this might agree with your ideas of justice, we shall not do it. I have seen nothing in the articles, to which you allude (for until now, I have made no commentary upon the speech myself), but what was perfectly proper, as far as related to America; nor did I observe, in those articles, one expression that could justly be called harsh. But, this tenderness for yourselves is, to me, no new thing. I know that you claim, in virtue of the praises, which many honest Europeans, have, from the want of knowing the truth, bestowed upon your national character, a right to abuse all the world, and, at the same time, to be exempt even from fair criticism yourselves, a right of which you might have lived in the fancied enjoyment, had not your vanity urged you on to attempt to bully us out of our maritime rights, and, with your dung-hill chicken crow to bid the eagle defiance,You ground your recommendation of forbearance upon the circumstance, that we have now such a host of foes to contend with: and, most signinificantly bid us reflect, that "there remains but one nation to complete the confederacy of the world against us;" a hint that you find, I dare say, to agree wonderfully well with what you said in your former letter, to wit, that " England stood upon the van

tage ground, and that nothing conceded by her could possibly be imputed to fear." Your tone is now changed, and like your honest predecessor, NIC FROG, you have a mind to try what bullying will do, since, to all appearance, wheedling has failed. But, Sir, I hope, you and your country will find that the days both of wheedling and of bullying are passed; we see this confederacy now formed, and you do not perceive that we are scared out of our wits. The scaring days are gone by; and though we have manifold political sins to get rid of, you will not easily scare us again. We begin to discover, that though America and her cominerce were both annihilated, and all other commerce along with them, the corn and the grass and the trees would still continue to grow in England; that our mines would still teem with ore and with fuel; that our women would still be the fairest and the most virtuous in the world, our men the most industrious, honest and sincere, while they yielded to none upon earth in strength or in bravery. This is a discovery which merchants and merchant-like ministers can no longer prevent us from completing; and, once completed, away go all the false alarms, all the mental chains, which have so long held us in disgraceful bondage to nations like Holland

and America.To return again, for a mo ment, to your caution about forbearance in our language, the fact is, that you are afraid of the truth. You have humbugged the world so long with your impudent assumption of exclusive virtue and liberty, that your vanity falls into fits at the prospect of seeing the English press let loose upon you. Your situation is like that of Joseph Surface, just when Sir Peter is going behind the screen; and, in that situation I leave you, not however, without a faithful pro mise to return to you again, as often as occasion shall require.- And, now, what will our ministers do? Will they make further concessions? Will they drawl out a negociation, ending in a disgraceful compromise, invented by some little knot of merchants and manufacturers, and just leaving a hole to creep out of in point of form, while, as to the substance, they close us up air-tight in debasement? Will they do this? I do not know how to answer. I should, at once, answer no; but, there is so much depending upon connections and intrigues and votings and the other wheels and works of faction, that I know not what to think or to say. And yet, the policy as well as the justice of the case are so obvious; they must all be so well convinced, that to recoil one inch further, is to invite a trampling to death; they must so clearly see, that their country's fate, and, indeed, their own political fate too, depends upon their resolute resistance of further demands on the part of America, they must be so well satisfied, that America is now merely the mouth piece of France, demanding that which, if granted, will be a precedent for every future treaty that we shall make, relating to maritime affairs: of all this they must be so thoroughly convinced, that one would think it impossible for them to hesitate. Yet, I will not vouch for their firmness; and, I see, that the Morning Chroni cle, taking up the ragged thread of A. B. and working it into a substance somewhat more solid, is endeavouring to connect it with the meshes of faction. "We yesterday," says he, in a tone perfectly puritanical, "received American papers down to "the 12th of last month. That part of "the President's speech, which relates to "the differences subsisting between Great "Britain and America, has been referred "to a committee of the House of Repre "sentatives; but it was not likely, that,

any decisive measure would be adopte "till the sentiments and intentions of this "Government were better known. The "discussion which took place apoy the

resolutions seems to have been conducted with great moderation, and we would fain hope that the wisdom of the respective legislatures of the two countries will awe into silence the clamour of the "few intemperate and unthinking individuals, who for the sake of gratifying a blind and inconsiderate passion, would hurry them into a war equally injurious "to the interests of both. It is no small consolation, especially in the days in "which we live, to reflect that there still "exist two countries in the globe, the pacific relations of which are not subject to the arbitrary controul of an individual, or of twelve individuals, and where the happiness and prosperity of the people cannot be sacrificed either to misplaced "partialities or to ill-conceived opinions. "Such is the wisdom and benignity of our institutions, that it is impossible for us to envy those of any other nation; but it surely is matter of regret that at a moment so critical and important the Bri"tish Parliament should not, like the Ame"rican Congress, be advising and directing "the measures of the Executive Govern

