came) to be appointed Naval Officer and | * * -X- * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Ilarbour 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 bulletings 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Such was my statement. In order to I 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 promul gate 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 of his family, hold any civil office of "emolument, or any pension under the Crown, either in possession or reversion, "His Brother, Brigadier-General Stew"art, is Military Governor of Charles Fort "in Jamaica, the net profits of which are "600l. a-year, paid by the Island.—The Marquis of Hertford's family hold the following employments:"IRELAND:-Prothonotary of the "Court of King's-Bench; "Net receipt, see Report of "Finance Commit. May 31, "1809 Lord Castlereagh's brother, who was, at 1. Stated in the Report, laid before the 2. 3. Not denied. 4. 5. 6. Not denied. 17. 13. 14. 15. 10. Not denied. Stated in the above-mentioned Re- that, a gentleman, who, as to the offices, No. 13 and 14, was the agent for CAPT. THOMAS COCHRANE, and through whose hands the money transactions, relating to those offices, while held by Cupt. T. Cochrane, passed; this gentleman assured me,before I made the statement last year, and has again assured me within these three days, that the emoluments of those offices to Capt. T. Cochrane were in the proportion of 2,1007. a year for the two. Upon the authority of this gentleman the valuation of Nos. 15 and 16 were made; and, he has, within these "Clerk of the Crown, ditto "Craner and Wharfinger of the £. S. 6,849 0, 216 O 536 Q "Port of Dublin, Net Receipt, grant was made about the "Naval Officer and Harbour- "The profits of this office "Commissioner of Excise 733 15 - 1,200 0 11,116 15 "The above statement requires little "comment; the misrepresentations in "question would have been hardly less striking had they been made previously "to Lord Castlereagh's retiring from of "fice, as he then held no other situation "than that of Secretary of State, the sa"lary of which is 6,000l. a year; and if it "is to be assumed (for the sake of pointing at an individual) that Lord Hertford's and Lord Castlereagh's families are to "be considered as one and the same, it "nevertheless appears that even in this view, the utmost that can be stated as the aggregate official emoluments of "both families (exclusive of military pay) "does not exceed 11,116l. 15s. per annum. "Of this sum Lord Castlereagh himself "receives nothing, his family only 6001. "and of the remaining 10,5167. 15s. the "sum of 8,5837. was granted by the Crown before Lord Castlereagh was born.". -So, then, here are Nos. 5, 6, and 7 left out as not being of the family" I suppose. But I assert that they are some of the rela"tions of Lord Castlereagh," and, that was the description that I before gave of them, as the reader will see by referring to the extract above inserted. I do not care whether Lord Castlereagh owns these people, or not; nor do I care who it was that gave them the public-money; I said they were some of his relations, and I still say that they are some of his relations, and that they receive, or somebody for them, the sums of money that I have put against their names respectively.Oh, oh! What, we are only to reckon the NET PROCEEDS, then, are we? And, I am to be represented as a fulsifier of fucts, because I did not, in January 1809, notice the contents of a Report that was not made till May 1809? NET PROCEEDS, eh! 66 Oh, no! This is a way that I should not have counted, even if I could, six months before it was hatched, have read the report of 31 May 1809. This is not the way that I count. When my money is taken away from me, I look only to my cost or loss, it being of no earthly consequence to me what becomes of it, how many or how few divide it amongst them. The Report, from which I took my information (and for which Report we have to thank Lord Cochrane), states, that the Prothonotary's Office in Ireland yields 12,511 pounds a year. But, I am now told, that the two Seymours pocket only 6,849 pounds a year. What is that to me, or to those who pay the money? They bring only 6,849 pounds a year to bag; but, do not the public pay 12,511 pounds a year? Do not the public pay that? Will the callous, stone-hearted, bloodless author of this article say that the poor Irish do not pay these 12,511 pounds a year? Where, then, is the difference to them, whether the money be all bagged by the Seymours, or whether it be divided between them and their underlings?Just the same applies to all the other heads of emolument, not excepting the offices of Naval-Officer and Harbour-Master. What is it to the merchants and captains of vessels, who, finally, is the person that bags their money? This distinction is downright nonsense. It can impose upon nobody, capable of reasoning; and, as to those who are incapable of reasoning, such discussions as this have, on them, no practical effect.- Reader, do you observe in the statement, upon which we are here remarking, certain little phrases, thrown in, as it were to explain the nature of the offices more fully, such as: arising "from fees, paid by suitors, &c. &c."