on board such vessels, can be considered as a hostile measure, or a justifiable cause of war. Some observations are then made on other topics brought forward by the American government as causes for its declaration of hostilities, and on its conduct in displaying at such a period its subserviency to the ambitious designs of the ruler of France and his royal highness declares his resolution of persisting in the public principles of policy which Great Britain has so long and invariably maintained, in repelling injustice, and supporting the general rights of nations. (See State Papers.)

On February 18th, lord Castlereagh rose in the House of Commons, and made a speech on the subject of the negociations with America which had been laid before the House, concerning which, he said that the chief point towards which their attention would be directed, was, whether it had been in the power of ministers, by any exertion, to have prevented the much-to-be-deprecated war in which we were now engaged. After expressing the great concern he himself felt at this occurrence, he said that the question before the House was simply this, whether in this war justice was or was not on the side of Great Britain? and the proposition he meant to ground on their decision in the affirmative, was, that an address should be presented to the Prince Regent, calling upon him to direct a vigorous prosecution of the war, with assurance of support from parliament. He then entered on a kind of commentary upon the Regent's declaration above-mentioned, in which all the arguments

were repeated concerning the justice of the measures on the part of Great Britain that led to the hostile termination, which had been so often advanced during the negociations. One circumstance of fact produced by his lordship may deserve to be recorded. The Ame ricans in their complaints against this country, had assumed, that Great Britain had impressed 15 or 20,000 of their citizens. -But upon particular inquiry by the admiralty, it had appeared that out of 145,000 seamen employed in the British service in January 1811, the whole number claiming to be American subjects was 3,500; and as it had been found that of the individuals advancing such claim, only about one in four could make it good upon examination, the real number would be reduced to 16 or 1700. He asked then, if the House could believe that for such a consideration as 1700 sailors his majesty's government would irritate the feelings of a neutral nation, or violate public justice. After stating the particulars of the negociations preceding the declaration of war, with a view of showing that the British ministry had not been wanting in temper and due forbearance, and also that they had not been deficient in proper precautions against a possible hostile termination; his lordship concluded with moving, "that an humble address be pres sented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, to acquaint his Royal Highness that we have taken into our consideration the papers laid before us by his Royal Highness's command, relative to the late discussions with the government of the United States of Ame

:

rica that whilst we deeply regret the failure of the endeavours of his Royal Highness to preserve the relations of peace and amity between this country and the United States, we entirely approve of the resistance which has been opposed by his Royal Highness to the unjustifiable pretensions of the American government, being satisfied that those pretensions could not be admitted without surrendering some of the most ancient, undoubted, and important rights of the British empire; that, impressed as we are with these sentiments, and fully convinced of the justice of the war in which his Majesty has been compelled to engage, his Royal Highness may rely on our most zealous and cordial support in every measure which may be necessary for prosecuting the war with vigour, and for bringing it to a safe and honourable termination."

Mr. Ponsonby, after premising that he conceived the House was bound at present to support the crown in the prosecution of the war, observed, that from the papers laid before the House, three particular stages of negociation were apparent. The first stage was, the overture made by Mr. Russell to the noble lord for an armistice, with the understanding, that during its continuance there was to be a negociation between this country and America on the subject of impressment, and that, while it was pending, the right of impress ment should be waived. This overture, he allowed, could not be admitted. The second was, the proposition that though no formal recognition of a suspension of the disputed right should take place,

yet a secret understanding of that kind should be preserved between the two countries, till the matter in controversy was decided. This, also, he should have concurred with the noble lord in rejecting. The third stage presented a third overture, which, as he understood it, was made by Mr. Monroe to sir John Warren, namely, that the question of impressment being the principal subject of dispute, an agreement on which might put an end to the war, the American government was willing to negociate upon it flagrante bello, whilst this country was continuing to exercise its accustomed control. Against this proposal he thought there could be no objection; for though, in the Prince Regent's declaration, as a reason against such a negociation, it was observed that it would be commenced on the basis of receiving a legislative provision from a foreign state, in the place of a right which Great Britain had long been accustomed to exercise; yet it did not appear to him that this right was abandoned merely by entering into a negociation on the subject. The right hon. gentleman enlarged upon this point, and asked, was the war to be eternal? but if a treaty was ever to be made, it must be by means of negociation upon this very subject. He then touched upon the naval successes of America since the commencement of the war, which he could not but think showed some want of foresight and preparation in the ministers.

Mr. Baring said, that he did not believe that the noble lord's assertion was correct, that the American declaration of war had any connection with the state of France

or Russia; and in his opinion the cause of the war was solely in the orders of council; and he appealed to Mr. Foster, the late ambassador to that country, and now sitting in the House, whether an earlier repeal of these orders would not have prevented the war. Now, however, the subject of impressment was the only obstacle to peace, and a most important one it was. He was sensible how much the safety of the country would be endangered by a surrender of the right without a sufficient substitute, and was aware of the great difficulty of finding such a substitute. He thought, however, that Mr. Russell's proposal ought to have been rejected in a more conciliatory manner, and the door not to have been shut against future negociation, with a phrase about maritime rights. The noble lord had stated that there were about 1,600 American seamen in our service, but had not noticed that there were at least ten times as many of British seamen in the service of America; which he men. tioned, to show that it was even more for our interest than for that of America, to court negociation on this point. He observed, that though there might be only 1,600 American seamen detained for life in our navy, it was no captious ground of complaint: it was a matter not to be settled by a balance of numbers, nor ought it to be regarded in that light. He then adverted to the conduct of the war, and held that with our naval establishment we ought to have blockaded the whole American coast.

