Page images
PDF
EPUB

where witnesses are examined upon their oaths. The delicate, honour-saving mode of a Court of Inquiry was not, in this gentleman's case, thought necessary; and, I should be glad to know what there is to justify this mode of proceeding in the present instance. It was made evident in the sequel, that there was no wish to spare Colonel Cochrane Johnstone; it was equally evident, that there was no wish to spare Sir Robert Calder; and, indeed, unless there be a wish to spare, there appears, in cases of importance, no reason whatever for a previous Court of Inquiry. Of such a court the members are not sworn; the witnesses are not sworn; the public are not admitted; all is secret; and, at last, a report, decided on by the majority, without liability to public protest, is drawn up and laid before the king, upon which report a Court-martial is order. ed, or the whole proceeding is at an end.

I do not know how others may view this matter, but to me it appears, that a man, conscious of innocence, would not be contented with a trial of this sort, being conviuced, as he must, that, if an open trial does not follow, the world will always have its suspicions of his guilt. It was said, that Sir Hew Dalrymple would not submit to any thing short of a Court-Martial; and, if he was misled by the information of the person previously in command; if he be able to prove that, as I am inclined to think he is, there was a very solid reason for his objecting to a mode of proceeding, by which his comparative innocence could not be established, or, at least, by which the knowledge of it would be kept from that public, whose resentment has hitherto been directed chiefly against him, and who, for a considerable time, were, through the abominable arts and audacity of the partizans of Sir Arthur Wellesley, induced to regard Sir Hew as the person who alone was guilty.We have before had to remark upon the circumstance of the Armistice, (the only document, relating to the transaction, bearing the name of Sir Arthur Wellesley) being published by the ministers in the French language only; we have remarked upon the circumstance of Sir Arthur's coming home, upon leave of absence, while Sir Hew was recalled; we have remarked upon the gracious reception which Sir Arthur Wellesley met with at St. James's, and we have heard nothing of Sir Hew being received there at all; and, if what has been published, as a copy of the Order, for holding a Court of Inquiry, be correct, the same spirit and motive still actuate those, who have the assembling of that Court. "That an Inquiry shall be made

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

ings of Sir Hew Dalrymple, and of any "other commander or commanders, or of any other person or persons, as far as the same were connected with the Armistice "and Convention. Wellesley, you see, though he negociated the Armistice; and though he had had the previous command of the army, is not named. His conduct is, doubtless, included, in the description of the subjects of inquiry; but, why not name him? Why name Sir Hew Dalrymple; why hold him up to the world, as a person accused, any more than Sir Arthur Wellesley? Sir Arthur fought us the famous battle on the 21st of September, he negociated usi the famous Armistice on the very next day, 1 and yet he is not named as a person whose conduct is to be inquired into! It appears impossible; to me, at least, it appears impossible, that Sir Hew Dalrymple can be so much to blame as Sir Arthur Wellesley; and yet the name of the former is held up s to public notice as that of an accused person, while that of the latter does nowhere appear. The motive for this is too evident to need being pointed out to the reader; and I hope that it will not fail to produce a proper impression, and lead to a strict attention, on the part of the public, to every thing, relating to this transaction, that is now going forward. I do hope, that the public will not suffer its attention to be diverted by the numerous stratagems, which will be resorted to for the purpose. All manner of tricks will be played by the partizans of the high Wellesley. The thing wil drawl along like a snail. Misrepresentations will be made day after day. In the hope that the public will be wearied, its patience will be assailed in all manner of ways, while other topics will be pressed upon its attention, new alarms will be raised, and the passion of fear will be pitted against that of resentment. But, if the people have one grain of sense left, they will, in answer to all these attempts at diversion, say: stop; for, 'till we have settled the

[ocr errors]

affair of the Convention in Portugal; "'till we have clearly ascertained, whether "such an use can, with impunity, be made "of the blood and treasure of the nation, "it would be folly in us to take an interest "in any thing that is liable to happen.” This is the answer which every man should give; for, what is it to us that we make

exertions and sacrifices, if they are to be of no avail? No: let us have no diversion. Let us have this matter fully and fairly settled; and then we shall know what to wish for and what to hope for and how to act.

