Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

what we like! What! would they have been so devoid of conscience, as to have done any thing else toward their greatest enemies? They could not be conceived bound, it is said again, to support any set of men in what they condemned. The promise then was completely nugatory.

Not

Now judging the matter by the vulgar rules of morality, we are of opinion that juggling promises of this kind ought neither to be given nor received. having been educated in the new school either of morality or politics, we cannot help thinking a promise a very sacred and delicate thing; and if any man has given to another an unqualified promise of support, it ought to be with infinite reluctance that he withdraws it, and for very cogent reasons indeed!

I have read with great pleasure the very sensible reply of your Correspondent C. C. to Cecilia's defence of Female Boarding Schools. But there is one part of his letter I object to. He seems to censure the throwing away the time employed to enable young ladies" to waste crayons, speak bad French, and put a harpsichord out of tune, and a company out of temper." Now as it is better to waste time than to employ it ill, I do think it much better that a young woman, intended for domestic life, should come out of her teacher's hands so accomplished, than to come out of them a good musical performer, a good painter in oils, or even a very fine dancer. Of perfection in two of these accomplishments, and on which modern education lays the greatest stress, let us hear what a Roman historian says at a period when the Roman republic was not celebrated for the purity of its manners:-Sallust speaking of Sempronia says one of her accomplishments was, "Psallere et saltare elegan-ters of secondary importance, unless, by private tius quam necesse est probæ."

As every book worth reading, or which is easily to be procured in the French language, is to be read in an English translation, and there is no peculiar beauty in the language itself, I never could see any use in making the attainment of it a general female accomplishment, as the speaking it can only lead them into the conversation of a people not likely to improve that modest and dignified reserve which has been so much admired in the costume of the ladies of Britain. I am, &c. &c. Y.

POLITICS.

On the Dispute between Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt.
Concluded.

We intend to finish in this paper our remarks on the two pamphlets which discuss the question between these two politicians. We had come to the assertion of the Near Observer, that Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, and their friends, had given to the present ministers, before they would accept of their offices, a solemn pledge of their constant, zealous, and active support. The defender of Mr. Pitt appears to have considered this assertion as involving a charge of perfidy against his client, which it was of consequence for him to remove. He confesses however that such a promise was given, but rests his defence on general inferences from the nature of a promise. No promise, says he, could be unconditional. Mr. Pitt, and Lord Grenville could never undertake to support Mr. Addington, do what he would.

This general assertion cannot be denied. But is it for this true, that a promise is a very loose and ridiculous thing; and that any thing may be made of it, which the promiser chuses? According to the interpretation here given of this promise, it meant absolutely nothing at all. We will support you, said the late ministers to their successors, as long as you do

The accepting of a place in an administration, or a party, we consider as an obligation very much resembling what is here described. It never can be understood to bind a man to follow his colleagues, or his party to every thing. Occasions may occur, on which it would be meritorious, and his duty to abandon them, and oppose his utmost efforts against their measures. But it is universally understood to be a duty owing to his party, to sacrifice his views in mat

remonstrance, he can lead his friends to adopt them. A man ready to break off from his associates on every little difference of opinion, many of which must arise in every association, is a person not qualified to act in concert with others. This obligation to party the Accurate Observer, the defender of Mr. Pitt, most fully allows; nay carries it to an extent greater, we fear, than some people will consider right. He thinks it imposes the duty of forbearance, and concealment, with regard to difference of opinion on the most important interests of the state. We will not dispute this point at present; but we are certain that a solemn promise of constant, active, and zealous support, is an obligation not less sacred nor less extensive than any to a party can be. If we were to judge by the rules of the most delicate morality and honour, we should think the simple and unbought obligation of a promise the most binding of the two. Now the Accurate Observer says, that Mr. Windham did right in giving his sanction to the terms of peace offered to the French by his colleagues, though he disapproved of them. Certainly this is giving no small extent to the obliga tion to one's party; for Mr. Windham afterwards declared that signing a treaty, on terms not more disadvantageous than those with regard to which he had practised the party virtue of forbearance, was no less a crime, or misfortune, than signing the deathwarrant of his country.

