tyranny. Very true of French tyranny: but, that did not hinder him from expecting them to be the enemy of impressing men from on board their ships; and, it should have been shown how this disposition proved them to be a willing instrument to French tyranny, or of any tyranny at all.

It is useless to revile; it is useless to fly off to other matter. We impress men on board of American ships upon the high seas; we take out (no matter whether by mistake or otherwise) American seamen as well as English; we force them to fight on board our ships; we punish them if they disobey. And, when they, after years of complaints and remonstrances, take up arms in the way of resistance, we tell them that they show themselves the willing instruments and abettors of French tyranny.

I wish sincerely that this passage had been omitted. There are other parts of the " DECLARATION" that I do not like; but this part appears to me likely to excite a great deal of ill-will; of lasting, of rooted, illwill.

I do not like the word "professed," as applied to the American principles of freedom. The meaning of that word, as here applied, cannot be equivocal, and assuredly would have been better left out, especially as we never see, in any of the American documents, any expressions of the kind applied to us and to our Government.

But, to take another view of the matter, why should His Royal Highness expect the Americans to be disinclined towards France, because they profess principles of freedom? Why should he, on this account, expect that they would lean to our side in the war?

Does the Declaration mean to say, that the Government of France is more tyrannical than was that monarchy, for the restoration of which a league was made in Europe in the years 1792 and 1793? From its tone, the Declaration may be construed to mean, that our Government is more free than that of France, and that, therefore, we might have expected the Americans, who profess principles of freedom, to be on our side in a contest against " French tyranny.”

Hem! Mum!

• Well, well ! We will say nothing about the matter ; but, it must be cleat to every one, that the Americans may have their own opinion upon the subject; and, they may express it too, until we can get at them with an ex-officio. They may have their own opinion upon the matter; and their opinion may possibly differ from ours. They are, to be sure, at a great distance; but, they are a reading and an observing and a calculating people; and, I'll engage, that there is not a farmer in the back States who is not able to give a pretty good account of the blessings of "English Liberty."

Besides, leaving this quite out of the question; supposing that the Americans should think us freemen and the French slaves, why should that circumstance prevent them from leaning to the side of France ? What examples of the effect of such morality amongst nations have the Regent's ministers to produce? How often have we seen close alliances between free and despotic States against States either free or despotic? How often have we been on the side of despots against free States ? England was once in offensive alliance with France against Holland ; Holland and France against England; and, it ought never to be forgotten, that England, not many years ago, favoured the invasion of Holland and the subjugation of the States-General by a Prussian army.

Have we not formed alliances with Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain, Naples, and all the petty princes of Germany, against the Republic of France? Nay, have we refused, in that war, the co-operation of Turkey and Algiers? And, as for the old Papa of Rome, the Whore of Babylon," as our teachers call him, his alliance has been accounted holy by us, and his person an object of our peculiar care and protection.

Why, then, are we to expect, that America is to refrain from consulting her interests, if they be favoured by a leaning towards France? Why is she to be shut out from the liberty of forming connections with a despotism, supposing a despotism now to exist in France?

The truth is, that, in this respect, as in private life, it is interest alone that guides and that must guide; and, in my mind, it is not more reasonable to expect America to lean on our side on account of the nature of the Government of our enemy, than it would be to expect a Presbyterian to sell his sugar to a Churchman, because the only man that bade him a higher price was a Catholic.

Here I should stop; but, an article, upon the same subject, in the Morning Chronicle of the 13th instant, calls for observation.

Upon the falsehoods and impudence of the Times and the Courier, that is to say, the principal prints on the side of the Wellesley party and that of the Ministers, I have remarked often enough. I was anxious to hear what the Whigs had to say, and here we have it. Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Brougham had pledged themselves to support the war, if America was not satisfied with the repeal of the Orders in Council; and here we have the grounds of that support. On this account the article is interesting, and, of course, worthy of an attentive perusal.

"Notwithstanding the tedious length of the papers on both sides, the question "between the Court of London and the Government of the United States is "simply the right of impressment of seamen on board trading ships-and this is, "in truth, the sole cause of the war. If we were to examine the value of this "cause to the two parties, it cannot be denied but that to the Americans it is ex"ceedingly slight, and to the British highly material. The Americans cannot "regard it as an insult, because it is a right which has been at all times asserted "and acquiesced in by Sovereign States respectively. Then, viewed as an injury "what is it? That they shall go to war to prevent British subjects who have "forfeited their allegiance, abandoned their country, and left their families pro"bably starving, from being impressed on board their merchant-vessels-that is "to say; they claim the right to afford an asylum and employ the refuse of the "British navy-men without principle, for it is only the profligate that are likely "to become the objects of their protection. In this view, then, the point is of "little consequence to the Americans, but it is interesting to the British to assert "the power inherent in every State to reclaim its subjects; and the time may "come when the principle would be equally important to America herself. "But, say the American Ministers, it is not so much the right itself, as the "violent and insulting mode of exercising it that we complain of; for we have upon reflection agreed in the principle of international law, that free bottoms "do not make free goods, and therefore we have no objection to the search of our merchant-ships for contraband of war; but, in that case, whenever warlike "stores, &c. are found on board an American vessel, she is detained and carried "into a port, for adjudication by a competent Court. Whether the adjudication "be always impartial or not is another affair, but in this respect nations are on an equal footing, and these Admiralty Courts, well or ill-conducted, are recog"nized by all maritime nations. But with respect to the impressment of seamen, the act is violent because summary, and because it is subject to no re"visalto no adjudication—and because the individual seized has no means of "redress. By this sort of reasoning there is a tacit admission on the part of "America, that it is not to the act itself which they object so much as to the manner of the act; and accordingly we see various suggestions made by Ame

