quelled by German Troops; here, I say, in this prison, I saw some of the manufaeturers, who, after the success of Mr. Brougham's motion, were preparing to return home, full of joy in the assurance of a renewed and uninterrupted intercourse with America, and I told them, that they ought to moderate their joy; for, that Mr. Brougham's success would not produce the effect they expected, but that, on the contrary, his pledge to support a war, if that measure failed to ensure peace, might be attended hereafter with infinite mischief. mised. If this was really found to be the case-if every attempt had been made, that justice or forbearance could suggest, to conciliate America, and if, notwithstanding, she had issued a declaration of war, and persisted in carrying it on, after the concessions that had been ** made, where was the man that could refuse his assent to carry on the war with vigour adequate to our means? America "would thus see the united efforts of the Country, and the unanimity of the House, that had been called forth by the line of policy that she had pursued. If -They did not absolutely laugh in my they looked at the documents that had face, but I could clearly perceive, that they "been published by the American Govern- did not believe a word that I said, and ment as the grounds of the war, they that they attributed my gloomy predictions should look at peace as an object very to a feeling, which, though I might have "distant, because the American Govern- been excused for possessing it, really was a "ment placed the war on such extensive stranger, as far as that subject went, to my "grounds as could not be removed by this breast. The truth is, that they saw no Country." -It is very true, that there importance in any thing but commerce; were people in the House of Commons to they saw nothing in impressments to make a promise to support the war if the repeal of nation go to war; they regarded it as madthe Orders in Council failed to satisfy the ness to suppose, that a nation would susAmericans; but, I made no such promise; pend its commercial gains for a single hour and, therefore, I, though a fly amongst for the sake of a few thousands of men imeagles, am at liberty to express my dis- pressed by a foreign power. I, however, approbation of the war.Nay, I most knew the disposition of the free people of distinctly said, at the time, that the repeal America better; I had heard the declaraof the Orders in Council would not satisfy tion of the Congress on the subject; I the American People. I had, indeed, said knew that that body, whose seats are not so many months before: and I had said it bought and sold, spoke the voice of the upon a knowledge of the fact. I had all people; and, upon this ground, together along said, that, unless we ceased to im-with other ground that I need not be partipress persons out of American ships upon cular in naming, I founded my assurances the high seas, we should have war; and, to the manufacturers, that the repeal of the therefore, when the ministry were, by Mr. Orders in Council would not answer the Brougham, reduced to the necessity of re-end they expected from it; and I could not pealing the Orders in Council, I, in an address to the Prince Regent, prayed him to add a relinquishment of the practice of impressment, with which, I positively asserted, that the other measure would fail of its desired effect.Nevertheless Mr. Ponsonby (as the leader of the Whigs) did promise support to the war, if the repeal of the Orders failed to satisfy America; and Mr. Brougham did the same.The country was thus misled, and was prepared for a justification of this war. The manufacturers, some of whom came to see me in Newgate, where I had been impri-to the debate; Lord Castlereagh talks of soned for two years, and sentenced to pay a fine of a thousand pounds to the king, which I have since paid to his son in his behalf, for having written and published upon the subject of the flogging of some Local Militiamen, in the town of Ely, in England, who had been first help, I must confess, feeling some slight degree of anger against the manufacturing bodies, when I saw them meeting to vote thanks to Mr. Brougham, without taking the smallest notice of my incessant efforts to prevent that destruction of their hopes, which I saw would speedily tread upon the heels of their exultation.However, this feeling has long been extinguished in my breast, and I only regret that I am without the power of affording any portion of assistance to the poor suffering wretches in the manufacturing districts.- -To return now concessions made to America in the repeal of the Orders in Council. I have often shown, that there was, according to the settled laws and usages of nations, no concession at all. Nay, there was, according to our own doctrine; according to our own part of the correspondence, no concession made to America. The thing is shown, a friend of France by a Scotch newspaper. The manufacturers of Paisley will, by this time, have discovered, that I was a better friend of England than their impudent countryman, and that I foresaw an obstacle to peace which had escaped the eyes of both the parties in parliament; for, Lord Castlereagh now tells us, that such compensation was demanded as a preliminary to a cessation of hostilities. "The Orders in 66 as clear as day-light, in two words.We all along avowed, that, in themselves considered, our Orders in Council were a violation of the neutral rights of America; but, we asserted, that they were justified by the violation of those same rights committed by Napoleon; and we declared that we would cease our violation, the moment France ceased her's.France did cease; we had, according to our own declaration," Council," he said, "were now wholly proof that France had ceased before we "out of the question, by the overture for made the repeal. We then ceased; but, I "an armistice on both sides: but even on put it to the common sense of the reader," the ground of the repeal of the Orders in whether this cessation ought to be called a "Council, the American Government had CONCESSION.