there to meet the French and to stop them in their way to Spain. Has a man of our army yet moved in that direction, though it is now two whole months since the Convention was signed, and though it was not pretended, even by Sir Hew, that Junot could have held out more than two or three weeks? Has a man of our army moved in that direction? No; and this, at the time, in my very first article upon the subject, I said must and would be the case. I knew that we should not send away our army if we could. I knew, that we should not leave the Portuguese people to do any thing in the way of settling their affairs; and, besides, it was easy to forsee, that a sea conveyance would be wanted for the troops, which conveyance we had made over to the French. There the army is, then, at the end of two months, just where it was the day after Wellesley's "glorious victory." What time has been gained, then? How has the Convention answered the purpose of hastening our army towards "the passes of the Pyren"nees? But, how came Wellesley to come away, when it was so necessary to push on to meet the French? "He is not recalled." O, no; he is upon "leave of ab"sence." What! get leave of absence, at the very monent when the army was to be pushed on towards the passes of the Pyrennees!" The conqueror of Vimeira" get leave of absence at such a time! Leave to be absent from fighting! No: he will not like this ground. Well, then, will he say, that there was no prospect of the army's marching towards the passes of the Pyren nees, or moving towards any other point of real war? Will he say this? If he do, then we ask him what was meant by gaining time, in making the Convention, and what that same service was, which was in contemplation at the time when the Convention was made? Admitting, then, that he is come home simply upon leave of absence; that, the fact is as his partizans say; he stands in this dilemma: either he is come home for the purpose of avoiding another meeting with the Tartar Duke, or any of his like; or, the pretext of gaining time by the Convention was a false one. -The real truth, however, I take to be, that the ministers, or some of them, when they found that nothing could reconcile the country to the Convention, they, knowing (what the public did not at first know) that Wellesley had been the chief instrument in making the Convention, sent off with all possible speed, an order to Sir Hew to give him a leave of absence. To keep him there they would not venture, and to recall him they

did not like. The middle course was determined upon; and, it was, too, of great importance, that he should have an oppor tunity of telling his story first. This accords with ail the rest of the proceedings. There has been, from the first, an evident intention to screen Wellesley, let what would come of the other parties concerned; and this inten tion becomes, every day, more and more certain. As to our army in Portugal, so far from being disposed of in the way that was expected, and that it was pretended it would be, it is, it appears, taking possession of different towns and districts in Portugal; seating itself quietly down as in a country that it has won; while our generals are issuing proclamations for the keeping of the people in order. It is said, that we have forty-seven generals there. What a deal of wine they will drink! What a fine expenc they will be to us! General HOPE (of the "ardent-minded" family) has issued a proclamation that would not have disgraced the late Lord Advocate of Scotland himself. The fact is, that our whole army in Portugal is now employed in keeping the people d Portugal in order; that is to say, in preveal ing them trom forming assemblies of repre sentatives and choosing men to conduct the affairs, as the people of Spain have doce Who did not suppose, that, as soon should have beaten the French in P and relieved that country from the pres and the oppression of its invaders, we have left the Portuguese to take care of the own affairs and marched off to the assis tance of the Spaniards? Was not this whe we all supposed? And was it not under the pretence that our army would be set loose march into Spain; was not this the sa pretence under which a justification, or an excuse, was found for the Convention? Now, it appears, however, that our army has got into such snug quarters, that it has no desire to move. It has been moulded into a superintendant of the police; a sort of Gendarmerie, or of Holy-brotherhood, established in Portugal. Are we told, that the security of the monarchy of Portugal requires this; for that the people, if left to themselves, might fall to work to make a government of their own? Let us be told this plainly, then. Let us be told, if this really be the motive, that we are fighting and labouring merely for the support of the old royal families against the new royal fa milies, and not at all for the freedom and happiness of any people in any part of the world. Let us be told this, in so many plain words, and then we shall know how to think and to feel. -The king's reception

shoc

parts. Nothing ever was more so. The Londoners" most humbly approach" with a "most humble and dutiful" expression of assurances of attachment to his Majesty's most sacred person and government; but, then, immediately afterwards, they fall to expressing opinions relative to the Convention in Portugal, and to pray, that something or other may be done about it. Whereupon they get a good hearty slap; and then, being of the true breed, they all kneel down and fall to kissing the hand, by which it has been bestowed. Towards such people the king certainly acted with great propriety; for, if not only his person was the "most "sacred" person, but his government also the "most sacred" government; if this was the case, what presumption was it in these citizens to interfere in the exercise of the functions of either? And, if this was not the case, then the citizens told a barefced lie, and, as having done that, were well worthy of the rebuke they received. They first say you are the most sacred of human beings, and your government is as sacred as you; they appear to approach with fear and trembling not to be described by words; and then, all of a sudden, they bein to sport their opinions about the operations of the army and the conduct of the generals, seeming to forget that the army is under the absolute command of this "sacred" of persons, and that all the ge nerals have been selected by this "most "sacred" of governments.-1 am glad, however, that they kissed the king's hand after he bad given them what they deserved; because it showed, that they were penitent; that they were come to their senses; that they had seen the folly, not to say the impiety, of presuming to dictate to beings the most sacred here below.

