We must possess a set of Mediators interested in maintaining harmony between the heterogeneous particles of our mixed constitution; a species of Drill Serjeants is required for the maintenance of discipline among the undulating and tumultuous multitude.There must be a set of noisy Orators provided for those who are more easily captivated by strength of lungs than by strength of argument; Declaimers for those who are controuled by sentimentalism;and imaginative, facetious, or satirical Orators, for those whose object it is to be amused; Reasoners for the small number, who yield only to reason;artful and enterprising men to scour the country to obtain and calculate the number of votes: there must also be a class of men in good repute at court, who may maintain a good understanding between the head and the members.
And all this, they say, must be paid for---whether correctly or not, does not belong to our present discussion.
It may be further said, that the matter of reward, besides being used for reward, may be used as a means of power,---and that in a mixed constitution like ours, it is necessary to maintain a balance among its powers.Certain creations of peers therefore, for example, which could not be justified, if considered as rewards, may be justified as distributions of power.There is at least something in this which deserves examination;but its examination here would be out of place.
Want of economy in the distribution of rewards may also be attempted to be justified, by comparing the sum so expended with the expense incurred in the carrying on of a war.I advise every one who has projects upon the public money, to employ this argument in preference to every other: when one calculates the immense sum expended during a single campaign, either by land or sea; when we reflect on the millions that vanish in sound and smoke, all other profusion sinks into insignificance.When we behold the treasures of a nation flowing away in such rapid torrents, can any great indignation be felt against those who, by art, or obsequiousness, or court favour, detach from the mass a single drop or a small stream for their own benefit? If the people so readily lend themselves to the gratification of political passions---if they part so freely with their gold and their blood, for the momentary gratification of their vengeance or their passion for glory,---can it be expected that they will murmur at the pomp they covet, and the few insignificant favours which their prince bestows? Will they be supposed so mean as to be niggard with pence and lavish with millions?
This mode of comparison is not new to courts: it ought to have been familiar to Louis XIV.if it be true, as there is reason for believing, that the building of Versailles cost two thousand millions of livres.In respect of expense, this was more than equal to a war: but at least it was expended without bloodshed, there was no interruption of trade; on the contrary, it gave vigour to industry, and shed lustre over the arts.What a fortunate source of comparison to the advocates of absolute monarchy!
There is yet another mode of estimating the justness of any public expenditure---another source of comparison somewhat less agreeable to the eyes of courtiers.Compare the amount of the proposed expenditure with an equal portion of the produce of the most vexatious and burthensome tax.In this country, for example, let the comparison be made with the produce of the tax on law proceedings, whose effect is the placing of the great majority of the people in a state of outlawry.The option lies between the abolition of this tax and the proposed employment of its produce.They thus become two rival services.It is a severe test for frivolous expenses, but it is strictly just.How disgraceful does wasteful luxury appear in the budget, when thus put in competition with the good whose place it occupies, or the evil of which it prevents the cure!
From these observations the practical conclusion is, that the matter of reward being all of it costly, none of it ought to be thrown away.This precious matter is like the dew: not a drop of it falls upon the earth which has not previously been drawn up from it.
All upright sovereign therefore gives nothing.He buys or he sells.His benevolence consists in economy.Would you praise him for generosity? Praise also the guardian who lavishes among his servants the property of his pupils.
The most liberal among the Roman Emperors were the most worthless; for example, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Otho, Vitellius, Commodus, Heliogabalus, and Caracalla: the best, as Augustus, Vespasian, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Pertinax, were frugal.( Esprit des Lois , liv.v.ch.xviii.)A most important lesson to sovereigns: it warns them not to value themselves upon the virtue of generosity---in short, not to think that in their station generosity is a virtue.If not a strictly logical argument, it is, however, a popular and persuasive induction:---``Esteem not yourselves to be good princes for a quality in which you have been outstripped by the worst.''
