In

ral reason, but by the law of the country in which he lives. Now, in answer to this, I must observe that it was never stated by me that the right ceased with the possession. the case of land the natural right. I admit does, but then the law interferes and enables him to transmit it to others. The right is first acquired by occupancy, but it is handed down to the present possessor. by the law. My assertion, therefore, that exclusive possession can be justified on no other ground than occupancy is correct. Your corres

pondent says it would be a difficult task to account for the right of the eldest son to succeed to the inheritance of real estates in exclusion of his brothers and sisters. I, Mr. Cobbett, who am a younger brother, do give my hearty assent, to this proposition. But, in doing so, I do not think that I make any admission inconsistent with my former statement. The learning advanced me on the subject of the estate for the life, of another person has likewise received the censure of your correspondent. He says the occupant does not retain the estate because the law of nature dictated by natural reason awards it to him, but because the law of England did not allow of any person being turned out of possession unless he could make it appear that he was by law intitled to it. Now your correspondent appears to me to admit all that I contend for; for on what ground does the law of England not allow any person to be turned out of possession? why, this that it was unjust to deprive another of that of which he had possessed himself first. But your correspondent does not state the case fairly: the language of the lawis this, unless some person could make it appear that he had a better right: thereby admitting, that the person in possession had acquired a right by occupancy. I believe I have now noticed, and have endeavoured to answer all the objections which have been advanced against the sentiments which I expressed in my former communication. If any thing has been omitted, it is owing to inadvertence and not to disrespect, for the opinions of your correspondents, who, I hope, will point it out at some other period, and advance arguments more convincing in opposition to my doctrine, than they have hitherto done, which would give me the most sincere and heartfelt pleasure; for I never undertook a more painful task in my life, than in endeavouring to shew that we are unjustifiable in exercising the dominion of the sea in the manner we have done. But by so doing, considered that I defended the hoooto of my country; and loss of honour, I conceive, tobelloss of every thing valua.. ble R. R.

DOMESTIC OFFICIAL PAPERS. ATL BUENOS AYRES From the London Ga zette Extraordinary, dated Downing street,: September 12, 1807.

(Continued from p. 512,). ་༑ • ་་

LA creek being found soon after the first boats landed, the whole were got on shore : without any opposition, or any accident; ex- cept that several of the transports were aground, but got off without damage. The conduct of the officers and men on this oc-.! casion induced me to give out the accompa nying general order: 200 seamen, under the orders of Captains Rowley and Joyce, were thought sufficient to land for the present ;" and I feel much indebted to those officers who had made themselves acquainted with the river, and piloted the squadron and transports.-Lieut. Bartholomew, of the Diadem, who was strongly recommended by AdmiralStirling, for his knowledge of the river; em- ; barked with me; and I feel it my duty to state to their lordships, that he was of infinite service; as were Lieut. Talbot, of the Encounter, Lieut. Acott, of the Rolla, and Lieut. Herrick, of the Raisonable, who undertook the pilotage.-On the evening of the 28th, the Paz and Staunch joined; the Staunch had taken a sloop, and destroyed: 2 others of a convoy going to the south shore for troops. I have directed Capt. Thomp son, in the Fly, towards Buenos Ayres, with the Staunch, Paz, and Dolores, to endeavour to keep up a communication with the army.:* -I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) Geo. MURRAY. GEO.

Extract of a Letter from Rear Admiral Murray, dated Nereide, off Buenos Ayres, July' S, 1807.

