destruction of its trade and commerce. There was, I must confess, a great difficulty to overcome. It was the business of the whole faction to make the people believe, if they could, that this measure of their opponents was injurious to England, and not at all injurious to France. It was not easy to do this amongst men of impartiality and plain sense; because, it was alledged by you, that the measure would diminish the commerce of England, and we all knew that it would go near to produce the utter annihilation of all the remaining commerce in France. The effect in both countries was of precisely the same nature; the difference was only in the degree; and, as it was evident, that whatever might be the amount of the evil in England, it would be surpassed by the amount of the evil in France, the balance, it was equally evident, was in our favour. Such being the case, the course which, I think, wisdom pointed out, was, to make the most of the evils which England would experience from the measure, and to say not a word about its operation with respect to France. But, this is what a faction, in or out of place, never yet did. They never yet contented themselves with what told in their favour. They must always have more. Every thing which they oppose must be black and white alternately, as it may suit their purpose so to consider it. After all, however, Mr. Ponsonby appears to view the Orders of Coun cil in a light very different from that, in which they are regarded by me. It is evident, that the measure will produce great distress in France and in all her dependent states, and the consequences of this distress cannot but be favourable to us. But, the light in which I love to look at it, is that of a declaration, issued in the face of the world, that England is resolved to command the sea, and that no nation shall navigate upon it without her permission, or without exposing themselves to punishment at her hands. It was high time to do something of this sort, unless we chose to sink quietly under the domination of France. No man supposes, that Napoleon will be induced to listen to equitable terms of peace, merely because his commerce is totally ruined; but, if, by this maritime measure, we convince him that we are resolutely bent upon exercising exclusive. dominion upon the sea as long as he continues to exercise such dominion upon the lind, he will be disposed, if any thing can dispose him, to enter upon negociations for peace upon terms compatible with our honour and our safety. It is, I allow it, a caJamity, that the civilized world should be divided be great master states, all the others being, more or less closely, depen. dent upon their will; but, this is a calamity now not to be removed by us. Our enemy may remove it whensoever he pleases; we are ready to give up the rigid exercise of our power by sea; but this we cannot do, while he holds all the land in subjection.-America, if she were disposed to act justly and wisely, might soon put an end to the contest. By uniting in the war with us; by securing to our colonies an ample supply of provisions and lumber; by putting every one at ease with respect to manufactures and commerce, and by leaving France and her dependent states no hope of embarrassing us by a continuation of the war; by these means, she would obtain the glory of giving peace to the world. But these are means, which she will never employ, 'till necessity shall compel her to shake off the rancourous faction, under which she is now sinking from disgrace to disgrace. MR. DAVIES, one of the most able and most worthy men in America, has observed, in his excellent work upon geography, lately published in Philadelphia, that "the nations of Europe cannot view with "indifference a nation of transatlantic tra"ders that discover no sympathy in the con"vulsions of a whole continent, no anxiety "about the sufferings of other nations, as "long as those sufferings open new chan"nels of commerce, and swell the revenues"of the state." Certainly, the nations of Europe cannot view such a people with indifference. Mr. Davies has given a just picture of his nation, and a most unamiable one it is. One great reason, that the partiality to France (at all times evinced by the rulers of America) is viewed with approbation by the people, good as well as bad, is this; that France being an irritable power, there is more danger of a disturbance of commerce from any offence given to her than from an offence given to England. As if they said: "England we know will not interrupt us, "do what we will. All, therefore, that we have to do, is to keep well with "France." This is the principle, by which the very best of the public men in America have been, all along, actuated. It is time, therefore, that we convince them, that, though not so ready to discover irritation as France is, we are not made of such lump ish materials as to be affected by no injury or insult that ingenious malice can invent; and, when they discover, that we are not disposed to brook that which they would not attempt towards France, they may, perhaps, in making up the account, find the balance of danger on the side opposite to that, on which they have hitherto thought it to rest, and may be disposed to treat us as well, at least, as they treat our enemy.- -As things now stand, America must begin the work of reconciliation. I have always said, that it was for the ministers to consider how far they might relax, with regard to America, in the exercise of our maritime dominion. But, America is the aggressor; she passed her non-importation act two years ago. The first step, the very first step, therefore, is the repeal of that act. That being done, we may, with propriety, and without loss of character, negociate with her, as to a relaxation of the rules laid down in the Orders of Council; but, until she take that step, it is for us to remain immoveable in our present position. ARMY.