Star.
London, England, 1814-11-09 00:00:00

which was beyond the ordinary rules : and above al
it must be distressing to those gallant men whit hat
the execution .of,such orders. Violence, however,
must be-repiessectial4intence and severity by severity.
When we witnessed the utmost wantonness of malice
on the part of the Americans, we were justified both
by the laws of GOD and man in executing a strict
retaliation. The ion. Gentleman had attempted to
slew that the atrocities committed by the Americans
were the acts of unauthorised Commanders. The
shortest answer to this would be to read the letter of
one of the American Commanders sent to the Secre-
tary of State. The General wrote, that being in dan-
ger from the advance of the enemy, he had holden a
council of war : that in consequence he had given or-
ders to evacuate Fort George, and to fire the village
of Newark, which was then in flames. Here, then,
was a deliberate act, and done no doubt in con-
formity to the instruction. which he had received.—
Three days afterwards he wrote that he bad ordered
red.hot shot to be fired into Queen's-town : that not
a house was standing in Newark, and that the enemy
in consequence was much exasperated. It appeared,
then, that he expected retaliation ; and what retalia-
tion had been inflicted i Surely to destroy public
buildings, instead of private, must be considered as a
mitigated retribution. The enemy, when he took the
capitol of Upper Canada, had carried off the public
stores, and binned all the public buildings. (4r.
Whitbread said the value was inconsiderable). Per-
haps the value was not very considerable ; still it was
the capitol of the people, and as much venerated by
them, as Washington was by the Americans. But
he could mention another instance of more cruel ma-
lice. If ever there was an establishment less calcu-
lated than another for hostile purposes, or to benefit a
warring patty, it was the institution of the Moravian
Missionaries; men amiable, harmless, and useful for
the purposes of benevolence and virtue. This exem-
plary body fell lam the power of the American ar-
miee, who not only deprived them of every morsel
of Seitatinalit but burned their buildings to the
ground, nett leaving a vestige even of an outhouse.—
Such overt -the injuries which had provoked the reta-
liation of the British forces. Nor could it be mat-
ter, of surprise, that under suck circumstances Sir
Gewge Prevost had called aloollirpr the means of re-
tribution. Having stated this, he must now deprecate
the continuance of such a mode of. hostility. GoD
grant that the war itself may terminate : if not, may
it be carried on in a less revolting manner.—(Hear).
The Americans themselves, however, had acknow-
letlged the lenity of the British soldiery, and had
stated, that the only plunder which took place was
the act of their own people. The Hon. Gentleman
had been very severe on the conduct of the Naval
department : he had stated, that no protection was
atiorded to British merchatitmen ; that the American
privateers were unchastised ; that the whole British
trade was lost. Surely this last assertion was a mis-
take; he must have meant that the whole American
trade was lost. The fact was, that about 200 mer-
chantmen had been taken ; most of these, however,
were vessels which had sailed without convoy, and
had chosen to run all risks for tl:e sake of pre-occu•
pying the market. More than 20 prosecutions had
been in vain instituted by the Admiralty against
masters of ships who had run away from convoy.—
But the lair way of judging this question would be to
compare the loss with that of some preceding period.
The most brilliant period, perhaps, of our naval annals
was the year 1761, under the administration of the late
Lord Chatham. The tonnage at that time was above
12 millions; it was now 43 millions : yet in the former
period we lost 802 ships, in the latter only 200, when
in tact the proportion of loss would be 2500.
We had on our parts taken from them 38 govern-
ment vessels, and 199 privateers, making together 237
ships, and about 11,000 men. He was not inclined to
rejoice at those fruits of the war ; on the contrary, he
hoped for its termination. Much, however, must de-
pend on the sentiments of the American Government.
He could, however, give now no account of the ne-
gociations ; all. proper explanations would be give*
in due time. The Address merely went to thank the
Prince Regent for his conciliating disposition :—it
wistod hereafter appear, from papers produced to
the Ruse, whether or not the praise was deserved.—
It would, petoaps, be expected of him to give seine
account of the flourishing state of our revenue which
had been mentioned in .the Speech of the Regent.—
He could state that in the quarter ending on the 10th
of October, 1813, the returns were 818,531,000 ;
in the quarter ending in the came month, 1814, the
mores were s i 9,037,000 the total in one year was
46:),‘2,31,000 ; in the last year 863,000,000; making
a differ ence of nearly a? 2,800,000. The increase in the
customs had been from 810,167,000 to £10,213,000;
in the excise trona 23 millions to 24 millions, and so
on, as would appear by documents hereafter to be
hid before the House. As to the progress of our
trade since 1812, the exports at the port of London,
in 1812, were 211,446,04)0 ; in 1813, 218,985,000 ;
in 1814, 226,828,000, which is considerably more
than double the first year, and yearly a third
greater than the preceding year. He was not
aware that it was usual to state the particular
reasons for an early assemblage of the Parliament ;
but he could say that large arrears were due, the par-
ticulars of which would be hereafter brought forward.
The Hon. Gentleman had in a manly and candid
manner disclaimed all intention of blaming Sir George
Prevost till proof could be furnished; it would be
unjust not to ex:end the same liberality in the first
instance to his Majesty's Ministers. The address
pledged the House to noth.lig, but merely contained
those .r;entrai professions of loyalty and support which
were. usual on such occasions. He hoped that the
Rase ti ould support those just pretensions in the
American quarrel, which it had supported when the
deiiverance of Europe was at stake. This country
contended for nothing but the ancient laws of Europe;
it claimed no Eight which it was net ready to allow
to toilers ; but if our just rights should be infringed,
he trusted that the House and the country would
manifest their usual ardour and vigour to maintain
thetn unimpaired.
Mr. ELLIS felt it necessary to reply to some ani-
madversions of An Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread)
on the propriety of the conduct of his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. Caouing), in accepting an official situa.
non lie knew that was open to be canvassed, like
the acts of every public min, and therefore he should
dt.clii.e baling any thing on that point. He could
lint admit that this appointment caused any increased

