Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe | Page 8

whose opinion was founded on the best means of knowledge, has declared that "the effects of this interposition have been felt ever since by the unhappy prisoners."[1]
[Footnote 1: Gentleman's Magazine for 1785, page 572.]
Oglethorpe thus became the precursor of HOWARD, the philanthropist, in the cause of humanity, as it regards the amelioration of prison discipline in general, especially the rigors of close confinement for debt or petty offences, and that among felons and convicts. The impression then made on his mind and heart, led him, afterwards, to other and more extensive and efficacious measures for the relief of poor debtors from the extortions and oppressions to which they were subjected by gaolers, and from the humiliation and distress in which they were often involved without any fault of their own, or by some conduct which deserved pity rather than punishment.
At the opening of the session of Parliament on the 12th of January, 1731, the King's speech was the subject of debate in the House of Commons. A motion was made for an address of thanks, in which they should declare their entire approbation of his Majesty's conduct, express their confidence in the wisdom of his counsels, and announce their readiness to grant the necessary supplies. There were some who opposed the motion. They did not argue against a general vote of thanks, but intimated the impropriety, and, indeed, ill tendency of expressions which implied an unquestioning approbation of the measures of the ministry. In referring to this, Smollet[1] says, "Mr. Oglethorpe, a gentleman of unblemished character, brave, generous, and humane, affirmed that many other things related more immediately to the honor and interest of the nation, than did the guarantee of the Pragmatic sanction. He said that he wished to have heard that the new works at Dunkirk had been entirely razed and destroyed; that the nation had received full and complete satisfaction for the depradation committed by the natives of Spain; that more care was taken in the disciplining of the militia, on whose valor the nation must chiefly depend in case of an invasion; and that some regard had been shown to the oppressed Protestants in Germany. He expressed his satisfaction, however, to find that the English were not so closely united to France as formerly, for he had generally observed that when two dogs were in a leash together, the stronger generally ran away with the weaker; and this, he feared, had been the case between France and Great Britain."
[Footnote 1: History of England, Book II. chap. iv. Section xxx.]
The motion, however, was carried, and the address presented.
Possessing a vein of wit, Oglethorpe was apt to introduce piquant illustrations and comparisons into his narratives, and sometimes with the view of their giving force to his statements; but, though they might serve to enliven conversation, they were not dignified enough for a speech in so august an assembly as that he was now addressing. They are, however, atoned for, on this occasion, by the grave tenor of his preceding remarks, which were the dictates of good sense, the suggestions of sound policy, and, especially, by the reference to the distressed situation of the persecuted German Protestants which was evincive of a compassionate consideration, truly honorable to him as a man and a Christian. And we shall find, that, in behalf of these, he afterwards exerted a personal and availing influence.
In 1732 he made a spirited and patriotic effort in Parliament to restore a constitutional militia; and to abolish arbitrary impressment for the sea-service; and, on this subject, he published a pamphlet entitled "The Sailor's Advocate," for which Mr. Sharpe obliged him with a sarcastic preface.
In the debate on the bill for encouraging the trade of the British sugar colonies, Oglethorpe took an active part, and manifested those liberal and patriotic views, and that regard for the colonial settlements in North America, which, afterwards, became with him a decided principle.
"In all cases," said he, "that come before this House, where there seems a clashing of interests, we ought to have no exclusive regard to the particular interest of any one country or set of people, but to the good of the whole. Our colonies are a part of our dominions. The people in them are our own people; and we ought to show an equal respect to all. If it should appear that our Plantations upon the continent of America are against that which is desired by the sugar colonies, we are to presume that the granting thereof will be a prejudice to the trade or particular interests of our continental settlements. And, surely, the danger of hurting so considerable a part of our dominions,--a part which reaches from the 34th to the 46th degree of north latitude,--will, at least, incline us to be extremely cautious in what we