There is one thing in this business which appears to be wholly
unaccountable, or accountable on a supposition I dare not entertain for
a moment. I cannot help asking, Why all this pains, to clear the British
nation of ambition, perfidy, and the insatiate thirst of war? At what
period of time was it that our country has deserved that load of infamy,
of which nothing but preternatural humiliation in language and conduct
can serve to clear us? If we have deserved this kind of evil fame from
anything we have done in a state of prosperity, I am sure that it is not
an abject conduct in adversity than can clear our reputation. Well is it
known that ambition can creep as well as soar. The pride of no person in
a flourishing condition is more justly to be dreaded, than that of him
who is mean and cringing under a doubtful and unprosperous fortune. But
it seems it was thought necessary to give some out-of-the-way proofs of
our sincerity, as well as of our freedom from ambition. Is then fraud
and falsehood become the distinctive character of Englishmen? Whenever
your enemy chooses to accuse you of perfidy and ill faith, will you put
it into his power to throw you into the purgatory of self-humiliation?
Is his charge equal to the finding of the grand jury of Europe, and
sufficient to put you upon your trial? But on that trial I will defend
the English ministry. I am sorry that on some points I have, on the
principles I have always opposed, so good a defence to make. THEY
WERE NOT THE FIRST TO BEGIN THE WAR. THEY DID NOT EXCITE THE GENERAL
CONFEDERACY IN EUROPE, WHICH WAS SO PROPERLY FORMED ON THE ALARM
GIVEN BY THE JACOBINISM OF FRANCE. THEY DID NOT BEGIN WITH AN HOSTILE
AGGRESSION ON THE REGICIDES, ARE ANY OF THEIR ALLIES. THESE PARRICIDES
OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY, DISCIPLINING THEMSELVES FOR FOREIGN BY DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, WERE THE FIRST TO ATTACK A POWER THAT WAS OUR ALLY BY NATURE,
BY HABIT, AND BY THE SANCTION OF MULTIPLIED TREATIES. (The Editor has
ventured to print these lines in italics, because it appears, while this
selection from Burke is preparing for the press, an inflated demagogue
has not only dared to deny the claims of the duke of Wellington to be
the Hero of a nation's heart, but has also accused the illustrious Burke
of misrepresenting historical facts connected with our war in the French
revolution. On which side both the truth and integrity of history are
to be found, may safely be left to the moral decision of men who do
NOT look at History through the exclusive medium of the market, and
in listening to the voice of instruction are, at least, enabled to
distinguish the bray of an ass from the peal of a trumpet.) Is it not
true, that they were the first to declare war upon this kingdom? Is
every word in the declaration from Downing-Street, concerning their
conduct, and concerning ours and that of our allies, so obviously false,
that it is necessary to give some new-invented proofs of our good faith
in order to expunge the memory of all this perfidy?