"

SPANISH REVOLUTION. -If it be true, that Joseph Buonaparte has quitted Madrid, there is one rascally government at an end, at any rate. There is no longer any consolidated despotism in Spain, and, let us hope, that there never will be again.It being reported, that the vile nobility, who attended Joseph to Madrid, have, upon perceiving that he was likely to fal, deserted him, some of our despotism-defending prints, particu larly the Morning Post, says that it thought, all along, that these nobles had been entrapped at Bayonne, had been forced to publish sentiments foreign from their hearts, and that this desertion of Joseph is a proof that the opinion here stated was correct. Now, it occurred to me, that this desertion was a proof of consummate baseness, if any such proof had been wanting; for, if the nobles had been entrapped at Bayonne, if they had actually been forced to go there, and when there to make speeches against the Bourbons and in favour of the Buonapartes; if this had been the case, they would have deserted Joseph the moment they got into Spain; but (if it be true that they have now deserted him), they stopped, we find, 'till they have reason to believe, that he will be worsted. But, the fact is, that there was no force employed to get thein to Bayonne, any more than to get the royal family there. The whole tribe went upon a summons, which took the name of an invitation. There was not a French soldier employed to escort them to Bayonne, and, as to the nobles, they were not even summoned, or invited. One or two of the Bishops sent their professions of allegiance to Napoleon, without being asked for any; nay, is it not notorious, that the putting of Joseph upon the throne was preceded by applications to that effect, made by persons in Spain and not at Bayonne ?The truth is, that the wretched defender of despotism, to whose print I have referred, perceives,

i

or has been told, that it will be impossible for time even to wear away the infamy of the Spanish nobility assembled at Bayonne, and afterwards becoming the servants of Joseph Buonaparte, while the people of Spain are fighting for their freedom against this same Buonaparte. This wiiter foresees, that men in general will ask why English blood should be shed for the purpose of restoring to splendour so vile and rascally a crew. Therefore it is, that he is anxious to make his teaders believe, that the Spanish nobles did all under compulsion. To be sure, it is a most confounding fact, that a whole royal government, King, Prime Minister and Nobles, all go off upon an invitation,. and make a surrender of the kingdom to the enemy, while the people, the moment they are gone, take up arms to meet that enemy, and are actually proceeding in a way that would encourage one to hope, that they may not only beat that enemy, but, finally, secure the freedom of their country. This is a confounding fact indeed. It is impossible to deny it; and, therefore, al manner of shifts and tricks are resorted to, for the purpose of keeping it out of sight. Either the royal family and nobles were jorced from Spain, or they were not. If the latter, then all the pretexts about compulsion vanish into air; and, if they were forced away, they were forced away in the presence of thatfvery people who have now risen in arms to defend themselves and their country, but which people, and no part of which people, attempted to take up arms for the sake of the royal family and the nobles. ——————】 his writer, and several others of the same stamp, hardly excepting the Morning Chronicle, unwilling to utter a word that shall seem to favour the notion of Spaniards being fighting for the purpose of establishing a free government, and yet not knowing very well how to write upon the subject without now and then introducing the object of the glori ous efforts which the people of Spain are making; these writers, thus embarrassed, do, I perceive, until they see which way things are likely to go, which Whitehall and Lloyd's may settle the point, talk about the people of Spain fighting for their independence. They reprobate the idea of a nation's giving up its independence.. The people of Spain, they say, are engaged in the glorious cause of independence. Not a syllable do they say about the freedom, or the happiness, of the people of Spain. Not a word about their throwing off the yoke of oppression, which they have so long worn, and which oppression has, in fact, been the only cause of, first, their degrada

way

tion, and, secondly, the invasion of their country. Not a word do these writers say upon these heads, but, they ring the changes, over and over again, upon the very equivocal word independence.But, what do they mean by independence? Do they mean,

