out previous investigation. They ask for investigation, prompt and rigid investigation, and the punishment of guilt wherever it may be found. Mr. S. DIXON insisted, that the Answer ought to be entered separately, and asked the recorder, whether this was not the usual practice? The recorder replied, that it was the practice to propose the motion for entering the Answer separately first; and if any thing was intended to be added, to move it as an amendment.-Mr. Waithman observed, that he would contend against all the lawyers in Westminster Hall, that the court might do as it pleased, as there was no standing order on the point. This was at any rate an extraordinary occasion, and required an extraordinary proceeding. his Mr. QUIN said, that he offered himself to the notice of the court, divested of all: prejudice either for or against ministers. Of many of their great foreign measures he approved; he was sorry he could not say so much for their domestic proceedings. He appeared simply as a representative of the citizens of London, to guard their honour and protect their privileges as far as lay in power. The answer to the Address was undoubtedly to be regarded as that of the ministers, since, constitutionally speaking, the king could do no wrong. The sources of the prerogative were so pure, that it was given only for the good of the people. It was then the answer of the ministers, and he believed it might be considered as the answer of the noble lord, by whom it was delivered. That was a melancholy day for the court in one sense, but it was a glorious one in another. They had left their own place of meeting to tell the truth; they had left the advisers of the answer, not with sorrow, but disdain and contempt. The cause for which they had petitioned was great and noble. They had done their duty in presenting the address; the shame of the answer rested with others. There were three points in that answer, which appeared to him to call particularly for animadversion. In the first place, he should have thought that it was unnecessary to tell the corporation of London, "that it was inconsistent with the principles of the British constitution to pronounce judgment without previous investigation." This was a truism with which every one was acquainted; and if the answer should appear without the address, posterity would be apt to think the common Council of this day destitute of common sense. But perhaps it was thought that the opinion of the corporation on the transactions in Portugal had been too strongly expressed; but could this be the case with re spect to an affair, which was stated in the evacuated, the army had in December per- quiry instead of open courts martial. The * See Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, Vol. I. p. 1338, plete with despotic notions, about the system of policy which he pursued. The reply was, "that the parliament ought not to interpose in any prerogative matter, except the king was pleased to desire it." This prerogative extended to all points of the king's public duty. Such was the notion of the right of interposition under the Stuarts; and the noble lord who delivered the answer appeared to have taken his ideas on the subject from this source. The city of London, therefore, ought not to interpose unless his majesty was pleased to desire it! But it ought to be recollected, that these despotic principles drove the Stuarts from the throne. Had Magna Charta-had the Bill of Rights, and the other great documents securing our liberties, been forgotten? Had the noble lord looked at the first of William, where the right to petition was recognized? In Russia a regulation had once been made, that no petition was to be presented in the first instance, except to a minister. It was then to be presented to a second; and lastly, it might be presented to the sovereign himself, but it was at the peril of the life of the petitioner. Were we to be driven to this pass? In the reigns of Henry and Elizabeth, even while the constitution was floating between life and death, the answers were less insulting than that now read. Even Charles the first had treated the Remonstrance of the City of London with more respect. To keep the truth from the ear of the sovereign was the surest way to bring a government into contempt. This had lately been exemplified in the case of Spain. We ought to learn wisdom from experience. The mimisters received flattery with smiles, but turned up their noses to the truth. It became the court, however, to have a due sense of its own dignity, and to act as became the representatives of the city of London, not with a view of pleasing any ministers, but with a single eye to the common weal. This, he hoped, it would do on the present occasion. The whole of the motion of his worthy friend had his hearty con currence. Mr. Dixon said, that no person could be more anxious than he was to sup port the dignity of that court, but, at the same time, he was anxious not to detract from the dignity of the crown, and the respect it was entitled to receive from every denomination of the subjects of these realms. The hon. gentleman who had just sat down had informed the court, that their Addresses went in general to tell his majesty what he already well knew, namely, of the attachment of that court to his crown and dignity. The hon. gentleman, however, with all his declamation, had only told the court what they already knew, and what a boy at school deserved to be whipt if he did not know. The other gentleman had, as usual, been