COBBETT'S
Parliamentary Debates
VOL.X.
COBBETT'S
Parliamentary Debates
DURING THE
SECOND SESSION OF THE FOURTH PARLIAMENT
OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND,
AND OF THE
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN THE TWENTY-FIRST,
Appointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-first Day of January, in the Forty-eighth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Third, Annoque Domini One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.
VOL. X.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN THE 21ST OF JAN. AND THE 8TH OF APRIL, 1808.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY T. C. HANSARD, PETERBOROUGH-COURT, FLEET-STREET.
PUBLISHED BY R. BAGSHAW, BRYDGES-STREET, COVENT GARDEN; AND SOLD BY J. BUDD, PALL-MALL; R. FAULDER, NEW BOND-STREET; H. D. SYMONDS, PATERNOSTER-ROW; BLACK, PARRY, AND KINGSBURY, LEADENHALL-STREET; AND J. ARCHER, DUBLIN.
1808.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
VI. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
II DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
VII. PETITIONS.
III. DECLARATIONS.
VIII. PROTESTS.
IV. KING'S SPEECHES.
IX. TREATIES.
V. KING'S MESSAGES.
X. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
1808. January 21. DEBATE on the Lords Commissioners' Speech at the Opening of the Session
1
1808. January 27. on the Curates Suspension Bill
148
1808. January 27. on the Orders in Council
149
1808. January 28. on the Vote of Thanks to the Officers, &c. employed in the Expedition to Copenhagen
156
1808 February 4. on the Dispute with America
311
1808 February 8. on the Duke of Norfolk's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
340
1808 February 11. on the Dispute with America
431
1808 February 11. on Earl Grey's Motion, relative to the Mediation of Russia and Austria
434
1808 February 15. on the Orders in Council
465
1808 February 18. on the Orders in Council
641
1808 February 18. on Lord Sidmouth's Motion, relative to the Restitution of the Danish Fleet
642
1808 February 25. on the Brazil Trade Bill
732
1808 February 25. on the Orders in Council
735
1808 February 26. on Lord St. John's Resolutions respecting the Orders in Council
780
1808 March 1. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
870
1808 March 3. on the Earl of Darnley's Motions relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
873
1808 March 7. on Lord Sidmouth's Motion relative to Danish Ships detained previous to Hostilities
920
1808 March 8. on the American Treaty
927
1808 March 8. on Lord Erskine's Motion relative to the Orders in
1048
Council
929
1808 March 10. on the King's Message respecting Sweden
1042
1808 March 10. on the Export Trade of Great Britain
1043
1808 March 10. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
1044
1808. March 11. DEBATE on the Debtor and Creditor Bill
1068
1808. March 14. on the King's Message respecting Sweden
1076
1808. March 14. on the Dismissal of Mr. John Giffard
1077
1808. March 14. on the Orders in Council Bill
1079
1808. March 15. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
1086
1808. March 16. on the Orders in Council Bill
1148
1808. March 18. on Lord Sidmouth's Motion relative to Danish Ships detained previous to Hostilities
1179
1808. March 18. on the Mutiny Bill
1170
1808. March 22. on the Earl of Lauderdale's Motion relative to the Commercial Policy of the Orders in Council
1235
1808. March 23. on the Orders in Council
1244
1808. March 24. on the Expedition to Copenhagen
1247
1808. March 25. on Patents
1253
1808. March 25. on the Journals of the House
1254
1808. March 25. on the Orders in Council Bill
1254
1808. March 29. on Lord Holland's Motion relative to the Orders in Council, as connected with America
1269
1808 April 7. on the Jesuits' Bark Bill
1320
1808 April 8. on the Scotch Judicature Bill
1345
1808 April 8. on the Cotton Bill
1346
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1808 January 21. DEBATE on the Lords Commissioners' Speech at the Opening of the Session
37
1808 January 22. on the Lords Commissioners' Speech
83
1808 January 25. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
96
1808 January 27. on the Orders in Council
154
1808 January 28. on the American Treaty Bill
162
1808 January 28. on the Vote of Thanks to the Officers, &c. employed in the Expedition to Copenhagen
164
1808 January 28. on the Revival of the Finance Committee
184
1808 January 29. on the granting of Commercial Licences
185
1808 February 1. on the Vote of Thanks to the Officers, &afsc. employed in the Expedition to Copenhagen
190
1808 February 1. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
194
1808 February 2. on the Arrangement with the Bank of England
231
1808 February 3. on Mr. Ponsonby's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
252
1808 February 5. on the Expedition to Copenhagen
314
1808 February 5. on the Orders in Council
314
1808 February 8. on the Expedition to the Dardanelles
384
1808 February 8. on Mr. Whitbread's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
385
1808 February 9. on the Petition against the Curates' Suspension Repeal Bill
407
1808 February 9. on the Droits of Admiralty
409
1808 February 9. on the Conduct of Marquis Wellesley
410
1808 February 10. on the Droits of Admiralty
412
1808 February 10. on the Curates' Suspension Repeal Bill
413
1808 February 10. on the Arrangement with the Bank
415
1808 February 11. on the Droits of Admiralty
449
1808 February 11. on the Exchequer Bills Regulation Bill
461
1808 February 12. on the Account of Sums issued out of the Exchequer
463
1808 February 15. on Mr. Taylor's Motion relative to the Expedition to Constantinople
487
1808 February 15. DEBATE on Mr. Abercromby's Motion for Papers relating to Portugal
535
1808 February 15. on the Papers relating to America
553
1808 February 16. on Mr. Whitbread's Motion relative to the Mediation of Russia and Austria
601
1808 February 18. on the Petition respecting the Cold-Bath-Fields Prison
662
1808 February 18. on the Orders in Council Bill
665
1808 February 19. on the Petition respecting the Cold-Bath-Fields Prison
685
1808 February 22. on the Saltash Right of Election
691
1808 February 22. on the Petition from Bolton for Peace
692
1808 February 22. on the Treaty with Sweden
694
1808 February 22. on the Exportation of Cotton Wool and Jesuits Bark
695
1808 February 22. on the Orders in Council Bill
696
1808 February 22. on the Great Grimsby Election
698
1808 February 22. on the Conduct of Marquis Wellesley
699
1808 February 23. on the Jesuits Bark Bill
709
1808 February 24. on the King's Message respecting an Annuity to the Family of the late Lord Lake
711
1808 February 24. on the State of Sir Richard Strachan's Squadron
711
1808 February 24. on Distillation from Sugar
712
1808 February 24. on Mr. Tierney's Motion for a Committee on Trade and Navigation
713
1808 February 24. on the Orders in Council Bill
726
1808 February 25. on Mr. Sheridan's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
736
1808 February 26. on the Army Estimates
753
1808 February 26. on the Ordnance Estimates
755
1808 February 26. on Mr. Secretary Canning's Motion for Papers relating to Denmark
755
1808 February 29. on the King's Message respecting an Annuity to the Family of the late Lord Lake
786
1808 February 29. on Mr. Whitbread's Motion relating to the Mediation of Russia and Austria
801
1808 March 2. on the Monument to the Memory of Lord Lake
872
1808 March 3. on the Dismissal of Mr. John Giffard
877
1808 March 3. on the State of Sir Richard Strachan's Squadron
879
1808 March 3. on the Liverpool Petition respecting the Orders in Council Bill
889
1808 March 4. on the Liverpool Petition respecting the Orders in Council Bill
896
1808 March 4. on Mr. Adam's Motion respecting the Law of Parliament, relative to Official Communications
898
1808 March 7. on the Mutiny Bill
922
1808 March 7. on the granting of Commercial Licences
923
1808 March 7. on the Orders in Council Bill
925
1808 March 8. on Greenwich Hospital and Naval Asylum
976
1808 March 8. on the Mutiny Bill
980
1808 March 9. on Exchequer Bills
991
1808 March 9. on the Conduct of Marquis Wellesley—Oude Charge
993
1808 March 10. on the King's Message respecting Sweden
1053
1808 March 10. on the Petitions from London and Liverpool respecting the Orders in Council
1056
1808 March 10. on the Orders in Council Bill
1065
1808 March 11. on the Affairs of the East India Company
1071
1808 March 11. on the Orders in Council Bill
1072
1808 March 14. on the Mutiny Bill
1080
1808 March 15. on the Sums paid for Irish Expresses
1088
1808 March 15. on the Conduct of Marquis Wellesley—Resumed Debate on the Oude Charge
1089
1808 March 16. DEBATE on the Sussex Election Petition
1156
1808 March 16. on the Orders in Council in Ireland
1159
1808 March 16. on the King's Message respecting Sweden
1160
1808 March 16. on the Jesuits' Bark Bill
1168
1808 March 16. on the Resolution approving the Conduct of the Speaker
1170
1808 March 17. on the Cold-Bath-Fields Prison
1173
1808 March 18. on the Petition from Manchester respecting Peace
1182
1808 March 18. on the Petitions against the Orders in Council
1182
1808 March 21. on Mr. Sharp's Motion respecting the Expedition to Copenhagen
1185
1808 March 22. on Greenwich Hospital
1243
1808 March 22. on the Petitions against the Orders in Council
1244
1808 March 23. on the Petitions against the Orders in Council
1246
1808 March 24. on Irish Grand Jury Presentments
1250
1808 March 24. on the Petitions against the Orders in Council
1251
1808 March 25. on the Sugar Distillery Committee
1256
1808 March 28. on the Sums paid for Irish Expresses
1257
1808 March 28. on the Mediation of Austria
1258
1808 March 28. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
1259
1808 March 28. on Lotteries
1268
1808 March 29. on Lord Folkestone's Motion respecting the Restitution of the Danish Fleet
1284
1808 March 31. on Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion respecting the Nabob of Oude
1290
1808 April 1. on the Assessed Taxes and Game Duties
1302
1808 April 1. on the Petitions against the Orders in Council
1304
1808 April 4. on the Conduct of Marquis Wellesley
1305
1808 April 4. on the Finance Committee
1309
1808 April 4. on the Petitions against the Orders in Council
1315
1808 April 6. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
1315
1808 April 7. on the Assessed Taxes Bill
1327
1808 April 7. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
1329
1808 April 8. on Mr. Whitbread's Motion for Papers relating to Russia
1353
1808 April 8. on the Offices in Reversion Bill
1368
III. DECLARATIONS.
DECLARATION of the King of Great Britain, relative to the War with Denmark
115
DECLARATION of the King of Great Britain against Russia
118
DECLARATION of the Emperor of Russia against England
218
IV. KING'S SPEECHES.
SPEECH of the Lords Commissioners on opening the Session
1
V. KING'S MESSAGES.
KING'S Message respecting an Annuity to the Family of the late Lord Lake
711
KING'S Message respecting Sweden
1042
VI. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
ORDERS in Council, presented January 26
120
PAPERS relating to the Negociation with Austria, presented January 26
100
PAPERS relating to the Negociation with Russia, presented January 26
110
PAPERS relating to the Negociation with Russia, presented February 1
195
PAPERS relating to the Expedition to Copenhagen, presented February 1
221
PAPERS relating to the Bank of England
232
PAPERS relating to Denmark, and the Order in Council of January 7, 1807
397
PAPERS relating to the Expedition to Constantinople, presented February 15
497
PAPERS relating to Portugal, presented February 15
537
PAPERS relating to America, presented February 18th and 22nd
553
PAPERS relating to Military Co-operation on the Continent, presented Feb. 16
620
PAPERS relating to Denmark, presented March 5
760
VII. PETITIONS.
PETITION against the Curates Suspension Repeal Bill
407
PETITION respecting the Cold Bath-Fields Prison
685
PETITION from Bolton respecting Peace
692
PETITION from Oldham respecting Peace
708
PETITION from the Company of Merchants trading to Africa
710
PETITION from London, respecting the Orders in Council
1056
PETITION from London respecting the Offices in Reversion Bill
1300
VIII. PROTESTS.
PROTEST against the Seizure of the Danish Fleet
32
PROTEST against the rejection of the Address relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen, proposed by the Earl of Darnley
877
PROTEST against the Resolution relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen, proposed by Lord Eliot
877
PROTEST against the Rejection of the Offices in Reversion Bill
1087
PROTEST against the Orders in Council Bill
1154
PROTEST against the Clause in the Mutiny Bill allowing Men to enlist for unlimited Service
1183
PROTEST against the Orders in Council Bill
1255
PROTEST against the Jesuits Bark Exportation Prohibition Bill
1325
PROTEST against the Cotton Wool Exportation Prohibition Bill
1351
IX. TREATIES.
TREATY between the King of Great Britain and the Ottoman Porte; done at Constantinople, Jan. 5, 1799
497
TREATY of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between the King of Great Britain and the United States of America; concluded Dec. 31, 1806
507
CONVENTION between the King of Great Britain and the King of Sweden; Signed at Stockholm, Feb. 18, 1808
1054
X. LISTS.
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, January 28, on the Motion for a Vote of Thanks to the Officers, &c. employed in the Expedition to Copenhagen
182
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, Feb. 3, on Mr. Ponsonby's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
310
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Lords, Feb. 8. on the Duke of Norfolk's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
384
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, Feb. 8, on Mr. Whitbread's Motion relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen
396
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, Feb. 11, on Sir F. Burdett's Motion relative to Droits of Admiralty
460
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Lords, Feb. 15, on the Orders in Council
486
LIST of the Majority, in the House of Lords, Feb. 18, on the Orders in Council
642
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, Feb. 29, on Mr. Whitbread's Motion relative to the Mediation of Russia and Austria
869
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, March 3, relative to the Liver pool Petition, respecting the Orders in Council Bill
895
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, March 14, on the Mutiny Bill
1085
LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, March 15, on Lord Folkstone's Motion relative to the Conduct of Marquis Wellesley
1148
LIST of the House of Commons, in January 1808
xxi
LIST of his Majesty's Ministers
xxv
AN ALPHABETICAL LIST
ABBOTT, right hon. Charles, SPEAKER, Oxford University
Abercromby, hon. Jas., Midhurst
Adair, Robert, Camelford
Adam, William, Kincardineshire
Adams, Charles, Weymouth, &c.
Adams, William, Totness
Addington, rt. hon. J. H., Harwich
Agar, F. Felix, Sudbury
Alcock, W. C., Wexford county
Allan, Alexander, Berwick
Althorp, visc. Northamptonshire
Andrews, Miles Peter, Bewdley
Anson, George, Litchfield
Anstruther, right. hon. sir J., Anstruther. &c.
Antonie, W. Lee, Bedford
Archdall, Mervyn, jun. Fermanagh county
Ashburnham, hon. George, New Romney
Astell, Wm. Bridgewater
Astley, sir J. H. bt., Norfolk
Aubrey, sir John, bt., Aldeburgh
BABINGTON, Thomas, Leicester
Bagenall, Walter, Catherlogshire
Bagot, hon. Chas., Castle Rising
Bagwell, William, Clonmell
Baillie, George, Berwickshire
Baillie, Evan, Bristol
Baillie, Peter, jun. Fortrose, &c.
Baker, John, Canterbury
Baker, P. W., Corff Castle
Bampfylde, sir C. W. bt., Exeter
Bankes, Henry, Corff Castle
Barham, J. Foster, Stockbridge
Baring, Thomas, Chipping Wycombe
Baring, Alex., Taunton
Barlow, Hugh, Pembroke
Barne, Snowdon, Dunwich
Barry, John, Cavan
Bastard, John Pollexfen, Devonshire
Bastard, Edmund, Dartmouth
Bathurst, rt. hon. Charles, Bristol
Beach, Michael Hicks, Cirencester
Beaumount, col. T. R., Northumberland
Beckford, William, Hindon
Bennet, R. H. A., Launceston
Bentinck, ld. Charles, Ashburton
Benyon, Richard, Wallingford
Beresford, J. C., Waterford county
Beresford, lord G. T., Londonderry county
Berkeley, hon. George, Gloucestershire
Bernard, Scrope, St. Mawes
Bernard, Thomas, King's county
Bernard, viscount, Cork county
Bertie, Albemarle, Stamford
Berwicke, Calverley, Winchelsea
Bickerton, sir R. bart, Poole [dbleret.]
Biddulph, Rt. Myddleton, Denbigh
Binning, lord, Callington
Blachford, B. P., Newtown, Hants.
Blackburne, John, Lancashire
Blackburne, J. I., Newtown, Lane.
Blake, Wm., Chippenham [d. ret.]
Bligh, Thomas, Meath
Bonham, Henry, Leominster
Bootle, Edward Wilbr., Newcastle under Lyme
Boscawen, hon. E., Truro
Bourne, Wm. Sturges, Christ-church
Bouverie, hon. Edward, Northampton
Bouverie, hon. Barthol., Downton
Bowyer, sir G. bt., Malmsbury
Boyle, David, Airshire
Bradshaw, Robert. H., Brackley
Bradshaw, hon. A C., Honiton
Brand, hon. Thos., Hertfordshire
Brandling, Ch. John, Newcastle upon Tyne
Brodrick, hon. Wm., Whitchurch
Brogden, James, Launceston
Brooke, lord, Warwick
Brooke, Henry Vaughan, Donegal
Browne, Is. Hawk., Bridgenorth
Browne, rt. hon. D., Mayo
Browne, Anthony, Heydon
Brownlow, Wm., Armagh county
Bruce, lord, Marlborough
Bruce, P. C., Dundalk
Buller, Edward, East Looe
Buller, James, Exeter
Buller, James, West Looe
Bullock, John, Essex
Bunbury, sir T. C., bt., Suffolk
Burdett, sir F., bt., Westminster
Burghersh, lord, Lime Regis
Burrell, sir Chas M., bt., New Shoreham
Burton, Francis, Oxford city
Burton, hon. F. N., Clare
Butler, hon. J., Kilkenny county
Butler, hon. Charles, ditto, city
Byng, George, Middlesex
CALCRAFT, John, Rochester
Calcraft, sir G. T., Wareham
Calvert, John, Huntingdon,
Calvert, Nicolson, Hertford
Campbell, lord John, Argyllshire
Campbell, J. jun., Rothsay, &c.
Campbell, George, Carmarthen
Campbell, Arch., Glasgow, &c.
Campbell, Alex., Dunfermlin
Canning, rt. hon. Geo., Hastings
Canning, George, Sligo
Carew, right hon. R. Pole, Fowey
Carter, Thomas, Callington
Cartwright, William Ralph, Northamptonshire
Castlereagh, lord, Plympton
Cavendish, lord G. A. H., Derbyshire
Cavendish, G. H. C., Aylesbury
Cavendish, William, Derby
Chaplin, Charles, Lincolnshire
Cheesement, John, Wooton Basset
Cholmondeley, Thomas, Cheshire
Chute, William, Hampshire
Clements, Hen. John, Leitrim
Clephane, David, Kinross-shire
Clinton, W. H., Boroughbridge
Clive, William, Bishop's Castle
Clive, Henry, Ludlow
Clive, viscount, Ludlow
Clonmell, earl of, New Romney
Cochrane, lord, Westminster
Cochrane, hon. G. A., Grampound
Cocks, hon. Edw. Chas., Reygate
Codrington, Christopher, Tewkesbury
Coke, Thomas William, Norfolk
Coke, Edward, Derby
Coke, Daniel Parker, Nottingham
Colborne, N. W. R., Appleby
Cole, hon. G. L., Fermanagh
Colquhoun, Archibald, Cullen, &c.
Combe, Harvey Christian, London
Cooper, Edward S., Sligo County
Cooper, hon. C. A., Dorchester
Cotes, John, Shropshire
Cotterell, sir J. G. bt., Herefordshire
Cotton, maj. gen. S., Newark-upon-Trent.
Cowper, hon. E. Spencer, Hertford
Craig, James, Carrickfergus
Craufurd, Chas., E. Retford
Creevey, Thomas, Thetford
Crickett, R. Alex., Ipswich
Cripps, Joseph, Cirencester
Croker, John W., Downpatrick
Curtis, sir William, bart., London
Curwen, John Christian, Carlisle
Curzon, hon. Robert, Clitherow
Cust, hon. John, Clitherow
Cuthbert, J. R., Appleby
DALY, rt. hon. D. Bowes, Galway
Daly, James, Galway town
Daniell, Ralph Allen, West Looe
Dashwood, sir H. W., Woodstock
Davenport, Davies, Cheshire
Davies, R. Hart, Colchester
Dawkins, Henry, Boroughbridge
Dawkins, James, Chippenham [double return.]
Deedes, William, Hythe
Dennison, John, Minehead
Dent, John, Lancaster
Dick, Quintin, Cashell
Dickenson, William, Somerset
Dillon, hon. Henry Aug., Mayo-County
Disbrowe, Edward, Windsor
Drake, Th. Tyrwhitt, Agmondesham
Drake, Thomas D. Tyrwhitt, Agmondesham
Duckett, George, Lymington
Dufferin, lord, Helleston
Dugdale, Stratf. Dugdale, War-wickshire
Duigenan, Patrick, Armagh boro'
Dundas, Charles, Berkshire
Dundas, hon. C. H. L., Richmond, Yorkshire
Dundas, hon. Lawrence, Malton
Dundas, hon. Robert, Edinburghshire
Dundas, right hon. Wm., Sutherlandshire
Dupre, James, Chichester
EBRINGTON, lord, St. Mawes
Eden, hon. W. F. E., Woodstock
Egerton, John, Chester
Elford, sir W. bart., Rye
Ellice, William, Great Grimsby
Elliot, hon. William, Liskeard
Elliot, rt. hon. Wm., Peterborough
Ellis, C. Rose, East Grinstead
Ellison, Richard, Lincoln
Estcourt, Tho. Grimston, Devizes
Everett, Thomas, Ludgershall
Euston, earl, Cambridge Univer.
Eyre, Anthony Hardolph, Nottinghamshire
FANE, Henry, Lyme Regis
Fane, John, Oxfordshire
Farmer, Wm. Meeke, Huntingdon
Farquhar, Jas., Inverbervie, &c.
Featherstone, sir T. bart., Longfords
Fellowes, hon. Newton, Andover
Fellowes, Wm. Henry, Huntingdonshire
Ferguson, James, Aberdeenshire
Ferguson, R. C., Kirkaldy, &c.
Finch, hon. Edward, Cambridge
Fitzgerald, lord Henry, Kildare
Fitzgerald, right hon. J., Ennis
Fitzgerald, right hon. M., Kerry
Fitzharris, viscount, Heytesbury
Fitzhugh, William, Tiverton
Fitzpatrick, right hon. R., Bedfordshire
Fitzroy, lord C., St. Edmund's Bury
Fitzroy, lord William, Thetford
Fleeming, hon. C., Stirlingshire
Foley, hon. Andrew, Droitwich
Foley, Thomas, Herefordshire
Folkes, sir Martin, B. bart, Kings-Lynn
Folkestone, viscount, New Sarum
Forbes, viscount, Longford
Forester, Cecil, Wenlock
Forster, right hon. John, Lowth
Foster, hon. T. H., Drogheda
Foster, J. Leslie, Dublin University
Foulkes, Evan, Tralee
Frankland, William, Thirsk
Fraser, A. Mackenzie, Ross-shire
Fremantle, Th. Francis, Saltash [double return.]
Fremantle, W. H., Saltash [ditto]
French, Arthur, Roscommon
Fuller, John, Sussex
Fydell, Thomas, Boston
Fynes, Henry, Aldborough
GAMON, sir Richard, bart., Winchester
Garland, Jos., Poole [double ret.]
Gascoyne, Isaac, Liverpool
Gell, Philip, Malmesbury
Gibbs, sir V. knt., Cambridge Univ.
Giddy, Davies, Bodmyn
Gipps, George, Rippon
Glassford, Henry, Dumbartonshire
Goddard, Thomas, Cricklade
Godfrey, Thomas, Hythe
Gooch, Thomas Sherlock, Suffolk
Gordon, William, Worcester
Gower, lord G. L., Staffordshire
Graham, sir James, Cockermouth
Grant, right hon. sir Wm. knt., Bamffshire
Grant, Charles, Invernesshire
Grant, Francis W., Elginshire.
Grattan, right. hon. Henry, Dublin City
Greenhill, Robert, Thirsk
Greenough, G. Bellas, Gatton
Grenfell, Pascoe, jun., Great Marlow
Grenville, right hon. Thomas Buckingham
Grey, hon. Booth, Petersfield
Grimston, hon. J. W., St. Albans
Grosvenor, Thomas, Chester
Guernsey, lord, Weobly
HALL, Benjamin, Totness
Hall, sir James, St. Michael
Halsey, Joseph, St. Albans
Hamilton, lord Arch., Lanerkshire
Hamilton, Hans, Dublin County
Hamilton, sir C. bart., Honiton
Hamilton, viscount, Liskeard
Hamilton, lord C., Dungannon
Hammet, John, Taunton
Harbord, hon. W. A., Plympton
Harbord, hon. Edward, Yarmouth, Norfolk
Harvey, Eliab, Essex
Headley, lord, Malton
Heathcote, T., Blechingly
Henderson, Anthony, Brackley
Henniker, lord, Rutland
Herbert, hon. C., Wilton
Herbert, H. A., Kerry
Heron, Peter, Newton, Lancashire
Hibbert, George, Seaford
Hill, hon. Wm., Shrewsbury
Hill, sir G. F. bart., Londonderry
Hinchingbroke, viscount, Huntingdonshire
Hippesley, sir J. Cox, bt., Sudbury
Hobhouse, Benj., Hindon
Hodson, John, Wigan
Holdsworth, Arth. Howe, Dartmouth
Holford, George, Lostwithiel
Holland, sir N. Dance, bart., East-Grinstead
Honywood, Wm., Kent
Hood, sir Samuel, Bridport
Hope, W. J., Dumfriesshire
Hope, hon. Alexander, Linlithgowshire
Hope, hon. Charles, Haddingtonshire
Horner, Francis, Wendover
Horrocks, Samuel, Preston
Howard, hon. W. Morpeth
Howard, Henry, Gloucester
Howick, viscount, Tavistock
Hughes, W. Lewis, Wallingford
Hume, Wm. Hoare, Wicklow
Hume, sir A. bart., Hastings
Hunt, Joseph, Queenborough
Huntingfield, lord, Dunwich
Hurst, Robert, Steyning
Huskisson, William, Harwich
Hussey, William, New Sarum
Hutchinson, hon. C. H., Cork City
INGILBY, William, East Retford
Irving, John, Bramber
JACKSON, John, Dover
Jackson, Josias, Southampton
Jeffery, John, Poole [dble return.
Jekyll, Joseph, Calne
Jenkinson, Charles, Dover
Jenkinson, hon. C. C., Sandwich
Jephson, Denham, Mallow
Jervoise, Jervois Clarke, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight
Jocelyn, viscount, Lowth
Jodrell, Henry, Bramber
Johnes, Thomas, Cardiganshire
Johnstone, George, Heydon
Johnstone, hon. A. C., Grampound
Jolliffe, Hylton, Petersfield
Jones, Thomas, Shrewsbury
Jones, Gilbert, Aldborough
Jones, Walter, Coleraine
KEANE, sir J. bart., Youghall
Keck, G. A. Lee, Leicestershire
Keene, Whitshead, Montgomery.
Kemp, Thomas, Lewes
Kenrick, William, Bletchingley
Kensington, lord, Haverfordwest
King, sir J. Dashwood, bart., Chipping Wycombe
Kingston, John, Lymington
Knapp, George, Abingdon
Knatchbull, sir Ed. bart., Kent
Knox, hon. Thomas, Tyrone
LAING, Malcolm, Orkney, &c.
Lamb, hon. Wm., Portarlington
Lambton, Ralph John, Durham
Lascelles, hon. E., Northallerton
Lascelles, hon. Henry, Westbury
Latouche, David, Catherloghshire
Latouche, Robert, Kildare
Latouche, J. jun., Leitrim
Laurence, Dr. French, Peterborough
Leach, John, Seaford
Leeland, John, Stamford
Lefevre, Charles Shaw, Reading
Leigh, James Henry, Bedwin
Leigh, Robert Holt, Wigan
Leman, Chas., Penryn
Lemon sir Wm. bart., Cornwall
Lemon, John, Truro
Leslie, C. P., Monaghan
Lethbridge. T. Buckler, Somerset
Leycester, Hugh, Milborne Port
Littleton, sir Edw., bt., Staffordshire
Lloyd, James M., Steyning
Lloyd, Hardress, King's County
Lockhart, Wm. Eliot, Selkirk
Lockhart, sir A. M., Berwick
Lockhart, J Ingram, Oxford
Loftus, William, Tamworth
Long, rt. hon. Chas., Haslemere
Long, Richard, Wiltshire
Longfield, Montiford, Cork city
Longman, George, Maidstone
Lopez, sir M. M. bart., Evesham
Lovaine, lord, Beeralston
Loveden, Edw. L., Shaftesbury
Lowther, James, Westmoreland
Lowther, John, Cumberland
Lubbock, sir J. bart, Leominster
Lushington, Stephen, Yarmouth, Norfolk
Lushington, S. R., Rye
Luttrell, J. Fownes, Minehead
Lygon, hon. William Beauch, Worcestershire
Lyttleton, hon. William Henry, Worcestershire
MACDONALD, James, Newcastle-under-Lyme
Macdowall, Wm., Renfrewshire
Mackenzie, J. R., Dornoc, &c.
Macleod, R. B. Æ., Cromartyshire
Madox, W. A., Boston
Magens, Magens D., Ludgershall
Mahon, viscount, Kingston
Mahon, hon. S., Roscommon
Maitland, John, Chippenham
Maitland, Ehenezer, Lostwithiel
Manners, lord Cha. Som., Cambridgeshire
Manners, Robert, Cambridge
Manners, ld. R., Leicestershire
Manning, William, Evesham
Markham, John, Portsmouth
Martin, Richard, Galway
Martin, Henry, Kinsale
Mathew, hon. Mont., Tipperary
Maule, Wm. jun., Forfarshire
Maxwell, Wm. jun., Wigtownshire
Maxwell, sir J. S. A., Annan, &c.
Maxwell, William, Selkirk, &c.
May, Edward, Belfast
M'Mahon, col. John, Aldeburgh
M'Naghten, E. A., Antrim
Meade, hon. John, Down
Mellish, William, Middlesex
Milbanke, sir Ralph, bt., Durham county
Mildmay, sir H. P. St. J. bt., Hampshire
Mildmay, H. C. St. J., Winchester
Milford lord, Pembrokeshire
Miller, sir T. bart., Portsmouth
Mills, Charles, Warwick
Mills, William, Coventry
Mills, Geo. Galway, St. Michael
Milner, sir Wm. M. bt., York
Milnes, Robt. P., Pontefract
Milton, viscount, Yorkshire
Monckton, hon. Edward, Stafford
Monson, hon. W., Lincoln
Montague, Matthew, St. Germain's
Montgomery, sir J. bt., Peebles
Moore, Peter, Coventry
Moore, lord Henry, Orford
Moore, Charles, Heytesbury
Mordaunt, sir Chas. bart., Warwickshire
Morgan, sir Charles, bart., Monmouthshire
Morpeth, lord, Cumberland
Morris, Edward, Newport
Morris, Robt., Gloucester, Cornw.
Mosley, sir Oswald bt., Winchelsea
Mostyn, sir Thos. bt., Flintshire
Muncaster, lord, Westmoreland
Mundy, Ed. Miller, Derbyshire
Murray, sir Patrick, bt., Edinbugh
Murray, lord James, Perthshire
Murray, John, Wootton Basset
NEEDHAM, hon. Francis, Newry
Nepean, rt. hon. sir E., bart., Bridport
Nevill, Richard, Wexford
Neville, hon. R., Buckingham
Newark, visc., Nottinghamshire
Newborough, lord, Beaumaris
Newport, rt. hon. sir Jn., bart., Waterford
Nicholl, sir John, bt., Bedwin
Noel, col. Gerrard Noel, Rutland
North, Dudley, Newton, Hants
Northey, William, Newport, Cornwall
Norton, hon. J. C. Guilford
Nugent, sir George, bt. Aylesbury
O'BRIEN, sir Edw. bart., Clare
O'Callagan, hon. James, Tregony
Odell, William, Limerick County
Oglander, sir Wm., Bodmyn
O'Hara, Charles, Sligoe County
O'Neill, hon. J. B. R., Antrim
Onslow, hon. T. Cranley, Guildford
Ord, William, Morpeth
Orde, sir John, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight
Osborne, John, Cockermouth
Ossulston, visc. Knaresborough
PAGET, hon. B., Anglesea
Paget, lord, Milborne Port
Paget, hon. Charles, Carnarvon
Palk, Walter, Ashburton
Palke, sir Lawrence, bart. Devonshire
Palmer, col. John, Bath
Palmerston, lord, Newport, Hants
Parnell, Henry, Queen's County
Parry, Love P. J., Horsham
Patten, Peter, Lancaster
Patteson, John, Norwich
Pedley, John, Saltash [dble ret]
Peel, sir Robert, bart. Tamworth
Peirse, Henry, Northallerton
Pelham, hon. C. A. Lincolnshire.
Perceval, hon. Spencer, Northampton
Percy, hon. Joceline, Beeralston
Percy, earl, Northumberland
Petty, lord Henry, Camelford
Philipps, Rd. Mansel, Stafford
Phipps, hon. Edm. Scarborough
Piggott, sir Arth. knt., Arundel
Pitt, William Morton, Dorsetshire
Plomer, sir Tho. kt., Downton
Prochin, Charles, Enniskillen
Pocock, George, Bridgwater
Pole, hon. W. W., Queen's County
Pole, sir Ch. Morice, bt. Plymouth
Pollington visc. Pontefract
Ponsonby, hon. G., Cork County
Ponsonby, hon. Fred., Kilkenny
Popham, sir Home, Ipswich
Porcher, J. Dupre, Old Sarum
Porchester, lord, Cricklade
Porter, George, Stockbridge
Portman, E. B., Dorsetshire
Powell, J. Kynaston, Shropshire
Power, Rd., Waterford County
Praed, Wm. Banbury [dble ret.]
Price, sir Charles, bart. London
Price, Richard, New Radnor
Prittie, hon. F. R. Tipperary
Pulteney, hon. sir J., Weymouth, &c.
Pym, Francis, Bedfordshire
QUIN, hon. Windham, Limerick County
RAINIER, Peter, Sandwich
Ram, Abel, Wexford County
Ramsbottom, Richard, Windsor
Rendlesham, lord, Bossiney
Richardson, Wm., Armagh County
Ridley, sir M. White, Newcastle upon Tyne
Roberts, Abraham, Worcester
Robinson, John, Bishop's Castle
Robinson, hon. Fred., Rippon
Rochfort, Gustavus, Westmeath
Romilly, sir Sam., knt., Horsham
Rose, rt. hon. G., Christchurch
Rose, G. Henry, Southampton
Royston, vicount, Ryegate
Russell, lord William, Tavistock
Russel, Matt., Saltash [dble ret.]
Rutherford, John, Roxburghshire
Ryder, hon. Richard, Tiverton
SALUSBURY, sir Rob. bart, Brecon
St. Aubyn, sir John, Helleston
Savage, Francis, Down
Saville, Albany, Oakhampton
Scott, rt. hon. sir W. kt., Oxford University
Scudamore, Rich. Phil., Hereford
Sebright, sir John S., Hertfordshire
Seymour, lord Robert, Carmarthenshire
Shakespeare, Arthur, Richmond
Sharpe, Richard, Castle Rising
Shaw, Robert, Dublin City
Shaw, James, London
Sheldon, Ralph, Wilton
Shelley, Henry, jun., Lewes
Shelley, Timothy, New Shoreham
Sheridan, rt. hon. R. B., Ivelchester
Shipley, William, Flint
Simeon, John, Reading
Simpson, hon. John, Wenlock
Simson, George, Maidstone
Sinclair, sir J. bart., Buteshire
Singleton, Mark, Eye
Sloane, Wm., Orford
Smith, Thomas Ashton, Andover
Smith, Joshua, Devizes
Smith, Samuel, Leicester
Smith, George, Wendover
Smith, John, Nottingham
Smith, Henry, Calne
Smith, William, Norwich
Smyth, William, Westmeath
Sneyd, Nathaniel, Cavan
Somerset, lord A. Monmouthshire
Somerset, lord C. Monmouth
Somerset, lord R. E. H. Gloucestershire
Somerville, sir M. bart., Meath
Spencer, lord Francis, Oxfordshire
Stanhope, W. S., Carlisle
Staniforth, J., Kingston-upon Hull
Stanley, Thomas, Lancashire
Stanley, lord, Preston
Stephens, Samuel, St. Ives
Steward, Gabriel Tucker, Weymouth, &c.
Steward, Richard Tucker, Weymouth, &c.
Stewart, sir James, bart., Donegal County
Stewart, hon. C. W., Londonderry County
Stewart, James, Tyrone
Stewart, hon. Ed. Rich., Stanraer
Stewart, hon. M. G. J. Kirkcudbright
Stirling, sir W. bart., St. Ives
Stopford, visc., Marlborough
Strahan, Andrew, Catherlogh
Strutt, Joseph Holden, Maiden
Stuart, lord William, Cardiff
Sumner, G. H., Surrey
Sutton, C. M., Scarborough
Swann, Henry, Penryn
Sykes, sir M. M. bart., York
Symonds, Thomas P., Hereford
TALBOT, R. Wogan, Dublin County
Tarlton, Banastre, Liverpool
Taylor, Charles William, Wells
Taylor, M. Angelo, Ivelchester
Taylor, William, Barnstaple
Taylor, Edw. Canterbury
Tempest, sir H. V. bart., Durham
Temple, earl, Buckinghamshire
Templetown, visc., St. Edmund's Bury
Thellusson, G. W., Barnstaple
Thomas, George, Chichester
Thomson, sir T. B. bt., Rochester
Thompson, Thos., Midhurst
Thornton, Robert, Colchester
Thornton, Henry, Southwark
Thornton, Samuel, Surry
Thornton, Thomas, Grantham
Thynne, lord John, Bath
Thynne, lord George, Weobly
Tierney, rt. hon. G., Bandon Bridge
Tighe, William, Wicklow
Titchfield, marq. of, Buckinghamshire
Townshend, lord J., Knaresborough
Townshend, hon. W. A., Whitchurch
Tracy, C. H., Tewkesbury
Tremayne, Jn. Hearle, Cornwall
Tudway, Clement, Wells
Turner, J. F., Athlone
Turton, sir Thomas. bt. Southwark
Tyrwhitt, Thomas, Plymouth
VANDER-HEYDEN, D. East Looe
Vansittart, George, Berkshire
Vansittart, rt. hon. Nich., Old Sarum
Vaughan, hon. John, Cardigan
Vaughan, sir R. W. bt., Merionethshire
Vereker, Charles, Limerick City
Vernon, George G. V., Lichfield
Villiers, right hon. J. C., Queenborough
Vyse, W. H., Beverley
WALLACE, right hon. T., Shaftesbury
Walpole, lord, King's Lynn
Walpole, hon. George, Dungarvon
Ward, hon. John W., Wareham
Ward, Robert, Haslemere
Wardell, G. Lloyd, Oakhampton
Warrander, sir G., Jedburgh, &c.
Wedderburn, sir David, bart., St. Andrews, &c.
Welby, W. E., Grantham
Wellesley, right hon. sir A., Newport, Hants
Wellesley, hon. H., Eye
Wemyss, Wm., Fifeshire
Wentworth, Godfrey, Tregony
Western. C. C., Malden
Wharton, John, Beverley
Wharton, Richard, Durham City
Whitbread, Samuel, Bedford
Whitmore, Thomas, Bridgenorth
Wigram, Robert, Foway
Wigram, William, New Ross
Wilberforce, William, Yorkshire
Wilder, Francis John, Arundel
Wilkins, Walter, Radnorshire
Williams, Owen, Great Marlow
Williams, Robert, Dorchester
Williams, sir Robert, bart., Carnarvonshire
Willoughby, Hen., Newark-upon-Trent
Windham, right hon. Wm., Higham Ferrers
Winnington, sir T. E., Droitwich
Wood, col. Mark, Gatton
Wood, Thomas, jun., Breconshire
Wortley, J. A. Stuart, Bossiney
Wyndham, H. Penruddock, Wiltshire
Wyndham, Thomas, Glamorganshire
Wyndham, hon. C. W., Sussex
Wynn, sir W. Williams, bart., Denbighshire
Wynn, Ch. Watkin Williams, Montgomeryshire
Wynn, Glynn, Westbury
YARMOUTH, earl of, Lisburne
Yorke, sir J. Sydney, St. Germain's
Yorke, right hon. Charles, Cambridgeshire
LIST OF HIS
CABINET MINISTERS.
Earl Camden
President of the Council.
Lord Eldon
Lord High Chancellor
Earl of Westmoreland
Lord Privy Seal.
Duke of Portland
First Lord of the Treasury (Prime Minister).
Lord Mulgrave
First Lord of the Admiralty.
Earl of Chatham
Master-general of the Ordnance.
Earl Bathurst
President of the Board of Trade.
Lord Hawkesbury
Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Right Hon. George Canning
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Lord Castlereagh
Secretary of State for the Department of War and the Colonies.
Right Hon. Spencer Perceval
Chancellor and Under-Treasurer of the Exchequer, and also Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
NOT OF THE CABINET
Right Hon. Robert Saunders Dundas
President of the Board of Controul for the Affairs of India.
Right Hon. George Rose
Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and Treasurer of the Navy.
Sir James Pulteney, Bart.
Secretary at War.
Lord Charles Somerset
Joint Paymaster-general.
Right Hon. Charles Long
Earl of Chichester
Joint Postmaster-general.
Earl of Sandwich
William Huskisson, esq.
Secretaries of the Treasury.
Hon. Henry Wellesley
Sir William Grant
Master of the Rolls.
Sir Vicary Gibbs
Attorney-General.
Sir Thomas Plomer
Solicitor-General.
PERSONS IN THE MINISTRY OF IRELAND.
Duck of Richmond
Lord Lieutenant.
Lord Manners
Lord High Chancellor.
Sir Arthur Wellesley
Chief Secretary.
Right Hon. John Foster
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
COBBETT'S
Parliamentary Debates
During the Second Session of the Fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Kingdom of Great Britain the Twenty-first, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-first Day of January, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight, in the Forty-eight Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Third.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, January 21, 1808.
[THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH.]
The Second Session of the Fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom was opened this day, by commission; the commissioners were, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor, and the earls Camden, Aylesford, and Dartmouth. At three o'clock the lords commissioners took their seats upon the woolsack; and the Commons, pursuant to message, having attended, with their Speaker, at the bar, the Lord Chancellor informed them, that his Majesty had been pleased to direct his commission to certain lords, therein named, to open the session; which commission they should hear read, and afterwards his majesty's most gracious Speech. The commission was then read by the clerk at the table; after which, the Lord Chancellor read the Speech, as it here follows:
2
3
4
5
6
Galloway
7
8
9
10
11
Lord Kenyon
rose, and in a speech of some length supported the address. We have to express our regret that the tone of voice was so low in which the noble lord delivered himself, as to render it inaudible below the bar. We understood him to applaud decisively the Expedition to Denmark, as a measure of wise and vigorous policy, and one productive of the most salutary consequences; sentiments which he thought must be felt by every individual in the kingdom. He also adverted to the unprincipled and ambitious projects of the enemy, among which he included the imminent danger of Turkey, a consideration which he seemed to think worthy of the serious attention of the British government. He thought the address, when he recollected the language held out by certain noble lords at successive periods, could not consistently meet with opposition from any quarter. He also adverted to our dispute with America, and applauded the spirit with which his majesty's ministers had conducted themselves in not surrendering the naval rights of the country to the claims of those people; and concluded by hoping that all trifling differences of opinion would, on this occasion, give way to the public good, and that all their lordships would be unanimous in voting for the address.
The Duke of Norfolk
felt as much as
12
13
Lord Sidmouth
began with expressing his regret, that the speech had not been so constructed as to ensure the unanimity of all parties. He lamented that ministers had not abstained from introducing topics upon which a difference of opinion was likely to prevail. He fully agreed with the noble baron, who seconded the motion, that it was desirable in the highest degree, that all minor contests should be absorbed in the great contest in which we were engaged. He lamented exceedingly, that he found it impossible to concur in the expressions of approbation which were unfortunately introduced in the address; but he could not, consistently with his duty to his sovereign, or his respect for his own character, concur in approving what had taken place at Copenhagen, without further information. On that momentous measure, he trusted ministers would yet be able to lay such documents before the house as would justify an enter-prize deeply involving the honour and character of the nation. The noble earl had set out with stating, that Denmark, for several years past, had indicated an hostile disposition towards this country. In what were these indications manifested? Were they indicated in the conduct of that power when the British fleet entered the Baltic? At that time the Danish army was in Holstein; prepared to resist the French, or any other power that should attempt to violate their neutrality. Was the Danish navy prepared either to make or repel an attack? He should be told, that the quantity of naval stores collected in the arsenal of Copenhagen was a proof of the hostile intentions of that court. These, it was said, were collected on account of France, and for French purposes. But these could not have been the motives of the expedition to the Baltic. When did this perfect understanding between Denmark and France take place? Was it before or after the peace of Tilsit? The Definitive Treaty between France and Russia was signed on the 8th of July, and lord Gambier entered the Baltic on the 3d of August. This circumstance was sufficient to prove that ministers did not act upon any information they had obtained of the secret engagements entered into between France and Russia, and in which they would have it to be understood Denmark concurred. To justify, therefore, the attack upon Copenhagen, it ought to have been proved that the danger was a danger of great magnitude, and such as could not be warded off
14
15
The Earl of Aberdeen
defended the expedition to Copenhagen; and maintained, that self-protection was a leading principle of the law of nations. There wanted no greater proof of the inability of the Danish government to resist the power of
16
Lord Grenville
rose and spoke as follows:—There are so many points, my lords, in the speech which has been this day delivered to the house, that appear to me necessary to be adverted to, that I should do injustice to my feelings if I did not endeavour to state them to your lordships. No noble lord could come into this house with a more anxious wish and expectation, with a more sincere desire than I did this night, that at a period like the present, every petty contest and private difference should be sacrificed to the greater object of unanimity, in an address to the throne. At a period which, as the speech expresses it, may be called the crisis of our fate; when. it becomes now a question, whether the British empire, the growth of so many ages; whether the British constitution, which has for so long a period promoted and extended the interests and happiness of the empire, whether these shall now be overthrown and crumbled into ruins. At such a period, I was led anxiously to expect, it was my most earnest wish and desire, that every petty triumph, that every little feeling, would have been given up and merged in the great cause of the country; that the house would not have been called upon to pledge itself upon disputed points, or to approve of measures without any evidence of their necessity or utility. It was to have been expected, particularly from those who were the friends of our illustrious statesman, now no more (Mr. Pitt), whose name can never be mentioned without that tribute which is due to his great and exalted merits, that they would have followed his example, in abstaining from those points which so immediately
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lord Hawkesbury
said, he should not have considered the conduct of his majesty's ministers justified, if they had not taken the first opportunity at the meeting of parliament, to ask for the support and unanimity of parliament. It had been demanded by a noble lord (Grenville), on what principles had ministers undertaken the attack on Copenhagen? Unless there were circumstances to make the noble lord disbelieve what his majesty's speech contained on that subject, the noble lord ought to believe it; there were facts and proofs before he world to justify the conduct of his majesty's ministers. The noble lord had misunderstood the facts, when he asserted that this country did not acquire its information by legitimate means. If the government had acquired it by illegitimate means, they had done an act which merited reprehension in the eyes of the world. No sooner had Austria and Russia fallen, than France became ruler of the continent of Europe. Our enemy had the power and the will to injure us, and the situation of Europe justified ministers in adopting any offensive or defensive measures, necessary for the protection of this country against the power of France. When France declared our ports in a state of blockade, the interests of neutral states were reciprocal; but neutral states were bound to protect themselves; and if they did not do so, England was entitled, by the law of nations, to adopt principles necessary to support her commerce, and for her preservation. He would ask the noble lord, whether there was any state on the continent of Europe where justice was to be had on the established law of nations? The law was the will of the French, and consequently the law of Great Britain must be to provide for her preservation. He had no hesitation in saying, his majesty's government did receive information that there were secret engagements in the treaty of Tilsit to employ the navies of Denmark and Portugal against this country. The evidence required by the noble lord to prove this fact, was of a description which could not possibly be produced. If government were to communicate private in-
29
30
The Earl of Buckinghamshire
said, he gave the noble lord credit for the truth of the information he had received, but he had not seen any document to prove that Denmark was in league with France, or that the Danish fleet was to be employed by the enemy. He referred to Mr. Pitt's opinions respecting the rights of independent states, and contended, that that great statesman would never have countenanced such a proceeding as the attack upon Denmark.
