considering what is for his permanent good and for the safety of his dominion, it does appear to us quite impossible that so mean and so foolish a people can escape that destruction which is ready to burst ፡፡ upon thein." Did you ever say any thing stronger than this, Mr. Cobbett - You have said that considering who we have for commander in chief and commanders generally, and the strength of our armies (including the volunteers surely) you are not afraid of invasion or at least of the country being subdued; upon which Mr. Jeffrey asks, Whether any man capable of serious counsel or proper feeling could possibly conceive such a crisis of such a country as a suitable object for derision or for such asinine attemps at irony and humour as are exhibited in this passage? Now, I beg leave to retort the question, not omitting the delicate term asinine when I refer you to the article before alluded to beginning" if ever a na

tion exhibited symptons of downright "madness or utter stupidity we conceive "these symptoms may be easiy recognized

in the conduct of this country upon the "Catholic question." Take notice that the charge of madness and stupidity is made against the majority of both houses of parliament, not to speakof the sovereign and against a decided majority of the people of England at large, and pray read the sequel about a man in a high fever with a pain in his great toe which was certainly intended for humour; who the "mourn"ful and folly stricken blockhead' is, I will not say, though I think I can guess, and as Mr. Jeffrey says of you on different occasions "per"haps I don't differ from him" in the whole of this article; though I dislike his sneaking "perhaps." According to Mr. Jeffrey, the tendency of your late writings is to create popular discontent, and what is the tendency of his writings whenever he enters on the actual State of the Nation? You and he write in different styles, but there is really nothing stronger, put more home or more intelligible to the meanest capacity in your Register than in Mr. Jeffrey's review. The picture of the country drawn by both is in high colours and equally alarming. You must not, Mr. Cobbett, speak of placemen - and pensioners, but Mr. Jeffrey may be allowed, it seems, to exclaim" How melan"choly to reflect that there would be still

86

pension for his aunt? Alas! these are "the powerful causes which have always settled the destiny of great kingdoms "and which may level England to the dust." And again Mr. Jeffrey states " we suppose we calculate moderately when we say "that the king and his ministers have now "the disposal of offices to the value of 12 "millions yearly. The expence of collect"ing the taxes was calculated ten years ago at six millions. We do not know how to estimate the value of all the appoint"ments in the navy, the army, the church&c. "but it appears to us that they must be much "underrated if they are only averaged at an

equal sum. This is enormous."- But Mr. Jeffrey's great ground of quarrel with you is your speaking irreverently of the house of commons, 46 an institution from which no "good man would wish to alienate the affec"tion or respect of the country." He admits that the constitution has some how or other fallen off its ancient hinges, but then it has fallen on other hinges more pleasant and more easily oiled. He has made a discovery the most consoling, that instead of the legislature being of old composed of three distinct parts or estates which served to balance and check one another, the British constitution consists of three parts as before, but these are all to be found assembled in the House of Commons. The placemen and those members who are put in by the Treasury influence represent the executive government, those chosen by the influence of the nobles and great families represent the aris tocracy, and the remainder chosen by popu lar elections or by boroughs which are bought or bribed, the independent representatives of the people. Thus the voice of all descriptions of men are to be heard in that house and we are the freest and happiest people in the world, governed and burdened only by laws of our own making. Why then attempt to make people discontented with this admirable constitu tion! How dreadful to think that discontent may lead to a change or to a revolution! -Though I am satisfied from Mr. Jeffrey's writings on such subjects, that he is a shallow and timid politician, an anile alarmist (to borrow another of his epithets), yet being also satisfied from his writings on other subjects, that he is a man of abilities and infor mation, it is utterly impossible that be can be serious in affirming the above to be a just re

