Page images
PDF
EPUB

was sent to jail for a good six mouths, in order to restrain the licentiousness of the "press, and thereby to preserve its free"dom I wonder, Sir, that you, who have made some noise with your talk about liberty, do not feel a little bashful at repeating, as your own, these words of Mr. Blackstones that you are not ashamed to ap plaud a form of prosecution, which prohibits the person prosecuted from pleading, in his defence, the truth of the words, to have uttered which is imputed to him as a crime. I wonder you are not ashamed of this; you, who so inordinately rejoiced at the French revolution, as the dawn of liberty upon the continent of Europe; you, who have always belonged to that party, whose claim to public favour was founded solely upon their at tachment to the cause of freedom, and whose constant cry, until they were in office, was the liberty of the press." But, this inconsistency does really appear to me, to have arisen, in you, at least, out of an attachment to France generally, and to her ruler in particular. For his sake it is, that you would extend the operation of the law of libel to publications relating to foreign princes and states; for, though you speak of foreign states," in the plural number, it is quite evident, that your eye is fixed on France alone; and, however angry it may make you, I cannot help expressing my opinion, that the care which you have taken to disguise the fact, that the speeches in parliament were complained of by Buona parté not less than the pamphlets and newspapers, and that the infinite pains you have bestowed in order to produce a belief, that the, war had no other efficient cause than the publications of a few interested and un"principled individuals," ought to be considered as a strong presumptive proof of your entertaining an unnatural partiality for the enemy, whose cause you have pleaded in the true spirit of a professed advocate.→→→ But, Sir, it is not true, that the publications in England, or that. the "speeches in parlia ment, were the original cause of the present war. Mr. Andreossy says, when speaking of the publications in the Moniteur (which, observe, were acknowledgedly the act of the government of France,)" they are of an order too secondary to be capable of influencing such a decision" [that of war]. "Are we, then, to return to the age of "tournaments? Motives of this nature

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

Y

might have authorized, four centuries ago, "the combat of thirties; but, they can"not, in this age, be a reason for war be is tween the two countries." He says, in another part of his letter, after euu

merating all the complaints about the language of the parliament and the press, that the first Consul" did not, on that ac

[ocr errors]

count, entertain a doubt of the continuance

" of peace." Now, Sir, either Mr. Andreossy, who was charged to express to us the sentiments of the first Consul, must have been wrong, must, in fact, have said what was false; or you must now be wrong, One or the other you must acknowledge, unless, which is not very improbable, you should choose to say, that Buonaparté, upon whose sincerity, on all other occasions, you have an unbounded reliance, did, in this one little instance, play the hypocrite. I, for my part, scruple not to say, that the attempts of Buonaparté to restrain the liberty of speech and of the press would have been, if not speedily atoned for, a sufficient ground of war; but, our poor tame ministers of that day were very far indeed from demanding satisfaction for so gross an affront upon the country. Nay, they not only suffered him to make his attempts, but flattered him with success, and actually began, in the person of Mr. Peltier, to offer up sacrifices to his arrogance. You, Sir, seem to regret, that they were not more expeditious, and that the war came to rob Buonaparté of a victim. But, without a new law for the purpose, they could not proceed quicker; and, it is hardly to be supposed, that he had not some friend in this country to in form Mr. Andreossy, that, as matters stood just then, unfurnished as we were with a Cayenne Diligence, the good Addington ministry were doing all that lay in their power to accommodate things to his liking. In short, the press was fast falling under the clutches of Buonaparté, and, though you seem to have forgotten it, the members of parliament had received a hint, that, if

anch reproachful language, with respect "to the head of the French government,' "were indulged in, it would be impossible "to maintain the relationships of peace and

amity." So that, if any thing short of the Cayenne Diligence would have satisfied him, he was in a fair way of being perfectly satisfied.It was not the press, then, that was the cause of the war. There were several other causes, though you, Sir, have thought proper, to keep them wholly out of sight. You speak of the impediments to the evacuation of Holland and of Malta, as if those impediments were the whole that had occurred, as matter of difference, be tween the peace of Amiens and the breaking out of the war. Is it possible, that you can have overlooked the famous proceeding, called "the German Indemnities," in which

