No More Learning

Why, Sir, the Dissenters,
by the nature of the term, are open. to. have a division among themselves. . They are Dissenters because they. differ from the Church of England: not that they agree among themselves. . . There are. Presbyterians, there are Independents,. . - some -that do not
agree to infant baptism, others that do not agree to
the baptism of adults, or any baptism. . All these are,
however, tolerated. . under. . the acts of King William,
and subsequent, acts;. and their. diversity of. sentiments with one:aloter:did not and could not furnish an argument against their toleration, when their difference with, ourselves. furnished. none.
But, says the honorable gentleman, if you suffer
them to go on, they will shake, the fundamental principles,of. Christianity. . . . Let. , it, be. considered, that
this argument goes, as. . strongly against connivance,
~ -. . . . . . -. . . . ::;;. . ! . ,:,. . . . . . . . . . . . ,:
? ? ? ? SPEECH: ON RELIEF -OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 33
which you allow, as against: toleration, which you
reject. The gentleman sets out with a principle
of perfect liberty, or, as he describes it, connivance. 'But, for fear of dangerous opinions, you leave it in your power to vex a man who has not held any
one dangerous opinion whatsoever. If one man is
a professed atheist, afiother. man the best Christian,
but dissents from two of the Thirty-Nine Articles, I
may let escape the atheist, because I know him to be
an atheist, because I am, perhaps, so inclined myself,
and because I may connive where I think proper;. but the conscientious Dissenter, on- account of his
attachment to'that general religion which perhaps
I hate, I shall take care to punish, because I may
punish when I think proper. Therefore, connivance
being an engine of private malice or private favor,
not of good government, an engine which totally
fails of suppressing atheism, but oppresses conscience,
-I say that principle becomes, not serviceable, but
dangerous to Christianity; that it is not toleration,
-but contrary to it, even contrary to peace; that the
penal system to which it belongs is a dangerous principle in the economy either of religion or government.
The honorable gentleman (and in him I comprehend all those who oppose the bill) bestowed in support of their side of the question as mucd argument as it could bear, and much more of learning and
decoration than it deserved. He thinks connivance
consistent,'but legal toleration inconsistent,-with the
interests of Christianity. : Perhaps I would go as far
as that honorable gentleman, if I thought toleration
inconsistent with those interests. God forbid! I may
be mistaken, but I take toleration to be a part of
religion. I do not know which I' would sacrifice;:
VOL. VII. 3
? ? ? ? 34 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
I would keep them both: it is not necessary I should
sacrifice either. I do not like the idea of tolerating
the doctrines of Epicurus: but nothing in the world
propagates them so much as the oppression of the
poor, of the honest and candid disciples of the religion we profess in common, -I mean revealed religion; nothing sooner makes -them take a short cut out of the bondage of sectarian vexation into open
and direct infidelity than tormenting men for every
difference. My opinion is, that, in establishing the
Christian religion wherever you find it, curiosity or
research is its best security; and in this way a man
is a great deal better justified in saying, Tolerate all
kinds of consciences, than in imitating the heathens,
whom the honorable gentleman quotes,'in tolerating
those who have none. I am not over-fond of calling
for the secular arm upon these misguided or misguiding men; but if ever it ought to be raised, it ought. surely to be raised against these very men,
not against others, whose liberty of religion you
make a pretext for proceedings which drive them into the bondage of impiety. What figure do I make in saying, I do not attack the works of these atheistical writers, but I will keep a rod hanging over the conscientious man, their bitterest enemy, because
these atheists may take advantage of the liberty of
their foes to introduce irreligion? The best book
that ever, perhaps, has been written against these
people is that in which the author has collected in a
body the whole of the infidel code, and has brought
the writers into one body to cut them all off together.
