throne, merely because he professed himself to be a Catholic. He infringed upon the constitutional liberties of his subjects, and therefore, his sceptre was wrested from him by a power to which even kings must submit. An ignorant and bigotted people require from their temporal sovereign, whatever may be his private opinion, a conformity to the rites and ceremonies of their established predominant religion; as Catherine the Empress of Russia, though a Protestant by education, and an unbeliever in revealed religion by principle, submitted throughout her reign to the doctrines, and outwardly complied with the discipline, of the Russian church, so as never even to be suspected of non-conformity: whereas the Electoral House of Saxony, on the election of August. us to the crown of Poland, embraced the Catholic religion without alienating by this measure the affections of the Saxons, their hereditary subjects, who were universally Protestants. I refer Anti-Catholicus to these examples for a reply to his question. In a state of society such as that of Russia, I admit the necessity of the sovereign's appearing attached to the forms of the national church; but an enlightened nation does not less feel and acknowledge the blessings of virtuous administration, because the sovereign differs from his subjects on questions unconnected with the temporal government of the state. Hence, then, Anti-Catholicus may learn the very extent of our claims: they are comprised in one short sentence, UNIVERSAL LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. Nor let it be objected, that, when the Romish power was at its zenith, the Catholic church refused to grant what we now claim; and, on the contrary, persecuted even to death the seceders from its established doctrines. The progress of philosophy, which has unfolded to us clearer apprehensions of the true spirit of religion, has shewn the enormity of such conduct. Catholics of the present day sincerely detest the remembrance of it, and renounce and abjure the sophistry which sanctioned it. It is illiberal to reproach us with the errors of the dark ages. Were they peculiar to the Catholics? Did not Calvin condemn Servetus to the stake? And did not the Huguenots of France and the Catholics alternately murder each other as either party obtained advantage?—To judge from the language of our opponents, it would appear that we aim, not at a fair and equal participation of the rights of Englishmen, but ra ther, at universal dóminion. We wish that the king should have the legal prerogative of a pointing Catholics, according to their me it and services, to all posts in the army and

navy; and this is represented as an ambitious desire of engrossing all the power of the state. Do Protestants then apprehend that Catholics are men of such transcendent abilities, that they would immediately outstrip their rivals in the career of glory? Is their address so courtly, their manner so insinuating, their reasoning so irresistible, that, if they can once obtain access to the royal ear, they, who like the Turk, can "bear no brother near the throne," will immediately, like the cuckoo, dislodge from the nest all their competitors, and monopolize the royal favour?--Elegibility to the representation of certain portions of the people in parliament, is comprehended in the emancipation we solicit; and it is thence concluded by Anti-Catholicus, that we are then exclusively to legislate for the people of the United Kingdom. It is predicted, that we shall then introduce what Anti-Catholicus emphatically terms "the attendant ex"cellencies and embellishments of our reli"gion, that we shall pass laws to authorise "English Catholic bishops to fulminate "bulls ex cathedra, that by act of parliament

we shall enact the exercise of auricular "confession in the cabinet of the monarch, "that all the liberal policy of our revered "Queen Mary will be again revived, and

Salisbury Plain or Smithfield Market, be "possibly appropriated for that delicious repast an auto da fe." These, however, are vain fears; for, even on the hypothesis of a fair and equal representation of the people, the Catholics, whether considered with respect to their numbers, their property, or their influence in the state, will return Lut a small proportion of members: (nay, AnuCatholicus himself, with some little incon sistency, admits only the possibility of our sending four members to parliament) and if the House of Commons continue to be constituted as it is at present, does Anti-Catholicus seriously apprehend that the members of it will cease to be influenced by motives wholly unconnected with the roligious persuasion of their constituents? Anti-Catholicus fears, that the emancipation of Cathelics will undermine the valuable fabric of

cial order, they will therefore labour to introduce confusion? That, because they will more experience the blessings of regular government, they will therefore feel greater disposition to subvert it? With respect to our situation as Catholics, considered in a religious sense, abstractedly from our civil and political situation, emancipation itself will make little or no difference. We enjoy at this time religious toleration almost to its full extent. We are unmolested in the exercise of public or private devotion, our churches are open, and our doctrines are preached without concealment or prevarication. How, then, will the religion of the church of England (which I presume to be the holy religion alluded to by Anti-Catholicus) be exposed to greater danger than it is at present? Will our power of making converts be increased, or will not rather our motives for strengthening our party be diminished? If our religion be really a composition of such farcical doctrines and ceremonies as Anti-Catholicus asserts, can men of the church of England seriously apprehend, in this enlightened and philosophical age, that their national establishment will be eclipsed by the unclouded lustre of the Catholic church? I am compelled, however, to draw this conclusion, and unless the advocates of intolerance can shew some plausible ground for their apprehensions, I can but interpret those very apprehensions as a confession, that their predominance would immediately sink, if it were not buoyed up by the strong arm of temporal power.--I come now to consider Anti-Catholicus himself, and to point out how uncandidly he has animadverted on certain passages of my letter. I have explained the Catholic opinion respecting transubstantiation, auricular confession, and the infallibility of the Pope :summarily indeed; because I did not wish to abuse your goodness in requiring the insertion of discussions unconnected with, or ill-suited to, the general plan of your work. Anti-Catholicus, in his review of my letter, does not even condescend to notice what I have written on these subjects, but passes over my remarks on Simplicius's letter to tell you, Sir," that your correspondent "Simplicius has his thanks for a very ex"cellent and instructive letter, in which he "has unfolded some of the principal tenets "of the Catholic faith ;" and he calls upon the same Simplicius "to continue to point ." out the fallacies of the Roinish religion;" although I have already shewn, that this very Simplicius, instead of unfolding, has misrepresented our tenets; and, although I have exposed his fallacy in his attempt to calum

