Page images
PDF
EPUB

Sir, are new dilemmas. Will ministers venture, in these particulars, to adhere to the practice of grand juries; and to direct their court to take the examination of every witness on the side of the prosecution who shall present himself?--Should they take this course, any indignant English nan may demand admittance to their presice, with the Gazette in his hand, containing the three documents, signed by Sir Arthur Wellesley, Sir Hew Dalrymple, and Sir Charles Cotton, containing the Armistice, and the two parts of the Convention. The accusation of those officers is, for having signed those documents and carried the conditions of them into execution. It is no matter whether the circumstances which the accused persous have to bring out upon their trials before a court marial will, or will not exculpate them; all that is legally necessary for putting them upon their trials is, to prove that they are the persons who signed and acted upon those documents. If the court should have any doubts or those facts, they must call for the originals, and for the proofs of the signatures. If, in the coroner's phrase, there have been accessaries or accomplices among persons unknown, that may come out in evidence; and then, in my judgment, it will be time enough to talk of parliamentary inquiries into this business. At present, we have only to do with the three persons, who, by their assent, under their own bands, have made themselves cither principals or accessaries.--Is any special pleader in this case to attempt talking the nation out of its senses, by denying that there has been any criminality at all, and maintaining that criminality in those acts must first be proved, before those who performed them can be brought up trial? I, on the contrary, maintain, that there is criminality on the face of those acts, a criminality that has shocked and stunned the whole nation, and that it is fit those officers should disprove the accusation, or suffer the punishment due to them. It is to be remembered, that military law, in its nature and principles, is of necessity of greater strictness and severity, and properly so, than the common law of the land. It is also to be recollected, that cowardice, which at common law is no crime at all, is, by military law, and very properly, a heinous crime, and liable to capital punishment. It is likewise to be recollected, that, although want of judgment, or even imprudence, in a man's civil conduct in his private affairs is no crime, yet for a military commander even to err in his judgment, or to mismanage the force entrusted to him, is, more or less, according to circumstances, criminal

and punishable. And it is right it should be 80. No man ought to arrive at, or to accept, the command of a fleet or an army, without professional judgment and skill. His situation requires these qualities. He is paid for exercising these qualities in the service of his country. It was more from a want of these qualities, than from any proof of cowardice, that Admiral Byng was sentenced to die. Un-officer-like conduct, in point of skill, was one of Sir Hugh Pallisser's charges against Admiral Keppel; and for an imputed misconduct, by Sir Robert Calder, in his manoeuvres, tending rather to cover and secure the two line-of-battle ships he had taken, than to hazard their loss again by attending to nothing but how he should get again into action with the enemy, that that gallant, and I must needs think very judicious officer, was sentenced to a grievous humiliation. It may, Sir, be dis gressing from the point immediately in hand, to say more on the case of Sir Robert Calder, whose person I never saw but once in my life, and with whom I have not the smallest connection; but I so warmly feel the injury which in my mind was done him, that I cannot but remark, that the very conduct for which he was reprimanded, was the very conduct enjoined by the immortal NELSON to the commanders under him, in a paper written the evening before the battle of Trafalgar. In that paper, presuming that in the approaching action some of the enemy's ships might be captured, while a part of the hostile fleet might be in a condition to attempt their recapture, he particularly instructed his commanders, in writing, by way of precaution in case of his own fall, 'to make the security and protection of their prizes the first object of their attention. Sir Robert Calder not only did this effectually, but in a masterly and most officer-like man. ner, parried the enemy's attempts at reaching those ports where he must have been joined by a strength that would have given him a resistless superiority. For this conduct, Sir Robert experienced a harsh sentence, and has never since been employed; although, as Major C observed at Hackney, the ships he took were not returned to France with drums beating, colours flying, and sixty rounds of ammunition; but were conducted to an English port, and their crews to an English prison.-To return, however, from this digression: while con-, sidering our military law, it is very plain, that there ought not to be one measure for a sea officer and another for a land officer; and yet it is well known, that any commission officer commanding a vessel, from a first rate to