The Earl of Lauderdale
considered it an extraordinary mode of endeavouring to procure unanimity, by withholding all documents, if there were any that could give authenticity to the statement of ministers. Why were not the Secret Articles of the Treaty of Tilsit produced? It would not be necessary to give the names of the persons who communicated to ministers their information; but, if it existed, surely they might give the information itself to the house. The fact was, however, that the Treaty of Tilsit had nothing to do with the attack upon Copenhagen. That treaty was concluded in July; the attack on Copenhagen took place early in August, and the Expedition must have been at least some weeks in preparation. With respect to the stores said to have been collecting at Copenhagen, it was well known, that the Danish government annually expended a certain sum in laying in naval stores, but not more this year
31
Lord Mulgrave
said, that ministers never pretended to have possession of any Secret Articles of the Treaty of Tilsit; but they were possessed of secret projects and agreements entered into at Tilsit. With regard to Portugal, he assured the noble earl, that there was not only an understanding with that power, but that a secret treaty had been concluded between his majesty and the Prince Regent. The, only reason why that treaty was not laid on the table was, that it contained an article, stipulating that, it should not be made public without the consent of both the contracting parties. He could not communicate it until that authority was given.—The motion for the amendment moved by the duke of Norfolk was then put and negatived.
Lord Grenville
rose to move another amendment. The address implied an approbation of the rejection of the offered mediation of Russia. Instead of which he proposed to insert words, which would have the effect of stating, that their lordships could not but feel that their approbation must depend upon the circumstances of the case; and that they therefore could not express any opinion upon the subject, until the necessary information was submitted to them.—This amendment was put, and also negatived without a division. The original Address was then agreed to, and ordered to be presented to his majesty in the usual form.
[PROTEST AGAINST THE SEIZURE OF THE DANISH FLEET.]
A motion was made to
32
"DISSENTIENT,
Because no proof of
hostile intention on the part of Denmark has been adduced, nor any case of necessity made out, to justify the attack upon Copenhagen, without which, the measure is, in our conception, discreditable to the character, and injurious to the interests of this Country.
W. FREDERICK,
VASSAL HOLLAND,
RAWDON,
NORFOLK,
LAUDERDALE,
SIDMOUTH.
GREY,
"DISSENTIENT,
for the above reasons, and for those that follow:—Because, It has only been through the slow and painful progression of many ages, that civilized nations have emerged from a state of continual insecurity and violence, by the establishment of an universal public law, whose maxims and precedents have been long acknowledged to he of the same force and obligation, as the municipal constitutions of particular states. A system which has gradually ripened with the advancement of learning and the extension of commerce, and which ought to be held sacred and inviolate by all governments, as binding the whole civilized world under one politic and moral dominion.—Because, Alleged departures from the principles and authority of this public law, in the earliest stages of the French Revolution, were held out by the parliament of Great Britain, as the origin and justification of the first war with revolutionary France, and because in all its subsequent stages, the continuance of hostilities was uniformly vindicated in various acts of state, as being necessary for the support of the moral and political order of the world, against the avowed disregard and subversion of it by the different governments of France, in their groundless and unprovoked attacks upon the independence of unoffending nations.—Because, The people of G. Britain, on being repeatedly called upon by the King and Parliament to support the public law, thus alleged to have been violated, and to exhibit an example to the most distant ages, of inflexible national virtue, submitted to the heaviest burdens, and sacrificed the most essential advantages, rather than consent to any
33
34
35
36
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, January 21, 1808.
The house met this day for the dispatch of business. At three o'clock, Mr. Quarme, yeoman usher of the black rod, appeared within the bar, and informed the house that the lords, authorized by virtue of his majesty's commission, desired the immediate attendance of the house, in the house of peers, to hear the commission read. The Speaker, accompanied by several members, accordingly attended. On their return, the Speaker took the chair, and acquainted the house, that in pursuance of the provisions, of an act of the 24th of his present majesty, he had ordered writs to be issued for the election of members for the following places: Beaumaris, in the room of lord Newborough, deceased: Lincoln, in the room of colonel Monson, deceased: Tavistock, in the room of lord viscount Howick, now earl Grey: the county of Monaghan, in the room of R. Dawson, esq. deceased; and the county of Donnegal, in the room of H. V. Brooke, esq. deceased.—The Clandestine Outlawry bill was, according to custom, read a first, and ordered to be read a 2nd time.—New writs were ordered as Ulm: For the borough of Mitchel, in the room of G. G. Mills, esq. who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds: for Whitchurch, in the room of time hon. W. Broderick, who had accepted the office of one of the, lords commissioners of the treasury: for Stamford, in the room of general Leland, deceased; and for Clithero, in the room of the hon. J. Cust, now lord Brownlow.
37
[THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH.]
The
Speaker
Viscount Hamilton (son of the marquis of Abercorn)
rose to move the Address. His lordship began by observing, that he would not waste the time of the house, by entering too much into detail on a subject which they understood a great deal better than he could possibly pretend to do. But they all knew the situation of Europe, and the situation of Great Britain; they all knew the nature of the struggle in which this country was engaged; they all knew the inveteracy of the merciless and exasperated foe, who was bent on their destruction; they all knew the value of the objects for which Great Britain had to contend; they all knew that she stood alone in the contest, that on no human power could she place any reliance, that she had to depend only on her own resources, on her own spirit, and on her own determination. These were facts that were self-evident, they were subjects of public notoriety, and he, therefore, trusted that the house would acquit him of presumption in speaking of them. We were not only opposed as man to man, or as nation to nation, against one of the most gigantic powers that ever existed in the world, but to a power which, in addition to its own strength, had succeeded in absorbing into itself almost every other European state. The situation of the country was, therefore, most critical; it required the most vigorous exertions, it demanded the most liberal sacrifices. Faint heartedness would be our destruction. There was no mid-way fur us between success and ruin. Tinder such circumstances, the contemplation of the resources and spirit of the country, was a subject of consolation and pride; and, however the protraction of the war, with the inevitable burdens, and the partial obstruction to commerce, which that protraction occasioned, were to be lamented, we had only to look around us, to be thankful for the contrast which we presented to the neighbouring nations; to be thankful for the
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Charles Ellis
rose to second the address. Seldom, he said, had so many important events been crowded together in such a short space of time, as that which had intervened since the close of the last session. These had been stated so comprehensively in the speech from the throne, that it was unnecessary for him to enter into any enumeration of them. The vigilance with which his majesty's ministers had watched the projects of the enemy, and the energy with which they had defeated those projects, had been amply manifested. With respect to the design entertained by France, of compelling Denmark to join the confederacy against Great Britain, his majesty had declared, that he had previous intimation; which subsequent events corroborated. As to the nature of
46
47
Lord Milton
did not rise to oppose the address, but to express his regret that when Russia offered her good offices as a mediator, his majesty's ministers had not thought fit to accept them. He could not be suspected of any disposition at this moment to encourage a division of opinion on the subject of peace or war, after recent occurrences of considerable publicity, in which he had taken a decided part. To the opinion which he then expressed, he still adhered. He conceived it much better to repress any clamour on the subject until it should be ascertained what steps had been taken by his majesty's ministers for the restoration of peace. At the same time, when he heard flourishing descriptions of the state of the country and of its commerce, he could not avoid remarking, that had the persons who made those assertions attended more to the subject, they would have abstained from them. Locked up as we were from the continent, closed as every market was to our manufactures, how was it possible that our commerce could thrive or be in a flourishing condition? He owned that he had hoped to have heard some assurance from his majesty's ministers, that they were anxious for the restoration of peace; and that they were ready to embrace an opportunity of negotiation, from whatever quarter it
48
Mr. George Ponsonby
observed, that his majesty's speech contained such a variety of topics, that it was difficult to express an opinion upon it. Had the usual course prevailed in this instance; had the substance of the speech been known to the public for two or three days before the delivery of it, this difficulty would have been much lessened. Not only did the speech embrace a great variety of topics, but it was the longest speech, he believed, that was ever read from the chair. It required, therefore, the utmost circumspection in speaking of it, to prevent the expression of ideas not exactly conceived. The first object of the speech as it concerned this country, related to peace or war with France, and the other powers of the continent. It was impossible for him to give a direct opinion of the negotiation
49
50
51
52
53
Mr. Milnes
said, that in offering his sentiments on the present occasion to the house, he should endeavour, as much as possible, to compress closely, as well the ideas which he conceived himself, as those which had been suggested to him by others. Though the gentlemen on the other side had contemned many of the measures adverted to in the speech from the throne, it had not been asserted by any one, that they had not been completely successful; and, whatever they might think of the principle upon which those measures were founded, they could not but consider, it fortunate for the country, that they had, by success, proved beneficial to its interests. He could without difficulty, concur in the address, because he had no hesitation in giving his entire approbation to the conduct of his majesty's government. If ministers had, since the termination of the last session of parliament, performed so many essential services to the nation, if they had crowded,
54
55
56
57
58
Mr. Whitbread,
whatever might have been his disposition not to trouble the house with any observations on the present occasion, could not remain silent after the speech of the hon. gent. who had just sat down. However he might respect the talents of that hon. member, and the discernment with which he applied those talents in commenting on the eloquence of those who had preceded him, he could not agree with him in his observation, imputing a defect of sagacity to his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby), than whom no man possessed that faculty in a more eminent degree. Neither the hon. gent. with all his talents, nor all the concentrated talents of Europe, could overturn the eternal principles of justice which his right hon. friend had asserted. The hon. gent. had quoted a passage from Vattel, in justification of the expedition to Copenhagen; but this passage would not apply to the defence of a measure so cruel and unjust in its principles, and which he feared would prove so baneful in its consequences to this country. He agreed with his right hon. friend, that it was possible it might be justified, and he hoped he would follow up the notice he had given for papers to ascertain that point. The hon. member who had seconded the address, and for whom he entertained a high respect, had talked of the private morality of the nation; but he wondered that hon. gent. did not blush for the right hon. gentlemen below him, when making that observation. Had this country, which had been so long calling upon the Living God in defence of morality and social order, now at length found out that its conduct was wrong, and that Bonaparte, who had been all that time worshipping Baal, was right? By the attack upon Denmark we had gained fifteen
59
60
61
Mr. Secretary Canning
expressed some
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Lord Henry Petty
said, that whatever merit as to style, the speech ascribed to his majesty might possess, it wanted the more vulgar but more important merit of a full statement of facts. It was a singular instance to be in a state of war with a power against which there were no documents to prove an hostile act. The only reason stated for refusing information was, that those who had communicated the intelligence might be thereby injured. But, all the mischief that could be occasioned by this had been done already, for ministers had in a public Declaration stated, that they had intelligence as to the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit. It was extraordinary in those who had, about a year and a half ago, exposed the ministers of different courts to animadversion, by their communications, to be so scrupulous on this point. With regard to the expedition to Lisbon sent out by the late ministers, it was curious enough to hear it said, that it had failed, merely because its object had been attained without the violence employed against Denmark. if lord St. Vincent had proceeded as ministers had done, where would now have been their golden dream as to the Brazils? He wished for no. better parallel than the instructions which had been given to lord St. Vincent, compared with those given to lord Cathcart, and he wished the right hon. secretary would move for them. He contended that the principles of right and wrong were to be considered in politics as well as in philosophy, and on these they must reason generally till a particular case was made out. It became those, who checked petitions for peace, to take care that no opportunity of negotiation should be let slip, merely on points of form. We ought to examine with jealousy into the subsidiary connection with Sweden. He agreed in the propriety of keeping the affair of the Chesapeake distinct from other points, and. in the necessity of maintaining our essential rights; but we ought, at the same time, to guard against unnecessary irritation, and to beware of being led away by the name of vigour, so as to inflict a severe blow on our own commerce. The noble
69
Mr. Bathurst
admitted, that if it could be proved, that there were secret articles in the treaty of Tilsit hostile to this country, and his majesty had information of them, the justification of ministers would be complete. But it would be too much to take all this for granted on the bare assertion of ministers. It was singular, that while the arguments were suspended, we were called upon to come to an immediate conclusion. He contended, that all the danger that could arise from a communication of the particulars of the intelligence, had been incurred already. He was surprized that those who had examined whether Portugal could be defended against France, had not also inquired into the practicability of defending Zealand, and whether the Danes were able and disposed to defend themselves. He certainly thought that ministers were hound, in their justification, to shew a good cause, or produce some document or information which might lead the house to discover that there was good ground for the expedition to Copenhagen.
Mr. Duckett
spoke in favour of the address. If the occupation of Alexandria was justifiable, so was that of Denmark. The only difference was, not in the principle, but in the issue. The expedition to Alexandria had proved injudicious and disastrous, and that to Copenhagen wise and successful.
Mr. Windham
considered the Address, in that part which related to the Copenhagen expedition, without evidence to support the necessity of the measure, as one of the most outrageous proceedings that ever was attempted in parliament. Absolute necessity Might justify any thing; but, as far as the evidence went, the effect of it was to shew, that no such necessity existed. There were two points of view in which this question was to be considered: first, the justice of it; and, secondly; supposing the thing to be just, the policy of it. It might be, that the proof of each was the same. By sheaving the measure to be necessary, you would, at the same time, shew it to be just. But, the proofs required might be separate. There might be circumstances, which would, strictly speaking, give you a right to do what you have done, which yet
70
clear
"Then comes the reckoning, when the banquet's o'er,
The dreadful reckoning, and men smile no more."
71
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
denied that ever his majesty's ministers had said they were in possession of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit. The expression imputed to them was in his majesty's Declaration, in answer to the Manifesto of Russia, in which it was stated that it was not unknown to his majesty, that secret articles had been agreed on in that Treaty, for either obliging this country to accept an ignominious and insecure peace, or forming a confederacy of all the naval powers of Europe against England, and more especially those of Denmark and Portugal. His majesty's ministers had a communication of the substance of those Secret articles from the most unquestionable authority: and, assured as they were of the truth of that communication, they would have incurred the deepest criminality and disgrace, had they waited until an evil had actually occurred so perilous to our naval superiority and very existence itself. In his mind the best criterion of
72
Mr. Sheridan
rose and spoke as follows:—I never entered this house, sir, with so little expectation of having occasion to trespass on its attention as I did this day; and until I heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down, I never felt the least disposition to obtrude upon its notice. But, sir, I would now, while that speech is yet tingling in our ears, and fresh in our memories, call the observation of this house to the pitiful, petty-fogging, quibbling justification set up by his majesty's minister, upon a proceeding, in which the character and the renown of this country are so materially involved. Have his majesty's ministers any know ledge of the facts upon which they pretend to justify the proceedings against Copenhagen? Have they any authentic documents to spew to the house for their vindication upon a transaction so outrageous and unprecedented? No, says the right hon. gentleman, we have not the contents of the secret articles at Tilsit, but we are in possession of the substance.
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
Mr. Montague Matthew
expressed, in strong terms, his mistrust of a set of ministers, who had come into office with an avowed hostility against five million of his majesty's subjects in Ireland, and said, that he hoped in God he should not see them in their situations that day six months.—The question was then carried without a division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, January 22.
[MINUTES.] Sir F. Burdett
took the oaths and his seat.— New Writs were ordered for the boroughs of Castle Rising, Tregony, Tiverton, and Yarmouth, in the room of the hon. C. Bagot, Mr. G. Wentworth, the hon. Richard Ryder, and Mr. J.C. Jervoise; the two former of whom had accepted the Stewardship of the. Chiltern Hundreds; Mr. Ryder the place of Commissioner of the Treasury; and the latter deceased.— Renewed petitions were presented, complaining of the returns for the following places, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the days annexed: Banbury and Saltash, Feb. 2; Chippenham, Feb.; Saltash, and Horsham, Feb 9; Evesham, Feb.11; county of Sussex and Dublin University, Feb. 16; Renfrewshire and Nottingham, Feb. 18; Penrhyn, Feb. 23.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the house had derived much convenience from the limitation which it fixed last session to the time for receiving Private Petitions, and bringing in Bills thereon, as also for receiving Reports of such bills. He therefore proposed, that a similar regulation should be made in the present session. It was then ordered, that no private petition should be received after the 26th of Feb; that no bill should be
83
[THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH.]
Viscount Hamilton appeared at the bar, and presented the Report of the committee to whom the Address voted last night to his majesty was referred. Upon the motion that the said report be brought up,
Mr. Macdonald
said, that he could not suffer that last stage of the address to pass without recording his dissent from its substance. He could not express approbation of the expedition to Copenhagen, because no grounds had been laid before the house to justify it. It had been said yesterday, that the eyes of Europe were upon the British parliament, and it would be unfortunate, therefore, if its first act, by coming to a blind decision upon this question, should be such as to disgrace it. There was not time, he contended, between the Treaty of Tilsit, and the sailing of admiral Gambier, for ministers to have received intelligence of the engagements entered into at that treaty. The armaments and stores collected at Copenhagen, therefore, were not provided in consequence of such engagements. Ministers ought to produce to the house the information upon which they had acted; for if they had received it from any of our ministers at the Northern courts, those gentlemen were now in safety. He regretted that his majesty's speech had not held out any prospect of peace; and he thought it inconsistent that ministers should adhere to forms which obstructed peace, whilst they rejected all forms in their attack upon a neutral nation.
Mr. Fuller
said, he did not think it fair to attack ministers as to the expedition to Copenhagen. If the same conduct had been adopted towards the fleet of Spain, upon a former occasion, this country would not have had to fight the battle of Trafalgar, where the gallant Nelson had lost his life. He could not blame ministers for having taken the precaution which they had done, but, in his opinion, they had hardly done enough in not taking advantage of their knowledge of the Tilsit negotiations. Call him the Crown Prince, or the half-a-crown Prince, or what you would, it was certainly most absurd to say, that he and his confederates should be believed in every assertion they were pleased to make, and that not one word coming from our own government should be credited. He believed that the right
84
Mr. Hibbert
wished, that the speech and the sentiments of ministers had breathed more the spirit of peace. He would neither despond nor encourage despondency; but we ought to look at the situation of the country. The doctrine of our independance on commerce was safe and good, so far as it shewed that we had, besides commerce, an object worth defending, and the means of defence; but dangerous and to be reprobated in that house, if it taught indifference concerning the sources whence experience proved us to have derived much of our wealth and naval power. But, even the converts to these new theories ought to look with satisfaction towards peace, inasmuch as it would enable us to transfer to our rivals whatever portion we pleased of the evil of our foreign commerce.—Was it doubted, whether British commerce was suffering? The industrious inhabitants, of Yorkshire would in part answer the question. It had been observed, on very sufficient authority (Mr. Milnes), that their Petition did not originate in party spirit. Surely, it was on that account entitled to the more consideration by ministers; it was indeed the natural expression of the feelings of a laborious and loyal people, wrung from them by distress which they had endured long and patiently: shew them a sufficient cause and they will endure still more and longer. No such cause was explicitly pointed out to them in his majesty's speech. Let it be considered, too, that the war was assuming a new character of furious inveteracy, not experienced since the times of barbarism. Was it possible that any one in that house could regard with complacency the privations and the sacrifices which this new mode of warfare must inflict upon all classes of people, not in these kingdoms only, but throughout all Europe? and was it politic
85
86
Mr.M A. Taylor
should take another opportunity of stating his sentiments on the Danish Expedition, and should content himself declaring them in passing, that as an Englishman he felt disgraced by it. He had risen only to state what he knew of the proceedings in Yorkshire. He had been applied to by very respectable delegates from that county to become the chairman of their meeting, but had declined, and endeavoured to dissuade them from their purpose of petitioning for peace. He assured them, that such a proceeding would do no good, and might embarrass government in the negociation which he supposed was then carrying on. To his arguments they had replied, that they were starving, not only from the effects of the war, but of the late Orders in Council. He advised them, instead of petitioning against the war and the Orders in Council, to petition for the removal of the king's ministers. [Hear! Hear!] He repeated that he had given this advice, and he contended that there were men to be found in that house, who would conduct the affairs of the country with greater honour and more prospect of peace than the present ministers.
Mr.Eden
rose merely for the purpose of asking for an explanation from minisers upon one point in the speech, which, according to his construction of it, appeared utterly irreconcileable with truth. They had been told, that as soon as the Treaty of Tilsit had been signed, his majesty had been apprized of the design of the enemy to employ the Danish fleet
87
Mr.
Pym
observed, that it would have been proper, before ministers involved us in fresh wars, for them to consider, whether the cause of them was just. He might approve of their conduct as to the Copenhagen expedition completely, when further information was laid before the house, but, with only such facts as those that had hitherto been stated, he could not possibly acquiesce in that part of the address which implied a tacit acknowledgment of the propriety of their proceedings, and on that account he should wish, that that part of it should be left out. With regard, to the question of peace or war, it had been said, that because we had a most triumphant navy, and were at war with all the continent, this was not the hour to make peace. For his part, however, he did really believe, that this was the very Moment, above all others, when it was both our interest and our duty to try to procure it ; it being recollected, that we had been no less than 15 years engaged in an arduous warfare. He was sure that the people of this country now ardently longed for it, and he believed, too, that the inha
88
Mr.Yorke
had intended to say but a few words on the present occasion, but from the turn which the debate had taken, and the opinions which had been last night expressed concerning the negotiations at Tilsit, and particularly by his right hon. friend opposite, (Mr. Bathurst) opinions which he was surprised to hear from that quarter, he had,felt it his duty to state his sentiments on this subject. His majesty's ministers had declared, that shortly after the negotiations took place at Tilsit, his majesty had been apprised of the intention of the enemy to turn the Danish and Portuguese fleets against this country, and that then it became the first duty of his majesty, as protector of his kingdom, to prevent those navies from being employed to aid the designs of the enemy. His majesty had told them, that he had been apprized of such intentions of the enemy; and what were they to do, but, as they approved of his measures, to assure his majesty, that they participated in his regret that hostility could not be avoided, whilst they congratulated him on the success With which that hostility had been attended? It had been said, that sufficient grounds had not been stated to justify the measure; but he would ask any man acquainted with public business, whether the nature of our government was not such, that the government could not proceed if it did not often act upon grounds which could not, consistently with the interests of the country, be made public? Upon this ground he would give his confidence to government, without regard to the persons of whom it might be composed. Upon the same grounds he would have given his confidence to the late government, though it was known, that he had not been in the habit of concurring in their measures, if they had made his maj. declare in his speech, that he had sufficient grounds for the measures they might adopt. Did not every man of common sense know, that measures of war were often taken, when no information could be divulged or was even received to justify them? The difficulty of procuring intelligence in the present instance, rendered it still more necessary not to expose those sources which yet remained to us. He was conscientiously of opinion, that more inconvenience had arisen to this country, from im-
89
90
Mr. Windham
expressed a wish, that he could agree with the right hon. gent. on all the topics of his speech, as much as he did on that with which he concluded. He deprecated as much as the right hon. gent. all petitions for peace, and for the same reason, because they could do no good, and might be productive of much mischief.
91
"Now give kind dullness, memory and rhyme, We'll put off genius till another time."
92
Mr. Matthew Montague
vindicated the conduct of Ministers in withholding the information of which they professed to be in possession, upon the constitutional provision, which, by granting to the king the prerogative of declaring war, necessarily declared him the sole judge of the grounds on which he ought to go to war.
Mr. Wm. Smith
after touching lightly on the Copenhagen business, commended the conduct of the noble lord who was member for Yorkshire, in discountenancing petitions for peace. He would have acted in the same manner if a petition had been proposed in the city he had the honour to represent, though the interests of the inhabitants of that city suffered as much as the interests of any other part of the community, by the continuance of the war. This he would do, in the confidence that
93
Mr. Secretary Canning
in answer to a question put by an hon. gent. over the way (Mr. Eden) admitted, that though lord Gambier had sailed from the Downs on the 26th of July, ministers had not received the intelligence of the signing, of the Treaty of Tilsit before the 8th of Aug following. Ministers had not said that they had in their possession any one secret article of the Treaty of Tilsit, but that the substance of such secret articles had been confidentially communicated to his majesty's government, and that such communication had been made a long time previous to the date alluded to by the hon. gent.: as to the inference attempted to be drawn from the advanced state of preparation in which the armament was placed prior to the Treaty of Tilsit, it was notorious, that that armament was then equipping for an entirely distinct object, till the secret intelligence had been received, which made it the duty of ministers to employ that armament in the service in which it had been so successfully engaged.
Mr. Whitbread
was sure that the words of the Declaration against Russia went to rest the justification of the expedition to Copenhagen on the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit, though his hon. friend had clearly made out a gross anachronism in attributing the expedition, that set out on the 26th of July, to the effect of a treaty that was not known in this country till the 8th day of the subsequent month. But the right hon. secretary had now confessed that ministers had not in their possession the secret articles, but that they had the substance of those articles. Here he would ask one question, why not state that substance to the house and to the country? for the argument under which ministers tried last night to entrench themselves, namely, that the very fact of communication would disclose the source of it, could not at all apply now; for there was no necessity to give this substance to the house with any reference whatever to the source from whence they had derived it; they could easily state that substance generally, without any mark of designation. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke), had thrown out a doctrine on the topic of public and
94
we
95
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, January 25.
[MINUTES.]
Lord Stopford reported to the house, that his majesty, having been attended with their Address of Friday last, was pleased to receive the same very graciously, and to give the following Answer: "Gentlemen; I return you my most cordial thanks for this dutiful Address. The just sense you entertain of the measures which the extraordinary and critical state of affairs compelled me to adopt for averting from my kingdom the great and additional dangers with which it was threatened, gives me great satisfaction, and is a fresh proof of your loyal determination to support the honour of my crown, and the rights and essential interests of my people."—The following Election Petitions were presented, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the days respectively annexed: Great Grimsby, Thursday, Feb. 23; Downpatrick, Feb. 25; Newcastle under Line, March 1; Great Yarmouth, March 1; Grampound, March 3; Stirling, March 24; Wexford, two petitions, March 8; New Malton, March 8; Malmsbury, March 10.—Mr. Sheridan gave notice, that he should on Monday se'nnight move for a committee to inquire into the State of Ireland. He said, he did not bring on this measure with any party views or party feelings, nor with any intention whatever to embarrass his majesty's ministers: neither was it his object, that the committee should take into their consideration any thing respecting the grievances suffered by the people of Ireland on account of religious distinctions, or, in other words, the Catholic Claims, as he understood that question was in other hands. The propositions he had to bring forward he, therefore, hoped would meet the unanimous concurrence of that house. If however, in consequence of the absence of several members belonging to that part of the united kingdom, who might wish to declare their sentiments upon the subject, it might be thought adviseable to postpone his notice, he should have no objection to do so.—Mr. Horner rose to postpone his motion respecting the granting of Licences to persons engaged in foreign trade, until Thursday. Mr. Rose begged to ask the object of the hon. gent.'s motion. Mr. Horner replied, that his object was to ascertain to what extent the practice of granting Licences by the privy council to persons engaged in foreign trade had
96
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] Mr. Bankes
having previously moved, "That the entry in the Journal of the house of the 10th of August, in the last session of parliament, of the Address agreed to by this house to be presented to his majesty, requesting that his majesty would be graciously pleased not to grant any Office, Place, Employment, or Salary, in any part of his majesty's dominions, in reversion, or for joint lives, with benefit of survivorship, until six weeks after the commencement of the present session of parliament," might be read, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill, to prevent the granting of Offices in Reversion. He said, that towards the close of the last session, he had had the honour of proposing to the house a measure of this nature, which then received the unanimous sanction of the whole house; and it was therefore unnecessary for him to take up their time in making observations upon the necessity of such a measure, as he was confident the house had no reason to depart from that resolution; and he trusted, that no obstacles would be thrown in the way of that which, in the strictest sense, was the bill of that house. Unless some unanswerable reasons could be brought forward, he hoped the house would maintain the work of their own hands. It might have been sufficient for him to put the house in possession of the subject, merely recommending it to them to persevere in what they had already considered a useful measure; but lest there should be any suspicion that it was intended by this measure to encroach upon the prerogative of the crown, he wished to show that it did not in any manner trench upon that prerogative. What was sought, was not to restrain the power of the crown in the appointment of persons to lucrative offices, but merely to suspend such appointment till a vacancy should occur, in order that an opportunity might be given of appointing the fittest person, as it was a well known
97
Mr. W. Dundas
felt himself called upon to state his distinct opposition to the measure proposed. It was not the custom of parliament to pass in a subsequent session what it had agreed to as a matter of course in a preceding session. The discretion of every member remained open to correct itself on reflection. Much less was it to be regarded as a matter of course that the house was bound to agree in every respect, and to coincide in every recommendation of the committees it appointed. Every thing was to be considered and reconsidered as often as it came before the house, upon the fair view of the arguments that should appear for and against it. He opposed the present measure on the broad ground of its invading the inherent prerogative of the crown, not merely by suspending, but by taking away and destroying its right of granting certain offices according to established usage. He did not think there was much solidity in the argument, that grants in reversion were liable to be exercised in favour of improper persons. The advisers of the crown were always responsible for any impropriety of
98
Mr. Whitbread
could not suffer the observations of the right hon. gent. who had just spoken, to pass without animadverting upon them. The single reason which the right hon. gent. had advanced for his opposition to this measure was, that it encroached upon the prerogative of the crown; but he considered it one of the peculiar privileges of that house to watch over the prerogative of the crown, and to curb and moderate it, where it appeared to overreach that power which was vested in it; but the right hon. gent. was certainly right in voting against this bill, for if he was not very much mistaken, that right hon. gent. was himself in possession of an office granted to him in reversion. It was the peculiar duty of that house, by the address which was voted in the last session of parliament, to take this measure into their most serious consideration. The proposed measure did not go to take away from the crown the power of appointing persons to offices of emolument, but merely to suspend the power of appointment to places which had been improperly exercised. In many instances, appointments were granted to persons while they were mere infants, and wholly incapable of executing the functions of them. This, then, was certainly an improper use of the prerogative. He believed the right hon. chancellor of the exchequer himself was an instance of this, having been appointed to a lucrative office while a minor; nay, even while he was an infant. The same place was now held in reversion by the right hon. gent.'s brother, a member of the upper house (lord Arden); and that grant was certainly made when
99
Sir John Newport
thought it his duty to state a particular instance in which the reform of an office recommended by the committee of inquiry, in Ireland, could not be carried into effect, in consequence of its being granted in reversion. The office he alluded to was that of customer of the port of Dublin. It had been granted in reversion three deep. Two of the three had died while the reform was in agitation; but the right of the third barred the reform.
Mr. Horner
rose for the purpose of repelling the aspersions which had been thrown upon the memory of one of the proudest ornaments of this or any other country, by the inconsiderate observations of the right hon. gent. The hon. gent. denied that the latter part of Mr. Burke's life went in any way to invalidate or contradict the sincerity of his earlier efforts. Those who were honoured with that great man's friendship, or those who were acquainted with his very last work, knew that he took honour and credit to himself for having pursued such measures as tended to every species of economical reform; they knew that, to the latest hour of his splendid career, he was as zealous and as sincere an enemy to rapine and public malversation as he was in the most vigorous period of his memorable life.—He thought this measure the more valuable, not because it bore upon the prerogative of the crown, but because it was a measure of reform; and that perhaps, was the very reason of the right hon. gent.'s opposition to it.—The bill was to be respected, because it came from a committee appointed by the house to consider the means of reducing the public expenditure, and because it was the first step recommended by the committee for the attain-
100
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, January 26.
[MINUTES.] Petitions, complaining of undue returns, were presented from the following places, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the days annexed: Poole, Feb. 2; Maldon, March 15; Beverley, March 15.
[PAPERS RELATING TO THE NEGOTIATION WITH AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA.] Mr. Secretary Canning
presented to the house, by his majesty's command, the Papers relative to the Negotiation with Austria and Russia, of which the following are copies:
PAPERS RELATIVE TO AUSTRIA.
No I.—Note from the Count de Starhemberg to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated London, April 18, 1807.
His majesty the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary and Bohemia, having resolved upon offering to the principal powers interested in the present war, his amicable mediation, in order by his intervention to bring on a negotiation for peace, the count de Starhemberg, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has received orders to transmit to the ministry of his Briton-nick majesty, the accompanying Note, containing the offer of mediation which his imperial and royal majesty has caused to be presented in the same manner, and at the same time, to the cabinets of Petersburgh and of the Thuilleries, as well as to that of Berlin. In acquitting himself of this commission, the undersigned requests his excellency Mr. Canning will have the goodness to lay this offer of mediation of his imperial majesty before the king of Eng-
101
(Note referred to in Number 1.)
The emperor Francis II. could not behold, without the deepest concern, the rupture which took place last autumn, between his majesty the emperor of the French, king of Italy, and his majesty the king of Prussia; and he was shortly afterwards still more painfully affected, by the extension of hostilities over a considerable part of Europe. If by observing a strict and scrupulous impartiality from the very commencement of the war, his imperial and royal apostolic majesty has had the satisfaction to maintain his system of neutrality in circumstances so critical, and to preserve his people from the ravages of war, he did not enter the less fully into the miseries which were multiplied around his states; and in his just solicitude for the tranquillity and the security of his monarchy, he could not but be sensible to the continually renewed alarms upon his frontiers, or to the fatal effects which they inevitably produced in various branches of his interior administration. The emperor, uniformly animated with the same dispositions, has had no other view from the commencement, and during the course of hostilities, than to endeavour to bring about a reconciliation, and to avail himself of every proper opportunity to put an end to the calamities of war. He judged he could not better effect this desirable result than by constantly impressing the belligerent powers with his sentiments of moderation and of conciliation, and in giving his whole attention towards producing in them a similar disposition. The reception which his first overtures to this effect have obtained, appears to announce that the moment of so desirable a reconciliation is not far distant. In the confidence inspired by so consolatory a prospect, the general welfare and the interest of his own dominions call upon his imperial majesty to offer to the belligerent powers his friendly intervention; and in consequence of this, he does not hesitate to make to his Britannick majesty, the offer of his mediation, and of his good offices.—But, in considering how very complicated and extensive the present war is become, the emperor would think that he had but imperfectly expressed his fer-
102
LOUIS COUNT DE STARHEMBERG.
No. II.—Note from Mr. Secretary Canning to the count de Starhemberg, dated April 25, 1807.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has laid before the king his master, the note delivered to him by the count de Starhemberg, envoy extraordinary, and minister plenipotentiary of his imperial majesty the
103
(Official Note, referred to in No. 2.)
His majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, has received, with a just sense of the consideration which is due to every communication from his imperial majesty the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary and Bohemia, and of the motives by which, on this occasion, his imperial majesty has been actuated, the offer of his imperial majesty to become the mediator of a general peace.—The king, who has never ceased to consider a secure and durable peace as the only object of the war, in which his majesty is engaged, and who has never refused to listen to any suggestions which appeared likely to conduce to the attainment of that object, cannot hesitate to declare his entire concurrence in the opinion expressed by the emperor and king, that a peace of such a description is only to be attained through negotiations which shall be common to all the powers principally engaged in the war.—To such negotiations, whenever the consent of the other powers interested in them shall be obtained, the king will willingly accede; and his majesty will lose no time in communicating with such of those powers as are connected with him by the bonds of amity and confidential intercourse, for the purpose of ascertaining their views; and if those views shall be favourable to his imperial majesty's proposal, of concerting with them the mode in which such negotiations should be opened, and of agreeing upon the principles which (according to the suggestion
104
No. III.—Note from the prince de Starhemberg to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Nov. 20, 1807.
The undersigned has the honour to inform his excellency Mr. Canning, secretary of state for the department of foreign affairs, that he has received positive orders from his court, to make to the British ministry the most earnest representations on the importance of putting an end to the struggle which still exists between England and France; and the effects of which may produce to the rest of Europe the most fatal consequences. His majesty the emperor and king, animated by a constant desire to effect the restoration of repose and tranquillity, does not hesitate to request officially and earnestly his Britannick majesty to declare his intentions on this point in evincing to him his disposition to enter into a negotiation for a maritime peace upon a basis suitable to time reciprocal interests of the powers who may take a part in it.—The cabinet of St. James's has explained itself too often respecting its desire for the re-establishment of peace, for the undersigned not to flatter himself that he shall now obtain the formal assurance wished for by his court, which will completely prove to all the nations of Europe, the sincerity of the pacifick views of England.—The undersigned, &c. LOUIS PRINCE DE STARHEMBERG.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has laid before the king his master the official note presented by the prince de Starhemberg, envoy extraordinary and minister ple-
105
The undersigned, obeying the orders of his court, in conforming to the desire of that of the Thuilleries, has the honour to inform his excellency the secretary of state for the foreign department, that, in consequence of the pacifick dispositions of his Britannick majesty, announced in the answer returned on the 23d of November last, to his official note of the 20th of the same month, he is charged to propose to the English ministry to send immediately
106
LOUIS PRINCE DE STARHEMBERG.
No. VI.—Note from Mr. Secretary Canning to the prince de Starhemberg, dated Jan. 8, 1808.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has laid before the king his master, the note delivered to him the second of this month by the prince de Starhemberg, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of his majesty the emperor of Austria.—In stating himself to be charged to propose to the British government the immediate sending of plenipotentiaries to Paris, the prince de Starhemberg has omitted to explain from whom he has received that commission, whether from his imperial master or from the government of France.—If the prince de Starhemberg has, in this instance, acted under the specific and immediate orders of his court, and if the proposal to his majesty to send plenipotentiaries to Paris is to be considered as originating at Vienna, the undersigned is commanded to express his majesty's concern that so little reference should appear to have been had, in framing the proposal now offered for his majesty's consideration, to the correspondence which has already taken place between the courts of London and Vienna, upon the subject of
107
108
109
No. VII.—Note from the prince de Starhemberg to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated London, Jan. 12, 1808, Received the 13th.
The undersigned has the honour to inform his excellency the secretary of state for the foreign department, that in consequence of orders from his court, the present circumstances oblige him to demand passports for himself and all the individuals of the Austrian mission at London. The undersigned purposes to make use of them as soon as he shall have received from the French government the passports which he demanded by the messenger whom he dispatched yesterday. The undersigned, &c.
LOUIS PRINCE DE STARHEMBERG.
No. VIII.—Letter from Mr. Secretary Canning to the prince de Starhemberg, dated Jan. 13, 1808.
Sir, Having received information that Mr. Adair has actually quitted Vienna, in consequence of an intimation from the Austrian government; I have the honour of requesting that you will have the goodness to acquaint me what is the latest date, at which you have reason to believe that Mr. Adair was still at Vienna. I have, &c. GEORGE CANNING.
No. 9.—Note from the prince de Starhemberg to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated London, Jan. 13, 1808.
In answer to the note which the undersigned has just received from his excellency the secretary of state, he has the honour to inform his excellency, that the last dispatches which he has received from his court, were of the 30th of October, and that no mention was made in them of the departure of Mr. Adair. The undersigned &c. LOUIS, PRINCE DE STARHEMBERG.
No. X.—Note from Mr. Secretary Canning to the prince de Starhemberg, dated Jan. 13, 1808.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has the honour to inclose to the prince de Starhemberg, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from his majesty the emperor of Austria, the passports which he has demanded for himself and for the Austrian mission at this court; having it at the same time in command from the king his master, to express his majesty's deep regret, that the circumstances of the time, and the orders of his court, should have imposed on the prince de Starhemberg the necessity of demanding them.—The undersigned &c. GEORGE CANNING.
110
PAPERS RELATIVE TO RUSSIA.
No. I.—Note from General Budberg to his excellency lord Granville Leveson Gower, dated June, 1807.
My Lord, Accept my best thanks for the promptitude with which you had the goodness to transmit to me the dispatches which I have received, together with your excellency's letter of the 11th (23rd) instant. The reports which your lordship mentions are well founded. On the 9th (21st) instant, an armistice was concluded, which was yesterday ratified by both parties. The two armies remain nearly in the same positions, and hostilities will not recommence until a month after the denunciation of the armistice. Sensible that is of the utmost importance to you to transmit this intelligence as speedily as possible to your court, I lose not an instant in re-dispatching the messenger whom your excellency has sent to me.—In respect, my lord, to the interview which you request of me, it would give me great pleasure to comply with your wishes if it were possible for me to foresee at what place the emperor will stay even for a few days; but as we are still upon our journey, I must wait for the first opportunity of taking his imperial majesty's commands, in order to invite you to rejoin me, where I may then be.—I have the honour to be, &c. A. DE BUDBERG.
No. II—Note from his excellency lard Granville Leveson Gower, to general Budberg, dated Memel, 16th (28th) June 1807.
General,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of the intelligence of the armistice which was signed on the 21st of this month, and although I implicitly confide in your excellency's assurances, I cannot pass over in silence the prospect of a solid and permanent peace, which, from the tenour of your publick letter to the governor of Riga, your excellency appears to believe will be the result of that measure.—The reciprocal engagements between the courts of London and St. Petersburgh, the known principles and the firmness of his imperial majesty, the verbal assurances of the emperor which I have just transmitted to the king my master, were so many pledges, that it is not now a question (according to public rumour) to negotiate for a separate peace, but for a general one; and whatever doubts I may have entertained on this subject, your excellency's letter to general Buxhovden has completely done away. The just and enlightened
111
No. III.—Note from general Budberg to his excellency lord Granville Leveson Gower, dated Tilsit, 13th (30th) June 1807.
Sir, and Ambassador, I have received the letter which your excellency did me the honour of addressing to me yesterday; and, having laid it before the emperor, my august master, I hasten to transmit to you the answer which his imperial majesty has commanded me to return to it.—The firmness and perseverance with which his majesty during eight months maintained and defended a cause which he had reason to suppose common to all sovereigns, are the most certain pledges of the intentions which animated him, as well as of the loyalty and purity of his principles.— Never would his imperial majesty have thought of deviating from that system which he has hitherto pursued, if he had been supported by a real assistance on the part of his allies.—But having, from the separation of Austria and of England, found himself reduced to his own forces, having to combat with the forces of France united to the immense means of which she has the disposal, and in the critical position at which affairs had arrived, his majesty
112
113
No. IV.—Note from M. Alopeus to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated London, 20th July (1st August) 1807.
The undersigned, minister plenipotentiary from his majesty the emperor of all the Russias to his Britannick majesty, has received the orders of his court to notify to the British ministry, that a treaty of peace was concluded at Tilsit on the 25th June (7th July) between Russia and France.—His imperial majesty of all the Russias, having on this occasion, proposed his mediation, for the purpose of negotiating and concluding likewise a treaty of peace between England and France, and the emperor Napoleon having, by the 13th article of the afore-mentioned treaty of peace, accepted that mediation, the object of the present note is to offer it in like manner to his majesty the king of Great Britain.—Long since acquainted with the pacifick sentiments of his Britannick majesty, the emperor of all the Russias flatters himself the more, that he will embrace this opportunity of restoring peace to all nations, and of insuring repose to the present generation; since that, in many conversations winch his imperial majesty has held with the emperor of the French, he has had reason to be convinced, that he is sincerely desirous of the re-establishment of a maritime peace, upon equitable and honourable principles.—The emperor of all the Russias not only offers his interposition for the attainment of so desirable a result; but he would even be ready to promise the support of all the forces of his empire, for insuring the performance of
114
No. V.—Note from Mr. Secretary Canning to M. Alopeus, dated 5th August 1807.
The undersigned, his Britannick majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, has lost no time in laying before the king his master the official note presented to him by M. Alopeus, minister plenipotentiary of his majesty the emperor of all the Russias; in which M. Alopeus, by order of his court, notifies to the British government the conclusion at Tilsit, on the 25th June (7th July) of a treaty of peace between Russia and France, and announces at the same time, the offer of the mediation of his imperial majesty, for the conclusion of a treaty of peace between Great Britain and France, and the acceptance of that offer by the French government.—The undersigned has it in command from the king his master to declare, that the emperor of Russia does justice to the sentiments of the king, when his imperial majesty expresses his reliance on the king's disposition to contribute to the restoration of a general peace, such as may ensure the repose of Europe. Ample proofs of that disposition have recently been afforded by his majesty, as well in the answer returned, in his majesty's name, to the offer of the mediation of the emperor of Austria, as in the willingness expressed by his majesty to accede to the convention concluded at Barteniein, on the 23d of April, between the emperor of Russia and the king of Prussia, and in the instructions which the undersigned transmitted by his majesty's command, upon the first intelligence of the late disastrous events in Poland, to his majesty's ambassador at the court of St. Petersburgh, by which instructions that ambassador was directed to signify to the ministers of the emperor of Russia, his majesty's perfect readiness to
115
DECLARATION OF THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH DENMARK, DATED SEPT. 25, 1807.
His majesty owes to himself and to Europe a frank exposition of the motives which have dictated his late measures in the Baltick. His majesty has delayed this exposition only in the hope of that more amicable arrangement with the court of Denmark, which it was his majesty's first wish and endeavour to obtain; for which he was ready to make great efforts and great sacrifices; and of which he never lost sight even in the moment of the most decisive hostility. Deeply as the disappointment of this hope has been felt by his majesty, he has the consolation of reflecting that no exertion was left untried on his part to produce a different result. And while he laments the cruel necessity which has obliged him to have recourśe to acts of hostility against a nation, with which it was his majesty's most earnest desire to have established the relations of common interest and alliance; his majesty feels confident that, in the eyes of Europe and of the world, the justification of his conduct will
116
117
118
DECLARATION OF THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN AGAINST RUSSIA, DATED DECEMBER 18, 1807.
The declaration issued at St.Petersburgh by his majesty the emperor of all the Russias, has excited in his majesty's mind the strongest sensations of astonishment and regret.—His majesty was not unaware of the nature of those secret engagements which had been imposed upon Russia in the conferences of Tilsit. But his majesty had entertained the hope, that a review of the transactions of that unfortunate negotiation, and a just estimate of its effects upon the glory of the Russian name, and upon the interests of the Russian empire, would have induced his imperial majesty to extricate himself from the embarrassment of those new counsels and connections which he had adopted in a moment of despondency and alarm; and to return to a policy more congenial to the principles, which he has so invariably professed, and more conducive to the honour of his crown, and to the prosperity of his dominions.—
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Mr. Whitbread
inquired, whether it was the intention of his majesty's ministers to submit to the house any proposition, founded upon the above Papers?
Mr. Secretary Canning
replied, that he was not aware of any such intention.
Mr. Whitbread
then gave notice, that after a sufficient time had elapsed to give the members an opportunity of duly investigating the contests of these Papers, he should move some proposition, which would bring the house directly to the point of the propriety, at the present time, of entering into a negotiation with France.
[RUSSIAN MEDIATION.] Mr. Ponsonby
wished to know whether his majesty's ministers had any objections to the immediate production of the proposition made by this country, for the Mediation of Russia, between Great Britain and Denmark, and of the Answer made thereto.
Mr. Secretary Canning
replied, that unquestionably his majesty's ministers
126
Mr. Ponsonby
expressed his wish to shape his motion, so as to attain the object he desired. The right hon. gent. must certainly be better informed on the subject than he was; but he confessed he could not understand how any proposition could be made to the court of Petersburgh, without official instructions to our ambassador. The answer, too, must be official, and assuredly all these papers might be forth coming.—After some further conversation, it was agreed to draw up a motion in concert, which was done, as follows: "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this house, Copies or Extracts of such parts of the Correspondence between his majesty's secretary of state and his majesty's minister at the court of St. Petersburgh, as relate to the request, on the part of his majesty, of his imperial majesty's Mediation for the Restoration of Peace between his majesty and the crown of Denmark."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
ORDERS IN COUNCIL,
PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND, JAN. 26, 1808.
