« AnteriorContinuar »
gentlemen's houses-Protestant gentlemen, I mean, with their houses full of valuable property,-are left, in the middle of the night, almost without bolt or bar, and certainly much more insecure against invasion from without than would be safe in any part of England.
It is melancholy to contemplate the enormous mischief which is done by these continual exaggerations of the lawless, and wicked, and wretched state of Ireland. People are quite frightened at the name of the place. Men who have capital to lay out in agriculture and manufactures sooner think of going to Van Diemen's Land, than to a country of which they hear such dreadful descriptions. They transport themselves to the Antipodes, rather than go three days' journey to a country, which they are not allowed to think of, without thinking at the same time of murder. This is the evil which the orators bring upon their country; and while they take credit to themselves for boundless patriotism, they ruin their native land.
As to a general rebellion, there is no idea of any such thing at present in Ireland, and if there were, there is no place in the world where it would be sooner known. The Irish are so completely abandoned to the influence of feeling and passion, that keeping a secret is with them quite out of the question. The gathering storm, too, would manifest itself in a variety of ways-the people would not work, they would abandon their fields, well knowing that in a time of disturbance, they would be masters, and no rent would have to be paid. Letters would be sent to particular individuals occasioned by gratitude for some individual act of kindness, and warning them of their danger. Disclosures would be made by some, fearing like Donchad of Ossory, that others would get before them, and be exclusive sharers of the reward, and many other indications would infallibly appear.
Mr Grant is so well pleased with the opportunity for making a fine speech, which Mr Fitzgerald's statement furnishes, that although he knows it is not correct, yet" he will not inquire to what degree, in some respects, the picture may be overcharged." And
why will he not inquire? Is it his business, or his duty, as a statesman, to make a glowing powerful speech, (I did not think, by the by, that Charlie Grant had it in him to make such a speech,) founded upon statements which he well knew to be "overchar ged?" "Overcharged," indeed! What a delicate word! False-false is the word, good St Charlie-but let us have your own flourish. "There exists in Ireland, a power, compact, well organized, not recognized by the constitution, disavowed and condemned by Parliament, usurping the functions of the executive, exercising even final authority, extending its dominion over every part of the country, and able at its will to command and direct the movements of the whole people." Very fine indeed. The first part of the description, however, has this advantage over the latter, that it is true, which the other is not. But it being true that a power exists, not recognized by the constitution, and disavowed and condemned by Parliament, why is it suffered to exist? Oh! for one year's wise and vigorous decision in the Government of Ireland!
You know, Mr North, I hate a long argument, when the pith of it begins to decline, so I shall not detain you much longer. The state of Ireland at present, is certainly not an enviable one, for party feeling rankles with an excessive soreness, of which previous times, bad as they have sometimes been, scarcely afford an example. But let Parliament men, news→ men, or Catholic Association men, say what they please, I say, much might be done for Ireland, without Catholic Emancipation-and the first thing is, to let the truth be known, for it is quite incredible the quantity of falsehood that is abroad, concerning that country. I wish a Society were established, to send some of its members regularly into Ireland, for the sake of actually beholding what was going on there. I will ensure the safety of the lives of the travellers at a small premium. What a "refreshing" thing an unprejudiced report would be! I am, with great respect, Mr NORTH, Yours,
7th June 1828.
P.S.-I annex a note of the proceedings and divisions in Parliament on the Catholic Question, which may be interesting to some of your readers.
1805. Mr Fox moved for a Committee to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes, 124; Noes, 336.-Majority against the Catholics, 212.
1806. Question not brought forward.
1807. Question not brought forward.
1808. Motion for a Committee to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes, 128; Noes, 281.-—Majority against the Catholics, 153.
1809. Question not brought forward.
1810. Motion for a Committee to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes, 109; Noes, 213.-Majority against the Catholics, 104.
1811. Motion for a Committee. Ayes, 83; Noes, 146.-Majority against the Catholics, 63.
1812. April 24. Mr Grattan's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 215; Noes, 300.-Majority against the Catholics, 85.
June. Mr Canning's motion for a Committee early in the next Session, to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes, 235; Noes, 106.Majority for the Catholics, 129.
June. A similar motion in the Lords by Lord Wellesley.The order of the day being moved in opposition to Lord W.'s motion-Contents, 126; Non-contents, 125. Majority against the Catholics, 1.
