wonder as well as detestation. But the advocates of these and similar cruel diversions, exclaim in a toue of triumphant interrogation. Do not these sports inspire manly" courage and contempt of danger?" Certainly not. They are only calculated to generate cruelty and a thirst for blood. They may, indeed, inspire ferocity and insensibility to danger, but they are unfit to impart genuine and manly fortitude.-The Romans indulged, as before remarked, in these savage diversions to a greater extent than any other nation of antiquity; yet they did not excel the Greeks, nor have surpassed the moderns, in the display of military ardour and true courage. It is a superácial and unphilosophical view of the subject, to consider the barbarous sports of Rome contributing to the establishment of her power and military fame. These spectacles never became common till after Hannibal's defeat; and that the Romans, subsequent to this period im proved in valour and hardihood, is not recorded in the pages of their history. But may we not, with just pride, appeal to facts furnished by our own age and country? Has the valour, enterprise, or intrepidity of British soldiers and sailors shone less conspicuous, since the period that bull-baiting and other barbarous sports have declined, throughout most parts of the kingdom: The answer is recorded in the history of our late naval and military transactions.-The conduct of the Spaniards and Portuguese, when contrasted with that of our own countrymen, is a striking proof of the incompetency of savage and cruel amusements to create a courageous and warlike disposition. Bullfights still constitute the only active popular anusement of the two countries. If these bloody sports were capable of inspiring active courage and manly fortitude, how are we to account for the acknowledged degeneracy of the people of Spain and Portugal in these warlike qualities -The advocates for bull-baiting and similar sports, have recourse to another argument, or rather asser to hasten its abolition. The cruel treatment of the animal race might well lead an ingenious foreigner to remark, when describing our popular diversion, as follows. "The women of Rome beheld barbarities and murders in cold blood; but the boxing-matches, the bull-baitings, cock-fightings, and the numerous attendance of both sexes at public executions, indicate that there is at least a remnant of Roman manners, and the taste of those times, left in England." * Wenderborn, on the character and manners of the people of Great Britain.” tion, which they urge with great confidence: "cruel, sports," they contend,“ do not necessarily generate cruelty in a people." "The English, (say they) who are fond of these diversions, are, at the same time, less ferocious, and indeed hold the shedding of human blood more in abhorrence than any other nation on the face of the globe." Granted, that we really deserve this honourable distinction: does it follow that human nature is differently constituted in England to what it is in other parts of the world? Can it be necessary to prove, that habits of indifference to human suffering are acquired by repeated acts of cruelty to brutes; and that the sympathy of our natures must be blunted in proportion to our familiarity with. scenes of unnecessary and wanton barbarity? These are almost self-evident suppositions; at least they are such inductions from daily. and repeated experience, as to pass current for intuitive truths. But if we admit that the English are more addicted to crueļ sports, and yet hold human life more sacred than the people of other countries, it by no means follows, that such sports have not a tendency to create a disposition to cruelty, How then are we to reconcile this apparent contradic tion? The paradox, if there really be any, is not difficult of solution.-The life of men, is always most respected, where it is of most consequence. For, in a country like Britain, where the whole body of the people enjoy political and civil rights, their own importance, and that of their fellow-citizens will be felt and esteemed; and where just and equal laws protect the life and property of the meanest of the people, and copsequently private injuries can be redressed by an appeal to the tribunals of justice, man will be less disposed to be the avenger of his. own wrongs. Besides, ignorance is commonly the parent of cruelty. Now it may be safely asserted, that the knowledge of man's duties both towards his neighbour and his Creator, are better understood and more widely diffused amongst the mass of the people in this kingdom, than in those otherwise civilized countries, where a thirst for the blood of their fellow-creatures seems chiefly to prevail. These eminent moral and political advantages are the powerful counteracting causes of that spirit of barbarism which cruel diversions are calculated to excite. it be desirable then to efface the harsh lineaments of rudeness, and a want of feeling nearly allied to brutality, which still