« ForrigeFortsett »
constitutions, has in the many revolutions which have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or, after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to, our old legislative of king, lords, and commons; and whatever provocations have made the crown be taken from some of our princes' heads, they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line. This doctrine of a power in the people of providing for their safety anew, by a new legislative, when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust, by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it; for rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels; for when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves; those who set up force again in opposition to the laws do rebellare, that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels; which they who are in power (by the pretence they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them) being likeliest to do; the properest way to prevent the evil, is to show them the danger and injustice of it, who are under the greatest temptation to run into it. In both the forementioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion; for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They, who remove, or change the legislative, take away, this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and consent of the people; and so destroying the authority which the people did, and nobody else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, they actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority; and thus, by removing the legislative established by the society (in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will), they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war. And if those who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shown, can be no less esteemed so , when they, who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties, shall by force invade and endeavor to take them away; and so they, putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels. But if they who say, “it lays a foundation for rebellion,” mean that it may occasion civil wars, or intestine broils, to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates, when they invade their properties contrary to the trust put in them ; and that therefore this doctrine is not to be allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world: they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but on him that invades his neighbor's. If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has, for peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered, what a kind of peace there will be in the world, which consists only in violence and rapine; and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, where the lamb without resistance yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace, and such a government, wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do but quietly to suffer themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission, by representing to them of what concernment peace was to mankind; and by showing the inconveniences which might happen, if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them.—Locke, vol. v. 414–474, carptim.
BURECE ON THE AMERICAN WAR.
JoxORDIUM-OCCASION OF THE SPEECH-MAGNITUDE OF THE TASK OF RESTORING ORDER IN AMERICA—BURKE's PROPOSITION IS “PEACE NOT THROUGH THE MEDIUM of WAR’”—“IT IS SIMPLY PEACE"—WITH THE VIEW of RESTORING CONFIDENCE AND PROCURING RECONCILIATION.—THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUEoUGHT CONCESSIONS To BE MADE 2–IF so, what conCESSIONS 2—Position of THE WAR PARTY-OH.JECTIONS-ADVANTAGE GAINED BY FORCE TEMPORARYAMERICA Must BE DESTROYED IN PRESERVING IT to ENGLAND–ExPERIENCE AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE—AMERICAN TEMPER AND CHARACTER—THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY-WORKING OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT—CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT TowARDs AMERICA—MEANs of REconciliation—the CAUSEs of DisCoNTENT MUST BE REMOVED–IMPOSSIBILITY OF SUBJUGATION.—INFAMy of THE ATTEMPT-UNFITNESS OF ENGLAND FOR THE TASK–THE AMERICAN CHARACTER, FIXED AND UNALTERABLE–SPIRIT OF THE SOUTHERN COLONIES-SLAVES.–PROPosition of CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AGAINST REBELS-‘‘Too BIG A THING.'” —DEFINITION OF AN EMPIRE-INFERENCE—JUDICIAL POSITION OF ENGLAND– HER CONSEQUENT DUTY OF JUSTICE—WHAT HAD BEEN GAINED BY THE MEASURES OF THE GOVERNMENT 2–WHAT CONCESSIONS OUGHT TO BE MADE—COMPLAINT of THE COLONIES-TAxATION witHouT REPRESENTATION.—DUTY OF GovernMENT—NECESSITY OF A UNITY OF SPIRIT-THE COLONIES MUST BE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.—EXAMPLE OF SPAIN–PRECEDENT OF IRELAND–WALES —CHESTER—DURHAM—EXCITEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN MIND TO BE CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED FOR-EFFECT OF RECONCILIATION.
I HOPE, sir, that notwithstanding the austerity of the chair, your good nature will incline you to some degree of indulgence toward human frailty. You will not think it unnatural that those who have an object depending, which strongly engages their hopes and fears, should be somewhat inclined to superstition. As I came into the house full of anxiety about the event of my motion, I found, to my infinite surprise, that the grand penal bill, by which we had passed sentence on the trade and sustenance of America, is to be returned to us from the other house. I do confess, I could not help looking on this event as a fortunate omen. I look upon it as a sort of providential favor, by which we are put once more in possession of our deliberate capacity upon a business so very questionable in its nature, so very uncertain in its issue. By the return of this bill, which seemed to have taken its flight for ever, we are at this very instant nearly as free to choose a plan for our American government, as we were on the first day of the session. If, sir, we incline to the side of conciliation, we are not at all embarrassed (unless we please to make ourselves so) by any incongruous mixture of coercion and restraint. We are, therefore, called upon, as it were, by a superior warning voice, again to attend to America—to attend to the whole of it together—and to review the subject with an unusual degree of care and calmness. To restore order and repose to an empire so great and so distracted as ours is, merely, in the attempt, an undertaking that would ennoble the flights of the highest genius, and obtain pardon for the efforts of the meanest understanding. Struggling a good while with these thoughts, by degrees I felt myself more firm. I derived at length some confidence from what in other circumstances usually produces timidity. I grew less anxious, even from the idea of my own insignificance. For, judging of what you are by what you ought to be, I persuaded myself that you would not reject a reasonable proposition, because it had nothing but its reason to recommend it. On the other hand, being totally destitute of all shadow of influence, natural or adventitious, I was very sure that if my proposition were futile or dangerous, if it were weakly conceived, or improperly timed, there was nothing exterior to it of power or awe, to dazzle, or delude you. You will see it just as it is; and you will treat it just as it deserves. The proposition is peace, not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented upon principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the judicial determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking of the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simply peace, sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace; and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people; and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act, and by the bond of the very same interest, which reconciles them to British government. My idea is nothing more. Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion; and ever will be so as long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view, as fraud is surely detected at the last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is a healing and cementing principle. My plan, therefore, being formed upon the most simple grounds imaginable, may disappoint some people when they hear it. It has nothing to recommend it to the pruriency of curious ears. There is nothing at all new and captivating in it. I mean to give peace. Peace implies reconciliation; and where there has been a material dispute, reconciliation does, in a manner, always imply concession on the one part or on the other. In this state of things I make no difficulty in affirming that the proposal ought to originate from us. Great and acknowledged force is not impaired, either in effect or in opinion, by an unwillingness, to exert itself. The superior power may offer peace with honor and with safety. Such an offer, from such a power, will be attributed to magnanimity. But the concessions of the weak are concessions of fear. When such a one is disarmed he is wholly at the mercy of his superior; and he loses forever that time and those chances, which, as they happen to all men, are the strength and resources of all inferior power. The capital leading questions on which you must this day decide, are these two : First, whether you ought to concede; and second, what your concession ought to be. On the first of these questions we have gained (as I have just taken the liberty of observing to you) some ground. But I am sensible that a good deal more is still to be done. Indeed, sir, to enable us to determine both on the one and the other of these great questions with a firm aud precise judgment, I think it may be necessary to consider distinctly the true nature and the peculiar circumstances of the object