republican government, lest the example should spread. Whether a republican government would have been the best that France could have had is quite another question. The French revolutionists set out with setting their faces against all sorts of tyranny, at any rate. They did not ask for a military despotism. War was not made upon them because they set up a despotism; but, because they inculcated anarchy. Let this never be forgotten. They did not choose a despotic government; they revolted to get rid of one; and the accusation against them was, that they taught anarchy.- -Therefore, if there be an Emperor of France, the fault is not in the "Jacobins and Levellers," who wanted to see no Emperor in France; but, who, since there is one there, are not to be blamed for liking him as well as any other Emperor, or, at least, are not to be blamed if they give him the same title. They, in fact, have nothing at all to do with these matters of etiquette; and, their best. way is always to give to every one the name that he is easiest known by.-The passage of the COURIER is as follows: seen no signs of these nations wishing to | "One or two more observations be"fore we conclude. We find that Mr. "Whitbread, as well as many others of the Opposition, constantly calls Buonaparté "Emperor of France, and his Generals by "their new titles. This may appear of "little importance to some; to us the easy " It does make one stare, to be sure, to hear a man seriously say, that he looks upon the retreat of Massena as the grave admission of these usurped titles is at of Napoleon's power. But, the word "best foolish, and may be mischievous. tyrant! I can remember when Mr. PER- "One effectual weapon against BuonaCEVAL prosecuted, by the means of an In- parté, and which he dreads as thoroughly formation Ex-officio, Mr. Peltier for calling as the sword, is the general abhorrence Napoleon hard names, and for hinting "of his crimes; but if these are forgotten, pretty broadly, that the people of France the abhorrence must expire with the rewould do well to put him down. But, "collection. Whilst he is called by the before I refer more particularly to Mr. "name of his reputed father, the scrivener Perceval's speech upon that occasion, let "of Ajaccio, the memory of his pristine me remind the reader, that the MORNING "nieanness continues; with his meanness we POST and COURIER news-papers, have, "associate his crimes; with his crimes we within these few months, accused Napo-" confirm his infamy; with his infamy we leon of boasting of unnatural crimes; that "perpetuate our resistance. It is imposthey call his Empress his mistress, his child "sible to recognize a title without acknowa Bastard; and, accuse him of committing "ledging the power which created it: and incest with his brother Louis's wife. "thank God we are not yet reduced to acI will here take a passage from the Cou- knowledge the French Emperor! The RIER of no longer ago than Thursday, the "offspring of Buonaparte's Mistress may 2d instant. The writer is finding fault with be proclaimed King of Rome: he may some of the Opposition as he calls them, "be swaddled by Grandmamma Letitia, for calling Buonaparté Emperor of France. formerly Abbess of the Nunnery in Impudent hireling? and whose fault is it "Marseilles and now Patroness of the that there is an Emperor of France? "Magdalens in Paris; he may be ChrisWhose but that of those who pre- "tianized by the Pope, or Mahomevented the French from establishing a "tanized by the Mufti; but until Britain, 66 "shall recognize his squalling Majesty, and upon such terms; and, therefore, he put it "send an embassy to salute the royal down; and, infinitely better, and more fa"Baby-clothes, the imperial inheritance vourable to real freedom it was, to put it "is not quite assured.--Even of his wholly down, than to let it exist in such "brother Louis, unoflending as he is, can hands. Let us now return to Mr. PER"we not speak, without terming him the CEVAL and his prosecution EX OFFICIO of "Ex-King; or of his incestuous sister, Mr. Peltier. In his speech upon that oc"without terming her the Ex-Queen, of casion he used the following words, as re"Holland? Can we not speak of the ported in the octavo edition, page 81, pub"drunken Joseph, without calling him lished by Mr. Peltier himself.-—“ WheKing of that very country, for whose "ther the present libel was directed "legitimate Sovereign we at this moment against a Monarch sitting on his throne, "are triumphing? Must we hail the adul- "from long hereditary descent, or whe"terous Jerome, King of Westphalia; or "ther he is a person raised to this power "the crimp-serjeant Bernadotte, Crown "by the revolution, from the choice of "Prince of Sweden? Is it not as easy to "that country, or from any other cause, it "say that Lord Wellington drives before "makes no difference. He is, de facto, the "him Massena, as the Prince of Essling; chief Magistrate, and is to be respected by "and that General Graham routed Victor," those who are the subjects of that coun"as the Duke of Belluno? Is it more diffi- "try, who owe a temporary allegiance to "cult to pronounce Junot, than Abrantes; him. He is to be respected as if his ances"or Mortier than Treviso ?"Why, "tors had enjoyed the sume power for a numthen, is it not as easy to pronounce Robert "ber of generations. Perhaps I may hear Jenkinson as Earl of Liverpool, and so on? " of publications in the Moniteur reflectBut, the good of it is, that the title of "ing on our government. What have we Emperor of France was first formally ac- "to do with that? I am standing here for knowledged by us in the Convention of "the honour of the English law, and of the Cintra, of which this far-famed Lord Tala- English nation. I state this to be a vera, whose name was then Wellesley, was "crime, and as such have brought it the negociator.