poses of war. We insist upon taking out of her vessels, upon the high seas, such persons as, in the discretion of our naval commanders, it shall seem meet to take, America being at peace with all the world. She says, that we shall not do this. Thereupon we go to war. And how can she be said to have, by such war, enlisted herself under the banners of Napoleon? Was there ever a more false or a more impudent assertion? The notion of this gentleman, and of all the war faction, is this: that, in order to succeed in a war against France, we have a right to do towards other nations whatever we find best suited to answer our views; and that, if any one of those nations complain, or, at least, if it resist, we have a right to consider it as enlisted under the banners of France. The same mode of arguing they have adopted at home amongst ourselves, where every man, who has questioned the principles or policy of the war, has, without hesitation, been denominated a friend of France, and, by inference, an enemy of, and traitor to, England.

But, to whatever degree this notion may prevail here, in America it will make no progress. There the people understand their rights; they are made acquainted with the acts and the real motives of their government; they know what they are at war for; they have real representa. tives, who speak their voice, and who, if they were so minded, could not delude them. The American people will not want the avowal of Mr. Canning to convince them, that the principles of the war, on our part, are the same now as they were in 1792, when we were at war with the Republic of France. They know very well what those principles are, and, it would be strange indeed to see them, in support of those principles, enlisted on the same side with those, who, Mr. Canning tells us, gave the blow" in the wilds of despotic Russia.”

The next topic of Mr. Canning is that of "instinctive patriotism," or an attachment to the soil, prior and paramount to all political considerations. This is always a favourite doctrine with the enemies of political freedom. No matter," they say, what oppressions you "suffer; if you be stripped of the fruits of your labour and your genius; if, instead of comfort and ease, you be clad in rags, halfstarved, worked like horses, and beaten like asses if you dare to cɔm"plain; if your Lords buy and sell you as a chattel: no matter, you "must still cling to the soil, or earth, where you were born, or you are

unnatural wretches." This they denominate " instinctive patriotism;" and, wherever it prevails, it is very properly so called; for, most assuredly, it is precisely that of the more stupid sort of beasts. Thus neat catile and pigs, though better fed and lodged in a new situation, are always hankering after the place where they were bred. An "instinctive patriot" of the former sort lately found its way from Botley to Ringwood, in spite of hedges and turnpike-gates.

But, as to the fact, which Mr. Canning takes for granted as being applicable to all communities, though I by no means deny, that, in some of the countries whose governments he appears to admire, there may be found millions of these instinctive" or cattle-like patriots, these pa. triots of the earth, or the dirt; though I do not deny, but am afraid it is but too true, that millions of men are to be found in this state, so degrading to human nature; yet I do deny the fact as applied to any society deserving the epithet civilized.

In such a society men, who are strongly attached to their country, have their attachment founded in their love of the laws, the institutions,

the fame of that country, or in that interest, which arises out of the property they own or the profession they follow in it. Take all these from them and then ascertain the amount of their attachment to the mere earth where they were born. What 'sends so many thousands annually from Ireland, and Scotland, and England, to America? Why do we make roads and build bridges in the Highlands, but in consequence of a report to the Parliament, that it was necessary to lay out money in this way, in order to prevent the inhabitants from emigrating to America? Why have we laws to punish artizans for attempting to leave the kingdom, and for punishing commanders of vessels who afford them shelter? What, in short, is it that has peopled North America, given eight millions of citizens to that Republic, which is the object of Mr. Canning's deadly hatred, and has made her our rival in commerce, manufactures, and maritime war? Not, surely, that "instinctive patriotism" that love of one's breeding-place; not, surely, that patriotism, which induced the Ringwood cow to elope from Botley. No: but that desire, which every rational being has to get rid of some evil, or to mend his situation. Mr Canning, in confirmation of his degrading doctrine, quotes Goldsmith, who, speaking of the Swiss peasant, says:

"Dear is that shed, to which his soul conforms,

And dear that hill which lifts him to the storms."

That is to say, that a poor creature, living on a bleak hill in a hovel, sets great value upon the horel and its contents, and likes the hill, inasmuch as it is the site of the hovel. But, what does this amount to, at last, but his attachment to what he calls his, and which, miserable as it is, is his all? However, a more unhappy illustration could not have been found, it being notorious, that the Swiss get out of their country as fast as they can find shoes to bear them away; that they become lackeys, and butlers, and porters all over Europe; and that, to complete the proof of their "instinctive patriotism,” they hired themselves as soldiers to the French, the Germans, the Prussians, or any body else, and were not unfrequently opposed to each other in battle by the princes to whom they let themselves out to hire, until the French revolution, by an exposure of the infamy of such a traffic, put a stop to it; though now, perhaps, amongst the other good things, which Mr. Canning anticipates from the great approaching change, this traffic may possibly be revived.

