Part 16

For that service, for all service, whether of revenue, trade or empire, my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government; they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing, and their privileges another; that these two things may exist without any mutual relation; the cement is gone; the cohesion is loosened; and every thing hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship Freedom, they will turn their faces toward you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have. The more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia; but, until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This is the commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that your registers and your bonds, your affidavits and your sufferances, your cockets and your clearances, are what form the great securities of your commerce. Do not dream that your letters of office, and your instructions, and your suspending clauses, are the things that hold together the great contexture of this mysterious whole. These things do not make your government. Dead instruments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of the English communion that gives all their life and efficacy to them. It is the spirit of the English Constitution, which, infused through the mighty mass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the empire, even down to the minutest member.[79]

Is it not the same virtue which does every thing for us here in England?

Do you imagine then, that it is the Land Tax[80] which raises your revenue? that it is the annual vote in the Committee of Supply, which gives you your army? or that it is the Mutiny Bill,[81] which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! surely no! It is the love of the people; it is their attachment to their Government, from the sense of the deep stake they have in such a glorious institution, which gives you your army and your navy, and infuses into both that liberal obedience, without which your army would be a base rabble, and your navy nothing but rotten timber.

All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians, who have no place among us; a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from being qualified to be directors of the great movement of empire, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machine. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which, in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned, have no substantial existence, are in truth every thing and all in all. Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great empire and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place as becomes our station and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceeding on America with the old warning of the church, _sursum corda_![82] We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by destroying but by promoting, the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race. Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.

In full confidence of this unalterable truth, I now, _quod felix faustumque sit_,[83] lay the first stone in the temple of peace; and I move you,

That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America, consisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millions and upward of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court of Parliament.

On the first resolution offered by Mr. Burke the votes in favor of it were only 78 while those against it were 270. The other resolutions were not put to vote. This may be regarded as the final answer of the House of Commons to all attempts to save the colonies except by force. The policy of war was thus adopted, with what result the world very well knows.

ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES.

NOTE 1, p. 8.—Ever since the Norman Conquest the royal assent to measures of Parliament has been given in a form from which there has been no variation. To “public bills” the words attached are “_le roy le veult_”; to petitions, “_soit droit fait comme il est désiré_”; and for grants of money, “_the King heartily thanks his subjects for their good wills_.” In the present instance, instead of _soit droit fait comme il est désiré_, the King caused to be appended to the petition, “The King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; that the statutes be put into due execution; and that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience as well obliged, as of his own prerogative.”—Rushworth, i., 588. On the forms of royal assent see the learned account by Selden in “Parliamentary History,” viii., 237.

NOTE 2, p. 9.—Rushworth, i., 591. The version of Eliot’s speech given by Rushworth is the one ordinarily reprinted in modern collections. But in the papers of the Earl of St. Germans, a descendant of Sir John Eliot, Mr. John Forster, some years ago, found a copy of the speech corrected by Eliot himself while in prison. This form, much superior to the others, is the one here reproduced.

NOTE 3, p. 16.—Eliot, in the expression, “want of councils,” doubtless alludes to the absorption of the various powers of the State by Buckingham. The allusion was not without reason, as the list of Buckingham’s titles shows. He was: Duke, Marquis, and Earl of Buckingham, Earl of Coventry, Viscount Villiers, Baron of Whaddon, Great Admiral of England and Ireland, etc., etc., etc., Governor-General of the Seas and the Ships of the same, Lieutenant-General Admiral, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty’s fleet and army, etc., Minister of the House, Lord Warden, Chancellor, and Admiral of the Cinque Ports, etc., Constable of Dover Castle, Justice in Eyrie of the Forest of Chases on this side of the Trent, Constable of the Castle of Windsor, Gentleman of the Bedchamber, Knight of the Garter, Privy Councillor, etc. The royal domains that he had managed to have given to him brought an income of £284,395 a year. All this was so much drawn from the public treasury. See Bradie’s “Constitutional History,” new edition, vol. i., p. 424, and Guizot, “Charles I.,” Bohn’s ed., p. 15.

