THE WORKS

OF

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

EDMUND BURKE

IN TWELVE VOLUMES

VOLUME THE SIXTH

[Illustration: Burke Coat of Arms. ]

LONDONJOHN C. NIMMO14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W. C. MDCCCLXXXVII

CONTENTS OF VOL. VI. 

PREFACE TO THE SECOND POSTHUMOUS VOLUME, IN A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM ELLIOT v

FOURTH LETTER ON THE PROPOSALS FOR PEACE WITH THE REGICIDE DIRECTORY OF FRANCE; WITH THE PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE 1

LETTER TO THE EMPRESS OF RUSSIA, November 1, 1791 113

LETTER TO SIR CHARLES BINGHAM, BART. , ON THE IRISH ABSENTEE TAX, October 30, 1773 121

LETTER TO THE HON. CHARLES JAMES FOX, ON THE AMERICAN WAR, October 8, 1777 135

LETTER TO THE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM, WITH ADDRESSES TO THE KING, AND THE BRITISH COLONISTS IN NORTH AMERICA, IN RELATION TO THE MEASURES OF GOVERNMENT IN THE AMERICAN CONTEST, AND A PROPOSED SECESSION OF THE OPPOSITION FROM PARLIAMENT, January, 1777 149

LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND S. PERRY, IN RELATION TO A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND, July 18, 1778 197

TWO LETTERS TO THOMAS BURGH, ESQ. , AND JOHN MERLOTT, ESQ. , IN VINDICATION OF HIS PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT RELATIVE TO THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND, 1780 207

LETTERS AND REFLECTIONS ON THE EXECUTIONS OF THE RIOTERS IN 1780 239

LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. HENRY DUNDAS: WITH THE SKETCH OF A NEGRO CODE, 1792 255

LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE MEETING, HELD AT AYLESBURY, APRIL 13, 1780, ON THE SUBJECT OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM 291

FRAGMENTS OF A TRACT RELATIVE TO THE LAWS AGAINST POPERY IN IRELAND 299

LETTER TO WILLIAM SMITH, ESQ. , ON THE SUBJECT OF CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION, January 29, 1795 361

SECOND LETTER TO SIR HERCULES LANGRISHE, ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION, May 26, 1795 375

LETTER TO RICHARD BURKE, ESQ. , ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY IN IRELAND, 1793 385

LETTER ON THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND, 1797 413

PREFACE

TO THE SECOND POSTHUMOUS VOLUME, [1]

IN A LETTER TO

THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM ELLIOT

My dear sir, --As some prefatory account of the materials which composethis second posthumous volume of the Works of Mr. Burke, and of thecauses which have prevented its earlier appearance, will be expectedfrom me, I hope I may be indulged in the inclination I feel to run overthese matters in a letter to you, rather than in a formal address to thepublic. 

Of the delay that has intervened since the publication of the formervolume I shall first say a few words. Having undertaken, in conjunctionwith the late Dr. Laurence, to examine the manuscript papers of Mr. Burke, and to select and prepare for the press such of them as should bethought proper for publication, the difficulties attending ourcoöperation were soon experienced by us. The remoteness of our placesof residence in summer, and our professional and other avocations inwinter, opposed perpetual obstacles to the progress of our undertaking. 

Soon after the publication of the fourth volume, I was renderedincapable of attending to any business by a severe and tedious illness. And it was not long after my recovery before the health of ourinvaluable friend began gradually to decline, and soon became unequal tothe increasing labors of his profession and the discharge of hisParliamentary duties. At length we lost a man, of whom, as I shall haveoccasion to speak more particularly in another part of this undertaking, I will now content myself with saying, that in my humble opinion hemerited, and certainly obtained with those best acquainted with hisextensive learning and information, a considerable rank amongst theeminent persons who have adorned the age in which we have lived, and ofwhose services the public have been deprived by a premature death. 

From these causes little progress had been made in our work when I wasdeprived of my coadjutor. But from that time you can testify of me thatI have not been idle. You can bear witness to the confused state inwhich the materials that compose the present volume came into my hands. The difficulty of reading many of the manuscripts, obscured byinnumerable erasures, corrections, interlineations, and marginalinsertions, would perhaps have been insuperable to any person lessconversant in the manuscripts of Mr. Burke than myself. To thisdifficulty succeeded that of selecting from several detached papers, written upon the same subject and the same topics, such as appeared tocontain the author's last thoughts and emendations. When thesedifficulties were overcome, there still remained, in many instances, that of assigning its proper place to many detached members of the samepiece, where no direct note of connection had been made. Thesecircumstances, whilst they will lead the reader not to expect, in thecases to which they apply, the finished productions of Mr. Burke, imposed upon me a task of great delicacy and difficulty, --namely, thatof deciding upon the publication of any, and which, of these unfinishedpieces. I must here beg permission of you, and Lord Fitzwilliam, toinform the public, that in the execution of this part of my duty Irequested and obtained your assistance. 

Our first care was to ascertain, from such evidence, internal andexternal, as the manuscripts themselves afforded, what pieces appearedto have been at any time intended by the author for publication. Ournext was to select such as, though not originally intended forpublication, yet appeared to contain matter that might contribute to thegratification and instruction of the public. Our last object was todetermine what degree of imperfection and incorrectness in papers ofeither of these classes ought or ought not to exclude them from a placein the present volume. This was, doubtless, the most nice and arduouspart of our undertaking. The difficulty, however, was, in our minds, greatly diminished by our conviction that the reputation of our authorstood far beyond the reach of injury from any injudicious conduct ofours in making this selection. On the other hand, we were desirous thatnothing should be withheld, from which the public might derive anypossible benefit. 

Nothing more is now necessary than that I should give a short account ofthe writings which compose the present volume. 

I. Fourth Letter on a Regicide Peace. 

Some account has already been given of this Letter in the Advertisementto the fourth quarto volume. [2] That part of it which is containedbetween the first and the middle of the page 67[3] is taken from amanuscript which, nearly to the conclusion, had received the author'slast corrections: the subsequent part, to the middle of the page 71, [4]is taken from some loose manuscripts, that were dictated by the author, but do not appear to have been revised by him; and though they, as wellas what follows to the conclusion, were evidently designed to make apart of this Letter, the editor alone is responsible for the order inwhich they are here placed. The last part, from the middle of the page71, had been printed as a part of the Letter which was originallyintended to be the third on Regicide Peace, as in the preface to thefourth volume has already been noticed. 

It was thought proper to communicate this Letter before its publicationto Lord Auckland, the author of the pamphlet so frequently alluded to init. His Lordship, in consequence of this communication, was pleased toput into my hands a letter with which he had sent his pamphlet to Mr. Burke at the time of its publication, and Mr. Burke's answer to thatletter. These pieces, together with the note with which his Lordshiptransmitted them to me, are prefixed to the Letter on Regicide Peace. 

II. Letter to the Empress of Russia. III. Letter to Sir Charles Bingham. IV. Letter to the Honorable Charles James Fox. 

Of these Letters it will be sufficient to remark, that they come underthe second of those classes into which, as I before observed, we dividedthe papers that presented themselves to our consideration. 

V. Letter to the Marquis of Rockingham. VI. An Address to the King. VII. An Address to the British Colonists in North America. 

These pieces relate to a most important period in the present reign;and I hope no apology will be necessary for giving them to the public. 

VIII. Letter to the Right Honorable Edmund [Sexton] Pery. IX. Letter to Thomas Burgh, Esq. X. Letter to John Merlott, Esq. 

The reader will find, in a note annexed to each of these Letters, anaccount of the occasions on which they were written. The Letter to T. Burgh, Esq. , had found its way into some of the periodical prints of thetime in Dublin. 

XI. Reflections on the Approaching Executions. 

It may not, perhaps, now be generally known that Mr. Burke was a markedobject of the rioters in this disgraceful commotion, from whose fury henarrowly escaped. The Reflections will be found to contain maxims of thesoundest judicial policy, and do equal honor to the head and heart oftheir illustrious writer. 

XII. Letter to the Right Honorable Henry Dundas; with the Sketch of aNegro Code. 

Mr. Burke, in the Letter to Mr. Dundas, has entered fully into his ownviews of the Slave Trade, and has thereby rendered any furtherexplanation on that subject at present unnecessary. With respect to theCode itself, an unsuccessful attempt was made to procure the copy of ittransmitted to Mr. Dundas. It was not to be found amongst his papers. The Editor has therefore been obliged to have recourse to a rough draftof it in Mr. Burke's own handwriting; from which he hopes he hassucceeded in making a pretty correct transcript of it, as well as in theattempt he has made to supply the marginal references alluded to in Mr. Burke's Letter to Mr. Dundas. 

XIII. Letter to the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire Meeting. 

Of the occasion of this Letter an account is given in the note subjoined[prefixed] to it. 

XIV. Tracts and Letters relative to the Laws against Popery in Ireland. 

These pieces consist of, --

1. An unfinished Tract on the Popery Laws. Of this Tract the reader willfind an account in the note prefixed to it. 

2. A Letter to William Smith, Esq. Several copies of this letter havinggot abroad, it was printed and published in Dublin without thepermission of Mr. Burke, or of the gentleman to whom it was addressed. 

3. Second Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe. This may be considered assupplementary to the first letter, addressed to the same person inJanuary, 1792, which was published in the third volume. [5]

4. Letter to Richard Burke, Esq. Of this letter it will be necessary toobserve, that the first part of it appears to have been originallyaddressed by Mr. Burke to his son in the manner in which it is nowprinted, but to have been left unfinished; after whose death he probablydesigned to have given the substance of it, with additionalobservations, to the public in some other form, but never found leisureor inclination to finish it. 

5. A Letter on the Affairs of Ireland, written in the year 1797. Thename of the person to whom this letter was addressed does not appear onthe manuscript; nor has the letter been found to which it was written asan answer. And as the gentleman whom he employed as an amanuensis is notnow living, no discovery of it can be made, unless this publication ofthe letter should produce some information respecting it, that mayenable us in a future volume to gratify, on this point, the curiosity ofthe reader. The letter was dictated, as he himself tells us, from hiscouch at Bath; to which place he had gone, by the advice of hisphysicians, in March, 1797. His health was now rapidly declining; thevigor of his mind remained unimpaired. This, my dear friend, was, Ibelieve, the last letter dictated by him on public affairs:--here endedhis political labors. 

XV. Fragments and Notes of Speeches in Parliament. 

1. Speech on the Acts of Uniformity. 

2. Speech on a Bill for the Relief of Protestant Dissenters. 

3. Speech on the Petition of the Unitarians. 

4. Speech on the Middlesex Election. 

5. Speech on a Bill for shortening the Duration of Parliaments. 

6. Speech on the Reform of the Representation in Parliament. 

7. Speech on a Bill for explaining the Powers of Juries in Prosecutionsfor Libels. 

*7. Letter relative to the same subject. 

8. Speech on a Bill for repealing the Marriage Act. 

9. Speech on a Bill to quiet the Possessions of the Subject againstDormant Claims of the Church. 

With respect to these fragments, I have already stated the reasons bywhich we were influenced in our determination to publish them. Anaccount of the state in which these manuscripts were found is given inthe note prefixed to this article. 

XVI. Hints for an Essay on the Drama. 

This fragment was perused in manuscript by a learned and judiciouscritic, our late lamented friend, Mr. Malone; and under the protectionof his opinion we can feel no hesitation in submitting it to thejudgment of the public. 

XVII. We are now come to the concluding article of this volume, --theEssay on the History of England. 

At what time of the author's life it was written cannot now be exactlyascertained; but it was certainly begun before he had attained the ageof twenty-seven years, as it appears from an entry in the books of thelate Mr. Dodsley, that eight sheets of it, which contain the firstseventy-four pages of the present edition, [6] were printed in the year1757. This is the only part that has received the finishing stroke ofthe author. In those who are acquainted with the manner in which Mr. Burke usually composed his graver literary works, and of which someaccount is given in the Advertisement prefixed to the fourth volume, this circumstance will excite a deep regret; and whilst the publicpartakes with us in this feeling, it will doubtless be led to judge withcandor and indulgence of a work left in this imperfect and unfinishedstate by its author. 

Before I conclude, it may not be improper to take this opportunity ofacquainting the public with the progress that has been made towards thecompletion of this undertaking. The sixth and seventh volumes, whichwill consist entirely of papers that have a relation to the affairs ofthe East India Company, and to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, are nowin the press. The suspension of the consideration of the affairs of theEast India Company in Parliament till its nest session has made me verydesirous to get the sixth volume out as early as possible in the nextwinter. The Ninth and Eleventh Reports of the Select Committee, appointed to take into consideration certain affairs of the East IndiaCompany in the year 1783, were written by Mr. Burke, and will be givenin that volume. They contain a full and comprehensive view of thecommerce, revenues, civil establishment, and general policy of theCompany, and will therefore be peculiarly interesting at this time tothe public. 

The eighth and last volume will contain a narrative of the life of Mr. Burke, which will be accompanied with such parts of his familiarcorrespondence, and other occasional productions, as shall be thoughtfit for publication. [7] The materials relating to the early years of hislife, alluded to in the Advertisement to the fourth volume, have beenlately recovered; and the communication of such as may still remain inthe possession of any private individuals is again most earnestlyrequested. 

Unequal as I feel myself to the task, I shall, my dear friend, lose notime, nor spare any pains, in discharging the arduous duty that hasdevolved upon me. You know the peculiar difficulties I labor under fromthe failure of my eyesight; and you may congratulate me upon theassistance which I have now procured from my neighbor, the worthychaplain[8] of Bromley College, who to the useful qualification of amost patient amanuensis adds that of a good scholar and intelligentcritic. 

And now, adieu, my dear friend, And believe me ever affectionately yours, WR. ROFFEN. 

BROMLEY HOUSE, August 1, 1812. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Works, Vol. V. , quarto edition, (London, F. , C. , & J. Rivington, 1812, )--Vol. IV. Of that edition (London, F. & C. Rivington, 1802) beingthe first posthumous volume, --and Vols. I. , II. , and III. (London, J. Dodsley, 1792) comprising the collection published during the lifetimeof Mr. Burke. 

[2] Prefixed to the first volume, in the other editions. For the accountreferred to, see, in the present edition, Vol. I. , pp. Xiii. , xiv. 

[3] Page 86 of the present edition. 

[4] In this edition, p. 91, near the top. 

[5] In the fourth volume of the present edition. 

[6] The quarto edition, --extending as far as Book II. Ch. 2, near themiddle of the paragraph commencing, "The same regard to the welfare ofthe people, " &c. 

[7] This design the editor did not live to execute. 

[8] The Rev. J. J. Talman. 

FOURTH LETTER

ON THE

PROPOSALS FOR PEACE WITH THE REGICIDE DIRECTORY OF FRANCE. 

ADDRESSED TO

THE EARL FITZWILLIAM. 1795-7. 

PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 

_Letter from the Right Honorable the Lord Auckland to the Lord Bishop ofRochester_. 

EDEN FARM, KENT, July 18th, 1812. 

My dear Lord, --Mr. Burke's fourth letter to Lord Fitzwilliam ispersonally interesting to me: I have perused it with a respectfulattention. 

When I communicated to Mr. Burke, in 1795, the printed work which hearraigns and discusses, I was aware that he would differ from me. 

Some light is thrown on the transaction by my note which gave rise toit, and by his answer, which exhibits the admirable powers of his greatand good mind, deeply suffering at the time under a domestic calamity. 

I have selected these two papers from my manuscript collection, and nowtransmit them to your Lordship with a wish that they may be annexed tothe publication in question. 

I have the honor to be, my dear Lord, Yours most sincerely, AUCKLAND. 

TO THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER. 

 * * * * *

_Letter from Lord Auckland to the Right Honorable Edmund Burke_. 

EDEN FARM, KENT, October 28th, 1795. 

My dear Sir, --

Though in the stormy ocean of the last twenty-three years we have seldomsailed on the same tack, there has been nothing hostile in our signalsor manoeuvres, and, on my part at least, there has been a cordialdisposition towards friendly and respectful sentiments. Under thatinfluence, I now send to you a small work which exhibits my fair andfull opinions on the arduous circumstances of the moment, "as far as thecautions necessary to be observed will permit me to go beyond generalideas. "

Three or four of those friends with whom I am most connected in publicand private life are pleased to think that the statement in question(which at first made part of a confidential paper) may do good, andaccordingly a very large impression will be published to-day. I neitherseek to avow the publication nor do I wish to disavow it. I have noanxiety in that respect, but to contribute my mite to do service, at amoment when service is much wanted. 

I am, my dear Sir, Most sincerely yours, AUCKLAND. 

RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE. 

 * * * * *

_Letter from the Right Honorable Edmund Burke to Lord Auckland_. 

My dear Lord, --

I am perfectly sensible of the very flattering honor you have done me inturning any part of your attention towards a dejected old man, buriedin the anticipated grave of a feeble old age, forgetting and forgottenin an obscure and melancholy retreat. 

In this retreat I have nothing relative to this world to do, but tostudy all the tranquillity that in the state of my mind I am capable of. To that end I find it but too necessary to call to my aid an oblivion ofmost of the circumstances, pleasant and unpleasant, of my life, --tothink as little and indeed to know as little as I can of everything thatis doing about me, --and, above all, to divert my mind from allpresagings and prognostications of what I must (if I let my speculationsloose) consider as of absolute necessity to happen after my death, andpossibly even before it. Your address to the public, which you have beenso good as to send to me, obliges me to break in upon that plan, and tolook a little on what is behind, and very much on what is before me. Itcreates in my mind a variety of thoughts, and all of them unpleasant. 

It is true, my Lord, what you say, that, through our public life, wehave generally sailed on somewhat different tacks. We have so, undoubtedly; and we should do so still, if I had continued longer tokeep the sea. In that difference, you rightly observe that I have alwaysdone justice to your skill and ability as a navigator, and to your goodintentions towards the safety of the cargo and of the ship's company. Icannot say now that we are on different tacks. There would be nopropriety in the metaphor. I can sail no longer. My vessel cannot besaid to be even in port. She is wholly condemned and broken up. To havean idea of that vessel, you must call to mind what you have often seenon the Kentish road. Those planks of tough and hardy oak, that used foryears to brave the buffets of the Bay of Biscay, are now turned, withtheir warped grain and empty trunnion-holes, into very wretched palesfor the inclosure of a wretched farm-yard. 

The style of your pamphlet, and the eloquence and power of compositionyou display in it, are such as do great honor to your talents, and inconveying any other sentiments would give me very great pleasure. Perhaps I do not very perfectly comprehend your purpose, and the driftof your arguments. If I do not, pray do not attribute my mistake to wantof candor, but to want of sagacity. I confess, your address to thepublic, together with other accompanying circumstances, has filled mewith a degree of grief and dismay which I cannot find words to express. If the plan of politics there recommended--pray excuse myfreedom--should be adopted by the king's councils, and by the goodpeople of this kingdom, (as, so recommended, undoubtedly it will, )nothing can be the consequence but utter and irretrievable ruin to theministry, to the crown, to the succession, --to the importance, to theindependence, to the very existence, of this country. This is my feeble, perhaps, but clear, positive, decided, long and maturely reflected andfrequently declared opinion, from which all the events which have latelycome to pass, so far from turning me, have tended to confirm beyond thepower of alteration, even by your eloquence and authority. I find, mydear Lord, that you think some persons, who are not satisfied with thesecurities of a Jacobin peace, to be persons of intemperate minds. I maybe, and I fear I am, with you in that description; but pray, my Lord, recollect that very few of the causes which make men intemperate canoperate upon me. Sanguine hopes, vehement desires, inordinate ambition, implacable animosity, party attachments, or party interests, --all thesewith me have no existence. For myself, or for a family, (alas! I havenone, ) I have nothing to hope or to fear in this world. I am attached, by principle, inclination, and gratitude, to the king, and to thepresent ministry. 

Perhaps you may think that my animosity to opposition is the cause of mydissent, on seeing the politics of Mr. Fox (which, while I was in theworld, I combated by every instrument which God had put into my hands, and in every situation in which I had taken part) so completely, if I atall understand you, adopted in your Lordship's book: but it was withpain I broke with that great man forever in that cause; and I assureyou, it is not without pain that I differ with your Lordship on the sameprinciples. But it is of no concern. I am far below the region of thosegreat and tempestuous passions. I feel nothing of the intemperance ofmind. It is rather sorrow and dejection than anger. 

Once more my best thanks for your very polite attention; and do me thefavor to believe me, with the most perfect sentiments of respect andregard, My dear Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient and humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, Oct. 30th, 1795. 

Friday Evening. 

LETTER IV. 

TO THE EARL FITZWILLIAM. 

My dear Lord, --I am not sure that the best way of discussing anysubject, except those that concern the abstracted sciences, is notsomewhat in the way of dialogue. To this mode, however, there are twoobjections: the first, that it happens, as in the puppet-show, one manspeaks for all the personages. An unnatural uniformity of tone is in amanner unavoidable. The other and more serious objection is, that, asthe author (if not an absolute skeptic) must have some opinion of hisown to enforce, he will be continually tempted to enervate the argumentshe puts into the mouth of his adversary, or to place them in a point ofview most commodious for their refutation. There is, however, a sort ofdialogue not quite so liable to these objections, because it approachesmore nearly to truth and Nature: it is called CONTROVERSY. Here theparties speak for themselves. If the writer who attacks another'snotions does not deal fairly with his adversary, the diligent reader hasit always in his power, by resorting to the work examined, to do justiceto the original author and to himself. For this reason you will notblame me, if, in my discussion of the merits of a Regicide Peace, I donot choose to trust to my own statements, but to bring forward alongwith them the arguments of the advocates for that measure. If I choosepuny adversaries, writers of no estimation or authority, then you willjustly blame me. I might as well bring in at once a fictitious speaker, and thus fall into all the inconveniences of an imaginary dialogue. ThisI shall avoid; and I shall take no notice of any author who my friendsin town do not tell me is in estimation with those whose opinions hesupports. 

A piece has been sent to me, called "Some Remarks on the ApparentCircumstances of the War in the Fourth Week of October, 1795, " with aFrench motto: "_Que faire encore une fois dans une telle nuit? Attendrele jour_. " The very title seemed to me striking and peculiar, and toannounce something uncommon. In the time I have lived to, I always seemto walk on enchanted ground. Everything is new, and, according to thefashionable phrase, revolutionary. In former days authors valuedthemselves upon the maturity and fulness of their deliberations. Accordingly, they predicted (perhaps with more arrogance than reason) aneternal duration to their works. The quite contrary is our presentfashion. Writers value themselves now on the instability of theiropinions and the transitory life of their productions. On this kind ofcredit the modern institutors open their schools. They write for youth, and it is sufficient, if the instruction "lasts as long as a presentlove, or as the painted silks and cottons of the season. "

The doctrines in this work are applied, for their standard, with greatexactness, to the shortest possible periods both of conception andduration. The title is "Some Remarks on the _Apparent_ Circumstances ofthe War _in the Fourth Week of October_, 1795. " The time is criticallychosen. A month or so earlier would have made it the anniversary of abloody Parisian September, when the French massacre one another. A dayor two later would have carried it into a London November, the gloomymonth in which it is said by a pleasant author that Englishmen hang anddrown themselves. In truth, this work has a tendency to alarm us withsymptoms of public suicide. However, there is one comfort to be takeneven from the gloomy time of year. It is a rotting season. If what isbrought to market is not good, it is not likely to keep long. Evenbuildings run up in haste with untempered mortar in that humid weather, if they are ill-contrived tenements, do not threaten long to incumberthe earth. The author tells us (and I believe he is the very firstauthor that ever told such a thing to his readers) "that the _entirefabric_ of his speculations might be overset by unforeseenvicissitudes, " and what is far more extraordinary, "that even the_whole_ consideration might be _varied whilst he was writing thosepages. "_ Truly, in my poor judgment, this circumstance formed a verysubstantial motive for his not publishing those ill-consideredconsiderations at all. He ought to have followed the good advice of hismotto: "_Que faire encore dans une telle nuit? Attendre le jour_. " Heought to have waited till he had got a little more daylight on thissubject. Night itself is hardly darker than the fogs of that time. 

Finding the _last week in October_ so particularly referred to, and notperceiving any particular event, relative to the war, which happened onany of the days in that week, I thought it possible that they weremarked by some astrological superstition, to which the greatestpoliticians have been subject. I therefore had recourse to my Rider'sAlmanack. There I found, indeed, something that characterized the work, and that gave directions concerning the sudden political and naturalvariations, and for eschewing the maladies that are most prevalent inthat aguish intermittent season, "the last week of October. " On thatweek the sagacious astrologer, Rider, in his note on the third column ofthe calendar side, teaches us to expect "_variable and cold weather";_but instead of encouraging us to trust ourselves to the haze and mistand doubtful lights of that changeable week, on the answerable part ofthe opposite page he gives us a salutary caution (indeed, it is verynearly in the words of the author's motto): "_Avoid_, " says he, "_beingout late at night and in foggy weather, for a cold now caught may lastthe whole winter_. "[9] This ingenious author, who disdained the prudenceof the Almanack, walked out in the very fog he complains of, and has ledus to a very unseasonable airing at that time. Whilst this noble writer, by the vigor of an excellent constitution, formed for the violentchanges he prognosticates, may shake off the importunate rheum andmalignant influenza of this disagreeable week, a whole Parliament may goon spitting and snivelling, and wheezing and coughing, during a wholesession. All this from listening to variable, hebdomadal politicians, who run away from their opinions without giving us a month'swarning, --and for not listening to the wise and friendly admonitions ofDr. Cardanus Rider, who never apprehends he may change his opinionsbefore his pen is out of his hand, but always enables us to lay in atleast a year's stock of useful information. 

At first I took comfort. I said to myself, that, if I should, as I fearI must, oppose the doctrines of _the last week of October_, it isprobable that by this time they are no longer those of the eminentwriter to whom they are attributed. He gives us hopes that long beforethis he may have embraced the direct contrary sentiments. If I am foundin a conflict with those of the last week of October, I may be in fullagreement with those of the last week in December, or the first week inJanuary, 1796. But a second edition, and a French translation, (for thebenefit, I must suppose, of the new Regicide Directory, ) have let down alittle of these flattering hopes. We and the Directory know that theauthor, whatever changes his works seemed made to indicate, like aweathercock grown rusty, remains just where he was in the last week oflast October. It is true, that his protest against binding him to hisopinions, and his reservation of a right to whatever opinions hepleases, remain in their full force. This variability is pleasant, andshows a fertility of fancy:--

 Qualis in æthereo felix Vertumnus Olympo Mille habet ornatus, mille decenter habet. 

Yet, doing all justice to the sportive variability of these weekly, daily, or hourly speculators, shall I be pardoned, if I attempt a wordon the part of us simple country folk? It is not good for _us_, howeverit may be so for great statesmen, that we should be treated withvariable politics. I consider different relations as prescribing adifferent conduct. I allow, that, in transactions with an enemy, aminister may, and often must, vary his demands with the day, possiblywith the hour. With an enemy, a fixed plan, variable arrangements. Thisis the rule the nature of the transaction prescribes. But all thisbelongs to treaty. All these shiftings and changes are a sort of secretamongst the parties, till a definite settlement is brought about. Suchis the spirit of the proceedings in the doubtful and transitory state ofthings between enmity and friendship. In this change the subjects of thetransformation are by nature carefully wrapt up in their cocoons. Thegay ornament of summer is not seemly in his aurelia state. Thismutability is allowed to a foreign negotiator; but when a greatpolitician condescends publicly to instruct his own countrymen on amatter which may fix their fate forever, his opinions ought not to bediurnal, or even weekly. These ephemerides of politics are not made forour slow and coarse understandings. Our appetite demands a _piece ofresistance_. We require some food that will stick to the ribs. We callfor sentiments to which we can attach ourselves, --sentiments in which wecan take an interest, --sentiments on which we can warm, on which we canground some confidence in ourselves or in others. We do not want alargess of inconstancy. Poor souls, we have enough of that sort ofpoverty at home. There is a difference, too, between deliberation anddoctrine: a man ought to be decided in his opinions before he attemptsto teach. His fugitive lights may serve himself in some unknown region, but they cannot free us from the effects of the error into which we havebeen betrayed. His active Will-o'-the-wisp may be gone nobody can guesswhere, whilst he leaves us bemired and benighted in the bog. 

Having premised these few reflections upon this new mode of teaching alesson, which whilst the scholar is getting by heart the master forgets, I come to the lesson itself. On the fullest consideration of it, I amutterly incapable of saying with any great certainty what it is, in thedetail, that the author means to affirm or deny, to dissuade orrecommend. His march is mostly oblique, and his doctrine rather in theway of insinuation than of dogmatic assertion. It is not only fugitivein its duration, but is slippery in the extreme whilst it lasts. Examining it part by part, it seems almost everywhere to contradictitself; and the author, who claims the privilege of varying hisopinions, has exercised this privilege in every section of his remarks. For this reason, amongst others, I follow the advice which the ablewriter gives in his last page, which is, "to consider the _impression_of what he has urged, taken from the _whole_, and not from detachedparagraphs. " That caution was not absolutely necessary. I should thinkit unfair to the author and to myself to have proceeded otherwise. Thisauthor's _whole_, however, like every other whole, cannot be so wellcomprehended without some reference to the parts; but they shall beagain referred to the whole. Without this latter attention, several ofthe passages would certainly remain covered with an impenetrable andtruly oracular obscurity. 

The great, general, pervading purpose, of the whole pamphlet is toreconcile us to peace with the present usurpation in France. In thisgeneral drift of the author I can hardly be mistaken. The otherpurposes, less general, and subservient to the preceding scheme, are toshow, first, that the time of the Remarks was the favorable time formaking that peace upon our side; secondly, that on the enemy's sidetheir disposition towards the acceptance of such terms as he is pleasedto offer was rationally to be expected; the third purpose was, to makesome sort of disclosure of the terms which, if the Regicides are pleasedto grant them, this nation ought to be contented to accept: these formthe basis of the negotiation which the author, whoever he is, proposesto open. 

Before I consider these Remarks along with the other reasonings which Ihear on the same subject, I beg leave to recall to your mind theobservation I made early in our correspondence, and which ought toattend us quite through the discussion of this proposed peace, amity, orfraternity, or whatever you may call it, --that is, the real quality andcharacter of the party you have to deal with. This I find, as a thing ofno importance, has everywhere escaped the author of the October Remarks. That hostile power, to the period of the fourth week in that month, hasbeen ever called and considered as an usurpation. In that week, for thefirst time, it changed its name of an usurped power, and took the simplename of _France_. The word France is slipped in just as if thegovernment stood exactly as before that Revolution which has astonished, terrified, and almost overpowered Europe. "France, " says the author, "will do this, "--"it is the interest of France, "--"the returning honorand generosity of France, " &c. , &c. --always merely France: just as ifwe were in a common political war with an old recognized member of thecommonwealth of Christian Europe, --and as if our dispute had turned upona mere matter of territorial or commercial controversy, which a peacemight settle by the imposition or the taking off a duty, with the gainor the loss of a remote island or a frontier town or two, on the oneside or the other. This shifting of persons could not be done withoutthe hocus-pocus of _abstraction_. We have been in a grievous error: wethought that we had been at war with _rebels_ against the lawfulgovernment, but that we were friends and allies of what is properlyFrance, friends and allies to the legal body politic of France. But bysleight of hand the Jacobins are clean vanished, and it is France wehave got under our cup. "Blessings on his soul that first inventedsleep!" said Don Sancho Panza the Wise. All those blessings, and tenthousand times more, on him who found out abstraction, personification, and impersonals! In certain cases they are the first of all soporifics. Terribly alarmed we should be, if things were proposed to us in the_concrete_, and if fraternity was held out to us with the individualswho compose this France by their proper names and descriptions, --if wewere told that it was very proper to enter into the closest bonds ofamity and good correspondence with the devout, pacific, andtender-hearted Sieyès, with the all-accomplished Reubell, with thehumane guillotinists of Bordeaux, Tallien and Isabeau, with the meekbutcher, Legendre, and with "the returned humanity and generosity" (thathad been only on a visit abroad) of the virtuous regicide brewer, Santerre. This would seem at the outset a very strange scheme of amityand concord, --nay, though we had held out to us, as an additional_douceur_, an assurance of the cordial fraternal embrace of our piousand patriotic countryman, Thomas Paine. But plain truth would here beshocking and absurd; therefore comes in _abstraction_ andpersonification. "Make your peace with France. " That word _France_sounds quite as well as any other; and it conveys no idea but that of avery pleasant country and very hospitable inhabitants. Nothing absurdand shocking in amity and good correspondence with _France_. Permit meto say, that I am not yet well acquainted with this new-coined France, and without a careful assay I am not willing to receive it in currencyin place of the old Louis-d'or. 

Having, therefore, slipped the persons with whom we are to treat out ofview, we are next to be satisfied that the French Revolution, which thispeace is to fix and consolidate, ought to give us no just cause ofapprehension. Though the author labors this point, yet he confesses afact (indeed, he could not conceal it) which renders all his laborsutterly fruitless. He confesses that the Regicide means to _dictate_ apacification, and that this pacification, according to their decreepassed but a very few days before his publication appeared, is to "uniteto their empire, either in possession or dependence, new barriers, manyfrontier places of strength, a large sea-coast, and many sea-ports. " Heought to have stated it, that they would annex to their territory acountry about a third as large as France, and much more than half asrich, and in a situation the most important for command that it would bepossible for her anywhere to possess. 

To remove this terror, (even if the Regicides should carry theirpoint, ) and to give us perfect repose with regard to their empire, whatever they may acquire, or whomsoever they might destroy, he raises adoubt "whether France will not be ruined by _retaining_ these conquests, and whether she will not wholly lose that preponderance which she hasheld in the scale of European powers, and will not eventually bedestroyed by the effect of her present successes, or, at least, whether, so far as the _political interests of England are concerned_, she[France] will remain an object of as _much jealousy and alarm as she wasunder the reign of a monarch_. " Here, indeed, is a paragraph full ofmeaning! It gives matter for meditation almost in every word of it. Thesecret of the pacific politicians is out. This republic, at all hazards, is to be maintained. It is to be confined within some bounds, if we can;if not, with every possible acquisition of power, it is still to becherished and supported. It is the return of the monarchy we are todread, and therefore we ought to pray for the permanence of the Regicideauthority. _Esto perpetua_ is the devout ejaculation of our Frà Paolofor the Republic one and indivisible. It was the monarchy that renderedFrance dangerous: Regicide neutralizes all the acrimony of that power, and renders it safe and social. The October speculator is of opinionthat monarchy is of so poisonous a quality that a moderate territorialpower is far more dangerous to its neighbors under that abominableregimen than the greatest empire in the hands of a republic. This isJacobinism sublimed and exalted into most pure and perfect essence. Itis a doctrine, I admit, made to allure and captivate, if anything in theworld can, the Jacobin Directory, to mollify the ferocity of Regicide, and to persuade those patriotic hangmen, after their reiterated oathsfor our extirpation, to admit this well-humbled nation to the fraternalembrace. I do not wonder that this tub of October has been racked offinto a French cask. It must make its fortune at Paris. That translationseems the language the most suited to these sentiments. Our author tellsthe French Jacobins, that the political interests of Great Britain arein perfect unison with the principles of their government, --that theymay take and keep the keys of the civilized world, for they are safe intheir unambitious and faithful custody. We say to them, "We may, indeed, wish you to be a little less murderous, wicked, and atheistical, for thesake of morals; we may think it were better you were less new-fangled inyour speech, for the sake of grammar; but, as _politicians_, providedyou keep clear of monarchy, all our fears, alarms, and jealousies are atan end: at least, they sink into nothing in comparison of our dread ofyour detestable royalty. " A flatterer of Cardinal Mazarin said, whenthat minister had just settled the match between the young Louis theFourteenth and a daughter of Spain, that this alliance had the effect offaith and had removed mountains, --that the Pyrenees were levelled bythat marriage. You may now compliment Reubell in the same spirit on themiracles of regicide, and tell him that the guillotine of Louis theSixteenth had consummated a marriage between Great Britain and France, which dried up the Channel, and restored the two countries to the unitywhich it is said they had before the unnatural rage of seas andearthquakes had broke off their happy junction. It will be a finesubject for the poets who are to prophesy the blessings of this peace. 

I am now convinced that the Remarks of the last week of October cannotcome from the author to whom they are given, they are such a directcontradiction to the style of manly indignation with which he spoke ofthose miscreants and murderers in his excellent memorial to the Statesof Holland, --to that very state which the author who presumes topersonate him does not find it contrary to the political interests ofEngland to leave in the hands of these very miscreants, against whom onthe part of England he took so much pains to animate their republic. This cannot be; and if this argument wanted anything to give it newforce, it is strengthened by an additional reason, that is irresistible. Knowing that noble person, as well as myself, to be under very greatobligations to the crown, I am confident he would not so very directlycontradict, even in the paroxysm of his zeal against monarchy, thedeclarations made in the name and with the fullest approbation of oursovereign, his master, and our common benefactor. In those declarationsyou will see that the king, instead of being sensible of greater alarmand jealousy from a neighboring crowned head than from, these regicides, attributes all the dangers of Europe to the latter. Let this writer hearthe description given in the royal declaration of the scheme of power ofthese miscreants, as "_a system destructive of all public order, maintained by proscriptions, exiles, and confiscations without number, by arbitrary imprisonments, by massacres which cannot be rememberedwithout horror, and at length by the execrable murder of a just andbeneficent sovereign, and of the illustrious princess, who with anunshaken firmness has shared all the misfortunes of her royal consort, his protracted sufferings, his cruel captivity, his ignominiousdeath_. " After thus describing, with an eloquence and energy equalledonly by its truth, the means by which this usurped power had beenacquired and maintained, that government is characterized with equalforce. His Majesty, far from thinking monarchy in France to be a greaterobject of jealousy than the Regicide usurpation, calls upon the Frenchto reestablish "_a monarchical government_" for the purpose of shakingoff "_the yoke of a sanguinary anarchy_, --_of that anarchy which hasbroken all the most sacred bonds of society, dissolved all the relationsof civil life, violated every right, confounded every duty_, --_whichuses the name of liberty to exercise the most cruel tyranny, toannihilate all property, to seize on all possessions_, --_which foundsits power on the pretended consent of the people, and itself carriesfire and sword through extensive provinces, for having demanded theirlaws, their religion, and their lawful sovereign_. "

"That strain I heard was of a higher mood. " That declaration of oursovereign was worthy of his throne. It is in a style which neither thepen of the writer of October nor such a poor crow-quill as mine can everhope to equal. I am happy to enrich my letter with this fragment ofnervous and manly eloquence, which, if it had not emanated from theawful authority of a throne, if it were not recorded amongst the mostvaluable monuments of history, and consecrated in the archives ofstates, would be worthy, as a private composition, to live forever inthe memory of men. 

In those admirable pieces does his Majesty discover this new opinion ofhis political security, in having the chair of the scorner, that is, thediscipline of atheism, and the block of regicide, set up by his side, elevated on the same platform, and shouldering, with the vile image oftheir grim and bloody idol, the inviolable majesty of his throne? Thesentiments of these declarations are the very reverse: they could not beother. Speaking of the spirit of that usurpation, the royal manifestodescribes, with perfect truth, its internal tyranny to have beenestablished as the very means of shaking the security of all otherstates, --as "_disposing arbitrarily of the property and blood of theinhabitants of France, in order to disturb the tranquillity of othernations, and to render all Europe the theatre of the same crimes and ofthe same misfortunes_. " It was but a natural inference from this fact, that the royal manifesto does not at all rest the justification of thiswar on common principles: that it was "_not only to defend his ownrights, and those of his allies_, " but "_that all the dearest interestsof his people imposed upon him a duty still more important_, --_that ofexerting his efforts for the preservation of civil society itself, ashappily established among the nations of Europe_. " On that ground, theprotection offered is to "those who, by declaring for a _monarchicalgovernment_, shall shake off the yoke of a sanguinary anarchy. " It isfor that purpose the declaration calls on them "to join the standard ofan _hereditary monarchy_, "--declaring that the _peace and safety_ ofthis kingdom and the other powers of Europe "_materially depend on thereëstablishment of order in France_. " His Majesty does not hesitate todeclare that "_the reëstablishment of monarchy, in the person of Louisthe Seventeenth, and the lawful heirs of the crown, appears to him_ [hisMajesty] _the best mode of accomplishing these just and salutaryviews_. "

This is what his Majesty does not hesitate to declare relative to thepolitical safety and peace of his kingdom and of Europe, and with regardto France under her ancient hereditary monarchy in the course and orderof legal succession. But in comes a gentleman, in the fag end ofOctober, dripping with the fogs of that humid and uncertain season, anddoes not hesitate in diameter to contradict this wise and just royaldeclaration, and stoutly, on his part, to make a counterdeclaration, --that France, so far as the political interests of Englandare concerned, will not remain, under the despotism of Regicide, andwith the better part of Europe in her hands, so much an object ofjealousy and alarm as she was under the reign of a monarch. When I hearthe master and reason on one side, and the servant and his single andunsupported assertion on the other, my part is taken. 

This is what the Octobrist says of the political interests of England, which it looks as if he completely disconnected with those of all othernations. But not quite so: he just allows it possible (with an "atleast") that the other powers may not find it quite their interest thattheir territories should be conquered and their subjects tyrannized overby the Regicides. No fewer than ten sovereign princes had, some thewhole, all a very considerable part of their dominions under the yoke ofthat dreadful faction. Amongst these was to be reckoned the firstrepublic in the world, and the closest ally of this kingdom, which, under the insulting name of an independency, is under her iron yoke, and, as long as a faction averse to the old government is suffered thereto domineer, cannot be otherwise. I say nothing of the AustrianNetherlands, countries of a vast extent, and amongst the most fertileand populous of Europe, and, with regard to us, most criticallysituated. The rest will readily occur to you. 

But if there are yet existing any people, like me, old-fashioned enoughto consider that we have an important part of our very existence beyondour limits, and who therefore stretch their thoughts beyond the_pomoerium_ of England, for them, too, he has a comfort which willremove all their jealousies and alarms about the extent of the empire ofRegicide. "_These conquests eventually will be the cause of herdestruction_. " So that they who hate the cause of usurpation, and dreadthe power of France under any form, are to wish her to be a conqueror, in order to accelerate her ruin. A little more conquest would be stillbetter. Will he tell us what dose of dominion is to be the _quantumsufficit_ for her destruction?--for she seems very voracious of the foodof her distemper. To be sure, she is ready to perish with repletion; shehas a _boulimia_, and hardly has bolted down one state than she callsfor two or three more. There is a good deal of wit in all this; but itseems to me (with all respect to the author) to be carrying the joke agreat deal too far. I cannot yet think that the armies of the Allieswere of this way of thinking, and that, when they evacuated all thesecountries, it was a stratagem of war to decoy France into ruin, --orthat, if in a treaty we should surrender them forever into the hands ofthe usurpation, (the lease the author supposes, ) it is a master-strokeof policy to effect the destruction of a formidable rival, and to renderher no longer an object of jealousy and alarm. This, I assure theauthor, will infinitely facilitate the treaty. The usurpers will catchat this bait, without minding the hook which this crafty angler for theJacobin gudgeons of the new Directory has so dexterously placed underit. 

Every symptom of the exacerbation of the public malady is, with him, (aswith the Doctor in Molière, ) a happy prognostic of recovery. --Flandersgone. _Tant mieux_. --Holland subdued. Charming!--Spain beaten, and allthe hither Germany conquered. Bravo! Better and better still!--But theywill retain all their conquests on a treaty. Best of all!--What adelightful thing it is to have a gay physician, who sees all things, asthe French express it, _couleur de rose!_ What an escape we have had, that we and our allies were not the conquerors! By these conquests, previous to her utter destruction, she is "wholly to lose thatpreponderance which she held in the scale of the European powers. " Blessme! this new system of France, after changing all other laws, reversesthe law of gravitation. By throwing in weight after weight, her scalerises, and will by-and-by kick the beam. Certainly there is one sense inwhich she loses her preponderance: that is, she is no longerpreponderant against the countries she has conquered. They are part ofherself. But I beg the author to keep his eyes fixed on the scales for amoment longer, and then to tell me, in downright earnest, whether hesees hitherto any signs of her losing preponderance by an augmentationof weight and power. Has she lost her preponderance over Spain by herinfluence in Spain? Are there any signs that the conquest of Savoy andNice begins to lessen her preponderance over Switzerland and the ItalianStates, --or that the Canton of Berne, Genoa, and Tuscany, for example, have taken arms against her, --or that Sardinia is more adverse thanever to a treacherous pacification? Was it in the last week of Octoberthat the German States showed that Jacobin. France was losing herpreponderance? Did the King of Prussia, when he delivered into her safecustody his territories on this side of the Rhine, manifest any tokensof his opinion of her loss of preponderance? Look on Sweden and onDenmark: is her preponderance less visible there?

It is true, that, in a course of ages, empires have fallen, and, in theopinion of some, not in mine, by their own weight. Sometimes they havebeen unquestionably embarrassed in their movements by the dissociatedsituation of their dominions. Such was the case of the empire of Charlesthe Fifth and of his successor. It might be so of others. But so compacta body of empire, so fitted in all the parts for mutual support, with afrontier by Nature and Art so impenetrable, with such facility ofbreaking out with irresistible force from every quarter, was never seenin such an extent of territory, from the beginning of time, as in thatempire which the Jacobins possessed in October, 1795, and which Boissyd'Anglas, in his report, settled as the law for Europe, and the dominionassigned by Nature for the Republic of Regicide. But this empire is tobe her ruin, and to take away all alarm and jealousy on the part ofEngland, and to destroy her preponderance over the miserable remains ofEurope. 

These are choice speculations with which the author amuses himself, andtries to divert us, in the blackest hours of the dismay, defeat, andcalamity of all civilized nations. They have but one fault, --that theyare directly contrary to the common sense and common feeling ofmankind. If I had but one hour to live, I would employ it in decryingthis wretched system, and die with my pen in my hand to mark out thedreadful consequences of receiving an arrangement of empire dictated bythe despotism of Regicide to my own country, and to the lawfulsovereigns of the Christian world. 

I trust I shall hardly be told, in palliation of this shameful system ofpolitics, that the author expresses his sentiments only as doubts. Insuch things, it may be truly said, that "once to doubt is once to beresolved. " It would be a strange reason for wasting the treasures andshedding the blood of our country, to prevent arrangements on the partof another power, of which we were doubtful whether they might not beeven to our advantage, and render our neighbor less than before theobject of our jealousy and alarm. In this doubt there is much decision. No nation would consent to carry on a war of skepticism. But the factis, this expression of doubt is only a mode of putting an opinion, whenit is not the drift of the author to overturn the doubt. Otherwise, thedoubt is never stated as the author's own, nor left, as here it is, unanswered. Indeed, the mode of stating the most decided opinions in theform of questions is so little uncommon, particularly since theexcellent queries of the excellent Berkeley, that it became for a goodwhile a fashionable mode of composition. 

Here, then, the author of the Fourth Week of October is ready for theworst, and would strike the bargain of peace on these conditions. I mustleave it to you and to every considerate man to reflect upon the effectof this on any Continental alliances, present or future, and whether itwould be possible (if this book was thought of the least authority)that its maxims with regard to our political interest must not naturallypush them to be beforehand with us in the fraternity with Regicide, andthus not only strip us of any steady alliance at present, but leave uswithout any of that communion of interest which could produce alliancesin future. Indeed, with these maxims, we should be well divided from theworld. 

Notwithstanding this new kind of barrier and security that is foundagainst her ambition in her conquests, yet in the very same paragraph headmits, that, "for the _present_, at least, it is subversive of thebalance of power. " This, I confess, is not a direct contradiction, because the benefits which he promises himself from it, according to hishypothesis, are future and more remote. 

So disposed is this author to peace, that, having laid a comfortablefoundation for our security in the greatness of her empire, he hasanother in reserve, if that should fail, upon quite a contrary ground:that is, a speculation of her crumbling to pieces, and being thrown intoa number of little separate republics. After paying the tribute ofhumanity to those who will be ruined by all these changes, on the wholehe is of opinion that "the change might be compatible with generaltranquillity, and with the establishment of a peaceful and prosperouscommerce among nations. " Whether France be great or small, firm andentire or dissipated and divided, all is well, provided we can havepeace with her. 

But without entering into speculations about her dismemberment, whilstshe is adding great nations to her empire, is it, then, quite so certainthat the dissipation of France into such a cluster of petty republicswould be so very favorable to the true balance of power in Europe asthis author imagines it would be, and to the commerce of nations? Igreatly differ from him. I perhaps shall prove in a future letter, withthe political map of Europe before my eye, that the general liberty andindependence of the great Christian commonwealth could not exist withsuch a dismemberment, unless it were followed (as probably enough itwould) by the dismemberment of every other considerable country inEurope: and what convulsions would arise in the constitution of everystate in Europe it is not easy to conjecture in the mode, impossible notto foresee in the mass. Speculate on, good my Lord! provided you groundno part of your politics on such unsteady speculations. But as to anypractice to ensue, are we not yet cured of the malady of speculating onthe circumstances of things totally different from those in which welive and move? Five years has this monster continued whole and entire inall its members. Far from falling into a division within itself, it isaugmented by tremendous additions. We cannot bear to look that frightfulform in the face, as it is, and in its own actual shape. We dare not bewise; we have not the fortitude of rational fear; we will not providefor our future safety; but we endeavor to hush the cries of presenttimidity by guesses at what may be hereafter, --

 "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow. "

Is this our style of talk, when

 "all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death"?

Talk not to me of what swarm of republics may come from this carcass! Itis no carcass. Now, now, whilst we are talking, it is full of life andaction. What say you to the Regicide empire of to-day? Tell me, myfriend, do its terrors appall you into an abject submission, or rouseyou to a vigorous defence? But do--I no longer prevent it--do goon, --look into futurity. Has this empire nothing to alarm you when allstruggle against it is over, when mankind shall be silent before it, when all nations shall be disarmed, disheartened, and _truly divided_ bya treacherous peace? Its malignity towards humankind will subsist withundiminished heat, whilst the means of giving it effect must proceed, and every means of resisting it must inevitably and rapidly decline. 

Against alarm on their politic and military empire these are thewriter's sedative remedies. But he leaves us sadly in the dark withregard to the moral consequences, which he states have threatened todemolish a system of civilization under which his country enjoys aprosperity unparalleled in the history of man. We had emerged from ourfirst terrors, but here we sink into them again, --however, only to shakethem off upon the credit of his being a man of very sanguine hopes. 

Against the moral terrors of this successful empire of barbarism, thoughhe has given us no consolation here, in another place he has formedother securities, --securities, indeed, which will make even the enormityof the crimes and atrocities of France a benefit to the world. We are tobe cured by her diseases. We are to grow proud of our Constitution upon, the distempers of theirs. Governments throughout all Europe are tobecome much stronger by this event. This, too, comes in the favoritemode of _doubt_ and _perhaps_. "To those, " he says, "who meditate onthe workings of the human mind, a doubt may perhaps arise, whether theeffects which I have described, " (namely, the change he supposes to bewrought on the public mind with regard to the French doctrines, ) "though_at present_ a salutary check to the dangerous spirit of innovation, maynot prove favorable to abuses of power, by creating a timidity in thejust cause of liberty. " Here the current of our apprehensions takes acontrary course. Instead of trembling for the existence of ourgovernment from the spirit of licentiousness and anarchy, the authorwould make us believe we are to tremble for our liberties from the greataccession of power which is to accrue to government. 

I believe I have read in some author who criticized the productions ofthe famous Jurieu, that it is not very wise in people who dash away inprophecy, to fix the time of accomplishment at too short a period. Mr. Brothers may meditate upon this at his leisure. He was a melancholyprognosticator, and has had the fate of melancholy men. But they whoprophesy pleasant things get great present applause; and in days ofcalamity people have something else to think of: they lose, in theirfeeling of their distress, all memory of those who flattered them intheir prosperity. But merely for the credit of the prediction, nothingcould have happened more unluckily for the noble lord's sanguineexpectations of the amendment of the public mind, and the consequentgreater security to government, from the examples in France, than whathappened in the week after the publication of his hebdomadal system. Iam not sure it was not in the very week one of the most violent anddangerous seditions broke out that we have seen in several years. Thissedition, menacing to the public security, endangering the sacred personof the king, and violating in the most audacious manner the authority ofParliament, surrounded our sovereign with a murderous yell and war-whoopfor that peace which the noble lord considers as a cure for all domesticdisturbances and dissatisfactions. 

So far as to this general cure for popular disorders. As for government, the two Houses of Parliament, instead of being guided by thespeculations of the Fourth Week in October, and throwing up new barriersagainst the dangerous power of the crown, which the noble lordconsidered as no unplausible subject of apprehension, the two Houses ofParliament thought fit to pass two acts for the further strengthening ofthat very government against a most dangerous and wide-spread faction. 

Unluckily, too, for this kind of sanguine speculation, on the very firstday of the ever-famed "last week of October, " a large, daring, andseditious meeting was publicly held, from which meeting this atrociousattempt against the sovereign publicly originated. 

No wonder that the author should tell us that the whole considerationmight be varied _whilst he was writing those pages_. In one, and thatthe most material instance, his speculations not only might be, but wereat that very time, entirely overset. Their war-cry for peace with Francewas the same with that of this gentle author, but in a different note. His is the _gemitus columbæ_, cooing and wooing fraternity; theirs thefunereal screams of birds of night calling for their ill-omenedparamours. But they are both songs of courtship. These Regicidesconsidered a Regicide peace as a cure for all their evils; and so faras I can find, they showed nothing at all of the timidity which thenoble lord apprehends in what they call the just cause of liberty. 

However, it seems, that, notwithstanding these awkward appearances withregard to the strength of government, he has still his fears and doubtsabout our liberties. To a free people this would be a matter of alarm;but this physician of October has in his shop all sorts of salves forall sorts of sores. It is curious that they all come from theinexhaustible drug-shop of the Regicide dispensary. It costs him nothingto excite terror, because he lays it at his pleasure. He finds asecurity for this danger to liberty from the wonderful wisdom to betaught to kings, to nobility, and even, to the lowest of the people, bythe late transactions. 

I confess I was always blind enough to regard the French Revolution, inthe act, and much more in the example, as one of the greatest calamitiesthat had ever fallen upon mankind. I now find that in its effects it isto be the greatest of all blessings. If so, we owe _amende honorable_ tothe Jacobins. They, it seems, were right; and if they were right alittle earlier than we are, it only shows that they exceeded us insagacity. If they brought out their right ideas somewhat in a disorderlymanner, it must be remembered that great zeal produces someirregularity; but when greatly in the right, it must be pardoned bythose who are very regularly and temperately in the wrong. The masterJacobins had told me this a thousand times. I never believed themasters; nor do I now find myself disposed to give credit to thedisciple. I will not much dispute with our author, which party has thebest of this Revolution, --that which is from thence to learn wisdom, orthat which from the same event has obtained power. The dispute on thepreference of strength to wisdom may perhaps be decided as Horace hasdecided the controversy between Art and Nature. I do not like to leaveall the power to my adversary, and to secure nothing to myself but theuntimely wisdom that is taught by the consequences of folly. I do notlike my share in the partition: because to his strength my adversary maypossibly add a good deal of cunning, whereas my wisdom may totally failin producing to me the same degree of strength. But to descend from theauthor's generalities a little nearer to meaning, the security given toliberty is this, --"that governments will have learned not to precipitatethemselves into embarrassments by speculative wars. Sovereigns andprinces will not forget that steadiness, moderation, and economy are thebest supports of the eminence on which they stand. " There seems to me agood deal of oblique reflection in this lesson. As to the lesson itself, it is at all times a good one. One would think, however, by this formalintroduction of it as a recommendation of the arrangements proposed bythe author, it had never been taught before, either by precept or byexperience, --and that these maxims are discoveries reserved for aRegicide peace. But is it permitted to ask what security it affords tothe liberty of the subject, that the prince is pacific or frugal? Thevery contrary has happened in our history. Our best securities forfreedom have been obtained from princes who were either warlike, orprodigal, or both. 

Although the amendment of princes in these points canhave no effect in quieting our apprehensions for liberty on account ofthe strength to be acquired to government by a Regicide peace, I allowthat the avoiding of speculative wars may possibly be an advantage, provided I well understand what the author means by a speculative war. Isuppose he means a war grounded on speculative advantages, and not warsfounded on a just speculation of danger. Does he mean to include thiswar, which we are now carrying on, amongst those speculative wars whichthis Jacobin peace is to teach sovereigns to avoid hereafter? If so, itis doing the party an important service. Does he mean that we are toavoid such wars as that of the Grand Alliance, made on a speculation ofdanger to the independence of Europe? I suspect he has a sort ofretrospective view to the American war, as a speculative war, carried onby England upon one side and by Louis the Sixteenth on the other. As toour share of that war, let reverence to the dead and respect to theliving prevent us from reading lessons of this kind at their expense. Idon't know how far the author may find himself at liberty to wanton onthat subject; but, for my part, I entered into a coalition which, when Ihad no longer a duty relative to that business, made me think myselfbound in honor not to call it up without necessity. But if he putsEngland out of the question, and reflects only on Louis the Sixteenth, Ihave only to say, "Dearly has he answered it!" I will not defend him. But all those who pushed on the Revolution by which he was deposed weremuch more in fault than he was. They have murdered him, and have dividedhis kingdom as a spoil; but they who are the guilty are not they whofurnish the example. They who reign through his fault are not amongthose sovereigns who are likely to be taught to avoid speculative warsby the murder of their master. I think the author will not be hardyenough to assert that they have shown less disposition to meddle in theconcerns of that very America than he did, and in a way not less likelyto kindle the flame of speculative war. Here is one sovereign not yetreclaimed by these healing examples. Will he point out the othersovereigns who are to be reformed by this peace? Their wars may not bespeculative. But the world will not be much mended by turning wars fromunprofitable and speculative to practical and lucrative, whether theliberty or the repose of mankind is regarded. If the author's newsovereign in France is not reformed by the example of his ownRevolution, that Revolution has not added much to the security andrepose of Poland, for instance, or taught the three great partitioningpowers more moderation in their second than they had shown in theirfirst division of that devoted country. The first division, whichpreceded these destructive examples, was moderation itself, incomparison of what has been, done since the period of the author'samendment. 

This paragraph is written with something of a studied obscurity. If itmeans anything, it seems to hint as if sovereigns were to learnmoderation, and an attention to the liberties of their people, from _thefate of the sovereigns who have suffered in this war_, and eminently ofLouis the Sixteenth. 

Will he say whether the King of Sardinia's horrible tyranny was thecause of the loss of Savoy and of Nice? What lesson of moderation doesit teach the Pope? I desire to know whether his Holiness is to learn notto massacre his subjects, nor to waste and destroy such beautifulcountries as that of Avignon, lest he should call to their assistancethat great deliverer of nations, _Jourdan Coupe-tête_? What lesson doesit give of moderation to the Emperor, whose predecessor never put oneman to death after a general rebellion of the Low Countries, that theRegicides never spared man, woman, or child, whom they but suspected ofdislike to their usurpations? What, then, are all these lessons aboutthe _softening_ the character of sovereigns by this Regicide peace? Onreading this section, one would imagine that the poor tame sovereigns ofEurope had been a sort of furious wild beasts, that stood in need ofsome uncommonly rough discipline to subdue the ferocity of their savagenature. 

As to the example to be learnt from the murder of Louis the Sixteenth, if a lesson to kings is not derived from his fate, I do not know whenceit can come. The author, however, ought not to have left us in the darkupon that subject, to break our shins over his hints and insinuations. Is it, then, true, that this unfortunate monarch drew his punishmentupon himself by his want of moderation, and his oppressing the libertiesof which he had found his people in possession? Is not the directcontrary the fact? And is not the example of this Revolution the veryreverse of anything which can lead to that _softening_ of character inprinces which the author supposes as a security to the people, and hasbrought forward as a recommendation to fraternity with those who haveadministered that happy emollient in the murder of their king and theslavery and desolation of their country?

But the author does not confine the benefit of the Regicide lesson tokings alone. He has a diffusive bounty. Nobles, and men of property, will likewise be greatly reformed. They, too, will be led to a review oftheir social situation and duties, --"and will reflect, that their largeallotment of worldly advantages is for the aid and benefit of thewhole. " Is it, then, from the fate of Juigné, Archbishop of Paris, or ofthe Cardinal de Rochefoucault, and of so many others, who gave theirfortunes, and, I may say, their very beings, to the poor, that the richare to learn, that their "fortunes are for the aid and benefit of thewhole"? I say nothing of the liberal persons of great rank and property, lay and ecclesiastic, men and women, to whom we have had the honor andhappiness of affording an asylum: I pass by these, lest I should neverhave done, or lest I should omit some as deserving as any I mightmention. Why will the author, then, suppose that the nobles and men ofproperty in France have been banished, confiscated, and murdered, onaccount of the savageness and ferocity of their character, and theirbeing tainted with vices beyond those of the same order and descriptionin other countries? No judge of a revolutionary tribunal, with his handsdipped in their blood and his maw gorged with their property, has yetdared to assert what this author has been pleased, by way of a morallesson, to insinuate. 

Their nobility, and their men of property, in a mass, had the very samevirtues, and the very same vices, and in the very same proportions, withthe same description of men in this and in other nations. I must dojustice to suffering honor, generosity, and integrity. I do not knowthat any time or any country has furnished more splendid examples ofevery virtue, domestic and public. I do not enter into the councils ofProvidence; but, humanly speaking, many of these nobles and men ofproperty, from whose disastrous fate we are, it seems, to learn ageneral softening of character, and a revision of our social situationsand duties, appear to me full as little deserving of that fate as theauthor, whoever he is, can be. Many of them, I am sure, were such as Ishould be proud indeed to be able to compare myself with, in knowledge, in integrity, and in every other virtue. My feeble nature might shrink, though theirs did not, from the proof; but my reason and my ambitiontell me that it would be a good bargain to purchase their merits withtheir fate. 

For which of his vices did that great magistrate, D'Espréménil, lose hisfortune and his head? What were the abominations of Malesherbes, thatother excellent magistrate, whose sixty years of uniform virtue wasacknowledged, in the very act of his murder, by the judicial butcherswho condemned him? On account of what misdemeanors was he robbed of hisproperty, and slaughtered with two generations of his offspring, --andthe remains of the third race, with a refinement of cruelty, and lestthey should appear to reclaim the property forfeited by the virtues oftheir ancestor, confounded in an hospital with the thousands of thoseunhappy foundling infants who are abandoned, without relation andwithout name, by the wretchedness or by the profligacy of their parents?

Is the fate of the Queen of France to produce this softening ofcharacter? Was she a person so very ferocious and cruel, as, by theexample of her death, to frighten us into common humanity? Is there noway to teach the Emperor a _softening_ of character, and a review ofhis social situation and duty, but his consent, by an infamous accordwith Regicide, to drive a second coach with the Austrian arms throughthe streets of Paris, along which, after a series of preparatory horrorsexceeding the atrocities of the bloody execution itself, the glory ofthe Imperial race had been carried to an ignominious death? Is this alesson of _moderation_ to a descendant of Maria Theresa, drawn from thefate of the daughter of that incomparable woman and sovereign? If helearns this lesson from such an object, and from such teachers, the manmay remain, but the king is deposed. If he does not carry quite anothermemory of that transaction in the inmost recesses of his heart, he isunworthy to reign, he is unworthy to live. In the chronicle of disgracehe will have but this short tale told of him: "He was the first emperorof his house that embraced a regicide; he was the last that wore theimperial purple. " Far am I from thinking so ill of this augustsovereign, who is at the head of the monarchies of Europe, and who isthe trustee of their dignities and his own. 

What ferocity of character drew on the fate of Elizabeth, the sister ofKing Louis the Sixteenth? For which of the vices of that pattern ofbenevolence, of piety, and of all the virtues, did they put her todeath? For which of her vices did they put to death the mildest of allhuman creatures, the Duchess of Biron? What were the crimes of thosecrowds of matrons and virgins of condition, whom they mas sacred, withtheir juries of blood, in prisons and on scaffolds? What were theenormities of the infant king, whom they caused, by lingering tortures, to perish in their dungeon, and whom if at last they dispatched bypoison, it was in that detestable crime the only act of mercy they haveever shown?

