vices security which leads to beneficial intercourse?-There is no qualm of conscience existing for preventing such friendly associations with the worst of Governments; no reference is made to any internal regulations to frustrate or debar the common interchange of merchandize, the necessary operations of industry and enterprize. Although tyrants bleed or are tumbled from their Thrones by faction and rebellion, though whole dynasties become subverted, and usurpation succeed usurpation in rapid progress, as exemplified in the trembling fortunes. of the race of Mahomet, yet who rejects her produce or her wealth; the use and profit of which are nothing deteriorated by the People's their Chiefs' misfortunes? 01' the splendid trappings and the gorgeous robes which decorate our nobles and amuse our pride, are nothing dimmed by the reflection of the hands that formed them, however stained, clogged, and polluted, with the blood of Princes! Then how futile is the plea of conscience that would not listen to the earnest entreaties of a newly-redeemed and generous People, that would not accept the hand of conciliation, or consent to any terms of pacification or mutual advantage !-Was it that France had resolved to become a Republic?-What was America? Had not she shaken off the trammels of Royalty, aye, of that very authority which still could tolerate and treat with her?-And yet was any irjury experienced by the Parent-State? Was the loyalty of the People, the basis of the Constitution, the sanctity of the Throne, in any manner weakened, threatened, or violated, by a conjunction of interests with a People, who had resolved on an eternal rejection of monarchy ?- Then must it be apparent that the pretended policy which led to the enmity of England, and which has put on the appearance of perpetuity, was rather personal than political, and in every shape unworthy of a great Nation, a provident Government, or a liberal and enlightened People. America. How blind and incapable are those who sit in judgement on their own pretensions. England and France, the leading Powers of the World, would act as though that world were made dependant on their will, subservient to their views, appendages to their grandeur, their pride, and their ambition.-What is this principle, which seeks to influence and direct the minds, the measures, nay, the means, of all? With the fears or the fantasies of England, those Powers who harboured no such apprehensions had nothing to do, no more than with the injuries of France, and should neither have been goaded to hostility, nor made to suffer by their contentions.-France reasons rightly when she argues on the side of general benefit, but she destroys that reason when she acts contrary to her own prescription.-She says, and justly says, that the affiance of nations is natural, is necessary; and that the forms or changes of Government should have no deleterious or preventive consequences in matters of intercourse and commercial connection: yet view her conduct, even in the face of this profession! Let those; who have felt and can answer to the contradictory usage of her all. compelling power, let those stand forward and arraign her principle, let those now suffering, or that have ever suffered, under the distressing effect of her arbitrary but mistaken policy,-let them declare her justice and the utility and equity of her system. America shall withhold her tale of wrongs till these shall speak, and shame the Powers that have contrived their ruin. (To be continued. WEYMOUTH ELECTION. Examination of Evidence before the Committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the Merits of the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Election Petition. The evidence of Charles Bicknell, Esq. Solicitor to the Admiralty, and to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, states his obtaining the writ for Dorsetshire from the Deputy Messenger to the Great Seal, at the request of His Royal Highness, who repaid Mr. Bicknell the fee (twentyfive guineas), which the latter paid on receiving the writ. The writ was delivered to Mr. Bicknell's livery servant, in pursuance of a note from Mr. Bicknell to Mr. Barber, the Deputy Messenger to the Great Seal. The evidence of Messrs. Symes and Hemming states the facts respecting the splitting of vates by means of wills made by persons in ostensible possession of certain property entitling them to vote, which were bequeathed to a great number of individuals, to entitle each of the latter as supposed to a vote. Mercuril 17, Die Feb. 1813. JOHN ATKINS, Esq. in the Chair. Joseph Hume, Esq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Horner, on behalf of the Petitioners. You were in the last Parliament Member for the Borough of Weymouth?--I was. When were you returned in the last Parliament ?-I think the 17th or 18th of January, 1812. That was shortly after the death of Sir John Johnston, who died the Christmas preceding? I believe he did. With reference to that return for the Borough of Weymouth in 1812, had you occasion to see His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland?-I had. Where did you see him on the first occasion with reference to the return?-1 saw him at Carlton House. Had you a conversation with His Royal Highness with reference to that return? Mr. Warren objected to the question. Mr. Horner was heard in support of the question, stating, that he meant to connect it with the matter of the present inquiry. Mr. Warren was heard in reply. 