The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-03-04 00:00:00

.csoiution, espresso ipprol
of that House of the conduct of His Majesty's
Ministers in taking a decisive step, by which they
disappointed the expectations of our inveterate
enemy, and defected the hostile combination that
was fanning agniast the unuitiute greatness and
smieriority of Great Britain.
'Lord Hints e fa, in an eriergetieand able speech,
entered into a comprehensive view of this question,
now introduced iu a direct form to the House, and
fix which he thanked his Noble Friend(Earl of Diirtk.
ley) ; because, whatever !night 13st the result of the
motion, it elfUrded to those who joiued with him in
reprobation of it, au opportunity of recording their
opinion of its injustice upon the Joanials of Parlia-
ment. Where sow 4.4 Ministers rest their ground
of defence, or where did the Noble Lord who pre-
ceded liiin find the information on which he formed
his opinion of its necessity ? Was it iu the secret
articles of Tilsit, now totally given up by His Ma-
jesty's Government? It was shameful to observe
the evasions and retractions adopted by them on
this pert of the sullied. Formerly they were arti-
cles, next arrangerneata, and last of all, an implied
conetasion of there being engagements. Tile Noble
Lord denied that Denmark had been the life and
soul of the Armed Neutrality. He knew it as an
undnulited matter of history, that the Courts
of Madrid and Berlin bail given birth to that
measure in the year 1790. Ile blushed for his
- country, to see its Gevernment lend itealf to such
• means of defence, and recommended them to find
less censurable grounds for their conduct than
Bonaparte's shrugs or gestures to the Portu-
guese Ambassador, or the communications of some
patriotic Irish Informer, when he denounced an
independent date. It was safety for Ireland, for-
sooth, that induced this act of violence towards
Denmark. Be just, in the first instance, to the
fair claims of the Irish people, and do not defend
your oppression of them by aggression towards un-
offending states. It was said, if in the streets you
see a man, determined to commit acpersonal vio-
lence, were you not justified in preventing
him? Yes; I would prevent him, in a manly
manner; I would knock him down, but never
ermfine my precantion to robbing him of his
watch.—(Hear ! Hear o—This Address might be
rejected, but, unless it be carried, I know of no
communication this House could make to their
Sovereign on this subject, preferable to that
reported to have been made by a `;banish Minister
U his Monarrh, and in which the'veat Lord B--
Con observed, there was a great portion of salt, when
that Minister said, " May it please your Majesty,
you have but two enemies, three are, the whole
world, and your own advisers."
Lord Beithroomr opposed the Address, and
defended the attack on Copenhagen. He confided
in the statement of Lord Granville Leve-on Gower,
that the Baltic transactions were not the cause of
the hostility of Russia.
The question was then pot, and the House di-
vided ; when the numbers were—
Coptipats 26—Proxits gs--. Total
Nott-eucteats pi—Prusies 54—Tutal ► 50

Major ly agalut tke Motion 39
We understood. whilst strangers were escluded,
that Lord Eliot proposed his resolution of op-
. , and after some disctmion, a division took
it; when the mimbers van-e—
-mirs 61—Taal ..... ..123
K• Vi 19.....Pr0mes se—Total.... 57

6.

Majority.
1 • After which the flotfte :Adjourned,

HOUSE OP

. .
. 4EILI,MPOUND ELECTION COMMITTEE,
all Ll4l-rigu 1011. TUla DAY.
...fig: °lt lI,M. Thanes Jones, Esq.
Shan Esq.
R. Wisrani, EN
, .0 kt.g, min. su C. Pries, Burt
1. 11.27001 Eq. A Macmaghteo, Erg.
. iniMininple Mark Weed, Esq.
. John Simeon, Ego W. Dickenson Esq.
Chula Misoro, Egg W. Smith, Es:q.
MOVIIIttP.
_ _

11. Momentary, Esq. Davies Giddy, E.
• tip Mimeo's ebtaime4 lime to bring in • Bill to ens-
sho Ilega• Ansmalleihnurissionern to vest the balance in their
tur Oft
mike, that, to-morrow, he nottid
It
impeeties the granting of licenses for forme
the umetive et the CHANCYLLOR of the Excels-
Omr seseimi waft 'a the Nett Vuty Bap ints post-
supplow ihorie

