{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_4543/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_4543","id":"gutenberg_4543","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4543","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Great Britain -- Economic conditions -- 18th century","Great Britain -- Economic policy","Wealth"],"text":"Produced by Charles Aldarondo.  HTML version by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Querist\n\nby\n\nGeorge Berkley\n\n1735\n\n\n\nThe Querist Containing Several Queries Proposed to the Consideration\nof the Public\n\n\n\n\n\nPart I\n\n\n\n\nQuery 1.\n\nWhether there ever was, is, or will be, an industrious nation poor,\nor an idle rich?\n\n2. Qu. Whether a people can be called poor, where the common sort\nare well fed, clothed, and lodged?\n\n3. Qu. Whether the drift and aim of every wise State should not be,\nto encourage industry in its members? And whether those who employ\nneither heads nor hands for the common benefit deserve not to be\nexpelled like drones out of a well-governed State?\n\n4. Qu. Whether the four elements, and man's labour therein, be not\nthe true source of wealth?\n\n5. Qu. Whether money be not only so far useful, as it stirreth up\nindustry, enabling men mutually to participate the fruits of each\nother's labour?\n\n6. Qu. Whether any other means, equally conducing to excite and\ncirculate the industry of mankind, may not be as useful as money.\n\n7. Qu. Whether the real end and aim of men be not power? And whether\nhe who could have everything else at his wish or will would value\nmoney?\n\n8. Qu. Whether the public aim in every well-govern'd State be not\nthat each member, according to his just pretensions and industry,\nshould have power?\n\n9. Qu. Whether power be not referred to action; and whether action\ndoth not follow appetite or will?\n\n10. Qu. Whether fashion doth not create appetites; and whether the\nprevailing will of a nation is not the fashion?\n\n11. Qu. Whether the current of industry and commerce be not\ndetermined by this prevailing will?\n\n12. Qu. Whether it be not owing to custom that the fashions are\nagreeable?\n\n13. Qu. Whether it may not concern the wisdom of the legislature to\ninterpose in the making of fashions; and not leave an affair of so\ngreat influence to the management of women and fops, tailors and\nvintners?\n\n14. Qu. Whether reasonable fashions are a greater restraint on\nfreedom than those which are unreasonable?\n\n15. Qu. Whether a general good taste in a people would not greatly\nconduce to their thriving? And whether an uneducated gentry be not\nthe greatest of national evils?\n\n16. Qu. Whether customs and fashions do not supply the place of\nreason in the vulgar of all ranks? Whether, therefore, it doth not\nvery much import that they should be wisely framed?\n\n17. Qu. Whether the imitating those neighbours in our fashions, to\nwhom we bear no likeness in our circumstances, be not one cause of\ndistress to this nation?\n\n18. Qu. Whether frugal fashions in the upper rank, and comfortable\nliving in the lower, be not the means to multiply inhabitants?\n\n19. Qu. Whether the bulk of our Irish natives are not kept from\nthriving, by that cynical content in dirt and beggary which they\npossess to a degree beyond any other people in Christendom?\n\n20. Qu. Whether the creating of wants be not the likeliest way to\nproduce industry in a people? And whether, if our peasants were\naccustomed to eat beef and wear shoes, they would not be more\nindustrious?\n\n21. Qu. Whether other things being given, as climate, soil, etc.,\nthe wealth be not proportioned to the industry, and this to the\ncirculation of credit, be the credit circulated or transferred by\nwhat marks or tokens soever?\n\n22. Qu. Whether, therefore, less money swiftly circulating, be not,\nin effect, equivalent to more money slowly circulating? Or, whether,\nif the circulation be reciprocally as the quantity of coin, the\nnation can be a loser?\n\n23. Qu. Whether money is to be considered as having an intrinsic\nvalue, or as being a commodity, a standard, a measure, or a pledge,\nas is variously suggested by writers? And whether the true idea of\nmoney, as such, be not altogether that of a ticket or counter?\n\n24. Qu. Whether the value or price of things be not a compounded\nproportion, directly as the demand, and reciprocally as the plenty?\n\n25. Qu. Whether the terms crown, livre, pound sterling, etc., are\nnot to be considered as exponents or denominations of such\nproportion? And whether gold, silver, and paper are not tickets or\ncounters for reckoning, recording, and transferring thereof?\n\n26. Qu. Whether the denominations being retained, although the\nbullion were gone, things might not nevertheless be rated, bought,\nand sold, industry promoted, and a circulation of commerce\nmaintained?\n\n27. Qu. Whether an equal raising of all sorts of gold, silver, and\ncopper coin can have any effect in bringing money into the kingdom?\nAnd whether altering the proportions between the kingdom several\nsorts can have any other effect but multiplying one kind and\nlessening another, without any increase of the sum total?\n\n28. Qu. Whether arbitrary changing the denomination of coin be not a\npublic cheat?\n\n29. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, the damage would be very\nconsiderable, if by degrees our money were brought back to the\nEnglish value there to rest for ever?\n\n30. Qu. Whether the English crown did not formerly pass with us for\nsix shillings? And what inconvenience ensued to the public upon its\nreduction to the present value, and whether what hath been may not\nbe?\n\n31. Qu. What makes a wealthy people? Whether mines of gold and\nsilver are capable of doing this? And whether the negroes, amidst\nthe gold sands of Afric, are not poor and destitute?\n\n32. Qu. Whether there be any vertue in gold or silver, other than as\nthey set people at work, or create industry?\n\n33. Qu. Whether it be not the opinion or will of the people,\nexciting them to industry, that truly enricheth a nation? And\nwhether this doth not principally depend on the means for counting,\ntransferring, and preserving power, that is, property of all kinds?\n\n34. Qu. Whether if there was no silver or gold in the kingdom, our\ntrade might not, nevertheless, supply bills of exchange, sufficient\nto answer the demands of absentees in England or elsewhere?\n\n35. Qu. Whether current bank notes may not be deemed money? And\nwhether they are not actually the greater part of the money of this\nkingdom?\n\n36. Qu. Provided the wheels move, whether it is not the same thing,\nas to the effect of the machine, be this done by the force of wind,\nor water, or animals?\n\n37. Qu. Whether power to command the industry of others be not real\nwealth? And whether money be not in truth tickets or tokens for\nconveying and recording such power, and whether it be of great\nconsequence what materials the tickets are made of?\n\n38. Qu. Whether trade, either foreign or domestic, be in truth any\nmore than this commerce of industry?\n\n39. Qu. Whether to promote, transfer, and secure this commerce, and\nthis property in human labour, or, in other words, this power, be\nnot the sole means of enriching a people, and how far this may be\ndone independently of gold and silver?\n\n40. Qu. Whether it were not wrong to suppose land itself to be\nwealth? And whether the industry of the people is not first to be\nconsider'd, as that which constitutes wealth, which makes even land\nand silver to be wealth, neither of which would have, any value but\nas means and motives to industry?\n\n41. Qu. Whether in the wastes of America a man might not possess\ntwenty miles square of land, and yet want his dinner, or a coat to\nhis back?\n\n42. Qu. Whether a fertile land, and the industry of its inhabitants,\nwould not prove inexhaustible funds of real wealth, be the counters\nfor conveying and recording thereof what you will, paper, gold, or\nsilver?\n\n43. Qu. Whether a single hint be sufficient to overcome a prejudice?\nAnd whether even obvious truths will not sometimes bear repeating?\n\n44. Qu. Whether, if human labour be the true source of wealth, it\ndoth not follow that idleness should of all things be discouraged in\na wise State?\n\n45. Qu. Whether even gold or silver, if they should lessen the\nindustry of its inhabitants, would not be ruinous to a country? And\nwhether Spain be not an instance of this?\n\n46. Qu. Whether the opinion of men, and their industry consequent\nthereupon, be not the true wealth of Holland and not the silver\nsupposed to be deposited in the bank at Amsterdam?\n\n47. Qu. Whether there is in truth any such treasure lying dead? And\nwhether it be of great consequence to the public that it should be\nreal rather than notional?\n\n48. Qu. Whether in order to understand the true nature of wealth and\ncommerce, it would not be right to consider a ship's crew cast upon\na desert island, and by degrees forming themselves to business and\ncivil life, while industry begot credit, and credit moved to\nindustry?\n\n49. Qu. Whether such men would not all set themselves to work?\nWhether they would not subsist by the mutual participation of each\nother's industry? Whether, when one man had in his way procured more\nthan he could consume, he would not exchange his superfluities to\nsupply his wants? Whether this must not produce credit? Whether, to\nfacilitate these conveyances, to record and circulate this credit,\nthey would not soon agree on certain tallies, tokens, tickets, or\ncounters?\n\n50. Qu. Whether reflection in the better sort might not soon remedy\nour evils? And whether our real defect be not a wrong way of\nthinking?\n\n51. Qu. Whether it would not be an unhappy turn in our gentlemen, if\nthey should take more thought to create an interest to themselves in\nthis or that county, or borough, than to promote the real interest\nof their country?\n\n52. Qu. Whether it be not a bull to call that making an interest,\nwhereby a man spendeth much and gaineth nothing?\n\n53. Qu. Whether if a man builds a house he doth not in the first\nplace provide a plan which governs his work? And shall the pubic act\nwithout an end, a view, a plan?\n\n54. Qu. Whether by how much the less particular folk think for\nthemselves, the public be not so much the more obliged to think for\nthem?\n\n55. Qu. Whether cunning be not one thing and good sense another? and\nwhether a cunning tradesman doth not stand in his own light?\n\n56. Qu. Whether small gains be not the way to great profit? And if\nour tradesmen are beggars, whether they may not thank themselves for\nit?\n\n57. Qu. Whether some way might not be found for making criminals\nuseful in public works, instead of sending them either to America,\nor to the other world?\n\n58. Qu. Whether we may not, as well as other nations, contrive\nemployment for them? And whether servitude, chains, and hard labour,\nfor a term of years, would not be a more discouraging as well as a\nmore adequate punishment for felons than even death itself?\n\n59. Qu. Whether there are not such things in Holland as bettering\nhouses for bringing young gentlemen to order? And whether such an\ninstitution would be useless among us?\n\n60. Qu. Whether it be true that the poor in Holland have no resource\nbut their own labour, and yet there are no beggars in their streets?\n\n61. Qu. Whether he whose luxury consumeth foreign products, and\nwhose industry produceth nothing domestic to exchange for them, is\nnot so far forth injurious to his country?\n\n62. Qu. Whether, consequently, the fine gentlemen, whose employment\nis only to dress, drink, and play, be not a pubic nuisance?\n\n63. Qu. Whether necessity is not to be hearkened to before\nconvenience, and convenience before luxury?\n\n64. Qu. Whether to provide plentifully for the poor be not feeding\nthe root, the substance whereof will shoot upwards into the\nbranches, and cause the top to flourish?\n\n65. Qu. Whether there be any instance of a State wherein the people,\nliving neatly and plentifully, did not aspire to wealth?\n\n66. Qu. Whether nastiness and beggary do not, on the contrary,\nextinguish all such ambition, making men listless, hopeless, and\nslothful?\n\n67. Qu. Whether a country inhabited by people well fed, clothed and\nlodged would not become every day more populous? And whether a\nnumerous stock of people in such circumstances would? and how far\nthe product of not constitute a flourishing nation; our own country\nmay suffice for the compassing of this end?\n\n68. Qu. Whether a people who had provided themselves with the\nnecessaries of life in good plenty would not soon extend their\nindustry to new arts and new branches of commerce?\n\n69. Qu. Whether those same manufactures which England imports from\nother countries may not be admitted from Ireland? And, if so,\nwhether lace, carpets, and tapestry, three considerable articles of\nEnglish importation, might not find encouragement in Ireland? And\nwhether an academy for design might not greatly conduce to the\nperfecting those manufactures among us?\n\n70. Qu. Whether France and Flanders could have drawn so much money\nfrom England for figured silks, lace, and tapestry, if they had not\nhad academies for designing?\n\n71. Qu. Whether, when a room was once prepared, and models in\nplaster of Paris, the annual expense of such an academy need stand\nthe pubic in above two hundred pounds a year?\n\n72. Qu. Whether our linen-manufacture would not find the benefit of\nthis institution? And whether there be anything that makes us fall\nshort of the Dutch in damasks, diapers, and printed linen, but our\nignorance in design?\n\n73. Qu. Whether those specimens of our own manufacture, hung up in a\ncertain public place, do not sufficiently declare such our\nignorance? and whether for the honour of the nation they ought not\nto be removed?\n\n74. Qu. Whether those who may slight this affair as notional have\nsufficiently considered the extensive use of the art of design, and\nits influence in most trades and manufactures, wherein the forms of\nthings are often more regarded than the materials?\n\n75. Qu. Whether there be any art sooner learned than that of making\ncarpets? And whether our women, with little time and pains, may not\nmake more beautiful carpets than those imported from Turkey? And\nwhether this branch of the woollen manufacture be not open to us?\n\n76. Qu. Whether human industry can produce, from such cheap\nmaterials, a manufacture of so great value by any other art as by\nthose of sculpture and painting?\n\n77. Qu. Whether pictures and statues are not in fact so much\ntreasure? And whether Rome and Florence would not be poor towns\nwithout them?\n\n78. Qu. Whether they do not bring ready money as well as jewels?\nWhether in Italy debts are not paid, and children portioned with\nthem, as with gold and silver?\n\n79. Qu. Whether it would not be more prudent, to strike out and\nexert ourselves in permitted branches of trade, than to fold our\nhands, and repine that we are not allowed the woollen?\n\n80. Qu. Whether it be true that two millions are yearly expended by\nEngland in foreign lace and linen?\n\n81. Qu. Whether immense sums are not drawn yearly into the Northern\ncountries, for supplying the British navy with hempen manufactures?\n\n82. Qu. Whether there be anything more profitable than hemp? And\nwhether there should not be great premiums for encouraging our\nhempen trade? What advantages may not Great Britain make of a\ncountry where land and labour are so cheap?\n\n83. Qu. Whether Ireland alone might not raise hemp sufficient for\nthe British navy? And whether it would not be vain to expect this\nfrom the British Colonies in America, where hands are so scarce, and\nlabour so excessively dear?\n\n84. Qu. Whether, if our own people want will or capacity for such an\nattempt, it might not be worth while for some undertaking spirits in\nEngland to make settlements, and raise hemp in the counties of Clare\nand Limerick, than which, perhaps, there is not fitter land in the\nworld for that purpose? And whether both nations would not find\ntheir advantage therein?\n\n85. Qu. Whether if all the idle hands in this kingdom were employed\non hemp and flax, we might not find sufficient vent for these\nmanufactures?\n\n86. Qu. How far it may be in our own power to better our affairs,\nwithout interfering with our neighbours?\n\n87. Qu. Whether the prohibition of our woollen trade ought not\nnaturally to put us on other methods which give no jealousy?\n\n88. Qu. Whether paper be not a valuable article of commerce? And\nwhether it be not true that one single bookseller in London yearly\nexpended above four thousand pounds in that foreign commodity?\n\n89. Qu. How it comes to pass that the Venetians and Genoese, who\nwear so much less linen, and so much worse than we do, should yet\nmake very good paper, and in great quantity, while we make very\nlittle?\n\n90. Qu. How long it will be before my countrymen find out that it is\nworth while to spend a penny in order to get a groat?\n\n91. Qu. If all the land were tilled that is fit for tillage, and all\nthat sowed with hemp and flax that is fit for raising them, whether\nwe should have much sheep-walk beyond what was sufficient to supply\nthe necessities of the kingdom?\n\n92. Qu. Whether other countries have not flourished without the\nwoollen trade?\n\n93. Qu. Whether it be not a sure sign or effect of a country's\ninhabitants? And, thriving, to see it well cultivated and full of;\nif so, whether a great quantity of sheep-walk be not ruinous to a\ncountry, rendering it waste and thinly inhabited?\n\n94. Qu. Whether the employing so much of our land under sheep be not\nin fact an Irish blunder?\n\n95. Qu. Whether our hankering after our woollen trade be not the\ntrue and only reason which hath created a jealousy in England\ntowards Ireland? And whether anything can hurt us more than such\njealousy?\n\n96. Qu. Whether it be not the true interest of both nations to\nbecome one people? And whether either be sufficiently apprised of\nthis?\n\n97. Qu. Whether the upper part of this people are not truly English,\nby blood, language, religion, manners, inclination, and interest?\n\n98. Qu. Whether we are not as much Englishmen as the children of old\nRomans, born in Britain, were still Romans?\n\n99. Qu. Whether it be not our true interest not to interfere with\nthem; and, in every other case, whether it be not their true\ninterest to befriend us?\n\n100. Qu. Whether a mint in Ireland might not be of great convenience\nto the kingdom; and whether it could be attended with any possible\ninconvenience to Great Britain? And whether there were not mints in\nNaples and Sicily, when those kingdoms were provinces to Spain or\nthe house of Austria?\n\n101. Qu. Whether anything can be more ridiculous than for the north\nof Ireland to be jealous of a linen manufacturer in the south?\n\n102. Qu. Whether the county of Tipperary be not much better land\nthan the county of Armagh; and yet whether the latter is not much\nbetter improved and inhabited than the former?\n\n103. Qu. Whether every landlord in the kingdom doth not know the\ncause of this? And yet how few are the better for such their\nknowledge?\n\n104. Qu. Whether large farms under few hands, or small ones under\nmany, are likely to be made most of? And whether flax and tillage do\nnot naturally multiply hands, and divide land into small holdings,\nand well-improved?\n\n105. Qu. Whether, as our exports are lessened, we ought not to\nlessen our imports? And whether these will not be lessened as our\ndemands, and these as our wants, and these as our customs or\nfashions? Of how great consequence therefore are fashions to the\npublic?\n\n106. Qu. Whether it would not be more reasonable to mend our state\nthan to complain of it; and how far this may be in our own power?\n\n107. Qu. What the nation gains by those who live in Ireland upon the\nproduce of foreign Countries?