--

unexampled display of loyalty, but their strong sense of duty to God and their Sovereign? Of the fact no doubt can be entertained even Hume, whose history exhibits instances of unpardonable inaccuracies and omissions respecting the Catholics, bears ample testimony in their favour on this occasion. "Some gentlemen," says he, "of "that sect" (the majority of the nation at that time!) entered themselves as volun"teers in the fleet or army; some equipped ships at their own charge, and gave the "command of them to Protestants; others were active in animating their tenants, "and vassals, and neighbours to the defence "of the country." (History of England, Vol V. Eliz Chap. 42, page 338 Edit. 1773).- When, Sir, the meritorious conduct of English Catholics at the period under consideration is viewed in its true light, and with all the circumstances which I have mentioned, it will be found to stand almost unexampled in the history of mankind. Let it be compared with the behaviour of tho-e nations that adopted the reformed doctrines, and the contrast will be irresistably striking. What produced those extraordinary convulsions during the course of the 16th century in Sweden, in Germany, in the Low Countries, in Swisserland, and Geneva, but the levelling and jacobinical principles of the reforming doctors? Who excited rebellion in the kingdom of Scotland at that period, and brought affairs to such an alarming crisis, that an unfortunate queen was constrained to seek an asylum in a neighbouring country, where, by the unrelenting malice of a rival, she found a prisonand a scaffold? They were subjects initiated in the new doc'rines, and graduates in the schools of the rights of man. Let the conduct of the Catholics be compared with theirs, and I am confident, that it will receive additional splendour from the contrast.

-Your correspon lent proceeds to complain, that many Catholic writers have defended the deposing doctrine. Without pretending to justify the opinions of those doctors, it is certainly not unfair to state their sentiments, and to see how far an Englishman will consider them as deserving of

censure.

If a sovereign should violate the fundamental laws of his realm, if he should proceed so far as to defeat the purposes of government and dissolve the bonds of society, these doctors did not in that case deem the people authorised to revolt. No: they required that the affair in the last resort should be submissed to the judgment of the sovereign Pontiff, and if he deemed it desperate, they allowed him a power of depus

ing the king, and of absolving his subjec.s from their allegiance. Such was the d posing doctrine as maintained by some Catho lic divines. The notions were purely speculative, and served to exercise the ingenuity of the disputant in the schools, or of the student in the closet.--But this power, even in the form in which I have described it, is now universally exploded by Catholics, and in the United Kingdom the rejection of it is confirmed by the solemn sanction of an oath. But with what grace, let me ask, can British subjects condemn so very pointedly the conduct of their Catholic ancestors on this account? Their forefathers held, it is true, a speculative opinion on the subject, but the descendents have actually carried these notions into effect. Without the formality of recurring to the Pope, an English King has been actually deposed, and the revolution which it occasioned is celebrated as the most glorious epoch in our history. I think, if we view this grand event with enthusiasm, we may afford to shew some indulgence to the speculative opinions of our forefathers.--With respect to the commission said to have been given to Campion and Parsons by the legates to assassinate Elizabeth, your correspondent may rest assured that it is entirely without foundation. Those two able divines arrived in England in 1580, solely for the purpose of exercising the functions of the ministry, and on that account Campion was apprehended and executed at Tyburn, Dec. 1, 1581, a fate which Parsons narrowly escaped by leaving the kingdom. (Dodd, Vol. II. p. 137 and 402).

-The course of my observations leads me to examine the celebrated gunpowder plot, which, says your correspondent, was contrived by the sime hands," the Legates of those days." This statement indicates a greater degree of credulity, ignorance, or misrepresentation than ever influenced the opinions of those who have been most hostile to the Catholic cause. No charge was made against the Pope or his Legates on this subject. It has indeed been said, that l'ope Clement VIII. a few years before, published two briefs, addressed to the Eng. lish Catholics, exhorting them not to obey the successor of Elizabeth, it he should be a heretic. But these briefs never had an existence; this report we must therefore rank among many foul calomnies which were invented to discredit the Catholic cause. As to the body of the English Catholics, the King himself, in his speech to Parliament, acquitted them of every species of guilt in the transaction. Sixteen persons only were implicated in the act of attainder which