mar the otherwise fair visage of the national character, let all barbarous diversions be entirely abolished; but especially let the sport of bull-baiting be the first offering to be sacrificed at the shrines of humanity and justice! If was no contemptible means of misrepresentation; and, the reader may be assured, that the giving of the appearance of Royal sanction to the pamphlet, or rather to the appli-' cation of the word persecution, was not without design. It is probable that fifty pounds have been employed in presenting this advertisement to the eyes of the people, and thus spreading amongst them the idea of Lord Melville, who is now actually in the the receipt of about eight thousand pounds a year of their money, being a hard-used, a cruelly-treated man.- -While these, and some other, publications were making in London, the gude friends of the poor, innocent, harmless man were not idle at Edingburgh, where, in a news-paper entitled the Edingburgh Advertiser, the following paragraph appeared on the 30th of August. "This day the Lord Provost, Magistrates, "and Council are to give a grand dinner at "Fortune's Tavern, to the Right Honour"able Lord Viscount Melville, His Excel lency the Commander in Chief" [Earl of Moira], " and a number of other persons "of distinction." This some persons, in England, would have taken for a joke, had they not been informed by their Scots friends, that the Edingburgh news-papers do not joke, when the ministry, or any part thereof are concerned. Yet, that a man impeached, actually impeached, for high crimes and misdemeanors, should be public SUMMARY OF POLITICS, LORD MELVILLE.-In verification of the truth of the remark contained in my motto, many of the circumstances connected with the endeavours to support Lord Melville, and finally to defeat the ends of justice, might be pointed out; and, however mortifying it may be, to reflect that one is made to contribute towards the means of screening those, by whose peculations one has already suffered, yet, it is almost impos sible not to perceive, that such contribution does, in fact, take place. The numerous paragraphs, and, indeed, columns, that have appeared in the London news-papers, in support of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, have not, the reader may be assured, found their way into print at the expense of either the proprietors of those papers, or of the persons communicating such writings to the editors. Corruption, in short, begets corruption, maggot engenders maggot, in the body politic, when rotten, just as in the animal body.- -It was, sometime ago, observed, in the Political Register, that the partizans of Lord Melville, all those who had tasted of the wages of corruption and all those who wished so to taste (a class by no means contemptible as to numbers) would, during the prorogation of parliament, be constantly at work, in all possible ways, to deceive the people, to assuage their resentment, to ethice, all the impressions made upon the public mind by the discove-ly entertained by the corporation of the first ries of the Naval Commissioners. The readers of the Register were cautioned against the tendency of these efforts, and, they will, doubtless, have, for weeks past, perceived, that the caution was not unnecessary or illtimed.The first attempt, of the sort we have now been speaking of, through the means of the press, was a pamphlet, entitled a "SPEECH OF LORD MELVILLE, dedivered in the House of Commons, &c. &c." Assuredly, he had a right to publish his speech; bot, then, it follows, as a matter of course, that every one has a right to comment upon it, and to pablish those comments; for, we can never allow a man to claim a right to publish what he pleases in his justification, while the matter against him is pending, and, at the same time, to prevent others from publishing an answer thereunto. The next publication that made its appearance, was entitled, "An Exposure of the PERSECUTION of Lord Melville: in • a Letter to an intimate Acquaintance. Printed for J. Hatchard, BOOKSELLER city in Scotland! That a man so circumstanced should partake of such an entertainment! It.did, at first sight, seem incredible, and especially did it so seem, that the corporation should place the names of Moira and Melville in the order, in which they stood in the paragraph. But, to those who had witnessed the impudence exhibited in London, during the winter; those who had witnessed the operations of the BRAZEN system; who had, at the very times and in the very places where some degree of shame might have been expected, from even the most profligate and hardened, beheld confidence the most undaunted, assurance the fost inflexible, effrontery the most disgusting; that ever was seen or heard of amongst. the most abandoned of mankind; those who had witnessed these scenes would rather be stricken with the modesty of the corpora tion of Edingburgh, and would, by no means, be inclined to doubt of the reality of the intended entertainment.