A REVIEW OF The RECTOR Detected: OR THE COLONEL Reconnoitred.


Sat cito, si sat bene.


[Page 3]


AT length the Storm which was a-brewing is arrived; and I had Reason to expect it with Apprehension and Terrour, for a bitter Blast it is. Notwithstanding the Desire I expressed that the Dis­pute between the Colonels and me might be confined within the Compass limited by the Merits of the Cause, I perceive my Soothings and Threaten­ings were equally vain, and the Controversy between us must still be not only political, but also logical, critical, personal, sarcastical, and parasitical. That I may keep up some Appearance of that Method which the Colonel's exuberant Genius disdains to be cramped with, and blames me both for using and not using, I shall divide what I have to say into Sections, or Chapters.

CHAPTER I. Of the argumentative Part of the RECTOR DETECTED.

That those who think it worth while to compare what I charge upon the Rector Detected with the Piece itself may have an easier Opportunity of doing this, I shall proceed Page by Page, marking them down as I go along.

[Page 4]

PAGE 5th.

The Colonel undertakes, what it seems he has performed already, to make it appear that the "Twopenny Act is calculated for a very general and good Purpose to the whole Community." Should he not have excepted Landlords, Merchants, Parsons, Clerks, Sextons, poor People maintained by the Parish, white Servants, and black Slaves, or have banished all these out of the Community before he entered upon such an Undertaking? For what very general and good Purpose could it answer to the Landlord to have his Rents made liable to be disposed of by any Body but himself; to the Merchant to be deprived of the Benefit of his advantageous Bargains, and obliged to stand to the Detriment of such as turn out unfavourably; to the Parson to be stripped of two Thirds of his Salary for one Year, and have the Whole rendered precarious for ever; to the rest to be either damaged, or no Way benefited, by the Act? Whom then does the Colonel call the whole Community? No; the Act was profitable to Particulars; but it was a general Evil, by introducing or confirming despotick Notions, by erecting an arbitrary Power over private Property. Had it been more cautiously managed, and with less Injustice to Particulars, that would not have been sufficient to excuse the late Assembly for assuming a Power to dispose ad libitum of private Property, not for the Sake of publick Uses, but purely for the Sake of taking it out of some private Hands, and lodging it in others less obnoxious.

PAGE 8th.

Having agreed that the Burthen of maintaining the Poor ought to lie upon the whole Parish, not that the Relief of Sufferers by Accidents ought to be raised by a voluntary Contribution, out of the publick Revenue, or by a general Tax, but leaving this Kind of Burthens to be sustained by the Merchants and the Clergy, he says upon my first Remark it is not just that poor Slaves, white Servants, &c. should come in for any Share of the Benefit by the Act, because they are all excused from paying Tithes as it is called, because the Act was calculated for the Relief of those only who pay towards the Maintenance of the Minister; and if the Act had been made otherwise, it would have been a different Thing from what it is at present: It would have been extended beyond what I set down as its certain good Purposes. I agree with the Colonel that the Act was calculated, so far as [Page 5]it relates to the Clergy, for the Relief only of those who pay towards the Main­tenance of the Minister; that is, unless the Poor are obliged by Law to pay more than the Rich, it was calculated for the Relief of the Rich abundantly more than for the Relief of the Poor, without any Reference to Gainers or Sufferers by Means of a short Crop, and not at all for the Benefit of the Bulk of the Poor, composed of Slaves, white Servants, those who are excused the Payment of Tithes, &c. who I think we may be sure are poor, notwithstanding the Difficulties and Un­certainties sometimes fallen into by the Colonel about the Meaning of the Word poor, and about who are poor and who are rich.

So far then the Colonel and I are agreed; and it is evident, I presume, that he means nothing by the above Words it is not just, but that it does not come within the Scope and Intention of the Act to bestow an Alms on those who are undoubtedly poor, nay the poorest Part of the Community, because he detects the Word poor to be a comparative Term. Instead of talking thus loosely, if the Colonel would have spoke to the Purpose, he should have proved it just in an Act proposed for the Ease of the Poor (or for no good Purpose at all) to exclude all the known Poor from the Benefit of it, to give as much Advantage to Gainers by Means of a short Crop as to Sufferers, and to give the greatest Advantages to the most rich and flourishing Persons in the Colony, which is what I call Injustice; and however I may sometimes call this Injustice the good Purposes of the Act I would not have him to be so cunning as to take my Word for the Goodness of the Act, concerning which I have over and over declared myself to entertain contrary Sentiments.

He says the annual Allowance of Tobacco for the Maintenance of the Poor, &c. "is proportioned according to the governing Price of Tobacco in the Year in which each Levy is laid;" and therefore, he concludes, the Twopenny Act could not injure them. But he ought only to have concluded that therefore when the Price rises between the Time of the Levy and the Time of Payment the Poor get a better Maintenance than ordinary, if no Twopenny Act interferes. Some of the Poor too are allowed Tobacco for maintaining other poor People; and surely these ought to be allowed the Benefit of their Contracts when the Market rises, as well as be obliged to stand to the Loss when it falls. If he would not have the Poor at any Time to get more than a bare Maintenance, then a certain [Page 6]Sum of Money should be appointed for them, and Tobacco levied to raise that Money, the Surplusage of Tobacco remaining every Year to be accounted for to the Parish; that if the Poor may not gain, neither may they lose by the Uncertainty of the Market. But if this is to be the Case with Regard to the Parish Poor, then why so much Indulgence to another Kind of Poor, some Favourites of the Colonels, who are not to be specified, as that for their Sakes the King's Authority, the Foundations of Trade and Property, must be encroached upon, broken up, and removed, to enable them to discharge their Debts, however contracted, without Inconvenience? Why must other poor People be deprived of a fair and just Op­portunity to get rid of theirs?

He argues that the stated Allowance of the Clerk and the Sexton cannot be hurt by the Twopenny Act, except when these Persons are possessed of no Tithables; but their Allowance is affected in the same Manner by the Act, whether they have or have not any Tithables. If indeed they have any Tithables, they are so far Gainers by the Act; in which Respect they differ not from the Parsons, Mer­chants, or Landlords. The great Gain of the latter, by their possessing a Number of Tithables, was I fear a Temptation to them to acquiesce under, or promote, an Act to divest themselves of the Property of their own Lands; for in my Ap­prehension, if any Body of Men whatsoever can diminish in what Proportion they please the Rents of Lands, and dispose of what is by this Means taken from the Landlords, the Property of the Land is placed in that Body, and becomes the Property of a few, which the Colonel will tell us by and by is not so sacred as the Property of the many.

"In a Project (he owns) for the Relief of Sufferers by Accidents, the more any Man loses by those Accidents the Proportion in distributing a Contribution will be, and he hopes always is so." It is by no Means so in the Twopenny Act: The Colonel has therefore already owned that as the Act was not made for the Relief of the ordinary and known Poor, so neither was it made for the Relief of Sufferers by any Accident. What then it was made for, I think the Reader may easily judge.

