is

principals, which in reality is the reason why their power not to be apprehended in opposition to that of the Commons: whereas, were they only representatives of a body immensely rich and numerous, they would, beside their own personal property, have such a support as would make them truly formidable. The whole Commons of England are the principals on one side, as the Lords are the principals on the other; and which of these principals are armed with most power and property?

To consider, in the next place, those junctures that can possibly give them an occasion of exerting their power. It is on both sides supposed to be in such cases as will affect the rights of the English commonalty, in which case every commoner of England is as much concerned as any of their representatives. Thus, if four London citizens, to make the case exactly parallel, were deputed to maintain the rights of their principals, as citizens, who can imagine that they would not be supported by the whole power and property of the city, and not be too hard for any two or three great men, who had ten times their personal estates? Now as the Plebeian's supposition reduces things to the last extremity, it can only take place in a rupture, which is never likely to happen. And in that case, as these two great bodies must act separately, there is no room for considering how far the concurrence of the House of Lords is necessary in a moneybill, which entirely takes away the author's reasoning in page 321.

But matters of fact are the best arguments. We both agree that power arises out of property; and the author himself has given an instance of the power of the House of Commons, in having been able to effect the ruin of the Monarchy and Peerage. Whence had the Commons this power, but from being supported by their principals ?

The Plebeian thinks he strengthens his point, by adding that the Lords are a fixed body. To this I might reply, that the principals of the House of Commons are as fixed a body as the Lords; and therefore, however their representatives may vary, they will continue intent, from age to age, to assert and vindicate their peculiar rights and privileges, unless we can believe that any body of men will act against those two strong motives of self-interest and self-preservation. I might further venture to say, that men of the greatest

wealth and weight in the House of Commons are almost as sure of a seat there, as if it came to them by inheritance. But supposing the House of Lords never so much fixed, and so manageable by two or three great men, (for which very reason, additions are very often made to them, which the alteration would prevent,) we have seen that their united power, if their number is limited, can never be a match for that of the House of Commons, supposing still such a rupture as the Plebeian all along imagines, in which each body is to act separately for itself.

The author, in the remaining part of his pamphlet, appears like every writer that is driven out of all his holds. He endeavours to set the Crown, and the whole body of Peers, upon his adversary; accuses him in effect of Scandalum Magnatum; nay, and gives very broad intimations that he ought to be indicted for high-treason.

I should not have given myself, or the public, all this trouble, had I not been so peremptorily called to it by the last Plebeian. I do assure him, my silence hitherto was not the effect of old age, as it has made me slow, but to tell him the truth, as it has made me a little testy, and consequently impatient of contradiction, when I find myself in the right. I must own, however, that the writer of the Plebeian has made the most of a weak cause, and do believe that a good one would shine in his hands; for which reason, I shall advise him, as a friend, if he goes on in his new vocation, to take care that he be as happy in the choice of his subject, as he is in the talents of a pamphleteer.

The author of a pamphlet, intituled, "Six Questions, stated and answered, upon which the whole force of the arguments for and against the Peerage Bill depends, printed for J. Roberts, 1719, 8vo," sets out thus: "It is my opinion that much darkness and perplexity have been introduced into the question now in agitation, by words and things, very foreign to a matter which touches only the peculiar constitution of government, in which we of this nation are concerned. If we strip the debate of such words as Patrician and Plebeian, which do not at all answer to Lords and Commons joined with a King in all acts of legislation: if we leave off talking of the nature of aristocracies and democracies, which only amuse and distract the mind of the inquirer: if we take out of the question all allusions to the Ephori of the Lacedæmonians, as distant in their condition from the state of our Peers as in the situation of their country; all stories of the nobles of Denmark, or of the power of our barons in times of old, which has no relation to the power of the Peers of Great Britain, in the condition in which this bill leaves them, surrounded

with a world of rich and free commoners: I say, if these and the like words and things be quite removed, and the consideration of men confined to a few points which ought, and which must, determine the equity or iniquity, the wisdom or weakness, of the scheme now before the parliament, we might hope that gentlemen might, on both sides, be more clear, and less perplexed in their sentiments, than they yet seem to be."

THE PLEBEIAN.

No. 4. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1719.

CONSIDERATIONS UPON THE REPORTS ABOUT THE PEERAGE, CONTINUED ; IN PARTICULAR, WITH RELATION ΤΟ THE SCOTS NOBILITY. WITH REMARKS ON THE PATRICIAN, NO. II. AND THE OLD WHIG, NO. II. BY A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

-Quorum melior sententia menti.

