1

But though all kinds of government be improved in modern times, yet monarchical government feems to have made the greatest advances towards perfection. It may now be affirmed of civilized monarchies, what was formerly faid in praise of republics alone, that they are a government of Laws, not of Men. They are found fufceptible of order, method, and conftancy, to a furprizing degree. Property is there fecure; induftry encouraged; the arts flourish; and the prince lives fecure among his fubjects, like a father among his children. There are, perhaps, and have been for two centuries, near two hundred abfolute princes, great and fmall, in EUROPE; and allowing twenty years to each reign, we may fuppofe, that there have been in the whole two thousand monarchs or tyrants, as the GREEKS would have called them: Yet of these there has not been one, not even PHILIP II. of SPAIN, fo bad as TIBERIUS, CALIGULA, NERO, or DOMITIAN, who were four in twelve amongst the ROMAN emperors. It must, however, be confeffed, that, though monarchical governments have approached nearer to popular ones, in gentlenefs and stability; they are ftill inferior. Our modern education and customs inftil more humanity and moderation than the ancient; but have not as yet been able to overcome entirely the disadvantages of that form of government.

But here I must beg leave to advance a conjecture, which feems probable, but which pofterity alone can fully judge of. I am apt to think, that, in monarchical governments there is a fource of improvement, and in popular governments a fource of degeneracy, which in time will bring thefe fpecies of civil polity ftill nearer an equality. The greatest abuses, which arife in FRANCE, the most perfect model of pure monarchy, proceed not

1

from

from the number or weight of the taxes, beyond what are to be met with in free countries; but from the expenfive, unequal, arbitrary, and intricate method of levying them, by which the industry of the poor, especially of the peasants and farmers, is, in a great meafure, difcouraged, and agriculture rendered a beggarly and flavish employment. But to whofe advantage do thefe abuses tend? If to that of the nobility, they might be esteemed inherent in that form of government; fince the nobility are the true fupports of monarchy; and it is natural their intereft should be more confulted, in such a conftitution, than that of the people. But the nobility are, in reality, the principal lofers by this oppreffion; fince it ruins their eftates, and beggars their tenants. The only gainers by it are the Financiers, a race of men rather odious to the nobility and the whole kingdom. If a prince or minifter, therefore, fhould arife, endowed with fufficient difcernment to know his own and the public intereft, and with fufficient force of mind to break through ancient cuftoms, we might expect to fee these abufes remedied; in which cafe, the difference between. that abfolute government and our free one, would not appear fo confiderable as at prefent.

The fource of degeneracy, which may be remarked in free governments, confifts in the practice of contracting debt, and mortgaging the public revenues, by which taxes may, in time, become altogether intolerable, and all the property of the state be brought into the hands of the public. This practice is of modern date. The ATHENIANS, though governed by a republic, paid near two hundred per Cent. for those fums of money, which any emergence made it neceffary for them to borrow;

as

as we learn from XENOPHON *. Among the moderns, the DUTCH first introduced the practice of borrowing great fums at low intereft, and have well nigh ruined themselves by it. Abfolute princes have alfo contracted debt; but as an abfolute prince may make a bankruptcy when he pleases, his people can never be oppreffed by his debts. In popular governments, the people, and chiefly those who have the higheft offices, being commonly the public creditors, it is difficult for the ftate to make use of this remedy, which, however it may be sometimes neceffary, is always cruel and barbarous. This, there

fore, feems to be an inconvenience, which nearly threa tens all free governments; especially our own, at the present juncture of affairs. And what a strong motive is this, to encrease our frugality of public money; left, for want of it, we be reduced, by the multiplicity of taxes, or what is worse, by our public impotence and inability for defence, to curfe our very liberty, and wish ourselves in the fame state of fervitude with all the nations that furround us?

* Κτῆσιν δὲ ἀπ ̓ ἐδενὸς ἂν ἔτω καλὴν κτήσαιντο ὥσπερ ἀφ ἔ ἀνπροελέσωσιν εἰς τὴν ἀφορμὴν οἱ δέ γε πλέιςοι Αθηναίων πλέιονα λήψονται κατ ̓ ἑνιαυτὸν ἢ ὅσα ὃν εἰσενέγκοσιν, οἱ γὰς μνᾶν προελέσαντες, ἐγγὺς δυοῖν μναῖν πρόσοδον ἐξασι ὁ δόκει τῶν ἀνθροπίνων ἀσφαλέσατὸν τε καὶ πολυχρονιώτατον είναι.

ΠΟΡΟΙ,

EEN.

ESSAY

XII.

THO

Of ELOQUENCE.

HOSE, who confider the periods and revolutions human kind, as reprefented in history, are entertained with a fpectacle full of pleasure and variety, and fee, with furprize, the manners, cuftoms, and opinions of the fame fpecies fufceptible of such prodigious changes in different periods of time. It may, however, be obferved, that, in civil hiftory, there is found a much greater uniformity than in the hiftory of learning and fcience, and that the wars, negociations, and politics of one age resemble more those of another, than the tafte, wit, and fpeculative principles. Intereft and ambition, honour and shame, friendship and enmity, gratitude and revenge, are the prime movers in all public tranfactions; and these paffions are of a very ftubborn and intractable nature, in comparison of the fentiments and understanding, which are easily varied by education and example. The GOTHS were much more inferior to the ROMANS, in tafte and science, than in courage and virtue.

But not to compare together nations fo widely different; it may be observed, that even this later period of human learning is, in many refpects, of an oppofite character to the ancient; and that if we be fuperior in

philosophy, we are still, notwithstanding all our refinements, much inferior in eloquence.

In ancient times, no work of genius was thought to require fo great parts and capacity, as the speaking in public; and fome eminent writers have pronounced the talents, even of a great poet or philofopher, to be of an inferior nature to those which are requifite for such an undertaking. GREECE and ROME produced, each of them, but one accomplished orator; and whatever. praises the other celebrated speakers might merit, they were ftill efteemed much inferior to these great models of eloquence. It is obfervable, that the ancient critics could scarcely find two orators in any age, who deserved to be placed precisely in the fame rank, and poffeffed the fame degree of merit. CALVUS, CALIUS, CURIO, HORTENSIUS, CESAR rofe one above another: But the greatest of that age was inferior to CICERO, the most eloquent speaker, that had ever appeared in ROME. Those of fine tafte, however, pronounced this judgment of the ROMAN orator, as well as of the GRECIAN, that both of them furpaffed in eloquence all that had ever appeared, but that they were far from reaching the perfection of their art, which was infinite, and not only exceeded human force to attain, but human imagination to conceive. CICERO declares himself diffatisfied with his own performances; nay, even with thofe of DEMOSTHENES. Ita funt avide & capaces meæ aures, fays he, & femper aliquid immenfum, infinitumque defiderant.

Of all the polite and learned nations, BRITAIN alone poffeffes a popular government, or admits into the legiflature fuch numerous affemblies as can be fuppofed to lie under the dominion of eloquence. But what has BRITAIN to boaft of in this particular? In enumerating

the