His Last Words on the Scaffold

There are two main points of suspicion that his majesty hath conceived against me, wherein his majesty can not be satisfied, which I desire to clear and resolve you in. One is, that his majesty hath been informed that I have had some plot with France, and his majesty had some reason to induce him thereunto. One reason that his majesty had to conjecture so was that when I came back from Guiana, being come to Plymouth, I endeavored to go to Rochelle, which was because I would fain have made my peace before I came to England. Another reason was, that upon my flight I did intend to fly to France for saving of my life, having had some terror from above. A third reason was, the French agent’s coming to me, and it was reported I had commission from the king of France.

Sir Walter Raleigh (1554?–1618)

(1618)

Born in 1552, died in 1618; commanded, in 1580, an English company in Ireland, where he introduced the potato in 1584; a captain of the guard in 1587; sent expeditions to Virginia in 1584, ’85, ’87, and ’90; served against the Armada in 1588; explored the Orinoco in 1595; commanded a squadron which destroyed the Spanish fleet at Cadiz in 1596; accused of treason and sent to the Tower in 1603, writing while there his “History of the World”; commanded an unsuccessful expedition to South America in 1616; condemned and executed in 1618.



I THANK my God heartily that He hath brought me into the light to die, and not suffered me to die in the dark prison of the Tower, where I have suffered a great deal of adversity and a long sickness; and I thank God that my fever hath not taken me at this time, as I prayed God it might not.

There are two main points of suspicion that his majesty hath conceived against me, wherein his majesty can not be satisfied, which I desire to clear and resolve you in. One is, that his majesty hath been informed that I have had some plot with France, and his majesty had some reason to induce him thereunto. One reason that his majesty had to conjecture so was that when I came back from Guiana, being come to Plymouth, I endeavored to go to Rochelle, which was because I would fain have made my peace before I came to England. Another reason was, that upon my flight I did intend to fly to France for saving of my life, having had some terror from above. A third reason was, the French agent’s coming to me, and it was reported I had commission from the king of France.

But this I say: For a man to call God to witness to a falsehood at any time is a grievous sin! And what shall we hope for at the Day of Judgment? But to call God to witness to a falsehood at the time of death is far more grievous and impious, and there is no hope for such a one. And what should I expect that am now going to render an account of my faith? I do, therefore, call the Lord to witness, as I hope to be saved, and as I hope to be seen in His kingdom (which will be within this quarter of an hour), that I never had any commission from the king of France, nor any treaty with the French agent, nor with any from the French king; neither knew I that there was an agent, or what he was, till I met him in my gallery at my lodging unlooked for. If I speak not truth, O Lord, let me never come into thy glory!

The second suspicion was, that his majesty hath been informed that I should speak dishonorably and disloyally of him. But my accuser was a base Frenchman, a kind of chemical fellow—one whom I knew to be perfidious; for being drawn into this action at Winchester, in which my hand was touched, and he being sworn to secrecy overnight, he revealed it in the morning.

But in this I speak now, what have I to do with kings? I have nothing to do with them, neither do I fear them. I have now to do with God; therefore, as I hope to be saved at the last day, I never spoke dishonorably, disloyally, nor dishonestly of the king, neither to this Frenchman, nor to any other; neither had I ever, in all my life, a thought of ill against his majesty; therefore I can not but think it strange that this Frenchman, being so base, so mean a fellow, should be so far credited; and so much for this point. I have dealt truly, and I hope I shall be believed. I confess I did attempt to escape, and I did dissemble, and made myself sick at Salisbury, but I hope it was no sin. The prophet David did make himself a fool, and did suffer spittle to fall upon his beard, to escape the hands of his enemies, and it was not imputed to him as sin, and I did it to prolong time till his majesty came, hoping for some commiseration from him.

I forgave this Frenchman and Sir Lewis Stukely, and have received the sacrament this morning from Mr. Dean; and I do also forgive all the world. But this much I am bound in charity to speak of this man, that all men may take good heed of him; Sir Lewis Stukely, my kinsman and keeper, hath affirmed that I should tell him that I did tell Lord Carew and Lord Doncaster of my pretended escape. It was not likely that I should acquaint two privy counselors of my purpose; neither would I tell him, for he left me six, seven, eight, nine, or ten days, to go where I listed, while he rode about the country. Again, he accused me that I should tell him that Lord Carew and Lord Doncaster would meet me in France, which was never my speech or thought.

Thirdly, he accused me that I showed him a letter and that I should give him £11,000 or £10,000. I merely showed him a letter, that if he would go with me his debts should be paid when he was gone: neither had I £1,000, for if I had had so much I could have done better with it and made my peace otherwise.

Fourthly, when I came to Sir Edward Pelham, who had been sometimes a follower of mine, who gave me good entertainment, he gave out that I had received some dram of poison in Sir Edward Pelham’s house; when I answered that I feared no such thing—for I was well assured of them in the house. Now, God forgive him, for I do, and I desire God to forgive him. I will not only say, God is the God of revenge, but I desire God to forgive him, as I hope to be forgiven.

