navies to invade these islands, would you then send dispatches to Ireland to guard the corporation against the Catholic, to preserve the Parliament? or would you not desire to embody, and incorporate, and inspire? But then it might be too late. Now, therefore, when you are mistress of the measure, and have time to secure its effect, now will you not do away in act or in spirit these distinctions? Will you not repeal those death-doing divisions? Coalesce in the spirit of repeal and confidence, so that you may in fact, or by anticipation, prepare for what? for the final battle, which, sooner or later, must be fought, and which must determine the rival. ship of 500 years.

How would you answer to your ancestors, that you had lost the hereditary laurel of your country, because you were afraid of the Pope, or of the influence of the eucharist, of the Council of Lateran, or the Council of Constance ?

The Catholics do not approach this House with servile humility; they come to support your empire; they come, as freemen, to share your privileges; and now, when Austria has turned against you, when Russia is no longer your friend, when Prussia has ceased to exist as a power, they come to partake in your danger, and to partake in your constitution.

This is their prayer. On these grounds I move their petition; I move to refer it to a committee of the whole House; I move it on the ground of national justice, and I accompany it with two wishes; first, that you may long preserve your liberties; next, that you may never survive them.

After Mr. Grattan had sat down, some minutes elapsed before any member rose. A cry of " question! question!" then ensued, when the knight of Kerry (Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald) rose; the cry still continued, and strangers were ordered to withdraw from the gallery. At length, being re-admitted, Mr. Canning was found speaking, and loud cries of "hear! order! chair!" but the Speaker declared, that, until the numbers, which were the result of any division, had been announced from the chair, the question was open to debate. Mr. Canning then proceeded; he complimented Mr. Grattan on the eloquent and conciliatory manner in which he had introduced the subject; he agreed, that it was most desirable to put an end to civil dissensions, and establish harmony and concord; but, he said, this question would be made a party question, not by the mover, but by others; and thinking that less irritation was likely to be produced from sending back the petition than from referring it to a committee, by means of a violent and contentious majority, he must vote against the motion. It was likewise opposed by Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Wilberforce, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Percival), Mr. Yorke, and Lord Pollington. They argued that the season was improper; and that the ques

VOL. IV.

M

tion was brought forward to perplex ministers, and for party purposes. Mr. Pitt had left power because he could not carry the question, but when the opposition were in office, they contented themselves by small and unimportant concessions to the Catholics, and avoided the main question: that it was inexpedient to raise the hopes of the Catholics when there was not a chance of being able to gratify them; that in Scotland and England the popular feeling was against the question, and new concessions would only lead to new demands. The argument of Mr. Pitt at the period of the Union was, either that the question could be yielded with greater safety, or withheld with less danger. The proposed measure went to make a fundamental change in the political situation of the country; Parliament had gone too far in concession, and it was their duty now to make a stand.

The motion was supported by Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Windham, Lord H. Petty, Lord Milton, Sir John Cox Hippesly, Mr. Richard Martin, Colonel Montague Matthew, the knight of Kerry (Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald), Mr. Whitbread, Mr. William Elliot, and Mr. C. Hutchinson. They urged the injustice and danger of refusing the request of so many millions of His Majesty's subjects; that although no express pledge was admitted to have been given at the Union, there had been a correspondence on the subject; one letter set forth the sentiments of Lord Cornwallis; another those of Lord Castlereagh when he was Secretary to the Lordlieutenant. These were shown to the Catholics, and stated the determination of several individuals, Mr. Pitt, Lord Melville, and Lord Camden, who advised the Catholics to remain quiet, because those persons had entered into a pledge never to take office, except on condition of being allowed to grant the required concession. It was understood that this declaration was made in consequence of an engagement, that if the Catholics agreed to an Union their claims would be listened to. The cry raised against the Catholics, said Mr. Whitbread, had been raised by the government, and for the mischief created by this cry we have the authority of a learned friend of mine, who is no longer a member of this House, but who lately was an ornament to it, and whose brilliant talents and splendid eloquence at once convinced and delighted us. I speak of Mr. Plunkett, whose speech upon that subject in this House will never be forgotten; he has told us the mischiefs produced by that restless spirit, the cry of" No Popery!" The government have now set up the cry of church in danger; this is the seat on which the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Percival) sits; this is the pedestal on which he stands when he harangues us, and endeavours to enflame the vulgar mind with the cry of "No Popery!" this is the platform on which he has erected himself; when that mischievous yell was echoed in those parts of the country which are inhabited by his constituents and his connections, and when that vicious cry is raised, shall we not endeavour to answer and allay it? To a question put by Mr. Yorke, relating to the particular mode of appointing the Catholic bishops, Mr. Ponsonby said, the statement he made was on the authority of Dr. Milner, a Catholic