What softening of character is to be had, what review of their socialsituations and duties is to be taught by these examples to kings, tonobles, to men of property, to women, and to infants? The royal familyperished because it was royal. The nobles perished because they werenoble. The men, women, and children, who had property, because they hadproperty to be robbed of. The priests were punished, after they had beenrobbed of their all, not for their vices, but for their virtues andtheir piety, which made them an honor to their sacred profession, and tothat nature of which we ought to be proud, since they belong to it. MyLord, nothing can be learned from such examples, except the danger ofbeing kings, queens, nobles, priests, and children, to be butchered onaccount of their inheritance. These are things at which not vice, notcrime, not folly, but wisdom, goodness, learning, justice, probity, beneficence, stand aghast. By these examples our reason and our moralsense are not enlightened, but confounded; and there is no refuge forastonished and affrighted virtue, but being annihilated in humility andsubmission, sinking into a silent adoration of the inscrutabledispensations of Providence, and flying with trembling wings from thisworld of daring crimes, and feeble, pusillanimous, half-bred, bastardjustice, to the asylum of another order of things, in an unknown form, but in a better life. 

Whatever the politician or preacher of September or of October may thinkof the matter, it is a most comfortless, disheartening, desolatingexample. Dreadful is the example of ruined innocence and virtue, andthe completest triumph of the completest villany that ever vexed anddisgraced mankind! The example is ruinous in every point of view, religious, moral, civil, political. It establishes that dreadful maximof Machiavel, that in great affairs men are not to be wicked by halves. This maxim is not made for a middle sort of beings, who, because theycannot be angels, ought to thwart their ambition, and not endeavor tobecome infernal spirits. It is too well exemplified in the present time, where the faults and errors of humanity, checked by the imperfect, timorous virtues, have been overpowered by those who have stopped at nocrime. It is a dreadful part of the example, that infernal malevolencehas had pious apologists, who read their lectures on frailties in favorof crimes, --who abandon the weak, and court the friendship of thewicked. To root out these maxims, and the examples that support them, isa wise object of years of war. This is that war. This is that moral war. It was said by old Trivulzio, that the Battle of Marignano was theBattle of the Giants, --that all the rest of the many he had seen werethose of the Cranes and Pygmies. This is true of the objects, at least, of the contest: for the greater part of those which we have hithertocontended for, in comparison, were the toys of children. 

The October politician is so full of charity and good-nature, that hesupposes that these very robbers and murderers themselves are in acourse of melioration: on what ground I cannot conceive, except on thelong practice of every crime, and by its complete success. He is anOrigenist, and believes in the conversion of the Devil. All that runs inthe place of blood in his veins is nothing but the milk of humankindness. He is as soft as a curd, --though, as a politician, he might besupposed to be made of sterner stuff. He supposes (to use his ownexpression) "that the salutary truths which he inculcates are makingtheir way into their bosoms. " Their bosom is a rock of granite, on whichFalsehood has long since built her stronghold. Poor Truth has had a hardwork of it, with her little pickaxe. Nothing but gunpowder will do. 

As a proof, however, of the progress of this sap of Truth, he gives us aconfession they had made not long before he wrote. "'Their fraternity'(as was lately stated by themselves in a solemn report) 'has been thebrotherhood of Cain and Abel, ' and 'they have organized nothing butbankruptcy and famine. '" A very honest confession, truly, --and much inthe spirit of their oracle, Rousseau. Yet, what is still more marvellousthan the confession, this is the very fraternity to which our authorgives us such an obliging invitation to accede. There is, indeed, avacancy in the fraternal corps: a brother and a partner is wanted. If weplease, we may fill up the place of the butchered Abel; and whilst wewait the destiny of the departed brother, we may enjoy the advantages ofthe partnership, by entering without delay into a shop of ready-madebankruptcy and famine. These are the _douceurs_ by which we are invitedto Regicide fraternity and friendship. But still our author considersthe confession as a proof that "truth is making its way into theirbosoms. " No! It is not making its way into their bosoms. It has forcedits way into their mouths! The evil spirit by which they are possessed, though essentially a liar, is forced by the tortures of conscience toconfess the truth, --to confess enough for their condemnation, but notfor their amendment. Shakspeare very aptly expresses this kind ofconfession, devoid of repentance, from the mouth of an usurper, amurderer, and a regicide:--

 "We are ourselves compelled, Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, To give in evidence. "

Whence is their amendment? Why, the author writes, that, on theirmurderous insurrectionary system, their own lives are not sure for anhour; nor has their power a greater stability. True. They are convincedof it; and accordingly the wretches have done all they can to preservetheir lives, and to secure their power; but not one step have they takento amend the one or to make a more just use of the other. Their wickedpolicy has obliged them to make a pause in the only massacres in whichtheir treachery and cruelty had operated as a kind of savagejustice, --that is, the massacre of the accomplices of their crimes: theyhave ceased to shed the inhuman blood of their fellow-murderers; butwhen they take any of those persons who contend for their lawfulgovernment, their property, and their religion, notwithstanding thetruth which this author says is making its way into their bosoms, it hasnot taught them the least tincture of mercy. This we plainly see bytheir massacre at Quiberon, where they put to death, with every speciesof contumely, and without any exception, every prisoner of war who didnot escape out of their hands. To have had property, to have been robbedof it, and to endeavor to regain it, --these are crimes irremissible, towhich every man who regards his property or his life, in every country, ought well to look in all connection with those with whom to have hadproperty was an offence, to endeavor to keep it a second offence, toattempt to regain it a crime that puts the offender out of all the lawsof peace or war. You cannot see one of those wretches without an alarmfor your life as well as your goods. They are like the worst of theFrench and Italian banditti, who, whenever they robbed, were sure tomurder. 

Are they not the very same ruffians, thieves, assassins, and regicidesthat they were from the beginning? Have they diversified the scene bythe least variety, or produced the face of a single new villany? _Tædetharum quotidianarum formarum_. Oh! but I shall be answered, "It is nowquite another thing;--they are all changed. You have not seen them intheir state dresses;--this makes an amazing difference. The new habit ofthe Directory is so charmingly fancied, that it is impossible not tofall in love with so well-dressed a Constitution;--the costume of the_sans-culotte_ Constitution of 1793 was absolutely insufferable. TheCommittee for Foreign Affairs were such slovens, and stunk soabominably, that no _muscadin_ ambassador of the smallest degree ofdelicacy of nerves could come within ten yards of them; but now they areso powdered, and perfumed, and ribanded, and sashed, and plumed, that, though they are grown infinitely more insolent in their fine clotheseven than they were in their rags, (and that was enough, ) as they nowappear, there is something in it more grand and noble, something moresuitable to an awful Roman Senate receiving the homage of dependenttetrarchs. Like that Senate, (their perpetual model for conduct towardsother nations, ) they permit their vassals (during their good pleasure)to assume the name of kings, in order to bestow more dignity on thesuite and retinue of the sovereign Republic by the nominal rank of theirslaves: _Ut habeant instrumenta servitutis et reges_. " All this is veryfine, undoubtedly; and ambassadors whose hands are almost out for wantof employment may long to have their part in this august ceremony of theRepublic one and indivisible. But, with great deference to the newdiplomatic taste, we old people must retain some square-toedpredilection, for the fashions of our youth. 

I am afraid you will find me, my Lord, again falling into my usualvanity, in valuing myself on the eminent men whose society I onceenjoyed. I remember, in a conversation I once had with my ever dearfriend Garrick, who was the first of actors, because he was the mostacute observer of Nature I ever knew, I asked him how it happened, that, whenever a senate appeared on the stage, the audience seemed alwaysdisposed to laughter. He said, the reason was plain: the audience waswell acquainted with the faces of most of the senators. They knew thatthey were no other than candle-snuffers, revolutionary scene-shifters, second and third mob, prompters, clerks, executioners, who stand withtheir axe on their shoulders by the wheel, grinners in the pantomime, murderers in tragedies, who make ugly faces under black wigs, --in short, the very scum and refuse of the theatre; and it was of course that thecontrast of the vileness of the actors with the pomp of their habitsnaturally excited ideas of contempt and ridicule. 

So it was at Paris on the inaugural day of the Constitution for thepresent year. The foreign ministers were ordered to attend at thisinvestiture of the Directory;--for so they call the managers of theirburlesque government. The diplomacy, who were a sort of strangers, werequite awe-struck with the "pride, pomp, and circumstance" of thismajestic senate; whilst the _sans-culotte_ gallery instantly recognizedtheir old insurrectionary acquaintance, burst out into a horse-laugh attheir absurd finery, and held them in infinitely greater contempt thanwhilst they prowled about the streets in the pantaloons of the lastyear's Constitution, when their legislators appeared honestly, withtheir daggers in their belts, and their pistols peeping out of theirside-pocket-holes, like a bold, brave banditti, as they are. TheParisians (and I am much of their mind) think that a thief with a crapeon his visage is much worse than a barefaced knave, and that suchrobbers richly deserve all the penalties of all the black acts. In thistheir thin disguise, their comrades of the late abdicated sovereign_canaille_ hooted and hissed them, and from that day have no other namefor them than what is not quite so easy to render into English, impossible to make it very civil English: it belongs, indeed, to thelanguage of the _halles_: but, without being instructed in that dialect, it was the opinion of the polite Lord Chesterfield that no man could bea complete master of French. Their Parisian brethren called them _gueuxplumés_, which, though not elegant, is expressive and characteristic:_feathered scoundrels_, I think, comes the nearest to it in that kind ofEnglish. But we are now to understand that these _gueux_, for no otherreason, that I can divine, except their red and white clothes, form atlast a state with which we may cultivate amity, and have a prospect ofthe blessings of a secure and permanent peace. In effect, then, it wasnot with the men, or their principles, or their polities, that wequarrelled: our sole dislike was to the cut of their clothes. 

But to pass over _their_ dresses, --good God! in what habits did therepresentatives of the crowned heads of Europe appear, when they came toswell the pomp of their humiliation, and attended in solemn functionthis inauguration of Regicide? That would be the curiosity. Under whatrobes did they cover the disgrace and degradation of the whole collegeof kings? What warehouses of masks and dominoes furnished a cover to thenakedness of their shame? The shop ought to be known; it will soon havea good trade. Were the dresses of the ministers of those lately calledpotentates, who attended on that occasion, taken from the wardrobe ofthat property-man at the opera, from whence my old acquaintance, Anacharsis Clootz, some years ago equipped a body of ambassadors, whomhe conducted, as from all the nations of the world, to the bar of whatwas called the Constituent Assembly? Among those mock ministers, one ofthe most conspicuous figures was the representative of the Britishnation, who unluckily was wanting at the late ceremony. In the face ofall the real ambassadors of the sovereigns of Europe was this ludicrousrepresentation of their several subjects, under the name of _oppressedsovereigns_, [10] exhibited to the Assembly. That Assembly received anharangue, in the name of those sovereigns, against their kings, delivered by this Clootz, actually a subject of Prussia, under the nameof Ambassador of the Human Race. At that time there was only a feeblereclamation from one of the ambassadors of these tyrants and oppressors. A most gracious answer was given to the ministers of the oppressedsovereigns; and they went so far on that occasion as to assign them, inthat assumed character, a box at one of their festivals. 

I was willing to indulge myself in an hope that this second appearanceof ambassadors was only an insolent mummery of the same kind; but, alas!Anacharsis himself, all fanatic as he was, could not have imagined thathis opera procession should have been the prototype of the realappearance of the representatives of all the sovereigns of Europethemselves, to make the same prostration that was made by those whodared to represent their people in a complaint against them. But in thisthe French Republic has followed, as they always affect to do, and havehitherto done with success, the example of the ancient Romans, who shookall governments by listening to the complaints of their subjects, andsoon after brought the kings themselves to answer at their bar. At thislast ceremony the ambassadors had not Clootz for their Cotterel. Pitythat Clootz had not had a reprieve from the guillotine till he hadcompleted his work! But that engine fell before the curtain had fallenupon all the dignity of the earth. 

On this their gaudy day the new Regicide Directory sent for thatdiplomatic rabble, as bad as themselves in principle, but infinitelyworse in degradation. They called them out by a sort of roll of theirnations, one after another, much in the manner in which they calledwretches out of their prison to the guillotine. When these ambassadorsof infamy appeared before them, the chief Director, in the name of therest, treated each of them with a short, affected, pedantic, insolent, theatric laconium, --a sort of epigram of contempt. When they had thusinsulted them in a style and language which never before was heard, andwhich no sovereign would for a moment endure from another, supposing anyof them frantic enough to use it, to finish their outrage, they drummedand trumpeted the wretches out of their hall of audience. 

Among the objects of this insolent buffoonery was a person supposed torepresent the King of Prussia. To this worthy representative they didnot so much as condescend to mention his master; they did not seem toknow that he had one; they addressed themselves solely to Prussia in theabstract, notwithstanding the infinite obligation they owed to theirearly protector for their first recognition and alliance, and for thepart of his territory he gave into their hands for the first-fruits ofhis homage. None but dead monarchs are so much as mentioned by them, andthose only to insult the living by an invidious comparison. They toldthe Prussians they ought to learn, after the example of Frederick theGreat, a love for France. What a pity it is, that he, who loved Franceso well as to chastise it, was not now alive, by an unsparing use of therod (which, indeed, he would have spared little) to give them anotherinstance of his paternal affection! But the Directory were mistaken. These are not days in which monarchs value themselves upon the title of_great_: they are grown _philosophic_: they are satisfied to be good. 

Your Lordship will pardon me for this no very long reflection on theshort, but excellent speech of the plumed Director to the ambassador ofCappadocia. The Imperial ambassador was not in waiting, but they foundfor Austria a good Judean representation. With great judgment, hisHighness, the Grand Duke, had sent the most atheistic coxcomb to befound in Florence, to represent at the bar of impiety the House ofApostolic Majesty, and the descendants of the pious, though high-minded, Maria Theresa. He was sent to humble the whole race of Austria beforethose grim assassins, reeking with the blood of the daughter of MariaTheresa, whom they sent half dead, in a dung-cart, to a cruel execution;and this true-born son of apostasy and infidelity, this renegado fromthe faith and from all honor and all humanity, drove an Austrian coachover the stones which were yet wet with her blood, --with that bloodwhich dropped every step through her tumbrel, all the way she was drawnfrom the horrid prison, in which they had finished all the cruelty andhorrors not executed in the face of the sun. The Hungarian subjects ofMaria Theresa, when they drew their swords to defend her rights againstFrance, called her, with correctness of truth, though not with the samecorrectness, perhaps, of grammar, a king: "_Moriamur pro rege nostro, Maria Theresa. _" SHE lived and died a king; and others will havesubjects ready to make the same vow, when, in either sex, they showthemselves real kings. 

When the Directory came to this miserable fop, they bestowed acompliment on his matriculation into _their_ philosophy; but as to hismaster, they made to him, as was reasonable, a reprimand, not without apardon, and an oblique hint at the whole family. What indignities havebeen offered through this wretch to his master, and how well borne, itis not necessary that I should dwell on at present. I hope that thosewho yet wear royal, imperial, and ducal crowns will learn to feel asmen and as kings: if not, I predict to them, they will not long exist askings or as men. 

Great Britain was not there. Almost in despair, I hope she will never, in any rags and _coversluts_ of infamy, be seen at such an exhibition. The hour of her final degradation is not yet come; she did not herselfappear in the Regicide presence, to be the sport and mockery of thosebloody buffoons, who, in the merriment of their pride, were insultingwith every species of contumely the fallen dignity of the rest ofEurope. But Britain, though not personally appearing to bear her part inthis monstrous tragi-comedy, was very far from being forgotten. Thenew-robed regicides found a representative for her. And who was thisrepresentative? Without a previous knowledge, any one would have given athousand guesses before he could arrive at a tolerable divination oftheir rancorous insolence. They chose to address what they had to sayconcerning this nation to the ambassador of America. They did not applyto this ambassador for a mediation: that, indeed, would have indicated awant of every kind of decency; but it would have indicated nothing more. But in this their American apostrophe, your Lordship will observe, theydid not so much as pretend to hold out to us directly, or through anymediator, though in the most humiliating manner, any idea whatsoever ofpeace, or the smallest desire of reconciliation. To the States ofAmerica themselves they paid no compliment. They paid their complimentto Washington solely: and on what ground? This most respectablecommander and magistrate might deserve commendation on very many ofthose qualities which they who most disapprove some part of hisproceedings, not more justly than freely, attribute to him; but theyfound nothing to commend in him "_but the hatred he bore to GreatBritain_. " I verily believe, that, in the whole history of our Europeanwars, there never was such a compliment paid from the sovereign of onestate to a great chief of another. Not one ambassador from any one ofthose powers who pretend to live in amity with this kingdom took theleast notice of that unheard-of declaration; nor will Great Britain, till she is known with certainty to be true to her own dignity, find anyone disposed to feel for the indignities that are offered to her. To saythe truth, those miserable creatures were all silent under the insultsthat were offered to themselves. They pocketed their epigrams, asambassadors formerly took the gold boxes and miniature pictures set indiamonds presented them by sovereigns at whose courts they had resided. It is to be presumed that by the next post they faithfully and promptlytransmitted to their masters the honors they had received. I can easilyconceive the epigram which will be presented to Lord Auckland, or to theDuke of Bedford, as hereafter, according to circumstances, they mayhappen to represent this kingdom. Few can have so little imagination asnot readily to conceive the nature of the boxes of epigrammatic lozengesthat will be presented to them. 

But _hæ nugæ seria ducunt in mala_. The conduct of the Regicide factionis perfectly systematic in every particular, and it appears absurd onlyas it is strange and uncouth, not as it has an application to the endsand objects of their policy. When by insult after insult they haverendered the character of sovereigns vile in the eyes of theirsubjects, they know there is but one step more to their utterdestruction. All authority, in a great degree, exists in opinion: royalauthority most of all. The supreme majesty of a monarch cannot be alliedwith contempt. Men would reason, not unplausibly, that it would bebetter to get rid of the monarchy at once than to suffer that which wasinstituted, and well instituted, to support the glory of the nation, tobecome the instrument of its degradation and disgrace. 

A good many reflections will arise in your Lordship's mind upon the timeand circumstances of that most insulting and atrocious declaration ofhostility against this kingdom. The declaration was made subsequent tothe noble lord's encomium on the new Regicide Constitution, --after thepamphlet had made something more than advances towards a reconciliationwith that ungracious race, and had directly disowned all those whoadhered to the original declaration in favor of monarchy. It was evensubsequent to the unfortunate declaration in the speech from the throne(which this pamphlet but too truly announced) of the readiness of ourgovernment to enter into connections of friendship with that faction. Here was the answer from the throne of Regicide to the speech from thethrone of Great Britain. They go out of their way to compliment GeneralWashington on the supposed rancor of his heart towards this country. Itis very remarkable, that they make this compliment of malice to thechief of the United States, who had first signed a treaty of peace, amity, and commerce with this kingdom. This radical hatred, according totheir way of thinking, the most recent, solemn compacts of friendshipcannot or ought not to remove. In this malice to England, as in the onegreat comprehensive virtue, all other merits of this illustrious personare entirely merged. For my part, I do not believe the fact to be so asthey represent it. Certainly it is not for Mr. Washington's honor as agentleman, a Christian, or a President of the United States, after thetreaty he has signed, to entertain such sentiments. I have a moralassurance that the representation of the Regicide Directory isabsolutely false and groundless. If it be, it is a stronger mark oftheir audacity and insolence, and still a stronger proof of the supportthey mean to give to the mischievous faction they are known to nourishthere, to the ruin of those States, and to the end that no Britishaffections should ever arise in that important part of the world, whichwould naturally lead to a cordial, hearty British alliance, upon thebottom of mutual interest and ancient affection. It shows in what partit is, and with what a weapon, they mean a deadly blow at the heart ofGreat Britain. One really would have expected, from this newConstitution of theirs, which had been announced as a great reform, andwhich was to be, more than any of their former experimental schemes, alliable with other nations, that they would, in their very first publicact, and their declaration to the collected representation of Europe andAmerica, have affected some degree of moderation, or, at least, haveobserved a guarded silence with regard to their temper and their views. No such thing: they were in haste to declare the principles which arespun into the primitive staple of their frame. They were afraid that amoment's doubt should exist about them. In their very infancy they werein haste to put their hand on their infernal altar, and to swear thesame immortal hatred to England which was sworn in the succession of allthe short-lived constitutions that preceded it. With them everythingelse perishes almost as soon as it is formed; this hatred alone isimmortal. This is their impure Vestal fire that never is extinguished:and never will it be extinguished, whilst the system of Regicide existsin France. What! are we not to believe them? Men are too apt to bedeceitful enough in their professions of friendship, and this makes awise man walk with some caution through life. Such professions, in somecases, may be even a ground of further distrust. But when a man declareshimself your unalterable enemy! No man ever declared to another a rancortowards him which he did not feel. _Falsos in amore odia, non fingere_, said an author who points his observations so as to make themremembered. 

Observe, my Lord, that, from their invasion of Flanders and Holland tothis hour, they have never made the smallest signification of a desireof peace with this kingdom, with Austria, or, indeed, with any otherpower that I know of. As superiors, they expect others to begin. We havecomplied, as you may see. The hostile insolence with which they gavesuch a rebuff to our first overture, in the speech from the throne, didnot hinder us from making, from the same throne, a second advance. Thetwo Houses a second time coincided in the same sentiments, with a degreeof apparent unanimity, (for there was no dissentient voice but yours, )with which, when they reflect on it, they will be as much ashamed as Iam. To this our new humiliating overture (such, at whatever hazard, Imust call it) what did the Regicide Directory answer? Not one publicword of a readiness to treat. No, --they feel their proud situation toowell. They never declared whether they would grant peace to you or not. They only signified to you their pleasure as to the terms on which alonethey would in any case admit you to it. You showed your generaldisposition to peace, and, to forward it, you left everything open tonegotiations. As to any terms you can possibly obtain, they shut out allnegotiation at the very commencement. They declared that they neverwould make a peace by which anything that ever belonged to France shouldbe ceded. We would not treat with the monarchy, weakened as it mustobviously be in any circumstance of restoration, without a reservationof something for indemnity and security, --and that, too, in words of thelargest comprehension. You treat with the Regicides without anyreservation at all. On their part, they assure you formally andpublicly, that they will give you nothing in the name of indemnity orsecurity, or for any other purpose. 

It is impossible not to pause here for a moment, and to consider themanner in which such declarations would have been taken by yourancestors from a monarch distinguished for his arrogance, --an arrogancewhich, even more than his ambition, incensed and combined all Europeagainst him. Whatever his inward intentions may have been, did Louis theFourteenth ever make a declaration that the true bounds of France werethe ocean, the Mediterranean, and the Rhine? In any overtures for peace, did he ever declare that he would make no sacrifices to promote it? Hisdeclarations were always directly to the contrary; and at the Peace ofRyswick his actions were to the contrary. At the close of the war, almost in every instance victorious, all Europe was astonished, eventhose who received them were astonished, at his concessions. Let thosewho have a mind to see how little, in comparison, the most powerful andambitious of all monarchs is to be dreaded consult the very judiciouscritical observations on the politics of that reign, inserted in themilitary treatise of the Marquis de Montalembert. Let those who wish toknow what is to be dreaded from an ambitious republic consult no author, no military critic, no historical critic. Let them open their own eyes, which degeneracy and pusillanimity have shut from the light that painsthem, and let them not vainly seek their security in a voluntaryignorance of their danger. 

To dispose us towards this peace, --an attempt in which our author has, Ido not know whether to call it the good or ill fortune to agree withwhatever is most seditious, factious, and treasonable in thiscountry, --we are told by many dealers in speculation, but not sodistinctly by the author himself, (too great distinctness of affirmationnot being his fault, )--but we are told, that the French have latelyobtained a very pretty sort of Constitution, and that it resembles theBritish Constitution as if they had been twinned together in thewomb, --_mire sagaces fallere hospites discrimen obscurum_. It may be so:but I confess I am not yet made to it: nor is the noble author. He findsthe "elements" excellent, but the disposition very inartificial indeed. Contrary to what we might expect at Paris, the meat is good, the cookeryabominable. I agree with him fully in the last; and if I were forced toallow the first, I should still think, with our old coarse by-word, that the same power which furnished all their former _restaurateurs_sent also their present cooks. I have a great opinion of Thomas Paine, and of all his productions: I remember his having been one of thecommittee for forming one of their annual Constitutions, I mean theadmirable Constitution of 1793, after having been a chamber council tothe no less admirable Constitution of 1791. This pious patriot has hiseyes still directed to his dear native country, notwithstanding her ingratitude to so kind a benefactor. This outlaw of England, and lawgiverto France, is now, in secret probably, trying his hand again, andinviting us to him by making his Constitution such as may give hisdisciples in England some plausible pretext for going into the housethat he has opened. We have discovered, it seems, that all which theboasted wisdom of our ancestors has labored to bring to perfection forsix or seven centuries is nearly, or altogether, matched in six or sevendays, at the leisure hours and sober intervals of Citizen Thomas Paine. 

 "But though the treacherous tapster, Thomas, Hangs a new Angel two doors from us, As fine as dauber's hands can make it, In hopes that strangers may mistake it, We think it both a shame and sin To quit the good old Angel Inn, "

Indeed, in this good old house, where everything at least is well aired, I shall be content to put up my fatigued horses, and here take a bed forthe long night that begins to darken upon me. Had I, however, the honor(I must now call it so) of being a member of any of the constitutionalclubs, I should think I had carried my point most completely. It isclear, by the applauses bestowed on what the author calls this newConstitution, a mixed oligarchy, that the difference between theclubbists and the old adherents to the monarchy of this country ishardly worth a scuffle. Let it depart in peace, and light lie the earthon the British Constitution! By this easy manner of treating the mostdifficult of all subjects, the constitution for a great kingdom, and byletting loose an opinion that they may be made by any adventurers inspeculation in a small given time, and for any country, all the ties, which, whether of reason or prejudice, attach mankind to their old, habitual, domestic governments, are not a little loosened; allcommunion, which the similarity of the basis has produced between allthe governments that compose what we call the Christian world and therepublic of Europe, would be dissolved. By these hazarded speculationsFrance is more approximated to us in constitution than in situation; andin proportion as we recede from the ancient system of Europe, weapproach to that connection which alone can remain to us, a closealliance with the new-discovered moral and political world in France. 

These theories would be of little importance, if we did not only know, but sorely feel, that there is a strong Jacobin faction in this country, which has long employed itself in speculating upon constitutions, and towhom the circumstance of their government being home-bred andprescriptive seems no sort of recommendation. What seemed to us to bethe best system of liberty that a nation ever enjoyed to them seems theyoke of an intolerable slavery. This speculative faction had long beenat work. The French Revolution did not cause it: it only discovered it, increased it, and gave fresh vigor to its operations. I have reason tobe persuaded that it was in this country, and from English writers andEnglish caballers, that France herself was instituted in thisrevolutionary fury. The communion of these two factions upon anypretended basis of similarity is a matter of very serious consideration. They are always considering the formal distributions of power in aconstitution: the moral basis they consider as nothing. Very differentis my opinion: I consider the moral basis as everything, --the formalarrangements, further than as they promote the moral principles ofgovernment, and the keeping desperately wicked persons as the subjectsof laws and not the makers of them, to be of little importance. Whatsignifies the cutting and shuffling of cards, while the pack stillremains the same? As a basis for such a connection as has subsistedbetween the powers of Europe, we had nothing to fear, but from thelapses and frailties of men, --and that was enough; but this newpretended republic has given us more to apprehend from what they calltheir virtues than we had to dread from the vices of other men. Avowedlyand systematically, they have given the upperhand to all the vicious anddegenerate part of human nature. It is from their lapses and deviationsfrom their principle that alone we have anything to hope. 

I hear another inducement to fraternity with the present rulers. Theyhave murdered one Robespierre. This Robespierre, they tell us, was acruel tyrant, and now that he is put out of the way, all will go well inFrance. Astræa will again return to that earth from which she has beenan emigrant, and all nations will resort to her golden scales. It isvery extraordinary, that, the very instant the mode of Paris is knownhere, it becomes all the fashion in London. This is their jargon. It isthe old _bon-ton_ of robbers, who cast their common crimes on thewickedness of their departed associates. I care little about the memoryof this same Robespierre. I am sure he was an execrable villain. Irejoiced at his punishment neither more nor less than I should at theexecution of the present Directory, or any of its members. But who gaveRobespierre the power of being a tyrant? and who were the instruments ofhis tyranny? The present virtuous constitution-mongers. He was a tyrant;they were his satellites and his hangmen. Their sole merit is in themurder of their colleague. They have expiated their other murders by anew murder. It has always been the case among this banditti. They havealways had the knife at each other's throats, after they had almostblunted it at the throats of every honest man. These people thought, that, in the commerce of murder, he was like to have the better of thebargain, if any time was lost; they therefore took one of their shortrevolutionary methods, and massacred him in a manner so perfidious andcruel as would shock all humanity, if the stroke was not struck by thepresent rulers on one of their own associates. But this last act ofinfidelity and murder is to expiate all the rest, and to qualify themfor the amity of an humane and virtuous sovereign and civilized people. I have heard that a Tartar believes, when he has killed a man, that allhis estimable qualities pass with his clothes and arms to the murderer;but I have never heard that it was the opinion of any savage Scythian, that, if he kills a brother villain, he is, _ipso facto_, absolved ofall his own offences. The Tartarian doctrine is the most tenableopinion. The murderers of Robespierre, besides what they are entitled toby being engaged in the same tontine of infamy, are his representatives, have inherited all his murderous qualities, in addition to their ownprivate stock. But it seems we are always to be of a party with the lastand victorious assassins. I confess I am of a different mind, and amrather inclined, of the two, to think and speak less hardly of a deadruffian than to associate with the living. I could better bear thestench of the gibbeted murderer than the society of the bloody felonswho yet annoy the world. Whilst they wait the recompense due to theirancient crimes, they merit new punishment by the new offences theycommit. There is a period to the offences of Robespierre. They survivein his assassins. "Better a living dog, " says the old proverb, "than adead lion. " Not so here. Murderers and hogs never look well till theyare hanged. From villany no good can arise, but in the example of itsfate. So I leave them their dead Robespierre, either to gibbet hismemory, or to deify him in their Pantheon with their Marat and theirMirabeau. 

It is asserted that this government promises stability. God of his mercyforbid! If it should, nothing upon earth besides itself can be stable. We declare this stability to be the ground of our making peace withthem. Assuming it, therefore, that the men and the system are what Ihave described, and that they have a determined hostility against thiscountry, --an hostility not only of policy, but of predilection, --then Ithink that every rational being would go along with me in consideringits permanence as the greatest of all possible evils. If, therefore, weare to look for peace with such a thing in any of its monstrous shapes, which I deprecate, it must be in that state of disorder, confusion, discord, anarchy, and insurrection, such as might oblige the momentaryrulers to forbear their attempts on neighboring states, or to renderthese attempts less operative, if they should kindle new wars. When wasit heard before, that the internal repose of a determined and wickedenemy, and the strength of his government, became the wish of hisneighbor, and a security, against either his malice or his ambition? Thedirect contrary has always been inferred from that state of things:accordingly, it has ever been the policy of those who would preservethemselves against the enterprises of such a malignant and mischievouspower to cut out so much work for him in his own states as might keephis dangerous activity employed at home. 

It is said, in vindication of this system, which demands the stabilityof the Regicide power as a ground for peace with them, that, when theyhave obtained, as now it is said (though not by this noble author) theyhave, a permanent government, they will be _able_ to preserve amity withthis kingdom, and with others who have the misfortune to be in theirneighborhood. Granted. They will be _able_ to do so, without question;but are they willing to do so? Produce the act; produce the declaration. Have they made any single step towards it? Have they ever once proposedto treat?

The assurance of a stable peace, grounded on the stability of theirsystem, proceeds on this hypothesis, --that their hostility to othernations has proceeded from their anarchy at home, and from theprevalence of a populace which their government had not strength enoughto master. This I utterly deny. I insist upon it as a fact, that, in thedaring commencement of all their hostilities, and their astonishingperseverance in them, so as never once, in any fortune, high or low, topropose a treaty of peace to any power in Europe, they have never beenactuated by the people: on the contrary, the people, I will not say havebeen moved, but impelled by them, and have generally acted under acompulsion, of which most of us are as yet, thank God, unable to form anadequate idea. The war against Austria was formally declared by theunhappy Louis the Sixteenth; but who has ever considered Louis theSixteenth, since the Revolution, to have been the government? The secondRegicide Assembly, then the only government, was the author of that war;and neither the nominal king nor the nominal people had anything to dowith it, further than in a reluctant obedience. It is to deludeourselves, to consider the state of France, since their Revolution, as astate of anarchy: it is something far worse. Anarchy it is, undoubtedly, if compared with government pursuing the peace, order, morals, andprosperity of the people; but regarding only the power that has reallyguided from the day of the Revolution to this time, it has been of allgovernments the most absolute, despotic, and effective that has hithertoappeared on earth. Never were the views and politics of any governmentpursued with half the regularity, system, and method that a diligentobserver must have contemplated with amazement and terror in theirs. Their state is not an anarchy, but a series of short-lived tyrannies. Wedo not call a republic with annual magistrates an anarchy: theirs isthat kind of republic; but the succession is not effected by theexpiration of the term of the magistrate's service, but by his murder. Every new magistracy, succeeding by homicide, is auspicated by accusingits predecessors in the office of tyranny, and it continues by theexercise of what they charged upon others. 

This strong hand is the law, and the sole law, in their state. I defyany person to show any other law, --or if any such should be found onpaper, that it is in the smallest degree, or in any one instance, regarded or practised. In all their successions, not one magistrate, orone form of magistracy, has expired by a mere occasional popular tumult;everything has been the effect of the studied machinations of the onerevolutionary cabal, operating within itself upon itself. That cabal isall in all. France has no public; it is the only nation I ever heard of, where the people are absolutely slaves, in the fullest sense, in allaffairs, public and private, great and small, even down to the minutestand most recondite parts of their household concerns. The helots ofLaconia, the regardants to the manor in Russia and in Poland, even thenegroes in the West Indies, know nothing of so searching, sopenetrating, so heart-breaking a slavery. Much would these servilewretches call for our pity under that unheard-of yoke, if for theirperfidious and unnatural rebellion, and for their murder of the mildestof all monarchs, they did not richly deserve a punishment not greaterthan their crime. 

On the whole, therefore, I take it to be a great mistake to think thatthe want of power in the government furnished a natural cause of war;whereas the greatness of its power, joined to its use of that power, thenature of its system, and the persons who acted in it, did naturallycall for a strong military resistance to oppose them, and rendered itnot only just, but necessary. But at present I say no more on the geniusand character of the power set up in France. I may probably trouble youwith it more at large hereafter: this subject calls for a very fullexposure: at present it is enough for me, if I point it out as a matterwell worthy of consideration, whether the true ground of hostility wasnot rightly conceived very early in this war, and whether anything hashappened to change that system, except our ill success in a war which inno principal instance had its true destination as the object of itsoperations. That the war has succeeded ill in many cases is undoubted;but then let us speak the truth, and say we are defeated, exhausted, dispirited, and must submit. This would be intelligible. The world wouldbe inclined to pardon the abject conduct of an undone nation. But let usnot conceal from _ourselves_ our real situation, whilst, by everyspecies of humiliation, we are but too strongly displaying our sense ofit to the enemy. 

The writer of the Remarks in the Last Week of October appears to thinkthat the present government in France contains many of the elementswhich, when properly arranged, are known to form the best practicalgovernments, --and that the system, whatever may become its particularform, is no longer likely to be an obstacle to negotiation. If its formnow be no obstacle to such negotiation, I do not know why it was everso. Suppose that this government promised greater permanency than any ofthe former, (a point on which I can form no judgment, ) still a link iswanting to couple the permanence of the government with the permanenceof the peace. On this not one word is said: nor can there be, in myopinion. This deficiency is made up by strengthening the first ringletof the chain, that ought to be, but that is not, stretched to connectthe two propositions. All seems to be done, if we can make out that thelast French edition of Regicide is like to prove stable. 

As a prognostic of this stability, it is said to be accepted by thepeople. Here again I join issue with the fraternizers, and positivelydeny the fact. Some submission or other has been obtained, by some meansor other, to every government that hitherto has been set up. And thesame submission would, by the same means, be obtained for any otherproject that the wit or folly of man could possibly devise. TheConstitution of 1790 was universally received. The Constitution whichfollowed it, under the name of a Convention, was universally submittedto. The Constitution of 1793 was universally accepted. Unluckily, thisyear's Constitution, which was formed, and its genethliacon sung by thenoble author while it was yet in embryo, or was but just come bloodyfrom the womb, is the only one which in its very formation has beengenerally resisted by a very great and powerful party in many parts ofthe kingdom, and particularly in the capital. It never had a popularchoice even in show: those who arbitrarily erected the new building outof the old materials of their own Convention were obliged to send for anarmy to support their work: like brave gladiators, they fought it outin the streets of Paris, and even massacred each other in their house ofassembly, in the most edifying manner, and for the entertainment andinstruction of their Excellencies the foreign ambassadors, who had a boxin this constitutional amphitheatre of a free people. 

At length, after a terrible struggle, the troops prevailed over thecitizens. The citizen soldiers, the ever-famed national guards, who haddeposed and murdered their sovereign, were disarmed by the inferiortrumpeters of that rebellion. Twenty thousand regular troops garrisonParis. Thus a complete military government is formed. It has thestrength, and it may count on the stability, of that kind of power. Thispower is to last as long as the Parisians think proper. Every otherground of stability, but from military force and terror, is clean out ofthe question. To secure them further, they have a strong corps ofirregulars, ready-armed. Thousands of those hell-hounds calledTerrorists, whom they had shut up in prison, on their last Revolution, as the satellites of tyranny, are let loose on the people. The whole oftheir government, in its origination, in its continuance, in all itsactions, and in all its resources, is force, and nothing but force: aforced constitution, a forced election, a forced subsistence, a forcedrequisition of soldiers, a forced loan of money. 

They differ nothing from all the preceding usurpations, but that to thesame odium a good deal more of contempt is added. In this situation, notwithstanding all their military force, strengthened with theundisciplined power of the Terrorists, and the nearly general disarmingof Paris, there would almost certainly have been before this aninsurrection against them, but for one cause. The people of Francelanguish for peace. They all despaired of obtaining it from thecoalesced powers, whilst they had a gang of professed regicides at theirhead; and several of the least desperate republicans would have joinedwith better men to shake them wholly off, and to produce something moreostensible, if they had not been reiteratedly told that their sole hopeof peace was the very contrary to what they naturally imagined: thatthey must leave off their cabals and insurrections, which could serve nopurpose but to bring in that royalty which was wholly rejected by thecoalesced kings; that, to satisfy them, they must tranquilly, if theycould not cordially, submit themselves to the tyranny and the tyrantsthey despised and abhorred. Peace was held out by the allied monarchiesto the people of France, as a bounty for supporting the Republic ofRegicides. In fact, a coalition, begun for the avowed purpose ofdestroying that den of robbers, now exists only for their support. Ifevil happens to the princes of Europe from the success and stability ofthis infernal business, it is their own absolute crime. 

We are to understand, however, (for sometimes so the author hints, ) thatsomething stable in the Constitution of Regicide was required for ouramity with it; but the noble Remarker is no more solicitous about thispoint than he is for the permanence of the whole body of his Octoberspeculations. "If, " says he, speaking of the Regicide, "they can obtaina practicable constitution, even for a limited period of time, they willbe in a condition to reestablish the accustomed relations of peace andamity. " Pray let us leave this bush-fighting. What is meant by a_limited period of time_? Does it mean the direct contrary to theterms, _an unlimited period_? If it is a limited period, what limitationdoes he fix as a ground for his opinion? Otherwise, his limitation isunlimited. If he only requires a constitution that will last while thetreaty goes on, ten days' existence will satisfy his demands. He knowsthat France never did want a practicable constitution, nor a government, which endured for a limited period of time. Her constitutions were buttoo practicable; and short as was their duration, it was but too long. They endured time enough for treaties which benefited themselves andhave done infinite mischief to our cause. But, granting him his strangethesis, that hitherto the mere form or the mere term of theirconstitutions, and not their indisposition, but their instability, hasbeen the cause of their not preserving the relations of amity, --howcould a constitution which might not last half an hour after the noblelord's signature of the treaty, in the company in which he must sign it, insure its observance? If you trouble yourself at all with theirconstitutions, you are certainly more concerned with them after thetreaty than before it, as the observance of conventions is of infinitelymore consequence than the making them. Can anything be more palpablyabsurd and senseless than to object to a treaty of peace for want ofdurability in constitutions which had an actual duration, and to trust aconstitution that at the time of the writing had not so much as apractical existence? There is no way of accounting for such discourse inthe mouths of men of sense, but by supposing that they secretlyentertain a hope that the very act of having made a peace with theRegicides will give a stability to the Regicide system. This will notclear the discourse from the absurdity, but it will account for theconduct, which such reasoning so ill defends. What a roundabout way isthis to peace, --to make war for the destruction of regicides, and thento give them peace in order to insure a stability that will enable themto observe it! I say nothing of the honor displayed in such a system. Itis plain it militates with itself almost in all the parts of it. In onepart, it supposes stability in their Constitution, as a ground of astable peace; in another part, we are to hope for peace in a differentway, --that is, by splitting this brilliant orb into little stars, andthis would make the face of heaven so fine! No, there is no system uponwhich the peace which in humility we are to supplicate can possiblystand. 

I believe, before this time, that the more form of a constitution, inany country, never was fixed as the sole ground of objecting to a treatywith it. With other circumstances it may be of great moment. What isincumbent on the assertors of the Fourth Week of October system to proveis not whether their then expected Constitution was likely to be stableor transitory, but whether it promised to this country and its allies, and to the peace and settlement of all Europe, more good-will or moregood faith than any of the experiments which have gone before it. Onthese points I would willingly join issue. 

Observe first the manner in which the Remarker describes (very truly, asI conceive) the people of France under that auspicious government, andthen observe the conduct of that government to other nations. "Thepeople without _any_ established constitution; distracted by popularconvulsions; in a state of inevitable bankruptcy; without any commerce;with their principal ports blockaded; and without a fleet that couldventure to face one of our _detached squadrons_. " Admitting, as fully ashe has stated it, this condition of France, I would fain know how hereconciles this condition with his ideas of _any kind of a practicableconstitution_, or _duration for a limited period_, which are his _sinequa non_ of peace. But passing by contradictions, as no fair objectionsto reasoning, this state of things would naturally, at other times, andin other governments, have produced a disposition to peace, almost onany terms. But, in that state of their country, did the Regicidegovernment solicit peace or amity with other nations, or even lay anyspecious grounds for it, in propositions of affected moderation, or inthe most loose and general conciliatory language? The direct contrary. It was but a very few days before the noble writer had commenced hisRemarks, as if it were to refute him by anticipation, that his Francethought fit to lay out a new territorial map of dominion, and to declareto us and to all Europe what territories she was willing to allot to herown empire, and what she is content (during her good pleasure) to leaveto others. 

This their law of empire was promulgated without any requisition on thatsubject, and proclaimed in a style and upon principles which never hadbeen heard of in the annals of arrogance and ambition. She prescribedthe limits to her empire, not upon principles of treaty, convention, possession, usage, habitude, the distinction of tribes, nations, orlanguages, but by physical aptitudes. Having fixed herself as thearbiter of physical dominion, she construed the limits of Nature by herconvenience. That was Nature which most extended and best secured theempire of France. 

I need say no more on the insult offered not only to all equity andjustice, but to the common sense of mankind, in deciding legal propertyby physical principles, and establishing the convenience of a party as arule of public law. The noble advocate for peace has, indeed, perfectlywell exploded this daring and outrageous system of pride and tyranny. Iam most happy in commending him, when he writes like himself. But hearstill further and in the same good strain the great patron and advocateof amity with this accommodating, mild, and unassuming power, when hereports to you the law they give, and its immediate effects:--"Theyamount, " says he, "to the sacrifice of powers that have been the mostnearly connected with us, --the direct or indirect annexation to Franceof all the ports of the Continent from Dunkirk to Hamburg, --an immenseaccession of territory, --and, in one word, THE ABANDONMENT OF THEINDEPENDENCE OF EUROPE!" This is the LAW (the author and I use nodifferent terms) which this new government, almost as soon as it couldcry in the cradle, and as one of the very first acts by which itauspicated its entrance into function, the pledge it gives of thefirmness of its policy, --such is the law that this proud powerprescribes to abject nations. What is the comment upon this law by thegreat jurist who recommends us to the tribunal which issued the decree?"An obedience to it would be" (says he) "dishonorable to us, and exhibitus to the present age and to posterity as submitting to the lawprescribed to us by our enemy. "

Here I recognize the voice of a British plenipotentiary: I begin to feelproud of my country. But, alas! the short date of human elevation! Theaccents of dignity died upon his tongue. This author will not assure usof his sentiments for the whole of a pamphlet; but, in the soleenergetic part of it, he does not continue the same through an wholesentence, if it happens to be of any sweep or compass. In the very wombof this last sentence, pregnant, as it should seem, with a Hercules, there is formed a little bantling of the mortal race, a degenerate, punyparenthesis, that totally frustrates our most sanguine views andexpectations, and disgraces the whole gestation. Here is thisdestructive parenthesis: "Unless some adequate compensation be secured_to us_. " _To us!_ The Christian world may shift for itself, Europe maygroan in slavery, we may be dishonored by receiving law from anenemy, --but all is well, provided the compensation _to us_ be adequate. To what are we reserved? An _adequate_ compensation "for the sacrificeof powers the most nearly connected with us";--an _adequate_compensation "for the direct or indirect annexation to France of all theports of the Continent from Dunkirk to Hamburg";--an _adequate_compensation "for the abandonment of the independence of Europe"! Wouldthat, when all our manly sentiments are thus changed, our manly languagewere changed along with them, and that the English tongue were notemployed to utter what our ancestors never dreamed could enter into anEnglish heart!

But let us consider this matter of adequate compensation. Who is tofurnish it? From what funds is it to be drawn? Is it by another treatyof commerce? I have no objections to treaties of commerce uponprinciples of commerce. Traffic for traffic, --all is fair. But commercein exchange for empire, for safety, for glory! We set out in our dealingwith a miserable cheat upon ourselves. I know it may be said, that wemay prevail on this proud, philosophical, military Republic, which looksdown with contempt on trade, to declare it unfit for the sovereign ofnations to be _eundem negotiatorem et dominum_: that, in virtue of thismaxim of her state, the English in France may be permitted, as the Jewsare in Poland and in Turkey, to execute all the little ingloriousoccupations, --to be the sellers of new and the buyers of old clothes, tobe their brokers and factors, and to be employed in casting up theirdebits and credits, whilst the master Republic cultivates the arts ofempire, prescribes the forms of peace to nations, and dictates laws to asubjected world. But are we quite sure, that, when we have surrenderedhalf Europe to them in hope of this compensation, the Republic willconfer upon us those privileges of dishonor? Are we quite certain thatshe will permit us to farm the guillotine, --to contract for theprovision of her twenty thousand Bastiles, --to furnish transports forthe myriads of her exiles to Guiana, --to become commissioners for hernaval stores, --or to engage for the clothing of those armies which areto subdue the poor relics of Christian Europe? No! She is bespoke by theJew subjects of her own Amsterdam for all these services. 

But if these, or matters similar, are not the compensations the Remarkerdemands, and that on consideration he finds them neither adequate norcertain, who else is to be the chapman, and to furnish thepurchase-money, at this market, of all the grand principles of empire, of law, of civilization, of morals, and of religion, where British faithand honor are to be sold by inch of candle? Who is to be the _dedecorumpretiosus emptor_? Is it the _navis Hispanæ magister_? Is it to befurnished by the Prince of Peace? Unquestionably. Spain as yet possessesmines of gold and silver, and may give us in _pesos duros_ an adequatecompensation for our honor and our virtue. When these things are at allto be sold, they are the vilest commodities at market. 

It is full as singular as any of the other singularities in this work, that the Remarker, talking so much as he does of cessions andcompensations, passes by Spain in his general settlement, as if therewere no such country on the globe, --as if there were no Spain in Europe, no Spain in America. But this great matter of political deliberationcannot be put out of our thoughts by his silence. She _has_ furnishedcompensations, --not to you, but to France. The Regicide Republic and thestill nominally subsisting monarchy of Spain are united, --and are unitedupon a principle of jealousy, if not of bitter enmity, to Great Britain. The noble writer has here another matter for meditation. It is not fromDunkirk to Hamburg that the ports are in the hands of France: they arein the hands of France from Hamburg to Gibraltar. How long the newdominion will last I cannot tell; but France the Republic has conqueredSpain, and the ruling party in that court acts by her orders and existsby her power. 

The noble writer, in his views into futurity, has forgotten to look backto the past. If he chooses it, he may recollect, that, on the prospectof the death of Philip the Fourth, and still more on the event, allEurope was moved to its foundations. In the treaties of partition thatfirst were entered into, and in the war that afterwards blazed out toprevent those crowns from being actually or virtually united in theHouse of Bourbon, the predominance of France in Spain, and above all, inthe Spanish Indies, was the great object of all these movements in thecabinet and in the field. The Grand Alliance was formed upon thatapprehension. On that apprehension the mighty war was continued duringsuch a number of years as the degenerate and pusillanimous impatience ofour dwindled race can hardly bear to have reckoned: a war equal, withina few years, in duration, and not, perhaps, inferior in bloodshed, toany of those great contests for empire which in history make the mostawful matter of recorded memory. 

 Ad confligendum venientibus undique Poenis, Omnia cum belli trepido concussa tumultu Horrida contremuere sub altis ætheris auris, In dubioque fuit sub utrorum regna cadendum Omnibus humanis esset terrâque marique. --

When this war was ended, (I cannot stay now to examine how, ) the objectof the war was the object of the treaty. When it was foundimpracticable, or less desirable than before, wholly to exclude a branchof the Bourbon race from that immense succession, the point of Utrechtwas to prevent the mischiefs to arise from the influence of the greaterupon the lesser branch. His Lordship is a great member of the diplomaticbody; he has, of course, all the fundamental treaties which make thepublic statute law of Europe by heart: and, indeed, no active member ofParliament ought to be ignorant of their general tenor and leadingprovisions. In the treaty which closed that war, and of which it is afundamental part, because relating to the whole policy of the compact, it was agreed that Spain should not give anything from her territory inthe West Indies to France. This article, apparently onerous to Spain, was in truth highly beneficial. But, oh, the blindness of the greateststatesman to the infinite and unlooked-for combinations of things whichlie hid in the dark prolific womb of futurity! The great trunk ofBourbon is cut down; the withered branch is worked up into theconstruction of a French Regicide Republic. Here we have formed a new, unlooked-for, monstrous, heterogeneous alliance, --a double-naturedmonster, republic above and monarchy below. There is no centaur offiction, no poetic satyr of the woods, nothing short of the hieroglyphicmonsters of Egypt, dog in head and man in body, that can give an idea ofit. None of these things can subsist in Nature (so, at least, it isthought); but the moral world admits monsters which the physicalrejects. 

In this metamorphosis, the first thing done by Spain, in the honey-moonof her new servitude, was, with all the hardihood of pusillanimity, utterly to defy the most solemn treaties with Great Britain and theguaranty of Europe. She has yielded the largest and fairest part of oneof the largest and fairest islands in the West Indies, perhaps on theglobe, to the usurped powers of France. She completes the title of thosepowers to the whole of that important central island of Hispaniola. Shehas solemnly surrendered to the regicides and butchers of the Bourbonfamily what that court never ventured, perhaps never wished, to bestowon the patriarchal stock of her own august house. 

The noble negotiator takes no notice of this portentous junction andthis audacious surrender. The effect is no less than the totalsubversion of the balance of power in the West Indies, and indeedeverywhere else. This arrangement, considered in itself, but much moreas it indicates a complete union of France with Spain, is trulyalarming. Does he feel nothing of the change this makes in that part ofhis description of the state of France where he supposes her not able toface one of our detached squadrons? Does he feel nothing for thecondition of Portugal under this new coalition? Is it for this state ofthings he recommends our junction in that common alliance as a remedy?It is surely already monstrous enough. We see every standing principleof policy, every old governing opinion of nations, completely gone, andwith it the foundation of all their establishments. Can Spain keepherself internally where she is, with this connection? Does he dreamthat Spain, unchristian, or even uncatholic, can exist as a monarchy?This author indulges himself in speculations of the division of theFrench Republic. I only say, that with much greater reason he mightspeculate on the republicanism and the subdivision of Spain. 

It is not peace with France which secures that feeble government; it isthat peace which, if it shall continue, decisively ruins Spain. Such apeace is not the peace which the remnant of Christianity celebrates atthis holy season. In it there is no glory to God on high, and not theleast tincture of good-will to man. What things we have lived to see!The King of Spain in a group of Moors, Jews, and Renegadoes; and theclergy taxed to pay for his conversion! The Catholic King in the strictembraces of the most Unchristian Republic! I hope we shall never see hisApostolic Majesty, his Faithful Majesty, and the King, Defender of theFaith, added to that unhallowed and impious fraternity. 

The noble author has glimpses of the consequences of peace, as well asI. He feels for the colonies of Great Britain, one of the principalresources of our commerce and our naval power, if piratical France shallbe established, as he knows she must be, in the West Indies, if we suefor peace on such terms as they may condescend to grant us. He feelsthat their very colonial system for the interior is not compatible withthe existence of our colonies. I tell him, and doubt not I shall be ableto demonstrate, that, being what she is, if she possesses a rock there, we cannot be safe. Has this author had in his view the transactionsbetween the Regicide Republic and the yet nominally subsisting monarchyof Spain?

I bring this matter under your Lordship's consideration, that you mayhave a more complete view than this author chooses to give of the _trueFrance_ you have to deal with, as to its nature, and to its force andits disposition. Mark it, my Lord, France, in giving her law to Spain, stipulated for none of her indemnities in Europe, no enlargementwhatever of her frontier. Whilst we are looking for indemnities fromFrance, betraying our own safety in a sacrifice of the independence ofEurope, France secures hers by the most important acquisition ofterritory ever made in the West Indies since their first settlement. Sheappears (it is only in appearance) to give up the frontier of Spain; andshe is compensated, not in appearance, but in reality, by a territorythat makes a dreadful frontier to the colonies of Great Britain. 

It is sufficiently alarming that she is to have the possession of thisgreat island. But all the Spanish colonies, virtually, are hers. Isthere so puny a whipster in the _petty form_ of the school of politicswho can be at a loss for the fate of the British colonies, when hecombines the French and Spanish consolidation with the known criticaland dubious dispositions of the United States of America, as they are atpresent, but which, when a peace is made, when the basis of a Regicideascendency in Spain is laid, will no longer be so good as dubious andcritical? But I go a great deal further; and on much consideration ofthe condition and circumstances of the West Indies, and of the genius ofthis new republic, as it has operated and is likely to operate on them, I say, that, if a single rock in the West Indies is in the hands of this_transatlantic Morocco_, we have not an hour's safety there. 

The Remarker, though he slips aside from the main consideration, seemsaware that this arrangement, standing as it does, in the West Indies, leaves us at the mercy of the new coalition, or rather at the mercy ofthe sole guiding part of it. He does not, indeed, adopt a suppositionsuch as I make, who am confident that anything which can give them asingle good port and opportune piratical station there would lead to ourruin: the author proceeds upon an idea that the Regicides may be anexisting and considerable territorial power in the West Indies, and, ofcourse, her piratical system more dangerous and as real. However, forthat desperate case he has an easy remedy; but, surely, in his wholeshop there is nothing so extraordinary. It is, that we three, France, Spain, and England, (there are no other of any moment, ) should adoptsome "_analogy_ in the interior systems of government in the severalislands which we may respectively retain after the closing of the war. "This plainly can be done only by a convention between the parties; and Ibelieve it would be the first war ever made to terminate in an analogyof the interior government of any country, or any parts of suchcountries. Such a partnership in domestic government is, I think, carrying fraternity as far as it will go. 

It will be an affront to your sagacity to pursue this matter into allits details: suffice it to say, that, if this convention for analogousdomestic government is made, it immediately gives a right for theresidence of a consul (in all likelihood some negro or man of color) inevery one of your islands; a Regicide ambassador in London will be atall your meetings of West India merchants and planters, and, in effect, in all our colonial councils. Not one order of Council can hereafter bemade, or any one act of Parliament relative to the West India colonieseven be agitated, which will not always afford reasons for protests andperpetual interference; the Regicide Republic will become an integralpart of the colonial legislature, and, so far as the colonies areconcerned, of the British too. But it will be still worse: as all ourdomestic affairs are interlaced more or less intimately with ourexternal, this intermeddling must everywhere insinuate itself into allother interior transactions, and produce a copartnership in our domesticconcerns of every description. 

Such are the plain, inevitable consequences of this arrangement of asystem, of analogous interior government. On the other hand, without it, the author assures us, and in this I heartily agree with him, "that thecorrespondence and communications between the neighboring colonies willbe great, that the disagreements will be incessant, and that causes evenof national quarrels will arise _from day to day_. " Most true. But, forthe reasons I have given, the case, if possible, will be worse by theproposed remedy, by the triple fraternal interior analogy, --an analogyitself most fruitful, and more foodful than the old Ephesian statue withthe three tier of breasts. Your Lordship must also observe howinfinitely this business must be complicated by our interference in theslow-paced Saturnian movements of Spain and the rapid parabolic flightsof France. But such is the disease, --such is the cure, --such is, andmust be, the effect of Regicide vicinity. 

But what astonishes me is, that the negotiator, who has certainly anexercised understanding, did not see that every person habituated tosuch meditations must necessarily pursue the train of thought furtherthan he has carried it, and must ask himself whether what he states sotruly of the necessity of our arranging an analogous interiorgovernment, in consequence of the vicinity of our possessions, in theWest Indies, does not as extensively apply, and much more forcibly, tothe circumstance of our much nearer vicinity with the parent and authorof this mischief. I defy even his acuteness and ingenuity to show me anyone point in which the cases differ, except that it is plainly morenecessary in Europe than in America. Indeed, the further we trace thedetails of the proposed peace, the more your Lordship will be satisfiedthat I have not been guilty of any abuse of terms, when I useindiscriminately (as I always do, in speaking of arrangements withRegicide) the words peace and fraternity. An analogy between ourinterior governments must be the consequence. The noble negotiator seesit as well as I do. I deprecate this Jacobin interior analogy. Buthereafter, perhaps, I may say a good deal more upon this part of thesubject. 

The noble lord insists on very little more than on the excellence oftheir Constitution, the hope of their dwindling into little republics, and this close copartnership in government. I hear of others, indeed, that offer by other arguments to reconcile us to this peace andfraternity. The Regicides, they say, have renounced the creed of theRights of Man, and declared equality a chimera. This is still morestrange than all the rest. They have apostatized from their apostasy. They are renegadoes from that impious faith for which they subverted theancient government, murdered their king, and imprisoned, butchered, confiscated, and banished their fellow-subjects, and to which theyforced every man to swear at the peril of his life. And now, toreconcile themselves to the world, they declare this creed, bought by somuch blood, to be an imposture and a chimera. I have no doubt that theyalways thought it to be so, when they were destroying everything at homeand abroad for its establishment. It is no strange thing, to those wholook into the nature of corrupted man, to find a violent persecutor aperfect unbeliever of his own creed. But this is the very first timethat any man or set of men were hardy enough to attempt to lay theground of confidence in them by an acknowledgment of their ownfalsehood, fraud, hypocrisy, treachery, heterodox doctrine, persecution, and cruelty. Everything we hear from them is new, and, touse a phrase of their own, _revolutionary_; everything supposes a totalrevolution in all the principles of reason, prudence, and moral feeling. If possible, this their recantation of the chief parts in the canon ofthe Rights of Man is more infamous and causes greater horror than theiroriginally promulgating and forcing down the throats of mankind thatsymbol of all evil. It is raking too much into the dirt and ordure ofhuman nature to say more of it. 

I hear it said, too, that they have lately declared in favor ofproperty. This is exactly of the same sort with the former. What needhad they to make this declaration, if they did not know that by theirdoctrines and practices they had totally subverted all property? Whatgovernment of Europe, either in its origin or its continuance, hasthought it necessary to declare itself in favor of property? The morerecent ones were formed for its protection against former violations;the old consider the inviolability of property and their own existenceas one and the same thing, and that a proclamation for its safety wouldbe sounding an alarm on its danger. But the Regicide banditti knew thatthis was not the first time they have been obliged to give suchassurances, and had as often falsified them. They knew, that, afterbutchering hundreds of men, women, and children, for no other cause thanto lay hold on their property, such a declaration might have a chance ofencouraging other nations to run the risk of establishing a commercialhouse amongst them. It is notorious, that these very Jacobins, upon analarm of the shopkeeper of Paris, made this declaration in favor ofproperty. These brave fellows received the apprehensions expressed onthat head with indignation, and said that property could be in nodanger, because all the world knew it was under the protection of the_sans-culottes_. At what period did they not give this assurance? Didthey not give it; when they fabricated their first Constitution? Didthey not then solemnly declare it one of the rights of a citizen (aright, of course, only declared, and not then fabricated) to depart fromhis country, and choose another _domicilium_, without detriment to hisproperty? Did they not declare that no property should be confiscatedfrom the children for the crime of the parent? Can they now declare morefully their respect for property than they did at that time? And yet wasthere ever known such horrid violences and confiscations as instantlyfollowed under the very persons now in power, many of them leadingmembers of that Assembly, and all of them violators of that engagementwhich was the very basis of their republic, --confiscations in whichhundreds of men, women, and children, not guilty of one act of duty inresisting their usurpation, were involved? This keeping of their old is, then, to give us a confidence in their new engagements. But examine thematter, and you will see that the prevaricating sons of violence give norelief at all, where at all it can be wanted. They renew their oldfraudulent declaration against confiscations, and then they expresslyexclude all adherents to their ancient lawful government from anybenefit of it: that is to say, they promise that they will secure alltheir brother plunderers in their share of the common plunder. The fearof being robbed by every new succession of robbers, who do not keep eventhe faith of that kind of society, absolutely required that they shouldgive security to the dividends of spoil, else they could not exist amoment. But it was necessary, in giving security to robbers, that honestmen should be deprived of all hope of restitution; and thus theirinterests were made utterly and eternally incompatible. So that itappears that this boasted security of property is nothing more than aseal put upon its destruction; this ceasing of confiscation is to securethe confiscators against the innocent proprietors. That very thing whichis held out to you as your cure is that which makes your malady, andrenders it, if once it happens, utterly incurable. You, my Lord, whopossess a considerable, though not an invidious estate, may be wellassured, that, if, by being engaged, as you assuredly would be, in thedefence of your religion, your king, your order, your laws, andliberties, that estate should be put under confiscation, the propertywould be secured, but in the same manner, at your expense. 

But, after all, for what purpose are we told of this reformation intheir principles, and what is the policy of all this softening in ours, which is to be produced by their example? It is not to soften us tosuffering innocence and virtue, but to mollify us to the crimes and tothe society of robbers and ruffians. But I trust that our countrymenwill not be softened to that kind of crimes and criminals; for, if weshould, our hearts will be hardened to everything which has a claim onour benevolence. A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred ofthe unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves fromcruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty are accomplices in it. Thepretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancor produces anindifference which is half an approbation. They never will love wherethey ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate. 

There is another piece of policy, not more laudable than this, inreading these moral lectures, which lessens our hatred to criminals andour pity to sufferers by insinuating that it has been owing to theirfault or folly that the latter have become the prey of the former. Byflattering us that we are not subject to the same vices and follies, itinduces a confidence that we shall not suffer the same evils by acontact with the infamous gang of robbers who have thus robbed andbutchered our neighbors before our faces. We must not be flattered toour ruin. Our vices are the same as theirs, neither more nor less. Ifany faults we had, which wanted this French example to call us to a"_softening_ of character, and a review of our social relations andduties, " there is yet no sign that we have commenced our reformation. Weseem, by the best accounts I have from the world, to go on just asformerly, "some to undo, and some to be undone. " There is no change atall: and if we are not bettered by the sufferings of war, this peace, which, for reasons to himself best known, the author fixes as the periodof our reformation, must have something very extraordinary in it;because hitherto ease, opulence, and their concomitant pleasure havenever greatly disposed mankind to that serious reflection and reviewwhich the author supposes to be the result of the approaching peace withvice and crime. I believe he forms a right estimate of the nature ofthis peace, and that it will want many of those circumstances whichformerly characterizes that state of things. 

