seen, and we wonder, that three millions should complain, that they are to be taxed from age to age to whatever amount it may please the British parliament to impose on them, in which they have not the shadow of repre|sentative. Would they be the posterity of true Britons, if they did not complain of this?

The firmness shewn by the colonists against what to them is precisely the same oppression as to us it would be to have taxes laid on us by an edict from the throne, has, by very high authority, been pronounc|ed sedition and rebellion: but with all due submission to authority, (—truth and justice are above all autho|rity) when the illustrious Hampden resisted the law|ful sovereign's unlawful demand of only three shillings and four-pence, because he had no voice in consent|ing to the laying on the ship-tax, was he too guilty of sedition and rebellion? If he was, we are all rebels, but the jacobites; and our gracious king Geo. III. (whom God preserve) is an usurper; for the revolu|tion was brought about with the direct design of pre|venting any man's property being seized without his consent given either in person or by representative, which makes it the same to our colonists to be taxed by the parliament of Britain as by that of Paris.

Suppose the British parliament should imagine a tax to be paid exclusively by those who have no vote for members of parliament, as the people of Manchester, Ely, &c. Would not this be universally decried as the most flagrant partiality? Yet this would be more plausible than a British parliament's taxing America; because the members cannot be supposed competent judges of the abilities of the colonists to bear taxes; whereas they are undoubtedly judges of the ability of their own countrymen, whether voters or not. Again: Suppose the parishes in the county of Middlesex to send two representatives each to a parliament, or legislative assembly, excluding only that of Islington from repre|sentation. Suppose this legislative assembly to lay taxes on the unrepresented parish of Islington; Could it with any reason be expected, that the parishioners of Isling|ton should quietly submit to such gross abuse? Yet this would be less inconsistent with equity than a British parliament's taxing America, because the representa|tives of the other parishes of Middlesex must be sup|posed competent judges of the ability of the Islingto|nians; whereas the members of the British parlia|ment can be no judges of the ability of the colonists.

Magna Charta, and the Bill of Rights, prohibit the taxing of the mother-country by prerogative, and without consent of those who are to be taxed. If the people of Britain are not to be taxed, but by parlia|ment; because otherwise they might be taxed without their own consent; does it not directly follow, that the colonists cannot, according to Magna Charta, and the bill of rights, be taxed by parliament, so long as they continue unrepresented; because otherwise they may be taxed without their own consent?

At the time when the famous stamp-act of blessed memory was invented, the colonies were said to be in|debted

to Britain to the amount of no less than four millions, occasioned by their want of ability to make remittances, the consequence chiefly of our severe restraints on their commerce. The colonists are almost all farmers, wholly dependant on the produce of their lands, contented, and consequently happy; but in no condition to bear taxes, otherwise than by enabling us to pay our taxes out of the produce of their tobacco, rice, indigo, corn, lumber, wood, fish, furs, &c. How poor in cash must those countries be, where the sheriffs, in raising the annual taxes laid on by the assemblies, are often obliged to make returns into the treasury, of houshold goods taken in execution for want of cash; which goods cannot be sold for want of money to purchase them; where men of the best credit cannot raise cash to pay debts inconsiderable when compared with their estates; where creditors, when they sue to execution, obtain orders for sale of lands and goods, and though they offer those lands and goods for almost nothing, they are nothing the nearer being reimbursed, because there are no monied men to purchase after repeated advertisements of the sales. Thus the debtor is stripped, and the creditor not paid, and they break one another all round. And this very distress has been increased by those very ministers, whose taxation-schemes particularly required all mea|sures to be used, which were likely to promote a cir|culation of cash in the colonies. We have followed the example of the Egyptian task-masters, demanding money of the poor colonists at the same time that we put a stop to their trade with the Spanish colonies, the only means by which they could obtain wherewith to satisfy our demands. Here is a complication of blunders beyond the power of language to set forth in an adequate manner.

Even governor Bernard (no friend to the colonists) owns their inability to bear taxes.

I can (says he) readily recommend that part of the petition, which prays relief against those acts which are made for the purpose of drawing a revenue from the colonies. For they are so little able to bear drawing money from them, that they are unable at present to pay the charges of their support and protection * 2.16.

It was very fairly made out, that the colonists were not, generally speaking, in circumstances to pay the stamp-duty. And to raise the price of justice so high, that the people shall not be able to obtain it, is much the same as flatly denying them justice; while Magna Charta says, Nulli negabimus, nulli vendemus jus|titiam, &c.

By the Grenvillian politics, the American assemblies were not only to be stripped of the power of giving their own; but of defending their own. The stamp-duties were expressly declared to be for raising a revenue for making a more certain and adequate provision for the government of the colonies. As if the colonies had not common sense to consult for their own defence, and the administration of justice. Courts are always for over-governing. This was rendering the American assemblies useless. On this principle, any number of the creatures of a court might have been saddled upon the colonists, with salaries to any amount, and all on pretence of a certain and adequate provision for the support of government and administration of justice. This is the oeconomy in Ireland; a conquered country. But the Grenvillian politics treat the colonies worse than Ireland. For we leave to the Irish the power of

taxing themselves in their own parliament; while we tax the colonies in the British parliament, where they have not one representative.

Before the taxing of the unrepresented colonies was thought of, the ministry ought to have reduced exor|bitant salaries, abated, or abolished excessive per|quisites, annihilated useless places, stopped iniquitous pensions, with-held electioneering expences, and bribes for votes in the house, reduced an odious and devouring army, and taxed vice, luxury, gaming, and public diversions. This would have brought into the treasury ten times more than Grenville could ever ex|pect from taxing, by force and authority, the unre|presented colonies.

Even a conquered city has time given it to raise the contribution laid upon it; and may raise it in its own way. We have treated our colonies worse than con|quered countries. Neither Wales nor Ireland are tax|ed unheard and unrepresented in the British parlia|ment, as the colonies. Wales sends members to par|liament; and Ireland has done so. And as Ireland is not now represented in the British parliament, neither is it taxed in the British parliament.

It is frivolous to alledge, that because the mother-country has been at expences for the colonies, there|fore the British parliament may tax them without al|lowing them any legal opportunity of remonstrating against the oppression. The mother-country has spent her blood and her treasure in supporting, at different times, France against Spain, and Spain against France, Prussia against Hungary, and Hungary against Prussia, and so on, without end. Does this give our parlia|ment a right to tax all Europe?

What difference is there between the British par|liament's taxing America, and the French court's lay|ing

England under contribution? The French court could but do this, if they had conquered England. Have we conquered our colonies?

But are then the colonists, it will be said, to be complimented with immunity from all share of the public burden, while they enjoy th••ir share of the public protection? How will the necessary uniformity of the whole monarchy be preserved, if it be left to the discretion of a fifth part of the whole people, whether they will contribute any thing, and how much, to the general supplies?

The question was not, Whether the colonists should contribute to the public expence. The Gren|villians knew, that when requisition had been made by government, the colonists had answered their demands; particularly in the year 1756, 7, 8, 9, 1760, 61, and 62; they knew that the town of Bos|ton contributed for several years together twelve shil|lings in the pound. Our government, therefore, thought it but just to reimburse the colonies a part of their excessive expences. But their successors, contra|ry to the sense of all mankind, thought it better to obtain by force, than with a good-will. Accordingly we find so early as A. D. 1765, immediately after the first of the colonists shewed a little courage in refusing to submit to taxation without representation, orders were given to governor Bernard to employ the mili|tary under general Gage in suppressing the spirit of li|berty * 2.17.

Where would have been the harm of making a fair and moderate proposal to the colonies? If they raised the money in obedience to our requisition, as for|merly, all was well. But surely it was soon enough

to propose levying money upon them by parliamentary taxation, when they refused to give upon requisition.

Instead of this, the court-language all ran in the imperative mood.

A spirit of faction in America—acts of violence, and resistance of the execution of the law—state of disobedience to all law and govern|ment—measures subversive of the constitution—a disposition to throw off all dependence on the mo|ther-country—steady perseverance necessary to in|force the laws—turbulent and seditious persons, who, under false pretences, have deluded numbers in Ame|rica, and whose practices cannot fail, if suffered to prevail, to produce the most fatal consequences to the colonies immediately, and, in the end, to the whole British dominions.

Thus did our ministers put into the mouth of their amiable S—a language as re|mote from his disposition, as integrity is from theirs; setting him before his people in the character of an eastern despot, and not of the father of his subjects. See a certain speech.

Could not George Grenville have proposed, That the colonies should send over a certain number of agents who, by act of parliament, should have ses|sion and suffrage in our house of commons, during a certain period, in order to settle what sum the colo|nies should raise in proportion to the contribution raised by England—and to determine concerning the colo|nies sending, or not sending, members to subsequent parliaments? If it had been objected to this proposal, that the colonists sending over a set of temporary members to our parliament was a thing wholly unpre|cedented, he might have answered, that at the glorious revolution the corporation of London was introduced, and sat and voted in the house of commons; and the acts of the convention parliament were afterwards

established by a regular parliament composed in the usual manner, of king, lords, and commons. And as to the quota, or contingent, to be raised by the colo|nists, it might have been made to regulate, as that of Scotland, by the contribution in England, in such a manner, that when the taxes raised in England amount to a certain sum, America shall contribute a thirtieth, fortieth, or fiftieth part of that sum. The colonists would naturally have sent over their ablest men and best patriots. They would have been pre|judiced in favour of what those men had agreed to; or those men would have satisfied our parliament, that it could answer no good end to lay taxes upon the colonies; as all their money centers at last in Eng|land, and the more we raise upon them by way of tax, the less we can gain by them in the way of commerce. The colonies could not then have complained of tax|ation without representation, or of having their money taken from them by force. This would have been treating them as England did Scotland at the union; and surely no one will pretend that England is not un|der greater obligations to the colonies than to Scotland.

In the time of Edw. III. a parliament was directed to meet at several different parts of the country at the same time, because the whole parliament could not assemble speedily enough at Westminster * 2.18. I suppose the provincial meetings communicated their reso|lutions to that part of the parliament which met at the seat of government; and those resolutions which were made by the greatest number of the provincial meetings were to pass into laws. Suppose, that in imitation of this plan, a correspondent parliament had been formed in America; their resolutions communi|cated

to the British parliament, would have regularly and constitutionally informed the latter, of the sense of the colonists upon every important point; which cannot now be done in any constitutional way; as the house of commons receives no petitions upon money bills, and the colonists have no members in the house. The reader sees that various ways might have been proposed for raising taxes upon the colonies, if it had been found proper to raise such taxes, none of which ways would so have irritated the colonists, or given them such an opportunity of exclaiming against the injustice and ••apacity of the mother-country.

On the contrary, such was the relentless fury of the ministry, A. D. 1768, against the colonists, that they proposed to address the king to fetch over any of them, who had shewn opposition to taxing without repre|sentation, to be tried in England, for that no jury in America would find them guilty, the people being all of one sentiment relating to that subject. This was fairly declaring, that they would rather see the con|stitution (which requires that the accused be tried by persons of the vicinage, supposed to know his charac|ter and behaviour) violated, than not see the Ame|ricans punished * 2.19. And if such a law should ever be enacted, and the spirit of contention should be kept up, we may suppose a disturbance to happen in every town of North America, and that it will be necessary to fetch over half the people of the plantations as witnesses, or as attestors to the character of the accu|sed persons. All the shipping that belongs to both mother-country and colonies, will be insufficient for bringing over and sending back the multitudes that will be wanted on such occasions. And how is this

expence to be borne? the freight and charges, I mean, of so many hundred thousands of witnesses, as will be summoned? And how is the business of the colonists to be carried on during their absence in Eng|land? How are the damages arising from their absence to be made up? How is the loss of many innocent lives to be made up? For many of these ships will of course be cast away, and many passengers will con|tract deadly diseases, by change of climate, &c. The objections to this scheme are, in short, beyond reckoning, many of which will occur to every reader. An eminent member of the house of commons very lately declared in the house, that in his opinion, the whole proceedings of the ministry, with respect to the colonies, are Frenzy. But, to proceed,

The ministry, in the same year 1768, insisted on a declaration against the colonists founded upon a sup|posed illegal resolution of the assembly of Boston, which resolution they could not produce when called upon, and which governor Pownal assured the house had never been made in the ass••mbly of Boston, and that the supposition of its having been made, was owing to a mistake, and shewed how the mistake arose.

The chorus-men, who, at proper times, call for the question, helped them at this dead lift, by an incessant repetition of the question, the ques|tion

[that is, in plain English, Let us vote, right or wrong, as the ministry would have us.]

At length, at 4 o'clock in the morning, the whole house in confusion, the resolutions and address were agreed to; upon which a member remark|ed, "That it was indecent to bring into the house resolutions ready cut and dry, only for the drudgery of passing them. That it was more indecent to pass them in so confused a manner;

but most indecent to answer all arguments with The question, the question * 2.20.

If the colonists should object, that it will be very inconveni••nt for them to send members from such a distance, it may be answered, that so it is for the northern ••a••ts of Scotland. All these matters of con|venience must be as chance orders them. Nor can any two parts of •• great kingdom enjoy precisely the same advantages in all respects.

Were parliaments shortened, were they restored to their efficiency, and set free from court-influence, the colonists might send as representatives any set of men possessed of property and common understanding. Members would then have no interest to pursue, but that of their country. They would of course be ho|nest, because they wou••d have no temptation to the contrary. And an honest parliament would make all people in public stations honest.

Some of the American colonists charters expressly secure to them the privilege of taxing themselves. It would be flagrant treachery for the mother-country to tax those colonies; for nothing, but absolute neces|sity, and the safety of the whole, (which would be ri|diculous to mention on this subject) could justify de|ceiving the posterity of those pe••••le, who trusted to the faith of the mother-country, and settled those colonies upon the express stipulatio•• of not being taxed by parliament. If the colonists charters give them the exclusive power of taxing themselves, the British parliament's taxing them, is destroying their charters. If the American charters may be destroyed, the charters of all the cities, and those by which all crown lands are held, may be annihilated.

The purport of all the colony-charters is, That all the emigrants, and their posterity, do enjoy for ever, all the privileges and liberties, which Enlishmen do in England. And they were to pay to the king, a fifth part of all the gold and silver ore found in America, and no other tax. Is it allowing them the privileges of Englishmen to tax them without giving them re|presentation? Is not every Englishman represented by his county members.

The British parliament cannot justly alter the char|ters of the colonies, without giving the colonists in|demnification for whatever th••y may suffer in conse|quence of such alteration. And how shall several millions of people be indemnified for being obliged to what they never expected, and, on the contrary, thought themselves, by their charters, secured against. I mean, being taxed by those, whose interest it is, in order to lighten their own shoulders, to lay a grievous burthen on theirs.

The Americans are already under the same grievance as the mother-country, viz. Of being unequally re|presented in their own assemblies, which yet have power to tax them. To subject them to be taxed by the British parliament, would be subjecting them to two taxing powers. This would be an additional grievance, unknown in Britain, which is subject only to one; it would be an additional grievance, even supposing America represented in parliament, in an adequate manner, as many parts of Britain are. But how would the injustice be doubled and trebled, if the Americans were taxed in the British parliament, in which they have no representation adequate, or inade|quate! The British parliament's taxing the colonies▪ without representation, is treating them as papists, or rebels. Nay it is treating them as France would treat

England, if▪ for our sins, we were become a con|quered dominion under her.

A. D. 1772, governor Pownal, upon lord Barring|ton's moving, that the report of the committee on the mutiny-bill might be read, requested the house, that, before it passed, its effects on the colonies might be considered. That the question was of no less im|portance, than,

Whether or not there shall remain established by power against law and the constitu|tion, a military government in America, exclusive of the supreme civil magistrate. I am sorry (says he) to find such a heedless inattention in gentlemen to the concerns of public liberty * 2.21,

He then puts the house in mind of the remonstrances he had formerly offered on the same subject.

I stated (says he) the powers of the charters, and those of the military commissions. I shewed them to be incompatible and illegal.

He then affirms, that the case was not fairly stated to the crown lawyers, who justified it, nor, consequently, were their opinions law. He therefore desired to have an opportunity of calling for the opinion of the attorney and solicitor general, in order to bring on in form the consideration of that great question; and that the further reading of the report be adjourned. Lord Barrington opposed all consideration; because the servants of the crown might come into censure. Governor Iohnstone pronounced the military commission illegal, impracticable, and self-contradictory. Governor Pownal said,

I know, it is to no purpose to press a motion, which a majority can refuse. But if those gentlemen will let us have the case and opinion, and by that means, a proper ground for debating the question, I am ready to meet

them on that ground. And as I see in his place one of the learned gentlemen, who signed the opinion, [for the legality of the military commission] if he will in his place rise up and defend the present esta|blishment and practice, I am ready for the argument.

The learned lawyer was afraid, to engage with the unlearned gentleman; and the ministry, as usual, pre|vailed.

Egregiam vero laudem, spolia ampla refertis.

VIRG.

It has been thought, that our misconduct with respect to our colonies has been the chief cause of the late unexampled confusions in credit. The colonists were accustomed to take from Britain, to the value of 500,000 l. annually in teas. Our wise taxation-schemes put them upon refusing our teas all admission into America. This prejudiced our East-India com|pany, and lowered the price of India stock; which occasioned many adventures in that stock, both in Britain and Holland, to sail. Such mischief a rapaci|ous and blundering ministry can bring upon their country, in scrambling after a little money to gratify their creatures.

I do not pretend to justify all the steps that have been taken by the colonists. It is not easy for the most stoical individual to keep up his philosophy when pro|vocation runs high, much less for a mixed multitude of all sorts of people. The first aggressors in all such cases, are chiefly to blame; though those who resist in an unjustifiable manner, are not innocent.

The Bostonian proceeding, A. D. 1773, in destroy|ing the tea, on account of the duty laid upon it, must be given up as inexcusable; since all they had to do was to keep firm in their resolution, not to buy or drink any

of it * 2.22. But why did our government provoke the people of Boston, by sending them these cargoes of tea, loaded with an invidious duty?

Nothing is more peaceful by nature, than the ele|ment of water; yet we see to what a height the waves upon the ocean are raised by the winds, with what fury they dash the strong ships of several thousand tons burden, and beat them to pieces. Nothing is more innocent than the cattle, of which so many hundreds are driven into this great metropolis every week, 'till they be provoked. A boy of fifteen may drive a whole herd of them before him; but if a set of brutal butchers, with their sticks and dogs, set them|selves to enrage those placid animals, they immediate|ly change their nature, and become as furious as lions and tygers; they toss with their horns whatever comes in their way, and happy is he that can make his escape. So our colonists had originally the very dis|positions we could have wished; they had the most implicit respect for the mother country. Our prime minister's grey-goose-quill governed them, 'till that fatal hour in which the evil Genius of Britain whis|pered in the ear of George Grenville,

George! erect thyself into a great financier.

The ministry paid, from the beginning, no regard to the universal dissatisfaction occasioned by, and universal opposition made to taxing the unrepresented colonies.

A. D. 1765, Ian. 17, a petition was presented to the house of commons from the merchants of London trading to America, setting forth, that the colony trade, of infinite advantage to Britain, suffered grievously by

the colonists being reduced to a state of inability to discharge the debts owing by them to Britain, by means of taxes and restrictions laid on them by go|vernment, particularly by the stamp-act. There came afterwards petitions to the same purpose from Bristol, Liverpool, Halifax, Leeds, Lancaster, Manchester, Leicester, and other great trading and manufacturing towns.

Here follow the heads of Mr. Pitt's speech in the house of commons on the same subject.

He insisted, that every capital measure, the ministry had taken, was wrong. George Grenvi••le, the American tax-master, sate by him. He says, he plainly discovers the traces of an over-ruling influence in the conduct of the then present mististry. Observes, that a more important subject had not been before the house since the revolution. He acknowledges the sovereignty of the mother-country over the colonies in all cases, but that of imposing taxes, which is no part of governing or legislative power. That in a free country the sub|jects represented in parliament are supposed to grant supplies voluntarily; but that the colonists had no opportunity of giving voluntarily, having no repre|sentation in parliament to grant for them. That it is an absurdity in terms for the house of commons of Britain to pretend to give, or grant, to the king, what was not their property, but that of the colonists. We, your majesty's commons of Great Britain, being unwilling to give or grant your majesty any farther supplies out of our own pockets, have made a law for obliging our fellow-subjects of America to pay, whether willingly or unwillingly, what they have no opportunity of granting voluntarily * 2.23.

Grenville in answer said, he could see no difference between external taxation [meaning the mother-coun|try's restricting the trade of the colonies, perhaps for the benefit of both] and internal [or ordering the colonists, in the style of conquerors, of robbers, I was going to say, to pay so much money, whether they chuse to grant it, or not.] He then, in a jesuitical manner, observes, that many individuals and bodies of men in England are taxed in parliament who have no represen|tation; while he knew, that every man in England is represented by his county-members at least; and that, while parliament (if unbribed) cannot over-tax the people without over-taxing themselves, on the contrary, the greater burden they lay upon the Ameri|cans, the less themselves will have to bear. He ob|serves, that protection and obedience are reciprocal. That if Britain protects, America is obliged to obey [every just law; but not every unjust one.] He overlooks the great advantage Britain gains by America, by which she is enabled to protect herself, and her colonies, for her own sake. He raves against the co|lonists for shewing a little spirit in opposition to op|pression; but he takes no notice of their hardships in being taxed without representation, except that he mentions Chester and Durham as having been taxed before they were represented, and accordingly they demanded, and immediately obtained representation. See the preamble to 34 and 35 Hen. VIII. in which the complaint of the people of the county palatine of Chester of the disherison and damages suffered by them for want of representation in parliament, might, muta|tis mutandis, be exhibited by our American colonists.

Mr. Pitt went on afterwards, and applauded the spirit with which the colonists had resisted tyranny. He affirms, that Britain gains 2,000,000 l. annually

by her colonies. That by means of this advantage, estates which 60 years ago were let for 2000l. a year, now yielded 3000l. and lands now sold for thirty years purchase instead of eighteen. That our profits by America carried us triumphantly through the late war.

And shall a miserable financier come with a boast, that he can fetch a pepper-corn into the ex|chequer to the loss of millions to the nation * 2.24?

Suppose the taxing of the colonies shoul swell the treasury (which it will certainly not do, but the very contrary) we should then only have the colonists all. That we have now. Then we should have it with a grudge. Without taxing them, we always have had, and, for many ages, shall have, all the money they can raise. For they must have our manufactures. If we insist on taxing them, and irritate them in such a manner as to diminish our commerce with them, who will be the gainers? Such policy will neither suit ministry nor people.

I have been told by pretty good authority, that the neat produce of our judicious taxes on our colonies, by which we have lost (to mention only one article) the sale of teas to the amount of 500,000 l. per ann. amounted last year, viz. 1772, to the respectable sum of 85 l. sterling money. Such is the wisdom of our ministers!

Is this a time for us to lessen our public income? Do we not, as we manage matters, find difficulty enough in defraying the public expence with the largest public revenue we can raise? Have we been able to ease the nation of any part of the heavy load which lies upon our commerce? Have ten years of peace

extinguished any part, worth mentioning, of the pub|lic d••bt? Do not our ministers know, that a compa|rison between the present state of the French finances and ours is enough to make an Englishman's blood run cold? If France should think of taking this oppor|tunity to make an attack upon us, are we in a con|dition to go to war with that formidable enemy; or does it shew our ministry to be endowed with com|mon sense, who can find no time but this to support the mis-named dignity of government, to compel the colonists to what they call a due submission to govern|ment, &c. Will the vindication of the pretended honour of government, if it were to be vindicated by the proposed measures, make up for the diminution it will produce in our trade and revenues? Will the conquest of our colonies indemnify us for our being conquered by France?

Supposing the effects of violent measures with the colonies to prove less fatal than the apprehensions of many, their lowest consequences must be a diminu|tion of our trade and revenues. This we are from ex|perience certain of; for we already feel it. But suppose those effects to prove such as may naturally be expected; how will it be with us, when we find the public revenue fall so short, that it will not stretch to pay the public creditors their whole dividends? What will a set of rash and hot-headed statesmen be able to advance for defending themselves against the rage of many thousands stripped of, perhaps, half their incomes.

The more violent of the anti-colonistical party seem to build their main hope of reducing the Americans to obedience on a military force. But it may be re|marked concerning this scheme, That it will either prove successful, or not: If the latter, then will the

impotence of our government appear more conspicuous to all Europe, Asia, Africa and America, and the advisers of the measure will be ashamed of it, and wish it had never been adopted. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on the contrary, the colo|nists should find themselves obliged to yield so much against their inclination to this military force, not|withstanding the many advantages they have above what the mother-country can boast of for defeating a design upon their liberties—let the people of England consider with horror what a frightful hint this gives to the enemies of liberty for enslaving the mother-country. I am myself a friend to liberty, and there|fore will not explain more minutely. These are hopeful politics, whose consequences are too shocking for a good citizen to explain.

In short; The new method of taxing our colonists in parliament, where they have no repres••ntation, adequate or inadequate, is subversive of liberty, an|nihilates property, is repugnant to the genius of the people, oppressive to their indigence; it strikes at the root of their charters, as colonists, and of their privi|leges as British subjects ever loyal and unoffending; it is deragotary from the faith of government, omnius to the liberty of the British empire, unjust in its prin|ciples, rigorous in its execution, and pernicious in its operation alike to the mother-country and the colo|nies. What public measure can the memory of man produce, deserving so many commendations? Whe|ther it is yet time to reverse such proceedings, or whether it will be better policy to pursue still farther the measures, which have hitherto appeared so ho|nourable, and proved so salutary, is humbly sub|mitted.

To crown what I have to say on the grievance which makes the subject of this IId Book, I will sub|join a copy of the spirited PROT—T of eleven worthy

noblemen, who have endeavoured to stop the torrent of ministerial fury against our abused colonies. I wish it were in my power worthily to celebrate the praises of those illustrious personages. The consequences of the violent proceedings, they have so bravely oppos|ed, will, I am horribly afraid, make their fame, as well as the disgrace of the first movers of all this mis|chief, but too lasting.

After the Prot—t, I will add a copy of a PETITI|ON from the American gentlemen resident in London to both houses, imploring their forbearance and justice in a manner, which does the public spirit as well as the abilities of the petitioners the highest honour.

I have in my hands a manuscript copy of an hum|ble Petition of several Natives of America to the K—'s most excellent M—y, requesting the suspension of the R—l assent to the two fatal bills from which they apprehend the most lamentable consequences. But as this Petition is not yet presented, I do not think I can, with propriety, give it a place in these collec|tions. It is but short, and the matter of it, mutatis mutandis, much the same with that of the other.

PROTEST against the bill,

for the better regulating the government of the Massachuset's Bay, in New-England.

DISSINTIENT,
"Because this bill, forming a principal part in a system of punishment and regulation, has been carried through the house without a due regard to those indis|pensable rules of public proceeding, without the obser|vance of which, no regulation can be prudently made, and no punishment justly inflicted. Before it can be pretended that those rights of the colony of Massachu|set's Bay, in the election of counsellors, magistrates,

and judges, and in the return of jurors, which they derive from their charter, could with propriety be taken away, the definite legal offence, by which a forfeiture of that charter is incurred, ought to have been clearly stated and fully proved; notice of this adverse proceeding ought to have been given to the parties affected; and they ought to have been heard in their own defence. Such a principle of proceeding would have been inviolably observed in the courts below. It is not technical formality, but substantial justice. When therefore the magnitude of such a cause transfers it from the cognizance of the inferior courts of the high judicature of parliament, the lords are so far from being authorized to reject this equita|ble principle, that we are bound to an extraordinary and religious strictness in the observance of it. The subject ought to be indemnified by a more liberal and beneficial justice in parliament, for what he must ine|vitably suffer by being deprived of many of the forms which are wisely established in the courts of ordinary resort for his protection against the dangerous promp|titude of arbitrary discretion.

"2dly, Because the necessity alledged for this preci|pitate mode of judicial proceeding cannot exist. If the numerous land and marine forces, which are or|dered to assemble in Massachuset's Bay, are not suffi|cient to keep that single colony in any tolerable state of order, until the cause of its charter can be fairly and equally tried, no regulation in this bill, or in any of those hitherto brought into the house, are suffici|ent for that purpose; and we conceive, that the mere celerity of a decision against the charter of that pro|vince, will not reconcile the minds of the people to that mode of government which is to be established upon its ruins.

"3dly, Because Lords are not in a situtation to de|termine how far the regulations, of which this bill is composed, agree, or disagree, with those parts of the constitution of the colony that are not altered, with the circumstances of the people, and with the whole detail of their municipal institutions. Neither the charter of the colony, nor any account whatsoever of its courts and judicial proceedings, their mode, or the exercise of their present powers, have been produced to the house. The slightest evidence concerning any one of the many inconveniencies stated in the preamble of the bill to have arisen from the present constitution of the colony judicatures, has not been produced, or even attempted. On the same general allegations of a declamatory preamble, any other right, or all the rights of this or any other public body, may be taken away, and any visionary scheme of government sub|stituted in their place.

"4thly, Because we think, that the appointment of all the members of the council, which by this bill is vested in the crown, is not a proper provision for preserving the equilibrium of the colony constitution. The power given to the crown of occasionally in|creasing or lessening the number of the council on the report of the governors, and at the pleasure of mini|sters, must make these governors and ministers masters of every question in that assembly; and by destroying its freedom of deliberation, will wholly annihilate its use. The intention avowed in this bill, of bring|ing the council to the platform of other colonies, is not likely to answer its own end; as the colonies, where the council is named by the crown, are not at all better disposed to a submission to the practice of taxing for supply without their consent, than this of Massachuset's Bay. And no pretence of bringing it

to the model of the English constitution can be sup|ported, as none of those American councils have the least resemblance to the house of peers. So that this new scheme of a council stands upon no sort of foun|dation, which the proposers of it think proper to acknowledge.

"5thly, Because the new constitution of judica|ture provided by this bill is improper, and incongru|ous with the plan of the administration of justice in Great Britain. All the judges are to be henchforth nominated (not by the crown, but) by the governor; and all (except the judges of the superior court) are to be removable at his pleasure, and expressly without the consent of that very council which has been no|minated by the crown.

