Imágenes de página
PDF
[blocks in formation]

son more necessary when the object to be fought for is the independence of a nation, and when the scene of action is the invaded land of that nation ; if this be the case, I pray you to shew us why you should not have a mark of eternal infamy fixed upon you, for your endeavours to persuade the nation, that, though a general might not have the confidence of the army in a degree sufficient to make it safe to employ him abroad, he might be safely employed in a command at home, and that, too, at a moment “ of “ great national hazard.” Your notion of a reserve of wisdom and courage is curious enough. Reserves are composed of that, in which, when the danger becomes reatest, men may safely confide. That, upon which we set the greatest value we keep as a reserve. But you would reject the offer of a general to serve abroad, on account of that want of confidence, which you suppose must arise from his former failures, and would keep him in reserve, that is to say, a want of confidence in reserve, for home service in times of great national hazard. After all, however, this is merely disputing for the sake of disputation ; Ér, as I have said before, and as I have conjured the reader to believe, it is impossible, that the Duke of York can have been cast off, or rejected, upon the ground of former failures; for, if that had been the case, it would be infernally libellous to suppose (though this loyal gentleman scruples not to suppose) that he would not, in giving way to the high feelings which he inherits from his long line of royal ancestors, have stamped his commission of Commander-in-Chief in the dirt, and, turning with disdain from the idea of filthy lucre, left the mercenary part of mankind to share amongst them, the profits which he derives from the office. What A prince of the House of Brunswick, a son of King George the Third, while glory calls him to foreign fields, submit to stay at home to issue orders for cutting the hair off the heads of the soldiers destined for the command of other generals; to be a raiser of recruits, a superintendant general of the dress and the drill; to have the command, aye the chief command, of soldiers so long, and no longer, than they are not wanted to do the duty of soldiers' No : again I say, it cannot be. I will not, therefore, believe, and nothing shall make me believe, though th

writer were to take his oath of the fact, that the Duke of York has made an offer to serve in Spain, and that that offer has been rejected upon the score of former failures.— I come back to my first opinion, which is this, that the Royal Chieftain, anxious, doubtless, as the Morning Chronicle observes, to shew “ his zeal in the cause of liberty,” might make an offer to the ministers to take upon him the chief command in Spain and Portugal; that the ministers felt it to be their duty to reject the offer, thinking, as they ought to think, that to provide for the perfect safety of England was their first duty, and thinking also, doubtless, that, the defence of England could be so safe in no hands as in those of the Royal Commander in Chief, who has, so many many times, visited all the military posts and reviewed all the soldiers, many of whom have been actually engaged, under his own eye, though not in real, yet in sham-fights; that this, being the ground of rejection, the Royal Commander would, of course, submit, and keep his post of commander in chief, which, in such case, was his duty, both an as subject and a patriot. In this opinion, I: have been greatly strengthened by the cir

cumstancs of all his royal brothers, wh

are generals, remaining at home too. They have had no failures, at any rase, where

with for the Morning Chronicle to taun

them ; and, one of them, it is well known

behaved most gallantly in Hanover, at the time when that happy country was invaded

by the French, and when, owing princi. pally to his royal foresight, the whole of the family plate was saved from the grasp of the . . remorseless invader. o “Snatch the Palladium, though the temple burn."

Indeed, with respect to the Duke of Kent, | we have proof positive of the truth, which I am urging. The public saw a letter from

his Royal Highness, sometime ago, re

questing to be sent to Gibraltar, for being: governor of which he receives the pay. This request was refused ; and, as the Duke kept, and still keeps, the office and its emoluments, in addition to his pension and also to the profits of the colonelship of four battalions of infantry, must we not neces: sarily conclude, that his offer to go upon actual service was rejected by the advisers of the king upon the ground whereon the Duke of York's request, or offer, if it was really made, was rejected; that is to say, that the ministers thought England the first and the dearest object (and well they may think it so') and, therefore, though they wished well to the cause of Spain, could not answer it to their consciences to aid that cause