lavish of his abuse of him. He forgave him for it on this day, on every day past, and on every day to come; all he begged of that gentleman was, that he would never praise him! He contended, that it had been the invariable practice of that court, on every occasion when an Answer to an Address was received from his majesty, to move simply that-- the answer be entered on the journals of the court; and if any declaration were meant to accom pany the answer, then to move such reso lution, as an addition or amendment to the original resolution. He read a case in point, to shew that this had been the practice. It was not his intention, at present, to enter into the merits of the resolution; with out signifying either assent or disapp bation to the terms of that resoluti he should content himself with now moving that the whole of the resolution after the word "that" be omitted for the purpose d inserting the words that his majesty's most gracious Answer be entered on the jour "pals of the court." After this resolution should have been agreed to, it would still be in the power of the hon. gentle man to follow it up with his present resolution, or any other which he might think proper to pro pose. The Recorder here again read the original and amended resolutions. In doing so he by a lapsus described his majesty's answer as grievous" instead of "gracious," and thereby occasioned considerable laughter in " the court. Mr. Alderman BIRCH appealed to the solid sense and good understanding of the court, and hoped they would not allow themselves, in the heat of the moment, to pass a resolution which they might afterwards look at with a considerable degree of regret. The resolution bore that it was the privilege of the court, and of the subjects of these kingdoms in general, to approach the throne withont obstruction, and without reproof. (To be continued) Printed by Cox and Baylis, Great Queen Street; published by R. Bagshaw, Bow Street, Covent Garden, where former Numbers may be had:" sold also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre, Pall-Mall. VOL. XIV. No. 20.] LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1808. [PRICE 1OÐ. 66 It tru " too f I. Re 7371 that some men have been kicked into courage; and this is no bad bint to give to those who are **d litral in bestowing insults and outrages on their passive companions."- -BURKE: Letter cace. SUMMARY OF POLITICS. CONVENTION IN PORTUGAL.From a question of a mere military nature, embracing the conduct, the merits, or the demerits, of Sir Arthur Wellesley, Sir Harry Barrard, and Sir Hew Dalrymple, this has,, in consequence of the subsequent conduct of the ministers, grown into a question of great political importance. From the first, tion the tardy reluctant publication of the Extraordinary Gazette, and especially from the partial manner, in which that publication was made, it became evident, that the ministers, though they had not the courage to defend the Convention, had determined to screen, if in their power; had determined to endeavour to screen, their colleague, Sir Arthur Wellesley; and, from the moment that the citizens of London received the rebuking Answer, all men were convinced, that the king had been advised to act in conformity with that determination. It then became a clear question, whether the ministry had the power of defeating the wishes of the whole nation, or not. The nation, with voice unanimous; with an nnanimity as perfect as that of their sorrow for the death of Lord Nelson; with such [738 -A for what was called their unnecessary interposition; and, they received no positive assurance, that even an inquiry of any sort should take place, much less an assurance, that such an inquiry, that an inquiry of a kind calculated to insure them justice, should be instituted. Here, then, the ministers and the people were at issue. The question now became, whether the ministers were able to do that which the whole nation disapproved of, or not; which question still remains to be determined.COURT OF INQUIRY is, indeed, said to have been ordered; that is to say, an inquiry to settle the question, whether there be any grounds for putting the parties upon their trial. This is something gained by the people and the press from a ministry, who had caused a firing of cannon and an illuminating of houses at the receipt of the intelligence of the Convention; this is something gained from those, who, fiom the outset, appeared resolved to screen one, if not all, the parties, concerned in making the Convention. But, it is not what the nation wished and expected. It is only in cases where there exist slight grounds to presume guilt, that Courts of Inquiry are au unanimity, the nation declared the Con-held; and the only use of such courts, is, vention to be infamous, and with a like unanimity, they called for a speedy, fair, impartial, and open trial of those, who had made that Convention, who had done the deed, which they deemed to be infamous. Such, and no man will attempt to deny it, were the feelings and wishes of the whole Dation; feelings and wishes entirely unconnected with any motives of a party or political 3 nature, Having but too much reason, however, to suspect, that the ministers, from motives of their own, wished and intended to screen one, at least, of the parties making the Convertion, that part of the nation, which generally takes the lead upon such occasions appealed to the justice of the king himself; laid before him, in language and manner the most respectful and humble that