and of the United Kingdom is not held by descent. The family now upon the throne can put forward no such claim. They are not the descendants of the elder branch of the Stuarts; but, and it is singular enough, Louis le Desiré is! Our king holds his crown in virtue of an act of Parliament, and solely in such virtue; and a very good holding it is, because it is really legiti mate. Ours, therefore, is a legitimate sovereign; but, the Capets were never the legitimate sovereigns of France, A title may be, and thousands of titles are, at once hereditary and legitimate, as in the case of private estates; but, then, there is present hour. A conqueror, indeed, he has been, and he has endeavoured to place his family on half the thrones of Europe; but, still, his conquests were the fruits of his victories, and have invariably been followed by demonstrations of a desire to restore peace. The Allies have declared him out of the pale of civil relations." It was not thus that he acted, when in possession of the capitals of Austria and Prussia, and when the Sovereigns of those countries owed their crowns to his clemency. He did, indeed, extend widely his dominions, but the extent was far within the compass of his power. In this last scene of the grand drama how does he ap-law in support of the hereditary claim; pear? The Allies put him, as far as they are able, out of the pale of the law; the Bourbons set a price upon his head. He suffers the Bourbons to depart unmolested; those of them whom he takes in arms against him he pardons; and, in answer to the outrageous declaration of the Allies, levelled against his fame and his life, he writes to each of the allied Sovereigns, tendering him the olive branch, and inviting him to a rivalship in the arts of peace, and in the science of making the people happy and free. You call him an Usurper and Louis the legitimate sovereign. Words have great power, and these words have had great power; but the assertions are not true. An Usurper is one who seizes on authority unlawfully: a legitimate sovereign is one who holds his authority by law. Now, Napoleon was by law made Emperor of France, an office which never was by law taken from him. Louis has no legal, or legitimate, title to the throne of France. He is descended, in a right line, if you please, from Hugh Capet, who made himself king of France by force, who put the real heir to the throne to death, and who never was legally made king of France, any more than William the Norman was made king of England.. The Bourbons, whose real name is Capet, held the throne by descent merely, and their descent was from an Usurper. At no time was any law passed to make any of their ancestors kings of France; no law was now made in behalf of the authority of Louis, who took to the crown as descending to him from Hugh Capet, and not as legally placed on his head by the people of France. What, then, becomes of all this talk about legitimate sovereigns? The throne of England and this is precisely the case with the claim of our kings: but, in the case of the Capets, there is no law, there never was a law, in support of their hereditary claim. Then, as to the sort of government, which existed in France under the Bourbons, you have forgotten what it was, or, I am very sure, that you must hold the recollection of it in abhorrence. It is strange, that, in the long line of their ancestors, they dare never appeal to the memory of but two: Saint Louis and Henry the Fourth. The former, a tool in the hands of the priests, exhausted the treasure and blood of his people in mad crusades against the Turks. The latter began his reign by abjuring the Protestant religion, in the support of which he had led hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen to slaughter. He called together the States of his kingdom, and, laying his hand upon his sword, told them to remember that in their deliberations. Not content with the terrible laws already in force to provide for the enjoy ment of his favourite sport, he decreed, that every man, found larking near the preserves of game, should be stripped and flogged round a bush 'till the blood rau down his back. This was in no remote times. This was in no barbarous age. It was at the time, when Elizabeth reigned with so much glory in England, when England relied for its defence on the arms of its people, when the sovereign prided herself in being guarded only by the citizens, when England extended her arm to the Continent, not to support ancient despots, not to extinguish the bursting flame of political and religious liberty, but to establish both these in aiding the Dutch against their cruel oppressors. The House of Bourbon, beginning with Henry the Fourth, has furnished France with five kings. Of the first we have spoken. The second, Louis XIII. was an oppressor and persecutor of his people from the beginning to the end of his reign. The third, Louis XIV. besides his wars of aggression and of conquest; besides his attempts to create civil war in England and to dethrone the Protestant family settled here by law; besides his thousands of acts of oppression on his people in general, signalized his reign by the most atrocious religious persecution. He caused thousands of his subjects to suffer the cruellest tortures on account of their religion, and finally he drove forth hundreds of thousands into foreign lands, whither they carried their arts, sciences, industry and virtue. The fourth, Louis XV. endeavoured to excite civil war in this country and to dethrone our lawful sovereign. He delegated his tyranny to his mistresses, who sold Letters de Cachet to the highest bidders, and who filled the prisons, in all parts of France, with the victims of state suspicion, or of private