He detects me in using the Word poor as a Term of Distinction between poor and rich; and adds, in Projects for the Relief of the Poor, generally so called, [Page 7]no Man ought to be thought poorer one than another. Yet he says when "a Vestry contributes to the Relief of a poor House-Keeper, there the Charity is proportioned to the Greatness of his or her Charge; but when it is contriving for the Poor of the Parish generally, there they only respect the Maintenance of each particular Person." If the Colonel means, by all this, that decayed Gentry, or Sufferers by Accidents, are entitled to a more liberal Allowance of Charity than the Poor who have been inured to a State of Poverty: Allowed; but then let not the decayed Gentry, or the Sufferers by Accidents, be saddled upon the Clergy, or any one poor and small Body of Men. Let not one small Part of the Community, in Order that decayed Gentry, and Sufferers by Accidents, may be sure to be relieved, be obliged to relieve all the flourishing Gentry, and Gainers by Accidents, into the Bargain. Let these decayed Gentry, and Sufferers by Accidents, be pointed out, and distinguished from their Opposites, and then relieved out of the publick Re­venues, by a general Tax, by voluntary Contribution, or by the more modish and genteel Way of Lotteries.

PAGE 9th.

The Colonel tells us how an Overplus ought to be disposed of, and to whom; but he should inform us how two Thirds of the Parsons lawful and established Stipend, of the Merchants private Contracts, and the Landlords Rents, came to be deemed an Overplus; how any Assembly, or Parliament, came by a Right to adjudge and condemn what assignable Proportion they please of the private Property of any of their Constituents, whether Landlords, Merchants, or Par­sons, whether poor or rich, to be an Overplus, and divide it accordingly among other private Men, whether poor or rich, distressed or successful; and how the Exercise of such an arbitrary Power is favourable to Justice, to Liberty, and Property.

The Colonel having cast off his favourite Overplus, as it well deserved, "will presently demonstrate that the Act was not made for the Disposal of an Overplus, no nor was relative to any particular Kind of Charity whatever." Had he gone no further, I should have readily acquiesced, without putting him to the Trouble of demonstrating; but he makes an Exception of such a particular Kind of Charity, as is "founded on the true Policy of all Nations, that of preserving the [Page 8]greater Number of the Individuals of their Community from the Exorbitancy of the few," and says "the Act was only remedial in its Intentions (not I suppose in Effect) with Regard to this Exorbitancy of the few, which naturally attends in scarce Years." The Colonel we shall find, in more Places than one, lays great Stress upon his being ranked among the greater Number. But how comes it to be Exorbitancy in the Landlord to take his full Rents, especially where the Tenant happens to be as great a Gainer by Means of the short Crop as the Landlord, and can well afford to pay his full Rents? What Exorbitancy is it in the Merchant to take the just Benefit of his Contracts when they turn out favourably for him, especially if he be less able to lose such an Advantage than his Debtor is to pay what he owes? What Exorbitancy is it in the Parson to take the Market Price for his Tobacco, especially if he cannot otherwise pay his own Debts? And why was there no Provision in the Act for such special Cases, by no Means uncommon? If Exorbitancy is to be provided against, why not the Exorbitancy of the many as well as the Exorbitancy of the few? Why was not there a Price set upon all the Tobacco in the Colony? Why must Gentlemen of the best Fortunes, even though they should raise as much Tobacco as usual in a scarce Year, and get three Times a better Price for it, be enabled to purchase the Tobacco of the Merchants and the Parsons at one Third of the Value; and then sell that, with their own, at the highest Price they can obtain? Is the Exorbitancy of the few really a greater Evil than the Exorbitancy of the many? And does not the Colonel himself politely tell us that Sauce for a Goose is Sauce for a Gander?

He goes on: ‘I say then the distinguishing the Rich from the Poor, by a List of Tithables, may in some Cases be very proper; but in this unhappy Country it seems to be almost otherwise.’ Wonderfully gravelled here! How far is any Man wrong in judging, when the Thing of which he judges is not otherwise than what he judges it to be, but seems to be almost otherwise in this un­happy Country? Instead of almost, he should have said quite otherwise, and then he would have come up to the Nature of the Twopenny Act; for the Framers of that Act, by giving the best Share of their Bounty to those who have the greatest Number of Tithables, seem to have judged such to be the poorest and most distressed Part of the Community, that is, those who have the largest visible Estates, to be poorer and more distressed than those who have not any.

[Page 9]

PAGE 10th.

According to the Colonel we cannot know whether the Mr. Nelsons, Mr. Page, and Mr. Nicholas, &c. Gentlemen of the first Fortunes in the Country, be rich or poor; for who knows what Mortgages, Drawbacks, and the like, may have eaten out their Estates? This is bad News for the Merchants, and a terrible Blow to the Credit of the Country; for how will the Merchants be able to carry on Trade upon long Credit, if it be impossible for them to know who is rich and who poor by the Possession of large visible Estates, and if the Colonel has given them no other Criterion by which they may obtain such necessary Knowledge? This Impossibility to distinguish the Rich from the Poor by the Possession of large visible Estates, he says, I have allowed, by speaking of some in my Parish who have but one Tithable there, and considerable Possessions notwithstanding, there or elsewhere; but with the Colonel's Leave, though the having but one Tithable in any one Parish is no certain Proof of Poverty, yet the having large Possessions in any one or more Parishes is a good positive Proof of Riches, such a one as would content me for the Proof of my Riches, though it seems it will not content the less avaritious Colonel.

He takes Notice of my Comment on a fundamental Passage of his in a former Piece, about the general Poverty of the Country, and about the Absurdity of thinking to relieve the Poverty of a whole Country by taking Property from some poor People to give it to other poor People, every Body being supposed to be poor.

PAGE 11th and 12th.

He complains heavily of my having mistaken the Import of the said Passage, and is unable to make it speak any other Language that I have done; for when he should give us, what he calls the true Sense of the Passage, he puts us off with telling us what it is like. It can only, says he, be properly comparea to a Consultation of Physicians, some of whom shall advise one Thing, and some another, about the Treatment of a Patient. Now, in the Name of Obscurity, what is the precise Meaning of a Passage which is like a Consultation of Physicians divided in Opinion? Those who have Abilities and Penetration enough to understand the Colonel's ordinary Precision and Plainness, may perhaps understand what he means by this Comparison: For my Part, I see nothing here but Clouds and thick Dark­ness. [Page 10]The Illustration is, in my Opinion, much more dusky than the Passage itself intended to be illustrated. However, the Colonel, as if he had performed Wonders in the Art of illuminating, has the Courage to compare the secret and invisible Sense of the Passage which he cannot discern himself, or enable others to discern, to a large Steeple for its Clearness; and the Sense, which is obvious to every Body, to a small Bird on the Top of that Steeple, for its Imperceptibility.

