Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow LETTER XXXVII.: The Opening of the Session of 1770. - Letters of David Hume to William Strahan

Return to Title Page for Letters of David Hume to William Strahan

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Philosophy

LETTER XXXVII.: The Opening of the Session of 1770. - David Hume, Letters of David Hume to William Strahan [1756]

Edition used:

Letters of David Hume to William Strahan, ed. G. Birkbeck Hill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888).

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


LETTER XXXVII.

The Opening of the Session of 1770.

Dear Strahan

I am extremely oblig’d to you for your account of the Debate in the house of Peers1. : It is very judicious and accurate and impartial, as usual. I now begin to entertain strong hopes, that the King will weather this Tempest2. , and that the Infamy of Calumny, Faction, Madness and Disorder will at last fall on those heads, who merit it. The Ministry are much better advis’d not to give nor even to take Provocation3. , than they seem to have been by the Paper of Ruffheads4. which you sent me last Autumn. And as every obnoxious Person is turnd out5. , the King's Resolution is visible to support his Ministry, and men will either acquiesce or return to the ordinary, parliamentary Arts of Opposition6. . I apprehend, however, that, before the Session ends, this abandon’d Faction, not to be foild without hopes, will have recourse to the violence of the Mob, in expectation of provoking the Ministry to commit some Imprudence: Their greatest Imprudence woud be remissness on that Occasion. Open Violence gives such a palpable Reason for the severe Execution of the Laws, a thing much wanted, that it ought immediately to be laid hold of, and it will have a very salutary Effect7. .

The part which Chatham acts, after all the Favours and Distinctions which he has receivd from the Crown, is infamous, like himself8. .

I send you enclos’d an answer to one of Cadells. It is open, that you may read it, as the matter concerns you, no less than him.

I am Dear Sir Yours sincerely

David Hume.

  • Edinburgh,

25 Jan., 1770.

[1.]Note 1. The Session opened on Jan. 9, 1770. ‘The debates,’ wrote Burke, ‘were carried on with a warmth and acrimony of expression before unknown in that assembly.’ Ann. Reg. 1770, i. 60. Strahan, who was a spectator in the House of Lords on the opening night, sent Hume a long report of the Debate. See Letters of Eminent Persons to David Hume, p. 91.

[2.]Note 2. Horace Walpole, writing on Jan. 10 of the victory of the Ministers in both Houses, said:—‘Where so many caldrons full of passions are boiling, they are not extinguished by one wet sheet of votes.’ Letters, v. 214.

[3.]Note 3. ‘Burke on the Address had attacked the House itself, and hinted that the majority was so guilty that they did not dare to take notice of the insults offered to them, and the reproaches cast on them. On the Report he added that he was conscious he had deserved to be sent to the Tower for what he had said; but knew the House did not dare to send him thither. Sir George Saville used the same language. Lord North took notice of it, but said he supposed Sir George had spoken in warmth. “No,” replied Saville coolly, “I spoke what has been my constant opinion; I thought so last night, I thought the same this morning. I look on this House as sitting illegally after their illegal act [of voting Luttrell representative for Middlesex]. They have betrayed their trust. I will add no epithets,” continued he, “because epithets only weaken; therefore I will not say they have betrayed their country corruptly, flagitiously, and scandalously; but I do say they have betrayed their country; and I stand here to receive the punishment for having said so.” Mr. Conway, sensible of the weight of such an attack from a man so respectable, alarmed at the consequences that would probably attend the punishment of him … took up the matter with temper, wisdom, and art…. Had the Ministers dared to send Saville to the Tower, the Cavendishes and the most virtuous and respectable of his friends would have started up, would have avowed his language, and would have demanded to share his imprisonment. A dozen or twenty such confessors in the heat of a tumultuous capital would have been no indifferent spectacle; the great northern counties were devoted to them. Then, indeed, the moment was serious. Fortunately there were none but subordinate Ministers in the House of Commons, not one of whom chose to cast so decisive a die1 The House sat silent under its ignominy—a punishment well suited to its demerits; and the sword was not called in to decide a contest in which Liberty and the Constitution would probably have been the victims.’ Walpole's Memoirs of George III, iv. 38. Burke began his reply to Lord North by saying:—‘The noble lord who spoke last, after extending his right leg a full yard before his left, rolling his flaming eyes, and moving his ponderous frame, has at length opened his mouth. I was all attention. After these portents I expected something still more awful and tremendous. I expected that the Tower would have been threatened in articulated thunder; but I have heard only a feeble remonstrance against violence and passion; when I expected the powers of destruction to “cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war,” an overblown bladder has burst, and nobody has been hurt by the crack.’ Parl. Hist. xvi. 720.

[4.]Note 4. Owen Ruffhead is best known by his Life of Pope. Johnson speaking of it said:—‘He knew nothing of Pope and nothing of poetry.’ Boswell's Johnson, ii. 166. In a letter to Strahan, dated Parade, Hot Wells, Aug. 24, 1769, Ruffhead writes:—‘As to the Pamphlet, I heartily wish you had corrected the inaccuracies you pointed out to me…. I think it would be advisable to advertise it as a second edition, but leave it wholly to you.’ Barker MSS. He had lately been appointed one of the Chief Secretaries to the Treasury. He died on Oct. 25, 1769. Gent. Mag., 1769, p. 511.

