Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

66

quoted the words of Lord Hawkesbury's own projet, which, as I have said before, was delivered into Mr Otto on the 14th of April, some weeks before news was received of the victory of the 21st of March. "If," says the projet, "authentic information "should be received, previous to the sign"ing of the preliminaries, of the evacuation of Egypt by the French troops, or of a "convention concluded to that effect, his Ma"jesty will not hold himself bound to sub"scribe to the above conditions in all their "extent *." If this was the language of ministers previous to the news of the victory of Alexandria; if this was their language at the beginning of the negotiation, is it consistent with candour for them now to assert, that, to the end of that negotiation, France was considered as the "mistress of "Egypt?"

With regard to France having "stirred "up a confederation of king's from the bo"som of the North," the Accurate Observer truly states, that the confederation, if it was one, might be considered as dissolved by the battle of Copenhagen, the intelligence of which was received before Lord Hawkesbury made his first proposition to Mr. Otto; but, if it was not dissolved on the 14th of April, it surely was completely dissolved by the death of the Emperor Paul, and by the Convention, the much boasted convention with Russia, which was concluded on the 5th of June, 1801, four months before the preliminaries of peace were signed, and several weeks before Lord Hawkesbuty receded from his first proposition. What pretence, therefore, is there for classing the "confederation of kings" amongst the dangers, which the ministers had to encounter in a continuation of the war? What pretence is there for citing the state of Egypt and the dispute with the Northern powers as circumstances that rendered our situation in 1801 worse than our situation in 1797, when the battles of Aboukir and of Camperdown were, as yet, not won; when, of course, the enemy': maritime power was, as yet, considerable, and when there was actually a mutiny in our fleet? What resemblance is there between the circumstances of the two epochs; and what pretence is there, then, for saying, that the projet of Lisle was a circle "out of which Lord Hawkesbury could

"not tread?”

Lord Grenville fully proved the falsehood of assertions of this sort, in his speech of the 3d of November, 1801. But, indeed, none but

• See Register, Vol. III. p. 1161.

the basest of advocates, pleading to the basest of tribunals, would have attempted such a mode of defence. How was Lord Hawkesbury bound by the project of Lord Grenville? It was a hundred times acknowledged by the late ministry, that the rupture of the negotiations at Lisle was a fortunate circumstance: and, yet a project delivered in during that negotiation was to be a circle out of which their successors could not tread! Besides, how happens it, that, the other plans of the late ministry did not become circles out of which their successors could not tread? How came those successors to have boasted, even in the very pamphlet before us, of acting upon principles and in a mode diametrically opposed to the principles and modes of their predecessors, How, for instance, came Lord Hawkesbury to solicit an interview with a Commissary of Prisoners, so contrary to the practice of Lord Grenville; and how came he, at once, to assume a supplicating tone better suited to a petty dependent republic than to the King of Great Britain? How came his partisans to beast of this shameful act of degra dation? And how came the stock-jobbers to applaud him to the skies? The project at Lisle, though made under circumstances such as we have seen, and though never justified by any body, but upon the ground of hard necessity; that project retained the Cape as well as Ceylon; it secured Portugal from loss either in commerce, in money, or in territory; it provided a real and complete indemnity for the Prince of Orange; it made no sacrifice of any ally of GreatBritain; whereas the peace of the Adding. tons and Hawkesburies has sacrificed them all, and has left us not a friend upon the face of the earth. But, after all, and to conclude this part of the examination with a fact, which seems to have been entirely overlooked by every body, the project of Lisle was never taken into consideration in the negotiations of either the preliminary or definitive treaty. The First Consul of France, with a frankness which really does honour to himself, and which has certainly done much good to his cause, has published the whole of the papers relative to both these negotiations; and, from one end to the other of these papers, the project of Lisle, the project which was "a circle out of which Lord Hawkesbury could not tread,” is never dwelt upon, it is never referred to, nay, it is never so much as once mentioned, or even alluded to, by either of the parties!*

* All these papers are correctly inserted in the Register, Vol. III. from p. 1179 to 1208, and from 1857 to 1910.