"

"

most likely to be avoided, and, if found to be unavoidable, would be encountered "with a spirit proportionate to its necessi"ty."No, they will certainly come to no decisive measure upon the subject, in the Congress, until the intentions of our government are known; and, that alone is a strong presumptive proof, that if we remain firm, they will cease their demands. They are happily gifted in the art of proJonging discussion. The debates upon the treaty of 1794 took up fourteen days, and, even at the end of that time, several members complained that they had had no opportunity of delivering their sentiments, though, after the first day, there was not one new idea brought forth. What head ache-giving speeches! Some of them spoke seven hours, without so much as sucking an orange. We are: to fret, according to.. this writer, because the parliament of England, in imitation of the American Congress, is hot assembled to advise and

direct the measures of the executive government." In the first place, it is not true, that the Congress is called for that purpose; it is called, that the speech may be made, and the speech is made for our use, and not for the use of the Congress or the people of America. And, in the next place, what has our parliament (where the ministry has a majority too), to do, either in theory, or in practice, with negociations with foreign powers? But, it is "desirable that the people" should have a hand in the discussions. Well, and will they have any more hand in them, when the parliament is met, than they have now? They can petition the parliament, and pubfish their petitions. And, cannot they petition the king now, in the very same sentiments, publishing their petitions in like manner? Yes, but " our friends can make speeches." Oh, their tongues itch to be at it again, do they?" The people themselves "decide upon their own destinies !" What an impudent, what an insolent, and, at the same time, foolish expression! What have the people to do in deciding? And what dif ference is it to them, whether the measures be first decided upon in the Council, or in the House of Commons, seeing that the ministers have a majority, and seeing that the measures will be such as they shall propose? For my part, I think parliament will meet full soon enough in February, or March and, I was going to say..

. . . but `

I won't. No: I hope, we shall have no parliament sitting until after the Epiphany, old style, that we may have a quiet, if not a merry Christmas, and a happy beginning, at least, of the New Year. I am not, however, so divested of feeling as not to compassionate the case of those, who have itching tongues; nor should I be unwilling to indulge them, could I obtain a security, that they have not also itching fingers.The conclusion of this article from the Morning Chronicle is in the true strain of the conventicle, nor should I wonder if the writer had heard the very same words at Moorfields or in Glass-house Yard; that is to say, it is made up of cant and false insinuations. When did this hypocritical writer hear any one say, that " war was desirable on its own account ?" Where has he seen any thing of this " new theory," of which he talks, and which, he leaves to be inferred, is held by all those, who wish to refuse the demands of the Americans? And, if he cannot point out this when and where, with what face can he object to own himself to be a hypocrite? -Ño, Sir, we do not hold, that war is de sirable on its own account. We will tel

We

you what we hold, and we will not be put off with any of your shuffling. We will bring you to the point. And, if you refuse to answer, your silence shall be presumed to be a proof of your guilt- -America demands, that we should, 1st, give up the right of taking our seamen out of her merchant ships; and, 2nd, permit her to carry on her commerce, as a neutral, upon terms more advantageous than those, which she quietly suffers France to prescribe to her ? are for war, rather than yield to these demauds. Now, are you with us, or are you against us? Give us a direct answer to this, and think not to get off with shuffling and insinuation. Answer, Sir. If your cause be good, why need you be afraid of trying your strength with us? Your faction is considerable, and you yourself have some resources in point of talent. Face us, then; and put up your quibbling and canting and insinuating until your beloved meeting of parliament arrives.

An article respecting the appointment of officers in the army; another respecting the Russian manifesto; another respecting the state of Spain; and many letters, are postponed for want of room, which I had not to spare without dividing Mr. Worthington's letter, which I could not prevail upon myself to do.The next Number, which will conclude this Volume, will contain all the public papers up to Tuesday or Wednesday next.

ERRORS in the last Register.-Page 904, 1. 22 from the bottom, read owe instead of have. -Page 913, 1. 27 from the top, read it instead of they.

COBBETT'S

Parliamentary History

OF

ENGLAND,'

Which, in the compass of Sixteen Volumes, royal octavo, double columns, will contain a full and accurate Report of all the recorded Proceedings, and of all the Speeches, in both Houses of Parliament, from the earliest times to the year 1803, when the publication of "Cobbett's Par "liamentary Debates" commenced.

