« AnteriorContinuar »
HAMPs HIRE NoMINATION. sured, by a gentleman, upon whose word I can rely, that MR. He ATH corr, on the day of nomination, did, in answer to Mr. Barham's question, whether he would move for, or support, a motion for another mode of Inquiry, if the present was not satisfactory, say, “the only answer I shall give to such “ question, is, that, upon this and all other “ occasions, I shalkle happy to receive the “ instructions of my constituents.” I did not, myself hear any answer from that gentleman; but, it seems, that, owing to being pressed out from the window, whence he had before spoken, he went to a window further off, and thence spoke to the foregoing effect.—There was, in the statement that I made to the meeting, respecting places and pensions, held by members of parliament, one error, which the reader will find explained, in a letter to the Editor of the Salisbury Jour NAL, a copy of which letter he will find below'. Upon a report, which, from what motive I am at a loss to guess, has been widely propagated, that I did, at the time above-mentioned, promise, that, in the event of a contest, I would give my vote for Mr. Heathcote, I will only observe, that I never made any promise, of any sort, to either of the candidates, and never made any offer, except that which I made in the hearing of all the freeholders assembled. I then stated the only condition, upon which I thought it not disgraceful to pretend to vote at all. That condition was complied with by neither of the candidates; and I can truly say, that whether my cherries be eaten by a magpie or by a jay,
is a question of full as much in portance with
me, as is the question, whether Mr. Heath
cote or Mr. Herbert, be elected in the place
of Sir Henry Mildmay ; nor is it with a small degree of satisfaction, that I perceive the thing to be viewed in the same light by hundreds, nay thousands, of respectable unen in the county. MAJ or Hog AN does not yet answer, nor any one for him. He certainly stands, therefore, convicted of a falsehood; a most base and malignant falsehood; and, be stands convicted, too, by that press, to which he himself had resorted. Thus, and it is so in every instance, where a free scope is given to discussion, the truth finally prewails ; and the promulgator of falsehood is punished, in the best of all possible ways, without any recourse to the law. A correspondent laughs at me for being “ the “ dupe of Major Hogan.” haugh at a jury and judge for being the dupes of a perjured witness, whom, from his tes
He may as well.
I am as- ? timonials of character, they are induced to
believe. Who was to suspect, that a man, who produced such a recommendation from a person like GENrr At OGilvy, would commit to writing and to print, a statement such as that about the bank notes, without having a shadow of foundation for it I suspected, and could suspect, no such thing. —Another correspondent laments, that the pamphlet will now have an effect the contrary of what it was intended to have. The fact will certainly be so ; but, it is not a proper subject of lamentation. It ought to be so. Infinite is the advantage, which, in hundreds of instances, I have derived from the lies which have been published against me ; and l am not so unjust as to lament that another should derive advantage from a similar cause. Alresford, Dec. 8, 1808, N. B. I did not recollect the state of the Volume, when, last week, I promised a double number. The last number of the Volune must be a double one, on account of the TABLEs, title-PAGE, &c. and, as the whole of each Volume is to contain no more than 33 sheets, there can be but one more double sheet in the present Volume.
