IN the preſent diſturbed ſtate of the people, whoſe minds may have been miſled by miſrepreſentation and falſe argument, permit me to interfere and explain matters in their true and pro⯑per light.

Our eyes have for ſome time paſt, been turned towards the French na⯑tion. They certainly had long been ruled by a rod of iron, and there is no wonder that they groaned under it. Their monarchy was deſpotic, the King and his Miniſters could levy taxes without the conſent of the peo⯑ple, they could impriſon at pleaſure; [2]even without trial, and the privi⯑leges of their nobility were ſo great that they were almoſt as deſpotic as their monarch. As all men are up⯑on an equality by birth-right, that is to ſay, as all men by nature have a claim to the ſame natural privileges, thoſe who enjoy theſe privileges, as I ſhall ſhew we do, could not but exult at the ſpirit of the French, in throwing of the yoke they laboured under; and in new modelling their conſtitution, they have in general adopted that of the Britiſh.

Ours is a mild monarchical go⯑vernment, we dread not the tyranny or evils of deſpotiſm. We have a Magna Charta, that prevents fines being exceſſive or more than we are able to pay, ſo that no man need ever fear perpetual impriſonment; a habeas corpus act, which judges are obliged to attend to, to bring us be⯑fore a court, and make us acquainted with the reaſons of our impriſonment; our Judges are appointed for life, that they may be independant of ad⯑miniſtration; and we are tried for our offences, by a jury of our own coun⯑trymen. The life and property of every individual is ſecured by law, nor is there an injury, man can ſuſ⯑tain either in his perſon, or his ef⯑fects, that he cannot meet with re⯑dreſs in: I will allow that redreſs in ſome caſes is expenſive, and happy for us that it is ſo, or the litigious would always be at law. Our mo⯑ney is not taken from us but with our own conſent, and we give our concurrence to every act of Parlia⯑ment that paſſes.

If ſuch be the bleſſings of our own government, what motive can we have to change it? It is idle to think of any change except for the better, and what ſecurity have we, if this government was a republican to⯑morrow, that we ſhould have fewer placemen or leſs venality in Parlia⯑ment? The buſineſs of adminiſtra⯑tion muſt go on, and if there is an evil, it is in the people themſelves who put the members to ſuch an ex⯑pence for a ſeat in parliament, and chuſe ſuch mercenary repreſentatives that as Sir Robert Walpole uſed to ſay, they will not vote even accord⯑ing to their conſciences without a re⯑ward. We have had patriot miniſ⯑ters, in the whig intereſt, who though on their coming into office ſet their faces againſt corruption found nothing was to be done with out it, and of courſe were in ſome meaſure, obliged to follow the ſtep of their predeceſſors. It is not my deſign here to point out where the re⯑medy lies; it certainly does not lie in a change of our conſtitution. For whether there is a King or not, me [...] in high office may have it in their power to uſe the public money im⯑properly. I will now enquire into the nature of theſe oppreſſions we complain of.

Is our Government in general op⯑preſſive?—No. Has not the experience of the laſt hundred years taught us, that our government has been mild, and that adminiſtration has been con⯑tinually ſtruggling for the intereſt of the people at large? Does not every ſeſſion of parliament produce freſh ſa⯑lutary laws, not laws of oppreſſion, but laws to ſecure the eaſe and pro⯑perty of the ſubject, to encourage in⯑ventions, prevent ſcarcity and pro⯑mote trade?

Has not all our commercial trea⯑ties had for their object, the good of this country?

Has not our wars, our interfer⯑ence with foreign ſtates tended to the ſame end, namely to the peace of Europe and ultimately to our own peace?

If foreign wars and foreign connexi⯑ons have increaſed the national debt; is it a debt that overloads us? Are [3]we not able to bear this debt?—Does not our ſtocks riſe under it? And are we not, notwithſtanding, in the high⯑eſt credit both at home and abroad?

