reader will recollect, perhaps, that I stated, that, in our treaty of amity and commerce with America, the only stipula-. tion, which could be considered as at all useful to us, in return for many greatly useful to the Americans, was that which provided for safe entry and security of our ships of war, during the times that might be necessary for them to victual, or repair, in the American ports; and, I observed, that this stipulation was a mere trap to catch us, to inveigle us to our injury, unless our seamen as well as ships had security provided for them. I put the case of a ship, run agrond by her crew, and asked what use this any would be to us, if in such a case, the crew coal, with impunity, be protected by the American government. It happens, that two of our ships, from which the seamen were inveigled, had actually put in in a state of distress; that one ran ashore, and that the other was stranded off the capes of Virginia. In this situation, their seamen went on shore for various purposes, they were robbed of those seamen, and that, too, observe, by an officer of the United States, at a rendezvous openly kept for the purpose! Call you this amily, Messrs. Whitbread and Perry? Is it possible to live in amity with a nation so acting?--A murderer, too, was sheltered from justice, an act in express violation of the treaty, and, if we could come at all the particulars, I venture to say, that a more abominable scene never was exhibited. Now, as to the dangers of war with the American States, I need say no more about them; but I will not deny myself the pleasure of inserting some observations of a writer at Boston, published there in August last; and, without pretending that this writer speaks the sentiments of all, his countrymen, I think I may fairly conclude, that he has confirmed my opinion, expressed upon the arrival of the news of the search, and that was, that the good sense of the best of the people of that country would, in the end, prevail.-— "It is "said that Great Britain not only pleads "her established laws, with regard to her right to native Britons, but that her exis"tence would, at this time, he endangered "demonstrated, must be acknowledged the highest of all rights. Where is the evi"dence that the views of her government are hostile? Why is it said that “ an eye ought to be fixed" on those who offer "to question or reason, unless it is feared "that we may discover justice, and that our true interest does not lie in the course we obtained an honourable peace in the "former case, a like resuit may now be "expected. This is very flattering to our pride, and if like most vain people, we "listen only to those who flatter us, it will "be vain to attempt to reason with us. "But it should be recollected that there is "not the smallest analogy or resemblance "in the objects or mode of warfare between "our last war, and any future one with "the same power. In the former case, "the war was merely defensive: not to be "subdued was our only object, and was all "the victory we had to boast of. Even that result would have been uncertain, or at least procrastinated, had not three "of the most powerful nations of Europe "been our Allies in the struggle.Great "Britain too, committed errors which fa"voured the issue of the war aud which "she could not in any future war be ex"pected to repeat, Slie despised her ene my too much. She made too feeble ef "forts at first. It was not till she had been "at war with us four years, that she "attempted to defeat our predatory excur"sions, and then she did it effectually. If " we have now more power and more re"sources, how stand the same points with our proposed enemy? Her commerce is double what it was during the American war, or even two years after the peace "of 1783. How stands our maritime " strength? Our navy is but little larger "than it was during the last war, and the building and equipment of ships of war "is a work of time and difficulty. Because Great Britain did not conquer our country by land, does it follow that we can conquer her at sea? Where then is the analogy, between the last and proposed 66 war ? But it is said we have ten times "as much specie-this is much doubted. "We have undoubtedly five and perhaps "ten times as much capital. But where "is it? One hundred millions upon the 46 ocean, ready to enable our enemy to carry 66 on the war-wholly unprotected, and "out of our power to protect it."-This is too sound to be rejected by a majority of the people of America. Certain fraudulent debtors, to whom another war would afford another opportunity of cheating their silly creditors, may see good in a war with England; and, as many of them have too much weight in public affairs, I should not be altogether disappointed at seeing a war begun, but, it would not last long. The Northern States, inhabited, in general, by industrious and honest men, would never suffer the calamities of war for the mere purpose of favouring the views of their fraudulent fellow citizens of the SouthI repeat my opinion, that there will be no war, unless our ministers yield; and, then, in a short time, war between the two countries must come. ber of copies, which, to avoid serious risk, it has been thought advisable to print, render it necessary, thus early, to adopt precautions calculated to prevent any broken sets remaining on hand at the conclusion of the work. A copy, therefore, of this Notification will be attached to, or delivered with, each copy of the THIRD Volume, and no person can be permitted to purchase the