I will speak but a word or two more, because I will not trouble Mr. Sheriff too long.

There was a report spread that I should rejoice at the death of Lord Essex, and that I should take tobacco in his presence; when, as I protest, I shed tears at his death, though I was one of the contrary faction; and, at the time of his death, I was all the while in the armory at the further end where I could but see him. I was sorry that I was not with him, for I heard he had a desire to see me and be reconciled to me. So that I protest I lamented his death, and good cause had I, for after he was gone I was little beloved.

And now I entreat you all to join with me in prayer, that the great God of Heaven, whom I have grievously offended, being a man full of all vanity, and having lived a sinful life, in all sinful callings, having been a soldier, a captain, a sea captain, and a courtier, which are all places of wickedness and vice; that God, I say, would forgive me, cast away my sins from me, and receive me into everlasting life. So I take my leave of you all, making my peace with God.

Note: Delivered in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster, October 29, 1618. When Raleigh’s head lay on the block awaiting the ax, some one remarked that it ought to be turned to the East. “What matter,” said he, “how the head lie, if the heart be right?” Raleigh’s writings, in a complete edition of eight octavo volumes, were published at Oxford in 1829. Read more!

On the Right to Tax America

IT is a long time, Mr. Speaker, since I have attended in Parliament. When the resolution was taken in this House to tax America, I was ill in bed. If I could have endured to be carried in my bed—so great was the agitation of my mind for the consequences—I would have solicited some kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony against it! It is now an act that has passed. (Note: The Stamp Act had passed and become a law on March 22, 1765. Two weeks after Chatham spoke Franklin was examined in the House of Commons. For Franklin’s examination see volume eight.) I would speak with decency of every act of this House; but I must beg the indulgence of the House to speak of it with freedom.

William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1708–78)

(1766)

Born in 1708, died in 1778; entered Parliament in 1735; attacked the Government in 1755, and removed from office; Secretary of State in 1756–1757; again Secretary of State in the Coalition Ministry of 1757–1761, when he adopted vigorous measures in the Seven Years’ War; Prime Minister in 1766; resigned on account of ill health in 1768; made his last appearance in Parliament in 1778.



IT is a long time, Mr. Speaker, since I have attended in Parliament. When the resolution was taken in this House to tax America, I was ill in bed. If I could have endured to be carried in my bed—so great was the agitation of my mind for the consequences—I would have solicited some kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony against it! It is now an act that has passed. (Note: The Stamp Act had passed and become a law on March 22, 1765. Two weeks after Chatham spoke Franklin was examined in the House of Commons. For Franklin’s examination see volume eight.) I would speak with decency of every act of this House; but I must beg the indulgence of the House to speak of it with freedom.

I hope a day may soon be appointed to consider the state of the nation with respect to America. I hope gentlemen will come to this debate with all the temper and impartiality that his majesty recommends, and the importance of the subject requires; a subject of greater importance than ever engaged the attention of this House, that subject only excepted, when, near a century ago, it was the question whether you yourselves were to be bond or free. In the meantime, as I can not depend upon my health for any future day (such is the nature of my infirmities), I will beg to say a few words at present, leaving the justice, the equity, the policy, the expediency of the act to another time.

I will only speak to one point—a point which seems not to have been generally understood, I mean to the right. Some gentlemen seem to have considered it as a point of honor. If gentlemen consider it in that light, they leave all measures of right and wrong, to follow a delusion that may lead to destruction. It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this kingdom, equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws, and equally participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans are the sons, not the bastards, of England! Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone.

In ancient days, the Crown, the barons, and the clergy possessed the lands. In those days, the barons and the clergy gave and granted to the Crown. They gave and granted what was their own! At present, since the discovery of America, and other circumstances permitting, the Commons are become the proprietors of the land. The Church (God bless it!) has but a pittance. The property of the lords, compared with that of the Commons, is as a drop of water in the ocean; and this House represents these Commons, the proprietors of the lands; and those proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants. When, therefore, in this House we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what do we do? “We, your majesty’s Commons for Great Britain, give and grant to your majesty”—what? Our own property! No! “We give and grant to your majesty” the property of your majesty’s Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms.

The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown and the peers are equally legislative powers with the Commons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation, the Crown and the peers have rights in taxation as well as yourselves; rights which they will claim, which they will exercise, whenever the principle can be supported by power.

There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation was augmented to a greater number! Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough?—a borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten part of the Constitution. It can not continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation.

The Commons of America represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it! At the same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws, by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation, in manufactures, in every thing, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent.

As Pitt sat down, George Grenville secured the floor and said: “I can not understand the difference between external and internal taxes. They are the same in effect, and differ only in name. That this kingdom has the sovereign, the supreme legislative power over America, is granted; it can not be denied; and taxation is a part of that sovereign power. It is one branch of the legislation. It is, it has been, exercised over those who are not, who were never represented. It is exercised over the India Company, the merchants of London, the proprietors of the stocks, and over many great manufacturing towns. It was exercised over the county palatine of Chester, and the bishopric of Durham, before they sent any representatives to Parliament. I appeal for proof to the preambles of the acts which gave them representatives; one in the reign of Henry VIII., the other in that of Charles II.