Is the national debt then a griev⯑ance?—No—I will admit it is owing to this, that we are taxed ſo high, in order to pay the intereſt of that debt, but it does not follow, that ſuch taxes are a grievance. But for ſuch taxes, every article of life would be cheaper. What then? If a la⯑bouring man who cannot live now for leſs than 20l. a year, could main⯑tain himſelf for ten pounds, inſtead of receiving eighteen-pence a day for his labour, his employer would pay him but half the money: he would not be a ſhilling the richer. When the quartern loaf was ſold for four-pence, a day labourer in the country had only ten-pence a day; now it is ſold for 7d. he has ſixteen-pence; He therefore ſuffers not by the dear⯑neſs of proviſions. Forty years ago, when the articles of life were forty per cent cheaper, the wages of a wo⯑man ſervant was three or four pounds, that of a man ſervant five or ſix pounds; now they are treble the ſum. Every thing is advanced in equal pro⯑portion. Land, let at 5s. an acre at the time I ſpeak of, is now let at 15s. and a load of wheat that then ſold for 5l. wil now fetch 10l. or 12l; and was, I ſay, the national debt paid off, and the nation required only a revenue of three millions inſtead of 15 millions, the conſequence to the public would be worſe than at preſent. Every thing would fall in its price, and the only benefit, if it can be ſo called, that the people would derive from it, would be a little more eaſe. The preſent dearneſs of things is a ſpur to induſtry and invention, and this I truſt will be allowed to conduce to the health, the happineſs and the wealth of indi⯑viduals. Look at Spain, the exi⯑gencies of that government are drawn from their mines in America: when money is wanted, they do not levy taxes on the people; and what is the conſequence? Articles of living are cheap, the people are idle, but they have little or no trade.

But ſurely idleneſs, which is the pa⯑rent of evil and ill health can never be deemed a happineſs. I need only appeal here to the buſy and induſtri⯑ous, and aſk them whether they are ever more unhappy than when time hangs heavy on their hands, and they have nothing to do?

The national debt, large as it is then, is no grievance; leſſening it indeed might be attended with ſome advan⯑tage to the lower claſs of people, as it may enable the miniſters to take off ſome of thoſe taxes that more imme⯑diately affect that claſs. This our preſent miniſter with great credit to himſelf has been ſtudying to do, and has done for ſome years paſt; but was the whole debt paid off, it would be an injury to this country inſtead of a benefit—In the firſt place, it would, as I have obſerved, by lowering the prices of the articles of living, tend to make the people idle, leſſen our wealth and conſequence, and make us leſs reſpectable in the eyes of the world. In the next place, if it requires ten millions of money to pay the intereſt of the debt, let us conſider how many millions of people it tends to ſupport, not only commiſſioners, tax-gather⯑ers, clerks, &c. but thoſe who have money in the funds. There is ſcarce a poor man but has ſome friend who has money there lodged. If the nation at large did not want to bor⯑row money; how would thoſe who have money to ſpare employ it? They might lend it to others on mortgage, who would often cheat them. Land they would not be able to purchaſe, for land-holders would live ſo much cheaper than they do now, that they would have no occaſion to ſell; in [4]ſhort, the conſequence would be, that the people, as I have ſaid, would not be ſo induſtrious; the leſs money they wanted, the leſs they would work, and of courſe would not be ſo rich as they are.

On the ſame principle, the million of money annually allotted for the ſupport of the Crown is no grievance; that money is ſpent in the country, for money cannot legally be carried out of it. Whatever property is ſent out of the country, is ſent in manu⯑factures, for which the inhabitants have been paid, and of courſe have enjoyed the fruits of.

So again, though I am no advocate for ſquandering, ſuppoſe ſome money is idly or profuſely expended by the ſtate. This may be the caſe in the opinion of ſome, perhaps not ſo in that of others; but admit it—What then? All this money ſo ſpent reverts to the people again, in a thouſand ways, it being ſpent in the country; and thus encourages arts, ſciences, trade, manufactures and commerce. Beſides, let this be ever ſuch a grie⯑vance, it is not an object of that mag⯑nitude, as to make a change of conſti⯑tution neceſſary to remedy it.

LETTER II.

Let me now aſk, What are the great oppreſſions we complain of? Is it a ſtanding army? We ſee the neceſſity of this. Its great and firſt uſe is to keep other nations in awe of us, who would otherwiſe overrun us, as did the Saxons and Danes formerly, and as the French have done Savoy and Brab [...]nt; its ſecond uſe is to keep the violent and ungovernable in order, to enforce the laws made by our⯑ſelves for our own ſafety and ſecurity, and ſuffer the well diſpoſed to enjoy their caſe and property unmoleſted. We have ſeen this uſe of the army in the plots in London in the year 1 [...], and in the riots laſt year at Birming⯑ham, where the miſchief done fell upon the towns at large.