From my opening the Colonel's chief Argument, and showing its Tendency to support and encourage Gaming, and all Kinds of Extravagancy, at the Expense of the Church and the Clergy's Establishment, in the Heat of Imagination he fancies that I have called him a Gamester, and an extravagant, and what not; and raves accordingly about the Injury done him, in thus representing a Man, known to the whole World (50 Miles round; that is, as much as the Colonel can in Conscience desire, nothwithstanding his various Publications in London and Liverpool) for a constant Enemy, to Gaming and Extravagancy. Be it so. If the Colonel use Arguments well qualified to support and encourage what he has a Mind to discourage and abolish, who is to be blamed?

PAGE 13th.

As if the Colonel had done nothing hitherto but flourish, he now solemnly enters upon the proper Consideration of the Twopenny Act. Indeed he has done nothing more than talk about demonstrating, and coming to the main Point: Like a Dog in a Wheel, who is continually climbing, without soaring any higher; or, that I may raise my Stile, and bring it to suit better with the Sublimity of the Subject, like the Image of a prancing Horse, which never stirs a Foot from the fixed Pedestal.

He begins again with repeating that his Letter to the Bishop of London is un­answerable, in Point of Justice, &c. the Truth of which would have been better proved by any other Testimony than his own. Pray, Gentlemen, take off his first Piece when you buy the second: It is hard that a Man, who writes so much for the Good of his Country, should be suffered to be a Loser.

PAGE 14th.

The Twopenny Act is a mere Proteus, and now assumes quite a new Shape; and, what is more strange, such a Shape as it cannot get quit of again. For, [Page 11]says he, ‘it can only be looked upon in the Light of an Aid to the royal Act; for the Scarcity of the Times (alias the Crop) had rendered the Payment of the Clergy's Salaries, stipulated in 1748, impossible to be made without some Compensation settled in Lieu of them.’ Did the Clergy sue for this Aid? Were they sensible of the Want of any such Aid? Must they be aided against their Inclinations? Ask them now concerning this Aid: Will not most of them call it pushing a weak Man down a Precipice under Colour of officiously stepping forward to keep him from falling? I make no Doubt but when the King of France changes the Value of Money, and makes 1s. pass for 18d. it is always for the Aid and Benefit of his poor Subjects, and to enable himself to pay them what he owes them with the greater Facility. Might not the Clergy, if any Aid had been necessary, have received the full market Price as a just Compensation for their Tobacco? Might not their Debtors have paid them for their Tobacco what it was actually sold at by these Debtors? He goes on: ‘This Compensation was attempted by the Legislature, in Consequence of the Constancy, as well as Reasonableness, of the Practice of settling all Compensations of a publick Nature by the highest publick Authority of that Country in which the Necessity for such Compensation should arise.’ Are the defective Compensations for Rents, for private Contracts, for the established Stipends of the Clergy, Compensations of a publick Nature, or proper Compensations at all? Are not these Rents, Con­tracts, and Stipends, private Property? Can any Authority whatsoever, an Assembly or a Parliament, in a free Government, make one Third of the Value a Compensation? Now again the Act is designed for the Relief of the Poor against Exorbitancy, under the Title of "Exactions of private Avarice." Then imme­diately it is a prodigious Difficulty to determine who is rich and who poor; and yet again we have the Poor separated from the Wealthy, and the Act is for Relief of the latter against the former, though there is no distinguishing the one from the other. And by this Way of talking backwards and forwards, all the Arguments in my Distinct View that have any Sense in them are answered, or, as the Colonel phrases it, comprehended in Answer.

PAGE 15th.

As we were told in the last Page that the Twopenny Act was only an Aid to help the Clergy to get their Dues, but this was mixed with other heterogeneous [Page 12]Matter, so in this Page we are told the direct contrary, namely, that the Act was only an Aid, to hinder the Clergy from getting their Dues; this too being clouded with other heterogeneous Matter, like a small Quantity of Silver in Ore not worth working. For hear the Colonel: ‘How weak then must all his En­deavours (tending to represent the Legislature in the Light of raising a charitable Fund, by reducing the Ministers Salaries in every Parish) appear, when the least common Sense in the World must discover that the Act extended its Views to all the Inhabitants of the Colony, as well Laity as Ecclesiasticks, and was only remedial wit Respect to the Evil of Exorbitancy impending by the Means of a very short Crop.’

He asks "whom I propose for Objects of Charity for the Deductions to be made on my Method of reasoning out of every Tobacco Debt due to every Layman," and answers himself by saying "every Debtor the charitable Object of his Creditor."

To have reasoned properly against the Act, he says, a Clergyman like myself ought to have shown that the Commodity was not so scarce as was represented. This I have already done in the Gazette Virginia Edition, at the Conclusion of my Observations on Colonel Bland's Letter.

He adds I ‘ought to prove that no Debt in Tobacco due to any Layman was greater in Quantity than what such Person must have been indebted as his Quota in the Parish towards the maintaining of the Minister.’ If any Layman in any Parish was a greater Sufferer by the Act than the Parson, the Act was more unjust to the Layman than the Parson; and I think every Layman ought to receive what is justly owing to him, as well as every Clergyman.

PAGE 16th

He will have it that the Necessity for this particular Act, and a short Crop, are one and the same Thing; because he says his Brother Bland could use the Term in no other Sense. But to say that the Crop was short, therefore this very Act was necessary, is affirming, not proving: It is leaving out the intermediate Ideas which should prove that from a short Crop a Necessity for this very Act may be inferred. Whatever Distress a short Crop might produce, if the Objects of Relief might have been distinguished and relieved by constitutional Means, by a [Page 13]Brief, or other Ways which I have mentioned, then there could be no Necessity, no Occasion for any Act at all; but if there must be an Act, and one might have been framed which should have separated Gainers from Sufferers by Means of the short Crop, Rich from Poor, Objects of Relief from those who ought to have been found among the Relievers, then there could be no Necessity, no Occasion for the Act in Question. It is impossible, I think, for the Colonel, or any Body else, to show any Necessity in a free Government for an Act which takes away the King's Authority, removes the Establishment of the Church, undermines the known Principles of Commerce, and overturns the Foundations of Justice and Property; for, what will the Lovers of Compensations give us in Lieu of such Blessings? Is the temporary Advantage of some Particulars, or the Hurt of others, so charming an Acquisition as to be deemed a sufficient Compensation for the Overthrow of such fundamental and inestimable publick Felicities? And for the Pleasure of present Benefit to some, and Maltreatment of others, must we suffer our Notions to be corrupted in the Essentials of civil Liberty?

