to oppose it. He would ask the worthy gentleman whether he had ever known a government to be overthrown, unless by some dreadful faults existing in itself? There were many men in parliament, he was persuaded, who would have made efficient and able ministers, if they had only to deal with a vigilant parliament. He would ask, what would their own situation be, in what manner would the business of the city be conducted, if they had not a strict eye over their of ficers?

Mr. S. Dixon, after audibly soliloquizing (as is his frequent custom,) rose to order, and trusted that the Lord Mayor would protect the officers of the court from insult.

Mr. Waithman recommended to the worthy gentleman to reserve his defence for himself. He was satisfied there was not an officer belonging to the court who believed that he meant any thing personal to them. Under any administration, even though Chatham himself was at the helm of public affairs, we must have, and even such a minister would require, a vigilant house of commons to look after him. The hon. gentleman said that Mr. Wardle caused derision in the house, by the mention of a house in the city for the sale of offices. True he did so; but those same persons who then laughed at his information, availed themselves of it by prosecuting the offenders, charging the offence as one calculated to vilify and degrade the government, and to bring it into contempt. He (Mr. Waithman) had looked into the reports of the Finance Committee, which accounts were as voluminous as Rapin's History of England; and it was true, as Mr. Windham had said, we were corrupt from top to bottom, and could never expect to do good, till things were completely changed. In the war office there was a yearly allowance for salaries to the amount of 28,000l, yet this sum remained at the disposal of the secretary to the treasury, and was no doubt, given away in pensions, &c. for here the arrear of accounts was explained on the ground that there was not a sufficient number of clerks, or that they were not qualified for the duty. He proceeded to mention a Mr. Hamilton, who with a salary of 140l. per annum in the war office, was also secretary to Mr. W. Dundas, with a salary of 1001. per annum; barrack master for the towor of London, with a house, coals, and

candles, of the value of 4001. per annum -let out part of his house for a guinea a week, and has his coals and candles sent to his house in the country,-who neglected all these duties, that he might act as surveyor of taxes; and who, on Mr. W. Dundas's retiring, had received a pension of 150l. per annum, for ex traordinary service rendered to Mr. W. Dundas during the two years he held the office of secretary at War. He also mentioned a servant of Mr. C. Jeukinson, who held the office of a messenger in the war office for upwards of 30 years, during all of which time he never quit ted his master's (then Lord Liverpool) service: that Mr. Fitzpatrick's secretary had also, on his retiring, received a pension as Mr. W. Dundas's had done. Mr. W. then said that these were shameful proceedings; he did not hesitate to declare, that a man who would take money out of the public purse, in order to provide a pension to his own domestic, who had never done the public any service, was a character he would never trust in private concerns. So much would he suspect hin, that if he had money on a table, he would not turn his back upon it, if a person of such a character was within reach of that money. The hon. gentleman said there were only 200 members of the house of commons who were supposed to be influenced by the miuister. He (Mr. Waithman) maintained that there were not twenty in the whole house who were completely disinterested, he meant thro' themselves or relatives, or through peers with whom they might be connected, or in stations naval or military; men might be as much influenced by expecting as by haviug; and what immense influence must not a revenue of 78 millions per annum be supposed to create? When Lord Amherst was commander in chief, the whole expence of his office was 1000l. a year, now it amounted to, 8,000.Col. Gordon, the secretary to the com mander, had 20001. a year, being double the whole expence in Lord Amherst's time, yet it surely would not be contended that the business was not as well done then as it is now. The worthy gentleman seemed to forget some parts of his former conduct; he seemed to forget the time when he had said that they ought to go up with an address every week, upon the subject of reform, until it was obtained. It was the duty of that court to stand up and defend

every public man when they saw him attacked by both parties. If the court rescinded this vote, they would thereby pass a censure on Colonel Wardle, and degrade themselves and their constituents. If so, he hoped meetings of the citizens would be called to consider of their conduct, If they acted so unworthily, he should not desire again to have a seat in that court.

Mr. S. Dixon and Alderman Atkins supported the motion.

