2

MR. URBAN,-In reply to your inquiry as to my authority for the history of the Highlanders in Northamptonshire as related in your November Magazine, I refer you to the 4to. Tract published in 1743, with a woodcut of the execution of the Highlanders on the Tower Green, with the White Tower in the background; the Northamptonshire Mercury of 1743 (which Journal is still in existence, and lately has reprinted the account of the Surrender of the Highland mutineers); and to Caulfield's Remarkable Characters, where a minute detail of the counter-march and capitulation is given, illustrated with a portrait of Corporal McPherson, fully accoutred "with sword and pistol." Yours, &c. R. S. W.

Another Correspondent refers us to Grant's "Sketches of the Highlanders," for a narrative of the same occurrences. The men belonged to the 42d_regiment, not long before embodied as "The Black Watch." Grant distinctly states that many of the original members of "The Black Watch," even among the privates, were gentlemen," being sons of smaller proprietors, kinsmen of the chiefs of the clans, to which they respectively belonged. The account of Mr. William Knight, inserted p. 455, is thus confirmed, notwithstanding the doubt expressed, p. 456, by R. S. W. Whether or not the present 42d Regiment, or "Royal Highlanders," represents the old "Black Watch," having been afterwards so numbered, our Correspondent does not know, but rather imagines that it does.

MR. URBAN,-I am desirous of ascertaining the arms borne by the following prelates :

Richard Beadon, Bishop of Gloucester 1789; Bath and Wells 1802.

Robert Creyghton, Bishop of Bath and Wells 1670.

John Garnett, Bishop of Ferns 1752; Clogher 1758.

John Graham, Bishop of Chester 1848. Richard Howland, Bishop of Peterborough, 1584.

John Kaye, Bishop of Bristol 1820; Lincoln 1827.

Thomas Musgrave, Bishop of Hereford 1837 Archbishop of York 1847.

Alfred Ollivant, Bishop of Llandaff 1849. John Porter, Bishop of Killala 1795; Clogher 1798.

Beilby Porteus, Bishop of Chester 1776; London 1787.

Edward Rainbow, Bishop of Carlisle 1664.

Thomas Watson, Bishop of Llandaff 1789.

Philip Yonge, Bishop of Bristol 1758; Norwich 1761. C. H. COOPer. Cambridge, 8th December, 1854.

Mr. Pishey Thompson has favoured us with an impression of an old Seal, apparently of bell-metal, lately found in digging out a ditch, about 16 inches below the surface, on the borders of the parish of Fishtoft near Boston. It is circular, about 14 inches in diameter, bearing in its circumference the words,

SIGILL' COM LINCOLN' P' S'VIS and in the centre the name

FLAX WELL'

Flaxwell is the name of one of the hundreds into which the county of Lincoln is divided, lying north of the town of Sleaford, and therefore at a considerrble distance from the place where the seal was found. We do not recollect to have previously seen a seal of this description; but from its appearance we conjecture that it is of the age of Henry VIII., and we should be inclined to interpret the contracted word "s'vis" as meaning supervisibus, or surveys; in which case such seals may have been made for the surveys of ecclesiastical lands on the dissolution of monasteries. Probably another example may hereafter occur to confirm or correct this interpretation.

J. G. N. has seen a china butter-boat of the same pattern as those described by L. N. in Nov. p. 418, one of which had the mark of a small fish-hook. This had a mark of an L. which is assigned by Marryat to the manufactories of Ilmenau, Breitenbach, and Limbach in Germany.

H. L. T. is desirous to ascertain the parentage of the late Admiral Abraham Lowe, of whose services a memoir was given in the Obituary of our November magazine.

ERRATUM, p. 479.-The decorative star found among the relics of Sir John Franklin was that of the Hanoverian Guelphic Order (of which Sir John was a member) and not that of the Bath. Engravings of this and the other relics have appeared in the Illustrated London News.

Page 629. The late John Wilks, esq. was not a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was for many years Vestry Clerk of St. Luke's, Old Street. In col. 2, lines 10, 11, the names of Mr. Brownrigg and Major Hadley should be transposed, but not the figures.

Page 633 a, 38, for 1834 read 1824.

Page 641 a, 13 from foot, read the late James Riley of Abbey House, Bermondsey.

