1 Etted for the task than myself, would have remarked upon the letter f Senex, and pointed out to the mass of your numerous readers, the utter insufficiency of the pleas advanced by him for the necessity of the Residence Act being repealed. No notice, however, having been taken of it in your succeeding number, I feel myself called upon thus to become your correspondent; and trust that my undertaking will not prove al together unsatisfactory.-The well established impartiality of your Register emboldens me to hope, that having presented your readers with one side of a question, you will not refuse to let the other be submitted to their inspection through the same channel. -It is said, by Senex, that " the present law " is more oppressive than the Act of Henry "the 8th., because the informer can now "recover five times as much as he could by "that Act." This is not altogether a fair statement; for by the present law the informer cannot recover one farthing, if the : bishop's licence for non-residence be obtained and, it remains with Senex to mention an instance where that licence has been refused where a sufficient plea was offered. The parallel between the clergy, and the country gentlemen will not hold out. That the latter should reside part of the year upon his estates, may be a moral duty, but that the clergy should reside the whole is a moral duty. The law has certainly made pro«vision for the duties of the clergy;" but not by allowing airates." The office of curate was originallynot so much to supply the place of incumbent, as to assist him as in the case of pluralites of livings, or where the clergyman was od and infirm. That young curates" may be respectable," we are far from denying, nay, we have the honour (for an honour we esteem it) of being intimately connected with many that are such; but, why, we would ask, may not old incumbents be equally so? Young curates may have greater powers of voice; but there are few old clergymen, we believe, whose voice is not loud enough to be heard in a church in the country, where in general the churches are not very large, neither are the congregations very numerous. And, let it be here observed, that Senex alludes chiefly to incumbents in the country, as appears from his lamenting their wanting "the aid "and comfort of the society in towns." Besides, it happens not very unfrequently, that the curate is as old as the incumbent. As to all the other parochial duties, it were. madness to suppose that they would not be even better performed by the old than by the young. For, must not the former, from long habits of intimacy, be more thoroughly acquainted with the various characters and dispositions of his people; and, consequently, must he not best know how to adapt his instructions to their advantage? May we not also suppose, without any disparagement to the younger clergy, that a conscientious minister, who has long resided among his parishioners, will be looked up to with more reverence and respect? That in visiing the sick, one of the most important of the ministerial duties, his exhortations, ad monitions, and consolations, will be applied more appropriately, and more effectually? and that, in fine, his general conduct, which we may reasonably conclude, will, in the decline of life, be more circumspect, will carry with it greater weight, and that it will be more readily and carefully imitated? "Bishops and the superior clergy may, "most of them, have been curates in their yonuger days." But we hope that, as they rise in years and in preferment, they do not sink in their regard to their duty, or that that respectability which they possessed when young, and which perchance aided them in their advancement, is, now that they have attained the wished-for eminence, forfeited by any change of conduct. Such libellous opinions we cannot entertain.-It may be that "no complaint was ever brought against the clergy in parliament "for non-residence." But, surely, there was abundant ground for it before the passing of the late act; and much as we reprobate the qui tam measures, still we are of opinion that those measures have eventually been of service: those measures caused to be brought forward the late act, and that act, inasmuch as it has caused a more general residence of the clergy, is, we maintain, salutary. Whether its powers, have been committed in every instance to the most proper hands, and whether those powers have been sufficiently defined, are questions with which we are not now concerned. The only point insisted upon, is that the residence of the clergy is a duty which ought to be enforced, and every act which tends to that, unless indeed it be cruelly oppres sive, is to be commended, and its supporters "deserve well of the public.Inclina "tion and duty" we allow are better" mo "tives than what are enforced by an act;" but why with inclination and duty, has Senex coupled that servile term "interest ?" If by interest be meant, the bare saving of the salary allowed to a curate, or any other such consideration, in what consists the difference between residing from such motives, and" from dread of pains and penalties ? "It is natural for men to hope to have the "privilege of living, in the decline of life, where they please." But, where, it may be asked, could they, after having spent "their best days in the duties of their pa"rish," where could they more wish to repose, than in that same parish? Where may they look for aid, if not at the hand of those for whom they have so long laboured? Where for comfort, if not in contemplating those good seeds, which they, themselves, have sown, maturing and bringing forth fruit? Where shall they find friends, if not amongst those, who are endeared to them by the strong ties of gratitude; whom they have been conferring the most important obligations, viz. Instructing