expenditure to the country. When his Right Hon.
Friend first took the pecuniary arrangements for the
situation into his consideration, he was struck with
the large sums which had been allowed to Sir Charles
Stewart, under the head of extraordinaries. Now, al-
though those sums had been granted with the sanction
of Parliament, yet Mr. Canning felt reluctant to take
upon himself a discretionary power to that amount.
He wished that the amount of the expenditure should
be fixed by those who could have no interest in the
increase of the estimate. His Right Hon. Friend
might well fear that he would not meet the same in-
dulgence that was given to Sir Charles Stewart, if he
were to exercise the same discretion. Sir Charles
Stewart had in the last year received £28,000, of
which £5OOO only was for his appointments and the
rest was for extraordinaries. There had heen paid to
Sir H. 'Wellesley, during the last year, the sum of
£27,000, of which .186,000 was for his appointment
as Ambassador at Madrid, and the remainder was for
extraordinaries. It would therefore appear, that the
estimate of Mr. Canning's expense as Ambassador at
Lisbon was only one half of what had been the ex-
pense last year of Sir C. Stewart and Sir H. Wellesley.
Mr. TIERNEYcouId not avoid saying a few words
as to the expenditure of public money. He felt the
less delicacy cow in speaking of the expenses of Sir C.
Stewart at Lisbon, as he had, on the discussion of the
Civil List, gone pretty much at length into the sub-
ject, and had particularly dwelt on the great expense
of our Ministers abroad. With respect to the reason
assigned by the Honourable Gentleman who spoke
last for Mr. Canning's quitting the country, he felt,
in common with every other Member of that House,
a very sincere regret that he shoold have such a mo-
tive for his residence abroad. As to his accepting ihe
situation of Ambassador at the Court of Lisbon, that
was quite a different question, and it was a question
which the Hon. Gentleman himself perceived was open
to animadversion. The publtc could hardly avoid a:li.
madvei Ling on ;he propriety of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man now accepting a high and im.ortant situation
under a Noble Lord (Castlereagh, whom he had
formerly supposed not to be fit for a high situation in
his Majesty's Councils. There %Pere many points of
difference among political men which might pretty
easily be got over. For example, if any body was to
object to acting with him from the supposition that
he was a friend to jobs, and he was afterwards to
convince him that he was mistaken in his opinion, lie
then thought that they might well act together in
future : but it that man had charged hint with actual
unfitness fr,r his situation, he did not know how they
could afterwards aa together. What he had for.
merly said with respect to Sir C. Stewart was, that
he was perfectly convinced that the money hal beat'
fairly expended. At the same time, he had found
fault with the custom of allowing Ambassadors and
Foreign Ministers to exceed the sums allotted foe,
them. The Honourable Gentleman, however, spoke
of Sir C. Stewart, as if he had been the immediate
predecessor cf Mr. Canning. He must, however,
ask him, whether it was not Mr. Sydeaham who
succeeded Sir C. Stewart ? When that Gentleman
was appointed, it must be supposed that Government
had fully in their contemplation the scale of expendi-
ture that was necessary for a Minister in Porttsgal."-e-'
He veauld ask whether Mr. Sydenham had not been
sent to Lisbon subsequent to the return of Sir Charles
Stewart, and whether he was not considered fully
adequate to all the purposes fur which an Ambassa-
dor could be wanted at that Court ? And he would
further ask, was it ever thought that an embassy was
necessary at Lisbon until Mr. Canning had declared
his intention of going thither ? Unless these questions
were answered satisfactorily, he should consider the
appointment of that Gentleman as on.: of the grossest
jobs which had ever come ender ihe cognizance of
the House. That Mr. Catitting would execute his
duty well, he had no doubt, but the tu;s'ortune was,
that he had nothing to do—('Hear, hear.) - If there
was a necessity for a tsecretery of State out of office
to be employed, why not sow Mr. Canning to Vienna,
and let the Noble Lord, who was now there, return
to his duties at home ? It could nut be said that Mr.
Canning WAS unfit to undertake such a charge—fur,
as he had changed his opinion of the Noble Lord, no
doubt a similar advantageous change had taken
place in the Noble Lord's sentiments towards him.
(A laugh.) • Upon the whole, he could not help
saying, that the allowance of £14,000 per annum
to an Ambassador to Portugal, was a burthen on
the public not to be justified by necessity. Mr.
.Sydenham was considered, at one period, as quite
competent to all the duties now assigned to Mr. Can-
ning, and his allowance di not amount to more
than 4 or £s,ooo—an expenOtanly one-third of the
sum granted to Mr. Canning. He begged again to
observe, that unless the circumstance St As satisfac-
torily explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he should consider the whole as a most complete job.
Me. WHITBREAD said, he had not denied that
great atrocities had been committed by the Ameri-
cans, but he thought it would have been more for the
honour of this country not to have retaliated them.
If we were to be at war with Indians, it did not fol-
lbw that Vie also should scalp our prisoners. At to
personal hostility, he felt none towards any Member.
Ti Mr. Canning had, in his private capacity, deter-
mined on going to Lisbon for the reason assigned,
he certainly should not have thought of calling that
a dereliction of his duty to that House ; but it• was
when he went out as Ambassador to Portugal that
he thought it fair to express his surprise that he had
not attended the House to meet those animadversions
that such an appointment would naturally call forth.
Mr. ELLIS denied using the term personal ho-
stility.
Mr. BARING regretted, that after so long a war
no hope was held out of their being relieved from
the burdens they had so patiently borne. The Em-
peror of Russia and the different Sovereigns on the
Continent had already done something to alleviate the
burdens of their subjects. He condemned our setting
up a rendezvous for runaway negroes, and arming
them against their masters. Although he thought that
no naval enterprize had ever been conducted with
more gallantry and skill than the attack of Alexan-
dria ; yet he believed that it was carry.er; hostilities
beyond all the established rules of warfare to take
the mercbandize out of the private warehouses.—
By the established rules of war, all tnerchandize that
is afloat becomes prize to the captors but it had
never before been considered that all private property
in a defenceless town could legally be seized by the
conquerors. As to the cause of the ware he always

