COBBETT'S WEEKLY POLITICAL REGISTER. VOL. XVII. No. 3.] LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1810. "How curious to contemplate TWO STATE ROOKS, [Price 1s. SUMMARY OF POLITICS. one salary, which, it is evident, could not be intentional; which could make no difLORD CASTLEReagh.- -This Lord is, ference at all as to the conclusions to be it would seem from the public prints, drawn from the statement; and which making, or somebody for him, great ef- was more than overbalanced by omissions forts to put himself forward again, and of other salaries or emoluments. Some even to establish some claim to compara- time ago (upon precisely what occasion I tive disinterestedness. Nay, a corres-do not recollect), MR. WAITHMAN did, it pondent tells me, that he is not without seems, make, in speaking to the Citizens his hopes, that we may "yet see Castle- of London, a statement respecting the "reagh a patriot," as he seems so anxious enormous sums of public money, swallowed to disclaim all share in the pocketing of by Lord Castlereagh and his relations.— public meney.If one may judge from At the last City-Meeting, MR. WAITHMAN, the language of the partizans of the minis- having, as he said, been informed, that his try, it is the intention to disown both the statement about the emoluments of Lord Pistolling Privy-Counsellors; for, at the Castlereagh and his relations was an erBERKSHIRE MEETING, the whole of the roneous statement, corrected that stateProceedings at which the reader will find ment; but observed, at the same time, below, and find well worth his reading; that he had taken his facts "from the nervsat this meeting, the partizans of the minis-"papers," which facts had never been try contended, that they were not to be blamed for the scandalous bickerings and quarrellings, which had taken place in the cabinet, seeing that the wranglers were now out; and, one of the speakers thanked God, that they were out. -It is not, therefore, impossible, that my Lord Castlereagh may have the design of becoming a patriot; but, I must not let him, or any one for him, pass himself off, as to the past, at least, for what he has not been.There is an attempt making to create a belief, that, in my Statement of the 21st -The STATESMAN introduces the CIRof January last (just a year ago, lacking CULAR ARTICLE with these words: "On one day), at page 74 in Vol. XV. of the Saturday night, we received for insertion Register, I published, respecting the emo-" the following statement, which, by its luments of this man and his relations," having appeared in the Morning Papers what was FALSE. Great pains are taking" of this day, we conclude to be destined to cause this to be generally believed." to make the grand tour of the press of The motives for this I can easily guess at; "the United Kingdom.-We feel at all but, be the motives what they may, it be- " times gratified in the opportunity of givcomes me to expose the trick, and to show " ing publicity to statements which have THAT MY STATEMENT WAS TRUE," for their object the investigation of truth. with the exception of a mere error in cast- "Lord Castlereagh is, indeed, by this acing, and a trifling error in the amount of" count, a much more neglected Statesman contradicted.I was rather surprized at this explanation of MR. WAITHMAN, because I had not observed any thing incorrect in his first statement; but, what was my astonishment, when I read, in that excellent Evening Paper, the Statesman, a sort of circular article, ascribing MR. WAITHMAN'S pretended mis-statement to ME! I was struck with the audacity of the thing; and, I, at once, got over a resolution that I had formed, never more to name either CASTLEREAGH or CANNING. C than we had apprehended him to be. "This, however, our readers must bear in "mind, is a statement made by the noble "lord, in contradiction of that which was "stated by MR. COBBETT more than 12 "months ago, and which having, until "Tuesday last, remained uncontradicted, "Mr. Waithinan was, therefore, as fully justified in asserting, as the public in be«lieving.”—This is very good for all the parties, except "Mr. Cobbett," who is not disposed to pass for a promulgator of falsehoods, though those falsehoods should be two years old instead of one; and therefore Mr. Cobbett, in order to prove that he scorns to shelter any statement of his under a pretence of lapse of time, here republishes his Statement, and, with the insignificant errors above-noticed, asserts it to be a true statement.First, however, let me remind the reader of the circumstances, under which the statement was made, and the cause of its being made.The DANISH ISLANDS had just been taken, and the Commanders, by sea and land, who made the capture, had bestowed, as being in their gift, (from long usage) four offices, two of HARBOUR MASTER and two of NAVAL OFFICER, upon two officers of the navy, and one military officer, all serving upon the station; but, Lord Castlereagh, being then in an office which gave him the management of the colonies, set aside these appointments; took the emoluments of these offices from three officers, serving their country in that pestilential climate; took the four offices from them, and gave them all to his own uncle, LORD George SeyMOUR, who was living in safety at home, and who was, at the same time, a Commissioner of Excise in England !