whatever way I will, I cannot, as an Englishman, discover any grounds for deciding, that the late triumph of France over Austria ought to be a subject of very deep regret. I do not like to see Napoleon triumph, because he is a despot; I wish the triumph had settled upon another head; upon the head of a different sort of man; but, I do not, and cannot, see that the triumph itself is calculated to produce any mischievous effect.There is one argument in favour of Austria's going to war, which, even after the hitherto fatal consequences are known, is still persisted in, and which is too curious to be passed over unnoticed. It is this: that Napoleon had resolved, and had the power, to destroy Austria, whether she went to war, or not; and that, therefore, she might as well make a trial to save herself; she might as well take her chance of the consequences of a war. Supposing the premises to be true, the conclusion is certainly correct; and, if those who make use of the argument, will but be so good as to apply it to the case of an oppressed people, I think they will soon cease to be surprized at the indifference of such a people, and at their readiness to take the chances of a change. But, is it not shocking to hear it coolly asserted, that Napoleon, or that any prince, has resolved upon conquering a nation, which contains from twelve to twenty millions of people; and that it is wise for the sovereign of such nation to rush into a war, in order to obtain a chance of escaping being conquered? Why, does not this assertion amount to a confession, that the people of such nation are of no weight at ail; that they take no interest in the matter; or, that they, at bottom, wish for the success of Napoleon? What should have given him such confidence with respect to the conquest of Austria? The answer is ready: he knew, or, at least, he had very good reason for believing, that the twenty millions of people, living in the Austrian dominions, were not disposed to resist him. good answer to those, who talk about the | had not renewed the war with Austria. poverty of the French government, owing to In short, viewing the matter in the loss of commerce, and also to those, who would persuade us of the virtue of the Austrians; but, this is a mere invention; a falshood hatched for the purpose of misleading us; for, how is it possible for us to have any knowledge of such a fact. No; bribery, in this case, was, I am persuaded, unnecessary. He met, and he well knew that he should meet, with nothing like a spirit of resistance. The body of an army he knew he should have to meet; but, of the body without a soul he was not at all afraid.These truths have long been very clear to all men of tolerably accurate information as to such matters; and, it is surprizing to see with what industry and pertinacity they are disguised from the mass of the people of this country. It is surprizing, because one can see no adequate reason for it. Why should not the people be told the truth, relative to the cause of Napoleon's success in other countries? Why not tell them, what we know to be true, that he triumphs because the people of the countries, against which he makes war, are indifferent as to whether he becomes their ruler, or not?————As to the effect, upon the general interests of Europe, which the apparent approaching fall of Austria will have, it is difficult to offer a decided opinion. With respect to our own interests, the change, whatever it may be, does not appear to me to be an object of dread. I do not see how it is to affect us any more than a revolution in Kamschatka would. We are now, and long have been, cut off from all connection with Austria. The only interest that we can reasonably feel, with respect to her, is, for the happiness of her people. I am far from being certain, that the total conquest of Austria might not, by diverting, in part, the attention and the force of Napoleon; by extending his dominion, multiplying the objects of his care, and, of course, dividing his means, operate, for sometime, at least, in favour of England; while, in another point of view, which is too evident to dwell upon, the advantage to us is certain. Having finished his work on the side of Germany, he will, imdced, be enabled to turn his whole force upon Spain and Portugal; and hence, in time, there must arise danger to this country, and particularly to Ireland, unless something efficacious be speedily adopted to render Ireland more secure internally than it now is. But, this would have happened, and sooner too, if Napoleon -Party, as usual, has laid hold of this defeat of the Austrians, to call for a change of ministry in England. Good Lord! As if that would alter the case; as if that would make either the people or the army of Austria more disposed to a resistance of the French! The shape, in which this argument assails the common sense of the country, is this: that the defeat of the Austrians will add to the means, which Napoleon has of injuring us; that we shall Wardle preferred his charges against the 66 stand in need of more wise and vigorous | the cry of a Jacobin Conspiracy, when Mr. councils than we now have, in order to enable us to resist this increase of means in the hands of our enemy; that the late ministers are more wise and vigorous than the present; and that, therefore, the present ought to be turned out and the late restored to power. As I do not agree in any one of the premises, I, of course, reject the conclusion; and, I firmly believe, that a change of ministry, at this time, would be greatly injurious to the country. There would be new lords to make; and, which is much worse, there would be a new batch of pensioners to be fastened upon the