« AnteriorContinuar »
“been able at once to corrupt and to army under Dumourier, it excited terror
“: oppress the French nation; now the and confusion through the camp.
“sword is broken in their hands, let us “ not leave them the means of acquiring “ new weapons to our own destruction, “ and that of civilised society.”—TIMEs of 30th June, 1815.
Since writing the above, Paris Papers of Monday have arrived, in which it is stated, that “Napoleon is gone to Havre, ** where he is to embark for England, “ accompanied by Prince Jerome, Prince “Joseph, a first Equerry, a first Cham“berlain, and two Valets de Chambre.” If this step has really been taken, it need not surprise any one if it is the prelude to the restoration of the Bourbons to the throne of France. Thanks to the vanity, the contemptible vanity of Napoleon, and the fickle disposition of the French people, for so unlooked for a change.
INVASIon of FRANCE.
MR. Cobb ETT.—Those who consider the late disaster of Napoleon a prelude to the submission of the French people to the yoke of the Bourbons, seem to forget the events, of a similar nature, which have occurred since the beginning of the revolation. During the first campaign in the Netherlands, the French General Biren was on the eve of attacking the Austrians at Mons, with an army already flushed with victory, and which made the air resound with shouts of “victory or death.” Tn a moment it was seized with a panic; the whole was thrown into confusion;
the Austrians commenced the attack; the
republicans were forced to retreat with immense loss, and only escaped entire annihilation by a detachment, under General Rochambeau, coming to their relief. —Notwithstanding this disaster, it is well known that the French very soon after drove their assailants from the field. When General Dumourier was obliged to retreat before the Prussians, he sent orders to General Chazot, whom he had detached with about 10,000 men from the main body of his army, to join him. This division on its march fell in with 1500 Prussians, which they took for the advancedguard of Clairfayt’s army. Disorder immediately pervaded the ranks; they threw &lown their arms and fled in all directions. Intelligence of this having reached the
Every one cried out he was betrayed; the army became disorganized; flight ensued, and it was not till they had reached the gates' of Paris, that the runaways were convinced they were in safety. All the world knows how soon these same fugitives compelled the Prussians to fly before them. The battle of Jemappe, which decided the fate of Flanders in November 1792, was followed by a similar occurrence. After the Austrians fled to Mons, Dumourier sent two brigades to occupy the suburbs of that place. On their march, the advanced guard was seized with a panic, from a strange apprehension that the Austrians had undermined the ground over which they were marching. Terror and disorder ensued, which having communicated to the rest, the two brigades fell back upon the main army, by which the Austrians gained time to effect their retreat in safety. Shortly after this, however, we find the same troops that had discovered so. ill grounded a fear, driving the Austrians before them, and possessing themselves of Brussels.--— Many other instances could be added of the same description; but these are sufficient to shew, that that sort of disaster, which led to the retreat of Napoleon, will not justify the opinion, now industriously propagated, that France has been subdued, and that the allied armies may proceed, without interruption, to Paris. In the discussions, which have taken place in the Senate and Legislative body, respecting the elevation of Napoleon's son to the Imperial dignity, the most decided hostility appeared against the family of the Bourbons. If, as it is said, the British army have marched into France with Louis XVIII. at their head, nothing more will be wanting to open the eyes of the French to the plans now forming to replace that unfortunate personage on the throne; no other stimulus will be necessary to rouse the nation, as it was roused in the early part of the revolution, to resist all attempts to impose a government so hostile to its feelings, and so much at variance with the true interests and glory of France. But it will be said, that the near approach of the allies to Paris, precludes all idea of any resistance which the French people can offer, being successful. It is
very true, that the British and Prussian armies are now considerably advanced into France; but it is equally true, that ...the enemies of France possessed the same advantages in 1792, and yet were obliged to retreat. “The enemy is at the gates “ of Paris. Verdun, which lies in his “way, cannot hold out longer than eight “ days.”—This was the state of affairs at that period, “but the citizens who de“fend it (Verdun) have sworn that they “will perish rather than surrender it.” They were faithful to their oaths, and the invaders were driven back.-The oily doubt remaining in my mind is, that the people of France are not so ardent in the cause of freedom as they were in 1792. So much has been done to familiarize them with royalty, to impress their minds with the importance of a constitutional monarchy, and to fascinate them with the vain and gaudy trappings of an Imperial dynasty, that if they again revert to the reign of despotism and priestcraft, they will only have themselves to blame for the melancholy change. Napoleon has always possessed a great share of my esteem and respect. But I never could forget the violence he offered to liberty, when he seized upon the government, under the name of “First Consul.” It was the first step towards extinguishing public spirit. What followed served only to benumb the faculties, and to prepare France for the re-establishment of that system, which it had cost her so
