Daily National Intelligencer

NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

TO THE EDITORS.

Gentlemen,

In the second number of the New Monthly Magazine, a British publication republished monthly by subscription in Boston, for the purpose of enlightening this barbarous people, I notice the following effusion of ignorance, prejudice, folly and falsehood combined. It is part of a canting essay on the "Iniquity of Privateering."

"France," says this pious defamer of the human race "previous to the late contest with America was more partial to privateering than any other nation; and in consequence of the state of her navy, it was politic in her government to encourage it; but the morality of the French people sunk into oblivion when the goddess of reason assumed her reign in that infatuated country on the altars of religion. The phlegmatic Hollander in a few instances imitated his Gallic neighbor, but these instances were rare; the Spaniard followed a similar example, but the punishment of a heretic is congenial to his religious creed. And amongst the hosts of privateers out of America the greater number belonged to the Southern states to that part of the Union the most violent, the most immoral, the most unprincipled; to that part of Columbia where slavery is tolerated, and where many of the leading characters are discontented, dissatisfied emigrants from this country. It is true a few were equipped from the Northern states, but the number was comparatively trifling to those from the Southward; still our late enemies had a stronger plea of necessity for permitting privateering than we have because the Navies of these countries were either in their infancy, or reduced to a state of insignificance, whilst our maritime power ruled triumphantly over the globe."

Of all the cants of this canting world, the cant of the present race of British newspapers and journals is the most contemptible. That it should impose upon the miserable populace of England, whom taxes and starvation have stultified and brutalized, is not so much to be wondered at; but that a publication containing such a union of misrepresentation, ignorance and folly should find supporters in our country, is mortifying indeed to those who know the sway which literature carries with it in the present age. Shall we ever be independent in the only way a nation can ever become independent, by thinking for ourselves, while such opinions are purchased with avidity by our citizens? Or shall we ever have a literature of our own, when such miserable verbiage supersedes our own native productions. Half the periodical publications of this country, are starving for want of that support which is given to a brood of transatlantic writers, who reward our patronage by covering us with abuse—thus treating us as I confess such a docile people ought to be treated, until they are buffetted and spit into something like a spirit of resistance to abuse, as well as injury. Let us examine this rare effusion, which together with all the other nonsense and frippery of the New Monthly Magazine, has been thought worthy of being republished in the "good" aye and right "loyal town of Boston" to wit, with "an improvement in the method of teaching at Long Buckby School" "Mr. Pytch's specimens of his reformed English Orthography"—"a morning walk from London to Kew" "Ruled paper in France" "Louis 14th—Jacobin—Flattery—Precedency—King of Naples—Fairs—Sundry thoughts—Marabotises—Ministers—Xystus—Cortes" and other rare matters.

This pious and moral writer abuses privateering, because his countrymen lose more than they can gain by it in a war with this country. This is the only criterion of morality or character in England—whatever is injurious to her interests, is cried down as highly criminal—and whoever has sense and spirit to oppose her arrogance, is always sure to become the object of a vulgar and senseless clamor, raised by writers who know it to be false, and echoed back by the yell of those who care not whether it be true or false. In order the better to demonstrate the immorality of privateering, it was necessary, in the first place, to assume a notorious falsehood: and then having assumed this falsehood, to support it by the assumption of a proposition which has a worse foundation if possible than the falsehood it was intended to sustain.

In the first place, it is notorious that far the greater number of American privateers were fitted out during the last war, from the Eastern States, and not from the Southern. Of course the pious railer at the "Iniquity of Privateering," must take back his position, that privateering will always prevail most among an immoral people, or he will soon lose all his subscribers to the Eastward. It had been much more to the interest of the New Monthly Magazine, in that section of the Union, to have spoken a little more respectfully of a custom for which the people thereabout are not a little distinguished. This wiseacre (and his publishers too) had better learn a little more of America, before he draws a distinction in morality founded upon the mere supposition of a fact notoriously false, and which in its real application is levelled directly at those in whose favor he wishes to gain a distinction. Three-fourths at least of the privateers fitted out during the late war, were North of Baltimore, and I mention this not as a fact having any connection with morality, but simply to show how easy it is for ignorance not only to be misled; but to mislead its fellow stupidity. Doubtless one half, aye two-thirds of the American subscribers to this precious re-publication, will hug themselves in the joyful conviction, that privateering is iniquitous. because it was most common in the South—and that the South must be exceedingly immoral and impious, because a stupid and ignorant writer of England said so—and there were people in this country, ignorant or malignant enough to republish the rank and notorious calumny.

AMERICANUS.