{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15702/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15702","id":"gutenberg_15702","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15702","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1760-1820","Political science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Paul Murray, Susan Skinner and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team from images generously made\navailable by the Bibliotheque nationale de France\n(BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS\n\nOF\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nEDMUND BURKE\n\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES\n\nVOLUME THE SIXTH\n\n\n[Illustration: Burke Coat of Arms.]\n\n\nLONDON\nJOHN C. NIMMO\n14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.\nMDCCCLXXXVII\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. VI.\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND POSTHUMOUS VOLUME, IN A LETTER TO THE RIGHT\n  HON. WILLIAM ELLIOT                                                  v\n\nFOURTH LETTER ON THE PROPOSALS FOR PEACE WITH THE REGICIDE DIRECTORY\n  OF FRANCE; WITH THE PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE                       1\n\nLETTER TO THE EMPRESS OF RUSSIA, November 1, 1791                    113\n\nLETTER TO SIR CHARLES BINGHAM, BART., ON THE IRISH ABSENTEE TAX,\n  October 30, 1773                                                   121\n\nLETTER TO THE HON. CHARLES JAMES FOX, ON THE AMERICAN WAR,\n  October 8, 1777                                                    135\n\nLETTER TO THE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM, WITH ADDRESSES TO THE KING,\n  AND THE BRITISH COLONISTS IN NORTH AMERICA, IN RELATION TO THE\n  MEASURES OF GOVERNMENT IN THE AMERICAN CONTEST, AND A PROPOSED\n  SECESSION OF THE OPPOSITION FROM PARLIAMENT, January, 1777         149\n\nLETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND S. PERRY, IN RELATION TO A BILL\n  FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND, July 18, 1778    197\n\nTWO LETTERS TO THOMAS BURGH, ESQ., AND JOHN MERLOTT, ESQ., IN\n  VINDICATION OF HIS PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT RELATIVE TO THE AFFAIRS\n  OF IRELAND, 1780                                                   207\n\nLETTERS AND REFLECTIONS ON THE EXECUTIONS OF THE RIOTERS IN 1780     239\n\nLETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. HENRY DUNDAS: WITH THE SKETCH OF A NEGRO\n  CODE, 1792                                                         255\n\nLETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE MEETING, HELD AT\n  AYLESBURY, APRIL 13, 1780, ON THE SUBJECT OF PARLIAMENTARY\n  REFORM                                                             291\n\nFRAGMENTS OF A TRACT RELATIVE TO THE LAWS AGAINST POPERY IN IRELAND  299\n\nLETTER TO WILLIAM SMITH, ESQ., ON THE SUBJECT OF CATHOLIC\n  EMANCIPATION, January 29, 1795                                     361\n\nSECOND LETTER TO SIR HERCULES LANGRISHE, ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION,\n  May 26, 1795                                                       375\n\nLETTER TO RICHARD BURKE, ESQ., ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY IN IRELAND,\n  1793                                                               385\n\nLETTER ON THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND, 1797                               413\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nTO THE SECOND POSTHUMOUS VOLUME,[1]\n\nIN A LETTER TO\n\nTHE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM ELLIOT\n\n\nMy dear sir,--As some prefatory account of the materials which compose\nthis second posthumous volume of the Works of Mr. Burke, and of the\ncauses which have prevented its earlier appearance, will be expected\nfrom me, I hope I may be indulged in the inclination I feel to run over\nthese matters in a letter to you, rather than in a formal address to the\npublic.\n\nOf the delay that has intervened since the publication of the former\nvolume I shall first say a few words. Having undertaken, in conjunction\nwith the late Dr. Laurence, to examine the manuscript papers of Mr.\nBurke, and to select and prepare for the press such of them as should be\nthought proper for publication, the difficulties attending our\ncooeperation were soon experienced by us. The remoteness of our places\nof residence in summer, and our professional and other avocations in\nwinter, opposed perpetual obstacles to the progress of our undertaking.\n\nSoon after the publication of the fourth volume, I was rendered\nincapable of attending to any business by a severe and tedious illness.\nAnd it was not long after my recovery before the health of our\ninvaluable friend began gradually to decline, and soon became unequal to\nthe increasing labors of his profession and the discharge of his\nParliamentary duties. At length we lost a man, of whom, as I shall have\noccasion to speak more particularly in another part of this undertaking,\nI will now content myself with saying, that in my humble opinion he\nmerited, and certainly obtained with those best acquainted with his\nextensive learning and information, a considerable rank amongst the\neminent persons who have adorned the age in which we have lived, and of\nwhose services the public have been deprived by a premature death.\n\nFrom these causes little progress had been made in our work when I was\ndeprived of my coadjutor. But from that time you can testify of me that\nI have not been idle. You can bear witness to the confused state in\nwhich the materials that compose the present volume came into my hands.\nThe difficulty of reading many of the manuscripts, obscured by\ninnumerable erasures, corrections, interlineations, and marginal\ninsertions, would perhaps have been insuperable to any person less\nconversant in the manuscripts of Mr. Burke than myself. To this\ndifficulty succeeded that of selecting from several detached papers,\nwritten upon the same subject and the same topics, such as appeared to\ncontain the author's last thoughts and emendations. When these\ndifficulties were overcome, there still remained, in many instances,\nthat of assigning its proper place to many detached members of the same\npiece, where no direct note of connection had been made. These\ncircumstances, whilst they will lead the reader not to expect, in the\ncases to which they apply, the finished productions of Mr. Burke,\nimposed upon me a task of great delicacy and difficulty,--namely, that\nof deciding upon the publication of any, and which, of these unfinished\npieces. I must here beg permission of you, and Lord Fitzwilliam, to\ninform the public, that in the execution of this part of my duty I\nrequested and obtained your assistance.\n\nOur first care was to ascertain, from such evidence, internal and\nexternal, as the manuscripts themselves afforded, what pieces appeared\nto have been at any time intended by the author for publication. Our\nnext was to select such as, though not originally intended for\npublication, yet appeared to contain matter that might contribute to the\ngratification and instruction of the public. Our last object was to\ndetermine what degree of imperfection and incorrectness in papers of\neither of these classes ought or ought not to exclude them from a place\nin the present volume. This was, doubtless, the most nice and arduous\npart of our undertaking. The difficulty, however, was, in our minds,\ngreatly diminished by our conviction that the reputation of our author\nstood far beyond the reach of injury from any injudicious conduct of\nours in making this selection. On the other hand, we were desirous that\nnothing should be withheld, from which the public might derive any\npossible benefit.\n\nNothing more is now necessary than that I should give a short account of\nthe writings which compose the present volume.\n\n\nI. Fourth Letter on a Regicide Peace.\n\nSome account has already been given of this Letter in the Advertisement\nto the fourth quarto volume.[2] That part of it which is contained\nbetween the first and the middle of the page 67[3] is taken from a\nmanuscript which, nearly to the conclusion, had received the author's\nlast corrections: the subsequent part, to the middle of the page 71,[4]\nis taken from some loose manuscripts, that were dictated by the author,\nbut do not appear to have been revised by him; and though they, as well\nas what follows to the conclusion, were evidently designed to make a\npart of this Letter, the editor alone is responsible for the order in\nwhich they are here placed. The last part, from the middle of the page\n71, had been printed as a part of the Letter which was originally\nintended to be the third on Regicide Peace, as in the preface to the\nfourth volume has already been noticed.\n\nIt was thought proper to communicate this Letter before its publication\nto Lord Auckland, the author of the pamphlet so frequently alluded to in\nit. His Lordship, in consequence of this communication, was pleased to\nput into my hands a letter with which he had sent his pamphlet to Mr.\nBurke at the time of its publication, and Mr. Burke's answer to that\nletter. These pieces, together with the note with which his Lordship\ntransmitted them to me, are prefixed to the Letter on Regicide Peace.\n\nII. Letter to the Empress of Russia.\nIII. Letter to Sir Charles Bingham.\nIV. Letter to the Honorable Charles James Fox.\n\nOf these Letters it will be sufficient to remark, that they come under\nthe second of those classes into which, as I before observed, we divided\nthe papers that presented themselves to our consideration.\n\nV. Letter to the Marquis of Rockingham.\nVI. An Address to the King.\nVII. An Address to the British Colonists in North America.\n\nThese pieces relate to a most important period in the present reign;\nand I hope no apology will be necessary for giving them to the public.\n\nVIII. Letter to the Right Honorable Edmund [Sexton] Pery.\nIX. Letter to Thomas Burgh, Esq.\nX. Letter to John Merlott, Esq.\n\nThe reader will find, in a note annexed to each of these Letters, an\naccount of the occasions on which they were written. The Letter to T.\nBurgh, Esq., had found its way into some of the periodical prints of the\ntime in Dublin.\n\nXI. Reflections on the Approaching Executions.\n\nIt may not, perhaps, now be generally known that Mr. Burke was a marked\nobject of the rioters in this disgraceful commotion, from whose fury he\nnarrowly escaped. The Reflections will be found to contain maxims of the\nsoundest judicial policy, and do equal honor to the head and heart of\ntheir illustrious writer.\n\nXII. Letter to the Right Honorable Henry Dundas; with the Sketch of a\nNegro Code.\n\nMr. Burke, in the Letter to Mr. Dundas, has entered fully into his own\nviews of the Slave Trade, and has thereby rendered any further\nexplanation on that subject at present unnecessary. With respect to the\nCode itself, an unsuccessful attempt was made to procure the copy of it\ntransmitted to Mr. Dundas. It was not to be found amongst his papers.\nThe Editor has therefore been obliged to have recourse to a rough draft\nof it in Mr. Burke's own handwriting; from which he hopes he has\nsucceeded in making a pretty correct transcript of it, as well as in the\nattempt he has made to supply the marginal references alluded to in Mr.\nBurke's Letter to Mr. Dundas.\n\nXIII. Letter to the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire Meeting.\n\nOf the occasion of this Letter an account is given in the note subjoined\n[prefixed] to it.\n\nXIV. Tracts and Letters relative to the Laws against Popery in Ireland.\n\nThese pieces consist of,--\n\n1. An unfinished Tract on the Popery Laws. Of this Tract the reader will\nfind an account in the note prefixed to it.\n\n2. A Letter to William Smith, Esq. Several copies of this letter having\ngot abroad, it was printed and published in Dublin without the\npermission of Mr. Burke, or of the gentleman to whom it was addressed.\n\n3. Second Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe. This may be considered as\nsupplementary to the first letter, addressed to the same person in\nJanuary, 1792, which was published in the third volume.[5]\n\n4. Letter to Richard Burke, Esq. Of this letter it will be necessary to\nobserve, that the first part of it appears to have been originally\naddressed by Mr. Burke to his son in the manner in which it is now\nprinted, but to have been left unfinished; after whose death he probably\ndesigned to have given the substance of it, with additional\nobservations, to the public in some other form, but never found leisure\nor inclination to finish it.\n\n5. A Letter on the Affairs of Ireland, written in the year 1797. The\nname of the person to whom this letter was addressed does not appear on\nthe manuscript; nor has the letter been found to which it was written as\nan answer. And as the gentleman whom he employed as an amanuensis is not\nnow living, no discovery of it can be made, unless this publication of\nthe letter should produce some information respecting it, that may\nenable us in a future volume to gratify, on this point, the curiosity of\nthe reader. The letter was dictated, as he himself tells us, from his\ncouch at Bath; to which place he had gone, by the advice of his\nphysicians, in March, 1797. His health was now rapidly declining; the\nvigor of his mind remained unimpaired. This, my dear friend, was, I\nbelieve, the last letter dictated by him on public affairs:--here ended\nhis political labors.\n\nXV. Fragments and Notes of Speeches in Parliament.\n\n1. Speech on the Acts of Uniformity.\n\n2. Speech on a Bill for the Relief of Protestant Dissenters.\n\n3. Speech on the Petition of the Unitarians.\n\n4. Speech on the Middlesex Election.\n\n5. Speech on a Bill for shortening the Duration of Parliaments.\n\n6. Speech on the Reform of the Representation in Parliament.\n\n7. Speech on a Bill for explaining the Powers of Juries in Prosecutions\nfor Libels.\n\n*7. Letter relative to the same subject.\n\n8. Speech on a Bill for repealing the Marriage Act.\n\n9. Speech on a Bill to quiet the Possessions of the Subject against\nDormant Claims of the Church.\n\nWith respect to these fragments, I have already stated the reasons by\nwhich we were influenced in our determination to publish them. An\naccount of the state in which these manuscripts were found is given in\nthe note prefixed to this article.\n\nXVI. Hints for an Essay on the Drama.\n\nThis fragment was perused in manuscript by a learned and judicious\ncritic, our late lamented friend, Mr. Malone; and under the protection\nof his opinion we can feel no hesitation in submitting it to the\njudgment of the public.\n\nXVII. We are now come to the concluding article of this volume,--the\nEssay on the History of England.\n\nAt what time of the author's life it was written cannot now be exactly\nascertained; but it was certainly begun before he had attained the age\nof twenty-seven years, as it appears from an entry in the books of the\nlate Mr. Dodsley, that eight sheets of it, which contain the first\nseventy-four pages of the present edition,[6] were printed in the year\n1757. This is the only part that has received the finishing stroke of\nthe author. In those who are acquainted with the manner in which Mr.\nBurke usually composed his graver literary works, and of which some\naccount is given in the Advertisement prefixed to the fourth volume,\nthis circumstance will excite a deep regret; and whilst the public\npartakes with us in this feeling, it will doubtless be led to judge with\ncandor and indulgence of a work left in this imperfect and unfinished\nstate by its author.\n\nBefore I conclude, it may not be improper to take this opportunity of\nacquainting the public with the progress that has been made towards the\ncompletion of this undertaking. The sixth and seventh volumes, which\nwill consist entirely of papers that have a relation to the affairs of\nthe East India Company, and to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, are now\nin the press. The suspension of the consideration of the affairs of the\nEast India Company in Parliament till its nest session has made me very\ndesirous to get the sixth volume out as early as possible in the next\nwinter. The Ninth and Eleventh Reports of the Select Committee,\nappointed to take into consideration certain affairs of the East India\nCompany in the year 1783, were written by Mr. Burke, and will be given\nin that volume. They contain a full and comprehensive view of the\ncommerce, revenues, civil establishment, and general policy of the\nCompany, and will therefore be peculiarly interesting at this time to\nthe public.\n\nThe eighth and last volume will contain a narrative of the life of Mr.\nBurke, which will be accompanied with such parts of his familiar\ncorrespondence, and other occasional productions, as shall be thought\nfit for publication.[7] The materials relating to the early years of his\nlife, alluded to in the Advertisement to the fourth volume, have been\nlately recovered; and the communication of such as may still remain in\nthe possession of any private individuals is again most earnestly\nrequested.\n\nUnequal as I feel myself to the task, I shall, my dear friend, lose no\ntime, nor spare any pains, in discharging the arduous duty that has\ndevolved upon me. You know the peculiar difficulties I labor under from\nthe failure of my eyesight; and you may congratulate me upon the\nassistance which I have now procured from my neighbor, the worthy\nchaplain[8] of Bromley College, who to the useful qualification of a\nmost patient amanuensis adds that of a good scholar and intelligent\ncritic.\n\nAnd now, adieu, my dear friend,\n\nAnd believe me ever affectionately yours,\n\nWR. ROFFEN.\n\nBROMLEY HOUSE, August 1, 1812.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Works, Vol. V., quarto edition, (London, F., C., & J. Rivington,\n1812,)--Vol. IV. of that edition (London, F. & C. Rivington, 1802) being\nthe first posthumous volume,--and Vols. I., II., and III. (London, J.\nDodsley, 1792) comprising the collection published during the lifetime\nof Mr. Burke.\n\n[2] Prefixed to the first volume, in the other editions. For the account\nreferred to, see, in the present edition, Vol. I., pp. xiii., xiv.\n\n[3] Page 86 of the present edition.\n\n[4] In this edition, p. 91, near the top.\n\n[5] In the fourth volume of the present edition.\n\n[6] The quarto edition,--extending as far as Book II. ch. 2, near the\nmiddle of the paragraph commencing, \"The same regard to the welfare of\nthe people,\" &c.\n\n[7] This design the editor did not live to execute.\n\n[8] The Rev. J.J. Talman.\n\n\n\n\nFOURTH LETTER\n\nON THE\n\nPROPOSALS FOR PEACE WITH THE REGICIDE DIRECTORY OF FRANCE.\n\nADDRESSED TO\n\nTHE EARL FITZWILLIAM.\n1795-7.\n\n\nPRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE.\n\n_Letter from the Right Honorable the Lord Auckland to the Lord Bishop of\nRochester_.\n\nEDEN FARM, KENT, July 18th, 1812.\n\nMy dear Lord,--Mr. Burke's fourth letter to Lord Fitzwilliam is\npersonally interesting to me: I have perused it with a respectful\nattention.\n\nWhen I communicated to Mr. Burke, in 1795, the printed work which he\narraigns and discusses, I was aware that he would differ from me.\n\nSome light is thrown on the transaction by my note which gave rise to\nit, and by his answer, which exhibits the admirable powers of his great\nand good mind, deeply suffering at the time under a domestic calamity.\n\nI have selected these two papers from my manuscript collection, and now\ntransmit them to your Lordship with a wish that they may be annexed to\nthe publication in question.\n\nI have the honor to be, my dear Lord,\n\nYours most sincerely,\n\nAUCKLAND.\n\nTO THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Letter from Lord Auckland to the Right Honorable Edmund Burke_.\n\n\nEDEN FARM, KENT, October 28th, 1795.\n\nMy dear Sir,--\n\nThough in the stormy ocean of the last twenty-three years we have seldom\nsailed on the same tack, there has been nothing hostile in our signals\nor manoeuvres, and, on my part at least, there has been a cordial\ndisposition towards friendly and respectful sentiments. Under that\ninfluence, I now send to you a small work which exhibits my fair and\nfull opinions on the arduous circumstances of the moment, \"as far as the\ncautions necessary to be observed will permit me to go beyond general\nideas.\"\n\nThree or four of those friends with whom I am most connected in public\nand private life are pleased to think that the statement in question\n(which at first made part of a confidential paper) may do good, and\naccordingly a very large impression will be published to-day. I neither\nseek to avow the publication nor do I wish to disavow it. I have no\nanxiety in that respect, but to contribute my mite to do service, at a\nmoment when service is much wanted.\n\nI am, my dear Sir,\n\nMost sincerely yours,\n\nAUCKLAND.\n\nRIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Letter from the Right Honorable Edmund Burke to Lord Auckland_.\n\nMy dear Lord,--\n\nI am perfectly sensible of the very flattering honor you have done me in\nturning any part of your attention towards a dejected old man, buried\nin the anticipated grave of a feeble old age, forgetting and forgotten\nin an obscure and melancholy retreat.\n\nIn this retreat I have nothing relative to this world to do, but to\nstudy all the tranquillity that in the state of my mind I am capable of.\nTo that end I find it but too necessary to call to my aid an oblivion of\nmost of the circumstances, pleasant and unpleasant, of my life,--to\nthink as little and indeed to know as little as I can of everything that\nis doing about me,--and, above all, to divert my mind from all\npresagings and prognostications of what I must (if I let my speculations\nloose) consider as of absolute necessity to happen after my death, and\npossibly even before it. Your address to the public, which you have been\nso good as to send to me, obliges me to break in upon that plan, and to\nlook a little on what is behind, and very much on what is before me. It\ncreates in my mind a variety of thoughts, and all of them unpleasant.\n\nIt is true, my Lord, what you say, that, through our public life, we\nhave generally sailed on somewhat different tacks. We have so,\nundoubtedly; and we should do so still, if I had continued longer to\nkeep the sea. In that difference, you rightly observe that I have always\ndone justice to your skill and ability as a navigator, and to your good\nintentions towards the safety of the cargo and of the ship's company. I\ncannot say now that we are on different tacks. There would be no\npropriety in the metaphor. I can sail no longer. My vessel cannot be\nsaid to be even in port. She is wholly condemned and broken up. To have\nan idea of that vessel, you must call to mind what you have often seen\non the Kentish road. Those planks of tough and hardy oak, that used for\nyears to brave the buffets of the Bay of Biscay, are now turned, with\ntheir warped grain and empty trunnion-holes, into very wretched pales\nfor the inclosure of a wretched farm-yard.\n\nThe style of your pamphlet, and the eloquence and power of composition\nyou display in it, are such as do great honor to your talents, and in\nconveying any other sentiments would give me very great pleasure.\nPerhaps I do not very perfectly comprehend your purpose, and the drift\nof your arguments. If I do not, pray do not attribute my mistake to want\nof candor, but to want of sagacity. I confess, your address to the\npublic, together with other accompanying circumstances, has filled me\nwith a degree of grief and dismay which I cannot find words to express.\nIf the plan of politics there recommended--pray excuse my\nfreedom--should be adopted by the king's councils, and by the good\npeople of this kingdom, (as, so recommended, undoubtedly it will,)\nnothing can be the consequence but utter and irretrievable ruin to the\nministry, to the crown, to the succession,--to the importance, to the\nindependence, to the very existence, of this country. This is my feeble,\nperhaps, but clear, positive, decided, long and maturely reflected and\nfrequently declared opinion, from which all the events which have lately\ncome to pass, so far from turning me, have tended to confirm beyond the\npower of alteration, even by your eloquence and authority. I find, my\ndear Lord, that you think some persons, who are not satisfied with the\nsecurities of a Jacobin peace, to be persons of intemperate minds. I may\nbe, and I fear I am, with you in that description; but pray, my Lord,\nrecollect that very few of the causes which make men intemperate can\noperate upon me. Sanguine hopes, vehement desires, inordinate ambition,\nimplacable animosity, party attachments, or party interests,--all these\nwith me have no existence. For myself, or for a family, (alas! I have\nnone,) I have nothing to hope or to fear in this world. I am attached,\nby principle, inclination, and gratitude, to the king, and to the\npresent ministry.\n\nPerhaps you may think that my animosity to opposition is the cause of my\ndissent, on seeing the politics of Mr. Fox (which, while I was in the\nworld, I combated by every instrument which God had put into my hands,\nand in every situation in which I had taken part) so completely, if I at\nall understand you, adopted in your Lordship's book: but it was with\npain I broke with that great man forever in that cause; and I assure\nyou, it is not without pain that I differ with your Lordship on the same\nprinciples. But it is of no concern. I am far below the region of those\ngreat and tempestuous passions. I feel nothing of the intemperance of\nmind. It is rather sorrow and dejection than anger.\n\nOnce more my best thanks for your very polite attention; and do me the\nfavor to believe me, with the most perfect sentiments of respect and\nregard,\n\nMy dear Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient and humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, Oct. 30th, 1795.\n\nFriday Evening.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nTO THE EARL FITZWILLIAM.\n\n\nMy dear Lord,--I am not sure that the best way of discussing any\nsubject, except those that concern the abstracted sciences, is not\nsomewhat in the way of dialogue. To this mode, however, there are two\nobjections: the first, that it happens, as in the puppet-show, one man\nspeaks for all the personages. An unnatural uniformity of tone is in a\nmanner unavoidable. The other and more serious objection is, that, as\nthe author (if not an absolute skeptic) must have some opinion of his\nown to enforce, he will be continually tempted to enervate the arguments\nhe puts into the mouth of his adversary, or to place them in a point of\nview most commodious for their refutation. There is, however, a sort of\ndialogue not quite so liable to these objections, because it approaches\nmore nearly to truth and Nature: it is called CONTROVERSY. Here the\nparties speak for themselves. If the writer who attacks another's\nnotions does not deal fairly with his adversary, the diligent reader has\nit always in his power, by resorting to the work examined, to do justice\nto the original author and to himself. For this reason you will not\nblame me, if, in my discussion of the merits of a Regicide Peace, I do\nnot choose to trust to my own statements, but to bring forward along\nwith them the arguments of the advocates for that measure. If I choose\npuny adversaries, writers of no estimation or authority, then you will\njustly blame me. I might as well bring in at once a fictitious speaker,\nand thus fall into all the inconveniences of an imaginary dialogue. This\nI shall avoid; and I shall take no notice of any author who my friends\nin town do not tell me is in estimation with those whose opinions he\nsupports.\n\nA piece has been sent to me, called \"Some Remarks on the Apparent\nCircumstances of the War in the Fourth Week of October, 1795,\" with a\nFrench motto: \"_Que faire encore une fois dans une telle nuit? Attendre\nle jour_.\" The very title seemed to me striking and peculiar, and to\nannounce something uncommon. In the time I have lived to, I always seem\nto walk on enchanted ground. Everything is new, and, according to the\nfashionable phrase, revolutionary. In former days authors valued\nthemselves upon the maturity and fulness of their deliberations.\nAccordingly, they predicted (perhaps with more arrogance than reason) an\neternal duration to their works. The quite contrary is our present\nfashion. Writers value themselves now on the instability of their\nopinions and the transitory life of their productions. On this kind of\ncredit the modern institutors open their schools. They write for youth,\nand it is sufficient, if the instruction \"lasts as long as a present\nlove, or as the painted silks and cottons of the season.\"\n\nThe doctrines in this work are applied, for their standard, with great\nexactness, to the shortest possible periods both of conception and\nduration. The title is \"Some Remarks on the _Apparent_ Circumstances of\nthe War _in the Fourth Week of October_, 1795.\" The time is critically\nchosen. A month or so earlier would have made it the anniversary of a\nbloody Parisian September, when the French massacre one another. A day\nor two later would have carried it into a London November, the gloomy\nmonth in which it is said by a pleasant author that Englishmen hang and\ndrown themselves. In truth, this work has a tendency to alarm us with\nsymptoms of public suicide. However, there is one comfort to be taken\neven from the gloomy time of year. It is a rotting season. If what is\nbrought to market is not good, it is not likely to keep long. Even\nbuildings run up in haste with untempered mortar in that humid weather,\nif they are ill-contrived tenements, do not threaten long to incumber\nthe earth. The author tells us (and I believe he is the very first\nauthor that ever told such a thing to his readers) \"that the _entire\nfabric_ of his speculations might be overset by unforeseen\nvicissitudes,\" and what is far more extraordinary, \"that even the\n_whole_ consideration might be _varied whilst he was writing those\npages.\"_ Truly, in my poor judgment, this circumstance formed a very\nsubstantial motive for his not publishing those ill-considered\nconsiderations at all. He ought to have followed the good advice of his\nmotto: \"_Que faire encore dans une telle nuit? Attendre le jour_.\" He\nought to have waited till he had got a little more daylight on this\nsubject. Night itself is hardly darker than the fogs of that time.\n\nFinding the _last week in October_ so particularly referred to, and not\nperceiving any particular event, relative to the war, which happened on\nany of the days in that week, I thought it possible that they were\nmarked by some astrological superstition, to which the greatest\npoliticians have been subject. I therefore had recourse to my Rider's\nAlmanack. There I found, indeed, something that characterized the work,\nand that gave directions concerning the sudden political and natural\nvariations, and for eschewing the maladies that are most prevalent in\nthat aguish intermittent season, \"the last week of October.\" On that\nweek the sagacious astrologer, Rider, in his note on the third column of\nthe calendar side, teaches us to expect \"_variable and cold weather\";_\nbut instead of encouraging us to trust ourselves to the haze and mist\nand doubtful lights of that changeable week, on the answerable part of\nthe opposite page he gives us a salutary caution (indeed, it is very\nnearly in the words of the author's motto): \"_Avoid_,\" says he, \"_being\nout late at night and in foggy weather, for a cold now caught may last\nthe whole winter_.\"[9] This ingenious author, who disdained the prudence\nof the Almanack, walked out in the very fog he complains of, and has led\nus to a very unseasonable airing at that time. Whilst this noble writer,\nby the vigor of an excellent constitution, formed for the violent\nchanges he prognosticates, may shake off the importunate rheum and\nmalignant influenza of this disagreeable week, a whole Parliament may go\non spitting and snivelling, and wheezing and coughing, during a whole\nsession. All this from listening to variable, hebdomadal politicians,\nwho run away from their opinions without giving us a month's\nwarning,--and for not listening to the wise and friendly admonitions of\nDr. Cardanus Rider, who never apprehends he may change his opinions\nbefore his pen is out of his hand, but always enables us to lay in at\nleast a year's stock of useful information.\n\nAt first I took comfort. I said to myself, that, if I should, as I fear\nI must, oppose the doctrines of _the last week of October_, it is\nprobable that by this time they are no longer those of the eminent\nwriter to whom they are attributed. He gives us hopes that long before\nthis he may have embraced the direct contrary sentiments. If I am found\nin a conflict with those of the last week of October, I may be in full\nagreement with those of the last week in December, or the first week in\nJanuary, 1796. But a second edition, and a French translation, (for the\nbenefit, I must suppose, of the new Regicide Directory,) have let down a\nlittle of these flattering hopes. We and the Directory know that the\nauthor, whatever changes his works seemed made to indicate, like a\nweathercock grown rusty, remains just where he was in the last week of\nlast October. It is true, that his protest against binding him to his\nopinions, and his reservation of a right to whatever opinions he\npleases, remain in their full force. This variability is pleasant, and\nshows a fertility of fancy:--\n\n    Qualis in aethereo felix Vertumnus Olympo\n    Mille habet ornatus, mille decenter habet.\n\nYet, doing all justice to the sportive variability of these weekly,\ndaily, or hourly speculators, shall I be pardoned, if I attempt a word\non the part of us simple country folk? It is not good for _us_, however\nit may be so for great statesmen, that we should be treated with\nvariable politics. I consider different relations as prescribing a\ndifferent conduct. I allow, that, in transactions with an enemy, a\nminister may, and often must, vary his demands with the day, possibly\nwith the hour. With an enemy, a fixed plan, variable arrangements. This\nis the rule the nature of the transaction prescribes. But all this\nbelongs to treaty. All these shiftings and changes are a sort of secret\namongst the parties, till a definite settlement is brought about. Such\nis the spirit of the proceedings in the doubtful and transitory state of\nthings between enmity and friendship. In this change the subjects of the\ntransformation are by nature carefully wrapt up in their cocoons. The\ngay ornament of summer is not seemly in his aurelia state. This\nmutability is allowed to a foreign negotiator; but when a great\npolitician condescends publicly to instruct his own countrymen on a\nmatter which may fix their fate forever, his opinions ought not to be\ndiurnal, or even weekly. These ephemerides of politics are not made for\nour slow and coarse understandings. Our appetite demands a _piece of\nresistance_. We require some food that will stick to the ribs. We call\nfor sentiments to which we can attach ourselves,--sentiments in which we\ncan take an interest,--sentiments on which we can warm, on which we can\nground some confidence in ourselves or in others. We do not want a\nlargess of inconstancy. Poor souls, we have enough of that sort of\npoverty at home. There is a difference, too, between deliberation and\ndoctrine: a man ought to be decided in his opinions before he attempts\nto teach. His fugitive lights may serve himself in some unknown region,\nbut they cannot free us from the effects of the error into which we have\nbeen betrayed. His active Will-o'-the-wisp may be gone nobody can guess\nwhere, whilst he leaves us bemired and benighted in the bog.\n\nHaving premised these few reflections upon this new mode of teaching a\nlesson, which whilst the scholar is getting by heart the master forgets,\nI come to the lesson itself. On the fullest consideration of it, I am\nutterly incapable of saying with any great certainty what it is, in the\ndetail, that the author means to affirm or deny, to dissuade or\nrecommend. His march is mostly oblique, and his doctrine rather in the\nway of insinuation than of dogmatic assertion. It is not only fugitive\nin its duration, but is slippery in the extreme whilst it lasts.\nExamining it part by part, it seems almost everywhere to contradict\nitself; and the author, who claims the privilege of varying his\nopinions, has exercised this privilege in every section of his remarks.\nFor this reason, amongst others, I follow the advice which the able\nwriter gives in his last page, which is, \"to consider the _impression_\nof what he has urged, taken from the _whole_, and not from detached\nparagraphs.\" That caution was not absolutely necessary. I should think\nit unfair to the author and to myself to have proceeded otherwise. This\nauthor's _whole_, however, like every other whole, cannot be so well\ncomprehended without some reference to the parts; but they shall be\nagain referred to the whole. Without this latter attention, several of\nthe passages would certainly remain covered with an impenetrable and\ntruly oracular obscurity.\n\nThe great, general, pervading purpose, of the whole pamphlet is to\nreconcile us to peace with the present usurpation in France. In this\ngeneral drift of the author I can hardly be mistaken. The other\npurposes, less general, and subservient to the preceding scheme, are to\nshow, first, that the time of the Remarks was the favorable time for\nmaking that peace upon our side; secondly, that on the enemy's side\ntheir disposition towards the acceptance of such terms as he is pleased\nto offer was rationally to be expected; the third purpose was, to make\nsome sort of disclosure of the terms which, if the Regicides are pleased\nto grant them, this nation ought to be contented to accept: these form\nthe basis of the negotiation which the author, whoever he is, proposes\nto open.\n\nBefore I consider these Remarks along with the other reasonings which I\nhear on the same subject, I beg leave to recall to your mind the\nobservation I made early in our correspondence, and which ought to\nattend us quite through the discussion of this proposed peace, amity, or\nfraternity, or whatever you may call it,--that is, the real quality and\ncharacter of the party you have to deal with. This I find, as a thing of\nno importance, has everywhere escaped the author of the October Remarks.\nThat hostile power, to the period of the fourth week in that month, has\nbeen ever called and considered as an usurpation. In that week, for the\nfirst time, it changed its name of an usurped power, and took the simple\nname of _France_. The word France is slipped in just as if the\ngovernment stood exactly as before that Revolution which has astonished,\nterrified, and almost overpowered Europe. \"France,\" says the author,\n\"will do this,\"--\"it is the interest of France,\"--\"the returning honor\nand generosity of France,\" &c., &c.--always merely France: just as if\nwe were in a common political war with an old recognized member of the\ncommonwealth of Christian Europe,--and as if our dispute had turned upon\na mere matter of territorial or commercial controversy, which a peace\nmight settle by the imposition or the taking off a duty, with the gain\nor the loss of a remote island or a frontier town or two, on the one\nside or the other. This shifting of persons could not be done without\nthe hocus-pocus of _abstraction_. We have been in a grievous error: we\nthought that we had been at war with _rebels_ against the lawful\ngovernment, but that we were friends and allies of what is properly\nFrance, friends and allies to the legal body politic of France. But by\nsleight of hand the Jacobins are clean vanished, and it is France we\nhave got under our cup. \"Blessings on his soul that first invented\nsleep!\" said Don Sancho Panza the Wise. All those blessings, and ten\nthousand times more, on him who found out abstraction, personification,\nand impersonals! In certain cases they are the first of all soporifics.\nTerribly alarmed we should be, if things were proposed to us in the\n_concrete_, and if fraternity was held out to us with the individuals\nwho compose this France by their proper names and descriptions,--if we\nwere told that it was very proper to enter into the closest bonds of\namity and good correspondence with the devout, pacific, and\ntender-hearted Sieyes, with the all-accomplished Reubell, with the\nhumane guillotinists of Bordeaux, Tallien and Isabeau, with the meek\nbutcher, Legendre, and with \"the returned humanity and generosity\" (that\nhad been only on a visit abroad) of the virtuous regicide brewer,\nSanterre. This would seem at the outset a very strange scheme of amity\nand concord,--nay, though we had held out to us, as an additional\n_douceur_, an assurance of the cordial fraternal embrace of our pious\nand patriotic countryman, Thomas Paine. But plain truth would here be\nshocking and absurd; therefore comes in _abstraction_ and\npersonification. \"Make your peace with France.\" That word _France_\nsounds quite as well as any other; and it conveys no idea but that of a\nvery pleasant country and very hospitable inhabitants. Nothing absurd\nand shocking in amity and good correspondence with _France_. Permit me\nto say, that I am not yet well acquainted with this new-coined France,\nand without a careful assay I am not willing to receive it in currency\nin place of the old Louis-d'or.\n\nHaving, therefore, slipped the persons with whom we are to treat out of\nview, we are next to be satisfied that the French Revolution, which this\npeace is to fix and consolidate, ought to give us no just cause of\napprehension. Though the author labors this point, yet he confesses a\nfact (indeed, he could not conceal it) which renders all his labors\nutterly fruitless. He confesses that the Regicide means to _dictate_ a\npacification, and that this pacification, according to their decree\npassed but a very few days before his publication appeared, is to \"unite\nto their empire, either in possession or dependence, new barriers, many\nfrontier places of strength, a large sea-coast, and many sea-ports.\" He\nought to have stated it, that they would annex to their territory a\ncountry about a third as large as France, and much more than half as\nrich, and in a situation the most important for command that it would be\npossible for her anywhere to possess.\n\nTo remove this terror, (even if the Regicides should carry their\npoint,) and to give us perfect repose with regard to their empire,\nwhatever they may acquire, or whomsoever they might destroy, he raises a\ndoubt \"whether France will not be ruined by _retaining_ these conquests,\nand whether she will not wholly lose that preponderance which she has\nheld in the scale of European powers, and will not eventually be\ndestroyed by the effect of her present successes, or, at least, whether,\nso far as the _political interests of England are concerned_, she\n[France] will remain an object of as _much jealousy and alarm as she was\nunder the reign of a monarch_.\" Here, indeed, is a paragraph full of\nmeaning! It gives matter for meditation almost in every word of it. The\nsecret of the pacific politicians is out. This republic, at all hazards,\nis to be maintained. It is to be confined within some bounds, if we can;\nif not, with every possible acquisition of power, it is still to be\ncherished and supported. It is the return of the monarchy we are to\ndread, and therefore we ought to pray for the permanence of the Regicide\nauthority. _Esto perpetua_ is the devout ejaculation of our Fra Paolo\nfor the Republic one and indivisible. It was the monarchy that rendered\nFrance dangerous: Regicide neutralizes all the acrimony of that power,\nand renders it safe and social. The October speculator is of opinion\nthat monarchy is of so poisonous a quality that a moderate territorial\npower is far more dangerous to its neighbors under that abominable\nregimen than the greatest empire in the hands of a republic. This is\nJacobinism sublimed and exalted into most pure and perfect essence. It\nis a doctrine, I admit, made to allure and captivate, if anything in the\nworld can, the Jacobin Directory, to mollify the ferocity of Regicide,\nand to persuade those patriotic hangmen, after their reiterated oaths\nfor our extirpation, to admit this well-humbled nation to the fraternal\nembrace. I do not wonder that this tub of October has been racked off\ninto a French cask. It must make its fortune at Paris. That translation\nseems the language the most suited to these sentiments. Our author tells\nthe French Jacobins, that the political interests of Great Britain are\nin perfect unison with the principles of their government,--that they\nmay take and keep the keys of the civilized world, for they are safe in\ntheir unambitious and faithful custody. We say to them, \"We may, indeed,\nwish you to be a little less murderous, wicked, and atheistical, for the\nsake of morals; we may think it were better you were less new-fangled in\nyour speech, for the sake of grammar; but, as _politicians_, provided\nyou keep clear of monarchy, all our fears, alarms, and jealousies are at\nan end: at least, they sink into nothing in comparison of our dread of\nyour detestable royalty.\" A flatterer of Cardinal Mazarin said, when\nthat minister had just settled the match between the young Louis the\nFourteenth and a daughter of Spain, that this alliance had the effect of\nfaith and had removed mountains,--that the Pyrenees were levelled by\nthat marriage. You may now compliment Reubell in the same spirit on the\nmiracles of regicide, and tell him that the guillotine of Louis the\nSixteenth had consummated a marriage between Great Britain and France,\nwhich dried up the Channel, and restored the two countries to the unity\nwhich it is said they had before the unnatural rage of seas and\nearthquakes had broke off their happy junction. It will be a fine\nsubject for the poets who are to prophesy the blessings of this peace.\n\nI am now convinced that the Remarks of the last week of October cannot\ncome from the author to whom they are given, they are such a direct\ncontradiction to the style of manly indignation with which he spoke of\nthose miscreants and murderers in his excellent memorial to the States\nof Holland,--to that very state which the author who presumes to\npersonate him does not find it contrary to the political interests of\nEngland to leave in the hands of these very miscreants, against whom on\nthe part of England he took so much pains to animate their republic.\nThis cannot be; and if this argument wanted anything to give it new\nforce, it is strengthened by an additional reason, that is irresistible.\nKnowing that noble person, as well as myself, to be under very great\nobligations to the crown, I am confident he would not so very directly\ncontradict, even in the paroxysm of his zeal against monarchy, the\ndeclarations made in the name and with the fullest approbation of our\nsovereign, his master, and our common benefactor. In those declarations\nyou will see that the king, instead of being sensible of greater alarm\nand jealousy from a neighboring crowned head than from, these regicides,\nattributes all the dangers of Europe to the latter. Let this writer hear\nthe description given in the royal declaration of the scheme of power of\nthese miscreants, as \"_a system destructive of all public order,\nmaintained by proscriptions, exiles, and confiscations without number,\nby arbitrary imprisonments, by massacres which cannot be remembered\nwithout horror, and at length by the execrable murder of a just and\nbeneficent sovereign, and of the illustrious princess, who with an\nunshaken firmness has shared all the misfortunes of her royal consort,\nhis protracted sufferings, his cruel captivity, his ignominious\ndeath_.\" After thus describing, with an eloquence and energy equalled\nonly by its truth, the means by which this usurped power had been\nacquired and maintained, that government is characterized with equal\nforce. His Majesty, far from thinking monarchy in France to be a greater\nobject of jealousy than the Regicide usurpation, calls upon the French\nto reestablish \"_a monarchical government_\" for the purpose of shaking\noff \"_the yoke of a sanguinary anarchy_,--_of that anarchy which has\nbroken all the most sacred bonds of society, dissolved all the relations\nof civil life, violated every right, confounded every duty_,--_which\nuses the name of liberty to exercise the most cruel tyranny, to\nannihilate all property, to seize on all possessions_,--_which founds\nits power on the pretended consent of the people, and itself carries\nfire and sword through extensive provinces, for having demanded their\nlaws, their religion, and their lawful sovereign_.\"\n\n\"That strain I heard was of a higher mood.\" That declaration of our\nsovereign was worthy of his throne. It is in a style which neither the\npen of the writer of October nor such a poor crow-quill as mine can ever\nhope to equal. I am happy to enrich my letter with this fragment of\nnervous and manly eloquence, which, if it had not emanated from the\nawful authority of a throne, if it were not recorded amongst the most\nvaluable monuments of history, and consecrated in the archives of\nstates, would be worthy, as a private composition, to live forever in\nthe memory of men.\n\nIn those admirable pieces does his Majesty discover this new opinion of\nhis political security, in having the chair of the scorner, that is, the\ndiscipline of atheism, and the block of regicide, set up by his side,\nelevated on the same platform, and shouldering, with the vile image of\ntheir grim and bloody idol, the inviolable majesty of his throne? The\nsentiments of these declarations are the very reverse: they could not be\nother. Speaking of the spirit of that usurpation, the royal manifesto\ndescribes, with perfect truth, its internal tyranny to have been\nestablished as the very means of shaking the security of all other\nstates,--as \"_disposing arbitrarily of the property and blood of the\ninhabitants of France, in order to disturb the tranquillity of other\nnations, and to render all Europe the theatre of the same crimes and of\nthe same misfortunes_.\" It was but a natural inference from this fact,\nthat the royal manifesto does not at all rest the justification of this\nwar on common principles: that it was \"_not only to defend his own\nrights, and those of his allies_,\" but \"_that all the dearest interests\nof his people imposed upon him a duty still more important_,--_that of\nexerting his efforts for the preservation of civil society itself, as\nhappily established among the nations of Europe_.\" On that ground, the\nprotection offered is to \"those who, by declaring for a _monarchical\ngovernment_, shall shake off the yoke of a sanguinary anarchy.\" It is\nfor that purpose the declaration calls on them \"to join the standard of\nan _hereditary monarchy_,\"--declaring that the _peace and safety_ of\nthis kingdom and the other powers of Europe \"_materially depend on the\nreestablishment of order in France_.\" His Majesty does not hesitate to\ndeclare that \"_the reestablishment of monarchy, in the person of Louis\nthe Seventeenth, and the lawful heirs of the crown, appears to him_ [his\nMajesty] _the best mode of accomplishing these just and salutary\nviews_.\"\n\nThis is what his Majesty does not hesitate to declare relative to the\npolitical safety and peace of his kingdom and of Europe, and with regard\nto France under her ancient hereditary monarchy in the course and order\nof legal succession. But in comes a gentleman, in the fag end of\nOctober, dripping with the fogs of that humid and uncertain season, and\ndoes not hesitate in diameter to contradict this wise and just royal\ndeclaration, and stoutly, on his part, to make a counter\ndeclaration,--that France, so far as the political interests of England\nare concerned, will not remain, under the despotism of Regicide, and\nwith the better part of Europe in her hands, so much an object of\njealousy and alarm as she was under the reign of a monarch. When I hear\nthe master and reason on one side, and the servant and his single and\nunsupported assertion on the other, my part is taken.\n\nThis is what the Octobrist says of the political interests of England,\nwhich it looks as if he completely disconnected with those of all other\nnations. But not quite so: he just allows it possible (with an \"at\nleast\") that the other powers may not find it quite their interest that\ntheir territories should be conquered and their subjects tyrannized over\nby the Regicides. No fewer than ten sovereign princes had, some the\nwhole, all a very considerable part of their dominions under the yoke of\nthat dreadful faction. Amongst these was to be reckoned the first\nrepublic in the world, and the closest ally of this kingdom, which,\nunder the insulting name of an independency, is under her iron yoke,\nand, as long as a faction averse to the old government is suffered there\nto domineer, cannot be otherwise. I say nothing of the Austrian\nNetherlands, countries of a vast extent, and amongst the most fertile\nand populous of Europe, and, with regard to us, most critically\nsituated. The rest will readily occur to you.\n\nBut if there are yet existing any people, like me, old-fashioned enough\nto consider that we have an important part of our very existence beyond\nour limits, and who therefore stretch their thoughts beyond the\n_pomoerium_ of England, for them, too, he has a comfort which will\nremove all their jealousies and alarms about the extent of the empire of\nRegicide. \"_These conquests eventually will be the cause of her\ndestruction_.\" So that they who hate the cause of usurpation, and dread\nthe power of France under any form, are to wish her to be a conqueror,\nin order to accelerate her ruin. A little more conquest would be still\nbetter. Will he tell us what dose of dominion is to be the _quantum\nsufficit_ for her destruction?--for she seems very voracious of the food\nof her distemper. To be sure, she is ready to perish with repletion; she\nhas a _boulimia_, and hardly has bolted down one state than she calls\nfor two or three more. There is a good deal of wit in all this; but it\nseems to me (with all respect to the author) to be carrying the joke a\ngreat deal too far. I cannot yet think that the armies of the Allies\nwere of this way of thinking, and that, when they evacuated all these\ncountries, it was a stratagem of war to decoy France into ruin,--or\nthat, if in a treaty we should surrender them forever into the hands of\nthe usurpation, (the lease the author supposes,) it is a master-stroke\nof policy to effect the destruction of a formidable rival, and to render\nher no longer an object of jealousy and alarm. This, I assure the\nauthor, will infinitely facilitate the treaty. The usurpers will catch\nat this bait, without minding the hook which this crafty angler for the\nJacobin gudgeons of the new Directory has so dexterously placed under\nit.\n\nEvery symptom of the exacerbation of the public malady is, with him, (as\nwith the Doctor in Moliere,) a happy prognostic of recovery.--Flanders\ngone. _Tant mieux_.--Holland subdued. Charming!--Spain beaten, and all\nthe hither Germany conquered. Bravo! Better and better still!--But they\nwill retain all their conquests on a treaty. Best of all!--What a\ndelightful thing it is to have a gay physician, who sees all things, as\nthe French express it, _couleur de rose!_ What an escape we have had,\nthat we and our allies were not the conquerors! By these conquests,\nprevious to her utter destruction, she is \"wholly to lose that\npreponderance which she held in the scale of the European powers.\" Bless\nme! this new system of France, after changing all other laws, reverses\nthe law of gravitation. By throwing in weight after weight, her scale\nrises, and will by-and-by kick the beam. Certainly there is one sense in\nwhich she loses her preponderance: that is, she is no longer\npreponderant against the countries she has conquered. They are part of\nherself. But I beg the author to keep his eyes fixed on the scales for a\nmoment longer, and then to tell me, in downright earnest, whether he\nsees hitherto any signs of her losing preponderance by an augmentation\nof weight and power. Has she lost her preponderance over Spain by her\ninfluence in Spain? Are there any signs that the conquest of Savoy and\nNice begins to lessen her preponderance over Switzerland and the Italian\nStates,--or that the Canton of Berne, Genoa, and Tuscany, for example,\nhave taken arms against her,--or that Sardinia is more adverse than\never to a treacherous pacification? Was it in the last week of October\nthat the German States showed that Jacobin. France was losing her\npreponderance? Did the King of Prussia, when he delivered into her safe\ncustody his territories on this side of the Rhine, manifest any tokens\nof his opinion of her loss of preponderance? Look on Sweden and on\nDenmark: is her preponderance less visible there?\n\nIt is true, that, in a course of ages, empires have fallen, and, in the\nopinion of some, not in mine, by their own weight. Sometimes they have\nbeen unquestionably embarrassed in their movements by the dissociated\nsituation of their dominions. Such was the case of the empire of Charles\nthe Fifth and of his successor. It might be so of others. But so compact\na body of empire, so fitted in all the parts for mutual support, with a\nfrontier by Nature and Art so impenetrable, with such facility of\nbreaking out with irresistible force from every quarter, was never seen\nin such an extent of territory, from the beginning of time, as in that\nempire which the Jacobins possessed in October, 1795, and which Boissy\nd'Anglas, in his report, settled as the law for Europe, and the dominion\nassigned by Nature for the Republic of Regicide. But this empire is to\nbe her ruin, and to take away all alarm and jealousy on the part of\nEngland, and to destroy her preponderance over the miserable remains of\nEurope.\n\nThese are choice speculations with which the author amuses himself, and\ntries to divert us, in the blackest hours of the dismay, defeat, and\ncalamity of all civilized nations. They have but one fault,--that they\nare directly contrary to the common sense and common feeling of\nmankind. If I had but one hour to live, I would employ it in decrying\nthis wretched system, and die with my pen in my hand to mark out the\ndreadful consequences of receiving an arrangement of empire dictated by\nthe despotism of Regicide to my own country, and to the lawful\nsovereigns of the Christian world.\n\nI trust I shall hardly be told, in palliation of this shameful system of\npolitics, that the author expresses his sentiments only as doubts. In\nsuch things, it may be truly said, that \"once to doubt is once to be\nresolved.\" It would be a strange reason for wasting the treasures and\nshedding the blood of our country, to prevent arrangements on the part\nof another power, of which we were doubtful whether they might not be\neven to our advantage, and render our neighbor less than before the\nobject of our jealousy and alarm. In this doubt there is much decision.\nNo nation would consent to carry on a war of skepticism. But the fact\nis, this expression of doubt is only a mode of putting an opinion, when\nit is not the drift of the author to overturn the doubt. Otherwise, the\ndoubt is never stated as the author's own, nor left, as here it is,\nunanswered. Indeed, the mode of stating the most decided opinions in the\nform of questions is so little uncommon, particularly since the\nexcellent queries of the excellent Berkeley, that it became for a good\nwhile a fashionable mode of composition.\n\nHere, then, the author of the Fourth Week of October is ready for the\nworst, and would strike the bargain of peace on these conditions. I must\nleave it to you and to every considerate man to reflect upon the effect\nof this on any Continental alliances, present or future, and whether it\nwould be possible (if this book was thought of the least authority)\nthat its maxims with regard to our political interest must not naturally\npush them to be beforehand with us in the fraternity with Regicide, and\nthus not only strip us of any steady alliance at present, but leave us\nwithout any of that communion of interest which could produce alliances\nin future. Indeed, with these maxims, we should be well divided from the\nworld.\n\nNotwithstanding this new kind of barrier and security that is found\nagainst her ambition in her conquests, yet in the very same paragraph he\nadmits, that, \"for the _present_, at least, it is subversive of the\nbalance of power.\" This, I confess, is not a direct contradiction,\nbecause the benefits which he promises himself from it, according to his\nhypothesis, are future and more remote.\n\nSo disposed is this author to peace, that, having laid a comfortable\nfoundation for our security in the greatness of her empire, he has\nanother in reserve, if that should fail, upon quite a contrary ground:\nthat is, a speculation of her crumbling to pieces, and being thrown into\na number of little separate republics. After paying the tribute of\nhumanity to those who will be ruined by all these changes, on the whole\nhe is of opinion that \"the change might be compatible with general\ntranquillity, and with the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous\ncommerce among nations.\" Whether France be great or small, firm and\nentire or dissipated and divided, all is well, provided we can have\npeace with her.\n\nBut without entering into speculations about her dismemberment, whilst\nshe is adding great nations to her empire, is it, then, quite so certain\nthat the dissipation of France into such a cluster of petty republics\nwould be so very favorable to the true balance of power in Europe as\nthis author imagines it would be, and to the commerce of nations? I\ngreatly differ from him. I perhaps shall prove in a future letter, with\nthe political map of Europe before my eye, that the general liberty and\nindependence of the great Christian commonwealth could not exist with\nsuch a dismemberment, unless it were followed (as probably enough it\nwould) by the dismemberment of every other considerable country in\nEurope: and what convulsions would arise in the constitution of every\nstate in Europe it is not easy to conjecture in the mode, impossible not\nto foresee in the mass. Speculate on, good my Lord! provided you ground\nno part of your politics on such unsteady speculations. But as to any\npractice to ensue, are we not yet cured of the malady of speculating on\nthe circumstances of things totally different from those in which we\nlive and move? Five years has this monster continued whole and entire in\nall its members. Far from falling into a division within itself, it is\naugmented by tremendous additions. We cannot bear to look that frightful\nform in the face, as it is, and in its own actual shape. We dare not be\nwise; we have not the fortitude of rational fear; we will not provide\nfor our future safety; but we endeavor to hush the cries of present\ntimidity by guesses at what may be hereafter,--\n\n    \"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow.\"\n\nIs this our style of talk, when\n\n        \"all our yesterdays have lighted fools\n    The way to dusty death\"?\n\nTalk not to me of what swarm of republics may come from this carcass! It\nis no carcass. Now, now, whilst we are talking, it is full of life and\naction. What say you to the Regicide empire of to-day? Tell me, my\nfriend, do its terrors appall you into an abject submission, or rouse\nyou to a vigorous defence? But do--I no longer prevent it--do go\non,--look into futurity. Has this empire nothing to alarm you when all\nstruggle against it is over, when mankind shall be silent before it,\nwhen all nations shall be disarmed, disheartened, and _truly divided_ by\na treacherous peace? Its malignity towards humankind will subsist with\nundiminished heat, whilst the means of giving it effect must proceed,\nand every means of resisting it must inevitably and rapidly decline.\n\nAgainst alarm on their politic and military empire these are the\nwriter's sedative remedies. But he leaves us sadly in the dark with\nregard to the moral consequences, which he states have threatened to\ndemolish a system of civilization under which his country enjoys a\nprosperity unparalleled in the history of man. We had emerged from our\nfirst terrors, but here we sink into them again,--however, only to shake\nthem off upon the credit of his being a man of very sanguine hopes.\n\nAgainst the moral terrors of this successful empire of barbarism, though\nhe has given us no consolation here, in another place he has formed\nother securities,--securities, indeed, which will make even the enormity\nof the crimes and atrocities of France a benefit to the world. We are to\nbe cured by her diseases. We are to grow proud of our Constitution upon,\nthe distempers of theirs. Governments throughout all Europe are to\nbecome much stronger by this event. This, too, comes in the favorite\nmode of _doubt_ and _perhaps_. \"To those,\" he says, \"who meditate on\nthe workings of the human mind, a doubt may perhaps arise, whether the\neffects which I have described,\" (namely, the change he supposes to be\nwrought on the public mind with regard to the French doctrines,) \"though\n_at present_ a salutary check to the dangerous spirit of innovation, may\nnot prove favorable to abuses of power, by creating a timidity in the\njust cause of liberty.\" Here the current of our apprehensions takes a\ncontrary course. Instead of trembling for the existence of our\ngovernment from the spirit of licentiousness and anarchy, the author\nwould make us believe we are to tremble for our liberties from the great\naccession of power which is to accrue to government.\n\nI believe I have read in some author who criticized the productions of\nthe famous Jurieu, that it is not very wise in people who dash away in\nprophecy, to fix the time of accomplishment at too short a period. Mr.\nBrothers may meditate upon this at his leisure. He was a melancholy\nprognosticator, and has had the fate of melancholy men. But they who\nprophesy pleasant things get great present applause; and in days of\ncalamity people have something else to think of: they lose, in their\nfeeling of their distress, all memory of those who flattered them in\ntheir prosperity. But merely for the credit of the prediction, nothing\ncould have happened more unluckily for the noble lord's sanguine\nexpectations of the amendment of the public mind, and the consequent\ngreater security to government, from the examples in France, than what\nhappened in the week after the publication of his hebdomadal system. I\nam not sure it was not in the very week one of the most violent and\ndangerous seditions broke out that we have seen in several years. This\nsedition, menacing to the public security, endangering the sacred person\nof the king, and violating in the most audacious manner the authority of\nParliament, surrounded our sovereign with a murderous yell and war-whoop\nfor that peace which the noble lord considers as a cure for all domestic\ndisturbances and dissatisfactions.\n\nSo far as to this general cure for popular disorders. As for government,\nthe two Houses of Parliament, instead of being guided by the\nspeculations of the Fourth Week in October, and throwing up new barriers\nagainst the dangerous power of the crown, which the noble lord\nconsidered as no unplausible subject of apprehension, the two Houses of\nParliament thought fit to pass two acts for the further strengthening of\nthat very government against a most dangerous and wide-spread faction.\n\nUnluckily, too, for this kind of sanguine speculation, on the very first\nday of the ever-famed \"last week of October,\" a large, daring, and\nseditious meeting was publicly held, from which meeting this atrocious\nattempt against the sovereign publicly originated.\n\nNo wonder that the author should tell us that the whole consideration\nmight be varied _whilst he was writing those pages_. In one, and that\nthe most material instance, his speculations not only might be, but were\nat that very time, entirely overset. Their war-cry for peace with France\nwas the same with that of this gentle author, but in a different note.\nHis is the _gemitus columbae_, cooing and wooing fraternity; theirs the\nfunereal screams of birds of night calling for their ill-omened\nparamours. But they are both songs of courtship. These Regicides\nconsidered a Regicide peace as a cure for all their evils; and so far\nas I can find, they showed nothing at all of the timidity which the\nnoble lord apprehends in what they call the just cause of liberty.\n\nHowever, it seems, that, notwithstanding these awkward appearances with\nregard to the strength of government, he has still his fears and doubts\nabout our liberties. To a free people this would be a matter of alarm;\nbut this physician of October has in his shop all sorts of salves for\nall sorts of sores. It is curious that they all come from the\ninexhaustible drug-shop of the Regicide dispensary. It costs him nothing\nto excite terror, because he lays it at his pleasure. He finds a\nsecurity for this danger to liberty from the wonderful wisdom to be\ntaught to kings, to nobility, and even, to the lowest of the people, by\nthe late transactions.\n\nI confess I was always blind enough to regard the French Revolution, in\nthe act, and much more in the example, as one of the greatest calamities\nthat had ever fallen upon mankind. I now find that in its effects it is\nto be the greatest of all blessings. If so, we owe _amende honorable_ to\nthe Jacobins. They, it seems, were right; and if they were right a\nlittle earlier than we are, it only shows that they exceeded us in\nsagacity. If they brought out their right ideas somewhat in a disorderly\nmanner, it must be remembered that great zeal produces some\nirregularity; but when greatly in the right, it must be pardoned by\nthose who are very regularly and temperately in the wrong. The master\nJacobins had told me this a thousand times. I never believed the\nmasters; nor do I now find myself disposed to give credit to the\ndisciple. I will not much dispute with our author, which party has the\nbest of this Revolution,--that which is from thence to learn wisdom, or\nthat which from the same event has obtained power. The dispute on the\npreference of strength to wisdom may perhaps be decided as Horace has\ndecided the controversy between Art and Nature. I do not like to leave\nall the power to my adversary, and to secure nothing to myself but the\nuntimely wisdom that is taught by the consequences of folly. I do not\nlike my share in the partition: because to his strength my adversary may\npossibly add a good deal of cunning, whereas my wisdom may totally fail\nin producing to me the same degree of strength. But to descend from the\nauthor's generalities a little nearer to meaning, the security given to\nliberty is this,--\"that governments will have learned not to precipitate\nthemselves into embarrassments by speculative wars. Sovereigns and\nprinces will not forget that steadiness, moderation, and economy are the\nbest supports of the eminence on which they stand.\" There seems to me a\ngood deal of oblique reflection in this lesson. As to the lesson itself,\nit is at all times a good one. One would think, however, by this formal\nintroduction of it as a recommendation of the arrangements proposed by\nthe author, it had never been taught before, either by precept or by\nexperience,--and that these maxims are discoveries reserved for a\nRegicide peace. But is it permitted to ask what security it affords to\nthe liberty of the subject, that the prince is pacific or frugal? The\nvery contrary has happened in our history. Our best securities for\nfreedom have been obtained from princes who were either warlike, or\nprodigal, or both.\n\nAlthough the amendment of princes in these points can\nhave no effect in quieting our apprehensions for liberty on account of\nthe strength to be acquired to government by a Regicide peace, I allow\nthat the avoiding of speculative wars may possibly be an advantage,\nprovided I well understand what the author means by a speculative war. I\nsuppose he means a war grounded on speculative advantages, and not wars\nfounded on a just speculation of danger. Does he mean to include this\nwar, which we are now carrying on, amongst those speculative wars which\nthis Jacobin peace is to teach sovereigns to avoid hereafter? If so, it\nis doing the party an important service. Does he mean that we are to\navoid such wars as that of the Grand Alliance, made on a speculation of\ndanger to the independence of Europe? I suspect he has a sort of\nretrospective view to the American war, as a speculative war, carried on\nby England upon one side and by Louis the Sixteenth on the other. As to\nour share of that war, let reverence to the dead and respect to the\nliving prevent us from reading lessons of this kind at their expense. I\ndon't know how far the author may find himself at liberty to wanton on\nthat subject; but, for my part, I entered into a coalition which, when I\nhad no longer a duty relative to that business, made me think myself\nbound in honor not to call it up without necessity. But if he puts\nEngland out of the question, and reflects only on Louis the Sixteenth, I\nhave only to say, \"Dearly has he answered it!\" I will not defend him.\nBut all those who pushed on the Revolution by which he was deposed were\nmuch more in fault than he was. They have murdered him, and have divided\nhis kingdom as a spoil; but they who are the guilty are not they who\nfurnish the example. They who reign through his fault are not among\nthose sovereigns who are likely to be taught to avoid speculative wars\nby the murder of their master. I think the author will not be hardy\nenough to assert that they have shown less disposition to meddle in the\nconcerns of that very America than he did, and in a way not less likely\nto kindle the flame of speculative war. Here is one sovereign not yet\nreclaimed by these healing examples. Will he point out the other\nsovereigns who are to be reformed by this peace? Their wars may not be\nspeculative. But the world will not be much mended by turning wars from\nunprofitable and speculative to practical and lucrative, whether the\nliberty or the repose of mankind is regarded. If the author's new\nsovereign in France is not reformed by the example of his own\nRevolution, that Revolution has not added much to the security and\nrepose of Poland, for instance, or taught the three great partitioning\npowers more moderation in their second than they had shown in their\nfirst division of that devoted country. The first division, which\npreceded these destructive examples, was moderation itself, in\ncomparison of what has been, done since the period of the author's\namendment.\n\nThis paragraph is written with something of a studied obscurity. If it\nmeans anything, it seems to hint as if sovereigns were to learn\nmoderation, and an attention to the liberties of their people, from _the\nfate of the sovereigns who have suffered in this war_, and eminently of\nLouis the Sixteenth.\n\nWill he say whether the King of Sardinia's horrible tyranny was the\ncause of the loss of Savoy and of Nice? What lesson of moderation does\nit teach the Pope? I desire to know whether his Holiness is to learn not\nto massacre his subjects, nor to waste and destroy such beautiful\ncountries as that of Avignon, lest he should call to their assistance\nthat great deliverer of nations, _Jourdan Coupe-tete_? What lesson does\nit give of moderation to the Emperor, whose predecessor never put one\nman to death after a general rebellion of the Low Countries, that the\nRegicides never spared man, woman, or child, whom they but suspected of\ndislike to their usurpations? What, then, are all these lessons about\nthe _softening_ the character of sovereigns by this Regicide peace? On\nreading this section, one would imagine that the poor tame sovereigns of\nEurope had been a sort of furious wild beasts, that stood in need of\nsome uncommonly rough discipline to subdue the ferocity of their savage\nnature.\n\nAs to the example to be learnt from the murder of Louis the Sixteenth,\nif a lesson to kings is not derived from his fate, I do not know whence\nit can come. The author, however, ought not to have left us in the dark\nupon that subject, to break our shins over his hints and insinuations.\nIs it, then, true, that this unfortunate monarch drew his punishment\nupon himself by his want of moderation, and his oppressing the liberties\nof which he had found his people in possession? Is not the direct\ncontrary the fact? And is not the example of this Revolution the very\nreverse of anything which can lead to that _softening_ of character in\nprinces which the author supposes as a security to the people, and has\nbrought forward as a recommendation to fraternity with those who have\nadministered that happy emollient in the murder of their king and the\nslavery and desolation of their country?\n\nBut the author does not confine the benefit of the Regicide lesson to\nkings alone. He has a diffusive bounty. Nobles, and men of property,\nwill likewise be greatly reformed. They, too, will be led to a review of\ntheir social situation and duties,--\"and will reflect, that their large\nallotment of worldly advantages is for the aid and benefit of the\nwhole.\" Is it, then, from the fate of Juigne, Archbishop of Paris, or of\nthe Cardinal de Rochefoucault, and of so many others, who gave their\nfortunes, and, I may say, their very beings, to the poor, that the rich\nare to learn, that their \"fortunes are for the aid and benefit of the\nwhole\"? I say nothing of the liberal persons of great rank and property,\nlay and ecclesiastic, men and women, to whom we have had the honor and\nhappiness of affording an asylum: I pass by these, lest I should never\nhave done, or lest I should omit some as deserving as any I might\nmention. Why will the author, then, suppose that the nobles and men of\nproperty in France have been banished, confiscated, and murdered, on\naccount of the savageness and ferocity of their character, and their\nbeing tainted with vices beyond those of the same order and description\nin other countries? No judge of a revolutionary tribunal, with his hands\ndipped in their blood and his maw gorged with their property, has yet\ndared to assert what this author has been pleased, by way of a moral\nlesson, to insinuate.\n\nTheir nobility, and their men of property, in a mass, had the very same\nvirtues, and the very same vices, and in the very same proportions, with\nthe same description of men in this and in other nations. I must do\njustice to suffering honor, generosity, and integrity. I do not know\nthat any time or any country has furnished more splendid examples of\nevery virtue, domestic and public. I do not enter into the councils of\nProvidence; but, humanly speaking, many of these nobles and men of\nproperty, from whose disastrous fate we are, it seems, to learn a\ngeneral softening of character, and a revision of our social situations\nand duties, appear to me full as little deserving of that fate as the\nauthor, whoever he is, can be. Many of them, I am sure, were such as I\nshould be proud indeed to be able to compare myself with, in knowledge,\nin integrity, and in every other virtue. My feeble nature might shrink,\nthough theirs did not, from the proof; but my reason and my ambition\ntell me that it would be a good bargain to purchase their merits with\ntheir fate.\n\nFor which of his vices did that great magistrate, D'Espremenil, lose his\nfortune and his head? What were the abominations of Malesherbes, that\nother excellent magistrate, whose sixty years of uniform virtue was\nacknowledged, in the very act of his murder, by the judicial butchers\nwho condemned him? On account of what misdemeanors was he robbed of his\nproperty, and slaughtered with two generations of his offspring,--and\nthe remains of the third race, with a refinement of cruelty, and lest\nthey should appear to reclaim the property forfeited by the virtues of\ntheir ancestor, confounded in an hospital with the thousands of those\nunhappy foundling infants who are abandoned, without relation and\nwithout name, by the wretchedness or by the profligacy of their parents?\n\nIs the fate of the Queen of France to produce this softening of\ncharacter? Was she a person so very ferocious and cruel, as, by the\nexample of her death, to frighten us into common humanity? Is there no\nway to teach the Emperor a _softening_ of character, and a review of\nhis social situation and duty, but his consent, by an infamous accord\nwith Regicide, to drive a second coach with the Austrian arms through\nthe streets of Paris, along which, after a series of preparatory horrors\nexceeding the atrocities of the bloody execution itself, the glory of\nthe Imperial race had been carried to an ignominious death? Is this a\nlesson of _moderation_ to a descendant of Maria Theresa, drawn from the\nfate of the daughter of that incomparable woman and sovereign? If he\nlearns this lesson from such an object, and from such teachers, the man\nmay remain, but the king is deposed. If he does not carry quite another\nmemory of that transaction in the inmost recesses of his heart, he is\nunworthy to reign, he is unworthy to live. In the chronicle of disgrace\nhe will have but this short tale told of him: \"He was the first emperor\nof his house that embraced a regicide; he was the last that wore the\nimperial purple.\" Far am I from thinking so ill of this august\nsovereign, who is at the head of the monarchies of Europe, and who is\nthe trustee of their dignities and his own.\n\nWhat ferocity of character drew on the fate of Elizabeth, the sister of\nKing Louis the Sixteenth? For which of the vices of that pattern of\nbenevolence, of piety, and of all the virtues, did they put her to\ndeath? For which of her vices did they put to death the mildest of all\nhuman creatures, the Duchess of Biron? What were the crimes of those\ncrowds of matrons and virgins of condition, whom they mas sacred, with\ntheir juries of blood, in prisons and on scaffolds? What were the\nenormities of the infant king, whom they caused, by lingering tortures,\nto perish in their dungeon, and whom if at last they dispatched by\npoison, it was in that detestable crime the only act of mercy they have\never shown?\n\nWhat softening of character is to be had, what review of their social\nsituations and duties is to be taught by these examples to kings, to\nnobles, to men of property, to women, and to infants? The royal family\nperished because it was royal. The nobles perished because they were\nnoble. The men, women, and children, who had property, because they had\nproperty to be robbed of. The priests were punished, after they had been\nrobbed of their all, not for their vices, but for their virtues and\ntheir piety, which made them an honor to their sacred profession, and to\nthat nature of which we ought to be proud, since they belong to it. My\nLord, nothing can be learned from such examples, except the danger of\nbeing kings, queens, nobles, priests, and children, to be butchered on\naccount of their inheritance. These are things at which not vice, not\ncrime, not folly, but wisdom, goodness, learning, justice, probity,\nbeneficence, stand aghast. By these examples our reason and our moral\nsense are not enlightened, but confounded; and there is no refuge for\nastonished and affrighted virtue, but being annihilated in humility and\nsubmission, sinking into a silent adoration of the inscrutable\ndispensations of Providence, and flying with trembling wings from this\nworld of daring crimes, and feeble, pusillanimous, half-bred, bastard\njustice, to the asylum of another order of things, in an unknown form,\nbut in a better life.\n\nWhatever the politician or preacher of September or of October may think\nof the matter, it is a most comfortless, disheartening, desolating\nexample. Dreadful is the example of ruined innocence and virtue, and\nthe completest triumph of the completest villany that ever vexed and\ndisgraced mankind! The example is ruinous in every point of view,\nreligious, moral, civil, political. It establishes that dreadful maxim\nof Machiavel, that in great affairs men are not to be wicked by halves.