C018/Y01704.json

[
{"content": "Gentlemen, though I have left the employments of the world, I have not left off my love and good will to my country, be it the nation in general or your particular county. Since you are soon to have a new election of Members of Parliament, I think it fit to give you notice of some things worthy of consideration in relation to this business, a business which deserves to be better considered by all the Commons of England than it has been hitherto. What concerns the nation in general has already been said. It is what more especially concerns your county that I shall here offer to your consideration. The denial of justice has always been looked upon as a great grievance in a kingdom. (London: Printed for the Author in the Year 1700)\n but a Capital Crime in a Subject. The Preservation of our Rights, and of the free Course of Justice is a principal part of the Trust reposed in our Representatives in Parliament. To prefer our Petitions for matters of Common Concern to the House of Commons is as much the Right of every Com\u2223moner of England, as to prefer an Indictment to a Grand Jury in a County. And as the Misdemeanors of a particular Grand Ju\u2223ry-man may be presented and enquired of by another Grand Ju\u2223ry, and the Misdemeanors of a whole Jury upon an Attaint; So, the Misdemeanors not only of particular Members, but of a whole House, or a whole Parliament, may be Corrected and Re\u2223dressed in another; and the Crimes of particular leading Mem\u2223bers Punished.\nThis great, fundamental, and important Right, has been twice within few years, violated, denied, or hindered and a\u2223bused, by Members of your County; First by one since de\u2223ceased, who, having a Petition to present against the Speaker and another Member\nFor no less a crime than discouraging the execution of the law and contempt of her late Majesty's authority; there were no less than seven bishops, besides other considerable persons, witnesses, who by contrivance with the criminals timed it, so that at last, after much delay, it was thrown out without reading by a small number of members with the Speaker. This was soon after complained of at the General Quarter Sessions, and the petition left with the Clerk of the Peace. And now again in the last session of Parliament, in such a manner, that it is a shame to themselves, the whole House of Commons, and indeed to the whole nation, to have had such a set of representatives. It was most just upon them, who had no more regard for the honor of the King, nay, to the honor of God himself, to be so infatuated as to expose their own shame and that of the whole House, and to the further shame of the nation.\nIf it is allowed to go uncorrected. The case is so clear and easy to understand with the two papers attached, that I need not say more than this: I can testify under oath, if necessary, that the words attributed to Mr. How (whose name I spared, but they printed it) were indeed spoken by him to me. Regarding Sir Richard Cox, I had previously reminded him of the earlier case, but it seems he was not overly concerned with your rights, as he did not take any action regarding that. However, upon motion by a person (if I am not mistaken), who had previously given such disrespectful behavior towards both King and Commons, that I have wondered how he has been allowed to remain in an English Parliament, he not only spoke wisely in the House, but also repeated it outside of the House in coffeehouses and taverns with such vanity and palpable falsehood.\nI presume you know those concerned in the case, and I hope you will act at your County Court, providing a sufficient indication of your sense of Religion, Loyalty, and Regard for the Noble Constitution of our Government, and the Common Rights of the Commons of England. This is a kind of unavoidable test of all these.\n\nYour Humble Servant, Edward Stephens.\n\nThe true English Government, excellently composed of the three simple species, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, I have long thought, and still think, to be one of the best governments in the world. Its excellence lies not only in itself but also in its accommodation to the genius of the people.\nThough it has already, within our memory, suffered such dismal concussions and confusions, and, in my apprehension, is in such great danger of more, as if there was nothing of truth in it. But this does not proceed from the Constitution, but from other causes. One is a general corruption of the manners of the people. Another, a notorious corruption of their deputies and representatives, both in manners in general and in respect of justice and the trust reposed in them. I have known some of themselves laugh and say that they are the true representatives of the nation indeed. And though this, in itself, has a tendency to the dissolution of the government, yet there is another more dangerous than this.\nIf not addressed in a timely manner, and this is due to popular factions. For monarchies are prone to degenerating into tyranny, while democracies are susceptible to dissolution by factions. Although the English Constitution has provisions against both, its components are still susceptible to the corruptions of these simple forms of government from which they are derived. What began as a secret faction in the Long Parliament, which first cast out the Bishops as popishly affected, then the Lords as useless and dangerous, then the greatest part of the Commons, except themselves, commonly called the Rump; then beheaded the King; and brought about such confusions that they could never be settled until the old form was restored again? This was the work of a faction, which, by no less than three separate Acts of Parliament, engaged the Clergy, corporations, militia, and all the great officers and magistrates of the nation in such declarations.\nWhat justifies or excuses the adversaries of the late Revolution and justifies the severities against them and the pretense of forfeitures, making them inexcusable, unjust, and unreasonable? This is but a faction that has presumed with such insolence to offer such indignities to a prince of such great courage and conduct, as has been commonly believed and talked about, with the intention of affronting him. How near have such factions come to enslaving the nation and setting up the monarchy to be absolute and arbitrary? And how fairly have they begun to pull down that, and the aristocracy, and set up democracy, or themselves and they know not what; or rather to introduce anarchy and turn all into the like confusions again. What such things may come to in time if neglected, no man knows; but what may be done to prevent the mischief is fit to be considered. Miscarriages of juries can be investigated, and what is done amiss in one Parliament can be rectified in another. And where there is manifestly a trust reposed.\nAnd so great a trust, it would be a fault in this Constitution if it could be falsified in such matters as these, and without remedy. I have therefore thought it fit to propose the following questions to the consideration of all persons concerned: But into such great degeneracy, corruption of manners, and audacious impiety, has this nation sunk, that it is rare to meet with men who dare to do their duty or assert their common rights, or the very religion they profess, notwithstanding the laws of God and Man on their side, and even where they have not only the greatest obligation but the greatest privilege to do it. This is manifest beyond all contradiction by some recent actions of great influence and no less impiety. Therefore, unless another Parliament and a Convocation of the Clergy take the matter into good consideration and provide a speedy remedy.\nI. Is each member of the House of Commons authorized to sit and act there, by their respective counties, cities, and boroughs, through indenture under the hands and seals of the principal electors for themselves and the rest, as deputies and trustees?\nII. Should they not receive instructions from, and in all important matters consult and advise with their principals?\nIII. Is it not the right and duty of every knight, gentleman, freeholder, and commoner in England to represent themselves in the House of Commons by their proper representatives or any other member?\nIV. May any commoner in England inquire and consider matters of public concern in the House of Commons?\nV. May a commoner of England require his representative to present such matters?\nVI. Is it a breach of trust for a deputy or representative not to perform this duty honestly and faithfully?\nVII. Are they accountable for their parliamentary behavior to their principals, and subject to questioning and potential punishment by the counties in their county courts, and the cities and boroughs in their respective courts and assemblies, for any notorious breach of trust in Parliament?\nVIII. Are matters concerning the honor of religion, the honor of the king, the rights of all commoners in England, and the encouragement or discouragement of law execution within the jurisdiction of Parliament?\nVIII. Is it not improper for a small number of Members with their Speaker, before the House, to vote that a petition concerning such matters should not be read?\nIX. Is it parliamentary or in accordance with the usual course of Parliaments, for the House to vote that a petition or letter of complaint for any contempt of religion, dishonor or indignity to the King, factions, or seditious practices, be deemed a false and scandalous libel, and the complainant be prosecuted before being heard at the bar or given notice to appear and prove his complaint?\nX. Are the fundamental and common rights of all the Commons of England not of greater importance to be preserved and maintained inviolably than any of the privileges of their deputies?\nXI. Whether it is not in the common interest of the English government and all commoners, and the duty of every subject, to maintain and defend the king's honor and dignity, as well as their own rights and liberties, by the common law of loyalty and allegiance?\nXII. Whether all conspiracies and practices that have a natural tendency to dissolve, interrupt, or abate the mutual confidence that ought to be preserved and maintained between the king and the people, and to draw the affections of the people from the king to the conspirators, are not to be opposed, especially when there is no special occasion for them on one side, but on the other?