JOHN GIFFARD.
Sir Jon Plx.wroax, in pursuance of the notice
he gave yesterday. rose for the purpose of moving
for a cow of the patent, by which John Giffard
ism appointed to the office of Accountant-General
at the Cuitains, in Ireland, with the reasons as-
signed why said appointment took place, after he
had been dismissed from a situation under the
tersest Clommuneut.
Sir AaTuua WILLEILILY said he would wish to
bear some reason or other why such a motion
should be agreed to.
Sir Jost Naweoite answered, that he would
not wish Meister into a discussion of this 'abject,
till such time as the papers he called for were laid
before the House. He should then endeavour to•
dhow that the original dismissal was perfectly well-
grounded, and that the subsequent appointment of
that person to the office he now held, was injurious
to the peace of Ireland, he (Mr. Giffard) having
formerly acted inn manner that tended to the dis-
quietude of the country.
Sir ARTHUR WIriLLSLET said, Mr. Giffard was a
very old servaoluf the Crown in Ireland, and per-
fectly well knows to the present Government, and
cettaialy had mit been removed from- the situation
lig formerly Wild. worth about 5001. a year, upon
my reason officially seated. It was true that that
Gentleman had en tertaisad and expressed opinions,
in common with the House, as to the Catholics in
Ireland, and he did suit know why, upon that are
count alone, he should have bean removed. ile
did not wish to enter into the circumstances which
occasioned that removal, as possibly be might hare
beet. very properly- dismissed ; but be did Dot see
any reason why, because he was owe removed, on
account of certain opiaiona, he should be excluded ,

life. Upon these grounds he
was ally oceasioit rot: bitch a
wads by the High! Hon. Gen-

,
said, Ise should state teliat the me-
-, circumstances of the ease were, amid why the
dismissal of Mr. Gitfard was, if not an arbitrary
act, one of ill-judged policy, and his restoration
to office an act of mere justice. Any man who
knew him (Mr. Croker) and his opiiiions as to the
Catholic Question, would not think that he was
giving a partial judgment. About the year 1803
a Petition was presented from the Catholics, and
Mr. Giffard did move, at a meeting of the Corpora-
tion of the City of Dahlia, that a (,'ouster-petition
should be prevented to Parliament, praying thou
not to grant what the Catholics demanded. This,
sad this aloue, was at the head and front of his
offendiug." He merely petitioned this Howse
against the Catholic Petition lying upon the Table,
as be thought it would be disgraceful to the Go.
'eminent of that time should it be listened to, he
not being apprised of the disincliitation of the
Goveruineet to hear him. The very day the mo-
tion was to be made by him in the House of As.
seedily in the city of Dublin, a person mine to
Mr. Giffard's house, and inquired for hint, fur the
purpose of cautioning him against it. That indi-
vidual acquainted one of his (Mr.Gitfard's)
that he had come to prevail upon Mr. Gitfard not
to make the motion, of which he had given notice
in the House of Assembly, as the then existing
Government would be inclined to take harsh mea-
sures against him. His relation, shinned at this
information, hurried to the lieu...! of Aisseintsly to
prevent the motion being made, lint it was then
already done. He (Mr. Croker) would pledge
Iniuself, that that motion was made without Mr.
Gilboa knowing the unwillingness of Government
that it should be so, and therefore it was utyust
and uureasonable, that a person in Isis situation,
exercising the right of a British subjei t, should be
diataistied from an office which he had held far la
dear., he IMAM the office of Regittrar of the C ustom-
"muse Quay, not at all connected with his present
capacity. He believed Mr. Gifford to be a very
respectable gentleman ; and although he differed
with hint upon the subject of the Catholic Ques-
tion, he never should say that a person should be
dismissed from office, because, in a corporate body,
he held an opinion different from him. lie wits sa-
tisfied that what lie had said would satisfy those
gentlemen who were friendly to the right of peti-