against France ever since she declared for independence. What sort of ideas of Jreedom can this child form, under the tutelage of a daughter of the House of Austria?—Where are the hylacon days, which Frenchmen had a right to look for under a free representative government, when such prospects as these seem to open before them : — The contemplation is gloomy indeed. Still, I am free to acknowledge, that I would rather prefer the reign of Napoleon the IId, with all its disadvantages, to that of the Bourbons, The former has the semblance, at least, of being the choice of the nation. The latter has been twice expelled, and if he is again restored, it must be by the sword, a mode of erecting a goverument at all times hostile to the legitimate rights of the people, and subversive of the true principles of liberty.
- - ARISTIDEs.
BR1T is H. PoliticAL OBJECTs.
Mr.Cobbett.—The policy of the British government, as well with respect to its own domestic interests, as to those of foreign relations, should be to nurture, to extend, and to establish the cause of rational liberty. What has given to the British realms the transcendant authority, and the vast political resources they possess, but the popular and liberal institutions of the legislature by which they are governed. If reference be had to the best periods of the Assyrian, the Egyptian, the Grecian, and the Roman governments, it will be found that the high renown and distinction of these several states, arose from the liberty enjoyed by the people, by the recegnition of inherent civic rights, and by the mutual confidence that subsisted between the governing and the The moment that intrigue, and despotic artifice reared their baneful sceptre, and gained the ascendancy of public virtue, all the political advantages of those wise institutions were practically lost, and delapidation and ruin marked the fatal effects of such deplorable aberration from sound policy. “Evil communications corrupt good mannerrs," is a maxim that has the sanction of holy writ, and if it were not there recorded, it is incessantly
proving in the individual and national intercourse of men. It is undoubtedly the Policy and interest of governments similarly constituted, to co-operate in each others plans of procedure, and not to attempt the solecism of reconciling in practo what is radically and irreconciliably different in principle. Agreeably to this "ole of policy, the British government should be anxious to conciliate the good QPinion, and prefer the alliance of kindred forms of legislature, if any such there are, and not for purposes of tempo*Y Power, or for objects unworthy of an independent nation, enter into any political compacts with powers that have nothing in them at as congenerous; nay, that found their schemes of authority, and strength on principles of tyranny, at utter variance with British liberty. Is it possible that any benefit can accrue to real British interests, by cultivating friendly - and considental relations with States that have not the slightest affinity with the Constitutional liberty of Great Britain : In what points of sound policy can nations, governed by principles of liberty and slavery, faithfully concur : If mutual sinority exists in their engagements, must they not make mutual sacrifices of their respective systems for the benefit of these engagements; and if that be the case, how is the cause of liberty furthered by the alliance, and what practical benefit is likely to result to the enslaved nation, who -sees that professions of liberty are not so unbending but they may be made to accord with the habitual objects of avowed despotism : The intercourse is unnatural and necessarily tends mutually to vitiate and injure the contracting parties, without a chance of advancing the political virtue of either. In this view of the hurtful discordancy, that must arise in the alliance of governments essentially differing in political principles, and practice, is it not an anxious consideration for Britons to ascertain what possible good can result to the British nation, by pledging its blood and treasure for objects that might countenance and protect despotic governments, but cannot possibly benefit a liberal and popular system of legislation ? In the exact proportion in which the despotic allies of Great Britain have their territorial possessions, and political powers en
creased by any compact into which they
may enter with the government of this country, must the real interests, and even