\nThis maxim is not made for a middle sort of beings, who, because they\ncannot be angels, ought to thwart their ambition, and not endeavor to\nbecome infernal spirits. It is too well exemplified in the present time,\nwhere the faults and errors of humanity, checked by the imperfect,\ntimorous virtues, have been overpowered by those who have stopped at no\ncrime. It is a dreadful part of the example, that infernal malevolence\nhas had pious apologists, who read their lectures on frailties in favor\nof crimes,--who abandon the weak, and court the friendship of the\nwicked. To root out these maxims, and the examples that support them, is\na wise object of years of war. This is that war. This is that moral war.\nIt was said by old Trivulzio, that the Battle of Marignano was the\nBattle of the Giants,--that all the rest of the many he had seen were\nthose of the Cranes and Pygmies. This is true of the objects, at least,\nof the contest: for the greater part of those which we have hitherto\ncontended for, in comparison, were the toys of children.\n\nThe October politician is so full of charity and good-nature, that he\nsupposes that these very robbers and murderers themselves are in a\ncourse of melioration: on what ground I cannot conceive, except on the\nlong practice of every crime, and by its complete success. He is an\nOrigenist, and believes in the conversion of the Devil. All that runs in\nthe place of blood in his veins is nothing but the milk of human\nkindness. He is as soft as a curd,--though, as a politician, he might be\nsupposed to be made of sterner stuff. He supposes (to use his own\nexpression) \"that the salutary truths which he inculcates are making\ntheir way into their bosoms.\" Their bosom is a rock of granite, on which\nFalsehood has long since built her stronghold. Poor Truth has had a hard\nwork of it, with her little pickaxe. Nothing but gunpowder will do.\n\nAs a proof, however, of the progress of this sap of Truth, he gives us a\nconfession they had made not long before he wrote. \"'Their fraternity'\n(as was lately stated by themselves in a solemn report) 'has been the\nbrotherhood of Cain and Abel,' and 'they have organized nothing but\nbankruptcy and famine.'\" A very honest confession, truly,--and much in\nthe spirit of their oracle, Rousseau. Yet, what is still more marvellous\nthan the confession, this is the very fraternity to which our author\ngives us such an obliging invitation to accede. There is, indeed, a\nvacancy in the fraternal corps: a brother and a partner is wanted. If we\nplease, we may fill up the place of the butchered Abel; and whilst we\nwait the destiny of the departed brother, we may enjoy the advantages of\nthe partnership, by entering without delay into a shop of ready-made\nbankruptcy and famine. These are the _douceurs_ by which we are invited\nto Regicide fraternity and friendship. But still our author considers\nthe confession as a proof that \"truth is making its way into their\nbosoms.\" No! It is not making its way into their bosoms. It has forced\nits way into their mouths! The evil spirit by which they are possessed,\nthough essentially a liar, is forced by the tortures of conscience to\nconfess the truth,--to confess enough for their condemnation, but not\nfor their amendment. Shakspeare very aptly expresses this kind of\nconfession, devoid of repentance, from the mouth of an usurper, a\nmurderer, and a regicide:--\n\n            \"We are ourselves compelled,\n    Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,\n    To give in evidence.\"\n\nWhence is their amendment? Why, the author writes, that, on their\nmurderous insurrectionary system, their own lives are not sure for an\nhour; nor has their power a greater stability. True. They are convinced\nof it; and accordingly the wretches have done all they can to preserve\ntheir lives, and to secure their power; but not one step have they taken\nto amend the one or to make a more just use of the other. Their wicked\npolicy has obliged them to make a pause in the only massacres in which\ntheir treachery and cruelty had operated as a kind of savage\njustice,--that is, the massacre of the accomplices of their crimes: they\nhave ceased to shed the inhuman blood of their fellow-murderers; but\nwhen they take any of those persons who contend for their lawful\ngovernment, their property, and their religion, notwithstanding the\ntruth which this author says is making its way into their bosoms, it has\nnot taught them the least tincture of mercy. This we plainly see by\ntheir massacre at Quiberon, where they put to death, with every species\nof contumely, and without any exception, every prisoner of war who did\nnot escape out of their hands. To have had property, to have been robbed\nof it, and to endeavor to regain it,--these are crimes irremissible, to\nwhich every man who regards his property or his life, in every country,\nought well to look in all connection with those with whom to have had\nproperty was an offence, to endeavor to keep it a second offence, to\nattempt to regain it a crime that puts the offender out of all the laws\nof peace or war. You cannot see one of those wretches without an alarm\nfor your life as well as your goods. They are like the worst of the\nFrench and Italian banditti, who, whenever they robbed, were sure to\nmurder.\n\nAre they not the very same ruffians, thieves, assassins, and regicides\nthat they were from the beginning? Have they diversified the scene by\nthe least variety, or produced the face of a single new villany? _Taedet\nharum quotidianarum formarum_. Oh! but I shall be answered, \"It is now\nquite another thing;--they are all changed. You have not seen them in\ntheir state dresses;--this makes an amazing difference. The new habit of\nthe Directory is so charmingly fancied, that it is impossible not to\nfall in love with so well-dressed a Constitution;--the costume of the\n_sans-culotte_ Constitution of 1793 was absolutely insufferable. The\nCommittee for Foreign Affairs were such slovens, and stunk so\nabominably, that no _muscadin_ ambassador of the smallest degree of\ndelicacy of nerves could come within ten yards of them; but now they are\nso powdered, and perfumed, and ribanded, and sashed, and plumed, that,\nthough they are grown infinitely more insolent in their fine clothes\neven than they were in their rags, (and that was enough,) as they now\nappear, there is something in it more grand and noble, something more\nsuitable to an awful Roman Senate receiving the homage of dependent\ntetrarchs. Like that Senate, (their perpetual model for conduct towards\nother nations,) they permit their vassals (during their good pleasure)\nto assume the name of kings, in order to bestow more dignity on the\nsuite and retinue of the sovereign Republic by the nominal rank of their\nslaves: _Ut habeant instrumenta servitutis et reges_.\" All this is very\nfine, undoubtedly; and ambassadors whose hands are almost out for want\nof employment may long to have their part in this august ceremony of the\nRepublic one and indivisible. But, with great deference to the new\ndiplomatic taste, we old people must retain some square-toed\npredilection, for the fashions of our youth.\n\nI am afraid you will find me, my Lord, again falling into my usual\nvanity, in valuing myself on the eminent men whose society I once\nenjoyed. I remember, in a conversation I once had with my ever dear\nfriend Garrick, who was the first of actors, because he was the most\nacute observer of Nature I ever knew, I asked him how it happened, that,\nwhenever a senate appeared on the stage, the audience seemed always\ndisposed to laughter. He said, the reason was plain: the audience was\nwell acquainted with the faces of most of the senators. They knew that\nthey were no other than candle-snuffers, revolutionary scene-shifters,\nsecond and third mob, prompters, clerks, executioners, who stand with\ntheir axe on their shoulders by the wheel, grinners in the pantomime,\nmurderers in tragedies, who make ugly faces under black wigs,--in short,\nthe very scum and refuse of the theatre; and it was of course that the\ncontrast of the vileness of the actors with the pomp of their habits\nnaturally excited ideas of contempt and ridicule.\n\nSo it was at Paris on the inaugural day of the Constitution for the\npresent year. The foreign ministers were ordered to attend at this\ninvestiture of the Directory;--for so they call the managers of their\nburlesque government. The diplomacy, who were a sort of strangers, were\nquite awe-struck with the \"pride, pomp, and circumstance\" of this\nmajestic senate; whilst the _sans-culotte_ gallery instantly recognized\ntheir old insurrectionary acquaintance, burst out into a horse-laugh at\ntheir absurd finery, and held them in infinitely greater contempt than\nwhilst they prowled about the streets in the pantaloons of the last\nyear's Constitution, when their legislators appeared honestly, with\ntheir daggers in their belts, and their pistols peeping out of their\nside-pocket-holes, like a bold, brave banditti, as they are. The\nParisians (and I am much of their mind) think that a thief with a crape\non his visage is much worse than a barefaced knave, and that such\nrobbers richly deserve all the penalties of all the black acts. In this\ntheir thin disguise, their comrades of the late abdicated sovereign\n_canaille_ hooted and hissed them, and from that day have no other name\nfor them than what is not quite so easy to render into English,\nimpossible to make it very civil English: it belongs, indeed, to the\nlanguage of the _halles_: but, without being instructed in that dialect,\nit was the opinion of the polite Lord Chesterfield that no man could be\na complete master of French. Their Parisian brethren called them _gueux\nplumes_, which, though not elegant, is expressive and characteristic:\n_feathered scoundrels_, I think, comes the nearest to it in that kind of\nEnglish. But we are now to understand that these _gueux_, for no other\nreason, that I can divine, except their red and white clothes, form at\nlast a state with which we may cultivate amity, and have a prospect of\nthe blessings of a secure and permanent peace. In effect, then, it was\nnot with the men, or their principles, or their polities, that we\nquarrelled: our sole dislike was to the cut of their clothes.\n\nBut to pass over _their_ dresses,--good God! in what habits did the\nrepresentatives of the crowned heads of Europe appear, when they came to\nswell the pomp of their humiliation, and attended in solemn function\nthis inauguration of Regicide? That would be the curiosity. Under what\nrobes did they cover the disgrace and degradation of the whole college\nof kings? What warehouses of masks and dominoes furnished a cover to the\nnakedness of their shame? The shop ought to be known; it will soon have\na good trade. Were the dresses of the ministers of those lately called\npotentates, who attended on that occasion, taken from the wardrobe of\nthat property-man at the opera, from whence my old acquaintance,\nAnacharsis Clootz, some years ago equipped a body of ambassadors, whom\nhe conducted, as from all the nations of the world, to the bar of what\nwas called the Constituent Assembly? Among those mock ministers, one of\nthe most conspicuous figures was the representative of the British\nnation, who unluckily was wanting at the late ceremony. In the face of\nall the real ambassadors of the sovereigns of Europe was this ludicrous\nrepresentation of their several subjects, under the name of _oppressed\nsovereigns_,[10] exhibited to the Assembly. That Assembly received an\nharangue, in the name of those sovereigns, against their kings,\ndelivered by this Clootz, actually a subject of Prussia, under the name\nof Ambassador of the Human Race. At that time there was only a feeble\nreclamation from one of the ambassadors of these tyrants and oppressors.\nA most gracious answer was given to the ministers of the oppressed\nsovereigns; and they went so far on that occasion as to assign them, in\nthat assumed character, a box at one of their festivals.\n\nI was willing to indulge myself in an hope that this second appearance\nof ambassadors was only an insolent mummery of the same kind; but, alas!\nAnacharsis himself, all fanatic as he was, could not have imagined that\nhis opera procession should have been the prototype of the real\nappearance of the representatives of all the sovereigns of Europe\nthemselves, to make the same prostration that was made by those who\ndared to represent their people in a complaint against them. But in this\nthe French Republic has followed, as they always affect to do, and have\nhitherto done with success, the example of the ancient Romans, who shook\nall governments by listening to the complaints of their subjects, and\nsoon after brought the kings themselves to answer at their bar. At this\nlast ceremony the ambassadors had not Clootz for their Cotterel. Pity\nthat Clootz had not had a reprieve from the guillotine till he had\ncompleted his work! But that engine fell before the curtain had fallen\nupon all the dignity of the earth.\n\nOn this their gaudy day the new Regicide Directory sent for that\ndiplomatic rabble, as bad as themselves in principle, but infinitely\nworse in degradation. They called them out by a sort of roll of their\nnations, one after another, much in the manner in which they called\nwretches out of their prison to the guillotine. When these ambassadors\nof infamy appeared before them, the chief Director, in the name of the\nrest, treated each of them with a short, affected, pedantic, insolent,\ntheatric laconium,--a sort of epigram of contempt. When they had thus\ninsulted them in a style and language which never before was heard, and\nwhich no sovereign would for a moment endure from another, supposing any\nof them frantic enough to use it, to finish their outrage, they drummed\nand trumpeted the wretches out of their hall of audience.\n\nAmong the objects of this insolent buffoonery was a person supposed to\nrepresent the King of Prussia. To this worthy representative they did\nnot so much as condescend to mention his master; they did not seem to\nknow that he had one; they addressed themselves solely to Prussia in the\nabstract, notwithstanding the infinite obligation they owed to their\nearly protector for their first recognition and alliance, and for the\npart of his territory he gave into their hands for the first-fruits of\nhis homage. None but dead monarchs are so much as mentioned by them, and\nthose only to insult the living by an invidious comparison. They told\nthe Prussians they ought to learn, after the example of Frederick the\nGreat, a love for France. What a pity it is, that he, who loved France\nso well as to chastise it, was not now alive, by an unsparing use of the\nrod (which, indeed, he would have spared little) to give them another\ninstance of his paternal affection! But the Directory were mistaken.\nThese are not days in which monarchs value themselves upon the title of\n_great_: they are grown _philosophic_: they are satisfied to be good.\n\nYour Lordship will pardon me for this no very long reflection on the\nshort, but excellent speech of the plumed Director to the ambassador of\nCappadocia. The Imperial ambassador was not in waiting, but they found\nfor Austria a good Judean representation. With great judgment, his\nHighness, the Grand Duke, had sent the most atheistic coxcomb to be\nfound in Florence, to represent at the bar of impiety the House of\nApostolic Majesty, and the descendants of the pious, though high-minded,\nMaria Theresa. He was sent to humble the whole race of Austria before\nthose grim assassins, reeking with the blood of the daughter of Maria\nTheresa, whom they sent half dead, in a dung-cart, to a cruel execution;\nand this true-born son of apostasy and infidelity, this renegado from\nthe faith and from all honor and all humanity, drove an Austrian coach\nover the stones which were yet wet with her blood,--with that blood\nwhich dropped every step through her tumbrel, all the way she was drawn\nfrom the horrid prison, in which they had finished all the cruelty and\nhorrors not executed in the face of the sun. The Hungarian subjects of\nMaria Theresa, when they drew their swords to defend her rights against\nFrance, called her, with correctness of truth, though not with the same\ncorrectness, perhaps, of grammar, a king: \"_Moriamur pro rege nostro,\nMaria Theresa._\" SHE lived and died a king; and others will have\nsubjects ready to make the same vow, when, in either sex, they show\nthemselves real kings.\n\nWhen the Directory came to this miserable fop, they bestowed a\ncompliment on his matriculation into _their_ philosophy; but as to his\nmaster, they made to him, as was reasonable, a reprimand, not without a\npardon, and an oblique hint at the whole family. What indignities have\nbeen offered through this wretch to his master, and how well borne, it\nis not necessary that I should dwell on at present. I hope that those\nwho yet wear royal, imperial, and ducal crowns will learn to feel as\nmen and as kings: if not, I predict to them, they will not long exist as\nkings or as men.\n\nGreat Britain was not there. Almost in despair, I hope she will never,\nin any rags and _coversluts_ of infamy, be seen at such an exhibition.\nThe hour of her final degradation is not yet come; she did not herself\nappear in the Regicide presence, to be the sport and mockery of those\nbloody buffoons, who, in the merriment of their pride, were insulting\nwith every species of contumely the fallen dignity of the rest of\nEurope. But Britain, though not personally appearing to bear her part in\nthis monstrous tragi-comedy, was very far from being forgotten. The\nnew-robed regicides found a representative for her. And who was this\nrepresentative? Without a previous knowledge, any one would have given a\nthousand guesses before he could arrive at a tolerable divination of\ntheir rancorous insolence. They chose to address what they had to say\nconcerning this nation to the ambassador of America. They did not apply\nto this ambassador for a mediation: that, indeed, would have indicated a\nwant of every kind of decency; but it would have indicated nothing more.\nBut in this their American apostrophe, your Lordship will observe, they\ndid not so much as pretend to hold out to us directly, or through any\nmediator, though in the most humiliating manner, any idea whatsoever of\npeace, or the smallest desire of reconciliation. To the States of\nAmerica themselves they paid no compliment. They paid their compliment\nto Washington solely: and on what ground? This most respectable\ncommander and magistrate might deserve commendation on very many of\nthose qualities which they who most disapprove some part of his\nproceedings, not more justly than freely, attribute to him; but they\nfound nothing to commend in him \"_but the hatred he bore to Great\nBritain_.\" I verily believe, that, in the whole history of our European\nwars, there never was such a compliment paid from the sovereign of one\nstate to a great chief of another. Not one ambassador from any one of\nthose powers who pretend to live in amity with this kingdom took the\nleast notice of that unheard-of declaration; nor will Great Britain,\ntill she is known with certainty to be true to her own dignity, find any\none disposed to feel for the indignities that are offered to her. To say\nthe truth, those miserable creatures were all silent under the insults\nthat were offered to themselves. They pocketed their epigrams, as\nambassadors formerly took the gold boxes and miniature pictures set in\ndiamonds presented them by sovereigns at whose courts they had resided.\nIt is to be presumed that by the next post they faithfully and promptly\ntransmitted to their masters the honors they had received. I can easily\nconceive the epigram which will be presented to Lord Auckland, or to the\nDuke of Bedford, as hereafter, according to circumstances, they may\nhappen to represent this kingdom. Few can have so little imagination as\nnot readily to conceive the nature of the boxes of epigrammatic lozenges\nthat will be presented to them.\n\nBut _hae nugae seria ducunt in mala_. The conduct of the Regicide faction\nis perfectly systematic in every particular, and it appears absurd only\nas it is strange and uncouth, not as it has an application to the ends\nand objects of their policy. When by insult after insult they have\nrendered the character of sovereigns vile in the eyes of their\nsubjects, they know there is but one step more to their utter\ndestruction. All authority, in a great degree, exists in opinion: royal\nauthority most of all. The supreme majesty of a monarch cannot be allied\nwith contempt. Men would reason, not unplausibly, that it would be\nbetter to get rid of the monarchy at once than to suffer that which was\ninstituted, and well instituted, to support the glory of the nation, to\nbecome the instrument of its degradation and disgrace.\n\nA good many reflections will arise in your Lordship's mind upon the time\nand circumstances of that most insulting and atrocious declaration of\nhostility against this kingdom. The declaration was made subsequent to\nthe noble lord's encomium on the new Regicide Constitution,--after the\npamphlet had made something more than advances towards a reconciliation\nwith that ungracious race, and had directly disowned all those who\nadhered to the original declaration in favor of monarchy. It was even\nsubsequent to the unfortunate declaration in the speech from the throne\n(which this pamphlet but too truly announced) of the readiness of our\ngovernment to enter into connections of friendship with that faction.\nHere was the answer from the throne of Regicide to the speech from the\nthrone of Great Britain. They go out of their way to compliment General\nWashington on the supposed rancor of his heart towards this country. It\nis very remarkable, that they make this compliment of malice to the\nchief of the United States, who had first signed a treaty of peace,\namity, and commerce with this kingdom. This radical hatred, according to\ntheir way of thinking, the most recent, solemn compacts of friendship\ncannot or ought not to remove. In this malice to England, as in the one\ngreat comprehensive virtue, all other merits of this illustrious person\nare entirely merged. For my part, I do not believe the fact to be so as\nthey represent it. Certainly it is not for Mr. Washington's honor as a\ngentleman, a Christian, or a President of the United States, after the\ntreaty he has signed, to entertain such sentiments. I have a moral\nassurance that the representation of the Regicide Directory is\nabsolutely false and groundless. If it be, it is a stronger mark of\ntheir audacity and insolence, and still a stronger proof of the support\nthey mean to give to the mischievous faction they are known to nourish\nthere, to the ruin of those States, and to the end that no British\naffections should ever arise in that important part of the world, which\nwould naturally lead to a cordial, hearty British alliance, upon the\nbottom of mutual interest and ancient affection. It shows in what part\nit is, and with what a weapon, they mean a deadly blow at the heart of\nGreat Britain. One really would have expected, from this new\nConstitution of theirs, which had been announced as a great reform, and\nwhich was to be, more than any of their former experimental schemes,\nalliable with other nations, that they would, in their very first public\nact, and their declaration to the collected representation of Europe and\nAmerica, have affected some degree of moderation, or, at least, have\nobserved a guarded silence with regard to their temper and their views.\nNo such thing: they were in haste to declare the principles which are\nspun into the primitive staple of their frame. They were afraid that a\nmoment's doubt should exist about them. In their very infancy they were\nin haste to put their hand on their infernal altar, and to swear the\nsame immortal hatred to England which was sworn in the succession of all\nthe short-lived constitutions that preceded it. With them everything\nelse perishes almost as soon as it is formed; this hatred alone is\nimmortal. This is their impure Vestal fire that never is extinguished:\nand never will it be extinguished, whilst the system of Regicide exists\nin France. What! are we not to believe them? Men are too apt to be\ndeceitful enough in their professions of friendship, and this makes a\nwise man walk with some caution through life. Such professions, in some\ncases, may be even a ground of further distrust. But when a man declares\nhimself your unalterable enemy! No man ever declared to another a rancor\ntowards him which he did not feel. _Falsos in amore odia, non fingere_,\nsaid an author who points his observations so as to make them\nremembered.\n\nObserve, my Lord, that, from their invasion of Flanders and Holland to\nthis hour, they have never made the smallest signification of a desire\nof peace with this kingdom, with Austria, or, indeed, with any other\npower that I know of. As superiors, they expect others to begin. We have\ncomplied, as you may see. The hostile insolence with which they gave\nsuch a rebuff to our first overture, in the speech from the throne, did\nnot hinder us from making, from the same throne, a second advance. The\ntwo Houses a second time coincided in the same sentiments, with a degree\nof apparent unanimity, (for there was no dissentient voice but yours,)\nwith which, when they reflect on it, they will be as much ashamed as I\nam. To this our new humiliating overture (such, at whatever hazard, I\nmust call it) what did the Regicide Directory answer? Not one public\nword of a readiness to treat. No,--they feel their proud situation too\nwell. They never declared whether they would grant peace to you or not.\nThey only signified to you their pleasure as to the terms on which alone\nthey would in any case admit you to it. You showed your general\ndisposition to peace, and, to forward it, you left everything open to\nnegotiations. As to any terms you can possibly obtain, they shut out all\nnegotiation at the very commencement. They declared that they never\nwould make a peace by which anything that ever belonged to France should\nbe ceded. We would not treat with the monarchy, weakened as it must\nobviously be in any circumstance of restoration, without a reservation\nof something for indemnity and security,--and that, too, in words of the\nlargest comprehension. You treat with the Regicides without any\nreservation at all. On their part, they assure you formally and\npublicly, that they will give you nothing in the name of indemnity or\nsecurity, or for any other purpose.\n\nIt is impossible not to pause here for a moment, and to consider the\nmanner in which such declarations would have been taken by your\nancestors from a monarch distinguished for his arrogance,--an arrogance\nwhich, even more than his ambition, incensed and combined all Europe\nagainst him. Whatever his inward intentions may have been, did Louis the\nFourteenth ever make a declaration that the true bounds of France were\nthe ocean, the Mediterranean, and the Rhine? In any overtures for peace,\ndid he ever declare that he would make no sacrifices to promote it? His\ndeclarations were always directly to the contrary; and at the Peace of\nRyswick his actions were to the contrary. At the close of the war,\nalmost in every instance victorious, all Europe was astonished, even\nthose who received them were astonished, at his concessions. Let those\nwho have a mind to see how little, in comparison, the most powerful and\nambitious of all monarchs is to be dreaded consult the very judicious\ncritical observations on the politics of that reign, inserted in the\nmilitary treatise of the Marquis de Montalembert. Let those who wish to\nknow what is to be dreaded from an ambitious republic consult no author,\nno military critic, no historical critic. Let them open their own eyes,\nwhich degeneracy and pusillanimity have shut from the light that pains\nthem, and let them not vainly seek their security in a voluntary\nignorance of their danger.\n\nTo dispose us towards this peace,--an attempt in which our author has, I\ndo not know whether to call it the good or ill fortune to agree with\nwhatever is most seditious, factious, and treasonable in this\ncountry,--we are told by many dealers in speculation, but not so\ndistinctly by the author himself, (too great distinctness of affirmation\nnot being his fault,)--but we are told, that the French have lately\nobtained a very pretty sort of Constitution, and that it resembles the\nBritish Constitution as if they had been twinned together in the\nwomb,--_mire sagaces fallere hospites discrimen obscurum_. It may be so:\nbut I confess I am not yet made to it: nor is the noble author. He finds\nthe \"elements\" excellent, but the disposition very inartificial indeed.\nContrary to what we might expect at Paris, the meat is good, the cookery\nabominable. I agree with him fully in the last; and if I were forced to\nallow the first, I should still think, with our old coarse by-word,\nthat the same power which furnished all their former _restaurateurs_\nsent also their present cooks. I have a great opinion of Thomas Paine,\nand of all his productions: I remember his having been one of the\ncommittee for forming one of their annual Constitutions, I mean the\nadmirable Constitution of 1793, after having been a chamber council to\nthe no less admirable Constitution of 1791. This pious patriot has his\neyes still directed to his dear native country, notwithstanding her in\ngratitude to so kind a benefactor. This outlaw of England, and lawgiver\nto France, is now, in secret probably, trying his hand again, and\ninviting us to him by making his Constitution such as may give his\ndisciples in England some plausible pretext for going into the house\nthat he has opened. We have discovered, it seems, that all which the\nboasted wisdom of our ancestors has labored to bring to perfection for\nsix or seven centuries is nearly, or altogether, matched in six or seven\ndays, at the leisure hours and sober intervals of Citizen Thomas Paine.\n\n    \"But though the treacherous tapster, Thomas,\n    Hangs a new Angel two doors from us,\n    As fine as dauber's hands can make it,\n    In hopes that strangers may mistake it,\n    We think it both a shame and sin\n    To quit the good old Angel Inn,\"\n\nIndeed, in this good old house, where everything at least is well aired,\nI shall be content to put up my fatigued horses, and here take a bed for\nthe long night that begins to darken upon me. Had I, however, the honor\n(I must now call it so) of being a member of any of the constitutional\nclubs, I should think I had carried my point most completely. It is\nclear, by the applauses bestowed on what the author calls this new\nConstitution, a mixed oligarchy, that the difference between the\nclubbists and the old adherents to the monarchy of this country is\nhardly worth a scuffle. Let it depart in peace, and light lie the earth\non the British Constitution! By this easy manner of treating the most\ndifficult of all subjects, the constitution for a great kingdom, and by\nletting loose an opinion that they may be made by any adventurers in\nspeculation in a small given time, and for any country, all the ties,\nwhich, whether of reason or prejudice, attach mankind to their old,\nhabitual, domestic governments, are not a little loosened; all\ncommunion, which the similarity of the basis has produced between all\nthe governments that compose what we call the Christian world and the\nrepublic of Europe, would be dissolved. By these hazarded speculations\nFrance is more approximated to us in constitution than in situation; and\nin proportion as we recede from the ancient system of Europe, we\napproach to that connection which alone can remain to us, a close\nalliance with the new-discovered moral and political world in France.\n\nThese theories would be of little importance, if we did not only know,\nbut sorely feel, that there is a strong Jacobin faction in this country,\nwhich has long employed itself in speculating upon constitutions, and to\nwhom the circumstance of their government being home-bred and\nprescriptive seems no sort of recommendation. What seemed to us to be\nthe best system of liberty that a nation ever enjoyed to them seems the\nyoke of an intolerable slavery. This speculative faction had long been\nat work. The French Revolution did not cause it: it only discovered it,\nincreased it, and gave fresh vigor to its operations. I have reason to\nbe persuaded that it was in this country, and from English writers and\nEnglish caballers, that France herself was instituted in this\nrevolutionary fury. The communion of these two factions upon any\npretended basis of similarity is a matter of very serious consideration.\nThey are always considering the formal distributions of power in a\nconstitution: the moral basis they consider as nothing. Very different\nis my opinion: I consider the moral basis as everything,--the formal\narrangements, further than as they promote the moral principles of\ngovernment, and the keeping desperately wicked persons as the subjects\nof laws and not the makers of them, to be of little importance. What\nsignifies the cutting and shuffling of cards, while the pack still\nremains the same? As a basis for such a connection as has subsisted\nbetween the powers of Europe, we had nothing to fear, but from the\nlapses and frailties of men,--and that was enough; but this new\npretended republic has given us more to apprehend from what they call\ntheir virtues than we had to dread from the vices of other men. Avowedly\nand systematically, they have given the upperhand to all the vicious and\ndegenerate part of human nature. It is from their lapses and deviations\nfrom their principle that alone we have anything to hope.\n\nI hear another inducement to fraternity with the present rulers. They\nhave murdered one Robespierre. This Robespierre, they tell us, was a\ncruel tyrant, and now that he is put out of the way, all will go well in\nFrance. Astraea will again return to that earth from which she has been\nan emigrant, and all nations will resort to her golden scales. It is\nvery extraordinary, that, the very instant the mode of Paris is known\nhere, it becomes all the fashion in London. This is their jargon. It is\nthe old _bon-ton_ of robbers, who cast their common crimes on the\nwickedness of their departed associates. I care little about the memory\nof this same Robespierre. I am sure he was an execrable villain. I\nrejoiced at his punishment neither more nor less than I should at the\nexecution of the present Directory, or any of its members. But who gave\nRobespierre the power of being a tyrant? and who were the instruments of\nhis tyranny? The present virtuous constitution-mongers. He was a tyrant;\nthey were his satellites and his hangmen. Their sole merit is in the\nmurder of their colleague. They have expiated their other murders by a\nnew murder. It has always been the case among this banditti. They have\nalways had the knife at each other's throats, after they had almost\nblunted it at the throats of every honest man. These people thought,\nthat, in the commerce of murder, he was like to have the better of the\nbargain, if any time was lost; they therefore took one of their short\nrevolutionary methods, and massacred him in a manner so perfidious and\ncruel as would shock all humanity, if the stroke was not struck by the\npresent rulers on one of their own associates. But this last act of\ninfidelity and murder is to expiate all the rest, and to qualify them\nfor the amity of an humane and virtuous sovereign and civilized people.\nI have heard that a Tartar believes, when he has killed a man, that all\nhis estimable qualities pass with his clothes and arms to the murderer;\nbut I have never heard that it was the opinion of any savage Scythian,\nthat, if he kills a brother villain, he is, _ipso facto_, absolved of\nall his own offences. The Tartarian doctrine is the most tenable\nopinion. The murderers of Robespierre, besides what they are entitled to\nby being engaged in the same tontine of infamy, are his representatives,\nhave inherited all his murderous qualities, in addition to their own\nprivate stock. But it seems we are always to be of a party with the last\nand victorious assassins. I confess I am of a different mind, and am\nrather inclined, of the two, to think and speak less hardly of a dead\nruffian than to associate with the living. I could better bear the\nstench of the gibbeted murderer than the society of the bloody felons\nwho yet annoy the world. Whilst they wait the recompense due to their\nancient crimes, they merit new punishment by the new offences they\ncommit. There is a period to the offences of Robespierre. They survive\nin his assassins. \"Better a living dog,\" says the old proverb, \"than a\ndead lion.\" Not so here. Murderers and hogs never look well till they\nare hanged. From villany no good can arise, but in the example of its\nfate. So I leave them their dead Robespierre, either to gibbet his\nmemory, or to deify him in their Pantheon with their Marat and their\nMirabeau.\n\nIt is asserted that this government promises stability. God of his mercy\nforbid! If it should, nothing upon earth besides itself can be stable.\nWe declare this stability to be the ground of our making peace with\nthem. Assuming it, therefore, that the men and the system are what I\nhave described, and that they have a determined hostility against this\ncountry,--an hostility not only of policy, but of predilection,--then I\nthink that every rational being would go along with me in considering\nits permanence as the greatest of all possible evils. If, therefore, we\nare to look for peace with such a thing in any of its monstrous shapes,\nwhich I deprecate, it must be in that state of disorder, confusion,\ndiscord, anarchy, and insurrection, such as might oblige the momentary\nrulers to forbear their attempts on neighboring states, or to render\nthese attempts less operative, if they should kindle new wars. When was\nit heard before, that the internal repose of a determined and wicked\nenemy, and the strength of his government, became the wish of his\nneighbor, and a security, against either his malice or his ambition? The\ndirect contrary has always been inferred from that state of things:\naccordingly, it has ever been the policy of those who would preserve\nthemselves against the enterprises of such a malignant and mischievous\npower to cut out so much work for him in his own states as might keep\nhis dangerous activity employed at home.\n\nIt is said, in vindication of this system, which demands the stability\nof the Regicide power as a ground for peace with them, that, when they\nhave obtained, as now it is said (though not by this noble author) they\nhave, a permanent government, they will be _able_ to preserve amity with\nthis kingdom, and with others who have the misfortune to be in their\nneighborhood. Granted. They will be _able_ to do so, without question;\nbut are they willing to do so? Produce the act; produce the declaration.\nHave they made any single step towards it? Have they ever once proposed\nto treat?\n\nThe assurance of a stable peace, grounded on the stability of their\nsystem, proceeds on this hypothesis,--that their hostility to other\nnations has proceeded from their anarchy at home, and from the\nprevalence of a populace which their government had not strength enough\nto master. This I utterly deny. I insist upon it as a fact, that, in the\ndaring commencement of all their hostilities, and their astonishing\nperseverance in them, so as never once, in any fortune, high or low, to\npropose a treaty of peace to any power in Europe, they have never been\nactuated by the people: on the contrary, the people, I will not say have\nbeen moved, but impelled by them, and have generally acted under a\ncompulsion, of which most of us are as yet, thank God, unable to form an\nadequate idea. The war against Austria was formally declared by the\nunhappy Louis the Sixteenth; but who has ever considered Louis the\nSixteenth, since the Revolution, to have been the government? The second\nRegicide Assembly, then the only government, was the author of that war;\nand neither the nominal king nor the nominal people had anything to do\nwith it, further than in a reluctant obedience. It is to delude\nourselves, to consider the state of France, since their Revolution, as a\nstate of anarchy: it is something far worse. Anarchy it is, undoubtedly,\nif compared with government pursuing the peace, order, morals, and\nprosperity of the people; but regarding only the power that has really\nguided from the day of the Revolution to this time, it has been of all\ngovernments the most absolute, despotic, and effective that has hitherto\nappeared on earth. Never were the views and politics of any government\npursued with half the regularity, system, and method that a diligent\nobserver must have contemplated with amazement and terror in theirs.\nTheir state is not an anarchy, but a series of short-lived tyrannies. We\ndo not call a republic with annual magistrates an anarchy: theirs is\nthat kind of republic; but the succession is not effected by the\nexpiration of the term of the magistrate's service, but by his murder.\nEvery new magistracy, succeeding by homicide, is auspicated by accusing\nits predecessors in the office of tyranny, and it continues by the\nexercise of what they charged upon others.\n\nThis strong hand is the law, and the sole law, in their state. I defy\nany person to show any other law,--or if any such should be found on\npaper, that it is in the smallest degree, or in any one instance,\nregarded or practised. In all their successions, not one magistrate, or\none form of magistracy, has expired by a mere occasional popular tumult;\neverything has been the effect of the studied machinations of the one\nrevolutionary cabal, operating within itself upon itself. That cabal is\nall in all. France has no public; it is the only nation I ever heard of,\nwhere the people are absolutely slaves, in the fullest sense, in all\naffairs, public and private, great and small, even down to the minutest\nand most recondite parts of their household concerns. The helots of\nLaconia, the regardants to the manor in Russia and in Poland, even the\nnegroes in the West Indies, know nothing of so searching, so\npenetrating, so heart-breaking a slavery. Much would these servile\nwretches call for our pity under that unheard-of yoke, if for their\nperfidious and unnatural rebellion, and for their murder of the mildest\nof all monarchs, they did not richly deserve a punishment not greater\nthan their crime.\n\nOn the whole, therefore, I take it to be a great mistake to think that\nthe want of power in the government furnished a natural cause of war;\nwhereas the greatness of its power, joined to its use of that power, the\nnature of its system, and the persons who acted in it, did naturally\ncall for a strong military resistance to oppose them, and rendered it\nnot only just, but necessary. But at present I say no more on the genius\nand character of the power set up in France. I may probably trouble you\nwith it more at large hereafter: this subject calls for a very full\nexposure: at present it is enough for me, if I point it out as a matter\nwell worthy of consideration, whether the true ground of hostility was\nnot rightly conceived very early in this war, and whether anything has\nhappened to change that system, except our ill success in a war which in\nno principal instance had its true destination as the object of its\noperations. That the war has succeeded ill in many cases is undoubted;\nbut then let us speak the truth, and say we are defeated, exhausted,\ndispirited, and must submit. This would be intelligible. The world would\nbe inclined to pardon the abject conduct of an undone nation. But let us\nnot conceal from _ourselves_ our real situation, whilst, by every\nspecies of humiliation, we are but too strongly displaying our sense of\nit to the enemy.\n\nThe writer of the Remarks in the Last Week of October appears to think\nthat the present government in France contains many of the elements\nwhich, when properly arranged, are known to form the best practical\ngovernments,--and that the system, whatever may become its particular\nform, is no longer likely to be an obstacle to negotiation. If its form\nnow be no obstacle to such negotiation, I do not know why it was ever\nso. Suppose that this government promised greater permanency than any of\nthe former, (a point on which I can form no judgment,) still a link is\nwanting to couple the permanence of the government with the permanence\nof the peace. On this not one word is said: nor can there be, in my\nopinion. This deficiency is made up by strengthening the first ringlet\nof the chain, that ought to be, but that is not, stretched to connect\nthe two propositions. All seems to be done, if we can make out that the\nlast French edition of Regicide is like to prove stable.\n\nAs a prognostic of this stability, it is said to be accepted by the\npeople. Here again I join issue with the fraternizers, and positively\ndeny the fact. Some submission or other has been obtained, by some means\nor other, to every government that hitherto has been set up. And the\nsame submission would, by the same means, be obtained for any other\nproject that the wit or folly of man could possibly devise. The\nConstitution of 1790 was universally received. The Constitution which\nfollowed it, under the name of a Convention, was universally submitted\nto. The Constitution of 1793 was universally accepted. Unluckily, this\nyear's Constitution, which was formed, and its genethliacon sung by the\nnoble author while it was yet in embryo, or was but just come bloody\nfrom the womb, is the only one which in its very formation has been\ngenerally resisted by a very great and powerful party in many parts of\nthe kingdom, and particularly in the capital. It never had a popular\nchoice even in show: those who arbitrarily erected the new building out\nof the old materials of their own Convention were obliged to send for an\narmy to support their work: like brave gladiators, they fought it out\nin the streets of Paris, and even massacred each other in their house of\nassembly, in the most edifying manner, and for the entertainment and\ninstruction of their Excellencies the foreign ambassadors, who had a box\nin this constitutional amphitheatre of a free people.\n\nAt length, after a terrible struggle, the troops prevailed over the\ncitizens. The citizen soldiers, the ever-famed national guards, who had\ndeposed and murdered their sovereign, were disarmed by the inferior\ntrumpeters of that rebellion. Twenty thousand regular troops garrison\nParis. Thus a complete military government is formed. It has the\nstrength, and it may count on the stability, of that kind of power. This\npower is to last as long as the Parisians think proper. Every other\nground of stability, but from military force and terror, is clean out of\nthe question. To secure them further, they have a strong corps of\nirregulars, ready-armed. Thousands of those hell-hounds called\nTerrorists, whom they had shut up in prison, on their last Revolution,\nas the satellites of tyranny, are let loose on the people. The whole of\ntheir government, in its origination, in its continuance, in all its\nactions, and in all its resources, is force, and nothing but force: a\nforced constitution, a forced election, a forced subsistence, a forced\nrequisition of soldiers, a forced loan of money.\n\nThey differ nothing from all the preceding usurpations, but that to the\nsame odium a good deal more of contempt is added. In this situation,\nnotwithstanding all their military force, strengthened with the\nundisciplined power of the Terrorists, and the nearly general disarming\nof Paris, there would almost certainly have been before this an\ninsurrection against them, but for one cause. The people of France\nlanguish for peace. They all despaired of obtaining it from the\ncoalesced powers, whilst they had a gang of professed regicides at their\nhead; and several of the least desperate republicans would have joined\nwith better men to shake them wholly off, and to produce something more\nostensible, if they had not been reiteratedly told that their sole hope\nof peace was the very contrary to what they naturally imagined: that\nthey must leave off their cabals and insurrections, which could serve no\npurpose but to bring in that royalty which was wholly rejected by the\ncoalesced kings; that, to satisfy them, they must tranquilly, if they\ncould not cordially, submit themselves to the tyranny and the tyrants\nthey despised and abhorred. Peace was held out by the allied monarchies\nto the people of France, as a bounty for supporting the Republic of\nRegicides. In fact, a coalition, begun for the avowed purpose of\ndestroying that den of robbers, now exists only for their support. If\nevil happens to the princes of Europe from the success and stability of\nthis infernal business, it is their own absolute crime.\n\nWe are to understand, however, (for sometimes so the author hints,) that\nsomething stable in the Constitution of Regicide was required for our\namity with it; but the noble Remarker is no more solicitous about this\npoint than he is for the permanence of the whole body of his October\nspeculations. \"If,\" says he, speaking of the Regicide, \"they can obtain\na practicable constitution, even for a limited period of time, they will\nbe in a condition to reestablish the accustomed relations of peace and\namity.\" Pray let us leave this bush-fighting. What is meant by a\n_limited period of time_? Does it mean the direct contrary to the\nterms, _an unlimited period_? If it is a limited period, what limitation\ndoes he fix as a ground for his opinion? Otherwise, his limitation is\nunlimited. If he only requires a constitution that will last while the\ntreaty goes on, ten days' existence will satisfy his demands. He knows\nthat France never did want a practicable constitution, nor a government,\nwhich endured for a limited period of time. Her constitutions were but\ntoo practicable; and short as was their duration, it was but too long.\nThey endured time enough for treaties which benefited themselves and\nhave done infinite mischief to our cause. But, granting him his strange\nthesis, that hitherto the mere form or the mere term of their\nconstitutions, and not their indisposition, but their instability, has\nbeen the cause of their not preserving the relations of amity,--how\ncould a constitution which might not last half an hour after the noble\nlord's signature of the treaty, in the company in which he must sign it,\ninsure its observance? If you trouble yourself at all with their\nconstitutions, you are certainly more concerned with them after the\ntreaty than before it, as the observance of conventions is of infinitely\nmore consequence than the making them. Can anything be more palpably\nabsurd and senseless than to object to a treaty of peace for want of\ndurability in constitutions which had an actual duration, and to trust a\nconstitution that at the time of the writing had not so much as a\npractical existence? There is no way of accounting for such discourse in\nthe mouths of men of sense, but by supposing that they secretly\nentertain a hope that the very act of having made a peace with the\nRegicides will give a stability to the Regicide system. This will not\nclear the discourse from the absurdity, but it will account for the\nconduct, which such reasoning so ill defends. What a roundabout way is\nthis to peace,--to make war for the destruction of regicides, and then\nto give them peace in order to insure a stability that will enable them\nto observe it! I say nothing of the honor displayed in such a system. It\nis plain it militates with itself almost in all the parts of it. In one\npart, it supposes stability in their Constitution, as a ground of a\nstable peace; in another part, we are to hope for peace in a different\nway,--that is, by splitting this brilliant orb into little stars, and\nthis would make the face of heaven so fine! No, there is no system upon\nwhich the peace which in humility we are to supplicate can possibly\nstand.\n\nI believe, before this time, that the more form of a constitution, in\nany country, never was fixed as the sole ground of objecting to a treaty\nwith it. With other circumstances it may be of great moment. What is\nincumbent on the assertors of the Fourth Week of October system to prove\nis not whether their then expected Constitution was likely to be stable\nor transitory, but whether it promised to this country and its allies,\nand to the peace and settlement of all Europe, more good-will or more\ngood faith than any of the experiments which have gone before it. On\nthese points I would willingly join issue.\n\nObserve first the manner in which the Remarker describes (very truly, as\nI conceive) the people of France under that auspicious government, and\nthen observe the conduct of that government to other nations. \"The\npeople without _any_ established constitution; distracted by popular\nconvulsions; in a state of inevitable bankruptcy; without any commerce;\nwith their principal ports blockaded; and without a fleet that could\nventure to face one of our _detached squadrons_.\" Admitting, as fully as\nhe has stated it, this condition of France, I would fain know how he\nreconciles this condition with his ideas of _any kind of a practicable\nconstitution_, or _duration for a limited period_, which are his _sine\nqua non_ of peace. But passing by contradictions, as no fair objections\nto reasoning, this state of things would naturally, at other times, and\nin other governments, have produced a disposition to peace, almost on\nany terms. But, in that state of their country, did the Regicide\ngovernment solicit peace or amity with other nations, or even lay any\nspecious grounds for it, in propositions of affected moderation, or in\nthe most loose and general conciliatory language? The direct contrary.\nIt was but a very few days before the noble writer had commenced his\nRemarks, as if it were to refute him by anticipation, that his France\nthought fit to lay out a new territorial map of dominion, and to declare\nto us and to all Europe what territories she was willing to allot to her\nown empire, and what she is content (during her good pleasure) to leave\nto others.\n\nThis their law of empire was promulgated without any requisition on that\nsubject, and proclaimed in a style and upon principles which never had\nbeen heard of in the annals of arrogance and ambition. She prescribed\nthe limits to her empire, not upon principles of treaty, convention,\npossession, usage, habitude, the distinction of tribes, nations, or\nlanguages, but by physical aptitudes. Having fixed herself as the\narbiter of physical dominion, she construed the limits of Nature by her\nconvenience. That was Nature which most extended and best secured the\nempire of France.\n\nI need say no more on the insult offered not only to all equity and\njustice, but to the common sense of mankind, in deciding legal property\nby physical principles, and establishing the convenience of a party as a\nrule of public law. The noble advocate for peace has, indeed, perfectly\nwell exploded this daring and outrageous system of pride and tyranny. I\nam most happy in commending him, when he writes like himself. But hear\nstill further and in the same good strain the great patron and advocate\nof amity with this accommodating, mild, and unassuming power, when he\nreports to you the law they give, and its immediate effects:--\"They\namount,\" says he, \"to the sacrifice of powers that have been the most\nnearly connected with us,--the direct or indirect annexation to France\nof all the ports of the Continent from Dunkirk to Hamburg,--an immense\naccession of territory,--and, in one word, THE ABANDONMENT OF THE\nINDEPENDENCE OF EUROPE!\" This is the LAW (the author and I use no\ndifferent terms) which this new government, almost as soon as it could\ncry in the cradle, and as one of the very first acts by which it\nauspicated its entrance into function, the pledge it gives of the\nfirmness of its policy,--such is the law that this proud power\nprescribes to abject nations. What is the comment upon this law by the\ngreat jurist who recommends us to the tribunal which issued the decree?\n\"An obedience to it would be\" (says he) \"dishonorable to us, and exhibit\nus to the present age and to posterity as submitting to the law\nprescribed to us by our enemy.\"\n\nHere I recognize the voice of a British plenipotentiary: I begin to feel\nproud of my country. But, alas! the short date of human elevation! The\naccents of dignity died upon his tongue. This author will not assure us\nof his sentiments for the whole of a pamphlet; but, in the sole\nenergetic part of it, he does not continue the same through an whole\nsentence, if it happens to be of any sweep or compass. In the very womb\nof this last sentence, pregnant, as it should seem, with a Hercules,\nthere is formed a little bantling of the mortal race, a degenerate, puny\nparenthesis, that totally frustrates our most sanguine views and\nexpectations, and disgraces the whole gestation. Here is this\ndestructive parenthesis: \"Unless some adequate compensation be secured\n_to us_.\" _To us!_ The Christian world may shift for itself, Europe may\ngroan in slavery, we may be dishonored by receiving law from an\nenemy,--but all is well, provided the compensation _to us_ be adequate.\nTo what are we reserved? An _adequate_ compensation \"for the sacrifice\nof powers the most nearly connected with us\";--an _adequate_\ncompensation \"for the direct or indirect annexation to France of all the\nports of the Continent from Dunkirk to Hamburg\";--an _adequate_\ncompensation \"for the abandonment of the independence of Europe\"! Would\nthat, when all our manly sentiments are thus changed, our manly language\nwere changed along with them, and that the English tongue were not\nemployed to utter what our ancestors never dreamed could enter into an\nEnglish heart!\n\nBut let us consider this matter of adequate compensation. Who is to\nfurnish it? From what funds is it to be drawn? Is it by another treaty\nof commerce? I have no objections to treaties of commerce upon\nprinciples of commerce. Traffic for traffic,--all is fair. But commerce\nin exchange for empire, for safety, for glory! We set out in our dealing\nwith a miserable cheat upon ourselves. I know it may be said, that we\nmay prevail on this proud, philosophical, military Republic, which looks\ndown with contempt on trade, to declare it unfit for the sovereign of\nnations to be _eundem negotiatorem et dominum_: that, in virtue of this\nmaxim of her state, the English in France may be permitted, as the Jews\nare in Poland and in Turkey, to execute all the little inglorious\noccupations,--to be the sellers of new and the buyers of old clothes, to\nbe their brokers and factors, and to be employed in casting up their\ndebits and credits, whilst the master Republic cultivates the arts of\nempire, prescribes the forms of peace to nations, and dictates laws to a\nsubjected world. But are we quite sure, that, when we have surrendered\nhalf Europe to them in hope of this compensation, the Republic will\nconfer upon us those privileges of dishonor? Are we quite certain that\nshe will permit us to farm the guillotine,--to contract for the\nprovision of her twenty thousand Bastiles,--to furnish transports for\nthe myriads of her exiles to Guiana,--to become commissioners for her\nnaval stores,--or to engage for the clothing of those armies which are\nto subdue the poor relics of Christian Europe? No! She is bespoke by the\nJew subjects of her own Amsterdam for all these services.\n\nBut if these, or matters similar, are not the compensations the Remarker\ndemands, and that on consideration he finds them neither adequate nor\ncertain, who else is to be the chapman, and to furnish the\npurchase-money, at this market, of all the grand principles of empire,\nof law, of civilization, of morals, and of religion, where British faith\nand honor are to be sold by inch of candle? Who is to be the _dedecorum\npretiosus emptor_? Is it the _navis Hispanae magister_? Is it to be\nfurnished by the Prince of Peace? Unquestionably. Spain as yet possesses\nmines of gold and silver, and may give us in _pesos duros_ an adequate\ncompensation for our honor and our virtue. When these things are at all\nto be sold, they are the vilest commodities at market.\n\nIt is full as singular as any of the other singularities in this work,\nthat the Remarker, talking so much as he does of cessions and\ncompensations, passes by Spain in his general settlement, as if there\nwere no such country on the globe,--as if there were no Spain in Europe,\nno Spain in America. But this great matter of political deliberation\ncannot be put out of our thoughts by his silence. She _has_ furnished\ncompensations,--not to you, but to France. The Regicide Republic and the\nstill nominally subsisting monarchy of Spain are united,--and are united\nupon a principle of jealousy, if not of bitter enmity, to Great Britain.\nThe noble writer has here another matter for meditation. It is not from\nDunkirk to Hamburg that the ports are in the hands of France: they are\nin the hands of France from Hamburg to Gibraltar. How long the new\ndominion will last I cannot tell; but France the Republic has conquered\nSpain, and the ruling party in that court acts by her orders and exists\nby her power.\n\nThe noble writer, in his views into futurity, has forgotten to look back\nto the past. If he chooses it, he may recollect, that, on the prospect\nof the death of Philip the Fourth, and still more on the event, all\nEurope was moved to its foundations. In the treaties of partition that\nfirst were entered into, and in the war that afterwards blazed out to\nprevent those crowns from being actually or virtually united in the\nHouse of Bourbon, the predominance of France in Spain, and above all, in\nthe Spanish Indies, was the great object of all these movements in the\ncabinet and in the field. The Grand Alliance was formed upon that\napprehension. On that apprehension the mighty war was continued during\nsuch a number of years as the degenerate and pusillanimous impatience of\nour dwindled race can hardly bear to have reckoned: a war equal, within\na few years, in duration, and not, perhaps, inferior in bloodshed, to\nany of those great contests for empire which in history make the most\nawful matter of recorded memory.\n\n    Ad confligendum venientibus undique Poenis,\n    Omnia cum belli trepido concussa tumultu\n    Horrida contremuere sub altis aetheris auris,\n    In dubioque fuit sub utrorum regna cadendum\n    Omnibus humanis esset terraque marique.--\n\nWhen this war was ended, (I cannot stay now to examine how,) the object\nof the war was the object of the treaty. When it was found\nimpracticable, or less desirable than before, wholly to exclude a branch\nof the Bourbon race from that immense succession, the point of Utrecht\nwas to prevent the mischiefs to arise from the influence of the greater\nupon the lesser branch. His Lordship is a great member of the diplomatic\nbody; he has, of course, all the fundamental treaties which make the\npublic statute law of Europe by heart: and, indeed, no active member of\nParliament ought to be ignorant of their general tenor and leading\nprovisions. In the treaty which closed that war, and of which it is a\nfundamental part, because relating to the whole policy of the compact,\nit was agreed that Spain should not give anything from her territory in\nthe West Indies to France. This article, apparently onerous to Spain,\nwas in truth highly beneficial. But, oh, the blindness of the greatest\nstatesman to the infinite and unlooked-for combinations of things which\nlie hid in the dark prolific womb of futurity! The great trunk of\nBourbon is cut down; the withered branch is worked up into the\nconstruction of a French Regicide Republic. Here we have formed a new,\nunlooked-for, monstrous, heterogeneous alliance,--a double-natured\nmonster, republic above and monarchy below. There is no centaur of\nfiction, no poetic satyr of the woods, nothing short of the hieroglyphic\nmonsters of Egypt, dog in head and man in body, that can give an idea of\nit. None of these things can subsist in Nature (so, at least, it is\nthought); but the moral world admits monsters which the physical\nrejects.\n\nIn this metamorphosis, the first thing done by Spain, in the honey-moon\nof her new servitude, was, with all the hardihood of pusillanimity,\nutterly to defy the most solemn treaties with Great Britain and the\nguaranty of Europe. She has yielded the largest and fairest part of one\nof the largest and fairest islands in the West Indies, perhaps on the\nglobe, to the usurped powers of France. She completes the title of those\npowers to the whole of that important central island of Hispaniola. She\nhas solemnly surrendered to the regicides and butchers of the Bourbon\nfamily what that court never ventured, perhaps never wished, to bestow\non the patriarchal stock of her own august house.\n\nThe noble negotiator takes no notice of this portentous junction and\nthis audacious surrender. The effect is no less than the total\nsubversion of the balance of power in the West Indies, and indeed\neverywhere else. This arrangement, considered in itself, but much more\nas it indicates a complete union of France with Spain, is truly\nalarming. Does he feel nothing of the change this makes in that part of\nhis description of the state of France where he supposes her not able to\nface one of our detached squadrons? Does he feel nothing for the\ncondition of Portugal under this new coalition? Is it for this state of\nthings he recommends our junction in that common alliance as a remedy?\nIt is surely already monstrous enough. We see every standing principle\nof policy, every old governing opinion of nations, completely gone, and\nwith it the foundation of all their establishments. Can Spain keep\nherself internally where she is, with this connection? Does he dream\nthat Spain, unchristian, or even uncatholic, can exist as a monarchy?\nThis author indulges himself in speculations of the division of the\nFrench Republic. I only say, that with much greater reason he might\nspeculate on the republicanism and the subdivision of Spain.\n\nIt is not peace with France which secures that feeble government; it is\nthat peace which, if it shall continue, decisively ruins Spain. Such a\npeace is not the peace which the remnant of Christianity celebrates at\nthis holy season. In it there is no glory to God on high, and not the\nleast tincture of good-will to man. What things we have lived to see!\nThe King of Spain in a group of Moors, Jews, and Renegadoes; and the\nclergy taxed to pay for his conversion! The Catholic King in the strict\nembraces of the most Unchristian Republic! I hope we shall never see his\nApostolic Majesty, his Faithful Majesty, and the King, Defender of the\nFaith, added to that unhallowed and impious fraternity.\n\nThe noble author has glimpses of the consequences of peace, as well as\nI. He feels for the colonies of Great Britain, one of the principal\nresources of our commerce and our naval power, if piratical France shall\nbe established, as he knows she must be, in the West Indies, if we sue\nfor peace on such terms as they may condescend to grant us. He feels\nthat their very colonial system for the interior is not compatible with\nthe existence of our colonies. I tell him, and doubt not I shall be able\nto demonstrate, that, being what she is, if she possesses a rock there,\nwe cannot be safe. Has this author had in his view the transactions\nbetween the Regicide Republic and the yet nominally subsisting monarchy\nof Spain?\n\nI bring this matter under your Lordship's consideration, that you may\nhave a more complete view than this author chooses to give of the _true\nFrance_ you have to deal with, as to its nature, and to its force and\nits disposition. Mark it, my Lord, France, in giving her law to Spain,\nstipulated for none of her indemnities in Europe, no enlargement\nwhatever of her frontier. Whilst we are looking for indemnities from\nFrance, betraying our own safety in a sacrifice of the independence of\nEurope, France secures hers by the most important acquisition of\nterritory ever made in the West Indies since their first settlement. She\nappears (it is only in appearance) to give up the frontier of Spain; and\nshe is compensated, not in appearance, but in reality, by a territory\nthat makes a dreadful frontier to the colonies of Great Britain.\n\nIt is sufficiently alarming that she is to have the possession of this\ngreat island. But all the Spanish colonies, virtually, are hers. Is\nthere so puny a whipster in the _petty form_ of the school of politics\nwho can be at a loss for the fate of the British colonies, when he\ncombines the French and Spanish consolidation with the known critical\nand dubious dispositions of the United States of America, as they are at\npresent, but which, when a peace is made, when the basis of a Regicide\nascendency in Spain is laid, will no longer be so good as dubious and\ncritical? But I go a great deal further; and on much consideration of\nthe condition and circumstances of the West Indies, and of the genius of\nthis new republic, as it has operated and is likely to operate on them,\nI say, that, if a single rock in the West Indies is in the hands of this\n_transatlantic Morocco_, we have not an hour's safety there.\n\nThe Remarker, though he slips aside from the main consideration, seems\naware that this arrangement, standing as it does, in the West Indies,\nleaves us at the mercy of the new coalition, or rather at the mercy of\nthe sole guiding part of it. He does not, indeed, adopt a supposition\nsuch as I make, who am confident that anything which can give them a\nsingle good port and opportune piratical station there would lead to our\nruin: the author proceeds upon an idea that the Regicides may be an\nexisting and considerable territorial power in the West Indies, and, of\ncourse, her piratical system more dangerous and as real. However, for\nthat desperate case he has an easy remedy; but, surely, in his whole\nshop there is nothing so extraordinary. It is, that we three, France,\nSpain, and England, (there are no other of any moment,) should adopt\nsome \"_analogy_ in the interior systems of government in the several\nislands which we may respectively retain after the closing of the war.\"\nThis plainly can be done only by a convention between the parties; and I\nbelieve it would be the first war ever made to terminate in an analogy\nof the interior government of any country, or any parts of such\ncountries. Such a partnership in domestic government is, I think,\ncarrying fraternity as far as it will go.\n\nIt will be an affront to your sagacity to pursue this matter into all\nits details: suffice it to say, that, if this convention for analogous\ndomestic government is made, it immediately gives a right for the\nresidence of a consul (in all likelihood some negro or man of color) in\nevery one of your islands; a Regicide ambassador in London will be at\nall your meetings of West India merchants and planters, and, in effect,\nin all our colonial councils. Not one order of Council can hereafter be\nmade, or any one act of Parliament relative to the West India colonies\neven be agitated, which will not always afford reasons for protests and\nperpetual interference; the Regicide Republic will become an integral\npart of the colonial legislature, and, so far as the colonies are\nconcerned, of the British too. But it will be still worse: as all our\ndomestic affairs are interlaced more or less intimately with our\nexternal, this intermeddling must everywhere insinuate itself into all\nother interior transactions, and produce a copartnership in our domestic\nconcerns of every description.\n\nSuch are the plain, inevitable consequences of this arrangement of a\nsystem, of analogous interior government. On the other hand, without it,\nthe author assures us, and in this I heartily agree with him, \"that the\ncorrespondence and communications between the neighboring colonies will\nbe great, that the disagreements will be incessant, and that causes even\nof national quarrels will arise _from day to day_.\" Most true. But, for\nthe reasons I have given, the case, if possible, will be worse by the\nproposed remedy, by the triple fraternal interior analogy,--an analogy\nitself most fruitful, and more foodful than the old Ephesian statue with\nthe three tier of breasts. Your Lordship must also observe how\ninfinitely this business must be complicated by our interference in the\nslow-paced Saturnian movements of Spain and the rapid parabolic flights\nof France. But such is the disease,--such is the cure,--such is, and\nmust be, the effect of Regicide vicinity.\n\nBut what astonishes me is, that the negotiator, who has certainly an\nexercised understanding, did not see that every person habituated to\nsuch meditations must necessarily pursue the train of thought further\nthan he has carried it, and must ask himself whether what he states so\ntruly of the necessity of our arranging an analogous interior\ngovernment, in consequence of the vicinity of our possessions, in the\nWest Indies, does not as extensively apply, and much more forcibly, to\nthe circumstance of our much nearer vicinity with the parent and author\nof this mischief. I defy even his acuteness and ingenuity to show me any\none point in which the cases differ, except that it is plainly more\nnecessary in Europe than in America. Indeed, the further we trace the\ndetails of the proposed peace, the more your Lordship will be satisfied\nthat I have not been guilty of any abuse of terms, when I use\nindiscriminately (as I always do, in speaking of arrangements with\nRegicide) the words peace and fraternity. An analogy between our\ninterior governments must be the consequence. The noble negotiator sees\nit as well as I do. I deprecate this Jacobin interior analogy. But\nhereafter, perhaps, I may say a good deal more upon this part of the\nsubject.\n\nThe noble lord insists on very little more than on the excellence of\ntheir Constitution, the hope of their dwindling into little republics,\nand this close copartnership in government. I hear of others, indeed,\nthat offer by other arguments to reconcile us to this peace and\nfraternity. The Regicides, they say, have renounced the creed of the\nRights of Man, and declared equality a chimera. This is still more\nstrange than all the rest. They have apostatized from their apostasy.\nThey are renegadoes from that impious faith for which they subverted the\nancient government, murdered their king, and imprisoned, butchered,\nconfiscated, and banished their fellow-subjects, and to which they\nforced every man to swear at the peril of his life. And now, to\nreconcile themselves to the world, they declare this creed, bought by so\nmuch blood, to be an imposture and a chimera. I have no doubt that they\nalways thought it to be so, when they were destroying everything at home\nand abroad for its establishment. It is no strange thing, to those who\nlook into the nature of corrupted man, to find a violent persecutor a\nperfect unbeliever of his own creed. But this is the very first time\nthat any man or set of men were hardy enough to attempt to lay the\nground of confidence in them by an acknowledgment of their own\nfalsehood, fraud, hypocrisy, treachery, heterodox doctrine,\npersecution, and cruelty. Everything we hear from them is new, and, to\nuse a phrase of their own, _revolutionary_; everything supposes a total\nrevolution in all the principles of reason, prudence, and moral feeling.\nIf possible, this their recantation of the chief parts in the canon of\nthe Rights of Man is more infamous and causes greater horror than their\noriginally promulgating and forcing down the throats of mankind that\nsymbol of all evil. It is raking too much into the dirt and ordure of\nhuman nature to say more of it.\n\nI hear it said, too, that they have lately declared in favor of\nproperty. This is exactly of the same sort with the former. What need\nhad they to make this declaration, if they did not know that by their\ndoctrines and practices they had totally subverted all property? What\ngovernment of Europe, either in its origin or its continuance, has\nthought it necessary to declare itself in favor of property? The more\nrecent ones were formed for its protection against former violations;\nthe old consider the inviolability of property and their own existence\nas one and the same thing, and that a proclamation for its safety would\nbe sounding an alarm on its danger. But the Regicide banditti knew that\nthis was not the first time they have been obliged to give such\nassurances, and had as often falsified them. They knew, that, after\nbutchering hundreds of men, women, and children, for no other cause than\nto lay hold on their property, such a declaration might have a chance of\nencouraging other nations to run the risk of establishing a commercial\nhouse amongst them. It is notorious, that these very Jacobins, upon an\nalarm of the shopkeeper of Paris, made this declaration in favor of\nproperty. These brave fellows received the apprehensions expressed on\nthat head with indignation, and said that property could be in no\ndanger, because all the world knew it was under the protection of the\n_sans-culottes_. At what period did they not give this assurance? Did\nthey not give it; when they fabricated their first Constitution? Did\nthey not then solemnly declare it one of the rights of a citizen (a\nright, of course, only declared, and not then fabricated) to depart from\nhis country, and choose another _domicilium_, without detriment to his\nproperty? Did they not declare that no property should be confiscated\nfrom the children for the crime of the parent? Can they now declare more\nfully their respect for property than they did at that time? And yet was\nthere ever known such horrid violences and confiscations as instantly\nfollowed under the very persons now in power, many of them leading\nmembers of that Assembly, and all of them violators of that engagement\nwhich was the very basis of their republic,--confiscations in which\nhundreds of men, women, and children, not guilty of one act of duty in\nresisting their usurpation, were involved? This keeping of their old is,\nthen, to give us a confidence in their new engagements. But examine the\nmatter, and you will see that the prevaricating sons of violence give no\nrelief at all, where at all it can be wanted. They renew their old\nfraudulent declaration against confiscations, and then they expressly\nexclude all adherents to their ancient lawful government from any\nbenefit of it: that is to say, they promise that they will secure all\ntheir brother plunderers in their share of the common plunder. The fear\nof being robbed by every new succession of robbers, who do not keep even\nthe faith of that kind of society, absolutely required that they should\ngive security to the dividends of spoil, else they could not exist a\nmoment. But it was necessary, in giving security to robbers, that honest\nmen should be deprived of all hope of restitution; and thus their\ninterests were made utterly and eternally incompatible. So that it\nappears that this boasted security of property is nothing more than a\nseal put upon its destruction; this ceasing of confiscation is to secure\nthe confiscators against the innocent proprietors. That very thing which\nis held out to you as your cure is that which makes your malady, and\nrenders it, if once it happens, utterly incurable. You, my Lord, who\npossess a considerable, though not an invidious estate, may be well\nassured, that, if, by being engaged, as you assuredly would be, in the\ndefence of your religion, your king, your order, your laws, and\nliberties, that estate should be put under confiscation, the property\nwould be secured, but in the same manner, at your expense.\n\nBut, after all, for what purpose are we told of this reformation in\ntheir principles, and what is the policy of all this softening in ours,\nwhich is to be produced by their example? It is not to soften us to\nsuffering innocence and virtue, but to mollify us to the crimes and to\nthe society of robbers and ruffians. But I trust that our countrymen\nwill not be softened to that kind of crimes and criminals; for, if we\nshould, our hearts will be hardened to everything which has a claim on\nour benevolence. A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of\nthe unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from\ncruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty are accomplices in it. The\npretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancor produces an\nindifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where\nthey ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.\n\nThere is another piece of policy, not more laudable than this, in\nreading these moral lectures, which lessens our hatred to criminals and\nour pity to sufferers by insinuating that it has been owing to their\nfault or folly that the latter have become the prey of the former. By\nflattering us that we are not subject to the same vices and follies, it\ninduces a confidence that we shall not suffer the same evils by a\ncontact with the infamous gang of robbers who have thus robbed and\nbutchered our neighbors before our faces. We must not be flattered to\nour ruin. Our vices are the same as theirs, neither more nor less. If\nany faults we had, which wanted this French example to call us to a\n\"_softening_ of character, and a review of our social relations and\nduties,\" there is yet no sign that we have commenced our reformation. We\nseem, by the best accounts I have from the world, to go on just as\nformerly, \"some to undo, and some to be undone.\" There is no change at\nall: and if we are not bettered by the sufferings of war, this peace,\nwhich, for reasons to himself best known, the author fixes as the period\nof our reformation, must have something very extraordinary in it;\nbecause hitherto ease, opulence, and their concomitant pleasure have\nnever greatly disposed mankind to that serious reflection and review\nwhich the author supposes to be the result of the approaching peace with\nvice and crime. I believe he forms a right estimate of the nature of\nthis peace, and that it will want many of those circumstances which\nformerly characterizes that state of things.\n\nIf I am right in my ideas of this new republic, the different states of\npeace and war will make no difference in her pursuits. It is not an\nenemy of accident that we have to deal with. Enmity to us, and to all\ncivilized nations, is wrought into the very stamina of its Constitution.\nIt was made to pursue the purposes of that fundamental enmity. The\ndesign will go on regularly in every position and in every relation.\nTheir hostility is to break us to their dominion; their amity is to\ndebauch us to their principles. In the former, we are to contend with\ntheir force; in the latter, with their intrigues. But we stand in a very\ndifferent posture of defence in the two situations. In war, so long as\ngovernment is supported, we fight with the whole united force of the\nkingdom. When under the name of peace the war of intrigue begins, we do\nnot contend against our enemies with the whole force of the kingdom.\nNo,--we shall have to fight, (if it should be a fight at all, and not an\nignominious surrender of everything which has made our country venerable\nin our eyes and dear to our hearts,) we shall have to light with but a\nportion of our strength against the whole of theirs. Gentlemen who not\nlong since thought with us, but who now recommend a Jacobin peace, were\nat that time sufficiently aware of the existence of a dangerous Jacobin\nfaction within this kingdom. Awhile ago they seemed to be tremblingly\nalive to the number of those who composed it, to their dark subtlety, to\ntheir fierce audacity, to their admiration of everything that passes in\nFrance, to their eager desire of a close communication with the mother\nfaction there. At this moment, when the question is upon the opening of\nthat communication, not a word of our English Jacobins. That faction is\nput out of sight and out of thought. \"It vanished at the crowing of the\ncock.\" Scarcely had the Gallic harbinger of peace and light begun to\nutter his lively notes, than all the cackling of us poor Tory geese to\nalarm the garrison of the Capitol was forgot.