"The appointment of the sheriff is by the will of the governor only, and without requiring in the person appointed any local or other qualification. That sheriff, a magistrate of great importance to the whole administration and execution of all justice, civil and criminal, and who in England is not removeable even by the royal authority, during the continuance of the term of his office, is by this bill made change|able by the governor and council, as often, and for such purposes, as they shall think expedient.

"The governor and council thus intrusted with powers, with which the British constitution has not trusted his majesty and his privy-council, have the means of returning such a jury in each particular cause, as may best suit with the gratification of their passions and interests. The lives, liberties, and pro|perties of the subject are put into their hands without controul; and the invaluable right of trial by jury is turned into a snare for the people, who have hitherto

looked upon it as their main security against the licen|tiousness of power.

"6thly, Because we see in this bill the same scheme of strengthening the authority of the officers and mi|nisters of state, at the expence of the rights and liberties of the subject, which was indicated by the inauspicious act for shutting up the harbour of Boston.

"By that act, which is immediately connected with this bill, the example was set of a large impor|tant city (containing vast multitudes of people, many of whom must be innocent, and all of whom are un|heard), by an arbitrary sentence, deprived of the ad|vantage of that port, upon which all their means of livelihood did immediately depend.

"This proscription is not made determinable on the payment of a fine for an offence, or a compensa|tion for an injury; but it is to continue until the ministers of the crown shall think fit to advise the king in council to revoke it.

"The legal condition of the subject (standing un|tainted by conviction for treason or felony) ought never to depend upon the arbitrary will of any person whatsoever.

"This act, unexampled on the records of parlia|ment, has been entered on the journals of this house as voted nemine dissentiente, and has been stated in the debate of this day, to have been sent to the colonies, as passed without a division in either house, and there|fore as conveying the uncontroverted universal sense of the nation.

"The despair of making effectual opposition to an unjust measure, has been construed into an approba|tion of it.

"An unfair advantage has been taken on the final question for passing that penal bill, of the absence of

those ords who had debated it for several hours, and strongly dissented from it on the second reading; that period on which it is most usual to debate the princi|ple of a bill.

"If this proceeding were to pass without animad|version, lords might think themselves obliged to reite|rate their debates at every stage of every bill which they oppose, and to make a formal division whenever they debate.

7thly, Because this bill, and the other proceedings that accompany it, are intended for the support of that unadvised scheme of taxing the colonies, in a manner new, and unsuitable to their situation and constitutional circumstances.

"Parliament has asserted the authority of the legis|lature of this kingdom, supreme and unlimited over all the members of the British empire.

"But the legal extent of this authority furnishes no argument in favour of an unwa••rantable use of it.

"The sense of the nation on the repeal of the stamp-act was,

that in equ••ty and sound policy, the taxation of the colonies for the ordinary purposes of supply, ought to be forborn;

and that this kingdom ought to satisfy itself with the advantages to be deprived from a flourishing and increasing trade, and with the free grants of the American assemblies; as being far more beneficial, far more easily obtained, less oppr••ssive and more likely to be lasting than any revenue to be ac|quired by parliamentary taxes, accompanied by a total alienation of the affections of those who were to pay them. This principle of repeal was nothing more than a return to the ancient standing policy of this empire. The unhappy departure from it, has led to that course of shifting and contradictory measures,

which have since given rise to such continued dis|tractions; by which unadvised plan, new duties have been imposed in the very year after the former had been repealed; these new duties afterwards in part re|pealed, and in part continued, in contradiction to the principles upon which those repealed were given up; all which, with many weak, injudicious, and precipitate steps taken to enforce a compliance, have kept up that jealousy which, on the repeal of the stamp-act, was subsiding; revived dangerous questi|ons, and gradually estranged the effections of the co|lonies from the mother-country, without any object of advantage to either. If the force proposed should have its full effect, that effect, we greatly apprehend, may not continue longer than whilst the sword is held up. To render the colonies permanently advan|••••geous, they must be satisffed with their condition. That satisfaction we see no chance of restoring, what|ever measures may be pursued, except by recurring, in the whole, to the wise and salutary principles on which the stamp-act was repealed.

• ...Richmond,
• ...Portland,
• ...Abingdon,
• ...King,
• ...Effingham,
• ...Ponsonby,
• ...Rockingham,
• ...Abergavenny,
• ...Leinster,
• ...Craven,
• Fitzwilliam.

⁂ The bill passed. Contents, with their proxies included.—92

Not Contents,—20

Copy of a Petition from the American gentlemen, who happened to be resident in London, to the two houses.

The humble PETITION of several Natives of America, She••eth,

"That your petitioners are constrained to com|plain to this right honourable house of two bills, which, if carried into execution, will be fatal to the rights, liberties, and peace of all America.

"Your petitioners have already seen, with equal astonishment and grief, proceedings adopted against them, which, in violation of the first principles of justice, and of the laws of the land, inflict the severest punishments without hearing the accused.

"Upon the same principle of injustice, a bill is now brought in, which, under the profession of bet|ter regulating the government of the Massachuset's Bay, is calculated to deprive a whole province, with|out any form of trial, of its chartered rights, solemnly secured to it by mutual compact between the crown and the people.

"Your petitioners are well informed, that a char|ter so granted was never before altered or resumed, but upon a fu••l and fair hearing; that, therefore, the present proceeding is totally unconstitutional, and sets an example which renders every charter in Great Britain and America utterly insecure.

"The appointment and removal of the judges at the pleasure of the governor, with salaries payable by the crown, puts the property, liberty and life of the subject, depending upon judicial integrity, in his power.

"Your petitioners perceive a system of judicial tyranny deliberately at this day imposed upon them,

which, from the bitter experience of its intolerable injuries, has been abolished in this country.

"Of the same unexampled and alarming nature is the bill, which, under the title of a more im••artial administration of justice in the province of Massachu|set's Bay, empowers the governor to withdraw offen|ders from justice; holding out to the soldiery an ex|emption from legal pr••secution for murder; and in effect subjecting that colony to military execution. Your petitioners intreat this right honourable house to consider what must be the consequence of sending troops, not really under the controul of the civil pow|er, and unamenable to the law, where the crime is committed among a people whom they have been industriously taught, by the incendiary arts of wicked men, to regard as deserving every species of insult and abuse. The insults and injuries of a lawle••s s••l|diery are such as no free people can l••ng endure; and your petitioners apprehend, in the consequences of this bill, the horrid outrages of military oppression followed by the desolation of civil commotions.

"The dispensing power, which this bill intends to give to the governor, advanced as he is already above the law, and not liable to any impeachment from the people he may oppress; must constitute him an abso|lute tyrant.

"Your petitioners would be utterly unworthy of the English ancestry, which is their claim and pride, if they did not feel a virtuous indignation at the re|proach of disaffection and rebellion, with which their countrymen have been cruelly aspersed. They can with confidence say no imputation was ever less de|served. They appeal to the experience of a century, in which the glory, the honour, the prosperity of England, have been, in their estimation, their own;

in which they have not only borne the burthen of provincial wars, but have shared with this country in the danger and expence of every national war. Their zeal for the service of the crown, and the de|fence of the general empire, has prompted them, whenever it was required, to vote supplies of men and money to the utmost exertion of their abilities. The journals of parliament will bear witness to their extra|ordin••ry zeal and services during the last war; and that but a very short time before it was resolved here to t••ke from them the right of giving and granting their own money.

"If disturbances have happened in the colonies, they intreat this right honourable house to consider the causes which have produced them among a people hi|therto remarkable for their loyalty to the crown, and affection for this kingdom. No history can shew, nor will human nature admit of an instance of general dis|content, but from a general sense of oppression.

"Your petitioners conceived, that when they had acquired property under all the restraints this country thought necessary to impose upon their commerce, trade and manufactures, that property was sacred and secure. They felt a very material difference between being restrained in the acquisition of property, and holding it when acquired under those restraints at the disposal of others. They understand subordination in the one, and slavery in the other.

"Your petitioners wish they could possibly perceive any difference between the most abject slavery, and such entire subjection to a legislature, in the constitution of which they have not a single voice, nor the least influence, and in which no one is present on their behalf. They regard the giving their property, by their own consent alone, as the unalienable right of the

subject, and the last sacred bulwark of constitutional liberty. If they are wrong in this, they have been misled by the love of liberty, which is their dearest birth-right; by the most solemn statutes, and the resolves of this honourable house itself, declaratory of the inherent right of the subject; by the authority of all great constitutional writers, and by the unin|terrupted practice of Ireland and America, who have ever voted their own supplies to the crown—all which combine to prove, that the property of an English subject, being a freeman, or a freeholder, cannot be taken from him but by his own consent. To deprive the colonists, therefore, of this right, is to reduce them to a state of villenage, leaving them nothing they can call their own, nor capable of any acquisition but for the benefit of others.

"It is with infinite and inexpressible concern that your petitioners see in these bills, and in the principles of them, a direct tendency to reduce their country|men to the dreadful alternative of being totally en|slaved, or compelled into a contest the most shocking and unnatural with a parent state, which has ever been the object of their veneration and their love. They intreat this right honourable house to consider that the restraints, which examples of such severity and injustice impose, are ever attended with a most dangerous hatred.

"In a distress of mind, which cannot be described, your petitioners conjure this right honourable house not to convert that zeal and affection, which have hitherto united every American hand and heart in the interests of England, into passions the most painful and pernicious. Most earnestly they beseech this right honourable house not to attempt reducing them to a state of slavery, which the English principles of liberty,

they inherit from their mother country, will render worse than death—they, therefore, pray that this right honourable house will not by passing these bills overwhelm them with affliction, and reduce their countrymen to the most abject state of misery and humiliation, or drive them to the last resources of despair:

"And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

BOOK III. Of the Army.

CHAP. I. General Reflections on standing Armies in free Countries in Times of Peace.

IN a survey of public abuses, it would be unpar|donable to overlook that of a standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses.

The v••ry words, Army, War, Soldier * 3.1, &c. entering into a humane and christian ear, carry with them ideas of hatred, enmity, fighting, bloodshed, mang|ling, butchering, destroying, unpeopling, and what|ever else is horrible, cruel, hellish. My inestimable friend, the late great and good Dr. Hales, was used to say, that if any thing might be called the peculiar dis|grace of human nature, and of our world, it is war; that a set of wretched worms, whose whole life, when it holds out the best, is but a moment, a dream, a vision of the night, should shorten this their short span, should assemble by thousands and myriads, travel over vast countries, or cross unmeasurable

oceans, armed with swords and sp••••rs and infernal fire, and when they meet immediately fall to butcher|ing one another, only b••cause a cou••l•• of frantic and mischievous fiends in human shape, commonly called kings, have fallen out they know not about what, and have ordered them to go and make havock of one another.

Yet such is the turn of mind of those who are at the head of the world, that they bestow more atten|tion upon the art of war, that is, the art of d••st••••ying their fellow-creatures, than upon the improvement of all the liberal arts and sciences, and outvie one ano|ther in keeping up bands of those butchers of mankind commonly called standing armies, to the number of many thousands; and so prevalent in this infatuation, that even we, though surrounded by the ocean, must mimick the kingdoms on the continent, and beggar ourselves by keeping up an army of near 50,000 in times of profound peace.

The whole art of war from beginning to end is, at best, but a scene of folly and absurdity. Two kings, already possessed of more territory than they know how to govern, fall out about a province. They immediately take up arms. Immediately half a continent is deluged in blood. They carry on their infernal hatred, while either of them can find in the purses of their beggared subjects any money to squan|der, or while they can find any more of their miser|able people, who, being by the fell ravage of war stripped of all, are glad to throw themselves into the army, to get a morsel of bread. And when the two mighty belligerant powers, the two venomous worms, have carried on the contest almost to the de|struction of both, the point in dispute remains unde|cided as before, or they see, that it might have been

infinitely better decided by arbitration of indifferent states, without the spilling of one drop of christian blood.

War is not a more proper method of deciding con|troversies between kings, than single combat between individuals. All that can be determined by fighting is, that the conqueror is the best fighter of the two; not that he has justice on his side. As I should con|clude that private person, who chose rather to decide a quarrel by a duel, than to appeal to the laws of his country, or stand to arbitration of a few friends, a ruffian and a murderer; so I do not hesitate to pro|nounce every king a butcher of mankind who chuses rather to appeal to the ratio ultima regum, than to arbitration of neutral princes.

Standing armies first became necessary, or the pre|tence of their necessity plausible, when the disbanded troops, called tard-venus, in France, took to plunder|ing and mischief in times of peace. Then the neigh|bouring princes pretended they must be upon an equal foot with France. But what is that to England, sur|rounded by the sea, and guarded by a fleet equal to all the maritime force of Europe?

In former times we had no mercenary army. It was the militia that went to the holy war, that con|quered France, &c. So at Rome there was no mer|cenary army in the best times of the republic. Our Hen. VII. raised no small jealousy by his 100 yeo|men of the guards, augmented by him from 50, the whole standing army of his times. In the days of Ch. II. the army wa•• got to 5,000; in our times to near 50,000. There can no account be given of this alarming increase, but the increase of corruption, and decrease of attention to liberty. And now, our patri|otic parliaments have made the army a sacred esta|blishment,

and the sinking fund a temporary ex|pedient.

An army, in a free country, says judge Black|stone * 3.2,

ought only to be inlisted for a short and limited time. The soldiers should live intermixed with the people. No separate camp, no barracks, no inland fortresses should be allowed.

Yet it is notorious, that our soldiers are inlisted for life, on pain of death, if they desert; and that camps, bar|racks, and inland forts, are very common in our pre|tended free country. The mere slavery of a soldier's life, and the rigorous discipline, and Turkish severities, so great a number of brave, and freeborn English sub|jects are exposed to in the army, are sufficient to render it the abhorrence of every true English spirit, and the peculiar disgrace of our country, and our times. See Blackstone's COMMENTARIES, I.415, where the learned author (no malecontent) shews the peculiar danger to liberty from enslaving so many subjects, (and thereby exciting their envy against their coun|trymen, who enjoy what they are forever deprived of) and then arming those slaves, to enable them to re|duce the rest to their condition, of which ill policy history furnishes many terrible examples.

In a land of liberty it is extremely dangerous to make a distinct order of the profession of arms. In absolute monarchies, this is necessary for the safety of the prince, and arises from the main principle of their constitution, which is, that of governing by fear: but in free states, the profession of a soldier, taken singly and merely as a profession, is justly an object of jealousy.—The laws, therefore, and con|stitution of these kingdoms know no such state as

that of a perpetual standing soldier, bred up to no other profession, than that of war * 3.3.

Yet we see gen|tlemen breed up their sons for the army as regularly as for law, physic, or divinity; and, while in France, the land of slaves, the soldiery are engaged only for a certain time, ours are for life; that they may be ef|fectually separated from the people, and attached to another interest.

The judge goes on to shew, that in the Saxon times, the military force was under the absolute command of the dukes, or heretochs, who were elected by the people. This the judge, as if he were fascinated in favour of prerogative, sees in a dangerous light. This large share of power, says he, thus conferred by the people, though intended to preserve the liberty of the subject, was perhaps unreasonably detrimental to the prerogative of the crown.' And then he mentions one instance of its being abused. But will any En|glishman, understanding what he says, gravely declare, that he thinks an armed force safer, in respect of li|berty, in the hands of a king, than of a number of sub|jects elected by the people? Yet this very author pre|fers a militia to an army. If all this be either con|sistent with the fundamental principles of liberty, or with itself, it is to be understood in some manner, which I own to be out of my reach.

Those, who have the command of the arms in a country, says Aristotle * 3.4, are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please.

The soldiery are themselves bound for life, under the most abject slavery. For what is more perfect slavery,

than for a man to be, without relief, obliged to obey the command of another, at the hazard of his life, if he obeys, and under the penalty of certain death if he disobeys, while the smallest misbehaviour may bring upon him the most painful and disgraceful punish|ment? The sense of their own remediless condition may naturally be expected to excite in them the same disposition, which shews itself in the negroes in Ia|maica, and the eunochs in the eastern seraglois.

In the mutiny-act, it is always mentioned, that keeping up an army in time of peace, without con|sent of parliament, is unlawful. But there is no such clause for keeping up marines. Yet marines are as much an army as any other men; are mostly at land; and may, at any time, be applied to the enslaving of the people, as readily as the soldiery. 'Tis true, their number is at present inconsiderable; but that is entire|ly at the disposal of government.

Lord Hinton's arguments against a reduction of the army, A. D. 1738.

••. The army is only a change made in the manage|ment of the armed force of the nation, which was formerly kept up in the guise of a militia.

Ans. The army is the very creature of the court; and therefore likely to execute every order of the court. The army is detached from the people for life, and enslaved for life. A militia continues still a part of the people, and is to return and mix with the people again, which must keep up in their minds both an awe and an affection for the people.

2. N••w all the countries about have regular disci|plined armies.

Ans. This is no reason for our keeping up an army, 〈…〉〈…〉 separated from all our neighbours. It is a 〈…〉〈…〉 keeping up a fleet, and a militia.

3. Our militia cannot be trusted. Our people are otherwise employed, than in learning military disci|pline.

Ans. The army are, on no account, preferable to a mi••itia, but there being more thoroughly trained. Let the militia then be thoroughly disciplined. Fifty days exercise at different times in the year, will train them thoroughly. Let them have pay for those days, and carry on their business the rest of the year as at present. And let every male be trained; and then see, whether enemies will invade, or tumults disturb.

4. The army has not yet enslaved us. Experience shews us, that a standing army is not unfriendly to liberty.

Ans. We ought to depend on the constitution for the safety of our liberties; not on the moderation of the individuals, who command our army. If our army has not yet enslaved us; we know, that the far greatest part of the world has been enslaved by armies. But it is much to be questioned, whether we are not already so far enslaved, that the people could not now obtain of government what they requested, though the undoubted sense of the people was known to go|vernment.

5. An annual army is different from a standing ar|my. The former may be dissolved, whenever it pleases parliament to give over providing for it.

Ans. There is no difference, as to the liberty of the subject, whether the army be on one foot, or the other; whether it be established by law, or whether it be constantly kept, and certainly never to be re|duced.

6. An army is necessary to keep the peace. Tur|bulent people raise tumults about matters, which

have had even the sanction of parliament, as excises, turnpikes, suppression of gin, &c.

Ans. Good government is a surer way to keep the peace, than keeping up a formidable and expensive army. The people may judge wrong, or be misled occasionally. But it is mal-administration that sets up popular demagogues, who could not excite the people to tumults, if government did not afford some cause for discontent. The sanction of parliament neither will nor ought to satisfy the people, unless the people be satisfied of the independency of the m••mb••rs, who compose it. So much for lord Hin|ton's arguments.

Whatever it may be called, that government is certainly, and necessarily, a military government where the army is the strongest power in the coun|try. And it is eternally true, that a free parliament and a standing army are absolutely incompatible * 3.5.

It is the interest of favourites to advise the king to govern by an army: for if he prevails (over his subjects) then they are sure to have what heart can wish; and if he fail, yet they are but where they were; they had nothing, and they can lose no|thing* 3.6.

Every officer in the army, almost, is an addition to the power and influence of the ministry. And every addition to their power and influence is a step toward aristocracy or absolute monarchy.

All armies whatsoever, says Davenant, if they are over large, tend to the dispeopling of a country, of which our neighbour nation is a sufficient proof; where in one of the best climates in Europe men are wanting to till the ground. For children do not

proceed from intemperate pleasures taken loosely an at random, but from a regular way of living, wher the father of the family desires to rear up, and pro+vide for the offspring he shall beget * 3.7.

When a country is to be enslaved, the army is the instrument to be used. No nation ever was enslaved but by an army. No nation ever kept up an army in times of peace, which did not lose its liberties.

An army is so forcible, and, at the same time, so coarse an instrument, that any hand, that wields it, may, without much dexterity, perform any oper|ation, and gain any ascendancy in human society * 3.8.

Mr. Hume * 3.9. calls the army a mortal distemper in the British government, of which it must at last inevitably perish.

It was Walpole's custom, if a borough did not elect his man for their member, to send them a mes|senger of Satan to buffet them, a company of soldiers to live upon them.

In this way a standing army may be used as an in|strument in the hand of a wicked minister for crushing liberty.

There is much stress laid, by those, who would lull us asleep, that we may not see our danger from the army, on the behaviour of that of Iames II. who, on being put to the trial on Hounslow heath, whether they would stand by the tyrant, all laid down their arms. But we must be weak indeed, if we suffer ourselves to be misled by a precedent so little in point as this. Th•• ••••my were all brought up protestants, and Iame•• ••anted to make use of them to establish popery, of the cruelties of which he had given them

a pretty specimen. Does it follow, that because a protestant army would not be the instruments of a tyrant in overthrowing the religion they were brought up in (even the soldiers had some zeal for reli|gion in those days, though not a zeal according to knowledge) and establishing one they were from their infancy taught to dread above all earthly evils—does it follow, I say, that because an army would not do what must be so disagreeable to themselves, they would not do what may be supposed agreeable to themselves, that is, would not promote the esta|blishing of a military government? All history con|futes this reasoning. For all history shews, that the soldiery have ever been ready to enslave their fellow-subject••▪ and almost all nations have actually been enslaved by armies.

Lord Clifford's scheme for making Charles II. abso|lute, was liberty of conscience; security of property; upright judges, to keep the people in good-humour; the fort of Tilbury to be made sufficient to bridle the city. Plymouth, in the west; Hull, in the north, made tenable. Some addition to the army, and 200,000 arms in each of the above forts, all which might be done imperceptibly * 3.10.

The pretensions of a particular body of men, if not checked by s••me collateral power, will terminate in tyranny * 3.11.' No body of men are more likely to form pretensions unfavourable to liberty, than the military, nor is any body of men so hard to check, or restrain within due bounds.

Under such kings as the present (whom God pre|serve) we should have little to fear, with an army as

numerous as that of France. But a tyrannical prince, o•• daring minister m••g••t bring this kingdom into dreadful confusion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 having on his side an army of only 10,000 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and we seem now to plead prescripti••n for keeping up a force of above four times that number.

The people will grow always too hard for the prince, unless he is able to subdue and govern them by an army * 3.12.

When a country is so circumstanced, that fruga|lity is peculiarly necessary, a standing army is pecu|liarly improper. The annual charge of keeping up from 30 to 50,000 men is not small. And I think it impossible to shew any occasion we have for 5000 men, if we were so wise as to keep the militia upon a proper foot. Upon this one article we might, if we had imitated the Dutch, have saved a sum much above half a million per annum, which would have kept the nation clear of this mountanious load of debt, which is now sinking it into bankruptcy and ruin. We find, that when the army was about 18,000, the charge was above 5 or 600,000l. per annum. From this it is easy to compute what an expence the devour|ing army has cost, especially of late, since it has been so frightfully numerous.

The commons, in their remonstrance, A. D. 1628, complain of the army in time of peace, and of Back|ingham's standing commission as general. We esta|blish from year to year, a great army at an immense expence, while the nation is drowned in debt; and while no mortal can conceive from what quarter exter|nal danger can come upon us.

We hold it far beneath the heart of any free Englishman to think,

that this victorious nation should stand in need of German soldiers to defend their king and kingdom * 3.13.

The duke of Newcastle and the whig-administration did not think it beneath them to bring over Hessians and Hanoverians in the year 1756, to defend the king and kingdom. Mr. Pitt sent them a packing, and without their help, over-conquered the French. For he conquered them in Germany; whereas he had no occasion to do any thing, besides destroying their commerce by sea, taking their American continent and islands, interrupting their fishery, and harasing their coasts.

In the year 16••7, when the subject of the army was argued on both sides, the principal topick in favour of it was taken from the practice of the neigh|bouring nations, whose keeping up a standing force makes it necessary, said they, for us to do the same * 3.14. But we know, it is neither the interest, nor the incli|nation, of any of the powers of Europe, but France only, to give us any disturbance. And we know, that the continental powers of Europe keep up armies with other views than to us (France excepted;) why then should we keep up an army with a view to any of them, but France? And why on account of France, when we have naturally so great an advantage of France in our insular situation, and our powerful fleet? And if these two be not sufficient, it ••s certain, that a well regulated militia in the maritime counties must render all thought of an invasion from France, as an operation of war, romantic and absurd. There is no reason to think that they, who stand up for an army, do seriously think it necessary for any other

purpose than to make a provision for a number of per|sons who depend on the court, and thereby strengthen ministerial interest.

Though there was, in the times when this debate was agitated, a pretender living, and under the de|clared support of Louis XIV. the inveterate enemy of king William and British liberty, and though there was then a restless and powerful jacobite party in the kingdom, our ancestors did not chuse to trust their illustrious deliverer with more than 10,000 horse and foot; and the whigs lost much reputation by stickling for this small number, which, in the following year, was reduced to 7000. We keep up an army of above 40,000 in a time of profound peace, and without shadow of use for one soldier, but for a few garrisons abroad.

We think neither king nor parliament ought to keep up an army in the field when the war is ended, to the vast expence and utter impoverishment of the people. The trained-bands, which may be made use of with little charge, and the forces, which may be kept up in some chief garrisons, being sufficient to suppress any commotion or disturbance that is likely to arise from the occasions of the late trouble [Surely then we have had no occasion since for a standing army], and we conceive an army should only be kept up in case of a powerful insurrection within the kingdom, or of an invasion from abroad. [Even for those occasions a militia is incomparably preferable in an island.]

To maintain a perpetual army in the bowels of the kingdom at the expence of the subjects, when there is no enemy to fight with, is but to en|••••ve the king and kingdom under military bondage.

Words of the Scotch commissioners in their remon|strance to parliament for disbanding the English and

Scotch armies, A. D. 1647 * 3.15. They add afterwards, Armies were raised in defence of religion, the king's person and authority, the privileges of parliament, and the liberty of the subject, and when they are no more useful for that end, and the houses may consult freely, and act securely, without hostile op|position, it is high time to disband them, that the laws of the kingdom may take place; [i. e. because the laws are not likely to take place under the fear of a standing army]

Some of our neighbouring nations are necessitated to keep up armies, because they have enemies that lie contiguous to their borders. But the sea is our bulwark.

[N. B. The English fleet was not then, nor before, to be compared with what it has been in our times,]

and if we keep up amity and peace among ourselves, we need not fear foreign invasions, &c. * 3.16.

By this passage it appears, that the Scotch, whom we have lately seen so blamed for their slavish disposition, had, in those days, more of the spirit of liberty than the English shewed then, or since. In fact, the English people's shewing so little uneasiness under the grievances of a standing army, and the others of our times, shews them to be but too ripe for slavery.

The raising of one single regiment in Spain within these six years, under colour of being a guard for the king's person, so inflamed the nation, that a rebellion had ensued, if they had not been disbanded speedily * 3.17.

Thus writes Mr. Vernon to the earl of Manchester:

We are more jealous of our constitution and liberty than of our bad neighbours, and therefore have allowed but 350,000 l. for maintaining guards and garrisons this year, (1698) which we compute will

keep about 4000 horse and dragoons, and 6000 foot * 3.18.

Your royal progenitors have ever held their subjects hearts the best garrison of this kingdom.

The speak|er's speech, A. D. 1621, to Ch. I. against billeting soldiers on private houses * 3.19.

A numerous army always gives cause to suspect that the government is either afraid of the people, or has a design upon the people.

The commons resolve, A. D. 1673, that the con|tinuance of any standing forces in the nation, besides the militia, is a great grievance and vexation to the people. They likewise resolve, that according to the laws of the land, the king has no guards but those called gentlemen-pensioners and yeomen of the guard; that an army has never been countenanced (but quite contrary) by parliament, which has always looked on them as a set of men unlawfully assembled, of vast charge to king and kingdom; altogether useless to the nation, as appears from the peaceableness of the king's reign since the restoration. That the king accordingly was often without them; that guards, or standing ar|mies, are only in use in arbitrary countries where princes govern more by fear than love, as in France; that a life-guard is a standing army in disguise, and that as long as they continue, the roots of a standing army will remain* 3.20. What a wonderful illumination has opened the minds of our parliament since those ignorant times. A standing army is now an essential of the constitution.

Oxford (the friend of France and the pretender, the attainted Oxford) on the mutiny bill, says

While he has breath, he will speak for the liberties of his country, and against courts martial, and a standing army in peace, as dangerous to the constitution * 3.21.

The most likely way to restore the pretender, is maintaining a standing army to keep him out * 3.22.

Any man who would suggest to the king [William] that he could not be safe unless he were surrounded with guards, ought to be abhorred by every true Englishman * 3.23.

The sagacious Fletcher of Scotland dropped the friendship of lord Sunderland, because he voted for the army * 3.24.

An army in time of peace, unless by parliamentary authority, is illegal, says the declaration of rights at king William's accession * 3.25. If there be reason to sus|pect parliament of corruption, it may be added, that even with parliamentary authority, it is dangerous to liberty.

The throne of tyranny, which is upheld by an army, is in continual danger of being overthrown by the army. The Roman army dethroned and massacred several emperors of their own setting up. So do the Turkish janizaries from time to time. Therefore the masters of both have been obliged to employ them as much as possible in wars, on any pretence, to keep them from raising seditions * 3.26. Thus tyranny is not

only a curse to the people, who are immediately under it, but to all the surrounding nations.

Robbers, says Sir Thomas More, often prove gallant soldiers; but soldiers likewise often prove gallant rob|bers.

An able anonymous speaker in parliament, A. D. 1681, says, a king must govern either by a parlia|ment or an army; and that when the parliament is laid aside, the army must come in its place. That honest gentleman did not think of the possibility of bribing a parliament.

Lord Haversham, in his speech on the occasional conformity-bill, A. D. 1703, complains heavily of the conduct of the war.

England, says he, is a strong a••s crouching between two burdens, the navy and the army, and nothing material done for a great expence raised on the people * 3.27.

I would fain know (says Fletcher, p. 37.) if there be any other way of making a prince absolute, than by allowing him a standing army; if by it all princes have not been made absolute; if without it any. Whether our enemies shall conquer us is uncertain. But whether a standing army will enslave us, neither reason nor experience will suffer us to doubt. There|fore no pretence of danger from abroad can be an argument for keeping up mercenary forces.

The advocates for the army plead strongly for its usefulness in keeping the peace. Yet it is certain, that there have not been any where more terrible insur|rections, than in countries where great standing armies have ••een kept up; as at Rome in the imperial times, where the majority of the emperors died violent deaths; in Turkey, where the janizaries from time to time rise

in a fury, and dethrone a grand signor, or oblige him, to save himself, to make a scape-goat, or rather a sa|crifice of his wizir; at Algiers, where it is almost the established form of government for the dey to be murdered, and his murderer to succeed him, &c.

The barbarous common soldier (says Whitelock * 3.28, on occasion of Sanford's being plundered and killed by those of his own party at Colchester, A. D. 1648) will know no distinction between friends and foes. The goods of either come alike to his rapine; and upon a hasty word, he no more regards the blood of a friend, than of an enemy.

In the debate on the army * 3.29, lord Strafford said, he comma••ded a regiment of dragoons in the reign of king William, and at that time there was not any such law as what was in this bill, that we had no yearly mutiny-bills; yet, in those days the men were as good, and as well disciplined as at any time since. If any of the soldiers committed any crime, they were sure to be punished; the officers delivered them up to the civil power, to be dealt with according to law.

The French and Swiss troops are certainly as well disciplined as ours; and yet in France a soldier has a right in time of peace to his discharge after six years service; and in the Swiss service their soldiers generally contract for a certain number of years, after which they may return home if they please, which is the true cause of that count••y's being always full of disciplined soldiers * 3.30.

Lord Egmont, in the year 1750, spoke as follows in favour of our soldiery, and against martial law.

Sir, The commander in chief of our army may make himself master of many of our elections; and where he cannot by such means make himself master, he may do as Caius Marius did at Rome, he may give private orders to his soldiers to murder any one that shall dare to set himself up as a candidate against the man he has recommended. For the first attempt that great and wicked Roman made against the liber|ties of his country, was to get his soldiers to murder the man who stood candidate for the tribuneship in opposition to the person he patronized; and the Roman soldiers were even by that time become so abandoned, so lost to all sense of law or liberty, that they readily obeyed their general's orders, though he was then out of command, and though it was about 100 years after the end of the second Punic war, and not above 150 years after the Romans first began to keep the same army under military law for a number of years together. For though the Romans from the very first origin of their city were almost continually engaged in wars, yet those wars were always for the first 500 years carried on by fresh armies; so that it seldom happened that any number of their troops were above a year without returning to enjoy the happiness of freedom and liberty. By this custom, their citizens continued all to be soldiers, and their soldiers to be citizens; but soon after they began to keep up and carry on their wars by stand|ing armies, their citizens lost that warlick spirit, and their soldiers that love of liberty by which alone the freedom of government can be preserved. For this reason, Sir, we ought to be careful not to give the meanest soldier of our army an occasion to think that he is in a state of slavery: On the contrary, we should, as far as is consistent with the nature of

military service, furnish them with reasons for re|joicing in their being English soldiers, and conse|quently in a condition much superior to that of the slavish armies upon the continent.

Debate about martial law * 3.31, A. D. 1718. It was moved, that the offences committed by the soldiery be cognizable and punished in time of peace by the civil magistrate only. Carried for the martial law.

In slavish countries, the army is generally the most numerous, and contrariwise in free countries.

The Roman army in Augustus's time was 13 legions, supposed of 5000 men each, or 65,000 men. In the emperor Alexander's time the Roman legions were 32, or 160,000 men, quartered in many different places* 3.32. In Turkey, the ordinary establishment is above 150,000 men * 3.33. Of their insolence to the prince and cruelty to the people, see Montalb. RER. TURC. COMMENT. p. 5. The Persian army, when effective, consists of 309,000 horse, and 40,000 foot* 3.34.

The Chinese army is supposed to consist of 2,6••9,191 men.* 3.35 Some of the inland kingdoms of Africa have raised armies of a million of men * 3.36. The Mogul's army consisted in the beginning of last century, of no less than 1,068,248 horse * 3.37. The kings of Pegu in India, have had armies of a million, or a million and half of men * 3.38.

That of the king of Congo in Africa, is said to con|sist of 900,000 men, A. D. 1665 * 3.39. Pranjinoko, an East-Indian monarch, had an army of 1,700,000 men, besides 80,000 horse, and 1500 elephants. Yet he was conquered * 3.40. Tamerlane's army was 800,000 men. According to some authors double the number. Bajazet's not quite so numerous. In a slavish country, the army is always an important object * 3.41.

CHAP. II. Facts relating to the Army.

ALL wise states have been jealous of the army. The Carthaginians had a council of one hundred taken out of the senate, whose office was to watch the conduct of the generals and officers * 3.42.

Pisistratus having procured from the city of Athens fifty fellows armed only with cudgels for the security 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his worthless person from pretended dangers, im|proved this handful into an army, and with it enslaved his country. When Tyndarides meditated the ruin of the Syracusan liberty, one of his first steps was to draw round him a multitude of needy and desperate people, by way of a guard * 3.43.

The Romans were startled at the fight of 120 lic|••ors, or peace-officers for the guard of the decemviri. Such an army was dangerous, they said, to liberty.

What would those jealous old Romans, what would our stern forefathers have said, had they seen 18,000 mercenary soldiers kept up in this free country (whose natural guard is a militia, and a fleet equal in force to that of all Europe put together) in a time of profound peace, in spite of all the repeated and continued remon|strances of all men of public spirit for ages, at the same time that our governors do not know how to defray the necessary charges of government, and the nation is plunged in a bottomless sea of debt.

When Rome was thought to be in the utmost danger from the contest between Sylla and Marius, the consul Octavius was advised to arm the slaves for the preserva|tion of the republic. He rejected a proposal so un|constitutional. For the Romans thought it dangerous to put arms in the hands of slaves * 3.44. Our free British policy directs us hardly to trust arms in any other hands than those of slaves. For we have no slaves in Britain, but the soldiery. That they are slaves.—slaves for life—in the strictest sense of the word, will appear manifest to every person, who attends to the proper definition of slavery, viz. being obliged to sub|mit for life, to the absolute command of another, to do or to suffer whatever the superior imposes on him, without redress.

Sylla, on the contrary, gave liberty, citizenship, and arms, to 10,000 slaves, to attach them to his interest; breaking through all principles of the constitution, to gain his own ambitious views.

It is strange, says Harrington, that kings should be so fond as they are of standing armies. No order of men has suffered so much as they, by the soldiery.

The sons of Zeruiah, Ioab captain of the host, and Abishai his brother, were too strong for David; thus the kings of Israel and of Iuda fell most of them by their captains or favourites, as I have else|where observed more particularly. Thus Brutus being standing captain of the guards, could cast out Tarquin; thus Sejanus had means to attempt against Tiberius; Oth•• to be the rival of Galba, Casperius Aelianus of Nerva, Cassius of Antoninus, Perrenis of Commodus, Maximinus of Alexander, Phillippus of Gordian, Aemilianus of Gallus, Ingebus of Lollianus, Aureolus of Gallienus, Magnensius of Constantius, Maxi|mus of Gratian, Arbogastes of Valantinan, Ruffinus of Arcadius, Stilico of Honorius. Go from the west into the east: upon the death of Marcianus, Asparis alone having the command of the arms, could prefer Leo to the empire; Phocas deprived Mauritius of the same; Heraclius deposed Phocas; Leo Isaurus could do as much to Theodosius Adramytinus, as Nicephorus to Irene, Leo Armenius to Michael Curopalates, Romanus Laga|penus to Constantin, Nicephorus Phocas to Romanus ••••er, Iohannes Zismisces to Nicephorus Phocus, Isaac Comnenus to Michael Stratioticus, Botoniates to Michael the son of Ducas, Alexius Comnenus to Botoniates; which work continued in such manner, 'till the destruction of that empire. Go from the east to the north: Gustavus attained to the kingdom of Sweden, by his power and command of an army; and thus Secechus came near to supplant Boleslaus III. of Poland. If Wallestein had lived, what had become of his master? In France the race of P••aramond was extinguished by Pepin; and that of Pepin in like manner, each by the major of the palace, a standing magistracy of exorbitant trust. Go to the Indies: you shall find a king of Pegu to have been thrust

out of the realm of Tangu, by his captain general, &c.

Caesar puts all Rome, and Pompey himself, into a consternation, by approaching the city at the head of a terrible army. Domitius Abenobarbus, fearing Caesar's vengeance, takes what he thinks to be poison.

Sylla bribes the legions, who were the instruments of his tyranny, with the confiscated lands of the friends of liberty * 3.45.

The army is as fickle as the people. Often turns upon its masters, as the lion sometimes devours his keeper.

In the contest between Sylla and Marius, the con|sular army was sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other.

When Caesar, by every wicked art, procured the government of Illyricum for 5 years, with an army of 4 legions (not half the standing force now kept up by our ministers) Cato told the senators what they after|wards severely felt, That they were placing an armed tyrant in their citadel.

Even the pension-parliament, in Ch. II's time, and Iames's first passive-obedience parliament, stop|ped short, and turned upon those corrupt ministries, when the last stroke was levelled against liberty. They saw that when they should be no longer neces|sary, they would be used as traitors always are by those, who take advantage of their treason, that is, sacrificed to the resentment of the people.

And in king William's time, the court party almost ruined themselves by speaking up for the army * 3.46.

Pompey brings home at one time spoils of war to the value of 12 millions sterling, with which he bribed the

army, to attach them to himself, giving the private men fifty pounds each, and large sums to the officers * 3.47.

The greatest part of the Roman emperors set up by the praetorian guards. The same military men mur|dered the amiable Pertinax, for attempting to restore discipline * 3.48.

The soldiers would suffer none to reign, but tyrants * 3.49.

The Roman legions were, by the triumviri, bribed against their country with the lands of their proscrib|ed countrymen.

Augustus disposed of the army, so as to have them always within call. Their number computed to be 170,650, of which 10,000 were always in the neigh|bourhood of Rome * 3.50.

Augustus takes to himself the government of all the provinces, in which troops were, on pretence of insur|rections, commonly kept; and leaves the others to be disposed of by the conscript fathers; thus cunningly keeping in his own hands the army, which lay in those provinces * 3.51.

Aurelius would not, like too many of his predeces|sors and followers, enrich the army with the plunder of the people * 3.52.

Maximin, and several others of the imperial tyrants, were massacred by the same army which set them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the throne. The case has been the same in most ••••untries, where the prince rules by means of an armed force.

Philippus, the supposed poisoner of the excellent emperor Gordian, chosen emperor by the army, writes

home to the senate to inform them. They are obliged to acquiesce * 3.53. And when Aurelian was murdered, the senate did not dare to chuse a successor, though the army left it to them, lest they should not make a choice agreeable to the army. Wretched Romans! could not even chuse their tyrant * 3.54.

Claudius, and all the Roman emperors after him, gave the soldiers money on their accession * 3.55. It was they, who dragged him from behind the tapestry, where, through aversion to eminence, he had hid himself, and set him on the throne * 3.56. Nero was carried to the camp, to be received as emperor, before he was acknowledged by the people * 3.57. It was the praetorian guards, who raised, at their pleasure, al|most all the emperors to the throne.

The Roman legions, taken by the Gauls in Vespa|sian's time, swear allegiance to them, and promise to give up their officers * 3.58. So little does principle pre|vail in the army, and so little are they to be trusted by princes.

Nothing but a bribed army would have supported the villainous Roman emperors. Caracalla attempted in the sight of the legions to stab his father the em|peror Severus. He remonstrates to him on his bloody ••••d unnatural disposition. Caracalla shews no remorse; on the contrary, he afterwards attempts to depose his father, and debauches, for that purpose, several 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the officers. Murders his brother Geta immediately on his accession, and 20,000 of his domestics, and makes it death to utter his name. Murders in cold blood the whole youth of Noricum, and almost all

the Alexandrians, because they had lampooned him. Orders a tribune and sol••iers to bring Chilo and mur|der him before his face. The people save Chilo. Cara••••lla, to appease the people, denies his having had any such design, and orders the tribune and sol|diers to be put to death as the proposers of Chilo's murder. Massacres a daughter of Aurelius for expres|sing some concern for the cruel fate of Geta, and several of the sacred vestal virgins on the same account. Orders his soldiers to massacre a multitude of people in the theatre for not liking a charioteer in the Circen|••ian games, whom he approved. The military ruf|fians, not distinguishing the delinquents from the rest, fell indifferently upon all, sword in hand, and made a dreadful havock of the helpless unarmed multitude, sparing only such as redeemed their lives with money. He loaded the people with taxes in all the provinces, saying, while I wear this sword, I shall never want money; and at Rome caused numbers to be put to death, sometimes out of revenge, for their censuring his tyrannical proceedings, sometimes for his diver|sion merely; for his supreme delight was the sight of streaming blood, and the sound of dying groans. No sex, rank, or age, escaped his fury. He wrote to the senate, that he knew, they disapproved his con|duct; but that he neither valued nor feared them, while he had an army at his command. These are some of Caracalla's feats. Yet this devil (and surely the most inveterate of the infernals, if he were to come up hot from the regions of fire and brimstone, could not outdo such a character) was, after his being put to death by order of Macrinus, his successor, manufactured, by the irrisistible army, into a god, and Macrinus, the emperor, was obliged by the army

to give his order to the senate for that purpose. Such are the blessings of a standing army * 3.59!

The danger of armies appeared in the Florentines war with the German banditti [mercenaries dis••••nded by making peace between the Florentines and Visconti] who amounted to 8000 horse, and 4000 foot, and plun|dered all Italy. Many towns paid whatever ransom those miscreants imposed on them.

The fairest and most populous provinces in Italy were laid under contribution by a set of lawless ruffians, whose pro|gress increased their numbers, as their barbarity did the horror in which they were held. Wherever they met with the least resistance, ruin to the inhabitants was the certain consequence: they demolished towns, desolated countries, slaughtered people, and nothing but money could buy off the ravages. It was upon this occasion that the wisdom and mag|nanimity of the Florentines shone out with a lustre, equal to that of the greatest states of antiquty. Instead of being intimidated by the example of their neighbours, or the numbers of the banditti, they considered them as monsters, and were determined to destroy them. The most respectable citizens of the Florentine allies came to Florence, to persuade the people, and magistrates, that they had no way to avoid certain destruction but to send deputies to treat with the ruffians; and that they might buy their peace cheaper than their quarters for a single day would cost them; this advice was disdained by the Florentines. Malatesta led his troops to the field against the banditti, and offered them battle, but the robbers were startled at their valour, and re|treated: the Florentines pursued them with success.

And now it appeared that true courage cannot ani|mate a lawless set of men.

The attention of all Italy had been employed for some time upon the firm conduct of the Florentines, and it now became their admiration. The most distant states interested themselves in the fate and support of so much magnanimity, and wanted to ••hare in the glory.

Thus ended, to the immortal honour of Florence, a danger that threatened great calamity to her state * 3.60. Armies are dangerous, when kept up, and dangerous when disbanded.

So much is an army necessary to tyranny, that all the despotic power now in Europe is owing to standing armies being formed, and was, till then, unknown. Ch. VII. of France (where the first standing army was established) was very absolute, and Lewis XI. more. He humbled his nobles; divided them; increased his army and his revenue; and by threatening and bribing, biassed the assembly of the states * 3.61.

The revolution in which Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, mounted the throne of Russia, was brought about by Elizabeth's being more in favour with the army, than the great duke, whom she de|throned* 3.62.

When cardinal Ximenes's authority for governing the kingdom of Spain, during the minority of Ch. V. was questioned by some of the grandees, he brought out to them the will of Ferdinand, and ratification by Charles, appointing him regent. Afterwards drawing them to a balcony, from whence they could see some troops exercising,

If, says he, you be not contented

with the authority I have shewn you, look there; by these I mean to keep up my power.

He was armed; they unarmed. Which was likely to prevail * 3.63? Ximenes was a wise and good minister. But had he been the worst that ever was possessed of power, the army would probably have supported him.

When the silly commons of Denmark, A. D. 1660, threw away their liberties (as children do the play|things they are tired of) the king at first told them, offering him absolute power, that he had scruples, Nolo episcopari; but he artfully shut the city gates on pretence of keeping the peace; but in reality, because, having the army entirely in his power, it was im|possible for any of the nobility to retire to their estates without his leave, which brought his in|trigues to a speedy issue * 3.64.

In the great kingdom of Siam, the governors of the distant provinces often engage the troops under them to revolt, and set up for themselves * 3.65.

When prince Maurice attempted to seize the liberties of Holland, he filled the roads and avenues with his soldiers * 3.66. It was impossible for the cities of Holland to save themselves, because the statholder had the army at command, and the states of Holland were wholly disarmed * 3.67.

In this very year 1772, the Swedish army has en|slaved that country.

Unfortunately for the peace of mankind, armies are but too easily found, ready to fight for any cause. Did not that most worthless prince Rich. III. find an army of Englishmen ready to fight for him against

liberty. Did not Ch. I. find one? Was not the army under Iam. II. willing to support his tyranny, till they came to understand, that he intended to Disband them the first opportunity, and to replace them with an army of papists? And did he not find an army to fight for him afterwards in Ireland?

An army may be led on to any violence, however contrary to the general sentiments, ••f there is a pros|pect of a plentiful harvest of spoil. Ladislaus, king of Naples, A. D. 1413, though himself a papist, and every soldier in his army a papist, plundered the holy Father's holy chapel and palaces, stripped the holy churches, seized the holy jewels, and holy shrines of the holy saints, and massacred several of the holy bishops * 3.68. Charlemagne, on the contrary, proposed to employ his soldiery in time of peace, in making canals and public works * 3.69. Ours are employed too in time of peace—in drinking, whoring, powdering for the reviews, and massacring the people.

The Turkish janizaries and priests rule all, and set up and pull down sultans at their pleasure. The Roman army, under the emperors, did the same. It is certain, that the janizaries and priests in Turkey could at any time obtain a Magna Charta for their country, and that the Roman army under the emperors could have restored the republican liberty, when they pleased. But such is the nature of man. A king will erect himself into a tyrant; and every common soldier is for supporting him, because he himself is a petty tyrant under the great one; which pleasure he knows he must lose, whenever general liberty is re|stored. Therefore he will certainly never promote a restoration of liberty.

In two years we have seen the constitution of France, Sweden, and Poland overturned, and reduced to military governments * 3.70.

By this, (says Whitelock * 3.71, speaking of the army's petition, A. D. 1646.) we may take notice how soon the officers and soldiers of an army, though ever so well disciplined, will, through want of action, [an army can have no action in time of peace], fall into disorder, and designs of trouble.

Again:

Here it was observed [in the house] that a victorious army out of employment is very incli|nable to assume power over their principals; and this occasioned the parliament's greater care for their employment in Ireland.

He observes, on the two houses ordering their declaration against the army to be erased from their journals, That

then the parliament begun to surrender themselves and their power into the hands of their own army.

When they removed the king from Holdenby, they acted altogether by their own authority; and when he asked by what warrant, cornet Ioyce answered, It was the plea|sure of the army. Afterwards * 3.72, the soldiery beset the house of commons, and extorted ordinances in their favour. Then parliament found it necessary to enable the city to raise the militia for their defence against the army. The army advances. This report of their approach puts all in terror. The committee of safety is revived. The sheriffs and common-council attend the house with letters from the army. A committee of both houses sits all night. Letters are sent from both houses requiring general Fairfax not to come nearer than 1•• miles of London. The

trained-bands were raised, and the shops for several days shut. Messages after messages from the parlia|ment and city to the terrible army. The army at St. Albans. The trained-bands ordered to guard the house. The army sends demanding, that 11 members, obnoxious to them, be suspended, with other matters equally arbitrary. At length, says the same author * 3.73, several counties, and the citizens of London begun to make all their applications to the general and army, omitting the parliament, and all looked upon the army as in the chief place, and were afraid of doing any thing contrary to them.' And, the votes of the house shewed such a fear of the army as was much censured. The 11 members, for the sake of peace, though nothing was laid to their charge, left the house, and some of them the kingdom.

When Ch. I. ever bent on mischief, proposed to give Spain the Irish army, who had no visible want of them, the lords agreed immediately. But the wise, and consequently suspicious, commons found a design in this, viz. to keep up an embodied army, which he cou••d call over from Flanders when he pleased. The mad king insists on performing his promise. Parliament publishes an ordinance forbidding all per|sons to as••i••t in transporting them, on pain of being declared enemies to the state. Nobody dared, after this, to obey the king * 3.74.

In the tyranny of Ch. I. soldiers were billetted on private houses, as a punishment for resisting the king's unparliamentary schemes for raising money. The people were afraid to go from home, even to church, lest their houses should be rifled the while.

The magistracy were resisted by them. Farmers fled, and the rents were unpaid. The manners of the peo|ple were debauched by the ruffian-soldiery. Robberies, rapes, and murders were committed by them, un|punished, unrestrained. The manufacturers, and other working people, were interrupted in their busi|ness by their violence. The markets were unfre|quented, through danger of travelling. And insur|rections and rebellions were the consequences to be expected from the discontents of the people * 3.75.

It is true, that alehouses and sots-holes are as great a nuisance as can be in a country; and therefore it is no great matter what burden be laid on them. But inns are absolutely necessary in a commercial coun|try; and to fill them with useless and dangerous sol|diers is a grievance they may very justly complain of, as it singles them out from all other house keepers, and subjects them, like papists, to an extraordinary tax. And on the other hand, to place the army in garrisons and barracks, is separating them still more from the people, and leading them to think them|selves and their interest totally distinct.

This, and a thousand other considerations, shew an army in a free country to be an institution incapable of being put on a proper foot.

In the year 1647, when general Fairfax entered the city with his army, where he behaved with much regularity, his power was so uncontrouled, that he might, probably, have assumed what station he pleased * 3.76. His having so great power by means of his forces, shews the tremendous importance of the army. His making so moderate a use of the ascendancy he had (compare his conduct with Crom|well's aftewards) shews extraordinary magnanimity.

When Fairfax saw himself at the head of the army, he assumed the authority of a king, as appears by his letters still extant. He protests against all proceed|ings of the parliament during certain periods. He insists on the punishment of the eleven members, who were obnoxious to the army; who afterwards grew very outragious; they had some pretence, because par|lament had resolved to disband them without satisfy|ing their demands * 3.77. Cornet Ioyce, and a party of soldiers seize the king at Holdenby. Parliament resolves (too late) to redress the army's grievances, and ex|punge the offence. By which resolutions, says White|locke, they gave themselves up to their own army.

The two new speakers send a strong remonstrance to Fairfax on the violences committed by the army * 3.78. They complain of his coming nearer the city than they had ordered, and desire him to return to his station. They complain of the army's attacking and killing several persons; and of warrants from him for raising men and money without authority of parlia|ment; the very worst charge against Ch. I. himself.

The city was dreadfully alarmed at the approach of the army so near at St. Albans. The shops shut, and trained bands ordered out on pain of death. The guards about the two houses were doubled, and arm•• placed in the outer rooms * 3.79.

See a letter from the lord mayor, aldermen, &c. to Fairfax, flattering him most shamefully, and assuring him that no counter-army has been, or shall, with their consent, be raised. The army was then predo|minant above all.

Parliament publishes (too late) an indemnity for the army. A committee of members sent to treat with them. All which made them only more insolent * 3.80.

The commons recant their votes against the army, and appoint a fast through fear of them * 3.81.

The army is a formidable body not to be pro|voked, and will be upon you before you be aware.

General Skippon to the parliament * 3.82.

Fairfax marches into the city without opposition. Plants ordance against the gate on the bridge. The citizens presently yield, and revoke all they had pub|lished against the army. They offer the general a golden ewar, value 1,000l. and invite him and his officers to a feast at Guildhall. He declines these forced compliments. He and his army march through the city with laurels as conquerors. The city sneaks. This is the true spirit of the army. The general receives the thanks of both houses [for enslaving them * 3.83.]

A remonstrance comes from the army for purging the house of the members disliked by them * 3.84. Upon which the lords order a letter of thanks to be sent to Fairfax for his care of the parliament's independency. The army threatens open war, if any of the expelled members presume to sit, unless they acquit them|selves of all blame to the satisfaction of the house * 3.85.

Delinquents, i. e. those whom the army disap|proved, disqualified by a forced act of parliament for voting in elections for mayors, recorders, sheriffs, &c. but no mention of members * 3.86. In this manner did the army rule with a rod of iron.

Cromwell and Ireton pretend to be much offended against the soldiers, while they were secretly encou|raging them. Parliament suspects Cromwell, and designs to seize him. He hears of the design, and suddenly flies to the army, though just before, he had told the house he was hated in the army, and in dan|ger of his life, because he was for the Parliament* 3.87.

Many members, A. D. 1648, were seized and con|fined by the soldiery * 3.88. Treated with unexampled insolence; especially Prynne, who deserved so well of the public by standing up for liberty, for which he with Bastwicke and Burton was pilloried, and cruelly mangled.

Under Cromwell, the mock-patron of liberty, there was established a standing army of 10,000 horse, and 20,000 foot. This was his way of settling a free constitution * 3.89.

The sudden dissolution of the parliament, A. D. 1653, is ascribed by some to Cromwell's ambition, who wanted to take upon himself the charge of pro|tector, and employed a set of members in the house to propose it. Some refusing to quit the house, were driven out by a file of musqueteers: So that what in Charles I. was called abominable tyranny, was acted anew by the liberty folks. O man? O my worthless fellow-creature! What a Proteus thou art! But thou art my fellow-creature; and therefore, if I could, I would do thee good. Cromwell protests that he knew nothing of their dissolving themselves till they came to him * 3.90. Immediately after he had done the

most tyrannical thing ever heard of, viz. excluding by military force almost 100 members from the house, because they were not of his side, the commons request him to be king * 3.91. Such weight does the army give to the scale, in to which it is thrown.

In the time of the republic, when England was in the way to her highest pinnacle of glory, the chief attention was paid to the fleet. Kings, on the con|trary, trust chiefly to the army, as being the proper instrument for gaining the great object of kings.

It is doubtful,' says our celebrated female historian, whether a naval force could be rendered useful in any capacity, but that of extending the power and prosperity of the country * 3.92.

She observes* 3.93, that Cromwell could not have established his usurpation, but by the army; that after the dissolution of the republi|can parliament, the army was the only visible acting power; and that they accordingly took upon them|selves the whole government of the state, and sweet was the government they carried on.

M••. Pierrepoint said, in the house of commons, A. D. 1660, it was inconsistent for an army and a parliament to subsist together, and that the trained bands were sufficient. Colonel Birch said,

The people's liberties were not safe with such an army; that though he was a member of it himself, yet he moved it might be paid off * 3.94.

See major Robert Huntingdon's reasons for lay|ing down his commission, A. D. 1647, RYM. FOED, XX, 558, in which he shews, that he saw plainly,

Cromwell's design was to set himself and the army above both parties, viz. king and parliament; and that Cromwell, with all his cunning, had often pub|licly declared in conversation with his friends,

That the interest of honest men

[his own party]

was the interest of the kingdom. That he hoped the army should be an army, as long as they lived. That it was lawful to purge the parliament, or put a period to it, and support his own party by force. That it was lawful to play the knave with knaves, &c.

Cromwell's pranks shew plainly, that a man of courage backed by an army, is capable of any thing. The dialogue between him and Whitlocke, about Cromwell's taking the crown, is very curious. Crom|well shews, that he thinks public affairs on a very pre|carious foot on account of the quarels between the army and parliament. Complains of the pride, ambi|tion and avarice of the latter, ingrossing all places of profit and honour; their factious dispositions, delays of business, design to perpetuate themselves in power, scandalous lives, nothing to keep them in bounds, being the supreme power. Cromwell proposes to take upon himself the name of king [before he was lord-protector] Whitlocke told him, the cure would be worse than the disease; that he had the kingly power al|most, without the invidious name. That the very contest was, whether England should be a monarchy, or a republic, not whether the king's name should be Ch. or Oliver. Whitlocke proposes that Cromwell re|store Ch. II. and stipulate security for himself and friends. Cromwell not pleased with Whitlocke's senti|ments, conceals his displeasure with much prudence, and sends Whitlocke soon after ambassador to Sweden. * 3.95

In the short space of 12 years, the parliament had entirely subdued and established tyranny of more than 500. In the form of government built on its ruins, they had recalled the wisdom, and the glory of an|tient times. One revolted nation they had reduced to obedience; another they had added to the English empire. The United Provinces were humbled to a state of accepting any imposed terms. And the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 enemy of all the courts and states of Europe was turned to humble and earnest solicitation for friendship and alliance. At this full period of na|tional glory, when both the domestic and foreign enemies of the country were dispersed, and every where subdued, when England, after so long a subjec|tion to monarchical tyranny, bade fair to out-do in the constitution of its government, and consequently in its power and strength, every circumstance of glory, wisdom, and happiness, related of antient, or modern times; when Englishmen were on the point of attaining a fuller measure of happiness, than had ever been the portion of human society—the base and wicked selfishness of one trusted citizen

[at the head of an army]

disappointed the promised harvest of their hopes, and deprived them of that liberty, for which, at the expence of their blood and their trea|sure, they had so long and so bravely contended * 3.96.

Thus our incomparable female historian sets forth the mischiefs which that extraordinary man was enabled to do to his country, by means of the tremendous army. Nor did he obtain for himself any honour or advantage, which could in any degree compensate for the evils he brought on England. He destroyed the liberties of his country, and with them ruined the happiness of his

own life. Wretched ambition! To what dost thou bring thy votaries! See Cromwell, who might have lived peaceful and happy, had he, immediately after settling the commonwealth, disbanded his army, and returned to a private unenvied station, and who might have been to all ages celebrated among the illustrious founders of states, the patrons of liberty, and destroy|ers of tyrants—behold him, canting, sneaking, and dissembling, to curry favour with those he despised; beh••ld him tortured with guilt, and fear of assassina|tion, and of damnation; scared at the sight of every stranger▪ terrified at pamphlets and paragraphs en|couraging to destroy him; armed with a coat of mail under his cloaths; afraid to sleep two nights in the same chamber, or to return the same way he went; incumbered with guards, and afraid even of them; hated by his relations; distrusting, and distrusted by his domestics; dying just in time, surrounded with difficulties and distresses, from which he was not likely to extricate himself.

What availed his raising himself to the romantic heighth, to which he at last soared, when from a private gentleman, and a cornet of horse, he came to be every thing of a king but the name, and seemed by his answer to Monsieur Bellievere admiring his wonder|ful fortune, (L'on ne monte jamais si haut, que lorsqu'on ne sçait ou l'on va) to be himself astonished at his own elevation—What availed, I say, the wonderful feats he performed by means of the army, when he made all Europe stand aghast at the sound of his name? A very short space of time would, probably, if he had lived, have brought him down as low, as ever he was high. For nothing is permanent that is not founded in justice.

Afterwards the army fell into the hands of Lambert, whose officers make demands on the parliament. They resolve against them. Great contests between parlia|ment and army * 3.97. At last Lambert stops the speaker in his coach, and hinders the house from meeting * 3.98. This was the second time of forcibly dissolving this parliament.

When the peaceable Richard, the son of Cromwell, succeeded to his father's protectoral power, he soon found that the officers designed to force him to dissolve the parliament * 3.99. He is obliged to yield to the army; loses all his authority. The army takes the govern|ment * 3.100.

The parliament would have established republican government, upon the resignation of Richard Cromwell, if they had not been bullied out of it by Monk and the army, who brought in again upon their country, the curse of the Stuarts.

There was in short nothing but doing and undoing in those times the parliament being as much slaves to the army then, as they are in modern times [the present always excepted] to the court.

It is well known, that Ch. II. proposed, by means of the army, to enslave the kingdom.

The garrison of Tangiers being brought over to England,

served to augment that small army, on which the king

[Ch. II.]

relied, as one solid basis of his authority * 3.101.

An honest, though too timid house of commons, addressed Ch. II. against his guards (which were but 6000) as unfavourable to liberty. * 3.102.

The commons in Ch. II's second parliament, voted the standing army, and king's guards, illegal * 3.103. Mr. Hume approves this as necessary to liberty * 3.104.

The parliament beginning to doubt, whether there had not been too great a confidence reposed in Ch. II. by that generation, of fond fools, who received him at his restoration, and by their beslobbering, spoiled him; voted, that he should not have power to keep the militia under arms above a fortnight together, without consent of parliament * 3.105. They were jealous even of the militia. We are not afraid of above 40,000 soldiery wholly dependent on the crown, and detached for life from the people.

Clarendon at last persuaded Ch. II. that he could not be safe on his throne, without disbanding the army, which having once been above all other powers in the state, and having modelled it at their pleasure, would not be likely to brook submission to a king. It was accordingly broke, all but 1000 horse and 5000 foot, The first standing army in England * 3.106.

It was generally believed that the design was to keep up and model the army now raised, reckoning, there would be money enough

[300,000l. a year for three years, expected from the French king]

to pay them, 'till the nation should be brought under mili|tary government.

Ch. II. and his brother the duke of York, laid the main stress of their kingship upon the army.

If once they (the duke of York's enemies) get the navy, purge the guards and garrisons, and put new men in, they will be absolute masters.

The duke of York's words in his letter to the prince of Orange* 3.107.

The king (Ch. II.) has yet the fleet, the garrisons and guards; so that if he will stand by himself, he may yet be a king.

The duke of York to the prince of Orange * 3.108.

Upon the defeat of Monmouth's rebellion, king Iames became intoxicated with his prosperity. In|stead of disbanding his army, he encamped it on Hounslow heath, and resolved to make it the great in|strument of his power * 3.109.

Mr. Trenchard, in the year 1722, defied the advo|cates for standing armies, to produce a plausible pre|text for keeping them up. What would he have said, had he lived in our times, when every argument for them is growing weaker. * 3.110

I presume, says he* 3.111, no man will be audacious enough to propose, that we should make a standing army part of our constitution.

Is it not, in our times, to every intent and purpose a part of our con|stitution?

Parliament under William and Mary were uncon|querably resolute on disbanding the army, and sending away the Dutch guards, though the king had in a manner petitioned for their stay. William was highly disgusted, so that he made a speech which he intended to speak in parliament, and to abdicate, and go abroad. It is uncertain how he was diverted from his purpose. In his letter to lord Galway, he has these words.

It is not to be conceived how people here are set against foreigners.

And afterwards.

There is a spirit of ignorance and malice prevails here, beyond conception * 3.112.

King William, in his speech, A. D. 1697, tells par|liament that a land force is necessary; and indeed there was, at that time, some pretence, because of the mad disaffected party which prevailed. Yet a mi|litia was manifestly preferable then, and at all times. But the best kings love a mercenary army better than a free militia. Many of the members were offended at the king's recommending so strongly an army of land-forces. And the first resolution made was di|rectly in the teeth of the king's speech, viz. That all the land-forces of this kingdom which have been raised since September 29, 1680, shall be paid and disbanded. The army consisted then of 17,656 in|fantry, and 6,876 horse and dragoons. Orders were given out for rewarding, paying off, and granting privileges to the soldiers, and for making the militia useful * 3.113.

It is said, that the same prince, enraged at parlia|ment's refusing to let his Dutch guards stay with him, after he had requested it as a personal favour, swore,

if he had a son, they should not leave him.

That is, it would have been worth his while to keep them in spite of parliament. And it is plain▪ he thought this practicable, and if it was, then any thing may be practicable by him, who has the command of the tre|mendous army.

The commons, staunch to the salutary doctrine of

No standing army in a free country in a time of peace,

went on reforming the army, till at last they settled it at about 10,000. The king was highly offended at their jealousy of him, who had done so much for them; and never deceived them. Said to Burnet, that if he had

known how the English would treat him, he never would have meddled with them * 3.114. Did our glorious deliverer really think the people were not as anxious about their own safety as he could be? What was it to him, what army the people of England chose to keep up? Did not they know best? And was it not their affair much more than his?

Upon the disbanding of the army under king Wil|liam, a larger provision was made for the sea service. The nation could better afford it * 3.115.

The Dutch keep up no more than 32,000 standing forces in time of war; though they are upon the same continent with, and their capital not many days march from the French dominions * 3.116.

So hard have the ministerial crew been put to it for arguments to defend the keeping up of a standing army, that we find in the DEB. OF THE LORDS, IV.453, a pretence, taken from the number of standing forces kept up by France, for our keeping up an army proportioned to the French. Whereas we should have no more to fear from France's keeping up an army of a million of men, than of one thousand, unless their fleet was an overmatch for ours.

In Walpole's time, it was strongly alledged, that officers were advanced, or neglected ••ccording to their parliamentary conduct and conn••••••••ons. Does not this render the army dreadfully dangerous to liberty?

In all deliberations of this kind,

(says Mr. Pulte|ney in the debate on the Spanish convention, A. D.

1739 * 3.117.)

I have constantly observed these military gentlemen very prudently consult the peace of their country, as well as their own glory, by being the first to approve of the minister's most destructive schemes, and even his pacific measures. We all know, when it has happened otherwise, what was the consequence. They, who had the courage, to follow the dictates of their own breasts, were dis|abled from further serving their country in a military capacity.

The author of the Present State af the Nation, esti|mates the yearly expence of the useless and dangerous army in a profound peace at 1,437,600l. including ordance; while the inestimable fleet, and militia, the natural strength of a free country surrounded with the sea, cost the nation only 1,600,000l.

Every opportunity a minister and his tools have of embezzling the public money is an evil. The keep|ing up of a numerous standing army furnishes this very plentifully. It is alledged, that the great com|manders under the umbrage of the ministry, have constantly several thousand men in their pockets. False musters were found, A. D. 1711. Not above two thirds of the muster-rolls were effective men. The annual estimate of the army in those times used to be about 700,000l; one third of which, therefore, or 233,000l. a year, must have been sunk in certain pockets. Many debtors were protected by the mili|tary. Chartres guilty this way, and of tampering with witnesses, produced before the committee. The queen was to be informed, and desired to punish Char|tres, and all other persons concerned. It was found, that subjects had been imprisoned in the Savoy without

authority in writing from a commission-officer; that they had been put in irons, and sold to be sent abroad. The queen was desired to give certain soldiers their dismission from the service, and protection against pressing; for having witnessed these facts * 3.118. Thus the people are plundered, and amidst the shew of a numerous army, deprived of the advantage, if ad|vantage there be, in the reality. See a motion about the absence of officers from Minorca * 3.119. Out of nineteen officers, only five were left on duty in the island, at a time when the invasion of it was threaten|ed by Spain, so publickly, that all Europe knew it. See the examination of general Anstruther, lieutenant governor * 3.120.

The great victories gained in queen Anne's time over the French in land fights, were very prejudicial to England. For it was impossible we should gain any advantage by continental conquests, and it was chiefly from that time, that we attached ourselves to conti|nental schemes, and became delighted with great armies and land wars, while the sea is our proper ele|ment (of which more elsewhere); and the unfortu|nate circumstance of two German princes filling the British throne immediately afterwards, who had no idea of an insular situation, nor of any security, but what depends on numerous standing forces; all these contributed to draw us into the fatal error of keeping up a large standing army in this kingdom surrounded by the ocean; and in times of peace, as well as of war. It is not 20 years since we thought it neces|sary, A. D. 1756, to send for Hessians and Hanove|rians to defend us against an expected invasion from France; which measure even Voltaire condemns, and

compares this proceeding with queen Elizabeth's, who defended herself, without foreign auxiliaries, a|gainst Philip II. of Spain, the duke of Parma, the queen of Scots, the Irish, and the papists * 3.121. Yet George I. reduced his land-forces, A. D. 1718, though he was at war with Spain, and his three king|doms swarmed with jacobites * 3.122.

CHAP. IV. A Militia with the Navy, the only proper Security of a free People in an insular Situation, both against foreign Invasion and domestic Tyranny.

A Standing army, as those on the continent, con|tinues, of course, from year to year, without any new appointment, and is a part of the constitution. Our courtiers affect to call the British land-establishment a parliamentary army, and would deceive us into the notion of a difference between a standing army and a parliamentary. The British land-forces, say they, are appointed from year to year, not only as to their number, but their subsistence; so that the parliament's neglecting to provide for their subsistence would be annihilating the army at once. But is the army the less a grievance for its being on this foot, than if it were on the same with those of France or Spain? Suppose that for twenty years together, we should have no parliament called. At the end of that period, could the grievance and loss to the nation be estimated as at all less upon the

whole, than it would have been, if the king had at the beginning of the twenty years, declared by edict, that there should be no parliament during that period? This would be a bolder stroke of tyranny, than merely neglecting, from year to year, or refusing, to let the writs be issued; but the people would be as really deprived of the advantages of parliaments by one proceeding, as by the other.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. And though for a while, those, who have the sword in their power, abstain from doing him injury, yet by degrees he will be awed into submission to every arbitrary command. Our ancestors

[the Caledonii, see Tacit. &c.]

by being always armed, and fre|quently in action, defended themselves against the Remans, Danes and English, and maintained their liberty against the incroachments of their own princes * 3.123.

We all know, that the only way of enslaving a people, is by keeping up a standing army; that by standing forces all limited monarchies have been destroyed; without them none; that so long as any standing forces are allowed in a nation, pre|tences will never be wanting to increase them; that princes have never suffered a militia to be put upon

any good foot, lest standing armies should appear un|necessary * 3.124.

Mr. Fletcher gives * 3.125 the plan of a militia for Bri|tain. He proposes three camps in England, and one in Scotland; and that every youth of every rank should spend one or two years in the camp, at his coming of age, and perform military exercise once every week afterwards. But a great deal less than this would▪ be sufficent to make this, or any populous island innaccessible to a foreign enemy. If we had in Britain a sea and land militia, there would be no oc|casion for the scandalous practice of pressing.

The Athenian and Spartan militia conquered the Persian mercenary armies, though infinitely more numerous. The greatest part of Alexander's army was militia. The Romans conquered all nations, in the republican times, while their army was an unpaid militia. In the imperial times, when the army was hired, the northern militia drove them out of one province after another, and at last Odoacer made him|self king of Italy. The Turks had more trouble in subduing the militia of Hungary and Epirus, than in conquering all their empire besides. Scanderbeg, with a small militia, was constantly successful in 22 battles against standing armies. Hunniades and Matthias fought the Turkish standing armies always with militia,

and performed such actions as posterity can hardily believe.

The Grecians carried on their wars against Persia, by means of their militia; and at last beat the nume|rous mercenary armies, and subdued the vast empire of Persia. The Romans carried on their wars against Carthage by means of their militia; and, at last, beat the mercenary armies of Carthage, and destroyed

that rich and populous city. But when the Romans, in order to support the arbitrary power of their emperors, began to put their whole trust in merce|nary armies, their military glory soon began to decline; and at last the Goths and Vandals, and other northern nations, by means of their militia, drove before them the mercenary armies of Rome, and made that proud city submit to the yoke which she had, in former times, by the same means, put upon a great part of the world * 3.126.

La constitution de Rome, &c. The constitution of Rome was founded upon this principle, That those only should be soldiers, who had property to answer to the republic for their conduct. The equestrians, as being the richest, formed the cavalry of the legions. When their dignity was increased, they would not serve any longer; so that it was necessary to raise another cavalry. Marius took into his legions all sorts of people. The Roman republic was undone * 3.127.

At the conclusion of the first Punic war, the Carthaginians were compelled, by their treaty with the Romans, to evacuate Sicily. Gisco, therefore, who commanded in that island, to prevent the dis|orders which might be committed by such a multi|tude of desperate fellows, composed of so many dif|ferent nations, and so long inured to blood and rapine, sent them over gradually in small bodies, that his countrymen might have time to pay off their arrears, and send them home to their respec|tive countries. But either the lowness of their finances, or the ill timed parsimony of the Cartha|ginians,

totally defeated this salutary measure, though the wisest that, as their affairs were at that time circumstanced, could possibly have been taken. The Carthaginians deferred their payment till the arrival of the whole body, in hopes of obtaining some abatement in their demands, by fairly laying before them the necessities of the public. But the merce|naries were deaf to every representation and proposal of that nature. They felt their own strength, and saw too plainly the weakness of their masters. As fast as one demand was agreed to, a more unreason|able one was started; and they threatened to do themselves justice by military execution, if their exorbitant demands were not immediately com|plied with. At last, when they were just at the point of an accomodation with their masters, by the mediation and address of Gisco, two desperate ruffians, named Spendius and Mathos, raised such a flame among the unruly multitude, as broke out instantly into the most bloody and destructive war ever yet recorded in history. The account we have of it from the Greek historians must strike the most callous breast with horror; and though it was at last happily terminated by the superior conduct of Hamilcar Barcas, the father of the great Hannibal, yet it continued near four years, and left the terri|tories around Carthage a most shocking scene of blood and devastation. Such was, and ever will be, the consequence, when a large body of merce|nary troops is admitted into the heart of a rich and fertile country, where the bulk of the people are denied the use of arms by the mistaken policy of their governors. For this was actually the case with the Carthaginians, where the total disuse of arms amongst the lower class of people laid that opulent country

open, an easy and tempting prey to every invader. This was another capital error, and consequently ano|ther cause which contributed to their ruin. How must any nation, but our own, which, with respect to the bulk of the people, lies in the same defenceless situation, how, I say, must they censure the mighty state of Carthage spreading terror and giving law to the most distant nations by her powerful fleets, when they see her at the same time trembling, and giving herself up for lost at the landing of an invader in her own territories * 3.128!

I hope the enemies to a militia will at least allow those new levies, who composed by far the gre••••est part of Hamilcar's army upon this occasion, to be raw, undisciplined, and ignorant of the use of arms, epithets which they bestow so plentifully upon a militia. Yet that able commander, with an army consisting chiefly of this kind of men, totally de|stroyed an army of desperate veterans, took their general, and all who escaped the slaughter, prisoners, and put an end to the most ruinous and most inhu|man war ever yet mentioned in history. These new levies had courage, a quality never yet, I believe, disputed to the British commonalty, and were to fight pro aris et focis, For whatever was dear and valuable to a people; and Hamilcar, who well knew how to make use of these dispositions of his countrymen, was master of those abilities which Mathos wanted. Of such infinite advantage is it to an army to have a commander superior to the enemy in the art of gene|ralship, an advantage which frequently supplies a de|ficiency even in the goodness of troops, as well as in numbers * 3.129.

A militia is the natural strength of a free people. The Romans had no regular forces on pay till the year of Rome 347, by which time they had gained most of their conquests, and which was their best period for public virtue▪

When some of the Chinese emperor Tay-tsong's ministers warned him of the danger of training his subjects so carefully to arms, lest they should rebel a|gainst him; he answered,

I carry my subjects in my bosom; and have no more to fear from them, than a father from his children.

At the union of Utrecht, which was the basis of the union of the seven provinces against Phil. II. it was settled, that every male between 18 and 60 should be trained to arms * 3.130.

King Iohn III. of Portugal established a militia (the kings of Portugal were in those times limited) by ordering, that every man of a certain income should find a foot soldier, when wanted. One of double, a musqueteer; and he who was possessed of an estate of triple value, a trooper and horse * 3.131.

At the congress of Munster and Osnabrug, A. D. 1641, it was articled,

that both cities should be guarded by their own burghers and soldiers com|manded by the magistrates * 3.132.

A proper militia.

Cardinal Ximenes, the patriot of Spain, raised a militia of 30,000 men without expence, able to de|fend themselves * 3.133.

The province of Entre Minhoe Dauro, in Portugal, is 18 leagues long, and 12 wide. The standing militia is 16000 men. Tra los montes is 30 leagues by

20. Militia 10, or 12,000. Beira 34 leagues by 30. Militia 10,000 * 3.134.

The frugal Dutch have a militia in their Indian settlements * 3.135. The pay of army-officers generally amounts to a third of the whole expence. The Dutch save this. For their militia officers have no pay. They fight for the preservation of their property. The frugality of having a militia instead of an army, will, I am sensible, be no consideration with our court. For one of the principal ends they have in view, in keeping up an army in times of peace, is the maintenance of several thousands of gentlemen, as officers, who, by that means, are inviolably attached to the court.

When the northern nations in the time of Charle|magne made descents on many coasts in a piratical manner, that great prince established a militia in the maritime parts of France for the security of the king|dom, which proved effectual * 3.136. His son, Lewis the Pious, neglected to keep it up. The hostilities were renewed * 3.137.

For above two centuries, says Vattel, the Swiss have enjoyed a profound peace, while the noise of arms has resounded on all sides, and war has laid waste the rest of Europe.

He ascribes this to the courage and discipline of the people.

When the Goths and Vandals over-ran the western parts of the Roman empire (says Fletcher of Scotland) the generals of armies made themselves kings of the countries they conquered. They divided the lands among their officers, called barons, and they again gave small parcels to their soldiers, who became their

vassals, and held by military service. The king's revenue arose out of his demesne lands. There was no mercenary army. Every man was a soldier, obliged to fight for his superior; upon which tenure he held his lands. This continued to be the state of things in Europe for about 1100 years from A. D. 400. In that period, the sword was more properly in the hands of the barons, than of the kings. For the people held more immediately of the barons than of the kings. Now the sword is come into the hands of kings, by means of mercenary armies. The power of granting money is▪ not alone a sufficient security for liberty. For a thousand disciplined ruffians will command the purses of a million of untrained people.

Not only, says he, that government is tyrannical, which is tyrannically administred, but all governments are tyrannical, which have not in their constitution a sufficient security against arbitrary power.

He means a militia, to balance the dangerous army: p. 9. After|wards, in consequence of a more expensive way of living in more polish••d ages, the great land-owners were obliged to give their vassals up military service, and to take rent for their lands. Foreign invasions then put princes upon the pretence for setting up mer|cenary armies, whose pay was to be levied upon the people by taxes. Yet it is manifest, that a militia is the only natural defence of a free country both from invasion and tyranny. For who is so likely to defend property, as the proprietor? It was the carelessness of the people, that gave kings the opportunity of setting up tyrannies, and armies for supporting those tyran|nies. Rich and luxurious people chose rather to pay than fight. So the sword went out of the hands of the people into those of the tyrant, and his hirelings. And now the people complain; whereas they should

have prevented. Kings do not chuse to give up power, when once they have got it into their possession. War became a profession; and the army enabled the government to tax the people for the support of the idle soldier and court-sycophant. Our island, how|ever, has no pre••ence for a standing army.

Some French counsellors about Mary of Guise, queen dowager, and regent of Scotland, induced her to pro|pose a tax for maintaining a standing army to defend Scotland against England. Three hundred of the lesser barons, when the lords, too obsequious (as usual) to the court, consented, by silence, to the measure, re|monstrated to the queen regent and prevented the mischief. They were ready, they said, to defend their country. They would defend it better than merce|naries, men of desperate fortunes, who have no hopes, but in the public calamity, who, for money, would attempt any thing, and whose faith would follow for|tune's wheel. The queen dowager was afraid to push the scheme; but Mary took it up, on pretence of Bothwel's having a design to seize her person. The army, however, was soon abolished, and Iam. I. when king of Scotland, had only forty gentlemen for his guard. Had Ch. I. only had 5000 regular forces, as a basis for his army, he would probably have conquered.

Fletcher answers the objection, That only a standing army can defend us against the standing army of France. He says, in our wars with France, our naval power ought chiefly to be trusted to. Mercenary troops are calculated, he says, to enslave a nation. They are composed of men, who make a trade of war; of detached ruffians freed from shame and con|nexion with their country for life; whereas a militia are to return again among the people after serving a certain number of years. Caesar, in order to en|slave his country, continued the same men beyond

the usual term 〈◊〉〈◊〉 years. For the Romans intended, that both civil and military power should pass from hand to hand, and never grow inveterate among the same set of men.

Nothing will make a nation so unconquerable as a militia, or every man's being trained to arms. For ••very Briton having in him by birth the principal part of a soldier, I mean the heart; will want but little training beyond what he will have as a militia-man, to make him a complete soldier. A standing army, though numerous might be routed in one engagement, if an engagement should happen in consequence of a French invasion. Whereas the militia of Britain would be a million of men; which would render a descent from France an operation of war not to be thought of * 3.138.

All the force, which the French can throw over to this country, before our fleet can come to our assistance, must be so inconsiderable, that the•••• land|ing would deserve the name of a surprize, rather than of an invasion;

says one, who will hardly be suspected of intending to derogate from the importance of the army; I mean Iohn, duke of Argyle * 3.139.

De Wit proposed to the French king, during the first Dutch war, an invasion of England. The king replied, that such an attempt would be fruitless, and would unite all the jarring parties in England against the enemy.

We shall have,

says he,

in a few days after our landing, 50,000 men (meaning the militia) upon us * 3.140.

Mr. Fletcher adds afterwards what follows.

The essential quality of a militia consistent with

freedom is, That the officers 〈…〉〈…〉, and pre|ferred, and they, and the soldie•••• maintained, not by the prince but the people, who send them out. Ambitious princes [and he would have added, if he had fore-known the late duke of Newcastle's opposition to the establishment of the militia, corrupt ministers] have always endeavoured to discredit the militia, and render it burdensome to the people, by never suffer|ing it to be upon any right, or even tollerable foot|ing; all to persuade the necessity of standing forces. In the battle of Naseby, the number of forces was equal on both sides; and all circumstances equal. In the parliament's army only nine officers had ever seen actual service, and most of the soldiers were London prentices, drawn out of the city two months before. In the king's army there were above 1000 officers, who had served abroad; yet the regulars were routed by the prentices. A good militia is of such i••portance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of every free government. For, though, as to other things, the constitution be ever so slight, a good militia will always preserve the public liberty; and in the best constitution ever known, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right foot, the liberty of the people must perish. The militia of antient Rome made her mistress of the world. Standing armies enslaved her. The Lacedaemonians continued 800 years free, because they had a good militia. The Swiss are the freest people in our times, and like to continue such the longest, because they have the best militia.* 3.141

However a corrupt government may intend to de|feat the design of a militia by totally perverting it

from its original intention and use, this ought not to hinder all men of property from learning the use of arms. There is no law against a free subject's ac|quiring any laudable accomplishment. And if the generality of housekeepers were only half-disciplined, a designing prince, or ministry, would hardly dare to provoke the people by an open attack on their li|berties, lest they should find means to be completely instructed in the exercise of arms before the chain could be rivetted. But without the people's having some knowledge of arms, I see not what is to secure them against slavery, whenever it shall please a daring prince, or minister, to resolve on making the expe|riment. See the histories of all the nations of the world.

The militia-act is long and intricate; whereas there was nothing necessary, but to direct, that every third man in every parish in England, whose house had 10 or more windows, should be exercised in his own parish, by an experienced serjeant, times every year, the days to be appointed; and every third part of every parish to be upon the list for three years, and free six years, so that in nine years every such housekeeper in England might have had all the know|ledge he could acquire by field-days. The men never to be drawn out of their respective parishes, but to resist an invasion, quell an insurrection, or for some necessary purpose. Every healthy housekeeper of 10 windows and above, under 50, who refused to enlist and attend the exercising days, to be fined. No hirelings to be accepted. The commanders to be the men of largest property in each county.

A country, in which every man of property could defend his property, could have no occasion for a dan|gerous standing army, and would be incomparably

more secure against invasion, than it could be with a standing army of 50,000 men scattered over a whole empire.

Lord Lyttleton thinks the militia (the only perma|nent military force, our ancestors knew) was com|manded by the heretoch of every county, who was annually chosen into his office by the freeholders in the folkmote, or county-court; and that after the Norman times, this command devolved upon the earl of each county.

A militia consisting of any others than the men of property in a country, is no militia; but a mungrel army.

Men of business and property will never chuse to enter into the militia, if they may be called from their homes, and their business for three years, toge|ther, subject to martial law all the while.

Brigadier general Townshend, in his Dedication of the

Plan of Discipline composed for the Militia of the county of Norfolk, affirms, that he has made some persons masters of that exercise in two or three mornings, so as to perform it with grace and spirit;

and that the common men learned it in

seven or eight days time, some in less.

The same gentleman complains heavily of the

dis|couragements, slights, delays, evasions, and unna|tural treatment

of the militia-act from those, whose duty it was to see it executed according to its intention. One would think the old militia law might have directed our government to avoid sending the militia out of their respective counties. This was always expressly guarded against, and was never to be done, but in the case of foreign invasion * 3.142.

The single circumstance of the national militia's being first settled by the great and good Alfred, ought to prejudice all friends to liberty in its favour. That able politician lord Molesworth thinks a militia infinitely preferable to an army, both on the score of safety from tyranny at home, and of invasion from abroad. Judge Blackstone * 3.143 gives the preference to a militia. The Polish militia serve but 40 days in the year * 3.144.

Queen Elizabeth's whole reign may be almost called a state of defensive and offensive war; in England as well as in Ireland; in the Indies as well as in Europe; she ventured to go through this state, if it was a venture, without the help of a standing army. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 people of England had seen none from the days of Richard II. and this cautious queen might perhaps imagine that the example of his reign and those of other countries where standing armies were establish|ed, would beget jealousies in the minds of her people, and diminish that affection, which she esteem|ed and found to be the greatest security of her person, and the greatest strength of her government. When|ever she wanted troops, her subjects flocked to her standard; and her reign affords most illustrious proofs, that all the ends of security and of glory too may be answered in this island without the charge and danger of the expedient just mentioned. This asser|tion will not be contradicted by those who recollect in how many places and on how many occasions her forces fought and conquered the best disciplined veteran troops in Europe * 3.145.

The militia was established by Alfred, and fell into decay under the Stuarts. A proof, that a militia is good, and ought to be kept up. The Stuarts were friends to standing armies. A demonstration, that standing armies are dangerous. Iames II. at his ac|cession declared the militia useless; and demanded supplies for keeping an army, he was to raise * 3.146. It is well known what armies Charles I. raised, and in what bloody business he employed them. Charles II. had, at the beginning of his reign, about 5,000 men. Toward the end of his reign, the army was increased to near 8,000. Iames II. at the time of Monmouth's re••••llion, had on foot 15,000 men. At the prince of Orange's arrival, 30,000 regular troops * 3.147.

The command of the militia was only put in the hands of the crown, when the nation was in a state of insanity, and every man ready to lay down his head on a block, for the king [Ch. II.] to chop it off, if he pleased. As it is regulated by 30 Geo. II. c. 25, it remains too much on the same foot. For it is officered by the lord lieutenant, the deputy-lieutenants and other principal land-holders, under a commission from the crown, which places it, as every thing else is, too much under the power of the court * 3.148.

The first commission of array is thought to have been in the times of Hen. V. When he went to France, A. D. 1415, he impowered commissioners to take an account of all the freemen in each county, who were able to bear arms, to divide them into com|panies, and to have them in readiness for resisting the enemy * 3.149.

The citizens, and country gentlemen soon be|came excellent officers; says Mr. Hume * 3.150.

This shews what a militia may in a short time be brought to. For what is a militia man, but a soldier, engaged for a limited time, and less completely trained? And what is a soldier, but a militia-man completely disci|plined and enslaved for life? The principal part of a soldier is the heart; and that almost every Briton has by birth without training. A militia-man is a free citizen; a soldier, a slave for life. Which is most likely to shew the most courage and the greatest at|tachment to his country?

The militia—if it could not preserve liberty to the people, preserved at least the power, if ever the inclination should arise, of recovering it * 3.151.

Against insurrections at home, the sheriff of every county has the power of the militia in him, and if he be negligent to suppress them with the posse comi|tatus, he is fineable. Against invasions from abroad, every man would be ready to give his assistance. There would be little need to raise forces, when every man would be ready to defend himself, and to fight pro aris et focis * 3.152.

What would this honest man have said, if he had been told, that the time would come, when it would be called necessary to keep up a standing army in this free country, sur|rounded with the ocean, in peace as well as war, to the formidable number of above 40,000, a number superior to that with which Alexander conquered the world?