ORDER in Council; prohibiting Trade to be carried on between Port and Port of Countries under the dominion or usurped controul of France and her Allies.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 7th of January 1807; Present, The King's most excellent Majesty in council.—Whereas the French government has
127
128
ORDER in Council; approving Draught of an additional Instruction to the Commanders of His Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers, directing that Neutral Vessels, laden with Cargoes consisting of the Articles therein enumerated, coming for importation to any Port of the United Kingdom (provided they shall not be coming from any Port in a state of strict and rigorous Blockade), shall not be interrupted; and that in case any such Articles shall be brought for Adjudication before the High Court of Admiralty, or any Court of Vice Admiralty, the same shall be forthwith liberated, upon a Claim being given by or on behalf of the Merchant or Merchants to whom such Articles shall be coming for Importation.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 4th of Feb. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council. —Whereas there was this day read at the Board, the annexed Draught of an Additional Instruction to the commanders of his majesty's ships of war and privateers, directing that they do not interrupt Neutral Vessels laden with Cargoes consisting of the Articles therein after enumerated, coming for importation to any port of the united kingdom (provided they are not coming from any port in a state of strict and rigorous Blockade); and in case any such vessel, so coming with such articles, shall be brought for adjudication before the high court of admiralty, or any court of vice admiralty, that the same shall be forthwith liberated, upon a claim being given by or on behalf of the merchant or merchants to whom such Articles are coming for Importation: his majesty taking the said Draught of Additional Instruction into consideration, was pleased, with the advice of his privy council, to approve thereof; and to order, as it is hereby ordered, That the right hon. earl Spencer, one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, do cause the said Instruction to be prepared for his majesty's royal signature. (Signed) W. FAWKNER.
129
Our will and pleasure is, That you do not interrupt Neutral Vessels laden with cargoes consisting of the Articles hereinafter enumerated, coming for Importation any port of our united kingdom (provided they are not coming from any port in a state of strict and rigorous blockade); and in case any such vessel so coining with such Articles, shall be brought for adjudication before our high court of admiralty, or any court of vice admiralty, we hereby direct that the same shall be forthwith liberated, upon a claim being given by or on behalf of the merchant or merchants to whom such Articles are coming for Importation
Enumeration of Articles.
Grain, viz. corn, meal, and flour, (if importable according to the provisions of the corn laws);. rice, Spanish wool, Mohair yarn, madder and madder roots, smalts, shumack, argol, galls, cream of tartar, safflower, valone, brimstone, Spanish wine, indigo, saffron, verdigrease, cochineal, orchella. weed, cork, olive oil, fruit, ashes, juniper berries, barilla; organzined, thrown, and raw silk (not being of the production of the East Indies or China); quicksilver, bullion coined and uncoined; goat, kid, and lamb skins; rags, oak bark, flax, seeds, oil of turpentine, pitch, hemp, timber, fir, oak, oak plank, masts and yards.
ORDER in Council; approving Draught of Additional instructions directing that the Ships and Goods belonging to the Inhabitants of Hamburgh, Bremen, and other places and countries in the north of Germany, which Vessels and Goods shall be engaged in the Trade to or from the Ports of the United Kingdom, shall, until further Order, be suffered to pass free and unmolested, &c,
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 18th of Feb. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas there was this day read at the board the annexed draught of Additional instructions to the commanders of ships of war and privateers, and to the judge of the high court of admiralty, and the judges of the courts of vice-admiralty, directing, that the ships and goods belonging to the Inhabitants of Hamburgh, Bremen, and other places and countries in the north of Germany, which vessels and goods shall
130
(Signed) W. FAWKENER. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS to the Commanders of Ships of War and Privateers, to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and the Judges of the courts of Vice Admiralty. Given, &c.
Our will and pleasure is, That the ships and goods belonging to the inhabitants of Hamburgh, Bremen, and other places and countries in the north of Germany, which vessels and goods shall be employed in a trade to or from the ports of our united kingdom, shall, until further order, be suffered to pass free and unmolested, notwithstanding that the said countries are or may be in the possession or under the controul of France and her allies; and all such ships and goods so trading which may have been already detained, shall be forthwith liberated and restored.
ORDER in Council; directing, that all Vessel's under the flag of Mecklenburgh, Oldenburgh, Papenburgh, or Kniphausen, shall be forthwith warned not to trade in future at any hostile Port, unless such vessels shall be going from or coming to a Port of the United Kingdom, &c.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 19th of August 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—His majesty, taking into consideration the measures recently resorted to by the enemy for distressing the commerce of the united kingdom, is pleased, by and with advice of his privy council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, That all Vessels under the flag of Mecklenburgh, Oldenburgh, Papenburgh, or Kniphausen, shall be forthwith warned not to trade in future at any hostile port, unless such vessels shall be
131
ORDER in Council; containing certain Regulations under which the Trade to and from the enemies Country shall be carried on.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 11th Nov. 1807: present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas articles of the growth and manufacture of foreign countries cannot by law be imported into this country, except in British ships, or in ships belonging to the countries of which such articles are the growth and manufacture, without an Order in council specially authorizing the same:—His majesty, taking into consideration the Order of this day's date, respecting the trade to be carried on to and from the ports of the enemy, and deeming it expedient that any vessel, belonging to any country in alliance or at amity with his majesty, may be permitted to import into this country articles of the produce or manufacture of countries at war with his majesty:—His majesty, by and with the advice of his privy council, is therefore pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered, That all goods, wares, or merchandizes, specified and included in the schedule of an act, passed in the 43rd year of his present majesty's reign, intituled, "an act to repeal the duties of customs payable in Great Britain, and to grant other duties in lieu thereof," may be imported from any port or place belonging to any state not at amity with his majesty, in ships belonging to any state at amity with his majesty, subject to the payment of such duties, and liable to such drawbacks, as are now esta-
132
133
ORDER in Council; declaring the future Sale and Transfer of enemies Vessels to the Subjects of a Neutral Country, to be invalid.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 11th Nov. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas the sale of ships by a belligerent to a neutral, is considered by France to be illegal:—And whereas a great part of the shipping of France and her allies has been protected from capture during the present hostilities by transfers, or pretended transfers, to neutrals:—And whereas it is fully justifiable to adopt the same rule, in this respect, towards the enemy, which is applied by the enemy to this country:—His majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of his privy council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, That in future the sale to a neutral of any vessel belonging to his majesty's enemies shall not be deemed to be legal, nor in any manner to transfer the property, nor to alter the character of such vessel: and all vessels now belonging, or which shall hereafter belong to any enemy of his majesty, notwithstanding any sale or pretended sale to a neutral, after a reasonable time shall have elapsed for receiving information of this his majesty's Order at the place where such sale or pretended sale was effected, shall be captured and brought in, and shall be adjudged as lawful prize to the captors.—And the right hon. the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury, his majesty's principal secretaries of state, the lords commissioners of the admiralty, and the judges of the high court of admiralty and courts of vice admiralty, are to take the necessary measures herein, as to them shall respectively appertain. (Signed) W. FAWKENER.
134
ORDER in Council; declaring the Dominions of his Majesty's Enemies, and of Countries under their Controul, in a state of Blockade, under the Exceptions specified in the said Order.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 11th Nov. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas certain Orders, establishing an unprecedented system of warfare against this kingdom, and aimed especially at the destruction of its commerce and resources, were some time since issued by the government of France, by which "the British islands were declared to be in a state of blockade," thereby subjecting to capture and condemnation all vessels, with their cargoes, which should continue to trade with his majesty's dominions:—And whereas by the same Orders, "all trading in English merchandize is prohibited; and every article of merchandize belonging to England, or coming from her colonies, or of her manufacture, is declared lawful prize:"—And whereas the nations in alliance with France, and under her controul, were required to give, and have given, and do give, effect to such Orders:—And whereas his majesty's Order of the 7th of January last, has not answered the desired purpose, either of compelling the enemy to recall those Orders, or of inducing neutral nations to interpose, with effect, to obtain their revocation; but, on the contrary, the same have been recently enforced with increased rigour:—And whereas his majesty, under these circumstances, finds himself compelled to take further measures for asserting and vindicating his just rights, and for supporting that maritime power which the exertions and valour of his people have, under the blessing of Providence, enabled him to establish and maintain; and the maintenance of which is not more essential to the safety and prosperity of his majesty's dominions, than it is to the protection of such states as still retain their independence, and to the general intercourse and happiness of mankind:—His majesty is therefore pleased, by and with the advice of his privy council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, That all the ports and places of France and her allies, or of any other country at war with his majesty, and all other ports or places in Europe, from which, although not at war with his majesty, the British flag is excluded, and all ports or places in the colonies belonging to his majesty's enemies, shall from henceforth
135
136
137
ORDER in Council; approving Draught of Instructions to the Commanders of his Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers, &c. to act in due conformity to and execution of the Order in Council of the 11th of November, declaring the Dominions of his Majesty's Enemies, and of Countries under their Controul, in a state of Blockade.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 18th Nov. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas there was this day read at the Board, the annexed Draught of Instructions to the Commanders of all ships of war and privateers, and to the judge of the high court of admiralty, and the judges of the courts of vice admiralty, strictly charging and
138
DRAUGHT of Instructions to the Commanders of his Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers, and to the judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and Judges of the Courts of Vice Admiralty. Given, &c.
Whereas by our Order in Council of the 11th Nov. instant, it is recited and ordered as follows; to wit, &c. [Here the said Order is recited, as in p. 134.] Our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby direct, by and with the advice of our privy council, that the commanders of our ships of war and privateers do act in due conformity to and execution of our aforesaid Order in Council: and we do further order and declare, That nothing in the said Order shall extend or be construed to extend to prevent any vessel, not belonging to a country declared to be under the restrictions of blockade as aforesaid, from carrying from any port or place of the country to which such vessel belongs, any articles of manufacture or produce whatever, not being enemies property, to any port or place in this kingdom.—And we do further direct, That all articles of British manufacture, upon due proof thereof, (not being naval or military stores) shall be restored by our courts of admiralty or vice admiralty, on whatever voyage they may have been captured, to whomsoever the same shall appear to belong: and we do further direct, with respect to vessels subject only to be warned, that any vessel which shall belong to any country not declared by the said Order to be under the restrictions of blockade, and which shall be proceeding on her voyage direct to some port or place of the country to which such vessel belongs, shall be permitted to proceed on her said voyage; and any vessel bound to any port in Ame-
139
ORDER in Council; approving Draught of Additional Instructions to the Commanders of Ships of War and Privateers, &c. for protecting Goods going from and coming to any Port of the United Kingdom, to whomsoever the Property may appear to belong.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 25th Nov. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas there was this day read at the Board, the annexed Draught of Additional Instructions to the commanders of all ships of war and privateers, and to the judge of the high court of admiralty, and the judges of the courts of vice admiralty, for protecting goods going from and coming to any port of the united kingdom, to whomsoever the property may appear to belong: his majesty, taking the said Draught of Instruction into consideration, was pleased, with the advice of his privy council, to approve
140
DRAUGHT of an Additional Instruction to the Commanders of Our Ships of War and Privateers, and to the Judge of Our High Court of Admiralty, and the Judges of Our Courts of Vice Admiralty. Given, &c.
Our will and pleasure is, that vessels belonging to any state nor at war with us, laden with cargoes in any ports of the united kingdom, and clearing out according to law, shall not be interrupted or molested in proceeding to any port in Europe (except ports specially notified to be in a state of strict and rigorous blockade before our order of the 11th Nov. instant) or which shall hereafter be so notified, to whomsoever the goods laden on board such vessels may appear to belong: and we do further direct, that vessels belonging as aforesaid, coming from any port in Europe (except as before excepted) direct to any port of the united kingdom with goods for importation, shall not be interrupted in the said voyages, to whomsoever the goods laden on board the said vessels may appear to belong: and in case any vessel which shall be met with, and asserted by her master to be so coming, shall be detained, on suspicion of not being really destined to this kingdom, such vessel shall be brought to the most convenient port in the course of her asserted destination, and the captors are hereby required to enquire, with all convenient speed, into the alledged destination; and in case any vessel and goods so brought in and detained shall be proceeded against in our high court of admiralty, or in any courts of vice admiralty, we hereby direct that the same shall be forthwith restored, upon satisfactory proof being made that the cargo was coming for importation to a port of this kingdom.
ORDER in Council; appointing Times at which Notice shall be presumed to have been received of the Order of the 11th instant at the different places specified in the said Order.
At the Court at the Queen's Palace, the 25th Nov. 1807; present, the King's most excellent Majesty in Council.—Whereas it has been represented that it would be expedient to fix certain periods, at which
141
142
(Signed) W. FAWKENER.
ORDER in Council; establishing certain Regulations, as to Vessels clearing out from this Kingdom, with reference to the Order of the 11th of November instant.
143
144
145
146
147
(Signed) W. FAWKENER.
ORDER in Council; respecting Enemies Produce and Manufacture on board British Ships.
148
(Signed) W. FAWKENER.
ORDER in Council; declaring that his Majesty's Orders of the 11th of Nov. shall not extend to permit the Produce of enemies Colonies in the West Indies to be brought direct to any British Port in Europe.
(Signed) WM. FAWKENER.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, January 27.
[CURATES' SUSPENSION BILL]
The Bishop of
Oxford
149
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it was not his intention to oppose the principle of the bill proposed by the right rev. prelate. He wished to remind him of the peculiar way in which the house stood, with respect to this act of Suspension. At the close of the last session it was sent up from the house of commons, merely as a measure of temporary relief to the persons supposed to be aggrieved. It was then recommended to pass the present act, confining its operation to 40 days after the commencement of the next session of parliament. In that situation the house stood, as to the present bill, and he was only anxious to ascertain, whether the principle of the measure, and of the relief sought, would better be discussed upon the second reading of the bill, proposed by the right rev. prelate, or upon any new question to be brought forward on the expiration of the 40 days?
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought it highly proper that the fullest time should be given to the persons standing in the unfortunate predicament which the act of the last session went to relieve.
The Duke of Norfolk
expressed his inclination rather to support a farther suspension for 40 days, than that the persons seeking relief should be surprised by any premature hurrying of the present bill.—The bill was then read a first time.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL] Lord Hawkesbury
laid upon the table the various Orders in Council with respect to the new commercial regulations, which, during the recess, his majesty's ministers had judged it proper to advise his majesty to put in
150
Lord Auckland
declared himself in no ordinary degree anxious to learn from his majesty's ministers, their intentions with respect to the very serious and unprecedented importance of these Orders. He wished first to ascertain, whether it was their intention to make any motion, or institute any proceeding, tending to explain to that house, and to the public, the meaning and object of the measures determined by these Orders to be pursued? He felt solicitous to obtain this preliminary information, before he made a motion for some other documents, in his opinion, necessarily connected with the full explanation of these Orders in Council. It was impossible for him, or any man, when they contemplated the nature of the innovation made by these documents on the political and commercial interests of this country, and of the whole world, not to wish to hear from their framers the fullest, most perspicuous, and most speedy explanation of their meaning, import, object, and presumed effect. In seeking that explanation, any wish to embarrass his majesty's government was most foreign from his mind. He had given this subject a great deal of attention, he had bestowed much time on it, and called to his assistance persons experienced in the knowledge of that department to which these Orders referred, yet he professed to God, that he was still totally unable to ascertain their nature or drift, much less to divine the remotest possibility of interest or advantage likely to accrue to this country from their adoption. Notwithstanding the unintelligible mariner in which these Orders appeared to him, he was still unable to suppress great and powerful feelings of alarm. He shuddered at the state of policy upon which this country was proceeding to act. Neither could he hide from his contemplation the danger of that precipice, to the verge of which it was so lamentably and so rapidly advancing. What was the ultimate object of the new commercial code, seemingly established by the joint consent of the governments of France and Great Britain? It was mutual destruction. It resembled the efforts of a set of persons, whose chief object was to starve each other, and who, to obtain their respective gratification, were all pursuing the means of insuring the inevitable starvation of themselves. Such conduct could only be compared to the insanity or
151
Lord Hawkesbury
assured his noble friend, that it was the wish of his majesty's
152
Lord Holland
thought, that though there was no official copy of the French Decree, yet that there might be some document received officially, from the minister of a neutral power containing, art explanation given by the French govern-
153
Earl Bathurst
said, there was no official communication upon this subject. He denied that the Orders in Council would have the effect inferred by the noble lord (Auckland), or had any such tendency.
Lord Grenville
said, that what had been urged by the noble earl was an additional reason why further information should be laid before the house. He was not wholly unversed in such subject, but with all the attention he could give them, he could not thoroughly understand their meaning or object. It could not be supposed that it was the object of those who framed them totally to destroy the commerce of this country, and yet, on reading over the Orders it would be difficult to discover that any other effect could be produced from them than the total destruction of that commerce. Were they to understand that, with a subject of this immense magnitude before them, they were to wait for three or four weeks until they received their lesson from the other house, before they obtained any further information, and before ministers explained to that house what their intentions and views were in advising the issuing of such orders? Were they to understand that ministers, after advising Orders in Council, which were a violation of the law of the land; after giving advice to the crown, which no ministers had ventured to give since the reign of James II.; when that monarch was advised that he had a power to dispense with the laws of the country; after doing what was a gross and flagrant violation of the law of nations, and of the municipal law; were they to understand that ministers did not intend to come to parliament for indemnity, or to explain the motives and reasons of their conduct? He thought that not an instant should be lost in obtaining full information and coming to the discussion of the measure.
Lord Hawkesbury
said, that there might have been, in some instances, connected with the Orders in Council, a literal violation of law, but the Orders themselves in their great object and views, were neither a violation of the law of nations, nor the municipal law of the land. As to any question of indemnity, if any should be thought necessary, the reasons for asking it would be stated at the time of proposing it. It was, however, competent to any
154
Lord Holland
thought the noble lord had treated very lightly the idea of a violation of the law. He repeated his question with respect to the existence of any document of the nature he before alluded to, observing that it was understood some explanation of the French decree had been given to general Armstrong, the American minister at Paris.—No answer being given,
Lord Grenville
urged the same question, and asked whether it was to be understood that ministers refused to give any information upon this point?
Lord Hawkesbury
said, that no official communication had been received in the shape alluded to by the noble lord.—The intended motion of lord Auckland, for papers, was then withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, January 27.
[MINUTES.] Several Election petitions were presented, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the following days respectively: Saltash, on the right, and Saltash double return, on the same days as former petitions of a similar description from that borough. Bridgewater, March 17. Westminster, March 22. Christchurch; and Dungarvan, March 20. Newry, March 31.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord H. Petty rose
to put a question to the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. That right hon. gent. had fixed a day for referring the Orders in Council presented yesterday to the committee of ways and means, but he had not stated on what day he proposed to move for leave to bring in the bill of Indemnity, which he had stated his intention to bring forward for certain acts done by ministers under these Orders in Council. It was desirable that the house should be apprised of the day on which this question would be brought forward, because, whenever it should be under discussion, the house would have to consider it in two points of view; first, whether the immediate necessity was such as to intitle his majesty's ministers to the indemnity they claimed, and, in the event of its being so considered, whether that necessity was sufficient to cover all the violations of law committed by them, in and under the Orders in. Council?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did
155
Lord H. Petty
apologized to the, right hon. gent. for not having more distinctly put his question. He however did learn from the explanation given by that right hon. gent. that it was not his intention to move for an act of Indemnity to cover the illegality of any of the Orders in Council.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
again repeated, that he had never stated any intention to bring in a bill of Indemnity for the Orders in Council, because they
156
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, January, 28.
[VOTE OF THANKS—EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] Lord Hawkesbury
said, he rose in pursuance of notice, to move a Vote of Thanks to the Officers employed in the expedition to Copenhagen, and in doing so he thought it would be only necessary to detain their lordships for a short time. This motion, he would premise, had no relation to the policy of that attack, it merely related to the execution of the service upon which that expedition was sent; and, were that expedition as unjust and unnecessary, as he thought it just and necessary, or as impolitic and unwise, as he thought it politic and wise, still he would contend that that would be no ground of opposition to a Vote of Thanks to those who had so ably and skilfully executed the services which that expedition required. In this case, he would put out of consideration the policy of the expedition, and confine himself to the manner in which its purpose had been carried into effect. The object of that expedition was undoubtedly of great magnitude and importance; that object was obtained by the skill and ability of the officers employed. The circumstances attending it were shortly these: In April last a large force was ordered to be prepared for the general purposes of the war, a part of which was subsequently sent to co-operate with the troops in Swedish Pomerania. When his majesty's government afterwards received intelligence of the circumstances attending the Treaty of Tilset, it was deemed adviseable to send a large force to Copenhagen, for the purpose of securing the Danish fleet, and preventing it from being used against this country. This force was got ready and sailed with the utmost promptitude, with a minister on board to negociate with the Danish court, and thereby prevent, if possible, the painful necessity of resorting to arms.
157
158
Lord Holland
rose to perform, what he felt to be a most painful duty, for painful certainly it was to him to refuse his assent to a motion of the nature of that made by the noble secretary of state. But as a member of that house he thought it incumbent on him to support its dignity, and not to allow the highest honour it could confer on distinguished merit, to become a matter of course, and to sink into a mere compliment. These were his grounds for his opposition to the motion, and he did not imagine that any man would think so meanly of him as to suppose that his vote on such an occasion could be prompted by any personal dislike to the officers in whose favour the motion had been made. Far was any such feeling from his breast; what acquaintance he had with these noble officers was, indeed, but slender, but it was enough to fill him with esteem for their private character and professional merits. He perfectly agreed with the noble secretary in the propriety of separating the merits of the present motion from the question of the political principles upon which the expedition had been undertaken, and he would endeavour to observe that distinction. What he should offer was on the nature of the service itself, and on the claim it had to the distinction which it was proposed to bestow upon it. The noble secretary of state had dwelt much on the importance of the service, and on the skill, judgment, and promptitude, with which it was performed. As to the importance of the expedition, another opportunity would occur to deliver his opinion of it; but, in the circumstances that attended the execution of it, he could see nothing that was entitled to the honour of the thanks of that house. Granting that service was important; granting that it had been performed with the utmost ability, yet these circumstances alone were not of a nature to challenge and justify so high a distinction. Where, was the danger, where the difficulties that were to be encountered and overcome in the performance of that service? Had it in it any of those brilliant traits that excite admiration and command respect? Had it in it any thing that redounded to the glory of the country, or to render its
159
The Earl of Moira
said, that it was with great regret he felt himself under the necessity of differing from his noble friend. He approved of the manner in which the noble secretary had introduced the motion. Nothing could have been more improper than to have connected it with the political expediency of the attack upon Copenhagen. It would have been highly improper, if the troops employed on any occasion should exercise their judgment as to the propriety of the object. The troops which were sent to Copenhagen went there, under the impression that they
160
Lord Auckland,
although no man more deprecated the deviation of this country from the sanctioned principles of moral and national justice, was still willing to give his vote of approbation for the energy, promptitude, zeal, and humanity, with which the officers who commanded, had executed that sad and melancholy service.
The Earl of Mulgrave
contended, that the manner in which the service was executed amply deserved the thanks of parliament. With respect to thanks not being voted to lord Hood, for obtaining possession of Toulon and the French fleet in that harbour, there was in that instance no opportunity for the display of naval or military skill, the town having been delivered up to that noble lord whilst he was blockading the port, by one of the contending factions in that place which had obtained the ascendancy. He could not admit that valour alone was a ground for voting the thanks of parliament; were that the case, not a week would pass over his head in the situation which he had the honour to hold, but he should have to call for the thanks of parliament for exploits of the greatest bravery. It was, he contended, the eminent display of skill and science, combined with the magnitude and importance of the object, that more peculiarly deserved that high honour. In the attack upon Copenhagen skill and science had eminently been displayed in the dispositions made for the attainment of the desired object. The noble lord (Holland) seemed to think it possible, that he might have been induced to consent to a vote of thanks to the army, but objected to one to the navy. He could not, however, see upon what ground any such distinction could be made. The most skilful dispositions were made by lord Gambier in the distribution of the fleet under his command; that part of it entrusted to rear-admiral Keats, was extended for 200 miles, and had for its object to cut off the communication between
161
Earl Grey (late lord Howick)
rose and addressed the house for the first time. He observed, that no one felt more strongly than he did the propriety of abstaining from any discussion of the general measure on this occasion. Nothing could be more unbecoming a man than to mix any party feelings with the question. The manner in which the debate had been conducted afforded an example, that it was possible to discuss a subject arising out of a great political question, without introducing invidious or personal observation. He rose for the purpose rather of expressing his approbation of the principles laid down by his noble friend (lord Holland), than in the hope of adding any thing to the arguments by which they were supported. They, as his arguments in general were, were unanswerable. To the conduct of the expedition, or to the merits of the officers employed, he had nothing to object. They had done all was expected or required of them, and they would have done more if more had been required. What he, as well as his noble friend, contended for was, that the object of the expedition to the Baltic was neither of sufficient magnitude, nor attended with sufficient difficulty, to entitle those engaged in it to the thanks of that house. He could by no means accede to the principle laid down by the noble secretary of state, that the magnitude of an object was of itself sufficient grounds for the approbation of parliament. Suppose a Russian fleet, greater than that of Denmark, in a British port, and that orders were sent down to the port admiral to take possession of it, was he to receive the thanks of parlia-
162
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, January 28.
[AMERICAN TREATY BILL.] Mr. Rose
moved the order of the day, for going
163
Mr. Eden
regarded this motion with pleasure, so far as it went to prove a disposition to conciliate and maintain good will and amity with the American States; and it gave him still farther satisfaction, inasmuch as it seemed to indicate a hope on the part of his majesty's ministers, that the existing differences would be reconciled and done away. He was however, surprised, under the circumstances now existing in America, to find the provisions of the act of 1797, made to carry into effect the Treaty of commerce and amity with the United States, now proposed for renewal, without any reserve or modification. If the right hon. gent. would look to the preamble of the act, he would find that it was framed on the principle of a reciprocal freedom of commerce between the two countries. But now, when the non-importation act was renewed by the American legislature in all its strictness, and when an embargo was laid in the American ports, was it a time for Great Britain to renew without reserve, all the indulgences of the periods of most amicable relation. The act now in existence had five weeks of its period still to run; was it not proper to pause, at least for a part of that time, in order to ascertain whether the arrival of our envoy extraordinary in America, and the arrival of the intelligence, that must have nearly at the same time been received, of the unjust proceedings of France, might not, on more mature consideration, have taught the American government to adopt a more wise and moderate system of conduct? If the embargo should be taken off, and the Non-importation act repealed, his objections would no longer exist. But if the American government should be so unreasonable as to overlook the outrages of France, and to require from us concessions beyond all reason, a very different course would become us. Another reason why he was averse to the renewal of the act, was the refusal of the American government to ratify the treaty concluded last year. Many of the provisions of the act were incorporated in that treaty, and when the American government refused to accept them in the shape of a national covenant, why should we grant them, without any reciprocal consideration, in the shape of an act of parliament?
Mr. Rose
said, the object of the mea-
164
[VOTE OF THANKS.—EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] Lord Castlereagh
rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the house to the late services of his maty's army and navy in the Baltic. Whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the political character of the Expedition in this house, he flattered himself that
165
166
167
168
169
170
Mr. Windham,
notwithstanding the distinction taken by the noble lord, felt himself under the disagreeable necessity of opposing the present motion; and if such had been his opinion before, certainly nothing that had been said by the noble lord could have the effect of altering his determination. It was unpleasant to object to a motion of this kind, because the party principally interested was brought before the house by no fault of its own. It was unpleasant to object to what was asked in their name, though not by them. It was unpleasant also, because there was an idea that where praise was withheld there was an intention to cast blame. Certainly, here there was no room for any such construction as that, for he subscribed most heartily and chearfully to all that had been said of the meritorious conduct of the army and navy in all that had been done; they had done all that men ought to do. The moderation and temper with which they had conducted themselves, served to mitigate the harshness of the enterprise on which they were employed. It was certainly right to keep the merits of the army and navy distinct from the merits or demerits of ministers; and to separate the consideration of the orders from that of the execution. But it was not so easy to separate and keep distinct the nature and character of the service. The nature of the service was always one of the indispensable rules by which public gratitude was measured. In all military annals, there were instances of as great personal merit in the minutest actions, as in operations on the largest scale; in single ships, in luggers and schooners, in packets even, as there was lately a brilliant example, above all, in actions of boats. In all these cases there was as much courage, as much zeal, as much heroism, as much true contempt of
171
172
173
174
175
176
Mr. Brand
declined entering at all upon the merits of the service, in which that part of the army and navy had been employed, to which it was proposed to vote the thanks of the house, but he deprecated the coming to a resolution, which would preclude the house from afterwards coming to a decision upon the policy of the expedition. One of the grounds on which the expedition was justified, was the alleged weakness of Denmark to defend herself had she been attacked by France, and he conceived, that it would be altogether inconsistent to pass a vote of thanks for a service which derived its principal importance from the degree of resistance which those employed in it had to encounter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the motion now before the house, would by no means have the effect pre-
177
178
Mr. Tierney
said, the only distinct ground which had been stated, which he could understand, was, that our army and navy had been sent on a most painful duty, and had conducted themselves with all possible moderation. He was not at all inclined to dispute this statement; but he did not think this was exactly that sort of merit which was to be rewarded by peerages, and the highest honours which the state had to bestow. Was it supposed that
179
180
181
l
182
List of the Minority.
Brand, T.
Matthew, M.
Burdett, sir F.
Martin, H.
Combe, H. C.
Ossulston, lord.
Creevey, T.
Parnell, H.
Folkestone, lord.
Pierce, H.
Honeywood, W.
Smith, W.
Hibbert, G.
Smith, J.
Hurst, R.
Sharp, R.
Horner, F.
Tracey, H.
Howard, W.
183
184
[COMMITTEE OF FINANCE.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, to move for a revival of the Committee of Finance. It was not necessary, he said, for him to trespass at any length upon the attention of the house, by detailing the advantages the country and the public service had derived from the arduous labours of that committee since its first appointment: or the great savings and valuable regulations which had been effected in various departments and branches of the public service, from their suggestions. He particularly instanced in the department of the army, the Pay-office; and he had the satisfaction to add, that government had been fortunate in an opportunity of committing the duty of carrying those regulations into effect, to the gentleman who originally suggested them, and under whose care he was confident they would be rendered efficient to the public service. He had also to state to the house, that in consequence of the suggestions of the committee, an application had been made to the Bank of England, under the exigencies of the country, for the aid of a loan, free of interest, to the public; and he must do justice to the directors by declaring that the Bank of England, with its wonted liberality, had most chearfully acceded. He should conclude by moving for the revival of the said committee proposing no alteration of the names which composed the list of last year, save only the omission of Mr. Richard Rider, not now a member of the. house, in whose stead he should propose to insert the name of Mr. Charles Ellis.—He then moved accordingly, and the motion passed without opposition.
185
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, January 29.
[COMMERCIAL LICENCES.]
rose, pursuant to his notice, and said, that it would not be necessary for him to detain the house at any length, as the object of his motion could be stated in a very few words. He felt it, however, in the first place, necessary to observe, that it was not his intention, in making the motion he was about to make, to anticipate, in any respect, the discussion that might hereafter arise upon the legality or policy of the Orders in Council; his object was merely to put the house in possession of such information as might enable them to form an adequate judgment of the extent to which a practice unquestionably within the act and in its origin, legal, had been carried; whether with regard to safe conduct, or the commercial intercourse in transports conveying foreign commodities from one country to another. He was aware that never was there a period in which it was more hazardous to attempt to trade without those licences than the present, and that, by consequence, never was there a time in which the granting of licences by the privy council was carried to such a serious extent; but he contended, that this very consideration was the strongest argument why it was necessary for the legislature of the country to ascertain its limits, and, if that was not possible, to prescribe such as both the principles of commercial policy and constitutional law, rendered necessary. When it was considered how largely the field of licences was opened by the present extensive, almost universal, system of blockade, the present would not be thought an unseasonable opportunity for ascertaining the extent of the persons to which the grant of those licences was entrusted. He had said that this unrestrained power was injurious upon two considerations; first upon that of commercial policy; and, secondly, upon that of constitutional law; with regard to the first, there could be no doubt it was not politic to throw into the hands of his majesty's executive government the entire controul of the commercial intercourse of the country: upon such an uncertain principle, commercial men could not be expected to engage in any speculation, because there was no one uniform ground upon which to claim such licences, nor was there any recognized principle by which the. persons exempted
186
Mr. Rose
said that there could be but one wish on the part of his majesty's ministers, with respect to the principle of the motion now before the house. The hon. gent. had prefaced his motion with a speech that
187
Mr. Horner
begged pardon for interrupting the right hon. gent. but he thought he could save the house and the right hon. gent. much unnecessary trouble, by stating that the wording of the present motion, as far as related to the list of licences, specifying each, was a mistake to be attributed to his inadvertency; as his intention was to have moved rather for the number of licences so granted, which would as fully answer the ultimate object of his motion. It was then agreed upon, that the papers to be laid before the house should be an account of the number of licences so granted, &c.
Mr. Rose
could not avoid pressing upon the consideration of the hon. gent. the propriety of another alteration in the wording of his motion. The distinction that was attempted to be laid down as to what orders were legal or illegal, would be necessarily productive of delay, if not difficulty. Perhaps it was not going too far to say, that all such orders were in a manner illegal; but yet, if such were not allowed, and to a certain extent, it would be impossible in such times to carry on a foreign trade at all. But even admitting this, he would yet say, that when the hon. gent. had complained of such licences, as being unconstitutional, he should have adverted to the circumstance of an act having been passed in the 43d of the king, authorising such grants of licences. As an illustration of the difficulty arising out of this distinction of legality or he would adduce art instance of 300 licences being granted within a certain period of time. Now, according to the present wording of the motion, those 300 could not be laid before the house till they had been submitted to the revision of the privy council, and till the privy council had decided which were in their opinion legal or illegal. He wished, therefore, to obvi-
188
Mr. Horner
replied to the general observations of the right hot. gent. as affecting the distinction of the legality or illegality of the licences, and denied that the 43d of the king, as cited by the right hon. gent. applied, because the object of that act related merely to a temporary suspension of the navigation act.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
defended the necessity of this discretionary power being vested in the privy council, and said that the object of all such orders was to ease the subject under the operation of the strict letter of the law. He took this opportunity of repeating his doubts of the propriety or necessity of asking parliament for an indemnity, with respect to the orders in council, in as much as it did not appear that in this instance more had been done than had been done before, and in a manner legalized by the act already al-
189
[NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The house resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Wharton in the chair. On the motion of Mr. R. Ward, the following resolutions were agreed to, viz. 1. "That the number of 130,000 men should be employed for the sea service of the present year, including 14,000 royal marines. 2. That a sum not exceeding 3,126,5001. be granted to his majesty for the wages of the above men for 13 months, at the rate 11. 17s. per man per month. 3. That a sum not exceeding 3,211,003l. be granted to his majesty for victualling the above men for 13 months, at the rate of 1l. 18s. per man per month. 4. That a sum not exceeding 5,070,000l. be granted to his majesty, for the wear and tear of the Navy, for 13 months, at the late of 3l. per man per month. 5. That a sum not exceeding 521,500l. be granted to his majesty for defraying the charges of Ordnance for sea service, for 13 months at the rate of 7s. per man per north." In answer to a question from Mr. Tierney, whether any diminution was made in the Navy Estimates, in consideration of the stores brought from Copenhagen, it was stated by Mr.
190
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 1.
[MINUTES.]
Viscount Carthcart was introduced by lords Wentworth and Lake. His patent of creation having been read at the table, his lordship took the oaths and his seat. The Lord Chancellor communicated the thanks of the house severally to viscount Carthcart and lord Gambier, each noble lord standing in his place whilst the thanks were delivered. Viscount Cathcart and lord Gambier severally addressed the house, expressing their thanks for the high honour conferred upon them, and speaking in the warmest terms of approbation of the ability, skill, discipline, and valour displayed by the Army and Navy employed in the Expedition to Copenhagen.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 1.
[VOTE OF THANKS—EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.]
The Speaker acquainted the house, that he had received from admiral the right hon. lord Gambier, the following Letter, in return to the Thanks of the house, signified to him, in obedience to their commands of Thursday last:
191
192
Finch
Grosvenor
Arthur Wellesley
193
Home Pohanm
194
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.]
The Offices in Reversion bill was read a third time. On the motion that it do pass,
Sir Samuel Romilly
expressed his regret, that the bill had reached this stage without the house knowing what was the opinion of his majesty's ministers, as to its merits. He supposed, that they were not hostile to it because they had not opposed it, but it was of no small importance for the house to know, whether it had their support or riot. He remembered, that on a former occasion when a bill similar to the present had been brought into parliament, a right hon. gent. had said, that in his opinion it was a matter of very great indifference, whether it passed or not, that on the one hand it was no invasion of the king's prerogative, and that on the other little practical good could result from it. He was of a good opinion from that right hon. gent. for he thought, that if no practical good could be derived from it, the bill ought not to pass, but he was convinced that much good would result from it, and therefore it had his hearty support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he did not know what right his honourable and learned friend had to call upon him, or any of his colleagues, to give his or their sentiments on the present occasion. He had never seen any reason to expect much benefit from the passing of this bill, however much some persons might think it would be productive of advantages. It had come originally recommended by a committee, as being calculated to diminish the public expenditure; and, therefore, it appeared to him not to be a subject that ought to meet with opposition. As it had passed this house formerly, and had afterwards been thrown out in another place, rather by surprise, he thought it but reasonable to allow it to be restored to a similar stage with the former one. These were the motives that induced him to vote
195
PAPERS RELATING TO RUSSIA,
PRESENTED BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, FEBRUARY 1, 1808.
No. I.—Dispatch from the right hon. lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated St. Petersburg, Sept. 2d, 1807.—Received Sept. 19th.
Sir: I have the honour to inform you, that on Saturday evening, 29th August, I received by sir Stephen Shairp, who left the fleet off Copenhagen upon the 24th of August, your dispatches, Nos. 32 and 33, and on Sunday the messenger Ruff delivered to me those from No. 26 to 31 inclusive.—Being thus completely put in possession of the sentiments of his majesty's government upon all the points which could come into discussion between this country and Great Britain, I lost no time in requesting a conference with general Budberg, who, though extremely unwell, invited me to call upon him last night.—I began the conference by observing that his excellency being already apprised by the answer given by his majesty's secretary of state, to M. Alopeus, of the conditional acceptance by the court of London, of the proferred mediation of Russia, I had to state to him, that I was instructed in the first instance to request the communication of the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit, and a frank disclosure of the general views and intentions of the court of St. Petersburgh. That impartiality was the first requisite in the character of a mediator, and that before the British government agreed to avail itself of the mediation of this court, it was essentially necessary that England should be placed, with regard to the mediating power, on an equal footing with France; that the confidential intercourse which had taken place between the emperor and Bonaparte at Tilsit, and by which his imperial majesty became acquainted with the principles upon which the French government proposed negociating with the court of London, had naturally excited an uneasiness in England, which could only be removed by an unreserved communication; that I could nut conceal from him, that
196
197
GRANVILLE LEVESON GOWER.
No. II—Extract of a dispatch from the right hon. lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Saint Petersburgh, Sept. 2, 1807.—Received Sept. 19th.
I had the satisfaction of finding last night, that a considerable change had taken place in the tone and temper of general Budberg's conversation. Instead of that coldness and reserve which characterised the
198
No. III.—Extract of a dispatch from the right hon. lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated St. Petersburgh, 2d Sept. 1807.—Received Sept. 19th.
As general Budberg carefully avoided every allusion to the late transactions at Copenhagen, during the interview which took place between us on Tuesday, I was somewhat surprised on the following morning to receive the note of which I have the honour to enclose a copy. In my answer, also inclosed, I have endeavoured to follow closely those among the reasons stated in your dispatches, which I conceive likely to prove the least offensive to this government, reserving other arguments for my first future conference with the minister.
(First inclosure referred to in No. 3.)
His majesty the emperor has just learned with the utmost surprise by accounts from his minister at Copenhagen, as well as by a dispatch from his Danish majesty's minister at this court, that Mr. Jackson, his Britannick majesty's Plenipotentiary, has made propositions as derogatery to as incompatible with the dignity of every independent power, and that, upon the refusal of the prince royal of Denmark to accede to a pretension so extraordinary, the English fleet has taken a posi-
199
(Signed) A. DE BUDBERG. (Second Inclosure, referred to in No. 3.) St. Petersburgh, 21st August (2d September) 1807.
Agreeably to the desire of his excellency general Budberg, the undersigned, ambassador of his Britannic majesty, losses no time in communicating to the Russian government the motives which led to the steps taken by the king's minister at the court of Denmark, and to the subsequent operations of the British forces against the island of Zealand.—The British ministry had been a long time in possession of positive data which left no doubt as to the intentions of the French government respecting the maritime means of Denmark; and the projects against England from that quarter, which were matured by the continental peace, certainly cannot have escaped the penetration of his majesty the emperor of Russia. The Danish fleet destined to cover a descent on the British coasts being therefore an object essential for the accomplishment of the views of France, the king found himself under the necessity of securing himself from so imminent a danger, by those precautions which were adopted with regret, however indispensable for the security of his empire. The ties of relationship which unite the two courts of London and of Copenhagen would have inspired the king with the desire of. avoiding such a painful extremity, and of respecting, as far as depended upon himself, the interests of Denmark; but his duty called equally for measures adapted to ward off danger which threatened not only the welfare of his people but the existence of his crown. The undersigned, having thus frankly replied to general Budberg's note, will with pleasure furnish a more detailed verbal explanation, should his excellency desire it; and he avails himself of the opportunity to repeat the assurances of his high
200
No. IV.—Extract of a dispatch from Mr. Secretary Canning to the right hon. lord Granville Leveson Gower, dated September 27th 1807.
Sir Robert Wilson arrived here on Saturday the 19th with your excellency's dispatches of the 2d instant, which I have laid before the king.—Whatever may have been the motives or the causes of the change which your excellency represents to have taken place in the tone of the Russian councils, or whatever may he the probability of the continuance of the system now apparently adopted; his majesty hails with the most sincere satisfaction the return of those sentiments of friendship and confidence on the part of his august ally, from which his majesty on his part has never deviated, and the cultivation of which is more than ever necessary for their common interests.—Your excellency will lose no opportunity of expressing these sentiments to his imperial majesty and his minister.—For forbearance and moderation which your excellency has been all along instructed to employ in all your remonstrances with respect to transactions in which the personal character of his imperial majesty was so immediately concerned, and the reliance which you have not failed to express on the returning sense of what was due to his majesty's long experienced friendship and fidelity, accord perfectly with the language which you are now instructed to use, and make the whole of his majesty's conduct towards his imperial majesty uniform and consistent. And your excellency cannot too constants y impress upon the Russian minister the topic which you have so judiciously employed in your late conferences, that in the present state of the world, retrospect and recrimination are worse than useless; and that the establishment of future good understanding and the concert of measures to be taken with a view to future exertion, are alone the proper subjects of discussion between the two governments.—Your excellency did perfectly right in declining to consider the communication of general Budberg as sufficiently satisfactory to authorise your acceptance, on the part of his majesty, of the mediation of the emperor of Russia.—The points upon which the question of this acceptance turns, are, 1st, The frank communication of the articles of the Treaty of Tilsit, secret as well
201
202
203
No. V.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Secretary Canning to the Right Honourable Lord Granville Leveson Gower, dated Sept. 28, 1807.
Foreign Office, Sept. 28, 1807.
His majesty entirely approves of the answer returned by your excellency to
204
205
206
No. VI.—Extract of a Dispatch from the Right Honourable Lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated St. Petersburgh, Sept. 19, 1807. Received Oct. 7.
I have the honour to inform you, that on Tuesday last general Budberg gave up the portfeuille of the foreign affairs to count Soltykoff. I took an early opportunity after this notification of seeing count Soltykoff, and recapitulated to him what had passed in my last conference with general Budberg; I reminded him the promise made by his predecessor to bring under the immediate consideration of the emperor the points upon which I had been instructed to obtain an answer from this court, before I could signify the acceptance of his majesty to the proposed offer of mediation. I observed that the tardiness of this government upon this subject ill accorded with the anxiety expressed by his imperial majesty for the conclusion of peace between England and France. Count Soltykoff answered that he would on the following day take the emperor's orders with respect to the communication of the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit; that without seeing his imperial majesty he could take upon himself to say that the Russian government was Well disposed to enter into a negotiation upon the treaty of commerce; and he repeated what I had heard before from general Budberg, that the Projet de Traite transmitted by M. Alopeus must in the
207
No. VII.—Extract of a Dispatch from the Right Honourable Lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Saint Petersburgh, 9 Sept, 1807. Received Oct. 7.
My last dispatches to you had scarcely left Petersburgh, when I received information that the emperor had named count Romanzow, minister for foreign affairs. This appointment was officially made known three days afterwards to the corps diplomatique by a circular note. I thought it my duty to lose no time in seeing count Romanzow; and the state of suspence in which I have been so long kept with respect to the negotiation of the renewal of the treaty of commerce, justified me in requesting an immediate conference with the new minister. After the usual compliments upon his appointment, I expressed to him the regret I felt at the extraordinary reserve of his court towards that of London, and my extreme disappointment at the refusal which had been signified to me by count Soltykoff to communicate to me the secret arrangements concluded at Tilsit. I observed that this refusal made it impossible for the king my master to avail himself of his imperial majesty's offer of mediation; for how, said I, could it be expected that his majesty would accept the mediation of a sovereign, between.whom and Bonaparte there was every appearance of intimate union and secret understanding, and from
208
209
No. VIII.—Dispatch from the Right Hon. Lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated St. Petersburgh, 19th Sept. (Oct. 1.)1807.—Received Oct. 28th.
Sir, I had the honour, by the last messenger, to inform you of my having communicated to count Romanzow a copy of the capitulation of Copenhagen, accompanied by a short note, in which I expressed my hope that this capitulation might be followed by the re-establishment of Peace between Great Britain and Denmark. Six days after I received the enclosed note from the Russian minister. The pretensions set forth in this paper, and the tone in which they are urged, appear to me to be of a nature to call for an immediate answer. In my reply (of which I enclose a copy) I endeavoured to satisfy the Russian minister that his majesty's government had, in the communications which I had been authorized to make, shewn every reasonable mark of respect and consideration for his imperial majesty, notwithstanding his change of system and principles; but I thought it no less necessary to let the Russian minister clearly understand, that his majesty was not to be frightened out of the pursuit of such measures as he might judge expedient for the security of his empire, by any indirect menace or intimation of the displeasure of the emperor of Russia. At the same time that I sent this answer, I requested a conference with count Romanzow, with the view of extracting from him some explanation of the expression, "que l' empereur se doit à luimême comme aux interêts de son empire de ne pas s'y montrer insensible." Two days and a half passed without any notice being taken of this request of a conference. renewed my demand; when on the following day count Romanzow wrote that he intended passing two days at Gatschina, the palace of the empress mother, but that on his return on Wednesday he would receive me. I accordingly called upon him this day. Upon my entrance
210
211
GRANVILLE LEVESON GOWER.
(First inclosure referred to in No. 8.)
The undersigned has had the honour to lay before the emperor, the note and the copy of the capitulation of Copenhagen, transmitted to him by his excellency lord G. L. Gower. His imperial majesty has viewed with infinite concern all the misfortunes which have overwhelmed a monarch, to whom he is attached by the ties of blood, and of those of a long friendship. When the British ministry conceived the design of despoiling Denmark of her fleet: when they dispatched for that purpose to the Baltic, a numerous land force and a considerable fleet: they gave no intimation of it to his imperial majesty. This silence, this extreme reserve, may serve as a proof, that the cabinet of St. James's were themselves persuaded, that what they were undertaking was directly contrary to the interests of Russia. So in fact it is, and the emperor owes it two himself, and to the interests of his empire, not to shew himself insensible to it. His majesty considers himself as guarantee of the security and of the tranquillity of the Baltic Sea; at what period have the tranquillity and the security of that sea been so molested as in this instance? The undersigned, having apprized his Britannic majesty's ambassador of the sentiments of the emperor his master, avails himself of this opportunity, &c. (Signed) COUNT NICHOLAS DR. ROMANZOFF. St. Petersburgh, Sept. 1, 1807.