[11] There was enough of\nindemnity before. Now a complete act of oblivion is passed about the\nJacobins of England, though one would naturally imagine it would make a\nprincipal object in all fair deliberation upon the merits of a project\nof amity with the Jacobins of France. But however others may choose to\nforget the faction, the faction does not choose to forget itself, nor,\nhowever gentlemen may choose to flatter themselves, it does not forget\nthem.\n\nNever, in any civil contest, has a part been taken with more of the\nwarmth, or carried on with more of the arts of a party. The Jacobins are\nworse than lost to their country. Their hearts are abroad. Their\nsympathy with the Regicides of France is complete. Just as in a civil\ncontest, they exult in all their victories, they are dejected and\nmortified in all their defeats. Nothing that the Regicides can do (and\nthey have labored hard for the purpose) can alienate them from their\ncause. You and I, my dear Lord, have often observed on the spirit of\ntheir conduct. When the Jacobins of France, by their studied,\ndeliberated, catalogued files of murders with the poniard, the sabre,\nand the tribunal, have shocked whatever remained of human sensibility\nin our breasts, then it was they distinguished the resources of party\npolicy. They did not venture directly to confront the public sentiment;\nfor a very short time they seemed to partake of it. They began with a\nreluctant and sorrowful confession; they deplored the stains which\ntarnished the lustre of a good cause. After keeping a decent time of\nretirement, in a few days crept out an apology for the excesses of men\ncruelly irritated by the attacks of unjust power. Grown bolder, as the\nfirst feeling of mankind decayed and the color of these horrors began to\nfade upon the imagination, they proceeded from apology to defence. They\nurged, but still deplored, the absolute necessity of such a proceeding.\nThen they made a bolder stride, and marched from defence to\nrecrimination. They attempted to assassinate the memory of those whose\nbodies their friends had massacred, and to consider their murder as a\nless formal act of justice. They endeavored even to debauch our pity,\nand to suborn it in favor of cruelty. They wept over the lot of those\nwho were driven by the crimes of aristocrats to republican vengeance.\nEvery pause of their cruelty they considered as a return of their\nnatural sentiments of benignity and justice. Then they had recourse to\nhistory, and found out all the recorded cruelties that deform the annals\nof the world, in order that the massacres of the Regicides might pass\nfor a common event, and even that the most merciful of princes, who\nsuffered by their hands, should bear the iniquity of all the tyrants who\nhave at any time infested the earth. In order to reconcile us the better\nto this republican tyranny, they confounded the bloodshed of war with\nthe murders of peace; and they computed how much greater prodigality of\nblood was exhibited in battles and in the storm of cities than in the\nfrugal, well-ordered massacres of the revolutionary tribunals of France.\n\nAs to foreign powers, so long as they were conjoined with Great Britain\nin this contest, so long they were treated as the most abandoned\ntyrants, and, indeed, the basest of the human race. The moment any of\nthem quits the cause of this government, and of all governments, he is\nrehabilitated, his honor is restored, all attainders are purged. The\nfriends of Jacobins are no longer despots; the betrayers of the common\ncause are no longer traitors.\n\nThat you may not doubt that they look on this war as a civil war, and\nthe Jacobins of France as of their party, and that they look upon us,\nthough locally their countrymen, in reality as enemies, they have never\nfailed to run a parallel between our late civil war and this war with\nthe Jacobins of France. They justify their partiality to those Jacobins\nby the partiality which was shown by several here to the Colonies, and\nthey sanction their cry for peace with the Regicides of France by some\nof our propositions for peace with the English in America.\n\nThis I do not mention as entering into the controversy how far they are\nright or wrong in this parallel, but to show that they do make it, and\nthat they do consider themselves as of a party with the Jacobins of\nFrance. You cannot forget their constant correspondence with the\nJacobins, whilst it was in their power to carry it on. When the\ncommunication is again opened, the interrupted correspondence will\ncommence. We cannot be blind to the advantage which such a party affords\nto Regicide France in all her views,--and, on the other hand, what an\nadvantage Regicide France holds out to the views of the republican party\nin England. Slightly as they have considered their subject, I think this\ncan hardly have escaped the writers of political ephemerides for any\nmonth or year. They have told us much of the amendment of the Regicides\nof France, and of their returning honor and generosity. Have they told\nanything of the reformation and of the returning loyalty of the Jacobins\nof England? Have they told us of _their_ gradual softening towards\nroyalty? Have they told us what measures _they_ are taking for \"putting\nthe crown in commission,\" and what approximations of any kind _they_ are\nmaking towards the old Constitution of their country? Nothing of this.\nThe silence of these writers is dreadfully expressive. They dare not\ntouch the subject. But it is not annihilated by their silence, nor by\nour indifference. It is but too plain that our Constitution cannot exist\nwith such a communication. Our humanity, our manners, our morals, our\nreligion, cannot stand with such a communication. The Constitution is\nmade by those things, and for those things: without them it cannot\nexist; and without them it is no matter whether it exists or not.\n\nIt was an ingenious Parliamentary Christmas play, by which, in both\nHouses, you anticipated the holidays; it was a relaxation from your\ngraver employment; it was a pleasant discussion you had, which part of\nthe family of the Constitution was the elder branch,--whether one part\ndid not exist prior to the others, and whether it might exist and\nflourish, if \"the others were cast into the fire.\"[12] In order to make\nthis Saturnalian amusement general in the family, you sent it down\nstairs, that judges and juries might partake of the entertainment. The\nunfortunate antiquary and augur who is the butt of all this sport may\nsuffer in the roistering horse-play and practical jokes of the servants'\nhall. But whatever may become of him, the discussion itself, and the\ntiming it, put me in mind of what I have read, (where I do not\nrecollect,) that the subtle nation of the Greeks were busily employed,\nin the Church of Santa Sophia, in a dispute of mixed natural philosophy,\nmetaphysics, and theology, whether the light on Mount Tabor was created\nor uncreated, and were ready to massacre the holders of the\nunfashionable opinion, at the very moment when the ferocious enemy of\nall philosophy and religion, Mahomet the Second, entered through a\nbreach into the capital of the Christian world. I may possibly suffer\nmuch more than Mr. Reeves (I shall certainly give much more general\noffence) for breaking in upon this constitutional amusement concerning\nthe created or uncreated nature of the two Houses of Parliament, and by\ncalling their attention to a problem which may entertain them less, but\nwhich concerns them a great deal more,--that is, whether, with this\nGallic Jacobin fraternity, which they are desired by some writers to\ncourt, all the parts of the government, about whose combustible or\nincombustible qualities they are contending, may \"not be cast into the\nfire\" together. He is a strange visionary (but he is nothing worse) who\nfancies that any one part of our Constitution, whatever right of\nprimogeniture it may claim, or whatever astrologers may divine from its\nhoroscope, can possibly survive the others. As they have lived, so they\nwill die, together. I must do justice to the impartiality of the\nJacobins. I have not observed amongst _them_ the least predilection for\nany of those parts. If there has been any difference in their malice, I\nthink they have shown a worse disposition to the House of Commons than\nto the crown. As to the House of Lords, they do not speculate at all\nabout it, and for reasons that are too obvious to detail.\n\nThe question will be concerning the effect of this French fraternity on\nthe whole mass. Have we anything to apprehend from Jacobin\ncommunication, or have we not? If we have not, is it by our experience\nbefore the war that we are to presume that after the war no dangerous\ncommunion can exist between those who are well affected to the new\nConstitution of France and ill affected to the old Constitution here?\n\nIn conversation I have not yet found nor heard of any persons, except\nthose who undertake to instruct the public, so unconscious of the actual\nstate of things, or so little prescient of the future, who do not\nshudder all over and feel a secret horror at the approach of this\ncommunication. I do not except from this observation those who are\nwilling, more than I find myself disposed, to submit to this fraternity.\nNever has it been mentioned in my hearing, or from what I can learn in\nmy inquiry, without the suggestion of an Alien Bill, or some other\nmeasures of the same nature, as a defence against its manifest mischief.\nWho does not see the utter insufficiency of such a remedy, if such a\nremedy could be at all adopted? We expel suspected foreigners from\nhence; and we suffer every Englishman to pass over into France to be\ninitiated in all the infernal discipline of the place, to cabal and to\nbe corrupted by every means of cabal and of corruption, and then to\nreturn to England, charged with their worst dispositions and designs. In\nFrance he is out of the reach of your police; and when he returns to\nEngland, one such English emissary is worse than a legion of French, who\nare either tongue-tied, or whose speech betrays them. But the worst\naliens are the ambassador and his train. These you cannot expel without\na proof (always difficult) of direct practice against the state. A\nFrench ambassador, at the head of a French party, is an evil which we\nhave never experienced. The mischief is by far more visible than the\nremedy. But, after all, every such measure as an Alien Bill is a measure\nof hostility, a preparation for it, or a cause of dispute that shall\nbring it on. In effect, it is fundamentally contrary to a relation of\namity, whose essence is a perfectly free communication. Everything done\nto prevent it will provoke a foreign war. Everything, when we let it\nproceed, will produce domestic distraction. We shall be in a perpetual\ndilemma. But it is easy to see which side of the dilemma will be taken.\nThe same temper which brings us to solicit a Jacobin peace will induce\nus to temporize with all the evils of it. By degrees our minds will be\nmade to our circumstances. The novelty of such things, which produces\nhalf the horror and all the disgust, will be worn off. Our ruin will be\ndisguised in profit, and the sale of a few wretched baubles will bribe a\ndegenerate people to barter away the most precious jewel of their souls.\nOur Constitution is not made for this kind of warfare. It provides\ngreatly for our happiness, it furnishes few means for our defence. It\nis formed, in a great measure, upon the principle of jealousy of the\ncrown,--and as things stood, when it took that turn, with very great\nreason. I go farther: it must keep alive some part of that fire of\njealousy eternally and chastely burning, or it cannot be the British\nConstitution. At various periods we have had tyranny in this country,\nmore than enough. We have had rebellions with more or less\njustification. Some of our kings have made adulterous connections\nabroad, and trucked away for foreign gold the interests and glory of\ntheir crown. But, before this time, our liberty has never been\ncorrupted. I mean to say, that it has never been debauched from its\ndomestic relations. To this time it has been English liberty, and\nEnglish liberty only. Our love of liberty and our love of our country\nwere not distinct things. Liberty is now, it seems, put upon a larger\nand more liberal bottom. We are men,--and as men, undoubtedly, nothing\nhuman is foreign to us. We cannot be too liberal in our general wishes\nfor the happiness of our kind. But in all questions on the mode of\nprocuring it for any particular community, we ought to be fearful of\nadmitting those who have no interest in it, or who have, perhaps, an\ninterest against it, into the consultation. Above all, we cannot be too\ncautious in our communication with those who seek their happiness by\nother roads than those of humanity, morals, and religion, and whose\nliberty consists, and consists alone, in being free from those\nrestraints which are imposed by the virtues upon the passions.\n\nWhen we invite danger from a confidence in defensive measures, we ought,\nfirst of all, to be sure that it is a species of danger against which\nany defensive measures that can be adopted will be sufficient. Next, we\nought to know that the spirit of our laws, or that our own dispositions,\nwhich are stronger than laws, are susceptible of all those defensive\nmeasures which the occasion may require. A third consideration is,\nwhether these measures will not bring more odium than strength to\ngovernment; and the last, whether the authority that makes them, in a\ngeneral corruption of manners and principles, can insure their\nexecution. Let no one argue, from the state of things, as he sees them\nat present, concerning what will be the means and capacities of\ngovernment, when the time arrives which shall call for remedies\ncommensurate to enormous evils.\n\nIt is an obvious truth, that no constitution can defend itself: it must\nbe defended by the wisdom and fortitude of men. These are what no\nconstitution can give: they are the gifts of God; and He alone knows\nwhether we shall possess such gifts at the time we stand in need of\nthem. Constitutions furnish the civil means of getting at the natural:\nit is all that in this case they can do. But our Constitution has more\nimpediments than helps. Its excellencies, when they come to be put to\nthis sort of proof, may be found among its defects.\n\nNothing looks more awful and imposing than an ancient fortification. Its\nlofty, embattled walls, its bold, projecting, rounded towers, that\npierce the sky, strike the imagination and promise inexpugnable\nstrength. But they are the very things that make its weakness. You may\nas well think of opposing one of these old fortresses to the mass of\nartillery brought by a French irruption into the field as to think of\nresisting by your old laws and your old forms the new destruction which\nthe corps of Jacobin engineers of to-day prepare for all such forms and\nall such laws. Besides the debility and false principle of their\nconstruction to resist the present modes of attack, the fortress itself\nis in ruinous repair, and there is a practicable breach in every part of\nit.\n\nSuch is the work. But miserable works have been defended by the\nconstancy of the garrison. Weather-beaten ships have been brought safe\nto port by the spirit and alertness of the crew. But it is here that we\nshall eminently fail. The day that, by their consent, the seat of\nRegicide has its place among the thrones of Europe, there is no longer a\nmotive for zeal in their favor; it will at best be cold, unimpassioned,\ndejected, melancholy duty. The glory will seem all on the other side.\nThe friends of the crown will appear, not as champions, but as victims;\ndiscountenanced, mortified, lowered, defeated, they will fall into\nlistlessness and indifference. They will leave things to take their\ncourse, enjoy the present hour, and submit to the common fate.\n\nIs it only an oppressive nightmare with which we have been loaded? Is\nit, then, all a frightful dream, and are there no regicides in the\nworld? Have we not heard of that prodigy of a ruffian who would not\nsuffer his benignant sovereign, with his hands tied behind him, and\nstripped for execution, to say one parting word to his deluded\npeople,--of Santerre, who commanded the drums and trumpets to strike up\nto stifle his voice, and dragged him backward to the machine of murder!\nThis nefarious villain (for a few days I may call him so) stands high in\nFrance, as in a republic of robbers and murderers he ought. What\nhinders this monster from being sent as ambassador to convey to his\nMajesty the first compliments of his brethren, the Regicide Directory?\nThey have none that can represent them more properly. I anticipate the\nday of his arrival. He will make his public entry into London on one of\nthe pale horses of his brewery. As he knows that we are pleased with the\nParis taste for the orders of knighthood,[13] he will fling a bloody\nsash across his shoulders, with the order of the holy guillotine\nsurmounting the crown appendant to the riband. Thus adorned, he will\nproceed from Whitechapel to the further end of Pall Mall, all the music\nof London playing the Marseillaise Hymn before him, and escorted by a\nchosen detachment of the _Legion de l'Echafaud_. It were only to be\nwished that no ill-fated loyalist, for the imprudence of his zeal, may\nstand in the pillory at Charing Cross, under the statue of King Charles\nthe First, at the time of this grand procession, lest some of the rotten\neggs which the Constitutional Society shall let fly at his indiscreet\nhead may hit the virtuous murderer of his king. They might soil the\nstate dress which the ministers of so many crowned heads have admired,\nand in which Sir Clement Cotterel is to introduce him at St. James's.\n\nIf Santerre cannot be spared from the constitutional butcheries at home,\nTallien may supply his place, and, in point of figure, with advantage.\nHe has been habituated to commissions; and he is as well qualified as\nSanterre for this. Nero wished the Roman people had but one neck. The\nwish of the more exalted Tallien, when he sat in judgment, was, that his\nsovereign had eighty-three heads, that he might send one to every one of\nthe Departments. Tallien will make an excellent figure at Guildhall at\nthe next Sheriff's feast. He may open the ball with my Lady Mayoress.\nBut this will be after he has retired from the public table, and gone\ninto the private room for the enjoyment of more social and unreserved\nconversation with the ministers of state and the judges of the bench.\nThere these ministers and magistrates will hear him entertain the worthy\naldermen with an instructing and pleasing narrative of the manner in\nwhich he made the rich citizens of Bordeaux squeak, and gently led them\nby the public credit of the guillotine to disgorge their\nanti-revolutionary pelf.\n\nAll this will be the display, and the town-talk, when our regicide is on\na visit of ceremony. At home nothing will equal the pomp and splendor of\nthe _Hotel de la Republique_. There another scene of gaudy grandeur will\nbe opened. When his Citizen Excellency keeps the festival, which every\ncitizen is ordered to observe, for the glorious execution of Louis the\nSixteenth, and renews his oath of detestation of kings, a grand ball of\ncourse will be given on the occasion. Then what a hurly-burly! what a\ncrowding! what a glare of a thousand flambeaux in the square! what a\nclamor of footmen contending at the door! what a rattling of a thousand\ncoaches of duchesses, countesses, and Lady Marys, choking the way, and\noverturning each other, in a struggle who should be first to pay her\ncourt to the _Citoyenne_, the spouse of the twenty-first husband, he\nthe husband of the thirty-first wife, and to hail her in the rank of\nhonorable matrons before the four days' duration of marriage is\nexpired!--Morals, as they were, decorum, the great outguard of the sex,\nand the proud sentiment of honor, which makes virtue more respectable,\nwhere it is, and conceals human frailty, where virtue may not be, will\nbe banished from this land of propriety, modesty, and reserve.\n\nWe had before an ambassador from the most Christian King. We shall have\nthen one, perhaps two, as lately, from the most Anti-Christian Republic.\nHis chapel will be great and splendid, formed on the model of the Temple\nof Reason at Paris; while the famous ode of the infamous Chenier will be\nsung, and a prostitute of the street adored as a goddess. We shall then\nhave a French ambassador without a suspicion of Popery. One good it will\nhave: it will go some way in quieting the minds of that synod of zealous\nProtestant lay elders who govern Ireland on the pacific principles of\npolemic theology, and who now, from dread of the Pope, cannot take a\ncool bottle of claret, or enjoy an innocent Parliamentary job, with any\ntolerable quiet.\n\nSo far as to the French communication here:--what will be the effect of\nour communication there? We know that our new brethren, whilst they\neverywhere shut up the churches, increased in Paris, at one time at\nleast fourfold, the opera-houses, the playhouses, the public shows of\nall kinds; and even in their state of indigence and distress, no expense\nwas spared for their equipment and decoration. They were made an affair\nof state. There is no invention of seduction, never wholly wanting in\nthat place, that has not been increased,--brothels, gaming-houses,\neverything. And there is no doubt, but, when they are settled in a\ntriumphant peace, they will carry all these arts to their utmost\nperfection, and cover them with every species of imposing magnificence.\nThey have all along avowed them as a part of their policy; and whilst\nthey corrupt young minds through pleasure, they form them to crimes.\nEvery idea of corporal gratification is carried to the highest excess,\nand wooed with all the elegance that belongs to the senses. All elegance\nof mind and manners is banished. A theatrical, bombastic, windy\nphraseology of heroic virtue, blended and mingled up with a worse\ndissoluteness, and joined to a murderous and savage ferocity, forms the\ntone and idiom of their language and their manners. Any one, who attends\nto all their own descriptions, narratives, and dissertations, will find\nin that whole place more of the air of a body of assassins, banditti,\nhousebreakers, and outlawed smugglers, joined to that of a gang of\nstrolling players expelled from and exploded orderly theatres, with\ntheir prostitutes in a brothel, at their debauches and bacchanals, than\nanything of the refined and perfected virtues, or the polished,\nmitigated vices of a great capital.\n\nIs it for this benefit we open \"the usual relations of peace and amity\"?\nIs it for this our youth of both sexes are to form themselves by travel?\nIs it for this that with expense and pains we form their lisping infant\naccents to the language of France? I shall be told that this abominable\nmedley is made rather to revolt young and ingenuous minds. So it is in\nthe description. So perhaps it may in reality to a chosen few. So it may\nbe, when the magistrate, the law, and the church frown on such manners,\nand the wretches to whom they belong,--when they are chased from the\neye of day, and the society of civil life, into night-cellars and caves\nand woods. But when these men themselves are the magistrates,--when all\nthe consequence, weight, and authority of a great nation adopt\nthem,--when we see them conjoined with victory, glory, power, and\ndominion, and homage paid to them by every government,--it is not\npossible that the downhill should not be slid into, recommended by\neverything which has opposed it. Let it be remembered that no young man\ncan go to any part of Europe without taking this place of pestilential\ncontagion in his way; and whilst the less active part of the community\nwill be debauched by this travel, whilst children are poisoned at these\nschools, our trade will put the finishing hand to our ruin. No factory\nwill be settled in France, that will not become a club of complete\nFrench Jacobins. The minds of young men of that description will receive\na taint in their religion, their morals, and their politics, which they\nwill in a short time communicate to the whole kingdom.\n\nWhilst everything prepares the body to debauch and the mind to crime, a\nregular church of avowed atheism, established by law, with a direct and\nsanguinary persecution of Christianity, is formed to prevent all\namendment and remorse. Conscience is formally deposed from its dominion\nover the mind. What fills the measure of horror is, that schools of\natheism are set up at the public charge in every part of the country.\nThat some English parents will be wicked enough to send their children\nto such schools there is no doubt. Better this island should be sunk to\nthe bottom of the sea than that (so far as human infirmity admits) it\nshould not be a country of religion and morals!\n\nWith all these causes of corruption, we may well judge what the general\nfashion of mind will be through both sexes and all conditions. Such\nspectacles and such examples will overbear all the laws that ever\nblackened the cumbrous volumes of our statutes. When royalty shall have\ndisavowed itself,--when it shall have relaxed all the principles of its\nown support,--when it has rendered the system of Regicide fashionable,\nand received it as triumphant, in the very persons who have consolidated\nthat system by the perpetration, of every crime, who have not only\nmassacred the prince, but the very laws and magistrates which were the\nsupport of royalty, and slaughtered with an indiscriminate proscription,\nwithout regard to either sex or age, every person that was suspected of\nan inclination to king, law, or magistracy,--I say, will any one dare to\nbe loyal? Will any one presume, against both authority and opinion, to\nhold up this unfashionable, antiquated, exploded Constitution?\n\nThe Jacobin faction in England must grow in strength and audacity; it\nwill be supported by other intrigues and supplied by other resources\nthan yet we have seen in action. Confounded at its growth, the\ngovernment may fly to Parliament for its support. But who will answer\nfor the temper of a House of Commons elected under these circumstances?\nWho will answer for the courage of a House of Commons to arm the crown\nwith the extraordinary powers that it may demand? But the ministers will\nnot venture to ask half of what they know they want. They will lose half\nof that half in the contest; and when they have obtained their nothing,\nthey will be driven by the cries of faction either to demolish the\nfeeble works they have thrown up in a hurry, or, in effect, to abandon\nthem. As to the House of Lords, it is not worth mentioning. The peers\nought naturally to be the pillars of the crown; but when their titles\nare rendered contemptible, and their property invidious, and a part of\ntheir weakness, and not of their strength, they will be found so many\ndegraded and trembling individuals, who will seek by evasion to put off\nthe evil day of their ruin. Both Houses will be in perpetual oscillation\nbetween abortive attempts at energy and still more unsuccessful attempts\nat compromise. You will be impatient of your disease, and abhorrent of\nyour remedy. A spirit of subterfuge and a tone of apology will enter\ninto all your proceedings, whether of law or legislation. Your judges,\nwho now sustain so masculine an authority, will appear more on their\ntrial than the culprits they have before them. The awful frown of\ncriminal justice will be smoothed into the silly smile of seduction.\nJudges will think to insinuate and soothe the accused into conviction\nand condemnation, and to wheedle to the gallows the most artful of all\ndelinquents. But they will not be so wheedled. They will not submit even\nto the appearance of persons on their trial. Their claim to this\nexemption will be admitted. The place in which some of the greatest\nnames which ever distinguished the history of this country have stood\nwill appear beneath their dignity. The criminal will climb from the dock\nto the side-bar, and take his place and his tea with the counsel. From\nthe bar of the counsel, by a natural progress, he will ascend to the\nbench, which long before had been virtually abandoned. They who escape\nfrom justice will not suffer a question upon reputation. They will take\nthe crown of the causeway; they will be revered as martyrs; they will\ntriumph as conquerors. Nobody will dare to censure that popular part of\nthe tribunal whose only restraint on misjudgment is the censure of the\npublic. They who find fault with the decision will be represented as\nenemies to the institution. Juries that convict for the crown will be\nloaded with obloquy. The juries who acquit will be held up as models of\njustice. If Parliament orders a prosecution, and fails, (as fail it\nwill,) it will be treated to its face as guilty of a conspiracy\nmaliciously to prosecute. Its care in discovering a conspiracy against\nthe state will be treated as a forged plot to destroy the liberty of the\nsubject: every such discovery, instead of strengthening government, will\nweaken its reputation.\n\nIn this state things will be suffered to proceed, lest measures of vigor\nshould precipitate a crisis. The timid will act thus from character, the\nwise from necessity. Our laws had done all that the old condition of\nthings dictated to render our judges erect and independent; but they\nwill naturally fail on the side upon which they had taken no\nprecautions. The judicial magistrates will find themselves safe as\nagainst the crown, whose will is not their tenure; the power of\nexecuting their office will be held at the pleasure of those who deal\nout fame or abuse as they think fit. They will begin rather to consult\ntheir own repose and their own popularity than the critical and perilous\ntrust that is in their hands. They will speculate on consequences, when\nthey see at court an ambassador whose robes are lined with a scarlet\ndyed in the blood of judges. It is no wonder, nor are they to blame,\nwhen they are to consider how they shall answer for their conduct to the\ncriminal of to-day turned into the magistrate of to-morrow.\n\nThe press------\n\nThe army------\n\nWhen thus the helm of justice is abandoned, an universal abandonment of\nall other posts will succeed. Government will be for a while the sport\nof contending factions, who, whilst they fight with one another, will\nall strike at her. She will be buffeted and beat forward and backward by\nthe conflict of those billows, until at length, tumbling from the Gallic\ncoast, the victorious tenth wave shall ride, like the bore, over all the\nrest, and poop the shattered, weather-beaten, leaky, water-logged\nvessel, and sink her to the bottom of the abyss.\n\nAmong other miserable remedies that have been found in the _materia\nmedica_, of the old college, a change of ministry will be proposed, and\nprobably will take place. They who go out can never long with zeal and\ngood-will support government in the hands of those they hate. In a\nsituation of fatal dependence on popularity, and without one aid from\nthe little remaining power of the crown, it is not to be expected that\nthey will take on them that odium which more or less attaches upon every\nexertion of strong power. The ministers of popularity will lose all\ntheir credit at a stroke, if they pursue any of those means necessary to\ngive life, vigor, and consistence to government. They will be considered\nas venal wretches, apostates, recreant to all their own principles,\nacts, and declarations. They cannot preserve their credit, but by\nbetraying that authority of which they are the guardians.\n\nTo be sure, no prognosticating symptoms of these things have as yet\nappeared,--nothing even resembling their beginnings. May they never\nappear! May these prognostications of the author be justly laughed at\nand speedily forgotten! If nothing as yet to cause them has discovered\nitself, let us consider, in the author's excuse, that we have not yet\nseen a Jacobin legation in England. The natural, declared, sworn ally of\nsedition has not yet fixed its head-quarters in London.\n\nThere never was a political contest, upon better or worse grounds, that\nby the heat of party-spirit may not ripen into civil confusion. If ever\na party adverse to the crown should be in a condition here publicly to\ndeclare itself, and to divide, however unequally, the natural force of\nthe kingdom, they are sure of an aid of fifty thousand men, at ten days'\nwarning, from the opposite coast of France. But against this infusion of\na foreign force the crown has its guaranties, old and new. But I should\nbe glad to hear something said of the assistance which loyal subjects in\nFrance have received from other powers in support of that lawful\ngovernment which secured their lawful property. I should be glad to\nknow, if they are so disposed to a neighborly, provident, and\nsympathetic attention to their public engagements, by what means they\nare to come at us. Is it from the powerful states of Holland we are to\nreclaim our guaranty? Is it from the King of Prussia, and his steady\ngood affections, and his powerful navy, that we are to look for the\nguaranty of our security? Is it from the Netherlands, which the French\nmay cover with the swarms of their citizen-soldiers in twenty-four\nhours, that we are to look for this assistance? This is to suppose, too,\nthat all these powers have no views offensive or necessities defensive\nof their own. They will cut out work for one another, and France will\ncut out work for them all.\n\nThat the Christian religion cannot exist in this country with such a\nfraternity will not, I think, be disputed with me. On that religion,\naccording to our mode, all our laws and institutions stand, as upon\ntheir base. That scheme is supposed in every transaction of life; and if\nthat were done away, everything else, as in France, must be changed\nalong with it. Thus, religion perishing, and with it this Constitution,\nit is a matter of endless meditation what order of things would follow\nit. But what disorder would fill the space between the present and that\nwhich is to come, in the gross, is no matter of doubtful conjecture. It\nis a great evil, that of a civil war. But, in that state of things, a\ncivil war, which would give to good men and a good cause some means of\nstruggle, is a blessing of comparison that England will not enjoy. The\nmoment the struggle begins, it ends. They talk of Mr. Hume's euthanasia\nof the British Constitution gently expiring, without a groan, in the\npaternal arms of a mere monarchy. In a monarchy!--fine trifling\nindeed!--there is no such euthanasia for the British Constitution.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe manuscript copy of this Letter ends here.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[9] Here I have fallen into an unintentional mistake. Rider's Almanack\nfor 1794 lay before me; and, in troth, I then had no other. For variety,\nthat sage astrologer has made some small changes on the weather side of\n1795; but the caution is the same on the opposite page of instruction.\n\n[10] _Souverains opprimes_.--See the whole proceeding in the\n_Proces-Verbal_ of the National Assembly.\n\n[11]\n\n  Hic auratis volitans argenteus anser\n  Porticibus GALLOS in limine adesse canebat.\n\n\n\n[12] See debates in Parliament upon motions made in both Houses for\nprosecuting Mr. Reeves for a libel upon the Constitution, Dec., 1795.\n\n[13] \"In the costume assumed by the members of the legislative body we\nalmost behold the revival of the extinguished insignia of knighthood,\"\n&c., &c.--See _A View of the Relative State of Great Britain and France\nat the Commencement of the Year_ 1796.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE EMPRESS OF RUSSIA.\n\nNOVEMBER 1, 1791.\n\n\nMadam,--The Comte de Woronzow, your Imperial Majesty's minister, and Mr.\nFawkener, have informed me of the very gracious manner in which your\nImperial Majesty, and, after your example, the Archduke and Archduchess,\nhave condescended to accept my humble endeavors in the service of that\ncause which connects the rights and duties of sovereigns with the true\ninterest and happiness of their people.\n\nIf, confiding in titles derived from your own goodness, I venture to\naddress directly to your Imperial Majesty the expressions of my\ngratitude for so distinguished an honor, I hope it will not be thought a\npresumptuous intrusion. I hope, too, that the willing homage I pay to\nthe high and ruling virtues which distinguish your Imperial Majesty, and\nwhich form the felicity of so large a part of the world, will not be\nlooked upon as the language of adulation to power and greatness. In my\nhumble situation, I can behold majesty in its splendor without being\ndazzled, and I am capable of respecting it in its fall.\n\nIt is, Madam, from my strong sense of what is due to dignity in\nundeserved misfortune, that I am led to felicitate your Imperial Majesty\non the use you have lately made of your power. The princes and nobility\nof France, who from honor and duty, from blood and from principle, are\nattached to that unhappy crown, have experienced your favor and\ncountenance; and there is no doubt that they will finally enjoy the full\nbenefit of your protection. The generosity of your Imperial Majesty has\ninduced you to take an interest in their cause; and your sagacity has\nmade you perceive that in the case of the sovereign of France the cause\nof all sovereigns is tried,--that in the case of its church, the cause\nof all churches,--and that in the case of its nobility is tried the\ncause of all the respectable orders of all society, and even of society\nitself.\n\nYour Imperial Majesty has sent your minister to reside where the crown\nof France, in this disastrous eclipse of royalty, can alone truly and\nfreely be represented, that is, in its royal blood,--where alone the\nnation can be represented, that is, in its natural and inherent dignity.\nA throne cannot be represented by a prison. The honor of a nation cannot\nbe represented by an assembly which disgraces and degrades it: at\nCoblentz only the king and the nation of France are to be found.\n\nYour Imperial Majesty, who reigns and lives for glory, has nobly and\nwisely disdained to associate your crown with a faction which has for\nits object the subversion of all thrones.\n\nYou have not recognized this universal public enemy as a part of the\nsystem of Europe. You have refused to sully the lustre of your empire by\nany communion with a body of fanatical usurpers and tyrants, drawn out\nof the dregs of society, and exalted to their evil eminence by the\nenormity of their crimes,--an assemblage of tyrants, wholly destitute of\nany distinguished qualification in a single person amongst them, that\ncan command reverence from our reason, or seduce it from our\nprejudices. These enemies of sovereigns, if at all acknowledged, must be\nacknowledged on account of that enmity alone: they have nothing else to\nrecommend them.\n\nMadam, it is dangerous to praise any human virtue before the\naccomplishment of the tasks which it imposes on itself. But in\nexpressing my part of what I hope is, or will become, the general voice,\nin admiration of what you have done, I run no risk at all. With your\nImperial Majesty, declaration and execution, beginning and conclusion,\nare, at their different seasons, one and the same thing.\n\nOn the faith and declaration of some of the first potentates of Europe,\nseveral thousands of persons, comprehending the best men and the best\ngentlemen in France, have given up their country, their houses, their\nfortunes, their professional situation, their all, and are now in\nforeign lands, struggling under the most grievous distresses. Whatever\nappearances may menace, nobody fears that they can be finally abandoned.\nSuch a dereliction could not be without a strong imputation on the\npublic and private honor of sovereignty itself, nor without an\nirreparable injury to its interests. It would give occasion to represent\nmonarchs as natural enemies to each other, and that they never support\nor countenance any subjects of a brother prince, except when they rebel\nagainst him. We individuals, mere spectators of the scene, but who sock\nour liberties under the shade of legal authority, and of course\nsympathize with the sufferers in that cause, never can permit ourselves\nto believe that such an event can disgrace the history of our time. The\nonly thing to be feared is delay, in winch are included many mischiefs.\nThe constancy of the oppressed will be broken; the power of tyrants\nwill be confirmed. Already the multitude of French officers, drawn from\ntheir several corps by hopes inspired by the freely declared disposition\nof sovereigns, have left all the posts in which they might one day have\neffectually served the good cause abandoned to the enemy.\n\nTour Imperial Majesty's just influence, which is still greater than your\nextensive power, will animate and expedite the efforts of other\nsovereigns. From your wisdom other states will learn that they who wait\nuntil all the powers of Europe are at once in motion can never move at\nall. It would add to the unexampled calamities of our time, if the\nuncommon union of sentiment in so many powers should prove the very\ncause of defeating the benefit which ought to flow from their general\ngood disposition. No sovereign can run any risk from the designs of\nother powers, whilst engaged in tins glorious and necessary work. If any\nattempt could be feared, your Imperial Majesty's power and justice would\nsecure your allies against all danger. Madam, your glory will be\ncomplete, if, after having given peace to Europe by your moderation, you\nshall bestow stability on all its governments by your vigor and\ndecision. The debt which your Imperial Majesty's august predecessors\nhave contracted to the ancient manners of Europe, by means of which they\ncivilized a vast empire, will be nobly repaid by preserving those\nmanners from the hideous change with which they are now menaced. By the\nintervention of Russia the world will be preserved from barbarism and\nruin.\n\nA private individual, of a remote country, in himself wholly without\nimportance, unauthorized and unconnected, not as an English subject,\nbut as a citizen of the world, presumes to submit his thoughts to one of\nthe greatest and wisest sovereigns that Europe has seen. He does it\nwithout fear, because he does not involve in his weakness (if such it\nis) his king, his country, or his friends. He is not' afraid that he\nshall offend your Imperial Majesty,--because, secure in itself, true\ngreatness is always accessible, and because respectfully to speak what\nwe conceive to be truth is the best homage which can be paid to true\ndignity.\n\nI am, Madam, with the utmost possible respect and veneration,\n\nYour Imperial Majesty's\n\nMost obedient and most humble servant,\n\nEDM. BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, November 1st, 1791.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nSIR CHARLES BINGHAM, BART.,\n\nON THE\n\nIRISH ABSENTEE TAX.\n\nOCTOBER 30, 1773.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\n    From authentic documents found with the copy of this Letter\n    among Mr. Burke's papers, it appears that in the year 1773 a\n    project of imposing a tax upon all proprietors of landed\n    estates in Ireland, whose ordinary residence should be in\n    Great Britain, had been adopted and avowed by his Majesty's\n    ministers at that time. A remonstrance against this measure,\n    as highly unjust and impolitic, was presented to the\n    ministers by several of the principal Irish absentees, and\n    the project was subsequently abandoned.\n\n\nLETTER.\n\nDear Sir,--I am much flattered by your very obliging letter, and the\nrather because it promises an opening to our future correspondence. This\nmay be my only indemnification for very great losses. One of the most\nodious parts of the proposed Absentee Tax is its tendency to separate\nfriends, and to make as ugly breaches in private society as it must make\nin the unity of the great political body. I am sure that much of the\nsatisfaction of some circles in London will be lost by it. Do you think\nthat our friend Mrs. Vesey will suffer her husband to vote for a tax\nthat is to destroy the evenings at Bolton Row? I trust we shall have\nother supporters of the same sex, equally powerful, and equally\ndeserving to be so, who will not abandon the common cause of their own\nliberties and our satisfactions. We shall be barbarized on both sides of\nthe water, if we do not see one another now and then. _We_ shall sink\ninto surly, brutish Johns, and _you_ will degenerate into wild Irish. It\nis impossible that we should be the wiser or the more agreeable,\ncertainly we shall not love one another the better, for this forced\nseparation, which our ministers, who have already done so much for the\ndissolution of every other sort of good connection, are now meditating\nfor the further improvement of this too well united empire. Their next\nstep will be to encourage all the colonies, about thirty separate\ngovernments, to keep their people from all intercourse with each other\nand with the mother country. A gentleman of New York or Barbadoes will\nbe as much gazed at as a strange animal from Nova Zembla or Otaheite;\nand those rogues, the travellers, will tell us what stories they please\nabout poor old Ireland.\n\nIn all seriousness, (though I am a great deal more than half serious in\nwhat I have been saying,) I look upon this projected tax in a very evil\nlight; I think it is not advisable; I am sure it is not necessary; and\nas it is not a mere matter of finance, but involves a political question\nof much, importance, I consider the principle and precedent as far worse\nthan the thing itself. You are too kind in imagining I can suggest\nanything new upon the subject. The objections to it are very glaring,\nand must strike the eyes of all those who have not their reasons for\nshutting them against evident truth. I have no feelings or opinions on\nthis subject which I do not partake with all the sensible and informed\npeople that I meet with. At first I could scarcely meet with any one who\ncould believe that this scheme originated from the English government.\nThey considered it not only as absurd, but as something monstrous and\nunnatural. In the first instance, it strikes at the power of this\ncountry; in the end, at the union of the whole empire. I do not mean to\nexpress, most certainly I do not entertain in my mind, anything\ninvidious concerning the superintending authority of Great Britain. But\nif it be true that the several bodies which make up this complicated\nmass are to be preserved as one empire, an authority sufficient to\npreserve that unity, and by its equal weight and pressure to\nconsolidate the various parts that compose it, must reside somewhere:\nthat somewhere can only be in England. Possibly any one member,\ndistinctly taken, might decide in favor of that residence within itself;\nbut certainly no member would give its voice for any other except this.\nSo that I look upon the residence of the supreme power to be settled\nhere: not by force, or tyranny, or even by mere long usage, but by the\nvery nature of things, and the joint consent of the whole body.\n\nIf all this be admitted, then without question this country must have\nthe sole right to the imperial legislation: by which I mean that law\nwhich regulates the polity and economy of the several parts, as they\nrelate to one another and to the whole. But if any of the parts, which\n(not for oppression, but for order) are placed in a subordinate\nsituation, will assume to themselves the power of hindering or checking\nthe resort of their municipal subjects to the centre, or even to any\nother part of the empire, they arrogate to themselves the imperial\nrights, which do not, which cannot, belong to them, and, so far as in\nthem lies, destroy the happy arrangement of the entire empire.\n\nA free communication by _discretionary residence_ is necessary to all\nthe other purposes of communication. For what purpose are the Irish and\nPlantation laws sent hither, but as means of preserving this sovereign\nconstitution? Whether such a constitution was originally right or wrong\nthis is not the time of day to dispute. If any evils arise from it, let\nus not strip it of what may be useful in it. By taking the English Privy\nCouncil into your legislature, you obtain a new, a further, and possibly\na more liberal consideration of all your acts. If a local legislature\nshall by oblique means tend to deprive any of the people of this\nbenefit, and shall make it penal to them to follow into England the laws\nwhich may affect them, then the English Privy Council will have to\ndecide upon your acts without those lights that may enable them to judge\nupon what grounds you made them, or how far they ought to be modified,\nreceived, or rejected.\n\nTo what end is the ultimate appeal in judicature lodged in this kingdom,\nif men may be disabled from following their suits here, and may be taxed\ninto an absolute _denied of justice_? You observe, my dear Sir, that I\ndo not assert that in all cases two shillings will necessarily cut off\nthis means of correcting legislative and judicial mistakes, and thus\namount to a denial of justice. I might, indeed, state cases in which\nthis very quantum of tax would be fully sufficient to defeat this right.\nBut I argue not on the case, but on the principle, and I am sure the\nprinciple implies it. They who may restrain may prohibit; they who may\nimpose two shillings may impose ten shillings in the pound; and those\nwho may condition the tax to six months' annual absence may carry that\ncondition to six weeks, or even to six days, and thereby totally defeat\nthe wise means which have been provided for extensive and impartial\njustice, and for orderly, well-poised, and well-connected government.\n\nWhat is taxing the resort to and residence in any place, but declaring\nthat your connection with that place is a grievance? Is not such an\nIrish tax as is now proposed a virtual declaration that England is a\nforeign country, and a renunciation on your part of the principle of\n_common naturalization_, which runs through this whole empire?\n\nDo you, or does any Irish gentleman, think it a mean privilege, that,\nthe moment he sets his foot upon this ground, he is to all intents and\npurposes an Englishman? You will not be pleased with a law which by its\noperation tends to disqualify you from a seat in this Parliament; and if\nyour own virtue or fortune, or if that of your children, should carry\nyou or them to it, should you like to be excluded from the possibility\nof a peerage in this kingdom? If in Ireland we lay it down as a maxim,\nthat a residence in Great Britain is a political evil, and to be\ndiscouraged by penal taxes, you must necessarily reject all the\nprivileges and benefits which are connected with such a residence.\n\nI can easily conceive that a citizen of Dublin, who looks no further\nthan his counter, may think that Ireland will be repaid for such a loss\nby any small diminution of taxes, or any increase in the circulation of\nmoney that may be laid out in the purchase of claret or groceries in his\ncorporation. In such a man an error of that kind, as it would be\nnatural, would be excusable. But I cannot think that any educated man,\nany man who looks with an enlightened eye on the interest of Ireland,\ncan believe that it is not highly for the advantage of Ireland, that\nthis Parliament, which, whether right or wrong, whether we will or not,\nwill make some laws to bind Ireland, should always have in it some\npersons who by connection, by property, or by early prepossessions and\naffections, are attached to the welfare of that country. I am so clear\nupon this point, not only from the clear reason of the thing, but from\nthe constant course of my observation, by now having sat eight sessions\nin Parliament, that I declare it to you as my sincere opinion, that (if\nyou must do either the one or the other) it would be wiser by far, and\nfar better for Ireland, that some new privileges should attend the\nestates of Irishmen, members of the two Houses here, than that their\ncharacters should be stained by penal impositions, and their properties\nloaded by unequal and unheard-of modes of taxation. I do really trust,\nthat, when the matter comes a little to be considered, a majority of our\ngentlemen will never consent to establish such a principle of\ndisqualification against themselves and their posterity, and, for the\nsake of gratifying the schemes of a transitory administration of the\ncockpit or the castle, or in compliance with the lightest part of the\nmost vulgar and transient popularity, fix so irreparable an injury on\nthe permanent interest of their country.\n\nThis law seems, therefore, to me to go directly against the fundamental\npoints of the legislative and judicial constitution of these kingdoms,\nand against the happy communion of their privileges. But there is\nanother matter in the tax proposed, that contradicts as essentially a\nvery great principle necessary for preserving the union of the various\nparts of a state; because it does, in effect, discountenance mutual\nintermarriage and inheritance, things that bind countries more closely\ntogether than any laws or constitutions whatsoever. Is it right that a\nwoman who marries into Ireland, and perhaps well purchases her jointure\nor her dower there, should not after her husband's death have it in her\nchoice to return to her country and her friends without being taxed for\nit? If an Irish heiress should marry into an English family, and that\ngreat property in both countries should thereby come to be united in\nthis common issue, shall the descendant of that marriage abandon his\nnatural connection, his family interests, his public and his private\nduties, and be compelled to take up his residence in Ireland? Is there\nany sense or any justice in it, unless you affirm that there should be\nno such intermarriage and no such mutual inheritance between the\nnatives? Is there a shadow of reason, that, because a Lord Rockingham, a\nDuke of Devonshire, a Sir George Savile, possess property in Ireland,\nwhich has descended to them without any act of theirs, they should\nabandon their duty in Parliament, and spend the winters in Dublin? or,\nhaving spent the session in Westminster, must they abandon their seats\nand all their family interests in Yorkshire and Derbyshire, and pass the\nrest of the year in Wicklow, in Cork, or Tyrone?\n\nSee what the consequence must be from a municipal legislature\nconsidering itself as an unconnected body, and attempting to enforce a\npartial residence. A man may have property in more parts than two of\nthis empire. He may have property in Jamaica and in North America, as\nwell as in England and Ireland. I know some that have property in all of\nthem. What shall we say to this case? After the poor distracted citizen\nof the whole empire has, in compliance with your partial law, removed\nhis family, bid adieu to his connections, and settled himself quietly\nand snug in a pretty box by the Liffey, he hears that the Parliament of\nGreat Britain is of opinion that all English estates ought to be spent\nin England, and that they will tax him double, if he does not return.\nSuppose him then (if the nature of the two laws will permit it)\nproviding a flying camp, and dividing his year as well as he can\nbetween England and Ireland, and at the charge of two town houses and\ntwo country-houses in both kingdoms; in this situation he receives an\naccount, that a law is transmitted from Jamaica, and another from\nPennsylvania, to tax absentees from these provinces, which are\nimpoverished by the European residence of the possessors of their lands.\nHow is he to escape this _ricochet_ cross-firing of so many opposite\nbatteries of police and regulation? If he attempts to comply, he is\nlikely to be more a citizen of the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea than\nof any of these countries. The matter is absurd and ridiculous, and,\nwhile ever the idea of mutual marriages, inheritances, purchases, and\nprivileges subsist, can never be carried into execution with common\nsense or common justice.\n\nI do not know how gentlemen of Ireland reconcile such an idea to their\nown liberties, or to the natural use and enjoyment of their estates. If\nany of their children should be left in a minority, and a guardian\nshould think, as many do, (it matters not whether properly or no,) that\nhis ward had better he educated in a school or university here than in\nIreland, is he sure that he can justify the bringing a tax of ten per\ncent, perhaps twenty, on his pupil's estate, by giving what in his\nopinion is the best education in general, or the best for that pupil's\nparticular character and circumstances? Can he justify his sending him\nto travel, a necessary part of the higher style of education, and,\nnotwithstanding what some narrow writers have said, of great benefit to\nall countries, but very particularly so to Ireland? Suppose a guardian,\nunder the authority or pretence of such a tax of police, had prevented\nour dear friend, Lord Charlemont, from going abroad, would he have lost\nno satisfaction? would his friends have lost nothing in the companion?\nwould his country have lost nothing in the cultivated taste with which\nhe has adorned it in so many ways? His natural elegance of mind would\nundoubtedly do a great deal; but I will venture to assert, without the\ndanger of being contradicted, that he adorns his present residence in\nIreland much the more for having resided a long time out of it. Will Mr.\nFlood himself think he ought to have been driven by taxes into Ireland,\nwhilst he prepared himself by an English education to understand and to\ndefend the rights of the subject in Ireland, or to support the dignity\nof government there, according as his opinions, or the situation of\nthings, may lead him to take either part, upon respectable principles? I\nhope it is not forgot that an Irish act of Parliament sends its youth to\nEngland for the study of the law, and compels a residence in the inns of\ncourt hero for some years. Will you send out with one breath and recall\nwith another? This act plainly provides for that intercourse which\nsupposes the strictest union in laws and policy, in both which the\nintended tax supposes an entire separation.\n\nIt would be endless to go into all the inconveniences this tax will lead\nto, in the conduct of private life, and the use of property. How many\ninfirm people are obliged to change their climate, whose life depends\nupon that change! How many families straitened in their circumstances\nare there, who, from the shame, sometimes from the utter impossibility\notherwise of retrenching, are obliged to remove from their country, in\norder to preserve their estates in their families! You begin, then, to\nburden these people precisely at the time when their circumstances of\nhealth and fortune render them rather objects of relief and\ncommiseration.\n\nI know very well that a great proportion of the money of every\nsubordinate country will flow towards the metropolis. This is\nunavoidable. Other inconveniences, too, will result to particular parts:\nand why? Why, because they are particular parts,--each a member of a\ngreater, and not an whole within itself. But those members are to\nconsider whether these inconveniences are not fully balanced, perhaps\nmore than balanced, by the united strength of a great and compact body.\nI am sensible, too, of a difficulty that will be started against the\napplication of some of the principles which I reason upon to the case of\nIreland. It will be said, that Ireland, in many particulars, is not\nbound to consider itself as a part of the British body; because this\ncountry, in many instances, is mistaken enough to treat you as\nforeigners, and draws away your money by absentees, without suffering\nyou to enjoy your natural advantages in trade and commerce. No man\nliving loves restrictive regulations of any kind less than myself; at\nbest, nine times in ten, they are little better than laborious and\nvexatious follies. Often, as in your case, they are great oppressions,\nas well as great absurdities. But still an injury is not always a reason\nfor retaliation; nor is the folly of others with regard to us a reason\nfor imitating it with regard to them. Before we attempt to retort, we\nought to consider whether we may not injure ourselves even more than our\nadversary; since, in the contest who shall go the greatest length in\nabsurdity, the victor is generally the greatest sufferer. Besides, when\nthere is an unfortunate emulation in restraints and oppressions, the\nquestion of _strength_ is of the highest importance. It little becomes\nthe feeble to be unjust. Justice is the shield of the weak; and when\nthey choose to lay this down, and fight naked in the contest of mere\npower, the event will be what must be expected from such imprudence.\n\nI ought to beg your pardon for running into this length. You want no\narguments to convince you on this subject, and you want no resources of\nmatter to convince others. I ought, too, to ask pardon for having\ndelayed my answer so long; but I received your letter on Tuesday, in\ntown, and I was obliged to come to the country on business. From the\ncountry I write at present; but this day I shall go to town again. I\nshall see Lord Rockingham, who has spared neither time nor trouble in\nmaking a vigorous opposition to this inconsiderate measure. I hope to be\nable to send you the papers which will give you information of the steps\nhe has taken. He has pursued this business with the foresight,\ndiligence, and good sense with which he generally resists\nunconstitutional attempts of government. A life of disinterestedness,\ngenerosity, and public spirit are his titles to have it believed that\nthe effect which the tax may have upon his private property is not the\nsole nor the principal motive to his exertions. I know he is of opinion\nthat the opposition in Ireland ought to be carried on with that spirit\nas if no aid was expected from this country, and here as if nothing\nwould be done in Ireland: many things have been lost by not acting in\nthis manner.\n\nI am told that you are not likely to be alone in the generous stand you\nare to make against this unnatural monster of court popularity. It is\nsaid, Mr. Hussey, who is so very considerable at present, and who is\neverything in expectation, will give you his assistance. I rejoice to\nsee (that very rare spectacle) a good mind, a great genius, and public\nactivity united together, and united so early in life. By not running\ninto every popular humor, he may depend upon it, the popularity of his\ncharacter will wear the better.\n\n    Non ponebat enim rumores ante salutem;\n    Ergo postque magisque viri nunc gloria claret.\n\nAdieu, my dear Sir. Give my best respects to Lady Bingham; and believe\nme, with great truth and esteem,\n\nYour most obedient and most humble servant,\n\nEDM. BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, 30th October, 1773.\n\nTO SIR CHARLES BINGHAM.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE HON. CHARLES JAMES FOX,\n\nON THE AMERICAN WAR.\n\nOCTOBER 8, 1777.\n\n\nMy Dear Charles,--I am, on many accounts, exceedingly pleased with your\njourney to Ireland. I do not think it was possible to dispose better of\nthe interval between this and the meeting of Parliament. I told you as\nmuch, in the same general terms, by the post. My opinion of the\ninfidelity of that conveyance hindered me from being particular. I now\nsit down with malice prepense to kill you with a very long letter, and\nmust take my chance for some safe method of conveying the dose. Before I\nsay anything to you of the place you are in, or the business of it, on\nwhich, by the way, a great deal might be said, I will turn myself to the\nconcluding part of your letter from Chatsworth.\n\nYou are sensible that I do not differ from you in many things; and most\ncertainly I do not dissent from the main of your doctrine concerning the\nheresy of depending upon contingencies. You must recollect how uniform\nmy sentiments have been on that subject. I have ever wished a settled\nplan of our own, founded in the very essence of the American business,\nwholly unconnected with the events of the war, and framed in such a\nmanner as to keep up our credit and maintain our system at home, in\nspite of anything which may happen abroad. I am now convinced, by a long\nand somewhat vexatious experience, that such a plan is absolutely\nimpracticable. I think with you, that some faults in the constitution\nof those whom we must love and trust are among the causes of this\nimpracticability; they are faults, too, that one can hardly wish them\nperfectly cured of, as I am afraid they are intimately connected with\nhonest, disinterested intentions, plentiful fortunes, assured rank, and\nquiet homes. A great deal of activity and enterprise can scarcely ever\nbe expected from such men, unless some horrible calamity is just over\ntheir heads, or unless they suffer some gross personal insults from\npower, the resentment of which may be as unquiet and stimulating a\nprinciple in their minds as ambition is in those of a different\ncomplexion. To say the truth, I cannot greatly blame them. We live at a\ntime when men are not repaid in fame for what they sacrifice in interest\nor repose.\n\nOn the whole, when I consider of what discordant, and particularly of\nwhat fleeting materials the opposition has been all along composed, and\nat the same time review what Lord Rockingham has done, with that and\nwith his own shattered constitution, for these last twelve years, I\nconfess I am rather surprised that he has done so much and persevered so\nlong, than that he has felt now and then some cold fits, and that he\ngrows somewhat languid and desponding at last. I know that he, and those\nwho are much prevalent with him, though they are not thought so much\ndevoted to popularity as others, do very much look to the people, and\nmore than I think is wise in them, who do so little to guide and direct\nthe public opinion. Without this they act, indeed; but they act as it\nwere from compulsion, and because it is impossible, in their situation,\nto avoid taking some part. All this it is impossible to change, and to\nno purpose to complain of.\n\nAs to that popular humor which is the medium we float in, if I can\ndiscern anything at all of its present state, it is far worse than I\nhave ever known or could ever imagine it. The faults of the people are\nnot popular vices; at least, they are not such as grow out of what we\nused to take to be the English temper and character. The greatest number\nhave a sort of an heavy, lumpish acquiescence in government, without\nmuch respect or esteem for those that compose it. I really cannot avoid\nmaking some very unpleasant prognostics from this disposition of the\npeople. I think that many of the symptoms must have struck you: I will\nmention one or two that are to me very remarkable. You must know that at\nBristol we grow, as an election interest, and even as a party interest,\nrather stronger than we were when I was chosen. We have just now a\nmajority in the corporation. In this state of matters, what, think you,\nhave they done? They have voted their freedom to Lord Sandwich and Lord\nSuffolk!--to the first, at the very moment when the American privateers\nwere domineering in the Irish Sea, and taking the Bristol traders in the\nBristol Channel;--to the latter, when his remonstrances on the subject\nof captures were the jest of Paris and of Europe. This fine step was\ntaken, it seems, in honor of the zeal of these two profound statesmen in\nthe prosecution of John the Painter: so totally negligent are they of\neverything essential, and so long and so deeply affected with trash the\nmost low and contemptible; just as if they thought the merit of Sir John\nFielding was the most shining point in the character of great\nministers, in the most critical of all times, and, of all others, the\nmost deeply interesting to the commercial world! My best friends in the\ncorporation had no other doubts on the occasion than whether it did not\nbelong to me, by right of my representative capacity, to be the bearer\nof this auspicious compliment. In addition to this, if it could receive\nany addition, they now employ me to solicit, as a favor of no small\nmagnitude, that, after the example of Newcastle, they may be suffered to\narm vessels for their own defence in the Channel. Their memorial, under\nthe seal of Merchants' Hall, is now lying on the table before me. Not a\nsoul has the least sensibility, on finding themselves, now for the first\ntime, obliged to act as if the community were dissolved, and, after\nenormous payments towards the common protection, each part was to defend\nitself, as if it were a separate state.\n\nI don't mention Bristol as if that were the part furthest gone in this\nmortification. Far from it: I know that there is, rather, a little more\nlife in us than in any other place. In Liverpool they are literally\nalmost ruined by this American war; but they love it as they suffer from\nit. In short, from whatever I see, and from whatever quarter I hear, I\nam convinced that everything that is not absolute stagnation is\nevidently a party-spirit very adverse to our politics, and to the\nprinciples from whence they arise. There are manifest marks of the\nresurrection of the Tory party. They no longer criticize, as all\ndisengaged people in the world will, on the acts of government; but they\nare silent under every evil, and hide and cover up every ministerial\nblander and misfortune, with the officious zeal of men who think they\nhave a party of their own to support in power. The Tories do\nuniversally think their power and consequence involved in the success of\nthis American business. The clergy are astonishingly warm in it; and\nwhat the Tories are, when embodied and united with their natural head,\nthe crown, and animated by their clergy, no man knows better than\nyourself. As to the Whigs, I think them far from extinct. They are, what\nthey always were, (except by the able use of opportunities,) by far the\nweakest party in this country. They have not yet learned the application\nof their principles to the present state of things; and as to the\nDissenters, the main effective part of the Whig strength, they are, to\nuse a favorite expression of our American campaign style, \"not all in\nforce.\" They will do very little, and, as far as I can discern, are\nrather intimidated than provoked at the denunciations of the court in\nthe Archbishop of York's sermon. I thought that sermon rather imprudent,\nwhen I first saw it; but it seems to have done its business.\n\nIn this temper of the people, I do not wholly wonder that our Northern\nfriends look a little towards events. In war, particularly, I am afraid\nit must be so. There is something so weighty and decisive in the events\nof war, something that so completely overpowers the imagination of the\nvulgar, that all counsels must in a great degree be subordinate to and\nattendant on them. I am sure it was so in the last war, very eminently.\nSo that, on the whole, what with the temper of the people, the temper of\nour own friends, and the domineering necessities of war, we must quietly\ngive up all ideas of any settled, preconcerted plan. We shall be lucky\nenough, if, keeping ourselves attentive and alert, we can contrive to\nprofit of the occasions as they arise: though I am sensible that those\nwho are best provided with a general scheme are fittest to take\nadvantage of all contingencies. However, to act with any people with the\nleast degree of comfort, I believe we must contrive a little to\nassimilate to their character. We must gravitate towards them, if we\nwould keep in the same system, or expect that they should approach\ntowards us. They are, indeed, worthy of much concession and management.\nI am quite convinced that they are the honestest public men that ever\nappeared in this country, and I am sure that they are the wisest, by\nfar, of those who appear in it at present. None of those who are\ncontinually complaining of them, but are themselves just as chargeable\nwith all their faults, and have a decent stock of their own into the\nbargain. They (our friends) are, I admit, as you very truly represent\nthem, but indifferently qualified for storming a citadel. After all, God\nknows whether this citadel is to be stormed by them, or by anybody else,\nby the means they use, or by any means. I know that as they are,\nabstractedly speaking, to blame, so there are those who cry out against\nthem for it, not with a friendly complaint, as we do, but with the\nbitterness of enemies. But I know, too, that those who blame them for\nwant of enterprise have shown no activity at all against the common\nenemy: all their skill and all their spirit have been shown only in\nweakening, dividing, and indeed destroying their allies. What they are\nand what we are is now pretty evidently experienced; and it is certain,\nthat, partly by our common faults, but much more by the difficulties of\nour situation, and some circumstances of unavoidable misfortune, we are\nin little better than a sort of _cul-de-sac_. For my part, I do all I\ncan to give ease to my mind in this strange position. I remember, some\nyears ago, when I was pressing some points with great eagerness and\nanxiety, and complaining with great vexation to the Duke of Richmond of\nthe little progress I make, he told me kindly, and I believe very truly,\nthat, though he was far from thinking so himself, other people could not\nbe persuaded I had not some latent private interest in pushing these\nmatters, which I urged with an earnestness so extreme, and so much\napproaching to passion. He was certainly in the right. I am thoroughly\nresolved to give, both to myself and to my friends, less vexation on\nthese subjects than hitherto I have done,--much less, indeed.\n\nIf _you_ should grow too earnest, you will be still more inexcusable\nthan I was. Your having entered into affairs so much younger ought to\nmake them too familiar to you to be the cause of much agitation, and you\nhave much more before you for your work. Do not be in haste. Lay your\nfoundations deep in public opinion. Though (as you are sensible) I have\nnever given you the least hint of advice about joining yourself in a\ndeclared connection with our party, nor do I now, yet, as I love that\nparty very well, and am clear that you are better able to serve them\nthan any man I know, I wish that things should be so kept as to leave\nyou mutually very open to one another in all changes and contingencies;\nand I wish this the rather, because, in order to be very great, as I am\nanxious that you should be, (always presuming that you are disposed to\nmake a good use of power,) you will certainly want some better support\nthan merely that of the crown. For I much doubt, whether, with all your\nparts, you are the man formed for acquiring real interior favor in this\ncourt, or in any; I therefore wish you a firm ground in the country; and\nI do not know so firm and so sound a bottom to build on as our\nparty.--Well, I have done with this matter; and you think I ought to\nhave finished it long ago. Now I turn to Ireland.\n\nObserve, that I have not heard a word of any news relative to it, from\nthence or from London; so that I am only going to state to you my\nconjectures as to facts, and to speculate again on these conjectures. I\nhave a strong notion that the lateness of our meeting is owing to the\nprevious arrangements intended in Ireland. I suspect they mean that\nIreland should take a sort of lead, and act an efficient part in this\nwar, both with men and money. It will sound well, when we meet, to tell\nus of the active zeal and loyalty of the people of Ireland, and contrast\nit with the rebellious spirit of America. It will be a popular\ntopic,--the perfect confidence of Ireland in the power of the British\nParliament. From thence they will argue the little danger which any\ndependency of the crown has to apprehend from the enforcement of that\nauthority. It will be, too, somewhat flattering to the country\ngentlemen, who might otherwise begin to be sullen, to hold out that the\nburden is not wholly to rest upon them; and it will pique our pride to\nbe told that Ireland has cheerfully stepped forward: and when a\ndependant of this kingdom has already engaged itself in another year's\nwar, merely for our dignity, how can we, who are principals in the\nquarrel, hold off? This scheme of policy seems to me so very obvious,\nand is likely to be of so much service to the present system, that I\ncannot conceive it possible they should neglect it, or something like\nit. They have already put the people of Ireland to the proof. Have they\nnot borne the Earl of Buckinghamshire, the person who was employed to\nmove the fiery committee in the House of Lords in order to stimulate the\nministry to this war, who was in the chair, and who moved the\nresolutions?\n\nIt is within a few days of eleven years since I was in Ireland, and then\nafter an absence of two. Those who have been absent from any scene for\neven a much shorter time generally lose the true practical notion of the\ncountry, and of what may or may not be done in it. When I knew Ireland,\nit was very different from the state of England, where government is a\nvast deal, the public something, but individuals comparatively very\nlittle. But if Ireland bears any resemblance to what it was some years\nago, neither government nor public opinion can do a great deal; almost\nthe whole is in the hands of a few leading people. The populace of\nDublin, and some parts in the North, are in some sort an exception. But\nthe Primate, Lord Hillsborough, and Lord Hertford have great sway in the\nlatter; and the former may be considerable or not, pretty much as the\nDuke of Leinster pleases. On the whole, the success of government\nusually depended on the bargain made with a very few men. The resident\nlieutenancy may have made some change, and given a strength to\ngovernment, which formerly, I know, it had not; still, however, I am of\nopinion, the former state, though in other hands perhaps, and in another\nmanner, still continues. The house you are connected with is grown into\na much greater degree of power than it had, though it was very\nconsiderable, at the period I speak of. If the D. of L. takes a popular\npart, he is sure of the city of Dublin, and he has a young man attached\nto him who stands very forward in Parliament and in profession, and, by\nwhat I hear, with more good-will and less envy than usually attends so\nrapid a progress. The movement of one or two principal men, if they\nmanage the little popular strength which is to be found in Dublin and\nUlster, may do a great deal, especially when money is to be saved and\ntaxes to be kept off. I confess I should despair of your succeeding with\nany of them, if they cannot be satisfied that every job which they can\nlook for on account of carrying this measure would be just as sure to\nthem for their ordinary support of government. They are essential to\ngovernment, which at this time must not be disturbed, and their\nneutrality will be purchased at as high a price as their alliance\noffensive and defensive. Now, as by supporting they may get as much as\nby betraying their country, it must be a great leaning to turpitude that\ncan make them take a part in this war. I am satisfied, that, if the Duke\nof Leinster and Lord Shannon would act together, this business could not\ngo on; or if either of them took part with Ponsonby, it would have no\nbetter success. Hutchinson's situation is much altered since I saw you.\nTo please Tisdall, he had been in a manner laid aside at the Castle. It\nis now to be seen whether he prefers the gratification of his resentment\nand his appetite for popularity, both of which are strong enough in him,\nto the advantages which his independence gives him, of making a new\nbargain, and accumulating new offices on his heap. Pray do not be asleep\nin this scene of action,--at this time, if I am right, the principal.\nThe Protestants of Ireland will be, I think, in general, backward: they\nform infinitely the greatest part of the landed and the moneyed\ninterests; and they will not like to pay. The Papists are reduced to\nbeasts of burden: they will give all they have, their shoulders, readily\nenough, if they are flattered. Surely the state of Ireland ought forever\nto teach parties moderation in their victories. People crushed by law\nhave no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be\nenemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose\nwill always be dangerous, more or less. But this is not our present\nbusiness. If all this should prove a dream, however, let it not hinder\nyou from writing to me and tolling me so. You will easily refute, in\nyour conversation, the little topics which they will set afloat: such\nas, that Ireland is a boat, and must go with the ship; that, if the\nAmericans contended only for their liberties, it would be\ndifferent,--but since they have declared independence, and so forth--\n\nYou are happy in enjoying Townshend's company. Remember me to him. How\ndoes he like his private situation in a country where he was the son of\nthe sovereign?--Mrs. Burke and the two Richards salute you cordially.\n\nE.B.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, October 8th, 1777.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM,\n\nWITH\n\nADDRESSES TO THE KING,\n\nAND\n\nTHE BRITISH COLONISTS IN NORTH AMERICA,\n\nIN RELATION TO\n\nTHE MEASURES OF GOVERNMENT IN THE AMERICAN CONTEST, AND A PROPOSED\nSECESSION OF THE OPPOSITION FROM PARLIAMENT.\n\nJANUARY, 1777.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\n    This Letter, with the two Addresses which follow it, was\n    written upon occasion of a proposed secession from Parliament\n    of the members in both Houses who had opposed the measures of\n    government, in the contest between this country and the\n    colonies in North America, from the time of the repeal of the\n    Stamp Act. It appears, from an indorsement written by Mr.\n    Burke on the manuscript, that he warmly recommended the\n    measure, but (for what reasons is not stated) it was not\n    adopted.\n\n\nLETTER\n\nTO THE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM.\n\nMy Dear Lord,--I am afraid that I ought rather to beg your pardon for\ntroubling you at all in this season of repose, than to apologize for\nhaving been so long silent on the approaching business. It comes upon\nus, not indeed in the most agreeable manner, but it does come-upon us;\nand I believe your friends in general are in expectation of finding your\nLordship resolved in what way you are to meet it. The deliberation is\nfull of difficulties; but the determination is necessary.\n\nThe affairs of America seem to be drawing towards a crisis. The Howes\nare at this time in possession of, or are able to awe, the whole middle\ncoast of America, from Delaware to the western boundary of Massachusetts\nBay; the naval barrier on the side of Canada is broken; a great tract of\ncountry is open for the supply of the troops; the river Hudson opens a\nway into the heart of the provinces; and nothing can, in all\nprobability, prevent an early and offensive campaign. What the Americans\n_have_ done is, in their circumstances, truly astonishing; it is,\nindeed, infinitely more than I expected from them. But having done so\nmuch, for some short time I began to entertain an opinion that they\nmight do more. It is now, however, evident that they cannot look\nstanding armies in the face. They are inferior in everything, even in\nnumbers,--I mean, in the number of those whom they keep in constant duty\nand in regular pay. There seem, by the best accounts, not to be above\nten or twelve thousand men, at most, in their grand army. The rest are\nmilitia, and not wonderfully well composed or disciplined. They decline\na general engagement,--prudently enough, if their object had been to\nmake the war attend upon a treaty of good terms of subjection; but when\nthey look further, this will not do. An army that is obliged at all\ntimes and in all situations to decline an engagement may delay their\nruin, but can never defend their country. Foreign assistance they have\nlittle or none, nor are likely soon to have more. France, in effect, has\nno king, nor any minister accredited enough either with the court or\nnation to undertake a design of great magnitude.