While this Inquiry is going on, endea Yours are not wanting to reconcile us, little by little, to the terms of the Convention. There will be found, in another part of this number, a defence of the Convention, and of Sir Arthur Wellesley, at the same time. The reader will see how pitiful it is; he will see that all its arguments have been long ago refuted; but, I beseech him to bear in mind the fact, that Sir Arthur Wellesley's friends, asserted, at first, that he was quite innocent of any, even the smallest, share in the transaction; that he, as an inferior officer, was compelled to sign the Armistice; that he remonstrated against the order so to do; that he was, at last, induced to do it for fear of exciting a mutiny in the army; but, that be privately protested against it in the strongest terms. Now, however, when these abominable falsehoods can no longer hope to obtain belief; now, when it is evident that he must come in for a large, and even a principal, share of the blame; now, the Armistice and Convention are things to be defended, and are defended, by the very same persons, who swore that he had protested. against those acts, and by this very writer, who accused me of barshness, because I asserted, that the story of the Protest was a miserable fabrication. I do beseech the public to bear in mind this fact, than which I remember nothing exhibiting a more complete proof of a want of principle. The opposition, which, at any place, has been made to petitioning the king upon the subject, has been made, not upon the ground of justification of the act. No man has, until now, attempted to set up such justification. In the county of Berks, the Address and Petition was opposed upon the sole ground of their not being necessary; and, even that opposition was confined almost exclusively, to MR. NARES, who is one of the editors (along with Mr. Beloe of Museum memory) of the British Critic, who has recently received a fat living from the hands of Lord Eldon; and to Mr. COBHAM, late a purser in the East-India Company's service, and who is closely allied to persons dependant upon the government. In Essex, where the meeting was so abruptly dissolved, and where a second requisition has been rejected, the High Sheriff is also a person, who was, I am informed, very recently in the East India Company's service. Now, though we are not justified in imputing motives to ei

ther of these men, still the knowledge of these facts should be circulated, especially as the partizans of Sir Arthur Wellesley have endeavoured to make the world believe, that the opposition, in the places above-mentioned, arose from motives of pure loyalty. But, at any rate, no justification has, until now, been attempted. Many have been the attempts to shift the blame from the back of Sir Arthur to those of Sir Harry and Sir Hew; but, until now, when the hour of exposure is approaching, no one has attempted to justify the act itself. Such justification, however, we must now expect, in all manner of shapes. The evil conse quences of the Convention, which daily become more and more manifest, will, as in the following paragraph from the Morning Post (he Nabob's news paper) of the Sth instant, be imputed, not to those who made the Armistice and Convention, but to those who reprobate them, and who call for the punishment of their authors: "The French "writers are naturally delighted at the

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

proceedings of the English Addressers, "which we regret to find, have excited the flames of discontent and disorder in Portugal, to a most alarming degree, though in "the first instance all was joy and ecstacy at the result of the campaign in that country." The Convention of Lisbon," says "the Argus, continues to occupy the minds of the people in London. It is not only individuals among the lower ""closses who loudly deprecate that Con""vention; even the common council of ""London presented to the king an Ad

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

65 66

"dress against the generals who signed it. ""We are sorry to be unable to give our readers the details of the long "debate which took place upon that "" occasion. It is the finest eulogium of ""the courage of the French and of the ""ability of their general."-The present "alarming situation of Portugal affords the "best elucidation of the mischievous consequences of the recent proceedings in this country; nor was it difficult to foresee "that those ill-judged proceedings, in the