niate our church. I trust that the common sense of your readers will justify my pointing, out, without requiring from me any reply to, such illiberality. For my own part, I consider Anti-Catholicus's abuse of our tenets, and his appeal to his able coadjutor Simplicius, as a confession of his inability to controvert my arguments.-A. B.-Hampstead, May 12, 1807.

DOMESTIC OFFICIAL PAPER. CAPTURE OF MONTE VIDeo.- -From the London Gazette Extraordinary; dated Downing Street, April 12, 1807.

A dispatch, of which the following is a copy, was received this morning at the Office of Viscount Castlereagh, one of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, from Brigadier General Auchmuty, to the Right

Hon. W. Windham:

Monte Video, Feb. 6, 1807.

SIR, I have the honour to inform you, that his Majesty's troops under my command have taken by assault, and after a most determined resistance, the important fortress and city of Monte Video.The Ardent, with her convoy, arrived at Maldonado on the 5th of Jan.; and I immediately took under my orders the troops from the Cape, commanded by Lieut. Col. Backhouse. On the 13th I evacuated that place without opposition, leaving a small garrison on the island of Gorriti.-On consulting with Rear Admiral Stirling, it was determined to attack Monte Video; and I landed on the morning of the 18th, to the Westward of the Caretas Rocks, in a small bay, about 9 miles from the town. The enemy were in great force, with guns on the heights, when we disembarked; but they did not advance to oppose us, and suffered me to take a strong position, about a mile from the shore. A trifling cannonade, and some firing at the outposts, commenced in the afternoon and continued occasionally during our stay on that ground. -On the 19th we moved towards Monte Video. The right column, under the Hon. Brigadier General Lumley, was early opposed. About 4000 of the enemy's horse occupied two heights to his front and right. As we advanced, a heavy fire of round and grape opened upon us; but a spirited charge in front, from the light battalion under Lieut. Col. Brownrigg, dispersed the corps opposed to him, with the loss of a gun. The enemy on the flank did not wait a similar movement, but retreated. They continued retiring before us, and permitted us, without any further opposition, except a distant can-, nonade, to take up a position about 2 miles from the citadel. Our advanced posts op

cupied the suburbs, and some small parties were posted close to the works; but in the evening the principal part of the suburbs was evacuated.-The next morning the enemy came out of the town, and attacked us with their whole force, about 6000 men, and a number of guns. They advanced in two columns; the right, consisting of cavalry, to turn our left flank, while the other, of infantry, attacked the left of our line; this column pushed in our advanced posts, and pressed so hard on our out-picquet, of four hundred men, that Col. Browne, who commanded on the left, ordered three companies of the 40th, under Major Campbell, to their support: these companies fell in with the head of the column, and very bravely charged it; the charge was as gallantly received, and great numbers fell on both sides; at length the column began to give way, when it was suddenly and impetuously attacked in flank by the rifle corps, and light battalion, which I had ordered up, and directed to the particular point. The column now gave way on all sides, and was pursued, with great slaughter and the loss of a gun, to the town. The right column, observing the fate of their Companions, rapidly retired, without coming i nto action.--The loss of the enemy was considerable, and has been estimated at 1500 men; their killed might amount to between two and three hundred; we have taken the same number of prisoners, but the principal part of the wounded got back into the town; I am happy to add, that ours was comparatively trifling.-The consequences of this affair were greater than the action itself. Instead of finding ourselves surrounded with horse, and a petty warfare at our posts, many of the inhabitants of the country separated, and retired to their several villages, and we were allowed quietly to set down before the town.-From the best information I could obtain, I was led to believe that the defences of Monte Video were weak, and the garrison by no means disposed to make an obstinate resistance; but I found the works truly respectable, with 160 pieces of cannon; and they were ably defended.The enemy, being in possession of the island of Rastones, commanded the harbour; and I was aware that their gun boats would annoy us, as we apprehended. A two gun battery was constructed on the 23d to keep them in check, and our posts were extended to the harbour, and completely shut in the garrison on the land side. Their communication was still, however, open by water, and their boats conveyed to them troops and