\n\nIn this state of things, I persuade myself Franklin is come to Paris to\ndraw from that court a definitive and satisfactory answer concerning the\nsupport of the colonies. If he cannot get such an answer, (and I am of\nopinion that at present he cannot,) then it is to be presumed he is\nauthorized to negotiate with Lord Stormont on the basis of dependence on\nthe crown. This I take to be his errand: for I never can believe that he\nis come thither as a fugitive from his cause in the hour of its\ndistress, or that he is going to conclude a long life, which has\nbrightened every hour it has continued, with so foul and dishonorable a\nflight. On this supposition, I thought it not wholly impossible that the\nWhig party might be made a sort of mediators of the peace. It is\nunnatural to suppose, that, in making an accommodation, the Americans\nshould not choose rather to give credit to those who all along have\nopposed the measure of ministers, than to throw themselves wholly on the\nmercy of their bitter, uniform, and systematic enemies. It is, indeed,\nthe victorious enemy that has the terms to offer; the vanquished party\nand their friends are, both of them, reduced in their power; and it is\ncertain that those who are utterly broken and subdued have no option.\nBut, as this is hardly yet the case of the Americans, in this middle\nstate of their affairs, (much impaired, but not perfectly ruined,) one\nwould think it must be their interest to provide, if possible, some\nfurther security for the terms which they may obtain from their enemies.\nIf the Congress could be brought to declare in favor of those terms for\nwhich one hundred members of the House of Commons voted last year, with\nsome civility to the party which held out those terms, it would\nundoubtedly have an effect to revive the cause of our liberties in\nEngland, and to give the colonies some sort of mooring and anchorage in\nthis country. It seemed to me that Franklin might be made to feel the\npropriety of such a step; and as I have an acquaintance with him, I had\na strong desire of taking a turn to Paris. Everything else failing, one\nmight obtain a better knowledge of the general aspect of affairs abroad\nthan, I believe, any of us possess at present. The Duke of Portland\napproved the idea. But when I had conversed with the very few of your\nLordship's friends who were in town, and considered a little more\nmaturely the constant temper and standing maxims of the party, I laid\naside the design,--not being desirous of risking the displeasure of\nthose for whose sake alone I wished to take that fatiguing journey at\nthis severe season of the year.\n\nThe Duke of Portland has taken with him some heads of deliberation,\nwhich were the result of a discourse with his Grace and Mr. Montagu at\nBurlington House. It seems essential to the cause that your Lordship\nshould meet your friends with some settled plan either of action or\ninaction. Your friends will certainly require such a plan; and I am sure\nthe state of affairs requires it, whether they call for it or not. As to\nthe measure of a secession with reasons, after rolling the matter in my\nhead a good deal, and turning it an hundred ways, I confess I still\nthink it the most advisable, notwithstanding the serious objections that\nlie against it, and indeed the extreme uncertainty of all political\nmeasures, especially at this time. It provides for your honor. I know of\nnothing else that can so well do this. It is something, perhaps all,\nthat can be done in our present situation. Some precaution, in this\nrespect, is not without its motives. That very estimation for which you\nhave sacrificed everything else is in some danger of suffering in the\ngeneral wreck; and perhaps it is likely to suffer the more, because you\nhave hitherto confided more than was quite prudent in the clearness of\nyour intentions, and in the solidity of the popular judgment upon them.\nThe former, indeed, is out of the power of events; the latter is full of\nlevity, and the very creature of fortune. However, such as it is, (and\nfor one I do not think I am inclined to overvalue it,) both our interest\nand our duty make it necessary for us to attend to it very carefully, so\nlong as we act a part in public. The measure you take for this purpose\nmay produce no immediate effect; but with regard to the party, and the\nprinciples for whose sake the party exists, all hope of their\npreservation or recovery depends upon your preserving your reputation.\n\nBy the conversation of some friends, it seemed as if they were willing\nto fall in with this design, because it promised to emancipate them from\nthe servitude of irksome business, and to afford them an opportunity of\nretiring to ease and tranquillity. If that be their object in the\nsecession and addresses proposed, there surely never were means worse\nchosen to gain their end; and if this be any part of the project, it\nwere a thousand times better it were never undertaken. The measure is\nnot only unusual, and as such critical, but it is in its own nature\nstrong and vehement in a high degree. The propriety, therefore, of\nadopting it depends entirely upon the spirit with which it is supported\nand followed. To pursue violent measures with languor and irresolution\nis not very consistent in speculation, and not more reputable or safe in\npractice. If your Lordship's friends do not go to this business with\ntheir whole hearts, if they do not feel themselves uneasy without it, if\nthey do not undertake it with a certain degree of zeal, and even with\nwarmth and indignation, it had better be removed wholly out of our\nthoughts. A measure of less strength, and more in the beaten circle of\naffairs, if supported with spirit and industry, would be on all accounts\ninfinitely more eligible. We have to consider what it is that in this\nundertaking we have against us. We have the weight of King, Lords, and\nCommons in the other scale; we have against us, within a trifle, the\nwhole body of the law; we oppose the more considerable part of the\nlanded and mercantile interests; we contend, in a manner, against the\nwhole Church; we set our faces against great armies flushed with\nvictory, and navies who have tasted of civil spoil, and have a strong\nappetite for more; our strength, whatever it is, must depend, for a good\npart of its effect, upon events not very probable. In such a situation,\nsuch a step requires not only great magnanimity, but unwearied activity\nand perseverance, with a good deal, too, of dexterity and management, to\nimprove every accident in our favor.\n\nThe delivery of this paper may have very important consequences. It is\ntrue that the court may pass it over in silence, with a real or affected\ncontempt. But this I do not think so likely. If they do take notice of\nit, the mildest course will be such an address from Parliament as the\nHouse of Commons made to the king on the London Remonstrance in the year\n1769. This address will be followed by addresses of a similar tendency,\nfrom all parts of the kingdom, in order to overpower you with what they\nwill endeavor to pass as the united voice and sense of the nation. But\nif they intend to proceed further, and to take steps of a more decisive\nnature, you are then to consider, not what they may legally and justly\ndo, but what a Parliament omnipotent in power, influenced with party\nrage and personal resentment, operating under the implicit military\nobedience of court discipline, is capable of. Though they have made some\nsuccessful experiments on juries, they will hardly trust enough to them\nto order a prosecution for a supposed libel. They may proceed in two\nways: either by an _impeachment_, in which the Tories may retort on the\nWhigs (but with better success, though in a worse cause) the\nproceedings in the case of Sacheverell, or they may, without this form,\nproceed, as against the Bishop of Rochester, by a bill of pains and\npenalties more or less grievous. The similarity of the cases, or the\njustice, is (as I said) out of the question. The mode of proceeding has\nseveral very ancient and very recent precedents. None of these methods\nis impossible. The court may select three or four of the most\ndistinguished among you for the victims; and therefore nothing is more\nremote from the tendency of the proposed act than any idea of retirement\nor repose. On the contrary, you have, all of you, as principals or\nauxiliaries, a much better [hotter?] and more desperate conflict, in all\nprobability, to undergo, than any you have been yet engaged in. The only\nquestion is, whether the risk ought to be run for the chance (and it is\nno more) of recalling the people of England to their ancient principles,\nand to that personal interest which formerly they took in all public\naffairs. At any rate, I am sure it is right, if we take this step, to\ntake it with a full view of the consequences, and with minds and\nmeasures in a state of preparation to meet them. It is not becoming that\nyour boldness should arise from a want of foresight. It is more\nreputable, and certainly it is more safe too, that it should be grounded\non the evident necessity of encountering the dangers which you foresee.\n\nYour Lordship will have the goodness to excuse me, if I state in strong\nterms the difficulties attending a measure which on the whole I heartily\nconcur in. But as, from my want of importance, I can be personally\nlittle subject to the most trying part of the consequences, it is as\nlittle my desire to urge others to dangers in which I am myself to have\nno inconsiderable a share.\n\nIf this measure should be thought too great for our strength or the\ndispositions of the times, then the point will be to consider what is to\nbe done in Parliament. A weak, irregular, desultory, peevish opposition\nthere will be as much too little as the other may be too big. Our scheme\nought to be such as to have in it a succession of measures: else it is\nimpossible to secure anything like a regular attendance; opposition will\notherwise always carry a disreputable air; neither will it be possible,\nwithout that attendance, to persuade the people that we are in earnest.\nAbove all, a motion should be well digested for the first day. There is\none thing in particular I wish to recommend to your Lordship's\nconsideration: that is, the opening of the doors of the House of\nCommons. Without this, I am clearly convinced, it will be in the power\nof ministry to make our opposition appear without doors just in what\nlight they please. To obtain a gallery is the easiest thing in the\nworld, if we are satisfied to cultivate the esteem of our adversaries by\nthe resolution and energy with which we act against them: but if their\nsatisfaction and good-humor be any part of our object, the attempt, I\nadmit, is idle.\n\nI had some conversation, before I left town, with the D. of M. He is of\nopinion, that, if you adhere to your resolution of seceding, you ought\nnot to appear on the first day of the meeting. He thinks it can have no\neffect, except to break the continuity of your conduct, and thereby to\nweaken and fritter away the impression of it. It certainly will seem\nodd to give solemn reasons for a discontinuance of your attendance in\nParliament, after having two or three times returned to it, and\nimmediately after a vigorous act of opposition. As to trials of the\ntemper of the House, there have been of that sort so many already that I\nsee no reason for making another that would not hold equally good for\nanother after that,--particularly as nothing has happened in the least\ncalculated to alter the disposition of the House. If the secession were\nto be general, such an attendance, followed by such an act, would have\nforce; but being in its nature incomplete and broken, to break it\nfurther by retreats and returns to the chase must entirely destroy its\neffect. I confess I am quite of the D. of M.'s opinion in this point.\n\nI send your Lordship a corrected copy of the paper: your Lordship will\nbe so good to communicate it, if you should approve of the alterations,\nto Lord J.C. and Sir G.S. I showed it to the D. of P. before his Grace\nleft town; and at his, the D. of P.'s, desire, I have sent it to the D.\nof R. The principal alteration is in the pages last but one. It is made\nto remove a difficulty which had been suggested to Sir G.S., and which\nhe thought had a good deal in it. I think it much the better for that\nalteration. Indeed, it may want still more corrections, in order to\nadapt it to the present or probable future state of things.\n\nWhat shall I say in excuse for this long letter, which frightens me when\nI look back upon it? Your Lordship will take it, and all in it, with\nyour usual incomparable temper, which carries you through so much both\nfrom enemies and friends. My most humble respects to Lady R., and\nbelieve me, with the highest regard, ever, &o.\n\nE.B.\n\nI hear that Dr. Franklin has had a most extraordinary reception at Paris\nfrom all ranks of people.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, Monday night, Jan. 6, 1777.\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS TO THE KING.\n\n\nWe, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, several of the peers\nof the realm, and several members of the House of Commons chosen by the\npeople to represent them in Parliament, do in our individual capacity,\nbut with hearts filled with a warm affection to your Majesty, with a\nstrong attachment to your royal house, and with the most unfeigned\ndevotion to your true interest, beg leave, at this crisis of your\naffairs, in all humility to approach your royal presence.\n\nWhilst we lament the measures adopted by the public councils of the\nkingdom, we do not mean to question the legal validity of their\nproceedings. We do not desire to appeal from them to any person\nwhatsoever. We do not dispute the conclusive authority of the bodies in\nwhich we have a place over all their members. We know that it is our\nordinary duty to submit ourselves to the determinations of the majority\nin everything, except what regards the just defence of our honor and\nreputation. But the situation into which the British empire has been\nbrought, and the conduct to which we are reluctantly driven in that\nsituation, we hold ourselves bound by the relation in which we stand\nboth to the crown and the people clearly to explain to your Majesty and\nour country.\n\nWe have been called upon in the speech from the throne at the opening of\nthis session of Parliament, in a manner peculiarly marked, singularly\nemphatical, and from a place from whence anything implying censure falls\nwith no common weight, to concur in unanimous approbation of those\nmeasures which have produced our present distresses and threaten us in\nfuture with others far more grievous. We trust, therefore, that we shall\nstand justified in offering to our sovereign and the public our reasons\nfor persevering inflexibly in our uniform dissent from every part of\nthose measures. We lament them from an experience of their mischief, as\nwe originally opposed them from a sure foresight of their unhappy and\ninevitable tendency.\n\nWe see nothing in the present events in the least degree sufficient to\nwarrant an alteration in our opinion. We were always steadily averse to\nthis civil war,--not because we thought it impossible that it should be\nattended with victory, but because we were fully persuaded that in such\na contest victory would only vary the mode of our ruin, and by making it\nless immediately sensible would render it the more lasting and the more\nirretrievable. Experience had but too fully instructed us in the\npossibility of the reduction of a free people to slavery by foreign\nmercenary armies. But we had an horror of becoming the instruments in a\ndesign, of which, in our turn, we might become the victims. Knowing the\ninestimable value of peace, and the contemptible value of what was\nsought by war, we wished to compose the distractions of our country, not\nby the use of foreign arms, but by prudent regulations in our own\ndomestic policy. We deplored, as your Majesty has done in your speech\nfrom the throne, the disorders which prevail in your empire; but we are\nconvinced that the disorders of the people, in the present time and in\nthe present place, are owing to the usual and natural cause of such\ndisorders at all times and in all places, where such have\nprevailed,--the misconduct of government;--that they are owing to plans\nlaid in error, pursued with obstinacy, and conducted without wisdom.\n\nWe cannot attribute so much to the power of faction, at the expense of\nhuman nature, as to suppose, that, in any part of the world, a\ncombination of men, few in number, not considerable in rank, of no\nnatural hereditary dependencies, should be able, by the efforts of their\npolicy alone, or the mere exertion of any talents, to bring the people\nof your American dominions into the disposition which has produced the\npresent troubles. We cannot conceive, that, without some powerful\nconcurring cause, any management should prevail on some millions of\npeople, dispersed over an whole continent, in thirteen provinces, not\nonly unconnected, but, in many particulars of religion, manners,\ngovernment, and local interest, totally different and adverse,\nvoluntarily to submit themselves to a suspension of all the profits of\nindustry and all the comforts of civil life, added to all the evils of\nan unequal war, carried on with circumstances of the greatest asperity\nand rigor. This, Sir, we conceive, could never have happened, but from a\ngeneral sense of some grievance so radical in its nature and so\nspreading in its effects as to poison all the ordinary satisfactions of\nlife, to discompose the frame of society, and to convert into fear and\nhatred that habitual reverence ever paid by mankind to an ancient and\nvenerable government.\n\nThat grievance is as simple in its nature, and as level to the most\nordinary understanding, as it is powerful in affecting the most languid\npassions: it is--\n\n\"AN ATTEMPT MADE TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY OF A WHOLE PEOPLE WITHOUT\nTHEIR CONSENT.\"\n\nYour Majesty's English subjects in the colonies, possessing the ordinary\nfaculties of mankind, know that to live under such a plan of government\nis not to live in a state of freedom. Your English subjects in the\ncolonies, still impressed with the ancient feelings of the people from\nwhom they are derived, cannot live under a government which does not\nestablish freedom as its basis.\n\nThis scheme, being, therefore, set up in direct opposition to the rooted\nand confirmed sentiments and habits of thinking of an whole people, has\nproduced the effects which ever must result from such a collision of\npower and opinion. For we beg leave, with all duty and humility, to\nrepresent to your Majesty, (what we fear has been industriously\nconcealed from you,) that it is not merely the opinion of a very great\nnumber, or even of the majority, but the universal sense of the whole\nbody of the people in those provinces, that the practice of taxing, in\nthe mode and on the principles which have been lately contended for and\nenforced, is subversive of all their rights.\n\nThis sense has been declared, as we understand on good information, by\nthe unanimous voice of all their Assemblies: each Assembly also, on this\npoint, is perfectly unanimous within itself. It has been declared as\nfully by the actual voice of the people without these Assemblies as by\nthe constructive voice within them, as well by those in that country who\naddressed as by those who remonstrated; and it is as much the avowed\nopinion of those who have hazarded their all, rather than take up arms\nagainst your Majesty's forces, as of those who have run the same risk to\noppose them. The difference among them is not on the grievance, but on\nthe mode of redress; and we are sorry to say, that they who have\nconceived hopes from the placability of the ministers who influence the\npublic councils of this kingdom disappear in the multitude of those who\nconceive that passive compliance only confirms and emboldens oppression.\n\nThe sense of a whole people, most gracious sovereign, never ought to be\ncontemned by wise and beneficent rulers,--whatever may be the abstract\nclaims, or even rights, of _the supreme power_. We have been too early\ninstructed, and too long habituated to believe, that the only firm seat\nof all authority is in the minds, affections, and interests of the\npeople, to change our opinions on the theoretic reasonings of\nspeculative men, or for the convenience of a mere temporary arrangement\nof state. It is not consistent with equity or wisdom to set at defiance\nthe general feelings of great communities, and of all the orders which\ncompose them. Much power is tolerated, and passes unquestioned, where\nmuch is yielded to opinion. All is disputed, where everything is\nenforced.\n\nSuch are our sentiments on the duty and policy of conforming to the\nprejudices of a whole people, even where the foundation of such\nprejudices may be false or disputable. But permit us to lay at your\nMajesty's feet our deliberate judgment on the real merits of that\nprinciple, the violation of which is the known ground and origin of\nthese troubles. We assure your Majesty, that, on our parts, we should\nthink ourselves unjustifiable, as good citizens, and not influenced by\nthe true spirit of Englishmen, if, with any effectual means of\nprevention in our hands, we were to submit to taxes to which we did not\nconsent, either directly, or by a representation of the people securing\nto us the substantial benefit of an absolutely free disposition of our\nown property in that important case. And we add, Sir, that, if fortune,\ninstead of blessing us with a situation where we may have daily access\nto the propitious presence of a gracious prince, had fixed us in\nsettlements on the remotest part of the globe, we must carry these\nsentiments with us, as part of our being,--persuaded that the distance\nof situation would render this privilege in the disposal of property but\nthe more necessary. If no provision had been made for it, such provision\nought to be made or permitted. Abuses of subordinate authority increase,\nand all means of redress lessen, as the distance of the subject removes\nhim from the seat of the supreme power. What, in those circumstances,\ncan save him from the last extremes of indignity and oppression, but\nsomething left in his own hands which may enable him to conciliate the\nfavor and control the excesses of government? When no means of power to\nawe or to oblige are possessed, the strongest ties which connect mankind\nin every relation, social and civil, and which teach them mutually to\nrespect each other, are broken. Independency, from that moment,\nvirtually exists. Its formal declaration will quickly follow. Such must\nbe our feelings for ourselves: we are not in possession of another rule\nfor our brethren.\n\nWhen the late attempt practically to annihilate that inestimable\nprivilege was made, great disorders and tumults, very unhappily and very\nnaturally, arose from it. In this state of things, we were of opinion\nthat satisfaction ought instantly to be given, or that, at least, the\npunishment of the disorder ought to be attended with the redress of the\ngrievance. We were of opinion, that, if our dependencies had so outgrown\nthe positive institutions made for the preservation of liberty in this\nkingdom, that the operation of their powers was become rather a pressure\nthan a relief to the subjects in the colonies, wisdom dictated that the\nspirit of the Constitution should rather be applied to their\ncircumstances, than its authority enforced with violence in those very\nparts where its reason became wholly inapplicable.\n\nOther methods were then recommended and followed, as infallible means of\nrestoring peace and order. We looked upon them to be, what they have\nsince proved to be, the cause of inflaming discontent into disobedience,\nand resistance into revolt. The subversion of solemn, fundamental\ncharters, on a suggestion of abuse, without citation, evidence, or\nhearing,--the total suspension of the commerce of a great maritime city,\nthe capital of a great maritime province, during the pleasure of the\ncrown,--the establishment of a military force, not accountable to the\nordinary tribunals of the country in which it was kept up,--these and\nother proceedings at that time, if no previous cause of dissension had\nsubsisted, were sufficient to produce great troubles: unjust at all\ntimes, they were then irrational.\n\nWe could not conceive, when disorders had arisen from the complaint of\none violated right, that to violate every other was the proper means of\nquieting an exasperated people. It seemed to us absurd and preposterous\nto hold out, as the means of calming a people in a state of extreme\ninflammation, and ready to take up arms, the austere law which a rigid\nconqueror would impose as the sequel of the most decisive victories.\n\nRecourse, indeed, was at the same time had to force; and we saw a force\nsent out, enough to menace liberty, but not to awe opposition,--tending\nto bring odium on the civil power, and contempt on the military,--at\nonce to provoke and encourage resistance. Force was sent out not\nsufficient to hold one town; laws were passed to inflame thirteen\nprovinces.\n\nThis mode of proceeding, by harsh laws and feeble armies, could not be\ndefended on the principle of mercy and forbearance. For mercy, as we\nconceive, consists, not in the weakness of the means, but in the\nbenignity of the ends. We apprehend that mild measures may be powerfully\nenforced, and that acts of extreme rigor and injustice may be attended\nwith as much feebleness in the execution as severity in the formation.\n\nIn consequence of these terrors, which, falling upon some, threatened\nall, the colonies made a common cause with the sufferers, and proceeded,\non their part, to acts of resistance. In that alarming situation, we\nbesought your Majesty's ministers to entertain some distrust of the\noperation of coercive measures, and to profit of their experience.\nExperience had no effect. The modes of legislative rigor were construed,\nnot to have been erroneous in their policy, but too limited in their\nextent. New severities were adopted. The fisheries of your people in\nAmerica followed their charters; and their mutual combination to defend\nwhat they thought their common rights brought on a total prohibition of\ntheir mutual commercial intercourse. No distinction of persons or merits\nwas observed: the peaceable and the mutinous, friends and foes, were\nalike involved, as if the rigor of the laws had a certain tendency to\nrecommend the authority of the legislator.\n\nWhilst the penal laws increased in rigor, and extended in application\nover all the colonies, the direct force was applied but to one part. Had\nthe great fleet and foreign army since employed been at that time called\nfor, the greatness of the preparation would have declared the magnitude\nof the danger. The nation would have been alarmed, and taught the\nnecessity of some means of reconciliation with our countrymen in\nAmerica, who, whenever they are provoked to resistance, demand a force\nto reduce them to obedience full as destructive to us as to them. But\nParliament and the people, by a premeditated concealment of their real\nsituation, were drawn into perplexities which furnished excuses for\nfurther armaments, and whilst they were taught to believe themselves\ncalled to suppress a riot, they found themselves involved in a mighty\nwar.\n\nAt length British blood was spilled by British hands: a fatal era, which\nwe must ever deplore, because your empire will forever feel it. Your\nMajesty was touched with a sense of so great a disaster. Your paternal\nbreast was affected with the sufferings of your English subjects in\nAmerica. In your speech from the throne, in the beginning of the session\nof 1775, you were graciously pleased to declare yourself inclined to\nrelieve their distresses and to pardon their errors. You felt their\nsufferings under the late penal acts of Parliament. But your ministry\nfelt differently. Not discouraged by the pernicious effects of all they\nhad hitherto advised, and notwithstanding the gracious declaration of\nyour Majesty, they obtained another act of Parliament, in which the\nrigors of all the former were consolidated, and embittered by\ncircumstances of additional severity and outrage. The whole trading\nproperty of America (even unoffending shipping in port) was\nindiscriminately and irrecoverably given, as the plunder of foreign\nenemies, to the sailors of your navy. This property was put out of the\nreach of your mercy. Your people were despoiled; and your navy, by a\nnew, dangerous, and prolific example, corrupted with the plunder of\ntheir countrymen. Your people in that part of your dominions were put,\nin their general and political, as well as their personal capacity,\nwholly out of the protection of your government.\n\nThough unwilling to dwell on all the improper modes of carrying on this\nunnatural and ruinous war, and which have led directly to the present\nunhappy separation of Great Britain and its colonies, we must beg leave\nto represent two particulars, which we are sure must have been entirely\ncontrary to your Majesty's order or approbation. Every course of action\nin hostility, however that hostility may be just or merited, is not\njustifiable or excusable. It is the duty of those who claim to rule over\nothers not to provoke them beyond the necessity of the case, nor to\nleave stings in their minds which must long rankle even when the\nappearance of tranquillity is restored. We therefore assure your Majesty\nthat it is with shame and sorrow we have seen several acts of hostility\nwhich could have no other tendency than incurably to alienate the minds\nof your American subjects. To excite, by a proclamation issued by your\nMajesty's governor, an universal insurrection of negro slaves in any of\nthe colonies is a measure full of complicated horrors, absolutely\nillegal, suitable neither to the practice of war nor to the laws of\npeace. Of the same quality we look upon all attempts to bring down on\nyour subjects an irruption of those fierce and cruel tribes of savages\nand cannibals in whom the vestiges of human nature are nearly effaced by\nignorance and barbarity. They are not fit allies for your Majesty in a\nwar with your people. They are not fit instruments of an English\ngovernment. These and many other acts we disclaim as having advised, or\napproved when done; and we clear ourselves to your Majesty, and to all\ncivilized nations, from any participation whatever, before or after the\nfact, in such unjustifiable and horrid proceedings.\n\nBut there is one weighty circumstance which we lament equally with the\ncauses of the war, and with the modes of carrying it on,--that no\ndisposition whatsoever towards peace or reconciliation has ever been\nshown by those who have directed the public councils of this kingdom,\neither before the breaking out of these hostilities or during the\nunhappy continuance of them. Every proposition made in your Parliament\nto remove the original cause of these troubles, by taking off taxes\nobnoxious for their principle or their design, has been\noverruled,--every bill brought in for quiet rejected, even on the first\nproposition. The petitions of the colonies have not been admitted even\nto an hearing. The very possibility of public agency, by which such\npetitions could authentically arrive at Parliament, has been evaded and\nchicaned away. All the public declarations which indicate anything\nresembling a disposition to reconciliation seem to us loose, general,\nequivocal, capable of various meanings, or of none; and they are\naccordingly construed differently, at different times, by those on whose\nrecommendation they have been made: being wholly unlike the precision\nand stability of public faith, and bearing no mark of that ingenuous\nsimplicity and native candor and integrity which formerly characterized\nthe English nation.\n\nInstead of any relaxation of the claim of taxing at the discretion of\nParliament, your ministers have devised a new mode of enforcing that\nclaim, much more effectual for the oppression of the colonies, though\nnot for your Majesty's service, both as to the quantity and application,\nthan any of the former methods; and their mode has been expressly held\nout by ministers as a plan not to be departed from by the House of\nCommons, and as the very condition on which the legislature is to accept\nthe dependence of the colonies.\n\nAt length, when, after repeated refusals to hear or to conciliate, an\nact dissolving your government, by putting your people in America out of\nyour protection, was passed, your ministers suffered several months to\nelapse without affording to them, or to any community or any individual\namongst them, the means of entering into that protection, even on\nunconditional submission, contrary to your Majesty's gracious\ndeclaration from the throne, and in direct violation of the public\nfaith.\n\nWe cannot, therefore, agree to unite in new severities against the\nbrethren of our blood for their asserting an independency, to which we\nknow, in our conscience, they have been necessitated by the conduct of\nthose very persons who now make use of that argument to provoke us to a\ncontinuance and repetition of the acts which in a regular series have\nled to this great misfortune.\n\nThe reasons, dread Sir, which have been used to justify this\nperseverance in a refusal to hear or conciliate have been reduced into a\nsort of Parliamentary maxims which we do not approve. The first of these\nmaxims is, \"that the two Houses ought not to receive (as they have\nhitherto refused to receive) petitions containing matter derogatory to\nany part of the authority they claim.\" We conceive this maxim and the\nconsequent practice to be unjustifiable by reason or the practice of\nother sovereign powers, and that it must be productive, if adhered to,\nof a total separation between this kingdom and its dependencies. The\nsupreme power, being in ordinary cases the ultimate judge, can, as we\nconceive, suffer nothing in having any part of his rights excepted to,\nor even discussed before himself. We know that sovereigns in other\ncountries, where the assertion of absolute regal power is as high as the\nassertion of absolute power in any politic body can possibly be here,\nhave received many petitions in direct opposition to many of their\nclaims of prerogative,--have listened to them,--condescended to discuss,\nand to give answers to them. This refusal to admit even the discussion\nof any part of an undefined prerogative will naturally tend to\nannihilate any privilege that can be claimed by every inferior dependent\ncommunity, and every subordinate order in the state.\n\nThe next maxim which has been put as a bar to any plan of accommodation\nis, \"that no offer of terms of peace ought to be made, before Parliament\nis assured that these terms will be accepted.\" On this we beg leave to\nrepresent to your Majesty, that, if, in all events, the policy of this\nkingdom is to govern the people in your colonies as a free people, no\nmischief can possibly happen from a declaration to them, and to the\nworld, of the manner and form in which Parliament proposes that they\nshall enjoy the freedom it protects. It is an encouragement to the\ninnocent and meritorious, that they at least shall enjoy those\nadvantages which they patiently expected rather from the benignity of\nParliament than their own efforts. Persons more contumacious may also\nsee that they are resisting terms of perhaps greater freedom and\nhappiness than they are now in arms to obtain. The glory and propriety\nof offered mercy is neither tarnished nor weakened by the folly of those\nwho refuse to take advantage of it.\n\nWe cannot think that the declaration of independency makes any natural\ndifference in the reason and policy of the offer. No prince out of the\npossession of his dominions, and become a sovereign _de jure_ only, ever\nthought it derogatory to his rights or his interests to hold out to his\nformer subjects a distinct prospect of the advantages to be derived from\nhis readmission, and a security for some of the most fundamental of\nthose popular privileges in vindication of which he had been deposed. On\nthe contrary, such offers have been almost uniformly made under similar\ncircumstances. Besides, as your Majesty has been graciously pleased, in\nyour speech from the throne, to declare your intention of restoring\nyour people in the colonies to a state of law and liberty, no objection\ncan possibly lie against defining what that law and liberty are; because\nthose who offer and those who are to receive terms frequently differ\nmost widely and most materially in the signification of these words, and\nin the objects to which they apply.\n\nTo say that we do not know, at this day, what the grievances of the\ncolonies are (be they real or pretended) would be unworthy of us. But\nwhilst we are thus waiting to be informed of what we perfectly know, we\nweaken the powers of the commissioners,--we delay, perhaps we lose, the\nhappy hour of peace,--we are wasting the substance of both\ncountries,--we are continuing the effusion of human, of Christian, of\nEnglish blood.\n\nWe are sure that we must have your Majesty's heart along with us, when\nwe declare in favor of mixing something conciliatory with our force.\nSir, we abhor the idea of making a conquest of our countrymen. We wish\nthat they may yield to well-ascertained, well-authenticated, and\nwell-secured terms of reconciliation,--not that your Majesty should owe\nthe recovery of your dominions to their total waste and destruction.\nHumanity will not permit us to entertain such a desire; nor will the\nreverence we bear to the civil rights of mankind make us even wish that\nquestions of great difficulty, of the last importance, and lying deep in\nthe vital principles of the British Constitution, should be solved by\nthe arms of foreign mercenary soldiers.\n\nIt is not, Sir, from a want of the most inviolable duty to your Majesty,\nnot from a want of a partial and passionate regard to that part of your\nempire in which we reside, and which we wish to be supreme, that we\nhave hitherto withstood all attempts to render the supremacy of one part\nof your dominions inconsistent with the liberty and safety of all the\nrest. The motives of our opposition are found in those very sentiments\nwhich we are supposed to violate. For we are convinced beyond a doubt,\nthat a system of dependence which leaves no security to the people for\nany part of their freedom in their own hands cannot be established in\nany inferior member of the British empire, without consequentially\ndestroying the freedom of that very body in favor of whose boundless\npretensions such a scheme is adopted. We know and feel that arbitrary\npower over distant regions is not within the competence, nor to be\nexercised agreeably to the forms or consistently with the spirit, of\ngreat popular assemblies. If such assemblies are called to a nominal\nshare in the exercise of such power, in order to screen, under general\nparticipation, the guilt of desperate measures, it tends only the more\ndeeply to corrupt the deliberative character of those assemblies, in\ntraining them to blind obedience, in habituating them to proceed upon\ngrounds of fact with which they can rarely be sufficiently acquainted,\nand in rendering them executive instruments of designs the bottom of\nwhich they cannot possibly fathom.\n\nTo leave any real freedom to Parliament, freedom must be left to the\ncolonies. A military government is the only substitute for civil\nliberty. That the establishment of such a power in America will utterly\nruin our finances (though its certain effect) is the smallest part of\nour concern. It will become an apt, powerful, and certain engine for the\ndestruction of our freedom here. Great bodies of armed men, trained to\na contempt of popular assemblies representative of an English\npeople,--kept up for the purpose of exacting impositions without their\nconsent, and maintained by that exaction,--instruments in subverting,\nwithout any process of law, great ancient establishments and respected\nforms of governments,--set free from, and therefore above, the ordinary\nEnglish tribunals of the country where they serve,--these men cannot so\ntransform themselves, merely by crossing the sea, as to behold with love\nand reverence, and submit with profound obedience to, the very same\nthings in Great Britain which in America they had been taught to\ndespise, and had been accustomed to awe and humble. All your Majesty's\ntroops, in the rotation of service, will pass through this discipline\nand contract these habits. If we could flatter ourselves that this would\nnot happen, we must be the weakest of men; we must be the worst, if we\nwere indifferent whether it happened or not. What, gracious sovereign,\nis the empire of America to us, or the empire of the world, if we lose\nour own liberties? We deprecate this last of evils. We deprecate the\neffect of the doctrines which must support and countenance the\ngovernment over conquered Englishmen.\n\nAs it will be impossible long to resist the powerful and equitable\narguments in favor of the freedom of these unhappy people that are to be\ndrawn from the principle of our own liberty, attempts will be made,\nattempts have been made, to ridicule and to argue away this principle,\nand to inculcate into the minds of your people other maxims of\ngovernment and other grounds of obedience than those which have\nprevailed at and since the glorious Revolution. By degrees, these\ndoctrines, by being convenient, may grow prevalent. The consequence is\nnot certain; but a general change of principles rarely happens among a\npeople without leading to a change of government.\n\nSir, your throne cannot stand secure upon the principles of\nunconditional submission and passive obedience,--on powers exercised\nwithout the concurrence of the people to be governed,--on acts made in\ndefiance of their prejudices and habits,--on acquiescence procured by\nforeign mercenary troops, and secured by standing armies. These may\npossibly be the foundation of other thrones: they must be the subversion\nof yours. It was not to passive principles in our ancestors that we owe\nthe honor of appearing before a sovereign who cannot feel that he is a\nprince without knowing that we ought to be free. The Revolution is a\ndeparture from the ancient course of the descent of this monarchy. The\npeople at that time reentered into their original rights; and it was not\nbecause a positive law authorized what was then done, but because the\nfreedom and safety of the subject, the origin and cause of all laws,\nrequired a proceeding paramount and superior to them. At that ever\nmemorable and instructive period, the letter of the law was superseded\nin favor of the substance of liberty. To the free choice, therefore, of\nthe people, without either King or Parliament, we owe that happy\nestablishment out of which both King and Parliament were regenerated.\nFrom that great principle of liberty have originated the statutes\nconfirming and ratifying the establishment from which your Majesty\nderives your right to rule over us. Those statutes have not given us\nour liberties: our liberties have produced them. Every hour of your\nMajesty's reign, your title stands upon the very same foundation on\nwhich it was at first laid; and we do not know a better on which it can\npossibly be placed.\n\nConvinced, Sir, that you cannot have different rights and a different\nsecurity in different parts of your dominions, we wish to lay an even\nplatform for your throne, and to give it an unmovable stability, by\nlaying it on the general freedom of your people, and by securing to your\nMajesty that confidence and affection in all parts of your dominions\nwhich makes your best security and dearest title in this the chief seat\nof your empire.\n\nSuch, Sir, being, amongst us, the foundation of monarchy itself, much\nmore clearly and much more peculiarly is it the ground of all\nParliamentary power. Parliament is a security provided for the\nprotection of freedom, and not a subtile fiction, contrived to amuse the\npeople in its place. The authority of both Houses can still less than\nthat of the crown be supported upon different principles in different\nplaces, so as to be for one part of your subjects a protector of\nliberty, and for another a fund of despotism, through which prerogative\nis extended by occasional powers, whenever an arbitrary will finds\nitself straitened by the restrictions of law. Had it seemed good to\nParliament to consider itself as the indulgent guardian and strong\nprotector of the freedom of the subordinate popular assemblies, instead\nof exercising its powers to their annihilation, there is no doubt that\nit never could have been their inclination, because not their interest,\nto raise questions on the extent of Parliamentary rights, or to\nenfeeble privileges which were the security of their own. Powers evident\nfrom necessity, and not suspicious from an alarming mode or purpose in\nthe exertion, would, as formerly they were, be cheerfully submitted to;\nand these would have been fully sufficient for conservation of unity in\nthe empire, and for directing its wealth to one common centre. Another\nuse has produced other consequences; and a power which refuses to be\nlimited by moderation must either be lost, or find other more distinct\nand satisfactory limitations.\n\nAs for us, a supposed, or, if it could be, a real, participation in\narbitrary power would never reconcile our minds to its establishment. We\nshould be ashamed to stand before your Majesty, boldly asserting in our\nown favor inherent rights which bind and regulate the crown itself, and\nyet insisting on the exercise, in our own persons, of a more arbitrary\nsway over our fellow-citizens and fellow-freemen.\n\nThese, gracious sovereign, are the sentiments which we consider\nourselves as bound, in justification of our present conduct, in the most\nserious and solemn manner to lay at your Majesty's feet. We have been\ncalled by your Majesty's writs and proclamations, and we have been\nauthorized, either by hereditary privilege or the choice of your people,\nto confer and treat with your Majesty, in your highest councils, upon\nthe arduous affairs of your kingdom. We are sensible of the whole\nimportance of the duty which this constitutional summons implies. We\nknow the religious punctuality of attendance which, in the ordinary\ncourse, it demands. It is no light cause which, even for a time, could\npersuade us to relax in any part of that attendance. The British empire\nis in convulsions which threaten its dissolution. Those particular\nproceedings which cause and inflame this disorder, after many years'\nincessant struggle, we find ourselves wholly unable to oppose and\nunwilling to behold. All our endeavors having proved fruitless, we are\nfearful at this time of irritating by contention those passions which we\nhave found it impracticable to compose by reason. We cannot permit\nourselves to countenance, by the appearance of a silent assent,\nproceedings fatal to the liberty and unity of the empire,--proceedings\nwhich exhaust the strength of all your Majesty's dominions, destroy all\ntrust and dependence of our allies, and leave us, both at home and\nabroad, exposed to the suspicious mercy and uncertain inclinations of\nour neighbor and rival powers, to whom, by this desperate course, we are\ndriving our countrymen for protection, and with whom we have forced them\ninto connections, and may bind them by habits and by interests,--an evil\nwhich no victories that may be obtained, no severities which may be\nexorcised, ever will or can remove.\n\nIf but the smallest hope should from any circumstances appear of a\nreturn to the ancient maxims and true policy of this kingdom, we shall\nwith joy and readiness return to our attendance, in order to give our\nhearty support to whatever means may be left for alleviating the\ncomplicated evils which oppress this nation.\n\nIf this should not happen, we have discharged our consciences by this\nfaithful representation to your Majesty and our country; and however few\nin number, or however we may be overborne by practices whose operation\nis but too powerful, by the revival of dangerous exploded principles,\nor by the misguided zeal of such arbitrary factions as formerly\nprevailed in this kingdom, and always to its detriment and disgrace, we\nhave the satisfaction of standing forth and recording our names in\nassertion of those principles whose operation hath, in better times,\nmade your Majesty a great prince, and the British dominions a mighty\nempire.\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS\n\nTO THE\n\nBRITISH COLONISTS IN NORTH AMERICA.\n\n\nThe very dangerous crisis into which the British empire is brought, as\nit accounts for, so it justifies, the unusual step we take in addressing\nourselves to you.\n\nThe distempers of the state are grown to such a degree of violence and\nmalignity as to render all ordinary remedies vain and frivolous. In such\na deplorable situation, an adherence to the common forms of business\nappears to us rather as an apology to cover a supine neglect of duty\nthan the means of performing it in a manner adequate to the exigency\nthat presses upon us. The common means we have already tried, and tried\nto no purpose. As our last resource, we turn ourselves to you. We\naddress you merely in our private capacity, vested with no other\nauthority than what will naturally attend those in whose declarations of\nbenevolence you have no reason to apprehend any mixture of dissimulation\nor design.\n\nWe have this title to your attention: we call upon it in a moment of the\nutmost importance to us all. We find, with infinite concern, that\narguments are used to persuade you of the necessity of separating\nyourselves from your ancient connection with your parent country,\ngrounded on a supposition that a general principle of alienation and\nenmity to you had pervaded the whole of this kingdom, and that there\ndoes no longer subsist between you and us any common and kindred\nprinciples upon which we can possibly unite, consistently with those\nideas of liberty in which you have justly placed your whole happiness.\n\nIf this fact were true, the inference drawn from it would be\nirresistible. But nothing is less founded. We admit, indeed, that\nviolent addresses have been procured with uncommon pains by wicked and\ndesigning men, purporting to be the genuine voice of the whole people of\nEngland,--that they have been published by authority here, and made\nknown to you by proclamations, in order, by despair and resentment,\nincurably to poison your minds against the origin of your race, and to\nrender all cordial reconciliation between us utterly impracticable. The\nsame wicked men, for the same bad purposes, have so far surprised the\njustice of Parliament as to cut off all communication betwixt us, except\nwhat is to go in their own fallacious and hostile channel.\n\nBut we conjure you by the invaluable pledges which have hitherto united,\nand which we trust will hereafter lastingly unite us, that you do not\nsuffer yourselves to be persuaded or provoked into an opinion that you\nare at war with this nation. Do not think that the whole, or even the\nuninfluenced majority, of Englishmen in this island are enemies to their\nown blood on the American continent. Much delusion has been practised,\nmuch corrupt influence treacherously employed. But still a large, and we\ntrust the largest and soundest, part of this kingdom perseveres in the\nmost perfect unity of sentiments, principles, and affections with you.\nIt spreads out a large and liberal platform of common liberty, upon\nwhich we may all unite forever. It abhors the hostilities which have\nbeen carried on against you, as much as you who feel the cruel effect of\nthem. It has disclaimed in the most solemn manner, at the foot of the\nthrone itself, the addresses which tended to irritate your sovereign\nagainst his colonies. We are persuaded that even many of those who\nunadvisedly have put their hands to such intemperate and inflammatory\naddresses have not at all apprehended to what such proceedings naturally\nlead, and would sooner die than afford them the least countenance, if\nthey were sensible of their fatal effects on the union and liberty of\nthe empire.\n\nFor ourselves, we faithfully assure you, that we have ever considered\nyou as rational creatures, as free agents, as men willing to pursue and\nable to discern your own true interest. We have wished to continue\nunited with you, in order that a people of one origin and one character\nshould be directed to the rational objects of government by joint\ncounsels, and protected in them by a common force. Other subordination\nin you we require none. We have never pressed that argument of general\nunion to the extinction of your local, natural, and just privileges.\nSensible of what is due both to the dignity and weakness of man, we have\nnever wished to place over you any government, over which, in great,\nfundamental points, you should have no sort of check or control in your\nown hands, or which should be repugnant to your situation, principles,\nand character.\n\nNo circumstances of fortune, you may be assured, will ever induce us to\nform or tolerate any such design. If the disposition of Providence\n(which we deprecate) should even prostrate you at our feet, broken in\npower and in spirit, it would be our duty and inclination to revive, by\nevery practicable means, that free energy of mind which a fortune\nunsuitable to your virtue had damped and dejected, and to put you\nvoluntarily in possession of those very privileges which you had in vain\nattempted to assert by arms. For we solemnly declare, that, although we\nshould look upon a separation from you as an heavy calamity, (and the\nheavier, because we know you must have your full share in it,) yet we\nhad much rather see you totally independent of this crown and kingdom\nthan joined to it by so unnatural a conjunction as that of freedom with\nservitude,--a conjunction which, if it were at all practicable, could\nnot fail, in the end, of being more mischievous to the peace,\nprosperity, greatness, and power of this nation than beneficial by any\nenlargement of the bounds of nominal empire.\n\nBut because, brethren, these professions are general, and such as even\nenemies may make, when they reserve to themselves the construction of\nwhat servitude and what liberty are, we inform you that we adopt your\nown standard of the blessing of free government. We are of opinion that\nyou ought to enjoy the sole and exclusive right of freely granting, and\napplying to the support of your administration, what God has freely\ngranted as a reward to your industry. And we do not confine this\nimmunity from exterior coercion, in this great point, solely to what\nregards your local establishment, but also to what may be thought proper\nfor the maintenance of the whole empire. In this resource we cheerfully\ntrust and acquiesce, satisfied by evident reason that no other\nexpectation of revenue can possibly be given by freemen, and knowing\nfrom an experience uniform both on yours and on our side of the ocean\nthat such an expectation has never yet been disappointed. We know of no\nroad to your coffers but through your affections.\n\nTo manifest our sentiments the more clearly to you and to the world on\nthis subject, we declare our opinion, that, if no revenue at all (which,\nhowever, we are far from supposing) were to be obtained from you to this\nkingdom, yet, as long as it is our happiness to be joined with you in\nthe bonds of fraternal charity and freedom, with an open and flowing\ncommerce between us, one principle of enmity and friendship pervading,\nand one right of war and peace directing the strength of the whole\nempire, we are likely to be at least as powerful as any nation, or as\nany combination of nations, which in the course of human events may be\nformed against us. We are sensible that a very large proportion of the\nwealth and power of every empire must necessarily be thrown upon the\npresiding state. We are sensible that such a state ever has borne and\never must bear the greatest part, and sometimes the whole, of the public\nexpenses: and we think her well indemnified for that (rather apparent\nthan real) inequality of charge, in the dignity and preeminence she\nenjoys, and in the superior opulence which, after all charges defrayed,\nmust necessarily remain at the centre of affairs. Of this principle we\nare not without evidence in our remembrance (not yet effaced) of the\nglorious and happy days of this empire. We are therefore incapable of\nthat prevaricating style, by which, when taxes without your consent are\nto be extorted from you, this nation is represented as in the lowest\nstate of impoverishment and public distress, but when we are called upon\nto oppress you by force of arms, it is painted as scarcely feeling its\nimpositions, abounding with wealth, and inexhaustible in its resources.\n\nWe also reason and feel as you do on the invasion of your charters.\nBecause the charters comprehend the essential forms by which you enjoy\nyour liberties, we regard them as most sacred, and by no means to be\ntaken away or altered without process, without examination, and without\nhearing, as they have lately been. We even think that they ought by no\nmeans to be altered at all, but at the desire of the greater part of the\npeople who live under them. We cannot look upon men as delinquents in\nthe mass; much less are we desirous of lording over our brethren,\ninsulting their honest pride, and wantonly overturning establishments\njudged to be just and convenient by the public wisdom of this nation at\ntheir institution, and which long and inveterate use has taught you to\nlook up to with affection and reverence. As we disapproved of the\nproceedings with regard to the forms of your constitution, so we are\nequally tender of every leading principle of free government. We never\ncould think with approbation of putting the military power out of the\ncoercion of the civil justice in the country where it acts.\n\nWe disclaim also any sort of share in that other measure which has been\nused to alienate your affections from this country,--namely, the\nintroduction of foreign mercenaries. We saw their employment with shame\nand regret, especially in numbers so far exceeding the English forces as\nin effect to constitute vassals, who have no sense of freedom, and\nstrangers, who have no common interest or feelings, as the arbiters of\nour unhappy domestic quarrel.\n\nWe likewise saw with shame the African slaves, who had been sold to you\non public faith, and under the sanction of acts of Parliament, to be\nyour servants and your guards, employed to cut the throats of their\nmasters.\n\nYou will not, we trust, believe, that, born in a civilized country,\nformed to gentle manners, trained in a merciful religion, and living in\nenlightened and polished times, where even foreign hostility is softened\nfrom its original sternness, we could have thought of letting loose upon\nyou, our late beloved brethren, these fierce tribes of savages and\ncannibals, in whom the traces of human nature are effaced by ignorance\nand barbarity. We rather wished to have joined with you in bringing\ngradually that unhappy part of mankind into civility, order, piety, and\nvirtuous discipline, than to have confirmed their evil habits and\nincreased their natural ferocity by fleshing them in the slaughter of\nyou, whom our wiser and better ancestors had sent into the wilderness\nwith the express view of introducing, along with our holy religion, its\nhumane and charitable manners. We do not hold that all things are lawful\nin war. We should think that every barbarity, in fire, in wasting, in\nmurders, in tortures, and other cruelties, too horrible and too full of\nturpitude for Christian mouths to utter or ears to hear, if done at our\ninstigation, by those who we know will make war thus, if they make it at\nall, to be, to all intents and purposes, as if done by ourselves. We\nclear ourselves to you our brethren, to the present age, and to future\ngenerations, to our king and our country, and to Europe, which, as a\nspectator, beholds this tragic scene, of every part or share in adding\nthis last and worst of evils to the inevitable mischiefs of a civil war.\n\nWe do not call you rebels and traitors. We do not call for the vengeance\nof the crown against you. We do not know how to qualify millions of our\ncountrymen, contending with one heart for an admission to privileges\nwhich we have ever thought our own happiness and honor, by odious and\nunworthy names. On the contrary, we highly revere the principles on\nwhich you act, though we lament some of their effects. Armed as you are,\nwe embrace you as our friends and as our brethren by the best and\ndearest ties of relation.\n\nWe view the establishment of the English colonies on principles of\nliberty as that which is to render this kingdom venerable to future\nages. In comparison of this, we regard all the victories and conquests\nof our warlike ancestors, or of our own times, as barbarous, vulgar\ndistinctions, in which many nations, whom we look upon with little\nrespect or value, have equalled, if not far exceeded us. This is the\npeculiar and appropriated glory of England. Those who _have and who\nhold_ to that foundation of common liberty, whether on this or on your\nside of the ocean, we consider as the true, and the only true,\nEnglishmen. Those who depart from it, whether there or here, are\nattainted, corrupted in blood, and wholly fallen from their original\nrank and value. They are the real rebels to the fair constitution and\njust supremacy of England.\n\nWe exhort you, therefore, to cleave forever to those principles, as\nbeing the true bond of union in this empire,--and to show by a manly\nperseverance that the sentiments of honor and the rights of mankind are\nnot held by the uncertain events of war, as you have hitherto shown a\nglorious and affecting example to the world that they are not dependent\non the ordinary conveniences and satisfactions of life.\n\nKnowing no other arguments to be used to men of liberal minds, it is\nupon these very principles, and these alone, we hope and trust that no\nflattering and no alarming circumstances shall permit you to listen to\nthe seductions of those who would alienate you from your dependence on\nthe crown and Parliament of this kingdom. That very liberty which you so\njustly prize above all things originated here; and it may be very\ndoubtful, whether, without being constantly fed from the original\nfountain, it can be at all perpetuated or preserved in its native purity\nand perfection. Untried forms of government may, to unstable minds,\nrecommend themselves even by their novelty. But you will do well to\nremember that England has been great and happy under the present limited\nmonarchy (subsisting in more or less vigor and purity) for several\nhundred years. None but England can communicate to you the benefits of\nsuch a constitution. We apprehend you are not now, nor for ages are\nlikely to be, capable of that form of constitution in an independent\nstate. Besides, let us suggest to you our apprehensions that your\npresent union (in which we rejoice, and which we wish long to subsist)\ncannot always subsist without the authority and weight of this great and\nlong respected body, to equipoise, and to preserve you amongst\nyourselves in a just and fair equality. It may not even be impossible\nthat a long course of war with the administration of this country may be\nbut a prelude to a series of wars and contentions among yourselves, to\nend at length (as such scenes have too often ended) in a species of\nhumiliating repose, which nothing but the preceding calamities would\nreconcile to the dispirited few who survived them. We allow that even\nthis evil is worth the risk to men of honor, when rational liberty is at\nstake, as in the present case we confess and lament that it is. But if\never a real security by Parliament is given against the terror or the\nabuse of unlimited power, and after such security given you should\npersevere in resistance, we leave you to consider whether the risk is\nnot incurred without an object, or incurred for an object infinitely\ndiminished by such concessions in its importance and value.\n\nAs to other points of discussion, when these grand fundamentals of your\ngrants and charters are once settled and ratified by clear Parliamentary\nauthority, as the ground for peace and forgiveness on our side, and for\na manly and liberal obedience on yours, treaty and a spirit of\nreconciliation will easily and securely adjust whatever may remain. Of\nthis we give you our word, that, so far as we are at present concerned,\nand if by any event we should become more concerned hereafter, you may\nrest assured, upon the pledges of honor not forfeited, faith not\nviolated, and uniformity of character and profession not yet broken, we\nat least, on these grounds, will never fail you.\n\nRespecting your wisdom, and valuing your safety, we do not call upon you\nto trust your existence to your enemies. We do not advise you to an\nunconditional submission. With satisfaction we assure you that almost\nall in both Houses (however unhappily they have been deluded, so as not\nto give any immediate effect to their opinion) disclaim that idea. You\ncan have no friends in whom you cannot rationally confide. But\nParliament is your friend from the moment in which, removing its\nconfidence from those who have constantly deceived its good intentions,\nit adopts the sentiments of those who have made sacrifices, (inferior,\nindeed, to yours,) but have, however, sacrificed enough to demonstrate\nthe sincerity of their regard and value for your liberty and prosperity.\n\nArguments may be used to weaken your confidence in that public security;\nbecause, from some unpleasant appearances, there is a suspicion that\nParliament itself is somewhat fallen from its independent spirit. How\nfar this supposition may be founded in fact we are unwilling to\ndetermine. But we are well assured from experience, that, even if all\nwere true that is contended for, and in the extent, too, in which it is\nargued, yet, as long as the solid and well-disposed forms of this\nConstitution remain, there ever is within Parliament itself a power of\nrenovating its principles, and effecting a self-reformation, which no\nother plan of government has ever contained. This Constitution has\ntherefore admitted innumerable improvements, either for the correction\nof the original scheme, or for removing corruptions, or for bringing its\nprinciples better to suit those changes which have successively happened\nin the circumstances of the nation or in the manners of the people.\n\nWe feel that the growth of the colonies is such a change of\ncircumstances, and that our present dispute is an exigency as pressing\nas any which ever demanded a revision of our government. Public troubles\nhave often called upon this country to look into its Constitution. It\nhas ever been bettered by such a revision. If our happy and luxuriant\nincrease of dominion, and our diffused population, have outgrown the\nlimits of a Constitution made for a contracted object, we ought to bless\nGod, who has furnished us with this noble occasion for displaying our\nskill and beneficence in enlarging the scale of rational happiness, and\nof making the politic generosity of this kingdom as extensive as its\nfortune. If we set about this great work, on both sides, with the same\nconciliatory turn of mind, we may now, as in former times, owe even to\nour mutual mistakes, contentions, and animosities, the lasting concord,\nfreedom, happiness, and glory of this empire.\n\nGentlemen, the distance between us, with other obstructions, has caused\nmuch misrepresentation of our mutual sentiments. We, therefore, to\nobviate them as well as we are able, take this method of assuring you of\nour thorough detestation of the whole war, and particularly the\nmercenary and savage war carried on or attempted against you,--our\nthorough abhorrence of all addresses adverse to you, whether public or\nprivate,--our assurances of an invariable affection towards you,--our\nconstant regard to your privileges and liberties,--and our opinion of\nthe solid security you ought to enjoy for them, under the paternal care\nand nurture of a protecting Parliament.\n\nThough many of us have earnestly wished that the authority of that\naugust and venerable body, so necessary in many respects to the union of\nthe whole, should be rather limited by its own equity and discretion,\nthan by any bounds described by positive laws and public compacts,--and\nthough we felt the extreme difficulty, by any theoretical limitations,\nof qualifying that authority, so as to preserve one part and deny\nanother,--and though you (as we gratefully acknowledge) had acquiesced\nmost cheerfully under that prudent reserve of the Constitution, at that\nhappy moment when neither you nor we apprehended a further return of the\nexercise of invidious powers, we are now as fully persuaded as you can\nbe, by the malice, inconstancy, and perverse inquietude of many men, and\nby the incessant endeavors of an arbitrary faction, now too powerful,\nthat our common necessities do require a full explanation and ratified\nsecurity for your liberties and our quiet.\n\nAlthough his Majesty's condescension, in committing the direction of his\naffairs into the hands of the known friends of his family and of the\nliberties of all his people, would, we admit, be a great means of giving\nrepose to your minds, as it must give infinite facility to\nreconciliation, yet we assure you that we think, with such a security as\nwe recommend, adopted from necessity and not choice, even by the unhappy\nauthors and instruments of the public misfortunes, that the terms of\nreconciliation, if once accepted by Parliament, would not be broken. We\nalso pledge ourselves to you, that we should give, even to those\nunhappy persons, an hearty support in effectuating the peace of the\nempire, and every opposition in an attempt to cast it again into\ndisorder.\n\nWhen that happy hour shall arrive, let us in all affection, recommend to\nyou the wisdom of continuing, as in former times, or even in a more\nample measure, the support of your government, and even to give to your\nadministration some degree of reciprocal interest in your freedom. We\nearnestly wish you not to furnish your enemies, here or elsewhere, with\nany sort of pretexts for reviving quarrels by too reserved and severe or\npenurious an exercise of those sacred rights which no pretended abuse in\nthe exercise ought to impair, nor, by overstraining the principles of\nfreedom, to make them less compatible with those haughty sentiments in\nothers which the very same principles may be apt to breed in minds not\ntempered with the utmost equity and justice.\n\nThe well-wishers of the liberty and union of this empire salute you, and\nrecommend you most heartily to the Divine protection.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE RIGHT HON. EDMUND S. PERY\n\nSPEAKER OF THE IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS,\n\nIN RELATION TO\n\nA BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.\n\nJULY 18, 1778.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n    This Letter is addressed to Mr. Pery, (afterwards Lord Pery,)\n    then Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland. It appears,\n    there had been much correspondence between that gentleman and\n    Mr. Burke, on the subject of Heads of a bill (which had\n    passed the Irish House of Commons in the summer of the year\n    1778, and had been transmitted by the Irish Privy Council of\n    [to?] England) for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic\n    subjects in Ireland. The bill contained a clause for\n    exempting the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland from the\n    sacramental test, which created a strong objection to the\n    whole measure on the part of the English government. Mr.\n    Burke employed his most strenuous efforts to remove the\n    prejudice which the king's ministers entertained against the\n    clause, but the bill was ultimately returned without it, and\n    in that shape passed the Irish Parliament. (17th and 18th\n    Geo. III cap. 49.) In the subsequent session, however, a\n    separate act was passed for the relief of the Protestant\n    Dissenters of Ireland.\n\n\nLETTER.\n\nMy Dear Sir,--I received in due course your two very interesting and\njudicious letters, which gave me many new lights, and excited me to\nfresh activity in the important subject they related to. However, from\nthat time I have not been perfectly free from doubt and uneasiness. I\nused a liberty with those letters, which, perhaps, nothing can\nthoroughly justify, and which certainly nothing but the delicacy of the\ncrisis, the clearness of my intentions, and your great good-nature can\nat all excuse. I might conceal this from you; but I think it better to\nlay the whole matter before you, and submit myself to your\nmercy,--assuring you, at the same time, that, if you are so kind as to\ncontinue your confidence on this, or to renew it upon any other\noccasion, I shall never be tempted again to make so bold and\nunauthorized an use of the trust you place in me. I will state to you\nthe history of the business since my last, and then you will see how far\nI am excusable by the circumstances.\n\nOn the 3rd of July I received a letter from the Attorney-General, dated\nthe day before, in which, in a very open and obliging manner, he desires\nmy thoughts of the Irish Toleration Bill, and particularly of the\nDissenters' clause. I gave them to him, by the return of the post, at\nlarge; but, as the time pressed, I kept no copy of the letter. The\ngeneral drift was strongly to recommend the _whole_, and principally to\nobviate the objections to the part that related to the Dissenters, with\nregard both to the general propriety and to the temporary policy at this\njuncture. I took, likewise, a good deal of pains to state the difference\nwhich had always subsisted with regard to the treatment of the\nProtestant Dissenters in Ireland and in England, and what I conceived\nthe reason of that difference to be. About the same time I was called to\ntown for a day; and I took an opportunity, in Westminster Hall, of\nurging the same points, with all the force I was master of, to the\nSolicitor-General. I attempted to see the Chancellor for the same\npurpose, but was not fortunate enough to meet him at home. Soon after my\nreturn hither, on Tuesday, I received a very polite and I may say\nfriendly letter from him, wishing me (on supposition that I had\ncontinued in town) to dine with him as [on?] that day, in order to talk\nover the business of the Toleration Act, then before him. Unluckily I\nhad company with me, and was not able to leave them until Thursday, when\nI went to town and called at his house, but missed him. However, in\nanswer to his letter, I had before, and instantly on the receipt of it,\nwritten to him at large, and urged such topics, both with regard to the\nCatholics and Dissenters, as I imagined were the most likely to be\nprevalent with him. This letter I followed to town on Thursday. On my\narrival I was much alarmed with a report that the ministry had thoughts\nof rejecting the whole bill. Mr. M'Namara seemed apprehensive that it\nwas a determined measure; and there seemed to be but too much reason for\nhis fears.\n\nNot having met the Chancellor at home, either on my first visit or my\nsecond after receiving his letter, and fearful that the Cabinet should\ncome to come unpleasant resolution, I went to the Treasury on Friday.\nThere I saw Sir G. Cooper. I possessed him of the danger of a partial,\nand the inevitable mischief of the total rejection of the bill. I\nreminded him of the understood compact between parties, upon which the\nwhole scheme of the toleration originating in the English bill was\nformed,--of the fair part which the Whigs had acted in a business which,\nthough first started by them, was supposed equally acceptable to all\nsides, and the risk of which they took upon themselves, when others\ndeclined it. To this I added such matter as I thought most fit to engage\ngovernment, as government,--not to sport with a singular opportunity\nwhich offered for the union of every description of men amongst us in\nsupport of the common interest of the whole; and I ended by desiring to\nsee Lord North upon the subject. Sir Grey Cooper showed a very right\nsense of the matter, and in a few minutes after our conversation I went\ndown from the Treasury chambers to Lord North's house. I had a great\ndeal of discourse with him. He told me that his ideas of toleration were\nlarge, but that, large as they were, they did not comprehend a\npromiscuous establishment, even in matters merely civil; that he thought\nthe established religion ought to be the religion of the state; that, in\nthis idea, he was not for the repeal of the sacramental test; that,\nindeed, he knew the Dissenters in general did not greatly scruple it;\nbut that very want of scruple showed less zeal against the\nEstablishment; and, after all, there could no provision be made by human\nlaws against those who made light of the tests which were formed to\ndiscriminate opinions. On all this he spoke with a good deal of temper.\nHe did not, indeed, seem to think the test itself, which was rightly\nconsidered by Dissenters as in a manner dispensed with by an annual act\nof Parliament, and which in Ireland was of a late origin, and of much\nless extent than here, a matter of much moment. The thing which seemed\nto affect him most was the offence that would be taken at the repeal by\nthe leaders among the Church clergy here, on one hand, and, on the\nother, the steps which would be taken for its repeal in England in the\nnext session, in consequence of the repeal in Ireland. I assured him,\nwith great truth, that we had no idea among the Whigs of moving the\nrepeal of the test. I confessed very freely, for my own part, that, if\nit were brought in, I should certainly vote for it; but that I should\nneither use, nor did I think applicable, any arguments drawn from the\nanalogy of what was done in other parts of the British dominions. We did\nnot argue from analogy, even in this island and United Kingdom.\nPresbytery was established in Scotland. It became no reason either for\nits religious or civil establishment here. In New England the\nIndependent Congregational Churches had an established legal\nmaintenance; whilst that country continued part of the British empire,\nno argument in favor of Independency was adduced from the practice of\nNew England. Government itself lately thought fit to establish the Roman\nCatholic religion in Canada; but they would not suffer an argument of\nanalogy to be used for its establishment anywhere else. These things\nwere governed, as all things of that nature are governed, not by general\nmaxims, but their own local and peculiar circumstances. Finding,\nhowever, that, though he was very cool and patient, I made no great way\nin the business of the Dissenters, I turned myself to try whether,\nfalling in with his maxims, some modification might not be found, the\nhint of which I received from your letter relative to the Irish Militia\nBill, and the point I labored was so to alter the clause as to repeal\nthe test _quoad_ military and revenue offices: for these being only\nsubservient parts in the economy and execution, rather than the\nadministration of affairs, the politic, civil, and judicial parts would\nstill continue in the hands of the conformists to religious\nestablishments. Without giving any hopes, he, however, said that this\ndistinction deserved to be considered. After this, I strongly pressed\nthe mischief of rejecting the whole bill: that a notion went abroad,\nthat government was not at this moment very well pleased with the\nDissenters, as not very well affected to the monarchy; that, in general,\nI conceived this to be a mistake,--but if it were not, the rejection of\na bill in favor _of others_, because something in favor of _them_ was\ninserted, instead of humbling and mortifying, would infinitely exalt\nthem: for, if the legislature had no means of favoring those whom they\nmeant to favor, as long as the Dissenters could find means to get\nthemselves included, this would make them, instead of their only being\nsubject to restraint themselves, the arbitrators of the fate of others,\nand that not so much by their own strength (which could not be prevented\nin its operation) as by the cooeperation of those whom they opposed. In\nthe conclusion, I recommended, that, if they wished well to the measure\nwhich was the main object of the bill, they must explicitly make it\ntheir own, and stake themselves upon it; that hitherto all their\ndifficulties had arisen from their indecision and their wrong measures;\nand to make Lord North sensible of the necessity of giving a firm\nsupport to some part of the bill, and to add weighty authority to my\nreasons, I read him your letter of the 10th of July. It seemed, in some\nmeasure, to answer the purpose which I intended. I pressed the necessity\nof the management of the affair, both as to conduct and as to gaining of\nmen; and I renewed my former advice, that the Lord Lieutenant should be\ninstructed to consult and cooperate with you in the whole affair. All\nthis was, apparently, very fairly taken.\n\nIn the evening of that day I saw the Lord Chancellor. With him, too, I\nhad much discourse. You know that he is intelligent, sagacious,\nsystematic, and determined. At first he seemed of opinion that the\nrelief contained in the bill was so inadequate to the mass of oppression\nit was intended to remove, that it would be better to let it stand over,\nuntil a more perfect and better digested plan could be settled. This\nseemed to possess him very strongly. In order to combat this notion, and\nto show that the bill, all things considered, was a very great\nacquisition, and that it was rather a preliminary than an obstruction to\nrelief, I ventured to show him your letter. It had its effect. He\ndeclared himself roundly against giving anything to a confederacy, real\nor apparent, to distress government; that, if anything was done for\nCatholics or Dissenters, it should be done on its own separate merits,\nand not by way of bargain and compromise; that they should be each of\nthem obliged to government, not each to the other; that this would be a\nperpetual nursery of faction. In a word, he seemed so determined on not\nuniting these plans, that all I could say, and I said everything I could\nthink of, was to no purpose. But when I insisted on the disgrace to\ngovernment which must arise from their rejecting a proposition\nrecommended by themselves, because their opposers had made a mixture,\nseparable too by themselves, I was better heard. On the whole, I found\nhim well disposed.\n\nAs soon as I had returned to the country, this affair lay so much on my\nmind, and the absolute necessity of government's making a serious\nbusiness of it, agreeably to the seriousness they professed, and the\nobject required, that I wrote to Sir G. Cooper, to remind him of the\nprinciples upon which we went in our conversation, and to press the plan\nwhich was suggested for carrying them into execution. He wrote to me on\nthe 20th, and assured me, \"that Lord North had given all due attention\nand respect to what you said to him on Friday, and will pay the same\nrespect to the sentiments conveyed in your letter: everything you say or\nwrite on the subject undoubtedly demands it.\" Whether this was mere\ncivility, or showed anything effectual in their intentions, time and the\nsuccess of this measure will show. It is wholly with them; and if it\nshould fail, you are a witness that nothing on our part has been wanting\nto free so large a part of our fellow-subjects and fellow-citizens from\nslavery, and to free government from the weakness and danger of ruling\nthem by force. As to my own particular part, the desire of doing this\nhas betrayed me into a step which I cannot perfectly reconcile to\nmyself. You are to judge how far, on the circumstances, it may be\nexcused. I think it had a good effect. You may be assured that I made\nthis communication in a manner effectually to exclude so false and\ngroundless an idea as that I confer with you, any more than I confer\nwith them, on any party principle whatsoever,--or that in this affair we\nlook further than the measure which is in profession, and I am sure\nought to be in reason, theirs.