public. The feelings and views of both parties, towards the people, is evidentiy the same. There is no difference whatever; and, in point of diligence and ability, the present men are, upon an average, I verily believe, quite equal to their predecessors." It was not, even in the affair of Spain, ability that was wanting. It was a want of right principles; the losses and disgrace, arising from our interference in the southern Peninsula of Europe, are to be ascribed, not to a want of ability in the ministers, but to that vicious systein, which affects our foreign as well as our domestic concerns, and to which system the late ministers have shewn clearly to the whole nation, that they are full as much attached as the present. place under Government was not fit to sit "in that House. Such propositions were "not intended for the sober consideration "of Parliament. No; their object was "to increase the popular ferment, to add "fuel to fire; and to encourage and pro"pagate that dangerous spirit that was circulated with a diligence the most susMR. MADOCKS'S MOTION.On the picious. Spargere voces in vulgus am5th instant Mr. Madocks made a motion, "biguas.'-seemed to be the grand princiin the House of Commons, for taking an ple of action of the leaders of these examination at the bar of the House, upon Meetings. Their aim was to cry down the subject of a charge which he had to "all public men-to render them objects of make against MR. PERCEVAL and LORD "distrust and suspicion."- -Now, in the CASTLEREAGH, relating to the disposing of a first place, it will be observed, that MR. seat in that House. This motion was nega- MADOCKS distinctly stated, that he had tived upon the ground of its not being suf-proofs whereon to ground his charge, and, ficiently specific; and, as it will be that as to ambiguity, he not only stated the brought forward in another shape, I shall offence, but named the alledged offenders. not now offer any remarks upon the al- What ambiguity was here? Was not this ledged fact itself. Indeed, the charge will quite "tangible" enough? Was this a have been made according to the taste of mere slanderous insinuation, calculated for the parties themselves, before this sheet the purpose of exciting distrust and suscan issue from the press. There was, picion? On the contrary, did not Mr. Mahowever, something said, during the de- docks, like Mr. Wardle, expose himself to bate, respecting the proceedings at Public the consequences of a failure in making Meetings, which is well worthy of the at- good his charges? What could be fairer ? tention of every reader.It seems odd, Besides, Mr. Madocks was ready to name at first sight, that the conduct of the Meet- the other particulars of the case; so that this ings of the People, in the several counties charge of ambiguity seems to have been and towns of the kingdom, should have the last that could attach to him.As formed any part of the topics, on this occa- to the contrast, which Mr. Bragge was sion, when so heavy a charge, as that of pleased to draw between the genius and having been guilty of corruption, was pre- spirit of the Public Meetings and the digferred against two of the King's ministers;nity of the House, has the reader seen, at but, we remember the cry of Jacobinism; any of the Meetings, any thing like popu 1 1 it met to decide upon the case, told by tal," why not censure that as well as a condemnation, if they thought it was wrong? In short, if the people have a right to meet, and to express their sentiments relative to the conduct of the House of Commons; if they have a right to do this in any case, the right will serve them in this case as well as in any other; unless, indeed, it should be contended, that the glorious constitution, for which they are called upon "to spend their last lar fury or folly? Does Mr. GEORGE ROSE discover any thing of this sort in the admirable Resolutions, passed in the town of Southampton, the electors of which have expressed their disapprobation of the parliamentary conduct of his son; or, in those of Christchurch, where he himself has met with something similar? He may; but, the nation will not. The truth is, that the cetings, upon the present occasion, are without example for their temper, as well as their respectability; and, whatever may be said about them in the House of Commons, their utility can no more be doubted than their legality.- -As to the "extraordinary proposition," that a man holding a place under government was not fit to sit in the House of Commons, we will first hear Mr. STURGES, upon the same point, and then we will see how the fact stands. He, in the report of the debate, is stated to have said, that "he was proud that he "was no party to such resolutions as "those lately published, stating a clause "in the Act of Settlement as the existing "law of the land, which never was law. "(Here it was observed that it was four "years before it was repealed.) Never till lately had it been seen in this country, "that bodies of people, not present during "a judicial examination, had met to arraign "the conduct of those who found it their duty to acquit one who was accused. "He never till now heard of condemning "the Commons in this manner, for the shilling and to shed the last drop of "exercise of their duty in an acquittal. He "their blood," allows them to meet only "could not conceive how those who for the purpose of praising the conduct of "called themselves the friends of the the parliament.- Now, as to what Mr. "country could reconcile it to their feel- Bragge called the "Extraordinary Propo"ings to degrade the character of the House "sition." There, surely, is something " of Commons."