“When I proposed to tax America I asked the House if any gentleman would object to the right; I repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. Protection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is bound to yield obedience. If not, tell me when the Americans were emancipated? When they want the protection of this kingdom, they are always very ready to ask it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most full and ample manner. The nation has run herself into an immense debt to give them their protection; and now, when they are called upon to contribute a small share toward the public expense—an expense arising from themselves—they renounce your authority, insult your officers, and break out, I might almost say, into open rebellion. The seditious spirit of the colonies owes its birth to the factions in this House. Gentlemen are careless of the consequences of what they say, provided it answers the purposes of opposition. We were told we trod on tender ground. We were bid to expect disobedience. What is this but telling the Americans to stand out against the law, to encourage their obstinacy with the expectation of support from hence? ‘Let us only hold out a little,’ they would say, ‘our friends will soon be in power.’ Ungrateful people of America! Bounties have been extended to them. When I had the honor of serving the Crown, while you yourselves were loaded with an enormous debt, you gave bounties on their lumber, on their iron, their hemp, and many other articles. You have relaxed in their favor the Act of Navigation, that palladium of the British commerce; and yet I have been abused in all the public papers as an enemy to the trade of America. I have been particularly charged with giving orders and instructions to prevent the Spanish trade, and thereby stopping the channel by which alone North America used to be supplied with cash for remittances to this country. I defy any man to produce any such orders or instructions. I discouraged no trade but what was illicit, what was prohibited by an act of Parliament. I desire a West India merchant (Mr. Long), well known in the city, a gentleman of character, may be examined. He will tell you that I offered to do every thing in my power to advance the trade of America. I was above giving an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place it becomes one to wipe off the aspersion.”

When Grenville ceased, several members got up to speak, though Pitt started to rise. The House became clamorous for Pitt! Pitt! so that the speaker was obliged to call them to order.

I do not apprehend, said Pitt, I am speaking twice. I did expressly reserve a part of my subject, in order to save the time of this House; but I am compelled to proceed in it. I do not speak twice; I only finish what I designedly left imperfect But if the House is of a different opinion, far be it from me to indulge a wish of transgression against order. I am content, if it be your pleasure, to be silent Here he paused. But the House shouted: Go on! go on! and he proceeded:

Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The gentleman tells us, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest. I come not here armed at all points, with law cases and acts of Parliament, with the statute book doubled down in dog’s ears, to defend the cause of liberty. If I had, I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham. I would have cited them to show that, even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham? He might have taken a higher example in Wales—Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated. I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman. I know his abilities. I have been obliged to his diligent researches. But, for the defense of liberty, upon a general principle, upon a constitutional principle, it is a ground on which I stand firm—on which I dare meet any man. The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed, and are not represented—the India company, merchants, stockholders, manufacturers. Surely many of these are represented in other capacities, as owners of land, or as freemen of boroughs. It is a misfortune that more are not equally represented. But they are all inhabitants, and as such, are they not virtually represented? Many have it in their option to be actually represented. They have connections with those that elect, and they have influence over them. The gentleman mentioned the stockholders. I hope he does not reckon the debts of the nation as a part of the national estate.

Since the accession of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. None of these thought, or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some, when I had the honor to serve his majesty, to propose to me to burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous, an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If not, he has misapplied the national treasures!

I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both.

If the gentleman does not understand the difference between external and internal taxes, I can not help it. There is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purposes of raising a revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accommodation of the subject; although, in the consequences, some revenue may incidentally arise from the latter.

The gentleman asks, When were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were they made slaves? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the honor of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of information which I derived from my office. I speak, therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be bold to affirm that the profits to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies, through all its branches, is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly through the last war. (Note: The war with France, which, in its American phase, virtually ended with the victory of Wolfe at Quebec in 1759.) The estates that were rented at two thousand pounds a year, threescore years ago, are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier come with a boast, that he can bring “a pepper-corn” into the exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation? I dare not say how much higher these profits may be augmented. Omitting the immense increase of people, by natural population, in the northern colonies, and the emigration from every part of Europe, I am convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let not an English minister become a custom-house officer for Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong! Much may be amended for the general good of the whole!

Does the gentleman complain he has been misrepresented in the public prints? It is a common misfortune. In the Spanish affair of the last war, I was abused in all the newspapers for having advised his majesty to violate the laws of nations with regard to Spain. The abuse was industriously circulated even in handbills. If administration did not propagate the abuse, administration never contradicted it. I will not say what advice I did give the king. My advice is in writing, signed by myself, in the possession of the Crown. But I will say what advice I did not give to the king. I did not advise him to violate any of the laws of nations.