\n\n108. Qu. How far the vanity of our ladies in dressing, and of our\ngentlemen in drinking, contributes to the general misery of the\npeople?\n\n109. Qu. Whether nations, as wise and opulent as ours, have not made\nsumptuary laws; and what hinders us from doing the same?\n\n110. Qu. Whether those who drink foreign liquors, and deck\nthemselves and their families with foreign ornaments, are not so far\nforth to be reckoned absentees?\n\n111. Qu. Whether, as our trade is limited, we ought not to limit our\nexpenses; and whether this be not the natural and obvious remedy?\n\n112. Qu. Whether the dirt, and famine, and nakedness of the bulk of\nour people might not be remedied, even although we had no foreign\ntrade? And whether this should not be our first care; and whether,\nif this were once provided for, the conveniences of the rich would\nnot soon follow?\n\n113. Qu. Whether comfortable living doth not produce wants, and\nwants industry, and industry wealth?\n\n114. Qu. Whether there is not a great difference between Holland and\nIreland? And whether foreign commerce, without which the one could\nnot subsist, be so necessary for the other?\n\n115. Qu. Might we not put a hand to the plough, or the spade,\nalthough we had no foreign commerce?\n\n116. Qu. Whether the exigencies of nature are not to be answered by\nindustry on our own soil? And how far the conveniences and comforts\nof life may be procured by a domestic commerce between the several\nparts of this kingdom?\n\n117. Qu. Whether the women may not sew, spin, weave, embroider\nsufficiently for the embellishment of their persons, and even enough\nto raise envy in each other, without being beholden to foreign\ncountries?\n\n118. Qu. Suppose the bulk of our inhabitants had shoes to their\nfeet, clothes to their backs, and beef in their bellies, might not\nsuch a state be eligible for the public, even though the squires\nwere condemned to drink ale and cider?\n\n119. Qu. Whether, if drunkenness be a necessary evil, men may not as\nwell drink the growth of their own country?\n\n120. Qu. Whether a nation within itself might not have real wealth,\nsufficient to give its inhabitants power and distinction, without\nthe help of gold and silver?\n\n121. Qu. Whether, if the arts of sculpture and painting were\nencouraged among us, we might not furnish our houses in a much\nnobler manner with our own manufactures?\n\n122. Qu. Whether we have not, or may not have, all the necessary\nmaterials for building at home?\n\n123. Qu. Whether tiles and plaster may not supply the place of\nNorway fir for flooring and wainscot?\n\n124. Qu. Whether plaster be not warmer, as well as more secure, than\ndeal? And whether a modern fashionable house, lined with fir, daubed\nover with oil and paint, be not like a fire-ship, ready to be\nlighted up by all accidents?\n\n125. Qu. Whether larger houses, better built and furnished, a\ngreater train of servants, the difference with regard to equipage\nand table between finer and coarser, more and less elegant, may not\nbe sufficient to feed a reasonable share of vanity, or support all\nproper distinctions? And whether all these may not be procured by\ndomestic industry out of the four elements, without ransacking the\nfour quarters of the globe?\n\n126. Qu. Whether anything is a nobler ornament, in the eye of the\nworld, than an Italian palace, that is, stone and mortar skilfully\nput together, and adorned with sculpture and painting; and whether\nthis may not be compassed without foreign trade?\n\n127. Qu. Whether an expense in gardens and plantations would not be\nan elegant distinction for the rich, a domestic magnificence\nemploying many hands within, and drawing nothing from abroad?\n\n128. Qu. Whether the apology which is made for foreign luxury in\nEngland, to wit, that they could not carry on their trade without\nimports as well as exports, will hold in Ireland?\n\n129. Qu. Whether one may not be allowed to conceive and suppose a\nsociety or nation of human creatures, clad in woollen cloths and\nstuffs, eating good bread, beef and mutton, poultry and fish, in\ngreat plenty, drinking ale, mead, and cider, inhabiting decent\nhouses built of brick and marble, taking their pleasure in fair\nparks and gardens, depending on no foreign imports either for food\nor raiment? And whether such people ought much to be pitied?\n\n130. Qu. Whether Ireland be not as well qualified for such a state\nas any nation under the sun?\n\n131. Qu. Whether in such a state the inhabitants may not contrive to\npass the twenty-four hours with tolerable ease and cheerfulness? And\nwhether any people upon earth can do more?\n\n132. Qu. Whether they may not eat, drink, play, dress, visit, sleep\nin good beds, sit by good fires, build, plant, raise a name, make\nestates, and spend them?\n\n133. Qu. Whether, upon the whole, a domestic trade may not suffice\nin such a country as Ireland, to nourish and clothe its inhabitants,\nand provide them with the reasonable conveniences and even comforts\nof life?\n\n134. Qu. Whether a general habit of living well would not produce\nnumbers and industry' and whether, considering the tendency of human\nkind, the consequence thereof would not be foreign trade and riches,\nhow unnecessary soever?\n\n135. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, it be a crime to inquire how far we\nmay do without foreign trade, and what would follow on such a\nsupposition?\n\n136. Qu. Whether the number and welfare of the subjects be not the\ntrue strength of the crown?\n\n137. Qu. Whether in all public institutions there should not be an\nend proposed, which is to be the rule and limit of the means?\nWhether this end should not be the well-being of the whole? And\nwhether, in order to this, the first step should not be to clothe\nand feed our people?\n\n138. Qu. Whether there be upon earth any Christian or civilized\npeople so beggarly, wretched, and destitute as the common Irish?\n\n139. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, there is any other people whose\nwants may be more easily supplied from home?\n\n140. Qu. Whether, if there was a wall of brass a thousand cubits\nhigh round this kingdom, our natives might not nevertheless live\ncleanly and comfortably, till the land, and reap the fruits of it?\n\n141. Qu. What should hinder us from exerting ourselves, using our\nhands and brains, doing something or other, man, woman, and child,\nlike the other inhabitants of God's earth?\n\n142. Qu. Be the restraining our trade well or ill advised in our\nneighbours, with respect to their own interest, yet whether it be\nnot plainly ours to accommodate ourselves to it?\n\n143. Qu. Whether it be not vain to think of persuading other people\nto see their interest, while we continue blind to our own?\n\n144. Qu. Whether there be any other nation possess'd of so much good\nland, and so many able hands to work it, which yet is beholden for\nbread to foreign countries?\n\n145. Qu. Whether it be true that we import corn to the value of two\nhundred thousand pounds in some years?\n\n146. Qu. Whether we are not undone by fashions made for other\npeople? And whether it be not madness in a poor nation to imitate a\nrich one?\n\n147. Qu. Whether a woman of fashion ought not to be declared a\npublic enemy?\n\n148. Qu. Whether it be not certain that from the single town of Cork\nwere exported, in one year, no less than one hundred and seven\nthousand one hundred and sixty-one barrels of beef; seven thousand\nthree hundred and seventy-nine barrels of pork; thirteen thousand\nfour hundred and sixty-one casks, and eighty-five thousand seven\nhundred and twenty-seven firkins of butter? And what hands were\nemployed in this manufacture?\n\n149. Qu. Whether a foreigner could imagine that one half of the\npeople were starving, in a country which sent out such plenty of\nprovisions?\n\n150. Qu. Whether an Irish lady, set out with French silks and\nFlanders lace, may not be said to consume more beef and butter than\na hundred of our labouring peasants?\n\n151. Qu. Whether nine-tenths of our foreign trade be not carried on\nsingly to support the article of vanity?\n\n152. Qu. Whether it can be hoped that private persons will not\nindulge this folly, unless restrained by the public?\n\n153. Qu. How vanity is maintained in other countries? Whether in\nHungary, for instance, a proud nobility are not subsisted with small\nimports from abroad?\n\n154. Qu. Whether there be a prouder people upon earth than the noble\nVenetians, although they all wear plain black clothes?\n\n155. Qu. Whether a people are to be pitied that will not sacrifice\ntheir little particular vanities to the public good? And yet,\nwhether each part would not except their own foible from this public\nsacrifice, the squire his bottle, the lady her lace?\n\n156. Qu. Whether claret be not often drank rather for vanity than\nfor health, or pleasure?\n\n157. Qu. Whether it be true that men of nice palates have been\nimposed on, by elder wine for French claret, and by mead for palm\nsack?\n\n158. Qu. Do not Englishmen abroad purchase beer and cider at ten\ntimes the price of wine?\n\n159. Qu. How many gentlemen are there in England of a thousand\npounds per annum who never drink wine in their own houses? Whether\nthe same may be said of any in Ireland who have even? one hundred\npounds per annum.\n\n160. Qu. What reasons have our neighbours in England for\ndiscouraging French wines which may not hold with respect to us\nalso?\n\n161. Qu. How much of the necessary sustenance of our people is\nyearly exported for brandy?\n\n162. Qu. Whether, if people must poison themselves, they had not\nbetter do it with their own growth?\n\n163. Qu. If we imported neither claret from France, nor fir from\nNorway, what the nation would save by it?\n\n164. Qu. When the root yieldeth insufficient nourishment, whether\nmen do not top the tree to make the lower branches thrive?\n\n165. Qu. Whether, if our ladies drank sage or balm tea out of Irish\nware, it would be an insupportable national calamity?\n\n166. Qu. Whether it be really true that such wine is best as most\nencourages drinking, i.e., that must be given in the largest dose to\nproduce its effect? And whether this holds with regard to any other\nmedicine?\n\n167. Qu. Whether that trade should not be accounted most pernicious\nwherein the balance is most against us? And whether this be not the\ntrade with France?\n\n168. Qu. Whether it be not even madness to encourage trade with a\nnation that takes nothing of our manufacture?\n\n169. Qu. Whether Ireland can hope to thrive if the major part of her\npatriots shall be found in the French interest?\n\n170. Qu. Why, if a bribe by the palate or the purse be in effect the\nsame thing, they should not be alike infamous?\n\n171. Qu. Whether the vanity and luxury of a few ought to stand in\ncompetition with the interest of a nation?\n\n172. Qu. Whether national wants ought not to be the rule of trade?\nAnd whether the most pressing wants of the majority ought not to be\nfirst consider'd?\n\n173. Qu. Whether it is possible the country should be well improved,\nwhile our beef is exported, and our labourers live upon potatoes?\n\n174. Qu. If it be resolved that we cannot do without foreign trade,\nwhether, at least, it may not be worth while to consider what\nbranches thereof deserve to be entertained, and how far we may be\nable to carry it on under our present limitations?\n\n175. Qu. What foreign imports may be necessary for clothing and\nfeeding the families of persons not worth above one hundred pounds a\nyear? And how many wealthier there are in the kingdom, and what\nproportion they bear to the other inhabitants?\n\n176. Qu. Whether trade be not then on a right foot, when foreign\ncommodities are imported in exchange only for domestic superfluities?\n\n177. Qu. Whether the quantities of beef, butter, wool, and leather,\nexported from this island, can be reckoned the superfluities of a\ncountry, where there are so many natives naked and famished?\n\n178. Qu. Whether it would not be wise so to order our trade as to\nexport manufactures rather than provisions, and of those such as\nemploy most hands?\n\n179. Qu. Whether she would not be a very vile matron, and justly\nthought either mad or foolish, that should give away the necessaries\nof life from her naked and famished children, in exchange for pearls\nto stick in her hair, and sweetmeats to please her own palate?\n\n180. Qu. Whether a nation might not be consider'd as a family?\n\n181. Qu. Whether other methods may not be found for supplying the\nfunds, besides the custom on things imported?\n\n182. Qu. Whether any art or manufacture be so difficult as the\nmaking of good laws?\n\n183. Qu. Whether our peers and gentlemen are born legislators? Or,\nwhether that faculty be acquired by study and reflection?\n\n184. Qu. Whether to comprehend the real interest of a people, and\nthe means to procure it, doth not imply some fund of knowledge,\nhistorical, moral, and political, with a faculty of reason improved\nby learning?\n\n185. Qu. Whether every enemy to learning be not a Goth? And whether\nevery such Goth among us be not an enemy to the country?\n\n186. Qu. Whether, therefore, it would not be an omen of ill presage,\na dreadful phenomenon in the land, if our great men should take it\nin their heads to deride learning and education?\n\n187. Qu. Whether, on the contrary, it should not seem worth while to\nerect a mart of literature in this kingdom, under wiser regulations\nand better discipline than in any other part of Europe? And whether\nthis would not be an infallible means of drawing men and money into\nthe kingdom?\n\n188. Qu. Whether the governed be not too numerous for the governing\npart of our college? And whether it might not be expedient to\nconvert thirty natives-places into twenty fellowships?\n\n189. Qu. Whether, if we had two colleges, there might not spring a\nuseful emulation between them? And whether it might not be contrived\nso to divide the fellows, scholars, and revenues between both, as\nthat no member should be a loser thereby?\n\n190. Qu. Whether ten thousand pounds well laid out might not build a\ndecent college, fit to contain two hundred persons; and whether the\npurchase money of the chambers would not go a good way towards\ndefraying the expense?\n\n191. Qu. Where this college should be situated?\n\n192. Qu. Whether it is possible a State should not thrive, whereof\nthe lower part were industrious, and the upper wise?\n\n193. Qu. Whether the collected wisdom of ages and nations be not\nfound in books, improved and applied by study?\n\n194. Qu. Whether it was not an Irish professor who first opened the\npublic schools at Oxford? Whether this island hath not been\nanciently famous for learning? And whether at this day it hath any\nbetter chance for being considerable?\n\n195. Qu. Whether we may not with better grace sit down and complain,\nwhen we have done all that lies in our power to help ourselves?\n\n196. Qu. Whether the gentleman of estate hath a right to be idle;\nand whether he ought not to be the great promoter and director of\nindustry among his tenants and neighbours?\n\n197. Qu. Whether the real foundation for wealth must not be laid in\nthe numbers, the frugality, and the industry of the people? And\nwhether all attempts to enrich a nation by other means, as raising\nthe coin, stock-jobbing, and such arts are not vain?\n\n198. Qu. Whether a door ought not to be shut against all other\nmethods of growing rich, save only by industry and merit? And\nwhether wealth got otherwise would not be ruinous to the public?\n\n199. Qu. Whether the abuse of banks and paper-money is a just\nobjection against the use thereof? And whether such abuse might not\neasily be prevented?\n\n200. Qu. Whether national banks are not found useful in Venice,\nHolland, and Hamburg? And whether it is not possible to contrive one\nthat may be useful also in Ireland?\n\n201. Qu. Whether any nation ever was in greater want of such an\nexpedient than Ireland?\n\n202. Qu. Whether the banks of Venice and Amsterdam are not in the\nhands of the public?\n\n203. Qu. Whether it may not be worth while to inform ourselves in\nthe nature of those banks? And what reason can be assigned why\nIreland should not reap the benefit of such public banks as well as\nother countries?\n\n204. Qu. Whether a bank of national credit, supported by public\nfunds and secured by Parliament, be a chimera or impossible thing?\nAnd if not, what would follow from the supposal of such a bank?\n\n205. Qu. Whether the currency of a credit so well secured would not\nbe of great advantage to our trade and manufactures?\n\n206. Qu. Whether the notes of such public bank would not have a more\ngeneral circulation than those of private banks, as being less\nsubject to frauds and hazards?\n\n207. Qu. Whether it be not agreed that paper hath in many respects\nthe advantage above coin, as being of more dispatch in payments,\nmore easily transferred, preserved, and recovered when lost?\n\n208. Qu. Whether, besides these advantages, there be not an evident\nnecessity for circulating credit by paper, from the defect of coin\nin this kingdom?\n\n209. Qu. Whether the public may not as well save the interest which\nit now pays?\n\n210. Qu. What would happen if two of our banks should break at once?\nAnd whether it be wise to neglect providing against an event which\nexperience hath shewn us not to be impossible?\n\n211. Qu. Whether such an accident would not particularly affect the\nbankers? And therefore whether a national bank would not be a\nsecurity even to private bankers?\n\n212. Qu. Whether we may not easily avoid the inconveniencies\nattending the paper-money of New England, which were incurred by\ntheir issuing too great a quantity of notes, by their having no\nsilver in bank to exchange for notes, by their not insisting upon\nrepayment of the loans at the time prefixed, and especially by their\nwant of manufactures to answer their imports from Europe?\n\n213. Qu. Whether a combination of bankers might not do wonders, and\nwhether bankers know their own strength?\n\n214. Qu. Whether a bank in private hands might not even overturn a\ngovernment? and whether this was not the case of the Bank of St.\nGeorge in Genoa? [Footnote: See the Vindication and Advancement of\nour national Constitution and Credit. Printed in London 1710.]\n\n215. Qu. Whether we may not easily prevent the ill effects of such a\nbank as Mr Law proposed for Scotland, which was faulty in not\nlimiting the quantum of bills, and permitting all persons to take\nout what bills they pleased, upon the mortgage of lands, whence by a\nglut of paper, the prices of things must rise? Whence also the\nfortunes of men must increase in denomination, though not in value;\nwhence pride, idleness, and beggary?\n\n216. Qu. Whether such banks as those of England and Scotland might\nnot be attended with great inconveniences, as lodging too much power\nin the hands of private men, and giving handle for monopolies,\nstock-jobbing, and destructive schemes?\n\n217. Qu. Whether the national bank, projected by an anonymous writer\nin the latter end of Queen Anne's reign, might not on the other hand\nbe attended with as great inconveniencies by lodging too much power\nin the Government?\n\n218. Qu. Whether the bank projected by Murray, though it partake, in\nmany useful particulars, with that of Amsterdam, yet, as it placeth\ntoo great power in the hands of a private society, might not be\ndangerous to the public?\n\n219. Qu. Whether it be rightly remarked by some that, as banking\nbrings no treasure into the kingdom like trade, private wealth must\nsink as the bank riseth? And whether whatever causeth industry to\nflourish and circulate may not be said to increase our treasure?\n\n220. Qu. Whether the ruinous effects of Mississippi, South Sea, and\nsuch schemes were not owing to an abuse of paper money or credit, in\nmaking it a means for idleness and gaming, instead of a motive and\nhelp to industry?