by the sending away of the royal generals, in whom, in case of invasion, the people would, of course, have more confidence than in any other generals, and whose known skill and courage would make up for a want of discipline in the hasty levies, calltd forth in defence of the country. Here, then, without seeking any further, is a very good and sufficient reason for the offer of the royal chief having been rejected. Let us, therefore, hear no more of “ former “failures;” and let us attribute all the insinuations of the Morning Chronicle to that pirty defeat, which the Whigs experienced, it is thought, chiefly through the generalship of the Duke of York. SPANish Revolution.—If it be true, that Joseph Buonaparte has quitted Madrid, there is one rascally government at an end, at any rate. . There is no longer any consolidated despotism in Spain, and, let us hope, that there never will be again. It being reported, that the vile nobility, who attend“d Joseph to Madrid, have, upon perceiving that he was likely to fail, deserted him, some of our despotism-defending prints, particularly the Morning Post, says that it thought, all along, that these nobles had been entrapped at Bayonne, had been forced to publish sentiments foreign from their hearts, and that this desertion of Joseph is a proof that the opinion here stated was correct. Now, it occurred to me, that this desertion was a proof of consummate baseness, if any such proof had been wanting; for, if the nobles had been entrapped at Bayonne, if they had actually been forced to go there, and when there to make speeches against the Bourbons and in favour of the Buona. portes; if this had been the case, they would have deserted Joseph the moment they got into Spain; but (if it be true that they have now deserted him), they stopped, we find, 'till they have reason to believe, that he will be worsted. But, the fact is, that there was no force employed to get them

to Bayonne, any more than to get the royal

family there. The whole tribe went upon a sommons, which took the name of an invitation. There was not a French soldier employed to escort them to Bayonne; and, as to the nobles, they were not even summoned, or invited. One or two of the Bishops sent their professions of allegiance to Napoleon, without being asked for any : o, is it not notorious, that the putting of Joseph upon the throne was preceded by Applications to that effect, made by persons in Spain and not at Bayonne —The truth o, that the wretched defender of despotism, * whose print I have referred, perceives,

| or has been told, that it will be impossible

for time even to wear away the infamy of the Spanish nobility assembled at Bayonne, and afterwards becoming the servants of Joseph Buonaparte, while the people of Spain are fighting for their freedom against this same Buonapatte. This writer foresees, that men in general will ask why English blood should be shed for the purpose of restoring to splendour so vile and rascally a crew. Therefore it is, that he is anxious to make his readers believe, that the Spanish nobles did all under compulsion. To be store, it is a most confounding fact, that a whole royal government, King, Prime Minister and Nobles, all go off upon an invitation, and make a surrender of the kingdcm to the enemy, while the people, the motment they are gone, take up arms to meet that enemy, and are actually proceeding in a way that would encourage one to hope, that they inav not only beat that enemy, but, finally, secure the freedom of their country. This is a confounding fact indeed. It is impossible to deny it ; and, therefore, all manner of shifts and tricks are resorted to, for the purpose of keeping it out of sight. Either the royal family and nobles were forced from Spain, or they were not, it the latter, then all the pretexts about compulsion vanish into air ; and, if they were forced away, they were forced away in the presence of tha'ivery people who have now risen in arms to defend themselves and their country, but which people, and no part of which people, attempted to take up arms for the sake of the royal family and the nobles. 'i his writer, and several others of the same stamp, hardly excepting the Morning Chronicle, unwilling to utter a word that shall seem to favour the notion of Spaniards being fighting for the purpose of establishing a lice government, and yet not knowing very well how to write upon the subject without now and then introdacing the object of the giorious efforts which tile people of Spain are making; these writers, thus embarrassed, do, I perceive, until they see which way things are likely to go, which way Whitehall and Lloyd's may settle the point, talk about the people of Spain fighting for their independence. They reprobate the idea of a nation's giving up its independence. The people of Spain, they say, are engaged in the glorious cause of independence. Not a syllable do they say about the freedom, or the happiness, of the people of Spain. Not a word about their throwing off the yoke of oppression, which they have so log worn, and which oppression has, in been the only cause of, first, their de