Quartering of ſoldiers on public-houſes has been conſidered as oppreſ⯑ſive; but as the profeſſion of a publi⯑can is a continued buſtle, a military inmate or two is ſcarce noticed among the crowd, and the expence the publi⯑can is put to, is paid by his cuſto⯑mers; for whilſt another tradeſman is contented with 40 per cent. profit, the publican charges 80 per cent. and often more; ſo that the quartered ſol⯑dier is fed by the gueſts that frequent that houſe.

In large, manufacturing towns, ſuch as Birmingham, Coventry, &c quartering of ſoldiers on public-houſes has been found for many political reaſons improper. Adminiſtration, whoſe eyes are always open to the intereſts of the people, ſeeing this, have ordered barracks to be erected in ſuch towns.

Are Tithes an oppreſſion?—No. A tenth part of the produce of labour and cultivation, has been appropriat⯑ed from the earlieſt ages of the world for the maintenance of the clergy, and where the farmer has not with⯑held this tenth, there has been no diſpute between the Farmer and the Parſon. Our Saviour enjoined his diſciples to contribute to their ſup⯑port; if then they are to be paid by the Farmer, why not pay it in kind as well as in money? It ſaves the farmer the trouble of converting that kind into money. But the fact is, that it is not the farmer who pays the tithe, but his Landlord. When a farmer enters into treaty for a farm, he conſiders, or at leaſt he ought to conſider, not only the nature of the ſoil, what it will produce, what diſ⯑tance he has to carry it to market, but what tithe, what taxes he has to pay, what ſervices his landlord re⯑quires of him, what reſtrictions he binds him to, what miſchief he ſhall [5]ſuſtain by hunters, and what injuries are done him by the game and game laws. All theſe things he adds to the expence of cultivation, and the rent required; and then by calculating the produce of the land, he judges whe⯑ther he ſhall be able to pay that rent and maintain himſelf and family; if not, he either gives a reduced rent or declines the farm. So that in fact it is his landlord, that pays both tithes, taxes and every other outgoing; for land that is tithe-free lets for more than land equally good that is not ſo.

By the ſame way of reaſoning, every tax is paid ultimately by the monied men of this kingdom. Thoſe who have no ſettled income muſt live. Theſe live by their labour or their induſtry. If they are employed, as ſervants in mere manual labour, their wages are proportioned to the dearneſs or cheapneſs of the ſeveral articles of life, as I have before ſhewn: in this caſe, the taxes on ſuch arti⯑cles are paid by their employers. If a man lives by manufacturing goods, he, like the farmer, conſiders every expence he pays in ſuch manufactur⯑ing, and puts a price upon the articles accordingly, ſo a to yield him ſufficient profit to maintain himſelf: here alſo again the taxes are paid by the con⯑ſumer, the monied man; ſo it is in houſe-rent. A houſe with 40l. a year with the taxes paid by the tenant, would fetch 60l. a year, if the taxes were paid by the landlord. It is the landlord then that pays the taxes; not the tenant.—Now if the monied men and men of landed property in this kingdom do not complain; why ſhould the lower claſs, who are in no caſe the ſufferers?

The ſame arguments will hold good with reſpect to the game, which has idly been conſidered as an oppreſſion. Who, ſay they, has as good a right to the game upon a farm, as the farmer who feeds it? I have ſhewn that the farmer does not feed it, but at the ex⯑pence of his landlord; for if a country was as much overrun with foxes as it may be with partridges and hares, ſo that a farmer could not keep geeſe or poultry; if he thought proper to take a farm in ſuch a country, he would pay a rent in proportion, and thus throw the grievance on his land⯑lord. A landlord reſerves the game to himſelf, as he does the timber; and every farmer knows that the headlands of a field abounding with timber, produce ſmaller crops than the more open parts of the ſame field, and why? Becauſe ſuch timber over⯑ſhadows the land beneath and draws it, and their roots ſpreading out into the headlands draw their nouriſh⯑ment and are fed from ſuch headlands. The farmer then feeds the timber on his farm, in the ſame manner as he does the game, and yet never pre⯑ſumes to have any claim upon the timber, when reſerved to his land⯑lord; nor yet makes complaint of any injury he ſuſtains, when ſuch timber is felled. The ſame reaſoning is applicable to the game. The laws have reſerved it for the benefit and diverſion of the landholder and his friends. The poorer claſs of men are reſtrained from ſporting, as labourers are from playing ſkittles and other games at public-houſes, that nothing ſhall draw them off from their em⯑ploys, to the detriment of their maſ⯑ters, their families and the ſtate. The injury done by lords of manors, and their keepers on ſown lands and in the deſtruction of fences, in the end falls on the owner of the ſoil, as he gets a leſs rent for it, in propor⯑tion to the miſchief he does.