(Second inclosure, referred to in No. 8.)
The undersigned, his Britannic majesty's ambassador, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of yesterday's date, which the count de Romanzoff addressed to him. He will lose no time in transmitting it to his court, but the charges which it contains against the British government, impose on the undersigned the duty of requesting his excellency to submit without delay to his imperial majesty some observations, which may place in their true light the reciprocal proceedings
212
No. IX.—Extract of a Dispatch from Lord Granville Leveson Gower, to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated St. Petersburgh, October 29th, 1807.
Sir Robert Wilson arrived here on Saturday the 17th, and delivered to me your dispatches. The emperor having returned from the inspection of his army in Poland, only on Thursday last, and count Romanzow having for some days previous to that time been waiting at Gatschina the arrival of his imperial majesty, it was not till Saturday night that I succeeded in obtaining a conference with the Russian minister. My reports of the change of minis-
213
214
No. X.—Extract of a Dispatch from the Right Honourable Lord Granville Leveson Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Saint Petersburgh, Oct. 29.—Received Nov. 28th.
I have the honour to inclose a copy of an official note, which, in consequence of the instructions contained in your dispatch of the 27th Sept. I immediately addressed to count Romanzow, upon the question of the proffered mediation of Russia. It is now nearly ten days since I sent it, and have as yet received no answer.
(Inclosure referred to in No. 10.)
Notwithstanding his excellency the minister for foreign affairs has anounced his imperial majesty's determination not to make any confidential communication of the secret articles contained in the treaty of peace between Russia and France, a determination which the Russian minister has been apprised must render fruitless the offer of mediation proposed by the court of St. Petersburgh, the undersigned, his Britannic majesty's ambassador, cannot nevertheless entirely abandon his solicitations without requesting his excellency count Romanzow to furnish him with a statement of the reasons which may have produced this reserve. His excellency will see moreover, that discussion in which the destinies of so many nations are involved, and which have had for their
215
No. XI.—Extract of a Dispatch from the Honourable Lord Granville Leveson Gower, to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Saint Petersburgh, Nov. 4th, 1807.—Received Dec. 2.
St. Petersburgh, Nov. 4, 1807.
On Saturday morning, the. 31st ultimo, no notice having been taken by count Romanzow, either of my note of the 23d, or of my verbal overtures respecting Denmark, I requested of his excellency an early conference. On Monday I wrote a second, note to the Russian minister, in which I expressed my regret at being under the necessity of reminding him that I had two days before requested a conference. I yesterday afternoon received an answer, in which he informs me, that he is by order of the emperor going to Gatschina, and that he cannot, till his return to St. Petersburgh, mention the time when he can receive me. This detail of the difficulties I have experienced in obtaining him interview with count Romanzow will, I trust, acquit me in the opinion of his majesty of any dilatoriness in the execution of your instructions. I confess than I am at a loss to find any satisfactory explanation of this wish to avoid communication with me. I have been informed that some members of the council, who have been consulted in the present very critical state of affairs, had advised the emperor not to reject the present opportunity of re-establishing the tranquillity of the North of Europe; that their opinion has been adopted; and that a note has been written to general Savary, with a view of engaging the French government to con-
216
No. XII—Extract of a Dispatch from the right honourable lord Granville Leveston Gower to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Saint Petersburgh, 8th November, 1807.—Received Dec. 2.
I had the honour of apprizing you by the last messenger, of the difficulty I had experienced in obtaining a conference with count Romanzow. I yesterday wrote a letter to him, of which the inclosed is a copy, and I this morning received the inclosed note. The contents of this paper are so extremely important, that I will not detain sir Robert Wilson, by making any observations upon the unfounded assertions and misrepresentations with which it abounds. This violent measure has been produced by a peremptory demand (brought by the last messenger from Paris) of the immediate execution of all the secret articles of Tilsit: and the French mission have boasted, that, after some difficulties, they have gained a complete triumph, and have carried not only this act of hostility against England, but also every other point essential to the success of Bonaparte's views. I intend asking for passports to-morrow, and shall set out in the course of a few days. P. S.—I inclose a copy of a printed declaration, which has been sent by the Russian government to all the foreign ministers residing at this court.
(First Inclosure referred to in No. 12.)
The ambassador of his Britannic majesty has repeatedly signified for more than a week his desire to converse with his excellency the count Romanzow: his sollicitations have been hitherto fruitless, but the ambassador deems it his duty to renew once more his application, previous to announcing to his court the apparent determination of his excellency to avoid the customary communications. Oct. 26, (Nov. 7), 1807.
(Second inclosure, referred to in No. 12.)
The emperor, who in the course of the war which he has just terminated, had to complain of the conduct of England towards him, suppressed his just resentment in the consoling hope that the
217
218
DECLARATION OF THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.
The great value the Emperor Attached to the friendship of his Britannic Majesty, the greater was his regret at perceiving that that monarch altogether separated himself from him. Twice has the emperor taken up arms, in which his cause was most directly that of England; and he solicited in vain from England a co-operation which her interest required. He did not demand that her troops should be united with his; he desired only that they should effect a diversion. He was astonished that in her cause she did not act in union with him; but coolly contemplating a bloody spectacle, in a war which had been kindled at her will, she
219
220
221
PAPERS RELATING TO THE EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.
I.—PROCLAMATION.—By the Commanders in Chief of His Majesty's Forces by Sea and by Land.
Whereas the present treaties of peace, and the changes of government, and of territory acceded to, and by so many powers, have so far increased the influence of France on the continent of Europe, as to render it impossible for Denmark, though it desires to be neutral, to preserve its neutrality; and absolutely necessary for those who continue to resist the French aggression, to take measures to prevent the arms of a neutral power from being turned against them.—In this view, the king cannot regard the present position of Denmark with indifference; and his majesty has sent negotiators, with
222
223
II—In Adm. Gambier's, Aug. 20, 1807.
Hostilities having commenced on the part of the English, I hereby declare, in virtue of the highest authority, that all English property be laid under sequestration; which each and every one is accordingly enjoined, to report the English property of what kind or nature soever to the police, who will make the further necessary arrangements: any one who conceals or does not fulfil this Order, will be considered as a traitor to the country. (Signed) PEYMAN. Copenhagen, Aug. 16, 1807.
III.—To his Excellency General Peyman, Commander in Chief of the Danish Land Forces. Dated, British Head Quarters before Copenhagen, Sept. 1, 1807.
Sir; We, the commanders in chief of his majesty's sea and land forces now before Copenhagen, judge it expedient, at this time, to summon you to surrender the
224
IV.—To his Excellency Adm. James Gambier, Lord Cathcart, Comrs. In Chief of the British Sea and Land Forces. Dated Copenhagen, Sept. 1, 1807.
My lord; Our fleet, our own indisputable property, we are convinced is as safe in his Danish majesty's hands as ever it can be in those of the king of England, as our master never intended hostilities against yours.—If you are cruel enough to endeavour to destroy a city, that has not given any the least cause to such a treatment at your hands, it must submit
225
V.—To his Excellency General Peimann, &c. Dated Head Quarters before Copenhagen, Sep. 2, 1807.
Sir; It is with great regret that we acquaint you, that it is not in our power to suspend our combined operations, during the time necessary for consulting your government: we having done the utmost within the limits of our authority, in offering to you at this moment terms as advantageous as those which were proposed to prevent a rupture.—We shall deeply lament the destruction of the city, if it is injured; but we have the satisfaction to reflect that in having renewed to you, for the last time, the offer of the most advantageous and conciliating terms, we have done our utmost to save the effusion of blood, and prevent the horrors of war. We have the honour to be, &c. JAMES GAMBIER, admiral, &c. CATHCART, It. gen. &c.
A.—To the Commanders in Chief of the, British Sea and Land Forces. Dated Copenhagen, Sept. 5, 1807.
My lords; For preventing further effusion of blood, and not exposing the city to the sad consequences of a longer bombardment, I propose an Armistice of four-and-twenty hours; in order to come to an Agreement that may lead to the settling of the Preliminary Articles of a Capitulation. It is with the highest personal consideration, I have, &c. PEIMANN.
To his Excellency Major Gen. Peimann. Dated Head Quarters before Copenhagen, Sept. 5, 1807.
Sir; The same necessity which has obliged us to have recourse to arms in the present occasion, compels me to decline any overture which might be productive of delay only. But to prove to you my of ardent desire to put an end to scenes, which I behold with the greatest grief, I send an officer who is authorized to receive any Proposal you may be inclined
226
B.—To Lord Cathcart, Commander in Chief of the British Forces. Dated Copenhagen, Sept. 5, 1807.
My lord; The Proposal has been made without any the least dilatory intention; but the night being too far advanced for deliberating upon a matter of such very high importance, with the respective departments, a measure necessary on account of his majesty's absence, and that of the Prince; and my state of health not permitting me to proceed as expeditiously as I wish, I engage to send to-morrow before 12 o'clock, the Articles relative to the Capitulation: and have in the mean time the honour to be, &c. PEIMANN.
To his Excellency Maj. General Peimann, &c. Dated Head Quarters before Copenhagen, Sept. 6, 1807.
Sir; having communicated to admiral Gambier your letter received this morning, together with those of last night, I have to acquaint you, that we will consent to treating with you for the Capitulation of Copenhagen, on the basis of your delivering up the Danish Fleet. But as you have not forwarded Articles of Capitulation, officers of rank in the sea and land service of his majesty shall be sent forthwith, to prepare Articles with you or with the officers you may appoint, and which may, if possible, unite the, objects you have in view, in regard to the occupation of Copenhagen, with the performance of the service intrusted to us. I have &c. CATHCART, lieut. gen.
C.—To Lord Cathcart, Commander in Chief of the British Troops. Dated Copenhagen, Sept. 6, 1807.
My lord; I accept of your Proposal, with respect to the delivering up of his majesty's Fleet, as the fundamental basis of negotiations; but with this proviso, that no other English troops enter the city, than those commissaries, officers, and military men, who shall be stipulated and agreed on, in the course of the said negotiations. I have &c. PEIMANN.
D.—To Lord Cathcart, Commander in Chief of the British Troops. Dated Copenhagen, Sept. 6, 1807.
My lord; As soon as you shall be pleased to appoint a neutral place out of the town where to meet on both sides, for regulating the Articles of Capitulation,
227
To his Excellency Major General Peimann. Dated Head Quarters before Copenhagen, Sept. 6, 1807.
Sir; The officers appointed to treat with you, are major general the right hon. sir A. Wellesley, k. b. sir Home Popham, captain of the fleet, and lieut. col. Murray, deputy quarter master general of the army. These officers are waiting at the barrier, and will meet the officers named by you, at any place you may appoint for immediate discussion, between our advanced posts and your lines. Orders were given to desist from the bombardment, and to cease firing, the moment your first letter was received; but there has been no Armistice concluded; a proof of which is, that a house in the suburbs has been set on fire within these few minutes, by your people, close to our centinels. As we have already stated, more than once, we can admit of no delay in this business, and therefore it will immediately appear whether the Articles proposed, are of such a nature as to warrant an Armistice. I have the honour to be, &c. CATHCART, lieut. general.
CAPITULATION.—ArtiCles of capitulation for the town and citadel of Copenhagen; agreed upon between major general the right hon. sir Arthur Wellesley, k. b. sir Home Popham, knight of Malta, and captain of the fleet; and lieut. col. George Murray, deputy quarter-master general of the British Forces; being thereto duly authorized by James Gambier, esq. admiral of the blue, and commander in chief of his Britannic majesty's ships and vessels in the Baltic; and by lieut. general the right hon. lord Cathcart, knight of the thistle, commander in chief of his Britannic majesty's Forces in Zealand, and the north of the continent of Europe, on the one part: And by major general Waltasdorff, knight of the order of Danebroze, chamberlain to the king, and col. of the North Zealand regiment of infantry; rear admiral Letken, and J. H. Kirkhoff, aid-de-camp to his Danish majesty; being duly authorised by his excellency major general Peimann, knight of the order of Danebroze, and commander in chief of his Danish majesty's Forces in
228
Article I. When this Capitulation shall be signed and ratified, the troops of his Britannic majesty are to be put in possession of the citadel.—II. A guard of his Britannic majesty's troops shall likewise he placed in the Dock Yard.—III. The Ships and Vessels of war of every description, with all the Naval Stores belonging to his Danish majesty, shall be delivered into the charge of such persons as may be appointed by the commanders in chief of his Britannic majesty's forces, and they are to be put in immediate possession of the Dock Yards, and all the buildings and storehouses belonging thereto.—IV. The Store Ships and Transports in the service of his Britannic majesty, are to be allowed if necessary to come into the harbour, for the purpose of embarking such stores and troops as they have brought in to this island.—V. As soon as the ships have been removed from the Dock Yards, or within six weeks from the date of this Capitulation, or sooner if possible, the troops of his Britannic majesty shall deliver up the citadel to the troops of his Danish majesty, in the state in which it will be found when they shall occupy it; his Britannic majesty's troops shall likewise within the before-mentioned time, or sooner if possible, be embarked from the island of Zealand.—VI. From the date of this Capitulation, hostilities shall cease throughout the island of Zealand.—VII. No person whatsoever shall be molested, and all property public or private, with the exception of the Ships and Vessels of War, and the Naval Stores before-mentioned belonging a to his Danish majesty, shall be respected; and all civil and military officers in the service of his Danish majesty, shall continue in the full exercise of their authority throughout the island of Zealand: and every thing shall be done which can tend to produce union and harmony between the two nations.—VIII. All Prisoners taken on both sides, shall be unconditionally restored; and those officers who are prisoners on parole, shall be released from its effects.—IX. Any English Property that may have been sequestered in consequence of the existing hostilities, shall be restored to the owners. This Capitulation shall be ratified by the respective commanders in chief, and the ratifications shall be exchanged before 12 o'clock at noon this day. Done at Copenhagen, this 7th day of Sept. 1807. (Signed) ARTHUR WELLESLEY, HOME POP-
229
Copy of a Letter from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to the Viscount Castlereagh. Dated Admiralty Office, 30th January, 1808.
My lord; Having in compliance with the desire expressed in your lordships letter of the 28th instant, called upon admiral lord Gambier, to report in writing the information which his lordship had given verbally to his majesty's ministers, with respect to the state of preparation and equipment in which the Danish Navy was found on the surrender of Copenhagen; we transmit to your lordship a copy of the Report we have revceived from the admiral on the subject. And we are &c. R. BICKERTON, W. J. HOPE, JAS. BULLER.
To the Hon. WW. Pole, &c. dated Admiralty Office, 2Sth Jan. 1808.
Sir; In answer to your letter of this day's date, I have to acquaint you, that upon taking possession of the Arsenal at Copenhagen, the Fleet was found in such a state, that it could be equipped and sent to sea in a very short time; most of the ships were in condition for service, their lower masts were in, the top-masts, yards, rigging, sails, guns, and stores of every description, were so arranged in the arsenal, and in compartments in the store-houses, that they could be put on board on the shortest notice; there was no one article wanting which was necessary for their equipment, and it is certain that the Fleet could have been completely ready for sea in three weeks, or a month at most, as in a shorter space of time 16 sail of the line, 14 frigates of different classes, 8 sloops, and 2 smaller vessels, were fitted ready to be navigated to England, by the seamen of the Fleet under my command, with the assistance of some troops. There cannot be a stronger proof of the good condition of the Danish ships, than their having been brought to England, through much tempestuous weather, without suffering in their hulks in the least degree. I am &c. GAMBIER.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 2. 1808
[VOTE OF THANKS—EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.]
The Speaker acquainted the house, that he had received from lieut. general the right hon. lord viscount Cathcart, the following Letter, in return to the Thanks of this house, signified to him, in
230
"CATHCART.
231
[CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BANK.] Mr. Tierney
as the propriety of the late bargain between the Bank of England and the government, with a view to the public service, was to be discussed on Monday, thought it right to move that copies of all correspondence between the governor and deputy governor of the bank and the chancellor of the exchequer, since the 1st of May last, relative to the management of the public debt, the application of unclaimed dividends, and loans from the bank to the public, be laid before the house. The propriety of having these written documents was suggested by the recollection of the failure of the memory of Mr. Pitt and the governor of the bank for the time, as to the particulars of a conversation relative to a matter of this nature, which had passed between them not a month before they were called to speak to it; a matter which afterwards turned out to be a very profitable speculation for the bank.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the present case was very different from that alluded to by the right hon. gent.; there was no extension of the charter of the bank in this case; the advantage of the arrangement was all on the side of the public. The arrangement arose from the suggestions of the Report of the Committee of Finance, submitted to the bank by his majesty's Ministers, and acceded to with the usual liberality of that institution. In consenting to the motion, he acknowledged he saw no parliamentary ground for producing all the correspondence; many of the letters referred to conferences managed on the one part by himself, and on the other part by the governor and deputy governor. The substance of these conversations could not be stated.
Mr. Thornton
said the negotiation had proceeded partly by means of letters, and partly by means of conferences managed on the part of the bank by the governor and deputy governor, the substance of which was reduced into a connected form, and submitted by the governor and deputy governor to the court of proprietors, then the whole was made the subject of an ultimate letter. He supposed the information contained in this letter would be sufficient, as it contained in a substantial and connected form, the essence of all that passed verbally in conference and in notes, referring to those conferences.—The papers were then ordered; of which the following are copies
232
PAPERS
RELATING TO THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
No. I.—Copy of a Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank. Downing-street, Dec. 23, 1807.
Gentlemen; The Paper, which I have herewith the honour to transmit, contains the Outlines of such an Arrangement as it appears to me, upon the most deliberate consideration of the Second Report from the Committee on Public Expenditure, it would be my duty to propose to the Bank of England. The principles referred to in this Paper, the facts stated, and the proposals deduced from them, are, as you will perceive upon its perusal, in substance the same as those which I have stated, and endeavoured to impress upon you, in the several conferences with which you have already honoured me upon this very important subject. My object, in making this written communication, is, that you may be enabled to consider at your leisure, the expectations, which, in my present view of the case, it appears to me I am entitled to maintain, and bound to uphold on the part of the public; and the grounds on which these expectations rest. At the same time, it is my wish to have it distinctly understood at this early stage of the business, that, sanguine as the expectation of the public may be with respect to the advantages to be derived from a new arrangement with the Bank, and however satisfied his majesty's government may feel that, to the extent stated in my proposals, such expectations are not unreasonable in the present state of affairs; and, considering the present profits of the Bank, nothing can be more remote from the intentions of government than to press these expectations to the infringement of any existing contract or engagement, or beyond what a fair interpretation of those engagements might appear to them to justify.—Your own discretion will point out to you to what extent you may feel it necessary, in the present stage of the discussion, to consult with other gentlemen in the Direction upon the subject of this Paper, and to impart its contents to them. It is only necessary for me to add, at. present, that I shall at all times be ready to receive, with the utmost attention, any observations which you or they may have to offer on the subject, and that I shall abstain from requesting of you to submit any regular proposal to the Court of Directors, or to the Court of Proprietors at large,
233
No. II.—Copy of a Paper inclosed and referred to in the Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Bank; of the 23d Dec. 1807.
The Proposals founded on the Enquiries and Report of the Committee of Public Expenditure, and which are now made to the Bank, May be classed under three heads: 1st. Unclaimed Dividends.—2d. Charges of Management of the Public Debt.—3d. Balances arising from Deposits of Public Money in the hands of the Bank.
1st. UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.—As it appears by the Report of the Committee, that the Unclaimed Dividends amounted at that period of the year 1806 at which they were at the lowest, namely, on the 8th July, to 986,573
l.
l.
l.
l.
2d. CHARGES OF MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.—Referring upon this part of the subject, on the one hand, to the facts stated in the Report, and on the other to the provisions of the act of 1791, c. 33. and of 1800, c. 28, without feeling it necessary in this stage of the business, and in this proposal, to advert in detail to the one or to discuss the other, it is conceived that the following scale and plan of allowance for the Management of the Public Debt, would lead to an arrangement under all circumstances liberal towards the Bank, and equitable towards the public.—Taking the Debt Unredeemed, as it stood on the 5th of January last, at upwards of 550,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
234
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
235
l.
s.
d.
3dly. BALANCES ARISING FROM DEPOSITS OF PUBLIC MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE BANK.—The facts as to the amount of these Balances, as stated in the Report of the Committee, can admit of no difference of opinion; and it appears not impossible that the Bank may, upon further consideration, be induced to concur in the inferences drawn from those facts with respect to the profit arising from such balances, unless, whilst it is candidly admitted on the part of the Bank, "That the amount of Public Balances deposited at the Bank, is always followed by a corresponding issue of its Paper; and that the Bank derives an interest or profit from every issue of such Paper." The Bank should at the same time, be prepared to shew that gratuitous deposit of Public Balances, or, in other words, Bank Notes withdrawn from circulation and returned the Bank, without, at the same time, withdrawing from thence the security, or terminating the interest upon which they were originally issued; and which notes so withdrawn, are replaced in the circulation by a corresponding issue of new notes upon new securities bearing new interests, do not afford profit in an exact proportion to the combined amount of these new issues, and of the rate of interest on these new securities. The following plan, therefore, of a direct and proportionate participation in those profits so derived, is proposed as more simple; and likely, from its not interfering with the established course of business either at the Bank or at the Exchequer, to be more satisfactory than the other arrangement, which will be hereafter detailed, as the alternative to which recourse might be had for rendering the profit of those balances available to the public, in case this proposal should not be preferred by the Bank. The Proposal is, that the Bank should, on or after the 5th
236
l.
l.
237
l.
238
l.
l.
239
No. III.—Copy of a separate Paper, enclosed in the Letter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Bank, dated Dec. 23, 1807.
It being understood to be the wish of the governor and deputy governor of the Bank, as well as of those in the direction with whom they have consulted, that whatever proposal is made by government, it should, at least in the first instance, be founded upon a fair and equitable review of existing arrangements; taking into consideration the services derived to the public on the one hand, and on the other, the advantages accruing to the Bank, instead of such proposal being limited by a strict reference to the letter of any actual contracts or engagements;—this wish, which is certainly more liberal, and more be-
240
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
241
242
No. IV.—Copy of a Paper communicated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank; in reply to his Letter and Proposals of the 23d Dec. 1807.
The Committee having taken into consideration the Proposals suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; beg leave to return the following Answer, and Observations: They are of opinion, that a farther advance, to the extent of 500,000l. on account of the Unclaimed Dividends, May be acceded to on the part of the Bank; on similar conditions with the former advance.—The Committee, ever anxious to promote the interest of the public, as well as of their proprietors, are of opinion, that a reduction on the rate of management of the national debt, as proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, may, with some modifications of no very great moment, be consented to on the part of the
243
244
No. 1.—Copy of a Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank.
Downing-street, Jan. 11, 1808.
Gentlemen; In the several conferences and Communications which I have lately had the honour of holding with you respecting the expectation formed by me, on the part of the public, of an advance by the Bank for the public service, the particular grounds of that expectation have been discussed under three heads, namely:1st Unclaimed Dividends.—2dly. The Charge for the Management of the Public
245
Having most maturely considered every thing that has passed between us, in these discussions, I now feel myself enabled and called upon to make to you the following proposals, under each of the above heads; and I request that you will submit them to the Court of Directors, for their consideration and concurrence. 1st, That out of the Unclaimed Dividends a sum of 500,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
246
247
l.
248
SP. PERCEVAL.
No. II.—Copy of a Paper intituled,
"Resolution of the Court of Directors."
14th Jan. 1808. Resolved, That the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to take 500,000l. from the Unclaimed Dividends, in addition to the former sum of 376,739l. be acceded to by this court.
Resolved, That in respect to the rate of Management, the following scale be proposed:
On 600 millions at 340
l.
—
13
Do.
300
Do.
—
400
Do.
450
Do.
—
300
Do.
500
Do.
Resolved, That in respect to the 4,000
l.
l.
Resolved, That the Court of Directors do accede to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to lend, for the use of government, 3,000,000
l.
249
No. III.—Copy of a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank.
Downing-street, Jan. 15th, 1808. Gentlemen; The liberal disposition which has been in infested by the Court of Directors, to concur in the principal arrangements which I have thought it my duty to suggest for their consideration, has afforded me great satisfaction.—While I feel convinced that my proposal has not lost sight of the public interest, the manner in which it has been received by the Bank confirms me in thinking that it has not proceeded without a due consideration also of the fair and reasonable interests and expectation of that respectable corporation. Under this impression, I am strongly inclined to give way to the suggestions of the Bank in the minor part of the arrangement, and will therefore accede to the scale of allowances therein proposed for the management of the public debt, so far as it applies to present circumstances, or to such as can be expected to occur within any short period.—In this view, therefore, I shall not object to the alteration by which it is proposed that the allowance to be paid by the public for management, shall be at the rate of 340
l.
l.
l.
250
SP. PERCEVAL.
No. IV.—Copy of a Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank.
Downing-street, Jan. 19, 1808. Gentlemen; Referring to the several communications which I have had the honour of holding with you, and to the correspondence which has passed between us, on the subject of an arrangement to be formed between the public and the Bank; and especially to the proposals which I transmitted to you on the 11th instant; to
251
1st. Unclaimed Dividends. 2d. Allowance for Charges of managing the Public Debt. 3d. Public Balances kept at the Bank.
I have proposed;—Ist. That the Bank shall now advance out of the Unclaimed Dividends in their hands, the sum of 500,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
252
No. V.—Copy of a paper, intituled, "Resolution of the Court of Directors, on Mr. Perceval's Letter of the 19th Jan. 1808, and Recommendation thereof to the General Court."
At a Court of Directors, at the Bank, on Thursday the 21st Jan. 1808, the following Letters from the Chancellor of the Exchequer being read, viz.
"Downing-street, Jan. 15, 1808. Gentlemen, The liberal disposition," &c.— "Downing-street, Jan. 19, 1808. Gentlemen, Referring to the several," &c.
The governor acquainted the court, that the committee of treasury having considered the said letters, recommend, that the terms proposed in the letter of the 19th inst. be complied with.—The court agreed thereto.—Resolved, That the chancellor of the exchequer's letter, of the:19th inst. be laid before the general court; and that the governor be authorized to inform the proprietors, that this court is of opinion, that the proposals contained in the said letter be acceded to.
No. VI.—Copy of a Paper, intituled, "Resolution of the General Court on Mr. Perceval's Letter of the 19th Jan. 1808."
At a General Court of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, held at their public Office in Thread-needle street, on Thursday the 21st Jan. 1808, the following Letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer being read, viz.
"Downing-street, Jan. 19, 1808 Gentlemen, Referring," &c.
The governor further acquainted the court, that the court of directors, having taken the said letter into consideration, are. opinion to recommend to this court comply with the proposals contained in the said letter.—The question was then put, That the proposals contained in the above letter, be complied with on the part of the Bank? And carried in the affirmative.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, 3. February 1808
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.]
Mr. Ponsonby rose to make the motion of
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
Mr. Secretary Canning
then rose. He commenced his reply by observing, that the moment was at length arrived, when the gentlemen opposite, so peculiarly qualified by their own splendid achievements, to enquire into the conduct of their successors, had, by a worthy selection of the right hen. gent. who had just sat down, put his majesty's ministers on their trial for that, which, until questioned by them, had been considered as the salvation of the country. In the greatness of his apprehension, lest all moral impressions should be effaced from the minds of the house, the right hon. gent. had taken a course which afforded a brilliant example of a morality, not only out of the ordinary track, but more severe even than that Roman morality, which he knew had its admirers on the opposite bench. his majesty's ministers were called to account—not for disaster and disgrace. They had been called to answer on an accusation of success, to explain the elements, and justify the motives
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
Cedet et ipsemari vector: nec nautica pious Mutabit merces.—
Omnis feret omnia tellus.
288
Mr. Windham
rose to make some observations on the speech of the right hon. secretary. He was astonished beyond measure at some parts of that speech; even though he did not mean to deny to it in general that sort of merit—the only species it could pretend to—which was necessary to cover a total want of just inference or correct statement. The right hon. secretary had alluded to certain transactions of the late administration. He said,
you
we
We
289
Can nothing nut thine own reproach,
Serve fur a motto for thy coach.
290
291
292
293
When house and land are gone and spent,
Then learning is most excellent.
294
Semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebant.
295
Mr. Milnes
said, that after the discussion which took place on the subject on a former occasion, he had waited with some degree of curiosity to hear what line of argument would be adopted by the hon. gentlemen opposite on the present evening. He was not a little mortified, however, to find that they had advanced scarcely any thing new; that they were still attempting to assert the interests of every country in preference to those of England, and to give credit to the assurances of Buonaparte, while they omitted no opportunity of calling in question the Declarations of their own sovereign, or his ministers. There were, to be sure, some novel points; the right hon. gent. who brought forward the motion, had maintained that Denmark alone was able to resist the whole force of that power which had, with very few exceptions, laid every nation in Europe prostrate at its feet. One right hon. gentleman had reproached ministers for their shabby policy in not farther extending the calamities of war: and the right hon. gent. who spoke last, had told the house that he would rather have seen the Danish fleet in the hands of Buonaparte than moored in an English port. These were a few of the novelties with which the house Were to be compensated for the other stale topics that the hon.
296
297
Mr. Bathurst
reminded the hon. gent. who had just sat down, that it would have been more regular in him to have waited till the members, to whom he had just, alluded, had stated their sentiments upon the present question, and given him an opportunity of replying to what they advanced. Upon the speech of the right hon. secretary he had to observe, that he had endeavoured to draw the attention of the house from the question now before them, and to bring them back to one on which they had already come to a decision. The house, in its address to the king, had concurred in congratulating his majesty upon the success of the expedition, and this concurrence was obtained in an irregular way, and, as it were, by surprise. The question now before the house was altogether different, nor was he to be led away from it by all the arts of the right hon. secretary. Was it a light matter, that, after it had been stated in a Declaration given in the name of the king, that the secret arrangements at Tilsit had given rise to the attack upon Denmark, and that it was by sacking the port and arsenal of Copenhagen, that government had prevented the Danish fleet from falling into the power of Buonaparte, that no proofs should be given of the truth of these allegations? He contended, that if parliament failed to institute an enquiry into such circumstances, it would he wanting in its duty. It was pleaded, that it would be dangerous to disclose the proofs; but let not this argument of danger be pleaded generally; let ministers tell us why this or that specific paper cannot be granted. It was not necessary in granting any paper, that they should acquaint the house how they came by it. Parliament, he asserted, never had been placed in such a situation before. We were now at war with Denmark, and no communication had yet been made to that house of the grounds upon which his majesty had gone to war. The right hon. secretary would not surely plead, that it would be attended with greater danger, regularly to lay the documents before the house, than to stand up and read them in his place as he had done to night; and there was not a doubt that it was much more parliamentary that the house should be put in possession of the Papers themselves. If he was convinced that ministers had acted upon proper grounds, he should be the first to give them credit for what they had done; but he did not think it fair to entrap the
298
Mr. John, Leslie Foster
differed from those gentlemen who seemed inclined to confine the question to the narrow grounds of any private information which ministers might have obtained, respecting the views of Denmark. Much stress had been laid by the gentlemen opposite, on the circumstance of ministers not having complied with the wish expressed for the production of the whole of the information which led theta to undertake the late expe-
299
300
Lord Palmerston
said, that after the very brilliant and unanswered speech of the right hon. the secretary of state, and the insufficiency of the reply from the other side, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the house at any great length on the subject then under discussion. He should set out with stating, that he conceived it improper to disclose the information which ministers had received on the subject, because their honour was pledged to preserve secrecy. In another point of view also, he conceived it improper to make the disclosure required, because it would, in all probability, destroy the future sources of information. But he asked gentlemen on the other side, what necessity existed for producing such documents and information as had been called for on that and on former nights? It might, perhaps, be necessary to exhibit them, if there was no other ground for justifying the attack on Denmark; but unquestionably, the present situation of Europe and the. degradation or vassalage of its sovereigns, offered, most unfortunately, too ready and solid a reason for the adoption of such a measure. Much had been said by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) on the law of nations, on right and policy he was as ready and willing as any man to pay his tribute of respect to them, and to recommend their application whenever circumstances would permit it; he was afraid, however, that although much talked of, they were little understood; the consequence of which was, that many persons abused the terms, and took one for the other. In the present instance, he was glad to observe, that we did not suspend them without necessity, or, in other words, that we used them in conformity to the law of nature, which dictated and commanded self preservation. This was precisely a case in point; for, as was conceded by the right hon. mover, if Denmark had shewn or given any proof of hostility, directly or indirectly, against this country, then ministers would be justified in inflicting on her the heaviest punishment;
301
Mr. Morris
felt great pain in differing from gentlemen, with whom he was in the habit of voting and acting; but he could not refrain from declaring his conviction of the propriety of the conduct which ministers had pursued with respect to Denmark. He looked not for any justification of the measure, but the weakness of Denmark and the determination of France to force her out of her neutrality. If he were asked, what evidence existed of such being the intention of the French government, lie should reply, by referring to the con-
302
Mr. Lyttleton
regretted extremely the necessity he was under of withdrawing his support from those with whom he was generally in the habit of voting; but in obedience to his feelings, and the dictates of his conscience, he was compelled to acknowledge, that, in his Opinion, there was enough before the house to justify the Conduct of ministers in the attack on Copenhagen. He concurred with the preceding speakers, that the weakness of Denmark, and the great power of France, must remove all doubt respecting the speedy submission and co-operation of the former against us. Hard, however, as the measure was, and greatly as he lamented it, yet he deemed it one of precaution and necessity, which he should vote for.
Mr. Whitbread
was sorry to differ from his hon. friends who had just sat down, as he certainly saw as little reason to vote with ministers on any other grounds as on those which they themselves had brought forward; particularly as those grounds consisted in garbled extracts of letters, which were neither fair to the writers nor the public. He wished to recal the attention of the house to the real subject of debate, which was not whether ministers were right or wrong in sending the expedition against Copenhagen, but whether they ought to produce letters, which they pretended they possessed, but which he did not believe ever existed. He would not give credit to such extracts produced
303
304
305
Lord G. L. Gower,
as he had been so particularly alluded to, felt himself called on to say a few words in explanation to
306
Lord Castleregh
contended, that ministers were not bound to lay before parliament all the information on which his majesty's Declaration had been founded. The hon. gent. had dwelt much upon the circumstance of his majesty's pleasure being taken on the expedition to Copen-
307
308
Mr. T. Grenville
complained of the constant practice of introducing, collaterally, charges against the late administration. He thought, after what had passed the other day, that this practice would have been refrained from. The attack upon Turkey, in a period of peace, had been alluded to, though the secretary of state must have known that the orders given by the last administration were precisely the contrary of attacking the Porte during peace. On this subject, and on the Lisbon expedition, which had been also alluded to, there was nothing which the late administration so much desired as investigation.
Mr. S. R. Lushington
took a view of the whole of the transactions relative to Russia and Denmark, and then proceeded thus:—In applying, sir, the laws of nations to the conduct of G. Britain towards Denmark, the gentlemen on the opposite side of the house seem desirous of establishing a code of their own, separate from that law of nature, which, according to the best writers, is the very foundation of all the laws of nations. Their sentimental system would embrace all nations but their own. These ingenious disquisitions may be well calculated for the amusement of the schools, but they are not fitted for the events of real life, or a state of ferocious war. Sir, the first law of nature, the foundation of the law of nations, is the preservation of man. It is on the knowledge of his nature, that the science of his duty must be founded. When the feelings point out to him a mighty danger, and his reason suggests the means of avoiding it, he must despise the sophistical trifler, who tells him it is a moral duty he owes to others to wait till the danger break upon his foolish head, lest he should hurt the meditated instrument of his destruction. Upon this general principle of the law of nature and of nations, I maintain the morality, and certainly the necessity of the Expedition against Copenhagen. In applying this general principle to the state of Denmark, we shall find that it derives particular force from her past conduct. It may suit the purpose the Moniteur to represent Denmark as enjoying a moral dignity in the circle of nations, and to insist that G. Britain had a sufficient guarantee in the sincere neutrality of Denmark, and in the cordiality of her
309
Sir C. Price
regarded the Copenhagen expedition not only as just and necessary, but as wisely planned, and gloriously executed.
Mr. Davies Giddy
was sorry the information on which ministers had acted could not be laid before the house. However, as that was the case, he thought himself bound to acquiesce in the concealment which the government thought necessary.
Mr. Ponsonby
rose to reply. He remarked, that all he had asked for was information, and that all the answer he got to that request, was details respecting expeditions to Alexandria, the Dardanelles, and Lisbon, in order to prove some supposed misconduct in a former administration. The right hon. secretary had read extracts to prove the hostility of Denmark, but to this
310
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he was misinterpreted, and disdained the implication assigned to him.
At half past five (on Thursday morning) the house divided, when the numbers were,
For Mr. Ponsonby's Motion
108
Against it
253
Majority
145
List of the Minority
Abercromby, hon.J.
Dundas, W.
Adam' W.
Dundas, C.
Agar, E. A.
Dundas,
Althorpe, viscount
Ebrington, lord
Antoine, W. L.
Eden, W.
Anson, G.
Elliot, W.
Bathurst, C.
Estcourt, T.
Brand, T.
Ferguson, general
Bradshaw' C.
Eitzgerald, lord H
Bruce, P. C.
Fitzpatrick, R.
Burdett, sir F.
Frankland, W.
Byng, G.
Grattan, H.
Calcraft, sir G.
Grenville, T.
Calcraft, J.
Greenhill, Robert
Campbell, lord J.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Cavendish, lord G.
Halsey, J.
Campbell, J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Cavendish, W.
Herbert, H. A.
Cavendish, G.
Hibbert, G.
Co!bourne, Sedley
Horner, F.
? Combe, H. C.
Howard, H.
Creevy, T.
Howard, W.
Cuthbert, J. R.
Hunt, Robert
311
Jekyll, Joseph
Petty, lord H.
Knapp, Geo.
Piggott, sir A.
Knox, Tho.
Poole, sir C. M.
Laing, Malcolm
Pollington, vise.
Lambe, W.
Ponsonby, G.
Lambton, Ralph
Ponsonby, H. G.
Lawrence, French
Priitie, F. A.
Leach, John
Pym, Francis
Lefevre, C. Shaw
Romilly, sir S.
Lloyd, J. M.
Russell, lord W.
Macdonald, James
Scudamore, R. P.
Haddocks, W. A.
Sharp, Richard
Mahon, viscount
Shelley, Timothy
Markham, admiral
Sheridan, R. B.
Martin, Henry
Smith, John '
.Mathew, M.
Smith, W.
Mule, Wm.
Stanley, lord
Milbank, sir Ralph
Taylor, M. A.
Miller, sir Tho.
Temple, earl
Milton, viscount
Templeton, vis.
Moore, Peter-
Thompson, Thomas
Morpetb, Viscount
Thornton, Henry
Moseley, sir O.
Tierney, G.
Mostyn, sir Thomas
Vernor, G. G. V.
Neville, P.
Walpole, 0.
Newport., sir John
Ward, J. W.
North, Dudley
Western, C. C.
Ord, William
Wharton, John
Ossulston, lord
Whitbread, Sam.
Parnell, Henry
Wilder, Fr. John
Peirse, Henry
Williams, Owen
Pelham, C. A.
Windham, W.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 4.
[DISPUTE WITH AMERICA.] Lord Grenville
said, he had a paper to move for, which might tend to enlighten and guide the conduct and the discussions of that house, on that most important topic, our relations with America. It was with much anxiety and regret, he continued to look back at those expressions in his majesty's speech, where it was stated, that the president of the United States had refused to ratify the Treaty which had been sent out from this country. to America. He was inclined to believe there was some inaccuracy in these expressions, which might lead to mischievous misconceptions. Their lordships were well aware, that the president of the United States could not, of his own authority, refuse to ratify a treaty of that kind; and that such a refusal must previously have the sanction of the Senate, &c. The principal paper, he should now have the honour of moving for would be, the Message of the President of the 28th of Oct. last to the Houses of Congress. It was not in his power to contemplate the issue of our present discussions with America without uneasiness and apprehension. Much had been said of the comparative
312
Lord Hawkesbuly
said, he would not be led into any discussion of the points now at issue between the two governments, by any observations in which it had pleased the noble baron to indulge. He was as sensible as that noble lord could be, of the great importance of continuing on a footing of friendship with America; but, highly as he valued the continuance of those relations of amity and good understanding, he could never think of purchasing it by the surrender of any of our
313
Lord Auckland
next rose, to move that there be laid before the house a copy of the Declaration delivered to the American Plenipotentiaries by the Plenipotentiaries of his majesty, in the month of Dec. 1806. When that document was before the house, an opportunity would arise of justifying the Orders in Council issued by his majesty's late government, and which his majesty had been advised to represent as inadequate to their purpose in the speech with which, in his majesty's name, the commissioners had opened the present session of parliament. He concluded with moving for the production of that documemt.
Lord Hawkesbury
did not see the necessity of producing this paper. It was already before the world, and every advantage might be derived from it in argument which the noble lord could wish for. His objection to the production of it was chiefly an objection of form; for he was at a loss to see with what propriety a paper so intimately connected with the Treaty itself could be produced, while it was not thought proper or necessary to produce the Treaty itself.
Lord Holland
was surprized to see the noble secretary stop short so suddenly in his career of concession; and his surprize was still greater at the reasons assigned for it. The noble secretary refused to produce the instrument moved for by his noble friend; and why? because it had had a close connection with the Treaty, which it was not thought proper at present to produce. Yet, but a moment ago, he made no objection to the production of a paper moved for by another noble friend of his; which paper, however, had a much closer connection with the Treaty than that to which he now objected. However public the paper might be, it was for the
314
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 5.
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] Mr. Whitbread
wished to know from the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, whether he had any objection to lay before the house copies of the Letters from which he had read extracts in a late debate. He was desirous to know particularly whether there was any objection to the production of the Letter from lord Howick to Mr. Garlicke, and the letter from Mr. Rist, on the subject of the Orders in Council, with lord Howick's answer. It was due in fairness to that noble lord, as this last had been much dwelt upon, to place it before the house in a full and unreserved form.
Mr. Secretary Canning
wished the hon. gent. either to make a motion, or give notice of one; he should then know what answer to give. It was usual either to make a communication on these subjects in private conversation, or to give a previous notice publicly.—Mr. W. then gave notice for Monday; he did not want any private conversation.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved, that the house do resolve itself into a committee of ways and means, and that the Orders in Council, presented to the house on the 26th of Jan. (see p. 126.) be referred to the said committee.
Lord Henry Petty
had hoped, that before this motion should be brought forward, some explanatory papers would have been produced, and some explanatory statements made, to remove the doubts which existed as to the legality of the Orders themselves. Certainly, if there were doubts as to the legality, those doubts ought to be removed, before the sanction of parliament was asked for the Orders. His arguments in the present stage, would be directed solely to the legality; for the policy of the Orders could be more conveniently canvassed in the committee. He certainly felt great difficulty in entering into an argument on this head. Unlearned as he was in the law, like the majority of the members of that house, he was perhaps unfit to form an opinion on the strict legal right. But since the majority of the house must be made to feel and to
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was ready to admit, that in the view the noble lord had taken, and conceiving as the noble lord did, that the law of nations and the municipal law of the land had been violated, the noble lord was right in requiring explanation on these heads, before he agreed to the Speaker's leaving the chair. The noble lord wished now to argue the legality of these Orders in Council, and to reserve the question of policy to another stage of the business. But as the legality was so far from being decisive as to the policy, in the noble lord's opinion, the policy might as well be discussed first, and the legality after. The objections in point of law would not be found so strong as the noble lord had stated them. With respect to the principle that the law of nations did not admit of any variation, not by the privy council, as the noble lord had by mistake stated, but by the king in council, he was ready to allow that the prerogative was in that case limited and regulated by the same rules of public law as in every other. It was the exercise of the king's prerogative of war. He was free to admit, that neither the prerogative of the king in council, nor yet an act of parliament, nor any other act of any individual nation, could change the general law of nations, established and acted upon by general consent. Thus, if the thing could be legally done at all, it was as legally done now as it could be with the consent of parliament. Whatever right there was, might be as fairly exercised by the prerogative of the crown, the nation being at war, as enforced by the legislative authority. The measures that were now in force were suggested by the propriety of retaliating the aggressions of the enemy. It was extraordinary, after the example set by the late administration, that the noble lord condemned in opposition what he had as a minister sanctioned and approved. The noble lord said, that what was done by the French Decree of Nov. was mere matter of regulation, affecting only the internal regulations with respect to British merchandize. If the noble lord thought really so, he was right in maintaining and defending his opinion. But, what was to be lamented was, that the noble lord was not of the same opinion now and when in office. The Order in Council, restricting the coasting trade of France by means of neutrals, was a proof that the late ministers conceived the Order to be executed
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
Dr. Laurence
contended, that all the arguments which had been used by his right hon. friend, made in favour of the principles maintained by his noble friend. If ever there was a crisis, when no measure of magnitude, that might affect the great interests of the country, ought to pass without the sedulous attention of parliament, it was the present. The Orders in Council should be considered in three points of view: 1st. As to their simplicity or complexity; 2dly, As to their legality according to the municipal law of the country; and 3dly, As to their legality according to the law of nations. The number and variety of the orders and explanatory orders created much complexity and confusion, and there were many objections to different parts of them, some of which even went to their legality. Their interference with the freedom and security of foreign merchants was inconsistent with the provisions of Magna Charta, which ordained, that every facility should be given to alien merchants trading in merchandise, 'nisi publice prohibiti,' that is, by positive law. But the illegality of the Orders in his mind, arose principally from the gross abuse of the Act of the 43d of his majesty: that proceeding on a precedent in the late war, which authorised the admission of certain articles, indispensable to us, direct from enemies ports, which articles were to be specified in the king's license. The specification under the late Orders was not confined to a few articles, but comprehended the whole book of rates, and thereby suspended all the navigation laws, which in the former case were but partially affected, and this under the shadow of an act, which let in but three or four.—In the arguments he should feel it his duty to use, he was not very solicitous about the defence of any administration; but yet he must think meanly of himself, if he could hesitate to declare, that he felt a fixed and rooted aver-
331
332
The Master of the Rolls
said, he had listened with great attention to the arguments of his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, and before he proceeded specifically to observe on them, he would beg leave to make one general observation in answer to a principle that appeared to him to be hastily adopted and applied in the reasoning of his hon. and learned friend. His hon. and learned friend had argued in favour of the necessity of delay; but it did appear to him, that no farther lapse of time was at all necessary to the due consideration of the subject now before the house. Considerable stress was laid by his hon. and learned friend on the various inconsistencies which, in his opinion, were
333
334
335
336
337
Mr. Windham
could not bring himself to think that the argument ad hominem, the continual allusion to, and comparison with, the measures of the late administration, as a justification of those pursued by the present, was a mode of argument consistent either with the importance of the subject under consideration, or the gravity of the person by whom it was urged. Still more was he surprised at the extent to which the right hon. and learned gent. seemed disposed to carry the new doctrines which he had broached that night. Much stress had been laid by both sides of the house on the due observance of the law of nations. It would however now appear, that, though the law of nations might be extremely valuable, yet it were absurd to be bound by them, when it was found convenient and useful to infringe them. But if that were the case, of what value could they be considered? Who could force nations to respect them, when they should appear contrary to the interests of nations? The same might be said of moral law. By what ties or restraints would the society of men be then regulated and bound? Must not such doctrine drive at the abrogation of all law; what would laws be more than those instituted at Highgate; laws which only enjoined a conditional observance? As absurd and ridiculous was the idea set up of retaliation. It would lead to the most strange and ludicrous effects, if carried to the extreme which was insi-
338
339
Sir Arthur Piggott
said, that more pains had been taken to shew, that the Order in Council, issued by the late administration was wrong, than to prove that the Orders since issued by the present ministers were right. He was much deceived, or his majesty's government would in a month, perhaps in a week, regret the consequences to which these measures would give rise. He must therefore unite in the wish and advice of his right honourable friend, that before it was too late, ministers would consent to reconsider and revise them, and seriously examine how far, under the circumstances that were likely to arise, they should adopt or reject them. At all events, they ought not not be pressed now. The house should pause and reflect how ruinous their effects might prove to our trade; more especially how they might affect our intercourse with America, almost the only power with which we now had to remain in amity. If they, or any neutrals, could carry on any trade at all, the whole of that trade must be carried on through this country, and under such regulations as we might chuse to impose upon it. Why, then, hazard cutting up our trade altogether? As to the Order in Council of Jan. 1807, it never was intended to justify it on the principle of retaliation. It never was conceived in that spirit, or intended to be enforced on that principle. It was, therefore, with infinite surprize, that he had heard it compared with the measures that had since been adopted, and in support of which such monstrous doctrines had been broached and insisted on; and his surprize was further increased, when he found it asserted, that the said Order even went to a greater extent than the present Orders, and that their spirit and principle were deduced from it. Nothing could be more unfounded, and nothing could he deprecate more than a blind and hasty decision upon such important and critical points.