- The entertainment took place, and the following paragraph, taken from the same news-paper of the 3d of September, will igorm the reader who were the noble.nen and gentlemça Napier, Lord James Murray, Sir John "Stewart, Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Advocate, the Members for the County and City, the Secretary at War, the She"rift of the County, &c. &c." -The rea der need not be toli. that the " Secretary at War" is Mr William Dandas; and, it is hardly necessary to observe, that amongst the "Members of the County and City," is Mr. Robert Dundas. The Lord Justice Clerk, the Lord Advocate, and Lord Hopetoun, are also relations; and, as to the rest of the goodly company, their motives for attending are evident enough. The sequel of this dinner is not less amusing than its history is instructive. It was, it is, confidently said, intended to try the temper of the people, and, if it succeeded, to be followed up by the other corporations through the country, in a tour proposed to be made by the hero of the entertainment. It was meant to invite sixty noblemen and gentlemen; but, upon Lord Moira publicly declaring his disapprobation, the number was limited to forty, of whom only twenty-one attended, and, the majority of these were relations of Lord Melville, persons who, for the most part, were, in some way or other, living upon incomes received from taxes raised upon the people. His lordship was, or affected to be, in great spirits; but, he attempted in vain to inspire the company with gaiety. The representatives of the City of Edinburgh (the Town Council, electors of the members of parliament) are only thirtythree, all of them acquainted with Lord. Melville in a way which the reader will easily conceive. Amongst them, however, there are some persons in a state of life too low to be invited upon an occasion, wi;ere undiminished respeciability and grandeur were to appear. These persons took offence. At - the next meeting of the Council, they spoke of the recent dinner as an improper waste of the public money, a complaint that looked more than one way; but, they were, it is said, silenced by a patriotic declaration of the Lord Provost (the Chief Magistrate, a worthy Grocer, lately created a Baronet), that he meant to pay the bill out of his private pocket.The detail of these circumstances will convince the reader, that the scheme completely failed; and, that Lord Melville feels, that Scotland is not, with respect to him, what it used to be. On account of this discovery it is, that you hear, in all the Pitt and Melville newspapers, such loud and incessant cries against the " ingratitude," as they call it, of those 66 who owe their rise in the world to Lord Melville. Just as if the salaries attached to the places, which he gave, were paid out of his own private purse! Just as if all the peusions, ali the grants, all the contracts, in which he was concerned, were defrayed out of his own property! Never was so unjust, so degrading, so abominable a principle. To hold such a principle is to acknowledge the minister of the day for your absolute master; and, it would be worth while to ask Mr. Canning for a full explanation of what he meant, when he said, that he wished anxiously for an administration upon a different scale, but that, when called upon to take part with his right honourable friend, he should hold himself to be the most ungrateful" of mankind, if he refused to join him. It is necessary to explain the meaning of this; for, reason seems to say, that if a man receives favours at the expense of the public, it is to the public that his gratitude is chiefly due. Indeed, the conferring of favours, at the public expense, in order thereby to answer purposes of private interest, of whatever, sort, whether in the way of emolument, houcur, power, or friendship, is entitled to a name, which has so often been applied to the acts that have chiefly distinguished the political life of a, certain courtier, who has recently given such indisputable proofs of his affinity to the Spaniel race.The Scots will not, however, be much influenced by the cry above-mentioned. "They have been en"riched and exalted by Mr. Dundas." Some of them have. But, allowing that all Scotland has. Is not Scotland compelled to own the Dundases? "The English "have not had their due, share of the honours and emoluments passing through "the hands of Mr. Dundas," It may be so. But, the Dundases are not Englishmen. And, is that nothing! The truth is, that the Scots, taken as a nation, have been losers by the enormous patronage and influence of Mr. Dundas, now Lord Melville. That patronage, and influence have, indeed, enriched hundreds and thousands of Scotsmen, and, though they, have, in one department cr two changed hand's as to their immediate operation, they are still at work in nearly the same way; but, they have not enriched Scotland; they have produced no good, and have tended to produce no good, to Scotland. On the contrary, they have