If I am right in my ideas of this new republic, the different states ofpeace and war will make no difference in her pursuits. It is not anenemy of accident that we have to deal with. Enmity to us, and to allcivilized nations, is wrought into the very stamina of its Constitution. It was made to pursue the purposes of that fundamental enmity. Thedesign will go on regularly in every position and in every relation. Their hostility is to break us to their dominion; their amity is todebauch us to their principles. In the former, we are to contend withtheir force; in the latter, with their intrigues. But we stand in a verydifferent posture of defence in the two situations. In war, so long asgovernment is supported, we fight with the whole united force of thekingdom. When under the name of peace the war of intrigue begins, we donot contend against our enemies with the whole force of the kingdom. No, --we shall have to fight, (if it should be a fight at all, and not anignominious surrender of everything which has made our country venerablein our eyes and dear to our hearts, ) we shall have to light with but aportion of our strength against the whole of theirs. Gentlemen who notlong since thought with us, but who now recommend a Jacobin peace, wereat that time sufficiently aware of the existence of a dangerous Jacobinfaction within this kingdom. Awhile ago they seemed to be tremblinglyalive to the number of those who composed it, to their dark subtlety, totheir fierce audacity, to their admiration of everything that passes inFrance, to their eager desire of a close communication with the motherfaction there. At this moment, when the question is upon the opening ofthat communication, not a word of our English Jacobins. That faction isput out of sight and out of thought. "It vanished at the crowing of thecock. " Scarcely had the Gallic harbinger of peace and light begun toutter his lively notes, than all the cackling of us poor Tory geese toalarm the garrison of the Capitol was forgot. [11] There was enough ofindemnity before. Now a complete act of oblivion is passed about theJacobins of England, though one would naturally imagine it would make aprincipal object in all fair deliberation upon the merits of a projectof amity with the Jacobins of France. But however others may choose toforget the faction, the faction does not choose to forget itself, nor, however gentlemen may choose to flatter themselves, it does not forgetthem. 

Never, in any civil contest, has a part been taken with more of thewarmth, or carried on with more of the arts of a party. The Jacobins areworse than lost to their country. Their hearts are abroad. Theirsympathy with the Regicides of France is complete. Just as in a civilcontest, they exult in all their victories, they are dejected andmortified in all their defeats. Nothing that the Regicides can do (andthey have labored hard for the purpose) can alienate them from theircause. You and I, my dear Lord, have often observed on the spirit oftheir conduct. When the Jacobins of France, by their studied, deliberated, catalogued files of murders with the poniard, the sabre, and the tribunal, have shocked whatever remained of human sensibilityin our breasts, then it was they distinguished the resources of partypolicy. They did not venture directly to confront the public sentiment;for a very short time they seemed to partake of it. They began with areluctant and sorrowful confession; they deplored the stains whichtarnished the lustre of a good cause. After keeping a decent time ofretirement, in a few days crept out an apology for the excesses of mencruelly irritated by the attacks of unjust power. Grown bolder, as thefirst feeling of mankind decayed and the color of these horrors began tofade upon the imagination, they proceeded from apology to defence. Theyurged, but still deplored, the absolute necessity of such a proceeding. Then they made a bolder stride, and marched from defence torecrimination. They attempted to assassinate the memory of those whosebodies their friends had massacred, and to consider their murder as aless formal act of justice. They endeavored even to debauch our pity, and to suborn it in favor of cruelty. They wept over the lot of thosewho were driven by the crimes of aristocrats to republican vengeance. Every pause of their cruelty they considered as a return of theirnatural sentiments of benignity and justice. Then they had recourse tohistory, and found out all the recorded cruelties that deform the annalsof the world, in order that the massacres of the Regicides might passfor a common event, and even that the most merciful of princes, whosuffered by their hands, should bear the iniquity of all the tyrants whohave at any time infested the earth. In order to reconcile us the betterto this republican tyranny, they confounded the bloodshed of war withthe murders of peace; and they computed how much greater prodigality ofblood was exhibited in battles and in the storm of cities than in thefrugal, well-ordered massacres of the revolutionary tribunals of France. 

As to foreign powers, so long as they were conjoined with Great Britainin this contest, so long they were treated as the most abandonedtyrants, and, indeed, the basest of the human race. The moment any ofthem quits the cause of this government, and of all governments, he isrehabilitated, his honor is restored, all attainders are purged. Thefriends of Jacobins are no longer despots; the betrayers of the commoncause are no longer traitors. 

That you may not doubt that they look on this war as a civil war, andthe Jacobins of France as of their party, and that they look upon us, though locally their countrymen, in reality as enemies, they have neverfailed to run a parallel between our late civil war and this war withthe Jacobins of France. They justify their partiality to those Jacobinsby the partiality which was shown by several here to the Colonies, andthey sanction their cry for peace with the Regicides of France by someof our propositions for peace with the English in America. 

This I do not mention as entering into the controversy how far they areright or wrong in this parallel, but to show that they do make it, andthat they do consider themselves as of a party with the Jacobins ofFrance. You cannot forget their constant correspondence with theJacobins, whilst it was in their power to carry it on. When thecommunication is again opened, the interrupted correspondence willcommence. We cannot be blind to the advantage which such a party affordsto Regicide France in all her views, --and, on the other hand, what anadvantage Regicide France holds out to the views of the republican partyin England. Slightly as they have considered their subject, I think thiscan hardly have escaped the writers of political ephemerides for anymonth or year. They have told us much of the amendment of the Regicidesof France, and of their returning honor and generosity. Have they toldanything of the reformation and of the returning loyalty of the Jacobinsof England? Have they told us of _their_ gradual softening towardsroyalty? Have they told us what measures _they_ are taking for "puttingthe crown in commission, " and what approximations of any kind _they_ aremaking towards the old Constitution of their country? Nothing of this. The silence of these writers is dreadfully expressive. They dare nottouch the subject. But it is not annihilated by their silence, nor byour indifference. It is but too plain that our Constitution cannot existwith such a communication. Our humanity, our manners, our morals, ourreligion, cannot stand with such a communication. The Constitution ismade by those things, and for those things: without them it cannotexist; and without them it is no matter whether it exists or not. 

It was an ingenious Parliamentary Christmas play, by which, in bothHouses, you anticipated the holidays; it was a relaxation from yourgraver employment; it was a pleasant discussion you had, which part ofthe family of the Constitution was the elder branch, --whether one partdid not exist prior to the others, and whether it might exist andflourish, if "the others were cast into the fire. "[12] In order to makethis Saturnalian amusement general in the family, you sent it downstairs, that judges and juries might partake of the entertainment. Theunfortunate antiquary and augur who is the butt of all this sport maysuffer in the roistering horse-play and practical jokes of the servants'hall. But whatever may become of him, the discussion itself, and thetiming it, put me in mind of what I have read, (where I do notrecollect, ) that the subtle nation of the Greeks were busily employed, in the Church of Santa Sophia, in a dispute of mixed natural philosophy, metaphysics, and theology, whether the light on Mount Tabor was createdor uncreated, and were ready to massacre the holders of theunfashionable opinion, at the very moment when the ferocious enemy ofall philosophy and religion, Mahomet the Second, entered through abreach into the capital of the Christian world. I may possibly suffermuch more than Mr. Reeves (I shall certainly give much more generaloffence) for breaking in upon this constitutional amusement concerningthe created or uncreated nature of the two Houses of Parliament, and bycalling their attention to a problem which may entertain them less, butwhich concerns them a great deal more, --that is, whether, with thisGallic Jacobin fraternity, which they are desired by some writers tocourt, all the parts of the government, about whose combustible orincombustible qualities they are contending, may "not be cast into thefire" together. He is a strange visionary (but he is nothing worse) whofancies that any one part of our Constitution, whatever right ofprimogeniture it may claim, or whatever astrologers may divine from itshoroscope, can possibly survive the others. As they have lived, so theywill die, together. I must do justice to the impartiality of theJacobins. I have not observed amongst _them_ the least predilection forany of those parts. If there has been any difference in their malice, Ithink they have shown a worse disposition to the House of Commons thanto the crown. As to the House of Lords, they do not speculate at allabout it, and for reasons that are too obvious to detail. 

The question will be concerning the effect of this French fraternity onthe whole mass. Have we anything to apprehend from Jacobincommunication, or have we not? If we have not, is it by our experiencebefore the war that we are to presume that after the war no dangerouscommunion can exist between those who are well affected to the newConstitution of France and ill affected to the old Constitution here?

In conversation I have not yet found nor heard of any persons, exceptthose who undertake to instruct the public, so unconscious of the actualstate of things, or so little prescient of the future, who do notshudder all over and feel a secret horror at the approach of thiscommunication. I do not except from this observation those who arewilling, more than I find myself disposed, to submit to this fraternity. Never has it been mentioned in my hearing, or from what I can learn inmy inquiry, without the suggestion of an Alien Bill, or some othermeasures of the same nature, as a defence against its manifest mischief. Who does not see the utter insufficiency of such a remedy, if such aremedy could be at all adopted? We expel suspected foreigners fromhence; and we suffer every Englishman to pass over into France to beinitiated in all the infernal discipline of the place, to cabal and tobe corrupted by every means of cabal and of corruption, and then toreturn to England, charged with their worst dispositions and designs. InFrance he is out of the reach of your police; and when he returns toEngland, one such English emissary is worse than a legion of French, whoare either tongue-tied, or whose speech betrays them. But the worstaliens are the ambassador and his train. These you cannot expel withouta proof (always difficult) of direct practice against the state. AFrench ambassador, at the head of a French party, is an evil which wehave never experienced. The mischief is by far more visible than theremedy. But, after all, every such measure as an Alien Bill is a measureof hostility, a preparation for it, or a cause of dispute that shallbring it on. In effect, it is fundamentally contrary to a relation ofamity, whose essence is a perfectly free communication. Everything doneto prevent it will provoke a foreign war. Everything, when we let itproceed, will produce domestic distraction. We shall be in a perpetualdilemma. But it is easy to see which side of the dilemma will be taken. The same temper which brings us to solicit a Jacobin peace will induceus to temporize with all the evils of it. By degrees our minds will bemade to our circumstances. The novelty of such things, which produceshalf the horror and all the disgust, will be worn off. Our ruin will bedisguised in profit, and the sale of a few wretched baubles will bribe adegenerate people to barter away the most precious jewel of their souls. Our Constitution is not made for this kind of warfare. It providesgreatly for our happiness, it furnishes few means for our defence. Itis formed, in a great measure, upon the principle of jealousy of thecrown, --and as things stood, when it took that turn, with very greatreason. I go farther: it must keep alive some part of that fire ofjealousy eternally and chastely burning, or it cannot be the BritishConstitution. At various periods we have had tyranny in this country, more than enough. We have had rebellions with more or lessjustification. Some of our kings have made adulterous connectionsabroad, and trucked away for foreign gold the interests and glory oftheir crown. But, before this time, our liberty has never beencorrupted. I mean to say, that it has never been debauched from itsdomestic relations. To this time it has been English liberty, andEnglish liberty only. Our love of liberty and our love of our countrywere not distinct things. Liberty is now, it seems, put upon a largerand more liberal bottom. We are men, --and as men, undoubtedly, nothinghuman is foreign to us. We cannot be too liberal in our general wishesfor the happiness of our kind. But in all questions on the mode ofprocuring it for any particular community, we ought to be fearful ofadmitting those who have no interest in it, or who have, perhaps, aninterest against it, into the consultation. Above all, we cannot be toocautious in our communication with those who seek their happiness byother roads than those of humanity, morals, and religion, and whoseliberty consists, and consists alone, in being free from thoserestraints which are imposed by the virtues upon the passions. 

When we invite danger from a confidence in defensive measures, we ought, first of all, to be sure that it is a species of danger against whichany defensive measures that can be adopted will be sufficient. Next, weought to know that the spirit of our laws, or that our own dispositions, which are stronger than laws, are susceptible of all those defensivemeasures which the occasion may require. A third consideration is, whether these measures will not bring more odium than strength togovernment; and the last, whether the authority that makes them, in ageneral corruption of manners and principles, can insure theirexecution. Let no one argue, from the state of things, as he sees themat present, concerning what will be the means and capacities ofgovernment, when the time arrives which shall call for remediescommensurate to enormous evils. 

It is an obvious truth, that no constitution can defend itself: it mustbe defended by the wisdom and fortitude of men. These are what noconstitution can give: they are the gifts of God; and He alone knowswhether we shall possess such gifts at the time we stand in need ofthem. Constitutions furnish the civil means of getting at the natural:it is all that in this case they can do. But our Constitution has moreimpediments than helps. Its excellencies, when they come to be put tothis sort of proof, may be found among its defects. 

Nothing looks more awful and imposing than an ancient fortification. Itslofty, embattled walls, its bold, projecting, rounded towers, thatpierce the sky, strike the imagination and promise inexpugnablestrength. But they are the very things that make its weakness. You mayas well think of opposing one of these old fortresses to the mass ofartillery brought by a French irruption into the field as to think ofresisting by your old laws and your old forms the new destruction whichthe corps of Jacobin engineers of to-day prepare for all such forms andall such laws. Besides the debility and false principle of theirconstruction to resist the present modes of attack, the fortress itselfis in ruinous repair, and there is a practicable breach in every part ofit. 

Such is the work. But miserable works have been defended by theconstancy of the garrison. Weather-beaten ships have been brought safeto port by the spirit and alertness of the crew. But it is here that weshall eminently fail. The day that, by their consent, the seat ofRegicide has its place among the thrones of Europe, there is no longer amotive for zeal in their favor; it will at best be cold, unimpassioned, dejected, melancholy duty. The glory will seem all on the other side. The friends of the crown will appear, not as champions, but as victims;discountenanced, mortified, lowered, defeated, they will fall intolistlessness and indifference. They will leave things to take theircourse, enjoy the present hour, and submit to the common fate. 

Is it only an oppressive nightmare with which we have been loaded? Isit, then, all a frightful dream, and are there no regicides in theworld? Have we not heard of that prodigy of a ruffian who would notsuffer his benignant sovereign, with his hands tied behind him, andstripped for execution, to say one parting word to his deludedpeople, --of Santerre, who commanded the drums and trumpets to strike upto stifle his voice, and dragged him backward to the machine of murder!This nefarious villain (for a few days I may call him so) stands high inFrance, as in a republic of robbers and murderers he ought. Whathinders this monster from being sent as ambassador to convey to hisMajesty the first compliments of his brethren, the Regicide Directory?They have none that can represent them more properly. I anticipate theday of his arrival. He will make his public entry into London on one ofthe pale horses of his brewery. As he knows that we are pleased with theParis taste for the orders of knighthood, [13] he will fling a bloodysash across his shoulders, with the order of the holy guillotinesurmounting the crown appendant to the riband. Thus adorned, he willproceed from Whitechapel to the further end of Pall Mall, all the musicof London playing the Marseillaise Hymn before him, and escorted by achosen detachment of the _Légion de l'Échafaud_. It were only to bewished that no ill-fated loyalist, for the imprudence of his zeal, maystand in the pillory at Charing Cross, under the statue of King Charlesthe First, at the time of this grand procession, lest some of the rotteneggs which the Constitutional Society shall let fly at his indiscreethead may hit the virtuous murderer of his king. They might soil thestate dress which the ministers of so many crowned heads have admired, and in which Sir Clement Cotterel is to introduce him at St. James's. 

If Santerre cannot be spared from the constitutional butcheries at home, Tallien may supply his place, and, in point of figure, with advantage. He has been habituated to commissions; and he is as well qualified asSanterre for this. Nero wished the Roman people had but one neck. Thewish of the more exalted Tallien, when he sat in judgment, was, that hissovereign had eighty-three heads, that he might send one to every one ofthe Departments. Tallien will make an excellent figure at Guildhall atthe next Sheriff's feast. He may open the ball with my Lady Mayoress. But this will be after he has retired from the public table, and goneinto the private room for the enjoyment of more social and unreservedconversation with the ministers of state and the judges of the bench. There these ministers and magistrates will hear him entertain the worthyaldermen with an instructing and pleasing narrative of the manner inwhich he made the rich citizens of Bordeaux squeak, and gently led themby the public credit of the guillotine to disgorge theiranti-revolutionary pelf. 

All this will be the display, and the town-talk, when our regicide is ona visit of ceremony. At home nothing will equal the pomp and splendor ofthe _Hôtel de la République_. There another scene of gaudy grandeur willbe opened. When his Citizen Excellency keeps the festival, which everycitizen is ordered to observe, for the glorious execution of Louis theSixteenth, and renews his oath of detestation of kings, a grand ball ofcourse will be given on the occasion. Then what a hurly-burly! what acrowding! what a glare of a thousand flambeaux in the square! what aclamor of footmen contending at the door! what a rattling of a thousandcoaches of duchesses, countesses, and Lady Marys, choking the way, andoverturning each other, in a struggle who should be first to pay hercourt to the _Citoyenne_, the spouse of the twenty-first husband, hethe husband of the thirty-first wife, and to hail her in the rank ofhonorable matrons before the four days' duration of marriage isexpired!--Morals, as they were, decorum, the great outguard of the sex, and the proud sentiment of honor, which makes virtue more respectable, where it is, and conceals human frailty, where virtue may not be, willbe banished from this land of propriety, modesty, and reserve. 

We had before an ambassador from the most Christian King. We shall havethen one, perhaps two, as lately, from the most Anti-Christian Republic. His chapel will be great and splendid, formed on the model of the Templeof Reason at Paris; while the famous ode of the infamous Chénier will besung, and a prostitute of the street adored as a goddess. We shall thenhave a French ambassador without a suspicion of Popery. One good it willhave: it will go some way in quieting the minds of that synod of zealousProtestant lay elders who govern Ireland on the pacific principles ofpolemic theology, and who now, from dread of the Pope, cannot take acool bottle of claret, or enjoy an innocent Parliamentary job, with anytolerable quiet. 

So far as to the French communication here:--what will be the effect ofour communication there? We know that our new brethren, whilst theyeverywhere shut up the churches, increased in Paris, at one time atleast fourfold, the opera-houses, the playhouses, the public shows ofall kinds; and even in their state of indigence and distress, no expensewas spared for their equipment and decoration. They were made an affairof state. There is no invention of seduction, never wholly wanting inthat place, that has not been increased, --brothels, gaming-houses, everything. And there is no doubt, but, when they are settled in atriumphant peace, they will carry all these arts to their utmostperfection, and cover them with every species of imposing magnificence. They have all along avowed them as a part of their policy; and whilstthey corrupt young minds through pleasure, they form them to crimes. Every idea of corporal gratification is carried to the highest excess, and wooed with all the elegance that belongs to the senses. All eleganceof mind and manners is banished. A theatrical, bombastic, windyphraseology of heroic virtue, blended and mingled up with a worsedissoluteness, and joined to a murderous and savage ferocity, forms thetone and idiom of their language and their manners. Any one, who attendsto all their own descriptions, narratives, and dissertations, will findin that whole place more of the air of a body of assassins, banditti, housebreakers, and outlawed smugglers, joined to that of a gang ofstrolling players expelled from and exploded orderly theatres, withtheir prostitutes in a brothel, at their debauches and bacchanals, thananything of the refined and perfected virtues, or the polished, mitigated vices of a great capital. 

Is it for this benefit we open "the usual relations of peace and amity"?Is it for this our youth of both sexes are to form themselves by travel?Is it for this that with expense and pains we form their lisping infantaccents to the language of France? I shall be told that this abominablemedley is made rather to revolt young and ingenuous minds. So it is inthe description. So perhaps it may in reality to a chosen few. So it maybe, when the magistrate, the law, and the church frown on such manners, and the wretches to whom they belong, --when they are chased from theeye of day, and the society of civil life, into night-cellars and cavesand woods. But when these men themselves are the magistrates, --when allthe consequence, weight, and authority of a great nation adoptthem, --when we see them conjoined with victory, glory, power, anddominion, and homage paid to them by every government, --it is notpossible that the downhill should not be slid into, recommended byeverything which has opposed it. Let it be remembered that no young mancan go to any part of Europe without taking this place of pestilentialcontagion in his way; and whilst the less active part of the communitywill be debauched by this travel, whilst children are poisoned at theseschools, our trade will put the finishing hand to our ruin. No factorywill be settled in France, that will not become a club of completeFrench Jacobins. The minds of young men of that description will receivea taint in their religion, their morals, and their politics, which theywill in a short time communicate to the whole kingdom. 

Whilst everything prepares the body to debauch and the mind to crime, aregular church of avowed atheism, established by law, with a direct andsanguinary persecution of Christianity, is formed to prevent allamendment and remorse. Conscience is formally deposed from its dominionover the mind. What fills the measure of horror is, that schools ofatheism are set up at the public charge in every part of the country. That some English parents will be wicked enough to send their childrento such schools there is no doubt. Better this island should be sunk tothe bottom of the sea than that (so far as human infirmity admits) itshould not be a country of religion and morals!

With all these causes of corruption, we may well judge what the generalfashion of mind will be through both sexes and all conditions. Suchspectacles and such examples will overbear all the laws that everblackened the cumbrous volumes of our statutes. When royalty shall havedisavowed itself, --when it shall have relaxed all the principles of itsown support, --when it has rendered the system of Regicide fashionable, and received it as triumphant, in the very persons who have consolidatedthat system by the perpetration, of every crime, who have not onlymassacred the prince, but the very laws and magistrates which were thesupport of royalty, and slaughtered with an indiscriminate proscription, without regard to either sex or age, every person that was suspected ofan inclination to king, law, or magistracy, --I say, will any one dare tobe loyal? Will any one presume, against both authority and opinion, tohold up this unfashionable, antiquated, exploded Constitution?

The Jacobin faction in England must grow in strength and audacity; itwill be supported by other intrigues and supplied by other resourcesthan yet we have seen in action. Confounded at its growth, thegovernment may fly to Parliament for its support. But who will answerfor the temper of a House of Commons elected under these circumstances?Who will answer for the courage of a House of Commons to arm the crownwith the extraordinary powers that it may demand? But the ministers willnot venture to ask half of what they know they want. They will lose halfof that half in the contest; and when they have obtained their nothing, they will be driven by the cries of faction either to demolish thefeeble works they have thrown up in a hurry, or, in effect, to abandonthem. As to the House of Lords, it is not worth mentioning. The peersought naturally to be the pillars of the crown; but when their titlesare rendered contemptible, and their property invidious, and a part oftheir weakness, and not of their strength, they will be found so manydegraded and trembling individuals, who will seek by evasion to put offthe evil day of their ruin. Both Houses will be in perpetual oscillationbetween abortive attempts at energy and still more unsuccessful attemptsat compromise. You will be impatient of your disease, and abhorrent ofyour remedy. A spirit of subterfuge and a tone of apology will enterinto all your proceedings, whether of law or legislation. Your judges, who now sustain so masculine an authority, will appear more on theirtrial than the culprits they have before them. The awful frown ofcriminal justice will be smoothed into the silly smile of seduction. Judges will think to insinuate and soothe the accused into convictionand condemnation, and to wheedle to the gallows the most artful of alldelinquents. But they will not be so wheedled. They will not submit evento the appearance of persons on their trial. Their claim to thisexemption will be admitted. The place in which some of the greatestnames which ever distinguished the history of this country have stoodwill appear beneath their dignity. The criminal will climb from the dockto the side-bar, and take his place and his tea with the counsel. Fromthe bar of the counsel, by a natural progress, he will ascend to thebench, which long before had been virtually abandoned. They who escapefrom justice will not suffer a question upon reputation. They will takethe crown of the causeway; they will be revered as martyrs; they willtriumph as conquerors. Nobody will dare to censure that popular part ofthe tribunal whose only restraint on misjudgment is the censure of thepublic. They who find fault with the decision will be represented asenemies to the institution. Juries that convict for the crown will beloaded with obloquy. The juries who acquit will be held up as models ofjustice. If Parliament orders a prosecution, and fails, (as fail itwill, ) it will be treated to its face as guilty of a conspiracymaliciously to prosecute. Its care in discovering a conspiracy againstthe state will be treated as a forged plot to destroy the liberty of thesubject: every such discovery, instead of strengthening government, willweaken its reputation. 

In this state things will be suffered to proceed, lest measures of vigorshould precipitate a crisis. The timid will act thus from character, thewise from necessity. Our laws had done all that the old condition ofthings dictated to render our judges erect and independent; but theywill naturally fail on the side upon which they had taken noprecautions. The judicial magistrates will find themselves safe asagainst the crown, whose will is not their tenure; the power ofexecuting their office will be held at the pleasure of those who dealout fame or abuse as they think fit. They will begin rather to consulttheir own repose and their own popularity than the critical and periloustrust that is in their hands. They will speculate on consequences, whenthey see at court an ambassador whose robes are lined with a scarletdyed in the blood of judges. It is no wonder, nor are they to blame, when they are to consider how they shall answer for their conduct to thecriminal of to-day turned into the magistrate of to-morrow. 

The press------

The army------

When thus the helm of justice is abandoned, an universal abandonment ofall other posts will succeed. Government will be for a while the sportof contending factions, who, whilst they fight with one another, willall strike at her. She will be buffeted and beat forward and backward bythe conflict of those billows, until at length, tumbling from the Galliccoast, the victorious tenth wave shall ride, like the bore, over all therest, and poop the shattered, weather-beaten, leaky, water-loggedvessel, and sink her to the bottom of the abyss. 

Among other miserable remedies that have been found in the _materiamedica_, of the old college, a change of ministry will be proposed, andprobably will take place. They who go out can never long with zeal andgood-will support government in the hands of those they hate. In asituation of fatal dependence on popularity, and without one aid fromthe little remaining power of the crown, it is not to be expected thatthey will take on them that odium which more or less attaches upon everyexertion of strong power. The ministers of popularity will lose alltheir credit at a stroke, if they pursue any of those means necessary togive life, vigor, and consistence to government. They will be consideredas venal wretches, apostates, recreant to all their own principles, acts, and declarations. They cannot preserve their credit, but bybetraying that authority of which they are the guardians. 

To be sure, no prognosticating symptoms of these things have as yetappeared, --nothing even resembling their beginnings. May they neverappear! May these prognostications of the author be justly laughed atand speedily forgotten! If nothing as yet to cause them has discovereditself, let us consider, in the author's excuse, that we have not yetseen a Jacobin legation in England. The natural, declared, sworn ally ofsedition has not yet fixed its head-quarters in London. 

There never was a political contest, upon better or worse grounds, thatby the heat of party-spirit may not ripen into civil confusion. If evera party adverse to the crown should be in a condition here publicly todeclare itself, and to divide, however unequally, the natural force ofthe kingdom, they are sure of an aid of fifty thousand men, at ten days'warning, from the opposite coast of France. But against this infusion ofa foreign force the crown has its guaranties, old and new. But I shouldbe glad to hear something said of the assistance which loyal subjects inFrance have received from other powers in support of that lawfulgovernment which secured their lawful property. I should be glad toknow, if they are so disposed to a neighborly, provident, andsympathetic attention to their public engagements, by what means theyare to come at us. Is it from the powerful states of Holland we are toreclaim our guaranty? Is it from the King of Prussia, and his steadygood affections, and his powerful navy, that we are to look for theguaranty of our security? Is it from the Netherlands, which the Frenchmay cover with the swarms of their citizen-soldiers in twenty-fourhours, that we are to look for this assistance? This is to suppose, too, that all these powers have no views offensive or necessities defensiveof their own. They will cut out work for one another, and France willcut out work for them all. 

That the Christian religion cannot exist in this country with such afraternity will not, I think, be disputed with me. On that religion, according to our mode, all our laws and institutions stand, as upontheir base. That scheme is supposed in every transaction of life; and ifthat were done away, everything else, as in France, must be changedalong with it. Thus, religion perishing, and with it this Constitution, it is a matter of endless meditation what order of things would followit. But what disorder would fill the space between the present and thatwhich is to come, in the gross, is no matter of doubtful conjecture. Itis a great evil, that of a civil war. But, in that state of things, acivil war, which would give to good men and a good cause some means ofstruggle, is a blessing of comparison that England will not enjoy. Themoment the struggle begins, it ends. They talk of Mr. Hume's euthanasiaof the British Constitution gently expiring, without a groan, in thepaternal arms of a mere monarchy. In a monarchy!--fine triflingindeed!--there is no such euthanasia for the British Constitution. 

 * * * * *

The manuscript copy of this Letter ends here. 

FOOTNOTES:

[9] Here I have fallen into an unintentional mistake. Rider's Almanackfor 1794 lay before me; and, in troth, I then had no other. For variety, that sage astrologer has made some small changes on the weather side of1795; but the caution is the same on the opposite page of instruction. 

[10] _Souverains opprimés_. --See the whole proceeding in the_Procès-Verbal_ of the National Assembly. 

[11]

 Hic auratis volitans argenteus anser Porticibus GALLOS in limine adesse canebat. 

[12] See debates in Parliament upon motions made in both Houses forprosecuting Mr. Reeves for a libel upon the Constitution, Dec. , 1795. 

[13] "In the costume assumed by the members of the legislative body wealmost behold the revival of the extinguished insignia of knighthood, "&c. , &c. --See _A View of the Relative State of Great Britain and Franceat the Commencement of the Year_ 1796. 

A

LETTER

TO

THE EMPRESS OF RUSSIA. 

NOVEMBER 1, 1791. 

Madam, --The Comte de Woronzow, your Imperial Majesty's minister, and Mr. Fawkener, have informed me of the very gracious manner in which yourImperial Majesty, and, after your example, the Archduke and Archduchess, have condescended to accept my humble endeavors in the service of thatcause which connects the rights and duties of sovereigns with the trueinterest and happiness of their people. 

If, confiding in titles derived from your own goodness, I venture toaddress directly to your Imperial Majesty the expressions of mygratitude for so distinguished an honor, I hope it will not be thought apresumptuous intrusion. I hope, too, that the willing homage I pay tothe high and ruling virtues which distinguish your Imperial Majesty, andwhich form the felicity of so large a part of the world, will not belooked upon as the language of adulation to power and greatness. In myhumble situation, I can behold majesty in its splendor without beingdazzled, and I am capable of respecting it in its fall. 

It is, Madam, from my strong sense of what is due to dignity inundeserved misfortune, that I am led to felicitate your Imperial Majestyon the use you have lately made of your power. The princes and nobilityof France, who from honor and duty, from blood and from principle, areattached to that unhappy crown, have experienced your favor andcountenance; and there is no doubt that they will finally enjoy the fullbenefit of your protection. The generosity of your Imperial Majesty hasinduced you to take an interest in their cause; and your sagacity hasmade you perceive that in the case of the sovereign of France the causeof all sovereigns is tried, --that in the case of its church, the causeof all churches, --and that in the case of its nobility is tried thecause of all the respectable orders of all society, and even of societyitself. 

Your Imperial Majesty has sent your minister to reside where the crownof France, in this disastrous eclipse of royalty, can alone truly andfreely be represented, that is, in its royal blood, --where alone thenation can be represented, that is, in its natural and inherent dignity. A throne cannot be represented by a prison. The honor of a nation cannotbe represented by an assembly which disgraces and degrades it: atCoblentz only the king and the nation of France are to be found. 

Your Imperial Majesty, who reigns and lives for glory, has nobly andwisely disdained to associate your crown with a faction which has forits object the subversion of all thrones. 

You have not recognized this universal public enemy as a part of thesystem of Europe. You have refused to sully the lustre of your empire byany communion with a body of fanatical usurpers and tyrants, drawn outof the dregs of society, and exalted to their evil eminence by theenormity of their crimes, --an assemblage of tyrants, wholly destitute ofany distinguished qualification in a single person amongst them, thatcan command reverence from our reason, or seduce it from ourprejudices. These enemies of sovereigns, if at all acknowledged, must beacknowledged on account of that enmity alone: they have nothing else torecommend them. 

Madam, it is dangerous to praise any human virtue before theaccomplishment of the tasks which it imposes on itself. But inexpressing my part of what I hope is, or will become, the general voice, in admiration of what you have done, I run no risk at all. With yourImperial Majesty, declaration and execution, beginning and conclusion, are, at their different seasons, one and the same thing. 

On the faith and declaration of some of the first potentates of Europe, several thousands of persons, comprehending the best men and the bestgentlemen in France, have given up their country, their houses, theirfortunes, their professional situation, their all, and are now inforeign lands, struggling under the most grievous distresses. Whateverappearances may menace, nobody fears that they can be finally abandoned. Such a dereliction could not be without a strong imputation on thepublic and private honor of sovereignty itself, nor without anirreparable injury to its interests. It would give occasion to representmonarchs as natural enemies to each other, and that they never supportor countenance any subjects of a brother prince, except when they rebelagainst him. We individuals, mere spectators of the scene, but who sockour liberties under the shade of legal authority, and of coursesympathize with the sufferers in that cause, never can permit ourselvesto believe that such an event can disgrace the history of our time. Theonly thing to be feared is delay, in winch are included many mischiefs. The constancy of the oppressed will be broken; the power of tyrantswill be confirmed. Already the multitude of French officers, drawn fromtheir several corps by hopes inspired by the freely declared dispositionof sovereigns, have left all the posts in which they might one day haveeffectually served the good cause abandoned to the enemy. 

Tour Imperial Majesty's just influence, which is still greater than yourextensive power, will animate and expedite the efforts of othersovereigns. From your wisdom other states will learn that they who waituntil all the powers of Europe are at once in motion can never move atall. It would add to the unexampled calamities of our time, if theuncommon union of sentiment in so many powers should prove the verycause of defeating the benefit which ought to flow from their generalgood disposition. No sovereign can run any risk from the designs ofother powers, whilst engaged in tins glorious and necessary work. If anyattempt could be feared, your Imperial Majesty's power and justice wouldsecure your allies against all danger. Madam, your glory will becomplete, if, after having given peace to Europe by your moderation, youshall bestow stability on all its governments by your vigor anddecision. The debt which your Imperial Majesty's august predecessorshave contracted to the ancient manners of Europe, by means of which theycivilized a vast empire, will be nobly repaid by preserving thosemanners from the hideous change with which they are now menaced. By theintervention of Russia the world will be preserved from barbarism andruin. 

A private individual, of a remote country, in himself wholly withoutimportance, unauthorized and unconnected, not as an English subject, but as a citizen of the world, presumes to submit his thoughts to one ofthe greatest and wisest sovereigns that Europe has seen. He does itwithout fear, because he does not involve in his weakness (if such itis) his king, his country, or his friends. He is not' afraid that heshall offend your Imperial Majesty, --because, secure in itself, truegreatness is always accessible, and because respectfully to speak whatwe conceive to be truth is the best homage which can be paid to truedignity. 

I am, Madam, with the utmost possible respect and veneration, Your Imperial Majesty's

Most obedient and most humble servant, EDM. BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, November 1st, 1791. 

A

LETTER

TO

SIR CHARLES BINGHAM, BART. , ON THE

IRISH ABSENTEE TAX. 

OCTOBER 30, 1773. 

NOTE. 

 From authentic documents found with the copy of this Letter among Mr. Burke's papers, it appears that in the year 1773 a project of imposing a tax upon all proprietors of landed estates in Ireland, whose ordinary residence should be in Great Britain, had been adopted and avowed by his Majesty's ministers at that time. A remonstrance against this measure, as highly unjust and impolitic, was presented to the ministers by several of the principal Irish absentees, and the project was subsequently abandoned. 

LETTER. 

Dear Sir, --I am much flattered by your very obliging letter, and therather because it promises an opening to our future correspondence. Thismay be my only indemnification for very great losses. One of the mostodious parts of the proposed Absentee Tax is its tendency to separatefriends, and to make as ugly breaches in private society as it must makein the unity of the great political body. I am sure that much of thesatisfaction of some circles in London will be lost by it. Do you thinkthat our friend Mrs. Vesey will suffer her husband to vote for a taxthat is to destroy the evenings at Bolton Row? I trust we shall haveother supporters of the same sex, equally powerful, and equallydeserving to be so, who will not abandon the common cause of their ownliberties and our satisfactions. We shall be barbarized on both sides ofthe water, if we do not see one another now and then. _We_ shall sinkinto surly, brutish Johns, and _you_ will degenerate into wild Irish. Itis impossible that we should be the wiser or the more agreeable, certainly we shall not love one another the better, for this forcedseparation, which our ministers, who have already done so much for thedissolution of every other sort of good connection, are now meditatingfor the further improvement of this too well united empire. Their nextstep will be to encourage all the colonies, about thirty separategovernments, to keep their people from all intercourse with each otherand with the mother country. A gentleman of New York or Barbadoes willbe as much gazed at as a strange animal from Nova Zembla or Otaheite;and those rogues, the travellers, will tell us what stories they pleaseabout poor old Ireland. 

In all seriousness, (though I am a great deal more than half serious inwhat I have been saying, ) I look upon this projected tax in a very evillight; I think it is not advisable; I am sure it is not necessary; andas it is not a mere matter of finance, but involves a political questionof much, importance, I consider the principle and precedent as far worsethan the thing itself. You are too kind in imagining I can suggestanything new upon the subject. The objections to it are very glaring, and must strike the eyes of all those who have not their reasons forshutting them against evident truth. I have no feelings or opinions onthis subject which I do not partake with all the sensible and informedpeople that I meet with. At first I could scarcely meet with any one whocould believe that this scheme originated from the English government. They considered it not only as absurd, but as something monstrous andunnatural. In the first instance, it strikes at the power of thiscountry; in the end, at the union of the whole empire. I do not mean toexpress, most certainly I do not entertain in my mind, anythinginvidious concerning the superintending authority of Great Britain. Butif it be true that the several bodies which make up this complicatedmass are to be preserved as one empire, an authority sufficient topreserve that unity, and by its equal weight and pressure toconsolidate the various parts that compose it, must reside somewhere:that somewhere can only be in England. Possibly any one member, distinctly taken, might decide in favor of that residence within itself;but certainly no member would give its voice for any other except this. So that I look upon the residence of the supreme power to be settledhere: not by force, or tyranny, or even by mere long usage, but by thevery nature of things, and the joint consent of the whole body. 

If all this be admitted, then without question this country must havethe sole right to the imperial legislation: by which I mean that lawwhich regulates the polity and economy of the several parts, as theyrelate to one another and to the whole. But if any of the parts, which(not for oppression, but for order) are placed in a subordinatesituation, will assume to themselves the power of hindering or checkingthe resort of their municipal subjects to the centre, or even to anyother part of the empire, they arrogate to themselves the imperialrights, which do not, which cannot, belong to them, and, so far as inthem lies, destroy the happy arrangement of the entire empire. 

A free communication by _discretionary residence_ is necessary to allthe other purposes of communication. For what purpose are the Irish andPlantation laws sent hither, but as means of preserving this sovereignconstitution? Whether such a constitution was originally right or wrongthis is not the time of day to dispute. If any evils arise from it, letus not strip it of what may be useful in it. By taking the English PrivyCouncil into your legislature, you obtain a new, a further, and possiblya more liberal consideration of all your acts. If a local legislatureshall by oblique means tend to deprive any of the people of thisbenefit, and shall make it penal to them to follow into England the lawswhich may affect them, then the English Privy Council will have todecide upon your acts without those lights that may enable them to judgeupon what grounds you made them, or how far they ought to be modified, received, or rejected. 

To what end is the ultimate appeal in judicature lodged in this kingdom, if men may be disabled from following their suits here, and may be taxedinto an absolute _denied of justice_? You observe, my dear Sir, that Ido not assert that in all cases two shillings will necessarily cut offthis means of correcting legislative and judicial mistakes, and thusamount to a denial of justice. I might, indeed, state cases in whichthis very quantum of tax would be fully sufficient to defeat this right. But I argue not on the case, but on the principle, and I am sure theprinciple implies it. They who may restrain may prohibit; they who mayimpose two shillings may impose ten shillings in the pound; and thosewho may condition the tax to six months' annual absence may carry thatcondition to six weeks, or even to six days, and thereby totally defeatthe wise means which have been provided for extensive and impartialjustice, and for orderly, well-poised, and well-connected government. 

What is taxing the resort to and residence in any place, but declaringthat your connection with that place is a grievance? Is not such anIrish tax as is now proposed a virtual declaration that England is aforeign country, and a renunciation on your part of the principle of_common naturalization_, which runs through this whole empire?

Do you, or does any Irish gentleman, think it a mean privilege, that, the moment he sets his foot upon this ground, he is to all intents andpurposes an Englishman? You will not be pleased with a law which by itsoperation tends to disqualify you from a seat in this Parliament; and ifyour own virtue or fortune, or if that of your children, should carryyou or them to it, should you like to be excluded from the possibilityof a peerage in this kingdom? If in Ireland we lay it down as a maxim, that a residence in Great Britain is a political evil, and to bediscouraged by penal taxes, you must necessarily reject all theprivileges and benefits which are connected with such a residence. 

I can easily conceive that a citizen of Dublin, who looks no furtherthan his counter, may think that Ireland will be repaid for such a lossby any small diminution of taxes, or any increase in the circulation ofmoney that may be laid out in the purchase of claret or groceries in hiscorporation. In such a man an error of that kind, as it would benatural, would be excusable. But I cannot think that any educated man, any man who looks with an enlightened eye on the interest of Ireland, can believe that it is not highly for the advantage of Ireland, thatthis Parliament, which, whether right or wrong, whether we will or not, will make some laws to bind Ireland, should always have in it somepersons who by connection, by property, or by early prepossessions andaffections, are attached to the welfare of that country. I am so clearupon this point, not only from the clear reason of the thing, but fromthe constant course of my observation, by now having sat eight sessionsin Parliament, that I declare it to you as my sincere opinion, that (ifyou must do either the one or the other) it would be wiser by far, andfar better for Ireland, that some new privileges should attend theestates of Irishmen, members of the two Houses here, than that theircharacters should be stained by penal impositions, and their propertiesloaded by unequal and unheard-of modes of taxation. I do really trust, that, when the matter comes a little to be considered, a majority of ourgentlemen will never consent to establish such a principle ofdisqualification against themselves and their posterity, and, for thesake of gratifying the schemes of a transitory administration of thecockpit or the castle, or in compliance with the lightest part of themost vulgar and transient popularity, fix so irreparable an injury onthe permanent interest of their country. 

This law seems, therefore, to me to go directly against the fundamentalpoints of the legislative and judicial constitution of these kingdoms, and against the happy communion of their privileges. But there isanother matter in the tax proposed, that contradicts as essentially avery great principle necessary for preserving the union of the variousparts of a state; because it does, in effect, discountenance mutualintermarriage and inheritance, things that bind countries more closelytogether than any laws or constitutions whatsoever. Is it right that awoman who marries into Ireland, and perhaps well purchases her jointureor her dower there, should not after her husband's death have it in herchoice to return to her country and her friends without being taxed forit? If an Irish heiress should marry into an English family, and thatgreat property in both countries should thereby come to be united inthis common issue, shall the descendant of that marriage abandon hisnatural connection, his family interests, his public and his privateduties, and be compelled to take up his residence in Ireland? Is thereany sense or any justice in it, unless you affirm that there should beno such intermarriage and no such mutual inheritance between thenatives? Is there a shadow of reason, that, because a Lord Rockingham, aDuke of Devonshire, a Sir George Savile, possess property in Ireland, which has descended to them without any act of theirs, they shouldabandon their duty in Parliament, and spend the winters in Dublin? or, having spent the session in Westminster, must they abandon their seatsand all their family interests in Yorkshire and Derbyshire, and pass therest of the year in Wicklow, in Cork, or Tyrone?

See what the consequence must be from a municipal legislatureconsidering itself as an unconnected body, and attempting to enforce apartial residence. A man may have property in more parts than two ofthis empire. He may have property in Jamaica and in North America, aswell as in England and Ireland. I know some that have property in all ofthem. What shall we say to this case? After the poor distracted citizenof the whole empire has, in compliance with your partial law, removedhis family, bid adieu to his connections, and settled himself quietlyand snug in a pretty box by the Liffey, he hears that the Parliament ofGreat Britain is of opinion that all English estates ought to be spentin England, and that they will tax him double, if he does not return. Suppose him then (if the nature of the two laws will permit it)providing a flying camp, and dividing his year as well as he canbetween England and Ireland, and at the charge of two town houses andtwo country-houses in both kingdoms; in this situation he receives anaccount, that a law is transmitted from Jamaica, and another fromPennsylvania, to tax absentees from these provinces, which areimpoverished by the European residence of the possessors of their lands. How is he to escape this _ricochet_ cross-firing of so many oppositebatteries of police and regulation? If he attempts to comply, he islikely to be more a citizen of the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea thanof any of these countries. The matter is absurd and ridiculous, and, while ever the idea of mutual marriages, inheritances, purchases, andprivileges subsist, can never be carried into execution with commonsense or common justice. 

I do not know how gentlemen of Ireland reconcile such an idea to theirown liberties, or to the natural use and enjoyment of their estates. Ifany of their children should be left in a minority, and a guardianshould think, as many do, (it matters not whether properly or no, ) thathis ward had better he educated in a school or university here than inIreland, is he sure that he can justify the bringing a tax of ten percent, perhaps twenty, on his pupil's estate, by giving what in hisopinion is the best education in general, or the best for that pupil'sparticular character and circumstances? Can he justify his sending himto travel, a necessary part of the higher style of education, and, notwithstanding what some narrow writers have said, of great benefit toall countries, but very particularly so to Ireland? Suppose a guardian, under the authority or pretence of such a tax of police, had preventedour dear friend, Lord Charlemont, from going abroad, would he have lostno satisfaction? would his friends have lost nothing in the companion?would his country have lost nothing in the cultivated taste with whichhe has adorned it in so many ways? His natural elegance of mind wouldundoubtedly do a great deal; but I will venture to assert, without thedanger of being contradicted, that he adorns his present residence inIreland much the more for having resided a long time out of it. Will Mr. Flood himself think he ought to have been driven by taxes into Ireland, whilst he prepared himself by an English education to understand and todefend the rights of the subject in Ireland, or to support the dignityof government there, according as his opinions, or the situation ofthings, may lead him to take either part, upon respectable principles? Ihope it is not forgot that an Irish act of Parliament sends its youth toEngland for the study of the law, and compels a residence in the inns ofcourt hero for some years. Will you send out with one breath and recallwith another? This act plainly provides for that intercourse whichsupposes the strictest union in laws and policy, in both which theintended tax supposes an entire separation. 

It would be endless to go into all the inconveniences this tax will leadto, in the conduct of private life, and the use of property. How manyinfirm people are obliged to change their climate, whose life dependsupon that change! How many families straitened in their circumstancesare there, who, from the shame, sometimes from the utter impossibilityotherwise of retrenching, are obliged to remove from their country, inorder to preserve their estates in their families! You begin, then, toburden these people precisely at the time when their circumstances ofhealth and fortune render them rather objects of relief andcommiseration. 

I know very well that a great proportion of the money of everysubordinate country will flow towards the metropolis. This isunavoidable. Other inconveniences, too, will result to particular parts:and why? Why, because they are particular parts, --each a member of agreater, and not an whole within itself. But those members are toconsider whether these inconveniences are not fully balanced, perhapsmore than balanced, by the united strength of a great and compact body. I am sensible, too, of a difficulty that will be started against theapplication of some of the principles which I reason upon to the case ofIreland. It will be said, that Ireland, in many particulars, is notbound to consider itself as a part of the British body; because thiscountry, in many instances, is mistaken enough to treat you asforeigners, and draws away your money by absentees, without sufferingyou to enjoy your natural advantages in trade and commerce. No manliving loves restrictive regulations of any kind less than myself; atbest, nine times in ten, they are little better than laborious andvexatious follies. Often, as in your case, they are great oppressions, as well as great absurdities. But still an injury is not always a reasonfor retaliation; nor is the folly of others with regard to us a reasonfor imitating it with regard to them. Before we attempt to retort, weought to consider whether we may not injure ourselves even more than ouradversary; since, in the contest who shall go the greatest length inabsurdity, the victor is generally the greatest sufferer. Besides, whenthere is an unfortunate emulation in restraints and oppressions, thequestion of _strength_ is of the highest importance. It little becomesthe feeble to be unjust. Justice is the shield of the weak; and whenthey choose to lay this down, and fight naked in the contest of merepower, the event will be what must be expected from such imprudence. 

I ought to beg your pardon for running into this length. You want noarguments to convince you on this subject, and you want no resources ofmatter to convince others. I ought, too, to ask pardon for havingdelayed my answer so long; but I received your letter on Tuesday, intown, and I was obliged to come to the country on business. From thecountry I write at present; but this day I shall go to town again. Ishall see Lord Rockingham, who has spared neither time nor trouble inmaking a vigorous opposition to this inconsiderate measure. I hope to beable to send you the papers which will give you information of the stepshe has taken. He has pursued this business with the foresight, diligence, and good sense with which he generally resistsunconstitutional attempts of government. A life of disinterestedness, generosity, and public spirit are his titles to have it believed thatthe effect which the tax may have upon his private property is not thesole nor the principal motive to his exertions. I know he is of opinionthat the opposition in Ireland ought to be carried on with that spiritas if no aid was expected from this country, and here as if nothingwould be done in Ireland: many things have been lost by not acting inthis manner. 

I am told that you are not likely to be alone in the generous stand youare to make against this unnatural monster of court popularity. It issaid, Mr. Hussey, who is so very considerable at present, and who iseverything in expectation, will give you his assistance. I rejoice tosee (that very rare spectacle) a good mind, a great genius, and publicactivity united together, and united so early in life. By not runninginto every popular humor, he may depend upon it, the popularity of hischaracter will wear the better. 

 Non ponebat enim rumores ante salutem; Ergo postque magisque viri nunc gloria claret. 

Adieu, my dear Sir. Give my best respects to Lady Bingham; and believeme, with great truth and esteem, Your most obedient and most humble servant, EDM. BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, 30th October, 1773. 

TO SIR CHARLES BINGHAM. 

A

LETTER

TO

THE HON. CHARLES JAMES FOX, ON THE AMERICAN WAR. 

OCTOBER 8, 1777. 

My Dear Charles, --I am, on many accounts, exceedingly pleased with yourjourney to Ireland. I do not think it was possible to dispose better ofthe interval between this and the meeting of Parliament. I told you asmuch, in the same general terms, by the post. My opinion of theinfidelity of that conveyance hindered me from being particular. I nowsit down with malice prepense to kill you with a very long letter, andmust take my chance for some safe method of conveying the dose. Before Isay anything to you of the place you are in, or the business of it, onwhich, by the way, a great deal might be said, I will turn myself to theconcluding part of your letter from Chatsworth. 

You are sensible that I do not differ from you in many things; and mostcertainly I do not dissent from the main of your doctrine concerning theheresy of depending upon contingencies. You must recollect how uniformmy sentiments have been on that subject. I have ever wished a settledplan of our own, founded in the very essence of the American business, wholly unconnected with the events of the war, and framed in such amanner as to keep up our credit and maintain our system at home, inspite of anything which may happen abroad. I am now convinced, by a longand somewhat vexatious experience, that such a plan is absolutelyimpracticable. I think with you, that some faults in the constitutionof those whom we must love and trust are among the causes of thisimpracticability; they are faults, too, that one can hardly wish themperfectly cured of, as I am afraid they are intimately connected withhonest, disinterested intentions, plentiful fortunes, assured rank, andquiet homes. A great deal of activity and enterprise can scarcely everbe expected from such men, unless some horrible calamity is just overtheir heads, or unless they suffer some gross personal insults frompower, the resentment of which may be as unquiet and stimulating aprinciple in their minds as ambition is in those of a differentcomplexion. To say the truth, I cannot greatly blame them. We live at atime when men are not repaid in fame for what they sacrifice in interestor repose. 

On the whole, when I consider of what discordant, and particularly ofwhat fleeting materials the opposition has been all along composed, andat the same time review what Lord Rockingham has done, with that andwith his own shattered constitution, for these last twelve years, Iconfess I am rather surprised that he has done so much and persevered solong, than that he has felt now and then some cold fits, and that hegrows somewhat languid and desponding at last. I know that he, and thosewho are much prevalent with him, though they are not thought so muchdevoted to popularity as others, do very much look to the people, andmore than I think is wise in them, who do so little to guide and directthe public opinion. Without this they act, indeed; but they act as itwere from compulsion, and because it is impossible, in their situation, to avoid taking some part. All this it is impossible to change, and tono purpose to complain of. 

As to that popular humor which is the medium we float in, if I candiscern anything at all of its present state, it is far worse than Ihave ever known or could ever imagine it. The faults of the people arenot popular vices; at least, they are not such as grow out of what weused to take to be the English temper and character. The greatest numberhave a sort of an heavy, lumpish acquiescence in government, withoutmuch respect or esteem for those that compose it. I really cannot avoidmaking some very unpleasant prognostics from this disposition of thepeople. I think that many of the symptoms must have struck you: I willmention one or two that are to me very remarkable. You must know that atBristol we grow, as an election interest, and even as a party interest, rather stronger than we were when I was chosen. We have just now amajority in the corporation. In this state of matters, what, think you, have they done? They have voted their freedom to Lord Sandwich and LordSuffolk!--to the first, at the very moment when the American privateerswere domineering in the Irish Sea, and taking the Bristol traders in theBristol Channel;--to the latter, when his remonstrances on the subjectof captures were the jest of Paris and of Europe. This fine step wastaken, it seems, in honor of the zeal of these two profound statesmen inthe prosecution of John the Painter: so totally negligent are they ofeverything essential, and so long and so deeply affected with trash themost low and contemptible; just as if they thought the merit of Sir JohnFielding was the most shining point in the character of greatministers, in the most critical of all times, and, of all others, themost deeply interesting to the commercial world! My best friends in thecorporation had no other doubts on the occasion than whether it did notbelong to me, by right of my representative capacity, to be the bearerof this auspicious compliment. In addition to this, if it could receiveany addition, they now employ me to solicit, as a favor of no smallmagnitude, that, after the example of Newcastle, they may be suffered toarm vessels for their own defence in the Channel. Their memorial, underthe seal of Merchants' Hall, is now lying on the table before me. Not asoul has the least sensibility, on finding themselves, now for the firsttime, obliged to act as if the community were dissolved, and, afterenormous payments towards the common protection, each part was to defenditself, as if it were a separate state. 

I don't mention Bristol as if that were the part furthest gone in thismortification. Far from it: I know that there is, rather, a little morelife in us than in any other place. In Liverpool they are literallyalmost ruined by this American war; but they love it as they suffer fromit. In short, from whatever I see, and from whatever quarter I hear, Iam convinced that everything that is not absolute stagnation isevidently a party-spirit very adverse to our politics, and to theprinciples from whence they arise. There are manifest marks of theresurrection of the Tory party. They no longer criticize, as alldisengaged people in the world will, on the acts of government; but theyare silent under every evil, and hide and cover up every ministerialblander and misfortune, with the officious zeal of men who think theyhave a party of their own to support in power. The Tories douniversally think their power and consequence involved in the success ofthis American business. The clergy are astonishingly warm in it; andwhat the Tories are, when embodied and united with their natural head, the crown, and animated by their clergy, no man knows better thanyourself. As to the Whigs, I think them far from extinct. They are, whatthey always were, (except by the able use of opportunities, ) by far theweakest party in this country. They have not yet learned the applicationof their principles to the present state of things; and as to theDissenters, the main effective part of the Whig strength, they are, touse a favorite expression of our American campaign style, "not all inforce. " They will do very little, and, as far as I can discern, arerather intimidated than provoked at the denunciations of the court inthe Archbishop of York's sermon. I thought that sermon rather imprudent, when I first saw it; but it seems to have done its business. 

In this temper of the people, I do not wholly wonder that our Northernfriends look a little towards events. In war, particularly, I am afraidit must be so. There is something so weighty and decisive in the eventsof war, something that so completely overpowers the imagination of thevulgar, that all counsels must in a great degree be subordinate to andattendant on them. I am sure it was so in the last war, very eminently. So that, on the whole, what with the temper of the people, the temper ofour own friends, and the domineering necessities of war, we must quietlygive up all ideas of any settled, preconcerted plan. We shall be luckyenough, if, keeping ourselves attentive and alert, we can contrive toprofit of the occasions as they arise: though I am sensible that thosewho are best provided with a general scheme are fittest to takeadvantage of all contingencies. However, to act with any people with theleast degree of comfort, I believe we must contrive a little toassimilate to their character. We must gravitate towards them, if wewould keep in the same system, or expect that they should approachtowards us. They are, indeed, worthy of much concession and management. I am quite convinced that they are the honestest public men that everappeared in this country, and I am sure that they are the wisest, byfar, of those who appear in it at present. None of those who arecontinually complaining of them, but are themselves just as chargeablewith all their faults, and have a decent stock of their own into thebargain. They (our friends) are, I admit, as you very truly representthem, but indifferently qualified for storming a citadel. After all, Godknows whether this citadel is to be stormed by them, or by anybody else, by the means they use, or by any means. I know that as they are, abstractedly speaking, to blame, so there are those who cry out againstthem for it, not with a friendly complaint, as we do, but with thebitterness of enemies. But I know, too, that those who blame them forwant of enterprise have shown no activity at all against the commonenemy: all their skill and all their spirit have been shown only inweakening, dividing, and indeed destroying their allies. What they areand what we are is now pretty evidently experienced; and it is certain, that, partly by our common faults, but much more by the difficulties ofour situation, and some circumstances of unavoidable misfortune, we arein little better than a sort of _cul-de-sac_. For my part, I do all Ican to give ease to my mind in this strange position. I remember, someyears ago, when I was pressing some points with great eagerness andanxiety, and complaining with great vexation to the Duke of Richmond ofthe little progress I make, he told me kindly, and I believe very truly, that, though he was far from thinking so himself, other people could notbe persuaded I had not some latent private interest in pushing thesematters, which I urged with an earnestness so extreme, and so muchapproaching to passion. He was certainly in the right. I am thoroughlyresolved to give, both to myself and to my friends, less vexation onthese subjects than hitherto I have done, --much less, indeed. 

If _you_ should grow too earnest, you will be still more inexcusablethan I was. Your having entered into affairs so much younger ought tomake them too familiar to you to be the cause of much agitation, and youhave much more before you for your work. Do not be in haste. Lay yourfoundations deep in public opinion. Though (as you are sensible) I havenever given you the least hint of advice about joining yourself in adeclared connection with our party, nor do I now, yet, as I love thatparty very well, and am clear that you are better able to serve themthan any man I know, I wish that things should be so kept as to leaveyou mutually very open to one another in all changes and contingencies;and I wish this the rather, because, in order to be very great, as I amanxious that you should be, (always presuming that you are disposed tomake a good use of power, ) you will certainly want some better supportthan merely that of the crown. For I much doubt, whether, with all yourparts, you are the man formed for acquiring real interior favor in thiscourt, or in any; I therefore wish you a firm ground in the country; andI do not know so firm and so sound a bottom to build on as ourparty. --Well, I have done with this matter; and you think I ought tohave finished it long ago. Now I turn to Ireland. 

Observe, that I have not heard a word of any news relative to it, fromthence or from London; so that I am only going to state to you myconjectures as to facts, and to speculate again on these conjectures. Ihave a strong notion that the lateness of our meeting is owing to theprevious arrangements intended in Ireland. I suspect they mean thatIreland should take a sort of lead, and act an efficient part in thiswar, both with men and money. It will sound well, when we meet, to tellus of the active zeal and loyalty of the people of Ireland, and contrastit with the rebellious spirit of America. It will be a populartopic, --the perfect confidence of Ireland in the power of the BritishParliament. From thence they will argue the little danger which anydependency of the crown has to apprehend from the enforcement of thatauthority. It will be, too, somewhat flattering to the countrygentlemen, who might otherwise begin to be sullen, to hold out that theburden is not wholly to rest upon them; and it will pique our pride tobe told that Ireland has cheerfully stepped forward: and when adependant of this kingdom has already engaged itself in another year'swar, merely for our dignity, how can we, who are principals in thequarrel, hold off? This scheme of policy seems to me so very obvious, and is likely to be of so much service to the present system, that Icannot conceive it possible they should neglect it, or something likeit. They have already put the people of Ireland to the proof. Have theynot borne the Earl of Buckinghamshire, the person who was employed tomove the fiery committee in the House of Lords in order to stimulate theministry to this war, who was in the chair, and who moved theresolutions?

It is within a few days of eleven years since I was in Ireland, and thenafter an absence of two. Those who have been absent from any scene foreven a much shorter time generally lose the true practical notion of thecountry, and of what may or may not be done in it. When I knew Ireland, it was very different from the state of England, where government is avast deal, the public something, but individuals comparatively verylittle. But if Ireland bears any resemblance to what it was some yearsago, neither government nor public opinion can do a great deal; almostthe whole is in the hands of a few leading people. The populace ofDublin, and some parts in the North, are in some sort an exception. Butthe Primate, Lord Hillsborough, and Lord Hertford have great sway in thelatter; and the former may be considerable or not, pretty much as theDuke of Leinster pleases. On the whole, the success of governmentusually depended on the bargain made with a very few men. The residentlieutenancy may have made some change, and given a strength togovernment, which formerly, I know, it had not; still, however, I am ofopinion, the former state, though in other hands perhaps, and in anothermanner, still continues. The house you are connected with is grown intoa much greater degree of power than it had, though it was veryconsiderable, at the period I speak of. If the D. Of L. Takes a popularpart, he is sure of the city of Dublin, and he has a young man attachedto him who stands very forward in Parliament and in profession, and, bywhat I hear, with more good-will and less envy than usually attends sorapid a progress. The movement of one or two principal men, if theymanage the little popular strength which is to be found in Dublin andUlster, may do a great deal, especially when money is to be saved andtaxes to be kept off. I confess I should despair of your succeeding withany of them, if they cannot be satisfied that every job which they canlook for on account of carrying this measure would be just as sure tothem for their ordinary support of government. They are essential togovernment, which at this time must not be disturbed, and theirneutrality will be purchased at as high a price as their allianceoffensive and defensive. Now, as by supporting they may get as much asby betraying their country, it must be a great leaning to turpitude thatcan make them take a part in this war. I am satisfied, that, if the Dukeof Leinster and Lord Shannon would act together, this business could notgo on; or if either of them took part with Ponsonby, it would have nobetter success. Hutchinson's situation is much altered since I saw you. To please Tisdall, he had been in a manner laid aside at the Castle. Itis now to be seen whether he prefers the gratification of his resentmentand his appetite for popularity, both of which are strong enough in him, to the advantages which his independence gives him, of making a newbargain, and accumulating new offices on his heap. Pray do not be asleepin this scene of action, --at this time, if I am right, the principal. The Protestants of Ireland will be, I think, in general, backward: theyform infinitely the greatest part of the landed and the moneyedinterests; and they will not like to pay. The Papists are reduced tobeasts of burden: they will give all they have, their shoulders, readilyenough, if they are flattered. Surely the state of Ireland ought foreverto teach parties moderation in their victories. People crushed by lawhave no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will beenemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to losewill always be dangerous, more or less. But this is not our presentbusiness. If all this should prove a dream, however, let it not hinderyou from writing to me and tolling me so. You will easily refute, inyour conversation, the little topics which they will set afloat: suchas, that Ireland is a boat, and must go with the ship; that, if theAmericans contended only for their liberties, it would bedifferent, --but since they have declared independence, and so forth--

You are happy in enjoying Townshend's company. Remember me to him. Howdoes he like his private situation in a country where he was the son ofthe sovereign?--Mrs. Burke and the two Richards salute you cordially. 

E. B. 

BEACONSFIELD, October 8th, 1777. 

A

LETTER

TO

THE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM, WITH

ADDRESSES TO THE KING, AND

THE BRITISH COLONISTS IN NORTH AMERICA, IN RELATION TO

THE MEASURES OF GOVERNMENT IN THE AMERICAN CONTEST, AND A PROPOSEDSECESSION OF THE OPPOSITION FROM PARLIAMENT. 

JANUARY, 1777. 

NOTE. 