France assumed to herself the right of divid-| Talleyrand's instructions to these curious

ing and parcelling out the territory and the revenues of the several states of Germany? Is it, indeed, a fact, that you have forgotten, that one of her first acts in peace was to make Savoy, which was to remain independent of France, a department of France? Can you, such an ardent admirer of liberty, have forgotten, that another act of peace, on the part of Buonaparté, was to send an army to invade Switzerland, to place one of his own creatures at the head of the government there, and to make that country, as to all practical purposes, another department of France? Sebastiani's mission and report you have noticed; but, you have done it, merely for the purpose of shewing, that we, too, could complain of foul language, when directed against ourselves, totally omitting, however, to draw the distinction between publications, in pamphlets and news-papers, by unauthorised individuals, and a report made by an accredited agent of the government, made to the government by that agent, and published by that government, under its own name, having, from these circumstances, just the same character and weight as if it had been a note, delivered by the French Embassador to Lord Hawkesbury. This you have omitted to do; and, you have, too, whether from want of principle, or not, I shall leave the reader to judge, omitted to state, that the publication which gave most offence to Buonaparté; was that of Sir Robert Wilson, whom, though you may, perhaps, include him amongst those " hirelings, who fatten upon the ca"lamities, of the nation," you have not, amidst all your avowed contempt for unmanliness, ventured to name, though there was, it appears to me, much more necessity for naming him, than for naming Mr. Peltier. But, it was not on account of the abusive language' of Sebastiani's report, that it was made, by us, a subject of complaint. That report disclosed, in the usual way of the French, the views which they meant to act upon, with respect to Egypt. It discovered the intentions of Buonaparté with regard to those territories of the Turks; and, added to the other considerations of the time, was one principal cause of the renewal of the war. You appear, Sir, to have quite forgotten, too, the dispute relative to Mr. Talleyrand's commercial com"missaries," coming from a country, with which we had no commercial connection, and furnished with maps, charts, and mathematical instruments, instead of laws of shipping and tables of custom house duties." You forget, that, in Mr,

[ocr errors]

envoys, one was to ascertain the soundings of the port in which they were stationed and the bearings of the land from the place of entrance; that another was, to come at the extent of the population near ! the coast; another, to take an account of the naval and military force, and to sound the disposition of the people. You forget, that several of these agents were destined for the ports of Ireland, where one of them, if I am not in mistake, had actually arrived, and had begun his "commercial" inquiries, i when the whole of them were ordered to decamp, All these things you have forgot ten: no, you have not forgotten any one of them; for you have shewn us, that you have recently read the dispatches, and, having read them, it is impossible, that you should not have been reminded of all the causes of war, which I have here enumerated. These causes co-operated in producing the war. There was nothing so near the hearts of the then ministers as the preservation of peace, upon almost any terms. Ifthe silencing of the small part of the press (for it wasa mere trifle) which held a warlike language, had been all that was necessary, they would very soon 7 have accomplished that, and would have been applauded for the act by three fourths of the parliament, by ninety nine hundredthsof the press, and by a like proportion of the people, in their then disposition to sink quietly beneath the domineering spirit of. France. But, the ministers, though willing to go almost any length in the way of concession and humiliation, saw that all concession and humiliation would finally fail; and, day after day admonished them, that time was only adding to the weight: of their responsibility. They saw Buonas parté making bolder strides of conquest in peace than he had made in war; they could look in no direction without seeing marks of his restless ambition; and, they justly, dreaded, that, taking advantage of some fa vourable, moment, he would, in the midst t of peace, accomplish, or, at least, attempt, some act of open bostility against England: or Ireland. It was in this state of mind, that they resolved upon war; and though. Malta stood in the fore-ground, there was a combination of causes, which really produc ed the event; a combination not very easy to be described, and, therefore, Mr. Adding ton, cutting the matier short, emphatically answered those who inquired into the causes: of the war: "We are at war, because we cannot be at peace." And yet, Sir, you, by the means of garbled statements and forced constructions, taking advantage of the

