make the congratulation of Prussia upon the approaching coronation appear as the act of a powerful and perfectly independent monarchy. By insisting upon keeping the papers of Sir George Rumbold, and, more especially by taking his parole, Buonapartadheres to and acts upon the principle laid down in the circular note of Talleyrand (see p. 819); and, by stating demi-officially, in the Moniteur, that Sir George Rumbold has been personally set at liberty at the request of the King of Prussia, the purpose of giving consequence to Prussia and of rescuing her from the charge of abject dependence is, in some degree, affected.-This is the light, in which I view the transaction. I wish my opinion may prove erroneous; I wish that Prussia may have resolved to obtain a retraction of the principle adopted by the French and promulgated in the above-mentioned circular note; but, from every thing that has yet transpired, there is but too much reason to fear, that Prussia will push the matter no farther.

If we had an army, indeed, to send to the continent; then might we with some reason call upon Prussia to take up arms. But, we have none; and, therefore, however" honest" we may be, and however roguish we may think the powers of the continent, we can hardly expect them to begin a war for Sir George Rumbold, as the Greeks did for Helen, especially after he has been given up.---The French circular note really interdicts all our ministers upon the continent. The ground of this interdiction, is, that Lord Hawkesbury, in his note of the 30th of April, 1804, asserts the right of employing diplomatic agents in stirring up the revo.t in states, with which their country is at war, they themselves residing, at the same time, at neutral courts. So far the statement of the "solid young lord's doctrine is correct; but, Talleyrand insinuates, this statesman of ours has contended for the right of employing our diplomatic agents, so situated, in furthering the purposes of assassination. This is false. No such right is contended for; though, as was stated, and I think proved, at the time, the note of Lord Hawkesbury, in talking about aiding the people of France against an usurper was not easily to be reconciled with the peace andamity," which he had negotiated and, in his majesty's name, concluded with that usurper.* The ministerial papers are

See this subject discussed, Register, Vol. 5. p. 688, and seq.

now affecting to treat the correspondence of Mehée and Mr. Drake as a fabrication," not recollecting, perhaps, that Lord Hawkesbury never denied its authenticity, but that, on the contrary, he supposed a case like that of Mr. Drake, and defended (as well as he could!) such conduct in a person so situated It is rather too broad, therefore, for the partisans of ministers now to call Mr. Drake's letters "a fabrication." But, the truth is, that the circular letter of Lord Hawkesbury does give but too much countenance to the charge now preferred by the French, as will, I think, clearly appear to any one, who will take the trouble to read the pages of vol. V. just referred to. First to make a treaty of "amity" with a man ; solemnly to pledge yourself to discourage all attempts to disturb his government; to receive from him territories belonging to his allies; to regard these territories as your own for ever; and, after all this, the moment you quarrel with him, to turn round short upon him, declare him an usurper and not entitled to the same treatment as other sovereigns or chiefs of nations; this was something which could not fail to shock the world. It does not justify the measures now taken by Buonaparté; but, it gives a fatal countenance to those measures.The doctrine laid down by Lord Hawkesbury, in the above-mentioned letter, relative to the seizure and detention of the English prisoners in France is, by a correspondent of mine, disputed, particularly as it applies to the case of Sir James Craufurd. There is not room to insert his remarks at present, but they shall be inserted in my next; for, it is, in this, as in all other cases, truth that I am seeking to establish.

MR. CANNING AND LORD HAWKESBURY.-Upon the subject of the note which appeared in the preceding sheet, p. 783, I have been told that I am deceived; and, that it is Mr. Canning who has acted the submissive part, and not his lordship. But, barely telling either me or the public this appears by no means satisfactory. We know; all the world knows, that, in the debate of the 18th of June last, Mr. Canning did say: " I shall content myself with

vindicating my own consistency. I ob"jected to the administration of foreign af"fairs, and that has been changed." Nothing could be plainer than this. The words admit of no palliation. They have a clear meaning, and only that meaning. Lord Hawkesbury had, at the time when Mr. Canning made the above declaration, actu ally been removed from the administration

