nancial matters will do well to watch the progress of the measures of supply for the present year The creation of exchequer bills is a trick that will eke out appearances for a while; but, if the annihilation of them is not provided for in the ways and means, let it be remembered, that they go to augment, first the unfunded debt, and afterwards the funded debt; and, let it also be remembered, that the Doctor is pledged to carry on this war, "even to a protracted "period without making any addition to the "national debt." Let this never be forgotten. With the aid of this declaration, which admits of no subterfuge, we shall, at all times, be able to try his statements and accounts. The deception which is practised upon the public, or which is produced unintentionally, relative to this subject of finance is truly astonishing. There lies now upon the table before me, a publication entitled, "Moule's compendium of the Funds, 1803" in which publication there is "a statement of finance and expenditure, 1803." In this statement, the accounts of the nation are struck, as it were in an account current, leaving on the credit side a balance of 280,5021. But, the taxes are s'ated to have produced 5,500,000l. more than they have produced, and on the other side, the issue of Exchequer Bills is stated at 5,000,000l. short of the sum issued; making a difference of 10,500,000. Yet this publication is dedicated," by permission," to the Doctor, and was sent to me as something conveying useful information, and that, too, by a very opulent and eminent merchant! If such persons are thus deceived, how can we wonder at the total darkness that prevails amongst the editors of newspapers, and amongst the people generally? The publication, to which I have here referred, is very elegantly engraven on copper-plate. Thousands and thousands of copies have, probably, been circulated. And, will any man say, that it is right for the nation to be thus deceived? To be thus led on blindfolded to the very verge of some great convulsion? Can any rational person hope, that a few weeks, or a few months, will be sufficient to prepare the public mind for the shock which must finally happen? Since about the time that the funding system arose, it has been growing more and more the vague to boast of the "enlightened age," in which we live; and to speak of all the time beyond a hundred years or two back, as the "dark ages." We prattle very prettily about the superstition of our forefathers, those who introduced christianity into our island, those who founded our churches and our colleges, those who bestowed the ep

dowments that we in too many instances have had the gracelessness to squander, those from whom we derive almost every thing that we possess that is truly valuable and great these men we describe as foolishly credulous; but, I defy any one to produce from the true history either of their social or religious conduct and opinion, any single instance of credulity so complete, so disgraceful to the human mind, as that which now prevades the inhabitants of the 'Change.

CONSPIRACY AT PARIS. Pichegru, it appears, has been taken and is actually a prisoner at Paris. As far as one can judge from what has transpired, it seems that Moreau had some connexion with the conspirators; nor is there much room for doubt, that the persons concerned were, in some degree, at least, acting with the knowledge, if not with the consent and encouragement of our ministers. But, it has by no means been made to appear, and I trust it will not, that assassination was the object, or that such a deed made any part of the plan. Of this, however, we shall, doubtless learn more, when the trials have taken place. In the mean time, we must regard the undertaking as intended to excite revolt in France, for the purpose of oversetting the Con sul, and certainly with the profession, if not the intention, of restoring the king. It will, therefore, I trust, be excused, if I take the liberty to remind my readers of what was said upon this subject, in Vol. IV. of the Register, p. 163, by a correspondent, who wrote under the name of INQUISITOR, and who, in speaking of a plan of the kind which has now been attempted to be executed, made the follow ing prophetic observations: "My third ob"jection is to the dangers of such a plan. "These are in truth so many and so great, "that I doubt whether they would not altogether be an absolute impediment to "it. -In my mind they are such, that I "certainly would not choose to adopt any

plan subject to them; and, I think, no "reasonable man would.- -Let us con"sider a little what they are. In the first "place there is the danger of a discovery. "Any event of that sort would be of course "fatal to those whose assistance may thus "have been gained; and this to an ho"nourable mind would be sufficient, I "should imagine, lo outweigh all the-sup"posed advantages of the plan. For how. "would a man feel, when he heard of the "execution of persons, who only became

liable to it through his means, and at his "instigation? But the bad consequences "of a discovery do not end here. The

