PARTY POLITICS (1807).
Source.—Extract from the Prospectus of The Examiner. By Leigh Hunt.
The great error of politicians is that old fancy of Solon, who insisted that it was infamous for a citizen to be of no party, and endeavoured by a law to make the Athenians hypocrites. This conceit not only destroys every idea of mediation between two parties, but does not even suppose that both may be wrong. Yet all history may convince us, that he who resolutely professes himself attached to any party, is in danger of yielding to every extreme for the mere reputation of his opinion: he will argue for the most manifest errors of this or that statesman, because he has hitherto agreed with him—an obstinacy as stupid, as if a pedestrian were to express his satisfaction with a tempest at night, because he had enjoyed sunshine in the morning.
The big and little Endians in Gulliver have not yet taught us the folly of mere party: and one of the most ridiculous inconsistencies in the human character is that enjoyment which all ages have expressed in satirical productions, without receiving benefit from them: they drink the physic with a bold and pleasant countenance, and instantly prepare to counteract its effect; or rather, every man thinks the physic excellent for everybody but himself.—“Party,” says Swift, “is the madness of many for the gain of a few.” When Scarmentado in Voltaire arrived at Ispahan, he was asked whether he was for black mutton or white mutton: he replied, that it was equally indifferent to him, provided it was tender. A wise man knows no party abstracted from its utility, or existing, like a shadow, merely from the opposition of some body. Yet, in the present day, we are all so erroneously sociable, that every man, as well as every journal, must belong to some class of politicians; he is either Pittite or Foxite, Windhamite, Wilberforcite, or Burdettite: though at the same time two-thirds of these disturbers of coffee-houses might with as much reason call themselves Hivites or Shunamites, or perhaps Bedlamites.
THE BERLIN DECREES (1807).
Source.—Diary of Lord Colchester, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 134.
Tuesday, December 1st.—Received the following letter from Perceval:
Dear Mr. Speaker,
The Parliament will not meet till the Thursday after the birthday. I am culpable in not having sent you earlier intelligence, but the day was not fixed till Wednesday last, and, of the determination not to meet till near the birthday, unless circumstances particularly required it, you were apprised by me before.
* * * * * * * *
The business of recasting the law of trade and navigation, as far as belligerent principles are concerned, for the whole world, has occupied me very unremittingly for a long time; and the subject is so extensive, and the combinations so various, that, even supposing our principles to be right, I cannot hope that the execution of the principle must not in many respects be defective; and I have no doubt we shall have to watch it with new provisions and regulations for some time.
The short principle is that trade in British produce and manufactures, and trade either from a British port or with a British destination, is to be protected as much as possible. For this purpose all the countries where French influence prevails to exclude the British flag shall have no trade but to and from the country, or from its allies. All other countries, the few that remain strictly neutral (with the exception of the colonial trade, which backwards and forwards direct they may carry on) cannot trade but through this being done as an ally with any of the countries connected with France. If, therefore, we can accomplish our purposes, it will come to this, that either those countries will have no trade, or they must be content to accept it through us.