business of Cintra. In this call, nothing can I recognize but the voice of faction. It insinuates that the blame does not rest with our military commanders, but with minis ters. I see no ground, at present, for any such insinuation. Ministers, as well as the nation, were taken by surprize, as to the existence of a hope that Spain and Portugal could possibly be saved from the gripe of France, since which I cannot but praise their exertions for meeting France on that theatre, Ready as I am to condemn their illegal, unconstitutional, and corrupt conduct for sa

a gun-brig, who loses the same, whether with glory or dishonour, whether by his fault or his misfortune, whether in fight or by ship wreck, must be tried by a court-martial. And is not this invariable rule of the service most proper, and most admirable?--I forgot to remark before, that criminality, in military law, attaches to whatever is disho nourable; and not merely in a moral sense; for whether an officer should commit a felony, or should habitually get drunk with blackguards in a night-cellar, or should suffer himself to be kicked in the open streets, or should sign, either as a besieger or a be-ving the man on whom depends the twelve sieged, a shameful capitulation, bringing disgrace on the arms of his country, he would be alike punishable for such conduct as dishonourable. Shall then, Sir, the naval commander of the smallest gun brig, who shall lose the same, merely for that act, whether blameable or meritorious, be inevitably, as a regular rule of the service, brought to a court-martial; and shall it for a moment be a question, whether generals who have signed such a capitulation as that of Cintra, which has blasted our laurels, disgraced our arms, injured our allies, and fayoured the enemy beyond whatever is on record, shall, or shall not, be brought to trial?

votes, yet where I see no blame, I will not even insinuate accusation. If a rash individual of inordinate ambition, who well knew all the combinations of their council and plans for reducing Junot, were so eager to snatch from his superiors the wreath of victory, that he would not allow time for those combinations to operate, nor for the whole force destined for Portugal to be brought to bear upon the enemy, it is extremely illiberal to impute consequences to ministers, which, as I conceive, are imputable to him alone. So far as I can judge, they had fürnished ample means for effecting, by right management, the reduction of Junot, to a surrender at discretion; and those, in whose hands those means failed of accomplishing the object which, in Porugal, was the end proposed, ought to be first brought to trial be fore we look farther.-1 have another objection to the calling of parliament for inquiring into the conduct of ministers. Parliament is too well read in Scripture to expose itself to the rebuke of, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'-No! no! its

From the reference made at Hackney to the cases of Keppel and Calder, and comparing them with the audacious attempt to skreen Sir Arthur Wellesley, it is high time that this illegal, unconstitutional, and mischievous engine of a discretionary court of inquiry, to be interposed as a conductor for dissipating the lightnings of national indignation, only when a minister has a friend to protect, only when political purposes and corrupt interests are to be served, should be wrested from the hands that are so daringly using it, and destroyed for ever.- -This" brother " is safe enough from inquiry, unministerial expedient of a court of inquiry for saving a colleague, may perhaps remind you of a circumstance that happened in the case of Byng. In sight of the enemy he called a council of war, and the consequence was, there was no battle. Soon afterwards, as Flash and Fribble, on the stage, were at high words, and clapping their hands to their swords, the lady present cried out, Lord, lord, what shall I do to prevent their fighting?' upon which an honest tar in the gallery bawled out, call a council of war!' Thus our war minister cries out,

[ocr errors]

lord, lord, what shall I do to prevent a trial?' to which the valiant landsman who erst proposed a march to Paris, replies,• call a court of inquiry.'— -One word, Sir, if you please, on calling upon the king to assemble parliament, for inquiring into the

til the arrival of that great constitutional renovation, which you, Mr. Cobbett, have from time to time, foretold was approaching. We may have factious attacks, and factious defences, we may have hostile motions and bitter speeches, we may have committees and commissions, and we may have piles of reports as high as Pelion or Ossa, but until this renovation shall take place, we shall not see a minister really called to account by a parliament, nor any department of the state swept of its corruptions.-MARVEL.-Palace-Yard, 13th Nov. 1808.