"whole scheme would of course be entire"ly detected, and whatever progress had "been made, and whatever money spent, "the work would be to be begun afresh. "And then it would not be a work of the "same difficulty and danger only; but a "work of increased dangers, and increased "difficulties; increased on account of the "fear persons would entertain of entering

on a scheme already once detected, and "on account of the additional precautions "and vigilance, that would be exerted, "after the discovery of our attempt, to de"tect new ones. The discovery too, in "this case, is not a very pleasant circum"stance. That a country, which has even "a pretence to call itself, and esteem itself a great country, should attempt to pursue a great plan of policy by bribes and un"derhand means, is not a very dignified

64

nor a very noble line of policy. It is "worthy only of a people, who think of "nothing but money; whose God is their "gold; who think it will clothe them and "feed them, and fight for them, and do every thing for them. The discovery of "such a plan of action, would, I am afraid,

fully justify all the reproaches thrown out "against us as a nation of shop-keepers. "It might authorize, too, somewhat of the "accusation of Punic Faith, which has "been often made. In short, for my own "part, I think, the bad consequences of a "discovery in this case would be so many "and so grievous, that even if there was "little chance of such a discovery (and I "believe there would, on the other hand, "be great chance of it), and even if in its "other parts, I thought the scheme as ad"viseable as I think it is impolitic; even "in that case, for fear of this discovery, I "would not attempt it at all."-The ministers tell people, that they do not read the Register, and, if they tell truth, is not the fact to be regretted? The passage I have here quoted needs no comment: it is so applicable to the case, that if the writer had then possessed the information, which the public is now in possession of, he could hardly have described the plan, its failure, and its consequences in more appropriate terms. Nevertheless, this writer was, at the time when he wrote, regarded as extremely chivalrous," a perfect Windhamite, a man wanting prudence and "discretion," and, therefore, by no. "means a safe politician." The safe politicians have now showed the world what they can do. The fate of the unfortunate men, who have embarked in their schemes, ought to be a warning to the nation. It will not be so, howeyer. The project was, at

best, low and dirty, and, if it did fail," the "will must be taken for the deed." But, if the project had borne the marks of high and generous sentiment, the projector would never have been forgiven: his failure would have been thrown in his teeth every day in the year; every penny he had expended would have been counted a thousand times over; and, if, perchance, a life had been lost, though in fair and honourable combat, the blood would have remained upon his head to the last hour of his existence. It cannot but strike one as something extremely whimsical, that Moreau should have become such a favourite with us Englishmen. I have never heard of one good act of that man's whole life. We all know, that he basely betrayed Pichegru, who had been his friend and protector; and, as to his deeds of plunder and of blood, they are pretty well recorded in the Circles of Suabia and Franconia, where he was guilty of cruelties the description of which makes the blood run cold. I have heard of no act of contrition on his part; nothing have I heard of to wipe away his crimes; nor can I, merely because he is regarded as the rival and enemy of Buonaparté, bring myself to look upon him as a person to be respected, admired, applauded, and beloved. We hear persons, who refuse to listen, for a moment, to any report that states Moreau to have been concerned in an assassination plot. He might not; for, no such plot might exist, perhaps; but, I can see nothing in his character, or in his former conduct, or in his late situation, to make us regard such participation, on his part, as any thing incredible. There are persons, who, when they are told, that Moreau had conferences with the conspirators, reply, that he was too honourable a man to betray confidential communications. But, let these persons ask themselves how this doctrine agrees with the laws of England, which, though the mildest in the world condemn a man to death for such "bonour➡ able" dealing. Besides, if Moreau bad disapproved of the plot, be its nature what it might, and if honour forbade him to make a discovery, honour most assuredly did not forbid him to oblige the conspirators to de sist; and, we have not heard that they did désist, but are told, that they remained plotting at Paris, till the day on which Moreau himself was arrested.--Moreau is, however, by no means the only object of our partiality, which has been shown to wards several other French generals; indeed towards every one, in whom we could pos sibly find any thing to form a contrast disadvantageous to the man whom we fear. We were once in love with Kleber, about

