city, but certainly of his memory, or of his judgment? In p. 814 I inserted a former letter of his, in which, by way of answer to a previous statement of mine, that labourer's wages did not rise with the price of corn, he said. "Sir, you are certainly mis"informed with respect to the prices of labour. As provisions become dearer, they will rise without any difficulty "They are always kept in proportion to "the value of the bushel of corn; and, "the farmers on the one hand, and the 66 men themselves on the other, take care to raise them and lower them continually." Yet, after having, no longer ago than the month of August last, spoken to me in this confident and dogmatical manner, he, in his present letter acknowledges, (14th pa ragraph) that, though "labour has been "raised a little, it has been rsised by 66 no means so much as it ought to be." This were a trifle, if he did not, at the time he is thus convicting himself of a palpable error, to give it the mildest term, again call upon me, in a manner equally positive and dogmatical, to prefer his information to my own. But, let us now come at once to the real state of that case, of all the circumstances of which he chooses to regard me, and, perhaps, really thinks me, "totally ignorant;" let me, since he is not at liberty to do it, enter into the derail of the transaction. I do not speak from positive knowledge of the facts; it is evident, indeed, that it is next to impossible that I should have been an eye or ear witness of any thing that has passed between Lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Cinning, and Mr. Pitt; but, I have been told what has passed, what I have been told I seriously declare that I fully believe, and it is as follows: Mr. Canning having, on the 18th of June last, made use of the words above quoted from the Parliamentary Debates (Vol. II. p. 722), Lord Hawkes bury wrote to Mr. Pitt, signifying his displeasure at the conduct of Mr. Canning, and intimating the impossibility of his remaining in office under such a representation as was contained in the public declaration of the latter. Mr. P.tt, in answer, gave to the speech of Mr. Canning a favourable interpretation, and disclaimed any part, either directly or indirectly, in any thing tending to give to the removal of Lord Hawkesbury the appearance of degradation. I will not say positively that a second letter did not pass between them; but, be that as it may, Mr. Pitt came to this decision; that if Lord Hawkesbury still locked upon the offence to be of so seriops a nature as to prevent him from continuing in place with Mr. Canning, the latter should give way, or, in other words, be turned out. Mr. Canning, at the same time, went to Lord Hawkesbury in person, and gave such explanations as were calculated to heal the breach. Finally, Lord Hawkesbury did not insist that Mr. Canning should go out; but, by way of amends to Lord Hawkesbury, it was agreed, that Mr. Pitt should take an opportunity of so speaking, in his place in parliament, as effectually to remove the impression, which Mr. Canning's words were, in the appre-' hension of his lord-hip, hkely to have given. 66 Now, whether the transaction, as thus described, be "honourable to Mr. Canning "and disgraceful to Lord Hawkesbury," I leave the reader to judge; but, I think, that no reasonable man will pretend, thať, any thing heretofore said by me about the matter tended to give it a turn disadvan tageous to Mr. Canning; and I also think, that niy correspondent P will not further persist in asserting, that I am so "tot lly ignorant of every circumstance of the "case."Here I should have dismissed this part of my subject; but my Correspondent has, in going back to the forming of the ministry, thrown out a challenge ou. the side of Mr. Canning. He says, that Mr. Canning's conduct was most honourable and disinterested from the beginning to the end; and, for proof he refers me to the. principal parties concerned. Amongst the many things for which I have to praise God, one is, that I am not so connected or acquainted as to be able to avail myself of thismode of verification. But, I am, as other men are, able to form some sort of judg ment from well known dide, of which, moreover, I have been not an inattentio observer. I did, then, observe, that Mr. Canning was very acte in the efforts that were made to turn out the late ministry; that he unequivocally condemned the men as well as the measures; that he was one of those who, to all appearance, encouraged the idea of a coalition with Mr. Fox, and I believe he did it, by express words as well as by very significant ac yet, after all this, we did see Mening taking a place under a minisnot only very different from the one which he had evidently appeared to wir for, ut a ministry of which the very person whom he had represented as totally fit to manage the affairs of the country, still made a majority. In justification of this part of