of the business. It was directly charged upon the Solicitor of the Lottery, and the auspices under which he acted, that he had suffered an accused person to escape by sham and Jew bail, because he had engaged to bring sixty votes in favour of a Lord of the Admiralty. It was expressly charged upon the Secretary of the Treasury, that he had engaged to bring a person, convicted of a penalty for an offence against the Excise laws, to a private conference with the Solicitor to the Excise, in his own house, on his promising to perform certain services in the said election. These were specific charges, and yet it was objected that there was too much generality in the accusation time when the imputations against the Secretary of the Treasury for meddling in clections, were so round, the delicacy of that house alone was not to be offended by whispering an insinuation. Did they really think he was not active in his interferences? Did they not know how various, how multiform, his appearances were, whenever he could be seen or felt with effect? He called upon the house therefore to stand forward, and vindicate themselves, by scarching to the bottom a charge fairly and candidly brought before them.". At a Mr. WHITBREAD said, the accusation was as specific as, in the present stage, it ought to be. His hon. friend ought not, in his mind, to name the person high in office against whom his proofs lay; his naming him now might deprive him of those very proofs. Let the right hon. gent., for instance, reflect what ought to be his conduct if he himself were the high person alluded to. He had the complete power, by his eloquence, by his influence, to grant or to stifle inquiry, as he should find that the proofs were feeble, or that they were conclusive. If he made it a previous doctrine, therefore, that the person should be named, and that all the chain of proof should be exposed, he crushed all inquiry against a miister pending his power, and against all subordinate officers. The dignity, the feelings of gentlemen in office, demanded that they should be the first to entreat the house to grant the inquiry. Not to be forward in soliciting it themselves would be to give suspicion of guilt-innocence would be eager for justification-it could not sleep under ac'cusation—“ Go," it would say to its friends, "relieve me from the torture of suspicion. "I have lost my rest; I cannot sleep till I " am justified." What sort of friendship must that be, which, instead of eagerly bringing the accuser to his proofs, forbids all inquiry, and dooms innocence "to sleep no more!" It was not to be imagined that his Majesty's ministers could persist in shrinking from the only legitimate means which they had of an honourable acquittal." "Mr. WINDHAM said, that the very unaccountable language of that day induced him to rise, not because he thought it possible to adduce any new arguments in support of the motion, but because to be silent under the doctrines which had been advanced, would be to desert his duty, and to prostitute his feelings. The doctrines had themselves been strange; they had been more strange from the quarter whence they had originated. They militated against every principle of jurisprudence which the wisdom of ages had matuied, or which the practice of all our courts had sanctioned; and yet they were brought forward by lawyers. A conduct had been held by his majesty's minis ters, which certainly did not' greatly tend to the elevation of the house, and which he knew not how they could reconcile with their own dignity. They had recourse to a scrupulous nicety, under which a man of honour, charged with the suspicion of guilt, would have disdained to shelter himself, a mere verbal insufficiency, and taking refuge in the desperate practice of self-convicted and timorous offenders in our criminal courts, they had literally got off by a flaw in the indictment. They said, "it is neces sary that you shall name the person high "in office whom you charge, and unless you specify the offender, yon shall not be "permitted to inquire, although you assert that there is positive guilt."-" Why, "Sir," said Mr. Windhani, even taking it with this captions objection, their scruple ought to be removed, when the hon. gent (Mr. Thompson), fairly tells you, that the Secretary of the Treasury is personally charged. Is not the Secretary of the Trea sury a public man in high authority? Is he not a great man by his salaries? Is he not a public man by his trusts and offices? View hiro in all his aspects-he is every way a public man-and he is personally accused. But the learned gent, asserts it as a legal doctrine, that there ought not to be an inquiry unless there is a great and infinite probability of guilt. Is this, Sir, the practice of any one court in England? There ought not to be a trial, I admit, without a certain degree of suspicion; but there ought to be an inquiry wherever there is a charge, and where. ever there is an open and avowed accuser. A man ought not to be brought before a jury of his peers to answer to a frivolous and verations charge, but will you say that the grand jury shall not examine the till? To deny an inquiry is to bar the door against justice. | and true colours. The gay embroidered suit It is contrary to the first principles of juris of pretence, in which they have decked prudence. It is what a band of criminals themselves, and under which they have strutwould rejoice in, but it would tegjatal to in- ted in magnificent disguise, is torn off, and nocence. We state that there is positive they behold thera in the tattered rags of their guilt, we have record of positive gu.lt. We genuine deformity. They stand like the unhave the proof that a public officer suffered a cased Frenchman,, which the licentiousness person, accused of an offence against law; to of our stage is too apt to exhibit in ridicule escape, for a corrupt reason, offensive to the instafiles