LONDON, August 27 to September 3, 1803. 321] LETTER III. TO R. B. SHERIDAN, ESQ. M. P. SIR, The desire which I have to preserve my proper place in the estimation of honourable men, is the motive by which I have been actuated in hitherto seriously addressing you on the subject of your misrepresentations; but, in coming to your fourth charge, I am really at a loss to know how to answer, with a grave face, to the general accusation of treating "with derision and con"tempt the GOVERNMENT and all the suE. "ALTERN ENTRUSTED POWERS." You could not have been serious in preferring this charge. It must have been meant as one of those banters, with which you are in the habit of entertaining the House; and the mortification that you must have experienced, at its failing to excite bursts of laughter, must have been little short of that which you are said to have suffered, when, on the first representation of your other School for Scandal, the audience, in sober simplicity, applauded all the fine sentiments uttered by Joseph Surface, while Lady Teazle was concealed behind the screen. How could your new right honourable friends, cheek by jowl with you on the Treasury Bench, have so mistaken you! You, whom, for years, they have never known, except by the epigrams and jests, by which you have derided and endeavoured to bring into contempt, every branch and power of the government, whether civil, military, or ecclesiastical!--But, Sir, in proceeding to the charge itself, the first thing that strikes one, is, its curious phraseology. What do you mean by "the Go 66 VERNMENT and all the SUBALTERN ENTRUSTED POWERS?" You could hardly mean the King's ministers and their underlings? To have extended your notice to the clerks in office would have been a striking instance indeed of the art of sinking in oratory. What, then, did you wish to be understood by these quaint terms? Your and my Sovereign, and the ministers under him? I wish not to lay too much stress on the words of a news-paper report: but, besides Vos. IV. [322 the agreement of several news-papers, as to this point, there are some marks of internal evidence, which show it to have been the fair sense of your language. Why, then, instead of the person of his Majesty, did you substitute the abstract term government, unless it were for the pleasure of introducing one of your old jacobinical sophistries? The expression may, indeed, frequently be used; but, it is peculiarly improper, where it is applied in reference to a supposed libellous attack, which must always be presumed to be directed against some living person, and not against a metaphysical creature of the imagination or the intellect.-The government, properly so called, is a monarchy, consisting of Kings, Lords, and Commons, or, in another view, of the Church and the State. To prove, that I had not derided or contemned this government is what I am not called upon to do; it was your place to prove that I had; but, if to have been, during the whole of my political life, the constant eulogist of this government; if to have extolled it as the wisest, the most just, the most merciful, and the most free, in the world; if to have exerted all my feeble powers in showing its superiority over even the government of the country in which I was many years residing; if to have zealously, perseveringly, and disinterestedly, endeavoured to defend it against all its revilers, foreign and domestic, yourself not excepted: if never to have let fall one single expression disrespectful towards his Majesty, or towards any one member of his family; if, on all occasions, to have made it my pride to be devoted to my Sovereign; if to have constantly boasted of my allegiance to him, as the greatest of honours; if to have sacrificed my interest and my ease, to have borne persecution, to have lost my property, and to have risked my life, rather than remain silent in the hearing of his slanderers: if all these amount to a proof of my not having derided and contemned the government of my country, that proof will, I trust, be found upon record, long after your factious rabble-coaxing harangues shall have sunk into their merited M 66 oblivion.It is, however, fair, I think, to presume, that you meant to charge me with treating the ministers with derision and contempt, an act which, I hope, is not very criminal, because, of it I do really feel myself compelled to plead guilty.--It is my duty to honour and obey the King, and all that are put in authority under him." The King can do no wrong: I am not at liberty to judge of his actions; and, I am bound, at all times, to yield him honour and obebience. But, as to those who are put in authority under him, the obligation is very different indeed. With respect to them I have the power and right of judging; and, considering them individually, I am bound to give to each no other honour than that which is due from me to him, and to submit to no other than his lawful authorityIt is, too, very evident, that the injunction, on which this doctrine is founded, applies to none but magistrates, or persons whose office it is to enforce the execution of the laws; persons bearing to the people the behests of the king; and, even to such persons, at such times only as they are acting in their official capacities, and while they confine their actions within the bounds of the law. As to the application, then, of this religious principle, vast indeed is the difference between a magistrate and a minister; the office of the former is unchangeable in its nature, and is necessary to the existence of the monarchy, while the nature of the latter may be varied at pleasure, and while the thing itself may be dispensed with. The magistrate is the executor of laws already made and sanctioned, and therefore, he comes to us clothed with the whole authority of the state; whereas, in the minister we see nothing but the projector of measures, which measures we have always a right, and, it is sometimes our duty, to criticise, to find fault with, to remonstrate against, and to prevent the execution of by all the lawful means in our power: the magistrate speaks the commands of the King, The minister is only his adviser, an office totally unknown to the law: as minister, therefore, he is not put in authority over the people, nor is he, merely because he is minister, entitled to any honour or obedience from them. He is, indeed, the servant of the King, and that circumstance will necessarily add weight to the character which he may aiready possess; but, of itself, it gives him no title to honour or obedience, any more than if he were the King's gardener instead of his minister. Viewing ministers in this hight, it follows of course, that I by no means Begard them as shielded from that derision and contempt, which glaring imbecility and meanness seldom fail to bring upon the rest of mankind; and, as I freely confess, that I have derided and contemned, and that I still do deride and contemn, the present ministers, it only remains for me to shew, that this derision and contempt are justly bestowed; a task, Sir, in which I beg leave to avail myself of your assistance.