--Aye, and how glad" before an English jury. And if any would this same hireling be to see a treaty to-morrow with the Emperor of France and King of Italy!This man seems, then, to think, that the recognition of the Emperor's title, on the part of England, is necessary to his stability! If a negociation was on fout, and such a thing were mentioned, it would send our embassador home in the twinkling of an eye. This miserable slave, a slave ten thousand times worse than any under the dominion of Napoleon, couples meanness of birth with crimes; and, yet, I'll warrant, that this man himself was born in a house not worth 20 shillings a year of lawful money. This is excessively base. It is such a villainous abandonment of a man's own character. But, from my soul, I believe, that the most abject slaves upon the face of the whole earth are some of those who are concerned with the English press; and if there had been such to be found in France, or in any of his dominions, Napoleon would have known better than to put an end to what is called " the Liberty of the Press;" that is to say, the liberty of praising men who have the power to oppress you. He could find no men base enough; his whole dominions furnished no men so detestably base as to use the press "other country think that they can pros was a dishonour to England; if the HONOUR of the English LAW (Honour of Law !) called for the proceeding against him, what is this honour at now? This same sovereign is now called an incestuous person, an adulterer, a boaster of unnatural crimes; and, yet, very far indeed are the authors from being called to account. The child of Napoleon is called a Bastard; his wife is called a mistress. Is the excuse that we are now at war with him? This is a pretty justification indeed, and another very fine illustration of the consistency of what is called the law of libel. But, at any rate, I never will say any thing of Napoleon in war that I am not allowed to say of him in peace: Inever will condescend to be that base thing of a writer, who will submit to be hallooed on and rated off, just as it suits the views of men in power. Napoleon is the same man now that he was in 1803, only his fame is more spread and speak of other sovereigns. I dare not MR. BINGHAM.The case of this gentleman was noticed in my Register of the 30th of March, page 769 of the present volume. It appeared clearly to me, from a perusal of the proceedings on the Trial, as reported in the news-papers, that he had not only been falsly accused; but that there had been some very foul play made use of against him; and, in short, that his life had been put in jeopardy from some most abominable motive in some quarter or other.--At the time when I wrote, the article here referred to, I could not lay my hand upon any of the publications, which were made against Mr. BINGHAM in London, the moment he was taken up, and which publications were, I recollected, of a nature to prejudice the public, the whole world, and of course, the Jury against him.There were several of these publications; but, that which was made in the TIMES news-paper was the one which I remembered the best; and, upon looking back for it, I found it as follows. I shall here insert it entire ; and I give it as an instance of the boldness of these literary heroes; of their undaunted his power greater. But, he is, at any rate, First Magistrate of France; and, he is not the less so because he is at war with us. If any man were to sell a file of the COURIER after peace is made with France, such man would, agreeably to the doctrines upon which Mr. PELTIER was accused and convicted, be liable to cool his heels in jail.In another part of his speech at that trial, Mr. PERCEVAL pointed out the danger of irritating the people of France against us; and, in short, every thing was said to shew the evil tendency of abusing Buonaparté.I say, then, that he is still the sume man, and that he is still the First Magistrate of France. - If he is to be abused merely because we are at war with him, what pretty consistent law is this. The honour of this law must be of a most singular description.-In peace we must not say truth of him, if unpleasant; but, in war, we may say what we will, true or false, as clearly appears from the publications in the MORNING POST and the COURIER. Such publications cannot, indeed, produce war; but, it is possible that they may perpetuate it. The French news-papers contain no such infamous publications about any persons in this country. Bad as they are represented to be, they do not contain any such things, and never have. But in this country, they are found in all these prints, the authors of which shew their devotion to men in power.I do not say, that it is my opinion even, that they will perpetuate war, being persuaded that Napoleon masters his passions where his political interest is concerned; but, it must be evident to every one, that, if any pub-courage; of their noble spirit of freedom, in lications could have such a tendency, these would have that tendency.The minister may call Napoleon a tyrant