provision: even water for the garrison was obtained by these means; for the wells that supply the town were in our possession.―― On the 25th we opened batteries of four 24 pounders and two mortars, and all the fri gates and smaller vessels came in, as close as they could with safety, and cannonaded the town. But finding that the garrison was not intimidated into a surrender, I constructed, on the 28th, a battery of six 24 pounders, within a 1000 yards of the south east bastion of the citadel, which I was informed was in so weak a state that it might be easily breached. The parapet was soon in ruins, but the rampart received little injury, and I was soon convinced that my means were unequal to a regular siege; the only prospect of success that presented itself was, to erect a battery as near as possible to a wall by the south gate, that joins the works to the sea, and endeavour to breach it. This was effected by a six gun battery within 600 yards, and though it was exposed to a very superior fire from the enemy, which had been incessant during the whole of the siege, a breach was reported practicable on the 2d instant. Many reasons induced me not to delay the assault, though I was aware the troops would be exposed to a very heavy fire in approaching and mounting the breach. Orders were issued for the attack an hour before day break the ensuing morning, and a summons was sent to the Governor in the evening to surrender the town. To this message no answer was returned.——The troops destined for the assault consisted of the rifle corps under Major Gardner, the light infantry under Lieut. Col. Brownrigg and Major Trotter, the grenadiers under Majors Campbell and Tucker, and the 38th regiment under Lieut. Col. Vassal and Major Nugent.-They were supported by the 40th reg. under Major Dalrymple, and the 87th under Lieut. Col. Butler and Major Miller. The whole were commanded by Col. Browne. The remainder of my force, consisting of the 17th light dragoons, detachments of the 20th and 21st light dragoons, the 47th regt., a company of the 71st, and a corps of 700 marines and seamen, were encamped under Brigadier Gen. Lumley, to protect our rear.At the ap pointed hour the troops marched to the assault. They approached near the breach before they were discovered, when a destructive fire from every gun that could bear upon it, and from the musketry of the garrison, opened upon them.

To be continued.

VOL. XI. No. 21.]

[PRICE 10D.

10171

SUMMARY OF POLITICS.

THE WRANGLING FACTIONS.The capture of Dantzic by the French having given a new feature to the war upon the Contiment, and enabled us to reason, upon something like grounds, with respect to the result of that war, and particularly as far as may relate to this country, it is time now to take a view of our situation as connected with foreign nations, and to ask a question or two respecting the object of the expedition, now said to be preparing. But, as we shall, at last, find, that our sole hope of an escape from the fate of Prussia, Holland, Naples, &c. &c. must rest upon the measures to be adopted at home, I cannot refrain from making, before I proceed to other matter, one more record of the waste of the public money, as stated and exposed, in the mutual accusations of the wrangling factions. Sir Francis Burdett complains of the RED BOOK; he uses the simile of the robbers; he calls for a destruction of the system of corruption. What is the consequence? The hirelings of both factions fly on upon him with the yell of wolves, and want not the will to use the fangs of that ravenous and vindictive animal. Now, then, let us hear their own account of the manner in which the Red Book is filled, and the motives by which the fillers are actuated. I have had my eye upon them for some time. I have heard their railings against the "Ja"cobins and Levellers;" and now I shall put their own exposures upon record. They are long and full in their statements;, but, these statements should be read, and well remembered. They perish too soon in a loose open sheet. They ought to be bound up in a book, and frequently referred to. I beg every reader to peruse them with attention; and, when he has so done, to ask himself this question: "if this be true, is not Sir

Francis Burtlett's address perfectly proper?"We will begin with an extract from the Morning Chronicle newspaper of the 3d instant." A gross misrepresen "tation of the conduct of Mr. Fox and "Lord Howick, with respect to their under "secretaries, having appeared in several

newspapers, we are induced to lay be"fore our readers the following Statement

-[10:8

"of Facts, to the accuracy of which we

pledge ourselves: Mr. Fox has been "blamed for dismissing Mr. Hammond, to"gether with Mr. Ward; and this removal "has been represented as inconsistent with "the censure which he himself bestowed upon the dismissal of Mr. Aust, in 1796. "The cases were, however, entirely dif "ferent. It had always been the practice "for a new secretary to appoint his under "secretaries; and if he continued those "in their places whom he found there, it "was to be considered equivalent to a re"appointment; for nothing can be more "essential to the public service than that "the principal and the under secretaries "should be on confidential terms. But "Mr. Aust was removed without any change

of the principal Secretary of State, merely in order to make room for Mr. Can"ning, whom Mr. Pitt patronized and "wished to have near him. For no other