\n\n221. Qu. Whether those effects could have happened had there been no\nstock-jobbing? And whether stock-jobbing could at first have been\nset on foot, without an imaginary foundation of some improvement to\nthe stock by trade? Whether, therefore, when there are no such\nprospects, or cheats, or private schemes proposed, the same effects\ncan be justly feared?\n\n222. Qu. Whether by a national bank, be not properly understood a\nbank, not only established by public authority as the Bank of\nEngland, but a bank in the hands of the public, wherein there are no\nshares: whereof the public alone is proprietor, and reaps all the\nbenefit?\n\n223. Qu. Whether, having considered the conveniencies of banking and\npaper-credit in some countries, and the inconveniencies thereof in\nothers, we may not contrive to adopt the former, and avoid the\nlatter?\n\n224. Qu. Whether great evils, to which other schemes are liable, may\nnot be prevented, by excluding the managers of the bank from a share\nin the legislature?\n\n225. Qu. Whether the rise of the bank of Amsterdam was not purely\ncasual, for the security and dispatch of payments? And whether the\ngood effects thereof, in supplying the place of coin, and promoting\na ready circulation of industry and commerce may not be a lesson to\nus, to do that by design which others fell upon by chance?\n\n226. Qu. Whether the bank proposed to be established in Ireland,\nunder the notion of a national bank, by the voluntary subscription\nof three hundred thousand pounds, to pay off the national debt, the\ninterest of which sum to be paid the subscribers, subject to certain\nterms of redemption, be not in reality a private bank, as those of\nEngland and Scotland, which are national only in name, being in the\nhands of particular persons, and making dividends on the money paid\nin by subscribers? [Footnote: See a Proposal for the Relief of\nIreland, &c. Printed in Dublin A. D. 1734]\n\n227. Qu. Whether plenty of small cash be not absolutely necessary\nfor keeping up a circulation among the people; that is, whether\ncopper be not more necessary than gold?\n\n228. Qu. Whether it is not worth while to reflect on the expedients\nmade use of by other nations, paper-money, bank-notes, public funds,\nand credit in all its shapes, to examine what hath been done and\ndevised to add to our own animadversions, and upon the whole offer\nsuch hints as seem not unworthy the attention of the public?\n\n229. Qu. Whether that, which increaseth the stock of a nation be not\na means of increasing its trade? And whether that which increaseth\nthe current credit of a nation may not be said to increase its\nstock?\n\n230. Qu. Whether it may not be expedient to appoint certain funds or\nstock for a national bank, under direction of certain persons,\none-third whereof to be named by the Government, and one-third by\neach House of Parliament?\n\n231. Qu. Whether the directors should not be excluded from sitting\nin either House, and whether they should not be subject to the audit\nand visitation of a standing committee of both Houses?\n\n232. Qu. Whether such committee of inspectors should not be changed\nevery two years, one-half going out, and another coming in by\nballot?\n\n233. Qu. Whether the notes ought not to be issued in lots, to be let\nat interest on mortgaged lands, the whole number of lots to be\ndivided among the four provinces, rateably to the number of hearths\nin each?\n\n234. Qu. Whether it may not be expedient to appoint four\ncounting-houses, one in each province, for converting notes into\nspecie?\n\n235. Qu. Whether a limit should not be fixed, which no person might\nexceed, in taking out notes?\n\n236. Qu. Whether, the better to answer domestic circulation, it may\nnot be right to issue notes as low as twenty shillings?\n\n237. Qu. Whether all the bills should be issued at once, or rather\nby degrees, that so men may be gradually accustomed and reconciled\nto the bank?\n\n238. Qu. Whether the keeping of the cash, and the direction of the\nbank, ought not to be in different hands, and both under public\ncontrol?\n\n239. Qu. Whether the same rule should not alway be observed, of\nlending out money or notes, only to half the value of the mortgaged\nland? and whether this value should not alway be rated at the same\nnumber of years' purchase as at first?\n\n240. Qu. Whether care should not be taken to prevent an undue rise\nof the value of land?\n\n241. Qu. Whether the increase of industry and people will not of\ncourse raise the value of land? And whether this rise may not be\nsufficient?\n\n242. Qu. Whether land may not be apt to rise on the issuing too\ngreat plenty of notes?\n\n243. Qu. Whether this may not be prevented by the gradual and slow\nissuing of notes, and by frequent sales of lands?\n\n244. Qu. Whether interest doth not measure the true value of land;\nfor instance, where money is at five per cent, whether land is not\nworth twenty years' purchase?\n\n245. Qu. Whether too small a proportion of money would not hurt the\nlanded man, and too great a proportion the monied man? And whether\nthe quantum of notes ought not to bear proportion to the pubic\ndemand? And whether trial must not shew what this demand will be?\n\n246. Qu. Whether the exceeding this measure might not produce divers\nbad effects, one whereof would be the loss of our silver?\n\n247. Qu. Whether interest paid into the bank ought not to go on\naugmenting its stock?\n\n248. Qu. Whether it would or would not be right to appoint that the\nsaid interest be paid in notes only?\n\n249. Qu. Whether the notes of this national bank should not be\nreceived in all payments into the exchequer?\n\n250. Qu. Whether on supposition that the specie should fail, the\ncredit would not, nevertheless, still pass, being admitted in all\npayments of the public revenue?\n\n251. Qu. Whether the pubic can become bankrupt so long as the notes\nare issued on good security?\n\n252. Qu. Whether mismanagement, prodigal living, hazards by trade,\nwhich often affect private banks, are equally to be apprehended in a\npubic one?\n\n253. Qu. Whether as credit became current, and this raised the value\nof land, the security must not of course rise?\n\n254. Qu. Whether, as our current domestic credit grew, industry\nwould not grow likewise; and if industry, our manufactures; and if\nthese, our foreign credit?\n\n255. Qu. Whether by degrees, as business and people multiplied, more\nbills may not be issued, without augmenting the capital stock,\nprovided still, that they are issued on good security; which further\nissuing of new bills, not to be without consent of Parliament?\n\n256. Qu. Whether such bank would not be secure? Whether the profits\naccruing to the pubic would not be very considerable? And whether\nindustry in private persons would not be supplied, and a general\ncirculation encouraged?\n\n257. Qu. Whether such bank should, or should not, be allowed to\nissue notes for money deposited therein? And, if not, whether the\nbankers would have cause to complain?\n\n258. Qu. Whether, if the public thrives, all particular persons must\nnot feel the benefit thereof, even the bankers themselves?\n\n259. Qu. Whether, beside the Bank-Company, there are not in England\nmany private wealthy bankers, and whether they were more before the\nerecting of that company?\n\n260. Qu. Whether as industry increased, our manufactures would not\nflourish; and as these flourished, whether better returns would not\nbe made from estates to their landlords, both within and without the\nkingdom?\n\n261. Qu. Whether we have not paper-money circulating among, whether,\ntherefore, we might not as well have that us already which is\nsecured by the public, and whereof the pubic reaps the benefit?\n\n262. Qu. Whether there are not two general ways of circulating\nmoney, to wit, play and traffic? and whether stock-jobbing is not to\nbe ranked under the former?\n\n263. Qu. Whether there are more than two things that might draw\nsilver out of the bank, when its credit was once well established,\nto wit, foreign demands and small payments at home?\n\n264. Qu. Whether, if our trade with France were checked, the former\nof these causes could be supposed to operate at all? and whether the\nlatter could operate to any great degree?\n\n265. Qu. Whether the sure way to supply people with tools and\nmaterials, and to set them at work, be not a free circulation of\nmoney, whether silver or paper?\n\n266. Qu. Whether in New England all trade and business is not as\nmuch at a stand, upon a scarcity of paper-money, as with us from the\nwant of specie?\n\n267. Qu. Whether paper-money or notes may not be issued from the\nnational bank, on the security of hemp, of linen, or other\nmanufactures whereby the poor might be supported in their industry?\n\n268. Qu. Whether it be certain that the quantity of silver in the\nbank of Amsterdam be greater now than at first; but whether it be\nnot certain that there is a greater circulation of industry and\nextent of trade, more people, ships, houses, and commodities of all\nsorts, more power by sea and land?\n\n269. Qu. Whether money, lying dead in the bank of Amsterdam, would\nnot be as useless as in the mine?\n\n270. Qu. Whether our visible security in land could be doubted? And\nwhether there be anything like this in the bank of Amsterdam?\n\n271. Qu. Whether it be just to apprehend danger from trusting a\nnational bank with power to extend its credit, to circulate notes\nwhich it shall be felony to counterfeit, to receive goods on loans,\nto purchase lands, to sell also or alienate them, and to deal in\nbills of exchange; when these powers are no other than have been\ntrusted for many years with the bank of England, although in truth\nbut a private bank?\n\n272. Qu. Whether the objection from monopolies and an overgrowth of\npower, which are made against private banks, can possibly hold\nagainst a national one?\n\n273. Qu. Whether banks raised by private subscription would be as\nadvantageous to the public as to the subscribers? and whether risks\nand frauds might not be more justly apprehended from them?\n\n274. Qu. Whether the evil effects which of late years have attended\npaper-money and credit in Europe did not spring from subscriptions,\nshares, dividends, and stock-jobbing?\n\n275. Qu. Whether the great evils attending paper-money in the\nBritish Plantations of America have not sprung from the overrating\ntheir lands, and issuing paper without discretion, and from the\nlegislators breaking their own rules in favour of themselves, thus\nsacrificing the public to their private benefit? And whether a\nlittle sense and honesty might not easily prevent all such\ninconveniences?\n\n276. Qu. Whether an argument from the abuse of things, against the\nuse of them, be conclusive?\n\n277. Qu. Whether he who is bred to a part be fitted to judge of the\nwhole?\n\n278. Qu. Whether interest be not apt to bias judgment? and whether\ntraders only are to be consulted about trade, or bankers about\nmoney?\n\n279. Qu. Whether the subject of Freethinking in religion be not\nexhausted? And whether it be not high time for our freethinkers to\nturn their thoughts to the improvement of their country?\n\n280. Qu. Whether any man hath a right to judge, that will not be at\nthe pains to distinguish?\n\n281. Qu. Whether there be not a wide difference between the profits\ngoing to augment the national stock, and being divided among private\nsharers? And whether, in the former case, there can possibly be any\ngaming or stock-jobbing?\n\n282. Qu. Whether it must not be ruinous for a nation to sit down to\ngame, be it with silver or with paper?\n\n283. Qu. Whether, therefore, the circulating paper, in the late\nruinous schemes of France and England, was the true evil, and not\nrather the circulating thereof without industry? And whether the\nbank of Amsterdam, where industry had been for so many years\nsubsisted and circulated by transfers on paper, doth not clearly\ndecide this point?\n\n284. Qu. Whether there are not to be seen in America fair towns,\nwherein the people are well lodged, fed, and clothed, without a\nbeggar in their streets, although there be not one grain of gold or\nsilver current among them?\n\n285. Qu. Whether these people do not exercise all arts and trades,\nbuild ships and navigate them to all parts of the world, purchase\nlands, till and reap the fruits of them, buy and sell, educate and\nprovide for their children? Whether they do not even indulge\nthemselves in foreign vanities?\n\n286. Qu. Whether, whatever inconveniences those people may have\nincurred from not observing either rules or bounds in their paper\nmoney, yet it be not certain that they are in a more flourishing\ncondition, have larger and better built towns, more plenty, more\nindustry, more arts and civility, and a more extensive commerce,\nthan when they had gold and silver current among them?\n\n287. Qu. Whether a view of the ruinous effects of absurd schemes and\ncredit mismanaged, so as to produce gaming and madness instead of\nindustry, can be any just objection against a national bank\ncalculated purely to promote industry?\n\n288. Qu. Whether a scheme for the welfare of this nation should not\ntake in the whole inhabitants? And whether it be not a vain attempt,\nto project the flourishing of our Protestant gentry, exclusive of\nthe bulk of the natives?\n\n289. Qu. Whether, therefore, it doth not greatly concern the State,\nthat our Irish natives should be converted, and the whole nation\nunited in the same religion, the same allegiance, and the same\ninterest? and how this may most probably be effected?\n\n290. Qu. Whether an oath, testifying allegiance to the king, and\ndisclaiming the pope's authority in temporals, may not be justly\nrequired of the Roman Catholics? And whether, in common prudence or\npolicy, any priest should be tolerated who refuseth to take it?\n\n291. Qu. Whether there have not been Popish recusants? and, if so,\nwhether it would be right to object against the foregoing oath, that\nall would take it, and none think themselves bound by it?\n\n292. Qu. Whether those of the Church of Rome, in converting the\nMoors of Spain or the Protestants of France, have not set us an\nexample which might justify a similar treatment of themselves, if\nthe laws of Christianity allowed thereof?\n\n293. Qu. Whether compelling men to a profession of faith is not the\nworst thing in Popery, and, consequently, whether to copy after the\nChurch of Rome therein, were not to become Papists ourselves in the\nworst sense?\n\n294. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, we may not imitate the Church of\nRome, in certain places, where Jews are tolerated, by obliging our\nIrish Papists, at stated times, to hear Protestant sermons? and\nwhether this would not make missionaries in the Irish tongue useful?\n\n295. Qu. Whether the mere act of hearing, without making any\nprofession of faith, or joining in any part of worship, be a\nreligious act; and, consequently, whether their being obliged to\nhear, may not consist with the toleration of Roman Catholics?\n\n296. Qu. Whether, if penal laws should be thought oppressive, we may\nnot at least be allowed to give premiums? And whether it would be\nwrong, if the public encouraged Popish families to become hearers,\nby paying their hearth-money for them?\n\n297. Qu. Whether in granting toleration, we ought not to distinguish\nbetween doctrines purely religious, and such as affect the State?\n\n298. Qu. Whether the case be not very different in regard to a man\nwho only eats fish on Fridays, says his prayers in Latin, or\nbelieves transubstantiation, and one who professeth in temporals a\nsubjection to foreign powers, who holdeth himself absolved from all\nobedience to his natural prince and the laws of his country? who is\neven persuaded, it may be meritorious to destroy the powers that\nare?\n\n299. Qu. Whether, therefore, a distinction should not be made\nbetween mere Papists and recusants? And whether the latter can\nexpect the same protection from the Government as the former?\n\n300. Qu. Whether our Papists in this kingdom can complain, if they\nare allowed to be as much Papists as the subjects of France or of\nthe Empire?\n\n301. Qu. Whether there is any such thing as a body of inhabitants,\nin any Roman Catholic country under the sun, that profess an\nabsolute submission to the pope's orders in matters of an\nindifferent nature, or that in such points do not think it their\nduty to obey the civil government?\n\n302. Qu. Whether since the peace of Utrecht, mass was not celebrated\nand the sacraments administered in divers dioceses of Sicily,\nnotwithstanding the Pope's interdict?\n\n303. Qu. Whether every plea of conscience is to be regarded?\nWhether, for instance, the German Anabaptists, Levellers, or Fifth\nMonarchy men would be tolerated on that pretence?\n\n304. Qu. Whether Popish children bred in charity schools, when bound\nout in apprenticeship to Protestant masters, do generally continue\nProtestants?\n\n305. Qu. Whether a Sum, which would go but a little way towards\nerecting hospitals for maintaining and educating the children of the\nnative Irish, might not go far in binding them out apprentices to\nProtestant masters, for husbandry, useful trades, and the service of\nfamilies?\n\n306. Qu. Whether if the parents are overlooked, there can be any\ngreat hopes of success in converting the children?\n\n307. Qu. Whether there be any instance, of a people's being\nconverted in a Christian sense, otherwise than by preaching to them\nand instructing them in their own language?\n\n308. Qu. Whether catechists in the Irish tongue may not easily be\nprocured and subsisted? And whether this would not be the most\npracticable means for converting the natives?\n\n309. Qu. Whether it be not of great advantage to the Church of Rome,\nthat she hath clergy suited to all ranks of men, in gradual\nsubordination from cardinals down to mendicants?\n\n310. Qu. Whether her numerous poor clergy are not very useful in\nmissions, and of much influence with the people?\n\n311. Qu. Whether, in defect of able missionaries, persons conversant\nin low life, and speaking the Irish tongue, if well instructed in\nthe first principles of religion, and in the popish controversy,\nthough for the rest on a level with the parish clerks, or the\nschool-masters of charity-schools, may not be fit to mix with and\nbring over our poor illiterate natives to the Established Church?\nWhether it is not to be wished that some parts of our liturgy and\nhomilies were publicly read in the Irish language? And whether, in\nthese views, it may not be right to breed up some of the better sort\nof children in the charity-schools, and qualify them for\nmissionaries, catechists, and readers?\n\n312. Qu. Whether there be any nation of men governed by reason? And\nyet, if there was not, whether this would be a good argument against\nthe use of reason in pubic affairs?\n\n313. Qu. Whether, as others have supposed an Atlantis or Utopia, we\nalso may not suppose an Hyperborean island inhabited by reasonable\ncreatures?\n\n314. Qu. Whether an indifferent person, who looks into all hands,\nmay not be a better judge of the game than a party who sees only his\nown?\n\n315. Qu. Whether one, whose end is to make his countrymen think, may\nnot gain his end, even though they should not think as he doth?\n\n316. Qu. Whether he, who only asks, asserts? and whether any man can\nfairly confute the querist?\n\n317. Qu. Whether the interest of a part will not always be preferred\nto that of the whole?\n\n\nFINIS\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\nPage 10. Line 17. for inexhaustable r. inexhaustible P. 14 L. 22.\nfor Helpless r. Hopeless. P. 16 L. ult for than r. as.\n\n\n\n\n\nPart II\n\n\n\n\nQuery 1.\n\nWhether there be any country in Christendom more capable of\nimprovement than Ireland?