—Thus, according to "pressed the matter so far, and in such a our own doctrine; according to our own temper, as to admit of no amicable ardiplomatic correspondence; according to rangement. Mr. Russel had put in our own more solemn acts, the Orders" claims to have indemnity for all captures themselves and the Declaration of repeal; "made by our cruizers under the Orders in according to all these, we made NO CON-" Council since 1806. He did not say that CESSION at all, to America.Why," this might not have been given up, but, then, talk about concessions? It may have" as the question stood, it evidently apan effect here; but, assuredly, it will have none in America, where the government (a government chosen by and resting upon the free and unbought voice of the people) have constantly protested against our Orders in Council as an open and gross violation of the known and acknowledged rights of America, and as receiving not a shadow of justification from the violent and unjust conduct of France.To talk, therefore, of concessions seems to me to be something intolerable; but, to expect, that the people of America would, after the solemn declaration of Congress to the contrary; to expect that they would disarm upon our ceasing to violate one of their rights, while a still more grave subject of complaint existed; to entertain such an expectation as this, appears unaccountable upon any supposition than that of our ministers and members of parliament being wholly deficient in knowledge relative to the opinions and feelings of the American people, and the means of the American government. Besides, there was another consideration connected with the repeal of the Orders in Council; and that was, that, by the repeal we merely an nounced our intention to cease to violale a right. We said nothing about compensation for the past. This was very material; for, it was impossible that it should be overlooked by the American government, without an abandonment of all the principles upon which it had resisted the Orders in Council. I also pointed this out at the time, for which I was treated as a fool and "peared that America had shewn no dis"position to be satisfied with the forbear"ance of this country."Well, if this might have been given up on our side, why not give it up at first, and see what it would do? However, the demand was made, we see, and I said it would be made. Indeed, it was manifest that it must be made. The American government could not avoid making it, without exposing itself to the detestation of the people, as a base abandoner of their rights; rights so long contended for, and sought to be redressed by means of so many and such large sacrifices.--Now, our ministers and Mr Ponsonby and Mr. Brougham ought to have foreseen that this demand would be made. In not foreseeing it they shewed a want of knowledge upon the subject, and also a want of knowledge as to the circumstances in which America stood with regard to France, from whom she was, and still is, demanding indemnity upon exactly the same principle that she makes the demand on us.The reader cannot be too often reminded of the origin and nature of the Orders in Council. They arose, as we allege, out of the French decrees of Berlin and Milan, the two places at which the Emperor was when he signed them. These decrees violated neutral rights on the seas; but, it was declared in the preambles to them, that this violation was rendered necessary by certain Orders in Council of England which enforced a greater violation of neutral rights.-We, upon the appearance of these Decrees, issued other Orders in Council, enforcing other violations of neutral rights. | I particularly wish the reader to bear in mind, that our Orders had, up to the mo ment of Napoleon's repeal of his Decrees, always been acknowledged by us to contain a violation of the known rights of neutrals; but, in our justification, we said, that it was forced upon us by the Decrees of the enemy.-This was our language up to the moment of Napoleon's repeal. But, what says Lord Castlereagh now? So far from acknowledging, that the Orders in Council enforced a violation of any known neutral right, he contends (if the report of his speech be correct) that they were founded on our known primitive rights. The words, as they stand in the report, are these: The Orders in Council had been 66 a point on which considerable difference "of opinion in this Country had prevailed, "but they had been abandoned, not so "much on the ground of this Country not "having THE RIGHT, as with a view to commercial expediency. He rather wished, however, to wave the renewal of that "branch of the question, now that the whole proceedings of Government were before the House. With respect to the "main principles of that system, Ministers "were still unaltered in their opinion, when "the conservation of the Country rendered Both parties were complained of by America. Both parties call their measures retaliatory. Both parties allowed that their measures violated neutral rights. Both parties said they regretted that the measures had been forced upon them. Each party declared, over and over again, in the most solemn manner, that the mo ment the other removed or relaxed his measures he should find a joyful imitator in the party declaring.America protested against the conduct of both. She said to us, that we had no right to violate her rights because they were violated by France; and to France she said, that she had no right to violate her rights because they were violated by us.- -At last, to put the sincerity of the two parties to the test, she passes a law, which says, that if, before the 1st of November 1810, both parties have repealed their Decrees, their commercial and friendly intercourse with her shall continue; that, if one party does" repeal and the other does not repeal by that day, then her ports shall be shut" against the non-repealing power in February" 1811.