"ricans, for entering into an amicable discussion on the means of getting over "the outrageous way in which the right is exercised, and of giving security to "both nations against the abuse in question. On the other side, Lord Castle"reagh declares the readiness of the British Government to receive and discuss 66 any proposition on this subject coming from the American Government; "though he would not enter into a negotiation, a preliminary to which should "be the concession of this right, and so far we think he was clearly right.

"But is it not monstrous that two people of common origin, and of almost "inseparable interests, should remain at war on a point upon which there is so "little difference between them? Surely without any sacrifice of etiquette on "either side, the expedients might be canvassed, by which this mighty cause of war might be removed. Let each party promulgate their thoughts on the "subject, and if there be an honest disposition to peace, it must follow.

"The argument on both sides is short, and may be put in a few words. The "agreement ought to be so drawn as to make it most dangerous to the Captain "of an American ship to employ a British seaman on board; and, on the other "side, to make it equally dangerous for a British Captain to seize and carry "off an American seaman, under pretext of his being a British subject. Or, in "other words, it ought to be made their interest to abstain from those two "causes of national offence. Various modes have been suggested for this pur"pose.-The most effectual undoubtedly would be to ordain by a treaty, that the "subjects of each power, if found on board the merchants' vessels of the other, "should be considered in the nature of contraband of war, inasmuch as their "natural Sovereign was thereby deprived of their service in war, and that that "should be a cause to detain the vessel for adjudication. By this the American "Captain or his owners would most seriously suffer by having British seamen on "board; and, on the other hand, the British Captain would equally suffer, if "he had all the risk and loss to incur of an improper detention. Against this, "however, the arguments are strong. The American Captain may have been "imposed upon by the similarity of language, &c.; and when brought into one "of our ports, where there is a competent Court to adjudge the point, a real "American seaman might find it impossible to adduce proofs of his nativity. "Besides, in both events, the penalty would be inordinate.

"

"Another suggestion has been made, that the British naval officer impressing a seaman on board an American vessel, and vice versa, should be bound to "make a certificate in duplicate (or what the French call a proces verbal), to the "fact, one copy of which he should deliver to the American Captain, and trans"mit the other to the Admiralty to be filed; and that the seaman seized should "have his action for damages in the Courts of Law, the certificate to be pro"duced by the Admiralty as proof of the trespass, if the person can prove him"self to be a native of the country that he pretended to be. We confess we "think that this ought to satisfy both Governments, for this would make officers "cautious in exercising the right which at the same time cannot be safely sur"rendered."

This is poor, paltry trash. But, it contains one assertion, which I declare to be false. It is here asserted, that "the right of impressment "of seamen on board of trading ships, is a right which has, at all times "been asserted, and acquiesced in by sovereign states respectively."—I give this an unqualified denial. I say, that it is a right, which no nation has before asserted, and that no nation evei acquiesced in.

Let the Morning Chronicle name the nation that has ever done either: let him cite the instance of such a practice as we insist upon; let him name the writer, every English writer, on public law, who has made even an attempt to maintain such a doctrine; nay, let him name the writer, who has laid down any principle, or maxim, from which such a right can possibly be deduced. And, if he can do none of these, what assurance, what a desperate devotion to faction, must it be to enable a man to make such an assertion! The assertion of the "value of the cause" being slight to America, in comparison to what it is to us, has no better foundation. The value! what is of value, what is of any value at all, if the

liberty and lives of the people of America are of no value? And when we know, when no man will deny, when official records of the fact exist, that hundreds of native Americans have been impressed and sent to serve on board our ships of war: when this is notorious; when it neither will nor can be denied, what is of value to America if this cause be not of value?-As to the proposition for making English seamen "contraband of war," it is so impudent, it is so shameful, it is even so horrid, that I will do no more than just name it, that it may not escape the reader's indignation. Indeed, there needs no more than the reading of this one article to convince the Americans, that all the factions in England are, in effect, of one mind upon the subject of this war; and, I am afraid, that this conviction will produce consequences, which we shall have sorely to lament, though I shall, for my own part, always have the satisfaction to reflect, that every thing which it was in my power to do, has been done, to prevent those consequences. WM. COBBETT.