1813. Feb. 3. Debated for three nights.
Mr Grattan's motion for a Committee to take into serious consideration the Ca.
May 11. Motion by Sir J. C. Hippesley to inquire into the state of the laws af-
May 13. Second reading.
On the motion that it should be read that day three months-Ayes, 203; Noes, 245.-Majority for the Catholics, 42.
May 24. Bill in Committee. On the motion to omit the clause enabling Catho lics to sit in Parliament-Ayes, 251; Noes, 247.-Majority against the Catholics, 4; and the Bill withdrawn.
1814. Question not brought forward.
1815. May 31. Sir Henry Parnell's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 147; Noes, 228. -Majority against the Catholics, 81.
1816. May 21. Mr Grattan's motion for a Committee early in the next Session. Ayes, 141; noes, 172.-Majority against the Catholics, 31.
1817. May 9. Mr Grattan's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 221; Noes, 245.-Ma jority against the Catholics, 24.
1818. Question not brought forward.
1819. May 4. Mr Grattan's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 241; Nocs, 243.-Ma
jority against the Catholics, 2.
1820. Question not brought forward.
1821. Feb. 28. Mr Plunkett's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 227; Nocs, 221.Majority for the Catholics, 6.
March 16. Second reading of the Bill. Ayes, 254; Noes, 243.-Majority in favour of the Catholics, 11.
March 23. Division on first clause of the Bill. Ayes, 230; Noes, 216.-Ma-
March 26. Mr Bankes' amendment to exclude Catholics from Parliament.
April 2. Third reading. Ayes, 216; Noes, 197.-Majority for the Catholics,
House of Lords.-Second reading of the Bill. Contents, 120; Non-contents, 159 Majority against the Catholics, 39.-Bill thrown out.
1822. April 30. Mr Canning's motion for a Bill to enable Catholic Peers to sit in the Upper House. Ayes, 249; Noes, 244.-Majority for the Catholics, 5.
May 13. Second reading of the Bill. Ayes, 235; Noes, 223.-Majority for the
May 17. Bill passed without a division.
June 21. House of Lords.-Second reading of the Bill. Contents, 129; Noncontents, 171.Majority against the Bill, 42.Bill thrown out.
1823. April 18. Mr Plunkett's motion for a Committee. Sir Francis Burdett, and several other Whigs, abruptly left the House. Motion met by a countermotion for an adjournment. Ayes, 313; Noes, 111.—Majority against the Catholics, 202.
1824. Question not brought forward.
1825. Feb. 28. Sir Francis Burdett's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 247; Noes, 234. -Majority for the Catholics, 13.
April 22. Second reading of the Bill. Ayes, 268; Noes, 241.-Majority for
May 10. Third reading of the Bill. Ayes, 248; noes, 227.-Majority for the
May 17. House of Lords. Contents, 130; Non-contents, 178.-Majority against
1826. Question not brought forward.-Parliament dissolved.
1827. New Parliament. March 5. Sir Francis Burdett's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 272; Noes, 276.Majority against the Catholics, 4.
SIEGE OF BHURTPORE.
Letter from an
I OBSERVE in your last Number a letter from "A Bengal Engineer," complaining of the article in your April Number, "The Siege of Bhurtpore," as attaching much blame to the operations of the engineers. Being the author of the journal referred to, consequently the culpable person, I re-. quest you will insert, for his information, in your next Number, the follow ing explanation and remarks:
The journal in question was never intended as a full and minute account, but merely a rough sketch taken on the spot, when duty permitted, during the siege. The little information contained therein I was in nowise indebt ed to the engineers for, who, by the by, were singularly reserved in their communications to infantry officers on the most trivial subjects. Before I proceed further, I must disclaim any intention of throwing blame to the degree stated on that distinguished corps, "The Bengal Engineers." The operations were, generally speaking, carried on with talent, as the result proved, and with zeal, as no one can deny. That an engineer should neces sarily be better acquainted with his peculiar department and details than an infantry officer, no one will question, but that he is not liable to error in judgment at times, he will scarcely affirm.
