with good policy or justice, would be too long a disquisition; besides, the profusion of kings is not likely to be a grievance for the future, because there have been laws since made to provide against that evil, or indeed rather because the crown has nothing left to give away. But the objection made against the date of the intended inquiry, was invidious and trifling; for king James II. made very few grants: he was a better manager, and squandering was none of his faults; whereas the late king, who came over here a perfect stranger to our laws and to our people, regardless of posterity, wherein he was not likely to survive, thought he could no way better strengthen a new title, than by purchasing friends at the expense of every thing which was in his power to part with.
The reasonableness of uniting to a money bill one of a ditferent nature, which is usually called tacking, has been likewise much debated, and will admit of argument enough. In ancient times, when a parliament was held, the commons first proposed their grievances to be redressed, and then gave their aids; so that it was a perfect bargain between the king and the subject. This fully answered the ends of tacking. Aids were then demanded upon occasions which would hardly pass at present; such, for instance, as those for making the king's son a knight, marrying his eldest daughter, and some others of the like sort. Most of the money went into the king's coffers, for his private use; neither was he accountable for any part of it. Hence arose the form of the king's thanking his subjects for their benevolence, when any subsidies, tenths, or fifteenths, were given him. But the supplies now granted are of another nature, and
cannot