-The Mutiny Bill has passed the House of Commons, and with the clause spoken of in my last. Thus has the measure of Mr. Windham, decidedly the best that ever was adopted with respect to the army, been, upon only a few days notice, rendered null and void. The votes for the clause were 189, against 116, a greater minority than the ministers had before met with. Out of doors, the measure has excited great general disgust, but not greater than it merits; and, it is to be hoped, that, first or last, the authors of it will meet with their just reward. now so far as he meant to correct it, had been exercised in a manner detrimental to the honour of the crown and the interests of the army and of the country. The army itself was constitutionally looked upon as a great infringement made by the crown on the prerogatives of the people. He did not say it was an unnecessary infringement. But as the army was constitutionally an invasion of the liberties of the people, the principle of limiting in some respects the arbitrary power of the crown, with respect to the army, could not be looked upon as trenching on the prerogative of the crown, which held the army only by the indulgence of parliament. He contended that no prerogative of the crown, ought to infringe on the liberties of the people. The clause he should propose had nothing in view but to secure that justice and fair dealing which should always mark the proceedings of the crown towards the people. He proposed to restrain only that which no king if well advised, would ever do. It was due to the officers of the army, to afford them that legal protection for their fortunes and lives, and what was of still more importance to them, their characters, which persons of other classes enjoyed. They were wholly at the mercy of those malicious whispers, by which the ears of persons high in authority, were ever liable to be abused. Officers of the army should certainly be no worse situated in this respect than the rest of his majesty's subjects. No man whatsoever ought to be condemned or punished without a hearing. Such was the principle of British justice. The honour of which military men were so tenacious, was exposed to ruin often without the possibility of guarding against it. The discipline of the army also suffered materially by the practice he wished to correct. For when those who, if brought to trial, would be found decidedly deserving of "Sir F. Burdett, pursuant to the notice punishment, were blended in the operation given for him a few days since by a noble of one undistinguishing stroke of power with friend of his (Lord Folkestone) had to offer those who, if tried, had the means of procua clause, to prevent officers from being dis- ring themselves an honourable acquittal, virmissed from the army by any other means tue and good conduct, in a great measure, than the sentence of a Court Martial. He lost their stimulus, and bad conduct was thought such a provision of essential impor- sheltered from a great part of that shame, tance to the army, to the interests of the which was the most effectual check upon its crown, and those of the country. The form vicious progress. As the object he had in of the proposition he had to make was so view was to prevent future abuse rather than moderate, that he did not conceive any ob- to censure the past, he forbore to cast any jection could be made to it. He was not reflection or to cite any of those cases which aware of any opposition being intended, ex- it would be competent to adduce. He might cept from some loose ideas that had been be told these were cases in which persons thrown out, of its trenching on the Preroga- were dismissed, whom it would be hard to tive. He did not think it did. But even if expose by a court martial, though it would have it were true that it did, he should not think been highly improper to continue them in the that would be a reasonable objection with service. Persons of this kind might be perthe house, if he could shew that the power,mitted to resign, and thus there would Upon this third reading of the mutiny bill, Sir Francis Burdett moved to introduce the following clause: "that no officer in the "army should be dismissed or deprived of "his pay, otherwise than by the sentence "of a court-martial, or by address of either "House of Parliament."- This being a question of vital importance to the remaining liberties of the country, I shall here insert the short sketch of the debate, as it is given in the newspapers, referring the reader, for a more full report, to the Parliamentary Debates. always be a sufficient security against abuse of every kind. It was the principle of the British constitution to separate every thing odious from the crown, and to adorn it with the heavenly attributes of mercy and the power of relief. It was an inconsistency with this principle that he wished to remove, by giving to the officers of the army the same measure of justice enjoyed by the rest of the community. It was by the army that the crown was supported and the people protected, and why should the army be in a worse situation than any other part of the people in the essential point of justice? The army had now grown to such an extent, with a disposition still further to augment it, that even in point of mere numerical consideration, it was a large portion of the people. And in the present critical and dangerous situation of the country, when our safety depended so much on the zeal and energy of the officers of the army, ought they to be left in circumstances in which they might be whispered out of their rank and situation, into poverty, disgrace, and ruin, and a thousand calamities worse than any law could inflict, by the arts of a dark malignant assassin, who would not dare to meet them in the open light of genuine British justice? Courts martial afforded ample means to punish every description of offence, and when it was considered that these courts were not like juries, bound to be unanimous in their sentence, and how many descriptions of offences could be included under the very extensive and sweeping charge of ungentleman-like conduct, so often censured and punished by them, he was sure no latitude of impunity could be apprehended, by giving every accused person the opportunity of stating his case before such a tribunal. He moved a clause accordingly." It "The Secretary at War complimented the honourable baronet on the moderation which he had displayed; but objected to the clause because he had laid no ground for it. He urged the bad consequences of changes in the military system without the strongest reasons for it; and the necessity that the army should be dependent on the crown. was so necessary that even if it were not the the case at present, he should have proposed it now for