strengthen the links of society between man and man (tum artibus, tum opera, tum facultatibus, devincire hominum inter homines societatem), and that they wrench in sunder the joint society of mankind who maintain that the cause of a citizen should have that attention which is denied to the foreigner (qui civium rationem dicunt esse habendam, externorum negant, hi dirimunt communem humani generis societatem).
The law of God is next, which in infinite places commendeth unto us the good usage and entertainment of strangers; in Deuteronomy, God loveth the stranger, giving him food and raiment. Therefore love ye the stranger. In Leviticus, If a stranger sojourn with you in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger which dwelleth with you shall be as one of yourselves, and ye shall love him as yourselves. For ye were strangers. In Ezekiel, it appeareth that the land of promise was by God’s appointment allotted as well to the stranger as to the Israelite; for they shall part the inheritance with you in the midst of the tribes of Israel, saith the text. And the commandment which is given for the observation of the Sabbath forbids the stranger to labour on that day; whereby it may well be gathered, that at other times it is lawful for him to exercise his lawful trade or vocation. So that for this point I may well conclude with Mr Calvin, who saith that ’tis an inhospitality and ferocity worthy of a savage to oppress miserable strangers who take refuge in our safeguard (barbaries et immanitas inhospitalis miseros advenas opprimere qui in fidem nostrani confugiunt).
It hath been confessed that the arguments used against this bill do carry with them a great show of charity, which (say they) being severed from policy is now no charity, but folly. I will answer that if it be a good rule and principle in divinity morals before ceremonies (moralia sunt anteponenda ceremoniis), it ought much more to be overruled in all consultations, that things human be postponed for things divine; (humana sunt postponenda divinis). Therefore policy without charity is impiety.
But let us consider, how doth this charity overthrow our policy? Forsooth (it is said generally) by impoverishing the natural subject and enriching the stranger; by nourishing a scorpion in our bosoms; by taking the children’s bread and casting it to dogs; and (more particularly), first, by multitude of retailers (for the more men exercise one trade, the less is every one his gain), and secondly, by the strangers’ policy, which consisteth either in providing their wares in such sort that they may sell better cheap than the natural subject, or else by persuading our people that they do so.
To the general accusation — if I should use no other defence but this, that these people (the denizens I mean, for of them and for them only do I speak) having renounced their obedience to their natural governor and countries, and having subjected themselves even by their oaths to the obedience of Her Majesty, to her laws and authority, are now to be accounted of us, though not natural yet naturalized subjects — though not sprung up from our root, yet firmly grafted into our stock and body — though not our children by birth, yet our brethren by adoption — if (I say) I should use no other defence but this, I doubt not but I, in the opinion of all or the most jiart of this honourable house, might clear them of the envious title of the rich strangers, of the odious name of the venomous scorpions, and of the uncharitable term of contemptible dogs.
But because the strength of the general accusation consisteth in the validity of the particular objections, I will, by your favour, in a word or two, make answer to them. It cannot be denied that the number of retailers is somewhat increased by these denizens; but yet not so much, that the burden of them is so insupportable, as is pretended. For by the confession of their adversaries, they are not in all, denizens and not denizens, in and about the city, of all manner of retailers, above the number of fifty or thereabouts; whereof it is probable that the denizens (whom only my purpose is to maintain) exceed not the number of thirty — who, being divided into many trades and companies, cannot so much impoverish any one trade or company in the city of London by their number only, as is suggested.
As touching their policy, which consists in drawing of customers to their shops or houses, either by selling cheap indeed, or else by persuading us that they sell their wares more cheap