This was done by a Dissenter, who never did subscribe the Thirty-Nine Articles, -Dr. Leland. But
if, after all this, danger is to be apprehended, if you
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 35
are really fearful that Christianity will indirectly suffer by this liberty, you have my free consent: go directly, and by the straight way, and not by a circuit in which in your road you may destroy your friends;
point your arms against these men who do the mischief you fear promoting; point your arms against
men who, not contented with endeavoring to turn
your eyes from the blaze and effulgence of light by
which life and immortality is so gloriously demonstrated by the Gospel, would even extinguish that
faint glimmering of Nature, that only comfort supplied to ignorant man before this great illumination,
-them who, by attacking even the possibility of
all revelation, arraign all the dispensations of Providence to man. . These are the wicked Dissenters you
ought to fear; these are the people against whom
you ought to aim the shaft of the law; these are
the men to whom, arrayed in all the terrors of government, I would say, You shall not degrade us into
brutes! These men, these factious men, as the honorable gentleman properly called them, are the just
objects of vengeance, not the conscientious Dissenter,
-these men, who would take away whatever ennobles the rank or consoles the misfortunes of human
nature, by breaking off that connection of observances, of affections, of hopes and fears, which bind us
to the Divinity, and constitute the glorious and distinguishing prerogative of humanity, that of being a
religious creature: against these I would have the
laws rise in all their majesty of terrors, to fulminate
such vain and impious wretches, and to awe them
into impotence by the only dread they can fear or
believe, to learn that eternal lesson, Discite justitiamn moniti, et non temnere Divos!
? ? ? ? ~36 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF- PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
At the same time that I would cut up the very root. of atheism, I would respect all conscience, all conscience that is really such, and which perhaps its very tenderness proves to be sincere. I wish to see
the, Established Church of England great and powerful; I wish to see her foundations laid low and deep,
that she. may crush the giant powers of rebellious
darkness; I would have her: head raised up to that
heaven to which she conducts us. I would have her
open wide her hospitable gates: by a noble and liberal
comprehension, but I would have no breaches in her
wall; I would have her cherish all! those who are
within, and pity all those w. ho are without; I would
have her a common blessing to the world; an exampie, if not an instructor, to those who have riot the
happiness to belong to her; I would have her give a
lesson of peace to mankind, that a vexed and wandering generation might be taught to-seek for repose
and toleration in the maternal bosom of Christian
charity, and not in: the harlot lap of. infidelity and
indifference. Nothing has driven people more into
that house of seduction than the mutual hatred of
Christian congregations. Long may we enjoy our
church under a learned and edifying episcopacy!
But episcopacy may fail, and religion exist. The
most horrid and cruel blow that can be offered to
civil society is: through, atheism, Do not promote diversity; when you have it,- bear it; have as many
sorts of religion as you find in your country there. is
a reasonable worship in them all. The others, the
infidels, are outlaws of the constitution, not of this
country, but of the human race. They are never,
never to be supported, never to be tolerated. Under
the systematic attacks of these people, I see some of
? ? ? ? -SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 37
the props of good government already begin to fail; I
see propagated principles which will not leave to religion even a toleration. I see myself sinking every day under the attacks of these wretched people. How
shall I; arm myself against them? By uniting all
those! -in affection; who are united in the belief of
the great principles of the. Godhead that made and
sustains the world. They who hold revelation give
double assurance to their country. Even the man
who does not hold revelation, yet who wishes that it
were proved to him, who observes a pious silence with
regard to it, such a man, though not a Christian, is
governed by religious principles. Let him be tolerated in this country. Let it be but a serious religion, natural or revealed, take what you can get. Cherish,
blow up the slightest'spark: one day it may be a
pure and holy flame. By this proceeding you form
an alliance offensive and defensive against those great
ministers of darkness in the world who are endeavoring to shake all the works of God established in order and beauty. ,,
Perhaps I am carried too far; but it is in the road
into which the honorable gentleman has led me. The
honorable gentleman would have us fight this confederacy of the powers of darkness withl the single arm of the Church of England,- would have us not only
fight against infidelity, but fight at the same time
with all the faith in the world except our own. In
the moment we make a front against the common enemy, we have to combat with all those who are the natural friends of our cause. Strong as we are, we
are not equal to this. The cause of the Church of
England is included in that of religion, not that of
religion in the Church of England. I will stand up
? ? ? ? 88 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
at all times for the rights of conscience, as it is
such, -- not for its particular modes against its general principles. One may be right, another mistaken; but if I have more strength than my brother, it shall be employed to support, not to oppress his
weakness; if I have more light, it shall be used to
guide, not to dazzle him.
? ? ? ? SPEECH
ON A
MOTION MADE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS! BY THE RIGHT HON. C. J. FOX,
MAY 11, 1792,
FOR LEAVE TO BRING IN
A BILL TO REPEAL AND ALTER CERTAIN ACTS RESPECTING RELIGIOUS OPINIONS,
UPON THE OCCASION OF
A PETITION OF THE UNITARIAN SOCIETY.
