me to be much more conclusive as to the main point. It was this: that he had, for 20 years past, had an intimate knowledge of the pecuniary concerns of the Duke of York; that he had been acquainted with all his embarrassments (of the cause of which, however, he did not speak); that, in all his transactions with the Duke, he had found him extremely unreserved, fair, and correct; that he never heard of any concerns with Mrs. Clarke and the like; that he thought he must have heard something of them, if they had had any existence; and that, therefore, the accusation must be false. The report of Mr. Adam's speech must, certainly, be incorrect; for, it is incredible, that a gentleman, who is so well able to reason, and who has so long been accustomed to weigh arguments with such nicety, should have drawn, either expressly or by inference, so illogical a conclusion; a conclusion destroyed, at once, if we perceive, that it proceeds solely upon premises, which are matter of opinion. All that Mr. Adam asserts positively, I, for my part, who have good reason to know and be grateful for his wisdom and integrity, implicitly believe; but, there may, without any impeachment of any of the excellent qualities of his head or heart, be great doubts with respect to the fact, whether, if an illicit commerce in commissions existed, he would necessarily hear of it; nay, it may be thought, that he would be amongst the last men in the world who would be made acquainted therewith. former, I agree with him; but, not so, if he meant Mr. Wardle; for, if that were to be admitted, what would become of the characters of Attornies and Solicitors, high as well as low, who prefer accusations against men, who are acquitted? Will Mr. Canning say, that "infamy" attached to sir John Scott (now lord Eldon), because Mr. Horne Tooke was, upon a charge of treason preferred by sir John, proved to be innocent of the charge, being acquitted by a jury, which acquittal corresponded with the charge of a most learned and upright judge? No. Mr. Canning will not say this. It must, however, not only be said, but proved, before it will be admitted, that "infamy" will attach to Mr. Wardle, though his charges against the Duke should, like those against Mr. Horne Tooke, finally appear, from the best possible evidence, to be false; except, indeed, it should be made appear, that the charges originated with Mr. Wardle; that he hatched the facts; that he has hired and bribed spies and informers ; that, in short, he has formed a conspiracy to injure, by base means, the reputation of the accused person. Mr. Yorke qualified his phrase of "heavy responsibility" by afterwards saying, that he hoped Mr. Wardle had, at least, " probable grounds" for what he had done. This was right; and, giving to Mr. Canning's words the application above-pointed out, I agree with them; but, if infamy" were to attach to a member, who failed to prove a The next point that presents itself is case put into his hands, the House of Comthat of the "heavy responsibility," to which mons would be in a pretty situation. it was said, that air. Wardle had subjected "The freedom of debate" would soon be himself. Almost ail the honourable inem- reduced to a level with another sort of bers, who spoke in praise of the Duke of freedom, of which we shall speak by-andYork, used some phrase or other expres- by. Suppose a case of a different nature. sive of their pleasure at what Mr. Wardie Suppose a good, honest, well-meaning had done. The Secretary at War declar-member of parliament to be informed, ed his great satisfaction at it; Sir Arthur Wellesley rejoiced three times and was glad once; Mr. Yorke was glad twice and once happy; and Mr. Canning congratulated the Duke of York upon the matter being brought forward. This cannot fail to give the country a high opinion of the independence and love of impartial justice in these gentlemen. Yet, somehow or other, they did, most of them, seem to be deeply impressed with a risk, of some sort, that Mr. Wardle ran, from having performed this pleasure-giving task. Mr. Yorke called it a "heavy responsibility ;" and Mr. Canning said, that "infamy must attach, either upon the accused or the accuser." If Mr. Canning meant, by the accuser, the in 66 that there is, even at this late day, a plot against the life of the king, and for the purpose of overturning the monarchy," upsetting "regular government," overthrowing "social order," and blowing up" our holy religion," and that the conspirators (names this and that) with all their books and papers, all their bloody and anti-christian implements, were at that moment hard at work in some garret in St. Giles's. Suppose this; suppose the good man to inform the House of it; suppose the king's messengers, the police magistrates, the horse guards, dispatched to the scene of brooding destruction, with an order to bring to the bar every creature there found; and, suppose the conspira tors to consist of a poor old woman and her cat. Would it be fair, would it be just, to say that infamy attached to the good hoaxed gentleman? No. He might be reasonably enough laughed at for his credulity; but, even the parties accused could not justly charge him with infamy. In this case of Mr. Wardle, as in all other cases of a similar nature, the blame, if any, must be in proportion to the want of grounds, not for the charges themselves, but for his belief of them; and, therefore, however the proof may turn out, if it appear, that Mr. Wardle did receive information of the facts, which he has