has been spared: advertisements and handbills, announcing a determination to " detect and expose Cobbett," have been pub. lished in numbers far exceeding those of the several works, to which they related. These hand-bills, in the manner of publishing some of which Doctor Addington's people have followed the example of the publishers of Doctors Leake and Spilsbury, denominated me, some. times an incendiary;" at others, a "libeller" at others, an "impostor;" always the lying Cobbett," and, in one or two instances, a "fool." The publications

themselves were, as the public seemed to suppose, very fairly represented by these specimens. They were, one and all, filled, literally filled, with abuse, the most shameful, most loathsome, even the most blackguard abuse of every nobleman and gentleman, who had made, or was supposed to be likely to make, any opposition to the ministry, particularly Lord Grenville and Mr. Windham, against whom there were, in the publications here spoken of, more libels published, in the course of eighteen months, than there have been published, in England, in all other works put together, for many years past. What native dulness and sterility left undone, was completed by this disgusting virulence; the publications, as I have already observed, dropped off, one after another, like blighted apples in a summer's storm; and the Addingtons and Hawkesburies found, very much to their surprize no doubt, that, with uncounted thousands and hundred thousands of secretservice-money at their command, they were unable to interrupt, for one moment, the daily and hourly increasing influence of this little work; they were astonished to find, that calling a writer" incendiary, libeller, impostor, liar, and fool," did not deprive him of his readers; they were indignant at perceiving, that the public remained totally unmoved by that dignified satire which was implied in omitting Mr. before the name of Cobbett; but still the public exclaimed, as they now exclaim, "disprove his state"ments, and refute his arguments, or, away with your abuse!" WM. COBBETT.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR, A writer, in one of the ministerial papers, has made some observations on the speech of Mr. Windham of the 23d of November, which observations I am anxious to notice. This writer says, that, "so vague, so loose, so general, are Mr. "W's accusations, that he knows not what point of the minister's conduct he

means to attack," and adds that," be"fore the country will withdraw their sup "port from Mr. Addington, they will re"quire some specific aut of misconduct, some positive fact of incapacity."Would not any one from these observations believe that Mr. Windham had confined himself in his speech, to calling the minister and his friends a set of fools and blunderheads? Would they believe that he had mentioned any specific act of misconduct, any positive fact of incapacity? I turned to the detail of the debates in the same paper: and truly, they had thrown a veil of such cautious obscurity over Mr. Windham's speech, that a careless reader might have laid down the paper, and assented to the subsequent assertion, that " Mr. Windham's "accusations were vague, loose, and gene"ral."

The reporter, however, could not conceal, that Mr. W. had given the minister "certain cautions against certain "dangers;" and he informs us, in the next paragraph, that the "right hon. gent."did what? Allude? No: but he seem"ed to allude to some representations "which he had made at a meeting called "by the freeholders of Norfolk, respecting "the dangers that more particularly threat "ened that part of the country, and of "which he had subsequently given some “intimation to ministers."-Other papers spoke more plainly: though I must give the gentlemen of the London-Press the credit of a very cordial and honourable una nimity again t the best friends of their country.- -So then, it seems, Sir, that a charge of criminal neglect in his Majesty's ministers, for having left entirely, without protection, the eastern district of this kingdom, through which an approach lies open (through the counties of Cambridgeshire, Hertford, and Essex,) to the suorce of the Thames, while we are making such magnificent preparations at its mouth, is not to accuse them of any specific act of miscon duct; of any positive fact of incapacity?But what shall we say, if these accusations are general? Besides this of Mr. Wind ham's, we have seen that of the magistrates of Edinburgh, and your last number contains the representation of an inhabitant of Hull. By these it appears that nearly the whole of our eastern coasts are totally defenceless. I am sorry to say, that in the course of a journey I have lately made from Ireland to Bristol, I have found a great and very important part of the western coast, I mean the whole line from St. David's to Chepstow (that is the whole coast of the