Mr. Kemble assured the court, that if he could have had any idea that the motion could be construed into an intention to injure the reputation of Col. Wardle, he should not have brought it forward.

Mr. Miller said Col. Wardle had never sought the thanks of that court; it was their spontaneous tribute to his virtuous, and manly conduct, by which that court, and the nation at large, had obtained inestimable advantages. The

worthy member (Mr. K.) was very well contented to support the vote so long as the censure and reprobation of the conduct of the King's favourite son, were implicated in the discussion. But the moment the conduct of ministers was impeached, the very men who pro fess on all occasions a total indifference to party, start up, to defend those ministers, who one gentleman had, with exquisite and ridiculous absurdity, called "the greatest men in the country." For his (Mr. M's.) part, when he compared our ministers with those, who, in his opinion, ought to be the ministers of this country, he thought the present set more contemptible than any, which had ever disgraced the annals of this nation.

The previous question being loudly called for, was then put and carried by a very great majority, not more than 20 hands being held up against it.

REMARKS ON THE DOWNFAL OF

THE PAPAL SEE.

To the Editor of the Political Review. SIR,

Had the clamour lately excited against the Emperor of the French, in consequence of the incorporation` of the papal territories with his other extensive dominions, been confined to those nations on the continent, where the press is more immediately under the controul of monks and friars, or their tools the wretched oligarchies who compose most of the regular governments of Europe," it might not have been considered unnatural. Much is not to be expected from the inhabitants of those regions, where the least ray of truth is scarcely permitted to gleam through the veil of superstition; where the bodies of the populace are not only driven like herds over the dominions of a petty tyrant, but their minds are confined by still more galling chains. Strangers to every thing

66

that might inspire them with real devotion, they are stupified with fear at the frown of a priest, or are raised to enthusiasm at the sight of the crumbling walls of an old monastery. Had the most bigoted of the inhabitants of Estramadura, poured forth their earnest prayer, in the language of a toast lately given at Cadiz, That "the pope might be delivered from "bondage like the children of Israel "from Egypt," such expressions might for a moment excite our surprise; but a very little consideration would change that sensation into pity: to argue with them would not be to convince them: but they have not the advantage of hearing both sides, nor would they use it if they had.

Their malady is a mental darkness, that can only be dispersed by the gradual diffusion of knowledge. But Sir, it is melancholy to observe, what will nevertheless arrest our observation, that the state papers and documents published in Austria and Spain on this subject,

in defence of the pope and popish institutions, have been circulated in this country with more than ordinary exultation: they have been applauded with a religious as well as political enthusiasm, and ushered into the country with the additional weight of whole columns, written in that impassioned diction that so eminently distinguishes the Morning Post and Courier. To such frantic ebullitions, it is not my intention to reply: more sterling arguments, and weightier reasons than can be here given, are necessary to convince those who are not only bigoted, but paid for their bigotry: but I beg leave to point out to those who are open to conviction, the inconsistency as well as folly of such conduct.

66

Among all the complaints made against the conduct of Napoleon, I believe it is not pretended that he has rendered the situation of the majority of the people worse than it was under their old governments: he has not deprived them of their liberties, for they had none to lose; nor degraded their national character; that is impossible. The character of these countries, has been well described by the late Mr. Dyer near the conclusion of his " Ruins of Rome," and by Dr. Goldsmith in his "Traveller:" the passages though well worth the perusal, would take up too much room; the reference is sufficient I presume for your readers. The injustice and perfidy of Napoleon is therefore confined to the clergy only, and its principal operations against the sovereign pontiff, who has been considered by our political writers, sometimes as the head of the church, at others only as the head of one of the "regular governments" of Europe. Without trespassing on the time of your readers, I would offer a few observations on the subject, as considered ́on both sides, as far as it has come within the little observation I have been able to make, and without

attempting to exculpate Bor.aparte from censure on the obscure and mouldy title deeds of Charlemagne, I shall endeavour to shew that there exists a close connection between actions, the consequences of which are at present the "theme of our song," and those for which the character of the French Emperor has been loaded with abuse.