without a shirt-in tinsel and dignity of this house, outrageous to the Te-ace or the onside-in dirt and dow las with presentation of the people; and we have it in--they stand before their confiding majopresented to us, that he did this with: the brity, convicted of shrinking from trial, and connivance of higher persons. We demand that this bill be examined. We demand that the house shall go into a committee, to see whether persons in office did, or did not, convert the public revenue, into an instrument of election abuse. Granting a committee is not going to trial; but if you say, that you ought not to inquire, when abuse is stated, you lay down a principle unknown in any court in the world! You say, in so many words at least, that the English House of Commons shall establish for its own conduct a doctrine to screen guilt and to torture innocence. Another doctrine, advanced by the learned gent. is certainly equally against his own practice in the courts. There "ought to be proof that the witnesses are "credible." Why, Sir, was it ever heard of that the credibility of the witnesses be came a question, till they came to give their evidence? till it was seen what stress was to be laid on their testimony? This new way of taking character by anticipation is a doctrine so new and so contrary to all practice, that I confess it astonishes me to hear it advanced; and against all this we have the assertion of the gentlemen themselves. "I when a man does not dare to stand trial, the world have a right to believe him guilty; and in this condition stands his Majesty's ministers in the eyes of their majority. Let me add, Sir, one word more on this serious subject. We have before us two pregnant instances of the use which is gede of these summary and shameful proceedings, which are introduced into practice for the sake of our darling revenue; that revenue for which every thing is to be sacrificed--the citizen to | ka oppressed and ruined-the constitution to be violated. We see that these summery modes of conviction may be dexterously perverted into instruments of favour or of fear, assure you," say they, "these witnesses are not deserving of credibility; trust us, "the accused persons; we assure you of our innocence; and here let there be an end." Sir, they must surely entertain a higher opi- | nion of the credulity of this house, than even their recent experience can justify, if they think that their confiding talent will be carried to this length. But if it is, then the majority will, upon reflection, see the true picture of their own conduct; they will see whether the imputatious that have been thrown upon them, of giving confidence for reasons which they have never been so good as to explain, are not fairly to be ascribed to them. They will do more: this administration, which it has been their fashion to paint without, however, having any proofs to exhibit-certainly without any instances of nity, which they please to advance, as a perfect paragon of purity and virtue, will now stand unmasked and exposed in their natural pu as it of office, for the moment, to gratify or to inmay be the political and corrupt motive timidate. You see the fact in glaring truth before you. It remains for you to shew to your constituents, suffering under these abominable laws, whether you will not at least provide against tue profligate perversion of them to other ends than revenue." Mr. MARTIN said, that though he was of opinion that an inquiry ought to be granied, and even that if the motion were rejected, eternal disgrace would fall on the house; yet he hoped it would be rejected, as such a circumstance could not fail to open the eyes of the public to the imperfections of the prethem of the necessity of a parliamentary resent system of representation, and convince form."-The house divided,--Ayes, 84; Noes, 221. Now, my Lord Howick, how do you feel, after a look in this glass? Nay, my lord, laugh not. It is no laughing matter, and that you, and those who now back you will find. Could you, my lord, look me, or any man like me, in the face, after the perusal of this debate, bearing in your mind what passed on the 13th instant? If you could, I would not exchange the bit of paper, upon which I am writing in defence of my country's rights, for your office, your tite, and your fortune to boot, if I were therewith compelled to take your mind and your heart. But, I will do you the justice to say, that I do not think you could look me in the lace, 295] POLITICAL REGISTER,-Slave Trade. I am well aware of the state of your mind upon such an occasion; and I regret, that any consideration whatever should have made you consent so to enthral yourself. Your lordship once said, in proposing a reform of parliament, that, in spite of the calum " nious assertion, that, if you were in pow"er, you would be the last to propose such a measure, you should proceed in the discharge of your duty." Was the assertion calumnious," my lord? Here, my lord, it is that our malady lies. Here are It is the all-subduing the seeds of death. What," said Sir F. Bursystem of Pitt. dett, in the debate just referred to (26 "What was the cause of March, 1797). "the French revolution? The progress of reason and philosophy? Reason and philosophy can boast of no such influence over mankind. The revolution was caused "by the extravagance, profligacy, and insoThe same "lence of the administration. causes are operating with us; and highly as I esteem the talents of the Right Hon. "Gent. (Mr. Fox), even he could do nothing "substantial for the benefit of the people, were he minister to-morrow, without an " entire change in our system of politics; "nor, even then, unless there be a full and free representation of the people in parlia"ment." Perhaps, my lord, that this, which was said in support of your motion, you will now call jacobinism; but, be assured, that every honest and sensible man in that events