his conduct, I have heard pleaded his great obligations and his unalterable attachment to Mr Pitt; and, with those who think, that seinterest and gratification ought, by public men, to be preferred to the interests of the country, such a justification will, doubtless, be satisfactory; with me, however, it is by no means satisfactory, especially when I cannot but reflect, that the means of creating the obligations came. from the country, and not from the private resources of the person by whom they were conferred.There are certain other circumstances, too, respecting Mr. Canning, which this friend of his may, perhaps, now think it worth while to enter into some detail in order to clear up. In the month of February last, a pamphlet was published. under the title of "A PLAIN REFLY, &c." Its object was to reply to the pamphlet entitled "A PLAIN ANSWER," the author of which was Mr. Long. The Plain Reply has been attributed to Mr. Bragge; and from several circumstances attending it, it is probable that it was written by that genleman. At any rate, it bears strong inter nal marks of having come from under the pen, or the dictation, of some one in the confidence at least of the then ministers. Towards the close of this pamphlet we find two very curious passages relative to Mr. Canning. The first relates to that gentleman's disinterestedness, and is as follows. "Come we now to their" (Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville's) "dependents. Mr. "Huskisson is up to the ears in places and "emoluments. Mr. Long has a pension. "Mr. Rose enjoys in possession, with re" version to his son, a place more lucra"tive than the Clerkship of the Pells. Lastly, Mr. Canning has his place too; "one which, though nominally held during "pleasure, has not been taken from him. "But this is not all. His numerous rela"tives are all provided for; and two sis"ters of his are actually receiving each £500 "a year from his Majesty's Exchequer, at a "time when half that sum cannot be pro"cured for ladies of rank and high family "connexions." Every just man, every Every just man, every man who reflects on the amount of our taxes, on the more than a million of parish poor, and on the five millions a year collected in poor rates; every such man will ask how the then ministry could justify these grants to Mr. Canning's family; nor would it be impertinent to inquire into the motive from which Mr. Addington was induced thus to favour that gentleman, to keep him in a place, when it was pretty evident, that he was performing the duties of no place. But, such inquiry does not set aside our right to ask, how Mr. Canning came to keep that place; how he came to hold any thing at the pleasure of Mr. Ad dington, and more especially how he came to suffer his sisters to depend, in any degree, upon the bounty of that gentleman, and to expose them, to the effects of a publication such as that from which the fact has been quoted This pamphlet was pub. lished about ten months ago. Upon this part of it I have never heard a word by way of contradiction. I have heard it censured for a want of liberality; censure, in my opi nion, quite unmerited; for, if the fact be true, it cannot be rendered too notorious; and, if it be false, I hereby offer my pages as a vehicle for the contradiction. The other passage, above alluded to, closes the pamphlet, and it is well worthy of atten tion. Mr. Robert Ward, in his pamphlet, published under the signature of " A Mem. "ber of Parliament," had said, that Mr, Canning was known, from the moment Mr. Pitt and his colleagues resigned, to have disapproved the choice of their successors; that he protested against it at the time, and had continued his protest ever since. Upon which the Plain Reply asks the following marked and significant question. "Will "this same Member of Parliament, affirm, "that Mr. Canning has, at no time, re"tracted his protest, or repented of his op "position; that he has never shown a dis"position to take office under Mr. Adding "ton?" This question has never been answered either by Mr. Robert Ward or by any body else; and, I have heard, and I sincerely believe, that Mr. Addington would not find it difficult to prove, that, by some means or other, he had nearly subdued the disapprobation of Mr. Canning; and that, at one particular time, he had, by some measure of wisdom without doubt, so far reconciled his administration to Mr. Can ning, that that gentleman did actually condescend to signify his willingness to take a place in it.Here I close this part of the subject, hoping that my correspondent P. will speedily avail himself of the opportu nity that I offer him of presenting the public with the explanations that he may think necessary, relative to the new matter, which his letter has induced me to bring forward. LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. In the 1st and 3d paragraphs of his letter my corre spondent P. expresses his