political security of that country, be diminished and endangered. Where unrestrained despotism exists, rational liberty can have no secure abode. Overtly or. covertly, the machinations of tyranny are incessantly directed against popular free-, dom, inasmuch as the one is totally incompatible with the other. As liberty and tyranny, therefore, cannot co-exist, how is it that they can be associated in alliance for any vindicable object 2 Tyranny never lends its aid to liberty, and liberty disdains to assist the cause of tyranny. All alliance, then, obtaining between such opposite systems, is not less reprehensible in principle than, sooner or later, ruinous in practice. It is very natural and perhaps even commendable, agreeably to the existing system, for Russia to seek the aid of alliance from all the European states founded on a similar scheme of government, but with what consistency can that, and other kindred states, ask co-operation from the British nation, knowing that their systems of government are so widely different? What is there in common between the Russian and German governments, and that of Great Britain. The two former are founded on the sole will of the personal sovereign, excluding from all consideration the political rights of the people; the latter constitutionally rests on a strict representative system, in which the people are acknowledged to be every thing, and that without them there can be nothing. What interests, legitimately or cousistently associated, can the government of Great Britain seek in conjunction with its present allies, in waging hostilities against France. ? The French have proclaimed, and are now seeking the establishment of national liberty and independence. These privileges have been bottomed on a representative system of government, comprehending, with but a few exceptions, the most important ad: vantages of a free and an enlightened form of legislation. Its ground work is not dissimilar to that of the English Constitution. Does not this circumstance, as well as its generic character of civil liberty, naturally assort it with British views, and should it not as naturally secure it British amity and protection ? Is not the prosperity of French liberty fa
vourable to all that is excellent in the con
stitutional charter of Great Britain; and would not the destruction of the one endanger the safety of the other? Is it possible to suppose that the genuine spirit of the British constitution can be embattled against France, in opposition to her establishi 2 a similar form of government? Were the British people truly represented in Parliament, as prescribed by the constitutional law of the land, would it be Possible to sanction a war against French liberty and independence by legislative provisions for its support French liberty is only dangerous to despotic states; its telkiency should awaken no apprehension in the British government; it will be more likely to justify and confirm the constitutional excellencies of that governmeito, than at all to invade or undermine them. Great Britain and America should be earnest in their devotion to the ameliorated state of French government; they should regard it as another important link in the chain of power, that promises ultimately to extend and establish the influence of political liberty over the habitable world. The prejudices, habits, and ignorance of national slavery must gradually give way to an enlightening system of education, before the example of legislative liberty, constitutionally provided for in England, America, and France, can become as universal as it is necessary to the wants and happiness of mankind. A TRUE BRITo N.
/. ON THE TERM PETITIox.
MR. Cobbert.—The admirable obserYations, recently made in his place in the House of Commons, by Sir Francis Burdett, in the memorable instance of presenting the Westminster Petition against the present war, are well adapted to enlighten the British people in the genuine Political quality of a constitutional petition. . It is quite clear, what, in the framing of that privilege, must have been designed by it; but the choice of the term for claiming that right is not correctly significant of its real import. To petition, literally means, to pray, to supplicate, to bog. . How is this servile cringing attitude of spirit consistent with the moral power and freedom of requiring, of demanding, of insisting, on an indefeasible right 2
Where are the respective authority and dependence existing, which would warrant the representative office of the IIouse of Commons in saying, that the representative possesses a power to which the represented are so subjected that they cannot be either relieved, or discharged from its obligations, but by the sort of favour that may be shewn to humility of petitioning or praying. Does either the principle or practice of social liberty recognise a feelling so abject, so mendicating, as that which would rather crouchingly supplicate, than sternly demand an unquestionable right? There cannot be two opinions with regard to the superior power of the represented to that of the representing ; the former possesses the original and immutable right; the latter has only the exercise of its delegated authority, and to which it can have no moral claim longer than it be merited by a faithful and adequate execution of the duties imposed. The right of domineering and dictating cannot be vindicated by any provisions in the chartered - liberties of the British realms, on the part of the representative
strance against either a goal or supposed .