have fully the will country say, proved it to be true. SLAVE TRADE. Copy of a Letter from LORD NELSON to Mr. DEAR SIR,I was in a thousand [296 returned on hearing I was close to them. and his hypocritical allies, and I hope my 12th of June off Antigua. The combined squadrons passed here on the 8th, and I am after them. Jamaica is safe, on which I congratulate you most sincerely. ORDNANCE OFFICE. The SIR, A proposal, revolting to the feelings and judgment of a large and estimable portion of the military force of the country, having appeared in your last Register, under the signature, Philo-Register, dated 8th November last, I rely on your candour for the admission of a few remarks on it. writer alluded to, evidently sensible of the obnoxious tendency of his intentions, assumes the disguise of an old woman, interested in the fate of the funds, and affecting anxiety for your advice to avert apprehended ruin by their failure. Instead, however, of waiting for the guidance solicited, this sagaCIOUS writer offers a remedy for all the embarrassments of our financial system, in aid of the economy recommended by you; and expecting (like an ostrich covering its eyes to escape being seen) that the borrowed petticoat of the old woman will hide the jackboots of the horse guards, seriously suggests that great saving of expence and much gene ral improvement would be effected, by transs 1 than those of the line, only because (like the barracks of the marines, which are equally comfortable for the same reason) they are inalienable depots, always occupied by the same corps. Besides, however desirable it might be to render all barracks equally commodious (which would be the only rational object) yet, what seems to be this wiseacre's plan, the reducing them to the same standard of misery, would not be effected by pla ferring the authority of the Master General and Board of Ordnance to the direction of the Commander-in-Chief. The fiction of the writer's being a fund-holder is by no means ill imagined; neither is the garb of concealment adopted on this occasion injudiciously chosen, or inappropriate to the illustrious Field-Marshal, whose patronage is endeavoured to be increased. Communion of interests and passions between the parasites of the horse-guards, and the fund-deal-cing the ordnance under the controul of the ers of Lloyd's is perfectly natural; and if ever their mutual favourite shall attain the desired extension of his power, it will assuredly be by their united efforts. But, dark as are our political prospects in other respects, such a change is no longer within the range of probability. The empty and greedy ambition of Clerk-Colonels or ColonelClerks, may prompt them to abortive attempts to advance the power and popularity of their Chief; and an agent, unsatisfied with the share of the ordnance agency which he is allowed to retain, may strive by similar puny essays to be restored to the whole But they will labour in vain. Their strength is unequal to the heaping Pelion on Ossa. Never will they see the Duke of York at the head of the ordnance. To retain his present station, gradually circumscribed in authority, is the utmost expectation he can now rationally form. A successful invasion of the tranquil provinces of the ordnance department, regulated by wise institutions, and happy under the paternal government of an amiable and enlightened nobleman, a general by long and gallant service, is no longer practicable.-Cooperation for such a purpose cannot be supposed from any man of honesty and ability in the country. That the attempt should first appear in your paper, Mr. Cob. bett, would excite surprise, if your impartiality, and encouragement to fair and free discussion, were not as conspicuous as your public-spirit. But I cannot for a moment entertain the idea that you will behold with indifference an attempt to extend the sway of the Duke of York to the most valuable part of our military force; which hitherto, under a Master General, has been handed down to us from our ancestors, high in character and unrivalled in professional skill, To secure your aid against such an attempt, I am convinced nothing more is requisite than to present it to your notice. I shall now, therefore, revert to the shallow pretences alleged for the proposed alteration. The superior accommodations of the engineers and artillery, and their staff appointments, are the only grounds assigned answer that-the artillery barracks are better Commander-in-Chief, while the services of the line and artillery should remain distinct. The pseudo Philo-Register's other objection is as palpably unfounded. On this head I reply to him that-if the staff, in the appointments on which the engineers and artillery now participate in some small proportion, be too extensive (which I readily admit it is) the whole blame, for such a wanton waste of the public treasure, belongs exclusively to the Commander in-Chief, who alone is allowed to influence its extent. That general officers of the engineers and artillery should be precluded from appointments on the staff, cannot, surely, be rationally contended for. But, without insisting on their equal claims, it will be sufficient to observe, that if a certain number of general officers are to have staff pay, no saving of expence would be obtained by the unjust exclusion of any particular corps from furnishing its proportion. Having thus shewn that no advantage would attend the transfer of power recommended, I do not consider it incumbent on me to illustrate, at much length, the danger and absurdity of a change; by which the security to the public money resulting from the established checks of a wisely constituted regular board would be wildly relinquished for the management of an irresponsible individual. I shall, therefore, content myself with submitting two questions, on which the public are fully qualified to decide by the interesting reports of the Com missioners of Military Inquiry-1st. Can the impolicy of unrestricted confidence in an individual be more strongly exemplified than in the case of General Delancey?