Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

fecting our internal interests or our inter"nal unanimity, the immediate question "of the nature and character of the war, or "the real dignity of Louis XVIII, we see enough to justify us in giving our entire approbation of the conduct of government, "and expressing our unfeigned satisfaction "that, whilst they felt sincerely for the "situation of the illustrious stranger, they very prudently governed their feelings by a consideration of the paramount duty "which they owe to the British empire."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Aye, that you do; quite enough you see in the instructions you have received to insert this article; and, if you were required to insert one of an exactly opposite tendency. to-morrow, you would see " quite enough to justify your approbation of an exactly opposite line of conduct on the part of his Majesty's confidential servants." But, my good hireling, you must not slip off so. Have you not, five hundred times, at least, during the last year, called the Emperor Napoleon an usurper? Have you not reproached and cursed, cruelly cursed, all those who have acknowledged him as the legitimate sovereign of France? And have you not, very recently, commended, in lofty strains, the conduct of the king of Sweden, who refused to give Napoleon any royal title at all? Nay, did you not commend the king of Sweden, for the resolu tion, which he was said to have taken, of admitting Louis XVIII. into that country, and of openly recognising him as king of France? To all these questions you, and ali your brethren, the supporters of the ministers, must answer in the affirmative. Tell us, then, ye time-serving scribblers; tell us how Napoleon can be an "usurper," if Louis be not the king of France.You

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

now have discovered, that we have, by repeated and solemn acts, recognised the legitimacy of Napoleon's authority. So we have; but, why, then, do you daily call him a blood-stained usurper," and a "monster whose life ought to pay the enormous forfeit of his crimes,' as you did not more than ten days ago, while, at the same time, you call upon the people of France, to turn from this usurper to "their lauful and amiable monarch ?" So we have, by repeated and solemn acts, recognised Napoleon as the legitimate ruler of France; but, so we had before aid and assistance was afforded to MEHÉ DE LA TOUCHE and his supposed associates; and, when it was made known to the world, that such aid had

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

been given, a public paper, under the hand
of Lord Hawkesbury, then as now, a Se-
cretary of State, justified the act upon the
express ground, that the government in
France was an usurpation, and that we had
a right to give encouragement and assistance
to any part of the people of that country,
who might be disposed to rise in arms against
it. All this we did, after the "repeated
"and solemn acts of recognition," of which
you speak, and which, now again, you have
the impudence to make the ground of a re-,
fusal to recognize Louis as king of France.

[ocr errors]

-But, it seems now, that this the otherday lawful and amiable monarch "never was King of France." No? What was necessary to make him king? What more than the death of the lineal predecessor ? Take care, thou loyal gentleman, or thou wilt call in question the right to reign of every king upon the face of the earth; for, according to your doctrine, upon this occa sion, it is only possession that confers right.

-Your compassion, excited by the "burdens" of the people, and your anxiety to alleviate those burdens by peace, sound very well, particularly when compared with your language of only the other day, when you treated us with a description of the flourishing state of our finances, and abused the people of Shefheld for talking of peace. But, if you really have compassion for the people; if you really wish to lighten their burdens, why do you not propose to diminish some of the expences of the state? And, have not you, and all those by whom you are supported, constantly reviled every one who proposed such diminution-No; the people would not be at all affected by a recognition of Louis XVIII. They now know of no precise object of the war. They know, that their country is in danger of being conquered; and, at present, they wish it not to be conquered; but, as to objects of the war, they know of none; nor have they ever known of any.. -Not, observe, that I recommend the recognizing of Louis XVIII. It is too late. If at all, it should have been done long ago. Nor, do I think, that the oversetting of Napoleon would do any good; while it might do a great deal of harm; for, if the former set of sovereigns were re-instated all over Europe, what, in God's name, would the people have to expect! His power, to be sure, is terrible; but, upon some people, that power has a salutary influence.Louis XVIII. is, in my, opinion, very right in refusing to live in | Scotland. If suffered to come here at all, he ought to remain in England; and the support given him, if any, ought to be open

now.

