Графични страници
PDF файл


others. He thought it a measure too strong to be taken on the authority of such information. As the question stood, martial law was to be established in Ireland, because the right hon. gentleman, for reasons which he could not declare, told the house it was necessary. From this circumstance he might derive a justification of what he said before; for every twentyfour hours might bring something. It would be desirable that some further informationshould be given. All that was known was, that an insurrection had broken out in the country. It was a circumstance worthy of reflexion, that the persons on whose authority they were to rely for the necessity of the measure proposed, were the very mimisters by whom the last acts had been repealed. It was very remarkable that they who, at no very distant period, repealed the acts, should now desire the house to renew them. When the house was not allowed a moment to deliberate, it maturally created doubt. Perhaps it was the repeal of the acts that had created the necessity for renewing them. . The chancellor of the exchequer, in explanation, stated that the government of Ireland liad not reealed the acts after the peace, but i. suffered them to expire. Mr. Kerr said, he had lived in Ireland during the late rebellion, and was in a private corps, and he could assure the house that martial law was never exercised with seveUpon the representation of himself and some other gentlemen, courts-martial were resorted to, and they had the effect of eradicating the rebellion as to all outward appearance. Mr. Hutchinson wished that vi

gorous peasures should be excited

for putting down rebellion in the first instance ; but that measures of lenience and humanity should not be abandoned. He deprecated most ardently the revival of those horrid scenes of whipping, shooting, and strangling, and house-burning, that during the late rebellion had been carried to enormous lengths, to the production of so much misery towards the unfortunate people of that country, by intrusting the execution of strong measures to the hands of exasperated, prejudiced, and sanguinary men; and which tended rather to produce and ex#. than to suppress rebellion. e had witnessed many of those horrid scenes, and he congratulated that house that their eyes had been spared the painful view of such horrors. He earnestly besought the house not to turn its eyes from the complaints, whether real or imaginary, that agitated the minds of the unhappy multitude in that country; but that, instead of separating, late as it was in the season, they would investigate and probe to the quick those questions and measures which could have, by possibility, a tendency to suppress every disposition to discontent and tumult, by quiet rather than by coercive means; and he concluded by conjuring the house to turn its eyes to that country, as one which was capable of being rendered a source of impregnable strength and riches to the British empire; but which, if not fully conciliated, by wise and lenient means, might be per

verted to the contrary. Lord Castlereagh observed, that the proof that this measure was not to be loosely committed to the hands of those likely to misconceive or abuse its intentions, was, - that that it was 'vested entirely in the discretion of the lord-lieutenant. With respect to the acts of severity alluded to by the hon. member, they were unfortunately mutual, and the natural consequence of the mutual enmity and *xasperation between two parties in the same country, armed and at war against each other. He spoke at considerable length in support of the bill. Leave was given to bring in the bill, which was brought up by the chancellor of the exchequer, read a first and a second time, and committed. The chancellor of the exchequer, in the committee, introduced a clause, by which no courtmartial should consist of less than seven officers. Mr. Hutchinson complained that many persons hitherto tried before courts-martial in Ireland had been treated with great injustice, and prevented from having the witnesses necessary for their defence. Lord Castlereagh denied the statement. He never knew an in

stance in which the trial was not

put off, upon a representation being made that the necessary witnesses were not present; and he knew that lord Cornwallis, when lord-lieutenant, had always read over the minutes of every courtmartial, in order to see that no unjust proceeding had taken place. It would therefore be better to leave this matter to the direction of those who were responsible. Mr. Ormesby said, he had acted as judge-advocate on , a great number of courts-martial, and he could assure the house that the prisoners had always notice given

them of their trials, and might put them off, if they chose, to any particular day. This was the practice after the rebellion; but he knew not what might have been done in the camp, flagrante bello. The chancellor of the exchequer said, it was very necessary that no unfavourable impression on this subject should go into the world, and he called on the hon. gentleman to state any roof: instances which he knew of any improper and violent proceedings being adopted by courts-martial towards the persons whom they . tried. Mr. Hutchinson entered into a justification of his conduct and principles, but did not specify any facts in support of his assertion. The report of the bill was then received, and it was read a third time and passed. The §or of the exchequer, then obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable the lord-lieute. nant of Ireland to secure and detain such persons as he should suspect to be conspiring against his majesty's person and government. The bill was brought up, carried through all its stages, and passed. . A clause was introduced into this, as well as into the former bill, for limiting the duration of both to six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament. The bills were sent to the lords; and about half past ten o'cleck a message came down, informing the house that the lords had agree to the same without any amendment.—It is unnecessary to add, that the measures almost immediately received the royal assent. Except

[ocr errors]

Except what we have already noticed, no other measures of importance occupied the attention of

in a speech from the throne, for

the substance of which we must refer our readers to our Public

the imperial parliament. On the Papers. 12th of August it was prorogued,


Foreign Affairs—Revival of the Dispute between France and England.— Correspondence relative to Malta.-Requisition of the French Minister relative to the Liberty of the Press in England, and the emigrant Princes and Bishops.-Reply of the British Government to these Requisitions.— Extraordinary Conference between Bonaparte and the English Minister.— Discussions respecting Malta revived.—Displeasure of the First Consul at his Majesty's Message of the 8th of March.-Communication of the French Minister on the Sulject.—Singular Conversation between Bonaparte and the English Minister at the Levee.—The French Government not prepared for War—Stratagems to gain Time—Negotiation protracted.— Ultimatum of the British Government—French Contre-Projet.—Lord Whitworth demands his Passports—leaves Paris.-Declaration of the British Government.—Letters of Marque and Reprisal against France.