~ -This was the act that called forth the Statement, which my friend the STATESMAN, has, without due consideration, seemed to admit to be untrue; but, for the truth of which, with the insignificant exceptions above-mentioned, I am ready to vouch. Indeed, I will leave no doubt at all upon the subject.Here is the Statement. my life, when, indeed, I was at too great EXTRACT FROM THE POLITICAL REGISTER, space of twenty-eight years, he has, in 21 JAN. 1809. "LOYALTY."--I mean not vulgar loyalty, but loyalty in the modern sense of that word, as it is understood and passes current at Whitehall and in the neighbourhood; and of which loyalty I shall, under the indulgence of the reader, give some very striking instances. At one time in fact, received fifty-six thousand pounds from the public; or, which is the same thing, taken from the public that, which if left in its hands, would, at common interest, have been worth fifty-six thousand pounds.Having made this preliminary remark, I shall now proceed to my state. ment, numbering the offices, as I go, for the sake of brevity in the case of reference. 1. LORD CASTLEREACH. Secretary of 2. BRIGADIER GEN. STUART, (brother of 4. Same person.-Lieut. Col. of a regi- 5. LORD HENRY MOORE (a first cousin 6. MR. JOHN ORMSLY VANDELEUR (a 7. MESSRS. JOHN STAPLES and THOMAS and (uncles of 11. LORD ROBERT SEYMOUR (uncle of a year. and his son The rever G. H. SEYMOUR, 11 years old sion of The total annual amount, paid by the public to these several persons, is £. 36,691; and, Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, having been held since 1766, the total sum, which, through those channels only, has been drawn from the public, including the compound interest, is, if my calculation be correct, £. 2,160,056. Two millions, one hundred and sixty thousand, and fifty-six pounds. No. 12, has been held for many years past; as long, perhaps, as the others; but certainly for about eight years past, as will be seen by referring to a list of places, in the second Volume of the Political Register; and, without including in the calculation, the several sums of money, which Lord Castlereagh has received, in the shape of salary, under the administrations of the late Pitt, Lord Sidmouth, and the present; without including in the calculation, these sums, amounting to an average of about £. 5,000 a year, for the last sixteen or eighteen years; passing over the interest and even principal of this large item; the total amount, drawn from the public by the above persons, does not fall much, if any, short of £. 3,000,000. Three millions of the public money, drawn from the public, during the last 30 or 40 years, by six or seven persons !—There's loyalty for you! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -I, sometime ago, produced striking proofs of loyalty in the person and family of Mr. Garnier, who, as Apothecary General and Officer upon the Staff, residing all the while quietly at Wickham, condescended to receive from the public, and, in part, of course, from the nasty, dirty, sweaty, smeary, hard-fisted and hard-fa"Jacobins and Levellers," the voured sum of thirteen thousand a year and upwards; but, the loyalty of this gentleman and his family is nothing, when compared Here with that of those above-named. we see noble Lords, who, rather than his Majesty's business should go unperformed, willing to become, Muster-Masters, Prothonotaries, Clerks, Filazers, Excisemen, and Wharfingers; and, Lord George Seymour, not satisfied with what he can do in his life-time, has, we see, entailed this task of loyalty upon his son, though, at present, a child of only eleven years old. Nay, so anxious is this nobleman to assist his Sovegovernreign, in carrying on the affairs of ment, that he has not confined his loyal exertions to England and Ireland; but has procured himself, through Lord Castlereagh (into whose patronage these offices C 2 came) to be appointed Naval Officer and | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * With respect to the propriety of making sinecures of such offices, I have no hesitation to say, that the practice is wrong. But, such having been the practice; and the Commanders by sea and land having uniformly appointed officers of the navy and army, to be Harbour Masters and Naval Officers in the conquered ports, the commanders, upon the occasion now referred to, cannot be blamed for what they did. At Martinico, Sir Charles Grey appointed his son, Capt. Grey, to be Harbour Master; at Surinam, Lord Hugh Seymour appointed his son to the same situation; Sir Samuel Hood, upon the reduction of Surinam, this war, appointed Capt. Maxwell, of the Centaur, who still holds the post; and upon the capture of Curaçoa, Capt. Wood, of the Latona, was appointed Harbour Master. None of these appointments were set