Ixxviii

Russia, Sweden and Denmark.

nine-tenths of the wars which have plagued and ravaged the world might have been avoided, we are not prepared to defend the conduct of either Russia or Denmark in compelling Sweden to take a part in the present war. At the same time it must be acknowledged the complaints of Denmark against her neighbour, are more just than those. we have been accustomed to hear alleged by hostile powers as the ground of their proceedings. Sweden by her frequent rash, and hostile language against France, and above all by the shameful avowal of her approbation of the atrocities committed against Denmark on the part of Britain, has assigned better reasons to justify the conduct of her enemies, than they had been able to assign themselves. It is well if Sweden does not bitterly repent of having avowed such sentiments. Success attended her arms, in some trifling degree, at the outset ; but the tide is turning. FINLAND is already conquered; and ninless the forces so tardily sent by our ministers to the succour of their ally, should arrive in time, there is reason to apprehend that his Swedish Majesty, and his dominions, will shortly be at the mercy of France, Russia, and Denmark.

In the capitulation of SWEABORGH we perceive an article by which the restoration of the Swedish flotilla in the state in which it surrendered, is promised at the conclusion of the war," provided "the fleet of Denmark shall be in a similar manner restored by "Great Britain," an article which we earnestly hope will be fulfilled. The wanton aggression, the violent outrages committed against a neutral and peaceable state, and the consequent plunder, ought to be atoned for, as far as possible, by this country.

cr

REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

Seizure of Danish Merchant Vessels. In the house of Lords on the 17th Inst. Lord SIDMOUTH introduced this subject, by informing the house, that between three and four hundred Danish vessels, had been detained in our ports, or captured on the seas, the major part of which were deemed by their owners, captains, &c, in a state of perfect security, and reposing confidence." Several of these vessels had indeed been previously detained, but were adjudged by the court of Admiralty to be restored, and were only prevented by accidental circumstances from sailing to their destined ports. It farther appears that when reports were spread abroad that the armament fitting out in the Downs was intended to proceed to Copenhagen, many of the Danish Captains of the merchant vessels in our ports being somewhat alarmed, made application to government, and received in return assurances of the most friendly intentions towards Denmark. They likewise, for their more complete satisfaction," made subsequent applications to their own government

❝through the medium of Mr. Rist then consul at the British court, " and they received for answer from the college of commerce át Copenhagen, which was composed of some of the first and most st enlightened characters of that country, that they had no know"ledge of any such proceeding on the part of this country, and begging that these captains would contradict it." These answers perfectly satisfied the Danish Captains; and thus property to the amount of several millions was seized, which the owners trusting to 'the faith of government, deemed in full security. Lord SIDMOUTH, after enlarging on the flagrant injustice of such proceedings, moved various resolutions, the tendency of which was to declare, that it was essential to the vindication of the honour, dignity, and justice of the nation, that the proceeds of these vessels, and particularly those which had previously been ordered to be restored, should not be subject to the ordinary law of confiscation; and likewise declaratory of the propriety of appropriating a part of the fund arising from the condemned vessels, to the indemnification of the British merchants, whose effects in consequence of the proceedings of ministers, had been sequestrated. To resolutions so just and reasonable Lord HAWKESBURY replied as follows:-"That by the common "law of England, the Danish ships seized after the commencement "of hostilities, belonged to the crown de jure, and that parliament "ought not to interpose, under the illusive presumption, that his Majesty," [that is, his ministers] "would not act as justice and liberality required ... that with respect to the condemnation "of Danish property, the same had been done which had been "practised on former occasions, and very recently with respect to Spain, Holland, &c ..... and that this was not the time when "we should abandon the resources which the laws of war required, "but should rather collect with avidity all the means which the "situation of things required to carry on the contest in which "we were engaged!" These replies were, we must acknowledge, perfectly consistent with the principles (if it be not a prostitution of language to dignify certain opinions with such an appellation) of one of the contrivers, approvers, and defenders of the Danish expedition; but Lord STANHOPE's reply, renders any further remarks of ours on this subject, superfluous.

.....

"Lord STANHOPE observed, that he had once said, that it would be "his province," to teach our bishops religion, and our judges law." "What he had thus said in jest, he had seriously verified with regard to "the former, and he believed he should now be equally fortunate with respect to, the latter. With reference to what the noble baron (HAWKÈSBURY) had asserted, he should with the utmost care lay him as flat as a "founder on his back. Nothing could be more inconsistent with human and "divine laws, than such principles; THE WHOLE AFFAIR WAS A COMPLETE. SYSTEM OF CHOUSING AND RASCALITY, and an insult to the common sense of

ઠંડ

64

dependent states. By the conduct of this country, with regar "Danish merchants, this law had been violated; and the confide "which they had reposed under its shelter had been abused. The "England with respect to debt was this, that when the debt was "action might be commenced; but if the action were resorted to "the debt was due, the plaintiff could not succeed; but our con "wards the Danes was as if the law were the reverse their sh cargoes were seized before hostilities began, and were no lawfu but while they were detained under this illegal violence, hostiliti "place, and then they were condemned. Both in the one case "other, the first act being illegal, all the subsequent proceedings "tiated; and consistently with what he had affirmed, was every "doctrine, and practice of the law of this kingdom."

