may, do much in directing the mind, in hastening the growth of discontent; but, the seeds of discontent must be first sown, and take root; and this will never happen to a dangerous extent, under a good government.- -When you first espoused the cause of the Spanish patriots, you did not seem to be aware of the conclusions which would be drawn from the success of a people, deserted and betrayed by their royal family, taking up arms against the conqueror of all the rest of Europe. You seem to have been carried away by your joy at the prospect of seeing somebody, no matter who, or with what motive, resist Buonaparté, and thereby draw him off, for a while, at least, from his undertakings against this country. But, now that you perceive, the moral to which the Spanish revolution

plainly points; now that this has been shown you, you appear to be alarmed and greatly embarrassed. You cannot wish Baonaparté success; and yet you appear to see little less danger in the success of the patricts, unless you can cause it to be believed, that they have not been, and are not, animated by the love of freedom. Hence your anger at our observations relative to a people who have no country to 'defend; hence your malicious revival of a very malicious and refuted falshood against Sir Francis Burdett. But, why, Sir, be so anxious upon this score? Why drag in an old falshood, and retail it as truth, for the purpose of indirectly asserting, that

Britons have a country to fight for ?" Who has asserted the contrary? Who dares openly and plainly to assert the contrary? Why, then, do you think it is necessary to weary us with a defence of what has not been, and will not be, attacked? The Morning Chronicle could not so much as express its regret, that the government of Austria (a government with whom we are at war) did not begin its preparations for defence by giving the people a country to fight for, but you must burst out into a violent passion; and discover resentment as keen as if you had a hand in conducting a government of the same sort as that of Austria." Let the galled jade go wince; "our withers are unwrung," should, upon this occasion, have been the only observation from an English ministerial writer. But you seem to take the thing to heart. You seem, from some cause or other, to be deeply interested in the reputation of the Austrian government, and are thrown almost into madness, at hearing it ssserted, that, if the people are already as perfect slaves as they can be, they have no › motive

for fighting against an invader.-What you wish your readers to believe is this, that the Spaniards are fighting for their country as it stood before the departure of the royal family. That this is not true is undeniably proved by the plain narrative of events. Till their royal family were conpletely gone, they made no resistance against the French; they saw the king and queen and prime-minister go to Bayonne; they saw their new king and his brethren summoned to the same place; not a man of them rose in the detence of either; but, when they were all safely gone, when the despotism was dissolved, then, and not until then, the people took up arms. It is, by some, pretended, that the young king was inveigled away. Inveigled away Leaving a French

!

army in the heart of the kingdom too! What! could a king be inveigled away, and nobody have any suspicion of the matter? Do you think, now, that, if our king and all his family were to be invited by Buonaparté to take a trip to Calais, a French army being arrived in the neighbourhood of Westminster; do you think that we should have very sanguine hopes of seeing any of the family come back again? No; that the people of Spain looked upon Ferdinand as being bound upon a mere visit of friendship is too gross an absurdity to be sucked in by any but mere idiots.As to the use which is made of the name of Ferdinand, there may be many reasons for that, which one cannot detail without being better acquainted with the characters and probable views of the leaders in the revolution. They, or, at least, some of them, may really wish for his return to the throne; and, if the Cortes be first restored and abuses reformed, there might be no solid objection to that restoration, which, besides, might prevent the country from being torn to pieces by the contests of ambitious leaders, some one of whom must, sooner or later, become the chief ruler; but, my opinion is, that, if Napoleon should, as there is some reason to hope, be successfully resisted, the name of Ferdinand will, gradually, be dropped, and that some one will be chosen in his stead. the outset of a revolution all is bustle and chaos. Men do not know one another. But, difficulties and perils try the hearts; they harrow up all the layers of society; they bring the gems to light, and sink the baser soil. The foolishest of all hopes (to say nothing of the wickedness of it) is, that Napoleon will be beaten, and that then the Spaniards will quietly return to a submission to their former despotism. There are peo

