are shrewd observers of passing events, and seeing the excessive favour that is shown to Lord Cardigan, they look for a cause; and, as “his wealth and his earldom” are not to be deemed the cause, they ask what is it?—whence did it originate, and how has it thus continued ?

In all the transactions connected with this regiment, we are forced to blame, much and deeply, Lord Hill, the General commanding-in-chief. All the faults of the court-martial are his, for he has adopted and confirmed them. But furtherLord Hill must answer the original fault of sinning against experience, in appointing Lord Cardigan at all to the command of the lith Hussars. He must answer the further fault of keeping Lord Cardigan in that command under circumstances which, if they have not led Lord Hill, have at all events led the public at large, to conclude, that it is not for the good of her Majesty's service. He must answer the fault of “ hoping against hope,” in the confident trust he has expressed, and in which he has already been disappointed, that after the court-martial there would be harmony and concord in the 11th Hussars, and that there would be no further complaint from any officer against the lieutenant-colonel.

Lord Hill has executed justice (as he is pleased to call it) upon Captain R. A. Reynolds. The thing called justice is not really so, unless it be equal_impartial—without respect of persons and founded upon immutable principles. Prin

ciples will never bend nor vary, though circumstances may. We will compare the offences and the punishments of Lord Cardigan and Captain R. A. Reynolds respectively, and see how far the comparison is satisfactory;

Lord Cardigan was found to have introduced into the 15th Hussars practices " revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman.” He was not charged simply with want of temper and discretion, or with error in judgmentthe imputation was of an entirely different kind, and more grave. His punishment was removal to half-pay. We do not complain of the lightness of the punishment, for it was an act of mercy; and mercy is a sacred prerogative, which we would willingly leave unfettered.'i..

Captain Reynolds' offence consisted in writing an offensive and disrespectful letter, under feelings of excitement. Which of the two offences was the greater? Was his conduct revolting to the “proper and honourable feelings of a gentleman”? His punishment was the being cashiered. His offence was less iban Lord Cardigan's-his punishment infinitely more. Is this to be called justice—and is the army, and are the public, to be satisfied with it? We know that they are not, and will not be, for we know that Englishmen, above all things, love justice. The voice of mercy was heard in the one case—it was silent in the other. A young and gracious queen would have been but too happy to be reminded of that mercy, of which it is said

“ It is twice bless'd. It blesscth him that gives, and him that takes; 'Tis migbtiest in the mightiest; it becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown." Yes, an act of grace to a gallant and high-spirited soldier, who would exultingly pour out his heart's best blood in her service, would have more adorned our fair young queen in the eyes of her people, than does the brightest gem that sparkles on her brow. All that's bright must fade-her beauty and her glory shall depart—be the time far distant! but her deeds of mercy and beneficence will be remembered when all else is forgotten ; for they will be written with an everlasting pen, in that book by which princes and subjects shall alike be judged.

Further, we will compare the offences and the punishments of Major-General Sleigh and Captain R. A. Reynolds respectively, and see whether the comparison is more satisfactory. Major-General Sleigh, having a command in the East Indies, in the Bombay presidency, took upon him to put under arrest a distinguished officer, and of high rank, Brigadier-General Sir Thomas Willshire, K.C.B., being next in command to himself, for issuing an order which he was instructed to issue personally by the comniander-in-chief. He informed MajorGeneral Sleigh of the authority by which he had issued the order, and referred him, if he desired corroboration, to the commander-in-chief himself, who was on the spot. MajorGeneral Sleigh made no reference to, or enquiry of, the commander-in-chief, but placed Sir Thomas Willshire in arrest, and assigned the command of his brigade to a junior officer. All the circumstances were reported to Lord Hill, and there is in print a copy of the letter of Lord Fitzroy Somerset, his military secretary, to General Sir Henry Fane, dated the 13th September, 1837, containing the judgment of Lord Hill upon the case. The offence of Major-General Sleigh was insubor. dination to the commander-in-chief, and that of a more flagrant and outrageous kind than any we can remember. To borrow some of the words of Lord Cardigan's charge, “such conduct was highly unbecoming a general officer, prejudicial to the interests of the service, and utterly subversive of good order and military discipline.” To borrow the words of the court-martial in their sentence on Captain Reynolds, such conduct was “ totally subversive of the fundamental principles by which all armies are governed, and ought to be stamped with marked reprobation. General Sleigh had not the excuse of youth, inexperience, or excitement, or indeed any other excuse whatever, and thus it appeared to Lord Hill. In the letter of the military secretary to Sir Henry Fane, there is the following remarkable passage: “There does not appear to Lord Hill to be the smallest circumstance, in any part of this case, which can be favourably considered as extenuating the conduct of Major-General Sleigh.” These are the premises; now for the conclusion: “ To remove the Major-General from his command in India, and thus to injure his present character and future prospects, however justifiable such a measure would be, might be said to be not altogether free from that severity with which he has acted towards another upon this occasion, and for which his conduct is now under the just censure of the General commanding-in-chief; and therefore, all circumstances considered, and giving full weight to the honourable testimonials, &c.," Lord Hill desires Major-General Sleigh to be removed from his command in Bombay, to such other station as Sir Henry Fane should think fit. His punishment, if so to be named, was simply to be removed from his actual command to another command of the same kind, and on the same footing. Again we say, we do not complain of an act of mercy; but is mercy in the army reserved only for the eldest sons of peers, and for general officers ? For an unheard-of act of insubordination-an act utterly unjustifiable, and declared to be without the smallest extenuating circumstance, Major-General Sleigh goes virtually unpunished; and when, in due time, he comes home, he is rewarded with the office of inspecting-general of cavalry, which office he now fills, and with the colonelcy of the 9th Lancers. And in virtue of this office of inspectinggeneral, and presenting in his own person a pattern of subordination, he was sent, in June last, to convene the officers of the 11th Hussars, and read them a communication from the Horse Guards, as to the case of Captain John W. Reynolds; to which he added the flippant and presumptuous declaration from himself to Captain John W. Reynolds, that he had by his conduct deprived himself of the sympathy of every officer of rank in the service.