STAFFORDSHIRE MEETING.

MR COBBETT,-The active and decisive part which you have taken in the question of addressing the king for an investigation into the causes which led to the Portugal

Convention, leaves no doubt, but the result of the meeting, held vesterday for the county of Stafford, will become a subject of your animadversion. Of that resalt the newspaper reports will give you an accurate detail. But I conceive that you must be strangely puzzled to account for the unanimity which prevailed at the meeting, after reading the names attached to the requisition, without some clew to guide your judgment. It is my object to give you that clew; or rather, by a statement of facts apon which you may depend, to discover to you the motives which actuated those staunch friends of constitutional doctrines, the requisitionists, to assert their privileges, and display their independent principles, upon this occasion.-On the 24th day of October last, a copy of a requisition was sent to the high sheriff of this county by Mr. Blount. The sheriff, in acknowledging the receipt of the same, wrote that he could have no possible objection to comply with the wishes of the requisitionists to call a meeting of the county; and begged that the original requisition might be transmitted to him as his voucher; and which indeed was necessary to produce, and be read at the opening of the meeting Upon this, Mr. Wolseley and Mr. Blount waited on the sheriff, and told him, that they had no requisition signed individually, but read various extracts of letters which authorized them to subscribe the names of several noblemen and gentlemen, and alleged that they had verbal authority for the rest. They declined giving up the letters, but had no besitation to sign an authority for the sheriff, which they accordingly did.-A day was fixed for the meeting, and the requisition was published in the Staffordshire Advertiser in the form in which they signed it.—To the surprize of every one, in the paper of the week following, immediately under the requisition, appeared a remonstrative letter to the sheriff from Mr. Wolseley; and a protest from the Marquis of Stafford who declined attending the meeting on the ground that the requisition was published in an "irregular and unprecedented manner." Now, Mr. Cobbett, I look upon it that the zeal of the noble marquis in the cause of his "insulted and degraded country" is not of that description which will urge him to die a martyr in its cause; when, upon the plea of a trifling informality (which, by the way, I do not admit existed), he could withdraw his support from a measure to which he had attached such important results. He might have found a better example, Mr. Cobbett, in the proceedings of

the Hampshire meeting; but the example I allude to, he would, be assured, have called "irregular," as it is certainly

[ocr errors]

un

precedented." It must he admitted, however, that his lordship's sagacity, upon this occasion, is entitled to commendation, as [ can affirm that no person in this county would have been able to discover, much less to notice, the irregularity complained of, if his lordship had not kindly condescended to point it out. But this was not the true reason of the noble marquis's defection. The secret must be told, though I am afraid, Mr. Cobbett, that it will be as unpleasant for you to hear, as it was galling to the noble marquis to discover. The fact is, that the universal opinion of the people of this county, freeholders and others, is, that an address to his majesty for the purposes mentioned in the requisition is not, under the present circumstances, necessary. It was this conviction, which reached his ear very soon after the publication of the requisition, that induced the Marquis of Stafford, to think that he acted precipitately; and he would have given (yes; depend upon it)

he would have given one or two of his best pictures that he had not signed that cursed requisition !-His pride could not bear the idea of the shameful defeat that awaited him in his own county, and even by his own adherents; much less could it bear the idea of submitting to the frank acknowledgement of the truth.-Mark, then, to what meanness pride is reduced. Rather than manfully come forward and avow his sentiments, and support the opinion he had so strongly worded in the requisition,-which, be it known, was drawn up under his immediate inspec tion at Trentham,—rather than do this, the Marquis of Stafford chose to seize upon an Old-Bailey-like quibble, and at all hazards to abandon the object which appeared to him so essential to the future welfare of the country. Like the very generals, who were the ostensible cause of the requisition, he withdrew from the field, and suffered the enemy to dictate his own terms.-After this desertion of a principal leader of the requisition force, others of inferior quality complained that their names had been subscribed upon very slight authority, and without their being acquainted with the nature of the requisition to be made; and one gentleman, as you will perceive by the report, through the medium of a friend, from the hustings, actually denied having given any authority at all, for his name. And here one cannot held remarking the judicious precaution of the sheriff in adhering to the usual manner of publishing

