Page images
PDF
EPUB

that there is any peculiar malignity in the air of North Britain, which can operate to make them fo much worfe than they are in this and in other countries. I have never had the honour of converfing with any of them but Lord Linton and Mr Hay: and of them candour obliges me to fay, that, from what I have obferved in feveral converfations, as well as what has been the refult of fome inquiry, if your Committee be compofed of more worthy men, and more deferving the protection of government, than they are, it will give you a very high place in my esteem. But, whatever the merits of thefe gentlemen, and your other neighbours, may be, I really with you to confider, as you profels to be fo zealously affected to the Proteftant, and particularly to the Prefbyterian religion, whether it be ferioufly worth your while, for the fake of tormenting and infulting an handful of miferable Roman-Catholics that have fallen to your hands, to call down the refentment and retaliation of mighty powers, upon twenty times that numher of Proteftants of your own particular defcription? otherwife it may come to be fufpected, that you have little regard for the credit of your caufe, and the fafety of your brethren, and are only indulging the unhappy, but common propenfity of men, to an exercise of de(patic power, where-ever they are able to compafs it, wholly regardless of its confequences on the happiness of mankind. Gentlemen of your activity in public affairs, in which you have taken a voluntary part, ought rather to employ your abilities in enlightening than inBaming the people. We have had diffenfion enough already; and I heartily with, that your part of the kingdom had manifefted but one half of the zeal for the union of our Proteftant empire, on terms of equity and freedom, that has been manifefted for taking away all juftice and all liberty from our RomanCatholic fubjects at home. If there had, we fhould not have been fet down in our prefent miferable condition. At any rate, Sir, do call up your humanity, and make an effort worthy of the power and influence you have fhewn, to restore to peace, and to political and Chritian charity amongst our felves. By this you will do your country and religion more fervice, than by the fupport of the moft orthodox tenets in the world. VOL. XLI.

You will have the goodness to excufe this letter, which, though long, is written in the midst of fome hurry of bufinefs; that you will take its length as a mark of my refpect, and its plainness as a proof of my fincerity and regard.

I am, Sir, your most obedient and
humble fervant,
EDM. BURKE.
Westminster, March 30. 1779.
To Mr Patrick Bowie, merchant, E-
dinburgh.

[P.S.] Edinburgh, 13th April 1779.
Honoured Sir,

I received your much-esteemed favour of the 30th ultimo in due course of post. I do, in the fincerity of an honeft man, and a Chriftian, return you my most hearty thanks for doing the committee of which I am a member, juttice with respect to the pamphlet you imputed to them. When I took the liberty to write you the 25th ultimo, I had not feen the petition prefented by Lord Linton and Mr Hay to the Honourable House of Commons. I have now feen that petition; and if it be not mutilated by the printer as your fpeech was, your information was from this petition. Though the committee I am a member of is not named, it is plain they are fuppofed to be the authors and circulators of what they call a manifefto, &c. viz. the very pamphlet alluded to in your fpeech, which you are now fatisfied they had as little concern in as Mr Hay himself. Might I without offence remark upon this circumftance, that even parlia ment may be impofed upon by bold affertions?

I am far from thinking myself either intitled or qualified to correfpond with Mr Burke, or that any thing I can fay ought to intrude upon his time or patience, who is called to act in a fphere of life greatly above my ftation. Yet I hope it will not offend, that I endeavour to set some facts in a proper point of view that are mifreprefented in the petition above mentioned, and feem to be taken for granted by you.

ift. It feems taken for granted, that the whole opposition to the repeal of the penal laws against Popery originated and has been carried on by the committee of correfpondence of which I am a member, and by them only. This is not true. The fynods of Glenelg, of Glasgow and Air, of Perth and Stirling, of Dumfries, &c. [45.], had each declared their intention to oppose the repeal before we

appeared

appeared. Nor did any meeting of the citizens of Edinburgh affemble until there was a certainty that the intended bill was drawn here by eminent counfel, and carried up to London by Mr Hay, &c. in order to be paffed into a law. There is no notice taken of the oppofition from the fynods above mentioned in the Papifts petition, nor yet of the committee of correfpondence in Glasgow [107.], who were no lefs active than the Edinburgh committee in oppofing the repeal. May I prefume to fay here, even parliament may be misled by concealing facts?