as long as he pleases; but, I never will, until such a change is made in the practice of the law, as will authorize me to call him a tyrant in time of peace as well as in time of war; nor, will I ever say any thing of him, which (if I have the truth with me) I am not allowed to say of the King of England or of any of his sons or his ministers. No: I have seen a writer tried and convicted of the crime of having spoken of Napoleon in a way, calculated to expose him to hatred; and if this be a crime, it must be a crime in time of war as well as in time of peace; and, therefore, I will not speak of him in any such way. I will speak of him with just the same caution that I am compelled to cases where they assault the feeble or the fallen. Here they exercise the liberty of the press without any restraint; here they shew that they enjoy the « blessed birthright "of Britons;" here they swagger; here they look big.--But, it is time to come to the publication referred to; and, as we proceed, we should bear in mind, that the object of attack was a man not proved to be guilty, a man of spotless reputation heretofore, a man with a numerous family and with very scanty means of maintain. ing them, and that this publication was made at a time when there was a great reward offered for bringing to conviction the person guilty of one of the crimes with which he was charged.--There are two passages, which I have designated by capital letters, and to these I beg the reader to pay particular attention. The whole of "were destroyed. It was ascertained that "the fire broke out in the school-room, "where there were several faggots laid. "Mr. Bingham reported that he had no "doubt it was one of the Foresters who the article should be attended to; but these" premises, and to patrole in different parts. two passages are of the greatest import-" -On the 16th of January last, Mr. ance; for of great importance it is to Bingham's house was discovered to be every man, seeing that every one is ex- "on fire, and although timely assistance posed to the same danger that Mr. Bing-" was given, great part of the premises ham has experienced. The passage is taken from the TIMES news-paper of the 5th of February, 1811. A few months "since, a great part of Ashdown Forest "in Sussex was inclosed by a set of men "called Foresters, and also by the Rev." had set fire to his premises. The ac"Robert Bingham, the Curate of the "count he gave of the fire and his con"parish of Mayersfield; which being" duct, was, that his family went to bed "deemed to be the right of the Dutchess "about ten o'clock-he was the last up. "of Dorset, the same were thrown down." About half past ten o'clock he heard "by order of her Grace, Lord Whitworth," the noise of footsteps; he looked out of and Lord Sheffield, the acting Magis- "his window, but could not see or hear "trate for that county. This act irritated "any person. About half-past eleven "all those who had made inclosures, "o'clock he was alarmed again-he look"and some of them were heard to make "ed out of the window the second time, "use of threatening language, which "but did not see any person but a little "caused some little alarm among those "before one, be heard a noise at the school" concerned in destroying the inclosures; "room-door; and he states that he saw a but no particular notice was taken, or "man walking from the house, but could any act done except swearing in a num- "not tell whether he had on a blue coat "ber of respectable inhabitants as Special, "or a smock frock. This account being "Constables, to be ready in case of an "so very extraordinary and unsatisfactory, "emergency.--On Sunday, the 16th "Lord Sheffield sent to the Public-office, "of December, a letter was found on the Bow-street, for an active and intelligent road near Mayersfield, by the sons of "officer, and Mr. Read sent Atkins. Upon Mr. Richard Jenner, a respectable" the officer's arrival, after making inquifarmer, directed to their father. The "ries, HE strongly suspected Mr. Bingboys took it home, but their father ham set his own house on fire, and in "being absent they gave it to their" consequence placed several men to mother, who on opening it, discovered "watch. ONE OF THEM HE STA"that it was headed in large letters," TIONED IN THE STEEPLE OF ««Fire: Murder! and Revenge!" and "THE CHURCH, WHEN THEY DIS"the contents threatened destruction to COVERED HIM TO BRING A "the Parson, Churchwardens, Farmers'" GREAT QUANTITY OF BOOKS "houses, barns, and stacks. The boys FROM HIS STABLE, AND BURY "told the mother, that after Mr. Bing- "THEM IN HIS GARDEN. From a "ham performed the morning service at variety of other suspicious circumstances Mayersfield Church, he got on horse-" a warrant was granted against Mr. Bingback to ride to a neighbouring parish "ham, and one to search his premises, "to do duty there in the afternoon, he "when Atkins found in the roof of the "passed them, and when he was at a short" privy a variety of valuable papers con"distance from them, THEY SAW A "cealed, together with other suspicious "PAPER DROP FROM HIS POCKET, "circumstances of his having set his pre"WHICH THEY WERE POSITIVE" mises on fire for the purpose of defraudWAS THE LETTER THEY PICKED" ing the Union Fire Office, and he was in "UP.