We cannot give our assent to either of these articles of the Accurate Observer's morality. We cannot be persuaded, either that the obligations to a party includes every thing, or that the obligation of a promise includes nothing.

But it is said that this promise of support was given on the professions of the present ministers "to act upon the same general system which had been adopted by their predecessors." Whether the present ministers know, or whether they do not know what was the system of their predecessors, we cannot tell; but

for ourselves, and we are certain we take along with mise; and it would have been good for the reputation us the bulk of our countrymen, we know it not. of them all if the knowledge of it had never been Was it the restoration of the old government of given to the public. It was either a foolish and incon France? This was universally believed at one time to siderate engagement of men who did not know what be their object; though it is now disclaimed even by they were doing, or it was a very unconstitutional Mr. Windham and Lord Grenville. Was it "the and dangerous compact, on the part of the lase minisdelivery of the powers of Europe from the state of ters to support the present, provided they would in oppression to which they had been reduced by the all things be directed by them; and on the part of the enormous power of France?" The advocate of Mr. present ministers to be directed in this ignominious Pitt confesses" that the probability of obtaining this manner. In whatever way the promise be understood, object was become very slight indeed; and that the it was extreme folly to suppose that a connection restperiod had for a second time arrived, when the danger, ing upon this basis should be lasting. It was perthe difficulty, the risk of continuing the contest had fectly certain that if the late ministers retained such increased, while the hope of complete, ultimate suc- an influence in the country that their support was abcess had diminished." What then was this system?solutely necessary to their successors, they would not Was it the boasted one of indemnity for the past, and long be content with the obscure station of secret adsecurity for the future? It will hardly be contended visers. And on the other hand, if the new ministers that the terms offered at Lisle afforded this, greatly found that they could stand, by their own strength, beyond those accepted at Amiens. Or lastly, to adopt and that their predecessors lost the greatest part of a favourite phrase of the late ministry, shall we not their influence when they lost their offices, it was say, that their system was that of existing circum-equally certain, that they would not long submit to stances? If that was the case, we do not see how it the mortification of being dictated to by men whom was possible for any predecessors to follow their sys- they could safely despise. tem, in such a way, that they could not have a pretence to abandon them, whenever they chose.

As far as Mr. Pitt's opinion of the system, pursued by himself and friends, is concerned, we say that the present ministers have very closely conformed to it; and if ever he promised them his support on these terms, he is unjustifiable in yet withdrawing it. la every one of their great measures he has approved of them; in the peace they made, in the peace esta

But what is most extraordinary of all, the late ministers do not seem to have themselves known what was their system. How then can Mr. Addington or the public be blamed for not knowing it: According to Mr. Pitt, the treaty of Amiens was perfectly agreeable to their system. According to Mr.blishment they proposed, in the convention with the Windham, and Lord Grenville, it was totally inconsistent with it. According to these gentlemen, the signing of that treaty, was signing the death-warrant of their country; according to Mr. Pitt, in his speech on the preliminary treaty," that treaty afforded matter of joy and exultation to the country, and entitled the government to its warmest approbation, and most grateful thanks." How mistaken a policy it was in these great men to challenge a narrow scrutiny into

their conduct!

northern powers, in the peace taxes adopted, even in altering the law respecting the sinking fund. On taking our memory to task we can recollect but two instances, and these of very subordinate moment, with regard to which he has expressed the smallest disapprobation of their conduct. The first regards the tax on property in the funds. Of the tax itself he did not disapprove; he only wanted it to be imposed in a particular manner, which manner the ministers adopted. This instance is too insignificant, to have been accounted a renunciation of a system, though his views had not been complied with; but as they were, all pretence is taken away. The only other occasion on which we can recollect that Mr. Pitt has expressed his disapprobation of the present ministers, was toward the end of the last session of parliament, when he said he thought they had been remiss, and dilatory in their preparations of defence. This opinion he now seems to have given up, as no complaint on this subject has fallen from him in the late debates; and he observes that the ministers have completed their plans of defence, before the enemy is prepared for his attack.