Regarding his remark," that had the ditch been filled with water, no failure would have taken place," it is a strong assertion-at best, a matter of opinion-failures not many years since occurred under as favourable circumstances, and this is a point impossible
to decide without trial. Certain I am, "The Bengal Engineer" had seldom (if ever) an opportunity of seeing a ditch, such as that at Bhurtpore, full of water, crossed in the neat way he undoubtedly could have advised.
Speaking of the curtains being low, was in reference to the bastions, several of which were from 80 to 93 feet high-by his own account the curtains were from 50 to 55 feet.
That the points of attack, at first chosen, were two curtains, I now well remember, and stand corrected accordingly; still I cannot refrain from think, ing it would have proved equally profitable to his comments, had he been blessed with a short memory on this occasion, unless he had explained, "why two curtains" were fixed on, in preference to two salient bastions. That the two curtains were ill selected, and contrary to the common principles of fortification to form breaches in, is indisputable, when the flank fire of the bastions, as well as the bastions themselves, were complete and occupied. That I am borne out in this statement, is evident from the fact, that, after eight days' struggling to form a sort of breach, they were given up entirely, and the bastions, which ought to have been attacked at first, were at last determined on. The gunbreach to the left of the long-necked bastion I examined the day after the fort fell, and have no hesitation in stating, that had it been attacked, there was great chance of failure in that quarter, from the impossibility of a sufficient number of men being able to reach its summit at once. At the
bottom was a great quantity of fine dust, that hid an entire escarp of 30 feet, although at a distance it had the appearance of an easy slope up to the breach. To the remark, that the taking of Kuddum Kundie, &c. is extremely incorrect, I answer, the chances are, the "Bengal Engineer" was not at the post during the day, or he would have seen four guns instead of two, under Lieutenant H. of the artillery; also the guns in question were frequently fired that day against the fort. That an attempt to make a battery of sand-bags and cotton-bales, is correct, I assert, and was only prevented by the heavy fire from the fort. Had the engineer been behind these bales a few hours, he would have had an opportunity of seeing specimens of Bhurtpore gunnery, and witnessed round shot pass through them, though two abreast, at 600 to 700 yards; that the loss is exaggerated in regard to men I am aware, and was occasioned by mistake; but many bullocks were destroyed. His remarks concerning the ramparts I have since learnt to be tolerably exact; still the breach at the long-necked bastion was composed of a heap of stones and masonry, mixed with mud, &c. Two days after the storming I was obliged to leave Bhurt pore, and could not ascertain how far the above description answered the ramparts in general.
My observation, regarding the escarp being 60 feet, was a matter of conjecture. This remark I noted down on 6th January. Now, by his own account, the real height was not known before the 8th January. Considering that my view was from the advanced trenches, and his, perhaps, quietly measured after the place was in our possession, the difference of six feet was not worth mentioning this remark is equally applicable to the counterscarp.
His next remark refers to what was evidently an error in printing from the manuscript, (it scarcely requires an engineer's abilities or education to distinguish between scarp and counterscarp, much less to suppose a mine under a bastion could blow in the counterscarp,) and adds no weight to his review by noticing it. The loss of materials by the explosion, I had no means of ascertaining the amount of, and thought it of no importance to do so, when abundance of wood was at hand to replace them.
His next paragraph requires notice. The sap crowning the counterscarp opposite the left breach, (if it could be so called,) was very badly constructed, and without excavation, on the morn ing of 12th January, (unless a foot in depth, and as much in breadth, is deemed sufficient.) The gabions, stuffed with cotton, were in no part musket proof, "having no earth be hind them." I had the pleasure of twenty-four hours duty in it, soon after its construction, and can speak to its qualities, and found it necessary request both sand bags and tools might be sent to complete it-it was by the soldiers in it, that it was rendered fit to hold the firing party, after some loss.
I do not mean to say the sap leading to it was not tolerable, or the corner where the shafts were sinking a very snug birth, and where I observed the engineers most part of the day, of course superintending the mining. That the quantity of water at the foot of the gun-breach, on the left attack, was known on 8th January, I was not aware. On the 12th, at four o'clock in the evening, an attempt was in contemplation, but laid aside. The only method I had of obtaining an idea of the powder used in the various mines, was, by observing the number of bags passing, and making a calculation from them. When the engineer states 280 to be the angle the left breach formed with the horizon, his instrument must have been out of order, or he took his base-line at the extreme clod thrown into the ditch; it appeared nearer 38° or 40°, than 28°. This I had no time to determine. Not being certain of the disposition made for the two small columns, I omitted mention of them on that account only. In conclusion, I humbly conceive, that, had the “Bengal Engineer" waited till the full account ap peared, he so exultingly announces to be at hand, he would have had at least more chance of triumph than has attended his present attempt.
