LETTER VI.

Dear Abraham--What amuses me the most is to hear of the _indulgences_

which the Catholics have received, and their exorbitance in not being

satisfied with those indulgences: now if you complain to me that a

man is obtrusive and shameless in his requests, and that it is

impossible to bring him to reason, I must first of all hear the whole

of your conduct towards him; for you may have taken from him so much

in the first instance that, in spite of a long series of restitution,

a vast latitude for petition may still remain behind.

There is a village, no matter where, in which the inhabitants, on one

day in the year, sit down to a dinner prepared at the common expense:

by an extraordinary piece of tyranny, which Lord Hawkesbury would call

the wisdom of the village ancestors, the inhabitants of three of the

streets, about a hundred years ago, seized upon the inhabitants of the

fourth street, bound them hand and foot, laid them upon their backs,

and compelled them to look on while the rest were stuffing themselves

with beef and beer; the next year the inhabitants of the persecuted

street, though they contributed an equal quota of the expense, were

treated precisely in the same manner. The tyranny grew into a custom;

and, as the manner of our nature is, it was considered as the most

sacred of all duties to keep these poor fellows without their annual

dinner. The village was so tenacious of this practice, that nothing

could induce them to resign it; every enemy to it was looked upon as a

disbeliever in Divine Providence, and any nefarious churchwarden who

wished to succeed in his election had nothing to do but to represent

his antagonist as an abolitionist, in order to frustrate his ambition,

endanger his life, and throw the village into a state of the most

dreadful commotion. By degrees, however, the obnoxious street grew to

be so well peopled, and its inhabitants so firmly united, that their

oppressors, more afraid of injustice, were more disposed to be just.

At the next dinner they are unbound, the year after allowed to sit

upright, then a bit of bread and a glass of water; till at last, after

a long series of concessions, they are emboldened to ask, in pretty

plain terms, that they may be allowed to sit down at the bottom of the

table, and to fill their bellies as well as the rest. Forthwith a

general cry of shame and scandal: 'Ten years ago, were you not laid

upon your backs? Don't you remember what a great thing you thought it

to get a piece of bread? How thankful you were for cheese parings?

Have you forgotten that memorable era, when the lord of the manor

interfered to obtain for you a slice of the public pudding? And now,

with an audacity only equalled by your ingratitude, you have the

impudence to ask for knives and forks, and to request, in terms too

plain to be mistaken, that you may sit down to table with the rest,

and be indulged even with beef and beer: there are not more than half

a dozen dishes which we have reserved for ourselves; the rest has been

thrown open to you in the utmost profusion; you have potatoes, and

carrots, suet dumplings, sops in the pan, and delicious toast and

water in incredible quantities. Beef, mutton, lamb, pork, and veal are

ours; and if you were not the most restless and dissatisfied of human

beings, you would never think of aspiring to enjoy them.'

Is not this, my dainty Abraham, the very nonsense and the very insult

which is talked to and practised upon the Catholics? You are surprised

that men who have tasted of partial justice should ask for perfect

justice; that he who has been robbed of coat and cloak will not be

contented with the restitution of one of his garments. He would be a

very lazy blockhead if he were content, and I (who, though an

inhabitant of the village, have preserved, thank God, some sense of

justice) most earnestly counsel these half-fed claimants to persevere

in their just demands, till they are admitted to a more complete share

of a dinner for which they pay as much as the others; and if they see

a little attenuated lawyer squabbling at the head of their opponents,

let them desire him to empty his pockets, and to pull out all the

pieces of duck, fowl, and pudding which he has filched from the public

feast, to carry home to his wife and children.

You parade a great deal upon the vast concessions made by this country

to the Irish before the Union. I deny that any voluntary concession

was ever made by England to Ireland. What did Ireland ever ask that

was granted? What did she ever demand that was not refused? How did

she get her Mutiny Bill--a limited Parliament--a repeal of Poyning's

Law--a constitution? Not by the concessions of England, but by her

fears. When Ireland asked for all these things upon her knees, her

petitions were rejected with Percevalism and contempt; when she

demanded them with the voice of 60,000 armed men, they were granted

with every mark of consternation and dismay. Ask of Lord Auckland the

fatal consequences of trifling with such a people as the Irish. He

himself was the organ of these refusals. As secretary to the Lord

Lieutenant, the insolence and the tyranny of this country passed

through his hands. Ask him if he remembers the consequences. Ask him

if he has forgotten that memorable evening when he came down booted

and mantled to the House of Commons, when he told the House he was

about to set off for Ireland that night, and declared before God, if

he did not carry with him a compliance with all their demands, Ireland

was for ever lost to this country. The present generation have

forgotten this; but I have not forgotten it; and I know, hasty and

undignified as the submission of England then was, that Lord Auckland

was right, that the delay of a single day might very probably have

separated the two peoples for ever. The terms submission and fear are

galling terms when applied from the lesser nation to the greater; but

it is the plain historical truth, it is the natural consequence of

injustice, it is the predicament in which every country places itself

which leaves such a mass of hatred and discontent by its side. No

empire is powerful enough to endure it; it would exhaust the strength

of China, and sink it with all its mandarins and tea-kettles to the

bottom of the deep. By refusing them justice now when you are strong

enough to refuse them anything more than justice, you will act over

again, with the Catholics, the same scene of mean and precipitate

submission which disgraced you before America, and before the

volunteers of Ireland. We shall live to hear the Hampstead Protestant

pronouncing such extravagant panegyrics upon holy water, and paying

such fulsome compliments to the thumbs and offals of departed saints,

that parties will change sentiments, and Lord Henry Petty and Sam

Whitbread take a spell at No Popery. The wisdom of Mr. Fox was alike

employed in teaching his country justice when Ireland was weak, and

dignity when Ireland was strong. We are fast pacing round the same

miserable circle of ruin and imbecility. Alas! where is our guide?

You say that Ireland is a millstone about our necks; that it would be

better for us if Ireland were sunk at the bottom of the sea; that the

Irish are a nation of irreclaimable savages and barbarians. How often

have I heard these sentiments fall from the plump and thoughtless

squire, and from the thriving English shopkeeper, who has never felt

the rod of an Orange master upon his back. Ireland a millstone about

your neck! Why is it not a stone of Ajax in your hand? I agree with

you most cordially that, governed as Ireland now is, it would be a

vast accession of strength if the waves of the sea were to rise and

engulf her to-morrow. At this moment, opposed as we are to all the

world, the annihilation of one of the most fertile islands on the face

of the globe, containing five millions of human creatures, would be

one of the most solid advantages which could happen to this country. I

doubt very much, in spite of all the just abuse which has been

lavished upon Bonaparte, whether there is any one of his conquered

countries the blotting out of which would be as beneficial to him as

the destruction of Ireland would be to us: of countries I speak

differing in language from the French, little habituated to their

intercourse, and inflamed with all the resentments of a recently

conquered people. Why will you attribute the turbulence of our people

to any cause but the right--to any cause but your own scandalous

oppression? If you tie your horse up to a gate, and beat him cruelly,

is he vicious because he kicks you? If you have plagued and worried a

mastiff dog for years, is he mad because he flies at you whenever he

sees you? Hatred is an active, troublesome passion. Depend upon it,

whole nations have always some reason for their hatred. Before you

refer the turbulence of the Irish to incurable defects in their

character, tell me if you have treated them as friends and equals?

Have you protected their commerce? Have you respected their religion?

Have you been as anxious for their freedom as your own? Nothing of all

this. What then? Why you have confiscated the territorial surface of

the country twice over: you have massacred and exported her

inhabitants: you have deprived four-fifths of them of every civil

privilege: you have at every period made her commerce and manufactures

slavishly subordinate to your own: and yet the hatred which the Irish

bear to you is the result of an original turbulence of character, and

of a primitive, obdurate wildness, utterly incapable of civilisation.

The embroidered inanities and the sixth-form effusions of Mr. Canning

are really not powerful enough to make me believe this; nor is there

any authority on earth (always excepting the Dean of Christ Church)

which could make it credible to me. I am sick of Mr. Canning. There is

not a 'ha'porth of bread to all this sugar and sack.' I love not the

cretaceous and incredible countenance of his colleague. The only

opinion in which I agree with these two gentlemen is that which they

entertain of each other. I am sure that the insolence of Mr. Pitt, and

the unbalanced accounts of Melville, were far better than the perils

of this new ignorance:--

Nonne fuit satiùs, tristes Amaryllidis iras

Atque superba pati fastidia? nonne Menalcan?

Quamvis ille _niger_?