'The Committee Room was cleared. It was moved, that no examination be gone into which relates to the return in any preceding Parliament, which, being put, passed in the affirmative. The Counsel and Parties were again called in and the Resolution was stated to them by the Chairman. The Witness was again called in, MR. HORNER. Have you had any interview with His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, with reference to your being returned to serve for Weymouth in the present Parlia ment?--Yes, I have. State the first of those interviews, and the time when it took place.-Am I to understand, previous to the issuing of the writ? Yes if it had reference to your return in the present Parliament, how early soever, though in the time of the last Par liament, if it had reference to your return in the present Parliament.-The very first interview I had with His Royal Highness, had reference to my being returned to the next subsequent Parliament. Meaning the present?--Yes. When did that interview take place?I think on the 7th of January, 1812. Where was that, was it in London ?—In Carlton House. Confine yourself in the statement of the conversation strictly to what had reference to your being returned to the next Parliament, that is, the present.-It is a difficult thing to confine myself to the present, without having reference to the past at the same time, the conversation respecting both took place at one and the same time. Endeavour to separate them.-It is scarcely possible: I am not able to give one statement without combining them together so as to make them intelligible; my conversation with His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland took place in the presence of Mr. Masterton Ure, by whom I was introduced to His Royal Highness, and in their presence our conversation took place, as Trustees for the Estate of the late Sir John Johnston. You mean the Duke of Cumberland and Mr. Ure being Trustees? - Yes. You are not a Trustee ?-No, I am not; my arrangement with Mr. Ure had been, that, if I went down to Weymouth You must not state what passed with Mr. Ure. It is a clue for the same conversation between His Royal Highness and me, as took place between Mr. Ure and myself, my arrangements having been previously with Mr. Ure. I had then understood from His Royal Highness, as Trustee for the estate of the Johnston family, it I went down on that occasion, to become a Candidate for the then vacancy for which the writ was then expected to be issued, immediately should receive, in consequence of my exertions on that occasion, the subsequent support of the Trustees towards be coming a Member in the present Parlia ment; that I believe is every thing as far as relates to that conversation. Have you stated the substance of what His Royal Highness said to you upon that occasion ?—I have. Can you state more particularly the words His Royal Highness used? - His Royal Highness stated to me, that it was the wish of the Trustees of that family to maintain the political interest of the family unimpaired, as they were left Guardians for a minor; that they considered themselves bound, by every means, to support that interest, and my exertions on that occasion were to be taken into account, as a subsequent claim for a seat in the present Parliament. I wish it to be understood, that His Royal Highness, in every conversation with me in that transaction, invariably spoke as a Trustee. Mr. Masterton Ure spoke as a Trustee ? -Yes, he did. Did any other persons act as Trustees for these interests?-I had no intercourse with any others. What was the next occasion on which you had any communication with His Royal Highness personally, with reference to your return to the present Parliament ? -I very often saw His Royal Highness, and perhaps the circumstance might have been mentioned; but there is one time in particular, which was shortly before the Parliament was prorogued, when, in a conversation with His Royal Highness, 1 understood that the sentiments of the Trustees towards me had continued the same and unaltered; and, as a proof of that understanding, he begged, as there was a chance of a dissolution, which might or might not take place in the course of the vacation, that I would take care to let Mr. Ure know where I was to be found: that is the only particular conversation that I think applied immediately to that subject. After that time, and previous to the dissolution at the end of September, had you any other personal interviews with His Royal Highness upon that subject?-No; 1 left London for the coast, and did not return to London until, I think, the evening of the 27th or 28th of September last, the day before the dissolution. Did you see His Royal Highness on that day, or how soon after your return to London-I saw His Royal Highness on the 29th of September, or the 30th, I am not sure which. Recollect whether it was the 29th or 30th, the day of the dissolution, or the day Was any body present there?-Yes, Mr. Ure was present, and another Gentleman, who, I believe, was a Dr. Clark; I am not sure; a Gentleman I had never seen before, and did not know. State the whole of what passed in conversation with His Royal Highness, having reference to your return to the present Parliament, and as nearly as you can the words?- was nearly two hours and a half with His Royal Highness; it would be a difficult thing for me to go over the whole of the conversation. State the substance of it, and those expressions of His Royal Highness which are upon your recollection.