\n\n2. Qu. Whether we are not as far before other nations with respect\nto natural advantages, as we are behind them with respect to arts\nand industry?\n\n3. Qu. Whether we do not live in a most fertile soil and temperate\nclimate, and yet whether our people in general do not feel great\nwant and misery?\n\n4. Qu. Whether my countrymen are not readier at finding excuses than\nremedies?\n\n5. Qu. Whether it can be reasonably hoped, that our state will mend,\nso long as property is insecure among us?\n\n6. Qu. Whether in that case the wisest government, or the best laws\ncan avail us?\n\n7. Qu. Whether a few mishaps to particular persons may not throw\nthis nation into the utmost confusion?\n\n8. Qu. Whether the public is not even on the brink of being undone\nby private accidents?\n\n9. Qu. Whether the wealth and prosperity of our country do not hang\nby a hair, the probity of one banker, the caution of another, and\nthe lives of all?\n\n10. Qu. Whether we have not been sufficiently admonished of this by\nsome late events?\n\n11. Qu. Whether therefore it be not high time to open our eyes?\n\n12. Qu. Whether a national bank would not at once secure our\nproperties, put an end to usury, facilitate commerce, supply the\nwant of coin, and produce ready payments in all parts of the\nkingdom?\n\n13. Qu. Whether the use or nature of money, which all men so eagerly\npursue, be yet sufficiently understood or considered by all?\n\n14. Qu. Whether mankind are not governed by Citation rather than by\nreason?\n\n15. Qu. Whether there be not a measure or limit, within which gold\nand silver are useful, and beyond which they may be hurtful?\n\n16. Qu. Whether that measure be not the circulating of industry?\n\n17. Qu. Whether a discovery of the richest gold mine that ever was,\nin the heart of this kingdom, would be a real advantage to us?\n\n18. Qu. Whether it would not tempt foreigners to prey upon us?\n\n19. Qu. Whether it would not render us a lazy, proud, and dastardly\npeople?\n\n20. Qu. Whether every man who had money enough would not be a\ngentleman? And whether a nation of gentlemen would not be a wretched\nnation?\n\n21. Qu. Whether all things would not bear a high price? And whether\nmen would not increase their fortunes without being the better for\nit?\n\n22. Qu. Whether the same evils would be apprehended from paper-money\nunder an honest and thrifty regulation?\n\n23. Qu. Whether, therefore, a national bank would not be more\nbeneficial than even a mine of gold?\n\n24. Qu. Whether private ends are not prosecuted with more attention\nand vigour than the public? And yet, whether all private ends are\nnot included in the pubic?\n\n25. Qu. Whether banking be not absolutely necessary to the pubic\nweal?\n\n26. Qu. Whether even our private banks, though attended with such\nhazards as we all know them to be, are not of singular use in defect\nof a national bank?\n\n27. Qu. Whether without them what little business and industry there\nis would not stagnate? But whether it be not a mighty privilege for\na private person to be able to create a hundred pounds with a dash\nof his pen?\n\n28. Qu. Whether the mystery of banking did not derive its original\nfrom the Italians? Whether this acute people were not, upon a time,\nbankers over all Europe? Whether that business was not practised by\nsome of their noblest families who made immense profits by it, and\nwhether to that the house of Medici did not originally owe its\ngreatness?\n\n29. Qu. Whether the wise state of Venice was not the first that\nconceived the advantage of a national bank?\n\n30. Qu. Whether at Venice all payments of bills of exchange and\nmerchants' contracts are not made in the national or pubic bank, the\ngreatest affairs being transacted only by writing the names of the\nparties, one as debtor the other as creditor in the bank-book?\n\n31. Qu. Whether nevertheless it was not found expedient to provide a\nchest of ready cash for answering all demands that should happen to\nbe made on account of payments in detail?\n\n32. Qu. Whether this offer of ready cash, instead of transfers in\nthe bank, hath not been found to augment rather than diminish the\nstock thereof?\n\n33. Qu. Whether at Venice, the difference in the value of bank money\nabove other money be not fixed at twenty per cent?\n\n34. Qu. Whether the bank of Venice be not shut up four times in the\nyear twenty days each time?\n\n35. Qu. Whether by means of this bank the public be not mistress of\na million and a half sterling?\n\n36. Qu. Whether the great exactness and integrity with which this\nbank is managed be not the chief support of that republic?\n\n37. Qu. Whether we may not hope for as much skill and honesty in a\nProtestant Irish Parliament as in a Popish Senate of Venice?\n\n38. Qu. Whether the bank of Amsterdam was not begun about one\nhundred and thirty years ago, and whether at this day its stock be\nnot conceived to amount to three thousand tons of gold, or thirty\nmillions sterling?\n\n39. Qu. Whether besides coined money, there be not also great\nquantities of ingots or bars of gold and silver lodged in this bank?\n\n40. Qu. Whether all payments of contracts for goods in gross, and\nletters of exchange, must not be made by transfers in the\nbank-books, provided the sum exceed three hundred florins?\n\n41. Qu. Whether it be not true, that the bank of Amsterdam never\nmakes payments in cash?\n\n42. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, it be not also true, that no man who\nhath credit in the bank can want money from particular persons, who\nare willing to become creditors in his stead?\n\n43. Qu. Whether any man thinks himself the poorer, because his money\nis in the bank?\n\n44. Qu. Whether the creditors of the bank of Amsterdam are not at\nliberty to withdraw their money when they please, and whether this\nliberty doth not make them less desirous to use it?\n\n45. Qu. Whether this bank be not shut up twice in the year for ten\nor fifteen days, during which time the accounts are balanced?\n\n46. Qu. Whether it be not owing to this bank that the city of\nAmsterdam, without the least confusion, hazard, or trouble,\nmaintains and every day promotes so general and quick a circulation\nof industry?\n\n47. Qu. Whether it be not the greatest help and spur to commerce\nthat property can be so readily conveyed and so well secured by a\ncompte en banc, that is, by only writing one man's name for\nanother's in the bank-book?\n\n48. Qu. Whether, at the beginning of the last century, those who had\nlent money to the public during the war with Spain were not\nsatisfied by the sole expedient of placing their names in a compte\nen banc, with liberty to transfer their claims?\n\n49. Qu. Whether the example of those easy transfers in the compte en\nbanc, thus casually erected, did not tempt other men to become\ncreditors to the public, in order to profit by the same secure and\nexpeditious method of keeping and transferring their wealth?\n\n50. Qu. Whether this compte en banc hath not proved better than a\nmine of gold to Amsterdam?\n\n51. Qu. Whether that city may not be said to owe her greatness to\nthe unpromising accident of her having been in debt more than she\nwas able to Pay?\n\n52. Qu. Whether it be known that any State from such small\nbeginnings, in so short a time, ever grew to so great wealth and\npower as the province of Holland hath done; and whether the bank of\nAmsterdam hath not been the real cause of such extraordinary growth?\n\n53. Qu. Whether we are by nature a more stupid people than the\nDutch? And yet whether these things are sufficiently considered by\nour patriots?\n\n54. Qu. Whether anything less than the utter subversion of those\nRepublics can break the banks of Venice and Amsterdam?\n\n55. Qu. Whether at Hamburgh the citizens have not the management of\nthe bank, without the meddling or inspection of the Senate?\n\n56. Qu. Whether the directors be not four principal burghers chosen\nby plurality of voices, whose business is to see the rules observed,\nand furnish the cashiers with money?\n\n57. Qu. Whether the book-keepers are not obliged to balance their\naccounts every week, and exhibit them to the controllers or\ndirectors?\n\n58. Qu. Whether any besides the citizens are admitted to have compte\nen banc at Hamburgh?\n\n59. Qu. Whether there be not a certain limit, under which no sum can\nbe entered into the bank?\n\n60. Qu. Whether each particular person doth not pay a fee in order\nto be admitted to a compte en banc at Hamburgh and Amsterdam?\n\n61. Qu. Whether the effects lodged in the bank of Hamburgh are\nliable to be seized for debt or forfeiture?\n\n62. Qu. Whether this bank doth not lend money upon pawns at low\ninterest and only for half a year, after which term, in default of\npayment, the pawns are punctually sold by auction?\n\n63. Qu. Whether the book-keepers of the bank of Hamburgh are not\nobliged upon oath never to reveal what sums of money are paid in or\nout of the bank, or what effects any particular person has therein?\n\n64. Qu. Whether, therefore, it be possible to know the state or\nstock of this bank; and yet whether it be not of the greatest\nreputation and most established credit throughout the North?\n\n65. Qu. Whether the success of those public banks in Venice,\nAmsterdam and Hamburg would not naturally produce in other States an\ninclination to the same methods?\n\n66. Qu. Whether an absolute monarchy be so apt to gain credit, and\nwhether the vivacity of some humours could so well suit with the\nslow steps and discreet management which a bank requires?\n\n67. Qu. Whether the bank called the general bank of France,\ncontrived by Mr Law, and established by letters patent in May, 1716,\nwas not in truth a particular and not a national bank, being in the\nhands of a particular company privileged and protected by the\nGovernment?\n\n68. Qu. Whether the Government did not order that the notes of this\nbank should pass on a par with ready money in all payments of the\nrevenue?\n\n69. Qu. Whether this bank was not obliged to issue only such notes\nas were payable at sight?\n\n70. Qu. Whether it was not made a capital crime to forge the notes\nof this bank?\n\n71. Qu. Whether this bank was not restrained from trading either by\nsea or land, and from taking up money upon interest?\n\n72. Qu. Whether the original stock thereof was not six millions of\nlivres, divided into actions of a thousand crowns each?\n\n73. Qu. Whether the proprietors were not to hold general assemblies\ntwice in the year, for the regulating of their affairs?\n\n74. Qu. Whether the accompts of this bank were not balanced twice\nevery year?\n\n75. Qu. Whether there were not two chests belonging to this bank,\nthe one called the general chest containing their specie, their\nbills and their copper plates for the printing of those bills, under\nthe custody of three locks, whereof the keys were kept by the\ndirector, the inspector and treasurer, also another called the\nordinary chest, containing part of the stock not exceeding two\nhundred thousand crowns, under the key of the treasurer?\n\n76. Qu. Whether out of this last mentioned sum, each particular\ncashier was not to be intrusted with a share not exceeding the value\nof twenty thousand crowns at a time, and that under good security?\n\n77. Qu. Whether the Regent did not reserve to himself the power of\ncalling this bank to account, so often as he should think good, and\nof appointing the inspector?\n\n78. Qu. Whether in the beginning of the year 1719 the French King\ndid not convert the general bank of France into a Banque Royale,\nhaving himself purchased the stock of the company and taken it into\nhis own hands, and appointed the Duke of Orleans chief manager\nthereof?\n\n79. Qu. Whether from that time, all matters relating to the bank\nwere not transacted in the name, and by the sole authority, of the\nking?\n\n80. Qu. Whether his Majesty did not undertake to receive and keep\nthe cash of all particular persons, subjects, or foreigners, in his\nsaid Royale Banque, without being paid for that trouble? And whether\nit was not declared, that such cash should not be liable to seizure\non any pretext, not even on the king's own account?\n\n81. Qu. Whether the treasurer alone did not sign all the bills,\nreceive all the stock paid into the bank, and keep account of all\nthe in-goings and out-goings?\n\n82. Qu. Whether there were not three registers for the enregistering\nof the bills kept in the Banque Royale, one by the inspector,\nanother by the controller, and a third by the treasurer?\n\n83. Qu. Whether there was not also a fourth register, containing the\nprofits of the bank, which was visited, at least once a week, by the\ninspector and controller?\n\n84. Qu. Whether, beside the general bureau or compter in the city of\nParis, there were not also appointed five more in the towns of\nLyons, Tours, Rochelle, Orleans, and Amiens, each whereof was\nprovided with two chests, one of specie for discharging bills at\nsight, and another of bank bills to be issued as there should be\ndemand?\n\n85. Qu. Whether, in the above mentioned towns, it was not prohibited\nto make payments in silver, exceeding the sum of six hundred livres?\n\n86. Qu. Whether all creditors were not empowered to demand payment\nin bank bills instead of specie?\n\n87. Qu. Whether, in a short compass of time, this bank did not\nundergo many new changes and regulations by several successive acts\nof council?\n\n88. Qu. Whether the untimely, repeated, and boundless fabrication of\nbills did not precipitate the ruin of this bank?\n\n89. Qu. Whether it be not true, that before the end of July, 1719,\nthey had fabricated four hundred millions of livres in bank-notes,\nto which they added the sum of one hundred and twenty millions more\non the twelfth of September following, also the same sum of one\nhundred and twenty millions on the twenty-fourth of 3 October, and\nagain on the twenty-ninth of December, in the same year, the farther\nsum of three hundred and sixty millions, making the whole, from an\noriginal stock of six millions, mount, within the compass of one\nyear, to a thousand millions of livres?\n\n90. Qu. Whether on the twenty-eighth of February, 1720, the king did\nnot make an union of the bank with the united company of the East\nand West Indies, which from that time had the administration and\nprofits of the Banque Royale?\n\n91. Qu. Whether the king did not still profess himself responsible\nfor the value of the bank bills, and whether the company were not\nresponsible to his Majesty for their management?\n\n92. Qu. Whether sixteen hundred millions of livres, lent to his\nmajesty by the company, was not a sufficient pledge to indemnify the\nking?\n\n93. Qu. Whether the new directors were not prohibited to make any\nmore bills without an act of council?\n\n94. Qu. Whether the chests and books of the Banque were not\nsubjected to the joint inspection of a Counsellor of State, and the\nPrevot des Marchands, assisted by two Echevins, a judge, and a\nconsul, who had power to visit when they would and without warning?\n\n95. Qu. Whether in less than two years the actions or shares of the\nIndian Company (first established for Mississippi, and afterwards\nincreased by the addition of other compares and further? and whether\nthis privileges) did not rise to near 2000 per cent must be ascribed\nto real advantages of trade, or to mere frenzy?\n\n96. Qu. Whether, from first to last, there were not fabricated bank\nbills, of one kind or other, to the value of more than two thousand\nand six hundred millions of livres, or one hundred and thirty\nmillions sterling?\n\n97. Qu. Whether the credit of the bank did not decline from its\nunion with the Indian Company?\n\n98. Qu. Whether, notwithstanding all the above-mentioned\nextraordinary measures, the bank bills did not still pass at par\nwith gold and silver to May, 1720, when the French king thought fit,\nby a new act of council, to make a reduction of their value, which\nproved a fatal blow, the effects whereof, though soon retracted, no\nsubsequent skill or management could ever repair?\n\n99. Qu. Whether, what no reason, reflexion, or foresight could do,\nthis simple matter of fact (the most powerful argument with the\nmultitude) did not do at once, to wit, open the eyes of the people?\n\n100. Qu. Whether the dealers in that sort of ware had ever troubled\ntheir heads with the nature of credit, or the true use and end of\nbanks, but only considered their bills and actions as things, to\nwhich the general demand gave a price?\n\n101. Qu. Whether the Government was not in great perplexity to\ncontrive expedients for the getting rid of those bank bills, which\nhad been lately multiplied with such an unlimited passion?\n\n102. Qu. Whether notes to the value of about ninety millions were\nnot sunk by being paid off in specie, with the cash of the Compagnie\ndes Indes, with that of the bank, and that of the Hotels des\nMonnoyes? Whether five hundred and thirty millions were not\nconverted into annuities at the royal treasury? Whether several\nhundred millions more in bank bills were not extinguished and\nreplaced by annuities on the City of Paris, on taxes throughout the\nprovinces, &c., &c?\n\n103. Qu. Whether, after all other shifts, the last and grand\nresource for exhausting that ocean, was not the erecting of a compte\nen banc in several towns of France?\n\n104. Qu. Whether, when the imagination of a people is thoroughly\nwrought upon and heated by their own example, and the arts of\ndesigning men, this doth not produce a sort of enthusiasm which\ntakes place of reason, and is the most dangerous distemper in a\nState?\n\n105. Qu. Whether this epidemical madness should not be always before\nthe eyes of a legislature, in the framing of a national bank?\n\n106. Qu. Whether, therefore, it may not be fatal to engraft trade on\na national bank, or to propose dividends on the stock thereof?\n\n107. Qu. Whether it be possible for a national bank to subsist and\nmaintain its credit under a French government?\n\n108. Qu. Whether it may not be as useful a lesson to consider the\nbad management of some as the good management of others?\n\n109. Qu. Whether the rapid and surprising success of the schemes of\nthose who directed the French bank did not turn their brains?\n\n110. Qu. Whether the best institutions may not be made subservient\nto bad ends?\n\n111. Qu. Whether, as the aim of industry is power, and the aim of a\nbank is to circulate and secure this power to each individual, it\ndoth not follow that absolute power in one hand is inconsistent with\na lasting and a flourishing bank?\n\n112. Qu. Whether our natural appetites, as well as powers, are not\nlimited to their respective ends and uses? But whether artificial\nappetites may not be infinite?\n\n113. Qu. Whether the simple getting of money, or passing it from\nhand to hand without industry, be an object worthy of a wise\ngovernment?\n\n114. Qu. Whether, if money be considered as an end, the appetite\nthereof be not infinite? But whether the ends of money itself be not\nbounded?\n\n115. Qu. Whether the mistaking of the means for the end was not a\nfundamental error in the French councils?\n\n116. Qu. Whether the total sum of all other powers, be it of\nenjoyment or action, which belong to man, or to all mankind\ntogether, is not in truth a very narrow and limited quantity? But\nwhether fancy is not boundless?\n\n117. Qu. Whether this capricious tyrant, which usurps the place of\nreason, doth not most cruelly torment and delude those poor men, the\nusurers, stockjobbers, and projectors, of content to themselves from\nheaping up riches, that is, from gathering counters, from\nmultiplying figures, from enlarging denominations, without knowing\nwhat they would be at, and without having a proper regard to the use\nor end or nature of things?\n\n118. Qu. Whether the ignis fatuus of fancy doth not kindle\nimmoderate desires, and lead men into endless pursuits and wild\nlabyrinths?