2d. The deteftable and unlawful mobs by which Papifts have been injured is imputed to the Edinburgh committee. This is alfo unjuft. That committee, in their endeavours to prevent the repeal, and preferve the happy conftitution of their country, did nothing but what was legal and conftitutional. In place of raifing or encouraging mobs, they were at the utmost pains to prevent them. Upon a friend to the Proteftant intereft getting hold of an incendiary letter drop. ped in the ftreet late on a Saturday evening, he carried it to a member of the committee near twelve at night.- Next Lord's day, after fermon, he, with another member of the committee, waited upon one of the magiftrates, gave him that letter, which was published in the news-papers [107.]. The letter fixed the mob to Wedneíday, but they affem bled themselves on Tucfday evening.No fooner did I hear of a mob affembling, than I inftantly ran to a magiftrate, and informed him. The ma giftrates, 1 do believe, did all in their power to fupprefs the riot, and prevent the confequences. In this, as good citizens, and loyal fubjects, fuch members of the committee as were able, gave all the affiftance in their power. It never was the perfons nor properties, but the principles, of Papifts, that Proteftants opposed. I will venture to say, the mob that happened in London upon Admiral Keppel's being acquitted, may as truly be imputed to the court-martial that in juftice acquitted him, as the mobs at Edinburgh and Glasgow that have injured the Roman-Catholics, can be imputed to the committees of correfpondence in either of thofe cities, for endeavouring in a legal and conftitutional way, by humble petitions to King and Parliament, to preferve the civil and religious conftitution of their country,

purchafed by the blood of their ance ftors, and fecured by the claim of right and treaty of Union, which, in my poor opinion, are as unalterable by the powe of the state as the Magna Charta of Eng land.

The injury done the Papifts here, mifreprefented, and greatly exaggerated None of their perfons were injured: think I am certain of this fact. Th fhops of Mr Macdonald, a grocer i the head of the Canongate, Mr Lock hart, a fhoemaker in the head of th Cowgate, and Mr Smith, a baker i Potter-row, were feverally attacked t the mob. The two firft fuffered in the goods. The fhop of Mr Smith w preferved by the interpofition of his co fin David Smith, a Proteftant, and baker in the same street: he suffered r lofs. The real loffes fuftained by t Papifts, when properly afcertained, am pertuaded will be repaired.-Excep ing these three, none of the Cathol fuffered. It is true the mob broke t windows of a French tavern on t bridge, and they burnt Mr Hay's n chapel, foot of the Trunk clofe, and d ftroyed his mafs-house in Blackfri wynd. I never heard any fuffered Glasgow but a Mr Bagnal [108.], # is it alledged (that I know) he or f family were injured. I am certain committee of which I am a membe had no hand in thefe mobs. On t contrary, they looked upon attempts that kind, or in any way injuring t perfons or properties of Papifts, as m pernicious and finful in itself, and hu ful in a high degree to the legal and co ftitutional oppofition they were carryi on. I know, when Mr Macdonak fhop was attacked, fundry of his Pr teftant neighbours flew to his affiftanc and did all they could to preferve h goods. And a particular Proteftant a quaintance of my own, offered his wi and him protection in his houfe, an did take charge of such shop-goods an houfehold-furniture as they put unde his care, till they could be carried awa with fafety. I am not confcious of ha ving given a falfe colouring to any thin I have faid. So far as I could poffibl get at truth, I have truly told it.- Ho nourable Sir, may I not afk, has a tru and juft account of thefe things bee given in the Papifts petition? or is ther foundation for declaiming fo loudly maffacres and murders being committe on the poor Papifts? Indeed, Sir, th

me

moft zealous Proteftants, even the unenlightened, or Presbyterians if you will, were giving Papifts no difturbance, nor was any attempt made to put the penal laws in force against them. The bold attempt made by Mr Hay, and the pamphlet he published in answer to Dr Abernethy-Drummond [40. 589.675.], with the rash and unguarded fpeeches uttered by fome late converts to Popery here [ror.], did in my humble opinion really occafion the mob here.