the requisition from an authenticated original. In spite, however, of the alleged Informality, and the noble marquis's protest, the meeting was, not only very numerous, but highly respectable. But not one man of those whose names appeared to the requisition, came forward to avow their signatures, or to propose an address: although Sir Robert Lawley, Mr. Wolseley, and Mr. Blount, were in the town of Stafford during the meeting, and it was believed fully prepared to do so. Lord St. Vincent, who by his own acknowledgement. came into the county for that express purpose, remained quietly at Stone, about seven miles from the place of meeting. That, however, the production of their deliberations might not be lost to the world; and probably with a view of assisting other County meetings with their enlightened and patriotic principles, they have published the Address which they meant to propose for the adoption of the county. For the rest, they contented themselves with present ing silly protests against an informality which existed no where but in their own blundering and sneaking conduct.-Now permit me, Mr. Cobbett, to ask, if it is to this sort of men that the people of England are to look up, for the maintenance of their civil and political rights, and for the redress of their many and crying grievances; to these water flies, whose public spirit is damped by the spleen of disappointed pride, and whose patriotism is subservient to courtly etiquette, and the companion of party malevolence?-How disgusting is their conduct when compared to your own upon a similar occasion;-you, who by the mere dint of talent and firmness carried an Address (which I certainly believe you did) in the face of rank, wealth, and probably of the powerful stimulus of ministerial influence!

What I have above stated you may rely upon as truth. I could enumerate abundance of other circumstances which would serve to place the public spirit of these independent gentlemen in a proper point of view. But you are already in possession of enough to enable you to deal to them that portion of praise which their conduct merits, in any remarks you may be induced to make upon the meeting of this county. A. B-Litchfield, 12th Nov, 1808.

BREWERIES.

SIR-In your Register of the 12th inst. I was much pleased with the perusal of a paper signed" A Hampshire Brewer," the production of a person evidently competent to the discussion of the subject he has

brought before the public: and I have only to wish that the paper might have a circulation commensurate with its importance to the community. His general ideas on the production of an uniformly good and wholesome malt liquor are such as can only have been derived either mediately or immedi ately from an extensive practice aided by a close and philosophical course of observations. From such a writer I am sorry to diiter in any thing, but a strict regard to truth, and especially a truth in which men are practically interested, induces me to trouble you with a few observations on some remarks in the gentleman's paper; and for which, I trust, he himself will not deem it necessary to offer any further apelogy. It is stated by the writer that the relative value of malt, sugar, and treacle are.

66

as 8 bushels of malt, so are 196 lbs of "sugar or 240 lbs of treacle," I wish the writer had furnished us with the precise grounds of this stated ratio of value, and the method by which he formed it. As it is, we are left to infer, from other parts of his paper, that his conclusions are built on hydrostatical experiments; and I am the more inclined to suppose so from repeated trials, in which a given quantity of saccha rine substance put in solution, when examined by the instrument, has not increased in density scarcely one third of the gross weight of the substance dissolved: a proportion, I believe, that will nearly correspond with the statement which he has furnished us with. But I entertain serious doubts whether any instrument we now have in use is adapted to shew us the relative value c two musis, the one prepared from malt and the other from either sugar or molasses. My reasons are these: In the extract from malt a considerable portion of mucilage o viscous matter is blended with the saccharine which is obtained, while the extract from molasses, for instance, is nearly a pure saccharine liquor. Now, as the action of any statical instrument must be in proportion to the specific gravity of any liquid on which the experiment is made, it is evident that the spissitude of the malt extract must fær exceed that of the other. But is it philosophical to conclude from thence that the one must necessarily be richer and superior to the other? I appeal to the Hampshire Brewer himself. Does he consider that his last wort, which, for the sake of argument, we will suppose to weigh 10 lbs. per barrel, equal in point of quality to a one third portion of his first wort, which we wil conclude to weigh 30 lbs per barrel? Why not? Because, though the latter possesse

