cellor of the Exchequer, offering him the sum of £.2,000 to give him, HAMLIN, the place of Land-Surveyor of the Customs at Plymouth.In consequence of this, a criminal information was filed, against the said HAMLIN, by Mr. Spencer Perceval, who was then the King's Attorney-General, and who, in pleading against the offender, asserted the distinguished purity of persons in power, in the present day. From the Bench great stress was laid on the gravity of the offence of tendering a bribe; of the baneful tendency of such crimes, in a moral as well as in a political point of view. The Tinman was found guilty; he was sentenced to pay a fine of 100 pounds to the King, and to be imprisoned for three months. His business was ruined; and he himself died, in a few months after his release from prison.-Hamlin confessed his guilt; he stated, in his affidavit, "that he sincerely repented of "his crime; that he was 40 years of age; that his business was the sole "means of supporting himself and fami"ly; that a severe judgment might be the "total ruin of himself and that fami "State, did place at the disposal of Lord Clancarty, a Member of the same Board, "the nomination to a Writership, in order "to facilitate his procuring a Seat in Par"liament.II. That it was owing to a "disagreement among the subordinate "parties, that this transaction did not take "effect; and-III. That by this con"duct Lord Castlereagh had been guilty "of a gross violation of his duty as a Ser"vant of the Crown; an abuse of his pa"tronage as President of the Board of "Controul: and an attack upon the purity "of that House.". -In opposition to these Resolutions, a LORD BINNING, one of the friends of the ministers, moved the Order of the Day; that is to say, to drop the mutter, without any further inquiry or discussion; or, in other words, to decide, that it was a matter not of importance enough to occupy the attention of the House of Commons! Most of the members, however, did think that it was a little too bad; and that some little notice, some little censure, ought to be pronounced.-The question was taken upon Lord Archibald Hamilton's Resolutions, and it was negatived, there being 167 for it, and 216 against it. So, you see, it was determined by the Honourable House, that this act on the part of one of its members, was not tack upon its PURITY;" in the justice of which determination I most heartily join. Bravo! Well done Honourable House! "If this does not satisfy the "country," as Mr. Fuller said, "I don't" them topics, very well adapted to aflect. "know what the devil will satisfy it.". Well, but what did the House agree to? Why to this:- Resolved, That it is "the duty of this House to maintain a jealous guard over the purity of election; "but considering that the attempt of Lord "Viscount Castlereagh to interfere in the "election of a Member has not been successful, this House does not consider it criminal "necessary to enter into any an at ly; and that therefore, he threw him"self upon, and implored, the mercy of "his prosecutors and of the Court.”. In reference to this, Mr. Perceval, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, observe, said: "The circumstances which the de"fendant discloses, respecting his own situ"ation in life and of his family are all of "the private feelings of individuals, and, "as far as that consideration goes, no thing further need be said; but, there "would have been no prosecution at all, in this case, upon the ground of personal feeling; it was set on foot upon grounds "of a public nature, and the spirit in "which the prosecution originated, still "remains; it is, therefore, submitted to your lordships, not on a point of indivi"proceedings against him." -English-" dual feeling, but of PUBLIC JUSTICE, "in which case your lordships will con"sider how far the affidavits ought to operate in mitigation of punishment." 66 men, this, this, this was what the Honour- -The Judge, Mr. JUSTICE GROSE, in passing sentence upon this poor, petty, ignorant offender, said: "Such a practice, "if permitted, would lead to mischief in"calculable; for it might extend to every "office in the appointment of the great "ministers of the state, civil, military, and "ecclesiastical, and would supersede men of ability and integrity, and place, in their "stead, the ignorant and corrupt." Now, people of Hampshire; now, English -The case was this: In the year 1802, PHILIP HAMLIN, a Tirman of Plymouth," wrote a letter to MR. HENRY ADDINGTON, the first Lord of the Treasury and Chan men, who have been taught so highly to prize impartial justice, compare the decisions in these two cases; bear them in remembrance; and let them have a proper weight upon your conduct on all future occasions.- -Hamlin's attempt, observe, was not successful, any more than that of Lord Castlereagh! -There needs no more than to state these facts to you. Your own minds will furnish an appropriate commentary.