\nThere are such matters in agitation that give great advantage to such a Design, which may not justly be suspected to be treasonable, and by consequence ought to be stoutly and resolutely opposed by all faithful and loyal subjects? Gentlemen and fellow-commoners,\n\nWhat you see here is Open V. Old English Loyalty. p. 13-14. Votes concerning it; 'tis fit and just you should see what it is they have so censured. I have many years endeavored to serve you to the best of my ability, without seeking preferment or reward from men, or accepting of what has been offered. What I have written lately for the service of our Great Master and yourselves, has been ill requited by the Prudential men with false reports and calumnies, no less than of madness and popery, like the false prophets of old, and the incendiaries of the late civil wars. And what I have offered to the House for the same purpose, both formerly, and now again.\nI have cleaned the text as follows: \"These things I appeal to the Righteous Judgment of Almighty God, your Consciences, and the next Parliament, regarding the Bishops and the false Charge of Popery. These Gentlemen, who claim to be our masters, derive their authority from us and are accountable to us for their behavior. If we do not assert our authority over them, we are answerable for their misbehavior before God and Man. We must also uphold the King's honor when necessary, for the sake of our country, our oath to the King, and our own worthiness of this noble government. I hope you will elect more sensible persons next time.\"\nSir Richard, as a Commoner of England, it is my right and duty to take notice and complain to the House of Commons of all matters of public concern that are fit for their inquiry or consideration, especially when they affront or contempt the Christian Religion, which is the religion of the nation and an essential part of our constitutional laws. This is the common right and duty of every Commoner of England. I have been granted this opportunity by God's providence for several years.\nI am obliged to serve in the king's more immediate service without limitation to any special charge. I have opportunities for his service wherever I am, and I am obliged by oath to be faithful to the present king, which I intend, by God's grace, to perform, although I refuse to take the oath again for specific and, I believe, good reasons. These are great obligations, which I cannot discharge without taking notice and complaining of what I observe to be greatly amiss in both houses of parliament. I shall first do so with you, as my representative, and through you, I request that it be represented to the house, which you will answer to your country for which you serve.\n\nIn your house, I observe such abominable impiety and contempt for religion as has rarely been known. I have heard it complained of by members of the house that a man can hardly mention anything of God or religion there.\nHe will be in danger of being ridiculed or laughed at. I have asked why no one moved the House to call some of them to the bar and make examples, and the common answer has been it would be to no avail. This is the shame of the whole House and notorious evidence of their impudence and ignorance of what becomes such assemblies. It is a shame that the generous discharge of such a great and noble duty is not considered a thing of great purpose. The fearful or those ashamed of Christ or his words are not to be distinguished from infidels and unbelievers. Their baseness might reasonably be imputed by others to infidelity and disbelief of the religion they profess, to the scandal of religion.\nAnd Hardening those poor Creatures in their Impiety. It is no wonder if the whole nation abounds in Infidelity and all kinds of Wickedness, when there is no more Religion in those who should correct it among the Commons, and the Lords harbor Latitudinarian bishops. I have long since noted one remarkable instance in Reflections on the Action at Sea, pages 29, 30, 31, and another lately in my Narrative, besides others elsewhere. I appeal to the Consciences of all who have any Sense of Religion, and to the dreadful Tribunal of Almighty God, whether these things are not true, and whether there is not more danger to the Nation from such a House of Commons and such Bishops, than from Popery and from all the Priests and Jesuits in the Nation, if they were as many more as they are. And where there is no more Fear of God, it is no wonder if there is not that Honor and Respect for the King.\nFreedom of debates in Parliament is the subject's right, but acting insolently and disrespectfully towards the King under the guise of debate is a violation of duty and threatens the government's dissolution. Your recent votes, based on a false and foolish letter to a parliament member, were believed by many to be an attempt to gain an advantage against the King. Some may have complied with their votes for no other reason. The choice of the chairman for that committee, who was previously dismissed from the late queen's service, openly declared in your lobby to me that he believed in encouraging vice and reportedly expressed disrespect towards the King in your House beforehand.\nA considerable aggravation of the indignity. How such things can be consistent with conscience and religion, civil duty to our country, and one of the best governments in the world, or their oaths of fidelity to the King, I do not understand. Nor, with common prudence for themselves and their own rights. The King has shown himself a prince of great courage and of as great prudence and conduct. Almighty God, through him and in confederacy with several of the chief Catholic princes, has vouchsafed us a happy peace if we have the discretion to use it as we ought and as becomes persons sensible of his goodness and of the respect they ought to have for his instruments in it. But I doubt these politicians fool themselves with a vain conceit and presumption of having the purse of the nation. For certainly the King has as little need of them as they have of him, and by such politics they provoke the just indignation not only of a wise prince.\nBut of all honest and faithful subjects, and most of all, of those Confederates, who, if this King should die, as he must one day, may by the just Judgment of God, enter into a Confederacy to correct their ingratitude and folly. Nay, should the King dissolve this Parliament and in a declaration set out such reasons as he may for that, their petty politics with themselves might soon be in disarray. The pretense of the growth of Popery as a means to remove all fear of it is unnecessary. The King cannot but know something of more proper, natural, and effectual means. The growth of Popery has been used to such ill purpose in the past; it has so little ground at this time, more than what proceeds from the negligence of the clergy in assisting condemned persons, visiting the sick, and the obstinacy and unconcernedness of party-prudential latitudinarian bishops for what properly belongs to their charge.\nI. And particularly for mending their cause and making it sound, which is indefensible at present; and is raised, I believe, so unseasonably to serve and support a lame and tottering cause, that 'tis like to prove the shame and confusion both of it and of those who make use of such indirect means for that purpose. Let me know who were the composers of that letter, and had the impudence and folly to call me (as it is commonly understood) a madman and convert (two lies at once), and I shall give you an account of the whole matter that will sufficiently satisfy both the House and all honest and wise men in the nation. I have more to say, which I shall reserve till I see what use is made of this. I hope the House will consider what is to be done, both to expiate that provoking wickedness against God, and to correct, as they deserve, all indignities done to the king. You shall always find me ready, in what belongs to me, to serve both and my country, in the best manner I can.\n\nYour humble servant.\nIt is with the best governments, as with material buildings, that all the wit and foresight of man can devise. They are both alike subject to decays, which if not repaired in due time, inevitably bring ruin and destruction at last. The true English government, in itself one of the best constitutions in the world, is most accommodating to the nature and genius of the English people. The people of this nation have been heretofore as famous, not only for courage and hardiness, but also for wisdom, virtue, and piety, as any people in the world. But at this present, both the government and the people have fallen into great decay. The whole nation has seemed to me for some time as under an enchantment. I have known those who, in respect to the notorious corruption of the House of Commons, have jestingly said.\nThey were true representatives of the people; yet, when they themselves were among them, they did nothing worthy of the name of Englishmen or of Christians, despite professing an extraordinary form of religion. Magick writers tell us that initiates and proficients in the Black Art can, with the assistance of their familiar spirits, bind people in specific ways, preventing them from accomplishing anything in those areas while acting like other people in all others. I have seen and conversed with such individuals. Whole families have been brought to desolation in a manner that seemed to me to be due to the secret operations of some invisible intelligent powers or a secret curse that adhered to them, or both. In some cases, I have known a certain and manifest cause, and I suspect the same was true in others.\nThe corruptions in the House of Commons have been notorious for the past forty years. It is a common practice for men of confidence and eloquence to procure an election in a small mercantile borough and gain entry into the House. Once there, they would oppose the king and court, only to be bought off with a gratuity, pension, or place. One moment they would treat the king with insolence and indignity, and the next the entire House of Commons would do the same, either lightly laughed at or gravely passed by the rest. Have we not seen sufficient insolence to the king on one side?