following passage was much talked of at the time. "The ministers have drawn, as it were, a magic circle round the throne, into which none are permitted to enter, on whom the confidence of the illustrious person has been accustomed to repose. Within its range the artificers of mischief have not ceased to work with too successful industry. What phantoms have they not conjured up to warp the judgment, to excite the feelings, and appal the firmness of the royal mind? But though the evil genius should assume a mitred, nay more than noble form, the sainted aspect which political bigotry delights to wear, or the lineaments of that softer sex which first beguiled man to his destructionthough to the allurements of Ca, Jypso's court, were joined the magic and the charms of that matured enchantress-should the spirit of darkness take a human shape, and issuing forth from the inmost recesses of the gaming house or brothel, presume to place itself near the royal ear;-what though the potent spell should not have worked in vain, and that the boasted recantation of all incumbering prepossessions, and inconvenient prejudices had already marked the triumph of its course-though from the royal side they should have torn the chosen friend of his youth and faithful counsellor of his ma turer years-though they should have banished from the royal councils talents, integrity, honour, and high-mindedness like his, and should have selected for his illustrious person an associate and an adviser from Change-alley and the stews-though they should thus have filled up to its full measure VOL. LIV.

the disgusting catalogue of their enormities, we must still cling to the foundering vessel, and call to our aid those characteristic British energies by which the ancestors of those, whom I have now the honour to address, have so often and so nobly saved the sinking state." After a variety of other animated references to the opposition declared against the catholic claims, and the necessity of persevering in the cause, his lordship moved for the appointment of a committee to take into consideration the laws imposing disabilities on his Majesty's subjects professing the catholic religion.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex then rose, and made an elaborate speech in favour of general toleration, which was afterwards published with copious explanatory notes, indicating an uncommon degree of attention to subjects of ecclesiastical history in one of his exalted rank.

In the long debate which en sued, every topic was agitated which had been touched upon in the former discussions of the catholic question, chiefly, however, by those who were friendly to the concessions desired, who took a wider compass of argument than their opponents, who for the most part confined themselves to the dangers which the protestant establishment would incur from such concessions. The Marquis of Wellesley again greatly distinguished himself by the enlarged and statesman-like views which he gave of the subject. In arguing upon the impolicy of continuing exclusions which were sure to perpetuate a spirit of hostility to the protestant church, he presented a picture of

[F]

the

the weakness of that church which certainly deserves a serious consideration. "I do not wish (said he) to speak with disrespect of that protestant establishment in Ireland, whose security is so readily believed in this country, nor to cast any reflections upon those who preside over that establishment; yet I know that the true state of the church of Ireland, in a very great degree, consists of bishops without clergy, churches without clergymen, and clergymen with out churches; parishes of considerable extent without clergymen, church, or glebe; many parishes frequently consolidated into one, with a common church too remote for the parishioners to resort to. Can a church so circumstanced possess internal strength for its own defence against the mass of opposition excited against it? and is not that strength less likely to be increased by arming itself with violence against the mass of discontent set in array by the intolerance of the laws enacted for its support?"

The speakers on each side, besides those first mentioned, were, against the motion, Lords Redesdale, Liverpool, and the Lord Chancellor; for it, Lords Selkirk, Wellesley, Downshire, Byron, Moira, and Grenville. At five in the morning the house divided, when the numbers were, contents present, 67; proxies, 35; total 102: non-contents present, 103; proxies, 71; total, 174: majority against the motion, 72.

In the House of Commons, a similar motion for a committee on the civil disabilities of the Roman catholics was made on April 23, by Mr. Grattan. The debate to

which it gave rise, was continued by adjournment to the second day; and there was no possible light in which the subject could be placed which was not resorted to by the different speakers on each side, though in fact the whole was only recapitulation of statements and arguments employed in the preceding discussions of the same general topic. The conclusion was, that at the hour of six in the morning a division took place, in which there appeared ayes 215, noes 300, majority against the motion 85.

Thus the Catholic cause sustained a third defeat in both houses of parliament; nor did it appear that the accession of the Prince Regent to the full authority of the crown had made any difference as to the sentiments and conduct of his ministers on this important occasion.

Notwithstanding the tenacity with which the ministers had maintained the policy of the orders in council, the increasing dis tresses of the manufacturing parts of the kingdom, and the serious disturbances thence arising, could not fail of exciting some misgivings in their minds, and rendering them desirous of making such relaxations as might tend to open the former channels of commerce. It was doubtless in consequence of these considerations that a declaration in the name of the Prince Regent was issued on April 23, pirporting, that the Regent having declared, that if at any time the Berlin and Milan decrees should by an authentic act be absolutely re pealed, thenceforth the orders in council of the 7th of January, 1807, and the 26th of April, 1809,

should

should be revoked; and the charge d'affaires of the United States of America having on the 20th of May last transmitted to this court a copy of a decree of the govern ment of France passed on the 28th of April, by which the decrees of Milan and Berlin are declared to be no longer in force with respect to American vessels: the Regent, although he cannot consider the tenor of the said decree as satisfy ing the conditions of the order of April 23, yet, being disposed to re-establish the usual intercourse between neutral and belligerent nations, is pleased to declare the orders in council of January 7, 1807, and April 26, 1809, revoked as far as concerns American vessels and cargoes. A proviso is, how ever, added to this concession, that unless the American government revoke their exclusion of British armed vessels from their harbours while those of France are admitted, and their interdiction of British commerce while that with France is restored, the present order is to be null and of no effect.

Petitions against the orders in council were in the meantime pouring in from the towns most affected by their operation; and on April 28th, Lord Stanley rose in the House of Commons to move for a committee for taking them into consideration. In his introductory speech he dwelt upon the effects experienced from these or ders, and the heavy distress to which the working poor were reduced in many of the trading and manufacturing parts.