envy, jealousy, or revenge. The fifth, Louis XVI. who has been so much eulogized, abolished no cruel law, diminished no profligate expence, removed no odious badge, took off no oppressive burden, and, even after the meeting of the States General, objected for a long while, to the abolition of Letters de Cachet. But, as to what the government of the Bourbons was, even under Louis XVI. rely not upon my word; take the Account of Mr. ARTHUR YOUNG, Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, who spent three successive summers in France in collecting his facts, who wrote down his observations upon the spot, who visited every part of France, who had free access to the best sources of information, and who was, perhaps, for the nature of his pursuits, from his stock of general knowledge, and from the extent of his talents, as well qualified for the task as any man living. Take the account of Mr. YOUNG; gather (any one of you) your family around you; read to them this account of the degradation and sufferings of the people under the insults and cruelties of the Bourbon government; and, then, when your daughters have listened with streaming eyes and your sons with boiling indignation, then tell them, if you can, that you will chearfully spend a part of their fortunes in another attempt to re-establish the Bourbons. No: you cannot tell them this. For what, then, are you prepared to spend your money? For what, then, would you have war? You are afraid of Napoleon. Afraid that he will do what to you? You are not afraid that he will send his armies to England. How, then, is he to hurt you? The truth is, that you are told, that you have cause to fear, and you believe it, without any inquiry into the fact. You see, that his return to power suddenly turns Exchanges against you; that it lowers the value of funded property; that it deranges commercial affairs; that it produces distress and ruin. And why? Not because he has done any thing to produce such effects; but because his presence is an object of terror to those, whom you are willing to aid in the renewal of war. It is you, therefore, and not he, who have been the real cause of those evils on account of which you bear him such implacable resentment. To a similar cause; that is, to delusion, to credulity, to unfounded fears, to prejudice deeply implanted by the never-ceasing falshoods of a press; free only as the organ of a crafty and corrupt faction, and which has long closed up the eyes and ears of reason, of candour, and of justice. To this cause is also to be ascribed your hostility to those, who are labouring to obtain a Reform in the Common's House of Parliament, and amongst whom, if you saw your real interests, you would be the most zealous and persevering. This is a subject, which will now force itself upon public attention. It must be discussed; in a few years it must be brought to issue; and, if it come upon you unawares and is imperfectly understood, the fault shall not be mine. It has long been a fashion amongst you, which you have had the complaisance to adopt at the instigation of a corrupt press, to call every friend of reform, every friend of freedom, a Jacobin, and to accuse him of French principles. For my part, though I wish the French people great prosperity and happiness, and wish to see them receive all the praise due to their matchless deeds in arms and to their progress in the sciences and arts, I am Englishman enough to deny them any share in the honour of having a claim to the Principles, to which I allude, and which you so incessantly censure. What are these principles?-That governments were made lumnies of men more interested than them. selves in the success of their endeavours. for the people, and not the people for go- | in their exile by the derision and the ca. vernments. That sovereigns reign legally only by virtue of the people's choice.That birth without merit ought not to command merit without birth.-That all men ought to be equal in the eye of the law. That no man ought to be taxed or punished by any law to which he has not given his assent by himself or by his representative. That taxation and representation ought to go hand in hand. That every man ought to be judged by his peers, or equals. That the press ought to be free. And what are these endeavours? What are their objects? We are accused of endeavouring to create confusion in the coun try. Is the abolishing of scenes of drunk, enness and riot; the putting an end to bribery, corruption, the basest venality, and the most barefaced perjury; the prevention of the sale and barter of seats; the insuring of the return to parliament of men in whom the people have confidence; the making of those men wholly independent of the Crown and its ministers; the opening of the House to all men in exact proportion to their merit, their talents, and their natural weight in society are these likely to create confusion? Would the nation be plunged into confusion by thirty or forty of you being placed in the House instead of an equal number of those men who borrow their qualifications? Do you think, that you are not as capable of deciding upon laws as the present representatives of the Boroughs are? Do you think, can you think, that the places and pensions enjoyed by these men, add to your safety and prosperity? Do you think, that the sinecures of the late Marquis of Buckingham, of Lord Camden, of Lord Now, I should be glad to know, how these came to be French principles. It is sometimes said, that the French learnt them, or, as the expression is," imbibed" them in America. The Americans, to be sure, have most wisely and virtuously acted upon these principles; but, the principles are the growth of England. Ten thousand times as much has been written on the