We are told it was only on the professions of the present ministers to act on the same system with their predecessors, that they promised them their support. Why that great measure, on account of which they resigned their offices, was surely an important part of their system. If not; what can their system mean? Yet at the very time when they promised their support to their successors, they knew that their successors had accepted of their situations on the express condition of abandoning this part of their system. We cannot conceive that even the treaty of Amiens itself should be so essential a part of the system of the late ministers as this. About the treaty of Amiens they entertained sentiments With regard to Mr. Windham and Lord Grenville, directly opposite to one another. It is impossible to we must say that the men who could sanction the suppose that any leading object of their system, if terms of peace offered to the French at Lisle, and who they had a system at all, should be so ill defined, and could say that ratifying the treaty of Amiens, was a understood by them. But with respect to the other breach of the system which they had pursued, must measure, they were perfectly unanimous, and regarded be ambitious of some other praise than that of conit as a measure which justified them in taking one of sistency. We know not whether they approve of the the strongest steps which it was in their power to take. apology made for them by the Accurate Observer; It now fully appears from the conduct of the parties that it was very right for them to do, when ministers, concerned, how little meaning there was in this pro-what they ought to reprobate, when not ministers;

[ocr errors]

however, does not appear to have been the obstacle with Mr. Addington. It was not the number, but the character of the persons proposed to be set above him, which seems to have revolted him. They were not only men who had opposed him, but men who had treated him with every species of indignity. The lan

that they might be very ready to offer terms, when in place, to ratify which they might affirm, when out of place, was to sign the death-warrant of their country. If they like it, we make them heartily welcome to the benefit of it; and in the mean time, till they produce another, declare that we do not know a better. Such are the reflections we have made on the infor-guage and behaviour of Lord Grenville and his friends mation given to us by the two contending parties con- had been such towards Mr. Addington, that it was utcerning that connection, or compact between them, terly impossible they could be associated together in which took place immediately upon the change of the the same transactions. With what faces could they ministry. The next subject on which the two pamph- have met one another at the council board? How lets lay stress is, the negociation for the return of Mr. | could they come prepared to join their inmost counsels Pitt into office. The connection and apparent friend- to mature some great concern of their country? They ship between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Addington continued must have been utterly devoid of principle and spirit, for a considerable time after some of the chief mem- if they could have thought of such a thing. We should bers of Mr. Pitt's administration had declared open despise Lord Grenville if he could have consented to warfare against the present ministers. What was the sit at the same council-board with Mr. Addington; and degree of cordiality and confidence between these gen- we should have thought Mr. Addington the meanest tlemen during the early part of last session of parlia- of human beings, if he had permitted Lord Grenment, the pamphlets do not very distinctly explain. ville to come into office, without retiring instantly That in favour of Mr. Addington says it was little, if || himself. any thing, different from what it had always been. The pamphlet for Mr. Addington says, that Mr. Pitt That in favour of Mr. Pitt says, it was very much al- || made a positive, unalterable demand to bring back with tered; and Mr. Addington knew that Mr. Pitt disap-him the Lords Grenville and Spencer, with other proved highly of several of his measures. However friends of theirs, whose behaviour had been equally this may be; some time after the King's message re- contumelious to the present administration. The specting the hostile appearances in France, when the pamphlet for Mr. Pitt says, that he made no positive ministers must have felt anxious for as great an ac- demand with regard to any body, that he insisted upon cession, as possible, of strength, and when it might including the noblemen named above, in that plan of be taken for granted they would make the greatest an administration which he should submit to the consacrifices to obtain it, a negociation was opened for sideration of the King, but that he never proposed to re-instating Mr. Pitt in his former situation in the ca- press any individual on his Majesty. Here again the binet. Mr. Addington's advocate says, the proposition pamphlets are contradictory, and yet may be easily reoriginated with Mr. Pitt, Mr. Pitt's advocate says conciled. This demand of Mr. Pitt's is at once posithat it originated with Mr. Addington. These asser- tive, and not positive. It is not positive with regard tions appear flatly contradictory. But we are by a to the King; Mr. Pitt it seems did not go so far as to cotemporary author helped to a theory, which proposes say I will tell the King that he must employ the Lords to reconcile them. Lord Melville, it seems, was the Grenville and Spencer, otherwise he shall not have me. negociator. Let it be granted that this middle-man | But it is perfectly positive with regard to Mr. Addingthought of the scheme himself, and proposed it to ton; and he seems to have told that gentleman, you Mr. Addington, before he had mentioned it to Mr. shall consent to my proposal of placing these lords in Pitt, and then each of these statesmen might suppose the new administration; and when Mr. Addington the proposition originated with the other. One thing gave for answer, that it was impossible, and improper is of importance to observe; it appears that both of that these lords and he should form parts of the same them listened readily to the proposal. Mr. Addington administration, the negociation was broken off. consented that Mr. Pitt, Lord Melville, and some other of their friends should be admitted into the cabinet, "not only on a footing of equality with himself, but beyond it." Mr. Pitt hesitated about nothing but terms. It was not enough for him it seems, that himself and Lord Melville, and the others not named, should be admitted to situations in the government above the present ministers, he wanted others. However, on ordinary occasions, it would have been thought no small instance of self-denial, and of zeal for the public good, in a minister to descend so many steps, as Mr. Addington and his friends voluntarily proposed to do, to make way for Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt wanted them to descend a little lower; for it is not to be supposed that Lords Grenville and Spencer, would have seen Lord Melville and others, placed above Mr. Addington and Lord Hawkesbury, and have submitted to remain below them. Even this additional descent