presentation of the house of commons or such as the people ought to be satisfied with. It is a silly attempt to deceive, to veil a deformity which cannot be concealed and to defend what he must be conscious is indefensible upon the principles of the constitution. When he has thus concentrated the three branches of the legislature in one house, he wishes us to forget, I suppose, that there is still a house of lords, too; so that the nobility, besides their salutary influence in the lower house exercised by their deputies; retain all their former constitutional influence and power by sitting themselves in the upper, and the sovereign still has his constitutional veto besides having his representa. tives so happily for the people sitting amongst their proper representatives. Mr. Jeffrey's taste will be offended perhaps if I remind him of the proverb that " two to one are odds at

foot ball." According to him, though the representatives of the people properly speaking are few, yet their voice is thus heard; which he seems to think is enough though it has no effect in the house. Yes, it is heard out of doors; thanks to the news-paper reporters: only shut the doors of the gallery and you may as well restrict the number of the house of commons to 40 treasury members. Is it to the gallery or the house that the patriotic members now address themselves But, is it possible that Mr. Jeffrey can be ignorant that it is said there are members, and not a few who do not come under any of his three classes. The fourth class I will not attempt to describe; but, let them be added to the acknowledged treasury members and what figure will Mr. Jeffrey's independent popular set make?-Hear Mr. Jeffrey: "there certainly are many men whose private honour is unimpeachable who sit for venal "boroughs," [charming distinction between private and public honour] "how this is ma

"naged we do not exactly know. Whether "the frequency of the transaction has lega"lized it in the ideas of the world, like the

orchard thefts of school boys and the plunder of border chieftains of old, or whether "the seat is bought for the young patriot as "a living is bought for a young priest, while "they themselves are kept pure, we really "don't pretend to understand." Mr. Jef frey expresses no indignation against sucht infamous traffic. Every thing is for the best, with him, in this best of all possible worlds; or at least it is the duty of public writers such as you and him to say so for fear of breeding discontent as that may lead to revolation shall make but one more quotation from Mr. Jeffrey. After repeatedly admitting that there are too many placemen in

the house of commons though he contends that a few are necessary and wholesome, he says, "placemen we think are better in pars "liament than any where else.” I wish he would condescend to explain this 1 for I con fess it appears to me at present that the sentiment is equally stupid and profligate Go on, Mr. Cobbett, in spite of the Edinburgh reviewers, who amidst all their abuse are obliged to confess, that the circulation and popularity of your journal are upon the whole very creditable to the country; that it should be so and yet not creditable to your self, is just another of Mr. Jeffrey's palpable inconsistencies. Every man of sense and virtue will applaud you, while you write honestly as well as boldly, which I am persuaded yon have always done hitherto, A. B. 28th Sept. 1807.5

DANISH EXPEDITION, HOLE

Sir;The public anxiety being at the present moment principally directed towards Denmark, my attention has been attracted by a letter which appeared in a late number signed an Old Englishman. I find therein an apparently candid approbation of the inde pendence of your opinion on this subject, and an equally open avowal of a difference of sentiment on his side: he applauds as a mark of manly decision the expression of your opinion, "that the attack upon Denmark was justifiable upon the plain and intelligible ground, that the measure was necessary for the national safety, and as such fit to be adopted. He upholds with you the rights of England upon the seas, but is unable to found a jus tification of the Danish expedition upon any right, nor " happily" (says he triumphantly) "does the British history afford an instance in practice of a similar conduct to any neutral nation under the canopy of heaven." To this refined philosophical discovery, I would' wish to add another, viz. nor does the British history afford an instance where the power of her rival, France, was be come so predominant, as at the present pe riod, and when it was less suitable to apply ordinary reasoning to' extraordinary times," The writer professes to address neither fools nor knaves, he only addresses those who have no party but their country in this? fatter class I presume to range myself and to disclaim all party prejudice, yet why am I on the occasion of an exception to talk former. experience and situations, to take uph the argument in the abstract point of view in which he is pleased to state it? Once broadly admit (says he) the principle that natural injustice anay be the source of ena tional benefit, and the docrine of expediency oft mbinu sut un s

