with great loss and damage to the East-India Company, and with distress and misery to the natives under its government. Yet the directors and proprietors, who form the East India Company, had returned him their unanimous thanks for his long, faithful, and able services; and in the second year of his trial, testimonials were transmitted through Lord Cornwallis to the East-India Company, from the princes and natives of every province in Bengal, Benares, and Oude, expressing their high opinion of Mr. Hastings, and their strong attachment to him. Of what nature have all the other impeachments been since the period of the revolution, and how dissimilar from this; and no fair argument against a trial by impeachment can be urged by a reference to the impeachment of Air. Hastings.Another cause in the delay of the trial of Mr. Hastings cannot possibly operate in any future trial by impeachment. The charges in this cause were so many, that the managers in their general opening, in their speeches previous to, and in summing up the charges, and in the reply, took twenty-four days. In addition to this, much time was wasted by arguments on the admissibility of evidence, the council of Mr. Hastings opposing the introduction of any evidence that did not apply to some one of the five hundred criminal allegations, contained in the articles of impeachment. As the judgment was ultimately to be pronounced, secundum allegata, et probata, the opposition to the introduction of evidence that had no reference to the articles was very natural. Did this occur in any former, or can it happen in any future impeachment. In the impeachment of the four whig lords, had it been prosecuted to a legal termination, the question was, whether it was a crime or not, to advise the partition treaty. In Lord Oxford's case, had his trial proceeded, the question was, whether the peace of Utrecht was an honourable and safe, or a precarious and an inglorious treaty. -There was no difficulty in the case of Sacheverel, nor in the trials of the rebel lords in 1715, and 1746, for high treason, nor in that of Lord Macclesfield for high crimes and misdemeanors.—It would be presumption in the writer to consider how far it was right, after having in the recent instance voted a criminal prosecution, to change to a trial by impeachment; but the arguments urged against the latter mode of trial by a reference to the case of Mr. Hastings, do not apply in the smallest degree, since he thinks he has proved to the satisfaction of those, who shall think the subject worthy consideration, that the chief cause of the delay in that remarkable trial, was occa sioned by the House of Commons not sufficiently considering the articles which were presented to the Lords.I am, Sir, &c.— July 8, 1805.-X. X. - REFORM OF FINANCIAL ABUSES. LETTER VIII. SIR,In my last, I confined my observations to a discovery of some importance, in the Exchequer language, respecting the application of the public money. Mr. Burke says, that "the technical style of an Indian Treasury is not one jot more "remote, than the jargon of our Exchequer, "from the train of our ordinary ideas or "the idiom of our common language." (Speech on Nabob of Arcot, Vol. IV. p. 200.) If the only cause for styling the language of our public accounts mere jargon, was a corrupt use of terms, little or no inconvenience would arise from it, except the trouble of acquiring a knowledge of their customary meaning. But as this is not the case, and as terms have been so construed, that they may produce the double effect of satisfying and deceiving the public, it is high time that this jargon should be exploded, and the accounts stated in plain intelligible language. Upon every consideration it is at this present moment particularly requisite, that every description of the people should understand in what manner the Commons House of Parliament exercise their most valuable prerogative of controling the "ap"plication" of the public money.How successful the authors of the Exchequer tongue have been in deceiving the world, cannot be more fully illustrated than it is by the motto of your last sheet but one, as quoted from Dr. Paley. For, if so learned, and so accurate a philosopher, not only admitted the deccit to be practised on himself, but has also lent the aid of his name to extend the influence of its operations upon others, it is perfectly clear that an universal opinion prevails, that the House of Commons do actually control the application, in its full and proper sense, of the public money. Such an impression is the natural consequence of the deplorable apathy with which every financial statement is received; and, in truth, the fault is not so much the fault of the ministers, as it is that of the people, because it is this apathy which encourages and enables them to practise their delusions. Till, then, more talent and more exertion are devoted to the finances of the country, it is irrational to expect that any efficient reformation will take place in the existing abuses. Whilst the House of Commons feel, that the public are not gratified by laborious