« ForrigeFortsæt »
change of the ministry: for we find that a great many persons lost their loyalty with their places; and that their friends have ever since made use of the most base methods to infuse those groundless discontents into the minds of the common people, which have brought so many of them to the brink of destruction, and proved so detrimental to their fellow subjects. However, this proceeding has shown how dangerous it would have been for his majesty to have continued in their places of trust, a set of men, some of whom have since actually joined with the Pretender to his crown: while others may be justly suspected never to have been faithful to him in their hearts, or, at least, whose principles are precarious, and visibly conducted by their interest. In a word, if the removal of these persons from their posts has produced such popular commotions, the continuance of them might have produced something, much more fatal to their king and country, and have brought about that revolution, which has now been in vain attempted. The condition of a British king would be very poor indeed, should a party of his subjects threaten him with a rebellion upon his bringing malefactors to justice, or upon his refusing to employ those whom he dares not trust.
I shall only mention another argument against the punishment of any of the rebels, whose executions he represents as very shocking to the people; because they are their countrymen,' (p. 12.) And again, • The quality of the sufferers, their alliances, their characters, their being Englishmen, with a thousand other circumstances, will contribute to breed more ill blood than all the state chirurgeons can possibly let out,' (p. 12.) The impeached lords likewise, in the last paragraph of the pamphlet, are recommended to our pity, because they are our countrymen. By this way of reasoning, no man, that is a gentleman, or born within the three seas, should be subject to capital punishment. Besides, who can be guilty of rebellion that are not our countrymen? As for the endearing name of Englishmen, which he bestows upon every one of the criminals, he should consider, that a man deservedly cuts himself off from the affections as well as the privileges of that community, which he endeavours to subvert.
These are the several arguments which appear in different forms and expressions through this whole pamphlet, and under which every one that is urged in it may
be reduced. There is indeed another set of them, derived from the example and authority of great persons, which the author produces in favour of his own scheme.
These are William the Conqueror, Henry the Fourth of France, our late King William, King Solomon, and the Pretender. If a man were disposed to draw arguments for severity out of history, how many instances might one find of it among
the greatest princes of every nation? but as different princes may act very laudably by different methods in different conjunctures, I cannot think this a conclusive way of reasoning. However, let us examine this set of arguments, and we shall find them no less defective than those above-mentioned.
One of the greatest of our English monarchs,' says our author, was William the Conqueror; and he was the greater, because he put to death only one person of quality that we read of, and him after repeated treacheries; yet he was a foreigner, had power sufficient, and did not want provocations to have been more bloody,' (p. 27.) This person of quality was the Ear) Waltheof, who, being overtaken with wine, engaged in a conspiracy against this monarch, but repenting of it the next morning, repaired to the king, who was then in Normandy, and discovered the whole matter. Notwithstanding which, he was beheaded upon the defeat of the conspiracy, for having but thus far tampered in it. And as for the rest of the conspirators, who rose in an actual rebellion, the king used them with the utmost rigour; he cut off the hands of some, put out the eyes of others, some were hanged upon gibbets, and those who fared the best, were sent into banishment. There are indeed the most dreadful examples of severity in this reign : though it must be confessed, that, after the manner of those times, the nobility generally escaped with their lives, though multitudes of them were punished with banishment, perpetual imprisonment, forfeitures, and other great severities: while the poor people, who had been deluded by these their ringleaders, were executed with the utmost rigouv. A partiality which I believe no commoner of England will ever think to be either just or reasonable.
The next instance is Henry the Fourth of France, who,' says our author, ‘so handsomely expressed his tenderness for his people, when, at signing the treaty of Vervins, he said, That, by one dash of his pen, he had overcome more enemies, than he could ever be able to do with his sword.' Would not an ordinary reader think that this treaty of Vervins was a treaty between Henry the Fourth and a party of his subjects? for, otherwise, how can it have a place in the present argument? But, instead of that, it was a treaty between France and Spain; so that the speech expressed an equal tenderness to the Spaniards and French; asmultitudes of either nation must have fallen in that war, had it continued longer. As for this king's treatment of conspirators, (though he is quoted thrice in the pamphlet as an example of clemency,) you have an eminent instance of it in his behaviour to the Mareschal de Biron, who had been his old faithful servant, and had contributed more than any one to his advancement to the throne. This mareschal, upon some discontent, was entered into a conspiracy against his master, and refusing to open the whole secret to the king, he was sent to the Bastile, and there beheaded, notwithstanding he sought for mercy with great importunities, and in the most moving manner. There are other instances in this king's reign, who, notwith
standing, was remarkable for his clemency, of rebels and conspirators, who were hanged, beheaded, or broken alive on the wheel.
The late King William was not disturbed by any rebellion from those who had once submitted to him. But we know he treated the persons concerned in the assassination-plot as so horrid a conspiracy deserved. As for the saying which this author imputes to that monarch, it being a piece of secret history, one doth not know when it was spoken, or what it alluded to, unless the author had been more particular in the account of it.
The author proceeds in the next place to no less an authority, than that of Solomon: ‘Among all the general observations of the wisest princes we know of, I think there is none holds more universally than, mercy and truth preserve a king, and his throne is established in mercy,' (p. 18.) If we compare the different sayings of this wise king, which relate to the conduct of princes, we cannot question but that he means by this mercy, that kind of it, which is consistent with reason and government, and by which we hope to see his majesty's throne established. But our author should consider that the same wise man has said in another place, that, 'An evil man seeketh rebellion, therefore a cruel messenger should be sent against him. Accordingly his practice was agreeable to his proverb: no prince having ever given a greater testimony of his abhorrence to undertakings of this treasonable nature. For he dispatched such a cruel messenger as is here mentioned to those who had been engaged in a rebellion many years before he himself was on the throne, and even to his elder brother, upon the bare suspicion that he was projecting so wicked an enterprise.
How the example of the Pretender came into this argument, I am at a loss to find out. "The Pretender. declared a general pardon to all: and shall our rightful king show himself less the true father of his people, and afford his, pardon to none, &c.' (p. 25.) The. Pretender's general pardon was to a people who were:
not in his power; and had he ever reduced them under it, it was only promised to such as immediately joined with him for the recovery of what he called his right. It was such a general pardon as would have been consistent with the execution of more than nine parts in ten of the kingdom.
There is but one more historical argument, which is drawn from King Philip's treatment of the Catalans. . I think it would not be unseasonable for some men to recollect what their own notions were of the treatment of the Catalans; how many declamations were made on the barbarity used towards them by King Philip, &c.' (p. 29.) If the author remembers, these declamations, as he calls them, were not made so much on the barbarity used towards them by King Philip as on the barbarity used towards them by the English government. King Philip might have some colour for treating them as rebels, but we ought to have regarded them as allies; and were obliged, by all the ties of honour, conscience, and public faith, to have sheltered them from those sufferings which were brought upon them by a firm and inviolable adherence to our interest. However, none can draw into a parallel the cruelties which have been afflicted on that unhappy people, with those few instances of severity which our government has been obliged to exert towards the British rebels. I say, no man would make such a parallel, unless his mind be so blinded with passion and prejudice, as to assert, in the language of this pamphlet, 'that no instances can be produced of the least lenity under the present administration, from the hour it commenced to this day,' (p. 20.) with other astonishing reflections of the same nature, which are contradicted by such innumerable matters of fact, that it would be an affront to a reader's understanding to endeavour to confute them. But to return to the Catalans: During the whole course of the war,' says the author, which ever of them submitted to discretion, were received to mercy,' (p. 22.) This is so far