good a force as can be desired; but, if England is herself invaded or seriously threatened, these would of course be withdrawn; and then Ireland would remain to be defended by her own militia, and her own volunteers. Of the Irish militia it is unnecessary to say more, than that the whole of the men, with some trifling exceptions, are Catholics, and that they, not being under the control of the priests, or commanded by Catholic officers, are of all the Catholics of Ireland the most likely to make mistakes, (as two regiments before did at Cantlebar), if opposed to a French force. The volunteers

of Ireland proved themselves before the Union the most loyal subjects of his Majesty. I hope that that measure has not produced any alteration in their sentiments, though I must confess that I have very serious apprehensions that they still abhor and detest it. Under these circumstances it is that our army in Ireland is somehow or other to be equal to cope with a French force, whenever such a force may land; but to me it does appear impossible that such an army could stand a week before 10,000 French soldiers. If we look to security in the loyalty of the people of Ireland to the connection with Great Britain, as a sufficient protection of the continuance of that connection, I fear, with Mr. Grattan, that we shall be greatly disappointed. I do not mean to accuse the Irish nation of a want of loyalty to their king or country, but I cannot help judging of the extent of it that animates it from past and recent circumstances. I begin with those of 1798. The report of the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Commons informs us, that the rebellion of this year commenced in the North, and that nearly the whole body of the Presbyterians were concerned in it; that the Catholics were afterwards invited to join the Presbyterians; that they did so, and, finally, that nearly all the Catholics of Ireland were also concerned in it. From this authority we may infer that 9-10ths of the population of Ireland were in 1798 in open rebellion against the connection with Great Britain, taking the population at. 5 millions, the Catholics at 4 millions, and the Presbyterians at 1 a million, an inference that entirely agrees with the statements of Lord Clare, Dr. Duigenan, Deputy Birch, Lord Limerick, and Mr. Giffard, and of all those eminent characters who oppose emancipation and advise martial law. This being the state of things in Ireland in 1798, let those persons answer these two questions who now maintain that we can defend Ireland without conceding to the Catholics. 1st. Has any thing

happened since 1798 to change the sentiments of these 9-10ths of the people from a wish to separate the two countries, into a wish to see them more firmly connected? 2dly. Has any thing happened since 1799 to change the sentiments of the remaining 1-10th, who shed their blood so profusely and loyally in defence of the connection, and to induce them to become less anxious to uphold and support the connection? To the first question every candid man must answer by an unqualified negative. Nothing has happened that can have conciliated the mind of the disaffected of Ireland. But, on the contrary, when, at length, a parliament and a ministry existed favourable to their, views, because they were so, both have. been dissolved. To the second question he must answer: yes. Those loyal Protestants who stood firai in the hour of danger, who enabled us to maintain the connection with Ireland, have had great reason to complain of our conduct towards them: we forced the measure of union upon them in spite of their attachment to their parliament, and the rights that we acknowledged in 1782 to belong to then. We undertook to give them peace by the Union; they have already experienced the horrors of one insurrection in their own metropolis, and they are still exposed to all the horrors of religious feuds and divisions. And can we, then, expect to derive from the irish all the aid of ardent loyalty in protecting our interests, and opposing our enemies? The delusion is too great to exist one moment in the weakest muiderstanding; the truth is, we must conciliate Ireland or Ireland will be lost. God grant that the same blind and obstinate policy which has influenced all public measures daring a long period of time may not deprive us of Ireland, as it before tore from us our American possessions. The conduct of the present ministers bears so strict an analogy to the mad policy of those who governed in the American war, that I cannot refrain from referring to it. What was their conduct with regard to America? Whose counsels did they despise? What measures did they adopt? What issue did they produce? They despised the counsels of Mr. Burke, who advised conciliation. They adopted measures of coercion, and a military system of government. They lost America; and so will these ministers, in the same manner, lose Ireland, if they neglect, in time, to avail themselves of an unqualified concession to the Irish Catholics of their just and natural rights.I have the honour to be, &c. MENTOR.

July 31, 187.

IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.

