LETTER XXXI.

LONDON, JUNE 16th.

I DINED yesterday with Mr. L.

66 And so,"

said he, "I have heard you say, you esteem the English more, since you have seen them, but esteem England less." Mr. L. then threw the gauntlet, by observing, "The English form of government discovered this remarkable peculiarity, that while all other forms of government had deteriorated, and become victims of their own corruption, it was the fortune of the English constitution, notwithstanding so many revolutions, which frequently ruin what they intend to mend, and the constant collision of party, which as frequently, either relaxes to imbecility, or strains beyond the vigour of law, to stand at this day, the wonder of the world."" How does it operate on general happiness? A government may be excellent in theory, and yet its administration be a mockery of its principles: that is, the government may be nothing more than a form." Mr. L. observed, "That the theory of every government was doubtless more pure, than its administration: that the sublimest principles became sullied in their

F f

descent to common life: but that the English constitution had co-extended remedy with wrong, and brought that remedy home to every Englishman's door."-"What, sir, do you define the best form of government?" "That," replied Mr. L. "which operates most extensively on general happiness.

66

What, then, sir, may be the proportion between the rich and poor in England?" "And whom do you term poor?" "All those whose daily industry produces only their daily bread,—and leaves them at the end, as destitute as they were at the beginning, of the year not only those who have not bread to eat, but all those whose daily labour enriches others, but affords only a scanty subsistence to themselves." Madam L. observed, "such were not considered poor, in England, and that I was in a fair way to conclude them a nation of beggars." Mr. L. replied that, "perhaps, four fifths of the people would come under this description of poor." I then asked, "What might have been the proportion in the reign of Henry the Eighth, when the pleasure of the king was the law of the land, greater or less ?” "There was, doubtless, then," said Mr. L. "a more equal state of things, for society was not so complicated as at present, the largest possessions did not confer so dangerous and oppressive an influence; the desire of acquisition had not thrust out of

doors the liberal, chivalrous spirit of hospitality." "Nor," added I, "had commerce and manufacture enriched a few at the expense of the many." "But what is your view," said Mr. L. "in comparing the state of society between the present and the past?" 'Why, the English would be willing to exchange the reign of his present majesty for that of Henry the, Eighth." "Nay, sir, the spirit of the modern English would not tolerate a tyrant, like Henry, on the throne; and if there be at present less general happiness in England, than there was in the days of Henry the Eighth, it is not to be attributed to the pernicious influence of the Constitution of 1692, but to the national debt." "Very plausible," I replied: "but suppose the English free from debt: if your king happen to be a weak monarch, he falls into the hands of a minister: the consequence of this, let Walpole, Bute and North answer: if he happen to be an Edward First, an Edward Third, or Henry the Fifth, and capable of governing per se, without a minister, your constitution, pro tempore, is annulled: for he must be a very weak prince, who is not stronger, than that constitution which thwarts his wishes. A James the Second, I readily admit, ought not to attempt an usurpation on the constitution. But a bold prince, nay, a woman, like "good queen Bess," might use the constitution as she did

the Earl of Essex, flatter it when pleased, and discard it when jealous. Indeed, I hazard a doubt, if your boasted constitution has ever proved a trial of its strength."—"But you seem to be ignorant, sir, that the English have a House of Commons, the protector of the constitutional rights of the subject, the watchful guardian of the interests of the people, without whose consent not a farthing can be levied : this is the glorious bulwark of an Englishman's lib. erty-This popular branch of the government, so inestimable, was peculiar to England, until the wis dom of your own legislators, adopted it under the name of a House of Representatives." "Your House of Commons," I concede, " has been a very economical guardian of the interest of the people: it has only involved them in a debt of five hundred and fifty millions, since the commencement of the last century. Your House of Commons is the most convenient thing imaginable for a Chancellor of the Exchequer it affords him colour for those measures, which might have cost former ministers their heads. Hence, one of them said, in imitation of the Roman," Money and votes are equally necessary, for with money I can purchase votes, and with votes raise money." "But this national debt, which so much alarms you, is not only an imaginary evil, but a positive good: it consolidates the strength of

the nation. The riches of the country have increased with its debt, and she is at this moment, as competent to pay the interest, as she was in the days of George the First or Second." I observed, "If the landholders and the merchants divided between them, the burden of the national debt, there might not be so much cause for complaint; but the whole burden fell on the poor." "How can you make that appear?" said Mr. L. "Sufficiently evident, for there can be no possible proportion between that TAX which levies one hundred pounds on him who will never feel the remotest inconvenience from the imposition, and that which levies only sixpence on him, who will suffer the deprivation of a single dinner, or work two extra hours, in consequence of the TAX; and this is equally true, whether the tax be DIRECT or INDIRECT. Therefore, your national debt does impoverish the country, and chain the poor to hopeless poverty. It is a tyrant whom no law can bind, no weapon reach, no submission soften, no condition escape: a new species of monster, which would collect within itself the whole world, and then sink beneath its own weight." "But," said Mr. L. "what nation under heaven, ever discriminated in this manner between the rich and poor? It is utterly impossible, if the taxes be indirect. Do they, in your country, discriminate between the rich and poor?"