WE would not "give a button," as the song says, for a man who professes that he does not feel an interest in what was said or done in the old times. In our day we have met with several such people. They avow a regard only for what they term the practical business of life. The rise or fall of the funds, the opening of some new branch of industry, the price of a commodity in a foreign market, the details of an every-day business life-such are the objects which engross their attention, and are alone deemed worthy of their study. Men of this class care not how things came into their present state. "What matters it?" they say, "Here we are, and we must make the best of our position." Our readers may be assured that such persons are poor narrow-minded fellows, unfertile in expedients, devoid of imagination or rational curiosity, cold, selfish men, whom it is unwise as well as unsafe to follow. Sylvanus Urban has no sympathy with them. It is his belief that men, earnestly engaged in an important course of action, have in all times done glorious things worthy to be had in remembrance-things the consideration of which is a source of instruction as well as of delight-things which make history, and need only to be told clearly in order to inspirit the heart and enlighten the intellect of all who read them. To Sylvanus Urban the publication of such a book as this of Lord Mahon's is therefore at all times a source of pleasure. The book itself apart from its subject has qualities which ought to render it generally ac

ceptable. It is a clear lucid narrative, written in a calm placid strain, deriving no interest from exaggeration, but simply giving what it is evident the author desires to be a fair and candid estimate of every person who comes under his notice. "Nothing extenuate nor set down aught in malice," was the high-minded charge which Othello, when determined to die, gave to him on whom devolved the task of chronicling his history. Lord Mahon, whilst fully acting up to the latter part of the injunction, is ever ready to extenuate what he cannot defend. We do not always agree with him. We occasionally see, as we think, that political opinion or predetermined judgment colours his conclusions; but, if it be so, we are quite sure that such warping influence is unconscious on his part, and that he has striven to write kindly and fairly of every one. He has desired, in a word, that the light which he throws upon our history should be as pure as it is clear.

This volume brings to an end the seven decades of English history which comprise his subject. The close of the American war offered a fitting period of pause, and he has availed himself of it. The three years comprised in this final volume present to notice the Lord George Gordon Riots of 1780, the capture and fate of Major André, the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, the break-up of Lord North's administration, Rodney's victory over Count de Grasse, and the siege of Gibraltar. To these subjects-enough of themselves to make up a volume of no little in

terest-Lord Mahon has added three chapters on India, and a final chapter on Life and Manners.

66

own

Looking back upon the England of seventy years ago, it seems difficult occasionally to recognize our country. How singular, for example, those riots of 1780! The supineness of the authorities is at this distance of time quite unaccountable. Lord Mahon mentions various causes which may have contributed to produce the disgraceful torpor," but the only one of them which seems to have perceptibly operated upon the members of the government only adds to our amazement. A doubt we are told was generally entertained as to the legality of using military force against a mob engaged in burning and plundering, unless a magistrate had first warned the mob by reading publicly, and "at full length, all the provisions of the Riot Act." The existence of such a doubt seems truly marvellous, and not less so the sluggishness which omitted to resolve the doubt, if it really existed, by instant reference to the highest authorities. Scarcely less extraordinary, to our thinking, was the quibble by which Lord Mansfield is reported to have ultimately vindicated the legality of the employment of the soldiery. "His Majesty and those who have advised him," remarked the Lord Chief Justice at the conclusion of a speech on the subject in the House of Lords, "have acted in strict conformity with the common law. The military have been called in, and very wisely called in, not as soldiers but as citizens. No matter whether their coats be red or brown, they were employed not to subvert but to preserve the laws and constitution which we all so highly prize." But the Chief Justice is here reasoning upon what were not the facts. The troops were marched to the scenes of uproar, not as citizens, but as soldiers, under an order of the King in council; they went thither armed as soldiers; they were posted as soldiers; they charged the mob as soldiers; they fired upon a given word of command as soldiers; yet we are told by the Lord Chief Justice that they were called in "not as soldiers but as citizens," and by virtue of that mis-statement we are, upon his authority, to believe that their employ

