Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Quere. Does this bill compute the year from January 1? The assessed tax acts compute it from April 5.--By section 6, "cavalry must attend a certain number of days to entitle them to exemptions, unless "absent with leave or prevented by sickness;" but no provision is made for the case of a disabled borse, nor allowance f killed in actual service!-If persons providing borses are exempt from the duty upon them, why (instead of a wrangle before a magistrate) should not masters providing servants, for whom they pay assessed taxes, be also exempt from the duty upon them ?— The groom is more likely to be a good dragoon than his master, and to endure the fatigues of service; and since we know there will be nearly as many of them as of thegentlemen soldiers" and officers, (who are no soldiers !!) they attend, why not parade in laced uniforms instead of laced liveries, unless, indeed, this might be deemed to disparage rather than display the dignity of the troop!

politician" must wish it to possess in the first instance.--Clause A provides, "that "persons entitled to exemptions under for66 mer acts, shall have the benefit of them "until the first return under this act," viz. 20th April, inst. (by section 10). Clause E enacts," that persons quitting or being "discharged from any corps, shall immediately thereupon become liable to pay the "daties upon horses and hair powder, pay"able in the year ending 5th April succeeding such quitting or discharge.". Quere. Under this clause, if a person shall quit or be discharged from his corps any time before April 5, 1805, would he not be deprived of his exemptions, although he should have attended 50 days in the year ending the 5th April inst. and 100 in the year ending the 5th April, 1805, and although by the 43 Geo III. c. 31. (the duties under which become payable only from the 5th April inst.) five days attendance in the last year entitles him to exemptions for the present?--Clause No. 3, enacts, "that every person claiming exemption for any horse provided for the use of yeomanry, shall, during all the period of bis having the be"nefit of such exemption (i. e. the year By section 16, " commanding officers are "after baving provided the horse) be liable "subjected to a penalty for making a false << to furnish a horse whenever the corps shall "return;" but no provision is made in case "assemble, or shall forfeit for every default of no return, or of with-holding or misap"£30!!! I fear we might soon talk of Par-plying pay, allowances, &c. or disallowing liaments in the past tense, if it could not truly be said,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"That to their plighted vows and trust they ever firmly stood,

“And tho' they promis'd to their loss, they made their promise good."

That these exemptions, at the time and in the manner they were allowed, were both unnecessary and mischievous, nobody doubts any more than that Parliament is bound to fulfil them faithfully for the time past, and restrict them for the time to come. When

I first turned to clause No. 6, " allowing "to the master an abatement from the

[ocr errors]

wages of his servant in proportion to the "tine of his absence at exercise, to be set"tled by a Justice of Peace," I gave the framers of the bill credit for devising a cunning expedient to rescue farmer's and tradesmen's servants (from amongst whom both the militia and line must principally be recruited) from their false imprisonment in volunteer corps; but I have some doubt whether this was their intention, though it is pretty sure to be the effect--By sec tion 10, "returns are to be made April 1, "August 1, and December 1, and four days "attendance of cavalry is required in each "four months, or twelve days in the year."

"Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis tempus eget."

attendance, or discharging from the corps wantonly. Clause No. 9, directs the Lieutenants in apportioning the number of men to serve in the militia "to have regard "to the number of volunteers."--Is this "having regard to" legislative precision?

[ocr errors]

Clause No. 11, impowers "persons "who, on account of changing residence, shall quit one corps, to enter ad eundem into "another." Quere. Why confined to this single cause of changing corps, there may be many other good ones?-Clause No. 2, subjects "persons refusing to redeliver, "pawning, selling, or losing arms, &c. to

a penalty of 40;" but by clause 50, the same offences (with some further enumerations) are subjected to a penalty of 101., and double the value of the arms, &c. Quere. Might not these two clauses, and also clause L, (imposing a penalty upon buying, concealing, or receiving arms, &c.) be consistently embodied into one clause?-Clause 22, directs the volunteers to assemble in care of invasion, or appearance of an enemy in force on the coast, or of rebellion or insu rection, arising or existing in either of the aforesaid cases, but in no other case of rebellion or insurrection. The reason of this special restriction is not sufficiently obvious!