 This Letter, with the two Addresses which follow it, was written upon occasion of a proposed secession from Parliament of the members in both Houses who had opposed the measures of government, in the contest between this country and the colonies in North America, from the time of the repeal of the Stamp Act. It appears, from an indorsement written by Mr. Burke on the manuscript, that he warmly recommended the measure, but (for what reasons is not stated) it was not adopted. 

LETTER

TO THE MARQUIS OF ROCKINGHAM. 

My Dear Lord, --I am afraid that I ought rather to beg your pardon fortroubling you at all in this season of repose, than to apologize forhaving been so long silent on the approaching business. It comes uponus, not indeed in the most agreeable manner, but it does come-upon us;and I believe your friends in general are in expectation of finding yourLordship resolved in what way you are to meet it. The deliberation isfull of difficulties; but the determination is necessary. 

The affairs of America seem to be drawing towards a crisis. The Howesare at this time in possession of, or are able to awe, the whole middlecoast of America, from Delaware to the western boundary of MassachusettsBay; the naval barrier on the side of Canada is broken; a great tract ofcountry is open for the supply of the troops; the river Hudson opens away into the heart of the provinces; and nothing can, in allprobability, prevent an early and offensive campaign. What the Americans_have_ done is, in their circumstances, truly astonishing; it is, indeed, infinitely more than I expected from them. But having done somuch, for some short time I began to entertain an opinion that theymight do more. It is now, however, evident that they cannot lookstanding armies in the face. They are inferior in everything, even innumbers, --I mean, in the number of those whom they keep in constant dutyand in regular pay. There seem, by the best accounts, not to be aboveten or twelve thousand men, at most, in their grand army. The rest aremilitia, and not wonderfully well composed or disciplined. They declinea general engagement, --prudently enough, if their object had been tomake the war attend upon a treaty of good terms of subjection; but whenthey look further, this will not do. An army that is obliged at alltimes and in all situations to decline an engagement may delay theirruin, but can never defend their country. Foreign assistance they havelittle or none, nor are likely soon to have more. France, in effect, hasno king, nor any minister accredited enough either with the court ornation to undertake a design of great magnitude. 

In this state of things, I persuade myself Franklin is come to Paris todraw from that court a definitive and satisfactory answer concerning thesupport of the colonies. If he cannot get such an answer, (and I am ofopinion that at present he cannot, ) then it is to be presumed he isauthorized to negotiate with Lord Stormont on the basis of dependence onthe crown. This I take to be his errand: for I never can believe that heis come thither as a fugitive from his cause in the hour of itsdistress, or that he is going to conclude a long life, which hasbrightened every hour it has continued, with so foul and dishonorable aflight. On this supposition, I thought it not wholly impossible that theWhig party might be made a sort of mediators of the peace. It isunnatural to suppose, that, in making an accommodation, the Americansshould not choose rather to give credit to those who all along haveopposed the measure of ministers, than to throw themselves wholly on themercy of their bitter, uniform, and systematic enemies. It is, indeed, the victorious enemy that has the terms to offer; the vanquished partyand their friends are, both of them, reduced in their power; and it iscertain that those who are utterly broken and subdued have no option. But, as this is hardly yet the case of the Americans, in this middlestate of their affairs, (much impaired, but not perfectly ruined, ) onewould think it must be their interest to provide, if possible, somefurther security for the terms which they may obtain from their enemies. If the Congress could be brought to declare in favor of those terms forwhich one hundred members of the House of Commons voted last year, withsome civility to the party which held out those terms, it wouldundoubtedly have an effect to revive the cause of our liberties inEngland, and to give the colonies some sort of mooring and anchorage inthis country. It seemed to me that Franklin might be made to feel thepropriety of such a step; and as I have an acquaintance with him, I hada strong desire of taking a turn to Paris. Everything else failing, onemight obtain a better knowledge of the general aspect of affairs abroadthan, I believe, any of us possess at present. The Duke of Portlandapproved the idea. But when I had conversed with the very few of yourLordship's friends who were in town, and considered a little morematurely the constant temper and standing maxims of the party, I laidaside the design, --not being desirous of risking the displeasure ofthose for whose sake alone I wished to take that fatiguing journey atthis severe season of the year. 

The Duke of Portland has taken with him some heads of deliberation, which were the result of a discourse with his Grace and Mr. Montagu atBurlington House. It seems essential to the cause that your Lordshipshould meet your friends with some settled plan either of action orinaction. Your friends will certainly require such a plan; and I am surethe state of affairs requires it, whether they call for it or not. As tothe measure of a secession with reasons, after rolling the matter in myhead a good deal, and turning it an hundred ways, I confess I stillthink it the most advisable, notwithstanding the serious objections thatlie against it, and indeed the extreme uncertainty of all politicalmeasures, especially at this time. It provides for your honor. I know ofnothing else that can so well do this. It is something, perhaps all, that can be done in our present situation. Some precaution, in thisrespect, is not without its motives. That very estimation for which youhave sacrificed everything else is in some danger of suffering in thegeneral wreck; and perhaps it is likely to suffer the more, because youhave hitherto confided more than was quite prudent in the clearness ofyour intentions, and in the solidity of the popular judgment upon them. The former, indeed, is out of the power of events; the latter is full oflevity, and the very creature of fortune. However, such as it is, (andfor one I do not think I am inclined to overvalue it, ) both our interestand our duty make it necessary for us to attend to it very carefully, solong as we act a part in public. The measure you take for this purposemay produce no immediate effect; but with regard to the party, and theprinciples for whose sake the party exists, all hope of theirpreservation or recovery depends upon your preserving your reputation. 

By the conversation of some friends, it seemed as if they were willingto fall in with this design, because it promised to emancipate them fromthe servitude of irksome business, and to afford them an opportunity ofretiring to ease and tranquillity. If that be their object in thesecession and addresses proposed, there surely never were means worsechosen to gain their end; and if this be any part of the project, itwere a thousand times better it were never undertaken. The measure isnot only unusual, and as such critical, but it is in its own naturestrong and vehement in a high degree. The propriety, therefore, ofadopting it depends entirely upon the spirit with which it is supportedand followed. To pursue violent measures with languor and irresolutionis not very consistent in speculation, and not more reputable or safe inpractice. If your Lordship's friends do not go to this business withtheir whole hearts, if they do not feel themselves uneasy without it, ifthey do not undertake it with a certain degree of zeal, and even withwarmth and indignation, it had better be removed wholly out of ourthoughts. A measure of less strength, and more in the beaten circle ofaffairs, if supported with spirit and industry, would be on all accountsinfinitely more eligible. We have to consider what it is that in thisundertaking we have against us. We have the weight of King, Lords, andCommons in the other scale; we have against us, within a trifle, thewhole body of the law; we oppose the more considerable part of thelanded and mercantile interests; we contend, in a manner, against thewhole Church; we set our faces against great armies flushed withvictory, and navies who have tasted of civil spoil, and have a strongappetite for more; our strength, whatever it is, must depend, for a goodpart of its effect, upon events not very probable. In such a situation, such a step requires not only great magnanimity, but unwearied activityand perseverance, with a good deal, too, of dexterity and management, toimprove every accident in our favor. 

The delivery of this paper may have very important consequences. It istrue that the court may pass it over in silence, with a real or affectedcontempt. But this I do not think so likely. If they do take notice ofit, the mildest course will be such an address from Parliament as theHouse of Commons made to the king on the London Remonstrance in the year1769. This address will be followed by addresses of a similar tendency, from all parts of the kingdom, in order to overpower you with what theywill endeavor to pass as the united voice and sense of the nation. Butif they intend to proceed further, and to take steps of a more decisivenature, you are then to consider, not what they may legally and justlydo, but what a Parliament omnipotent in power, influenced with partyrage and personal resentment, operating under the implicit militaryobedience of court discipline, is capable of. Though they have made somesuccessful experiments on juries, they will hardly trust enough to themto order a prosecution for a supposed libel. They may proceed in twoways: either by an _impeachment_, in which the Tories may retort on theWhigs (but with better success, though in a worse cause) theproceedings in the case of Sacheverell, or they may, without this form, proceed, as against the Bishop of Rochester, by a bill of pains andpenalties more or less grievous. The similarity of the cases, or thejustice, is (as I said) out of the question. The mode of proceeding hasseveral very ancient and very recent precedents. None of these methodsis impossible. The court may select three or four of the mostdistinguished among you for the victims; and therefore nothing is moreremote from the tendency of the proposed act than any idea of retirementor repose. On the contrary, you have, all of you, as principals orauxiliaries, a much better [hotter?] and more desperate conflict, in allprobability, to undergo, than any you have been yet engaged in. The onlyquestion is, whether the risk ought to be run for the chance (and it isno more) of recalling the people of England to their ancient principles, and to that personal interest which formerly they took in all publicaffairs. At any rate, I am sure it is right, if we take this step, totake it with a full view of the consequences, and with minds andmeasures in a state of preparation to meet them. It is not becoming thatyour boldness should arise from a want of foresight. It is morereputable, and certainly it is more safe too, that it should be groundedon the evident necessity of encountering the dangers which you foresee. 

Your Lordship will have the goodness to excuse me, if I state in strongterms the difficulties attending a measure which on the whole I heartilyconcur in. But as, from my want of importance, I can be personallylittle subject to the most trying part of the consequences, it is aslittle my desire to urge others to dangers in which I am myself to haveno inconsiderable a share. 

If this measure should be thought too great for our strength or thedispositions of the times, then the point will be to consider what is tobe done in Parliament. A weak, irregular, desultory, peevish oppositionthere will be as much too little as the other may be too big. Our schemeought to be such as to have in it a succession of measures: else it isimpossible to secure anything like a regular attendance; opposition willotherwise always carry a disreputable air; neither will it be possible, without that attendance, to persuade the people that we are in earnest. Above all, a motion should be well digested for the first day. There isone thing in particular I wish to recommend to your Lordship'sconsideration: that is, the opening of the doors of the House ofCommons. Without this, I am clearly convinced, it will be in the powerof ministry to make our opposition appear without doors just in whatlight they please. To obtain a gallery is the easiest thing in theworld, if we are satisfied to cultivate the esteem of our adversaries bythe resolution and energy with which we act against them: but if theirsatisfaction and good-humor be any part of our object, the attempt, Iadmit, is idle. 

I had some conversation, before I left town, with the D. Of M. He is ofopinion, that, if you adhere to your resolution of seceding, you oughtnot to appear on the first day of the meeting. He thinks it can have noeffect, except to break the continuity of your conduct, and thereby toweaken and fritter away the impression of it. It certainly will seemodd to give solemn reasons for a discontinuance of your attendance inParliament, after having two or three times returned to it, andimmediately after a vigorous act of opposition. As to trials of thetemper of the House, there have been of that sort so many already that Isee no reason for making another that would not hold equally good foranother after that, --particularly as nothing has happened in the leastcalculated to alter the disposition of the House. If the secession wereto be general, such an attendance, followed by such an act, would haveforce; but being in its nature incomplete and broken, to break itfurther by retreats and returns to the chase must entirely destroy itseffect. I confess I am quite of the D. Of M. 's opinion in this point. 

I send your Lordship a corrected copy of the paper: your Lordship willbe so good to communicate it, if you should approve of the alterations, to Lord J. C. And Sir G. S. I showed it to the D. Of P. Before his Graceleft town; and at his, the D. Of P. 's, desire, I have sent it to the D. Of R. The principal alteration is in the pages last but one. It is madeto remove a difficulty which had been suggested to Sir G. S. , and whichhe thought had a good deal in it. I think it much the better for thatalteration. Indeed, it may want still more corrections, in order toadapt it to the present or probable future state of things. 

What shall I say in excuse for this long letter, which frightens me whenI look back upon it? Your Lordship will take it, and all in it, withyour usual incomparable temper, which carries you through so much bothfrom enemies and friends. My most humble respects to Lady R. , andbelieve me, with the highest regard, ever, &o. 

E. B. 

I hear that Dr. Franklin has had a most extraordinary reception at Parisfrom all ranks of people. 

BEACONSFIELD, Monday night, Jan. 6, 1777. 

ADDRESS TO THE KING. 

We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, several of the peersof the realm, and several members of the House of Commons chosen by thepeople to represent them in Parliament, do in our individual capacity, but with hearts filled with a warm affection to your Majesty, with astrong attachment to your royal house, and with the most unfeigneddevotion to your true interest, beg leave, at this crisis of youraffairs, in all humility to approach your royal presence. 

Whilst we lament the measures adopted by the public councils of thekingdom, we do not mean to question the legal validity of theirproceedings. We do not desire to appeal from them to any personwhatsoever. We do not dispute the conclusive authority of the bodies inwhich we have a place over all their members. We know that it is ourordinary duty to submit ourselves to the determinations of the majorityin everything, except what regards the just defence of our honor andreputation. But the situation into which the British empire has beenbrought, and the conduct to which we are reluctantly driven in thatsituation, we hold ourselves bound by the relation in which we standboth to the crown and the people clearly to explain to your Majesty andour country. 

We have been called upon in the speech from the throne at the opening ofthis session of Parliament, in a manner peculiarly marked, singularlyemphatical, and from a place from whence anything implying censure fallswith no common weight, to concur in unanimous approbation of thosemeasures which have produced our present distresses and threaten us infuture with others far more grievous. We trust, therefore, that we shallstand justified in offering to our sovereign and the public our reasonsfor persevering inflexibly in our uniform dissent from every part ofthose measures. We lament them from an experience of their mischief, aswe originally opposed them from a sure foresight of their unhappy andinevitable tendency. 

We see nothing in the present events in the least degree sufficient towarrant an alteration in our opinion. We were always steadily averse tothis civil war, --not because we thought it impossible that it should beattended with victory, but because we were fully persuaded that in sucha contest victory would only vary the mode of our ruin, and by making itless immediately sensible would render it the more lasting and the moreirretrievable. Experience had but too fully instructed us in thepossibility of the reduction of a free people to slavery by foreignmercenary armies. But we had an horror of becoming the instruments in adesign, of which, in our turn, we might become the victims. Knowing theinestimable value of peace, and the contemptible value of what wassought by war, we wished to compose the distractions of our country, notby the use of foreign arms, but by prudent regulations in our owndomestic policy. We deplored, as your Majesty has done in your speechfrom the throne, the disorders which prevail in your empire; but we areconvinced that the disorders of the people, in the present time and inthe present place, are owing to the usual and natural cause of suchdisorders at all times and in all places, where such haveprevailed, --the misconduct of government;--that they are owing to planslaid in error, pursued with obstinacy, and conducted without wisdom. 

We cannot attribute so much to the power of faction, at the expense ofhuman nature, as to suppose, that, in any part of the world, acombination of men, few in number, not considerable in rank, of nonatural hereditary dependencies, should be able, by the efforts of theirpolicy alone, or the mere exertion of any talents, to bring the peopleof your American dominions into the disposition which has produced thepresent troubles. We cannot conceive, that, without some powerfulconcurring cause, any management should prevail on some millions ofpeople, dispersed over an whole continent, in thirteen provinces, notonly unconnected, but, in many particulars of religion, manners, government, and local interest, totally different and adverse, voluntarily to submit themselves to a suspension of all the profits ofindustry and all the comforts of civil life, added to all the evils ofan unequal war, carried on with circumstances of the greatest asperityand rigor. This, Sir, we conceive, could never have happened, but from ageneral sense of some grievance so radical in its nature and sospreading in its effects as to poison all the ordinary satisfactions oflife, to discompose the frame of society, and to convert into fear andhatred that habitual reverence ever paid by mankind to an ancient andvenerable government. 

That grievance is as simple in its nature, and as level to the mostordinary understanding, as it is powerful in affecting the most languidpassions: it is--

"AN ATTEMPT MADE TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY OF A WHOLE PEOPLE WITHOUTTHEIR CONSENT. "

Your Majesty's English subjects in the colonies, possessing the ordinaryfaculties of mankind, know that to live under such a plan of governmentis not to live in a state of freedom. Your English subjects in thecolonies, still impressed with the ancient feelings of the people fromwhom they are derived, cannot live under a government which does notestablish freedom as its basis. 

This scheme, being, therefore, set up in direct opposition to the rootedand confirmed sentiments and habits of thinking of an whole people, hasproduced the effects which ever must result from such a collision ofpower and opinion. For we beg leave, with all duty and humility, torepresent to your Majesty, (what we fear has been industriouslyconcealed from you, ) that it is not merely the opinion of a very greatnumber, or even of the majority, but the universal sense of the wholebody of the people in those provinces, that the practice of taxing, inthe mode and on the principles which have been lately contended for andenforced, is subversive of all their rights. 

This sense has been declared, as we understand on good information, bythe unanimous voice of all their Assemblies: each Assembly also, on thispoint, is perfectly unanimous within itself. It has been declared asfully by the actual voice of the people without these Assemblies as bythe constructive voice within them, as well by those in that country whoaddressed as by those who remonstrated; and it is as much the avowedopinion of those who have hazarded their all, rather than take up armsagainst your Majesty's forces, as of those who have run the same risk tooppose them. The difference among them is not on the grievance, but onthe mode of redress; and we are sorry to say, that they who haveconceived hopes from the placability of the ministers who influence thepublic councils of this kingdom disappear in the multitude of those whoconceive that passive compliance only confirms and emboldens oppression. 

The sense of a whole people, most gracious sovereign, never ought to becontemned by wise and beneficent rulers, --whatever may be the abstractclaims, or even rights, of _the supreme power_. We have been too earlyinstructed, and too long habituated to believe, that the only firm seatof all authority is in the minds, affections, and interests of thepeople, to change our opinions on the theoretic reasonings ofspeculative men, or for the convenience of a mere temporary arrangementof state. It is not consistent with equity or wisdom to set at defiancethe general feelings of great communities, and of all the orders whichcompose them. Much power is tolerated, and passes unquestioned, wheremuch is yielded to opinion. All is disputed, where everything isenforced. 

Such are our sentiments on the duty and policy of conforming to theprejudices of a whole people, even where the foundation of suchprejudices may be false or disputable. But permit us to lay at yourMajesty's feet our deliberate judgment on the real merits of thatprinciple, the violation of which is the known ground and origin ofthese troubles. We assure your Majesty, that, on our parts, we shouldthink ourselves unjustifiable, as good citizens, and not influenced bythe true spirit of Englishmen, if, with any effectual means ofprevention in our hands, we were to submit to taxes to which we did notconsent, either directly, or by a representation of the people securingto us the substantial benefit of an absolutely free disposition of ourown property in that important case. And we add, Sir, that, if fortune, instead of blessing us with a situation where we may have daily accessto the propitious presence of a gracious prince, had fixed us insettlements on the remotest part of the globe, we must carry thesesentiments with us, as part of our being, --persuaded that the distanceof situation would render this privilege in the disposal of property butthe more necessary. If no provision had been made for it, such provisionought to be made or permitted. Abuses of subordinate authority increase, and all means of redress lessen, as the distance of the subject removeshim from the seat of the supreme power. What, in those circumstances, can save him from the last extremes of indignity and oppression, butsomething left in his own hands which may enable him to conciliate thefavor and control the excesses of government? When no means of power toawe or to oblige are possessed, the strongest ties which connect mankindin every relation, social and civil, and which teach them mutually torespect each other, are broken. Independency, from that moment, virtually exists. Its formal declaration will quickly follow. Such mustbe our feelings for ourselves: we are not in possession of another rulefor our brethren. 

When the late attempt practically to annihilate that inestimableprivilege was made, great disorders and tumults, very unhappily and verynaturally, arose from it. In this state of things, we were of opinionthat satisfaction ought instantly to be given, or that, at least, thepunishment of the disorder ought to be attended with the redress of thegrievance. We were of opinion, that, if our dependencies had so outgrownthe positive institutions made for the preservation of liberty in thiskingdom, that the operation of their powers was become rather a pressurethan a relief to the subjects in the colonies, wisdom dictated that thespirit of the Constitution should rather be applied to theircircumstances, than its authority enforced with violence in those veryparts where its reason became wholly inapplicable. 

Other methods were then recommended and followed, as infallible means ofrestoring peace and order. We looked upon them to be, what they havesince proved to be, the cause of inflaming discontent into disobedience, and resistance into revolt. The subversion of solemn, fundamentalcharters, on a suggestion of abuse, without citation, evidence, orhearing, --the total suspension of the commerce of a great maritime city, the capital of a great maritime province, during the pleasure of thecrown, --the establishment of a military force, not accountable to theordinary tribunals of the country in which it was kept up, --these andother proceedings at that time, if no previous cause of dissension hadsubsisted, were sufficient to produce great troubles: unjust at alltimes, they were then irrational. 

We could not conceive, when disorders had arisen from the complaint ofone violated right, that to violate every other was the proper means ofquieting an exasperated people. It seemed to us absurd and preposterousto hold out, as the means of calming a people in a state of extremeinflammation, and ready to take up arms, the austere law which a rigidconqueror would impose as the sequel of the most decisive victories. 

Recourse, indeed, was at the same time had to force; and we saw a forcesent out, enough to menace liberty, but not to awe opposition, --tendingto bring odium on the civil power, and contempt on the military, --atonce to provoke and encourage resistance. Force was sent out notsufficient to hold one town; laws were passed to inflame thirteenprovinces. 

This mode of proceeding, by harsh laws and feeble armies, could not bedefended on the principle of mercy and forbearance. For mercy, as weconceive, consists, not in the weakness of the means, but in thebenignity of the ends. We apprehend that mild measures may be powerfullyenforced, and that acts of extreme rigor and injustice may be attendedwith as much feebleness in the execution as severity in the formation. 

In consequence of these terrors, which, falling upon some, threatenedall, the colonies made a common cause with the sufferers, and proceeded, on their part, to acts of resistance. In that alarming situation, webesought your Majesty's ministers to entertain some distrust of theoperation of coercive measures, and to profit of their experience. Experience had no effect. The modes of legislative rigor were construed, not to have been erroneous in their policy, but too limited in theirextent. New severities were adopted. The fisheries of your people inAmerica followed their charters; and their mutual combination to defendwhat they thought their common rights brought on a total prohibition oftheir mutual commercial intercourse. No distinction of persons or meritswas observed: the peaceable and the mutinous, friends and foes, werealike involved, as if the rigor of the laws had a certain tendency torecommend the authority of the legislator. 

Whilst the penal laws increased in rigor, and extended in applicationover all the colonies, the direct force was applied but to one part. Hadthe great fleet and foreign army since employed been at that time calledfor, the greatness of the preparation would have declared the magnitudeof the danger. The nation would have been alarmed, and taught thenecessity of some means of reconciliation with our countrymen inAmerica, who, whenever they are provoked to resistance, demand a forceto reduce them to obedience full as destructive to us as to them. ButParliament and the people, by a premeditated concealment of their realsituation, were drawn into perplexities which furnished excuses forfurther armaments, and whilst they were taught to believe themselvescalled to suppress a riot, they found themselves involved in a mightywar. 

At length British blood was spilled by British hands: a fatal era, whichwe must ever deplore, because your empire will forever feel it. YourMajesty was touched with a sense of so great a disaster. Your paternalbreast was affected with the sufferings of your English subjects inAmerica. In your speech from the throne, in the beginning of the sessionof 1775, you were graciously pleased to declare yourself inclined torelieve their distresses and to pardon their errors. You felt theirsufferings under the late penal acts of Parliament. But your ministryfelt differently. Not discouraged by the pernicious effects of all theyhad hitherto advised, and notwithstanding the gracious declaration ofyour Majesty, they obtained another act of Parliament, in which therigors of all the former were consolidated, and embittered bycircumstances of additional severity and outrage. The whole tradingproperty of America (even unoffending shipping in port) wasindiscriminately and irrecoverably given, as the plunder of foreignenemies, to the sailors of your navy. This property was put out of thereach of your mercy. Your people were despoiled; and your navy, by anew, dangerous, and prolific example, corrupted with the plunder oftheir countrymen. Your people in that part of your dominions were put, in their general and political, as well as their personal capacity, wholly out of the protection of your government. 

Though unwilling to dwell on all the improper modes of carrying on thisunnatural and ruinous war, and which have led directly to the presentunhappy separation of Great Britain and its colonies, we must beg leaveto represent two particulars, which we are sure must have been entirelycontrary to your Majesty's order or approbation. Every course of actionin hostility, however that hostility may be just or merited, is notjustifiable or excusable. It is the duty of those who claim to rule overothers not to provoke them beyond the necessity of the case, nor toleave stings in their minds which must long rankle even when theappearance of tranquillity is restored. We therefore assure your Majestythat it is with shame and sorrow we have seen several acts of hostilitywhich could have no other tendency than incurably to alienate the mindsof your American subjects. To excite, by a proclamation issued by yourMajesty's governor, an universal insurrection of negro slaves in any ofthe colonies is a measure full of complicated horrors, absolutelyillegal, suitable neither to the practice of war nor to the laws ofpeace. Of the same quality we look upon all attempts to bring down onyour subjects an irruption of those fierce and cruel tribes of savagesand cannibals in whom the vestiges of human nature are nearly effaced byignorance and barbarity. They are not fit allies for your Majesty in awar with your people. They are not fit instruments of an Englishgovernment. These and many other acts we disclaim as having advised, orapproved when done; and we clear ourselves to your Majesty, and to allcivilized nations, from any participation whatever, before or after thefact, in such unjustifiable and horrid proceedings. 

But there is one weighty circumstance which we lament equally with thecauses of the war, and with the modes of carrying it on, --that nodisposition whatsoever towards peace or reconciliation has ever beenshown by those who have directed the public councils of this kingdom, either before the breaking out of these hostilities or during theunhappy continuance of them. Every proposition made in your Parliamentto remove the original cause of these troubles, by taking off taxesobnoxious for their principle or their design, has beenoverruled, --every bill brought in for quiet rejected, even on the firstproposition. The petitions of the colonies have not been admitted evento an hearing. The very possibility of public agency, by which suchpetitions could authentically arrive at Parliament, has been evaded andchicaned away. All the public declarations which indicate anythingresembling a disposition to reconciliation seem to us loose, general, equivocal, capable of various meanings, or of none; and they areaccordingly construed differently, at different times, by those on whoserecommendation they have been made: being wholly unlike the precisionand stability of public faith, and bearing no mark of that ingenuoussimplicity and native candor and integrity which formerly characterizedthe English nation. 

Instead of any relaxation of the claim of taxing at the discretion ofParliament, your ministers have devised a new mode of enforcing thatclaim, much more effectual for the oppression of the colonies, thoughnot for your Majesty's service, both as to the quantity and application, than any of the former methods; and their mode has been expressly heldout by ministers as a plan not to be departed from by the House ofCommons, and as the very condition on which the legislature is to acceptthe dependence of the colonies. 

At length, when, after repeated refusals to hear or to conciliate, anact dissolving your government, by putting your people in America out ofyour protection, was passed, your ministers suffered several months toelapse without affording to them, or to any community or any individualamongst them, the means of entering into that protection, even onunconditional submission, contrary to your Majesty's graciousdeclaration from the throne, and in direct violation of the publicfaith. 

We cannot, therefore, agree to unite in new severities against thebrethren of our blood for their asserting an independency, to which weknow, in our conscience, they have been necessitated by the conduct ofthose very persons who now make use of that argument to provoke us to acontinuance and repetition of the acts which in a regular series haveled to this great misfortune. 

The reasons, dread Sir, which have been used to justify thisperseverance in a refusal to hear or conciliate have been reduced into asort of Parliamentary maxims which we do not approve. The first of thesemaxims is, "that the two Houses ought not to receive (as they havehitherto refused to receive) petitions containing matter derogatory toany part of the authority they claim. " We conceive this maxim and theconsequent practice to be unjustifiable by reason or the practice ofother sovereign powers, and that it must be productive, if adhered to, of a total separation between this kingdom and its dependencies. Thesupreme power, being in ordinary cases the ultimate judge, can, as weconceive, suffer nothing in having any part of his rights excepted to, or even discussed before himself. We know that sovereigns in othercountries, where the assertion of absolute regal power is as high as theassertion of absolute power in any politic body can possibly be here, have received many petitions in direct opposition to many of theirclaims of prerogative, --have listened to them, --condescended to discuss, and to give answers to them. This refusal to admit even the discussionof any part of an undefined prerogative will naturally tend toannihilate any privilege that can be claimed by every inferior dependentcommunity, and every subordinate order in the state. 

The next maxim which has been put as a bar to any plan of accommodationis, "that no offer of terms of peace ought to be made, before Parliamentis assured that these terms will be accepted. " On this we beg leave torepresent to your Majesty, that, if, in all events, the policy of thiskingdom is to govern the people in your colonies as a free people, nomischief can possibly happen from a declaration to them, and to theworld, of the manner and form in which Parliament proposes that theyshall enjoy the freedom it protects. It is an encouragement to theinnocent and meritorious, that they at least shall enjoy thoseadvantages which they patiently expected rather from the benignity ofParliament than their own efforts. Persons more contumacious may alsosee that they are resisting terms of perhaps greater freedom andhappiness than they are now in arms to obtain. The glory and proprietyof offered mercy is neither tarnished nor weakened by the folly of thosewho refuse to take advantage of it. 

We cannot think that the declaration of independency makes any naturaldifference in the reason and policy of the offer. No prince out of thepossession of his dominions, and become a sovereign _de jure_ only, everthought it derogatory to his rights or his interests to hold out to hisformer subjects a distinct prospect of the advantages to be derived fromhis readmission, and a security for some of the most fundamental ofthose popular privileges in vindication of which he had been deposed. Onthe contrary, such offers have been almost uniformly made under similarcircumstances. Besides, as your Majesty has been graciously pleased, inyour speech from the throne, to declare your intention of restoringyour people in the colonies to a state of law and liberty, no objectioncan possibly lie against defining what that law and liberty are; becausethose who offer and those who are to receive terms frequently differmost widely and most materially in the signification of these words, andin the objects to which they apply. 

To say that we do not know, at this day, what the grievances of thecolonies are (be they real or pretended) would be unworthy of us. Butwhilst we are thus waiting to be informed of what we perfectly know, weweaken the powers of the commissioners, --we delay, perhaps we lose, thehappy hour of peace, --we are wasting the substance of bothcountries, --we are continuing the effusion of human, of Christian, ofEnglish blood. 

We are sure that we must have your Majesty's heart along with us, whenwe declare in favor of mixing something conciliatory with our force. Sir, we abhor the idea of making a conquest of our countrymen. We wishthat they may yield to well-ascertained, well-authenticated, andwell-secured terms of reconciliation, --not that your Majesty should owethe recovery of your dominions to their total waste and destruction. Humanity will not permit us to entertain such a desire; nor will thereverence we bear to the civil rights of mankind make us even wish thatquestions of great difficulty, of the last importance, and lying deep inthe vital principles of the British Constitution, should be solved bythe arms of foreign mercenary soldiers. 

It is not, Sir, from a want of the most inviolable duty to your Majesty, not from a want of a partial and passionate regard to that part of yourempire in which we reside, and which we wish to be supreme, that wehave hitherto withstood all attempts to render the supremacy of one partof your dominions inconsistent with the liberty and safety of all therest. The motives of our opposition are found in those very sentimentswhich we are supposed to violate. For we are convinced beyond a doubt, that a system of dependence which leaves no security to the people forany part of their freedom in their own hands cannot be established inany inferior member of the British empire, without consequentiallydestroying the freedom of that very body in favor of whose boundlesspretensions such a scheme is adopted. We know and feel that arbitrarypower over distant regions is not within the competence, nor to beexercised agreeably to the forms or consistently with the spirit, ofgreat popular assemblies. If such assemblies are called to a nominalshare in the exercise of such power, in order to screen, under generalparticipation, the guilt of desperate measures, it tends only the moredeeply to corrupt the deliberative character of those assemblies, intraining them to blind obedience, in habituating them to proceed upongrounds of fact with which they can rarely be sufficiently acquainted, and in rendering them executive instruments of designs the bottom ofwhich they cannot possibly fathom. 

To leave any real freedom to Parliament, freedom must be left to thecolonies. A military government is the only substitute for civilliberty. That the establishment of such a power in America will utterlyruin our finances (though its certain effect) is the smallest part ofour concern. It will become an apt, powerful, and certain engine for thedestruction of our freedom here. Great bodies of armed men, trained toa contempt of popular assemblies representative of an Englishpeople, --kept up for the purpose of exacting impositions without theirconsent, and maintained by that exaction, --instruments in subverting, without any process of law, great ancient establishments and respectedforms of governments, --set free from, and therefore above, the ordinaryEnglish tribunals of the country where they serve, --these men cannot sotransform themselves, merely by crossing the sea, as to behold with loveand reverence, and submit with profound obedience to, the very samethings in Great Britain which in America they had been taught todespise, and had been accustomed to awe and humble. All your Majesty'stroops, in the rotation of service, will pass through this disciplineand contract these habits. If we could flatter ourselves that this wouldnot happen, we must be the weakest of men; we must be the worst, if wewere indifferent whether it happened or not. What, gracious sovereign, is the empire of America to us, or the empire of the world, if we loseour own liberties? We deprecate this last of evils. We deprecate theeffect of the doctrines which must support and countenance thegovernment over conquered Englishmen. 

As it will be impossible long to resist the powerful and equitablearguments in favor of the freedom of these unhappy people that are to bedrawn from the principle of our own liberty, attempts will be made, attempts have been made, to ridicule and to argue away this principle, and to inculcate into the minds of your people other maxims ofgovernment and other grounds of obedience than those which haveprevailed at and since the glorious Revolution. By degrees, thesedoctrines, by being convenient, may grow prevalent. The consequence isnot certain; but a general change of principles rarely happens among apeople without leading to a change of government. 

Sir, your throne cannot stand secure upon the principles ofunconditional submission and passive obedience, --on powers exercisedwithout the concurrence of the people to be governed, --on acts made indefiance of their prejudices and habits, --on acquiescence procured byforeign mercenary troops, and secured by standing armies. These maypossibly be the foundation of other thrones: they must be the subversionof yours. It was not to passive principles in our ancestors that we owethe honor of appearing before a sovereign who cannot feel that he is aprince without knowing that we ought to be free. The Revolution is adeparture from the ancient course of the descent of this monarchy. Thepeople at that time reentered into their original rights; and it was notbecause a positive law authorized what was then done, but because thefreedom and safety of the subject, the origin and cause of all laws, required a proceeding paramount and superior to them. At that evermemorable and instructive period, the letter of the law was supersededin favor of the substance of liberty. To the free choice, therefore, ofthe people, without either King or Parliament, we owe that happyestablishment out of which both King and Parliament were regenerated. From that great principle of liberty have originated the statutesconfirming and ratifying the establishment from which your Majestyderives your right to rule over us. Those statutes have not given usour liberties: our liberties have produced them. Every hour of yourMajesty's reign, your title stands upon the very same foundation onwhich it was at first laid; and we do not know a better on which it canpossibly be placed. 

Convinced, Sir, that you cannot have different rights and a differentsecurity in different parts of your dominions, we wish to lay an evenplatform for your throne, and to give it an unmovable stability, bylaying it on the general freedom of your people, and by securing to yourMajesty that confidence and affection in all parts of your dominionswhich makes your best security and dearest title in this the chief seatof your empire. 

Such, Sir, being, amongst us, the foundation of monarchy itself, muchmore clearly and much more peculiarly is it the ground of allParliamentary power. Parliament is a security provided for theprotection of freedom, and not a subtile fiction, contrived to amuse thepeople in its place. The authority of both Houses can still less thanthat of the crown be supported upon different principles in differentplaces, so as to be for one part of your subjects a protector ofliberty, and for another a fund of despotism, through which prerogativeis extended by occasional powers, whenever an arbitrary will findsitself straitened by the restrictions of law. Had it seemed good toParliament to consider itself as the indulgent guardian and strongprotector of the freedom of the subordinate popular assemblies, insteadof exercising its powers to their annihilation, there is no doubt thatit never could have been their inclination, because not their interest, to raise questions on the extent of Parliamentary rights, or toenfeeble privileges which were the security of their own. Powers evidentfrom necessity, and not suspicious from an alarming mode or purpose inthe exertion, would, as formerly they were, be cheerfully submitted to;and these would have been fully sufficient for conservation of unity inthe empire, and for directing its wealth to one common centre. Anotheruse has produced other consequences; and a power which refuses to belimited by moderation must either be lost, or find other more distinctand satisfactory limitations. 

As for us, a supposed, or, if it could be, a real, participation inarbitrary power would never reconcile our minds to its establishment. Weshould be ashamed to stand before your Majesty, boldly asserting in ourown favor inherent rights which bind and regulate the crown itself, andyet insisting on the exercise, in our own persons, of a more arbitrarysway over our fellow-citizens and fellow-freemen. 

These, gracious sovereign, are the sentiments which we considerourselves as bound, in justification of our present conduct, in the mostserious and solemn manner to lay at your Majesty's feet. We have beencalled by your Majesty's writs and proclamations, and we have beenauthorized, either by hereditary privilege or the choice of your people, to confer and treat with your Majesty, in your highest councils, uponthe arduous affairs of your kingdom. We are sensible of the wholeimportance of the duty which this constitutional summons implies. Weknow the religious punctuality of attendance which, in the ordinarycourse, it demands. It is no light cause which, even for a time, couldpersuade us to relax in any part of that attendance. The British empireis in convulsions which threaten its dissolution. Those particularproceedings which cause and inflame this disorder, after many years'incessant struggle, we find ourselves wholly unable to oppose andunwilling to behold. All our endeavors having proved fruitless, we arefearful at this time of irritating by contention those passions which wehave found it impracticable to compose by reason. We cannot permitourselves to countenance, by the appearance of a silent assent, proceedings fatal to the liberty and unity of the empire, --proceedingswhich exhaust the strength of all your Majesty's dominions, destroy alltrust and dependence of our allies, and leave us, both at home andabroad, exposed to the suspicious mercy and uncertain inclinations ofour neighbor and rival powers, to whom, by this desperate course, we aredriving our countrymen for protection, and with whom we have forced theminto connections, and may bind them by habits and by interests, --an evilwhich no victories that may be obtained, no severities which may beexorcised, ever will or can remove. 

If but the smallest hope should from any circumstances appear of areturn to the ancient maxims and true policy of this kingdom, we shallwith joy and readiness return to our attendance, in order to give ourhearty support to whatever means may be left for alleviating thecomplicated evils which oppress this nation. 

If this should not happen, we have discharged our consciences by thisfaithful representation to your Majesty and our country; and however fewin number, or however we may be overborne by practices whose operationis but too powerful, by the revival of dangerous exploded principles, or by the misguided zeal of such arbitrary factions as formerlyprevailed in this kingdom, and always to its detriment and disgrace, wehave the satisfaction of standing forth and recording our names inassertion of those principles whose operation hath, in better times, made your Majesty a great prince, and the British dominions a mightyempire. 

ADDRESS

TO THE

BRITISH COLONISTS IN NORTH AMERICA. 

The very dangerous crisis into which the British empire is brought, asit accounts for, so it justifies, the unusual step we take in addressingourselves to you. 

The distempers of the state are grown to such a degree of violence andmalignity as to render all ordinary remedies vain and frivolous. In sucha deplorable situation, an adherence to the common forms of businessappears to us rather as an apology to cover a supine neglect of dutythan the means of performing it in a manner adequate to the exigencythat presses upon us. The common means we have already tried, and triedto no purpose. As our last resource, we turn ourselves to you. Weaddress you merely in our private capacity, vested with no otherauthority than what will naturally attend those in whose declarations ofbenevolence you have no reason to apprehend any mixture of dissimulationor design. 

We have this title to your attention: we call upon it in a moment of theutmost importance to us all. We find, with infinite concern, thatarguments are used to persuade you of the necessity of separatingyourselves from your ancient connection with your parent country, grounded on a supposition that a general principle of alienation andenmity to you had pervaded the whole of this kingdom, and that theredoes no longer subsist between you and us any common and kindredprinciples upon which we can possibly unite, consistently with thoseideas of liberty in which you have justly placed your whole happiness. 

If this fact were true, the inference drawn from it would beirresistible. But nothing is less founded. We admit, indeed, thatviolent addresses have been procured with uncommon pains by wicked anddesigning men, purporting to be the genuine voice of the whole people ofEngland, --that they have been published by authority here, and madeknown to you by proclamations, in order, by despair and resentment, incurably to poison your minds against the origin of your race, and torender all cordial reconciliation between us utterly impracticable. Thesame wicked men, for the same bad purposes, have so far surprised thejustice of Parliament as to cut off all communication betwixt us, exceptwhat is to go in their own fallacious and hostile channel. 

But we conjure you by the invaluable pledges which have hitherto united, and which we trust will hereafter lastingly unite us, that you do notsuffer yourselves to be persuaded or provoked into an opinion that youare at war with this nation. Do not think that the whole, or even theuninfluenced majority, of Englishmen in this island are enemies to theirown blood on the American continent. Much delusion has been practised, much corrupt influence treacherously employed. But still a large, and wetrust the largest and soundest, part of this kingdom perseveres in themost perfect unity of sentiments, principles, and affections with you. It spreads out a large and liberal platform of common liberty, uponwhich we may all unite forever. It abhors the hostilities which havebeen carried on against you, as much as you who feel the cruel effect ofthem. It has disclaimed in the most solemn manner, at the foot of thethrone itself, the addresses which tended to irritate your sovereignagainst his colonies. We are persuaded that even many of those whounadvisedly have put their hands to such intemperate and inflammatoryaddresses have not at all apprehended to what such proceedings naturallylead, and would sooner die than afford them the least countenance, ifthey were sensible of their fatal effects on the union and liberty ofthe empire. 

For ourselves, we faithfully assure you, that we have ever consideredyou as rational creatures, as free agents, as men willing to pursue andable to discern your own true interest. We have wished to continueunited with you, in order that a people of one origin and one charactershould be directed to the rational objects of government by jointcounsels, and protected in them by a common force. Other subordinationin you we require none. We have never pressed that argument of generalunion to the extinction of your local, natural, and just privileges. Sensible of what is due both to the dignity and weakness of man, we havenever wished to place over you any government, over which, in great, fundamental points, you should have no sort of check or control in yourown hands, or which should be repugnant to your situation, principles, and character. 

No circumstances of fortune, you may be assured, will ever induce us toform or tolerate any such design. If the disposition of Providence(which we deprecate) should even prostrate you at our feet, broken inpower and in spirit, it would be our duty and inclination to revive, byevery practicable means, that free energy of mind which a fortuneunsuitable to your virtue had damped and dejected, and to put youvoluntarily in possession of those very privileges which you had in vainattempted to assert by arms. For we solemnly declare, that, although weshould look upon a separation from you as an heavy calamity, (and theheavier, because we know you must have your full share in it, ) yet wehad much rather see you totally independent of this crown and kingdomthan joined to it by so unnatural a conjunction as that of freedom withservitude, --a conjunction which, if it were at all practicable, couldnot fail, in the end, of being more mischievous to the peace, prosperity, greatness, and power of this nation than beneficial by anyenlargement of the bounds of nominal empire. 

But because, brethren, these professions are general, and such as evenenemies may make, when they reserve to themselves the construction ofwhat servitude and what liberty are, we inform you that we adopt yourown standard of the blessing of free government. We are of opinion thatyou ought to enjoy the sole and exclusive right of freely granting, andapplying to the support of your administration, what God has freelygranted as a reward to your industry. And we do not confine thisimmunity from exterior coercion, in this great point, solely to whatregards your local establishment, but also to what may be thought properfor the maintenance of the whole empire. In this resource we cheerfullytrust and acquiesce, satisfied by evident reason that no otherexpectation of revenue can possibly be given by freemen, and knowingfrom an experience uniform both on yours and on our side of the oceanthat such an expectation has never yet been disappointed. We know of noroad to your coffers but through your affections. 

To manifest our sentiments the more clearly to you and to the world onthis subject, we declare our opinion, that, if no revenue at all (which, however, we are far from supposing) were to be obtained from you to thiskingdom, yet, as long as it is our happiness to be joined with you inthe bonds of fraternal charity and freedom, with an open and flowingcommerce between us, one principle of enmity and friendship pervading, and one right of war and peace directing the strength of the wholeempire, we are likely to be at least as powerful as any nation, or asany combination of nations, which in the course of human events may beformed against us. We are sensible that a very large proportion of thewealth and power of every empire must necessarily be thrown upon thepresiding state. We are sensible that such a state ever has borne andever must bear the greatest part, and sometimes the whole, of the publicexpenses: and we think her well indemnified for that (rather apparentthan real) inequality of charge, in the dignity and preeminence sheenjoys, and in the superior opulence which, after all charges defrayed, must necessarily remain at the centre of affairs. Of this principle weare not without evidence in our remembrance (not yet effaced) of theglorious and happy days of this empire. We are therefore incapable ofthat prevaricating style, by which, when taxes without your consent areto be extorted from you, this nation is represented as in the loweststate of impoverishment and public distress, but when we are called uponto oppress you by force of arms, it is painted as scarcely feeling itsimpositions, abounding with wealth, and inexhaustible in its resources. 

We also reason and feel as you do on the invasion of your charters. Because the charters comprehend the essential forms by which you enjoyyour liberties, we regard them as most sacred, and by no means to betaken away or altered without process, without examination, and withouthearing, as they have lately been. We even think that they ought by nomeans to be altered at all, but at the desire of the greater part of thepeople who live under them. We cannot look upon men as delinquents inthe mass; much less are we desirous of lording over our brethren, insulting their honest pride, and wantonly overturning establishmentsjudged to be just and convenient by the public wisdom of this nation attheir institution, and which long and inveterate use has taught you tolook up to with affection and reverence. As we disapproved of theproceedings with regard to the forms of your constitution, so we areequally tender of every leading principle of free government. We nevercould think with approbation of putting the military power out of thecoercion of the civil justice in the country where it acts. 

We disclaim also any sort of share in that other measure which has beenused to alienate your affections from this country, --namely, theintroduction of foreign mercenaries. We saw their employment with shameand regret, especially in numbers so far exceeding the English forces asin effect to constitute vassals, who have no sense of freedom, andstrangers, who have no common interest or feelings, as the arbiters ofour unhappy domestic quarrel. 

We likewise saw with shame the African slaves, who had been sold to youon public faith, and under the sanction of acts of Parliament, to beyour servants and your guards, employed to cut the throats of theirmasters. 

You will not, we trust, believe, that, born in a civilized country, formed to gentle manners, trained in a merciful religion, and living inenlightened and polished times, where even foreign hostility is softenedfrom its original sternness, we could have thought of letting loose uponyou, our late beloved brethren, these fierce tribes of savages andcannibals, in whom the traces of human nature are effaced by ignoranceand barbarity. We rather wished to have joined with you in bringinggradually that unhappy part of mankind into civility, order, piety, andvirtuous discipline, than to have confirmed their evil habits andincreased their natural ferocity by fleshing them in the slaughter ofyou, whom our wiser and better ancestors had sent into the wildernesswith the express view of introducing, along with our holy religion, itshumane and charitable manners. We do not hold that all things are lawfulin war. We should think that every barbarity, in fire, in wasting, inmurders, in tortures, and other cruelties, too horrible and too full ofturpitude for Christian mouths to utter or ears to hear, if done at ourinstigation, by those who we know will make war thus, if they make it atall, to be, to all intents and purposes, as if done by ourselves. Weclear ourselves to you our brethren, to the present age, and to futuregenerations, to our king and our country, and to Europe, which, as aspectator, beholds this tragic scene, of every part or share in addingthis last and worst of evils to the inevitable mischiefs of a civil war. 

We do not call you rebels and traitors. We do not call for the vengeanceof the crown against you. We do not know how to qualify millions of ourcountrymen, contending with one heart for an admission to privilegeswhich we have ever thought our own happiness and honor, by odious andunworthy names. On the contrary, we highly revere the principles onwhich you act, though we lament some of their effects. Armed as you are, we embrace you as our friends and as our brethren by the best anddearest ties of relation. 

We view the establishment of the English colonies on principles ofliberty as that which is to render this kingdom venerable to futureages. In comparison of this, we regard all the victories and conquestsof our warlike ancestors, or of our own times, as barbarous, vulgardistinctions, in which many nations, whom we look upon with littlerespect or value, have equalled, if not far exceeded us. This is thepeculiar and appropriated glory of England. Those who _have and whohold_ to that foundation of common liberty, whether on this or on yourside of the ocean, we consider as the true, and the only true, Englishmen. Those who depart from it, whether there or here, areattainted, corrupted in blood, and wholly fallen from their originalrank and value. They are the real rebels to the fair constitution andjust supremacy of England. 

We exhort you, therefore, to cleave forever to those principles, asbeing the true bond of union in this empire, --and to show by a manlyperseverance that the sentiments of honor and the rights of mankind arenot held by the uncertain events of war, as you have hitherto shown aglorious and affecting example to the world that they are not dependenton the ordinary conveniences and satisfactions of life. 

Knowing no other arguments to be used to men of liberal minds, it isupon these very principles, and these alone, we hope and trust that noflattering and no alarming circumstances shall permit you to listen tothe seductions of those who would alienate you from your dependence onthe crown and Parliament of this kingdom. That very liberty which you sojustly prize above all things originated here; and it may be verydoubtful, whether, without being constantly fed from the originalfountain, it can be at all perpetuated or preserved in its native purityand perfection. Untried forms of government may, to unstable minds, recommend themselves even by their novelty. But you will do well toremember that England has been great and happy under the present limitedmonarchy (subsisting in more or less vigor and purity) for severalhundred years. None but England can communicate to you the benefits ofsuch a constitution. We apprehend you are not now, nor for ages arelikely to be, capable of that form of constitution in an independentstate. Besides, let us suggest to you our apprehensions that yourpresent union (in which we rejoice, and which we wish long to subsist)cannot always subsist without the authority and weight of this great andlong respected body, to equipoise, and to preserve you amongstyourselves in a just and fair equality. It may not even be impossiblethat a long course of war with the administration of this country may bebut a prelude to a series of wars and contentions among yourselves, toend at length (as such scenes have too often ended) in a species ofhumiliating repose, which nothing but the preceding calamities wouldreconcile to the dispirited few who survived them. We allow that eventhis evil is worth the risk to men of honor, when rational liberty is atstake, as in the present case we confess and lament that it is. But ifever a real security by Parliament is given against the terror or theabuse of unlimited power, and after such security given you shouldpersevere in resistance, we leave you to consider whether the risk isnot incurred without an object, or incurred for an object infinitelydiminished by such concessions in its importance and value. 

As to other points of discussion, when these grand fundamentals of yourgrants and charters are once settled and ratified by clear Parliamentaryauthority, as the ground for peace and forgiveness on our side, and fora manly and liberal obedience on yours, treaty and a spirit ofreconciliation will easily and securely adjust whatever may remain. Ofthis we give you our word, that, so far as we are at present concerned, and if by any event we should become more concerned hereafter, you mayrest assured, upon the pledges of honor not forfeited, faith notviolated, and uniformity of character and profession not yet broken, weat least, on these grounds, will never fail you. 

Respecting your wisdom, and valuing your safety, we do not call upon youto trust your existence to your enemies. We do not advise you to anunconditional submission. With satisfaction we assure you that almostall in both Houses (however unhappily they have been deluded, so as notto give any immediate effect to their opinion) disclaim that idea. Youcan have no friends in whom you cannot rationally confide. ButParliament is your friend from the moment in which, removing itsconfidence from those who have constantly deceived its good intentions, it adopts the sentiments of those who have made sacrifices, (inferior, indeed, to yours, ) but have, however, sacrificed enough to demonstratethe sincerity of their regard and value for your liberty and prosperity. 

Arguments may be used to weaken your confidence in that public security;because, from some unpleasant appearances, there is a suspicion thatParliament itself is somewhat fallen from its independent spirit. Howfar this supposition may be founded in fact we are unwilling todetermine. But we are well assured from experience, that, even if allwere true that is contended for, and in the extent, too, in which it isargued, yet, as long as the solid and well-disposed forms of thisConstitution remain, there ever is within Parliament itself a power ofrenovating its principles, and effecting a self-reformation, which noother plan of government has ever contained. This Constitution hastherefore admitted innumerable improvements, either for the correctionof the original scheme, or for removing corruptions, or for bringing itsprinciples better to suit those changes which have successively happenedin the circumstances of the nation or in the manners of the people. 

We feel that the growth of the colonies is such a change ofcircumstances, and that our present dispute is an exigency as pressingas any which ever demanded a revision of our government. Public troubleshave often called upon this country to look into its Constitution. Ithas ever been bettered by such a revision. If our happy and luxuriantincrease of dominion, and our diffused population, have outgrown thelimits of a Constitution made for a contracted object, we ought to blessGod, who has furnished us with this noble occasion for displaying ourskill and beneficence in enlarging the scale of rational happiness, andof making the politic generosity of this kingdom as extensive as itsfortune. If we set about this great work, on both sides, with the sameconciliatory turn of mind, we may now, as in former times, owe even toour mutual mistakes, contentions, and animosities, the lasting concord, freedom, happiness, and glory of this empire. 

Gentlemen, the distance between us, with other obstructions, has causedmuch misrepresentation of our mutual sentiments. We, therefore, toobviate them as well as we are able, take this method of assuring you ofour thorough detestation of the whole war, and particularly themercenary and savage war carried on or attempted against you, --ourthorough abhorrence of all addresses adverse to you, whether public orprivate, --our assurances of an invariable affection towards you, --ourconstant regard to your privileges and liberties, --and our opinion ofthe solid security you ought to enjoy for them, under the paternal careand nurture of a protecting Parliament. 

Though many of us have earnestly wished that the authority of thataugust and venerable body, so necessary in many respects to the union ofthe whole, should be rather limited by its own equity and discretion, than by any bounds described by positive laws and public compacts, --andthough we felt the extreme difficulty, by any theoretical limitations, of qualifying that authority, so as to preserve one part and denyanother, --and though you (as we gratefully acknowledge) had acquiescedmost cheerfully under that prudent reserve of the Constitution, at thathappy moment when neither you nor we apprehended a further return of theexercise of invidious powers, we are now as fully persuaded as you canbe, by the malice, inconstancy, and perverse inquietude of many men, andby the incessant endeavors of an arbitrary faction, now too powerful, that our common necessities do require a full explanation and ratifiedsecurity for your liberties and our quiet. 

Although his Majesty's condescension, in committing the direction of hisaffairs into the hands of the known friends of his family and of theliberties of all his people, would, we admit, be a great means of givingrepose to your minds, as it must give infinite facility toreconciliation, yet we assure you that we think, with such a security aswe recommend, adopted from necessity and not choice, even by the unhappyauthors and instruments of the public misfortunes, that the terms ofreconciliation, if once accepted by Parliament, would not be broken. Wealso pledge ourselves to you, that we should give, even to thoseunhappy persons, an hearty support in effectuating the peace of theempire, and every opposition in an attempt to cast it again intodisorder. 

When that happy hour shall arrive, let us in all affection, recommend toyou the wisdom of continuing, as in former times, or even in a moreample measure, the support of your government, and even to give to youradministration some degree of reciprocal interest in your freedom. Weearnestly wish you not to furnish your enemies, here or elsewhere, withany sort of pretexts for reviving quarrels by too reserved and severe orpenurious an exercise of those sacred rights which no pretended abuse inthe exercise ought to impair, nor, by overstraining the principles offreedom, to make them less compatible with those haughty sentiments inothers which the very same principles may be apt to breed in minds nottempered with the utmost equity and justice. 

The well-wishers of the liberty and union of this empire salute you, andrecommend you most heartily to the Divine protection. 

A

LETTER

TO

THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND S. PERY

SPEAKER OF THE IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS, IN RELATION TO

A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND. 

JULY 18, 1778. 

NOTE. 

 This Letter is addressed to Mr. Pery, (afterwards Lord Pery, ) then Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland. It appears, there had been much correspondence between that gentleman and Mr. Burke, on the subject of Heads of a bill (which had passed the Irish House of Commons in the summer of the year 1778, and had been transmitted by the Irish Privy Council of [to?] England) for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland. The bill contained a clause for exempting the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland from the sacramental test, which created a strong objection to the whole measure on the part of the English government. Mr. Burke employed his most strenuous efforts to remove the prejudice which the king's ministers entertained against the clause, but the bill was ultimately returned without it, and in that shape passed the Irish Parliament. (17th and 18th Geo. III cap. 49. ) In the subsequent session, however, a separate act was passed for the relief of the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland. 

LETTER. 

My Dear Sir, --I received in due course your two very interesting andjudicious letters, which gave me many new lights, and excited me tofresh activity in the important subject they related to. However, fromthat time I have not been perfectly free from doubt and uneasiness. Iused a liberty with those letters, which, perhaps, nothing canthoroughly justify, and which certainly nothing but the delicacy of thecrisis, the clearness of my intentions, and your great good-nature canat all excuse. I might conceal this from you; but I think it better tolay the whole matter before you, and submit myself to yourmercy, --assuring you, at the same time, that, if you are so kind as tocontinue your confidence on this, or to renew it upon any otheroccasion, I shall never be tempted again to make so bold andunauthorized an use of the trust you place in me. I will state to youthe history of the business since my last, and then you will see how farI am excusable by the circumstances. 

On the 3rd of July I received a letter from the Attorney-General, datedthe day before, in which, in a very open and obliging manner, he desiresmy thoughts of the Irish Toleration Bill, and particularly of theDissenters' clause. I gave them to him, by the return of the post, atlarge; but, as the time pressed, I kept no copy of the letter. Thegeneral drift was strongly to recommend the _whole_, and principally toobviate the objections to the part that related to the Dissenters, withregard both to the general propriety and to the temporary policy at thisjuncture. I took, likewise, a good deal of pains to state the differencewhich had always subsisted with regard to the treatment of theProtestant Dissenters in Ireland and in England, and what I conceivedthe reason of that difference to be. About the same time I was called totown for a day; and I took an opportunity, in Westminster Hall, ofurging the same points, with all the force I was master of, to theSolicitor-General. I attempted to see the Chancellor for the samepurpose, but was not fortunate enough to meet him at home. Soon after myreturn hither, on Tuesday, I received a very polite and I may sayfriendly letter from him, wishing me (on supposition that I hadcontinued in town) to dine with him as [on?] that day, in order to talkover the business of the Toleration Act, then before him. Unluckily Ihad company with me, and was not able to leave them until Thursday, whenI went to town and called at his house, but missed him. However, inanswer to his letter, I had before, and instantly on the receipt of it, written to him at large, and urged such topics, both with regard to theCatholics and Dissenters, as I imagined were the most likely to beprevalent with him. This letter I followed to town on Thursday. On myarrival I was much alarmed with a report that the ministry had thoughtsof rejecting the whole bill. Mr. M'Namara seemed apprehensive that itwas a determined measure; and there seemed to be but too much reason forhis fears. 

Not having met the Chancellor at home, either on my first visit or mysecond after receiving his letter, and fearful that the Cabinet shouldcome to come unpleasant resolution, I went to the Treasury on Friday. There I saw Sir G. Cooper. I possessed him of the danger of a partial, and the inevitable mischief of the total rejection of the bill. Ireminded him of the understood compact between parties, upon which thewhole scheme of the toleration originating in the English bill wasformed, --of the fair part which the Whigs had acted in a business which, though first started by them, was supposed equally acceptable to allsides, and the risk of which they took upon themselves, when othersdeclined it. To this I added such matter as I thought most fit to engagegovernment, as government, --not to sport with a singular opportunitywhich offered for the union of every description of men amongst us insupport of the common interest of the whole; and I ended by desiring tosee Lord North upon the subject. Sir Grey Cooper showed a very rightsense of the matter, and in a few minutes after our conversation I wentdown from the Treasury chambers to Lord North's house. I had a greatdeal of discourse with him. He told me that his ideas of toleration werelarge, but that, large as they were, they did not comprehend apromiscuous establishment, even in matters merely civil; that he thoughtthe established religion ought to be the religion of the state; that, inthis idea, he was not for the repeal of the sacramental test; that, indeed, he knew the Dissenters in general did not greatly scruple it;but that very want of scruple showed less zeal against theEstablishment; and, after all, there could no provision be made by humanlaws against those who made light of the tests which were formed todiscriminate opinions. On all this he spoke with a good deal of temper. He did not, indeed, seem to think the test itself, which was rightlyconsidered by Dissenters as in a manner dispensed with by an annual actof Parliament, and which in Ireland was of a late origin, and of muchless extent than here, a matter of much moment. The thing which seemedto affect him most was the offence that would be taken at the repeal bythe leaders among the Church clergy here, on one hand, and, on theother, the steps which would be taken for its repeal in England in thenext session, in consequence of the repeal in Ireland. I assured him, with great truth, that we had no idea among the Whigs of moving therepeal of the test. I confessed very freely, for my own part, that, ifit were brought in, I should certainly vote for it; but that I shouldneither use, nor did I think applicable, any arguments drawn from theanalogy of what was done in other parts of the British dominions. We didnot argue from analogy, even in this island and United Kingdom. Presbytery was established in Scotland. It became no reason either forits religious or civil establishment here. In New England theIndependent Congregational Churches had an established legalmaintenance; whilst that country continued part of the British empire, no argument in favor of Independency was adduced from the practice ofNew England. Government itself lately thought fit to establish the RomanCatholic religion in Canada; but they would not suffer an argument ofanalogy to be used for its establishment anywhere else. These thingswere governed, as all things of that nature are governed, not by generalmaxims, but their own local and peculiar circumstances. Finding, however, that, though he was very cool and patient, I made no great wayin the business of the Dissenters, I turned myself to try whether, falling in with his maxims, some modification might not be found, thehint of which I received from your letter relative to the Irish MilitiaBill, and the point I labored was so to alter the clause as to repealthe test _quoad_ military and revenue offices: for these being onlysubservient parts in the economy and execution, rather than theadministration of affairs, the politic, civil, and judicial parts wouldstill continue in the hands of the conformists to religiousestablishments. Without giving any hopes, he, however, said that thisdistinction deserved to be considered. After this, I strongly pressedthe mischief of rejecting the whole bill: that a notion went abroad, that government was not at this moment very well pleased with theDissenters, as not very well affected to the monarchy; that, in general, I conceived this to be a mistake, --but if it were not, the rejection ofa bill in favor _of others_, because something in favor of _them_ wasinserted, instead of humbling and mortifying, would infinitely exaltthem: for, if the legislature had no means of favoring those whom theymeant to favor, as long as the Dissenters could find means to getthemselves included, this would make them, instead of their only beingsubject to restraint themselves, the arbitrators of the fate of others, and that not so much by their own strength (which could not be preventedin its operation) as by the coöperation of those whom they opposed. Inthe conclusion, I recommended, that, if they wished well to the measurewhich was the main object of the bill, they must explicitly make ittheir own, and stake themselves upon it; that hitherto all theirdifficulties had arisen from their indecision and their wrong measures;and to make Lord North sensible of the necessity of giving a firmsupport to some part of the bill, and to add weighty authority to myreasons, I read him your letter of the 10th of July. It seemed, in somemeasure, to answer the purpose which I intended. I pressed the necessityof the management of the affair, both as to conduct and as to gaining ofmen; and I renewed my former advice, that the Lord Lieutenant should beinstructed to consult and cooperate with you in the whole affair. Allthis was, apparently, very fairly taken. 

In the evening of that day I saw the Lord Chancellor. With him, too, Ihad much discourse. You know that he is intelligent, sagacious, systematic, and determined. At first he seemed of opinion that therelief contained in the bill was so inadequate to the mass of oppressionit was intended to remove, that it would be better to let it stand over, until a more perfect and better digested plan could be settled. Thisseemed to possess him very strongly. In order to combat this notion, andto show that the bill, all things considered, was a very greatacquisition, and that it was rather a preliminary than an obstruction torelief, I ventured to show him your letter. It had its effect. Hedeclared himself roundly against giving anything to a confederacy, realor apparent, to distress government; that, if anything was done forCatholics or Dissenters, it should be done on its own separate merits, and not by way of bargain and compromise; that they should be each ofthem obliged to government, not each to the other; that this would be aperpetual nursery of faction. In a word, he seemed so determined on notuniting these plans, that all I could say, and I said everything I couldthink of, was to no purpose. But when I insisted on the disgrace togovernment which must arise from their rejecting a propositionrecommended by themselves, because their opposers had made a mixture, separable too by themselves, I was better heard. On the whole, I foundhim well disposed. 