subject in England as in all the rest of the world put together. Our books are full of these principles. You can read nothing: law, history, poetry, divinity, romance; nothing, without meeting with these principles. There is not a single political principle which you denominate French, which has not been sanctioned by the struggles of ten generations of Eng-Arden, of Lord Grenville, of the Roses, lishmen, the names of many of whom you repeat with veneration, because, apparently, you forget the grounds of their fame. To Tooke, Burdett, Cartwright, and a whole host of patriots of England, Scotland and Ireland, imprisoned or banished, during the administration of Pitt, you can give the name of Jacobins, and accuse them of French principles. Yet, not one principle have they ever attempted to maintain that Hampden and Sydney did not seal with their blood. and of hundreds of others, are necessary to the protection of your property? Do you think, that the enormous charges of the Civil List, rising in amount every year, are necessary to the security of the funds? Do you think it an honour to you to be obliged to yield part of the fortunes of your own children to support whole families of the penny-less children of the Aristocracy, which latter, after all, look upon your children as their inferiors? Do you think, that if this drain upon the fruit When that victim of a tyrannical court of your industry were stopped, such stopand a corrupt and bloody Judge, the gal-page would have a tendency to create conlant Sydney, was brought to the place of fusion? execution, the cheeks of the crowd were bathed in tears, and sobs and cries were heard in all directions; "Yet," exclaims the indignant historian, "not a hand was "raised to save him, or to carry a dagger ❝ to the heart of his murderers!" If this historian had lived 'till our day, he would not only have seen the champions in the cause of freedom suffer without support and without compassion, but would have seen them followed to their dungeons or The truth is, that you see all these evils as plainly as I do. You wish them removed; but you have a sort of vague dread, that any change in the system would endanger your property. Your support of the system is the consequence of that timidity, which is natural to, and almost inseparable from, wealth. This is, however, a motive of action, which you are ashamed to acknow ledge; and, therefore, putting a good face upon the matter, you join in the cry against Jacobins and Reformers, and openly es- | pouse the cause of those whom in secret you hate. Now, suppose, that any one of you rich merchants had a cancer in the cheek, and, upon your proposing to send for a But, has it never occurred to you, that surgeon to endeavour to take it out, some confusion may be produced, and much one were to say: "Don't let any one more terrible confusion, from the want of" meddle with it. You have been doing timely Reform? Has your timidity never very well with this cancer. You have suggested this to you? It is many years 66 grown rich as a prince while this cancer since Lord Chatham said, that, "if Re-"has been going on; therefore, the can"form did not come from within, it would "cer has been the cause of your growing come from without with a vengeance."" rich; therefore, the cancer is a good Have you never thought, for a moment, on "thing; therefore, you ought to preserve the sort of confusion, which such a reform "the cancer." Suppose this were said to would produce? you, would you not spurn the ass from your presence? Yet, would this surpass in folly the belief, that rotten Boroughs, Bribery, Corruption, Sinecures and wan ton Wars have caused commerce and agriculture to flourish? From a reform, such as the Constitution warrants us in demanding; from a peaceable and legal reform, leaving Crown, Peers, and Church untouched in their several prerogatives, privileges and possessions, but giving to the people a real and free choice of their own House of Parliament; from such a reform no confusion could possibly arise; because the people, knowing that they had freely chosen their representatives, would necessarily have confidence in them, and would chearfully submit to all their decisions. But, from a reform, produced by the final bursting forth of the angry passions and long-harboured resentments, what is not to be feared? The friends of peace, of order, of the safety of property, are, therefore, those who endeavour to promote a timely reform; and the real enemies of these are those who resist that reform. If any thing could be wanted to shew the absurdity of such notions as these, you need only look at America. There, in the space of thirty years, a greater increase of population, a greater improvement in arts and sciences, a great increase of agricultural and commercial wealth, have taken place, than in any other country in the space of three centuries. There we have seen a commercial marine, not much less in magnitude than our own, rise up in the same short space of time. There we see a military marine, which is already become formidable even to England, and commanded and managed in a way to excite our envy. There we see rich merIt is often said, that the nation has be-chants and manufactures in prodigious come very great under the Borough-sys-numbers. There we see, not great and tem. That wonderful improvements have elegant cities enlarged and improved, but taken place in agriculture, in all the absolutely created. There we see new sciences and arts; that new roads, new roads, canals and bridges, and millions canals, new bridges have been made; that of acres of wilderness changed into cornmanufactures and commerce have flourish- fields. And, yet, there we see a governed; that wealth has increased; that