-The object of my seeing His Royal Highness was to know his sentiments towards me, in as far as the Trustees had thought proper to withhold their recommendation towards me as a Candidate for the present Parliament. I had been informed, on the day before, by a minute of the Trustees, that it was their intention not to recommend me again. Having received this, I felt it my duty to represent to His Royal Highness the claims which I consider myself to have on their present support, founded on the promise made me on a former occasion, and on my exertion on that occasion; and, as a letter which I forwarded to Mr. Ure had not been attended with the consequences which I expected, I naturally wished for an interview with His Royal Highness, and that interview is the one which I am now mentioning. I asked His Royal Highness particularly why he had changed his sentiments relative to me, that hitherto he had intended to support me with the interest of the Trustees, and now, without any previous knowledge on my part, I had received on that morning, or the preceding morning, from Mr. Ure, an intimation in writing, that I was not again to be supported. I urged to His Royal Highness the claim I had upon their promise, jointly and separately. I meant jointly and separately, because I had it first from Mr. Ure, but I would not make any preparation till I had it again from His Royal Highness, which I had when they were together. I wished His Royal Highness to explain to me the reasons of this alteration; he stated it to have been a representation made to him from Weymouth, and they, as Trustees, felt themselves obliged and bound, in support of the interest of which they had charge, to attend to that representation, I urged the representation to have been partial or not founded in fact, and that it was unfair on his part to found any proceeding upon it, in so far as to set me aside, without informing me on what representation it rested, or in what manner it tended to oppose my return. His Royal Highness, as Trustee, stated, that they felt the force of the representation against me so strongly, that they had, as Trustees, thought proper to put some other person in nomination. I of course appealed to Mr. Ure, who had been living with me for a month at Weymouth in the same house, upon the must intimate terms, and from whom, to the day we left Weymouth, which was the 27th, no intimation of any intention or al teration of opinion upon the part of the Trustees had ever been made. I appealed to Mr. Ure to know whether he was aware of any such disposition on the part of the Inhabitants, as to endanger the interest of the Johnston family, in the event of my being put in nomination by them. This appeal to Mr. Ure was in His Royal Highness's presence?--Yes, it was, Mr. Ure declared he had been living with me; that we had been living together, and what he was not aware of the opposition being at all so serious as had been represented; however, His Royal Highness said <he felt it his duty to consider it of that consequence, and that he could not put me in nomination as a Candidate for the then expected vacancy. Are you sure of those words that he Could not put you in nomination ?-Yes, as Trustees that they could not; he had before then stated it to me; it had been communicated to me by Mr. Ure, and it was to ascertain why it had been done, and to know whether that Resolution could not be done away, that I saw His Royal High ness. I have stated the substance; it ended in His Royal Highness not discerning it proper to acquiesce in my request, which was, that I should be put in nomination; and that if the opposition appeared serious, I would then retire without urging upon him my claim for their support. Up to this point of time did any other person act with you in the character of Trustees besides His Royal Highness and Mr. Ure?-I was not a Trustee, Did any other persons hold any transactions or communications with you in the character of Trustees, except those two persons? None. Did you go to Weymouth at the last Election?-Yes, I did. After you had been at Weymouth, had you an opportunity of seeing His Royal Highness in London ?-Yes, I had. When was that?-It must have been about the 17th or 18th of October, I think. I returned on the 16th, and it was either the second or the third day after my return; it was between the 16th and 19th of Octo ber. Did any thing material on this subject of your return pass with His Royal Highness at that period?-My object in waiting upon His Royal Highness then was, to know whether he was satisfied that the representation on which he had acted had been false, or that it had not been to that extent which ought to have authorized him to withdraw his support from me under the pledge and promise I had; to which His Royal Highness said that he had received no information to the contrary. Do you know from their acting who are the other Trustees for these infants of Sir John Johnston ? Not from their acting in any thing connected with me; I know their names. You never saw any other persons throughout the whole of this transaction as Trustees for that family, except the Duke of Cumberland and Mr. Ure?-One of them I have seen at different times, but not, that I recollect, as Trustee. I have seen Lord Newark. You did not see him at any of these Meetings with respect to your return to the present Parliament ?-No, I never saw him in the presence of the Duke of Cumberland when I had any conversation on the subject. There is another Trustee, a Gentleman of the Law, at Edinburgh ?