[5.]Note 5. Horace Walpole, writing on Jan. 18 of the dismissal of the Ministers, says:—‘Nothing proves the badness of generals like an ill use of a great victory. Ours have not hurt their own success by neglecting to pursue it, but by pursuing it too far. Lord Huntingdon was turned out the next day, not for having joined the enemy, but merely for having absented himself.’ After recounting some of the dismissals or resignations, Walpole continues:—‘You may imagine how these events have raised the spirits and animosity of the Opposition.’ Letters, v. 216. Burke in the Ann. Reg., 1770, i. 63, under the date of Jan. 17, says:—‘The whole of administration seemed to be falling to pieces. A violent panic prevailed.’ On the 28th the Duke of Grafton resigned, and was succeeded as First Minister by Lord North. ‘He is,’ wrote Walpole on Jan. 30, ‘much more able, more active, more assiduous, more resolute, and more fitted to deal with mankind.’ Letters, v. 223.

[6.]Note 6. Johnson on April 14, 1775, said to Boswell, speaking of Lord North's Ministry:—‘You must have observed, Sir, that administration is feeble and timid, and cannot act with that authority and resolution which is necessary. Were I in power I would turn out every man who dared to oppose me. Government has the distribution of offices that it may be enabled to maintain its authority.’ Boswell's Johnson, ii. 355.

[7.]Note 7. Hume wrote from Edinburgh on April 5, 1770:—‘I am sorry to inform you that all we statesmen in this town condemn loudly the conduct of you statesmen in London, especially in allowing those insolent rascals, the mayor and sheriffs, to escape with impunity. We were much disappointed not to find them impeached, and a bill of pains and penalties passed upon them. The tumults which might have ensued in London we thought rather an advantage; as it would give Government an opportunity of chastising that abominable rabble.’ Burton's Hume, ii. 435.

[8.]Note 8. ‘Praise enough

  • To fill th’ ambition of a private man,
  • That Chatham's language was his mother tongue,
  • And Wolfe's great name compatriot with his own.
  • Farewell those honours, and farewell with them
  • The hope of such hereafter. They have fall’n
  • Each in his field of glory; one in arms
  • And one in council. Wolfe upon the lap
  • Of smiling victory that moment won,
  • And Chatham, heart-sick of his country's shame.’

Cowper's Poems, ed. 1786, ii. 57.

Burke in the Ann. Reg. for 1770, i. 66, speaking of this time, says:—‘The Earl of Chatham now seemed disposed to recover that almost boundless popularity which he once possessed, and which, in consequence of a subsequent conduct, he had in a great measure lost.’ See ante, p. 127, n. 15. In the debate on the Address Chatham had said:—‘The English people are loud in their complaints; they proclaim with one voice the injuries they have received; they demand redress, and depend upon it, my Lords, that one way or other they will have redress. They will never return to a state of tranquillity until they are redressed; nor ought they.’ Parl. Hist. xvi. 652. On Jan. 22 he went still further:—‘If the breach in the constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves return to a state of tranquillity. If not—may discord prevail for ever!’ Ib. p. 748.

[3.]Note 3. ‘Burke on the Address had attacked the House itself, and hinted that the majority was so guilty that they did not dare to take notice of the insults offered to them, and the reproaches cast on them. On the Report he added that he was conscious he had deserved to be sent to the Tower for what he had said; but knew the House did not dare to send him thither. Sir George Saville used the same language. Lord North took notice of it, but said he supposed Sir George had spoken in warmth. “No,” replied Saville coolly, “I spoke what has been my constant opinion; I thought so last night, I thought the same this morning. I look on this House as sitting illegally after their illegal act [of voting Luttrell representative for Middlesex]. They have betrayed their trust. I will add no epithets,” continued he, “because epithets only weaken; therefore I will not say they have betrayed their country corruptly, flagitiously, and scandalously; but I do say they have betrayed their country; and I stand here to receive the punishment for having said so.” Mr. Conway, sensible of the weight of such an attack from a man so respectable, alarmed at the consequences that would probably attend the punishment of him … took up the matter with temper, wisdom, and art…. Had the Ministers dared to send Saville to the Tower, the Cavendishes and the most virtuous and respectable of his friends would have started up, would have avowed his language, and would have demanded to share his imprisonment. A dozen or twenty such confessors in the heat of a tumultuous capital would have been no indifferent spectacle; the great northern counties were devoted to them. Then, indeed, the moment was serious. Fortunately there were none but subordinate Ministers in the House of Commons, not one of whom chose to cast so decisive a die1 The House sat silent under its ignominy—a punishment well suited to its demerits; and the sword was not called in to decide a contest in which Liberty and the Constitution would probably have been the victims.’ Walpole's Memoirs of George III, iv. 38. Burke began his reply to Lord North by saying:—‘The noble lord who spoke last, after extending his right leg a full yard before his left, rolling his flaming eyes, and moving his ponderous frame, has at length opened his mouth. I was all attention. After these portents I expected something still more awful and tremendous. I expected that the Tower would have been threatened in articulated thunder; but I have heard only a feeble remonstrance against violence and passion; when I expected the powers of destruction to “cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war,” an overblown bladder has burst, and nobody has been hurt by the crack.’ Parl. Hist. xvi. 720.

[1]Lord North was there, as Chancellor of the Exchequer—in a month's time to be Prime Minister.