them how to secure those treasures which will never fail, eternal in the heavens. Where shall they look for society, if not in the company of those, who have so long been their fellow travellers through life, and with whom they may humbly hope still to go on, hand in hand, till they arrive at the kingdom of heaven, and their receive the reward of their labour Surely, to a good man, his own parish cannot but afford all on the aid and comfort of society, all the "friendships and relationships," which a good man can desire. That the clergy amending the Treating Act. As your liberal candour has rendered this Register open to every writer whose intentions and wishes are directed to the interest of his country, you will perhaps allow these few remarks to be inserted in it. I think you have not, in deciding on the merits of this bill, extended your observations to the great advantage which will result from obliging the electors who reside at a distance from the place of election, to pay their own expenses in travelling there. The consideration which presses itself strongly on my mind, and which makes me extremely anxious that this bill should pass; is this: that it will have the effect of redressing a great grievance in the representation of boroughs. The cases are numerous in which the inhabitants of boroughs possess all the claims to a representation which are given by birth, inhabitancy, and property. Claims on which the principle of representation was first founded, and on which it ought to continue, and yet are prevented, not only from participating in it, but are totally excluded; whilst, on the other hand, strangers having none of these claims to constitute their right, but in every respect unconnected with the interests of the borough, alone enjoy the privilege of returning its members. The representation of boroughs has been called the rotten part of this constitution; but I do not thus opprobriously speak of it, when I see some powerful Peer, who has by acts of benevolence secured the love and affection of his tenants and dependents, consulted by them for the choice of a representative for their borough, neither would I condemn the system, if a part of the electors were strangers, and even admitted for the sole purpose of an election, But, Mr. Cobbett, when I perceive the rights of a borough wrested from the legal proprietors and usurped by a few individuals, for the purpose of making an election dictated by the elected, who visit the place only when this purpose renders it necessary, and who contribute to none of its burthens; when these and these only exer of the church of England are subject to hardships" is but too true, We well know many hardships that exist, and, we also know some clergymen, who suffer under them; who feel, yet complain not; who sigh, yet submit. But such of then as "discharge their duty with zeal and abili"ty" will never, we are persuaded, reckon amongst their hardships, the being required to rent in at their posts, and that too in these most critical and trying times of public danger:" there it is that duty requires them, for there it is that their zeal and ability can be most successfully exerted. Many other remarks upon the letter of Sehex might be offered, but already, Sir, your time and patience have been too much intruded upon. Without, therefore, commenting further, I shall conclude, with sub-cise the privilege of electing representatives, scribing myself, your obedient servant, M. N.- -New-Brentford, April 2, 1806. TREATING BILL. SIR,I do not find myself frequently dessenting from your opinions, for they are founded on principles of too much integrity of independence, and matured by too much judgment and reflection, and directed to objects of too great an importance, to be easi ly controverted. But I cannot coincide in your view of the bill of Mr. Tierney for and the inhabitants, who have property for which they claim security, that it shall not be disposed of without their consent, and who are obliged to defray all the expenses of the borough, are denied the right of joining in the election; then, Sir, I exclaim against the system as bring a rotten part of the constitution, with this consideration, that, as it is the glory of the British constitution that its foundation rests on the love of confidence of the people, we must regret whenever there is a shadow of cause for dissatisfaction. as depriving them of their franchises, that AFFAIRS OF INDIA. SIR.- -The candour and impartiality of your Weekly Register, and the readiness with which, upon all occasions, you admit into it any remarks, though in opposition to your own sentiments, induce me to give my opinion on a subject, which you do not seem accurately to have understood. When the charter of the East India Company was renewed in 1793, the sum of half a million sterling a year was to be paid into the Exchequer, provided there should be a surplus in each year, equal to that sum, after paying a variety of expences, which were first to be made from the resources of the East India Company. It follows, therefore, of course, that if, since 1793, there have not been assets sufficient to pay all the charges which were to precede the payment of half a million annually to, the Exchequer, the Company cannot be said to be indebted several millions to the public, unless an unexpected change should take place prior to the expiration of the charter.