The gentleman must not wonder he was not contradicted when, as minister, he asserted the right of Parliament to tax America. I know not how it is, but there is a modesty in this House which does not choose to contradict a minister. Even your chair, sir, looks too often toward St. James’. I wish gentlemen would get the better of this modesty. If they do not, perhaps the collective body may begin to abate of its respect for the representative. Lord Bacon has told me that a great question would not fail of being agitated at one time or another. I was willing to agitate such a question at the proper season, viz., that of the German war (Note: The Seven Years’ War, or, as it is sometimes called, the Third Silesian War of Frederick the Great.) my German war, they called it! Every session I called out, Has anybody any objection to the German war? Nobody would object to it, one gentleman only excepted, since removed to the Upper House by succession to an ancient barony. He told me he did not like a German war. I honored the man for it, and was sorry when he was turned out of his post.

A great deal has been said without doors of the power, of the strength of America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a company of foot that has served in America, out of which you may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I am one who will lift up my hands against it.

In such a cause, your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the State, and pull down the Constitution along with her. Is this your boasted peace—not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard, but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? Will you quarrel with yourselves, now the whole house of Bourbon is united against you; while France disturbs your fisheries in Newfoundland, embarrasses your slave trade to Africa, and withholds from your subjects in Canada their property stipulated by treaty; while the ransom for the Manilas is denied by Spain, and its gallant conqueror basely traduced into a mean plunderer—a gentleman whose noble and generous spirit would do honor to the proudest grandee of the country?

The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will undertake for America that she will follow the example. There are two lines in a ballad of Prior’s, of a man’s behavior to his wife, so applicable to you and your colonies, that I can not help repeating them:

“Be to her faults a little blind;
Be to her virtues very kind.”

Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately. That the reason for the repeal be assigned—viz., because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking money from their pockets without consent.

Note: Delivered in the House of Commons, January 14, 1766, and reported by Sir Robert Dean and Lord Charlemond. Here slightly abridged. Pitt, partially recovered from his illness, had then just returned from Bath. Although in sympathy with the Rockingham ministry, he had refused to become a member of it. In August of this year he was made a peer. Read more!

At His Trial for High Treason

I AM so far satisfied in my conscience and understanding that it neither is nor can be treason, either against the law of nature, or the law of the land, either malum per se, or malum prohibitum; that on the contrary, it is the duty I owed to God the Universal King, and to his majesty that now is, and to the Church and people of God in these nations, and to the innocent blood of all that have been slain in this quarrel. Nothing, it seems, will now serve, unless by the condemnation passed upon my person, they be rendered to posterity murderers and rebels, and that upon record in a court of justice in Westminster Hall.

Sir Henry Vane (1613–62)

(1662)

Born in 1612, died in 1662; came to Massachusetts in 1635; Governor of Massachusetts 1636–1637; returned to England and entered Parliament in 1640; made a Commissioner to negotiate the Solemn League and Covenant with Scotland in 1643; member of Council of State in 1649; imprisoned for an attack on the Protectorate of Cromwell in 1656; arrested and executed on a charge of treason in 1660.


I AM so far satisfied in my conscience and understanding that it neither is nor can be treason, either against the law of nature, or the law of the land, either malum per se, or malum prohibitum; that on the contrary, it is the duty I owed to God the Universal King, and to his majesty that now is, and to the Church and people of God in these nations, and to the innocent blood of all that have been slain in this quarrel. Nothing, it seems, will now serve, unless by the condemnation passed upon my person, they be rendered to posterity murderers and rebels, and that upon record in a court of justice in Westminster Hall. And this would inevitably have followed if I had voluntarily given up this cause, without asserting their and my innocency; by which I should have pulled that blood upon my own head, which now I am sure lies at the door of others, and in particular of those that knowingly and precipitately shall imbrue their hands in my innocent blood, under whatsoever form or pretext of justice.

My case is evidently new and unusual, that which never happened before; wherein there is not only much of God and of His glory, but all that is dear and of true value to all the good people in these three nations. And, as I have said, it can not be treason against the law of nature since the duties of the subjects in relation to their sovereigns and superiors, from the highest to the lowest, are owned and conscientiously practiced and yielded by those that are the asserters of this cause.

Nor can it be treason within the statute of Edward III., since, besides, what hath been said of no king in possession, and of being under powers regnant, and kings de facto, as also of the fact in its own nature, and the evidence as to overt acts pretended, it is very plain it can not possibly fall within the purview of that statute. For this case, thus circumstantiated, as before declared, is no act of any private person, of his own head, as that statute intends; nor in relation to the king there meant, that is presumed to be in the exercise of his royal authority, in conjunction with the law and the two houses of Parliament, if they be sitting, as the fundamental constitutions of the government do require.