\nafter the whole House of Commons was adjourned by their Speaker without their consent, to please him, and this Gentleman was allowed to remain a Member up until that day? What was the recent uproar about the growth of Popery and the unreasonable Act passed regarding it, if not to lower King William's reputation with his confederates beyond the sea and curry favor with the mistreated people at home? Whether these actions do not contribute to the dissolution of the Government and lead to a Commonwealth resembling anarchy and confusion, as in the past, is worth considering.\nWhether the mystery of some People's heat about the Succession is not in the bottom to make that a step to the alteration of the Government? So there seem to be two dangerous corruptions among the late members of the House of Commons. The first is the trade of particular Members, of which I have mentioned but little, known or suspected for buying and selling the common interest of the People by these traders or traitors. The second is a conspiracy of a wicked faction of Apostates, Deists, Socinians, and Latitudinarians, to subvert the Government under the pretense of preserving the Rights of the People; and to cast out Christianity under the pretense of securing the Protestant Religion. And how little there is of true Religion among any of them all is notorious by their actions in the two last Parliaments, upon the Letters to Sir Richard Cocks and to the Knights, Gentlemen, and Freeholders.\nAnd the Commons of England. What a charge of impiety is there upon the whole House of Commons! And what a silly and impious vote was passed upon it! And how hypocritically and scandalously have this last, deservingly short-lived House of Commons behaved themselves in their formal address for a solemn day of fasting and prayer for the blessing of God upon their consultations; and yet not one of them all opened his mouth for a due correction of so great impiety.\n\nIt is certain and unquestionable that being ashamed of Christ or his words, and giving offense or scandal to religion, are two capital crimes in the laws of the Gospel, and terrible and severe judgments are denounced against them. And nothing can be more scandalous to religion than for a man to make a high profession of religion and be ashamed or afraid to speak for it, when there is so just and necessary occasion. So that the sin and danger of such persons in the House, I take to be the greatest of all.\nAnd that which is likely to seal up some judgment of God upon the whole nation, if proper courses are not taken to prevent it. God has already answered them in their own kind: he has the hearts of kings in his hands and turns them as rivers of water. If the people do not now choose none of them again, those who do otherwise may possibly find the curse cleave to themselves and to those they choose. And as the king has done well to dissolve them, so if he consults his judges and the learned in the law, it is likely he will find matter enough to correct the insolence of some of the most active conspirators. Then it may be hoped we will see a true English Parliament again. Then it may also be hoped we will see the decays, which have been too long neglected, effectively repaired.\n\nIn your house, I observe such abominable impiety and contempt of religion as greater has rarely been known. I have heard it complained of by members of the house.\nA man cannot speak of God or religion in that place without being ridiculed or laughed at. When I have asked why no one moved the House to call some of them to the bar and make examples, the common answer has been it would be to no avail. This is the shame of the entire House and notorious evidence of their impudence and ignorance, as well as their baseness, making them unworthy of the name of Christians. The courageous discharge of such a great and noble duty is not of little purpose. Those who are fearful or ashamed of Christ or his words are not to be distinguished from infidels and unbelievers - that is, from their fellow members whom they complain about. Their baseness can reasonably be imputed by others to infidelity and disbelief of the religion they profess, to the scandal of religion itself.\nAnd Hardening those poor Creatures in their Impiety. It is no wonder if the whole Nation abounds in Infidelity and all kinds of Wickedness, when there is no more Religion in those who should correct it.\n\nThe Letters at Large with other Papers may be had at the New-Inn Coffee-House.\n\nPrinted in the Year 1701.\n\nGentlemen and Fellow-Commoners,\n\nThough I have given sufficient demonstration to all those few who know me of my good will, readiness, and resolution for your service, yet such has been the malice of some wicked men to defame me, which I could have borne patiently did it not disable me to serve you, as I would, that I'm compelled, as St. Paul was, to say these things for myself, but for your sake, which nothing less should have extorted from me.\n\nI have lived now in the world above the ordinary age of man. My principal study from my youth has been the service of God and of my country, upon all occasions, which I always looked upon as calls to me. I always hated knavery and falsehood.\nI have always been zealous for Truth and Righteousness. Although I have occasionally been mistaken about facts concerning others, I have never wavered from my principles in deliberate actions, even if unjustly criticized by men. I have dedicated my life to this service without seeking advancement or accepting offers in both Church and State. I proved myself a faithful guardian to the late king and queen, and to my country, from their reign's beginning to end, and I believe posterity will approve of my actions, regardless of the present generation's opinion. I drafted a sample declaration against debauchery before the prince arrived in London, which was approved by several people and subsequently delivered to him. I recommended its care to one person.\nI presented him with a faithful admonition concerning his duty to promote the propagation of Religion in Foreign Parts and Reformation of Manners at home. I not only complained about the shameful neglect of these matters in print, but also began the necessary work and would have brought it to a good effect had it not been for those engaged in it and most obligated to promote it, who instead set up a little superficial Formality in place of it, exposing it to contempt by great ones rather than promoting it among inferiors.\n\nI gave you notice and example of how to correct the miscarriages of your Trustees in Parliament and make them know that they are not your masters but your servants. Those most likely to undo you if you do not look better to them.\nAnd consider their behavior at your County Courts and General Quarter Sessions. Considering how great the importance is to have a good cause in all differences, and how much religion is really concerned or pretended in the present war, I began before it broke out again, in a discourse dedicated to the judges, to show the necessity of mending our cause in matters of religion. I have asserted the truth in several particulars against four several parties, and not one of any of them has yet appeared publicly to resist it, other than by lies and calumnies, and discouraging booksellers from printing or selling my writings. This is perhaps never known before, since printing was known; and an attestation to truth not inferior to a miracle, being a plain accomplishment of our Savior's promise. Most of these things have been presented to the Lower House of Convocation.\nI have restored the text as follows: I have represented the truth and justice in civil matters to our representatives in Parliament. But not only truth and justice have been disregarded, but one of our principal fundamental rights violated, by those whose principal trust and business it is to preserve them. Several papers of this sort, with others of a collection, entitled \"A Message of Peace,\" and others, were stifled by former artifice. This nation now seems in the miserable condition of the Jews of old, lamented by the Prophet Isaiah 59:14, 15. I could tell you of divers other matters, both civil and religious: for the better ordering of the revenues of the Church in populous parishes; for more assistants to take care of the souls of the people; for better provision for the necessary preparation of condemned persons for their execution; for better and more reasonable correction for criminals than our common executions; and for such reformation of our jails and prisons.\nwhich are now the nurseries of all vice and wickedness, that they may be made schools of virtue: All things necessary, which I have endeavored to promote, but with such success, as, with the like in others, tempts me to suspect the whole nation to be in some sort under that wicked power, whose effigy is placed in the place of the cross, upon the chief spire of the city; especially when I consider what wickedness has been acted, how the nation has been abused, and the judgments of God provoked by such mysteries of iniquity, as affront his omniscience as well as his justice, harden those concerned in them in apostasy, now called Deism, and little less than atheism, and would fill the minds of all sober people with horror, were they but commonly known and understood. But a spirit of slumber usually precedes the greatest judgments.\n\nThis suspicion is the more increased in me, when I consider how easily our divisions might be composed, and the mischiefs and confusions that would be avoided.\nBut the problems, which appear like a torrent, would be prevented if not for a spirit of faction and self-interest, but mistaken interest in all parties, and the abuses put upon all by the false pretenses of a few Sons of Bichri. They do more harm at home than all our foreign adversaries abroad. It would be easy to break all their measures more effectively than all our forces by sea and land are likely to do.\n\nOne of the greatest misfortunes of mankind in their current state is that they are generally like a flock of silly sheep. They are either quietly fed and preserved in safety by faithful and careful shepherds or exposed or frightened into danger and mischief by those who are careless of them but get among them to serve their own designs. Few act upon sound and solid judgment, but most upon common opinion received by education, taken up on inconsiderate apprehension.