passed, and nine appear to have been the great actors in the dreadful scene. No Catholic of any great consideration was privy to the plan, and the conspirators by no means bore the reputable character which some bigotted historians have given them. Garnet. the priest was, indeed, made acquainted with the design in the sacrament of confession, and attempted to dissuade him who consulted him, from partaking in the plot, by every argument in his power. But the knowledge, which by all laws of heaven and earth, he could make use of only in the sacred tribunal, proved fatal to him; for he was informed against by the man who consulted him, and executed May 3, 1606. (Dodd, Vol. II. p. 395.) By what logic the horr d crimes of a few daring men can be either attributed to the religion which they profess, or be charged to the community to which they belong, we are still doomed to inquire. The internal design can no more be denominated a Catholic plot than the late wretched attempt of Despard and his associates, to overturn the government, can be called a Protestant conspiracy.- But, Sir, what will be the surprise of your correspondent when he learns, perhaps, for the first time, that there are writers of respectability both among Protestants as well as Catholics, who ascribe the whole infernal machination to the secret suggestion of Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, the Secretary of State. He is accused, and the accusation will not easily be refuted, of having engaged some men of desperate fortunes and of no religion, though nominally Catholics, to undertake the work of darkness, in order to raise the hatred of the nation against that respected body of men, and to ruin them in the estimation of the King. His father, Lord Burleigh, had recurred to a similar stratagem to bring the Queen of Scots to the scaffold, and the son inherited every quality which rendered him fit for an undertaking of the same kind. Indeed, the improbability that any one but a secret agent of Cecil should write the letter to Lord Monteagle ten days before the meeting of Parliament, the de ay of the Secretary in communicating it to the King, the circumstance of postponing the search of the vaults till the eve of the meeting of Parliament, of shooting the four leading conspirators, when they might easily have been apprehended by the sheriff, the sudden death of Tresham in prison, who was known to have had some communication with Cecil not long before, all this gives a very singular appearance to this horrid transaction. Osborne expressly calls it "a neat device of the Secretary," and Hig

gons entertains no doubt on the subject. "This design, says he, was hammered in "the forge of Cecil." I believe that what I have said is sufficient to repress all clamour against the Catholics on this subject, and to induce the legislature to erase from the calendar the ridiculous holiday of the 5th of November. (See an ample discussion on this subject in Milner's Letters to a Piebendary, Letter VII. 2d Edit. Osborne's Hist. Mem. of James I. Higgon's Short View, Dodd, Vol. II. p. 331). The charge brought against the Pope, of forbid. ding the Catholics of that period to take the oath of allegiance to James, is ano-her instance of misrepresentation. He never ordered them to refuse a fair test of allegi ance, but forbid them to take a proposed oath, which contained sentiments «inconsistent with their religious principles. A similar affair happened to the English Ca. tholics a very few years ago; conscientious scruples were urged against an oath under the discussion of Parliament; the proposed test was accordingly set aside, and another substituted by the humanity of the legisla ture.- The account of priests being found killed at Edge-Hill fighting agains: Charles I. is a foolish story related by Echard and some writers who appear scarcely to credit it themselves; and if it were true, it would only prove that these unfortunate men transgressed the canons of their church by which they are forbidden to carry arms. ~--~-~ When your correspondent says, that Catholics were always conspiring against William III. and George I. I suspected some typographical error in that part of his letter. There were three conspiracies against William, and all conducted by Protestants, by those whigs who had called him to the throne; and as to the rebellion in the reign of George 1. it was not peculiar to Catholics more than to Protestants. (See Smollett, 4th Vol. 4to. Edit. Reign of William and George I.) I have thus refuted, Sir, the various inaccuracies, errors, and misrepresentations which your correspondent C. R. has accumulated from our history respecting Catholics. The review of his unwarrantable attacks on Irish loyalty must be postponed to a future occa sion, as I am fearful of trespassing too much on your patience by a more lengthened letter. I cannot dismiss this subject with out distinctly assuring you, your corres. pondent, and the Public, that, in pursuing the discussion, I am actuated by the honourable motives of espousing the cause of injured innocence, of counteracting the designs of those who are attempting to irritate four millions of his Majesty's subjects, and

of promoting that harmony and concord, which, at this critical period, are peculiarly necessary to secure the liberties and in ependence of the British Empire.—THE BRITISH OBSERVER.May 11, 1804.

EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH. · Proceedings in the Tribunate of the French Republic, relative to the proposition, submitted to the Tribunate by CURKE, for confering on NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE the rank and title of EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH, and for making the said rank and title hereditary in bis family, according to the latus of primogeniture.

SITING OF MAY 1, 1804.

Carnot (being the only one who objected to the proposition) mounted the Tribune. He set out with declaring, that being to speak against the motion of Curée, he should endeavour to preserve the same moderation in delivering his opinion, which had been exhibited by the Tribunes who had spoken in favour of the motion. He added, that he referred those who wished to put a bad construction on his sentiments to the rigid examination of his conduct since the commencement of the revolution. He took up the question of conferring on Buonaparté the dignity of Emperor for life, and making it hereditary in his family. He asked, if it was to grant the First Consul a reward for his services to offer him the sacrifice of liberty? He asked, whether it was not to destroy Buonaparte's own work to make France his private patrimony?

voted against the Consulate for life," continued the orator, "and I will not this day follow a differe t cours. I will be consistent with myself; but the moment that the order of things which is proposed is established, I will be the first to conform to it, and to yield to the new authority proofs of my deference. May all the members of the community follow the same example." The orator went on to the examination of the form of government proposed to be esta. blished. He cited a number of examples from the history of Rome, and drew, as an inference from them, that a government by one individual was not in the smallest a sure pledge of its stability or its tranquillity. He applied the same inference to the history of France, where intestine commotions and civil discords so often existed under, the government of princes, weak or unworthy of governing." After the peace of Amiens," continued Carnot, "Buonaparté had the choice between a republic or a manarchy; but he had sworn to defend the former, and to respect the wishes of France,

which had made him their guardian. Now it was proposed to make of that power a property, of which, at present, only the administration is possessed.. -The Romans were most jealous of their liberty, and Camillus Fabius and Cincinnatus only saved the country because they relinquished the power which had been confided to them after they had saved their country. But the liberty of Rome perished as soon as Cæsar wished to usurp absolute power."--He cited the example of the United States. It was reserved for the New World to shew to the Old the practicability of a nation's enjoying liberty, and the rising prosperity of the people. The destinies to which they ap peared to be called left no doubt remaining of the existence of that truth. After discussing a variety of general principles, Carnot made some particular observations. "Will" (said be) the opinion of the public functionaries be the free wish of the whole nation? Will there not be inconveniencies attending the expression of an opposite sentiment? Is the liberty of the press so much restrained and degraded that it will be impossible to make, in the public prints, the most respectful remonstrances against the proposed arrangement ?The orator considered the question in another point of view. He asked, if the expulsion of the Bourbons at all involved the necessity of a new dynasty; if the establishment of that dynasty would not place obstacles in the way of a general peace; if it would be recognized by foreign powers, and if in case of a refusal to recognize it arms would necessarily be resorted to, and for an empty title the security of the French nation would not perhaps be endangered? This is not the only means which the existing government has of consolidating itself. The means of this consolidation consists in adherence to justice. Far be it from me here to make any particular application, or to cast any blame on the operations of government. Such a thought has no place in my heart.Is liberty then disclosed to man only that it may never be enjoyed? No! I cannot consent to regard it as a mere chimera, and my heart tells me that its government is easy. In conclusion, said the orator-I am ready to sacrifice my personal opinion to the interests of my country. My respect for the law will remain unalterable, and I desire above all things to see every opinion, and every sentiment united against our eternal, our implacable enemy, that enemy which is now meditating universal oppression. I vore against the motion.