\n\nI am ever, with the sincerest affection and esteem,\n\nMy dear Sir,\n\nYour most faithful and obedient humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, 18th July, 1778.\n\n\nI intended to have written sooner, but it has not been in my power.\n\nTo the Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland.\n\n\n\n\nTWO LETTERS\n\nTO\n\nTHOMAS BURGH, ESQ.,\n\nAND\n\nJOHN MERLOTT, ESQ.,\n\nIN VINDICATION OF HIS PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT RELATIVE TO THE AFFAIRS OF\nIRELAND.\n\n1780.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER\n\nTO THOMAS BURGH, ESQ.[14]\n\n\nMy Dear Sir,--I do not know in what manner I am to thank you properly\nfor the very friendly solicitude you have been so good as to express for\nmy reputation. The concern you have done me the honor to take in my\naffairs will be an ample indemnity from all that I may suffer from the\nrapid judgments of those who choose to form their opinions of men, not\nfrom the life, but from their portraits in a newspaper. I confess to you\nthat my frame of mind is so constructed, I have in me so little of the\nconstitution of a great man, that I am more gratified with a very\nmoderate share of approbation from those few who know me than I should\nbe with the most clamorous applause from those multitudes who love to\nadmire at a due distance.\n\nI am not, however, Stoic enough to be able to affirm with truth, or\nhypocrite enough affectedly to pretend, that I am wholly unmoved at the\ndifficulty which you and others of my friends in Ireland have found in\nvindicating my conduct towards my native country. It undoubtedly hurts\nme in some degree: but the wound is not very deep. If I had sought\npopularity in Ireland, when, in the cause of that country, I was ready\nto sacrifice, and did sacrifice, a much nearer, a much more immediate,\nand a much more advantageous popularity here, I should find myself\nperfectly unhappy, because I should be totally disappointed in my\nexpectations,--because I should discover, when it was too late, what\ncommon sense might have told me very early, that I risked the capital of\nmy fame in the most disadvantageous lottery in the world. But I acted\nthen, as I act now, and as I hope I shall act always, from a strong\nimpulse of right, and from motives in which popularity, either here or\nthere, has but a very little part.\n\nWith the support of that consciousness I can bear a good deal of the\ncoquetry of public opinion, which has her caprices, and must have her\nway. _Miseri, quibus intentata nitet_! I, too, have had my holiday of\npopularity in Ireland. I have even heard of an intention to erect a\nstatue.[15] I believe my intimate acquaintance know how little that idea\nwas encouraged by me; and I was sincerely glad that it never took\neffect. Such honors belong exclusively to the tomb,--the natural and\nonly period of human inconstancy, with regard either to desert or to\nopinion: for they are the very same hands which erect, that very\nfrequently (and sometimes with reason enough) pluck down the statue. Had\nsuch an unmerited and unlooked-for compliment been paid to me two years\nago, the fragments of the piece might at this hour have the advantage of\nseeing actual service, while they were moving, according to the law of\nprojectiles, to the windows of the Attorney-General, or of my old\nfriend, Monk Mason.\n\nTo speak seriously,--let me assure you, my dear Sir, that, though I am\nnot permitted to rejoice at _all_ its effects, there is not one man on\nyour side of the water more pleased to see the situation of Ireland so\nprosperous as that she can afford to throw away her friends. She has\nobtained, solely by her own efforts, the fruits of a great victory,\nwhich I am very ready to allow that the best efforts of her best\nwell-wishers here could not have done for her so effectually in a great\nnumber of years, and perhaps could not have done at all. I could wish,\nhowever, merely for the sake of her own dignity, that, in turning her\npoor relations and antiquated friends out of doors, (though one of the\nmost common effects of new prosperity,) she had thought proper to\ndismiss us with fewer tokens of unkindness. It is true that there is no\nsort of danger in affronting men who are not of importance enough to\nhave any trust of ministerial, of royal, or of national honor to\nsurrender. The unforced and unbought services of humble men, who have no\nmedium of influence in great assemblies, but through the precarious\nforce of reason, must be looked upon with contempt by those who by their\nwisdom and spirit have improved the critical moment of their fortune,\nand have debated with authority against pusillanimous dissent and\nungracious compliance, at the head of forty thousand men.\n\nSuch feeble auxiliaries (as I talk of) to such a force, employed\nagainst such resistance, I must own, in the present moment, very little\nworthy of your attention. Yet, if one were to look forward, it scarcely\nseems altogether politic to bestow so much liberality of invective on\nthe Whigs of this kingdom as I find has been the fashion to do both in\nand out of Parliament. That you should pay compliments, in some tone or\nother, whether ironical or serious, to the minister from whose\nimbecility you have extorted what you could never obtain from his\nbounty, is not unnatural. In the first effusions of Parliamentary\ngratitude to that minister for the early and voluntary benefits he has\nconferred upon Ireland, it might appear that you were wanting to the\ntriumph of his surrender, if you did not lead some of his enemies\ncaptive before him. Neither could you feast him with decorum, if his\nparticular taste were not consulted. A minister, who has never defended\nhis measures in any other way than by railing at his adversaries, cannot\nhave his palate made all at once to the relish of positive commendation.\nI cannot deny but that on this occasion there was displayed a great deal\nof the good-breeding which consists in the accommodation of the\nentertainment to the relish of the guest.\n\nBut that ceremony being past, it would not be unworthy of the wisdom of\nIreland to consider what consequences the extinguishing every spark of\nfreedom in this country may have upon your own liberties. You are at\nthis instant flushed with victory, and full of the confidence natural to\nrecent and untried power. We are in a temper equally natural, though\nvery different. We feel as men do, who, having placed an unbounded\nreliance on their force, have found it totally to fail on trial. We\nfeel faint and heartless, and without the smallest degree of\nself-opinion. In plain words, we are _cowed_. When men give up their\nviolence and injustice without a struggle, their condition is next to\ndesperate. When no art, no management, no argument, is necessary to\nabate their pride and overcome their prejudices, and their uneasiness\nonly excites an obscure and feeble rattling in their throat, their final\ndissolution seems not far off. In this miserable state we are still\nfurther depressed by the overbearing influence of the crown. It acts\nwith the officious cruelty of a mercenary nurse, who, under pretence of\ntenderness, stifles us with our clothes, and plucks the pillow from our\nheads. _Injectu multae vestis opprimi senem jubet_. Under this influence\nwe have so little will of our own, that, even in any apparent activity\nwe may be got to assume, I may say, without any violence to sense, and\nwith very little to language, we are merely passive. We have yielded to\nyour demands this session. In the last session we refused to prevent\nthem. In both cases, the passive and the active, our principle was the\nsame. Had the crown pleased to retain the spirit, with regard to\nIreland, which seems to be now all directed to America, we should have\nneglected our own immediate defence, and sent over the last man of our\nmilitia to fight with the last man of your volunteers.\n\nTo this influence the principle of action, the principle of policy, and\nthe principle of union of the present minority are opposed. These\nprinciples of the opposition are the only thing which preserves a single\nsymptom of life in the nation. That opposition is composed of the far\ngreater part of the independent property and independent rank of the\nkingdom, of whatever is most untainted in character, and of whatever\nability remains unextinguished in the people, and of all which tends to\ndraw the attention of foreign countries upon this. It is now in its\nfinal and conclusive struggle. It has to struggle against a force to\nwhich, I am afraid, it is not equal. The _whole_ kingdom of Scotland\nranges with the venal, the unprincipled, and the wrong-principled of\nthis; and if the kingdom of Ireland thinks proper to pass into the same\ncamp, we shall certainly be obliged to quit the field. In that case, if\nI know anything of this country, another constitutional opposition _can\nnever_ be formed in it; and if this be impossible, it will be at least\nas much so (if there can be degrees in impossibility) to have a\nconstitutional administration at any future time. The possibility of the\nformer is the only security for the existence of the latter. Whether the\npresent administration be in the least like one, I must venture to\ndoubt, even in the honey-moon of the Irish fondness to Lord North, which\nhas succeeded to all their slappings and scratchings.\n\nIf liberty cannot maintain its ground in this kingdom, I am sure that it\ncannot have any long continuance in yours. Our liberty might now and\nthen jar and strike a discord with that of Ireland. The thing is\npossible: but still the instruments might play in concert. But if ours\nbe unstrung, yours will be hung up on a peg, and both will be mute\nforever. Your new military force may give you confidence, and it serves\nwell for a turn; but you and I know that it has not root. It is not\nperennial, and would prove but a poor shelter for your liberty, when\nthis nation, having no interest in its own, could look upon yours with\nthe eye of envy and disgust. I cannot, therefore, help thinking, and\ntelling you what with great submission I think, that, if the Parliament\nof Ireland be so jealous of the spirit of our common Constitution as she\nseems to be, it was not so discreet to mix with the panegyric on the\nminister so large a portion of acrimony to the independent part of this\nnation. You never received any sort of injury from them, and you are\ngrown to that degree of importance that the discourses in your\nParliament will have a much greater effect on our immediate fortune than\nour conversation can have upon yours. In the end they will seriously,\naffect both.\n\nI have looked back upon our conduct and our public conversations in\norder to discover what it is that can have given you offence. I have\ndone so, because I am ready to admit that to offend you without any\ncause would be as contrary to true policy as I am sure it must be to the\ninclinations of almost every one of us. About two years ago Lord Nugent\nmoved six propositions in favor of Ireland in the House of Commons. At\nthe time of the motions, and during the debate, Lord North was either\nwholly out of the House, or engaged in other matters of business or\npleasantry, in the remotest recesses of the West Saxon corner. He took\nno part whatsoever in the affair; but it was supposed his neutrality was\nmore inclined towards the side of favor. The mover being a person in\noffice was, however, the only indication that was given of such a\nleaning. We who supported the propositions, finding them better relished\nthan at first we looked for, pursued our advantage, and began to open a\nway for more essential benefits to Ireland. On the other hand, those\nwho had hitherto opposed them in vain redoubled their efforts, and\nbecame exceedingly clamorous. Then it was that Lord North found it\nnecessary to come out of his fastness, and to interpose between the\ncontending parties. In this character of mediator, he declared, that, if\nanything beyond the first six resolutions should be attempted, he would\noppose the whole, but that, if we rested there, the original motions\nshould have his support. On this a sort of convention took place between\nhim and the managers of the Irish business, in which the six resolutions\nwere to be considered as an _uti possidetis_, and to be held sacred.\n\nBy this time other parties began to appear. A good many of the trading\ntowns, and manufactures of various kinds, took the alarm. Petitions\ncrowded in upon one another, and the bar was occupied by a formidable\nbody of council. Lord N. was staggered by this new battery. He is not of\na constitution to encounter such an opposition as had then risen, when\nthere were no other objects in view than those that were then before the\nHouse. In order not to lose him, we were obliged to abandon, bit by bit,\nthe most considerable part of the original agreement.\n\nIn several parts, however, he continued fair and firm. For my own part,\nI acted, as I trust I commonly do, with decision. I saw very well that\nthe things we had got were of no great consideration; but they were,\neven in their defects, somewhat leading. I was in hopes that we might\nobtain gradually and by parts what we might attempt at once and in the\nwhole without success,--that one concession would lead to another,--and\nthat the people of England discovering by a progressive experience that\nnone of the concessions actually made were followed by the consequences\nthey had dreaded, their fears from what they were yet to yield would\nconsiderably diminish. But that to which I attached myself the most\nparticularly was, to fix _the principle_ of a free trade in all the\nports of these islands, as founded in justice, and beneficial to the\nwhole, but principally to this, the seat of the supreme power. And this\nI labored to the utmost of my might, upon general principles,\nillustrated by all the commercial detail with which my little inquiries\nin life were able to furnish me. I ought to forget such trifling things\nas those, with all concerning myself; and possibly I might have\nforgotten them, if the Lord Advocate of Scotland had not, in a very\nflattering manner, revived them in my memory, in a full House in this\nsession. He told me that my arguments, such as they were, had made him,\nat the period I allude to, change the opinion with which he had come\ninto the House strongly impressed. I am sure that at the time at least\ntwenty more told me the same thing. I certainly ought not to take their\nstyle of compliment as a testimony to fact; neither do I. But all this\nshowed sufficiently, not what they thought of my ability, but what they\nsaw of my zeal. I could say more in proof of the effects of that zeal,\nand of the unceasing industry with which I then acted, both in my\nendeavors which were apparent and those that were not so visible. Let it\nbe remembered that I showed those dispositions while the Parliament of\nEngland was in a capacity to deliberate and in a situation to refuse,\nwhen there was something to be risked here by being suspected of a\npartiality to Ireland, when there was an honorable danger attending the\nprofession of friendship to you, which heightened its relish, and made\nit worthy of a reception in manly minds. But as for the awkward and\nnauseous parade of debate without opposition, the flimsy device of\ntricking out necessity and disguising it in the habit of choice, the\nshallow stratagem of defending by argument, what all the world must\nperceive is yielded to force,--these are a sort of acts of friendship\nwhich I am sorry that any of my countrymen should require of their real\nfriends. They are things not _to my taste_; and if they are looked upon\nas tests of friendship, I desire for one that I may be considered as an\nenemy.\n\nWhat party purpose did my conduct answer at that time? I acted with Lord\nN. I went to all the ministerial meetings,--and he and his associates in\noffice will do me the justice to say, that, aiming at the concord of the\nempire, I made it my business to give his concessions all the value of\nwhich they were capable, whilst some of those who were covered with his\nfavors derogated from them, treated them with contempt, and openly\nthreatened to oppose them. If I had acted with my dearest and most\nvalued friends, if I had acted with the Marquis of Rockingham or the\nDuke of Richmond, in that situation, I could not have attended more to\ntheir honor, or endeavored more earnestly to give efficacy to the\nmeasures I had taken in common with them. The return which I, and all\nwho acted as I did, have met with from him, does not make me repent the\nconduct which I then held.\n\nAs to the rest of the gentlemen with whom I have the honor to act, they\ndid not then, or at any other time, make a party affair of Irish\npolitics. That matter was always taken up without concert; but, in\ngeneral, from the operation of our known liberal principles in\ngovernment, in commerce, in religion, in everything, it was taken up\nfavorably for Ireland. Where some local interests bore hard upon the\nmembers, they acted on the sense of their constituents, upon ideas\nwhich, though I do not always follow, I cannot blame. However, two or\nthree persons, high in opposition, and high in public esteem, ran great\nrisks in their boroughs on that occasion. But all this was without any\nparticular plan. I need not say, that Ireland was in that affair much\nobliged to the liberal mind and enlarged understanding of Charles Fox,\nto Mr. Thomas Townshend, to Lord Midleton, and others. On reviewing that\naffair, which gave rise to all the subsequent manoeuvres, I am convinced\nthat the whole of what has this day been done might have then been\neffected. But then the minister must have taken it up as a great plan of\nnational policy, and paid with his person in every lodgment of his\napproach. He must have used that influence to quiet prejudice, which he\nhas so often, used to corrupt principle: and I know, that, if he had, he\nmust have succeeded. Many of the most active in opposition would have\ngiven him an unequivocal support. The corporation of London, and the\ngreat body of the London West India merchants and planters, which forms\nthe greatest mass of that vast interest, were disposed to fall in with\nsuch a plan. They certainly gave no sort of discountenance to what was\ndone or what was proposed. But these are not the kind of objects for\nwhich our ministers bring out the heavy artillery of the state.\nTherefore, as things stood at that time, a great deal more was not\npracticable.\n\nLast year another proposition was brought out for the relief of Ireland.\nIt was started without any communication with a single person of\nactivity in the country party, and, as it should seem, without any kind\nof concert with government. It appeared to me extremely raw and\nundigested. The behavior of Lord N., on the opening of that business,\nwas the exact transcript of his conduct on the Irish question in the\nformer session. It was a mode of proceeding which his nature has wrought\ninto the texture of his politics, and which is inseparable from them. He\nchose to absent himself on the proposition and during the agitation of\nthat business,--although the business of the House is that alone for\nwhich he has any kind of relish, or, as I am told, can be persuaded to\nlisten to with any degree of attention. But he was willing to let it\ntake its course. If it should pass without any considerable difficulty,\nhe would bring his acquiescence to tell for merit in Ireland, and he\nwould have the credit, out of his indolence, of giving quiet to that\ncountry. If difficulties should arise on the part of England, he knew\nthat the House was so well trained that he might at his pleasure call us\noff from the hottest scent. As he acted in his usual manner and upon his\nusual principle, opposition acted upon theirs, and rather generally\nsupported the measure. As to myself, I expressed a disapprobation at the\npractice of bringing imperfect and indigested projects into the House,\nbefore means were used to quiet the clamors which a misconception of\nwhat we were doing might occasion at home, and before measures were\nsettled with men of weight and authority in Ireland, in order to render\nour acts useful and acceptable to that country. I said, that the only\nthing which could make the influence of the crown (enormous without as\nwell as within the House) in any degree tolerable was, that it might be\nemployed to give something of order and system to the proceedings of a\npopular assembly; that government being so situated as to have a large\nrange of prospect, and as it were a bird's-eye view of everything, they\nmight see distant dangers and distant advantages which were not so\nvisible to those who stood on the common level; they might, besides,\nobserve them, from this advantage, in their relative and combined state,\nwhich people locally instructed and partially informed could behold only\nin an insulated and unconnected manner;--but that for many years past we\nsuffered under all the evils, without any one of the advantages of a\ngovernment influence; that the business of a minister, or of those who\nacted as such, had been still further to contract the narrowness of\nmen's ideas, to confirm inveterate prejudices, to inflame vulgar\npassions, and to abet all sorts of popular absurdities, in order the\nbetter to destroy popular rights and privileges; that, so far from\nmethodizing the business of the House, they had let all things run into\nan inextricable confusion, and had left affairs of the most delicate\npolicy wholly to chance.\n\nAfter I had expressed myself with the warmth I felt on seeing all\ngovernment and order buried under the ruins of liberty, and after I had\nmade my protest against the insufficiency of the propositions, I\nsupported the principle of enlargement at which they aimed, though short\nand somewhat wide of the mark,--giving, as my sole reason, that the more\nfrequently these matters came into discussion, the more it would tend\nto dispel fears and to eradicate prejudices.\n\nThis was the only part I took. The detail was in the hands of Lord\nNewhaven and Lord Beauchamp, with some assistance from Earl Nugent and\nsome independent gentlemen of Irish property. The dead weight of the\nminister being removed, the House recovered its tone and elasticity. We\nhad a temporary appearance of a deliberative character. The business was\ndebated freely on both sides, and with sufficient temper. And the sense\nof the members being influenced by nothing but what will naturally\ninfluence men unbought, their reason and their prejudices, these two\nprinciples had a fair conflict, and prejudice was obliged to give way to\nreason. A majority appeared, on a division, in favor of the\npropositions.\n\nAs these proceedings got out of doors, Glasgow and Manchester, and, I\nthink, Liverpool, began to move, but in a manner much more slow and\nlanguid than formerly. Nothing, in my opinion, would have been less\ndifficult than entirely to have overborne their opposition. The London\nWest India trade was, as on the former occasion, so on this, perfectly\nliberal and perfectly quiet; and there is abroad so much respect for the\nunited wisdom of the House, when supposed to act upon a fair view of a\npolitical situation, that I scarcely ever remember any considerable\nuneasiness out of doors, when the most active members, and those of most\nproperty and consideration in the minority, have joined themselves to\nthe administration. Many factious people in the towns I mentioned began,\nindeed, to revile Lord North, and to reproach his neutrality as\ntreacherous and ungrateful to those who had so heartily and so warmly\nentered into all his views with regard to America. That noble lord,\nwhose decided character it is to give way to the latest and nearest\npressure, without any sort of regard to distant consequences of any\nkind, thought fit to appear, on this signification of the pleasure of\nthose his worthy friends and partisans, and, putting himself at the head\nof the _posse scaccarii_, wholly regardless of the dignity and\nconsistency of our miserable House, drove the propositions entirely out\nof doors by a majority newly summoned to duty.\n\nIn order to atone to Ireland for this gratification to Manchester, he\ngraciously permitted, or rather forwarded, two bills,--that for\nencouraging the growth of tobacco, and that for giving a bounty on\nexportation of hemp from Ireland. They were brought in by two very\nworthy members, and on good principles; but I was sorry to see them,\nand, after expressing my doubts of their propriety, left the House.\nLittle also [else?] was said upon them. My objections were two: the\nfirst, that the cultivation of those weeds (if one of them could be at\nall cultivated to profit) was adverse to the introduction of a good\ncourse of agriculture; the other, that the encouragement given to them\ntended to establish that mischievous policy of considering Ireland as a\ncountry of staple, and a producer of raw materials.\n\nWhen the rejection of the first propositions and the acceptance of the\nlast had jointly, as it was natural, raised a very strong discontent in\nIreland, Lord Rockingham, who frequently said that there never seemed a\nmore opportune time for the relief of Ireland than that moment when Lord\nNorth had rejected all rational propositions for its relief, without\nconsulting, I believe, any one living, did what he is not often very\nwilling to do; but he thought this an occasion of magnitude enough to\njustify an extraordinary step. He went into the closet, and made a\nstrong representation on the matter to the king, which was not ill\nreceived, and I believe produced good effects. He then made the motion\nin the House of Lords which you may recollect; but he was content to\nwithdraw all of censure which it contained, on the solemn promise of\nministry, that they would in the recess of Parliament prepare a plan for\nthe benefit of Ireland, and have it in readiness to produce at the next\nmeeting. You may recollect that Lord Gower became in a particular manner\nbound for the fulfilling this engagement. Even this did not satisfy, and\nmost of the minority were very unwilling that Parliament should be\nprorogued until something effectual on the subject should be\ndone,--particularly as we saw that the distresses, discontents, and\narmaments of Ireland were increasing every day, and that we are not so\nmuch lost to common sense as not to know the wisdom and efficacy of\nearly concession in circumstances such as ours.\n\nThe session was now at an end. The ministers, instead of attending to a\nduty that was so urgent on them, employed themselves, as usual, in\nendeavors to destroy the reputation of those who were bold enough to\nremind them of it. They caused it to be industriously circulated through\nthe nation, that the distresses of Ireland were of a nature hard to be\ntraced to the true source, that they had been monstrously magnified, and\nthat, in particular, the official reports from Ireland had given the lie\n(that was their phrase) to Lord Rockingham's representations: and\nattributing the origin of the Irish proceedings wholly to us, they\nasserted that everything done in Parliament upon the subject was with a\nview of stirring up rebellion; \"that neither the Irish legislature nor\ntheir constituents had signified any dissatisfaction at the relief\nobtained in the session preceding the last; that, to convince both of\nthe impropriety of their _peaceable_ conduct, opposition, by making\ndemands in the name of Ireland, pointed out what she might extort from\nGreat Britain; that the facility with which relief was (formerly)\ngranted, instead of satisfying opposition, was calculated to create new\ndemands; these demands, as they _interfered_ with the commerce of Great\nBritain, were _certain_ of being opposed,--a circumstance which could\nnot fail to create that desirable confusion which suits the views of the\nparty; that they (the Irish) had long felt their own misery, _without\nknowing well from whence it came_; our worthy patriots, by _pointing out\nGreat Britain_ as the _cause of Irish distress_, may have some chance of\nrousing Irish resentment.\" This I quote from a pamphlet as perfectly\ncontemptible in point of writing as it is false in its facts and wicked\nin its design: but as it is written under the authority of ministers, by\none of their principal literary pensioners, and was circulated with\ngreat diligence, and, as I am credibly informed, at a considerable\nexpense to the public, I use the words of that book to let you see in\nwhat manner the friends and patrons of Ireland, the heroes of your\nParliament, represented all efforts for your relief here, what means\nthey took to dispose the minds of the people towards that great object,\nand what encouragement they gave to all who should choose to exert\nthemselves in your favor. Their unwearied endeavors were not wholly\nwithout success, and the unthinking people in many places became\nill-affected towards us on this account. For the ministers proceeded in\nyour affairs just as they did with regard to those of America. They\nalways represented you as a parcel of blockheads, without sense, or even\nfeeling; that all your words were only the echo of faction here; and (as\nyou have seen above) that you had not understanding enough to know that\nyour trade was cramped by restrictive acts of the British Parliament,\nunless we had, for factious purposes, given you the information. They\nwere so far from giving the least intimation of the measures which have\nsince taken place, that those who were supposed the best to know their\nintentions declared them impossible in the actual state of the two\nkingdoms, and spoke of nothing but an act of union, as the only way that\ncould be found of giving freedom of trade to Ireland, consistently with\nthe interests of this kingdom. Even when the session opened, Lord North\ndeclared that he did not know what remedy to apply to a disease of the\ncause of which he was ignorant; and ministry not being then entirely\nresolved how far they should submit to your energy, they, by\nanticipation, set the above author or some of his associates to fill the\nnewspapers with invectives against us, as distressing the minister by\nextravagant demands in favor of Ireland.\n\nI need not inform you, that everything they asserted of the steps taken\nin Ireland, as the result of our machinations, was utterly false and\ngroundless. For myself, I seriously protest to you, that I neither wrote\na word or received a line upon any matter relative to the trade of\nIreland, or to the polities of it, from the beginning of the last\nsession to the day that I was honored with your letter. It would be an\naffront to the talents in the Irish Parliament to say one word more.\n\nWhat was done in Ireland during that period, in and out of Parliament,\nnever will be forgotten. You raised an army new in its kind and adequate\nto its purposes. It effected its end without its exertion. It was not\nunder the authority of law, most certainly, but it derived from an\nauthority still higher; and as they say of faith, that it is not\ncontrary to reason, but above it, so this army did not so much\ncontradict the spirit of the law as supersede it. What you did in the\nlegislative body is above all praise. By your proceeding with regard to\nthe supplies, you revived the grand use and characteristic benefit of\nParliament, which was on the point of being entirely lost amongst us.\nThese sentiments I never concealed, and never shall; and Mr. Fox\nexpressed them with his usual power, when he spoke on the subject.\n\nAll this is very honorable to you. But in what light must we see it? How\nare we to consider your armament without commission from the crown, when\nsome of the first people in _this_ kingdom have been refused arms, at\nthe time they did not only not reject, but solicited the king's\ncommissions? Here to arm and embody would be represented as little less\nthan high treason, if done on private authority: with you it receives\nthe thanks of a Privy Counsellor of Great Britain, who obeys the Irish\nHouse of Lords in that point with pleasure, and is made Secretary of\nState, the moment he lands here, for his reward. You shortened the\ncredit given to the crown to six months; you hung up the public credit\nof your kingdom by a thread; you refused to raise any taxes, whilst you\nconfessed the public debt and public exigencies to be great and urgent\nbeyond example. You certainly acted in a great style, and on sound and\ninvincible principles. But if we in the opposition, which fills Ireland\nwith such loyal horrors, had even attempted, what we never did even\nattempt, the smallest delay or the smallest limitation of supply, in\norder to a constitutional coercion of the crown, we should have been\ndecried by all the court and Tory mouths of this kingdom, as a desperate\nfaction, aiming at the direct ruin of the country, and to surrender it\nbound hand and foot to a foreign enemy. By actually doing what we never\nventured to attempt, you have paid your court with such address, and\nhave won so much favor with his Majesty and his cabinet, that they have,\nof their special grace and mere motion, raised you to new titles, and\nfor the first time, ill a speech from the throne, complimented you with\nthe appellation of \"faithful and loyal,\"--and, in order to insult our\nlow-spirited and degenerate obedience, have thrown these epithets and\nyour resistance together in our teeth! What do you think were the\nfeelings of every man who looks upon Parliament in an higher light than\nthat of a market-overt for legalizing a base traffic of votes and\npensions, when he saw you employ such means of coercion to the crown, in\norder to coerce our Parliament through _that_ medium? How much his\nMajesty is pleased with _his_ part of the civility must be left to his\nown taste. But as to us, you declared to the world that you knew that\nthe way of bringing us to reason was to apply yourselves to the true\nsource of all our opinions and the only motive to all our conduct! Now,\nit seems, you think yourselves affronted, because a few of us express\nsome indignation at the minister who has thought fit to strip us stark\nnaked, and expose the true state of our poxed and pestilential habit to\nthe world! Think or say what you will in Ireland, I shall ever think it\na crime hardly to be expiated by his blood. He might, and ought, by a\nlonger continuance or by an earlier meeting of this Parliament, to have\ngiven us the credit of some wisdom in foreseeing and anticipating an\napproaching force. So far from it, Lord Gower, coming out of his own\ncabinet, declares that one principal cause of his resignation was his\nnot being able to prevail on the present minister to give any sort of\napplication to this business. Even on the late meeting of Parliament,\nnothing determinate could be drawn from him, or from any of his\nassociates, until you had actually passed the short money bill,--which\nmeasure they flattered themselves, and assured others, you would never\ncome up to. Disappointed in their expectation at [of?] seeing the siege\nraised, they surrendered at discretion.\n\nJudge, my dear Sir, of our surprise at finding your censure directed\nagainst those whose only crime was in accusing the ministers of not\nhaving prevented your demands by our graces, of not having given you the\nnatural advantages of your country in the most ample, the most early,\nand the most liberal manner, and for not having given away authority in\nsuch a manner as to insure friendship. That you should make the\npanegyric of the ministers is what I expected; because, in praising\ntheir bounty, you paid a just compliment to your own force. But that you\nshould rail at us, either individually or collectively, is what I can\nscarcely think a natural proceeding. I can easily conceive that\ngentlemen might grow frightened at what they had done,--that they might\nimagine they had undertaken a business above their direction,--that,\nhaving obtained a state of independence for their country, they meant to\ntake the deserted helm into their own hands, and supply by their very\nreal abilities the total inefficacy of the nominal government. All these\nmight be real, and might be very justifiable motives for their\nreconciling themselves cordially to the present court system. But I do\nnot so well discover the reasons that could induce them, at the first\nfeeble dawning of life in this country, to do all in their power to cast\na cloud over it, and to prevent the least hope of our effecting the\nnecessary reformations which are aimed at in our Constitution and in our\nnational economy.\n\nBut, it seems, I was silent at the passing the resolutions. Why, what\nhad I to say? If I had thought them too much, I should have been accused\nof an endeavor to inflame England. If I should represent them as too\nlittle, I should have been charged with a design of fomenting the\ndiscontents of Ireland into actual rebellion. The Treasury bench\nrepresented that the affair was a matter of state: they represented it\ntruly. I therefore only asked whether they knew these propositions to be\nsuch as would satisfy Ireland; for if they were so, they would satisfy\nme. This did not indicate that I thought them too ample. In this our\nsilence (however dishonorable to Parliament) there was one\nadvantage,--that the whole passed, as far as it is gone, with complete\nunanimity, and so quickly that there was no time left to excite any\nopposition to it out of doors. In the West India business, reasoning on\nwhat had lately passed in the Parliament of Ireland, and on the mode in\nwhich it was opened here, I thought I saw much matter of perplexity.\nBut I have now better reason than ever to be pleased with my silence. If\nI had spoken, one of the most honest and able men[16] in the Irish\nParliament would probably have thought my observation an endeavor to sow\ndissension, which he was resolved to prevent,--and one of the most,\ningenious and one of the most amiable men[17] that ever graced yours or\nany House of Parliament might have looked on it as a chimera. In the\nsilence I observed, I was strongly countenanced (to say no more of it)\nby every gentleman of Ireland that I had the honor of conversing with in\nLondon. The only word, for that reason, which I spoke, was to restrain a\nworthy county member,[18] who had received some communication from a\ngreat trading place in the county he represents, which, if it had been\nopened to the House, would have led to a perplexing discussion of one of\nthe most troublesome matters that could arise in this business. I got up\nto put a stop to it; and I believe, if you knew what the topic was, you\nwould commend my discretion.\n\nThat it should be a matter of public discretion in me to be silent on\nthe affairs of Ireland is what on all accounts I bitterly lament. I\nstated to the House what I felt; and I felt, as strongly as human\nsensibility can feel, the extinction of my Parliamentary capacity, where\nI wished to use it most. When I came into this Parliament, just fourteen\nyears ago,--into this Parliament, then, in vulgar opinion at least, the\npresiding council of the greatest empire existing, (and perhaps, all\nthings considered, that ever did exist,) obscure and a stranger as I\nwas, I considered myself as raised to the highest dignity to which a\ncreature of our species could aspire. In that opinion, one of the chief\npleasures in my situation, what was first and-uppermost in my thoughts,\nwas the hope, without injury to this country, to be somewhat useful to\nthe place of my birth and education, which in many respects, internal\nand external, I thought ill and impolitically governed. But when I found\nthat the House, surrendering itself to the guidance of an authority, not\ngrown out of an experienced wisdom and integrity, but out of the\naccidents of court favor, had become the sport of the passions of men at\nonce rash and pusillanimous,--that it had even got into the habit of\nrefusing everything to reason and surrendering everything to force, all\nmy power of obliging either my country or individuals was gone, all the\nlustre of my imaginary rank was tarnished, and I felt degraded even by\nmy elevation. I said this, or something to this effect. If it gives\noffence to Ireland, I am sorry for it: it was the reason I gave for my\nsilence; and it was, as far as it went, the true one.\n\nWith you, this silence of mine and of others was represented as\nfactious, and as a discountenance to the measure of your relief. Do you\nthink us children? If it had been our wish to embroil matters, and, for\nthe sake of distressing ministry, to commit the two kingdoms in a\ndispute, we had nothing to do but (without at all condemning the\npropositions) to have gone into the commercial detail of the objects of\nthem. It could not have been refused to us: and you, who know the nature\nof business so well, must know that this would have caused such delays,\nand given rise during that delay to such discussions, as all the wisdom\nof your favorite minister could never have settled. But, indeed, you\nmistake your men. We tremble at the idea of a disunion of these two\nnations. The only thing in which we differ with you is this,--that we do\nnot think your attaching yourselves to the court and quarrelling with\nthe independent part of this people is the way to promote the union of\ntwo free countries, or of holding them together by the most natural and\nsalutary ties.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou will be frightened, when you see this long letter. I smile, when I\nconsider the length of it myself. I never, that I remember, wrote any of\nthe same extent. But it shows me that the reproaches of the country that\nI once belonged to, and in which I still have a dearness of instinct\nmore than I can justify to reason, make a greater impression on me than\nI had imagined. But parting words are admitted to be a little tedious,\nbecause they are not likely to be renewed. If it will not be making\nyourself as troublesome to others as I am to you, I shall be obliged to\nyou, if you will show this, at their greatest leisure, to the Speaker,\nto your excellent kinsman, to Mr. Grattan, Mr. Yelverton, and Mr. Daly:\nall these I have the honor of being personally known to, except Mr.\nYelverton, to whom I am only known by my obligations to him. If you live\nin any habits with my old friend, the Provost, I shall be glad that he,\ntoo, sees this my humble apology.\n\nAdieu! once more accept my best thanks for the interest you take in me.\nBelieve that it is received by an heart not yet so old as to have lost\nits susceptibility. All here give you the best old-fashioned wishes of\nthe season; and believe me, with the greatest truth and regard,\n\nMy dear Sir,\n\nYour most faithful and obliged humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, New year's Day, 1780.\n\n\nI am frightened at the trouble I give you and our friends; but I\nrecollect that you are mostly lawyers, and habituated to read long,\ntiresome papers--and, where your friendship is concerned, without a fee;\nI am sure, too, that you will not act the lawyer in scrutinizing too\nminutely every expression which my haste may make me use. I forgot to\nmention my friend O'Hara, and others; but you will communicate it as you\nplease.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[14] Mr. Thomas Burgh, of Old Town, was a member of the House of Commons\nin Ireland.--It appears from a letter written by this gentleman to Mr.\nBurke, December 24, 1779, and to which the following is an answer, that\nthe part Mr. Burke had taken in the discussion which the affairs of\nIreland had undergone in the preceding sessions of Parliament in England\nhad been grossly misrepresented and much censured in Ireland.\n\n[15] This intention was communicated to Mr. Burke in a letter from Mr.\nPery, the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ireland.\n\n[16] Mr. Grattan.\n\n[17] Mr. Hussey Burgh\n\n[18] Mr. Stanley, member for Lancashire.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER\n\nTO JOHN MERLOTT, ESQ.[19]\n\n\nDear Sir,--I am very unhappy to find that my conduct in the business of\nIreland, on a former occasion, had made many to be cold and indifferent\nwho would otherwise have been warm in my favor. I really thought that\nevents would have produced a quite contrary effect, and would have\nproved to all the inhabitants of Bristol that it was no desire of\nopposing myself to their wishes, but a certain knowledge of the\nnecessity of their affairs, and a tender regard to their honor and\ninterest, which induced me to take the part which I then took. They\nplaced me in a situation which might enable me to discern what was fit\nto be done, on a consideration of the relative circumstances of this\ncountry and all its neighbors. This was what you could not so well do\nyourselves; but you had a right to expect that I should avail myself of\nthe advantage which I derived from your favor. Under the impression-of\nthis duty and this trust, I had endeavored to render, by preventive\ngraces and concessions, every act of power at the same time an act of\nlenity,--the result of English bounty, and not of English timidity and\ndistress. I really flattered myself that the events which have proved\nbeyond dispute the prudence of such a maxim would have obtained pardon\nfor me, if not approbation. But if I have not been so fortunate, I do\nmost sincerely regret my great loss,--this comfort, however, that, if I\nhave disobliged my constituents, it was not in pursuit of any sinister\ninterest or any party passion of my own, but in endeavoring to save them\nfrom disgrace, along with the whole community to which they and I\nbelong. I shall be concerned for this, and very much so; but I should be\nmore concerned, if, in gratifying a present humor of theirs, I had\nrendered myself unworthy of their former or their future choice. I\nconfess that I could not bear to face my constituents at the next\ngeneral election, if I had been a rival to Lord North in the glory of\nhaving refused some small, insignificant concessions, in favor of\nIreland, to the arguments and supplications of English members of\nParliament,--and in the very next session, on the demand of forty\nthousand Irish bayonets, of having made a speech of two hours long to\nprove that my former conduct was founded upon no one right principle,\neither of policy, justice, or commerce. I never heard a more elaborate,\nmore able, more convincing, and more shameful speech. The debater\nobtained credit, but the statesman was disgraced forever. Amends were\nmade for having refused small, but timely concessions, by an unlimited\nand untimely surrender, not only of every one of the objects of former\nrestraints, but virtually of the whole legislative power itself which\nhad made them. For it is not necessary to inform you, that the\nunfortunate Parliament of this kingdom did not dare to qualify the very\nliberty she gave of trading with her _own_ plantations, by applying, of\nher _own_ authority, any one of the commercial regulations to the new\ntraffic of Ireland, which bind us here under the several Acts of\nNavigation. We were obliged to refer them to the Parliament of Ireland,\nas conditions, just in the same manner as if we were bestowing a\nprivilege of the same sort on France and Spain, or any other independent\npower, and, indeed, with more studied caution than we should have used,\nnot to shock the principle of their independence. How the minister\nreconciled the refusal to reason, and the surrender to arms raised in\ndefiance of the prerogatives of the crown, to his master, I know not: it\nhas probably been settled, in some way or other, between themselves. But\nhowever the king and his ministers may settle the question of his\ndignity and his rights, I thought it became me, by vigilance and\nforesight, to take care of yours: I thought I ought rather to lighten\nthe ship in time than expose it to a total wreck. The conduct pursued\nseemed to me without weight or judgment, and more fit for a member for\nBanbury than a member for Bristol. I stood, therefore, silent with grief\nand vexation, on that day of the signal shame and humiliation of this\ndegraded king and country. But it seems the pride of Ireland, in the day\nof her power, was equal to ours, when we dreamt we were powerful too. I\nhave been abused there even for my silence, which was construed into a\ndesire of exciting discontent in England. But, thank God, my letter to\nBristol was in print, my sentiments on the policy of the measure were\nknown and determined, and such as no man could think me absurd enough to\ncontradict. When I am no longer a free agent, I am obliged in the crowd\nto yield to necessity: it is surely enough that I silently submit to\npower; it is enough that I do not foolishly affront the conqueror; it is\ntoo hard to force me to sing his praises, whilst I am led in triumph\nbefore him,--or to make the panegyric of our own minister, who would put\nme neither in a condition to surrender with honor or to fight with the\nsmallest hope of victory. I was, I confess, sullen and silent on that\nday,--and shall continue so, until I see some disposition to inquire\ninto this and other causes of the national disgrace. If I suffer in my\nreputation for it in Ireland, I am sorry; but it neither does nor can\naffect me so nearly as my suffering in Bristol for having wished to\nunite the interests of the two nations in a manner that would secure the\nsupremacy of this.\n\nWill you have the goodness to excuse the length of this letter? My\nearnest desire of explaining myself in every point which may affect the\nmind of any worthy gentleman in Bristol is the cause of it. To yourself,\nand to your liberal and manly notions, I know it is not so necessary.\nBelieve me,\n\nMy dear Sir,\n\nYour most faithful and obedient humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, April 4th, 1780.\n\n\nTo JOHN MERLOTT, Esq., Bristol.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[19] An eminent merchant in the city of Bristol, of which Mr. Burke was\none of the representatives in Parliament.--It relates to the same\nsubject as the preceding Letter.\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS AND REFLECTIONS\n\nON THE\n\nEXECUTIONS OF THE RIOTERS\n\nIN 1780.\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS.\n\n\n\n\n\n_To the Lord Chancellor_.\n\n\nMy Lord,--I hope I am not too late with the inclosed slight\nobservations. If the execution already ordered cannot be postponed,\nmight I venture to recommend that it should extend to one only? and then\nthe plan suggested in the inclosed paper may, if your Lordship thinks\nwell of it, take place, with such improvements as your better judgment\nmay dictate. As to fewness of the executions, and the good effects of\nthat policy, I cannot, for my own part, entertain the slightest doubt.\n\nIf you have no objection, and think it may not occupy more of his\nMajesty's time than such a thing is worth, I should not be sorry that\nthe inclosed was put into the king's hands.\n\nI have the honor to be, my Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nCHARLES STREET, July 10, 1780.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n_To the Earl Bathurst, Lord President of the Council_\n\n\nMy Lord,--\n\nI came to town but yesterday, and therefore did not learn more early the\nprobable extent of the executions in consequence of the late\ndisturbances. I take the liberty of laying before you, with the\nsincerest deference to your judgment, what appeared to me very early as\nreasonable in this business. Further thoughts have since occurred to me.\nI confess my mind is under no small degree of solicitude and anxiety on\nthe subject; I am fully persuaded that a proper use of mercy would not\nonly recommend the wisdom and steadiness of government, but, if properly\nused, might be made a means of drawing out the principal movers in this\nwicked business, who have hitherto eluded your scrutiny. I beg pardon\nfor this intrusion, and have the honor to be, with great regard and\nesteem,\n\nMy Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nCHARLES STREET, July 18, 1780.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_To Sir Grey Cooper, Bart_.[20]\n\n\nDear Sir,--\n\nAccording to your desire, I send you a copy of the few reflections on\nthe subject of the present executions which occurred to me in the\nearliest period of the late disturbances, and which all my experience\nand observation since have most strongly confirmed. The executions,\ntaking those which have been made, which are now ordered, and which may\nbe the natural consequence of the convictions in Surrey, will be\nundoubtedly too many to answer any good purpose. Great slaughter\nattended the suppression of the tumults, and this ought to be taken in\ndiscount from the execution of the law. For God's sake entreat of Lord\nNorth to take a view of the sum total of the deaths, before any are\nordered for execution; for by not doing something of this kind people\nare decoyed in detail into severities they never would have dreamed of,\nif they had the whole in their view at once. The scene in Surrey would\nhave affected the hardest heart that ever was in an human breast.\nJustice and mercy have not such opposite interests as people are apt to\nimagine. I saw Lord Loughborough last night. He seemed strongly\nimpressed with the sense of what necessity obliged him to go through,\nand I believe will enter into our ideas on the subject. On this matter\nyou see that no time is to be lost. Before a final determination, the\nfirst thing I would recommend is, that, if the very next execution\ncannot be delayed, (by the way, I do not see why it may not,) it may be\nof but a single person, and that afterwards you should not exceed two or\nthree; for it is enough for one riot, where the very act of Parliament\non which you proceed is rather a little hard in its sanctions and its\nconstruction: not that I mean to complain of the latter as either new or\nstrained, but it was rigid from the first.\n\nI am, dear Sir,\n\nYour most obedient humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nTuesday, 18th July, 1780.\n\n\nI really feel uneasy on this business, and should consider it as a sort\nof personal favor, if you do something to limit the extent and severity\nof the law on this point. Present my best compliments to Lord North, and\nif he thinks that I have had wishes to be serviceable to government on\nthe late occasion, I shall on my part think myself abundantly rewarded,\nif a few lives less than first intended should be saved [taken?]; I\nshould sincerely set it down as a personal obligation, though the thing\nstands upon general and strong reason of its own.[21]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[20] One of the Secretaries of the Treasury.\n\n[21] It appears by the following extract from a letter written by the\nEarl of Mansfield to Mr. Burke, dated the 17th July, 1780, that these\nReflections had also been communicated to him:--\"I have received the\nhonor of your letter and very judicious thoughts. Having been so greatly\ninjured myself, I have thought it more decent not to attend the reports,\nand consequently have not been present at any deliberation upon the\nsubject.\"\n\n\n\n\nSOME THOUGHTS\n\nON THE APPROACHING EXECUTIONS,\n\nHUMBLY OFFERED TO CONSIDERATION.\n\n\nAs the number of persons convicted on account of the late unhappy\ntumults will probably exceed what any one's idea of vengeance or example\nwould deliver to capital punishment, it is to be wished that the whole\nbusiness, as well with regard to the number and description of those who\nare to suffer death as with regard to those who shall be delivered over\nto lighter punishment or wholly pardoned, should be entirely a work of\nreason.\n\nIt has happened frequently, in cases of this nature, that the fate of\nthe convicts has depended more upon the accidental circumstance of their\nbeing brought earlier or later to trial than to any steady principle of\nequity applied to their several cases. Without great care and sobriety,\ncriminal justice generally begins with anger and ends in negligence. The\nfirst that are brought forward suffer the extremity of the law, with\ncircumstances of mitigation of their case; and after a time, the most\natrocious delinquents escape merely by the satiety of punishment.\n\nIn the business now before his Majesty, the following thoughts are\nhumbly submitted.\n\nIf I understand the temper of the public at this moment, a very great\npart of the lower and some of the middling people of this city are in a\nvery critical disposition, and such as ought to be managed with firmness\nand delicacy. In general, they rather approve than blame the principles\nof the rioters, though the better sort of them are afraid of the\nconsequences of those very principles which they approve. This keeps\ntheir minds in a suspended and anxious state, which may very easily be\nexasperated by an injudicious severity into desperate resolutions,--or\nby weak measures on the part of government it may be encouraged to the\npursuit of courses which may be of the most dangerous consequences to\nthe public.\n\nThere is no doubt that the approaching executions will very much\ndetermine the future conduct of those people. They ought to be such as\nwill humble, not irritate. Nothing will make government more awful to\nthem than to see that it does not proceed by chance or under the\ninfluence of passion.\n\nIt is therefore proposed that no execution should be made until the\nnumber of persons which government thinks fit to try is completed. When\nthe whole is at once under the eye, an examination ought to be made into\nthe circumstances of every particular convict; and _six_, at the very\nutmost, of the fittest examples may then be selected for execution, who\nought to be brought out and put to death on one and the same day, in six\ndifferent places, and in the most solemn manner that can be devised.\nAfterwards great care should be taken that their bodies may not be\ndelivered to their friends, or to others who may make them objects of\ncompassion or even veneration: some instances of the kind have happened\nwith regard to the bodies of those killed in the riots. The rest of the\nmalefactors ought to be either condemned, for larger [longer?] or\nshorter terms, to the lighters, houses of correction, service in the\nnavy, and the like, according to the case.\n\nThis small number of executions, and all at one time, though in\ndifferent places, is seriously recommended; because it is certain that a\ngreat havoc among criminals hardens rather than subdues the minds of\npeople inclined to the same crimes, and therefore fails of answering its\npurpose as an example. Men who see their lives respected and thought of\nvalue by others come to respect that gift of God themselves. To have\ncompassion for oneself, or to care, more or less, for one's own life, is\na lesson to be learned just as every other; and I believe it will be\nfound that conspiracies have been most common and most desperate where\ntheir punishment has been most extensive and most severe.\n\nBesides, the least excess in this way excites a tenderness in the milder\nsort of people, which makes them consider government in an harsh and\nodious light. The sense of justice in men is overloaded and fatigued\nwith a long series of executions, or with such a carnage at once as\nrather resembles a massacre than a sober execution of the laws. The laws\nthus lose their terror in the minds of the wicked, and their reverence\nin the minds of the virtuous.\n\nI have ever observed that the execution of one man fixes the attention\nand excites awe; the execution of multitudes dissipates and weakens the\neffect: but men reason themselves into disapprobation and disgust; they\ncompute more as they feel less; and every severe act which does not\nappear to be necessary is sure to be offensive.\n\nIn selecting the criminals, a very different line ought to be followed\nfrom that recommended by the champions of the Protestant Association.\nThey recommend that the offenders for plunder ought to be punished, and\nthe offenders from principle spared. But the contrary rule ought to be\nfollowed. The ordinary executions, of which there are enough in\nconscience, are for the former species of delinquents; but such common\nplunderers would furnish no example in the present case, where the false\nor pretended principle of religion, which leads to crimes, is the very\nthing to be discouraged.\n\nBut the reason which ought to make these people objects of selection for\npunishment confines the selection to very few. For we must consider that\nthe whole nation has been for a long time guilty of their crime.\nToleration is a new virtue in any country. It is a late ripe fruit in\nthe best climates. We ought to recollect the poison which, under the\nname of antidotes against Popery, and such like mountebank titles, has\nbeen circulated from our pulpits and from our presses, from the heads of\nthe Church of England and the heads of the Dissenters. These\npublications, by degrees, have tended to drive all religion from our own\nminds, and to fill them with nothing but a violent hatred of the\nreligion of other people, and, of course, with a hatred of their\npersons; and so, by a very natural progression, they have led men to the\ndestruction of their goods and houses, and to attempts upon their lives.\n\nThis delusion furnishes no reason for suffering that abominable spirit\nto be kept alive by inflammatory libels or seditious assemblies, or for\ngovernment's yielding to it, in the smallest degree, any point of\njustice, equity, or sound policy. The king certainly ought not to give\nup any part of his subjects to the prejudices of another. So far from\nit, I am clearly of opinion that on the late occasion the Catholics\nought to have been taken, more avowedly than they were, under the\nprotection of government, as the Dissenters had been on a similar\noccasion.\n\nBut though we ought to protect against violence the bigotry of others,\nand to correct our own too, if we have any left, we ought to reflect,\nthat an offence which in its cause is national ought not in its effects\nto be vindicated on individuals, but with a very well-tempered severity.\n\nFor my own part, I think the fire is not extinguished,--on the contrary,\nit seems to require the attention of government more than ever; but, as\na part of any methodical plan for extinguishing this flame, it really\nseems necessary that the execution of justice should be as steady and as\ncool as possible.\n\n\n\n\nSOME ADDITIONAL REFLECTIONS\n\nON THE EXECUTIONS.\n\n\nThe great number of sufferers seems to arise from the misfortune\nincident to the variety of judicatures which have tried the crimes. It\nwere well, if the whole had been the business of one commission; for now\nevery trial seems as if it were a separate business, and in that light\neach offence is not punished with greater severity than single offences\nof the kind are commonly marked: but in reality and fact, this\nunfortunate affair, though diversified in the multitude of overt acts,\nhas been one and the same riot; and therefore the executions, so far as\nregards the general effect on the minds of men, will have a reference to\nthe unity of the offence, and will appear to be much more severe than\nsuch a riot, atrocious as it was, can well justify in government. I pray\nthat it may be recollected that the chief delinquents have hitherto\nescaped, and very many of those who are fallen into the hands of justice\nare a poor, thoughtless set of creatures, very little aware of the\nnature of their offence. None of the list-makers, the assemblers of the\nmob, the directors and arrangers, have been convicted. The preachers of\nmischief remain safe, and are wicked enough not to feel for their\ndeluded disciples,--no, not at all. I would not plead the ignorance of\nthe law in any, even the most ignorant, as a justification; but I am\nsure, that, when the question is of mercy, it is a very great and\npowerful argument. I have all the reason in the world to believe that\nthey did not know their offence was capital.\n\nThere is one argument, which I beg may not be considered as brought for\nany invidious purpose, or meant as imputing blame anywhere, but which, I\nthink, with candid and considerate men, will have much weight. The\nunfortunate delinquents were perhaps much encouraged by some remissness\non the part of government itself. The absolute and entire impunity\nattending the same offence in Edinburgh, which was over and over again\nurged as an example and encouragement to these unfortunate people, might\nbe a means of deluding them. Perhaps, too, a languor in the beginning of\nthe riots here (which suffered the leaders to proceed, until very many,\nas it were by the contagion of a sort of fashion, were carried to these\nexcesses) might make these people think that there was something in the\ncase which induced government to wink at the irregularity of the\nproceedings.\n\nThe conduct and condition of the Lord Mayor ought, in my opinion, to be\nconsidered. His answers to Lord Beauchamp, to Mr. Malo, and to Mr.\nLangdale make him appear rather an accomplice in the crimes than guilty\nof negligence as a magistrate. Such an example set to the mob by the\nfirst magistrate of the city tends greatly to palliate their offence.\n\nThe license, and complete impunity too, of the publications which from\nthe beginning instigated the people to such actions, and in the midst of\ntrials and executions still continues, does in a great degree render\nthese creatures an object of compassion. In the Public Advertiser of\nthis morning there are two or three paragraphs strongly recommending\nsuch outrages, and stimulating the people to violence against the houses\nand persons of Roman Catholics, and even against the chapels of the\nforeign ministers.\n\nI would not go so far as to adopt the maxim, _Quicquid multis peccatur\ninultum_; but certainly offences committed by vast multitudes are\nsomewhat palliated in the _individuals_, who, when so many escape, are\nalways looked upon rather as unlucky than criminal. All our loose ideas\nof justice, as it affects any individual, have in them something of\ncomparison to the situation of others; and no systematic reasoning can\nwholly free us from such impressions.\n\nPhil. de Comines says our English civil wars were less destructive than\nothers, because the cry of the conqueror always was, \"Spare the common\npeople.\" This principle of war should be at least as prevalent in the\nexecution of justice. The appetite of justice is easily satisfied, and\nit is best nourished with the least possible blood. We may, too,\nrecollect that between capital punishment and total impunity there are\nmany stages.\n\nOn the whole, every circumstance of mercy, and of comparative justice,\ndoes, in my opinion, plead in favor of such low, untaught, or ill-taught\nwretches. But above all, the policy of government is deeply interested\nthat the punishments should appear _one_, solemn, deliberate act, aimed\nnot at random, and at particular offences, but done with a relation to\nthe general spirit of the tumults; and they ought to be nothing more\nthan what is sufficient to mark and discountenance that spirit.\n\nCIRCUMSTANCES FOR MERCY.\n\n  Not being principal.\n  Probable want of early and deliberate purposes.\n  Youth where the highest malice does not appear.\n  Sex where the highest malice does not appear.\n  Intoxication and levity, or mere wantonness of any kind.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE RIGHT HON. HENRY DUNDAS,\n\nONE OF HIS MAJESTY'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES OF STATE.\n\nWITH THE\n\nSKETCH OF A NEGRO CODE.\n\n1792.\n\n\nDear Sir,--I should have been punctual in sending you the sketch I\npromised of my old African Code, if some friends from London had not\ncome in upon me last Saturday, and engaged me till noon this day: I send\nthis packet by one of them who is still here. If what I send be, as\nunder present circumstances it must be, imperfect, you will excuse it,\nas being done near twelve years ago. About four years since I made an\nabstract of it, upon which I cannot at present lay my hands; but I hope\nthe marginal heads will in some measure supply it.\n\nIf the African trade could be considered with regard to itself only, and\nas a single object, I should think the utter abolition to be on the\nwhole more advisable than any scheme of regulation an reform. Rather\nthan suffer it to continue as it is, I heartily wish it at an end. What\nhas been lately done has been done by a popular spirit, which seldom\ncalls for, and indeed very rarely relishes, a system made up of a great\nvariety of parts, and which is to operate its effect in a great length\nof time. The people like short methods; the consequences of which they\nsometimes have reason to repent of. Abolition is but a single act. To\nprove the nature of the trade, and to expose it properly, required,\nindeed, a vast collection of materials, which have been laboriously\ncollected, and compiled with great judgment. It required also much\nperseverance and address to excite the spirit which has been excited\nwithout doors, and which has carried it through. The greatest eloquence\never displayed in the House has been employed to second the efforts\nwhich have been made abroad. All this, however, leads but to one single\nresolve. When this was done, all was done. I speak of absolute and\nimmediate abolition, the point which the first motions went to, and\nwhich is in effect still pressed; though in this session, according to\norder, it cannot take effect. A _remote_, and a _gradual_ abolition,\nthough they may be connected, are not the same thing. The idea of the\nHouse seems to me, if I rightly comprehend it, that the two things are\nto be combined: that is to say, that the trade is gradually to decline,\nand to cease entirely at a determinate period. To make the abolition\ngradual, the regulations must operate as a strong discouragement. But it\nis much to be feared that a trade continued and discouraged, and with a\nsentence of death passed upon it, will perpetuate much ill blood between\nthose who struggle for the abolition and those who contend for an\neffectual continuance.\n\nAt the time when I formed the plan which I have the honor to transmit to\nyou, an abolition of the slave trade would have appeared a very\nchimerical project. My plan, therefore, supposes the continued existence\nof that commerce. Taking for my basis that I had an incurable evil to\ndeal with, I cast about how I should make it as small an evil as\npossible, and draw out of it some collateral good.\n\nIn turning the matter over in my mind at that time and since, I never\nwas able to consider the African trade upon a ground disconnected with\nthe employment of negroes in the West Indies, and distinct from their\ncondition in the plantations whereon they serve. I conceived that the\ntrue origin of the trade was not in the place it was begun at, but at\nthe place of its final destination. I therefore was, and I still am, of\nopinion that the whole work ought to be taken up together, and that a\ngradual abolition of slavery in the West Indies ought to go hand in hand\nwith anything which, should be done with regard to its supply from the\ncoast of Africa. I could not trust a cessation of the demand for this\nsupply to the mere operation of any abstract principle, (such as, that,\nif their supply was cut off, the planters would encourage and produce an\neffectual population,) knowing that nothing can be more uncertain than\nthe operation of general principles, if they are not embodied in\nspecific regulations. I am very apprehensive, that, so long as the\nslavery continues, some means for its supply will be found. If so, I am\npersuaded that it is better to allow the evil, in order to correct it,\nthan, by endeavoring to forbid what we cannot be able wholly to prevent,\nto leave it under an illegal, and therefore an unreformed existence. It\nis not that my plan does not lead to the extinction of the slave trade,\nbut it is through a very slow progress, the chief effect of which is to\nbe operated in our own plantations, by rendering, in a length of time,\nall foreign supply unnecessary. It was my wish, whilst the slavery\ncontinued, and the consequent commerce, to take such measures as to\ncivilize the coast of Africa by the trade, which now renders it more\nbarbarous, and to lead by degrees to a more reputable, and, possibly, a\nmore profitable connection with it, than we maintain at present.\n\nI am sure that you will consider as a mark of my confidence in yours and\nMr. Pitt's honor and generosity, that I venture to put into your hands\na scheme composed of many and intricate combinations, without a full\nexplanatory preface, or any attendant notes, to point out the principles\nupon which I proceeded in every regulation which I have proposed towards\nthe civilization and gradual manumission of negroes in the two\nhemispheres. I confess I trust infinitely more (according to the sound\nprinciples of those who ever have at any time meliorated the state of\nmankind) to the effect and influence of religion than to all the rest of\nthe regulations put together.\n\nWhenever, in my proposed reformation, we take our _point of departure_\nfrom a state of slavery, we must precede the donation of freedom by\ndisposing the minds of the objects to a disposition to receive it\nwithout danger to themselves or to us. The process of bringing _free_\nsavages to order and civilization is very different. When a state of\nslavery is that upon which we are to work, the very means which lead to\nliberty must partake of compulsion. The minds of men, being crippled\nwith that restraint, can do nothing for themselves: everything must be\ndone for them. The regulations can owe little to consent. Everything\nmust be the creature of power. Hence it is that regulations must be\nmultiplied, particularly as you have two parties to deal with. The\nplanter you must at once restrain and support, and you must control at\nthe same time that you ease the servant. This necessarily makes the work\na matter of care, labor, and expense. It becomes in its nature complex.\nBut I think neither the object impracticable nor the expense\nintolerable; and I am fully convinced that the cause of humanity would\nbe far more benefited by the continuance of the trade and servitude,\nregulated and reformed, than by the total destruction of both or either.\nWhat I propose, however, is but a beginning of a course of measures\nwhich an experience of the effects of the evil and the reform will\nenable the legislature hereafter to supply and correct.\n\nI need not observe to you, that the forms are often neglected, penalties\nnot provided, &c., &c., &c. But all this is merely mechanical, and what\na couple of days' application would set to rights.\n\nI have seen what has been done by the West Indian Assemblies. It is\narrant trifling. They have done little; and what they have done is good\nfor nothing,--for it is totally destitute of an _executory_ principle.\nThis is the point to which I have applied my whole diligence. It is easy\nenough to say what shall be done: to cause it to be done,--_hic labor,\nhoc opus_.\n\nI ought not to apologize for letting this scheme lie beyond the period\nof the Horatian keeping,--I ought much more to entreat an excuse for\nproducing it now. Its whole value (if it has any) is the coherence and\nmutual dependency of parts in the scheme; separately they can be of\nlittle or no use.\n\nI have the honor to be, with very great respect and regard,\n\nDear Sir,\n\nYour most faithful and obedient humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, Easter-Monday night, 1792.\n\n\n\n\nSKETCH OF A NEGRO CODE.\n\n\nThis constitution consists of four principal members.\n\nI. The rules for qualifying a ship for the African trade.\n\nII. The mode of carrying on the trade upon the coast of Africa, which\nincludes a plan for introducing civilization in that part of the world.\n\nIII. What is to be observed from the time of shipping negroes to the\nsale in the West India islands.\n\nIV. The regulations relative to the state and condition of slaves in the\nWest Indies, their manumission, &c.\n\n\n[Sidenote: PREAMBLE.]\n\nWhereas it is expedient, and comformable to the principles of true\nreligion and morality, and to the rules of sound policy, to put an end\nto all traffic in the persons of men, and to the detention of their said\npersons in a state of slavery, as soon as the same may be effected\nwithout producing great inconveniences in the sudden change of practices\nof such long standing, and during the time of the continuance of the\nsaid practices it is desirable and expedient by proper regulations to\nlessen the inconveniences and evils attendant on the said traffic and\nstate of servitude, until both shall be gradually done away:\n\nAnd whereas the objects of the said trade and consequential servitude,\nand the grievances resulting therefrom, come under the principal heads\nfollowing, the regulations ought thereto to be severally applied: that\nis to say, that provision should be made by the said regulations,\n\n1st, For duly qualifying ships for the said traffic;\n\n2nd, For the mode and conditions of permitting the said trade to be\ncarried on upon the coast of Africa;\n\n3rd, For the treatment of the negroes in their passage to the West India\nislands;\n\n4th, For the government of the negroes which are or shall be employed in\nhis Majesty's colonies and plantations in the West Indies:\n\n[Sidenote: Ships to be registered.]\n\nBe it therefore enacted, that every ship or trading vessel which is\nintended for the negro trade, with the name of the owner or owners\nthereof, shall be entered and registered as ships trading to the West\nIndies are by law to be registered, with the further provisions\nfollowing:\n\n[Sidenote: Measured and surveyed.]\n\n1. The same entry and register shall contain an account of the greatest\nnumber of negroes of all descriptions which are proposed to be taken\ninto the said ship or trading vessel; and the said ship, before she is\npermitted to be entered outwards, shall be surveyed by a ship-carpenter,\nto be appointed by the collector of the port from which the said vessel\nis to depart, and by a surgeon, also appointed by the collector, who\nhath been conversant in the service of the said trade, but not at the\ntime actually engaged or covenanted therein; and the said carpenter and\nsurgeon shall report to the collector, or in his absence, to the next\nprincipal officer of the port; upon oath, (which oath the said collector\nor principal officer is hereby empowered to administer,) her\nmeasurement, and what she contains in builder's tonnage, and that she\nhas ---- feet of grated portholes between the decks, and that she is\notherwise fitly found as a good transport vessel.\n\n[Sidenote: Number of slaves limited.]\n\n2. And be it enacted, that no ship employed in the said trade shall upon\nany pretence take in more negroes than one grown man or woman for one\nton and half of builder's tonnage, nor more than one boy or girl for one\nton.\n\n[Sidenote: Provisions.]\n\n3. That the said ship or other vessel shall lay in, in proportion to the\nship's company of the said vessel, and the number of negroes registered,\na full and sufficient store of sound provision, so as to be secure\nagainst all probable delays and accidents, namely, salted beef, pork,\nsalt-fish, butter, cheese, biscuit, flour, rice, oat-meal, and white\npeas, but no horse-beans, or other inferior provisions; and the said\nship shall be properly provided with water-casks or jars, in proportion\nto the intended number of the said negroes; and the said ship shall be\nalso provided with a proper and sufficient stock of coals or firewood.\n\n[Sidenote: Stores.]\n\n4. And every ship entered as aforesaid shall take out a coarse shirt and\na pair of trousers, or petticoat, for each negro intended to be taken\naboard; as also a mat, or coarse mattress, or hammock, for the use of\nthe said negroes. The proportions of provision, fuel, and clothing to be\nregulated by the table annexed to this act.\n\n[Sidenote: Certificate thereof.]\n\n5. And be it enacted, that no ship shall be permitted to proceed on the\nsaid voyage or adventure, until the searcher of the port from whence the\nsaid vessel shall sail, or such person as he shall appoint to act for\nhim, shall report to the collector that he hath inspected the said\nstores, and that the ship is accommodated and provided in the manner\nhereby directed.\n\n[Sidenote: Guns for trade to be inspected.]\n\n6. And be it enacted, that no guns be exported to the coast of Africa,\nin the said or any other trade, unless the same be duly marked with the\nmaker's name on the barrels before they are put into the stocks, and\nvouched by an inspector in the place where the same are made to be\nwithout fraud, and sufficient and merchantable arms.\n\n[Sidenote: Owners and masters to enter into bonds.]\n\n7. And be it enacted, that, before any ship as aforesaid shall proceed\non her voyage, the owner or owners, or an attorney by them named, if the\nowners are more than two, and the master, shall severally give bond, the\nowners by themselves, the master for himself, that the said master shall\nduly conform himself in all things to the regulations in this act\ncontained, so far as the same regards his part in executing and\nconforming to the same.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. And whereas, in providing for the second object of this act, that is\nto say, for the trade on the coast of Africa, it is first prudent not\nonly to provide against the manifold abuses to which a trade of that\nnature is liable, but that the same may be accompanied, as far as it is\npossible, with such advantages to the natives as may tend to the\ncivilizing them, and enabling them to enrich themselves by means more\ndesirable, and to carry on hereafter a trade more advantageous and\nhonorable to all parties:\n\nAnd whereas religion, order, morality, and virtue are the elemental\nprinciples, and the knowledge of letters, arts, and handicraft trades,\nthe chief means of such civilization and improvement: for the better\nattainment of the said good purposes,\n\n[Sidenote: Marts to be established on the coast.]\n\n1. Be it hereby enacted, that the coast of Africa, on which the said\ntrade for negroes may be carried on, shall be and is hereby divided into\nmarts or staples, as hereafter follows. [Here name the marts.] And be it\nenacted, that it shall not be lawful for the master of any ship to\npurchase any negro or negroes, but at one of the said marts or staples.\n\n[Sidenote: Governors and counsellors.]\n\n2. That the directors of the African Company shall appoint, where not\nalready appointed, a governor, with three counsellors, at each of the\nsaid marts, with a salary of ---- to the governor, and of ---- to each\nof the said counsellors. The said governor, or, in his absence or\nillness, the senior counsellor, shall and is hereby empowered to act as\na justice of the peace, and they, or either of them, are authorized,\nordered, and directed to provide for the peace of the settlement, and\nthe good regulation of their station and stations severally, according\nto the rules of justice, to the directions of this act, and the\ninstructions they shall receive from time to time from the said African\nCompany. And the said African Company is hereby authorized to prepare\ninstructions, with the assent of the Lords of his Majesty's Privy\nCouncil, which shall be binding in all things not contrary to this act,\nor to the laws of England, on the said governors and counsellors, and\nevery of them, and on all persons acting in commission with them under\nthis act, and on all persons residing within the jurisdiction of the\nmagistrates of the said mart.\n\n[Sidenote: Ships of war stationed.]\n\n3. And be it enacted, that the Lord High Admiral, or commissioners for\nexecuting his office, shall appoint one or more, as they shall see\nconvenient, of his Majesty's ships or sloops of war, under the command\nseverally of a post-captain, or master and commander, to each mart, as a\nnaval station.\n\n[Sidenote: Inspectors appointed.]