? The intention of these remarks is to cause it to be believed, that what the Seymours receive does not come out of the public purse. Just as if these unfortunate souls, called suitors, did not make a part of the public. Aye, and a part of it, too, on whom the hand of taxation should be laid very lightly indeed. MAGNA CHARTA says: "We will sell to no man, we will not de ny, or defer, to any man, either justice "or right."--Fees, paid to officers of the several courts for real services, are not only right, but necessary, provided they do not exceed the reasonable worth of the service; but, when we see it acknowledged, that the Seymours receive many thousands of NET profits out of the fees of a court, in which they do not pretend to give any personal attendance, what are we to think of it? This is so plain, that not another word need be said upon it. Nor is it necessary to say much in the way of exposure, as to similar little phrases, thrown in about the source of Lord George Seymour's revenue in the Danish Islands. The money is paid by merchants and ship-owners. Well; but what of that? It is money. It is paid by people under British sway. " " It has cost the people of England blood | year, as Secretary of State, and his bro and treasure enough to capture and hold ther's salary, of 2,000l. a year, as Under the islands; and, if it be right to collect Secretary of State, have ceased since my fees from ships coming into, or going out statement was made. But, I think, the of, those islands, why not bring them to public will be pretty well convinced, that the nation's account; or, at least, give them those places were not easily given up. The to persons, who are performing, or have brother's double employment was menperformed, something like real service to tioned by me before it was given up, or, the nation? What reason could there be to all appearance, thought of being given to give them to Lord George Seymour? up. He was, at one and the same ume, How came Lord Castlereagh to select that under Secretary of State in DownING STREET, particular person? Could he find no man, and a General upon the Staff in PORTUGAL; amongst all the thousands of old military and, it was his brother, Lord Castlereagh, and naval officers, on whom to bestow such who appointed him to, and kept him in, an income? Nay, why did he take a fourth both situations--What do we want part of them from Old Captain (now admi- more? Is not this enough? Talk of being ral) Pickmore, who has spent nearly half a "misrepresented," indeed! Why, how is it century in the service of his country, in possible to say of any men, in public trust, order to give them to his uncle Lord George any thing more than this, which neither is, Seymour? Let him answer this question, nor can be, denied.Here I quit Lord if he can. -But, it seems, his brother, Castlereagh's officious foolish partizans, GENERAL STUART, receives his sinecure for the present; but, if they stir again, İ salary, as Military Governor of Fort am with them in a moment. Charles in Jamaica;" it seems, that he CATHOLIC CLAIMS. In my last, at receives his sinecure of 600l. a year from page 52, I inserted the very interesting the island! it is paid by the island.”" letter of Dr. MILNER, which will, I doubt Does this writer mean to make us believe, not, have been read with great and gene that the dirt and stones of Jamaica pay him. ral attention. In that letter the public He may; but, we know, that the salary is will see the real grounds of the Catholic paid by our fellow subjects of the Island of complaints, and the real cause of those Jamaica; and we also know, that if they heart-burnings, which have created that had not that sum to pay him, or any description of persons in Ireland, who, as other sinecure man, they would have less was openly avowed in parliament, constineed to call upon the mother country tute "a French Party," in that unhappy for assistance. In short, that man must country. The articles, which, upon have a strange notion of things of this this subject, I have lately published, seem sort, who does not perceive, that this to have settled the dispute. The whole salary, as well as all the other of the matter has been brought into a narrow emoluments, whether they be called compass; within the compass of an hour's fees, or by whatever other name they reading; and, so great has been the effect, may go, all come out of the public that I myself have received letters from purse-And, supposing the loss to be more than fifty persons (some of them sustained wholly by the island." What Clergymen of the Church of England), thankreason is there for, what justice is there in, ing me for having undeceived them; and fastening this brother of Lord Castlereagh, expressing their indignation at the arts for life, or, even for one year, upon the which were made use of to keep the public people of Jamaica, who, probably, never in a state of ignorance as to the real merits saw, and never will see his face? What of the question. I do, and I must feel very had he done to merit it? What reason proud at this, and I am rather surprized, could the people of Jamaica see for giving that the editors of other publications, who, money to such a man for doing no- I know, perfectly agree with me, as to thing?Reader, mark the words "offi-this matter, at least, have not let me, or "cial emoluments." That word was, I rather the cause of truth and justice, their suspect, introduced for the purpose of aid, upon this occasion, by giving, through avoiding the charge of