As soon as I had returned to the country, this affair lay so much on mymind, and the absolute necessity of government's making a seriousbusiness of it, agreeably to the seriousness they professed, and theobject required, that I wrote to Sir G. Cooper, to remind him of theprinciples upon which we went in our conversation, and to press the planwhich was suggested for carrying them into execution. He wrote to me onthe 20th, and assured me, "that Lord North had given all due attentionand respect to what you said to him on Friday, and will pay the samerespect to the sentiments conveyed in your letter: everything you say orwrite on the subject undoubtedly demands it. " Whether this was merecivility, or showed anything effectual in their intentions, time and thesuccess of this measure will show. It is wholly with them; and if itshould fail, you are a witness that nothing on our part has been wantingto free so large a part of our fellow-subjects and fellow-citizens fromslavery, and to free government from the weakness and danger of rulingthem by force. As to my own particular part, the desire of doing thishas betrayed me into a step which I cannot perfectly reconcile tomyself. You are to judge how far, on the circumstances, it may beexcused. I think it had a good effect. You may be assured that I madethis communication in a manner effectually to exclude so false andgroundless an idea as that I confer with you, any more than I conferwith them, on any party principle whatsoever, --or that in this affair welook further than the measure which is in profession, and I am sureought to be in reason, theirs. 

I am ever, with the sincerest affection and esteem, My dear Sir, Your most faithful and obedient humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, 18th July, 1778. 

I intended to have written sooner, but it has not been in my power. 

To the Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland. 

TWO LETTERS

TO

THOMAS BURGH, ESQ. , AND

JOHN MERLOTT, ESQ. , IN VINDICATION OF HIS PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT RELATIVE TO THE AFFAIRS OFIRELAND. 

1780. 

LETTER

TO THOMAS BURGH, ESQ. [14]

My Dear Sir, --I do not know in what manner I am to thank you properlyfor the very friendly solicitude you have been so good as to express formy reputation. The concern you have done me the honor to take in myaffairs will be an ample indemnity from all that I may suffer from therapid judgments of those who choose to form their opinions of men, notfrom the life, but from their portraits in a newspaper. I confess to youthat my frame of mind is so constructed, I have in me so little of theconstitution of a great man, that I am more gratified with a verymoderate share of approbation from those few who know me than I shouldbe with the most clamorous applause from those multitudes who love toadmire at a due distance. 

I am not, however, Stoic enough to be able to affirm with truth, orhypocrite enough affectedly to pretend, that I am wholly unmoved at thedifficulty which you and others of my friends in Ireland have found invindicating my conduct towards my native country. It undoubtedly hurtsme in some degree: but the wound is not very deep. If I had soughtpopularity in Ireland, when, in the cause of that country, I was readyto sacrifice, and did sacrifice, a much nearer, a much more immediate, and a much more advantageous popularity here, I should find myselfperfectly unhappy, because I should be totally disappointed in myexpectations, --because I should discover, when it was too late, whatcommon sense might have told me very early, that I risked the capital ofmy fame in the most disadvantageous lottery in the world. But I actedthen, as I act now, and as I hope I shall act always, from a strongimpulse of right, and from motives in which popularity, either here orthere, has but a very little part. 

With the support of that consciousness I can bear a good deal of thecoquetry of public opinion, which has her caprices, and must have herway. _Miseri, quibus intentata nitet_! I, too, have had my holiday ofpopularity in Ireland. I have even heard of an intention to erect astatue. [15] I believe my intimate acquaintance know how little that ideawas encouraged by me; and I was sincerely glad that it never tookeffect. Such honors belong exclusively to the tomb, --the natural andonly period of human inconstancy, with regard either to desert or toopinion: for they are the very same hands which erect, that veryfrequently (and sometimes with reason enough) pluck down the statue. Hadsuch an unmerited and unlooked-for compliment been paid to me two yearsago, the fragments of the piece might at this hour have the advantage ofseeing actual service, while they were moving, according to the law ofprojectiles, to the windows of the Attorney-General, or of my oldfriend, Monk Mason. 

To speak seriously, --let me assure you, my dear Sir, that, though I amnot permitted to rejoice at _all_ its effects, there is not one man onyour side of the water more pleased to see the situation of Ireland soprosperous as that she can afford to throw away her friends. She hasobtained, solely by her own efforts, the fruits of a great victory, which I am very ready to allow that the best efforts of her bestwell-wishers here could not have done for her so effectually in a greatnumber of years, and perhaps could not have done at all. I could wish, however, merely for the sake of her own dignity, that, in turning herpoor relations and antiquated friends out of doors, (though one of themost common effects of new prosperity, ) she had thought proper todismiss us with fewer tokens of unkindness. It is true that there is nosort of danger in affronting men who are not of importance enough tohave any trust of ministerial, of royal, or of national honor tosurrender. The unforced and unbought services of humble men, who have nomedium of influence in great assemblies, but through the precariousforce of reason, must be looked upon with contempt by those who by theirwisdom and spirit have improved the critical moment of their fortune, and have debated with authority against pusillanimous dissent andungracious compliance, at the head of forty thousand men. 

Such feeble auxiliaries (as I talk of) to such a force, employedagainst such resistance, I must own, in the present moment, very littleworthy of your attention. Yet, if one were to look forward, it scarcelyseems altogether politic to bestow so much liberality of invective onthe Whigs of this kingdom as I find has been the fashion to do both inand out of Parliament. That you should pay compliments, in some tone orother, whether ironical or serious, to the minister from whoseimbecility you have extorted what you could never obtain from hisbounty, is not unnatural. In the first effusions of Parliamentarygratitude to that minister for the early and voluntary benefits he hasconferred upon Ireland, it might appear that you were wanting to thetriumph of his surrender, if you did not lead some of his enemiescaptive before him. Neither could you feast him with decorum, if hisparticular taste were not consulted. A minister, who has never defendedhis measures in any other way than by railing at his adversaries, cannothave his palate made all at once to the relish of positive commendation. I cannot deny but that on this occasion there was displayed a great dealof the good-breeding which consists in the accommodation of theentertainment to the relish of the guest. 

But that ceremony being past, it would not be unworthy of the wisdom ofIreland to consider what consequences the extinguishing every spark offreedom in this country may have upon your own liberties. You are atthis instant flushed with victory, and full of the confidence natural torecent and untried power. We are in a temper equally natural, thoughvery different. We feel as men do, who, having placed an unboundedreliance on their force, have found it totally to fail on trial. Wefeel faint and heartless, and without the smallest degree ofself-opinion. In plain words, we are _cowed_. When men give up theirviolence and injustice without a struggle, their condition is next todesperate. When no art, no management, no argument, is necessary toabate their pride and overcome their prejudices, and their uneasinessonly excites an obscure and feeble rattling in their throat, their finaldissolution seems not far off. In this miserable state we are stillfurther depressed by the overbearing influence of the crown. It actswith the officious cruelty of a mercenary nurse, who, under pretence oftenderness, stifles us with our clothes, and plucks the pillow from ourheads. _Injectu multæ vestis opprimi senem jubet_. Under this influencewe have so little will of our own, that, even in any apparent activitywe may be got to assume, I may say, without any violence to sense, andwith very little to language, we are merely passive. We have yielded toyour demands this session. In the last session we refused to preventthem. In both cases, the passive and the active, our principle was thesame. Had the crown pleased to retain the spirit, with regard toIreland, which seems to be now all directed to America, we should haveneglected our own immediate defence, and sent over the last man of ourmilitia to fight with the last man of your volunteers. 

To this influence the principle of action, the principle of policy, andthe principle of union of the present minority are opposed. Theseprinciples of the opposition are the only thing which preserves a singlesymptom of life in the nation. That opposition is composed of the fargreater part of the independent property and independent rank of thekingdom, of whatever is most untainted in character, and of whateverability remains unextinguished in the people, and of all which tends todraw the attention of foreign countries upon this. It is now in itsfinal and conclusive struggle. It has to struggle against a force towhich, I am afraid, it is not equal. The _whole_ kingdom of Scotlandranges with the venal, the unprincipled, and the wrong-principled ofthis; and if the kingdom of Ireland thinks proper to pass into the samecamp, we shall certainly be obliged to quit the field. In that case, ifI know anything of this country, another constitutional opposition _cannever_ be formed in it; and if this be impossible, it will be at leastas much so (if there can be degrees in impossibility) to have aconstitutional administration at any future time. The possibility of theformer is the only security for the existence of the latter. Whether thepresent administration be in the least like one, I must venture todoubt, even in the honey-moon of the Irish fondness to Lord North, whichhas succeeded to all their slappings and scratchings. 

If liberty cannot maintain its ground in this kingdom, I am sure that itcannot have any long continuance in yours. Our liberty might now andthen jar and strike a discord with that of Ireland. The thing ispossible: but still the instruments might play in concert. But if oursbe unstrung, yours will be hung up on a peg, and both will be muteforever. Your new military force may give you confidence, and it serveswell for a turn; but you and I know that it has not root. It is notperennial, and would prove but a poor shelter for your liberty, whenthis nation, having no interest in its own, could look upon yours withthe eye of envy and disgust. I cannot, therefore, help thinking, andtelling you what with great submission I think, that, if the Parliamentof Ireland be so jealous of the spirit of our common Constitution as sheseems to be, it was not so discreet to mix with the panegyric on theminister so large a portion of acrimony to the independent part of thisnation. You never received any sort of injury from them, and you aregrown to that degree of importance that the discourses in yourParliament will have a much greater effect on our immediate fortune thanour conversation can have upon yours. In the end they will seriously, affect both. 

I have looked back upon our conduct and our public conversations inorder to discover what it is that can have given you offence. I havedone so, because I am ready to admit that to offend you without anycause would be as contrary to true policy as I am sure it must be to theinclinations of almost every one of us. About two years ago Lord Nugentmoved six propositions in favor of Ireland in the House of Commons. Atthe time of the motions, and during the debate, Lord North was eitherwholly out of the House, or engaged in other matters of business orpleasantry, in the remotest recesses of the West Saxon corner. He tookno part whatsoever in the affair; but it was supposed his neutrality wasmore inclined towards the side of favor. The mover being a person inoffice was, however, the only indication that was given of such aleaning. We who supported the propositions, finding them better relishedthan at first we looked for, pursued our advantage, and began to open away for more essential benefits to Ireland. On the other hand, thosewho had hitherto opposed them in vain redoubled their efforts, andbecame exceedingly clamorous. Then it was that Lord North found itnecessary to come out of his fastness, and to interpose between thecontending parties. In this character of mediator, he declared, that, ifanything beyond the first six resolutions should be attempted, he wouldoppose the whole, but that, if we rested there, the original motionsshould have his support. On this a sort of convention took place betweenhim and the managers of the Irish business, in which the six resolutionswere to be considered as an _uti possidetis_, and to be held sacred. 

By this time other parties began to appear. A good many of the tradingtowns, and manufactures of various kinds, took the alarm. Petitionscrowded in upon one another, and the bar was occupied by a formidablebody of council. Lord N. Was staggered by this new battery. He is not ofa constitution to encounter such an opposition as had then risen, whenthere were no other objects in view than those that were then before theHouse. In order not to lose him, we were obliged to abandon, bit by bit, the most considerable part of the original agreement. 

In several parts, however, he continued fair and firm. For my own part, I acted, as I trust I commonly do, with decision. I saw very well thatthe things we had got were of no great consideration; but they were, even in their defects, somewhat leading. I was in hopes that we mightobtain gradually and by parts what we might attempt at once and in thewhole without success, --that one concession would lead to another, --andthat the people of England discovering by a progressive experience thatnone of the concessions actually made were followed by the consequencesthey had dreaded, their fears from what they were yet to yield wouldconsiderably diminish. But that to which I attached myself the mostparticularly was, to fix _the principle_ of a free trade in all theports of these islands, as founded in justice, and beneficial to thewhole, but principally to this, the seat of the supreme power. And thisI labored to the utmost of my might, upon general principles, illustrated by all the commercial detail with which my little inquiriesin life were able to furnish me. I ought to forget such trifling thingsas those, with all concerning myself; and possibly I might haveforgotten them, if the Lord Advocate of Scotland had not, in a veryflattering manner, revived them in my memory, in a full House in thissession. He told me that my arguments, such as they were, had made him, at the period I allude to, change the opinion with which he had comeinto the House strongly impressed. I am sure that at the time at leasttwenty more told me the same thing. I certainly ought not to take theirstyle of compliment as a testimony to fact; neither do I. But all thisshowed sufficiently, not what they thought of my ability, but what theysaw of my zeal. I could say more in proof of the effects of that zeal, and of the unceasing industry with which I then acted, both in myendeavors which were apparent and those that were not so visible. Let itbe remembered that I showed those dispositions while the Parliament ofEngland was in a capacity to deliberate and in a situation to refuse, when there was something to be risked here by being suspected of apartiality to Ireland, when there was an honorable danger attending theprofession of friendship to you, which heightened its relish, and madeit worthy of a reception in manly minds. But as for the awkward andnauseous parade of debate without opposition, the flimsy device oftricking out necessity and disguising it in the habit of choice, theshallow stratagem of defending by argument, what all the world mustperceive is yielded to force, --these are a sort of acts of friendshipwhich I am sorry that any of my countrymen should require of their realfriends. They are things not _to my taste_; and if they are looked uponas tests of friendship, I desire for one that I may be considered as anenemy. 

What party purpose did my conduct answer at that time? I acted with LordN. I went to all the ministerial meetings, --and he and his associates inoffice will do me the justice to say, that, aiming at the concord of theempire, I made it my business to give his concessions all the value ofwhich they were capable, whilst some of those who were covered with hisfavors derogated from them, treated them with contempt, and openlythreatened to oppose them. If I had acted with my dearest and mostvalued friends, if I had acted with the Marquis of Rockingham or theDuke of Richmond, in that situation, I could not have attended more totheir honor, or endeavored more earnestly to give efficacy to themeasures I had taken in common with them. The return which I, and allwho acted as I did, have met with from him, does not make me repent theconduct which I then held. 

As to the rest of the gentlemen with whom I have the honor to act, theydid not then, or at any other time, make a party affair of Irishpolitics. That matter was always taken up without concert; but, ingeneral, from the operation of our known liberal principles ingovernment, in commerce, in religion, in everything, it was taken upfavorably for Ireland. Where some local interests bore hard upon themembers, they acted on the sense of their constituents, upon ideaswhich, though I do not always follow, I cannot blame. However, two orthree persons, high in opposition, and high in public esteem, ran greatrisks in their boroughs on that occasion. But all this was without anyparticular plan. I need not say, that Ireland was in that affair muchobliged to the liberal mind and enlarged understanding of Charles Fox, to Mr. Thomas Townshend, to Lord Midleton, and others. On reviewing thataffair, which gave rise to all the subsequent manoeuvres, I am convincedthat the whole of what has this day been done might have then beeneffected. But then the minister must have taken it up as a great plan ofnational policy, and paid with his person in every lodgment of hisapproach. He must have used that influence to quiet prejudice, which hehas so often, used to corrupt principle: and I know, that, if he had, hemust have succeeded. Many of the most active in opposition would havegiven him an unequivocal support. The corporation of London, and thegreat body of the London West India merchants and planters, which formsthe greatest mass of that vast interest, were disposed to fall in withsuch a plan. They certainly gave no sort of discountenance to what wasdone or what was proposed. But these are not the kind of objects forwhich our ministers bring out the heavy artillery of the state. Therefore, as things stood at that time, a great deal more was notpracticable. 

Last year another proposition was brought out for the relief of Ireland. It was started without any communication with a single person ofactivity in the country party, and, as it should seem, without any kindof concert with government. It appeared to me extremely raw andundigested. The behavior of Lord N. , on the opening of that business, was the exact transcript of his conduct on the Irish question in theformer session. It was a mode of proceeding which his nature has wroughtinto the texture of his politics, and which is inseparable from them. Hechose to absent himself on the proposition and during the agitation ofthat business, --although the business of the House is that alone forwhich he has any kind of relish, or, as I am told, can be persuaded tolisten to with any degree of attention. But he was willing to let ittake its course. If it should pass without any considerable difficulty, he would bring his acquiescence to tell for merit in Ireland, and hewould have the credit, out of his indolence, of giving quiet to thatcountry. If difficulties should arise on the part of England, he knewthat the House was so well trained that he might at his pleasure call usoff from the hottest scent. As he acted in his usual manner and upon hisusual principle, opposition acted upon theirs, and rather generallysupported the measure. As to myself, I expressed a disapprobation at thepractice of bringing imperfect and indigested projects into the House, before means were used to quiet the clamors which a misconception ofwhat we were doing might occasion at home, and before measures weresettled with men of weight and authority in Ireland, in order to renderour acts useful and acceptable to that country. I said, that the onlything which could make the influence of the crown (enormous without aswell as within the House) in any degree tolerable was, that it might beemployed to give something of order and system to the proceedings of apopular assembly; that government being so situated as to have a largerange of prospect, and as it were a bird's-eye view of everything, theymight see distant dangers and distant advantages which were not sovisible to those who stood on the common level; they might, besides, observe them, from this advantage, in their relative and combined state, which people locally instructed and partially informed could behold onlyin an insulated and unconnected manner;--but that for many years past wesuffered under all the evils, without any one of the advantages of agovernment influence; that the business of a minister, or of those whoacted as such, had been still further to contract the narrowness ofmen's ideas, to confirm inveterate prejudices, to inflame vulgarpassions, and to abet all sorts of popular absurdities, in order thebetter to destroy popular rights and privileges; that, so far frommethodizing the business of the House, they had let all things run intoan inextricable confusion, and had left affairs of the most delicatepolicy wholly to chance. 

After I had expressed myself with the warmth I felt on seeing allgovernment and order buried under the ruins of liberty, and after I hadmade my protest against the insufficiency of the propositions, Isupported the principle of enlargement at which they aimed, though shortand somewhat wide of the mark, --giving, as my sole reason, that the morefrequently these matters came into discussion, the more it would tendto dispel fears and to eradicate prejudices. 

This was the only part I took. The detail was in the hands of LordNewhaven and Lord Beauchamp, with some assistance from Earl Nugent andsome independent gentlemen of Irish property. The dead weight of theminister being removed, the House recovered its tone and elasticity. Wehad a temporary appearance of a deliberative character. The business wasdebated freely on both sides, and with sufficient temper. And the senseof the members being influenced by nothing but what will naturallyinfluence men unbought, their reason and their prejudices, these twoprinciples had a fair conflict, and prejudice was obliged to give way toreason. A majority appeared, on a division, in favor of thepropositions. 

As these proceedings got out of doors, Glasgow and Manchester, and, Ithink, Liverpool, began to move, but in a manner much more slow andlanguid than formerly. Nothing, in my opinion, would have been lessdifficult than entirely to have overborne their opposition. The LondonWest India trade was, as on the former occasion, so on this, perfectlyliberal and perfectly quiet; and there is abroad so much respect for theunited wisdom of the House, when supposed to act upon a fair view of apolitical situation, that I scarcely ever remember any considerableuneasiness out of doors, when the most active members, and those of mostproperty and consideration in the minority, have joined themselves tothe administration. Many factious people in the towns I mentioned began, indeed, to revile Lord North, and to reproach his neutrality astreacherous and ungrateful to those who had so heartily and so warmlyentered into all his views with regard to America. That noble lord, whose decided character it is to give way to the latest and nearestpressure, without any sort of regard to distant consequences of anykind, thought fit to appear, on this signification of the pleasure ofthose his worthy friends and partisans, and, putting himself at the headof the _posse scaccarii_, wholly regardless of the dignity andconsistency of our miserable House, drove the propositions entirely outof doors by a majority newly summoned to duty. 

In order to atone to Ireland for this gratification to Manchester, hegraciously permitted, or rather forwarded, two bills, --that forencouraging the growth of tobacco, and that for giving a bounty onexportation of hemp from Ireland. They were brought in by two veryworthy members, and on good principles; but I was sorry to see them, and, after expressing my doubts of their propriety, left the House. Little also [else?] was said upon them. My objections were two: thefirst, that the cultivation of those weeds (if one of them could be atall cultivated to profit) was adverse to the introduction of a goodcourse of agriculture; the other, that the encouragement given to themtended to establish that mischievous policy of considering Ireland as acountry of staple, and a producer of raw materials. 

When the rejection of the first propositions and the acceptance of thelast had jointly, as it was natural, raised a very strong discontent inIreland, Lord Rockingham, who frequently said that there never seemed amore opportune time for the relief of Ireland than that moment when LordNorth had rejected all rational propositions for its relief, withoutconsulting, I believe, any one living, did what he is not often verywilling to do; but he thought this an occasion of magnitude enough tojustify an extraordinary step. He went into the closet, and made astrong representation on the matter to the king, which was not illreceived, and I believe produced good effects. He then made the motionin the House of Lords which you may recollect; but he was content towithdraw all of censure which it contained, on the solemn promise ofministry, that they would in the recess of Parliament prepare a plan forthe benefit of Ireland, and have it in readiness to produce at the nextmeeting. You may recollect that Lord Gower became in a particular mannerbound for the fulfilling this engagement. Even this did not satisfy, andmost of the minority were very unwilling that Parliament should beprorogued until something effectual on the subject should bedone, --particularly as we saw that the distresses, discontents, andarmaments of Ireland were increasing every day, and that we are not somuch lost to common sense as not to know the wisdom and efficacy ofearly concession in circumstances such as ours. 

The session was now at an end. The ministers, instead of attending to aduty that was so urgent on them, employed themselves, as usual, inendeavors to destroy the reputation of those who were bold enough toremind them of it. They caused it to be industriously circulated throughthe nation, that the distresses of Ireland were of a nature hard to betraced to the true source, that they had been monstrously magnified, andthat, in particular, the official reports from Ireland had given the lie(that was their phrase) to Lord Rockingham's representations: andattributing the origin of the Irish proceedings wholly to us, theyasserted that everything done in Parliament upon the subject was with aview of stirring up rebellion; "that neither the Irish legislature northeir constituents had signified any dissatisfaction at the reliefobtained in the session preceding the last; that, to convince both ofthe impropriety of their _peaceable_ conduct, opposition, by makingdemands in the name of Ireland, pointed out what she might extort fromGreat Britain; that the facility with which relief was (formerly)granted, instead of satisfying opposition, was calculated to create newdemands; these demands, as they _interfered_ with the commerce of GreatBritain, were _certain_ of being opposed, --a circumstance which couldnot fail to create that desirable confusion which suits the views of theparty; that they (the Irish) had long felt their own misery, _withoutknowing well from whence it came_; our worthy patriots, by _pointing outGreat Britain_ as the _cause of Irish distress_, may have some chance ofrousing Irish resentment. " This I quote from a pamphlet as perfectlycontemptible in point of writing as it is false in its facts and wickedin its design: but as it is written under the authority of ministers, byone of their principal literary pensioners, and was circulated withgreat diligence, and, as I am credibly informed, at a considerableexpense to the public, I use the words of that book to let you see inwhat manner the friends and patrons of Ireland, the heroes of yourParliament, represented all efforts for your relief here, what meansthey took to dispose the minds of the people towards that great object, and what encouragement they gave to all who should choose to exertthemselves in your favor. Their unwearied endeavors were not whollywithout success, and the unthinking people in many places becameill-affected towards us on this account. For the ministers proceeded inyour affairs just as they did with regard to those of America. Theyalways represented you as a parcel of blockheads, without sense, or evenfeeling; that all your words were only the echo of faction here; and (asyou have seen above) that you had not understanding enough to know thatyour trade was cramped by restrictive acts of the British Parliament, unless we had, for factious purposes, given you the information. Theywere so far from giving the least intimation of the measures which havesince taken place, that those who were supposed the best to know theirintentions declared them impossible in the actual state of the twokingdoms, and spoke of nothing but an act of union, as the only way thatcould be found of giving freedom of trade to Ireland, consistently withthe interests of this kingdom. Even when the session opened, Lord Northdeclared that he did not know what remedy to apply to a disease of thecause of which he was ignorant; and ministry not being then entirelyresolved how far they should submit to your energy, they, byanticipation, set the above author or some of his associates to fill thenewspapers with invectives against us, as distressing the minister byextravagant demands in favor of Ireland. 

I need not inform you, that everything they asserted of the steps takenin Ireland, as the result of our machinations, was utterly false andgroundless. For myself, I seriously protest to you, that I neither wrotea word or received a line upon any matter relative to the trade ofIreland, or to the polities of it, from the beginning of the lastsession to the day that I was honored with your letter. It would be anaffront to the talents in the Irish Parliament to say one word more. 

What was done in Ireland during that period, in and out of Parliament, never will be forgotten. You raised an army new in its kind and adequateto its purposes. It effected its end without its exertion. It was notunder the authority of law, most certainly, but it derived from anauthority still higher; and as they say of faith, that it is notcontrary to reason, but above it, so this army did not so muchcontradict the spirit of the law as supersede it. What you did in thelegislative body is above all praise. By your proceeding with regard tothe supplies, you revived the grand use and characteristic benefit ofParliament, which was on the point of being entirely lost amongst us. These sentiments I never concealed, and never shall; and Mr. Foxexpressed them with his usual power, when he spoke on the subject. 

All this is very honorable to you. But in what light must we see it? Howare we to consider your armament without commission from the crown, whensome of the first people in _this_ kingdom have been refused arms, atthe time they did not only not reject, but solicited the king'scommissions? Here to arm and embody would be represented as little lessthan high treason, if done on private authority: with you it receivesthe thanks of a Privy Counsellor of Great Britain, who obeys the IrishHouse of Lords in that point with pleasure, and is made Secretary ofState, the moment he lands here, for his reward. You shortened thecredit given to the crown to six months; you hung up the public creditof your kingdom by a thread; you refused to raise any taxes, whilst youconfessed the public debt and public exigencies to be great and urgentbeyond example. You certainly acted in a great style, and on sound andinvincible principles. But if we in the opposition, which fills Irelandwith such loyal horrors, had even attempted, what we never did evenattempt, the smallest delay or the smallest limitation of supply, inorder to a constitutional coercion of the crown, we should have beendecried by all the court and Tory mouths of this kingdom, as a desperatefaction, aiming at the direct ruin of the country, and to surrender itbound hand and foot to a foreign enemy. By actually doing what we neverventured to attempt, you have paid your court with such address, andhave won so much favor with his Majesty and his cabinet, that they have, of their special grace and mere motion, raised you to new titles, andfor the first time, ill a speech from the throne, complimented you withthe appellation of "faithful and loyal, "--and, in order to insult ourlow-spirited and degenerate obedience, have thrown these epithets andyour resistance together in our teeth! What do you think were thefeelings of every man who looks upon Parliament in an higher light thanthat of a market-overt for legalizing a base traffic of votes andpensions, when he saw you employ such means of coercion to the crown, inorder to coerce our Parliament through _that_ medium? How much hisMajesty is pleased with _his_ part of the civility must be left to hisown taste. But as to us, you declared to the world that you knew thatthe way of bringing us to reason was to apply yourselves to the truesource of all our opinions and the only motive to all our conduct! Now, it seems, you think yourselves affronted, because a few of us expresssome indignation at the minister who has thought fit to strip us starknaked, and expose the true state of our poxed and pestilential habit tothe world! Think or say what you will in Ireland, I shall ever think ita crime hardly to be expiated by his blood. He might, and ought, by alonger continuance or by an earlier meeting of this Parliament, to havegiven us the credit of some wisdom in foreseeing and anticipating anapproaching force. So far from it, Lord Gower, coming out of his owncabinet, declares that one principal cause of his resignation was hisnot being able to prevail on the present minister to give any sort ofapplication to this business. Even on the late meeting of Parliament, nothing determinate could be drawn from him, or from any of hisassociates, until you had actually passed the short money bill, --whichmeasure they flattered themselves, and assured others, you would nevercome up to. Disappointed in their expectation at [of?] seeing the siegeraised, they surrendered at discretion. 

Judge, my dear Sir, of our surprise at finding your censure directedagainst those whose only crime was in accusing the ministers of nothaving prevented your demands by our graces, of not having given you thenatural advantages of your country in the most ample, the most early, and the most liberal manner, and for not having given away authority insuch a manner as to insure friendship. That you should make thepanegyric of the ministers is what I expected; because, in praisingtheir bounty, you paid a just compliment to your own force. But that youshould rail at us, either individually or collectively, is what I canscarcely think a natural proceeding. I can easily conceive thatgentlemen might grow frightened at what they had done, --that they mightimagine they had undertaken a business above their direction, --that, having obtained a state of independence for their country, they meant totake the deserted helm into their own hands, and supply by their veryreal abilities the total inefficacy of the nominal government. All thesemight be real, and might be very justifiable motives for theirreconciling themselves cordially to the present court system. But I donot so well discover the reasons that could induce them, at the firstfeeble dawning of life in this country, to do all in their power to casta cloud over it, and to prevent the least hope of our effecting thenecessary reformations which are aimed at in our Constitution and in ournational economy. 

But, it seems, I was silent at the passing the resolutions. Why, whathad I to say? If I had thought them too much, I should have been accusedof an endeavor to inflame England. If I should represent them as toolittle, I should have been charged with a design of fomenting thediscontents of Ireland into actual rebellion. The Treasury benchrepresented that the affair was a matter of state: they represented ittruly. I therefore only asked whether they knew these propositions to besuch as would satisfy Ireland; for if they were so, they would satisfyme. This did not indicate that I thought them too ample. In this oursilence (however dishonorable to Parliament) there was oneadvantage, --that the whole passed, as far as it is gone, with completeunanimity, and so quickly that there was no time left to excite anyopposition to it out of doors. In the West India business, reasoning onwhat had lately passed in the Parliament of Ireland, and on the mode inwhich it was opened here, I thought I saw much matter of perplexity. But I have now better reason than ever to be pleased with my silence. IfI had spoken, one of the most honest and able men[16] in the IrishParliament would probably have thought my observation an endeavor to sowdissension, which he was resolved to prevent, --and one of the most, ingenious and one of the most amiable men[17] that ever graced yours orany House of Parliament might have looked on it as a chimera. In thesilence I observed, I was strongly countenanced (to say no more of it)by every gentleman of Ireland that I had the honor of conversing with inLondon. The only word, for that reason, which I spoke, was to restrain aworthy county member, [18] who had received some communication from agreat trading place in the county he represents, which, if it had beenopened to the House, would have led to a perplexing discussion of one ofthe most troublesome matters that could arise in this business. I got upto put a stop to it; and I believe, if you knew what the topic was, youwould commend my discretion. 

That it should be a matter of public discretion in me to be silent onthe affairs of Ireland is what on all accounts I bitterly lament. Istated to the House what I felt; and I felt, as strongly as humansensibility can feel, the extinction of my Parliamentary capacity, whereI wished to use it most. When I came into this Parliament, just fourteenyears ago, --into this Parliament, then, in vulgar opinion at least, thepresiding council of the greatest empire existing, (and perhaps, allthings considered, that ever did exist, ) obscure and a stranger as Iwas, I considered myself as raised to the highest dignity to which acreature of our species could aspire. In that opinion, one of the chiefpleasures in my situation, what was first and-uppermost in my thoughts, was the hope, without injury to this country, to be somewhat useful tothe place of my birth and education, which in many respects, internaland external, I thought ill and impolitically governed. But when I foundthat the House, surrendering itself to the guidance of an authority, notgrown out of an experienced wisdom and integrity, but out of theaccidents of court favor, had become the sport of the passions of men atonce rash and pusillanimous, --that it had even got into the habit ofrefusing everything to reason and surrendering everything to force, allmy power of obliging either my country or individuals was gone, all thelustre of my imaginary rank was tarnished, and I felt degraded even bymy elevation. I said this, or something to this effect. If it givesoffence to Ireland, I am sorry for it: it was the reason I gave for mysilence; and it was, as far as it went, the true one. 

With you, this silence of mine and of others was represented asfactious, and as a discountenance to the measure of your relief. Do youthink us children? If it had been our wish to embroil matters, and, forthe sake of distressing ministry, to commit the two kingdoms in adispute, we had nothing to do but (without at all condemning thepropositions) to have gone into the commercial detail of the objects ofthem. It could not have been refused to us: and you, who know the natureof business so well, must know that this would have caused such delays, and given rise during that delay to such discussions, as all the wisdomof your favorite minister could never have settled. But, indeed, youmistake your men. We tremble at the idea of a disunion of these twonations. The only thing in which we differ with you is this, --that we donot think your attaching yourselves to the court and quarrelling withthe independent part of this people is the way to promote the union oftwo free countries, or of holding them together by the most natural andsalutary ties. 

 * * * * *

You will be frightened, when you see this long letter. I smile, when Iconsider the length of it myself. I never, that I remember, wrote any ofthe same extent. But it shows me that the reproaches of the country thatI once belonged to, and in which I still have a dearness of instinctmore than I can justify to reason, make a greater impression on me thanI had imagined. But parting words are admitted to be a little tedious, because they are not likely to be renewed. If it will not be makingyourself as troublesome to others as I am to you, I shall be obliged toyou, if you will show this, at their greatest leisure, to the Speaker, to your excellent kinsman, to Mr. Grattan, Mr. Yelverton, and Mr. Daly:all these I have the honor of being personally known to, except Mr. Yelverton, to whom I am only known by my obligations to him. If you livein any habits with my old friend, the Provost, I shall be glad that he, too, sees this my humble apology. 

Adieu! once more accept my best thanks for the interest you take in me. Believe that it is received by an heart not yet so old as to have lostits susceptibility. All here give you the best old-fashioned wishes ofthe season; and believe me, with the greatest truth and regard, My dear Sir, Your most faithful and obliged humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, New year's Day, 1780. 

I am frightened at the trouble I give you and our friends; but Irecollect that you are mostly lawyers, and habituated to read long, tiresome papers--and, where your friendship is concerned, without a fee;I am sure, too, that you will not act the lawyer in scrutinizing toominutely every expression which my haste may make me use. I forgot tomention my friend O'Hara, and others; but you will communicate it as youplease. 

FOOTNOTES:

[14] Mr. Thomas Burgh, of Old Town, was a member of the House of Commonsin Ireland. --It appears from a letter written by this gentleman to Mr. Burke, December 24, 1779, and to which the following is an answer, thatthe part Mr. Burke had taken in the discussion which the affairs ofIreland had undergone in the preceding sessions of Parliament in Englandhad been grossly misrepresented and much censured in Ireland. 

[15] This intention was communicated to Mr. Burke in a letter from Mr. Pery, the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ireland. 

[16] Mr. Grattan. 

[17] Mr. Hussey Burgh

[18] Mr. Stanley, member for Lancashire. 

LETTER

TO JOHN MERLOTT, ESQ. [19]

Dear Sir, --I am very unhappy to find that my conduct in the business ofIreland, on a former occasion, had made many to be cold and indifferentwho would otherwise have been warm in my favor. I really thought thatevents would have produced a quite contrary effect, and would haveproved to all the inhabitants of Bristol that it was no desire ofopposing myself to their wishes, but a certain knowledge of thenecessity of their affairs, and a tender regard to their honor andinterest, which induced me to take the part which I then took. Theyplaced me in a situation which might enable me to discern what was fitto be done, on a consideration of the relative circumstances of thiscountry and all its neighbors. This was what you could not so well doyourselves; but you had a right to expect that I should avail myself ofthe advantage which I derived from your favor. Under the impression-ofthis duty and this trust, I had endeavored to render, by preventivegraces and concessions, every act of power at the same time an act oflenity, --the result of English bounty, and not of English timidity anddistress. I really flattered myself that the events which have provedbeyond dispute the prudence of such a maxim would have obtained pardonfor me, if not approbation. But if I have not been so fortunate, I domost sincerely regret my great loss, --this comfort, however, that, if Ihave disobliged my constituents, it was not in pursuit of any sinisterinterest or any party passion of my own, but in endeavoring to save themfrom disgrace, along with the whole community to which they and Ibelong. I shall be concerned for this, and very much so; but I should bemore concerned, if, in gratifying a present humor of theirs, I hadrendered myself unworthy of their former or their future choice. Iconfess that I could not bear to face my constituents at the nextgeneral election, if I had been a rival to Lord North in the glory ofhaving refused some small, insignificant concessions, in favor ofIreland, to the arguments and supplications of English members ofParliament, --and in the very next session, on the demand of fortythousand Irish bayonets, of having made a speech of two hours long toprove that my former conduct was founded upon no one right principle, either of policy, justice, or commerce. I never heard a more elaborate, more able, more convincing, and more shameful speech. The debaterobtained credit, but the statesman was disgraced forever. Amends weremade for having refused small, but timely concessions, by an unlimitedand untimely surrender, not only of every one of the objects of formerrestraints, but virtually of the whole legislative power itself whichhad made them. For it is not necessary to inform you, that theunfortunate Parliament of this kingdom did not dare to qualify the veryliberty she gave of trading with her _own_ plantations, by applying, ofher _own_ authority, any one of the commercial regulations to the newtraffic of Ireland, which bind us here under the several Acts ofNavigation. We were obliged to refer them to the Parliament of Ireland, as conditions, just in the same manner as if we were bestowing aprivilege of the same sort on France and Spain, or any other independentpower, and, indeed, with more studied caution than we should have used, not to shock the principle of their independence. How the ministerreconciled the refusal to reason, and the surrender to arms raised indefiance of the prerogatives of the crown, to his master, I know not: ithas probably been settled, in some way or other, between themselves. Buthowever the king and his ministers may settle the question of hisdignity and his rights, I thought it became me, by vigilance andforesight, to take care of yours: I thought I ought rather to lightenthe ship in time than expose it to a total wreck. The conduct pursuedseemed to me without weight or judgment, and more fit for a member forBanbury than a member for Bristol. I stood, therefore, silent with griefand vexation, on that day of the signal shame and humiliation of thisdegraded king and country. But it seems the pride of Ireland, in the dayof her power, was equal to ours, when we dreamt we were powerful too. Ihave been abused there even for my silence, which was construed into adesire of exciting discontent in England. But, thank God, my letter toBristol was in print, my sentiments on the policy of the measure wereknown and determined, and such as no man could think me absurd enough tocontradict. When I am no longer a free agent, I am obliged in the crowdto yield to necessity: it is surely enough that I silently submit topower; it is enough that I do not foolishly affront the conqueror; it istoo hard to force me to sing his praises, whilst I am led in triumphbefore him, --or to make the panegyric of our own minister, who would putme neither in a condition to surrender with honor or to fight with thesmallest hope of victory. I was, I confess, sullen and silent on thatday, --and shall continue so, until I see some disposition to inquireinto this and other causes of the national disgrace. If I suffer in myreputation for it in Ireland, I am sorry; but it neither does nor canaffect me so nearly as my suffering in Bristol for having wished tounite the interests of the two nations in a manner that would secure thesupremacy of this. 

Will you have the goodness to excuse the length of this letter? Myearnest desire of explaining myself in every point which may affect themind of any worthy gentleman in Bristol is the cause of it. To yourself, and to your liberal and manly notions, I know it is not so necessary. Believe me, My dear Sir, Your most faithful and obedient humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, April 4th, 1780. 

To JOHN MERLOTT, Esq. , Bristol. 

FOOTNOTES:

[19] An eminent merchant in the city of Bristol, of which Mr. Burke wasone of the representatives in Parliament. --It relates to the samesubject as the preceding Letter. 

LETTERS AND REFLECTIONS

ON THE

EXECUTIONS OF THE RIOTERS

IN 1780. 

LETTERS. 

_To the Lord Chancellor_. 

My Lord, --I hope I am not too late with the inclosed slightobservations. If the execution already ordered cannot be postponed, might I venture to recommend that it should extend to one only? and thenthe plan suggested in the inclosed paper may, if your Lordship thinkswell of it, take place, with such improvements as your better judgmentmay dictate. As to fewness of the executions, and the good effects ofthat policy, I cannot, for my own part, entertain the slightest doubt. 

If you have no objection, and think it may not occupy more of hisMajesty's time than such a thing is worth, I should not be sorry thatthe inclosed was put into the king's hands. 

I have the honor to be, my Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

CHARLES STREET, July 10, 1780. 

 * * * * *

_To the Earl Bathurst, Lord President of the Council_

My Lord, --

I came to town but yesterday, and therefore did not learn more early theprobable extent of the executions in consequence of the latedisturbances. I take the liberty of laying before you, with thesincerest deference to your judgment, what appeared to me very early asreasonable in this business. Further thoughts have since occurred to me. I confess my mind is under no small degree of solicitude and anxiety onthe subject; I am fully persuaded that a proper use of mercy would notonly recommend the wisdom and steadiness of government, but, if properlyused, might be made a means of drawing out the principal movers in thiswicked business, who have hitherto eluded your scrutiny. I beg pardonfor this intrusion, and have the honor to be, with great regard andesteem, My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

CHARLES STREET, July 18, 1780. 

 * * * * *

_To Sir Grey Cooper, Bart_. [20]

Dear Sir, --

According to your desire, I send you a copy of the few reflections onthe subject of the present executions which occurred to me in theearliest period of the late disturbances, and which all my experienceand observation since have most strongly confirmed. The executions, taking those which have been made, which are now ordered, and which maybe the natural consequence of the convictions in Surrey, will beundoubtedly too many to answer any good purpose. Great slaughterattended the suppression of the tumults, and this ought to be taken indiscount from the execution of the law. For God's sake entreat of LordNorth to take a view of the sum total of the deaths, before any areordered for execution; for by not doing something of this kind peopleare decoyed in detail into severities they never would have dreamed of, if they had the whole in their view at once. The scene in Surrey wouldhave affected the hardest heart that ever was in an human breast. Justice and mercy have not such opposite interests as people are apt toimagine. I saw Lord Loughborough last night. He seemed stronglyimpressed with the sense of what necessity obliged him to go through, and I believe will enter into our ideas on the subject. On this matteryou see that no time is to be lost. Before a final determination, thefirst thing I would recommend is, that, if the very next executioncannot be delayed, (by the way, I do not see why it may not, ) it may beof but a single person, and that afterwards you should not exceed two orthree; for it is enough for one riot, where the very act of Parliamenton which you proceed is rather a little hard in its sanctions and itsconstruction: not that I mean to complain of the latter as either new orstrained, but it was rigid from the first. 

I am, dear Sir, Your most obedient humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

Tuesday, 18th July, 1780. 

I really feel uneasy on this business, and should consider it as a sortof personal favor, if you do something to limit the extent and severityof the law on this point. Present my best compliments to Lord North, andif he thinks that I have had wishes to be serviceable to government onthe late occasion, I shall on my part think myself abundantly rewarded, if a few lives less than first intended should be saved [taken?]; Ishould sincerely set it down as a personal obligation, though the thingstands upon general and strong reason of its own. [21]

FOOTNOTES:

[20] One of the Secretaries of the Treasury. 

[21] It appears by the following extract from a letter written by theEarl of Mansfield to Mr. Burke, dated the 17th July, 1780, that theseReflections had also been communicated to him:--"I have received thehonor of your letter and very judicious thoughts. Having been so greatlyinjured myself, I have thought it more decent not to attend the reports, and consequently have not been present at any deliberation upon thesubject. "

SOME THOUGHTS

ON THE APPROACHING EXECUTIONS, HUMBLY OFFERED TO CONSIDERATION. 

As the number of persons convicted on account of the late unhappytumults will probably exceed what any one's idea of vengeance or examplewould deliver to capital punishment, it is to be wished that the wholebusiness, as well with regard to the number and description of those whoare to suffer death as with regard to those who shall be delivered overto lighter punishment or wholly pardoned, should be entirely a work ofreason. 

It has happened frequently, in cases of this nature, that the fate ofthe convicts has depended more upon the accidental circumstance of theirbeing brought earlier or later to trial than to any steady principle ofequity applied to their several cases. Without great care and sobriety, criminal justice generally begins with anger and ends in negligence. Thefirst that are brought forward suffer the extremity of the law, withcircumstances of mitigation of their case; and after a time, the mostatrocious delinquents escape merely by the satiety of punishment. 

In the business now before his Majesty, the following thoughts arehumbly submitted. 

If I understand the temper of the public at this moment, a very greatpart of the lower and some of the middling people of this city are in avery critical disposition, and such as ought to be managed with firmnessand delicacy. In general, they rather approve than blame the principlesof the rioters, though the better sort of them are afraid of theconsequences of those very principles which they approve. This keepstheir minds in a suspended and anxious state, which may very easily beexasperated by an injudicious severity into desperate resolutions, --orby weak measures on the part of government it may be encouraged to thepursuit of courses which may be of the most dangerous consequences tothe public. 

There is no doubt that the approaching executions will very muchdetermine the future conduct of those people. They ought to be such aswill humble, not irritate. Nothing will make government more awful tothem than to see that it does not proceed by chance or under theinfluence of passion. 

It is therefore proposed that no execution should be made until thenumber of persons which government thinks fit to try is completed. Whenthe whole is at once under the eye, an examination ought to be made intothe circumstances of every particular convict; and _six_, at the veryutmost, of the fittest examples may then be selected for execution, whoought to be brought out and put to death on one and the same day, in sixdifferent places, and in the most solemn manner that can be devised. Afterwards great care should be taken that their bodies may not bedelivered to their friends, or to others who may make them objects ofcompassion or even veneration: some instances of the kind have happenedwith regard to the bodies of those killed in the riots. The rest of themalefactors ought to be either condemned, for larger [longer?] orshorter terms, to the lighters, houses of correction, service in thenavy, and the like, according to the case. 

This small number of executions, and all at one time, though indifferent places, is seriously recommended; because it is certain that agreat havoc among criminals hardens rather than subdues the minds ofpeople inclined to the same crimes, and therefore fails of answering itspurpose as an example. Men who see their lives respected and thought ofvalue by others come to respect that gift of God themselves. To havecompassion for oneself, or to care, more or less, for one's own life, isa lesson to be learned just as every other; and I believe it will befound that conspiracies have been most common and most desperate wheretheir punishment has been most extensive and most severe. 

Besides, the least excess in this way excites a tenderness in the mildersort of people, which makes them consider government in an harsh andodious light. The sense of justice in men is overloaded and fatiguedwith a long series of executions, or with such a carnage at once asrather resembles a massacre than a sober execution of the laws. The lawsthus lose their terror in the minds of the wicked, and their reverencein the minds of the virtuous. 

I have ever observed that the execution of one man fixes the attentionand excites awe; the execution of multitudes dissipates and weakens theeffect: but men reason themselves into disapprobation and disgust; theycompute more as they feel less; and every severe act which does notappear to be necessary is sure to be offensive. 

In selecting the criminals, a very different line ought to be followedfrom that recommended by the champions of the Protestant Association. They recommend that the offenders for plunder ought to be punished, andthe offenders from principle spared. But the contrary rule ought to befollowed. The ordinary executions, of which there are enough inconscience, are for the former species of delinquents; but such commonplunderers would furnish no example in the present case, where the falseor pretended principle of religion, which leads to crimes, is the verything to be discouraged. 

But the reason which ought to make these people objects of selection forpunishment confines the selection to very few. For we must consider thatthe whole nation has been for a long time guilty of their crime. Toleration is a new virtue in any country. It is a late ripe fruit inthe best climates. We ought to recollect the poison which, under thename of antidotes against Popery, and such like mountebank titles, hasbeen circulated from our pulpits and from our presses, from the heads ofthe Church of England and the heads of the Dissenters. Thesepublications, by degrees, have tended to drive all religion from our ownminds, and to fill them with nothing but a violent hatred of thereligion of other people, and, of course, with a hatred of theirpersons; and so, by a very natural progression, they have led men to thedestruction of their goods and houses, and to attempts upon their lives. 

This delusion furnishes no reason for suffering that abominable spiritto be kept alive by inflammatory libels or seditious assemblies, or forgovernment's yielding to it, in the smallest degree, any point ofjustice, equity, or sound policy. The king certainly ought not to giveup any part of his subjects to the prejudices of another. So far fromit, I am clearly of opinion that on the late occasion the Catholicsought to have been taken, more avowedly than they were, under theprotection of government, as the Dissenters had been on a similaroccasion. 

But though we ought to protect against violence the bigotry of others, and to correct our own too, if we have any left, we ought to reflect, that an offence which in its cause is national ought not in its effectsto be vindicated on individuals, but with a very well-tempered severity. 

For my own part, I think the fire is not extinguished, --on the contrary, it seems to require the attention of government more than ever; but, asa part of any methodical plan for extinguishing this flame, it reallyseems necessary that the execution of justice should be as steady and ascool as possible. 

SOME ADDITIONAL REFLECTIONS

ON THE EXECUTIONS. 

The great number of sufferers seems to arise from the misfortuneincident to the variety of judicatures which have tried the crimes. Itwere well, if the whole had been the business of one commission; for nowevery trial seems as if it were a separate business, and in that lighteach offence is not punished with greater severity than single offencesof the kind are commonly marked: but in reality and fact, thisunfortunate affair, though diversified in the multitude of overt acts, has been one and the same riot; and therefore the executions, so far asregards the general effect on the minds of men, will have a reference tothe unity of the offence, and will appear to be much more severe thansuch a riot, atrocious as it was, can well justify in government. I praythat it may be recollected that the chief delinquents have hithertoescaped, and very many of those who are fallen into the hands of justiceare a poor, thoughtless set of creatures, very little aware of thenature of their offence. None of the list-makers, the assemblers of themob, the directors and arrangers, have been convicted. The preachers ofmischief remain safe, and are wicked enough not to feel for theirdeluded disciples, --no, not at all. I would not plead the ignorance ofthe law in any, even the most ignorant, as a justification; but I amsure, that, when the question is of mercy, it is a very great andpowerful argument. I have all the reason in the world to believe thatthey did not know their offence was capital. 

There is one argument, which I beg may not be considered as brought forany invidious purpose, or meant as imputing blame anywhere, but which, Ithink, with candid and considerate men, will have much weight. Theunfortunate delinquents were perhaps much encouraged by some remissnesson the part of government itself. The absolute and entire impunityattending the same offence in Edinburgh, which was over and over againurged as an example and encouragement to these unfortunate people, mightbe a means of deluding them. Perhaps, too, a languor in the beginning ofthe riots here (which suffered the leaders to proceed, until very many, as it were by the contagion of a sort of fashion, were carried to theseexcesses) might make these people think that there was something in thecase which induced government to wink at the irregularity of theproceedings. 

The conduct and condition of the Lord Mayor ought, in my opinion, to beconsidered. His answers to Lord Beauchamp, to Mr. Malo, and to Mr. Langdale make him appear rather an accomplice in the crimes than guiltyof negligence as a magistrate. Such an example set to the mob by thefirst magistrate of the city tends greatly to palliate their offence. 

The license, and complete impunity too, of the publications which fromthe beginning instigated the people to such actions, and in the midst oftrials and executions still continues, does in a great degree renderthese creatures an object of compassion. In the Public Advertiser ofthis morning there are two or three paragraphs strongly recommendingsuch outrages, and stimulating the people to violence against the housesand persons of Roman Catholics, and even against the chapels of theforeign ministers. 

I would not go so far as to adopt the maxim, _Quicquid multis peccaturinultum_; but certainly offences committed by vast multitudes aresomewhat palliated in the _individuals_, who, when so many escape, arealways looked upon rather as unlucky than criminal. All our loose ideasof justice, as it affects any individual, have in them something ofcomparison to the situation of others; and no systematic reasoning canwholly free us from such impressions. 

Phil. De Comines says our English civil wars were less destructive thanothers, because the cry of the conqueror always was, "Spare the commonpeople. " This principle of war should be at least as prevalent in theexecution of justice. The appetite of justice is easily satisfied, andit is best nourished with the least possible blood. We may, too, recollect that between capital punishment and total impunity there aremany stages. 

On the whole, every circumstance of mercy, and of comparative justice, does, in my opinion, plead in favor of such low, untaught, or ill-taughtwretches. But above all, the policy of government is deeply interestedthat the punishments should appear _one_, solemn, deliberate act, aimednot at random, and at particular offences, but done with a relation tothe general spirit of the tumults; and they ought to be nothing morethan what is sufficient to mark and discountenance that spirit. 

CIRCUMSTANCES FOR MERCY. 

 Not being principal. Probable want of early and deliberate purposes. Youth where the highest malice does not appear. Sex where the highest malice does not appear. Intoxication and levity, or mere wantonness of any kind. 

A

LETTER

TO

THE RIGHT HON. HENRY DUNDAS, ONE OF HIS MAJESTY'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES OF STATE. 

WITH THE

SKETCH OF A NEGRO CODE. 

1792. 

Dear Sir, --I should have been punctual in sending you the sketch Ipromised of my old African Code, if some friends from London had notcome in upon me last Saturday, and engaged me till noon this day: I sendthis packet by one of them who is still here. If what I send be, asunder present circumstances it must be, imperfect, you will excuse it, as being done near twelve years ago. About four years since I made anabstract of it, upon which I cannot at present lay my hands; but I hopethe marginal heads will in some measure supply it. 

If the African trade could be considered with regard to itself only, andas a single object, I should think the utter abolition to be on thewhole more advisable than any scheme of regulation an reform. Ratherthan suffer it to continue as it is, I heartily wish it at an end. Whathas been lately done has been done by a popular spirit, which seldomcalls for, and indeed very rarely relishes, a system made up of a greatvariety of parts, and which is to operate its effect in a great lengthof time. The people like short methods; the consequences of which theysometimes have reason to repent of. Abolition is but a single act. Toprove the nature of the trade, and to expose it properly, required, indeed, a vast collection of materials, which have been laboriouslycollected, and compiled with great judgment. It required also muchperseverance and address to excite the spirit which has been excitedwithout doors, and which has carried it through. The greatest eloquenceever displayed in the House has been employed to second the effortswhich have been made abroad. All this, however, leads but to one singleresolve. When this was done, all was done. I speak of absolute andimmediate abolition, the point which the first motions went to, andwhich is in effect still pressed; though in this session, according toorder, it cannot take effect. A _remote_, and a _gradual_ abolition, though they may be connected, are not the same thing. The idea of theHouse seems to me, if I rightly comprehend it, that the two things areto be combined: that is to say, that the trade is gradually to decline, and to cease entirely at a determinate period. To make the abolitiongradual, the regulations must operate as a strong discouragement. But itis much to be feared that a trade continued and discouraged, and with asentence of death passed upon it, will perpetuate much ill blood betweenthose who struggle for the abolition and those who contend for aneffectual continuance. 

At the time when I formed the plan which I have the honor to transmit toyou, an abolition of the slave trade would have appeared a verychimerical project. My plan, therefore, supposes the continued existenceof that commerce. Taking for my basis that I had an incurable evil todeal with, I cast about how I should make it as small an evil aspossible, and draw out of it some collateral good. 

In turning the matter over in my mind at that time and since, I neverwas able to consider the African trade upon a ground disconnected withthe employment of negroes in the West Indies, and distinct from theircondition in the plantations whereon they serve. I conceived that thetrue origin of the trade was not in the place it was begun at, but atthe place of its final destination. I therefore was, and I still am, ofopinion that the whole work ought to be taken up together, and that agradual abolition of slavery in the West Indies ought to go hand in handwith anything which, should be done with regard to its supply from thecoast of Africa. I could not trust a cessation of the demand for thissupply to the mere operation of any abstract principle, (such as, that, if their supply was cut off, the planters would encourage and produce aneffectual population, ) knowing that nothing can be more uncertain thanthe operation of general principles, if they are not embodied inspecific regulations. I am very apprehensive, that, so long as theslavery continues, some means for its supply will be found. If so, I ampersuaded that it is better to allow the evil, in order to correct it, than, by endeavoring to forbid what we cannot be able wholly to prevent, to leave it under an illegal, and therefore an unreformed existence. Itis not that my plan does not lead to the extinction of the slave trade, but it is through a very slow progress, the chief effect of which is tobe operated in our own plantations, by rendering, in a length of time, all foreign supply unnecessary. It was my wish, whilst the slaverycontinued, and the consequent commerce, to take such measures as tocivilize the coast of Africa by the trade, which now renders it morebarbarous, and to lead by degrees to a more reputable, and, possibly, amore profitable connection with it, than we maintain at present. 

I am sure that you will consider as a mark of my confidence in yours andMr. Pitt's honor and generosity, that I venture to put into your handsa scheme composed of many and intricate combinations, without a fullexplanatory preface, or any attendant notes, to point out the principlesupon which I proceeded in every regulation which I have proposed towardsthe civilization and gradual manumission of negroes in the twohemispheres. I confess I trust infinitely more (according to the soundprinciples of those who ever have at any time meliorated the state ofmankind) to the effect and influence of religion than to all the rest ofthe regulations put together. 

Whenever, in my proposed reformation, we take our _point of departure_from a state of slavery, we must precede the donation of freedom bydisposing the minds of the objects to a disposition to receive itwithout danger to themselves or to us. The process of bringing _free_savages to order and civilization is very different. When a state ofslavery is that upon which we are to work, the very means which lead toliberty must partake of compulsion. The minds of men, being crippledwith that restraint, can do nothing for themselves: everything must bedone for them. The regulations can owe little to consent. Everythingmust be the creature of power. Hence it is that regulations must bemultiplied, particularly as you have two parties to deal with. Theplanter you must at once restrain and support, and you must control atthe same time that you ease the servant. This necessarily makes the worka matter of care, labor, and expense. It becomes in its nature complex. But I think neither the object impracticable nor the expenseintolerable; and I am fully convinced that the cause of humanity wouldbe far more benefited by the continuance of the trade and servitude, regulated and reformed, than by the total destruction of both or either. What I propose, however, is but a beginning of a course of measureswhich an experience of the effects of the evil and the reform willenable the legislature hereafter to supply and correct. 

I need not observe to you, that the forms are often neglected, penaltiesnot provided, &c. , &c. , &c. But all this is merely mechanical, and whata couple of days' application would set to rights. 

I have seen what has been done by the West Indian Assemblies. It isarrant trifling. They have done little; and what they have done is goodfor nothing, --for it is totally destitute of an _executory_ principle. This is the point to which I have applied my whole diligence. It is easyenough to say what shall be done: to cause it to be done, --_hic labor, hoc opus_. 

I ought not to apologize for letting this scheme lie beyond the periodof the Horatian keeping, --I ought much more to entreat an excuse forproducing it now. Its whole value (if it has any) is the coherence andmutual dependency of parts in the scheme; separately they can be oflittle or no use. 

I have the honor to be, with very great respect and regard, Dear Sir, Your most faithful and obedient humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, Easter-Monday night, 1792. 

SKETCH OF A NEGRO CODE. 

This constitution consists of four principal members. 

I. The rules for qualifying a ship for the African trade. 

II. The mode of carrying on the trade upon the coast of Africa, whichincludes a plan for introducing civilization in that part of the world. 

III. What is to be observed from the time of shipping negroes to thesale in the West India islands. 

IV. The regulations relative to the state and condition of slaves in theWest Indies, their manumission, &c. 

[Sidenote: PREAMBLE. ]

Whereas it is expedient, and comformable to the principles of truereligion and morality, and to the rules of sound policy, to put an endto all traffic in the persons of men, and to the detention of their saidpersons in a state of slavery, as soon as the same may be effectedwithout producing great inconveniences in the sudden change of practicesof such long standing, and during the time of the continuance of thesaid practices it is desirable and expedient by proper regulations tolessen the inconveniences and evils attendant on the said traffic andstate of servitude, until both shall be gradually done away:

And whereas the objects of the said trade and consequential servitude, and the grievances resulting therefrom, come under the principal headsfollowing, the regulations ought thereto to be severally applied: thatis to say, that provision should be made by the said regulations, 1st, For duly qualifying ships for the said traffic;

2nd, For the mode and conditions of permitting the said trade to becarried on upon the coast of Africa;

3rd, For the treatment of the negroes in their passage to the West Indiaislands;

4th, For the government of the negroes which are or shall be employed inhis Majesty's colonies and plantations in the West Indies:

[Sidenote: Ships to be registered. ]

Be it therefore enacted, that every ship or trading vessel which isintended for the negro trade, with the name of the owner or ownersthereof, shall be entered and registered as ships trading to the WestIndies are by law to be registered, with the further provisionsfollowing:

[Sidenote: Measured and surveyed. ]

1. The same entry and register shall contain an account of the greatestnumber of negroes of all descriptions which are proposed to be takeninto the said ship or trading vessel; and the said ship, before she ispermitted to be entered outwards, shall be surveyed by a ship-carpenter, to be appointed by the collector of the port from which the said vesselis to depart, and by a surgeon, also appointed by the collector, whohath been conversant in the service of the said trade, but not at thetime actually engaged or covenanted therein; and the said carpenter andsurgeon shall report to the collector, or in his absence, to the nextprincipal officer of the port; upon oath, (which oath the said collectoror principal officer is hereby empowered to administer, ) hermeasurement, and what she contains in builder's tonnage, and that shehas ---- feet of grated portholes between the decks, and that she isotherwise fitly found as a good transport vessel. 

[Sidenote: Number of slaves limited. ]

2. And be it enacted, that no ship employed in the said trade shall uponany pretence take in more negroes than one grown man or woman for oneton and half of builder's tonnage, nor more than one boy or girl for oneton. 

[Sidenote: Provisions. ]

3. That the said ship or other vessel shall lay in, in proportion to theship's company of the said vessel, and the number of negroes registered, a full and sufficient store of sound provision, so as to be secureagainst all probable delays and accidents, namely, salted beef, pork, salt-fish, butter, cheese, biscuit, flour, rice, oat-meal, and whitepeas, but no horse-beans, or other inferior provisions; and the saidship shall be properly provided with water-casks or jars, in proportionto the intended number of the said negroes; and the said ship shall bealso provided with a proper and sufficient stock of coals or firewood. 

[Sidenote: Stores. ]

4. And every ship entered as aforesaid shall take out a coarse shirt anda pair of trousers, or petticoat, for each negro intended to be takenaboard; as also a mat, or coarse mattress, or hammock, for the use ofthe said negroes. The proportions of provision, fuel, and clothing to beregulated by the table annexed to this act. 

[Sidenote: Certificate thereof. ]

5. And be it enacted, that no ship shall be permitted to proceed on thesaid voyage or adventure, until the searcher of the port from whence thesaid vessel shall sail, or such person as he shall appoint to act forhim, shall report to the collector that he hath inspected the saidstores, and that the ship is accommodated and provided in the mannerhereby directed. 

[Sidenote: Guns for trade to be inspected. ]

6. And be it enacted, that no guns be exported to the coast of Africa, in the said or any other trade, unless the same be duly marked with themaker's name on the barrels before they are put into the stocks, andvouched by an inspector in the place where the same are made to bewithout fraud, and sufficient and merchantable arms. 

[Sidenote: Owners and masters to enter into bonds. ]

7. And be it enacted, that, before any ship as aforesaid shall proceedon her voyage, the owner or owners, or an attorney by them named, if theowners are more than two, and the master, shall severally give bond, theowners by themselves, the master for himself, that the said master shallduly conform himself in all things to the regulations in this actcontained, so far as the same regards his part in executing andconforming to the same. 

 * * * * *

II. And whereas, in providing for the second object of this act, that isto say, for the trade on the coast of Africa, it is first prudent notonly to provide against the manifold abuses to which a trade of thatnature is liable, but that the same may be accompanied, as far as it ispossible, with such advantages to the natives as may tend to thecivilizing them, and enabling them to enrich themselves by means moredesirable, and to carry on hereafter a trade more advantageous andhonorable to all parties:

And whereas religion, order, morality, and virtue are the elementalprinciples, and the knowledge of letters, arts, and handicraft trades, the chief means of such civilization and improvement: for the betterattainment of the said good purposes, [Sidenote: Marts to be established on the coast. ]

1. Be it hereby enacted, that the coast of Africa, on which the saidtrade for negroes may be carried on, shall be and is hereby divided intomarts or staples, as hereafter follows. [Here name the marts. ] And be itenacted, that it shall not be lawful for the master of any ship topurchase any negro or negroes, but at one of the said marts or staples. 