Sir, I am, yours, &c.
An INFANTRY OFFICER. 12th June, 1828.
P.S.-If the "Bengal Engineer" could inform me when the Bhurtpore prize-money is to be paid, I shall willingly excuse, and patiently bear his corrections.
his auditory that the case of the petitioners rested upon two grounds, the Treaty of Limeric, and the pledges entered into at the Union. He assu red the honourable members, that he should establish the violation of the one and of the other; and on this ground he called for their decision in his favour. Then he talks on for six columns good measure, addressing himself to these topics, and to these topics only, and subjoins, that "this is the case on the part of the Roman Catholics," and he hopes and trusts he has made it out to the satisfaction of the House. Such was the Quinbus Flestrin of the Catholic claims which Sir Francis set up, adorning his cham pion with a curious quilted garment, composed of numerous irrelevant quotations, pedantically culled from all manner of Latin authors. But lo! on the third day of the debate we find him genubus minor, down on his knees, cheated of his fair proportions, biting the dust, with North, and Huskisson, and Brougham, (et tu, Brute!) pelting him into contempt and derision. Mr North, while he takes up the helmet of necessity, and the sword of expediency, hopes that the advocates of this measure will never again found any argument upon such untenable footing as the Treaty of Limeric, or the Articles of Union, and deeply de plores that these shambling legs were ever allowed to put their foot into the debate. Mr Huskisson most unkindly protests that he agrees not in Sir Francis's view of these questions, but in Mr Peel's, and the Solicitor-General's; but Winchelsea Harry gives the unkindest cut of all, by hastening to say, that though he still thinks there are perhaps some ambiguities, which might be favourably construed, he will not drag back the honourable members to the consideration of arguments, which are now below par on every side of the House. Such was the fate of this grand case, ushered in with so pompous an air of irrefragability. These notable arguments, which occupied the attention of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom for the greater part of two nights' debate, are on the third abandoned by all as too absurd and ridiculous to be worth any consideration in the question at issue.
Nor is there any wonder in this, but rather in the extraordinary front
of the men who could venture to bring forward such arguments upon such a subject. As to the treaty of Limeric, clear as the case is against the construction sought to be put upon it by Sir Francis and some of his friends, yet he might perhaps have expected that, from the remoteness of its date, he should be able, notwithstanding the presence of Mr Peel and the SolicitorGeneral, to make something of the "ambiguities," as Mr Brougham was pleased to call them, which must attend the circumstances of a treaty made in a disturbed country nearly 140 years ago. But to attempt to argue the House into what Mr Pitt's pledge was at the Union, while those were still living and sitting in the House, who had heard Mr Pitt declare, in words as plain as words could be, that no pledge at all was given-this, indeed, was a stretch of oratorical audacity that Sir Francis and the Knight of Kerry have some reason to take credit for. I shall pass over the in decent attack of Sir Francis upon the venerable ornament of the Upper House of Parliament, the late Lord Chancellor. If he be not himself sorry and ashamed by this time that he was betrayed into such indecency, Sir Francis is not the man I took him for. With all the vio lence of his party spirit, I thought he possessed some of the good feelings of the class to which he belongs, and as one of the landed gentlemen of Eng land, I believed him incapable of the low malignity which a deliberate approbation of his own language concerning the late Lord Chancellor would indicate.
Another matter seemingly rather out of the record, into which Sir Francis thought proper to travel after the six columns on the treaty and the pled ges were got over, was the "scandal about Queen Elizabeth;" for if she indeed had displayed any favour or affection for the Roman Catholic body, she would have shewn herself a very foolish old woman, and not what she most certainly was, one of the greatest sovereigns that ever a great people was blessed withal. How sickening it is to hear such stuff talked in the House of Commons! Who does not know, that Elizabeth, (glory and ho nour to her memory,) after a long and patient endurance of Popish plots for her assassination, for insurrection, and invasion, was at length compelled to