[ocr errors]

or

every four months." Are they entitled to further pay for the days of inspection? And if they should " if they should" voluntarily assemble" for a still further and inde finite length of time (under clause 24), are they entitled to pay for so long as they shall remain so assembled?It is worthy of remark, that the corps at large are subjected to the nutiny laws at large, while improving themselves in military exercise; but adjutants, serjeant majors, drill serjeants and serjeants, trumpeters and drummers, receiving constant pay, are especially protected from any punishment, extending to life or limb, except in cases of invasion, or appearance of an enemy in force upon the coast.- -Such being the actual state of the volunteer system (if it deserves that name), and of the bill by which it is intended to be new-modelled, circular letters, it seems, have been addressed to the commanding officers, directing them to feel the pulses of their corps, as to going out upon what is called "permanent duty." To say nothing of men in arms being called upon to deliberate upon the duty they will or they will not do, and to abstain from any conjecture which they may be pleased to. elect, the actual expense of this measure, even for a few days, must be enormous in money, and still more so in labour and industry, while the benefit to the individuals in discipline is at best problematical; every. man, who knows any thing of the army, knows that soldiers cannot be completely, drilled, but in small bodies, and if it be intended that the volunteers are to have the benefit of doing duty with the regulars, and the regulars to have the honour of doing duty with the volunteers, I profess I can forebode neither honour nor profit from such a heterogenious mixture. The more I consider the subject, the more clearly I am convinced that the volunteers can only be useful as a local force in small bodies, which neither requires much discipline or fatigue, nor exhausts the sources of recruiting the army and militia, in this point of view the institution is excellent, but the attempt to push it beyond this, its proper sphere, was taking a wrong road, which, the longer it is persisted in, will diverge farther and farther from the right one, till it may be wished and sought for in vain. Could but the same men who are now volunteers actually become the thing they would seem to be, soldiers the spirit might be willing, but in most instances the flesh would prove weak, the parishes would sink under the burdens imposed upon them, counting-houses, trades, professions, manufactures, and agriculture would alike be deserted; in one word, it

--Clause G enacts, "that whenever a corps shall voluntarily assemble to do military duty upon an appearance of invasion, or for the purpose of improving themselves in military exercise, the Receiver-General may be empowered to pay them, not exceeding one guinea each (which the commanding officer may lay out in providing such necessaries as be shall think necessary!!)" The following clause, No. 32, enacts," that when so voluntarily assembled and doing military duty, with the approbation of his Majesty, they shall be entitled to receive pay and to be quartered and billeted."- Clause 24, enacts, "that whenever any corps shall, with the approbation of his Majesty, voluntarily assemble or march to do military duty on appearance of invasion, or for the purpose of improving themselves in military exercise, c. they shall be subject to military discipline and the mutiny laws."--Clause 39, enacts," that, when not summoned on actual service, or voluntarily assembled for the pur pose of doing military duty, and subjected to military discipline, if they shall signify, through their commanding cfficer, their de sire to assemble under the command of their own officers within the same (why not, 66 adjoining') county, for the purpose of being trained and exercised for a time not exceeding 14 days in 12 months, the Lord Lieutenant may, with the approbation of his Majesty, make an order for assembling, quar tering, and billeting them." Quere. What is the difference between "voluntarily assembling to improve themselves in military exercise," and "voluntarily assembling to be voluntarily assembling to be trained and exercised," when not voluntarily assembled to improve in military exercise? For on this difference, how incomprehensible soever, seems to depend their being or not being subjected to military discipline, and entitled to pay.- Quere, also, are they to be under other than their own officers, when assembled under clause 24 ?—-Sect on 6, requires 12 days attendance of cavalry before they can be deemed effective, or entitled to exemptions. C'ause 99, restricts the power of the Lord Lieutenants to assemble them to 14 days. Clause 24, has no restriction whatever as to the period of time they may be voluntarily assembled, &c. And clause 32, entitles them to pay when so assembled. Quere. Are they entitled to pay for the 12 days they must attend, in order to become effective? Are they, if they should, besides those 12 days, voluntarily assemble for 14 more, under the I ord Lieu-tenant's order, entitled to pay for these 14 days also? They are furthermore required, by section 14, " to be inspected once in

