are

think no remedy so good, as to make clear work; and that they declare for the utter extirpation of all who are its enemies in the most minute circumstances; as if amputation were the sole remedy these political butchers could find out for the distempers of a state; or that they thought the only way to make the top flourish, were to lop off the under branches." (p. 5.) He then speaks of the "coffee-house politicians, and the casuists in red coats; who," he tells us, for the utmost rigour that their laws of war, or laws of convenience, can inspire them with." (p. 5.) Again, "it is represented," says he, "that the rebels deserve the highest punishment the laws can inflict." (p. 7.) And afterwards tells us, "the question is, Whether the government shall show mercy, or take a reverend divine's advice, to slay man and woman, infant and suckling?" (p. 8.) Thus again he tells us, "the friends to severe counsels allege, that the government ought not to be moved by compassion; and that the law should have its course." (p. 9.) And in another place puts these words in their mouths, "He may still retain their affection, and yet let the laws have their course in punishing the guilty." (p. 18.) He goes upon the same supposition in the following passages: "It is impracticable, in so general a corruption, to destroy all who are infected; and, unless you destroy all, you do nothing to the purpose." (p. 10.) "Shall our rightful king show himself less the true father of his people, and afford his pardon to none of those people, who, like king Lear to his daughters, had so great a confidence in his virtue as to give him all." (p. 25.) I shall only add, that the concluding paragraph, which is worked up with so much artificial horror, goes upon a supposition answerable to the whole tenor of the pamphlet; and implies, that the impeached lords were to be executed without exception or discrimination.

Thus we see what is the author's idea of that justice against which all his arguments are levelled. If, in the next place, we consider the nature of that clemency which he recommends, we find it to be no less universal and unrestrained.

He declares for a general act of indemnity, (p. 20,) and tells us, "It is the sense of every dispassionate man of the kingdom, that the rebels may and ought to be pardoned." (p. 19.) "One popular act," says he, "would even yet retrieve all. (p. 21.) He declares himself not "over-fond of the doctrines of making examples of traitors" (ibid.); and that "the way to

prevent things from being brought to an extremity, is to deal mildly with those unfortunate gentlemen engaged in the rebellion."

The reader may now see in how fallacious a manner this writer has stated the controversy; he supposes there are but two methods of treating the rebels; that is, by cutting off every one of them to a man, or pardoning every one of them without distinction. Now, if there be a third method between these two extremes, which is on all accounts more eligible than either of them, it is certain that the whole course of his argumentation comes to nothing. Every man of the plainest understanding will easily conclude, that in the case before us, as in most others, we ought to avoid both extremes; that, to destroy every rebel, would be an excessive severity; and, to forgive every one of them, an unreasonable weakness. The proper method of proceeding is that which the author has purposely omitted; namely, to temper justice with mercy; and, according to the different circumstances that aggravate or alleviate the guilt of the offenders, to restrain the force of the laws, or to let them take their proper course. Punishments are necessary to show there is justice in a government, and pardons to show there is mercy; and both together convince the people, that our constitution, under a good administration, does not only make a difference between the guilty and the innocent, but even, among the guilty, between such as are more or less criminal.

This middle method, which has been always practised by wise and good governors, has hitherto been made use of by our sovereign. If, indeed, a stranger, and one who is altogether unacquainted with his Majesty's conduct, should read this pamphlet, he would conclude that every person engaged in the rebellion was to die by the sword, the halter, or the axe; nay, that their friends and abettors were involved in the same fate. Would it be possible for him to imagine, that of the several thousands openly taken in arms, and liable to death by the laws of their country, not above forty have yet suffered? How would he be surprised to hear, that, notwithstanding his Majesty's troops have been victorious in every engagement, more of his friends have lost their lives in this rebellion, than of his traitorous subjects; though we add to those who have died by the hand of justice those of them who fell in battle! and yet we find a more popular com

passion endeavoured to be raised for the deaths of the guilty, who have brought such calamities on their country, than for the innocent who perished in the defence of it.

This middle method of proceeding, which has been pursued by his Majesty, and is wilfully overlooked by the author, best answers the ends of government; which is to maintain the safety of the public by rewards and punishments. It is also incumbent on a governor, according to the received dictates of religion; which instructs us, "That he beareth not the sword in vain; but ought to be a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well." It is likewise in a particular manner the duty of a British king, who obliges himself by his coronation oath to execute "justice in mercy,' that is, to mix them in his administration, and not to exercise either of them to the total exclusion of the other.

But if we consider the arguments which this author gives for clemency, from the good effects it would produce, we shall find, that they hold true only when applied to such a mercy as serves rather to mitigate than exclude justice. The excellence of that unlimited clemency which the author contends for, is recommended by the following arguments.