66

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

and

glorious struggle in which we are at present engaged."This is an old, well tried trick of Pitt, who, upon pressing emergencies, always resorted to it.---The French writers, we are told, are delighted at the proceedings of the Addressers in England. They do not, by-the by, express much delight at our proceedings; nor is their reasoning correct, that, because our generals are accused of not doing their duty, we are of opinion that the French generals were superior in ability, and their soldiers in bravery. The contrary, as to the soldiers, is not only the obvious conclusion, but has been, and is, the express assertion of the Addressers. And, I, leave the reader to say, whether the fact, that the people of England, of all ranks, are discontented, because our generals did not send Junot and his army prisoners to England; whether our all being discontented because enough has not been done against the enemy; I leave the sensible reader to say, whether the knowledge of this fact is likely to give "great delight" to that enemy, to encourage him in the hope of succeeding in his hostile designs against this country. -But, suppose the affirmative of this question? Suppose a case in which our discontent should be goaded on to the pitch of actual insurrection? That would certainly please the enemy, because he might hope therefrom to profit. Yet, the conclusion: insinuated by the Morning Post might be false; because the fault might originate with the ministers; with those whose conduct drove the people to insurrection. Suppose a proclamation were issued to compel us all to wear whiskers upon pain of forteiting our goods and chattels. Suppose we were, under a similar penalty, to be ordered to burn off our fingers, to tear out our nails, or knock out our teeth. Would you accuse the people of giving pleasure to the enemy, if they rose in opposition to such preclamation; or, would your accusation be levelled against those who advised the proclamation to be issued? According to this doctrine of the Morning Post, which is only the old hacknied doctrine of Pitt revived, we are to bear any thing, resent nothing, to keep

silent, though we are expiring under the lash, lest, by uttering our complaints, we give pleasure to the enemy. In the present case, as I have shewn, our complaints must necessarily give pain to the enemy; the enemy does us the justice to say, that we are all discontented that more has not been done against him; and yet these vile defenders of Sir Arthur Wellesley, these base hirelings of the press, would fain persuade us, that to express our discontent upon this occasion is to excite doubts of our attachment to our country and its cause! Now, to“ the alarming situation of Portugal." For this, too, it seems, that, not our Conven. tion-making generals, but the people of England, are answerable. I say, the people of England, because, whether Addressers or not, all have expressed their dissatisfaction at the Convention. We, it seems, and not those who made the Convention, are answerable for the "dissentions, the jealousy, and distrust," now existing in Portugal. What, then, such is the fact, is it? Such is the state of Portugal. The Portuguese are dissatisfied with what our generals have done and are doing; this fact is now acknowledged; but, the cause of their dissatisfaction is the Addresses of the people in England. They were very satisfied with the Convention, at first; they thought it a very good Convention; but we, by our Addresses to the king, and by persevering in these Addresses, in the very face of his Majesty's promise," have made them believe, that it is a very bad Convention, and, accordingly, their country is in a most " alarming state of aiscontent and disorder." This is all true, is it? Well, but how does this bear upon the advisers of the king (for we will keep clear of the king himself), if the Portuguese are really in such a situation, and from such a cause? The people call for inquiry; they are rebuked; they appear to distrust the sincerity of those who advised the answer; Lut, how could this "influence" the Portuguese, unless they distrusted too?But, it is wrong to waste one's time in this way. It is rauk absurdity to suppose, that, if the people of Portugal had "exulted at the re"sult of the campaign," they should have been made discontented by our Addresses and Petitions. It is a barefaced and a base falsehood to say, that they ever rejoiced at that result. On the contrary, it is notorious, that their general remonstrated against the Convention, the moment he heard of it; that the Portuguese caused our flag to be pulled down as soon as our generals had had the folly and the arrogance to hoist it; that great delay in the embarkation took place

owing to the opposition which the Portuguese gave to the French being allowed to carry off their plunder; that a board of commissioners was formed in consequence of that opposition, that afterwards, when a part of the French were driven into Oporto, the people se zed upon their baggage and plunder, in contravention of the terms wh ch our generals had agreed upon. All these are notorious facts; and yet this wretched East-India hireling has the impu dence to assert, that the people of Portugal were very well satisfied, and even delighted at the terms of the Convention, till they heard of our Addresses to the king! So far from tending to create dissention in Portugal, the Addresses of the people of England must naturally tend to produce a suspension of discontent. The Portuguese would naturally say though we have been injured and insulted by the English generals, the people of that country have taken up our cause, and we shall have justice done us "upon the heads of those generals, therefore,

