- A. D. 1807. YEAR OF GEORGE III. 47 & 48. PARLIAMENT 1 & 1. Discussion on the late Negotiation with France. - Lord Henry Petty's Plan of Finance.- Bill passed for the final Abolition of the SlaveTrade.- Lord Howick's Motion for a Bill to permit Persons to serve in the Army and Navy without a religious Test.- The Motion dropt, and a Change in the Administration. Its Causes stated.New Ministry.-Debate on granting the Duchy of Lancaster for Life. Motions against the Ministers defeated. — Parliament prorogued, and remarkable Speech from the Throne.-General Election "No Popery" cry renewed. — Address to the Public from the English Catholics. Campaign between the French and Russians in Poland. Battle of Eylau. - Dantzick surrendered to the French. Armistice between the latter and the Swedes. Battles of Heilsberg and Friedland. - Armistice followed by the Treaty of Tilsit between the Russians and Prussians and the French. Success of the French against the Swedes. Stralsund and Rugen taken. Hostilities be tween England and the Ottoman Porte. British Fleet passes the Dardanelles. Its Operations and Return. Expedition against Alexandria under General Fraser. — Its Incidents and final Result: Capture of Curaçao. Montevideo carried by storm under Sir S. Auchmuty. General Whitelock's Failure at Buenos Ayres. — New Parliament assembled.- Royal Speech.- Bills for augmenting the Army. - Bill for the Suppression of Insurrections in Ireland. Parliament prorogued. - British Order of Council in Opposition to Buonaparte's Berlin Decree. Condition of Denmark. Expedition sent from England to Copenhagen. Demand of surrendering the Danish Fleet refused. Bombardment of Copenhagen, and the Fleet given up. Its Consequences. - Heligoland taken. Affairs of the Coast of Spain. - French take Possession of Portugal, the Prince Regent of which sails to Brazil. - Disputes between England and America. Rencontre of the Ships Leopard and Chesapeak. Embargo laid in the United States. Revolution in the Turkish Capture of the Danish West India Is Throne. lands. - · Grand WHEN parliament had re-assembled on January 2d, Lord Grenville opened in the House of Lords the con sideration of the late negotiation with France. He began with observing, that in his opinion the only pro per basis of a peace between the two countries was that of actual possession; since England being a great maritime and colonial, and France a great continental power, there could be no cession between them that would conduce to their mutual advantage. But though this was the proper basis, it did not follow that the negotiation was to exclude the discussion of equiva lents to be given for certain cessions to be agreed on, which was the more necessary when it involved the interests of our allies. These he divided into two classes; those to whom we were bound by treaty, and those to whom we were bound by circumstances which had occurred during the war. With respect to both these classes he made various observations; and having then described the different stages of the negotiation, he moved an address to the King, the tenor of which was to express their approbation of his attempts to restore the blessings of peace, and their assurances of sup port in such measures as might yet be found necessary, either for the restoration of peace, or the prosecution of the war. A similar motion and introductory speech were made in the House of Commons by Lord Howick. Of the long succeeding debates in both Houses, it is unnecessary here to give an account, as in both, the address was carried without opposition, and the whole controversy turned upon the comparative merits or demerits of the late and present ministries. It may however be interesting to note the sentiment concerning peace declared by one who was soon to be at the head of another ministry. Mr. Perceval blamed the ministers for not having sooner put an end to the negotiation, andavowed his firm conviction that no peace could take place with France, at least such a peace as would be worthy of the acceptance of this country, so long as the force and councils of that country were directed by two such men as Talleyrand and Buonaparte. On January 29th the House of Commons being in a committee of finance, Lord Henry Petty, after stating the amount of the requisite supplies at 40,527,000l. for England, and 5,314,000l. for Ireland, brought in a new plan for providing for the loan of the present year, and for such as would be wanted during many successive years of war, without new taxes. The fundamental principles of this system were the following. The flourishing state of the permanent revenue, the great produce of the war taxes, the accumulating amount of the sinking fund, and the approaching expiration of certain annuities granted as payment of former loans, were its groundwork; the continuance, therefore, of the present produce of the existing taxes was assumed as the base of the calculations. The war loans of the present and the two subsequent years were stated at 12 millions annually; that of 1810 at 14 millions; and those of the ten following years, should the war con tinue so long, at 16 millions. As provision for all these loans, the war taxes were to be pledged at the rate of 10 per cent. for each loan, viz. 5 