-Pelago Danaum insidias, suspectaque dona
Præcipitare jubent.

-The rest, of sounder mind,

VIRG. EN. ii. 35.

The fatal present to the flames designed,

Or to the watery deep.

DRYDEN.

THE Plebeian has been obliged to object to the Old Whig, one of the infirmities of age, viz. slowness; and he must now take notice of another, though he does it with great reluctance, that is, want of memory; for the old gentleman seems to have forgot, that at his first appearance he promised the public a particular Treatise on the subject of the Peerage, as it relates to Scotland, p. 304.

There is at present very little probability that he will be so good as his word, and therefore I shall not delay any longer publishing something that is come to my hands on that head, which in my opinion may be of use in this controversy. Indeed, I am informed, that it has already been produced in a weekly pamphlet, which very few people, I fear, ever read, called The Honest Gentleman; and therefore I hope at least to be excused in making it more public, and in using this worthy person as an ally in this quarrel, since I have so strong a confederacy against me. What I am speaking of, is a Letter from a Nobleman of Scotland to a Gen

tleman of England. When I mention a Scottish nobleman, I would not have it understood to be one of the elect, but one of the outcasts; and as the case of those unfortunate persons will be, if possible, more abject and deplorable than that of the Commons of England, it is not strange that the Plebeian should endeavour to do them what service he can.

"SIR,

THE LETTER IS AS FOLLOWS.

If the pleasure of doing good be indeed its own reward, you will easily excuse the trouble of this letter. Nothing is so talkative as misfortune: but they surely may be allowed to speak for themselves, who, as they find to their great surprise, have none to speak for them.

"I was born a Peer of Scotland, formerly a character of some importance, but at present (I am afraid) degenerating into so little significancy, that perhaps this is the last time there will be any reputation to me in owning it.

Every one that is acquainted with our history sees very well how much we gained, and what we lost, by the Union. We lost our senate and our senators; we lost the service of many of our great men, and they seem to have lost -I know not what. But yet it might be remembered by your free and generous nation, that when we resigned ourselves to that Union, we intended at least to have retained the rights of men and subjects, without the least suspicion of any encroachments upon us, which you have ever so bravely rejected from yourselves. And even at this Union, there were some articles agreed to, which seem to make for our country, and which it would be very proper for the party in the present design to consult; and if after that they can deliberately give us up, they merit all the reproaches that the injuries of a betrayed, ruined people can extort from them. We justly call ourselves a ruined people: for if at present we are anything short of it, what may we not expect from those, if any such there are, who shall dare to assume a power which we never gave them; and that not to be used for our advantage, but to the injury of the nation they represent, and the Peerage of which they are part? It is certain, a principle that can at any time prevail above the love of one's country, may engage them at some time or other in any designs, to the very extinction ›f it.

"Next to the pleasure that flows from the conscious innocence of an honest heart and a good meaning, the art of disguising and palliating a bad one gives the greatest, though the falsest satisfaction. Thus I have heard it has been alleged by some who have been too advantageously engaged on one side of the question, that there is a very ingenious distinction to be made between absolutely violating such and such articles, and a commodious deviation from them, for certain reasons; though a plain man would not immediately find out the real difference.

"I have read in very old books, that justice was once the end of power, and that the great were such as were meritorious and useful. But if this bill should pass, it would seem that those errors are to be exploded by this bill; and yet many of the most ancient families among us believe, that they and their descendants are thereby to be made unhappy and uneasy to themselves, and useless to their country. They think the title of a Lord is the most insignificant part of his character; but when it is worn to adorn the merit and services of a truly great man, it exposes virtue in the most amiable light to universal emulation.-How irksome will it be to many a great spirit to be thought a mere Lord, to reflect on the worth of his great ancestors, and to inherit only their title; to have every talent of being useful, but the power; to hear his fathers called good, and great, and wise, and himself his Lordship!-May we not expect that if great men should find themselves thus managed out of their birthrights, they will not easily resign themselves to a life of indolence and supineness, but still hope that some occasion or other may court them to action elsewhere? God forbid it should be against that country which shall have so injuriously rendered them supernumerary to its happiness, and which would then, perhaps too late, find them fatal to it.

"In such case they will, no doubt, pretend in their justification, that by having been thus divested of their birthright, in representing themselves, or the right at least of electing their representatives, that they apprehended they were implicitly disclaimed by the government, and reduced to the condition of outlaws, and thereby discharged from the obligations and laws of society.

"But as the injuries, which we fear may be done us by this bill, do not so nearly affect you, I might give several rea