He is at his Exorbitancy again, and takes Notice of my having mentioned the Fallibility of Virginia Assemblies; adding, that "the same Thing may be said of Parliaments any where else." Very true: I know of no Difference, in Point of Security from Errour, between the British Parliament and the Assembly of Virginia, but what arises from Superiority in Number, Learning, Education, Opportunities of Knowledge, and Application to Business in either.

He confesses Assemblies to be sometimes so apprehensive of Exorbitancy as to set a Price upon any Produce for which it cannot afterwards be sold. They are then sometimes imposed upon by Accounts of the Shortness of the Crop, while it is growing, and ought not therefore to be too credulous in such Matters. But will the Colonel tell me why in one Case a Price is set upon the whole Corn, in the other only upon a Part of the Crop of Tobacco? How comes it that the late Assembly, in Relation to Corn, provided against the Exorbitancy of the many; and in Relation to Tobacco, against the Exorbitancy of the few? A clear and candid Answer to this Qestion might lay the Foundation of a curious and useful enough Disquisition. I am afraid that the Property of the few is sometimes held more sacred by great Patriots than the Property of the many, which we shall find presently the Colonel does not always approve.

[Page 14] He insists that the Shortness of the Crop in 1758 was real, under a Supposition that I have denied its Existence, by denying the Existence of a Necessity for the Twopenny Act, which he takes for granted are one and the same Thing. He goes on gravely proving the Shortness of the Crop, as if I had denied it, nay and owned it too.

PAGE 17th.

He attributes the high Price in 1758 to the Shortness of the Crop, in Opposition to what he had formerly alleged in his Letter to the Bishop of London, pronounced several Times by himself to be unanswerable. He means that he will not let any Body answer it but himself.

He observes that the Tobacco in 1758 did not sell for so much in the British Market as in the Virginia Market. How unjust and cruel then was the Twopenny Act to the Merchant, obliged to part with the Tobacco which belonged to him, which he had bought and paid for, at a low Rate; obliged to replace it at a high Rate; and obliged to sell again at a low Rate! But he brings this as an Argument that the short Crop was not so valuable as a plentiful One. However, he has proved afterwards that if the short Crop had sold as well in Britain as it did in Virginia, it would have been much more valuable than any plentiful One; and let me add, it is not peculiar to short Crops to sell better in Virginia than in Britain. Therefore, notwithstanding his Remark, the short Crop might still be as valuable as any plentiful One.

The Colonel makes himself merry with my attributing any Distress that could arise rather to the Unevenness than the Shortness of a Crop, and calls it a Quibble; but instead of showing that Distress comes not from Unevenness, he only contends that there may be a Degree of Unevenness without Distress, and that the Un­evenness must be great to occasion Distress. For hear him: ‘It can hardly be alleged that any but the covetous Hunks, or the despicably Invidious, ever talked about the Largeness of another's Crop, where he was not apprehensive of Distress from the prodigious Shortness of it in the Country’ (alias his own Plantation.) Again: ‘No Unevenness in Crops was ever deemed distressful, without its being very scarce in other Parts; that is, without the Crop was very uneven. Again: ‘We can have no Idea (he the Rector will say) of [Page 15]of Unevenness in Crops without supposing them to be large in some Places, and small in others." Yea verily. "I answer, that may be;" (say you so) but the Idea then of Smallness must be greatly lowered, as it is relative in its Nature, before we come to be distressed with it." Once more: "In my Notions of Things, it (Distress) certainly arises from the prodigious Smallness of the Crop in particular Places, and those not a few.’ When he says the Distress arises from Scarcity, he means particular Scarcity; which is what I call Unevenness, or Inequality of the Crop, if he like that Word better. When I say Distress does not arise from Scarcity, I mean the Shortness of the whole Crop taken collectively; so that the Colonel here, as in other Places, pretends to differ widely from me without being able to differ with me at all for his Life: For we both say the same Thing, in a somewhat different Form of Words. If this wants further Explanation, any Body I think may easily conceive that in a plentiful Year some Plantations may be distressed (in the Colonel's Language) by particular Scarcity; in mine, by the Unevenness or Inequality of the Crop: And in a scarce Year some Plantations may be in a very flourishing Condition (in the Colonel's Language) by particular Plenty; in mine, by the Unevenness or Inequality of the Crop. But, after all, as if he had been writing for Writing's Sake, the Colonel asks, Why such Nicety of Distinction? "What does it signify from which the Distress proceeds, the Scarceness or Unevenness of the Crops?" Ay marry, a shrewd Question! It signifies thus much, that it is not sufficient to say there will be a scarce Crop this Year; therefore all Gentlemen Planters, who choose (as if we were beating up for Volunteers to accept something to their own Advantage) are Objects of Charity and Relief, and may be entitled to a great Bounty. A short Crop may be a Good to one, and a Hurt to another. Therefore, if the Assembly will relieve, they should make some Difference between Poor and Rich, the Distressed and the Successful, those who ought to be relieved and those who ought to be the Relievers, to the Advantage of the former, not the latter; especially as the Colonel does not deny but this might have been done, by Means of the publick Warehouses. The late Assembly then, in not doing this, wantonly (to use no worse Term) exceeded the Bounds of Necessity.

PAGE 18th.

On Supposition that some are damaged, and some are benifited, by the Effects of a short Crop, and in Order to bring Gainers and Sufferers more upon a Level, [Page 16]it is impossible for any Legislature upon Earth, in prescribing who shall give and who shall receive, to act justly: He will not allow that this is a good Reason why an Assembly should not engage in a Business which may make Matters worse instead of better, because ‘the Property of the few can never be more sacred than the Property of the many. What does he mean by the Property of the few and the many? Is not all Property, except a little that may belong to a Corporation or two, the Property of Individuals, and all equally sacred? What can he mean by intimating that the Property of the many is more sacred than the Property of the few, but that the Property of the Gentlemen Planters is more sacred than that of Merchants or Parsons, because the former are more numerous than the latter? Suppose a Merchant agrees with a Planter for a certain Quantity of Wheat to be delivered at a fixed Rate, for a Number of Years to come, the Money perhaps paid down before-hand; if the Merchant happens to have the worst of the Bargain, must he be obliged to stand to it, because Planters are more numerous than Merchants? If the Merchant has the better Side of the Bargain, must the Planter be freed from it for the same Reason? In the Place of Planter and Merchant, put the Man born in Virginia and a new Settler in this Colony, or Native and Foreigner, as they are sometimes called; is the Native's Property more sacred than the Foreigner's, for the above Reason? Instead of Native and Foreigner, write Layman and Parson: Is the Layman's Property more sacred than the Parson's, for the above Reason? This Notion of Property is fitter to be entertained by the Head of a Company of Bandditti than the Member of a civil and free Government.