and liberal. But, unless he be recognized
as king of France, I see no good reason for
giving him any support at all out of the pock-
ets, that is to say, out of the labour of the
people of England. His Majesty has, we
know, money in the funds; and, there is no
one at all acquainted with the liberality and
tender-heartedness of both their Majesties,
that can, for a moment, doubt of their readi-
ness to support, out of their private means,
the charges necessary to maintain in com-
fort, and even in dignity, an unfortunate
monarch, whose subjects have driven him
to take refuge in their dominions. This is,
in my humble opinion, the way in which all
the unfortunate princes, and princesses, who
take refuge here, should be supported. It
would be the most dignified way; and, who
will not believe, that it would be the way by
far most agreeable to their Majesties? It is a
compliment due to them, and one that ought
by no means to be withheld; and, indeed,
now that his Majesty has a set of confiden-
tial servants after his own heart, I think we
may hope, that he will be gratified in what
all must suppose to be his wish.--The
Morning Post, from whom I have taken the
. above extract, observes, that our own royal
family is so numerous, that we have, in
England, no palace to spare for Louis XVIII.
That is very true, or, at least, I believe so;
and, there is no loyal subject who would
wish to see either of his Majesty's illustrious
sons put to any shifts or inconveniences for
the sake of a stranger, and a Frenchman too.
But, then, I really can see no objection to
that stranger's going to London, though the
he will not be so in-
Morning Post hopes
"discreet." What does he mean by this?
What indiscretion is there in going to Lon-
don? London appears to me to be the place,
to which he would naturally wish to go. The
truth, is, when men are at a loss to know
what to say, they must, and they will, talk
nonsense. Of one thing there is, however, an
end now; and that is, the calling Napoleon an
usurper; for, if there be no legitimate sovereign
in existence, out of France, the person who
reigns there must be regarded as the legiti-
mate sovereign. Our news-papers have,
till now, it is true, called Louis XVIII

[ocr errors]

king of France;" but, now that he is come amongst us, they give him completely up; they say, that we have, by repeated and solemn acts, recognized the legitimacy of the authority of Napoleon, and that to recognize Louis as King of France, would be to perpetrate the war between the 'two uations, to no manner of p purpose, except that of gratifyin Dikouts of Louis and his few n

Here,

then, we come to a point, to a settled rule cf, action; and, therefore, I say, let us hear no more of usurpers.- -If any thing, from the pen of a party slave, could, at this day astonish us, it certainly would be, to see the Morning Chronicle recommending the recognition of Louis XVIII. as king of France. This is not ignorance; it is not a want of capacity to perceive, that such a step, at this time, would be downright raving madness; it is sheer party perverseness. The ministers, if they have done any thing in the matter, have, in my opinion, done too much; for, as to supporting the unfortunate prince here, out of the public money, when, if it begin, is it to cease? And, upon what principle is it, that the people of this country are to be obliged to support, every prince, friend or foe, who happens to be driven from his country? No. The whole matter ought to have been left to the king and the royal family. That would have been by far the most delicate mode of proceeding; and, as I said before, there can be no doubt, that it would have been the mode most agreeable to the feelings of the royal personages themselves. It appears to me, that a grant from the parliament would amount to little less than the recognition, which has been de, scribed to be replete with danger; and, therefore, again and again I express my hope, that his Majesty will take the matter into his own hands.

AMERICAN STATES.The following article, in the form of a letter, addressed to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle, relative to our ministers in America, would have passed unnoticed by me; it would have been left to gratify the vanity, which it was intended to gratify, exciting in me merely a shrug of compassion, though not entirely unmixed with contempt; but, containing, as it does, a contrast between Mr. Erskine and our former ministers in America, greatly disadvantageons to those former ministers; and, what is more, containing a direct censure upon those former ministers, without any exception, I cannot let it pass, without that observation or two, which it loudly calls for. --" Sir," says this pretended uninterested correspondent, "It affords me great plea

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

sure that I have it in my power to send you the enclosed extract of a pamphlet in my possession, which I have received "from New York, entitled, "The Voice "of Truth; or, Thoughts on the Affair be "tween the Leopard and the Chesapeake."