\n\n119. Qu. Whether counters be not referred to other things, which, so\nlong as they keep pace and proportion with the counters, it must be\nowned the counters are useful; but whether beyond that to value or\ncovet counters be not direct folly?\n\n120. Qu. Whether the public aim ought not to be, that men's industry\nshould supply their present wants, and the overplus be converted\ninto a stock of power?\n\n121. Qu. Whether the better this power is secured, and the more\neasily it is transferred, industry be not so much the more\nencouraged?\n\n122. Qu. Whether money, more than is expedient for those purposes,\nbe not upon the whole hurtful rather than beneficial to a State?\n\n123. Qu. Whether there should not be a constant care to keep the\nbills at par?\n\n124. Qu. Whether, therefore, bank bills should at any time be\nmultiplied but as trade and business were also multiplied?\n\n125. Qu. Whether it was not madness in France to mint bills and\nactions, merely to humour the people and rob them of their cash?\n\n126. Qu. Whether we may not profit by their mistakes, and as some\nthings are to be avoided, whether there may not be others worthy of\nimitation in the conduct of our neighbours?\n\n127. Qu. Whether the way be not clear and open and easy, and whether\nanything but the will is wanting to our legislature?\n\n128. Qu. Whether jobs and tricks are not detested on all hands, but\nwhether it be not the joint interest of prince and people to promote\nindustry?\n\n129. Qu. Whether, all things considered, a national bank be not the\nmost practicable, sure, and speedy method to mend our affairs, and\ncause industry to flourish among us?\n\n130. Qu. Whether a compte en banc or current bank bills would best\nanswer our occasions?\n\n131. Qu. Whether a public compte en banc, where effects are\nreceived, and accounts kept with particular persons, be not an\nexcellent expedient for a great city?\n\n132. Qu. What effect a general compte en banc would have in the\nmetropolis of this kingdom with one in each province subordinate\nthereunto?\n\n133. Qu. Whether it may not be proper for a great kingdom to unite\nboth expedients, to wit, bank notes and a compte en banc?\n\n134. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, it would be advisable to begin with\nboth at once, or rather to proceed first with the bills, and\nafterwards, as business multiplied, and money or effects flowed in,\nto open the compte en banc?\n\n135. Qu. Whether, for greater security, double books of compte en\nbanc should not be kept in different places and hands?\n\n136. Qu. Whether it would not be right to build the compters and\npublic treasuries, where books and bank notes are kept, without\nwood, all arched and floored with brick or stone, having chests also\nand cabinets of iron?\n\n137. Qu. Whether divers registers of the bank notes should not be\nkept in different hands?\n\n138. Qu. Whether there should not be great discretion in the\nuttering of bank notes, and whether the attempting to do things per\nsaltum be not often the way to undo them?\n\n139. Qu. Whether the main art be not by slow degrees and cautious\nmeasures to reconcile the bank to the public, to wind it insensibly\ninto the affections of men, and interweave it with the constitution?\n\n140. Qu. Whether the promoting of industry should not be always in\nview, as the true and sole end, the rule and measure, of a national\nbank? And whether all deviations from that object should not be\ncarefully avoided?\n\n141. Qu. Whether a national bank may not prevent the drawing of\nspecie out of the country (where it circulates in small payments),\nto be shut up in the chests of particular persons?\n\n142. Qu. Whether it may not be useful, for supplying manufactures\nand trade with stock, for regulating exchange, for quickening\ncommerce, for putting spirit into the people?\n\n143. Qu. Whether tenants or debtors could have cause to complain of\nour monies being reduced to the English value if it were withal\nmultiplied in the same, or in a greater proportion? and whether this\nwould not be the consequence of a nation al bank?\n\n144. Qu. If there be an open sure way to thrive, without hazard to\nourselves or prejudice to our neighbours, what should hinder us from\nputting it in practice?\n\n145. Qu. Whether in so numerous a Senate, as that of this kingdom,\nit may not be easie to find men of pure hands and clear heads fit to\ncontrive and model a public bank?\n\n146. Qu. Whether a view of the precipice be not sufficient, or\nwhether we must tumble headlong before we are roused?\n\n147. Qu. Whether in this drooping and dispirited country, men are\nquite awake?\n\n148. Qu. Whether we are sufficiently sensible of the peculiar\nsecurity there is in having a bank that consists of land and paper,\none of which cannot be exported, and the other is in no danger of\nbeing exported?\n\n149. Qu. Whether it be not delightful to complain? And whether there\nbe not many who had rather utter their complaints than redress their\nevils?\n\n150. Qu. Whether, if 'the crown of the wise be their riches' (Prov.,\nxiv.24), we are not the foolishest people in Christendom?\n\n151. Qu. Whether we have not all the while great civil as well as\nnatural advantages?\n\n152. Qu. Whether there be any people who have more leisure to\ncultivate the arts of peace, and study the public weal?\n\n153. Qu. Whether other nations who enjoy any share of freedom, and\nhave great objects in view, be not unavoidably embarrassed and\ndistracted by factions? But whether we do not divide upon trifles,\nand whether our parties are not a burlesque upon politics?\n\n154. Qu. Whether it be not an advantage that we are not embroiled in\nforeign affairs, that we hold not the balance of Europe, that we are\nprotected by other fleets and armies, that it is the true interest\nof a powerful people, from whom we are descended, to guard us on all\nsides?\n\n155. Qu. Whether England doth not really love us and wish well to\nus, as bone of her bone, and flesh of her flesh? And whether it be\nnot our part to cultivate this love and affection all manner of\nways?\n\n156. Qu. Whether, if we do not reap the benefits that may be made of\nour country and government, want of will in the lower people, or\nwant of wit in the upper, be most in fault?\n\n157. Qu. What sea-ports or foreign trade have the Swisses; and yet\nhow warm are those people, and how well provided?\n\n158. Qu. Whether there may not be found a people who so contrive as\nto be impoverished by their trade? And whether we are not that\npeople?\n\n159. Qu. Whether it would not be better for this island, if all our\nfine folk of both sexes were shipped off, to remain in foreign\ncountries, rather than that they should spend their estates at home\nin foreign luxury, and spread the contagion thereof through their\nnative land?\n\n160. Qu. Whether our gentry understand or have a notion of\nmagnificence, and whether for want thereof they do not affect very\nwretched distinctions?\n\n161. Qu. Whether there be not an art or skill in governing human\npride, so as to render it subservient to the pubic aim?\n\n162. Qu. Whether the great and general aim of the public should not\nbe to employ the people?\n\n163. Qu. What right an eldest son hath to the worst education?\n\n164. Qu. Whether men's counsels are not the result of their\nknowledge and their principles?\n\n165. Qu. Whether an assembly of freethinkers, petit maitres, and\nsmart Fellows would not make an admirable Senate?\n\n166. Qu. Whether there be not labour of the brains as well as of the\nhands, and whether the former is beneath a gentleman?\n\n167. Qu. Whether the public be more interested to protect the\nproperty acquired by mere birth than that which is the Mediate fruit\nof learning and vertue?\n\n168. Qu. Whether it would not be a poor and ill-judged project to\nattempt to promote the good of the community, by invading the rights\nof one part thereof, or of one particular order of men?\n\n169. Qu. Whether the public happiness be not proposed by the\nlegislature, and whether such happiness doth not contain that of the\nindividuals?\n\n170. Qu. Whether, therefore, a legislator should be content with a\nvulgar share of knowledge? Whether he should not be a person of\nreflexion and thought, who hath made it his study to understand the\ntrue nature and interest of mankind, how to guide men's humours and\npassions, how to incite their active powers, how to make their\nseveral talents co-operate to the mutual benefit of each other, and\nthe general good of the whole?\n\n171. Qu. Whether it doth not follow that above all things a\ngentleman's care should be to keep his own faculties sound and\nentire?\n\n172. Qu. Whether the natural phlegm of this island needs any\nadditional stupefier?\n\n173. Qu. Whether all spirituous liquors are not in truth opiates?\n\n174. Qu. Whether our men of business are not generally very grave by\nfifty?\n\n175. Qu. Whether there be really among us any parents so silly, as\nto encourage drinking in their children?\n\n176. Qu. Whence it is, that our ladies are more alive, and bear age\nso much better than our gentlemen?\n\n177. Qu. Whether all men have not faculties of mind or body which\nmay be employed for the public benefit?\n\n178. Qu. Whether the main point be not to multiply and employ our\npeople?\n\n179. Qu. Whether hearty food and warm clothing would not enable and\nencourage the lower sort to labour?\n\n180. Qu. Whether, in such a soil as ours, if there was industry,\nthere could be want?\n\n181. Qu. Whether the way to make men industrious be not to let them\ntaste the fruits of their industry? And whether the labouring ox\nshould be muzzled?\n\n182. Qu. Whether our landlords are to be told that industry and\nnumbers would raise the value of their lands, or that one acre about\nthe Tholsel is worth ten thousand acres in Connaught?\n\n183. Qu. Whether our old native Irish are not the most indolent and\nsupine people in Christendom?\n\n184. Qu. Whether they are yet civilized, and whether their\nhabitations and furniture are not more sordid than those of the\nsavage Americans?\n\n185. Qu. Whether this be altogether their own fault?\n\n186. Qu. Whether it be not a sad circumstance to live among lazy\nbeggars? And whether, on the other hand, it would not be delightful\nto live in a country swarming, like China, with busy people?\n\n187. Qu. Whether we should not cast about, by all manner of means,\nto excite industry, and to remove whatever hinders it? And whether\nevery one should not lend a helping hand?\n\n188. Qu. Whether vanity itself should not be engaged in this good\nwork? And whether it is not to be wished that the finding of\nemployment for themselves and others were a fashionable distinction\namong the ladies?\n\n189. Qu. Whether idleness be the mother or the daughter of spleen?\n\n190. Qu. Whether it may not be worth while to publish the\nconversation of Ischomachus and his wife in Xenophon, for the use of\nour ladies?\n\n191. Qu. Whether it is true that there have been, upon a time, one\nhundred millions of people employed in China, without the woollen\ntrade, or any foreign commerce?\n\n192. Qu. Whether the natural inducements to sloth are not greater in\nthe Mogul's country than in Ireland, and yet whether, in that\nsuffocating and dispiriting climate, the Banyans are not all, men,\nwomen, and children, constantly employed?\n\n193. Qu. Whether it be not true that the great Mogul's subjects\nmight undersell us even in our own markets, and clothe our people\nwith their stuffs and calicoes, if they were imported duty free?\n\n194. Qu. Whether there can be a greater reproach on the leading men\nand the patriots of a country, than that the people should want\nemployment? And whether methods may not be found to employ even the\nlame and the blind, the dumb, the deaf, and the maimed, in some or\nother branch of our manufactures?\n\n195. Qu. Whether much may not be expected from a biennial\nconsultation of so many wise men about the public good?\n\n196. Qu. Whether a tax upon dirt would not be one way of encouraging\nindustry?\n\n197. Qu. Whether it may not be right to appoint censors in every\nparish to observe and make returns of the idle hands?\n\n198. Qu. Whether a register or history of the idleness and industry\nof a people would be an useless thing?\n\n199. Qu. Whether we are apprized, of all the uses that may be made\nof political arithmetic?\n\n200. Qu. Whether it would be a great hardship if every parish were\nobliged to find work for their poor?\n\n201. Qu. Whether children especially should not be inured to labour\nbetimes?\n\n202. Qu. Whether there should not be erected, in each province, an\nhospital for orphans and foundlings, at the expense of old\nbachelors?\n\n203. Qu. Whether it be true that in the Dutch workhouses things are\nso managed that a child four years old may earn its own livelihood?\n\n204. Qu. What a folly is it to build fine houses, or establish\nlucrative posts and large incomes, under the notion of providing for\nthe poor?\n\n205. Qu. Whether the poor, grown up and in health, need any other\nprovision but their own industry, under public inspection?\n\n206. Qu. Whether the poor-tax in England hath lessened or increased\nthe number of the poor?\n\n207. Qu. Why the workhouse in Dublin, with so good an endowment,\nshould yet be of so little use? and whether this may not be owing to\nthat very endowment?\n\n208. Qu. Whether that income might not, by this time, have gone\nthrough the whole kingdom, and erected a dozen workhouses in every\ncounty?\n\n209. Qu. Whether workhouses should not be made at the least expense,\nwith clay floors, and walls of rough stone, without plastering,\nceiling, or glazing?\n\n210. Qu. Whether the tax on chairs or hackney coaches be not paid,\nrather by the country gentlemen, than the citizens of Dublin?\n\n211. Qu. Whether it be an impossible attempt to set our people at\nwork, or whether industry be a habit which, like other habits, may\nby time and skill be introduced among any people?\n\n212. Qu. Whether all manner of means should not be employed to\npossess the nation in general with an aversion and contempt for\nidleness and all idle folk?\n\n213. Qu. Whether it would be a hardship on people destitute of all\nthings, if the public furnished them with necessaries which they\nshould be obliged to earn by their labour?\n\n214. Qu. Whether other nations have not found great benefit from the\nuse of slaves in repairing high roads, making rivers navigable,\ndraining bogs, erecting public buildings, bridges, and manufactures?\n\n215. Qu. Whether temporary servitude would not be the best cure for\nidleness and beggary?\n\n216. Qu. Whether the public hath not a right to employ those who\ncannot or who will not find employment for themselves?\n\n217. Qu. Whether all sturdy beggars should not be seized and made\nslaves to the public for a certain term of years?\n\n218. Qu. Whether he who is chained in a jail or dungeon hath not,\nfor the time, lost his liberty? And if so, whether temporary slavery\nbe not already admitted among us?\n\n219. Qu. Whether a state of servitude, wherein he should be well\nworked, fed, and clothed, would not be a preferment to such a\nfellow?\n\n220. Qu. Whether criminals in the freest country may not forfeit\ntheir liberty, and repair the damage they have done the public by\nhard labour?\n\n221. Qu. What the word 'servant' signifies in the New Testament?\n\n222. Qu. Whether the view of criminals chained in pairs and kept at\nhard labour would not be very edifying to the multitude?\n\n223. Qu. Whether the want of such an institution be not plainly seen\nin England, where the disbelief of a future state hardeneth rogues\nagainst the fear of death, and where, through the great growth of\nrobbers and housebreakers, it becomes every day more necessary?\n\n224. Qu. Whether it be not easier to prevent than to remedy, and\nwhether we should not profit by the example of others?\n\n225. Qu. Whether felons are not often spared, and therefore\nencouraged, by the compassion of those who should prosecute them?\n\n226. Qu. Whether many that would not take away the life of a thief\nmay not nevertheless be willing to bring him to a more adequate\npunishment?\n\n227. Qu. Whether there should not be a difference between the\ntreatment of criminals and that of other slaves?\n\n228. Qu. Whether the most indolent would be fond of idleness, if\nthey regarded it as the sure road to hard labour?\n\n229. Qu. Whether the industry of the lower part of our people doth\nnot much depend on the expense of the upper?\n\n230. Qu. What would be the consequence if our gentry affected to\ndistinguish themselves by fine houses rather than fine clothes?\n\n231. Qu. Whether any people in Europe are so meanly provided with\nhouses and furniture, in proportion to their incomes, as the men of\nestates in Ireland?\n\n232. Qu. Whether building would not peculiarly encourage all other\narts in this kingdom?\n\n233. Qu. Whether smiths, masons, bricklayers, plasterers,\ncarpenters, joiners, tilers, plumbers, and glaziers would not all\nfind employment if the humour of building prevailed?\n\n234. Qu. Whether the ornaments and furniture of a good house do not\nemploy a number of all sorts of artificers, in iron, wood, marble,\nbrass, pewter, copper, wool, flax, and divers other materials?\n\n235. Qu. Whether in buildings and gardens a great number of\nday-labourers do not find employment?\n\n236. Qu. Whether by these means much of that sustenance and wealth\nof this nation which now goes to foreigners would not be kept at\nhome, and nourish and circulate among our own people?\n\n237. Qu. Whether, as industry produced good living, the number of\nhands and mouths would not be increased; and in proportion\nthereunto, whether there would not be every day more occasion for\nagriculture? And whether this article alone would not employ a world\nof people?\n\n238. Qu. Whether such management would not equally provide for the\nmagnificence of the rich, and the necessities of the poor?\n\n239. Qu. Whether an expense in building and improvements doth not\nremain at home, pass to the heir, and adorn the public? And whether\nany of those things can be said of claret?\n\n240. Qu. Whether fools do not make fashions, and wise men follow\nthem?\n\n241. Qu. Whether, for one who hurts his fortune by improvements,\ntwenty do not ruin themselves by foreign luxury?\n\n242. Qu. Whether in proportion as Ireland was improved and\nbeautified by fine seats, the number of absentees would not\ndecrease?\n\n243. Qu. Whether he who employs men in buildings and manufactures\ndoth not put life in the country, and whether the neighbourhood\nround him be not observed to thrive?\n\n244. Qu. Whether money circulated on the landlord's own lands, and\namong his own tenants, doth not return into his own pocket?\n\n245. Qu. Whether every squire that made his domain swarm with busy\nhands, like a bee-hive or ant-hill, would not serve his own\ninterest, as well as that of his country?\n\n246. Qu. Whether a gentleman who hath seen a little of the world,\nand observed how men live elsewhere, can contentedly sit down in a\ncold, damp, sordid habitation, in the midst of a bleak country,\ninhabited by thieves and beggars?\n\n247. Qu. Whether, on the other hand, a handsome seat amidst\nwell-improved lands, fair villages, and a thriving neighbourhood may\nnot invite a man to dwell on his own estate, and quit the life of an\ninsignificant saunterer about town for that of a useful\ncountry-gentleman?\n\n248. Qu. Whether it would not be of use and ornament if the towns\nthroughout this kingdom were provided with decent churches,\ntownhouses, workhouses, market-places, and paved streets, with some\norder taken for cleanliness?\n\n249. Qu. Whether, if each of these towns were addicted to some\npeculiar manufacture, we should not find that the employing many\nhands together on the same work was the way to perfect our workmen?\nAnd whether all these things might not soon be provided by a\ndomestic industry, if money were not wanting?