could possibly be co.ceived, a statement of the nation's wrongs, to which they added a prayer, that he would take measures to do it justice. To this they received an answer of rebuke concerned in a to save unnecessary trouble; to save the trouble of putting upon their trial persons, against whom there appears to exist no evidence of guilt worthy of attention. Iu the case of SIR ROBERT CALDER, who with an inferior force, beat the enemy and took two of their ships, the delicate mode of a previous inquiry was not adopted. In the case of COLONEL COCHRANE JOHNSTONE, against whom not a particle of evidence tending to criminate him was produced; who was not only not proved guilty of any, even the slightest offence, but who proved himself to be innocent of every charge that had been hatched and bred up against him; in the case of this gentleman, the Duke of York did not advise the king to institute a previous Court of iuquiry. Colonel Cochrane Johnstone, who proved all and every one of the allegations against him to be false and malicious, was sent, at once, before a COURT MAR TIAL, where the members are surorn and where witnesses are examined upon their oaths. The delicate, honour-saving mole of a Court of Inquiry was not, in this gentlemou's case, thought necessary; and, I should be glad to know what there is to justify this mode of proceeding in the present instance. It was made evident in the sequel, that there was no wish to spare Colonel Cochrane Johnstone; it was equally evident, that there was no wish to spare Sir Robert Calder; and, indeed, unless there be a wish to spare. there appears, in cases of importance, no reason whatever for a previous Court of Inquiry. Of such a court the members are not sworn; the witnesses are not sworn; the public are not admitted; all is secret; and, at last, a report, decided on by the majority, without liability to public protest, is drawn up and laid before the king, upon which report a Court-martial is ordered, or the whole proceeding is at an end. -I do not know how others may view this matter, but to me it appears, that a man, conscious of innocence, would not be contented with a trial of this sort, being convinced, as he must, that, if an open trial does not follow, the world will always have its suspicions of his guilt. It was said, that Sir Hew Dalrymple would not submit to any thing short of a Court-Martial; and, if he was misled by the information of the person previously in command; if he be able to prove that, as I am inclined to think he is, there was a very solid reason for his object ing to a mode of proceeding, by which his comparative innocence could not be established, or, at least, by which the knowledge of it would be kept from that public, whose resentment has hitherto been directed chiefly against him, and who, for a considerable time, were, through the abominable arts and audacity of the partizans of Sir Arthur Wellesley, induced to regard Sir Hew as the person who alone was guilty.We have before had to remark upon the circumstance of the Armistice, (the only document, relating to the transaction, bearing the name of Sir Arthur Wellesley) being published by the ministers in the French language only; we have remarked upon the circumstance of Sir Arthur's coming home, upon leave of absence, while Sir Hew was recalled; we have remarked upon the gracious reception which Sir Arthur Wellesley met with at St. James's, and we have heard nothing of Sir Hew being received there at all; and, if what has been published, as a copy of the Order, for holding a Court of Inquiry, be correct, the same spirit and motive still acte these, who have the assembling of that Court. "That an inquiry shall be made ings of Sir Hew Dalrymple, and of any "other commander or commanders, or of "any other person or persons, as far as the ir same were connected with the Armistice "and Convention."Wellesley, you see, though he negociated the Armistice; and though he had had the previous command of the army, is not named. His conduct is, doubtless, included, in the description of the subjects of inquiry; but, why not name him? Why name Sir Hew Dalrymple. why hold him up to the world, as a person accused, any more than Sir Arthur Wellesley? Sir Arthur fought us the famous battle on the 21st of September, he negociated the famous Armistice on the very next dr. and yet he is not named as a person whose conduct is to be inquired into! It appears impossible; to me, at least, it appears i possible, that Sir Hew Dalrymple cantee much to blame as Sir Arthur Wel and yet the name of the former is he to public notice as that of an accused pers while that of the latter does nowhere appr The motive for this is too evident to being pointed out to the reader; and I hop that it will not fail to produce a proper pression, and lead to a strict attention, a the part of the public, to every thing, re lating to this transaction, that is now going forward. I do hope, that the public wil not suffer its attention to be diverted by the numerous stratagems, which will be resorted to for the perpose. All manner of tricks will be played by the partizans of the high Wellesley. The thing wil drawl along like a snail. Misrepresent tions will be made day after day. In the hope that the public will be wearied, its patience will be assailed in all manner ways, while other topics will be pressed upon its attention, new alarms will be rais ed, and the passion of fear will be pitted against that of resentment. But, if the people have one grain of sense left, they