My lords, if I have been free and plain with you in this matter, I beg your pardon; for it concerns me to be so, and something more than ordinarily urgent, where both my estate and life are in such eminent peril; nay, more than my life, the concerns of thousands of lives are in it, not only of those that are in their graves already, but of all posterity in time to come. Had nothing been in it but the care to preserve my own life, I needed not have stayed in England, but might have taken my opportunity to withdraw myself into foreign parts, to provide for my own safety. Nor needed I to have been put upon pleading, as now I am, for an arrest of judgment; but might have watched upon advantages that were visible enough to me, in the managing of my trial, if I had consulted only the preservation of my life or estate.

No, my lords, I have otherwise learned Christ, than to fear them that can but kill the body, and have no more that they can do. I have also taken notice, in the little reading that I have had of history, how glorious the very heathen have rendered their names to posterity in the contempt they have showed of death—when the laying down of their lives has appeared to be their duty—from the love which they have owed to their country.

Note: Addressed to the Court of King’s Bench before which Vane, charged with high treason, was arraigned on June 2, 1662. Found guilty four days later, he was executed on June 14. “In all things,” says Pepys, “he appeared the most resolved man that ever died in that manner.” Abridged. Read more!

Against Richard Cromwell

AMONG all the people of the universe, I know none who have shown so much zeal for the liberty of their country as the English at this time have done;—they have, by the help of Divine Providence, overcome all obstacles, and have made themselves free. We have driven away the hereditary tyranny of the house of Stuart, at the expense of much blood and treasure, in hopes of enjoying hereditary liberty, after having shaken off the yoke of kingship; and there is not a man among us who could have imagined that any person would be so bold as to dare to attempt the ravishing from us that freedom which cost us so much blood and so much labor.

Sir Henry Vane (1613–62)

(1659)

Born in 1612, died in 1662; came to Massachusetts in 1635; Governor of Massachusetts 1636–1637; returned to England and entered Parliament in 1640; made a Commissioner to negotiate the Solemn League and Covenant with Scotland in 1643; member of Council of State in 1649; imprisoned for an attack on the Protectorate of Cromwell in 1656; arrested and executed on a charge of treason in 1660.

AMONG all the people of the universe, I know none who have shown so much zeal for the liberty of their country as the English at this time have done;—they have, by the help of Divine Providence, overcome all obstacles, and have made themselves free. We have driven away the hereditary tyranny of the house of Stuart, at the expense of much blood and treasure, in hopes of enjoying hereditary liberty, after having shaken off the yoke of kingship; and there is not a man among us who could have imagined that any person would be so bold as to dare to attempt the ravishing from us that freedom which cost us so much blood and so much labor.

But so it happens, I know not by what misfortune, we are fallen into the error of those who poisoned the Emperor Titus to make room for Domitian; who made away Augustus that they might have Tiberius; and changed Claudius for Nero. I am sensible these examples are foreign from my subject, since the Romans in those days were buried in lewdness and luxury, whereas the people of England are now renowned all over the world for their great virtue and discipline; and yet—suffer an idiot, without courage, without sense,—nay, without ambition—to have dominion in a country of liberty!

One could bear a little with Oliver Cromwell, though, contrary to his oath of fidelity to the Parliament, contrary to his duty to the public, contrary to the respect he owed that venerable body from whom he received his authority, he usurped the government. His merit was so extraordinary, that our judgments, our passions might be blinded by it. He made his way to empire by the most illustrious actions; he had under his command an army that had made him conqueror, and a people that had made him their general. But, as for Richard Cromwell, his son, who is he? What are his titles? We have seen that he had a sword by his side; but did he ever draw it? And what is of more importance in this case, is he fit to get obedience from a mighty nation, who could never make a footman obey him? Yet, we must recognize this man as our king, under the style of protector!—a man without birth, without courage, without conduct! For my part, I declare, sir, it shall never be said that I made such a man my master!

Note: Richard Cromwell was Oliver’s son and his successor as Protector. Vane’s speech was delivered in Parliament in 1659. Read more!

Against the Gin Bill of the Ministry

THE BILL now under our consideration appears to me to deserve a much closer regard than seems to have been paid to it in the other House, through which it was hurried with the utmost precipitation, and where it passed almost without the formality of a debate. Nor can I think that earnestness with which some lords seem inclined to press it forward here consistent with the importance of the consequences which may with great reason be expected from it.

Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield (1694–1773)

(1743)

Born in 1694, died in 1773; having occupied several diplomatic positions, served an Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1744–1746; his “Letters to His Son,” published after his death (in 1774), were not written for publication.


THE BILL now under our consideration appears to me to deserve a much closer regard than seems to have been paid to it in the other House, through which it was hurried with the utmost precipitation, and where it passed almost without the formality of a debate. Nor can I think that earnestness with which some lords seem inclined to press it forward here consistent with the importance of the consequences which may with great reason be expected from it.

To desire, my lords, that this bill may be considered in a committee, is only to desire that it may gain one step without opposition; that it may proceed through the forms of the House by stealth; and that the consideration of it may be delayed till the exigencies of the government shall be so great as not to allow time for raising the supplies by any other method.