F the dispute which in the course of this year commenced between Great Britain and France, we have already had occasion to speak when we introduced the message of his majesty on the 8th of March to the notice of our readers. It is necessary, however, in this place to enter more into the detail. It was observed in our last vohume, that the peace which was signed at Amiens appeared not well calculated to insure the continuance of tranquillity. No limits were placed to the growing ambition of France, and the temper with which the negotiation then was conducted, indicated but little disposition on the part of France to consolidate a lasting peace. It was not long before the latent embers of this hostile disposi

[ocr errors]

tion began to emit sparks, which threatened a speedy flame. The treaty was scarcely signed before the French government betrayed an indecent haste to have that part carried into execution which respected Malta. In the month of April 1802 a dispatch from Petersburg announced to the British ministry that the emperor of Russia seemed little disposed to undertake the guarantee; but in the following month it was intimated, on the same authority, that his imperial majesty had manifested more favourable dispositions, and might even be ultimately induced to guarantee the whole of that arrangement, provided the steps towards the election of a new grand-master, according to the mode suggested by the court of Petersburg, were considered as fulfilling what was

* required

required on that head by the latter part of the 10th article of the treaty of Amiens, and conseuently that no new election for i. office was to take place in the manner pointed out by the former part of the same stipulation. To this it was replied by the British government, that, in the article alluded to, there was an express stipulation that the knights of the order were to proceed to the election of a grand-master only upon condition that no such election should already have been made since the exchange of the ratifications of the preliminary articles of peace; and the election which some time after actually took place under the auspices of the emperor of Russia, was considered as valid both by his Britannic majesty and by the government of France. The independence of Malta, and the other stipulations relative to it, were, moreover, to be guaranteed by Russia, Austria, Spain, and Prussia, in conjunction with Great Britain and France. Accordingly, the British minister at Paris was directed to request of the French government that they would give instructions to their ambassadors at the several courts of Vienna, Petersburg, and Berlin, to invite those courts to accede to the arrangements alluded to. The emperor of Germany’s act of guarantee and accedence was transmitted to the British government in a dispatch from the envoy extraordinary at Vienna, the hon. A. Paget, dated 22d of August. The emperor of Russia also promised to accede, on certain conditions. While these arrangements were in agitation, the French minister,

M. Talleyrand, was directed by the first consul to represent to the English minister, Mr. Merry, several circumstances which he said stood very much in the way of a perfect reconciliation and good understanding between the two countries and their governments. The circumstances of which he complained were, that the French princes, and some French persons still decorated with the insignia of French orders which no longer existed, continued resident at the English court; and that the English government gave countenance and support to what he termed the ci-devant French bishops, as well as to others, among whom he particularly mentioned Georges, inimical to the present government of France. . He accordingly expressed a wish that his majesty’s government might be disposed to remove out of the British dominions all the French princes and their adherents, together with the French bishops, and other individuals whose political principles and conduct must necessarily occasion great jealousy to the French government. He continued to observe, that the protection and favour which these persons obtained must alone be considered as an encouragement to the disaffected in France, even supposing those persons themselves had not been guilty of any acts tending to for ment fresh disturbances in his own country; but that the French government possessed proofs of the abuses which they were then making of the protection they enjoyed in England, for that several printed papers had lately been intercepted which it was knewn they had sent, and caused to be circulated in France, and which had


for their object to create an opposition to the government. M. Talleyrand concluded by suggesting, that he thought the residence of Louis the XVIIIth was now the proper place for that of the rest of the family. These requisitions were enforced by the example of England, which, at the time the pretender was in France, had preferred a similar solicitation, and by the practice of other governments under similar circumstances. To these representations it was replied by the English government, that his majesty would certainly consider it inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the treaty of peace between him and the French republic to encourage or countenance any projects that might be hostile to the present government of France; and he certainly expected that all †: ers who might reside within his dominions should not only hold a conduct conformable to the laws of the country, but should abstain from all acts which might be hostile to the government of any country at peace with England: as long, however, as they conducted themselves according to these principles, his majesty would feel it inconsistent with his dignity, with his honour, and with the common laws of hospitality, to deprive them of that protection which individuals resident in his dominions could only forfeit by their own misconduct. It was af. firmed, that the greater part of the persons alluded to by the French government were living in retirement, and that there was no reason whatever to suppose that, since the conclusion of peace, they had availed themselves of their resi

dence in England to promote designs injurious to the government of France. Towards the latter end of July 1802, the French ambassador, M. Otto, received an order from his government to demand the punishment of Peltier, editor of a periodical paper in the French language, on account of one of his numbers, which was asserted to contain the most gross calumnies against the .. government, and against the whole -'rench nation. It was declared that it was not to Peltier alone, but to the editor of the “Courier François de Londres,” to Cobbett, and to other writers who resembled them, that he had to direct the attention of his majesty's government. He accompanied Š. representations with the remark that the reiterated insults of a small number of fol. reigners, assembled in London to conspire against the French government, produced the most unfavourable effects on the good understanding between the two nations. To this it was answered by lord Hawkesbury, that it was impos. sible, his majesty's government could peruse the article in question without the greatest displeasure, and without an anxious desire that the person who published it should suffer the punishment he so justly deserved ; but that the calumnies to which his majesty’s government, and many of the best subjects in the country, were Ho!, exposed in the public prints, must necessarily convince all foreign governments of the difficulties which existed in a constitution such as that of Great Britain, in preventing the abuse which was often unavoidably attendants on the greatest of all political

« ПредишнаНапред »