and "gained," in italic characters, "Oh!" said I, to myself, "here is "something solid coming at the close: we are now going to see what we have gained by this war of 20 years' duration.”

66

Here, you 400 gaping oafs! Take it in again. Swallow it down a second time, while my reader and I divert ourselves at the sight of your scramble for these precious gains!

"Can we regret that we did not lie down and die under the sufferings of the "inclement season? or did we not more wisely to bear up, and wait the change? "- Gentlemen, I have said that I should be ashamed, and in truth I should be so, to use the language of exultation, if it were the language of exultation only; "but those who have suffered great privations have a right to know that they "have not suffered them in vain; they have earned a claim not merely to con"solation, but to something more. They are justly to be compensated for what they "have undergone, or lost, or hazarded, by a contemplation of what they have gained. We have gained, then, a rank and authority in Europe, which for the "life of the longest liver of those who now hear me, must place this country upon "an eminence which no probable reverses can shake.-We have gained, or rather "we have recovered, a splendour of military glory which places us by the side "of the greatest military nations in the world.-Twenty, nay ten years ago, while "there was not a British heart that did not beat with rapture at the exploits of our navy, there were few who would not have been content to compromise for that "reputation alone; to claim the sca as exclusively our province, and to allow "France and the other Continental Powers to contend for superiority by land. "Let Portugal, now led to the pursuit of her flying conquerors, let liberated Spain, let France herself, invaded in her turn by those whom she had overrun "or menaced with invasion, attest the triumphs of the British army, and the equality of her military with her naval fame.

46

61

"I do not say that these are considerations with a view to which the contest, "if otherwise terminable, ought to have been purposely protracted: but, I say, "that upon the retrospect, we have good reason to rejoice that the contest was "not closed ingloriously and insecurely:-when the latter events of it have been such as have established our security by our glory. I say we have reason to rejoice:-that during the period when the Continent was prostrate before France, "that especially during the period when the continental system was in force, we "did not shrink from the struggle, that we did not make peace for present and "momentary ease, unmindful of the permanent safety and greatness of this country, that we did not leave unsolved the momentous questions whether this coun"try could maintain itself unaided and alone; or with the Continent divided, or "with the Continent combined against it; whether, when the wrath of the "tyrant of the European world was kindled against us with seven-fold fury, we "could or could not walk unarmed and unfettered through the flames.

"These questions, Gentlemen, therefore, have been solved by our perseverance "under difficulties and discouragements which, when related in history, will "appal our posterity more than the actual suffering of them has appalled our"selves."

So then, wholly and exclusively of military glory, military reputation! And there we stop. This sort of language might have had some sense in it, if addressed to the army; if addressed to military men; if addressed to those who have no other object than that of the credit and profit of the fighting trade in view. But with what sense could it be addressed to an assembly of merchants, and dealers, and handicraftsmen, who could have not the smallest pretensions, personally, to any share of this sort of gain?

But, to this acquisition is, it seems, to be added, a knowledge, or, at least, a confidence which we have acquired by the war, that we are able to defend our country; that we have, within ourselves, the means and the courage, to ensure us against being conquered by foreign nations.

Was this, then, doubted before the war? Was it ever, before the war, a question with us, whether England was able to defend herself against

France? The gentleman says, that that question is now decided. As if the question was ever entertained before this unhappy war began.

Now, says he, our soldiers have a reputation equal to our sailors. And when had they it not? When were we disposed to yield, in this respect, to the French, or any other nation? It is notorious, that, before this war began, it was an opinion grown into a vulgar maxim, that one English soldier was equal to three French soldiers. I grant, that the opinion was erroneous, and the maxim that of the vulgar, imposed upon by crafty men. But, it is undeniable, that the opinion was generally entertained, that the maxim was on every one's lips; and, it is equally undeniable, that, by the events of this war; by our numerous retreats before French armies; by the occurrences at the Helder, at Dunkirk, at Corunna, and in divers other quarters, this flattering opinion of our superior prowess, this maxim so well calculated to excite a feeling of contempt towards our enemy, have been entirely put out of vogue; and, according to Mr. Canning, they have been replaced by an opinion, founded on proof, that our soldiers are as good as those of France; and, that we need not fear their power to invade and conquer our country. A mighty gain indeed! A very great object to be obtained by twenty years of war!

The drift of Mr. Canning, in this part of his speech, is, however, in great part, to give Lord Wellington the merit of having effected this glorious change, so advantageous to our reputation, and so powerful in its effects as to our future security; for, in another paragraph of the speech, he says, that, after the peace, the meanest Englishman, walking the streets of Paris, will be pointed out as a member of that nation which has humbled France; will be pointed out as the "compatriot of Wellington."

Now, in the first place, France is not yet humbled. It is not yet, and, of course, it was not, three weeks ago, time to sell the Lion's skin. And, in the next place, if France be finally humbled, will it have been by England? Will no other nation have had a hand in the work? If she be humbled, will it not have been by the joint efforts of all the other nations of Europe?