And, yet the slave of the candid Addingtons has been instructed to tell us, that it was a circle out of which they could not tread! Thanks to Buonaparté, we are now made acquainted with what was so sedulously hidden from us : we now know, that the project of Lisle, which was, in both Houses of Parliament, described as the insurmountable obstacle to a peace, such as the New Opposition contended for, was never so minch as brought into view, during the whole. course of the negotiation.

The next point, on which the Addingtons have misrepresented Lord Grenville, is, the language made use of by his lordship in speaking of the conduct of the ministry.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

Notwithstanding," say they," that, so early as the treaty concluded with the "Court of St. Petersburgh, 5th June, 1801, the great talents of Lord Grenville had "been employed upon a speech and pamphlet, in which he endeavoured to oppose, discredit, and censure with every "species of acrimony and contempt, those ministers, to whom he had so lately engaged his constant, active, and zealous support,' the public were astonished at "his censure of the preliminaries of peace." Before I remark on what is advanced here and in other parts of the pamph'et as to the language of Lord Grenville, I must contradict the falsehood, which I have just transcribed, and which has been passed over in silence by the More Accurate Observer. It is said, that "so early as the Convention with Russia, the 5th of June, 1801, Lord Grenville's talents had been employed upon a speech and a pamphlet, &c." Now, before the Convention with Rossia was ratified, Parliament had adjourned; that Convention never was laid before Parliament till the next November; and the speech made by Lord Grenville on the subject, which speech he afterwards published in a pamphlet, was not delivered till the 13th of November, ten days after the discussion of the preliminaries of peace! The object of this falsehood evidently is, to bring the commencement of his lordship's opposition as near as possible to the time, when it is pretended he gave an unconditional promise of "constant, active, and zealous support;" and, it is an object by no means unworthy of the wellmeaning Addingtons and Hawkesburies.*

This act of foul aggression, on the part of the Addingtons and Hawkesburies, anthorizes, and even calls for, the relation of an anecdote, which, though I have often had sufficient provocation, I have hitherto forborne to communicate to the public.

As to the "acrimony and contempt," with which his lordship is said to have treated the ministers in his speech on the Russian Convention, the speech itself, published

Very soon after the Convention of St. Petersburgh was concluded, a pamphlet was prepared in defence of it, This pamphlet was entitled, "A Vindication of the Conven◄

tion, lately concluded between GreatBritain and Russia, in six letters, address"ed to ———." It was published before the meeting of Parliament, and was obviously intended to prepossess the public mind against every objection that should be urged to the compact which it was intended to vindicate. So far, perhaps, there was little to find fault with. But, who will believe, that this pamphlet, which was, to all intents and purposes a ministerial publication, and which was paid for out of the public money, contained a deliberate, high-wrought eulogium on Lord Hawkesbury, who was held forth as his country's best-hope, and as pos sessing all the talents, all the coolness, all the wisdom, all the statesman-like virtues of bis "noble Sire;" who will believe, that this pamphlet was written under the dictation of that "noble Sire" himself? When I say dictation, I do not mean, that the pamphlet was written at the suggestion of Lord Liverpool; I do not mean to say, that he furnished the hints; but I mean to say, that with his own lips, he dictated the statements, the opinions, the arguments, and the very words of it; and, I have further to say, that his lordship and Lord Hawkesbury himself read, and, in some instances, corrected, the proof sheets! The proof sheets of a pamphlet, which contained a fulsome eulogium upon themselves, and which they and their under officers assis ed to circulate, and that, too, at the public expense!- But, this is not all. The wwell-meaning Jenkinsons chose to attribute the pamphlet to a Mr. Ireland, Vicar of Croydon, in Surrey. Under his auspices it went to the press, and, out of the proceeds (which came principally from the Treasury) he received a sum of money. ther it was for this or some other great public service; whether for this or some other act of disinterested patriotism and loyalty; whether it was for his politics or his piety, I know not, but Mr. Ireland soon after became a Doctor of Divinity and a Prelend of Westminster.- This part of the anecdote relative to Dr. Ireland I should have suppressed; but, since the Doctor has thought proper to introduce, with great officiousness, into the library of the reading