-Yes, a Gentleman of the name of David Cathcart.I never saw him on any of those occasions. Cross-examined by Mr. Warren, on behalf of the Sitting Members. This interview you talked of which you had with the Duke when you wished to know why his sentiments were changed, was it of your procuring, or did the Duke express that he wished to see you?-I be lieve it might be jointly; I had forwarded a representation to Mr. Ure, he, I understood, forwarded the same to the Duke of Cumberland, and in case I should be wanted, I came down and waited in the Albion Club until I should be sent for, either by His Royal Highness or Mr. Ure, remained there for two or three hours, and Mr. Ure came for me and took me to St. James's, where I then saw His Royal Highness. You had made some communication, in consequence of which Mr. Ure came to you?-Decidedly; I forwarded a represen tation in consequence of this change of sentiments, and it was in explanation of that, I presume, that I was sent for, and my own wish at the same time. You have said that the Duke always spoke of himself as one of the Trustees, or chief of the Trustees?-He spoke for the Trustees generally, "We." 1 And you say there are four Trustees?. I understand so, And in every conversation you had with the Duke upon this subject, he spoke of himself and of the other two persons as the Trustees of this estate, saying, “ We do so and so," or "We wish to do so and so?"-Yes. I think you stated, that he said he was Guardian of the Minor's estate, or something of that sort? Being Trustees and Guardians of the property of a Minor, the Son of Sir John Johnston. In that capacity it was that those you saw spoke with you and acted with you as Trustees and Guardians of that Minor's estate?-Those two, I only saw those two. They always described themselves in that character as anxious to preserve the interest that infant had in that estate?Yes. Committee. You have said that the Duke put you in nomination; will you define that?What I understand by nomination is this, that the Trustees of the family of Sir John Johnston sent to their agents in Weymouth, the names of those Gentlemen for whom they wished their interest and exertions to be made. I understood that it was not their intention; I had it communicated to me in writing, that it was not their intention to put me in nomination; and the principal reason of my seeing the Duke was, that I should, agreeably to the promises held out to me, be put in nomination. By nomination you mean recommendation ? - Yes, recommendation. Mr. Horner sending down the names to the Agents is your explanation?-Yes. I think you stated that the Duke of Cumberland and Mr. Ure did not exactly concur in opinion as to the force of the representation in regard to yourself?-Most distinctly; because I understood Mr. Ure would have recommended me to the last, had his opinion been attended to. But, in point of fact, the Duke of Cum. berland's opinion was acted upon?—I believe so; I know no other opinion that prevented my being put in nomination but his. Are the Committee to understand, that, in all your communications with His Royal Highness, it was with a view to ob• tain his interest, as Trustee, with those persons who had rights to vote for the Weymouth election? His interest, in as far as the family interest was concerned, as well as all the friends of the interest. His Royal Highness, as Trustee, has a great interest vested in that family, and they have many friends of that family; it was, therefore, to obtain both. Had you, in communicating with him, both these objects in view? -Most un doubtedly to attain these objects. The Witness withdrew. Jovis 18, De Fe.. 1813. Richard Augustus Turker Steward, Esq. sworn and examined. You were Member in the last Parliament for the Town of Weymouth ? - 1 was. You were Candidate at the last Election? I believe your family had very considerable interest in the Borough ?-They had. That interest continued at the time of the last election, did it not?-It did. Previous to the last election, had you any correspondence with His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland ?-I had; it was confidential. I believe you were not successful at the last Election; you were an unsuccessful Candidate?--I was. Did you keep copies of these letters which you sent to the Duke?—I did. Have you them with you ? -1 have not. Can you remember nearly about the time when the first letter was sent ? - It was the early part of July, to the best of my recollection. Mr. Chairman, I know not whether I am regular or not; bur, as this correspondence was confidential, I hope it will not be produced: although it might operate in favour of the interest I am very much concerned in, I should hope it may not be produced here. Committee. You consider this a private and confidential correspondence that you ought not to be forced to communicate ? - It was confi. dential, and I think all confidential communications should be continued in confidence. You feel a desire that the Committee should not press it upon yo?—I do; I wish to add, that I shall certainly, if it is made a point of, without any hesitation, give it in the fullest manner that I am capable of doing. If it is the opinion of the Committee that you should be so required ?—Yes. Mr. Serjeant Pell submitted to the Com→ mittee, that there was no confidence which could protect the Witness. Committee. In speaking of confidential communication, do you mean merely a correspondence between the Duke of Cumberland and yourself, as between Gentleman and Gentleman, or that you were employed in any confidential situation by the Duke of Cumberland?-The former, between Gentleman and Gentleman. The Committee-Room was cleared. Motion made, That the examination of |