- -Justice as well as future utility require that we should have upon record the names of those who spoke for, and against Lord Archibald Hamilton's motion. For it, the speakers were, Lord Archibald Hamilton, Mr. C. W. Wynn, Lord Milton, Mr. W. Sunith, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Ponsonby, Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Tierney. -Against it, Lord Castlereagh himself, Lord Binning, Mr. Croker, MR. PERCEVAL (who prosecuted Hamlin), Mr. Bankes, Mr. George Johnstone, Mr. H. Lascelles, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Canning. You will perceive, Gentlemen, that I mean to address a series of Letters to you; and the mode I intend to pursue is this. On every Friday, when I have a letter to you ready for publication in my paper of the next day, I shall send by post, copies of such letter, time enough for its insertion in the Salisbury Journal, the Portsmouth Telegraph, the Hampshire Chronicle, and the Reading Mercury, of that same week. If you set a value upon these letters, you will, of course, continue to have that paper which shall insert them regularly. I hope, and believe, that all the papers, which circulate in the county, will insert them, the editors appearing to me to be men of sound principles; but, if some of them should insert them, and some not, then those persons who set a value upon the Letters will, of course, take a paper that does insert them. If, contrary to my hopes and expectations, none of these provincial papers should insert them, then, I trust, that those amongst you, who take my Register, will lend it as widely as possible through their respective neighbourhoods. But, Gentlemen, if this could possibly be the case; if the influence of those, who are sucking away our very blood, could be so great as to obstruct the circulation of political truth in the county, through the accustomed channels; then we would show them, that we were not to be so baffled, and that we would soon have a provincial paper that should circulate such truths. All that I want to see circulated is truth. No falshood; no calumny; nothing of personal spite. "Truth, the "whole truth, and nothing but the truth," without respect to persons, or to selfish interests; but this truth we will have circulated amongst us, in defiance of all that can be done by force or by fraud.The editors of the provincial papers must acknowledge, that my proceeding is very fair; I shall write these letters for their papers as well as for my own; they will appear, if those editors choose, in their papers on the Sunday, and, in mine, they cannot reach any part of the county before that day. Copies of this Letter, for instance, will reach them all on Friday next, leaving them plenty of time to prepare it for the press. So that, if they all should, by the enemies of the county and the kingdom, be prevailed upon to endeavour to keep these Letters from your sight, they will have no reason to complain in case we resort to the establishment of a paper, which must be injurious to them. I am, Your faithful friend, WM. COBBETT. Botley, 2 May, 1809. P. S. Once more I beg leave in this particular manner, to request those gentlemen, who take the Register, and who approve of its contents, to lend it for the perusal of those of their neighbours who do not find it convenient to take it themselves. Every man, who reads useful truths, is a man made the better for that reading. The pulpit, which, some years ago, made the churches resound with politics. is now as silent as the grave upon political subjects. Smother! smother! smother! is the order of the day. To the Press we must now look; and to make the press really useful, those must now read, who did not read before-Upon looking again over the Resolutions proposed by Mr. PowLETT, I perceive, that, owing to an error in copying them, the three which stand first, should have stood last. This is very material; because, by the transposition, thanks to Mr. Wardle is made but a secondary and inferior object, and a deeper dye of party is given to the whole. In justice, therefore, to Mr. Powlett, who, on so many accounts, is entitled to the respect of the county, I lose no time in correcting this error. I had nearly forgotten one very material fact.-You remember, Gentlemen, when you called out: " Why is not Mr. CHUTE here to-day " The answer was, that he was attending his duty in parliament. -8€ ---Well, then, gentlemen, if he was in "tors might succeed in fixing this imputhe House of Commons on that day, he "tation on all public men, and driving voted for Lord Castlereagh; for his name "them from power; in, rendering them a is not in the list of the minority upon that degraded class, that he and those who question; neither is the name of his "support him might succeed to that ruin worthy colleague, MR. HEATHCOTE, in "and degradation. He could not agree "to this WIDE-WASTING motion, withthat list; so that, either they were not attending their duty in parliament, or they" out admitting the truth of assertions, for were both voting in direct opposition to the opinions of the county, that day ex. pressed. SUMMARY OF POLITICS. LORD FOLKESTONE'S MOTION (concluded from page 620).