In the midst of the most profound peace, the secret articles of the

Treaty of Tilsit, in which the destruction of Ireland is resolved

upon, induce you to rob the Danes of their fleet. After the expedition

sailed comes the Treaty of Tilsit, containing no article, public or

private, alluding to Ireland. The state of the world, you tell me,

justified us in doing this. Just God! do we think only of the state of

the world when there is an opportunity for robbery, for murder, and

for plunder; and do we forget the state of the world when we are

called upon to be wise, and good, and just? Does the state of the

world never remind us that we have four millions of subjects whose

injuries we ought to atone for, and whose affections we ought to

conciliate? Does the state of the world never warn us to lay aside our

infernal bigotry, and to arm every man who acknowledges a God, and can

grasp a sword? Did it never occur to this administration that they

might virtuously get hold of a force ten times greater than the force

of the Danish fleet? Was there no other way of protecting Ireland but

by bringing eternal shame upon Great Britain, and by making the earth

a den of robbers? See what the men whom you have supplanted would have

done. They would have rendered the invasion of Ireland impossible, by

restoring to the Catholics their long-lost rights: they would have

acted in such a manner that the French would neither have wished for

invasion nor dared to attempt it: they would have increased the

permanent strength of the country while they preserved its reputation

unsullied. Nothing of this kind your friends have done, because they

are solemnly pledged to do nothing of this kind; because, to tolerate

all religions, and to equalise civil rights to all sects, is to oppose

some of the worst passions of our nature--to plunder and to oppress is

to gratify them all. They wanted the huzzas of mobs, and they have for

ever blasted the fame of England to obtain them. Were the fleets of

Holland, France, and Spain destroyed by larceny? You resisted the

power of 150 sail of the line by sheer courage, and violated every

principle of morals from the dread of fifteen hulks, while the

expedition itself cost you three times more than the value of the

larcenous matter brought away. The French trample on the laws of God

and man, not for old cordage, but for kingdoms, and always take care

to be well paid for their crimes. We contrive, under the present

administration, to unite moral with intellectual deficiency, and to

grow weaker and worse by the same action. If they had any evidence of

the intended hostility of the Danes, why was it not produced? Why have

the nations of Europe been allowed to feel an indignation against this

country beyond the reach of all subsequent information? Are these

times, do you imagine, when we can trifle with a year of universal

hatred, dally with the curses of Europe, and then regain a lost

character at pleasure, by the parliamentary perspirations of the

Foreign Secretary, or the solemn asseverations of the pecuniary Rose?

Believe me, Abraham, it is not under such ministers as these that the

dexterity of honest Englishmen will ever equal the dexterity of French

knaves; it is not in their presence that the serpent of Moses will

ever swallow up the serpents of the magician.

Lord Hawkesbury says that nothing is to be granted to the Catholics

from fear. What! not even justice? Why not? There are four millions of

disaffected people within twenty miles of your own coast. I fairly

confess that the dread which I have of their physical power is with me

a very strong motive for listening to their claims. To talk of not

acting from fear is mere parliamentary cant. From what motive but

fear, I should be glad to know, have all the improvements in our

constitution proceeded? I question if any justice has ever been done

to large masses of mankind from any other motive. By what other

motives can the plunderers of the Baltic suppose nations to be

governed in their intercourse _with each other_? If I say, Give this

people what they ask because it is just, do you think I should get ten

people to listen to me? Would not the lesser of the two Jenkinsons be

the first to treat me with contempt? The only true way to make the

mass of mankind see the beauty of justice is by showing to them, in

pretty plain terms, the consequences of injustice. If any body of

French troops land in Ireland, the whole population of that country

will rise against you to a man, and you could not possibly survive

such an event three years. Such, from the bottom of my soul, do I

believe to be the present state of that country; and so far does it

appear to me to be impolitic and unstatesman-like to conceed anything

to such a danger, that if the Catholics, in addition to their present

just demands, were to petition for the perpetual removal of the said

Lord Hawkesbury from his Majesty's councils, I think, whatever might

be the effect upon the destinies of Europe, and however it might

retard our own individual destruction, that the prayer of the petition

should be instantly complied with. Canning's crocodile tears should

not move me; the hoops of the maids of honour should not hide him. I

would tear him from the banisters of the back stairs, and plunge him

in the fishy fumes of the dirtiest of all his Cinque Ports.

Political Pamphlets · 第 23 / 41 题