\n\n4. And be it enacted, that the Lord High Treasurer, or the commissioners\nfor executing his office, shall name two inspectors of the said trade at\nevery mart, who shall provide for the execution of this act, according\nto the directions thereof, so far as shall relate to them; and it is\nhereby provided and enacted, that, as cases of sudden emergency may\narise, the said governor or first counsellor, and the first commander of\nhis Majesty's ship or ships on the said station, and the said\ninspectors, or the majority of them, the governor having a double or\ncasting vote, shall have power and authority to make such occasional\nrules and orders relating to the said trade as shall not be contrary to\nthe instructions of the African Company, and which shall be valid until\nthe same are revoked by the said African Company.\n\n[Sidenote: Lands may be purchased.]\n\n5. That the said African Company is hereby authorized to purchase, if\nthe same may conveniently be done, with the consent of the Privy\nCouncil, any lands adjoining to the fort or principal mart aforesaid,\nnot exceeding ---- acres, and to make allotments of the same; no\nallotment to one person to exceed (on pain of forfeiture) ---- acres.\n\n[Sidenote: Churches and schoolhouses, and hospitals to be erected.]\n\n[Sidenote: Chaplain and assistant.]\n\n[Sidenote: Clerk and catechist.]\n\n6. That the African Company shall, at each fort or mart, cause to be\nerected, in a convenient place, and at a moderate cost, the estimate of\nwhich shall be approved by the Treasury, one church, and one\nschool-house, and one hospital; and shall appoint one principal\nchaplain, with a curate or assistant in holy orders, both of whom shall\nbe recommended by the Lord Bishop of London; and the said chaplain or\nhis assistant shall perform divine service, and administer the\nsacraments, according to the usage of the Church of England, or to such\nmode not contrary thereto as to the said bishop shall seem more suitable\nto the circumstances of the people. And the said principal chaplain\nshall be the third member in the council, and shall be entitled to\nreceive from the directors of the said African Company a salary of ----,\nand his assistant a salary of ----, and he shall have power to appoint\none sober and discreet person, white or black, to be his clerk and\ncatechist, at a salary of ----.\n\n[Sidenote: Schoolmaster.]\n\n[Sidenote: Carpenter and blacksmith.]\n\n[Sidenote: Native apprentices.]\n\n[Sidenote: Surgeon and mate.]\n\n[Sidenote: Native apprentice.]\n\n7. And be it enacted, that the African Company shall appoint one\nsufficient schoolmaster, who shall be approved by the Bishop of London,\nand who shall be capable of teaching writing, arithmetic, surveying, and\nmensuration, at a salary of ----. And the said African Company is hereby\nauthorized to provide for each settlement a carpenter and blacksmith,\nwith such encouragement as to them shall seem expedient, who shall take\neach two apprentices from amongst the natives; to instruct them in the\nseveral trades, the African Company allowing them, as a fee for each\napprentice, ----. And the said African Company shall appoint one surgeon\nand one surgeon's mate, who are to be approved on examination, at\nSurgeons' Hall, to each fort or mart, with a salary of ---- for the\nsurgeon, and for his mate ----; and the said surgeon shall take one\nnative apprentice, at a fee to be settled by the African Company.\n\n[Sidenote: How removable.]\n\n8. And be it enacted, that the said catechist, schoolmaster, surgeon,\nand surgeon's mate, as well as the tradesmen in the Company's service,\nshall be obedient to the orders they shall from time to time receive\nfrom the governor and council of each fort; and if they, or any of them,\nor any other person, in whatever station, shall appear, on complaint and\nproof to the majority of the commissioners, to lead a disorderly and\ndebauched life, or use any profane or impious discourses, to the danger\nof defeating the purposes of this institution, and to the scandal of the\nnatives, who are to be led by all due means into a respect for our holy\nreligion, and a desire of partaking of the benefits thereof, they are\nauthorized and directed to suspend the said person from his office, or\nthe exercise of his trade, and to send him to England (but without any\nhard confinement, except in case of resistance) with a complaint, with\ninquiry and proofs adjoined, to the African Company.\n\n9. And be it enacted, that the Bishop of London for the time being shall\nhave full authority to remove the said chaplain for such causes as to\nhim shall seem reasonable.\n\n[Sidenote: No public officer to be concerned in the negro trade.]\n\n10. That no governor, counsellor, inspector, chaplain, surgeon, or\nschoolmaster shall be concerned, or have any share, directly or\nindirectly, in the negro trade, on pain of ----.\n\n[Sidenote: Journals and letter-books to be kept and transmitted.]\n\n11. Be it enacted, that the said governor and council shall keep a\njournal of all their proceedings, and a book in which copies of all\ntheir correspondence shall be entered, and they shall transmit copies of\nthe said journals and letter-book, and their books of accounts, to the\nAfrican Company, who, within ---- of their receipt thereof, shall\ncommunicate the same to one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of\nstate.\n\n[Sidenote: Chaplain to report to the Bishop of London.]\n\n12. And be it enacted, that the said chaplain or principal minister,\nshall correspond with the Bishop of London, and faithfully and\ndiligently transmit to him an account of whatever hath been done for the\nadvancement of religion, morality, and learning amongst the natives.\n\n[Sidenote: Negroes to be attested before sale.]\n\n13. And be it enacted, that no negro shall be conclusively sold, until\nhe shall be attested by the two inspectors and chaplain, or, in case of\nthe illness of any of them, by one inspector, and the governor, or one\nof the council, who are hereby authorized and directed, by the best\nmeans in their power, to examine into the circumstances and condition of\nthe persons exposed to sale.\n\n[Sidenote: Causes for rejection.]\n\n14. And for the better direction of the said inspectors, no persons are\nto be sold, who, to the best judgment of the said inspectors, shall be\nabove thirty-five years of age, or who shall appear, on examination,\nstolen or carried away by the dealers by surprise; nor any person who is\nable to read in the Arabian or any other book; nor any woman who shall\nappear to be advanced three months in pregnancy; nor any person\ndistorted or feeble, unless the said persons are consenting to such\nsale; or any person afflicted with a grievous or contagious distemper:\nbut if any person so offered is only lightly disordered, the said person\nmay be sold, but must be kept in the hospital of the mart, and shall not\nbe shipped until completely cured.\n\n[Sidenote: Traders to be licensed by the governors.]\n\n15. Be it enacted, that no black or European factor or trader into the\ninterior country, or on the coast, (the masters of English ships only\nexcepted, for whose good conduct provision is otherwise herein made,)\nshall be permitted to buy or sell in any of the said marts, unless he be\napproved by the governor of the mart in which he is to deal, or, in his\nabsence or disability, by the senior counsellor for the time being, and\nobtaining a license from such governor or counsellor; and the said\ntraders and factors shall, severally or jointly, as they shall be\nconcerned, before they shall obtain the said license, be bound in a\nrecognizance, with such surety for his or their good behavior as to the\nsaid governor shall seem the best that can be obtained.\n\n[Sidenote: Offences how to be tried and punished.]\n\n16. Be it enacted, that the said governor, or other authority aforesaid,\nshall examine, by duty of office, into the conduct of all such traders\nand factors, and shall receive and publicly hear (with the assistance of\nthe council and inspectors aforesaid, and of the commodore, captain, or\nother principal commander of one of his Majesty's ships on the said\nstation, or as many of the same as can be assembled, two whereof, with\nthe governor, are hereby enabled to act) all complaints against them, or\nany of them; and if any black or white trader or factor, (other than in\nthis act excepted,) either on inquisition of office or on complaint,\nshall be convicted by a majority of the said commissioners present of\nstealing or taking by surprise any person or persons whatsoever, whether\nfree or the slaves of others, without the consent of their masters, or\nof wilfully and maliciously killing or maiming any person, or of any\ncruelty, (necessary restraint only excepted,) or of firing houses, or\ndestroying goods, the said trader or factor shall be deemed to have\nforfeited his recognizance, and his surety to have forfeited his; and\nthe said trader or factor, so convicted, shall be forever disabled from\ndealing in any of the said marts, unless the offence shall not be that\nof murder, maiming, arson, or stealing or surprising the person, and\nshall appear to the commissioners aforesaid to merit only, besides the\npenalty of his bond, a suspension for one year; and the said trader or\nfactor, so convicted of murder, maiming, arson, stealing or surprising\nthe person, shall, if a native, be delivered over to the prince to whom\nhe belongs, to execute further justice on him. But it is hereby provided\nand enacted, that, if any European shall be convicted of any of the said\noffences, he shall be sent to Europe, together with the evidence against\nhim; and on the warrant of the said commissioners, the keeper of any of\nhis Majesty's jails in London, Bristol, Liverpool, or Glasgow shall\nreceive him, until he be delivered according to due course of law, as if\nthe said offences had been committed within the cities and towns\naforesaid.\n\n[Sidenote: Negroes exposed to sale contrary to the provisions of this\nact, how to be dealt with.]\n\n17. Be it further enacted, that, if the said governor, &c, shall be\nsatisfied that person or persons are exposed to sale, who have been\nstolen or surprised as aforesaid, or are not within the qualifications\nof sale in this act described, they are hereby authorized and required,\nif it can be done, to send the persons so exposed to sale to their\noriginal habitation or settlement, in the manner they shall deem best\nfor their security, (the reasonable charges whereof shall be allowed to\nthe said governor by the African Company,) unless the said persons\nchoose to sell themselves; and then, and in that case, their value in\nmoney and goods, at their pleasure, shall be secured to them, and be\napplicable to their use,-without any dominion over the same of any\npurchaser, or of any master to whom they may in any colony or plantation\nbe sold, and which shall always be in some of his master's [Majesty's?]\ncolonies and plantations only. And the master of the ship in which such\nperson shall embark shall give bond for the faithful execution of his\npart of the trust at the island where he shall break bulk.\n\n18. Be it further enacted, that, besides the hospitals on shore, one or\nmore hospital-ships shall be employed at each of the said chief marts,\nwherein slaves taken ill in the trading ships shall be accommodated,\nuntil they shall be cured; and then the owner may reclaim and shall\nreceive them, paying the charges which shall be settled by regulation to\nbe made by the authority in this act enabled to provide such\nregulations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIII. And whereas it is necessary that regulations be made to prevent\nabuses in the passage from Africa to the West Indies:\n\n[Sidenote: Slave ships to be examined on the coast.]\n\n1. Be it further enacted, that the commander or lieutenant of the king's\nship on each station shall have authority, as often as he shall see\noccasion, attended with one other of his officers, and his surgeon or\nmate, to enter into and inspect every trading ship, in order to provide\nfor the due execution of this act, and of any ordinances made in virtue\nthereof and conformable thereto by the authorities herein constituted\nand appointed; and the said officer and officers are hereby required to\nexamine every trading ship before she sails, and to stop the sailing of\nthe said ship for the breach of the said rules and ordinances, until the\ngovernor in council shall order and direct otherwise: and the master of]\nthe said ship shall not presume, under the penalty of ----, to be\nrecovered in the courts of the West Indies, to sail without a\ncertificate from the commander aforesaid, and one of the inspectors in\nthis act appointed, that the vessel is provided with stores and other\naccommodation sufficient for her voyage, and has not a greater number of\nslaves on board than by the provisions of this act is allowed.\n\n[Sidenote: Governor to give special instructions.]\n\n2. And be it enacted, that the governor and council, with the assistance\nof the said naval commander, shall have power to give such special\nwritten instructions for the health, discipline, and care of the said\nslaves, during their passage, as to them shall seem good,\n\n[Sidenote: Presents and musical instruments to be provided.]\n\n3. And be it further enacted, that each slave, at entering the said\nship, is to receive some present, not exceeding in value ----, to be\nprovided according to the instructions aforesaid; and musical\ninstruments, according to the fashion of the country, are to be\nprovided.\n\n[Sidenote: Table of allowances.]\n\n4. And be it further enacted, that the negroes on board the transports,\nand the seamen who navigate the same, are to receive their daily\nallowance according to the table hereunto annexed, together with a\ncertain quantity of spirits to be mixed with their water. And it is\nenacted, that the table is to be fixed, and continue for one week after\nsailing, in some conspicuous part of the said ship, for the seamen's\ninspection of the same.\n\n[Sidenote: Negro superintendents to be appointed.]\n\n5. And be it enacted, that the captain of each trading vessel shall be\nenabled and is to divide the slaves in his ship into crews of not less\nthan ten nor more than twenty persons each, and to appoint one negro man\nto have such authority severally over each crew, as according to his\njudgment, with the advice of the mate and surgeon, he and they shall see\ngood to commit to them, and to allow to each of them some compensation,\nin extraordinary diet and presents, not exceeding [ten shillings].\n\n[Sidenote: Communication with female slaves, how punished.]\n\n6. And be it enacted, that any European officer or seaman, having\nunlawful communication with any woman slave, shall, if an officer, pay\nfive pounds to the use of the said woman, on landing her from the said\nship, to be stopped out of his wages, or if a seaman, forty shillings:\nthe said penalties to be recovered on the testimony of the woman so\nabused, and one other.\n\n[Sidenote: Premium to commanders of slave-ships.]\n\n7. And be it enacted, that all and every commander of a vessel or\nvessels employed in slave trade, having received certificates from the\nport of the outfit, and from the proper officers in Africa and the West\nIndies, of their having conformed to the regulations of this act, and of\ntheir not having lost more than one in thirty of their slaves by death,\nshall be entitled to a bounty or premium of [ten pounds].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIV. And whereas the condition of persons in a state of slavery is such\nthat they are utterly unable to take advantage of any remedy which the\nlaws may provide for their protection and the amendment of their\ncondition, and have not the proper means of pursuing any process for\nthe same, but are and must be under guardianship: and whereas it is not\nfitting that they should be under the sole guardianship of their\nmasters, or their attorneys and overseers, to whom their grievances,\nwhenever they suffer any, must ordinarily be owing:\n\n[Sidenote: Attorney-General to be protector of negroes.]\n\n[Sidenote: To inquire and file information _ex officio_.]\n\n1. Be it therefore enacted, that his Majesty's Attorney-General for the\ntime being successively shall, by his office, exercise the trust and\nemployment of protector of negroes within the island in which he is or\nshall be Attorney-General to his Majesty, his heirs and successors; and\nthat the said Attorney-General, protector of negroes, is hereby\nauthorized to hear any complaint on the part of any negro or negroes,\nand inquire into the same, or to institute an inquiry _ex officio_ into\nany abuses, formations and to call before him and examine witnesses upon\noath, relative to the subject-matter of the said official inquiry or\ncomplaint: and it is hereby enacted and declared, that the said\nAttorney-General, protector of negroes, is hereby authorized and\nempowered, at his discretion, to file an information _ex officio_ for\nany offences committed against the provisions of this act, or for any\nmisdemeanors or wrongs against the said negroes, or any of them.\n\n[Sidenote: Power to challenge jurors.]\n\n2. And it is further enacted, that in all trials of such informations\nthe said protector of negroes may and is hereby authorized to challenge\nperemptorily a number not exceeding ---- of the jury who shall be\nimpanelled to try the charge in the said information contained.\n\n[Sidenote: To appoint inspectors of districts.]\n\n[Sidenote: who are to report to him twice in the year the number and\ncondition of the slaves.]\n\n3. And be it enacted, that the said Attorney-General, protector of\nnegroes, shall appoint inspectors, not exceeding the number of ----, at\nhis discretion; and the said inspectors shall be placed in convenient\ndistricts in each island severally, or shall twice in the year make a\ncircuit in the same, according to the direction which they shall receive\nfrom the protector of negroes aforesaid; and the inspectors shall and\nthey are hereby required, twice in the year, to report in writing to the\nprotector aforesaid the state and condition of the negroes in their\ndistricts or on their circuit severally, the number, sex, age, and\noccupation of the said negroes on each plantation; and the overseer or\nchief manager on each plantation is hereby required to furnish an\naccount thereof within [ten days] after the demand of the said\ninspectors, and to permit the inspector or inspectors aforesaid to\nexamine into the same; and the said inspectors shall set forth, in the\nsaid report, the distempers to which the negroes are most liable in the\nseveral parts of the island.\n\n[Sidenote: Instructions to be formed for inspectors.]\n\n4. And be it enacted, that the said protector of negroes, by and with\nthe consent the governor and chief judge of each island, shall form\ninstructions, by which the said inspectors shall discharge their trust\nin the manner the least capable of exciting any unreasonable hopes in\nthe said negroes, or of weakening the proper authority of the overseer,\nand shall transmit them to one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of\nstate; and when sent back with his approbation, the same shall become\nthe rule for the conduct of the said inspectors.\n\n[Sidenote: Registry.]\n\n5. And be it enacted, that the said Attorney-General, protector of\nnegroes, shall appoint an office for registering all proceedings\nrelative to the duty of his place as protector of negroes, and shall\nappoint his chief clerk to be registrar, with a salary not exceeding\n----.\n\n[Sidenote: Ports where negroes are to be landed. Vessels to be\ninspected.]\n\n[Sidenote: Masters or officers offending to be fined.]\n\n6. And be it enacted, that no negroes shall be landed for sale in any\nbut the ports following: that is to say, ----. And the collector of each\nof the said ports severally shall, within ---- days after the arrival of\nany ship transporting negroes, report the same to the protector of\nnegroes, or to one of his inspectors; and the said protector is hereby\nauthorized and required to examine, or cause to be examined by one of\nhis inspectors, with the assistance of the said collector, or his\ndeputy, and a surgeon to be called in on the occasion, the state of the\nsaid ship and negroes; and upon what shall appear to them, the said\nprotector of negroes, and the said collector and surgeon, to be a\nsufficient proof, either as arising from their own inspection, or\nsufficient information on a summary process, of any contravention of\nthis act, or cruelty to the negroes, or other malversation of the said\ncaptain, or any of his officers the said protector shall impose a fine\non him or them, not exceeding ----; which shall not, however, weaken or\ninvalidate any penalty growing from the bond of the said master or his\nowners. And it is hereby provided, that, if the said master, or any of\nhis officers, shall find himself aggrieved by the said fine, he may\nwithin ---- days appeal to the chief judge, if the court shall be\nsitting, or to the governor, who shall and are required to hear the said\nparties, and on hearing are to annul or confirm the same.\n\n[Sidenote: Rates respecting the sale of negroes.]\n\n7. And be it enacted, that no sale of negroes shall be made but in the\npresence of an inspector, and all negroes shall be sold severally, or in\nknown and ascertained lots, and not otherwise; and a paper containing\nthe state and description of each negro severally sold, and of each lot,\nshall be taken and registered in the office aforesaid; and if, on\ninspection or information, it shall be found that any negroes shall\nhave, in the same ship, or any other at the same time examined, a wife,\nan husband, a brother, sister, or child, the person or persons so\nrelated shall not be sold separately at that or any future sale.\n\n[Sidenote: Every island to be divided into districts.]\n\n[Sidenote: A church to be built in each.]\n\n8. And be it enacted, that each and every of his Majesty's islands and\nplantations, in which negroes are used in cultivation, shall be, by the\ngovernor and the protector of negroes for the time being, divided into\ndistricts, allowing as much as convenience will admit to the present\ndivision into parishes, and subdividing them, where necessary, into\ndistricts, according to the number of negroes. And the said governor and\nprotector of negroes shall cause in each district a church to be built\nin a convenient place, and a cemetery annexed, and an house for the\nresidence of a clergyman, with ---- acres of land annexed; and they are\nhereby authorized to treat for the necessary ground with the proprietor,\nwho is hereby obliged to sell and dispose of the same to the said use;\nand in case of dispute concerning the value, the same to be settled by a\njury, as in like cases is accustomed.\n\n[Sidenote: Appointment of a priest and clerk.]\n\n9. And be it enacted, that in each of the said districts shall be\nestablished a presbyter of the Church of England as by law established,\nwho shall appoint under him one clerk, who shall be a free negro, when\nsuch properly qualified can be found, (otherwise, a white man,) with a\nsalary, in each case, of ----; and the said minister and clerk, both or\none, shall instruct the said negroes in the Church Catechism, or such\nother as shall be provided by the authority in this act named; and the\nsaid minister shall baptize, as he shall think fit, all negroes not\nbaptized, and not belonging to Dissenters from the Church of England.\n\n[Sidenote: Owner to deliver a list of negroes to the minister, and to\ncause them to attend divine service.]\n\n10. And the principal overseer of each plantation is hereby required to\ndeliver annually unto the minister a list of all the negroes upon his\nplantation, distinguishing their sex and age, and shall, under a penalty\nof ----, cause all the negroes under his care, above the age of ----\nyears, to attend divine service once on every Sunday, except in case of\nsickness, infirmity, or other necessary cause, to be given at the time,\nand shall, by himself or one of those who are under him, provide for the\norderly behavior of the negroes under him, and cause them to return to\nhis plantation, when divine service, or administration of sacraments, or\ncatechism, is ended.\n\n[Sidenote: Mister to direct punishment for disorderly conduct.]\n\n11. And be it enacted, that the minister shall have power to punish any\nnegro for disorderly conduct during divine service, by a punishment not\nexceeding [ten] blows to be given in one day and for one offence, which\nthe overseer or his under agent or agents is hereby directed, according\nto the orders of the said minister, effectually to inflict, whenever the\nsame shall be ordered.\n\n[Sidenote: Spirituous liquors not to be sold.]\n\n12. And be it enacted, that no spirituous liquors of any kind shall be\nsold, except in towns, within ---- miles distance of any church, nor\nwithin any district during divine service, and an hour preceding and an\nhour following the same; and the minister of each parish shall and is\nhereby authorized to act as a justice of the peace in enforcing the said\nregulation.\n\n[Sidenote: Register of births, burials, and marriages.]\n\n13. And be it enacted, that every minister shall keep a register of\nbirths, burials, and marriages of all negroes and mulattoes in his\ndistrict.\n\n[Sidenote: Synod to assemble annually, and to form regulations,]\n\n14. And be it enacted, that the ministers of the several districts shall\nmeet annually, on the ---- day of ----, in a synod of the island to\nwhich they belong; and the said synod shall have for its president such\nperson as the Bishop of London shall appoint for his commissary; and the\nsaid synod or general assembly is hereby authorized, by a majority of\nvoices, to make regulations, which regulations shall be transmitted by\nthe said president or commissary to the Bishop of London; and when\nreturned by the Bishop of London approved of, then, and not before, the\nsaid regulations shall be held in force to bind the said clergy, their\nassistants, clerks, and schoolmasters only, and no other persons.\n\n[Sidenote: and to report to the Bishop of London.]\n\n15. And be it enacted, that the said president shall collect matter in\nthe said assembly, and shall make a report of the state of religion and\nmorals in the several parishes from whence the synod is deputed, and\nshall transmit the same, once in the year, in duplicate, through the\ngovernor and protector of negroes, to the Bishop of London.\n\n[Sidenote: Bishop of London to be patron of the cures.]\n\n16. And be it enacted and declared, that the Bishop of London for the\ntime being patron of the shall be patron to all and every the said\ncures in this act directed; and the said bishop is hereby required to\nprovide for the due filling thereof, and is to receive, from the fund in\nthis act provided for the due execution of this act, a sum not exceeding\n---- for each of the said ministers, for his outfit and passage.\n\n[Sidenote: and to have power of suspending and removing ministers.]\n\n17. And be it enacted, that, on misbehavior, and on complaint from the\nsaid synod, and on hearing the party accused in a plain and summary\nmanner, it shall and may be lawful for the Bishop of London to suspend\nor to remove any minister from his cure, as his said offences shall\nappear to merit.\n\n[Sidenote: Schools for young negroes.]\n\n18. And be it enacted, that for every two districts a school shall be\nestablished for young negroes to be taught three days in the week, and\nto be detained from their owner four hours in each day, the number not\nto be more or fewer than twenty males in each district, who shall be\nchosen, and vacancies filled, by the minister of the district; and the\nsaid minister shall pay to the owner of the said boy, and shall be\nallowed the same in his accounts at the synod, to the age of twelve\nyears old, three-pence by the day, and for every boy from twelve years\nold to fifteen, five-pence by the day.\n\n[Sidenote: Extraordinary abilities to be encouraged.]\n\n19. And it is enacted, that, if the president of the synod aforesaid\nshall certify to the protector of negroes, that any boys in the said\nschools (provided that the number in no one year shall exceed one in the\nisland of Jamaica, and one in two years in the islands of Barbadoes,\nAntigua, and Grenada, and one in four years in any of the other islands)\ndo show a remarkable aptitude for learning, the said protector is hereby\nauthorized and directed to purchase the said boy at the best rate at\nwhich boys of that age and strength have been sold within the year; and\nthe said negro so purchased shall be under the entire guardianship of\nthe said protector of negroes, who shall send him to the Bishop of\nLondon for his further education in England, and may charge in his\naccounts for the expense of transporting him to England; and the Bishop\nof London shall provide for the education of such of the said negroes as\nhe shall think proper subjects, until the age of twenty-four years, and\nshall order those who shall fall short of expectation after one year to\nbe bound apprentice to some handicraft trade; and when his\napprenticeship is finished, the Lord Mayor of London is hereby\nauthorized and directed to receive the said negro from his master, and\nto transmit him to the island from which he came, in the West Indies, to\nbe there as a free negro, subject, however, to the direction of the\nprotector of negroes, relatively to his behavior and employment.\n\n[Sidenote: Negroes of Dissenters.]\n\n[Sidenote: their marriages, &c., to be registered.]\n\n20. And it is hereby enacted and provided, that any planter, or owner of\nnegroes, not being of the Church of England, and not choosing to send\nhis negroes to attend divine service in manner by this act directed,\nshall give, jointly or severally, as the case shall require, security to\nthe protector of negroes that a competent minister of some Christian\nchurch or congregation shall be provided for the due instruction of the\nnegroes, and for their performing divine service according to the\ndescription of the religion of the master or masters, in some church or\nhouse thereto allotted, in the manner and with the regulations in this\nact prescribed with regard to the exercise of religion according to the\nChurch of England: provided always, that the marriages of the said\nnegroes belonging to Dissenters shall be celebrated only in the church\nof the said district, and that a register of the births shall be\ntransmitted to the minister of the said district.\n\n[Sidenote: Regulations concerning marriage.]\n\n21. And whereas a state of matrimony, and the government of a family, is\na principal means of forming men to a fitness for freedom, and to become\ngood citizens: Be it enacted, that all negro men and women, above\neighteen years of age for the man and sixteen for the woman, who have\ncohabited together for twelve months or upwards, or shall cohabit for\nthe same time, and have a child or children, shall be deemed to all\nintents and purposes to be married, and either of the parties is\nauthorized to require of the ministers of the district to be married in\nthe face of the church.\n\n[Sidenote: Concerning the same.]\n\n22. And be it enacted, that, from and after the ---- of ----, all negro\nmen in an healthy condition, and so reported to be, in case the same is\ndenied, by a surgeon and by an inspector of negroes, and being\ntwenty-one years old, or upwards, until fifty, and not being before\nmarried, shall, on requisition of the inspectors, be provided by their\nmasters or overseers with a woman not having children living, and not\nexceeding the age of the man, nor, in any case, exceeding the age of\ntwenty-five years; and such persons shall be married publicly in the\nface of the church.\n\n[Sidenote: Concerning the same.]\n\n23. And be it enacted, that, if any negro shall refuse a competent\nmarriage tendered to him, and shall not demand another specifically,\nsuch as it may be in his master's power to provide, the master or\noverseer shall be authorized to constrain him by an increase of work or\na lessening of allowance.\n\n[Sidenote: Adultery, &c., how to be punished.]\n\n24. And be it enacted, that the minister in each district shall have,\nwith the assent of the inspector, full power and authority to punish all\nacts of adultery, unlawful concubinage, and fornication, amongst\nnegroes, on hearing and a summary process, by ordering a number of\nblows, not exceeding ----, for each offence; and if any white person\nshall be proved, on information in the supreme court, to be exhibited by\nthe protector of negroes, to have committed adultery with any negro\nwoman, or to have corrupted any negro woman under sixteen years of age\nhe shall be fined in the sum of ----, and shall be forever disabled from\nserving the office of overseer of negroes, or being attorney to any\nplantation.\n\n[Sidenote: Concerning marriage.]\n\n25. And be it enacted, that no slaves shall be compelled to do any work\nfor their masters for [three] days after their marriage.\n\n[Sidenote: Concerning pregnant women.]\n\n26. And be it enacted, that no woman shall be obliged to field-work, or\nany other laborious work, for one month before her delivery, or for six\nweeks afterwards.\n\n[Sidenote: Separation of husband and wife, and children, to be avoided.]\n\n27. And be it enacted, that no husband and wife shall be sold\nseparately, if originally belonging to the same master; nor shall any\nchildren under sixteen be sold separately from their parents, or one\nparent, if one be living.\n\n[Sidenote: Concerning the same.]\n\n28. And be it enacted, that, if an husband and wife, which before their\nintermarriage belonged to different owners, shall be sold, they shall\nnot be sold at such a distance as to prevent mutual help and\ncohabitation; and of this distance the minister shall judge, and his\ncertificate of the inconvenient distance shall be valid, so as to make\nsuch sale unlawful, and to render the same null and void.\n\n[Sidenote: Negroes not to work on Saturday afternoon or Sunday.]\n\n29. And be it enacted, that no negro shall be compelled to work for his\nowner at field-work, or any service relative to a plantation, or to work\nat any handicraft trade, from eleven o'clock on Saturday forenoon until\nthe usual working hour on Monday morning.\n\n[Sidenote: Other cases of exemption from labor.]\n\n30. And whereas habits of industry and sobriety, and the means of\nacquiring and preserving property, are proper and reasonable\npreparatives to freedom, and will secure against an abuse of the same:\nBe it enacted, that every negro man, who shall have served ten years,\nand is thirty years of age, and is married, and has had two children\nborn of any marriage, shall obtain the whole of Saturday for himself and\nhis wife, and for his own benefit, and after thirty-seven years of age,\nthe whole of Friday for himself and his wife: provided that in both\ncases the minister of the district and the inspector of negroes shall\ncertify that they know nothing against his peaceable, orderly, and\nindustrious behavior.\n\n[Sidenote: Huts and land to be appropriated.]\n\n31. And be it enacted, that the master of every plantation shall provide\nthe materials of a good and substantial hut for each married field\nnegro; and if his plantation shall exceed ---- acres, he shall allot to\nthe same a portion of land not less than ----: and the said hut and land\nshall remain and stand annexed to the said negro, for his natural life,\nor during his bondage; but the same shall not be alienated without the\nconsent of the owners.\n\n[Sidenote: Property of negroes secured.]\n\n32. And be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the owner of any\nnegro, by himself or any other, to take from him any land, house,\ncattle, goods, or money, acquired by the said negro, whether by\npurchase, donation, or testament, whether the same has been derived from\nthe owner of the said negro, or any other.\n\n33. And be it enacted, that, if the said negro shall die possessed of\nany lands, goods, or chattels, and dies without leaving a wife or issue,\nit shall be lawful for the said negro to devise or bequeath the same by\nhis last will; but in case the said negro shall die intestate, and leave\na wife and children, the same shall be distributed amongst them,\naccording to the usage under the statute, commonly called the Statute of\nDistributions; but if the said negro shall die intestate without wife or\nchildren, then, and in that case, his estate shall go to the fund\nprovided for the better execution of this act.\n\n34. And be it enacted, that no negro, who is married, and hath resided\nupon any plantation for twelve months, shall be sold, either privately\nor by the decree of any court, but along with the plantation on which he\nhath resided, unless he should himself request to be separated\ntherefrom.\n\n[Sidenote: Of the punishment of negroes.]\n\n35. And be it enacted, that no blows or stripes exceeding thirteen,\nshall be inflicted for one offence upon any negro, without the order of\none of his Majesty's justices of peace.\n\n[Sidenote: Of the same.]\n\n36. And it is enacted, that it shall be lawful for the protector of\nnegroes, as often as on complaint and hearing he shall be of opinion\nthat any negro hath been cruelly and inhumanly treated, or when it\nshall be made to appear to him that an overseer hath any particular\nmalice, to order, at the desire of the suffering party, the said negro\nto be sold to another master.\n\n37. And be it enacted, that, in all cases of injury to member or life,\nthe offences against a negro shall be deemed and taken to all intents\nand purposes as if the same were perpetrated against any of his\nMajesty's subjects; and the protector of negroes, on complaint, or if he\nshall receive credible information thereof, shall cause an indictment to\nbe presented for the same; and in case of suspicion of any murder of a\nnegro, an inquest by the coroner, or officer acting as such, shall, if\npracticable, be held into the same.\n\n[Sidenote: Of the manumission of negroes.]\n\n38. And in order to a gradual manumission of slaves, as they shall seem\nfitted to fill the offices of freemen, be it enacted, that every negro\nslave, being thirty years of ago and upwards, and who has had three\nchildren born to him in lawful matrimony, and who hath received a\ncertificate from the minister of his district, or any other Christian\nteacher, of his regularity in the duties of religion, and of his orderly\nand good behavior, may purchase, at rates to be fixed by two justices of\npeace, the freedom of himself, or his wife or children, or of any of\nthem separately, valuing the wife and children, if purchased into\nliberty by the father of the family, at half only of their marketable\nvalues: provided that the said father shall bind himself in a penalty of\n---- for the good behavior of his children.\n\n[Sidenote: Of the same.]\n\n39. And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the protector of\nnegroes to purchase the freedom of any negro who shall appear to him to\nexcel in any mechanical art, or other knowledge or practice deemed\nliberal, and the value shall be settled by a jury.\n\n[Sidenote: Free negroes how to be punished.]\n\n40. And be it enacted, that the protector of negroes shall be and is\nauthorized and required to act as a magistrate for the coercion of all\nidle, disobedient, or disorderly free negroes, and he shall by office\nprosecute them for the offences of idleness, drunkenness, quarrelling,\ngaming, or vagrancy, in the supreme court, or cause them to be\nprosecuted before one justice of peace, as the case may require.\n\n[Sidenote: Of the same.]\n\n41. And be it enacted, that, if any free negro hath been twice convicted\nfor any of the said misdemeanors, and is judged by the said protector of\nnegroes, calling to his assistance two justices of the peace, to be\nincorrigibly idle, dissolute, and vicious, it shall be lawful, by the\norder of the said protector and two justices of peace, to sell the said\nfree negro into slavery: the purchase-money to be paid to the person so\nremanded into servitude, or kept in hand by the protector and governor\nfor the benefit of his family.\n\n[Sidenote: Governor to receive and transmit annual reports.]\n\n42. And be it enacted, that the governor in each colony shall be\nassistant to the execution of this act, and shall receive the reports of\nthe protector, and such other accounts as he shall judge material,\nrelative thereto, and shall transmit the same annually to one of his\nMajesty's principal secretaries of state.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE MEETING,\n\nHELD AT AYLESBURY, APRIL 13, 1780,\n\nON THE SUBJECT OF\n\nPARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n    The meeting of the freeholders of the County of Buckingham,\n    which occasioned the following Letter, was called for the\n    purpose of taking into consideration a petition to Parliament\n    for shortening the duration of Parliaments, and for a more\n    equal representation of the people in the House of Commons.\n\n\nSir,--Having heard yesterday, by mere accident, that there is an\nintention of laying before the county meeting _new matter, which is not\ncontained in our petition_, and the consideration of which had been\ndeferred to a fitter time by a majority of our committee in London,\npermit me to take this method of submitting to you my reasons for\nthinking, with our committee, that nothing ought to be hastily deter\nmined upon the subject.\n\nOur petition arose naturally from distresses which we _felt_; and the\nrequests which we made were in effect nothing more than that such things\nshould be done in Parliament as it was evidently the duty of Parliament\nto do. But the affair which will be proposed to you by a person of rank\nand ability is an alteration in the constitution of Parliament itself.\nIt is impossible for you to have a subject before you of more\nimportance, and that requires a more cool and more mature consideration,\nboth on its own account, and for the credit of our sobriety of mind, who\nare to resolve upon it.\n\nThe county will in some way or other be called upon to declare it your\nopinion, that the House of Commons is not sufficiently numerous, and\nthat the elections are not sufficiently frequent,--that an hundred new\nknights of the shire ought to be added, and that we are to have a new\nelection once in three years for certain, and as much oftener as the\nking pleases. Such will be the state of things, if the proposition made\nshall take effect.\n\nAll this may be proper. But, as an honest man, I cannot possibly give my\nrote for it, until I have considered it more fully. I will not deny that\nour Constitution may have faults, and that those faults, when found,\nought to be corrected; but, on the whole, that Constitution has been our\nown pride, and an object of admiration to all other nations. It is not\neverything which appears at first view to be faulty, in such a\ncomplicated plan, that is to be determined to be so in reality. To\nenable us to correct the Constitution, the whole Constitution must be\nviewed together; and it must be compared with the actual state of the\npeople, and the circumstances of the time. For that which taken singly\nand by itself may appear to be wrong, when considered with relation to\nother things, may be perfectly right,--or at least such as ought to be\npatiently endured, as the means of preventing something that is worse.\nSo far with regard to what at first view may appear a _distemper_ in the\nConstitution. As to the _remedy_ of that distemper an equal caution\nought to be used; because this latter consideration is not single and\nseparate, no more than the former. There are many things in reformation\nwhich would be proper to be done, if other things can be done along with\nthem, but which, if they cannot be so accompanied, ought not to be done\nat all. I therefore wish, when any new matter of this deep nature is\nproposed to me, to have the whole scheme distinctly in my view, and full\ntime to consider of it. Please God, I will walk with caution, whenever I\nam not able clearly to see my way before me.\n\nI am now growing old. I have from my very early youth been conversant in\nreading and thinking upon the subject of our laws and Constitution, as\nwell as upon those of other times and other countries; I have been for\nfifteen years a very laborious member of Parliament, and in that time\nhave had great opportunities of seeing with my own eyes the working of\nthe machine of our government, and remarking where it went smoothly and\ndid its business, and where it checked in its movements, or where it\ndamaged its work; I have also had and used the opportunities of\nconversing with men of the greatest wisdom and fullest experience in\nthose matters; and I do declare to you most solemnly and most truly,\nthat, on the result of all this reading, thinking, experience, and\ncommunication, I am not able to come to an immediate resolution in favor\nof a change of the groundwork of our Constitution, and in particular,\nthat, in the present state of the country, in the present state of our\nrepresentation, in the present state of our rights and modes of\nelecting, in the present state of the several prevalent interests, in\nthe present state of the affairs and manners of this country, the\naddition of an hundred knights of the shire, and hurrying election on\nelection, will be things advantageous to liberty or good government.\n\nThis is the present condition of my mind; and this is my apology for not\ngoing as fast as others may choose to go in this business. I do not by\nany means reject the propositions; much less do I condemn the gentlemen\nwho, with equal good intentions, with much better abilities, and with\ninfinitely greater personal weight and consideration than mine, are of\nopinion that this matter ought to be decided upon instantly.\n\nI most heartily wish that the deliberate sense of the kingdom on this\ngreat subject should be known. When it is known, it _must_ be prevalent.\nIt would be dreadful indeed, if there was any power in the nation\ncapable of resisting its unanimous desire, or even the desire of any\nvery great and decided majority of the people. The people may be\ndeceived in their choice of an object; but I can scarcely conceive any\nchoice they can make to be so very mischievous as the existence of any\nhuman force capable of resisting it. It will certainly be the duty of\nevery man, in the situation to which God has called him, to give his\nbest opinion and advice upon the matter: it will _not_ be his duty, let\nhim think what he will, to use any violent or any fraudulent means of\ncounteracting the general wish, or even of employing the legal and\nconstructive organ of expressing the people's sense against the sense\nwhich they do actually entertain.\n\nIn order that the real sense of the people should be known upon so great\nan affair as this, it is of absolute necessity that timely notice should\nbe given,--that the matter should be prepared in open committees, from a\nchoice into which no class or description of men is to be excluded,--and\nthe subsequent county meetings should be as full and as well attended as\npossible. Without these precautions, the true sense of the people will\never be uncertain. Sure I am, that no precipitate resolution on a great\nchange in the fundamental constitution of any country can ever be called\nthe real sense of the people.\n\nI trust it will not be taken amiss, if, as an inhabitant and freeholder\nof this county, (one, indeed, among the most inconsiderable,) I assert\nmy right of dissenting (as I do dissent fully and directly) from any\nresolution whatsoever on the subject of an alteration in the\nrepresentation and election of the kingdom _at this time_. By preserving\nthis light, and exercising it with temper and moderation, I trust I\ncannot offend the noble proposer, for whom no man professes or feels\nmore respect and regard than I do. A want of concurrence in _everything_\nwhich _can_ be proposed will in no sort weaken the energy or distract\nthe efforts of men of upright intentions upon those points in which they\nare agreed. Assemblies that are met, and with a resolution to be all of\na mind, are assemblies that can have no opinion at all of their own. The\nfirst proposer of any measure must be their master. I do not know that\nan amicable variety of sentiment, conducted with mutual good-will, has\nany sort of resemblance to discord, or that it can give any advantage\nwhatsoever to the enemies of our common cause. On the contrary, a forced\nand fictitious agreement (which every universal agreement must be) is\nnot becoming the cause of freedom. If, however, any evil should arise\nfrom it, (which I confess I do not foresee,) I am happy that those who\nhave brought forward new and arduous matter, when very great doubts and\nsome diversity of opinion must be foreknown, are of authority and weight\nenough to stand against the consequences.\n\nI humbly lay these my sentiments before the county. They are not taken\nup to serve any interests of my own, or to be subservient to the\ninterests of any man or set of men under heaven. I could wish to be able\nto attend our meeting, or that I had time to reason this matter more\nfully by letter; but I am detained here upon our business: what you have\nalready put upon us is as much as we can do. If we are prevented from\ngoing through it with any effect, I fear it will be in part owing not\nmore to the resistance of the enemies of our cause than to our imposing\non ourselves such tasks as no human faculties, employed as we are, can\nbe equal to. Our worthy members have shown distinguished ability and\nzeal in support of our petition. I am just going down to a bill brought\nin to frustrate a capital part of your desires. The minister is\npreparing to transfer the cognizance of the public accounts from those\nwhom you and the Constitution have chosen to control them, to unknown\npersons, creatures of his own. For so much he annihilates Parliament.\n\nI have the honor, &c.\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nCHARLES STREET, 12th April, 1780.\n\n\n\n\nFRAGMENTS OF A TRACT\n\nRELATIVE TO\n\nTHE LAWS AGAINST POPERY\n\nIN IRELAND.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n    The condition of the Roman Catholics in Ireland appears to\n    lave engaged the attention of Mr. Burke at a very early\n    period of his political life. It was probably soon after the\n    year 1765 that he formed the plan of a work upon that\n    subject, the fragments of which are now given to the public.\n    No title is prefixed to it in the original manuscript; and\n    the _Plan_, which it has been thought proper to insert here,\n    was evidently designed merely for the convenience of the\n    author. Of the first chapter some unconnected fragments only,\n    too imperfect for publication, have been found. Of the second\n    there is a considerable portion, perhaps nearly the whole;\n    but the copy from which it is printed is evidently a first\n    rough draught. The third chapter, as far as it goes, is taken\n    from a fair, corrected copy; but the end of the second part\n    of the first head is left unfinished, and the discussion of\n    the second and third heads was either never entered upon or\n    the manuscript containing it has unfortunately been lost.\n    What follows the third chapter appears to have been designed\n    for the beginning of the fourth, and is evidently the first\n    rough draught; and to this we have added a fragment which\n    appears to have been a part either of this or the first\n    chapter.\n\n    In the volume with which it is intended to close this\n    posthumous publication of Mr. Burke's Works, we shall have\n    occasion to enter into a more particular account of the part\n    which he took in the discussion of this great political\n    question. At present it may suffice to say, that the Letter\n    to Mr. Smith, the Second Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe,\n    and the Letter to his Son, which here follow in order the\n    Fragment on the Popery Laws, are the only writings upon this\n    subject found amongst his papers in a state fit to appear in\n    this stage of the publication. What remain are some small\n    fragments of the Tract, and a few letters containing no new\n    matter of importance.\n\n\n\n\nTRACT\n\nON THE POPERY LAWS\n\n\nTHE PLAN.\n\n\nI propose, first, to make an Introduction, in order to show the\npropriety of a closer inspection into the affairs of Ireland; and this\ntakes up the first chapter, which is to be spent in this introductory\nmatter, and in stating the Popery laws in general, as one leading cause\nof the imbecility of the country.\n\nCH. II. states particularly the laws themselves, in a plain and popular\nmanner.\n\nCH. III. begins the remarks upon them, under the heads of, 1st, The\nobject,--which is a numerous people; 2ndly, Their means,--a restraint on\nproperty; 3rdly, Their instruments of execution,--corrupted morals,\nwhich affect the national prosperity.\n\nCH. IV. The impolicy of those laws, as they affect the national\nsecurity.\n\nCH. V. Reasons by which the laws are supported, and answers to them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\nIn order to lay this matter with full satisfaction before the reader, I\nshall collect into one point of view, and state as shortly and as\nclearly as I am able, the purport of these laws, according to the\nobjects which they affect, without making at present any further\nobservation upon them, but just what shall be necessary to render the\ndrift; and intention of the legislature and the tendency and operation\nof the laws the more distinct and evident.\n\nI shall begin with those which relate to the possession and inheritance\nof landed property in Popish hands. The first operation of those acts\nupon this object was wholly to change the course of descent by the\nCommon Law, to take away the right of primogeniture, and, in lieu\nthereof, to substitute and establish a new species of Statute Gavelkind.\nBy this law, on the death of a Papist possessed of an estate in fee\nsimple or in fee tail, the land is to be divided by equal portions\nbetween all the male children; and those portions are likewise to be\nparcelled out, share and share alike, amongst the descendants of each\nson, and so to proceed in a similar distribution _ad infinitum_. From\nthis regulation it was proposed that some important consequences should\nfollow. First, by taking away the right of primogeniture, perhaps in the\nvery first generation, certainly in the second, the families of Papists,\nhowever respectable, and their fortunes, however considerable, would be\nwholly dissipated, and reduced to obscurity and indigence, without any\npossibility that they should repair them by their industry or\nabilities,--being, as we shall see anon, disabled from every species of\npermanent acquisition. Secondly, by this law the right of testamentation\nis taken away, which the inferior tenures had always enjoyed, and all\ntenures from the 27th Hen. VIII; Thirdly, the right of settlement was\ntaken away, that no such persons should, from the moment the act passed,\nbe enabled to advance themselves in fortune or connection by marriage,\nbeing disabled from making any disposition, in consideration of such\nmarriage, but what the law had previously regulated: the reputable\nestablishment of the eldest son, as representative of the family, or to\nsettle a jointure, being commonly the great object in such settlements,\nwhich was the very power which the law had absolutely taken away.\n\nThe operation of this law, however certain, might be too slow. The\npresent possessors might happen to be long-lived. The legislature knew\nthe natural impatience of expectants, and upon this principle they gave\nencouragement to children to anticipate the inheritance. For it is\nprovided, that the eldest son of any Papist shall, immediately on his\nconformity, change entirely the nature and properties of his father's\nlegal estate: if he before held in fee simple, or, in other words, had\nthe entire and absolute dominion over the land, he is reduced to an\nestate for his life only, with all the consequences of the natural\ndebility of that estate, by which he becomes disqualified to sell,\nmortgage, charge, (except for his life,) or in any wise to do any act by\nwhich he may raise money for relief in his most urgent necessities. The\neldest son, so conforming, immediately acquires, and in the lifetime of\nhis father, the permanent part, what our law calls the reversion and\ninheritance of the estate; and he discharges it by retrospect, and\nannuls every sort of voluntary settlement made by the father ever so\nlong before his conversion. This he may sell or dispose of immediately,\nand alienate it from the family forever.\n\nHaving thus reduced his father's estate, he may also bring his father\ninto the Court of Chancery, where he may compel him to swear to the\nvalue of his estate, and to allow him out of that possession (which had\nbeen before reduced to an estate for life) such an immediate annual\nallowance as the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper shall judge suitable to\nhis ago and quality.\n\nThis indulgence is not confined to the eldest son. The other children\nlikewise, by conformity, may acquire the same privileges, and in the\nsame manner force from their father an immediate and independent\nmaintenance. It is very well worth remarking, that the statutes have\navoided to fix any determinate age for these emancipating conversions;\nso that the children, at any age, however incapable of choice in other\nrespects, however immature or even infantile, are yet considered\nsufficiently capable to disinherit their parents, and totally to\nsubtract themselves from their direction and control, either at their\nown option, or by the instigation of others. By this law the tenure and\nvalue of a Roman Catholic in his real property is not only rendered\nextremely limited and altogether precarious, but the paternal power is\nin all such families so enervated that it may well be considered as\nentirely taken away; even the principle upon which it is founded seems\nto be directly reversed. However, the legislature feared that enough was\nnot yet done upon this head. The Roman Catholic parent, by selling his\nreal estate, might in some sort preserve the dominion over his substance\nand his family, and thereby evade the operation of these laws, which\nintended to take away both. Besides, frequent revolutions and many\nconversions had so broken the landed property of Papists in that\nkingdom, that it was apprehended that this law could have in a short\ntime but a few objects upon which it would be capable of operating.\n\nTo obviate these inconveniences another law was made, by which the\ndominion of children over their parents was extended universally\nthroughout the whole Popish part of the nation, and every child of every\nPopish parent was encouraged to come into what is called a court of\nequity, to prefer a bill against his father, and compel him to confess,\nupon oath, the quantity and value of his substance, personal as well as\nreal, of what nature soever, or howsoever it might be employed; upon\nwhich discovery, the court is empowered to seize upon and allocate, for\nthe immediate maintenance of such child or children, any sum not\nexceeding a third of the whole fortune: and as to their future\nestablishment on the death of the father, no limits are assigned; the\nChancery may, if it thinks fit, take the whole property, personal as\nwell as real, money, stock in trade, &c, out of the power of the\npossessor, and secure it in any manner they judge expedient for that\npurpose; for the act has not assigned any sort of limit with regard to\nthe quantity which is to be charged, or given any direction concerning\nthe means of charging and securing it: a law which supersedes all\nobservation.\n\nBut the law is still more extensive in its provision. Because there was\na possibility that the parent, though sworn, might by false\nrepresentations evade the discovery of the ultimate value of his estate,\na new bill may be at any time brought, by one, any, or all of the\nchildren, for a further discovery; his effects are to undergo a fresh\nscrutiny, and a now distribution is to be made in consequence of it. So\nthat the parent has no security against perpetual inquietude, and the\nreiteration of Chancery suits, but by (what is somewhat difficult for\nhuman nature to comply with) fully, and without reserve, abandoning his\nwhole property to the discretion of the court, to be disposed of in\nfavor of such children.\n\nBut is this enough, and has the parent purchased his repose by such a\nsurrender? Very far from it. The law expressly, and very carefully,\nprovides that he shall not: before he can be secure from the persecution\nof his children, it requires another and a much more extraordinary\ncondition: the children are authorized, if they can find that their\nparent has by his industry, or otherwise, increased the value of his\nproperty since their first bill, to bring another, compelling a new\naccount of the value of his estate, in order to a new distribution\nproportioned to the value of the estate at the time of the new bill\npreferred. They may bring such bills, _toties quoties_, upon every\nimprovement of his fortune, without any sort of limitation of time, or\nregard to the frequency of such bills, or to the quantity of the\nincrease of the estate, which shall justify the bringing them. This act\nexpressly provides that he shall have no respite from the persecution of\nhis children, but by totally abandoning all thoughts of improvement and\nacquisition.\n\nThis is going a great way, surely: but the laws in question have gone\nmuch further. Not satisfied with calling upon children to revolt against\ntheir parents, and to possess themselves of their substance, there are\ncases where the withdrawing of the child from his father's obedience is\nnot left to the option of the child himself: for, if the wife of a Roman\nCatholic should choose to change her religion, from that moment she\ndeprives her husband of all management and direction of his children,\nand even of all the tender satisfaction which a parent can feel in their\nsociety, and which is the only indemnification he can have for all his\ncares and sorrows; and they are to be torn forever, at the earliest age,\nfrom his house and family: for the Lord Chancellor is not only\nauthorized, but he is strongly required, to take away all his children\nfrom such Popish parent, to appoint where, in what manner, and by whom\nthey are to be educated; and the father is compelled to pay, not for the\nransom, but for the deprivation of his children, and to furnish such a\nsum as the Chancellor thinks proper to appoint for their education to\nthe age of eighteen years. The case is the same, if the husband should\nbe the conformist; though how the law is to operate in this case I do\nnot see: for the act expressly says, that the child shall be taken from\nsuch Popish parent; and whilst such husband and wife cohabit, it will be\nimpossible to put it into execution without taking the child from one as\nwell as from the other; and then the effect of the law will be, that, if\neither husband or wife becomes Protestant, both are to be deprived of\ntheir children.\n\nThe paternal power thus being wholly abrogated, it is evident that by\nthe last regulation the power of an husband over his wife is also\nconsiderably impaired; because, if it be in her power, whenever she\npleases, to subtract the children from his protection and obedience, she\nherself by that hold inevitably acquires a power and superiority over\nher husband.\n\nBut she is not left dependent upon this oblique influence: for, if in\nany marriage settlement the husband has reserved to him a power of\nmaking a jointure, and he dies without settling any, her conformity\nexecutes his powers, and executes them in as large extent as the\nChancellor thinks fit. The husband is deprived of that coercive power\nover his wife which he had in his hands by the use he might make of the\ndiscretionary power reserved in the settlement.\n\nBut if no such power had been reserved, and no such settlement existed,\nyet, if the husband dies, leaving his conforming wife without a filed\nprovision by some settlement on his real estate, his wife may apply to\nChancery, where she shall be allotted a portion from his leases, and\nother personal estate, not exceeding one third of his whole clear\nsubstance. The laws in this instance, as well as in the former, have\npresumed that the husband has omitted to make all the provision which he\nmight have done, for no other reason than that of her religion. If,\ntherefore, she chooses to balance any domestic misdemeanors to her\nhusband by the public merit of conformity to the Protestant religion,\nthe law will suffer no plea of such misdemeanors to be urged on the\nhusband's part, nor proof of that kind to be entered into. She acquires\na provision totally independent of his favor, and deprives him of that\nsource of domestic authority which the Common Law had left to him, that\nof rewarding or punishing, by a voluntary distribution of his effects,\nwhat in his opinion was the good or ill behavior of his wife.\n\nThus the laws stand with regard to the property already acquired, to its\nmode of descent, and to family powers. Now as to the new acquisition of\nreal property, and both to the acquisition and security of personal, the\nlaw stands thus:--\n\nAll persons of that persuasion are disabled from taking or purchasing,\ndirectly or by a trust, any lands, any mortgage upon land, any rents or\nprofits from land, any lease, interest, or term of any land, any\nannuity for life or lives or years, or any estate whatsoever, chargeable\nupon, or which may in any manner affect, any lands.\n\nOne exception, and one only, is admitted by the statutes to the\nuniversality of this exclusion, viz., a lease for a term not exceeding\nthirty-one years. But even this privilege is charged with a prior\nqualification. This remnant of a right is doubly curtailed: 1st, that on\nsuch a short lease a rent not less than two thirds of the full improved\nyearly value, at the time of the making it, shall be reserved during the\nwhole continuance of the term; and, 2ndly, it does not extend to the\nwhole kingdom. This lease must also be in possession, and not in\nreversion. If any lease is made, exceeding either in duration or value,\nand in the smallest degree, the above limits, the whole interest is\nforfeited, and vested _ipso facto_ in the first Protestant discoverer or\ninformer. This discoverer, thus invested with the property, is enabled\nto sue for it as his own right. The courts of law are not alone open to\nhim; he may (and this is the usual method) enter into either of the\ncourts of equity, and call upon the parties, and those whom he suspects\nto be their trustees, upon oath, and under the penalties of perjury, to\ndiscover against themselves the exact nature and value of their estates\nin every particular, in order to induce their forfeiture on the\ndiscovery. In such suits the informer is not liable to those delays\nwhich the ordinary procedure of those courts throws into the way of the\njustest claimant; nor has the Papist the indulgence which he [it?]\nallows to the most fraudulent defendant, that of plea and demurrer; but\nthe defendant is obliged to answer the whole directly upon oath. The\nrule of _favores ampliandi,_ &c., is reversed by this act, lest any\nfavor should be shown, or the force and operation of the law in any part\nof its progress be enervated. All issues to be tried on this act are to\nbe tried by none but known Protestants.\n\nIt is here necessary to state as a part of this law what has been for\nsome time generally understood as a certain consequence of it. The act\nhad expressly provided that a Papist could possess no sort of estate\nwhich might affect land (except as before excepted). On this a\ndifficulty did, not unnaturally, arise. It is generally known, a\njudgment being obtained or acknowledged for any debt, since the statute\nof Westm. 2, 13 Ed. I. c. 18, one half of the debtor's land is to be\ndelivered unto the creditor until the obligation is satisfied, under a\nwrit called _Elegit_, and this writ has been ever since the ordinary\nassurance of the land, and the great foundation of general credit in the\nnation. Although the species of holding under this writ is not specified\nin the statute, the received opinion, though not juridically delivered,\nhas been, that, if they attempt to avail themselves of that security,\nbecause it may create an estate, however precarious, in land, their\nwhole debt or charge is forfeited, and becomes the property of the\nProtestant informer. Thus you observe, first, that by the express words\nof the law all possibility of acquiring any species of valuable\nproperty, in any sort connected with land, is taken away; and, secondly,\nby the construction all security for money is also cut off. No security\nis left, except what is merely personal, and which, therefore, most\npeople who lend money would, I believe, consider as none at all.\n\nUnder this head of the acquisition of property, the law meets them in\nevery road of industry, and in its direct and consequential provisions\nthrows almost all sorts of obstacles in their way. For they are not only\nexcluded from all offices in Church and State, which, though a just and\nnecessary provision, is yet no small restraint in the acquisition, but\nthey are interdicted from the army, and the law, in all its branches.\nThis point is carried to so scrupulous a severity, that chamber\npractice, and even private conveyancing, the most voluntary agency, are\nprohibited to them under the severest penalties and the most rigid modes\nof inquisition. They have gone beyond even this: for every barrister,\nsix clerk, attorney, or solicitor, is obliged to take a solemn oath not\nto employ persons of that persuasion,--no, not as hackney clerks, at the\nmiserable salary of seven shillings a week. No tradesman of that\npersuasion is capable by any service or settlement to obtain his freedom\nin any town corporate; so that they trade and work in their own native\ntowns as aliens, paying, as such, quarterage, and other charges and\nimpositions. They are expressly forbidden, in whatever employment, to\ntake more than two apprentices, except in the linen manufacture only.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn every state, next to the care of the life and properties of the\nsubject, the education of their youth has been a subject of attention.\nIn the Irish laws this point has not been neglected. Those who are\nacquainted with the constitution of our universities need not be\ninformed that none but those who conform to the Established Church can\nbe at all admitted to study there, and that none can obtain degrees in\nthem who do not previously take all the tests, oaths, and declarations.\nLest they should be enabled to supply this defect by private academies\nand schools of their own, the law has armed itself with all its terrors\nagainst such a practice. Popish schoolmasters of every species are\nproscribed by those acts, and it is made felony to teach even in a\nprivate family. So that Papists are entirely excluded from an education\nin any of our authorized establishments for learning at home. In order\nto shut up every avenue to instruction, the act of King William in\nIreland has added to this restraint by precluding them from all foreign\neducation.\n\nThis act is worthy of attention on account of the singularity of some of\nits provisions. Being sent for education to any Popish school or college\nabroad, upon conviction, incurs (if the party sent has any estate of\ninheritance) a kind of unalterable and perpetual outlawry. The tender\nand incapable age of such a person, his natural subjection to the will\nof others, his necessary, unavoidable ignorance of the laws, stands for\nnothing in his favor. He is disabled to sue in law or equity; to be\nguardian, executor, or administrator; he is rendered incapable of any\nlegacy or deed of gift; he forfeits all his goods and chattels forever;\nand he forfeits for his life all his lands, hereditaments, offices, and\nestate of freehold, and all trusts, powers, or interests therein. All\npersons concerned in sending them or maintaining them abroad, by the\nleast assistance of money or otherwise, are involved in the same\ndisabilities, and subjected to the same penalties.\n\nThe mode of conviction is as extraordinary as the penal sanctions of\nthis act. A justice of peace, upon information that any child is sent\naway, may require to be brought before him all persons charged or even\nsuspected of sending or assisting, and examine them and other persons\non oath concerning the fact. If on this examination he finds it\n_probable_ that the party was sent contrary to this act, he is then, to\nbind over the parties and witnesses in any sum he thinks fit, but not\nless than two hundred pounds, to appear and take their trial at the next\nquarter sessions. Here the justices are to reexamine evidence, until\nthey arrive, as before, to what shall appear to them a probability. For\nthe rest they resort to the accused: if they can prove that any person,\nor any money, or any bill of exchange, has been sent abroad by the party\naccused, they throw the proof upon him to show for what innocent\npurposes it was sent; and on failure of such proof, he is subjected to\nall the above-mentioned penalties. Half the forfeiture is given to the\ncrown; the other half goes to the informer.\n\nIt ought here to be remarked, that this mode of conviction not only\nconcludes the party has failed in his expurgatory proof, but it is\nsufficient also to subject to the penalties and incapacities of the law\nthe infant upon whose account the person has been so convicted. It must\nbe confessed that the law has not left him without some species of\nremedy in this case apparently of much hardship, where one man is\nconvicted upon evidence given against another, if he has the good\nfortune to live; for, within a twelvemonth after his return, or his age\nof twenty-one, he has a, right to call for a new trial, in which he also\nis to undertake the negative proof, and to show by sufficient evidence\nthat he has not been sent abroad against the intention of the act. If he\nsucceeds in this difficult exculpation, and demonstrates his innocence\nto the satisfaction of the court, he forfeits all his goods and\nchattels, and all the profits of his lands incurred and received before\nsuch acquittal; but he is freed from all other forfeitures, and from all\nsubsequent incapacities. There is also another method allowed by the law\nin favor of persons under such unfortunate circumstances, as in the\nformer case for their innocence, in this upon account of their\nexpiation: if within six months after their return, with the punctilious\nobservation of many ceremonies, they conform to the Established Church,\nand take all the oaths and subscriptions, the legislature, in\nconsideration of the incapable age in which they were sent abroad, of\nthe merit of their early conformity, and to encourage conversions, only\nconfiscates, as in the former case, the whole personal estate, and the\nprofits of the real; in all other respects, restoring and rehabilitating\nthe party.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo far as to property and education. There remain some other heads upon\nwhich the acts have changed the course of the Common Law; and first,\nwith regard to the right of self-defence, which consists in the use of\narms. This, though one of the rights by the law of Nature, yet is so\ncapable of abuses that it may not be unwise to make some regulations\nconcerning them; and many wise nations have thought proper to set\nseveral restrictions on this right, especially temporary ones, with\nregard to suspected persons, and on occasion of some imminent danger to\nthe public from foreign invasion or domestic commotions.\n\nBut provisions in time of trouble proper, and perhaps necessary, may\nbecome in time of profound peace a scheme of tyranny. The method which\nthe statute law of Ireland has taken upon this delicate article is, to\nget rid of all difficulties at once by an universal prohibition to all\npersons, at all times, and under all circumstances, who are not\nProtestants, of using or keeping any kind of weapons whatsoever. In\norder to enforce this regulation, the whole spirit of the Common Law is\nchanged, very severe penalties are enjoined, the largest powers are\nvested in the lowest magistrates. Any two justices of peace, or\nmagistrates of a town, with or without information, at their pleasure,\nby themselves or their warrant, are empowered to enter and search the\nhouse of any Papist, or even of any other person, whom they suspect to\nkeep such arms in trust for them. The only limitation to the extent of\nthis power is, that the search is to be made between the rising and\nsetting of the sun: but even this qualification extends no further than\nto the execution of the act in the open country; for in all cities and\ntheir suburbs, in towns corporate and market-towns, they may at their\ndiscretion, and without information, break open houses and institute\nsuch search at any hour of the day or night. This, I say, they may do at\ntheir discretion; and it seems a pretty ample power in the hands of such\nmagistrates. However, the matter does by no means totally rest on their\ndiscretion. Besides the discretionary and occasional search, the statute\nhas prescribed one that is general and periodical. It is to be made\nannually, by the warrant of the justices at their midsummer quarter\nsessions, by the high and petty constables, or any others whom they may\nauthorize, and by all corporate magistrates, in all houses of Papists,\nand every other where they suspect arms for the use of such persons to\nbe concealed, with the same powers, in all respects, which attend the\noccasional search. The whole of this regulation, concerning both the\ngeneral and particular search, seems to have been made by a legislature\nwhich was not at all extravagantly jealous of personal liberty. Not\ntrusting, however, to the activity of the magistrate acting officially,\nthe law has invited all voluntary informers by considerable rewards, and\neven pressed involuntary informers into this service by the dread of\nheavy penalties. With regard to the latter method, two justices of\npeace, or the magistrate of any corporation, are empowered to summon\nbefore them any persons whatsoever, to tender them an oath by which they\noblige them to discover all persons who have any arms concealed contrary\nto law. Their refusal or declining to appear, or, appearing, their\nrefusal to inform, subjects them to the severest penalties. If peers or\npeeresses are summoned (for they may be summoned by the bailiff of a\ncorporation of six cottages) to perform this honorable service, and\nrefuse to inform, the first offence is three hundred pounds penalty; the\nsecond is _praemunire_,--that is to say, imprisonment for life, and\nforfeiture of all their goods. Persons of an inferior order are, for the\nfirst offence, fined thirty pounds; for the second, they, too, are\nsubjected to _praemunire_. So far as to involuntary;--now as to voluntary\ninformers: the law entitles them to half the penalty incurred by\ncarrying or keeping arms; for, on conviction of this offence, the\npenalty upon persons, of whatever substance, is the sum of fifty pounds\nand a year's imprisonment, which cannot be remitted even by the crown.\n\nThe only exception to this law is a license from the Lord Lieutenant and\nCouncil to carry arms, which, by its nature, is extremely limited, and I\ndo not suppose that there are six persons now in the kingdom who have\nbeen fortunate enough to obtain it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere remains, after this system concerning property and defence, to say\nsomething concerning the exercise of religion, winch is carried on in\nall persuasions, but especially in the Romish, by persons appointed for\nthat purpose. The law of King William and Queen Anne ordered all Popish\nparsons exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, all orders of monks and\nfriars, and all priests, not then actually in parishes, and to be\nregistered, to be banished the kingdom; and if they should return from\nexile, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Twenty pounds reward is given\nfor apprehending them. Penalty on harboring and concealing.\n\nAs all the priests then in being and registered are long since dead, and\nas these laws are made perpetual, every Popish priest is liable to the\nlaw.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe reader has now before him a tolerably complete view of the Popery\nlaws relative to property by descent or acquisition, to education, to\ndefence, and to the free exercise of religion, which may be necessary to\nenable him to form some judgment of the spirit of the whole system, and\nof the subsequent reflections that are to be made upon it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nPART I.\n\n\nThe system which we have just reviewed, and the manner in which\nreligious influence on the public is made to operate upon the laws\nconcerning property in Ireland, is in its nature very singular, and\ndiffers, I apprehend, essentially, and perhaps to its disadvantage, from\nany scheme of religious persecution now existing in any other country in\nEurope, or which has prevailed in any time or nation with which history\nhas made us acquainted. I believe it will not be difficult to show that\nit is unjust, impolitic, and inefficacious; that it has the most unhappy\ninfluence on the prosperity, the morals, and the safety of that country;\nthat this influence is not accidental, but has flowed as the necessary\nand direct consequence of the laws themselves, first on account of the\nobject which they affect, and next by the quality of the greatest part\nof the instruments they employ. Upon all these points, first upon the\ngeneral, and then on the particular, this question will be considered\nwith as much order as can be followed in a matter of itself as involved\nand intricate as it is important.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe first and most capital consideration with regard to this, as to\nevery object, is the extent of it. And here it is necessary to premise,\nthis system of penalty and incapacity has for its object no small sect\nor obscure party, but a very numerous body of men,--a body which\ncomprehends at least two thirds of that whole nation: it amounts to\n2,800,000 souls, a number sufficient for the materials constituent of a\ngreat people. Now it is well worthy of a serious and dispassionate\nexamination, whether such a system, respecting such an object, be in\nreality agreeable to any sound principles of legislation or any\nauthorized definition of law; for if our reasons or practices differ\nfrom the general informed sense of mankind, it is very moderate to say\nthat they are at least suspicious.\n\nThis consideration of the magnitude of the object ought to attend us\nthrough the whole inquiry: if it does not always affect the reason, it\nis always decisive on the importance of the question. It not only makes\nin itself a more leading point, but complicates itself with every other\npart of the matter, giving every error, minute in itself, a character\nand significance from its application. It is therefore not to be\nwondered at, if we perpetually recur to it in the course of this essay.\n\nIn the making of a new law it is undoubtedly the duty of the legislator\nto see that no injustice be done even to an individual: for there is\nthen nothing to be unsettled, and the matter is under his hands to mould\nit as he pleases; and if he finds it untractable in the working, he may\nabandon it without incurring any new inconvenience. But in the question\nconcerning the repeal of an old one, the work is of more difficulty;\nbecause laws, like houses, lean on one another, and the operation is\ndelicate, and should be necessary: the objection, in such a case, ought\nnot to arise from the natural infirmity of human institutions, but from\nsubstantial faults which contradict the nature and end of law\nitself,--faults not arising from the imperfection, but from the\nmisapplication and abuse of our reason. As no legislators can regard the\n_minima_ of equity, a law may in some instances be a just subject of\ncensure without being at all an object of repeal. But if its\ntransgressions against common right and, the ends of just government\nshould be considerable in their nature and spreading in their effects,\nas this objection goes to the root and principle of the law, it renders\nit void in its obligatory quality on the mind, and therefore determines\nit as the proper object of abrogation and repeal, so far as regards its\ncivil existence. The objection here is, as we observed, by no means on\naccount of the imperfection of the law; it is on account of its\nerroneous principle: for if this be fundamentally wrong, the more\nperfect the law is made, the worse it becomes. It cannot be said to have\nthe properties of genuine law, even in its imperfections and defects.