? ? ? ? S P E-E C H.
T NEVER govern myself, no rational man ever did
1 govern himself, by abstractions and universals.
I do not. put abstract ideas wholly out. of any. question; because I well know that under that name I
should dismiss principles, and that without the guide
and light of sound, well-understood principles, all reasonings in politics, as in everything else, would be
only a confused jumble of particular facts and details,
without the means of drawing out any sort of theoretical or practical conclusion. A statesman differs
from a professor in an university: the latter has only
the general view of society; the former, the statesman, has a number. of circumstances to combine with
those general ideas, and to take into his consideration. Circumstances are infinite, are infinitely com-bined, are variable and transient: he who does not take them into: consideration is not erroneous, but
stark mad; dat operam ut curm ratione insaniat; he is
metaphysically mad. A statesman, never losing sight
of principles, is to be guided by circumstances; and
judging contrary to the exigencies of the moment, he
may ruin lhis country forever.
I go on this ground,. - that government, representing the society, has a general superintending control
over all. the actions and over all, the publicly propagated doctrines of men, without which it never could
? ? ? ? 42 SPEECH ON THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS.
provide adequately for all the wants of society: but
then it is to use this power with an equitable discretion, the only bond of sovereign authority. For it is
not, perhaps, so much by the assumption of unlawful
powers as by the unwise or unwarrantable use of
those which are most legal, that governments oppose
their true end and object: for there is such a thing
as tyranny, as well as usurpation. You can hardly
state to me a case to which legislature is the most
confessedly competent, in which, if the rules of benignity and prudence are not observed, the most mischievous and oppressive things may not be done. So:
that, after all, it is a moral and virtuous discretion,
and not any abstract theory of right, which keeps
governments faithful. to their ends. Crude, unconnected truths are in the world of practice what falsehoods are in theory. A reasonable, prudent, provident, and moderate coercion may be a means of preventing acts of extreme ferocity and rigor: for
by propagating excessive and extravagant doctrines,
such extravagant disorders take place as require the
most perilous and fierce corrections to oppose them.
It is not morally true that we are bound to establish in every country that form of religion which in
our minds is most agreeable to truth, and conduces
most to the eternal happiness of mankind. In the
same manner, it is not true that we are, against the
conviction of our own judgment, to establish a system of opinions and practices directly contrary to
those ends, only because some majority of the people, told by the head, may prefer it. No conscientious man would willingly establish what he knew to
be false and mischievous in religion, or in anything
else. No wise man, on the contrary, would tyranni
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS. 43 cally set up his own sense so as to reprobate that of the great prevailing body of the community, and pay no regard to the established opinions and prejudices of mankind, or refuse to them the'means of securing a religious instruction suitable to these prejudices.
A great deal depends on the state in which you find
men.
An alliance between Church and State in a Christian commonwealth is, in my opinion, an idle, and
a fanciful speculation. An alliance is between two
things that are in their nature distinct and independent, such as between two sovereign states. But in a
Christian commonwealth the Church and the State
are one and the same thing, being different integral
parts of the same whole. For the Church has been
always divided into two parts, the clergy and the laity,- of which the laity is as much an essential integral part, and has as much its duties and privileges, as the clerical member, and in the rule, order, and
government of the Church has its share.
Religion is
so far, in my opinion, from being out of the province
or the duty of a Christian magistrate, that it is, and
it ought to be, not only his care, but the principal
thing in his care; because it is one of the great bonds
of human society, and its object the supreme good,
the ultimate end and object of man himself. The
magistrate, who is a man, and charged with the concerns of men, and to whom very specially nothing
human is remote and indifferent, has a right and a
duty to watch over it with an unceasing vigilance, to
protect, to promote, to forward it by every rational,
just, and prudent means. It is principally his duty
to prevent the abuses which grow out of every strong
and efficient principle that actuates the human mind.
? ? ? ? 44 SPEECH ON: THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS. As religion is one of the bonds of society, he ought not to suffer it to be made the pretext of destroying its peace, order, liberty, and its security. Above all, he ought strictly to look to it, when men begin to form new combinations, to be distinguished by new names, and especially when they mingle a political system with their religious ppinions, true or false, plausible or implausible.