will overwhelm you as a flood."—lido not broadly adusit any thing of the kind, but, I assert, that it is, the duty of every vigorous government to watch over, and to conduct itself according to the emergencies in which it may be engaged. The full vindication of the steps adopted towards Denmark, rests upon the information obtained by government of the hostile measures framed at the peace of Tilsit, the public menaces of the French official paper that the Danes should be joined against us in shutting the Sound, and the knowledge, within recent recollection, that the Danes were made parties to a similar confederacy some years ago. What has been may be again, and therefore as an Englishman of no party, giving due credit to the government for the time being, I do look to them for protection, and should consider them unpardonably criminal, if, foreseeing a erisis of danger and hostile confederacy, they took no proper measures to defeat it. Every day discloses the futility of your correspondent's

servations: relative to the consent of Russia to Bonaparte's holding the key of the Baltic, or to the degree of estimation in which Napoleon holds the consent of the Russian eniperor. Nor have the remarks of your correspondent any thing more solid to recommend them, when he is pleased to talk of the Danish navy as the "bulls of a dozen seventy-fours, and as many frigates," while he has the Gazette authority for there being 18-line of battle ships, 45 frigates, and 31 smaller vessels, all nearly new, together with an immense quantity of naval stores. Whence your correspondent derives his ideas of Bonaparte's appreciating these naval treasures as trifles. * not worth acquiring, at the expence of throwing into our lap the commerce and colonies of the Danes," I am at a loss to conceive, as nothing appears more perceptible to common sense, than that if he could have collected a fleet of 50 sail of the line, besides numerous frigates, Russians, Dayen, Swedes, &c. to annoy us in the norths erit part of our islands, at the time that he was attempting an attack against the eastern, Suuthern and western coasts; I say, that nothing could be of more utility than these: said Danish hulls of ships, manned by Danish. sailors, which an extensive commerce would have enabled them to supply and if, by a prompt and decided attack, we should have intimidated the members, and broken the peck of this projected confederacy, what Engfishman but inust feel grateful to the vigilance of his government-it is vastly well in your correspondente todvapours about our safety, thank God," not depending upon the hulls of a few Danish ships, but it must be evident to every reflecting man that the expense of

maintaining a fleet equal to watch the operations of a Northern Confederacy of 60 ships of the line, in addition to those at present op posed to us must be an intolerable burthen to the country. Is it then necessary in such times as these, with the experience of Danish weakness in the last war, that an English minister is to wait till the very guns are loaded against the country before he takes measures to prevent the impending mischief?-Too long, as was justly observed in His Majesty's Declaration, have we been waging an unequal war with a most inveterate foe, who scruples not to wound us through the sides of neutrals or by whatever means are in his power, while we through a tenderness for the rights of others have been practising the most general forbearance, till the several countries have, one by one, been obliged to shut their ports against us and declare for the enemy; but the righteous law of self-defence requires that we should not pursue this system to our own imminent danger, and never was there a moment more proper than the present one for exercising the means of protection depen dant on ourselves alone. No sooner were the conditions of the treaty of Tilsit made public, wherein the Russian Emperor lays himself at the feet of Napoleon, by not only sanctioning the alterations made by him in Germany but those to be made, than it was obvious to the most shallow observer that it would lead to a Northern Confederacy: the | moment therefore that any step, even in appearance, was taken towards realising the projected confederacy, it became the duty of our ministers to cut the root of it by an in stantaneous and vigorous effort in the quarter most likely to ruin it at one blow. That such will be the effect of the hostile measure adopted against the Danes I have not the least doubt, and those that live a few years will probably have to commend the foresight that by this means averted a calamity from the country. As to the avowal, in the face of all Europe alluded to by your correspondent, "that our existence depends on a breach of "those laws which hold together the frame "of the civilised world" it is only necessary on this subject to recollect that all Europe as he calls it is now no other than France, and it matters; not to us what interpretation shet puts on our conduct; our fally in allowing 90 1 long the nominal indépendance of states taiber a cover for her insidious designs must be now, sufficiently apparent otitisi fime for usd to awake and resort to those means of annoy ance against our enemy whichishe has madei no besitation to use continually against ono-2 selves. I am, Sir, yourstorare. AquPLAANS. ENGLISHMAN. London, 12th October,

1807.