\nThe true weakness and opprobrium of our best general constitutions is,\nthat they cannot provide beneficially for every particular case, and\nthus fill, adequately to their intentions, the circle of universal\njustice. But where the principle is faulty, the erroneous part of the\nlaw is the beneficial, and justice only finds refuge in those holes and\ncorners which had escaped the sagacity and inquisition of the\nlegislator. The happiness or misery of multitudes can never be a thing\nindifferent. A law against the majority of the people is in substance a\nlaw against the people itself; its extent determines its invalidity; it\neven changes its character as it enlarges its operation: it is not\nparticular injustice, but general oppression; and can no longer be\nconsidered as a private hardship, which might be borne, but spreads and\ngrows up into the unfortunate importance of a national calamity.\n\nNow as a law directed against the mass of the nation has not the nature\nof a reasonable institution, so neither has it the authority: for in all\nforms of government the people is the true legislator; and whether the\nimmediate and instrumental cause of the law be a single person or many,\nthe remote and efficient cause is the consent of the people, either\nactual or implied; and such consent is absolutely essential to its\nvalidity. To the solid establishment of every law two things are\nessentially requisite: first, a proper and sufficient human power to\ndeclare and modify the matter of the law; and next, such a fit and\nequitable constitution as they have a right to declare and render\nbinding. With regard to the first requisite, the human authority, it is\ntheir judgment they give up, not their right. The people, indeed, are\npresumed to consent to whatever the legislature ordains for their\nbenefit; and they are to acquiesce in it, though they do not clearly see\ninto the propriety of the means by which they are conducted to that\ndesirable end. This they owe as an act of homage and just deference to a\nreason which the necessity of government has made superior to their own.\nBut though the means, and indeed the nature, of a public advantage may\nnot always be evident to the understanding of the subject, no one is so\ngross and stupid as not to distinguish between a benefit and an injury.\nNo one can imagine, then, an exclusion of a great body of men, not from\nfavors, privileges, and trusts, but from the common advantages of\nsociety, can ever be a thing intended for their good, or can ever be\nratified by any implied consent of theirs. If, therefore, at least an\nimplied human consent is necessary to the existence of a law, such a\nconstitution cannot in propriety be a law at all.\n\nBut if we could suppose that such a ratification was made, not\nvirtually, but actually, by the people, not representatively, but even\ncollectively, still it would be null and void. They have no right to\nmake a law prejudicial to the whole community, even though the\ndelinquents in making such an act should be themselves the chief\nsufferers by it; because it would be-made against the principle of a\nsuperior law, which it is not in the power of any community, or of the\nwhole race of man, to alter,--I mean the will of Him who gave us our\nnature, and in giving impressed an invariable law upon it. It would be\nhard to point out any error more truly subversive of all the order and\nbeauty, of all the peace and happiness of human society, than the\nposition, that any body of men have a right to make what laws they\nplease,--or that laws can derive any authority from their institution\nmerely, and independent of the quality of the subject-matter. No\narguments of policy, reason of state, or preservation of the\nconstitution can be pleaded in favor of such a practice. They may,\nindeed, impeach the frame of that constitution, but can never touch this\nimmovable principle. This seems to be, indeed, the doctrine which Hobbes\nbroached in the last century, and which was then so frequently and so\nably refuted. Cicero exclaims with the utmost indignation and contempt\nagainst such a notion:[22] he considers it not only as unworthy of a\nphilosopher, but of an illiterate peasant; that of all things this was\nthe most truly absurd, to fancy that the rule of justice was to be taken\nfrom the constitutions of commonwealths, or that laws derived their\nauthority from the statutes of the people, the edicts of princes, or\nthe decrees of judges. If it be admitted that it is not the black-letter\nand the king's arms that makes the law, we are to look for it elsewhere.\n\nIn reality there are two, and only two, foundations of law; and they are\nboth of them conditions without which nothing can give it any force: I\nmean equity and utility. With respect to the former, it grows out of the\ngreat rule of equality, which is grounded upon our common nature, and\nwhich Philo, with propriety and beauty, calls the mother of justice. All\nhuman laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory; they may alter the\nmode and application, but have no power over the substance of original\njustice. The other foundation of law, which is utility, must be\nunderstood, not of partial or limited, but of general and public\nutility, connected in the same manner with, and derived directly from,\nour rational nature: for any other utility may be the utility of a\nrobber, but cannot be that of a citizen,--the interest of the domestic\nenemy, and not that of a member of the commonwealth. This present\nequality can never be the foundation of statutes which create an\nartificial difference between men, as the laws before us do, in order to\ninduce a consequential inequality in the distribution of justice. Law is\na mode of human action respecting society, and must be governed by the\nsame rules of equity which govern every private action; and so Tully\nconsiders it in his Offices as the only utility agreeable to that\nnature: \"_Unum debet esse omnibus propositum, ut eadem sit utilitas\nuniuscujusque et universorum; quam si ad se quisque rapiat, dissolvetur\nomnis humana consortio_.\"\n\nIf any proposition can be clear in itself, it is this: that a law which\nshuts out from all secure and valuable property the bulk of the people\ncannot be made for the utility of the party so excluded. This,\ntherefore, is not the utility which Tully mentions. But if it were true\n(as it is not) that the real interest of any part of the community could\nbe separated from the happiness of the rest, still it would afford no\njust foundation for a statute providing exclusively for that interest at\nthe expense of the other; because it would be repugnant to the essence\nof law, which requires that it be made as much as possible for the\nbenefit of the whole. If this principle be denied or evaded, what ground\nhave we left to reason on? We must at once make a total change in all\nour ideas, and look for a new definition of law. Where to find it I\nconfess myself at a loss. If we resort to the fountains of\njurisprudence, they will not supply us with any that is for our purpose.\n\"_Jus_\" (says Paulus) \"_pluribus modis dicitur: uno modo, cum id, quod\nsemper aequum et bonum est, jus dicitur, ut est jus naturale\"_;--this\nsense of the word will not be thought, I imagine, very applicable to our\npenal laws;--\"_altero modo, quod omnibus aut pluribus in unaquaque\ncivitate utile est, ut est jus civile_.\" Perhaps this latter will be as\ninsufficient, and would rather seem a censure and condemnation of the\nPopery Acts than a definition that includes them; and there is no other\nto be found in the whole Digest; neither are there any modern writers\nwhose ideas of law are at all narrower.\n\nIt would be far more easy to heap up authorities on this article than to\nexcuse the prolixity and tediousness of producing any at all in proof of\na point which, though too often practically denied, is in its theory\nalmost self-evident. For Suarez, handling this very question, _Utrum de\nratione et substantia legis esse ut propter commune bonum feratur_, does\nnot hesitate a moment, finding no ground in reason or authority to\nrender the affirmative in the least degree disputable: \"_In quaestione\nergo proposita\"_ (says he) \"_nulla est inter authores controversia; sed\nomnium commune est axioma de substantia et ratione legis esse, ut pro\ncommuni bono feratur; ita ut propter illud praecipue tradatur_\"; having\nobserved in another place, \"_Contra omnem rectitudinem est bonum commune\nad privatum ordinare, seu totum ad partem propter ipsum referre_.\"\nPartiality and law are contradictory terms. Neither the merits nor the\nill deserts, neither the wealth and importance nor the indigence and\nobscurity, of the one part or of the other, can make any alteration in\nthis fundamental truth. On any other scheme, I defy any man living to\nsettle a correct standard which may discriminate between equitable rule\nand the most direct tyranny. For if we can once prevail upon ourselves\nto depart from the strictness and integrity of this principle in favor\neven of a considerable party, the argument will hold for one that is\nless so; and thus we shall go on, narrowing the bottom of public right,\nuntil step by step we arrive, though after no very long or very forced\ndeduction, at what one of our poets calls the _enormous faith_,--the\nfaith of the many, created for the advantage of a single person. I\ncannot see a glimmering of distinction to evade it; nor is it possible\nto allege any reason for the proscription of so large a part of the\nkingdom, which would not hold equally to support, under parallel\ncircumstances, the proscription of the whole.\n\nI am sensible that these principles, in their abstract light, will not\nbe very strenuously opposed. Reason is never inconvenient, but when it\ncomes to be applied. Mere general truths interfere very little with the\npassions. They can, until they are roused by a troublesome application,\nrest in great tranquillity, side by side with tempers and proceedings\nthe most directly opposite to them. Men want to be reminded, who do not\nwant to be taught; because those original ideas of rectitude, to which\nthe mind is compelled to assent when they are proposed, are not always\nas present to it as they ought to be. When people are gone, if not into\na denial, at least into a sort of oblivion of those ideas, when they\nknow them only as barren speculations, and not as practical motives for\nconduct, it will be proper to press, as well as to offer them to the\nunderstanding; and when one is attacked by prejudices which aim to\nintrude themselves into the place of law, what is left for us but to\nvouch and call to warranty those principles of original justice from\nwhence alone our title to everything valuable in society is derived? Can\nit be thought to arise from a superfluous, vain parade of displaying\ngeneral and uncontroverted maxims, that we should revert at this time to\nthe first principles of law, when we have directly under our\nconsideration a whole body of statutes, which, I say, are so many\ncontradictions, which their advocates allow to be so many exceptions\nfrom those very principles? Take them in the most favorable light, every\nexception from the original and fixed rule of equality and justice ought\nsurely to be very well authorized in the reason of their deviation, and\nvery rare in their use. For, if they should grow to be frequent, in what\nwould they differ from an abrogation of the rule itself? By becoming\nthus frequent, they might even go further, and, establishing themselves\ninto a principle, convert the rule into the exception. It cannot be\ndissembled that this is not at all remote from the case before us, where\nthe great body of the people are excluded from all valuable\nproperty,--where the greatest and most ordinary benefits of society are\nconferred as privileges, and not enjoyed on the footing of common\nrights.\n\nThe clandestine manner in which those in power carry on such designs is\na sufficient argument of the sense they inwardly entertain of the true\nnature of their proceedings. Seldom is the title or preamble of the law\nof the same import with the body and enacting part; but they generally\nplace some other color uppermost, which differs from that which is\nafterwards to appear, or at least one that is several shades fainter.\nThus, the penal laws in question are not called laws to oblige men\nbaptized and educated in Popery to renounce their religion or their\nproperty, but are called laws to prevent the growth of Popery; as if\ntheir purpose was only to prevent conversions to that sect, and not to\npersecute a million of people already engaged in it. But of all the\ninstances of this sort of legislative artifice, and of the principles\nthat produced it, I never met with any which made a stronger impression\non me than that of Louis the Fourteenth, in the revocation of the Edict\nof Nantes. That monarch had, when he made that revocation, as few\nmeasures to keep with public opinion as any man. In the exercise of the\nmost unresisted authority at home, in a career of uninterrupted victory\nabroad, and in a course of flattery equal to the circumstances of his\ngreatness in both these particulars, he might be supposed to have as\nlittle need as disposition to render any sort of account to the world of\nhis procedure towards his subjects. But the persecution of so vast a\nbody of men as the Huguenots was too strong a measure even for the law\nof pride and power. It was too glaring a contradiction even to those\nprinciples upon which persecution itself is supported. Shocked at the\nnaked attempt, he had recourse, for a palliation of his conduct, to an\nunkingly denial of the fact which made against him. In the preamble,\ntherefore, to his Act of Revocation, he sets forth that the Edict of\nNantes was no longer necessary, as the object of it (the Protestants of\nhis kingdom) were then reduced to a very small number. The refugees in\nHolland cried out against this misrepresentation. They asserted, I\nbelieve with truth, that this revocation had driven two hundred thousand\nof them out of their country, and that they could readily demonstrate\nthere still remained six hundred thousand Protestants in France. If this\nwere the fact, (as it was undoubtedly,) no argument of policy could have\nbeen strong enough to excuse a measure by which eight hundred thousand\nmen were despoiled, at one stroke, of so many of their rights and\nprivileges. Louis the Fourteenth confessed, by this sort of apology,\nthat, if the number had been large, the revocation had been unjust. But,\nafter all, is it not most evident that this act of injustice, which let\nloose on that monarch such a torrent of invective and reproach, and\nwhich threw so dark a cloud over all the splendor of a most illustrious\nreign, falls far short of the case in Ireland? The privileges which the\nProtestants of that kingdom enjoyed antecedent to this revocation were\nfar greater than the Roman Catholics of Ireland ever aspired to under a\ncontrary establishment. The number of their sufferers, if considered\nabsolutely, is not half of ours; if considered relatively to the body of\neach community, it is not perhaps a twentieth part. And then the\npenalties and incapacities which grew from that revocation are not so\ngrievous in their nature, nor so certain in their execution, nor so\nruinous by a great deal to the civil prosperity of the state, as those\nwhich we have established for a perpetual law in our unhappy country. It\ncannot be thought to arise from affectation, that I call it so. What\nother name can be given to a country which contains so many hundred\nthousands of human creatures reduced to a state of the most abject\nservitude?\n\nIn putting this parallel, I take it for granted that we can stand for\nthis short time very clear of our party distinctions. If it were enough,\nby the use of an odious and unpopular word, to determine the question,\nit would be no longer a subject of rational disquisition; since that\nvery prejudice which gives these odious names, and which is the party\ncharged for doing so, and for the consequences of it, would then become\nthe judge also. But I flatter myself that not a few will be found who do\nnot think that the names of Protestant and Papist can make any change in\nthe nature of essential justice. Such men will not allow that to be\nproper treatment to the one of these denominations which would be\ncruelty to the other, and which converts its very crime into the\ninstrument of its defence: they will hardly persuade themselves that\nwhat was bad policy in France can be good in Ireland, or that what was\nintolerable injustice in an arbitrary monarch becomes, only by being\nmore extended and more violent, an equitable procedure in a country\nprofessing to be governed by law. It is, however, impossible not to\nobserve with some concern, that there are many also of a different\ndisposition,--a number of persons whose minds are so formed that they\nfind the communion of religion to be a close and an endearing tie, and\ntheir country to be no bond at all,--to whom common altars are a better\nrelation than common habitations and a common civil interest,--whose\nhearts are touched with the distresses of foreigners, and are abundantly\nawake to all the tenderness of human feeling on such an occasion, even\nat the moment that they are inflicting the very same distresses, or\nworse, on their fellow-citizens, without the least sting of compassion\nor remorse. To commiserate the distresses of all men suffering\ninnocently, perhaps meritoriously, is generous, and very agreeable to\nthe better part of our nature,--a disposition that ought by all means to\nbe cherished. But to transfer humanity from its natural basis, our\nlegitimate and home-bred connections,--to lose all feeling for those who\nhave grown up by our sides, in our eyes, the benefit of whose cares and\nlabors we have partaken from our birth, and meretriciously to hunt\nabroad after foreign affections, is such a disarrangement of the whole\nsystem of our duties, that I do not know whether benevolence so\ndisplaced is not almost the same thing as destroyed, or what effect\nbigotry could have produced that is more fatal to society. This no one\ncould help observing, who has seen our doors kindly and bountifully\nthrown open to foreign sufferers for conscience, whilst through the same\nports were issuing fugitives of our own, driven from their country for a\ncause which to an indifferent person would seem to be exactly similar,\nwhilst we stood by, without any sense of the impropriety of this\nextraordinary scene, accusing and practising injustice. For my part,\nthere is no circumstance, in all the contradictions of our most\nmysterious nature, that appears to be more humiliating than the use we\nare disposed to make of those sad examples which seem purposely marked\nfor our correction and improvement. Every instance of fury and bigotry\nin other men, one should think, would naturally fill us with an horror\nof that disposition. The effect, however, is directly contrary. We are\ninspired, it is true, with a very sufficient hatred for the party, but\nwith no detestation at all of the proceeding. Nay, we are apt to urge\nour dislike of such measures as a reason for imitating them,--and, by an\nalmost incredible absurdity, because some powers have destroyed their\ncountry by their persecuting spirit, to argue, that we ought to\nretaliate on them by destroying our own. Such are the effects, and such,\nI fear, has been the intention, of those numberless books which are\ndaily printed and industriously spread, of the persecutions in other\ncountries and other religious persuasions.--These observations, which\nare a digression, but hardly, I think, can be considered as a departure\nfrom the subject, have detained us some time: we will now come more\ndirectly to our purpose.\n\nIt has been shown, I hope with sufficient evidence, that a constitution\nagainst the interest of the many is rather of the nature of a grievance\nthan of a law; that of all grievances it is the most weighty and\nimportant; that it is made without due authority, against all the\nacknowledged principles of jurisprudence, against the opinions of all\nthe great lights in that science; and that such is the tacit sense even\nof those who act in the most contrary manner. These points are, indeed,\nso evident, that I apprehend the abettors of the penal system will\nground their defence on an admission, and not on a denial of them. They\nwill lay it down as a principle, that the Protestant religion is a thing\nbeneficial for the whole community, as well in its civil interests as in\nthose of a superior order. From thence they will argue, that, the end\nbeing essentially beneficial, the means become instrumentally so; that\nthese penalties and incapacities are not final causes of the law, but\nonly a discipline to bring over a deluded people to their real interest,\nand therefore, though they may be harsh in their operation, they will be\npleasant in their effects; and be they what they will, they cannot be\nconsidered as a very extraordinary hardship, as it is in the power of\nthe sufferer to free himself when he pleases, and that only by\nconverting to a better religion, which it is his duty to embrace, even\nthough it were attended with all those penalties from whence in reality\nit delivers him: if he suffers, it is his own fault; _volenti non fit\ninjuria_.\n\nI shall be very short, without being, I think, the less satisfactory, in\nmy answer to these topics, because they never can be urged from a\nconviction of their validity, and are, indeed, only the usual and\nimpotent struggles of those who are unwilling to abandon a practice\nwhich they are unable to defend. First, then, I observe, that, if the\nprinciple of their final and beneficial intention be admitted as a just\nground for such proceedings, there never was, in the blamable sense of\nthe word, nor ever can be, such a thing as a religious persecution in\nthe world. Such an intention is pretended by all men,--who all not only\ninsist that their religion has the sanction of Heaven, but is likewise,\nand for that reason, the best and most convenient to human society. All\nreligious persecution, Mr. Bayle well observes, is grounded upon a\nmiserable _petitio principii_. You are wrong, I am right; you must come\nover to me, or you must suffer. Let me add, that the great inlet by\nwhich a color for oppression has entered into the world is by one man's\npretending to determine concerning the happiness of another, and by\nclaiming a right to use what means he thinks proper in order to bring\nhim to a sense of it. It is the ordinary and trite sophism of\noppression. But there is not yet such a convenient ductility in the\nhuman understanding as to make us capable of being persuaded that men\ncan possibly mean the ultimate good of the whole society by rendering\nmiserable for a century together the greater part of it,--or that any\none has such a reversionary benevolence as seriously to intend the\nremote good of a late posterity, who can give up the present enjoyment\nwhich every honest man must have in the happiness of his contemporaries.\nEverybody is satisfied that a conservation and secure enjoyment of our\nnatural rights is the great and ultimate purpose of civil society, and\nthat therefore all forms whatsoever of government are only good as they\nare subservient to that purpose to which they are entirely subordinate.\nNow to aim at the establishment of any form of government by sacrificing\nwhat is the substance of it, to take away or at least to suspend the\nrights of Nature in order to an approved system for the protection of\nthem, and for the sake of that about which men must dispute forever to\npostpone those things about which they have no controversy at all, and\nthis not in minute and subordinate, but large and principal objects, is\na procedure as preposterous and absurd in argument as it is oppressive\nand cruel in its effect. For the Protestant religion, nor (I speak it\nwith reverence, I am sure) the truth of our common Christianity, is not\nso clear as this proposition,--that all men, at least the majority of\nmen in the society, ought to enjoy the common advantages of it. You\nfall, therefore, into a double error: first, you incur a certain\nmischief for an advantage which is comparatively problematical, even\nthough you were sure of obtaining it; secondly, whatever the proposed\nadvantage may be, were it of a certain nature, the attainment of it is\nby no means certain; and such deep gaming for stakes so valuable ought\nnot to be admitted: the risk is of too much consequence to society. If\nno other country furnished examples of this risk, yet our laws and our\ncountry are enough fully to demonstrate the fact: Ireland, after almost\na century of persecution, is at this hour full of penalties and full of\nPapists. This is a point which would lead us a great way; but it is only\njust touched here, having much to say upon it in its proper place. So\nthat you have incurred a certain and an immediate inconvenience for a\nremote and for a doubly uncertain benefit.--Thus far as to the argument\nwhich would sanctify the injustice of these laws by the benefits which\nare proposed to arise from them, and as to that liberty which, by a new\npolitical chemistry, was to be extracted out of a system of oppression.\n\nNow as to the other point, that the objects of these laws suffer\nvoluntarily: this seems to me to be an insult rather than an argument.\nFor, besides that it totally annihilates every characteristic and\ntherefore every faulty idea of persecution, just as the former does, it\nsupposes, what is false in fact, that it is in a man's moral power to\nchange his religion whenever his convenience requires it. If he be\nbeforehand satisfied that your opinion is better than his, he will\nvoluntarily come over to you, and without compulsion, and then your law\nwould be unnecessary; but if he is not so convinced, he must know that\nit is his duty in this point to sacrifice his interest here to his\nopinion of his eternal happiness, else he could have in reality no\nreligion at all. In the former case, therefore, as your law would be\nunnecessary, in the latter it would be persecuting: that is, it would\nput your penalty and his ideas of duty in the opposite scales; which is,\nor I know not what is, the precise idea of persecution. If, then, you\nrequire a renunciation of his conscience, as a preliminary to his\nadmission to the rights of society, you annex, morally speaking, an\nimpossible condition to it. In this case, in the language of reason and\njurisprudence, the condition would be void, and the gift absolute; as\nthe practice runs, it is to establish the condition, and to withhold the\nbenefit. The suffering is, then, not voluntary. And I never heard any\nother argument, drawn from the nature of laws and the good of human\nsociety, urged in favor of those proscriptive statutes, except those\nwhich have just been mentioned.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[22] Cicero _de Legibus_, Lib. L 14,15 et 16.--\"O rem dignam, in qua non\nmodo docti, verum etiam agrestes erubescant! Jam vero illud stultissimum\nexistimare omnia justa esse, quae scita sint in populorum institutis aut\nlegibus,\" etc. \"Quod si populorum jussis, si principum decretis, si\nsententiis judicum jura constituerentur, jus esset latrocinari, jus\nadulterare, jus testamenta falsa supponere, si haec suffragiis aut scitis\nmultitudinis probarentur.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nPART II.\n\n\nThe second head upon which I propose to consider those statutes with\nregard to their object, and which is the next in importance to the\nmagnitude, and of almost equal concern in the inquiry into the justice\nof these laws, is its possession. It is proper to recollect that this\nreligion, which is so persecuted in its members, is the old religion of\nthe country, and the once established religion of the state,--the very\nsame which had for centuries received the countenance and sanction of\nthe laws, and from which it would at one time have been highly penal to\nhave dissented. In proportion as mankind has become enlightened, the\nidea of religious persecution, under any circumstances, has been almost\nuniversally exploded by all good and thinking men. The only faint shadow\nof difficulty which remains is concerning the introduction of new\nopinions. Experience has shown, that, if it has been favorable to the\ncause of truth, it has not been always conducive to the peace of\nsociety. Though a new religious sect should even be totally free in\nitself from any tumultuous and disorderly zeal, which, however, is\nrarely the case, it has a tendency to create a resistance from the\nestablishment in possession, productive of great disorders, and thus\nbecomes, innocently indeed, but yet very certainly, the cause of the\nbitterest dissensions in the commonwealth. To a mind not thoroughly\nsaturated with the tolerating maxims of the Gospel, a preventive\npersecution, on such principles, might come recommended by strong, and,\napparently, no immoral motives of policy, whilst yet the contagion was\nrecent, and had laid hold but on a few persons. The truth is, these\npolitics are rotten and hollow at bottom, as all that are founded upon\nany however minute a degree of positive injustice must ever be. But they\nare specious, and sufficiently so to delude a man of sense and of\nintegrity. But it is quite otherwise with the attempt to eradicate by\nviolence a wide-spreading and established religious opinion. If the\npeople are in an error, to inform them is not only fair, but charitable;\nto drive them is a strain of the most manifest injustice. If not the\nright, the presumption, at least, is ever on the side of possession. Are\nthey mistaken? if it does not fully justify them, it is a great\nalleviation of guilt, which may be mingled with their misfortune, that\nthe error is none of their forging,--that they received it on as good a\nfooting as they can receive your laws and your legislative authority,\nbecause it was handed down to them from their ancestors. The opinion may\nbe erroneous, but the principle is undoubtedly right; and you punish\nthem for acting upon a principle which of all others is perhaps the most\nnecessary for preserving society, an implicit admiration and adherence\nto the establishments of their forefathers.\n\nIf, indeed, the legislative authority was on all hands admitted to be\nthe ground of religious persuasion, I should readily allow that dissent\nwould be rebellion. In this case it would make no difference whether the\nopinion was sucked in with the milk or imbibed yesterday; because the\nsame legislative authority which had settled could destroy it with all\nthe power of a creator over his creature. But this doctrine is\nuniversally disowned, and for a very plain reason. Religion, to have\nany force on men's understandings, indeed to exist at all, must be\nsupposed paramount to laws, and independent for its substance upon any\nhuman institution,--else it would be the absurdest thing in the world,\nan acknowledged cheat. Religion, therefore, is not believed because the\nlaws have established it, but it is established because the leading part\nof the community have previously believed it to be true. As no water can\nrise higher than its spring, no establishment can have more authority\nthan it derives from its principle; and the power of the government can\nwith no appearance of reason go further coercively than to bind and hold\ndown those who have once consented to their opinions. The consent is the\norigin of the whole. If they attempt to proceed further, they disown the\nfoundation upon which their own establishment was built, and they claim\na religious assent upon mere human authority, which has been just now\nshown to be absurd and preposterous, and which they in fact confess to\nbe so.\n\nHowever, we are warranted to go thus far. The people often actually do\n(and perhaps they cannot in general do better) take their religion, not\non the coercive, which is impossible, but on the influencing authority\nof their governors, as wise and informed men. But if they once take a\nreligion on the word of the state, they cannot in common sense do so a\nsecond time, unless they have some concurrent reason for it. The\nprejudice in favor of your wisdom is shook by your change. You confess\nthat you have been wrong, and yet you would pretend to dictate by your\nsole authority; whereas you disengage the mind by embarrassing it. For\nwhy should I prefer your opinion of to-day to your persuasion of\nyesterday? If we must resort to prepossessions for the ground of\nopinion, it is in the nature of man rather to defer to the wisdom of\ntimes past, whose weakness is not before his eyes, than to the present,\nof whose imbecility he has daily experience. Veneration of antiquity is\ncongenial to the human, mind. When, therefore, an establishment would\npersecute an opinion in possession, it sets against it all the powerful\nprejudices of human nature. It even sets its own authority, when it is\nof most weight, against itself in that very circumstance in which it\nmust necessarily have the least; and it opposes the stable prejudice of\ntime against a new opinion founded on mutability: a consideration that\nmust render compulsion in such a case the more grievous, as there is no\nsecurity, that, when the mind is settled in the new opinion, it may not\nbe obliged to give place to one that is still newer, or even, to a\nreturn of the old. But when an ancient establishment begins early to\npersecute an innovation, it stands upon quite other grounds, and it has\nall the prejudices and presumptions on its side. It puts its own\nauthority, not only of compulsion, but prepossession, the veneration of\npast age, as well as the activity of the present time, against the\nopinion only of a private man or set of men. If there be no reason,\nthere is at least some consistency in its proceedings. Commanding to\nconstancy, it does nothing but that of which it sets an example itself.\nBut an opinion at once new and persecuting is a monster; because, in the\nvery instant in which it takes a liberty of change, it does not leave to\nyou even a liberty of perseverance.\n\nIs, then, no improvement to be brought into society? Undoubtedly; but\nnot by compulsion,--but by encouragement,--but by countenance, favor,\nprivileges, which are powerful, and are lawful instruments. The coercive\nauthority of the state is limited to what is necessary for its\nexistence. To this belongs the whole order of criminal law. It considers\nas crimes (that is, the object of punishment) trespasses against those\nrules for which society was instituted. The law punishes delinquents,\nnot because they are not good men, but because they are intolerably\nwicked. It does bear, and must, with the vices and the follies of men,\nuntil they actually strike at the root of order. This it does in things\nactually moral. In all matters of speculative improvement the case is\nstronger, even where the matter is properly of human cognizance. But to\nconsider an averseness to improvement, the not arriving at perfection,\nas a crime, is against all tolerably correct jurisprudence; for, if the\nresistance to improvement should be great and any way general, they\nwould in effect give up the necessary and substantial part in favor of\nthe perfection and the finishing.\n\nBut, say the abettors of our penal laws, this old possessed superstition\nis such in its principles, that society, on its general principles,\ncannot subsist along with it. Could a man think such an objection\npossible, if he had not actually heard it made,--an objection\ncontradicted, not by hypothetical reasonings, but the clear evidence of\nthe most decisive facts? Society not only exists, but flourishes at this\nhour, with this superstition, in many countries, under every form of\ngovernment,--in some established, in some tolerated, in others upon an\nequal footing. And was there no civil society at all in these kingdoms\nbefore the Reformation? To say it was not as well constituted as it\nought to be is saying nothing at all to the purpose; for that assertion\nevidently regards improvement, not existence. It certainly did then\nexist; and it as certainly then was at least as much to the advantage of\na very great part of society as what we have brought in the place of it:\nwhich is, indeed, a great blessing to those who have profited of the\nchange; but to all the rest, as we have wrought, that is, by blending\ngeneral persecution with partial reformation, it is the very reverse. We\nfound the people heretics and idolaters; we have, by way of improving\ntheir condition, rendered them slaves and beggars: they remain in all\nthe misfortune of their old errors, and all the superadded misery of\ntheir recent punishment. They were happy enough, in their opinion at\nleast, before the change; what benefits society then had, they partook\nof them all. They are now excluded from those benefits; and, so far as\ncivil society comprehends them, and as we have managed the matter, our\npersecutions are so far from being necessary to its existence, that our\nvery reformation is made in a degree noxious. If this be improvement,\ntruly I know not what can be called a depravation of society.\n\nBut as those who argue in this manner are perpetually shifting the\nquestion, having begun with objecting, in order to give a fair and\npublic color to their scheme, to a toleration of those opinions as\nsubversive of society in general, they will surely end by abandoning the\nbroad part of the argument, and attempting to show that a toleration of\nthem is inconsistent with the established government among us. Now,\nthough this position be in reality as untenable as the other, it is not\naltogether such an absurdity on the face of it. All I shall here observe\nis, that those who lay it down little consider what a wound they are\ngiving to that establishment for which they pretend so much zeal.\nHowever, as this is a consideration, not of general justice, but of\nparticular and national policy, and as I have reserved a place\nexpressly, where it will undergo a thorough discussion, I shall not here\nembarrass myself with it,--being resolved to preserve all the order in\nmy power, in the examination of this important, melancholy subject.\n\nHowever, before we pass from this point concerning possession, it will\nbe a relaxation of the mind, not wholly foreign to our purpose, to take\na short review of the extraordinary policy which has been held with\nregard to religion in that kingdom, from the time our ancestors took\npossession of it. The most able antiquaries are of opinion, and\nArchbishop Usher, whom I reckon amongst the first of them, has, I think,\nshown, that a religion not very remote from the present Protestant\npersuasion was that of the Irish before the union of that kingdom to the\ncrown of England. If this was not directly the fact, this at least seems\nvery probable, that Papal authority was much lower in Ireland than in\nother countries. This union was made under the authority of an arbitrary\ngrant of Pope Adrian, in order that the Church of Ireland should be\nreduced to the same servitude with those that were nearer to his see. It\nis not very wonderful that an ambitious monarch should make use of any\npretence in his way to so considerable an object. What is extraordinary\nis, that for a very long time, even quite down to the Reformation, and\nin their most solemn acts, the kings of England founded their title\nwholly on this grant: they called for obedience from the people of\nIreland, not on principles of subjection, but as vassals and mesne lords\nbetween them and the Popes; and they omitted no measure of force or\npolicy to establish that Papal authority, with all the distinguishing\narticles of religion connected with it, and to make it take deep root in\nthe minds of the people. Not to crowd instances unnecessary, I shall\nselect two, one of which is in print, the other on record,--the one a\ntreaty, the other an act of Parliament. The first is the submission of\nthe Irish chiefs to Richard the Second, mentioned by Sir John Davies. In\nthis pact they bind themselves for the future to preserve peace and\nallegiance to the kings of England, under certain pecuniary penalties.\nBut what is remarkable, these fines were all covenanted to be paid into\nthe Apostolical Chamber, supposing the Pope as the superior power, whose\npeace was broken and whose majesty was violated in disobeying his\ngovernor. By this time, so far as regarded England, the kings had\nextremely abridged the Papal power in many material particulars: they\nhad passed the Statute of Provisors, the Statute of _Praemunire_,--and,\nindeed, struck out of the Papal authority all things, at least, that\nseemed to infringe on their temporal independence. In Ireland, however,\ntheir proceeding was directly the reverse: there they thought it\nexpedient to exalt it at least as high as ever: for, so late as the\nreign of Edward the Fourth, the following short, but very explicit, act\nof Parliament was passed:--\n\n    IV. ED. Cap. 3.\n\n    \"An act, whereby letters patent of pardon from the king to\n    those that sue to Rome for certain benefices is void. Rot.\n    Parl.\n\n    \"Item, At the request of the commons, it is ordeyned and\n    established, by authority of the said Parliament, that all\n    maner letters patents of the king, of pardons or pardon\n    granted by the king, or hereafter to be granted, to any\n    provisor that claim any title by the bulls of the Pope to any\n    maner benefices, where, at the time of the impetrating of the\n    said bulls of provision, the benefice is full of an\n    incumbent, that then the said letters patents of pardon or\n    pardons be void in law and of none effect.\"\n\nWhen, by every expedient of force and policy, by a war of some\ncenturies, by extirpating a number of the old, and by bringing in a\nnumber of new people full of those opinions and intending to propagate\nthem, they had fully compassed their object, they suddenly took another\nturn,--commenced an opposite persecution, made heavy laws, carried on\nmighty wars, inflicted and suffered the worst evils, extirpated the mass\nof the old, brought in new inhabitants; and they continue at this day an\noppressive system, and may for four hundred years to come, to eradicate\nopinions which by the same violent means they had been four hundred\nyears endeavoring by every means to establish. They compelled the people\nto submit, by the forfeiture of all their civil rights, to the Pope's\nauthority, in its most extravagant and unbounded sense, as a giver of\nkingdoms; and now they refuse even to tolerate them in the most moderate\nand chastised sentiments concerning it. No country, I believe, since\nthe world began, has suffered so much on account of religion, or has\nbeen so variously harassed both for Popery and for Protestantism.\n\nIt will now be seen, that, even if these laws could be supposed\nagreeable to those of Nature in these particulars, on another and almost\nas strong a principle they are yet unjust, as being contrary to positive\ncompact, and the public faith most solemnly plighted. On the surrender\nof Limerick, and some other Irish garrisons, in the war of the\nRevolution, the Lords Justices of Ireland and the commander-in-chief of\nthe king's forces signed a capitulation with the Irish, which was\nafterwards ratified by the king himself by _inspeximus_ under the great\nseal of England. It contains some public articles relative to the whole\nbody of the Roman Catholics in that kingdom, and some with regard to the\nsecurity of the greater part of the inhabitants of five counties. What\nthe latter were, or in what manner they were observed, is at this day of\nmuch less public concern. The former are two,--the first and the ninth.\nThe first is of this tenor:--\"The Roman Catholics of this kingdom\n[Ireland] shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion\nas are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the\nreign of King Charles the Second. And their Majesties, as soon as\naffairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will\nendeavor to procure the said Roman Catholics such farther security in\nthat particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the\naccount of their said religion.\" The ninth article is to this\neffect:--\"The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit\nto their Majesties' government shall be the oath abovesaid, and no\nother,\"--viz., the oath of allegiance, made by act of Parliament in\nEngland, in the first year of their then Majesties; as required by the\nsecond of the Articles of Limerick. Compare this latter article with the\npenal laws, as they are stated in the Second Chapter, and judge whether\nthey seem to be the public acts of the same power, and observe whether\nother oaths are tendered to them, and under what penalties. Compare the\nformer with the same laws, from the beginning to the end, and judge\nwhether the Roman Catholics have been preserved, agreeably to the sense\nof the article, from any disturbance upon account of their religion,--or\nrather, whether on that account there is a single right of Nature or\nbenefit of society which has not been either totally taken away or\nconsiderably impaired.\n\nBut it is said, that the legislature was not bound by this article, as\nit has never been ratified in Parliament. I do admit that it never had\nthat sanction, and that the Parliament was under no obligation to ratify\nthese articles by any express act of theirs But still I am at a loss how\nthey came to be the less valid, on the principles of our Constitution,\nby being without that sanction. They certainly bound the king and his\nsuccessors. The words of the article do this, or they do nothing; and so\nfar as the crown had a share in passing those acts, the public faith was\nunquestionably broken. In Ireland such a breach on the part of the crown\nwas much more unpardonable in administration than it would have been\nhere. They have in Ireland a way of preventing any bill even from\napproaching the royal presence, in matters of far less importance than\nthe honor and faith of the crown and the well-being of a great body of\nthe people. For, besides that they might have opposed the very first\nsuggestion of it in the House of Commons, it could not be framed into a\nbill without the approbation of the Council in Ireland. It could not be\nreturned to them again without the approbation of the King and Council\nhere. They might have met it again in its second passage through that\nHouse of Parliament in which it was originally suggested, as well as in\nthe other. If it had escaped them through all these mazes, it was again\nto come before the Lord Lieutenant, who might have sunk it by a refusal\nof the royal assent. The Constitution of Ireland has interposed all\nthose checks to the passing of any constitutional act, however\ninsignificant in its own nature. But did the administration in that\nreign avail themselves of any one of those opportunities? They never\ngave the act of the eleventh of Queen Anne the least degree of\nopposition in any one stage of its progress. What is rather the fact,\nmany of the queen's servants encouraged it, recommended it, were in\nreality the true authors of its passing in Parliament, instead of\nrecommending and using their utmost endeavor to establish a law directly\nopposite in its tendency, as they were bound to do by the express letter\nof the very first article of the Treaty of Limerick. To say nothing\nfurther of the ministry, who in this instance most shamefully betrayed\nthe faith of government, may it not be a matter of some degree of doubt,\nwhether the Parliament, who do not claim a right of dissolving the force\nof moral obligation, did not make themselves a party in this breach of\ncontract, by presenting a bill to the crown in direct violation of those\narticles so solemnly and so recently executed, which by the\nConstitution they had full authority to execute?\n\nIt may be further objected, that, when the Irish requested the\nratification of Parliament to those articles, they did, in effect,\nthemselves entertain a doubt concerning their validity without such a\nratification. To this I answer, that the collateral security was meant\nto bind the crown, and to hold it firm to its engagements. They did not,\ntherefore, call it a _perfecting_ of the security, but an _additional_\nsecurity, which it could not have been, if the first had been void; for\nthe Parliament could not bind itself more than the crown had bound\nitself. And if all had made but _one_ security, neither of them could be\ncalled _additional_ with propriety or common sense. But let us suppose\nthat they did apprehend there might have been something wanting in this\nsecurity without the sanction of Parliament. They were, however,\nevidently mistaken; and this surplusage of theirs did not weaken the\nvalidity of the single contract, upon the known principle of law, _Non\nsolent, quae abundant, vitiare scripturas_. For nothing is more evident\nthan that the crown was bound, and that no act can be made without the\nroyal assent. But the Constitution will warrant us in going a great deal\nfurther, and in affirming, that a treaty executed by the crown, and\ncontradictory of no preceding law, is full as binding on the whole body\nof the nation as if it had twenty times received the sanction of\nParliament; because the very same Constitution which has given to the\nHouses of Parliament their definite authority has also left in the crown\nthe trust of making peace, as a consequence, and much the best\nconsequence, of the prerogative of making war. If the peace was ill\nmade, my Lord Galmoy, Coningsby, and Porter, who signed it, were\nresponsible; because they were subject to the community. But its own\ncontracts are not subject to it: it is subject to them; and the compact\nof the king acting constitutionally was the compact of the nation.\n\nObserve what monstrous consequences would result from a contrary\nposition. A foreign enemy has entered, or a strong domestic one has\narisen in the nation. In such events the circumstances may be, and often\nhave been, such that a Parliament cannot sit. This was precisely the\ncase in that rebellion in Ireland. It will be admitted also, that their\npower may be so great as to make it very prudent to treat with them, in\norder to save effusion of blood, perhaps to save the nation. Now could\nsuch a treaty be at all made, if your enemies, or rebels, were fully\npersuaded, that, in these times of confusion, there was no authority in\nthe state which could hold out to them an inviolable pledge for their\nfuture security, but that there lurked in the Constitution a dormant,\nbut irresistible power, who would not think itself bound by the ordinary\nsubsisting and contracting authority, but might rescind its acts and\nobligations at pleasure? This would be a doctrine made to perpetuate and\nexasperate war; and on that principle it directly impugns the law of\nnations, which is built upon this principle, that war should be softened\nas much as possible, and that it should cease as soon as possible,\nbetween contending parties and communities. The king has a power to\npardon individuals. If the king holds out his faith to a robber, to come\nin on a promise of pardon, of life and estate, and, in all respects, of\na full indemnity, shall the Parliament say that he must nevertheless be\nexecuted, that his estate must be forfeited, or that he shall be\nabridged of any of the privileges which he before held as a subject?\nNobody will affirm it. In such a case, the breach of faith would not\nonly be on the part of the king who assented to such an act, but on the\npart of the Parliament who made it. As the king represents the whole\ncontracting capacity of the nation, so far as his prerogative\n(unlimited, as I said before, by any precedent law) can extend, he acts\nas the national procurator on all such occasions. What is true of a\nrobber is true of a rebel; and what is true of one robber or rebel is as\ntrue, and it is a much more important truth, of one hundred thousand.\n\nTo urge this part of the argument further is, indeed, I fear, not\nnecessary, for two reasons: first, that it seems tolerably evident in\nitself; and next, that there is but too much ground to apprehend that\nthe actual ratification of Parliament would, in the then temper of\nparties, have proved but a very slight and trivial security. Of this\nthere is a very strong example in the history of those very articles:\nfor, though the Parliament omitted in the reign of King William to\nratify the first and most general of them, they did actually confirm the\nsecond and more limited, that which related to the security of the\ninhabitants of those five counties which were in arms when the treaty\nwas made.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nIn the foregoing book we considered these laws in a very simple point of\nview, and in a very general one,--merely as a system of hardship\nimposed on the body of the community; and from thence, and from some\nother arguments, inferred the general injustice of such a procedure. In\nthis we shall be obliged to be more minute; and the matter will become\nmore complex as we undertake to demonstrate the mischievous and\nimpolitic consequences which the particular mode of this oppressive\nsystem, and the instruments which it employs, operating, as we said, on\nthis extensive object, produce on the national prosperity, quiet, and\nsecurity.\n\nThe stock of materials by which any nation is rendered flourishing and\nprosperous are its industry, its knowledge or skill, its morals, its\nexecution of justice, its courage, and the national union in directing\nthese powers to one point, and making them all centre in the public\nbenefit. Other than these, I do not know and scarcely can conceive any\nmeans by which a community may flourish.\n\nIf we show that these penal laws of Ireland destroy not one only, but\nevery one, of these materials of public prosperity, it will not be\ndifficult to perceive that Great Britain, whilst they subsist, never can\ndraw from that country all the advantages to which the bounty of Nature\nhas entitled it.\n\nTo begin with the first great instrument of national happiness and\nstrength, its industry: I must observe, that, although these penal laws\ndo, indeed, inflict many hardships on those who are obnoxious to them,\nyet their chief, their most extensive, and most certain operation is\nupon property. Those civil constitutions which promote industry are such\nas facilitate the acquisition, secure the holding, enable the fixing,\nand suffer the alienation of property. Every law which obstructs it in\nany part of this distribution is, in proportion to the force and extent\nof the obstruction, a discouragement to industry. For a law against\nproperty is a law against industry,--the latter having always the\nformer, and nothing else, for its object. Now as to the acquisition of\nlanded property, which is the foundation and support of all the other\nkinds, the laws have disabled three fourths of the inhabitants of\nIreland from acquiring any estate of inheritance for life or years, or\nany charge whatsoever on which two thirds of the improved yearly value\nis not reserved for thirty years.\n\nThis confinement of landed property to one set of hands, and preventing\nits free circulation through the community, is a most leading article of\nill policy; because it is one of the most capital discouragements to all\nthat industry which may be employed on the lasting improvement of the\nsoil, or is any way conversant about land. A tenure of thirty years is\nevidently no tenure upon which to build, to plant, to raise inclosures,\nto change the nature of the ground, to make any new experiment which\nmight improve agriculture, or to do anything more than what may answer\nthe immediate and momentary calls of rent to the landlord, and leave\nsubsistence to the tenant and his family. The desire of acquisition is\nalways a passion of long views. Confine a man to momentary possession,\nand you at once cut off that laudable avarice which every wise state has\ncherished as one of the first principles of its greatness. Allow a man\nbut a temporary possession, lay it down as a maxim that he never can\nhave any other, and you immediately and infallibly turn him to temporary\nenjoyments: and these enjoyments are never the pleasures of labor and\nfree industry, whose quality it is to famish the present hours and\nsquander all upon prospect and futurity; they are, on the contrary,\nthose of a thoughtless, loitering, and dissipated life. The people must\nbe inevitably disposed to such pernicious habits, merely from the short\nduration of their tenure which the law has allowed. But it is not enough\nthat industry is checked by the confinement of its views; it is further\ndiscouraged by the limitation of its own direct object, profit. This is\na regulation extremely worthy of our attention, as it is not a\nconsequential, but a direct discouragement to melioration,--as directly\nas if the law had said in express terms, \"Thou shalt not improve.\"\n\nBut we have an additional argument to demonstrate the ill policy of\ndenying the occupiers of land any solid property in it. Ireland is a\ncountry wholly unplanted. The farms have neither dwelling-houses nor\ngood offices; nor are the lands, almost anywhere, provided with fences\nand communications: in a word, in a very unimproved state. The\nland-owner there never takes upon him, as it is usual in this kingdom,\nto supply all these conveniences, and to set down his tenant in what may\nbe called a completely furnished farm. If the tenant will not do it, it\nis never done. This circumstance shows how miserably and peculiarly\nimpolitic it has been in Ireland to tie down the body of the tenantry to\nshort and unprofitable tenures. A finished and furnished house will be\ntaken for any term, however short: if the repair lies on the owner, the\nshorter the better. But no one will take one not only unfurnished, but\nhalf built, but upon a term which, on calculation, will answer with\nprofit all his charges. It is on this principle that the Romans\nestablished their _emphyteusis_, or fee-farm. For though they extended\nthe ordinary term of their location only to nine years, yet they\nencouraged a more permanent letting to farm with the condition of\nimprovement, as well as of annual payment, on the part of the tenant,\nwhere the land had lain rough and neglected,--and therefore invented\nthis species of engrafted holding, in the later times, when property\ncame to be worse distributed by falling into a few hands.\n\nThis denial of landed property to the gross of the people has this\nfurther evil effect in preventing the improvement of land, that it\nprevents any of the property acquired in trade to be regorged, as it\nwere, upon the land. They must have observed very little, who have not\nremarked the bold and liberal spirit of improvement which persons bred\nto trade have often exerted on their land-purchases: that they usually\ncome to them with a more abundant command of ready money than most\nlanded men possess; and that they have in general a much better idea, by\nlong habits of calculative dealings, of the propriety of expending in\norder to acquire. Besides, such men often bring their spirit of commerce\ninto their estates with them, and make manufactures take a root, where\nthe mere landed gentry had perhaps no capital, perhaps no inclination,\nand, most frequently, not sufficient knowledge, to effect anything of\nthe kind. By these means, what beautiful and useful spots have there not\nbeen made about trading and manufacturing towns, and how has agriculture\nhad reason to bless that happy alliance with commerce! and how miserable\nmust that nation be, whose frame of polity has disjoined the landing and\nthe trading interests!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe great prop of this whole system is not pretended to be its justice\nor its utility, but the supposed danger to the state, which gave rise to\nit originally, and which, they apprehend, would return, if this system\nwere overturned. Whilst, say they, the Papists of this kingdom were\npossessed of landed property, and of the influence consequent to such\nproperty, their allegiance to the crown of Great Britain was ever\ninsecure, the public peace was ever liable to be broken, and Protestants\nnever could be a moment secure either of their properties or of their\nlives. Indulgence only made them arrogant, and power daring; confidence\nonly excited and enabled them to exert their inherent treachery; and the\ntimes which they generally selected for their most wicked and desperate\nrebellions were those in which they enjoyed the greatest ease and the\nmost perfect tranquillity.\n\nSuch are the arguments that are used, both publicly and privately, in\nevery discussion upon this point. They are generally full of passion and\nof error, and built upon facts which in themselves are most false. It\ncannot, I confess, be denied, that those miserable performances which go\nabout under the names of Histories of Ireland do, indeed, represent\nthose events after this manner; and they would persuade us, contrary to\nthe known order of Nature, that indulgence and moderation in governors\nis the natural incitement in subjects to rebel. But there is an interior\nhistory of Ireland, the genuine voice of its records and monuments,\nwhich speaks a very different language from these histories, from Temple\nand from Clarendon: these restore Nature to its just rights, and policy\nto its proper order. For they even now show to those who have been at\nthe pains to examine them, and they may show one day to all the world,\nthat these rebellions were not produced by toleration, but by\npersecution,--that they arose not from just and mild government, but\nfrom the most unparalleled oppression. These records will be far from\ngiving the least countenance to a doctrine so repugnant to humanity and\ngood sense as that the security of any establishment, civil or\nreligious, can ever depend upon the misery of those who live under it,\nor that its danger can arise from their quiet and prosperity. God forbid\nthat the history of this or any country should give such encouragement\nto the folly or vices of those who govern! If it can be shown that the\ngreat rebellions of Ireland have arisen from attempts to reduce the\nnatives to the state to which they are now reduced, it will show that an\nattempt to continue them in that state will rather be disadvantageous to\nthe public peace than any kind of security to it. These things have in\nsome measure begun to appear already; and as far as regards the argument\ndrawn from former rebellions, it will fall readily to the ground. But,\nfor my part, I think the real danger to every state is, to render its\nsubjects justly discontented; nor is there in polities or science any\nmore effectual secret for their security than to establish in their\npeople a firm opinion that no change can be for their advantage. It is\ntrue that bigotry and fanaticism may for a time draw great multitudes of\npeople from a knowledge of their true and substantial interest. But upon\nthis I have to remark three things. First, that such a temper can never\nbecome universal, or last for a long time. The principle of religion is\nseldom lasting; the majority of men are in no persuasion bigots; they\nare not willing to sacrifice, on every vain imagination that\nsuperstition or enthusiasm holds forth, or that even zeal and piety\nrecommend, the certain possession of their temporal happiness. And if\nsuch a spirit has been at any time roused in a society, after it has had\nits paroxysm it commonly subsides and is quiet, and is even the weaker\nfor the violence of its first exertion: security and ease are its mortal\nenemies. But, secondly, if anything can tend to revive and keep it up,\nit is to keep alive the passions of men by ill usage. This is enough to\nirritate even those who have not a spark of bigotry in their\nconstitution to the most desperate enterprises; it certainly will\ninflame, darken, and render more dangerous the spirit of bigotry in\nthose who are possessed by it. Lastly, by rooting out any sect, you are\nnever secure against the effects of fanaticism; it may arise on the side\nof the most favored opinions; and many are the instances wherein the\nestablished religion of a state has grown ferocious and turned upon its\nkeeper, and has often torn to pieces the civil establishment that had\ncherished it, and which it was designed to support:\nFrance,--England,--Holland.\n\nBut there may be danger of wishing a change, even where no religious\nmotive can operate; and every enemy to such a state comes as a friend to\nthe subject; and where other countries are under terror, they begin to\nhope.\n\nThis argument _ad verecundiam_ has as much force as any such have. But I\nthink it fares but very indifferently with those who make use of it; for\nthey would get but little to be proved abettors of tyranny at the\nexpense of putting me to an inconvenient acknowledgment. For if I were\nto confess that there are circumstances in which it would be better to\nestablish such a religion....\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWith regard to the Pope's interest. This foreign chief of their religion\ncannot be more formidable to us than to other Protestant countries. To\nconquer that country for himself is a wild chimera; to encourage revolt\nin favor of foreign princes is an exploded idea in the politics of that\ncourt. Perhaps it would be full as dangerous to have the people under\nthe conduct of factious pastors of their own as under a foreign\necclesiastical court.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth were enacted several\nlimitations in the acquisition or the retaining of property, which had,\nso far as regarded any general principles, hitherto remained untouched\nunder all changes.\n\nThese bills met no opposition either in the Irish Parliament or in the\nEnglish Council, except from private agents, who were little attended\nto; and they passed into laws with the highest and most general\napplauses, as all such things are in the beginning, not as a system of\npersecution, but as masterpieces of the most subtle and refined\npolitics. And to say the truth, these laws, at first view, have rather\nan appearance of a plan of vexatious litigation and crooked\nlaw-chicanery than of a direct and sanguinary attack upon the rights of\nprivate conscience: because they did not affect life, at least with\nregard to the laity; and making the Catholic opinions rather the subject\nof civil regulations than of criminal prosecutions, to those who are\nnot lawyers and read these laws they only appear to be a species of\njargon. For the execution of criminal law has always a certain\nappearance of violence. Being exercised directly on the persons of the\nsupposed offenders, and commonly executed in the face of the public,\nsuch executions are apt to excite sentiments of pity for the sufferers,\nand indignation against those who are employed in such cruelties,--being\nseen as single acts of cruelty, rather than as ill general principles of\ngovernment. But the operation of the laws in question being such as\ncommon feeling brings home to every man's bosom, they operate in a sort\nof comparative silence and obscurity; and though their cruelty is\nexceedingly great, it is never seen in a single exertion, and always\nescapes commiseration, being scarce known, except to those who view them\nin a general, which is always a cold and phlegmatic light. The first of\nthese laws being made with so general a satisfaction, as the chief\ngovernors found that such things were extremely acceptable to the\nleading people in that country, they were willing enough to gratify them\nwith the ruin of their fellow-citizens; they were not sorry to divert\ntheir attention from other inquiries, and to keep them fixed to this, as\nif this had been the only real object of their national politics; and\nfor many years there was no speech from the throne which did not with\ngreat appearance of seriousness recommend the passing of such laws, and\nscarce a session went over without in effect passing some of them, until\nthey have by degrees grown to be the most considerable head in the Irish\nstatute-book. At the same time giving a temporary and occasional\nmitigation to the severity of some of the harshest of those laws, they\nappeared in some sort the protectors of those whom they were in reality\ndestroying by the establishment of general constitutions against them.\nAt length, however, the policy of this expedient is worn out; the\npassions of men are cooled; those laws begin to disclose themselves, and\nto produce effects very different from those which were promised in\nmaking them: for crooked counsels are ever unwise; and nothing can be\nmore absurd and dangerous than to tamper with the natural foundations of\nsociety, in hopes of keeping it up by certain contrivances.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nWILLIAM SMITH, ESQ.,\n\nON THE SUBJECT OF\n\nCATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.\n\nJANUARY 29, 1795.\n\n\nLETTER.[23]\n\n\nMy Dear sir,--Your letter is, to myself, infinitely obliging: with\nregard to you, I can find no fault with it, except that of a tone of\nhumility and disqualification, which neither your rank, nor the place\nyou are in, nor the profession you belong to, nor your very\nextraordinary learning and talents, will in propriety demand or perhaps\nadmit. These dispositions will be still less proper, if you should feel\nthem in the extent your modesty leads you to express them. You have\ncertainly given by far too strong a proof of self-diffidence by asking\nthe opinion of a man circumstanced as I am, on the important subject of\nyour letter. You are far more capable of forming just conceptions upon\nit than I can be. However, since you are pleased to command me to lay\nbefore you my thoughts, as materials upon which your better judgment may\noperate, I shall obey you, and submit them, with great deference, to\nyour melioration or rejection.\n\nBut first permit me to put myself in the right. I owe you an answer to\nyour former letter. It did not desire one, but it deserved it. If not\nfor an answer, it called for an acknowledgment. It was a new favor; and,\nindeed, I should be worse than insensible, if I did not consider the\nhonors you have heaped upon me with no sparing hand with becoming\ngratitude. But your letter arrived to me at a time when the closing of\nmy long and last business in life, a business extremely complex, and\nfull of difficulties and vexations of all sorts, occupied me in a manner\nwhich those who have not seen the interior as well as exterior of it\ncannot easily imagine. I confess that in the crisis of that rude\nconflict I neglected many things that well deserved my best\nattention,--none that deserved it better, or have caused me more regret\nin the neglect, than your letter. The instant that business was over,\nand the House had passed its judgment on the conduct of the managers, I\nlost no time to execute what for years I had resolved on: it was, to\nquit my public station, and to seek that tranquillity, in my very\nadvanced age, to which, after a very tempestuous life, I thought myself\nentitled. But God has thought fit (and I unfeignedly acknowledge His\njustice) to dispose of things otherwise. So heavy a calamity has fallen\nupon me as to disable me for business and to disqualify me for repose.\nThe existence I have I do not know that I can call life. Accordingly, I\ndo not meddle with any one measure of government, though, for what\nreasons I know not, you seem to suppose me deeply in the secret of\naffairs. I only know, so far as your side of the water is concerned,\nthat your present excellent Lord Lieutenant (the best man in every\nrelation that I have ever been acquainted with) has perfectly pure\nintentions with regard to Ireland, and of course that he wishes\ncordially well to those who form the great mass of its inhabitants, and\nwho, as they are well or ill managed, must form an important part of its\nstrength or weakness. If with regard to that great object he has\ncarried over any ready-made system, I assure you it is perfectly unknown\nto me: I am very much retired from the world, and live in much\nignorance. This, I hope, will form my humble apology, if I should err in\nthe notions I entertain of the question which is soon to become the\nsubject of your deliberations. At the same time accept it as an apology\nfor my neglects.\n\nYou need make no apology for your attachment to the religious\ndescription you belong to. It proves (as in you it is sincere) your\nattachment to the great points in which the leading divisions are\nagreed, when the lesser, in which they differ, are so dear to you. I\nshall never call any religious opinions, which appear important to\nserious and pious minds, things of no consideration. Nothing is so fatal\nto religion as indifference, which is, at least, half infidelity. As\nlong as men hold charity and justice to be essential integral parts of\nreligion, there can be little danger from a strong attachment to\nparticular tenets in faith. This I am perfectly sure is your case; but I\nam not equally sure that either zeal for the tenets of faith, or the\nsmallest degree of charity or justice, have much influenced the\ngentlemen who, under pretexts of zeal, have resisted the enfranchisement\nof their country. My dear son, who was a person of discernment, as well\nas clear and acute in his expressions, said, in a letter of his which I\nhave seen, \"that, in order to grace their cause, and to draw some\nrespect to their persons, they pretend to be bigots.\" But here, I take\nit, we have not much to do with the theological tenets on the one side\nof the question or the other. The point itself is practically decided.\nThat religion is owned by the state. Except in a settled maintenance, it\nis protected. A great deal of the rubbish, which, as a nuisance, long\nobstructed the way, is removed. One impediment remained longer, as a\nmatter to justify the proscription of the body of our country; after the\nrest had been abandoned as untenable ground. But the business of the\nPope (that mixed person of polities and religion) has long ceased to be\na bugbear: for some time past he has ceased to be even a colorable\npretext. This was well known, when the Catholics of these kingdoms, for\nour amusement, were obliged on oath to disclaim him in his political\ncapacity,--which implied an allowance for them to recognize him in some\nsort of ecclesiastical superiority. It was a compromise of the old\ndispute.\n\nFor my part, I confess I wish that we had been less eager in this point.\nI don't think, indeed, that much mischief will happen from it, if things\nare otherwise properly managed. Too nice an inquisition ought not to be\nmade into opinions that are dying away of themselves. Had we lived an\nhundred and fifty years ago, I should have been as earnest and anxious\nas anybody for this sort of abjuration; but, living at the time in which\nI live, and obliged to speculate forward instead of backward, I must\nfairly say, I could well endure the existence of every sort of\ncollateral aid which opinion might, in the now state of things, afford\nto authority. I must see much more danger than in my life I have seen,\nor than others will venture seriously to affirm that they see, in the\nPope aforesaid, (though a foreign power, and with his long tail of _et\nceteras_,) before I should be active in weakening any hold which\ngovernment might think it prudent to resort to, in the management of\nthat large part of the king's subjects. I do not choose to direct all my\nprecautions to the part where the danger does not press, and to leave\nmyself open and unguarded where I am not only really, but visibly\nattacked.\n\nMy whole politics, at present, centre in one point, and to this the\nmerit or demerit of every measure (with me) is referable,--that is, what\nwill most promote or depress the cause of Jacobinism. What is\nJacobinism? It is an attempt (hitherto but too successful) to eradicate\nprejudice out of the minds of men, for the purpose of putting all power\nand authority into the hands of the persons capable of occasionally\nenlightening the minds of the people. For this purpose the Jacobins have\nresolved to destroy the whole frame and fabric of the old societies of\nthe world, and to regenerate them after their fashion. To obtain an army\nfor this purpose, they everywhere engage the poor by holding out to them\nas a bribe the spoils of the rich. This I take to be a fair description\nof the principles and leading maxims of the enlightened of our day who\nare commonly called Jacobins.\n\nAs the grand prejudice, and that which holds all the other prejudices\ntogether, the first, last, and middle object of their hostility is\nreligion. With that they are at inexpiable war. They make no distinction\nof sects. A Christian, as such, is to them an enemy. What, then, is left\nto a real Christian, (Christian as a believer and as a statesman,) but\nto make a league between all the grand divisions of that name, to\nprotect and to cherish them all, and by no means to proscribe in any\nmanner, more or less, any member of our common party? The divisions\nwhich formerly prevailed in the Church, with all their overdone zeal,\nonly purified and ventilated our common faith, because there was no\ncommon enemy arrayed and embattled to take advantage of their\ndissensions; but now nothing but inevitable ruin will be the consequence\nof our quarrels. I think we may dispute, rail, persecute, and provoke\nthe Catholics out of their prejudices; but it is not in ours they will\ntake refuge. If anything is, one more than another, out of the power of\nman, it is to _create_ a prejudice. Somebody has said, that a king may\nmake a nobleman, but he cannot make a gentleman.\n\nAll the principal religions in Europe stand upon one common bottom. The\nsupport that the whole or the favored parts may have in the secret\ndispensations of Providence it is impossible to tell; but, humanly\nspeaking, they are all _prescriptive_ religions. They have all stood\nlong enough to make prescription and its chain of legitimate prejudices\ntheir main stay. The people who compose the four grand divisions of\nChristianity have now their religion as an habit, and upon authority,\nand not on disputation,--as all men who have their religion derived from\ntheir parents and the fruits of education _must_ have it, however the\none more than the other may be able to reconcile his faith to his own\nreason or to that of other men. Depend upon it, they must all be\nsupported, or they must all fall in the crash of a common ruin. The\nCatholics are the far more numerous part of the Christians in your\ncountry; and how can Christianity (that is now the point in issue) be\nsupported under the persecution, or even under the discountenance, of\nthe greater number of Christians? It is a great truth, and which in one\nof the debates I stated as strongly as I could to the House of Commons\nin the last session, that, if the Catholic religion is destroyed by the\ninfidels, it is a most contemptible and absurd idea, that this, or any\nProtestant Church, can survive that event. Therefore my humble and\ndecided opinion is, that all the three religions prevalent more or less\nin various parts of these islands ought all, in subordination to the\nlegal establishments as they stand in the several countries, to be all\ncountenanced, protected, and cherished, and that in Ireland particularly\nthe Roman Catholic religion should be upheld in high respect and\nveneration, and should be, in its place, provided with all the means of\nmaking it a blessing to the people who profess it,--that it ought to be\ncherished as a good, (though not as the most preferable good, if a\nchoice was now to be made,) and not tolerated as an inevitable evil. If\nthis be my opinion as to the Catholic religion as a sect, you must see\nthat I must be to the last degree averse to put a man, upon that\naccount, upon a bad footing with relation to the privileges which the\nfundamental laws of this country give him as a subject. I am the more\nserious on the positive encouragement to be given to this religion,\n(always, however, as secondary,) because the serious and earnest belief\nand practice of it by its professors forms, as things stand, the most\neffectual barrier, if not the sole barrier, against Jacobinism. The\nCatholics form the great body of the lower ranks of your community, and\nno small part of those classes of the middling that come nearest to\nthem. You know that the seduction of that part of mankind from the\nprinciples of religion, morality, subordination, and social order is the\ngreat object of the Jacobins. Let them grow lax, skeptical, careless,\nand indifferent with regard to religion, and, so sure as we have an\nexistence, it is not a zealous Anglican or Scottish Church principle,\nbut direct Jacobinism, which will enter into that breach. Two hundred\nyears dreadfully spent in experiments to force that people to change the\nform of their religion have proved fruitless. You have now your choice,\nfor full four fifths of your people, of the Catholic religion or\nJacobinism. If things appear to you to stand on this alternative, I\nthink you will not be long in making your option.\n\nYou have made, as you naturally do, a very able analysis of powers, and\nhave separated, as the things are separable, civil from political\npowers. You start, too, a question, whether the civil can be secured\nwithout some share in the political. For my part, as abstract questions,\nI should find some difficulty in an attempt to resolve them. But as\napplied to the state of Ireland, to the form of our commonwealth, to the\nparties that divide us, and to the dispositions of the leading men in\nthose parties, I cannot hesitate to lay before you my opinion, that,\nwhilst any kind of discouragements and disqualifications remain on the\nCatholics, an handle will be made by a factious power utterly to defeat\nthe benefits of any civil rights they may apparently possess. I need not\ngo to very remote times for my examples. It was within the course of\nabout a twelvemonth, that, after Parliament had been led into a step\nquite unparalleled in its records, after they had resisted all\nconcession, and even hearing, with an obstinacy equal to anything that\ncould have actuated a party domination in the second or eighth of Queen\nAnne, after the strange adventure of the Grand Juries, and after\nParliament had listened to the sovereign pleading for the emancipation\nof his subjects,--it was after all this, that such a grudging and\ndiscontent was expressed as must justly have alarmed, as it did\nextremely alarm, the whole of the Catholic body: and I remember but one\nperiod in my whole life (I mean the savage period between 1781 and 1767)\nin which they have been more harshly or contumeliously treated than\nsince the last partial enlargement. And thus I am convinced it will be,\nby paroxysms, as long as any stigma remains on them, and whilst they are\nconsidered as no better than half citizens. If they are kept such for\nany length of time, they will be made whole Jacobins. Against this grand\nand dreadful evil of our time (I do not love to cheat myself or others)\nI do not know any solid security whatsoever; but I am quite certain that\nwhat will come nearest to it is to interest as many as you can in the\npresent order of things, religiously, civilly, politically, by all the\nties and principles by which mankind are held. This is like to be\neffectual policy: I am sure it is honorable policy: and it is better to\nfail, if fail we must, in the paths of direct and manly than of low and\ncrooked wisdom.