He says I am very erroneous in my Account of the Number of Hogsheads shipped to Great-Britain in the scarce Year, and begs us in the following Page to take his Word for it that there were only 20, 000 Hogsheads of a Thousand Weight each shipped in that Year. To avoid Repetition, see what I have urged, even on this Supposition, in my Observations on Bland's Letter.

Concerning the late Assembly's impiously (impiously is his own Word) attempt­ing to rectify the unequal Distributions of Providence, he has these Words: ‘In the Christian Mode of reasoning, the Disproportions in the Produce are generally allowed to be by the Permission of divine Providence.’ I hope this [Page 17]is universally allowed in the Christian Mode of reasoning: I hope the Infidels themselves do not all reject this Christiam Mode of reasoning.

PAGE 19th.

He admits that the Twopenny Act interfered with private Property, and de­fends it by alleging ‘even that Property in Great-Britain is often obliged to submit to publick Utility. I will not say the Colonel here quibbles upon the Terms publick Utility, because Quibbling belongs to me; but either designedly, or uncautiously (which I say not) he misunderstands, or misapplies, the Terms publick Utility. When private Property submits to publick Utility in Great-Britain, it is for rendering the Streets of a City convenient, Rivers navigable, building Bridges, and the like, which is publick Utility; and a very full Compensation is always allowed in Lieu of the private Property, which submits. But the Two­penny 07 Act had for its Object no publick Utility, no rendering Cities convenient, Rivers navigable, no building Bridges, and the like: It was framed purely for removing Property out of some private Hands into others; and a small Part of the Value of the private Property taken away was given instead of a Compensation. Indeed, without this latter Circumstance, the Act could not have answered the End proposed; which was solely that of favouring one private Man more than another.

Towards the Bottom of this Page the Colonel informs us that he has been employed in removing some Rubbish that lay in his Way, "as it were;" and now he begins again manfully, and in earnest, to justify the Twopenny Act, which I apprehend he will still find to be washing the Blackamoor white.

PAGE 20th.

The Colonel sets off here with condemning my specious regular Manner, though in his 26th Page he says my whole Performance, quite through, seems to be so far out of all Method as to be nothing but mere miscellaneous Hodge-Podge, as the vulgar Saying is.’ How shall I please him! Confusion, I suppose, suits best with the Exorbitancy of his Genius.

He here conjures up, by Degrees, Thousands of poor People who were much benefited by the Twopenny Act. He is not so specious, or regular, or formal, [Page 18]as to give us a List of their Names. Where then shall we find them? Not one of them in my Parish or Neighbourhood! But we will try. He has told us before that the Act was not relative to any particular Kind of Charity whatever, except that it was only remedial with Respect to the Evil of the Exorbitancy of the few. These Thousands of poor People are not to be found among the ordinary Poor, or among those who have few or no Tithables. Where then but among the Pos­sessors of large visible Estates, eaten out with Mortages and the like? Well, let the Colonel's Imagination create as many Thousands of Poor of this Kind as it will, still several material Questions recur; such as, May not many of the Clergy be as poor as any of the Colonel's Thousands of Poor? May they not have Debts to pay, and no Estates in Lands or Slaves to pay them with? Must the Burthen of relieving all the Colonel's Poor lie solely upon the Merchants and the Clergy? Must these two small Bodies of Men relieve also those who should rather assist them in bearing the said Burthen, that is, all the Rich as well as the Colonel's Poor? Must they relieve Prosperity as well as Distress? Must they relieve pre­tended Sufferers, without knowing how or what they suffered, without knowing whether they be really Sufferers or Gainers? Must they relieve secret and invisible Sufferers? I dare say if the Colonel was giving away Money of his own, he would think it necessary to ask such Questions before he parted with it; for there is an Economy in Charity, as well as other Matters. Why then did he not ask such Questions when he was bestowing in Charity the Property of other Men by his illustrious Aye. On Supposition that I am right in judging whom the Colonel means by his Thousands of poor rich People, I would advise them to part with their Coaches rather than their Beds, if indeed there be any pressing Necessity for parting with either.

PAGE 21st.

He seems inclinable again to make all the Country poor, and the Merchants and Parsons the only fit and able Men to relieve this universal Poverty. He allows a Kind of Inequality in the Benefit received from the Act, which ‘could neither be foreseen nor prevented by any Legislature in the World.’ As to the first, it required great Foresight truly to discern that the Act made no Difference between Gainers and Sufferers by the Means of a short Crop, and favoured the Rich abun­dantly more than the Poor. As to the latter, all the publick Warehouses are [Page 19]substantial and very intelligent, though but wooden, Evidences to the contrary. The Assembly it seems could not foresee that the Act which obliges me to give three Shillings and Sevenpence Farthing to a poor Man obliges me to give ten Pounds and upwards to a rich Man, and that this Advantage in Favour of the same rich Man would frequently be repeated in several Parishes; and, if they had foreseen this, they could not have framed an Act so as to have prevented it. What Straws will not a drowning Writer catch at for Support, while he sinks, like the Breed of those Hounds which the Colonel talks about, without ever opening his Eyes to have any Enjoyment of Light!

He calls the Assembly Guardians and Preservers of the Poor, and represents it as their Duty to take Debtors under their Protection. Let us try what we can make of this, applied to an Assembly and the Parsons: The Assembly were all Debtors to the Parsons, and the Parsons the Poor, compared with the Assembly; if the Assembly be humane to the Debtors (themselves) they will be cruel to the Poor (the Parsons.) Is not this something of an Argument, from the Colonel himself, that so puzzling an Act should have been foreborn? Would not the late Assembly have done better to have considered themselves as Guardians and Protectors of private Property, of the Constitution, and Establishment in Church and State, rather than as Guardians and Perservers of the Poor? Is not the former a more honourable Style? Might they not have deduced from it a better Rule of Action than from their being Preservers of the Colonel's invisible Poor, with visible Estates? Might not these, as well as other Poor, have been left to the Care of Parish Officers, or their Christian Neighbours, best acquainted with their Circumstances, in whatever District they inhabit? But, after all, did not the late Assembly in the Twopenny Act behave more like Preservers of the Rich than Preservers of the Poor?

It is, I suppose, from the Colonel's peevish Effusions against the Unmercifulness of Creditors, as if the Debtor, by desiring to enjoy more than his own, was not oftentimes more unmerciful than the Creditor, who desires only his own; from his Rancour to the Clergy as Creditors, that is, because they do their Work and are not paid for it until some Time after; and from his forgetting to commiserate them as Poor, &c. that he has in some Places, I understand, got the Name of [Page 20]Colonel Spitfire. Indeed, when he apprehends that he may possibly find himself at last, after a due Course of Law, under Obligation to pay a just Debt, he is so touchy and sore upon the Head of Humanity to poor Debtors (which Humanity by the Bye is frequently their Ruin) together with the Avarice and Cruelty of Creditors, &c. that it is enough to make any Stranger, unacquainted with his Circumstances, suspect his belonging to that irritable, but I hope small, Part of the Society, each of which deems Economy unnecessary in this crediting Country; finds his Income thereby insufficient, and is willing to supply the Deficiency out of that of other Men, not able to support his Extravagancy, and perhaps their own too; who, when he should rather be a Caca plata, to pay his Debts (blame-ably contracted) without diminishing his real Estate by Sale, chooses to be a Caca fuego, to fright a poor Dun from boarding; like a Child, is willing to eat his Cake and have it by him too; like a Man, is ready to give hard Words for hard Coin, and to clear off as it were with Powder and Ball; that being as good a Secret as the Philosopher's Stone for turning Lead into Gold.