[graphic]

tion, and, secondly, the invasion of their country. Not a word do these writers say upon these heads, but, they ring the changes, over and over again, upon the very equivotal word independence. But, whot do they Inean by independence * Do they uneau, that state in which a nation or people is not &ependent upon the will of an her nation, people, government, or chief ? If so, it n; pears to me, that the peo; he or Spain, unless they are bent upon establishing an entirely new government, are acting very inconsistently, and are, indeed, shedding their blood for a púrpose precisely the contrary to that which they wish to accomplish ; for, as to their old government, it was always in a state of dependance upon France; and, the government which Napoleon has proposed to them seeijs very well calculated to provide, in time at least, against any such dependeice in future. . To be sure, the Bayonne Constitution, like most others in the stor!!, will, I daresay, admit, upon a pinch, of a little siter:tion; but, in the meanwhile, it is impossible that king Joseph can make the country more dependent upon France than it was before; and, in words, at least, this constitution does restore to the people of Spain something like an enjoyment of freedom, something like security for property and life. The Morning Post exclaims “What a dis“ grace, what an infamy, to submit to a foreign yoke ' " and, he most severely reproaches even his sriends, the Bayonne Grandees, for having, even under compulsion, given the sanction of their natues to the bringing in of a mean, beggarly, foreign fa mily, and placing them upon the throne. But, surely, my friend of the Morning Post suffers his zeal to get astride upon his reason. Surely he does not take time to reflect; if he did, he would certainly have been cautious how he had condemned, in terms so unqua. lified, the introdection of foreigners and the placing of them upon the throne; for he must have recoliected, that in certain cases,

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

and his fellow labourers would refrain from uttering such veh, ment Philippics against the introduction of foreign princes and troops. One of the standing co-ages against i. parie is, that he is not a Fenchman ; and that he prefers having Corsicans and fiasio about his person. This may as well rein in unsaid, and 1 beg the witc. s in question do. ly to weigh the thing in their minds. Austri A.—if war ke place between Austria and F, ance, al...! we carry on to war in Spain for the restoration of the ol family, then the old game is begion again. More subsidies, more lies so a Whitehall, and a result much about the same as the last. Qur villainous news. papers express a most anxious hope, this Austria is bent upon war; that, stimula: by the “glorious example of Spain,” sh: is resolved to make one more effort agains the tyrant of the earth. The exople o Spain ' Why, man, do you consider wha she most do, in order to begin to follow to exaople : She has an Emperor, an Empress a whole royal family, with all the old so of courtiers, maje and female ; all her pon ders and parasites; and every thing, of whid Spain has not a fragment left. The examnh. of Spin, indeed! Why, the Spaniards sid: fered a French army to coine to their v capital without an attempt to resist o and, according to your assertion, they so fered the French to force away their kin and queen and all their princes and minis ters; and, that being done, they began fight the French, and to endeavour to ejec them from their country. Now, do yo reaily wish the Austrians to do the same I imagine, that what you wish is, that th Austrians may follow the example of th Spaniards merely in resisting the French leaving all things just as they now are it their government, in which wish I ain de cidedly of opinion you will be disappointed I can, for my part, discover, in the peopk of Austria, no motive for resisting sh French, which they had not previous to th: battle of Austeritz. I can discover no rel: son for supposing that Austria should be more fortunate now than she was thos; and, I am fully persuaded, that whatever money may be sent her from this counts wili do us no more good than was done by

any and all of the immense sums which she

very decently urged as a decided proof of a loss

of indetendence. Nay, I am of opinion, that it would be full as well if the Morning Post

has heretofore received from us.--The Austrians are composed of materials wers different from those which go to the making up of a Spaniatd. The Germans do not easily catch fire. They look well and long at danger before they encounter it. Thes act upon the wise maxim, that “the bettes