\n\nAs to the capacity of sitting in Parliament, after all the capacities\nfor voting, for the army, for the navy, for the professions, for civil\noffices, it is a dispute _de lana caprina_, in my poor opinion,--at\nleast on the part of those who oppose it. In the first place, this\nadmission to office, and this exclusion from Parliament, on the\nprinciple of an exclusion from political power, is the very reverse of\nthe principle of the English Test Act. If I were to form a judgment from\nexperience rather than theory, I should doubt much whether the capacity\nfor or even the possession of a seat in Parliament did really convey\nmuch of power to be properly called political. I have sat there, with\nsome observation, for nine-and-twenty years, or thereabouts. The power\nof a member of Parliament is uncertain and indirect; and if power,\nrather than splendor and fame, were the object, I should think that any\nof the principal clerks in office, to say nothing of their superiors,\n(several of whom are disqualified by law for seats in Parliament,)\npossess far more power than nine tenths of the members of the House of\nCommons. I might say this of men who seemed, from their fortunes, their\nweight in their country, and their talents, to be persons of figure\nthere,--and persons, too, not in opposition to the prevailing party in\ngovernment. But be they what they will, on a fair canvass of the several\nprevalent Parliamentary interests in Ireland, I cannot, out of the three\nhundred members of whom the Irish Parliament is composed, discover that\nabove three, or at the utmost four, Catholics would be returned to the\nHouse of Commons. But suppose they should amount to thirty, that is, to\na tenth part, (a thing I hold impossible for a long series of years, and\nnever very likely to happen,) what is this to those who are to balance\nthem in the one House, and the clear and settled majority in the other?\nFor I think it absolutely impossible, that, in the course of many years,\nabove four or five peers should be created of that communion. In fact,\nthe exclusion of them seems to me only to mark jealousy and suspicion,\nand not to provide security in any way.--But I return to the old ground.\nThe danger is not there: these are things long since done away. The\ngrand controversy is no longer between you and them.\n\nForgive this length. My pen has insensibly run on. You are yourself to\nblame, if you are much fatigued. I congratulate you on the auspicious\nopening of your session. Surely Great Britain and Ireland ought to join\nin wreathing a never-fading garland for the head of Grattan. Adieu, my\ndear Sir. Good nights to you!--I never can have any.\n\nYours always most sincerely,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nJan. 29th, 1795. Twelve at night.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] William Smith, Esq., to whom this Letter is addressed, was then a\nmember of the Irish Parliament: he is now (1812) one of the Barons of\nthe Court of Exchequer in Ireland.\n\n\n\n\nSECOND LETTER\n\nTO\n\nSIR HERCULES LANGRISHE\n\nON THE\n\nCATHOLIC QUESTION.\n\nMAY 26, 1795.\n\n\nMy Dear Sir,--If I am not as early as I ought to be in my\nacknowledgments for your very kind letter, pray do me the justice to\nattribute my failure to its natural and but too real cause, a want of\nthe most ordinary power of exertion, owing to the impressions made upon\nan old and infirm constitution by private misfortune and by public\ncalamity. It is true, I make occasional efforts to rouse myself to\nsomething better,--but I soon relapse into that state of languor which\nmust be the habit of my body and understanding to the end of my short\nand cheerless existence in this world.\n\nI am sincerely grateful for your kindness in connecting the interest you\ntake in the sentiments of an old friend with the able part you take in\nthe service of your country. It is an instance, among many, of that\nhappy temper which has always given a character of amenity to your\nvirtues and a good-natured direction to your talents.\n\nYour speech on the Catholic question I read with much satisfaction. It\nis solid; it is convincing; it is eloquent; and it ought, on the spot,\nto have produced that effect which its reason, and that contained in the\nother excellent speeches on the same side of the question, cannot\npossibly fail (though with less pleasant consequences) to produce\nhereafter. What a sad thing it is, that the grand instructor, Time, has\nnot yet been able to teach the grand lesson of his own value, and that,\nin every question of moral and political prudence, it is the choice of\nthe moment which renders the measure serviceable or useless, noxious or\nsalutary!\n\nIn the Catholic question I considered only one point: Was it, at the\ntime, and in the circumstances, a measure which tended to promote the\nconcord of the citizens? I have no difficulty in saying it was,--and as\nlittle in saying that the present concord of the citizens was worth\nbuying, at a critical season, by granting a few _capacities_, which\nprobably no one man now living is likely to be served or hurt by. When\nany man tells _you_ and _me_, that, if these places were left in the\ndiscretion of a Protestant crown, and these memberships in the\ndiscretion of Protestant electors or patrons, we should have a Popish\nofficial system, and a Popish representation, capable of overturning the\nEstablishment, he only insults our understandings. When any man tells\nthis to _Catholics_, he insults their understandings, and he galls their\nfeelings. It is not the question of the places and seats, it is the real\nhostile disposition and the _pretended_ fears, that leave stings in the\nminds of the people. I really thought that in the total of the late\ncircumstances, with regard to persons, to things, to principles, and to\nmeasures, was to be found a conjuncture favorable to the introduction\nand to the perpetuation of a general harmony, producing a general\nstrength, which to that hour Ireland was never so happy as to enjoy. My\nsanguine hopes are blasted, and I must consign my feelings on that\nterrible disappointment to the same patience in which I have been\nobliged to bury the vexation I suffered on the defeat of the other\ngreat, just, and honorable causes in which I have had some share, and\nwhich have given more of dignity than of peace and advantage to a long,\nlaborious life. Though, perhaps, a want of success might be urged as a\nreason for making me doubt of the justice of the part I have taken, yet,\nuntil I have other lights than one side of the debate has furnished me,\nI must see things, and feel them too, as I see and feel them. I think I\ncan hardly overrate the malignity of the principles of Protestant\nascendency, as they affect Ireland,--or of Indianism, as they affect\nthese countries, and as they affect Asia,--or of Jacobinism, as they\naffect all Europe and the state of human society itself. The last is the\ngreatest evil. But it readily combines with the others, and flows from\nthem. Whatever breeds discontent at this time will produce that great\nmaster-mischief most infallibly. Whatever tends to persuade the people\nthat the _few_, called by whatever name you please, religious or\npolitical, are of opinion that their interest is not compatible with\nthat of the _many_, is a great point gained to Jacobinism. Whatever\ntends to irritate the talents of a country, which have at all times, and\nat these particularly, a mighty influence on the public mind, is of\ninfinite service to that formidable cause. Unless where Heaven has\nmingled uncommon ingredients of virtue in the composition,--_quos\nmeliore luto finxit praecordia Titan,_--talents naturally gravitate to\nJacobinism. Whatever ill-humors are afloat in the state, they will be\nsure to discharge themselves in a mingled torrent in the _Cloaca Maxima_\nof Jacobinism. Therefore people ought well to look about them. First,\nthe physicians are to take care that they do nothing to irritate this\nepidemical distemper. It is a foolish thing to have the better of the\npatient in a dispute. The complaint or its cause ought to be removed,\nand wise and lenient arts ought to precede the measures of vigor. They\nought to be the _ultima_, not the _prima_, not the _tota_ ratio of a\nwise government. God forbid, that, on a worthy occasion, authority\nshould want the means of force, or the disposition to use it! But where\na prudent and enlarged policy does not precede it, and attend it too,\nwhere the hearts of the better sort of people do not go with the hands\nof the soldiery, you may call your Constitution what you will, in effect\nit will consist of three parts, (orders, if you please,) cavalry,\ninfantry, and artillery,--and of nothing else or better. I agree with\nyou in your dislike of the discourses in Francis Street: but I like as\nlittle some of those in College Green. I am even less pleased with the\ntemper that predominated in the latter, as better things might have been\nexpected in the regular family mansion of public discretion than, in a\nnew and hasty assembly of unexperienced men, congregated under\ncircumstances of no small irritation. After people have taken your\ntests, prescribed by yourselves as proofs of their allegiance, to be\nmarked as enemies, traitors, or at best as suspected and dangerous\npersons, and that they are not to be believed on their oaths, we are not\nto be surprised, if they fall into a passion, and talk as men in a\npassion do, intemperately and idly.\n\nThe worst of the matter is this: you are partly leading, partly driving\ninto Jacobinism that description of your people whose religious\nprinciples, church polity, and habitual discipline might make them an\ninvincible dike against that inundation. This you have a thousand\nmattocks and pickaxes lifted up to demolish. You make a sad story of the\nPope. _O seri studiorum_! It will not be difficult to get many called\nCatholics to laugh at this fundamental part of their religion. Never\ndoubt it. You have succeeded in part, and you may succeed completely.\nBut in the present state of men's minds and affairs, do not flatter\nyourselves that they will piously look to the head of our Church in the\nplace of that Pope whom you make them forswear, and out of all reverence\nto whom you bully and rail and buffoon them. Perhaps you may succeed in\nthe same manner with all the other tenets of doctrine and usages of\ndiscipline amongst the Catholics; but what security have you, that, in\nthe temper and on the principles on which they have made this change,\nthey will stop at the exact sticking-places you have marked in _your_\narticles? You have no security for anything, but that they will become\nwhat are called _Franco-Jacobins_, and reject the whole together. No\nconverts now will be made in a considerable number from one of our sects\nto the other upon a really religious principle. Controversy moves in\nanother direction.\n\nNext to religion, _property_ is the great point of Jacobin attack. Here\nmany of the debaters in your majority, and their writers, have given the\nJacobins all the assistance their hearts can wish. When the Catholics\ndesire places and seats, you tell them that this is only a pretext,\n(though Protestants might suppose it just _possible_ for men to like\ngood places and snug boroughs for their own merits,) but that their real\nview is, to strip Protestants of their property To my certain knowledge,\ntill those Jacobin lectures were opened in the House of Commons, they\nnever dreamt of any such thing; but now the great professors may\nstimulate them to inquire (on the new principles) into the foundation of\nthat property, and of all property. If you treat men as robbers, why,\nrobbers, sooner or later, they will become.\n\nA third point of Jacobin attack is on _old traditionary constitutions_.\nYou are apprehensive for yours, which leans from its perpendicular, and\ndoes not stand firm on its theory. I like Parliamentary reforms as\nlittle as any man who has boroughs to sell for money, or for peerages in\nIreland. But it passes my comprehension, in what manner it is that men\ncan be reconciled to the _practical_ merits of a constitution, the\ntheory of which is in litigation, by being _practically_ excluded from\nany of its advantages. Let us put ourselves in the place of these\npeople, and try an experiment of the effects of such a procedure on our\nown minds. Unquestionably, we should be perfectly satisfied, when we\nwere told that Houses of Parliament, instead of being places of refuge\nfor popular liberty, were citadels for keeping us in order as a\nconquered people. These things play the Jacobin game to a nicety.\n\nIndeed, my dear Sir, there is not a single particular in the\nFrancis-Street declamations, which has not, to your and to my certain\nknowledge, been taught by the jealous ascendants, sometimes by doctrine,\nsometimes by example, always by provocation. Remember the whole of 1781\nand 1782, in Parliament and out of Parliament; at this very day, and in\nthe worst acts and designs, observe the tenor of the objections with\nwhich the College-Green orators of the ascendency reproach the\nCatholics. You have observed, no doubt, how much they rely on the\naffair of Jackson. Is it not pleasant to hear Catholics reproached for a\nsupposed connection--with whom?--with Protestant clergymen! with\nProtestant gentlemen! with Mr. Jackson! with Mr. Rowan, &c, &c.! But\n_egomet mi ignosco_. Conspiracies and treasons are privileged pleasures,\nnot to be profaned by the impure and unhallowed touch of Papists.\nIndeed, all this will do, perhaps, well enough, with detachments of\ndismounted cavalry and fencibles from England. But let us not say to\nCatholics, by way of _argument_, that they are to be kept in a degraded\nstate, because some of them are no better than many of us Protestants.\nThe thing I most disliked in some of their speeches (those, I mean, of\nthe Catholics) was what is called the spirit of liberality, so much and\nso diligently taught by the ascendants, by which they are made to\nabandon their own particular interests, and to merge them in the general\ndiscontents of the country. It gave me no pleasure to hear of the\ndissolution of the committee. There were in it a majority, to my\nknowledge, of very sober, well-intentioned men; and there were none in\nit but such who, if not continually goaded and irritated, might be made\nuseful to the tranquillity of the country. It is right always to have a\nfew of every description, through whom you may quietly operate on the\nmany, both for the interests of the description, and for the general\ninterest.\n\nExcuse me, my dear friend, if I have a little tried your patience. You\nhave brought this trouble on yourself, by your thinking of a man forgot,\nand who has no objection to be forgot, by the world. These things we\ndiscussed together four or five and thirty years ago. We were then, and\nat bottom ever since, of the same opinion on the justice and policy of\nthe whole and of every part of the penal system. You and I, and\neverybody, must now and then ply and bend to the occasion, and take what\ncan be got. But very sure I am, that, whilst there remains in the law\nany principle whatever which can furnish to certain politicians an\nexcuse for raising an opinion of their own importance, as necessary to\nkeep their fellow-subjects in order, the obnoxious people will be\nfretted, harassed, insulted, provoked to discontent and disorder, and\npractically excluded from the partial advantages from which the letter\nof the law does not exclude them.\n\nAdieu! my dear Sir,\n\nAnd believe me very truly yours,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, May 26, 1795.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nRICHARD BURKE, ESQ.,\n\nON\n\nPROTESTANT ASCENDENCY IN IRELAND.\n\n1793.\n\n\nMy dear son,--We are all again assembled in town, to finish the last,\nbut the most laborious, of the tasks which have been imposed upon me\nduring my Parliamentary service. We are as well as at our time of life\nwe can expect to be. We have, indeed, some moments of anxiety about you.\nYou are engaged in an undertaking similar in its principle to mine. You\nare engaged in the relief of an oppressed people. In that service you\nmust necessarily excite the same sort of passions in those who have\nexercised, and who wish to continue that oppression, that I have had to\nstruggle with in this long labor. As your father has done, you must make\nenemies of many of the rich, of the proud, and of the powerful. I and\nyou began in the same way. I must confess, that, if our place was of our\nchoice, I could wish it had been your lot to begin the career of your\nlife with an endeavor to render some more moderate and less invidious\nservice to the public But being engaged in a great and critical work, I\nhave not the least hesitation about your having hitherto done your duty\nas becomes you. If I had not an assurance not to be shaken from the\ncharacter of your mind, I should be satisfied on that point by the cry\nthat is raised against you. If you had behaved, as they call it,\ndiscreetly, that is, faintly and treacherously, in the execution of your\ntrust, you would have had, for a while, the good word of all sorts of\nmen, even of many of those whose cause you had betrayed,--and whilst\nyour favor lasted, you might have coined that false reputation into a\ntrue and solid interest to yourself. This you are well apprised of; and\nyou do not refuse to travel that beaten road from an ignorance, but from\na contempt, of the objects it leads to.\n\nWhen you choose an arduous and slippery path, God forbid that any weak\nfeelings of my declining age, which calls for soothings and supports,\nand which can have none but from you, should make me wish that you\nshould abandon what you are about, or should trifle with it! In this\nhouse we submit, though with troubled minds, to that order which has\nconnected all great duties with toils and with perils, which has\nconducted the road to glory through the regions of obloquy and reproach,\nand which will never suffer the disparaging alliance of spurious, false,\nand fugitive praise with genuine and permanent reputation. We know that\nthe Power which has settled that order, and subjected you to it by\nplacing you in the situation you are in, is able to bring you out of it\nwith credit and with safety. His will be done! All must come right. You\nmay open the way with pain and under reproach: others will pursue it\nwith ease and with applause.\n\nI am sorry to find that pride and passion, and that sort of zeal for\nreligion which never shows any wonderful heat but when it afflicts and\nmortifies our neighbor, will not let the ruling description perceive\nthat the privilege for which your clients contend is very nearly as much\nfor the benefit of those who refuse it as those who ask it. I am not to\nexamine into the charges that are daily made on the administration of\nIreland. I am not qualified to say how much in them is cold truth, and\nhow much rhetorical exaggeration. Allowing some foundation to the\ncomplaint, it is to no purpose that these people allege that their\ngovernment is a job in its administration. I am sure it is a job in its\nconstitution; nor is it possible a scheme of polity, which, in total\nexclusion of the body of the community, confines (with little or no\nregard to their rank or condition in life) to a certain set of favored\ncitizens the rights which formerly belonged to the whole, should not, by\nthe operation of the same selfish and narrow principles, teach the\npersons who administer in that government to prefer their own\nparticular, but well-understood, private interest to the false and\nill-calculated private interest of the monopolizing company they belong\nto. Eminent characters, to be sure, overrule places and circumstances. I\nhave nothing to say to that virtue which shoots up in full force by the\nnative vigor of the seminal principle, in spite of the adverse soil and\nclimate that it grows in. But speaking of things in their ordinary\ncourse, in a country of monopoly there _can_ be no patriotism. There may\nbe a party spirit, but public spirit there can be none. As to a spirit\nof liberty, still less can it exist, or anything like it. A liberty made\nup of penalties! a liberty made up of incapacities! a liberty made up of\nexclusion and proscription, continued for ages, of four fifths, perhaps,\nof the inhabitants of all ranks and fortunes In what does such liberty\ndiffer from the description of the most shocking kind of servitude?\n\nBut it will be said, in that country some people are free. Why, this is\nthe very description of despotism. _Partial freedom is privilege and\nprerogative, and not liberty._ Liberty, such as deserves the name, is\nan honest, equitable, diffusive, and impartial principle. It is a great\nand enlarged virtue, and not a sordid, selfish, and illiberal vice. It\nis the portion of the mass of the citizens, and not the haughty license\nof some potent individual or some predominant faction.\n\nIf anything ought to be despotic in a country, it is its government;\nbecause there is no cause of constant operation to make its yoke\nunequal. But the dominion of a party must continually, steadily, and by\nits very essence, lean upon the prostrate description. A constitution\nformed so as to enable a party to overrule its very government, and to\noverpower the people too, answers the purposes neither of government nor\nof freedom. It compels that power which ought, and often would be\ndisposed, _equally_ to protect the subjects, to fail in its trust, to\ncounteract its purposes, and to become no better than the instrument of\nthe wrongs of a faction. Some degree of influence must exist in all\ngovernments. But a government which has no interest to please the body\nof the people, and can neither support them nor with safety call for\ntheir support, nor is of power to sway the domineering faction, can only\nexist by corruption; and taught by that monopolizing party which usurps\nthe title and qualities of the public to consider the body of the people\nas out of the constitution, they will consider those who are in it in\nthe light in which they choose to consider themselves. The whole\nrelation of government and of freedom will be a battle or a traffic.\n\nThis system, in its real nature, and under its proper appellations, is\nodious and unnatural, especially when a constitution is admitted which\nnot only, as all constitutions do profess, has a regard to the good of\nthe multitude, but in its theory makes profession of their power also.\nBut of late this scheme of theirs has been new-christened,--_honestum\nnomen imponitur vitio_. A word has been lately struck in the mint of the\nCastle of Dublin; thence it was conveyed to the Tholsel, or City-Hall,\nwhere, having passed the touch of the corporation, so respectably\nstamped and vouched, it soon became current in Parliament, and was\ncarried back by the Speaker of the House of Commons in great pomp, as an\noffering of homage from whence it came. The word is _ascendency_. It is\nnot absolutely new. But the sense in which I have hitherto seen it used\nwas to signify an influence obtained over the minds of some other person\nby love and reverence, or by superior management and dexterity. It had,\ntherefore, to this its promotion no more than a moral, not a civil or\npolitical use. But I admit it is capable of being so applied; and if the\nLord Mayor of Dublin, and the Speaker of the Irish Parliament, who\nrecommend the preservation of the Protestant ascendency, mean to employ\nthe word in that sense,--that is, if they understand by it the\npreservation of the influence of that description of gentlemen over the\nCatholics by means of an authority derived from their wisdom and virtue,\nand from an opinion they raise in that people of a pious regard and\naffection for their freedom and happiness,--it is impossible not to\ncommend their adoption of so apt a term into the family of politics. It\nmay be truly said to enrich the language. Even if the Lord Mayor and\nSpeaker mean to insinuate that this influence is to be obtained and held\nby flattering their people, by managing them, by skilfully adapting\nthemselves to the humors and passions of those whom they would govern,\nhe must be a very untoward critic who would cavil even at this use of\nthe word, though such cajoleries would perhaps be more prudently\npractised than professed. These are all meanings laudable, or at least\ntolerable. But when we look a little more narrowly, and compare it with\nthe plan to which it owes its present technical application, I find it\nhas strayed far from its original sense. It goes much further than the\nprivilege allowed by Horace. It is more than _parce detortum_. This\nProtestant ascendency means nothing less than an influence obtained by\nvirtue, by love, or even by artifice and seduction,--full as little an\ninfluence derived from the means by which ministers have obtained an\ninfluence which might be called, without straining, an _ascendency_, in\npublic assemblies in England, that is, by a liberal distribution of\nplaces and pensions, and other graces of government. This last is wide\nindeed of the signification of the word. New _ascendency_ is the old\n_mastership_. It is neither more nor less than the resolution of one set\nof people in Ireland to consider themselves as the sole citizens in the\ncommonwealth, and to keep a dominion over the rest by reducing them to\nabsolute slavery under a military power, and, thus fortified in their\npower, to divide the public estate, which is the result of general\ncontribution, as a military booty, solely amongst themselves.\n\nThe poor word _ascendency_, so soft and melodious in its sound, so\nlenitive and emollient in its first usage, is now employed to cover to\nthe world the most rigid, and perhaps not the most wise, of all plans of\npolicy. The word is large enough in its comprehension. I cannot\nconceive what mode of oppression in civil life, or what mode of\nreligious persecution, may not come within the methods of preserving an\n_ascendency_. In plain old English, as they apply it, it signifies\n_pride and dominion_ on the one part of the relation, and on the other\n_subserviency and contempt_,--and it signifies nothing else. The old\nwords are as fit to be set to music as the new: but use has long since\naffixed to them their true signification, and they sound, as the other\nwill, harshly and odiously to the moral and intelligent ears of mankind.\n\nThis ascendency, by being a _Protestant_ ascendency, does not better it\nfrom the combination of a note or two more in this anti-harmonic scale.\nIf Protestant ascendency means the proscription from citizenship of by\nfar the major part of the people of any country, then Protestant\nascendency is a bad thing, and it ought to have no existence. But there\nis a deeper evil. By the use that is so frequently made of the term, and\nthe policy which is engrafted on it, the name Protestant becomes nothing\nmore or better than the name of a persecuting faction, with a relation\nof some sort of theological hostility to others, but without any sort of\nascertained tenets of its own upon the ground of which it persecutes\nother men: for the patrons of this Protestant ascendency neither do nor\ncan, by anything positive, define or describe what they mean by the word\nProtestant. It is defined, as Cowley defines wit, not by what it is, but\nby what it is not. It is not the Christian religion as professed in the\nchurches holding communion with Rome, the majority of Christians: that\nis all which, in the latitude of the term, is known about its\nsignification. This makes such persecutors ten times worse than any of\nthat description that hitherto have been known in the world. The old\npersecutors, whether Pagan or Christian, whether Arian or Orthodox,\nwhether Catholics, Anglicans, or Calvinists, actually were, or at least\nhad the decorum to pretend to be, strong dogmatists. They pretended that\ntheir religious maxims were clear and ascertained, and so useful that\nthey were bound, for the eternal benefit of mankind, to defend or\ndiffuse them, though by any sacrifices of the temporal good of those who\nwere the objects of their system of experiment.\n\nThe bottom of this theory of persecution is false. It is not permitted\nto us to sacrifice the temporal good of any body of men to our own ideas\nof the truth and falsehood of any religious opinions. By making men\nmiserable in this life, they counteract one of the great ends of\ncharity, which is, in as much as in us lies, to make men happy in every\nperiod of their existence, and most in what most depends upon us. But\ngive to these old persecutors their mistaken principle, in their\nreasoning they are consistent, and in their tempers they may be even\nkind and good-natured. But whenever a faction would render millions of\nmankind miserable, some millions of the race coexistent with themselves,\nand many millions in their succession, without knowing or so much as\npretending to ascertain the doctrines of their own school, (in which\nthere is much of the lash and nothing of the lesson,) the errors which\nthe persons in such a faction fall into are not those that are natural\nto human imbecility, nor is the least mixture of mistaken kindness to\nmankind an ingredient in the severities they inflict. The whole is\nnothing but pure and perfect malice. It is, indeed, a perfection in that\nkind belonging to beings of an higher order than man, and to them we\nought to leave it.\n\nThis kind of persecutors without zeal, without charity, know well enough\nthat religion, to pass by all questions of the truth or falsehood of any\nof its particular systems, (a matter I abandon to the theologians on all\nsides,) is a source of great comfort to us mortals, in this our short,\nbut tedious journey through the world. They know, that, to enjoy this\nconsolation, men must believe their religion upon some principle or\nother, whether of education, habit, theory, or authority. When men are\ndriven from any of those principles on which they have received\nreligion, without embracing with the same assurance and cordiality some\nother system, a dreadful void is left in their minds, and a terrible\nshook is given to their morals. They lose their guide, their comfort,\ntheir hope. None but the most cruel and hardhearted of men, who had\nbanished all natural tenderness from their minds, such as those beings\nof iron, the atheists, could bring themselves to any persecution like\nthis. Strange it is, but so it is, that men, driven by force from their\nhabits in one mode of religion, have, by contrary habits, under the same\nforce, often quietly settled in another. They suborn their reason to\ndeclare in favor of their necessity. Man and his conscience cannot\nalways be at war. If the first races have not been able to make a\npacification between the conscience and the convenience, their\ndescendants come generally to submit to the violence of the laws,\nwithout violence to their minds. As things stood formerly, they\npossessed a _positive_ scheme of direction and of consolation. In this\nmen may acquiesce. The harsh methods in use with the old class of\npersecutors were to make converts, not apostates only. If they\nperversely hated other sects and factions, they loved their own\ninordinately. But in this Protestant persecution there is anything but\nbenevolence at work. What do the Irish statutes? They do not make a\nconformity to the _established_ religion, and to its doctrines and\npractices, the condition of getting out of servitude. No such thing. Let\nthree millions of people but abandon all that they and their ancestors\nhave been taught to believe sacred, and to forswear it publicly in terms\nthe most degrading, scurrilous, and indecent for men of integrity and\nvirtue, and to abuse the whole of their former lives, and to slander the\neducation they have received, and nothing more is required of them.\nThere is no system of folly, or impiety, or blasphemy, or atheism, into\nwhich they may not throw themselves, and which they may not profess\nopenly, and as a system, consistently with the enjoyment of all the\nprivileges of a free citizen in the happiest constitution in the world.\n\nSome of the unhappy assertors of this strange scheme say they are not\npersecutors on account of religion. In the first place, they say what is\nnot true. For what else do they disfranchise the people? If the man gets\nrid of a religion through which their malice operates, he gets rid of\nall their penalties and incapacities at once. They never afterwards\ninquire about him. I speak here of their pretexts, and not of the true\nspirit of the transaction, in which religious bigotry, I apprehend, has\nlittle share. Every man has his taste; but I think, if I were so\nmiserable and undone as to be guilty of premeditated and continued\nviolence towards any set of men, I had rather that my conduct was\nsupposed to arise from wild conceits concerning their religious\nadvantages than from low and ungenerous motives relative to my own\nselfish interest. I had rather be thought insane in my charity than\nrational in my malice. This much, my dear son, I have to say of this\nProtestant persecution,--that is, a persecution of religion itself.\n\nA very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words.\nPeople soon forget the meaning, but the impression and the passion\nremain. The word Protestant is the charm that looks up in the dungeon of\nservitude three millions of your people. It is not amiss to consider\nthis spell of potency, this abracadabra, that is hung about the necks of\nthe unhappy, not to heal, but to communicate disease. We sometimes hear\nof a Protestant _religion_, frequently of a Protestant _interest_. We\nhear of the latter the most frequently, because it has a positive\nmeaning. The other has none. We hear of it the most frequently, because\nit has a word in the phrase which, well or ill understood, has animated\nto persecution and oppression at all times infinitely more than all the\ndogmas in dispute between religious factions. These are, indeed, well\nformed to perplex and torment the intellect, but not half so well\ncalculated to inflame the passions and animosities of men.\n\nI do readily admit that a great deal of the wars, seditions, and\ntroubles of the world did formerly turn upon the contention between\n_interests_ that went by the names of Protestant and Catholic. But I\nimagined that at this time no one was weak enough to believe, or\nimpudent enough to pretend, that questions of Popish and Protestant\nopinions or interest are the things by which men are at present menaced\nwith crusades by foreign invasion, or with seditions which shake the\nfoundations of the state at home. It is long since all this combination\nof things has vanished from the view of intelligent observers. The\nexistence of quite another system of opinions and interests is now plain\nto the grossest sense. Are these the questions that raise a flame in the\nminds of men at this day? If ever the Church and the Constitution of\nEngland should fall in these islands, (and they will fall together,) it\nis not Presbyterian discipline nor Popish hierarchy that will rise upon\ntheir ruins. It will not be the Church of Rome nor the Church of\nScotland, not the Church of Luther nor the Church of Calvin. On the\ncontrary, all these churches are menaced, and menaced alike. It is the\nnew fanatical religion, now in the heat of its first ferment, of the\nRights of Man, which rejects all establishments, all discipline, all\necclesiastical, and in truth all civil order, which will triumph, and\nwhich will lay prostrate your Church, which will destroy your\ndistinctions, and which will put all your properties to auction, and\ndisperse you over the earth. If the present establishment should fall,\nit is this religion which will triumph in Ireland and in England, as it\nhas triumphed in France. This religion, which laughs at creeds and\ndogmas and confessions of faith, may be fomented equally amongst all\ndescriptions and all sects,--amongst nominal Catholics, and amongst\nnominal Churchmen, and amongst those Dissenters who know little and care\nless about a presbytery, or any of its discipline, or any of its\ndoctrine. Against this new, this growing, this exterminatory system, all\nthese churches have a common concern to defend themselves. How the\nenthusiasts of this rising sect rejoice to see you of the old churches\nplay their game, and stir and rake the cinders of animosities sunk in\ntheir ashes, in order to keep up the execution of their plan for your\ncommon ruin!\n\nI suppress all that is in my mind about the blindness of those of our\nclergy who will shut their eyes to a thing which glares in such manifest\nday. If some wretches amongst an indigent and disorderly part of the\npopulace raise a riot about tithes, there are of these gentlemen ready\nto cry out that this is an overt act of a treasonable conspiracy. Here\nthe bulls, and the pardons, and the crusade, and the Pope, and the\nthunders of the Vatican are everywhere at work. There is a plot to bring\nin a foreign power to destroy the Church. Alas! it is not about popes,\nbut about potatoes, that the minds of this unhappy people are agitated.\nIt is not from the spirit of zeal, but the spirit of whiskey, that these\nwretches act. Is it, then, not conceived possible that a poor clown can\nbe unwilling, after paying three pounds rent to a gentleman in a brown\ncoat, to pay fourteen shillings to one in a black coat, for his acre of\npotatoes, and tumultuously to desire some modification of the charge,\nwithout being supposed to have no other motive than a frantic zeal for\nbeing thus double-taxed to another set of landholders and another set of\npriests? Have men no self-interest, no avarice, no repugnance to public\nimposts? Have they no sturdy and restive minds, no undisciplined habits?\nIs there nothing in the whole mob of irregular passions, which might\nprecipitate some of the common people, in some places, to quarrel with a\nlegal, because they feel it to be a burdensome imposition? According to\nthese gentlemen, no offence can be committed by Papists but from zeal to\ntheir religion. To make room for the vices of Papists, they clear the\nhouse of all the vices of men. Some of the common people (not one,\nhowever, in ten thousand) commit disorders. Well! punish them as you do,\nand as you ought to punish them, for their violence against the just\nproperty of each individual clergyman, as each individual suffers.\nSupport the injured rector, or the injured impropriator, in the\nenjoyment of the estate of which (whether on the best plan or not) the\nlaws have put him in possession. Let the crime and the punishment stand\nupon their own bottom. But now we ought all of us, clergymen most\nparticularly, to avoid assigning another cause of quarrel, in order to\ninfuse a new source of bitterness into a dispute which personal feelings\non both sides will of themselves make bitter enough, and thereby involve\nin it by religious descriptions men who have individually no share\nwhatsoever in those irregular acts. Let us not make the malignant\nfictions of our own imaginations, heated with factious controversies,\nreasons for keeping men that are neither guilty nor justly suspected of\ncrime in a servitude equally dishonorable and unsafe to religion and to\nthe state. When men are constantly accused, but know themselves not to\nbe guilty, they must naturally abhor their accusers. There is no\ncharacter, when malignantly taken up and deliberately pursued, which\nmore naturally excites indignation and abhorrence in mankind, especially\nin that part of mankind which suffers from it.\n\nI do not pretend to take pride in an extravagant attachment to any sect.\nSome gentlemen in Ireland affect that sort of glory. It is to their\ntaste. Their piety, I take it for granted, justifies the fervor of their\nzeal, and may palliate the excess of it. Being myself no more than a\ncommon layman, commonly informed in controversies, leading only a very\ncommon life, and having only a common citizen's interest in the Church\nor in the State, yet to you I will say, in justice to my own sentiments,\nthat not one of those zealots for a Protestant interest wishes more\nsincerely than I do, perhaps not half so sincerely, for the support of\nthe Established Church in both these kingdoms. It is a great link\ntowards holding fast the connection of religion with the State, and for\nkeeping these two islands, in their present critical independence of\nconstitution, in a close connection of _opinion and affection_. I wish\nit well, as the religion of the greater number of the primary\nland-proprietors of the kingdom, with whom all establishments of Church\nand Stats, for strong political reasons, ought in my opinion to be\nfirmly connected. I wish it well, because it is more closely combined\nthan any other of the church systems with the _crown_, which is the stay\nof the mixed Constitution,--because it is, as things now stand, the sole\nconnecting _political_ principle between the constitutions of the two\nindependent kingdoms. I have another and infinitely a stronger reason\nfor wishing it well: it is, that in the present time I consider it as\none of the main pillars of the Christian religion itself. The body and\nsubstance of every religion I regard much more than any of the forms and\ndogmas of the particular sects. Its fall would leave a great void, which\nnothing else, of which I can form any distinct idea, might fill. I\nrespect the Catholic hierarchy and the Presbyterian republic; but I\nknow that the hope or the fear of establishing either of them is, in\nthese kingdoms, equally chimerical, even if I preferred one or the other\nof them to the Establishment, which certainly I do not.\n\nThese are some of my reasons for wishing the support of the Church of\nIreland as by law established. These reasons are founded as well on the\nabsolute as on the relative situation of that kingdom. But is it because\nI love the Church, and the King, and the privileges of Parliament, that\nI am to be ready for any violence, or any injustice, or any absurdity,\nin the means of supporting any of these powers, or all of them together?\nInstead of prating about Protestant ascendencies, Protestant Parliaments\nought, in my opinion, to think at last of becoming patriot Parliaments.\n\nThe legislature of Ireland, like all legislatures, ought to frame its\nlaws to suit the people and the circumstances of the country, and not\nany longer to make it their whole business to force the nature, the\ntemper, and the inveterate habits of a nation to a conformity to\nspeculative systems concerning any kind of laws. Ireland has an\nestablished government, and a religion legally established, which are to\nbe preserved. It has a people who are to be preserved too, and to be led\nby reason, principle, sentiment, and interest to acquiesce in that\ngovernment. Ireland is a country under peculiar circumstances. The\npeople of Ireland are a very mixed people; and the quantities of the\nseveral ingredients in the mixture are very much disproportioned to each\nother. Are we to govern this mixed body as if it were composed of the\nmost simple elements, comprehending the whole in one system of\nbenevolent legislation? or are we not rather to provide for the several\nparts according to the various and diversified necessities of the\nheterogeneous nature of the mass? Would not common reason and common\nhonesty dictate to us the policy of regulating the people, in the\nseveral descriptions of which they are composed, according to the\nnatural ranks and classes of an orderly civil society, under a common\nprotecting sovereign, and under a form of constitution favorable at once\nto authority and to freedom,--such as the British Constitution boasts to\nbe, and such as it is to those who enjoy it?\n\nYou have an ecclesiastical establishment, which, though the religion of\nthe prince, and of most of the first class of landed proprietors, is not\nthe religion of the major part of the inhabitants, and which\nconsequently does not answer to _them_ any one purpose of a religious\nestablishment. This is a state of things which no man in his senses can\ncall perfectly happy. But it is the state of Ireland. Two hundred years\nof experiment show it to be unalterable. Many a fierce struggle has\npassed between the parties. The result is, you cannot make the people\nProtestants, and they cannot shake off a Protestant government. This is\nwhat experience teaches, and what all men of sense of all descriptions\nknow. To-day the question is this: Are we to make the best of this\nsituation, which we cannot alter? The question is: Shall the condition\nof the body of the people be alleviated in other things, on account of\ntheir necessary suffering from their being subject to the burdens of two\nreligious establishments, from one of which they do not partake the\nleast, living or dying, either of instruction or of consolation,--or\nshall it be aggravated, by stripping the people thus loaded of\neverything which might support and indemnify them in this state, so as\nto leave them naked of every sort of right and of every name of\nfranchise, to outlaw them from the Constitution, and to cut off\n(perhaps) three millions of plebeian subjects, without reference to\nproperty, or any other qualification, from all connection with the\npopular representation, of the kingdom?\n\nAs to religion, it has nothing at all to do with the proceeding. Liberty\nis not sacrificed to a zeal for religion, but a zeal for religion is\npretended and assumed to destroy liberty. The Catholic religion is\ncompletely free. It has no establishment,--but it is recognized,\npermitted, and, in a degree, protected by the laws. If a man is\nsatisfied to be a slave, he may be a Papist with perfect impunity. He\nmay say mass, or hear it, as he pleases; but he must consider himself as\nan outlaw from the British Constitution. If the constitutional liberty\nof the subject were not the thing aimed at, the direct reverse course\nwould be taken. The franchise would have been permitted, and the mass\nexterminated. But the conscience of a man left, and a tenderness for it\nhypocritically pretended, is to make it a trap to catch his liberty.\n\nSo much is this the design, that the violent partisans of this scheme\nfairly take up all the maxims and arguments, as well as the practices,\nby which tyranny has fortified itself at all times. Trusting wholly in\ntheir strength and power, (and upon this they reckon, as always ready to\nstrike wherever they wish to direct the storm,) they abandon all pretext\nof the general good of the community. They say, that, if the people,\nunder any given modification, obtain the smallest portion or particle of\nconstitutional freedom, it will be impossible for them to hold their\nproperty. They tell us that they act only on the defensive. They inform\nthe public of Europe that their estates are made up of forfeitures and\nconfiscations from the natives; that, if the body of people obtain\nvotes, any number of votes, however small, it will be a step to the\nchoice of members of their own religion; that the House of Commons, in\nspite of the influence of nineteen parts in twenty of the landed\ninterest now in their hands, will be composed in the whole, or in far\nthe major part, of Papists; that this Popish House of Commons will\ninstantly pass a law to confiscate all their estates, which it will not\nbe in their power to save even by entering into that Popish party\nthemselves, because there are prior claimants to be satisfied; that, as\nto the House of Lords, though neither Papists nor Protestants have a\nshare in electing them, the body of the peerage will be so obliging and\ndisinterested as to fall in with this exterminatory scheme, which is to\nforfeit all their estates, the largest part of the kingdom; and, to\ncrown all, that his Majesty will give his cheerful assent to this\ncauseless act of attainder of his innocent and faithful Protestant\nsubjects; that they will be or are to be left, without house or land, to\nthe dreadful resource of living by their wits, out of which they are\nalready frightened by the apprehension of this spoliation with which\nthey are threatened; that, therefore, they cannot so much as listen to\nany arguments drawn from equity or from national or constitutional\npolicy: the sword is at their throats; beggary and famine at their door.\nSee what it is to have a good look-out, and to see danger at the end of\na sufficiently long perspective!\n\nThis is, indeed, to speak plain, though to speak nothing very new. The\nsame thing has been said in all times and in all languages. The language\nof tyranny has been invariable: \"The general good is inconsistent with\nmy personal safety.\" Justice and liberty seem so alarming to these\ngentlemen, that they are not ashamed even to slander their own titles,\nto calumniate and call in doubt their right to their own estates, and to\nconsider themselves as novel disseizors, usurpers, and intruders, rather\nthan lose a pretext for becoming oppressors of their fellow-citizens,\nwhom they (not I) choose to describe themselves as having robbed.\n\nInstead of putting themselves in this odious point of light, one would\nthink they would wish to let Time draw his oblivious veil over the\nunpleasant modes by which lordships and demesnes have been acquired in\ntheirs, and almost in all other countries upon earth. It might be\nimagined, that, when the sufferer (if a sufferer exists) had forgot the\nwrong, they would be pleased to forget it too,--that they would permit\nthe sacred name of possession to stand in the place of the melancholy\nand unpleasant title of grantees of confiscation, which, though firm and\nvalid in law, surely merits the name that a great Roman jurist gave to a\ntitle at least as valid in his nation as confiscation would be either in\nhis or in ours: _Tristis et luctuosa successio_.\n\nSuch is the situation of every man who comes in upon the ruin of\nanother; his succeeding, under this circumstance, is _tristis et\nluctuosa successio_. If it had been the fate of any gentleman to profit\nby the confiscation of his neighbor, one would think he would be more\ndisposed to give him a valuable interest under him in his land, or to\nallow him a pension, as I understand one worthy person has done, without\nfear or apprehension that his benevolence to a ruined family would be\nconstrued into a recognition of the forfeited title. The public of\nEngland, the other day, acted in this manner towards Lord Newburgh, a\nCatholic. Though the estate had been vested by law in the greatest of\nthe public charities, they have given him a pension from his\nconfiscation. They have gone further in other cases. On the last\nrebellion, in 1745, in Scotland, several forfeitures were incurred. They\nhad been disposed of by Parliament to certain laudable uses. Parliament\nreversed the method which they had adopted in Lord Newburgh's case, and\nin my opinion did better: they gave the forfeited estates to the\nsuccessors of the forfeiting proprietors, chargeable in part with the\nuses. Is this, or anything like this, asked in favor of any human\ncreature in Ireland? It is bounty, it is charity,--wise bounty, and\npolitic charity; but no man can claim it as a right. Here no such thing\nis claimed as right, or begged as charity. The demand has an object as\ndistant from all considerations of this sort as any two extremes can be.\nThe people desire the privileges inseparably annexed, since Magna\nCharta, to the freehold which they have by descent or obtain as the\nfruits of their industry. They call for no man's estate; they desire not\nto be dispossessed of their own.\n\nBut this melancholy and invidious title is a favorite (and, like\nfavorites, always of the least merit) with those who possess every other\ntitle upon earth along with it. For this purpose they revive the bitter\nmemory of every dissension which has torn to pieces their miserable\ncountry for ages. After what has passed in 1782, one would not think\nthat decorum, to say nothing of policy, would permit them to call up, by\nmagic charms, the grounds, reasons, and principles of those terrible\nconfiscatory and exterminatory periods. They would not set men upon\ncalling from the quiet sleep of death any Samuel, to ask him by what act\nof arbitrary monarchs, by what inquisitions of corrupted tribunals and\ntortured jurors, by what fictitious tenures invented to dispossess whole\nunoffending tribes and their chieftains. They would not conjure up the\nghosts from the ruins of castles and churches, to tell for what attempt\nto struggle for the independence of an Irish legislature, and to raise\narmies of volunteers without regular commissions from the crown in\nsupport of that independence, the estates of the old Irish nobility and\ngentry had been confiscated. They would not wantonly call on those\nphantoms to tell by what English acts of Parliament, forced upon two\nreluctant kings, the lands of their country were put up to a mean and\nscandalous auction in every goldsmith's shop in London, or chopped to\npieces and out into rations, to pay the mercenary soldiery of a regicide\nusurper. They would not be so fond of titles under Cromwell, who, if he\navenged an Irish rebellion against the sovereign authority of the\nParliament of England, had himself rebelled against the very Parliament\nwhose sovereignty he asserted, full as much as the Irish nation, which\nhe was sent to subdue and confiscate, could rebel against that\nParliament, or could rebel against the king, against whom both he and\nthe Parliament which he served, and which he betrayed, had both of them\nrebelled.\n\nThe gentlemen who hold the language of the day know perfectly well that\nthe Irish in 1641 pretended, at least, that they did not rise against\nthe king: nor in fact did they, whatever constructions law might put\nupon their act. But full surely they rebelled against the authority of\nthe Parliament of England, and they openly professed so to do. Admitting\n(I have now no time to discuss the matter) the enormous and unpardonable\nmagnitude of this their crime, they rued it in their persons, and in\nthose of their children and their grandchildren, even to the fifth and\nsixth generations. Admitting, then, the enormity of this unnatural\nrebellion in favor of the independence of Ireland, will it follow that\nit must be avenged forever? Will it follow that it must be avenged on\nthousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of those whom they can never\ntrace, by the labors of the most subtle metaphysician of the traduction\nof crimes, or the most inquisitive genealogist of proscription, to the\ndescendant of any one concerned in that nefarious Irish rebellion\nagainst the Parliament of England?\n\nIf, however, you could find out those pedigrees of guilt, I do not think\nthe difference would be essential. History records many things which\nought to make us hate evil actions; but neither history, nor morals, nor\npolicy can teach us to punish innocent men on that account. What lesson\ndoes the iniquity of prevalent factions read to us? It ought to lesson\nus into an abhorrence of the abuse of our own power in our own day, when\nwe hate its excesses so much in other persons and in other times. To\nthat school true statesmen ought to be satisfied to leave mankind. They\nought not to call from the dead all the discussions and litigations\nwhich formerly inflamed the furious factions which had torn their\ncountry to pieces; they ought not to rake into the hideous and\nabominable things which were done in the turbulent fury of an injured,\nrobbed, and persecuted people, and which were afterwards cruelly\nrevenged in the execution, and as outrageously and shamefully\nexaggerated in the representation, in order, an hundred and fifty years\nafter, to find some color for justifying them in the eternal\nproscription and civil excommunication of a whole people.\n\nLet us come to a later period of those confiscations with the memory of\nwhich the gentlemen who triumph in the acts of 1782 are so much\ndelighted. The Irish again rebelled against the English Parliament in\n1688, and the English Parliament again put up to sale the greatest part\nof their estates. I do not presume to defend the Irish for this\nrebellion, nor to blame the English Parliament for this confiscation.\nThe Irish, it is true, did not revolt from King James's power. He threw\nhimself upon their fidelity, and they supported him to the best of their\nfeeble power. Be the crime of that obstinate adherence to an abdicated\nsovereign, against a prince whom the Parliaments of Ireland and Scotland\nhad recognized, what it may, I do not mean to justify this rebellion\nmore than the former. It might, however, admit some palliation in them.\nIn generous minds some small degree of compassion might be excited for\nan error, where they were misled, as Cicero says to a conqueror, _quadam\nspecie et similitudine pacis_, not without a mistaken appearance of\nduty, and for which the guilty have suffered, by exile abroad and\nslavery at home, to the extent of their folly or their offence. The best\ncalculators compute that Ireland lost two hundred thousand of her\ninhabitants in that struggle. If the principle of the English and\nScottish resistance at the Revolution is to be justified, (as sure I am\nit is,) the submission of Ireland must be somewhat extenuated. For, if\nthe Irish resisted King William, they resisted him on the very same\nprinciple that the English and Scotch resisted King James. The Irish\nCatholics must have been the very worst and the most truly unnatural of\nrebels, if they had not supported a prince whom they had seen attacked,\nnot for any designs against _their_ religion or _their_ liberties, but\nfor an extreme partiality for their sect, and who, far from trespassing\non _their_ liberties and properties, secured both them and the\nindependence of their country in much the same manner that we have seen\nthe same things done at the period of 1782,--I trust the last revolution\nin Ireland.\n\nThat the Irish Parliament of King James did in some particulars, though\nfeebly, imitate the rigor which had been used towards the Irish, is true\nenough. Blamable enough they were for what they had done, though under\nthe greatest possible provocation. I shall never praise confiscations or\ncounter-confiscations as long as I live. When they happen by necessity,\nI shall think the necessity lamentable and odious: I shall think that\nanything done under it ought not to pass into precedent, or to be\nadopted by choice, or to produce any of those shocking retaliations\nwhich never suffer dissensions to subside. Least of all would I fix the\ntransitory spirit of civil fury by perpetuating and methodizing it in\ntyrannic government. If it were permitted to argue with power, might one\nnot ask these gentlemen whether it would not be more natural, instead of\nwantonly mooting these questions concerning their property, as if it\nwere an exercise in law, to found it on the solid rock of\nprescription,--the soundest, the most general, and the most recognized\ntitle between man and man that is known in municipal or in public\njurisprudence?--a title in which not arbitrary institutions, but the\neternal order of things, gives judgment; a title which is not the\ncreature, but the master, of positive law; a title which, though not\nfixed in its term, is rooted in its principle in the law of Nature\nitself, and is indeed the original ground of all known property: for all\nproperty in soil will always be traced back to that source, and will\nrest there. The miserable natives of Ireland, who ninety-nine in an\nhundred are tormented with quite other cares, and are bowed down to\nlabor for the bread of the hour, are not, as gentlemen pretend, plodding\nwith antiquaries for titles of centuries ago to the estates of the great\nlords and squires for whom they labor. But if they were thinking of the\ntitles which gentlemen labor to beat into their heads, where can they\nbottom their own claims, but in a presumption and a proof that these\nlands had at some time been possessed by their ancestors? These\ngentlemen (for they have lawyers amongst them) know as well as I that in\nEngland we have had always a prescription or limitation, as all nations\nhave, against each other. The crown was excepted; but that exception is\ndestroyed, and we have lately established a sixty years' possession as\nagainst the crown. All titles terminate in prescription,--in which\n(differently from Time in the fabulous instances) the son devours the\nfather, and the last prescription eats up all the former.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nON\n\nTHE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.\n\n1797.\n\n\nDear Sir,--In the reduced state of body and in the dejected state of\nmind in which I find myself at this very advanced period of my life, it\nis a great consolation to me to know that a cause I ever have had so\nvery near my heart is taken up by a man of your activity and talents.\n\nIt is very true that your late friend, my ever dear and honored son, was\nin the highest degree solicitous about the final event of a business\nwhich he also had pursued for a long time with infinite zeal, and no\nsmall degree of success. It was not above half an hour before he left me\nforever that he spoke with considerable earnestness on this very\nsubject. If I had needed any incentives to do my best for freeing the\nbody of my country from the grievances under which they labor, this\nalone would certainly call forth all my endeavors.\n\nThe person who succeeded to the government of Ireland about the time of\nthat afflicting event had been all along of my sentiments and yours upon\nthis subject; and far from needing to be stimulated by me, that\nincomparable person, and those in whom he strictly confided, even went\nbefore me in their resolution to pursue the great end of government, the\nsatisfaction and concord of the people with whose welfare they were\ncharged. I cannot bear to think on the causes by which this great plan\nof policy, so manifestly beneficial to both kingdoms, has been\ndefeated.\n\nYour mistake with regard to me lies in supposing that I did not, when\nhis removal was in agitation, strongly and personally represent to\nseveral of his Majesty's ministers, to whom I could have the most ready\naccess, the true state of Ireland, and the mischiefs which sooner or\nlater must arise from subjecting the mass of the people to the\ncapricious and interested domination of an exceeding small faction and\nits dependencies.\n\nThat representation was made the last time, or very nearly the last\ntime, that I have ever had the honor of seeing those ministers. I am so\nfar from having any credit with them, on this, or any other public\nmatters, that I have reason to be certain, if it were known that any\nperson in office in Ireland, from the highest to the lowest, were\ninfluenced by my opinions, and disposed to act upon them, such an one\nwould be instantly turned out of his employment. Yon have formed, to my\nperson a flattering, yet in truth a very erroneous opinion, of my power\nwith those who direct the public measures. I never have been directly or\nindirectly consulted about anything that is done. The judgment of the\neminent and able persons who conduct public affairs is undoubtedly\nsuperior to mine; but self-partiality induces almost every man to defer\nsomething to his own. Nothing is more notorious than that I have the\nmisfortune of thinking that no one capital measure relative to political\narrangements, and still less that a new military plan for the defence of\neither kingdom in this arduous war, has been taken upon any other\nprinciple than such as must conduct us to inevitable ruin.\n\nIn the state of my mind, so discordant with the tone of ministers, and\nstill more discordant with the tone of opposition, you may judge what\ndegree of weight I am likely to have with either of the parties who\ndivide this kingdom,--even though I were endowed with strength of body,\nor were possessed of any active situation in the government, which might\ngive success to my endeavors. But the fact is, since the day of my\nunspeakable calamity, except in the attentions of a very few old and\ncompassionate friends, I am totally out of all social intercourse. My\nhealth has gone down very rapidly; and I have been brought hither with\nvery faint hopes of life, and enfeebled to such a degree as those who\nhad known me some time ago could scarcely think credible. Since I came\nhither, my sufferings have been greatly aggravated, and my little\nstrength still further reduced; so that, though I am told the symptoms\nof my disorder begin to carry a more favorable aspect, I pass the far\nlarger part of the twenty-four hours, indeed almost the whole, either in\nmy bed or lying upon the couch from which I dictate this. Had you been\napprised of this circumstance, you could not have expected anything, as\nyou seem to do, from my active exertions. I could do nothing, if I was\nstill stronger, not even _si meus adforet Hector_.\n\nThere is no hope for the body of the people of Ireland, as long as those\nwho are in power with you shall make it the great object of their policy\nto propagate an opinion on this side of the water that the mass of their\ncountrymen are not to be trusted by their government, and that the only\nhold which England has upon Ireland consists in preserving a certain\nvery small number of gentlemen in full possession of a monopoly of that\nkingdom. This system has disgusted many others besides Catholics and\nDissenters.\n\nAs to those who on your side are in the opposition to government, they\nare composed of persons several of whom I love and revere. They have\nbeen irritated by a treatment too much for the ordinary patience of\nmankind to bear into the adoption of schemes which, however\n_argumentatively_ specious, would go _practically_ to the inevitable\nruin of the kingdom. The opposition always connects the emancipation of\nthe Catholics with these schemes of reformation: indeed, it makes the\nformer only a member of the latter project. The gentlemen who enforce\nthat opposition are, in my opinion, playing the game of their\nadversaries with all their might; and there is no third party in Ireland\n(nor in England neither) to separate things that are in themselves so\ndistinct,--I mean the admitting people to the benefits of the\nConstitution, and a change in the form of the Constitution itself.\n\nAs every one knows that a great part of the constitution of the Irish\nHouse of Commons was formed about the year 1614 expressly for bringing\nthat House into a state of dependence, and that the new representative\nwas at that time seated and installed by force and violence, nothing can\nbe more impolitic than for those who wish the House to stand on its\npresent basis (as, for one, I most sincerely do) to make it appear to\nhave kept too much the principle of its first institution, and to\ncontinue to be as little a virtual as it is an actual representative of\nthe commons. It is the _degeneracy_ of such an institution, _so vicious\nin its principle_, that is to be wished for. If men have the real\nbenefit of a _sympathetic_ representation, none but those who are heated\nand intoxicated with theory will look for any other. This sort of\nrepresentation, my dear Sir, must wholly depend, not on the force with\nwhich it is upheld, but upon the _prudence_ of those who have influence\nupon it. Indeed, without some such prudence in the use of authority, I\ndo not know, at least in the present time, how any power can long\ncontinue.\n\nIf it be true that both parties are carrying things to extremities in\ndifferent ways, the object which you and I have in common, that is to\nsay, the union and concord of our country _on the basis of the actual\nrepresentation_, without risking those evils which any change in the\nform of our legislature must inevitably bring on, can never be obtained.\nOn the part of the Catholics (that is to say, of the body of the people\nof the kingdom) it is a terrible alternative, either to submit to the\nyoke of declared and insulting enemies, or to seek a remedy in plunging\nthemselves into the horrors and crimes of that Jacobinism which\nunfortunately is not disagreeable to the principles and inclinations of,\nI am afraid, the majority of what we call the Protestants of Ireland.\nThe Protestant part of that kingdom is represented by the government\nitself to be, by whole counties, in nothing less than open rebellion. I\nam sure that it is everywhere teeming with dangerous conspiracy.\n\nI believe it will be found, that, though the principles of the\nCatholics, and the incessant endeavors of their clergy, have kept them\nfrom being generally infected with the systems of this time, yet,\nwhenever their situation brings them nearer into contact with the\nJacobin Protestants, they are more or less infected with their\ndoctrines.\n\nIt is a matter for melancholy reflection, but I am fully convinced, that\nmany persons in Ireland would be glad that the Catholics should become\nmore and more infected with the Jacobin madness, in order to furnish new\narguments for fortifying them in their monopoly. On any other ground it\nis impossible to account for the late language of your men in power. If\nstatesmen, (let me suppose for argument,) upon the most solid political\nprinciples, conceive themselves obliged to resist the wishes of the far\nmore numerous, and, as things stand, not the worse part of the\ncommunity, one would think they would naturally put their refusal as\nmuch as possible upon temporary grounds, and that they would act towards\nthem in the most conciliatory manner, and would talk to them in the most\ngentle and soothing language: for refusal, in itself, is not a very\ngracious thing; and, unfortunately, men are very quickly irritated out\nof their principles. Nothing is more discouraging to the loyalty of any\ndescription of men than to represent to them that their humiliation and\nsubjection make a principal part in the fundamental and invariable\npolicy which regards the conjunction of these two kingdoms. This is not\nthe way to give them a warm interest in that conjunction.\n\nMy poor opinion is, that the closest connection between Great Britain\nand Ireland is essential to the well-being, I had almost said, to the\nvery being, of the two kingdoms. For that purpose I humbly conceive that\nthe whole of the superior, and what I should call _imperial_ politics,\nought to have its residence here; and that Ireland, locally, civilly,\nand commercially independent, ought politically to look up to Great\nBritain in all matters of peace or of war,--in all those points to be\nguided by her.--and, in a word, with her to live and to die. At bottom,\nIreland has no other choice,--I mean, no other rational choice.\n\nI think, indeed, that Great Britain would be ruined by the separation of\nIreland; but as there are degrees even in ruin, it would fall the most\nheavily on Ireland. By such a separation Ireland would be the most\ncompletely undone country in the world,--the most wretched, the most\ndistracted, and, in the end, the most desolate part of the habitable\nglobe. Little do many people in Ireland consider how much of its\nprosperity has been owing to, and still depends upon, its intimate\nconnection with this kingdom. But, more sensible of this great truth,\nthan perhaps any other man, I have never conceived, or can conceive,\nthat the connection is strengthened by making the major part of the\ninhabitants of your country believe that their ease, and their\nsatisfaction, and their equalization with the rest of their\nfellow-subjects of Ireland are things adverse to the principles of that\nconnection,--or that their subjection to a small monopolizing junto,\ncomposed of one of the smallest of their own internal factions, is the\nvery condition upon which the harmony of the two kingdoms essentially\ndepends. I was sorry to hear that this principle, or something not\nunlike it, was publicly and fully avowed by persons of great rank and\nauthority in the House of Lords in Ireland.\n\nAs to a participation on the part of the Catholics in the privileges and\ncapacities which are withheld, without meaning wholly to depreciate\ntheir importance, if I had the honor of being an Irish Catholic, I\nshould be content to expect satisfaction upon that subject with\npatience, until the minds of my adversaries, few, but powerful, were\ncome to a proper temper: because, if the Catholics did enjoy, without\nfraud, chicane, or partiality, some fair portion of those advantages\nwhich the law, even as now the law is, leaves open to them, and if the\nrod were not shaken over them at every turn, their present condition\nwould be tolerable; as compared with their former condition, it would be\nhappy. But the most favorable laws can do very little towards the\nhappiness of a people, when the disposition of the ruling power is\nadverse to them. Men do not live upon blotted paper. The favorable or\nthe hostile mind of the ruling power is of far more importance to\nmankind, for good or evil, than the black-letter of any statute. Late\nacts of Parliament, whilst they fixed at least a temporary bar to the\nhopes and progress of the larger description of the nation, opened to\nthem certain subordinate objects of equality; but it is impossible that\nthe people should imagine that any fair measure of advantage is intended\nto them, when they hear the laws by which they were admitted to this\nlimited qualification publicly reprobated as excessive and\ninconsiderate. They must think that there is a hankering after the old\npenal and persecuting code. Their alarm must be great, when that\ndeclaration is made by a person in very high and important office in the\nHouse of Commons, and as the very first specimen and auspice of a new\ngovernment.\n\nAll this is very unfortunate. I have the honor of an old acquaintance,\nand entertain, in common with you, a very high esteem for the few\nEnglish persons who are concerned in the government of Ireland; but I am\nnot ignorant of the relation these transitory ministers bear to the\nmore settled Irish part of your administration. It is a delicate topic,\nupon which I wish to say but little, though my reflections upon it are\nmany and serious. There is a great cry against English influence. I am\nquite sure that it is Irish influence that dreads the English habits.\n\nGreat disorders have long prevailed in Ireland. It is not long since\nthat the Catholics were the suffering party from those disorders. I am\nsure they were not protected as the case required. Their sufferings\nbecame a matter of discussion in Parliament. It produced the most\ninfuriated declamation against them that I have ever read. An inquiry\nwas moved into the facts. The declamation was at least tolerated, if not\napproved. The inquiry was absolutely rejected. In that case, what is\nleft for those who are abandoned by government, but to join with the\npersons who are capable of injuring them or protecting them as they\noppose or concur in their designs? This will produce a very fatal kind\nof union amongst the people; but it is an union, which an unequal\nadministration of justice tends necessarily to produce.\n\nIf anything could astonish one at this time, it is the war that the\nrulers in Ireland think it proper to carry on against the person whom\nthey call the Pope, and against all his adherents, whenever they think\nthey have the power of manifesting their hostility. Without in the least\nderogating from the talents of your theological politicians, or from the\nmilitary abilities of your commanders (who act on the same principles)\nin Ireland, and without derogating from the zeal of either, it appears\nto me that the Protestant Directory of Paris, as statesmen, and the\nProtestant hero, Buonaparte, as a general, have done more to destroy\nthe said Pope and all his adherents, in all their capacities, than the\njunto in Ireland have ever been able to effect. You must submit your\n_fasces_ to theirs, and at best be contented to follow with songs of\ngratulation, or invectives, according to your humor, the triumphal car\nof those great conquerors. Had that true Protestant, Hoche, with an army\nnot infected with the slightest tincture of Popery, made good his\nlanding in Ireland, he would have saved you from a great deal of the\ntrouble which is taken to keep under a description of your\nfellow-citizens obnoxious to you from their religion. It would not have\na month's existence, supposing his success. This is the alliance which,\nunder the appearance of hostility, we act as if we wished to promote.\nAll is well, provided we are safe from Popery.\n\nIt was not necessary for you, my dear Sir, to explain yourself to _me_\n(in justification of your good wishes to your fellow-citizens)\nconcerning your total alienation from the principles of the Catholics. I\nam more concerned in what we agree than in what we differ. You know the\nimpossibility of our forming any judgment upon the opinions, religious,\nmoral, or political, of those who in the largest sense are called\nProtestants,--at least, as these opinions and tenets form a\nqualification for holding any civil, judicial, military, or even\necclesiastical situation. I have no doubt of the orthodox opinion of\nmany, both of the clergy and laity, professing the established religion\nin Ireland, and of many even amongst the Dissenters, relative to the\ngreat points of the Christian faith: but that orthodoxy concerns them\nonly as _individuals_. As a _qualification_ for employment, we all know\nthat in Ireland it is not necessary that they should profess any\nreligion at all: so that the war that we make is upon certain\ntheological tenets, about which scholastic disputes are carried on _aequo\nMarte_, by controvertists, on their side, as able and as learned, and\nperhaps as well-intentioned, as those are who fight the battle on the\nother part. To them I would leave those controversies. I would turn my\nmind to what is more within its competence, and has been more my study,\n(though, for a man of the world, I have thought of those things,)--I\nmean, the moral, civil, and political good of the countries we belong\nto, and in which God has appointed your station and mine. Let every man\nbe as pious as he pleases, and in the way that he pleases; but it is\nagreeable neither to piety nor to policy to give exclusively all manner\nof civil privileges and advantages to a _negative_ religion, (such is\nthe Protestant without a certain creed,) and at the same time to deny\nthose privileges to men whom we know to agree to an iota in every one\n_positive_ doctrine which all of us who profess the religion\nauthoritatively taught in England hold ourselves, according to our\nfaculties, bound to believe. The Catholics of Ireland (as I have said)\nhave the whole of our _positive_ religion: our difference is only a\nnegation of certain tenets of theirs. If we strip ourselves of _that_\npart of Catholicism, we abjure Christianity. If we drive them from that\nholding, without engaging them in some other positive religion, (which\nyou know by our qualifying laws we do not,) what do we better than to\nhold out to them terrors on the one side, and bounties on the other, in\nfavor of that which, for anything we know to the contrary, may be pure\natheism?\n\nYou are well aware, that, when a man renounces the Roman religion,\nthere is no civil inconvenience or incapacity whatsoever which shall\nhinder him from joining any new or old sect of Dissenters, or of forming\na sect of his own invention upon the most anti-christian principles. Let\nMr. Thomas Paine obtain a pardon, (as on change of ministry he may,)\nthere is nothing to hinder him from setting up a church of his own in\nthe very midst of you. He is a natural-born British subject. His French\ncitizenship does not disqualify him, at least upon a peace. This\nProtestant apostle is as much above all suspicion of Popery as the\ngreatest and most zealous of your sanhedrim in Ireland can possibly be.\nOn purchasing a qualification, (which his friends of the Directory are\nnot so poor as to be unable to effect,) he may sit in Parliament; and\nthere is no doubt that there is not one of your tests against Popery\nthat he will not take as fairly, and as much _ex animo_, as the best of\nyour zealot statesmen. I push this point no further, and only adduce\nthis example (a pretty strong one, and fully in point) to show what I\ntake to be the madness and folly of driving men, under the existing\ncircumstances, from any _positive_ religion whatever into the irreligion\nof the times, and its sure concomitant principles of anarchy.\n\nWhen religion is brought into a question of civil and political\narrangement, it must be considered more politically than theologically,\nat least by us, who are nothing more than mere laymen. In that light,\nthe case of the Catholics of Ireland is peculiarly hard, whether they be\nlaity or clergy. If any of them take part, like the gentleman you\nmention, with some of the most accredited Protestants of the country, in\nprojects which cannot be more abhorrent to your nature and disposition\nthan they are to mine,--in that case, however few these Catholic\nfactions who are united with factious Protestants may be, (and very few\nthey are now, whatever shortly they may become,) on their account the\nwhole body is considered as of suspected fidelity to the crown, and as\nwholly undeserving of its favor. But if, on the contrary, in those\ndistricts of the kingdom where their numbers are the greatest, where\nthey make, in a manner, the whole body of the people, (as, out of\ncities, in three fourths of the kingdom they do,) these Catholics show\nevery mark of loyalty and zeal in support of the government, which at\nbest looks on them with an evil eye, then their very loyalty is turned\nagainst their claims. They are represented as a contented and happy\npeople, and that it is unnecessary to do anything more in their favor.\nThus the factious disposition of a few among the Catholics and the\nloyalty of the whole mass are equally assigned as reasons for not\nputting them on a par with those Protestants who are asserted by the\ngovernment itself, which frowns upon Papists, to be in a state of\nnothing short of actual rebellion, and in a strong disposition to make\ncommon cause with the worst foreign enemy that these countries have ever\nhad to deal with. What in the end can come of all this?\n\nAs to the Irish Catholic clergy, their condition is likewise most\ncritical. If they endeavor by their influence to keep a dissatisfied\nlaity in quiet, they are in danger of losing the little credit they\npossess, by being considered as the instruments of a government adverse\nto the civil interests of their flock. If they let things take their\ncourse, they will be represented as colluding with sedition, or at least\ntacitly encouraging it. If they remonstrate against persecution, they\npropagate rebellion. Whilst government publicly avows hostility to that\npeople, as a part of a regular system, there is no road they can take\nwhich does not lead to their ruin.\n\nIf nothing can be done on your side of the water, I promise you that\nnothing will be done here. Whether in reality or only in appearance I\ncannot positively determine, but you will be left to yourselves by the\nruling powers here. It is thus ostensibly and above-board; and in part,\nI believe, the disposition is real. As to the people at large in this\ncountry, I am sure they have no disposition to intermeddle in your\naffairs. They mean you no ill whatever; and they are too ignorant of the\nstate of your affairs to be able to do you any good. Whatever opinion\nthey have on your subject is very faint and indistinct; and if there is\nanything like a formed notion, even that amounts to no more than a sort\nof humming that remains on their ears of the burden of the old song\nabout Popery. Poor souls, they are to be pitied, who think of nothing\nbut dangers long passed by, and but little of the perils that actually\nsurround them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have been long, but it is almost a necessary consequence of dictating,\nand that by snatches, as a relief from pain gives me the means of\nexpressing my sentiments. They can have little weight, as coming from\nme; and I have not power enough of mind or body to bring them out with\ntheir natural force. But I do not wish to have it concealed that I am of\nthe same opinion, to my last breath, which I entertained when my\nfaculties were at the best; and I have not held back from men in power\nin this kingdom, to whom I have very good wishes, any part of my\nsentiments on this melancholy subject, so long as I had means of access\nto persons of their consideration.\n\nI have the honor to be, &c.\n\n\n\n\nEND OF VOL. VI.","title":"The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. 06 (of 12)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":116895}