By this artifice, gross as it is, the patrons of this wonderful bill hope to obstruct a plain and open detection of its tendency. They hope, my lords, that the bill shall operate in the same manner with the liquor which it is intended to bring into more general use; and that, as those who drink spirits are drunk before they are well aware that they are drinking, the effects of this law shall be perceived before we know that we have made it. Their intent is, to give us a dram of policy which is to be swallowed before it is tasted, and which, when once it is swallowed, will turn our heads.

To pretend, my lords, that the design of this bill is to prevent or diminish the use of spirits is to trample on common sense and to violate the rules of decency as well as of reason. For when did any man hear that a commodity was prohibited by licensing its sale, or that to offer and refuse is the same action?

It is indeed pleaded that it will be made dearer by the tax which is proposed, and that the increase of the price will diminish the number of purchasers; but it is at the same time expected that this tax shall supply the expense of a war on the continent. It is asserted, therefore, that the consumption of spirits will be hindered; and yet that it will be such as may be expected to furnish from a very small tax, a revenue sufficient for the support of armies, or the reestablishment of the Austrian family, (Note: Only a few months before the date of this speech Frederick the Great, by treaty, had finally wrested Silesia from Maria Theresa.) and the repressing of the attempts of France.

Surely, my lords, these expectations are not very consistent; nor can it be imagined that they are both formed in the same head, though they may be expressed by the same mouth. It is, however, some recommendation of a statesman, when, of his assertions, one can be found reasonable or true; and in this, praise can not be denied to our present ministers. For tho it is undoubtedly false that this tax will lessen the consumption of spirits, it is certainly true that it will produce a very large revenue—a revenue that will not fail but with the people from whose debaucheries it arises.

Our ministers will therefore have the same honor with their predecessors, of having given rise to a new fund; not indeed for the payment of our debts, but for much more valuable purposes—for the cheering of our hearts under oppression, and for the ready support of those debts which we have lost all hopes of paying. They are resolved, my lords, that the nation which no endeavors can make wise, shall, while they are at its head, at least be very merry; and, since public happiness is the end of government, they seem to imagine that they shall deserve applause by an expedient which will enable every man to lay his cares to sleep, to drown sorrow, and lose in the delights of drunkenness both the public miseries and his own.

Luxury, my lords, is to be taxed, but vice prohibited, let the difficulties in executing the law be what they will. Would you lay a tax on the breach of the ten commandments? Would not such a tax be wicked and scandalous; because it would imply an indulgence to all those who would pay the tax? Is not this a reproach most justly thrown by the Protestants upon the Church of Rome? Was it not the chief cause of the Reformation? And will you follow a precedent which brought reproach and ruin upon those that introduced it? This is the very case now before you. You are going to lay a tax, and consequently to indulge a sort of drunkenness, which almost necessarily produces a breach of every one of the ten commandments. Can you expect the reverend bench will approve of this? I am convinced they will not; and therefore I wish I had seen it full upon this occasion. I am sure I have seen it much fuller upon other occasions, in which religion had no such deep concern.

Surely, my lords, men of such unbounded benevolence as our present ministers deserve such honors as were never paid before; they deserve to bestride a butt upon every sign-post in the city, or to have their figures exhibited as tokens where this liquor is to be sold by the license which they have procured. They must at least be remembered to future ages as the “happy politicians” who, after all expedients for raising taxes had been employed, discovered a new method of draining the last relics of the public wealth, and added a new revenue to the government. Nor will those who shall hereafter enumerate the several funds now established among us, forget, among the benefactors to their country, the illustrious authors of the Drinking Fund.

May I be allowed, my lords, to congratulate my countrymen and fellow subjects upon the happy times which are now approaching, in which no man will be disqualified from the privilege of being drunk; when all discontent and disloyalty shall be forgotten, and the people, though now considered by the ministry as enemies, shall acknowledge the leniency of that government under which all restraints are taken away?

But, to a bill for such desirable purposes, it would be proper, my lords, to prefix a preamble, in which the kindness of our intentions should be more fully explained, that the nation may not mistake our indulgence for cruelty, not consider their benefactors as their persecutors. If, therefore, this bill be considered and amended (for why else should it be considered?) in a committee, I shall humbly propose that it shall be introduced in this manner:

Whereas the designs of the present ministry, whatever they are, can not be executed without a great number of mercenaries, which mercenaries can not be hired without money; and whereas the present disposition of this nation to drunkenness inclines us to believe that they will pay more cheerfully for the undisturbed enjoyment of distilled liquors than for any other concession that can be made by the government: be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, that no man shall hereafter be denied the right of being drunk on the following conditions.

The noble lord has, indeed, admitted that this bill may not be found sufficiently coercive, but gives us hopes that it may be improved and enforced another year, and persuades us to endeavor a reformation of drunkenness by degrees, and, above all, to beware at present of hurting the manufacture.

I am very far, my lords, from thinking that there are, this year, any peculiar reasons for tolerating murder; nor can I conceive why the manufacture should be held sacred now, if it be to be destroyed hereafter. We are, indeed, desired to try how far this law will operate, that we may be more able to proceed with due regard to this valuable manufacture.