grievance. To talk of denying references to the legislature, in the independent tone of acknowledged complaint, and of prescribing to it the language of mendicity, to entitle it to any reception at all, is surely to invert the order of moral authority; it is to obliterate and eclipse the real source of power by rendering the delegated every, thing, and the delegating nothing. The hackneyed forms of par. liamentary petitions, the gradations of favour assigned to them, in proportion as they attain or fall short of what is regarded as the standard measure of decorous servility; and the unreserved flipPancy with which they are either, in the
first instance rejected, or, if received, finally everlooked and forgotten, are among the worst effects of a degenerated system of British representation. When the people know their true political rights, and dignities, and confer them only where they will be faithfully administered for their true benefit, it will then be understood that the style of communicating with the legislature will not be in terms so debased as to assume the character of either a petition, a prayer, or a supplication, but as a demand or remonstrance, according to the circumstances of redress or correction sought to be obtained. The word petition ought, therefore, to be expunged from the legislative vocabulary, it should have no meaning in national politics. What may be justly required by a British people, should be constitutionably demanded, whether it be in the way of instruction, for the amelioration of the State, or in that of remonstrance, for the correction of alledged abuses of delegated authority. The right of the British public to demand of the legislature redress of wrongs, or to remonstrate with it against any affirmed inaccuracies of conduct, caunot be denied.—If either the demand or remembrance should be well founded, it will be entitled to the fullest acquiescence on the part of the legislature; if it should be imaginary and erroneous, it still deserves to be treated with all the respect due from the delegated to the delegaling authority, and is no case to be contumaciously rejected as unworthy of notice. The right of the people constitutionally, that is peacefully, to call on the Government to do justice to the public, when it may suppose itself unjustly treated, is one of the most vital privileges of the liberty of the land, and, to be consistent with its own independwence and dignity, should be always declared in language of resolute firmness and of determined authority. - CENson.
Historical. Notices of the WAR of ENGLAND, Austri A, Russi A, PRUSSIA, DENMARK, Sweden, Holland, SARDINA, The Pope, NAPLEs, SIXLCI,
SPAIN, Powrug AL, BAVARIA, WURTEMBERG, &c. &c.; witH AN ARMY of ONE MILLIon AND ELEVEN THousAND REGULAR SoLDIERs, AGAINST NAeoLEoN AND FRANCE.
The following, as appears from the French official accounts, was the result of the battle of the 16th inst. to which they have given the name of the “Battle of Ligny-Under-Fleureus.”
At half-past nine o'clock we had 40 pieces of cannon, several carriages, colours, and prisoners, and the enemy sought safety in a precipitate retreat. At 10 o'clock the battle was finished, and we found ourselves masters of all the field of battle. General Lutzow, a partisan, was taken prisoner. The prisoners assure us, that Field-Marshal Blucher was wounded. The flower of the Prnssian army was destroyed in this battle. Its loss could not be less than 15,000 men. Our's was 3000 killed and wounded. On the left, Marshal Ney had marched on Quatre Bras with a division, which cut in pieces an English division which was stationed there; but being attacked by the Prince of Orange with 25,000 men, partly English, partly Hanoverians in the pay of England, he retired upon his position at Frasnes. There a multiplicity of combats took place; the enemy obstinately endeavoured to force it, but in vain. The Duke of Elchingen
waited for the 1st corps, which did not arrive
till night; he confined himself to maintaining his position. In a square, attacked by the 8th regiment of curassiers, the colours of the 69th regiment of English infantry fell into our hands.
. The Duke of Brunswick was killed. The Prince
of Orange has been wounded. ... We are assured that the enemy had many personages and Generals of note killed or wounded; we estimate the loss of the English at from 4 or 5000 men ; our's on this side was very considerable, it amounts to 4,200 killed or wounded. The combat ended with the approach of night. Lord Wellington then evacuated Quatre Bras, and proceeded to Genappe. In the morning of the 17th, the Emperor repaired to Quatre Bras, whence he marched to attack the English army : he drove it to the entrance of the forest of Soignes with the left wing and the reserve. The right wing advanced by Sombref, in pursuit of Field-Marshal Blucher, who was going towards Wavre, where he wished to take a position. At 10 o'clock in