SIR,

No man laments more sincerely than I do the unhappy differences which

have arisen among the friends of the people, and divided them from

each other. The cause undoubtedly suffers as well by the diminution of

that strength which union carries with it as by the separate loss of

personal reputation, which every man sustains when his character and

conduct are frequently held forth in odious or contemptible colours.

These differences are only advantageous to the common enemy of the

country; the hearty friends of the cause are provoked and disgusted;

the lukewarm advocate avails himself of any pretence to relapse into

that indolent indifference about everything that ought to interest

an Englishman, so unjustly dignified with the title of moderation;

the false, insidious partisan, who creates or foments the disorder,

sees the fruit of his dishonest industry ripen beyond his hopes,

and rejoices in the promise of a banquet, only delicious to such an

appetite as his own. It is time for those who really mean the _cause_

and the _people_, who have no view to private advantage, and who have

virtue enough to prefer the general good of the community to the

gratification of personal animosities,--it is time for such men to

interpose; let us try whether these fatal dissensions may not yet be

reconciled; or, if that be impracticable, let us guard at least against

the worst effects of division, and endeavour to persuade these furious

partisans, if they will not consent to draw together, to be separately

useful to that cause which they all pretend to be attached to. Honour

and honesty must not be renounced, although a thousand modes of right

and wrong were to occupy the degrees of morality between Zeno and

Epicurus. The fundamental principles of Christianity may still be

preserved, though every zealous sectary adheres to his own exclusive

doctrine, and pious ecclesiastics make it part of their religion to

persecute one another. The civil constitution, too, that legal liberty,

that general creed, which every Englishman professes, may still be

supported, though Wilkes and Horne, Townshend and Sawbridge, should

obstinately refuse to communicate; and even if the fathers of the

church, if Savile, Richmond, Camden, Rockingham, and Chatham, should

disagree in the ceremonies of their political worship, and even in

the interpretation of twenty texts in Magna Charta. I speak to the

people as one of the people. Let us employ these men in whatever

departments their various abilities are best suited to, and as much to

the advantage of the common cause as their different inclinations will

permit. They cannot serve _us_ without essentially serving themselves.

If Mr. Nash be elected, he will hardly venture, after so recent a mark

of the personal esteem of his fellow-citizens, to declare himself

immediately a courtier. The spirit and activity of the sheriffs will, I

hope, be sufficient to counteract any sinister intentions of the lord

mayor; in collision with _their_ virtue, perhaps he may take fire.

It is not necessary to exact from Mr. Wilkes the virtues of a Stoic.

_They_ were inconsistent with themselves who, almost at the same

moment, represented him as the basest of mankind, yet seemed to

expect from him such instances of fortitude and self-denial as would

do honour to an apostle; it is not, however, flattery to say, that

he is obstinate, intrepid, and fertile in expedients; that he has no

possible resource but in the public favour, is, in my judgment, a

considerable recommendation of him. I wish that every man who pretended

to popularity were in the same predicament; I wish that a retreat to

St. James’s were not so easy and open as patriots have found it. To

Mr. Wilkes there is no access. However he may be misled by passion or

imprudence, I think he cannot be guilty of a deliberate treachery to

the public; the favour of his country constitutes the shield which

defends him against a thousand daggers, desertion would disarm him....