FOURTH Volume, unless he produce to the publisher the said Notification; which, and which only, will be considered as a satisfactory proof of his has ing purchased the former Volumes. Vol IX. of the Parliamentary Debates, comprising the period from the 5th of March to the close of the First Session of the Fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, will be ready for delivery on Saturday next. Complete sets from the commencement in 1803, may be had of the Publishers. EDINBURGH REVIEWERS. SIR-You are aware no doubt that a violent attack has been made upon you in an article of the last Edinburgh Review un derstood to be written by Mr. Jeffrey, the person principally concerned in that work. You are accused of inconsistency, and mich labour has been bestowed in a search into all the Porcupines and Registers you have edited, to contrast opinions delivered at former periods with those given by you lately. I leave it to you to defend yourself on this head, with a single observation, that it is not in the least wonderful if a periodical writer obliged to write on the impulse of the moment and to send what he has written immediately to the press, should appear to be thus at variance with himself, nor need he be ashamed to own that his opinions have changed upon a change of circumstances, on maturer reflection or better information.— But, granting that your former and latter writings and opinions are at variance, your inconsistency falls vastly short of Mr. Jeffrey's, who is in opposition to himself in different parts of the very same article and in the same number of his review, and who rails at you for what he is himself guilty of in the same breath. It is highly improper, he says, to speak disrespectfully of the king and his family. Quoting what you have said of our commanders and particnlarly the commander in chief, he intimates his concurrence thus, "we have no quarrel "with Mr. Cobbett for that opinion," which I venture to pronounce is saying sneakingly, all that you have said on the subject manfully, 64 You Observe what this respectful and well bred gentleman says in another article of the very same number "these are not times to pay "foolish compliments to kings or the sons of kings. If the people of this country are solely occupied in considering what is personally agreeable to the king, without "considering what is for his permanent good and for the safety of his dominion, "it does appear to us quite impossible that so mean and so foolish a people can escape that destruction which is ready to burst "upon them." Tid you ever say any thing stronger than this Mr. Cobbett? have said that considering who we have for commander in chief and commanders generally, and the strength of our armies (includ ing the volunteers surely) you are not afraid of invasion or at least of the country being subdued; upon which Mr. Jeffrey asks, Whether any man capable of serious counsel or proper feeling could possibly conceive such a crisis of such a country as a suitable object for derision or for such asinine attemps at irony and humour as are exhibited in this passage? Now, I beg leave to retort the question, not omitting the delicate term asinine when I refer you to the article before alluded to beginning" if ever a na"tion exhibited symptoms of downright "madness or utter stupidity we conceive "these symptoms may be easiy recognized, "in the conduct of this country upon the Catholic question" Take notice that the charge of madness and stupidity is made against the majority of both houses of parliament, not to speakof the sovereignandagainst adecided majority of the people of England at large, and pray read the sequel about a man in a high fever with a pain in his great toe which was certainly intended for humour; who the "mourn"ful and folly stricken blockhead' is, I will not say, though I think I can guess, andas Mr. Jeffrey says of you on different occasions “per haps I don't differ from him" in the whole of this article, though I dislike his sneaking "perhaps."- According to Mr. Jeffrey, the tendency of your late writings is to create popular discontent, and what is the tendency of his writings whenever he enters on the actual State of the Nation? You and he write in different styles, but there is really | nothing stronger, put more home or more intelligible to the meanest capacity in your Register than in Mr. Jeffrey's review. The picture of the country drawn by both is in high colours and equally alarming. You must nat, Mr. Cobbett, speak of placemen. and pensioners, but Mr. Jeffrey may be allowed, it seems, to exclaim "How melan choly to reflect that there would be still 66 pension for his aunt? Alas! these are "the powerful causes which have always "settled the destiny of great kingdoms "and which may level England to the dust." And again Mr. Jeffrey states" we suppose we calculate moderately when we say "that the king and his ministers have now "the disposal of offices to the value of 12 "millions yearly. The expence of collect"ing the taxes was calculated ten years 16 ago at six millions. We do not know how "to estimate the value of all the appoint"ments in the navy, the army, the church&c. "but it appears to us that they must be much "underrated if they are only averaged at an equal sum. This is enormous."