It would not indeed be easy to decide on the justice of the case, by filing a bill in a court of equity: the divisions of lands there are seldom so extensive, and few precedents could be found. It is argued that actions so flagrant are scarcely recorded in the pages of history: it may be true that precedents of this kind are not very common; but it should be recollected, that few, very few men have risen from the depths of obscurity to the summit of power; especially when opposed by men who have adopted such" vigorous" measures, (by taxation I mean,) of opposing an enemy, as a-Pitt, a Melville, or a Castlereagh: their vi"gour" is like the Egyptian darkness-it may be felt. That a man thus opposed should dictate to Emperors and Kings the terms on which he will accept their submission, is a circumstance as rarely recorded in history, as the parallel of his deeds. Perhaps there are few who have committed his crimes; but very few have gained his triumphs, and no one ever obtained similar conquests by a strict adherence to justice. There is however, a period in our history, which may not be entirely dissimilar to the present: I allude to the earlier periods of the reformation. The personal character of the mo narch-the motives by which he was actuated, as well as the actions themselves, are necessary to be considered in order to the forming a just judgment.

A modern writer concludes his character of Henry VIII. as follows:

Some kings have been tyrants

from contradiction and revolt, some from being misled by favourites, and some from a spirit of party; but Henry was cruel from a depraved disposition alone, cruel in government, cruel in religion, and cruel in family." His characteris in every respect unworthy to be compared with that of Bonaparte; nor will an, examination of his motives plead much in his favour to put away wife, in order to make room for another, to gratify his lust by a perpe tual exchange of its objects; and his ambition by enjoying the suprehis ambition by enjoying the supremacy he had wrested from the pope, these were the motives by which he was actuated.

A few words only on the actions themselves. It is not necessary to notice Henry's reply to Luther. The first step in opposition to the pope was his second marriage, and the contempt thrown on his holiness by his entry into London. Then follows his separation from the church, abolishing the monasteries; and lastly his bloody statute. To enumerate the horrid consequences of this brutal code, would fill more space than the details of Bonaparte's worst actions, so industriously circulated at the beginning of the war, and which are still the subject of much declamation. Not only catholics, but Lutherans were led to the stake; and the fires of Smithfield were kindled to consume at once, protestants and papists. Other persecutions have been effected under pretence at least, of preserving the church; but Henry's had for their sole object, the gratification of his own cruelty. The religious as well as moral opinions of a country are easily changed it is true, and I imagine that it would not be very difficult, for the mind that can agree to the burning a city, and stealing a fleet, to stretch itself to approve of the burning of the bodies and confiscating the property of fellow subjects for " righteousness sake:" but even the most flexible,

were often to use the words of a pro verb a day behind the fair." This furioustyrant led even faster than they could follow, and they received the punishment due to their apostacy, by the very means they took to preserve their lives. Who can peruse the pages of the history of our country at this period and not exclaim "There is some soul of good in all things evil?"

I cannot for a moment entertain who would attempt to justify Henry's a belief that there exists a Briton who would attempt to justify Henry's the nation are almost unanimous in crimes; but I may truly assert, that

the expression of their satisfaction at the consequences of his measures, and that we lose sight of the means in the thought that the end is obtained. The actions of Bonaparte have been confined to the temporal power of the pope; while those of Henry were aimed at the spiritual. Henry freed his subjects from the shackles of Rome, while he forged for them shackles still more galling, Napoleon has freed the Romans from the papal government, and by incorporating them with his own subjects, delivered them from the pressure of maintaining at once a rotten nominal chief, and a powerful foreign army. Perhaps it may be said, that depriving the church of its temporal power, its spiritual cons cerns must be abandoned. This it is most probable will be the conse quence, and it is hoped will likewise be the case with every ecclesias tical institution founded upon simi lar worldly and corrupt principles. But while on the one hand, the reformation in their own country is extolled by Britons, and the means lost sight of in the end; on the other, in supposing that the invete rate foe of England cannot do a good action, they lose sight of the end in deprecating the means. if the French Emperor has acted criminally, the pope has had re course to vigorous" reprisals. Has

66

But