There is, however, such a confusion of ideas in this part of the speech, that I must quote it, in the speaker's words, in order, not that the reader may comprehend its meaning (for that is impossible, I think); but that I may not be chargeable with having garbled it.

"The order of nature could not subsist among mankind, if there were not an "instinctive patriotism, a love of national independence, I do not say unconnected "with, but prior and paramount to, the desire of political amelioration. It may "be very wrong that this should be so. I cannot help it. Our business is with "the fact. And surely it is not to be regretted that tyrants and conquerors should "have learned from experience that the first consideration suggested to the inha"bitants of any country by a foreign invasion, is not whether the political con"stitution of the state is perfect, but whether the altar at which he has wor "shipped, and the home in which he has dwelt from his infancy, whether his wife "and his children, whether the tombs of his forefathers, whether the palace of the "sovereign under whom he was born, and to whom he may owe, or fancy that "he owes, allegiance-should be abandoned to violence and profanation?

"That in the infancy of the French Revolution, many nations in Europe were

"unfortunately led to believe and to act upon a different persuasion, is undoubtedly "true;-that whole countries were overrun by reforming conquerors, and flat. "tered themselves with being proselytes till they found themselves victims. "Even in this country, as I have already said, there have been times when we "have been called upon to consider whether there was not something at home "which must be mended before we could hope to repel a foreign invader with

success.

:

"Gentlemen, it is happy for the world that this sort of question should have "been tried, if I may so say, to disadvantage; that it should have been tried in "countries where no man in his senses will say that the frame of political society "is such, as according to the most moderate principles of regulated freedom it "ought to be here I will venture to say, without hazarding the imputation of "being myself a visionary reformer, political society is not such, as, after the success of this war, and from the happy contagion of the example of Great "Britain, it is sure gradually to become. It is happy for the world that this "question, as to the value of national independence, should thus have been tried "on its own merits; that after twenty years of controversy we should be authorized "by undoubted results to revert to truth and nature, and to disentangle the ge"nuine feelings of the heart from the obstructions which a generalizing philosophy "had wound around them.

"What Goldsmith has beautifully applied to the physical varieties and disad "vantages of a country has been found to be not less true with respect to poli"tical institutions. The sober desire of improvement, the rational endeavour to "redress wrong or correct imperfection in the political frame of a government, "are not only natural but laudable in man: but it is well that it should have "been shown by irrefragible proof that these sentiments, where they exist, "supersede not that devotion to native soil which is the foundation of national inde"pendence. And it is right that it should be understood and remembered, that "this sentiment of national independence alone-aroused where it had slumbered "-enlightened where it had been deluded – and kindled into enthusiasm by the “insults and provocations of the enemy, has been found sufficient, without internal "changes, or compromises, of sovereigns and governments with their people, "without relaxations of allegiance or abjurations of authority, to connect the "nations of the Continent in one common cause, to lead them against their "tyrant, and to shake and (may we not hope to overthrow) the Babel of his "power?"

Here is, as I said before, such a confusion of ideas, that one hardly knows where to begin the work of separating and comparing them and bringing them to the test of reason.

We are told, that it is an "instinctive patriotism," a "devotion to native soil, which is the foundation of national independence." We will, by and by, inquire what is meant by these two last words, the use of which is so common, and the meaning of which is so very vague; but, at present, let us suppose that the speaker means, that the effect of this "instinctive patriotism," this "devotion to native soil," is, the exertion of a people to keep any enemy out of their country. In other words, that there requires nothing but this love of their native soil to make men fight against an invader; that this feeling, "this genuine feeling of the heart," is quite sufficient without any other consideration. But, not to speak of the fact again yet, how does this agree with the speaker's observation, that men fight for the homes in which they have dwelt; for their wives and children, and other objects? They fight, he says, against an invader, because these objects, so dear to them, should not be exposed to violence. In short, they hazard their lives in repelling invasion, because they fear that the invader will take away their property and make them miserable; and, not because they fear he will insult or dishonour the dirt upon which they walk, or the place where they happen to have been born, and upon which particular spot not one out of five hundred is living.

What becomes, then, of his doctrine of" instinctive patriotism," if it be for houses, goods, chattels, churches, wives and children, that men repel invasion? These are under the safe-guard of laws, that is to say, political institutions, without which there can be no property, or ownership, in anything.

What becomes, then, of his degrading doctrine; what becomes of his assertion, that a mere cattle-like attachment to the earth, is of itself sufficient to make men fight against an invading enemy?

Even in those countries, where the wretched inhabitants are bought and sold with the estates, in which they are bred, and where the human form is animated with a degree of intelligence little superior to that of a brute, it is not the mere love of the soil which produces resistance to an invader; for, though the vassal be a sort of beast, the lord knows his interest, and he drags forth the vassal to war, not from a love of the soil, but from his love of the profits of the soil. In short, for the sake of his property; for fear of losing more than he has any chance of gaining.