Mr. Eden
declared, that really he did expect that some case would be made out against America, before such a measure as the present would have been presented to the house for its adoption. As no such case was attempted to be shown, he found it his duty to oppose the motion.—The question was then put and carried.—The house then went into a committee, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
340
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, February 8.
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] The Duke of Norfolk rose,
agreeably to notice, to move for certain Papers which might tend to throw more light on the motives which had induced his majesty's ministers to propose and undertake the Expedition to Denmark. As he understood that the production of some of the papers for which he should move, would not be objected to, he should begin by moving for those papers, that the observations which related to one set of the papers, might not be entangled with those which referred to another set; he should now therefore, move, an humble address to his majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to direct, that there be laid before the house, such Proclamations as had been issued by our naval and military commanders, before Copenhagen, previous to their attack upon that city. This motion being agreed to, the noble duke proceeded to move for papers of a more specific nature, which related to the hostile intentions of Denmark, and the secret arrangements entered into at Tilsit between the emperors Alexander and Napoleon, and which arrangements were said to be hostile to the interests of this country. Without the production of documents of the description, it was utterly impossible for ministers to make out a case that should appear justified by the necessity under which they pretended to have acted, and which formed the chief apology for their conduct. He was aware that a necessity might exist that would supply a complete vindication, but the difficulty was to draw the line where that imperious necessity commenced; and this view of the affair led him, for a moment, to notice the Declaration subscribed with his majesty's name, which had received the sanction of the British government, and which must be attributed to the advice of the servants of the crown. After an attentive perusal of that instrument, he could discover no such necessity as had been pretended; that attempt at justification which had been submitted to the eyes of all Europe had failed, and we were exposed to the disgrace consequent on this failure. Admitting
341
342
Marquis Wellesley rose.
He said he had listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the noble mover, but must certainly differ from him as to the necessity of having before their lordships the mass of documents, which had been called for. What! could their lordships doubt for a moment, that they had not sufficient proof before them to justify the conduct of his majesty's ministers, in having undertaken that great and saving measure, the Expedition to Copenhagen? He thought that without any further proof than what was already before their lordships, the question was now ripe for discussion. On stating this, he rested on the proofs before their lordships and the country, he meant the various circumstances and facts which could not escape the notice of the most common observer. Why ask for official documents, when their lordships might adduce the progress of events, the relative situation of Denmark and France, and then again the relative situation of England with either, or with both? To ask for further proofs than the circumstances of the case exhibited, would be to slur
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
Lord Hutchinson.
My lords; I have listened with the greatest attention to the very able and eloquent speech of the noble marquis, but have been unable to extract from it any justification satisfactory to my mind of the expedition to Copenhagen. According to my opinion, the noble marquis has completely failed in proving that Zealand could not have been effectually defended, even if the French were in possession of Holstein and Jutland. I am of opinion, that, even supposing the French to have been in possession of Holstein and Jutland, still Zealand might have been defended with effect against the French arms. My lords, it was my lot to be employed on a very important mission, and I think it the more necessary to say a few words respecting that mission in consequence of partial extracts from my letters having been communicated in another place, by which I have been held out as giving opinions which were never delivered by me. The Russian army in Poland never amounted to more than 70,000 men, with the exception of two detached divisions, amounting to about 30,000. The French troops were estimated at 150,000. From the
351
gloriole
352
353
he would have satisfaction, for Denmark.
354
Lord Erskine
contended, that not only the papers moved for by his noble friend ought to be produced, but also whatever information had been received respecting the naval preparations of Denmark, or the intentions of that power to join in a maritime confederacy against this country. This was information which, he concluded, would not be produced, because no such information had been received, and thus the house was to be left without a single document to support the extraordinary, unprecedented, and unjustifiable measures against Copenhagen. The consideration of the hostility of Denmark was now wholly put out of the question, and the act was defended on the ground of the law of nations. But he would contend, that no precedent for such a measure was to be found in the history of Europe. It was by the principles of the law of nations that the conduct of ministers was to be judged; they were not then called upon to approve or condemn the thing, or its authors; they wanted information merely to enable them to form a judgment. If any thing could give delight in reading the history of civilized nations, it was the progressive im-
355
356
Lord Boringdon
defended the expedition to Copenhagen, on the grounds of the evident intention of France to obtain possession of the Danish fleet, and the inability of Denmark, as well as her disinclination, to resist; nor did he see on what grounds noble lords on the other side could condemn the expedition to Copenhagen, without also condemning the expedition to Constantinople, and the Instructions alleged to have been issued to a squadron sent to the Tagus. The noble and learned lord who spoke last had compared together the Treaty of Pilnitz and the Treaty of Tilsit; the former, it had been formerly stated by a noble lord (Grenville) on the other side, then in office, had no existence; could it for a moment be contended that the Treaty of Tilsit had no existence? [Lord Erskine said across the house, he meant the secret articles.] The secret articles were also clearly established. With respect to the offer of Russia to mediate, it had been said by a noble lord on a former evening, that a mediator was not an umpire. Upon this subject, however, he would quote the authority of an able diplomatist, he meant M. Talleyrand, who, in a report to the
357
The Earl of Buckinghamshire
rose to give his support to the motion of the noble duke, on account of the extraordinary predicament in which parliament was placed. He conceived, that it never before had happened, that the nation had been engaged in a new war, without the precise ground upon which hostilities had commenced being stated to parliament: whereas, upon the present occasion, the house was not merely without information as to the specific cause of the war; but his majesty had been advised, both in the Declaration in Answer to the Russian Manifesto, and in the Speech at the opening of the session, to declare a cause for the war with Denmark, which his ministers upon their legs in parliament had been obliged to relinquish.—In the answer to the Russian Manifesto, the expression made use of by his majesty was as follows: "His majesty feels himself under no obligation to offer any atonement, or apology, to the emperor of Russia, for the expedition against Copenhagen. It is not for those who were parties to the secret arrangements of Tilsit, to demand satisfaction for a measure to which those arrangements gave rise; and by which one of the objects of them has been happily defeated." And again, in the speech at the opening of the session, it was stated by his majesty's commissioners, that "they are commanded by his majesty to inform you, that no sooner had the result of the negotiations at Tilsit confirmed the influence and controul of France over the powers of the continent, than his majesty was apprized of the intention of the enemy to combine those powers in a general confederacy, to be directed, either to the entire subjugation of this kingdom, or to imposing upon his majesty an insecure and ignominious peace."—The noble earl then proceeded to show by dates, the accuracy of which, he said, could not be questioned, that the expedition against Copenhagen
358
359
360
361
362
363
Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum
"Intactum Pallanta; et cum spolia ista, diemque,
"Oderit!"—
Lord Harrowby
feared, if the noble earl had not been convinced by the arguments urged with so much force and eloquence by the noble marquis, that he should fail to convince him: he thought it his duty, however, shortly to state the grounds of his own opinion. The intentions of France, with respect to Denmark, and the ability of the latter power to resist, appeared to him so evident, that he thought ministers would have been highly culpable, if they had not resorted to measures to secure the Danish fleet from the grasp of the enemy. A learned and noble lord (Erskine) had rested great part of his arguments against this measure on the law of nations; but if one belligerent power set aside the law of nations, and substituted its own law to which neutrals chose to conform, another belligerent power had a right to treat those neutrals in the same manner as they suffered themselves to be dealt with. If one power acted in defiance of the law of nations, and could not be coerced into an observance of it, that law which had been established by common consent, was for the time abrogated, and another power ought not to be bound by it to its own detriment. In this point of view, and with the situation of Europe before our eyes, he considered the justification of the attack on Copenhagen complete, nor did he want further documents to prove its necessity. It required a much broader principle to support the expedition to Constantinople, which was undertaken solely for Russian interests. The object of the expedition to Copenhagen was to avert a danger from this country. He could readily conceive that many of those who supported the expedition to Copenhagen, might object to
364
The Earl of Moira
said, that he had some difficulty in persuading himself, when the noble lord was speaking, who had just sat down, that he was in a British house of parliament. All excuses he found were now given up, for a dereliction of those high principles of national honour which it had long been our boast and our glory to maintain inviolate, and the only apology that was pleaded for the commission of an act which had left an indelible stain upon our character, was, that it was matter of mere speculative convenience. Much had been said, though in his opinion but little to the purpose, of the hostile intentions of the present ruler of France. No one doubted of those intentions; but where was the evidence that there was any collusion on the part of Denmark; and unless such collusion was proved, how were we to be justified for venting upon Denmark the hostility which we owed to France? Putting this consideration, however, wholly aside, it had been said that it was merely possible that the Danish fleet would have fallen into the hands of Buonaparte, had not we intercepted her views. It appeared likewise to him, that the grounds upon which this supposition rested were altogether improbable. Denmark had uniformly preserved a strict neutrality between the belligerent powers; and there was no reason to think that, on the present occasion, she would deviate from it. Her army had taken a strong position in Holstein, the moment the French troops entered Hanover; and he had not? the smallest doubt that, had she been attacked, she would have defended herself with gallantry and perseverance. He never could bring himself to adopt, or in any way to countenance, the cold-blooded speculation of those who inferred, from the inferiority of the Danish force in point of numbers, that therefore she must have been conquered; as if bravery was not paramount in every contest to mere numerical strength. Those who reasoned in this way would have considered our ancestors who fought and conquered at Poictiers and Agincourt as fools and ideots. The Danes might not indeed have been able to save the provinces of Holstein and Jutland, but had they not the island of Zealand to which to retire, and whither it was impossible for their enemy
365
366
367
The Earl of Limerick
was well pleased that ministers had not rested their defence upon private information, lest they might, when goaded in debate, or taunted by sarcasm, be tempted to imitate a precedent which was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the noble lord, on the other side (lord Hutchinson), for whose talents no person entertained a higher respect than he did, but did not feel his opinion in the least degree altered. However it might gratify the curiosity of the public to have great potentates introduced into these discussions, and private conversations with such eminent personages detailed, he would appeal to their lordships, whether such a course was wise? What difficulties might it not impose upon future negociators, with whom foreign princes would not be inclined to communicate, lest their conversations should be similarly made public? This was likely to be felt in any future negotiation, for we were not to be for ever at war with all the world. As to the expedition to Copenhagen, that was fully justifiable, because he could shew, that from the commencement of the last war, the Danes had been hostilely disposed towards this country. They had encouraged and allowed privateers and enemies vessels to carry their prizes into Bergen, in Norway, and to sell them there, condemned in a court formed by the French consul at that port. In the year 1798 his majesty's ministers felt the interests of this country so affected by the conduct of Denmark, that they sent instructions to our minister at Petersburg, to intreat of that court to join its remonstrances with those of our minister at Copenhagen, to procure an alteration in the hostile behaviour of Denmark. Such also had been the opinion of the Russian court relative to the sentiments of that of Copenhagen, that when sending a fleet and army to co-operate with the allies, it was apprehended that the Danes would have attempted to prevent them from passing the Sound, in which event the Russian commander, by secret orders, was directed to land the troops and attack Copenhagen. The conduct of Denmark had been equally suspicious during the last 20 years. If the 16 ships of the line, which he understood were in the ports of Russia, were added to the 20 belonging to Denmark, there would be no doubt that the 36, whatever might be the gallantry
368
The Earl of Jersey
contended, that there was no reason whatever to believe that Denmark had entered into any alliance, or that she even had any secret understanding with France, previous to our attack upon her capital. No such inference could be drawn from the quantity of stores found in her arsenals, because there had not been time to collect those stores between the period at which the treaty of Tilsit was concluded and the date of our invasion. And it was worthy of remark, that no movement hostile to us had been observed during that interval. It was rather extraordinary, that so many scruples should be found to the production of the papers now moved for, in a quarter where no great delicacy had been observed on other occasions, in the publication of official papers, and that those ministers who had so imprudently disclosed the dispatches of sir Arthur Paget, from Vienna, and who had commenced their career with divulging the secrets of cabinets, should now withhold information which was essential not only to their own justification, but, to the satisfaction of the country, upon a question in which the national honour was so deeply interested.
Lord Hawkesbury
said, there never was a debate in which he would have wished more to have heard every thing that could have been said on the other side, before he delivered his own sentiments; but he felt it necessary for him now to state the rea-
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
Earl St. Vincent
declared, supposing for an instant, Zealand and the Danish navy to be in the possession of Denmark, and the French to be in possession of Holstein, that he should think it more practicable to invade this country from Boulogne, than Zealand from Holstein. As to the situation of the Danish fleet, it seemed to his lordship to be exactly what it was when he first knew it about eight and forty years ago. Having been employed by the late government in the expedition to the Tagus, he was prepared to say, that there was no resemblance whatever between the conduct that would have been
376
Earl Grey
said, there never was a question in this or the other house of parliament, of more interest to the country than the present; nor one which more strongly affected the honour of the nation in the eyes of the whole world. So far from thinking the measure justified by what had fallen from the noble lord opposite (Hawkesbury) in the latter part of his speech, in which he had held it out as something which had saved the country from ruin, he remained satisfied, after the most deliberate consideration he could give the subject, that so far from adding to the safety of the country, that point on which its safety most particularly depended, he meant its honour, had not only been greatly weakened, but had in fact received a mortal stab. The noble lord had treated it as a question of necessity, arising out of that first of all duties, self-preservation. In that view of the subject, his lordship should attempt to follow him. He had endeavoured to make out three propositions: 1st, that the object of France was to collect as great a force as possible for the annoyance of this country; and that the navy of Denmark was part of the force, so destined against us; 2d, that it was practicable for the French government to force Denmark into this measure; and, 3rd, that it was a scheme of so much danger to us, as warranted us in adopting, nay, as rendered it absolutely necessary for us to adopt, the measure in question. As to the first, his lordship was free to admit that there could be little doubt of the anxiety of France to unite every power she could to carry on the war against us with as much success as possible. This he was far from disputing; but still the noble lord could not allege, that it was of itself any thing like a sufficient vindication of the act which had been resorted to. It might be the policy of France to take the most immediate measures for accomplishing her ends; but it was far from likely that Denmark would also see it to be her true line of policy to grant a ready compliance with the demand of the French government. It was undoubtedly, her interest to keep out of the contest, and, if she was desirous of doing so she had a threat to hold out to Buonaparte, as powerful as any he had to drive her to compliance with his wishes. She had the British navy to apply to for protection and it would have been absolute ruin to
377
378
379
380
The Earl of Mulgrave
entered into an examination of the conduct of the late administration with respect to Portugal; and contended, that after the orders which had been given by them on that subject, they came forward with a very bad grace to censure his majesty's present government for what had been done by them at Copenhagen. The noble lord had expressed his confidence, that Denmark would not have forsaken her neutrality, and that she would have been neither cajoled by the persuasion, nor influenced by the menaces of France, to have made common cause with her against G. Britain,
381
382
Earl Darnley,
rebutted all the arguments advanced by the noble earl who preceded him. He contended, that no case whatever had been made out to justify the harsh measures resorted to by ministers, in attacking a defenceless people in a state of avowed neutrality.
Lord Sidmouth
rose at a late hour, and supported the motion in a speech of considerable animation. The noble viscount began with strongly urging, that it was the paramount duty of ministers, at all times, to furnish parliament with formal
383
Contents,
35
Proxies,
13—48
Non-Contents,
67
Proxies,
38—105
384
Majority against the motion, 57.
List of the Minority.
Norfolk,
Auckland,
Somerset,
Carysfort,
Bedford,
Erskine,
Devon,
Ellenborough,
Argyle,
Ponsonby,
Stafford,
Lauderdale,
Derby,
Yarborough,
Jersey,
Hutchinson,
Cowper,
Braybrooke.
Essex,
Stanhope,
Proxies.
Hardwicke,
Bute,
Grey,
Shaftsbury,
Cholmondeley,
Carnarvon,
Albemarle,
Lucan,
Fitzwilliam,
Thanet,
Spencer,
Hereford,
Buckinghamshire,
Dorchester,
Sidmouth,
Bulkeley,
St. John,
Ossory,
Besborough,
Lilford,
Darnley,
Dundas,
King,
Foley, P
Holland,
Spencer of Worm-
Moira,
leighton (lord
Grenville,
Brandford)
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 8.
[EXPEDITION TO THE DARDANELLES.] Mr. T. Grenville
begged the attention of the gentlemen opposite for a few moments. The house would recollect, that as the late administration quitted office before the result of the Expedition to Constantinople was known, it was impossible for him to judge what Papers had or had not been received on the subject by the admiralty. It was well known that the greater part of communications from the admiralty originated in letters to and from the first lord, who caused all such letters to him, and duplicates of all such letters from him, as he conceived to be fit subjects of official resort, to be laid before the board of Admiralty. He had not now the opportunity of knowing whether several papers of considerable importance to the elucidation of this subject, had been laid before the board. One was a Letter from lord Collingwood to the first lord of the admiralty, containing sir T. Louis's report of the state of the Dardanelles, and of the Turkish fleet and batteries on the 5th of Dec. Two others were Letters from himself to lord Collingwood, on the subject of Alexandria and Constantinople, of which he had thought proper to lay before the admiralty certified copies, that they might become the subjects of official resort. Having so done, he thought it his duty to call the attention
385
Mr. Secretary Canning
observed, that he had on a former occasion sufficiently evinced his wish, that all the information on the subject, which the gentlemen opposite were desirous of having, should be produced, although the expression of that wish had been so ungraciously treated, that he should feel much disinclined again to enter into a private communication on that or any other subject with the gentlemen opposite.
Mr. T. Grenville,
in explanation, declared that the first intimation which he had had of the private communication to which the right hon. gent. alluded, was when on his legs in that house.
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] Mr. Whitbread
rose to make his promised motion for the production of certain Papers, extracts from which had been quoted by the right hon. secretary, in his speech, in defence of the expedition to Copenhagen. (p. 272.) The hon. member observed, that the subject was of the highest importance in itself. The right hon. secretary in his speech, had carried the practice of making partial extracts from papers not before the house, to an extent to which it had never been pushed before. In the course of his speech, which certainly none but an able man could have spoken, he had resorted to a practice of partial extract and comment, which probably no other man besides himself would have had recourse to. In the course of the last war, lord Melville, then a member of that house, and high in office, had set the example of a similar practice; but he well remembered that the practice had then been reprobated as unfair, as derogating from the dignity of the house, and as calculated to produce an impression, in most cases, totally different from that which the papers given at full length would bear. He would do Mr. Pitt the justice to say, that he had never descended to such a practice. The right hon. gent. should recollect the situation of high trust and responsibility which he held, and that it was most unbecoming that situation to put any thing like a false gloss on the written opinions of his predecessors in office. He had the authority of his noble friend (earl Grey)
386
387
Mr. Secretary Canning
contended, that when in the course of his speech on Wednesday last he was led to consider the disposition of the Danes towards this country, and the means which they had, whether of offence or defence, about the latter end of 1806, he availed himself of that information of unquestionable authority on these subjects, which had been left by his predecessor in office. The circumstance of the continuity of the government being disturbed, did not detract from the value of that information. It should be recollected what it was that gave occasion for the extracts which he had made. He had contended, that the seizure of Holstein by the French would have a dangerous influence upon Zealand; first, by the possibility of an actual transfer of French troops to that island; and, 2dly, because it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Danish army to retreat in the face of a victorious French force. But the seizure of Holstein would have also had a moral influence upon the Danes, in disposing them to join that power by which they were overawed. To illustrate this, he had made an extract from a dispatch of his noble predecessor, in which the contingency of this event was foreseen, and in which our envoy was ordered to notify to the Danish government, that if any promise was made to surrender their fleet to the French, his majesty would resent it. This extract was not made, however, by way of recrimination or imputation upon the noble lord; on the contrary, it was
388
389
Earl Temple
was astonished at the speech of the right hon. secretary the other night in many parts of it, and still more so, at the manner in which he attempted to defend himself to-night, by denying the information which the motion before the house was calculated to convey. He had referred to extracts from the dispatches of lard Howick in his own defence the other night, and in support of his own argument. He must be excused when he called these extracts, garbled extracts of documents to which he had access from his official situation. In the course of the debate, the right hon. secretary gave a part which suited the purpose of his own argument, and concealed the rest. He should have expected, that a man of the talents and station of the right hon. secretary would not have stooped to the artifice of garbling scraps of paper, to give a false colouring to a transaction of such importance as that of which he was treating the other night; for most indisputable it was, that the whole matter would have appeared in a very different light from that in which the speech of the right hon. secretary placed it. My lord Grey felt himself aggrieved by this proceeding, and declared that if the dispatch sent by him to Mr. Garlicke had been all read, instead of the partial extract which the right hon. secretary gave to the house, the whole transaction would have a different colour from that which the reading of that partial extract gave it. What was the point in debate? There had been an inquiry respecting Denmark, and the Expedition to Copen
390
Mr. Herbert
took a general view of the expedition to Copenhagen, which he considered as setting an example, which would in future have the effect of involving neutral powers in war, whatever might be their interest or inclination.
The Secretary at War
defended the measure, and conceived it plain to the common sense of every man, that from the power of France and the weakness of Denmark, the latter power would not have been permitted to remain neutral.
Mr. Tierney
alluded to the speech of the right honourable the secretary of state on a former night, the eloquence of which he admired, but he could not help saying, it was a speech most of the force of which was derived from the extracts which he took from certain documents to which he referred. And here he must take leave to lament that a secretary of state should avail himself of the command he had of the documents of office, and which none but a secretary of state could have taken; and here he must also declare, that the extracts which the right hon. gent. read, were garbled extracts. Lord Grey was well known to be hostile to the Expedition to Copenhagen, and by the extract which the right hon. gent. gave of the dispatch of lord Grey (then lord Howick) to Mr. Garlicke, it would appear as if lord Howick had recommended that expedition. He really did not see what his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) could do less than bring forward the present mo-
391
392
Mr. Lockhart
observed, that the vote of the former night must have proceeded upon one of two grounds. It must either have proceeded from a conviction of the satisfactoriness of the extracts of the papers produced, or from a general conviction of the necessity of the measure. The nature of the war was now greatly altered from what it was. We were now fighting for nothing less than self-defence, and our existence as a nation. France had subjugated nearly the whole continent of Europe, and it did not behove this country to remain inactive, till she had collected means to form an attack against us. Ministers, he conceived, had acted wisely in anticipating the steps which France was known to have in contemplation. If we had the fullest proof of the good inclinations of Denmark to this country, but were at the same time convinced that she was unable to resist the confederacy formed against her, ministers, in his opinion, were justified in having acted as they had done. He should therefore oppose the production of the papers moved for.
Mr. Horner
begged leave to recall to the attention of the house what was the real motion they were then debating. His hon. friend had moved for two papers, one of which had been granted, but as to the other it was to be refused, which was the
393
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
maintained, that there was no foundation for the supposition that the extracts made by his right hon. friend out of the dispatch of lord Howick to Mr. Garlicke at Copenhagen, made the unfavourable impression against that noble lord which some gentlemen apprehended; for they seemed to think that the object of making these abstracts was merely to impress the house with the idea that lord Howick was now complaining against this expedition, only because he was in opposition, but that if he were in power, he would have done as ministers did. But it was not the intention of his right hon. friend to produce any such impression. There was no such interference warranted by the extracts of the dispatch of the noble lord. It was not denied that the noble lord was against the expedition. But the opinion of lord Howick was, that if Denmark gave up her fleet to secure Holstein from the seizure
394
Mr. Windham
complained that ministers had swindled the house out of an appearance of approbation of the Danish expedition, in the Address to his majesty, although it was then understood, that that Address was a mere matter of form, not conveying any actual opinion. The grand ground for the production of the papers moved for by his hon. friend, was that the house having, irregularly in his opinion, allowed a flagrant injustice to be done to an individual, were bound to repair it as far as lay in their power.
Sir John Orde
was desirous that ministers should not be fettered. The gentlemen opposite seemed to wish that we should give the sword to our enemy, and content ourselves with the scabbard.
Mr. Lyttleton
did not think that the resistance to the present motion rested on the same grounds as the resistance to the motion of Wednesday last. Although he voted for ministers on that day, common justice would compel him to vote for the hon. gent. on the present occasion.
Mr. Sheridan
was glad to hear the challenge thrown out by the other side. As to a vote of censure, he should be happy to vote two censures; the one on the disrespectful manner in which all information relative to the Danish expedition had been withheld from the house; the other on the expedition itself. He contended strenuously for the production of the papers moved for by his hon. friend. Before the meeting of parliament he had made up his mind to support his majesty's ministers on the subject of the expedition to Copenhagen; fully expecting that they would be able to prove, either that a collusion existed between Denmark and France, or that Denmark could not have resisted the
395
Mr. Sharpe
said, he thought the motion ought to be acceded to on every principle of fairness and justice; and so convinced was he of the partiality and injustice of reading garbled papers, that if no other person accepted the challenge given to that side of the house, he would himself bring forward a motion, for a vote of censure; though from the slight connection he had in the house, and the short time he had been a member of it, he could not boast even so much parliamentary courage as to flatter himself with success, and could wish it to fall into abler hands.
Mr. Whitbread
congratulated the house on the idea, that whether they lost the motion or not, it would have the good effect of preventing the right hon. gentleman from again making use of garbled letters. The chancellor of the exchequer had clearly shewn, that he had never had a cause in a court of justice in which he found it so difficult to defend his client; for all he could say in his behalf was, that he did not mean to draw that inference which others had done for him. The right hon. gent. had said, does the noble lord mean to say, that I have cast any imputation on him, by reading his letter?' He would answer for the noble lord, yes,—the imputation of holding one language while in office, and another when out of it, and in so doing palming an imposition on that house and the public. Ministers and the noble lord were, then, at issue: produce the paper. Was there any public inconvenience arising from it? He would answer boldly, no; it had not even been pretended that there was the most distant risk of it. Ministers were willing to give Mr. Rist's letter, because it might serve their purpose on another occasion, but that which made against them they withheld. The right hon. secretary hat said on Wednesday last, that whenever he saw the footsteps of those incapable servants he turned round to avoid them, as a path to be shunned; he wished, however, the right hon. gent. would imitate them in their candour and fairness. He had seemed to think he was dealt hardly by, in its being insinuated that he had represented the Danes as humiliated and treated contemp-
396
but
but
Mr. Montague
was proceeding, but the house became so clamorous, that he was obliged to sit down. On a division, there appeared—For the motion 73: Against it 157. Majority 84—On our return to the gallery,
Mr. Sharpe
gave notice of his intention of submitting to the house certain Resolutions relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen, and the Conduct Ministers therein; but refused to name the day.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby,James
Greenhill, Robert
Baring, Alexander
Griffinhoofe, B.
Baring. Thomas
Herbert, H. A.
Bathurst, rt. h. C.B.
Hibbert, G.
Bernard, Scrope
Horner, F.
Bradshaw, A. C.
Howard, col.
Bruce, P. C.
Howard, W.
Burdett, sir F.
Knapp, G.
Byng, G.
Knox, 'rho.
Calcraft, sir G.
Lambe, W.
Cavendish, lord G.
Lambton, R. J.
Cavendish, W.
Laurence, French
Cavendish, G. A.H.C.
Lloyd, colonel
Cocks, hon. E. S.
Loftus, general
Colbourne, N. R.
Lyttleton, W. H.
Craig, J.
Macdonald, James
Crevey, Thomas
Mackenzie, gen.
Cuthbert, J. R.
Martin, Henry
Ebrington, visc.
Mathew, M.
Eden, W.
Maule, W. R.
Elliot, W.
Milbank, sir Ralph
Fergusson, general
Miller, sir Tho.
397
Milton, viscount
Russell, lord W.
Moore, Peter
Scudamore, R.
Morpeth, Viscount
Sharpe, Richard
Mosley, sir O.
Sheridan, R. B.
Neville, R.
Smith, G.
Newport, sir John
Taylor, M. A.
Ord, William
Temple, earl
Ossulston, lord
Tierney, G.
Parry, Love
Tracy, H.
Peirse, Henry
Vansittart, N.
Petty, lord H.
Vernon, G. G. V.
Piggott, sir A.
Ward, J. W.
Ponsonby, F.
Wardel, col.
Prittie, F. A.
Western, C. C.
Quin, W. H.
Whitbread, Sam.
Romilly, sir S.
Windham, W.
[PAPERS RELATING TO DENMARK AND THE ORDER IN COUNCIL OF JAN. 7, 1807.]
The following are copies of the Papers relative to Denmark and the Order in Council of the 7th Jan. 1807, moved for this day, by Mr. Whitbread.
PAPERS
PRESENTED BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, FEB. 15, 1808.
No. I.—Note from M. Rist to Lord Viscount Howick, dated London, March 9, 1807.
The undersigned, Charge d'Affaires of his majesty the king of Denmark, in transmitting in due time to his court by the Note, by which his excellency viscount Howick acquainted him, on the 10th of Jan. with the Order in Council, (p. 126.), issued by his Britannic majesty, prohibiting all commerce between the different ports of the enemy and those subject to the influence of the French government, foresaw at that time the deep and painful impression which that Order could not fail to produce upon the court of Denmark.—He has this moment received its orders to express to the ministers of his Britannic majesty the surprise and grief which the court of the undersigned has felt in taking notice of a resolution, which, founded upon a principle in itself inadmissible, attacks one of the chief sources of the commercial prosperity of Denmark, and seems to give a blow, as direct as it is unprovoked, to her most sacred rights, and to the treaties which connect her with G. Britain He has received the orders of his court, to detail to his Britannic majesty's government the fatal consequences of this measure, and finally to require its suppression.—The undersigned, in quitting himself of these orders of his excellency. visc. Howick, takes the liberty of demanding from him all the serious attention
398
399
400
401
402
No. II.—Note from Lord Visc. Howick to Mr. Rist, dated Foreign-Office, 17th March, 1807.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for Foreign affairs, has the honour of informing Mr. Rist, that he has lost no time in submitting to his majesty's government his Note of the 9th inst.; and that it has received all the attention which the magnitude of the subject, and the various and important considerations which it involves, certainly required.—It is much to be wished that the Danish government, before it had suffered itself to indulge in the representations contained in the above official paper, had considered with more calmness the nature and objects of the Decree of the French government of the 21st of Nov. last, and the Order in Council which, in consequence of that Decree, has been, issued by his majesty.—The undersigned is under the necessity of thus calling, in the outset, the attention of the Danish minister to the original state of the question; because M. Rist, in his reference both to the Decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, and to his majesty's Order in Council, seems to have misconceived the tenor and effect of both; uniformly excusing and palliating
403
404
405
bona fide
406
407
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 9.
[PETITION AGAINST THE CURATES SUSPENSION REPEAL BILL.] Mr. Whitbread
408
presented a Petition from the rev. James Scott, rector of Brampton Bryan, in the county of Hereford; taking notice of the ingrossed bill from the lords, intituled, An Act for repealing an Act made in the 47th of his present majesty, intituled, An Act for suspending the operation of an act of the 36th of his present majesty for the further support and maintenance of Curates within the Church of England, and for other purposes in the said act mentioned, so far as relates to the avoidance of Benefices by the Incumbents thereof having accepted augmented Curacies; and setting forth, "that if the same should pass into a law, it will operate in a manner extremely injurious to the petitioner, whose title to the rectory of Brampton Bryan aforesaid cannot be disputed, as long as the said act of the 47th of his present majesty shall continue to be the law; and that the petitioner was presented and duly instituted to the Rectory of Brampton Bryan aforesaid in 1801; and in 1805 he was nominated to the perpetual curacy of Titley, in the county aforesaid; and that in 1806, the petitioner was appointed chaplain to his majesty's ship Lion, which by the Residence Act is a legal cause of absence; and the petitioner went in the said ship to China; and that at the time of the petitioner's accepting the perpetual curacy aforesaid, he was in total ignorance of a section in an act of 36 Geo. 3. commonly called the Curates Act, which makes a former Benefice voidable by the subsequent acceptance of a perpetual curacy augmented by Queen Anne's Bounty; and that, if the petitioner had been in the least aware of the said clause, he would have applied for a dispensation to hold two benefices, he being a batchelor of laws of the. University of Oxford, and as such in a situation to obtain such dispensation; and, that, during the last session of parliament, and whilst the petitioner was absent in China as aforesaid. a bill for the purpose of confirming clergymen who had acted in ignorance of the aforesaid clause in possession of their former Benefices, was, from the very commencement of the said session in the hands of several members of both houses of parliament, of some of the most eminent lawyers at the bar, and of many respectable clergymen; and that several weeks after the said bill had been in such extensive discussion, namely on the 27th of July 1807, the patron of the said rectory of Brampton Bryan presented another gentleman thereto; and that, by
409
[DROITS OF ADMIRALTY.] Sir F. Burdett
seeing the chancellor of the exchequer in his place, wished to put a question to him, in order that he might be satisfied, upon authority, of the truth of certain rumours which were in circulation. It had been stated in the public prints, that his majesty had granted large sums, out of the proceeds of property belonging to nations not at war with this country, to several branches of the royal family, and particularly to the duke of York. What he wished to know was, whether this statement was correct; and if so, upon what ground it was that his majesty could seize the property of nations not at war with this country?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was willing to give the hon. baronet every information he required on the subject. But first he must apprise the hon. baronet of a misapprehension which he seemed to labour under, With respect to the principle upon which his majesty's right to the property in question was founded. It was true that the property had been seized previous to his majesty's formal declaration of war, but war had since been declared, and the question respecting the property had .been referred to the competent tribunal and condemned. The right of his majesty, therefore, grounded upon such a decision, was incontrovertible. It
410
Sir F. Burdett
thanked the right hon. gent. for the frankness of his answer, and intimated his intention to bring the subject before parliament on a future day.
[CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY.] Lord Folkestone
moved, That the several Papers presented to the house in January, Feb. March, June and July, 1806, and in Feb. 1807, relative to the Affairs of the Province of Oude, be taken into consideration on Monday the 22d inst.
Mr. Creevey
took this opportunity of expressing his opinion, that the best mode of proceeding would not be that which the noble lord had stated, but that it would be better to refer the papers to a committee, to arrange and make their report. The papers already printed were so voluminous, that it was difficult indeed for the house to understand the subject, unless the necessary papers were selected in this manner. The subject was very comprehensive, extending to the whole system of policy in India for a considerable time. It would be recollected, that with respect to the policy of the marquis Wellesley's government, the East India directors had, with an unanimity unprecedented against the opinion of government, decided by a majority of 23 directors out of 24, against the noble marquis. When government afterwards sent marquis Cornwallis to succeed him, they evidently disapproved of his administration. He thought it was necessary that the dispatches of marquis Cornwallis, expressing his opinion of the conduct of his predecessor, should be before the house.
Mr. R. Dundas
thought it was unusual to interfere with any hon. member in the manner in which he might think proper to bring forward any business before that house. When the noble lord should bring forward his Resolutions, that would be the proper time for offering such observations as occurred to any hon. gent. on the subject. It appeared to him, that as those papers had been already nearly four years before the house, it would be the best way to proceed to a vote upon those papers. The general policy of the system of government in India would be brought before the discussion of the house in another shape.
Sir A. Wellesley
said, that it had always
411
Mr. Lushington
observed, that the right hon. general was under a mistake, in saying, the business had been four years before the house, as it had been introduced in May, 1806.
Sir A. Wellesley
admitted, that he had not been exactly correct, but the hon. member was less so; for instead of May, 1806, it was May, 1805.
Earl Temple
said, he felt still the anxiety that he had always expressed, that this business should be brought to a speedy vote. He thought it injustice to the feelings of any individual to have such charges hanging over his head for a great length of time; and therefore he wished that the question should be put to rest, and that lord Wellesley's character should be settled one way or the other. It would be recollected, that he formerly pressed anxiously for a decision, but was at that time opposed by the friends of the noble marquis, gins on the other side of the house.
Mr. Windham
said, it appeared to him that the best way of understanding the whole of the subject, was to refer it to a committee, to select out of the voluminous papers which had been printed, those which were most necessary for the consideration of the house.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
expressed some surprise, that gentlemen opposite should now propose to go into, a committee upon this subject, as if the topic never had been before the house: was it forgotten that it had been in discussion repeatedly, ever since 1805? He heartily approved of the mode proposed by the noble lord, and, concurred in his motion for the papers he had moved for; but he was averse to the mode of proceeding by a committee.
Lord A. Hamilton
spoke in favour of the committee.
412
Lord Folkestone
lamented the unfortunate predicament in which he stood, in having those only to approve of his plan of proceeding who, he knew, were against bins on the merits, while, again, those who were with him on the merits of the question, objected to his mode of bringing it forward. He must, however, adhere to the mode he had laid down for himself.x2014;The motion was then put and carried.
Mr. Creevey
with a view to the general discussion of the affairs of India, moved, that there be laid before the house copies of all letters sent by the late marquis Cornwallis to the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors, subsequent to his arrival in India in 1805. These letters contained the opinion of the noble marquis on every prominent part of the administration of our Indian empire, and the information they would give would be most important in directing the judgment of the house on a subject that every day called more loudly for a general, and particular investigation.
Mr. R. Dundas
consented to the production of all the letters but the last, which was not signed by the marquis, and from that and some other deficiencies, such as want of date, unfilled blanks &c. could not be considered as a fit document to be laid before parliament. The committee which he meant to move for shortly, was merely to consider the Financial Affairs of the East India Company.—After some conversation, it was agreed that the Papers should be produced, with the exception of the unfinished letter.
Mr. Creevey
then gave notice, that as the right hon. gent. meant to call the attention of the house to the Financial affairs of the East India Company only, he would move for a general inquiry into the state of our Indian empire, territorial and political.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 10.
[DROITS OF ADMIRALTY.] Sir F. Burdett
rose to move for an address to his majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the house an account of all captures made at sea, which remained at the disposal of the-crown, from the commencement of the late war in 1792, to the present time, together with an account of the produce of the same, and the manner in which it had been disposed of.
413
TheChancellor of the Exchequer
wished the hon. baronet to give a notice rather than to make his motion now. This was more consonant to the practice of the house. The motion would furnish an opportunity for discussing the doctrines that were afloat on this subject. A notice was the best mode of proceeding, as it would cause the persons concerned to turn their attention to the matter, and to ascertain how far the motion could, with propriety, be complied with. If the hon. baronet would give a notice, he would come prepared either to aid in forming the motion in the most convenient shape, or to give reasons why it should not pass.
Sir F Burdett
had no difficulty in consulting the convenience of the right hon. gent. by giving the notice for to-morrow.
[CURATES SUSPENSION REPEAL BILL.] Mr. Dickenson
moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for the repeal of the act of the last session, suspending the penalties and forfeitures affecting persons accepting augmented Curacies. He stated, that the penalty of forfeiture attached by law to persons not resident accepting augmented curacies, if these persons were not resident or had no dispensation. The case of Mr. Scott, which was the sole one on which the Suspension act of last session was grounded, was exactly under the circumstances that worked this forfeiture. It was not enough that Mr. Scott pleaded ignorance of the law. That ignorance was no excuse for the breach of the law, was one of the fundamental maxims of British justice. Mr. Scott, holding the rectory of Brampton Bryan, had accepted the augmented curacy of Titley; and his rectory being thereby forfeited, the patron had granted it to Mr. Graham, who had been inducted with all the proper forms. Mr. Graham had given notice not to pay tithes under the act of last session. That act had passed by surprise.
Mr. Lockhart
defended the Suspension act of the last session, which was brought forward, not from reference to any private case, but from a regard to the general state of the clergy, whose titles were very generally threatened by the penalties and forfeitures unguardedly incurred under the act of 1796. That act had received in its last stage a clause and a title, which entirely changed its effect, without giving sufficient notice to those interested. These curacies had always before been considered as tenable with benefices, and the act
414
Mr. Lushington
argued against the Suspension act on all the former grounds, and contended, that it would be an unwarrantable exercise of the power of parliament to interfere with the right of the patron (lord Oxford) to whom the rectory lapsed by the default of Mr. Scott, and Mr. Graham, who legally enjoyed it under the presentation of that patron, confirmed by all due forms.
Mr. Whitbread
denied that the Suspensions act of last session had been passed by surprise. That was impossible while the chair was filled as it was now. Was it possible that it could have passed the bench of bishops also, in the upper house, by surprise. The hon. gent. then went over the circumstances of Mr. Scott's case, which he contended called for relief from parliament, and for the continuance of the Suspension bill, the means of that relief could be prepared and considered.
Dr. Laurence
argued for the repeal. He repeated that the Suspension bill had passed the house in a great hurry at the close of the last session. He had made some objections to it, on first discovering it by accident in its passage; but before he could be prepared to deliver his sentiments properly it was gone to the lords.
Mr. Sheridan
finding the bill before the house, regarded it as a sort of reprimand from the lords, and a sort of episcopal repartee from the bishops, for having passed the Suspension act, and thought the house ought to receive it somewhat indignantly. If the bishops and the lords wished to stultify the house by making it indecorously undo its own act, the house ought not to spew any desire to make itself a party to that stultification. But it happened also, that the lords and the bishops could not stultify the house of commons without stultifying themselves, who had joined in the, Suspension. He
415
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that parliament had no right to interfere with the discretion of the patron of the rectory of Brampton Bryan, even though he should exercise his right in a manner that might not be agreeable to many. But it was not the right of lord Oxford and Mr. Scott alone, but the right of Mr. Graham, the present incumbent also, that was to be considered in this case. What appeared to be hardship in the exercise of discretionary right, would often appear to be no hardship, if it were necessary or convenient to give the grounds of the exercise of discretionary and absolute right. The lords by passing this bill acknowledged their share of the error in passing the Suspension act, and called upon this house for a like recantation. He should vote for the repeal.—The bill was then read second time.
[ARRANGEMENT WITH THE BANK.] Mr. Huskisson
moved the order of the day, for going into a committee of ways and means, to which the Correspondence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank, relative to the late Arrangement between the Bank and the public, was to be referred. (see p. 232.)
Lord H. Petty
wished for some explanation on a point which was not sufficiently clear upon the face of the Papers before the house. The Resolution of the Court of Directors on which the resolution of the company of the Bank of England was founded, agreed to lend to the public 3,000,000
l
l
416
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the noble lord would find that what had passed between him and the Bank was all recapitulated in the note of the 19th Jan. (p. 250.) The words on the particular point alluded to by the noble lord were, that the Bank should, on the 5th of April next, advance 3,000,000
l
pro tanto
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose again. He had the satisfaction, he said, to call the attention of the committee to an Arrangement, which it had been his good fortune to make, under circumstances so advantageous to the public, and at the same time so fair towards the Bank, that he was confident on explaining them to the committee he should have its full approbation. The Papers before the committee contained the details of the correspondence between him and the governor and deputy governor of the Bank. It was therefore only necessary for him to state the origin and conclusion of the arrangement which he had now to submit. The committee would be aware, that this arrangement was first suggested by the
417
l
l
l
l
l
l
418
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
419
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
420
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
421
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Bankes
agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it was most just that the country should avail itself of the profits arising from its own money, without in-
422
l
423
Mr. Tierney
observed, that the right hon. chancellor of the exchequer, seemed to think it a matter of course, that provided the nature of the bargain, as to the public gain derived from it, were approved, no other objection could arise to it. In the outset he would state this vital objection, which he confessed was not new; that while the public restricted the bank from paving in specie, it was at least highly indelicate that the public should derive benefit from that restriction. But could the right hon. gent. have asked for a loan of 3 millions had it not been for that restriction? Would any bank directors tell him, that the loan would have been granted with so much composure, had it not been for that restriction? The right hon. gent. concluded that this was no advance from the bank, but from the public money. How? There were certainly large public balances in the bank, but they were all appropriated to specific purposes. The bank lent this money for what purpose government pleased. If that were not a loan from the bank, what was it? He allowed that the public ought to derive some advantage from the bank, but he differed from the right hon. gent. with regard to the manner in which those advantages should be derived. He would agree with him, that in consideration of the large public balances held by the bank, the bank should furnish the public with the interest of 3 millions; or instead of a loan of 3 millions, that they should pay an annual sum of 150,000
l
424
l
425
426
l
Mr. S. Thornton
declared, that whether they gave a loan of 3 millions, or an annual sum of 150,000
l
427
l
l
l
l
Mr. Huskisson
defended the proposition of his right hon. friend. The hon. gent. opposite had maintained, that an annual payment would be a permanent advantage, a loan only a contingent one. A loan, however, would not be rendered contingent even by peace, were large balances still to remain in the hands of the bank; for, by the transaction now under discussion, a principle had been established, which would be acted on in
428
Mr. H. Thornton
expressed himself tolerably satisfied with the bargain, that had in this instance been made for the public. He agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes), that the rate of allowance for management might have been reduced farther, had it not been for the acts of parliament that stood in the way. But taking these into consideration, he believed the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had reduced it nearly as much as the law allowed him. With regard to the 3 millions, he thought, that the public would derive a greater advantage from them than from the allowance of the interest recommended by some. The inconvenience to the bank would not be much. They would merely lose the interest of 3 millions of exchequer bills. All this, he said, did not diminish the duty of parliament to look with jealousy to the amount of bank notes in circulation. It might happen too, that the commissioners of the sinking fund might find it convenient to become subscribers to the loans; and the balance in the bank would, by this means, be diminished. He wished it, therefore, to be clearly understood, that the commissioners might be at liberty to become subscribers to the loan if convenient, without its being considered as any infringement of this agreement.
429
Mr. Huskisson
in answer, stated, that express care had been taken to provide that government should not be precluded from resorting to any means for reducing the balances.
Mr. D. Giddy
observed, that though the issues of the bank might be enlarged by the restriction, their capital was still limited, and unless they had so much capital that they did not know what to do with it, they must be losers by lending these 3 millions.
Lord H. Petty
said, that on two branches of this transaction he hardly thought it necessary to trouble the house with any observations at all. On the subject of the unclaimed dividends he felt much inclined to concur in the view of the right hon. gent. opposite. The bank directors in the course of the conferences on this subject naturally resorted to the definition of an unclaimed dividend, which had been allowed by certain acts of parliament: yet the natural definition he should take to be, a dividend that was not claimed in the quarter when due, without reference to the next quarter. Of these dividends all that could be taken, ought undoubtedly to be applied to the public service, and 100,000
l
430
Mr. Manning
defended the conduct of the bank, and contended that the charges of management of the public debt were much greater than gentlemen supposed. Of 800 clerks employed in the bank 400 were engaged in the business arising from the public debt. All the issues of the bank would still continue to be subject to par-
431
Mr. Brogden
thought that the arrangement with the bank was not so advantageous to the public as it ought to be, but thought it better to agree to it than to shew any appearance of hostility.
Mr. Biddulph
considered the bargain of the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, to be extremely disadvantageous to the interests of the public.
Mr. Croker
defended the arrangement, as did also Mr. Carew, who as a member of the Committee of Finance, expressed his satisfaction that its suggestions for the public service had been thus attended to. —The different resolutions were then agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 11.