mer-ment, purely representative from the botchants have grown enormously rich. tom to the top; there we see every man, Shallow as this is, it has produced great paying a tax, having a voice in the chooseffect; and no wonder, when we consider, ing those who impose the taxes. There, that it has been trumpeted forth by nine- at the head of as great a number of peotenths of the press for the last thirty years. ple as Great Britain contains, we see a The nation has grown rich while the Bo-President, chosen for four years, with a rough-system has been going on; therefore, the Borough-system has been the cause of the nation's growing rich; therefore, the Borough-system is a good thing; therefore, we ought to support the Borough system, with all its notorious bribery, corruption, and perjury, the proofs of which are produced, in black and white, in such multitudes at every general election. salary of less than six thousand pounds, not more than a sixth part of Lord Camden's sinecure. And, with this proof before you, are you still to be made to believe, that commercial prosperity is promoted by a Borough-system and by expensive government? Are you still to be made believe, that your property would be endangered by the putting an end to bribery, corruption, and perjury? If you are, to reason with you is useless. You are destined passively to be carried along by the current of those events, which is daily and hourly becoming stronger and stronger, and which the Borough-faction will not be able to resist. WM. COBBLTY. CONSEQUENCES OF A WAR WITH FRANCE. MR. COBBETT.--I never had any doubts about the wishes of the Allied Powers to go to war against France. When we consider the rooted hatred which the corrupt Governments of Europe bear against liberty and the rights of men, how could we imagine for a moment that they would suffer France to remain in a state of peace, to form her own constitution, which will be too favourable to that liberty which they always detest. The wars against the French Republic, the recent war against America, and the approaching war against France, are all founded on the same bad principles and passions. In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, the Allies now again arm themselves and make public declarations of their intentions. This is another coalition of the old regular corrupt governments, against the rights of men to choose their own constitution and rulers. The French have unequivocally declared in favour of Napoleon, who now reigns, if any monarch ever did reign, by the will of his people. He has also shown himself anxious to preserve general tranquility, and is willing to abide by the least favourable terms that can be proposed to him, by the Treaty of Paris. What can we do more? And is it possible to think that the French nation, powerful and enlightened as they are, will be insulted with impunity? The High Allied parties, however, seems to be solemnly engaged, with the assistance of the Trinity, "never to lay down their arms, until the object "of the war shall have been attained"; that is, not until Bonaparte the choice of his people, shall be dethroned, and incapacitated from doing further mischief. Why has not experience, severe experience, taught the Allies the lesson of modesty. Do they not know that he has entered their Capitals as a Conqueror? And who will venture to say that he will not act the same tragedy again? What is it, that the Allied armies are about to undertake? They are going to contend against the greatest military genius in the world, who is to fight for his own existence. This is an important circumstance. It is his life that is to be the object of the war, and for which he is to be made to fight; and who does not know the strength of this extraordinary motive! Such is the first stroke of the wisdom of the Allies, who by this declaration have given to Napoleon, a great accession of real power. But Napoleon is not alone; he is at the head of 3 or 400,000 veteran troops, strongly at tached to their General, fighting on their native land, for the right to choose their own government and chief. They burn for revenge, they feel how much they have been insulted, and remember how often they have triumphed over the same kind of coalitions. Add to all this, upwards of 2,000,000 of National Guards, contending for the same cause, on the same soil, and under the impulse of the same animating and powerful motives. Is not France alone, thus circumstanced, able to resist the world? But if we further add the King of Naples with his 100,000 Nepolitans and some other states, which have been offended by the Congress at Vienna, it appears next to impossible that the Allied Powers should succeed. The French are not ignorant Barbarians, but an enlightened people, who know the dif ference between liberty and slavery, between choosing their own government, and having one imposed upon them by foreign armies. Let us not forget who are the aggressors and invaders on this occasion. If it should be the Allies, (which I hope will not be the case,) and if these should happen to meet with defeat, let us not afterwards be told of the tyranny cruelty of Bonaparte when he invades their territories and capitals in return. Though decidedly the approbation of the French People, yet Napoleon is held up as in out. law. After the Declaration of the High Contracting Parties, what if the Emperor of France succeed, and demolish the continental governments of Europe! But whether we prosper in a military point of view, or not, it is certain that our debt and taxes must be greatly increased. Are the people of England desirous of entering into a contest so unjust in its ob ject, and so ruinous in its consequences? If there ever was a time, when the people and |