Bristol Channel) equally unprotected.The beginning of last month, I landed at Milford Haven from Ireland; which, under a weak and inefficient administration, I had left, in a state of preparation very inadequate to the portentous nature of the warfare in which we are engaged. Of the state of preparation in England, I had formied very different ideas, from the pompous eulogies of the Premier, the loquacity of their Volunteer Supporter, and the unceasing gurrulity of the public prints: all of whon dwelt, with monotonous gratulation, on the ardent and generous spirit of the nation, and the terrific and imposing attitude of its volunteers. Guess, then, my surprise, on landing at Milford, to see not a single soldier in the place! It is true, I found a regiment of militia (the Huntingdon) at Haverfordwest: but, excepting them, nothing resembling a soldier, I am told, is there to be found in the whole principality. I can make no exception in favour of a few miscrable things on foot, and equally miserable things on horseback, that I met with at ****; who cannot "face to "the right" or to the "left," together; and who assemble once a week, for no other purpose than to receive the shilling allowed by government, and to be dismissed.But, as I collected some extraordinary information in my journey, I shall communicate it, in the order it arose; for, as I have some friends on the road, and many countrymen at ****, I did not travel with great expedition. At Haverfordwest, I found every body talking of the character of the new general of this district, who it seems, is just arrived, some praising his activity, and some censuring his officiousness, "because he has presumed to interfere ❝ with their internal arrangements!" The fact is, that, on his arrival, he found those "ardent and generous spirited volunteers," (whom the House of Commons have thanked for their exertions) mere men on paper! They had never assembled; though they pleaded their enrollment as an exemption from real and useful service! The general, consequently, in a very spirited and energetic speech †, reprehended the supineness

* General Gascoigne; who came hither the first moment of his appointment. Can it be credited, that, till the first week in November no general officer has visited this coast, which is so much exposed?

+ I found this Speech printed and circulated a good deal in the principality. As it has an useful tendency, why Fas it got no further? The London Journalists are aware, I suppose, that the ministry are answerable for the inactivity of Pembroke

of the Pembrokeshire gentlemen: which gave great offence to some of the highblooded Cambrians; though a great majo rity of those who were not included in the censure, were very much pleased with this timely and necessary reproof. At Carmarthen a meeting had not been held, till three or four days before; even to nominate the members of their volunteer corps. (I passed through this place about Nov. 10.) At ***** there was nothing but bustle and motion; every body talking, nobody acting. I staid a few days with a fellow countryman whom I met there; and who had been resident long enough to give me more information than I could have got, me.ely en passant. He told me that a major of artillery had been down there; and astonished as much as General Gascoigne, at the Cambrian supineness, he pointed out to them some dangerous weaknesses in their coast, and has filled them with terror and consternation. I sau some miserable corps of infantry and cavalry; of which the officers were worse than the men; and the latter are literally assembled only to receive their shilling. Yes: these men receive the pay of their country, the thanks of Parliament; and an exemption from serving, where alone they could be useful t --The day after I passed through Pyle, a meeting was held there of the County of Glamorgan. I met at Cardiff, a goatle man who had attended it. He told me, that at the meeting, General Gascoigne had given them a censure in the form of a compliment. He said, " they were not "quite so bad as the County of Pembroke." Such, Sir, is the state of the whole of the southern coast of the Principality of Wales. To this I have to make one honourable exception. I quitted the direct line of my route, to see the new Bridge on the Taff," and the magnificent Iron Works at Merthyr, with some other objects of curiosity in that beautiful country; in one of these excursions a friend took me to see a corps of volunteers commanded by a gentleman of the name of Lascelles; and solely formed by his exertions. This corns was in as high a state of discipline and activity, as zeal and science in the commanding officer could make it. And though I have no very high opinion of the efficiency of volunicer corps in general, of the principles on which they are formed, or of the motives by which they are actuated; yet to an army composed of such men as those I am speaking of I could

shire. It is their duty to take care that every pa it of the country is defended.

confidently commit the fate of my country.

