ministers are fully determined to screen Sir A. WELLESLEY ; " and why? Sir ARTHUR it is well known is allied to a family among the most powerful in this country-a family raised to a "predominance, not by great and shining talents, nor by any ac"tions of a sort that can be deemed even meritorious. They have "beaten the poor Indians just as dogs would do a flock of sheep "out of a field." (Mr. COBBETT might have added, that Sir ARTHUR was likewise one of the famous Copenhagen heroes.] “Sir A. enjoys a salary of 6,5661. for being chief secretary in Ire "land, the emoluments of which office he received, although it "was impossible for him to execute the duties of it: but his family enjoys in the house of Commons no less than twelve "votes."* The recent conduct of ministers proves the correctness of Mr. COBBETT's opinions, and reasonings on this subject. Ministers have singled out Sir ARTHUR WELLESLEY, who first signed that very armistice which they profess to disapprove, as the object of their panegyric, and have accordingly procured him the thanks of the two houses for his conduct. We are not disposed to deny his courage at the battle of Vimiera; but there is reason to suspect that the victory claimed on that occasion was not such as was boasted of by Sir ARTHUR and his friends. Lord FOLKSTONE who objected to the vote of thanks declared, that the "numbers of "the enemy engaged were inferior to that of the British forces :" this assertion has been repeated by many others: the armistice which Sir A. WELLESLEY signed and approved cannot be justified, but upon the supposition that the victory was inferior to what it has been represented. The Court of Inquiry have declared that "no evidence has been adduced to enable them to pronounce with "confidence," whether the opinion of Sir A. WELLESLEY or Sir H. BURRARD respecting the pursuit of the enemy after the battle of Vimiera, was correct and yet amidst all this deficiency of evidence, amidst all these contradictory opinions-and without waiting for a parliamentary inquiry, ministers have censured one of the commanding officers, and have hastily procured the thanks of the house to another, their favourite. Motions for farther inquiry on this subject are given notice of in the two houses; and although it is apparent, from the evidence given by two of the commanding officers, that the army was in its original equipment, notoriously deficient in artillery and cavalry, and that in consequence it was deemed improper to attempt a pursuit of the enemy, we will ven. ture to predict, that ministers to screen themselves from all inquiries, will object to the motions alluded to, and that the whole of their conduct in this business, will be approved in both houses of parliament, by the usual triumphant majorities!

* Pol. Reg. Vol, IV, p. 820.

We refer our readers to the speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and to the important proceedings of the legislative bodies, by which they will perceive the perseverance of the American government in that dignified, patriotic system which they have hitherto maintained. Our readers will likewise perceive the very fair offer made by the American, to the British government, to take off the embargo, if the latter will repeal its orders in council so far as they relate to America. Lord GRENVILLE has given notice of his intention to move for a repeal of the said "orders in council;" and we beg leave to "give notice" that his motion will be negatived! We sincerely wish the American govern ment success in the just and politic measures they are pursuing, and by which we hope they will continue to avoid being insulted with impunity, and be saved from the crimes and horrors of war.

FAST DAY.

The 8th. of the ensuing month is appointed for the repetition of that annual mockery offered to heaven during our state of war, called "A day of public fasting and humiliation," that King and people "may humble themselves before Almighty God, in order to obtain pardon of their sins, and in the most deyout and solemn manner "send up their prayers and supplications to the Divine Majesty, for "averting those heavy judgments which their manifold provocations "have most justly deserved." Whilst, however, we persevere in repeating to heaven, the falsehood, that the war in which we are engaged, is, both in its origin and in its progress just and necessary, such Fasts are" abominations" to the Lord, precisely similar to those jewish fasts described by the Prophet ISAIAH in chapters i. and lyiii. The ministers of an establishment who have their prayers dictated to them by their rulers in church and state, may plead some excuse for following the orders of their masters in religion; but protestant dissenting ministers can have no excuse for keeping a fast day, unless they are resolved to be faithful; to protest against our GRAND NATIONAL SINS, the LOVE OF WAR, and the FLAGRANT INJUSTICE OF OUR PROCEEDINGS against peaceable, unoffending natious, and neutral states, iu various quarters of the globe; unless in short, they cry aloud, and spare not, lift up their voice like a trumpet, shew the people their transgressions, and the British nation their peculiar sins. If our dissenting ministers feel that they have not the religions fortitude of the ancient prophets, or the primitive christians, let them keep at home, and not add to the national hypocrisy by pretending to “humble themselves before Al"mighty God" on account of national sins, which they are afraid to acknowledge, and against which they dare not enter their public protest. Harlow, Jan. 30.

B. F

POLITICAL REVIEW.

No. XXVI.]

FOR FEBRUARY, 1809.

REVIEW OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

[Vol. V.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

NEVER was there a period in the British history in which the

discussions in the House of Commons, excited a deeper, or more general interest than during the present month. The scenes of settled and systematic profligacy in high life, and of gross and deeply rooted abuses in the ecclesiastical, civil, and military departments, in the latter more particularly, engross the attention of all ranks and degrees; and what may be the consequences, it is impossible to foretel. Exclusive, however, of the important discussions alluded to, there are other topics relative to the war, and to our general system of politics, in which the interests of the public are deeply involved, and which ought by no means to be overlooked. We have therefore to call the attention of our readers to the principal Proceedings of Parliament, in the order in which they have taken place.