VOL. II.

[ocr errors]

It is impossible for the persons who read the account of this negociation not to be struck with the unceremonious manner in which the said lords seem to have been treated in it. The terms stipulated for them, it seems to have been taken for granted, would be perfectly to their hearts desire. It is impossible not to receive the idea, that both Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt were of opinion, that it was the places which the lords wanted; but whether every attendant circumstance was exactly as it should be, they would not very curiously enquire. If any thing could establish so dishonourable an imputation, it is certain parts of the public conduct of some of these noble persons. There is

something so disgusting in hyperbolical, and fulsome adulation, that we conceive capable of almost any meanness the man who is guilty of it. Now we do think, that the annals of flattery will scarcely furnish a higher strain of this sort, than that celebrated passage 3 B

of a speech of Lord Grenville in the beginning of last session of parliament; "There is but one man in the kingdom, to whom every eye is directed, to whom every heart is attached, as alone capable to rally the national force, as alone equal to weather the storm." Violent expressions of enmity, likewise, long persevered in and often repeated, where the cause is by no means adequate, have a strong tendency to give us unfavourable impressions of the persons who use them. Though our opinion should not be high of the present administration, we can hardly fail to have received some of these impressions from the behaviour of the party which takes its name from Lord Grenville. Yet, notwithstanding these circumstances, we believe the idea suggested by the accounts in the two pamphlets to be a false one; and that the Lords whose names are introduced, would not accept of places on terms which they themselves did not clearly think honourable.

to the ministers. This conduct can only be disapproved of in so far as it is inconsistent with the conduct of the same persons in offering the terms of the negotiation at Lisle, in so far as it is inconsistent with the engagements which they came under to support the present administration; and in so far as it may appear inconsistent with wisdom, and sound judgement. In our opinion it is exceptionable in all these three respects. But how can the defender of Mr. Pitt say, that the objections of Lord Grenville to the peace of Amiens, "show the sagacity and penetration of his lordship's mind," without allowing at the same time, that Mr. Pitt's approbation of that peace, shows the want of penetration and sagacity of his mind? How can he reconcile this expression to his own declaration in another part of the pamphlet, that the peace of Amiens was such, as it was fit for the ministers to make at the time? How can he reconcile it with a declaration (Page 57.) still stronger, of his belief that by a proper system of precaution and firmness, the peace might have been preserved, and the war avoided?