reason was Mr. Aust obliged to retire. "Of course a provision was made for him. "He was appointed Commissary General of "Musters and Secretary and Register of "Chelsea Hospital. These two offices, "thus united in his favour, had been held "by two different persons; of course a pro"vision was required for them. Now, it

was to this traffic in places, and to à prac"tice which must encrease the expense of "the service, by multiplying unnecessarily "the pensions to those who quitted the of"fice, that Mr. Fox decidedly objected. "That the Secretary of State should be "forced to retain in the confidential place "of under secretary one who would not

posses his confidence, is a position never "maintained by Mr. Fox, or indeed by any "rational man. Mr. Hammond, who had "made himself a party man, in every

sense of the word, and whose whole con"nections were with the avowed enemies "of Mr. Fox, could no more have been "allowed to remain in the foreign office "than to hold a seat in the cabinet. To remove him was a matter of absolute "necessity. Accordingly, he and Mr. Ward were succeeded by Gen. Walpole and sir "F. Vincent. When Lord Howick came to the foreign department, upon Mr.

"Fox's death, he continued these gentlemen "as under secretaries, because they possessed "his confidence; and when he left the of "fice, they retired also, without any

pension or sinecure whatever.-If Mr. "Fox had followed the example of his predecessor, he would have pensioned "Gen. Walpole or sir F. Vincent, on co

ming into office. And if Lord Howick "had availed himself of the precedents left "him both by Lord Hawkesbury and Lord "Mulgrave, he would even in succeeding to “a friend, have removed at least one of the "under secretaries, and pensioned him, "make way for a dependant or relation, whom "also he would have pensioned before he "retired from office. We assert, as a known "fact, that when Lord Harrowby retired "early in 1805, Mr. Elliot was removed

on the discussion of any thing connected "with this subject, is a matter of wonder, " even to those who know the rashness of "the new men."-The next article is the answer of the Courier newspaper of the same day." There is a long article to"day in the Morning Chronicle on the subject of pensions to under secretaries of state. We have not time to comment "now upon the general subject of sinecures "and pensions, though we pledge ourselves "to unmask the hypocritical pretensions "of the late men to superior purity, in any respect whatever regarding the grants of "public money. As, however, it has

more than once been boldly stated, that "the pension to Mr. Ward was granted on "a fund never before applied to such uses, "and as it is insinuated that it was given merely for a year's service, we will state "the real case. With respect to a provi.

"

་་

sion generally to under secretaries on "retiring, it is a very gross misrepresenta

64

"tion to say that it has not long existed, or that it ought not to exist. Mr. Aust was rewarded by Lord Grenville himself "with sinecures to the amount of £2000 a year; sir J. Burgess, under the same "Lord G., with a pension of £1200, a year; Mr. Canning, by the same "Lord G., with £1200, a year; Mr. "Fisher, by the same Lord G., with " 600l. a year; Mr. Ham.nond, by the same lord G., with 600/. a year, having "then 1200l. as a foreign minister, and "600l. a year besides, added to it last year

by Mr. Fox. Mr. Huskisson, by lord "Melville (then in the cabinet with lord "G.) with 1200l. a year; Sir G. Shee, in "the home department, with 12007. a

year. So much for the novelty of an "under secretary's pension! Now as to "the fund, namely the office: the con"stitution by which the right to recom "mend to allowances for officers retiring was settled, was the work also of lord "Grenville himself, in conjunction with "the other secretaries of state, so far back "as the year 1795, as appears by the order

of his Majesty in council. And how "often have allowances been granted? "Was Mr. Ward's the first instance? No "it was the tenth in succession, in the "course of 11 years! aud of the 9 preced"ing instances, 5 were the work also of lord "G. If the writer in the Chronicle wishes "to know them, he will find them in the "office, under the heads of allowances to "Mr. Money, 380l. a year; Mr. Jenkins, "400l. a year; Mr. Hinchcliffe, 600l.; Mr. "Hammond, 600l.; Mr. Fisher, 600l. "The object of the last grant was the pecu"liar follower, protegé, and we believe "connexion, of lord G.; the grant was "made to him after a service of exactly 5 "months and about 14 days, and was" one

"of the last acts of lord G. on quitting ""the foreign office." It was held also "by him during his life, together with a "commission of excise, worth 1200l. a

66

year more! Do we blame lord Grenville "for this? No; nor do we believe that "the misrepresentations on which we are "commenting proceeded from his authority. "We know at least, in answer to another part of that misrepresentation, that he "professed his opinion in favour of the legality of the grant to Mr. Ward, to "which he also disclaimed all idea of hostility. Four other instances of allowances "from the same fund in the office of secretary of state, occur before Mr. Ward's, "viz. Mr. Colquhoun, 300l. a year; Mr. "Moore, 800l, a year; Mr. Higden, 500!.

66