The Sun.
London, England, 1812-02-14 00:00:00

repeating, that he had no confidence in the plun-
dereri of Copenhagen, or the originators of the
biliish cry of " No Popery !"
Mr. LEYCESTER said, the Honourable Gentleman
was quite consistent in the coinmencement and con-
clusion of his speech, both of which were decidedly
a;lainst she principle of teposing confidence in the
Ministers. As for himself, he had no hesitation in
saying that he approved of their conduct ; and in
saying so, he was sure that be spoke the sense of
the people at large. If there was any injustice in
our condua towards America, he should certainly
disapprove-of it; but he did not think-that there was
any. He hated oppression as much as the Hon.
Gentleman, but thought it equally inconsistent with
English feeling to bear with insult. If they, went
to that extrene of conciliation recommended by the
IT.nourah!e Gentleman, ruin must be the conse-
(pence. He wished for peace, but he disliked the
swaggering of America, though he hoped there was
good sense enough at bottom in both-countries to
prevent the extremity of war. As to the motion
before them, he would ask " cui k ono ;" he did not
rare rho were in Administration, but insist, d thlt
the maritime rights of the country ought not be

thrown away. .
Mr. \VHITBREAD hoped, that, as no other
Member was disposed to speak, he would be allow.
ed the usual privilege of reply. The Honourable
Gentleman 'who had just sat down very anxiously
looked about for a "cal burg)." - The " cui bow)"
which he would give him were papers for his infor-
mation ; for with all the intellect -and assiduity he
had brought try this 'question, he appeared rather to
have mistaken it, and the points on which it turn-
ed. The Honourable Gentleman had watched the
Minister and all his colleagues, and pronounced a
panegyric upon their conduct ; but he wished him
to recoiled, whether his inspection was of that
comprehensive and earticular nature to justify his
decision. The Right Honourable Gentleman on the
opposite side had anisouriced.himself as Minister of
the country, notwithstanding the suspicions enter-
tained; He cared not for such a declaration, as far
as it respeded the individual, but for the country it
boded no good. He wished to know whether the
Honourable Gentleman confined his faith exclusively
to the existing. Administration ? The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman' bad thought proper to refuse
the Papers, but if he w ere speaking in an assembly
in ka hich Marquis Wellesley was present, he did
not doubt that he would accede to the -motion,
Why, because it was evident that no injury could
rewlt to the country, and because on the face of
the Papers themselves, it appeared. that great blame
attached to the Marquis Wellesley, for his -condo&
towards tl.e American Government. He was sure,
if even a similar motion was made in an assembly
where the Marquis Wellesley was present, he would
agree to it. But why was' it refused.now,? Because
angry discussions might ensue: If; indeed, he (Mr.
Whithre d) had spoken unlike himself, the Mem-
ber for Yotk bad spoken perftsdly like himself,—
He had given a sketch 'of a debating society,- and of
the anger natural to it, and made that his ground for
refusing American Papers to the Parliament of Eng-
land. The'relation (Mr. Stephee) of this Vonour-
ahle Gentleman had given a sample of what rright
be done without them : he was like himself (Mr.
Whitbread), a -warm matt, and was somewhat dis-
appointed that night ; for expecting to fotow him
point by point its the argument on the Orders in
Council, that argument was unfortunatly omitted,
and he had not the opportunity, as on a former oc-
casion, of replying, though its ill health, for the
space of four hours, The Honourable Gentleman
had undatjaken to show a great dea!—that Great
Britain was in the right—that America was in the
wrong—that the Orders in Council were politic—
that our trade had flourished under them—yet the
moment be lad finished this speech, what would
he have done ? He would have put the Papers in
his pocket, he would have taken away the cui Lono
of the Member for Lincolnshire. But his Honour-
able Friend conceived, that it was the business of
a Sec!etary of State to equivocate ;if so,-the sort of
cot,ifience which he was for reposing in the present
Meister was perfectly intelligible ; but the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. Stephen) being ,l author
of those very Orders in Council, for he would deny
by all that was good and great, that Mr. Fox was the
author of them ;
_as well might the calamities .of
Europe be attributed to that great man, Whose
councils, lad they been followed, he believed in his
areal Would have prevented them. No, the Hon.
and L arned Gentleman, and the Ministers, had the
honour of iota oducing that system under which the
Gsz,ete teemed with bankruptcies, and tire Conti-
next was shut up against us ; he aserefore might be,
questionable authority ; it might be his business
to suppmt the Orders in Council. Why would he
toot gi, e the papers, to precut angry discussions ?
No, he was- willing to go into them. Why not
present them to the House ?—Hh; Hon. Friend
(Mr. Wilber'fotce) said, because lie had confidence
in !he Adaninistratton. When he first went into
Parliament, he remembered that. confidence -in Mi-
nisters was all'the fashion ; but then the pretence
was, that the withholding of informatiaah was ne-
cessary to the interests of the cdentry. But was
that the ca-e at the present period, ? Was not the
intelligence for which he moved already before the
world ? and yet they were called upon to refuse
_them only because the Minister was not Willing to
give them. Would the Hon. Gentleman be bold
enough to say that he had read the papers, and,
noltvithstaeding affirm that there was a possibility of
averting the war ? That the negotiation was at an'
end, Alai confirmed by the tnessageeof the President
to Congress, for unquestionably such a message
would ant have been sent had it not been so consi-
dered. The Right Hon. Getetieman had read'from
a newspaper, a letter-of Mons. Doroc, as conclusive
ratethe subject of the imputed partiality of the Ame-
rican Government to France. Was this fair ? He
would defy the Bight Hon. Gentleman to prove
from the whole of the correspondence between the
--Biitish and American Governments, that the lattet
manifested tee least partiality to France The
Right Hon. Gentleman and he were at issue on
that point. How was it to be decided By the
production of the correspondence, and by that alone.
He (Mr. W.) had been accused of partiality to
America, and of going against the cause of his
country. And this because he opposed and cen-
eared the preposterous and fatal measures of the