--The letter so much alarmed "Mrs. Jenner, that she sent off one of her "sons after her husband, who was in "London. The circumstance caused con"siderable alarm in that part of the coun-" try. Lords Whitworth and Sheffield "published an advertisement, offering a "reward of 2001. for the discovery of the writer of the letter. A number of men "were employed to watch Mr. Jenner's " 66 conséquence taken into custody, and "on Friday underwent a final examina"tion at Lewes, before Lords Chichester and Sheffield, and was fully committed for trial."-Now, without dwelling upon the general tenor of this article, I beg the reader's attention to the two passages, pointed out by the Capital Letters, either of which, if true, contains pretty nearly proof of the guilt of the accused person. -They relate to the two crimes, with which he stood charged: the first, to the crime of writing the threatening letter to JENNER; and the second, to the crime of setting fire to his own house with a view of defrauding the Union fire Office, of which office we shall have more to say another time perhaps.It is stated here by MR. WALTER, the Proprietor of the Times newspaper, that the sons of Jenner " saw a pa"per drop from Mr. Bingham's pocket, which they were positive was the Letter they "picked up."--Now, if the account of the trial be true, this is false; for, in that account the boys, even these boys, say no such thing; and, Mrs. Jenner says no such thing. The boys say, on the contrary, that they did not see the letter drop from his Pocket; and, Mrs. Jenner says, that they never told her that they did see it drop from his pocket, and that, for some time, no such thing was ever talked of. Thus, then, is the falsehood of this publication proved upon the trial; it is proved upon oath; and, indeed, if the truth of it had been proved Mr. Bingham must have been found guilty; for, the evidence of seeing it drop from his pocket, would, at any rate, have been proof quite sufficient of his being, at bottom, the author of it.What justification, then, can Mr. Walter set up for this publication; this foul attack upon the character of Mr. Bingham; this stab at his reputation? Ignorance? Is that his plea? Will he say that he was ignorant of the matter; that he was not acquainted with the circumstances? Will he say this? Why did he not stop, then, till he was acquainted with the circumstances; why did he not stop till he had good authority for saying what he said? What right had he to venture such a publication regardless of the effect upon the unfortunate gentleman and his family? Yet, ignorance, bad as it is, is his best justification; for, if he knew the truth, at the time when he was publishing this falsehood, I have no hesitation in saying that the act was very little better than that of a murderer, and a murderer of the worst sort too, because it united to consummate cruelly the basest of cowardice.--The second assertion, that one of the men, stationed in the steeple of the church, discovered Mr. Bingham "to bring a great "quantity of books from his stable and bury "them in his garden," is, as appears from the report of the trial, equally false with the former. There is not a word of truth in it, from beginning to the end.--What an infamous thing, then, was it to publish such an assertion! If this assertion had been true, and, who could doubt of it, from the manner in which the assertion was made, there could have been little doubt of Mr. Bingham's guilt; every man must, upon the face of the fact, say that it indicated, clearly indicated, guilt; and, the persuasion of its truth once safely lodged in the mind of two or three of the jury might have sent this innocent man to the gallows; for his escape from which he certainly has not to thank MR. WALTER. --The last assertion is a sheer falsehood. It has not shadow of foundation in any fact, as far as appears from the report of the Trial. How then, came Mr. WALTER to make it; for, after all, Mr. Walter it is, and Mr. Walter it must be. How came he to make this assertion? Did he put in the paragraph at the request of another person? Was it paid for, or was it not? Here, as in the other case, ignorance is his best plea; but, what satisfaction is that to Mr. Bingham, his wife, his children, his relations, and his friends? What satisfaction would it have been to them, if the ignominious death of the accused had been, as it might have been, the consequence? Nay, what satisfaction is it to Mr. Bingham for all his actual losses and injuries, sustained in consequence of these false reports? Here is no blind hint; it is a positive assertion; a plain assertion of a fact, and which fact is a proof of guilt.-Still, however, I should have been ready to make some allowances for Mr. WALTER, if he had made the reparation, the cheap reparation, of a contradiction, through the same channel that had conveyed the injurious falsehood to the public, But, though I have looked pretty attentively to see if such contradiction appeared, I have seen none, either in the TIMES or the MORNING CHRONICLE, or in any of the papers through which the falsehoods were conveyed to the public.--And here I cannot help observing the difference in the conduct of these gentlemen towards a poor Clergyman and a rich Bishop. It is not long since they were all upon their knees before the Bishop of Derry, with hands clenched together and eyes uplifted, like blasphemers in a blasphemers in a storm. Yet, all that they had done against him was, the mere copying of a sort of punning paragraph, reflecting, unjustly, as it was said, upon the Bishop's solvency. In paragraphs of lengths and breadths did they beg pardon. |