Vol. III. Comprising the Period from the Battle of Edge-hill in 1642 to the Restoration of Charles II. in 1560, will be ready for delivery on Friday, the 1st of January, 1808. The magnitude of the Parliamentary History, the great labour and expence atending it, and the comparatively small number of copies, which, to avoid serious risk, it

has been thought adviseable to print, render it necessary, thus early, to adopt precautions calculated to prevent any broken sets re maining on hand at the conclusion of the work. Subscribers are, therefore, particu→ larly requested to send in their Names to their respective Booksellers, as no Copies will, on any account, be sold, but to the purchasers of the former Volumes.

EDINBURGH REVIEWERS.

[Being Mr. Worthington's third and last Letter]

"Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis "Tempus eget..

SIR; I have reserved for my last letter, an examination of the Observations of the Reviewers," upon the true nature and "operations of our famous constitution," (p. 411, Edinburgh Review). This is the most elaborate part of their essay; and very judiciously so., For, if they are able to shew, that the three estates of our legislature, preserving their separate independent functions, cannot act beneficially, their critique is so far triumphant, and the argument for the constitution becomes an old woman! It will be my endeavour to winnow every party consideration out of this discussion, which has been obviously undertaken by the Reviewers to serve the purposes of party. Their object, clearly disclosed by their concluding page, is to support the credit of the late ministry, in order to turn out the present. The scheme was adroit. For if they can demonstrate, that what we call abuses, are real improvements, reforms were out of the question; Mr. Fox was no apostate, and the Whig ministry is justified in respect of every thing, but its former professions. They begin (for the purpose, I believe, of perplexing the reader and the subject) with an analytical dissection of “every commu "nity with a relation to its political rights "and interests into three great natural class

es and orders:" in none of which, bys the way, is the division necessary, or natu-s ral; and which, whether 3, or 300 divisions had been assumed, would have proved no-i thing at all in the argument. What will the reader think, for example, of the sovereign permanent, and the father of his people; from whom, his interests cannot be sepa-> rated, being classed with the whole pack of times serving placemen !-Dignified by the appellation of public functionaries !" Is will only notice one more matter in this classification; it is a clause in the 3d, which identifies with, or includes in the great mass of the people, a set of political personages, i "who are striving to acquire office or in"fluence" by the dispossessal (as ought not

to have been omitted) of another set! This is felicitous and apt-very put to the times, though not to the purpose; for either of which, as well as on account of its greater truth and simplicity, I rather, on the whole, preter Sancho's division of mankind into two orders the #WES and the HAVE NOTS! A division, which not only comprehends in it all the politicians in the world, and their objects, but also the rest of the human family; to whom, it is distressing to witness, that politicians brave the inclination to do so little good, and the power of doing so much mischief! A rivalry, in the political views of these three orders, is next assumed by the Reviewers, as having necessarily terminated in a compromise, (observe, a compromise, on the part of the people, of their rights and interests which still preserves the balance in effect, (the explanation of which effect the reader shall shortly see) although with a change in its original mode of operation; which they thus account for (pages 411 and 412). In the early stage of our government, when the business of legislation for the "whole kingdom did not occupy three or << four weeks in the year, this absolute par"tition of the business and privileges of the "three orders was in some measure practi<cable, the constitution was in reality very "near what it has ever since been 'repre"sented in theory. In process of time,

however, when the business of govern".ment became more complicated and **operose, the greatest inconvenience "must have been experienced from this en"tire separation of the three estates of

which it was composed, and some expe"dients must have been devised for giving "them a greater sympathy and mutual con❝tact in their proceedings."

proper, (and, as, if they do not, there is no reason to suppose they will be better employed) I protest, I see not only no inconve nience resulting from encreased business, obviated, and no political good saved; but, on the contrary, a great deal lost, and a great deal of inconvenience produced by any device, which tends to give the houses" a

greater sympathy and mutual contact in "their proceedings." And, as the purpose for which this sympathy is desired, is stated (p. 415) to be that of obtaining for the sup port of government (which words mean, for the support of the measures of any ministry *) a decided and "PERMANENT MAJO "RITY" (p. 417) in the House of Commons, by throwing into it all the influence of the Aristocracy and the Crown, (by which means, the sense of the real representatives of the people can never be ascertained at all) I think the recommended “sympathy" is not only the bane of all public spirit, but 1 assert it to be the very antipathy of our po pular constitution. It is to protect the representatives of the people from such recommended sympathy," and from every influence of every kind, that their privileges have been secured to them; (privileges, in some respects, not likely to be very useful to honest men), and it is to secure our peerage from every factious contact, either with the people, (whose legislators and judges they are born) or with the crown (of which they are the hereditary advisers) that their inde pendent permanent dignities, and exclusivė privileges have been confirmed to them, after two revolutions; dignities and privileges, in any other view of their operation, absurd and injurious in many respects to a nation. Next, say the Reviewers, (p. 412) "it ne

ver could have been but most injurious to "the state and country at large, that the "House of Lords, for example, should "throw out by a great majority an impor "tant bill, which the House of Commons "had passed by a great majority, or that "the King should reject with indignation" (these very terms are a palpable hyperbole, and in the highest degree ridiculous; for, le Roi s'avisera" being the constitutional

