The London Association used the newspapers to promote an ideology based almost exclusively on Molesworth’s preface. The September 14 edition of the London Evening News, noting the forthcoming publication of Molesworth’s preface, recommended it to the “public” as encapsulating “those genuine principles of a real Whig which actuate the London Association, and are the solid groundwork of all their resolutions.” Reading Molesworth would restore the constitution and “save a sinking nation.” To complement this invocation of the real Whig legacy, the London Association had duplicate copies published of an account of the reading habits of a Whig Shrewsbury brass-metal worker of the 1730s. As it described how the unnamed worthy, persecuted by Tories, found solace and “rapture” in frequent reading of Molesworth’s works, the distinction between those who approved of encroachments on the constitution and those who maintained the “people’s prerogative” was ever persistent. The nomenclature of Cavaliers and Roundheads, High Church and Low, Court and Country was more generally recorded as Whig and Tory. Too many were deluded by “a numerous herd of prostitute writers” into an unthinking dependency, but underneath, “the majority of people are naturally OLD WHIGS.” Now was the time to abandon neutrality by reading Molesworth’s preface. As the item concluded, “I wish every man in the nation would condescend to read it.”85
Evidence that Molesworth was a sensitive and thoughtful witness of contemporary society is found in the economic reflections and recommendations of the final text included in this collection: Some considerations for the promoting of agriculture, and employing the poor, published in Dublin in 1723. Surviving correspondence reveals Molesworth to have been a keen observer of natural and agricultural life. His letters are littered with repeated discussions of a variety of agricultural matters: the stocking of fishponds was evidently a particular interest.86 The arguments developed in the Considerations drew from his skill and abilities in the world of estate management and domestic economy. He turned this practical experience into a thoughtful discussion of the role the state could assume in developing a more productive economy and social policy. As with the Account of Denmark, Molesworth understood that there was a connection between material circumstances, public institutions, and political values.
Undertaking a comparative analysis of landownership, leases, and tithing practices in Ireland and England, Molesworth turned his own experience of managing estates into an instrument for the cultivation of a better civic community. Following Harringtonian commonplaces, Molesworth emphasized the role of landownership as the platform for virtuous public service. A prerequisite for membership in the House of Commons should be the possession of “Estates in the Kingdom.” Such properties should not be “fleeting ones, which may be sent beyond Sea by Bills of Exchange by every Pacquet-Boat, but fix’d and permanent.” Those merchants, bankers, and “money’d men” ambitious of senatorial position “should have also a competent, visible Land Estate.” Disagreeing with the contemporary argument that moneyed status was preferable to having estates encumbered with debts and mortgages, he suggested that those with estates would have the same interest as the rest of the country when it came to “publick Taxes, Gains and Losses.”87
Despite this apparent conservatism, Molesworth’s broader vision of economic life was active. He was, for example, in favor of a general naturalization as a device to increase the population and stimulate trade. Expanding the number of workmen in any town would enable the community to thrive. As a consequence, “the greater will be the Demand of the Manufacture, and the Vent to foreign Parts, and the quicker Circulation of the Coin.”88 Decrying the restrictive practices of many town corporations where commerce was entangled in complex bylaws, Molesworth argued that new unincorporated villages were “more liberal” in their regulatory structures and by consequence deserved parliamentary representation. Such “better peopled” (i.e., more populous) and “more industrious” places were preferable to wastes and deserts like Old Sarum.89
Benefiting “the public” was the criterion for economic and fiscal policy. Potentially, “Parliamentary Credit” could promote “all publick Buildings and Highways, the making all Rivers Navigable that are capable of it, employing the Poor, suppressing Idlers, restraining Monopolies upon Trade, maintaining the liberty of the Press, the just paying and encouraging of all in the publick Service.”90 Far from decrying the burdens of taxation to support such government initiatives (especially in the costly business of continental war), Molesworth insisted that “no true Englishman will grudge to pay Taxes whilst he has a Penny in his Purse.” Since the cost of government was managed in a frugal manner, a citizen who “sees the Publick Money well laid out for the great Ends for which ’tis given” would contribute according to his abilities.91 Notwithstanding Molesworth’s commitment to the virtues of landed property and its political culture, he was appreciative of the possibilities of an industrious nation.
Molesworth’s extensive correspondence reveals a predisposition to value the political function of a landed aristocracy combined with an appreciation of the contributions of commerce and industry. Molesworth spent most of his life in pursuit of financial security for his extensive family. His hope that government office would bring with it secure income was repeatedly disappointed. His sons feared that their interest was compromised by the fierce paternal reputation for “true noble Roman courage that neither rewards nor threatenings can change.”92 This pursuit of security and independence ironically drove Molesworth into an unwise decision to invest in South Sea stock, which resulted only in further debt. A frugal man (drawing only £25 per month “for all expenses relating to myself in England”), he regretted the folly of his speculative investment in South Sea stock. The £2000 he invested was borrowed in the vain hope that the stock would “further rise, and in order to cheat some other buyer, fancying that it would not die in my hands.”93 That the price fell two days after he had purchased the stock, as he lamented, served him right. Molesworth’s daughter had dabbled, too, in the hope of securing a fortune to relieve her family from uncomfortable dependence on the court. The prospect of “imaginary riches” had tempted, it seems, many in the Molesworth connection.94
The best remedy for the current crisis was “improvement” of trade. Daniel Poultney put it most succinctly when he insisted that “we must put a stop to all sort of gaming in stocks, encourage trade and manufacture, industry and frugality.”95 Molesworth’s management of his own domestic economy reflected these values. The “sheet anchor” was his Irish estate, where he and his wife had undertaken virtuous “projects in good husbandry.”96 Late in life he wrote in some considerable pique against the charge that he had been extravagant in matters of estate improvement in Yorkshire. The rumor that thousands of pounds had been spent was spread about by “envious fools.” As he explained, “I never exceed above 150 l. per annum, whatever you may hear to the contrary.” He admitted he had spent a considerable amount on digging a canal, but that had profited him by £300. He continued, “There is neither bench, statue, fountain of stone, stairs, urn or flower-pot here as yet, so that you may judge that mere grass, trees and hedges cannot cost much.”97 The evidence of his correspondence with his wife, sons, and daughters suggests that Molesworth was a landowner with a keen eye to opportunity