Why ſhould the rich, ſay the en⯑vious poor, be allowed more recreati⯑on than us?—Becauſe they can afford to waſte part of their time, which the poor cannot. Why has one man more ſenſe, more abilities than ano⯑ther? [6]It is a gift and diſpenſation of Providence. Some are born to rule, ſome to ſerve. Was all mankind up⯑on an equality, the order of things would be overthrown, and life could not go on. Our Creator has ordain⯑ed that there ſhall be different ranks and degrees of men. It has been ſo from the beginning of time, and will continue to the end of it. It is not that a poor man is leſs reſpectable in his eyes than a rich man, if he ac⯑quits himſelf well in the ſtate in which it has pleaſed God to place him; and a poor man never loſes his conſequence in ſociety, but when he is diſorderly and does not fulfil the office aſſigned him. A poor man is equally reſpectable in ſociety alſo, if he is a uſeful member of it; and his equality with the rich is ſhewn and ſeen by his uſefulneſs. As the ſervant cannot do without a maſter; ſo the maſter cannot do without a ſervant; a good ſervant is always as valuable to a maſter, as a good ma⯑ſter is to a ſervant. They are equal in point of utility, as members of the ſame ſociety, and ſubjects of the ſame ſtate.

LETTER III.

I cannot ſuppoſe any man of com⯑mon underſtanding can object to cer⯑tain diſtinctions of rank: if titles pleaſe the poſſeſſors of them, why not indulge them in their fancies, when they tend not to the injury of ſociety? They ſerve to diſtinguiſh old families, and when titles and honours are con⯑ferred for ſervices to the ſtate, they become rewards and encouragements to ſimilar ſervices. There might be political reaſons for abol [...]ſhing titles in France: the nobility there were, as I have obſerved, by their great privileges, exempt from certain laws that bound the reſt of the people, and were almoſt as deſpotic as their monarch. Exalted then, and blown up by their rank, they not only looked down on the common people with contempt, but often treated them contemptuouſly: in deſtroy⯑ing therefore their privileges, it was thought prudent and politic to abo⯑liſh their rank alſo, to put them on an equality with their fellow-citi⯑zens, and thus prevent any future attempts in them to exalt themſelves again. With us, the caſe is differ⯑ent, our nobility are amenable to the ſame laws as the pooreſt man among us; they aſſociate and inter-marry with commoners, and look up to commercial men with reſpect. Abo⯑liſhing titles then or rank is an object of no moment, much leſs of that magnitude as to ſacrifice our conſti⯑tution to acquire it.

Are Manors and manerial rights oppreſſive? No. There are advan⯑tages in copyhold eſtates ſuperior to freehold; if a man is diſpoſed to lend a ſum of money on ſuch an eſtate; he can, by examining the court roll, ſee if it is free from incumbrances, as he can in the caſe of freeholds, in re⯑giſtered counties. If a copyholder pays a heriot at his death, and a fine on alienation, that fine by law, can⯑not exceed the cuſtom of the manor, or two years rent of the eſtate, and in conſequence of theſe exactions, he who buys a copyhold eſtate pays leſs for the purchaſe, than if the eſtate was free. But if a copyholder is diſpoſed to pay the lord as much money as the eſtate would ſell for more, if free; there are few lords of manors but would free ſuch eſtates, and the copyholder might be a freeholder when he pleaſes. This conſidered, he has no more right to complain at not having a vote for the county, than the man who has no eſtate at all.

Is the Inequality of the land-tax an oppreſſion?—No. He who purchaſed land where four ſhillings in the pound is paid, boug [...]t it at a leſs price than [7]he who purchaſed where ſix-pence only is paid. Every thing fetches its real value; of courſe there is no cauſe of complaint here.