:

want of that information which must gene-which took place, at the time referred to; rally prevail upon such subjects, would fajn make the people believe, that Buonaparté was sincerely disposed to preserve the peace, and to desist from all encroachments and that the sole cause of the war, in which we are now engaged, arose not from any opinion entertained by our ministers that it was necessary to our safety, but merely from the irritation produced by the "unjust and offensive aspersions against the "ruler of France," written and published by venal demagogues," by "mercenary scribblers," by a few interested and "unprincipled individuals, who fatten upon

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

the calamities of the nation;" than which attempt to impose upon the unwary and to excite discontent in the distressed, I am inclined to believe that few readers will be able to form an idea of any thing more completely unprincipled, especially when they come hereafter to compare your present exertions with that profound silence, which, while in parliament, you observed, upon the subject of the negociation of 1806.

II. Before I speak of the Negociation of 1806 and of the views then manifested by Napoleon, I cannot help making a remark or two upon the manner, in which you introduce that part of your subject, reserving, however, the pretty story about Mr. Fox and the assassin for a letter of lighter matter." The reins of government," upon the death of Mr. Pitt, you say, fell from

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"the hands of his panic-stricken colleagues "in office. A change in the administra"tion of the country took place, and the "union of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox "with that of their friends, encouraged the hope, not only of a speedy termination of "hostilities, but of that steady and gradual "amelioration in our domestic concerns, which, without alarming the fears of the weak, might satisfy the resaonable ex"pectations of the country." Now, Sir, it appears to me, that if your wisdom had, upon this occasion, been equal to your zeal, you would not have said a word about the reins falling from the hands of the panicstricken colleagues of Mr. Pitt; seeing that those very men have, and that, too, in a moment of the war still more calamitous than that in which they quitted office, regrasped the reins of government, and, hoisting the Duke of Portland to the head of the ministry, have not only defeated their poHtical opponents, but have adopted measures, which have made the enemy, though now become the conqueror of all the continent of Europe, lower his tone with respect to England. You tell us, Sir,that the change

that the union of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox with that of their friends, encouraged the hope of a speedy termination of hos tilities; but, you do not give us any reason, or produce any indication of public feeling, upon which this assertion is founded. Difficult indeed would it be for you to do either. The new ministry was composed of Mr. Fox and three others, who had approved of the peace of Amiens, besides Mr. Addington and Lord Ellenborough, who were in office when that peace was made; but, in this same ministry were Lord Grenville, who was at the head of the whole, Mr. Windham who was at the head of the war department, and, in one post, or another, every lord and every commoner, with, I be lieve, the sole exception of Lord Folkestone, who had voted against the peace of Amiens, your delightful peace of Amiens, the nonpreservation of which you so pathetically lament. Nay, sir, in this ministry were, without exception, all those noblemen and gentlemen, whose speeches in parliament had given so much offence to Buonaparté, previous to the commencement of the war; and who, moreover, had, from time to time, taken special care to convince the nation, that their opinion of his character and views had undergone no material change. Pray tell us, then, sir, how their elevation to power (of which, observe, they were at the very head) could, in any sane mind, "en

[ocr errors]

courage the hope of a speedy termination "of hostilities." Yet, when you come afterwards to speak of the termination of the war between France and Russia, and of the second change in the ministry, which had taken place in the interim, you again advert to this disposition in the late ministry, and that, too, for purposes so evidently of a factious nature as not to leave them the pos sibility of their being misunderstood. "In "the mean time," say you, "a change "had taken place in the British ministry, "founded on one of the most extraordinary