With regard to the operation of the law, it appears to me that it will only enrich the government without reforming the people; and I believe there are not many of a different opinion. If any diminution of the sale of spirits be expected from it, it is to be considered that this diminution will, or will not, be such as is desired for the reformation of the people. If it be sufficient, the manufacture is at an end, and all the reasons against the higher duties are of equal force against this; but if it be not sufficient, we have at least omitted part of our duty, and have neglected the health and virtue of the people.

When I consider, my lords, the tendency of this bill, I find it calculated only for the propagation of diseases, the suppression of industry, and the destruction of mankind. I find it the most fatal engine that ever was pointed at a people; an engine by which those who are not killed will be disabled, and those who preserve their limbs will be deprived of their senses.

This bill, therefore, appears to be designed only to thin the ranks of mankind, and to disburden the world of the multitudes that inhabit it; and is perhaps the strongest proof of political sagacity that our new ministers have yet exhibited. They well know, my lords, that they are universally detested, and that, whenever a Briton is destroyed, they are freed from an enemy; they have therefore opened the floodgates of gin upon the nation that, when it is less numerous, it may be more easily governed.

Other ministers, my lords, who had not attained to so great a knowledge in the art of making war upon their country, when they found their enemies clamorous and bold, used to awe them with prosecutions and penalties, or destroy them like burglars, with prisons and with gibbets. But every age, my lords, produces some improvement; and every nation, however degenerate, gives birth, at some happy period of time, to men of great and enterprising genius. It is our fortune to be witnesses of a new discovery in politics. We may congratulate ourselves upon being contemporaries with those men who have shown that hangmen and halters are unnecessary in a state and that ministers may escape the reproach of destroying their enemies by inciting them to destroy themselves.

For this purpose, my lords, what could have been invented more efficacious than an establishment of a certain number of shops at which poison may be vended—poison so prepared as to please the palate, while it wastes the strength, and only kills by intoxication? From the first instant that any of the enemies of the ministry shall grow clamorous and turbulent, a crafty hireling may lead him to the ministerial slaughterhouse and ply him with their wonder-working liquor till he is no longer able to speak or think, and, my lords, no man can be more agreeable to our ministers that he can neither speak nor think, except those who speak without thinking.

Note: Delivered in the House of Lords, February 15, 1743. Abridged. The Carteret Gin Bill altered the duties on spirituous liquors and granted licenses to retailers. Doctor Johnson contributed a report of this speech to The Gentleman’s Magazine for November, 1743, and claimed in the main to have composed the speech himself. For a period of about two years Johnson in this way reported Parliamentary speeches for The Gentleman’s Magazine. Notes of speeches were made for him by persons employed to do so, and from these notes he composed the speeches. To whomever credit belongs for this speech, it remains a charming specimen of the best English of the period. Read more!

To His Army in Scotland

IT (Note: Delivered in 84 A.D. on the eve of the battle of the Grampian Hills. Reported by Tacitus. The Revised Oxford translation.) is now the eighth year, my fellow soldiers, in which, under the high auspices of the Roman empire, by your valor and perseverance you have been conquering Britain. In so many expeditions, in so many battles, whether you have been required to exert your courage against the enemy. Or your patient labors against the very nature of the country, neither have I ever been dissatisfied with my soldiers, nor you with your general. In this mutual confidence, we have proceeded beyond the limits of former commanders and former armies; and are now become acquainted with the extremity of the island, not by uncertain rumor, but by actual possession with our arms and encampments.

Agricola (c.A.D. 40–A.D. 93)

(84 A.D.)

Born in 37 A.D., died in 93; father-in-law of Tacitus; served in many campaigns in Britain and France, carrying the Roman conquest as far as the northern boundary of Perth and Argyll.

IT (Note: Delivered in 84 A.D. on the eve of the battle of the Grampian Hills. Reported by Tacitus. The Revised Oxford translation.) is now the eighth year, my fellow soldiers, in which, under the high auspices of the Roman empire, by your valor and perseverance you have been conquering Britain. In so many expeditions, in so many battles, whether you have been required to exert your courage against the enemy. Or your patient labors against the very nature of the country, neither have I ever been dissatisfied with my soldiers, nor you with your general. In this mutual confidence, we have proceeded beyond the limits of former commanders and former armies; and are now become acquainted with the extremity of the island, not by uncertain rumor, but by actual possession with our arms and encampments. Britain is discovered and subdued. How often, on a march, when embarrassed with mountains, bogs, and rivers, have I heard the bravest among you exclaim, “When shall we descry the enemy? When shall we be led to the field of battle?”