To The EDIto R of THE SALisbury
Botley, Dec. 6, 1808. SiR,--In your paper of the fifth, under the head of Winchester, I find the following paragraph, relating to the statement, made by me, at the late county meeting, held in that city.—“We are desired, from the “ most unquestionable authority, to inform our readers, that Lord Fitzharris has not, as was lately asserted at a public meeting, a reversionary grant of sé1,202 per annum, or any other sum, after the death of Lord Malmsbury. The pension of sé1,200 per annum, which was, some years ago, granted to Lord Fitzharris, to eommence after his Father's death was relinquished by him on his being appointed, by his Majesty, Governor of the Isle of Wight; so that the pullis purse has been relieved, instead of being burthened, by that appointment.”— Now, Sir, with regard to the fact of relinquishment, I find, upon examination, that this correction is right; and, of course, that my statement, at the meeting, was erroneous. But, the fault was not mine. In the list of parliamentary placemen and pensioners, there is no mention made of the relinquishment of the former grant. I had seen the grant of £1,200 in a former list, and though I now find, that the reliuquish
ment is stated in a subsequent list, I had not seen that when I made the statement at Winchester; and this you will read..!y suppose must have been the case, when you consider, that the statement was made, if not in the presence of Lord Fitzharris himself, in the presence of many of his fiends, and particularly of Mr. Sturges Bourne, from whom I had naturally to look for a contradiction as to any mistatement of fact. —With this explanation I should content myself, had not your correspondent thought proper to make an assertion, that the public purse has been relieved by the appointment of Lord Fitzharris, as Governor of the Isle of Wight, for life, with a salary of - 1,379 a year. To make this assertion good, he must first prove, that there was an absolute necessity of keeping alive this sinecure place of 381,379 a year; and, next, he must prove, that it was absolutely impossible to give it to some military or naval officer, as a compensation for real services; for, un. til he can do this, it wisl appear to me, and jo, I trust, it will appear to your readers, that a pension of £1,200 to commence after the death of Lord Malmsbury, would cost less than a sinecure salary, which has begun before Lord Malmsbury's death, and which is tolast as long as the pension would have lasted. The exchange was one of very plain calculation. It was a simple question of whether Lord Fitzharris should receive, from the public purse, sé1,200 a year, for life, after the death of his father ; or whether he should receive, from the same source, so 1,379 a year, for life, to begin in 1807; to decide which question in favour of the latter there ‘equired only a very ordinary degree of the nfluence of self-interest, totally unassisted y that public-spirit, that desire to spare the loor public purse, which your correspondent would fain have you attribute to his Lordhip.--" Oh, but the ministers! They took this opportunity of relieving the public from the reversionary pension.” Yes, Sr, but then, they must show us the obsolute necessity of giving this sinecure of £1,379 a year to somebody or other ; and, so my part, I can perceive the existence of no such necessity. The place is, in fact, a mere nominal thing, serving as an excuse of the payment of so much money, under another name than that of pension. If there cally be any little duties of form attached oit; if it have a little patronage, and if it give a little of honourable distinction in the sland; if this be the case, should not this lost be bestowed upon some meritorious military or naval commander Would not ouch a compensation be peculiarly appro
priate to such a purpose Ought such posts to be given to persons, who have never, in any way, rendered even the most trising service to the state, while those who have spent the best part of their lives in honour. able toil, danger, and service, are by being pensioned off (if provided for at all), put upon a level with the swarm of court dependents, who are maintained as it were out of charity 3–To you, Sir, and to your readers, I may safely leave the task of answeriug these questions, while I remain, with great respect, your most humble and most obedient servant, WM CoE BETT. EDINBURGH Reviewers. In the Cou R1 ER, the head ministerial newspaper, of the 2d instant, an article • appeared, entitled “ Apost Acy of The “ EDi NBURGH REview.” The writer, who is evidently a downright hire ling, and who no more dares put his name to what he writes, than he dares, within the doors of Whitehall, to say that his soul is his own, accuses the Editors of the above named celebrated work of having, since their attack upon me, changed their sentinents as to the state of things in this country. He charges them with having now, and especially in certain passages, which he quotes, and which (because I think the public will be much obliged to me for it) I shall copy from him ; he charges them with having, in these passages in particular, “ sounded the “ charge of revolution, in the true spirit of “ Marat and