is infinitely less dangerous than when excluded and persecuted into importance. In office, the demagogue is fettered by the known extent of his power, his views are restrained and his proposals overruled by his colleagues; but when excluded and kept in a private condition, he stands alone; his power being illegal knows no limits, and, as he cannot take a single step without an infringement of the constitution, as, to be active at all, he must come under the animadversion of the law, he little heeds how desperate may be his measures. Suppose him to be actuated by the ambition of acquiring honours; which is wisest, to cut off the possibility of his gratifying that ambition without the subversion of the state, or to lure his attention from more dangerous objects, by leaving certain places in view, which, when he attains them, disarm him of half his power? When Wilkes was forced into popularity by expulsions and exclusions from Parliament, his power over the populace was little less absolute than that of eastern despots; they yoked themselves like slaves to his coach; they rescued him out of the hands of the ministers of justice; and, when afterwards he voluntarily surrendered himself up, they besieged his prison, and shed their blood in his cause: but the moment he was admitted into the House of Commons, his power fell to be that of a single vote in a small minority; for none of the talents which make a demagogue important with the multitude have much influence in a senate. What avails it ten members of a council that each is a Demosthenes in eloquence, in zeal, and in patriotism, if they have to oppose the silent votes of eleven pedestrian senators? Adieu. Yours most affectionately, LETTER XIX. S. R. Dear Roget, Gray's Inn, March 24. 1782. Though I have received your and my dear Kitty's letter of the 2d of this month, I must postpone answering it, till I have given you some account of the fortunate event which has taken place here since the date of my last letter. : You may remember I then talked of a motion that was to be made that day in the House of Commons, and from which much was expected. The motion was for a removal of the whole administration it was lost by 226 votes against 216. The Friday following, another motion was made, different in form, but the same in substance; that, too, was lost by 236 against 227. How the ministers began already to tremble for their places you may judge by the topics on which they were defended in the debate; the principal of which were, that the ministers were not the authors of the American war, which, it was admitted, was the source of all our calamities; that that war was the unavoidable consequence of measures, adopted before any of the present ministers came into office, particularly the Stamp Duty and the Declaratory Act; that to enforce our right of taxation over the Americans * Roman senators who voted but did not speak were called Pedarii, from their expressing no opinion but with their feet. was not a project of the ministers, but of the whole nation, expressed by their representative, the House of Commons: that if the present ministry were now to be removed, they must be succeeded by men who entertained the most dangerous and unconstitutional principles of government, and who had pledged themselves to the nation to reduce those principles into practice; (for Charles Fox had protested a few days before, that, if ever he came into office, he would act upon the same principles which he had always professed in opposition, and that he should hold any man who did otherwise in the most sovereign contempt and abhorrence): that we should soon see half the boroughs in the kingdom stripped of their rights of election, Parliaments made triennial or even annual, and the populace assembled to give their advice in matters of legislation and government: that unanimity was now more than ever requisite: that it was unanimity to which we owed all our success in the last war: that a change of ministers ought to be effected, not by turning out one party and bringing in another, which was to aggravate, not to heal our divisions; but by a coalition of all parties, who, uniting cordially in the common cause, might destroy the very name of opposition. To all this it was answered, that the question was not now who were the authors of the war, but whether, after that series of disasters and disgraces which had overwhelmed us under the present administration, it was proper to intrust them any longer with the conduct of our affairs: that the sanction of Parliament, under which the ministers sought to shield themselves, had been obtained by deceit and misrepresentation of our having innumerable friends in America, of all the powers of Europe being resolved to remain at peace, of the certainty of our being always able to command a fleet equal to that of the House of Bourbon: that, whatever the political principles of a new ministry, no innovation could be established till after it had received, in the constitutional form, the assent of the King and both Houses of Parliament: that unanimity was desirable, but not an unanimity obstinately to pursue impracticable schemes of ambition, and complete that ruin which was so far advanced: that the unanimity of the last war was produced by no coalition, but by discarding an obnoxious administration and forming a new one agreeably to the wishes of the people: that a coalition with the men now in office was impossible, for what the nation required was, not a change of men, but of system; and that the government should no longer be founded on corruption, but on the affections and confidence of the people. Upon this motion being lost, notice was given that another motion to the same effect would be made upon the Wednesday following. On that day, accordingly, the House met; but, just as the motion was about to be made, Lord North rose and informed the House that the business they were going to proceed upon was quite unnecessary, as the King had come to a resolution to change all his ministers. He, therefore, moved that the House might be adjourned to Monday (to-morrow), in order that the new ministry might be properly arranged. We are all very impatient to know who will compose this new administration: I will send you a list of them if it be settled before I close this letter, for it is greatly apprehended that the House will be obliged to adjourn again to-morrow. I am not surprised that you so much admire Burke's speech; but, though it is somewhat cruel to tell you so, it is far inferior to some of his later compositions, particularly to a speech made at Bristol at the last election, in justification of his own conduct, which is perhaps the first piece of oratory in our language. The passages which you pointed out are those which I the most admire, particularly that of General Conway's quitting the House of Commons after the repeal of the Stamp Act. Certainly, never had any writer a more luxuriant imagination than Burke; he is more a poet than an orator; but do not you think that he indulges that poetical imagination to a fault? When he has once hold of a beautiful image, he forgets that its only use is to illustrate; the ornament becomes with him the subject, and he employs many phrases to decorate and enrich the figure, while the matter of his speech is quite neglected. I think I could point out several instances of this in the speech I sent you* if I had it before me. One I recollect in the character of Lord Chatham's second administration, which he calls a motley composition, a piece of joining work, a tesselated pavement, making several other allusions of the same kind; and, in the very first words of his speech, where an orator ought surely to be very * Burke's Speech on American Taxation, April 19. 1774. |