EXPATRIATION.

་

(Being S. V.'s second Letter.) SIR,I assure you that so far as I am personally and individually concerned in the relative situation of this United Kingdom and the United States of America, a war would affect me not more than it would Candidus or yourself. I had not when I addressed my last letter to you, Sir, nor have I now any interest to serve, but that interest which you as well as every good subject are bound to support; viz. the best interests of our country. I may be mistaken; to conviction I am open, and I shall not hesitate frankly to confess all my motives,' which you, I expect will, in pursuance of your prommise (page 532) discover in your next Register, should such attributed motives really prove to be my ideas; but, whilst I notice your other promise to shew the consequences of my recommendation, I cannot but condemn the language of Candidus. When he used the expressions, the most uncivilized wretch,' and the most licentious of libertines,' he should have recollected that expressions such as these cannot by his adoption of them affect me; they cannot assist his cause, nor injure mine; and, I am sorry, Mr. Cobbett, that a man apparently not unacquainted with one of the liberal sciences,' for I acquit him of any claim to "the profession," should so far forget himself as to adopt bold assertion for argument, and scurrility instead of manly and liberal animadversion. Such as these are the men who abortively vomited from the fissures of Alma Mater, have cast more obloquy upon the "Learned Languages," than your observations have by some of your correspondents been held to libel them, and possessing a mere cacoethes scribendi, launch out unthinkingly into subjects beyond their reach, and without due consideration.-It is necessary for me to set Candidus right in some particulars, and this I deem proper to do before the publication of your next number, in which I hope to see your animadversions upon the evil consequences to which the adoption of my recommendation would, in your estimation, lead.-Candidus should be informed that the possession of American funded property, did not induce my letter in page 433. As he may presume me to be an American fund-holder or speculator, I will undeceive him. I am not nor ever was; and, if he had also given me the opportunity of stating myself not to be a land speculator, nor a mercantile adventurer, I could easily have satisfied him on either of those heads. Candidus must forgive me if I do not sub

6

scribe to his observation, that the doctrine I have advanced is not consistent with the safety of any nation, (509) because it may suit him to contradict it. To my doctrine, I do not find one solid objection made by Candidus, or supported by the least argument or authority. Candidus should before he had rendered the long since deceased Monsieur Pecquet, obnoxious to the charge of adopting revolutionary principles,' and living in a revolutionary age,' have ascertained from his friends who may have access to the library, annexed to the Inn where he resides, when Monsieur Pecquet flourished. It may be sufficient for me to observe, that Pecquet neither lived in a revolutionary age,' nor did he adopt revolutionary principles,' as Candidus must have known if he had ever perused his book, a copy of which is now before me, published à Leide aux dépens de la compagnie, anno 1758,' and that he died long before the parents of Candidus thought. of being possessed of such a treasure as their eldest son. What is conformable to reason

I hold not to be absurd, although Candidus expresses his opinion contrariwise; he complains of me certainly not in the character of a dispassionate and erudite commentator, but in terms as gentle as they are elegantly expressed to you, that the most uncivilizedwretch, or the most licentious of libertines could not proinulgate a doctrine more repugnant to integrity, gratitude, and huma'nity' Than what? Why, that a British subject after amassing a sum of money, the fruits of his own industry, (for the puerile observation, that that sum of money may have been paid out of the hard earnings of the people, is foreign to the matter,) shall have the power of settling in America.Now, to shew the futility of his observations, I would ask, what can prevent a man from leaving the United Kingdom and settling in America at this time; of adopting this want of integrity, gratitude, and humanity, with the exception of returning to cut our throats, which I deem, howsoever Cancidus may view the subject, to be of that immoral and irreligious nature, that no man except Candidas could have dreamt (for in his waking moments it could not have obtruded) of such a horrible intention. I cannot see any thing to prevent a man, who, as Candidus says, may have amassed a pretty large property from shipping it off, and going with or following it to America. Tell me, Candidus, if you have drank deep of that same commentator Coke, whether you have found a law clearly and unequivocally prohibitory of removing himself and his fa