:

would revolutionise the country.--I have thus briefly stated my observations and difficulties as a reference to the bill suggested them, and I have stated them to you, because, without any further knowledge than from your publications, and without the propensity to flatter any man, I believe you to be actuated by the same motives as myself, a disinterested love of my country. Hudibras says,

"He that against the wall knocks out his brains,

"The Devil must be in him if he fcigns."

And neither you nor I have ever yet been convicted of ministerial idolatry.If these observations should appear to deserve insertion in your valuable Journal, I shall think that their most appropriate reward:

Valeant quantum valere debent.

Reading, April 3.

PROBUS.

QUARTER MASTERS OF CAVALRY.

SIR,It is hoped you will allow a place for a few words in behalf of a very poor, but very deserving class of men, the half-pay quarter-masters of cavalry reduced on the 24th of June, 1802. There were at that period, in consequence of the reduction it was then thought proper to make in our cavalry establishment, about one-hundred quarter-masters placed on half-pay; and, as it is now understood, that an augmentation of two troops to each regiment is about to take place, they very naturally hope that they may, great part of them at least, be again employed; indeed, there could be but little doubt of it, should the circumstance occur to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief; but, his Royal Highness's mind is necessarily employed upon subjects of so much greater importance to the army and the public at large, that it cannot be expected he should turn his attention to it, unless it is brought to his remembrance.--The appointment of quarter-master in the cavalry, is held by warrant from the colonel of the regiment; and all of them, according to the orders of his Royal Highness, "must be appointed from persons actually serving as serjeants in the cavalry, and no sum of money shall either be given or received, directly or indirectly, for the appointment." They have, indeed, great part of them been serjeant-majors, and generally men of much experience and long service; yet it appears very extraordinary, and peculiarly hard, that, by the letter from Mr. Yorke allowing adjutants on full pay to volunteers and yeomanry corps, they are ex

cluded from that situation, as it states that persons so appointed, must have served fouryears as commissioned officers or serjeantmajors; when, as before stated, most of the quarter-masters reduced on the 24th of June, 1802, have been serjeant majors; and, have also, perhaps, served twenty years in the dragoons. Surely such men, from their great experience in cavalry matters, would make better adjutants to yeomanry than a commissioned officer who has served four years. It is therefore hoped, that this class of officers may be employed, either in the regiment, at the approaching augmentation, or in the yeomanry.-They are now, without being of any service to their country, a great expense to it, and much against their inclination.

TO LORD REDESDALE,

FORRIAL.

MY LORD. It has never been considered as a pleasing or a generous task to assail a character already fallen in the estimation of the public. The recollection of this principle should have protected you from the cen. sure of the author of this letter, were it not for a circumstance peculiar to your case, and which renders improper that forbearance which you might otherwise have owed to compassion. The feeble and peevish defence contained in your last letter, rests wholly on a declaration that, if the correspondence had been productive of any harm, it must be attributed not to you but to Lord Fingal, not to the author, but to the publisher of what was from its nature strictly privateIs your lordship aware of the magnitude of this charge? Do you know that it is one of those which cannot be made without disgrace either to the accused or to the accuser. Or has the morality of chancery taught you that the publication of a private letter is a mere peccadillo, a trifling inaccuracy, a venial mistake, which it was perfectly allowable to impute to Lord Fir gal, for the purpose of vindicating your own character from what you deemed a grave imputation? What may be your lordship s sentiments I know not, but from men of honour you might have learnt, that there is no crime against society so weighty, more unpardonable, or which so certainly degrades the offender from the rank of a gentleman. On this point then, you are fairly at issue with Lord F. you have virtually taxed him with baseness and perfidy, and if the charge turns out to be unfounded, the opinion of the world, already made up as to your prudence, may perhaps be decided, as to some other parts of your cha