investigations of their ac counts, the House of Co nmons very naturally relieve themselves from the task of making such investigations; and, they even do more, for they do not, apparently, take the trouble of examining at all into the nature of the principal accounts that are laid before them. This may very possibly be a very erroneous supposition, it is by no means intended to state such a circumstance as an absolute fact, further than as this transaction may warrant it; namely, the impossibility of the eight papers of annual accounts of this year being examined, in consequence of their not being printed and delivered to the members, though presented in March, and the sessions within a few days of being closed. How then can the exercise of the controling powers of the House of Commons over the application of the public money be considered as effective? The minister brings on his budget, imposes his taxes, and makes his loans without any account of the revenue and expenditure of the preceding year being before the House. These accounts are at length presented, but immediately withdrawn to be printed. But, such is the fatality attending the public accounts, that, although every other paper is printed and delivered within a few days after the end of the House takes place, these papers aren't logd dane during the whole of the session. ་ ther obvious of a minute investigation by Parliament, into all the circumstances belonging to it. There are a sufficient number of merchants in the House, who well know, and who in their sleeve laugh at the extreme credulity of those country gentlemen, who, whenever they look upon an account, admit, that it must be correct, merely because they find they cannot understand it. These merchants are aware that there can be no complete account without its being balanced ̧ and closed; and that the public accounts never are balanced and closed. These are the description of members, who should make the public accounts their study, and assist in obtaining a committee to sift the whole subject to the bottom, for without such a proceeding the public can feel no security against the frauds and the collusions of office.- VERAX -July 2, 1805, THE SIX IRISH MINISTERS. SIR,The resolution of the query of your correspondent M. M., occurred to me to be of so great importance to many of his Majesty's liege subjects, that I have devoted some hours in an attempt to form a satisfactory answer to it. But, I am obliged to confess that all my labour has ben in vain. I have looked over Iccks on Government, Greffus, Pulino, Vattel, Martin, and latone, de jure personarum, and Lave not been able to acquire any light upon the subject. Being obliged, therefore, after all my research to come to this conclusion, that though there are six ministers for Ireland, there is no Irish minister, I next made an attempt to procure information how this anomalous occurrence came to pass. After toiling many hours over Letters Patent, the Irish Journals and Statutes, the Laws of Honour and Precedency, the Debates ca the Union, the Act of Union, and the Acts of the United Parliament, I found that the only method by which the functions of this ministry could be analysed, was by assuming as the basis of my deductions, that the Union was a help hacsure. That of the two great moities of government, the legislative and the exccutive authorities, one only had been considered and provided for, by merging de legislature of Ireland into the legis lture of Great Britain; whilst the other, namely, the executive government had been -When, left statu quo, however ill adapted to the therefore, it can be bought as a new charge new circumstances of both countries. If, against the public accounting system, that, upon further inquiry, I find my conjecture besides the language of it being unintelligi- to be borne out by facts, I shail communible and delusive jar on, advantage is taken cate to you such observations as present of the indolence of the flouse of Commons, themselves as well calculated to shew the neto withheld the accounts altogether from cessity of some new arrangement for admi→ their insection, the necessity is still furniting the executive government of Ire thought, that sufficient confidence might be placed in their delusive construction, to have removed all apprehensions of their Leng brought to light during the sitting of Parliament; and, therefore, the only conjecture that remains to be formed on so mysterious a proceeding is this, Banely, that the set for this year contain something or other which even the vocabulary of the Exchequer is not capable of colouring. Bat, whatever may be the cause, the result is, and as a result it is deserving to be recorded, that the sessions of 1805 are on the point of closing, without the members of the House of Commons having had the opportunity of ever attempting to understand, what the revenue and expenditure have been of 1804. That is, the House of Commons have taken it for grauted, that every thing is, as it ought to be, and upon this solid foundation, have unanimously acceded to every proposition of the minister for raising new taxes and incurring an expenditure of 70.millions. land. I am, Sir, &c.