PAGE 22d and 23d.

He argues that a better Provision, made so by Accident, is not to be called a better Provision.

He compares the Clergy's aiming to get the Market Price for their Tobacco, that Price which every rich Man in the Country made no Scruple of taking for his own and the Clergy's Tobacco too, to cheating at a Gaming-Table, &c.

He will not allow that an Attempt to have Fees better secured implied any Willingness to obtain the full Value of them; though it be well known that they are small enough, as well as not secured to the Satisfaction of those to whom they belong. However, if he will return me a Compliment, by giving my Single and Distinct View a second Edition, he has my Leave to mend my Logick in this momentous Circumstance; and if he will let it be a London Edition, as that sounds grander, and it will be most convenient to quote it when I write to Virginia Readers, he will for once in his Life return a full Compensation, to which there can be made no Objection.

He now imagines that he has fully justified the Twopenny Act, has fully de­tected the Rector, and ‘cannot avoid taking great Glory to himself that he ever [Page 21]had the Honour to contribute an Aye to so just an Act as the Twopenny Act really was.’ If he would give up the Profit he got by the Act, we would willingly leave him to the quie? Enjoyment of all the Glory.

PAGE 28th.

Upon the Supposition that Twopenny Acts without a suspending Clause can be defended by the most pressing Necessity alone, the Colonel undertakes to show that a Twopenny Act in 1755 was a defensible as one in 1758. For why? Though the Crop was much shorter in the one Year than the other, yet any Degree of Scarcity is a most pressing Necessity for Twopenny Acts; nay the general Representation of any Degree of Scarcity, whether true or false, is a most pressing Necessity for Twopenny Acts. This general Representation was a Representation from a few Planters; for some, to their Honour, refused to sign any Petition of the Kind in 1758, as being unjust; and others were never applied to; and in Numbers of Parishes I never heard that there was a single Hand to any such Pe­tition. But surely some Representation of this Kind may at any Time be had by a Colonel from his Constituents, interested in such a Representation, and liable most of them as Militia-Men to be whipped without the trifling Form of a Trial by a Court-Martial; for the Liberty, as well as Property, of the few, has sometimes been held more sacred than that of the many by great Patriots subject to human Frailties: So that most pressing Necessities for Twopenny Acts, Penny Halfpeny Acts, three Farthings Acts, or what you please, are always ready upon Demand.

PAGE 29th.

He takes Pains to prove the most pressing Necessity for Penny Halfpeny and three Farthings Acts in the Frontiers. But what is all he says to the Purpose! What­ever Advantages he can imagine to have accrued from such Acts, might they not all have been enjoyed as well with as without a suspending Clause?

PAGE 30th.

With Regard to the Norfolk and Princess-Anne Act, the Colonel deserts Brother Bland, gives up the Plea of Justification from the most pressing Necessity alone, and undertakes to defend that Act upon another Plea, full as valuable as the old One. Let us hear him: To have put a suspending Clause in the Norfolk and [Page 22] Princess-Anne Act, he says, would have been construing the Prerogative to the Destruction of the Prince's Virtue; which he sticks not ‘to define to be that Goodness which inclines him to encourage and enjoy the Peace of his Subjects, mutually settled between themselves.’ And further he adds: ‘I say then it is a Virtue in a Prince to acquiesce at all Times in the Agreement of his Subjects among themselves, in any Part of his Dominions, when that Agree­ment does not affect his own royal Right in any sensible Manner, or the Rest of his Subjects of his Kingdom in any Manner whatever; and because that some Form (though extremely constitutional and weighty in other Affairs, yet in this of the Agreement really trifling) was not complied with, I cannot help saying that the insisting upon the Compliance with such Form, for Fear of a Precedent, is to draw a Consequence of Evil really from no possible Reason. Now as the Norfolk and Princess-Anne Act certainly appeared to the Assembly to be the universal Desire of the Inhabitants of those Counties, I say it must be so far from being a Disrespect to the Prerogative in the Assembly, in passing it without a suspending Clause, that I cannot help thinking it to be showing the most dutiful Regard imaginable to the Sovereign, by concluding that his innate Goodness could not require such a Clause in a Thing that tended only to the Satisfaction of but a few Subjects amongst themselves, unanimously con­senting to it.’ I take this Passage to be a strong Instance of the Colonel's wrapping up warm in a cloudy Diction such Sentiments as are entertained by him, but not fit to be exposed to the Light too openly. Observe, this is said of an Act already repealed, for Want of a suspending Clause; of an Act that was not only in Danger of being made a Precedent for passing other more injurious Acts without a suspending Clause, but was actually used as a Precedent for passing such Acts by Governour Dinwiddie; and of an Act passed soon after a Petition for the Power of passing such Acts had been presented and refused. What can we gather from the above Passage but that to pass Acts without a suspending Clause, when the Assembly think proper, and when the Business could have been done as well with such a Clause, is showing a dutiful Regard to the Sovereign? Yes, just as diminishing and rendering the Stipends of the Clergy precarious is assisting them to obtain their Dues. What can we gather from it but that if the two Counties of Norfolk and Princess-Anne (by the Bye, I never heard that any of those People petitioned for an Act without a suspending Clause) be not allowed to settle a Peace [Page 23]among themselves for the King to encourage and enjoy, if the Assembly be not allowed to determine when a suspending Clause is a constitutional and weighty Point, and when a trifling Form best omitted, there is an End of the King's Virtue and innate Goodness. If so old and deep a Politician as the Colonel, so able a Writer, a Man so acute at Demonstration, can express himself in this unguarded Manner in Print on the Subject of the Prerogative, producing the Freedom he takes with the Power of the Crown as an Expression of Regard to his Sovereign, no Wonder that an obscure Lawyer, the other Day, when a Court had previously adjudged the Twopenny Act to be no Law, and a Jury was summoned on a Writ of Inquiry to settle the Damage which the Plaintiff had sustained by the said Act, adjudged no Law, should tell the Jury that the King, by disallowing the said Act, had forfeited the Allegiance of the People of Virginia; and that the Parsons, for opposing the said Act by legal Means, instead of obtaining Damages, deserved to be severely punished. No Wonder that the Jury, in Opposition to unexcep­tionable Evidence, instead of bringing in the Difference between 50 s. a Hundred and 16 s. 8 d. upon 16, 000 Weight of Tobacco, which latter Price the Plaintiff had been paid, brought in 1 d. Damages for the Whole. No Wonder that the Court refused to let the Evidence be recorded. No Wonder that there was a small Cry of Treason among the By-Standers. No Wonder that the Court, though called upon by the opposite Pleader to take Notice of his Adversary's Behaviour, permitted the Offender to proceed in his treasonable Harangue without any Reprimand or Interruption. No Wonder that though this Harangue was made in the Presence of various Magistrates, and some Assembly-Men, yet no further Notice has been taken of this remarkable Transaction. No Wonder that after the Trial was over the Pleader excused himself to the Plaintiff for the Injury he had done him, alleging that what he had said of the King's forfeiting the Al­legiance of the People, and the ill Behaviour of the Clergy towards superiour Au­thority, was only intended to render himself popular. I hope he is mistaken; and that to insult Majesty is not the high Road to Popularity in this loyal Country, whatever it may be to abuse and oppress the Clergy.