that state in which a nation or people is not dependent upon the will of another nation, people, government, or chief? If so, it appears to me, that the people of Spain, unless they are bent upon establishing an entirely new government, are acting very incon-. sistently, and are, indeed, shedding their blood for a purpose precisely the contrary to that which they wish to accomplish; for, as to their old government, it was always in a state of dependance upon France; and, the govern ment which Napoleon has proposed to them seems very well calculated to provide, in time at least, against any such dependence in future. To be sure, the Bayonne Constitution, le most others in the world, will, I dare say, admit, upon a pinch, of a little alteration; but, in the meanwhile, it is impossible that king Joseph can make the country more dependent upon France than it was before; and, in words, at least, this constitution does restore to the people of Spain semething like an enjoyment of freedom, something like security for property and life.The Morning Post exclaims "What a disgrace, what an infamy, to submit to a foreign yoke!" and, he most severely reproaches even his friends, the Bayonne Grandees, for having, even under compulsion, given the sanction of their names to the bringing in of a mean, beggarly, foreign fa mily, and placing them upon the throne. But, surely, my friend of the Morning Post suffers his zeal to get astride upon his reason. Surely he does not take time to reflect; if he did, he would certainly have been cautious how he had condemned, in terms so unqua lified, the introduction of foreigners and the placing of them upon the throne; for he must have recollected, that in certain cases, such events, though accomplished, too, by the aid of foreign troops, brought in throngh the instrumentality of domestic nobles, are termed "GLORIOUS REVOLUTIONS." We are here neither saying nor supposing any thing, one way or the other, about the characters of the parties introduced, or of the cause of introduction; but, we may, I think, venture to say, that the simple fact of a foreigner's being placed upon the throne of a country, and of foreign troops being brought into it, cannot, by Englishmen, be very decently urged as a decided proof of a loss of independenceNaam of opinion, that it would the Morning Post

and his fellow labourers would refrain from uttering such vehement Philippics against the introduction of foreign princes and troops. One of the standing charges against Bacnaparte is, that he is not a Frenchman; and that he prefers having Corsicans and Italians about his person. This may as well remain unsaid, and I beg the writers in question duly to weigh the thing in their minds.

AUSTRIA.If war take place between Austria and France, and we carry on the war in Spain for the restoration of the old family, then the old game is beginning again. More subsidies, more lies from Whitehall, and a result much about the same as the last.-Our villainous newspapers express a most anxious hope, that Austria is bent upon war; that, stimulated by the "glorious example of Spain," she is resolved to make one more effort against the tyrant of the earth. The example of Spain! Why, man, do you consider what she must do, in order to begin to follow that example? She has an Emperor, an Empress, a whole royal family, with all the old set of courtiers, male and female; all her panders and parasites; and every thing, of which Spain has not a fragment left. The example of Spain, indeed! Why, the Spaniards suf fered a French army to come to their very capital without an attempt to resist them. and, according to your assertion, they suf fered the French to force away their king and queen and all their princes and minis ters; and, that being done, they began to fight the French, and to endeavour to eject them from their country. Now, do yea really wish the Austrians to do the same' I imagine, that what you wish is, that the Austrians may follow the example of the Spaniards merely in resisting the French, leaving all things just as they now are their government, in which wish I am decidedly of opinion you will be disappointed.. I can, for my part, discover, in the people of Austria. no motive for resisting the French, which they had not previons to the battle of Austerlitz. I can discover no rea son for supposing that Austria should be more fortunate now than she was then; and, I am fully persuaded, that whatever money may be sent her from this county will do us no more good than was done by any and all of the immense sums which she has heretofore received from us.-The Austrians are composed of materials very different from those which go to the making up of a Spaniatd. The Germans do not easily catch fire. They look well and lang at danger before they encounter it. They act upon the wise maxim, that "the better

part of valour is discretion." It was an observation, in America, that the Hessians always smoked their pipes as they went to the attack, but never in a retreat. They are certainly, the whole of the Germans, not less prudent, at any rate, than they are courageous; and, indeed, the whiskers, which seem to have a natural fitness to their faces, denote, like those of the cat, a characteristic cautiousness.For these reasons, and some others that I shall not now mention, I do not think that the Austrians, if war should take place, will follow the example of the Spaniards, in making a gallant resistance to the approach of the French; and, in short, my opinion is, that if Austria now suffers herself to be hurried into a war, her royal family will share the fate of the House of Bourbon.