.

mily, and his property, to a foreign country. And, Candidus. let me draw your attention to another view of the subject, the melancholy side of the picture. Let us suppose, a poor man surrounded with a large family, calling upon him but ineffectually, to satisfy the cravings of nature, and whose little earnings have in part gone to satisfy the rapacity of one of those stall fed objects, who, as you allude, are paid from the hard earnings of the people, whilst each passing moment advances the misery of such a family. I would ask if such a inan be chained to the soil where he is born, if he cannot expatriate himself in the hope of exchanging want for plenty; misery for happiness? He may be deceived, I graut; he may leave his fruitful soil for the barren and inhospitable tracts in some parts of the interior of America; he may not profit by the exchange; but, I consider his capacity to elect his residence as indisputable. What I wish, however, to be done, Mr. Cobbett, is this. If this United Kingdom will not permit British subjects to expatriate themselves, let the law be so declared, and prevent the mischievous tendency of attempts to expatriate, which are frequently made; and if it will sanction expatriation, let such permission no longer remain in du-, biety, but be clearly expressed between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. When I referred to Coke's dictum, and M. Pecquet s observation, it certainly was not to shew the superiority of either, and jejune as the observation of Candidus is in this respect, I cannot pass it over. When I objected to the dictum of Coke as not of sufficient authority, I found not fault with him as a lawyer, nor with his decision, but I found fault with the observation as a dictum and not a decision. Candidus, if he ever becomes a member of the profession, for he seems at present to be only a member of the science, having much to learn, will bereafter know that there is more consideration given prior, and authority subsequently attached to a decision than a dictum. In fact, Candidus, know that a dictum is not autho rity. If Candidus (510) holds that the law is clear, because incapacity of expatriation is not mentioned in our ancient law books, and be holds this on his mere assertion, I have an equal right to hold this opinion that the law is clear and rational, because a Briton's capacity of expatriating himself is not laid down.

Candidus should know that the executive has power by proclamation to prevent

I have

the departure of his subjects on an emergercy, and consequently, that the inconvenience referred to by Candidus cannot take piace, as prevention would on symptoms of a general transportation be adopted. It is unnecessary for me perhaps, to repeat for Candidus' information, that I am unconnected with the ' interests of a foreign country.' not denied that every subject is subservient 'to the laws,' nor have I openly declared my ignorance, by asserting that, when a man is admitted into society, he is not compelled to surrender a portion of his natural liberty to preserve the laws of society. I find not fault with the adoption of laws, but with the ambiguity of a rule of conduct. In this Candidus has also mistaken me. I will not, Mr. Cobbett, presume an improper motive for Candidus as he has presumed for me, that I am one of those who are so prone on all occasions to deprecate an American war, for I candidly declare to you my opinion, that we have forborne more with respect to America than I can deem pelitic; but, although I acknowledge this, I do not see why the subjects of this United Kingdom, and the citizens of the United States of America, should as Candidus thinks cut each others throats,' when we can settle our differences amicably. And, Mr. Cobbett, it may perhaps, be satisfactory both to you and Candidus, when I further declare my opinion, and which I could have no hesitation in supporting by argument, if you had not pointed out its accuracy, that in the event of a war, although this country would in a small degree be sufferers, America would for ever regret if any vestige of her remained as a confederate body, that fatal hour which induced her to unsheath the sword. -S. V.-Oct. 8, 1807.

EXPATRIATION.

(Being S. V.'s Third Letter)

SIR,I deemed it requisite to notice Candidus's letter as early as possible, and express my views on the subject of expatriation, which I did in mine of the 8th October, It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to enter so fully as I should have done, into my inducements for wishing the subject matter, to be clearly and unambiguously settled by the legislature of this United Kingdom, or between the executive and foreign powers. →→→→ You attribute to my doctrine the sin of ingratitude; although I do not subscribe to your opinion on that head, because my ex

X