n abundance of mucilage, yet it possesses much greater proportion of saccharine also. is with justice that he considers "sweet" s the basis of vinous fermentation; for it is ery certain, that the vinosity of any liquor, the fermentation &c. being equal) will be 1 proportion to the quantity of the original ase which it possesses. I may therefore be lowed to doubt whether the instrument lluded to, be capable of that extent of pplication which is attributed to it, and whether the value of the three sweets he has mentioned be correct. I would be very ar from being understood as intending to epreciate the merits of the instrument. I know its value too well. But though it will nswer every useful purpose to a brewer, where the extract is from malt alone, yet philosophical precision requires it to be tated, that the one which is generally used cannot with any very great propriety of term be called a "Sacharometer." If in a soluion of sweets it can only indicate about one hird of the value, we may ask what becomes of the remaining two thirds? Are hey evaporated? Or do they remain in the iquor, enriching its quality, though in such i rare elastic form as to elude the test of the nstrument? I think the fact cannot possily be doubted. Mr. Reynoldson somewhere speaks of a friend of his (I think a Mr. Bent) having a method of separating he mucilaginous from the saccharine parts of a wort. Could such a method be geneally adopted, we then might have some certain data, from which we might fix a scale for the valuation of any extract. The benalty on the use of either sugar or moasses in the brewery is too serious to risk he actual employment of them, though were the circumstances of the times to nake a revision of the act expedient, I hink that they might be partially used to dvantage. I say partially, because, if used n too great a proportion they would destroy be chasacteristic taste and quality of the Deer itself. The principal obstacle to their ase would be in the want of a proper apparatus for estimating their value. Could that be effected, I should have little doubt out a fair comparison would evince an adTantage of 40 per cent in a limited use of them, instead of a loss of 20 per cent acording to the estimate of the Hampshire Brewer. And so far from deteriorating the beer, they would contribute to its excellence, and be a means of remedying the delects of beer brewed from inferior and Ordinary malts. But on the use of every

rcotic drug, let just censure fall in due Vengeance; and the trade perish, that cannot

I am borne :d only

[ocr errors]

subsist, but with the use of materials, the natural tendency of which is to bring on debility and disease! The evil as of late been considerably increases, ad cals for some effort to avert its bang 5 @cts. glad of the testimony by this gentleman où ti regret that in a paper of opinion should be advance bear the test of rigid examina Mr. Cobbett, I owe an apologwf of this letter, but when I say, subject has some considerable imp attached to it, in a chemical, as w political and economical point of view trust that such a consideration will be deemed a sufficient one, both to yourself and your readers, from Sir, yours, &c.CANDIDUS.-Malton, 15th Nov. 1808.

RIGHT OF PETITION. LETTER I.

[ocr errors]

SIR-Your late letter to the freeholders of Hampshire, inserted in your Register of the 29th of last month, is sufficient to excite the vigilance, and arouse the ardour of every British subject. You have with great propriety and equal force exposed the flimsy objections, urged by the advocates of the ministry against a full inquiry into the Convention of Cintra. The Answer to the Petition and Address of the city of London, could not, in such a discussion, escape your censure. In fact, that memorable and unprecedented Answer appears to me a most dangerous attack, made by the servants of the crown, on one of the most valuable rights and privileges of the people of England; a privilege, which was demanded and established at the Revolution, and which eminently distinguishes this coun-try from the enslaved nations of the continent of Europe. The ministers will, doubtless deny the justice of the imputation; but let us attend not to their professions, but to their acts. A respectful, but firm address is presented to the crown, by the first city of the empire, praying that a full and efficient inquiry be made into a trans action, which, in the opinion of the petitioners, stains with indelible disgrace the name of Britain; they prejudge no individual; they desire only that guilt may be investigated and punished in a fair and constitutional manner. In these sentiments and views they are supported by the unanimous voice and ardent wish of the whole empire. To this just and rational applic tion, what is the answer given by the servants of the crown? For to them exclusively belongs the odium of this unc

« PreviousContinue »