stated; that the informants are persons whose oath would be taken in a court of justice, and be sufficient for the hanging of any one of their neighbours in common life; and especially if it should be proved, that, amongst these informants, there be one, or more, of character so respectable as to have lived in habits of intimacy with the person accused; if this should be made appear, the public will, I am of opinion, agree with me, that, so far from any blame attaching to Mr. Wardle, he would have been guilty of a scandalous neglect of his duty, if he had refused, or delayed, to do what he has done. the regret of all those who admire excellent and most powerful writing, is published only four times a year, and which work, in only one single article upon the subject of the Methodistical doctrines, has done more good to the country, than all the writings of all the trading AntiJacobins, than all the hundreds and thousands of volumes, all the waggon-loads and ship-loads of printed trash, that have issued upon, and disgusted the world, from this, at once, vapid and polluted source. From this abundant, this overflowing tide, this Nile of venality, corruption, filth, falshood, venom, and all uncharitableness, we have heard it asserted, that a Jacobinical conspiracy is in existence, and accordingly, to the assertion we have turned a deaf ear. But, now, when it is made in parliament; when it comes from such high authority, we must not only give it belief, but must accompany that belief with our regret, that the important, the awful, truth, was not sooner officially proclaimed, and that it should have been kept back until the moment, when distinct charges of corruption and profligacy, of the very worst sort, were, however unjust they may finally appear, made, by a member of parliament, against the perI now come to a part of the debate, to son, at whose reputation the "CONwhich I must beg leave earnestly to crave SPIRATORS" are said to be levelling the reader's most serious attention; after their most deadly shafts. That the which allusion he will readily conclude conspiracy does exist, and has, for some that I mean that part which relates to an months (I think, that's it) existed, there existing CONSPIRACY in this country. can, however, be now no doubt; that it Not an imaginary thing like the one above has an existence, not like the real presence supposed; but a real conspiracy, for the in the wafer; not a legerdemain or metapurpose, as Mr. Yorke described it, of phorical existence; nothing of priesttalking and writing down the Duke of York, craft or law-fiction about it; but, that and, through him, and the Generals of the there is, in England (oh! poor England), army, the army itself; of talking and writing amongst the dwellings of John Bull, at down all the establishments of the country; this very time, without any mental reserwhich description, with somewhat of limi- vation, a Jacobinical Conspiracy; a contation, appears to have been repeated by spiracy of corporéal beings, for the purMr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh. pose, as lord Castlereagh expressed it, Coming from such high and grave authori- "of overthrowing the monarchical branch ty the statement demands our attention. We of the Constitution."- -Mr. Yorke must have, indeed, seen publications in some of understand these things better than we, in the news-papers, stating something about the country, do; but, to us, a talking conan existing design, in certain persons, to spiracy is something new, and calls to my overthrow "social order;" to undermine, mind Dennis's admirable criticism upon at the instigation of the devil, our happy the tragedy of Cato. "What, the Devil!” constitution in church and state; and, we says he, "are your conspirators come have lately seen, a stupid author, in a "here again, to hold, aloud, treasonable dirty pamphlet about Jacobinism, ad- dialogues in Cato's own hall?" The man, dressed to the Earl of Lonsdale, hammer-who, in one of Beaumont and Fletcher's ing his brains, to shew, that the Edinburgh Reviewers have formed a plan, a regular system, for effecting this wicked purpose, by the means of their Review, which, to plays, is apprehended as a conspirator, when his real sin is mere gluttony, is accused upon the ground of his half-uttered sentences, while in eager search for a cod's head instead of that of his sovereign. | And, indeed, the great characteristic of conspirators heretofore has been that of cautiousness, and silence; but, as we are now assured, from such high authority, that there is actually a talking conspiracy on foot, it becomes us all to put a bridle in our mouths, that "we of fend not with our tongue."- -As to the writing part of the conspiracy, I have, I must confess, observed things that appeared to me to lean this way; and upon reading the debate, above inserted, I looked over the Courier news-paper, from the eleventh to the twenty-sixth of this month, comprizing a space of fifteen days, or half a month. The following are amongst the Jacobinical productions that I found, and I lay them before a public, that, I am sure, will participate in the abhorrence which I entertain of the mean and villainous miscreants, from whose pens they proceeded. vernment are to be bought and sold, pretty much in the same way as beef or mutton. There are about twelve daily papers in London, and if we reckon on the above standard, at eight, a month, for each paper, it will make 1,152 of these publications in a year; publications, each of which amounts to an assertion, that, at least, in the opinion of the writer, the offices under the government, the salaries of which ought to go to pay for services to the public, are sold, and the price put into the pockets of such women or men as can procure the bestowing of the places. These, indeed, are writings that tend to the destruction of "the monarchical branch of "the Constitution;" and, how it happens that they have never been noticed, I must leave the reader to find out.