[graphic]

- - - - - - ** - part of valour is discretion.” It was an figures of rhetoric proceeding from the pen

observation, in America, that the Hessians always smoked their pipes as they went to the attack, but never in a retreat. They are certainly, the whole of the Germans, not less prudent, at any rate, than they are courageous; and, indeed, the whiskers, which seem to have a natural fitness to their faces, denote, like those of the cat, a characteristic cautiousness. For these reasons, and some others that I shall not now mention, I do not think that the Austrians, if war should take place, will follow the example of the Spaniards, in making a gallaut resistance to the approach of the French; and, in short, my opinion is, that if Austria now suffers herself to be hurried into a war, her royal family will share the fate of the IHouse of Bourbon.

LIs EL-LAws. [Intended for insertion last week but accidentally omitted].--—Sir

Richard Phillips, in consequence of my re

marks, relative to his evidence, in the action of Sir John Carr, knight, against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, has, in the last week's Register, published a letter addressed to me. —I will notice the points touched upon, in this letter, in the order wherein they are placed. I am not at all surprized to learn, that the author of the prosecuted pamphlet was also the author of the report of the trial; ind that being, as Sir Richard now informs me, the real fact, I can readily suppose, that the report was by no means favoãrable to the plaintiff and his witnesses. This, however, does not essentially alter the case in my estimation ; for, it was not so much the sort of evidence that I care about, as the act of prosecuting, and I am sorry to discover, even now, no regret, on the part of Sir Richard, for having been, though unintentionally, perhaps, instrumental in causing that prosecution. He who uses the press ought to defend himself solely with the Press. There are people enougl to bring the law to bear upon us, without our countenancing their conduct by our own example. I own that caricatures do not constitute a branch of sober criticism, and Sir Richard says, in the close of his letter, that Sir John Carr founded his action solely and erclusively on the caricatures. But, caricatures are things to laugh at They break no bones I, for instance, have been repre*ented as a bull-dog, as a porcupine, as a wolf, as a sans-culotte, as a nightman, as a bear, as a kite, as a cur, and, in Ametica, as hanging upon a gallows. Yet, here I am, just as sound as if no misrepresentation of me had ever been made. The fact * that caricatures are nothing more than

cil : and, as the inimitable Gillray is not in the habit of making sentences, I see no reason why he should not ridicule what he deens to be the f"ies and vices of the times, or of particular persons, with his pencil. It is, to be sure, very provoking to see one's self held up to public ridicule, or censure, especially is we are conscious of not de-erving it ... but, then, we should bear in mind, that the principle, upon which we appeal to the law for redress, will be sure to be made to apply against ourselves, if we make use of the press. It is the practice of bringing actions and preferring it,dictments and informations ly individuals that has kept the several successive AttortiesGeneral in countenance; for, if we, particuiarly we who use the press, hatrass each other with the law, with what face can we complain when we are made suoject to public prosecutions As an author, therefore, Sir John Carr should have soreborne to apply to the law, though he had been mortified almost to a state of hanging. For an author, or bookseller, to appeal to the law of libels is an act of downright treason towards the whole of his brethren. Those who live by the press must be content to die by the press; and the press includes the works of the pencil as well as those of the pen. — I am very glad, that Sir Richard Phillips is not the publisher of the “Ilevolutionary Plutarch.” That was the work I meant certainly ; and a work so full of manifest falsehoods could, assuredly, never have obtained circulation, except amongst a people totaly blinded by a hatred too great to have arisen from any other cause than that of cowardly fear. The greediness with which all the foul slander, all the barefaqed falsehood, all the worse than Mandeville or Munchausen lies, of this book have been swallowed, is truly wonderful. The good old maxim of “ giving the devil his due " has been quite thrown aside by the author, who has so inpudently set truth, and even probability at defia: ce, that to affect to believe him is to subject one's self to the charge of being a partaker in that moral depravity, which evidently presided at the execution of every page of his work. I most heartly agree with Sir Richard Phillips in opinion respecting reviewers and reviews in general. I have, many times, expressed the same opinion, and for the same reasons ; but, he has had much more experience than I have had with “ the race that write ” in reviews. He must know the “craft "well, and I beg leave to refer the reader (see page 206) to what he has said respecting it. I agree .