Why must the British soldiery be enslaved for life, any more, than the sailors on board the navy? Were

the militia put upon a right foot, the same individuals might serve either by sea or land, during a certain short period, and then return to their respective sta|tion. I know the court-sycophants will object to this, That a soldier requires a great deal of training and reviewing, before he comes to have the cool cou|rage necessary in action, &c. But this is all pretence. We hardly ever have had, or can have occasion for any soldiery. Our wars with France in old times are now by all parties confessed to have been merely the loss of so much blood and treasure without possi|bility of advantage to this island. And our continen|tal wars since the Revolution we have been drawn into chiefly by the unfortunate circumstance of our having on our throne a set of princes connected with the continent. There is no advantage we have ever gained by war, which would not have been greater, and cost us incomparably less, if we had kept to the sea. For we never can have a nation for our enemy that is not commercial, and we can certainly at any time force a commercial nation to yield to reasonable terms by attacking their commerce, their foreign settlements, their coast-towns, their fisheries, &c. And by sea we may always command the superiority. For every Briton is born with the heart of a soldier and a sailor in him; and wants but little training to be equal on either eliment, to any veteran of any country. Accordingly we never hear of the com|mon men, in either service, shewing any appearance of cowardice.

Immediately after the mutiny bill had passed the lower house, Mr. Thomas Pitt, elder brother of Mr. William Pitt, then paymaster general, moved, on the 9th of March, 1749, for leave to bring in a bill to limit respective times, beyond which no non-commissioned officer or soldier, now, or who hereaf|ter

may be such in his majesty's land-service, shall be compelled to continue in the said service. The motion was seconded by Sir Francis Dashwood; but very poorly supported in numbers. And at last, on the 19th of April, it was, upon a division of 139 against 82, put off for two months, so that it was no more heard of. Had this limitation taken place, such a rotation of soldiers would have ensued among the common people, that in a few years every pea|sant, labourer, and inferior tradesmen in the kingdom would have understood the exercise of arms; and per|haps the people in general would have concluded, that a standing army, on whose virtue the consti|tution of Great Britain seems to depend, was altoge|ther unncessary * 3.153.

Those incendiaries who go about to destroy our constitution, have not blushed in the same breath to admit, that standing armies have been generally the instruments of overturning free governments, and to affirm that a standing army is necessary to be kept in ours; if you ask them against whom, they answer you very frankly, against the people; if you ask them why, they answer you with the same frankness, be|cause of the levity and inconstancy of the people. This is the evil; an army is the remedy. Our army is not designed, according to these doctors of slavery, against the enemies of the nation. We are confident that the present army is incapble of being employed to such purposes, and abhors an imputation which might have been justly cast on Cromwell's army, but is very un|justly insinuated against the present * 3.154.

The great and good lord Russel was accused, among other things, of intending to seize and destroy the king's guards.

The king's guards! (says Sir Robert Atkins, in his defence of lord Russel, p. 359.) what guards? Whom does the law understand or allow to be the king's guards for the preservation of his person? Whom shall the court, that tried this noble lord, whom shall the judges of the law, that were then present, and upon their oaths, whom shall they judge, or legally understand, by these guards? They never read of them in all their law books. There is not any statute law that makes the least mention of any guards. The law of England takes no notice of any such guards: and therefore the indictment is uncertain. The king is guarded by the special protection of almighty God, by whom he reigns, and whose vicegerant he is. He has an invisible guard of glorious angels.

Non eget Mauri jaculis nec arcu; Nec venenatis gravida sagittis. (Crede) Pharetra. HOR.

The king is guarded by the love of his subjects. The next under God, and the surest guard. He is guarded by the law and courts of justice. The militia and the trained bands are his legal guard, and the whole kingdom's guard. The very judges that tried this noble lord, were the king's guards, and the king|dom's guards, and this lord Russel's guard gainst all erroneous and imperfect indictments, from all false evidence and proof, from all strains of wit and oratory misapplied and abused by council. What other guards are there? We know of no law for more; king Hen. VII. of this kingdom (as history tells us) was the first that set up the band of pensioners: since that the yeoman of the guard: since them certain armed bands, commonly now-a-days (after the French mode) called the king's life guard, rid about, and appeared with naked

swords to the terror of this nation; but where is the law? where is the authority for them?

It had been fit for the court, that tried this noble lord on this indictment, to have satisfied themselves from the king's council, what was meant by these guards; for the alledging and setting forth an overt fait, or open deed, in an indictment of treason, must be of something that is intelligible by law, and where|of judges may take notice by law: and herein too, the indictment fails, and is imperfect.

Barillon writes to his court, that Iames II. intend|ed to abolish the militia entirely, and to maintain the army with the money * 3.155. That both parliament and peopl•• disliked this very much, but that the king ••oul•• keep the troops on foot, whether parliament provided for them or not, knowing that without them he could gain his point by his army and connexion with the French king.

It does our Hen. II. great honour, (says lord Lyttleton * 3.156) that he was the first author of a regula|tion for arming his whole people; for no prince, who desired to govern tyrannically, would have thought of such a regulation; nor could any coun|try, in which such a law was maintained, be either enslaved by the crown, or much oppressed by the nobles. It seems indeed that the antient constitution of England, had always intended what this statute of Hen. II. enacted; as all freeholders were required by the common law of the land to assist in opposing and driving out invaders; but the want of care to provide the burgesses, and free so••men, who did not hold any fiefs by military tenures, with proper

arms, rendered that obligation of little or no effect; whereas from this time, the whole community of freemen were bound to have in their own custody, and transmit to their heirs, the usual arms of a foot soldier, and those who were worth 16 marks in chattles or rents, were to provide heavy armour, nay even those who had but 10, were to furnish them|selves with scull-caps and habergeons of iron, toge|ther with lances, and to leave them to their heirs.

Harrington thinks, there ought, in a free country, to be no army, but a cavalry of the nobility and gentry, and an infantry of the commons.

See 13 Edw. I. cap. 6, for arming the people ac|cording to their possessions in lands * 3.157. In the ••ower are the records of the militia grants for cu••••••dy ••f shires, cities, towns, ports, &c. See the militia acts 25 Edw. III. cap. 8.—13 Ch. II. cap. 6.—13 and 14 of the same, cap. 3.—15 of the same, cap. 4, &c * 3.158. There is in Riley's PLAC. PARL. p. 458, an order, to the lord lieutenant of Northamptonshire, 20 Edw. I. that all who have 40 libratas terrae, have military arms. This order was founded in reason. Whoever has property, ought to be in a condition to defend his property. In England the arms are in one set of hands, and the property in another.

Sir Robert Cotton being consulted 3 Car. II. in a difficult state of affairs, amongst other things gave this advice at the council table * 3.159.

There must be, to withstand a foreign invasion, a proportion of sea and land forces. And it is to be considered, that no

march by land, can be of that speed to make head against the landing of an enemy: then it follows, that there is no such prevention as to be master of the sea. For the land forces, if it were for an offen|sive war, the men of less livelihood, were best spared; and were used formerly to make such wars purga|menta republicae, if we made no farther purchase by it. But for the safety of the commonwealth, the wisdom of all times did never intrust the public cause to any other than to such, as had a portion in the public adventure. And that we saw in 1588, when the care of the queen and of the council did make the body of that large army no other than of the trained bands.

In the same advice to the king, he lets him know how the people resented his keeping up an army in the winter, though we were then in war both with France and Spain. The words are these.

The dangerous distastes to the people are not a little improved by the unexampled course, as they conceive, of retaining an inland army in winter sea|son, when former times of general fear, as in 1588, produced none such; and makes them in their dis|tracted fears conjecture idly, it was rais••••, wholly to subject their fortunes to the will of power, rather than of law, and to make good some farther breach upon their liberties and freedoms at home, rather than to defend us from any force abroad.

Queen Mary, (William being in Holland) on the alarm of an invasion from the Pretender, gives orders to put the militia in readiness. Trained bands of the cities of London and Westminster, to the number of 10,000, under command of the lord-mayor, were drawn out. The queen goes to see them; was pleased with their activity and loyalty * 3.160.

The two remarkable victories gained by the ruffian rebels, A. D. 1745, over the king's troops, shew that a militia is not so contemptible as the friends of a standing army affect to think it * 3.161.

Though neither commanders, nor men, of the New-England militia, who took Louisburg, A. D. 1745, had ever seen any military service; though the ground between the place of landing and the town was boggy, unequal, and almost impassible; though the town was defended by several batteries, particu|larly one of 35 cannon of 42 pounds each, a draw|bridge, and circular battery of 16 guns, of 24 pounds each, and at the mouth of the harbour, a battery of 34 guns, 42 pounders; though the walls, ram|parts, and bastions mounted 64 guns, and though there were in the place 10 mortars of 13 inches cali|per, and six of nine inches, and a garrison of 1200 regulars; those militia-men proceeded with all the regularity and intrepidity of veterans, and took the place accordingly * 3.162.

In the year 1749, the number of sailors voted, was 1500, at the same time that the land forces were to be 18,857. It would have been more natural to imagine that parliament would vote the large number for the sea service, and the small one for the land. Accordingly Mr. Nugent observed, that it seemed as if those who draw up the estimates, had meant them for France, and not for England * 3.163.

Mr. Thornton moved, A. D. 1751, to bring in a bill to make the militia more useful. He said he had searched into the causes that rendered the militia weak

and contemptible, and the remedy would not be either difficult or tedious. He said the militia laws had been spoiled by design, that some villainous clauses had been artfully intruded into them, which were previously known to be such as would render them entirely useless. But a well constituted militia in the year 1745 would have saved the nation 3,000,000l. and tho' it might cost the nation 10,000l a year, and there should be occasion to use it but once in thirty years, which was the space between the two last rebellions, we should then have had that service for 300,000l. which has cost us 3,000,000l. and that it was evident, that less labour would be lost by 200,000 militia, who would immediately return to their work, supposing that two days only in a month were set apart for their exercise, than by 20,000 regular troops, who consider every species of industry as incompatible with their station, or their duty* 3.164.

The bill was ordered to be committed.

In the year 1756 was published a collection of 43 addresses to the king, and instructions to members of parliament, from London, Bristol, and many counties, &c. complaining of the loss of Minorca, and other mis|carriages, ••••casioned in great measure by the want of a militia, to secure the mother-country, which would have allowed sending out a sufficient force to de|fend Minorca, &c. In 34 of the addresses a militia is recommended. Yet that staunch▪ old Whig the duke of Newcastle continued an enemy to the militia, and was the last to come into it.

Lord Orford, A. D. 1757, set the example to the kingdom by giving orders for putting the militia act in execution * 3.165.

A. D. 1759, an alarm being brought to England of 3000 hands being at work upon flat-bottomed boats, and other preparations in France for an invasion, the government expedited the raising of the militia, which before went on but heavily * 3.166. The king reviewed that of Norfolk, and expressed high satisfaction with them. Some thought the militia then no way inferior to regulars.

And we all remember what consternation we were in, A. D. 1756, when our enemies over-ran almost all our colonies, when we lost Minorca, Oswego, &c. because we were afraid to send men to their defence, and disgraced ourselves in the eyes of all Europe by im|porting foreigners to secure us against the flat-bottomed invasion, we pretended to apprehend from France. A well-appointed militia would, at both those periods, have saved the nation's honour.

In the year 1759, king Geo. II. sent a message to both houses, to notify, that he had information of a designed invasion from France,

to the end, that his majesty may (if he shall think proper) cause the mi|litia, or such part thereof as shall be necessary, to be drawn out, and embodied, and to march as occasion shall require * 3.167.

The peers thanked the k••••g for

his intention to call out and employ the militia, if neces|sary,

&c. and the commons resolved,

that an hum|ble address be presented to his majesty to give direc|tions to the lieutenants of counties for carrying the militia act into execution.

Many remember what a condition we were in A. D. 1745, when a handful of highland ruffians penetrated

to the very centre of England, and filled the whole nation with terror and dismay.

That six or seven thousand men unprovided with horses, with magazines, and many of them with arms, should march from the extemities of Scotland to within eighty miles of London, through a country that abhorred their manners, and detested their cause; and that they should return to Scotland without losing above fifty men by death or desertion, is next to in|cridible. Upon their return, they were guilty of many excesses in plundering the inhabitants of the country, which they had forborne when they marched into England. This was owing to the chagrin they had conceived at their disappointment; yet they were not accused of being sanguinary to the people of the country, though it was said in the skirmish at Clifton some of them called out to give no quarter to the king's troops. But their success in a great measure may be accounted for by the dissi|milarity of manners between them and their enemies. Bred up in hardy, active, and and obstemious▪ courses of life, they were always prepared to march, and ne|ver at a loss for accomodation or provision: they were devoted to enthusiasm to the cause they were engaged in, and they thought no crime was equal to the disobedience of the commands of their leaders, who, during their march into England, sought all means to conciliate the minds of the people to their interest. The common people of England, on the other hand, having been long used to pay an army for fight|ing for them, had at this time forgot all the millitary virtues of their ancestors. The militia, therefore, was useless, and few but those who regularly en|tered into the service of the government chose in their own persons to venture any thing against the rebels.

They depended upon the army for their protection, and it was found by experience that the unweildy motions of the regulars gave their enemies a vast advantage, by rendering it next to impossible to come up with them. This was the real cause of their per|forming such amazing marches with so little loss; and of their being able to hold out so long against so great a superiority of numbers and discipline * 3.168

Why may not a militia be made useful * 3.169? Why may not the nobility, gentry and freeholders of England be trusted with the defence of their own lives, estates, and liberties, without having guardians and keepers assigned them? And why may they not defend these with as much vigour and courage as mercenaries who have nothing to lose, nor any other tie to engage their fidelity, than the miserable sixpence a day, which they may have from the conqueror? Why may not a competent number of firelocks be kept in every parish, for the young men to exercise with on holy days, and rewards offered to the most expert, to stir up their emulation? Why may not a third part of the militia be kept up by turns in constant exercise? Why may not a man be listed in the militia till he is discharged by his master, as well as in the army till he is discharged by his captain? And why may not the same horse be always sent forth, unless it can be made appear he is dead or marred? Why may not the private soldiers of the army, when they are dispersed in the several parts of the kingdom, be sent to the militia? And why may not the inferior officers of the army

in some proportion command them? I say, these and other like things may be done, and some of them are done, in our own plantations, and the islands of Iersey and Guernsey; as also in Poland, Switzerland, and the country of the Grisons, which are nations much less considerable than England, have as formidable neighbours, no seas, nor fleet to defend them, nothing but a militia to depend upon, and yet no one dares to attack them. And we have seen as great feats done formerly by the apprentices of London, and in the war by the Vaudois in Savoy, and Miquelets in Catalonia, and the militia in Ireland, as can be paralleled in history. And so it would be with us, if the court would give their hearty assistance in promoting this design; if the king would appear in person at the head of them, and give rewards and honours to such as deserve them, we should quickly see the young nobility and gentry appear magnificiently in arms and equipage, shew a generous emulation in outvying one another in military exer|cises, and place a noble ambition in making them|selves serviceable to their country. They object, that such a militia as this is a standing army, and will be as dangerous and much more chargeable. I answer, That there can be no danger from an army, where the nobility and gentry of England are the commanders, and the body of it made up of the freeholders, their sons and servants; unless we can conceive that the nobility and gentry will join in an unnatural design to make void their own titles to their estates and liberties; and if they could enter|tain so ridiculous a proposition, they would never be obeyed by the soldiers, who will have a respect to those that send them forth, and pay them, and to whom they must return when their time is ex|pired.

For if I find a man, I will as surely chuse one who will fight for me, as a mercenary officer will chuse one, that will. And the governments of king Charles II. and king Iames, are witnesses to the truth of this, who debauched the militia more than ever I hope to see it again, and yet durst never rely upon them to assist their arbitrary designs, as we may remember, at the duke of Monmouth's invasion; their officers durst not bring them near his army for fear of a revolt. Nay, the pensioned parliament themselves turned short upon the court, when they expected to give them the finishing stroke to their ruin.

I do not think our constitution and liberties will ever be absolutely safe, until we return to our ancient method, of making military exercises the diversion and amusement of all ranks of men, and of making it the custom or fashion for all laymen, at least, to breed themselves up to arms and military discipline; and if we can accomplish this, I believe it will be granted, we should then have no occasion for a standing army, or for keeping a greater number of regular troops in continual pay, than was neces|sary for the grand••ur and personal safety of our king and royal family * 3.170.

This strength

[says lord Lyttelton, viz. of the national militia, when all the gentry were soldiers, paid and maintained by the lands they held]

could never fail, as that of a mercenary army must at sometimes, by the wealth of the state being con|sumed and exhausted, but continued as fixed as the lands disposed of in this manner, and ever ready to oppose either foreign invaders, or in|testine rebellion. I may add too, that it was equally fitted to resist any tyranny in a king, being wholly

composed of those men, who, by their property in the realm, and their rank in the state, were most in|terested to guard the liberties of the subject against the crown * 3.171.

The noble author adds, that though every landholder's being a soldier gave the barons fre|quent opportunity of disturbing the peace, yet

it was no easy matter for any of them to exercise their tyranny long, without being checked—whereas in absolute monarchies

[which cannot subsist in coun|tries where the people of property are armed]

the constitution affords no remedy against the despotism of the prince.

A strong recommendation of a militia!

Mr. Thronton, A. D. 1751, made the following remarks in the house of commons * 3.172.

I must not omit to take notice that the militia laws have been opposed by design; some villainous clauses having been artfully intruded into them, which were previously known to be such as would render them entirely useless. As this cannot be denied, I persuade myself, that after a very little re|flection, every gentleman present will concur in my opinion, that some alteration is necessary with respect to our militia, eit••er to commence now, or at a more convenient seaso•••• or, at least, at the eve of a commotion, when their assistance shall be wanted to surmount the danger which we would not prevent. If our militia is not to be frequently exercised, let there be some law, by which it may be more effectually raised. Let us no longer ac|knowledge the importance of a militia in the pre|amble of many of our statutes, yet render this very

militia ineffectual by suffering such destructive clauses to remain, as will reduce the statute itself to a mere form of words, and a dead letter, to the astonishment of other nations, and the disgrace of our own. Let us, Sir, repeal all the present laws concerning the militia; we shall then evidently perceive our naked|ness, and in what a defenceless state they will leave us. Let us no longer be amused with the appearance of a security, which they cannot give; nothing more, surely, than the discovery of our danger, is necessary to put us immediately upon our guard; nothing more is necessary to determine us to enact laws which shall be in effect what the present laws are only in form; and I hope we shall, upon this occasion, remember the great maxim of Cosmo de Medicis, from whom Machiavel derived all his po|litical knowledge; Defer not till to-morrow what can and ought to be done to-day. A regulation, Sir, by which our country is to be defended against superstition and slavery, against the fury of an in|vasion, or the rapine of rebellion, requires the most mature and dispassionate deliberation. Shall we, therefore, defer this regulation, till we hear the drum of an enemy beat to arms? Shall we defer it till every heart throbs with apprehension, and every mind is confused with anxiety and terror? Till impatience for obtaining the end shall cause us to mistake the means? Till a time when a hypocritical zeal for the safety of the public taking advantage of the con|fusion, shall bring us into greater danger? Were not the very clauses that have emasculated our statutes re|lating to the militia introduced in the time of public and imminent danger, by designing men, who under a pretence of increasing our security, took away what security we had?

Let us then in this interval of tranquility, when the mind is at leisure to examine and chuse, set about changing these ruinous clauses for such as will be quite proper. Let us now establish our safety upon a firm foundation, by passing such a law as will furnish this country with a militia equally effective, more easily raised, and maintained at a less expence than that of any other nation in the world; let us no longer trust our liberty and our lives, our religion, our country and our posterity, to a mercenary army, that has no motive to defend us, but its pay, and no concern for our liberties, because they have given up their own.

If it should happen, Sir, that a large military force should suddenly be wanted at a time when the parliament is not sitting, and his majesty is abroad, how is it to be supplied? Will not the waiting for an act of parliament produce the most dangerous delay? And will not the same inconveniences follow, that happened in the year 1745? Inconveniences, which we now feel, and which will probably be long felt by our posterity. A well constituted militia, Sir, at that time, would have saved the nation 3,000,000l. and if it be admitted that such a militia would be attended with an annual expence to the whole nation of 10,000l. and that there should be occasion to use it but once in thirty years, which is the space between the two last rebellions, we should then have that service for 300,000l. which has cost us 3,000,000l. and consequently save (which would be good oeconomy, instead of superfluous expence) 2,700,000l. upon the balance. Besides, those whom the want of this force might encourage to interrupt our tranquillity, may be deterred from their attempt by observing that a new regulation hath rendered us

sufficiently formidable. To prevent is certainly still better than to cure. These considerations, Sir, appear so formidable to me, that I cannot think any gentleman will continue to oppose, or even on any account to delay the measure which they have induced me to undertake and recommend. But, Sir, lest any gentleman should doubt whether this measure be practicable, I shall observe, that the establishment of a militia in any country, where the people are nume|rous and in••ustrious, is not only practicable, but easy. Switzerland and Germany, which are poor countries, thinly inhabited, have their militia, not|withstanding the people must be necessarily dissipated by the great extent of the lands which they cultivate. And is a militia impossible in England? A country that is remarkable for its fertility, and crouded with men, where a few acres afford a plentiful subsistence, and almost every parish could furnish a regiment. If it be objected, that this militia cannot be exercised without taking the husbandman or the manufacturer from his labour, a circumstance which cannot but be hurtful to a trading nation; I answer, our militia may be exercised on holidays, according to the practice in Switzerland; but supposing that two days in a month were to be set apart for this purpose, it is evident that less labour would be lost by 200,000 militia, who would immediately return to their work from their exercise, than by 20,000 regular troops, who consider themselves as gentlemen soldiers, and every species of industry as incompatible with their station, and indeed with their duty. I would not, however, be thought an advocate for the total re|duction of the army. I know that an army is necessary, that there must be guards and some troops, at our garrisons, in Gibraltar and Port Mahon, and a

sufficent number of regular forces in Ireland, the islands of Scotland and the West-Indies. But I think such a reduction of the army is expedient, as would cause a saving equivalent to the expence of 260,000 militia, and that enough would still remain for the above services. This number, Sir, of 260,000 for the militia was our ancient contingent; and as they are dispersed through the several counties of this island, will effectually repress, if not prevent any invasion from abroad, and quell every disb••rbance that may be fomented at home. They will be always ready in every part of the kingdom to assist the civil power, as well as to protect our coasts from insult; coasts of such extent, that if the present standing army was doubled, it would not be able to secure the island from being plundered in some part or other, by the daring crew of a buccaneer, or a desperate association of smugglers. And as it is our coast that principally makes a millitary force of any kind necessary, what must be our situation, when without any force by which this coast can be secured, and with scarce a fortified place in the kingdom, we are not able to bring together 6000 men for the defence of the capital, upon a sudden and unexpected attack? The marshals Belleisle and Saxe both re|marked, that we must be easily over-run; and it is a common saying among the French, that England would be only a breakfast:

[But then the French must give up the troops they send against us; because our fleet would effectually out of their retreat:]

And I should be sorry if they should put us to prove the contrary, before we have a militia established. Need we have a better hint, or stronger motive to provide for our safety? Fas est ab hoste doceri. As to the difficulty of reforming our militia, if it be said that

experiment is against me, and that experiment is stronger than argument; if it be alledged that former attempts to establish a militia have been ineffectual, it needs only to be considered by what means these at|tempts have been made. They were made in conse|quence of those very statutes which being perverted from their primary intentions are evidently felo de se; so that the militia, which was designed to be a regular and well-disciplined body, is degenerated into a mere mob: But even this mob has been known to do good service. I will no•• trespass, Sir, upon the indulgence of the house by proving self-evident propositions: It is sufficient only to state them. It is of absolute necessity we should have a millitary force sufficient to defend eleven millions of people, and it is acknow|ledged on all hands that our present force is not sufficient. There are but three ways by which this deficiency can be supplied; first, by a regular army of mercenaries; secondly, by foreign auxiliaries; thirdly, by a militia. A regular army of mercenaries we can neither afford to pay for living in idleness, nor spare from the trades in which they would be other|wise employed. The hiring of auxiliaries is attended with equal expence, and is yet less to be depended upon: For they who may be engaged to supply auxiliaries to us, may, when we want them, be scarce able to defend themselves, as was the case in the unhappy year 1745. Auxiliaries may be bought off by our enemy at the very minute we want them, or sent under restrictions, which will render them wholly unserviceable. There needs not indeed any argument to prove a measure to be impolitic, which has already incumbered us with debts, that it is scarce possible we shold pay, and has reduced our neigh|bours, the Dutch, into yet more deplorable poverty

and distress. A militia, which would defend us by men of property, whose interest is involved in that of their country, and who would only circulate their pay, and not carry it abroad, must be our only re|source. Such a militia, Sir, has been rejected by those who have had the management of this unhappy country, who have, for reasons best known to them|selves, squandered the public treasure in vain attempts to obtain from foreign and domestic mercenaries what a militia only can supply, [the duke of Newcastle, the importer of 12,000 Hessians and Hanoverians, A. D.. 1756.] Let us then interpose in the behalf of an injured nation; let us once more connect the civil and military power, and direct their united efforts to the same end. This, as it will give us strength at home, will give us reputation abroad. This is advised by Machiavel, as the surest means of national greatness: This was successfully practised by the Spartans and Romans of old, the Goths and ancient Germans; and this is now the glory of the Swiss, a nation which, however inconsiderable in its extent, no ambitious power has dared to molest. I therefore humbly move, that leave may be given to bring in a bill for the good purpose that I have mentioned.

In the year 1758, the ministry pretended to consi|der the militia as capable of real service. For we find in that year a message from the king by Mr. Pitt, That he is informed of a French invasion, and may perhaps have occasion for the militia. The commons return thanks for the information, and address the king to give orders to the lieutenants of counties to use their utmost diligence in ordering the militia* 3.173.

CHAP. V. Parliamentary Transactions, Speeches, &c. relating to the Army.

THE commons, A. D. 1673, vote the stand|ing army a grievance, and were going to address the king against it. The king sud|denly goes to the house of peers to prorogue the par|liament. The lords, according to their slavish cu|stom, hasten to attend him. The commons shut their door, and kept black rod out, till they vote the alliance with France, evil counsellors about the king, standing army, and duke of Lauderdale grievances * 3.174.

The commons address the king against Lauderdale on account of the army in Scotland, raised at Lauder|dale's instance, which was to be ready to enter Eng|land on command from the privy council, and for openly affirming in council, that the king's edicts are equal to laws * 3.175.

It was observed in parliament, A. D. 1674,

That neither our ancestors, nor the people of any country, free, like ours, whilst they preserved their liberties, did ever suffer any mercenary or standing guards around their prince; but chose that his safety should be in them, as theirs was in him.

A motion was made, A. D. 1717, for a supply for maintaing the army. Opposed by Shippen, Wind|ham, Walpole, jacobites and discontented whigs to|gether. The same Walpole afterwards kept up a more numerous army than 18,000, of which number he complains heavily here * 3.176.

All the arguments in favour of a standing army, Mr. Shippen said, were reducible to two propositions. 1.

That the only danger of continuing the standing army is the expence of it. 2. That we ought to comply with the number of forces proposed, because it is demanded by the king, who is the best judge of our necessities.

He said,

it was very extraordinay, that the ex|pence should be thought the only danger, for that was not the chief argument against a standing army; but the chief argument was, that the civil and military power could not long subsist together; that a standing army in time of peace would necessarily impede the free execution of the laws of the land.

It is the infelicity of his majesty's reign, that he is unacquainted with our language and constitution, therefore it is incumbent on his ministers to inform him, that our government does not stand on the same foundation with his German dominions. That a standing army supposes not only a distrust, but weakness in the government; and therefore could not promote his majesty's service.

He said,

some of the freest and bravest people in Europe had, by this method, lost their liberties. The civil power was drawn in from time to time, by pretended exigencies, to allow and maintain an armed force in peace; but they found they had erected a power superior to themselves; that the soldiery, when they had tasted the sweets of authority, would not part with it; and that even their princes began to think, that ruling by an army was a more compen|dious way of government, than acting under the restrainsts of law. And now they wear the chains, and lament the loss of that freedom, which they con|sented to destroy.

Mr. Shippen said,

I know these assertions inter|fere with what is laid down in his majesty's speech; but we are to consider that speech as the composition and advice of the ministry, and are therefore at liberty to debate every proposition in it; especially those, which seem rather calculated for the meridian of Germany, than of Great Britain.

It was said, the above words were highly disho|nourable to, and unjustly reflecting on, his majesty's person and government; and therefore it was ordered, that Wm. Shippen, Esq. be, for the said offence, committed prisoner to the Tower.

If the prince of Orange, (says Trenchard * 3.177) in his declaration, instead of telling us, that we should be settled upon such a foundation, that there should be no danger of our falling again into slavery, and that he would send back all his forces as soon as that was done, had promised us that after an eight years war (which should leave us in debt near twenty millions) we should have a standing army established, a great many of which should be foreigners; I believe few men would have thought such a revolu|tion worth the hazard of their lives and estates; but his mighty soul was above such abject thoughts as these; his declaration was his own, these paltry designs are those of our undertakers, who would shelter their own oppressions under his sacred name. I would willingly know, whether the late king Iames II. could have enslaved us but by an army, and whether there is any way of securing us from falling again into slavery, but by disbanding the army. It was in that sense I understood his ma|jesty's declaration, and therefore did early take up

arms for him, as I shall be always ready to do. It was this alone which made his assistance necessary to us, otherwise we had wanted none but the hang|man's.

It is a common evasion of the advocates for the army, that we have only such a number, 12,000, or 20,000, in England, and that the rest are in Ireland, where they cannot annoy us, and are necessary there to keep the raw-head-and-bloody-bones-papists quiet. But neither is there any honest use for one regiment in England nor in Ireland, the people being, if only half disciplined, as able as the army both to keep the internal peace, and deter invaders; of which the histories of all the ages between Richard II. and Charles I. are vouchers; nor is the keeping an army in Ireland at all less dangerous to British liberty than in England. Hear Mr. Trenchard: * 3.178

An army kept in Ireland is more dangerous to us than at home: For here, by perpetual converse with their relations and acquaintance, some few of them perhaps may warp towards their country; whereas in Ireland they are kept as it were in a garrison, where they are shut up from the communication of their countrymen, and may be nursed up in another interest. It is a common policy amongst arbitrary princes often to shift their soldiers quarters, lest they should contract friendship among the natives, and by degrees fall into their interest.

