PREFACE.

P

LUTARCH takes notice of a very remarkable law of Solon's,"" which de"clared every man infamous, who, in "any fedition or civil diffention in the ftate, "fhould continue neuter, and refufe to fide "with either party". Aulus Gellius, who gives a more circumftantial detail of this uncommon law, affirms the penalty to be" no lefs "than confiscation of all the effects, and ba"nishment of the delinquent". Cicero mentions the fame law to his friend' Atticus, and even makes the punishment capital, though he refolves at the fame time not to conform to it under his prefent circumstances, unlefs his friend fhould advise him to the contrary.

Which of these relators has given us the real penalty annexed to this law by Solon,

!

is fcarce worth our enquiry. But I cannot help obferving, that ftrange as this law may appear at firft fight, yet if we reflect upon the reasons of it, as they are affigned by Plutarch and A. Gellius, it will not appear unworthy of that great legiflator.

I

The opinion of Plutarch is; "That Solon intended no citizen, as foon as ever he had provided for the fecurity of his own private affairs, fhould be fo unfeeling with refpect to the publick welfare, as to affect a brutal infenfibility, and not fympathize with the diftrefs and calamities of his country. But that he should immediately join the honester and jufter party, and rather rifque his all in defence of the fide he had espoused, than keep a aloof from danger, 'till he faw which party proved the stronger."

The reafon given by A. Gellius is more ftriking, and lefs liable to objections than that of Plutarch. "If (fays that writer) all the good men in any ftate, when they find themselves too weak to ftem the torrent of a furious divided populace, and unable to fupprefs a fedition at its firft breaking out, should immediately divide, and throw themselves into the oppofite fides, the event in fuch a

· Μὴ συναλγεῖν, μυδὲ συννοσεῖν.

cafe

cafe would be, that each party, which they had differently efpoufed, would naturally begin to cool, and put themselves under their direction, as perfons of the greatest weight and authority; thus it would be greatly in the power of fuch men fo circumftanced, to reconcile all differences, and restore peace and union, while they mutually restrain and moderate the fury of their own party, and convince the oppofite fide, that they fincerely with and labour for their fafety, not for their destruction".

What effect this law had in the Athenian ftate is no where mentioned. However as it is plainly founded upon that relation, which every member bears to the body politick, and that intereft which every individual is fuppofed to have in the good of the whole community; it is ftill, though not in express terms, yet virtually received in every free country. For those who continue neuter in civil diffention, under the denomination of moderate men, who keep aloof and wait quietly in order to follow the fortune of the -prevailing fide, are generally ftigmatized with the opprobrious name of Time-fervers, and confequently neither esteemed, nor trufted by either party.

any

As our own country is bleffed with the greateft fhare of liberty, fo is it more subject to civil diffentions than any other nation in Europe. Every man is a politician, and warmly attached to his refpective party; and this law of Solon's feems to take place as ftrongly in Britain, as ever it did in their moft factious times at Athens. Freedom of thought, or the liberty of the mind, arifes naturally from the very effence of our conftitution; and the liberty of the prefs, that peculiar priviledge of the British fubject, gives every man a continual opportunity of laying his fentiments before the publick. Would our political writers purfue the falutary intention of Solon, as delivered to us by A. Gellius in his explication of that extraordinary law, they might contribute greatly to the establishment of that harmony and union, which can alone preferve and perpetuate the duration of our conftitution. But the oppofite views and interefts of parties make the altercation endlefs, and the victory over an antagonist is generally the aim, whilft the investigation of truth only, ought ever to be the real end propofed in all controverfial inquiries. The points which have lately exercifed fo many pens, turn upon the prefent expediency, or abfolute infignificancy of a Militia; or, what principles conduce moft to the power, the happiness, and the

duration

duration of a free people. The dispute has been carried on, not only with warmth, but even with virulence. The chicane of fophiftry has been employed, whilft indecent perfonal reflections, and the unfair charge of difaffection, have been too often made ufe of to fupply the defect of argument, and to prejudice the reader, where they despaired of confuting the writer. Hiftorical facts have been either mifrepresented, or ascribed to wrong principles; the hiftory of ancient nations has been quoted in general terms, without marking the different periods distinguished by fome memorable change in the manners or conftitution of the fame people, which will ever make a wide difference in the application.

fo

Anxious after truth, and unfatisfied with many bold affertions deftitute of all proof but the writers word, which I daily met with, I determined coolly and impartially to examine the evidence, arifing from ancient hiftory, which both fides fo frequently appealed to; for bare fpeculative reafoning is no more conclufive in political inquiries than in phyfical. Facts and experience alone muft decide, and political facts and experience muft alone be learned from history. Determined therefore to judge for myself, carefully read over the hiftories of the moft celebrated republics of antiquity in their oriB 3 ginal