the first time. He would wish, if it were possible, that the military should have the advantage of the common law; but it was inconsistent with the constitution and discipline of the army. The history of the world proved the necessity of strict discipline in an army, and for this it must look a head. The instances in which the it power alluded to had been exercised were of late extremely rare; but the best eeffcts resulted from the existence of the power. Every part of the prerogative pushed to extremes would produce abuses--such as in the making of peace or war. But this was no reason for diminishing that prerogative. An army independent of the sovereign was contrary to common sense. Such an encroachment on the prerogative would subvert the constitution. He allowed that in former times officers had been deprived of their regiments for voting against ministers. But there were no instances of this abuse in modern times. He therefore gave his decided negative to the proposition." "Lord Folkestone adverted to the extraordinary manner in which the honourable secretary had answered the arguments of the honourable baronet on his side. He had complimented him first for not stating past abuses, and then objected to the clause, because no grounds had been laid for it. The honourable secretary very well knew that there were instances of the most cruel oppression that might be stated. But the honourable baronet below only looked to the future, and had laid irrestible grounds for his proposition. He had stated his object to be to protect the officers and the crown itself from doing what was known to have been done, and from the secret whispers of slander and malice. His lordship, however, expressed his hope, that the honourable baronet would withdraw his clause, and bring the subject forward in a separate bill, for so grave and important a matter required the most serious deliberation and the fullest discussion. The honourable baronet he allowed could not, however, be liable to the charge of precipi tation from the other side. The noble lord opposite had brought forward his clause in a manner equally sudden; and as the houourable secretary had expressed so strongly his aversion to changes, he, no doubt, would give his vote against the change proposed by the noble lord near him. earnestly requested the honourable baronet to withdraw his clause for the present, as he should regret extremely to be obliged to give it his negative." He "Colonel Duckett opposed the clause, on account that it would be making the army judges in its own cause; and also, as it proposed to refuse, for the first time, the plac ing confidence in the crown, when we had a sovereign who of all others had best deserved it." "General Fitzpatrick said, that when he had proposed any change in the constitution of the army, he had always stated reasons which appeared to him to make it a matter of necessity. The military laws were naturally regarded in that house with a strong prejudice; and those who were particularly attached to the principles of the constitu tion, applied arguments to these laws which were not at all suited to the nature of the case. They were a necessary evil, and ought not to be interfered with. The honourable baronet had been complimented for his moderation, in not going into past abuses; but he was bound to make out the strongest case before a change of this kind could be for a moment contemplated The proposition, therefore, had his decided negative." The motion was withdrawn, in order to be brought forward again in a separate bill. I have long wished to see this question brought before parliament. I wanted to hear what they would say to it; and particularly what the Wigs would say, those fine old boys, those "champions of our rights," as a correspondent in my last (whom I shall answer in my next) calls them. General Fitzpatrick spoke for the whole, I suppose; and now, I should think, that the friends of Sir Francis Burdett may set their minds at rest as to the support that he is to receive from the Whigs. I have before observed upon the alteration, which the increased state of the army has made in regard to the prerogative in question. When the whole of the peace establishment was not above ten thousand men, there was no danger in the prerogative; but, now, when the number of commissioned officers is more than ten thousand; when one can scarcely walk a hundred yards, in any street of any town, without rubbing against an officer of the army; when no small part of the members of both houses of parliament are officers of the army; and when there is scarcely a family of any note in the whole kingdom that has not some relation an officer in the army, surely such a prerogative must be very dangerous. England is now a military country; it is so professed to be by the ministry and the parliament; and, if this be so, and if the king has the absolute power of dispossessing, at his pleasure, and without reason assigned, every officer of the army of his means of existence as well as of his character, of what sort, I ask, is the government of England -Colonel Duckett's observation, that the proposition refused to place confidence in a sovereign, who, of "all others best deserved it," was, to be sure, of great weight. Yes, without doubt, no sovereign ever deserved confidence so well as his Majesty. That is a settled point. But, the worst of it is, that there will always be men to say the same thing of every future sovereign, as there have been to say it of the past. Pore has a passage, the words of which I torget, but the substance of which is, that the character whom he is describing, always thought the king of the time being the best; and, when one king died, could scarce be vext, so wise and gracious was the next. But, the qualities of the king had nothing at all to do with the matter. Sir Francis Burdett professed to wish for nothing more than to guard the officers of the army for the future; and, surely, to leave the fortunes,. the character, and the happiness of so considerable a part of the nation at the sole mercy of the military adviser of the king is not very agreeable to the spirit of those laws, which make up what is called the constitution of England. I earnestly hope, that this subject will undergo an arople discussion. It is of infinitely greater importance to the people of