Such, Sir, is the history of the state of preparation, in which I found South Wales. In making this communication I have no private feeling to gratify. If it be dishonourable, disgraceful, and criminal in the ministry, that this representation be true: that it is made public, they have only to thank themselves, and their officious, but not unpatronized, defenders.-When the honourable and elevated characters that form the present opposition are traduced, and accused of dishonest artifice, and of impure and disloya! motives, it is an act of justice to defend them: but when the imbecity which they censure and expose, exists to an extent infinitely beyond their assertions, and threatens to involve in one universal ruin the accusers and accused," indignation can repress itself no longer; but every honest man and every patriotic subject is now compelled to come forward, and to tell those truths which, though it is terrible to know, it were fatal to conceal; and to sound through every corner of the kingdom, that the cause of Mr. Windham, “Is the cause of cur Country!"-I am, Sir, yours, HIBERNICUS.

Bristol, Dec. 1, 1803.

TO SIR DIGBY MACKWORTH, BART.

SIR,-The statement you some t'me since promised to insert in reply to mine, has, I perceive, appeared in the Register of Saturday last; and although I feel the utmost repugnance to engage myself unnecessarily in any controversy, I find myself imper.ously calle! upon by the contents of your letter to vindicate my intentions, and substantiate the assertions I formerly made with respect to the corps you command. Had you, Sir, contented yourself with simply stating the facts as they occurred, and then made the best apology in your power for the conduct of the persons censured, the respect I entertain. d for yourself, as well as for many of those who are under your command, might possibly have induced me to suffer the affair to sink into oblivion. But the intemperate language in which you have indulged, and the unmerited abuse you have been pleased to heap on me, have forced from me a reply; since my silence, under such circumstances, would probably have been construed into a sense of guilt.

I

am accused, in the first paragraph of your letter, of having grossly insulted and abused, and that too with a male volent spirit. a deserving body of men. Upen what grounds this accusation is brought forward, I am left

to guess; since you have not favoured the public with the reasons which have induced you to draw an inference so unfavourable to my character. If, indeed, to point out the errors, and censure the misconduct of those under your command, be to insult and abuse them; if to exhibit in its true colours the spirit which then influenced them to be justly styled malevolence, I must own myself most guilty. Fut it is an error, from which, I fear, I shall not be very readily reclaimed, whilst I have before my eyes the example of some of the most upright and independent of men, who are not deterred by the dread of such an accusation, from faithfully dis charging their duty in this respect. —-— You fully admit the truth of what I have advanced respecting the cry of velvet, which took place when your order for removing it was read. But it seems I have exaggerated their irregular behaviour. That i needed no exaggeration, wili, I believe, be readily allowed by all who were prescut at the scene. I appeal to the adjutant, who was present, whether the clamour upon this occasion was not sufficiendy vehement to jusufy the.expression I made use of. The cry of vet, I must repeat it, was vociferated. --You have also allowed, that the oftender to whom I alluded, was threatened with being degraded from the ligh infantry to one of the battalion companies; but with respect to the subsequent conduct of the company to which this person belonged, you state your belief that my account of it is utterly false! To this I can only, at present, reply, that I positively know it to be true. I could mention the names of some persons by whom this declaration was made; but, unless compelled by a repetition of the charge, I shall forbear introducing them to the public: neither will I attempt to cha racterise the spirit by which you have been guided, in stating your belief of the utter falsehood of my accusation, without, at the same time, declaring the reasons you had for entertaining this opinion. Yet this, it seems, is the heaviest charge you can bring against me; though it is so obviously weak and inconsistent, as almost to refute itself. --But I had nearly overlooked that part of your letter, in which I am accused of being a negligent, anonymous writer. To the first of these charges, I must, indeed, plead guilty; for, unfortunately, not being perfectly acquainted with the mysterics of an art, in which I bad never any instruction, I was unable to state, in technical terms, the mode of frabrication of leather stocks, and the ingenious manner in which the volunteers improved upon the original invention,