* I am aware it may be said, that a part of these echoes of the peers do vote in opposition to the ministry for the time being. The reader must judge, whether the people gain any thing by this deduction from the strength of government. In other words, is the opposition factions, (and only excited by the hope of attaining the reins of government, which it would guide in the same manner) or is it principled ?

language of rejection, why reject "with indignation ?)" a law, which had received "the decided approbation of both Houses "of Parliament." These assumptions of great and diametrically opposite majorities are extreme cases, which could not occur in the ordinary course of legislation betwixt two concurring assemblies, possessing good intentions, whose powers and privileges are defined. That I may meet any supposition, I however accept them. But, I am so far from admitting the truth of this hypothesis of fanciful " injury," that I am clear of a contrary opinion, which I thus maintain.The measure " passed in the Commons by a great majority," to be so thrown out by a great majority in the House of Lords, (agreeably to the vigorous spirit of our constitution,) or to be "sympathetically" suppressed by the Lords in the House of Commons, (according to the new constitution of the Reviewers) must be admitted to be, in itself, either a good measure or a bad one. If a good one, such conduct in the Lords must necessarily be factious or unprincipled in the grossest degree; and as a good measure, in which ever way they act, whether by clandestine emissaries in the Commons or openly in their own House, fs, by the assumption, to be lost to the na. tion by their opposition, (the only question being between loss by "sympathy," or no toriety,) I contend it to be clearly beyond doubt, better for the country, that such a good measure, if to be lost by the Lords at all, should be openly rejected by them in their own House, and thus ostensibly miscarry, (because the Commons uninfluenced and independent (by this supposition,) have an obvious remedy for such factious behaviour of the Lords, quite adequate to allay any commotion in the country) than that such a good measure should be got rid of, be strangled and suppressed by the clandestine,

"

sympathizing" interference of the Lords by their representatives in the House of Commons. The country in the former case has the advantage over what it would have in the latter, that a man has who is exposed to the attack of an open enemy, in lieu of that of a secret assassin. Not to mention, that "a "permanent majority" once obtained by corruption, or by any influence whatever in the House of their representatives, leaves the people without hope or resource, but in rebellion. For, if the clandestine influence of the Lords by their representatives in the House of Commons, be (as by the assumption) considerable enough to cause a popular good measure to miscarry in that assembly, the people can have no hope of its be

ing afterwards successfully revived by the Lords in their own. Their chance, therefore, of obtaining the good measure in ques→ : tion, is utterly, in this case, foreclosed. But, in the other alternative of my proposition, if the measure be a bad one, which is so carried: by a great majority of the Commons, (and; which cannot be assumed, without an included admission, that members are factious or corrupt), I contend that such bad mea sure, so voted, by a factious or corrupt House of Commons, could not be rejected by too great a majority in the Lords-the greater the better-the more satisfactory to, and the safer for the country. It would, I readily acknowledge, be a great national misfortune, to have one or other branch of the legislature so perverse, so corrupt, or so badly constituted, as to make it possible for a good measure to be lost, or a bad one to be carried in either House, by a great majority; but, if (as by the assumption of the Reviewers) so much faction, or corruption in the legislature, as to make this possible, is to exist, it cannot with a reference both to the good, and to the ultimate tranquillity (which is its good) of the country, manifest itself too openly. An evil so palpably such, that no one pretends to defend it, is half cured. And it may be observed, that did the Commons really speak the sense of the people, (which, on most occasions, would be the equivalent, and synonim of consulting their interests,) and did the peers maintain their constitutional independence, the very sup position of such cases, as those put by the Reviewers, would be ridiculous. But if the legislature become so corrupt, as to make the cases put by the Reviewers those of probable contemplation, as of possible contingency, are we to connive at, or, what is worse, are we to hear such a system defended, on the ground of the unanimity or "sympathy," which so vile a dependance on the part of the Commons is to produce in the government? If fair and above-board "contact" be all that is contended for between the two Houses, the practice of conferences has provided for that already. Let that practice continue, which is quite adequate to produce all the sympathy" that ought to be produced. The extent of in jury, which can accrue from want of unanimity in two branches. of the legislature, may be assigned; buc the extent is incalcu lable, which may result from the change, which the Reviewers alledge to have silently happened in the constitution, (and in my opinion profligately defend)--a translation from the hands of the people of England to the crown and the aristocracy, thy means of