When the duke d'Alençon came over to England, (says Mr. Gordon * 3.179) and for some time had admired the riches of the city, the conduct of queen Eliza|beth, the wisdom of her government, and the mag|nificence

of her court; he asked her, amidst so much splendor, where were her guards? Which question she resolved a few days after, as she took him in her coach through the city, when pointing to the people (who received her in crowds with repeated acclama|tions) 'These, said she, my lord, are my guards; these have their hands, their hearts, and their purses, always ready at my command.' And these were guards indeed, who defended her through a long and successful reign of forty-four years against all the ma|chinations of Rome, the power of Spain, a disputed title, and the perpetual conspiracies of her own po|pish subjects; a security the Roman emperors could not boast of with their praetorian bands, and their eastern and western armies.

Were not the French as powerful, says Mr. Gor|don * 3.180, in Charles IId's and Iames Ist's times, as they are in this long and destructive war, and with a weaker alliance to oppose them? And yet we then thought a much less army, than is now contended for, a most insupportable grievance; insomuch that in Charles IId's reign, the grand jury presented them, and the pension-parliament voted them to be a nui|sance, sent Sir Ioseph Williamson to the Tower, for saying, the king might keep guards for the defence of his person, and addressed to have them disbanded. And now our apostates would make their court, by doing what the worst parliament ever England saw, could not think of without horror.

Of 26 Roman emperors, 16 were deposed and murdered by the soldiery. The Turkish sultans are often massacred by the janizaries. The army under

Cromwell expelled the parliament under which they had fought. Afterwards under Monk they destroyed the government they had set up, and brought back the Stuarts, whom they were raised t•• expel. Charles II. wisely disbanded them, lest they should have sent him a packing again. Iames I••d's army joined the prince of Orange, who came over on pur|pose to exclude their worthless master, and all his race. What better can be expected from men of base principles, who call themselves soldiers of fortune? Who make murder their profession, and enquire no farther into the justice of the cause, than how they shall be paid; who must be false, rapacious and cruel in their own defence. For having no other pro|fession or subsistence to depend upon, they are forced to stir up the ambition of princes, and engage them in perpetual quarrels, that they may share of the spoils they make. Such men, like some sort of ravenous fish, fare best in a storm * 3.181.

Lord Morpeth moved, A. D. 1733, for an address to the king to reduce the forces * 3.182.

It was urged, that there was a great necessity to reduce the expences of the nation; [What was the necessity then compared with that of our times?] and that it might best be done by reducing the standing army, which in time of peace was not necessary, but was absolutely inconsistent with the liberties of the people.

To which it was answered, that they might as well address the king to govern according to law; that it was insinuating that the king did not take the first opportunity of reducing the army, and thereby lessen|ing

the public charge. Did not every body know, that the king did not wish to reduce the army; but, on account of his wretched electorate, wished to keep foreign ••••oops in pay, and a large army ready to fly to its defence, whenever it should be attacked? We had accordingly at one time in our pay as follows:

Hessians per ann.	£. 241,259
Sweden,	—£.50,000
Wolfenbuttel,	—£.25,000
Total,	—£. 316,259

The duke of Marlborough brought into the house of lords, the same year, a bill to prevent the officers of the army below the rank of colonels from being deprived of their commissions otherwise than by court martial, or address of parliament * 3.183. This was in|tended for detaching military officers from all con|nection with and dependence on the ministry. Be|fore the second-reading, many lords called out for the question; the plain English of which is, Right or wrong, we are against this bill. Lord Chesterfield checked them severely. Lord Hervey said, the bill was an open and direct attack on the royal prerogative, (of which elsewhere) and might overset the constitu|tion, &c. The Truth is, that supposing parliament itself under ministerial influence, as it was then, and has been since (I do not say, that is, in our virtuous times, the case) it is of very little consequence, whether the army be under ministerial influence through the mediation of parliament or otherwise.

The bill of A. D. 1735, for quartering the army in time of elections* 3.184. enacts, That, in order to the securing of the freedom of elections, the law of 3 Edw. I. be still in force, which forbids on great forfeiture, any man's disturbing the freedom of elec|tion by force, malice, or menacing; and that the secretary at war do give order for the removal, the day before, or sooner, of every regiment, troop, &c. to the distance of at least two miles from any place, where an election for the house of commons or Scotch peers is to be held; and to remain, till one day after the election; every officer disobeying, to be cashiered and incapacitated, besides forfeiture; the king's life guards, the guards attending on any of the royal family, and the garrisons of forts and castles only excepted; and allowing liberty for military officers and soldiers, who have right of voting, to attend. As the bill was first drawn, the offenders were to be tried in the King's-bench; but that constant friend to liberty the duke of Newcastle, proposed leaving out that clause, by which means the offending officers were to be left safe in the hands of the secretary at war, who generally having a good understanding with the mini|stry, would take care, that they should not be too severely punished, though they should stay, and take care of the minister's interest at an election; or in the words of one of the speakers* 3.185,

if an officer should bring his regiment, troop or company, to the very place of election, and plant centries to attend the poll-books, he knows how he is to be tried; he is to be tried by his brother officers in a court martial; and I do not know, but their sentence may be pleaded in bar to any future indictment brought

against him upon the statute of Edw. I. for what interpretations may hereafter be put upon this last law, cannot now be so easily determined: And therefore I hope your lordships will pass the bill in the same shape the learned judges have brought it in, unless some more convincing reason than any I have yet heard should be given for turning it into a form very different from that in which it is at present.

And the protesting lords afterwards observed on this subject,

That it was much more necessary, that officers and soldiers should be subject to be tried by the civil power for an offence of this high nature against the constitution, than for quartering a man contrary to the method prescribed by the act to pre|vent mutiny and desertion; for which crime they are at present liable to be tried and cashiered by the civil magistrate.

They likewise observed, that the offence being against civil society, came much more naturally under the cognizance of the civil magistrate, than of a court-martial, as a court-martial on the other hand, is more competent to try military offences, than the civil magistrate* 3.186.

Afterwards another amendment, the wrong way, was made to the bill; by which the penalties, instead of being inflicted on the offending officers and soldiers, were to come upon the secretary at war, if he neglected to issue orders for the removal of the soldiery. Several lords protested, because they conceived, that

the leaving out of the clause would be defeating the effect and intention of the whole bill * 3.187.

In the debate about the land-forces, A. D. 1735* 3.188. it was argued by those, who were for augmenting the

forces to 25,744 men, that

events might happen,

[so we are to be at a certain expence on account of what might happen] that the affair of Poland, the only bone of contention publicly owned, was what England had little to do with; but if that should. [what if it should not?] appear not to be the real motive to war; or if success should [what if it should not?]

encourage either side to extend their views, the balance of power

[ay the blessed balance of power, containing in one scale the enestimable electo|rate, and in the other the insignificant British empire]

may, at last, be brought into real danger, and then, for the sake of preserving the liberties of Europe,

[why not the liberties of Asia?]

upon which the liberties of this nation will always depend, we must

[fight all the windmills on the continent]

take a principal share in the war.

In this convincing man|ner did the Walpolians in those days argue for increas|ing the standing army. But whether it was not by arguments of greater weight, that they gained a ma|jority in the house, is left to the reader. If the keep|ing up of a standing army of 40,000 men was now to be debated in the house of commons, our courtiers would be puzzled to find arguments as plausible as even the above drawn from Poland, and the bone of contention. It was observed by the opposers of the augmentation, that several of the princes of Germany, who were more immediately concerned, remained neutral, though they had, at that time,

large armies unemployed, which would be all sent to the Rhine, if they thought their country in any real danger, or that France had any design to impose an emperor upon them. While they remain so secure, while they give themselves so little concern about the

event of the war, why should we be so terribly fright|ened * 3.189?

The insensible operation of prejudice in the most sincere, and intelligent minds, is very wonderful; and we cannot be too attentive to ourselves to guard against it. The great and good duke of Argyle, in the debate, A. D. 1734, on the motion for addressing the king, to know, by whose advice the duke of Bolton and lord Cobham were removed from the com|mand of their regiments, spoke as follows, without laughing;

I hope, my lords, there are no gentlemen in the army, that ever were, or ever can be prevailed on, either to act or speak contrary to their conscience by the fear of their being turned out of their com|mission. I hope, there never will be any such in our army * 3.190.

And afterwards * 3.191,

What signifies a prerogative, if the king is never to make use of it, without being obliged to give an account to parlia|ment of his reasons for so doing?

Without a presumption, (says lord Carteret) that we are in circumstances of danger, no member of this house can agree to the keeping up of a standing army of 18,000 men, unless he thinks, such an army ought to be kept up even when the nation is in the greatest tranquillity and security; a way of thinking into which I hope no member of this house, nor any British subject, ever will come: for if this should ever be established as a maxim, a standing army of 18,000 men at least, would become a part of our constitution * 3.192.

[Which prediction we see fulfilled.]

Lord Carteret, on the rejection of the bill for making military officers independent on the ministry,

moved for an address to know who advised the re|moval of the duke of Bolton and lord Cobham from their regiments, A. D. 1734 * 3.193.

The court lords said, This was breaking in upon the king's, that is, the minister's royal prerogative. Lord Bathurst answered, That it was the duty of the lords, as the king's hereditary counsellors, and was accordingly usual for them, to desire to be informed, who were the advisers of such exertions of the royal prerogative, as gave umbrage to themselves, or the people.

The army (he observed * 3.194) has really no de|pendence upon parliament. The king indeed de|pends upon parliament for a legal power to keep a standing army in time of peace, and for enabling him to pay them and discipline them according to law; but if in any future time the parliament should think it necessary to reduce a part of the army, and of con|sequence make no provision for their pay, the resolu|tion of parliament could not break any one regiment, or any part of any one regiment in the kingdom; the officers might all legally continue in their respective commands, and if the king then upon the throne should not think fit to break any of them, they might indeed then very probably think they had a good right to their pay, as long as they continued in co••mission, and if they could not get it by law, they might probably join with the king in raising it contrary to law, especially if he, foreseeing what would happen, had taken care to model them for that purpose, which any king might soon do while the army continues upon the same footing it is on at present. And for this reason, my lords, I must be of opinion that all these arguments which have been

used for shewing us the danger of making an army independent, are so many arguments for shewing the danger of an army's being entirely dependent upon one branch only of our legislature, and consequently are good arguments for the bill, which was designed to make the army not entirely dependent upon any one, but upon all the three branches of our legisla|ture.

A. D. 1740, near forty lords protested against an augmentation of the army, because nothing less than absolute necessity should prevail for that purpose; because the ministry had made but an indifferent use of the great forces employed in the late war; because the pretence of disaffection to government, rendering a great army necessary, was groundless; [there was much dissatisfaction with the conduct of the ministry; but that was to be removed by correcting the errors of government, not by keeping up a formidable and odious standing army] because the army then on foot, with the fleet, was sufficient to secure the kingdom against invasion; because our allies might be better assisted by us with money, than with men; because France is no example for England, the forms of government in the two countries being totally dif|ferent; because adding to the number of officers is increasing the power of the ministry already too great, especially on the eve of a general election, which might give an incurable wound to the constitution; because the number of officers in parliament was con|tinually increasing, and that the ministry expect offi|cers to promote their schemes in parliament, appeared from a recent fact, viz. that the four eldest officers of the army were lately displaced, without any crime having being alledged against them; and ministerial arts in parliament, can alone destroy the essence of

the constitution, and open violence alone, the forms of it * 3.195.

There is no end to the evils of a standing army. In this discourse (says Mr. Gordon) I have purposely omited speaking of the lesser inconveniencies attend|ing a standing army, such as frequent quarels, murders and roberies; the destruction of all the game in the country, the quartering upon public, and sometimes private houses; the influencing elec|tions of parliament, by an artificial distribution of quarters; the rendering so many men useless to labour, and almost to propagation, together with a much greater destruction of them by taking them from a laborious way of living, to a loose idle life; and besides this the insolence of the officers, and the debaucheries that are commited both by them, and their soldiers in all the towns they come into; the ruin of multitudes of women, dishonour of their families, and example to others; and a numerous train of mischiefs besides, almost endless to enume|rate. These are trivial grievances in respect of those I have treated above, which strike at the hearts blood of our constitution, and therefore I thought these not

considerable enough to bear a part in a discourse of this nature * 3.196.

If the army be continued but a few years, it will be accounted a part of the prerogative, and it will be thought as great a violation to attempt the disband|ing it, as the guards in Ch. II's. time. It will be in|terpreted a design to dethrone the king * 3.197.

Our times prove Mr. Trenchard a true prophet.

Mr. Trenchard * 3.198 takes notice, that the prince of Orange, in his first declaration, set forth all the op|pressions

of king Iames IId's reign, excepting only that of his keeping up a standing army in time of peace; as if he had thought that no very great griev|ance. William promised, however, to send home the foreign forces he brought with him, as soon as he established a free parliament, liberty, and the protes|tant religion, &c. [Burnet blamed him to his face very severely for establishing corruption] and he kept his word so well, that he and his parliament had al|most finally fallen out, because he would not send away his Dutch guards; so much are even good kings at|tached to power, and to armies, the instrument of power.

After much debating, voting, resolving, and dis|banding, the army establishment was settled. A. D. 1697, at 10,000, landmen, and 3000 marines, which last it was pretended, were not a land-force, but a water-force. Nor did the ministry accomplish the parliament's intention.

Thus, (says Mr. Trenchard * 3.199) what our courts for above 1000 years together never had the effron|tery to ask, what the pension parliament could not think of without astonishment, what Iames's parlia|ment chosen almost by himself, could not hear de|bated with patience, we are likely to have the ho|nour of establishing under a deliverance.

Mr. Trenchard * 3.200 throws out broad hints, that the strange and continual mismanagement of sea affairs in king William's time, could hardly have come about any other way, than through a design of magnifying the importance of land armies. And I will take the liberty of likewise throwing out a broad hint, that we have seen the same traiterous policy carried on at different periods since that time by various ministers,

who were yet very good whigs. Let the reader cast an eye backward upon all our windmill expeditions to the continent, under William, Anne, and the two Georges; let him remember the loss of Minorca; let him observe how many reviews are made of the army, to one survey of the fleet; let him—but enough of this.

See Mr. Gordon's Argument against standing armies. TRACTS, Vol. I. in which, p. 7, he ascribes the preservation of British liberties to his times, A. D. 1697, merely to the smallness of the army. N. B. Our standing force now is double the number of what was then kept up. He observes, that neither the Israelites, Athenians, Corinthians, Achaians, Lacedaemo|nians, Thebans, Samnites, nor Romans, while they were free, kept any soldiers in pay at home. They never trusted arms in the hands of any, but those, who were interested in preserving the public peace. When the fatal ambition of extending their dominions put them upon conquering kingdoms, they were obliged to keep mercenary soldiers in the conquered provinces.

Ex illo fluere, ac retro sublapsa referri Spes Romanorum. VIRG.

Even then they did what they could to prevent a military force from getting footing in Campania. They made a law, and put up an inscription at the passage of the Rubicon,

Imperator five miles, &c. Let every commander, soldier, and armed prince, leave here his arms and standard, and not presume to come in military array, farther than this river.

Therefore Iulius, having traiterously and rebelliously violated this law, had nothing left, but to push on his ambitious schemes, and endeavour to save himself, by the destruc|tion of his country.

The excellent Mr. Gordon, then goes on to men|tion some remarkable instances of free nations losing their liberties by suffering the establishment of mer|cenary standing armies. Athens was in this manner enslaved by Pisistratus; Corinth by Timophanes; Syra|cuse by Agathocles; Rome by Iulius; Milan by Sforza; Sweden by Gustavus Ericson; England by Cromwell, &c. Mr. Gordon does not quote his authorities. But they are taken from authentic history.

What I lament (says the writer of LET. TO TWO GREAT MEN * 3.201.) as the greatest misfortune that can threaten the public liberty, is to see the eagerness with which our nobility, born to be the guardians of the constitution against prerogative, solicit the badge of military subjection, not merely to serve their country in times of danger, which would be commendable; but in expectation to be continued soldiers, when tranquility shall be restored, and to be under military command during life. When I see this strange but melancholy infatuation so pre|valent, I almost despair of the constitution. If it should go on in proportion as it has of late, I fear the time will at last come, when independence on the crown will be exploded as unfashionable. Unless another spirit possesses our nobility; unless they lay aside their military trappings, and think they can serve their country more effectually as senators, than as soldiers, what can we expect, but to see the system of military subordination extending itself throughout the kingdom, universal dependance upon government influencing every rank of men, and the spirit, nay the very form, of the constitution de|stroyed. We have generally beaten the French, and always been foolish enough to follow their fashions. I was, however, in hopes we should never have taken

the fashion of French Government; [the bill, of this year 1774, for the government of Canada is the very thing] but from our numerous armies, and the military turn of our nobility, I am afraid we are running into it as fast as we can. And unless something can be done to bring back our constitution to its first principles, we shall find that we have triumphed only to make ourselves as wretched as our enemy; that our conquests are but a poor compensation for the loss of our liberties; in a word, that, like Wolfe, falling in the arms of victory, we are most gloriously—undone.

The vesting of courts-martial with the power of punishing with death in times of peace (the conse|quence of a standing army) was carried in the house of commons by a small majority, A. D. 1718, viz. 247 to 229. Walpole (in those days a flaming patriot) opposed all courts martial.

They (he said) who gave the power of blood, gave blood.

Though afterwards, when he came to be a minister, he was better reconciled to standing armies and mutiny bills in times of peace; he never dared to ask above 17,000 men. We have now doubled that number. His demand produced a debate every year. He founded his pretended necessity for a standing army upon jaco|bitism. In our times, a minister could not bring out the word without laughing. Our ministers, there|fore, found it upon—upon—I profess I do not know what they found it upon, if it be not the necessity of keeping down the spirit of the people, enraged against corruption and peculation; or the necessity of find|ing places in the army, the war-office, &c. for their too••s, and the sons of their tools.

There is one thing (says lord Gage * 3.202 fatal above all others, that must be the consequence of so great

a body of troops being kept on foot in England, and will be the finishing stroke to all our liberties. As the towns in England will not be able much longer to contain quarters for them, most of those, who keep public houses, being near ruined by soldiers billeted on them; so, on pretence of the necessity of it, barracks will be built for quartering them, which will be as so many fortresses with strong garrisons in them, erected in all parts of England, which can tend to nothing but by degrees to subdue and enslave the kingdom. But if ever this scheme should be attempted, it will be incumbent on every Englishman to endeavour to prevent it by all methods; and as it would be the last stand that could be ever made for our liberties, rather than suffer it to be put in execu|tion, it would be our duty to draw our swords, and never put them up till our liberties were secured, and the authors of our intended slavery brought to condign punishment.

Several lords protested on occasion of the election of 16 Scotch peers, A. D. 1735, when

a batallion of his majesty's forces were drawn up in the Abby Court at Edinburgh, and three companies of it were marched from Leith (a place of one mile distance) to join the rest of the batallion, and kept under arms from nine in the morning till nine at night, when the election was ended; contrary to custom at elections, and without any cause or occasion that could be foreseen, other than the overawing of the electors, we apprehend to be of the highest consequence both to our liberties in general, and the freedom of elections in particular; since what|ever may have been the pretence, whatever appre|hensions of disorders or tumults may have been alledged in this case, may be equally alledged on

future occasions; especially as we have a number of regular forces abundantly sufficient to answer such calls: and we apprehend that the employment assign|ed to this batallion will give great distrust and uneasi|ness to many of his majesty's subjects, who will fear what use may be made of the rest of that very great number of men now kept up in this nation * 3.203.

Lord Chesterfield endeavours, A. D. 1741, to shew that the strength of this country consists in our fleets, and not in our land forces.

That the fleets of Great Britain are equal in force and number of ships to the united navies of the greatest part of the world; that our admirals are men of known bravery, and long experience, and therefore formidable not only for real abilities and natural courage, but for the confidence which their presence necessarily excites in their followers, and the terror which must always accompany success, and enervate those who are accustomed to defeats; that our sailors are a race of men distinguished by their ardour for war, and their intrepidity in danger, from the rest of the human species; that they seem beings superior to fear, and delighted with those objects which cannot be named without filling every other breast with horror; that they are capable of rushing upon apparent destruc|tion without reluctance, and of standing without concern amidst the complicated terrors of a ••aval war, is universally known and confessed, my lords even by those whose interest it is to doubt or deny it. Upon the ocean, therefore, we are allowed to be irre|sistable, to be able to shut up the ports of the conti|nent, to imprison the nations of Europe within the limits of their own territories, deprive them of all

foreign assistance, and put a stop to the commerce of the world. It is allowed that we are placed the centinels at the barriers of nature, and the arbiters of the intercourse of mankind. These are appellations, my lords, which however splendid and o••tentatious, our ancestors obtained and preserved with less advan|tages than we possess, by whom, I am afraid, they are about to be forfeited. The dominion of the ocean was asserted in former times, in opposition to powers far more able to contest it, than those whom we have so long submissively courted, and of whom we are now evidently afraid * 3.204.

There is a very remarkable difference between a standing law and a standing army. A standing law, though it was at first made perpetual, though it should be observed for ages together, yet it cannot say to the legislature, You shall not repeal me; but an army, though it was never designed to be per|petual, though it has been kept up but a small number of years, may say to us, You shall not dis|band me; if you attempt to do so, I will turn you out of doors. We know this by experience; and that experience may convince us that an annual parliamentary check, such as it is pretended we now have, would be of very little signification against an army sufficient, and that army provided with a general resolved, to make the parliament do what|ever he had a mind. Oliver Cromwell, and the army under his command, were faithful to that parliament which established them, as long as the parliament did nothing to displease them; but as soon as the parliament began to think of disbanding them, they

immediately, and without any garbling, rebelled against the parliament, and at last turned it out of doors. And with a part of the same army, we may remember, that general Monk in a few months, and with but very little garbling, dissolv••d the rump par|liament, by whose authority he at first pretended to act, and restored king Ch. II. * 3.205

The keeping up of a standing mercenary army in a free country, necessarily destroys the martial spirit and decipline of the rest of the people; and all histories shew that a cowardly people must soon become slaves to a foreign or domestic army. The keeping up of such an army in a trading country encourages and promotes a spirit of idleness, lewd|ness, debauchery, luxury, and extravagance among all ranks and degrees of men; and every one knows, that the trade of a country, especially where it has many rivals, can be supported by nothing but by the industry, virtue, sobriety, and frugality of the people. The quartering of soldiers, even in this country, is a terrible grievance and a heavy load upon many private men, and of most dangerous consequence to the freedom of our elections, because it is a rod in the hand of our ministers, which they make use of for correcting any corporation, or county, that shall chuse a member whose face is not agreeable to the court. The providing of a daily support for so many hale, lusty fellows, most of whom have been bred up to some laborious trade or employment, greatly diminishes our profits by trade, and consequently our national revenue, which every one knows, depends upon the labour and industry of our poor. These are disadvantages which are

universally acknowledged; and therefore we ought never to submit to the keeping up a standing merce|nary army, but in cases of the most urgent necessity; nor ought we at any time to keep up a more nume|rous mercenary army than the present necessity evi|dently requires * 3.206

The witty earl of Chesterfield * 3.207, answering the wi••e duke of Newcastle's arguments for keeping up what was then, A. D. 1738, called a numerous army, viz. 18000 men, speaks as follows.

I need not, I believe, my lords, trace the noble lord in his travels over Europe, in order to extinuate the dangers he has endeavoured to pick up, for shewing the necessity we are under at present for keeping up such a numerous army. I think all the dangers he has mentioned, either abroad or at home, depend upon may be's, which must always subsist. A minister may die—a prince may have ambitious views—a prince's success may raise the jealousy of others—his misfortunes may revive their hopes—there may be a design to invade us, though we have not at present the least item of it—Spain may refuse to do us justice, or may be assisted by the French, though we have yet no reason to expect either the one or the other—A plot for an insurrection may be forming, though we have not at present the least intimation of any such thing, not even from common reports or surmises—And all these may be's, or possi|bilities, will become probabilities, or certainties, if we should reduce our army. Are these arguments, my lords, that can convince any man in the kingdom of our being under a present necessity for keeping up a numerous standing army in time of peace?

If a parliamentary army (says he * 3.208) kept up from year to year becomes an affair of course, I can see no reason for not establishing it by a perpetual law. I wish the bill now before us had been a bill of such a nature. Such a bill would have made people sensible of their danger; whereas by the method we are in, we are like to have a perpetual army palmed upon us, under colour of an annual bill. An army kept up by a perpetual law, would be as much an army kept up by consent of parliament, as an army perpetually kept up by an annual bill. I can see no difference between the one and the other: they are both dangerous, and equally dangerous to our con|stitution; and were thought so by the whole nation, except a few courtiers, in the reign of Ch. II. when the custom of keeping up a few regular troops under the denomination of guards, was first introduced. I do not know how the words unless with consent of parliament, crept into the claim of right; for from the journals of parliament it appears, that the house of commons in Ch. II.'s time were of opinion, that the keeping up a standing army in time of peace was inconsistent with our constitution, whether that army was kept up with or without the consent of parliament. In their resolutions there is no such exception; and if the keeping up a standing army in time of peace be wrong, as it must be, if it be incon|sistent with our constitution, I am sure the sanction of parliament, whether by an annual or perpetual law, cannot make it right.

It is no argument* 3.209, my lords, to say, we have kept up an army for a great many years without being sensible of any danger. A young fiery ••orse

is never brought at▪ once to submit to the curb, and patiently to receive the rider upon his back. If you put the bit into his mouth without any previous preparation, or put a weak▪ and unskilful rider upon his back, he will probably break the neck of his rider; but by degrees you may make him tamely submit to both. A free people must be treated in the same manner: by degrees they must be accus|tomed to be governed by an army, by degrees that army must be made strong enough to hold them in subjection. If you should at once attempt to govern your people by a military power, and before they are a little prepared for the yoke; if you should mount your army upon them before it has gathered strength to keep its seat in the saddle, your people would probably break the necks of those that attempted to ride them. But we have already, for many years, been accustoming our people to be governed by an army, under pretence of making use of that army only to assist the civil power; and by degrees we have been for several years increasing the number, and consequently the strength of our army.

To pretend that our liberties * 3.210 can be in no danger from our army, because it is commanded by gentle|men of the best families and fortunes in the kingdom, is an argument I am surprised to hear made use of. For our liberties ought to depend upon our consti|tution, and not upon the honour of the gentlemen of our army. I can, it is true, depend upon the honour of those who are at present the officers of our army; but my dependence is not founded upon their being gentlemen of family or fortune: It is founded upon their personal characters only. I have the honour

to be acquainted with many of the chief officers of our army: I know their honour, and the regard they have for the liberties of their country; and upon that knowledge, I can depend. If I were not acquainted with them, I should have but little regard to their being gentlemen of family and fortune: for in all countries where arbitrary power has been established, many gentlemen of the best families and fortunes, have▪ through fear or ambition, become the tools of ministers, and have assisted or suffered them to sacri|fice the liberties of their country.

Lord Carteret afterwards observes * 3.211,

That all the nations around, and especially France, were cultivat|ing commerce and manufactures. That this made it necessary for England to study all possible means for reducing the price of her manufactures, in order to be on an equal foot with her neighbours. That a reduction of the army was one of the most obvious measures for lessening taxes, and reducing manufac|tures. [How much stronger is that argument now, when we have more than doubled the national debt!] So far, says he, have we been from being frugal; and saving upon this article, or indeed, any other article of public expence, that we have for many years kept up a more numerous standing army than was in my opinion necessary; and upon most of the other articles we are every year increasing, instead of diminishing. Our civil list revenue has been increased from 4 or 500,000l. to, I may say, near a million a year. The expence of our army at home has been of late years increased: the expence of our land forces in the plantations, Minorca, and Gibraltar, has been

increasing for several years, and is this year higher than it was the last: The expence of Chelsea hospital is every year increasing; and as we are almost every year creating some new post, or adding some new officer to the management and collection of our pub|lic revenue, this, I believe, is a hidden and dangerous sort of expence, which has been vastly increased of late years, and is every year increasing. Many smalls, my lords, make a great, as we may see by comparing our present annual revenue with what it was forty or fifty years ago. Before the revolution, the whole of the public expence, which the people of this nation were annually lo••ded with, was but about two mil|lions. Now what we call the current expence, which the parliament provides for every year, amounts to above two millions besides the civil list, the in|terest growing due every year to our public creditors, and the sinking fund, which are provided for by esta|blished, perpetual revenues; and as the civil list re|venue may be computed at near one million, the interest growing due upon our public funds at near two millions, and the sinking fund at above one mil|lion yearly, we must reckon that the people of this nation are now, even in time of peace, loaded with a public expence of six millions, instead of the two millions, which was the highest sum they were ever loaded with in time of peace, before the late happy revolution.

Mr. Lyttleton (since lord Lyttleton, lately deceased) on the subject of the standing army, spoke as follows in the house of commons, A. D. 1739 * 3.212.

As I can see no good use that can be made of these troops, and as I will not suppose that any bad one 〈◊〉〈◊〉

intended, I must conclude they are kept for osten|tation alone. But is it for his majesty's honour to put the lustre of his crown, to put his dignity upon that, in which he may be rivalled by the petty prince of any little state in Germany? For I believe there are few of them now that cannot produce at a review an army equal to ours, both in number and show. If the greatness of a state is to be measured by the number of its troops, the elector of Hanover is as great as the king of England. But a very different estimation ought to be made of our greatness; the strength of England is its wealth and its trade: Take care of them, you will be always formidable: lose them, you are nothing; you are the last of mankind. Were there no other reasons for reducing the army, it should be done upon the principle of oeconomy alone. It is a melancholy thought to reflect how much we have spent, and to how little purpose for these 16 years past. Sir, could it be said, We are indeed loaded with debt; but for that charge we have encreased our reputation, our commerce flou••••shes, our navigation is safe, our flag is respected, our name honoured abroad, —could this be said, there is a spirit in the people of England which would make them chearfully bear the heaviest burdens—On the other side, could an opposite language be held, could it be said, We have indeed no victo|ries, no glory to boast of, no eclat, no dignity; we have submitted to injuries; we have borne affronts; we have been forced to curb the spirit of the nation; but by acting thus, we have restored our affairs, we have paid our debts, we have taken off our taxes, we have put into the power of the king and parliament, to act hereafter with more vigour and weight; —could this be said, this also

might be satisfactory.—〈◊〉〈◊〉 to have failed in both these points, at the same time by a conduct equally inglorious and expensive, to have lost the advantages both of war and peace, to have brought disgrace and shame upon the present times, and national beggary upon ages to come, the consequence of which may be national slavery; such a management, it such a management can be supposed, must call down national vengeance upon the guilty authors of it, whosoever they be, and the longer it has been sus|pended, the more heavy it will fall.