-Napoleon, in the month of August, 1810, issued a Decree by which his violating Decrees stood repealed on the 1st of the following November. This" it necessary to resort to it. At the time new decree was communicated to our "the measure was adopted such a system ministers by the American minister in was necessary, not only as it respected London, who expressed his hope, that," France, but as connected with the soundagreeably to our many solemn declara- "est policy for the general interests of the tions, we should hasten to follow the ex- "British Empire. Had it not been for the ample of France. Our ministers answered "manly resistance given by that measure in a sort of vague way; but, at any rate, to the power of France, France now would they did not repeal; and, in February, "have been as triumphant, in a commercial 1811, the law went into effect against us. point of view, as she was with respect to Our goods and our vessels were shut out of" the Continent. He begged he might the American ports, while those of France "always be considered as an admirer of were admitted. We asserted, that Napo-" that system."-Now, I state, that the Jeon had not repealed his decrees. America asserted that he had, but we would not believe her. We insisted, that she did not know the fact nearly so well as we did. In short, we continued to refuse to repeal.At last, the great distresses and consequent complaints of the manufacturers led to an inquiry, at the bar of the House of Commons, into the effects of the Orders in Council, when such a mass of evidence was produced by Mr. Brougham in support of the proposition, that the non-importation law of America was the principal cause of those distresses, that the ministers, Perceval being dead, gave way: and the Orders were repealed. This is the plain and tre history of the matter; and 66 Orders of Council themselves, and the papers of our diplomatic agents, and the Speeches of Sir William Scott, almost explicitly acknowledge, that the measure was to be justified only on the ground of its being a retaliation on France; and that, in the two former, is expressed, His Majesty's earnest desire to imitate France in doing away these obnoxious measures.-This was our language up to the moment when the repeal of the French Decrees was announced to us.Our language has, indeed, since changed; and, it was, during the debates upon Mr. Brougham's motions, coolly argued, that the repeal of the Orders would make the Americans the carriers of the commerce of the world. But, though we have changed would confer no real benefit on the State; and that, as no alteration of law should take place, unless it promotes the general welfare of the State, the laws complained of should remain in force. But we beg leave to submit to the consideration of our countrymen, that the whole kingdom would be essentially served by the repeal of the penal laws remaining in force against His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. On this head, the writer of these columns requests your particular attention. our language, it does not follow that America should change hers. She always contended that by the Orders of Council her rights, were violated; she always contended, that all the seizure we made under those Orders were unjust; and, of course, she demands indemnity for those immense seizures.--But, is it really so; can it be possible; can the thing be, that a Secretary of State has asserted, in open Parliament, that, without any reference to the conduct of France, and that though the Deerees of Napoleon did not exist, we had a right Two-thirds of the population of Ireland, to do what was done, towards neutrals, under and no inconsiderable proportion of the pothe Orders in Council; and, that, when pulation of England, is composed of Roman ever we think proper, we have a right to Catholics. It is obvious that the feelings do the same again? If this be so; if this of this large proportion of the community assertion was made by the Minister for are wounded, in the highest degree, by the Foreign Affairs, and if it be meant to be penal and disabling laws to which they are maintained, then, certainly, the war with subject; and that they consider themselves America will be long indeed.-Reader, highly injured, insulted, and degraded by what was it that was done in virtue of them. Now, must it not be beneficial to these Orders in Council?--I will give the State, that this extensive feeling of inyou an instance. An American-built sult, injury, and degradation should be ship, owned by a native American, man-healed? Do not wisdom and sound policy ned by native Americans, laden with flour, or any thing else the growth of America, and bound from America to France, or to any other country named in the Orders in Council, was seized on the high seas by any of our vessels of war, carried into any of our ports, the ship and cargo condemned, and the master and his crew turned on shore to beg or starve, or live and find their way home as they could.This was what was done in virtue of the Orders in Council; and, if the Report be correct, this is what we have a right to do towards neutrals again, "whenever the "conservation of the country" calls for it; that is to say, whenever our government thinks proper to cause it to be done!Now, I will not waste my time and that of the reader by any discussion upon maritime and neutral rights; but will just ask him this one question: if we have a right to act thus towards America, whenever we thing proper, she being at peace with us, what can she lose in the way of trade, what can she risk, in changing that state of peace for a state of war?In my next I shall discuss the other points brought forward in this debate. WM. COBBETT. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. make it the interest of the State, that every circumstance which leads this injured, insulted, and degraded, but numerous portion of the community, to think that any new order of things must end their injury, insult, and degradation, and is, therefore, desirable, should be removed as soon as possible? Surely the removal of it must be as advantageous to the State, as it will be advantageous and gratifying to the persons individually benefited by it. But this is not the only circumstance which would make the repeal of the penal laws a general benefit to the State. Again we request you to consider the immense number of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and the great proportion which it bears to the rest of the community.—What a proportion of genius, of talent, of energy, of every thing else, by which individuals are enabled to distinguish themselves, and benefit and elevate their country, must fall to their share:-But all this, for the present, is lost to you, in consequence of the penal codes. Is the subtraction of this prodigious mass of probable genius, talent, and wisdom, from the general stock, no detriment to the State? Surely it is a national loss. Thus while the penal code harasses the individual object of its infliction, it contracts and paralyzes, to an amazing degree, the strength, powers, and energies of the whole community. IV. It is alleged, that the Roman Catholics of this kingdom enjoy the most full and li- | beral Toleration; and that Toleration is the utmost favour to which any non-conformist to the religion established by law can reasonably aspire. in question; some persons might have contended for the wisdom of the statutes, but none could have contended that they were not highly penal. But whatever difference there may be in the degree of penal infliction, there is none in the penal quality of those statutes, which deprive persons of offices, and those which deprive them of the prior legal eligibility to them. The right of possessing an office, the right of succeeding to it, and the right of eligibility to it, are equally civil rights. There is no difference in this respect between offices and landed property-the right to possess an estate, to succeed to it, and to acquire it, are equally civil rights. The justice or policy of these laws is not now under our consideration-the simple question before To this, we beg leave to answer, that toleration, rightly understood, is all we ask for by our Petition. But what is toleration, when the word is rightly understood? If, after a Government has adopted a particular religion, decreed its mode of worship to be observed in its churches, and provided for its functionaries, from the funds of the State, it leaves the non-conformist in complete possession of all their civil rights and liberties, the non-conformist enjoys a full and complete Toleration. But whenever the government of a country represses other forms of religion, by subject-us is, whether eligibility to offices and ing those who profess them, to any deprivation or abridgment of civil right or liberty, Toleration is at an end, and Persecution begins. This is too plain a position to admit of contradiction; the only question, therefore, is, whether the pains and penalties to which the Roman Catholics are still subject by the laws in force against them, deprive them of any civil right or liberty. To meet this question fully, I shall consider, how far the Corporation Act, which excludes us from Corporations, and the Test Act, which excludes us from Civil and Military Offices, can be justly said to deprive us of a civil right. I prefer placing the question on these acts, because, by their own confession, it is the strongest hold of our adversaries, and because, in the discussion of that question, thus propounded, I shall advocate the cause of the Protestant Dissenters as much as our own. election into corporations, were not by the common law the civil right of every Englishman, and whether his being deprived of it was not a penal infliction. It is impossible to deny it. This infliction reaches every description of non-conformists to the established Church: their religion, therefore, is not tolerated-it is persecuted. On the policy, the justice, or degree of that persecution, there may be a difference of opinion; but that, in some degree at least, it is a persecution it seems impossible to deny. Thus we seem to arrive at this questionable conclusion, that, in point of fact, all non-conformists are persecuted. The difference between Roman Catholics and other non-conformists, is, that Roman Catholics are subject to pains and disabilities which do not affect any other description of non-conformists. The Roman Catholics, therefore, are the most persecuted of all. Our common adversaries contend, that Here, then, we close with our adversathe exclusion of non-conformists, by the ries; we seek not to interfere with the estaTest and Corporation Acts, from honour-blished Church, with her hierarchy, with able Jucrative offices, is not a punishment, and, therefore, is not intolerance. her endowments, with her tithes, with any thing else that contributes to her honour, her comfort, or her security. Give us but toleration in the true sense of that much abused word, and we claim no more. By the oath prescribed to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by the 33d of His present Majesty, the Roman Catholic swears-" That he will defend to the utmost of his power, the settlement and arrangement of property in that country, as establish"ed by the laws now in being; and he thereby disclaims, disavows, and solemn"ly abjures any intention to subvert the present Church establishment, for the "purpose of substituting a Catholic esta But before the enactment of those statutes, were not all the subjects of this realm equally eligible, by the common law of the land, to every honourable and every lucrative office which the State could confer? Is not eligibility to office a civil right? Does it not, therefore, necessarily follow," that every statute which deprived non-conformists of their right of eligibility to office, deprived them of a civil right, and was therefore penal? If Roman Catholics" had been in possession of these offices, and deprived of them in consequence of their adherence to their religion by the statutes |