Rolespierre, insisting that the “ word “revolution " shall now no longer “ be obnoxious to the people.” This, as the reader will see, is a most vile calumny. The wretch, from whose pen it has proceeded, wishes to revive the cry of “ Jacobin ; ” but, this last resource of guilty and trembling peculation will avail him nought. I do think, that the Edinburgh Reviewers, from some motive of no very fair hostility, did act by me in a manner that neither publicspirit nor bare justice could warrant ; but, while they did me no harm, they have, in many instances, done the public a great dual of good, for my slate of which good I feel a proper degree of gratitude : and I cannot, of course, help feeling anger against every base wretch, who attempts to throw discredit upon their labours in the way above mentioned. “ Marat and lookespierre," indeed! Just as if the Edinburgh Reviewers wished to see the king and his family butchered,
terested in the uninterrupted, unchecked course of corruption and peculation ; every such man will regard as an assassin every Qne who wishes for reform. Indeed the public plunderer bas no idea of any thing being good, which does not protect him in his plunder. When he talks of the Constitution, he means not the laws, which were made to preserve to the people the enjoyment of their rights and liberties; but that state of things, which favours his villainous views of pelf and power. I shall now insert the extracts above-spoken of, and then leave the reader to judge, whether the writers of them deserve to be compared to “Marat “ and Robespierre.” W.M. Cobbett. Botley, Dec. 6, 1808. xTRActs from The Review of Cev AlLos, IN THE EDINBURGH REview For October LAST. We are rather disposed at present to contemplate the effects of the Spanish struggle in the cause of civil liberty. The resistance to France has been entirely begun and carried on by the people of Spain. Their kings betrayed them, fled, and rushed with the whole of their base courtiers, into the hands of the enemy. Those who had so little of
what is commonly termed interest in the
country, -those who had no stake in the community (to speak the technical language of the aristocracy), the persons of no con
sideration in the state, they who could not
ledge their fortunes, having only lives and
iberties to the people,_nay, the very odious, , manyheaded beast, the multitude, the mob itself —alone, uncalled, unaided by the higher classes, -in despite of these higher classes, and in direct opposition to them, as well as to the enemy whom they so vilely joined,—raised up the standard of insurrection,--bore it through massacre and through victory, until it chased the usurper away, and waved over his deserted courts. Happen what will in the sequel, here is a grand and permanent success, a lesson to all governments, a warning to all oligarchies,
lose, – the bulk — the mass of .
question, the Spanish court may be assured of this, that the feelings of our common nature—the unrversal sentiments of right and of pride which must prevail among a people capable of such gallant deeds, will prevent the repetition of the former abuses, and carry reform—change—revolution (we dread not the use of this word, so popular in England before the late reign of terror), salutary, just, and necessary revolution, over all the departments of the state.—Such will be the consequences of the Spaniards' ultimately triumphing. Whether Ferdinand or Charles be the monarch, we care not; or whether a new stock be brought from Germany for a breed. That they should have a king every one must admit who believes that an hereditary monarch, well fettered by the constitution, is the best guardian of civil liberty. Whatever may be the form of the checks imposed upon him, we shall be satisfied, provided the basis of a free constitution is laid deep and steady, in a popular representation. Let us further recollect, that this system of liberty will grow up with the full assent, and, indeed, the active assistance of the English government ;—and, what is of infinitely greater importance, with the warm and unanimous approbation of the English people. And who then shall ever more presume to cry down populat rights, or tell us that the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, —with the taxes, but to pay them,--and with the blunders of their rulers, but to suffer from them What man will now dare to brand his political adversary with the name of revolutionist—or try to hunt those down, as enemies of order, who expose the follies and corruptions of an unprincipled and intriguing administration ?—We anticipate, then, a most salutary change in public opinion, fiom the example of Spain, should her efforts prove successful, and from the part which this country so wisely and generously takes in her affairs. The measures of our government will be more freely canvassed ; the voice of the country will to longer be stilled ; and, when it raises itself, it must be heard. Reforms in the administration of our affairs must be adopted, to prevent more violent changes ; and some radical improvements in our constitution will no longer be viewed with horror, because they will be found essential to the permanence of any reformation in the management of the national concerns.