As you have, however, amply explained the whole process, I trust my inaccuracy in this particular will be pardoned, and I will only further remark on this head, that as I never supposed myself incapable of erring, I shall esteem myself happy, should I never afford you an opportunity of substantiating a more weighty charge. But it is now alledged that I am an anonymous writer. Now, Sir, assuming for a moment, (what you have yourself partly acknowledged) that my statement was correct, I will appeal to yourself, whether you can with candour say, it would have been either prudent, or with respect to myself, just, to have openly exposed myself to the enmity and violence of those, whose improper conduct I had thought it my duty to censure? You cannot be ignorant, Sir, of the treatment experienced by the person, whose regard to discipline induced him to point out the ring-leader in the recent disturbance. What then might not I have expected, who had exposed that conduct to the public eye? --I cannot conclude without advering briefly to the letter signed by 33 of the light company, on which you have been pleased to bestow such warm encomitems. And I would ask, can any one, who has attentively perused this letter, doubt for a moment, the consequences that would have attended the refusal to comply with the request it contained? Does it not afford the strongest presumptive evidence of the truth of my assertion, that they were determined to resign if the pansinuent was inflicted? When I consider, sir, the accumu lated guilt of the offender, (for you allow, that after your soleinn remonstrance he still persisted in his disobedience) as well as the absolute necessity which existed of making some public example to deter others from the commission of similar disorders, I must be allowed to say, that if, instead of complying with their request, and thus establishing a most mischievous precedent for the encouragement of future applications; if, instead of returning them your thanks, you had peremptorily rejected their petition; you would have acted in a manner more creditable to yourself, and infinitely more beneficial to the true interests of the corps. For, what good effects have resulted from this ill-timed lenity? In a very few days after you had thus suffered yourself to be dicrated to, you cannot forget, that two men, who were ordered to join the pioneers, refused to march! Allow me, Sir, also to remind you, that the turbulent spirit, which I so strongly reprobate, did not, for the first time, display itself in the recent occasion. I do not forget the behaviour of some mem

bers of the corps on the 15th of last August, which I have not, at present, time to notice as it deserves. I may possibly be induced, on some future occasion, to review the transactions of that day with more attention. I am yours, &c. PHILO-PATRIÆ. Oxford, Dec. 19, 1803.

PARTIES.

The following Article, extracted from the Moning Chronicle of the 25th instant, will be found well worthy of perusal.

The ministerial papers are labouring day after day, and night after night, to raise the public indignation against certain supposed coalitions, and the political leaders who are said to have coalesced. From so much alarm at the Treasury on the bare mention of a coalition, we should be disposed to presume, that it must have the public advantage in view, and to hail it with exultation. But unfortunately we see nothing to convince us of its reality, but the fears of that weak, and therefore, at this present moment, wicked ministry, to whom it would be a death knell.From curiosity, therefore, rather then from a desire to defend any coalition which should include the great political talents, and the high political reputations of the country, we feel some wish to know, who are they that rail against coalitions, and when that is known, it will not be difficult to ascertain why they rail --Let it be supposed, for an instant, that Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville and Mr. Windham, were to coalesce, would that coalition be morally and politically mere protig te than a coaltion of Mr. Addington, Mr. Hobhouse, Lord Hawkesbury, and Mr. Fierney, not to speak of Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Erskine? Surely the friends of those who have coalesced will not say that it is criminal only in men of great abilities and consideration to coalesce, but that for men of inferior talent and little consideration it is laudable? To us it appears that a coalition between great leaders (and experience shows it in this country) must more certainly be founded on public motives, than a coalition between the underlings. The object of the latter is almost always/ lace and emolument, and whatever they get is generally a great deal more than they deserve. When the great men unite they not only give up animosities, but they sacrifice objects of personal ambition to the public good. They must lay their account with less power and le's place, perhaps, than if they had come in at the head of their re spective, parties. The presumption is in fa

vour of the virtue of a great coalition. Such a coalition is the union of great men for the public cause; the other is a set of paltry jobbers laying their heads together in a corner to get a provision for themselves and families; the one may be necessary for the safety of the state; the other is always most important to the individuals concerned. The object of the one is vigorous and able government the object of the other is the attainment of particular ends, the protection of a favourite, the prolongation of a low piddling system of administration.--It must be confessed that underlings have a wonderful advantage in making coalitions.

