VOL. VI. No. 2.]

PRICE 10D

66

33]

MR. PITT.

SIR-As it appears from the speech which Mr. Pitt made in the House of Commons on the 18th of last month, and from the language used by his partisans and pamphleteers, that he means to impute inconsistency to those who some time ago expressed their eager wishes to see him return to power, and who now that he has returned are in opposition to his ministry, I think it may be of importance to bestow upon this point a little examination.I confess for one, that I never did participate in the wishes to which I allude. Not entertaining such an opinion of Mr. Pitt as could authorize the use of any, the simplest compliment, I certainly could not agree in the propriety of using one of the very highest degree. And, Sir, it has always appeared to me, that the compliment here referred to would have sounded better from the mouth of Mr. Canning, or Mr. S. Bourne, or Mr. C. Long, or other such adherents. But, laying this point aside, let us come to the use which Mr. Pitt and his partisans are endeavouring to make of these (which I should cali) lapsus lingue.I would premise, that Mr. P. and myself are not agreed on the very expressions of the compliment. For he asserts, that it was said, that he, he alone, and he only, could save the state. This interpretation I deny. But allowing that this was the sense of the words used, I would observe: 1. That the same words have different forces and almost different meanings according to the purposes for which they are used; that you must not always understand language precisely as you find it explained in a dictionary, but as it is used in common life for the purpose of expressing the idea which is wished to be expressed; that though, in interpreting a statute, or a piece of argument, every word is to be taken in its strictest and literal sense, yet that greater latitude is allowed to other compositions; such, as in the familiar intercourse by letter, in conversation, &c. but most of all is latitude allowed in congratulatory or complimentary addresses, such as those, Mr. Pitt's comment on which has now induced me to take up the pen.

66

[34

-If Mr. Pitt was ever in love with a lady, he may have used the expressions of angel," or "divine creature," to the object of his love: yet, I suspect, he would have been much surprised as well as alarmed at an attempt to bind him down to a line of conduct and action corresponding with the literal meaning of his complimentary expressions.——2. I would suggest to Mr. Pitt, that if compliments were to be interpreted literally by any one, certainly they ought not to be so interpreted by the person to whom they are addressed, and that, if that person has forfeited the attention which suggested the compliment by a fault of his own, it is foolish to remind the other of it; if by the fault of the other, at best it is ungenerous. A new mistress might say, I will not believe your expressions of compliment; they are false, and will make no impression; but, if the old one, who experienced this inconstancy were to reproach her lover with his former sighs and vows, this would be but a bad way to reclaim him; and if this inconstancy arose from good cause of anger proved on her part, from the discovery of infidelity or of profligacy, to recall to him the expressions of his former love would be the excess of folly and presumption-it might convict him of blindness and infatuation, but it would, at the same time, convict her of such excessive vice, that even blindness and infatuation were not proof against it. -3. I would remind Mr. Pitt, that it is very possible to change an opinion, without being fairly chargeable with inconsistency. Where is the man who will say, that an opinion may not be honestly and conscientiously changed? Where is the man who thought well of Mr. Pitt, not only when these compliments were uttered, but six months ago only, who will not admit this? Least of all, I presume, will Mr. Pitt deny this position, seeing his own conduct on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, the Catholic Question, &c. &c. But if he does not admit it, I think, considering their present near connexion he will soon be argued into it by that able arguer and discreet actor my Lord Castlereagh.4. But supposing the very reverse of the propositions main

tained under these three heads to be the fact; suppose it be right to interpret compliments strictly; suppose the person to whom they are addressed with all becoming modesy is the fittest person to put that strict interpretation upon them, and to apply them to himself; and suppose, lastly, that an opinion in favour of Mr. Pitt can never be honestly changed; admitting all this, I still would hint to Mr. Pitt not to recall to the world these expressions of compliment; which, however fair on the outside seem to me to contain within the most cutting sarcasm. I think this will appear upon a review of the circumstances in which they were used. They were these: the affairs of the country were under the direction of a ministry, whose every act appeared to some persons acts of folly, weakness, and imbecility. Such were the persons who used the expressions of compliment. The person of whom it was used, had, up to that time, not only abstained from expressing any disapprobation of the measures of that ministry, but had actually given them his unqualified and entire approbation. I suppose. no one will deny, that Lords Grenville and Temple, and Mr. Grenville were sincere in their opposition to the measures of that ministry: It is not to be supposed, that persons would expose themselves to all the obloquy, and abuse, and unpopularity to which the opposers of the peace and the peacemakers were exposed, without being sincere at least, especially as Lord Melville (then Mr. Dundas's) ingenious surmise of its being a "conspiracy for place" is now proved to have been erroneous. [I should like to ask any impartial man now, which seems the most zealous conspirator for place, Lord Grenville or Lord Melville?] If they were sincere then in opposing the peace, they were likewise sincere in opposing the views of policy, which made Mr. Pitt support and approve it. Under these circumstances it was the compliments were paid. Does it not follow then, of course, from the preceding data, that if the persons paying these compliments wished to see Mr. Pitt r turn to power, they wished to see him acting upon views of policy which they thought wou be advantageous to the country, and not those which they thought ruinous upon their views and not his own? Or in other words, does it not appear evident, that they thought that Mr. Pitt if in office, and if responsible, would be unwilling and ashamed to perform such acts as these, which out of office and irresponsible he was not ashamed to support with all his eloquence, and his most powerful support? Does it not appear,

that though, if the compliments are to be taken literally, they thought him the most able men in the country; yet that it, of ne cessity, follows, that they thought him as insincere in his heart as exalted in his views; as full of duplicity as of ability.— Leaving him to settle these questions, and only assuring him, that in my opinion he deserves all the bad which may be said or thought of him hereafter, without any of the good that has been said heretofore.I remain, &c. &c.-ANNIBAL.