--In justification of any part of my conduct, public or private, God forbid that I should ever plead your example; but, in a case where the charge turns merely upon opinion, and where it is preferred by you, I am certainly free to cite the opinion, which you have expressed upon the subject. Let us see, then, what this opinion is.--During the debate. of Feb. 16, 1801, on the motion for the House to go into a Committee of Supply, you took some little pains to give an adequate description of the present ministers. After drawing an horrible caricature of the state of the country, as to its warlike and pecuniary means; after pathetically lamenting the creation of 300,000,000 of debt and "the widowing of the country of 200,000 men;" after rejecting, with di dain, the doctrine of supporting ministers, because the nation was upon the brink of ruin; after censuring Mr. Pitt for his apparent intention to support his successors, you declared those successors to be unworthy of the confidence of the House, and you gave of them the following de scription:" It is triumphantly asked, "whether our allies and the people will "not look for the same degree of vigour "and ability from the new-administration, "standing on the same ground and fight"ing the same battle as their predeces"sors? I must certainly reply in the nega "tive. The reasoning on this occasion is "of a most singular description. When "the crew of a vessel is preparing for ac"tion, it is usual, I know, to clear the "decks by throwing overboard the lum"ber; but I never heard of such a manoeuvre as that of throwing their great 66 guns over board. It is not usual, I be"heve, when a ship is to be boarded, for "the great cannonades, on the quarter deck, loaded with grape-shot, to be sent "to the sea, rather than pointed at the 66 enemy. Nor (since I am upon similies "of vessels) will he be reckoned a good "captain, who, in a storm, or in case of "flight, instead of cutting away the bro"ken masts to lighten the vessel, allows "them to stand and only cuts away the "helm. But, as these similies, however frequently used, are sometimes misun 66 325] AUGUST 27 TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1803. “derstood, I will draw one from a prac- | it was, indeed, very easy to make the appli "tice, which is much in use amongst our- 66 ing the horses round a corner, while reins "and whip and all are in the hands of the "coachman on the box [looking at Mr. "itt, who sat above Mr. Addington]. "When the ex-minister quitted office al"most all the subordinate ministers kept "their places. How was this? The only in which I can solve this division way "of parts is this:-Aristophanes tells a "story somewhat in point. He says, that "Theseus sat so long in one posture, "(perhaps as long as the ex-minister sat (6 on the Treasury Bench) that he adhered "to the seat; so that, when Hercules came to snatch him away, in a sudden "jerk, a certain portion of his SITTING "PART WAS LEFT BEHIND HIM [Loud "and long peals of laughter). The House Yes, Sir, "can make the application." 66 easy for cation, and, I dare say, you wish it was as If, Sir, the ministers were not proper D jection of the offer of his Royal Highness | But, arisen from your want of discerning the great difference between my situation and views, and the situation and views of yourself and Mr. Archdall. This your worthy colleague has actually fallen into the course, towards which you have, for some time, been bending he is already creeping under the tree, the fruit of which you have long been eyeing from a distance, and which you are now approaching by slow, and, as you think, certain steps. I blame, therefore, the conduct neither of you nor Mr. Archdall, as far as relates to your endeavours to prop up the minister; for, according to the opinion of that great moralist, Rabelais, whose principles and pursuits seem to have borne some affinity to your own, "si le singe a de l'or à "donner, il faut toujours o'er son chapeau tr au singe." What I complain of is, that you should expect and demand from me conduct similar to yours, when you must know, that I am not actuated by similar motives. For you to crave a truce to all opposition; for you to cry, 66 never mind who is minister;" for you to ask for confidence in men in a direct proportion to the danger produced by their measures; for you to ap " say, that your opinion of the ministers is not changed, and that your private feelings have yielded to the public good, which, in such perilous times, demands a suspension of all party hostility? Will you plead your "true English feeling," and will you tell me, that it is not my derision and contempt, as considered merely with respect to ministers, that you find fault with, but, as considered with respect to the times? Yes, this is the justification, which you set up, and which your numerous typographical friends and companions are daily erdeavouring to palm upon the world. But, Sir, how will you, upon this principle, jus-plaud the sencerity of "a mask ;" for you to tify the derision and contempt, which you lavished on the ministers in February, 1801, a season of great danger, and of public anxiety and alarm almost unparalleled in our history? The ministers, these very ministers, had just been nominated to their offices, but, owing to the indisposition of his Majesty, they had not as yet been duly invested with official authority. During this distressing and awful interval, all party hostility would indeed have been suspended, and even forgotten, by any man who had a true English heart in his bosom ; but, this was the time which you selected for the purpose of decrying the persons whom his Majesty bad appointed to be his ministers; this was the very time which you chose for representing them as an inefficient brainless crew; and, when you were reminded of the perils of the country, your an. swer was, that to yield to such reasoning, would be to suffer the annihilation of the first duties of Parliament. *--- Leaving you, Sir, to reconcile your own practice with the rule of conduct, which you wish to impose upon me, I shail close this letter with an observation applicable to all the charges, which were brought against me by you and your coadjutor Mr. Archdall, and which, if I am not de eived, I have completely refuted.