But it is more the character of the opposition of these statesmen, than their opposition itself, which very properly appears to have been the objection against them with Mr. Addington. No expression of dislike or contempt which the language affords, has been thought too foul to discharge upon the present ministers. The defender of Mr. Pitt does not so much as attempt to deny this charge. He does not even attempt to palliate it. This being the case, the observations which he makes, are, in our opinion, the severest animadversions upon the conduct of these persons. "The use," says he, "of expressions more harsh and severe than the occasion justifies, on which they are applied, is always objectionable. It often manifests ill humour, and always bad taste. But it is an evil which carries its own remedy along with it; for it tends more to defeat than to forward the purpose it is meant to promote." The absurdity of the next expression in the same pamphlet it is hardly necessary to comment upon. "I wish," says the author, "the Near Observer had profited by his own admonition, and that he had refrained from the harsher and still more calumnious epithets which he has thought fit so profusely to bestow on the conduct of Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Canning." Why; this conduct according to him must lead more to defeat than forward the malignant purposes of the Near Observer; then for what reason wish it altered?

The defender of Mr. Pitt thus concludes his remarks on this negociation. "Mr. Addington evidently wished for the assistance of Mr. Pitt to strengthen his government, and this desire increased with the difficulty of his situation. It is equally evident that Mr. Pitt had no inclination, whether from disapprobation of their general measures, from objection to any of the steps taken in the negociation with France, or from any other cause, to agree to take office merely as an accession to the present administration." Some part of this language is unfair, and some is so indefinite as to have no meaning, or any meaning which circumstances may render convenient to apply to it. If Mr. Addington proposed to make way for receiving Mr. Pitt and several of his friends to the highest places in the government, how could it any longer be called Mr. Addington's government? How could Mr. Addington then be said to wish to strengthen his government by the assistance of Mr. Pitt; how can Mr. Pitt's defender say that he was desired to come in merely as an accession to the present government, when he was to fill the first place, and several of his friends the places next to him? The terms are curious in which this defender talks of the reasons of this disinclination of Mr. Pitt. They are all hypothetical. Nothing is affirmed. It is not said that Mr. Pitt did disapprove of the general measures of Mr. Addington, but whether he did so; it is not said that he had any objection to any of the steps taken in the negociation with France, but whether he had, or whether he had any other reason. Let the defender see what use may be made of this figure of speech against himself or against any body. We may say that Mr. Addington had no inclination, whether from a knowledge of their despotical principles, whether from a knowledge of a family compact, to impose fetters both upon the sovereign, and the people, or from any other cause, to permit the Gren-luctance. ville family to have any share in the government of the country

The parliamentary conduct of the late ministers, from the time of their retirement, is the next subject handled in the two pamphlets. Mr. Windham and Lord Grenville may be taken together. From the time of the discussion of the preliminary treaty of peace, they have acted in direct and violent opposition

A surmise, to which some people attach no little consequence, was thrown out by the Near Observer, that there is an obstacle to the admission of Lord Grenville into office even higher than Mr. Addington's re

[ocr errors]

The Accurate Observer treats this with high indignation. "Indecent insinuation," he cries! Whom, he asks, whose talents, whose acquirements, whose services would be advantageous to the state, has the high personage referred to ever proscribed? We answer, in the first place, that granting personal dislike, and no other- cause, in the quarter alluded to, created an obstacle to the admission of Lord Grenville into office, is there not a number

5

of men in the nation with talents and acquirements, equal, nay far superior to those of Lord Grenville, sufficiently great to form an administration? Then why, in these circumstances, obtrude upon the high character referred to any individual personally objectionable to him? Let us only ask Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville themselves, if they have never had any personal dislikes and resentments; if they have never indulged these sentiments in their public functions; if they have never from personal motives proscribed any one whose talents, services, and acquirements would be advantageous to the state? Why attempt to establish so severe a proscription with regard to that high personage; when every minister assumes to himself so wide a range in indulging his private resentments, and partialities? But is it fair in the defender of Mr. Pitt to insinuate that if there be any objection to Lord Grenville in the High quarter alluded to, it arises from selfish and unworthy motives. We have more than once had occasion to observe proofs of much more profound views in that quarter, than those who surround it have in general represented were to be found there. Now in our opinion it is by no means incredible that objections of a more just and patriotic nature than private dislike may lie against Lord Grenville even in the quarter alluded to. We believe that a large proportion of the nation looks upon Lord Grenville's policy as tending, whether he is sensible of it or not, to reduce the lower orders to a state of abject servility under the higher, and to establish an odious aristocracy, which would in the end domineer with equal tyranny over both King and people. What is to hinder us from supposing that the High personage alluded to, participates in these opinions? and is resolved to oppose a system, the completion of which would be equally fatal to the freedom of the people, and the independence of the crown? Besides, what is there in the talents, or acquirements of Lord Grenville that should entitle such pretensions to be set up in his favour? What mighty proof, either of wisdom, or of genius has he exhibited? As a speaker he is neither first, nor second, nor third rate; and he was pretty truly told one day by a brother peer, that he owed much more to a confident manner, and to bold assertion, than either to knowledge or ingenuity in his speeches. With regard to his wisdom in council, his acts are confounded with those of his colleagues. But we never heard that he greatly excelled many of them either in devising plans, or suggesting expedients. The truth is, his great merit consists in his being the most forward and bold individual of a Family, which is now one of the richest and greatest in the kingdom, and in thus having the direction of their powerful and extensive influence.