-VIGIL.July 8, 1605. ADMIRAL DUCKWORTH. -Genius may dazzle, eloquence may charm, and intelligence may inform; but unless the political writer divest himself of partiality, or party prejudice, he will not obtain, nor has he any pretensions to expect, the confidence or estimation of any readers of enlightened understandings, or independent minds.-It is, therefore, to your impartiality, and energy in maintaining and supporting the opinions of your unbiassed judgment, that the high estimation of the Register is to be attributed.—It was on these principles you maintained a long and arduous contest with the destructive influence of Jacobinism, the prejudices of America, and the bribery of France; and, after successfully combating the united force of popular frenzy and democratic tyranny, at length obtained a complete and glorious victory, saving the British Empire and the American States from being involved in a bloody and impolitic war, which the insidious ambition of the Jacobin regicides of France had planned for their mutual subjugation. In the establishment of Lutz's claim to the honour of taking the Invincible Standard, and in your defence of M. Peltier, the same causes produced similar effects. Firmness and impartiality triumphed over prejudice, and turned the current of popular opinion.———I could adduce many instances of a much later date, and of the most extensive public advantage, in which your exertions have been equally successful; and that too without risking the imputation of flattery. But they are foreign to the subject of Admiral Duckworth's trial. From which I have already digressed much farcher than I intended.--You inform your readers that you extract the speech of Acmiral Markham "from the Times newspaper, 66 ** To form an : c "there is no justice."curate judgment of the estimation in which you held the character and principles of the Times newspaper about two years ago, and they have continuedtolerally sedy ever since, I beg leave to refer to your third volume of the Political Register, wherever that paper is mentioned; but, particularly, at page 837. This character, it is true, is not given in your own words, but in those of your intelligent correspondent "Veritas;" yet, as the Times at that period was the most servile(though weak) apologist for the Peace of Amiens, the naval administration, and every public measure which met with your decided, unqualified reprobation, it is fair to conclude that your opinion respecting the Times newspaper was in unison with that of your correspondent. For its consistency and reracity I refer to Political Register, vol. 3, page £65. Various examples of a smilar nature might be adduced; but these will, I apprehend, be amply sufficient to prove that the Times newspaper has not the least pretension to that perfect impartiality without which there is no justice;" and that its concurrence with the public opinion, h Lord Melville's case, is evidently the result of its party connexions. Your observations. on the very extr. ordinary speech of Admiral Matkham, as quoted by you from the Times, and also your preliminary remarks, are such as cannot fail to meet the approbation of your impartial readers, who will doubtless be shortly gratified by your resumption of this very important subject. In the mean time I conceive it necessary to remark that, exclusive of the indispensable obligation which every captain and officer of his Majesty's navy is under to act in strict obedience to all the articles of war, as expressed in the Act of 22d Geo. II. there are the following very cogent reasons why this article, in particular, should be most stretly adhered to.-1. To preserve that digi and respectability of his Majesty's naval service, which very properly precludes captains of his ships or r from being carries of wine, or oder gords, or engaging ther -- * selves, or his Majesty's ships under the Ir command, in any merenntile employmen ́s, 2. To preserve to the owners and captains of merchants' ships those mileges of commercial intercourse which would, by so unverrantelle a violation of the 15th article of war, be greatly infringed, if seven or eight hundred ships and sloops of war we e allowed to carry wine or any other articks of commerce, free of freight. 3. To v prevent smuggling, which there is too much reason to apprehend would de ire very great encouragement and extension because it is a print which has been "most laudal ly, and most steadily, engaged "in supporting the cause of the counry against the partisans of Lord Melville." Now, Sir, with all due submision to your impartial judgment, the superiority of which, in most cases, I most readily acknowledge, I cannot see that the least degree of praise is due to the editor of the Times, for supporting (not the country but) the partisans of Lord St. Vincent, against those of Lord Melville. Or what nesit there be in that kind of "steadiness" which consists solely in an interested or servile devotion to any party whatever. Surely such conduct is not consistent with that perfect