Whe

from his own notes, may be consulted; and, if in that edition of it, or in any report of it which has been made in the newspapers, or elsewhere, one single phrase can be found to warrant the charge here brought against it, I will allow the Near Observer to have been the instrument of fair and honourable men. That speech will be read with pleasure and will convey instruction; it will serve as a guide to future statesmen; it will be consulted as one of the works on the public law of Europe; long, very long, after the persons, all the persons, who made the disgraceful instrument which called it forth, shall have sunk into the oblivion of contempt, or shall be remembered only in the

Society of his Parish, a work, the sole object and tendency of which is to misrepresent, calumniate, and vilify Lord Grenville, Mr. Windham, and every other person who has stood conspicuously forward in opposition to the measures, by which the present ministers have steeped the country in disgrace; since the Rev. Doctor has made this use of the influence which he possesses over his parishioners, it is fitting that those parishioners, as well as the whole kingdom, should be made acquainted with such circumstances as may serve to elucidate the motives which have given rise to the zeal that he displays against the opponents of ministers. It must not be objected to my complaint against Doctor Ireland, that he has not the power to prevent the publication in question from being circulated by the reading Society of his parish; because he himself purchased the pamphlet for the Society. The pubiication, which I first met with in the house of one of his parishioners, is entitled "Elements of Opposi tion; it was published by the same bookseller who published the Cursory Remarks; it consists of garbled passages from my writings and from the speeches of the New Opposition members, together with comments calculated to pervert the meaning of the text, and to misrepresent the conduct, to disfigure the motives, and to defame the character of the persons spoken of, whose private as well as public actions are most falsely and basely misrepresented. Such is the work, which Doctor Ireland has circulated, and is yet circulating, amongst his parishioners. How far he does, in this instance, act in conformity with the dictates of that superior piety, by which the adherents of the well-meaning ministry profess to be governed, I shall not attempt to determine; but, I hope, he will be able to find some leaf, some little morsel of blank paper,

execrations of Englishmen. I heard that speech; and, well do I recollect the real candour, the gentleness, the mercy, the compassion, with which his lordship treated his opponents; but, not one word did I hear, not a look or gesture did I see, expressive of acrimony or contempt."--In another part of his pamphlet, the Near Observer renews the charge relative to Lord Grenville's language. It would not,'

[ocr errors]

46

[ocr errors]

says he, "be doing even the little justice I am able, to the subject I am treating of, "if I were to omit, that the style and language of opposition was much degenerated "in the new hands to which it had trans "ferred itself. The late minority, though "it had been treated as a low contemptible "faction of levellers and jacobins, never "dealt in abuse and incivility so largely as "the great aristocracy which had now suc"ceeded to their place. Absurd, incapable, "and grosser epithets were liberally ap "plied to his Majesty's councils and ini "nisters, and by no member of either "House more frequently than by Lord "Grenville." Again, in another part, he speaks of the aggressive and unrelenting

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

opposition, the asperity, malevolence, and rancour, of Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville, "since the failure of THEIR negotiation "in April last." As far as relates to Lord Grenville, was there ever any thing so de

in the dull and vile pamphlet alluded to, whereon to write these few words, for the information of the people of Croydon : "Mr. Cobbett, who is so frequently men"tioned in the enclosed pages, has written "many pamphlets in defence of his King "and of his countrymen, in vindication of "the character, the conduct, the laws and "the rights of England; of these pamph"lets he has circulated more than half a "million, in a foreign land; and, never did " he ask for, or did he accept of, a sum "of money, no, nor of one penny, from any "ministry or any government. Mr. Cot"bett is a Surrey man; and, he wishes "those amongst whom he was born, and in "the participation of the hardest of whose "labours his youth was spent, to know, "that he never has pocketed of their earn"ings one single farthing, in the whole "course of his life." To this Doctor Ireland may add, that I have known the whole history of bis pamphlet for more than two years, and that the facts came to my knowledge under no promise of secrecy, either expressed or implied. Let him add this, and then leave his parishioners to make a comparison between my character and his,

testably base as this latter insinuation? Of this I shall speak more fully, after I have examined the charges of using gross language, and of pursuing the course of unrelenting opposition.