For a much more venial act of insubordination than that

of Major-General Sleigh, Captain Richard A. Reynolds is cashiered. Unfortunately for the captain, his case admitted of extenuating circumstances, which the general's did not. His present character, also, was excellent, and his testimonials weighty and honourable, whence it plainly follows that he must be cashiered, and his future prospects blasted. The general had the singular good fortune that his conduct was not only without justification, but without the smallest circumstance of palliation—whence the conclusion is evident that he must go unpunished for the present; and as to future prospects, the event has shown that they were not injured, but improved. Had his case admitted of any possibility of argument or mitigation, Heaven knows whether that severity with which he had acted towards another might not have been visited upon himself.

Let us add, that the authority which preserved Lord Cardigan to the army, in the year 1834, and restored him to command in the year 1836, the authority which left General Sleigh unpunished in 1837, and has since conferred upon him a double reward, and the authority which has cashiered Captain Richard A. Reynolds in the year 1840, are one and the same; Lord Hill has throughout been the general commanding-in-chief. With this observation we shall conclude, adding only, that the injury which has been done personally to Captain Richard A. Reynolds may be repaired; but that the outrages which have been committed upon public feeling in all these transactions demand a high satisfaction, which the people—the just, and thinking, and reasoning people will require, and which the Crown, if well advised, will not refuse.

Art. V.--The Quarterly Review for December, 1840. TH THE last number of the Quarterly Review contains an

article entitled “Romanism in Ireland,” which has been generally attributed to a learned professor of the University of Oxford, and which may, perhaps, be taken as the manifesto of the party to which the Review and the University belong. Although it is not usual for one Review to enter into a discussion with another, yet, as the article in question is announced as the first of a series

pon the same subject, and as it is possible that these compositions may correctly indicate the future conduct of one party in the state--as we are, besides, of opinion, that to give any entertainment or countenance to the speculations and opinions which are advanced in the article, would be highly injurious to the empire at large, and would be most eminently detrimental to the deplorable country which is the subject of discussion—as, in the last place, the principal statements of fact which are therein made or insinuated, are altogether, or to a very great extent, unfounded, in as far as they are pertinent in any considerable degree to the matter in hand, or indeed to any other matter whatever—we think it right, for all these reasons, to submit the article in question to a minute and deliberate examination.

In proceeding to enter upon the performance of this duty, we find it to be altogether impossible to distribute our observations into any order of arrangement which can have the effect of presenting to the reader a distinct and harmonious view of the whole subject-matter in controversy. We profess not, however, upon the present occasion, to do anything more than to refute in detail some of the numberless errors of reasoning, and to subvert, by authentic and unquestionable evidence, a portion of the multitudinous misstatements of matters of fact which constitute almost the whole mass of the article in question. For the purpose of accomplishing this object, we must, of course, pursue the steps of the writer through all his tortuous entanglements of matter, style, and opinion; and we cannot, therefore, help shrinking at the contemplation of the confusion and perplexity of the scene upon which we are entering. The gentleman to whom the article has been universally attributed, is said in several quarters to be a person of great literary accomplishments. In reference to this point, one of two things must, we think, be unquestionably true : either that his admirers labour under the most extraordinary delusion, or, if he really possess the accomplishments for which he obtains credit, that the composition which we have now under consideration must belong to that species, described by Quintilian :* “ Cujus virtutes ex industria quoque occultantur.” The style of the article belongs, in fact, to the department of what is called “ writing," concerning which Mr. Pope has very justly observed,

“ Your easy writing, though, is damned hard reading." Indeed nothing can be more evident than that the writer, if we may judge of his capacity from the article under conside

easy