[Sidenote: Governors and counsellors. ]

2. That the directors of the African Company shall appoint, where notalready appointed, a governor, with three counsellors, at each of thesaid marts, with a salary of ---- to the governor, and of ---- to eachof the said counsellors. The said governor, or, in his absence orillness, the senior counsellor, shall and is hereby empowered to act asa justice of the peace, and they, or either of them, are authorized, ordered, and directed to provide for the peace of the settlement, andthe good regulation of their station and stations severally, accordingto the rules of justice, to the directions of this act, and theinstructions they shall receive from time to time from the said AfricanCompany. And the said African Company is hereby authorized to prepareinstructions, with the assent of the Lords of his Majesty's PrivyCouncil, which shall be binding in all things not contrary to this act, or to the laws of England, on the said governors and counsellors, andevery of them, and on all persons acting in commission with them underthis act, and on all persons residing within the jurisdiction of themagistrates of the said mart. 

[Sidenote: Ships of war stationed. ]

3. And be it enacted, that the Lord High Admiral, or commissioners forexecuting his office, shall appoint one or more, as they shall seeconvenient, of his Majesty's ships or sloops of war, under the commandseverally of a post-captain, or master and commander, to each mart, as anaval station. 

[Sidenote: Inspectors appointed. ]

4. And be it enacted, that the Lord High Treasurer, or the commissionersfor executing his office, shall name two inspectors of the said trade atevery mart, who shall provide for the execution of this act, accordingto the directions thereof, so far as shall relate to them; and it ishereby provided and enacted, that, as cases of sudden emergency mayarise, the said governor or first counsellor, and the first commander ofhis Majesty's ship or ships on the said station, and the saidinspectors, or the majority of them, the governor having a double orcasting vote, shall have power and authority to make such occasionalrules and orders relating to the said trade as shall not be contrary tothe instructions of the African Company, and which shall be valid untilthe same are revoked by the said African Company. 

[Sidenote: Lands may be purchased. ]

5. That the said African Company is hereby authorized to purchase, ifthe same may conveniently be done, with the consent of the PrivyCouncil, any lands adjoining to the fort or principal mart aforesaid, not exceeding ---- acres, and to make allotments of the same; noallotment to one person to exceed (on pain of forfeiture) ---- acres. 

[Sidenote: Churches and schoolhouses, and hospitals to be erected. ]

[Sidenote: Chaplain and assistant. ]

[Sidenote: Clerk and catechist. ]

6. That the African Company shall, at each fort or mart, cause to beerected, in a convenient place, and at a moderate cost, the estimate ofwhich shall be approved by the Treasury, one church, and oneschool-house, and one hospital; and shall appoint one principalchaplain, with a curate or assistant in holy orders, both of whom shallbe recommended by the Lord Bishop of London; and the said chaplain orhis assistant shall perform divine service, and administer thesacraments, according to the usage of the Church of England, or to suchmode not contrary thereto as to the said bishop shall seem more suitableto the circumstances of the people. And the said principal chaplainshall be the third member in the council, and shall be entitled toreceive from the directors of the said African Company a salary of ----, and his assistant a salary of ----, and he shall have power to appointone sober and discreet person, white or black, to be his clerk andcatechist, at a salary of ----. 

[Sidenote: Schoolmaster. ]

[Sidenote: Carpenter and blacksmith. ]

[Sidenote: Native apprentices. ]

[Sidenote: Surgeon and mate. ]

[Sidenote: Native apprentice. ]

7. And be it enacted, that the African Company shall appoint onesufficient schoolmaster, who shall be approved by the Bishop of London, and who shall be capable of teaching writing, arithmetic, surveying, andmensuration, at a salary of ----. And the said African Company is herebyauthorized to provide for each settlement a carpenter and blacksmith, with such encouragement as to them shall seem expedient, who shall takeeach two apprentices from amongst the natives; to instruct them in theseveral trades, the African Company allowing them, as a fee for eachapprentice, ----. And the said African Company shall appoint one surgeonand one surgeon's mate, who are to be approved on examination, atSurgeons' Hall, to each fort or mart, with a salary of ---- for thesurgeon, and for his mate ----; and the said surgeon shall take onenative apprentice, at a fee to be settled by the African Company. 

[Sidenote: How removable. ]

8. And be it enacted, that the said catechist, schoolmaster, surgeon, and surgeon's mate, as well as the tradesmen in the Company's service, shall be obedient to the orders they shall from time to time receivefrom the governor and council of each fort; and if they, or any of them, or any other person, in whatever station, shall appear, on complaint andproof to the majority of the commissioners, to lead a disorderly anddebauched life, or use any profane or impious discourses, to the dangerof defeating the purposes of this institution, and to the scandal of thenatives, who are to be led by all due means into a respect for our holyreligion, and a desire of partaking of the benefits thereof, they areauthorized and directed to suspend the said person from his office, orthe exercise of his trade, and to send him to England (but without anyhard confinement, except in case of resistance) with a complaint, withinquiry and proofs adjoined, to the African Company. 

9. And be it enacted, that the Bishop of London for the time being shallhave full authority to remove the said chaplain for such causes as tohim shall seem reasonable. 

[Sidenote: No public officer to be concerned in the negro trade. ]

10. That no governor, counsellor, inspector, chaplain, surgeon, orschoolmaster shall be concerned, or have any share, directly orindirectly, in the negro trade, on pain of ----. 

[Sidenote: Journals and letter-books to be kept and transmitted. ]

11. Be it enacted, that the said governor and council shall keep ajournal of all their proceedings, and a book in which copies of alltheir correspondence shall be entered, and they shall transmit copies ofthe said journals and letter-book, and their books of accounts, to theAfrican Company, who, within ---- of their receipt thereof, shallcommunicate the same to one of his Majesty's principal secretaries ofstate. 

[Sidenote: Chaplain to report to the Bishop of London. ]

12. And be it enacted, that the said chaplain or principal minister, shall correspond with the Bishop of London, and faithfully anddiligently transmit to him an account of whatever hath been done for theadvancement of religion, morality, and learning amongst the natives. 

[Sidenote: Negroes to be attested before sale. ]

13. And be it enacted, that no negro shall be conclusively sold, untilhe shall be attested by the two inspectors and chaplain, or, in case ofthe illness of any of them, by one inspector, and the governor, or oneof the council, who are hereby authorized and directed, by the bestmeans in their power, to examine into the circumstances and condition ofthe persons exposed to sale. 

[Sidenote: Causes for rejection. ]

14. And for the better direction of the said inspectors, no persons areto be sold, who, to the best judgment of the said inspectors, shall beabove thirty-five years of age, or who shall appear, on examination, stolen or carried away by the dealers by surprise; nor any person who isable to read in the Arabian or any other book; nor any woman who shallappear to be advanced three months in pregnancy; nor any persondistorted or feeble, unless the said persons are consenting to suchsale; or any person afflicted with a grievous or contagious distemper:but if any person so offered is only lightly disordered, the said personmay be sold, but must be kept in the hospital of the mart, and shall notbe shipped until completely cured. 

[Sidenote: Traders to be licensed by the governors. ]

15. Be it enacted, that no black or European factor or trader into theinterior country, or on the coast, (the masters of English ships onlyexcepted, for whose good conduct provision is otherwise herein made, )shall be permitted to buy or sell in any of the said marts, unless he beapproved by the governor of the mart in which he is to deal, or, in hisabsence or disability, by the senior counsellor for the time being, andobtaining a license from such governor or counsellor; and the saidtraders and factors shall, severally or jointly, as they shall beconcerned, before they shall obtain the said license, be bound in arecognizance, with such surety for his or their good behavior as to thesaid governor shall seem the best that can be obtained. 

[Sidenote: Offences how to be tried and punished. ]

16. Be it enacted, that the said governor, or other authority aforesaid, shall examine, by duty of office, into the conduct of all such tradersand factors, and shall receive and publicly hear (with the assistance ofthe council and inspectors aforesaid, and of the commodore, captain, orother principal commander of one of his Majesty's ships on the saidstation, or as many of the same as can be assembled, two whereof, withthe governor, are hereby enabled to act) all complaints against them, orany of them; and if any black or white trader or factor, (other than inthis act excepted, ) either on inquisition of office or on complaint, shall be convicted by a majority of the said commissioners present ofstealing or taking by surprise any person or persons whatsoever, whetherfree or the slaves of others, without the consent of their masters, orof wilfully and maliciously killing or maiming any person, or of anycruelty, (necessary restraint only excepted, ) or of firing houses, ordestroying goods, the said trader or factor shall be deemed to haveforfeited his recognizance, and his surety to have forfeited his; andthe said trader or factor, so convicted, shall be forever disabled fromdealing in any of the said marts, unless the offence shall not be thatof murder, maiming, arson, or stealing or surprising the person, andshall appear to the commissioners aforesaid to merit only, besides thepenalty of his bond, a suspension for one year; and the said trader orfactor, so convicted of murder, maiming, arson, stealing or surprisingthe person, shall, if a native, be delivered over to the prince to whomhe belongs, to execute further justice on him. But it is hereby providedand enacted, that, if any European shall be convicted of any of the saidoffences, he shall be sent to Europe, together with the evidence againsthim; and on the warrant of the said commissioners, the keeper of any ofhis Majesty's jails in London, Bristol, Liverpool, or Glasgow shallreceive him, until he be delivered according to due course of law, as ifthe said offences had been committed within the cities and townsaforesaid. 

[Sidenote: Negroes exposed to sale contrary to the provisions of thisact, how to be dealt with. ]

17. Be it further enacted, that, if the said governor, &c, shall besatisfied that person or persons are exposed to sale, who have beenstolen or surprised as aforesaid, or are not within the qualificationsof sale in this act described, they are hereby authorized and required, if it can be done, to send the persons so exposed to sale to theiroriginal habitation or settlement, in the manner they shall deem bestfor their security, (the reasonable charges whereof shall be allowed tothe said governor by the African Company, ) unless the said personschoose to sell themselves; and then, and in that case, their value inmoney and goods, at their pleasure, shall be secured to them, and beapplicable to their use, -without any dominion over the same of anypurchaser, or of any master to whom they may in any colony or plantationbe sold, and which shall always be in some of his master's [Majesty's?]colonies and plantations only. And the master of the ship in which suchperson shall embark shall give bond for the faithful execution of hispart of the trust at the island where he shall break bulk. 

18. Be it further enacted, that, besides the hospitals on shore, one ormore hospital-ships shall be employed at each of the said chief marts, wherein slaves taken ill in the trading ships shall be accommodated, until they shall be cured; and then the owner may reclaim and shallreceive them, paying the charges which shall be settled by regulation tobe made by the authority in this act enabled to provide suchregulations. 

 * * * * *

III. And whereas it is necessary that regulations be made to preventabuses in the passage from Africa to the West Indies:

[Sidenote: Slave ships to be examined on the coast. ]

1. Be it further enacted, that the commander or lieutenant of the king'sship on each station shall have authority, as often as he shall seeoccasion, attended with one other of his officers, and his surgeon ormate, to enter into and inspect every trading ship, in order to providefor the due execution of this act, and of any ordinances made in virtuethereof and conformable thereto by the authorities herein constitutedand appointed; and the said officer and officers are hereby required toexamine every trading ship before she sails, and to stop the sailing ofthe said ship for the breach of the said rules and ordinances, until thegovernor in council shall order and direct otherwise: and the master of]the said ship shall not presume, under the penalty of ----, to berecovered in the courts of the West Indies, to sail without acertificate from the commander aforesaid, and one of the inspectors inthis act appointed, that the vessel is provided with stores and otheraccommodation sufficient for her voyage, and has not a greater number ofslaves on board than by the provisions of this act is allowed. 

[Sidenote: Governor to give special instructions. ]

2. And be it enacted, that the governor and council, with the assistanceof the said naval commander, shall have power to give such specialwritten instructions for the health, discipline, and care of the saidslaves, during their passage, as to them shall seem good, [Sidenote: Presents and musical instruments to be provided. ]

3. And be it further enacted, that each slave, at entering the saidship, is to receive some present, not exceeding in value ----, to beprovided according to the instructions aforesaid; and musicalinstruments, according to the fashion of the country, are to beprovided. 

[Sidenote: Table of allowances. ]

4. And be it further enacted, that the negroes on board the transports, and the seamen who navigate the same, are to receive their dailyallowance according to the table hereunto annexed, together with acertain quantity of spirits to be mixed with their water. And it isenacted, that the table is to be fixed, and continue for one week aftersailing, in some conspicuous part of the said ship, for the seamen'sinspection of the same. 

[Sidenote: Negro superintendents to be appointed. ]

5. And be it enacted, that the captain of each trading vessel shall beenabled and is to divide the slaves in his ship into crews of not lessthan ten nor more than twenty persons each, and to appoint one negro manto have such authority severally over each crew, as according to hisjudgment, with the advice of the mate and surgeon, he and they shall seegood to commit to them, and to allow to each of them some compensation, in extraordinary diet and presents, not exceeding [ten shillings]. 

[Sidenote: Communication with female slaves, how punished. ]

6. And be it enacted, that any European officer or seaman, havingunlawful communication with any woman slave, shall, if an officer, payfive pounds to the use of the said woman, on landing her from the saidship, to be stopped out of his wages, or if a seaman, forty shillings:the said penalties to be recovered on the testimony of the woman soabused, and one other. 

[Sidenote: Premium to commanders of slave-ships. ]

7. And be it enacted, that all and every commander of a vessel orvessels employed in slave trade, having received certificates from theport of the outfit, and from the proper officers in Africa and the WestIndies, of their having conformed to the regulations of this act, and oftheir not having lost more than one in thirty of their slaves by death, shall be entitled to a bounty or premium of [ten pounds]. 

 * * * * *

IV. And whereas the condition of persons in a state of slavery is suchthat they are utterly unable to take advantage of any remedy which thelaws may provide for their protection and the amendment of theircondition, and have not the proper means of pursuing any process forthe same, but are and must be under guardianship: and whereas it is notfitting that they should be under the sole guardianship of theirmasters, or their attorneys and overseers, to whom their grievances, whenever they suffer any, must ordinarily be owing:

[Sidenote: Attorney-General to be protector of negroes. ]

[Sidenote: To inquire and file information _ex officio_. ]

1. Be it therefore enacted, that his Majesty's Attorney-General for thetime being successively shall, by his office, exercise the trust andemployment of protector of negroes within the island in which he is orshall be Attorney-General to his Majesty, his heirs and successors; andthat the said Attorney-General, protector of negroes, is herebyauthorized to hear any complaint on the part of any negro or negroes, and inquire into the same, or to institute an inquiry _ex officio_ intoany abuses, formations and to call before him and examine witnesses uponoath, relative to the subject-matter of the said official inquiry orcomplaint: and it is hereby enacted and declared, that the saidAttorney-General, protector of negroes, is hereby authorized andempowered, at his discretion, to file an information _ex officio_ forany offences committed against the provisions of this act, or for anymisdemeanors or wrongs against the said negroes, or any of them. 

[Sidenote: Power to challenge jurors. ]

2. And it is further enacted, that in all trials of such informationsthe said protector of negroes may and is hereby authorized to challengeperemptorily a number not exceeding ---- of the jury who shall beimpanelled to try the charge in the said information contained. 

[Sidenote: To appoint inspectors of districts. ]

[Sidenote: who are to report to him twice in the year the number andcondition of the slaves. ]

3. And be it enacted, that the said Attorney-General, protector ofnegroes, shall appoint inspectors, not exceeding the number of ----, athis discretion; and the said inspectors shall be placed in convenientdistricts in each island severally, or shall twice in the year make acircuit in the same, according to the direction which they shall receivefrom the protector of negroes aforesaid; and the inspectors shall andthey are hereby required, twice in the year, to report in writing to theprotector aforesaid the state and condition of the negroes in theirdistricts or on their circuit severally, the number, sex, age, andoccupation of the said negroes on each plantation; and the overseer orchief manager on each plantation is hereby required to furnish anaccount thereof within [ten days] after the demand of the saidinspectors, and to permit the inspector or inspectors aforesaid toexamine into the same; and the said inspectors shall set forth, in thesaid report, the distempers to which the negroes are most liable in theseveral parts of the island. 

[Sidenote: Instructions to be formed for inspectors. ]

4. And be it enacted, that the said protector of negroes, by and withthe consent the governor and chief judge of each island, shall forminstructions, by which the said inspectors shall discharge their trustin the manner the least capable of exciting any unreasonable hopes inthe said negroes, or of weakening the proper authority of the overseer, and shall transmit them to one of his Majesty's principal secretaries ofstate; and when sent back with his approbation, the same shall becomethe rule for the conduct of the said inspectors. 

[Sidenote: Registry. ]

5. And be it enacted, that the said Attorney-General, protector ofnegroes, shall appoint an office for registering all proceedingsrelative to the duty of his place as protector of negroes, and shallappoint his chief clerk to be registrar, with a salary not exceeding----. 

[Sidenote: Ports where negroes are to be landed. Vessels to beinspected. ]

[Sidenote: Masters or officers offending to be fined. ]

6. And be it enacted, that no negroes shall be landed for sale in anybut the ports following: that is to say, ----. And the collector of eachof the said ports severally shall, within ---- days after the arrival ofany ship transporting negroes, report the same to the protector ofnegroes, or to one of his inspectors; and the said protector is herebyauthorized and required to examine, or cause to be examined by one ofhis inspectors, with the assistance of the said collector, or hisdeputy, and a surgeon to be called in on the occasion, the state of thesaid ship and negroes; and upon what shall appear to them, the saidprotector of negroes, and the said collector and surgeon, to be asufficient proof, either as arising from their own inspection, orsufficient information on a summary process, of any contravention ofthis act, or cruelty to the negroes, or other malversation of the saidcaptain, or any of his officers the said protector shall impose a fineon him or them, not exceeding ----; which shall not, however, weaken orinvalidate any penalty growing from the bond of the said master or hisowners. And it is hereby provided, that, if the said master, or any ofhis officers, shall find himself aggrieved by the said fine, he maywithin ---- days appeal to the chief judge, if the court shall besitting, or to the governor, who shall and are required to hear the saidparties, and on hearing are to annul or confirm the same. 

[Sidenote: Rates respecting the sale of negroes. ]

7. And be it enacted, that no sale of negroes shall be made but in thepresence of an inspector, and all negroes shall be sold severally, or inknown and ascertained lots, and not otherwise; and a paper containingthe state and description of each negro severally sold, and of each lot, shall be taken and registered in the office aforesaid; and if, oninspection or information, it shall be found that any negroes shallhave, in the same ship, or any other at the same time examined, a wife, an husband, a brother, sister, or child, the person or persons sorelated shall not be sold separately at that or any future sale. 

[Sidenote: Every island to be divided into districts. ]

[Sidenote: A church to be built in each. ]

8. And be it enacted, that each and every of his Majesty's islands andplantations, in which negroes are used in cultivation, shall be, by thegovernor and the protector of negroes for the time being, divided intodistricts, allowing as much as convenience will admit to the presentdivision into parishes, and subdividing them, where necessary, intodistricts, according to the number of negroes. And the said governor andprotector of negroes shall cause in each district a church to be builtin a convenient place, and a cemetery annexed, and an house for theresidence of a clergyman, with ---- acres of land annexed; and they arehereby authorized to treat for the necessary ground with the proprietor, who is hereby obliged to sell and dispose of the same to the said use;and in case of dispute concerning the value, the same to be settled by ajury, as in like cases is accustomed. 

[Sidenote: Appointment of a priest and clerk. ]

9. And be it enacted, that in each of the said districts shall beestablished a presbyter of the Church of England as by law established, who shall appoint under him one clerk, who shall be a free negro, whensuch properly qualified can be found, (otherwise, a white man, ) with asalary, in each case, of ----; and the said minister and clerk, both orone, shall instruct the said negroes in the Church Catechism, or suchother as shall be provided by the authority in this act named; and thesaid minister shall baptize, as he shall think fit, all negroes notbaptized, and not belonging to Dissenters from the Church of England. 

[Sidenote: Owner to deliver a list of negroes to the minister, and tocause them to attend divine service. ]

10. And the principal overseer of each plantation is hereby required todeliver annually unto the minister a list of all the negroes upon hisplantation, distinguishing their sex and age, and shall, under a penaltyof ----, cause all the negroes under his care, above the age of ----years, to attend divine service once on every Sunday, except in case ofsickness, infirmity, or other necessary cause, to be given at the time, and shall, by himself or one of those who are under him, provide for theorderly behavior of the negroes under him, and cause them to return tohis plantation, when divine service, or administration of sacraments, orcatechism, is ended. 

[Sidenote: Mister to direct punishment for disorderly conduct. ]

11. And be it enacted, that the minister shall have power to punish anynegro for disorderly conduct during divine service, by a punishment notexceeding [ten] blows to be given in one day and for one offence, whichthe overseer or his under agent or agents is hereby directed, accordingto the orders of the said minister, effectually to inflict, whenever thesame shall be ordered. 

[Sidenote: Spirituous liquors not to be sold. ]

12. And be it enacted, that no spirituous liquors of any kind shall besold, except in towns, within ---- miles distance of any church, norwithin any district during divine service, and an hour preceding and anhour following the same; and the minister of each parish shall and ishereby authorized to act as a justice of the peace in enforcing the saidregulation. 

[Sidenote: Register of births, burials, and marriages. ]

13. And be it enacted, that every minister shall keep a register ofbirths, burials, and marriages of all negroes and mulattoes in hisdistrict. 

[Sidenote: Synod to assemble annually, and to form regulations, ]

14. And be it enacted, that the ministers of the several districts shallmeet annually, on the ---- day of ----, in a synod of the island towhich they belong; and the said synod shall have for its president suchperson as the Bishop of London shall appoint for his commissary; and thesaid synod or general assembly is hereby authorized, by a majority ofvoices, to make regulations, which regulations shall be transmitted bythe said president or commissary to the Bishop of London; and whenreturned by the Bishop of London approved of, then, and not before, thesaid regulations shall be held in force to bind the said clergy, theirassistants, clerks, and schoolmasters only, and no other persons. 

[Sidenote: and to report to the Bishop of London. ]

15. And be it enacted, that the said president shall collect matter inthe said assembly, and shall make a report of the state of religion andmorals in the several parishes from whence the synod is deputed, andshall transmit the same, once in the year, in duplicate, through thegovernor and protector of negroes, to the Bishop of London. 

[Sidenote: Bishop of London to be patron of the cures. ]

16. And be it enacted and declared, that the Bishop of London for thetime being patron of the shall be patron to all and every the saidcures in this act directed; and the said bishop is hereby required toprovide for the due filling thereof, and is to receive, from the fund inthis act provided for the due execution of this act, a sum not exceeding---- for each of the said ministers, for his outfit and passage. 

[Sidenote: and to have power of suspending and removing ministers. ]

17. And be it enacted, that, on misbehavior, and on complaint from thesaid synod, and on hearing the party accused in a plain and summarymanner, it shall and may be lawful for the Bishop of London to suspendor to remove any minister from his cure, as his said offences shallappear to merit. 

[Sidenote: Schools for young negroes. ]

18. And be it enacted, that for every two districts a school shall beestablished for young negroes to be taught three days in the week, andto be detained from their owner four hours in each day, the number notto be more or fewer than twenty males in each district, who shall bechosen, and vacancies filled, by the minister of the district; and thesaid minister shall pay to the owner of the said boy, and shall beallowed the same in his accounts at the synod, to the age of twelveyears old, three-pence by the day, and for every boy from twelve yearsold to fifteen, five-pence by the day. 

[Sidenote: Extraordinary abilities to be encouraged. ]

19. And it is enacted, that, if the president of the synod aforesaidshall certify to the protector of negroes, that any boys in the saidschools (provided that the number in no one year shall exceed one in theisland of Jamaica, and one in two years in the islands of Barbadoes, Antigua, and Grenada, and one in four years in any of the other islands)do show a remarkable aptitude for learning, the said protector is herebyauthorized and directed to purchase the said boy at the best rate atwhich boys of that age and strength have been sold within the year; andthe said negro so purchased shall be under the entire guardianship ofthe said protector of negroes, who shall send him to the Bishop ofLondon for his further education in England, and may charge in hisaccounts for the expense of transporting him to England; and the Bishopof London shall provide for the education of such of the said negroes ashe shall think proper subjects, until the age of twenty-four years, andshall order those who shall fall short of expectation after one year tobe bound apprentice to some handicraft trade; and when hisapprenticeship is finished, the Lord Mayor of London is herebyauthorized and directed to receive the said negro from his master, andto transmit him to the island from which he came, in the West Indies, tobe there as a free negro, subject, however, to the direction of theprotector of negroes, relatively to his behavior and employment. 

[Sidenote: Negroes of Dissenters. ]

[Sidenote: their marriages, &c. , to be registered. ]

20. And it is hereby enacted and provided, that any planter, or owner ofnegroes, not being of the Church of England, and not choosing to sendhis negroes to attend divine service in manner by this act directed, shall give, jointly or severally, as the case shall require, security tothe protector of negroes that a competent minister of some Christianchurch or congregation shall be provided for the due instruction of thenegroes, and for their performing divine service according to thedescription of the religion of the master or masters, in some church orhouse thereto allotted, in the manner and with the regulations in thisact prescribed with regard to the exercise of religion according to theChurch of England: provided always, that the marriages of the saidnegroes belonging to Dissenters shall be celebrated only in the churchof the said district, and that a register of the births shall betransmitted to the minister of the said district. 

[Sidenote: Regulations concerning marriage. ]

21. And whereas a state of matrimony, and the government of a family, isa principal means of forming men to a fitness for freedom, and to becomegood citizens: Be it enacted, that all negro men and women, aboveeighteen years of age for the man and sixteen for the woman, who havecohabited together for twelve months or upwards, or shall cohabit forthe same time, and have a child or children, shall be deemed to allintents and purposes to be married, and either of the parties isauthorized to require of the ministers of the district to be married inthe face of the church. 

[Sidenote: Concerning the same. ]

22. And be it enacted, that, from and after the ---- of ----, all negromen in an healthy condition, and so reported to be, in case the same isdenied, by a surgeon and by an inspector of negroes, and beingtwenty-one years old, or upwards, until fifty, and not being beforemarried, shall, on requisition of the inspectors, be provided by theirmasters or overseers with a woman not having children living, and notexceeding the age of the man, nor, in any case, exceeding the age oftwenty-five years; and such persons shall be married publicly in theface of the church. 

[Sidenote: Concerning the same. ]

23. And be it enacted, that, if any negro shall refuse a competentmarriage tendered to him, and shall not demand another specifically, such as it may be in his master's power to provide, the master oroverseer shall be authorized to constrain him by an increase of work ora lessening of allowance. 

[Sidenote: Adultery, &c. , how to be punished. ]

24. And be it enacted, that the minister in each district shall have, with the assent of the inspector, full power and authority to punish allacts of adultery, unlawful concubinage, and fornication, amongstnegroes, on hearing and a summary process, by ordering a number ofblows, not exceeding ----, for each offence; and if any white personshall be proved, on information in the supreme court, to be exhibited bythe protector of negroes, to have committed adultery with any negrowoman, or to have corrupted any negro woman under sixteen years of agehe shall be fined in the sum of ----, and shall be forever disabled fromserving the office of overseer of negroes, or being attorney to anyplantation. 

[Sidenote: Concerning marriage. ]

25. And be it enacted, that no slaves shall be compelled to do any workfor their masters for [three] days after their marriage. 

[Sidenote: Concerning pregnant women. ]

26. And be it enacted, that no woman shall be obliged to field-work, orany other laborious work, for one month before her delivery, or for sixweeks afterwards. 

[Sidenote: Separation of husband and wife, and children, to be avoided. ]

27. And be it enacted, that no husband and wife shall be soldseparately, if originally belonging to the same master; nor shall anychildren under sixteen be sold separately from their parents, or oneparent, if one be living. 

[Sidenote: Concerning the same. ]

28. And be it enacted, that, if an husband and wife, which before theirintermarriage belonged to different owners, shall be sold, they shallnot be sold at such a distance as to prevent mutual help andcohabitation; and of this distance the minister shall judge, and hiscertificate of the inconvenient distance shall be valid, so as to makesuch sale unlawful, and to render the same null and void. 

[Sidenote: Negroes not to work on Saturday afternoon or Sunday. ]

29. And be it enacted, that no negro shall be compelled to work for hisowner at field-work, or any service relative to a plantation, or to workat any handicraft trade, from eleven o'clock on Saturday forenoon untilthe usual working hour on Monday morning. 

[Sidenote: Other cases of exemption from labor. ]

30. And whereas habits of industry and sobriety, and the means ofacquiring and preserving property, are proper and reasonablepreparatives to freedom, and will secure against an abuse of the same:Be it enacted, that every negro man, who shall have served ten years, and is thirty years of age, and is married, and has had two childrenborn of any marriage, shall obtain the whole of Saturday for himself andhis wife, and for his own benefit, and after thirty-seven years of age, the whole of Friday for himself and his wife: provided that in bothcases the minister of the district and the inspector of negroes shallcertify that they know nothing against his peaceable, orderly, andindustrious behavior. 

[Sidenote: Huts and land to be appropriated. ]

31. And be it enacted, that the master of every plantation shall providethe materials of a good and substantial hut for each married fieldnegro; and if his plantation shall exceed ---- acres, he shall allot tothe same a portion of land not less than ----: and the said hut and landshall remain and stand annexed to the said negro, for his natural life, or during his bondage; but the same shall not be alienated without theconsent of the owners. 

[Sidenote: Property of negroes secured. ]

32. And be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the owner of anynegro, by himself or any other, to take from him any land, house, cattle, goods, or money, acquired by the said negro, whether bypurchase, donation, or testament, whether the same has been derived fromthe owner of the said negro, or any other. 

33. And be it enacted, that, if the said negro shall die possessed ofany lands, goods, or chattels, and dies without leaving a wife or issue, it shall be lawful for the said negro to devise or bequeath the same byhis last will; but in case the said negro shall die intestate, and leavea wife and children, the same shall be distributed amongst them, according to the usage under the statute, commonly called the Statute ofDistributions; but if the said negro shall die intestate without wife orchildren, then, and in that case, his estate shall go to the fundprovided for the better execution of this act. 

34. And be it enacted, that no negro, who is married, and hath residedupon any plantation for twelve months, shall be sold, either privatelyor by the decree of any court, but along with the plantation on which hehath resided, unless he should himself request to be separatedtherefrom. 

[Sidenote: Of the punishment of negroes. ]

35. And be it enacted, that no blows or stripes exceeding thirteen, shall be inflicted for one offence upon any negro, without the order ofone of his Majesty's justices of peace. 

[Sidenote: Of the same. ]

36. And it is enacted, that it shall be lawful for the protector ofnegroes, as often as on complaint and hearing he shall be of opinionthat any negro hath been cruelly and inhumanly treated, or when itshall be made to appear to him that an overseer hath any particularmalice, to order, at the desire of the suffering party, the said negroto be sold to another master. 

37. And be it enacted, that, in all cases of injury to member or life, the offences against a negro shall be deemed and taken to all intentsand purposes as if the same were perpetrated against any of hisMajesty's subjects; and the protector of negroes, on complaint, or if heshall receive credible information thereof, shall cause an indictment tobe presented for the same; and in case of suspicion of any murder of anegro, an inquest by the coroner, or officer acting as such, shall, ifpracticable, be held into the same. 

[Sidenote: Of the manumission of negroes. ]

38. And in order to a gradual manumission of slaves, as they shall seemfitted to fill the offices of freemen, be it enacted, that every negroslave, being thirty years of ago and upwards, and who has had threechildren born to him in lawful matrimony, and who hath received acertificate from the minister of his district, or any other Christianteacher, of his regularity in the duties of religion, and of his orderlyand good behavior, may purchase, at rates to be fixed by two justices ofpeace, the freedom of himself, or his wife or children, or of any ofthem separately, valuing the wife and children, if purchased intoliberty by the father of the family, at half only of their marketablevalues: provided that the said father shall bind himself in a penalty of---- for the good behavior of his children. 

[Sidenote: Of the same. ]

39. And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the protector ofnegroes to purchase the freedom of any negro who shall appear to him toexcel in any mechanical art, or other knowledge or practice deemedliberal, and the value shall be settled by a jury. 

[Sidenote: Free negroes how to be punished. ]

40. And be it enacted, that the protector of negroes shall be and isauthorized and required to act as a magistrate for the coercion of allidle, disobedient, or disorderly free negroes, and he shall by officeprosecute them for the offences of idleness, drunkenness, quarrelling, gaming, or vagrancy, in the supreme court, or cause them to beprosecuted before one justice of peace, as the case may require. 

[Sidenote: Of the same. ]

41. And be it enacted, that, if any free negro hath been twice convictedfor any of the said misdemeanors, and is judged by the said protector ofnegroes, calling to his assistance two justices of the peace, to beincorrigibly idle, dissolute, and vicious, it shall be lawful, by theorder of the said protector and two justices of peace, to sell the saidfree negro into slavery: the purchase-money to be paid to the person soremanded into servitude, or kept in hand by the protector and governorfor the benefit of his family. 

[Sidenote: Governor to receive and transmit annual reports. ]

42. And be it enacted, that the governor in each colony shall beassistant to the execution of this act, and shall receive the reports ofthe protector, and such other accounts as he shall judge material, relative thereto, and shall transmit the same annually to one of hisMajesty's principal secretaries of state. 

LETTER

TO

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE MEETING, HELD AT AYLESBURY, APRIL 13, 1780, ON THE SUBJECT OF

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 

NOTE. 

 The meeting of the freeholders of the County of Buckingham, which occasioned the following Letter, was called for the purpose of taking into consideration a petition to Parliament for shortening the duration of Parliaments, and for a more equal representation of the people in the House of Commons. 

Sir, --Having heard yesterday, by mere accident, that there is anintention of laying before the county meeting _new matter, which is notcontained in our petition_, and the consideration of which had beendeferred to a fitter time by a majority of our committee in London, permit me to take this method of submitting to you my reasons forthinking, with our committee, that nothing ought to be hastily determined upon the subject. 

Our petition arose naturally from distresses which we _felt_; and therequests which we made were in effect nothing more than that such thingsshould be done in Parliament as it was evidently the duty of Parliamentto do. But the affair which will be proposed to you by a person of rankand ability is an alteration in the constitution of Parliament itself. It is impossible for you to have a subject before you of moreimportance, and that requires a more cool and more mature consideration, both on its own account, and for the credit of our sobriety of mind, whoare to resolve upon it. 

The county will in some way or other be called upon to declare it youropinion, that the House of Commons is not sufficiently numerous, andthat the elections are not sufficiently frequent, --that an hundred newknights of the shire ought to be added, and that we are to have a newelection once in three years for certain, and as much oftener as theking pleases. Such will be the state of things, if the proposition madeshall take effect. 

All this may be proper. But, as an honest man, I cannot possibly give myrote for it, until I have considered it more fully. I will not deny thatour Constitution may have faults, and that those faults, when found, ought to be corrected; but, on the whole, that Constitution has been ourown pride, and an object of admiration to all other nations. It is noteverything which appears at first view to be faulty, in such acomplicated plan, that is to be determined to be so in reality. Toenable us to correct the Constitution, the whole Constitution must beviewed together; and it must be compared with the actual state of thepeople, and the circumstances of the time. For that which taken singlyand by itself may appear to be wrong, when considered with relation toother things, may be perfectly right, --or at least such as ought to bepatiently endured, as the means of preventing something that is worse. So far with regard to what at first view may appear a _distemper_ in theConstitution. As to the _remedy_ of that distemper an equal cautionought to be used; because this latter consideration is not single andseparate, no more than the former. There are many things in reformationwhich would be proper to be done, if other things can be done along withthem, but which, if they cannot be so accompanied, ought not to be doneat all. I therefore wish, when any new matter of this deep nature isproposed to me, to have the whole scheme distinctly in my view, and fulltime to consider of it. Please God, I will walk with caution, whenever Iam not able clearly to see my way before me. 

I am now growing old. I have from my very early youth been conversant inreading and thinking upon the subject of our laws and Constitution, aswell as upon those of other times and other countries; I have been forfifteen years a very laborious member of Parliament, and in that timehave had great opportunities of seeing with my own eyes the working ofthe machine of our government, and remarking where it went smoothly anddid its business, and where it checked in its movements, or where itdamaged its work; I have also had and used the opportunities ofconversing with men of the greatest wisdom and fullest experience inthose matters; and I do declare to you most solemnly and most truly, that, on the result of all this reading, thinking, experience, andcommunication, I am not able to come to an immediate resolution in favorof a change of the groundwork of our Constitution, and in particular, that, in the present state of the country, in the present state of ourrepresentation, in the present state of our rights and modes ofelecting, in the present state of the several prevalent interests, inthe present state of the affairs and manners of this country, theaddition of an hundred knights of the shire, and hurrying election onelection, will be things advantageous to liberty or good government. 

This is the present condition of my mind; and this is my apology for notgoing as fast as others may choose to go in this business. I do not byany means reject the propositions; much less do I condemn the gentlemenwho, with equal good intentions, with much better abilities, and withinfinitely greater personal weight and consideration than mine, are ofopinion that this matter ought to be decided upon instantly. 

I most heartily wish that the deliberate sense of the kingdom on thisgreat subject should be known. When it is known, it _must_ be prevalent. It would be dreadful indeed, if there was any power in the nationcapable of resisting its unanimous desire, or even the desire of anyvery great and decided majority of the people. The people may bedeceived in their choice of an object; but I can scarcely conceive anychoice they can make to be so very mischievous as the existence of anyhuman force capable of resisting it. It will certainly be the duty ofevery man, in the situation to which God has called him, to give hisbest opinion and advice upon the matter: it will _not_ be his duty, lethim think what he will, to use any violent or any fraudulent means ofcounteracting the general wish, or even of employing the legal andconstructive organ of expressing the people's sense against the sensewhich they do actually entertain. 

In order that the real sense of the people should be known upon so greatan affair as this, it is of absolute necessity that timely notice shouldbe given, --that the matter should be prepared in open committees, from achoice into which no class or description of men is to be excluded, --andthe subsequent county meetings should be as full and as well attended aspossible. Without these precautions, the true sense of the people willever be uncertain. Sure I am, that no precipitate resolution on a greatchange in the fundamental constitution of any country can ever be calledthe real sense of the people. 

I trust it will not be taken amiss, if, as an inhabitant and freeholderof this county, (one, indeed, among the most inconsiderable, ) I assertmy right of dissenting (as I do dissent fully and directly) from anyresolution whatsoever on the subject of an alteration in therepresentation and election of the kingdom _at this time_. By preservingthis light, and exercising it with temper and moderation, I trust Icannot offend the noble proposer, for whom no man professes or feelsmore respect and regard than I do. A want of concurrence in _everything_which _can_ be proposed will in no sort weaken the energy or distractthe efforts of men of upright intentions upon those points in which theyare agreed. Assemblies that are met, and with a resolution to be all ofa mind, are assemblies that can have no opinion at all of their own. Thefirst proposer of any measure must be their master. I do not know thatan amicable variety of sentiment, conducted with mutual good-will, hasany sort of resemblance to discord, or that it can give any advantagewhatsoever to the enemies of our common cause. On the contrary, a forcedand fictitious agreement (which every universal agreement must be) isnot becoming the cause of freedom. If, however, any evil should arisefrom it, (which I confess I do not foresee, ) I am happy that those whohave brought forward new and arduous matter, when very great doubts andsome diversity of opinion must be foreknown, are of authority and weightenough to stand against the consequences. 

I humbly lay these my sentiments before the county. They are not takenup to serve any interests of my own, or to be subservient to theinterests of any man or set of men under heaven. I could wish to be ableto attend our meeting, or that I had time to reason this matter morefully by letter; but I am detained here upon our business: what you havealready put upon us is as much as we can do. If we are prevented fromgoing through it with any effect, I fear it will be in part owing notmore to the resistance of the enemies of our cause than to our imposingon ourselves such tasks as no human faculties, employed as we are, canbe equal to. Our worthy members have shown distinguished ability andzeal in support of our petition. I am just going down to a bill broughtin to frustrate a capital part of your desires. The minister ispreparing to transfer the cognizance of the public accounts from thosewhom you and the Constitution have chosen to control them, to unknownpersons, creatures of his own. For so much he annihilates Parliament. 

I have the honor, &c. 

EDMUND BURKE. 

CHARLES STREET, 12th April, 1780. 

FRAGMENTS OF A TRACT

RELATIVE TO

THE LAWS AGAINST POPERY

IN IRELAND. 

NOTE. 

 The condition of the Roman Catholics in Ireland appears to lave engaged the attention of Mr. Burke at a very early period of his political life. It was probably soon after the year 1765 that he formed the plan of a work upon that subject, the fragments of which are now given to the public. No title is prefixed to it in the original manuscript; and the _Plan_, which it has been thought proper to insert here, was evidently designed merely for the convenience of the author. Of the first chapter some unconnected fragments only, too imperfect for publication, have been found. Of the second there is a considerable portion, perhaps nearly the whole; but the copy from which it is printed is evidently a first rough draught. The third chapter, as far as it goes, is taken from a fair, corrected copy; but the end of the second part of the first head is left unfinished, and the discussion of the second and third heads was either never entered upon or the manuscript containing it has unfortunately been lost. What follows the third chapter appears to have been designed for the beginning of the fourth, and is evidently the first rough draught; and to this we have added a fragment which appears to have been a part either of this or the first chapter. 

 In the volume with which it is intended to close this posthumous publication of Mr. Burke's Works, we shall have occasion to enter into a more particular account of the part which he took in the discussion of this great political question. At present it may suffice to say, that the Letter to Mr. Smith, the Second Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, and the Letter to his Son, which here follow in order the Fragment on the Popery Laws, are the only writings upon this subject found amongst his papers in a state fit to appear in this stage of the publication. What remain are some small fragments of the Tract, and a few letters containing no new matter of importance. 

TRACT

ON THE POPERY LAWS

THE PLAN. 

I propose, first, to make an Introduction, in order to show thepropriety of a closer inspection into the affairs of Ireland; and thistakes up the first chapter, which is to be spent in this introductorymatter, and in stating the Popery laws in general, as one leading causeof the imbecility of the country. 

CH. II. States particularly the laws themselves, in a plain and popularmanner. 

CH. III. Begins the remarks upon them, under the heads of, 1st, Theobject, --which is a numerous people; 2ndly, Their means, --a restraint onproperty; 3rdly, Their instruments of execution, --corrupted morals, which affect the national prosperity. 

CH. IV. The impolicy of those laws, as they affect the nationalsecurity. 

CH. V. Reasons by which the laws are supported, and answers to them. 

CHAPTER II. 

In order to lay this matter with full satisfaction before the reader, Ishall collect into one point of view, and state as shortly and asclearly as I am able, the purport of these laws, according to theobjects which they affect, without making at present any furtherobservation upon them, but just what shall be necessary to render thedrift; and intention of the legislature and the tendency and operationof the laws the more distinct and evident. 

I shall begin with those which relate to the possession and inheritanceof landed property in Popish hands. The first operation of those actsupon this object was wholly to change the course of descent by theCommon Law, to take away the right of primogeniture, and, in lieuthereof, to substitute and establish a new species of Statute Gavelkind. By this law, on the death of a Papist possessed of an estate in feesimple or in fee tail, the land is to be divided by equal portionsbetween all the male children; and those portions are likewise to beparcelled out, share and share alike, amongst the descendants of eachson, and so to proceed in a similar distribution _ad infinitum_. Fromthis regulation it was proposed that some important consequences shouldfollow. First, by taking away the right of primogeniture, perhaps in thevery first generation, certainly in the second, the families of Papists, however respectable, and their fortunes, however considerable, would bewholly dissipated, and reduced to obscurity and indigence, without anypossibility that they should repair them by their industry orabilities, --being, as we shall see anon, disabled from every species ofpermanent acquisition. Secondly, by this law the right of testamentationis taken away, which the inferior tenures had always enjoyed, and alltenures from the 27th Hen. VIII; Thirdly, the right of settlement wastaken away, that no such persons should, from the moment the act passed, be enabled to advance themselves in fortune or connection by marriage, being disabled from making any disposition, in consideration of suchmarriage, but what the law had previously regulated: the reputableestablishment of the eldest son, as representative of the family, or tosettle a jointure, being commonly the great object in such settlements, which was the very power which the law had absolutely taken away. 

The operation of this law, however certain, might be too slow. Thepresent possessors might happen to be long-lived. The legislature knewthe natural impatience of expectants, and upon this principle they gaveencouragement to children to anticipate the inheritance. For it isprovided, that the eldest son of any Papist shall, immediately on hisconformity, change entirely the nature and properties of his father'slegal estate: if he before held in fee simple, or, in other words, hadthe entire and absolute dominion over the land, he is reduced to anestate for his life only, with all the consequences of the naturaldebility of that estate, by which he becomes disqualified to sell, mortgage, charge, (except for his life, ) or in any wise to do any act bywhich he may raise money for relief in his most urgent necessities. Theeldest son, so conforming, immediately acquires, and in the lifetime ofhis father, the permanent part, what our law calls the reversion andinheritance of the estate; and he discharges it by retrospect, andannuls every sort of voluntary settlement made by the father ever solong before his conversion. This he may sell or dispose of immediately, and alienate it from the family forever. 

Having thus reduced his father's estate, he may also bring his fatherinto the Court of Chancery, where he may compel him to swear to thevalue of his estate, and to allow him out of that possession (which hadbeen before reduced to an estate for life) such an immediate annualallowance as the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper shall judge suitable tohis ago and quality. 

This indulgence is not confined to the eldest son. The other childrenlikewise, by conformity, may acquire the same privileges, and in thesame manner force from their father an immediate and independentmaintenance. It is very well worth remarking, that the statutes haveavoided to fix any determinate age for these emancipating conversions;so that the children, at any age, however incapable of choice in otherrespects, however immature or even infantile, are yet consideredsufficiently capable to disinherit their parents, and totally tosubtract themselves from their direction and control, either at theirown option, or by the instigation of others. By this law the tenure andvalue of a Roman Catholic in his real property is not only renderedextremely limited and altogether precarious, but the paternal power isin all such families so enervated that it may well be considered asentirely taken away; even the principle upon which it is founded seemsto be directly reversed. However, the legislature feared that enough wasnot yet done upon this head. The Roman Catholic parent, by selling hisreal estate, might in some sort preserve the dominion over his substanceand his family, and thereby evade the operation of these laws, whichintended to take away both. Besides, frequent revolutions and manyconversions had so broken the landed property of Papists in thatkingdom, that it was apprehended that this law could have in a shorttime but a few objects upon which it would be capable of operating. 

To obviate these inconveniences another law was made, by which thedominion of children over their parents was extended universallythroughout the whole Popish part of the nation, and every child of everyPopish parent was encouraged to come into what is called a court ofequity, to prefer a bill against his father, and compel him to confess, upon oath, the quantity and value of his substance, personal as well asreal, of what nature soever, or howsoever it might be employed; uponwhich discovery, the court is empowered to seize upon and allocate, forthe immediate maintenance of such child or children, any sum notexceeding a third of the whole fortune: and as to their futureestablishment on the death of the father, no limits are assigned; theChancery may, if it thinks fit, take the whole property, personal aswell as real, money, stock in trade, &c, out of the power of thepossessor, and secure it in any manner they judge expedient for thatpurpose; for the act has not assigned any sort of limit with regard tothe quantity which is to be charged, or given any direction concerningthe means of charging and securing it: a law which supersedes allobservation. 

But the law is still more extensive in its provision. Because there wasa possibility that the parent, though sworn, might by falserepresentations evade the discovery of the ultimate value of his estate, a new bill may be at any time brought, by one, any, or all of thechildren, for a further discovery; his effects are to undergo a freshscrutiny, and a now distribution is to be made in consequence of it. Sothat the parent has no security against perpetual inquietude, and thereiteration of Chancery suits, but by (what is somewhat difficult forhuman nature to comply with) fully, and without reserve, abandoning hiswhole property to the discretion of the court, to be disposed of infavor of such children. 

But is this enough, and has the parent purchased his repose by such asurrender? Very far from it. The law expressly, and very carefully, provides that he shall not: before he can be secure from the persecutionof his children, it requires another and a much more extraordinarycondition: the children are authorized, if they can find that theirparent has by his industry, or otherwise, increased the value of hisproperty since their first bill, to bring another, compelling a newaccount of the value of his estate, in order to a new distributionproportioned to the value of the estate at the time of the new billpreferred. They may bring such bills, _toties quoties_, upon everyimprovement of his fortune, without any sort of limitation of time, orregard to the frequency of such bills, or to the quantity of theincrease of the estate, which shall justify the bringing them. This actexpressly provides that he shall have no respite from the persecution ofhis children, but by totally abandoning all thoughts of improvement andacquisition. 

This is going a great way, surely: but the laws in question have gonemuch further. Not satisfied with calling upon children to revolt againsttheir parents, and to possess themselves of their substance, there arecases where the withdrawing of the child from his father's obedience isnot left to the option of the child himself: for, if the wife of a RomanCatholic should choose to change her religion, from that moment shedeprives her husband of all management and direction of his children, and even of all the tender satisfaction which a parent can feel in theirsociety, and which is the only indemnification he can have for all hiscares and sorrows; and they are to be torn forever, at the earliest age, from his house and family: for the Lord Chancellor is not onlyauthorized, but he is strongly required, to take away all his childrenfrom such Popish parent, to appoint where, in what manner, and by whomthey are to be educated; and the father is compelled to pay, not for theransom, but for the deprivation of his children, and to furnish such asum as the Chancellor thinks proper to appoint for their education tothe age of eighteen years. The case is the same, if the husband shouldbe the conformist; though how the law is to operate in this case I donot see: for the act expressly says, that the child shall be taken fromsuch Popish parent; and whilst such husband and wife cohabit, it will beimpossible to put it into execution without taking the child from one aswell as from the other; and then the effect of the law will be, that, ifeither husband or wife becomes Protestant, both are to be deprived oftheir children. 

The paternal power thus being wholly abrogated, it is evident that bythe last regulation the power of an husband over his wife is alsoconsiderably impaired; because, if it be in her power, whenever shepleases, to subtract the children from his protection and obedience, sheherself by that hold inevitably acquires a power and superiority overher husband. 

But she is not left dependent upon this oblique influence: for, if inany marriage settlement the husband has reserved to him a power ofmaking a jointure, and he dies without settling any, her conformityexecutes his powers, and executes them in as large extent as theChancellor thinks fit. The husband is deprived of that coercive powerover his wife which he had in his hands by the use he might make of thediscretionary power reserved in the settlement. 

But if no such power had been reserved, and no such settlement existed, yet, if the husband dies, leaving his conforming wife without a filedprovision by some settlement on his real estate, his wife may apply toChancery, where she shall be allotted a portion from his leases, andother personal estate, not exceeding one third of his whole clearsubstance. The laws in this instance, as well as in the former, havepresumed that the husband has omitted to make all the provision which hemight have done, for no other reason than that of her religion. If, therefore, she chooses to balance any domestic misdemeanors to herhusband by the public merit of conformity to the Protestant religion, the law will suffer no plea of such misdemeanors to be urged on thehusband's part, nor proof of that kind to be entered into. She acquiresa provision totally independent of his favor, and deprives him of thatsource of domestic authority which the Common Law had left to him, thatof rewarding or punishing, by a voluntary distribution of his effects, what in his opinion was the good or ill behavior of his wife. 

Thus the laws stand with regard to the property already acquired, to itsmode of descent, and to family powers. Now as to the new acquisition ofreal property, and both to the acquisition and security of personal, thelaw stands thus:--

All persons of that persuasion are disabled from taking or purchasing, directly or by a trust, any lands, any mortgage upon land, any rents orprofits from land, any lease, interest, or term of any land, anyannuity for life or lives or years, or any estate whatsoever, chargeableupon, or which may in any manner affect, any lands. 

One exception, and one only, is admitted by the statutes to theuniversality of this exclusion, viz. , a lease for a term not exceedingthirty-one years. But even this privilege is charged with a priorqualification. This remnant of a right is doubly curtailed: 1st, that onsuch a short lease a rent not less than two thirds of the full improvedyearly value, at the time of the making it, shall be reserved during thewhole continuance of the term; and, 2ndly, it does not extend to thewhole kingdom. This lease must also be in possession, and not inreversion. If any lease is made, exceeding either in duration or value, and in the smallest degree, the above limits, the whole interest isforfeited, and vested _ipso facto_ in the first Protestant discoverer orinformer. This discoverer, thus invested with the property, is enabledto sue for it as his own right. The courts of law are not alone open tohim; he may (and this is the usual method) enter into either of thecourts of equity, and call upon the parties, and those whom he suspectsto be their trustees, upon oath, and under the penalties of perjury, todiscover against themselves the exact nature and value of their estatesin every particular, in order to induce their forfeiture on thediscovery. In such suits the informer is not liable to those delayswhich the ordinary procedure of those courts throws into the way of thejustest claimant; nor has the Papist the indulgence which he [it?]allows to the most fraudulent defendant, that of plea and demurrer; butthe defendant is obliged to answer the whole directly upon oath. Therule of _favores ampliandi, _ &c. , is reversed by this act, lest anyfavor should be shown, or the force and operation of the law in any partof its progress be enervated. All issues to be tried on this act are tobe tried by none but known Protestants. 

It is here necessary to state as a part of this law what has been forsome time generally understood as a certain consequence of it. The acthad expressly provided that a Papist could possess no sort of estatewhich might affect land (except as before excepted). On this adifficulty did, not unnaturally, arise. It is generally known, ajudgment being obtained or acknowledged for any debt, since the statuteof Westm. 2, 13 Ed. I. C. 18, one half of the debtor's land is to bedelivered unto the creditor until the obligation is satisfied, under awrit called _Elegit_, and this writ has been ever since the ordinaryassurance of the land, and the great foundation of general credit in thenation. Although the species of holding under this writ is not specifiedin the statute, the received opinion, though not juridically delivered, has been, that, if they attempt to avail themselves of that security, because it may create an estate, however precarious, in land, theirwhole debt or charge is forfeited, and becomes the property of theProtestant informer. Thus you observe, first, that by the express wordsof the law all possibility of acquiring any species of valuableproperty, in any sort connected with land, is taken away; and, secondly, by the construction all security for money is also cut off. No securityis left, except what is merely personal, and which, therefore, mostpeople who lend money would, I believe, consider as none at all. 

Under this head of the acquisition of property, the law meets them inevery road of industry, and in its direct and consequential provisionsthrows almost all sorts of obstacles in their way. For they are not onlyexcluded from all offices in Church and State, which, though a just andnecessary provision, is yet no small restraint in the acquisition, butthey are interdicted from the army, and the law, in all its branches. This point is carried to so scrupulous a severity, that chamberpractice, and even private conveyancing, the most voluntary agency, areprohibited to them under the severest penalties and the most rigid modesof inquisition. They have gone beyond even this: for every barrister, six clerk, attorney, or solicitor, is obliged to take a solemn oath notto employ persons of that persuasion, --no, not as hackney clerks, at themiserable salary of seven shillings a week. No tradesman of thatpersuasion is capable by any service or settlement to obtain his freedomin any town corporate; so that they trade and work in their own nativetowns as aliens, paying, as such, quarterage, and other charges andimpositions. They are expressly forbidden, in whatever employment, totake more than two apprentices, except in the linen manufacture only. 

 * * * * *

In every state, next to the care of the life and properties of thesubject, the education of their youth has been a subject of attention. In the Irish laws this point has not been neglected. Those who areacquainted with the constitution of our universities need not beinformed that none but those who conform to the Established Church canbe at all admitted to study there, and that none can obtain degrees inthem who do not previously take all the tests, oaths, and declarations. Lest they should be enabled to supply this defect by private academiesand schools of their own, the law has armed itself with all its terrorsagainst such a practice. Popish schoolmasters of every species areproscribed by those acts, and it is made felony to teach even in aprivate family. So that Papists are entirely excluded from an educationin any of our authorized establishments for learning at home. In orderto shut up every avenue to instruction, the act of King William inIreland has added to this restraint by precluding them from all foreigneducation. 

This act is worthy of attention on account of the singularity of some ofits provisions. Being sent for education to any Popish school or collegeabroad, upon conviction, incurs (if the party sent has any estate ofinheritance) a kind of unalterable and perpetual outlawry. The tenderand incapable age of such a person, his natural subjection to the willof others, his necessary, unavoidable ignorance of the laws, stands fornothing in his favor. He is disabled to sue in law or equity; to beguardian, executor, or administrator; he is rendered incapable of anylegacy or deed of gift; he forfeits all his goods and chattels forever;and he forfeits for his life all his lands, hereditaments, offices, andestate of freehold, and all trusts, powers, or interests therein. Allpersons concerned in sending them or maintaining them abroad, by theleast assistance of money or otherwise, are involved in the samedisabilities, and subjected to the same penalties. 

The mode of conviction is as extraordinary as the penal sanctions ofthis act. A justice of peace, upon information that any child is sentaway, may require to be brought before him all persons charged or evensuspected of sending or assisting, and examine them and other personson oath concerning the fact. If on this examination he finds it_probable_ that the party was sent contrary to this act, he is then, tobind over the parties and witnesses in any sum he thinks fit, but notless than two hundred pounds, to appear and take their trial at the nextquarter sessions. Here the justices are to reexamine evidence, untilthey arrive, as before, to what shall appear to them a probability. Forthe rest they resort to the accused: if they can prove that any person, or any money, or any bill of exchange, has been sent abroad by the partyaccused, they throw the proof upon him to show for what innocentpurposes it was sent; and on failure of such proof, he is subjected toall the above-mentioned penalties. Half the forfeiture is given to thecrown; the other half goes to the informer. 

It ought here to be remarked, that this mode of conviction not onlyconcludes the party has failed in his expurgatory proof, but it issufficient also to subject to the penalties and incapacities of the lawthe infant upon whose account the person has been so convicted. It mustbe confessed that the law has not left him without some species ofremedy in this case apparently of much hardship, where one man isconvicted upon evidence given against another, if he has the goodfortune to live; for, within a twelvemonth after his return, or his ageof twenty-one, he has a, right to call for a new trial, in which he alsois to undertake the negative proof, and to show by sufficient evidencethat he has not been sent abroad against the intention of the act. If hesucceeds in this difficult exculpation, and demonstrates his innocenceto the satisfaction of the court, he forfeits all his goods andchattels, and all the profits of his lands incurred and received beforesuch acquittal; but he is freed from all other forfeitures, and from allsubsequent incapacities. There is also another method allowed by the lawin favor of persons under such unfortunate circumstances, as in theformer case for their innocence, in this upon account of theirexpiation: if within six months after their return, with the punctiliousobservation of many ceremonies, they conform to the Established Church, and take all the oaths and subscriptions, the legislature, inconsideration of the incapable age in which they were sent abroad, ofthe merit of their early conformity, and to encourage conversions, onlyconfiscates, as in the former case, the whole personal estate, and theprofits of the real; in all other respects, restoring and rehabilitatingthe party. 

 * * * * *

So far as to property and education. There remain some other heads uponwhich the acts have changed the course of the Common Law; and first, with regard to the right of self-defence, which consists in the use ofarms. This, though one of the rights by the law of Nature, yet is socapable of abuses that it may not be unwise to make some regulationsconcerning them; and many wise nations have thought proper to setseveral restrictions on this right, especially temporary ones, withregard to suspected persons, and on occasion of some imminent danger tothe public from foreign invasion or domestic commotions. 

But provisions in time of trouble proper, and perhaps necessary, maybecome in time of profound peace a scheme of tyranny. The method whichthe statute law of Ireland has taken upon this delicate article is, toget rid of all difficulties at once by an universal prohibition to allpersons, at all times, and under all circumstances, who are notProtestants, of using or keeping any kind of weapons whatsoever. Inorder to enforce this regulation, the whole spirit of the Common Law ischanged, very severe penalties are enjoined, the largest powers arevested in the lowest magistrates. Any two justices of peace, ormagistrates of a town, with or without information, at their pleasure, by themselves or their warrant, are empowered to enter and search thehouse of any Papist, or even of any other person, whom they suspect tokeep such arms in trust for them. The only limitation to the extent ofthis power is, that the search is to be made between the rising andsetting of the sun: but even this qualification extends no further thanto the execution of the act in the open country; for in all cities andtheir suburbs, in towns corporate and market-towns, they may at theirdiscretion, and without information, break open houses and institutesuch search at any hour of the day or night. This, I say, they may do attheir discretion; and it seems a pretty ample power in the hands of suchmagistrates. However, the matter does by no means totally rest on theirdiscretion. Besides the discretionary and occasional search, the statutehas prescribed one that is general and periodical. It is to be madeannually, by the warrant of the justices at their midsummer quartersessions, by the high and petty constables, or any others whom they mayauthorize, and by all corporate magistrates, in all houses of Papists, and every other where they suspect arms for the use of such persons tobe concealed, with the same powers, in all respects, which attend theoccasional search. The whole of this regulation, concerning both thegeneral and particular search, seems to have been made by a legislaturewhich was not at all extravagantly jealous of personal liberty. Nottrusting, however, to the activity of the magistrate acting officially, the law has invited all voluntary informers by considerable rewards, andeven pressed involuntary informers into this service by the dread ofheavy penalties. With regard to the latter method, two justices ofpeace, or the magistrate of any corporation, are empowered to summonbefore them any persons whatsoever, to tender them an oath by which theyoblige them to discover all persons who have any arms concealed contraryto law. Their refusal or declining to appear, or, appearing, theirrefusal to inform, subjects them to the severest penalties. If peers orpeeresses are summoned (for they may be summoned by the bailiff of acorporation of six cottages) to perform this honorable service, andrefuse to inform, the first offence is three hundred pounds penalty; thesecond is _præmunire_, --that is to say, imprisonment for life, andforfeiture of all their goods. Persons of an inferior order are, for thefirst offence, fined thirty pounds; for the second, they, too, aresubjected to _præmunire_. So far as to involuntary;--now as to voluntaryinformers: the law entitles them to half the penalty incurred bycarrying or keeping arms; for, on conviction of this offence, thepenalty upon persons, of whatever substance, is the sum of fifty poundsand a year's imprisonment, which cannot be remitted even by the crown. 

The only exception to this law is a license from the Lord Lieutenant andCouncil to carry arms, which, by its nature, is extremely limited, and Ido not suppose that there are six persons now in the kingdom who havebeen fortunate enough to obtain it. 

 * * * * *

There remains, after this system concerning property and defence, to saysomething concerning the exercise of religion, winch is carried on inall persuasions, but especially in the Romish, by persons appointed forthat purpose. The law of King William and Queen Anne ordered all Popishparsons exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, all orders of monks andfriars, and all priests, not then actually in parishes, and to beregistered, to be banished the kingdom; and if they should return fromexile, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Twenty pounds reward is givenfor apprehending them. Penalty on harboring and concealing. 

As all the priests then in being and registered are long since dead, andas these laws are made perpetual, every Popish priest is liable to thelaw. 

 * * * * *

The reader has now before him a tolerably complete view of the Poperylaws relative to property by descent or acquisition, to education, todefence, and to the free exercise of religion, which may be necessary toenable him to form some judgment of the spirit of the whole system, andof the subsequent reflections that are to be made upon it. 

CHAPTER III. 

PART I. 

The system which we have just reviewed, and the manner in whichreligious influence on the public is made to operate upon the lawsconcerning property in Ireland, is in its nature very singular, anddiffers, I apprehend, essentially, and perhaps to its disadvantage, fromany scheme of religious persecution now existing in any other country inEurope, or which has prevailed in any time or nation with which historyhas made us acquainted. I believe it will not be difficult to show thatit is unjust, impolitic, and inefficacious; that it has the most unhappyinfluence on the prosperity, the morals, and the safety of that country;that this influence is not accidental, but has flowed as the necessaryand direct consequence of the laws themselves, first on account of theobject which they affect, and next by the quality of the greatest partof the instruments they employ. Upon all these points, first upon thegeneral, and then on the particular, this question will be consideredwith as much order as can be followed in a matter of itself as involvedand intricate as it is important. 

 * * * * *

The first and most capital consideration with regard to this, as toevery object, is the extent of it. And here it is necessary to premise, this system of penalty and incapacity has for its object no small sector obscure party, but a very numerous body of men, --a body whichcomprehends at least two thirds of that whole nation: it amounts to2, 800, 000 souls, a number sufficient for the materials constituent of agreat people. Now it is well worthy of a serious and dispassionateexamination, whether such a system, respecting such an object, be inreality agreeable to any sound principles of legislation or anyauthorized definition of law; for if our reasons or practices differfrom the general informed sense of mankind, it is very moderate to saythat they are at least suspicious. 