\n\n250. Qu. Whether money could ever be wanting to the demands of\nindustry, if we had a national bank?\n\n251. Qu. Whether when a motion was made once upon a time to\nestablish a private bank in this kingdom by public authority, divers\ngentlemen did not shew themselves forward to embark in that design?\n\n252. Qu. Whether it may not now be hoped, that our patriots will be\nas forward to examine and consider the proposal of a public bank\ncalculated only for the public good?\n\n253. Qu. Whether any people upon earth shew a more early zeal for\nthe service of their country, greater eagerness to bear a part in\nthe legislature, or a more general parturiency with respect to\npolitics and public counsels?\n\n254. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, a light and ludicrous vein be not\nthe reigning humour; but whether there was ever greater cause to be\nserious?\n\n\nFINIS.\n\nERRATUM\n\n\nQu. 168, for Indulg'd, read ill judg'd.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPart III\n\n\n\n\nQuery 1.\n\nWhether the fable of Hercules and the carter ever suited any\nnation like this nation of Ireland?\n\n2. Qu. Whether it be not a new spectacle under the sun, to behold,\nin such a climate and such a soil, and under such a gentle\ngovernment, so many roads untrodden, fields untilled, houses\ndesolate, and hands unemployed?\n\n3. Qu. Whether there is any country in Christendom, either kingdom\nor republic, depending or independent, free or enslaved, which may\nnot afford us a useful lesson?\n\n4. Qu. Whether the frugal Swisses have any other commodities but\ntheir butter and cheese and a few cattle, for exportation; whether,\nnevertheless, the single canton of Berne hath not in her public\ntreasury two millions sterling?\n\n5. Qu. Whether that small town of Berne, with its scanty barren\nterritory, in a mountainous corner, without sea-ports, without\nmanufactures, without mines, be not rich by mere dint of frugality?\n\n6. Qu. Whether the Swisses in general have not sumptuary laws,\nprohibiting the use of gold, jewels, silver, silk, and lace in their\napparel, and indulging the women only to wear silk on festivals,\nweddings, and public solemnities?\n\n7. Qu. Whether there be not two ways of growing rich, sparing and\ngetting? But whether the lazy spendthrift must not be doubly poor?\n\n8. Qu. Whether money circulating be not the life of industry; and\nwhether the want thereof doth not render a State gouty and inactive?\n\n9. Qu. But whether, if we had a national bank, and our present cash\n(small as it is) were put into the most convenient shape, men should\nhear any public complaints for want of money?\n\n10. Qu. Whether all circulation be not alike a circulation of\ncredit, whatsoever medium (metal or paper) is employed, and whether\ngold be any more than credit for so much power?\n\n11. Qu. Whether the wealth of the richest nations in Christendom\ndoth not consist in paper vastly more than in gold and silver?\n\n12. Qu. Whether Lord Clarendon doth not aver of his own knowledge,\nthat the Prince of Orange, with the best credit, and the assistance\nof the richest men in Amsterdam, was above ten days endeavouring to\nraise L20,000 in specie, without being able to raise half the sum in\nall that time? (See Clarendon's History, BK. XII)\n\n13. Qu. Whether the whole city of Amsterdam would not have been\ntroubled to have brought together twenty thousand pounds in one\nroom?\n\n14. Qu. Whether it be not absolutely necessary that there must be a\nbank and must be a trust? And, if so, whether it be not the most\nsafe and prudent course to have a national bank and trust the\nlegislature?\n\n15. Qu. Whether objections against trust in general avail, when it\nis allowed there must be a trust, and the only question is where to\nplace this trust, whether in the legislature or in private hands?\n\n16. Qu. Whether it can be expected that private persons should have\nmore regard to the public than the public itself?\n\n17. Qu. Whether, if there be hazards from mismanagement, those may\nnot be provided against in the framing of a pubic bank; but whether\nany provision can be made against the mismanagement of private banks\nthat are under no check, control, or inspection?\n\n18. Qu. Whatever may be said for the sake of objecting, yet, whether\nit be not false in fact, that men would prefer a private security to\na public security?\n\n19. Qu. Whether a national bank ought to be considered as a new\nexperiment; and whether it be not a motive to try this scheme that\nit hath been already tried with success in other countries?\n\n20. Qu. If power followeth money, whether this can be anywhere more\nproperly and securely placed, than in the same hands wherein the\nsupreme power is already placed?\n\n21. Qu. Whether there be more danger of abuse in a private than in a\npublic management?\n\n22. Qu. Whether the proper usual remedy for abuses of private banks\nbe not to bring them before Parliament, and subject them to the\ninspection of a committee; and whether it be not more prudent to\nprevent than to redress an evil?\n\n23. Qu. Supposing there had been hitherto no such thing as a bank,\nand the question were now first proposed, whether it would be safer\nto circulate unlimited bills in a private credit, or bills to a\nlimited value on the public credit of the community, what would men\nthink?\n\n24. Qu. Whether experience and example be not the plainest proof;\nand whether any instance can be assigned where a national bank hath\nnot been attended with great advantage to the public?\n\n25. Qu. Whether the evils apprehended from a national bank are not\nmuch more to be apprehended from private banks; but whether men by\ncustom are not familiarized and reconciled to common dangers, which\nare therefore thought less than they really are?\n\n26. Qu. Whether it would not be very hard to suppose all sense,\nhonesty, and public spirit were in the keeping of only a few private\nmen, and the public was not fit to be trusted?\n\n27. Qu. Whether it be not ridiculous to suppose a legislature should\nbe afraid to trust itself?\n\n28. Qu. But, whether a private interest be not generally supported\nand pursued with more zeal than a public?\n\n29. Qu. Whether the maxim, 'What is everybody's business is\nnobody's,' prevails in any country under the sun more than in\nIreland?\n\n30. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, the community of danger, which lulls\nprivate men asleep, ought not to awaken the public?\n\n31. Qu. Whether there be not less security where there are more\ntemptations and fewer checks?\n\n32. Qu. If a man is to risk his fortune, whether it be more prudent\nto risk it on the credit of private men, or in that of the great\nassembly of the nation?\n\n33. Qu. Where is it most reasonable to expect wise and punctual\ndealing, whether in a secret impenetrable recess, where credit\ndepends on secrecy, or in a public management regulated and\ninspected by Parliament?\n\n34. Qu. Whether a supine security be not catching, and whether\nnumbers running the same risk, as they lessen the caution, may not\nincrease the danger?\n\n35. Qu. What real objection lies against a national bank erected by\nthe legislature, and in the management of public deputies, appointed\nand inspected by the legislature?\n\n36. Qu. What have we to fear from such a bank, which may not be as\nwell feared without it?\n\n37. Qu. How, why, by what means, or for what end, should it become\nan instrument of oppression?\n\n38. Qu. Whether we can possibly be on a more precarious foot than we\nare already? Whether it be not in the power of any particular person\nat once to disappear and convey himself into foreign parts? or\nwhether there can be any security in an estate of land when the\ndemands upon it are unknown?\n\n39. Qu. Whether the establishing of a national bank, if we suppose a\nconcurrence of the government, be not very practicable?\n\n40. Qu. But, whether though a scheme be never so evidently\npracticable and useful to the pubic, yet, if conceived to interfere\nwith a private interest, it be not forthwith in danger of appearing\ndoubtful, difficult, and impracticable?\n\n41. Qu. Whether the legislative body hath not already sufficient\npower to hurt, if they may be supposed capable of it, and whether a\nbank would give them any new power?\n\n42. Qu. What should tempt the pubic to defraud itself?\n\n43. Qu. Whether, if the legislature destroyed the public, it would\nnot be felo de se; and whether it be reasonable to suppose it bent\non its own destruction?\n\n44. Qu. Whether the objection to a pubic national bank, from want of\nsecrecy, be not in truth an argument for it?\n\n45. Qu. Whether the secrecy of private banks be not the very thing\nthat renders them so hazardous? and whether, without that, there\ncould have been of late so many sufferers?\n\n46. Qu. Whether when all objections are answered it be still\nincumbent to answer surmises?\n\n47. Qu. Whether it were just to insinuate that gentlemen would be\nagainst any proposal they could not turn into a job?\n\n48. Qu. Suppose the legislature passed their word for any private\nbanker, and regularly visited his books, would not money lodged in\nhis bank be therefore reckoned more secure?\n\n49. Qu. In a country where the legislative body is not fit to be\ntrusted, what security can there be for trusting any one else?\n\n50. Qu. If it be not ridiculous to question whether the pubic can\nfind cash to circulate bills of a limited value when private bankers\nare supposed to find enough to circulate them to an unlimited value?\n\n51. Qu. Whether the united stock of a nation be not the best\nsecurity? And whether anything but the ruin of the State can produce\na national bankruptcy?\n\n52. Qu. Whether the total sum of the public treasure, power, and\nwisdom, all co-operating, be not most likely to establish a bank of\ncredit, sufficient to answer the ends, relieve the wants, and\nsatisfy the scruples of all people?\n\n53. Qu. Whether those hazards that in a greater degree attend\nprivate banks can be admitted as objections against a public one?\n\n54. Qu. Whether that which is an objection to everything be an\nobjection to anything; and whether the possibility of an abuse be\nnot of that kind?\n\n55. Qu. Whether, in fact, all things are not more or less abused,\nand yet notwithstanding such abuse, whether many things are not upon\nthe whole expedient and useful?\n\n56. Qu. Whether those things that are subject to the most general\ninspection are not the least subject to abuse?\n\n57. Qu. Whether, for private ends, it may not be sometimes expedient\nto object novelty to things that have been often tried, difficulty\nto the plainest things, and hazard to the safest?\n\n58. Qu. Whether some men will not be apt to argue as if the question\nwas between money and credit, and not (as in fact it is) which ought\nto be preferred, private credit or public credit?\n\n59. Qu. Whether they will not prudently overlook the evils felt, or\nto be feared, on one side?\n\n60. Qu. Whether, therefore, those that would make an impartial\njudgment ought not to be on their guard, keeping both prospects\nalways in view, balancing the inconveniencies on each side and\nconsidering neither absolutely?\n\n61. Qu. Whether wilful mistakes, examples without a likeness, and\ngeneral addresses to the passions are not often more successful than\narguments?\n\n62. Qu. Whether there be not an art to puzzle plain cases as well as\nto explain obscure ones?\n\n63. Qu. Whether private men are not often an over-match for the\npublic; want of weight being made up for by activity?\n\n64. Qu. If we suppose neither sense nor honesty in our leaders or\nrepresentatives, whether we are not already undone, and so have\nnothing further to fear?\n\n65. Qu. Suppose a power in the government to hurt the pubic by means\nof a national bank, yet what should give them the will to do this?\nOr supposing a will to do mischief, yet how could a national bank,\nmodelled and administered by Parliament, put it in their power?\n\n66. Qu. Whether even a wicked will entrusted with power can be\nsupposed to abuse it for no end?\n\n67. Qu. Whether it be not much more probable that those who maketh\nsuch objections do not believe them?\n\n68. Qu. Whether it be not vain to object that our fellow-subjects of\nGreat Britain would malign or obstruct our industry when it is\nexerted in a way which cannot interfere with their own?\n\n66. Qu. Whether it is to be supposed they should take delight in the\ndirt and nakedness and famine of our people, or envy them shoes for\ntheir feet and beef for their belies?\n\n70. Qu. What possible handle or inclination could our having a\nnational bank give other people to distress us?\n\n71. Qu. Whether it be not ridiculous to conceive that a project for\ncloathing and feeding our natives should give any umbrage to\nEngland?\n\n72. Qu. Whether such unworthy surmises are not the pure effect of\nspleen?\n\n73. Qu. Whether London is not to be considered as the metropolis of\nIreland? And whether our wealth (such as it is) doth not circulate\nthrough London and throughout all England, as freely as that of any\npart of his Majesty's dominions?\n\n74. Qu. Whether therefore it be not evidently the interest of the\npeople of England to encourage rather than to oppose a national bank\nin this kingdom, as well as every other means for advancing our\nwealth which shall not impair their own?\n\n75. Qu. Whether it is not our interest to be useful to them rather\nthan rival them; and whether in that case we may not be sure of\ntheir good offices?\n\n76. Qu. Whether we can propose to thrive so long as we entertain a\nwrongheaded distrust of England?\n\n77. Qu. Whether, as a national bank would increase our industry, and\nthat our wealth, England may not be a proportionable gainer; and\nwhether we should not consider the gains of our mother-country as\nsome accession to our own?\n\n78. Qu. Whether the Protestant colony in this kingdom can ever\nforget what they owe to England?\n\n79. Qu. Whether there ever was in any part of the world a country in\nsuch wretched circumstances, and which, at the same time, could be\nso easily remedied, and nevertheless the remedy not applied?\n\n80. Qu. What must become of a people that can neither see the\nplainest things nor do the easiest?\n\n81. Qu. Be the money lodged in the bank what it will, yet whether an\nAct to make good deficiencies would not remove all scruples?\n\n82. Qu. If it be objected that a national bank must lower interest,\nand therefore hurt the monied man, whether the same objection would\nnot hold as strong against multiplying our gold and silver?\n\n83. Qu. But whether a bank that utters bills, with the sole view of\npromoting the public weal, may not so proportion their quantity as\nto avoid several inconveniencies which might attend private banks?\n\n84. Qu. Whether there be any difficulty in comprehending that the\nwhole wealth of the nation is in truth the stock of a national bank?\nAnd whether any more than the right comprehension of this be\nnecessary to make all men easy with regard to its credit?\n\n85. Qu. Whether any Thing be more reasonable than that the pubic,\nwhich makes the whole profit of the bank, should engage to make good\nits credit?\n\n86. Qu. Whether the prejudices about gold and silver are not strong,\nbut whether they are not still prejudices?\n\n87. Qu. Whether paper doth not by its stamp and signature acquire a\nlocal value, and become as precious and as scarce as gold? And\nwhether it be not much fitter to circulate large sums, and therefore\npreferable to gold?\n\n88. Qu. Whether, in order to make men see and feel, it be not often\nnecessary to inculcate the same thing, and place it in different\nlights?\n\n89. Qu. Whether it doth not much import to have a right conception\nof money? And whether its true and just idea be not that of a\nticket, entitling to power, and fitted to record and transfer such\npower?\n\n90. Qu. Whether the managers and officers of a national bank ought\nto be considered otherwise than as the cashiers and clerks of\nprivate banks? Whether they are not in effect as little trusted,\nhave as little power, are as much limited by rules, and as liable to\ninspection?\n\n91. Qu. Whether the mistaking this point may not create some\nprejudice against a national bank, as if it depended on the credit,\nor wisdom, or honesty, of private men, rather than on the pubic,\nwhich is really the sole proprietor and director thereof, and as\nsuch obliged to support it?\n\n92. Qu. Though the bank of Amsterdam doth very rarely, if at all,\npay out money, yet whether every man possess'd of specie be not\nready to convert it into paper, and act as cashier to the bank? And\nwhether, from the same motive, every monied man throughout this\nkingdom would not be cashier to our national bank?\n\n93. Qu. Whether a national bank would not be the great means and\nmotive for employing our poor in manufactures?\n\n94. Qu. Whether money, though lent out only to the rich, would not\nsoon circulate among the poor? And whether any man borrows but with\nan intent to circulate?\n\n95. Qu. Whether both government and people would not in the event be\ngainers by a national bank? And whether anything but wrong\nconceptions of its nature can make those that wish well to either\naverse from it?\n\n96. Qu. Whether it may not be right to think, and to have it\nthought, that England and Ireland, prince and people, have one and\nthe same interest?\n\n97. Qu. Whether, if we had more means to set on foot such\nmanufactures and such commerce as consists with the interest of\nEngland, there would not of course be less sheep-walk, and less wool\nexported to foreign countries? And whether a national bank would not\nsupply such means?\n\n98. Qu. Whether we may not obtain that as friends which it is in\nvain to hope for as rivals?\n\n99. Qu. Whether in every instance by which we prejudice England, we\ndo not in a greater degree prejudice ourselves? See Part II. qu. 153\nand 154.\n\n100. Qu. Whether in the rude original of society the first step was\nnot the exchanging of commodities; the next a substituting of metals\nby weight as the common medium of circulation; after this the making\nuse of coin; lastly, a further refinement by the use of paper with\nproper marks and signatures? And whether this, as it is the last, so\nit be not the greatest improvement?\n\n101. Qu. Whether we are not in fact the only people who may be said\nto starve in the midst of plenty?\n\n102. Qu. Whether business in general doth not languish among us?\nWhether our land is not untilled? Whether its inhabitants are not\nupon the wing?\n\n103. Qu. Whether there can be a worse sign than that people should\nquit their country for a livelihood? Though men often leave their\ncountry for health, or pleasure, or riches, yet to leave it merely\nfor a livelihood, whether this be not exceeding bad, and sheweth\nsome peculiar mismanagement?\n\n104. Qu. Whether our circumstances do not call aloud for some\npresent remedy? And whether that remedy be not in our power?\n\n105. Qu. Whether, in order to redress our evils, artificial helps\nare not most wanted in a land where industry is most against the\nnatural grain of the people?\n\n106. Qu. Whether, of all the helps to industry that ever were\ninvented, there be any more secure, more easy, and more effectual\nthan a national bank?\n\n107. Qu. Whether medicines do not recommend themselves by\nexperience, even though their reasons be obscure? But whether reason\nand fact are not equally clear in favour of this political medicine?\n\n108. Qu. Whether, although the prepossessions about gold and silver\nhave taken deep root, yet the example of our Colonies in America\ndoth not make it as plain as day-light that they are not so\nnecessary to the wealth of a nation as the vulgar of all ranks\nimagine?