done by us than merely the repealing of our Orders in Council, which removes but a part, and not, by any means, the greatest part, of the grievances of which the Americans complain. So long ago as the month of February last, as will be seen by my motto, I expressed to your Royal Highness my opinion, that the mere repeal of the Orders in Council would not satisfy the people of America. It was, therefore, with no small degree of surprise, that I saw (from the reports in the newspapers), that Mr. Brougham had pledged himself to support the ministers in a war against America, if she should not be satisfied with their measure of repeal. I was suprised at this, because Mr. Brougham must have seen, that she complained of the impressment of her seamen, and of divers other things, which she deemed to be injuries. Besides, did Mr. Brougham imagine, that our two years' nearly of refusal to repeal were to go off without any thing done by us in the way of compensation? The history of the transaction is this; The American President announces in 1810, that, unless we repeal our Orders by a certain day, in the same way that France had done, a certain law shall go into force against us. We do not comply we continue in what he calls a violation of his country's rights for a year and a half after the time appointed for repealing; at the end of that time an inquiry takes place in Parliament, and two volumes are published, containing evidence of the ruinous consequences to us of the measure which America has adopted. Thereupon we repeal. But, Sir, Mr. Brougham can hardly want to be told, that America has made no promise to be satisfied with any repeal which should take place after her act should go into effect. Indeed, she has never made any such promise; nor was it to be supposed, that, when she saw that her measure of exclusion was ruining us, she would be content with our merely doing that which was calculated to save ourselves. This, in fact, is our language to her we refused to repeal our Orders till we found that the not repealing of them was injurious to ourselves, and, therefore, we now repeal them, and, in consequence, call upon you to act as if we had never refused.

This, Sir, is what no nation can be supposed to listen to. We do what America deems an injury; we do what she says is sufficient to justify her in declaring war against us. And, after awhile, we desist; but notoriously because proof has been produced that perseverance is injurious to ourselves. In the meanwhile she declares war to compel us to do that which we have done before we hear of her declaration. And, under these circumstances, can we expect her to disarm, until she has obtained something like indemnification for the injuries which she alleges she has sustained? If there were in existence no ground of dispute other than that of the Orders in Council, it appears to me, that America could (especially with our parliamentary evidence before her) never think of peace without a compensation for the vessels seized illegally, as she says, under the Orders in Council. Otherwise she tells the world, that she may be always injured with impunity; because, the utmost that any nation has to apprehend from her hostility is to be compelled to cease to violate her rights. Upon this principle she may be exposed to a like attack the next day after she has made peace. Either, therefore, she complains without cause; or, the mere repeal of our Orders in Council ought not to satisfy her.

Besides, Sir, it appears to me, that even supposing that there were no other ground for the war, on her part, than the existence of our Orders in Council, she is bound, in fairness towards the Emperor Napoleon, to

obtain some kind of compensation for what she has suffered from the execution of our Orders in Council after the time that he repealed his decrees. If she make peace with us, and place us upon the same footing with France, without obtaining such compensation, he will assuredly allege partiality against her, since she will have suffered us to continue to do with impunity, for a year and a half, that which she made him cease to do. It was, therefore, I repeat it, matter of great surprise with me, that Mr. Brougham should have given the pledge above-mentioned; though I hope your Royal Highness will be advised better than to pursue measures that shall put him to the test.

:

Compensation for the property seized under our Orders in Council will, I think, be demanded; and, if the Orders be recognized as a violation of the rights of America, I do not see upon what ground such compensation could be objected to; but, Sir, as far as relates to ourselves, I trust, that the means of making such compensation would not be demanded of the people, but would be taken from those who have received the amount of the property seized. With this, however, America has nothing to do she can only demand compensation; but, she may extend that demand to the amount of her expenses in fitting out ships of war and in raising and sending forth an army. "Indemnity for the past and security for the future" is, Sir, a phrase not unknown amongst the statesmen who adorn, and who have adorned you and your royal Sire's court; and, I do not know of any maxim in public law, or in diplomacy, that forbids a republic any more than a monarchy to make such a demand. If we do allow that America has just cause of complaint, we cannot well refuse her indemnity at least; if we do not allow that she has just cause of complaint, we do wrong, we act a base and cowardly part, if we desist from doing that which she complains of.

