The maxim, "That people are the riches of a nation," hath been crudely understood by many writers and reasoners upon that subject. There are several ways by which people are brought into a country. Sometimes a nation is invaded and subdued; and the conquerors seize the lands, and make the natives their under-tenants or servants. Colonies have been always planted where the natives were driven out or destroyed, or the land uncultivated and waste. In those countries where the lord of the soil is master of the labour and liberty of his tenants, or of slaves bought by his money, men's riches are reckoned by the number of their vassals. And sometimes, in governments newly instituted, where there are not people to till the ground, many laws have been made to encourage and allure numbers from the neighbouring countries. And, in all these cases, the new comers have either lands allotted them, or are slaves to the proprietors. But to invite helpless families, by thousands, into a kingdom inhabited like ours, without lands to give them, and where the laws will not allow that they should be part of the property as servants, is a wrong application of the maxim, and the same thing, in great, as infants dropped at the doors, which are only a burthen and charge to the parish. The true way of multiplying mankind to public advantage, in such a country as England, is to invite from abroad only able handicraftsmen and artificers, or such who bring over a sufficient share of property to secure them from want; to enact and enforce sumptuary laws against luxury, and all excesses in clothing, furniture, and the like; to encourage matrimony, and reward, as the Romans did, those who have a certain number of children. Whether bringing over the Palatines were a mere consequence of this law for a general naturalization; or whether, as many surmised, it had some other meaning, it appeared manifestly, by the issue, that the public was a loser by every individual among them; and that a kingdom can no more be the richer by such an importation, than a man can be fatter by a wen, which is unsightly and troublesome, at best, and intercepts that nourishment, which would otherwise diffuse itself through the whole body.
About a fortnight after, the Commons sent up a bill for securing the freedom of Parliaments, by limiting the number of Members in that House who should be allowed to possess employments under the crown.[23] Bills to the same effect, promoted by both parties, had, after making the like progress, been rejected in former Parliaments; the court and ministry, who will ever be against such a law, having usually a greater influence in the House of Lords, and so it happened now. Although that influence were less, I am apt to think that such a law would be too thorough a reformation in one point, while we have so many corruptions in the rest; and perhaps the regulations, already made on that article, are sufficient, by which several employments incapacitate a man from being chosen a Member, and all of them bring it to a new election.[24]
[Footnote 23: This self-denying ordinance easily passed through the House of Commons, where probably men were ashamed of opposing it; and in such a temper were the Peers, in whose House the ministry proposed to make the stand, that it was very likely to have passed there also. But an amendment was ingeniously thrown in, to suspend the operation of the proposed Act until after the Queen's death; so that it was evaded for the present, and never again revived. [S.] The Bill was rejected February 29th, 171-1/2. [W.S.J.]
[Footnote 24: P. Fitzgerald adds, "Neither do I believe any man who truly understands and loves our constitution will imagine that the prerogative hath not been sufficiently humbled within twenty years past." [W.S.J.]
For my own part, when I consider the temper of particular persons, and by what maxims they have acted (almost without exception) in their private capacities, I cannot conceive how such a bill should obtain a majority, unless every man expected to be one of the fifty, which, I think, was the limitation intended.
About the same time, likewise, the House of Commons advanced one considerable step towards securing us against farther impositions from our allies, resolving that the additional forces should be continued; but with a condition, that the Dutch should make good their proportion of three-fifths to two-fifths, which those confederates had so long, and in so great degree, neglected. The Duke of Marlborough's deduction of two and a half per cent., from the pay of the foreign troops, was also applied for carrying on the war.[25]
[Footnote 25: In the "Journals of the House of Commons," vol. xvii., pp. 15-18, the Report of the Commissioners is printed, in which is included the Duke's justification of his conduct. See above, p. 85. [N.]
Lastly, within this period is to be included the Act passed to prevent the disturbing those of the Episcopal Communion in Scotland[26] in the exercise of their religious worship, and in the use of the liturgy of the Church of England.[27] It is known enough, that the most considerable of the nobility and gentry there, as well as great numbers of the people, dread the tyrannical discipline of those synods and presbyteries; and at the same time have the utmost contempt for the abilities and tenets of their teachers. It was besides thought an inequality, beyond all appearance of reason or justice, that Dissenters of every denomination here, who are the meanest and most illiterate part amongst us, should possess a toleration by law, under colour of which they might, upon occasion, be bold enough to insult the religion established, while those of the Episcopal Church in Scotland[28] groaned under a real persecution. The only specious objection against this bill was, that it set the religion by law, in both parts of the island, upon a different foot, directly contrary to the Union; because, by an Act passed this very session against occasional conformity, our Dissenters were shut out from all employments. A petition from Carstares, and other Scotch professors, against this bill, was offered to the House, but not accepted; and a motion made by the other party, to receive a clause that should restrain all persons, who have any office in Scotland,[28] from going to episcopal meetings, passed in the negative. It is manifest, that the promoters of this clause were not moved by any regard for Scotland,[28] which is by no means their favourite at present; only they hoped, that, if it were made part of a law, it might occasion such a choice of representatives in both Houses, from Scotland,[28] as would be a considerable strength to their faction here. But the proposition was in itself extremely absurd, that so many lords, and other persons of distinction, who have great employments, pensions, posts in the army, and other places of profit, many of whom are in frequent or constant attendance at the court, and utterly dislike their national way of worship, should be deprived of their liberty of conscience at home; not to mention those who are sent thither from hence to take care of the revenue, and other affairs, who would ill digest the changing of their religion for that of Scotland.[28]
With a farther view of favour towards the episcopal clergy of Scotland,[28] three Members of that country were directed to bring in a bill for restoring the patrons to their ancient rights of presenting ministers to the vacant churches there, which the kirk, during the height of their power, had obtained for themselves[29] And, to conclude this subject at once, the Queen, at the close of the session, commanded Mr Secretary St John to acquaint the House, "That, pursuant to their address, the profits arising from the bishops' estates in Scotland, which remained in the crown, should be applied to the support of such of the episcopal clergy there, as would take the oaths to Her Majesty."[30]
[Footnote 26: P. Fitzgerald says "North Britain." [W.S.J.]