NOTE 4, p. 17.—The Elector Palatine, Frederick V., had married Elizabeth, the daughter of James I., of England, and by his election as King of Bohemia, became in a certain sense the representative and head of the Protestant party in Germany at the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War in 1618. His cause was badly managed at home, and still more wretchedly managed in England. Constantly deluded with hopes of support from the great Protestant power in the North, he was doomed to perpetual disappointment. His cause was shattered at the first serious conflict at White Mountain in 1620, and he was obliged to flee to Holland for his life. Twelve thousand English troops were subsequently sent to the support of Mansfeldt, but they were so ill managed that they nearly all perished before they could be of any assistance. The sacrifice of “honor” and of “men” was most abundant.

NOTE 5, p. 17.—In 1627 Richelieu was engaged in the work of reducing La Rochelle, the stronghold of the Huguenots, into subordination to the King of France. The work had to be done by means of a siege, which included the construction of a dyke across the mouth of the harbor. Buckingham, inflamed with resentment against Richelieu, for personal reasons, determined to relieve the Rochellois. He collected a hundred ships and seven thousand land forces, and advanced to the rescue. But on reaching the scene of action, instead of advancing immediately to relieve the beleaguered city, he disembarked on the Isle of Rhée, and contented himself with issuing a proclamation, calling upon all French Protestants to arise for a relief of their brethren. The result was two-fold. In the first place, La Rochelle, after one of the most memorable sieges in all history, was reduced; and, secondly, the cause of Protestantism in France was completely crushed. In response to Buckingham’s call, the Protestants everywhere arose; but Richelieu was now at leisure to destroy them, and thus their last hope perished.

NOTE 6, p. 17.—The beauty of this allusion to the policy and the power of Queen Elizabeth has very justly been greatly admired. Nothing could have been more adroit than Eliot’s comparison of the ways of Elizabeth with those of Buckingham.

NOTE 7, p. 20.—Having now come to the third division of his subject, “The insufficiency of our generals,” Eliot naturally pauses before dragging Buckingham personally upon the scene. But for what follows the Duke was personally responsible.

NOTE 8, p. 21.—In 1625 an expedition of eighty sail had been fitted out for the purpose of intercepting the Spanish treasure ships from America. But by reason of the incompetency of the commander there was no concert of action in the fleet, and the treasure ships escaped, though seven of them that would have richly repaid the expedition might easily have been taken. But not wishing to return empty handed, the commander effected a landing near Cadiz. The soldiers broke open the wine-cellars and became so drunk that when the commander determined to withdraw, several hundred were left to perish under the knives of the peasants.

NOTE 9, p. 24.—What the orator contemptuously calls the “journey to Algiers,” was nothing less than an expedition sent out for its conquest. But it fared like the most of Buckingham’s other “journeys.” The Algerines turned upon the English; and thirty-five ships engaged in the Mediterranean trade were destroyed, and their crews sold into slavery.

NOTE 10, p. 43.—For powers and privileges of the early English Parliaments, see Stubbs, ii., §§ 220–233, and 271–298. Also on the right of Parliament to make a grant depend on redress of grievances, Hallam: “Mid. Ages,” Am. ed., iii., p. 84, _seq._ It is a curious fact that in the Early Middle Ages there was a very general reluctance on the part of towns to send representatives. Hallam: “Mid. Ages,” iii., 111. Cox: “Ant. Parl. Elections,” 84, 93, 98. Todd: “Parl. Govt.,” ii., 21. Hearn: “Govt. in Eng.,” 394–407.

NOTE 11, p. 43.—Bagehot, in his remarkable work on the English Constitution (p. 133) lays much stress on what he calls “the teaching” and “informing” functions of the House of Commons. “In old times one office of the House of Commons was to inform the Sovereign what was wrong.”