-Oh! the sad rogues! They would persuade us, that they can buy, actually deal for, cheapen, and buy, for a sum of money, to go into the pocket of some woman, those very salaries which we pay for the doing of the nation's business! If this is not striking at "social order" and "regular government," I should be glad to know what is. -Mr. PERCEVAL, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, as will be seen by referring to the debate, that "it was not for him to tell the house, that, in this great "capital, it might happen that foolish persons were frequently deceived by adver tisements in the public papers, announcing the disposal of official patronage ; " and, perhaps, it has, occasionally, TURN"ED OUT, that the very persons, who "were originally DECEIVED by these "advertisements to make applications, did ultimately obtain the very appointments for "which they had endeavoured to negociate." 16 -Eh?.... How's that? .... Yes! I see it now; I see it now, as clear as daylight. Aye, aye; that is plain enough. Foolish It is just as Mr. Perceval said. people, seeing places advertised for sale, were deceived by them; but, it occasionally turned out, that these same foolish and deceived people did, in the end, get those very places, which the advertisements invited them to purchase.This explanation cannot, I should hope, fail to produce a very salu tary effect. think it necessary, at present, to make any The last part of the debate, upon which I remark, is that which related to libels and the liberty of the press. I have so recently discussed this subject, that it is quite irksome to return to it; yet, what was said in the debate, especially by Mr. Yorke and Mr. Canning, strongly urges me to say something, though it be mere repetition. -Both these gentlemen said, that there had been a series of libels published against the duke of York; which may be very true; and, if they mean falsehood as an essential ingredient to constitute a libel, no man in all the world can wish the libellers to be punished more sincerely than I do; though I cannot help repeating what I have a thousand times said, that I do not think, that an aspersion upon the character of any man, was ever wiped off by an appeal to the law. No man ever practised what he preached more strictly than I do this doctrine. I have been, for about thirteen years, and am at this very day (see the Morning Post of Monday last,) the object of almost continual printed calumny. Not calumny conveyed in inuendoes, but in downright charges of the most infamous nature. I do not think, that there is a crime known to man, that I have not, either in America, or at home, been charged with. Knowing them to be false, those charges never gave me a moment's uneasiness. Once in a while, I have given a contradiction to lies, and have exposed misrepresentations. Trusting to the force of truth, I have, for the most part, left falsehood and malice to work their way; and, I do not believe, that in the opinion of one single sensible man that ever even heard of me, I have suffered, in the smallest degree, by the publications that have been made against me; and, as for fools, it is no matter what are their opinions.-But, there were two positions, one from Mr. Yorke and the other from Mr. Canning, to which I am disposed to pay particular attention.-The first of these gentlemen said, that libels had, of late, been more abundant, against persons in authority, than at any former period, in this country, so fertile in libels; and the latter said, that, in publications, rank ought to be regarded like sex, and that, to assail persons of exalted rank, was an act of baseness and cowardice, equal to that of assaulting a defenceless woman.—Mr. Canning may have been misrepresented by the reporters; they may not have caught his meaning; but, if they did, that meaning is decidedly hostile to my sentiments upon the subject; nay, it is the very reverse of those sentiments. There was much said about the " blessings of a "free press;" but, if it be to be regarded as an act of baseness to assail men of rank, I should be glad to know in what those "blessings" consist? The "freedom of "the press" means, the freedom of ex amining and exposing the actions of public men; men who are entrusted with the nation's affairs; and these are necessarily men of high rank. If the "freedom of the press" has not this meaning, it has no meaning at all, and all the talk about it is nonsense; and, therefore, according to this new doctrine, to use the freedom of the press at all, is an act of baseness and cowardice. Of all bad, or despicable, qualities, that of cowardice is the last that I should have expected to hear imputed to an unsupported individual, who assails men in power. Cowardice might, indeed, well be imputed to those, who, supported by the powerful, should send their publications forth like a mail coach, under government protection. To those, who, thus backed, should assail individuals, pour out upon them all sorts of calumnies, having no dread of punishment, cowardice may well be imputed. Here the