LIBEL-LAWS.[Intended for insertion last week but accidentally omitted].-Sir Richard Phillips, in consequence of my remarks, relative to his evidence, in the action of Sir John Carr, knight, against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, has, in the last week's Register, published a letter addressed to me.

I will notice the points touched upon, in this letter, in the order wherein they are placed.—I am not at all surprized to learn, that the author of the prosecuted pamphlet was also the author of the report of the trial; and that being, as Sir Richard now informs me, the real fact, I can readily suppose, that the report was by no means favourable to the plaintiff and his witnesses. This, however, does not essentially alter the case in my estimation; for, it was not so much the sort of evidence that I care about, as the act of prosecuting, and I am sorry to discover, even now, no regret, on the part of Sir Richard, for having been, though unintentionally, perhaps, instrumental in causing that prosecution. He who uses the press ought to defend himself solely with the press. There are people enough to bring the law to bear upon us, without our countenancing their conduct by our own example. I own that caricatures do not constitute a branch of sober criticism, and Sir Richard says, in the close of his letter, that Sir John Carr founded his action solely and exclusively on the caricatures. But, caricatures are things to laugh at. They break no bones. I, for instance, have been represented as a bull-dog, as a porcupine, as a wolf, as a sans-culotte, as a nightman, as a bear, as a kite, as a cur, and, in America, as hanging upon a gallows. Yet, here am, just as sound as if no misrepresentation of me had ever been made. The fact is, that caricatures are nothing more than

figures of rhetoric proceeding from the pencil; and, as the inimitable Gillray is not in the habit of making sentences, I see no reason why he should not ridicule what he deems to be the follies and vices of the times, or of particular persons, with his pencil. It is, to be sure, very provoking to see one's self held up to public ridicule, or censure, especially if we are conscious of not deserving it; but, then, we should bear in mind, that the principle, upon which we appeal to the law for redress, will be sure to be made to apply against ourselves, if we make use of the press. It is the practice of bringing actions and preferring indictments and informations by individuals that has kept the several successive AttorniesGeneral in countenance; for, if we, particularly we who use the press, harrass each other with the law, with what face can we complain when we are made subject to pub lic prosecutions? As an author, therefore, Sir John Carr should have foreborne to apply to the law, though he had been mortified almost to a state of hanging. For an author, or bookseller, to appeal to the law of libels is an act of downright treason towards the whole of his brethren. Those who live by the press must be content to die by the press; and the press includes the works of the pencil as well as those of the pen.

I am very glad, that Sir Richard Phillips is not the publisher of the "Revolutionary Plu"tarch."

That was the work I meant certainly; and a work so full of manifest falsehoods could, assuredly, never have obtained circulation, except amongst a people totally blinded by a hatred too great to have arisen from any other cause than that of cowardly fear. The greediness with which all the foul slander, all the barefaced falsehood, all the worse than Mandeville or Manchausen lies, of this book have been swallowed, is truly wonderful. The good old maxim of

،،

giving the devil his due " has been quite thrown aside by the author, who has so impudently set truth, and even probability at defiance, that to affect to believe him is to subject one's self to the charge of being a partaker in that moral depravity, which evidently presided at the execution of every page of his work.—I most heartily agree with Sir Richard Phillips in opinion respecting reviewers and reviews in general. I have, many times, expressed the same opinion, and for the same reasons; but, he has had much more experience than I have had with "the race that write "" in reviews. He must know the "craft" well, and I beg leave to refer the reader (see page 205) to what he has said respecting it. I agree

with him, that every man should put his name to what he causes to be published. The pronoun we is, nine times out of ten, a convenient mask for cowardice or rascality, and, not unfrequently, both together. It is true, that argument derives neither strength nor weakness from a name, but opinion does; and, it is the opinion of the reviewer that the greater part of readers look after. It would be fair for an anonymous author to be subject to anonymous criticism; bur, the critic of Sir John Carr's work ought to have put his name to his perform ance. All this, however, says nothing in favour of taking the law of a man for what he has published, whether it has a name or

pot.