One thing of considerable consequence is to be remarked with regard to the stipulations respecting the re-admission of Mr. Pitt into power; that Mr. Windham, as far as appears from the two pamphlets, was left altogether out of the question. Mr. Pitt seems neither to have proposed him, nor Mr. Addington to have been put to the necessity of rejecting him. From several circumstances it seems reasonable to conjecture that between Mr. Windham and Mr. Pitt, no very intimate connection subsists. With regard to talents

and acquirements he is surely as desirable a coadjutor as Lord Grenville. Yet Mr. Pitt seems to have been willing to dispense with his services. That periodical publication, one of whose chief objects is to applaud Mr. Windham, and give publicity to his opinions, has of late been very free in its censures of Mr. Pitt, and has at last come to despise his abilities, and to talk of him as a very subaltern person indeed. It some time ago very plainly accused him of being actuated by envy towards Mr. Windham. The Accurate Observer pens an eulogium on Mr. Windham as a gentleman and a scholar; but registers a damning sentence against him as a statesman." I shall never," says he, " point to prudence and discretion as his most prominent virtues. Inferior men who possess more of these qualities, will often have great advantages over him.-His opinions also he appears to me often to push to extremes." If we are to take this for the declaration of Mr. Pitt, we may depend upon it that the two characters have no great expectation of ever sitting again at the same council-board together. But another question of some consequence is connected with this. What is to become of the union between Mr. Windham and the Grenvilles? Is that to be dissolved; and is a junction to be formed between Mr. Pitt and the Grenvilles to the exclusion of Mr. Windham? This would make us talk and stare for a while; but we have all heard of as extraordinary things among statesmen before now. The late conduct too of Lord Grenville, in joining in opinion with Mr. Pitt, and in opposition to Mr. Windham, with regard to the volunteers, might be urged in favour of this conjecture. If the Grenvilles, however, maintain their connection with Mr. Windham, what are they to do with Mr. Pitt? all connection between them and Mr. Pitt to be broken off? There are some appearances which countenance this conjecture too? If the truth were fairly laid open, we believe there is no good understanding between any of these parties; and that the political part of this country was never in so broken and chaotic a state before, as it is at this present moment. The causes we believe it would not be difficult to assign. They were all created before the present ministers came into power.

Is

Before entirely quitting the subject of the negotiation for the return of Mr. Pitt, with other of his friends and the Lords Grenville and Spencer, into power, we have one remark yet to make. These persons quitted their offices, they have told us, because they were prevented from proposing a great measure which they accounted essential to the interests of their country. Was there any probability when Mr. Pitt listened to the proposal of returning into office, that the obstacle to that important measure was removed? Did Mr. Pitt make this point his first stipulation? The necessity for his doing so, to maintain any pretension to consistency, or principle, is abundantly evident. If we had been told that the negotiation with Mr. Addington was broken off on this account, we should have reckoned it a very fair and honourable cause. And we are truly sorry that not a word is found in the pamphlet defending Mr. Pitt which can enable us to conclude that this matter, which that gentleman once thought of so much con

« PreviousContinue »