But, why need we have made these observations? What need had we of an argument drawn from the reason of the case, when Mr. Canning himself has told us (what, indeed, we well knew before), that, in spite of this fine" instinctive patriotism; in spite of this devotion to native soil;" in spite of this "genuine feeling of the heart;" that, in spite of this "foundation of national independence," that, "many nations of "Europe were unfortunately led to believe and to act upon a different "persuasion; that whole nations were overrun by reforming conquerors, "and flattered themselves with being proselytes, till they found them"selves victims." In plain words, many nations of Europe, in the hope of bettering their condition, received the French invaders with open arms; but, at last, finding themselves "victims;" finding that they had been "deluded;" being "insulted" and "provoked" by their new masters, they joined with their old sovereigns to drive the new masters out. Let us take all this for granted; for it completely drives away the notion of “instinctive patriotism." Here we see nations, many nations, receiving the invader with open arms, because they thought he would better their lot; and we see them driving him out again, because he had rendered their lot worse than it was before.

66

Here we see many nations" actuated, in this question of invasion, not by any "instinctive" feeling about the soil; but by motives of selfinterest; by considerations connected with their property and political institutions; we see them, in short, making calculations, putting the good against the evil likely to arise to them from the invasion of their country; and deciding in favour of the former. We see "whole nations; many nations," acting thus; Mr. Canning himself exhibits them to us as thus acting; and yet, with the statement of this fact, this notorious fact, upon his lips, he, from his innate love of cattle-like feeling in the people, he tells his hearers, that a twenty years' war has decided this great question, has put reforming philosophy to shame, and has clearly proved, that "a devotion to native soil" alone is the foundation of national independence, and that it is quite sufficient for the purpose of keeping out or driving out an invader, without the aid of any motive connected with political institutions.

Yes, Mr. Canning could not disguise the fact, that "instinctive patriotism" had not prevented the Brabanters, the Dutch, the Italians, the Germans, the Prussians, the Polanders, from receiving the French

invaders with open arms, and with the avowed hope of bettering their condition; he could not disguise this fact, so well known, and so directly in the teeth of his doctrine; and, therefore, he says, that this "instinctive patriotism," this "devotion to native soil," this " genuine feeling of the heart," slumbered," that it was deluded," till " enlightened and kindled" by the insults and provocations of the invaders. A strange sort of instinct this? Instinct is a feeling wholly unconnected with reason; wholly distinct from mind. How, then, could it be enlightened; how could it be kindled; how could it slumber; how be deluded?

But, this confusion of ideas, this floundering, this flippant trash, was well enough suited to Mr. Canning's audience. It is possible that he thought that he himself understood what he was talking about; but, whatever might be his thoughts as to that matter, he knew well enough, that his audience was incapable of detecting any absurdity that might escape him. The darker the deeper he knew for them.

There was, however, to be drawn from this monstrous doctrine of "instinctive patriotism," a practical inference of great import to ourselves. It was this: that, whereas there have been times when we have been "called upon to consider, whether there was not something at home, "which must be mended before we could hope to repel a foreign invader "with success." This question, says he, is now settled; because we have seen that people who have less liberty than the people here enjoy, have, by the operation of instinctive patriotism" alone repelled the invader. There the premises are false; for we know, that the nations of Europe did not repel invaders; that they received the invaders with open arms, as Mr. Canning acknowledges; and that, whatever they have now done to assist their old masters, has been in the driving out of new masters, by whom, as he says, they had been insulted and provoked.

Besides, whatever may be Mr. Canning's opinion of the power of “instinctive patriotism," in this country, none of the ministries, to which he has belonged (and he has belonged to almost every one for twenty years past), appear to have placed much reliance upon it. They have acted upon notions very opposite indeed. They have kept on foot a large regular army; they have had an army of reserve; they have had all sorts of militias; they have established camps, built barracks near every considerable town; they have had recourse to yeomanry and volunteers, clothed as soldiers, and placed under officers appointed by the crown and paid by the people; nay, they have brought a very considerable army of foreigners into the country, upon the ground, expressly alleged, of their being necessary; districts of England itself have been under the command of some of these foreigners.

Now, if the "instinctive patriotism" of a people be sufficient to induce them to repel an invader, and if this "genuine feeling of the heart" be not less powerful in England than in Germany, why all these military establishments? Why all the enormous expense of camps, barracks, armies of reserve, yeomanry, volunteers and foreigners, amounting to not less than ten or fourteen millions sterling a year? As a speech-maker at Liverpool, Mr. Canning found it convenient, in support of his principles, as an enemy of reform of corrupt abuses, to broach his doctrine of "instinctive patriotism;" but, as a minister, he was too wise to trust to that patriotism for the repelling of an invader; or, if he did trust to it, he wisely chose to clothe his "instinctive patriots" in uniform, and to furnish them with arms, pay, lodging, coals, candles, and with bread and