The frugal habits of the former age were not entirely lost in that;which,I presume,may be reckoned as one cause of the noble stands that were then made by our Parliaments in opposition to the court.But not to ascribe more honour than is due,perhaps,to our fathers,the revenue of the crown was,at that time,so small (I speak comparatively;for,in every other respect,it was very ample)and the profusion of that prince on his pleasures was so great,that no minister of King Charles the Second could find sums sufficient to buy a Parliament.He stood therefore on his prerogative,strained it as far as he durst,and made all the use of it he could.The revenue of the crown was greatly increased in the reign of King James the Second,and was given most unwisely for life.
I say,most unwisely;for as a prince who hath an heart and head to govern well,cannot stand in need of such a grant;so a prince who hath neither,does not deserve it:and therefore,whatever the generosity of our countrymen to their princes may carry them to do at any time,they might leave this undone at all times,without any reflection on their prudence,or even their generosity.The reign of King James was short;and during this short reign he rested on that prerogative,which he knew was a cheaper expedient than corruption,and which he vainly flattered himself was enough confirmed to support the measures he took,for subverting the religion,the laws,and the liberty of Britain.Thus were men brought,by the conduct of these two princes,to fix their eyes on prerogative,as the sole instrument of tyranny,and to forget that corruption had been employed,though unsuccessfully,by King Charles,and might have been employed with greater force,and perhaps more success,by King James.
The cry of the nation was for a free Parliament,and no man seemed to doubt,in that ferment,but that a Parliament must be free,when the influence which the crown had usurped in the precedent reigns over the elections,was removed,as it was by the Revolution.But this general inadvertency,as well as the particular neglect of those who took the lead in national affairs at that time,is the more surprising,because corruption having been so lately employed,among other means,to render Parliaments dependent on the crown,the danger of corruption was,by consequence,one of those dangers against which the nation had a right to be secured,as well as a promise of being so,according to the terms of the Prince of Orange's declaration.Those persons especially,who had exclaimed so loudly against place-men and pensioners,in the reign of King Charles,and who complained,at this instant,so bitterly of the undue influence that had been employed,in small boroughs chiefly,to promote the elections of the Parliament which sat in the reign of King James,ought to have been attentive,one would think,to take the glorious opportunity that was furnished them by a new settlement of the crown,and of the constitution,to secure the independency of Parliaments effectually for the future.
Machiavel observes,and makes it the title of one of his discourses,that 'a free government,in order to maintain itself free,hath need,every day,of some new provisions in favour of liberty'.The truth of this observation,and the reasons that support it,are obvious.But as every day may not furnish opportunities of making some of those new and necessary provisions,no day that does furnish the opportunity ought to be neglected.The Romans had been so liberal in bestowing the right of citizens on strangers,that the power of their elections began to fall into such hands as the constitution had not intended to trust with them.Quintus Fabius saw the growing evil;and being censor,he took the opportunity.confined all these new elections into four tribes;put it out of their power to turn the elections,as they had done,whilst their numbers were divided among all the tribes;freed his country from this danger;restored the constitution,according to the true intent and meaning of it;and obtained,by universal suffrage,the title of Maximus.
If a spirit like this had prevailed among us,at the time we speak of,something like this would have been done:and surely something like it ought to have been done;for the Revolution was,in many instances,and it ought to have been so in all,one of those it had renewals of our constitution that we have often mentioned.If been such,with respect to the elections of members to serve in Parliament,these elections might have been drawn back to the ancient principle on which they had been established;and the rule of property,which was followed anciently,and was perverted by innumerable changes that length of time produced,might have been restored;by which the communities to whom the right of electing was trusted,as well as the qualifications of the electors and the elected,might have been settled in proportion to the present state of things.Such a remedy might have wrought a radical cure of the evil that threatens our constitution;whereas it is much to be apprehended,even from experience,that all others are merely palliative;and yet the palliative must be employed,no doubt,till the specific can be procured.