And, suppose that an Englishman were to be looked upon in the light that Mr. Canning says he would. Is it any thing new to the world for Englishmen to be thought highly of as soldiers? Just as if Englishmen were nothing in the field before this war; as if Englishmen never set a hostile foot in France till led by this Lord Wellington! As if we ought to forget all about the battles of Poictiers, Cressy, Agincourt, and many others. Lord Wellington has barely entered France; he is not out of it yet; his campaigns have yet, by their result, to show whether it be likely that Frenchmen will, with fear and trembling, look at his compatriots. But, taking his feats, as they now are, what has he done? Why, with two nations of 13 millions of people on his side, and with an army that has cost us about 20 millions a year, he has, at the end of four years, so far got the better of a mere detachment of the forces of France, as to just poke his nose into the French territory. And this is to cover us with glory, is it? This is an acquisition of military glory to England, with a 20 years' war, and 600 millions of debt, besides six hundred millions more of taxes? Why, Mr. Canning, did we want all this war and expenditure to prove that Englishmen were capable, under such circumstances, to poke their noses into France, when history told the world before, that Englishmen had conquered all France; that they actually

held possession of a considerable part of France for centuries; that so late as the reign of Queen Mary, Calais was an English town; that so late as only 140 years ago Dunkirk was an English town. And, did we, after the battles of Marlborough and Wolfe; did we, indeed, want the war; this long, expensive, and bloody war, to establish the fact, that Englishmen were able to meet Frenchmen in the field.

But, Mr. Canning, you talk of the honour and glory that we have gained. You have overlooked a little item of this sort which we have lost. Amongst the titles of our king, before this war, was that of KING OF FRANCE. He was, before this war, "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland," &c. &c. France is now expunged from his title; a title won by Englishmen fighting in France. It had nothing real in it. Our king was not, in fact, King of France. No; nor was, nor is he, Defender of the Faith of the Romish Communion, as Henry VIII. was styled by the Pope. But, the former, like the latter, made part of his honorary appellations. He was not in reality King of France in 1801, when that part of his title was given up; but, he was in 1801, and he is now, as much King of France as he was before your 20 years' war; and, why has the title been yielded up since the war? I ask you WHY? I have heard it said, that the king gave it up, because it was become a disgrace to be king of such a people! Upon this principle, if they should return to allegiance to the Bourbons, the title may be revived.

No, no, Mr. Canning, that day is gone by. That title will never be resumed. When I was a child my father had to explain to me why our king was called King of France; and, in so doing, he had to relate to me the victorious wars of our English ancestors. You and I, Sir, are saved that trouble. All the old guineas are gone (another happy effect of your war); the old crowns, half-crowns, and shillings have followed the same course; our copper coin is new; so that the great, wide-spreading, ever-present record of the gallant achievements of our forefathers are all vanished. Your children and mine have nothing to tempt them to ask us any questions upon that which is now, in spite of all your boasting, a very painful subject.

I could here, entering upon matter better suited to your audience, show how enormous the losses of this nation has been from the war; I could draw a comparison between the state of the country in 1792 and 1814, as to its Debts, its Taxes, its Currency, its Paupers, its Laws, its Liberties, and its Prospects, which, I think, would wring the heart of every real lover of England. But, confining myself to your own topic, to your own view of the matter; taking you upon that ground, which you yourself have selected, and upon which to stand and crow in fancied security, with eyes half shut and plumes expanded; taking you here, I show, I flatter myself, that your promises are false, and that your conclusions are false, even supposing your premises true.

It only remains for me to apologize to the reader for having, as I fear, put his patience to too severe a test. But the poison was so artfully mixed up and kneaded together, that it required time to analyze it and to furnish, as I hope I have, an appropriate antidote."

I may deceive myself in the utility of this antidote, but, in case others, who have the means, may be desirous of giving it circulation, a few Numbers extraordinary have been printed this week, in order to afford them an opportunity of so doing.

WM. COBBETT.

THIS subject would require a greater space than I am able here to allot to it. So much nonsense has been published about protecting the farmer; so much unparalleled trash, that I hardly know where to begin. I shall confine myself to a mere hint or two; first observing, that, speaking as a grower of wheat, I wish for none of this sort of protection.