46.

of foreign affairs; and, the conclusion is, that he had been removed in consequence of Mr. Canning's objection to him. Nobody finds any fault with his removal: no; that were indeed to discover a most unreasonable propensity to censure; but, every one may be allowed to admire the hereditary patriotism and self-devotedness" which have induced his lordship to continue in office under such circumstances, He sees the state in danger, and nothing can make him desert his post. Glorious example! Why should it not be followed by Lord Grenville, Mr. Fox, and even by the Prince himself? That is to say, if Mr. Canning has no "objection" to them!

MINISTERIAL INTRIGUES.-(Continued from page 800). Before I proceed to consider the consequences of such a coalition as that which the ministerial writers seem to wish for, it is necessary to notice, and to quote at full length, an article, which, upon this subject, appeared in the newspaper called the SUN, of the 20th instant, and which evidently comes from some one of those who are deeply interested in the success of the intrigues, which the ministers have been carrying on for a week or two past: "We have scarcely been more gra"tified in the satisfaction we have felt at "the reconciliation which has taken place "in the Royal Family than we have been "amused with the comments which the Op"position have made upon this happy event. "We were certainly induced to consider "this fortunate circumstance as a most im

portant occurrence for the country, with"out any reference whatever to party-but "the fears which one party betrays would "almost lead us to doubt whether we viewed "it in a proper light.-When Mr. E66 runs about Westminster Hall, assuring every body" upon his honour that party "" has nothing to do with it," we are almost "tempted to ask him, as a professional man, "whether there is a more common ground "of suspicion than an eagerness to disprove "that which has never been advanced? The " opposition writers too cannot refer to the subject without suffering their fears to press out-they cannot touch upon it "without a mixture of abuse upon Mr. Pitt. "Now it is very proper and very natural for "them to abuse him with a reference to his "political measures, but to abuse him with 16 a reference to that which they affect to "approve, can only draw from us a smile. "The Prince of Wales, we believe, pos

sesses the best dispositions; but it is not ur.common for those who possess such

"dispositions to listen too much to those "who entertain very opposite feelings. We "have before asserted, that the Prince can"not become a party man without degrad"ing himself. We should be as sorry to 65 see him the partisan of Mr. Pitt, as of "Mr. Fox or Mr. Sheridan-nay, we will 66 go further, we cannot countenance the "supposition that he is so, without his "name being used for purposes which he "would be the first to condemn. He can only obviate this, and place himself where "he ought to stand in the opinion of the country, by shewing, by his public con"duct, that he is no party-man. If he bas ever in any degree so considered himself, "those who have advised him to it have given bad counsel; but of this we are "sure, that he has never gone those lengths "in any party cause which those who have thought they might profit by it have "chosen to represent.--And here we dis"cover the cause of that anxiety on the part "of the Opposition which we have noticed "above. Some of its members may have "discovered that they cannot now so freely

ແ

use the name of the Prince as the engine "of party, in which way he may be sure "it has been employed much to his disad

vantage. If he knew to what purposes

"that name has been committed-what « promises it has been supposed to sanction, we are persuaded he would not disagree "with us in our opinion upon this point. "He would feel that this opinion is not ac"tuated by political adherence to any men, "but by attachment to the constitution, "loyalty to our Sovereign, and, as a part "of the same feeling, by a deep anxiety for "the character, the honour, and the welfare "of every person belonging to his angust "family, and particularly of the Heir Ap"parent of the throne -We believe that upon this happy occasion the Prince his "consulted his own feelings, and bas ent ployed that good sense which he is known "to possess. If he has looked back into

history, he may have seen that differences "between Father and Son, in the instances "of persons situated as he is, have seldom so "much arisen from the feelings of the p.x"ties themselves as they have been to "mented by interested individuals; that "by such differences nothing has been

gained to the persons immediately con"cerned, but that all have been sufferers. "If any such reflection has arisen in his "mind, he cannot fail to have applied "with peculiar force to his own case. He