whom the philanthropists of London made much more clamour than they did about the French royalists so basely given up to butchery at Guadaloupe. It was Dessaix that won the battle of Marengo, and we discovered, after he was dead, that he was "a most worthy character," notwithstanding his acts of rebellion. And, it was not this Buonaparté who produced the last revolution; it was his brother Lucien, whose courage supplied the want of that quality in the other. In short, we seem to catch at any thing wherewith to persuade ourselves and the world, that Buonaparté is a contemptible wretch; but, while we do not succeed in hushing our own fears, the ill-natured world perceives our intention and repays us with real contempt a thousand fold.The world is just, perfectly just. It bids us beat Buonaparté, especially if he be so poor and pusillanimous a creature; for, if we truly describe him, what description will suit those who have recourse to conspiracies against him?—I have heard of an attempt to justify this plotting, upon the ground, that Buonaparté is a troubler of the world, and that it is impossible ever to live in peace with him. This may be true, and I believe it is; but it forms no justification for our using foul means against him. He does, indeed, plainly say, I will beat you, and conquer you, and make slaves of you;" but, in so saying, does he not expose himself and his people to be beaten, and conquered, and made slaves of by us; is there not a perfect reciprocity of dangers and advantages. "But," say the lovers of peace and a large loaf, "we do not want to "beat the French; we do not want to

"

conquer their country and to make "slaves of them." Well; Buonaparté cannot help that. It is a matter of taste. He chooses to fight for conquest; we do not: we are fond of defensive war; our "glory" is to preserve ourselves from being captured and yoked; and, shall we, because our fancy differs from his, thereon found a right to employ against him means not allowed of in war? But, "we do not "like war at all, either for offence or de"fence." Very true; but this again is matter of liking or expedience, and he does like it, or he thinks it expedient. What, then, have we left, whereby to obtain redress; whereby to chastise the enemy? War. It is, at last, a mere question of power; and all complaint, on our part, all the blame which we throw upon him, is perfectly childish. In reasoning

about the conduct of nations, men are ever apt to retain the notions which they imbibe in common life, and which they proceed upon in discussing the conduct of individuals; than which a more erroneous course cannot be pursued. Between individuals there is always a third party duly authorised to decide, and having full power to enforce its decisions. Disputing nations have no such umpire. Each is, and ever must be while it is independent, the sole judge of its own actions For policy's sake, each does, indeed, endeavour to justify its conduct in the eyes of the world; but, it is, after all, the sword, or the dread of the sword, that must decide the dispute; and, to be finally in the right, a nation must be victorious.—— All our complainings, therefore, are of no avail : they will obtain us neither the assistance nor the compassion of other nations: and, we may be well assured, that what we call the violence and injustice of France will never be regarded as a valid plea for any act, on our part, contrary to the established usages cf war.

NAVAL INQUIRY.-On the 15th inst. a motion for papers, relative to the Navy, was made, in the House of Commons by Mr. Pitt. The motion was supported by Admiral Berkeley, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sturges, Sir William Elford, and Mr. Ponsonby; and was opposed by Mr. Tierney, Sir C. Pole, Sir Edward Pellew, Capt. Markham, Sir William Curtis, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Tyrwhitt Jones and the Doctor. The debate, which lasted about eight hours, terminated in a division, 130 for the motion, 201 against it, leaving the Doctor a majority of only 71.

-When it is remembered, that the House consists of more than 600 members, it will be, at once, perceived, that it was, on this occasion, comparatively very thin; and, those who have had a little experience in parliamentary tactics will know, that keeping away from divisions is one of the first symptoms of back-sliding.--Mr. Sheridan has, however, at last, made his appearance again, and we shall now see the manly and consistent part he will act. He observed, that it was the first time in his life that be had voted against inquiry; and, it would be very difficult to account for his new line of conduct upon any other ground than that of his having got one place, and his being upon the look-out for another. Zealous patriot! After having served his King and Country so long in Parliament, he is now willing to take upon him the burthen of office!