tenting. The Motion, in his opinion, appeared to
F e an undue interference with the right of the
Crown in appointing its own officers ; at the same
time that he should acknowledge the House had
a right to interfere, if the /tight Hoe. Baronet had
prove.' to their satisfaction, that the appointment
iu question had been made either incorrectly or cor-
ruptly. He trusted he had said enough to shew, that
if the measure sn adopted by Earl liardwicke was
not all arbitrary breach of power, at least that it was
an indiscreet act; hecAtuse, however injudiciows it
might have been for Mr. Gifford to put in such a
petition, yet no one had a right to dismiss him from
office merely on that account, and far less to con-
demn him to an eternal exclusion from office. It
might probably have hero thought very necessary
for Earl Hardwicke to buy a little papalerity by
suds a measure, hut he should be glad to know
what reasuu there could be now assigned, why Mr.
(infard should be excluded from office for ever ?
Ife believed that a Right Honourable Ginitleisau,
now no awe, who formerty eat on the opposite
beeches, sopporting the right of petitioning,
thought that the present case was an arbitrary dis-
missal, and being perfectly impolitic, that justice
should he done to Mr. Giftard as soon as possible.
Mr. Peassos sty said, that he never had had any
political conneution with Earl Hardwicke daring
his life, hut had the honour of enjoying that Noble
Earl's friendship in a considerable degree, mid
thought he was as little likely as any man to do an
arbitrary act, such as that alluded to, and pertly
attributed to him. He thought there was 'a-
ncient Parliamentary ground for the production
of such papers as those now moved for, when it was
stated that a person, under such circumstances.
had acted improperly. He had heard that the Go-
'crewcut of that day did take the step of dismissing
Mr. Gitfard, because he had proceeded in a man-
lier most offeusive against the Catholics of Ireland,
and such as was calculated to keep alive all those
religious discords and animosities which anhappily
were but toe prevalent. Government were on that
account afraid that if he kept that office which
he then held. the people would believe that he
acted under their authority. It was upon that AC.
count alone that Goverinueat took such a step, and
therefore no partioular charge could be hronght
with justice agisiust Earl Hardwicke, for having
acted as he then did. He did not understaud the
argument that was attempted to be used as to this
being a perpetual proscription, as he thought it
was fully sufficieut thst that Government thought
it a wise measure to dismiss such a person from the
office winch he thee held, from their disapproval of
his conduct. 'lid the present Government mean
to say, that the former (Internment were wrong,
and that they are determined to 'hew to the coon-
try that those who were most forward and most in-
discreet in agitating a question of the nature alluded
to, were et to be continued in office? Whether the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland hid acted in a prudent
and discreet manner was not for the present Go-
vernmeat to determine. He had had the honour
of enjoying a considerable share of Mr. Fox's
friendship, and had even talked over this very sub-
ject of the Catholic Question with him, and lie
never, in his whole life, heard that departed states-
man disapprove of the conduct of Earl Hanlwieke,
hat, on the contrary, had heard hint say, that he
ha 1 acted in a manner the mast useful amid bene-
ficial to the country.
Mr. Purzotaasu said, that having had the ho-
nour of holding n situation under Earl Hardwicke,
in Ireland, he could not hear it said, that lie had
acted in an arbitrary tattooer. There never was a
person who conducted himself with more 'toper-,
tiality, and, therefore, he could not suspect that
Noble Earl of having acted, in the present hi-
pline% flora any sutwortlty motives. It was not
to much with a view to Mr. (liffiril's individual
opinions. that Earl Hanlwirke thought it presser to
demise hint, but it wesin order tojustify hinualf to
the Goverument of the country. as well as the
vassey then; that he thought it proper to mark