—The alarm which the atrocities of the French revolution had raised in this country having now spent itself, the Spanish revolutica places the cause of freedom and reform on . much better footing than it had even at the beginning of the French revolution. Therefore we must admit that there is now a much better prospect of reform in Fngland than that which the French revolution seemed for a moment to hold out to us.--The plain and broad fact is this—that every Englishman who has, for the last six months, heartily wished that the Spaniards should succeed, has knowingly and wilfully wished for a radical reform of abuses in the regular monarchy of Spain, and for such a change of the government, as might permanently secure a better administration of its affairs. He has, moreover, wished to see that change adopted by the Spanish people themselves, and has admitted most amply the right of the people to call their rulers to account, and choose their own constituion. If these happy effects have al. ready flowed from the Spanish revolution, and are sure to spread far and wide over this great country the blessings of free discussion, watchful jealousy of the government, and unsparing reform of existing abuses; it is equally manifest, that the force of the example of Spain will not be spent here, but must reach over the other states of the Continent. The following passages are ertracted from the Review of MR. LF cKie's Book in the last number : —“ There is nothing, indeed, in political science which stands more in want of a philosophical investigation, than the influence of aristocracy in human society. So great a tendency has it to predominate, that, with the exception of those cases in which a military leader or chief swallows up the power both of aristocracy and people, there is perhaps no instance of a government, in the history of mankind, in which the power of the aristocracy did not exceed the proper limits, in which it was not more than a match for the power of the people, and enabled the rich and leading men to shift the burthens of the state from themselves upon the inferior orders.--Notwithstanding the helps provided for the peo. ple to protect their interests are, in our happy constitution, the strongest ever actually admitted in any government, all the changes which have taken place in the texture of our common affairs, have been in favour of the aristocratical interest. Our system of taxation, which is now so enormous a machine, decidedly, and, to a degree, infinitely greater than is generally supposed, favours the higher orders, and throws the mighty burden upon the middling and the lower. The composition of the commons house of parliament has become, confessedly, less dependent upon the
voice of the people. The enormous revenue of the government, which is chiefly taken from the pockets of the people, is chiefly returned into the pockets of the higher ranks, by whom so great a proportion of the lucrative places are engrossed.” P REw E R1es. SIR ;—in writing the letter on the Breweries, inserted in your Register of the 12th November, my view was to rescue the intelligent part of the trade from the aspersions thrown on all of them, through the ignorant practices of many (therein described) who are eneaged in that business ; and this chiefly by shewing that there could be no temptation to a man of understanding to substitute any articles for malt and hops, because the latter are not only the most suitable, but undenially the cheapest, that can be procured. I am so desirous to avoid obtruding on your valuable paper, that it is with no small degree of reluctance I once more, and, as I hope and intend, for the last time on this subject, solicit your indulgence to notice, as concisely as in my power, the remarks of a gentleman who signs himself “Candidus " in your Register of the 26th ult.—He wishes l had stated the grounds and the methods, whereby I formed the ratio of the value of malt, compared with sugar and with treacle. My answer is by hydrostatics, as he supposes. He doubts the competency of any instrument to shew the exact difference between the saccharine matter extracted from malt, and that which is afforded by a solution of sugar, or of treacle, in pure water, on account of the mucilage in the first, which, he concludes, affects the accuracy of the rule. This is the (now fully exploded) objection which was urged against the hydrometer so long ago as in the year 1770, by the then principal brewer in London in a conference which I obtained with him, on the subject ; but who changed his opinion a few years afterwards, and adopted the constant use of the instrument, in which he was gradually followed by the other considerable brewers. But the proof of this, and also the following question between us rests in distillation, of which I shall speak hereafter. I stated that malt was 20 per cent superior to sugar, on a comparison of the produce of each with their respective costs. This gentleman thinks there must be an advantage of 40 per cent in favour of sugar; without, however, offering any other grounds for this opinion than his doubts before-mentioned, as the effect of the mucilage combined with the sweet of the malt on the different gravities of the two musts.