- -Here is new matter, very reasonable in the proposition, that and we will dismiss that first. We are those who are appointed to be the guardi told, that it is something new for persons ans of the public money should not be allowed not present at an examination, to arraign to take any of that money themselves; that the conduct of those who have found it they should not be allowed to take it from their duty to acquit the accused. But, Mr. any quarter, or through any channel, and Sturges, Mr. Sturges, do you not perceive, especially through the Crown, as a check that there has been something new in this upon which the constitution considers. whole affair? That there was something them. This appears to be very reasonnew in crying out Jacobin Conspiracy, able; and yet Mr. Sturges said that he, when a member simply preferred specific was proud that he was no party to a resocharges against a person in the public em-lution, containing such a proposition. Nay, ploy and in the public pay? That there was something new in not permitting the accuser to follow the mode of investigation that he proposed? That there was something new in denouncing, before hand, infamy upon the head of that accuser, in case he should fail to make good his charges? That there was something new in the House being, "before" he is reported to have said that it never was law. He was, it appears, contradicted at the time; but I will make the contradiction in a manner a little more formal. The second act, passed in the twelfth year of the reign of WILLIAM III. contains this clause: "That no person, who has "an office, or place of profit, under the king, or receives a pension from the crown, shall be capable of serving as a "member of the House of Commons." This clause was, in part, repealed in the 4th year of the reign of Queen Anne, and in part since. It is no longer law, I know very well; but, does that circumstance render it absurd? This act of parliament it was, which placed the crown upon the heads of the king's family. This is no common act of parliament. It is one of the great constitutional laws. It changed the dynasty of the kingdom; and, it was made for the express purpose of "further "limiting the crown, and better securing the " rights and liberties of the subject.". Now, Mr. Sturges, will you tell me, that this law, like the act for a toll-gate, may be repealed at pleasure, and ought not to be so much dwelt upon, as if its provisions were unchangeable? Will you tell me this, Sir? Well, then, why did you and your party appeal to it; appeal to this very law against the prayers of the Roman Catholics, and tell us, that if the king consented to those prayers, he would violate the act which placed him upon the throne? -Pray answer that, Sir? -At that time, we heard a great deal about the principles which placed the family of Brunswick upon the throne. True, it was one of those principles, that the Roman Catholic religion should not be suffered to predominate; but, the prohibition contained in the clause I have cited above was not less one of those principles, and, give me leave to add, that it was a principle of much greater importance to the nation. And yet you (a lawyer, I believe) tell us, that it "never was law!" What would you say, Sir, to any one who should assert, that the family of Brunswick came to the crown without law? Yet, it was that very act of parliament, of which this clause forms a part, that gave them, as all the world knows, their title to the crown. Queen Anne's brother was the heir to the crown, she leaving no child; but, the nation, fearing that this brother would, like his father, violate their rights and liberties, passed an act transferring the right of succession from the House of Stuart to the House of Brunswick; and this, which I have quoted from, was that act. And you are reported to have said, that the part which I have quoted "never "was law;" and Mr. Bragge calls it an "extraordinary proposition." That it was a most wise provision reason itself would have taught us, if experience, woeful experience, had not impressed it upon our minds. Had this provision always re mained in force, we never should have had to thank Mr. Wardle for what he has done, because neither he nor any one else would have had it to do. Was it not striking; was it not, Sir, sufficient to strike the most stupid observer, that, against the Duke of York not one of the placemen or pensioners was found to vote?But, if the principle, for which I contend, never was sanctioned by law; if it be so very absurd; why did not you, Sir, when you heard me maintain it, at the last nomination at Winchester, expose my ignorance and absurdity? You were present; you heard me; and why did you not, when the county was assembled to witness your exploit, put me down? Come, come; it will not do to say, that I was beneath your notice. That will not do any longer. The time for that is passed, and you will never see it return. People are now disposed to try things as well as men by the test of truth; and to no other test will they suffer an appeal. Calumny and out-cry have lost their power. If you put me down, therefore, you must do it by true facts or fair argument; and, if you remain silent, the conclusion will be in my favour.