I have too much respect for the abilities of Mr. Horne to flatter

myself that these gentlemen will ever be cordially reunited; it is

not, however, unreasonable to expect that each of them should act

his separate part with honour and integrity to the public. As for

differences of opinion upon speculative questions, if we wait until

_they_ are reconciled, the action of human affairs must be suspended

for ever. But neither are we to look for perfection in any one man, nor

for agreement among many. When Lord Chatham affirms that the authority

of the British legislature is not supreme over the colonies in the

same sense in which it is supreme over Great Britain; when Lord Camden

supposes a necessity (which the king is to judge of), and, founded upon

that necessity, attributes to the crown a legal power (not given by

the Act itself) to suspend the operation of an act of the legislature,

I listen to them both with diffidence and respect, but without the

smallest degree of conviction or assent; yet I doubt not they delivered

their real sentiments, nor ought they to be hastily condemned. I,

_too_, have a claim to the candid interpretation of my country, when

I acknowledge an involuntary compulsive assent to one very unpopular

opinion. I lament the unhappy necessity, whenever it arises, of

providing for the safety of the state by a temporary invasion of the

personal liberty of the subject. Would to God it were practicable to

reconcile these important objects in every possible situation of public

affairs! I regard the legal liberty of the meanest man in Britain as

much as my own, and would defend it with the same zeal. I know we must

stand or fall together. But I never can doubt that the community has a

right to command, as well as to purchase, the service of its members.

I see that right founded originally upon a necessity which supersedes

all argument; I see it established by usage immemorial, and admitted

by more than a tacit assent of the legislature. I conclude there is no

remedy in the nature of things for the grievance complained of; for if

there were, it must long since have been redressed. Though numberless

opportunities have presented themselves highly favourable to public

liberty, no successful attempt has ever been made for the relief of the

subject in this article. Yet it has been felt and complained of ever

since England had a navy. The conditions which constitute this right

must be taken together; separately, they have little weight. It is not

fair to argue from any abuse in the execution to the illegality of the

power, much less is a conclusion to be drawn from the navy to the land

service. A seaman can never be employed but against the enemies of his

country. The only case in which the king can have a right to arm his

subjects in general is that of a foreign force being actually landed

upon our coast. Whenever that case happens, no true Englishman will

inquire whether the king’s right to compel him to defend his country

be the custom of England or a grant of the legislature. With regard

to the press for seamen, it does not follow that the symptoms may not

be softened, although the distemper cannot be cured. Let bounties be

increased as far as the public purse can support them.[5] Still they

have a limit, and when every reasonable expense is incurred, it will be

found, in fact, that the spur of the press is wanted to give operation

to the bounty.

Upon the whole, I never had a doubt about the strict right of pressing,

until I heard that Lord Mansfield had applauded Lord Chatham for

delivering something like this doctrine in the House of Lords. That

consideration staggered me not a little. But, upon reflection, his

conduct accounts naturally for itself. He knew the doctrine was

unpopular, and was eager to fix it upon the man who is the first object

of his fear and detestation. The cunning Scotchman never speaks truth

without a fraudulent design. In council he generally affects to take

a moderate part. Besides his natural timidity, it makes part of his

political plan never to be known to recommend violent measures. When

the guards are called forth to murder their fellow-subjects, it is not

by the ostensible advice of Lord Mansfield. That odious office, his

prudence tells him, is better left to such men as Gower and Weymouth,

as Barrington and Grafton. Lord Hillsborough wisely confines _his_

firmness to the distant Americans. The designs of Mansfield are more

subtle, more effectual, and secure.--Who attacks the liberty of the

press?--Lord Mansfield. Who invades the constitutional power of

juries?--Lord Mansfield. What judge ever challenged a juryman, but

Lord Mansfield? Who was that judge, who, to save the king’s brother,

affirmed that a man of the first rank and quality, who obtains a

verdict in a suit for criminal conversation, is entitled to no greater

damages than the meanest mechanic?--Lord Mansfield? Who is it makes

commissioners of the great seal?--Lord Mansfield? Who is it forms a

decree for those commissioners, deciding against Lord Chatham,[6]

and afterwards (finding himself opposed by the judges) declares in

Parliament that he never had a doubt that the law was in direct

opposition to that decree?--Lord Mansfield. Who is he that has made

it the study and practice of his life to undermine and alter the

whole system of jurisprudence in the Court of King’s Bench?--Lord

Mansfield. There never existed a man but himself who answered exactly

to so complicated a description. Compared to these enormities, his

original attachment to the Pretender (to whom his dearest brother was

confidential secretary) is a virtue of the first magnitude. But the

hour of impeachment _will_ come, and neither he nor Grafton shall

escape me. Now let them make common cause against England and the House

of Hanover. A Stuart and a Murray should sympathize with each other.