It has been said, that the manufacturing interest will suffer by any measure tending to keep up the price of corn; and, that to give the farmer security for high prices, must injure the rest of the community.Now, in the first place, I deny, that it is in the power even of a body of men, who have been called omnipotent, to cause the farmer to have a high price; the price depending upon the crop, and not upon any law or any regulation. But, supposing it possible to give the farmer a high price, how is that to injure the eaters of bread? If the corn be cheap, all other things will be cheap in proportion; and, amongst other things, the produce of the manufactories. The fundholder seems to be the only person with reason to complain of high prices; because he has nothing to sell. He is an annuitant, whose nominal income is fixed, and therefore, when the loaf is at 1s. 6d. his annuity is worth to him only half as much as when the loaf is at 9d. But if the loaf were to be, and to continue at 9d. for any length of time, whence is to come the money to pay him his annuity ? A wish has been expressed to bring things round by degrees to the prices of 1792! What profound ignorance; or, what profound hypocrisy! In 1792, or before the war preparations, the whole of the taxes (no loans) raised in the country did not exceed fourteen millions. The taxes raised last year, 1813, amounted (exclusive of loans) to sixty-nine millions. And yet, there are men so devoid of sense, or so devoid of shame, as to talk of bringing round prices to the state of 1792! The annual interest on the debt (which must continue to be paid) is now about forty millions. In 1792, it was nine millions. All the annual expenses in 1792 amounted to less than five millions. Can they now amount to less, even in time of peace, than twenty millions? How, then, are prices to be brought round to the standard of 1792? To bring prices to the standard of 1792, you must first bring round the taxes to the standard of 1792, and next you must bring round gold in place of paper. -So that these wise advocates of low prices are beginning their amiable endeavours at the wrong end.

If the wheat were at five shillings a bushel; beer at 27, a quart; beef at 3d. a pound; it would make no difference to the farmer, except for the remainder of his lease. It would make no difference to Mr. Coke, or Sir Francis Burdett, or any other landnolder, to whom 5000l. a-year would be as valuable as 20,000l. a-year now is. It would give them the means of living just in the style that they now live. But, then, in both cases, the taxes must be diminished in the same proportion; and, in place of collecting 69 millions a-year, you must collect only 23 millions at most, which would but little more than HALF suffice for the payment of the interest on the Debt, leaving the Civil List, the Army, the Navy, and every other out-going wholly unprovided for.

It has been observed, with most brazen impudence, or with more than idiot folly, that it is unjust thus to put money into the pocket of the landholder, at the expense of the poor soul who hardly earns his morsel of bread. In the first place, Mr. Coke, for instance, if he let his land at 30s. an acre instead of 10s., must pay for servants, for horses, for carriages, for beer, for bread, for everything on which he lays out his money, 3s. instead of 1s. How, then, can the high price of corn give him any advantage over the poorer people who serve him, or who administer to his wants or his pleasures? Besides, he must pay 3s. in taxes instead of 1s. So that, in fact, as far as this goes, it is the Government, or the public, or the Debt, or the State, or, call it what you will, which in the end receives the difference.

Those who eat the loaf must, of course, pay the tax. We see very plainly how the tax upon sugar, or upon spirits, fall upon the consumer; but the tax upon bread being collected, not upon the loaf, or the flour, or the wheat, we lose sight of its march to our mouths. But, if it be collected upon the earth, in which the wheat grows; upon the house in which the grower lives; upon the horses that plough the land for the wheat; upon the iron and the leather that make up the harness for the horses that plough the land for the wheat; upon the gig that carries to church the wheat-grower's wife; upon the nag that carries the wheat-grower, the next day, to market to sell the wheat; upon the cloddy-heeled boy, who becomes a gentleman's servant, for his looking after the nag and brushing the shoes of the wheat-grower ; upon the dog, whose teeth are necessary to protect the wheatgrower's barns; upon the stamps of the wheat-grower's lease, his receipts, and his notes of hand; upon the sugar, the coffee, the tea, the soap, the candles, the pepper, the salt, the very drugs, and a score of other things, used in the house of the wheat-grower; upon the malt that makes the beer necessary to keep his nerves steady amidst the bewildering of such an accumulation: if the tax be collected upon all these, must it not be paid, at last, by those who eat the loaf, made out of the wheat? And if the wheat-grower gets little money for his crop, is it not evident that he can have little money to pay to the Government in any shape whatever? Is it not, in other words, evident, that if wheat (generally the regulator of all other commodities), continue to be of the present price, the interest of the Debt cannot be paid?

Mind, reader, I am no advocate for law that is now pending. I know, that the thing will, and must, regulate itself. If, by importations from countries where the land is more fertile and less taxed than ours, wheat were to become too cheap to make it profitable to grow it here in the present average quantity, less would be grown here; the capital, the labour, the means of all sorts, now used for the raising of corn, would, in part, be used for other purposes; and some of those who are now farmers would turn their hands to other employments. I see no harm in this. But the thing is impossible. No such effort, it appears to me, can be produced by importations from abroad, the quantity being too small to be of any consequence. think, that Mr. Coke, and the other advocates of the Bill, proceed upon erroneous notions of the effect of importation. But, at the same time, they are by no means chargeable with injustice. Their endeavours, in fact, tend to the protection, not of the farmer, but of the fundholder, and of those who depend on the Civil List. Their endeavours, they being landholders, are very disinterested, seeing that