- But Mr. Jeffrey's great ground of quarrel with you is your speaking irreverently of the house of commons, an institution from which no good man would wish to alienate the affec"tion or respect of the country." He admits that the constitution has some how or other fallen offits ancient hinges, but then it has fallen on other hinges more pleasant and more easily oiled. He has made a discovery the most consoling, that instead of the legislature being of old composed of three distinct parts or estates which served to balance and check one another, the British constitution consists of three parts as before, but these are all to be found assembled in the House of Commons. The placemen and those members who are put in by the treasury influence re reseat the executive government, those chosen by the influence of the nobles and great families represent the aris tocracy, and the remainder chosen by popu lar elections or by boroughs which are bought or bribed, the independent representatives of the people. Thus the voice of all descriptions of men are to be heard in that house and we are the freest and happiest people in the world, governed and burdened only by laws of our own making. Why then attempt to make people discontented with this admirable constitution! How dreadful to think that discontent may lead to a change or to a revolution! Though I am satisfied from Mr. Jeffrey's writings on such subjects, that he is a shallow and timid politician, an anile alarmist (to borrow another of his epithets), yet being also satisfied from his writings on other subjects, that he is a man of abilities and information, it is utterly impossible that he can be serious in affirming the above to be a just re the house of commons though he contends presentation of the house of commons or such as the people ought to be satisfied with. It is a silly attempt to deceive, to veil a deformity which cannot be concealed and to defend what he must be conscious is indefensible upon the principles of the constitution. When he has thus concentrated the three branches of the legislature in one house, he wishes us to forget, I suppose, that there is still a house of lords, too; so that the nobility, besides their salutary influence in the lower house exercised by their deputies, retain all their former constitutional influence and power by sitting themselves in the upper, and the sovereign still has his constitutional veto besides having his representa tives so happily for the people sitting amongst their proper representatives. Mc. Jeffrey's taste will be offended perhaps if I remind him of the proverb that two to one are odds at "foot ball." According to him, though the representatives of the people properly speaking are few, yet their voice is thus heard; which he seems to think is enough though it has no effect in the house. Yes, it is heard out of doors; thanks to the news-paper re-signed an Old Englishman I find therein porters: only shut the doors of the gallery and you may as well restrict the number of the house of commons to 40 treasury members. Is it to the gallery or the house that the pa triotic members now address themselves But, is it possible that Mr. Jeffrey can be ignorant that it is said there are members, and not a few who do not come under any of his three classes. The fourth class I will not attempt to describe; but, let them be added: to the acknowledged treasury members and what figure will Mr. Jeffrey's independent popular set make?-Hear Mr. Jeffrey: "there naged we do not exactly know. Whether "the frequency of the transaction has lega"lized it in the ideas of the world, like the "orchard thefts of school boys and the plun"der of border chieftains of old, or whether "the seat is bought for the young patriot as a living is bought for a young priest, while "they themselves are kept pure, we really "don't pretend to understand." Mr. Jeffrey expresses no_indignation against such infamous traffic. Every thing is for the best, with him, in this best of all possible worlds; or at least it is the duty of public writers such as you and him to say so for fear of breeding discontent as that may lead to revolution. I shall make but one more quotation from Mr. Jeffrey. After repeatedly admitting that there are too many placemen in DANISH EXPEDITION. Sir; The public anxiety being at the present moment principally directed towards Denmark, my attention has been attracted by a letter which appeared in a late number 46 an apparently candid approbation of the independence of your opinion on this subject, and an equally open avowal of a difference of sentiment on his side: he applauds as a mark of manly decision the expression of your opi nion, that the attack upon Denmark was justifiable upon the plain and intelligible ground, that the measure was necessary for the national safety, and as such fit to be adopted. He upholds with you the rights of England upon the seas, but is unable to found a jus tification of the Danish expedition upon any right, nor "happily" (says he triumphantly) "does the British history afford an instance in practice of a similar conduct to any neutr:! nation under the canopy of heaven." To this refined philosophical discovery, I would wish to add another, viz. " nor does the British history afford an instance where the power of her rival, France, was become so predominant, as at the present pe riod, and when it was less suitable to apply ordinary reasoning to extraordinary times." The writer professes to address neither fools nor knaves, he only addresses those who have no party but their country; in this latter class I presume to range myself and to disclaim all party prejudice, yet why am I, on the occasion of an exception to all former experience and situations, to take up the argument in the abstract point of view in which he is pleased to state it? * Once broadly admit (says he) the principle that natural injustice may be the source of na tional benefit, and the docrine of expediency will overwhelm you as a flood."