will, in answer to all these attempts at diversion, say: stop; for, 'till we have settled the "affair of the Convention in Portugal; "till we have clearly ascertained, whether "such an use can, with impunity, be made "of the blood and treasure of the nation, "it would be folly in us to take an interest "in any thing that is liable to happen." This is the answer which every man should give; for, what is it to us that we make of exertions and sacrifices, if they are to be of no avail? No: let us have no diversion. Let us have this matter fully and fairly settled; and then we shall know what to wish for and what to hope for and how to act. -While this Inquiry is going on, endeavours are not wanting to reconcile us, little by little, to the terms of the Convention. There will be found, in another part of this number, a defence of the Convention, and of Sir Arthur Wellesley, at the same time. The reader will see how pitiful it is; he will see that all its arguments have been long ago refuted; but, I beseech him to bear in mind the fact, that Sir Arthur Wellesley's friends, asserted, at first, that he was quite innocent of any, even the smallest, share in the transaction; that be, as an inferior officer, was compelled to sign the Armistice; that he remonstrated against the order so to do; that he was, at last, induced to do it for fear of exciting a mutiny in the army; but, that he privately protested against it in the strongest terms. Now, however, when these abominable falsehoods can no longer hope to obtain belief; now, when it is evident that he must come in for a large, and even a principal, share of the blame; now, the Armistice and Convention are things to be defended, and are defended, by the very same persons, who swore that he had protested against those acts, and by this very writer, who accused me of harshness, because I asserted, that the story of the Protest was a miserable fabrication. I do beseech the public to bear in mind this fact, than which I remember nothing exhibiting a more complete proof of a want of principle.The opposition, which, at any place, has been made to petitioning the king upon the subject, has been made, not upon the ground of justification of the act. No man has, until now, attempted to set up such justification. In the County of Berks, the Address and Petition Was opposed upon the sole ground of their not being necessary; and, even that opposition was confined almost exclusively, to MR. NARES, who is one of the editors (along with Mr. Beloe of Museum memory) of the British Critic, who has recently received a fat living from the hands of Lord Eldon; and to Mr. COBHAM, late a purser in the East-India Company's service, and who is closely allied to persons dependant pon the government. In Essex where the meeting was so abruptly dissolved, and where a second requisition has been rejected, the High Sheriff is also a person, who was, I am informed, very recently in the East India Company's service. Now, though we justified in imputing motives to ei are not ther of these men, still the knowledge of these facts should be circulated, especially as the partizans of Sir Arthur Wellesley have endeavoured to make the world believe, that the opposition, in the places above-mentioned, arose from motives of pure loyalty. But, at any rate, no justification has, until now, been attempted. Many have been the attempts to shift the blame from the back of Sir Arthur to those of Sir Harry and Sir Hew; but, until now, when the hour of exposure is approaching, no one has attempted to justify the act itself. Such justification, however, we must now expect, in all manner of shapes. The evil consequences of the Convention, which daily become more and more manifest, will, as in the following paragraph from the Morning Post (he Nabob's news-paper) of the Sth instant, be imputed, not to those who made the Armistice and Convention, but to those who reprobate them, and who call for the pu nishment of their authors: "The French "writers are naturally delighted at the proceedings of the English Addressers, "which we regret to find, have excited the flames of discontent and disorder in Portu"gal, to a most ularming degree, though in "the first instance all was joy and ecstacy at the result of the campaign in that country." The Convention of Lisbon," says "the Argus, continues to occupy the ་་ "minds of the people in London. It is ""not only individuals among the lower ""closses who loudly deprecate that Con""vention; even the common council of ""London presented to the king an Ad""dress against the generals who signed it. ""We are sorry to be unable to give our readers the details of the long "" debate which took place upon that "" occasion. It is the finest eulogium of "the courage of the French and of the "ability of their general."-The present alarming situation of Portugal affords the "best elucidation of the mischievous conse quences of the recent proceedings in this country; nor was it difficult to foresee "that those ill-judged proceedings, in the "very face of his majesty's promise of due "investigation, must tend to create dissen"tions between Great Britain and her ally, 66 to sow the seeds of jealousy and distrust, "and give the Portuguese an unfavourable. opinion of British honour and integrity.— "Such, in fact, has been the consequence "of the outcry, which, without waiting "for the promised inquiry, has been fac tiously raised among us. We sincerely re gret to find that many highly respectable, "and most worthy individuals have by the |