2

But, previously, let us hear, as to the first of these charges, the defence of Lord Grenville which the Accurate Observer has had the goodness to make. "The use of "expressions," says he, "more harsh and severe than the occasion justifies, on "which they are applied, is always objec "tionable. It always manifests ill-humour, "and always bad taste. But, it is an evil

[ocr errors]

which carries its own remedy along with “it; for, it tends more to defeat than to "forward the purpose it is meant to pro"mote." The reader will readily acknow ledge, that all this is very true, but he will hardly believe that this is the “answer," which a More Accurate Observer has given to this part of the misrepresentations and calumnies of the Near Observer. The charge is not denied; and, the Answerer merely adds to what I have last quoted, that the Near Observer uses fouler language than Lord Grenville, and Mr Sheridan still fouler than either of them, though that gentleman stands high in the opinion of, and has even the honour to be praised by, the great and noble. Mr. Henry Addington. But, as a defence of Lord Grenville, this amounts to nothing; and, therefore, the readers of the Accurate Observer are, as to this point, at least, left to believe, that his lordship's conduct. cannot be defended, a belief which they will the more readily adopt as the language of Mr. Sheridan scems to have been introduced for the sole purpose of furnishing a palliative comparison. And, was this acting the part of one, who undertook to answer misrepresentations and calumnies? Could not the Accurate Observer have denied, as I now positively deny, that Lord Grenville has ever, during the whole course of his present opposition, made use, in parliament, of language unbecoming his rank and character? Could not the Accurate Observer have challenged his opponent to produce proof of a single instance of the contrary? Could not the Accurate Observer, because Lord Grenville's censures were bestowed on a measure which Mr. Pitt approved of; for this reason was it, that Mr. Long could not find in his heart to allow, that "absurd" and " incapable" were not epithets "more harsh and severe than the occasion jus"tified?"

The charge of pursuing "a systematic and unrelenting opposition" has been frecully made against Lord Grenville and

his friends; but, in support of this charge nothing like proof has ever been produced, though the More Accurate Observer appears to have flinched from the task of making a defence. The Near Observer has, however, some associates in the preferring of this accusation against Lord Grenville, namely, the two reverend and sapient gentlemen, who are the editor's of that epitome of all that's stupid and all that's slavish, commonly called "The British Critic," in which work for the month of December last, they have published what they term a review of the Plain Answer of a More Accurate Observer, which " review" consists of a page and a half of unconnected superficial observation, written, apparently, with no other view than that of obtaining or preserving the patronage of Mr. Addington, without abandoning the chance of again profiting from the patronage of Mr. Pitt. In this pursuit Lord Grenville is, of course, given up. Speaking of the statement, which the Accurate Observer has given of the terms, on which Lord Grenville promised ministers his support, these "reviewers" say: "Although even these terms must be un"derstood with some qualification, we can"not help thinking, that so early, so vehe "ment, and so systematic an opposition

[ocr errors]

(commencing, it we mistake not, even

before the peace of Amiens) was hardly "compatible with this" [Lord Grenville's] "declaration" [made in the House of Lords on the 20th of March, 1801], "nor "could have been justified by any measures "of government, but such as should have "been manifestly corrupt in their motive, or

alarmingly dangerous in their tendency.' It is a newly discovered doctrine, that op position to ministers, that even strong and persevering opposition, is not to be made, unless their measures are "manifestly corrupt "in their motive, or alarmingly dangerous, in "their tendency." But, leaving this point, as matter of opinion, to the judgment of the reader, let me ask these Reverend Critics, whether they think, that any two pupils from the school of the much-abused Jesuits could have framed a sentence better calcu⚫. lated to deceive the reader, without a positive falsehood on the part of the writer, than the sentence which I have here quoted from their work? So early, so vehement, and so