bishop, in England, viz. that the individual to be nominated to any vacant bishopric should be submitted for the King's approbation, and if the approbation was refused, another should be submitted, and so on in succession until His Majesty's approbation was obtained. Mr. Elliot said, that the restoration of Mr. Giffard to office in Ireland, the refusal of the grant to the College of Maynooth, and the appointment of a learned gentleman (Dr. Duigenan) to the privy council, were bad symptoms of a system of conciliation towards Ireland. General Matthew said, that Ireland had little to expect from the liberality or justice of Great Britain. (Here Lord Castlereagh was perceived to smile). I am sorry, continued the gallant general, to see the noble lord laugh; he has no cause for his mirth; for there is not an Irish county, city, or borough, that would not reject him. Mr. Richard Martin said, that at the Union the Catholics had conceived there had been a pledge given of their emancipation; if that pledge was broken they had a right to claim a restoration of their Parliament. When the cry was union or rebellion, he had chosen a union; but he had since learned, that it is very possible to have a rebellion after a union. Mr. Whitbread moved the question of adjournment. The Speaker put the question, which was negatived by acclamation. Colonel Hutchinson also moved the question of adjournment. At half-past five the House divided: Ayes 118; Noes 298; Majority against the adjournment 180.

The question upon Mr. Grattan's original motion was then put: for going into a committee 128, against it 281; Majority against the petition 153.

Tellers for the Ayes, Lord Temple and the Knight of Kerry, Noes, Mr. Leslie Foster and Mr. Long,

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

MR. WHITBREAD MOVES AN ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY FOR CONCILIATORY NEGOCIATIONS WITH AMERICA,

March 6. 1809.

On this day Mr. Whitbread brought forward his motion respecting America. He contended that America had not departed from the character of a neutral, that she had remonstrated against the Berlin and Milan. decrees issued by Buonaparte in 1806 and 1807. When the former decree was put in force against her, in the case of the capture of the Horizon vessel, her ambassador at Paris, (General Armstrong), had made strong representations on the subject to the French minister (Mr. Champagny.) Mr. Maddison (the President) had declared in his letter to Mr. Pinkney, the minister at the British court, "That the orders in council were a violation of the rights of neutrals, and an attack on the independence of the United States." The embargo which America had laid on, affected France as much as England, and the offer

she made to Great Britain was, that she would repeal the embargo, provided England repealed her orders in council. He said that the Berlin decree was not a justification of those orders, and that they operated against the neutral (America), instead of operating against the belligerent (France). He ridiculed the prediction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Percival), that the subjects of Buonaparte would go into rebellion, because they were deprived of tea or coffee, or that the bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced to deprive the continent of bark, was an effectual means of opposing the armies of France. In consequence of these orders, there had been a diminution of the imports and exports of Great Britain, to the amount of eleven millions annually. Numbers of manufacturers in England were thrown out of einployment, and the linen manufacture of Ireland must suffer considerably by the loss of the American market, and from the want of flax-seed. He complained of the insult offered to America, in the illegal and unjust attack made by the Leopard upon the Chesapeake, by order of Admiral Berkeley. He censured the style of Mr. Canning's dispatches to the A: 1erican minister, and his assertion that the blockade of Great Britain by France would be raised in consequence of these orders, and that "the system," as he said, "was broken up into harmless and contemptible fragments." He concluded by moving