DISPUTE WITH AMERICA.] Lord Grenville
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers, which would tend to throw some light on the nature of the relations, as they now existed, between this country and America, and on the terms and tendency of the treaty which, in Dec. 1806, was concluded. between the two nations. It had fallen to his lot to be engaged more than once in discussions with the ministers of the united states, and, he had bestowed on what regarded the connection and mutual interests of the two states, all the attention, labour, and diligence, of which he was master, and which the high importance of the subject so seriously imposed on him. Indeed, the cultivating and maintaining of a good understanding with America, an understanding that included and promoted the reciprocal interests of the two countries, was, in his mind, the most material and important consideration that could possibly engage the attention of the British government and parliament, next to the care of conciliating and uniting, in one bond of union, all descriptions of his majesty's subjects in these kingdoms. He had of late taken occasion, more than once, to express this opinion, and he now wished to repeat it in the most serious and solemn manner. This disposition powerfully animated his views and his conduct, whenever any thing occurred that threatened to embarrass or interrupt the friendly intercourse and connection of the two countries. In
432
433
434
Lord Hawkesbury
most perfectly coincided in opinion with the noble baron, that an impartial regard to the interests of the two countries was an essential basis of this, or any other negotiation; and under that impression he trusted that he and his colleagues were disposed to act. No man could be more impressed than he was with the necessity of cultivating a good understanding with America, and making her feel how indispensable was such a connexion to the reciprocal interests of the two countries. After having acquainted the noble baron that he did not intend to oppose his motion, he did not expect he would have gone so largely into the question: but he should not imitate his example, as he would now, and as he had on former occasions, abstain from agitating any question respecting America; as our relations With the united states must soon come, in all their bearings, under the consideration of the house.—After a short conversation the motion was agreed to.
[MEDIATION OF RUSSIA AND AUSTRIA.] Earl Grey
said, he had to apologise to their lordships, for postponing that part of the motion of which he had given notice, which related to the Expedition to Constantinople. He found himself obliged to do this from having been unable to examine the dates of certain papers, which it was necessary to investigate. With respect to the other points of his motion, he thought it of great importance that the house should be put in possesion of some additional information relative to the Me-
435
436
437
438
Lord Hawkesbury
felt it necessary for him to make some observations on the speech which the noble lord had just delivered. That speech was principally divided into two heads: first, respecting the Russian mediation, and the conduct of the present ministers upon the subject; secondly, the noble lord had thought it necessary to go at considerate length into an apology or defence of the late ministers front the charges which had been made against them by persons in this country, and by the Russian Declaration, which charged the government of this country with neglecting to co-operate with their allies on the continent. As to the first point, namely, the Russian mediation, he
439
440
441
Earl Moira
conceived that his majesty's present ministers had no right to ask Russia to communicate the secret articles of the treaty she had been forced to sign at Tilsit. If the emperor of Russia signed secret articles, he had pledged his honour that they should be secret, and we could not reasonably expect him to violate that pledge. At the same moment, however, and in the same breath, that we denied the power of Russia to be a fair guarantee between us and France, and rejected that mediation, we solicited it as between us and Denmark, and thought that,, in that case, her. guarantee Was quite sufficient. If the late ministers, however, did not send an army to the assistance of Russia, it was because no army which this country could send had the smallest chance of turning the fate of the last unfortunate campaign. The greatest force that was ever spoken of as possible to attempt a diversion with, was 30,000 British troops and 15,000 Swedes. This force, collected at Stralsund, could have had but very little
442
443
Lord Hutchinson
hoped the house would allow him to state some matters which, from the situation he had held, were within his own personal knowledge. The Russian army never had any chance of succeeding in the campaign, or even in the battle of Eylau, where they fought so bravely. The French had certainly the victory. They remained for ten days in the field of battle, and immediately after made themselves masters of the magazines at Elbing, and returned to their cantonments, where they effectually covered the blockade of several strong towns, which afterwards surrendered to them. At that time the king of Prussia retired from Konigsberg to Memel, and not thinking himself quite safe there, had even engaged a house at Riga. On the 23d of Feb. he wrote to ministers, mentioning that a French general had arrived at Memel to propose a separate peace; and if the count de Zastrow supported the idea of a separate peace, it was not because he was less attached than any other man to the cause of Prussia and the continent, but because he knew the situation of Russia and Prussia, and was convinced that they had no chance by continuing the contest. In the beginning of April he had had a long conversation with the emperor of Russia, who afterwards referred him to one of his ministers, who told him, that as soon as the Russian guards came up they would be superior in number to the French, and were determined to attack them. The Russians neither knew the force that opposed them, nor how much their own numbers in the field were inferior to their armies upon paper.—The noble lord was then proceeding to state the nature of different dispatches between him and the present ministers, when
Earl Bathurst
rose to order. He thought it was completely out of order for any noble lord to state, at his own pleasure, all the conversations between kings and emperors, which, from his official situation, he might have heard, or to divulge the confidential communications which took place between him and his government; and if it was competent for any one individual to do so, it was equally competent for any other individual in his majesty's service.
The Duke of Norfolk
said, that whether the noble lord acted right or not in entering into these details, they were completely relevant to the question under dis-
444
Lord Grenville
wished to know whether their lordships would submit to the doctrine, that it was quite regular, as had been done in another place, to read partial extracts from correspondence, where, by stopping short in the middle of a sentence, the meaning was altogether perverted, and that they should be debarred from the privilege of rectifying the false impressions to which this conduct had given rise? And he would ask, whether it was for those who had themselves set the example of publishing garbled extracts from official papers, which of all others ought to be considered as the most secret and confidential, to complain of his noble friend, particularly when it was recollected that he deemed it absolutely necessary to the justification of his own character, which had been most wantonly and falsely aspersed?
The Lord Chancellor
reminded the noble lord that it was a great breach of order in that house to refer or allude to any thing which had passed in another house of parliament. And if a breach of order had been committed and permitted in another place; that was surely no reason why a similar breach of order should be tolerated by their lordships. He was clearly of opinion, that it was disorderly in any person who had been employed in a public capacity to read a part, or to disclose the contents of a public dispatch, without the leave of his majesty, to whom that dispatch was supposed to belong; and he thought that they had already gone a very dangerous length in allowing a minute of a conversation, supposed to have passed between an accredited minister and a foreign sovereign, without his majesty's permission to that effect.
Earl Grey
contended that his noble friend was not reading a dispatch, and much less a partial and garbled extract from such dispatch, when he had, in his opinion, been most improperly called to order by a noble earl. He had been merely giving an account of his public conduct, in perfect consistency with his duty, and, as he conceived, within the rules of order by which discussions in that house were regulated. He was happy, however, to hear from so high an authority as the noble lord upon the woolsack, an admission of the impropriety and indecency of reading extracts from dispatches, which he asserted to be the pro-
445
Lord Hawkesbury
said, that it certainly was highly irregular to refer to any thing which had passed in another place, and he conceived it to be very improper for any noble lord, who had been employed in a public capacity, to disclose the secrets of his mission; particularly without any previous communication with those to whom his dispatches were addressed. He knew of no charge or imputation that had been brought against the noble lord, and therefore he considered such a disclosure, in the present instance, to say the least of it, altogether unnecessary.
Lord Grenville
insisted that his noble friend had said nothing which was not necessary for his own vindication from a charge which was brought against him in the Morning Post, and which was there
446
Lord Mulgrave
reminded the noble lord, that if the Morning Post contained any thing improper, there was an authority in another place quite competent to set it to rights.
Lord Hutchinson
continued: As soon as he found that the Russians were not likely to advance, he was decidedly of opinion, that we ought not to send a single man to the continent. He gave every degree of credit to the bravery of the Russian troops, but the French had every kind of advantage over them; and in no mission on which he might be sent would he ever deceive the country, by representing things in a different point of view from that in which he saw them. In the month of June, Buonaparte, a greater master of the art of military movements than any man who perhaps ever existed, had assembled a corps of 40,000 men upon the Elbe, upon which, in case of sustaining any misfortune, he could have fallen back, so that though at that time there had been 30,000 English and Swedes at Stralsund, they might have met with some disaster, but could have done no good.
Lord Grenville
had looked forward with considerable anxiety to this night's discussion, to which he trusted for the vindication of his own character, and that. of his colleagues, from several charges which had been brought against their conduct while in administration. His anxiety had been much relieved by the candid admission of the noble secretary of state, who in the course of his speech had deserted several of the articles of charge which had been thrown out on other occasions, but which he was happy to find were now done away. If any person had ever been so silly and so little of a statesman as to suppose that any provision could have been made for the rupture between Prussia and France, their opinion would probably be corrected by the admission of the noble secretary on this evening, that no such provision was to be expected. In addition to what his noble friend (earl Grey) had said on this subject, he had only one particular to subjoin, viz, that the Prussian minister was recalled from this country, where he had been invited to stay, as an organ of amicable communication, in the middle of August, and so rapid were the decisions of the court of Berlin, that
447
448
449
Lord Mulgrave
replied briefly, and contended that a successful diversion might have been effected by a timely supply of troops from this country.— The question was then put, and agreed to without a division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 11.
DROITS OF ADMIRALTY.] Sir Francis Burdett
said he would not take up the time of the house by any prefatory remarks to the motion which he was about to submit; for that motion being the ground of a parliamentary proceeding, he conceived that it would be consented to without opposition. He should therefore content himself with simply moving, " That there be laid before the house an account of all captures made at sea by the naval forces of this country, which were claimed to remain, and which did remain, at the disposal of the Crown since the year 1792, specifying each capture and its amount, with the particular appropriation of the proceeds thereof."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
doubted whether the specification of every individual capture could be obtained. At any rate, such a specification would require considerable time to prepare. He entered into an explanation of the right of his majesty to these Droits, which resolved itself
450
Sir F. Burdett
had no objection to follow the line chalked out by the right hon. gent.; for the great object he had in view at this time was to have the amount before the house. He had not, indeed, as yet stated any facts of misapplication; yet he apprehended the house would not endure that so large a sum should be at the disposal of the crown, without any inquiry, even although it should be admitted that the crown had the legal right, of which, however, considerable doubts were entertained.
Sir C. Pole
expressed his approbation of the motion of the hon. baronet, for all his reflections on the subject convinced him that the admiralty court ought to be upon a new footing.
The Advocate General
observed, that the admiralty court had nothing to do with the subject of this motion. Before the house proceeded any further in it, it was proper that it should know what grounds could be made out for an inquiry. The captured property came to the king in a
451
jure corona
452
Mr. Lushington
perfectly agreed with the last speaker, that this motion had no reference to the Admiralty Court. He also agreed with him in the greater part of what he said relative to the right of the crown to this property; but differed from him materially as to the constant propriety of the application. One instance of misapplication he would state to the house. An hon. baronet (sir Popham) whom he saw in his place, had, in the year 1787, obtained leave of absence on half pay from the naval service, in which he was then a lieutenant. He went to Ostend, and there procured a ship, the Etrusco, bearing the Imperial flag, in which he freighted a cargo for the East Indies. He there exchanged his vessel for an American ship, and carried a cargo to Canton in China; having taken in a fresh cargo there, of which a French supercargo at Canton had a share, he sailed first for Ireland, and from that to Dungeness, where he landed goods, or, in plain English, smuggled them. Lieut. Bowen of the Brilliant frigate, Capt. Robinson, seized the ship in Ostend Roads, after a person had escaped on shore with part of the goods. This vessel was brought to judgment in the Admiralty Court. During the proceedings, the hon. baronet claimed his share of the cargo and freight; but when it became necessary to serve a process of the court upon him, he was not to be found, and, in short, had absconded. The ship was condemned; but for all the trouble, the inconvenience,, and loss of time coca-
453
l
Sir Home Popham
observed, that having been thus personally attacked, he could not but Air a few observations in his own vindication. Although, if the hon. gent. who had thrown out such aspersions as had never been used in that house, had given him any previous intimation of his intention to bring forward circumstances in which he was particularly concerned, he would have been better prepared to meet his statement. He would, however, now advert to a plain and well known fact. The house would recollect he went to the East Indies at a period of profound peace, and had been there employed in the service of the East India Company. If the hon. gent. would consult the records of the India House, he would find that lord Cornwallis, the Governor General, and the Council, had recommended him strongly to the Court of Directors, and said that he had deserved that the directors should apply to the Admiralty to promote him. He had besides received acknowledgments and presents for his services. If, from his anxiety to be actively employed, and to gain experience in his profession, he had in a moment of irritation gone out to India under a neutral flag (which perhaps he now regretted), he had only followed the example of many other naval officers, and he could not help thinking it stranger, that
454
Mr. Sheridan
fully agreed with the hon. captain, that after the attack which had been made upon him, the matter ought not to rest there. It was due both to the house and himself, that the matter should be investigated. He also agreed, that his hon. friend behind him might have given some notice of his intention; but then it was to be observed, that he had only read the papers that morning, and had stated the facts upon an occasion which had suddenly arisen. But if it was necessary to have this affair inquired into, upon the statement of his hon. friend, it was much more so after the defence of the hon. captain. The hon. captain stated, that he had done as many other officers had done, sailed under a neutral flag, in a moment of irritation, for the purpose of obtaining professional knowledge and experience. He had heard of other officers who had done so, but then they had engaged in the wars of foreign powers; how the hon. captain could increase his professional knowledge by landing teas at Dungeness—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
called the right hon. gent. to order; it was impossible for him to sit still and hear an attack upon any member under such circumstances; it was not consonant to the rules of justice which ought to be observed to every man, that a conversation arising collaterally should be brought forward, and carried on by remarks uttered in the tone and manner used by the right hon. gent. To what purpose was this done? Was there a motion before the house, the event of which would be to censure or acquit the hon. captain? He appealed to the right hon. gent.'s own candour on the subject; for he was sure that
455
The Speaker
expressed his opinion, that by abstaining from any further remarks on this part of the debate, the house would best consult its own dignity.
Mr. Sheridan
though he did not complain of the right hon. gent. for having interrupted him, must contend that he was strictly in order. The learned gent. opposite having asserted that there was not a single instance of misappropriation of the fund under discussion, his hon. friend who was in possession of a flagrant instance of misappropriation, and who knew that the hon. knight was in his place to defend himself, had stated that instance. Having heard the hon. captain's answer, in which he did not deny the accusation, an accusation founded not loosely, but on recorded facts, it appeared to him, and he was justified in arguing that the subject ought to be most narrowly investigated. With regard to the subject more immediately before the house, if the Droits were originally his majesty's undoubted right, still in progress of many wars, they might have amounted to such a sum, that it would be necessary to revise the right, and to say whether or not it was sate to trust the disposal of so much money out of the controul of parliament. He should add only a few words on that part of the question which related to the application of the money arising from these Droits. He had no hesitation in saying, that he not only did not censure, but he cordially concurred in, and approved of that part of the application this day avowed by his majesty's Judge Advocate, namely, his majesty's gracious gifts to the younger branches of his illustrious family. So far was he from objecting to these acts of his majesty's paternal generosity, that he lamented that his majesty's royal munificence had been confined to the younger branches of his august family. Had the heir apparent participated in it, he believed the house and the country would have not merely been satisfied, but gratified; for never must it be forgotten, that the prince had an unliquidated claim, which, greatly to his honour, feeling for the public burthen and the difficulty of the times, had been, by his royal highness's express desire, suspended, but not abandoned; he meant the arrears of the Duchy of Cornwall: that debt still remained indisputably due, either from the
456
The Advocate General
said, that this property was not property condemned to the crown, but came by a forfeiture, which on good grounds might justly be remitted. The ground on which he recommended the grant to the hon. captain, was this. He had gone to Ostend, and from that sailed under a foreign flag to India. If he was restrained as a British subject from doing so by the law of his country, unquestionably this was a violation of it. But it was perfectly well known to the Indian government, that he was there, and it was the policy at that time to encourage exportation from India in foreign vessels. Whatever offence had been committed, was against the East India Company, and as they had by implication remitted it, he thought himself justified in recommending the remission of the forfeiture.
Mr. Tierney
called the right hon. gent. to order, as he was entering upon a defence of the hon. captain, instead of confining himself to the facts fur his own justification.— Some discussion arose here about the question under discussion, whether it was the original motion or the amendment suggested by the chancellor of the exchequer, and in some measure assented to.
Lord Folkestone
said, he thought the debate should proceed on the original motion; for he was sure the hon. baronet who made it, wished to have a full and complete account of those Droits, and also of the application of the money arising from them. The original motion would, in his opinion, effect this; but he did not think the amendment would, and therefore he thought the original motion should be persisted in.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that in making the motion, he certainly wished for the fullest discovery as to the Droits, and also the application of the money arising from them: it was matter of very great importance, and which he, as a member of parliament, thought he had a right to demand. From the candid and liberal manner in which the the right hon. the
457
The Advocate General
proceeded to state, that the hon. captain, when in India, was known to persons in the highest offices there to be a British subject; that he was very much countenanced by them, and in consequence of the services he had rendered the East India Company, by taking the soundings of Prince of Wales's Island, and other parts in those seas, he had received such recommendations to the Court of Directors, as had procured him some very valuable presents from them. From India he had, however, sailed to China, and. at Canton had taken in a cargo of tea without any licence from the India Company, which rendered the transaction a breach of the law, and as such the cargo was liable to forfeiture; but it was not a Droit of the Admiralty; it was not what had fallen to the king as a capture in time of war, but was merely what became vested in his majesty as a forfeiture, in consequence of the cargo being illegal, for want of a licence from the East India Company. With this cargo of tea, the hon. baronet was proceeding to Ostend, in the ship Etrusco, when she was met with and seized by his majesty's ship the Brilliant; and the ship and part of the cargo were condemned, for the benefit of the captors; but this part of the cargo, which was the property of the hon. captain, became vested in the king as a forfeit; and under all the circumstances of the case, it became a question whether it was a fit forfeiture for the crown to take advantage of. On a mature and deliberate consideration of the case, he was of opinion that it was not; and therefore he advised the remission of it, which accordingly took place. As he had before stated, this fund was given to the king for his sole use; and he had out of it made several grants for public and national purposes. He had also granted several sums out of it for the use and benefit of the younger branches of the royal family; and he thought his majesty had most undoubted right to do this, unless should be expected that he
458
Mr. Lushington,
in explanation, said, that he had heard it was with reluctance that the right hon. gent. who spoke last had signed the warrant for the restitution of the property of the hon. captain, and he had stated it as a fact which he thought highly honourable to the character of the right hon. and learned gent. With respect to what had been said by the hon. captain, as to his having brought forward this subject thus suddenly, without having given him any intimation of it, the fact was, that he had heard of this transaction some time ago, and finding the motion which had been made was to come on that evening, he had purposely gone to the Admiralty to look into the records of this transaction; that this had taken up so much time, he was not able to get down to the house till the motion was made, and then, not knowing the hon. capt. by sight, he had even asked one or two of his friends if he was in the house, who told him that he was. Had the hon. captain been absent, it was his intention to have stated the transaction without mentioning names, and have left that to some future occasion. As the right hon. and learned gent. had however expressly stated, that no misapplication of the money arising from this fund had taken place, he thought it his duty to mention it in the way he had done, as he thought it a most glaring and flagrant misapplication, and what ought to be more particularly enquired into.
Mr. Brand
said, he thought this motion was intended to come at a very important fact, viz. the amount of the proceeds arising from these Droits; and, as such, he would vote in favour of it: the amendment being, in his opinion, a colourable pretence for weakening and curtailing the effect of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose for the purpose of proposing his amendment; but
The Speaker
told him he could not speak to the whole motion, having spoken be-
459
Mr. Huskisson
then rose, and moved an amendment to the following purport, "That there be laid before this house, an Account of the nett proceeds paid into the Registry of the Court of Admiralty, or to the Receiver General of Droits, of all property condemned to his majesty as Droits, either in right of his crown or in right of the office of lord high admiral, since the 1st of Jan. 1793, and of the balance now remaining therein."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in explanation, said, that so far from the amendment being a colourable pretence to weaken or curtail the effect of the original motion, it would have the direct contrary tendency; for the hon. baronet's intention would be more fully answered by it, than by the original motion. The hon. baronet wanted to obtain the fullest discovery of the amount of droits, and this the amendment would procure most effectually; and it would be only to wait a few days, and then he might, when he was in possession of the amount of this fund, move for an account of the application of it. He had before stated, that this fund, whether wisely or unwisely, was not then the question, had been left to the sole disposal of the crown. If, however, that house or any member of it was of opinion that this fund amounted to such an enormous sum as ought not to be vested in any one without the controul of parliament, and wished to bring the subject under the consideration of the house, such member had a right to move for such accounts as would be necessary to bring the question properly before the house. If the question arose out of the amount of the sums of which this fund consisted, then it was necessary to know what those sums were, and when that was once given, the next question would naturally arise, as to its application. As to the instance which had been mentioned of the hon. captain behind him, part of the cargo, which was his own property, became forfeited to the crown from a breach of the law in a case which the East India Company might have licenced, and in consequence of the services which the hon. baronet had rendered the crown and his country, also from his services while he was in India, it had been thought fit, under all the circumstances of the case, to remit the forfeiture; but the remission of a forfeit was nothing like a grant of droits, and therefore he thought
460
Mr. Adam
said, he wished as much as any one that this question should come to a full and complete issue, and this could only be attained by procuring an ample and perfect account of the amount of those droits; and it was his opinion that the motion made by the hon. baronet could not attain that object. He thought at the same time that the amendment was capable of effecting it; but still he thought that was in itself defective, inasmuch as it did not go to the application of the money arising from those droits. Would that be proper at the present moment? He thought not, but that it would come with better effect after the house had obtained the amount of the fund in question. He was of opinion that the transaction which had been mentioned by his hon. friend near him ought to be inquired into, but not in this way. The, droits of the Admiralty had been left at the sole disposal of the king; and in 1795, his majesty gave for public purposes the money arising from several Dutch prizes, which amounted to a million; and the house by their acceptance, had sanctioned the right of the king's disposing of those droits which way he thought proper. Still, however, this fund appeared to be too great to be possessed by any one without being subjected to the controul of parliament, especially if it could be shewn that there had been any instances of a misapplication of the money arising from it. He hoped, therefore, the hon. baronet might be induced to withdraw his motion, and let the amendment be adopted, which in his mind would more completely answer the purposes he wished to attain.
Sir C. Pole
disapproved of both the original motion and the amendment, and proposed a motion of his own, by which the gross proceeds and net proceeds were required to be stated in distinct columns, &c. Alluding to the delay in the distribution of prize-money, he instanced an officer who had received, only last May, his share of prize-money, for a vessel captured twenty years ago.— The house then divided, when there appeared for the Original Motion 57. For the Amendment 82. Majority for the Amendment 25.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, J.
Baring, A.
Agar, E. F.
Bouverie, E.
Anstruther, sir J.
Bradshaw, A. C.
Baring, T.
Brand, T
461
Byng, George
Miller, sir T.
Calcraft, John
Mills, C
Calcraft, sir G.
Mills, W.
Cavendish, lord G.
Moore, P.
Cavendish, Wm.
Newport, sir J.
Cavendish, G. H. C.
Orde, W.
Cocks, E. C.
Ossulston, lord
Combe, H. C.
Petty, lord H.
Creevey, T.
Pole,sir C.M.
Cutbert, J. R.
Ponsonby, F.
Eden, W. F.
Pousonby, G.
Folkestone, viscount.
Prittie, F.A.
Grattan, H.
Pym, F.
Greenbill, R.
Russell, lord W.
Harvey, E.
Shakespeare, A.
Hibbert,G.
Sharpe, R.
Horner, F.
Shelly, T.
Hurst, R.
Sheridan, R.B.
Ingleby, sir W.
Tierney, G.
Lamb, W.
Ward, J.W.
Lloyd, J. R.
Wardel, W.L.
Longman, G.
Whirbread, S.
Lyttleton, W. H.
Windham, W.
Macdonald, J.
Tellers.
Markham, J.
Burdett, sir Francis
Martin, H
Lushington, S.
EXCHEQUER BILLS REGULATION BILL.] Mr. Huskisson
moved the third reading of the bill for regulating the issuing and payment of Exchequer Bills. The bill was read a third time, after which,
Mr. Horner,
adverting to the circumstance of the creation of a new place, that of paymaster of exchequer bills by this bill, and the establishment of new modes of contracting for the circulation of exchequer bills, said, he did not mean to object to either in that stage of the bill, but felt it his duty to call the attention of the house to one clause in the bill, which appeared to him of much more serious consequence. The clause he alluded to was that which exempted persons who might contract under the bill, for the circulation of exchequer bills, from the operation of the 22d of the king, which disqualified all contractors from seats in that house. He therefore should move to have that clause left out of the bill.
Mr. Huskisson shewed
that the clause alluded to, had been copied verbatim from the annual bill, authorising the issue of exchequer bills upon the land and malt taxes. The clause extended only to protect the directors of the bank, with which corporation alone it was proposed to make arrangements for the circulation of exchequer bills. No new office was created by the bill, that of paymaster of exchequer bills having been in existence under the former bills. The object of the bill was to make permanent regulations for the
462
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the clause objected to was a verbatim copy a the clause inserted in every bill, since the first adoption of exchequer bills; and that it merely meant to protect the bank, as agents for the lending of money upon exchequer bills. No objection to this clause had ever been made before; no actual abuse of it had ever yet been imputed, during 60 years; and therefore he saw no ground for the present apprehensions. Ministers would not probably bring into that house the brokers employed to circulate exchequer bills.
Mr. Sheridan
said, the enormous extent to which those bills were issued of late years, was a ground of apprehension, from the increased power this would give to ministers. He stated that, to many of the public offices, viz. to the Treasurer of the Navy, instead of cash, the sums to be disbursed for the payment of seamens wages, naval expenditures, &c. were sent down in exchequer bills, with directions that they should be converted into money by the regular treasury broker, Mr. Goldsmid. Mr. Goldsmid's profits, by this species of brokerage, were enormous in the course of the year; and though he might have no objection to see a man of his respectable character a member of that house, yet he did not wish to have the field opened for others. He considered the clause as a virtual violation of the letter and spirit of the 22d of the King, which excluded from the house all public contractors. Ministers avowed, that this clause was merely to protect the Bank from the operation of that statute. They were already protected by another law; it was, therefore, superfluous.
Mr. Rose
defended the clause as being precisely the same as had been always adopted in bills of this nature. The idea of influence such as rendered men incapable of sitting in the house of commons on account of contracts, could not apply to the purchasers of exchequer bills, unless
463
Lord H. Petty
opposed the clause, and said that the house should be jealous of all possible encroachments upon its purity and constitutional independence; and in compliance with the spirit of that act which excluded from parliament all public contractors, ministers were called on in proof of their sincerity, not to insist on retaining a nugatory clause for a purpose already provided for by another law.
Mr. Adam
was of the same opinion. He gave a history of the act of 1782 by which contractors were disabled from sitting in parliament. The part of the bill which made exceptions in favour of the directors of the bank and other public bodies, Was adopted on his suggestion. He thought the clause in question an unnecessary act of power, which would create jealousy in the public, and produce no good whatever, for the bill would be complete wihout it; and therefore he recommended it to be left out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted, that he saw at present no strong reason for retaining the clause, nor was he aware, until this night, that it was liable to any, strong objections. However, he was willing to adjourn the further proceedings until to-morrow. He should, in the mean time, re-consider the subject, and if he saw no sufficient reason for retaining the clause, he should not then oppose its expunction.—The third reading was accordingly postponed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 12.
[ACCOUNT OF SUMS ISSUED OUT OF THE EXCHEQUER.] Mr. Henry Martin,
pursuant to notice, rose to move, "That there be laid before the house, an Account of all sums of money which have been issued to any persons between the 5th of Jan. 1793, and 5th of Jan. 1802, out of his majesty's Exchequer, or by the Paymaster of the Forces, without other account than such as should be rendered thereof to his majesty, or to the lords commissioners of his majesty's Treasury for the time being, specifying the persons to whom, the times when, and the services for which all such sums have been issued; together with a list of the persons who have rendered accounts of any of the said sums to the lords of the treasury, specifying the times when such accounts were respectively delivered,
464
465
[EXCHEQUER BILLS REGULATION BILL.]
On the house proceeding to the order of the day for resuming the adjourned proceedings upon the third reading of the Exchequer Bills Regulation bill, a short discussion took place between the Solicitor general, Mr. S. Thornton, Mr. Huskisson, sir A. Piggott, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Horner, which terminated in the erasure of the clause objected to, and the adoption of an amendment moved by Mr. Horner, for confining the protection from the disabilities imposed by the 22d of the king, so far as the contracts under this bill might subject thereto the governor, &c. of the bank of England.—The bill was then passed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 15.
Orders in Council.] Lord Auckland
rose, for the purpose of calling the atten-
466
467
468
l
469
Earl Bathurst
requested the indulgence of their lordships, whilst he endeavoured to explain the reasons and motives on which the Orders in Council were founded. With respect to the Order of the 7th of Jan. he contended that it did distinctly assert the right of his maj. to adopt further measures of retaliation, if France did not in the mean time recede from the violent pretensions on which the Decree of the 21st of Nov. was founded. France had not receded; but on the contrary, the head of the French government had ordered a more rigorous execution of the Decree, and therefore the Order of the 11th of Nov. and the subsequent Orders, became necessary. If the principle stated by the noble lord was to be taken as that of the Order of the 7th of Jan. then it went much farther than the Order of the 11th of Nov.; because the former asserted a permanent right of preventing, during war, all trade between one port of the enemy and another, whilst the latter measure arose out of the violence of the ruler of France, and with that would cease. The noble lord had quoted a letter from Messrs. Monro and Pinckney, for the purpose of proving that they were satisfied with the explanation of the French Decree; but that satisfaction arose out of the explanation given in Dec. and which was given without any authority, and was merely the opinion of the minister who gave it. Subsequently, upon an application made to the Grand Judge in August, it was stated, that the Decree applied equally to all neutrals, and
470
471
Lord
Erskine
concluded, that the Orders were a violation of the law of nations, and that we had no right to molest a neutral going to an enemy's ports, unless in the
472
473
The Lord Chancellor
agreed that the Orders in Council could not be defended, if they were a violation of the law of nations; and if their lordships could be persuaded that such was their character, there could be no occasion to urge their going into a committee, to consider of the propriety of addressing his majesty to check the operation of regulations which were contrary to the law of nations—that is, the natural justice which ought to be held sa-
474
475
476
Lord King
contended, that France had not put her decrees into execution, and that we had no proof that neutrals would submit to them. As to the argument, that we had a right to hurt our enemy though a neutral might be injured consequently, he denied that we ought to do a great injury to a neutral in order to hurt, our enemy a little. Buonaparte could never have put his decrees in execution if we had not assisted him, and stopped our own goods while finding their way to the continental markets. Commerce was much more necessary to us than to France, and therefore it was folly in us to act upon these Orders, which only secured the attainment of the objects of France. He also strongly insisted upon the inconsistency of the conduct of ministers, who, while they were the loudest in extolling
477
Grenville
478
479
480
481
482
483
Lord Hawkesbury
vindicated the line of argument pursued by his noble and learned friend. If ever there had been a time, or a question, upon which it was proper to refer to past measures, to the persons by whom such measures had been adopted, and to the circumstances under which they had taken place, it was the present moment, and the question then under the consideration of their lordships. The preamble of the Orders in Council shewed that they were not founded upon any recent act, that the only were to carry into effect the principle laid down in a former act, which had been insufficient to its professed object. However he might differ as to the policy of the precise act which
484
485
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished the Orders to be discussed on their own positive merits, and not on their comparative merits. He believed that they had been infinitely mischievous. They injured neutrals much more than they did the enemy; and were, in his opinion, tantamount to a declaration of war against America.
Lord Sidmouth
was desirous that the Orders might be referred to a committee, in order to give him an opportunity of fully investigating, and making up his mind upon this important subject, on which he had not vet been able to form a decided opinion.—The house then divided.
Contents,
30
Proxies,
18— 48
486
Non-Contents,
61
Proxies,
45—106
List of the Minority.
Gloucester,
Ellenborough,
Norfolk,
Ponsonby,
Bedford,
Carrington,
Argyle,
Lauderdale,
Stafford,
Hutchinson,
Derby,
Cassillis.
Jersey,
Proxies.
Cowper,
Bute,
Essex,
Thanet
Albemarle,
Shaftesbury,
Spencer,
Bulkeley,
Bristol,
Lucan,
Breadalbane,
Ossory,
Grey,
Carnarvon,
Sidmouth,
Blandford,
St, John,
Rosslyn,
Darnley,
Guilford,
King,
Buckinghamshire,
Besborough,
Stawell,
Moira,
Mendip,
Grenville.
St. Vincent,
Somers,
Braybrooke,
Auckland,
Yarborough,
Erskine,
Holland.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 15.
MINUTES.] Sir James Pulteney,
from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition of Joseph Garland, esq.; and also of the petition of sir Rd. Bickerton, bait.; severally complaining of an undue election and double return for the town and county of the town of Poole; informed the house, that the said committee had determined, That Joseph Garland, esq. and sir Richard Bickerton, bart were not duly elected; that John Jeffery, esq. was duly elected; and that the last election for the said town and county, so far as respects the said Joseph Garland and sir Rd. Bickerton, was a void election: also, that the said petitions did not, either of them, appear to the said committee to be frivolous or vexatious.—Col. Strutt presented a Declaration from Mr. Fuller, one of the members for Sussex, declaring that it was not his intention to defend his election against the petitions of col. Sergison, and certain Freeholders. The consideration of the petitions was adjourned to the 24th of March. —In consequence of the ill health of sir Home Popham, leave of absence was given to him for a month. Mr. Lushington, on the same ground, postponed the motion of which he had given notice for
487
EXPEDITION TO CONSTANTINOPLE.] Mr. Taylor
rose pursuant to notice, to move for papers necessary to give a proper understanding of the particulars connected with the Expedition to Constantinople. The frequent references that had been made to this transaction, in the discussions on the affair of Copenhagen, to which it had been assimilated in principle, rendered a more particular investigation necessary. It was contended, that whatever difference there might be in appearance, and certainly there was great difference in point of execution and event, the principle of the right of attacking a neutral power was exactly the same. But it was not merely to estimate the comparative right and propriety of these attacks on neutral powers, that the papers he was about to move for, ought to be before the house. It was usual, when it had been thought right to go to war with a power before friendly, to make some communication to parliament with respect to the fact and the motives. Now, we were involved in a war with Turkey, brought on by that attack, and no communication whatever had been made to parliament on the subject. It was no private nor party motive that had induced him to bring forward this motion. He was not connected with any party, and he had communicated only with one or two members on the subject. Having a short time been resident in Turkey, and conversant with the manners of the people and their political attachments, his attention was naturally engaged by the dispatches from his majesty's ambassador and commanders in the Dardanelles, and with every attention that he was able to give, he could neither discover why the armament went, nor why it came away. Whatever might be the policy of the Copenhagen Expedition, it at least afforded an eminent example of judicious management and able execution. When a transaction of that kind was thought by some to call for enquiry, he could not bring himself to think that a transaction in which the character of the navy, the favourite service of the country, was brought in question by ill-success, ought to be suffered to pass without an investigation, which would fix the blame of the failure where it ought justly to fall. These were the motives which had induced him to bring this subject before the house. He
488
Mr. Secretary Canning,
after waiting a few moments to see if any one would rise on the other side—the gentlemen there being particularly interested in this subject, and therefore naturally supposed to he anxious to take the earliest opportunity of delivering their sentiments—felt himself now called upon, in consequence of their silence, to state what his sense of his duty suggested to him with respect to the
489
490
Mr. T. Grenville
waited for the right hon. secretary to state how far his sense of public duty would allow him to comply with the motions offered. Till he had heard the right hon. secretary's sentiments on this head, he could not know what further information it would be necessary for him to call for by a supplementary motion. The correspondence with Mr. Arbuthnot was extremely voluminous, much of it not bearing on the question the hon. gent.'s speech referred to. He could not say how much of that correspondence might be necessary to give the house just grounds to form its judgment. When the right hon. gent. should have produced all he intended to give under the motions now made, he should consider what further information it would be, necessary for him to call for. He agreed with the hon. mover, that no opinion ought to be expressed till the house should be in possession of the proper documents. But he thought the hon. gent. differed from his own rule, and expressed upon some points stronger opinions than were warranted the first stage of an enquiry. From the change which had taken place in his majesty's councils, the late ministers had not the advantage of being in possession of the papers principally relating to the
491
492
Mr. Wellesley Pole
explained the grounds on which the board of admiralty had conceived it impossible to retain the papers sent by the right hon. gent. The office of lord high admiral being executed by commissioners, it was necessary that all orders should be signed by three of those commissioners. The first lord was unquestionably in the habit of private correspondence with officers on service; but no officer would be justified in acting on such private communication. Even in the right hon. gent's. letter to lord Coilingwood, he had admitted this, by stating, that his lordship would receive official instructions on the subject. Those instructions were sent; duplicates of them were now in the admiralty office, and might be produced if required. He begged to call to the recollection of the right hon. gent., the practice of the admiralty when a private communication to or from the first lord was Made official. The first lord brought it to the board. It was read by the secretary; a minute was made of the transaction; an order proceeded upon it, and that document remained in the office. Surely then, the right hon. gent. could never contend, that letters of so old a date, which he had communicated to the board while in office, and which he had never communicated at all to the board untill the last 4 or 5 days, ought to be received as official. It was impossible to find a precedent for such a proceeding on the records of the admiralty office; and he had searched narrowly for that purpose. If the principle was admitted, what would prevent any private person, who had belonged to any board at any period, from sending to that board any private papers, and insisting upon their being received as
493
Mr. Grenville
explained, and defended himself from the imputation of having arrogated a consequence that did not belong to him.
Mr. C. Johnstone
thought, that there was a very striking difference between the Copenhagen expedition and the Turkish in this respect. If ministers had been wrong in the Copenhagen expedition, there might be some practical effect in taking the opinion of the house upon it, as in such case the house might address his majesty to remove his ministers. He did not see, however, any practical result from enquiring into the expedition to the Dardanelles, as the advisers of it were not now in office. He presumed, that nobody wished to move an impeachment against them, or to address his majesty that they should never again be taken into his service.
Mr. Windham
thought the hon. gent. was much mistaken, in supposing that the only practical effect in taking the opinion of the house, could be to remove one set of ministers from their places. There Was a consideration still more important than places, and that was character. The practical result which other gentlemen who sat near him wished, was to vindicate their characters against unauthorized and unfounded misrepresentations and calumnies. Some of their opponents seemed to wish, that this subject should lie open as a perpetual fund for insinuations; but at the same time, they shrunk from bringing it fairly to a trial. He and his former colleagues in office wished that it should be brought to a trial, and that insinuation and misrepresentation upon this subject should be at an end. He could not conceive on what priciple the board of admiralty could refuse to keep in their house, documents so important as those which had been offered by his right hon. friend. He thought the public offices ought to be full of such records, which might be useful in future
494
Lord Castlereagh
could not perceive any necessity for entering into any enquiries on this subject, nor that it could lead to any beneficial result. He thought however that the board of admiralty were quite right in refusing to make this private letter an official document. Without meaning the slightest imputation on the right hon. gent. if he could make his private letter considered as an official document, any other gentleman who had been in office, might come at any time with garbled communications, and insist upon their being received as official. The gentlemen who pleased to make those communications to the admiralty, might give what they pleased, and withhold what they pleased. Although he had the firmest reliance on the honour of the right hon. gent. yet it ought not to be left entirely to individual integrity and honour, to say what papers should be presented for the purpose of being made official. He could not avoid noticing the laxity of public morals that was sometimes manifest in the conduct of gentlemen on the other side. They condemned most loudly the practice of reading partial extracts from dispatches, and yet it was what they proposed in the present instance. A noble lord also in another place (earl Grey), who had appeared to feel most sorely upon an extract of a dispatch of his being read, had yet shewn no scruple, at the time he was in office, to read extracts from other people's dispatches, and had read in that house extracts from his (lord C.'s) dispatches. In fact, it was well known, that when ministers laid any particular information before the house, it was from extracts; and they did not think it necessary to recite all the voluminous matter connected with the subject. As to the importance of these papers, he conceived that the report of admiral Louis was only introduced as a convoy to get in the private letter which the right hon. gent. wished to have entered as an official document. He could take upon himself to say confidently, that this report was either at the admiralty or at his office.
495
Mr. Tierney
defended the conduct of his right hon. friend, and denied that there was the smallest ground for the analogy the noble lord attempted to deduce between the case of this letter, and the garbled extracts to which the noble lord had alluded. But, to prove any sort of similitude between this transaction and the other, the noble lord must shew that his right hon. friend had attempted to produce partial and mutilated extracts from the letters in question, instead of the complete documents. He did not wish to enlarge further one this topic of garbled extracts, in charity to the feelings of a right hon. gent. opposite him, after the severe reproach he had received upon that head from the highest authority in this country. Another hon. gent. was averse to the production of the papers moved for, because he said, it was of no use to defend men out of office. But the hon. gent. seemed to be quite of the contrary opinion as to the necessity of adducing documents for defending men in office, from the loudness of his cheering, on a former night, when partial extracts from dispatches were read to vindicate their conduct; but the public, who felt that in the persons of his hon. friends on that side of the house the country had its best friends, felt anxiety for their vindication; and it was a duty the house owed to their characters to allow them the investigation they so earnestly desired. There appeared, however, an extraordinary degree of reluctance and uncertainty on the part of the right hon. secretary, in acceding to the motion before the house; his language was—'You may have this, and perhaps you might have that; but investigation is not necessary, because no charges are brought against you.' He denied the assertion: charges were brought, and those of the most serious nature; no less than those of having brought disgrace upon his majesty's character, and tarnished the splendour of his arms, by seizing upon Alexandria from a power with whom we were on terms of amity, without any declaration of hostility, and sending an expedition against Constantinople without a military force to support it. It was against those charges that his right. hon. friend
496
Mr. G. Johnstone
in explanation, denied that he felt any pleasure, or expressed any applause when his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) was reading the extracts from official dispatches, alluded to by the right hon. gent. who spoke last. On the contrary, much as he admired the speech of his right hon. friend, he had no hesitation in saying, that he highly disapproved of the introduction of the extracts referred to, because such a practice appeared to him quite inconsistent with fairness in debate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought the papers should be produced. An hon. gent. had made a motion, accompanied with observations, pointedly criminating the gentlemen opposite, who wished for the papers to enable them to meet the accusation. Unless, therefore, the production of the papers would be attended with public inconvenience, which did not appear to he the case, he could see no ground for withholding them. He defended the Admiralty from the imputation of having acted in an unmanly and uncandid manner to the right hon. gent. If they had suppressed, or if they had burned, his communications, they might have justly been so accused; but by returning them, they gave him the opportunity of bringing them before the public in any other shape which he chose.
Mr. Croker
would have been better pleased, if papers had been called for which would have thrown a light on the planning of the expedition, rather than on the execution of it; he thought that the admiralty were bound to refuse the right gent.'s letters as they had done.
Mr. Taylor
made a short reply.—The question was then put on the first motion, which was carried, with the omission of that part which related to the Secret Articles in the treaty with the Ottoman
497
Mr. Johnstone,
consistently with his declared opinion that investigation was not necessary, moved an amendment in the motion respecting the correspondence between his majesty's secretary of state and Mr. Arbuthnot, resident at Constantinople, relative to and connected with the causes of hostilities with Turkey, by omitting every thing after the word 'relative,' and inserting, 'the causes of hostilities now existing with the Ottoman Porte.'—The motion, as amended, was then put and carried. The following are copies of the papers moved for.
[PAPERS RELATING TO THE EXPEDITION TO CONSTANTINOPLE.]
The following are copies of the Papers presented to the House of Commons in pursuance of the above motions: viz.
PAPERS.
PRESENTED BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, PURSUANT TO THEIR ADDRESS OF FEB. 15, 1808.
No. I.—TREATY between his Majesty and the Ottoman Porte.
In the name of God Almighty.—The uninterrupted good understanding which has always subsisted between the august Court of London and the Sublime Ottoman Porte, and the circumstances of that state of war in which the two sovereigns of the British and Ottoman empires are engaged, in consequence of the perfidious and multiplied aggressions of the French, have created in them a mutual desire to cement the ties of their ancient friendship; and a defensive alliance having just been concluded between the Sublime Porte and his maj. the emperor of all the Russias, the friend and ally of his Britannic maj.; in which alliance, founded upon the basis of a mutual guarantee of their empires, of the re-establishment and continuance of tranquillity, and of the preservation of other powers, it is agreed that his Britannic maj. shall be invited to accede to it: their said majesties, namely, his maj. Geo. 3. king of Great Britain, &c. and his Imperial maj. Sultan Selim the 3rd the most mighty Ottoman emperor, being equally desirous of contributing to the safety and interests of their respective subjects and to the restoration of general tranquillity in Europe, have to this effect nominated for their Plenipotentiaries, viz, the king of G. Britain on
498
499
500
501
No. II.—Extract of a Dispatch from the Earl of Elgin to Lord Grenville, dated Constantinople, 25th Nov. 1799.
On Saturday (Nov. 23) I had the honour of presenting my credentials to the Kaimacam who now supplies the place of the Grand Vizier, and by particular request, at the same time exchanged the ratification of the treaty with which his mat. had been graciously pleased to intrust me.
No. III.—Extract of a Dispatch from the right hon. Ch. Arbuthnot to Mr. Secretary Fox, dated Buyukdere, 25th Aug. 1806.— Received 29th Sept.
It was yesterday settled at the. Porte that the present Hospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia should be recalled, and that prince Charles Callimaki, the First Dragoman of the Porte, should be named to the government of Moldavia, and prince Alexander Suzzo to that of Wallachia; at the same time Mr. Bano Hanchyry was appointed Dragoman in the room of prince Callimaki. To give you a perfect idea of the disrespect with which Russia has been treated in this instance, it is necessary that I should transmit to you an extract from the Regulations respecting Moldavia and Wallachia, which were published in the year 1802. As no accusation whatever has been brought. against either of the Hospodars who are now removed, there can be no excuse for breaking the convention; by which it was stipulated with Russia that 7 years should be the period of each prince's government. You will probably expect to hear that this measure has originated with the French ambassador; in effect there are proofs sufficient that it is his work.
502
The term of the continuance of the Hospodars in their governments shall from henceforth he fixed at 7 complete and entire years, to date from the day of their nomination, and if they are not guilty of any open offence, they shall not be displaced before that term is expired; if they do commit an offence during that time, the Sublime Porte will inform the minister of Russia of the circumstance; and if, after due examination is made into the affair on both sides, it shall appear that the Hospodar has ready committed an offence, in that case only his deposition shall be allowed.
No. IV.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Arbuthnot to Mr. Secretary Fox, dated Buyukdere, 29th Sept. 1806.
On the 18th of this month the Dragoman of the Porte communicated to Mr. Pisani
*
Inclosure referred to in No. 4.—Note presented by the French Ambassador at the Porte, to the Reis Effendi. Dated Pera 16th Sept. 1806.
The undersigned, general of division, ambassador of his maj. the emperor of the French, king of Italy, has the honour to lay before his exc. the Reis .Effendi the following Considerations.—He has been positively informed, although in an indirect manner, that the Russian legation has delivered a Note to the Sublime Porte, in which it is said that the emperor of Russia has refused to ratify the treaty of peace signed at Paris by his plenipotentiary. This refusal places Europe in the same situation in which she was 6 weeks ago, but it unmasks the projects of Russia. This treaty of peace stipulated for the independance of the seven islands; a stipulation which removing the Russians from the Mediterranean, where they had established themselves in order to attack the Ottoman empire at various points, could not be acceptable to them.—Ragusa was restored to its independance under the protection of the Sublime Porte: this arrangement rendering it impossible for the Russians to keep up their intelligence with the Montenegrians and with the revolted Servians, was contrary to their views.—Doubtless it is the arti-
*First Dragoman or Interpreter attached to the British mission.
503
504
No V.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Arbuthnot to Mr. Secretary Fox. Buyukderé, 17th Oct. 1806.—Received 2d Jan. 1807.
On the 15th inst. a conference with M. d'Italinsky took place according to appointment. The Ex-Chiaya Bey was present, and there was still an effort made to negotiate. The Russian minister, however,
505
No. VI.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Arbuthnot to Lord Howick, dated Pera, 1st Dec. 1806.