Botley, 14th January, 1813.

THE LUDDITES.

(Political Register, July, 1812.)

Message of the Prince Regent to the two Houses of Parliament.— Sealed Papers and Secret Committee.-Nature of the Ballot for a Committee.-Publications in the TIMES and COURIER newspapers for the purpose of Feeling the Public Pulse.

"Englishmen, now is your time to watch the WHIGS!"

No. I.

THIS is the title which I intend to give to the several articles, which I shall necessarily have to write upon the subject of the measures now about to be adopted by the Government, with regard to the counties of England, which have for some time past, been in a state of disturbance.— It is well known, that the frame-breakers in Nottingham took the name of Luddites; that this name has since spread into the neighbouring counties; and that several counties have, for many months, been in a state of great trouble.

On Saturday, the 27th June, the following Message was delivered to the two Houses of Parliament, to the Lords by VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH and to the Commons by LORD CASTLEREAGH:

“GEORGE P. R.-His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the name and " on behalf of his Majesty, has given orders that there be laid before the House "of Commons, Copies of Information received by his Majesty's Government, "relative to certain violent and dangerous proceedings, in defiance of the laws, "which have taken place, and which continue to take place, in certain counties “of the kingdom.-His Royal Highness confidently relies on the wisdom of the "House of Commons that they will adopt such measures as are necessary to se"cure the lives and property of the peaceable and loyal inhabitants of the dis"turbed districts, and to restore order and tranquility."

The first remark that presents itself here is, that, so long as three

weeks ago, Lord Castlereagh assured the House of Commons, that the accounts which were received by Government from the disturbed counties were very satisfactory, more and more so every day.

Either, therefore, he was misinformed, or the people have relapsed.

On Monday the 29th of June, both Houses voted, without a division, an Address to the Regent, promising to take the subject into their consideration, and to adopt such measures as might be necessary to ensure the end pointed out in the latter part of the Message.

Upon this VITAL subject we must be very particular as to the names of all the actors.

Lord Liverpool supported the motion in the Lords, which was made by Lord Sidmouth; and Lord Stanhope moved an amendment, the object of which was to shut out any project for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Lord Holland went with Lord Stanhope; but the motion was adopted.

N.B. Not a word against the motion by Lord Grenville or Lord Grey. In the Commons the motion was made by LORD CASTLEREAGH. Mr. Whitbread and Sir Francis Burdett expressed their hope that nothing was about to be attempted against the great constitutional laws of England.

The next thing that was done was the making of a motion in both Houses for the appointment of a SECRET Committee to examine and report upon certain papers that were laid upen the table, SEALED UP! The motion was, in the House of Commons (to which we will now confine ourselves), that the Committee should be appointed by ballot; that is to say, in fact, appointed by the Ministry.

What passed upon this subject was very interesting indeed. I will, therefore, insert it, and I beg the reader, especially if he be a young man, to make a point of bearing it in mind.

"LORD CASTLEREAGH then moved, that the Papers he had this day present"ed, should be referred to a Committee, that it be a Committee of Secresy, and "that the number of Members be 21, which were severally ordered. His Lord66 ship likewise moved, that the members be chosen by ballot.-Mr. WHITBREAD protested against this mode of proceeding, since, it would give the Noble Lord "the appointment of every Member of the Committee. He wished that the Mem"bers of it should be publicly named and chosen, that the House, and not the "Noble Lord, might have the formation of the Committe. (Hear!) - LORD "CASTLEREAGH persisted in his motion, since he was certain that on no side of "the House on such a question would party feelings be exercised; he was con"vinced that it would be treated by Parliament in a manner, which while it did "it honour, would give satisfaction to the people.-Sir F. BURDETT, looking at "the precedents to which Mr. Whitbread had referred, could not help feeling "great jealousy as to the conduct of Government; he hoped that the bounds of "the Constitution would not anew be transgressed by them. The mode in "which the Committee was formed, if the satisfaction of the people were looked to, was of the utmost importance. (Hear, hear!) It ought to be of such a "description, that the country would place reliance upon its wisdom and im"partiality, and not to be merely composed of the creatures of ministerial nomi"nation.-The question, that the Committee be chosen by ballot was then put "and carried, though there were a long number of dissentient voices.-On the 66 question that Members prepare lists, and appear to-morrow to put them into "the classes appointed for their reception, Mr. WHITBREAD declared that he "should not attend for that purpose, as experience had shown that it would be "useless, since any list he might prepare would be smothered in the vast heap "of names supplied by the Noble Lord and his political friends. It was ordered "that the Papers cominunicated by the Prince Regent should remain sealed, un"til the appointment of the Committee."

From this the reader will form his opinion of the nature of a ballot.