most

The Morning Chronicle has taken part with the citizens, who, after they got a great way of seem to have grumbled at the King's answer, notwithstanding they had neeled down and kissed his hand. This print has quoted some instances of the conduct of the late King, upon similar occasions. The passage is as follows: "A very strong "Petition was presented by the Corporation of London to the King, in the year 1756, respecting the athair at Minorca, praying for such an inquiry as may lead "to the discovery and punishment of the authors of the late losses and disappoint" ments," almost the same words of the prayer of the Petition presented on Wednesday; the words of which are, institute such an inquiry as will lead to the discovery and punishment of those

to

66

66

66 66

nation, and the commerce of my subjecis. The events of war are uncer tain, but nothing shall be wanting of my part towards carrying it on with vigour, in order to a safe and honour""able peace, and for recovering and securing, by the blessing of God, the ""possessions and rights of my crown. -I shall not fail to do justice ups any persons who shuil have been want. ing in their duty to me and their cour try; to enforce obedience and disc pline in my fleets and armies, and to support the authority and respect des

66

to my government." -In the year "1757, when the immortal Chatham wa "at the head of affairs, after the failured "the Rochford Expedition, a member "the common council had given noticed a motion for "an address and pe ""to his majesty on the miscarrige of "the late expedition to the c ď "France.". The Lord Mayor acqui "ed the court, that on Monday the 1st "day of October, 1757, William Bla

Esq. one of the clerks of his majesty' most honourable privy council, cams "to the Mansion House and acquainted the Lord Mayor, that he waited on bis Lordship to let him know, his Majesty had given proper directions for an quiry to be forthwith made into the le haviour of the Commanding Officers in "the late expedition against France, and "the cause of the miscarriage of the sai expedition, and that such inquiry would “be carried on and prosecuted with the "utmost expedition, vigour and effect."

86

Now, why it should be more incon "sistent with the principles of British jus "tice, to petition for an inquiry of tuis "kind in 1808, than in 1756 and 1757, it "is impossible to conceive, unless indeed

we should suppose, that lord Hawkesbury "is a much better judge of the principles "of British justice than lord Chatham. "The Address presented on Wednesday, "and that of 50, are the same in spirit, "and almost in terms. How then are we to account for the difference of their r reption? Why should the one he con

63

"sidered as perfectly just and proper, while the other is reproved as having pronounced judgment previous to in"“vestigation?

We have not now, however, to learn with what a total disregard of delicacy and propriety the ministers can occasionally conduct themselves "towards their Sovereign. When they have any favourite object to accomplish, "they, without the least scruple, advise "his majesty to contradict and stultify his

own acts and expressions. Is this decent? "Is it to be endured either by the king or "the nation? Can it fail to remind us of

the infamous administration of the prince "of the Peace in Spain? The gracious re"ception met with by sir A. Wellesley, at "the very moment the Corporation was ad"mitted, leaves little doubt as to the de

"

"

sign of this proceeding. But we trust "that a British public will not tamely see their Sovereign abused, and themselves "checked in the exercise of their consti"tutional privileges, without the strongest "marks of indignation at such mischievous

"

practices."Now, as to these instances, to make them applicable, the Morning Chronicle should have shewn us, not that the form of the constitution of the country was the same that it was in the years 1756 and 1757, but that it was in substance the same, and, above all, that the people were still the same sort of people. At the former period the taxes raised upon the labour of the people amounted to about 5 or 6 millions a year, and they now amount to fifty millions; that is to say, the ministers of that day had five or six millions a year to expend, while the ministers, now a days, have, in loans and all, about seventy millions a year to expend. At the former period, the standing army did not amount, Perhaps, to more than thirty or forty thousand men, in time of war; now, the staff and foreign troops exceed that number, while the whole of the commissioned-officers, cashierable at pleasure, amount to about fifteen thousand persons, and while, in one way or another, the relations of all these, as well as themselves, are, in some measure, dependent upon the ministry. At the former period a thing like the Income tax had never entered the mind of man, and, if an Englishman of that day had been told, that his children would have such a tax imposed upon them, he would have clenched his fist and knocked down the asserter. At that period the East India Company were mere merchants and not sovereigns; not a body so powerful as to be able to draw from the people of England