I am forry you view the pamphlet our committee published in fuch an unfavourable light. I am certain none of us in tended, or indeed fuppofed that ever it could excite mobs or tumults against Papils. We certainly meant to inform our fellow Proteftants of the danger they were in, how the laws against Popery food, what would be the confequence of repealing them, and that our Soverega's fafety, and the very exiftence of our civil and religious liberty, depended upon maintaining inviolate the claim of right, and treaty of Union, for ever confirming it. Nor has any, fo far as I know, ever viewed that publication in the light you have done. It is wronging Froteftants in Scotland to accufe them of intolerance, because they wish to preferve the Revolution fettlement, the illuftrious house of Hanover, and the laws and liberties of their country. We are convinced, the principles of Papifts are inical to all these. Can we be juftly Carged as intolerant for defending our conftitutional rights? Mr Locke was to enthusiast, yet he maintains, "That Popery is quite inconfiftent with the fafety and fecurity of any Proteftant ftate." The claim of right I have taken the liberty to inclofe, will prove what Mr Locke af. firms. Mr Locke was a Whig, I am one alfo, I approve his fentiment.

I hope all friends to the Proteftant intereft here, as well as Papists, will profit by what has happened; but I can never charge myself, nor the committee I am a member of, with being the cause of thefe mobs. I am certain we were not. To hate any of Adam's race is a fin; I know it to be fo, for I have yet liberty to read my Bible, and it teaches to love our enemies. I faid before, it is not the perfons of Papifts, but the principles of Popery, the oppofition I have been concerned in is pointed at; and I hope condour will allow, I may love the man, and hate his principles.

As I have had opportunity, I have

looked into Popish books; not with the defign you impute to me. I have read feveral fpecious tracts in them; but always found absurdity, and a deficiency that nothing but my Bible could supply.

I have mentioned oftener than once, it is not the perfons of Papists, but the principles of Popery, we are oppofing. Your knowledge of mankind, Sir, will allow we may act very confiftently in oppofing the one, though we have no very intimate acquaintance with the other. Nor did I, or any of my Proteftant acquaintances, ever attempt, by any means, to fet the perfons of Papifts in an odious point of view. You will excufe me, then, when in truth I flatly deny the charge you bring against me and my friends upon this head. I know there are bigots of all denominations; nor is it ftrange they think ill of their oppofites; but what is that to the purpofe? Is it not fact, that by the Pope's authority there is an annual excommunication denounced at Rome against all heretics? in which denomination furely Proteftants are included. This is an authoritative deed of the Papal church, and its infallible head. Nor will it mend the matter to fay, the Pope is a bigotted Papift. I am fenfible, what Proteftants say of the principles and practices of Papifts, and repeating the shocking barbarities they have on many occafions committed upon Proteftants in G. Britain and Ireland, as well as in France, Germany, the valleys of Piedmont, &c. when they had power, will never be taken as a compliment or civility by Papists, whether clergy or laity. Yet the truth ought to be told. At fame time, the annual excommunication above mentioned, though juftly despised, will not be confidered as a compliment paid either Mr Burke or me as Proteftants.

Mr Hay's own doctrine anent excommunicate perfons, and how the church ought to treat them [40. 593.], is in every refpect as inhuman as that you fo justly condemned in the pamphlet imputed to the committee. See his letter to Dr Abernethy-Drummond above mentioned.-I agree with you, there is nothing in the air of North Britain that makes Papifts here different from their brethren in other places. They were at perfect quiet here, none difturbing them; they might continued fo, but for the unhappy attempt to repeal the penal laws; which I cannot help confidering as an attempt to deftroy the Revolution fettle