-But another question now comes, which is, whether the nation was deluded by a false statement of the assets of the Company in 1793, and thereby led to expect a pecuniary aid from India, which it was impossible to realise.To this I answer, that after the fullest investigation of the Company's affairs, it did not appear at the time, that Lord Melville had overstated the expected receipts of reve nue in India, or the profits of the Com It behoves us, Sir, when assailed by foes from without to guard against foes within. Were you to talk to these inhabitants of their representatives, you would insult their feelings, I have not exaggerated this grie, vance. I was passing through a small borough in the county of Dorset, a few days since in which I witnessed its greatest extent. One of the setting members had vacated his seat, or in other words, the stipulated period for which he was to retain it having expired, he had legally resigned it in to the hands of the donor to be transferred to another, and this successor was then to be elected. The right of election was vested in freemen, the greater number of whom resided at a considerable distance from the borough. The intended representative colJected them on his way from London to the place of election, at which the few remaining formalities of the law had required their attendance. From the description of the electors, I should judge they had became such on this rule: that the more re mote they lived from the borough, and the inore alienated they were from its interests, the more qualified were they to determine the merit of him whom the constitution had appointed the guardian of the borough, Sull, however, they returned the member, whilst 100 of the inhabitants, possessed of property, residents from their birth, and bearing the burthens of the town, were not even allowed to share in the exercise of that right on which is formed a branch of the government. With what confidence, they asked, can we give nstructions to their own representatives, or with what hope can we consider them as the guardians of our privileges, when they become such by in-pany's sales in England. The experience of yading them? This is the grievance of which I have always complained in the representation of boroughs, and it appears likely to be remedied by Mr. Tierney's bill. If these honorary freemen were obliged to defray the expenses of travelling to the borough, when their master requires their attendance at an election, you would find that, unless the individual on whose account they are made, can render them some compensation, they will be extremely cautious of involving themselves in expense, when they-It is possible that this excess of expendi can answer the reproaches of ingratitude for disregarding this maker of honorary freeman, by pleading the injustice of violating the rights of others. You will, at least, have the representatives of boroughs, not the representatives of one individual, but of that community in whom this right was vested by the constitution; and the electors Will be so far from considering Mr. Tierney sixteen years has proved, that the revenues of India have exceeded, in sixteen years, the amount at which they were estimated by Lord Melville, at least in the proportion of one third. If, then, you should ask, why it is that the half million was paid in a single year only, the answer would be very easy; because the expenses in India have exceeded Lord Melville's calculation, in a. proportion far greater than that in which the revenues have gone beyond his calculation. ture, beyond the estimate of 1793, might have been unavoidable. It is possible that it might have been occasioned by wars imprudently, waged. It is possible it might have been occasioned by the unnecessary increase of an army, which many thought was, in 1793, fully equal to any service that might have been required from it. It is also possible, that the wars in which the ! nation has been engaged in India, were unavoidable; that they were commenced on principles of the soundest policy, and conducted with strict economy, and with great military skill.-These, Mr. Cobbett, are points which are to be determined by the enquiry now pending in the House of Commons; but most assuredly, as you now think, the East India Company are free from all blame, if it should hereafter be proved, that unnecessary wars in India have been expensively conducted, or that the civil and military establishments in India have been much higher than necessity required. The power of fixing those establishments was actually in his majesty's ministers; and they had, in fact, the appointment of governors and commanders in chief. The Directors could not even censure a governor without the consent of the king's ministers. I know of no difference between the bill proposed by Mr. Fox in 1782, and that of Mr. Pitt which passed into a law in 1784, and was renewed in 1793, but this; Mr. Fox's bill threw the whole patronage, both at home. and in India, into the hands of commissioners nominated by parliament. The bill of Mr. Pitt left to the Company a very considerable extent of patronage at home, but it gave to commissioners appointed by his Majesty, as complete political power, as was to have been given to the parliamentary commissioners under Mr. Fox's bill. It follows, therefore, that his Majesty's late ministers are entitled to all the credit, or to all the discredit, that may be due, for the good or bad government of India from 1784 to this day. I own it has very much astonished me, to find sensible men, of all parties, so ignorant on a subject free from every thing like obscurity. Since the year 1784, the most accurate accounts have been delivered to parliament, of the receipts and expenditure, in each year, in India. If any gentleman will look at these accounts, he will see that the revenues of each year have been in a progressive state of increase, until they amount at present to more than twelve millions sterling a year. They will see, at the same time, that the debt of India is much more than double, nearly treble, the amount at which it stood in 1784. They will observe also, that from 1765 to 1784, no bullion was sent from England to India, though within that period a very