Mr. Shippen, A. D. 1739, spoke on this subject as follows * 3.213.

Can it be thought, that our influence at foreign courts depends upon the number of land-forces we keep in continual pay? Nor, Sir; our influence de|pends upon the riches and number of our people, and not upon the number of our regular regiments, or the appearance they make at a review. We have many thousands that would make as good an appear|ance in the day of battle if their country were in danger, though they are not at present masters of all the punctilios proper only for a review. We have a navy, which no nation in the world can equal, far less overcome, by which we may carry the dread of this nation into every country that is visited by the occean: And we have money, notwithstanding the bad use we have made of so long a peace, to hire as as many foreign troops as we can have occasion for, and to support them as long as we can have any service for them. Therefore, while we are unanimous amongst ourselves, while our government possesses the hearts and affections of the people in general,

which every virtuous and wise government must neces|sarily do, this nation must always have a great in|fluence upon the counsels of every court in Europe, nay of every court in the world, where it is necessary for us to extend our influence. From hence we may see, Sir, that in this nation we can never have occa|sion for keeping up a great number or any number of regular troops in order to give weight to any ne|gotiations; and if any power in Europe should refuse to observe or perform the treaties they have made with us, we ought not to seek redress by negotiation. We may make a demand; but it is beneath the dignity of a powerful people to sue for justice. Upon the first refusal or affected delay, we ought to compel them, not by keeping an army at home, which would be ridiculous, but by sending an irresistible fleet, with an army on board to ravage their coasts; or by getting some of their neighbours, with our assistance, to attack them; both which will always be in the power of every goverment of this country, that preserve their influence abroad by preserving the affections of the people at home; and that without keeping any number of regular troops always in pay; for whilst the spirit of liberty, which is the nursing mother of courage, is preserved among our people, we shall never want a great number of brave men of a••l degree amongst us, that will be ready to venture their lives in the cause of their country; and such men may in a few weeks be sufficiently disci|plined for action, though they might not perhaps observe all the punctilios so exactly as a parcel of idle mercenary fellows, who have had perhaps nothing to do for seve•• years together, but to dance through their exercises. The keeping up of a stand|ing army in this nation, can never therefore be

necessary, either for preserving our influence amongst our neighbours, or for punishing such of them as shall-offend us; and with respect to our own defence, as we have no frontier but the ocean, while we preserve a superiority at sea, a popular government in this country can never be under the least necessity of keeping up any land forces, especially if they would take care to have our militia but tolerably armed and disciplined; for no nation will be mad enough to invade us, while we are united among ourselves, with a handful of troops, who must either all die by the sword, or be made prisoners of war; because we could by means of our navy prevent their being able to return. And if any of our neighbours should prepare to invade us with a great fleet and a numerous army, we should not only have time to prepare for their reception, but we might lock them up in their ports by means of our navy, or we might give them enough to do at home by stirring up some of their neigbours upon the continent to invade them.

In consequence of our attachment to continental mea|sures, armies (says lord Bolingbroke) grew so much into fashion, in time of war, among men who meant well to their country, that they who mean ill keep them still up in the profoundest peace; and the number of our soldiers in this island alone is almost double to that of our seamen. That they are kept up against foreign enemies, cannot be said with any colour. If they are kept for shew, they are ridiculous. If they are kept for any other purpose whatever, they are too dangerous to be suffered. A patriot king, se|conded by ministers attached to the true interest of their country, would soon reform this abuse, and save a great part of this expence; or apply it in a

manner preferable even to the saving it, to the main|tenance of a body of marine foot, and to the charge of a register of thirty or forty thousand seamen. But no thoughts like these, no great designs for the honour and interest of the kingdom, will be enter|tained, till men who have the honour and interest of the kingdom at heart arise to power * 3.214.

At Carthage (says Mountague) their military institu|tion was such that the power of their generals in the field was absolute and unlimited; and if their conduct was approved of, generally continued to the end of whatever war they were engaged in. They had no occasion for the dangerous resource of a dictator. The watchful eye of their standing court-martial, the committee of 104 of their ablest senators, was a perpetual and never failing check upon the ambi|tion or ill behaviour of their generals * 3.215.

Our method of trying delinquents, (says lord Car|teret) either in the land or sea service, by a court-martial composed of their respective officers, has been judged liable to many objections, and has occasioned no little discontent in the nation. For as their en|quiry is restricted to a particular set of articles in each service, I do not see how a commanding officer, vested with a discretionary power of acting, can strictly or properly come under their cognizance, or ever be liable to their censure, unless he is proved guilty of a direct breach of any one of those articles. But as a com|mander in chief may easily avoid any offence of that nature, and yet upon the whole of his conduct in any expedition, be highly culpable; a court-martial thus circumscribed in their power of enquiry, can never be competent judges in a cause where they are denied a proper power of examining into the

real demerits of the supposed o••fender. Much has been said about trying offences of this nature like other criminal cases by juries. A scheme which at the very first sight must appear absurd and impracticable to the ••••tional and unprejudiced. As therefore in|struction is the true end and use of all hist••••y, I shall take the liberty of offering a scheme drawn from that wise and salutary institution of the Cartha|ginians, which is, That a select standing com|mittee be appointed, to be composed of an equal number of members of both houses, chosen annually by balloting, with a full power of inquiring into the conduct of all commanders in chief without any re|straint of articles of war; and that after a proper examination the committee shall refer the case with their opinion upon it to the decision of his majesty. This scheme seems to me the least liable to objections of any I have yet met with. For if the members are chosen by ballot••ing, they will be less liable to the influence of party. If they are chosen annually, and refer the case to the decision of the crown, which is the fountain of justice as well as mercy, they will neither incroach upon the royal prerogative, nor be liable to that signal defect in the Carthaginian committee, which sat for life, and whose sentence was final without appeal.

His late majesty [Geo. I.] even after the war with Spain was begun, made a reduction of his land-forces, and told his parliament he did so, because he thought his fleet sufficient not only to give a check to the ambitious views of Spain, but to compel them to agree to reasonable terms. The event, accordingly, answered his expectations: for by means of his fleet, he soon convinced the Spanish court how vain it was for them to contend with this nation.—This is an example, which ought now

to be followed. I wish it had always been followed.' Speech against the standing army, A. D. 1738 * 3.216.

He then goes on to shew, that there is no more occasion for an army on account of the domestic state of affairs, than he had shewn there was an account of foreign. That there might be discontents; but there was no reason to apprehend disaffection. That there had been some mobs and tumults: but that it did not follow, that therefore an army must be kept up.

A law, says he, which the civil power is unable to execute, must either be in itself oppressive, or it must be such a one as gives a handle for oppression. I hope this house will always have penetration enough not to pass a law which is in itself oppres|sive, or at least the goodness to repeal it, as soon as it appears to be so; and I hope we shall always have virtue and courage enough to send that magi|strate or that officer to Tyburn, who shall dare to make an oppressive use of any law we give our con|sent to. Therefore if there be any laws now in being, which cannot be executed by the civil power, we ought to enquire into them, and the use that is made of them, in order to amend or repeal them; and to contrive some other methods or laws for an|swering those ends, for which they were intended. Surely we are not to make a sacrifice of our consti|tution and liberties, by establishing a military go|vernment for the support of oppressive or dangerous laws, which through inadvertency or want of fore|sight have been agreed to, either by ourselves or our ancestors. But suppose, my lords, that the mobs and tumults which have lately happened, and the

opposition that has in some cases been made to the civil magistrate, have proceeded from nothing of an oppressive nature in any of our laws, nor from the oppressive use that has been made of any of them, which I hope is the case; yet experience has taught us that regular troops are far from being proper or effectual instruments, for preventing such tumults, or for aiding the civil magistrate in the execution of our laws. The late atrocious murder committed by the mob at Edinburgh was perpetrated within a few hundred yards of a whole regiment of regular troops; and even here in Westminster, nay even within the verge of the court, we know that great affronts have been offered to the government, and some murders committed by mobs within the view of our regular troops. It is impossible, my lords, to make our re|gular troops proper or effectual instruments for quelling mobs, or for enforcing the laws of their country, unless you lodge the civil as well as military power in the officers of your army; and such a regulation, I am sure, no lord of this house would agree to, nor would any officer of our army, I hope, desire to see it established.

The following is part of one of the parliamentary speeches for a place-bill. In separating it from the rest, I have cut off the name of the speaker. It is much to the purpose on this subject.

The keeping up of a standing army in this island in time of peace, was always, till the revolution, deemed inconsistent with our constitution. Since that time indeed, we have always thought the keep|ing up of a small number [not 50,000; for that is in my humble opinion a great number] of regular troops is necessary for preserving our constitution, or at least the present establishment. How far this

may be right, I shall not pretend to determine. But I must observe, that the famous scheme for overturn|ing our constitution, which was published in the year 1629, required but 3,000 foot for this purpose; and if Charles I. had, in the year 1641, been provided with such a number of regular troops upon whom he might have depended for overawing the mob of the city of London, his fate, I believe, would have been very different from what it was. I am very far from thinking that such a very small number, even now that our people are so much difused to arms, would be sufficient for overturning our constitution; but there is a certain number which would be infallibly sufficient for this purpose, and it is not easy to deter|mine how near we may now be come to that num|ber. Now suppose, we are come within 2 or 3,000 of that number, and that a minister, in order to ren|der his success against our constitution infallible, should, upon some specious pretence or other, desire the parliament to consent to an augmentation of 2 or 3,000 men to our army; can we suppose that such a small augmentation upon a plausible pretence, would be refused by a parliament chiefly composed of officers and placemen? Can we suppose that any man would risk his losing a lucrative employment, by voting against such a small augmentation? Some civil powers to be executed by civil officers, and some military powers to be executed by a standing army or a standing militia, are certainly necessary in all go|vernments: I am afraid it is impossible to preserve a free government, when all those powers are lodged in one single man; but when they are not only lodged in one single man, but greatly increased be|yond what is necessary for the support of a free go|vernment, I am sure the freedom of that government

must be soon at an end; and it is very hard to dis|tinguish between the powers necessary for the support of a free government, and these that are sufficient for establishing an arbitrary one. The partition is so thin, that it may easily be mistaken, and certainly will be mistaken by most of those who are under a temptation to judge partially in favour of arbitrary power.

Part of Sir Charles Sedley's speech in parliament on the bill for disbanding the army, A. D. 1699 * 3.217.

I hope my behaviour in this house has put me above the censure of one who would obstruct his majesty's affairs. I was as early in the apprehensions of the power of France as any man. I never stuck at money for fleets, armies, alliances, or whatever expences seemed to have the preservation of our new settled government for their end. I am still of the same mind; but that was war, and this is peace; and if I differ from some worthy gentlemen who have spoke before me, they will be so just as to be|lieve it is not about the end, but the means, that we contend. Some may think England cannot be safe without a standing army of 30,000 men; and will tell us the king of France has 200,000 in pay disciplined troops; that all our neighbours are armed in another manner than they were wont to be; that we must not imagine we can defend ourselves with our ordinary and legal forces. All this is very ma|terial, and would have great weight with me if England were not an island accessible only by sea, and in that case not till the invaders have destroyed our navy, which is or may be made superior to any force that can be brought against us. It is very difficult to land forces in an enemy's country; the

Spanish armada was beaten at sea, and never set foot on English ground; his present majesty with all the shipping of Holland could bring over but 14,000, or 15,000 men, and that so publickly, that nothing but an infatuated prince would have permitted their landing. Our attempt upon Brest shews us that it is easy with a small force to prevent an ••ssault from the other side of the water. As we are capable of being attacked in several places, so it may be urged as reason for several troops more than our finances can bear; but if we burden the people thus far in peace, it may tempt some to wish for war again; every change carrying a prospect of better times, and nothing can make worse times than a standing army of any number of men will at present. If we are true to ourselves, 10,000 men are enough; and if not, 100,000 are too few.

If we had improved the militia, we might have had at this time 5000,000 men tolerably disciplined. This would have put the power into the hands of the peo|ple, where only it can be safe.

Mr. Hutcheson, in his speech on the forces for 1718 * 3.218, observes,

That no legislator ever founded a free government, but he avoided this Charybdis [of a mercenary army] as a rock against which his com|monwealth must certainly be shipwrecked, as the Israelites, Athenians, Corinthians, Achaians, Lacedaemo|nians, Thebans, Samnites and Romans;

none of which nations, whilst they kept their liberty, were ever known to maintain any soldiers in constant pay, within their cities, or ever suffered any of their subjects to make war their profession; well knowing that the sword and sovereignty always march hand

in hand; and therefore they trained their own citizens and inhabitants of their territories about them, per|petually in arms; and their whole common wealths, by this means, became so many formed militias. A general exercise of the best of their people in the use of arms, was the only bulwark of their liberties. This was reckoned the surest way to preserve them both at home and abroad, the people being secured thereby as well against the domestic affronts of any of their own citizens, as against the foreign invasions of ambitious and unruly neighbours. Their arms were never lodged in the hands of any, who had not interest in preserving the public peace, who fought pro aris et focis, and thought themselves sufficiently paid by repelling invaders, that they might with freedom return to their own affairs. In those days there was no difference between the citizen, the soldier, and the husbandman; for all promiscuously took arms when the public safety required it, and afterwards laid them down with more alacrity than they took them up. So that we find among the Romans, the best and bravest of their generals came from the plough, contentedly returning when the work was over, and never demanding their triumphs 'till they laid down their commands, and reduced themselves to the state of private men. Nor do we find this famous common wealth ever permitted a deposition of their arms in any other hands, 'till their empire increasing, necessity constrained them to erect a constant stipendiary soldiery abroad in fo|reign parts, either for the holding or winning of provinces. Then luxury increasing with dominion, the strict rule and dicipline of freedom soon abated, and forces were kept up at home; which soon proved of such dangerous consequence, that the people were

forced to make a law to employ them at a conveni|ent distance; which was, that i•• any general marched over the river Rubicon, he should be declared a public enemy. See above page 441.

Though we should admit, that an army might be consistent with freedom in a commonwealth, yet it is otherwise in a free monarchy; for in the former, 'tis wholly at the disposal of the people, who nominate, appoint, discard, and punish the generals and officers as they think fit, and 'tis certain death to make any attempt upon their liberties; whereas in the latter, the king is perpetual general, may model the army as he pleases, and it will be called high treason to oppose him. This subject is so self evident, that I am almost ashamed to undertake the proof of it. For if we look through the world, we shall find in no country, liberty and an army stand together; so that to know whether a people are free or slaves, it is necessary only to ask, Whether there is an army kept up amongst them? This truth is so obvious, that the most barefaced advocates for an army do not directly deny it, but qualify the matter by telling us that a number not exceeding twenty or thirty thou|sand are a handful to so populous a nation as this. Now I think that number may bring as certain ruin upon us, as if they were as many millions; and I will give my reasons for it. It is the misfortune of all countries, that they sometimes lie under an un|happy necessity to defend themselves by arms against the ambition of their governors, and to fight for what is their own; for if a prince will rule us with a rod of iron, and invade our laws and liberties, and neither be prevailed upon by our miseries, sup|plications, nor tears, we have no power upon earth

to appeal to, and therefore must patiently submit to our bondage, or stand upon our own defence; which if we are enabled to do, we shall never be put upon it, but our swords may grow rusty in our hands; for that nation is surest to live in peace, that is most capable of making war; and a man that hath a sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it. Now I say, if a king hath thirty thousand men beforehand with his subjects, the people can make no effort to defend their liberties without the assist|ance of a foreign power, which is a remedy most commonly as bad as the disease; and if we have not a power within ourselves to defend our laws, we are no government. For England being a small country, few strong towns in it, and these in the king's hands, the nobility disarmed by the destruction of tenures, and militia not to be raised but by the king's com|mand, there can be no force levied in any part of England, but must be destroyed in its infancy by a few regiments; for what will twenty or thirty thousand naked unarmed men signify against as many troops of mercenary soldiers. What if they should come into the field, and say,

You must chuse these and these men your representatives?

Where is your choice? What if they should say, "Parliaments are seditious and factious assemblies, and therefore ought to be abolished? What is become of your freedom? If they should encompass this house and threaten, if the members do not sur|render up their government they will put them to the sword; What is become of your constitution? These things may be done under a tyrannical prince, and have been done in several parts of the world. What is it that causeth the tyranny of the Turks at

this day, but servants in arms? What is it that preserved the glorious commonwealth of Rome, but swords in the hands of its citizens? I will add here, that most nations were enslaved by small armies. Oliver Cromwell left behind him but twenty-seven thousand men; and the duke of Monmouth, who was the darling of the people, was suppressed with two thousand; nay, Caesar seized Rome itself with five thousand, and fought the battle of Pharsalia, where the fate of the world was decided, with twenty two thousand. And most of the revolutions of the Roman and Ottoman empires since, were caused by the pretorian bands, and the court janizaries; the for|mer of which never exceeded eight, nor the latter twelve thousand men. And if no greater numbers could make such disturbances in these vast empires, what will double or treble the force do with us? And they themselves confess it when they argue for an army; for they tell us we may be surprized with ten or fifteen thousand men from France, and having no regular force to oppose them, they will over••un the kingdom.

The fear of an invasion is no argument for an army; because a sufficient fleet to intercept invaders in their return, with a sufficient militia to give them a proper reception upon their arrival, is prefe••able to an army, which must be scattered in different pa••ts of the kingdom, and could not be brought toge••her to resist the invaders before they had done a great deal of mischief.

It was observed by Mr. Pulteney * 3.219 in the house of commons, A. D. 1729, in a debate on the number of forces for that year,

that one fundamental argu|ment

for the establishment of our liberties in the Bill of Rights is, that the keeping up a standing army in time of peace is contrary to law; that accordingly, after the peace of Ryswick, the greatest part of the army was disbanded; and, though upon the just fear of a new war, the parliament complimented king William with an establishment of 10,000 men, yet the same was not obtained without opposition; many honest and sober men among the warmest sticklers for the revolution, looking upon it as an encroach|ment on our liberties, and being justly apprehensive it would prove a dangerous precedent: that during the late war our land forces, together with those in our pay, amounted to above 200,000 men, the load of which still lies heavy upon us; but after the peace of Utrecht, there was a general reduction, except about 12,000 men; that upon the late king's acces|sion, when the rebellion broke out in Scotland and England, the army was indeed augmented with se|veral regiments, an•• other additional troops, but these were again reduced not long after; that in the year 1727, upon the prospect of the great dangers that were apprehended from the treaty of Vienna, an augmentation of about 8000 men was moved for in this house, but the same was warmly opposed; nor was it granted, but upon assurance that this expence should cease, as soon as the extraordinary occasion that called for it was over: that the event has shewn that most of those apprehensions were grundless and chimerical.

On the superior importance of the navy to the army, M. Potter * 3.220 spoke excellently in the house of com|mons, A. D. 1751, as follows;

I am really astonished, Sir, when I consider how inconsistent some gentlemen are, when they argue for a number of land forces to be kept in the pay of the public in time of peace, and when they argue for a number of seamen to be kept in the pay of the pub|lic. When the question before us is about the num|ber of land forces to be kept up in time of peace, they never once think of the vast number of brave landmen we have, and I hope always shall have in this island: These are with them, upon that occasion, of no account with regard to the strength or power of the nation, which they then say consists only in the number of men we have in actual pay, and sub|ject to the slavish rules of military law; and when any one proposes a diminution of the number, they exclaim, What, will you weaken the hands of go|vernment? Will you dismiss those men upon whom alone you can depend for your protection? But when the question comes about the number of seamen to be kept in public pay, they then tell you that the maritime power, or strength of this nation, does not depend upon the number of seamen you have in the actual pay of the public, but upon the numbers that belong to the wide extended British dominions, though many of them are at all times dispersed over the whole face of the globe. These you may reduce, these you may dism••••s at pleasure, without exposing yourselves to any dang••••. From this way of arguing, Sir, would not an ignorant stranger conclude that the go|vernment has no power over the land men of this island, even in the case of an invasion, or that a man might learn to be a complete sailor in a few days, but could not learn to be a complete soldier in a few years? One of these conclusions an ignorant stranger

would certainly draw; and yet, with respect to both, we know that the case is directly the reverse. Upon any threatened invasion his majesty has as much power over the land men, that is to say, the mili••••••, so far as relates to the proper use to be made of them, as he has over the seamen; nay more, because the landmen are always at home, but great numbers of our sea|men are at all times abroad; and do not we all know, that to make a complete seaman requires several years service at sea, and early in life too? Whereas the most ignorant land man may learn all the business of a common soldier in a few days: I mean all the fighting business; for as to all the punctilios of a review, I shall grant, it may require some months before he can go through them with dexterity.

Mr. Sandys * 3.221, A. D. 1740, spoke as follows on the inconveniencies to which the subjects are reduced by quartering soldiers.

Sir, It is an unfortunate state we are fallen into, that every session of parliament must be attended with new laws, or new clauses in old laws, for op|pressing the industrious subject, and endangering the liberties of the country. It is impossible to levy high duties upon the necessaries or conveniencies of life; it is impossible to keep up numerous standing armies without such laws, or such clauses, and yet we have, for twenty years, been contriving how to continue and increase both. The high duties we groan under were introduced for supporting a heavy and expensive, but necessary, war; but how the keeping up of a numerous standing army in time of peace was introduced, I can no other way account

for, than by supposing, that it was necessary for sup|porting unpopular destructive measures, and a hated minister. I am surprised to hear the forcible quar|tering of soldiers upon public or private houses insisted on, as if it wear a necessary means for the support of our goverment. Sir, if we were to attend strictly to our constitution, even as it stands at present, we ought in no mutiny bill to admit of the quartering of soldiers, even on public houses, except for a few nights in their march from one garrison to another, or for the first night after they arrive at the place designed for their residence. Though we now keep up, though we have long kept up, a great number of standing forces in time of peace, yet, properly speaking, they are no more than is supposed to be necessary for guards and garrisons; and accordingly, the resolution annually agreed to in this house is, That the number of effective men to be provided for guards and garrisons in Great Britain for the ensuing year, shall be such a num|ber as is then thought necessary. Before the revo|lution we had guards and garrisons, even in time of peace. But before the revolution, and some years after, we had no quartering of soldiers, either upon public or private houses, in time of peace, without the consent of the owner. On the contrary, by an express law, the latter end of Ch. IId's reign, it was enacted, That no officer, military or civil, or other person, shall quarter or billet any soldier upon any inhabitant of this realm without his consent; which law stood in force till near the end of the year 1692, when the first law was made for quartering sol|diers in public houses. Before that year, Sir, our guards and garrisons, by which, I mean, all the soldiers we had on foot, even in their marching

from one place to another, were obliged to quarter themselves, as other travellers do, in houses that were willing to receive them; and when they came to any garrison, or place where they were to reside, every officer and soldier provided quarters for him|self, in which, I believe, there was no inconveni|ence found; for when soldiers behave civilly and are agreeable to the people, there will always be houses enough, either public or private, that will be glad to receive them for what they are able to pay, unless there be a greater number of them than the place can conveniently accomodate. From the revolution to the year 1692, we had a sort of civil war amongst ourselves; for Ireland was not entirely reduced till the end of the year 1691, and as inter arma silent leges, perhaps, during that time some liberties were taken with the laws in respect to quar|tering or billeting of soldiers. But in the year 1692, the domestic tranquillity of the three kingdoms being re-established, the parliament began to think of restoring the laws to their pristine force. However, as we were then engaged in a dangerous foreign war, and upon that account obliged to keep a greater number of troops than usual; and as our troops were often obliged to march in great bodies either from one place of the kingdom to another, as danger threatened, or through the kingdom in their way to Flanders, the parliament saw it would be necessary to provide quarters for them upon their march in a different manner from what had been allowed by law; and therefore, in the mutiny-bill for the en|suing year, which then first begun to be entitled, A bill for punishing officers and soldiers who shall mutiny or desert their majesties service, and for punishing false musters, and for the payment of

quarters," the clause for quartering soldiers in public houses, without consent of the owner, was intro|duced, and has ever since remained in all the mutiny bills passed to this day; for a favourite power once granted to the crown is seldom recovered by the subject without some remarkable revolution in our government.

The transaction which, in the year 1741, occasioned the following reprimand, shews, in a very striking light, the evil of a standing army, and one of the bad uses it may be put to.

Mr. Blackerby, M. Howard, Mr. Lediard! You having at the bar of this house yesterday confessed, that you did send for and cause to come, on Friday the eighth day of May last, a body of armed soldiers, headed by officers in a military manner, who did take possession of the church yard of St. Paul, Covent Garden, near the place where the poll for the election of citizens to serve in this present parliament for the city of Westminster, was taken, before the said election was ended; and you having acknowledged your offence therein, the house did order you to attend this morning, to be brought to the bar to be reprimanded on your knees by me for the said offence. I cannot better describe to you the nature of this offence you have been guilty of than in the words of the resolution this house came to upon their examina|tion into that matter, which are; That the presence of a regular body of armed soldiers at an election of mem|bers to serve in parliament is an high infringment of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of this kingdom. And it is impos|sible, if you will consider the terms of this resolution,

but that you must have in your breast the deepest sorrow and remorse for this rash act of yours, which, if it had not been duly animadverted upon, might have given the most dangerous wound to the consti|tution of this free country that perhaps it ever had felt.—This country is free, because this house is so; which this house can never be, but from the freedom of election to it: And amidst the too many ways for violating that, none can be more pernicious, because none more quick, decisive, and parmanent, than what you might unhappily have set a precedent for, and which might have grown to an extremity under the specious and ready pretences of fears and necessity that supersede all law; a precedent that would have received an authority from the place it began in, the seat of the government and legislature of this kingdom. Necessity, which is to take place of law, must be lest to the circumstances of every particular case. The act must be presumed to be wrong, enquired into as such, and excused only by the clearest proofs, that the necessity for it was real. What you have done is against one of the most essential parts of the law of the kingdom. Has any real necessity been shewn for it? There might be fears; there might be some danger: but did you try the strength of the law to dispel those fears, and remove that danger? Did you make use of those powers the law has invested you with as civil magistrates for the preservation of the public peace? No: You deserted all that; and wantonly, I hope inadvertently, re|sorted to that force the most unnatural of all others, in all respects, to that cause and business you were then attending, and for the freedom of which every Briton ought to be ready almost to suffer any thing.

More might be said; but you have acknowledged your offence, and have asked pardon for it. This has disposed the house to lenity. Use it not to lessen the sense of your crime; but to raise in your hearts that sense of gratitude you owe to the house for that gentle treatment you have met with on this occasion; in expectation of which you are discharged, paying your fees * 3.222.

The confidence, which a standing army gives a minister, puts him upon carrying things with a higher hand, than he would attempt to do, if the people were armed, and the court unarmed, that is, if there were no land-force in the nation, but a militia. Had we at this time no standing army, we should not think of forcing money out of the pockets of three millions of our subjects. We should not think of punishing with military execution, un-convicted and un-heard, our brave American children, our surest friends and best customers. We should not insist on bringing them over to be tried here, on pretence of no justice to be had in America, in direct violation of the constitution, especially when we had so late an experience of their candor in acquitting an officer of the army charged with murdering one of their people, even since the com|mencement of the present unhappy dissentions. We should not think of putting them in a state of sub|jection to an army rendered independent on the civil magistrate, and secured from punishment even for the most atrocious offence, by their being to be sent 3000 miles to their mock-trial, across an ocean, where the persons and things indispensably necessary for their trial, cannot possibly be had. We should not think of put|ting

a part of our western dominions, as large as all Europe, under French law, which knows nothing of our inestimable privilege of trial by jury, whilst our kings at their coronation solemnly swear to govern all the subjects by the English law. We should not think of giving our kings power to make not only laws, but legislators, for a vast multitude of the sub|jects, without concurrence of lords and commons. We should not propose to give the sanction of parlia|ment to popery, in direct opposition to revolution-prin|ciples. We should not think of giving papists the power of making laws obligatory upon protestants, with severe penalties and sanctions. We should not imagine a government for a vast colony, vested merely in a governor and council, always supposed to be crea|tures of the court, without so much as the name of an assembly of representatives, without the people's having any hand in the making of their own laws, which is the very perfection of slavery. We should not think of resuming unforfeited charters. We should not think of making governors, the needy, and often worthless dependents of our corrupt court, lords para|mount over our brave colonists, by giving them the power of appointing and removing judges at their pleasure, while the governors themselves, however tyrannical, are liable to no impeachment by the peo|ple. We should not—but there is no end to observa|tions on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.

I had collected a great deal more upon the ARMY, than what is here laid before the public. Fearing lest I should tire the reader, I have suppressed many speechs and quotations on this head, as well as most of the

others I have treated of. What I have published will shew plainly, that the ablest men, and best citizens of this realm, have looked upon a mercenary army in times of peace, whether allowed from year to year, or established for perpetuity, as a dangerous and alarming abuse in a free country. They opposed it strenuously in treatises, pamphlets, and speeches. And we let it pass annually without question or dispute. Whe|ther the fears of our ancestors, or our indifference, are most reasonable, time will shew. By the aspect of the present times, it is not improbable, that the point may very soon be decided.