This consideration of the magnitude of the object ought to attend usthrough the whole inquiry: if it does not always affect the reason, itis always decisive on the importance of the question. It not only makesin itself a more leading point, but complicates itself with every otherpart of the matter, giving every error, minute in itself, a characterand significance from its application. It is therefore not to bewondered at, if we perpetually recur to it in the course of this essay. 

In the making of a new law it is undoubtedly the duty of the legislatorto see that no injustice be done even to an individual: for there isthen nothing to be unsettled, and the matter is under his hands to mouldit as he pleases; and if he finds it untractable in the working, he mayabandon it without incurring any new inconvenience. But in the questionconcerning the repeal of an old one, the work is of more difficulty;because laws, like houses, lean on one another, and the operation isdelicate, and should be necessary: the objection, in such a case, oughtnot to arise from the natural infirmity of human institutions, but fromsubstantial faults which contradict the nature and end of lawitself, --faults not arising from the imperfection, but from themisapplication and abuse of our reason. As no legislators can regard the_minima_ of equity, a law may in some instances be a just subject ofcensure without being at all an object of repeal. But if itstransgressions against common right and, the ends of just governmentshould be considerable in their nature and spreading in their effects, as this objection goes to the root and principle of the law, it rendersit void in its obligatory quality on the mind, and therefore determinesit as the proper object of abrogation and repeal, so far as regards itscivil existence. The objection here is, as we observed, by no means onaccount of the imperfection of the law; it is on account of itserroneous principle: for if this be fundamentally wrong, the moreperfect the law is made, the worse it becomes. It cannot be said to havethe properties of genuine law, even in its imperfections and defects. The true weakness and opprobrium of our best general constitutions is, that they cannot provide beneficially for every particular case, andthus fill, adequately to their intentions, the circle of universaljustice. But where the principle is faulty, the erroneous part of thelaw is the beneficial, and justice only finds refuge in those holes andcorners which had escaped the sagacity and inquisition of thelegislator. The happiness or misery of multitudes can never be a thingindifferent. A law against the majority of the people is in substance alaw against the people itself; its extent determines its invalidity; iteven changes its character as it enlarges its operation: it is notparticular injustice, but general oppression; and can no longer beconsidered as a private hardship, which might be borne, but spreads andgrows up into the unfortunate importance of a national calamity. 

Now as a law directed against the mass of the nation has not the natureof a reasonable institution, so neither has it the authority: for in allforms of government the people is the true legislator; and whether theimmediate and instrumental cause of the law be a single person or many, the remote and efficient cause is the consent of the people, eitheractual or implied; and such consent is absolutely essential to itsvalidity. To the solid establishment of every law two things areessentially requisite: first, a proper and sufficient human power todeclare and modify the matter of the law; and next, such a fit andequitable constitution as they have a right to declare and renderbinding. With regard to the first requisite, the human authority, it istheir judgment they give up, not their right. The people, indeed, arepresumed to consent to whatever the legislature ordains for theirbenefit; and they are to acquiesce in it, though they do not clearly seeinto the propriety of the means by which they are conducted to thatdesirable end. This they owe as an act of homage and just deference to areason which the necessity of government has made superior to their own. But though the means, and indeed the nature, of a public advantage maynot always be evident to the understanding of the subject, no one is sogross and stupid as not to distinguish between a benefit and an injury. No one can imagine, then, an exclusion of a great body of men, not fromfavors, privileges, and trusts, but from the common advantages ofsociety, can ever be a thing intended for their good, or can ever beratified by any implied consent of theirs. If, therefore, at least animplied human consent is necessary to the existence of a law, such aconstitution cannot in propriety be a law at all. 

But if we could suppose that such a ratification was made, notvirtually, but actually, by the people, not representatively, but evencollectively, still it would be null and void. They have no right tomake a law prejudicial to the whole community, even though thedelinquents in making such an act should be themselves the chiefsufferers by it; because it would be-made against the principle of asuperior law, which it is not in the power of any community, or of thewhole race of man, to alter, --I mean the will of Him who gave us ournature, and in giving impressed an invariable law upon it. It would behard to point out any error more truly subversive of all the order andbeauty, of all the peace and happiness of human society, than theposition, that any body of men have a right to make what laws theyplease, --or that laws can derive any authority from their institutionmerely, and independent of the quality of the subject-matter. Noarguments of policy, reason of state, or preservation of theconstitution can be pleaded in favor of such a practice. They may, indeed, impeach the frame of that constitution, but can never touch thisimmovable principle. This seems to be, indeed, the doctrine which Hobbesbroached in the last century, and which was then so frequently and soably refuted. Cicero exclaims with the utmost indignation and contemptagainst such a notion:[22] he considers it not only as unworthy of aphilosopher, but of an illiterate peasant; that of all things this wasthe most truly absurd, to fancy that the rule of justice was to be takenfrom the constitutions of commonwealths, or that laws derived theirauthority from the statutes of the people, the edicts of princes, orthe decrees of judges. If it be admitted that it is not the black-letterand the king's arms that makes the law, we are to look for it elsewhere. 

In reality there are two, and only two, foundations of law; and they areboth of them conditions without which nothing can give it any force: Imean equity and utility. With respect to the former, it grows out of thegreat rule of equality, which is grounded upon our common nature, andwhich Philo, with propriety and beauty, calls the mother of justice. Allhuman laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory; they may alter themode and application, but have no power over the substance of originaljustice. The other foundation of law, which is utility, must beunderstood, not of partial or limited, but of general and publicutility, connected in the same manner with, and derived directly from, our rational nature: for any other utility may be the utility of arobber, but cannot be that of a citizen, --the interest of the domesticenemy, and not that of a member of the commonwealth. This presentequality can never be the foundation of statutes which create anartificial difference between men, as the laws before us do, in order toinduce a consequential inequality in the distribution of justice. Law isa mode of human action respecting society, and must be governed by thesame rules of equity which govern every private action; and so Tullyconsiders it in his Offices as the only utility agreeable to thatnature: "_Unum debet esse omnibus propositum, ut eadem sit utilitasuniuscujusque et universorum; quam si ad se quisque rapiat, dissolveturomnis humana consortio_. "

If any proposition can be clear in itself, it is this: that a law whichshuts out from all secure and valuable property the bulk of the peoplecannot be made for the utility of the party so excluded. This, therefore, is not the utility which Tully mentions. But if it were true(as it is not) that the real interest of any part of the community couldbe separated from the happiness of the rest, still it would afford nojust foundation for a statute providing exclusively for that interest atthe expense of the other; because it would be repugnant to the essenceof law, which requires that it be made as much as possible for thebenefit of the whole. If this principle be denied or evaded, what groundhave we left to reason on? We must at once make a total change in allour ideas, and look for a new definition of law. Where to find it Iconfess myself at a loss. If we resort to the fountains ofjurisprudence, they will not supply us with any that is for our purpose. "_Jus_" (says Paulus) "_pluribus modis dicitur: uno modo, cum id, quodsemper æquum et bonum est, jus dicitur, ut est jus naturale"_;--thissense of the word will not be thought, I imagine, very applicable to ourpenal laws;--"_altero modo, quod omnibus aut pluribus in unaquaquecivitate utile est, ut est jus civile_. " Perhaps this latter will be asinsufficient, and would rather seem a censure and condemnation of thePopery Acts than a definition that includes them; and there is no otherto be found in the whole Digest; neither are there any modern writerswhose ideas of law are at all narrower. 

It would be far more easy to heap up authorities on this article than toexcuse the prolixity and tediousness of producing any at all in proof ofa point which, though too often practically denied, is in its theoryalmost self-evident. For Suarez, handling this very question, _Utrum deratione et substantia legis esse ut propter commune bonum feratur_, doesnot hesitate a moment, finding no ground in reason or authority torender the affirmative in the least degree disputable: "_In quæstioneergo proposita"_ (says he) "_nulla est inter authores controversia; sedomnium commune est axioma de substantia et ratione legis esse, ut procommuni bono feratur; ita ut propter illud præcipue tradatur_"; havingobserved in another place, "_Contra omnem rectitudinem est bonum communead privatum ordinare, seu totum ad partem propter ipsum referre_. "Partiality and law are contradictory terms. Neither the merits nor theill deserts, neither the wealth and importance nor the indigence andobscurity, of the one part or of the other, can make any alteration inthis fundamental truth. On any other scheme, I defy any man living tosettle a correct standard which may discriminate between equitable ruleand the most direct tyranny. For if we can once prevail upon ourselvesto depart from the strictness and integrity of this principle in favoreven of a considerable party, the argument will hold for one that isless so; and thus we shall go on, narrowing the bottom of public right, until step by step we arrive, though after no very long or very forceddeduction, at what one of our poets calls the _enormous faith_, --thefaith of the many, created for the advantage of a single person. Icannot see a glimmering of distinction to evade it; nor is it possibleto allege any reason for the proscription of so large a part of thekingdom, which would not hold equally to support, under parallelcircumstances, the proscription of the whole. 

I am sensible that these principles, in their abstract light, will notbe very strenuously opposed. Reason is never inconvenient, but when itcomes to be applied. Mere general truths interfere very little with thepassions. They can, until they are roused by a troublesome application, rest in great tranquillity, side by side with tempers and proceedingsthe most directly opposite to them. Men want to be reminded, who do notwant to be taught; because those original ideas of rectitude, to whichthe mind is compelled to assent when they are proposed, are not alwaysas present to it as they ought to be. When people are gone, if not intoa denial, at least into a sort of oblivion of those ideas, when theyknow them only as barren speculations, and not as practical motives forconduct, it will be proper to press, as well as to offer them to theunderstanding; and when one is attacked by prejudices which aim tointrude themselves into the place of law, what is left for us but tovouch and call to warranty those principles of original justice fromwhence alone our title to everything valuable in society is derived? Canit be thought to arise from a superfluous, vain parade of displayinggeneral and uncontroverted maxims, that we should revert at this time tothe first principles of law, when we have directly under ourconsideration a whole body of statutes, which, I say, are so manycontradictions, which their advocates allow to be so many exceptionsfrom those very principles? Take them in the most favorable light, everyexception from the original and fixed rule of equality and justice oughtsurely to be very well authorized in the reason of their deviation, andvery rare in their use. For, if they should grow to be frequent, in whatwould they differ from an abrogation of the rule itself? By becomingthus frequent, they might even go further, and, establishing themselvesinto a principle, convert the rule into the exception. It cannot bedissembled that this is not at all remote from the case before us, wherethe great body of the people are excluded from all valuableproperty, --where the greatest and most ordinary benefits of society areconferred as privileges, and not enjoyed on the footing of commonrights. 

The clandestine manner in which those in power carry on such designs isa sufficient argument of the sense they inwardly entertain of the truenature of their proceedings. Seldom is the title or preamble of the lawof the same import with the body and enacting part; but they generallyplace some other color uppermost, which differs from that which isafterwards to appear, or at least one that is several shades fainter. Thus, the penal laws in question are not called laws to oblige menbaptized and educated in Popery to renounce their religion or theirproperty, but are called laws to prevent the growth of Popery; as iftheir purpose was only to prevent conversions to that sect, and not topersecute a million of people already engaged in it. But of all theinstances of this sort of legislative artifice, and of the principlesthat produced it, I never met with any which made a stronger impressionon me than that of Louis the Fourteenth, in the revocation of the Edictof Nantes. That monarch had, when he made that revocation, as fewmeasures to keep with public opinion as any man. In the exercise of themost unresisted authority at home, in a career of uninterrupted victoryabroad, and in a course of flattery equal to the circumstances of hisgreatness in both these particulars, he might be supposed to have aslittle need as disposition to render any sort of account to the world ofhis procedure towards his subjects. But the persecution of so vast abody of men as the Huguenots was too strong a measure even for the lawof pride and power. It was too glaring a contradiction even to thoseprinciples upon which persecution itself is supported. Shocked at thenaked attempt, he had recourse, for a palliation of his conduct, to anunkingly denial of the fact which made against him. In the preamble, therefore, to his Act of Revocation, he sets forth that the Edict ofNantes was no longer necessary, as the object of it (the Protestants ofhis kingdom) were then reduced to a very small number. The refugees inHolland cried out against this misrepresentation. They asserted, Ibelieve with truth, that this revocation had driven two hundred thousandof them out of their country, and that they could readily demonstratethere still remained six hundred thousand Protestants in France. If thiswere the fact, (as it was undoubtedly, ) no argument of policy could havebeen strong enough to excuse a measure by which eight hundred thousandmen were despoiled, at one stroke, of so many of their rights andprivileges. Louis the Fourteenth confessed, by this sort of apology, that, if the number had been large, the revocation had been unjust. But, after all, is it not most evident that this act of injustice, which letloose on that monarch such a torrent of invective and reproach, andwhich threw so dark a cloud over all the splendor of a most illustriousreign, falls far short of the case in Ireland? The privileges which theProtestants of that kingdom enjoyed antecedent to this revocation werefar greater than the Roman Catholics of Ireland ever aspired to under acontrary establishment. The number of their sufferers, if consideredabsolutely, is not half of ours; if considered relatively to the body ofeach community, it is not perhaps a twentieth part. And then thepenalties and incapacities which grew from that revocation are not sogrievous in their nature, nor so certain in their execution, nor soruinous by a great deal to the civil prosperity of the state, as thosewhich we have established for a perpetual law in our unhappy country. Itcannot be thought to arise from affectation, that I call it so. Whatother name can be given to a country which contains so many hundredthousands of human creatures reduced to a state of the most abjectservitude?

In putting this parallel, I take it for granted that we can stand forthis short time very clear of our party distinctions. If it were enough, by the use of an odious and unpopular word, to determine the question, it would be no longer a subject of rational disquisition; since thatvery prejudice which gives these odious names, and which is the partycharged for doing so, and for the consequences of it, would then becomethe judge also. But I flatter myself that not a few will be found who donot think that the names of Protestant and Papist can make any change inthe nature of essential justice. Such men will not allow that to beproper treatment to the one of these denominations which would becruelty to the other, and which converts its very crime into theinstrument of its defence: they will hardly persuade themselves thatwhat was bad policy in France can be good in Ireland, or that what wasintolerable injustice in an arbitrary monarch becomes, only by beingmore extended and more violent, an equitable procedure in a countryprofessing to be governed by law. It is, however, impossible not toobserve with some concern, that there are many also of a differentdisposition, --a number of persons whose minds are so formed that theyfind the communion of religion to be a close and an endearing tie, andtheir country to be no bond at all, --to whom common altars are a betterrelation than common habitations and a common civil interest, --whosehearts are touched with the distresses of foreigners, and are abundantlyawake to all the tenderness of human feeling on such an occasion, evenat the moment that they are inflicting the very same distresses, orworse, on their fellow-citizens, without the least sting of compassionor remorse. To commiserate the distresses of all men sufferinginnocently, perhaps meritoriously, is generous, and very agreeable tothe better part of our nature, --a disposition that ought by all means tobe cherished. But to transfer humanity from its natural basis, ourlegitimate and home-bred connections, --to lose all feeling for those whohave grown up by our sides, in our eyes, the benefit of whose cares andlabors we have partaken from our birth, and meretriciously to huntabroad after foreign affections, is such a disarrangement of the wholesystem of our duties, that I do not know whether benevolence sodisplaced is not almost the same thing as destroyed, or what effectbigotry could have produced that is more fatal to society. This no onecould help observing, who has seen our doors kindly and bountifullythrown open to foreign sufferers for conscience, whilst through the sameports were issuing fugitives of our own, driven from their country for acause which to an indifferent person would seem to be exactly similar, whilst we stood by, without any sense of the impropriety of thisextraordinary scene, accusing and practising injustice. For my part, there is no circumstance, in all the contradictions of our mostmysterious nature, that appears to be more humiliating than the use weare disposed to make of those sad examples which seem purposely markedfor our correction and improvement. Every instance of fury and bigotryin other men, one should think, would naturally fill us with an horrorof that disposition. The effect, however, is directly contrary. We areinspired, it is true, with a very sufficient hatred for the party, butwith no detestation at all of the proceeding. Nay, we are apt to urgeour dislike of such measures as a reason for imitating them, --and, by analmost incredible absurdity, because some powers have destroyed theircountry by their persecuting spirit, to argue, that we ought toretaliate on them by destroying our own. Such are the effects, and such, I fear, has been the intention, of those numberless books which aredaily printed and industriously spread, of the persecutions in othercountries and other religious persuasions. --These observations, whichare a digression, but hardly, I think, can be considered as a departurefrom the subject, have detained us some time: we will now come moredirectly to our purpose. 

It has been shown, I hope with sufficient evidence, that a constitutionagainst the interest of the many is rather of the nature of a grievancethan of a law; that of all grievances it is the most weighty andimportant; that it is made without due authority, against all theacknowledged principles of jurisprudence, against the opinions of allthe great lights in that science; and that such is the tacit sense evenof those who act in the most contrary manner. These points are, indeed, so evident, that I apprehend the abettors of the penal system willground their defence on an admission, and not on a denial of them. Theywill lay it down as a principle, that the Protestant religion is a thingbeneficial for the whole community, as well in its civil interests as inthose of a superior order. From thence they will argue, that, the endbeing essentially beneficial, the means become instrumentally so; thatthese penalties and incapacities are not final causes of the law, butonly a discipline to bring over a deluded people to their real interest, and therefore, though they may be harsh in their operation, they will bepleasant in their effects; and be they what they will, they cannot beconsidered as a very extraordinary hardship, as it is in the power ofthe sufferer to free himself when he pleases, and that only byconverting to a better religion, which it is his duty to embrace, eventhough it were attended with all those penalties from whence in realityit delivers him: if he suffers, it is his own fault; _volenti non fitinjuria_. 

I shall be very short, without being, I think, the less satisfactory, inmy answer to these topics, because they never can be urged from aconviction of their validity, and are, indeed, only the usual andimpotent struggles of those who are unwilling to abandon a practicewhich they are unable to defend. First, then, I observe, that, if theprinciple of their final and beneficial intention be admitted as a justground for such proceedings, there never was, in the blamable sense ofthe word, nor ever can be, such a thing as a religious persecution inthe world. Such an intention is pretended by all men, --who all not onlyinsist that their religion has the sanction of Heaven, but is likewise, and for that reason, the best and most convenient to human society. Allreligious persecution, Mr. Bayle well observes, is grounded upon amiserable _petitio principii_. You are wrong, I am right; you must comeover to me, or you must suffer. Let me add, that the great inlet bywhich a color for oppression has entered into the world is by one man'spretending to determine concerning the happiness of another, and byclaiming a right to use what means he thinks proper in order to bringhim to a sense of it. It is the ordinary and trite sophism ofoppression. But there is not yet such a convenient ductility in thehuman understanding as to make us capable of being persuaded that mencan possibly mean the ultimate good of the whole society by renderingmiserable for a century together the greater part of it, --or that anyone has such a reversionary benevolence as seriously to intend theremote good of a late posterity, who can give up the present enjoymentwhich every honest man must have in the happiness of his contemporaries. Everybody is satisfied that a conservation and secure enjoyment of ournatural rights is the great and ultimate purpose of civil society, andthat therefore all forms whatsoever of government are only good as theyare subservient to that purpose to which they are entirely subordinate. Now to aim at the establishment of any form of government by sacrificingwhat is the substance of it, to take away or at least to suspend therights of Nature in order to an approved system for the protection ofthem, and for the sake of that about which men must dispute forever topostpone those things about which they have no controversy at all, andthis not in minute and subordinate, but large and principal objects, isa procedure as preposterous and absurd in argument as it is oppressiveand cruel in its effect. For the Protestant religion, nor (I speak itwith reverence, I am sure) the truth of our common Christianity, is notso clear as this proposition, --that all men, at least the majority ofmen in the society, ought to enjoy the common advantages of it. Youfall, therefore, into a double error: first, you incur a certainmischief for an advantage which is comparatively problematical, eventhough you were sure of obtaining it; secondly, whatever the proposedadvantage may be, were it of a certain nature, the attainment of it isby no means certain; and such deep gaming for stakes so valuable oughtnot to be admitted: the risk is of too much consequence to society. Ifno other country furnished examples of this risk, yet our laws and ourcountry are enough fully to demonstrate the fact: Ireland, after almosta century of persecution, is at this hour full of penalties and full ofPapists. This is a point which would lead us a great way; but it is onlyjust touched here, having much to say upon it in its proper place. Sothat you have incurred a certain and an immediate inconvenience for aremote and for a doubly uncertain benefit. --Thus far as to the argumentwhich would sanctify the injustice of these laws by the benefits whichare proposed to arise from them, and as to that liberty which, by a newpolitical chemistry, was to be extracted out of a system of oppression. 

Now as to the other point, that the objects of these laws suffervoluntarily: this seems to me to be an insult rather than an argument. For, besides that it totally annihilates every characteristic andtherefore every faulty idea of persecution, just as the former does, itsupposes, what is false in fact, that it is in a man's moral power tochange his religion whenever his convenience requires it. If he bebeforehand satisfied that your opinion is better than his, he willvoluntarily come over to you, and without compulsion, and then your lawwould be unnecessary; but if he is not so convinced, he must know thatit is his duty in this point to sacrifice his interest here to hisopinion of his eternal happiness, else he could have in reality noreligion at all. In the former case, therefore, as your law would beunnecessary, in the latter it would be persecuting: that is, it wouldput your penalty and his ideas of duty in the opposite scales; which is, or I know not what is, the precise idea of persecution. If, then, yourequire a renunciation of his conscience, as a preliminary to hisadmission to the rights of society, you annex, morally speaking, animpossible condition to it. In this case, in the language of reason andjurisprudence, the condition would be void, and the gift absolute; asthe practice runs, it is to establish the condition, and to withhold thebenefit. The suffering is, then, not voluntary. And I never heard anyother argument, drawn from the nature of laws and the good of humansociety, urged in favor of those proscriptive statutes, except thosewhich have just been mentioned. 

FOOTNOTES:

[22] Cicero _de Legibus_, Lib. L 14, 15 et 16. --"O rem dignam, in qua nonmodo docti, verum etiam agrestes erubescant! Jam vero illud stultissimumexistimare omnia justa esse, quæ scita sint in populorum institutis autlegibus, " etc. "Quod si populorum jussis, si principum decretis, sisententiis judicum jura constituerentur, jus esset latrocinari, jusadulterare, jus testamenta falsa supponere, si hæc suffragiis aut scitismultitudinis probarentur. "

CHAPTER III. 

PART II. 

The second head upon which I propose to consider those statutes withregard to their object, and which is the next in importance to themagnitude, and of almost equal concern in the inquiry into the justiceof these laws, is its possession. It is proper to recollect that thisreligion, which is so persecuted in its members, is the old religion ofthe country, and the once established religion of the state, --the verysame which had for centuries received the countenance and sanction ofthe laws, and from which it would at one time have been highly penal tohave dissented. In proportion as mankind has become enlightened, theidea of religious persecution, under any circumstances, has been almostuniversally exploded by all good and thinking men. The only faint shadowof difficulty which remains is concerning the introduction of newopinions. Experience has shown, that, if it has been favorable to thecause of truth, it has not been always conducive to the peace ofsociety. Though a new religious sect should even be totally free initself from any tumultuous and disorderly zeal, which, however, israrely the case, it has a tendency to create a resistance from theestablishment in possession, productive of great disorders, and thusbecomes, innocently indeed, but yet very certainly, the cause of thebitterest dissensions in the commonwealth. To a mind not thoroughlysaturated with the tolerating maxims of the Gospel, a preventivepersecution, on such principles, might come recommended by strong, and, apparently, no immoral motives of policy, whilst yet the contagion wasrecent, and had laid hold but on a few persons. The truth is, thesepolitics are rotten and hollow at bottom, as all that are founded uponany however minute a degree of positive injustice must ever be. But theyare specious, and sufficiently so to delude a man of sense and ofintegrity. But it is quite otherwise with the attempt to eradicate byviolence a wide-spreading and established religious opinion. If thepeople are in an error, to inform them is not only fair, but charitable;to drive them is a strain of the most manifest injustice. If not theright, the presumption, at least, is ever on the side of possession. Arethey mistaken? if it does not fully justify them, it is a greatalleviation of guilt, which may be mingled with their misfortune, thatthe error is none of their forging, --that they received it on as good afooting as they can receive your laws and your legislative authority, because it was handed down to them from their ancestors. The opinion maybe erroneous, but the principle is undoubtedly right; and you punishthem for acting upon a principle which of all others is perhaps the mostnecessary for preserving society, an implicit admiration and adherenceto the establishments of their forefathers. 

If, indeed, the legislative authority was on all hands admitted to bethe ground of religious persuasion, I should readily allow that dissentwould be rebellion. In this case it would make no difference whether theopinion was sucked in with the milk or imbibed yesterday; because thesame legislative authority which had settled could destroy it with allthe power of a creator over his creature. But this doctrine isuniversally disowned, and for a very plain reason. Religion, to haveany force on men's understandings, indeed to exist at all, must besupposed paramount to laws, and independent for its substance upon anyhuman institution, --else it would be the absurdest thing in the world, an acknowledged cheat. Religion, therefore, is not believed because thelaws have established it, but it is established because the leading partof the community have previously believed it to be true. As no water canrise higher than its spring, no establishment can have more authoritythan it derives from its principle; and the power of the government canwith no appearance of reason go further coercively than to bind and holddown those who have once consented to their opinions. The consent is theorigin of the whole. If they attempt to proceed further, they disown thefoundation upon which their own establishment was built, and they claima religious assent upon mere human authority, which has been just nowshown to be absurd and preposterous, and which they in fact confess tobe so. 

However, we are warranted to go thus far. The people often actually do(and perhaps they cannot in general do better) take their religion, noton the coercive, which is impossible, but on the influencing authorityof their governors, as wise and informed men. But if they once take areligion on the word of the state, they cannot in common sense do so asecond time, unless they have some concurrent reason for it. Theprejudice in favor of your wisdom is shook by your change. You confessthat you have been wrong, and yet you would pretend to dictate by yoursole authority; whereas you disengage the mind by embarrassing it. Forwhy should I prefer your opinion of to-day to your persuasion ofyesterday? If we must resort to prepossessions for the ground ofopinion, it is in the nature of man rather to defer to the wisdom oftimes past, whose weakness is not before his eyes, than to the present, of whose imbecility he has daily experience. Veneration of antiquity iscongenial to the human, mind. When, therefore, an establishment wouldpersecute an opinion in possession, it sets against it all the powerfulprejudices of human nature. It even sets its own authority, when it isof most weight, against itself in that very circumstance in which itmust necessarily have the least; and it opposes the stable prejudice oftime against a new opinion founded on mutability: a consideration thatmust render compulsion in such a case the more grievous, as there is nosecurity, that, when the mind is settled in the new opinion, it may notbe obliged to give place to one that is still newer, or even, to areturn of the old. But when an ancient establishment begins early topersecute an innovation, it stands upon quite other grounds, and it hasall the prejudices and presumptions on its side. It puts its ownauthority, not only of compulsion, but prepossession, the veneration ofpast age, as well as the activity of the present time, against theopinion only of a private man or set of men. If there be no reason, there is at least some consistency in its proceedings. Commanding toconstancy, it does nothing but that of which it sets an example itself. But an opinion at once new and persecuting is a monster; because, in thevery instant in which it takes a liberty of change, it does not leave toyou even a liberty of perseverance. 

Is, then, no improvement to be brought into society? Undoubtedly; butnot by compulsion, --but by encouragement, --but by countenance, favor, privileges, which are powerful, and are lawful instruments. The coerciveauthority of the state is limited to what is necessary for itsexistence. To this belongs the whole order of criminal law. It considersas crimes (that is, the object of punishment) trespasses against thoserules for which society was instituted. The law punishes delinquents, not because they are not good men, but because they are intolerablywicked. It does bear, and must, with the vices and the follies of men, until they actually strike at the root of order. This it does in thingsactually moral. In all matters of speculative improvement the case isstronger, even where the matter is properly of human cognizance. But toconsider an averseness to improvement, the not arriving at perfection, as a crime, is against all tolerably correct jurisprudence; for, if theresistance to improvement should be great and any way general, theywould in effect give up the necessary and substantial part in favor ofthe perfection and the finishing. 

But, say the abettors of our penal laws, this old possessed superstitionis such in its principles, that society, on its general principles, cannot subsist along with it. Could a man think such an objectionpossible, if he had not actually heard it made, --an objectioncontradicted, not by hypothetical reasonings, but the clear evidence ofthe most decisive facts? Society not only exists, but flourishes at thishour, with this superstition, in many countries, under every form ofgovernment, --in some established, in some tolerated, in others upon anequal footing. And was there no civil society at all in these kingdomsbefore the Reformation? To say it was not as well constituted as itought to be is saying nothing at all to the purpose; for that assertionevidently regards improvement, not existence. It certainly did thenexist; and it as certainly then was at least as much to the advantage ofa very great part of society as what we have brought in the place of it:which is, indeed, a great blessing to those who have profited of thechange; but to all the rest, as we have wrought, that is, by blendinggeneral persecution with partial reformation, it is the very reverse. Wefound the people heretics and idolaters; we have, by way of improvingtheir condition, rendered them slaves and beggars: they remain in allthe misfortune of their old errors, and all the superadded misery oftheir recent punishment. They were happy enough, in their opinion atleast, before the change; what benefits society then had, they partookof them all. They are now excluded from those benefits; and, so far ascivil society comprehends them, and as we have managed the matter, ourpersecutions are so far from being necessary to its existence, that ourvery reformation is made in a degree noxious. If this be improvement, truly I know not what can be called a depravation of society. 

But as those who argue in this manner are perpetually shifting thequestion, having begun with objecting, in order to give a fair andpublic color to their scheme, to a toleration of those opinions assubversive of society in general, they will surely end by abandoning thebroad part of the argument, and attempting to show that a toleration ofthem is inconsistent with the established government among us. Now, though this position be in reality as untenable as the other, it is notaltogether such an absurdity on the face of it. All I shall here observeis, that those who lay it down little consider what a wound they aregiving to that establishment for which they pretend so much zeal. However, as this is a consideration, not of general justice, but ofparticular and national policy, and as I have reserved a placeexpressly, where it will undergo a thorough discussion, I shall not hereembarrass myself with it, --being resolved to preserve all the order inmy power, in the examination of this important, melancholy subject. 

However, before we pass from this point concerning possession, it willbe a relaxation of the mind, not wholly foreign to our purpose, to takea short review of the extraordinary policy which has been held withregard to religion in that kingdom, from the time our ancestors tookpossession of it. The most able antiquaries are of opinion, andArchbishop Usher, whom I reckon amongst the first of them, has, I think, shown, that a religion not very remote from the present Protestantpersuasion was that of the Irish before the union of that kingdom to thecrown of England. If this was not directly the fact, this at least seemsvery probable, that Papal authority was much lower in Ireland than inother countries. This union was made under the authority of an arbitrarygrant of Pope Adrian, in order that the Church of Ireland should bereduced to the same servitude with those that were nearer to his see. Itis not very wonderful that an ambitious monarch should make use of anypretence in his way to so considerable an object. What is extraordinaryis, that for a very long time, even quite down to the Reformation, andin their most solemn acts, the kings of England founded their titlewholly on this grant: they called for obedience from the people ofIreland, not on principles of subjection, but as vassals and mesne lordsbetween them and the Popes; and they omitted no measure of force orpolicy to establish that Papal authority, with all the distinguishingarticles of religion connected with it, and to make it take deep root inthe minds of the people. Not to crowd instances unnecessary, I shallselect two, one of which is in print, the other on record, --the one atreaty, the other an act of Parliament. The first is the submission ofthe Irish chiefs to Richard the Second, mentioned by Sir John Davies. Inthis pact they bind themselves for the future to preserve peace andallegiance to the kings of England, under certain pecuniary penalties. But what is remarkable, these fines were all covenanted to be paid intothe Apostolical Chamber, supposing the Pope as the superior power, whosepeace was broken and whose majesty was violated in disobeying hisgovernor. By this time, so far as regarded England, the kings hadextremely abridged the Papal power in many material particulars: theyhad passed the Statute of Provisors, the Statute of _Præmunire_, --and, indeed, struck out of the Papal authority all things, at least, thatseemed to infringe on their temporal independence. In Ireland, however, their proceeding was directly the reverse: there they thought itexpedient to exalt it at least as high as ever: for, so late as thereign of Edward the Fourth, the following short, but very explicit, actof Parliament was passed:--

 IV. ED. Cap. 3. 

 "An act, whereby letters patent of pardon from the king to those that sue to Rome for certain benefices is void. Rot. Parl. 

 "Item, At the request of the commons, it is ordeyned and established, by authority of the said Parliament, that all maner letters patents of the king, of pardons or pardon granted by the king, or hereafter to be granted, to any provisor that claim any title by the bulls of the Pope to any maner benefices, where, at the time of the impetrating of the said bulls of provision, the benefice is full of an incumbent, that then the said letters patents of pardon or pardons be void in law and of none effect. "

When, by every expedient of force and policy, by a war of somecenturies, by extirpating a number of the old, and by bringing in anumber of new people full of those opinions and intending to propagatethem, they had fully compassed their object, they suddenly took anotherturn, --commenced an opposite persecution, made heavy laws, carried onmighty wars, inflicted and suffered the worst evils, extirpated the massof the old, brought in new inhabitants; and they continue at this day anoppressive system, and may for four hundred years to come, to eradicateopinions which by the same violent means they had been four hundredyears endeavoring by every means to establish. They compelled the peopleto submit, by the forfeiture of all their civil rights, to the Pope'sauthority, in its most extravagant and unbounded sense, as a giver ofkingdoms; and now they refuse even to tolerate them in the most moderateand chastised sentiments concerning it. No country, I believe, sincethe world began, has suffered so much on account of religion, or hasbeen so variously harassed both for Popery and for Protestantism. 

It will now be seen, that, even if these laws could be supposedagreeable to those of Nature in these particulars, on another and almostas strong a principle they are yet unjust, as being contrary to positivecompact, and the public faith most solemnly plighted. On the surrenderof Limerick, and some other Irish garrisons, in the war of theRevolution, the Lords Justices of Ireland and the commander-in-chief ofthe king's forces signed a capitulation with the Irish, which wasafterwards ratified by the king himself by _inspeximus_ under the greatseal of England. It contains some public articles relative to the wholebody of the Roman Catholics in that kingdom, and some with regard to thesecurity of the greater part of the inhabitants of five counties. Whatthe latter were, or in what manner they were observed, is at this day ofmuch less public concern. The former are two, --the first and the ninth. The first is of this tenor:--"The Roman Catholics of this kingdom[Ireland] shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religionas are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in thereign of King Charles the Second. And their Majesties, as soon asaffairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, willendeavor to procure the said Roman Catholics such farther security inthat particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon theaccount of their said religion. " The ninth article is to thiseffect:--"The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submitto their Majesties' government shall be the oath abovesaid, and noother, "--viz. , the oath of allegiance, made by act of Parliament inEngland, in the first year of their then Majesties; as required by thesecond of the Articles of Limerick. Compare this latter article with thepenal laws, as they are stated in the Second Chapter, and judge whetherthey seem to be the public acts of the same power, and observe whetherother oaths are tendered to them, and under what penalties. Compare theformer with the same laws, from the beginning to the end, and judgewhether the Roman Catholics have been preserved, agreeably to the senseof the article, from any disturbance upon account of their religion, --orrather, whether on that account there is a single right of Nature orbenefit of society which has not been either totally taken away orconsiderably impaired. 

But it is said, that the legislature was not bound by this article, asit has never been ratified in Parliament. I do admit that it never hadthat sanction, and that the Parliament was under no obligation to ratifythese articles by any express act of theirs But still I am at a loss howthey came to be the less valid, on the principles of our Constitution, by being without that sanction. They certainly bound the king and hissuccessors. The words of the article do this, or they do nothing; and sofar as the crown had a share in passing those acts, the public faith wasunquestionably broken. In Ireland such a breach on the part of the crownwas much more unpardonable in administration than it would have beenhere. They have in Ireland a way of preventing any bill even fromapproaching the royal presence, in matters of far less importance thanthe honor and faith of the crown and the well-being of a great body ofthe people. For, besides that they might have opposed the very firstsuggestion of it in the House of Commons, it could not be framed into abill without the approbation of the Council in Ireland. It could not bereturned to them again without the approbation of the King and Councilhere. They might have met it again in its second passage through thatHouse of Parliament in which it was originally suggested, as well as inthe other. If it had escaped them through all these mazes, it was againto come before the Lord Lieutenant, who might have sunk it by a refusalof the royal assent. The Constitution of Ireland has interposed allthose checks to the passing of any constitutional act, howeverinsignificant in its own nature. But did the administration in thatreign avail themselves of any one of those opportunities? They nevergave the act of the eleventh of Queen Anne the least degree ofopposition in any one stage of its progress. What is rather the fact, many of the queen's servants encouraged it, recommended it, were inreality the true authors of its passing in Parliament, instead ofrecommending and using their utmost endeavor to establish a law directlyopposite in its tendency, as they were bound to do by the express letterof the very first article of the Treaty of Limerick. To say nothingfurther of the ministry, who in this instance most shamefully betrayedthe faith of government, may it not be a matter of some degree of doubt, whether the Parliament, who do not claim a right of dissolving the forceof moral obligation, did not make themselves a party in this breach ofcontract, by presenting a bill to the crown in direct violation of thosearticles so solemnly and so recently executed, which by theConstitution they had full authority to execute?

It may be further objected, that, when the Irish requested theratification of Parliament to those articles, they did, in effect, themselves entertain a doubt concerning their validity without such aratification. To this I answer, that the collateral security was meantto bind the crown, and to hold it firm to its engagements. They did not, therefore, call it a _perfecting_ of the security, but an _additional_security, which it could not have been, if the first had been void; forthe Parliament could not bind itself more than the crown had bounditself. And if all had made but _one_ security, neither of them could becalled _additional_ with propriety or common sense. But let us supposethat they did apprehend there might have been something wanting in thissecurity without the sanction of Parliament. They were, however, evidently mistaken; and this surplusage of theirs did not weaken thevalidity of the single contract, upon the known principle of law, _Nonsolent, quæ abundant, vitiare scripturas_. For nothing is more evidentthan that the crown was bound, and that no act can be made without theroyal assent. But the Constitution will warrant us in going a great dealfurther, and in affirming, that a treaty executed by the crown, andcontradictory of no preceding law, is full as binding on the whole bodyof the nation as if it had twenty times received the sanction ofParliament; because the very same Constitution which has given to theHouses of Parliament their definite authority has also left in the crownthe trust of making peace, as a consequence, and much the bestconsequence, of the prerogative of making war. If the peace was illmade, my Lord Galmoy, Coningsby, and Porter, who signed it, wereresponsible; because they were subject to the community. But its owncontracts are not subject to it: it is subject to them; and the compactof the king acting constitutionally was the compact of the nation. 

Observe what monstrous consequences would result from a contraryposition. A foreign enemy has entered, or a strong domestic one hasarisen in the nation. In such events the circumstances may be, and oftenhave been, such that a Parliament cannot sit. This was precisely thecase in that rebellion in Ireland. It will be admitted also, that theirpower may be so great as to make it very prudent to treat with them, inorder to save effusion of blood, perhaps to save the nation. Now couldsuch a treaty be at all made, if your enemies, or rebels, were fullypersuaded, that, in these times of confusion, there was no authority inthe state which could hold out to them an inviolable pledge for theirfuture security, but that there lurked in the Constitution a dormant, but irresistible power, who would not think itself bound by the ordinarysubsisting and contracting authority, but might rescind its acts andobligations at pleasure? This would be a doctrine made to perpetuate andexasperate war; and on that principle it directly impugns the law ofnations, which is built upon this principle, that war should be softenedas much as possible, and that it should cease as soon as possible, between contending parties and communities. The king has a power topardon individuals. If the king holds out his faith to a robber, to comein on a promise of pardon, of life and estate, and, in all respects, ofa full indemnity, shall the Parliament say that he must nevertheless beexecuted, that his estate must be forfeited, or that he shall beabridged of any of the privileges which he before held as a subject?Nobody will affirm it. In such a case, the breach of faith would notonly be on the part of the king who assented to such an act, but on thepart of the Parliament who made it. As the king represents the wholecontracting capacity of the nation, so far as his prerogative(unlimited, as I said before, by any precedent law) can extend, he actsas the national procurator on all such occasions. What is true of arobber is true of a rebel; and what is true of one robber or rebel is astrue, and it is a much more important truth, of one hundred thousand. 

To urge this part of the argument further is, indeed, I fear, notnecessary, for two reasons: first, that it seems tolerably evident initself; and next, that there is but too much ground to apprehend thatthe actual ratification of Parliament would, in the then temper ofparties, have proved but a very slight and trivial security. Of thisthere is a very strong example in the history of those very articles:for, though the Parliament omitted in the reign of King William toratify the first and most general of them, they did actually confirm thesecond and more limited, that which related to the security of theinhabitants of those five counties which were in arms when the treatywas made. 

CHAPTER IV. 

In the foregoing book we considered these laws in a very simple point ofview, and in a very general one, --merely as a system of hardshipimposed on the body of the community; and from thence, and from someother arguments, inferred the general injustice of such a procedure. Inthis we shall be obliged to be more minute; and the matter will becomemore complex as we undertake to demonstrate the mischievous andimpolitic consequences which the particular mode of this oppressivesystem, and the instruments which it employs, operating, as we said, onthis extensive object, produce on the national prosperity, quiet, andsecurity. 

The stock of materials by which any nation is rendered flourishing andprosperous are its industry, its knowledge or skill, its morals, itsexecution of justice, its courage, and the national union in directingthese powers to one point, and making them all centre in the publicbenefit. Other than these, I do not know and scarcely can conceive anymeans by which a community may flourish. 

If we show that these penal laws of Ireland destroy not one only, butevery one, of these materials of public prosperity, it will not bedifficult to perceive that Great Britain, whilst they subsist, never candraw from that country all the advantages to which the bounty of Naturehas entitled it. 

To begin with the first great instrument of national happiness andstrength, its industry: I must observe, that, although these penal lawsdo, indeed, inflict many hardships on those who are obnoxious to them, yet their chief, their most extensive, and most certain operation isupon property. Those civil constitutions which promote industry are suchas facilitate the acquisition, secure the holding, enable the fixing, and suffer the alienation of property. Every law which obstructs it inany part of this distribution is, in proportion to the force and extentof the obstruction, a discouragement to industry. For a law againstproperty is a law against industry, --the latter having always theformer, and nothing else, for its object. Now as to the acquisition oflanded property, which is the foundation and support of all the otherkinds, the laws have disabled three fourths of the inhabitants ofIreland from acquiring any estate of inheritance for life or years, orany charge whatsoever on which two thirds of the improved yearly valueis not reserved for thirty years. 

This confinement of landed property to one set of hands, and preventingits free circulation through the community, is a most leading article ofill policy; because it is one of the most capital discouragements to allthat industry which may be employed on the lasting improvement of thesoil, or is any way conversant about land. A tenure of thirty years isevidently no tenure upon which to build, to plant, to raise inclosures, to change the nature of the ground, to make any new experiment whichmight improve agriculture, or to do anything more than what may answerthe immediate and momentary calls of rent to the landlord, and leavesubsistence to the tenant and his family. The desire of acquisition isalways a passion of long views. Confine a man to momentary possession, and you at once cut off that laudable avarice which every wise state hascherished as one of the first principles of its greatness. Allow a manbut a temporary possession, lay it down as a maxim that he never canhave any other, and you immediately and infallibly turn him to temporaryenjoyments: and these enjoyments are never the pleasures of labor andfree industry, whose quality it is to famish the present hours andsquander all upon prospect and futurity; they are, on the contrary, those of a thoughtless, loitering, and dissipated life. The people mustbe inevitably disposed to such pernicious habits, merely from the shortduration of their tenure which the law has allowed. But it is not enoughthat industry is checked by the confinement of its views; it is furtherdiscouraged by the limitation of its own direct object, profit. This isa regulation extremely worthy of our attention, as it is not aconsequential, but a direct discouragement to melioration, --as directlyas if the law had said in express terms, "Thou shalt not improve. "

But we have an additional argument to demonstrate the ill policy ofdenying the occupiers of land any solid property in it. Ireland is acountry wholly unplanted. The farms have neither dwelling-houses norgood offices; nor are the lands, almost anywhere, provided with fencesand communications: in a word, in a very unimproved state. Theland-owner there never takes upon him, as it is usual in this kingdom, to supply all these conveniences, and to set down his tenant in what maybe called a completely furnished farm. If the tenant will not do it, itis never done. This circumstance shows how miserably and peculiarlyimpolitic it has been in Ireland to tie down the body of the tenantry toshort and unprofitable tenures. A finished and furnished house will betaken for any term, however short: if the repair lies on the owner, theshorter the better. But no one will take one not only unfurnished, buthalf built, but upon a term which, on calculation, will answer withprofit all his charges. It is on this principle that the Romansestablished their _emphyteusis_, or fee-farm. For though they extendedthe ordinary term of their location only to nine years, yet theyencouraged a more permanent letting to farm with the condition ofimprovement, as well as of annual payment, on the part of the tenant, where the land had lain rough and neglected, --and therefore inventedthis species of engrafted holding, in the later times, when propertycame to be worse distributed by falling into a few hands. 

This denial of landed property to the gross of the people has thisfurther evil effect in preventing the improvement of land, that itprevents any of the property acquired in trade to be regorged, as itwere, upon the land. They must have observed very little, who have notremarked the bold and liberal spirit of improvement which persons bredto trade have often exerted on their land-purchases: that they usuallycome to them with a more abundant command of ready money than mostlanded men possess; and that they have in general a much better idea, bylong habits of calculative dealings, of the propriety of expending inorder to acquire. Besides, such men often bring their spirit of commerceinto their estates with them, and make manufactures take a root, wherethe mere landed gentry had perhaps no capital, perhaps no inclination, and, most frequently, not sufficient knowledge, to effect anything ofthe kind. By these means, what beautiful and useful spots have there notbeen made about trading and manufacturing towns, and how has agriculturehad reason to bless that happy alliance with commerce! and how miserablemust that nation be, whose frame of polity has disjoined the landing andthe trading interests!

 * * * * *

The great prop of this whole system is not pretended to be its justiceor its utility, but the supposed danger to the state, which gave rise toit originally, and which, they apprehend, would return, if this systemwere overturned. Whilst, say they, the Papists of this kingdom werepossessed of landed property, and of the influence consequent to suchproperty, their allegiance to the crown of Great Britain was everinsecure, the public peace was ever liable to be broken, and Protestantsnever could be a moment secure either of their properties or of theirlives. Indulgence only made them arrogant, and power daring; confidenceonly excited and enabled them to exert their inherent treachery; and thetimes which they generally selected for their most wicked and desperaterebellions were those in which they enjoyed the greatest ease and themost perfect tranquillity. 

Such are the arguments that are used, both publicly and privately, inevery discussion upon this point. They are generally full of passion andof error, and built upon facts which in themselves are most false. Itcannot, I confess, be denied, that those miserable performances which goabout under the names of Histories of Ireland do, indeed, representthose events after this manner; and they would persuade us, contrary tothe known order of Nature, that indulgence and moderation in governorsis the natural incitement in subjects to rebel. But there is an interiorhistory of Ireland, the genuine voice of its records and monuments, which speaks a very different language from these histories, from Templeand from Clarendon: these restore Nature to its just rights, and policyto its proper order. For they even now show to those who have been atthe pains to examine them, and they may show one day to all the world, that these rebellions were not produced by toleration, but bypersecution, --that they arose not from just and mild government, butfrom the most unparalleled oppression. These records will be far fromgiving the least countenance to a doctrine so repugnant to humanity andgood sense as that the security of any establishment, civil orreligious, can ever depend upon the misery of those who live under it, or that its danger can arise from their quiet and prosperity. God forbidthat the history of this or any country should give such encouragementto the folly or vices of those who govern! If it can be shown that thegreat rebellions of Ireland have arisen from attempts to reduce thenatives to the state to which they are now reduced, it will show that anattempt to continue them in that state will rather be disadvantageous tothe public peace than any kind of security to it. These things have insome measure begun to appear already; and as far as regards the argumentdrawn from former rebellions, it will fall readily to the ground. But, for my part, I think the real danger to every state is, to render itssubjects justly discontented; nor is there in polities or science anymore effectual secret for their security than to establish in theirpeople a firm opinion that no change can be for their advantage. It istrue that bigotry and fanaticism may for a time draw great multitudes ofpeople from a knowledge of their true and substantial interest. But uponthis I have to remark three things. First, that such a temper can neverbecome universal, or last for a long time. The principle of religion isseldom lasting; the majority of men are in no persuasion bigots; theyare not willing to sacrifice, on every vain imagination thatsuperstition or enthusiasm holds forth, or that even zeal and pietyrecommend, the certain possession of their temporal happiness. And ifsuch a spirit has been at any time roused in a society, after it has hadits paroxysm it commonly subsides and is quiet, and is even the weakerfor the violence of its first exertion: security and ease are its mortalenemies. But, secondly, if anything can tend to revive and keep it up, it is to keep alive the passions of men by ill usage. This is enough toirritate even those who have not a spark of bigotry in theirconstitution to the most desperate enterprises; it certainly willinflame, darken, and render more dangerous the spirit of bigotry inthose who are possessed by it. Lastly, by rooting out any sect, you arenever secure against the effects of fanaticism; it may arise on the sideof the most favored opinions; and many are the instances wherein theestablished religion of a state has grown ferocious and turned upon itskeeper, and has often torn to pieces the civil establishment that hadcherished it, and which it was designed to support:France, --England, --Holland. 

But there may be danger of wishing a change, even where no religiousmotive can operate; and every enemy to such a state comes as a friend tothe subject; and where other countries are under terror, they begin tohope. 

This argument _ad verecundiam_ has as much force as any such have. But Ithink it fares but very indifferently with those who make use of it; forthey would get but little to be proved abettors of tyranny at theexpense of putting me to an inconvenient acknowledgment. For if I wereto confess that there are circumstances in which it would be better toestablish such a religion. . . . 

 * * * * *

With regard to the Pope's interest. This foreign chief of their religioncannot be more formidable to us than to other Protestant countries. Toconquer that country for himself is a wild chimera; to encourage revoltin favor of foreign princes is an exploded idea in the politics of thatcourt. Perhaps it would be full as dangerous to have the people underthe conduct of factious pastors of their own as under a foreignecclesiastical court. 

 * * * * *

In the second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth were enacted severallimitations in the acquisition or the retaining of property, which had, so far as regarded any general principles, hitherto remained untouchedunder all changes. 

These bills met no opposition either in the Irish Parliament or in theEnglish Council, except from private agents, who were little attendedto; and they passed into laws with the highest and most generalapplauses, as all such things are in the beginning, not as a system ofpersecution, but as masterpieces of the most subtle and refinedpolitics. And to say the truth, these laws, at first view, have ratheran appearance of a plan of vexatious litigation and crookedlaw-chicanery than of a direct and sanguinary attack upon the rights ofprivate conscience: because they did not affect life, at least withregard to the laity; and making the Catholic opinions rather the subjectof civil regulations than of criminal prosecutions, to those who arenot lawyers and read these laws they only appear to be a species ofjargon. For the execution of criminal law has always a certainappearance of violence. Being exercised directly on the persons of thesupposed offenders, and commonly executed in the face of the public, such executions are apt to excite sentiments of pity for the sufferers, and indignation against those who are employed in such cruelties, --beingseen as single acts of cruelty, rather than as ill general principles ofgovernment. But the operation of the laws in question being such ascommon feeling brings home to every man's bosom, they operate in a sortof comparative silence and obscurity; and though their cruelty isexceedingly great, it is never seen in a single exertion, and alwaysescapes commiseration, being scarce known, except to those who view themin a general, which is always a cold and phlegmatic light. The first ofthese laws being made with so general a satisfaction, as the chiefgovernors found that such things were extremely acceptable to theleading people in that country, they were willing enough to gratify themwith the ruin of their fellow-citizens; they were not sorry to diverttheir attention from other inquiries, and to keep them fixed to this, asif this had been the only real object of their national politics; andfor many years there was no speech from the throne which did not withgreat appearance of seriousness recommend the passing of such laws, andscarce a session went over without in effect passing some of them, untilthey have by degrees grown to be the most considerable head in the Irishstatute-book. At the same time giving a temporary and occasionalmitigation to the severity of some of the harshest of those laws, theyappeared in some sort the protectors of those whom they were in realitydestroying by the establishment of general constitutions against them. At length, however, the policy of this expedient is worn out; thepassions of men are cooled; those laws begin to disclose themselves, andto produce effects very different from those which were promised inmaking them: for crooked counsels are ever unwise; and nothing can bemore absurd and dangerous than to tamper with the natural foundations ofsociety, in hopes of keeping it up by certain contrivances. 

 * * * * *

A

LETTER

TO

WILLIAM SMITH, ESQ. , ON THE SUBJECT OF

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 

JANUARY 29, 1795. 

LETTER. [23]

My Dear sir, --Your letter is, to myself, infinitely obliging: withregard to you, I can find no fault with it, except that of a tone ofhumility and disqualification, which neither your rank, nor the placeyou are in, nor the profession you belong to, nor your veryextraordinary learning and talents, will in propriety demand or perhapsadmit. These dispositions will be still less proper, if you should feelthem in the extent your modesty leads you to express them. You havecertainly given by far too strong a proof of self-diffidence by askingthe opinion of a man circumstanced as I am, on the important subject ofyour letter. You are far more capable of forming just conceptions uponit than I can be. However, since you are pleased to command me to laybefore you my thoughts, as materials upon which your better judgment mayoperate, I shall obey you, and submit them, with great deference, toyour melioration or rejection. 

But first permit me to put myself in the right. I owe you an answer toyour former letter. It did not desire one, but it deserved it. If notfor an answer, it called for an acknowledgment. It was a new favor; and, indeed, I should be worse than insensible, if I did not consider thehonors you have heaped upon me with no sparing hand with becominggratitude. But your letter arrived to me at a time when the closing ofmy long and last business in life, a business extremely complex, andfull of difficulties and vexations of all sorts, occupied me in a mannerwhich those who have not seen the interior as well as exterior of itcannot easily imagine. I confess that in the crisis of that rudeconflict I neglected many things that well deserved my bestattention, --none that deserved it better, or have caused me more regretin the neglect, than your letter. The instant that business was over, and the House had passed its judgment on the conduct of the managers, Ilost no time to execute what for years I had resolved on: it was, toquit my public station, and to seek that tranquillity, in my veryadvanced age, to which, after a very tempestuous life, I thought myselfentitled. But God has thought fit (and I unfeignedly acknowledge Hisjustice) to dispose of things otherwise. So heavy a calamity has fallenupon me as to disable me for business and to disqualify me for repose. The existence I have I do not know that I can call life. Accordingly, Ido not meddle with any one measure of government, though, for whatreasons I know not, you seem to suppose me deeply in the secret ofaffairs. I only know, so far as your side of the water is concerned, that your present excellent Lord Lieutenant (the best man in everyrelation that I have ever been acquainted with) has perfectly pureintentions with regard to Ireland, and of course that he wishescordially well to those who form the great mass of its inhabitants, andwho, as they are well or ill managed, must form an important part of itsstrength or weakness. If with regard to that great object he hascarried over any ready-made system, I assure you it is perfectly unknownto me: I am very much retired from the world, and live in muchignorance. This, I hope, will form my humble apology, if I should err inthe notions I entertain of the question which is soon to become thesubject of your deliberations. At the same time accept it as an apologyfor my neglects. 

You need make no apology for your attachment to the religiousdescription you belong to. It proves (as in you it is sincere) yourattachment to the great points in which the leading divisions areagreed, when the lesser, in which they differ, are so dear to you. Ishall never call any religious opinions, which appear important toserious and pious minds, things of no consideration. Nothing is so fatalto religion as indifference, which is, at least, half infidelity. Aslong as men hold charity and justice to be essential integral parts ofreligion, there can be little danger from a strong attachment toparticular tenets in faith. This I am perfectly sure is your case; but Iam not equally sure that either zeal for the tenets of faith, or thesmallest degree of charity or justice, have much influenced thegentlemen who, under pretexts of zeal, have resisted the enfranchisementof their country. My dear son, who was a person of discernment, as wellas clear and acute in his expressions, said, in a letter of his which Ihave seen, "that, in order to grace their cause, and to draw somerespect to their persons, they pretend to be bigots. " But here, I takeit, we have not much to do with the theological tenets on the one sideof the question or the other. The point itself is practically decided. That religion is owned by the state. Except in a settled maintenance, itis protected. A great deal of the rubbish, which, as a nuisance, longobstructed the way, is removed. One impediment remained longer, as amatter to justify the proscription of the body of our country; after therest had been abandoned as untenable ground. But the business of thePope (that mixed person of polities and religion) has long ceased to bea bugbear: for some time past he has ceased to be even a colorablepretext. This was well known, when the Catholics of these kingdoms, forour amusement, were obliged on oath to disclaim him in his politicalcapacity, --which implied an allowance for them to recognize him in somesort of ecclesiastical superiority. It was a compromise of the olddispute. 

For my part, I confess I wish that we had been less eager in this point. I don't think, indeed, that much mischief will happen from it, if thingsare otherwise properly managed. Too nice an inquisition ought not to bemade into opinions that are dying away of themselves. Had we lived anhundred and fifty years ago, I should have been as earnest and anxiousas anybody for this sort of abjuration; but, living at the time in whichI live, and obliged to speculate forward instead of backward, I mustfairly say, I could well endure the existence of every sort ofcollateral aid which opinion might, in the now state of things, affordto authority. I must see much more danger than in my life I have seen, or than others will venture seriously to affirm that they see, in thePope aforesaid, (though a foreign power, and with his long tail of _etceteras_, ) before I should be active in weakening any hold whichgovernment might think it prudent to resort to, in the management ofthat large part of the king's subjects. I do not choose to direct all myprecautions to the part where the danger does not press, and to leavemyself open and unguarded where I am not only really, but visiblyattacked. 

My whole politics, at present, centre in one point, and to this themerit or demerit of every measure (with me) is referable, --that is, whatwill most promote or depress the cause of Jacobinism. What isJacobinism? It is an attempt (hitherto but too successful) to eradicateprejudice out of the minds of men, for the purpose of putting all powerand authority into the hands of the persons capable of occasionallyenlightening the minds of the people. For this purpose the Jacobins haveresolved to destroy the whole frame and fabric of the old societies ofthe world, and to regenerate them after their fashion. To obtain an armyfor this purpose, they everywhere engage the poor by holding out to themas a bribe the spoils of the rich. This I take to be a fair descriptionof the principles and leading maxims of the enlightened of our day whoare commonly called Jacobins. 

As the grand prejudice, and that which holds all the other prejudicestogether, the first, last, and middle object of their hostility isreligion. With that they are at inexpiable war. They make no distinctionof sects. A Christian, as such, is to them an enemy. What, then, is leftto a real Christian, (Christian as a believer and as a statesman, ) butto make a league between all the grand divisions of that name, toprotect and to cherish them all, and by no means to proscribe in anymanner, more or less, any member of our common party? The divisionswhich formerly prevailed in the Church, with all their overdone zeal, only purified and ventilated our common faith, because there was nocommon enemy arrayed and embattled to take advantage of theirdissensions; but now nothing but inevitable ruin will be the consequenceof our quarrels. I think we may dispute, rail, persecute, and provokethe Catholics out of their prejudices; but it is not in ours they willtake refuge. If anything is, one more than another, out of the power ofman, it is to _create_ a prejudice. Somebody has said, that a king maymake a nobleman, but he cannot make a gentleman. 

All the principal religions in Europe stand upon one common bottom. Thesupport that the whole or the favored parts may have in the secretdispensations of Providence it is impossible to tell; but, humanlyspeaking, they are all _prescriptive_ religions. They have all stoodlong enough to make prescription and its chain of legitimate prejudicestheir main stay. The people who compose the four grand divisions ofChristianity have now their religion as an habit, and upon authority, and not on disputation, --as all men who have their religion derived fromtheir parents and the fruits of education _must_ have it, however theone more than the other may be able to reconcile his faith to his ownreason or to that of other men. Depend upon it, they must all besupported, or they must all fall in the crash of a common ruin. TheCatholics are the far more numerous part of the Christians in yourcountry; and how can Christianity (that is now the point in issue) besupported under the persecution, or even under the discountenance, ofthe greater number of Christians? It is a great truth, and which in oneof the debates I stated as strongly as I could to the House of Commonsin the last session, that, if the Catholic religion is destroyed by theinfidels, it is a most contemptible and absurd idea, that this, or anyProtestant Church, can survive that event. Therefore my humble anddecided opinion is, that all the three religions prevalent more or lessin various parts of these islands ought all, in subordination to thelegal establishments as they stand in the several countries, to be allcountenanced, protected, and cherished, and that in Ireland particularlythe Roman Catholic religion should be upheld in high respect andveneration, and should be, in its place, provided with all the means ofmaking it a blessing to the people who profess it, --that it ought to becherished as a good, (though not as the most preferable good, if achoice was now to be made, ) and not tolerated as an inevitable evil. Ifthis be my opinion as to the Catholic religion as a sect, you must seethat I must be to the last degree averse to put a man, upon thataccount, upon a bad footing with relation to the privileges which thefundamental laws of this country give him as a subject. I am the moreserious on the positive encouragement to be given to this religion, (always, however, as secondary, ) because the serious and earnest beliefand practice of it by its professors forms, as things stand, the mosteffectual barrier, if not the sole barrier, against Jacobinism. TheCatholics form the great body of the lower ranks of your community, andno small part of those classes of the middling that come nearest tothem. You know that the seduction of that part of mankind from theprinciples of religion, morality, subordination, and social order is thegreat object of the Jacobins. Let them grow lax, skeptical, careless, and indifferent with regard to religion, and, so sure as we have anexistence, it is not a zealous Anglican or Scottish Church principle, but direct Jacobinism, which will enter into that breach. Two hundredyears dreadfully spent in experiments to force that people to change theform of their religion have proved fruitless. You have now your choice, for full four fifths of your people, of the Catholic religion orJacobinism. If things appear to you to stand on this alternative, Ithink you will not be long in making your option. 

You have made, as you naturally do, a very able analysis of powers, andhave separated, as the things are separable, civil from politicalpowers. You start, too, a question, whether the civil can be securedwithout some share in the political. For my part, as abstract questions, I should find some difficulty in an attempt to resolve them. But asapplied to the state of Ireland, to the form of our commonwealth, to theparties that divide us, and to the dispositions of the leading men inthose parties, I cannot hesitate to lay before you my opinion, that, whilst any kind of discouragements and disqualifications remain on theCatholics, an handle will be made by a factious power utterly to defeatthe benefits of any civil rights they may apparently possess. I need notgo to very remote times for my examples. It was within the course ofabout a twelvemonth, that, after Parliament had been led into a stepquite unparalleled in its records, after they had resisted allconcession, and even hearing, with an obstinacy equal to anything thatcould have actuated a party domination in the second or eighth of QueenAnne, after the strange adventure of the Grand Juries, and afterParliament had listened to the sovereign pleading for the emancipationof his subjects, --it was after all this, that such a grudging anddiscontent was expressed as must justly have alarmed, as it didextremely alarm, the whole of the Catholic body: and I remember but oneperiod in my whole life (I mean the savage period between 1781 and 1767)in which they have been more harshly or contumeliously treated thansince the last partial enlargement. And thus I am convinced it will be, by paroxysms, as long as any stigma remains on them, and whilst they areconsidered as no better than half citizens. If they are kept such forany length of time, they will be made whole Jacobins. Against this grandand dreadful evil of our time (I do not love to cheat myself or others)I do not know any solid security whatsoever; but I am quite certain thatwhat will come nearest to it is to interest as many as you can in thepresent order of things, religiously, civilly, politically, by all theties and principles by which mankind are held. This is like to beeffectual policy: I am sure it is honorable policy: and it is better tofail, if fail we must, in the paths of direct and manly than of low andcrooked wisdom. 