Faure next mounted the Tribune. He

applied himself to the refutation of Carnot's speech. He asked, if he had well manifest ed his respect for the law, by reminding then that he had on a preceding occasion voted against the Consulship for life, sanctioned by the vote of more than a million of Frenchmen? He asked him, if he had forgotten the regime of 1793, and that horrible Decemviral Committee which, in cold blood, signed arrests for death and proscriptions? and he was astonished at hearing of opposi tion to that proposition which alone could prevent the return of such miseries. We are not here to consider the interests of an individual family, but the interests of the whole nation. Here Faure entered into an examination of the State of France in 1789 and its present situation. He inquired what were the propositions contained in the loose draught of the Const tuent Assembly, and he found their completion in the form of government, which it was now proposed to establish. He supported the motion.

Arnould began in the following terms the speech which he also delivered in favour of the motion :---What is this fatality which has seized our colleague, which renders him the passive witness of the outrages of the Committees of Public Safety, which carries him to the Directory, and cannot furnish him with the means of doing good to the people which on the 18th Fructidor renders him the victim of the events of that day, and does not permit him to perceive the share which Pichegru then had in the conspiracy formed against France?-Albison, Grenier, Chabot, (de L'Allier), Deletre and Challand, severally spoke in favour of the motion. Carion-Nizas refuted the opinion of Carnot. His speech will be published at the end of the one he delivered yesterday.

SITTING OF MAY 2, 1304.

The order of the day was called for the continuation of the discussion on the motion of Curée.-Chassison contended that the intention of the French had always been to establish a monarchical form of government. The wish formed in 1789 was now to be fulfilled, and no person than Buonaparté could better fulfil this wish, which will constitute the happiness of France and our posterity. He voted for the motion, and six copies of his speech were ordered to be printed.

PERREE formed the wish dictated to him by his sincerity and his conscience. He added a few words to corroborate what had been said, to prove how well Buonaparté was worthy the dignity to which the French people called him. He particularly directed his observations to show what a powerful

guarantee posterity would possess in the hereditary succession proposed. "The latest posterity of the head of the government," said he, will seck, in the history of Buouaparté, the example which they ought to follow. They will respect his glory, and never shall our posterity have reason to reproach us for the wish which we form this day."The speech was ordered to be printed.

Carret and Delpierre joined their wishes to that of their colleagues. This is not the time, said Delpierre, when the people were the property of Kings. The interests of both are now common, Their repose, their stability, and their happiness are henceforth inseparable.

Fayard-I know that the First Consul, the august head of the government, has the wishes of the French people. The pens of the eloquent are employed in celebrating his glory; and posterity, which is the judge of great men, will only re-echo the language of the age in which he lived. I know the place which he occupies in their hearts; I know, if I can judge by myself, the devotion which he merits, and with which he has inspired you. I know all the rights which nis eminent services give him to the dignity of Emperor, and to have it made hereditary in his family. But let us examine abstractedly, from all personal feelings of gratitude and love, if the unity and hereditary succession of the Chief Consul, be consistent with the government of France.-- Different states have a right to that form of government which they enjoy, according to principles invariable as that nature from which they originate. In vain political maladies affect and suspend those principles for a moment. The crisis ceases, and nature resumes her rights. It is the nature of things, that a country of vast extent, whose security is not guaranteed by its physical position, and whose relations with its neighbours incessantly menace its tranquillity, ought to be governed by one head. Rome, at its birth, had Kings, because the states which surrounded were governed by Kings. Rome, after conquering her neighbours, expelled the Kings and created Consuls. When her power had gone beyond the limits of her territories, when she had to combat nations far removed from the centre of her dominions, even the excessive love of liberty could not prevent the ruin of the republic, and Emperors were elevated to the throne.