S2

[ocr errors]

ment, the Proteftant fucceffion in the Houfe of Hanover, and our happy conftitution, civil and sacred. As to Mr Hay and Lord Linton, I believe what you fay of them. Mr Hay I bave never been in company with, though I have known him many years, even as far back as 1745. I never heard his character as a gentleman blamed. I know he is as zealous a Catholic as I am a Proteftant, and none of us will deny our principles. Lord Linton's rank makes it impoffible for me to fay any thing of him, but that I never heard any thing to his difadvantage. The members of the committee are citizens; they are not vain enough to compare themfelves with these gentlemen; - but in loyalty to the King, and love to the civil and religious conftitution of G. Britain, I can boldly fay for myself and brethren, we will not yield the paw to the first Lord or Commoner in either Houfe of Parliament. Defpotic power we abhor. Our fears and apprehenfions, that this plan of government may be the fatal confequence of tolerating Popery, is one of the chief reafons with us for oppofing the intended repeal. - Here I cannot help wondering how it elcaped the wifdom of parliament, when they paffed the bill for England laft feffion, not to except Jefuits from any benefit from that repeal. Is it not true, that Jefuits are banished from France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy itfelf? How can it be fafe for G. Britain to receive with o. pen arms that fociety, fo abominable to the Pope himself? I own this is a paradox! as is the conduct of the leading members in oppofition appearing with fuch keennels againft the Canada bill, because it established Popery, &c. in that province, now taking the lead, and appearing keener than L-d N-h him felf to tolerate Popery in England, Scotland, and Ireland. May I not exclaim here with Mr Pope [Dr Young], "O what a miracle to man is man !"I fhall indeed be forry if our conftitutional op; pofition to the intended repeal thould bring perfecution upon Proteftants that are permitted to live in Popish kingdoms. -It will indeed be strange if it has that effect; I hope it will not. I however, in the fear of God, will do my duty as a loyal fubject, and lover of my king and country.

I had almost forgot to notice one pafage in your letter, that I perfuade myfelf upon review you will think impro

per, viz. "I really wish you to confi der, as you profess to be greatly affected to the Proteftant, and particularly to the Prefbyterian religion, whether it be worth your while, for the fake of tormenting and infulting an handful of miferable Roman Catholics that have fallen isto your hands". Honoured Sir, you mif take me and my friends indeed, wher you fuppofe us capable of what you here lay to our charge; nor has any par of our conduct given ground for thi unjuft accufation. And I am not afha med to fay, through the grace of God none fhall have it in their power to bring fuch a charge against us. Tormenting &c. have long been practifed by the in quifition in Popish countries, but nevei could be juftly charged on Prefbyterian

*

I beg pardon for being fo free, as al for the length and imperfections in gram mar and fpelling in this long letter. I am, Honoured Sir, with fincere fteem and refpect, your most obe dient and moft humble fervant, PATR. BOWIE.

[The fpelling is corrected.]

The petition for the Roman-Catholics figned by Lord Linton and Bishop Hay Ld G. Gordon [134] faid, he looked up on the oath in the English act as a mere farce; for no Roman-Catholic could, com fiftently with his religion, fwear allegian to fwear not to obey the Pope. Mr Burk to a Proteftant king; becaufe that would b had given a pompous defcription of the mat

facre of the Roman-Catholics of Scotland the only malacre his Lordship had heard of, was of fome ftone ware at Glasgow [108] Much had been faid of the lowness and ig norance of the committee of correspondence; but we are not always to judge of a caufe from the rank of the men employed in it. By whom were the doctrines of the Chriftian re ligion firft propagated? Was it not by twelve illiterate fishermen? Were not the weak and foolish things of this world often chofen to confound the great and the mighty? He would take upon him to fay, that this com pendent, and as little liable to be bribed, as mittee of correfpondence were men as indethe fixteen Scots Peers.

The Hon. Gentleman

had blamed the clergy, &c. for stirring up the people to tumult, and had read extracts from pamphlets; he begged leave to read extracts from a pamphlet published by Bp Hay [40. 589, 675.]. The impudent and falfe infinuations against the Proteftant religion in that pamphlet, had, in his opinion, done more to inflame the people, than all the publications of the clergy and committee.

AME.