In the short dispatch which I wrote to your lordship on the 25th of last month, I had the honour of informing you that I was in daily expectation of the arrival of admiral Louis with a squadron at the Dardanelles. At the time I was writing to your lordship, the squadron, consisting of three line of battle ships, was anchored off Tenedos; from whence, however, in consequence of a letter from me, it was immediately removed to the Dardanelles, and the admiral himself having left two of his ships at that place, came up in the Canopus to Constantinople. He arrived here on Friday evening the 27th ultimo, and his ship, together with the Endymion, is now at anchor in this harbour.
No. VII.—Dispatch from Lord Howick to Mr. Arbuthnot, dated 14th Nov. 1806.
Sir; Your dispatches to No 69, inclusive, have been received and laid before the king.—In obedience to his maj's commands, I have the greatest pleasure in expressing to you his royal approbation of the whole of your conduct, in the discussions which have taken place between Russia and the Porte.—It is much to be lamented that any thing should occur to divide, and perhaps to turn against each other, the efforts of those powers which a sense of their mutual interests should unite against the common enemy; and on this account, however adverse the conduct of the Turkish government may have been to any expectation of its success, every practicable mode of calm and amicable remonstrance should be used in the hope of recalling the Porte to a better policy.—The fatal effects of French influence in the councils of other powers are not in want of any illustration; and indeed if the situation of so many nations, once independent, and now the vassals of France, did not place in the most striking view the nature of the security to be derived from an alliance with that power, whilst it holds a position enabling it to act offensively against the object of its promised protection; the little disguise observed by M. Sebastiani would alone be sufficient to open the eyes of any government not abso-
506
507
No. VIII.—Dispatch from Lord Viscount Howick to Mr. Arburthnot, dated Downing Street, 20th Nov. 1806.
*
Sir ; The particulars of the late conduct of the Porte, as detailed in your dispatches, have engaged the most serious attention of this government; they but too clearly demonstrate the prevalence of the French influence in the Divan, and impose on his majesty the necessity of taking the most prompt and vigorous measures for the security of his own interests, and for the fulfilment of his engagements to his ally the emperor of Russia.—You have been already apprized of the king's intention to send a powerful squadron to Constantinople for this purpose. The departure of that squadron now enables me to furnish you with these further instructions for your conduct.—You will immediately on its arrival declare to the Turkish government the reasons which have induced his majesty to take this measure. You will state that the British fleet comes either to attack or defend, as the conduct of the Porte shall determine; that it would always be more consonant with the most earnest wishes of his majesty's heart, to appear rather in the character of a friend than an enemy to a power whom interest should unite with him in support of the common cause, and with whom the increased dangers of the present crisis would dispose his majesty to strengthen the bonds of his alliance; but that the determination of
*
508
509
510
No. IX.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Arbuthnot to Lord Howick, dated Pera, 27th Jan. 1807.
Late at night on the 23d inst. my servant arrived with your lordship's dispatch of the 14th of last Nov. It has been the highest gratification to me to learn from your lord-
511
512
(Inclosure referred to in No. 9.)—Letter from Mr. Arbuthnot to the Reis Efendi, dated Pera, 26th Jan. 1807.
Sir; Your excellency expressed a desire of receiving in writing, the substance of what I had the honour of stating to you in our conference of yesterday. In compliance with, this desire, I shall recall to your recollection the several topics which, by my sovereign's orders, I had to lay before you; and in again pointing out the line of conduct which his maj. expects from the Porte, I shall in their very words, repeat the orders which I have now received, and which, as they admit but of one construction, it will be my duty most literally and most faithfully to obey.—That your excellency and the other ministers who assisted at the conference might understand more clearly the motives which had induced his maj. after a long enduring patience, to change his conduct towards the Porte, it was necessary for me to allude to the first conference I had after my arrival in this country. I told you that Mahmood, who was then Reis Efendi, had scarcely given me time to leave the frigate, before he invited me to a conference; that his first question was, whether I was authorized to renew the treaty; and that to give me a convincing proof of the Sultan's desire to continue that connection with his maj, which had already been productive of such
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
No. 10.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Arbuthnot to Lord Howick, dated Canopus, off Tenedos, 3d Feb. 1807.— Received 2d May by Mr. Sec. Canning.
The dispatch which I wrote on the 27th of last month will have informed your lordship of my having received your Instructions of the 14th of Nov. and of the conference which immediately after their arrival I had with several of the Ottoman ministers.—It is now necessary that I should state my reasons for having joined his maj.'s squadron, instead of remaining at my post until I had been ordered to quit it by your lordship; and I feel perfectly confident that my conduct on this occasion will not subject me to any censure.—I shall be able to prove clearly that there was an avowed design to cut off my communication with his maj.'s government; and I shall have to relate some other circumstances which will make it no less evident, that I was residing in a country, where, in conjunction with our enemy, measures of hostility against his maj. had been already organized.—As the last dispatches which I transmitted to your lordship were of considerable importance, it was thought adviseable that a firman or passport should be procured for the officer of the Endymion, who was to convey them by sea to adm. Louis.—I accordingly di-
520
521
522
523
524
No. XI—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Arbuthnot to Lord Howick, dated 14th Feb. 1807.—Received 2d May.
I yesterday received from Mr. Pisani the
525
(First Inclosure referred to in No. XI.)—Translation of a Note from the Porte to his maj.'s ambassador, dated 25th Zilkaadé 1221, (5th Feb. 1807).
At an official conference which was held at the Sublime Porte by the request of the English ambassador the most esteemed Mr. Arbuthnot, the 16th of this present month Zilkaadé (25th January) after making some propositions not altogether of a proper nature, he declared in his statements that a fleet of English ships is to be joined by a Russian squadron at the isle of Tenedos; that the same was to force its passage through the Dardanelles to come to Constantinople; that he should send directions for the English dwelling in the capital and in the provinces abroad, to prepare shortly to depart or return to their own country; and that he intended to present a note after the conference, to which he should absolutely expect an answer from the Sublime Porte, in writing.—Three days after a very long and detailed note was received from him, written in a foreign language, and consisting of 13 pages. As a trausla-
526
527
528
Second Inclosure referred to No 11.— Translation of a circular Note from the Porte, dated 29 of the Moon Zilkaad— 1221, (9th Feb. 1807.)
The Sublime Ottoman Porte having ever been intent on fulfilling every obligation of amity and friendship toward the court of G. Britain, not one thing did exist between them of an nature to bring on a rupture or a coolness.—The English ambassador resident at the Sublime Porte, Mr. Arbuthnot having in a conference held 5 or 6 days ago, made some strange propositions, the Turkish ministers in their answer limited themselves to saving that the Sublime Porte at this present epoch, was at war with Russia and at peace with G. Britain. Soon after the conference, the same ambassador presented a note, in
529
530
No. XII.—Dispatch front Mr. Arbuthnot to Lord Howick, dated Royal George, 14th February 1807.—Received 2d May.
My lord, when I wrote to your ldp. the letter marked private of the 10th instant, from on board the Endymion, I fully expected that on the ensuing morning I should have an interview with his highness the Capitan Pacha, and that it would be ascertained, whether our passage though the Dardanelles was to be amicable or hostile.—The wind however blew so hard on the following morning, that on account of the surf it was impossible to attempt to land me; and as the forts fired upon the Endymion, there was an evident unwillingness to permit the frigate to run into sufficiently smooth water, for me to be put on shore.—Nothing therefore remained to be done, but to write a letter to Mr. Pisani, in which the cause of my not landing should be explained; and in which one more effort should be made to inspire the officers of the Sultan with the pacific disposition by which we ourselves are influenced.—I have the honour of transmitting a copy of this letter to your ldp. which in the course of the day we had the means of sending by a Turkish boat into the Dardanelles, although the increased violence of the wind rendered it more impossible than ever to land me on the open beach.—Yesterday morning, and not before, the weather had become so moderate that I was enabled to pay a visit to the Capitan Pacha, and I accordingly went on shore to meet him.—With his highness personally I had the greatest reason to be satisfied, but he could agree to nothing which would have authorized me to propose to Sir J. T. Duckworth not to force the passage. He wished me to go with him in the Endymion to Constantinople, that I might propose my terms to the ministers of the Porte, and that the British
531
532
533
First inclosure referred to in No. XII.— Endymion, off the entrance of the Dardanelles, 11th Feb. 6. A. M. 1807.
Sir; I am come in the Endymion according to appointment, but now I am here, captain Caper will not attempt to land me. He says, that he has no boat which in such weather as this could put me on shore.—It therefore only remains for me to repeat again for the Capitan Pacha's information, that our wish is to go up as friends; that we shall not fire the first shot; but that should hostilities be commenced against us, our demands will be greatly ,increased.—We now require no more than that the Porte should place herself in that situation with regard to her foreign relations in which I found her on my arrival in this country. She was then the friend of Great Britain and Russia. She is now the friend of France. She is called upon to make her choice; and our conduct towards her will be regulated by that choice.—If I were to see the Capitan Pacha I could say no more to him than what I have written before, and what I am now writing.—Admiral sir J. T. Duckworth dares not to disobey the orders which force it upon him as an indispensable duty to appear with his fleet off Constantinople, and the first fair wind will convey him thither. The Capitan Pacha must know better than we can, whether he can venture to save his country by not carrying into effect such orders as may have directed him to fire upon our fleet; for of course it will be obvious to his highness that, without meaning to speak arrogantly or presumptuously, we should not, as I have remarked before, be so easy to treat with after the commencement of hostilities as we are now.—My personal wish for peace is so great that I have no scruple in assuring the Capitan Pacha that if we are not treated now as enemies, I shall be found in future, having such a force to give weight to my representations, far less positive and far less peremptory than I thought it my duty to be, when, being left to my own individual exertions, I had to convince the Porte that my court was really in earnest.—It cannot be offensive to the Capitan Paella to be told that
534
Second inclosure referred to in No. XII. Copy of a letter from Mr. Arbuthnot to B. Pisani, esq. dated Royal George off the Dardanelles, 13th Feb. 1807.
sir; I did not fail to relate to vice admiral sir John Duckworth all the particulars of the conference which I had to-day with his highness the Capitan Pacha.— The vice admiral learnt from what I said, that his highness could not even adopt the idea which I had thrown out, of the fleet remaining at the anchorage occupied, within the passage, by the squadron under sir Thomas Louis. It therefore was evident that nothing was to be granted to us, while by my going up alone without the fleet, that greatest of all disadvantages, the loss of time which could never be regained, would be suffered by us. Under these circumstances the admiral feels that he has no option left to him, but that it is become his bounden duty to obey literally his sovereign's orders, and to proceed up the Dardanelles whenever the wind may permit it.—But the admiral to the very last will be amicably inclined. After he has forced the passage of the Dardanelles, he will again give to the Ottoman government an opportunity of terminating by a friendly negociation the differences which have arisen. For this purpose he will in the first instance anchor his fleet at such a distance from the town of Constantinople, as will remove every apprehension of his being hostilely inclined; and he will not proceed to extremities, even when the means of doing it shall be within his hands, until he has learnt from me that the negociation I shall propose has been fruitless.—I wish much that the Capitan Pacha had been invested with discretionary powers to treat with me. His highness says he has none such. He therefore must obey the orders of his sovereign, and we must be equally obedient to the orders of ours. I am, &c. CHA. ARBUTHNOT.
535
[PAPERS RELATING TO PORTUGAL.] Mr. Abereromby
said, that the information obtained relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen, was just enough to excite suspicion, but was not sufficient to give any satisfactory explanation of the conduct of ministers. He hoped this temper of reserve would not be shown in respect to the Papers he should apply for in a transaction that was said to bear so near an analogy to that proceeding: he meant the Papers connected with the negociation with Portugal. He did not think it was necessary to make any comment upon the propriety of acquiring this intelligence, until objections should be made, which he was not disposed to anticipate. He should, therefore, propose his first motion, which would be followed by several others. It was, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house, copies of the Instructions to earl St. Vincent for the direction of his conduct at Lisbon, in 1806; and also copies of the Instructions given on the same occasion to the earl of Rosslyn and to general Simcoe."
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that not having had any communication with the hon. gent. on the subject of his motion, and not having collected from his speech what would be the extent of it, he wished to know what additional documents he meant to require, before he acceded to the proposition.
Mr. Abercromby
replied, that his other motions would apply to the communications from the three persons he had named to the prince regent, and the replies to them; and further, the particulars of the interview with the prince regent prior to their departure from the Tagus.
Mr. Secretary Canning
objected, that a motion so general did not admit the exclusion of matter, however delicate in its nature, and however dangerous to impart. Applications of this kind, to provide the house with the particulars of a private interview with a sovereign prince, had never been attempted before, and if acceded to must have the most pernicious consequences. It was well known, that while the British ministers were waiting in the anti-room with the servants of Imperial princes, the French accredited agents had passed our envoys, and had bearded sovereigns within the recesses of their own cabinets. This preference had occasioned some complaints, and the result had been that, on various
536
Mr. Adam
opposed the principle laid down by the right hon. secretary, and expressed his surprise at hearing such doctrine first broached by the person, who, on a former night, read in that house extracts of documents which belonged to the crown, and so far insulted the constitution as to withhold the document, which he had partially quoted, from parliament. He should shortly bring forward a motion on this subject, in order that the house might be convinced how it stood in this respect, and where the boundaries of the crown were limited.
Mr. Canning
suggested an amendment, by which the Instructions to lord Rosslyn, &c. and an account of their Expedition, would be given, so that the substance only of what passed at the court of Lisbon would be obtained.—The amendment was then agreed to.
Upon Mr. Abercromby's
third motion being put, for obtaining copies of the Order of Recall of earl St. Vincent, &c. and of the dispatches containing an account of what passed at their audience of leave, Mr. Canning made an objection to the latter part of the motion, also upon grounds of delicate attention to etiquette, and the mischief that might arise from publishing official communications of that nature.
Mr. Sheridan
observed, that if an ambassador from England held conferences with no other person but the sovereign at whose court he resided, we could have no other source of information concerning his conduct, but the conferences with such sovereign; and was it to be said that these conferences should never be disclosed?
537
Mr. Ponsonby
could not bear to hear in silence such language as had been used by the right hon. secretary. In the best times of English history, the conduct of persons in the highest stations, whether minister or prince, were openly, fairly, and boldly discussed in parliament; it was only at the most disgraceful periods that we find great men have shrunk from publicity, and parliament too easily led by confidence in a great name, or a high-sounding title. If members of parliament were to understand that the power of France had this effect, they had better say to their constituents, that the power of Buonaparte was so great, that it not only subverted or raised up kingdoms at will upon the continent, but that it succeeded in robbing them of their free constitution.
Mr. Windham
said, the house and the country might now be congratulated on having in the person of the right hon, secretary, a new defender of those rules of propriety, which he himself had so lately broken. Sometimes a smuggler made a very good custom-house officer. This was analagous to the right hon. gent. who spoke with such animation against the practice of disclosing confidential communications.—The house then divided—For the motion. 82. Against it 142. Majority 60.
PAPERS
RELATIVE TO PORTUGAL, Presented By His Majesty's Command To The House Of Commons, Pursuant To Their ADDRESS OF THE 15TH FEB. 1808.
No. I.—Dispatch from. Mr. Secretary Fox to the earls of Rosslyn and St. Vincent, and lieut. gen. Simcoe, dated Downing Street, 9th Aug. 1806.
My lords, and sir; Intelligence has been received by his maj.'s ministers of
538
539
540
541
542
543
I am, &c. C. .J. Fox. No. II.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Secretary Windham to the earl of Rosslyn and lieut. gen. Simcoe, dated Downing Street, 12th of Aug. 1806.
As the wind still prevents the convoy from getting round from the Downs, I think it proper to apprise you, in addition to your former instructions, that it is thought adviseable that you should lose no time in proceeding to Lisbon in the frigate destined for that service.—On your arrival there, it is presumed, you will find the earl St. Vincent already there; you will of course, in the first instance, communicate with his lordship on the subject of the instructions which are jointly addressed to his lordship and you, and also on this dispatch.—As your arrival will in all probability precede that of the troops, it is thought proper that lord Rosslyn should, after communicating as above with lord St. Vincent, proceed to Lisbon, and there enter upon his mission; gen. Simcoe remaining with the fleet to wait the arrival of the troops.—Lord Rosslyn will begin his negotiation by stating the certainty and urgency of the danger as mentioned in your former instructions. He will remark, that while there was a hope that Portugal even by considerable pecuniary sacrifices would preserve her neutrality, the king felt too strong an interest in the safety of his ally to endanger it by any precipitate or premature measures on his part. But that the moment is now come when a decision must be taken.
544
545
546
No. III.—Dispatch from Mr. Secretary Windham to earls Rosslyn and Saint Vincent, and lieut. gen. Simcoe, dated Downing Street, 28th August 1806.
My lords, and sir; Since the earl of Rosslyn and lieut. gen. Simcoe Sailed from Plymouth, his majesty's servants have received information which induces them to believe that the preparations for the attack of Portugal are in a less forward state than had before been supposed, though there appears no reason to entertain more doubt than before as to the final intention of the French government to carry into effect the plans for the conquest and partition of Portugal, which they have already announced.—In this state of things the whole expedition being now collected at Plymouth, and ready to sail with the first fair wind, it has been judged expedient to detain them until intelligence shall have been received from you of your proceedings, and of the state of affairs at Lisbon.—It is thought here, that there is now more prospect than before of accomplishing the objects in view, without the
547
No. IV.—Extract of a Dispatch from the earl of Rosslyn to Mr. Secretary Fox, dated Lisbon, Aug. 30th, 1806.
I have the honour to inform you, that his maj.'s ship Santa Margarita, anchored in the Tagus late on Monday evening the 25th.—Early on the 26th lord St. Vincent came on beard, and his lordship, lieut. gen. Simcoe, and I, had a full conference upon the present state of affairs in this country.—Lord Strangford upon hearing of our arrival had made application for pratique for us, without delay.—In the afternoon I landed, and had a long conference with M. d' Araujo.—in this I took occasion to enter upon that point of our Instructions, which relates to the dangers of the country, and the proposal to assist in defending it. To this first head I chiefly confined myself. I stated the intelligence respecting the plans of the French government, and the persuasion of his maj.'s ministers, of the extreme urgency of the danger arising from thence, according to the tenor of the Instructions.—To this statement M. d'Araujo replied, that there was no actual assembly of troops at Bayonne, no camp formed, and no preparations made. That he had sept several couriers to pass through it, for the purpose of ascertaining the fact. That all his intelligence from Paris and Madrid concurred in that account, and that the forces collected there, consisted only of an Italian brigade of seventeen hundred men. That M. de Lima had given them no reason to apprehend danger, and made no communication from Paris of a declared intention to attack the country, nor of any reports to that effect.—He was persuaded that no measures had been taken for that purpose; and strongly stated the distinction between a formal declaration of the government or a conversation of Buonaparte himself, and the language held by M. Talleyrand; which he was disposed to consider as a mere device or threat to induce lord Yarmouth and Ins majesty's ministers, to con-
548
549
No. V.—Extract of a Dispatch from the earl of Rosslyn to Mr. Secretary Fox, dated Lisbon, Sept. 2, 1806.
I am sorry to say that I cannot see the least grounds to expect vigorous efforts from this nation in its own defence; and it is evident that no force G. Britain can possibly furnish, would of itself be adequate to arrest the progress of a French invasion.—In short it is my duty to state, that I entirely despair of the possibility of defending Portugal against a French invasion by any means to be found here, or that G. Britain can even with great sacrifices supply.—With respect to the immediate objects of my mission, I must observe to you, that no apprehensions of danger from France existed in this country; and, that all the intelligence I have been able to acquire here, contradicts the supposition of preparations at Bayonne.—It appears to me quite incredible that an army could be suddenly assembled at Bayonne,to half the extent stated from the beginning of
550
551
No. VI.—Extract of a Dispatch from Mr. Secretary Windham to the earl of Rosslyn, dated Sept. 13, 1806.
552
553
PAPERS RELATING TO AMERICA.] Lord Henry
Petty moved that an humble address be presented to his majesty, "That he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house, a copy of such communications as have passed between his majesty's government and that of the United States of America, relating to a ratification of a Treaty with the United States." In consequence of the above motion, three sets of Papers were, on the 18th and 22d instant, laid before both houses of parliament, of which the following are copies, viz.
PAPERS
RELATING TO AMERICA.
No. I.—Extract of a Dispatch from the hon. David M. Erskine to lord visc. Howick, dated Washington, March 2d, 1807.
I have the honour to enclose the President's Message to the Congress, which conveys the information of the adjustment of the negociation between his majesty's commissioners and the American ministers. Your lordship will also find in it, the Correspondence of the American Minister at Paris with the French minister of the Marine, relative to the effect that Buonaparte's Decree of the 21st of Nov. declaring England to be in a state of blockade, is intended to have on American Commerce.
(First Inclosure referred to in No. 1.)— Extract of a Message from the President of the U. States. Feb. 19, 1807.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the, United States: I transmit to congress, a Letter from our ministers plenipotentiary at London, informing us that they have agreed with the British commissioners to conclude a Treaty on all the points which had formed the object of their negociation, and on terms which they trusted we would approve. Also, a Letter from our minister plenipotentiary at
554
(Second Inclosure referred to in No. 1.) —To James Madison, Secretary of State, Washington, dated London, Dec. 27th, 1806.
Sir; We have ,the pleasure to acquaint you that we have this day agreed with the British commissioners, to conclude a Treaty on all the points which have formed the object of our negociation, and on terms which we trust our government will approve. It will require only a few days to reduce it to form. When that is done, we shall transmit it to you by a special messenger. We hasten to communicate to you this interesting intelligence, for the information and guidance of our government in such measures as may have reference to the subject. We have the honour, &C. JAMES MONROE. WM. PINCKNEY.
(Third Inclosure referred to in No. 1.)—To Mr. Madison, Washington, dated Paris, 24th Dec. 1806.
Sir; I have the honour of transmitting the copy inclosed of a Letter from his majesty's minister of marine and colonies, in Answer to mine of the 10th inst. on the subject of the Imperial Arrêté of the 21st of Nov. 1806. An additional explanation, which it may be well to communicate, is, that neutral vessels coming from England or her colonies, into the ports of France, &c. since the date of the aforesaid Arrêté, will not be received, and that if any person or persons, charged with the ship or other vessel and cargo, shall be detected in evading this regulation by means of false declarations, they shall forfeit the said ship or other vessel and cargo. I am, Sir, &C. JOHN ARMSTRONG.
(Fourth Inclosure referred to in No. 1.) —Imperial Decree of the 21st Nov. 1806.
Art. I.—The British Islands are declared in a state of Blockade.—II. All commerce and correspondence with the British islands are prohibited. In consequence, letters or packets addressed either to England, to an Englishman, or in the English language, shall not pass through the Post Office, and shall be seized.—III. Every subject of England, of whatever rank and condition soever, who shall be found in the countries occupied by our troops, or
555
(Fifth Inclosure referred to in No. 1.).—Gen. Armstrong to the Minister of Marine and Colonies, dated Paris, Dec. 10, 1806.
The undersigned, minister plenipotentiary of the U. States of America, has the honour of demanding from his exc. the minister of marine and colonies, the official Explanation which may have been given to the Imperial Decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, so far as that decree involves the rights of neutral nations.—The undersigned would more particularly wish to be Informed whether by 'British Islands' mentioned ill Art. I. are to be understood
556
(Sixth Inclosure referred to in. No. 1.)—Dated Paris, 24th Dec. 1806.
Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary; I hasten to answer the Note you did me the honour to address to me on the 20th of this month. I consider the Imperial Decree of the 21st Nov. last, as, thus far, conveying no Modification of the Regulations at present observed in France with regard to neutral navigators, nor consequently of the convention of the 30th Sept. 1800, with the United States of America. But although, by this Answer, the four Questions upon which your exc. has desired to know my opinion, have been implicitly resolved, I think I can add, 1st, That the Declaration expressed by the 1st Art. of the Decree of the 21st Nov. net at all changing the present French laws concerning maritime captures, there is no reason for enquiring what interpretation or restriction or extension may be given to this Article. 2d, That Seizures, contrary to the present Regulations concerning Cruizing, shall not be allowed to the capturers. 3d, That an American vessel cannot be taken at sea for the mere reason that she is going to a port of England, or is returning from one, because, conformably with the 7th Art. of the said Decree, we are limited in France not to admit vessels coming from England or the English Colonies. 4th, That the provisions of Articles 2d and 5th of the said Decree, naturally apply to foreign citizens domiciliated in France
557
(Signed) DECRES.
No. II—Message from the President to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. Dec. 18, 1807.
The communications now made, shewing the great and increasing dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandize are threatened, on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerents of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the subject to the consideration of Congress; who will doubtless perceive all the advantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States. Their wisdom will also see the necessity of making every preparation for whatever events may grow out of the present crisis. I ask a return of the letters of Messrs. Armstrong and Chempagny, which it would be improper to make public.
TH. JEFFERSON.
No. III.—Extract of a Letter from the Grand Judge, Minister. of Justice at Paris, to the Attorney General for the Council of Prizes there, dated Paris, Sept. 18th, 1807.
I have submitted to his majesty the emperor and king the doubts raised by his exc. the minister of marine and colonies, on the extent of certain dispositions of the imperial decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, which has declared the British isles in a state of blockade. The following are his majesty's intentions on the points in question: May vessels of war by virtue of the imperial decree of 21st Nov. last, seize on board neutral vessels, either English property, or even all merchandize proceeding
558
(SECOND SET, PRESENTED FEB. 22.)
No. I.—DISPATCH from lord visc. Howick to the hon. David Erskine, dated Downing Street, 8th Jan. 1807.
Sir; Your dispatch No. I. announcing your arrival at Annapolis on board the Avon sloop of war, was received here on the 6th of Dec. and, together with Mr. Merry's dispatches, which were received at the same time, has been laid before the king. It is with great satisfaction that I inform you that the Treaty of Amity, Navigation, and Commerce, between this country and the U. States, was signed on 31st ult. by lords Holland and Auckland on the part of his maj. and by M. M. Monroe and Pinkney on the part of their government.—Mr. Purviance, secretary to the American legation here, who leaves London to-day, is the bearer of the Treaty for ratification. I have the honour herewith to transmit a copy of this Treaty for your information, together. with a copy of a Note, delivered previous to the signature by the lords Holland and Auckland, relative to the complaints of the Canada merchants, on the subject of the estimation of the duties on the inland trade, in certain parts of the U. States. These complaints, which were communicated by Mr. Merry in the early part of last year, but from various circumstances postponed for consideration, certainly must not be lost sight of by his majesty's government, and every means will be taken to obtain redress for the removal of the inconvenience complained of.—I transmit to you also the copy of another Note presented by their lordships to the American commissioners previously to the signature of the Treaty, on the subject of the extraordinary Declarations and Orders of the French government issued at Berlin on the 16th Nov. last. This Note I must recommend to your particular attention; you will state to the American government, that his majesty relies with con-
559
No. II.—Note from Lords Holland and Auckland to Messieurs Monroe and Pinkney, Dated London Dec. 31, 1806.
560
The undersigned, Henry Rd. Vassal lord Holland, and Wm. lord Auckland, plenipotentiaries of his Britannic maj. have the honour to inform J. Monroe and Wm. Pinkney, commissioners extraordinary and plenipotentiaries of the United States of and America, that they are now ready to proceed to the signature of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, on the Articles of which they have mutually agreed. But at the same time they have it in command from his maj. to call the attention of the commissioners of the U. States to some extraordinary proceedings which have lately taken place on the continent of Europe, and to communicate to them officially the sentiments of his maj.'s government thereupon.—The proceedings alluded to are certain Declarations and Orders of the French government, issued at Berlin on the 21st of Nov. last. In these Orders the French government seeks to justify or palliate its own unjust pretensions, by imputing to G. Britain, principles which she never professed and practices which never existed.—His majesty is accused of a systematic and general disregard of the law of nations, recognized by civilized states, and more particularly of an unwarrantable extension of the right of blockade; whereas his maj. may confidently appeal to the world on his uniform respect for neutral rights, and his general and scrupulous adherence to the law of nations, without condescending to contrast his conduct in these particulars with that of his enemy; and with regard to the only specific charge, it is notorious that he has never declared any ports to be in a state of blockade without allotting to that object a force sufficient to make the entrance into them manifestly dangerous.—By such allegations, unfounded as they are, the enemy attempts to justify his pretensions of confiscating as lawful prize all produce of English industry or manufacture, though it be the property of neutrals; excluding from his harbours every neutral vessel which has touched at any port of his majesty's dominions, though employed in an innocent commerce; and of declaring G. Britain to be in a state of blockade though his own ports and arsenals are actually blockaded, and he is unable to station any naval force whatever before any ports of the United Kingdom.—Such principles are in themselves extravagant and repugnant to the law of nations; and the pretension founded on them, though professedly directed solely against G. Bri-
561
562
VASSAL HOLLAND. AUCKLAND.
No. III.—Extract of a Dispatch from the hon. David Erskine to lord vise. Howick, dated Washington, March 30th, 1807.
In compliance with your lordship's Instructions, I communicated to this government his majesty's views relative to the French Decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, as detailed in your dispatch to me of the 8th January last; and received the Answer which I have now the honour to inclose.
(Inclosure referred to in No. 1.III)—To the hon. David Erskine, &c. Dated Department of State, 20th March 1807.
Sir; I have laid before the president your Letter of the 12th inst. communicating the views of his Britannic maj. in relation to the French Decree of Nov. 21st, 1806, and to the principle of retaliation, through the commerce of neutrals who may submit to the operation of that Decree; as also the measure actually taken, of prohibiting all neutral commerce from port to port of his enemies, not only the ports of France, but those of such other nations, as, either in alliance with France, or subject to her dominion, have by measures of active offence, or by the exclusion of British ships, taken a part in the present war.—The president cannot be insensible, sir, to the friendship and confidence towards the United States which are signified by his Britannic maj. in this communication.—In making this acknowledgment, however, the president considers it not less incumbent on him to reserve for a state of things which it is hoped will never occur, the right of discussing the legality of any particular measures, to which resort may be had, on a ground of retaliation; at this time, it would suffice to observe that it remains to be more fully ascertained in what sense the decree in question will be explained, and to what extent it will be carried into execution,
563
JAMES MADISON.
No. IV.—Dispatch from the hon. David
564
My Lord; After 1 had closed the preceding number of my dispatches which accompany this, I received another letter from Mr. Madison, in answer to the communications, which, in obedience to your lordship's orders, I made to this government, of his majesty's views relative to the French decree of blockade of the 21st of November last, and his majesty's prohibitory orders against the neutral trade from port to port of his enemies. As I conceived it would be most prudent to wait for your lordship's instructions, I did not send any reply to the letter, but have now the honour to inclose it to your lordship. I have, &c. D. M. ERSKINE.
(Inclosure referred to in. No. IV.)—To the hon. David Erskine, dated Department of State, 29th March 1807.
Sir; Further reflection on the tenor and tendency of the order of his Britannic majesty, communicated by your letter of the 16th instant, which was answered by mine of the 20th, induces me to resume that important subject.—From the difficulty of supposing that the order can have for its basis either a legal blockade, impossible to be extended to all the ports described in the order, or a supposed illegality of the trade between those ports, an illegality which has never been applied by the British government or its admiralty courts, to use accustomed trade even between ports of a belligerent nation, and is utterly at variance with the conduct of both, in reference to a trade between a belligerent nation and its allies; a necessity seems to result of ascribing the order to the policy of countervailing through the commerce of neutrals, the French decree of the 21st of Nov. last.—In this view of the order, it demands, on the part of the United States, the most serious attention both to its principle and to its operation.—With respect to its principle, it will not be contested, that a retaliation by one nation on its enemy; which is to operate through the interest of a nation not its enemy, essentially requires, not only that the injury inflicted should be limited by the measure of injury sustained, but that every retaliating step in such a case should be preceded by an unreasonable failure of the neutral party, in some mode or other to put an end to the inequality wrongfully produced. Were it certain, therefore, that the French decree is to be enforced in the sense in which it is taken, and that,
565
566
THIRD SET OF PAPERS, PRESENTED FEB. 22.
No. I.—NOTE from Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated London, 24th July 1807.
The undersigned, commissioners extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the U. States of America, have the honour to inform Mr. Canning, that they are instructed by the president of the United States to propose to his majesty's government a renewal of negotiation relative to the objects of the mission of the undersigned, with a view to a more satisfactory result than is found in the Instrument signed on the 31st of Dec. last, by his majesty's plenipotentiaries, and those of the United States.—The undersigned are persuaded that his majesty's government will see in this measure, an unquestionable proof of the sincere desire of the president to place the friendly relations of the two countries beyond the reach of those misunderstandings which either the absence or the inadequacy of precise arrangements on subjects
567
568
569
570
JAMES MONROE, WILLIAM PINKNEY.
First Inclosure referred to in No 1.) Copy of the TREATY Or AMITY, COMMERCE, AND NAVIGATION, between his majesty and the United States of America, concluded and signed on the 31st Dec. 1806, by the right hon. Henry Rd. Vassal lord Holland, one of his majesty's privy council and lord keeper of his majesty's privy seal, and Wm. lord Auckland one of his majesty's privy council, and president of the committee of council for all matters of trade and foreign plantations, plenipotentiaries on the part of his Britannick majesty; and James Monroe and Wm. Pinkney, commissioners extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary on the part of the United States.
His Britannic majesty, and the United States of America, being equally desirous
571
Art. 1. There shall be a firm, inviolable and universal peace, and a true and sincere friendship between his Britannick majesty and the United States of America, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every degree, without exception of persons or places.
Art. 2. It is agreed, that the several Articles of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between his majesty and the United States, made at London on the 19th of Nov. 1794, which have not expired, nor as yet had their full operation and effect, shall be confirmed in their best form, and in their full tenour;. and that the contracting parties will also from time to time enter into friendly explanations on the subject of the said Articles, for the purpose of removing all such doubts as may arise or have arisen as to the true purport of the same, as well as for the purpose of rendering the said Articles more conformable to their mutual wishes and convenience.
Art. 3. His maj. agrees, that the Vessels belonging to the U. States of America [and sailing direct from the said States,(1)] shall
Alterations proposed by the President of the United States.
(1) Omit the words 'and sailing direct from the ports of the said States.'—
572
(2) Omit the words 'between the said territories and the said United States,' and insert 'with the said territories.'—(3) After the words where the same shall be unladen,' insert 'or to some port or place or ports or places in China, or the Indian or other seas, beyond the Cape of Good Hope, from whence the said vessels shall proceed as aforesaid to some port or place in America, and there unlade their cargoes.' —(4) After the words 'British territories,' insert 'without the special permission of the British government.'—
573
Art. 4. There shall be between all the dominions of his majesty in Europe and the territories of the United States, a reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce and navigation. The people and inhabitants of the two countries respectively shall have liberty freely and exclusively, and without hindrance and molestation, to come with their ships arid cargoes to the lands, countries, cities, ports, places, and rivers within the dominions and territories aforesaid, to enter into the same, toresort there, and to remain and reside there without any limitation of time; also to hire and possess houses and warehouses for the purpose of their commerce; and generally, the merchants and traders on each side shall enjoy the most compleat protection and security for their commerce, but subject always as to what respects this Article, to the laws and statutes of the two countries respectively. (6)
(5) After the words 'St. Helena,' insert 'or at such other places as may be in the possession of Great Britain in the African or Asiatic seas.'—(6) At the end of the Article add 'And it is further agreed, that if any other trade in and with the said British territories in the East Indies than is hereby authorized, or any other or greater rights or advantages in respect thereof shall be granted or permitted to the citizens or subjects of
574
Art. V. It is agreed, that no other or higher Duties shall be paid by the ships or merchandize of the one Marty in the ports of the other, than such as are, paid by the like vessels or merchandize of all other nations. Nor shall any other or higher duty be imposed in one country on the importation of any articles, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other, than are or shall be payable on the importation of the like articles, being of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country.(7)—Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the exportation or importation of any articles to or from the territories of the two parties respectively, which shall not equally extend to all other nations. But the British government reserves to itself the right of imposing on American vessels entering into British ports in Europe a tonnage duty equal to that which shall at any time be payable by British vessels in the ports of America; and the government of the United States reserves to itself a right of imposing on British vessels entering into the ports of the United States, a tonnage duty equal to that which shall at any time be payable by American vessels in the British ports in Europe.—It is agreed, that in the trade of the two countries with each other," the same duties of exportation and importation on all goods and merchandize, and also the same drawbacks and bounties, shall be paid and allowed in either country, whether such importation or exportation shall be made in British or American vessels.
Art. 6. The high contracting parties. not having been able to arrange at present, by treaty, any Commercial Intercourse between the territories of the United States and his majesty's islands and ports in the West-Indies, agree that, until that subject shall be regulated in a satisfactory manner, each of the parties shall remain in the complete possession of its rights, in respect to such an intercourse.
Art. 7. It shall be free for the high con-
any European nation, the same shall be common to the citizens of the U. States.'—(7) At the end of the first Paragraph insert 'nor shall any higher defies or charges be imposed in one country, on the exportation of any articles to the ports of the other, than such as are payable on the exportation of the like articles to every other foreign country.'—
575
Art. 8. It is agreed, that in all cases where Vessels shall be captured or detained [on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war (9)] or for [other (10)] lawful cause, the said vessel shall be brought to the nearest or most convenient port; [and if any property of an enemy should be found on board such vessel (11)] that part only which [belongs to the enemy or (12)] is [otherwise (13)] confiscable, shall be made prize, and the vessel, unless by law subject to condemnation, shall be at liberty to proceed with the remainder of the cargo, without any impediment. And it is agreed, that all proper measures shall be taken to prevent delay in deciding the cases of ships and cargoes so brought in for adjudication, and in the payment or recovery of any indemnification adjudged or agreed to be paid to the masters or owners of such ships.—It is also agreed, that in all cases of unfounded detention, or other contravention of the Regulations stipulated by the present Treaty, the owners of the vessel and cargo so
(8) Propose to strike out the last Paragraph.—(9) Omit the words 'on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war.'—(10) Omit the word 'other,' and substitute (11) Omit the words 'if any property of an enemy should be found on board such vessel.'—(12) Omit the words 'belongs to the enemy, or.'—(13) Omit the word 'otherwise.'—
576
Art. 9. In order to regulate what is in future to be esteemed contraband of war, it is agreed that under the said denomination shall be comprized all arms and implements serving for the purposes of war by land or by sea, such as cannon, musquets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenadoes, carcasses, carriages for cannon, musquet rests, bandoliers, gunpowder, match, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, head pieces, cuirasses, halberts, lances, javelins, horse-furniture, holsters, belts, and generally all other implements of war; as also timber for ship building, copper in sheets, sail cloth, hemp, and cordage, and in general (with the exception of unwrought iron and fir planks; and also with the exception of tar and pitch (14.), when not going to a port of naval equipment, in which case they shall be entitled to pre-emption) whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels; and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to an enemy; but no vessel shall be detained on pretence of carrying contraband of war, unless some of the above-mentioned articles not excepted, are found on board of the said vessel at the time it is searched.
Art. 10. Whereas in consideration of the distance, and other circumstances incident to the situation of the high contracting parties, it may frequently happen that vessels may sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is agreed, that every vessel so circumstanced, may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless after such notice she shall again attempt to enter; but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper; nor shall any vessel or goods of either party, that may have entered into such port or place before the same was besieged, blockaded, or invested by the other, and be found therein after the reduction or surrender of such place, be liable to confiscation, but shall be restored to the owners or proprietors
(14) After the words 'tar and pitch,' add 'turpentine and rosin':—
577
Art. 11. Whereas differences have arisen concerning the trading with the colonies of his majesty's enemies, and the instructions given by his majesty to his cruizers in regard thereto; it is agreed, that, [during the present hostilities (16),] all articles of the growth, produce, and manufacture of Europe (17), not being contraband of war, may be freely carried from the United States to the port of any colony not blockaded, belonging to his majesty's enemies.—Provided such goods shall previously have been entered and landed in the United States, and shall have paid the ordinary duties on such articles so imported for home consumption, and on re-exportation shall after the drawback remain subject to a duty equivalent to not less than one per cent. ad volorem, and that the said goods and the vessel conveying the same, shall from the time of their clearance from the American port, be
bonâ fide
(15) At the end of the first Paragraph introduce, a definition of the Blockade: 'In order to determine what characterizes a blockade, that denomination is only given to a port where there is, by the disposition of the power which blockades it with ships stationary, or sufficiently near, an evident danger in entering.'—(16) Omit 'during the present hostilities.'—(17) After the word 'Europe,' insert 'or elsewhere.'—(18) After the word 'Europe,' insert 'or elsewhere.'—(19) After the word 'paid,' insert 'or secured to be paid.'—
578
bonâ fide
Art. 12. And whereas it is expedient to make special provisions respecting the Maritime Jurisdiction of the high contracting parties on the coasts of their respective possessions in North America, on account of peculiar circumstances belonging to those coasts, it is agreed that in all cases where one of the said high contracting parties shall be engaged in war, and the other shall be at peace, the belligerent power shall not stop, [except for the Purpose hereafter mentioned.(21),] the vessels of the neutral power, or the unarmed vessels of other nations within 5 miles from the shore belonging to the said neutral power on the American seas (22).—Provided that the said stipulation shall not take effect in favour of the ships of any nation or nations which shall not have agreed to respect the limit aforesaid as the line of Martime Jurisdiction of the said neutral state: And it is further stipulated, that if either of the high contracting parties shall be at war with any nation or nations which shall have agreed to respect the said special limit or line of Maritime Jurisdiction herein agreed upon, such contracting party shall have the right to stop or search any vessel beyond the limit of a cannon shot or 3 marine miles from the said coasts of the neutral power, for the purpose of ascertaining the nation to which such vessel shall belong. And with respect to the ships and property of the nation or nations not having agreed to respect the aforesaid line of jurisdiction, the belligerent power shall exercise the same rights as if this Article did not exist;
(20) At the end of the Paragraph introduce the following 'It is understood, that no inference is to be drawn from this Article to affect any question, now or hereafter to be judicially depending, touching the legality or illegality of a direct trade from Europe, or elsewhere, by citizens of the United States, with enemies colonies beyond the Cape of Good Hope.'—(21) Omit the words 'except for the purpose hereafter mentioned.'—(22) Omit the last Paragraph.—
579
Art. 13. With respect to the Searching of Merchant Ships, the commanders of ships of war and privateers shall conduct themselves [as favourably as the course of the war then existing may possibly permit towards the most friendly power that may remain neuter (23,)] observing as much as possible the acknowledged principles and rules of the law of nations. And for the better security of the respective subjects and citizens of the contracting parties, and to prevent their suffering injuries by the men of war or privateers of either party, all commanders of ships of war and privateers, and all others the said subjects and citizens, shall forbear doing any damage to those of the other party, or committing any outrage against them; and if they act to the contrary, they shall be punished, and shall also be hound in their persons and estates to make satisfaction and reparation for all damages, and the interest thereof, of whatever nature the said damages may be.—For this cause, all commanders of
(23) Propose to introduce, as the first Paragraph of the Article, the following, If the ships of either of the parties shall be met with, sailing either along the coasts or on the high seas, by any private armed vessel of the other party, such armed vessel shall, for avoiding all disorder in visiting and examining the same, remain out of cannon shot, unless the state of the sea or place of meeting render a nearer approach necessary; and shall in no case compel or require such vessel to send her boat or her papers or any person from on board to the belligerent vessel, but the belligerent vessel may send her own boat and may enter her to the number of 2 or 3 men only, who may, in an orderly manner, make the necessary enquiries concerning the vessel and her cargo: And it is agreed, that effectual provision shall be made for punishing violations of any part of this stipulation.'—Omit the words 'as favourably as the course of the war then existing may possibly permit towards the most friendly power that may remain neuter,' and insert according to the acknowledged principles and rules of the laws of nations, and as favourably, moreover, as the course of the war then existing may possibly permit towards the most friendly power that may remain neuter.'—
580
l
l
Art. 14. It is further agreed, that both the said contracting parties shall not only refuse to receive any pirates into any of their ports, havens, or towns, or permit any of their inhabitants to receive, protect, harbour, conceal or assist them in any manner, but will bring to condign punishment all such inhabitants as shall be guilty of such acts or offences.—And all their ships, with the goods or merchandizes taken by them, and brought into the ports of either of the said parties, shall be seized as far as they can be discovered, and shall be restored to the owners, or the factors or agents duly deputed, and authorized in writing by them, (proper evidence being shewn in the court of admiralty, for proving the property) even in case such effects should have passed into other hands by sale, if it be proved that the buyers knew, or had good reason to believe, or suspect that they had been piratically taken.
Art. 15. It is likewise agreed, that the subjects and citizens of the two nations, shall not do any acts of hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to the other party, nor shall the enemies of one
581
Art. 16. It is expressly stipulated that neither of the said contracting parties will order or authorize any acts of reprizal against the other on complaints of injuries and damages, until the said party shall first have presented to the other a statement thereof, verified by competent proof and evidence, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the same shall either have been refused or unreasonably delayed.
Art. 17. [The ships of war of each of the contracting parties shall at all times be hospitably received in the ports of the other, their officers and crews paying due respect to the laws and government of the country (24).] The officers shall be treated with that respect which is due to the commissions which they bear; and if any insult should be offered to them by any of the inhabitants, all offenders in this respect shall be punished as disturbers of the peace and amity between the two countries. And both contracting parties agree, that in case any vessel of the one should, by stress of weather, danger from enemies, or other misfortunes, be reduced to the necessity of seeking shelter in any of the ports of the other, into which such vessel could not in ordinary cases claim to be admitted, she shall, on manifesting that necessity to the satisfaction of the government of the place, be hospitably received, and permitted to refit, and to purchase at the market price such necessaries as she may stand in need of, conformably to such Orders and Regulations as the government of the place, having respect to the circumstances of each case, shall prescribe.—She shall not be allowed to break bulk or unload her cargo, unless the same shall
(24) Substitute the following: 'The ships of war arid privateers of the two nations, as well as their prizes, shall be treated in their respective ports as those of the nation most favoured.'—
582
bonâ fide
Art. 18. It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers (not being subjects or citizens of either of the said parties) who have commissions from any power or state in enmity with either nation, to arm their ships in the ports of either of the said parties, nor to sell what they have taken, nor in any other manner to exchange the same; nor shall they be allowed to purchase more provisions than shall be necessary for their going to the nearest port of that prince or state from whom they obtained their commissions.
Art. 19. It shall be lawful for the ships of war and privateers, belonging to the said parties respectively, to carry whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any fees to the officers of the admiralty, or to any judges whatever; nor shall the said prizes, when they arrive at and enter the ports of the said parties, be detained or seized; nor shall the searchers, or other officers of those places, visit such prizes (except for the purpose of preventing the carrying of any part of the cargo thereof on shore, in any manner contrary to the established laws of revenue, navigation, or commerce); nor shall such officers take cognizance of the validity of such prizes; but they shall be at liberty to hoist sail, and depart as speedily as may be, and carry their said prizes to the place mentioned in their commissions or patents, which the commanders of the said ships of war or privateers shall be obliged to show.—No shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as have made a prize upon the subjects or citizens of either of the said parties, but if forced by stress of weather or the dangers of the sea to enter them, particular care shall be taken to hasten their departure, and to cause them to retire as soon as possible. Nothing in this Treaty contained shall however be construed to operate contrary to the former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns or states: but the two parties agree, that while they continue in amity, neither of them will in future make any treaty that shall be inconsistent with this or the preceding articles.—Neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other to be taken
583
Art. 20. If at any time a rupture should take place (which God forbid) between his majesty and the United States, the merchants and others of each of the two nations residing in the dominions of the other, shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade, so long as they do it peaceably, and commit no offence against the laws; and in case their conduct should render them suspected, and the respective governments should think proper to order them to remove, the term of 12 months from the publication of the order shall be allowed them for the purpose to remove them with their families, effects, and property; but this favour shall not be extended to those who shall act contrary to the established laws: and for greater certainty, it is declared, that such rupture shall not be deemed to exist while negotiations for accommodating differences shall be depending, nor until the respective ambassadors or ministers, if such there shall be, shall be recalled or sent home on account of such differences, and not on account of personal misconduct, according to the nature and degree of which both parties retain their rights, either to request the recall or immediately to send home the ambassador or minister of the other, and that without prejudice to their mutual friendship and good-understanding.