"That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, humbly to represent to His Majesty that in consequence of certain decrees made by His Majesty's enemies, contrary to the usages of war, and to the rights of neutral nations, and also in consequence of the alleged acquiescence of neutral nations in the said decrees, His Majesty was advised to issue certain orders in council respecting the trade of neutrals, to and from the ports and countries of His Majesty's enemies; and that the said orders were further enforced by certain acts passed in the last session of Parliament. But that both in the said orders, and in the acts passed thereon, a power was reserved to His Majesty of annulling the same, whenever such revocation should appear expedient. That the Congress of the United States of America, alarmed at the dangers to which neutral commerce was exposed by the practical operation of the said decrees, and by the system then known to be in the contemplation of His Majesty's government, and actually carried into effect by the said orders, passed laws for laying an immediate embargo on all American ships and exports; and that, by the operation of such laws, all trade of export from the said states into this kingdom or its dependencies has been prohibited, and the commercial intercourse of His Majesty's subjects with the said states has been in other respects essentially impeded. That in the month of August last, the minister of the United States, resident at this court, made to His Majesty's government an authorized and explicit offer of re-establishing the said intercourse; proposing, that if His Majesty's orders in council should be repealed, as far as regarded the United States, the embargo imposed in the said states should be removed, as far as regarded His Majesty's dominions; and adding, that if His Majesty's enemies should not rescind their

decrees, the said embargo should be continued as with respect to them. That this offer on the part of the United States appears to us just in principle, and in its tendency highly advantageous to the best interests of this country; just, inasmuch as it removed all pretence of the acquiescence of the United States in the French decrees; which acquiescence was the only ground on which any right could accrue to interrupt the innocent commerce of a neutral country; and advantageous to Great Britain, inasmuch as, though it should not have produced the repeal of the French decrees, (the avowed purpose of His Majesty's orders), it would have secured to this country the exclusive commerce of America, and her alliance against a power which would thus have been the common enemy of both. That we believe and hope that it is still open to His Majesty's government to renew, on the basis of this proposal, the commercial intercourse between this country and the United States; every interruption of which we consider as manifestly injurious to the interest of both countries, and calculated to assist the designs of our enemies, and to weaken our own resources. That we, therefore, most humbly pray His Majesty to adopt, without delay, such measures as may best tend to the immediate reestablishment of the commercial intercourse between His Majesty's dominions and the United States of America; and to bring, by temperate and conciliatory negotiation, all other points to a just and amicable conclusion, assuring His Majesty of our firm and invariable support, in maintaining against every unjust aggression, and every novel claim, the ancient and essential maritime rights of His Majesty's crown."

The motion was opposed by Mr. Stephen, who denied that it was in consequence of the orders in council that we lost the trade with America. It was the embargo, and non-importation act that were the cause. He stated that there was a French party in America, and that she had not acted the part of strict neutrality.

The address was supported by Mr. Alexander Baring, Lord Henry Petty, and

Mr. GRATTAN, who said: To attribute importance to almost every event, is the ordinary phraseology of almost every member. The question on which I have now the honour of addressing the House, and which has been so luminously discussed by my honourable friend, is, perhaps, unparalleled in importance, if we except that fatal question by which you lost America. Greatly do I deplore the manifest appearance of the same asperity between the countries which so strongly marked a contest which it is the wish of every friend to humanity should for ever be forgotten. The infatuated counsels of the ministers of that day forced America into the arms of France; and by French connection you lost America. It is not possible to believe that the errors of those men who lost America are not apparent, or that they will not serve as warnings, by which you will be enabled to avoid that destruc