At

ple enough, I am afraid, to entertain such a hope; but, if they reflected for one moment, they must be convinced, that it can never be accomplished; for, to resist Buonaparté will require such language, such sen timents, such discussions, such active measures as to rank and property as well as to warlike preparations, as will so completely annihilate the old despotism, that it cannot be restored My fear is, and this is my greatest and almost only fear, that Napoleon, finding his views frustrated, will give way in time, and will send back Ferdinand before the revolution has proceeded to a wholesome length. If this should be the case, nothing of permanent utility will have been accomplished. Napoleon will have time to ripen his plans to profit from past errors, and to make his next stroke sure; while the world will have the woeful example of a people again becoming slaves, after having buckled on their armour in the cause of freedom. For the taking of this crafty line of policy, the use which some of the patrio s make of the name of Ferdinand affords Napoleon a plausible pretence.

46

All

I wished," he may say to the Spaniatos, was to see your government reformed. If you prefer Ferdinand to Joseph, it matters little to me." This bait would take at once, and we should have the mortification to see Spain very nearly as much under the influence of France as she now is, instead of seeing her free, independent, and the fast ally of Eagland, which later she naturally would be under a government and rulers entirely new I hope there are no persons, who have, underhand, given advice to the Council at Seville to use the name of Ferdinand. Every one must, I think, perceive, how mischievous, in various ways, that use may probably prove; but, so afraid are some persons of the example of a people defending their country, and settling their own concerns, that there is no telling to what lengths they may go.--A correspondent, whose letter will be found in another part of this number, says, that we can assist the Spaniards only in the name of their king, and, of their king Ferdinand too, whom their old king has charged with usurpation This is too absurd to merit an answer; but, the fact is, that, with some persons, there exists a dread, a very horror, of espousing the cause of any people, however identified that cause may be with our own. We have had almost all the kings and princes of Europe in alliance with us against France. Whom are they alied with now? And, are we still to adhere to the old system, and to resolve to make war only for kings,

though those kings protest against the war, in the carrying on of which we are giving our assistance? This is the rock in our way, and if we get upon it, we shall assuredly split, and deserve to spiit, because we do it with our eyes open. Napoleon, once in secure possession of Spain, would easily keep us in a state of continual alarm. All hopes of resistance would be extinguished upon the continent of Europe, which united under one head, would and must harrass us in a way that we could not support for any number of years. So that the choice lies between that of seeing the Spanish people acquire real freedom, and that of living ourselves in protracted war and incessant aarm, with the fair chance of being finally subdued. I am greatly afraid, that there are some persons who would, without hesitation, prefer the latter; but I still hope, that their influence will not prevail. We are called upon to assist the cause of real freedom, and threatened with subjugation to a foreign power as the penalty of our refusing to obey that call. Nothing can be more fair, nothing more reasonable or just --The correspondent, to whom I have referred here, denies, that, agreeably to the law of nations, Napoleon is the sovereign of Spain; becaus, says he, the cession of the crown and sovereignty was made without the consent of the people. So, then, as far as serves his purpose, the people are to be some thing. An old despotisn is not to be destroyed without their consent formally expressed; but, they are nothing at all, when the question of who shall we make war for is to be decided. The whole a the royal family have abdicated the throne of Spain; they have transferred it to Napoleon; they have gone out of the country; and the last act of their former authority has been to command the people to obey Napoleon. I say that this is a vile fraud; I say, too, that a crown cannot be rightfully transferred without the consent of the people; but, as far as the royal family had any right or power, they have transferred it; as far as they could bind the people, they have bound them to Napoleon. So that, either he is the rightful sovereign of Spain, or there is no sovereign at all, I contend that, the latter is the case, and, therefore, I am for making war for the people; but, my correspondent is still for making war for the king, as he calls him, and that, too, in direct disobedience of his commands. This is loyalty such as, I am persuaded, no inan ever heard or read of before. This correspondent finds fault, too, of my title, or head, and, instead of " Spanish Revolution," he wishes me to