has a father, endeared to the nation by a

"most virtuous life; by a mild, just, and "beneficent reign; with whose afflictions

his subjects have deeply sympathized, "and whose happiness has always been an "object nearest to their bearts.-In"fluenced by such considerations, the "Prince of Wales must have felt himself "actuated by the strongest private and public motives to a cordial reconciliation with his Royal Father; and his Majesty's "kind and benevolent feelings must have "created a similar wish and anxiety on his 66 part. If Mr. Pitt and Lord Moira (as "we understand) have been principally

instrumental in producing this union, "they deserve the thanks of the nation. "Every good man will wish to cement it. "None will endeavour to disturb it, except "those who, to serve selfish and party purposes, are regardless of the best interests

of the country."- This writer has in view to disguise the feelings of disappointment now experienced by the minister and his expecting adherents, who were eagerly looking forward to the renewal of a long lease of their power and emoluments. He unquestionably points at MR. ERSKINE in the blank after the letter E; and, it is with peculiar delicacy that he appears to treat with contempt the idea of Mr. Erskine's honour, after having, only a few days before, expressed his anxious desire to see that gentleman's powerful aid brought

to the government in the great council of "the nation." But, where shall we look for assurance equal to that, which has led this writer to discover the fears of the opposition, in their "eagerness to disprove "that which has never been advanced? That which has never been advanced! Why, was it not advanced, on the second day after the reconciliation took place, that this reconciliation was to lead (and immediately too) to political consequences? Was it not rumoured first, then reported, then said, and then asserted, that Lord Moira had ac tually accepted the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? Is not this notorious to all the world? Was it not advanced, in the passages of a ministerial paper, quoted in the Register of last week, that "from the im "mediate parliamentary friends of the "Prince an active and cordial co-opera"tion in the affairs of the state might rea"sonably be looked for?" Were not Lord Moira, Mr. Erskine, and Mr. Sheridan particularly mentioned as persons, who, in consequence of the royal reconciliation, were about to join the minister?. And, therefore, was it, on the part of Mr. Erskine, for

instance," an eagerness to disprove that "which had never been advanced?”————— The opposition writers cannot refrain from suffering their fears to press out." Fears of what? Is it possible, then, that the opposition writers should express their fears of a junction with Mr. Pitt? A fear of sharing in the power and emoluments of the state? Is the contamination, then, so much to be dreaded?—No, Mr. Pitt is not censured by the opposition writers for having contributed towards the reconciliation of the two royal persons so often mentioned, but for endeavouring to make that reconciliation the means of raising parliamentary recruits, and that he has so endeavoured is gathered from the confessions of the ministerial writers. The opposition writers do not affect to approve, but they really do approve, of the conduct of every one who has promoted the reconciliation; but this approbation is given with the proviso, that the persons promoting the reconciliation have had no party, no selfish, purpose in view. It is very plausible language to deprecate the idea of the Prince becoming "the head of a party," a "party

man," and so forth; but, if there be a minister of such a domineering disposition. as to compel a prince to be the head of a party, or to be nothing at all but a mere pensioner of the state, is a prince, in such case, not to seek the only means of support ing his consequence ?As this ministe rial writer seems to be willing to suffer Lord Moira to take a small share with Mr. Pitt in the public applause; it is to be hoped that his lordship will soon cease to cut so conspicuous a figure as he now does in the ministerial caricature shop; and, I think, too, that the plume of feathers might be withdrawn from some of the scenes here alluded to, since Mr. Pitt has, at last, condescended not only to make overtures of amity, but also for a co-operation with the Prince and his friends. Far be it from me to blame Mr. Pitt for his anxious desire to gain the good will of his Royal Highness. Far, very far indeed, be it from me to blame him for now showing a becoming degree of respect and humility towards the sun and heir apparent of his Sovereign; for though this respect and humility certainly came very late, still they are enjoined by duty; nor is the labourer of the eleventh hour to be envied by those who have borne the heat of the day. But, then, this respect and humility should be sincere. They should be simple. They should flow from repentance and not from ambition. They should look

