Sir,I advanced,in the first of these essays,something to this effect;that every clumsy,busy,bungling child of fortune,on whom she bestows the means and the opportunity of corrupting,may govern by this infamous expedient;and,having gratified his ambition and avarice,may have a chance to secure himself from punishment,by destroying the liberties of his country.
It was advanced likewise,in the same paper,that every character is not equally fit to govern a people,by dividing them;because some cunning,some experience,nay,some skill to form,and some address to conduct a system of fraud,are necessary in this case.I persuade myself that no man,who read that paper,was at a loss to find an instance to confirm the truth of the first of these propositions;and we have now before us another,which may serve to confirm the truth of the second.Though I do not think the designs of King Charles the Second either deeply laid,or deeply fixed in his own mind;yet in general they were founded on bad principles,and directed to bad ends.He desired indeed to be easy,and to make his people so;but then he desired both these on such conditions,as were inconsistent with good government,during the whole course of his reign;and with the security of religion and liberty,during the latter part of it.We have seen how the intemperate conduct of many,and the flagitious designs of some among the Whigs,weakened their own party,and gave new strength and new provocations to the other.But we have not yet considered some other advantages,without which these divisions could neither have been fomented,nor supported as they were.Now these advantages arose chiefly from the character and conduct of the King himself.If King Charles had found the nation plunged in corruption;the people choosing their representatives for money,without any other regard;and these representatives of the people,as well as the nobility,reduced by luxury to beg the unhallowed alms of a court;or to receive,like miserable hirelings,the wages of iniquity from a minister:if he had found the nation,I say,in this condition (which extravagant supposition one cannot make without horror)he might have dishonoured her abroad,and impoverished and oppressed her at home,though he had been the weakest prince on earth,and his ministers the most odious and contemptible men that ever presumed to be ambitious.
Our fathers might have fallen into circumstances,which compose the very quintessence of political misery.They might have sold their birth-right for porridge,which was their own.They might have been bubbled by the foolish,bullied by the fearful,and insulted by those whom they despised.They would have deserved to be slaves,and they might have been treated as such.When a free people crouch,like camels,to be loaded,the next at hand,no matter who,mounts them,and they soon feel the whip,and the spur of their tyrant;for a tyrant,whether prince or minister,resembles the devil in many respects,particularly in this.He is often both the tempter and tormentor.He makes the criminal,and he punishes the crime.
