was not complied with. As to the Catholic question, he confessed that he had not been able to see his way to a satisfactory adjustment. Mr. Canning in the House of Commons made a speech of a similar tenor with that of the marquis. The addresses were voted in each House without a division. Of the parliamentary proceedings previously to the Christmas recess, the most observable were a grant to Lord Wellington of 100,000 l.; the renewal of the goldcoin bill; and the grant of a relief of 200,000 7. to the sufferers in Russia. -- A. D. 1813. YEAR OF GEORGE III. 53 & 54. PARLIAMENT 1 & 2. Declaration of the Prince Regent respecting the Causes of War with America. Consequent Address. Parliamentary Proceedings concerning the Roman Catholics: Mr. Grattan's Bill defeated. — New East India Charter.- Mr. Vansittart's new financial Plan, and Budget. Appointment of a Vice-Chancellor. Bill for augmenting the Stipends of Curates. - Extension of Toleration to Unitarians. -War in Spain. ·Advance of Lord Wellington from his Winter Quarters. · Battle of Vittoria, and Retreat of the French to their own Country. Failure of Sir J. Murray at Tarragona. Sebastian taken by the Allied Army. Lord Wellington's Entrance into France, and farther Operations. - Valencia and Tarragona evacuated by the French. Defection of Prussia from the French, and Advance of the Russian Army into Germany. New Preparations of Napoleon. He joins the Army. Alliance with Russia. - Battle of Gross Groschen, and its results. mies concentrated at Leipsic.— Actions and final Event. — Retreat of the French, and return of Napoleon to France. - Progress of the Liberation of Germany. Revolution in Holland, and Restoration of the Prince of Orange.· War between Denmark and Sweden. Surrender of Dresden and Stettin. - Actions in Italy. — Affairs of Switzerland. Events of the War with the United States of America. Renewed Attempt on Canada defeated. · Naval Actions. Fiume taken. The Plague at Malta. - Hurricanes in the West Indies. Parliament re-assembled. Royal Speech. - Bill for augmenting the disposable Force. Lord ON government, together with a declaration from the Prince Regent respecting the origin and causes of the war with the United States. This document gave a retrospective view of the measures adopted by the government of the States with regard to France and England, and displayed their partiality towards the former power. It recited the motives which had produced a revocation of the orders in council, and noticed the precipitation with which war had been proclaimed on the part of the States, and their refusal to consent to a cessation of hostilities. In fine, his Royal Highness declared, that he can never consent to admit the following points: That any blockade is illegal which has been duly notified, and is supported by an adequate force, merely on account of its extent, or because the ports and coasts blockaded are not at the same time invested by land: that neutral trade with Great Britain can be made a public crime subjecting ships to be denationalised: that Great Britain can be debarred of just retaliation through fear of eventually affecting the interests of a neutral: that the search of neutral vessels in time of war, and the impressment of British seamen found therein, can be deemed any violation of a neutral flag: that taking such seamen from on board such vessels can be considered as a hostile measure. This declaration seems important, as comprizing the principal of those maritime rights which are held so tenaciously by Great Britain. A result of this communication to parliament was a motion, on February 18th, by Lord Castlereagh, for an address to the Prince Regent, expressing entire approbation of the resistance opposed by his Royal Highness to the unjustifiable claims of the American government, and full conviction of the justice of the war in which we were engaged, with assurances of the cordial support of that House in every measure necessary for prosecuting the war with vigour, and bringing it to an honourable termination. In the speech introductory to this motion, and the subsequent debate, while the ministers and their friends inculcated the idea that the Americans were induced to declare war by the prevalence of a French, or an anti-anglican party, it was contended on the other side, that the cause of the war was in the orders of council, and might have been prevented by their timely repeal. The address was, however, carried without opposition. A similar motion was made in the House of Lords by Lord Bathurst, with the same result. At this period, the question concerning the claims of the Roman Catholics was become a matter of general interest, and the tables of both Houses of parliament had been crowded at the close of the past, and the beginning of the present year, with petitions on the subject, of which a great majority were in opposition to those claims. Its parliamentary discussion recommenced on February 25th, with a motion by Mr. Grattan for a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland. The debate, in which it was scarcely possible to find new arguments on the general topic, and the new points of which chiefly referred to the conduct of the Irish Catholics since their minds had been irritated by disappointment, was continued by adjournment during four days. It terminated in a division, which produced for the motion 264 votes, against it 224. The proposed committee being then formed, Mr. Grattan mentioned his intention of offering two resolutions: 1. That the Catholic disabilities should be removed: 2. That the establishments in church and state ought to be effectually secured. He then made a motion declarative of the expediency of the removal of the Catholic disabilities, with certain exceptions and regulations, which on a division, was carried by 186 to 119. On April 30th Mr. Grattan introduced a bill conformable to this resolution. It contained an enactment that it should be lawful for persons professing the Roman catholic religion to sit and vote in either House of parliament after a certain declaration and oath, instead of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and the declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints. The oath was of great length, and included a renunciation of all such supposed articles of popery as asserted the temporal jurisdiction or authority of the pope or councils in these kingdoms, his infallibility and right to forgive sins without repentance, and whatever else was contrary to morality or subversive of the existing church establishment. Taking the same oath was likewise declared sufficient for the admission of catholics to the right of voting for members of parliament, and to all offices civil and military, with the exception of those of lord high chancellor, keeper of the great seal, and lord lieutenant of Ireland. Other exceptions were made for the security of the protestant churches of the three kingdoms. A further enactment related to the Roman catholic clergy, and imposed a particular oath on them, against consenting to the appointment of bishops except such as were of unimpeachable loyalty, and against any correspondence with the Roman see, except on matters purely ecclesiastical. On May 13th the second reading of the bill being moved, it was attacked by Dr. Duigenan, who made a motion for deferring the reading to that day three months. This was negatived by 245 to 203, and the bill was read and committed. A number of clauses were afterwards added, the object of which was the appointment of two commissioners, one for Great Britain, the other for Ireland, for examining into the loyalty and peaceable conduct of every person proposed for a bishop or dean among the Roman catholics. On May 24th the House sitting in a committee on the bill, the Speaker rose, and began with enquiring whether this bill was likely to become a basis of general concord and satisfaction. As far as we knew of the proceedings of the Roman catholics, some of the principal among the laity had declared against it, and the clergy had loudly exclaimed against its ecclesiastical provisions. Of the protestants, it was needless to ask if they could be content with |