It -is the interest, and it is the duty, and because it:
is the interest and the duty, it is the right of govern-.
ment to attend much to opinions; because, as opinions soon combine with passions, even when they do
not produce them, they have much influence on actions. Factions are formed upon opinions, which factions become in. effect bodies corporate in the state; nay, factions generate opinions, in order to become
a centre of union, and to furnish watchwords to
parties; and this may make it expedient for government to forbid things in themselves innocent and
neutral. I am not fond of defining with precision
what the ultimate rights of the sovereign supreme
power, in providing for the safety of the commonwealth, may be, or may not extend to. It will signify
very little what my notions or what their own notions
on the subject may be; because, according to the
exigence, they will take, in fact, the steps which
seem to them necessary for the preservation of the
whole: for as self-preservation in individuals is the
first law of Nature, the same will prevail in societies,
who will, right or wrong, make that an object paramount to all other rights whatsoever. There are
ways and means by which a good man would not even
save the commonwealth. . . . All things founded
on the idea of danger ought in a great degree to be
? ? ? ? SPEECH -ON. THE PET-ITION OF THE:UNITARIANS. 45
temporary. All policy is very suspicious that sacri-. fices any part to the ideal good of the whole. The
object of the state is (as far as may be) the happiness
of the whole. Whatever. makes multitudes of men
utterly miserable can never answer that object; indeed, it contradicts it wholly and entirely; and the
happiness or misery of mankind, estimated by their
feelings and sentiments, and. not by any theories of
their rights, is, and ought to be, the standard for the
conduct of legislators towards the people. : This naturally and necessarily conducts us to the peculiar
and characteristic situation of a people, and to a
knowledge of their opinions, prejudices, habits, and
all the circumstances that diversify and color life.
The first question a good statesman would ask himself, therefore, would be, How and in what circumstances do you find the society? and to act upon them. : To the other laws relating to other sects I have
nothing to say: I only look to the petition which has
given rise to this proceeding. , I confine myself to
that, because in my opinion its merits have little or
no relation to that of the other laws which the right
~honorable gentleman has with so much ability blended
with it. With the Catholics, with the Presbyterians,
with the-Anabaptists, with the Independents, with the
Quakers, I have nothing at all to. do. They are in
possession, -- a great title in all human affairs. The
tenor and spirit of our laws, whether they were restraining or whether they were relaxing, have hitherto taken another course. The spirit of our laws has applied their penalty or their relief to the supposed
abuse to be repressed or the grievance to be relieved;
and the provision for a Catholic and a Quaker has
? ? ? ? 46 SPEECH ON THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS.
been totally different, according to his exigence: you
did not give a Catholic liberty to be freed from an.
oath, or a Quaker power of saying mass with impunity. You have done this, because you never have laid it down as an universal proposition, as a maxim,
that nothing relative to religion was your concern,
but the direct contrary; and therefore you have always examined whether there was a grievance. It has been so at all times: the legislature, whether
right or wrong, went no other way to work but
by circumstances, times, and necessities. My mind
marches the same road; my school is the practice
and usage of Parliament.
Old religious factions. are volcanoes burnt out; on
the lava and ashes and squalid scoriae of old eruptions
grow the peaceful olive,, the cheering vine, and the
sustaining corn. Such was the first, such the second
condition of Vesuvius. But when a new fire bursts
out, a face of desolations comes on, not to be rectified
in ages. Therefore, when meir come before us, and
rise up like an exhalation from the ground, they
come in a questionable shape, and we must exorcise
them, and try whether their intents be wicked or
charitable, whether they bring airs from heaven or
blasts from hell. This is the first time that our
records of Parliament have heard, or our experience
or history given us an account of any religious congregation or association known by the name which these petitioners have assumed. We are now to see
by what people, of what character, and under what
temporary circumstances, this business is brought
before you. We are to see whether there be any
and what mixture of political dogmas and political
practices with their religious tenets, of what nature
? ? ? ? ,SPEECH ON THE PETITION -OF THE UNITARIANS. 47 they are, and how far they are at'present practically separable from them. This faction (the authors of
the petition) are not confined to a theological sect, but are also a political faction. 1st, As theological, we are to show that they do not aim at the quiet enjoyment of their own liberty, but are associated
for the express purpose of proselytism. In proof of this first proposition, read their primary association. 2nd, That their purpose of proselytism is to collect a multitude sufficient by force and violence to overturn the Church. In proof of the second proposition, see the letter of Priestley to Mr. Pitt, and extracts from his works. 3rd, That the designs against the Churclh are concurrent with a design to subvert the States
In proof of the third proposition, read the advertisement of the Unitarian Society for celebrating the- 14th
of July. 4th, On what model they intend to build, --
that it is the French. In proof of the fourth, proposition, read the correspondence of the Revolution Society with the clubs of France, read Priestley's adher-:ence to their opinions. 5th, What the French is with regard to religious toleration, and with regard to, 1.