\nOut of pity for the innocent flocks to beware of deceitful shepherds and the spirit of faction in all parties, these Papers are now published. My kindness expressed to the honest Quakers may be misconstrued by some, especially their sharpest adversaries. However, the monstrous prevalence of the spirit of faction, even in those in a suffering case and persons otherwise of learning and ability to consider, yet refuse to receive the truths they cannot fairly resist, was a special motivation for me to accept the invitations for further conference from a people so despised in the sight of the learned. I do declare I do it sincerely and heartily.\nAnd I will not be ashamed to assert and maintain whatever Truth there is among them or any others, against any or all Opposers of it. For Truth and Righteousness, by the Grace of God, I will not desert in what Party soever. And if the honest and well-meaning People of this Party will accept my advice and assistance, I do not despair, through Divine Assistance, but to help them, who are now the most despised of all Sects, to become as truly honorable in real Worth and Virtue as any of them all; and to maintain their Cause, not only by Principles of Religion, but also by the true Principles of the Laws of England.\n\nBut for those Troublers of our Peace and Unity, those Roman Catholic missionaries and Quaker ministers, who obstinately resist the Truth, they cannot with any sound reason gainsay, and notwithstanding continue with their sophistry and specious pretenses to deceive the People, if the State pleases but to afford me a reasonable Favor and Assistance of the Civil Authority.\nI hope I can easily demonstrate that they are so justly punishable by the laws of this Nation, antecedent to those made against them in particular, leaving them utterly inexcusable and promoting a good service both to God and Man more effectively. This could have been put into practice before this time if those who recently made the great clamor against the growth of Popery had truly intended to stop it, rather than merely to abuse the people, ingratiating themselves with them for their own advantage. This was certainly the mystery of the unreasonable truth of that Act, which has hitherto served rather as a cover than any restraint of that growth; and possibly might have been so intended by such jugglers with all parties for their own interest. When once discovered, they can never again be safely trusted by any, or will easily be distrusted by the wise.\n\nI know of no greater service that can be done to this Nation at this time.\nI have undeceived and disabused the innocent Flocks of this distracted and divided People by detecting the Deceivers and their Arts and Abuses, and I am the only one who has done so on clear and certain Principles with equal Candor, Impartiality, and Conviction. Therefore, the greater is the Integrity, Fidelity, and constant Zeal for your Service, or the Service of my Country, that I demonstrate, the more notorious are the Iniquity and evil Dispositions of those who have maliciously defamed me (which I could have borne had that been all). However, they have disabled me from further Prosecution of that Service, to which I am so heartily and entirely affected. The greater is the Evidence against them that they are no true Friends to our Country, but unfaithful, treacherous Deceivers, who, under specious Pretenses, seek to serve themselves without due regard, if at all.\nAnd they are of two sorts: either those who have been our Trustees in Parliament or of the clergy of the Church of England. The latter have not only injured me and hindered me in your service, but have brought a foul scandal upon the Church of England. Therefore, the consideration of that may be left to the supreme authority, recently asserted in all causes, spiritual and temporal.\n\nBut for the others, who have not only injured me and done you a disservice, but have moreover betrayed one of our principal and most necessary rights, I must recommend this to you with this faithful admonition and advice: Neglect no longer your own interest at your county courts. Give there your instructions well considered to your trustees.\nWhen you choose them, and continually confer concerning their behavior, and as occasion requires, admonish them of what you see necessary. At your next court, or as soon as may be, assert, like true Englishmen, the ancient, fundamental, necessary right of every commoner of England, to have his petitions for proper matters presented to the House of Commons by his representatives, and read, heard, and considered, and duly answered there. This may be done also at your quarter sessions, and by cities and boroughs at their proper courts.\n\nYour Faithful Friend, Fellow-Commoner, and ready servant in all things of truth and righteousness,\nEdward Stephens.", "creation_year": 1704, "creation_year_earliest": 1704, "creation_year_latest": 1704, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "When the spring of the year had arrived at its prime,\nWhen inanimate bodies had dressed themselves fine,\nWhen nature had put off her winterly shroud,\nAnd took delight in herself, and began to grow proud,\nWhen the lusts of the flesh and the heat of the weather\nSent men into hospitals, whole droves together,\nWhen Satan had so possessed the poor females,\nThat women believed 'twas a sin to be chaste,\nWhen the immoderate season of summer was come,\nDiseasing old men and distracting the young,\nMy fancy one morning began to preamble,\nI found myself rarely disposed for a ramble;\nI considered for some time which way to repair,\nAnd at last I concluded, and pitched on the fair,\nThat harbor of vice for young sinners to steer-in,\nSet apart by the devil for lying and swearing.\n\nIn order for my journey, I hurried along,\nAs far as St. Giles in the fields, whereupon\nI was thinking to shorten my way, and so I crossed\nTo an alley, and there I made shift to be lost.\nI blundered through.\nBut this I can tell through a great deal of mire.\nAs if in the Dirt I wou'd take my Degrees,\nI was first to the Ankles, then up to the Knees:\nWithall such a Poys'nous stink did infect-me,\nAdd to this my Concern, 'twas enough to destract me:\nBut still I continu'd, and kept on my Course,\nFor what need I fear when I cou'd not be worse,\nAt last 'twas my Fortune to come to a Lane,\nThat brought me direct to the Haven of Sin,\nThe First that came by was a Feminine Croud,\nIndifferent Handsome, but Damnable Proud.\nGreat Ladies Attended, and such sort of Creatures,\nWho, like all their Sex, are subdu'd by their Natures,\nA pack of Inticeing Intemperate Jades,\nWho thinks 'tis a shame to be Twenty and Maids.\nThey were Nicely Tuckt up, and Bedeckt I'll assure-ye,\nNot a Hair on their Heads, but was Fram'd to allure-ye:\nPerfum'd with an Air they design'd, I suppose,\nTo Trap all the Fools that they met, by the Nose:\nThe Scent was so strong, that a Man I'll declare,\nMight have followed the W\u2014s, as the Dog does a Hare,\nThey Tript it with Motion as light as a Feather,\nThe heads and heels moved in unison; neither too far forward nor too far back, as either extreme would bring reproach. Then came a lethargic group of drones, a scurrilous issue called gentlemen's sons; they lived off the land's bounty and devoured what the poor sweated for. These individuals followed the custom of being profligate, believing it a virtue because it was a use. They debauched themselves while their youth was still green, scorning chastity after the age of fifteen. When they grew into men, they were worse than before, their sins hardened, their crimes more heinous. They wallowed in wickedness, swam in excess, drowning the reason of man in the torrent of vice. So given to dream and dote upon women, they became not only unchaste but inhumane. Their burning desires were so unjust, they would murder a man to make way for their lust. They defended a wrong cause to the best of their power, and martyred themselves for the name of a whore.\nCorrection is like paint to a feature, it alters the color but not the nature. They may appear to approve of reform, but it's for interest or fashion. They go to church to inspect what's happening, to see and be seen is the end of their going. They'll squint at the parson and spit at each sentence that suggests repentance. Thus they spin out the thread of a troublesome life, as if they were going to hell in a strife. At taverns all day and to plays house all night, to all sorts of fairs that can yield them delight; living like Epicurus, death proves prevalent, and calls them to give an account of their talent.\n\nAs soon as this lewd congregation was past, I plucked up my heels and followed post haste. Arrived at the fair, where the first thing I spied, was a hole like a hogsty that stood on one side. I was given to know, by an implicit notion, 'twas a temple that Fortune had built for devotion. The gaming proficients were busy as bees.\nA purging the Pockets of Fools by degrees;\nThe Sots that were in their company led,\nSat laying wagers and scratching their heads:\nSome wishing for luck, some lamenting their case;\nSome swearing the devil had conjured the dice;\nSome winners a health to Dame Fortune were drinking,\nAnd some that had lost all, were damning and sinking.\nI left them designing to pass further on.\n\nAnd as I was making my way through the throng,\nSir, says one here's an ape that will please you, I'm certain,\nHe dances so rarely, so nice, so diverting;\nThat all that have seen him his praises redouble,\nHe's the common discourse of the mob and the nobles.\nHe cuts you a caper three feet from the ground,\nAnd dances expertly the whole Cheshire round.\n\nI stood all the while like a man that admired,\nAnd seemed to be taken with what I had heard.\nBut truth I could hardly from laughing to hear\nHow the monkey commended the ape.\n\nHowever to please the coxcomb I entered,\nAnd into the kennel my carcase I ventured:\nWhere a noise of society crowded the room,\nBehaving with great absurdity.\nI inspected narrowly, then went to observe a scene in the crowd. Here is the account in order:\n\nA reverend Quaker, having returned from his journey home, sat on his horse in a pious posture, resembling the image of Venerable Bede. His hat was so broad it shielded not only him but his horse from the rain. Age had weakened his strength, making his beard and neckcloth of equal length. He remained unmoved by the tumult and noise, as still as a stone statue, at the shouting of boys.