hi. disapprobation of ,such a conduct as that whielk,
tiithird had adopted. Ha- did not call in
question Mr. Giffard's right, as a Member of a
Corpotitiwn, to express his opinion, but sjni his
situation as a Member of Government, Earl
liardwicke thought it was necessary to guard the
Government against the mischievous effects of
St" OPiniOni as were circulated by that individual
with unceasiug perseverance. lie hoped the Right
flououmble Gentleman opposite (Sir Arthur Wel,-
lesley), consistently with his opinion expressed last
n;ght, would not think of keeping Parliament in
the lurk with regard to a subject so materially
connected with the safety of both countries.
Sir ARTHUR WKLLESLEY, in explanation, said,
that he had merely stated, last night, that he was
convinced if Mr. Gifiiird answered the description
~,iven of him by the Right Honourable Baronet,
he would not have beau appointed to the situa-
tion he now held.

Dr. Mimes/tau said, that it was very easy
to attack the character of an individual, when
he was not presilt to defend himself. It was
absurd to imagine, that Mr. Giiiird, as an Ex-
ciseman, had a power from Government to re-
present a considerable body of His Majesty's sub-
jects. The fact was, that the Petition alluded to
had been presented against a Petition of the Ca-
tholics, claiming, not indeed emancipation, but
privileges which the rest of His Majesty's subjects
did uot enjoy. That the Catholics alone were to
be heard, and the rest of the King's subjects to
have their mouths shut, was a doctrine which he
could not conceive just nor reasonable. All
that Mr. Gifford had done was, that in a guar-
terly assembly. of the Corporation lie made a
Motion expressive of their hostility to the Catholic
Petition, and the result was, that the Catholic
Petition was rejected by the Hoare of Com-
mons, and the object of the ether Petition
granted. Can it then be said, that Mr. Giffard
was acting in opposition to Government, when it
could be shewn he was then acting directly in
unison with the sense of Parliament? Were one
milliou five hundred thousand people of Ireland to
have their mouths sealed up, while the other part
of them, who were of the lowest' order, wishing to
destroy the constitution, were to be left at liberty
to represent things as they pleased ? Could Mr.
Giflard's conduct under such circumstances justify
an act of such violence, as to remove him from a
place :le Mid, worth „tloo a-year ? Was this jus-
tice? Was this equality? Because a man veutured
to state-his dissent to the inisrepresentutioris and
falsehoods of the Roman Catholics, was he, upon
that account alone, to he reprobated ?
• Dr. LIWRZNCE said, lie had no connexion with
Mr. Gitlin-if, but was surprised to hear the Hun.
and Learned Gentleman avow himself his groat
patron. He thought the present subject was one
that ought to be inquired into, because, should he
find that Earl Ilardwicke's Government had, beer
such us it was represented, lie should be the first
One to censure it ; but, if it was not censurable,
why should this individual be re-appoiuted to a
situation under Government, and even with eouse-
thing additional given to him, as a reward for his
forincr services? He begged, however, to observe,
that lie had riot formed an opinion upon the fads
of the case; but he thought that, upon the face of
it, it was a re-appointment which he should least
of all approve. It wits a case that aught to be in-
quired euto, were it for no other purpose than to,
put the conduct of the two Gm eminent's upon ;Ro-
per !commis. If it wens to be said that Earl
I lardwicke's Government was ceusurable, why
should the present Government shrink frosts the
inquiry ?
Mr. GRATTAN said, he should not take up much
of the time of the House in giving his support to
the !notion. Ills objection to Mr. Gitiiird was,
that he had been a very active religious agitator,
and it seemed to be admitted, that his conduct
had tended very much to produce religious animo-
sity in the situation iu whigh he-was placed. These
religious dissensionswereorydangerous, and them-
fore the sooner they ceased the better. Earl Hard-
a icke's government was, he thought, extremely mild
and exreedingly pure. Earl Hardwicke disapprov-
ed of this marls opinions, and he removed him, be-
cause the Cioveriuneut was au enemy to religious
animosities, auil therefore what construction 'could
be put awe' the return of that Gentleman to office,
hut that of the present Government approving of
the return of religious discard? Ile paid greet re-
spect to any opi Mons mini no from the Corporation of
Dublin, and was therefore disposed to listen to any
thaw coming from that quarter, but lie knew that
Mr. Gitfard's, interference was not conflool alone
to agitating the question there, lie having heeu
active in coutributing to similar animosities else-
where. That Gentleman's restoration to office was,
in every view he could take of it, in the face of
principles, which he thought were fundamentally
necessary for the preservation of Ireland. it was,
the duty of every Lord Lieutenant to avoid pro-
motiug religious animosities. The Roman Catho•
tics had surely a just right to complain if any man
be involuted to an office who bad previously con-
, ceiired enmity against their claims, and a detes-
tation of their characters. Government should, in
jastice to that class of society, avoid imposing upon
them, by appointing one to a high and responsible
situation, that was so remarkably iunnical to their
principles. In doing so they much misconceived
the true interest of the country. If the Irish Go-
vernment became religious partizans, the English
Government would become the worse for it. He
therefore should object to this appointment, as it
was one totally offensive to the Catholics, and not
only an act of injustice, but one of extreme folly
upon the part Government.
The CHANcti.toit of the Etcueevest said, he
should never be deterred front expressing- his sen-
timents, however adverse they might be to those
of the Hon. Gentleman oppoaite ; but at the same
time he should never be-kwaril to enter into
any discussions of this sort, where they were neces-
sary, end should wish to discuss it as temperately
as poseible. How the papers moved for could gist.
say grounds for disapproval of the appointment in
question, was more than what he could conceive.—
.411 that had been stated against Mr. Gifford, wag,
'tint he, hissing a corporate office in the city of
Dublin, and being himself a Protestant, did take
upon himself to state reasons why the object of the
Catholic Petition should not be complied with.—
This' conduct could not constitute any grounds fur

sidered it lisstified by that public law of pillions, (roe office during
which had thirits foundation the very principle of did nos think there
self-preservation. On such a view of the case, he ocitiot tsffitntistw
war determined not only to oppose the :notion of tteinaill. . •
the Noble Earl, lout should it be negatived, tp Mr. Catmint-mid
submit a resolution, expressive of the approbation tual circumstances