considerable quantity of bullion was brought from India to England. They will observe also, that since 1784, bullion to a very considerable amount has been sent from England to India, and that the Lills drawn upon England, by the governments in India, between 1784 and 1805, very far exceed in amount the bills drawn from 1765 to 1784. If the information stopped here, I should not wonder that the question was asked, how has all this happened? Yet the same accounts shew how the revenues have been expended, and how the debt has been more than doubled. A certain sum has been appropriated, in each year, to the purchase of investments, and the remaining revenues have been expended in paying the civil tand military expences of India. The result then is this, that the revenues of India have not been sufficient, from 1784 to 1806, to pay the expences of India, and for the investments sent home, in the precise sum that the debt has been increased since 1784, in the first place; in the second, to the amount of the bullion sent from England to India; and in the third, to the amount of the bills drawn upon England by the governments of India. If, upon investigation, it shall appear, that the civil and military establishments of India have been fixed upon a higher scale than was necessary, where will the censure fall? Not on the Directors most assuredly, but on the Commissioners. If it shall appear that hostilities were unnecessarily carried on against the native powers, when the expense must, in the nature of things, have been enormous, because a large army in the field, at a great distance from our own frontiers, is much more expensive than a large army in garrisons and cantonments, on whom must the censure fall? Certainly not on the Directors, who could not have been consulted as to the prudence of those wars, and whose opinion went for nothing after all, if his Majesty's ministers did not concur in their opinion.--For the commercial concerns of the Company, the Directors most undoubtedly are responsible; but his Majesty's late ministers, and the governments in India, who were under the controul of those ministers, are to be praised or censured, as the political transactions in India shall appear, on investigation, to have been wise or impolitic.-J. S. W. — Brighton, 14th April, 1806. LLOYD'S TUND. SIR-Your known impartiality induces me to hope that you will insert the following observations addressed to the Committee at Lloyd's in your weekly paper. Impressed as I was, in common with all my countrymen, with sentiments of grati tude and respect towards the heroes who in the brilliant victories off Trafalgar, raised the British flag to an unparallelled pitch of renown, I seiz: I with eager ness the earliest opportunity of offering my mite to the Patriotic Fund: a fund, both nominally and virtually endowed for the benefit of the widows and orphans of those who fell in the action. What then was my surprise when I perused the resolutions which proposed the donation of swords, and other expensive rewards to the commanders of the respective ships: and how much is that surprise now encreased, when I perceive the continuation of the same system manifested in the large sums voted to Sir T. Duckworth, Admiral Cochrane, &c for their conduct in the late deci ́sive action in the West Indies. Far be it from me to depreciate in the slightest degree, the merits of the gallant commanders of our fleets-I respect them as the saviours of my country. But, I appeal to every one of them, (and I am confident in the justice of my appeal) whether they would not prefer the soothing reflection that the families of their brave departed messmates are provided with the comforts and blessings of life, to the possession of gaudy trinkets, and useless. decorations? Let it not be said, that the funds are adequate to both purposes; for were it not infinitely preferable to encrease the charitable benefactions, beyond what is necessary for mere subsistence, than to offer superfluous rewards to those whose glory is elevated far above the remuneration, which such trivial ornaments can bestow? Moreover, in a constitutional point of view, I would ask, whether a self-created committee is empowered to award the recompence of military merit, which has hitherto been considered a privilege inherent in the Crown and Senate ?-When the committee thought fit to promote a general collection at the parish churches, many thinking men objected to such a precedent, but the objection was overruled by the supposed benevolence of the intention. Can it for a moment be supposed, that either public or private contributions to the fund, had in contemplation the objects now pursued ? and would not the ends of benevolence, justice, and sound policy, be infinitely bet ter answered, by alleviating misery to the ntmost limits of liberality, than by offering inadequate rewards to superior meirt I remain, Sir, your faithful and devoted W. C. servant, FOREIGN OFFICIAL PAPER. FRENCH ANNUAL EXPOSÉ, at the Opening of the Session of the Legislative Body at Paris, March 3, 1805. (Concluded from p. 480.) The first has already enlivened all those those countries, to which it promises a new existence; the second connecting with the modious, and more secure. Basins are dig- eight hundred and fifty thousand francs have been expended on the military ports. This sum has been principally applied in the excavations, the jetties of the Mole, the construction of the outer port and basin, and the foundation of the new port, Bonaparte, which, destined to complete this beautiful maritime creation, and worthy of his name, will be, on the Channel, the terror of Eng land; at Boulogne, the basin and the sluice, the completion of the works which constitute the whole of the port, and the construc tion of the establishments by which it is sure |