per cent. for interest, and the remainder as an accumulating sinking fund to pay off the principal. This appropriation of the war taxes would necessarily take off that amount of the applicable revenue of each year; but the deficiency was to be made good by supplementary loans, upon the established system of a sinking fund of one per cent. on the nominal capital. The new burdens that this may create will not, however, take place till after 1810, for it is calculated that until that period the expiring annuities will provide for the interest of such loans: so long, therefore, the war may be carried on without additional taxes. After considerable discussions, and the production of other financial plans, the resolutions moved by Lord H. Petty were reported and agreed to. One objection made to his system may be mentioned, as it has been so fully confirmed by the result; namely, that the war expences during the whole period were supposed not to exceed 32 millions annually, whereas by means of subsidies, depreciation of money, and other causes, the amount has vastly surpassed that sum. This year was rendered memorable by the total abo lition of the slave trade. Lord Grenville, on January 2d brought into the House of Lords a bill for this purpose. Its progress was accompanied by debates in which all the arguments already employed on the subject were repeated; but although the opponents of the measure were as decided as ever, their number was much diminished, the second reading being carried by 100 against 36. When the report was brought up, it was stated by the noble mover that it had been thought advisable to fix the same period for all the clauses of the bill, namely the 1st of May ensuing, and to introduce a proviso allowing all slave-vessels which had cleared out from this country for Africa previously to that day, to complete their cargoes and trade with them to the West Indies till the 1st of January 1808, when the trade was to be finally abolished. The bill having passed the Lords, was brought to the Commons on February 3d, when the motion for reading it was made by Lord Howick. In that House counsel was heard against the abolition, for the merchants and planters of Jamaica, the African merchants of London, the corporation and merchants of Liverpool, and the merchants and planters of Trinidad. The division on the question of going into a committee was carried in the affirmative by the great majority of 283 to 16. The opposers still adhered to their objections, but the bill, with some amendments, passed that House on March 16th, the amendments were agreed to by the Lords on the 22d, and it received the royal assent on the 25th. On March 5th Lord Howick made a motion in the House of Commons which was eventually the cause of the dissolution of the ministry. It was for leave to bring in a bill for securing to all his Majesty's subjects the privilege of serving in the army or navy upon their taking an oath prescribed by act of parliament; and for leaving to them, as far as convenience would admit, the free exercise of their respective religions. His lordship stated, that what had particularly drawn the attention of government to the subject was the strange anomaly existing in consequence of the Irish act of 1793, by which the Roman Catholics in that country were enabled to hold commissions in the army, and to attain to any rank except those of commander-in-chief, master-general of the ordnance, or general on the staff; but if any of these should be brought to serve in this country they would be disqualified by law from remaining in the service. The motion being made, Mr. Perceval rose to oppose it, as being in his opinion one of the most dangerous measures that had ever been submitted to the judgment of the legislature. He considered its tendency to be that of abolishing all those tests which the wisdom of our ancestors had thought it necessary to interpose in defence of our religious. establishment; and he expressed the strongest ap prehensions of that principle of innovation which was stealing in by degrees, and continually growing stronger and stronger. A conversation then followed in which this gentleman's apprehensions were treated on one side as well-grounded, on the other as weak and chimerical, and the bill was read for the first time. The motion for a second reading being postponed to the 18th, Lord Howick on the preceding day announced that, for reasons not then to be explained, the order for the second reading of the bill in question would be dropt. On March 25th a change in the administration took place; and on the 26th Lord Grenville in the House of Lords, and Lord Howick in that of the Commons, related in detail the circumstances which had occasioned that event, and stated the principles on which they were friendly to the bill for granting relief to the catholics and other dissenters. With respect to the protestant dissenters in Ireland, by a law passed in that country in 1778, they were there admissible to employments of every kind civil and military, without any restriction, whereas in Great Britain they could hold no place without taking the sacramental test; and if the catholics were admitted to any rank in the army, the former might complain of the inequality. As to the |