The late Negociation.-The state papers relative to the overtures for negociation from FRANCE and RUSSIA, have been laid before the two houses, and have given rise to a spirited debate in the Com mons, in which the general system of government with respect to our foreign relations, has been properly discussed, and has drawn forth some observations that ought forcibly to impress the minds of our countrymen. In the remarks which we made in a late Review, on the DECLARATION of ministers on the termination of their correspondence with the ministers of France and Russia, although we found much to condemn, we expressed a hope, that there was" some abatement of that most intolerable pride, and insolence "so conspicuous in all the answers of our present ministers to the "different overtures of France, as well as of other powers." The perusal of the state papers, has, we are sorry to observe, dashed that hope. Whether the recent overtures were, on the part of the enemy, sincere or not, we have no means of determining; but every one must agree that they were couched in language the most respectful. The answer of our secretary for foreign affairs, on the contrary, although it must be acknowledged to be perfectly consis

C

VOL. V.

tent with his former language respecting the government of France, was, in the highest degree insulting. To the letter containing the overtures, addressed to his Britannic Majesty, subscribed by the Emperors ALEXANDER and NAPOLEON, Mr. CANNING in his letter to the Russian ambassador at Paris, remarks as follows:-"However desirous his Majesty might be to reply directly to his "Majesty the Emperor of Russia, you cannot but feel, sir, that "from the unusual manner in which the letters signed by his Impe"rial Majesty were drawn up, and which has entirely deprived them " of the character of a private and personal communication, his Majesty has found it impossible to adopt that mode of respect to"wards the Emperor of Russia, without at the same time acknow"ledging titles which his Majesty never has acknowledged." This insult, offered in the very outset to the Emperor of France, corresponds with that offered by the same statesman a few months since, in which he styled NAPOLEON," the atrocious usurper of France!"

Mr. CANNING may not be under any great anxiety for his own honour; but it is to be wished that he would not thus sport with the honour of the nation. Such insolent language must be retracted; this country must acknowledge the Imperial title of NAPOLEON; she must style him, instead of the "atrocious usurper," the lawful Emperor of France, or peace can never be restored between the two empires. That Mr. CANNING will retract his bully-like language, rather than risk the loss of his place, there can be but little doubt; but it is much to be lamented that the national honour should be so often sacrificed, as has been the case during the late, and the present war, to the foolish pride, and the wanton caprice of ministers, who prate about national honour, whilst they seem, judging from their conduct, to be totally ignorant of the meaning of the phrase.

The insolent airs which were displayed in the correspondence of Mr. CANNING in October last, are equally displayed by the same minister in the House of Commons, in his speech on moving an address of thanks to his Majesty for his gracious answer to the ⚫vertures; or in other words, an address of thanks to the right hon. secretary himself and his colleagues. Alluding to Spain, he obser yed-" Many who looked at the situation of that country, and the “unheard of outrages committed by Bonaparte, thought that our "government would have been completely justified in rejecting the "propositions of the enemy at once, unless accompanied by an of"fer of making atonement to Spain for the unprecedented injuries "which that country had sustained." This language is as ridiculous as it is insolent. At the moment it was uttering, the French Emperor was proceeding uninterruptedly in his career of conquest, and was compelling the British forces hastily, and in the most disastrous manner, to quit the Spanish territories. It was likewise highly

impolitic: our enemies might, with equal reason at least, declare, that—" Many who looked at the situation" of Denmark," and the “ unheard of outrages committed" by Britain “ against that coun"try, thought that" France and Russia" would be completely jus"tified in refusing to enter into a negociation, unless accompanied "by an offer of making atonement" to Denmark" for the unprece “dented injuries that country had sustained"! But we sincerely hope that our enemy will never discover that insensibility to shame, as to reproach another nation for crimes peculiarly his own; or hint at the justice of refusing to treat with a power who may have unjustly invaded another country, whilst he may have recently robbed a peaceable, unsuspecting, neutral, yea, friendly, neighbouring state, of her fleet and arsenals, slaughtered her inhabitants, and burn her capital!

We refer our readers to the excellent speeches of Mr. WHITBREAD, and Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, and to the spirited speech of General MATHEW in the debate on this subject; in which they will perceive some important truths that we have frequently endeavoured to impress on the minds of our readers, most forcibly inculcated. The falsehood of the ministerial assertions, "that the usurpations "of France are unparalleled—that the war in which this country "is engaged, was entered into for the immediate object of na"tional safety;-that it has been prolonged only because no se "cure and honourable means of terminating it have hitherto been "afforded by our enemies:"--the falsehood of these assertions is proved to demonstration. General MATHEW proclaimed in the House of Commons, the bold, but melancholy facts,-"That of all "despots the British government had been the worst: how they "dealt with kings whom they wished to dethrone, his hon. friend, "Sir A. WELLESLEY, could inform them. In the east they did "not merely imprison kings-they murdered them!" Referring to the system pursued in Ireland under the PITT administration, he added, “he would tell Earl CAMDEN, if there was any tyranny in "any country, it was under the government of that noble lord." Mr. WHITBREAD justly reprobating the "sarcastic, recriminating "language" used in commencing the correspondence, and the folly of refusing even to enter on a negociation unless FERDINAND VII. was acknowledged to be the sovereign of Spain, and admitted as one of our allies, very truly stated, that "let gentlemen say what "they will about the ruler of France, we must ultimately treat with "him:—to this complexion we must come at last." Sir F. BURDETT, in a most luminous speech, demanded of the right hon.secretary-"How did his doctrine, that the internal government of a "country" [the old institutions of Spain] "should not be interfered 4 with--bow did this doctrine accord with the idea of the contest in