Upon what ground it is, then, that Mr. Brougham expects an immediate cessation of hostilities on the part of America I am at a loss to discover. I am at a loss to discover upon what ground it is that he has made his pledge, or, at least, the pledge which has been attributed to him. Either he must look upon the Orders in Council as the sole ground of the American declaration of war, or he must suppose there to be other grounds. If he looks upon them as the sole ground, he must, I think, suppose that America will not lay down her arms without obtaining indemnity for such heavy losses as those Orders have occasioned her; and, if he looks upon the declaration as having been partly produced by other subjects of complaint, he must necessarily suppose, that an adjustment as to those grounds of complaint must precede a cessation of hostilities.

Whatever pledges may have been given by any persons, it is for your Royal Highness to lend an ear to the voice of reason; and, I am greatly deceived if that voice will not recommend to you an expression, as speedily as possible, of your readiness to cause the officers of the fleet to cease to impress any persons out of American ships. This, as I have before had the honour to assure your Royal Highness, is the complaint which has, at last, in reality produced the war between us and our American brethren. There have been many subjects of difference; many grounds of quarrel, but this is what finds its way to the hearts of the American people. They would I verily believe, have endured all but this; this, however, I knew they would not endure, and I told your ministers and the public so long ago. If I am asked whether I think, that the ceasing to impress people on board of American ships would cause many of our sailors to desert, I answer, that I do not know: but, that I do not see why it should!

I do not see why Englishmen should like the American service better than our own. And, really, I must say, Sir, that I think, that to entertain any such apprehension squares not well with the tenor of our national songs about the valour and patriotism of our "tars." I think it exceedingly humiliating to us to suffer it to be said, or to act as if we said, that we must retain the power of impressment, or personal seizure, on board American ships out at sea, for fear the giving up of that power should cause our fleet to be deserted. Sir, I am one of those who love to believe, that English seamen do not want force to induce them to fight for their country. It is, in my eyes, a most mortifying thing to proclaim to the world, that we are likely to have war with America, and that we appear to prefer war with America, to the giving up of the means of detecting and seizing English sailors, deserters from the King's service. This so badly comports with all our assertions respecting the freedom we enjoy, and also respecting our devotion to our King and our glorious constitution; for, it appears to me, that, if the world believe in the necessity of this power of impressment, it must think either that our boastings of our blessed state are untrue, or, that our sailors are not the most wise or the most loyal set of men. I am for wiping off this stigma, and without crying or fainting away, as Sir Vicary Gibbs is reported to have done at Horsemonger-lane, I am for showing the Yankees and the whole world, that we want no terror to keep our seamen to their duty; that we are not afraid of their skulking from our fleet to take refuge in American ships; that we entertain not the disgraceful apprehension, that those who have once had the honour to sail under the royal flag of the House of Hanover will ever prefer that of the American or any other republic.

Honour, Sir, as well as policy seem to me to dictate the giving up of this power; and, as the giving of it up might, and, as I think, would cause the restoration of peace between England and America, I will not be persuaded that such a measure does not accord with the wishes of your Royal Highness.

As to "the exhausting of the resources of America," which now begins to be talked of by that most corrupt of newspapers, the TIMES, I do most earnestly beseech your Royal Highness to bear in mind how long the late PITT promised this deluded nation that he would exhaust the resources of republican France! Sir, Mr. Madison, though a very plaindressed, sleek-headed man; though he wears neither tails, nor bags, nor big wigs, nor robes; though he dresses in a pepper-and-salt coat, and a nice dimity waistcoat, knows a great deal more of our real situation than I believe many of your ministers know of it; and, I should not wonder if he knew almost as much of it as your Royal Highness's self does. He is a man, Sir, who is not to be led by our hireling prints; he sees our gold at above five pounds an ounce; he has seen acts passed which, in effect, force the circulation of our Bank-notes; and, seeing this, he does not want any body to tell him what is coming; seeing this he will laugh at the idea of our exhausting the resources of America, the capital of whose whole debt does not amount to a tenth part of one half year's interest upon our debt. This ground of hope is, Sir, more visionary than any other. Indeed, they are all equally visionary. There is no hope of any thing but loss and injury to us by a war with America.

I have now done all that I am able to prevent this calamity. If the war proceed, I shall say as little about it as circumstances will permit.

I have lost no occasion of endeavouring to put aside this evil; and, when the result of the contest shall be lamented; when those who now rejoice at the idea of doing mischief to free men, shall be weeping over their folly, I trust that your Royal Highness will have the justice to remember, that this war had always a decided opponent in your faithful servant,

Botley, 15th September, 1812.

WM. COBBETT.

66

TO THE PRINCE REGENT:

ON THE DISPUTE WITH THE AMERICAN STATES.
(Political Register, September, 1812.)

