Page images
PDF
EPUB

soon make peace. How goes on poor Ireland? Are the Protestants and Catholics still at war? Have they discovered that the spirit of loyalty is confined to the wine and not to be found in the wafer? No cup-no allegiance. That a good wine merchant should be of that opinion, I am not surprised; but that any other man should, amazes me. Bigotry is going down here-the activity of party could not excite a Protestant cry in this country. How is Wallace? has he his place in the country? I am sure he is advancing in business. Ponsonby was greatly admired in England, and has secured the ear of the House of Commons-he is established there. The debate on the Catholic question is published-but observe some of the speeches never were spoken-particularly the attacks on me, there was no attack whatever.-Yours most truly, H. GRATTAN.

MR. FOX TO MR. GRATTAN.

St. Ann's Hill, 16th July, 1805.

MY DEAR SIR,-I ought perhaps sooner to have acquainted you, that the very day after you spoke to me, I saw Fitzwilliam, who confirmed what I mentioned to you, and said that, exclusive of the satisfaction it affords him to be the means of your sitting among us, it would be the greatest possible inconvenience to him, to have another vacancy at Malton at present. The manner in which Pitt. has filled up the vacancies seems to me a decisive proof that he can have no serious thoughts of sincerely attempting a union of parties, but I am told his friends give out that no such inference is to be drawn, on the other hand it must be confessed that, if he was too weak before, he has not gained any accession, either of strength or reputation, by his new arrangements.

It is understood that he has made it up with Foster, who is to have his own way in every thing, whether Lord Hardwicke consent or not.

Mrs. Fox desires to be remembered to you, and joins with me in best regards to Mrs. G. and the whole family. She and I much regret that we had not the opportunity of seeing you and them here, and not the less so (for vanity will have her rights and dues) because we think this The Irish lawyer.

† By Sir George Hill, published not spoken, as before mentioned.

place looks, this year, in peculiar beauty.-I am, very truly, my dear Sir, yours ever,

Henry Grattan, Esq., Harrowgate, Yorkshire.

C. J. Fox.

The following letters contain some useful and interesting remarks on the study of history. This subject Mr. Grattan always recommended, not only by precept, but by practice; he was in the habit of abstracting and comparing the histories of divers nations-modern and ancient-with great care and attention: this course he pursued to the last. The Irish, English, Greek, and Roman histories were read and studied by him. with the most persevering industry; and he regularly allotted a portion of each day for going over the remarks and observations he had made on this subject. Unfortunately, most of them have been lost; but what remains is of value.

MR. GRATTAN TO JAMES GRATTAN.

Harrowgate, July 14th, 1805.

MY DEAR JAMES,-Do not forget to read out loud every day some portion of Homer, and Milton, and Demosthenes, it would serve Henry to do the same. You will have time to read English, you know the books, I told you before. The great heads of the history of the present reign are the Middlesex election, the American war, the Irish revolution of '82, the French revolution and war. The great heads in the reigns preceding are, the civil war between the King and the Parliament, and the revolution. You should consult often what you have read and written on those subjects. Burke and Bolingbroke will give you style, and Junius, the style of the latter would answer better for a public ear, because it is shorter, and was written for the public, not for the closet.-Ever yours,

MR. GRATTAN TO JAMES GRATTAN.

H. G.

Harrowgate, 28th July, 1805.

MY DEAR JAMES,-The reason why we began the English history with the reign of Charles the First, is,

[blocks in formation]

that the events which preceded that reign, govern very little the events which followed; for instance, the disputes between the houses of York and Lancaster, and the claims of Mary to the crown of Elizabeth had exhausted their effects. But the religious, and still more the political animosities, which burst forth in Charles the First's reign, continue to effect the political world even to this day. They produced the civil war; they produced the cabal of Charles the Second; they produced the violence of the Whigs, near and before the close of his reign; they produced the still greater violence of James the Second, and, of course, the revolution, under whose consequences we live at this day. They did more, they caused a number of British dissenters to settle in America, who fled from the persecutions of Charles the First, to the free exercise of their civil and religious rights in another hemisphere, and there planted those principles, which afterwards resisted the violence of England, and established their independence in a century after. They did more, they caused the French revolution, because they communicated to the French, who came to assist the Americans, those impulses which the French afterwards indulged in to such fatal excess. From the beginning of that reign_until the famous remonstrance you may pronounce Parliament in the right; for instance, in refusing a larger supply; in proceeding against the Duke of Buckingham; in forming the petition of right; in condemning arbitrary loans; arbitrary imprisonments; courts of high commission of star chamber; army without authority of Parliament; ship money; the judges who allowed it; and, finally, in proceeding against Lord Strafford (notwithstanding Hume on that subject). The principles on which they proceeded have been recognised as the rights of the subject, and a part of the fundamental law of the land; those principles compose principally the Declaration of Right, passed at the revolution, which is little more than the petition of right, rendered somewhat more minute and more comprehensive, and it is called a Declaration because it does not introduce a new law, but only declares what was before the law of the land, and the right of the subject. But there was another victory those principles obtained, without which their victory at the revolution had been in vain, namely, they proved afterwards an excellent practical system of government: had the people of England,