aside. All were confirmed. These posts of profit appear to have been considered as a perquisite of the Navy and Army, particularly the former, in the gift of the capturing commanders. The three officers, amongst whom this perquisite was divided upon the occasion referred to, are, by the navy and army, well known to be very meritorious men. They were, at any rate, men engaged in actual and very perilous service, if we think only of the nature of the climate, under which they were compelled, and are still compelled to remain. Lord George Seymour was not in the West Indies. He had run no risks from cannon balls or from yellow fever.. He had, all his life long, been safe at home, and, for a considerable part of that life, a Commissioner of Excise, with a salary of £. 1,500 a year. He had had no buffetings of the seas to endure. His life had not been a life of suffering and of toil in that service, in that arduous service, in that navy, upon the fidelity, skill, valour, and zeal of the officers of which the safety of this kingdom does now almost solely depend, and towards which officers, therefore, policy as well as justice, imperatively forbid us to discover the slightest symptoms of ingratitude. * * * * * * * * * * Reader, what is your opinion, as to the influence of these things upon the fate of the country? How do you think, that such a distribution of the favours of the crown, and of the money of the people, is likely finally to operate with respect to defence against a mighty conqueror, who is, and who naturally must be, an implacable foe? What do you think must be the feelings of those, who, after having, under a pestilential climate, fought and subdued, see the fair fruits of their toils and dangers bestowed upon those, who have remained at home in security and ease? Who see, that which might have diminished their wants, carried to augment the luxuries of others? The answer to these questions I leave to your sense of justice and of policy. Such was my statement. In order to a take up as little room as possible, I have left out parts of my remarks, not essential to the clearly comprehending of the statement. But, as to my Statement, here it is republished, and I do, in the most positive manner, here re-assert that Statement to be true, except the insignificant errors abovementioned. These errors are, 300l. a year too much given to Lord George Seymour as an English Commissioner of Excise. I do not know how the error came to be committed, but I believe it to be one. But, on the other hand, I did not know, that three days, assured me, that his valuation was, as he is convinced, not at all beyond the mark.Where, then, has the author of the CIRCULAR ARTICLE found his grounds of contradiction? And, who but he would have had the impudence, the unparalleled impudence, to call upon any one to promulgate a retractation of my statement ?— -But, come, let us now see what this cold-blooded impudence has produced.Here it is Neither Lord Castlereagh, nor any Lord Castlereagh's brother, who was, at one and the same time, a Brigadier General in Portugal, a Lieutenant Colonel of a regiment of Dragoons, and Under Secretary of State in the far-famed Downingstreet; I did not know, that this gentleman was, moreover, Military Governor of Charles Fort in the Island of Jamaica! My imagination never carried me so far as that. I had a great opinion of the "loy"alty" of the gentleman; but, how was it possible for me to form an idea of a man's filling so many, and such incompa-" of his family, hold any civil office of tible offices, at one and the same time? "emolument, or any pension under the -Besides this, I omitted, I believe, Crown, either in possession or reversion. some other of the Lord's relations, whom I "His Brother, Brigadier-General Stewwill not omit another time.--Add the "art, is Military Governor of Charles Fort 600l. a year, then, to my former total, and "in Jamaica, the net profits of which are the total will be 37,2911. But, there "600l. a-year, paid by the Island.—The was an error of a thousand in the addition: "Marquis of Hertford's family hold the so that, instead of 36,691 pounds a year," following employments:it should have been 36,291 pounds a year; and, with this exception, I here repeat my re-assertion of the truth of every part of my statement. Let us now go on to the proof, item by item, of what is denied. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 17. 13. 14. 15. 16. Stated in the above-mentioned Re- Stated in the above-mentioned Stated in the above-mentioned Re- 66 "IRELAND:-Prothonotary of the "Clerk of the Crown, ditto ditto 216 O "These offices were granted "in reversion to the present pa"tentees in the year 1766, when "the late Lord Hertford was "Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, " and came into their possession "about the year 1784. The pro"fits arise from fees paid by suitors "on law proceedings, and have "been raised to their present "amount in consequence of the "late increase of business in the "Court of King's Bench in Ire"land. "Craner and Wharfinger of the 536 0 |