For the reasons, which I have before given, I always strongly suspect the goodness of the canse of that man, who appeals to the law of libels; and, for reasons also before stated, I must, and ever shall, regard the author, or bookseller, who makes such an appeal, as a false brother, as a traitor to the cause of freedom in general.—Sir John Carr has, however, by his experiment, done essential service to the cause of truth, though, apparently, contrary to his inten

tion.

He has put the principle to the test. By pushing it to the extreme, he has shewn the world what it really is. No man could pretend to believe, that his feelings were not injured by the caricatures contained in a criticism that actually, as it would seem, killed him dead, as an author; but, no man was bold enough to say, that criticisms on a man's works ought to be punished as a libel. This leads to another question: namely, why should the feelings of a minister, that is to say, of a servant of the public, be considered as more sacred than the feelings of an author? Why should not the talents of the former be held up to ridicule, as well as the talents of the latter? The author, Lord Ellenborough says, voluntarily challenges public criticism; and does not a minister do the same? Is not this the case with every man in a public situation? We have, according to the decision in the case of Sir John Carr, knight, a right to speak our opinions freely of the talents of authors; why, then, should we not as freely speak our opinions of the talents of a minister, or a commande? And what harm could arise from it, seeing that the press would be open for the controverting of our opinions? I mean, what harm to the public; for, it is evident, that the speaking of our opinions freely of a minster might do him a great deal of harm; bat, the press being open on his side, truth would prevail, and the harm done to him would be good done to the public. The

fact is, that the liberty of the press has no definite meaning, it is sheer sound without sense, unless it means, the liberty of freely publishing our opinions of the talents and character of all men in a public capacity; and, if we are liable to be punished for so doing, can we be said to do it freely? The liberty of the press would, in that case, be the liberty of doing that which would subject us to fine, imprisonment, and pillory. In this way we, every one of us, enjoy the Jiberty of stealing and of committing murder.

JAMAICA.- -The reader, will, probably, remember the evils that were anticipated from the establishment of Black Regiments, in the West Indies, and the earnest remon strances of the people of Jamaica upon the subject. Below will be found a proof, that those reinonstrances were worthy of atten tion. Without time to say, at present, any thing more upon the subject, I must content myself with expressing a hope, that this dangerous experiment will be carried no farther.

Bodmin, 17th August, 1808.

COBBETT'S

Parliamentary History

OF

ENGLAND,

Which, in the compass of Sixteen Volumes, royal octavo, double columns, will con tain a full and accurate Report of all the recorded Proceedings, and of all the Speeches in both Houses of Parliament, from the earliest times to the year 1803, when the publication of "Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates" commenced.

The Fourth Volume of the above work is ready for delivery. It embraces that period of our Parliamentary History, which is, per haps, the most interesting of any; namely, from the Restoration of Charles the Second in the year 1660, to the Revolution, in 1688. For this Period, the Proceedings and Debates, in both Houses, have been, for the most part, collected from the following works: 1. The Journals of the House of Lords; 2. The Journals of the House of Commons; 3. That portion of the Parliamentary, or Constitutional History of England, which contains the proceedings of the Convention Parliament, from its meeting on the 25th of April, 1660, to its dissolution, on the 24th of December following, at which epoch the editors of this able performance conclude their labours; 4 The Life of the Earl of Clarendon, written by himself, containing