At length they are unharbored from their retreats; your wishes and your valor have now free scope, and every circumstance is equally propitious to the victor, and ruinous to the vanquished. For, the greater our glory in having marched over vast tracts of land, penetrated forests, and crossed arms of the sea, while advancing toward the foe, the greater will be our danger and difficulty if we should attempt a retreat. We are inferior to our enemies in knowledge of the country, and less able to command supplies of provision; but we have arms in our hands, and in these we have everything. For myself, it has long been my principle, that a retiring general or army is never safe. Not only, then, are we to reflect that death with honor is preferable to life with ignominy, but to remember that security and glory are seated in the same place. Even to fall in this extremest verge of earth and of nature can not be thought an inglorious fate.

If unknown nations or untried troops were drawn up against you, I would exhort you from the example of other armies. At present, recollect your own honors, question your own eyes. These are they who, the last year, attacking by surprise a single legion in the obscurity of the night, were put to flight by a shout—the greatest fugitives of all the Britons, and, therefore, the longest survivors. As in penetrating woods and thickets the fiercest animals boldly rush on the hunters, while the weak and timorous fly at their very noise; so the bravest of the Britons have long since fallen. The remaining number consists solely of the cowardly and spiritless, whom you see at length within your reach, not because they have stood their ground, but because they are overtaken. Torpid with fear, their bodies are fixed and chained down in yonder field, which to you will speedily be the scene of a glorious and memorable victory. Here bring your toils anti services to a conclusion; close a struggle of fifty years (Note: The expedition of Claudius into Britain occurred in the year of Rome 796, from which, to the period of this engagement of the Grampian Hills, forty-two years had elapsed.) with one great day; and convince your countrymen, that to the army ought not to be imputed either the protraction of the war or the causes of rebellion. (Note: Tacitus remarks that, “While Agricola was yet speaking, the ardor of the soldiers declared itself; and as soon as he had finished, they burst forth into cheerful acclamations, and instantly flew to arms. Thus eager and impetuous, he formed them so that the center was occupied by the auxiliary infantry, in number 8,000 and 3,000 horse were spread in the wings.”) Read more!

Fragments by Caius Gracchus

MY life in the province was not planned to suit my ambition, but your interests. There was no gormandizing with me, no handsome slaves in waiting, and at my table your sons saw more seemliness than at headquarters. No man can say without lying that I ever took a farthing as a present or put anyone to expense. I was there two years; and if a single courtezan ever crossed my doors, or if proposals from me were ever made to anyone’s slave-pet, set me down for the vilest and most infamous of men. And if I was so scrupulous toward slaves, you may judge what my life must have been with your sons. And, citizens, here is the fruit of such a life. I left Rome with a full purse and have brought it back empty. Others took out their wine jars full of wine, and brought them back full of money.

The Gracchi (d.121 B.C.)

(About 122 B.C.)

Born about 161 B.C.; served in Spain with Scipio Africanus Minor; Questor in Sardinia in 126–123; elected Tribune of the people in 123, when he secured a renewal of the Agrarian Law passed in the time of his brother, built and improved roads, and sought to establish democratic government in Rome; reelected Tribune in 122; failed of reelection in 121; killed in a disturbance in Rome in 121.



MY life in the province was not planned to suit my ambition, but your interests. There was no gormandizing with me, no handsome slaves in waiting, and at my table your sons saw more seemliness than at headquarters. No man can say without lying that I ever took a farthing as a present or put anyone to expense. I was there two years; and if a single courtezan ever crossed my doors, or if proposals from me were ever made to anyone’s slave-pet, set me down for the vilest and most infamous of men. And if I was so scrupulous toward slaves, you may judge what my life must have been with your sons. And, citizens, here is the fruit of such a life. I left Rome with a full purse and have brought it back empty. Others took out their wine jars full of wine, and brought them back full of money.

Your forefathers declared war against Felisci, in order to revenge the cause of Genucius, one of their tribunes, to whom that people had given scurrilous language; and they thought capital punishment little enough for Caius Veturius, because he alone did not break way for a tribune, who was passing through the forum. But you suffered Tiberius to be dispatched with bludgeons before your eyes, and his dead body to be dragged from the Capitol through the middle of the city in order to be thrown into the river. Such of his friends, too, as fell into their hands, were put to death without form of trial. Yet, by the custom of our country, if any person under a prosecution for a capital crime did not appear, an officer was sent to his door in the morning, to summon him by sound of trumpet, and the judges would never pass sentence before so public a citation. So tender were our ancestors in any matter where the life of a citizen was concerned.

Note: Caius Gracchus was the greatest orator of his time in Rome. Dion Cassius, the historian, who lived 300 years later than Caius, has preserved for us the tradition that was still extant in his time. He says Caius “far surpassed Tiberius in his gift of language” and “was the first to walk up and down in the assemblies which he haranged, and the first to bear his arms; hence neither of these practices has been thought improper since he employed them.” Plutarch confirms this testimony: “When he entered upon his office he soon became the leading tribune, partly by means of his eloquence, in which he was greatly superior to the rest, and partly on account of the misfortunes of his family, which gave him opportunity to bewail the cruel fate of his brothers.” Cicero born sixteen years after the death of Caius, said he “was the first man who, in an old literature, appeared with a new language.” The Langhorne translation. Read more!