vidends, payable ont of the consolidated fund, were much greater in amount, and in which the surplus was, of course, so much less in amount, than in the other two quarters? In other words, did it not occur to him, that there were two high quarters and two low quarters in every year, and that, out of the three quarters, from the aggregate surplus of which he drew his average, two were high quarters? Will he say, that the difference, occasioned by the variation in the amount of the dividends, is not great enough to be of any material importance in such an estimate? No; he will not say this, because some one will have the compassion to tell him, that, in that case, an alarming defalcation in the quarter which has just terminated, is irrefragibly established; and that, every penny which he deducts from the difference of surplus, occasioned by the variation in the amount of the dividends, must, of course, be added to the defalcation of the present January quarter. The exact amount of the difference (occasioned by the dividends) between a high and a low quarter, we have not, at present, an opportunity of ascertaining the treasury paragraph above, extracted fron the True Briton of the 18th instant, states the difference at a million, or upwards; but, whether it means a million in the whole year, or a million in each of the two quarters, is not quite clearly expressed. If the difference be £500,000 in each of the two quarters, then the defalcation in the Jan. quarter is £401,965 and the total amount of the future surplus for the year (accruing to the average of the three quarters ending in Oct. 1802) would be £7,345,000. If the difference between a high quarter and a low one be £1,000,000 in each of the two quarters, then the defalcation in the January quarter is only £151,968 but, upon the same principle, Mr. Addington's surplus for the year (even according to his average of the three quarters ending in October 1802) would amount to no more than £6,845,000 instead of the £7,845,000 on which he has encouraged the nation to rely as a security, not only against the enemy, but also against new taxes and loans! Our readers will recollect, that, when the budget was brought forward, we expressed our fears, that the minister had been deceived; that, " as the minister of any intention to deceive. We thought the materials of the budget had the appearance of being far fetched, and that its statements were purposely confused. We confess, however, that we could not have supposed, that any one would have put into the hands of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, a statement so fallacious as that, on which we have now thought it our duty to comment. What! when there are two high and two low quarters in the year, to take the aggregate of both the high ones and one of the low ones, in order to find an average for the four! Then again, to make, upon that average, an estimate of a surplus, and to hold forth that surplus as the foundation for the credit and security of the country! And, at last, to send this imposition out amongst the people under the sanction, in some sort, of the House of Commons, those watchful guardians of the public purse! What will the world say? What will the base world, who envy us our glorious constitution, say to all this? Will they not begin to suspect, that the House of Commons itself is not quite so well-informed and so vigilant as they ought to be? In short, who will, after this detection, ever again place confidence in the financial statements of the treasury?It now remains for us to draw such a conclusion, respecting the future amount of the revenue, as appears to be warranted by the foregoing arguments and facts. -That the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the future annual surplus of the con solidated fund at £7,845,000 has been proved by a quotation of his own words and figures; but, that he should have estimated it much lower has also been proved; and to these proofs are added that of the surplus for the year ending on the 5th of Jan. which, according to the treasury statement above extracted from the True Briton, amounted to no more than £6,700,000 instead of £7,845,000 In this view of the subject, therefore, the receipt falls more than £1,000,000 short of Mr. Addington's estimate. But, if we ground an estimate for the future quarters upon the receipt of that ending on the 5th of Jan, the result will be still more unfavourable. The receipts of that quarter amounted to £1,248,032, and, of course, the receipt of four quarters would be £4,992,128; but, as Jan. is one of the two low quarters, we must suppose, that two of the other quarters in the year will be higher. How much is not exactly known. At the lowest £500,000 and at the highest, probably, 1,100,000. Taking, then, the average of these, which is £800,000 and adding it to each of the quarters, the estimated receipts of the whole year will be £6,592,128 instead of £7,845,000; the result of all which is, that we may expect our future receipts to fall short of Mr. Addington's statement in the sum of L.1,252,872 per annum, even if our trade and commerce should continue at its present height.If this be so, what becomes of the flattering estimate, which will be found in this sheet, p. 83? Where are we to look for the clear surplus" of £.1,063,000 after defraying the expenses of the year? Will there not, on the contrary, be a clear deficiency of £187,872 a year, even supposing the public to undergo the very considerable reduction, which the Minister flatters us he shall be able to make? A reduction is possible; but who will say that it is probable? Who that looks at Europe; who that hears the language of France; who that sees her measures, in Louisiana and the Floridas, in the East Indies, in Egypt, in Holland, and opposite the mouth of the Thames; who that thinks of the fleet and of Ireland; who that hears, sees, and thinks of, all these objects, can possibly entertain a hope of a diminution in our naval and military expenses? Besides, there are some heavy items of miscellaneous services soon to be provided for: amongst others, a grant to the Stadtholder of (it is said) f.200,000. The sums for spoliation of American property will amount to about £2,000,000 including the various expenses attendant thereon. The debts due to British subjects from the Americans, which debts have been abandoned by the government of this country, and which it will, of course, fall upon that government to make good, amount to about £.2,500,000 or £3,000,000. The balance stated to be due to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, is £240,000. If, therefore, our readers are of opinion, with us, that no great diminution will take place in our naval or military establishment, even if the above enumerated miscellaneous services will demand nothing at all, in addition to those calculated on by the Minister, they must be convinced, that the interest of the public debt cannot be duly discharged without more loans, or without new taxes, to a very considerable amount.We shall now dismiss the subject with observing, that, while we are sincerely persuaded of the fallacy of the conclusions, which we have controverted, only because we thought them fallacious and leading to decep tion, nobody will rejoice more sincerely than we shall, if time should prove, that we our selves have been deceived. It has always been our opinion, that the great danger of this country arises from a reluctance to look its situation in the face, a feeling which it imbibed from a man, who, if he had followed the impulse of his own great mind, would never have been called "the Minister of existing circumstances." Nothing is so destructive to the spirit of a people as to lead them along blindfolded, from event to event, without giving them any general feeling, without holding out to them any common motive of action, without ever shewing them distinctly, what they have to hope, or what they have to fear. Such a people are always taken by surprise, and their conduct is generally what it is natural to expect in similar circumstances. To prepare our countrymen, as far as it is in our power, for the imposition of new taxes, is the object of these comments. Were Englishmen what we could wish them, then, indeed, such a preparation would be unnecessary; then would they think nothing hard, nothing burthensome, that contributed to the preservation of the freedom and the honour of their country.* The affair of Honduras has taken a turn somewhat new, or has, in its developement, brought new circumstances, at least. It now appears, from a statement evidently drawn up and published by the authority of the parties concerned, that, by means of our arms, we had, during the war, extended our limits at Honduras. "Their extension, in"deed," says the account to which we allude, "was become perfectly necessary, for we had so cleared the country in our pos "session of logwood, that any more which we wanted to procure was got at so great "an expense, on account of its distance "from the coast, that it enhanced its cost "almost beyond what it would bear. This "being the case, and having, by right of 66 conquest, acquired such additional terri "tory, and in such a favourable situation, "that we could not only cut, but transport "it down the rivers to the coast, at a com "paratively trivial expense; it became an "object of the greatest importance to have "this additional acquisition secured in the "treaty of peace.-To this end, the mer"chants at Honduras made the proper re presentations to their correspondents in "Loudon, and, in consequence of this, a "deputation from the committee of the principal merchants of London, trading to "Honduras, immediately after the prelimi"naries of peace were signed, waited upon "Lord Hobart, one of his Majesty's prin"cipal Secretaries of State, with a memo"rial, representing their situation, and pray"ing that it might not be lost sight of, but "receive every requisite confirmation in the "usual form. Another deputation of the same We had prepared some remarks on the state of the commerce and navigation, but these, which are at some length, must be deferred 'till our next, "committee, waited also upon Lord Hawkes- | "bury, with another memorial to the same "effect, while the definitive treaty was drawing up, and long before it was signed. "The British ministry cannot, therefore, "plead ignorance on this important subject." -These Honduras merchants are very incorrect in their concluding remark; the British ministers, be it known to them, could plead ignorance after the memorial as well as before it: they can with truth and propriety, plead ignorance, at all times and in all matters, except where their own immediate interests are concerned. If a memorial had been delivered in about a house and land in Richmond Park, the modest and conscientious Mr. Addington would have read it over as often as a penitent counts his beads.-In our next we propose to insert the whole of the article published by the Honduras merchants; till then we shall, therefore, reserve what we have further to say upon the subject; but we cannot refrain from noticing here, the closing remarks of this publication:-" The case "appears," say they, "to be so plain, that " we see no reason why the cavils of "France (we cannot call it Spain) should "be treated with much deference. We "have the right, we have the power, and "Buonaparté should be taught that he must "not domineer when he has not the abi"lity to act. There are fifty chicaneries of • this sort in both the Indies, and the best way "is to treat them in the beginning with con tempt, and to resist them with vigour —If "ministers accept the establishment at "Honduras on the old footing, they will "shew much condescension. They ought "to insist peremptorily on our right, and if they revert to the old footing, they "ought to obtain an equivalent. This tone "would speedily bring the Freneb and Spa"niards to reason."-There is nothing like feeling to bring people to their senses! These men of logwood gave their approbation to the peace, which produced the evils of which they now complain; or, at least, if they disapproved of it, they did not make their disapprobation known. Those who did not come forward against that disgraceful compact, were for it. In such a case there can be no real silence, or neutrality. We, therefore, pity not the men of logwood, and are only sorry that the injury is not confined to themselves. Nor, indeed, does the nation, generally speaking, deserve any compassion: it must suffer, it will suffer, and it ought to suffer, for its bi seness in applauding the treaty of Amiens, ad in silently submitting to the daily and Jurly degradation brought on it by the ministry of Richmond Park. The extension of our Honduras boundary during the war, and the worthlessness of what we "possessed of right," as Lord Hawkesbury phrased it, will form a very decent pretext for giving up the settlement altogether, which, our readers may be assured, will be the termination of the affair, and which, in conjunetion with the laws, lately passed, in Spain, relative to the wool of that country, must prove materially injurious to a considerable branch of our manufactures. In p. 75, we have inserted another libellous extract from the Official Gazette of France. That execrable gazette, which styles our sovereign the rewarder of assas― sins, has now revived the charge, against Mr. Windham and others, of having secretly fomented the troubles in France, for the purpose of destroying the royalists. Those amongst the royalists who yielded to the republicans are spoken well of, while GEN. GEORGES, who faithfully and gallantly persevered to the last, is styled the "infamous." Were we in the place of General Georges, we would most assuredly prosecute the venders of this libellous, this most base and detestable gazette. In our next, we shall enter more at length upon the subjects of this extract, and shall, at present, content ourselves with a short remark or two on the defence, which a daily paper has had the goodness to make for Mr. Windham. In this defence the writer boldly asserts, that Mr. Windham never wished to destroy the royalists, and, in order to support this assertion, he states that that Rt. Hon. Gent. was a perfect enthusiast in the cause of those persons, and that this wild enthusiasm led him into many indis cretions with respect to them, and rendered him the dupe of all their exaggerated tales. The real object of a "defence" like this is easily perceived. The whole article is no more than a continuation of those malignant misrepresentations, by which the nation have so long been deceived, with regard to the character and conduct of Mr. Windham-We shall have another opportunity of examining Mr. Windham's conduct and opinion with respect to the royalists, and the royalist war; and, as to his "wild "enthusiasm" and his "indiscretions," we call upon his “defender" to point out an instance, a single instance, of either. Bat, lest this of ficious "defender" should prove contumacious, as we are rather afraid he will, we think it right just to mention a few, "indis“ cretions," in which, at least, Mr. Windham has had no part. Mr. Windham was not amongst those who, under the foolish name of Parliamentary Reform, sowed, through the kingdom, the seeds of discontent, treason, rebellion, and bloodshed. He did not call for the bands of the bangman to destroy what a court of justice deemed to be perfectly innocent, He was no inventor of the Board of Agriculture; he sent no circular invitations to the graud juries to clamour agninst tithes, and to, shake to their very basis, the sacred foundations of property. Mr. Windham, with all his wild enthusiasm," never bragged of marching to Paris; he counselled not the peace of Amiens; he approved not of that disgraceful and ruinous compact; much less did he rejoice at it, because it was giorious to "France and to the First Consul." Amongst the discreet persons, who went to Maidstone to swear that Arthur O'Connor's principles were the same as their own, the name of William Windham is uot recorded; nor have either his former or his present conduct or opinions ever been cited as justificatory of men accused of high treason; accused of compassing the death of the king !-We could proceed much further in this way; but we keep something in reserve for a reply to some future "defence." 46 world, that the French expedition to Egypt was ultimately directed against us; and that it was combated purely for our own sakes, the Turks may appeal to all our declarations, in and out of parliament. The example of the French, too, as a sanction, is curious! We are, at last, openly recommended to attempt to rival the French in those acts of rapacity, against which we have, for ten years past been incessantly railing. Having been cheated ourselves, foily, we are told to try whether we cannot become not from our too great honesty, but our excessive cheats ourselves, and, connoissant notre monde, whether we cannot, in our turn, find others, whom we, too, can kick. Every thing, surely, like a litigious avoided, especially at this moment, when the and vexatious demand upon the Turks, should be French are, as appears by all the intelligence from that country, working day and night to eradicate the last remains of our influence in Turkey. Such a demand, made under such circumstances, would produce consequences, far outweighing the value of the piastres; yet, we are by no means certain, that the policy of the paper above quoted, would not, and will not be relished; for, your "safe "politicians" know of nothing otherwise than as it can be told out in money; what is it worth at market. In the midst, however, of "the embar"rassing circumstances and painful suspicions," respecting our situation relatively to the Turks, this paper finds a ground of satisfaction in the exemplary" conduct of our troops, in Egypt; and, as a specimen of this conduct, it mentions, "the freedom from all religious prejudice, which was shewn by their firing a salute on the festival "of MAHOMET." Now, what has afforded the Morning Post so much satisfaction, has, we must confess, had a different effect on us; and we, cannot help regarding this salute as something a little like the ceremony of trampling on the cross, to which the Dutch used to submit in order to preserve the friendship of the Japanese. The Swiss protestants, in the service of France, though drawn up, on such occasions,, with the French regiments, rever used to salute at the clevation of the host. We like not this facility in" giving up the signs of our faith: we would rather have given up the 36,000,000 of piastres. So different are our sentiments from those of the poli-, tician, on whose notions we have thought it necessary to comment. NOTICES. The intelligence from Constantinople, dated Dec. 8, states, that the Ottoman army in Egypt, has been defeated by the Beys. A part of the former were, it is said, made prisoners, and almost all the rest cut to pieces, very few having escaped, and those, it would appear, owed their preservation to the garrison of Cairo, who made a sally in order to save them. It is further stated, that the ammunition and provisions of the Turks fell into the hands of the Beys, who suspended their pursuit only at the solicitation of the English. This intelligence may, perhaps, be relied on; but, there is another report, coming from the same quarter, and through the same channel, on which we can place no reliance. It is this: that our Ministers have demanded, from the Porte, 36,000,000 of piastres (about £8,000,000 sterling) as a reimbursement of our expenses in re-conquering Egypt; and that, they have signified their intention of retaining the places, now in our possession, till they have received the sum so demanded.-We do not believe a word of this. The ministers who should make such a demand would deserve the severest and most ignominious punishment that a court of justice could inflict. Yet, dishonest, shamefully dishonest, as such an act would be, it would not, if we are to regard some of our diurnal politicians as being serious, want for an apologist. "The "justice of such a claim," says a morning paper, nobody can dispute. It has been sanctioned by "the example of France with respect to Holland aud Switzerland!!!"-So! this is English honesty! This is the language of a public print in that country, which is represented as being "too honest" to have any connexion with the other pow-by the same author, published some time ago. ers of Europe! If, indeed, there exist any agreement between us and the Turks for such a reimbursement, that alters the case; but, if not, the claim is as unjust as it is impolitic. The pretext, at any rate, is the most contemptible and impudent that ever was invented; for, it is well known to the whole T. M. may be assured, that we have not overlooked the party invective, which the Ministers have made shift to obtain from the pen of the Poet Laureat, whose Ode we shall insert in our next, accompanied with such comments as it appears to call for. In the mean time T. M. will, we hope, do us the justice to believe, that we fully participate in the general indignation, which the beginning of the last stanza of that performance has excited. To his translation of "L'Empire Germanique, réduit en Départements, sous la Préfecture de L'Electeur de ***" MR. COBBETT is now adding "A Me"moir on the Political and Military state of Europe," These two tracts serve to elucidate each other, and, taken together, they form a most complete view of the recent events on the Continent, as well as of its present situation.-The Work will be ready for delivery on Tuesday next, and will be sold by Mr. E. Harding, 18, Pall-Mall. Price 2s. 6d. Printed by Cox and Baylis, No. 75, Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Bow Street, Covest Garden, where former Numbers may be had; sold also by E. Harding, No. 18, Pall-Mall. VOL. III. No. 4.] London, Saturday, 29th January, 1803. [ Price 10D CONTENTS.-Let. to Mr. Wilberf. 97. Laureat's Ode, 106. Marcus, 109. Honduras Mem. 110. Fr. Dispatches from Guadaloupe, 112. Do Martinico. Article from Stuttgard, 114. Troops from Louisiana. Switz. 115. Dutch Loan, 116. Indem. Cons.'s Journey to Belg. Not, to American Vess, respecting Tripoli. Troubles in Irel. 117. Mut. at Gib. 118. Br. Cred.-Fr. funds, 119. Hond. 121. Malta & Egppt, 124. Louisiana, 126. Sm. Politic. 127. 97] TO WILLIAM WILBERFORCE, ESQ. [98 Dr Clarke, that you have in view an Act of Parliament to compel people to have their children inoculated with the Cow Pox, or not to have them inoculated at all, is, I think, evident enough, else why" apply to Parliament for countenance and support ?" Parliament has already given that counte nance and support, which, supposing the discovery to be a good one, it was proper for it to give. It has munificently rewarded Dr. Jenner for his labours, and for communicating their result to the nation at large; and, having so done, it has left his system to' that encouragement and support, which it will be sure to meet with from successful experience. But, it seems, there are prejudices" against this system, which it is necessary to destroy by force. Sir, that there are prejudices, and very strong ones too, I am ready to allow; and if I were to say, that these "prejudices" extend to a very great majority of even the medical men, in the kingdom, believe, i should not be erroneous in' my statement. But, I cannot agree, that these STR,-Before I proceed to the remaining points of my proposed discussion, I think it necessary to notice a new project, in which you appear to have taken a leading part, and which has, in my opinion, a tendency extremely dangerous to the real freedom and happiness of the country. You will easily perceive, that I allude to your strange proposal for effecting a compulsory adoption of the new system of inoculation. At a meeting held by a Society, formed for the purpose of "exterminating the small-pox," held at the London Tavern on the 19th instant, you and a DR. CLARKE, are reported, in the public papers, to have expressed your selves as follows:-" MR. WILBERFORCE rose, and having questioned Dr. B re"specting the prejudices that still existed against this new inoculation, observed, "that in his opinion the first step which the meeting should take would be to form a "committee, and then to apply to parliament "for its countenance and support. He ob"served, that it was a great national ques "tion; and he was confident that a peti-nores" ought to be eradicated by force; perhaps, very fair to use this de 66 tion to parliament would find very pow-grading term, as expressive of the dislike, "erful succour; that it would call forth the "exertions of the lord lieutenants of counties, and the magistrates and parish offi"cers; and through their means the whole "country would enjoy the benefit resulting from this discovery."-" DR. CLARKE "followed much in the same strain; and "observed that he thought that in future no "person ought to practice the old mode of inocu"lation, except under very particular circum"stances, and with the approbation of the civil "magistrate, not that he wished to abridge "the liberty of the subject, or to countenance "the least interference of the state in matters relating to life and health, but that no one "had a right to injure the community in the "exercise of that privilege."-Now, Sir, without entering into any inquiry as to the merits of DR. JENNER's system of inoculation, give me leave to ask you, how you can reconcile a proposition like this to the spirit of that constitution, of which you profess to be so great an admirer, and to that freedom, of which you wish to be regarded as one of the principal supporters? That you agree with which so large a portion of the community entertain to the system, which you are so anxious to compel them to adopt. The charge of "prejudice," Sir, has been preferred but too often and with but too fatal success, against every one opposed to change. How many millions of times has it been brought against the monarchists of France, and, in England, against the opposers of parliamentary reform? The truth is, that whoever has been found to object to innovation, however wild in itself, however destructive in its consequences, has constantly been accused of "prejudice;" and, as prejudice, thus used, implies a mixture of ignorance and perverseness, and, as few persons are willing to be thought ignorant and perverse, the dread of this imputation has most powerfully contributed towards the success of that system of plunder, of bloodshed, and of blasphemy, which has, for the last ten years, overwhelmed the nations of Europe. But, why need I travel so far in search of facts to illustrate and establish my argument, when your society itself has fur |