AMERICA. [90.]

A letter from Lt-Gen. Burgoyne to Henry Lawrens, Efq; Prefident of the Congress, dated, Cambridge, Feb. 11. 1778.

[This and other letters, &c. were prefent ed to the House of Commons, Dec. 15. 1778.] SIR,

HAVING received from Maj.-Gen. Heath, on the 4th inft. minutes of the report of a committee of Congrefs, and confiderations and refolves fubfequent thereupon, dated Jan. 8. 1778 [40. 183.], I think my felf called upon by public and private honour to offer a reply to fuch parts as regard my perfonal conduct, together with other matters arifing from the explanation of facts.

My tate of health, and the anxieties of my fituation, occafioned by fome extraordinary occurrences here, render me very unfit for the undertaking; but I chofe rather to hazard it in an imperfect thate, than to procraftinate in a circum. tance that feems to me big with the molt important confequences; and I commit the fubfequent paper, Sir, to your hand, as the channel that I concive to be moft proper to lay it speedily before the Congress.

The first article in the proceedings referred to, ftates, "That numbers of the cartouch-boxes, and. feveral other articles of military accoutrements, annexed to the perfons of the non-commiffioned officers and foldiers in Gen. Burgoyne's army, have not been delivered up; and that, agreeable to the spirit of the convention, and the technical interpretation of the word armis, they ought to have been delivered up ;" and the refolves arifing from this article of the report expreffes, "That as many of the cartouch-boxes, and feveral other articles of military accoutrements, annexed to the perfons of the non-commiffioned officers and foldiers included in the convention of Saratoga, have not been delivered up, the convention, on the part of the British army, has not been strictly complied with." I defire to refer in this matter to the recollection of Gen. Gates; and I rely upon his juftice to vindicate my af fertion, That neither cartouch-boxes, nor any other article of accoutrements, which, agreeable to the fpirit of the convention, or the "technical" or poffible interpretation, could come under the word arms, were refufed to be delivered

up, or clandeftinely carried away. The cartouch boxes, viz. thofe that are technically interpreted arms, or military ftores, becaufe delivered from the Tower of London with every new fet of firelocks and bayonets, were by most regiments left in Canada, as lefs convenient than pouches: the cartouch-boxes that remained were only those of the light-infantry companies; feveral of which were actually depofited with the arms; and the very few others were carried away under the eyes and with the knowledge of Gen. Gates.

The Congrefs having dwelt particularly upon this charge, both in the report and the refolve, I truft I am justifiable in preffing further upon their attention the report of the officer who carried a meffage to the troops, in confequence of a converfation between Gen. Gates and Maj. Gen. Phillips, which clearly demonftrates the firft fenfe Gen. Gates entertained of the whole tranfaction; and the report of Lt-Col. Kingston, the deputy adjutant-general †, which refers to the time when the troops paffed by Gen. Gates on their march, with all their accoutrements upon their backs, fome hours after the above meffage, makes the General's participation, con

Report of Lieut. Noble, afting aid-de-camp to
Maj.-Gen Phillips.

In the course of converfation at Saratoga, Oct. 17. 1777, I heard Maj.-Gen. Gates fay, that he did not mean to injure private property; and as the colonels would fuffer by the lofs of their accoutrements, the foldiers might take them. I was the officer fent to the commanding officers to tell them, the foldiers were to keep their accoutrements; they had taken them off with a defign to the meffage, they put them on again. This leave them behind, and upon my delivering was before dinner. Maj. Gen. Phillips and Maj. Gen. Gates were together.

WM NOBLE, Lieut. 21ft reg.

Conversation between Maj.-Gen. Gates and
Lt-Col. Kingston.

At the convention of Saratoga, O&. 17. 1777, when the troops marched with their accoutrements, Gen. Gates asked me, if it was not customary for arms and accoutrements to go together.-Replying, that the accou trements were the colonels, and private property, Gen. Gates faid, Very true; they are yours as fuch, and because we have not mentioned them in the convention.

ROBERT KINGSTON, D. A. G.

fent,

« PreviousContinue »