directly tended to injure her; to hamble, to subdne, to enslave, the people, by rendering the leading men of the country the mere dependents of the minister. This patronage and influence have done more, perhaps, than even the funding system to break down the aristocracy of Scotland. Indeed, they have charmingly cooperated with that system: the system has been constantly working the wealth out of the hands of the ancient nobility, it has been constantly reducing them, one after another, to poverty, and the patronage and influence have constantly stood ready to take advantage of the dispositions which poverty seldom fails to produce. The Scots, therefore, considered as a nation, have nothing to regret at the disclosures relating to the conduct of the Pitts and Dundases. Scotland will not have less of the public patronage than she had before; but, that which was enjoyed by one family, by one set, will now be enjoyed by the Scots nation at largeAmongst the publications which have, since the end of the session of parliament, appeared upon the subject of Lord Melville, there is one which merits particular attention; it being represented to be part of the speech of a JUDGE, delivered from the bench. It is taken from a newspaper entitled the SAINT JAMES's CHRONICLE, under the date of September, 14th, 1805; and, its words are as follow. "There are two other topics, upon which, though of a political nature, I wish to "risk a few words. Oue of them is the "fate of Lord Melville. To that person, I have " no attachment political or personal. But, Iaman Englishman. Merey and forbearance are inseparable from the name. I am also "conversant in judicial habits, which de"mand both candour and patience. I, "therefore, deprecate the violence, which "has devoted him the victim of popular "clamour, when he is in train for a dig"nified and constitutional judgment by his "peers."The article, from which this is taken, is entitled, the "conclusion of Mr. Justice Hardinge's change to the grand jury of Glamorganshire, at Cardiff, on Monday, 2d September, 1805." Of Mr. Justice Of Mr. Justice Hardinge, I know very little, never having heard his name pronounced by any human being, and, though I have observed Kis name, or, at least, the name of Mr. George Hardinge (who is, I believe, the same persony; amongst the members of the House of Commons, I never have noticed any speech of his making, except the one that he made against Mr. Reeves's pamphlet. But, though I have read this paragraph in five different ministerial papers, in every one of which it is represented as being part of a charge delivered by Mr. Hardinge to the Glamorganshire grand jury, I cannot believe it to be part of a charge, delivered either by him or by any body else. I look upon it as one of those tricks, by which the ready instruments of power and corruption, who have a controul over so great a part of the press, occasionally impose upon the people, and, it is with full confidence of being empowered to expose it as a fabrication, that I now submit it to my readers. For, in the first place, what in all the world had the case of Lord Melville to do with the business coming before the Grand Jury at Cardiff; where to introduce, and from the bench too, topics of a political and somewhat of an irritating nature, must, one would think, have been most carefully avoided by the person, to whom this pretended charge is imputed? But, the sentiments, the sentiments, forbid us to entertain, for a single moment, the opinion that they were uttered by a judge; by one of those venerable persons, on whose wisdom, whose integrity, and whose independence, we so materially rely for the equal distribution of justice, and, of course, for the due protection of our property, our personal liberty, and our lives. By such a person we must conclude, that sentiments like those above, quoted were never expressed; for, do, we not daily see our fellow-subjects, our countrymen, our neighbours, and, to some of us they must be related and of some beloved; do we not daily see them suntering imprisonment, banishment, or death; and for what? For disobeying the law; the statute law; acts of parliament, made to prevent men from doing those things which are injurious to the commerce, or the finances of the country? And, when a man like lord Melville; a man possessing great power; a man to whom great matters were confided by his Sovereign and his country; a man loaded with emoluments from the public purse, and with honours and titles from the hand of his gracious master: when such a man is detected in a gross viclation of the law, a law which he himself proposed to parliareent, and for which proposition he took great merit to himself; when such a man is heard openly to declare, and that too in the presence of the representa tions of the people, that he has disposed of tep thousand pounds of the public money, in a manner which he will never divulge, while there was a particular and positive law forbidding him to touch the said money at all; when such a man is censured; when justice is demanded upon the head of such a man, shall that censure and that demand be inputed to "violence" and to " popular clamour"? Is this justice? Is the promulgation of sentiments such as this likely to inspire the people with confidence of that sort which is so essential to the preservation of reverence for the laws, and the coustitution?