[ocr errors]

The great respect I entertain for my "Lord Erskine, induces me to afford you "the means of gratifying the noble lord's "friends and the British public with the

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

""him out of the hearts of the people, and "" of course from an intimate knowledge ""of the country. The appointment of ""such a person ought to have been re""ceived by the American administration,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

as most probably it was intended, as a compliment, and as a proof, not a little satisfactory, that theywished to cultivate ""the friendship of America in sincerity.". —First, I should like to know, how much this article, this puff as rank as ever was inserted by pay-grinder or by medical quack; I should like to know, how much this article cost in fee to the Morning Chronicle. And, then I should like to know how much it cost in America. What a scandalous attempt at imposture, to give us this as an extract from an American pain. phlet as taken from a work, expressing the sentiments of the people of America! "Gratifying the British public with "the sentiments of respect and esteem,

[ocr errors]

which are entertained in America for Lord "Erskine's son!" Aye, in America, but, by whom there? By every body, as far as I know to the contrary. I have no positive proof, that all the people there are not enamoured of this late Lord Chancellor's son; but, this pamphlet is no proof at all of it. I know how pamphlets are written there. I know the sort of motives from which they are generally published: and, I have no scruple to say, that the passage above quoted, was written to produce effect in England, and not in America; in short, that it was made for the very purpose, to which it has now been so expeditiously applied. Of Mr. Erskine's fitness for his post I will say nothing; because, perhaps, if I should pain his feelings," either in the way of commission or of omission, he might take the law of me," for which I have by no means any stomach. But, I

will say, that, as far as the sentiments of the real Americans have reached me, they looked upon his appointment as no compli ment at all paid to their country. It is fine talking of the "Honourable Mr. Erskine, "son of the Lord High Chancellor of Bri"tain," but, only a few months before,. the Americans saw him in their country, in a very different capacity; they were well acquainted with the circumstances of his marriage, and of his taking to the bar after he returned to England; and, stupid as some persons may suppose them. they know all about the making of Lords and Lord, Chancellors, and about appointing ambassadors, in England.--Of his fitness for the post he is in we shall be able to judge, when we come to see his official papers; but, I venture to say, that, in no one respect, would his father, if he had been in the son's place, have shown greater talent and aldress than were by Mr. Hammond in one way, and by Mr. Liston in another. They did not, to be sure, herd with mercantile agents and land-jobbers, without discrimination. They were not speculators, either. in lands or funds themselves, and, therefore, had little temptation to associate and smoke segars and get drunk with that description of persons, which, in America, is the most vile upon earth. But, to accuse them of haughtiness is false and malignant. There is not the slightest foundation for the charge. Both of them are modest, unassuming men ; both of them easy of access, affable and kind; both of them men of great talents, and not less zeal in the service of their country: and, the day will yet come when we shall be able to ascertain, from sources more authentic than a New York pamphlet, how Mr. Erskine stands in comparison with them.

Everley, 5th Nov. 1807.

EDINBURGH REVIEWERS.

Southampton, Oct. 27, 1807. SIR,I was directed by your Register of last week, to a perusal of the critique of your writings by the Edinburgh Reviewers; and, as I have seen no attempt to vindicate the good sense of our ancestors from their calumnies, or to protect the admirable construction of our constitution from their im-. provements; I shall, with many conscious apprehensions of insufficiency, attempt it myself lightly pass over their exordium, (an attack altogether personal upon you,) both because your own apology for your change of opinions is in the hands of the public, and, because I hold such imputed change in your opinions to be wholly irrelevant to