disapprobation of the manner, in which, "of late" (since Mr. Pitt became minister, I suppose) the Register has been conducted. He did esteem it, and found much in it to admire (I dare say that was when Mr. Addington was in office), and would be sorry to see it sinking in estimation; but, he has," of late," heard many animadversions on it, and has been rit Without asking him what spirit he is actuated by, I should like to hear what are his notions about parties. Does he think, that there ought to be no_parties ? When Mr. Pitt is seated at the Treasury, perhaps, he does; but, it is evident, that he thought parties very useful in turning out Mr. Pitt's predecessor. If he allows, that parties ought to exist, they must consist of men, and those men must, in some degree, be actuated by a party spirit. This spirit ought certainly to be regulated by some public principle. The good of the country ought never to be lost sight of; but, neither "De-ought the predominance of the party ever to be lost sight of; because, by that predominance the good of the country is proposed to be promoted by every true party-man. He who makes his own influence in the party, or in the country, his main object, is mo party man; he is a selfish man, and will always be found ready to leave, or to join, any side or any set, if his own private views can thereby be served. A writer on public measures has, therefore, two duties to perform, the one is to represent the measure in its true light; the other, to make his representation conducive to his general purpose of supporting the party whose predominance he regards as useful to the country, and sometimes, as in the present case, necessary to its safety and its independence. To rail, therefore, against party-motives, discovers a want of consideration. If there are parties, men must, in a certain degree, act from party motives in the discussion of every public measure; and, there is no way of preventing this but by putting an end to all parties, which, Mr. Pitt being again in place, I dare say my Correspondent would be very glad to do. But, his doctrine, when we consider it as coming under the bead of libels is of a monstrous nature indeed. You attack the Corn Bill in appearance, says he, but your real object of attack is Mr. Pitt: you attack the Corn Pill directly, but Mr. Pitt indirectly: you wish to cause the bill to be repealed, but this is for the purpose of annoying Mr. Pitt: you are endeavouring to "weaken Mr. Pitt's: As he has not thought proper to point out any part of the Register other than that upon which he was immediately commenting, we must gather his principles upon the subject of the liberty of the press from what he has here pointed out as objectionable.He complains, that my "object is an attack on "Mr.Pitt, and not on the corn-bill." And, I must first of all beg the reader to remember, that it is a friend and admirer of Mr. Canning who complains of this; of that Mr. Canning, who cried, " away with the "measures and give us the men!" Oh! his friend will say, but the men, at that time, were different from the present men. In short, Mr. Pitt was not then minister.But, must not a person, who had read the whole of my letter to Mr. Pitt upon the corn-bill, have obtained a pretty complete mastery over truth, or over his senses, before he could bring himself to assert, that the object of my attack was "not the corn bill?" He says, that my observations are futile and unfair, and that he cannot agree to any one principle, upon which I have argued against the bill. This may be; but I have argued against the bill; the arguments are against the bill, and not against Mr. Pitt, whose motives for supporting the bill are not at all discussed; but, on the contrary, who is, in some degree, defended against the charge of party motives contained in the suggestion of the Edinburgh Reviewers. This partisan of Mr. Pitt "feels ་་ power by effecting the repeal of a mea"sure he carried!" From the conclusion that this directly points to there is but one step to downright literal gagging; and, according to my motto, if notions like these were to prevail, this must be nearly the last that the bill has done mischief; he ex- day on which any man would dare to move "ceedingly laments that it passed;" and yet his pen or to open his lips, upon the subject he will not believe that it could be the real of public men or public measures, Mark object of my attack. I must, he thinks, and well his notion about "queakening the deed ho says it, be actuated by a party spi-power of the minister" by causing the re peal of a law which he carried! Laws, be they what they will, must, then, exist: you must not call for their repeal: you must not even endeavour to show the wisdom or the necessity of repcaling them, lest you should. thereby weaken the power of the minister; and the minister is, of course, justified in resisting such endeavours, and in persevering in every law, however