NOTE 12, p. 45.—There is a remarkable letter written by Thomas Allured, a member of the Parliament of 1628, which describes what took place on the day alluded to. The letter is preserved in Rushworth’s Hist., Coll. i., 609–10, and in part is reproduced in Carlyle’s Cromwell, i., 46. After saying that “Upon Tuesday, Sir John Eliot moved that as we intended to furnish his Majesty with money, we should also supply him with counsel,” he says: “But next day, Wednesday, we had a message from his Majesty, by the Speaker ‘that we should husband the time and despatch our old business without entertaining new.’ Yesterday, Thursday morning, a new message was brought us, which I have here inclosed, which, requiring us not to cast or lay any aspersion on any Minister of his Majesty, the House was much affected thereby. Sir Robert Philips, of Somershire, spoke and mingled his words with weeping. Mr. Pym did the like. Sir Edward Cook, overcome with passion, seeing the desolation likely to ensue, was forced to sit down, when he began to speak, by abundance of tears. Yea, the Speaker in his speech could not refrain from weeping and shedding of tears, besides a great many others whose grief made them dumb. But others bore up in that storm and encouraged the rest.” The writer then states how the House resolved itself into a Committee, how the Speaker who was in close communication with the King, asked for leave to withdraw for half an hour, and how “It was ordered that no other man leave the House on pain of going to the Tower.” He then continues: “Sir Edward Cook told us ‘He now saw God had not accepted of our humble and moderate carriages and fair proceedings; and he feared the reason was, we had not dealt sincerely with the King and country, and made a true representation of all these miseries, which he, for his part, repented that he had not done sooner. And, therefore, not knowing whether he should ever again speak in this House, he would now do it freely; and so did here protest, that the author and cause of all these miseries was the DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM,’ which was entertained and answered with a cheerful acclamation of the House. As when one good hound recovers the scent, the rest come in with full cry, so they pursued it, and every one came home, and laid the blame where he thought the fault was. And as we were putting it to the question whether he should be _named_ in our _Remonstrance_, as the chief cause of all our miseries at home and abroad, the Speaker having been, not half an hour, but three hours absent, and with the King, returned, bringing this message: ‘That the House should then rise, adjourn till the morrow morning, no Committee sit or other business go on in the interim.’ What we expect this morning, God in heaven knows! We shall meet betimes this morning, partly for the business’ sake, and partly because two days ago we made an order, that whoever comes in after Prayers shall pay twelve pence to the poor.”

The events alluded to by Pym in this rapid indictment are all given in considerable detail in “Parl. Hist.,” ii., 442–525. On the 2d of March, when Eliot moved a new Remonstrance, the Speaker refused to put the motion, alleging an order from the King. The House insisted, whereupon he was about to leave the Chair. Holles, Valentine, and some others forced him back into it. “God’s wounds,” said Holles, “you shall sit till it please the House to rise.” And much else of a similar nature. “Parl. Hist.,” ii., 487–491.

NOTE 13, p. 47.—The moderation of Pym in this part of his speech will appear evident to every one at all familiar with the course of events under the influence of Laud. A brief but excellent account of the influence of that prelate’s policy is given by Guizot, _Eng. Rev._, Bohn ed., pp. 49–59.

NOTE 14, p. 50.—The particular privileges here enumerated were all contrary to the statute passed in the reign of Elizabeth. The significance of the tolerance of Catholics was chiefly in the fact that during the same time the _Protestant_ Nonconformist was subjected to every indignity for refusing to bow his conscience to the prescribed formula of doctrine and ceremony. Laud’s favor toward the Catholics was so marked that the Pope offered him a Cardinal’s hat. Laud’s “Diary,” p. 49.

NOTE 15, p. 51.—The most notorious cases were Dr. Montague and Dr. Mainwaring, who both received rich benefices and afterwards became Catholics. A daughter of the Duke of Devonshire entered the Catholic Church. When Laud asked for her reasons she responded: “I hate to be in a crowd, and as I perceive your Grace and many others are hastening toward Rome, I want to get there comfortably by myself before you.”

NOTE 16, p. 52.—The Crown and the Archbishop regarded Sunday “simply as one of the holidays of the Church,” and encouraged the people in pastimes and recreations. A “Book of Sports” had been issued in the time of James I., pointing out the amusements the people might properly indulge in. Laud now ordered that every minister should read the declaration in favor of Sunday pastimes from the pulpit. Some refused. One had the wit to obey, and to close his reading with the declaration: “You have heard read, good people, both the commandment of God and the commandment of man. Obey which you please.” As the result of disobeying the command, however, many were silenced or deposed. In the diocese of Norwich alone, thirty clergymen were expelled from their cures. See Green: “Hist. of Eng. Peo.,” Eng. ed., iii., 160.

NOTE 17, p. 54.—Of this part of Pym’s speech Mr. Forster says: “A more massive document was never given to history. It has all the solidity, weight, and gravity of a judicial record, while it addresses itself equally to the solid good sense of the masses of the people, and to the cultivated understandings of the time. The deliberative gravity, the force, the broad, decided manner of this great speaker, contrast forcibly with those choice specimens of awkward affectations and labored extravagances, that have not seldom passed in modern times for oratory.” “Life of Pym,” p. 99.