7

1

Sir,By my letter of the 30th ult. their lordships will be informed, that the ar my under the command of Lieut. Gen Whitelocke, was landed without opposition ! or accident on the 28th near Barragon, about: 20 miles to the eastward of Buenos Ayres.→→ On the 30th, the Nereide, small craft and transports weighed, and anchored again to the westward of Queimes; the next morns. I ing I went in shore in the Flying Fish to en deavour to communicate with the army, having directed some transports with provi- s sions to go close in, in case the army should 15 want supplies.Capt. Corbe, inchis boat, discovered some of our troops, and sent Lieut. Blight, of the Nereide, on shore-the with difficulty got to them, being obliged to pass through a deep boge on the 2d, Lienta Blight returned and informed me he had seen Gen. Whitelocke the evening before; that the army had suffered most secerely on their march, having very deep marshes ton pass, and having been obliged to leave their

577]

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. EDINBURGH REVIEWERS.When Swift wrote the above-quoted sentence, he must have known, one would think, something of men, who like the Edinburgh Reviewers, first assaulted a man with words, and then went out to give him "satisfaction", upon the condition that both parties should load with paper bullets; so that even the conduct and character of these men present us nothing new under the sun. That they are as great cowards in politics as they have been, before the Bow-Street magistrates, proved to be in the field, will very soon appear; and to accomplish this purpose I have set apart this day, promising my readers not frequently to occupy their time with this, or any similar subject.--The reason, which the Reviewers have given, for attacking me, is this: that, as my present opinions are of mischievous tendency, it is right to contrast them with my former opinions, and, by showing that they widely disagree, to disarm my present opinions of their effect upon the public mind, which effect they assert to be very extensive.--In this very reason is contained my justification for an exposure of their inconsistency, their selfish motives, and their profligate principles; for, though I may fairly presume, that the writings of these unknown adventurers have, comparatively speaking, but little effect with the public; yet, that effect, if it be of mischievous tendency, it is my duty to destroy if I can; and, at the same time to prevent my own character and conduct from remaining misrepresented, however few may be the persons, whom the misrepresentation may reach.

The charg

es, preferred by the Reviewers against me, range themselves under two distinct heads: first, that of inconsistency; second, that of now promulgating doctrines tending to weaken the attachment of the people to the present system of rule, and particularly to the House of Commons. But, before I , proceed to the examination of these charges, it is proper to notice the obvious cause, whence the preferring of them has proceeded. Upon reading their review (if such it must be called) of my writings, a question which must have occurred to every one, was;

66

[578

"how has it happened, that these persons, "who began their work much about the "time that Mr. Cobbett began his Political "Register, never thought proper to notice "that work until now?" It is not their custom to review news-papers. May be so; but how come they to have done it now? Why, the doctrines of the Register became so very dangerous, and its influence so ver extensive, that it was absolutely necessary to endeavour to apply a remedy. Very well, but why delay this absolutely necessary work so long? The real cause was the following passage in the Register of the 21st of March last, Vol. XI. page 440: To see my Lord Henry Petty, who, backed and cheered by a daily in"creasing brood of young friends, equal, in every qualification to those of Pitt, and " anxious, like them, to prove their natural "attachment to the country, by drawing "their nourishment from her paps, &c. &c." This, they knew to be pointed at them; they felt the justice of the description, and that, too, at the mortifying moment, when those paps were, quite unexpectedly, torn from their hungry jaws. This, joined, perhaps, to apprehensions of the future, was obviously the cause, and the sole cause, of what they call " a review of Cobbett's Po. "litical Register", ten volumes of which work,in the course of five years, having, as they confess, an almost unparalleled extent of circulation, they had suffered to pass entirely unnoticed.In this review, they have quoted many passages from my former writings, relating to actions, as well as to men, contrasted them with those of my latter writings, relating to the same actions and the same men, and exhibited a complete disagreement, between them. And, if I myself had not, in due time and place, noticed this disagreement, and accounted for it, their criticism would have been fair enough; but, at every stage of change in my opinions, I myself have observed upon such change, and have, in a manner satisfactory to myself, at least, accounted for it. I beg leave to reter the reader particularly to my remarks upon the Middlesex Election, in 1804, Vol. VI. pages 331, 370, and 440-to-my letter to Pitt, in Vol. VI. page 419; to my an