PUBLIC PAPERS.

Correspondence between MR. FRERE, English Minister to the Court of Spain, and the PRINCE OF PEACE, Prime Minister of his Most Catholic Majesty: preceded by the article in the French paper, the Moniteur, by which the correspondence was occasioned.

Moniteur, No. 184.-" Madrid, March "10, 1804.-Mr. Frere, the English mi"nister at this place, seems to be much af"fected by the news which have arrived "from Paris. A few days before he forgot "himself so far as to assert, in a conversa"tion which he had with the Prince of "Peace, that assassination and murder are "lawful, in the present state of things, to

-Then comes the following note by the Editor of the Moniteur." The observation "of the Prince of Peace has been verified; "and at the moment when England was

employing the Count d'Artois as an as"sassin, one of the individuals of his family "perished, as an atonement for the crime, "under the sword of justice. Infamous ci"devant Bishop of Arras, such is the result "of your counsels!"

Madrid, April 7, 1804.- SIR, Your Excellency has undoubtedly read the conversation ascribed to us by the French Official Gazetteer, concerning the late events in Paris. As I flatter myself that my colleagues, and the enlightened persons of the Court, will not be apt to credit stories so ridiculous and so diametrically opposite to the princi

ples which they know me to profess, I might perhaps have dispensed with noticing a ca lumny which must reflect upon its authors; and should merely have invited Y. E. to estimate the accuracy of other accounts, proceeding from the same source, by this of which you are at once the judge, and witness. And yet, as it appears that the writer of that article presumes to ground his statement on the testimony of Y. E. it appears to me that I should, in some manner, be wanting to my own justification, and to the representation with which I am entrusted, were I to neglect appealing to that very testimony myself. Besides, the official character of that accusation seems to demand an equally formal and authentic contradiction. These considerations induce me to apply to Y. E. and to request that you will declare whether any such conversation did really pass between us, in which I asserted the principle imputed to me by the Official Gazetteer, and above all, as maintained by him, before the Paris news arrived; in short, whether Y. E. acknowledges the answer ascribed to you, and which concludes by a very intelligible threat of assassination. (Signed) J. H. FRERE. Madrid, April 8, 1804.-I have actually seen, that in the Madrid article, inserted in No. 184 of the Gazette, an account is given of a conversation between us, and I was waiting, Sir, for your application to remove, by my answer, the unfavourable opinions you might have formed.-But, as in this kind of business the degree of probability entirely depends upon opinion, and our conferences have taken place without either witnesses or hearers, and as it is impossible, therefore, that they should have been transmitted to the Gazetteer with truth or accuracy, I deem the justification you require. from me perfectly useless, since it will be indifferent to the Editor of the Gazetteer whether he publish a contrary statement 10morrow, the value set upon those accounts being relative to the truth they contain. Such has been my opinion when I have seen my character blackened in still darker colours; and he, who should endeavour to restrain the actions of men, whom fortune has placed out of his power, would obtain no other end than that of giving himself constant uneasiness.--(Signed)

PRINCE OF PEACE.

THE

Madrid, April 10, 1804.SIR, I have he honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note, and you will see, by the date of this, that I have well reflected before I determined to renew so unpleasant a subject; but, in truth, the longer I weigh the expressions of your Excellency's note,

the less I find that they answer the purpose for which it was dictated, namely, to remove the unfavourable opinions I might have formed. Y. E. does me the honour to observe, that you expected me to take such a step; it was not, therefore, quite superfluous in itself. And indeed, since I was to make application to Y. Ę I do not see how it was possible for me to prefer a demand more moderate, or how I could now desist from it, without obtaining, some way or other, a satisfactory answer. I am fully aware how delicate and difficult the present cir cumstances are; but, if Y. E. did not think it proper directly to oppose the official Gazetteer's assertions, it would, at least, have been possible, by stripping his statement of all authority, to reduce it to that vague and conjectural character which you yourself have ascribed to it; for this purpose nothing more was required than that Y. E. should assure me you never had di vulged any particulars of our conversation, since it is evident that the Moniteur did not mean to cite furtive and clandestine witnesses, but the very person of your Excellency. Y. E. might likewise have given a very plain and very natural testimony in my favour, namely, that the only time I spoke with you upon the subject, I expressed an opinion precisely the reverse of that which the Gazetteer pretended to cite.--(Signed) J. H. FRERE.

Aranjuez, April 13, 1804.-The Editor of the French Gazette supposing, in his. No. 184, that a conversation had taken place between you, Sir, and me, has been wanting in the consideration due to any character, by believing me capable of entering upon sub jects unworthy of the greatness of soul which adorns me. I do not complain of his offence, and you cannot calm the perturbation of your mind at being implicated in it. How shall I be able to persuade you? I have nothing to add to the reflections con tained in my preceding note; may this an swer to yours of the 10th prove more satisfactory, and let vague opinions circulate in arbitrary prints. (Signed)-THE PRINCE OF PEACE.

Madrid, April 17, 1804.-SIR, It had appeared to me that my personal honour, as well as my Sovereign's, in fine, that the value I ought to set upon the good opinion of the Spanish nation, equally impelled me to take the step I have towards your Excellency; and though that greatness of soul Y. E. had so just a title to claim, had lessened the importance of these considerations in your eyes, I should still have Battered myself, that you would shew some indulgence