-2d. Is it not evident that all the frauds and improvident bargains recently detected in the barrack department, would have been prevented, if the superintendence thereof had remained under the Board of Ordnance instead of being entrusted to an individual.— It is unnecessary to my present purpose to press these topics farther. Your correspondent's assertion too, that "the Master Ge"neral of the Ordnance ought not to be a "cabinet minister," being unsupported by argument, and evidently absurd, might be dismissed with contempt. But the position ought to attract attention at this conjuncture, because there is some danger lest the total. indifference of the public towards the pre.. sent Secretary at War, might generate a similar apathy on a point of much constitutional importance; viz. the exclusion from the cabinet of a minister, who is the sole check-officer over the pay of the army, amounting to fourteen millions a year. I, therefore, assert and undertake to prove, in contradiction to this dangerous doctrine that it is essential to the proper conduct of the affairs of the state, and to the character of the administration (if it value character),that every member of the ministry, who is head of a department, entrusted with large sums. of the public treasure, ought also to be a member of the cabinet, in which measures and expenditures are discussed →I must not, however, encroach für her at present on. your valuable Register.-MILES.-London, Jan. 26, 1507. LEARNED LANGUAGES. No. 5. "Learning, truly so called, consists in the posses"sion of know edge and in the capacity of com"municating that knowledge to others; and, as far as my observation will enable me to speak, what are called the learned languages, operate as a bar to the acquirement of real learning I already "hear some pedagogue, or pedant, exclaim, this "is precisely the reasoning of the Fox without a "tail. But, to bring this matter to the test, I hereby invite the learned gentlemen of the two "Universities to a discussion upon the subject. I assert that what they call the learned languages are improperly so called; and that, as a part of "general education, they are worse than useless."POL. REGISTER, Voi XI. p. 36. 46 SIR,In addressing to you a few comments upon this assertion of yours, excuse me, if, in compliment to your own style of writing, I should make use of some harsh and unmannerly expressions. And, on the strength of this freedom of speech being granted to me, I may, perhaps, in the first place, be justified in declaring, that it is impossible to say, whether the above passage be more remarkable for the ignorance, or for the insolence, which it betrays. The air of arrogance, and the dogmatical tone which you have assumed in laying down your position, exceeds any thing which I ever met with in the most determined pedant, or illiterate coxcomb.-Of you, Mr. Cobbett, it is particularly unworthy, who have on many occasions displayed your pretensions to the character of a sensible man. To condescend to argue the question which you have proposed for discussion, in detail, would be worse than useless', it would be rank folly: it would be exhibiting the beauty of colours and proportion to the blind, and throwing away the. charms of music upon the dead. No; thanks be to the learned languages,' their cause requires not the, support of such advocates as either you or myself. The sound hath. gone forth throughout the earth," and I am enabled by the statement of a mere, simple fact, to convince even you, Sir, of your absurdity, and of your audacious and inexampled effrontery. Answer me this question, Sir! To whom has " learning, properly so. called, which consists in the possession of knowledge, and in the capacity of communicating it to others," been principally and almost exclusively indebted? (Of course the proposed inquiry applies chiefly to the present state of learning in this country, and to its progress since the revival of, what is usually called, Letters.) Sir, I much doubt, whether you can answer this question to me, as a man, for I strongly suspect, that the works and history of those illustrious charac ters, to whom I allide,, are, for the most part, unknown to you. I will, therefore, myself, answer the question for you, in part: I will tell you, who have been the great friends and supporters of learning, properly so called, as they have distinguished themselves in almost every department of learn ing and science. Bacon, Milton, Locke, Boyle, Newton, Swift, Pope, and Addison, have, by their learning, been principally instrumental in enlarging the sphere of knowledge, and in contributing, moreover, by their works, to the civilization and happiness of mankind. This catalogue will hereafter be curiched with the names of other most estimable and distinguished characters of the same school. Chatbam, Burke, Fox, Paley, Priestley, Horne Took, and the late amiable and truly learned Beattie, together with, almost invariably, the brightest ornaments of the modern bar, and the most enlightened dignitaries of the church, are among those to whom true knowledge is under the greatest obligations. Can you suppose, Mr. Cobbett, that your own posthumous fame, for instance, will ever bear, for a moment, to be put in competition, with that of the above pamed accomplished and learned scholars? And whence did these men gather their knowledge, and acquire such undoubted claims to superior wisdom and virtue? Did the history of their own country only, and their own mother tongue, supply them with those stores of erudition and good taste, by which their minds were so greatly enriched and improved? Did the Goths and Vandals, and Anglo-Saxons, transmit to them the knowledge of the knowledge of the ingenuous arts,' and |