—This, as will be seen by a reference to the page here pointed out, was a Motion for the appointing of a Committee to make further inquiry into the corrupt disposal of offices, &c. And, it will be remembered, that it was opposed upon the ground of its being too general; too sweeping; too widely wasting. I shall now insert what Mr. Canning is reported to have said upon that occasion, having, at the place referred to, taken sufficient notice of all the other parts of the debate. After repeating what others had said about the difference between specific inquiries and general inquiries, Mr. Canning concluded thus: " He could "not conceive for what rational or practi"cable purpose, this motion was brought "forward. Was there no mischief in keep“ing a persuasion alive in the public mind, "that it was the opinion of impartial men " in that House, that so much rottenness and "corruption existed in every part of the "state, as rendered such an inquiry necessary? "The motion held out no hope of imme"diate advantage to the people; but it "held out the whole cast and class of public men to suspicion. They were "all represented as eagerly struggling for places and power, and as having nothing “ in view but the emoluments of office. The "emoluments of office! If there be any "man who considered the labours of an "official situation, the duties that were to "be performed, the anxieties that were undergone, the.warfare which a public man had to support, not only in that "House, but from the malignity which as"sailed him out of it, and could think that these things were to be compensated by "money, he did not envy such a man his "feelings or frame of mind. .. "which he was persuaded there was no So, Mr. Canning, there is a ferment in the public mind, is there? Now, if it be so, how came it there? Has it grown out of empty words; out of the declamation of speakers and writers; or out of the damning facts, revealed at the bar of the House of Commons, and out of the wellknown decisions upon those facts? There is a general persuasion, is there, "that rottenness prevails in every part of "the state?" Well, whose fault is that? But, this persuasion, which you allow to exist, is either true or false. Now, mind, the persuasion you do allow to exist, and you must allow it to be founded either If the former, surely in truth or falshood. an inquiry, detection, and appropriate punishment are necessary; and, if the latter, is not inquiry necessary, in order to shew the nation that it has been deceived?- -There is no getting out of this, Sir.-You say, that there is no ground for the persuasion, that you allow to exist; well, then, my good Sir, why be in such a passion about it, and why not let this headstrong young Lord have his committee of inquiry, which, possibly, might keep him If there was from other "mischief?". -Sir, Sir, the case is too plain; the case is so very plain, that "any man who could think so, it was to him a subject not of regret, but of pride, there needs nothing to be done, either "out of doors" or in-doors, but merely to "to be the object of the suspicion of such The Noble Lord and his abet-state the facts belonging to it.Why, 66 **a man. 66 Sir, as to all of you, on both sides, being represented" as being "eagerly struggling for places and power," I really do not think it necessary to say any thing but this: that, if the representation be not true, I am greatly afraid, that a very ugly imputation must be taken to yourselves; for, I put it to yourself, Sir, whether both parties have not, a thousand and a thousand times over, preferred this charge against one another; a question which, I am sure, you must answer in the affirmative. No, Sir, there is no one but a fool or a rogue, who is so unjust as to accuse any of you of "having nothing in view but the emo"luments of office;" for, seeming to bear in mind the maxim of ST. PAUL, that it is being worse than a heathen to neglect one's own kindred, most of the public men of our day, with filial and paternal and conjugal tenderness, take care to make pretty decent provision for their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives, children, and other relations; there being from the maxim of the Apostle only this trifling deviation, that he seems to have meant such provision to have proceeded from a man's own private means, while the provision we have here been speaking of proceeds from the means of the public, and those means, too, of which members of the House of Commons are, by the constitution, considered as the stewards. --Now, Sir, as to the "warfare," which you have to support," in the House, I have first to complain, that you did not make honourable and grateful mention of me, when you were complaining of the toils and dangers of that warfare; for, has it not been a subject of constant complaint with me, that there were regular fights carried on in the House; grand pitched battles, upon days fixed on for the purpose long before-hand? Have I not been constantly lamenting the existence of a drilled and disciplined and embodied Opposition? Have I not a thousand times expressed my earnest wish to relieve the king's servants from this warfare by keeping them out of the House, upon the principles of the Act of Settlement? Have I not said again and again, that it is impossible for men, who sit up debating till two or three o'clock in the morning, to attend properly to the management of great state-affairs? As to the "malignity," with which you are assailed out of the House, lord Folkestone offered you a remedy for it; a complete remedy; inquiry, proof of innocence, and publicity of that proof. Why not print it, Sir? Print it, Sir; “Print it, and shame the rogues?”. No, Sir, the noble Lord will not "succeed "in driving all public men from power," by which you must have meant all the present holders of, and candidates for, power and place; these his lordship will no more drive from power, than the Wellesleys will, I fear, drive the French out of Spain; or than the Archduke Charles will drive the Duke of Dantzick out of Germany. Before I dismiss this article, I cannot refrain from noticing one observation in the speech of Mr. Perceval (see page 613), namely, "that "it was not the punishment of past of fences, which we should so ardently "seek, as remedies and preventives of "such abuses.”