Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

the Second, prohibiting, under the penalties therein mentioned, any petition to be préfented to the King, or to either House of Parliament, if figned by more than twenty perfons, for altering the religion or the laws, was completely repealed by that article in the Bill of Rights, which declares," If this article meant any thing, it meant to restore to the People that great privilege which the act of Charles was calculated to abridge, if not to take away." The Houfe, in deliberating on this point, ought to refer to the cause of that declaratory article. The abridgement of the privilege of the fubject, by the act of Charles, gave rife to the demand on behalf of the People, and the declaration on that of the Crown; in confequence of which the privilege was restored, and the right established again in all its force. To argue that the act of Charles is now in force, would be as puerile and abfurd as to contend that the preroga tive of the Crown ftill remains in its full extent, notwithstanding the declarations in the Bill of Rights. The fame argument goes in favour of the prerogative that was alledged in favour of the act of Charles. If then it is true that the People of this country have a right to petition the Legislature, they have a right to affemble together for that purpose, and while their meeting is fober, peaceable, and orderly, it is strictly legal. But it is faid, that affociations are unconstitutional, and committees of correfpondence and delegations; arguments are drawn from the Scottish history to prove that they are dangerous, and from the hiftory of France to prove that they are unconstitutional. The honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Wedderburne) who has taken this method of fupporting the propofition, has betrayed its poverty; he must, indeed, be preffed for arguments, when he has recourse to the examples of countries, which are either involved in defpotism, or torn by diforder, for the proof that is required. In this kingdom it is the pride and happinefs of the People that the laws confider the intention, and the guilt or the innocence of an action depend on the que anime with which it is committed. Affoci

ations,

ations, committees of correfpondence, and delegations, are not criminal, merely because they were fuch; but their illegality is deduced from the intention with which they were formed, and the defign which they have to purfue. There are many affociations in this country patronised even by the Crown, and recognised by the Legislature. Affociations for the purpofes of commerce, of benevolence, or of fcience; there is nothing terrible in the name, nor would they either be a bit better, or a bit worse, if they were to affume any other name, and call themselves companies, congregations, bodies, affemblies, or even congreffes; every thing depends on the nature of the inftitution. If an affociation is formed for the purpose of curtailing the Legislature, of deftroying one of the three conftituent branches, of dethroning the King, of refifting the execution of the laws, of altering the established religion of the country, or, in fhort, of committing any violence contrary to the Conftitution, and fubverfive of order, government, and domeftic peace, it is certainly illegal and highly criminal; it is an affociation which ought to be refifted by the civil authority, and fuppreffed by the intervention of the laws; against such an affociation the laws had fufficiently armed the executive power, and Ministers would be traitors if they suffered, either by wilful treachery or blind negligence, fuch an affociation fo far to grow and strengthen itself, as to be able to furround the Parliament, and with arms and military array, over-awe their proceedings, and force them to what they pleased; but an affociation even of this nature would be legal in certain circumftances; if even a period fhould arrive, when the three branches of the Legislature, the King, Lords, and Commons, fhould by an unconftitutional coalition meet in one mafs, and fail to have distinct opinions and diftinct independence; if the Commons, forgetting their origin and their duty, fhould become the flaves of either, or of both the other powers, then it would be no longer illegal for the commonalty of Britain to refume their juft fhare in the Legiflature, and

the,

the means by which they accomplished this, whether it was by affociations, by remonftrances, or by force, would be not only right, but laudable; it would be an honourable imitation of the conduct of their ancestors, by which their conftitution has been wrefted from the rapacity and from the violence of prerogative; in fhort, afsociations are always to be juftified or condemned by their intention..

Mr. Dunning, May 8, 1781.