\n\nHe arrived at a place where the mob protected it, and demanded respect from all passengers. They called for the Quaker to remove his hat as a sign of love for the Queen and the state. He sat steadfastly, neither looking like a man about to die nor in a dream. The crowd began shaking his garments and swore by the Lord that they would make him do so.\nThe Hubbub created great laughter, but he remained like a sheep for the slaughter. His horse seemed concerned at the fatal disaster, as if he had borrowed his looks from his master. So serious a frame was his countenance set. I am apt to believe he was foaled at the meeting. But turning to the story, the mob grew so rude, they jumbled my friend in the midst of the crowd, continuing still to deny their desire. They tumbled both him and the colt in the mire. I wonder that people should be so uncivil, they made him as dirty and black as the devil. His horse was as bad, one could hardly distinguish the man from the beast. Then rises the Quaker, inspired with a rapture, and throws at his foes a whole mouthful of scripture. Oh, when shall the wicked find their punishment, and when shall their wickedness come to an end? He spoke much of who should inherit the kingdom. It was thought the old rogue was possessed with a spirit. He railed against churchmen but highly extolled.\nHis Friends, whom he there called the sheep of his fold,\nHe placed them in Heaven, and yet could not spare\nOne inch of the place for the goats in the fair.\nBut seeing his gospel found no acceptance,\nHe begins with his horse to remove from that station.\nCreeps out of the crowd from the midst of his foes,\nThen presently shakes off the dust from his shoes.\nThis, says he, is to witness your absurdity,\nYour stoning the Prophet, and scorning the word.\nIt vexed me to see an old loggerhead doat,\nHe'd more need have shaken the dirt off his coat,\nLazarus's poverty, and Lucifer's pride,\nWomen void of good manners as riches,\nplaced themselves under the title of bitches,\nthe men who were drunk and as dirty as hogs,\nwere even with their wives called one another dogs.\nOh, what a noise and a rout was between them,\nA man at death's door would have laughed to have seen them.\nThey scolded and talked of the law and enditing,\nThe bitches barked on, but the dogs went to fighting;\nAnd they answered the name of a dog in the close.\nFor the weapons they used were their teeth and paws. As soon as the women had wearied their tongues, blows were elected to reconcile wrongs. They called themselves bitches and such sort of brats, but truly they fought like a couple of cats. For never such scratching did mortal behold, no tygers more fiercer, nor dragon more bold. However, at last they began to dissent, but seemed to be rather tired than content.\n\nI entered the village and came to a room, all in a sweat with a smoky perfume. Robin and Easter were always embracing there. For my part, I thought they would never have done kissing. He hung by her neck, his dear darling, he vowed her. There he slavered and sucked like a calf at an udder.\n\nWhen the women had glutted the fools, they all fell a roaring like so many bulls. Here being us some meat, or we'll tarry no longer. What a plague we are ready to famish with hunger. 'Tis ready ere this, or some witchcraft is in it.\n\nThe drawer replies, Sirs, 'twill come in a minute.\nThen each draws a Cut-Lash, twelve inches at least,\nA Weapon more fit for a Fight than a Feast;\nAnd up comes poor Jack in a moment of time,\nWith a whole dishful of Pork for the Swine;\nIt was scarcely well placed on the table with care,\nBut every man was contending for a share:\n\"Confound you,\" says one, \"you'll provoke me,\nWill you never have done with your cutting, plague choke?\nYou be hung,\" says the other, \"what is there not room?\"\nSo then the complainer begins to fall on,\nWith a decent department as man could well wish,\nOne hand at the mouth, and the other at the dish;\nThey grumbled as long as there was anything to share,\nLike the Lord Mayor's dogs over a morsel of carrion.\nHere's one was bawling, \"You've taken my piece,\nAnother was up to the knuckles in grease;\nA third had but just cut a bit of the lean,\nThe rest was all gone; what a pox did they mean?\"\nWith chawing and talking, foaming and frothing,\nThey gave me a dinner, and yet I eat nothing:\nBut this was the height, when they'd swallowed their food.\nThey sniffed up their noses, and it was not good. No, rot it, said one; it was troublesomely tough. Another cried out that it was not enough. However, they ceased to reflect in that way and sent for a fiddler to make them some sport. He reckoned himself to be the son of Apollo. He struck up his notes like a courageous man. Now was the time that diversion began. The first of this country breed that came on, in order to dance, were Roger and Joan. I must needs paraphrase a little about her, by way of her praise. Kind nature so nicely the artist had played, the hair of her eyebrows and that of her head had drawn up their growths to so little a distance, as if they were mindful to scrape an acquaintance. Her nostrils I found were not troubled with stopping, a juicy elixir was always a dropping. Her mouth was always open, as if it was willing to be a gallypot for her nose to distill in. Her tongue was so short, one could scarcely distinguish, by her speech, what she was, whether her Greek or English.\nHer chin was about four inches long, perhaps to make up for her tongue's deficiencies; her breasts were as white as the sole of my shoe. She was clean in every way. Her face was large, and she was tall; yet her waist was surprisingly small. To be clear, it's beneath me to mock her. A string of three yards would have gone around her twice: Nevertheless, this beauty was brought to the floor to dance, as I mentioned before. And had Heraclitus been present, I am certain, She did not learn to dance the school way, To skip and to frisk, and to bend with the knee. Instead, she was steadfast, disliking deceit. Her skipping and motions were one and the same; she paid no heed to how the musician struck the notes or changed tunes, remaining consistent. The fiddler played the conclusion, but Joan had not finished her dance, though he had finished his tune. Her skill was remarkable (one would scarcely believe it); she danced just as well without music as with it.\nTwo Critical Sophists, sitting at a table, opposing this rustic rabble. Their appearances and habits so out of fashion led the Sophists to believe they were converts of Calvin's persuasion. They were very devout, criticizing the government. They reflected on heroes promoted to honor and lashed out in this manner. The Church was going to swallow down Popery, with bells at her altars and such foppery. Good-Friday's, birthdays, and such things were kept holy, first introduced by a heathenish folly. Oxford and Cambridge were national sluices, letting in Divinity Popish abuses. In churches, they raised pictures and images, but there were none of the Oliver's days.\nThen up starts a Plowman as bold as a Lion,\nAnd stretches his throat in defense of our Zion,\nSays you're a couple of pitiful Fellows,\nAnd deserve not so noble a death as the gallows.\nYou're sons of ingratitude, children of spleen.\nYou banter the nation?\u2014Ad rat ye come out.\nI'll make you swallow these words down your throat,\nBoth you and your sect are the government's lees,\nYou'd ruin the realm for a two penny piece.\nDiscontent has been ever your fathers' corruption,\nSo the venom remains in the sons by adoption:\nWho still are subjected to envious railing,\nAnd as for Old Oliver, he was a villain;\nFor all he usurped such a petulant power.\nI say the old knave was a son of W\u2014\nThe rogues in those days did a brewer exalt.\nHe fit for a monarch!\u2014He fit to drain malt!\nA delicate fellow to bear such command,\nHe fit for a scepter!\u2014He fit to be hanged!\nA tyrant, and all that assisted to raise him,\nWere traitors, and you are no better than praise him.\nPray, who was it brought the distress on this nation;\nWho made the attempt on that royal invasion?\nWho banished the issue and murdered the father? It was he and the Pope and the Devil together. Then, says the Dissenter, be easy with me. I'm sorry that what I have said should displease you. But as for my branding the Church with delusion, I tell you again 'tis a mass of confusion. I'll show you verbatim where it is faulty, the dangerous errors whereof it is guilty. Your bowing to the altar is rank superstition, a continuation of Popish tradition. Your crosses in baptism, Godfather binding Is all insignificant, not worth your minding. The organs instead of advancing devotion serve only to set people's humors a-dancing. The surplice corrupts the poor maids at their hearts, it makes them think upon men in their shirts. And as for the converts your blessed prayers make, The best of your Church are a parcel of rakes. As I hope to be saved, they are so profane, so given to swear, by my soul 'tis a shame. Well, this is a man, says the Plowman, worth hearing.\nHe swears a great oath we are given to swearing:\nBut now you have ended, I hope, as fitting,\nYou'll cease till I draw you a draft of the meeting.\nI scorn to reflect or reproach you with lies;\nI'll only repeat what I saw with my eyes.\nFor being in London, that harbor of vermin,\nOne Sunday I went in quest of a sermon.\nDesigning the church for my refuge that day,\nBut dropped in a Puritan's cell by the way,\nWhere a canting congregation of irreverent sinners,\nWere sitting without either motion or manners.\nHere one in a corner was placed very close,\nA pulling his hat over his eyes and his nose;\nAnother lewd hypocrite seated apart,\nWith a saint in his looks and a satan in his heart.\nBy and by came a man with a cloak on his back,\nA book in his hand and a band round his neck,\nWent creeping along like a poor helpless creature,\nArrested by all the diseases in nature.