As to the capacity of sitting in Parliament, after all the capacitiesfor voting, for the army, for the navy, for the professions, for civiloffices, it is a dispute _de lana caprina_, in my poor opinion, --atleast on the part of those who oppose it. In the first place, thisadmission to office, and this exclusion from Parliament, on theprinciple of an exclusion from political power, is the very reverse ofthe principle of the English Test Act. If I were to form a judgment fromexperience rather than theory, I should doubt much whether the capacityfor or even the possession of a seat in Parliament did really conveymuch of power to be properly called political. I have sat there, withsome observation, for nine-and-twenty years, or thereabouts. The powerof a member of Parliament is uncertain and indirect; and if power, rather than splendor and fame, were the object, I should think that anyof the principal clerks in office, to say nothing of their superiors, (several of whom are disqualified by law for seats in Parliament, )possess far more power than nine tenths of the members of the House ofCommons. I might say this of men who seemed, from their fortunes, theirweight in their country, and their talents, to be persons of figurethere, --and persons, too, not in opposition to the prevailing party ingovernment. But be they what they will, on a fair canvass of the severalprevalent Parliamentary interests in Ireland, I cannot, out of the threehundred members of whom the Irish Parliament is composed, discover thatabove three, or at the utmost four, Catholics would be returned to theHouse of Commons. But suppose they should amount to thirty, that is, toa tenth part, (a thing I hold impossible for a long series of years, andnever very likely to happen, ) what is this to those who are to balancethem in the one House, and the clear and settled majority in the other?For I think it absolutely impossible, that, in the course of many years, above four or five peers should be created of that communion. In fact, the exclusion of them seems to me only to mark jealousy and suspicion, and not to provide security in any way. --But I return to the old ground. The danger is not there: these are things long since done away. Thegrand controversy is no longer between you and them. 

Forgive this length. My pen has insensibly run on. You are yourself toblame, if you are much fatigued. I congratulate you on the auspiciousopening of your session. Surely Great Britain and Ireland ought to joinin wreathing a never-fading garland for the head of Grattan. Adieu, mydear Sir. Good nights to you!--I never can have any. 

Yours always most sincerely, EDMUND BURKE. 

Jan. 29th, 1795. Twelve at night. 

FOOTNOTES:

[23] William Smith, Esq. , to whom this Letter is addressed, was then amember of the Irish Parliament: he is now (1812) one of the Barons ofthe Court of Exchequer in Ireland. 

SECOND LETTER

TO

SIR HERCULES LANGRISHE

ON THE

CATHOLIC QUESTION. 

MAY 26, 1795. 

My Dear Sir, --If I am not as early as I ought to be in myacknowledgments for your very kind letter, pray do me the justice toattribute my failure to its natural and but too real cause, a want ofthe most ordinary power of exertion, owing to the impressions made uponan old and infirm constitution by private misfortune and by publiccalamity. It is true, I make occasional efforts to rouse myself tosomething better, --but I soon relapse into that state of languor whichmust be the habit of my body and understanding to the end of my shortand cheerless existence in this world. 

I am sincerely grateful for your kindness in connecting the interest youtake in the sentiments of an old friend with the able part you take inthe service of your country. It is an instance, among many, of thathappy temper which has always given a character of amenity to yourvirtues and a good-natured direction to your talents. 

Your speech on the Catholic question I read with much satisfaction. Itis solid; it is convincing; it is eloquent; and it ought, on the spot, to have produced that effect which its reason, and that contained in theother excellent speeches on the same side of the question, cannotpossibly fail (though with less pleasant consequences) to producehereafter. What a sad thing it is, that the grand instructor, Time, hasnot yet been able to teach the grand lesson of his own value, and that, in every question of moral and political prudence, it is the choice ofthe moment which renders the measure serviceable or useless, noxious orsalutary!

In the Catholic question I considered only one point: Was it, at thetime, and in the circumstances, a measure which tended to promote theconcord of the citizens? I have no difficulty in saying it was, --and aslittle in saying that the present concord of the citizens was worthbuying, at a critical season, by granting a few _capacities_, whichprobably no one man now living is likely to be served or hurt by. Whenany man tells _you_ and _me_, that, if these places were left in thediscretion of a Protestant crown, and these memberships in thediscretion of Protestant electors or patrons, we should have a Popishofficial system, and a Popish representation, capable of overturning theEstablishment, he only insults our understandings. When any man tellsthis to _Catholics_, he insults their understandings, and he galls theirfeelings. It is not the question of the places and seats, it is the realhostile disposition and the _pretended_ fears, that leave stings in theminds of the people. I really thought that in the total of the latecircumstances, with regard to persons, to things, to principles, and tomeasures, was to be found a conjuncture favorable to the introductionand to the perpetuation of a general harmony, producing a generalstrength, which to that hour Ireland was never so happy as to enjoy. Mysanguine hopes are blasted, and I must consign my feelings on thatterrible disappointment to the same patience in which I have beenobliged to bury the vexation I suffered on the defeat of the othergreat, just, and honorable causes in which I have had some share, andwhich have given more of dignity than of peace and advantage to a long, laborious life. Though, perhaps, a want of success might be urged as areason for making me doubt of the justice of the part I have taken, yet, until I have other lights than one side of the debate has furnished me, I must see things, and feel them too, as I see and feel them. I think Ican hardly overrate the malignity of the principles of Protestantascendency, as they affect Ireland, --or of Indianism, as they affectthese countries, and as they affect Asia, --or of Jacobinism, as theyaffect all Europe and the state of human society itself. The last is thegreatest evil. But it readily combines with the others, and flows fromthem. Whatever breeds discontent at this time will produce that greatmaster-mischief most infallibly. Whatever tends to persuade the peoplethat the _few_, called by whatever name you please, religious orpolitical, are of opinion that their interest is not compatible withthat of the _many_, is a great point gained to Jacobinism. Whatevertends to irritate the talents of a country, which have at all times, andat these particularly, a mighty influence on the public mind, is ofinfinite service to that formidable cause. Unless where Heaven hasmingled uncommon ingredients of virtue in the composition, --_quosmeliore luto finxit præcordia Titan, _--talents naturally gravitate toJacobinism. Whatever ill-humors are afloat in the state, they will besure to discharge themselves in a mingled torrent in the _Cloaca Maxima_of Jacobinism. Therefore people ought well to look about them. First, the physicians are to take care that they do nothing to irritate thisepidemical distemper. It is a foolish thing to have the better of thepatient in a dispute. The complaint or its cause ought to be removed, and wise and lenient arts ought to precede the measures of vigor. Theyought to be the _ultima_, not the _prima_, not the _tota_ ratio of awise government. God forbid, that, on a worthy occasion, authorityshould want the means of force, or the disposition to use it! But wherea prudent and enlarged policy does not precede it, and attend it too, where the hearts of the better sort of people do not go with the handsof the soldiery, you may call your Constitution what you will, in effectit will consist of three parts, (orders, if you please, ) cavalry, infantry, and artillery, --and of nothing else or better. I agree withyou in your dislike of the discourses in Francis Street: but I like aslittle some of those in College Green. I am even less pleased with thetemper that predominated in the latter, as better things might have beenexpected in the regular family mansion of public discretion than, in anew and hasty assembly of unexperienced men, congregated undercircumstances of no small irritation. After people have taken yourtests, prescribed by yourselves as proofs of their allegiance, to bemarked as enemies, traitors, or at best as suspected and dangerouspersons, and that they are not to be believed on their oaths, we are notto be surprised, if they fall into a passion, and talk as men in apassion do, intemperately and idly. 

The worst of the matter is this: you are partly leading, partly drivinginto Jacobinism that description of your people whose religiousprinciples, church polity, and habitual discipline might make them aninvincible dike against that inundation. This you have a thousandmattocks and pickaxes lifted up to demolish. You make a sad story of thePope. _O seri studiorum_! It will not be difficult to get many calledCatholics to laugh at this fundamental part of their religion. Neverdoubt it. You have succeeded in part, and you may succeed completely. But in the present state of men's minds and affairs, do not flatteryourselves that they will piously look to the head of our Church in theplace of that Pope whom you make them forswear, and out of all reverenceto whom you bully and rail and buffoon them. Perhaps you may succeed inthe same manner with all the other tenets of doctrine and usages ofdiscipline amongst the Catholics; but what security have you, that, inthe temper and on the principles on which they have made this change, they will stop at the exact sticking-places you have marked in _your_articles? You have no security for anything, but that they will becomewhat are called _Franco-Jacobins_, and reject the whole together. Noconverts now will be made in a considerable number from one of our sectsto the other upon a really religious principle. Controversy moves inanother direction. 

Next to religion, _property_ is the great point of Jacobin attack. Heremany of the debaters in your majority, and their writers, have given theJacobins all the assistance their hearts can wish. When the Catholicsdesire places and seats, you tell them that this is only a pretext, (though Protestants might suppose it just _possible_ for men to likegood places and snug boroughs for their own merits, ) but that their realview is, to strip Protestants of their property To my certain knowledge, till those Jacobin lectures were opened in the House of Commons, theynever dreamt of any such thing; but now the great professors maystimulate them to inquire (on the new principles) into the foundation ofthat property, and of all property. If you treat men as robbers, why, robbers, sooner or later, they will become. 

A third point of Jacobin attack is on _old traditionary constitutions_. You are apprehensive for yours, which leans from its perpendicular, anddoes not stand firm on its theory. I like Parliamentary reforms aslittle as any man who has boroughs to sell for money, or for peerages inIreland. But it passes my comprehension, in what manner it is that mencan be reconciled to the _practical_ merits of a constitution, thetheory of which is in litigation, by being _practically_ excluded fromany of its advantages. Let us put ourselves in the place of thesepeople, and try an experiment of the effects of such a procedure on ourown minds. Unquestionably, we should be perfectly satisfied, when wewere told that Houses of Parliament, instead of being places of refugefor popular liberty, were citadels for keeping us in order as aconquered people. These things play the Jacobin game to a nicety. 

Indeed, my dear Sir, there is not a single particular in theFrancis-Street declamations, which has not, to your and to my certainknowledge, been taught by the jealous ascendants, sometimes by doctrine, sometimes by example, always by provocation. Remember the whole of 1781and 1782, in Parliament and out of Parliament; at this very day, and inthe worst acts and designs, observe the tenor of the objections withwhich the College-Green orators of the ascendency reproach theCatholics. You have observed, no doubt, how much they rely on theaffair of Jackson. Is it not pleasant to hear Catholics reproached for asupposed connection--with whom?--with Protestant clergymen! withProtestant gentlemen! with Mr. Jackson! with Mr. Rowan, &c, &c. ! But_egomet mî ignosco_. Conspiracies and treasons are privileged pleasures, not to be profaned by the impure and unhallowed touch of Papists. Indeed, all this will do, perhaps, well enough, with detachments ofdismounted cavalry and fencibles from England. But let us not say toCatholics, by way of _argument_, that they are to be kept in a degradedstate, because some of them are no better than many of us Protestants. The thing I most disliked in some of their speeches (those, I mean, ofthe Catholics) was what is called the spirit of liberality, so much andso diligently taught by the ascendants, by which they are made toabandon their own particular interests, and to merge them in the generaldiscontents of the country. It gave me no pleasure to hear of thedissolution of the committee. There were in it a majority, to myknowledge, of very sober, well-intentioned men; and there were none init but such who, if not continually goaded and irritated, might be madeuseful to the tranquillity of the country. It is right always to have afew of every description, through whom you may quietly operate on themany, both for the interests of the description, and for the generalinterest. 

Excuse me, my dear friend, if I have a little tried your patience. Youhave brought this trouble on yourself, by your thinking of a man forgot, and who has no objection to be forgot, by the world. These things wediscussed together four or five and thirty years ago. We were then, andat bottom ever since, of the same opinion on the justice and policy ofthe whole and of every part of the penal system. You and I, andeverybody, must now and then ply and bend to the occasion, and take whatcan be got. But very sure I am, that, whilst there remains in the lawany principle whatever which can furnish to certain politicians anexcuse for raising an opinion of their own importance, as necessary tokeep their fellow-subjects in order, the obnoxious people will befretted, harassed, insulted, provoked to discontent and disorder, andpractically excluded from the partial advantages from which the letterof the law does not exclude them. 

Adieu! my dear Sir, And believe me very truly yours, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, May 26, 1795. 

A

LETTER

TO

RICHARD BURKE, ESQ. , ON

PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY IN IRELAND. 

1793. 

My dear son, --We are all again assembled in town, to finish the last, but the most laborious, of the tasks which have been imposed upon meduring my Parliamentary service. We are as well as at our time of lifewe can expect to be. We have, indeed, some moments of anxiety about you. You are engaged in an undertaking similar in its principle to mine. Youare engaged in the relief of an oppressed people. In that service youmust necessarily excite the same sort of passions in those who haveexercised, and who wish to continue that oppression, that I have had tostruggle with in this long labor. As your father has done, you must makeenemies of many of the rich, of the proud, and of the powerful. I andyou began in the same way. I must confess, that, if our place was of ourchoice, I could wish it had been your lot to begin the career of yourlife with an endeavor to render some more moderate and less invidiousservice to the public But being engaged in a great and critical work, Ihave not the least hesitation about your having hitherto done your dutyas becomes you. If I had not an assurance not to be shaken from thecharacter of your mind, I should be satisfied on that point by the crythat is raised against you. If you had behaved, as they call it, discreetly, that is, faintly and treacherously, in the execution of yourtrust, you would have had, for a while, the good word of all sorts ofmen, even of many of those whose cause you had betrayed, --and whilstyour favor lasted, you might have coined that false reputation into atrue and solid interest to yourself. This you are well apprised of; andyou do not refuse to travel that beaten road from an ignorance, but froma contempt, of the objects it leads to. 

When you choose an arduous and slippery path, God forbid that any weakfeelings of my declining age, which calls for soothings and supports, and which can have none but from you, should make me wish that youshould abandon what you are about, or should trifle with it! In thishouse we submit, though with troubled minds, to that order which hasconnected all great duties with toils and with perils, which hasconducted the road to glory through the regions of obloquy and reproach, and which will never suffer the disparaging alliance of spurious, false, and fugitive praise with genuine and permanent reputation. We know thatthe Power which has settled that order, and subjected you to it byplacing you in the situation you are in, is able to bring you out of itwith credit and with safety. His will be done! All must come right. Youmay open the way with pain and under reproach: others will pursue itwith ease and with applause. 

I am sorry to find that pride and passion, and that sort of zeal forreligion which never shows any wonderful heat but when it afflicts andmortifies our neighbor, will not let the ruling description perceivethat the privilege for which your clients contend is very nearly as muchfor the benefit of those who refuse it as those who ask it. I am not toexamine into the charges that are daily made on the administration ofIreland. I am not qualified to say how much in them is cold truth, andhow much rhetorical exaggeration. Allowing some foundation to thecomplaint, it is to no purpose that these people allege that theirgovernment is a job in its administration. I am sure it is a job in itsconstitution; nor is it possible a scheme of polity, which, in totalexclusion of the body of the community, confines (with little or noregard to their rank or condition in life) to a certain set of favoredcitizens the rights which formerly belonged to the whole, should not, bythe operation of the same selfish and narrow principles, teach thepersons who administer in that government to prefer their ownparticular, but well-understood, private interest to the false andill-calculated private interest of the monopolizing company they belongto. Eminent characters, to be sure, overrule places and circumstances. Ihave nothing to say to that virtue which shoots up in full force by thenative vigor of the seminal principle, in spite of the adverse soil andclimate that it grows in. But speaking of things in their ordinarycourse, in a country of monopoly there _can_ be no patriotism. There maybe a party spirit, but public spirit there can be none. As to a spiritof liberty, still less can it exist, or anything like it. A liberty madeup of penalties! a liberty made up of incapacities! a liberty made up ofexclusion and proscription, continued for ages, of four fifths, perhaps, of the inhabitants of all ranks and fortunes In what does such libertydiffer from the description of the most shocking kind of servitude?

But it will be said, in that country some people are free. Why, this isthe very description of despotism. _Partial freedom is privilege andprerogative, and not liberty. _ Liberty, such as deserves the name, isan honest, equitable, diffusive, and impartial principle. It is a greatand enlarged virtue, and not a sordid, selfish, and illiberal vice. Itis the portion of the mass of the citizens, and not the haughty licenseof some potent individual or some predominant faction. 

If anything ought to be despotic in a country, it is its government;because there is no cause of constant operation to make its yokeunequal. But the dominion of a party must continually, steadily, and byits very essence, lean upon the prostrate description. A constitutionformed so as to enable a party to overrule its very government, and tooverpower the people too, answers the purposes neither of government norof freedom. It compels that power which ought, and often would bedisposed, _equally_ to protect the subjects, to fail in its trust, tocounteract its purposes, and to become no better than the instrument ofthe wrongs of a faction. Some degree of influence must exist in allgovernments. But a government which has no interest to please the bodyof the people, and can neither support them nor with safety call fortheir support, nor is of power to sway the domineering faction, can onlyexist by corruption; and taught by that monopolizing party which usurpsthe title and qualities of the public to consider the body of the peopleas out of the constitution, they will consider those who are in it inthe light in which they choose to consider themselves. The wholerelation of government and of freedom will be a battle or a traffic. 

This system, in its real nature, and under its proper appellations, isodious and unnatural, especially when a constitution is admitted whichnot only, as all constitutions do profess, has a regard to the good ofthe multitude, but in its theory makes profession of their power also. But of late this scheme of theirs has been new-christened, --_honestumnomen imponitur vitio_. A word has been lately struck in the mint of theCastle of Dublin; thence it was conveyed to the Tholsel, or City-Hall, where, having passed the touch of the corporation, so respectablystamped and vouched, it soon became current in Parliament, and wascarried back by the Speaker of the House of Commons in great pomp, as anoffering of homage from whence it came. The word is _ascendency_. It isnot absolutely new. But the sense in which I have hitherto seen it usedwas to signify an influence obtained over the minds of some other personby love and reverence, or by superior management and dexterity. It had, therefore, to this its promotion no more than a moral, not a civil orpolitical use. But I admit it is capable of being so applied; and if theLord Mayor of Dublin, and the Speaker of the Irish Parliament, whorecommend the preservation of the Protestant ascendency, mean to employthe word in that sense, --that is, if they understand by it thepreservation of the influence of that description of gentlemen over theCatholics by means of an authority derived from their wisdom and virtue, and from an opinion they raise in that people of a pious regard andaffection for their freedom and happiness, --it is impossible not tocommend their adoption of so apt a term into the family of politics. Itmay be truly said to enrich the language. Even if the Lord Mayor andSpeaker mean to insinuate that this influence is to be obtained and heldby flattering their people, by managing them, by skilfully adaptingthemselves to the humors and passions of those whom they would govern, he must be a very untoward critic who would cavil even at this use ofthe word, though such cajoleries would perhaps be more prudentlypractised than professed. These are all meanings laudable, or at leasttolerable. But when we look a little more narrowly, and compare it withthe plan to which it owes its present technical application, I find ithas strayed far from its original sense. It goes much further than theprivilege allowed by Horace. It is more than _parce detortum_. ThisProtestant ascendency means nothing less than an influence obtained byvirtue, by love, or even by artifice and seduction, --full as little aninfluence derived from the means by which ministers have obtained aninfluence which might be called, without straining, an _ascendency_, inpublic assemblies in England, that is, by a liberal distribution ofplaces and pensions, and other graces of government. This last is wideindeed of the signification of the word. New _ascendency_ is the old_mastership_. It is neither more nor less than the resolution of one setof people in Ireland to consider themselves as the sole citizens in thecommonwealth, and to keep a dominion over the rest by reducing them toabsolute slavery under a military power, and, thus fortified in theirpower, to divide the public estate, which is the result of generalcontribution, as a military booty, solely amongst themselves. 

The poor word _ascendency_, so soft and melodious in its sound, solenitive and emollient in its first usage, is now employed to cover tothe world the most rigid, and perhaps not the most wise, of all plans ofpolicy. The word is large enough in its comprehension. I cannotconceive what mode of oppression in civil life, or what mode ofreligious persecution, may not come within the methods of preserving an_ascendency_. In plain old English, as they apply it, it signifies_pride and dominion_ on the one part of the relation, and on the other_subserviency and contempt_, --and it signifies nothing else. The oldwords are as fit to be set to music as the new: but use has long sinceaffixed to them their true signification, and they sound, as the otherwill, harshly and odiously to the moral and intelligent ears of mankind. 

This ascendency, by being a _Protestant_ ascendency, does not better itfrom the combination of a note or two more in this anti-harmonic scale. If Protestant ascendency means the proscription from citizenship of byfar the major part of the people of any country, then Protestantascendency is a bad thing, and it ought to have no existence. But thereis a deeper evil. By the use that is so frequently made of the term, andthe policy which is engrafted on it, the name Protestant becomes nothingmore or better than the name of a persecuting faction, with a relationof some sort of theological hostility to others, but without any sort ofascertained tenets of its own upon the ground of which it persecutesother men: for the patrons of this Protestant ascendency neither do norcan, by anything positive, define or describe what they mean by the wordProtestant. It is defined, as Cowley defines wit, not by what it is, butby what it is not. It is not the Christian religion as professed in thechurches holding communion with Rome, the majority of Christians: thatis all which, in the latitude of the term, is known about itssignification. This makes such persecutors ten times worse than any ofthat description that hitherto have been known in the world. The oldpersecutors, whether Pagan or Christian, whether Arian or Orthodox, whether Catholics, Anglicans, or Calvinists, actually were, or at leasthad the decorum to pretend to be, strong dogmatists. They pretended thattheir religious maxims were clear and ascertained, and so useful thatthey were bound, for the eternal benefit of mankind, to defend ordiffuse them, though by any sacrifices of the temporal good of those whowere the objects of their system of experiment. 

The bottom of this theory of persecution is false. It is not permittedto us to sacrifice the temporal good of any body of men to our own ideasof the truth and falsehood of any religious opinions. By making menmiserable in this life, they counteract one of the great ends ofcharity, which is, in as much as in us lies, to make men happy in everyperiod of their existence, and most in what most depends upon us. Butgive to these old persecutors their mistaken principle, in theirreasoning they are consistent, and in their tempers they may be evenkind and good-natured. But whenever a faction would render millions ofmankind miserable, some millions of the race coexistent with themselves, and many millions in their succession, without knowing or so much aspretending to ascertain the doctrines of their own school, (in whichthere is much of the lash and nothing of the lesson, ) the errors whichthe persons in such a faction fall into are not those that are naturalto human imbecility, nor is the least mixture of mistaken kindness tomankind an ingredient in the severities they inflict. The whole isnothing but pure and perfect malice. It is, indeed, a perfection in thatkind belonging to beings of an higher order than man, and to them weought to leave it. 

This kind of persecutors without zeal, without charity, know well enoughthat religion, to pass by all questions of the truth or falsehood of anyof its particular systems, (a matter I abandon to the theologians on allsides, ) is a source of great comfort to us mortals, in this our short, but tedious journey through the world. They know, that, to enjoy thisconsolation, men must believe their religion upon some principle orother, whether of education, habit, theory, or authority. When men aredriven from any of those principles on which they have receivedreligion, without embracing with the same assurance and cordiality someother system, a dreadful void is left in their minds, and a terribleshook is given to their morals. They lose their guide, their comfort, their hope. None but the most cruel and hardhearted of men, who hadbanished all natural tenderness from their minds, such as those beingsof iron, the atheists, could bring themselves to any persecution likethis. Strange it is, but so it is, that men, driven by force from theirhabits in one mode of religion, have, by contrary habits, under the sameforce, often quietly settled in another. They suborn their reason todeclare in favor of their necessity. Man and his conscience cannotalways be at war. If the first races have not been able to make apacification between the conscience and the convenience, theirdescendants come generally to submit to the violence of the laws, without violence to their minds. As things stood formerly, theypossessed a _positive_ scheme of direction and of consolation. In thismen may acquiesce. The harsh methods in use with the old class ofpersecutors were to make converts, not apostates only. If theyperversely hated other sects and factions, they loved their owninordinately. But in this Protestant persecution there is anything butbenevolence at work. What do the Irish statutes? They do not make aconformity to the _established_ religion, and to its doctrines andpractices, the condition of getting out of servitude. No such thing. Letthree millions of people but abandon all that they and their ancestorshave been taught to believe sacred, and to forswear it publicly in termsthe most degrading, scurrilous, and indecent for men of integrity andvirtue, and to abuse the whole of their former lives, and to slander theeducation they have received, and nothing more is required of them. There is no system of folly, or impiety, or blasphemy, or atheism, intowhich they may not throw themselves, and which they may not professopenly, and as a system, consistently with the enjoyment of all theprivileges of a free citizen in the happiest constitution in the world. 

Some of the unhappy assertors of this strange scheme say they are notpersecutors on account of religion. In the first place, they say what isnot true. For what else do they disfranchise the people? If the man getsrid of a religion through which their malice operates, he gets rid ofall their penalties and incapacities at once. They never afterwardsinquire about him. I speak here of their pretexts, and not of the truespirit of the transaction, in which religious bigotry, I apprehend, haslittle share. Every man has his taste; but I think, if I were somiserable and undone as to be guilty of premeditated and continuedviolence towards any set of men, I had rather that my conduct wassupposed to arise from wild conceits concerning their religiousadvantages than from low and ungenerous motives relative to my ownselfish interest. I had rather be thought insane in my charity thanrational in my malice. This much, my dear son, I have to say of thisProtestant persecution, --that is, a persecution of religion itself. 

A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words. People soon forget the meaning, but the impression and the passionremain. The word Protestant is the charm that looks up in the dungeon ofservitude three millions of your people. It is not amiss to considerthis spell of potency, this abracadabra, that is hung about the necks ofthe unhappy, not to heal, but to communicate disease. We sometimes hearof a Protestant _religion_, frequently of a Protestant _interest_. Wehear of the latter the most frequently, because it has a positivemeaning. The other has none. We hear of it the most frequently, becauseit has a word in the phrase which, well or ill understood, has animatedto persecution and oppression at all times infinitely more than all thedogmas in dispute between religious factions. These are, indeed, wellformed to perplex and torment the intellect, but not half so wellcalculated to inflame the passions and animosities of men. 

I do readily admit that a great deal of the wars, seditions, andtroubles of the world did formerly turn upon the contention between_interests_ that went by the names of Protestant and Catholic. But Iimagined that at this time no one was weak enough to believe, orimpudent enough to pretend, that questions of Popish and Protestantopinions or interest are the things by which men are at present menacedwith crusades by foreign invasion, or with seditions which shake thefoundations of the state at home. It is long since all this combinationof things has vanished from the view of intelligent observers. Theexistence of quite another system of opinions and interests is now plainto the grossest sense. Are these the questions that raise a flame in theminds of men at this day? If ever the Church and the Constitution ofEngland should fall in these islands, (and they will fall together, ) itis not Presbyterian discipline nor Popish hierarchy that will rise upontheir ruins. It will not be the Church of Rome nor the Church ofScotland, not the Church of Luther nor the Church of Calvin. On thecontrary, all these churches are menaced, and menaced alike. It is thenew fanatical religion, now in the heat of its first ferment, of theRights of Man, which rejects all establishments, all discipline, allecclesiastical, and in truth all civil order, which will triumph, andwhich will lay prostrate your Church, which will destroy yourdistinctions, and which will put all your properties to auction, anddisperse you over the earth. If the present establishment should fall, it is this religion which will triumph in Ireland and in England, as ithas triumphed in France. This religion, which laughs at creeds anddogmas and confessions of faith, may be fomented equally amongst alldescriptions and all sects, --amongst nominal Catholics, and amongstnominal Churchmen, and amongst those Dissenters who know little and careless about a presbytery, or any of its discipline, or any of itsdoctrine. Against this new, this growing, this exterminatory system, allthese churches have a common concern to defend themselves. How theenthusiasts of this rising sect rejoice to see you of the old churchesplay their game, and stir and rake the cinders of animosities sunk intheir ashes, in order to keep up the execution of their plan for yourcommon ruin!

I suppress all that is in my mind about the blindness of those of ourclergy who will shut their eyes to a thing which glares in such manifestday. If some wretches amongst an indigent and disorderly part of thepopulace raise a riot about tithes, there are of these gentlemen readyto cry out that this is an overt act of a treasonable conspiracy. Herethe bulls, and the pardons, and the crusade, and the Pope, and thethunders of the Vatican are everywhere at work. There is a plot to bringin a foreign power to destroy the Church. Alas! it is not about popes, but about potatoes, that the minds of this unhappy people are agitated. It is not from the spirit of zeal, but the spirit of whiskey, that thesewretches act. Is it, then, not conceived possible that a poor clown canbe unwilling, after paying three pounds rent to a gentleman in a browncoat, to pay fourteen shillings to one in a black coat, for his acre ofpotatoes, and tumultuously to desire some modification of the charge, without being supposed to have no other motive than a frantic zeal forbeing thus double-taxed to another set of landholders and another set ofpriests? Have men no self-interest, no avarice, no repugnance to publicimposts? Have they no sturdy and restive minds, no undisciplined habits?Is there nothing in the whole mob of irregular passions, which mightprecipitate some of the common people, in some places, to quarrel with alegal, because they feel it to be a burdensome imposition? According tothese gentlemen, no offence can be committed by Papists but from zeal totheir religion. To make room for the vices of Papists, they clear thehouse of all the vices of men. Some of the common people (not one, however, in ten thousand) commit disorders. Well! punish them as you do, and as you ought to punish them, for their violence against the justproperty of each individual clergyman, as each individual suffers. Support the injured rector, or the injured impropriator, in theenjoyment of the estate of which (whether on the best plan or not) thelaws have put him in possession. Let the crime and the punishment standupon their own bottom. But now we ought all of us, clergymen mostparticularly, to avoid assigning another cause of quarrel, in order toinfuse a new source of bitterness into a dispute which personal feelingson both sides will of themselves make bitter enough, and thereby involvein it by religious descriptions men who have individually no sharewhatsoever in those irregular acts. Let us not make the malignantfictions of our own imaginations, heated with factious controversies, reasons for keeping men that are neither guilty nor justly suspected ofcrime in a servitude equally dishonorable and unsafe to religion and tothe state. When men are constantly accused, but know themselves not tobe guilty, they must naturally abhor their accusers. There is nocharacter, when malignantly taken up and deliberately pursued, whichmore naturally excites indignation and abhorrence in mankind, especiallyin that part of mankind which suffers from it. 

I do not pretend to take pride in an extravagant attachment to any sect. Some gentlemen in Ireland affect that sort of glory. It is to theirtaste. Their piety, I take it for granted, justifies the fervor of theirzeal, and may palliate the excess of it. Being myself no more than acommon layman, commonly informed in controversies, leading only a verycommon life, and having only a common citizen's interest in the Churchor in the State, yet to you I will say, in justice to my own sentiments, that not one of those zealots for a Protestant interest wishes moresincerely than I do, perhaps not half so sincerely, for the support ofthe Established Church in both these kingdoms. It is a great linktowards holding fast the connection of religion with the State, and forkeeping these two islands, in their present critical independence ofconstitution, in a close connection of _opinion and affection_. I wishit well, as the religion of the greater number of the primaryland-proprietors of the kingdom, with whom all establishments of Churchand Stats, for strong political reasons, ought in my opinion to befirmly connected. I wish it well, because it is more closely combinedthan any other of the church systems with the _crown_, which is the stayof the mixed Constitution, --because it is, as things now stand, the soleconnecting _political_ principle between the constitutions of the twoindependent kingdoms. I have another and infinitely a stronger reasonfor wishing it well: it is, that in the present time I consider it asone of the main pillars of the Christian religion itself. The body andsubstance of every religion I regard much more than any of the forms anddogmas of the particular sects. Its fall would leave a great void, whichnothing else, of which I can form any distinct idea, might fill. Irespect the Catholic hierarchy and the Presbyterian republic; but Iknow that the hope or the fear of establishing either of them is, inthese kingdoms, equally chimerical, even if I preferred one or the otherof them to the Establishment, which certainly I do not. 

These are some of my reasons for wishing the support of the Church ofIreland as by law established. These reasons are founded as well on theabsolute as on the relative situation of that kingdom. But is it becauseI love the Church, and the King, and the privileges of Parliament, thatI am to be ready for any violence, or any injustice, or any absurdity, in the means of supporting any of these powers, or all of them together?Instead of prating about Protestant ascendencies, Protestant Parliamentsought, in my opinion, to think at last of becoming patriot Parliaments. 

The legislature of Ireland, like all legislatures, ought to frame itslaws to suit the people and the circumstances of the country, and notany longer to make it their whole business to force the nature, thetemper, and the inveterate habits of a nation to a conformity tospeculative systems concerning any kind of laws. Ireland has anestablished government, and a religion legally established, which are tobe preserved. It has a people who are to be preserved too, and to be ledby reason, principle, sentiment, and interest to acquiesce in thatgovernment. Ireland is a country under peculiar circumstances. Thepeople of Ireland are a very mixed people; and the quantities of theseveral ingredients in the mixture are very much disproportioned to eachother. Are we to govern this mixed body as if it were composed of themost simple elements, comprehending the whole in one system ofbenevolent legislation? or are we not rather to provide for the severalparts according to the various and diversified necessities of theheterogeneous nature of the mass? Would not common reason and commonhonesty dictate to us the policy of regulating the people, in theseveral descriptions of which they are composed, according to thenatural ranks and classes of an orderly civil society, under a commonprotecting sovereign, and under a form of constitution favorable at onceto authority and to freedom, --such as the British Constitution boasts tobe, and such as it is to those who enjoy it?

You have an ecclesiastical establishment, which, though the religion ofthe prince, and of most of the first class of landed proprietors, is notthe religion of the major part of the inhabitants, and whichconsequently does not answer to _them_ any one purpose of a religiousestablishment. This is a state of things which no man in his senses cancall perfectly happy. But it is the state of Ireland. Two hundred yearsof experiment show it to be unalterable. Many a fierce struggle haspassed between the parties. The result is, you cannot make the peopleProtestants, and they cannot shake off a Protestant government. This iswhat experience teaches, and what all men of sense of all descriptionsknow. To-day the question is this: Are we to make the best of thissituation, which we cannot alter? The question is: Shall the conditionof the body of the people be alleviated in other things, on account oftheir necessary suffering from their being subject to the burdens of tworeligious establishments, from one of which they do not partake theleast, living or dying, either of instruction or of consolation, --orshall it be aggravated, by stripping the people thus loaded ofeverything which might support and indemnify them in this state, so asto leave them naked of every sort of right and of every name offranchise, to outlaw them from the Constitution, and to cut off(perhaps) three millions of plebeian subjects, without reference toproperty, or any other qualification, from all connection with thepopular representation, of the kingdom?

As to religion, it has nothing at all to do with the proceeding. Libertyis not sacrificed to a zeal for religion, but a zeal for religion ispretended and assumed to destroy liberty. The Catholic religion iscompletely free. It has no establishment, --but it is recognized, permitted, and, in a degree, protected by the laws. If a man issatisfied to be a slave, he may be a Papist with perfect impunity. Hemay say mass, or hear it, as he pleases; but he must consider himself asan outlaw from the British Constitution. If the constitutional libertyof the subject were not the thing aimed at, the direct reverse coursewould be taken. The franchise would have been permitted, and the massexterminated. But the conscience of a man left, and a tenderness for ithypocritically pretended, is to make it a trap to catch his liberty. 

So much is this the design, that the violent partisans of this schemefairly take up all the maxims and arguments, as well as the practices, by which tyranny has fortified itself at all times. Trusting wholly intheir strength and power, (and upon this they reckon, as always ready tostrike wherever they wish to direct the storm, ) they abandon all pretextof the general good of the community. They say, that, if the people, under any given modification, obtain the smallest portion or particle ofconstitutional freedom, it will be impossible for them to hold theirproperty. They tell us that they act only on the defensive. They informthe public of Europe that their estates are made up of forfeitures andconfiscations from the natives; that, if the body of people obtainvotes, any number of votes, however small, it will be a step to thechoice of members of their own religion; that the House of Commons, inspite of the influence of nineteen parts in twenty of the landedinterest now in their hands, will be composed in the whole, or in farthe major part, of Papists; that this Popish House of Commons willinstantly pass a law to confiscate all their estates, which it will notbe in their power to save even by entering into that Popish partythemselves, because there are prior claimants to be satisfied; that, asto the House of Lords, though neither Papists nor Protestants have ashare in electing them, the body of the peerage will be so obliging anddisinterested as to fall in with this exterminatory scheme, which is toforfeit all their estates, the largest part of the kingdom; and, tocrown all, that his Majesty will give his cheerful assent to thiscauseless act of attainder of his innocent and faithful Protestantsubjects; that they will be or are to be left, without house or land, tothe dreadful resource of living by their wits, out of which they arealready frightened by the apprehension of this spoliation with whichthey are threatened; that, therefore, they cannot so much as listen toany arguments drawn from equity or from national or constitutionalpolicy: the sword is at their throats; beggary and famine at their door. See what it is to have a good look-out, and to see danger at the end ofa sufficiently long perspective!

This is, indeed, to speak plain, though to speak nothing very new. Thesame thing has been said in all times and in all languages. The languageof tyranny has been invariable: "The general good is inconsistent withmy personal safety. " Justice and liberty seem so alarming to thesegentlemen, that they are not ashamed even to slander their own titles, to calumniate and call in doubt their right to their own estates, and toconsider themselves as novel disseizors, usurpers, and intruders, ratherthan lose a pretext for becoming oppressors of their fellow-citizens, whom they (not I) choose to describe themselves as having robbed. 

Instead of putting themselves in this odious point of light, one wouldthink they would wish to let Time draw his oblivious veil over theunpleasant modes by which lordships and demesnes have been acquired intheirs, and almost in all other countries upon earth. It might beimagined, that, when the sufferer (if a sufferer exists) had forgot thewrong, they would be pleased to forget it too, --that they would permitthe sacred name of possession to stand in the place of the melancholyand unpleasant title of grantees of confiscation, which, though firm andvalid in law, surely merits the name that a great Roman jurist gave to atitle at least as valid in his nation as confiscation would be either inhis or in ours: _Tristis et luctuosa successio_. 

Such is the situation of every man who comes in upon the ruin ofanother; his succeeding, under this circumstance, is _tristis etluctuosa successio_. If it had been the fate of any gentleman to profitby the confiscation of his neighbor, one would think he would be moredisposed to give him a valuable interest under him in his land, or toallow him a pension, as I understand one worthy person has done, withoutfear or apprehension that his benevolence to a ruined family would beconstrued into a recognition of the forfeited title. The public ofEngland, the other day, acted in this manner towards Lord Newburgh, aCatholic. Though the estate had been vested by law in the greatest ofthe public charities, they have given him a pension from hisconfiscation. They have gone further in other cases. On the lastrebellion, in 1745, in Scotland, several forfeitures were incurred. Theyhad been disposed of by Parliament to certain laudable uses. Parliamentreversed the method which they had adopted in Lord Newburgh's case, andin my opinion did better: they gave the forfeited estates to thesuccessors of the forfeiting proprietors, chargeable in part with theuses. Is this, or anything like this, asked in favor of any humancreature in Ireland? It is bounty, it is charity, --wise bounty, andpolitic charity; but no man can claim it as a right. Here no such thingis claimed as right, or begged as charity. The demand has an object asdistant from all considerations of this sort as any two extremes can be. The people desire the privileges inseparably annexed, since MagnaCharta, to the freehold which they have by descent or obtain as thefruits of their industry. They call for no man's estate; they desire notto be dispossessed of their own. 

But this melancholy and invidious title is a favorite (and, likefavorites, always of the least merit) with those who possess every othertitle upon earth along with it. For this purpose they revive the bittermemory of every dissension which has torn to pieces their miserablecountry for ages. After what has passed in 1782, one would not thinkthat decorum, to say nothing of policy, would permit them to call up, bymagic charms, the grounds, reasons, and principles of those terribleconfiscatory and exterminatory periods. They would not set men uponcalling from the quiet sleep of death any Samuel, to ask him by what actof arbitrary monarchs, by what inquisitions of corrupted tribunals andtortured jurors, by what fictitious tenures invented to dispossess wholeunoffending tribes and their chieftains. They would not conjure up theghosts from the ruins of castles and churches, to tell for what attemptto struggle for the independence of an Irish legislature, and to raisearmies of volunteers without regular commissions from the crown insupport of that independence, the estates of the old Irish nobility andgentry had been confiscated. They would not wantonly call on thosephantoms to tell by what English acts of Parliament, forced upon tworeluctant kings, the lands of their country were put up to a mean andscandalous auction in every goldsmith's shop in London, or chopped topieces and out into rations, to pay the mercenary soldiery of a regicideusurper. They would not be so fond of titles under Cromwell, who, if heavenged an Irish rebellion against the sovereign authority of theParliament of England, had himself rebelled against the very Parliamentwhose sovereignty he asserted, full as much as the Irish nation, whichhe was sent to subdue and confiscate, could rebel against thatParliament, or could rebel against the king, against whom both he andthe Parliament which he served, and which he betrayed, had both of themrebelled. 

The gentlemen who hold the language of the day know perfectly well thatthe Irish in 1641 pretended, at least, that they did not rise againstthe king: nor in fact did they, whatever constructions law might putupon their act. But full surely they rebelled against the authority ofthe Parliament of England, and they openly professed so to do. Admitting(I have now no time to discuss the matter) the enormous and unpardonablemagnitude of this their crime, they rued it in their persons, and inthose of their children and their grandchildren, even to the fifth andsixth generations. Admitting, then, the enormity of this unnaturalrebellion in favor of the independence of Ireland, will it follow thatit must be avenged forever? Will it follow that it must be avenged onthousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of those whom they can nevertrace, by the labors of the most subtle metaphysician of the traductionof crimes, or the most inquisitive genealogist of proscription, to thedescendant of any one concerned in that nefarious Irish rebellionagainst the Parliament of England?

If, however, you could find out those pedigrees of guilt, I do not thinkthe difference would be essential. History records many things whichought to make us hate evil actions; but neither history, nor morals, norpolicy can teach us to punish innocent men on that account. What lessondoes the iniquity of prevalent factions read to us? It ought to lessonus into an abhorrence of the abuse of our own power in our own day, whenwe hate its excesses so much in other persons and in other times. Tothat school true statesmen ought to be satisfied to leave mankind. Theyought not to call from the dead all the discussions and litigationswhich formerly inflamed the furious factions which had torn theircountry to pieces; they ought not to rake into the hideous andabominable things which were done in the turbulent fury of an injured, robbed, and persecuted people, and which were afterwards cruellyrevenged in the execution, and as outrageously and shamefullyexaggerated in the representation, in order, an hundred and fifty yearsafter, to find some color for justifying them in the eternalproscription and civil excommunication of a whole people. 

Let us come to a later period of those confiscations with the memory ofwhich the gentlemen who triumph in the acts of 1782 are so muchdelighted. The Irish again rebelled against the English Parliament in1688, and the English Parliament again put up to sale the greatest partof their estates. I do not presume to defend the Irish for thisrebellion, nor to blame the English Parliament for this confiscation. The Irish, it is true, did not revolt from King James's power. He threwhimself upon their fidelity, and they supported him to the best of theirfeeble power. Be the crime of that obstinate adherence to an abdicatedsovereign, against a prince whom the Parliaments of Ireland and Scotlandhad recognized, what it may, I do not mean to justify this rebellionmore than the former. It might, however, admit some palliation in them. In generous minds some small degree of compassion might be excited foran error, where they were misled, as Cicero says to a conqueror, _quadamspecie et similitudine pacis_, not without a mistaken appearance ofduty, and for which the guilty have suffered, by exile abroad andslavery at home, to the extent of their folly or their offence. The bestcalculators compute that Ireland lost two hundred thousand of herinhabitants in that struggle. If the principle of the English andScottish resistance at the Revolution is to be justified, (as sure I amit is, ) the submission of Ireland must be somewhat extenuated. For, ifthe Irish resisted King William, they resisted him on the very sameprinciple that the English and Scotch resisted King James. The IrishCatholics must have been the very worst and the most truly unnatural ofrebels, if they had not supported a prince whom they had seen attacked, not for any designs against _their_ religion or _their_ liberties, butfor an extreme partiality for their sect, and who, far from trespassingon _their_ liberties and properties, secured both them and theindependence of their country in much the same manner that we have seenthe same things done at the period of 1782, --I trust the last revolutionin Ireland. 

That the Irish Parliament of King James did in some particulars, thoughfeebly, imitate the rigor which had been used towards the Irish, is trueenough. Blamable enough they were for what they had done, though underthe greatest possible provocation. I shall never praise confiscations orcounter-confiscations as long as I live. When they happen by necessity, I shall think the necessity lamentable and odious: I shall think thatanything done under it ought not to pass into precedent, or to beadopted by choice, or to produce any of those shocking retaliationswhich never suffer dissensions to subside. Least of all would I fix thetransitory spirit of civil fury by perpetuating and methodizing it intyrannic government. If it were permitted to argue with power, might onenot ask these gentlemen whether it would not be more natural, instead ofwantonly mooting these questions concerning their property, as if itwere an exercise in law, to found it on the solid rock ofprescription, --the soundest, the most general, and the most recognizedtitle between man and man that is known in municipal or in publicjurisprudence?--a title in which not arbitrary institutions, but theeternal order of things, gives judgment; a title which is not thecreature, but the master, of positive law; a title which, though notfixed in its term, is rooted in its principle in the law of Natureitself, and is indeed the original ground of all known property: for allproperty in soil will always be traced back to that source, and willrest there. The miserable natives of Ireland, who ninety-nine in anhundred are tormented with quite other cares, and are bowed down tolabor for the bread of the hour, are not, as gentlemen pretend, ploddingwith antiquaries for titles of centuries ago to the estates of the greatlords and squires for whom they labor. But if they were thinking of thetitles which gentlemen labor to beat into their heads, where can theybottom their own claims, but in a presumption and a proof that theselands had at some time been possessed by their ancestors? Thesegentlemen (for they have lawyers amongst them) know as well as I that inEngland we have had always a prescription or limitation, as all nationshave, against each other. The crown was excepted; but that exception isdestroyed, and we have lately established a sixty years' possession asagainst the crown. All titles terminate in prescription, --in which(differently from Time in the fabulous instances) the son devours thefather, and the last prescription eats up all the former. 

 * * * * *

A

LETTER

ON

THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND. 

1797. 

Dear Sir, --In the reduced state of body and in the dejected state ofmind in which I find myself at this very advanced period of my life, itis a great consolation to me to know that a cause I ever have had sovery near my heart is taken up by a man of your activity and talents. 

It is very true that your late friend, my ever dear and honored son, wasin the highest degree solicitous about the final event of a businesswhich he also had pursued for a long time with infinite zeal, and nosmall degree of success. It was not above half an hour before he left meforever that he spoke with considerable earnestness on this verysubject. If I had needed any incentives to do my best for freeing thebody of my country from the grievances under which they labor, thisalone would certainly call forth all my endeavors. 

The person who succeeded to the government of Ireland about the time ofthat afflicting event had been all along of my sentiments and yours uponthis subject; and far from needing to be stimulated by me, thatincomparable person, and those in whom he strictly confided, even wentbefore me in their resolution to pursue the great end of government, thesatisfaction and concord of the people with whose welfare they werecharged. I cannot bear to think on the causes by which this great planof policy, so manifestly beneficial to both kingdoms, has beendefeated. 

Your mistake with regard to me lies in supposing that I did not, whenhis removal was in agitation, strongly and personally represent toseveral of his Majesty's ministers, to whom I could have the most readyaccess, the true state of Ireland, and the mischiefs which sooner orlater must arise from subjecting the mass of the people to thecapricious and interested domination of an exceeding small faction andits dependencies. 

That representation was made the last time, or very nearly the lasttime, that I have ever had the honor of seeing those ministers. I am sofar from having any credit with them, on this, or any other publicmatters, that I have reason to be certain, if it were known that anyperson in office in Ireland, from the highest to the lowest, wereinfluenced by my opinions, and disposed to act upon them, such an onewould be instantly turned out of his employment. Yon have formed, to myperson a flattering, yet in truth a very erroneous opinion, of my powerwith those who direct the public measures. I never have been directly orindirectly consulted about anything that is done. The judgment of theeminent and able persons who conduct public affairs is undoubtedlysuperior to mine; but self-partiality induces almost every man to defersomething to his own. Nothing is more notorious than that I have themisfortune of thinking that no one capital measure relative to politicalarrangements, and still less that a new military plan for the defence ofeither kingdom in this arduous war, has been taken upon any otherprinciple than such as must conduct us to inevitable ruin. 

In the state of my mind, so discordant with the tone of ministers, andstill more discordant with the tone of opposition, you may judge whatdegree of weight I am likely to have with either of the parties whodivide this kingdom, --even though I were endowed with strength of body, or were possessed of any active situation in the government, which mightgive success to my endeavors. But the fact is, since the day of myunspeakable calamity, except in the attentions of a very few old andcompassionate friends, I am totally out of all social intercourse. Myhealth has gone down very rapidly; and I have been brought hither withvery faint hopes of life, and enfeebled to such a degree as those whohad known me some time ago could scarcely think credible. Since I camehither, my sufferings have been greatly aggravated, and my littlestrength still further reduced; so that, though I am told the symptomsof my disorder begin to carry a more favorable aspect, I pass the farlarger part of the twenty-four hours, indeed almost the whole, either inmy bed or lying upon the couch from which I dictate this. Had you beenapprised of this circumstance, you could not have expected anything, asyou seem to do, from my active exertions. I could do nothing, if I wasstill stronger, not even _si meus adforet Hector_. 

There is no hope for the body of the people of Ireland, as long as thosewho are in power with you shall make it the great object of their policyto propagate an opinion on this side of the water that the mass of theircountrymen are not to be trusted by their government, and that the onlyhold which England has upon Ireland consists in preserving a certainvery small number of gentlemen in full possession of a monopoly of thatkingdom. This system has disgusted many others besides Catholics andDissenters. 

As to those who on your side are in the opposition to government, theyare composed of persons several of whom I love and revere. They havebeen irritated by a treatment too much for the ordinary patience ofmankind to bear into the adoption of schemes which, however_argumentatively_ specious, would go _practically_ to the inevitableruin of the kingdom. The opposition always connects the emancipation ofthe Catholics with these schemes of reformation: indeed, it makes theformer only a member of the latter project. The gentlemen who enforcethat opposition are, in my opinion, playing the game of theiradversaries with all their might; and there is no third party in Ireland(nor in England neither) to separate things that are in themselves sodistinct, --I mean the admitting people to the benefits of theConstitution, and a change in the form of the Constitution itself. 

As every one knows that a great part of the constitution of the IrishHouse of Commons was formed about the year 1614 expressly for bringingthat House into a state of dependence, and that the new representativewas at that time seated and installed by force and violence, nothing canbe more impolitic than for those who wish the House to stand on itspresent basis (as, for one, I most sincerely do) to make it appear tohave kept too much the principle of its first institution, and tocontinue to be as little a virtual as it is an actual representative ofthe commons. It is the _degeneracy_ of such an institution, _so viciousin its principle_, that is to be wished for. If men have the realbenefit of a _sympathetic_ representation, none but those who are heatedand intoxicated with theory will look for any other. This sort ofrepresentation, my dear Sir, must wholly depend, not on the force withwhich it is upheld, but upon the _prudence_ of those who have influenceupon it. Indeed, without some such prudence in the use of authority, Ido not know, at least in the present time, how any power can longcontinue. 

If it be true that both parties are carrying things to extremities indifferent ways, the object which you and I have in common, that is tosay, the union and concord of our country _on the basis of the actualrepresentation_, without risking those evils which any change in theform of our legislature must inevitably bring on, can never be obtained. On the part of the Catholics (that is to say, of the body of the peopleof the kingdom) it is a terrible alternative, either to submit to theyoke of declared and insulting enemies, or to seek a remedy in plungingthemselves into the horrors and crimes of that Jacobinism whichunfortunately is not disagreeable to the principles and inclinations of, I am afraid, the majority of what we call the Protestants of Ireland. The Protestant part of that kingdom is represented by the governmentitself to be, by whole counties, in nothing less than open rebellion. Iam sure that it is everywhere teeming with dangerous conspiracy. 

I believe it will be found, that, though the principles of theCatholics, and the incessant endeavors of their clergy, have kept themfrom being generally infected with the systems of this time, yet, whenever their situation brings them nearer into contact with theJacobin Protestants, they are more or less infected with theirdoctrines. 

It is a matter for melancholy reflection, but I am fully convinced, thatmany persons in Ireland would be glad that the Catholics should becomemore and more infected with the Jacobin madness, in order to furnish newarguments for fortifying them in their monopoly. On any other ground itis impossible to account for the late language of your men in power. Ifstatesmen, (let me suppose for argument, ) upon the most solid politicalprinciples, conceive themselves obliged to resist the wishes of the farmore numerous, and, as things stand, not the worse part of thecommunity, one would think they would naturally put their refusal asmuch as possible upon temporary grounds, and that they would act towardsthem in the most conciliatory manner, and would talk to them in the mostgentle and soothing language: for refusal, in itself, is not a verygracious thing; and, unfortunately, men are very quickly irritated outof their principles. Nothing is more discouraging to the loyalty of anydescription of men than to represent to them that their humiliation andsubjection make a principal part in the fundamental and invariablepolicy which regards the conjunction of these two kingdoms. This is notthe way to give them a warm interest in that conjunction. 

My poor opinion is, that the closest connection between Great Britainand Ireland is essential to the well-being, I had almost said, to thevery being, of the two kingdoms. For that purpose I humbly conceive thatthe whole of the superior, and what I should call _imperial_ politics, ought to have its residence here; and that Ireland, locally, civilly, and commercially independent, ought politically to look up to GreatBritain in all matters of peace or of war, --in all those points to beguided by her. --and, in a word, with her to live and to die. At bottom, Ireland has no other choice, --I mean, no other rational choice. 

I think, indeed, that Great Britain would be ruined by the separation ofIreland; but as there are degrees even in ruin, it would fall the mostheavily on Ireland. By such a separation Ireland would be the mostcompletely undone country in the world, --the most wretched, the mostdistracted, and, in the end, the most desolate part of the habitableglobe. Little do many people in Ireland consider how much of itsprosperity has been owing to, and still depends upon, its intimateconnection with this kingdom. But, more sensible of this great truth, than perhaps any other man, I have never conceived, or can conceive, that the connection is strengthened by making the major part of theinhabitants of your country believe that their ease, and theirsatisfaction, and their equalization with the rest of theirfellow-subjects of Ireland are things adverse to the principles of thatconnection, --or that their subjection to a small monopolizing junto, composed of one of the smallest of their own internal factions, is thevery condition upon which the harmony of the two kingdoms essentiallydepends. I was sorry to hear that this principle, or something notunlike it, was publicly and fully avowed by persons of great rank andauthority in the House of Lords in Ireland. 

As to a participation on the part of the Catholics in the privileges andcapacities which are withheld, without meaning wholly to depreciatetheir importance, if I had the honor of being an Irish Catholic, Ishould be content to expect satisfaction upon that subject withpatience, until the minds of my adversaries, few, but powerful, werecome to a proper temper: because, if the Catholics did enjoy, withoutfraud, chicane, or partiality, some fair portion of those advantageswhich the law, even as now the law is, leaves open to them, and if therod were not shaken over them at every turn, their present conditionwould be tolerable; as compared with their former condition, it would behappy. But the most favorable laws can do very little towards thehappiness of a people, when the disposition of the ruling power isadverse to them. Men do not live upon blotted paper. The favorable orthe hostile mind of the ruling power is of far more importance tomankind, for good or evil, than the black-letter of any statute. Lateacts of Parliament, whilst they fixed at least a temporary bar to thehopes and progress of the larger description of the nation, opened tothem certain subordinate objects of equality; but it is impossible thatthe people should imagine that any fair measure of advantage is intendedto them, when they hear the laws by which they were admitted to thislimited qualification publicly reprobated as excessive andinconsiderate. They must think that there is a hankering after the oldpenal and persecuting code. Their alarm must be great, when thatdeclaration is made by a person in very high and important office in theHouse of Commons, and as the very first specimen and auspice of a newgovernment. 

All this is very unfortunate. I have the honor of an old acquaintance, and entertain, in common with you, a very high esteem for the fewEnglish persons who are concerned in the government of Ireland; but I amnot ignorant of the relation these transitory ministers bear to themore settled Irish part of your administration. It is a delicate topic, upon which I wish to say but little, though my reflections upon it aremany and serious. There is a great cry against English influence. I amquite sure that it is Irish influence that dreads the English habits. 

Great disorders have long prevailed in Ireland. It is not long sincethat the Catholics were the suffering party from those disorders. I amsure they were not protected as the case required. Their sufferingsbecame a matter of discussion in Parliament. It produced the mostinfuriated declamation against them that I have ever read. An inquirywas moved into the facts. The declamation was at least tolerated, if notapproved. The inquiry was absolutely rejected. In that case, what isleft for those who are abandoned by government, but to join with thepersons who are capable of injuring them or protecting them as theyoppose or concur in their designs? This will produce a very fatal kindof union amongst the people; but it is an union, which an unequaladministration of justice tends necessarily to produce. 

If anything could astonish one at this time, it is the war that therulers in Ireland think it proper to carry on against the person whomthey call the Pope, and against all his adherents, whenever they thinkthey have the power of manifesting their hostility. Without in the leastderogating from the talents of your theological politicians, or from themilitary abilities of your commanders (who act on the same principles)in Ireland, and without derogating from the zeal of either, it appearsto me that the Protestant Directory of Paris, as statesmen, and theProtestant hero, Buonaparte, as a general, have done more to destroythe said Pope and all his adherents, in all their capacities, than thejunto in Ireland have ever been able to effect. You must submit your_fasces_ to theirs, and at best be contented to follow with songs ofgratulation, or invectives, according to your humor, the triumphal carof those great conquerors. Had that true Protestant, Hoche, with an armynot infected with the slightest tincture of Popery, made good hislanding in Ireland, he would have saved you from a great deal of thetrouble which is taken to keep under a description of yourfellow-citizens obnoxious to you from their religion. It would not havea month's existence, supposing his success. This is the alliance which, under the appearance of hostility, we act as if we wished to promote. All is well, provided we are safe from Popery. 

It was not necessary for you, my dear Sir, to explain yourself to _me_(in justification of your good wishes to your fellow-citizens)concerning your total alienation from the principles of the Catholics. Iam more concerned in what we agree than in what we differ. You know theimpossibility of our forming any judgment upon the opinions, religious, moral, or political, of those who in the largest sense are calledProtestants, --at least, as these opinions and tenets form aqualification for holding any civil, judicial, military, or evenecclesiastical situation. I have no doubt of the orthodox opinion ofmany, both of the clergy and laity, professing the established religionin Ireland, and of many even amongst the Dissenters, relative to thegreat points of the Christian faith: but that orthodoxy concerns themonly as _individuals_. As a _qualification_ for employment, we all knowthat in Ireland it is not necessary that they should profess anyreligion at all: so that the war that we make is upon certaintheological tenets, about which scholastic disputes are carried on _æquoMarte_, by controvertists, on their side, as able and as learned, andperhaps as well-intentioned, as those are who fight the battle on theother part. To them I would leave those controversies. I would turn mymind to what is more within its competence, and has been more my study, (though, for a man of the world, I have thought of those things, )--Imean, the moral, civil, and political good of the countries we belongto, and in which God has appointed your station and mine. Let every manbe as pious as he pleases, and in the way that he pleases; but it isagreeable neither to piety nor to policy to give exclusively all mannerof civil privileges and advantages to a _negative_ religion, (such isthe Protestant without a certain creed, ) and at the same time to denythose privileges to men whom we know to agree to an iota in every one_positive_ doctrine which all of us who profess the religionauthoritatively taught in England hold ourselves, according to ourfaculties, bound to believe. The Catholics of Ireland (as I have said)have the whole of our _positive_ religion: our difference is only anegation of certain tenets of theirs. If we strip ourselves of _that_part of Catholicism, we abjure Christianity. If we drive them from thatholding, without engaging them in some other positive religion, (whichyou know by our qualifying laws we do not, ) what do we better than tohold out to them terrors on the one side, and bounties on the other, infavor of that which, for anything we know to the contrary, may be pureatheism?

You are well aware, that, when a man renounces the Roman religion, there is no civil inconvenience or incapacity whatsoever which shallhinder him from joining any new or old sect of Dissenters, or of forminga sect of his own invention upon the most anti-christian principles. LetMr. Thomas Paine obtain a pardon, (as on change of ministry he may, )there is nothing to hinder him from setting up a church of his own inthe very midst of you. He is a natural-born British subject. His Frenchcitizenship does not disqualify him, at least upon a peace. ThisProtestant apostle is as much above all suspicion of Popery as thegreatest and most zealous of your sanhedrim in Ireland can possibly be. On purchasing a qualification, (which his friends of the Directory arenot so poor as to be unable to effect, ) he may sit in Parliament; andthere is no doubt that there is not one of your tests against Poperythat he will not take as fairly, and as much _ex animo_, as the best ofyour zealot statesmen. I push this point no further, and only adducethis example (a pretty strong one, and fully in point) to show what Itake to be the madness and folly of driving men, under the existingcircumstances, from any _positive_ religion whatever into the irreligionof the times, and its sure concomitant principles of anarchy. 

When religion is brought into a question of civil and politicalarrangement, it must be considered more politically than theologically, at least by us, who are nothing more than mere laymen. In that light, the case of the Catholics of Ireland is peculiarly hard, whether they belaity or clergy. If any of them take part, like the gentleman youmention, with some of the most accredited Protestants of the country, inprojects which cannot be more abhorrent to your nature and dispositionthan they are to mine, --in that case, however few these Catholicfactions who are united with factious Protestants may be, (and very fewthey are now, whatever shortly they may become, ) on their account thewhole body is considered as of suspected fidelity to the crown, and aswholly undeserving of its favor. But if, on the contrary, in thosedistricts of the kingdom where their numbers are the greatest, wherethey make, in a manner, the whole body of the people, (as, out ofcities, in three fourths of the kingdom they do, ) these Catholics showevery mark of loyalty and zeal in support of the government, which atbest looks on them with an evil eye, then their very loyalty is turnedagainst their claims. They are represented as a contented and happypeople, and that it is unnecessary to do anything more in their favor. Thus the factious disposition of a few among the Catholics and theloyalty of the whole mass are equally assigned as reasons for notputting them on a par with those Protestants who are asserted by thegovernment itself, which frowns upon Papists, to be in a state ofnothing short of actual rebellion, and in a strong disposition to makecommon cause with the worst foreign enemy that these countries have everhad to deal with. What in the end can come of all this?

As to the Irish Catholic clergy, their condition is likewise mostcritical. If they endeavor by their influence to keep a dissatisfiedlaity in quiet, they are in danger of losing the little credit theypossess, by being considered as the instruments of a government adverseto the civil interests of their flock. If they let things take theircourse, they will be represented as colluding with sedition, or at leasttacitly encouraging it. If they remonstrate against persecution, theypropagate rebellion. Whilst government publicly avows hostility to thatpeople, as a part of a regular system, there is no road they can takewhich does not lead to their ruin. 

If nothing can be done on your side of the water, I promise you thatnothing will be done here. Whether in reality or only in appearance Icannot positively determine, but you will be left to yourselves by theruling powers here. It is thus ostensibly and above-board; and in part, I believe, the disposition is real. As to the people at large in thiscountry, I am sure they have no disposition to intermeddle in youraffairs. They mean you no ill whatever; and they are too ignorant of thestate of your affairs to be able to do you any good. Whatever opinionthey have on your subject is very faint and indistinct; and if there isanything like a formed notion, even that amounts to no more than a sortof humming that remains on their ears of the burden of the old songabout Popery. Poor souls, they are to be pitied, who think of nothingbut dangers long passed by, and but little of the perils that actuallysurround them. 

 * * * * *

I have been long, but it is almost a necessary consequence of dictating, and that by snatches, as a relief from pain gives me the means ofexpressing my sentiments. They can have little weight, as coming fromme; and I have not power enough of mind or body to bring them out withtheir natural force. But I do not wish to have it concealed that I am ofthe same opinion, to my last breath, which I entertained when myfaculties were at the best; and I have not held back from men in powerin this kingdom, to whom I have very good wishes, any part of mysentiments on this melancholy subject, so long as I had means of accessto persons of their consideration. 

I have the honor to be, &c. 

END OF VOL. VI.