[ocr errors]

with him, that every man should put his name to what he causes to be published. The pronoun we is, nine times out of ten, a convenient mask for cowardice or rascality, and, not unfrequently, both together. It is true, that argument derives neither strength nor weakness from a name, but opinion

does ; and, it is the opinion of the reviewer,

that the greater part of readers lock after. It would be fair for an anonymous author to be subject to anonymous criticism; but, the critic of Sir John Carr's work ought to have put his name to his performance. All this, however, says nothing in favour of taking the law of a man for what he has published, whether it has a name or not. For the reasons, which I have before given, I always strongly suspect the goodness of the cause of that man, who appeals so the law of libels ; and, for reasons also , before stated, I must, and ever shall, regard the author, or bookseller, who makes such an appeal, as a false brother, as a traitor to the cause of freedom in general. Sir John Carr has, however, by his experiment, done essential service to the cause of truth, though, apparently, contrary to his intention. He has put the Principle to the test. By pushing it to the extreme, he has shewn the world what it really is. No man could prett nd to believe, that his feelings were not injured by the caricatures contained in a criticism that actually, as it would seen), killed him dead, as an author; but, no main was bold enough to say, that criticisms on a man's works ought to be punished as a libel. This leads to another question : namely, why should the feelings of a minister, that is to say, of a servant of the public, be considered as more sacred than the feelings of an author 2 Why should not the talents of the former be held up to ridicule, as well as the talents of the latter The author, Lord Ellenborough says, voluntarily challenges public critieism ; and does not a minister do the same 2 Is not this the case with every man in a pullic situation ? We have, according to the decision in the case of Sir John Carr, knight, a right to speak our opinions freely of the talents of authors; why, then, should we not as freely speak our opinious of the talents of a minister, or a commander 2 Aud what harm could arise from it, seeing that the press would be open for the controverting of our opinions I mean, what harm to the public ; for, it is evident, that the speaking of our opinions freely of a n inster oright do him a creat deal of i.arm ; but, the press being opet, on his sile, truth would prevail, and the horm done to him would be , od done to the public. The

fact is, that the liberty of the press has no definite meaning, it is sheer sound without sense, unless it means, the liberty of freely publishing our opinions of the talents and charactor of all men in a public capacity; and, if we are liable to be punished for so doing, can we be said to do it freely 2 The liberty of the press would, in that case, be the liberty of doing that which would subject us to fine, imprisonment, and pillory. In this way we, every one of us, enjoy tic liberty of stealing and of committing mur

der.

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

Which, in the compass of Sixteen Volumes, royal octavo, double columns, will contain a full and accurate Report of all the recorded Proceedings, and of all the Speeches in both Houses of Parliament, from the earliest times to the year 1803, when the publication of “Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates" commenced. The Fourth Volume of the above work is ready for delivery. It embraces that period of our Parliamentary History, which is, perhaps, the most interesting of any ; namely, from the Restoration of Charles the Second in the year 1600, to the Revolution, in 1088. For this Period, the Proceedings and Debates, in both Houses, have been, for the most part. collected from the following works: 1 The Journals of the House of Lords; 2. The Journals of the House of Commons; 3. That portion of the Parliamentary, of Constitutional. History of England, which contains the proceedings of the Convention Parliament, from its meeting on the 25th 0 April, 1660, to its dissolution, on the 24th of December following, at which epoch the editors of this able performance conclude their labours; 4. The Life of the Earl of Clarendon, written by himself, containing

[graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »