federated against the meanest subject in the realm, to rob him of his honour and his life, and plant thes tain of ignonimy for ever on his memory, this effort proved, what hinders that the punishment should follow? Each moment that strict justice is delayed becomes an outrage upon injured virtue, a mockery of law, and a degradation to the characteristic honour and dignity of the Country.-That Country cries loudly for retribution; next to the joyous satisfaction of seeing persecuted innocence restored to all its wonted privilege and splendour, the knowledge of infamy and malice being requited with its own mischief, ensnared by its own device, and brought to shame by its own industrious exertion, would prove a general gratification.-Why does not the Prince afford this satisfaction?-His Wife has been declared untainted, and the slander stands coufest; will he not stand forth for the reputation of his House, his honour, and his royal name?-Where is the wonted energy of his legal officers, the vigilant band of Crown Lawyers? Will none step forward to trounce these libellers who have neither Truth nor motive in their defence?—Or is it that the lack of truth disarms the power of the Courts, which triumphs most when it combats against truth and reason?—The Prince caunot be ignorant of their diligence to punish those, whose presuming tougues dared wag in contradiction of his virtues ;-surely their gallantry, to say nothing of their duty, might lead him to expect their interference in defence of Virtue itself! We do not wish to intrude upon his feelings or affections, his prepossessions or antipathies:-these may be mutual, and cannot be commanded; though we cannot choose but pity, yet would we not presume to judge or to condemn :-but let there be justice; do not let us rank with barbarians or with slaves!-a fouler charge, a more mischievous attack, was never made; shall justice therefore sleep, or not be roused by a People's voice?-We trust it will not be; but that, as soon as present impediments shall cease, a regular process will be commenced, and one atonement at least be made, To this the Country trusts, its expectations may not be despised! March 29, 1813. TO CORRESPONDENTS. A. Z. LUCIAN to the Princess of Wales shall certainly have place in our next. Number II. of THE DIALOGUE OF NATIONS is also intended for insertion. A Constant Reader,-An Honest Briton,-I. C. S.-and many other favours, shall receive due attention. MONTHLY MIRROR OF THE TIMES, FOR MARCH, 1813. DIALOGUE OF NATIONS. AMERICA. Although provoked to draw the sword, I have not closed the door of reason:-to the influence of both I trust,-the latter willingly, the former by compulsion :-the one instructs me in the rights I claim, the other gives the power to defend them. Laws are the ordinances of man, and are intended for the general benefit; nor is the individual protection more dependant in a State than the safety of Empires upon the observance of the Laws of Nations. In society, a private quarrel is not permitted to become a public nuisance; no man's peculiar injury must annoy his neighbour: if he have wrongs, he also has his remedy; but his means of vengeance must not be scattered indiscriminately:-let him be revenged, but let him be guarded in anger, lest he become at enmity with all. What is law for society, if just in principle, attaches to the highest and greatest of powers; we cannot annul the common principle of justice, reason forbids the attempt, policy will not excuse it, interest cannot sanction it. - Upon this ground it is I rest; here I take my stand, and tender my appeal for justice, my justification for the part I take, my renouncement of every responsibility for the accumulation of ills which may ensue. his - England.-America cannot more deeply lament the evils of war than those who have so long endured them-nor, indeed, does she appear to have a due conception of those evils, or she would have paused upon her fancied injuries, and not been premature in her decision.-Look to the common enemy; in resisting Her, did England not maintain the general cause? Where is the Nation she will not protect, the Power she will not uphold? And wherefore does she so, but for the general good, that so the equipoise might be preserved, and this said principle of justice which you quote be made the universal principle of action? The influence of France, her power and ambition, arrest the attention of every State in Europe, whose duty it is become to make united head against her, to stay her progress, and prescribe her bounds. - In this attempt, so consonant with the noble spirit of independence, the constant theme of American bosoms, did it become her to interpose her private interest in the hour of contention, and, by dividing the means, distract the efforts of such as strike for freedom? If France must triumph, the world will be enslaved. America.-Of France and her ambition, I have little to say in referenee to myself, and less to fear: her friendship I require no farther than for mutual interest, a friendship ordained and sanctified by the great law of nature, which needs no sacrifice for its attainment, no fascination for its continuance. Besides, in the seeming magnitude of French ambition is not that of England studiously obscured? What is the avowal of France, her excuse for war?-Is it not the ambition of England?-The dominion of the Seas, which she claims, is the point of contention which France avows, and calls upon the Na-, tions to join in the subversion of a despotism so preposterous and degrading. Here, then, is a system of recrimination, which, not only fallacious in itself, has for its object the injury of all.-One Power insists upon the supremacy of the Ocean; the other, to counteract or destroy that supremacy, seeks the universal dominion of the Land, while all beside fall victims to the operations of the controversy. Is such a system of justice?-Do you call this striking for freedom? England. I call that justice which goes to the maintenance of a given right. The Sovereignty of the Seas is mine, mine by conquest, mine by the effect of a long succession of triumphs and exertions.-Its preservation is a point of honour 1 rejoice to hold, a point of neces sity I dare not forego.-It buoys up the spirits of my seamen, and is a stimulus in the day of battle.-And where exists the injury in this? What Nation do I wrong ?What People do I enslave-While on the other side, France, who exclaims against this right, which the whole collected power of herself and her dependants cannot destroy, satiates her envy in the subjugation of her neighbours; first exciting them to combine against a fancied wrong, and then to fall the sacrifice to her ambition. France. What species of justification is that which is built on the supposed errors of others?-England has avowed, has vindicated, and determines to persist, in a despotism which affects the world; this des potism she terms a right: yet tells you it is a right founded, nay, maintained, by power and coercion:-of such complection is her right of Indian territory, the empire which she claims from those her power and her policy have ravaged and subdued;-such was the right, which led her to destroy and despoil her unoffending neighbours, bear off their fleets, and sack their cities; such is the right, which, at this moment keeps a Sovereign and his people in actual subjection, w views and interests are purely French, but who are constrained to endure the presence of a British Army, and to devote its own to the dispo sal of its masters, its pretended Allies and cordial Friends.-And does England, then, affect forbearance, and scowl at others who make no pretensions?-Will She talk of despotism, who can thus enforce; or dare tax others with ambition, while she builds her glory on being en abled to hold the world in subjection? whose England.-It may suit well for France to found its quarrel on geneBal pretences, and place her rival's deeds as a plea for her own aggression: deeds, of which herself had been the chief promoter.-Had France been humble, Denmark had not suffered :—had France not been am bitious, Sicily had continued independent,-What had the Sovereignty of the Seas to do with the dismemberment of Germany, the subjuga tion of Prussia, the degradation of Austria, the devastation of Italy, What were these but the plain impulse of ambition, while hid under the disguise of enmity to England?- I appeal to all these Powers, together with Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, nay, even Spain and Portugal, and dare them to say, whether it were the Dominion of the Seas by England, or the wish for Universal Dominion by France, which led to their several ruin and debasement. France. The inference is false, because it is built upon a wrong and the like? foundation. Was it not England, her gold and her promises, her threats and denunciations, her inveterate hatred and her arrogant presumption, that combined to raise a world in arms against devoted France, while yet her infant spirit, the spirit of liberty, was in its dawn?-Did she not goad us on to madness, held us and our possessions as the tempting lure to draw. whole Empires upon us, and blot out the very name of France from aniong the nations ?—There was no mention then of the Sovereignty of the Seas; that formed no ground of quarrel; the world was raised in arms by England, and France was doomed to fall! -What then shall staud between her and her great revenge?-Directed by a powerful arm, her thunders, seconding her sense of wrongs, her injuries, her provocations, have dispersed the storm, and in her turn she triumphs and prevails!-What need of farther justification?-What need of any other plea than that of just retaliation? England, by situation (most happily indeed for her!) has stood exempted from the general vengeance: but had not France a right to reach her by the means she might possess? Who was the leading Enemy of France?-England!-Where was the fire of contention kindled, which spread throughout the world, and came with its collected terrors on devoted France?-Where, but in England ?— When, therefore, France had conquered, humbled its foes, and brought the mightiest within its reach, all crouching beneath her feet,--all, except the favoured of Fortune, the haughty self-created Queen of Waters,-say, I appeal to all, was it not just, consistent, aye, most just and natural, that France should seek to humble Her, who would have trampled on the oppressed in all her trouble and affliction, without a motive but revenge, without an object but a useless triumph! England.