Nothing is more delufive than measuring time by a fucceffion of ideas; the miferable and the happy have very different ideas of time; what are but minutes to the latter, are hours, days, and months, to the former: fo the poor captive thinks his confinement much longer than he does who puts him in prifon. With respect to the predilection and affection the Spaniards are faid to poffefs for our failors, now their prisoners, it is but a poor comfort to a British feaman lying in a Spanish jail, to be told, that his enemy has a predilection for him, while he feels the neglect and contempt of his country, who makes not the leaft effort to restore him to his liberty. It is not the humanity of an enemy that a British failor ought to rely on; it is the benignity of Great Britain that he should look up to.

By the difgraceful practice of war, the unhappy feamen were by the impress dragged on shipboard, contrary to all their prayers and remonftrances; yet they generously forgive the injury, and fight the battles of their country. In return for this, when they fall into foreign captivity, they are neglected and forgotten; are left to perish in a fultry climate; it is even deemed factious to inquire after them; in a word, they find in the Admiralty only an iron hand to opprefs, but no compaffion, no fpirit, to protect them.

Auguftus, the Roman Emperor, was fo affected with the lofs of his legions, that he even invoked the manes of their dead General to reftore them back to him: Varre, redde nobis nautas!

Sh!

S-h! Give us back our feamen, our fhips, our troops, our wealth, loft by thy curfed treafons!

O, thou Earl of Sandwich, who was born to be the curfe of thy country, who liveft only to accumulate difhonour on her head, to destroy her boafted navy! Reftore, restore to us those brave men who are thrown into chains by thy negligence, and who remain in them by thy fcandalous inhumanity!

Mr. Burke, June 1, 1781.

PEACE,

ISHALL grant, Sir, that generally speaking, peace is ber

ter than war; but it is not always fo: a difhonourable peace is worse than a deftructive war; it is better for a nation, as well as a private man, to cease to be, than to fubfift in the wretched ftate of fuffering continual infults and indignities; and if, under the present Administration, we have loft a great part of the character we gained in former times; if our neighbours have begun to think that we will bear with any infraction of treaties rather than engage in a war, which I hope is not the cafe, we may cajole and flatter ourselves with obtaining redrefs by peaceful negotiations and treaties; but while our neighbours entertain fuch a notion of us, I am fully convinced it will be impoffible. If our enemies are not yet fully prepared to ruin us, if they think they may foon have a better opportunity than the prefent for giving us fome finishing blow, they may for fome time amufe us with negotiations or congreffes, they may even vouchfafe to grant us a convention or a treaty; but thefe will appear at laft to be nothing but expedients,

expedients, artfully contrived by them, and foolishly or treacherously fubmitted to by us, for making our ruin the more complete and the more inevitable. During thefe very negotiations, and notwithstanding the treaties they may vouchfafe to grant us, being convinced they may do it with ingenuity, they will continue to put the fame indignities upon us, till we are reduced fo low by our sufferings, that like a man who has too long neglected a wasting diftemper, we shall not have fufficient ftrength left for making ufe of that remedy, which, if it had been applied in time, would have produced a certain cure.

Sir John Barnard, Jan. 28, 1738.

We have heard a great deal with regard to the prudential confideration of our agreeing to the present motion; but give me leave to obferve, Sir, that the character of a nation is very different from that of a private man; a private man that has once established a reputation for wisdom and courage, may eafily, and generally does, preferve that reputation as long as he lives; but whatever reputation a state or kingdom may acquire at any one time, is fo far from continuing as long as that state or kingdom fubfifts, that on the contrary, the reputation acquired under one King, or one Adminiftration, always expires as foon as that King or Administration expires; and the fucceffors muft always begin afresh to acquire and establish a character for the nation under their Administration. A nation may acquire the highest character, the greatest efteem, under one reign or Administration, and yet fink into the lowest contempt under the very next. This was the cafe of this nation in the reigns of Edward I. and Edward II, in the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II, in the reigns of Henry V. and Henry VI. and in the reigns of our wife Queen Elizabeth and her fucceffor James I.

VOL. II,

Sir John Barnard, Feb. 16, 1738.

We

« AnteriorContinuar »