NOTE 18, p. 58.—The seventh and twelfth of James I. were 1610 and 1615.

NOTE 19, p. 58.—The Thirty Years’ War in the Palatinate in which the sons-in-law of James I. were the representative of the Protestant cause.

NOTE 20, p. 62.—A partial list of fines imposed between 1629 and 1640 is given in Guizot, _Eng. Rev._, 445. The list includes “Hillyard, for having sold saltpetre, £5,000”; “John Averman, for not having followed the King’s orders in the fabrication of soap, £13,000”; “Morley, for having struck Sir George Thesbold within the precinct of the Court, £10,000”; and a vast number of other similar ones.

NOTE 21, p. 64.—The tax known as ship money, which had its origin in the necessity of universal defence when the country was threatened with invasion was attempted by Charles but resisted by John Hampden. The case went to trial, and the judges by a bare majority decided in favor of the legality of the tax. The decision is, however, not now regarded as having been correct. The case is reviewed in Hallam, “Con. Hist.,” i., 430.

NOTE 22, p. 65.—The “bounds and perambulations” were the boundary marks and legally established roads and paths. This was at a time when there were very few, if any, inclosures. The possibilities of dispute were taken advantage of by the Government in a way that was enormously oppressive. For example, the Earl of Salisbury was fined £20,000 for “encroachments,” Westmorland £19,000, etc. Guizot: _Eng. Rev._, 445.

NOTE 23, p. 68.—The application of this grievance was particularly burdensome in the vicinity of London. Exemption from demolition was purchased by the immediate payment of fine amounting to a three years’ tax.

NOTE 24, p. 69.—The King had specifically agreed in the “Petition of Right” to correct the grievance here complained of. And yet it continued after eleven years to be “a growing evil.”

NOTE 25, p. 72.—The “projectors” referred to were those undertaking monopolies. The “referees” were law officers appointed by the Crown to decide all legal questions arising in regard to monopolies. In 1621 Buckingham threw the blame of all irregularities in the matter of monopolies on the “referees,” and, on motion of Cranfield, a Parliamentary inquiry was made into their conduct. The matter is explained in Gardiner’s “History of England,” 2d ed., iv., 48; and in Church’s “Bacon,” 128.

NOTE 26, p. 82.—The reader who has followed this speech so far certainly will not be surprised that Pym at length experienced some “confusion of memory.” The “opportunity” was never afforded, as parliament was dissolved within three days.

NOTE 27, p. 100.—The reference here is to Lord Bute, whose influence with the King had secured the overthrow of Pitt’s ministry in 1761. Bute was a politician whose chief power was in his gifts for intrigue. Though for these very qualities he was liked by the King, he was detested by the people,—as Macaulay says,—“by many as a Tory, by many as a favorite, and by many as a Scot.” For a long time it was not prudent for him to appear in the streets without disguising himself. The populace were in the habit of representing him by “a jackboot, generally accompanied by a petticoat.” This they paraded as a contemptuous pun on his name, and ended by fastening it on the gallows or committing it to the flames. Pitt had been charged with prejudice against Bute on account of his being a Scotchman. It was to refute this charge that he alludes to his having been the first to employ the Scotch Highlanders.

NOTE 28, p. 104.—This whole passage may well be compared with that on the same subject in Lord Mansfield’s speech on p. 150. Compare also the argument of Burke on American Taxation.

NOTE 29, p. 105.—This is believed to be the first reference made in Parliament to the necessity of legislative reform. The younger Pitt advocated a reform during the early years of his career; but the horrors of the French Revolution so shocked public opinion, that no change for the better could be made until the Ministry of Earl Grey in 1832.

NOTE 30, p. 110.—It was not until the reign of Henry VIII. that the right of representation in Parliament was extended to Wales, and the counties of Chester and Monmouth. To the county of Durham the right was not given till 1673. Until these counties were represented, they were not directly taxed except for purely local purposes.

NOTE 31, p. 114.—One of the speakers, Mr. Nugent, had said that “a pepper-corn, in acknowledgment of the right to tax America, was of more value than millions without it.”

NOTE 32, p. 126.—The capitulation of Burgoyne’s army took place October 17, 1777, just one month before the delivery of Chatham’s speech. There was still much doubt in England in regard to the magnitude of the disaster.