When

milk and water are mixed the compound is milk and water, and it is not worth inquiring where each ingredient was found. There are fifty people about him whom Mr. Addington might put into the Cabinet, or into offices of trust and power, and it might puzzle many worthy persons to discover either their merits or defects, even perhaps with the aid of Mr. Phillips's living Repository of Public Characters, from which it appears most clearly, that we can supply at least a volume of great men a year. There are some men who, if they can satisfy their coffee-house or their conventicle of their consistency, need trouble themselves no farther; for how the devil should the world trouble themselves about people who never did, and never can make half so much noise in it, as Carlo, the playacting Dog at Drury-Lane Theatre.--It fares otherwise, indeed, with those who have the good or bad fortune to be known. If the great men coalesce, however acceptable their coalition might be, and however necessary to the public, the disappointed underlings would remember, that years be fore one had held one opinion, a second an opposite, that a third had uttered a sarcasm which a fourth had forgiven; and their scribblers dive to the very bottom of their learning in indexes or magazines to recover such trumpery.Some of the gentlemen. who have thought proper to attach themselves to Mr. Addington, must have ceased to remember, or think the world has, that Mr. Addington was as much attached to Mr. Pitt and his system, as such a man can be to any thing that is, with all his soul, with all his strength, and with all his might. Every one must remember that Mr. Addington's subserviency to Mr. Pitt, on first. coming into office, was the theme of perpe. tual reproach, as it well might, to some of those gentlemen who now have taken him into protection, Are they only reconciled to him because he has betrayed his first

master? Is he a more constitutional minister now, when he has not a single claim of personal merit, and not a single constitu tional pretension which might not be pleaded by his own groom or butler, if any caprice were to make ministers of them? Did Mr. Addington and Mr. Tierney think alike of the French revolution, and the train of measures which, necessarily or un necessarily, grew out of it? Mr. Adding ton, Lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Yorke, &c. supported them all. Mr. Tierney, Mr: Hobhouse, &c. opposed them all. Let us suppose a coalition, for which there is more of apparent ground, if we may judge from speeches and acts, than for that of Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Windham, and Lord Grenville. We mean the coalition of Mr. Addington, Mr. Sheridan, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Tierney, &c. Would that coalition be criminal? Certainly not. Mr. Addington would stand high in the public opinion for consigning to oblivion those bitter sarcasms which Mr. Sheridan lavished on him the very night he made one of the most eloquent panegyrics on Mr.Pitt we ever heard. Mr. Sheridan, who was a most ardent admirer of the French revolution, whe proposed at the Whig Club (what was negatived), a congratulation to the French Convention, on the overthrow of the nobi lity and the church; who by his enthusiastic speeches in Parliament, and his zeal out of it, in favour of that miserable French revolution, contributed so much to that ever to be lamented schism of the Whig Party, and so much envenomed the hostility of its members after, does not now disdain to support those who spoke, wrote, and would have marched to Paris against that revolution. Now nobody censures Mr. Sheridan for his coalition with the members of a cabinet, every one of whom was for so many years at such an immeasurable distance from his opinion, as to the character of the French revolution, and our policy with regard to it. It is very possible that such people may think that patriotism requires them to forget these differences. Mr. Sheridan, whom we only mention in such company to illus trate the argument, may think so too. But unfortunately the coalition of men like those we have mentioned, except Mr. Sheridan, is of no benefit to the state. It cannot give real strength to the government almost at any time, but far less such strength as is requisite now. The motives of the individuals may be honest, but why should they presume to question the motives of men whose coalition, could it by a sort of politi cal miracle be effected, would, we are firmly