-The world is well acquainted with the ground of excuse given by France for the system of aggression she has pursued: -yet the indignation of the surrounding States, and of the world in general, at the increasing danger of French enthusiasm was justified on every principle of reason and humanity.-Who is there that could behold and not abhor, who is there that could feel and not endeavour to prevent, the growing mischiefs which threatened general anarchy and ruin ? Look to the murder of your Prince, together with the torrent of innocent and noble blood which drenched your cities and your palaces, and say, if an interference to counteract or terminate such evils, to punish or to withstand the destructive spirit which involved not only the safety of a single Empire, but seemed to carry with it the seeds of anarchy and confusion, to the dismemberment of every regular and civilized State,-say, if such an interference were not justified upon every principle of reason, policy, and common necessity, wherein all mean and unworthy motives had no share? France. To say, that the spirit and energy of the French People might not be calculated to inspire a like sentiment in other States, would be to argue against an obvious probability; but what is the evil, or who had cause to dread it?-What State, what People, could it affect or injure? What was the quality of that spirit?-Was it not the glorious spirit of Liberty! the emancipation of mankind from a state of thraldom and slavery, beneath the dignity of man to bear, beyond the power of nature to endure?-The despotism under which they groaned had become intolerable, its annihilation was rendered indis pensible,-In such a cause, so universal, so far from incurring general d.strust and enmity, was justly entitled to the good wishes, if not the assistance, of every nation and every State, professing the love of liberty, a reverence for the rights of nature and society.-Did it, therefore, become those Nations, or those Severeigns, whose authorities were professed to be upheld by justice, and founded on the protection and happiness of mankind,-did it become such States to arm them. selves against a cause so just, and with their collected power strive to crush the infant struggles of a suffering People? And least of all, could it be thought that England, the pretended Land of Freedom, where stands the Temple of the gracious Deity, reared by the hands of a brave and generous People, built upon the basis of their Constitution, shielded and sanctified by the mutual covenant of the Sovereign and the Subject,- least of all could it be thought that She would raise the war-whoop to sound the alarm, and call the votaries of despotism. to rush forward in its behalf! It is true, a tyrannical Prince was brought to the block; and to accomplish one desired end, like great convulsions in the couse of nature, much consequent evils might ensue but was France the only nation who had ever resolved to rid itself of tyranny, and by a great revenge redeem a People? - England has had its despots, its tyrant Princes, its revolutions, and internal troubles;-but who has called the world in arms to meddle in her domestic squabbles, farther than by remonstrance or advice?-Had England acted thus, Louis would not have died !-It was the restless fearful spirit of British policy which induced her interference; to her is to be traced the encouragement of all those petty factions and intrigues which converted the hallowed flame of patriotism into a raging and devouring tempest, that with indiscriminate fury swept all before it, confounding vice with virtue, the inoffensive with the guilty. England. The policy pursued was just, was absolutely requisite, if it were only on the provident principle, that the spirit of insubordination and defiance to superior power and the sanctity of Kings, should be discountenanced by all good Governments, wishing to retain their loyalty, their concord, and domestic peace. France, like an ungo vernable courser, had broken its bounds, and in its mad career threa tened general destruction; if not by action at least by example. To have joined hands with France would have been to sanction murder, madness, sacrilege, and slaughter;-could England league with horror and rebellion ?-peaceful under the best of Princes, could she display such total enmity to social order and good government as to combine with such as would pull down Kings, renounce all sovereignty, and swear eternal hatred to thrones and sceptres? A conduct so reprehensible would have been weak, would have been wicked, and every conse→ quence that might have followed would have been justly deemed a fit and worthy recompence. France. In the association of Empires, the general principle is mutual advantage: else why do Christian States pay public court to those at enmity with their faith, their religion, nay, in a manner with their God? Why do we league with Turks, or tolerate the Musselman or Israelite within our gates? Is not the governing principle, a mutual benefit? Why do the civilized States send presents to the Princes of Barbary, those Common depredators on the properties, nay, the liberties and lives, of Christian Nations,-why, but for that principle of |