\nHe hops to the pulpit as fast as he could,\nAnd scarce had he got to that hovel of wood,\nBefore Master Clericus cleared up his throat,\nAnd presently they were given a Psalm to chant out. They all fell to singing, some treble, some bass, as if they were humming an old Chivy-Chafe. Their harmonious voices were so pleasing, it would have even ravished a hedgehog, I swear. As soon as the choristers came to a conclusion, the preacher began with a Calvin's commission. He furrowed his forehead and showed us how much like an ass he could look. Transforming his aspect with the idiots' frenzies, as if God Almighty was pleased with whimsies. As if the Eternal Creator of Man took pleasure in seeing men alter his frame: he seemed to make apish behavior a rule. He appeared in his prayer so much of a fool; so much of a mimic (to speak without jering). He would make a rare Bartholomew Fair Pickle-Herridge. His prologue was tedious, and yet the I\u2014 Concluded by invoking without the Pater-Noster. Being past one good duty, he went to the next, (having grumbled a prayer) to grope out a text. In the fourth of Malachi, the first of those verses,\nAnd there began a long Catalogue of Judgment,\nThe Preacher denounced the Inevitable Doom,\nAnd sent a whole Heap to the Devil at once.\nThe hypocritical Men with a fair outside shell,\nHe bade go take up their lodging in Hell.\nNext, he threw into Lucifer's scopes,\nA Bundle of Whores and a Mouthful of Popes.\nI laughed in myself till it tickled my sides,\nTo see the old women a shaking their heads.\nTo see the old sinners confusedly stand,\nWhen the Preacher avowed that the Whores would be damned.\nThe prophet's heart was so set in ire,\nHis lips spoke of nothing but Brimstone and Fire:\nI turned myself round and began to march out,\nFor I never loved Doctrine so sulphurous hot.\nWell, says the Dissenter, I take no regard,\nYou may certainly one day expect your reward;\nI leave it to him that can censure you best,\nYou've rail'd at the Prophet and People of Christ.\nUpbraiding the Church with the name of a cell,\nAnd speaking those things that became her not well.\nA Church is not defined by its steeple or porch, it is still a church, no matter how unappealing. He, a learned man, supports this by quoting Austin and Bernard. The Plowman, as fierce as Achilles, attacks him with quotes from Plurillis. The Plowman attempts to use the Fathers as proof but is unable to fly with grammarian wings high enough. The other side prepares to move, yet they hurl sharp words as the Plowman descends the stairs. The Plowman could hardly be dissuaded from fighting, insisting on making his arguments valid with his fists. Through many persuasions, the blows were diverted, the clamor concluded, and the company parted. After witnessing this tumult, I called for an account of my score from the drawer. He told me, and upon paying him his due,\nI left the House (as I found it) a stew,\nI ventured my body once more in the crowd,\nAnd was horridly squeezed with a reprobate brood\nOf soldiers, whose motto, it's not mistaken,\nIs Semper Eadem, the servants of Satan.\nI dared not look up at the andrews and blockheads,\nMy eyes were too busily fixed on my pockets.\nYet heard them bawl unto the people that sinning,\nDeluding and cheating was just a beginning;\nThere was whoring to be done,\nA man or had bought for a noble a score on a heap,\nThe bitches might well be accounted dog cheap.\nWhen I got from the mob, it began to grow dark,\nSo I came with all speed to St. James's Park;\nBeing hungry (and hasty to get a remedy)\nI walked till I overtook a beau and his lady.\nExcuse me, and take it to be no interruption,\nIf here I present you his beauty's description.\nHe looked at a distance a terrible hero,\nI took him\nAnd when I came near I protest he was like one,\nHis wig was so monstrous, I vow it would fright one\nIt was made like a swaddling cloth for a horse.\nNot only to cover his neck and rear; it reached from his head nearly to his garter. It was a good handsome load for an ordinary porter. The powder on his garment was harbored so thick, that if it should rain, it would make dough on his back. He picked up his pedestals quickly, and strutted along like a Bartholomew doll. His delight was to dance, you might tell by his tread that he carried more wit in his heels than his head. His stature was large, yet his sword was so short. He resolved when he fights he'll do no body harm. I perceived by the hilt it was not prone to abuse; for 'twas rusty\u2014a sign it was seldom in use. His legs were as thick (if I do not wrong) as a constable's staff, and almost quite as long. His tongue never ceased, for his humors are such, he thinks he talks well if he does but talk much. Still chewing on something to sweeten his breath. And always a grinning and showing his teeth, with such sort of freizies, which served to explain.\nThat the Coxcomb was more of a monkey than man. A fine painted snuff-box was his idol; take that away, and you'd as well take his head. 'Tis snuff, he supposes, that maintains his briskness; some think it causes defects in the veins; and I'm of the opinion it eats up his brains. FIN.", "creation_year": 1704, "creation_year_earliest": 1704, "creation_year_latest": 1704, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "I A.B. declare that it is not lawful, under any pretense whatsoever, to take up arms against the KING. I abhor the traitorous position of taking up arms by his authority against his person or against those commissioned by him. I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now established by law.\nI declare that I am not bound by the Solemn League and Covenant to attempt any change or alteration of government, in Church or State. I, A.B., swear that it is unlawful to take up arms against the King under any pretense. I abhor the traitorous position of taking up arms with the King's authority against his person or those commissioned by him. I will not endeavor any alteration of government in Church or State.\n\nThe oath and subscription contain both the matter and the form. Both are subject to the following exceptions:\n\nRegarding the oath:\n-------------------\n\nI declare that I am not bound by the Solemn League and Covenant to attempt any change or alteration of government, in Church or State. I swear that it is unlawful to take up arms against the King under any pretense. I abhor the traitorous position of taking up arms with the King's authority against his person or those commissioned by him. I will not endeavor any alteration of government in Church or State.\nThe last part is not consistent with Righteousness. I will address this part first. I will not attempt any alteration of government. No government on earth is perfect, and alteration of laws, and thus government in administration, is necessary on emergent occasions for the political body, just as fresh air is necessary for the natural body. This oath was intended to be made common in the House. It is not righteous to impose such an engagement on persons in such a capacity, nor on freeholders and free subjects like us.\nThe Constitution of our Nation, as Parliamentary, is such that no law can be established or repealed without it passing the House of Commons. The whole Body concurs in every alteration of government if it is legal, and no House of Commons is chosen except by the People. Every Englishman is intended to be present, either in person or by proxy; and the consent of Parliament is taken to be every man's consent, according to Sir Thomas Smith, De Rep. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. The King, with the counsel and assent of his Barons, gave laws to his whole realm in the past. Every inferior seemed to consent in the person of his chief lord, as now they do by their Burgesses and Knights of the Shires. (Sir Henry Spelman)\nThis is true in the sense that the laws that pass are said to be Quas vulgus elegerit, or chosen by the people. If every free subject has a fundamental liberty to choose knights and burgesses and accordingly to inform them of their grievances and petition them for redress, and in them as their representatives, do consent to the alteration of government and laws as are profitable for the nation, how can such an oath be imposed on any not to endeavor any alteration, as this is? Is not choosing burgesses, informing them, petitioning them, acting, and legally consenting in them to that end an endeavor? And isn't this as much an endeavor in their place and calling as any? It is not the foundation liberty of the whole people and ourselves with them that is in danger here? Judge you that are wise.\nFor the words then, I wonder at this rigor in the compiler, that a man must swear not to endeavor any alteration. Was it not enough to be engaged not to endeavor the alteration of the substance of our government, Episcopacy in the Church, and monarchy in the state, but must it be no alteration? It would be well if we were so absolutely perfect. And again, must they not at any time endeavor any alteration? What if times should turn, and we be in as great confusion as we were, or any like chance or change come? Must these men be bound up, that they cannot endeavor to reduce back this government that we now have? No, not the king and bishops, if the iniquity of the times should put them out; for they have sworn they will not at any time endeavor any alteration in church or state.\nSirs! The matter of this obligation being against the fundamental freedoms of the subject and Parliament; and the words, as you see, so misleading, and that against the duty all owe to the public good; I offer it to you to consider in the first place, whether this last part is just?\n\nFor the middle part of the oath: Here is a position of taking arms by the king's authority against any commissioned by him; which must be sworn to, as abhorred and treasonous. There is now a case in the mouths of all the understanding refusers of the oath, of subscription. Suppose some writ is sued out, and comes to the sheriffs hands, and suppose some oppose the execution by the king's personal command or commission, and he thereupon raises the posse comitatus upon them. I will ask here, whether the sheriff acts not herein by the king's authority? I think it cannot be denied. By the king's authority, is all one as, by the law, or in the name of the king according to law.