ment was legally defensible. We are not contending, be it remarked, against the legality of their employment, which we think justifiable upon every moral, social, and legal ground; what we are contending is, that there is no force, but, on the contrary, much constitutional danger, in the justificatory fiction of Lord Mansfield. By basing the legality of the employment upon an untruth, Lord Mansfield virtually allowed that the employment as it stood upon the real facts was illegal. Surely there must be some mistake in this presumed report of his speech. The Riot Act was passed to enable magistrates to disperse large assemblies of persons-not necessarily committing outrages, but assemblies so numerous as to occasion interruption to business, or excite fear lest some breach of the peace might ensue. In such cases a proclamation was to be made, not as Lord Mahon supposes by reading all the clauses of the Riot Act in full, but in a short form of words provided in the Act; and, if the concourse did not disperse within an hour after such proclamation, they might then be dealt with by force. But there is a wide difference between the case of an assembly of persons loitering or speechifying, which was the case principally contemplated by the Riot Act, and a mob burning, sacking, plundering, destroying, opening jails, and firing chapels. The latter case is one to which the provisions of the Riot Act were never intended to apply. The absurdity of supposing that such a mob as that which sacked Lord Mansfield's house, could not be interfered with unless a magistrate had first read to them the proclamation contained in the Riot Act, and then waited an hour for their voluntary dispersion, seems too glaring for any public officer to have entertained for a moment. It is clear that at the common law, to which Lord Mansfield appeals, and which, in such a case, is mere common sense, the first duty of the executive government was to provide for the peace of the realm, and that they were not merely justified but bound, in the sight of God and man, to use all necessary means in

their

power for the suppression of such atrocities. In the same joint judgment of common sense and common law they were bound to accomplish their end by

Tues

such force as was necessary, whether by the truncheon of the constable or the firelock of the soldier. The timidity of the government in hesitating to employ the necessary means, and the argument of the Lord Chief Justice, defending the employment by a quib. ble, are equally unaccountable. The misconduct of the government was the more inexcusable as they had been already warned by the riots which had taken place in Scotland under the influence of the same party, and by the use made of those riots as an example by Lord George Gordon in his inflammatory addresses to the mob. The first of the riotous assemblies in London occurred on Friday the 2d June. The freedom of parliament was then gravely invaded, and on the same night two Roman Catholic chapels were destroyed. There were some slight disturbances on the night following, and on Sunday the 4th there occurred several most serious outrages. Still nothing was done by way of active prevention or repression. On Monday the 5th there were again alarming outrages. Still nothing was done. day the 6th was the day on which Newgate and Clerkenwell prisons, and the residence of Lord Mansfield, were destroyed. Still nothing was done. On Wednesday the 7th there was rioting all day long; the Bank of England was attempted, and the King's Bench and other prisons were broken open. In the evening the town was in a blaze with incendiary fires. It was not until this same day, the 7th, that a council upon the subject was summoned-not by the ministers, but by the personal direction of the King. The military were then at once called out, and in the evening of that day a wholesale slaughter ensued. Two hundred persons were shot dead in the streets, between seventy and eighty more died of their wounds, and one hundred and eighty wounded were received into the hospitals. This waste of life, and the vast destruction of property on the 7th and the preceding day, might have been avoided by the measures which common prudence dictated a week before. The parallel which Lord Mahon intimates between the excitement occasioned by the employment of the military in the Wilkes riot in 1768, and their employment against

such a mob as that of 1780, cannot be maintained for a moment. If really adduced by the government as an excuse for inaction, it renders their timid incompetency more conspicuous.

The case of Major André was emphatically a hard and melancholy one. Lord Mahon contends that the signature of his death warrant constitutes "by far the greatest, and perhaps the only, blot in Washington's most noble career," and he anticipates that ere long "the intelligent classes" amongst the Americans will unite with the similar classes in our own country in its condemnation. We cannot share in this expectation, nor do we concur in Lord Mahon's critical remarks on Andre's treatment. The facts are remembered by every one. Arnold, an American General intrusted with the command of a most important fortification, determined to betray his trust and desert to the British. André went within the American lines to confer with Arnold on the best mode of effecting this iniquity. On his return André was taken prisoner. He was dressed at the time of his capture in plain clothes, had in his possession a pass from Arnold granted in a false name, and in his boots were found plans of the place to be given up, and papers relating to the mode of capture in Arnold's writing. Washington referred the consideration of the case to a Court of Inquiry, composed of general officers. They adjudged André to death as a spy, and Washington ordered him to be executed accordingly. Lord Mahon, although admitting the general respectability of the officers who composed the Court of Inquiry, yet alleges that

the American generals at that time were for the most part wholly destitute of the advantage of a liberal education. They were men drawn from the plough-handle or from the shopboard at their country's call. Greene himself, the president of the tribunal, had been a blacksmith by trade

such men, having no light of study to guide them, having never probably so much as heard the names of Vattel or

