« PreviousContinue »
IN REPLY TO
That an Englishman, a freeman, and a friend to his country, should presume to address himself to you, though under a disguise similar to that in which you have presented yourself to the notice of the public, needs no apology: that I, an humble individual, should offer an answer to your Letter to the Earl of Liver. pool, after the lapse of so long a period from the time of its publication, may require an explanation. Until long after it was published, the existence of such a letter was unknown to me, and if known, it would probably have remained unnoticed, had not a degree of importance been attached to it of which I think it wholly undeserving. In truth, the epistolary productions of a newspaper seldom engross much of my attention, nor would your Letter to the Earl of Liverpool, or that subsequently addressed to the people of England, which seems rather a sequel and corollary to the former, have engaged a larger share, had not an attempt been already made, to give a more extensive publicity to your opinions by printing numerous copies of the former letter for the purpose of distribution among the lower orders, and had I not reason to believe that a similar course is intended to be adopted with respect to the latter. Not, Sir, that I would willingly detract from your merits as a writer. From the tenor of your letters I would willingly believe
you to be a gentleman, a man of education, and a man
For the information of those persons who may not be readers of the New Times newspaper it may be proper to state, that Phocion's letter is written in reply to two letters which have appeared in that paper under the signature of '“ Cato.” The one on the 14th December, 1820, addressed to the Earl of Liverpool, the other on the 12th January instant, addressed to the people of England.
of more than ordinary talent; and I cannot but regret that the talent which you evidently possess should have been employed with so little honor to yourself, and advantage to your country, as in mis-stating facts, exaggerating evils, exciting prejudices, and disseminating principles calculated rather to foment than tranquillise the discontents of which you so feelingly complain. As a model of ingenious sophistry and studied art your letters claim considerable admiration, as an heterogeneous compound of truth and misrepresentation, of apparent candor and simplicity with real contradiction and inconsistency, they stand unrivalled.' Tropes, figures, epithets, and images, deities and idols, all the real and visionary creations of a prolific brain dance through your letters in all the mazes of metaphorical confusion, dazzle and perplex the þewildered sense, and combine in the production of those phenomena in political literature, THE LETTERS OF CATO; letters calculated rather to lead the mind astray from the real point in issue, than to convince and satisfy the judgment; and soaring far, I should conceive, above the reach of those poor deluded, credulous, and ignorant lower orders, whom you affect to treat with such indifference and contempt, but for whose opinion you must, one would suppose, have no inconsiderable regard, if a judgment can be formed from the eagerness which has been evinced to circus late your opinions among them.
To an unwillingness, then, that assertions unfounded in fact, conclusions unsupported by reasoning, and political doctrines and opinions at once dangerous to the constitution, and destructive of the laws, should go forth uncontradicted, uncontroverted, to the world ; should be forced upon the notice, and infused into the minds of men,—who if we may believe you, know nothing of the constitution, nothing of the laws, nothing of the complicated interests of their country, men who implicitly believe every thing which prejudice has not taught them to reject, who swallow the most monstrous falsehoods who are utterly incapable of forming an opinion for themselves, you may attribute the present letter; and though I have not the vanity to hope that I can administer an antidote co-extensive with the poison, neither can I dare to emulate the adventurous flights of Cato, through regions of poetic fancy, or captivate my readers with the charms of eloquence; yet should I be fortunate enough in plain straight-forward simple language, to detect, expose, and refute the errors into which
you self been led, and into which it seems your aim to lead your readers, and to exhibit in their true and proper colors the mischievous doctrines you have advanced, my object will be gained, my purpose answered.