"I implore your Royal Highness to resist the advice of those, who would fain "make you believe, that we ought to insist upon these impressments. I implore your Royal Highness to reflect on the manifold miseries that may arise from "this cause; and to be pleased to bear in mind, that, to yield hereafter, to yield "upon force or menace, will be disgrace: whereas, to yield now, would indicate "a sentiment of justice."- POL. REGISTER, 20th June, 1812. Vol. XXI. p. 789.

SIR,

LETTER IX.

When I closed the eighth Letter to your Royal Highness upon this subject, it was my intention to forbear any further remonstrance with you thereon, and to leave time to be the teacher. But, the intelligence, ar

rived from America since the date of that Letter, has made me depart from that intention, and has induced me to make one more effort to convince you, that, without further measures in the way of conciliation, peace with America is not likely to be restored.

The very day on which my last Letter was printing (Friday last), was marked by the promulgation of tidings from America, that the Congress had revoked the declaration of war, and that the American General in Canada had entered into an Armistice for 30 days; and that both these had taken place in consequence of the revocation of our Orders in Council. A few hours were sufficient to dissipate these falsehoods, fabricated, no doubt, for the purpose of deceiving the people of this "most thinking" country. The deception would last, in all human probability, for only a few days; but at the end of those days, a new falsehood would be invented, and the old one lost in that. This falsehood, however, does not appear to have lived even 48 hours; for, the very next day after its promulgation brought forth the contradiction; brought forth the complete proof of a fabrication. Surely, Sir, the people of America must despise us! They must despise, or, at least, pity, a nation who are made the sport of such vile literary impostors; base hirelings, who prostitute the press to all the purposes hostile to truth and freedom.

The authentic intelligence received from America appears to be, in substance, this: that the American Government has received intelligence of the repeal of our Orders in Council, but, that it is by no means satisfied therewith, and means to demand a redress of all its alleged griev ances before it lays down its arms. In confirmation of this, the follow

ing paragraph has been quoted from a paper deemed the demi-official paper of the American Government:

"The Orders in Council of the British Government are now no longer a ques"tion with the United States. The question of peace now requires only a proper "and a vigorous use of the ample means which the Government is possessed of, "to render it speedy, decisive, and glorious. Peace, when it comes, must bring "with it more than the confession of British outrage by the retraction of its "avowed tyranny. It is not a mere cessation to do wrong that can now produce a peace; wrongs done must be redressed; and a guarantee must be given in the "face of the world, for the restoration of our enslaved citizens, and the respect "due to our flag, which, like the soil we inherit, must in future secure all that "sails under it. The rights of neutrals must be recognized; and the British, "like the first tyrants of the Swiss, must no longer expect a free people to bow down, and worship the symbols of British usurpation."

66

Did I not tell you so, Sir, in my very last Letter? Did I not say, that America would now demand " indemnity for the past and security for the future?" I wish to guard your Royal Highness against deception, and I, for that purpose, entered into an argument to show, that we ought not to expect America to make peace with us upon our having barely ceased to commit what she asserted to be a violation of her rights. I told your Royal Highness, that she, for more than one reason, must demand something more than a mere cessation to do what she declared to be a wrong. In short, if I had been informed, when I wrote my last Letter, of what I now know, I could not have written otherwise than I then did.

I, therefore, have, I think, some claim to attention from your Royal Highness, especially as I have all along told you, that the repeal of our Orders would not, alone, be sufficient. When the repeal took place, upon the death of Perceval, and when Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Brougham were reported to be making pledges to support a war against America, if that repeal did not satisfy her; at that time; at that important moment, when conciliation might have been rendered complete; even then, without a moment's delay, I told your Royal Highness, that the repeal of the Orders would not, of itself, be enough, and, as will be seen by the pas sage taken for my Motto, I most earnestly besought you to put a stop, of your own accord, to the impressment of persons on board of American ships. If this had been done, Sir; if this measure, so strongly recommended by me, had been adopted then, we should now have seen our ports crowded with American ships to take away our manufactures, instead of hearing of hundreds of American privateers cruising against our

commerce.

The COURIER and TIMES newspapers, two of the most corrupt in England, make certain remarks upon the paragraph which I have quoted from the American demi-official print; and, as these remarks embrace assertions and notions that are false, it is necessary, or, at least, it may be useful, to put the matters of which they treat in a fair light.

The COURIER has this paragraph :

"Here, then, is an open avowal, that nothing will satisfy the American Go"vernment but the abandonment of the right of search, and the acknowledgment "of the principle, that free ships make free goods. Perish the idea of peace, if it " is only to be made on such terms. Yet this the American Government calls an "anxious desire to accommodate all differences upon the most reasonable 'conditions!!!'"