\n\n109. Qu. Whether it be not evident that we may maintain a much\ngreater inward and outward commerce, and be five times richer than\nwe are, nay, and our bills abroad be of far greater credit, though\nwe had not one ounce of gold or silver in the whole island?\n\n110. Qu. Whether wrongheaded maxims, customs, and fashions are not\nsufficient to destroy any people which hath so few resources as the\ninhabitants of Ireland.\n\n111. Qu. Whether it would not be a horrible thing to see our matrons\nmake dress and play their chief concern?\n\n112. Qu. Whether our ladies might not as well endow monasteries as\nwear Flanders lace? And whether it be not true that Popish nuns are\nmaintained by Protestant contributions?\n\n113. Qu. Whether England, which hath a free trade, whatever she\nremits for foreign luxury with one hand, doth not with the other\nreceive much more from abroad? Whether, nevertheless, this nation\nwould not be a gainer, if our women would content themselves with\nthe same moderation in point of expense as the English ladies?\n\n114. Qu. But whether it be not a notorious truth that our Irish\nladies are on a foot, as to dress, with those of five times their\nfortune in England?\n\n115. Qu. Whether it be not even certain that the matrons of this\nforlorn country send out a greater proportion of its wealth, for\nfine apparel, than any other females on the whole surface of this\nterraqueous globe?\n\n116. Qu. Whether the expense, great as it is, be the greatest evil;\nbut whether this folly may not produce many other follies, an entire\nderangement of domestic life, absurd manners, neglect of duties, bad\nmothers, a general corruption in both sexes?\n\n117. Qu. Whether therefore a tax on all gold and silver in apparel,\non all foreign laces and silks, may not raise a fund for the bank,\nand at the same time have other salutary effects on the public?\n\n118. Qu. But, if gentlemen had rather tax themselves in another way,\nwhether an additional tax of ten shillings the hogshead on wines may\nnot supply a sufficient fund for the national bank, all defects to\nbe made good by Parliament?\n\n119. Qu. Whether upon the whole it may not be right to appoint a\nnational bank?\n\n120. Qu. Whether the stock and security of such bank would not be,\nin truth, the national stock, or the total sum of the wealth of this\nkingdom?\n\n121. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, there should not be a particular\nfund for present use in answering bills and circulating credit?\n\n122. Qu. Whether for this end any fund may not suffice, provided an\nAct be passed for making good deficiencies?\n\n123. Qu. Whether the sole proprietor of such bank should not be the\npublic, and the sole director the legislature?\n\n124. Qu. Whether the managers, officers, and cashiers should not be\nservants of the pubic, acting by orders and limited by rules of the\nlegislature?\n\n125. Qu. Whether there should not be a standing number of\ninspectors, one-third men in great office, the rest members of both\nhouses, half whereof to go out, and half to come in every session?\n\n126. Qu. Whether those inspectors should not, all in a body, visit\ntwice a year, and three as often as they pleased?\n\n127. Qu. Whether the general bank should not be in Dublin, and\nsubordinate banks or compters one in each province of Munster,\nUlster, and Connaught?\n\n128. Qu. Whether there should not be such provisions of stamps,\nsignatures, checks, strong boxes, and all other measures for\nsecuring the bank notes and cash, as are usual in other banks?\n\n129. Qu. Whether these ten or a dozen last queries may not easily be\nconverted into heads of a bill?\n\n130. Qu. Whether any one concerns himself about the security or\nfunds of the banks of Venice or Amsterdam? And whether in a little\ntime the case would not be the same as to our bank?\n\n131. Qu. Whether the first beginning of expedients do not always\nmeet with prejudices? And whether even the prejudices of a people\nought not to be respected?\n\n132. Qu. Whether a national bank be not the true philosopher's stone\nin a State?\n\n133. Qu. Whether it be not the most obvious remedy for all the\ninconveniencies we labour under with regard to our coin?\n\n134. Qu. Whether it be not agreed on all hands that our coin is on\nvery bad foot, and calls for some present remedy?\n\n135. Qu. Whether the want of silver hath not introduced a sort of\ntraffic for change, which is purchased at no inconsiderable discount\nto the great obstruction of our domestic commerce?\n\n136. Qu. Whether, though it be evident silver is wanted, it be yet\nso evident which is the best way of providing for this want? Whether\nby lowering the gold, or raising the silver, or partly one, partly\nthe other?\n\n137. Qu. Whether a partial raising of one species be not, in truth,\nwanting a premium to our bankers for importing such species? And\nwhat that species is which deserves most to be encouraged?\n\n138. Qu. Whether it be not just, that all gold should be alike rated\naccording to its weight and fineness?\n\n139. Qu. Whether this may be best done, by lowering some certain\nspecies of gold, or by raising others, or by joining both methods\ntogether?\n\n140. Qu. Whether all regulations of coin should not be made with a\nview to encourage industry, and a circulation of commerce,\nthroughout the kingdom?\n\n141. Qu. Whether the North and the South have not, in truth, one and\nthe same interest in this matter?\n\n142. Qu. Whether to oil the wheels of commerce be not a common\nbenefit? And whether this be not done by avoiding fractions and\nmultiplying small silver?\n\n143. Qu. But, whether a pubic benefit ought to be obtained by unjust\nmethods, and therefore, whether any reduction of coin should be\nthought of which may hurt the properties of private men?\n\n144. Qu. Whether those parts of the kingdom where commerce doth most\nabound would not be the greatest gainers by having our coin placed\non a right foot?\n\n145. Qu. Whether, in case a reduction of coin be thought expedient,\nthe uttering of bank bills at the same time may not prevent the\ninconveniencies of such a reduction?\n\n146. Qu. But, whether any pubic expediency could countervail a real\npressure on those who are least able to bear it, tenants and\ndebtors?\n\n147. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, the political body, as well as the\nnatural, must not sometimes be worse in order to be better?\n\n148. Qu. Whether, all things considered, a general raising the value\nof gold and silver be not so far from bringing greater quantities\nthereof into the kingdom that it would produce a direct contrary\neffect, inasmuch as less, in that case, would serve, and therefore\nless be wanted? And whether men do not import a commodity in\nproportion to the demand or want of it?\n\n149. Qu. Whether the lowering of our gold would not create a fever\nin the State? And whether a fever be not sometimes a cure, but\nwhether it be not the last cure a man would choose?\n\n150. Qu. What if our other gold were raised to a par with Portugal\ngold, and the value of silver in general raised with regard to that\nof gold?\n\n151. Qu. Whether the pubic ends may or may not be better answered by\nsuch augmentation, than by a reduction of our coin?\n\n152. Qu. Provided silver is multiplied, be it by raising or\ndiminishing the value of our coin, whether the great end is not\nanswered?\n\n153. Qu. Whether raising the value of a particular species will not\ntend to multiply such species, and to lessen others in proportion\nthereunto? And whether a much less quantity of cash in silver would\nnot, in reality, enrich the nation more than a much greater in gold?\n\n154. Qu. Whether, if a reduction be thought necessary, the obvious\nmeans to prevent all hardships and injustice be not a national bank?\n\n155. Qu. Upon supposition that the cash of this kingdom was five\nhundred thousand pounds, and by lowering the various species each\none-fifth of its value the whole sum was reduced to four hundred\nthousand pounds, whether the difficulty of getting money, and\nconsequently of paying rents, would not be increased in the\nproportion of five to four?\n\n156. Qu. Whether such difficulty would not be a great and unmerited\ndistress on all the tenants in the nation? But if at the same time\nwith the aforesaid reduction there were uttered one hundred thousand\npounds additional to the former current stock, whether such\ndifficulty or inconvenience would then be felt?\n\n157. Qu. Whether, ceteris paribus, it be not true that the prices of\nthings increase as the quantity of money increaseth, and are\ndiminished as that is diminished? And whether, by the quantity of\nmoney is not to be understood the amount of the denominations, all\ncontracts being nominal for pounds, shillings, and pence, and not\nfor weights of gold or silver?\n\n158. Qu. Whether in any foreign market, twopence advance in a\nkilderkin of corn could greatly affect our trade?\n\n159. Qu. Whether in regard of the far greater changes and\nfluctuations of prices from the difference of seasons and other\naccidents, that small rise should seem considerable?\n\n160. Qu. Whether our exports do not consist of such necessaries as\nother countries cannot well be without?\n\n161. Qu. Whether upon the circulation of a national bank more land\nwould not be tilled, more hands employed, and consequently more\ncommodities exported?\n\n162. Qu. Whether, setting aside the assistance of a national bank,\nit will be easy to reduce or lower our coin without some hardship\n(at least for the present) on a great number of particular persons?\n\n163. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, the scheme of a national bank doth\nnot entirely stand clear of this question; and whether such bank may\nnot completely subsist and answer its ends, although there should be\nno alteration at all made in the value of our coin?\n\n164. Qu. Whether, if the ill state of our coin be not redressed,\nthat scheme would not be still more necessary, inasmuch as a\nnational bank, by putting new life and vigour into our commerce, may\nprevent our feeling the ill effects of the want of such redress?\n\n165. Qu. Whether men united by interest are not often divided by\nopinion; and whether such difference in opinion be not an effect of\nmisapprehension?\n\n166. Qu. Whether two things are not manifest, first, that some\nalteration in the value of our coin is highly expedient, secondly,\nthat whatever alteration is made, the tenderest care should be had\nof the properties of the people, and even a regard paid to their\nprejudices?\n\n167. Qu. Whether our taking the coin of another nation for more than\nit is worth be not, in reality and in event, a cheat upon ourselves?\n\n168. Qu. Whether a particular coin over-rated will not be sure to\nflow in upon us from other countries beside that where it is coined?\n\n169. Qu. Whether, in case the wisdom of the nation shall think fit\nto alter our coin, without erecting a national bank, the rule for\nlessening or avoiding present inconvenience should not be so to\norder matters, by raising the silver and depressing the gold, as\nthat the total sum of coined cash within the kingdom shall, in\ndenomination, remain the same, or amount to the same nominal value,\nafter the change that it did before?\n\n170. Qu. Whether all inconvenience ought not to be lessened as much\nas may be; but after, whether it would be prudent, for the sake of a\nsmall inconvenience, to obstruct a much greater good? And whether it\nmay not sometimes happen that an inconvenience which in fancy and\ngeneral discourse seems great shall, when accurately inspected and\ncast up, appear inconsiderable?\n\n171. Qu. Whether in public councils the sum of things, here and\nthere, present and future, ought not to be regarded?\n\n172. Qu. Whether silver and small money be not that which circulates\nthe quickest, and passeth through all hands, on the road, in the\nmarket, at the shop?\n\n173. Qu. Whether, all things considered, it would not be better for\na kingdom that its cash consisted of half a million in small silver,\nthan of five times that sum in gold?\n\n174. Qu. Whether there be not every day five hundred lesser payments\nmade for one that requires gold?\n\n175. Qu. Whether Spain, where gold bears the highest value, be not\nthe laziest, and China, where it bears the lowest, be not the most\nindustrious country in the known world?\n\n176. Qu. Money being a ticket which entitles to power and records\nthe title, whether such power avails otherwise than as it is exerted\ninto act?\n\n177. Qu. Whether it be not evidently the interest of every State,\nthat its money should rather circulate than stagnate?\n\n178. Qu. Whether the principal use of cash be not its ready passing\nfrom hand to hand, to answer common occasions of the common people,\nand whether common occasions of all sorts of people are not small\nones?\n\n179. Qu. Whether business at fairs and markets is not often at a\nstand and often hindered, even though the seller hath his\ncommodities at hand and the purchaser his gold, yet for want of\nchange?\n\n180. Qu. Whether beside that value of money which is rated by\nweight, there be not also another value consisting in its aptness to\ncirculate?\n\n181. Qu. As wealth is really power, and coin a ticket conveying\npower, whether those tickets which are the fittest for that use\nought not to be preferred?\n\n182. Qu. Whether those tickets which singly transfer small shares of\npower, and, being multiplied, large shares, are not fitter for\ncommon use than those which singly transfer large shares?\n\n183. Qu. Whether the public is not more benefited by a shilling that\ncirculates than a pound that lies dead?\n\n184. Qu. Whether sixpence twice paid be not as good as a shilling\nonce paid?\n\n185. Qu. Whether the same shilling circulating in a village may not\nsupply one man with bread, another with stockings, a third with a\nknife, a fourth with paper, a fifth with nails, and so answer many\nwants which must otherwise have remained unsatisfied?\n\n186. Qu. Whether facilitating and quickening the circulation of\npower to supply wants be not the promoting of wealth and industry\namong the lower people? And whether upon this the wealth of the\ngreat doth not depend?\n\n187. Qu. Whether, without the proper means of circulation, it be not\nvain to hope for thriving manufacturers and a busy people?\n\n188. Qu. Whether four pounds in small cash may not circulate and\nenliven an Irish market, which many four-pound pieces would permit\nto stagnate?\n\n189. Qu. Whether a man that could move nothing less than a\nhundred-pound weight would not be much at a loss to supply his\nwants; and whether it would not be better for him to be less strong\nand more active?\n\n190. Qu. Whether the natural body can be in a state of health and\nvigour without a due circulation of the extremities, even? And\nwhether the political body, any in the fingers and toes more than\nthe natural, can thrive without a proportionable circulation through\nthe minutest and most inconsiderable parts thereof?\n\n191. Qu. If we had a mint for coining only shillings, sixpences, and\ncopper-money, whether the nation would not soon feel the good\neffects thereof?\n\n192. Qu. Whether the greater waste by wearing of small coins would\nnot be abundantly overbalanced by their usefulness?\n\n193. Qu. Whether it be not the industry of common people that feeds\nthe State, and whether it be possible to keep this industry alive\nwithout small money?\n\n194. Qu. Whether the want of this be not a great bar to our\nemploying the people in these manufactures which are open to us, and\ndo not interfere with Great Britain?\n\n195. Qu. Whether therefore such want doth not drive men into the\nlazy way of employing land under sheep-walk?\n\n196. Qu. Whether the running of wool from Ireland can so effectually\nbe prevented as by encouraging other business and manufactures among\nour people?\n\n197. Qu. Whatever commodities Great Britain importeth which we might\nsupply, whether it be not her real interest to import them from us\nrather than from any other people?\n\n198. Qu. Whether the apprehension of many among us (who for that\nvery reason stick to their wool), that England may hereafter\nprohibit, limit, or discourage our linen trade, when it hath been\nonce, with great pains and expense, thoroughly introduced and\nsettled in this land, be not altogether groundless and unjust?\n\n199. Qu. Whether it is possible for this country, which hath neither\nmines of gold nor a free trade, to support for any time the sending\nout of specie?\n\n200. Qu. Whether in fact our payments are not made by bills? And\nwhether our foreign credit doth not depend on our domestic industry,\nand our bills on that credit?\n\n201. Qu. Whether, in order to mend it, we ought not first to know\nthe peculiar wretchedness of our state? And whether there be any\nknowing of this but by comparison?\n\n202. Qu. Whether there are not single market towns in England that\nturn more money in buying and selling than whole counties (perhaps\nprovinces) with us?\n\n203. Qu. Whether the small town of Birmingham alone doth not, upon\nan average, circulate every week, one way or other, to the value of\nfifty thousand pounds? But whether the same crown may not be often\npaid?\n\n204. Qu. Whether there be any woollen manufacture in Birmingham?\n\n205. Qu. Whether bad management may not be worse than slavery? And\nwhether any part of Christendom be in a more languishing condition\nthan this kingdom?\n\n206. Qu. Whether any kingdom in Europe be so good a customer at\nBordeaux as Ireland?\n\n207. Qu. Whether the police and economy of France be not governed by\nwise councils? And whether any one from this country, who sees their\ntowns, and manufactures, and commerce, will not wonder what our\nsenators have been doing?\n\n208. Qu. What variety and number of excellent manufactures are to be\nmet with throughout the whole kingdom of France?\n\n209. Qu. Whether there are not everywhere some or other mills for\nmany uses, forges and furnaces for iron-work, looms for tapestry,\nglass-houses, and so forth?\n\n210. Qu. What quantities of paper, stockings, hats; what\nmanufactures of wool, silk, linen, hemp, leather, wax, earthenware,\nbrass, lead, tin, &c?\n\n211. Qu. Whether the manufactures and commerce of the single town of\nLyons do not amount to a greater value than all the manufactures and\nall the trade of this kingdom taken together?\n\n212. Qu. Whether it be not true, that within the compass of one year\nthere flowed from the South Sea, when that commerce was open, into\nthe single town of St. Malo's, a sum in gold and silver equal to\nfour times the whole specie of this kingdom? And whether that same\npart of France doth not at present draw from Cadiz, upwards of two\nhundred thousand pounds per annum?\n\n213. Qu. Whether, in the anniversary fair at the small town of\nBeaucaire upon the Rhone, there be not as much money laid out as the\ncurrent cash of this kingdom amounts to?\n\n214. Qu. Whether it be true that the Dutch make ten millions of\nlivres, every return of the flota and galleons, by their sales at\nthe Indies and at Cadiz?\n\n215. Qu. Whether it be true that England makes at least one hundred\nthousand pounds per annum by the single article of hats sold in\nSpain?\n\n216. Qu. Whether the very shreds shorn from woollen cloth, which are\nthrown away in Ireland, do not make a beautiful tapestry in France?\n\n217. Qu. Whether the toys of Thiers do not employ five thousand\nfamilies?\n\n218. Qu. Whether there be not a small town Or two in France which\nsupply all Spain with cards?\n\n219. Qu. Whether there be not French towns subsisted merely by\nmaking pins?\n\n220. Qu. Whether the coarse fingers of those very women, those same\npeasants who one part of the year till the ground and dress the\nvineyards, are not another employed in making the finest French\npoint?\n\n221. Qu. Whether there is not a great number of idle fingers among\nthe wives and daughters of our peasants?