atrocious as to have shocked the whole nation, and given cause of deep dissatisfaction to our allies, has been perpetrated in open day, in the presence of two armies, in the face of Europe. The nation demands a trial, and justice. You are premature,' says the minister, you prejudge the parties concerned, but you shall have "due inquiry." "Due inquiry," Sir, is legal inquiry; and, by the converse of the propo sition, that which is not legal inquiry, is NOT due inquiry." It is in the mouth of every despicable quibbler, that calling the Armistice and Convention a crime, is to prejudge. If to accuse, be to prejudge, and on that account is not to be listened to, how is any criminal to be brought to justice? According to this doctrine, I may see one man kill another, and apparently without authority, without accomplices, without provoca tion, but I am not to accuse him of murder, because that is prejudging. He may have been doing his duty, or acting under a legal authority, or on self-defence. Is such reasoning to prevail, and the trial of crimes to be stayed, until guilt is first proved? or what else is the meaning of this quibbling? -That I might not, Sir, be misled by the assertions of the Major, I have consulted the authorities he quoted, namely, Blackstone and the Matiny Act, and find him perfectly correct. Blackstone, b 3, c. 3, says, "the LAW hath appointed a prodigious variety of courts,"-" all these in their turns "will be taken notice of in their proper places," which he accordingly performs. The Mutiny Act now in existence, herein copying, as I believe, the very words of every preceding mutiny act, §. 31, says,— "for bringing offenders against such articles "of war to justice, it shall be lawful for "his Majesty to erect and constitute courts "martial, with power to try, hear, and de termine, any crimes or offences by such "articles of war, and to inflict, &c." But the act no where says "it shall be lawful for his Majesty to erect and constitute courts of inquiry; in which neither members nor witnesses are to be upon oath, in which a witness may or may not answer a question, at his pleasure, and before which no person can be brought as a witness, unless he think fit to attend, and the summons to which even the accused may treat with contempt. The law, Sir, has not done any thing so absurd and monstrous as all this. And shail, then, any minister be permitted to do so absurd and monstrous a thing without top ? -Now, Sir, let us see who are the rers. An innocent officer is accused tended with some nice and difficult circumstances, nothing short of the powers of a regular court, with full authority for compel ling attendance, and all the powers of law over witnesses, can extract the truth, and give the party his acquittal. If such a party is to be called before such a mock tribunal as I have described, and there, for the want of due means of legal investigation, is judged a proper subject for trial before a court martial, will this circumstance have no effect to his prejudice? Is not this a cruel prejudging of his case-How, again, may it be in the case of a guilty person! May not niceties and difficulties in the case so embarrass the members of a "court of inquiry," conscious of the extreme defects of their appointment in all its parts, and not bound by the sanction of an oath to administer justice, when attended with severity, that they may not venture to say the accused person ought to be put upon his trial? And would not this be a prejudging favourable to guilt? To pre judge, is to pronounce upon any act, as to its being criminal or not criminal, before it has been decided on by the proper court of law. To accuse, and to pronounce upon, are very distinct things. But ministers sharply rebuke those who only accuse, and call it prejudging; while they themsees first assume the arbitrary power of inte posing, between accusation and trial, an surd and monstrous species of tribunal, which it is NOT "lawful for his Majesty to "erect and constitute," and a tribunal which cannot possibly do otherwise than prejudge the case at issue. Is this, Sir, to be endured? If the nation can tamely suffer itself to be thus insulted, I will not say it is prepared for slavery, but it is already euslaved, for none but slaves could si ently submit to such indignity.To make a shew of impartiality, and to ward off from themselves the suspicion of packing a court for skreening their colleagues, ministers are said to have put upon their court of inquiry a certain noble lord, and to have ordered that the court shall be an open court. But, Sir, when a court is not only illegal, but of the ministers' sole appointment, I am at a loss to know how it can be otherwise de scribed, than as a packed court; and is not a picked court as odious and revolting as a packed jury, to the feelings of English? ab Now, Sir, those who would liken a court of inquiry to a grand jury, and pretend to recommend it on that account, ought to recollect that a grand jury is NOT an open court; and that it can examine no witnesses but on the side of the prosecution. Here, and punishable. And it is right it should be So. 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 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 Englishman may demand admittance to their presence, with the Gazette in his hand, containing the three documents, signed by Sir Arthur Wellesley, Sir Hew Dalrymple, and Sir Charles Cot-point of skill, was one of Sir Hugh Pallis ton, 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 persons have to bring out upon their trials before a court martial 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 of 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 evi. dence; 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 hands, have made themselves either princi. pals 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 to 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 cime at all, is, by inilitary law, and very properly, a heinous crine, and liable to capital punishment. 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 circunstances, criminal It ser's charges against Admiral Keppel; and for an impated misconduct, by Sir Robert Calder, in his manœuvres, 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 digressing 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 NFLSON 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 considering 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 com.ni-sion 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 ministers. 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 dishonourable; 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 favoured the enemy beyond whatever is on record, shall, or shall not, be brought to trial? --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 ministerial 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, 6 - 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 votes, yet where I see no blame, I will not even insinuate accusation. If a rash indivi dual 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 vic tory, 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 furnished 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 d proposed, ought to be first brought to trial be fore we look farther.-I have another objec tion to the cailing 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 "brother" is safe enough from inquiry, un 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 com mittees 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 parliainent, 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 yesterday for the county of Stafford, will become a subject of your animadversion. Of that result 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 npon 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 natnes 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 manuer." 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, Ido not adinit existed), he could withdraw his support from a measure to which be had attached such important re sults. 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 "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 inspee 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 presenting 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 priat 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 raceting 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 unifora ly good and wholesome malt liquor are such as can only have been derived either mediately or immed ately from an extensive practice aided by a close and philosophical course of observations. From such a writer 1 am sorry to differ 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 teinarks in the gentleman's paper; and for which, I trust, he himself wil net deem it necessary to offer any further spo logy. It is stated by the writer that the relative value of malt, sugar, and treacle ate, as 8 bushels of malt, so are 106 lbs of sugar or 240 lbs of treacle." I wish the writer had furnished us with the prece grounds of this stated ratio of value, and of the method by which he formed it. Asit is, we are left to infer, from other parts 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 er amined by the instrument, has not increased in density scarcely one third of the ga weight of the substance dissolved: a p portion, 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 of two musts, 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 or viscous matter is blended with the saccharine which is obtained, while the extract from molasses, for instance, is nearly a pure sarcharine 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 far exceed that of the other. But is it philoso phical to conclude from thence that the on 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 will conclude to weigh 30 lbs per barrel? Why not? Because, though the latter possents |