Since I have been led to make Mention of one Trial, I will not pass by the two others that have been had upon the Twopenny Act. The Event of one of them was just the Reverse of that already mentioned; for the Jury found con­siderable [Page 24]Damages, but the Court adjudged the Act to be Law. Ten of the Jury, were at first for allowing the Plantift's Tobacco to be settled after the Rate of 50 ʃ a Hundred, but by the Obstinacy of two that Rate was reduced to 37 ʃ 6 d. that being found to be Sixpence more than the lowest Price given for Tobacco in that Parish in the scarce Year, when 52 ʃ 6 d. was the highest. Many of the By-Standers, and the Jurors themselves, thought that the Parson ought to have, and professed themselves willing, to pay him 50 ʃ a Hundred. The Jury being directed by the Court to bring the Damage in one Sum, went out and made a Mistake in casting up, bringing in by this Means some Pounds Damages less than they intended; which Errour it was alleged could not be altered consistently with the Rules of the Court, because the Discovery of it was not made soon enough.

The Event of the other Trial was still different; for the Court, not choosing to meddle with the Matter at all, left the Whole of it to the Jury, who in a few Minutes after the Pleadings ceased said We find for the Defendant, without saying any more. What is more observable is, it was hereupon entered on Record that the Plaintiff had actually received the Tobacco itself for which he sued; though the Defendant attempted to prove no more than that the Plaintiff had received the Compensation allowed by the Act, namely, 16 ʃ 8 d. a Hundred in Money. And the above Entry, it is pretended, is agreeable to the Nature of pleading. In this Trial the Price of Tobacco was proved to be 50 ʃ a Hundred during May and June in 1758, and for Tobacco not delivered until August or September, by the Evidence of Merchants of the first Rank and Character.

Now of all these Affairs we say no more but that, if there be any Thing amiss in them, we have the British Liberty and Spirit to hope that it will be rectified by the General-Court.

PAGE 33d.

He labours to screw some Disrespect to the Speaker, out of what I said con­cerning an Application of some of the Clergy to be heard upon the Twopenny Bill; but he is not able to succeed, for he allows all that I said of this Application to be true. On the other Hand, I allow that the Speaker was a Friend to the Clergy in the Debates upon this Kind of Bills. Some of the Clergy had heard that it was the Opinion of the Speaker, declared during these Debates, that if [Page 25]such Bills were to pass into Acts of Assembly they could not be deemed Laws. And as the Opinion of the Speaker in the one Case was sufficient to deter the few Clergy on the Spot from troubling the House with a Petition in Form that was certain to be rejected, so the Opinion of the Speaker in the other Point was no small Encouragement to the Clergy to seek a Remedy elsewhere. From hence the Colonel may collect that there are some that in their Hearts think in the same Manner of Twopenny Acts as the Clergy do, whom he will not dare to number with shallow Brains and Grinners. And what then becomes of his fine Account of the Assembly, in comparing them to a Pack of Hounds, and calling a small Minority the babbling Dogs, when it is evident that it may be the Lot of the ablest and most sensible Men in the House to figure sometimes among a small Minority! Nay, if I mistake not, it has before now been the Turn of this leading Member, the Colonel himself, to act what he calls the babbling Dog and the angry Man in the Lobby.

PAGE 34th.

He takes Notice of the Distinction I made between Loyalty to the Person of the Sovereign, and Attachment to the Power of the Crown; and recommends it to the King to have an implicit Faith in the Obedience of his Subjects, in Op­position to well known Facts. For I do not yet discern how the Loyalty of the People of Virginia in 1745 will prove that the Assembly did not make free with the Prerogative in 1758, and several Times before, any more than the Illumi­nation of the Colonel's House for the Defeat of the Rebels by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland will prove that the Lawyer mentioned above did not a few Months since charge the late King with having forfeited the Allegiance of the People of Virginia.

PAGE 35th.

He affectedly laments a Piece of ordinary Justice to the Merchants as a heavy Misfortune to his Country, but comforts himself under the Thoughts that he is too old to live long and see many such severe Strokes upon his Country.

Thus I have endeavoured to unravel the Colonel's new Web. I have passed once through the fiery Ordeal prepared for me by him, with what Safety or Suc­cess must be left to the Reader's Judgment; for it would be an Instance of the most unpardonable Vanity in me to boast of conquering such doughty Writers [Page 26]as the Colonels, who fetch their Water from the clear Fountain of Truth, deal in nothing but Demonstrations, and fail not to celebrate their own Victories, though they have Moderation and Generosity enough to leave the Field in Possession of the Vanquished. Seriously, it would not have been worth While to have consi­dered his worst Chaos of Malice, Arrogance, Impudence, Ignorance, Falsehood, and Absurdity, if the Colonel had not been long esteemed a leading Genius, capable of giving some Stamp of Authority to the most ridiculous and inconsistent Notions. Before he entered upon the Justification of the Twopenny Act he should have settled with himself some such trifling Points as the following: What is the certain Meaning of the Country, the whole Country, the Assembly, Demonstration, Necessity, and every complex Term that he uses; without which he will never make an able Disputant. Whether the whole Country be poor; or it consists, like other Countries, of Poor and Rich. Whether those who have large visible Estates, or those who having none depend upon the Parish for a Maintenance, are the poorest. Whether the Poor can be distinguished from the Rich, or cannot. What the Twopenny Act was framed for; whether it was to relieve Thousands of poor People from their Poverty, or was relative to no particular Kind of Charity whatever. Whether it was only to direct in the Disposal of an Overplus. Or only remedial with Respect to the Exorbitancy of the few. Or only to show that the Property of the few is not to be held more sacred than that of the many. Or for some publick Utility, opening Streets, building Bridges, and the like. Or only to help the Clergy to their Dues. Or to make the King a Compliment. What Difference there is between Distress occasioned by the Scarcity of a Crop in particular Places and Distress occasioned by the Unevenness of the Crop. Above all, whether Charity and Injustice can ever set their Horses together. And whether the Poor ought to be compelled to relieve the Cravings of the Rich, or the Rich begged and intreated to do Justice to the Poor, and consider their Necessities. Whether the Laws of the Country, which he says (Page 26th) provide a good Remedy against the Collectors for not paying the Ministers in Time, have not also provided as a good Remedy against them for defective Payment in Point of Value; and whether there is any more Harm in making Use of the one Remedy than the other, &c. &c. To aim at defending the Act upon various and irreconcileable Plans is an Attempt worthy of its Author, it is true; yet I desire no better Proof of an Adversary's having undertaken a Post, which he is unable to maintain, than [Page 27]to see him entangled, struggling, sweating, swelling, raging, and roaring, in the Not of such unconquerable Embarrassment.