solely to an oblivion of the past, and not to power, honours and rewards for the future. It would, was this the time and place, be easy to show, that a very close personal intimacy, and more especially a political cooperation, of the Prince and Mr. Pitt would, and must, produce feelings and opinions, which might prove extremely dangerous to the monarchy, and, of course, to the people. A correspondent, whose letter shall appear in the next Register, has taken a view of the account which Mr. Pitt would have to render his Royal Highness of the improvement which he has made, during his twenty years administration, in the affairs of his royal master; and a most striking view it is! What, therefore, without entering into detail, we may ask; what must necessarily be the feelings of the nation, if the Prince, by his conduct, were to discover an insensibility as to that which has made so deep an impression upon the minds of all other men? To forgive injuries committed against themselves is becoming in all men, if the party offending show (in a way adapted to the nature of the case) a proper degree of contrition; but, injuries committed against princes are committed also against their subjects; and, it sometimes becomes the duty of a prince to resent politically that which personally he has entirely for given. How much stronger is the case, how much more imperious the duty, then, when it is the injuries and disgraces of a na tion which are to be forgiven! No one would wish to see the Prince personally resentful towards Mr. Pitt; no one would wish to see him pursue that minister even politically; but, I am persuaded, that no one who sincerely wishes well to either the prince or the monarchy, would recommend to his Royal Highness to do any act, which, in the minds of the people, should tend to identify him with Mr. Pitt and his system; and, further, I think he should do no act, that might cause the people to suppose that he did not disapprove of that system: I mean the general system by which Mr. Pitt has governed, and still governs, the country.-The ministerial writer has hinted, that the times are ticklish, and that, therefore, the Prince will do well to hasten to a reconciliation and co-operation with the present minister; which sentiment has been expressed by another writer of the same stamp, who has hinted that the only way for the prince to preserve the throne which is his inheritance, is, " to support the govern"ment of his father;" and here government is, as is usual in all such cases, put for mi

sys

nistry. Now my opinion is exactly the contrary of this. Those who think (if any one can think so), that, during the twenty years administration of Mr. Pitt, the nation has lost nothing in its liberties or its glory; those who think that they see honourable, prosperous, and tranquil days approaching under the rule of that gentleman, may, possibly, be justified in recommending to the Prince to embark his political reputation along with Mr. Pitt; but, the same recommendation would certainly not be justifiable in those, who think, as I do, that the system of Mr. Pitt cannot be persevered in without adding to the national disgrace, without a further and further abridgment of its liberties, and without producing, finally, such consequences and events as would shake the throne to its centre. From the same persuasion it is, that I should dread any such coalition as that pointed at by the Morning Post, It would be truly alarming to see the Prince and his "parliamentary friends" (to use the phrase of the ministerial writer) be come the partizans of Mr. Pitt and his tem; but, if the opposition could be brought over, or divided, there would, at once, be an end of the hopes of all that part of the people, whose hopes tend to wards the safety and honour of the country. If the leaders of the opposition, together with the aristocracy, were to suffer themselves to be inveigled into the embraces of Mr. Pitt and his loan-jobbers, the people would either abandon the cause of their country entirely, they would either become totally indifferent as to its fate; or, they would seek for new leaders. They would look for other men to espouse their cause: a new race, quite a new race, of public men would arise; and, the danger would consist in this, that this new race of men would look to, and depend for success solely upon the people; the aristocracy having joined the jobbers and ranged themselves under the banners of Mr. Pitt, first, indeed, supposing the combination to exist for a while, there would be, a dead calm. But events must come on, and occa❤ sions must offer for the creating of the race, of which I have been speaking; and, as to what description that race would be of; what would be their principles and their conduct; what would be the conse quences of their endeavours, it is by no means difficult to conjecture. In short, it is my firm persuasion, that, a junction between Mr. Pitt and the leaders of the oppo sition, he being prime minister, would in

At