charge of cowardice is due; for, not only would the calumniator be pretty secure from the dangers to which the opponents of men in power are exposed; but, worst come to worst, he would be sure of a compensation for his pains and his losses.I have never yet got any answer to this question: "What is freedom of the press ?" I want an answer to this question from some one of those, who talk of the "licentiousness of "the press." It does not consist in publishing books upon planting, farriery, or fox-hunting. There is not a despot upon earth, who attempts to prevent such publications. In short, it is farcical to talk about freedom of the press, unless by it we mean the right, the acknowledged legal right, of freely expressing our opinions, be they what they may, respecting the character and conduct of men in power; and of stating any thing, no matter what, if we can prove the truth of the statement. -In this sense the freedom of the press is a great "blessing." In this sense it is "a terror to evil doers, and a reward to those who do well;" but, if the freedom of the press means, that we are not to assail men in power; that they are to be as sacred from the quill as women are from the sword; while, on the other hand, the press is to praise them as much as it pleases; then, the "freedom of the press" is the greatest curse that ever fell upon a nation. It is in the character and conduct of men in power that the public are interested. These are the very matters, upon which they want, and ought to receive information. The babble of the day is of no public utility. The particulars of who nius, whose works are read with such ad- Lo; at the wheels of her triumphal car, Shew there was one who held it iu disdain. In many walks or rides out with the king; of where | and when the Duke of York salutes his royal parents; of the breakfasts and dances at Frogmore; of generals Cartwright and Fitzroy's going to chapel and hearing a sermon; of the cabinet and other grand dinners: these may amuse some few gossipping people; but of what use are they to the nation? Of full as little use are dissertations containing merely general principles, without a direct application of them to men and things of the present day. -But, we are sometimes told, that we may discuss the characters and measures of men in power, taking care not to hurt their feelings; that is to say, taking care never to blame either the men or the measures; for, if blamed, it follows of course, that their feelings must be hurt. We have been talked to a great deal about decency in these discussions; and we are now told, that we, of this day, are abusive; indeed, censure, or even disapprobation, however expressed, is now-a-days, always called abuse. We are charged, too, with being foul-mouthed; coarse; personal; and are accused of surpassing in libellousness the writers of all former times. These assertions have heen often made; but now, at a moment when there are so many persons under government prosecution for libels; now, when all the venal writers seem to have formed a conspiracy against the character, and, perhaps, the lives of those prosecuted persons, by exciting in the mind of those who are to be their jurors," which fools are so apt to fall into, and a prejudice against them; now it is absolutely necessary to inquire into the truth of such assertions.The writers of former times; times when not a thousandth part of the present corruptions prevailed; the writers (from some of whose works I am forming a collection to be published hereafter) who, in those times of comparative purity, surpassed in boldness, the writers of the present day; the bare names of those writers would fill a volume. I will, however, content myself with some extracts from POPE, who was one of the greatest scholars, the most acute reasoners, the most independent and virtuous men, and, without exception, the brightest genius that England ever produced. When he wrote, in the last reign, and in the year 1758, the laws and constitution of England were as well understood as they now are, and loyalty was not less a virtue than it now is. Corruption (under the administration of sir Robert Walpole) was only in its infancy. Now, then, let us hear how this accomplished scholar, this great ge This is only one instance. others he named the corrupt persons. But, POPE was called a "libeller;" and, in his preface to that part of his inestimable works, from which the above extract is made, he observes, that "there is not in "the world a greater error, than that "knaves with good reason to encourage, "the mistaking a satyrist for a libeller." He says, that the clamour raised on some of his former writings, induced him to bring before the public the writings of HORACE and Dr. DONNE. With a similar view I now appeal to him, who exceeded them both in genius, and yielded to neither in any estimable quality. Having shown the public with what freedom those authors wrote, he next gives us his own sentiments upon what was, by the venal tribe of his day, called libellous, gross, coarse, filthy, brutal, personal and seditious; and one cannot help being struck with the exact similarity in the clamours of that day and the clamours of this; though, indeed, there is nothing wonderful in it, seeing that profligacy and corruption, being always the same in nature, must always have the same antipathies, as surely as vipers of the present day inherit the fears as well as the poison of their progenitors of a century ago. Here, in the following extracts, we have all the old |