swer to the defenders of Lord Melville, in Vol. VIII. beginning in pages 513 and 545; and to my answer to the Morning Chronicle's charge of inconsistency, which answer will be found in Vol. X. beginning at page 748. Upon these articles alone I venture to rely for a complete justification of every charge preferred against me by the reviewers, upon the score of my inconsistency. * But," it may be said, so thought not the reviewers. Suppose so; but, how comes it that they have taken no notice whatever of these articles, not even in the slight way of allusion? The articles might, in themselves, be of little importance; but, when the professed object, and the sole object, was to expose my inconsistency, it was, surely, incumbent upon the expositors, not only to notice my explanations upon the points, as to which they charged me with inconsistency, but to shew, that those explanations were not satisfactory. I contend that they are satisfactory; a pretty good proof that the reviewers thought that they were so, is, that they have cautiously avoided any allusion to them; and, than this caution of theirs we need not, I think, ask for any better test of their justice and candour. They say, that a change of opinion, upon abstract principles, may be readily allowed to any man; but, when, at oue time you find him applauding the self-same act, which, at another time, he condemns, he is to be set down as detestably inconsisfent. But, if these persons had not been under the influence of that " pitifully vindictive motive," which, at the outset, from an apparent anticipation of the charge, they are very pointed in disclaiming, they would have observed, that, besides the nature of the act itself, was to be taken into view, the degree of true information, which, at the respective given periods, I possessed, relative both to the nature and motives of the act in question. For instance, I am informed that a gentleman has given a poor labourer money to pay his rent; I, at once, applaud the act. I find, afterwards, that this money was a bribe for a vote at an election; 1, at once, condemn the act.Is there any inconsistency here? The reviewers quote my former opinions relative to Mr. Horne Tooke's trial, the substance of which was, that, though nequitted, he was guilty of treason; and then they quote passages, lately written by me from which it may fairly be gathered, that I think bim to have been, not only an nocent, but an injured man. But, they hould have noticed 1. that I was abroad chiting the time of the trial, and for six years afterwards; 2. that I have stated myself, that

I there had the means of obtaining scarcely an other but the ministerial prints, or, at least, that, in fact, I did obtain scarcely any other; and, 3. that my change of opinion, upon this subject, arose, as I have stated myself, from a sober and careful subsequent perusal of the whole of the proceedings upon that trial, from which I imbibed the conviction (as I am sure, every candid man will that reads those proceedings), that Mr. Tooke and his associates had only acted upon the very principles, which Pitt had before professed, and which he had acted upon as an associate of Mr. Tooke; that they had no other object in view than that which he had, at the time alluded to, professed to have in view, namely, to obtain a real representation of the people in parliament; and that, of course, they were men most shamefully persecuted. In like manner, as to the subject of parliamentary reform, my change of opinion has arisen from a change in the degree of the true information that I possessed. These reviewers know well enough, from the account which I have given of my progress in life, in this very work which they pretend to review (see vol. VIII. pages 513 and 545), that it is next to impossible, that I should have become acquainted with the real state of the house of commons, at the time when linesisted that no reformation in that house was necessary. This they must have known, and, the fact was, that, though I knew that the law of elections was grossly violated, in many cases, I had not the means of ascertain ing the extent of the violation much less had I the means of trying it by the test of the great constitutional laws, and of tracing it down in its various pernicious consequen ces; and which means of information have now produced, in my mind, a thorough conviction, that, unless the law of elections be duly executed, and the constitution be thereby restored, this country, in its present form of internal policy, cannot be of long duration. Let it be always observed, too, that in my former remarks, respecting parliamentary reform, I never separated the proposition from the party, by whom it was urged, which party I suspected (and, as it now appears, very justly) of employing that proposition, with other means, merely for the sake of getting their rivals out of place and themselves into place. Had the propo sition come from men, of whose general character and views I thought favourably, I should certainly have taken time to inquire, before, I condemned it.The.reviewers have contrasted my recent with my former expressions and sentiments with respect to