Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 2.djvu/483

 No! your oppression planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny into a then uncultivated land, where they were exposed to almost all hardships to which human nature is liable, and yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all these hardships with pleasure, compared to those they had suffered in their own country from the hands of those who should have been their friends. They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of them; as soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them, who were perhaps the deputies of some deputy, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them. They protected by your arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, &c, &c.”

Barré’s career of opposition was interrupted by his receiving office, as one of Lord Shelburne’s train, under the Earl of Chatham. This is thought by some writers to be a blot on his career, Barré in his first speech in Parliament having attacked Pitt, and having used even such violent phraseology as “There he would stand, turning up his eyes to heaven that witnessed his perjuries, and laying his hand in a solemn manner upon the table — that sacrilegious hand that had been employed in tearing out the bowels of his mother country.” The Chatham Correspondence, however, acquits Barré, showing that there had been honourable negotiations, founded upon “conciliatory expressions to America.” Barré was now made a Privy Councillor and joint Vice-Treasurer of Ireland. The political arrangements, however, were of short continuance, and he returned to opposition. To this period he once jocularly alluded, “In Ireland, when I was Vice-Treasurer with Lord Clare, we always paid the money first and then examined if we owed it.” He always reckoned himself to be a born Irishman, and once raised a laugh against himself as one of that nation, by saying of the city of Boston, in America, “She is your eldest son.” In 1769 (April 12) he made a masterly speech in favour of the perpetuity of the militia; and the resolution was carried by a majority of 84 to 79. In 1773 he obtained an increase to the pay of Captains of the Navy, on the ground that they have greatly promoted the influence of this country by receiving on board and entertaining foreign princes of the blood and other great personages. In 1774 he opposed the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in any part of America.

Barré is known by his powerful opposition to the American War; but it was remarked upon as surprising, that he hesitated at first. But human nature will betray an occasional weakness; and our East India proprietor had no doubt been shocked by the news that three cargoes of tea had been thrown into the sea at Boston, so that in 1774 he supported the Bill for closing that port.

A pamphlet was published in London in 1777, entitled “Characters, containing an impartial review of the public conduct and abilities of the most eminent Personages in the Parliament of Great Britain, considered as statesmen, senators, and public speakers.” A section is devoted to Colonel Barré, and is highly laudatory — but mentions this inconsistency in his public conduct, and his explanation of it, thus:—

“The Resolutions in the Committee of the whole House, in the beginning of the spring session 1774, having (we fear) fatally spawned that celebrated law, called The Boston Port Bill, as the firstborn ot those measures which have produced the present civil war in America, it met with the Colonel’s support, contrary to every anterior and subsequent opinion of his in Parliament. This was matter of surprise at the time; and there were some who did not hesitate to impute so sudden and unexpected an alteration of sentiment to motives which have since governed several others who then stood high in the estimation of the public, but who have since flatly belied all their former professions, or have at least learned to be persuaded that they were mistaken or misled. The observation here made was not barely confined to the suspicions or murmurs of people without doors; it has frequently been objected to him by several of the members of Administration in debate, when he has arraigned in the most unqualified terms the measures of Government and charged their authors with ignorance, temerity, and injustice. We have heard them more than once retaliate on him in nearly the following words:— ‘The Boston Port Bill (no matter whether a wise, an expedient, or an equitable measure) drew the nation into this war. Why did you support it so warmly, with all those powers of oratory and ratiocination which you so eminently possess? Everything which has since followed grew out of that measure. If it was a wise measure, why not continue to support it? if a bad one, why for a minute lend it your countenance?’

“The Colonel’s answer can only be properly decided upon by the monitor residing within his own breast. He has repeatedly said on those occasions, ‘that the minister gave him and his friends, both in and out of Parliament, the most lull and specific assurances that if the bill were permitted to pass both Houses with an appearance of firmness and unanimity, the East India Company would receive reparation for the tea which had been destroyed the