after the revolution, like the French, ran wild, they would, like the French, have put down the principles of their revolution, and the friends of James the Second would have said, that the doctrine of the Whigs, however fine in theory, was not fit for mankind. The English, therefore, owe their liberties to the moderation of their ancestors at and after the revolution, who avoided the example of their predecessors at the time of the famous remonstrance.Ever yours.

MR. GRATTAN TO JAMES GRATTAN.

H. G.

Harrowgate, 29th July, 1805. MY DEAR JAMES,-I omitted to mention the grounds on which Hume defends the conduct of Charles I. First, he justifies the acts of the king, on the precedent of his predecessors, the house of Tudor, but he forgets that those precedents of the house of Tudor were violations of law, and his argument then is this, that the violations in one reign become in the succeeding reign laws; his second fundamental error is, that he denies the claims of the people to be free from taxes and arrests, except such as are warranted by parliament or legal trial, because under the reigns of the house of Tudor they were oppressed by both, but they were oppressed by both contrary to law. His argument then is, that infringement of right in one reign becomes in the succeeding a repeal of it; he makes innovations, laws; and he makes laws, innovations. But murder is not lawful more than oppression because it has not always been punished, neither does a man lose hist right to his estate or his liberty because his ancestor has been robbed of both; rely on it, this principle will refute the greater part of Mr. Hume's defence of Charles I. The house of Tudor was arbitrary, and the reason was to be found in the weakness of the country, not the law of the land. The country had been exhausted by civil wars between the houses of York and Lancaster; further, the nobles had lost their strength by parting with their property, and the people had not grown into strength by acquisition, while the balance was trepidating, the king was absolute, and the laws were not so; but in Charles I.'s time, the people had become rich as the nobles had become poor. Lord Clarendon mentions that the property of the House of Commons in Charles I.'s time, greatly ex

that the events which preceded that reign, govern very little the events which followed; for instance, the disputes between the houses of York and Lancaster, and the claims of Mary to the crown of Elizabeth had exhausted their effects. But the religious, and still more the political animosities, which burst forth in Charles the First's reign, continue to effect the political world even to this day. They produced the civil war; they produced the cabal of Charles the Second; they produced the violence of the Whigs, near and before the close of his reign; they produced the still greater violence of James the Second, and, of course, the revolution, under whose consequences we live at this day. They did more, they caused a number of British dissenters to settle in America, who fled from the persecutions of Charles the First, to the free exercise of their civil and religious rights in another hemisphere, and there planted those principles, which afterwards resisted the violence of England, and established their independence in a century after. They did more, they caused the French revolution, because they communicated to the French, who came to assist the Americans, those impulses which the French afterwards indulged in to such fatal excess. From the beginning of that reign_until the famous remonstrance you may pronounce Parliament in the right; for instance, in refusing a larger supply; in proceeding against the Duke of Buckingham; in forming the petition of right; in condemning arbitrary loans; arbitrary imprisonments; courts of high commission of star chamber; army without authority of Parliament; ship money; the judges who allowed it; and, finally, in proceeding against Lord Strafford (notwithstanding Hume on that subject). The principles on which they proceeded have been recognised as the rights of the subject, and a part of the fundamental law of the land; those principles compose principally the Declaration of Right, passed at the revolution, which is little more than the petition of right, rendered somewhat more minute and more comprehensive, and it is called a Declaration because it does not introduce a new law, but only declares what was before the law of the land, and the right of the subject. But there was another victory those principles obtained, without which their victory at the revolution had been in vain, namely, they proved afterwards an excellent practical system of government: had the people of England,

« PreviousContinue »