- Violence!" I should be glad to be told, where, and in what, this violence has appeared. Never were people more cool, more mild, more gentle, than the people of England, than the aggrieved, the deeply-injured people of England, have been, through the whole of the proceedings relative to Lord Melville. There has, in no part of the kingdom, one act of violence, or a disposition to an act of violence, appeared. The meetings, called for the purpose of petitioning and addressing upon the subject, have been conducted in the most peaceable and orderly manner; and, in no one of those papers is there to be found an expressive indicature of "violence. They all breathe a profound respect for the law, a confidence in the integrity of parliament, a satisfaction at its conduct, an attachment to the person, and an anxious desire to preserve, unsullied, the crown of the King, together with the character of the country. And, shall such demonstrances of the sentiments of the people be termed violence? Shall they be regarded as constituting "popular clamour"? And, let it not be forgotten, that even these expressions of the public feeling did not make their appearance, till after Lord Melville had been heard in his defence; till after he had been twice heard, once before the commissioners, and once by the means of a paper, written, at his leisure, as an answer to the report . made upon his conduct by those Commissioners, a paper admitted not without an unexampled stretch of indulgence. Nor is this all; for the people did not take the lead. It was not the people that began. The voice of the people was not heard; there was not one popular meeting, nor was there, I believe, one proposition, publicly made, for calling a popular meeting upon the subject, until after the House of Commons had, in the most deliberate and solemn manner, declared Lord Melville guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty. Where, then, is the justice of imputing the proceedings against Lord Melville to violence" and to "popular clamour"? The House of Commons was not thought to be very violent in their haste to bring on those proceedings. The TENTH REPORT of the Naval Commissioners was laid before the House in February, and even early in that month. No one hastened to take it up. It was then withdrawn for the purpose of adding certain signatures. Nobody called for it. In time it came back. again; and, finally, it was brought before the House in a printed state, about the middle of March. A day, a somewhat distant day, was then appointed for the purpose of taking it into consideration. When the day approached, it was put off for the sole purpose of giving Lord Melville time to write a letter, which letter was, too, upon motion of the other great man, Mr. Pitt, allow ed to be brought up and taken into consideration together with the Report. At last, after the Report, after a knowledge of all the facts had been communicated to the House of Commons more than two months, the subject was, on the memorable 8th of April, discussed for the first time, and the decision was, that Lord Melville had, for the space of sixteen years, been constantly guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty. Was there, then, any thing vio lent previous to the discussion? Did the House of Commons exhibit signs of violence, or of apathy? And, as to the people, it has been before shown, that they suffered not their voice to be heard upon the subject, till after the House of Commons had decided.- -But, may not the paragraph mean, that this violence and popular clamour have appeared since it was resolved on to impeach Lord Melville? "I there"fore deprecate the violence, which has "devoted him the victim of popular cla mour, when he is in train for a dignified "and constitutional judgment by his peers." This is, it must be confessed,, not too good English, or any thing else; and, it may mean, that "violence and popular clamour" against Lord Melville have appeared since it was resolved on to impeach him; and, the only objection to this construction is, that the fact is wholly and notoriously false; for, let me ask the reader, what violence has appeared, any where against Lord Melville, since the impeachment was resolved on? Where has there been heard, since that, any popular clamour? Did not those who had been most active in maintaining the cause of the country, immediately declare, that now there ought nothing more to be said, till the trial should be over? A striking instance of this candour, this love of justice, was shown at the county-meet.. g in Wiltshire. A meeting had been deman- |