--

racter it must not be forgotten that Lord F. is a man confessedly of moderate abilities, and (following the last and improved edition of your thoughts on the subject) of no considerable weight; he is therefore wholly unprotected, except as as far as protection may be derived from a body suspected and overawed by the government. You are a person in the highest office, a distinguished lawyer; and, as we all have seen, a most elegant writer, and what is yet more to the purpose, supported by the whole influence of administration. Every man, therefore, has an interest in the defence of this nobleman's innocence, unless indeed he is willing to resign his reputation whenever the sacrifice may be necessary to cover the imprndence of a Chancellor. The only dfficulty I find in discussing the question, arises from the total absence of argument from the side of your lordship and your friends. You have indeed asserted roundly and boldy, but you have prudently abstained from any attempt at proof. If, however, I can shew, as may be done in few words, that there is no definition of "privacy which would apply to the letters, he will stand acquitted of all blame in the publication. -Were they private from the situation of the parties? They were from the Lord Chancellor to a political leader, a person of great consequence (as he then imagined him; and it seems that his opinion has since undergone a change) from the connexion subsisting between the authors? They were scarcely, if at all acquainted. From the subject? They related to well known and long agitated questions. From any injunction to secrecy by which they were accompanied ? Not a trace of it appears in them, as they have been published, nor has it been pretended that any thing of that kind existed in the originals. All the marks of privacy have, I believe, now been enumerated, not one of which is to be found in your invaluable epistles. What then do you require us to admit that the letters of the first law officer of the crown, addressed to the chief, of what he calls, and by calling has perhaps made a hostile faction, of whom he had no personal knowledge, and on whom he had laid no injunction to conceal their contents, letters against the Catholics to a catholic nobleman are strictly private. To state such an absurdity is to refute it. I will even go further, and venture to declare not only that this correspondence was not confidential, not only that Lord F. was at liberty to publish it, but, but that he would have been highly culpable if he had not

187C

suffered it to see the light. By means of it he became possessed of a strong and authentic evidence of what was the disposition of Government towards the Catholics. Your lordship kindly informed him that their loyalty was suspected, their professions distrusted, a systematic intention formed of excluding them from what, justly or not, they regard as their natural rights. Had he concealed from them documents of such importance, he would have been guilty of gross and cruel dissimulation towards the whole body of his brethren, and rendered himself wholly unworthy of the confidence reposed in him as their head. I have statel the reasons which convince me that the obligation on Lord F. was to-publish, rather than to conceal your letters. There is, besides, no light presumption that you did not yourself originally wish them to be concealed; that the idea of their suppression was an afterthought forced upon you by an unforeseen necessity. My lord, these productions must have been the result of no inconsiderable labour. The liberal and exalted sentiments by which they are pervaded, their polished style, and above all, the treasure of theological erudition which they contain, (eru-. dition not the less valuable for being a little stale, and for not squaring exactly with the licentious principles of later days) clearly shew that they must have employed all your bora subseciva, all those moments that were not taken up by your legal and political cares. Perhaps, indeed, they were even suffered to interfere with your inore urgent occupations. If then, owing to some strange misconception of what was his duty, and your design, Lord Fingal has resolved to suppress them, how deeply would your feelings, as an author, have been wounded. You would have been obliged to have recourse to the importunity of friends, or "a surreptitious copy;" or if these old approved methods had failed, you would then have had no other resource than to recast your matter into a distinct formal treatise against Catholic veracity, Catholic loyalty, and Catholic patriotism. -I am, my Lord, &c. &c. CRITO.