66

66

First, That it endears a prince to his people. This he descants on in several parts of his book. Clemency will endear his person to the nation; and then they will neither have the power nor will to disturb him." (p. 8.) Was there ever a cruel prince that was not hated by his subjects?" (p. 24.) "A merciful, good-natured disposition is of all others the most amiable quality, and in princes always attended with a popular love." (p. 18.)

It is certain, that such a popular love will always rise towards a good prince, who exercises such a mercy as I have before described, which is consistent with the safety of the constitution, and the good of his kingdom. But if it be thrown away at random, it loses its virtue, lessens the esteem and authority of a prince, and cannot long recommend him, even to the weakest of his subjects, who will find all the effects of

1 Compassion endeavoured to be raised.] Endeavour seems to be one of those neutrals which do not admit the passive form after the auxiliary to be: we say, I have endeavoured, but not, I am, or it is endeavoured. Besides, the two participles passive, endeavoured to be raised, coming so near together, have an ill effect. He might have said--and yet we find him endeavouring to raise a more popular compassion, &c.

cruelty in such an ill-grounded compassion. It was a famous saying of William Rufus, and is quoted to his honour by historians: "Whosoever spares perjured men, robbers, plunderers, and traitors, deprives all good men of their peace and quietness, and lays a foundation of innumerable mischiefs to the virtuous and innocent."

Another argument for unlimited clemency is, that it shows a courageous temper: Clemency is likewise an argument of fearlessness; whereas cruelty not only betrays a weak, abject, depraved spirit, but also is for the most part a certain sign of cowardice." (p. 19.) "He had a truly great soul, and such will always disdain the coward's virtue, which is fear; and the consequence of it, which is revenge." (p. 27.) This panegyric on clemency, when it is governed by reason, is likewise very right; but it may so happen, that the putting of laws in execution against traitors to their country, may be the argument of fearlessness, when our governors are told that they dare not do it; and such methods may be made use of to extort pardons, as would make it look like cowardice to grant them. In this last case the author should have remembered his own words, that "then only mercy is meritorious, when it is voluntary, and not extorted by the necessity of affairs." (p. 13.) Besides, the author should have considered, that another argument which he makes use of for his clemency, are the resentments that may arise from the execution of a rebel: an argument adapted to a cowardly, not a fearless temper. This he infers from the disposition of "the friends, well-wishers, or associates of the sufferers." (p. 4.) "Resentment will inflame some; in others compassion will, by degrees, rise into resentment. This will naturally beget a disposition to overturn what they dislike, and then there will want only a fair opportunity." (p. 12.) This argument, like most of the others, pleads equally for malefactors of all kinds, whom the government can never bring to justice, without disobliging their friends, well-wishers, or associates. But, I believe, if the author would converse with any friend, well-wisher, or associate of these sufferers, he would find them rather deterred from their practices by their sufferings, than disposed to rise in a new rebellion to revenge them. A government must be in a very weak and melancholy condition, that is not armed with a sufficient power for its own defence against

the resentment of its enemies, and is afraid of being overturned if it does justice on those who attempt it. But I am afraid the main reason why these friends, well-wishers, and associates, are against punishing any of the rebels is, that which must be an argument with every wise governor for doing justice upon some of them; namely, that it is a likely means to come at the bottom of this conspiracy, and to detect those who have been the private abettors of it, and who are still at work in the same design; if we give credit to the suggestions of our malecontents themselves, who labour to make us believe that there is still life in this wicked project.

I am wonderfully surprised to see another argument made use of for a general pardon, which might have been urged more properly for a general execution. The words are these: "The generality will never be brought to believe, but that those who suffer only for treason have very hard measure, nor can you, with all your severity, undeceive them of their error." If the generality of the English have such a favourable opinion of treason, nothing can so well cure them of an error so fatal to their country, as the punishment of those who are guilty of it. It is evident, that a general impunity would confirm them in such an opinion: for the vulgar will never be brought to believe that there is a crime where they see no penalty. As it is certain no error can be more destructive to the very being of government than this, a proper remedy ought to be applied to it: and I would ask this author, whether upon this occasion, "the doctrine of making examples of traitors" be not very seasonable; though he declares himself "not over-fond of it." The way to awaken men's minds to the sense of this guilt, is to let them see, by the sufferings of some who have incurred it, how heinous a crime it is in the eye of the law.

The foregoing answer may be applied, likewise, to another argument of the same nature. "If the faction be as numerous as is pretended; if the spirit has spread itself over the whole kingdom; if it has mixed with the mass of the people; then certainly all bloody measures will but whet men the more for revenge." If justice inflicted on a few of the flagrant criminals, with mercy extended to the multitude, may be called "bloody measures," they are without doubt absolutely necessary, in case the spirit of faction be thus spread among the mass of the people; who will readily con