Religion,- 2. Civil happiness, - 3. Virtue, order,
and real liberty, -4. Commercial opulence, - 5.
National defence. In proof of the fifth proposition,
read the representation of the French minister of the
Home Department, and the report of the committee
upon it.
Formerly, when the superiority of two parties contending for dogmas and an establishment was the
question, we knew in such a contest the whole of the
evil. We knew, for instance, that Calvinism would
prevail according to the Westminster Catechism with
regard to tenets. We knew that Presbytery would.
? ? ? ? 48 SPEECH ON' THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS.
prevail in church government. But we do not know
what opinions would prevail, if the present Dissenters
should become masters. They will not tell us their
present opinlions; and one principle of modern Dissent is, not to discover them. Next, as their religion is in a continual fluctuation, and is so by principle
and in profession, it is impossible for us to know
what it will be. If religion only related to the individual, and was a question between God and the conscience, it would not be wise, nor in my opinion equitable, for human authority to step in. But when
religion is embodied into faction, and factions have
objects to pursue, it will and must, more or less, become a question of power between them. If even,
when embodied into congregations, they limited their
principle to their own congregations, and were satisfied themselves to abstain from what they thought
unlawful, it would be cruel, in my opinion, to molest
them in that tenet, and a consequent practice. But
we know that they not only entertain these opinions,
but entertain them with a zeal for propagating them
by force, and employing the power of law and place
to destroy establishments, if ever they should come
to power sufficient to effect their purpose: that is, in
other words, they declare they would persecute the
heads of our Church; and the question is, whether
you should keep them within the bounds of toleration, or subject yourself to their persecution.
A bad and very censurable practice it is to warp
doubtful and ambiguous expressions to a perverted
sense, which makes the charge not the crime of others, but the construction of your own malice; nor is
it allowed to draw conclusions from allowed premises, which those who lay down the premises utterly
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE. PETITION OF. THE UNITARIANS:. 49
deny, and disown as their c0onclusions. : For this,
though it may possibly be good logic, cannot by any
possibility whatsoever be a fair or charitable representation of any man or, any set of men. It may,show the erroneous nature of principles, but it argues nothing as: to dispositions and intentions. . Far be
such a mode from me! A mean and:unworthy jealousy it would be to do anything upon the mere speculative apprehension of what men will do. But let us pass by our opinions concerning the danger of the
Church. What do the gentlemen themselves think
of. that danger? They from whom the danger is
apprehended, what do they declare. to be their own designs? What do they conceive to be their own forces? And what do they proclaim to be their means? Their designs. they declare to be to destroy -the Established Church, and not to set up a new one of their own. See Priestley. If they should
find the State stick to the Church, the question is, whether they love the constitution in State so well as that they would not destroy the constitution of the State in order to destroy that of the Church. Most certainly: they do not.
The foundations;on which obedience to governments is founded are not to be. constantly discussed. That we are here supposes the discussion already
made and the dispute settled. We must assume the
rights of what represents the public to control the
individual, to make his will and his acts to submit to
their will, until some intolerable grievance shall make
us know that it does not answer its end, and will submit- neither to reformation nor restraint. Otherwise we should dispute all the points of morality, before
we can punish a murderer, robber, and adulterer;
VOL. VII. 4
? ? ? ? 50 SPEECH ON THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS.
we should analyze all society. Dangers by being
despised grow great; so they do by absurd provision
against them. Stulti est dixisse, Non putaram. Whether all early discovery of evil designs, an early declaration, and an early precaution against them be more wise than to stifle all inquiry about them, for fear
they should declare themselves more early than otherwise they would, and therefore precipitate the evil, -- all this depends on the reality of the danger. Is it
only an unbookish jealousy, as Shakspeare calls it?