VOL. V. No. 12.]

417]

LORD ST. VINCENT.

SIR, I cannot, without indignation, read a long and vulgartirade' of abuse by Z. against Lord St. Vincent. To repeat his charges is to refute them: viz. that the Navy Board is grown strict and punctilious in its contracts; that the Dock-yard officers are now compelled to do their duty; that the board of Admiralty issue orders which are too clear and precise to be evaded, &c. Then he inveighs against the manufactory of stores in the Dock-yards, though their tenfold superiority over all contracted articles is proverbial in the navy. But, enough. Do such absurd accusations require further refutation? Is there any one so blind as not to see the pen of a disappointed contractor in every word of them?Then, Sir, Britanicus levels the whole broadside of his prosing oratory against blockading the enemy's fleets; and conjures administration to re-adopt the system which has been universally approved of in the late, and in all former wars; but, what was that system? "When the French had a Brest fleet ready to come out, how else were our Channel squadrons disposed of? Why does not this ingenious tactician explain his ideas of the proper mode of employment for two adverse fleets? Let him look back at the torrent of abuse with which our admirals have been loaded, whenever their blockading vigilance has been eluded. I entirely agree with you, Mr. Editor, that the strictness of a blockade may be pushed too far; that a prudent commander will seize the moment when to relax, when to spare his ships; that a superfluity of force may be employed upon that service; and, even that our armaments are unequally, and perhaps, imprudently distributed. But against the general principle of blockade, in so far as it relates to the watching the enemy's fleet with an equality of force, Britanicus must bring argument founded on experience and knowledge; not loose and flimsy declamations: and till then the gallant officers and seamen reject his insidions praises, which can have no other effect but to unnerve their energy and to paralyse their persevering efforts.In a subsequent letter, I. O. censures Lord St. Vin

[418

cent for NOT having blockaded Toulon in 1798. And a long string of disasters is attributed to that omission. But, Sir, nothing can be more unfair than looking back through the events of a series of years, to judge the merits of a miliary transaction. Human abilities are not to be thus tried, the information a general can obtain, the orders he is under, the force he commands, the position of his adversaries, in short, the circumstances of the moment which press upon him, are the only elements from which honour and justice will decide upon his conduct. Do not, Sir, imagine me the advocate of the Earl St. Vincent; there is no man who has more reason to deprecate the conduct, public and private, of that nobleman than I have; but, I cannot bear to see any public character sustaining an enormous load of business and responsibility, exposed to the petty attacks of ignorance; nor to see your pages soiled with the base insinuations of sordid and malicious interest.I am, Sir, yours, &c. &c. T. H.

March 13th 1804.

NAVAL INQUIRY.

SIR, The discussion in the House of Commons, on Thursday, the 15th instant, relative to the conduct of the board of Admiralty, having been the subject of general conversation and remark, I am induced to trouble you, by attempting to remove some false impressions, which the debates of that evening seem calculated to make on the public mind. Many have supposed a spirit of party and prejudice showed itself upon this occasion very similar to what disgraced the country in the case of Admiral Keppel; but this, notwithstanding appearances, I cannot credit: the present subject is of too awful a nature, for such sentiments to have been. acted upon; besides, it ought to be remembered that Lord Keppel's amiable qualities contributed greatly to produce partiality.