When I refer to signal instances of unpopular opinions delivered and

maintained by men who may well be supposed to have no view but the

public good, I do not mean to renew the discussion of such opinions.

I should be sorry to revive the dormant questions of _Stamp Act_,

_Corn Bill_, or _Press Warrant_. I mean only to illustrate one

useful proposition, which it is the intention of this paper to

inculcate:--_That we should not generally reject the friendship

or services of any man because he differs from us in a particular

opinion_. This will not appear a superfluous caution if we observe the

ordinary conduct of mankind. In public affairs, there is the least

chance of a perfect concurrence of sentiment or inclination. Yet every

man is able to contribute something to the common stock, and no man’s

contribution should be rejected. If individuals have no virtues, their

vices may be of use to us. I care not with what principle the new-born

patriot is animated, if the measures he supports are beneficial to the

community. The nation is interested in his conduct. His motives are

his own. The properties of a patriot are perishable in the individual,

but there is a quick succession of subjects, and the breed is worth

preserving. The spirit of the Americans may be an useful example to

us. Our dogs and horses are English only upon English ground; but

patriotism, it seems, may be improved by transplanting. I will not

reject a bill which tends to confine parliamentary privilege within

reasonable bounds, though it should be stolen from the House of

Cavendish, and introduced by Mr. Onslow. The features of the infant are

a proof of the descent, and vindicate the noble birth from the baseness

of the adoption. I willingly accept of a sarcasm from Colonel Barré,

or a simile from Mr. Burke. Even the silent vote of Mr. Calcraft is

worth reckoning in a division. What though he riots in the plunder of

the army, and has only determined to be a patriot when he could not

be a peer? Let us profit by the assistance of such men while they are

with us, and place them, if it be possible, in the post of danger, to

prevent desertion. The wary Wedderburne, the pompous Suffolk, never

threw away the scabbard, nor ever went upon a forlorn hope. They always

treated the king’s servants as men with whom, some time or other,

they might possibly be in friendship. When a man who stands forth for

the public has gone that length from which there is no practicable

retreat, when he has given that kind of personal offence, which a pious

monarch never pardons, I then begin to think him in earnest, and that

he never will have occasion to solicit the forgiveness of his country.

But instances of a determination so entire and unreserved are rarely

met with. Let us take mankind _as they are_. Let us distribute the

virtues and abilities of individuals according to the offices they

affect, and, when they quit the service, let us endeavour to supply

their places with better men than we have lost. In this country there

are always candidates enough for popular favour. The temple of _fame_

is the shortest passage to riches and preferment.

Above all things, let me guard my countrymen against the meanness

and folly of accepting of a trifling or moderate compensation for

extraordinary and essential injuries. Our enemies treat us as the

cunning trader does the unskilful Indian. They magnify their generosity

when they give us baubles, of little proportionate value, for ivory

and gold. The same House of Commons, who robbed the constituent body

of their right of free election; who presumed to _make_ a law under

pretence of _declaring_ it; who paid our good king’s debts, without

once inquiring how they were incurred; who gave thanks for repeated

murders committed at home, and for national infamy incurred abroad;

who screened Lord Mansfield; who imprisoned the magistrates of the

metropolis for asserting the subject’s right to the protection of

the laws; who erased a judicial record, and ordered all proceedings

in a criminal suit to be suspended;--this very House of Commons have

graciously consented that their own members may be compelled to pay

their debts, and that contested elections shall for the future be

determined with some decent regard to the merits of the case. The event

of the suit is of no consequence to the crown. While parliaments are

septennial, the purchase of the sitting member or of the petitioner

makes but the difference of a day. Concessions such as these are of

little moment to the sum of things; unless it be to prove that the

worst of men are sensible of the injuries they have done us, and

perhaps to demonstrate to us the imminent danger of our situation. In

the shipwreck of the state, trifles float and are preserved, while

everything solid and valuable sinks to the bottom, and is lost for ever.