date

1820 Oct. 9 Spanish liberticide measures
1820 Oct. 9 Spanish liberticide measures Lett. 3 Public discussion Meeting

licensing Speeches 2. Colony Minister

If there be no want of probity, […? …?] is the want of logic here. But by want

of logic not less than by want of probity must […?] be destroyed.

Still Worse than this if there be any thing worse must the people of Spain have

to forgive ere their salvation is accomplished.

The Minister of the Colonies according to the reports made of his speech, makes

reference to England. As to the state of the law in this respect in England, and

nothing can be more notorious, either my conception of the matter is altogether

erroneous, or his is. ‘Permanent Societies’ (says he) ‘are unknown unless

authorized by the Law.’ Permanent societies not authorized by the Law are well

known: that of the Free Masons for example, the permanence of which has been –

in the world as long (say they) as from Solomon’s time to the present, if that

is long enough for him, and in England really so long that nobody knows the

commencement of it. In England to establish a Society for any purpose not

expressly forbidden by Statute Law, nor by the sham Law called Common Law

treated as if it were so, requires no more authorization than eating and

drinking does: and when once established, whatsoever permenence the members

agree in giving to it belongs to it of course. The statement given by this

Minister is a curiosity in its kind: seldom at the expence of so little

falsehood asserted has so much been insinuated. Next time it is his pleasure to

make reference to Representative Governments I would submit it to him, whether

it might not be as well /better/ to take an instance where Representation is a

reality than where it is an imposture. In the United States there are two and

twenty such realities for him to choose out of: in England there is this one

imposture. After this will he stand up in his place and say that he does not

know it to be an imposture: he will be a bolder man than from this speech of his

I should

The Free Masons who in England at least never hurt a worm nor so much as

threatened one. But why mention the Free Masons Society? Only because of its

existence and its innocence not even Mr Gorelli could have been ignorant. For if

he is curious to see any more such, let him give me a notice a piece for as many

as I can shew him his salary as Deputy will soon find its way out of his pocket.

Till the late liberticide Acts, penned as if Mr Gorelli had been penman, there

was no other limit to the number of those Societies than to the number of those

who took it into their head to form them.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1820 Oct. 19 Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 1820 Oct. 19 Spanish liberticide measures 2 1. Gorelli

    At the moment with the law and the speech of Mr Gorelli before us a friend and I

    are speaking our opinions of it, my friend who is somewhat younger than myself

    every now and then boiling with indignation and both of us sighing over the

    condition of the people betrayed in Spain doomed to be replunged into despotism

    by such representatives[?]. Are we a corporation? In my own instance I do not

    perceive it.

    ‘What comparison is there’ the honourable Gentleman asks) ‘between individual

    liberty and that which may be arrogated to themselves by permanent juntas, with

    peculiar constitutions, secret sittings, dignities, offices and funds?’ That

    which may be arrogated! Alas! What confusion do I see? Can it have been

    otherwise than studied? Still the same insinuation fallacy still the same

    insinuation still the calumnious endeavour false assertion that by saying what

    his own opinion /the mere taking the liberty of making known his own opinion/ a

    man exercises power over others. Permanent juntas. This is already answered.

    Peculiar Constitutions this is already answered secret sittings this is already

    answered: dignities offices and funds by half a dozen words more this too is

    answered. All these have the Free Masons? and from /by their having them what is

    the power exercised on them by any body. The King of England is a free mason

    several of those his brothers are Free Masons. If he had no power over the

    people of England than by being a Free Mason he has over those who are not so,

    he would have no more power over England than happily for England Mr Goreli has.

    A Spanish Cortes is it possible that by sophistry such as this they should have

    been dupes? Yet Dupes or accomplices such is their only choice? O Spain Spain

    where are thy hopes!
  • Title: [1820 Oct. 9 3 Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 1820 Oct. 9 3 Spanish liberticide measures 1 Not employed Letter 3. Public

    Discussion 1. Meeting licensing 1. Colony Minister

    3. The Minister of the Colonies would not admitt’ (it is said) ‘the existence of

    political assemblies without dependence on the government, and without

    responsibility of their members.’ Would not admitt? Who could ever have asked

    him to admitt any such thing? Why thus, in the character of a reason, advance a

    fact notoriously and necessarily false? By making known or endeavouring to make

    known whether in private or in public, his opinions relative to the conduct of

    the members of the government, does any man make himself or so much as seek to

    make himself or any one else independent of the government? Does he exempt or

    seek to exempt himself from responsibility for this or for any other of his

    acts? How is this? What am I to think of this gentleman? that in his mind there

    exists no difference between liberty and power: between liberty to a man to do

    or not do so and so himself, and power to take this liberty from others? But a

    man who is or affects to be ignorant of the difference, and under the notion or

    pretence of stripping men of a power or for stripping them or for stripping all

    the men in the nation of a most indispensable liberty – how dangerous must not

    such a man be in and to any government of which he is a member?

    {If this be not his own speech, this at any rate is the opinion that by

    insinuation as usual he endeavours to impress his colleagues and fellow country

    men with. I mean in his 4th article. Nevertheless these societies, authorized by

    the competent authority will not be regarded as corporations? Regarded as

    corporations indeed. What? the liberty of declaring his opinion of the conduct

    of the government does he the possessor of this liberty constitute a man: if

    instead of one man there be two that do this does there being two constitute

    them a corporation? if instead of two we say two hundred or two thousand, are we

    any thing the nearer to the constituting of a corporation.

    At this moment, a friend who sits opposite to me is joining with me in melancholy

    reflections on this speech of Mr Gorelli. By doing so My friend is he a

    corporation? I am I a corporation? Both of us together are we are corporation:

    we are quite as truly a corporation as any of those men, out of whom by calling

    them a corporation Mr Gorelli has made /[…?]/ a pretence for ruining them, and

    destroying the Constitution which he pretends to serve.}
  • Title: [1820 Oct. 22 16 1o & 3o? Letter 3. Public]
    Description: 1820 Oct. 22 16 1o & 3o? Letter 3. Public Discussion England 16

    It is with a reference to England that the Right Honorable Gentleman concludes.

    In this part of the world the Right Honorable Gentleman is not at home: neither

    in fact nor in argument can there be any agreement between us.

    ‘In representative Governments England for instance there are also societies,

    but they meet for one determined object, and when that is finished they are

    dissolved. But permanent societies’ continues he ‘are unknown unless authorized

    by the law, and where they have this character the government will be the first

    to support them.’

    As if it were all.

    In representative governments England for instance –

    Prudently and consistently did he act in taking England for his instance. The

    instance he stood in need of was one in which the endeavour is to reduce all

    political societies that are without power to the same state of […?] to which he

    has consigned yours.

    A representative government I have shewn you already in which these societies

    are mostly compleatly exempt from all check /restraint/ from all […?] It is a

    government the form of which in respect so far as regards the system of /for

    the/ representation of the people, agrees almost to coincidence agrees in

    respect of all the great principles with yours. By the practice of that

    representative government this liberticide law of his and every other

    liberticide law he may have in store for you stands condemned: he accordingly

    knows nothing of it: he does not see it: he has never heard of it. But you my

    friends you have: you now have heard of it. You will judge whether you ought

    ever to forget it: let it go out of your minds is for you to judge.