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

therefore, it is necessary to remove it. The persons, now alive, who had most pertinaciously supported the war system," were Lord Grenville, late first lord of the treasury, Mr. Windham, late secretary of state for the war department, Mr. Grenville, late first lord of the admiralty, Lord Fitzwilliam, late president of the council, Lord Spencer, late secretary of state for the home department. Here were five cabinet ministers, all of whom had voted against the peace of Amiens; all of whom had undeviatingly contended, that no peace with Buonaparté, under circumstances, such as existed at the time when that treaty was made, could be safe; all of whom had contended, that, merely as a trial against time, the chances of war were better than the chances of peace. Now, look at the present cabinet, and you will find, sir, that there are some who were in office when the peace of Amiens was made; that almost the whole of them, not then in office, spoke in favour of that peace; and that there is not amongst them, nor, I believe, in any of the subaltern post of the ministry, one single man, who either spoke or voted against that peace, I do not say this in commendation of their conduct; for, my opinion is, that that peace was injurious as well as disgraceful to England; but, I say it for the purpose of show ing, that the cause, to which you are desirous of attributing the rejection of the offer of Russian mediation has no foundation in fact, and is a pure invention of your own. I must say, too, that I look upon it as an invention proceeding from a motive, which, without the least exaggeration, may be called " unprincipled;" for, that motive evidently is to endeavour to obtain vengeance on the ministers for your defeat at Liverpool, by representing them as being so pertinaciously attached to a system of war, that, while they remain in office, the country, whatever its sufferings may be, and however useless and hopeless may be the continuation of the contest, has not the smallest chance of a restoration of peace.

Having cleared up this point, I should now proceed to the Negociation of 1806; but, not having room to conclude it in the present sheet, I shall postpone it to my next, remaining, in the mean while,

Your, &c. Botley, 11th Feb, 1808. WM. CORBETT

"PERISH COMMERCE." SIR,Such is the motto you have adopted to several of your late speculations, but before I coneur in the sentiment, I require more explanation. If I understand Mr.

[ocr errors]

Spence, he does by no means maintain that foreign, commerce is injurious, at that it shonld be either at once, or gradually given up. He says only that the loss of it would not be so hurtful as is generally imagined, which under our present circumstances is consoling, and I think he has in a great measure proved it. But if I understand you, Mr. Cobbett, you are for applying the axe to the root completely, and without ceremony. You maintain that natural wealth cannot arise from foreign commerce. Now let us take the instance of Holland. You will not surely deny that Holland was a rich country, Though her commerce is almost annihilated she is still a rich country. Her riches were not at the former period, much more than now, adventitious or floating. They were fixed, permanent, realised. How were these riches acquired but by foreign commerce? Her territory, though fertile and cultivated to the uttermost, was small and never could afford subsistence to half of the inhabitants. Her riches could not therefore arise from agriculture or her own produce, or the internal consumption either of it or her manufactures. I conceive only one way of surmounting this example and still adhering to your doctrines as applied to this country. It may be said that the Dutch were merely Carriers. The gain of the Carriers though sinall is steady and certain. And are not we also Carriers, though not in the same proportion as the Dutch, regarding the extent of our commerce and theirs, because we have a great country to supply, and a luxurious people, while, they were a small country and an economical frugal people, When we send bullion and our manufactured goods to the East Indies, and bring back teas and other luxuries, or articles we might do without, are all these consumed by ourselves? Do we not send a surplus to other countries, and from thence derive a profit which is an addition to the natural wealth? Instancing the trade to the last, the most unprofitable commerce we follow. is giving you every advantage-Till I am better instructed, I shall hold my opinion that while the balance of foreign, commerce is in our favour, however small that balance may be if the trade of export and import were precisely at par-it is highly advanta geous for the country to preserve it, were it mercly because it supports a multitude of industrious people, I don't speak of the merchants or the capitalists, but the actual manufacturers. I consider it a mere fallacy or sophistry, to say these are really paid from the produce of our own soil. Were it so, the country would long ago have felt,

the burden of excessive population. But these manufacturers purchase the produce from the wages which commercial men are able from the surplus gain to afford. They are in truth maintained in a great measure by foreigners, and thus commerce and agriculture mutually tend to the support and encouragement of one another.-I.

LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS.

SIR, There are two subjects affecting the politics of this country, which, though, they have by no means escaped your notice, have not been immediately placed in a point of view as calling for legislative interference; though I confess, that to my humble apprehension, they seem to demand the early consideration of parliament. The first of these subjects relates to the liberty, which by our laws are given to subjects of this country, of becoming the proprietors of funded or landed property under the dominion of a foreign power. The second regards the propriety of a naval or military commander being directly, or indirectly, interested in the traffic of any merchandize, or other commercial speculation. No nation has ever yet depended for its support on the voluntary allegiance of its citizens. Laws have always been enacted to enforce allegiance, and to punish those who have withheld it: and though that nation must be weak indeed, whose subjects are kept in a state of obedience purely by means of force, and its existence must continue extremely precarions, yet have such compulsory laws, even in republics, been ever hield essential; not as implying that the affections of the people were to be doubted, but to correct that aberration from duty, which no state can be entirely free from, and to prevent the mischievous effects which the example of one disaffected citizen might produce, by con taminating the minds of others: such being the frailty of human nature, that even error has at all periods found its votaries. If then allegiance be so essential to the welfare and existence of a state in times of tranquillity, how much more important does it become in those unfortunate periods, when the distracted ambition of one nation, or the petulant arrogance of another, threatens her ! with near approaching hostility. It is then that allegiance, which before was scarcely more than a name, is called upon to assume a palpable existence. It is then that a state imperiously calls for her Nestors and her Ulysseses for the most vigorous and able counsels of her subjects. It is then that she expects that those who are delegated with the great and important trust of de

C.

fending their country, should be animated with the zeal of a Nelson, and feel no satisfaction greater than that of " shaking-off this mortal coil," in so dear and honorable a cause. But, sir, that these purposes should be answered, it is essential that the INDIVIDUAL should not conflict with the PUBLIC interest. Self-love, however quaintly af fected to be despised by some, is the great masterspring of the human machine, and statesmen and philosophers must invariably regard its operations, both in their speculations and practice. To effect therefore the advantages which result from true allegiance, the subject in all his interests must be connected with his country; he must have all his nearest and dearest objects insulated within her territories: by this means the subject and the state are identified in point of benefit, and to defend and protect the latter is to preserve the treasures of the former. But when the subject is unwisely permitted to become a fundholder or land proprietor in a foreign territory, his interest is immediately divided, and the Hercules, which but for this would have been of inestimable benefit to his native state, becomes a mere useless Colossus, striding the vast ocean, with one foot on either territory, but of utility to neither. But what if the interest of the subject should preponderate against his native country? We may be told that a hero would offer up all private interest at the shrine of patriotism; but let it be remembered that all men are not heroes. However we may boast of integrity and inflexible justice, we should reflect, that only one Lucius Junius Brutus has been met with in thirteen centuries; and that the conduct of this man (a.. chief magistrate!) in punishing his two sons for treason against the state, has been the subject of unceasing panegyric by all his torians, from that period to the present: a sufficient example to prove how few are the instances in which public duty triumphs' over private feeling. It is not, however, during the immediate period of a war that this distraction of interests in the subject is: to be regarded; the most material consi deration, is the conduct of such a man pending a negotiation, to preclude the necessityof a war. What concessions, were such an one minister, is it to be supposed that he would not make, to prevent that hostility, which would deprive him of a property upon which the splendour of his family. might possibly depend! And with what advantage would that enemy treat with us, in: whose power should be placed a considera ble mass of the property of our subjects. Indeed view the subject as dispassionately

« PreviousContinue »