impartiality without which (you say truly) th from the continuance of, or connivance at, so gross and shameful a violation of an act of parliament, on which the honour and the discipline of his Majesty's naval service, the respectability and support of his navy, and, consequently, the existence of the British empire itself, must ultimately depend. An abuse so generally committed, so daringly justified, so authoritatively sanctioned (as stated in the speech in the Times), so disgraceful in itself, and so extensively injurious to the national commerce and revenue, is scarcely to be paralleled in the annals of national depravity. This double violation of the law extenuated, and even acknowledged to have been (as far at least as relates to the carriage of wine) actually perpetrated (according to the report in the Times) by a legislator; an avowed reformer of peculation, while on the awful seat of judgment, however it might, from the ludicrous combination of the "ridiculum acri," excite momentary risibility, cannot fail to occupy the most solemn and deliberate attention of the British legislature in the ensuing session. -I am, Sir, your humble servant,BRITANNICUS. -London, 9th July, 1905. PUBLIC PAPER. PRUSSIA AND SWEDEN. -Copy of a Note transmitted by the Baron de Hardenberg to the Baron de Brinckmann, Chargéd'Affaires of His Swedish Majesty, dated Berlin, Dec. 24, 1804. When his Majesty, the King of Sweden, thought proper to send Lieutenant-General Armfeldt to Berlin, with a letter from his Swedish Majesty to the King, dated September 19, to inquire in what light he considered the political situation of the north of Germany, the King explained himself upon the subject, with the greatest freedom, to the Baron D'Armfeldt, as well in his answer of the 20th of September, as by the medium of the undersigned cabinet minister of state. The King declared that, as his system was to prevent, as much as possible, the extension of the war to the continent; and as he had invariably prescribed to himself the strictest neutrality for the good of his kingdom and of his neighbours, his Majesty would, in conformity to that system, employ every means in his power to prevent the tranquility of the north of Germany being disturbed by any person whatever; that his Majesty had given explanations on this important object, as well to the Emperor of all the Russias, as to the Emperor of the French, and that his Majesty had entered into multicentriements in consequence not a limit or sufther Side, ter I 9 sequently no armament of any kind inSwedish Pomerania. This declaration was at the same time communicated to France; and it is with true satisfaction that his Ma jesty on the one hand received the most positive assurances, by Baron Armfeldt and M. Brinckmann, his Swedish Majesty's Chargé-d'Alaires, at his court, that his said Majesty had not any hostile intention against France; that the measures taken at Stralsund were purely defensive, and would never have any other view than to secure himself from an unjust attack; and on the other hand his Majesty found that his endeavours to preserve the tranquillity of the north, were not employed in vain at Paris.-Nevertheless the King has just been informed, by an official note delivered by the French Minister, M. Laforest, that a treaty of subsidy is at this moment negotiatiating between England and Sweden, in which the latter power offers to march 25,000 men, and, according to the statement of the expense attendant thereon, demands a subsidy of. two millions sterling for the same, and that it is only the amount of the subsidy which is still under discussion. Although the King wishes to persuade himself that those facts deserve no credit-facts which are so greatly at variance with the above-mentioned assurances-yet the manner in which they are announced, and the confirmation received, at least in part, by other advices, place the King under the necessity of giving his sentiments thereupon. The undersigned has, therefore, received orders to `request M. De Brinckmann to ask of his august Sovereign a positive explanation on this important subject, in conformity to the mutual confidence which he has deemed necessary to establish between the King and himself. -The King hopes, that his Swedish Majesty, far from wishing to extend the evils of war to, and to expose to danger the tran-quillity and peace of, his own dominions, and of the rest of Europe, by an aggression against France, will rather be inclined to co-operate in the preservation of those benefits, and in a reconciliation with that power, all the avenues to which may perhaps not yet be closed. But in no case can his Majesty permit (without forgetting what the interests of his kingdom and of his neighbours require) that Swedish Pomerania shall become either the focus, or the theatre of · war; and he does not conceal from his Majesty, that in the event of offensive measures taking place on the part of Sweden against France, he would be obliged, though reluctantly, to take the most decisive measures respecting that province, in order to hinder that event from disturbi