Puffendorf, could be no fit judges on any nice or doubtful point of national law. And by whom (continues Lord Mahon) had they been assisted? By La Fayette, who, though for some years a trans-Atlantic General, was still only a youth of twenty-three, and who, as he tells us, had learnt little or nothing at college. By

Steuben, who had undoubtedly great knowledge and experience, but who, speaking no English, while his colleagues spoke no French, was unable to discuss any controverted question with them. It follows then that the verdict of such a tribunal ought to have no weight in such a case.

We cannot agree in this conclusion. The remarks upon the general character of the American generals are inapplicable, and those upon La Fayette needlessly depreciatory. If Steuben possessed the "great knowledge and experience" attributed to him, we may feel assured that he did not concur in the sentence without perfectly understanding it. But all these remarks of Lord Mahon are thrown away, in consequence of one unfortunate omission. Besides the fourteen generals, there was another member of the Court of Inquiry, and a most important one, whom Lord Mahon has forgotten-the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Laurens. He was, no doubt, appointed a member of the court to supply Vattel and Puffendorf, and all other deficiencies of the military men. He attended the inquiry and signed the report. In this respect the inquiry was therefore just such an one as might have taken place amongst ourselves. Persons competent to judge of military practice were kept right in point of mititary law by the highest professional legal officer, who was attached to the court for that purpose.

Lord Mahon adds that, in such a case, Washington was bound to “ ponder and decide it for himself." Who shall say that he did not? That the decision ultimately rested upon his fiat is unquestionable. There is the clearest evidence also that he was intimately acquainted with the facts.

But Lord Mahon adds, in condemnation of the sentence, that when André was arrested he was travelling under the protection of a pass which Arnold as the commander of the West Point district had a right to give. The Americans contend that this right was forfeited or rendered of no effect by Arnold's treacherous designs. Yet how hard to reconcile such a distinction with plighted faith and public law! How can we draw the line and say at what precise point the passes are to grow invalid-whether when the treachery is in progress of execution, or when only matured in the mind, or when the mind is still wavering upon it? In

short, how loose and slippery becomes the ground if once we forsake the settled principle of recognising the safe-conducts granted by adequate authority, if once we stray forth in quest of secret motives and designs!

We think Lord Mahon will find that he is under a mistake in supposing that nothing else is to be considered with reference to the validity of a safe-conduct save the authority of him by whom it is granted. The animus with which it was granted is a clear subject of inquiry, and it is equally clear that treachery in a general officer invalidates all acts done by him towards carrying out his treachery. Were the governor of Sebastopol to determine to sell the place to the allies, and did he grant a safe-conduct to a British officer to enable him to enter within the Russian lines, in order to arrange the best mode of betraying the place, would Lord Mahon consider that safe-conduct a sufficient and pleadable protection against the power of the Emperor Nicholas, because granted by adequate authority? If a safe-conduct be valid under such circumstances, why not a capitulation, an order for the garrison to lay down their arms, a passport for a body of the enemy to enter within the lines and take up a commanding position? These are all acts which may be done in the same right by which a general grants an ordinary safe-conduct. The point to be considered in these cases is not, we submit, as Lord Mahon supposes, the state of mind of the person who signs the paper, but whether the paper is signed bona fide in the service of that state, from the head of which the signer derives his power. A treacherous purpose renders all such papers invalid.

André's case was a most unfortunate one, but we cannot think that the court of inquiry was legally wrong in its adjudication, nor that Washington's fame will suffer for having carried out the sentence. A spy is defined by writers on national law as one who finds incans to obtain a knowledge of the enemy's affairs, and then gives intelligence thereof to his employers. He generally carries out his purpose through the treachery of some other person. Whether or not he is invited by that person to make his inquiries, or whether that person be a general or a civi