the great questions, which you have brought before the country. Had you changed your opinions ninety-nine times, those changes would leave the questions of the violation of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and of the Act of Settlement, in regard to triennial parliaments-to Placemen sitting in the House of Commons-misapplication of public Money-undue influence at elections, bribery, &c. the appreciation of Mr. Pitt's administration, &c. exactly, as these matters would have stood without the imputed changes in your opinions; QUESTIONS OF FACT, in which, the government and the people are at issue; questions no more to be altered by the alledged altérations in Mr. Cobbett's opinions, than to be answered by the metaphysical theorems of the Edinburgh Reviewers. Upon the grounds of their personal attack, I will only observe, before I dismiss it, that the man, who imposes on himself the weekly task of discussing all public questions as they arise, is more obnoxious to the formation of a hasty opinion, than other men; that, there appears no satisfactory cause, why a person should be debarred of the benefit of second thoughts in politics, more than in other affairs; and, that I can see no reason, when the subjects of our political contemplation completely revolve, why human opinion upon them should stand still; lastly, a change for the better, (which is Mr. Cobbett's case), can on no occasion fail to be a good thing. There is one species of change, indeed, for which nothing ever can, or ought to be said. I mean a change attended by a selfish remuneration of any kind. But as this is not imputed to Mr. Cobbett, it forms no part of the present discussion. I proceed to the sentiments of the Reviewers themselves, (page 407, vol. 20) which, however, cannot be properly followed seriatim; inasmuch as some of their positions are controverted by their own subsequent remarks; and to bring these together, the order of their argument may require to be interrupted. In the outset I must seriously on my most solemn veracity assure such of my readers as may not have access to the volume, that in a critical work of celebrated wit and great authority, patronized by some of the leaders of the Whig party in the 19th century, the following positions, however incredible it may appear, are distinctly laid down; their expressions being merely by me divested of their verbiage. (page 407, vol. 20. Edinb. Review) 1st. That it is for the good of the people of England, [and of course more good for the people of Scotland] that placemen should sit in the House of Commons!-2d, That the

exerted influence of peers, and other great patrons, in the election of members of parliament is also good!-Lastly, that the rotten boroughs induce no hazard to the constitution, and do not require reform. In short, are good also. In a word, they saw it all,' and it was good!-The Spaniards have a popular proverb in describing a man, who is very very good; and of such a one they say, "é tanto buon, che val niente;" being in vulgar English," he is so good, that he is

[ocr errors]

good for nothing." Whether our critics had this in their eye or not, I will not vouch; but, it is certain, that in the same paragraph they do admit, that the sale of bo

roughs is dishonourable to both the par"ties concerned in it," and in page 421 of the same critique, they do admit, that "there is a very general spirit of discon"tent, distrust, and contempt for public "characters" (by which must be meant members of the legislature)" amongst the "more intelligent, &c. &c. of the people." "That they see the seeds of a revolution in "the present aspect and temper of the na"tion." That they are afraid in the " event of any great emergency or disaster, no reasonings and no motives of prudence "will be sufficient to uphold the established "forms of the constitution, unless some ef"fort be made on the part of public men" [certainly members of parliament !!]" ta

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

wipe off the imputations which are now "thrown upon their characters."!!! This is their own character of our excellent legislature. Observe, it is not of individuals, that these portraits are, or can be drawn; for it is not to the evil influence of the polis tical misconduct of individuals, or even of a mere minority of the legislature, that such results-that such prognostics can apply. If, "there is a very general spirit of discontent, "distrust, and contempt of public charac"ters, amongst the more intelligent part of "the nation," what has excited “ gene"ral discontent," but BAD GOVERNMENT? What has excited the spirit of "general dis

[ocr errors]

trust of public characters," unless, that after experiment upon all factions in the legislature, all have proved unworthy of trust? And, what can have excited "general con"tempt for public characters," but their universal baseness? Again, if they descry "the seeds of revolution in the present as

66

pect and temper of the nation," to what does the nation owe its actual-temper and aspect? Is it to its GOOD government! Or is it the satisfaction of the people in the conduct of its representatives, which has sown "these seeds" Lastly, if the imputa"tions thrown upon the characters of pub