--These charges appear to have * See the Motto to this sheet.. confide in the wisdom of an "empty skull;" TO THE EDITOR. SIR,Perhaps there never was a time in the annals of the British Empire that required greater abilities and firmness in the Cabinet, and greater magnanimity, fortitude, and courage among the people. In a contest of such magnitude and so fraught with 329] AUGUST 27 TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1803. danger; a contest in which our very existence is at stake, we should expect to find men most famed for wisdom and experience, who have been long tried, approved of, and esteemed by the nation, placed at the head of affairs, and wielding with a firm hand, the incalculable energies of a brave and loyal people. No common degree of boldness, decision, and comprehension of mind, should characterize ministers in doubtful and stormy times; and especially ministers of this country, who ought, from their stations as rulers of a mighty Empire, never to follow, but at all times to take the lead in From the intricate politics of Europe. watching and following the motions of an enemy; from the timid and enervating views of mere defensive operations, no praise either for intrepidity or capacity, for deep penetration or extensive design can either justly be claimed or bestowed. The spirit, resolution, and courage of this country, in the hands of men of vigour and capacity, especially in these seasons of feverish alarm, when there is felt both an inclination and an energy unknown in peaceful times, is such as would prove fully adequate not merely to repulse an invader and confine him within his shores, but to rescue from his cruel fangs Our comthe oppressed nations of Europe. merce and trade have created us a navy, Are great and terrible beyond example the population and spirit of the country not sufficient to produce armies or an armed people equally formidable to our enemies? They certainly are; and need only a due share of magnanimity and address to organize them; and no very refined nor extensive views of policy to perceive what weight and influence such a measure must have in restoring peace and security not only to this Empire but to the whole world We live not in common times. We have no common enemy to contend with. We behold a gigantic power raised upon the broad basis of an extensive, populous Empire, and supported by all that is great in capacity and dangerous in principle, grasping at universal dominion, and threatening destruction to the last asylum of liberty. Let us be apprized of our danger, and let us be prepared to meet it. With firm and undaunted hearts, let us be prepared to meet it: and let us not merely look upon it at a distance, and interpose the tremendous thunder of our fleets to overawe our enemy, but let us view it in every shape of real horror which it would assume, should Heaven in its vengeance, or we by our cowardice and irresolution, suffer the French to subdae us.--The people in this country ought to be aware that all the [330 cruelties the French have perpetrated, whether in their own country, in Italy, or in Egypt, will be mild in comparison to the ferocity and barbarity they would every where exhibit should they once get a footing among us. Oureducation, habits, and principles; our religion and liberties, and indeed every feature of the British character would ill assort with the stern aspect of lawless despotism; would ill bear the brutal violence and instigated cruelties of ruffians who have no principle of honour, or faith; who have no feeling, no compunction, no mercy. Hollow murmurs would fill up the pause of suspicious silence. The free-born Briton could not repress his indignant feelings amidst the ha vock and devastation of his country. He could not look on, as an indifferent spectator, at the tortures and massacre of his countrymen and relations. He could not hear the cries of the innocent victims of the brutal lust or wanton cruelty of the lowest and vilest of the species, without braving the fuEvery ry of his oppressors in their behalf field would be a field of blood: every family a scene of mourning: every place the charnel house of liberty, the grave of freedom. The whole island, one vast prison, one bloody scene of proscriptions and massacre; one dreary waste of lost independence and intolerable slavery; where no joy could ever dwell; no hope could ever come but from wild despair or premature death Other nations overrun by the French, though they suffered much, yet had never known the value of liberty, nor felt the free unshackled mind; were unacquainted with the noble pride of independence. They fell not from such a height of glory as we would fall. The proud monuments of our greatness, and the still more valuable blessings of all that can adorn, all that can exalt human nature, would sink under the iron rod of oppression. Is there any so remote or so incredulous to whose ears the awful and tremendous revolutions of Europe have not reached, on whose callous mind the imperfect descriptions of French ferocity and cruelty have made no impression? Is there any so fond of lawless dominion, so eager for rapine and blood; who, with minds so base, with hearts so degenerate, would prefer the jealous despotism of a Corsican tyrant, to the mild government of our Gracious King; or who would not, at this "besay, au ful crisis, come forward and "fore God and my country, I swear to de"fend her rights and independence, with "the last drop of my blood?" If there be any such among us, in God's name transport them to the soil of France, so rank and foul M 3 |