Happy would have been that great na. tion if the first of their Emperors had, as he had it in his power, made the government hereditary in his family. The scenes which covered the throne with blood-the civit

wars which desolated that vast empire, and precipi ated its downfall, would not have sullied the page of the history of these masters of the world. But one great error led to dreadful abuses. On the ruins of a monarchy destroyed, an attempt was made to substitute a monarchical government. France must have been destroyed, if the genius of Buonaparté had not created the Consulship, to precede for a few years the creation of the imperial dignity-He is called to this elevated post by the unanimous wish, and this wish is the first sentiment which ought to give rise to military services.- He had, as Consul, the power of performing vast services, and you have seen that he has used it with a degree of success of which no example is afforded in the history of the world. This is enough for his own glory, but it is not enough for the happiness of France.-It is in the nature of things, that if empires prosper under a great man, the moment which deprives them of his services menaces them with some dreadful explosion, if the same moment does not substitute in his place him who is to be his successor. It is then that ambition becomes enflamed, and long before ambition prepares in secret the means of supplanting rivals. Long disputes, succeeded by civil wars, agitate the minds of men, disturb for ages the union of citizens, and the people are often so unfortunate as not to see who is the most worthy among the rival candidates to receive the sceptre of which death has bereaved the object of their regret. -What then can prevent these disasters? A constitutional law which fixes the line of succession, and which gives to the family of the Chief the new dynasty.-This is the object of the motion under discussion, and I assent to it, persuaded that if the empire is the price of the virtues of the great man who is called to the imperial dignity, the succession to it by the family guarantees to France ages of glory and of repose.

Costas endeavoured to prove that the motion was one founded on utility, that it was salutary and patriotic. He also replied to the arguments used yesterday by Carnot.

In

Savoic Rollen said, absolute monarchy is the most degrading of systems-monarchy connected with the representative system conciliated political and civil liberty. the excessive stage of civilization to which we are arrived, there can be no stability in the government if it is arbitrary, but if it is founded on law, it is incorruptible. Frederic said, that laws could not succeed except by the preservation of a proper equilibrium betwixt the power of the government and the liberty of the people. What Frederic

thought, Napoleon is about to execute. vote for the motion of order, which goes to unite hereditary power to the represcutative government.

Beauvais obtained leave to make a motion of order, the object of which was-1. To declare that the discussion is closed-2dly, To decide that the reporter of the commission shall be authorised to-morrow to make his motion on Curée's motion of order.—— Both these motions were agreed to.

SITTING OF MAY 3, 1804.

--

The Tribunate, having heard the report of the Special Commission, appointed to consider of the proposition made by Citizen Curée, have resolved:- - That Napeleon Buonaparté, First Consul, shall be pro claimed Emperor of the French, and in that quality be charged with the government of France.--2dly, That the title of Emperor, together with the Imperial Powers, shall le hereditary in his family, in the male line, and in the order of primogeniture.--- 3dly. The Constituted Authorities, in forming the ne cessary regulations for the establishment of the hereditary powers, shall make all due provisions for preserving equality, liberty, and the rights of the people.--4thly. The present vote shall be carried to the Senate by a deputation of six members, who are to explain to it the motives which have induced the Tribunate to take this resolution.

FOREIGN OFFICIAL PAPERS.

REPORT OF THE FRENCH GRAND JUDGE. (Continued from p. .)

No. 11. Report of the ad interview of MR. ROSEY with

Mr. Drake.

On the 4th Germinal 1 arrived at Munich, at 6 o'clock in the evening, and slighted at Mr. Drake's, Minister of England; he lodged me at his house, in a chamber on the same foot with his own apartment, as had been agreed upon at our former interview. Enraged Jacobin as I was supposed to be, he received me with the most affectionate regards, and I presented him with the letter of my pretended general, with a request to answer it immediately which he did the next day. As this answer contained the principal details of our conversation, I shall content myself with giving a suce cinct result of it.On Mr. Drake's asking me what news there was in France, I answered, that events had never yet been so favourable for us that the arrests of different royalists had cast an impenetrable veil over our secret projects, and we were rejoiced to find, that not a single Jacobin had been apprehended, &c &c. I believe with you,' replied Mr. Drake, that you are secure from being suspected, and I have no doubt that every stroke which you make is directed with a certainty of success; but remember to recommend it to your general, that it is essential to unite all parties in the first operations that he shall undertake, and that he must present an imposing mask to the Consul; on this occasion he will be able to employ the royalist party with the greatest advan