po

SIR,-The debate which took place in the House of Commons on the third time of reading the bill for suspending the constitution in Ireland, affords another melancholy proof, if any further proof were wanted, of the mode in which the present ministers mean to govern Ireland; and it affords a still more melancholy spectacle of the weakness of human nature, in the speech of a great patriot on that memorable occasion. Mr. Grattan finding himself called upon too loudly to be silent, in order to account for his approbation of this bill on a former night, at length declared, though he did not venture to disclose his authority, "that he had been told, there was a French party in Ireland who were ready to avow themselves the moment the enemy reached the Irish shore." And, yet, oh, most lamentable inconsistency in the very next sentence, he declares, that he does not impute to his countrymen any determined design to destroy the fundamental licy of British connection. "But," says he, "I still assert there is a French party in Ireland;" be then resorts to the old Pitt argument, that by suspending the constitution it will ultimately be preserved. He ought rather to have said, "if there is such a party, disarm them, by improving the condition of the people, and leaving them no temptation to seek for foreign aid." Is it possible, that such an instance of inconsistency can exist in human nature, as that a man, who, in the very heat of a rebellion, warmly espoused the cause of those whom he termed his injured countrymen, and was himself within an inch of being falsely accused, should, all at once, and without producing any satisfactory motive for his conduct, join in the very measures he has so long and so uniformly reprobated; and at length prefer the desperate mode of governing by force, to that of redress and conciliation is it possible that Henry Grattan can have made the speech imputed to him in the papers of Tuesday, July 28th? For God's sake, let him declare how the situation of Ireland is different now from what it was in 1798. What boon, what favour, what concession have the Irish received from the English government, to make them more attached to it now than they were then. I say this, supposing that there is a French party in Ireland, which I do not believe, for I am verily and truly of opinion, that notwithstanding all the Irish do suffer, and have suffered, there is not a body of men in the whole country of an hundred strong, that would any where join the French on their landing, because they know that the French

*

:

would treat them worse than they are now treated. The state of Ireland, from the time of Henry 2d. to the present moment, I have always commiserated, and till I see a disposition on the part of the English government to redress her grievances, and to govern her by kindness rather than by force, I shall applaud every lawful effort she makes to obtain what she has so long in vain attempted to obtain, either as a right or a favour. The stupifying authority of a great name must have been excessive, when only eight members could be found in the House of Commons to vote against a bill for which not one atom of necessity was produced, and without one promise being given, that it was merely a measure of precaution, preparatory to more lenient and conciliatory treatment,

Yours,Morpeth.

-W. BURDON. -Hartford, near

IRISH CATHOLICS,

SIR,- -Your second letter to Mr. Perce. val, and the letter of Civis in the last number of your Register, have put the Catholic Question in so clear a point of view, that until some reply shall be given to your remarks, I shall suppose that they carry general conviction with them. I would

not, therefore, again trouble you upon this subject, were it not to introduce an anecdote in very modern history, which proves that Mr. Pitt was not the first statesman who conceived an idea of an union with Ireland, and Catholic emancipation, which ought, in my opinion, to have been one and the same measure.In the ap pendix to Sir John Dalrymple's Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, he relates the following anecdote, as he calls it: "It was

intended, in April of the year 1776, that "the late earl of Rochford, with whom I "had the honour to live more like a brother "than a friend, should succeed the Earl "of Harcourt in the government of Ire"land., Lord Rochford shewed me his

"that the dearest friend he had in the "world was Lord Harcourt, and that he "would be obliged to me, if I would go "over to Ireland, let Lord Harcourt know "the offer which he (Lord Rochford) had got, his hesitation, and his two views, " and receive Lord Harcourt's opinions and reasons on those views, which could be "better done by conversation than by let<< ters. When I delivered my letter to the "Lord Lieutenant, he smiled, and said, "" 66 a Nassau may do in this country what I cannot; and Rochford is frank and open, " and will please the Irish. But what you "come about requires much talking over.” "I staid a week with him, at his country "house. With regard to the penal has, "he thought there was not much diffi

culty; that the Roman Catholics were "all on the side of England, and of the king of England, in the American war; and that very good use might be made of "them in the course of it; and there are

66

men now serving, high both in church, " and state, who remember the conversa"tions on that head, and that they thought 66 on it as he did. But with regard to the "other object, Lord Harcourt thought "there were great difficulties, though per"haps not insurmountable."--I will not continue the extract-Lord Harcourt proposed that 100 commoners should represent Ireland, and 40 peers; but supposed it would require time to persuade the Irish nation to consent to an union. With regard to the repeal of the penal laws against the Roman Catholics, there seems to have been a general concurrence, in 1776; and though Mr. Pitt, when he effected the union in 1801, could not promise, what he had not the power of himself to perform, yet no rational man in Ireland could suppose, that he would have authorised Lord Cornwallis and Lord Castlereagh to give the assurances which they did give to the lead ing Roman Catholics, unless he had previously known his Majesty's sentiments on the subject. Such, however, appeared to be the case. The fact stated by Lord Harcourt that the Roman Catholics were all on the side of England in the American war, we all know to be true; and that they were of essential service is also true. But if it was of importance in that day that they should side with England, of how much more importance is it that they should to a man do so now. What has been left undone by senseless bigotry, since the late ministers were turned out, to provoke the Catholics to acts of indiscretion at least, if not to drive them to desperation; for, as you very

justly remark, no addresses were presented,. no clergyman thought the church in danger by Lord Howick's bill, until it was clear the late ministers had no chance of being re, stored to their offices. Much praise is bestowed on the Roman Catholics of Ireland for their moderation under the unmerited abuse which has been levelled at them. But it is a mistake to suppose that this moderation is the result of apathy, or from their not feeling as they ought after such provocation. They have a confidence in the good sense of the people of England, who, though they may be misled for a time by the arts of designing men, will soon be ashamed of their own conduct. Indeed, I believe a very great majority of those who joined in the cry of "No Popery," are already ashamed of themselves for having joined in it.