Is the Inequality of repreſentation an oppreſſion?—No. There are large manufacturing towns, as Birming⯑ham, Sheffield, &c. that ſend no members to Parliament, nor have they a wiſh to do it under the pre⯑ſent mode of election, as it would create great confuſion and diſturb⯑ance in ſuch towns. They conceive themſelves ſafe in the choice of their country men, and will leave their property under the guardianſhip of the Parliament choſen by other peo⯑ple.

It is not my buſineſs here to enter into the venality and corruption of Parliaments, or to ſay how far a more equal repreſentation, a more frequent choice of members, a more ſummary mode of election, or other reforms may be conducive to the greater happineſs of the people. Such have been long wiſhed for, and ſuch a reform has been thought neceſſary even by the preſent admi⯑niſtration. But there is a time for all things; the time to enter into this is certainly not the preſent, when the minds of the people are diſturbed and when we are ſurrounded by tu⯑mult. When ſuch a buſineſs is ſet about, quietneſs ſhould reign among us, and the matter ſhould be coolly and diſpaſſionately diſcuſſed and ad⯑juſted. Was it to be entered into now, there is no knowing where things would end; it might end in the overthrow of the ſtate.

Is the Houſe of Lords an oppreſ⯑ſion?—No. "In the multitude of Counſellors there is ſafety." The Up⯑per Houſe conſiſts of men of great landed property in this kingdom, who have a great deal to loſe, and of courſe a great deal to guard; men high in honour and underſtanding; of men well verſed by education in the laws of this country, and of men equally ſo in the doctrines of chriſ⯑tianity; and ſurely ſuch an aſſembly of men is proper to reviſe the acts of the people at large, paſſed in the lower houſe of Parliament, that are to enact laws to ſecure our property and our religion. By our conſtitution they cannot make laws themſelves, but they can either ratify or reject, and ſurely we may truſt to them who are equally intereſted with us, and who have abundantly more at ſtake. If theſe men ſee no danger in the pre⯑ſent ſyſtem of things, we ſurely have no reaſon to be alarmed. They may ſay, as do the ſailors on board a ſhip in a ſtorm, to the paſſengers; Don't be afraid, look up to us—there is no occaſion to be alarmed, till you ſee us ſo."

Is the Inſolence of tax-gatherers, or the ſervants of government an op⯑preſſion?—No. This, when it oc⯑curs, may be remedied by complaints made to their ſuperiors in office; and any grievance an individual may la⯑bour under, by illegal ſeizure of his property, if unreaſonable or unfair, is remedied by appeal.

I have now gone through every kind of complaint that the people have to urge, ſhewn the abſurdity of thoſe complaints, and that there is no ſhadow of a plea for a change in our conſtitution. Every thing can⯑not be done in a moment. Let us leave the remedies we wiſh to time, and the abilities of our repreſentatives. Conſider what would be the conſe⯑quence of a commotion,—not only a great deal of bloodſhed, but a great deal of domeſtic wretchedneſs in every family; diſtreſs would overſpread the land, and ſlaughter cloathe the whole country in black. Caſt your eyes on the French nation—the people there are become warriors—there are few, if any, left to cultivate the land, and [8]if their importation of proviſions and the neceſſaries of life was interrupted and ſtopped by foreign powers, as in all likelihood it may, they muſt be ſtarved into compliance. Look to their manufacturing towns; we are told that at Lyons there are 30,000 manufacturers, infirm men, women and children, who cannot carry arms, ſtarving for want of employ; ſo it will be with us.—There is not a man in trade, but ſhould an inſurrection take place, would immediately feel a loſs, and of courſe his family would feel a want; and as to the men of property, thoſe who have moſt to loſe would be the greateſt ſufferers. If then, my fellow-countrymen, you value your own eaſe and comfort; if your wives and children are dear to you, do not ſacrifice the whole in ſearch of a phantom you never can graſp. Liſten not to the miſguided opinions of thoſe whoſe ignorance is the beſt excuſe for their conduct. Things have gone on very well ſince we have lived in the world, and there is little doubt but that they will do the ſame whilſt we continue in it. The quieter a man paſſes thro' life, the happier he is.