The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-01-12 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN.

To THE EDITOR OF TUE STATESMAN.

Strt,—That the army at large must feel deeply in-
debted to his Royal Highness the Commander•in-
Chief, for the many salutary improvements which it
has experienced, cannot be denied.
I That the circumstance of the Officers of the British
; Cavalry (only), paying about double for. their Com-
; missions to those of Infantry, and receiving at the
same time no more pay, has probably escaped the
I notice of most people, from the improbability of the

circumstance.
The daily pay which a Captain of. Infantry re-
ceives, including his non-effective of WI. per annum,
is tls. 71d.; a Captain of Cavalry receives, after
deducting 2s. Id. per diem, for the feeding of his
, horses, and at least bid. for the farriery, 12s. per
diem, exclusive of the wear and tare of the inhume-
rableand expensive appointments, stable necessaries,
grooms, accidents, and deaths of expensive horses,
to colFes obi& no compensation whateretie sgointed,
except under the only and solitary case of being shot
for the glanders.

From this statement it must appear evitlent to every
one, that the Bri►ish Cavalry Officer, compared with
the Infantry, labours under disadvantages which are
not experienced in any other service.

A CAVALRY OFFICER.

PROPERTY TAX.

[FROM A CORRESPONDENT.]
!So universal is the abhorrence in which this in-
quisitorial tax is held by the people of England, that
when any man ventures, in the face of his assembled
fellow.citizens, to utter an apology for it, or to per-
suade them of the necessity of its continuance, that
man, however insignificant in personal qualities or in
social station, acquires at once the inportance of a
political phenomenon, and the laWs and principles
which govern his course become the objects of in.
teresting enquiry. Such a phenomenon is the Her.
Mr. MABERLET, who, at the Cambridge Meeting,
was the solitary and unassisted opponent of the
Petition to Parliament against the continuance
of this taw. He who seeks distinction must
' endure its inconveniences—he who, destitute of all
other claim to attention, seeks it by the mere singu-
larity of his conduct and opinions, must be content
if attention is .separated from respect. The man
who obtrudes himself riq a solitary dissentient from
the general voice of a nation, ought not to complain
if his motives are investigated with rigour, and his
private views or connections scrutinised, in order to
account for th,2 eccentricity of his political course.—
Mr. NIABERLEY has no right to he angry if we con-
fer upon the Cambridge Meeting all the importance
of entire unanimity, by stating to the Public that

the only individual by whom that unanimity was dis.
t .4tiebed, is one from whoa independence of senti-
i meat ought not to be expected, that he is the son
14 a late and brother of a present contractor,
I and that -in addition to this, he is himself an
aspirant to ecclesiastical honours.—When such
a man volenteers in such a cause, it will re-
' quire uncommon simplicity to doubt the motive
I which impels him. On the speech delivered by the
Rev. Gentleman on the above occasion, it is unneces-
sary to comment. The arguments it contained, re-
calved at the momenta very eloquent reply, though
indeed they were not worthy of any. One remat
of Mr. MABERLEY affords,however,a very conclusive
argument in favour of universal petition against this
odious tax, though we are persuaded he was not at
all aware that it could have such a tendency. Mr.
ABEI:LF.Y says, the late war could not have been
carried on without the Property Tax, and that there-
fore we ought to bear it great affection, on ac-
I count of the good things it has done for us. %Ve, on the
contrary; say, that i the late war could not, neither
can 'any future war, for some genetlations at least,
be carried on without it; and that by expressing our
abhorrence of the tax, we enter an indirect protest
against any avoidable war, and do what we can
towards infusing a pacific spirit into our own Go-
, vernment. If no other reason could be assigned for
petitioning against the tax, this alone would be suffi-
cient. We cannot conclude without lamenting, that
a Minister of that dispensation, which promised
66 peace and good-will towards men," should have
committed the error in logic as well as morals of con-
' tending against a petition, because one of its tenden-
cies is to diminish the probability of future wars.