It has been adduced as a proof of party spirit, that there is a secret understanding between Lord St. Vincent and the Old Opposition, which is supposed to have manifested itself, by a remark of Mr. Sheridan's

respecting Sir E. Nepean's continuance in office, and that ot Sir A. Hammond, although there was a known coolness between them and the First Lord. This remark of Mr. Sheridan's (whether there be a good understanding between Lord St. V. and certain members of the House, or not) is undoubtedly a very strange one, for had every man his lordship disagreed with bean removed from their stations, scarce one officer or person who has served with him would, at this eventful crisis, be found in public employment. That it should appear unaccountable to many, how the conduct of the Admiralty so generally disapproved of out of doors, and most notoriously deprecated by the navy, should be so warmly supported in the House of Commons, where impartiality and attention to the opinion of their constituents should influence every member, is not surprising.--The apparent inconsistency I conceive, is probably created by apprehension in members of being thought not to entertain a sufficiently strong and grateful recollection of the services rendered his country by the First Lord on the 14th of February, 1797.--Generally to condemn such a disposition in the representatives of a free people, who are supposed to be chosen on account of the liberality of their sentiments, and the pre-eminence of their abilities, would be reprehensible; but it may surely be allowable to express regret when this amiable bias prevails so far as to screen the individual in whose favour it operates, from all subsequent blame, however justly incurred, and it is self-evident that the most worthy are frequently seduced into error by an over great attention to claims on their gratitude.--A good sea officer may be a bad statesman. A good seaman may be a bad officer; professional knowledge being alone requisite to form the seaman, whilst decision, temper, justice, and moderation are essential qualifications for an offcer. A good officer, in the true sense of the word, will rarely resort to dishonourable means, even for effecting .the most desirable objects, and will carefully avoid every appearance of prejudice, partiality, or revenge. But to end this digression. In the course of Thursday's debate, the conduct of the Admiralty and Lord St. V.'s character, though not implicated in Mr Pitt's motion, were warmly supported by the ministry and some of the old opposition, whilst Mr. Pitt's motives for bringing the question before Parliament, and those of his supporters and advisers, were by some speakers harshly censured and grossly misrepresented. Mr. Fox appears to have voted for the inquiry, 181*

I

but principally (as his speech is rendered), because inquiry would increase Lord St. V,'s credit. Capt. Markham is inade to say, that the movers of the question were actu ated by personal pique. I cannot decide how correctly given these and other speeches propose commenting upon, may be in the public prints, they are my sole authority, but hitherto uncontradicted by better.-Mr. Tierney's, Mr. Sheridan's, and Mr. Tyrwhitt Jones', they represent as having been particularly personal and intemperate.-Mr. Pitt is insultingly asked: if he was panic struck who were his advisers? Why they did not come forward? Doth he mean to set up his judgment, in naval matters, in opposition to the Admiralty's?--He is told, his motion smells of a contract. That he has interfered much about the volunteers, but it is to be hoped he will let the navy alone. His advisers are represented as unemployed and disappointed officers, who are wandering about the streets deservedly neglected; whose testimony is the more suspicious as widely different from that of Sir C. Pole and Sir Edward Pellew -- Surely, Mr. Editor,, a good cause cannot require or be benefited in the eyes of the public, by such support as this! Who asks if that great, that honest, that brave statesman, Mr Pitt, is panic struck? Mr. Tierney! For shame, for shame! How indelicate! How unjust! Is Mr. Pitt the man who can fairly be supposed ignorant of any subject he solemnly brings before Parliament; who can even be suspected of leaguing with unprincipled contractors and designing peculators, to deceive and embarrass his country? Is it likely he would be directed in his public conduct by the information of undeserv ing officers, if such presented themselves? But where is the evidence of their existing amongst our naval officers such unworthy men, such traitors to their country? And without evidence, is it honom able to insult those who are already suffering from neglect? If there are any of this description, why (in the language of these gentlemen) not name them, and hold them up to the detestation they have deserved ?--Be assured, Mr. Editor, there are as good sea officers, and as honourable men, now unem ployed as any that are serving; as real friends to their King and Country, and as incapable of descending to any meanness for interested ends.--In saying this, I am not to be understood as intending to disparage those in employment, they would, I am sure, concur in my remark. But some worthy impartial representatives cry, who are these respectable naval characters that wish for

4.

THR