million after million of the fruit of their labour. At that period the doctrine that truth was a libel, and that to hurt a man's feelings was libellous, had not been promulgated and acted upon, much less was there any law for transporting persons convicted of libelling the ministers. At that time, the Habeas Corpus, or Personal Security Act, had never been suspended except in case of actual rebellion or commotion, much less had it been kept suspended for several years together. At that period there was no instance of a minister's having been detected in lending forty thousand pounds of the public money to two members of parliament, without interest, without any authority for so doing, and without the consent or knowledge of even his colleagues; and, upon proof of this being laid before the parliament, of such minister's being screened by a bill of indemnity.Now, whether the change is for the better or for the worse; whether the people have acted wisely in lending their aid, or giving their silent assent, to this change, let the citizens of London decide; but, that the change has taken place is certain; that they have, tacitly at least, approved of the change, is also certain; for it is notorious, that they have, more than any other part of the people, supported the funding and taxing system, which has naturally produced all the rest of the change; and, therefore, they have no reason at all to complain that the present king does not speak to them in the language in which his predecessor spoke to their fathers. What! they now whine and snivel because they are not treated as their fathers were treated. Their fathers were a different sort of men ; their fathers would have demanded inquiry upon other occasions than the present; their fathers knew, felt, and would have urged, their rights, at a time when they were talking of their duties; their fathers knew how to demand as well as to implore; their fathers were men widely different from them, and, therefore, they merited and received a treatment widely different. What! is it till now that they have waited to discover that they are not what their fathers were? Do they now complain of the Pitts and the Hawkesburies; they, who have supported them in every thing for so many long and fatal years of decline of national pride and independence! They, who have set up the howl of Jacobin and traitor against every one, who dared to move his tongue or his pen in opposition to the acts and designs of the minister of the day? They, who have voted and speechified and subscrib ed against every person, who talked of free

dom? They, who, whether in his making peace or in making war, approved of all, aye, all and every individual act, of the late Pitt? Do they now complain of the operation of his principles, acted upon by his legitimate heirs and successors? "In

quiry"! What right have such men to ask for inquiry? They, who have, a hundred times voted against the principle of inquiry; they, who have been maintaining, for more than twenty years past, the doctrine of confidence and irresponsibility; they who have, upon all occasions, represented as disaffected to the country every man who has wished for inquiry into the conduct of the government? What right have such men to ask for inquiry now in particular; and with what face can they complain, that they are sharply rebuked for so doing? Pity them, indeed! Not f They have eir jut reward. If they had not acted a base and degenerate part, for so many years, that which has now happened, that which has now at last urged them to ask for inquiry, never would have happened. It is in themselves, and not in their stars, "that they are underlings." Their humiliation is the work of their own hands. To such men the king's answer was perfectly proper; and, as the rest of the nation has invariably followed their example in acts of submission and subserviency to the ministry of the day, the answer to them will very properly become a general one. The years 1756 and 1757, indeed! Remind the king of what was the language of the king at that time! As well might he remind them of what was the language and what the conduct of the people at that time, or in former times. When it has been urged to this same corporation of London, that such and such acts were a glaring violation of the constitution of England, has not the answer constantly been, that the times were changed; that the present situation of the country warranted, and demanded, that which, formerly would have been unjustifiable; and, have we not recently seen, from the pen of those who are well known to be the avowed advocates of the Opposition party, a justification of what was formerly called "bribery and corruption," a justification of the purchase and sale of seats in parliament, as being suitable to this new state of things? And, are we, after this; after having lived so long in this state, to be called upon to bestow our compassion upon those, who, having been most instrumental in producing it, now complain, that they are not treated as their fathers were? But, the chief objection to their complaint

a

is this: why did they not petition for inquiry upon former occasions? Is this the first military failure that this poor nation has experienced? Is this the first disgraceful Convention that has been made? Is this the first instance, of late years, in which English treasure and English blood have been expended in the purchase of national dis honour? If it be, then these people tnight have some ground for complaint; but, if it be not, and if this be the first time of their petitioning for inquiry, the answer they have received, so far from being harsh, was much milder than they had a right to expect.They complain of the omnipotence of " "certain great family," dealing, as slaves must and do, in inuendo and insinuation, not daring to name those whom they hate. But, is not the " omnipotence" of this family their own work? Have they ever stirred an inch in the inquiries moved for with respect to the Wellesleys? Have they not set their faces against all those who did? Have not both parties; have not the nation, with here and there a solitary and insignifi cant exception, given their sanction to what has been the natural cause of what they now complain of? Whimpering, whining creatures, as they are, it is truly a pretty jest to hear them, at this day, calling for inquiry! No, no: they must not hope succeed in this way It is too late fortem to assume a new character. Oh, the flatterers! It stirs one's gall to hear thei complaints. Is there a man or a woman of a child, in power, or belonging to any one in power, whom they have not eulogized to the skies? Have they not praised all that has been done, and all that has been intended to be done, by every set of men who, for the time being, had the expending of the taxes! Įs not this the case? No man can deny that it is. Away with them and their complaints, then! Let them howl to the winds. There is a part of the observations of the Morning Chronicle, relating to the King bimself, which deserves notice. It blames the answer, but chooses to suppose, that the ministers forced the king to give such an an swer, and expresses a hope, that "the "British public will not tamely see their

Sovereign thus abused." I am at a loss to know, whether this be meant as irony, or not. If it be, it is much too grave; for certainly the far greater part of readers will take it as serious, and, if so, they must suppose, that the Morning Chronicle pays no great compliment to the intellects of the King. The King can do no wrong but, the meaning of this is, not that he can wittingly and willingly do nothing which is