-Before I come to what was said as to the general disposition of the Meetings to excite suspicions against, and to make an attack upon, all public men, I must quote from the speech of another member, a gentleman, as it is given in the report, of the name of GooсH, who is stated to have said, "that if the speeches attributed to 'particular persons were literally so, they "went near to destroy what was the most "desirable of all things in the present "state of the country; he meant the una"nimity of the public mind; and tended to "more mischief than all their authors "could retrieve, if they lived to sit in the "House for an hundred years to come. " He would give his feeble assistance to "the prevention of real abuses, but not to "those general attacks of abuses, never "known as such till these pure days! "These public Meetings could only do "mischief. He did not impute improper "motives to individuals, but as to voting 66. public thanks to an Hon. Gent. for his pa"triotism, he would as soon vote them to "Mrs. Clarke for her virtue. (A laugh, "hear! hear!) He would not be deterred " from his opinions by the sentiments of any SET of people. The expressions he "had heard impated to an Hon. Gent., "did him no credit as an Englishman. "He hoped always to see respectable per"sons opposing Government. They were 186 66 "the guardians of the public interest; "but there was a power behind those benches (the Opposition benches) greater "than those benches themselves. That power looked not to Parliament, but to "a faction who would get rid of all par"ties." Now, taking these several points in their due order, how does Mr. Gooch make it out, that the speeches at public Meetings have tended to destroy the unanimity of the public mind. If ever there was, in the whole history of this country, a question upon which the people were unanimous, they are so upon the question relating to the Duke of York. How, then, have the speeches, which have been made for the purpose of inducing the people to express their sentiments upon the subject, tended "to destroy the unanimity of the public mind?" Mr. Gooch speaks ironically of " these pure days;" but, so did not Mr. Perceval speak, when, as Attorney General, he prosecuted the poor, ignorant, HAMLIN, the Tin-man of Plymouth. He, then, talked, in good set terms, of the purity of the present times; and said, that it was due to the age and country, in which we had the honour to live, to declare, that there was no such thing as corruption amongst public men. Nay, at this very time, there is a government prosecution going on against the office-sellers in the city, ordered by a ministry, of which Lord Castlereagh is still a member! So, really, I think that the friends of the ministers ought not to make a jest of the purity of the times. Mr. Gooch would not give Mr. Wardle thanks for what he has done. Very well; and Mr. Canning said before band, that he would oppose a vote of thanks to that gentleman, if it was proposed. That was very well too; but, the nation have felt and acted differently; they have thought that he deserved their thanks, though he might not deserve the thanks of the ministry or the regular Opposition. Their thanks they are giving him; and, I beg those who talk of the "ferment in the public mind;" who talk of "popular fury;" I beg them to observe, that these Meetings have been held by grave corporate bodies as well as by counties and in common-halls. And, I would beg to remind Mr. Sturges, that, at the county-meeting in Hampshire, all those, who spoke against the adoption of the Resolution, which was proposed by me, did, nevertheless, decidedly approve of a vote of thanks to Mr. Wardle, not excepting even the Rev. Mr. Poulter, who is well known to be the constant eulogist of the present ministry, and who, at the Meeting, was, if possible, still louder and more decided than any other person in praise of Mr. Wardle, and told us that he came to the Meeting for the express purpose of giving to Mr. Wardle his decided, his warm, his heart-felt thanks. So that, as to this point, even the partizans of the ministers; their devoted partizans "out of doors,' as it is called, differ from Mr. Gooch and Mr. Canning, for the loss of whose thanks Mr. Wardle will, probably, be able to console himself, when he reflects that that loss has gained him an expression of the thanks of the whole nation.Mr. Gooch, like the two gentlemen before-named, complained of general attacks upon public men. Why, it was formerly the practice to complain of personality. That was the cant cry about a year or two ago. But, how does the fact stand as to these general attacks? The Duke of York was individually accused; Lord Castlereagh was so accused; and Mr. Perceval is now so accused, as we have seen, by Mr. Maddocks. What ground is there, then, for this complaint of general attacks? To be sure, there are very general suspicions, and, pray, was not Mr. Creevey's honest and bold declaration very well calculated to excite such suspicions; especially as no one was found to deny the charge made by that gentleman?In answer to this complaint of Mr. Gooch, we have, I think, only to quote the speech of MR. CREEVEY and the answer of MR. PERCEVAL, of the 20th of last month; and, these may, too, serve as an answer to what the Gentleman said about the attempts to cry down both parties; for, we shall see, that according to the news-paper report of that memorable debate, the answer of Mr. Perceval did not contain any denial of the charge, but a recrimination upon the late Ministry; and, indeed, who can have forgotten, that several months of the last session of parliament were taken up in mutual accusations of the two parties; not that I complain of their time having been so employed, being convinced that their falling out had an excellent effect upon the nation, but, after that, I really think it a little hard that the people should be so abused for entertaining suspicions of both parties; or for making one general attack upon them. Surely the people may be allowed to think of both, that which each of them boldly says of the other.But, let us hear Mr. Creevey and Mr. Perceval." Mr. Creevey said, that the Noble Lord was |