66

systematic an opposition." How early, how vehement, and how systematic, they do not say. If they "mistake not," however, this vehement and systematic opposition be gan before the peace of Amiens. And, will they contend, that it was possible for them to make a mistake as to this fact? Will any

man in England believe, that they did not well know, that Lord Grenville never opposed the ministers during the session of parliament which ended on the 2d of July, 1801? Is it not within the recollection of every one, that his lordship and all his former colleagues supported the new ministers to the end of that session? Is it not equally notorious, that the next session began with the discussions on the peace with France? Is it not evident, then, that the opposition of Lord Grenville could not "commence be"fore the peace?" And, again I ask, will any man believe, that the Editor's of the British Critic were ignorant of this fact? But, they will say, perhaps, that the preliminary treaty was not the peace of Amiens, and, it is the peace of Amiens, of which they speak, as having taken place subsequent to the commencement of Lord Grenville's opposition! Nay, reader, start not! I assure you they are very capable of attempting to take shelter under a subterfuge like this; and though, in such an attempt, they would be puzzled to account for the phrase, "if "we mistake not ;" yet are they not men to be disconcerted. For the persons who have written and published a "review" of the pamphlets of the Near and Accurate Observer to affect ignorance as to the fact whether Lord Grenville opposed the preliminary treaty, or not, would, I am aware, require no moderate stock of brass; but, I am also aware, that it is no moderate stock of that commodity which these gentlemen possess. In short, their remark, which I have above quoted, clearly means, and it was clearly intended to mean, and to convey to the mind of the reader, that Lord Grenville's opposition to the ministers was not only vehement and systematic from the beginning, but that it began even before the ministers made peace with France; than which a more barefaced falsehood never was uttered, much less published under the sanction of two Reverend Divines. The truth is, that neither Lord

* These Divines are Messis. Nares and Beloe, whose titles and offices I shall not attempt to describe, seeing that they possess benefice upon benefice till they really swallow up as much as would well maintain ten country clergymen and their families. Neither as critics should I think of characterizing them, were it not, that, as their work is yet read, probably, by seven or eight hundred persons, amongst whom there may be some of the readers of the Register, it becomes, perhaps, my duty, to furnish a standard whereby men may be able to estimate the value of those opintons, which are, par

Grenville, nor any one of the New Opposition, has ever made a systematic opposition to the ministers. Have the persons composing this party ever, since the present ministers came into power, opposed a tax ? Have they ever, except in an instance too glaring to be passed over, availed themselves of any of the numerous opportunities for opposing and exposing the minister upon subjects of finance? Have they ever uttered a word against the granting of the enormous supplies which he has called for? Did they oppose him upon the important questions of armament, or of war? Have they opposed

ticularly on political topics, promulgated in the pages of the British Critic; and, this I shall do by the relation of a fact, which I am positively certain these fathers in litera ture as well as religion will not deny. This is it :-Just after the appearance of the first edition of Mr. Walter Boyd's pamphlet on bank-notes, the Critics in question regarded it, or, at least, they declared that it was, unanswerable, and that it was in vain to en"deavour to argue against it." (I use their very words, I believe.) But, in a few days afterwards, they received a summons from the Treasury, whence they were supplied with such arguments, that, when their next reviewing pamphlet appeared, not only was Mr. Boyd's pamphlet found not to be " un"answerable;" not only was it answered, but the author was treated rather roughly for having written it! In speaking of argu ments supplied by the Treasury, I wish to be literally understood. Their "review," as it was, of course called, of Mr. Boyd's pamphlet was actually furnished them from the Treasury; and, though the opinions it contained were diametrically the reverse of those which the Reverend Critics had expressed, after having read the work, they very do cilely inserted it in their review pamphler, and published it to the world as their own!— Many gentlemen are, as well by the extraor dinary church preferment of these critics as by their confident and pompous manner of writing; many gentlemen, particularly in the country, possessing ten times the knowledge and talents of Messrs. Nares and Beloe, are, by these means imposed upon; but, it is to be presumed, that the fact here re lated, in pointing out the sort of merit in which these reverend persons surpass the rest of their brethren, will embolden their readers to judge for themselves, and no longer rely, without examination, on statements such as that which 1 have above quored respecting the conduct of Lord Grenville.

« ZurückWeiter »