66

[ocr errors]

we must not confound the nation with its "commanders." I leave it to the judgment of the reader, whether such would not be the probable effect of our Addresses. When, indeed, the Portuguese shall see how these Addresses have been received, I will not say, that our addressing may not tend to inflame them; but, then the fault will rest with those, from whose council that reception proceeded, If the answer had been, that such an inquiry would be made, such a mode of proceeding adopted, as would insure ample justice to us and to the Portuguese nation ; then, indeed, there would have been good reason for the latter to suspend their resentment.Who, after we heard of the remonstrance of the Portuguese general, and of the general indignation of the people, expected to see them tranquil ?” Rejoice! Aye, they did, poor creatures, illuminate their houses in Lisbon; but, it was after our generals had established their military police! It was after our army had ben converted into a Holy Brotherhood. I, better than any man living, know how easy it is to inspire a city with joy, and our generals, our WELLESLEYS and our HOPES, seem not to be great inasters in the.rt of producing this sort of disposition to illuminate, indeed! Poor souls! What a shame it is thus to insult them. Read general Hope's proclamation; and then say, whether they were likely to refuse to do any thing that might be hinted to them as being the wish of our commanders. Discontent and disorder never appeared in Portugal, 'till after the Convention was concluded;

and though, in that bare fact, we have not conclusive evidence, that the latter was the cause of the former, it is not bad presumptive evidence, and, when we take into view the facts before mentioned, the unequivocal marks of disapprobation bestowed upon the Convention, there can remain but little doubt of the present dissentions and calamities having arisen entirely from the Convention. Ten or fifteen thousand men, who ought now to be in Spain to meet the French, are, from this cause, kept in Portugal. The friends of the French would naturally recover their boldness upon finding the people discontented with our conduct; comparisons would not fail to be made, and, as the French were gone, it would not be at all surprising if our army supplied their place, in the opinions and wishes of the people as well as in the forts and barracks. The great object should have been so to act as to be able to leave Portugal to itself. We should have so conducted ourselves as to have had Portugal for a friend and not for a dependant. Give to the thing whatever name we please, the Portuguese nation cannot help perceiving, that, as the matter now stands, they have made merely an exchange of masters. We are disposed to act justly by them, I believe; there is, I think, no doubt, that our object is to secure Portugal for the Prince Regent; but, in the meanwhile, we are masters of the country; we seem to be afraid to leave it to itself; and, this fear arises solely from those indications of hostility, which the Convention as brought forth. -And, if this be the case in Portugal, what must be the effect of the Convention upon the feelings of Spain? The Spaniards have ail along shown great suspicions of us. They have heard of our conduct in Portugal; they have seen general HOPE'S Proclamation; they must know all about our Holy Brotherhood; and, cai, any man imagine, that they will not be shy of us? The Spaniards, if they succeed, must have no sparing of the French; they must have no Conventions of Cintra. This they know well, and, therefore, they must be satisfied, that our commauders will act no such part as that acted in Portugal. They must have novain brown-up fellows to talk about " Ducs d'Abrantes in person." To give them this satisfaction; to give them an assurance that they would be in no danger from such a source; to excite in them a perfect confidence in the future conduct of our generals; to do this, it was necessary to convines them, that the government as well as the people of England, held in abhorrence tha transactions in Portugal. But, what hav