“lic men, will in any disaster or emergency

"

compromise the safety of the constitu"tion," to what are "these imputations" to be ascribed, but to the examples exhibited by these "public men!!"-If the public characters, who are capable of doing, who do and will do, all this national mischief, are not members of parliament, will the Edinburgh Reviewers tell us, who they are, whom they allude to? If they are members of parliament, will they tell us how such men as they (not I) represent them to be, became entrusted with the interests of the community? And, if "places," "undue "influence," and "rotten boroughs" did not introduce such personages into our legis lature, will the Edinburgh Reviewers have the goodness to tell us who, or what did introduce them? In the mean time, I will tell the Reviewers, that had Mr. Cobbett written, with his usual scurrility," that our late representatives had one day voted, that white was white, and the next day (in order to serve their mercenary ends) had voted, that it was black, he would not have held their proceedings and their characters up to so much execration, as they have been by the Edinburgh Reviewers in their defence; exemplifying the truth of a remark of Junius, although itself a solecism," that a

[ocr errors]

man may be the bitterest enemy of his "friend."-I next proceed to their elementary consideration of the persons, of whom a parliament, in their opinion, ought to be composed, with a view to the functions, which it has to perform. (page 407) And herein, entirely departing from the liberal theory of our constitution, in vain illustrated by Blackstone, and eulogized by De Lolme, these Reviewers or Libellers lay down, that the most perfect representation of the people must be "that which reunites "in itself the greatest proportion of the effective aristocracy of the country.""That the nation is ultimately governed by "the same individuals, who in their sepa

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

--

rate capacities, would have directed the "sentiments of a very large majority" of the people, "and it being evident that rank, "fortune, and official situation being amongst the most powerful of the means by which men are enabled individually to "influence the opinions and conduct of "those around them," "therefore, rank, wealth, and office should make the greatest number (that is, a decided majority) of "its legislators," (meaning its members of the House of Commons; no other branch of the legislature being in question). In other words, that the people should not be represented effectively at all. For, of what good

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to the people can be the representatives of the people convoked in an assembly with the representatives of rank, wealth, and office, which have (by the supposition) a decided majority over them? In the rationale of these Reviewers however, as in the order of Providence, good arises out of evil, (at least what Blackstone would have anathematized as such, though they regard it as good) for they having discovered that "the constitu"tional use of a House of Commons was to

[ocr errors]

preserve the freedom of the people,” (page 408) and, it moreover, appearing from their oracles, that this is best to be done by making speeches, whereby the attention of the people is called perpetually to their public rights and interests, their intelligence sharpened, and their spirit exercised and excited; and, it being moreover discovered, that a House of Commons principally composed of the proxies of peers and of representatives of the aristocracy, and of placemen, can make speeches of adequate length upon any given subject, which can interest the people; ergo, the people's rights will be as well secured to them by representatives, who do not represent them, as by representatives who do! "Since, after all, it is on the spi"rit and intelligence of the people them"selves, that their liberties must always ul

timately depend;" and these it has been already clearly proved" depend ultimately” upon the specches, which are to be made in the House of Commons (chosen as above) and by no means, as has been vulgarly supposed, upon the honour, courage, good sense and identity in interests of the persons, whom, in a free and popular choice, they might send to represent them. Their next assumption, and which I beg by no means to dispute, is, that our House of Commons is actually composed of such persons, as, agreeably to their ingenious hypothesis, it ought to be composed. How provoking then must be the obstinacy and stupidity of the people to these good Reviewers, who, having selected for their confidence, and for the preservation of their rights and liberties, such materials for a House of Commons out of the aristocracy and placemen, as ought to be selected; and in such proportion, with the scanty and profane materials sent by the people, as ought to be observed; having moreover enriched them with the attributes of making speeches, such as ought to be made; speeches. which would have driven Verres despairing out of Rome, or have excited Athens to a man to rise and march against Philip how provoking, I say, after this banquet of liberty given by the Reviewers, must be the obstinacy and stupidity of the

« ZurückWeiter »