It is scarcely necessary to add, that additional approbatic stamped by the House of Lords on our new code of ministeria rality, and that Lord SIDMOUTH's resolutions were negative

The Irish Catholics.-Three debates in the House of Com and one in the House of Lords, have recently occurred, the and tendency of which must be to convince the Roman catho Ireland, who it will be recollected constitute a large majority people of that kingdom, of the determination of ministers not cede to claims, the justice and equity of which the majority of very ministers have repeatedly acknowledged, and have pl themselves to promote. The catholics must likewise be sensibl the same ministers seem equally determined not to lose any o tunity of adding insult to injustice. The first of the debates w spceting the grant to Maynooth college, a catholic seminary, has always received pecuniary support from government; and but just that the mass of the people who pay by far the major of the taxes and tythes, should derive some benefit therefrom. JOHN NEWPORT stated, that in one diocese in the county of there were upwards of 73,000 Roman catholics, and only 1,830 testants. The hon. gentleman appealed to the house," wheth " could in common sense be supposed, that the same numb

clergy could perform the religious duty that was necessary to <of these bodies of the people: but the fact was, that a gentle "who entered into the catholic church, adventured in a lottery

was almost all blanks, whilst those who united themselves wit " protestant church, as its ministers, had before them a lotte

"flocks without pastors." The grant proposed by ministers 9,2001. The larger grant contended for as necessary, was 13, Mr. PERCEVAL remarked, and he never said a more true wo his life, that he did not object to the larger sum from any pr ple of economy, but added, that his Majesty's ministers deeme smaller sum sufficient. Sir J. NEWPORT told the house the fo ing curious tale on this occasion. "He had heard that min "had at first agreed to the proposition for granting the larger su "13,000l. proposed to be voted in support of this institution "that some of them went up to St. James's, were some time clo "with a royal duke (of Cumberland), and after that, they cho "their opinions! That royal duke was chancellor of the univ "of Dublin, and from his being the head of a protestant unive " he might perhaps wish to keep the catholics in ignorance. "the house, he was convinced, would unite with him in op "that it was highly unconstitutional in ministers to suffer thems "to be so advised, and the country at large he trusted, clearly see the inexpediency, as well as the illiberality of upon such narrow principles towards any class of our fellow "jects." Mr. PERCEVAL in reply observed, "that he had "before heard this statement, and he was not inclined to cre as he did not think ANY ONE of his Majesty's ministers " under royal influence!" Resolving however to thwart the of the catholics, the motion for the larger sum, trifling as w difference from the smaller sum, was rejected!

An insult of a nature much more gross, than the refusal o pitiful sum for Maynooth college, is that recently offered t Irish catholics in the appointment of Dr. PATRICK DUIGEN the office of one of his Majesty's most honourable privy coun Ireland. The furious bigotry of the Doctor against the catho well known, and indeed flamed forth in the debate already no in which he represented the whole catholic body as "hostile t "state," an assertion at which Mr. BARHAM " expressed h "horrence, declaring that never words were uttered, so dang "abominable and false, or so likely to separate the kingdo deluge it in blood." It is remarkable that on the motion "there be laid before the house copies of the corresponden "tween the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the secretary of "relative to the appointment of Dr. DUIGENAN, &c." h jesty's ministers remained, as Mr. WHITBREAD observed,

lxxxii

The Irish Catholics.

for the appointment was- -"That the Doctor's advice might be useful in ecclesiastical affairs." Mr. WINDHAM very justly remarked," That ministers by their present measure, (so soon fol"lowing the appointment of another obnoxious person to office, Mr. "GIFFARD, and the circumstances attending the discussion of the Maynooth grant,) by the preferment of a man whose whole fame "was built on his known hostility to the catholics, his Majesty's "ministers had, as it were, hoisted the red flag, and declared that "henceforward they would show no quarter to that large and re"spectable body of the subjects of the empire."- The motion for the correspondence was rejected by a majority of 67.

The grand question on the catholic petitions for a complete toleration, was brought forward on Wednesday last in the house of Commons by Mr. GRATTAN; and in the house of Lords on Friday last, by Lord GRENVILLE. The motion in both houses was-That the "petitions be referred to a committee of the whole "house to consider of the same." After long debates, the numbers on a division, in the Commons were-Ayes 128, Noes 281, Majority 153. In the Lords--Contents 74,-Non-contents 161;-Majority 87. In a former Review* we entered largely on this subject, and proved to our readers the justice and policy of COMPLETE TOLERATION: at the same time we exposed the effrontery, and the hypocrisy of those whose religious or rather irreligious intolerance, had prevented the restoration of the just rights of dissenters of all classes. The subject may be considered as nearly exhausted, and we read little new in the debates on this question in either house. There was, however, one fact related by Mr. PONSONBY, which deserves particular notice. The hon. member observed that " The great "charge formerly brought against the catholics was, that their clergy were appointed by the Pope, and that by means of that appointment, principles hostile to Great Britain, and favourable "to France, were inculcated into the minds of the catholics. What "has since, however, happened? Instead of leaving that appoint"ment to the Pope, have not the catholic clergy offered to leave "the nomination of their bishops to the King? They offer, when "a bishop dies, to choose three persons, of whom the crown is to appoint one. Should the crown disapprove of all the three, they proceed to chuse three others, and so on, until their choice is "such as to meet the approbation of his Majesty. What more it possible for them to do, in proof of their loyalty and attach"ment to the crown!"

Leaving the nomination of bishops to the King, may be a proof of catholic loyalty to an earthly sovereign, but at the same time, we

Vol. I. p. Ixi-lxxvi.