calamitous its consequences! Perhaps this gentleman, would be disposed to allow members of parliament being in their places, to speak against the Corn Bill. He makes no such exception, indeed, nor does his principle admit of it; for, every endeavour, wherever and however made, to cause a law to be repealed, is, according to him, an endeavour to weaken the power of the minister, by whom the law has been carried. Still, supposing, however, that he meant to make this exception, he destroys the press, as far as relates to the measures of ministers of state and away goes that famous palladium of British freedom Attack the measure, and not the man." This is the old cant. But, how are you to separate the measure from the man? How are you to discuss the former, I do not say freely, but at all, without discussing the conduct of the latter, and without alecting (if your discussion has any effect) his character as a statesman, and his interest of course ? By endeavouring to show that the measure is weak or wicked, you are almost of ne'cessity, endeavouring to show the weakness or wickedness of its contriver and supporter; and, according to this new-fangled doctrine, your crime is in a direct proportion to the success of your efforts, and the paradox of Lord Mansfield becomes a plain fact: "the "greater the truth, the greater the libel." This writer does not charge me with a direct attack upon Mr. Pitt: you attack him indirectly," says he, "through his mea"sure." And this is " defamation," because it tends to "weaken his power," and, consequently to drive him from his place! Did I ever expect to hear, not the people of England, not any class of politicians or persons in England; did I ever expect, could I ever have expected, to hear one single man in England seriously hold language like this? Every thing bearing any affinity to freedom of discussion or of opinion, falls prostrate before a doctrine like this; and, could it prevail, I know of no description of beings that walk upon two legs, who ought to envy us our lot, which would be beyond all comparison worse than that of those Frenchmen, hom, in this respect, we affect to despise; because they are not amused with the name of liberty of the press. There is no possible extent to which this doctrine would not reach. On the subject of the Volunteer System, for instance, I think myself a much better judge than Mr. Pitt. I know more of the training of soldiers; more of their tempers and manners; more of their feelings and motives in all their various situations; more of the organization, the economy and discipline of a batta ion; not only more of all this than Mr. Pitt now knows, but more than he ever can know as long as be lives, if he lives for forty years longer, and continues with his corps all the time. Yet, because he has chosen to clothe himself in scarlet, to gird his waist with a sash, to hang a sword upon his thigh, to put a cockade in his hat, and call himself a colonel, I am to hold my tongue, or, at least, am to wag it only in approbation of his military schemes, though exactly contrary to the evidence of my senses, est, by speaking my mind, I should" weaken his power," and thereby possibly hasten the loss of his place. If, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, I show that the nation has declined; that the liberties of the people have been greatly abridged; that the poor rates have been more than doubled; that confidence has been destroyed between landlord and tenant; that the only effectual check upon the Bank has been removed; that the country has been inundated with paper, while gold and silver have disappeared; that paper notes down to the amount of a few shillings in England, and so low as sixpence in Ireland, are in circulation; that the country bas been degraded in the eyes of the world; that she has abandoned her allies; that she his abandoned even her own honours won by our fathers; that her enemy has been exalted above her; and that she is now trembling on the verge of destruction: if I say this, I am, according to this new doctrine, guilty of a henious offence, but, if I prove it, there are not in the world means sufficient to inflict on me torments adequate to my deserts.And, as to the time, too; does this gentleman think, that the most effectual way of rouzing the people to exertions and sacrifices in defence of the constitution, is, to render it not worth defending? Those who thought with me, that rigorous measures and laws were necessary to preserve the country from the contagion of French anarchy, ought, one would imagine, now to think with me, that such measures and laws are no longer ne cessary; but, on the contrary, that we should be upon our guard against French despotism; for, I see no reason that the latter should not be catching as well as the 46 ness and protection, would, in reality, be enslaved by the "palladium of free-men "" There can be no doubt that such a state of things