\nAnd when he can act against anyone despite their commission, and the law supports him, how is this position in this case treasonous and to be abhorred? For my part, I firmly believe that it was not the intent of Parliament, in this oath or subscription (as to the major part, we may be bold), to advance the king's personal will or commission above the law, which would make his power despotical, not royal: He is not a king who governs by his will, not by the law, says Bracton. And how this position, without exception in this case at least, must be sworn to as entirely treasonous I am to learn. The courts of law can void the king's charters or commissions, which are passed against the law, for the king is subject to the law and sworn to maintain it, says Judge Jenkins in his Works, p. 48.\nAs for the words' form: they abhor this traitorous position. The word \"abhor\" particularly, is a word of interest and passion. A cooler word, such as \"disown\" or \"disallow,\" might have served instead. Some of the more grave, such as Calamy, were greatly offended by that word. I may say that something is unlawful in my conscience if I cannot truthfully say I abhor it. There is no gentleman in the land who cannot truly swear that he believes it unlawful to company with any other woman but his own wife. However, if each one were put to swear they abhor it, I suppose some very good Sons of the Church, as well as brethren, would be found willing to be Nonconformists to such an Oath.\nSirs! When the words \"abhor\" and \"traitorous\" are harsh in composition, and there is a case where such may be applicable to the matter at hand, justifiable and without offense, I offer for your consideration whether the middle part of the oath and subscription is true.\n\nFor the first part, we have a broad assertion roundly sworn. The oath and subscription do not only state that it is not lawful to take up arms against the king or on any pretense, but on any pretense whatsoever. The grammatical literal construction of that word implies no less than that this proposition must be held without restraint or limitation. Among the most eminent authors who have written for the power of princes and established it against resistance on this subject, I suppose there are few or none more valued than Barclay, Grotius, and Arnisaeus.\nAnd we shall find that they all have their restrictions or exceptions in upholding this tenet. How can anyone be over-eager here to punish the refuser, when upon examination, the reason why he refuses may be found to be only because he has read more than some others who submit. I begin with Barclay, that is, William Barclay, a Scot and Counselor to the King of France, who writes against Buchanan and other Monarchomachists, as he calls them. This learned man endeavors to make his prince above the whole people, thus enabling him to never be subjected to arms. Nevertheless, when he comes to present some pressing cases, he sets these limits: What then? Can there be no cases wherein it is lawful for the people to take arms against the king by right? None certainly so long as he remains a king.\nThere are cases in which a king relinquishes his person or dominion; that is, he renounces the person of a king. He specifically mentions two such instances: if he intends to alienate his kingdom, or overthrow the commonwealth (1 Henry IV, 16). I do not endorse this doctrine. The Papists hold the same view in another case: we may not fight against our king, but if the pope excommunicates him, he is no king for them. Let us turn to Grotius, and first quote him in his judgment of Barclay, lest you think I am mistaken. Barclay, though the most staunch defender of royal government, concedes that the people, or the most prominent part of them, have a right to defend themselves against intolerable oppression.\nFor himself, after asserting the tenet that higher powers cannot lawfully be resisted, he comes to warn the reader not to think that those who do not transgress are violating this law in the following seven cases, as argued from Scripture, Antiquity, Authority, and Example. He has written three learned books on politics: De Jure Majestatis, De Doctrina Politica, and De Authortas Principum in Populum semper inviolabili; or, Quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum Principem arma sumere. The authority of princes over the people ought to be inviolable: or, it is unlawful for subjects to take up arms against their lawful prince. In this state, he goes on to distinguish between Rex and Tyrannus, a King and a Tyrant, a Tyrant in title and in practice.\nAnd Tyrannus, in Exercitio, counts those who are to be expelled from the law, even if hereditary. The Republic is delivered to the Prince for him to rule, for the common safety. If he departs entirely from this, he falls even from the power itself, which was committed to him only for this end. With such testimonies, I would convince those who compiled these declarations to be subscribed or sworn, with some reluctance, that when the sense and meaning of them are not objectionable to us, they should still be composed in such terms as to be subject to such a grand exception.\n\nFor the form of the words, I, A.B., swear that it is not lawful, and so on.\nAn oath should be to a matter of fact, and cannot be taken to anything uncertain. It is not according to judgment to require men to swear to the truth of a doctrinal proposition, as no man is infallible. When there is such an error in the composition as the lack of the words \"I believe,\" I swear that I hold this belief: it is not lawful, and so. A material exception, such as the judgment of the most learned opposing the substance of the first part of this oath, which yet commonly goes unchallenged, I humbly offer for consideration: how can this oath be taken in truth, judgment, and righteousness? An oath must be taken in truth, judgment, and righteousness.\nThe first part is not according to Judgment; the second is not according to Truth; the third is not according to Righteousness. I move on to the Subscription. This has two parts. The first is the Meaning of the Oath, of which I shall add no more, except that when the matter of the one and the other in the former part is such as forms the foundation of Politics in general and the Laws and State of our Land in particular (a kingdom regulated by Laws, as Sir Thomas Smith has it: Rex sub Deo & sub Lege, The King is under God and the Law, says Hooker and Bracton), requiring the skill of the greatest Judges, Sergeants, and Sages of the Law to determine the cases included in it, every poor simple Minister is put to decide the same for himself, and to have the evidence therein, as to be able to take his Oath or give his hand to the certainty of it.\nThe other part of the Subscription concerns the Covenant, where the words \"[nor any other]\" are such a barrier, that, as to the Consciences of all not thoroughly Episcopal, is unpassable. It is nothing to me to subscribe, there lies no obligation on me from the Covenant to endeavor any alteration of Government, because I never took it, it was against my Conscience, and I can conceive for others in a private capacity what have they to do with Government? No Oath can bind to sedition and disobedience. But as for such who are in a public capacity and can act lawfully toward Reformation in their place: What shall I say to those? One way there is indeed, which will exclude all, and that is, to hold the present Government established to be Jure Divino altogether, so that any alteration is sin.\nHe that holds this position can affirm clearly that a man's oath to alter the government binds him not, regardless of his capacity. The least alteration is unlawful, and he must therefore repent and not perform it. But if a man holds that the Presbyterian government is of divine right, or that neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian is of divine right, or that Episcopal government is good, yet ours is not altogether so, and something may be altered for the better \u2013 I would like to know how such a man can absolve one in a public capacity (as a parliament man), from his endeavoring to do so, according to the right time and prudence, if he has sworn beforehand to do so. It is in vain to hide where the water clings. Some cannot tell how to absolve one another for their lives. I do not say there lies an obligation on any to do as they have sworn, for fear it be dangerous; and I dare not say there lies none, because I fear God.\nBut this I may say, I desire to be instructed. It is hard to say that no obligation exists upon others, whether it does or not, and as long as he comes up in sense and meaning to give satisfaction, he may be left to use his own expressions. In conclusion, many have sensed that the Papists were borrowing a help for their hatchet from the Fanatics' wood, and if they obtained their purpose, it is not hard to conjecture which trees were likely to come down one after another. If it pleases Parliament, now proceed with vigor to establish by law the moderate and sober Protestants in our parish congregations to outweigh both extremes.\nAnd if those who preach the Gospel could be persuaded to practice the great duty of it, self-denial, in the matter of Pluralities, to make Comprehension significant, I know of nothing more desirable for the prosperity of the English Church and Nation. Provided neither of these parties, their enemies, are exalted or new-spirited by Persecution for their Consciences. Second thoughts counsel us more prudently and moderately; and more prudently, because more moderately.\n\nFINIS.", "creation_year": 1704, "creation_year_earliest": 1704, "creation_year_latest": 1704, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "The author of that paper may have better understood and responded to his reasons against reducing interest from six to four, had he read the letter against usury from Sir Thomas Culpeper, written seventy years prior when interest was reduced from ten to eight. However, since he either did not read the letter or was not satisfied with the answers, it is not a greater waste of time to address his reasons.\n\nHis first reason against reducing interest from six to four is that it will obstruct and hinder trade, as many traders borrow money at interest to conduct their business. He assumes that no one would lend money to tradesmen on personal security, but rather keep their money for a better advantage.