\n\n222. Qu. Whether, about twenty-five years ago, they did not first\nattempt to make porcelain in France; and whether, in a few years,\nthey did not make it so well, as to rival that which comes from\nChina?\n\n223. Qu. Whether the French do not raise a trade from saffron,\ndyeing drugs, and the like products, which may do with us as well as\nwith them?\n\n224. Qu. Whether we may not have materials of our own growth to\nsupply all manufactures, as well as France, except silk, and whether\nthe bulk of what silk even France manufactures be not imported?\n\n225. Qu. Whether it be possible for this country to grow rich, so\nlong as what is made by domestic industry is spent in foreign\nluxury?\n\n226. Qu. Whether part of the profits of the bank should not be\nemployed in erecting manufactures of several kinds, which are not\nlikely to be set on foot and carried on to perfection without great\nstock, public encouragement, general regulations, and the\nconcurrence of many hands?\n\n227. Qu. Whether our natural Irish are not partly Spaniards and\npartly Tartars, and whether they do not bear signatures of their\ndescent from both these nations, which is also confirmed by all\ntheir histories?\n\n228. Qu. Whether the Tartar progeny is not numerous in this land?\nAnd whether there is an idler occupation under the sun than to\nattend flocks and herds of cattle?\n\n229. Qu. Whether the wisdom of the State should not wrestle with\nthis hereditary disposition of our Tartars, and with a high hand\nintroduce agriculture?\n\n230. Qu. Whether it were not to be wished that our people shewed\ntheir descent from Spain, rather by their honour and honesty than\ntheir pride, and if so, whether they might not easily insinuate\nthemselves into a larger share of the Spanish trade?\n\n231. Qu. Whether once upon a time France did not, by her linen\nalone, draw yearly from Spain about eight millions of livres?\n\n232. Qu. Whether the French have not suffered in their linen trade\nwith Spain, by not making their cloth of due breadth; and whether\nany other people have suffered, and are still likely to suffer,\nthrough the same prevarication?\n\n233. Qu. Whether the Spaniards are not rich and lazy, and whether\nthey have not a particular inclination and favour for the\ninhabitants of this island? But whether a punctual people do not\nlove punctual dealers?\n\n234. Qu. Whether about fourteen years ago we had not come into a\nconsiderable share of the linen trade with Spain, and what put a\nstop to this?\n\n235. Qu. Whether we may not, with common industry and common\nhonesty, undersell any nation in Europe?\n\n236. Qu. Whether, if the linen manufacture were carried on in the\nother provinces as well as in the North, the merchants of Cork,\nLimerick, and Galway would not soon find the way to Spain?\n\n237. Qu. Whether the woollen manufacture of England is not divided\ninto several parts or branches, appropriated to particular places,\nwhere they are only or principally manufactured; fine cloths in\nSomersetshire, coarse in Yorkshire, long ells at Exeter, saies at\nSudbury, crapes at Norwich, linseys at Kendal, blankets at Witney,\nand so forth?\n\n238. Qu. Whether the united skill, industry, and emulation of many\ntogether on the same work be not the way to advance it? And whether\nit had been otherwise possible for England to have carried on her\nwoollen manufacture to so great perfection?\n\n239. Qu. Whether it would not on many accounts be right if we\nobserved the same course with respect to our linen manufacture; and\nthat diapers were made in one town or district, damasks in another,\nsheeting in a third, fine wearing linen in a fourth, coarse in a\nfifth, in another cambrics, in another thread and stockings, in\nothers stamped linen, or striped linen, or tickings, or dyed linen,\nof which last kinds there is so great a consumption among the\nseafaring men of all nations?\n\n240. Qu. Whether it may not be worth while to inform ourselves of\nthe different sorts of linen which are in request among different\npeople?\n\n241. Qu. Whether we do not yearly consume of French wines about a\nthousand tuns more than either Sweden or Denmark, and yet whether\nthose nations pay ready money as we do?\n\n242. Qu. Whether they are not the Swiss that make hay and gather in\nthe harvest throughout Alsatia?\n\n243. Qu. Whether it be not a custom for some thousands of Frenchmen\nto go about the beginning of March into Spain, and having tilled the\nlands and gathered the harvest of Spain, to return home with money\nin their pockets about the end of November?\n\n244. Qu. Whether of late years our Irish labourers do not carry on\nthe same business in England to the great discontent of many there?\nBut whether we have not much more reason than the people of England\nto be displeased at this commerce?\n\n245. Qu. Whether, notwithstanding the cash supposed to be brought\ninto it, any nation is, in truth, a gainer by such traffic?\n\n246. Qu. Whether the industry of our people employed in foreign\nlands, while our own are left uncultivated, be not a great loss to\nthe country?\n\n247. Qu. Whether it would not be much better for us, if, instead of\nsending our men abroad, we could draw men from the neighbouring\ncountries to cultivate our own?\n\n248. Qu. Whether, nevertheless, we are not apt to think the money\nimported by our labourers to be so much clear gains to this country,\nbut whether a little reflexion and a little political arithmetic may\nnot shew us our mistake?\n\n249. Qu. Whether our prejudices about gold and silver are not very\napt to infect or misguide our judgments and reasonings about the\npublic weal?\n\n250. Qu. Whether it be not a good rule whereby to judge of the trade\nof any city, and its usefulness, to observe whether there is a\ncirculation through the extremities, and whether the people round\nabout are busy and warm?\n\n251. Qu. Whether we had not, some years since, a manufacture of hats\nat Athlone, and of earthenware at Arklow, and what became of those\nmanufactures?\n\n252. Qu. Why we do not make tiles of our own, for flooring and\nroofing, rather than bring them from Holland?\n\n253. Qu. What manufactures are there in France and Venice of\ngilt-leather, how cheap and how splendid a furniture?\n\n254. Qu. Whether we may not, for the same use, manufacture divers\nthings at home of more beauty and variety than wainscot, which is\nimported at such expense from Norway?\n\n255. Qu. Whether the use and the fashion will not soon make a\nmanufacture?\n\n256. Qu. Whether, if our gentry used to drink mead and cider, we\nshould not soon have those liquors in the utmost perfection and\nplenty?\n\n257. Qu. Whether it be not wonderful that with such pastures, and so\nmany black cattle, we do not find ourselves in cheese?\n\n258. Qu. Whether great profits may not be made by fisheries; but\nwhether those of our Irish who live by that business do not contrive\nto be drunk and unemployed one half of the year?\n\n259. Qu. Whether it be not folly to think an inward commerce cannot\nenrich a State, because it doth not increase its quantity of gold\nand silver? And whether it is possible a country should? not thrive,\nwhile wants are supplied, and business goes on?\n\n260. Qu. Whether plenty of all the necessaries and comforts of life\nbe not real wealth?\n\n261. Qu. Whether Lyons, by the advantage of her midland situation\nand the rivers Rhone and Saone, be not a great magazine or mart for\ninward commerce? And whether she doth not maintain a constant trade\nwith most parts of France; with Provence for oils and dried fruits,\nfor wines and cloth with Languedoc, for stuffs with Champagne, for\nlinen with Picardy, Normandy, and Brittany, for corn with Burgundy?\n\n262. Qu. Whether she doth not receive and utter all those\ncommodities, and raise a profit from the distribution thereof, as\nwell as of her own manufactures, throughout the kingdom of France?\n\n263. Qu. Whether the charge of making good roads and navigable\nrivers across the country would not be really repaid by an inward\ncommerce?\n\n264. Qu. Whether, as our trade and manufactures increased, magazines\nshould not be established in proper places, fitted by their\nsituation, near great roads and navigable rivers, lakes, or canals,\nfor the ready reception and distribution of all sorts of commodities\nfrom and to the several parts of the kingdom; and whether the town\nof Athlone, for instance, may not be fitly situated for such a\nmagazine, or centre of domestic commerce?\n\n265. Qu. Whether an inward trade would not cause industry to\nflourish, and multiply the circulation of our coin, and whether this\nmay not do as well as multiplying the coin itself?\n\n266. Qu. Whether the benefits of a domestic commerce are\nsufficiently understood and attended to; and whether the cause\nthereof be not the prejudiced and narrow way of thinking about gold\nand silver?\n\n267. Qu. Whether there be any other more easy and unenvied method of\nincreasing the wealth of a people?\n\n268. Qu. Whether we of this island are not from our peculiar\ncircumstances determined to this very commerce above any other, from\nthe number of necessaries and good things that we possess within\nourselves, from the extent and variety of our soil, from the\nnavigable rivers and good roads which we have or may have, at a less\nexpense than any people in Europe, from our great plenty of\nmaterials for manufactures, and particularly from the restraints we\nlie under with regard to our foreign trade?\n\n269. Qu. Whether commissioners of trade or other proper persons\nshould not be appointed to draw up plans of our commerce both\nforeign and domestic, and lay them at the beginning of every session\nbefore the Parliament?\n\n270. Qu. Whether registers of industry should not be kept, and the\npubic from time to time acquainted what new manufactures are\nintroduced, what increase or decrease of old ones?\n\n271. Qu. Whether annual inventories should not be published of the\nfairs throughout the kingdom, in order to judge of the growth of its\ncommerce?\n\n272. Qu. Whether there be not every year more cash circulated at the\ncard tables of Dublin than at all the fairs of Ireland?\n\n273. Qu. Whether the wealth of a country will not bear proportion to\nthe skill and industry of its inhabitants?\n\n274. Qu. Whether foreign imports that tend to promote industry\nshould not be encouraged, and such as have a tendency to promote\nluxury should not be discouraged?\n\n275. Qu. Whether the annual balance of trade between Italy and Lyons\nbe not about four millions in favour of the former, and yet, whether\nLyons be not a gainer by this trade?\n\n276. Qu. Whether the general rule, of determining the profit of a\ncommerce by its balance, doth not, like other general rules, admit\nof exceptions?\n\n277. Qu. Whether it would not be a monstrous folly to import nothing\nbut gold and silver, supposing we might do it, from every foreign\npart to which we trade? And yet, whether some men may not think this\nfoolish circumstance a very happy one?\n\n278. Qu. But whether we do not all see the ridicule of the Mogul's\nsubjects, who take from us nothing but our silver, and bury it under\nground, in order to make sure thereof against the resurrection?\n\n279. Qu. Whether he must not be a wrongheaded patriot or politician,\nwhose ultimate view was drawing money into a country, and keeping it\nthere?\n\n280. Qu. Whether it be not evident that not gold but industry\ncauseth a country to flourish?\n\n281. Qu. Whether it would not be a silly project in any nation to\nhope to grow rich by prohibiting the exportation of gold and silver?\n\n282. Qu. Whether there can be a greater mistake in politics than to\nmeasure the wealth of the nation by its gold and silver?\n\n283. Qu. Whether gold and silver be not a drug, where they do not\npromote industry? Whether they be not even the bane and undoing of\nan idle people?\n\n284. Qu. Whether gold will not cause either industry or vice to\nflourish? And whether a country, where it flowed in without labour,\nmust not be wretched and dissolute like an island inhabited by\nbuccaneers?\n\n285. Qu. Whether arts and vertue are not likely to thrive, where\nmoney is made a means to industry? But whether money without this\nwould be a blessing to any people?\n\n286. Qu. Whether therefore Mississippi, South Sea, and such like\nschemes were not calculated for pubic ruin?\n\n287. Qu. Whether keeping cash at home, or sending it abroad, just as\nit most serves to promote industry, be not the real interest of\nevery nation?\n\n288. Qu. Whether commodities of all kinds do not naturally flow\nwhere there is the greatest demand? Whether the greatest demand for\na thing be not where it is of most use? Whether money, like other\nthings, hath not its proper use? Whether this use be not to\ncirculate? Whether therefore there must not of course be money where\nthere is a circulation of industry?\n\n289. Qu. Whether all such princes and statesmen are not greatly\ndeceived who imagine that gold and silver, any way got, will enrich\na country?\n\n290. Qu. Whether it is not a great point to know what we would be\nat? And whether whole States, as well as private persons, do not\noften fluctuate for want of this knowledge?\n\n291. Qu. Whether gold may not be compared to Sejanus's horse, if we\nconsider its passage through the world, and the fate of those\nnations which have been successively possess'd thereof?\n\n292. Qu. Whether the effect is not to be considered more than the\nkind or quantity of money?\n\n293. Qu. Whether means are not so far useful as they answer the end?\nAnd whether, in different circumstances, the same ends are not\nobtained by different means?\n\n294. Qu. If we are a poor nation, abounding with very poor people,\nwill it not follow that a far greater proportion of our stock should\nbe in the smallest and lowest species than would suit with England?\n\n295. Qu. Whether, therefore, it would not be highly expedient if our\nmoney were coined of peculiar values, best fitted to the\ncircumstances and uses of our own country; and whether any other\npeople could take umbrage at our consulting our own convenience, in\nan affair entirely domestic, and that lies within ourselves?\n\n296. Qu. Whether every man doth not know, and hath not long known,\nthat the want of a mint causeth many other wants in this kingdom?\n\n297. Qu. What harm did England sustain about three centuries ago,\nwhen silver was coined in this kingdom?\n\n298. Qu. What harm was it to Spain that her provinces of Naples and\nSicily had all along mints of their own?\n\n299. Qu. Whether those who have the interests of this kingdom at\nheart, and are concerned in the councils thereof, ought not to make\nthe most humble and earnest representations to his Majesty, that he\nmay vouchsafe to grant us that favour, the want of which is ruinous\nto our domestic industry, and the having of which would interfere\nwith no interest of our fellow-subjects?\n\n300. Qu. Whether it may not be presumed that our not having a\nprivilege which every other kingdom in the world enjoys, be not\nowing to our want of diligence and unanimity in soliciting for it?\n\n301. Qu. Whether his most gracious Majesty hath ever been addressed\non this head in a proper manner, and had the case fairly stated for\nhis royal consideration, and if not, whether we may not blame\nourselves?\n\n302. Qu. If his Majesty would be pleased to grant us a mint, whether\nthe consequences thereof may not prove a valuable consideration to\nthe crown?\n\n303. Qu. Whether it be not the interest of England that we should\ncultivate a domestic commerce among ourselves? And whether it could\ngive them any possible jealousy, if our small sum of cash was\ncontrived to go a little further, if there was a little more life in\nour markets, a little more buying and selling in our shops, a little\nbetter provision for the backs and bellies of so many forlorn\nwretches throughout the towns and villages of this island?\n\n304. Qu. Whether Great Britain ought not to promote the prosperity\nof her Colonies, by all methods consistent with her own? And whether\nthe Colonies themselves ought to wish or aim at it by others?\n\n305. Qu. Whether the remotest parts from the metropolis, and the\nlowest of the people, are not to be regarded as the extremities and\ncapillaries of the political body?\n\n306. Qu. Whether, although the capillary vessels are small, yet\nobstructions in them do not produce great chronical diseases?\n\n307. Qu. Whether faculties are not enlarged and improved by\nexercise?\n\n308. Qu. Whether the sum of the faculties put into act, or, in other\nwords, the united action of a whole people, doth not constitute the\nmomentum of a State?\n\n309. Qu. Whether such momentum be not the real stock or wealth of a\nState; and whether its credit be not proportional thereunto?\n\n310. Qu. Whether in every wise State the faculties of the mind are\nnot most considered?\n\n311. Qu. Whether every kind of employment or business, as it implies\nmore skill and exercise of the higher powers, be not more valued?\n\n312. Qu. Whether the momentum of a State doth not imply the whole\nexertion of its faculties, intellectual and corporeal; and whether\nthe latter without the former could act in concert?\n\n313. Qu. Whether the divided force of men, acting singly, would not\nbe a rope of sand?\n\n314. Qu. Whether the particular motions of the members of a State,\nin opposite directions, will not destroy each other, and lessen the\nmomentum of the whole; but whether they must not conspire to produce\na great effect?\n\n315. Qu. Whether the ready means to put spirit into this State, to\nfortify and increase its momentum, would not be a national bank, and\nplenty of small cash?\n\n316. Qu. Whether private endeavours without assistance from the\npublic are likely to advance our manufactures and commerce to any\ngreat degree? But whether, as bills uttered from a national bank\nupon private mortgages would facilitate the purchases and projects\nof private men, even so the same bills uttered on the public\nsecurity alone may not answer pubic ends in promoting new works and\nmanufactures throughout the kingdom?\n\n317. Qu. Whether that which employs and exerts the force of a\ncommunity deserves not to be well considered and well understood?\n\n318. Qu. Whether the immediate mover, the blood and spirits, be not\nmoney, paper, or metal; and whether the soul or will of the\ncommunity, which is the prime mover that governs and directs the\nwhole, be not the legislature?\n\n319. Qu. Supposing the inhabitants of a country quite sunk in sloth,\nor even fast asleep, whether, upon the gradual awakening and\nexertion, first of the sensitive and locomotive faculties, next of\nreason and reflexion, then of justice and piety, the momentum of\nsuch country or State would not, in proportion thereunto, become\nstill more and more considerable?\n\n320. Qu. Whether that which in the growth is last attained, and is\nthe finishing perfection of a people, be not the first thing lost in\ntheir declension?\n\n321. Qu. Whether force be not of consequence, as it is exerted; and\nwhether great force without great wisdom may not be a nuisance?\n\n322. Qu. Whether the force of a child, applied with art, may not\nproduce greater effects than that of a giant? And whether a small\nstock in the hands of a wise State may not go further, and produce\nmore considerable effects, than immense sums in the hands of a\nfoolish one?\n\n323. Qu. Whether as many as wish well to their country ought not to\naim at increasing its momentum?\n\n324. Qu. Whose fault is it if poor Ireland still continues poor?\n\n\nFINIS\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\nPage 4. Line 13 for Silklace, read Silk, Lace, p. 30 l. 7 r. 61\nPrices. p. 32 l. 21 r. to be. p. 39, l. 8 r. as Mills.","title":"The Querist: Containing Several Queries Proposed to the Consideration of the Public","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":27534}