It is a question of fact. Does a design against the
Constitution of this country exist? If it does, and if
it is carried on with increasing vigor and activity by
a restless faction, and if it receives countenance by
the most ardent and enthusiastic applauses of its
object in the great council of this kingdom, by men
of the first parts which this kingdom produces, perhaps by the first it has ever produced, can I think
that there is no danger? If there be danger, must
there be no precaution at all against it? If you ask
whether I think the danger urgent and immediate, I
answer, Thank God, I do not. The body of the people is yet sound, the Constitution is in their hearts,
while wicked men are endeavoring to put another
into their heads. But if I see the very same beginnings which have commonly ended in great calamities, I ought to act as if they might produce the very same effects. Early and provident fear is the mother
of safety; because in that state of'things the mind
is firm and collected, and the judgment unembarrassed. But when the fear and the evil feared come
on together, and press at once upon us, deliberation
itself is ruinous, which saves upon all other occasions;
because, when perils are instant, it delays decision:
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE PETITION OF THE UNITARIANS. 51
the man is in a flutter, and in a hurry, and his judgment is gone, - as the judgment of the deposed King of France and his ministers was gone, if the latter
did not premeditately betray him. He was just come
from his usual amusement of hunting, when the head
of the column of treason and assassiniation was arrived at his house. Let not the king, let not the Prince of. Wales, be surprised in this manner. Let
not both Houses of Parliament be led in triumph
along with him, and have law dictated to them by
the Constitutional, the Revolution, and the Unitarian
Societies. These insect reptiles, whilst they go on
only caballing and toasting, only fill us with disgust -
if they get above their natural size, and increase the
quantity whilst they keep the quality of their venom,
they become objects of the greatest terror. A spider
in his natural size is only a spider, ugly and loathsome; and his flimsy net is only fit for catching flies. But, good God! suppose a spider as large as an ox,
and that he spread cables about us, all the wilds of
Africa would not produce anything so dreadful:
Quale portentum neque militaris
Daunia in latis alit esculetis,
Nec Jubme tellus generat, leonum
Arida nutrix.
Think of them who dare menace in the way they
do in their present state, what would they do, if they
had power commensurate to their malice? God forbid I ever should have a despotic master! -but if
I must, my choice is made. I will have Louis the
Sixteenth rather than Monsieur Bailly, or Brissot, or
Chabot, -- rather George the Third, or George the
Fourth, than Dr. Priestley, or Dr. Kippis, -- persons
who would not load a tyrannous power by the poi
? ? ? ? 52 SPiEECH;I ON THE PETITION'OF THE UNITARIANS. soned:. tauiits of a: vulgar, low-bred insolence. I hope we have still spirit enough to keep us from the one
or the other. The contumelies of tyranny are the worst parts of it.
But if the danger be existing. in reality, and:silently maturing itself to our; destruction, what! is it not better to take treason unprepared than that treason
should come: by: surprise upon us and take us unprepared? If:we must have a conflict, let us have
it with all our forces fresh:about us, with our government in; full function and- full strength, our troops uncorrupted, our revenues in the legal hands, our
arsenals filled and possessed by government, -- and
not wait till the conspirators met to commemorate
the 14th of July shall seize on the Tower of London
and the magazines it contains, murder. the governor,
and the: mayor of London, seize upon the king's person, drive out the House of Lords, occupy your gallery, and thence, as from an high tribunal, dictate to you. The degree of danger is not only from the
circumstances which threaten, but from the value
of the objects which are threatened. A small danger menacing an inestimable object is of more im.
portance than the greatest perils which regard one,. that is indifferent to us. The whole question of the
-danger depends upon facts. The first fact is, wheth-,er those who sway in France at present confine themselves to the regulation of their internal affairs, - or whether upon system they nourish cabals in all other
countries, to extend their power by producing revolutions similar to their own. 2. The next is, whether
we have any cabals formed or forming within these
kingdoms, -to cooperate with them for the destruction
of our Constitution. On the solution of these two
? ? ? ? SPEECH O. N THEE PETITION- OF THE UNITARIANS. 53
questions, joined with our opinion of tle value of
the object to be'affected by: their'. machinations, the
justness of our alarm and the necessity of our vigilance' must depend. - Every private conspiracy,, every open attack upon the laws, is dangerous. One robbery is an alarm to all property; else I am sure we exceed measure in our punishment'. As robberies increase in number and audacity, the alarm increases. These wretches are at war with us upon principle.
They hold' this government to be an usurpation.
See the -language of the Department.