LORD REDESDALE'S LETTERS. SIR,--The truth of the remark, that the most important events oftentimes proceed from the most trifling causes, has never been more happily illustrated than in the effect. produced by the correspondence between the Chancellor of Ireland and the Earl of Fingal. The mere solicitation for a commission, as justice of the peace, led to a discussion which has materially tended to res

cue the Catholics of Ireland from the ob-
loquy which attached to their religion, as
having the seeds of disloyalty in their very
creed. That Lord Redesdale has acted from
pure motives, I am not inclined to question,
nor can I avoid expressing, in high terms of
admiration, how much I am pleased with the
manly intrepidity of his character, that
prompted him, in defiance of his professional
caution, to encounter singly, the arguments
of the Catholic School. But, alas! good
man, his zeal overcame his judgment, he
turns a deaf ear to the sufferings of the un-
fortunate O'Neil, and wishes to insinuate
that treason lurks under the guise of an
humble remonstrance. We suppose, or at
least we ought to suppose, that any thing
coming from the pen of a man in the high
office of Lord Chancellor, and bearing the
stamp of his authority, possesses considerable
weight; but we must smile at the quibbling
fallacy of that argument, which tells the ti
tular Bishop of Cloyne, that he ought not to
feel himself injured at any reflections thrown
on his character, so long as they remain un-
known to the world, secure in the closet of
the Earl of Fingall. The man who descends
to so mean a subterfuge, cannot afterwards
possibly expect any great deference to his
opinions, opinions which have not even no-
velty to recommend them. That the Catho-
lic Creed inculcates no faith to be kept with
Heretics, was attempted to be established by
the Methodist Wesley, his arguments were
ably answered, and refuted by the ingenious
Father O'Leary.--I am, Sir, yours, &c.
A PROTESTANT.

BLOCKING SYSTEM.

from his misrepresentation originates solely from himself. So far am I from generally condemning the system of blockading our enemy's fleets, that I expressly declare my opinion, that every port in the British Channel, and on the line of coast on the North Sea, which contains any hostile armament, ought to be as strictly and as constantly blockaded as the nature of circumstances will admit.With respect to the blockade of the harbours of Brest, Toulon, Cadiz, and the Texel, during the late war, I observed the measure was then indispensably necessary to prevent the junction of the allied fleets; but, as we were not now at war with Spain, as we keep the Texel in a state of blockade, and have a Channel feet decidedly and greatly superior to that of the enemy ready for sea, in Brest harbour; I could not see the expediency or wisdom of employing more than double their number of our best ships, during the winter months in blockading them.--The expense, the wear, and the continual danger to which this measure inevitably exposes our great national bulwark, I took occasion in my former letter amply to discuss. They are, indeed, too evident to be doubted by any one in the least acquainted with nautical affairs, even though not possess ed of that "tactitional" knowledge which T. H. may think necessary, and which he may, probably, be himself endowed with, though he has not, in his letter to you, made any ostentatious display of it. When the gallant and indefatigable Admiral Cornwallis, notwithstanding the unparalleled exertions of himself, his officers, and seamen, was blown from the French coast, and compelled to raise the blockade of Brest harbour for several days, it is a well known fact that the hostile fleet did not even attempt to sail after the gale was abated. Yet they had every reason to believe, that the blockading fleet had been obliged to retire, in a disabled and crippled state, to its own harbours to repair the damages it had sustained.--The conduct of the enemy, on this memorable occasion, most powerfully corroborates the opinion I have advanced in my former letter, respecting the impolicy of blockading Brest harbour, even with a number of ships equal to theirs. If they were afraid to venture out when our grand Channel fleet was shattered by an unequal and unavailing contest with resistless elements; and, when they had no vi

SIR,I should not, probably, have resumed the subject of my former letter, had I not thought it incumbent on me to correct the gross misrepresentations of your correspondent T. H, in the Register of the 24th of March last, p. 417. He remarks, "that I condemn the system of blockading "the enemy's fleets," and, "that I conjure "the present ministry to imitate the con"duct of their predecessors in the former "war." That is, (according to his ingenious interpretation) I condemn the blockading system altogether; and at the same time, I conjure the present adminis tration to follow the example of those who universally, and, as far as I am able to judge, very properly, adopted it.--On a reference to my letter in your Weekly Re.gilance to elude, no obstructions to sur gister, of the 25th Feb. the fact will however, appear to be, that I have not done either; and, therefore, that the absurdity resulting

mount, and no pursuit to dread; is it probable they would sail from Brest, filled with troops, and encumbered with transports,

« ZurückWeiter »