JB_022_212.xml

Title: [1820 Oct. 9 Spanish liberticide measures]

Description: 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.

JB_022_223.xml

Title: [1820 Oct. 10 Spanish liberticide measures]

Description: 1820 Oct. 10 Spanish liberticide measures Conclusion 1. Gorelli. or

Conclusion Gorelli & Torreno

‘I know’ (says Mr Gorelli /he/) that these associations owe their origin to a

laudable abject and that to them though illegal we owe the acquisition of the

good we enjoy. But the means that have been employed to acquire far from being

conducive to its preservation would be the great obstacle to its consolidation.’

Thus says Mr Goreli and thereupon it is that he treats as criminals those who

have made him what he is. Thus it is that he treats them and for the very thing

for which he had worshipped them. Thus it is that after having mounted the

ladder, he kicks it down and prepares to burn it.

Free enquiry /discussion/ so long as it is employed on our side /for our

interest/ is a good thing – the instant it is employed against our interest it

is a bad thing: and we will destroy it. Right becomes wrong when against us:

wrong becomes right when for us. This is the Honourable Gentleman’s morality:

this then his logic.

In Morocco In Spain in England in Morocco, among the Persas in the Cortes /in

the logic of a Persa/ in the mouth /logic/ of a Member of the Cortes in the

logic of rulers every where but in the Anglo-American United States the

definition of the liberty of speech is the same the distinction between liberty

and licentiousness is the same. Liberty consists in /is exercised by/ doing

every thing we like: licentiousness is manifested by doing any thing we /I/ do

not like. We will tolerate every thing that is said in praise of us: we will

punish as far as is in our power for every thing that is said in dispraise of.

We will not only allow it; but if we think it worth the money we will pay for it

at the public expence.

All comes to this so long as a man does /says/ nothing but what they like he

will be allowed to do it: as far as he does any thing do not like he will be

punished. Such are the principles avowed and acted upon by Mr Gorelli: and such

I grieve to say it are the principles avowed and acted upon by Count Torreno.

Such were the principles avowed and acted upon by the Persas: such were the

principles avowed and acted upon by the Inquisitions.These liberalists if such

they are, can no more endure any thing should be said against them, than the

Serviles.

JB_022_218.xml

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.}