With respect to your observations on the Earl of Liverpool, !
have but a word to say ;-Let him wear the laurels he has justly earned. If the gratitude of a rescued nation be due to him, for having brought to a successful issue the mighty conflict with a foreign foe, by a steady perseverance in a course of actions honorable, consistent, and patriotic, let him long continue to enjoy it. A grateful nation will not withhold the proud reward ; but, if in the conduct of a scarcely less important conflict, he has departed from those principles of honor for which you give him credit, if either from timidity and irresolution, or from motives of self-interest, he has left the path of duty, and sacrificed his own consistency and integrity, and the true interests of his country to the caprices or the passions of another, however exalted in rank or station, let him not be surprised that he should have entailed upon himself dishonor, hatred, and contempt. The prosecution and punishment of a Queen for adultery on principles of public justice, might perhaps have been a triumph no less for the minister, than for morals and religion ; but how far even such a triumph might be salutary, or conduce to the security of lawful and established governments, I have yet to learn. Let the Sovereign himself reflect well on the principles on which such a measure must be founded, on the consequences which may result, the conclusions which may be drawn, from such a precedent. Well may monarchs tremble on the throne, if doomed to answer at the tribunal of their ministers for every private vice; and tottering must be the crown of him, whom every secret failing, every departure from the path of moral rectitude, might expose to legal degradation and dethronement. Nay, not even the name and memory of the best of monarchs and the best of men, might be adequate to oppose a barrier to the progress of so dread an inquisition. But whatever might have been the merits, whatever the final issue of such a prosecution, founded on such principles, and conducted by the known established rules of law, it cannot but be deemed a far more noble triumph, that a prosecution founded on the principles, and conducted in the manner we have witnessed, attempted to be supported by a mass of perjured testimony, and whose object was to insult, dishonor, and oppress, an already too much injured, abused, and unprotected female, should meet with failure and disgrace. The inconsistencies into which you have fallen, on this branch of the subject, are somewhat singular. By what mode of reasoning do you arrive at your conclusion, that his Lordship secured the victory, that he defeated and discomfited the enemy, when, according to your own statement, the opponents with whom he had to contend, have triumphed over that which you designate as the cause of law and justice ? It will, I think, establish a new era in military tactics, when retreat shall be deemed the signal of victory, and the triumph of an
enemy the proof of his discomfiture. His Lordship did indeed fight the battle in which his rashness had engaged him: he fought it obstinately, but he did not secure the victory. You yourself tell us he withdrew. He withdrew because he was defeated, not by those opponents whom you have specified, but by that vigilant and acute opposition which watched his motions, those respectable public men, whose conduct you describe as free from crooked motives. He withdrew, because he was opposed by a Grosvenor, a Holland, an Erskine, a Lansdown, and a Grey ; men, who in spite of invective and abuse, will still maintain an honorable post in the affections of their country. Their talent, their honor, their integrity, are too well known, too highly estimated, to fear the breath of slander, or dread a conflict with a foe like him I now address. In the good opinion of the people they possess a shield, from which the poisoned dart of calumny will glance aside, or fall blunted at their feet. Who is the man that presumes thus to calumniate the first, the ablest nobles in the land? who the man that dares impute to their language or their conduct, vulgar senseless abuse, unmanly shrinking, pitiful inconsistency, sophisticated quibbling, imbecility, and political dishonesty ? Come forward, Sir, and show yourself. Strip off your borrowed garment ; appear in person to substantiate your charge. The noble Roman, whose character you assume, scorned to act so base a part. He greatly dared in open day, and in his proper person, to expose the vices of the age. You trust for safety to the recesses of your closet, while you traduce the characters, impugn the motives, and insult the honor of the men, whose honor, whose abilities, whose political integrity, you, I am persuaded, cannot, dare not, openly call in question. It is to the lofty spirit, unsullied reputation, untainted principles of these men, and of men like these, that the people ever have been, and ever will be, indebted for their security. They shun no conflict, they are ever ready at their post to assert the people's rights and avenge the people's wrongs.
The picture you have drawn of the present alarming situation of the country, as contrasted with the circumstances which you say combine to render it at once loyal, unanimous, tranquil, and happy, is colored and exaggerated to an extravagant and unwarrantable extent. On two points we shall agree; that great and alarming discontents exist, and that the ministry has done every thing but endeavour to remove them. With respect to the causes of the disorder, and the remedies necessary for its extirpation, we wholly differ. The readiness with which you impute to the remissness of the ministers, the existing disorders of the state, in order that you may urge them to the assumption of a power still more unconstitutional than that which they have hitherto assumed,