Mr. Rose, in reply, made various statements to shew the justice of the orders in council, and to prove

that though some branches of trade were sufferers from the want of a market, yet that others were flourishing. He concluded with declaring that as he thought it due to the petitions that their prayers should be taken into consideration, he would not oppose the noble lord's motion.

Some further conversation ensued, in which the ministers and their partizans continued to defend the policy of the orders in council by arguments often before repeated, but expressed a willingness to consent to an examination of the petitions presented. The question being put, it was accordingly agreed to, and it was ordered that the committee on the orders in council should sit to-morrow, and be continued from day to day. On the motion of Mr. Brougham, witnesses were summoned from Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, &c.

Earl Fitzwilliam made, in the House of Lords, on May 5, a similar motion for referring to a committee the various petitions on the subject of the orders in council. The consent of the ministers to the motion produced some observations from the lords in opposition, which were met by recriminations, charging the preceding administration with having originated the measures complained of. There was nothing, however, novel in the remarks of either party on this much agitated topic; and the motion was agreed to without opposition.

The examinations relative to the facts alleged in these petitions now went on regularly in both houses, till they were interrupted [F 2]

by

by an event which we shall shortly have to record, and which probably had a considerable influence upon the final result.

A circumstance having occurred tending to increase the animosity of the Americans against this country, it became about this period a subject of discussion in parliament.

The president of the United States sent a message to congress asserting that an authorised agent of the British government, Capt. Henry, had been sent by the governor of the British territories of North America into the adjacent states, in order to foment discontents for the purpose of detaching them from the union. This heavy charge being transmitted in the American newspapers, Lord Hol land rose in the House of Lords, on April 28th, and after mentioning the fact of the message, said, that he hoped the noble lord opposite would be able to satisfy the public by a contradiction of the

assertion.

The Earl of Liverpool had no hesitation in answering that no person had been employed by this government to foment discontents in the United States, and that no intention existed on the part of government to make any attempt to separate the union. He said, that Captain Henry was not employed by government at all; and he supposed that Sir James Craig could have employed him only to obtain information with a view to the defence of Canada, in case of a

war.

Mr. Whitbread introduced the subject in a similar manner in the House of Commons, and was simi

larly answered by Lord Castlereagh, who said that govornment had only heard in a dispatch from Sir James Craig that an agent had been employed, announcing at the same time that he had been recalled. Mr. W. said that he was not satisfied with this answer; and declared his intention of moving for the production of the governor's correspondence on this subject.

Lord Holland, who had given notice in the House of Lords of a similar motion for the production of papers, rose to speak to the point on May 5. He said, the proposition he was about to submit to their lordships had no reference whatever to the line of policy proper to be pursued with respect to the United States, but was grounded on the general relations of all civilized states; he could not therefore understand upon what objections an opposition to his motion (which had been intimated) could be founded. It went to the crimination of no man or set of men, but upon the necessity of vindicating the government of this country: from what he trusted was an unfounded charge made against it. This charge was no less than that while two friendly powers were engaged in negotiation upon certain points of national importance, a member of the British government had employed a secret agent in the territories of the United States, not to procure intelligence, which was a legitimate object, but for the purpose of inducing some of the states of the union to throw off their allegiance, and separate themselves from the rest. This, charge originally came from an individual who avowedly betrayed

the

the secrets of his own employers. His lordship then referred to certain points of the papers communicated to congress, and to that part of the instructions to Capt. Henry which mentioned the enclosure of credentials to him, and spoke of the probability of the Federalists no longer submitting to the situation in which they had been placed by their government, but eventually looking up to the English for their assistance. Lord H. proceeded to show the dishonourableness of such conduct, and the improbability that Sir J. Craig would have so employed Henry without instructions from his government, or transmitting to it the communications he had received; and he adverted to the fact, that when Henry claimed his reward, he presented a memorial to the office of the noble secretary of state referring to Sir J. Craig for his conduct, and had in consequence received a letter to General Prevost, the successor of Sir J. Craig, recommend ing him to a valuable office in the country which he governed. Lord H. concluded by moving an address to the Prince Regent, for the production of copies of all the communications made by Sir J. Craig to his Majesty's secretary of state relative to the employment of Capt. Henry in a secret mission to the United States of America; also of the correspondence between the secretary of state and Sir George Prevost on the subject of compensations claimed by Captain Henry for his services; and also copies of all instructions sent to Sir J. Craig from the secretary of state relative to the employment of Capt. Henry in the United States.

The Earl of Liverpool, in reply, began with repeating his former statement, that the government here had no knowledge of the employment of the person in questioni until many months after the transaction. It was true that a person named Lavater, going in 1808 from Canada to the United States on his own business, had, of his own accord, opened a correspondence with the governor of Canada for the purpose of procuring infor mation; and his lordship justified this proceeding by a detail of the menacing attitude with respect to the British American possessions then assumed by the United States. Sir J. Craig sent Henry thither in February, 1809. A great deal of what appeared in the papers was false and unfounded; but as far as authentic instruction went, he must contend that the directions were not for the purpose of exciting discontent, but wholly for obtaining necessary information. With respect to the remuneration of Captain Henry, as he had a recommendation from Sir J. Craig, backed by some very respectable persons in London, and it appeared that he had been really employed in services for which a remuneration had been promised, he (the secretary) had held it his duty to act as was mentioned in the correspondence with Sir G. Prevost. It was not afterwards. deemed consistent with delicacy to say any thing which might in the least have reflected upon the cha racter of Sir J. Craig, who had returned home from his government under a mortal distemper, and had survived but a few months. He could not approve the course adopt

ed