A PROTESTANT, BUT NO BIGOT. 7th June, 1807.

POLICE MAGISTRATES.

SIR, The impartiality and justice which form so prominent a feature in your excellent Weekly Publication, will, I have not any doubt, secure the insertion of an answer to the attack made by the Kentish Magistrate on that very useful body of men, the Police Magistrates-The first charge advanced by your correspondent is, that at a contest for a choice of treasurer of the county for Surrey some years ago, the police magistrates interfered, to the extreme disgust of the country gentlemen. Now, Sir, with regard to the interference of police magistrates, I see no objection to that, provided it be not done in an illegal way, or the influence of office be not unduly made use of. What reason or justice is there in excluding a police magistrate from exercising a right which he has in common with his fellow citizens? If the office of magistracy had been debased by its influence being used illegally or unduly, why not bring the offender to justice in the same manner you would any other criminal? "But this has been done to the extreme disgust of country gentlemen, and whatever excites their disgust must be wrong." This appears to be the argument of the Kentish Magistrate; but, I deny that an act which causes disgust in country gentlemen, must necessarily be wrong. You, Mr. Cobbett, have assisted in tearing away the veil which, covered the abuses of the state, and have discovered naked to the public view their horrible deformities. This manly and patriotic conduct has excited disgust, great disgust amongst country gentlemen, I mean such of them as have grown rich by public plunder, or who thrive by that disease which you seek

to cure (and towards which exposure is the first step; for before proper remedies can be applied towards the cure of a disease, you must be acquainted with its nature). And country gentlemen of this description are the persons who have most influence in county affairs. It therefore does not by any means follow of necessity, that to excite disgust in country gentlemen is to do wrong. And, I have my suspicions that in the instance alJuded to, though I have not any other knowledge of the transaction than what is furnished by your correspondent, that the country gentlemen (by which expression I mean the description of them above alluded to) found an opposition to their views to which they had previously received implicit obedience. All before was snug and coinfortable. They sailed on a smooth sea, not a breeze was stirring of public spirit to impede their course. It is, therefore, extremely natural that the gale blown up by the police magistrates, should have excited something like dissatisfaction in the minds of the country gentlemen. However this may be, Mr. Cobbett, and supposing the conduct of the police magistrates to have been as bad as the nature of the case could possibly admit of, can your correspondent unblushingly present the accusation of undue interference at elec. tions. It is a rule in our courts of law, that a suitor for redress must come with clean hands. Then shall a person who classes himself with the magistrates of Middlesex obtain redress through your Register on the ground of improper interference at elections? The conduct of the magistrates on that occasion was such, that it no sooner presents itself than all other acts of that nature are lost. The stars attract attention, but no sooner does the sun make his appearance than they vanish from the view. But independent"ly of the impropriety of such interference, "it is improper and alarming that persons "appointed, paid by, and renioveable at the "will of the crown, should act, much more

66

preside, at the sessions of those counties "where their offices are situated; their so "doing not only weakens, (I might say destroys) the benefit of an appellant jurisdiction, but lessens the magistracy in the eyes of the people" This, Sir, is your correspondent's statement, but what impropriety or alarm can arise, I confess I ani utterly at a loss to conjecture, unless he means that if a person who holds a place under the crown, should follow the dictates of his own judgment when opposed to the interests of the crown, he will receive his dismissal. And, therefore, it is to be apprehended that he will not act conscientiously in is office.

A pretty compliment this for a magistrate, a servant of the crown, to pay to his master ! An associate of the magistrates of Middlesex too, alarmed at magisterial influence be ing improperly applied! Your correspondent has put the signature of a Kentish Magistrate to his letter; but, I suspect that he is not entitled to the character which he has assumed, or he never would have been ignorant that the charges which he has brought against the police magistrates, apply with equal force to the county magistrates. Are not the county magistrates appointed by, and removeable at the mere will of the crown, equally with the police officers? And do not county magistrates preside at sessions to which appeals from their acts must come, and where persons whom they have committed, and against whom they have received ex parte evidence must be tried? Your correspondent also states, that he has been at the Middlesex sessions when police magistrates exclusively occupied the Bench? Is not this a strong argument in favour of police magistrates? Does it not show that county magistrates neglect the duties of their office, and prove the necessity that persoas on whom more reliance can be placed should have a power co-extensive with themselves > "But when they attend," it is objected "that they have undisputed powers of the bench." This I consider to be the effect of superiority of raind, which ought to give them the ascendancy. That they are superior in understanding, cannot be denied. The discovery of the guilt of Patch, who was convicted of murdering his master, proves the assertion. And many other instances night be adduced, but one is sufficient. It is foreign from my intention to enter into a discussion of the merits and demerits of cur police system, for demerits I admit it has, though not of the nature mentioned by your correspondent. I mean merely to confine myself to answer the charges advanced by your Maidstone correspondent.-1 am, Sir, yours.- R. RE.