people of France at that period, and the struggle of the people of Spain, for their independence and liberty in the present instance; and if the people had been then suffered to pursue their object "without external interference, a great part of the calamities which had since "befallen Europe, would have been pre"veated, as well as the vast effusion "of blood and treasure which had since "taken place." There was no answering this. On the 14th of July, 1791, I think it was, the cause of the French was so much like what the cause of the Spaniards now is, that would be very difficult to make a disf. The Spaniards are fighting against

gn invaders, and for a reform of abuses. were the French, at the out-set of their somtion; and, it is truly worthy of rewark, that we who fought against the French, shanld now be fighting for the Spanish people.—There was one DIXON, who objected to an amendment, upon the plan of Mr. Waihman, because it was not constitutional for the assembly to convey its sentiments to the public, in any other way than in an aldress to the throne, and hinted at certain motives, by which Mr. Waithman and his friends were actuated. To this Mr. Waithman replied, "that as motives had been personally imputed to him, he would "have been glad that the motives had been " mentioned. It had always been his wish, " as it would through life, that his motives should be not only apparent, but publicly known. As the inputed motives had not been mentioned, he should state some "motives by which he had not been influ"enced. He had not written to lord Gren"ville for a living for one of his sons, vor "had he obtained from the present ad"ministration places for two other sons Whence it appears, that the loyalty of the said DIXON is much about of the same sort as that which passes current at Whitehall. These are valuable anecdotes. They serve to explain the conduct of men. What a shocking thing it is to reflect, that there is scarcely a living soul, however contemptible, that appears upon the public stage, with loyalty in bis mouth, who has not an eye upon the taxes!Mr. QUIN, too, whose voice and manner resemble those of an itinerant hero of the buskin, has, I dare be sworn, au eye towards the taxes, or, at least, towards knighthood; which latter he may probably obtain by way of augmenting the amount of his claim to the former; for he will hardly, like the late worthy and deeply regretted Mr.. Phillips, get himself knighted for the mere honour of the thing.Verily, if the

poor Spaniards have nothing better to support them, than the friendship, or rather, empty applause of these candidates for place and for city nobility, their cause is in a desperate way. Not a word of sympathy is expressed; not a penny is proposed to be raised; nor is the king advised to do any thing in behalf of that cause. Mr. Quin talked about freedom, but it was easy to perceive what sort of freedom he meant. Not a word did he say about the restoration of the Cortes, or the reform of abuses. Not a word of cen sure upon the cowardice and treachery of the late rulers of Spain: all was mere mouthing invective against Buonaparté; and this, I am sorry to say it, is all that one can get from any of those, who are known for adherents of the ministry. But, there is another city, from the people of which, were they to assemble, I should expect better things. They, too, might address the king, and, through that channel, they might express their views of what is going on in Spain. To them the independent part of the nation would listen, and, like bread cast upon the waters, the effects of their address might appear again after many days. It is of great consequence, that now, at the outset of this great change in the affairs of Europe, the people of England should be rightly informed of its causes, and of the principles by which the movers are actuated. If the Spaniards should be successful, that success cannot fail to be felt here; but, for it to produce its full effect, the people must begin betimes to think rightly as to the causes which led to it. Botley, 21st July, 1808.

MAJOR CARTWRIGHT'S LETTER ΤΟ MR. WHITBREAD ON THE AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

Enfield, July 15, 1808.

DEAR SIR; It is said to have been the advice of Lord Mansfield to a person appointed to a judicial situation abroad, to decide causes to the best of his judgment, but never to give reasons in support of his decisions. When you deprecated the discussion brought forward by Mr. Sheridan, respecting the resistance rising in Spain to the domination of Napoleon, your forming an erroneous opinion on the prudence or imprudence of that discussion, was of little consequence; and few would have kept in their minds any recollection of an error, supposing you to have committed one, had you not written a book to explain your conduct and sentiments. There being in this proceeding a formal appeal to the public, if no part of your book be replied to, you may imagine it unanswerable; and so be con