There is the very serious difference of 60 per cent in our opinions. One of us must be under a very great error. I could, if it were not rendered unnecessary by their being the same, as be will hereafter find described by a scientific and practical gentleman, Mr. Martineau, to a committee of the House of Commons, give a series of experiments on sugar and treacle, made many years ago, accompanied, also, with a set of twelve distillations (in a still of a suitable size which I procured to be made for the purpose) of small portions of beer formed from as many different original specific gravities in the worts; which experiment I then entered on with the view to ascertain the fact of the accordance, or not, of the final proportion of proof spirit with the original gravity, as shewn by the hydrometer; due reference being had to all the circumstances. The results of each, and of all of these examinations, did so remarkably correspond with the several circumstances as to afford the most convincing testimony to my mind that every hydrometer, now in use, is truly and correctly, a measure of sweets, although that appellation is given to one only, annong the several sorts now constructed. But I must not expect that my own experiments, and consequent decision will be deemed of sufficient authority to be conclusive with thers. I am happy, therefore, in the op. portunity to adduce far superior proof, premising, that the average value of each 8 bushes of malt is known as annually, to every brewer who has employed an hydrometer for a sufficient time to understand its uses. I say, annually, because the produce of saccharine matter varies with the favourableness of the harvest and season to the barley; as well as very materially according to the method of malting it. But a quarter of malt, weighing from 300lbs. to 330lbs., usually yields from 75 to 80bs. of saccha1ine matter. A like quantity and no more is assorded by 185lbs. to 190lbs. of sugar, or by 224 to 240bs. of treacle. The produce of the last two is found merely by a solution of them in waters; and finally, the separate value of all the three is found by the production of spirit, uniformly correponding with the gravities of their extracts, or solutions. The evidence I have alluded to is taken from a parliamentary “Report of the “ Sugar Distillery Committee,” ordered by the house to be printed 17th February, 1807. The object being to inquire how far relief 1:sight be assorded to the West India proprietors by the use of sugar in the breweries and distilleries, the committee after having examined (from the 2d to the 13th Jan.
1807) the persons most competent to give them information, say in page 4:—“ It ap“ pears to the committee that taking the “ price of the quarter of malt, capable of “ producing 80 lbs. of saccharine matter at “ 82s, the quantity of sugar necessary to “ produce an equal proportion of saccha“ rine matter must be 1 cwt. 3 q1s. 1 lb. “ (197 lbs.) which at 58s. * the cwt. would “ annount to 101s. 6d. in price, making a “ difference in favour of the malt of “ 10s. 6d. in that given quantity. It is “ stated, besides, in evidence, that the beer produced from sugar, even if the prices would admit of it, is not cqual in any de“gree to that produced from its equivalent quantity of nialt, and coasequently that the lorower would not use sugar in their manufactory, unless to were prohibited ly saw from using grain.” —In page 16, Mr Jackson commissioner of excise, examined by the committee, says, “ I recollect that about the year “ 1800 or 1801, when sugar was by law “ permitted to be used in the brewery, on account of the scarcity of grain at that time, very little sugar, was used. One “ or two brewers in London, two at Man“ chester, and some at Liverpool, were “ the only brewers I recollect to have used “ it, and they very soon discontinued it. The price of malt at that time was, as far “ as I recollect, five guineas a quarter, 2nd “ sugar, including the duty, about 52s. the “ cwt.”—In page 20, Mr. Martineau, an eminent porter brewer in London, examined, and to questions put to him says, “I have never brewed beer from sugar, but “ have made such experiments as to con“ vince my own mind, completely.” And being desired to state the opinion he had formed in consequence, said : “I have a very “ short statement she wing the compara“tive value of malt with sugar, and of mo“ lasses with malt.” Mr. Martineau then delivered in the following paper to the committee, which was read.—“December 14, “ 1799, experiments on a såmple of brown “ Muscovado sugar at 53s. 3d per cwt., and “ the same on a sample of molasses at 40s. per cwt. One pound of the above sugar “ was dissolved in a gallon of water, and “ then boiled half an hour, it lost by evapo“ ration rather more than a quart, which “ quantity being restored with cold water, “ and reduced to the heat of 60 degrees, it * My estimate of the price of sugar was 61s. and my quantity 196 lbs. the cost of which would be 100s. 9d. I believe it is now , dearer than 61s.