‘I wish you could overhaul Grey’s speech as well as Charles Fox’s on that subject, and in an appendix expose the weakness and inconsistence of both. Only observe how both confess that there was danger to our constitution “from opinions favourable to the principles and measures of France,” after so stubbornly and pertinaciously denying in Parliament the existence of any such danger; challenging Government to prove it, and saying that “the Proclamation, call of Parliament, Alien and Traitorous Correspondence Bills, were mere Ministerial juggles” to increase influence, diminish liberty, and encourage excess of loyalty. “But,” says Mr. G. “that danger must now be much lessened, as all approbation of those principles, or imitation of that example, is now improbable, totally discredited, and removed from all political speculation and practice.” What, then, is all the defence of France and Frenchmen by the Opposition? And why is every measure condemned in Parliament that tends to put an end to their anarchy and ambition? Why is war against them so censured? Why is it always called the war of kings and despots? Why is the Minister so importuned to make peace with regicides and assassins, determined to force, if possible, every nation upon earth to adopt their measures? Mr. Grey repeats in his speech, “All dread of the example is completely removed, and that none could suppose him, or any other party in this country, favourable to that example.” What is this but open falsehood? Mr. Fox allows that “there was a party whose wild theories certainly aimed at an impracticable perfection, that could only have been pursued by means subversive of every part of our constitution.” Yet there never was any danger! Mr. G. says, in express terms, “that his motion extended to an alteration in the present government of the country.” But he had no specific plan ready of his own, or that he chose to father. But as all the petitions he and Mr. Sheridan brought in for a reform demanded nothing less than universal suffrage, and as these gentlemen either drew up or approved the contents of these petitions, we may easily judge what was the general plan of our Jacobins, if they could have had the tinkering of the constitution.
‘Grey seems to me a silly fellow, with a greater wish than abilities to do mischief. Charles Fox’s speech is more a panegyric on the constitution than on his friend’s motion. When every man is left to himself to reform an old constitution or make a new one, no two will be found of a mind on the subject. Sherry’s speech was nothing to the purpose. There was no attempt of the phalanx which I so much dreaded, as the doubling our tiers état. Thank God, their great gun has flashed in the pan! The mountain has laboured in vain. You know I hope that the gang in Parliament, like Egalité’s creatures in the “Convention,” is called the Mountain. And it has been called by a punster of the party Mount Sigh-on. I fear the war will be long and bloody; and how it will end who can tell? Nothing but a vigorous prosecution of the war can save the whole civilised globe from destruction. After disdaining in the House the principles which they had suggested and encouraged out of it, I should not wonder if the Scotch and English petitioners for reform on the basis of universal suffrage should mob and September their friends the demagogues whenever they can catch them. I don’t love mischief, but I do cordially wish something of that kind were to happen.
‘Adieu.
‘Ever yours sincerely,
‘Charles Burney.’
From Dr. Symonds, high encomiums of my ‘Example,’ &c.
‘Prince of Wales Coffee House: April 8, 1793.
‘Traveller Coxe[[156]] desired me to tell you how charmed he was with your pamphlet; nay, he had begun to write five or six lines to you, but thought afterwards it was taking too great a liberty. One thing, however, he wishes you to expunge in your next edition, viz.: a reflection on Sunday schools as not being founded on truth. You must not be surprised at this, for he is a zealous patron of them, and has explained the Catechism in print for that purpose. Wherever I go I hear your “Example of France” spoken of in the highest terms as to the matter.
‘Everyone agrees that no political writer whatever has set the representation of property in so clear and just a light. Bishop Douglas, who has written many good pamphlets, and is therefore the best judge, makes no scruple to declare frequently that you deserve from Government a most ample reward; but we both wish, as well as others, for your sake, that the second edition may be printed more correctly.
‘You should come to town and be presented, or, at least, take an opportunity to walk on the Terrace at Windsor, where you would not fail of being marked out. Bishop Watson’s appendix has rendered him rectus in curia. A few days ago he was at Court, talking with Lord Dartmouth, who mentioned the word philosophy, which the King overhearing, came to the bishop, and said, “I have read the best sort of philosophy, my lord, in your sermon and appendix, which has wonderfully pleased me.” The bishop, of course, made his bow, and then the King went on, “You write so concisely and so forcibly, that everyone must be convinced by your arguments;” on which the bishop replied, “I like, Sir, to step forward in a moment of danger.” The King rejoined, “You have shown a good spirit, and it could not be done in a better manner.” Should the last volume of "Clarendon’s Letters" come in your way, I would advise you to read the famous one from Sir John Colepeper to Secretary Nicholas; which is always esteemed as a wonderful instance of political sagacity, as it foretold that the Restoration would be accomplished by Monk! But I think there is another part of this letter which shows equal sagacity, viz.: his desiring that Charles would not send over any foreign troops into England, as this measure would not fail of uniting the English against him; whereas, if they were left to themselves, he would always have a strong party, and must sooner or later be restored. I am fully convinced of the truth of this reasoning; and of what use is history unless it be considered as a school for modern politicians?