England, than all the questions abour commerce and the law of natiens, which have cost the honourable members so many hard nights' work during the present session, and which have caused the printing of more papers than any man living could read in a year, though he went over them with the volubility of a law-stationer's clerk. PORTUGUESE MERCHANTS. -I lose not a moment in endeavouring to put the public upon its guard against an attempt, which, according to a paragraph in the Courier, of the 15th instant, this description of persons are preparing to make upon the taxes. It is there stated, that they have had a meeting at the London Tavern, and have appointed a committee to wait upon the Secretary of State, in order to obtain indemnification for their losses, in their precipitate flight from Lisbon. This is intolerable. What! are we to be taxed to pay for the losses, whichthey have incurred in trade? Do we suffer a bookseller, or a printer, to come to us for losses, which he may have sustained by fire? As well might we indemnify the farmer for his losses by the sheep-rot or the turnip-fly. Why did they not insure? If they could not do that, why did they not come away sooner? They had plenty of notice. In short,this is as impudent as the application of the adventurers to Buenos Ayres, and worse of it cannot be said.Upon one condition I would grant them indemnification I would make each individual give an account of his profits, since he began trade with Portugal. Those profits I he should then pay into the exchequer. would then give him as much as he could have earned, in the capacity of a labouring man, from the time he began to trade with Portugal until the present time, deducting the sum necessary for his support as a labouring man, during that space. If he had made no profits, I would advance him out of the taxes, the amount of 12 shillings a week for a year, or, which would be much better, perhaps, send him, at once, to the parish, if he were unable to work.—What insufferable, what outrageous impudence! A set of men leave their own country, go to another to carry on a lucrative trade, continue in that trade for years, and, at last, when they can stay no longer, when they can derive no longer any profits from a trade, for the support of which their country has dearly paid in armaments and subsidies, home they come and demand indemnification for the loss they have sustained, in consequence of having remained to the last moment ! The American Merchant, whose letter came too late to be noticed, without great inconvenience, shall see his letter and my answer, in the next number. In the mean while, 1 think, he will regard it but fair to give me his name, in consequence of the base imputation contained in the last paragraph of his letter.Whether he send his name or not, however, his letter shall be inserted. Botley, 17th. March, 1808. COBBETT'S Parliamentary Debates. The Third number of Vol. X. is ready for delivery. Complete sets from the commencement in the year 1803, may be had of R. Bagshaw, Brydges Street, CoventGarden, and of J. Budd, Pall Mall. *** All Communications for the above Work, if sent to the Publishers in due time, will be carefully attended to. AMERICAN MERCHANTS' PETITION. Dated 10th March, 1805 -The petition of the undersigned merchants, manufac turers and others, of the city of London, interested in the trade with the United States of America, humbly sheweth :-That your petitioners contemplate with the greatest anxiety and apprehension the alarming consequences with which they are threatened from certain orders in council, purporting to be issued for the protection of the trade and navigation of Great Britain; but on which, they are induced, after mature consideration, to believe that they must be productive of the most ruinous effects. Your petitioners are duly sensible of the necessity of making every sacrifice of personal interests, to promote the strength and resources of the country in the present extraordinary crisis of public affairs; and if the total change intro duced into the whole commercial system of this country, and of the world, by the orders of council, could be conducive to so desirable an object; your petitioners, great as their losses must be, would submit without a murmur; but understanding that these orders are principally, if not wholly, recommended by an opinion, that they will prove beneficial to the commercial interests of this coun try, they feel it to be their duty, humbly to represent their conviction, that this opinion is founded in error; and that if the prayer of their petition be granted, they shall be able to prove, that they must be productive of the most fatal consequences to the interests, not only of your petitioners, but of the commerce and manufactures of the empire at large.-Your petitioners will abstain from enforcing, by any details, their apprehension, that these measures are likely to interrupt our peace with the United States of America; our intercourse with which, at all times valuable, is infinitely more so since we are excluded from the continent of Europe. To this only remaining branch of our foreign intercourse, we must now look for a demand for our manufactures, for many of the most important materials for their support; and for supplies of provisions and naval stores, necessary for our subsistence and defence.-Your petitioners feel assured that they will be able to prove to the satisfaction of your hon. house, that the neutrality of America has been the means of circulating to a large amount, articles of the produce and manufactures of this country, in the dominions of our numerous enemies, to which we have no direct access. -That the annual value of British manufactures exported to the United States, exceeds ten millions sterling and that as our consumption of the produce of that country falla far short of that amount, the only means of paying us must arise from the consumption of the produce of America in other countries, which the operation of the orders in council must interrupt, and in most instances totally destroy-That the people of America, even if they remain at peace with us, must by a want of demand for their produce, and by the general distress our measures must occasion, be disabled from paying their debts to this country, which may fairly be estimated to amount to the |