they now before them? A Petition of the people to the king, praying that the causes of that transaction may be inquired into, and that the guilty may be punished; and an Answer of the king, advised by his ministers, rebuking and reproving his people for making the application. This is what the Spaniards have before them; this is the security which they have for the good behaviour of our generals, and for their heartily co-operating with them against the Duc d'Abrantes and the other potentates and nobles of Buonaparte's creation. Since one of our generals has acknowledged the emperor Napoleon I. (whom the Spaniards call an usurper and a robber), how shall they be sure, that another of them, acting under the same ministry, will not, upon the first fair occasion, acknowledge Joseph NapoJeon, king of Spain? They have seen Sir Arthur Wellesley, after acknowledging the Duc d'Abrantes and the Emperor Napoleon, graciously received by the king, in a few minutes after the petitioners against him had been rebuked by the king. This they know, if they know any thing that passes here; and will this encourage them to expect from our generals that determined hostility, that implacable hatred, against the French, without which no one can be zealous in their cause? An appeal, in behalf of these generals, has been made to the compassion and gratitude of the people. It has been said, that we should consider, that the armý venture their lives for us, while we remain at home in security; and that, therefore, we ought not to act too strictly towards the army.- -It is, I hope, far from me to be wanting in any of those feelings, which are due to the soldier or the sailor. But, I consider, that, from them, something is due to us; 1 consider, that, after having been paid for years, the soldier actually serves but comparatively a short space of time. If I were to go to the parade at St. James's, or to any of the numerous, the feat fully numerous military stations in this country, and were to say: "What are you all doing here? What use are you of? Here we are taxed to our last "shirt to maintain you, a parcel of fellows, "who do nothing in this world but prune "and black-ball your whiskers, hang mon

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

key's tails to your backs, pipe-clay your "belts and your breeches, strut about during "the day, and get drunk at night." If I were to say this; if I were to complain of being taxed to support the soldiery in idleness, or in useless parade, the answer would be this: "It is true, that, just at this time, we are of no use; it is true, that, in this

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

"situation, we are a mere burthen, and "something worse; but, Sir, recollect, "that we are here merely in a state of rea"diness; and, that when we are called upon actually to serve the nation, ours is "a service wherein we venture our lives for you, which consideration ought to prevent you from complaining that we are not always at work." Nothing would be more reasonable than this answer; but, then, this venturing of lives is clearly the nation's due. Besides, as to the officers, and more especially the generals, and other considerable commanders, not only do they, in venturing their lives, do no more than render the nation what is its due for having maintained them, for years and years upon the staff without any danger to even a hair of their heads; but, they have, moreover, honours and rewards awaiting them for every distinguished service that they, or the soldiers under them perform. Is all this nothing? And, shall military officers not be as strictly accountable for misconduct as other men? Shall there be honours and rewards for glorious deeds, and no punishment for disgraceful ones? When the question of flogging the soldiers was before parliament, I did not observe that either the ministers, or the military officers present, urged this feeling of compassion, or grati tude. If the soldier acts amiss, he is flog. ged: and, punished, in that, or some other way, he ought to be, and must be; but, then, is there no punishment to await the misbehaviour of generals? Are we, when their conduct is in question, to hear of appeals to our compassion and gratitude, because they venture their lives for us Does not the private soldier venture his life too? Aye, and that without any hope of obtaining honours or rewards. Yet, if a private soldier, after twenty battles, and covered with scars, were found sleeping on his post, or were to suffer a prisoner to escape, would he not instantly be brought to trial, and, if his life were spared, would there be an inch of skin left whole from bis nape to his waist ? Such punishment would be necessary, though terribly severe. But, then, is not severity equally necessary in the case of the general? Divers lectures have been read, in the parliament and elsewhere, upon the absolute necessity of strict discipiine. Such opinions are become fashionable, and have been maintained by no set of men with more earnestness, than by the present ministers and their military adherents. But, now, it seems, we are to reprobate these notions of severity; or, at least, we are to entertain them as applicable

Dounts

« PreviousContinue »