BALLOT SYSTEM.

SIR,I have read with peculiar satisfaction the remarks in your last paper on the Ballotting System. I beg leave to observe, that whenever a ballot takes place in the metropolis, a gang of notorious swindlers immediately publish pompous bills and advertisements, and open offices in different parts of the town, under pretence of insuring substitutes for those who are so unfortunate as to be drawn. Many of these fellows are actually confined in the King's Bench and Fleet Prison, who, with the assistance of an

active, roguish agent out of doors, manage their business so adroitly as to extort some thousands from the honest and industrious part of the community. These swindling adventurers have no intention of satisfying their claimants. Their only object is to receive all they can, and the moment the ballot commences is the signal for winding up accounts, shutting up their offices, and decamping with the cash. It is a fact, that, at the period when the army of reserve was set on foot, a notorious swindler, now dead, made more than £1,500 in about five months, by rolling hivery servants, mechanics and shopmen of their hard earnings, without finding or ever intending to find, a single substitute for any person who insured with him. One High Constable realized a bandsome fortune by insuring; and now lives in the stile of a nobleman. When Mr. Yorke, as Secretary at War, was apprized of such improper practices, he endeavoured to stop them by a clause inflicting a penalty of £100, on every High Constable taking insurances. This, permit me to say, has been completely evaded. A confidential person is now employed, who, with the assistance of some of the clerks, acting under the court of licutenancy, realise very considerable sums without the possibility of detection; the opportu nities they have of exonerating their subscribers from the effects of the ballot, (at least for a time) must be evident to every one. The drawing takes place. Some of their customers are fixed on. The return of non est inventus on the back of the precept is received as a matter of course without any farther investigation. The penalty is now doubled. Twenty pounds instead of ten pounds. Of course, all the tricks alluded to will be played off with redoubled vigour. Yours.-A C. R.

PUBLIC PAPER. WAR WITH DENMARK-Declaration published by the Court of Denmark against | England.

All Europe is acquainted with the system which Denmark has followed, during a period of 15 years of war and disturbance, with unceasing perseverance. The rigid observance of a free and impartial neutrality, and the conscientious fulfilment of all the duties belonging thereunto, have formed the object of all its wishes and all its efforts. The Danish Government, in its relations and connections with other States, has never lost sight of that simplicity, which was insepara ble from the purity of its sentiments and its love of peace, and which it cannot be snspected of having once changed or debili

tated. Hitherto Providence has blessed out undertakings. Without injustice, without any ground of reproach from any of the other Powers, we succeeded in keeping up a good understanding with the whole of them. This state of peace and tranquillity is sutdenly annihilated. The English Govern-. meat, after having long neglected its own interests by a shameful inactivity, and after having betrayed its allies into a vexatious and uncertain struggle, has suddenly developed all its power and activity, to attack a neutral and peaceable State, without any complaint against the same. The means for dissolving the ancient and sacred connections which united Denmark to Great Britain, have been prepared with as much secrecy as promptiinde. The Danish Government saw the English ships of war upon their coast without even the conjecture that they were to be employed against Denmark. The island of Zealand was surroundel, the capital threatened, and the Danish territories violated and injured, before the Court of London had made use of a single word to express the hostility of its feelings. This hostility, however, soon became evident: -Europe will with dithenity believe what it will hear. The basest, the most violent and cruel object which could ever have been taken up, has no other foundation than some pretended information, or rather that of a mere tumour of an attempt, which, according to the English Ministry, was to have taken place, in order to draw Denmark into an hostile allince against Great Britain. Upon these pretended grounds, which the least degree of discussion immediately would have shown as being founded upon arbitrary measures alone, the English Government declared to the Court of Denmark, in the most imperious manner, that in order to secure its own interests, and to provide for its own safety, it could leave Denmark no other choice than a war, or a close alliance with Great Britain. And what kind of alliance did they offer? An alliance, the first guarantee of which, as a pledge of the subjection of Denmark, was to have delivered up all her ships of war to the British Government. There could be no hesitation as to the alternative that was to be adopted This opening being made, as scandalous in its offers as in its menaces-as offensive in the manner as in the thing itself-left no room for negociation. most justifiable and rooted disdain naturally absorbed every other feeling. Placed between danger and dishonour, the Danish Government had no choice. The war commenced DeLanark was by no means blind to the dangers, to the losses with which she

The