--I do not bre: yalant any thing of the kind, but I assen, dat it is the duty of every vigorous gove itseit to watch over, and to conduct to the emergencies in which it may ged-The full vindication of the s adopted towards Denmark, rests upon the information obtained by government of the hostile measures framed at the peace of Tilsit, the public menaces of the French official paper that the Danes should be joined against us in shutting the Sound, and the knowledge, within recent recollection, that the Danes were made parties to a similar confederacy some years ago. What has been may be again, and therefore as an Englishman of no party, giving due credit to the government for the time being, I do look to them for protection, and should consider them unpardonably criminal, if, foresceing a crisis of danger and hostile confederacy, they took no proper measures to defeat it. Every day discloses the futility of your correspondent's observations relative to the consent of Rassia to Bonaparte's holding the key of the Baltic, or to the degree of estination in which Napoleon holds the consent of the Russian emperor. Nor have the remarks of your correspondent any thing more solid to recommend them, when he is pleased to talk of the Danish navy as the hulls of a dozen seventy-fours, and as many frigates," while he has the Gazette authority for there being 18 line of battle ships, 15 frigates, and 31 smaller vessels, all nearly new, together with an immense quantity of naval stores. Whence your correspondent derives his ideas of Bonaparte's appreciating these naval treasures as trides" not worth acquiring, at the expence of throwing into our lap the commerce and colonies of the Danes," I am at a loss to conceive, as nothing appears more perceptible to common sense, than that if he could have collected a fleet of 50 sail of the line, besides numerous frigates, Russians, Danes, Swedes, &c. to annoy us in the northern part of our islands, at the time that he Was attempting an attack against the eastern, southern, and western coasts; I say that nothing could be of more utility than these said Danish hulls of ships, manned by Danish sailors, which an extensive commerce would have enabled them to supply; and if, by a prompt and decided attack, we should have intimidated the members, and broken the Deck of this projected confederacy, what EngJishman but must feel grateful to the vigilance of his government ?--It is vastly well in your correspondent to vapour about our safety, thank God," not depending upon the hulls of a few Danish ships, but it must be evident to every reflecting man that the expense of maintaining a fleet equal to watch the operations of a Northern Confederacy of 50 ships of the line, in addition to those at present op posed to us must be an intolerable burthen to the country. Is it then necessary in such times as these, with the experience of Danish weakness in the last war, that an English minister is to wait till the very guns are loaded against the country before he takes measures to prevent the impending mischief?-Too long, as was justly observed in His Majesty's Declaration, have we been waging an unequal war with a most inveterate fos, who scruples not to wound us through the sides of neutrals or by whatever means are in his power, while we through a tenderness for the rights of others have been practising the most general forbearance, till the several countries bare, one by one, been obliged to shut their ports against us and declare for the enemy; but the righteous law of self-defence requires that we should not pursue this system to our own imminent danger, and never was there a moment more proper than the present one for exercising the means of protection dependant on ourselves alone.-No sooner were the conditions of the treaty of Tilsit made public, wherein the Russian Emperor lays himself at the feet of Napoleon, by not only sanctioning the alterations made by him in Germany but those to be made, than it was obvious to the most shallow observer that it would lead to a Northern Confederacy: the. moment therefore that any step, even in appearance, was taken towards realising the projected confederacy, it became the day of our ministers to cut the root of it by an instantaneous and vigorous effort in the quarter most likely to ruin it at one blow. That such. will be the effect of the hostile measure adopted against the Danes I have not the least doubt, and those that live a few years will. probably have to commend the foresight that by this means averted a calamity from the country.-As to the avowal, in the face of all Europe alluded to by your correspondent, "that our existence depends on a breach of "those laws which hold together the frame "of the civilised world " it is only necessary on this subject to recollect that all Lurope ashe calls it is now no other than France, and ́ it matters not to us what interpretation sho puts on our conduct; our folly in allowing so long the nominal independance of states to be a cover for her insidious designs must be now sufficiently apparent: it is time for us to awake and resort to those means of annoy ance against our enemy which he has made. no hesitation to use continually against ourselves.-I am, Sir, yours, &c. A PLAIN ENGLISHMAN. ---- London, 12th October, · 1807. |