kept Mr. P fo long above their pique and refentment? prudence calls upon us to provide against the fatal confequences that may attend fuch a refignation, arifing not from the refignation itself, but from a poffibility of fuch men regaining that power, which they formerly abused, or were not able to improve for the real intereft of this country.

Men of corrupt hearts, hypocrites and fycophants, are moft bufy on fuch occafions. They are defperate, and ftick at no means, be they ever fo bafe, to get into power and to deceive Majefty. Therefore it is the Sovereign's peculiar care not to be misled by them: and fhould fuch men be taken into the management of national affairs, it is the duty of parliament to ferret them out, and to ad-. drefs his Majefty to remove them from his councils, from his employment, and from about his perfon.

The next public topic was the elevation of the Earl of BUTE to the office of firft Lord of the Treafury; upon which occafion the papers teemed with perfonal abufe, and national reflections. However, fome of thofe fugitive effays were fenfibly written, and contained ftrong arguments: Thefe we have endeavoured to felect.

T gives me no fmall offence, to obferve Scotfmen and ministerial writers endeavouring to deceive the public by general affertions which are falfe. One of thefe is, that all Britons are alike,

and therefore it ought to be indifferent to the nation who are invefted with power, or who enjoy the employments of profit.'

Now I do fay, that great power in England ought only to be trufted with those who are the belt friends to the English conftitution. England, it must be allowed, is the most important part of

the

the British dominions, has the greatest share of the legislative power, the greatest quantity of all kinds of property, contributes by far the most to the fupport of government, and alfo to the demands of ftate, and therefore ought to have a full proportionate share in the general exercise of

in the emoluments of office.

power, and

There is a wide difference between a Sovereign's fervants and his minifters. His fervants have the care of his palace only: but his minifters have that of the kingdom: in the choice of the latter, therefore, the inclinations of the people ought always to be confulted. Minifters are, by our conftitution, confidered as fervants of the commonwealth, as well as of the crown, and must be as much anfwerable to the former as to the latter for their conduct in office. It may be quite indifferent to the people who wear the feathers of state; but it cannot be fo with regard to those who have the difpofitions of their properties, lives and privileges in their hands. In trufts, therefore, of fuch kinds, their paffions will become interested. It is fit they should be fo: and it is fit alfo, in fuch matters, that their inclinations fhould be confidered.

The English are not national in their perfonal attachments. They make friendships with, and do fervices indifferently to, all their fellow-fubjects. Who most act otherwife I leave to the experience of all men to determine, as well as of those who now cry out for the indifcriminacy of regards, and how far they themselves are like to become impartial practicers of that general duty.

The care of religion, the administration of laws, the offices of government and revenue in Scotland, are now, and always of late have been, only placed in Scotch hands. That is far from the cafe in Ireland: nor is it quite the cafe in England. Which country therefore appears to have moft national confideration?

C4

confideration? And which, from its comparative importance, has the leaft reafon to complain, or the most to be contented?

Do Englishmen, or Irifhmen, ever complain that they do not come in for a fhare of Scotch preferments? Or are they ever heard to affert, that they have an equal right to the enjoyment of them with the natives, or inhabitants of that part of GreatBritain. Fair play, and fair fharing, is what in all things may be called honourable and it is what prudence thould fuggeft for univerfal contentment.

Individuals are, and ever will be, felf-interested. It may perhaps be ever impoffible to fatisfy all mens defires; but it should always be a practice, by REAL impartiality, to adhere to fuch regulations as fhould furnish to bodies of men, no reasonable caufe of complaint; at least to the most considerable part of a people,

What I would be understood to blame is, partial infufions of opinion under pretences of impartiality, and the propagating of erroneous notions under the colour of strict duty; against the poifon of which I have furnished these loose hints, JOHN BULL,

Anfwer to the preceding Letter.

IF John Bull will review his loofe hints, I am perfuaded he will acknowledge, fome of his own general affertions are erroneous, and formed more upon old prejudices than a juft view of the present ftate of things. That there are fewer Englishmen in offices, either in Scotland or Ireland, than Scotch or Irish in England, is plainly owing, not to any national attachment, but to the feat of government being in England. If the feat of the British government was either in Scotland or Ireland, doubriefs it would be no wonderful thing to fee great numbers of Englishmen filling a variety of

pofts,

posts, both in the civil and military; but in that cafe few Scotch or Irish would leave their own country to seek for preferment in England. Can John Bull affign any good reafon why the kingdoms of England and Scotland ought at this day to be looked upon as any thing else than a mere geographical divifion of this ifland; and if this be allowed, his fecond paragraph, urging a preference to one part more than another, falls to the ground. Narrow and vulgar minds are mighty fond of local partialities; and, like the country lady, who afferted, that the moon they had in their village was bigger than the London moon, vainly imagine that all excellence is confined to their birth-place; and that it would be abfurd to look for worth or abilities beyond fuch a river, or out of fuch a country.

The whole of John Bull's letter is founded upon fuch falfe prejudices as thefe, confequently, instead of inftructing with candour, it tends to mislead and deceive: but as it would be invidious to enlarge on the topics he has touched upon, I beg leave to conclude with his own words, That I must blame • partial infufions of opinion under pretences of partiality.'

Wanstead, Effex. June 1762.

REPLY.

THE gentleman of Wanstead has not only wilfully mistaken my queftions and affertions, but also my intentions. I did not afk, if there were not fewer Englishmen in offices in Scotland or Ireland, than there are Scotch or Irish in England ? I asked, if Englishmen or Irishmen ever complained that they do not come in for any Scotch preferments? or ever thought they had an equal right to them with Scotchmen? and added, that was far from the cafe in Ireland, and not quite the

cafe

cafe in England. But this, it seems, has given offence to the impartial pleaders for indifcriminacy, and therefore I fhall further explain myself.

I, who am an impartial Englishman, or legitimate fon of old John Bull, do aver, that I never heard of any Englishmen or Irishmen who enjoyed pofts in Scotland. But I confefs that Englishmen and Scotchmen enjoy most of the good posts in Ire· land, while the Irish enjoy very few in England : but the Scotch hold a much larger proportion here than their contributive capacity can entitle them to, if they had no establishment of employments to engrofs in their own country. If the Wanstead gentleman doubts of this, I fhould be glad he would procure and publish, an accurate account of the neat produce of all Scotch taxes whatever; and place against them, the exact amount of all pays, falaries, and perquifites of Scotchmen, in civil, military, and marine employments, on the English and Irish establishments, without any mention of thofe of Scotland, which they folely engrofs; and then strike a balance, to fhew the true ftate of their contributive and benefited conditions, in order to justify their plea to universal indifcriminacy. And after he has done that, I fhould be glad he would ftate an account of impartiality alfo, by giving lifts of Englishmen who have been advanced in life, and dealt with, by Scotchmen; and of Scotchmen who have been ferved, and traded with, by Englishmen, in order to fhew on which fide generofity and indifcriminacy have moft effectually been practiced. By all of which means we fhall come to the knowledge of who are most favoured, moft generous, and most impartial; and confequently of those who most contribute to the abolishing of all local diftinctions and of who, on the contrary, are the greatest keepers of them up.

My