direct falshood; their respective channels, circulation to the for, I am very much deceived, if we shall above-mentioned articles; especially as their not find some however, pensions behind. For that, we will take another week. they must have observed, that I so frequently give circulation to such of their articles as appear to me to be likely to Lord Castlereagh's salary of 6,000l. a produce great and general good effects. but to the doing of nothing that shall endanger the Protestant religion. And, if the reader be satisfied; if the reader be thoroughly convinced, that the granting of the Catholic Claims would not endanger the protestant religion, he must, of neces -No-Popery is now at a very low ebb indeed. I have received but one communication in her defence; and, as I wish to give her a fair chance (though she has never given any one a fair chance), I shall insert this communication immediately at the close of this Summary of Politics, ofsity, conclude, either, that, to grant those fering here a few words (and not many are necessary) by way of reply thereunto. This advocate of No-Popery says, that I have stated two positions, as the grounds upon which the Claims of the Catholics ought to be acceded to; namely, 1st, That such a measure would not be a violation of the king's Oath; and, 2nd, That, if it be a violation, the Oath has already been broken and disregarded by the privileges which his Majesty has granted to FOREIGN Catholics to hold military situations.Now, the reader well knows, that this was not my mode of reasoning; that these were not the grounds, upon which I urged the granting of the Catholic Claims; and, that, indeed, all that was said about the Coronation Oath was merely intended to show, that the putting forward of that Oath in opposition to the claims of the Catholics must have been an hypocritical trick, and that it was quite impossible to believe, that the king could have any of those "scruples of conscience," which it had been so impudently pretended he had, upon the subject of Catholic Claims. Let us, however, examine what this advocate of No-Popery has said with respect to the two positions, which he professes to combat; and, for the sake of clearness, we will take the last first.Says he, I totally dissent from what you say about the Oath's being violated by the admission of foreign Catholics into the Staff of the army; and then he says, that the outh is not so strict as that; that the king did not so interpret it when he granted those indulgencies to foreigners in the army; that the oath only forbids the king to do any thing that shall ENDANGER THE PROTESTANT RELIGION; that the king is to form HIS OWN OPINION upon all matters relating to his oath; and that, he would not violate his oath in granting ANY thing to the Catholics, IF HE DID NOT THINK, that such grant would ENDANGER THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. Here, then, we have all that we could ask for. The oath does not bind the king to any particular mode of acting. The oath does not, as it is here explicitly confessed, withhold from the king the power of granting any thing to the Catholics. The oath binds him to nothing, in respect to this subject, claims cannot be regarded by the king as a violation of his oath, or that the king is under the influence of a wrong opinion.— Then we come to the question: Who are answerable for what is done, or what is refused, in this case? This ANTI-CATHOLIcus is of the true no-popery stamp. He is for throwing the whole of the act of refusal, together with all its consequences, whatever they may be, upon the king PERSONALLY. This is the way this set of politicians have always acted. It used to be the custom to keep the king's person out of sight in all disputes about political measures; but, now, as often as it suits the purposes of this faction, he is dragged forward, with all the circumstances of age and infirmity, and held forth as the obstacle to such or such a measure. It is the king's opinion, this man now tells us, that is to settle what ought to be granted and what ought to be refused. If the king thinks that the thing proposed does not violate his oath, then he may agree to it: but, if he thinks that the thing proposed does violate his oath, then he cannot agree to it. This doctrine squares most delightfully with the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, and the two co-operating, leave the people with a truly enviable stock of responsibility! Well may the sensible part of the world laugh at us!—————Well, now as to the other point, it has, I think, been proved most clearly, not only, that the granting of the claims of the Catholics, would not be a violation of the oath; but also, that it is impossible to believe, that the king can think, that it would be a vio|lation of that oath. Now, what, in answer to this, is urged by ANTI-CATHOLICUS, who writes to me from Lincoln's Inn? Why, verily, that as it had been thought wise to exclude Catholics from the throne, it must be also wise to exclude them from the Legislature. Let us stop here a moment, and make two remarks: 1st, that Lord Howick's bill did not propose to admit Catholics into parliament: 2d, that though Presbyterians are excluded from the throne, yet, they are admitted into parliament; and, though Quakers cannot mount the throne, they might, if they would, become members of parlia |