firmed in error, if into any you have fallen. It is by friendly disputation on shades of difference, that well-intentioned men come to be of one mind. To speak mine plainly, I think you have been wrong both in your conduct and your reasoning. A part of Spain (a country open to us on three sides) had drawn its sword upon Napoleon, had flung the scabbard in his face, and had sent its deputies to England. What knowledge beyond this, was wanting to an eloquent member of parliament, for fanning the flame of Spanish patriotism, and at the same time touching generally on the principles which ought to govern ministers in their cooperations with these new allies? Was not this an occasion to have been seized on with avidity, for delivering those sentiments which the English constitution so eminently teaches, for the recovery of liberty, and for the defence of a country against invaders? And nothing, surely, was more easy, than to have expressed an admiration of Spanish virtue, and an approbation of affording every practicable assistance, without calling on ministers for unnecessary explanations. But, on account of the unfitness of calling for disclosures, you deprecated, (unadvisedly as I think) all mention of the subject in parliament; and in the explanation since given of your conduct and motives, (in your Letter to Lord Holland) you appear to me not to have mended your case. Your original coldness no argument can teach me to approve. If it were a force upon your own feelings for liberty, I cannot understand it. Not even in the view of the most frigid caution, does it seem to have any warrant. In the same breath that you convey to us how little confidence you have in ministers, as incapable of conducting to "a happy issue the efforts of a great people, I just entering upon a struggle against tyranny and oppressioa," you give it as your opinion, that those ministers, merely because of their superior intelligence from Spain, were "those only who"-" could judge of the steps fit to be taken Nay, you hold this to be "a case in which the servants of the crown ought to be left perfectly free"-" to form and execute "their own designs ;" for it scems, "they

are of the king's appointment: to them "the interests of the kingdom are confi"ded."-And was not the late minister of Spain, the Prince of the Peace, of the king's appointment?, were not to him "the "interests of the kingdom" of Spain confided? Was not a royal appointment in Spain, as sacred as a royal appointment in England? Who could doubt the wisdom of

Charles the IV, more than that of George the III By the majority of the grandees and courtiers, the Prince of the Peace was accordingly left "perfectly free"-“ to "form and execute his own designs;" until those designs were perfected at Bayonne, in the royal family and the whole court being in the clutches of the treacherous Napoleon; the capital and strong holds of the country being occupied by French armies; and Spain being reduced to the alternative, of either receiving the Corsican yoke, or shedding rivers of blood to preserve her independence. Blessed fruit of the sacredness of a royal appointment and of implicit confidence in a minister !

That a minister was "of the king's ap"pointment," used to be the very reason, why implicit confidence was not to be given him, and why the jealous and vigilant eye of parliament was to be kept on all his motions. But we have of late learned new maxims of government. The "king" appoints. The constitutional watchmen of the state are therefore to sit with seals on their lips. Or, if any thing is to be uttered, it is "confidence, confidence, confidence."

This new doctrine, I allow, is perfectly in harmony with a House of Commons having numerous placemen; with sinecure offices; as well as with universal jobs and abuses, and the superadded expense of commissioners in every department, who bring not to justice a single peculator. The creed I know is become extremely fashionable among modern statesmen, whether in or out of power; as those who are out, hope in time to get in. That it is a creed extremely offensive to the people, matters As ministers are "of the king's appointment," the opinion of the people is little cared for. It is therefore perfectly natural, that the people should as little care who are ministers. And so things must continue, until a party shall rise who shall be advocates for the whole constitution, and nothing but the constitution. Let us hope that day is not far distant.

not.

You are still, Sir, it seems, an advocate for offering peace to the French Emperor; but you have not yet shewn us the basis on which a peace can be concluded with safety. Unless you can do this, I confess, Sir, that I can allow to your opinion but little weight. Have you well contemplated the recent conduct of this French Emperor towards Spain, while she was in his alliance, and fighting by his side? After you shall have so done, then tell us what you should think of the judgment of a Spanish statesman, who, before the national Cortes were restored, and