Mr. Foster then rose, and in reply to the appeal of the last speak.

er, said, that he could not affirm that the revocation of the orders in council previously to the commencement of hostilities, would have had the effect of averting them. Their repeal might have weighed something with the government, but he did not think that the government was sufficiently master of the congress to be able to do what it thought most beneficial for the country. He could not agree with the opinion of the hon. gentleman, that there was no party in America friendly to France: the revolution had made a strong impression there; and although the subsequent turn of affairs might have detached the better part from them, they were yet a powerful party. There was also an anti-anglican party, who took every opportunity to foment animosity against Great Britain. There were no fewer than six United Irishmen in the Congress distinguished by their inveterate enmity to this country. Mr. F. made many observations on the state of parties in America, and on its effect in producing the measures which had led to hostilities. The war, he said, was carried in Congress by that rancorous faction against the English, who persuaded others to join them through fear that a difference might break up the democratic party; and in the senate the war measure was carried by the opponents of government, who were desirous of making it unpopular.

Mr. Whitbread was glad to have heard from the hon. gentleman that neither Mr. Monroe nor Mr. Maddison seemed to him to be actuated solely by a spirit of hostility towards this country. The

latter person had been much reviled by the noble lord and others for his attachment to the politics of France, but it now appeared that the war had been produced by causes beyond his control. He could not consider America as being wholly to blame in the production of the war; and he was justified by a review of the history and progress of the preceding negociations, to ascribe to the conduct of our own government the existing rupture between the two countries. On this point Mr. W. entered into various particulars; and with respect to the American practice of naturalizing British-born subjects, and denationalizing them, he observed that there were two acts upon our statute books by which every foreigner who served two years in any vessel, military or merchant, was entitled to every protection of a natural-born subject of this realm: and he apprehended, that if an American had served two years in our navy, and the vessel in which he sailed was boarded by an American armed ship, which should claim him, he would be entitled to the protection of this country, and our government would have a right to refuse to give him up. Mr. W. then strongly reprehended the attempts to attribute the conduct of America on this occasion to French influence, and denied that she had ever declared in favour of France. If truth must be spoken, she had always been in the right in her disputes with us until, by the declaration of war, she had changed her situation, and he hoped that this advantage which she had given us would be used on our parts with wisdom and discretion.

Mr. Canning, in a long and eloquent speech, in which he was frequently greeted with cheers, undertook the defence of the British government in its proceedings previous to the late negociations, and in the negociations themselves. With respect to the English acts relative to foreign sailors, referred to by Mr. W. he said that he had understood them only as granting municipal privileges to such persons, and by no means as impairing their native allegiance to their own sovereigns; and therefore that there was no similitude between these enactments, and the pretensions of America in their naturalizations. With regard to the right of search, he repeated the arguments used in the Regent's declaration against first abandoning a right of which we are in lawful possession, and then trusting to negociation for its restoration, or the substitution of an equivalent. But the topic on which he principally employed his eloquence was, an invective against the American government for having taken the time when Great Britain was deeply engaged in the glorious strug gle for the emancipation of Europe from tyranny, to impede her exertions, and league itself with the oppressor. Having thus declared his sentiments concerning the general grounds of the dispute be. tween the two countries, he assumed his part of a censurer of the present administration, by remarking on their want of vigour and decision in the measures which had followed the declaration of war.

After Mr. Croker had made some observations in defence of the conduct of the admiralty, and

had stated some facts in proof of the misrepresentations and unfair proceedings of the Americans relative to the impressing of seamen; and a few words had been added by other members; the question was put and carried without op position.

A similar address being moved in the House of Lords by earl Bathurst, on Feb. 18th, the day for taking into consideration the papers relative to the war with America, a debate ensued, in which the arguments employed were so perfectly similar to those above reported, that it is unnecessary to particularize them. The address was carried without a division.

The great inconveniences arising from the accumulation of business in the court of Chancery, which rendered it impossible for the same person to preside in that court, and also to perform all his functions in the House of Lords; and as a high political character, had for a considerable time past engaged the attention of both Houses of Parliament, and a bill for the appointment of a new law officer, under the title of vice-chan cellor, had in the last session been laid before the House of Lords, in which no alteration had been proposed, but it had miscarried in the Commons; almost immediately after the assembling of the new parliament, on Dec. 1, 1812, lord Redesdale presented to the House of Lords a bill for the better administration of justice, which he stated to be the same with that introduced in the preceding session, and after he had made a short observation on the necessity of some assistance to the lord-chan cellor in the discharge of his mul

tifarious duties, the bill was read the first time, and ordered to be printed.

On Dec. 7, the order of the day standing for going into a com mittee on the bill, lord Holland rose to submit a motion for further information respecting the bill, and particularly for the production of the report of the committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the causes of delay in the decision of suits in the court of Chancery. Lord Redesdalemade no opposition to this motion, but at the same time assured the House that no information could be derived from that report capable of altering the opinion of their lordships on the proposed measure. The order of the day being then read, lord Holland again rose to state to the House some objections to the bill, which were replied to by lord Redesdale, and the bill passed through a committee, and was ordered to be reported.

The further proceedings on this bill, in which many of the ablest members in both Houses, especially those of the legal profession, took different sides, produced a mass of argumentation of which it would be impossible to give an adequate view in such a summary as we are confined to by our limits, especially as the topics discussed were of so technical a nature. We shall therefore only note the parliamentary circumstances attending the passing of this bill, and in sert in its proper place an abridged account of its provisions.

On Feb. 11, the second reading of the Vice-chancellor's bill was moved in the House of Commons by lord Castlereagh, in a speech, in which he stated at large the