I cannot help taking Notice of two of the Colonel's grave Passages: One, wherein he puts me in Mind of the last Day of Accounts: The other, wherein he tells me that I have the Pattern of One to walk by, who when he was reviled, reviled not again. With Respect to the first, it is my Comfort that I am not to be judged by the Colonel. With Regard to the second, the Colonel tells us News indeed; namely, that my Conduct will not bear to be compared with Perfection itself. Neither his nor mine, nor that of any of our Acquaintance, I conceive, will stand this Test. It is the Duty of us all to labour a nearer Approach to this Standard the longer we live, which by me (I guess the Colonel will agree to it) may be done easily enough. But this learned Textuary should have remembered that the divine Person of whom he speaks used a considerable Degree of Severity on fit Occasions; that he advised the Payment of the Tithes of Mint, Anise, and Cummin, when agreeable to the Laws and Stipulations of the Country; that he advised to give Caesar his Due; and even literally scourged the Money-Changers out of the Temple; that by his Doctrine the Performance of the greater Works cannot excuse the Omission of the lesser, much less will a single Act of Charity, much and frequently vaunted, give any Man a License to be unjust and oppressive in other Instances; that there are Seasons when it may become a Clergyman's Duty to reprove and rebuke, however disagreeable these Words may found; and that such a One is not always at Liberty to use that profitable Suppleness, and those beneficial rewarded fawning Ways, with which the Colonel may like to something about throwing the first Stone; and perhaps, when he is calm, he will be able to see that at the worst the Reviler again is something nearer the divine Standard than the original Reviler. Upon the Whole, the Questions on this Head, so far as they concern me, are Whether I have found improper Objects of Reproof in the Colonels? Whether my Reproofs have been too sharp, and carried to Excess, against the Opposers of such publick Blessings as a free British Subject, who understands his Situation, will always value himself upon; such as the King's Authority, the Establishment of the Church, the Rights of fair Com­merce, [Page 28]civil Liberty, private Justice and Property? Or whether, in the Colonel's softer Language, when he gently touches upon his own disrespectful Behaviour to a Peer of the Realm, I have shown too much Spirit or too much Mirth in my Replications? Observe the Colonel's Way of reasoning, fairly deduced from his Aversion to be evil-spoken of, and from his Love of Evil-speaking. The Parson has a Master to follow, who when he was reviled reviled not again: The Colonel has no such Master. The Parson may not be contentious, fight, or return any provoking Language: The Colonel is at Liberty in all these Points to use his Pleasure. The Colonel therefore may trample upon the Parson, and treat him as he thinks proper. Such are the Sentiments of — a Gentleman in every Thing but his Language, Notions, and Manners; but the Gentleman may learn, from what has happened, not to place too much Security upon such Notions for the future.

I thought to have ended here, but I must not take my Leave, though only for the present, without having a Heat at the Pig. He seems offended at the Pig's squeaking twice, instead of selicitating himself, as he had good Reason for doing, upon its squeaking no oftener. When a Gentleman of Spirit and Mirth, like the Colonel, has a Mind to carry off his Neighbour's Pig by Way of a Frolick, if it be too roughly handled, it will squeak. It is the Nature of the Beast, when it thinks itself in Danger of being killed and devoured, to make a piteous, grating, and incessant Noise. What is to be done in such Circumstances? Suppose the Colonel teach the Pig better Manners, as in a former Piece he professed the Art of teaching better Manners to perverse Cows. If his Art does not extend so far as to teach better Manners to unruly Pigs, and he asks my Advice in this weighty Punctum, it follows thus: Let the troublesome Pig go! Return it to the right Owner for Shame! especially if the Owner be so poor as to set a Value upon such a Trifle. But if your longing for the Pig be so very great that you must steal the Pig to cure the said Longing, as some Folks steal Beef to cure Warts, why then observe what I say: Hold the Pig fast by the Tail, letting its Body swing thereby; which, I have good Authority for it, is not only remedial, but a sovereign Remedy to cure the Pig of squeaking. Take then the Pig by the Tail, as you did the Line which I am now going to handle: Sus atque Sacerdos, says the witty mutilating and suppressing Colonel. For why not go one Word further? What [Page 29]has honest Fur done, that he must be excluded from the Society of his old Com­panions Sus atque Sacerdos? The whole Line in Lilly runs thus: ‘Ut Bifrons, Custos, Bos, Fur, Sus, atque Sacerdos.’

Which a Boy in his Grammar, under the Care of a Friend of mine, construes backwards, for the Use of the Colonel, thus: Sacerdos, a Parson; atque, and; Sus, a Tithe-Pig; Fur, a Colonel who merrily steals the Tithe-Pig, leaving Twopence behind him to keep the Parson from making a Noise; Bos, the Colonel that roars like an Ox, Bull, or Cow, when he finds himself detected, and the Parson unsatisfied; Custos, the Colonel that will keep Possession of the Pig right or wrong; Bifrons, the Colonel with a double Forehead, who will steal the Pig under Colour of Charity, and calls it Justice to steal the Pig; ut, as; as what? Why, as the Colonel says, Sauce for a Goose is Sauce for a Gander, and may sometimes serve well enough as Sauce for a Pig.

As to Misrepresentation, Scurrility, Vanity, Petulancy, Restlessness, Con­tention, Contempt of Authority, Art, Blindness, Insanity, Wit and Ridicule, &c. all which the Colonel condemns in the Enemy, and takes, or endeavours to press, into his own Service, these Things may furnish Matter enough for the second Part of this Review; wherein I hope to show that this is not the first Time that the Colonel has sat for his Picture, drawn it himself, and archly, as well as satyrically, put under it the Name of his Opponent; or that he has acted the sat Man, who bitterly inveighed against that filthy Crowd to which he himself con­tributed more than any other greasy and broiling Member of the Concourse.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.