g the system which 19 he has adopted. His Swedish Majesty certainly will not charge this system with partiality, if he will please to consider, that the same principles which oblige the King to hold such language, are those which in general make it his duty not to permit that the tranquillity of the north of Germany be disturbed, and which guarantee Swedish Pomerania itself from every consequence attending any war whatever. The undersigned requests M. De Brinckmann to accept of the assurance of his most perfect regard. -(Signed) — -HARDENBERG. brdens already supported by the people. Good reason had he to remind the House, that, at the time when the contract with the Athol family was made, England had a great and an honest man (Mr. George Grenville) at the head of her finances; and good reason had his Lordship to lament, that Mr. Grenville had not the power of transmitting to all his successors, his integrity with his robe of office. Upon what ground, then, let me ask the reader, can the partisans of Mr. Pitt have made, in the Oracle newspaper of the 9th instant, a publication under the title of a speech of Lord Mulgrave, abusing the Lord Chief Justice in terms the most gross; charging him with having made use of rude expressions and of boisterous language, and with having acted like a demagogue? But, it will be best to insert this speech, or reported speech, at full length, just as it stands in the ministerial papers, particularly in that paper, which is known to be under the immediate control of THE UPSTART. “He" [Lord Mulgrave] "felt indignant when at "nable and learned Lord" [the Lord Chief Justice]" described the claim as proceed SUMMARY OF POLITICS. ATHOL CLAIM.--This a subject of so much importance, it so strongly marks the character of the persons by whom it has been brought forward and who have taken an active part in support of it, and to examine it thoroughly requires an analysis of so many documents, that I intended to leave it untouched, till I could find time and room to exhibit to my readers all the parts of the transaction in one view. But, the public interest which has been excited by the debate in the House of Lords, on Monday, the 8th instant, and in which the Lord Chief Justice took so conspicuous a part, induces me to depart from my first intention, and to notice some of the more prominent circumstances of the case, by way of illustrating the speech of the Lord Chief Justice, a passage from the conclusion of which I have selected for the motto to the present sheet. The reader will observe, that the claim of the Duke of Athol had been long ago submitted to the examination of the Attorney and the Sclicitor General, who made a report against the claim. It had several times been pressed upon the government, and had always Leen rejected, and that too by the advice of persons most competent to judge of its merits. No voice was ever heard in its favour till a "Selac Commatée" was found to do it, and then, forward the minister drives it with all the speed in his power, and that too at a moment when three-fourths of the members of parliament have left town. Such was the haste to get the bill through, that, on Monday evening, the papers relative to the subject, containing 130 folio pages, were wet from the press. Nobody had read them; and nobody could have read them; and yet, it was upon these papers that the House was called upon to pass a bill, giving to the Duke of Athol a third part of the revenues of the Isle of Man! Under such circumstances, well might the Lord Chief Justice conjure their Lordships to pause, to consult their character, to think of the state of the public resources and of the pecuniary ing from fraud on one side, or gratuity on "the other. When these and the many "other harsh expressions he had used in "the course of that speech, came from a "person of his learning and authority, it was to be apprehended that they would "make a great and an undue impression; "but it appeared to him that a person in his high situation ought to have known how to modify his expressions by something "like delicacy. Because he had great authority from his situation, he should have "exercised it with dignity and with temper, "and not have indulged himself in a strain so boisterous and rude. He said he should apply to his Lordship what one of the "characters of our im.nortal bard, Othello, applied to an old man : Signor, your age may more command me than your "weapon." He respected his learning," "his experience, his authority, and his si"tuation in the state; but his Lordship was 66 not to suppose that he and his noble "friends on that side of the House were always to sit in silent apathy when he chose to use angry language. Some of the expressions he had used were fitter for denagogues in Palace-yard, (who rail at taxes, and introduce every sort of extraneous matter to inflame their audience) "than to be used in that House. When " he heard irritating and angry language "used it might produce the same sort of 66 language from him; when he heard the "word job applied to this mesure, he "must say he despised the imputation. He |