. .
said, and must still say, that America was the aggres-
sor. He could not, however, see any indisposition on
her part to a peace. There had been for some years
an American Commissioner wandering abou Europe
for the purpose of restoring peace. The American Go-
vernment had immediately accepted the offer of the
mediation of Russia. They had sent Commissioners
over to aegociate before they heard of Bon 4 parte's mis-
fortunes, and long before we could condescend to send
Commissioners to meet them. To demand a cession
of territory from America was the way to unite' all
parties in that country against us. He could not
avoid thinking that Sir G. Prevost had slie‘s a great
skill and judgment in his defence of Canada, tie• two
years, against a great superiority of force. The rea-
son, however, that he had been enabled so long to
defend it, was, that he had had the good sense to esta-
blish a sort of understood neutrality with the inhabi-
tants of the northern and eastern states. It was im.
politic and hopeless to invade those countries with a
view of making conquests.
Mr. B. BATHURST supported the argument of
the Chancellor of the.Exchequil, and contended, that
the Hon. Member who had just sat down had argued
with respect to America on assumptions made en-
tirely from his own mind, or from information which
he might have the means of receiving, altogether un-
known to hiin (Mr. Bathurst). The question really
was, are we justly at war wiih America ? We had
' now the power of sending a large force thither, and
there was every reason to hope that, by a proper em-
ployment thereof, such an impression ought be made
as to induce the Americans to agree to a speedy and
honourable peace. _ _

Sir GILBER T HEATHCOTti',ttiouglit, that as peace had
been obtained throughout EUropoWe c.:t:.e of wAr had cea,ed
in America. He WAS afraid Goveiontem had Lew t.ljects in
view, and wanted to enlarge our territ..: y in Amer ca, by which
attempt we must he Arawn in-is the aelusive pri.jecis of dthcr
conquering America or carrying on a protr.icteal e:t.truetively
expensive war.
Mr. C. GRANT had beard that a army in England,
without consent of Parliament, was uncnbtiiuti.mal, but net so
to maiuuin an English army in a foreign (wintry.
Mr. TIERNEY asked whether there eat a convention on the
subject of our ussantaining an army in the Low Countries ?
Mr. BATHURST thought the present not a fit moment to
mention K. _ .

Mr. WHITBREAD said it had been avowed by Lord Castle-
reagh, in the close of the last Session, that a treaty had beeti
signed, but not ratified.
I be CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEI2I2ER.—This was not
the proper time to bring the matter forward. If there WAS such
a Treaty, k must, of coarse, be laid on the table before it could
be acted on.

Mr. WHI ['BREAD was surprized the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer ,kould doubt what lead been avowed by his Noble Col-
league last Section. It was an to Parnantent, and Incon-
sistent with justice to the country. He inbisted on an answer on

the subject.
Mr. IIATHURST said, the question di..l nut relate to any
thing in the Speech. niece was no intention whatever to keep

back the 'Treaty.
Mr. WHITBREAD.—it is impossible not to feel some com-
passion fur the situation in which the Hon. Gentlemen had In-
volved themselves.—(A loud cry .f" Question—Question.")
'1 he Address was immediately agreed to, and a committee
appointed to prepare the same.