\n\nHowever, the reason why a man should keep his money and expect a better advantage is:\nWhen the Law reduces interest to 4% more than the current 6%, a man does not lend. Why should anyone keep their money locked up instead of earning 4%, an interest that is not contemptible and exceeds what land produces? What greater advantage can anyone expect, other than investing in trade? This would rather promote trade than obstruct or hinder it. Sir Thomas Culpeper and others who have written on this subject use this argument for lowering interest, as it promotes and increases trade. This is evident in countries such as Holland and Italy, where interest is at 3%, and trade flourishes. Conversely, in Spain and other places where interest is at 10% and 12%, the people are poor and have little trade.\n\nHis second argument is that reducing interest to 4% would decrease the real value of the principal one-third. Therefore, every man whose estate is in money would, by such a law, experience a decrease in value.\nA third part of it he believes to be as great a hardship, taking away a third part of every man's land and inheritance. But this is a great mistake; for the lowering of interest a third will not lessen the value of the principal. For a 100 pounds will buy as much goods, and of some sorts more, after such a law is made as it will now. It will buy as much corn, wool, cloth, and all things else, except land. It is true, a 100 pounds will not buy so much land by one third as it did before. For 5 pounds a year in land of inheritance being now worth 100 pounds will then be worth 150 pounds. And there is the greatest reason and justice that it should be so; for then the exchange will be even between land, money, or goods. For why should any man give 6 percent for money or goods, when the land will bring in but four? Why should a gentleman pay 2 percent more for all the goods he buys from the merchant, that is, for cloth, silks, linen.\nThe merchant pays more than he receives for his wool and corn. Gentlemen pay interest on the money they borrow, which is used to purchase goods for their use. Money functions as the rent for wrought stock, similar to how corn and wool function as rent for the land. It is remarkable that, despite the nobility and gentry holding the greatest share in the legislative power, they have not previously considered this significant disparity in the exchange and enacted a law to address the imbalance. This would have prevented many large farms and noble manors from being consumed by tailors, merchants, and other traders.\n\nHis third argument is that reducing interest would disadvantage widows, orphans, and others whose entire estates consist of money. The interest on their portions or monies would no longer be sufficient to support them. Those with an annual income of sixty pounds for every thousand pounds.\nThis is the only significant objection raised against this law: the issue of orphans having only forty shillings. However, upon closer examination, this objection holds little weight. Firstly, the number of orphans is insignificant compared to the entire population. Secondly, the value of their monetary portions is equivalent, allowing them to purchase the same items, except for land. Their parents did not intend to give them land, so the income from their portions is merely reduced, a situation that only lasts until young men establish their trades or until maidens or widows marry. Thrift and good housekeeping will not harm them.\n\nHowever, this is not the case, as the lowering of interest primarily affects foreign stock or goods.\nAnd the merchant may afford to sell his goods two percent cheaper and still make the same profit as when money was at six percent. Three parts in four of every gentleman's expenses are in foreign wares, such as wine, spices, silks, linen, and other manufactures. With a two percent savings on these goods, they can maintain themselves almost as well with \u20a440 a year as they do now with \u20a460.\n\nFourthly, if interest is reduced to four percent, a greater part of gentlemen's estates that have daughters will be lessened and more encumbered, because he assumes the value of the principal money being sunk, they must give greater portions. However, this is based on a mistake that has already been answered; a Thousand Pounds will still be valued by a trader as much as it is now, and every gentleman will be better able to provide portions for his younger children.\nIf his land yields a third part more in value, the gentleman's estate in lands of inheritance will be less encumbered than before. Fifthly, if interest is reduced to four percent, it will make money scarce, as he believes, and be only advantageous to scriveners who will have more for procuration and continuation. If this should happen, though there is no reason for it, yet the borrower may afford to give more to the scrivener; when he pays less to the usurer. But why should anyone believe money should be scarce, when such a law does not lessen the money, though it does the interest. The contrary is most true; the lowering of interest will make money more plentiful; for a low interest increases trade, and trade increases money; for bullion is a foreign commodity and brought in by trade. The last argument is, that the lowering of interest will not raise the rent of the land; and although, as he confesses, it will raise the value of land in sale.\nThe value of money being lessened by such a law will necessitate greater portions for younger children. However, this is a greater mistake than all the others. The rent of the land will be raised, along with the price. The interest of the stock must be reckoned to make up the rent of the land. Therefore, the taking of two percent from the stock, added to the rent of the land, raises the rent of the land by that amount. A farm now worth fifty pounds annually, requiring three hundred pounds in stock, will be worth fifty-six pounds annually when interest is reduced to four percent, with six pounds a year taken from the stock and added to the rent.\n\nIn conclusion, no law can be of greater advantage to the nation.\nThis text appears to be in old English, but it is relatively clear and does not contain any unreadable or meaningless content. No translation is necessary. No OCR errors are apparent. The text is a statement about a proposed law to reduce interest rates from 6% to 4%, and the expectation that this law will be well-received by the public as compensation for taxes and impositions.\n\nCleaned Text: The proposed law to reduce interest from six to four per cent will produce the most general good with the least private disadvantage. It was believed that this law was designed by the present Parliament as a means of compensation for the necessary taxes and heavy impositions. Since the advantages of this law have been debated throughout the nation, there seems to be no law more welcome or one that can make the people a greater satisfaction for such great taxes. FIN.", "creation_year": 1704, "creation_year_earliest": 1694, "creation_year_latest": 1714, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"},
{"content": "It is proposed that all neat, calf, and slink hides; sheep and lamb skins in the raw be appropriated for the use of the government.\n\nThe following shows which hides and skins will raise the above sum:\n\n1. In this kingdom, there were computed 117,5951 houses, which paid to the chimney-money (besides alms-houses and poor, which were excepted). Compute but one beef to be eaten in one year in half of these houses, and the hides of which are sold from 5s to 20s, but at 8s per hide they produce:\nEight sheep and eight lambs to be eaten in each of half the houses in one year. The skins of these sheep and lambs, at 12d per skin, produce:\n\n2. Three calves to be eaten in each of the remaining houses in one year. The hides of which, at 12d per hide, produce:\n\nTwo lambs to be eaten in each of the remaining houses in one year. The skins of which, at 4d per skin, produce:\nThe total for the beef killed for sea-service and consumed by sea-men and foreigners in harbor, as well as that used for provisioning their near and foreign voyages, amounts to one eighth part of the above total. This does not include hides and skins from the cattle that can be dyed. The methods for managing this, ensuring government safety and subject ease, are clear, and all objections can be fully answered, though too lengthy to include here.\nA gentleman paying \u20a4800 per year for the 2s. in the pound Land Tax should have paid \u20a480, but instead pays only for his consumption of Beef, Mutton, Veal, and Lamb, which together account for less than one eighth of his total expenses. Therefore, instead of paying \u20a4800, he pays only \u20a4100 (and not even that if his entire expenditure is not met), and instead of paying \u20a480 per annum for this tax, he pays only \u20a410. By limiting the government's sale of hides and skins to a set price, the leather manufacturing industry will be made more accessible, and significant savings will be made in the year on leather harnesses and other leather wearables.\n2d, It cannot fall on land, for the butcher will give the same price to the breeder and grazier, and be content with the same profit then as now, as the consumer pays. A farthing per pound advance on the carcass will make up for the loss of the hide and skin for the butcher, and the number of butchers will oblige them to sell at a reasonable profit, as their trade is hazardous.\n\n3d, The number of tanners and their dependence on their trade will induce them to buy at a reasonable price. This reduction in uncertainty due to the duty will be a great encouragement to them, as more will be exported than before.\n\n4th, A great sum will come in weekly, and the entire year's revenue will be answered into the Exchequer a few days after the year expires, resulting in significant interest savings.\nFifth, collecting it will be less expensive than other duties due to its resistance to frauds and concealments. Sixth, it will be the most equal tax as traders and foreigners will pay proportionally to their expenditures. It is presumed, the amount from the number of animals killed and the value of hides and skins will amount to a significant sum above what is stated.\n\nAn Essay\nRaising over Six Hundred Thousand Pounds Annually through an Equal and Easy Tax.", "creation_year": 1704, "creation_year_earliest": 1696, "creation_year_latest": 1711, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"}
]