END of the SECOND VOLUME.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rapin, I.329.
• * 1.2

  PARL. HIST. VI.402.
• * 1.3

  Ibid. 403.
• * 1.4

  PARL. HIST. VIII, 191, 192, 196.
• * 1.5

  Ibid. 197.
• * 1.6

  PARL. HIST. VII.441.
• * 1.7

  Ibid. VI.467.
• * 1.8

  Volt. ESS. SUR L'HIST. IV.147.
• * 1.9

  Whitel. MEM. 308.
• * 1.10

  PARL. HIST. XV.422.
• * 1.11

  PARL. HIST. IX.148.
• * 1.12

  PARL. HIST. XIV.140.
• * 1.13

  Hume, HIST. STUARTS, I.244.
• * 1.14

  Ibid. 246.
• * 1.15

  Ibid. 247.
• * 1.16

  PARL. HIST. X.180.
• * 1.17

  PARL. HIST. IX.298.
• * 1.18

  DEB. LORDS, I.264.
• * 1.19

  PARL. HIST. XI.200.
• * 1.20

  DEB. COM. XI▪312.
• * 1.21

  Macaul. HIST. ENGL. V.107.
• * 1.22

  STATE TRACTS, time of king William, II.644.
• * 1.23

  PARL. HIST. XXIII.59.
• * 1.24

  PARL. HIST. X.13.
• * 1.25

  Macaul. HIST. V.199.
• * 1.26

  DEB. COM. I.191.
• * 1.27

  Hum••, HIST. STUARTS, II.236.
• * 1.28

  STATE TRACTS▪ time of king William II.6••••
• * 1.29

  Rapin, II.672.
• * 1.30

  DEB. COM. I.276.
• * 1.31

  Ibid. 286.
• * 1.32

  DEB. COM. I.344.
• * 1.33

  Tind. CONTIN. I.479.
• * 1.34

  DEB. COM. III.123.
• * 1.35

  Ibid. 124.
• * 1.36

  Ibid. 126.
• * 1.37

  CONTIN. I.399, 400.
• * 1.38

  N. Bacon's DISC. GOV. ENGL. P. 11. p. 18.
• * 1.39

  PARL. HIST. VIII.191.
• * 1.40

  Ibid. VI.132, et seq.
• * 1.41

  Ibid. VI.309.
• * 1.42

  II.308.
• * 1.43

  PARL. HIST. X.16. seq.
• * 1.44

  Rap. II.155.
• * 1.45

  COMMENT. I.9.
• * 1.46

  Burn. HIST. OWN TIMES, II.113.
• * 1.47

  DEB. COM. II.355.
• * 1.48

  DEB. COM. II.446.
• * 1.49

  Ibid. III.90.
• * 1.50

  LAMENT. IV.1.
• * 1.51

  JOB XV.34.
• * 1.52

  COMM. I.333.
• * 1.53

  Hume, HIST. STUARTS, II.240.
• * 1.54

  Rapin, II.276.
• * 1.55

  PARL. HIST. XVII.386.
• * 1.56

  PARL. HIST. XIX.231.
• * 1.57

  PARL. HIST. XIII.376.
• * 1.58

  DE••. COM. VIII.210.
• * 1.59

  STATE TRACTS, time of king William, II.645.
• * 1.60

  CONTINUATION, I.85.
• * 1.61

  Bolingbr. REM. HIST. ENGL. 29.
• * 1.62

  Bolingbr. POLIT. TRACTS, 251.
• * 1.63

  POLIT. REGIST. quoted LOND. MAG. 1767, p. 406.
• * 1.64

  PARL. HIST. XIII.119.
• * 1.65

  MEM. 13.
• * 1.66

  Ibid. 24.
• * 1.67

  PARL. HIST. IX.197.
• * 1.68

  Hume, HIST. STUARTS, I.260.
• * 1.69

  Rapin, II.515.
• * 1.70

  PARL. HIST. XV.172.
• * 1.71

  Gord. TRACTS, I.61.
• * 1.72

  Elsynge's ANT. METH. HOLD. PARL. 17••▪
• * 1.73

  Rapin, II.38.
• * 1.74

  DEB. COM. XIII.147.
• * 1.75

  Bolingbr. POLIT. TRACTS, 283.
• * 1.76

  DEB. COM. VI.120.
• * 1.77

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. VI.383.
• * 1.78

  DEB. COM. VI.227.
• * 1.79

  LOND. MAG. 1766, p. 332, 407.
• * 1.80

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XLI.8.
• * 1.81

  Ibid. XXXVI.77.
• * 1.82

  ETAT PRES. DE LA REPUBL. DES PROV. UNI••••, par Ianicon, I.78.
• * 1.83

  CONTIN, IX.538.
• * 1.84

  Corn. Nep. IN EPAM.
• * 1.85

  Rap. II.802.
• * 1.86

  DEB. LORDS, IV.199.
• * 1.87

  CATO'S LETT. III.286.
• * 1.88

  DEB. COM. XIV.33—64.
• * 1.89

  DEB. COM. XIV.41.
• * 1.90

  DEB. COM. XIV.44.
• * 1.91

  Ibid. 59.
• * 1.92

  CITY'S REMONSTRANCE to the king, A. D. 1770.
• * 1.93

  Arist. POLIT. II.12.
• * 1.94

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXIV.237.
• * 1.95

  PARL. HIST. VII.50.
• * 1.96

  PARL. HIST. II.121.
• * 1.97

  Tind. CONTIN. I.368.
• * 1.98

  DEB. COM. VIII.165.
• * 1.99

  Fletcher's WORKS, p. 37.
• * 1.100

  CATO'S LETT. III.25.
• * 1.101

  Bolingbr. POLIT. TRACTS, 275.
• * 1.102

  DEB. COM. III.195.
• * 1.103

  DEB. COM. III.147.
• * 1.104

  GENT. MAG. Aug. 1747.
• * 1.105

  See WHIT••H. EVEN. POST. Dec. 7, 1773.
• * 1.106

  Iohnson's DICT. II. Word PENSION.
• * 1.107

  POLIT. V.9.
• * 1.108

  POLIT. V.••.
• * 1.109

  GRAND. ET DECAD. DES ROM. p. 32.
• * 1.110

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XVII.260.
• * 1.111

  Ibid. XI.318.
• * 1.112

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.514.
• * 1.113

  Ibid. 531.
• * 1.114

  Ibid. XIII.297.
• * 1.115

  Ibid. XV.198.
• * 1.116

  Ibid. XVI.219.
• * 1.117

  Ibid. XVI.227.
• * 1.118

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXII.237.
• * 1.119

  Ibid. XV.44.
• * 1.120

  Ibid. X.565.
• * 1.121

  Ibid. XXI.214.
• * 1.122

  Volt. ESS. SUR L'HIST. III.364.
• * 1.123

  Lord Bacon's LETT. p. 85.
• * 1.124

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXII.312.
• * 1.125

  Of this I was repeatedly informed by the late excellent Dr. Hales, who pro••es••ed himself a great admirer of that nobleman's abilities and dispositions; and I willingly lay hold of the opportunity of writing somewhat in favour of one, against whom so much has been so rashly thrown out. For I would be the defender (as far as lies within my reach) of those whom I see blamed beyond their demerits.

  Non tibi Tyndaridis facies invisa Lacaenae, Culpatusve Paris—Divôm inclementia, divôm Has evertit opes— VIRG.

  It is not lord B—, but lord Corruption, that has brought the British empire to the condition, in which we see it.
• * 1.126

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XLI.409.
• * 1.127

  PARL. HIST. XV.278.
• * 1.128

  DEB. COM. II.360.
• * 1.129

  Tind. CONTIN. I.41.
• * 1.130

  Ibid. 193.
• * 1.131

  DEB. COM. II.334.
• * 1.132

  Ibid. V.12.
• * 1.133

  PARL. HIST. VII.54.
• * 1.134

  PARL. HIST. XXIII.61.
• * 1.135

  S. Pierre, OUVR. POLIT. XVI.20.
• * 1.136

  OUVR. POLIT. IX.100. et pas.
• * 1.137

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XI.463.
• * 1.138

  St. Pierre, VI.54.
• * 1.139

  VI.55.
• * 1.140

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXIV.45.
• * 1.141

  STAT. AT LARGE, II.318.
• * 1.142

  Blackst. COMM. III.128.
• * 1.143

  Burn. HIST. OWN TIMES. I.290.
• * 1.144

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. X.561.
• * 1.145

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXI.161, 192.
• * 1.146

  Ibid. XXXIV.10.
• * 1.147

  Ibid. VII.263.
• * 1.148

  Ianicon, ETAT PRES. DES PROV. UNI••S, I.360.
• * 1.149

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXI.336.
• * 1.150

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.425.
• * 1.151

  Brady, II.549.
• * 1.152

  Brady, II.644.
• * 1.153

  PARL. HIST. VI.367.
• * 1.154

  Rapin, I.387.
• * 1.155

  LORD Bacon's LETT. p. 84.
• * 1.156

  PARL. HIST. VI.326.
• * 1.157

  Ibid. II.80.
• * 1.158

  Anders. HIST. COMM. I.366.
• * 1.159

  Rapin, II.172.
• * 1.160

  Rapin, II.65.
• * 1.161

  PARL. HIST. XV.59.
• * 1.162

  DEB. COM. III.210. Tind. CONTIN. I.577.
• * 1.163

  2 Sam. XII.3.
• * 1.164

  Aut. Thys. DE REP. ATHEN. 261.
• * 1.165

  Plut. APOPHTH. Val. Max. IV.3. ANT. HIST. XII.139·
• * 1.166

  Schooch. Rep. ACHAEOR. 32.
• * 1.167

  Ibid 33.
• * 1.168

  Ant Thys. DE REP. ATHEN. 251.
• * 1.169

  Corn. Nep. in EPAMIN.
• * 1.170

  Aut. Thys. DE REP. ATHEN. 257.
• * 1.171

  Ibid.
• * 1.172

  Liv.
• * 1.173

  LIFE of the DUKE d' EPERNON, p. 559.
• * 1.174

  Ibid. 581.
• * 1.175

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXIV.382.
• * 1.176

  Preface to a FRAGMENT of POLY••. p. iii.
• * 1.177

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXI.70.
• * 1.178

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.13.
• * 1.179

  WHITEH. EVEN. POST, Apr. 10.
• * 1.180

  LOND. MAG. 1760, p. 230.
• * 1.181

  Alm. DEB. COM. I.313.
• * 1.182

  Alm. DEB. COM. I.330.
• * 1.183

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XVI.249.
• * 1.184

  Tind. CONTIN. II.119.
• * 1.185

  PARL. HIST. VI.363.
• * 1.186

  DEB. COM. IV.130.
• * 1.187

  Plut. in CORIOL.
• * 1.188

  Cic. DE OFF. II.
• * 1.189

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.94.
• * 1.190

  Sueton. IN JUL. § 26, 27. et pass.
• * 1.191

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.179.
• * 1.192

  Sueton. IN JUL.
• * 1.193

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.389.
• * 1.194

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIV.489.
• * 1.195

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXIV.82.
• * 1.196

  DISSERT. UPON PARTIES, 213.
• * 1.197

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXXIV.12.
• * 1.198

  DISSERT. ON PARTIES, 217.
• * 1.199

  Gord. TRACTS, I.242.
• * 1.200

  Ibid. 239.
• * 1.201

  Daven. II.58.
• * 1.202

  Ibid. III.20.
• * 1.203

  Daven. III.4.
• * 1.204

  Daven. IV.429.
• * 1.205

  Daven. V.13.
• * 1.206

  Daven. II.263.
• * 1.207

  CATO'S LETT. III.279.
• * 1.208

  CATO'S LETT. III.280.
• * 1.209

  Daven. II.57.
• * 1.210

  Alm. DEB. COM. II.331.
• * 1.211

  DEB. LORDS, VI.374.
• * 1.212

  TRACTS, I.335.
• * 1.213

  Gord. TRACTS, II.269.
• * 1.214

  Daven. IV.426.
• * 1.215

  Ibid. 425.
• * 1.216

  Daven. IV.423.
• * 1.217

  CATO'S LETT. I.51.
• * 1.218

  CATO'S LETT. I.201.
• * 1.219

  Daven. II.321.
• * 1.220

  DISSERTATION ON PARTIES, 198.
• * 1.221

  Brady, II. Append. p. 134.
• * 1.222

  PARL. HIST. I.337.
• * 1.223

  Rapin, I.505.
• * 1.224

  PARL. HIST. II.278.
• * 1.225

  Fletcher, p. 357.
• * 1.226

  PARL. HIST. V.295.
• * 1.227

  ACT. REG. IV.305.
• * 1.228

  PARL. HIST. XVIII.526, 527.
• * 1.229

  Ibid. XII.463.
• * 1.230

  Ibid. XIII.443.
• * 1.231

  PARL. HIST. XVIII.322.
• * 1.232

  Rapin. II.513.
• * 1.233

  Ibid. II.516.
• * 1.234

  Milt. EIK. 22.
• * 1.235

  DEB. COM. I.348.
• * 1.236

  Rapin, II.719.
• * 1.237

  DEB. COM. II.14••.
• * 1.238

  Ibid. 150.
• * 1.239

  DEB. COM. I.151.
• * 1.240

  Ibid.
• * 1.241

  Tind. CONTIN. I.116.
• * 1.242

  DEB. LORDS, I.422.
• * 1.243

  DEB. LORDS, I.417.
• * 1.244

  DEB. COM. II.378, 381, 388.
• * 1.245

  DEB. COM. III.125.
• * 1.246

  Ibid. III.94.
• * 1.247

  Ibid. III.124.
• * 1.248

  Tind. CONTIN. I.227, 229.
• * 1.249

  Ibid. I.250.
• * 1.250

  Tind. CONTIN. I.227.
• * 1.251

  STAT. AT LARGE, III.5••••.
• * 1.252

  DEB. COM. III.453.
• * 1.253

  Ibid. 454.
• * 1.254

  Ibid. 438.
• * 1.255

  DEB. LORDS. VII.21.
• * 1.256

  Ibid. VII.32.
• * 1.257

  Ibid. VII.35.
• * 1.258

  Tind. CONTIN. I.685.
• * 1.259

  DEB. COM, IV.196.
• * 1.260

  Ibid. IV.255.
• * 1.261

  Ibid. 257.
• * 1.262

  Tind. CONTIN. I.200.
• * 1.263

  DEB. COM. V.12.
• * 1.264

  Burn. IV.363
• * 1.265

  DEB. COM. VI.23.
• * 1.266

  Ibid. VI.120.
• * 1.267

  Ibid. 120, 121.
• * 1.268

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.101.
• * 1.269

  DEB. COM. VIII. Append.
• * 1.270

  DEB. LORDS, IV.29.
• * 1.271

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.101.
• * 1.272

  Ibid.
• * 1.273

  DEB. COM. VII.81.
• * 1.274

  DEB. LORDS, IV.85, et seq.
• * 1.275

  DEB. COM. VII.285.
• * 1.276

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.184.
• * 1.277

  DEB. COM. VII.261.
• * 1.278

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.435.
• * 1.279

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.435.
• * 1.280

  DEB. COM. XI.202. et seq.
• * 1.281

  Tind. CONTIN. VIII.452.
• * 1.282

  DEB. COM. XII.
• * 1.283

  Ibid. XIII.187.
• * 1.284

  Ibid. 188.
• * 1.285

  DEB. LORDS, VII.736.
• * 1.286

  LONDON MAG. Feb. 1760. p. 7••.
• * 1.287

  Alm. DEB. COM. VIII.230.
• * 1.288

  Ibid. 231.
• * 1.289

  Alm. DEB. IX.336.
• * 1.290

  DEB. COM. II.61.
• * 1.291

  STATE TRACTS, time of king William, II.638.
• * 1.292

  STATE TRACTS, time of king William, II, 637.
• * 1.293

  STATE TRACTS, time of King William, II.641.
• * 1.294

  Ibid. 640.
• * 1.295

  STATE TRACTS, time of king William, II.653.
• * 1.296

  STATE TRACTS, time of king William, II.370.
• * 1.297

  DEB. COM. III.195.
• * 1.298

  Gordon's TRACTS, I.245.
• * 1.299

  DEB. COM. VI. Append. p. ••.
• * 1.300

  DEB. COM. III.125.
• * 1.301

  DEB. COM VIII.122.
• * 1.302

  DEB. COM. XI.202.
• * 1.303

  DEB. COM. XI.208.
• * 1.304

  DEB. COM. XIII.199.
• * 1.305

  DEB. COM. XIII.16.
• * 1.306

  DEB. COM. XIV.33.
• * 1.307

  DEB. LORDS▪ VIII.10••.
• * 1.308

  DEB. LORDS, VIII.107.
• * 1.309

  DEB. LORDS, IV.29.
• * 1.310

  Ibid. 198.
• * 1.311

  DEB, LORDS, VI.372.
• * 1.312

  DEB. LORDS, VI.375.
• * 1.313

  DEB. LORDS. VI.383.
• * 1.314

  DEB. LORDS, VI.384.
• * 1.315

  DEB. LORDS, VI.388.
• * 1.316

  Ibid. 389.
• * 1.317

  See the XVIIth article.
• * 1.318

  DEB. LORDS, VI.400.
• * 1.319

  DEB. LORDS, VI.394.
• * 1.320

  DEB. LORDS. VI.396.
• * 1.321

  Ibid. 397.
• * 1.322

  DEB. LORDS, VII.409.
• * 1.323

  Sueton. IN AUG. Cic. XIII.5.
• * 1.324

  Tind. CONTIN. I.350.
• * 1.325

  Burn. IV.316.
• * 1.326

  DEB. COM. XI.296.
• * 1.327

  DEB. COM. V.62.
• * 1.328

  Daven. II 36.
• * 1.329

  Ibid. II.10.
• * 1.330

  II.2.
• * 1.331

  Tind. CONTIN. I.652.
• * 1.332

  Hume, HIST. STUARTS. I.125.
• * 1.333

  LETTERS, p. 206.
• * 2.1

  Beccaria, CRIMES AND PUN. p. 10.
• * 2.2

  See his LETT. TO LORD SHELBURNE.
• * 2.3

  Alm. DEB. COM. VII.113.
• * 2.4

  See ANT. UNIV. HIST. Vol. XIII. p. 140.
• * 2.5

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIV.19.
• * 2.6

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXII.299.
• * 2.7

  Robertson's CH. V. II.430, 442.
• * 2.8

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXX.428.
• * 2.9

  Ibid. XXXIX.213.
• * 2.10

  Ibid. 214.
• * 2.11

  Ibid. XXXVIII.2.
• * 2.12

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. IX.290.
• * 2.13

  Ibid. IX.460.
• * 2.14

  PARL. HIST. V.464.
• * 2.15

  DEB. COM. III.88.
• * 2.16

  Governor Bernard to lord Hillsborough▪ Iuly 16, 1768.
• * 2.17

  Alm. DEB. COM. VII.82.
• * 2.18

  PARL. HIST. I.308.
• * 2.19

  Alm. DEB. COM. VIII.43.
• * 2.20

  Alm. DEB. COM. VIII.47.
• * 2.21

  Alm. DEB. IX.337.
• * 2.22

  WHITEHALI EVENING, March 15, 1774.
• * 2.23

  LOND. MAG. 1766, p. 507.
• * 2.24

  LOND. MAG. 1766, p. 511.
• * 3.1

  The very word soldier, gives us the idea of a sordid Swiss, hired one time by one tyrant, and another time by another, to butcher man|kind. It is derived from soldarius, and that from Soldum, pay. See Spelm. voc. Soldarius.
• * 3.2

  COMM. I.413.
• * 3.3

  Blackst. COMM. I.407.
• * 3.4

  POLIT. VII.9.
• * 3.5

  CATO'S LETT. III.285.
• * 3.6

  DEB. COM. II.153.
• * 3.7

  〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ II.189.
• * 3.8

  ••ume, HIST. STUARTS, II.91.
• * 3.9

  ESS. II.370.
• * 3.10

  Rap. II.662.
• * 3.11

  Fergus. HIST. CIV. SOC. p. 195.
• * 3.12

  Burn. HIST. OWN TIMES, II.102.
• * 3.13

  PARD. HIST. VIII.22••.
• * 3.14

  Burn. HIST. OWN TIME 3, III.284.
• * 3.15

  PARL. HIST. XVI.462.
• * 3.16

  Ibid.
• * 3.17

  DEB. LORDS, I.291.
• * 3.18

  Cole's MEM. 9.
• * 3.19

  Rapin, II.265.
• * 3.20

  Chanal. DEB. COM. I.199.
• * 3.21

  DEB. LORDS, III.78.
• * 3.22

  Trenchard.
• * 3.23

  Lord Sommers.
• * 3.24

  Charact. from a Manuscript,
• * 3.25

  Hume, HIST. STUARTS, II.456.
• * 3.26

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XIII.5.
• * 3.27

  DEB. LORDS, II.65.
• * 3.28

  MEM. 312.
• * 3.29

  DEB. LORDS, IV.58-64.
• * 3.30

  Alm. DEB. COM. IV.285.
• * 3.31

  DEB. COM. VI.177.
• * 3.32

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XV.361.
• * 3.33

  Roberts. CH. V. I.391.
• * 3.34

  DE LAET. DESCR. PERS. 163
• * 3.35

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. VIII.11.
• * 3.36

  Ibid. XVI.470.
• * 3.37

  COMM. DE IMP. MAGN. MOGOL p. 146.
• * 3.38

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. VII.64.
• * 3.39

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XVI.63.
• * 3.40

  Ibid. VII.297.
• * 3.41

  Ibid. XII.81.
• * 3.42

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XVII.258.
• * 3.43

  Ubb. Emm. II.118.
• * 3.44

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.61.
• * 3.45

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.91.
• * 3.46

  CATO'S LETT. III.278, 289.
• * 3.47

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XIII.148.
• * 3.48

  Ibid. XV.280.
• * 3.49

  Ibid. 281.
• * 3.50

  Ibid. XIII.490.
• * 3.51

  Ibid. 488.
• * 3.52

  Ibid. XV.224.
• * 3.53

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XV.409.
• * 3.54

  Ibid. 469.
• * 3.55

  Ibid. XIV.322.
• * 3.56

  Ibid. 320.
• * 3.57

  Ibid. 368.
• * 3.58

  Ibid. XV.14.
• * 3.59

  ANT. UNIV. HIST. XV.320—342.
• * 3.60

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXXVI.126.
• * 3.61

  See Roberts. HIST. CH. V.I.98.
• * 3.62

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XLII.344.
• * 3.63

  See Roberts. CH. V.II. 33.
• * 3.64

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXXII.20.
• * 3.65

  Ibid. VII.264.
• * 3.66

  Ibid. XXXI.230
• * 3.67

  Ibid. 232.
• * 3.68

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXVIII.213.
• * 3.69

  Ibid. XXIII.146.
• * 3.70

  Dalr. II.245
• * 3.71

  Whitelocke's MEM. p. 245.
• * 3.72

  Ibid. 254.
• * 3.73

  Whitelocke's MEM. 257.
• * 3.74

  Rap. II.380.
• * 3.75

  PARL. HIST. VII.450.
• * 3.76

  Macaul. IV.342.
• * 3.77

  PARL. HIST. XV.••94.
• * 3.78

  Ibid. XVI.••••7▪
• * 3.79

  XV.443.
• * 3.80

  PARL. HIST. XV.407.
• * 3.81

  Ibid. 412.
• * 3.82

  Ibid. 413.
• * 3.83

  Ibid. XVI.239.
• * 3.84

  Ibid. 251.
• * 3.85

  Ibid. 272.
• * 3.86

  Ibid. 311.
• * 3.87

  PARL. HIST. XV.364.
• * 3.88

  Ibid. XVIII.447.
• * 3.89

  Ibid. XX.258.
• * 3.90

  Ibid. XX.241.
• * 3.91

  PARL. HISE XXI.169.
• * 3.92

  Macaul. HIST. V.111.
• * 3.93

  Ibid.
• * 3.94

  PARL. HIST. XXII.365.
• * 3.95

  Whitlocke's MEM. p. 523.
• * 3.96

  Maccaul. HIST. V.95.
• * 3.97

  Rap. II.609.
• * 3.98

  Ibid. 610.
• * 3.99

  Rap. II.604.
• * 3.100

  Ibid. 605.
• * 3.101

  Hume's HIST. STUARTS, II.335.
• * 3.102

  Ibid. 234.
• * 3.103

  Hume' HIST. STUARTS, II.303.
• * 3.104

  Ibid.
• * 3.105

  Ibid. 137.
• * 3.106

  Ibid. 136.
• * 3.107

  Dalrymp. MEM. II.219.
• * 3.108

  Dalrymp. MEM. II.221.
• * 3.109

  Ibid. 169.
• * 3.110

  See CATO'S LETT. III 248, seq.
• * 3.111

  Ibid. 250.
• * 3.112

  Tind. CONTIN. I.389.
• * 3.113

  DEB. COM. III.76.
• * 3.114

  Tind. CONTIN. I.366, 368.
• * 3.115

  Ibid. I.390.
• * 3.116

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Lords, IV.452.
• * 3.117

  DEB. COM. XI.63.
• * 3.118

  DEB. COM. IV.214.
• * 3.119

  DEB. LORDS, VIII.69.
• * 3.120

  Ibid. seq.
• * 3.121

  ESS. SUR L'HIST. VI.133.
• * 3.122

  DEB. COM. VI.183.
• * 3.123

  Fletcher, p. 307.
• * 3.124

  Fletcher, p. 346.
• * 3.125

  p. 54.
• * 3.126

  DEB. LORDS, V.301.
• * 3.127

  Montesq. L'ESPRIT. DES LOIX, I.287.
• * 3.128

  Mountague, ANT. REPUBL. 191.
• * 3.129

  Ibid. 204.
• * 3.130

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXXI.82.
• * 3.131

  Ibid. XXII.232.
• * 3.132

  Ibid. XXX.249.
• * 3.133

  Ibid. XXI.214.
• * 3.134

  MOD. UNIV. HIST. XXII 10.
• * 3.135

  Ibid. X.553.
• * 3.136

  Ibid. XXIII.148, 153.
• * 3.137

  Ibid. 180.
• * 3.138

  Fletcher's WORKS, p. 31.
• * 3.139

  DEB. LORDS, VII.79.
• * 3.140

  Hume▪ HIST. STUARTS, II.446.
• * 3.141

  Fletcher's WORKS, p. 31, 42, 54.
• * 3.142

  SEE Lord Lyttleton's HIST. HEN. II. vol. III. p. 318.
• * 3.143

  COMM. I.336.
• * 3.144

  Blackst. COM. I.409.
• * 3.145

  Bolingbr. REM. HIST. ENGL. 159.
• * 3.146

  Hume's HIST. STUARTS, II.388.
• * 3.147

  Ibid. 446.
• * 3.148

  See Blackst. COMM. I.411.
• * 3.149

  Hume's HIST. STUARTS, II.321.
• * 3.150

  HIST. STUARTS, I.360.
• * 3.151

  Ibid. I.70.
• * 3.152

  Whitlock's speech on the militia. PARL. HIST. X.278.
• * 3.153

  Alm. DEB. COM. III.335.
• * 3.154

  Bolingbr. REM. HIST. ENG. 273.
• * 3.155

  Dalrymp. II.169,
• * 3.156

  LIFE HEN. II. III.356.
• * 3.157

  STAT. AT LARGE, I.120.
• * 3.158

  Ibid. II. pass.
• * 3.159

  Rushworth, p. 469.
• * 3.160

  Tind CONTIN. I.200.
• * 3.161

  See CONTIN. Rap. IX.181, and 222.
• * 3.162

  Ibid. 160.
• * 3.163

  Alm. DEB. COM. IV.8.
• * 3.164

  Alm DEB. COM. V.19-25-29.
• * 3.165

  Rapin, CONTIN. IX.559.
• * 3.166

  Tind. CONTIN. IX.580.
• * 3.167

  LOND. MAG. Iune, 1759, p. 296.
• * 3.168

  Tind. CONTIN. IX.212.
• * 3.169

  Alm. DEB. COM. III.53.
• * 3.170

  DEB. LORDS, V.308.
• * 3.171

  Lord Lyttelt. HIST. HEN. II.III.95.
• * 3.172

  Alm. DEB. COM. V.20.
• * 3.173

  Alm. DEB. COM. V.237.
• * 3.174

  DEB. COM. I.185.
• * 3.175

  Ibid. 207.
• * 3.176

  Ibid. VI.154.
• * 3.177

  HIST. ARMIES, p. 97.
• * 3.178

  HIST. STANDING ARMIES, p. 88.
• * 3.179

  TRACTS, I.26.
• * 3.180

  TRACTS, I.26.
• * 3.181

  Gordon's TRAC••S. I.28.
• * 3.182

  DEB. COM. VII.272.
• * 3.183

  DEB. LORDS, IV.186.
• * 3.184

  DEB. LORDS, IV.460.
• * 3.185

  Ibid 473.
• * 3.186

  DEB. LORDS, IV.485.
• * 3.187

  Ibid.
• * 3.188

  DEB. COM. IX.52.
• * 3.189

  DEB. COM. IX.56.
• * 3.190

  DEB. LORDS. IV.215.
• * 3.191

  Ibid. 216.
• * 3.192

  Ibid. V.239. A. D. 1738.
• * 3.193

  DEB. LORDS, IV.207.
• * 3.194

  Ibid. 211.
• * 3.195

  DEB. LORDS, VII.634.
• * 3.196

  Gord. TRACTS, I.28.
• * 3.197

  Trench. HIST. ST. A••M. p. 103.
• * 3.198

  Ibid. p. 80.
• * 3.199

  HIST. OF STANDING ARMIES, p. 87.
• * 3.200

  Ibid. 84.
• * 3.201

  A. D. 1760. p. 46.
• * 3.202

  DEB. COM. XI.388.
• * 3.203

  DEB. LORDS, 14.427.
• * 3.204

  DEB. LORDS, VIII.12.
• * 3.205

  DEB. LORDS. V.395.
• * 3.206

  DEB. LORDS, V.252.
• * 3.207

  Ibid. 269.
• * 3.208

  DEB. LORDS, V.268.
• * 3.209

  Ibid. 273.
• * 3.210

  DEB. LORDS, V.278.
• * 3.211

  DEB. LORDS, V.249.
• * 3.212

  DEB. COM. X.413.
• * 3.213

  DEB. COM. X.407.
• * 3.214

  Bolingbr. ID. PATR. KING, 196.
• * 3.215

  Montague, 357.
• * 3.216

  DEB. LORDS. V.247.
• * 3.217

  DEB. COM. III.190.
• * 3.218

  DEB. COM. VI. Append. p. 46.
• * 3.219

  DEB. COM. VII.38.
• * 3.220

  Alm. DEB. COM. IV.268.
• * 3.221

  DEB. COM. XII.127.
• * 3.222

  DEB. COM. XIII.104.