would be much more vexatious as well as more disgraceful to the people, than the state of things now existing in France, or any where else where nothing can be published without the express permission of the government; because, in this latter case there is no mockery; no pretension to liberty of the press; the ruler or rulers frankly say, that they cannot, or will not, allow of such liberty; and, of course, the people are not deceived; they do not look to the press for information as to the conduct of their ministers, and are not thereby deceived; they judge for themselves, and they are, for the want of a free press, led to seek for information and for redress through other means; and, if they derive no advantage from the press neither do their rulers, former. A ministerial writer of yesterday does, indeed, seem to apprehend some danger from the successful example of Napoleon. "Could we hope," says he, " that "the example would operate to still the workings of sedition, to stop the progress of innovation and visionary theory amongst nations, there would be some "consolation for that mass of horror which the contemplation of this odious revolution presents. But, we can scarcely flatter ourselves with the hope of so happy "an event. Bad men, on the contrary, will be emboldened by the success of Buonaparté; and they will, we fear, find a sufficient number amongst the ignorant "to become their tools." According to this notion, there is no hope left. We are doomed to everlasting apprehensions. We never can think of returning to the state in which we were previous to the French revolution. Notwithstanding that the malig-whose follies or crimes are not at all shelnant mischief has now spent its force; though liberty and equality, democracy aud atheism, have been fairly and fully tried; though they have been cast aside as the greatest of national curses; though the Chief of France is again become a monarch; though the legislative body, in the name of the French people, have declared and solemnly proclaimed to the world, that "hereditary monarchy is the only system of government under which a nation can be happy "and great notwithstanding all this, the ministerial writer sees cause for alarm! He has now found out, that there are "bad "men," who may be on the side of monarchy; who may be "emboldened by "the success of Buonaparté," and who will "always find a sufficient number amongst "the ignorant to become their partisans." If we can have any hope left after this it is not, I think, reasonable to build it upon the effect of rigorous measures of any sort, especially rigorous measures with regard to the press; for the effect of such measures must be to favour the views of those "bad "men," if any such should arise. We have heard enough of the tyranny exercised over the press in France: it is one of the things that would make men dread subjugation would it be wise, then, to act upon the principle of my correspondent? for, it would be very easy to show, that the name of liberty of the press, without the full power of censuring the public Conduct of public men, would be a mere mockery; that it would be a means of sheltering instead of exposing the follies and crimes of a minister; and, that the people, placing much reliance upon its watchful : tered by it, because, it being known not to be free, nobody places any reliance on what it says. This is fair on both sides; but, to pretend that the nation enjoys the liberty of the press, and, at the same time to punish men, as my correspondent appears to wish, for exposing the weakness or wickedness of ministers, would be a most cruel mockery. And, whatever he may think of it, the effect certainly would not be to discourage the hopes of those "bad men," who might be emboldened by the success of Napoleon; for, if his doctrine were acted upon, if men were dragged to jail for exposing the weakness or wickedness of public measures, and, of course, the weakness or wickedness of public men, would they not begin to ask, how any change could possibly make their situation worse? Let him recollect, too, that, by such means, men might be led to desire a change, that would, as to the mere quantum of suffering or privation, render their situation even worse than previous to the change; for, it must not be forgotten, that, upon such occasions, resentment is but too often a very powerful motive; and, when we reflect on the number of instances, in which every one of us has, at some time or other, gratified his resentment to the clearly-foreseen injury of his interest, we shall cease to be surprised at the readiness, with which the people of Europe have submitted to the arms of the French; and, we shall be very cautious how we listen to doctrine like that of my correspondent, which, if brought into practice, could not fail to excite resentment incxtinguishable in the breast of every man whose attachment is valuable to the state.As this correspon |