—Good; but, how came we to hear nothing of this, Sir, when you prosecuted HAMLIN, the Tinman of Plymouth, who had seen hundreds and thousands of advertisements of places under government for sale, and who was so ignorant a man, that when the warrant went down for apprehending him, he took it to be the patent for his place? How came we to hear nothing of this doctrine then, Sir, when you demanded his punishment in the name of PUBLIC JUSTICE, and when the judge pronounced sentence upon him for the sake of example?—It is very true, that our great object ought to be, the preventing of future crimes; but, Sir, this object is not to be attained by the suffering of past crimes to go unpunished; for, if this were the case, what justice is there in punishing sheep-stealing, or even murder? What would be said of a judge, who, when a man should be arraigned for burglary, were to say: It is not the punishment "of past offences that we ought so ardently "to seek, as the prevention of future of "fences; and, therefore, we will not punish "this man, nor will we even expose him "to a trial" What would be said of such a judge, Sir? -The public will answer this question for you, Sir; nor will they fail to come to a just decision upon the whole of the matter relating to the rejected motion of Lord Folkestone.-I trust, too, that that motion will produce full as good a national effect as if it had been carried, and as if the full inquiry had taken place. I trust, that the reasoning, which must, as to this matter, pass in the public mind, will supply the place of the searching object of the motion itself; I trust, that the conclusions which will, and which must be drawn, in the mind of every man of sense, will receive an impression so deep as never to be effaced; and I trust, that 66 we, by our fire-sides, shall frequently re- Samuel Whitbread, esq. TELLERS. Lord Folkestone These are precious facts. They should be the subject of conversation in all families. Every man, who is well acquainted with them, should make it a point to see that twenty other men are made to understand the matter clearly. There needs no eloquence; no garnish of style to set off such facts. A man, who has facts like these to detail, can be under no temptation either to write or to speak any thing that can, by the utmost stretch of legal ingenuity and chicane, be tortured into a libel. Plain matter of fact is all that the nation wants; and of that, as far as my circulation extends, it shall have a plentiful supply. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.-On Monday, the 1st of this month, there was held, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand, London, a Meeting of "THE FRIENDS OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM," at which meeting SIR FRANCIS BURDETT presided. The assemblage was very numerous, not less than from eleven to twelve hundred people dining upon the occasion; and, what is of still more importance to notice, thousands being assembled in the streets near the Tavern, without any expectation of seeing a gaudy show, or any thing merely calculated to please the eye. It was not to see Sir Francis Burdett, for every soul in London had seen him before. In part it might be to see MR. Wardle but, then, it was the principles, which had made his person an object of curiosity. In short, I think, this unusual anxiety; these very rare marks of public interest, cannot be ascribed to any thing but the well-known cause of the meeting, and an earnest wish for the success of that cause. It would be quite impossible for me to give, in my limited space, any thing like an analysis of the speeches at this meeting. I will, therefore, first insert the RESOLUTIONS that were passed; and will then make a few of these remarks, which I think the most likely to be useful. "Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, Bart. M.P. "in the Chair.-It was Resolved, 1. "That it is the grand principle of "the Constitution, that the People shall "have a share in the government, by a 'just representation in Parliament. 2. That the long duration of Parlia"ments greatly facilitates the corruption "of the Members, and removes that "wholesome check or controul on their "conduct, a frequent recurrence to the "opinions of their Constituents. 3. "That in a Petition presented to the "House of Commons on the 6th May "1793, it was offered to be proved at the Bar, that 154 individuals did, by their "own authority, appoint or procure the "return of 307 Members of that House,' "(exclusive of those from Scotland), who "were thus enabled to decide all ques"tions in the name of the whole people "of Great Britain.' 4. "That this Meeting believes indivi"dual patronage in Boroughs has increas"ed since 1793;-that in those in which "the voters are few, and which are called "OPEN, the returns are for the most part "obtained for money;-that the Repre"sentation for Scotland is extremely in"fluenced;-and that there are great de"fects in that of Ireland: and it is the opinion of this Meeting, that a great majority of the Members of the Com"mons House are so returned that the na"tion is not constitutionally represented; 66 though it is taxed to support an expen"diture of seventy millions sterling a |