Art. 21. It is further agreed, that his majesty and the United States, on mutual Regulations by them respectively, or by their respective ministers or officers authorised to make the same, will deliver up to justice all persons who, being charged with murder or forgery, committed within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum within any of the countries of the other; provided that this shall only be done on such evidence of criminality,
(25) The two last Paragraphs to be struck out.—
584
Art. 22. In the event of a shipwreck happening in a place belonging to one or other of the high contracting parties, not only every assistance shall be given to the unfortunate persons, and no violence done to them, but also the effects which they shall have thrown out of the Ship into the sea shall not be concealed or detained nor damaged under any pretext whatever; on the contrary the above mentioned effects and merchandize shall be preserved and restored to them, upon a suitable recompence being given to those who shall have assisted in saving their persons, vessels, and effects.
Art. 23. And it being the intention of the high contracting parties that the people of their respective dominions shall continue to be on the footing of the most favoured nation, it is agreed that, in case either party shall hereafter grant any additional advantages, in navigation or trade, to any other nation, the subjects or citizens of the other party shall fully participate herein (26).
Art. 24. The high contracting parties engage to communicate to each other, without delay, all such laws as have been or shall be hereafter enacted by their respective legislatures, as also all measures which shall have been taken for the Abolition or Limitation of the African Slave Trade; and they further agree to use their best endeavours to procure the cooperation of other powers for the final and complete Abolition of a Trade so repugnant to the principles of justice and humanity.
Art. 25. And it is further agreed, that nothing herein contained, shall contravene or affect the due execution of any treaty
(26) To stand thus: 'It is agreed, that in case either party shall hereafter grant any additional advantages in navigation or trade to any other nation, the subjects or citizens of the other party shall fully participate therein freely, where it is freely granted to such other nation, or on yielding the same compensation when the grant is conditional.'—
585
Art. 26. This Treaty, when the same shall have been ratified by his majesty, and by the president of the United States, with the advice of their, senate, and their respective ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding and obligatory on his majesty and on the said states for ten years (27), from the date of the exchange of the said ratification, and shall be reciprocally executed and observed with punctuality, and the most sincere regard to good faith.
(27) Period to be five years.—
Articles proposed —No person whatever shall, upon the high seas, and without the jurisdiction of either party, be demanded or taken out of any ship or vessel belonging to citizens or subjects of one of the other parties, by the public or private armed ships belonging to or in the service of the other, unless such person be at the time in the military service of an enemy of such other party.—Art. 2. Complaints having been made by divers merchants and other citizens of the United States, that during the war in which his majesty is engaged, they have sustained loss and damage by reason of the irregular and illegal captures and condemnations of their vessels and other property, under colour or authority of commissions from his majesty, contrary to the tenour of a communication from lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King, of the 11th of April 1801, of which a copy is annexed to this treaty, or contrary to the tenour of a Letter from Mr. Merry to Mr. Maddison, of the 12th of April 1801, of which a copy is also hereto annexed, or otherwise contrary to the known and established rules of the law of nations; and the said merchants and others having farther complained, that full and complete redress for the said losses and damages has not been, and cannot be, for various causes, had and obtained in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, his majesty agrees that he will, without delay, cause the most effectual measures to be taken in concert with the United States, for an impartial examination of the said complaints, and that he will cause full and complete reparation to be made thereupon to the parties entitled, as justice and equity, and the nature of the respective cases, shall appear to require.
586
(Second Inclosure referred to in No. 1.)—To the right hon. lord Holland and lord Auckland: dated London, Aug. 20th, 1806.
The undersigned, commissioners extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the United States of America, think it necessary to give to lords Holland and Auckland, the commissioners extraordinary and plenipotentiary of his majesty, a brief explanation in writing of the claims which they have already had the honour to mention to their lordships in a recent conference, of sundry American citizens, for suitable Compensation for loss and damages sustained in the course of the present war, by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property, and at the same time to call the attention of their lordships to the situation of certain Prize Causes arising out of some of these captures now depending in the tribunals of this country.—The undersigned are happy in having it in their power to state, that, according to the information they have been able to obtain, such of these Claims as relate to captures, which, from causes peculiar to themselves, have excited in America a more than ordinary degree of sensibility, are not so considerable in number as at first was supposed.—The complaints of this description, to which the undersigned would particularly invite the attention of their lordships, have been produced by seizures as prize, made in direct violation of rules of maritime practice previously declared by his majesty's government to the government of the United States, and in no degree revoked or affected by any arrangement between them, or even by any notification, they were about to be abandoned.—Of these seizures, the most important, and in every view the most interesting, were made in the year 1805, and in tile early part of the year 1806, of the ships and merchandize of American citizens, upon the pretension, that the voyages on which they were engaged were direct or continuous between the colonies of his majesty's enemies and some port in Europe.—Although it is certain that the government of the United States had never admitted that illegality can be imputed to such a trade, even when confessedly continuous or direct, and had concluded that the question had been otherwise formally settled in its favour, the undersigned believe it to be unnecessary to bring that point into view, with any reference to the cases now un-
587
588
589
590
(Letter referred to in second Inclosure of No. 1.)—To the Secretary of State of the United States. Dated Washington, April 12th, 1804.
Sir; Mr. Thornton
not having failed to transmit to his majesty's government an account of the Representation which you were pleased to address to him under date of 27 Oct. last year, respecting the blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe, it is with great satisfaction, sir, that I have just received his majesty's commands signified to me by his principal
591
EVAN NEPEAN.
(Third Inclosurse referred to in No. 1.) To James Monroe esq. and Wm. Pinckney esq. Dated Holland house, Nov. 8th, 1806.
His majesty's commissioners and plenipotentiaries have the honour to represent to the commissioners and plenipotentiaries of the United States.—That the project of
592
(Fourth Inclosure referred to in No. 1.)—To L. Visc. Howick. March 14, 1807.
593
My lord; In conformity with the intimation which your lordship was so good as to make to us at a late interview, relative to certain claims and prize causes, which had been brought into discussion in the course of the late negotiation, between his majesty's commissioners and those of the United States; we have the honour to transmit to your lordship, the copy of a note to lord Holland and lord Auckland, in which those claims and prize causes are fully explained. It is proper to add, that at the time of the signature of the Treaty, it was distinctly understood between the commissioners on both sides, that this subject was not to be affected by it, but was to remain completely open for future adjustment.—We have it upon the statement contained in that note, and the documents to which it refers, in perfect confidence that it will be viewed by your lordship with the interest which belongs to it, and that every thing which is suitable to the high and honourable character of his majesty's government, and the just claims of the United States will be done, with relation to it, as promptly as circumstances will permit. We have &c.
JAMES MONROE. WM. PINKNEY.
No. 2.—Letter from Mr. Secretary Canning to Lords Holland and Auckland. Dated Foreign Office, July 25th, 1807.
My lords; I have the honour to inclose to your lordships, the copies of a note which I have received from Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, and of the several documents that accompanied it; I submit these papers to the consideration of your lordships, for the purpose of calling your attention to that passage of the note which refers to a suggestion on the part of his majesty's commissioners, on the impressment of seamen from on board of American ships. It is extremely desirable that his majesty's government should have the fullest information on this important point; and I have to request, that your lordships will be pleased to state to me, whether the representation contained in this part of the note of the American commissioners be accurate; and whether your lordships signified any such acquiescence as is there described in the implied "informal understanding, respecting the forbearance to be observed by the British cruizers, in regard to the practice of impressment of seamen on board of American vessels."
I have, &c. GEORGE CANNING.
No. III.—Letter from lords Holland
594
Sir; We have received the honour of your Letter with its several lnclosures; and are desirous to give the fullest information in our power respecting any part of our late negotiation with the commissioners of the United States. We have accordingly applied our attention to that passage of the Note delivered to you by Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, which states that "soon after the suspension of the negotiations, it was suggested by his majesty's commissioners) that if the topic relative to Impressment should be expressly reserved for future conventional arrangement, and a pledge given to the United States for resuming the consideration of it at a convenient season, with that view; and that, if, in the mean time, such an informal understanding should be substituted, as in its practical effect would remove the vexation complained of, it might perhaps be yet possible to conduct the negotiation to a result which would not be unacceptable to the respective governments. And in pursuance of this suggestion, the British commissioners presented their official note of the 8th day of Nov. last."—It appears to us, that the several parts of this statement taken with the context, have all the accuracy and honourable and right meaning which we experienced in the whole negotiation.—When the American commissioners speak of "such an informal understanding to be substituted, as would in its practical effect remove the vexation complained of," they do not mean, and certainly his majesty's commissioners never meant, that there should be a forbearance or suspension or discontinuance of the practice and exercise of the Impressment of British seamen. On the contrary, they proceed to say that "pursuant to the Suggestion of the British commissioners, the official note of the 8th of Nov. was presented." To that Note we beg leave to refer.—We considered that Note, and still consider it as pledging his majesty's government to give instructions to British cruizers, "to be very cautious in the exercise of the right of impressing British seamen, to take the strictest care to preserve the citizens of the United States from molestation or injury, and to redress any grievances which might be sustained by them."—When the negotiation proceeded after our delivery of that Note, we thought, and still think, that the treaty which we signed (omitting the
595
bonâ fide
We have &c. VASSAL HOLLAND AUCKLAND.
No. IV.—Letter from Mr. Secretary Canning to Lords Holland and Auckland, dated August 6th, 1807.
My lords; In acknowledging the receipt of the letter which your lordships have done me the honour to address to me, in answer to mine of the 25th ult. I am sorry to have occasion to trouble your lordships with any further enquiry; but I am sure that your lordships will feel that the point most immediately in question, respecting the Impressment of British seamen from American ships, is one of such essential importance at the present moment, as to make it necessary for me to ascertain, with as much accuracy as possible, what has really passed between your lordships and the American commissioners upon this subject.—I understood the American commissioners to say, that in addition to whatever passed in writing between you, they received from your lordships an informal assurance of something that "should in its practical effect remove the grievance
596
GEORGE CANNING.
No. V.—Letter from Lords Holland and Auckland to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Aug. 10th, 1807.
Sir; In answer to your letter of the 6th instant, we have the honour to repeat our former assurances that it is our desire as it is our duty, to give you every possible information respecting the negotiation with the American Commissioners, which his majesty was lately pleased to entrust to us.—As the points in which our answer to your letter of the 25th ult. has not appeared to you sufficiently clear and satisfactory, we must again refer you to our official Note of the 8th of Nov. last, as Containing a full and authentic statement of what was settled between us and the American commissioners, with regard to the Impressment of British seamen from on board of American ships. That Note was delivered after many fruitless conferences, held for the purpose of devising some expedient that might reconcile the
597
VASSALL HOLLAND. AUCKLAND.
No. VI.—Letter from Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Oct. 18th, 1807.
Sir; In our interview of yesterday, you requested that we would explain the ground of the opinion which is expressed in our letter of July 24—that the occasion which induced the British commissioners to present to us the Note of the 31st Dec. preceding had ceased to exist. We hasten to comply with that request, as we shall do, to give an explanation of any other passage in that letter which you may desire. We were of opinion at the time
598
JAMES MONROE. WILLIAM PINCKNEY.
No. VII.—Letter from Mr. Secretary Canning to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, dated Oct. 22d, 1807.
Gentlemen; The considerations which have hitherto suspended our communication on the subject of the treaty returned from America, having ceased by the termination of the discussion between Mr. Monroe and myself, respecting the encounter between the Leopard and the Chesapeake, I have now the honour to transmit to you the answer which I have been commanded by his majesty to return to your note of the 24th July. I have, &c.
GEORGE CANNING.
599
No. VIII.—Note from Mr. Secretary Canning to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, dated Oct. 22d, 1807.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, in returning an answer to the official note with which Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney have accompanied their communication of the copy of the treaty which has been sent back unratified from America, is commanded, in the first place, to inform the American commissioners, that his majesty cannot profess himself to be satisfied that the American government has taken any such effectual steps, with respect to the decree of France, by which the whole of his majesty's dominions are declared to be in a state of blockade, as to do away the ground of that reservation which was contained in the note delivered by his maj.'s commissioners at the time of the signature of the treaty; but that, reserving to himself the right of taking, in consequence of that decree, and of the omission of any effectual interposition, on the part of neutral nations, to obtain its revocation, such measures of retaliation as his majesty might judge expedient, it was nevertheless the desire and determination of his majesty, if that treaty had been sanctioned by the ratification of the president of the United States, to have ratified it, on his majesty's part, and to have given the fullest effect to all its stipulations.—Some of the considerations upon which the refusal the president of the United States to ratify the treaty is founded are such as can be matter of discussion only between the American government and its commissioners; since it is not for his majesty to inquire, whether in the conduct of this negotiation the commissioners of the U. States have failed to conform themselves in any respect to the instructions of their government.—In order to determine the course which his majesty has to pursue in the present stage of the transaction, it is sufficient that the treaty was considered, by those who signed it, as a complete and perfect instrument.—No engagements were entered into, on the part of his majesty, as connected with the treaty, except such as appear upon the face of it. Whatever encouragement may have been given by his majesty's commissioners to the hope expressed by the commissioners of the United States, that discussions might thereafter be entertained with respect to impressment of British seamen for merchant vessels, must be understood to have had
600
601
GEORGE CANNING.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 16.
[MEDIATION OF RUSSIA AND AUSTRIA.] Mr. Whitbread
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain Papers, which there was a necessity for having before the house, previous to the discussion which he intended to introduce on Monday se'nnight. All these papers were so obviously necessary to come to a right understanding on the subject of the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of ministers, relative to the proffered Mediation of Russia, and Austria, and he was so much at a loss to conceive any inconvenience that could result from their production, that unless he had received intimation that some of the motions would not be acceded to, he would not have thought that, in the present instance, there was any occasion whatever for his entering upon the question at all. But, as the matter stood, he should be wanting in his duty to the house and to the public, if he did not say something in support of the argument so ably maintained the other night, that publicity was the essence of the British constitution; and that parliament had a right to call for, and demand, all information which it was consistent with the public safety to give. Publicity might indeed be emphatically termed the essence of the British constitution, and to withhold important information was therefore a violation of its most essential principle. —Having said this much generally, he would now advert to the particular object which he had in view, in the motions which he was now about to submit to
602
603
604
605
Lord G. L. Gower
was desirous of speaking to two points, mentioned by the hon. gent. The first was with regard to the answer which he was supposed to have sent to gen. Budberg's Note of the 30th of June 1807. That Note contained charges of so heavy a nature against the British government, that he had thought it his duty personally to state, with respect, but at the same with courage, such reasons as occurred to him in their justification. He had done this not merely from respect for the character of the late
606
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, the account given by his noble friend of the circumstances connected with the two topics to which he had alluded, made it hardly necessary for him to trouble the house on
607
"Oh, let my little
Note
608
bonâ fide
609
l
610
611
Mr. Ponsonby
felt a good deal of astonishment at the conduct of the right hon. gent. who had just sat down. His observations seemed all to be stated from the question, rather than to the question, and to have been prepared more in contemplation of an accusation against the late ministers, than to have presented themselves on the motion of his hon. friend. First, the late ministers were culpable in having held out assurances, or exciting hopes of co-operation to the continental powers. Again, they were wrong in not granting a subsidy under the description of a loan. In one point he was perfectly ready to agree with the right hon. gent. that it would be highly improper, that any communication should be made which could at. all go to affect any districts, the inhabitants, of which were now subject to the emperor of the French. He was certain his hon. friend would agree with him in thinking, that nothing could be so wrong as to put the French in possession of any information which could enable them to wreak their vengeance on persons in this unfortunate predicament. But, the right hon. gent. said the communications made by the emperor of Russia to lord Hutchinson cannot be produced, because they are verbal. He believed there never was an instance of a crowned head making any other but verbal communications to those who were in his confidence. Did the
612
613
Mr. Secretary Canning
rose to state his regret that the right hon. gent. who had last addressed the house, should have shewn himself totally ignorant of the question before the house. He had discussed the propriety of giving all the information required, while the question now before the house was, the propriety of granting information on the proposed Mediation of Austria alone.
Mr. Adam
called the right hon. secretary to order; but, at the remonstrance of the Speaker, sat down.
Mr. Ponsonby
said, he had only taken the right hon. gent. at his word. The right hon. secretary had said, nothing could be given of information to the house on the subject of Austria; he was, therefore, disinclined to attempt to fix the atten-
614
Mr. Whitbread
begged Leave to alter his second motion, by substituting 'the Substance' for 'a Copy' of the communication from lord Hutchinson.
Mr. Secretary Canning
opposed the motion in its amended from, because the substitution of the word 'substance' for copy,' in no way changed the merits of the question. He begged to be understood as putting the individual merits of lord Hutchinson wholly aside. He professed to have a high respect for the character of that noble person; but contended that the question ought to be discussed without any regard whatever to his character. When a person was, delegated by the crown to represent it at a foreign court, he conceived it to be invariably meant, that the interests of the country were confided solely to this individual, and that all communications of a public nature, in as far as they tended to influence the conduct of the government at home, ought to come through this channel. If it should he argued, that the communication, for the production of Which the hon. gent. had now moved, came through this channel, still he would maintain, that an ambassador at a foreign court had a discretionary power of judging what communications he should transmit to his government in a public and official shape, and what he might think proper to make in a private and confidential manner. To the latter of these descriptions, the communication alluded to by the hon. gent. belonged; and on that account he did not judge it a fit paper to be produced. If the hon. gent. imagined that this was the only instance in which accounts of conversations which certain individuals had held with the emperor of Russia, and of which his majesty's government were in possession, he was under a great mistake. He was in possession of minutes of conversations which other persons, for whom he had as much respect as for the noble lord, had held that sovereign, and the purport of which was certainly very different [a cry of hear! hear! from the opposition bench]. The hon. gent. might refuse to rely on such conversations; but he was equally entitled to refuse his confidence it that in which they trusted; and the simple fact was, that his majesty's government did not find it-
615
delicate
Mr. Ponsonby
replied, that the right hon. gent. had alledged, that the motion of his hon. friend was calculated to produce
cross
616
Dr. Laurence
expressed his surprize, that the right hon. gent. should have represented the motion of his hon. friend, as made for the invidious purpose of creating misunderstanding, at the same time that he himself introduced an allusion into his speech to air affair which had happened many years ago, at which time inquiry was challenged into all the circumstances, and in which a, gentleman was implicated, who since that time had held an official situation under his majesty's government, and from whom the right hon. gent. himself, he believed, could not withhold the tribute of his approbation. At the very time too, that he professed to discuss the question upon its general merits, he had substituted for the character of lord Hutchinson, that of a young man who was a creation of his own fancy. If the right hon. gent.'s argument had any meaning at all, it was art attempt to quibble away the constitution of his country; for he maintained, that if his doctrine of the obligation of secrecy was admitted to its full extent it would be in the power of any minister, by a private understanding with a foreign agent, to keep the public completely in the dark respecting the whole foreign relations of the empire. It would be sufficient for a foreign minister, in corresponding with the secretary of state, merely to begin his
617
Sir T. Turton
contended that all precedents were against the production of papers relating to confidential conversations with sovereigns. He commended the resistance made by the secretary of state in the present instance. It was only by a reserve of this kind that the dispositions of sovereigns and their ministers, to hold confidential communications with us, could be preserved. He was ready to vote for the production of all papers necessary to the justification of the late ministers, from the charges preferred against them throughout the country. But he would not consent to the production of any papers, not in themselves proper to be produced and called for, only from mere party motives. He professed a great personal esteem for the noble lord, who was particularly interested in the production of the paper principally alluded to, and he therefore lamented the more, that the noble lord had disclosed as much as he had done.
Mr. Whitbread
hoped, notwithstanding the general cry of question, that the house would permit him to make one or two observations, in reply to what had fallen from the other side. The right hon. secretary, with his usual ingenuity, had contrived to favour the house with two speeches upon the same subject; but had, whether from design or inadvertency, wholly departed in his second speech from the line of argument adopted in his first; at one time a paper called for was objected to as unofficial; and at another, the substance of that paper was refused, because the source of the intelligence was not at that time duly accredited. The right hon. gent. set out with requiring to be understood as speaking to the general principle, and then proceeded to state the particular case of Mr. Adair. This was certainly a very curious way of speaking to a general principle, without any reference
618
l
619
620
Lord G.L. Gower
said the first of the three notes now dated the 2d Sept. was written on the 1st, but by an error of the secretary dated as the others. Of the two under the date of the 9th, one was written on that day, and the other on the 19th. This date was altered in printing. The assurances alluded to in the Note of 28th June, addressed to gen. Budberg, were given in a private conference by the emperor of Russia at Tilsit, in which his Imperial majesty assured him (ld. G. L. Gower), that nothing that had happened should alter his friendly disposition and attachment to England, satisfied as he was of the fidelity and justice of the principles of his Britannic maj.—Mr. Whitbread then withdrew his first motion; the second, calling for Extracts from lord G. L. Gower's Dispatch, containing the assurances referred to in his Note to M. de Budberg, 28th June, was negatived; the one for Copies of all assurances of co-operation given to the courts of Russia and Stockholm, was acceded to, with some modification, as were all the others.
[PAPERS RELATING TO MILITARY CO-OPERATION ON THE CONTINENT.]
The following are Copies of the Papers presented to the house of commons in pursuance of the above motion: viz.
PAPERS.
RELATING TO MILITARY CO-OPERATION ON THE CONTINENT.
No.1.—Dispatch from visc. Howick to Ch. Stuart esq. his majesty's of St. Petersburgh, dated Downing Street, Oct. 28th, 1806.
Sir; The accounts of the unfortunate opening of the Prussian campaign have been received here. The most powerful and the most immediate succours are become indispensable for the support of that government, and if the Russian armies should not yet have moved, you will use the most pressing instances to the court of St. Petersburgh, to give orders for their advancing without a moment's delay.
HOWICK.
No.II.—Dispatch from visc. Howick to the hon. Henry Pierrepoint, his majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at the court of Stockholm, dated Downing Street, Oct. 28th, 1806.
Sir, The melancholy accounts of the first events of the war between Prussia and France, and of the unfortunate Battle of
621
HOWICK.
No.III.—Extract of a Dispatch from viscount Howick to Chas. Stuart esq. dated Downing Street, Nov. 4th, 1806.
It is indeed a matter of the deepest regret that the war between Prussia and France should have commenced under such circumstances as to preclude the co-operation and assistance of those powers who might have been disposed to join against he common enemy. Under the present uncertainty, whether the disastrous events which have attended the commencement of hostilities may not have compelled Prussia to submit to such terms as the French may impose, nothing can be added to your former Instructions; but you will continue to give the most positive assurances to the court of St. Petersburgh of the steady determination of his majesty to resist, to the utmost of his power, all pretensions injurious to the honour of his crown, and inconsistent with the general interests of Europe. The increase of the danger will animate his majesty to increased exertions for the sake of the common cause, and dispose him more than ever, to cultivate the good understanding which so happily subsists between the king and the emperor of Russia, and which presents the only hope for the preservation of the liberties of mankind.
No. IV.—Extracts of a Dispatch from Charles Stuart esq. to visct. Howick, dated St. Petersbusgh, Nov. 4th, 1806.—Received Dec. 1st.
General Budberg in the course of the
622
No. V.—Note from Baron Nicolay, Chargé d'Affaires from his majesty the emperor of Russia at this court, to viscount Howick, dated 5th Nov. 1806.
Baron Nicolay presents respects to lord Howick, and has the honour to transmit to to his exc. a copy of a dispatch which he has just received from his court. He acquits himself at the same time, of the order which it contains, to inform his exc. the secretary of state, "that his majesty the emperor, not having made any prohibition with regard to the commercial relations between Russia and France, each individual of the Russian nation has the right of freighting vessels for the port of France, and of importing its merchandize."—Baron Nicolay flatters himself that this new declaration, if indeed it were still necessary after the frequent communications which he has already had the honour to make to his exc. upon the same subject, will contribute to accelerate the restitution of the Russian property detained here, on account of which baron Nicolay has had the honour of addressing himself to lord Howick on the 22nd ult. He embraces
623
(Inclosure referred to in No. V.)
Sir; In pursuance of what I wrote to you on the 11th instant, respecting the claims of the merchants Glouhoff, Kelmund and company, it will be necessary for me to speak further to you on a subject, upon which I have just received instructions, and relative to which you also will equally have to explain yourself to the English government, for the purpose of removing every pretext which could be resorted to for the purpose of retarding the decision of those proceedings. The court of admiralty in London, requiring that the Russian merchants should give some proof of the trade with France having been allowed them, during the rupture between the two countries, you will represent to the British government, that his majesty the emperor not having made any prohibition with regard to this point, each individual of the Russian nation has the right of freighting vessels for the ports of France, and of importing its merchandize, especially as during the whole course of the late events the commercial relations between the two powers have not been interrupted, which is proved by the residence of the respective agents and consuls. I am, &c. A. DE BUDBERG.
No. VI.—Note from viscount Howick to baron Nicolay, dated Downing Street, Nov. 10th, 1806.
The undersigned lost no time in referring to the king's advocate the several representations made by baron Nicolay, with respect to the Russian vessels trading to the enemy's ports, which had been detained and brought into the ports of G. Britain. The answers were only received this morning, and are transmitted herewith.—The undersigned has already, in his personal interview with baron Nicolay, explained to him the principle upon which these vessels have been detained.—By the general law of nations, all commercial intercourse between belligerent states is interdicted by the very nature and existence of war; and the property of persons engaged in such a
624
No. VII.—Extract of a Dispatch from
625
I have not ceased to press general Budberg to communicate to me, such details respecting the loan which it is proposed to be raised in England on account of the Russian government, as may enable his majesty's ministers early to decide whether it would be possible to comply with the wishes of the court of St. Peteraburgh. In a conversation which took place yesterday his exc. informed me that he had spoken with the minister of finance, and it is calculated that six, or if possible seven millions sterling will be the amount of the sum which they desire to raise by this method; that the capital shall bear an interest of five per cent. secured in whatever manner may be deemed most eligible, though he said that the Russian customs will, he hopes, be deemed an adequate security in case the proposition should be encouraged in England.—His exc. did not state the term or the mode of repayment, but said, he would very shortly send a messenger to England with further particulars, and suggested that some person versed in financial affairs should ,be authorized to settle the further details with this government. Though the amount of the sum may perhaps appear considerable, I must observe that the customs offer full security for the regular payment of the interest.
No. 8.—Extract of a dispatch from Charles Stuart, esq. to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, Nov. 28th 1806. —Received Jan. 2d, 1807.
General Budberg lately told me that his imperial majesty had expressly directed him to urge the expediency of partial expeditions on the coast of France and Holland, for the purpose of distracting the attention of the enemy, and impeding the march of the French reserves.
No. 9.—Dispatch from Charles Stuart, esq. to vista Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, Nov. 28th, 1806.—Received Jan. 2d, 1807.
My lord, I have the honour to inclose a copy of a note I received yesterday from general Budberg, upon the subject of the loan which this government purposes to raise in England, together with a copy of the answer which I thought the most suitable, as the determination which may be adopted by his majesty's ministers can be no way biassed by mere civil assurances on my part.—In addition to the particulars
626
(First Inclosure referred to in No. 9.)
The very critical state to which the disasters of Prussia have reduced the affairs of the good cause, far from abating the energy with which his imperial majesty is resolved to maintain it, has caused him to take the resolution of employing all his efforts to check and repel that torrent, the progress of which will meet with no further obstacle on the continent, but in the power of Russia. The extraordinary expences which the vigorous, measures in which his imperial majesty is engaged for the support of the present war, will impose upon him, requiring sums which cannot at this moment be drawn from the resources of Russia with that promptitude which circumstances demand, his imperial majesty has charged the undersigned to propose to his Britannick majesty's government, by means of his minister plenipotentiary, that a loan should be opened in England upon the following basis: 1st. The sum to be borrowed is six millions of pounds sterling. 2d. Of this stun one third shall delivered in gold, either in bullionor coined; another third in silver, either in bullion or coined; and the other in hills of exchange. 3d. If the British government will not undertake to convey this gold and silver to the ports of Russia, the remittance of them may be made in England to Messieurs Harman and company, bankers, accredited by the court of Russia. 4th. The account of the loan shall be kept in pounds sterling; the payment of the capital, as well as of the interest, shall he made in the same money. 5th. The term of the loan shall be fixed at twenty years, at the same time agreeing that Russia, during the first twelve years, shall have to repay as much of the capital as the balance of her commerce amid the state of her revenue will enable her to discharge; and that during the last eight years, the remainder of the capital shall be reimbursed
627
A. DE BUDBERG.
(Second Inclosure referred to in No. 9)
The repeated proofs of his Britannia majesty's attachment to that cause which protects the liberties of Europe, are sufficiently notorious, to remove all doubt as to his sincere desire to concur in and even to anticipate the wishes of his only ally in the glorious struggle which the two powers continue to maintain.—The sentiments, expressed in the note of his excellency general Budberg, are perfectly analogous to the invariable principles of the British government, and unless there exist serious considerations with which the undersigned is unacquainted, he has only to perform the duty of reporting them to his government, in order to ensure a favourable result to the desires announced on the part of his imperial majesty. The undersigned, &c.
C. STUART.
No. 10.—Extract of a Dispatch from visc. Howick to the marq. of Douglas, his majesty's ambassador at the court of St. Petersburgh, dated Downing street, Dec. 4th, 1806.
This dispatch I hope will find your lordship safely arrived at St. Petersburgh, and enjoying good health after the fatigues of so long a journey at so bad a season.—Mr. Stuart's dispatches to No. 47 inclusive, with
628
No. 11.—Extract of a dispatch from Charles Stuart, esq. to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, 18th December 1806.—Received Jan. 22d, 1807.
At court this morning his imperial majesty urged in the strongest terms the expediency of a diversion on the enemy in the north of Europe, by a powerful expedition to the coasts of France or Holland.
No. 12.—Extract of a dispatch from Charles Stuart, esq. to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, 2d Jun. 1807. —Received Feb. 6th.
I did not fail to press on general Budberg, the sentiments of his majesty's government: I can however only draw from that minister a repetition of the language I formerly detailed on this subject, accompanied by a complaint that the whole of the enemy's forces are directed against Russia at a moment when Great Britain does not shrew any disposition to diminish the danger, by a diversion against France and Holland.
No. 13.—Extract of a dispatch from visc. Howick to the marq. of Douglas, dated Downing Street, 13th Jan. 1807.
With respect to the Joan proposed to be
629
l
630
631
l
632
No. 14.—Extract of a Dispatch from C. Stuart, esq. to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburg, Jan. 14th, 1807.—Received Feb. 27.
I must not conceal from your lordship that the apparent silence of his majesty's government respecting a military diversion on the coast of France, has not produced a favourable effect on the opinion either of the ministers or the public of this country.
No. 15.—Extract of a Dispatch from the marg. of Douglas, to visc. flowick, dated St. Petersburgh, Jan.26th 1807.
Before I conclude, I must inform your lordship that baron Budberg complained of the situation in which Russia was now placed, being left to combat alone against France, without either support on one side or diversion on the other.
No. 16.—Extract of a dispatch from the marq. of Douglas to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, Feb. 4th, 1807.
During this interview general Budberg seized every occasion of complaining of the Russians being left without military assistance on the part of Great Britain. An attack on any part of the coast of France,
633
No. 17.—Extract of a Dispatch from the marq. of Douglas to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, Feb. 8th, 1807.
His excellency said, that the court of Petersburgh being now abandoned to her own resources, was entitled to expect some efforts which may divert the attention of the French government, before they consent to enter into any engagement which is likely to create future differences with that power upon a subject not immediately interesting to Russia.
No. 18.—Extract of a Dispatch from the marq. of Douglas to visc. Howick, dated St. Petersburgh, Feb. 15th, 1807.—Received March 8th.
I cannot sufficiently express the extreme anxiety felt here that some expedition should be undertaken by G. Britain to divert the general concentration of the French troops from the banks of the Vistula.
No. 19.—Extract of a Note from gen. Budberg to the marq. of Douglas, dated Feb.1st, 1807.—Transmitted by the marq. of Douglas and received March 8th.
The undersigned has already had occasion to observe to the ambassador the marquis of Douglas and Clydesdale, that partial and separate expeditions cannot influence the general operations in an impressive manner, and that a vague assurance, such as, "We shall soon see what England will do," cannot be sufficiently satisfactory in circumstances so imminently critical as the present. The emperor is therefore desirous, that the British government should make known to him with the greatest possible detail, the plans which it may have hi view, in order to effect a powerful diversion upon one or any of the points of the coasts subject to the enemy; and that in general it should communicate to his ministry, such views and projects, the execution of which
634
No. 20.—Extract of a Dispatch from visc. Howick to the marq. of Douglas, dated Downing Street, Feb. 20th 1807.
With respect to military diversions, your exc. must at once have been prepared to state to the Russian government the extreme difficulty of any maritime operations at the present season. The difficulty and danger indeed at all seasons of landing in a country such as France, where the means exist of collecting, in a short time, a much larger force than any that can be sent from this country, and from whence there can be no secure retreat, must be sufficiently apparent. All that can at present be said therefore on this head is, that if a favourable opportunity should arise, his majesty will be desirous of exerting his utmost efforts to distress the enemy upon any point which may present an advantageous opening to assist the general operations of the war.
No. 21.—Extract of a Dispatch from visc. Howick to the marq. of Douglas, dated, Downing Street, March 7th 1807.
I have nothing to add to my former dispatches (to which I beg leave to refer your excellency) with respect to the renewal of the commercial treaty, the proposal of military diversions by this country, and the suggestion of further pecuniary assistance.
No. 22.—Extract of a Dispatch from visc. Howick to the marq. of Douglas, dated Downing Street, March 10th 1807.
The messenger Vick, with your excellency's dispatches, arrived on Sunday last, and I have it in command from the king to lose no time in expressing to your excellency the lively satisfaction with which his majesty has received the account of the battle of the 8th ultimo. Your excellency will take the earliest opportunity of offer-
635
636
No. 23.—Dispatch from visc. Howick to Alex. Straton, esq. his majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at the court of Sweden, dated Downing Street, March 10th, 1807.
Sir; Your dispatches have been received and laid before the king.—Though the king of Sweden does not appear to have renewed with you the question of an additional subsidy, that subject has been pressed upon me in repeated conversations by M. Rehausens.—From the communication which that minister has made to me of the instructions he has received from his court, a good deal of dissatisfaction appears to be felt there at our supposed backwardness in assisting the exertions which the king of Sweden is willing to make.—There certainly is no ground for such an imputation. In the instructions of your predecessor you will find that he was uniformly directed to state the importance which his majesty attached to the undertaking of offensive operations on the side of Pomerania, and that he was even authorized to give assurances of pecuniary assistance from the moment the Swedish troops should have passed their own frontier: But it was added, that before any thing could be conclusively arranged, it was necessary that his
637
638
HOWICK.
No. 24,—Extract of a Dispatch from lord Hutchinson addressed to visc. Howick, dated Memel, March 9th, 1807.—Received April 18th, by Mr. Secretary Canning.
I have been repeatedly pressed by the Prussian government, with whom the Russians have also co-operated, to write to your lordship on the subject of a diversion to be made by the British troops, which might occupy the French essentially, and force them to withdraw a part of their troops from this quarter. M. de Zastrow made me yesterday a formal proposition. —Marshal Mortier now blockades Stralsund with about twenty thousand men; it is therefore proposed that the British and
639
No. 25.—Extract of a Dispatch from the marq. of Douglas, dated Saint Petersburgh, March 19th, 1807, addressed to visc. Howick.—Received by Mr. Secretary Canning, April —
There is reason to suppose that it has been forcibly put to the emperor by some people here, little partial to England, that Russia is abandoned by her friends; that the whole contest is left to her, and that that even her intimate ally, G. Britain, neglects to support her at a crisis when any
640
No. 26 —Extract of a Dispatch from the marquis of Douglas, dated Saint Petersburgh 22nd March (3rd April,) 1807, addressed to viscount Howick.—Received by Mr. Sec. Canning, May 13th.
The activity of England I have frequently expatiated upon; but I must not conceal from your lordship that this court, alive to the embarrassments that surround her, is determined, in spite of every argument, to consider no act as directed towards their particular support, that does not, by occupying a part of the French forces, relieve her from their concentrated attacks.
No. 27.— Extract of a Dispatch from the marquis of Douglas, dated Saint Petersburgh, April 27th, 1807; addressed to visc. Howick.—Received by Mr. Sec. Canning, June 1st.
I am thoroughly convinced of the sincere and honourable intentions of the emperor; and yet as it is impossible that I should be deaf to the murmurs that surround me, to the expectations of thousands, to the intrigues of a few, all more or less beginning to seek the same object; so I cannot without some jealousy look to the possible consequences. Should any diversion however take place on the part of G. Britain, or assisted by her troops, there is a great probability that in that case the emperor, from a point of honour, would consider himself bound to act with all possible energy.
641
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 18.
ORDERS IN COUNCIL.]Lord Grenville
alluding to the expressions contained in the Orders in Council, which stated amongst the reasons for issuing them, that the French Decree had been executed with increased rigour, said, that it was important the house should be in possession of the information on which this assertion was founded, particularly as a contrary statement was contained in the Note of the American plenipotentiaries, which was on the table, and as a contrary inference was to be deduced from those circumstances which were publicly known. He did not wish that any secret should be revealed, which it would be dangerous to disclose; but, merely that the substance of such information should be laid on the table, and which might be disclosed without any danger. He therefore moved for Copies or Extracts of all information received by government, previous to the 11th of Nov. 1807, shewing that the French government had begun to execute its Decree with increased rigour.
Lord Hawkesbury
said, it must be obvious, that it was scarcely possible there could be any information upon this subject received from any accredited person, or in any official shape. The information received by ministers, had satisfied them with respect to the increased rigour exercised by the French government; but it might be attended with serious inconvenience and danger to many persons, if information received through the medium of commercial houses, or various other sources, was to be laid on the table of that house. It was besides, he contended, a matter of notoriety from the answers of M. Regnier, which were mentioned in all the newspapers two or three days after the 18th day of Oct. that the French Decree was then executed with increased rigour.
Earl Grey
was surprised to hear the noble secretary of state contend, that it must be obvious it was scarcely possible to have any accredited information upon this subject. He, on the contrary, thought, that it was precisely that subject on which if there was any neutral minister remaining, or any British minister at a neutral court, it was likely to receive information from accredited persons. He had never understood, that the increased rigour of the French government was a matter of notoriety previous to issuing the Orders in
642
The Duke of Montrose
opposed the motion, and observed, that it would prevent persons from giving information to government, if an example was given of laying information so obtained upon the table of the house.
Lord Erskine
contended, that the objection of danger did not apply in this case, all that was desired being the date and substance of the information received. The term, increased rigour, implied that there had been not only a rigour, but afterwards an additional rigour, and he thought the house ought to be in possession of the substance of the information which had authorised the use of this term.
The Lord Chancellor
contended, that communicating the date and substance, would in many instances as effectually betray the source from which such information was derived, as if the names of the parties had been given, and might be productive of great danger to individuals, and prevent government from in future receiving important information.—The house then divided—
Contents
27
Proxies
20—47
Non Contents
23
15—38
Majority for ld. Grenville's motion-9.
List of the Majority.
Gloucester,
Ellenborough,
Norfolk,
Lauderdale,
Somerset,
Selkirk.
Bedford,
Proxies
Essex,
Bute,
Carlisle,
Hereford,
Albemarle,
Thanet,
Jersey,
Bulkeley,
Spencer,
Lucan,
Cholmondeley,
Ossory,
Cowper,
Carnarvon,
St. Vincent,
Shaftesbury,
Grey,
Blandford,
Sidmouth,
Rosslyn,
St. John,
Guilford,
Darnley,
Buckinghamshire,
King,
Stawell,
Somers,
Mendip,
Holland,
Braybrooke,
Grenville,
Derby,
Auckland,
Carysfort,
Erskine,
Fife,
Moira,
Southampton,
Hutchinson,
Foley.
RESTITUTION OF THE DANISH FLEET.]—Lord Sidmouth
desired that the clerk should read the proclamation issued by two noble lords prior to the attack upon
643
644
De Jure Belli et Pacis,
645
646
*
Lord Boringdon
could not suppress the anxiety he felt to enter his protest, as early as possible, against the resolution submitted to the house by the noble visc. He conceived that a proposition more novel in its principle, more unsuitable to the circumstances of the case, or the interest of the country, could hardly he submitted to the consideration of the house. The external enemies of the country had pledged themselves to obtain a restitution of those ships; but he now, for the first time, had the mortification of seeing within those walls, a noble peer. rise up and support the arguments they had used, and in this respect aid their designs. It certainly was not within the walls of parliament that he had expected to have heard such arguments defended. It was not doing justice to the motion itself, to discuss it as if it were to be construed altogether literally, or as if the spirit of it would not go to the actual restoration of the Danish fleet; for if the house were to agree to such a resolution, it would be considered by all the World as an acknowledgment that we had acted unjustly, and a pledge that we would make a restitution as soon as it was compatible with our security. If we were now to give such an acknowledgment, it could be supposed that foreign nations would not take advantage of it at the moment of negociation for a general peace, and it would then appear as if we had no right to refuse it. The noble viscount had considered this as a case
per se
*
647
648
Lord Ellenborough
differed entirely from the sentiments of the noble lord who spoke last, and found himself called upon to support the motion. As to the cases referred to by the noble lord, as bearing a near analogy to the present, he must say that he did not see that analogy. He had often heard it said, that there was nothing more dissimilar than a simile, and he thought the noble lord had given an in, stance of the truth of that saying, by the cases which he had quoted. The case of the Spanish frigates, taken at the beginning of the war, was as unlike it as any case could be, for we had against Spain, at that time, at least reasonable ground of war. He, for another reason, never approved of the seizure or those frigates. This country had so much encouraged that particular sort of trade by licences, that he thought it unjust to seize upon as a prey, that property which was probably coming home on the faith of our implied permission.—As to the ships taken at Toulon, they were taken from a nation with Whom we were at war; and although, we were assisted in the capture by Frenchmen, who were adverse to the government then subsisting, yet there could be no pretence for
649
650
The Lord Chancellor
said, that from the high respect he felt for his noble and learned friend, and from the weight his opinions always carried, he felt anxious to remove the impression which his noble and learned friend had made. The noble and learned lord had appeared to dispose in a very summary manner, both of the justice and morality of the Copenhagen expedition, and of the cases cited by his noble friend. He should however, take the liberty, on the former point, of expressing his sentiments in the same decisive tone, and say, that so far from feeling himself dishonoured, as an Englishman, by the expedition, he should have felt himself dishonoured, if, under all the circumstances of the case, he had hesitated to concur with his colleagues in advising the expedition. His noble and learned friend did, indeed, recommend a 'penurious' justice; for if indeed the expedition was unjust and dishonourable—if it stained the national character and was contrary to honesty, then, instead of keeping the ships in any particular way, and at any given expence, they ought immediately to be restored, and ample satisfaction made; but he was always ready to contend, and he believed the feelings of the great majority of the country was with him, that the national character had not been dishonoured by an act which the circumstances of the times had rendered necessary. He believed the country would feel that this
651
per se.
Lord Holland
thought it necessary to recal the attention of noble lords to what really was the true question before the house. It had been considerably misrepresented and mis-stated. The question did not, as had been apprehended by the noble and learned lord upon the woolsack, at all intrench upon or in any degree affect, the prerogative of the crown. It
652
Lord Harrowby
defended the expedition, and opposed the resolution, which he considered would not only be dangerous to adopt, but improper in its principle. A noble and learned lord had begun by saying, that he should argue the question, as if the necessity had been proved; and yet he took occasion to reprobate both the justice and policy of the measure, in the most severe and unqualified terms. The only reason which he had assigned for departing from the line of argument which he himself had laid down, was, that he feared he might be considered as 'coquetting' with the house,
653
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But why should you kick us down stairs?
Lord Erskine
argued at considerable length to shew the injustice and impolicy of the expedition to Copenhagen, and the expediency of agreeing to the noble visc.'s motion. He concurred with his noble and learned friend, as to the Old Bailey kind of necessity urged in its defence. And with respect to eventually retaining the fleet in our possession, it was surely impossible that we could think of doing so, after the declaration made to the Danes, in which it was expressly stated, that their fleet was required as 'a deposit' in our hands. Were We to attempt ultimately to keep them, we should act like a man, who, from the apprehension of being attacked by thieves on the road, should, for his defence, seize a fowling-piece from a neighbour, who was too weak to resist him, and afterwards point the identical weapon against its master's breast, and go out sporting with it for a whole season. His noble and learned friend had been accused of kicking his majesty's ministers down stairs in the debate. This he certainly had not done, for the former discussions on this subject had long left them at the
654
The Earl of Westmoreland
opposed the motion of the noble viscount, and deprecated the conduct of that eighth wonder of the world, the last administration, who having by their weak counsels, and total inaction, placed the country in a state of the utmost peril, censured the wise and energetic measures of his majesty's present government, by which we had been rescued from the danger. The necessity for the steps which had been taken by us was notorious. His majesty, in his most gracious speech, had declared that information of that necessity had been received by him; a declaration which, constitutionally speaking, ought to have been received without hesitation. This information was of a nature that could not be communicated to parliament, but, did it follow, that the executive government were not justified in acting upon it? If the executive government were restricted from acting but on information that they could communicate to parliament, the country might soon become like the wrestler, so beautifully alluded to by Demosthenes, who, instead of defending himself from blows meditated against him, was occupied in guarding against blows already struck.
The Earl of Selkirk
argued, that the question had not been fairly met. The motion did not go to pledge this country to the restoration of the Danish ships, but merely to keep it in our power, if circumstances should hereafter enable us to do so with safety. It must be a matter of doubt whether that situation of things would or would not arise; but to look to its probability could not imply a censure on the expedition to Copenhagen. It had been said, that the motion was only an indirect censure, and could not meet the concurrence of any, but those who reprobated the whole of our conduct towards
655
Lord Redesdale
perfectly coincided in opinion with the noble earl near him, that the present motion went to pass a censure on his majesty's ministers; and as such he could not agree to it. It had been said by a noble lord, that Denmark had been friendly towards this country. He denied the truth of this assertion. It fell to his lot to know that Denmark had not been friendly towards us. He had it on the authority of persons who resided a considerable time at the court of Copenhagen, that the Danes, so far from being friendly, had for many years past entertained hostile sentiments towards this country. They had uniformly submitted to every aggression on the part of France, while they never gave up any point to England. When almost all the other powers of Europe had confederated against France, Denmark uniformly resisted every attempt that had been made to induce her to take
656
Earl Darnley
did not think that ministers had made out a case to justify the steps they had taken. They no doubt flattered themselves that John Bull, looking no farther than the capture of 16 ships of the line, would think it a glorious achievement. But they were mistaken, and would find that the people of this country were not to be so easily deluded. He condemned the expedition
in toto,
The Earl of Mulgrave
begged leave to call their lordships' attention to the true state of the question. It had been stated by the noble visc. who brought forward the motion, that the measure of the Expedition to Copenhagen was out of the question; but still he had couched his motion in such a manner, as to make it neither more nor less than a direct condemnation of his majesty's ministers for their conduct with regard to that expedition. He desired the paper, or summons to surrender, No. 3, to be read, [p. 223.] which was read accordingly, and purported, that if the terms then offered were not agreed to, the conditions stipulated with respect to the fleet must cease. His lordship said, that after hearing that, he would put it to the house whether the whole argument as to the ships being taken as a deposit, and
657
658
Lord Grenville
denied that the house had yet come to a decision on the merits of the expedition to Denmark; the evidence relative to which had not been laid before it. If, therefore, the house had decided, it must have decided without evidence, from which, indeed, it seemed too willing to turn aside. The unwillingness to look at, much less to examine the merits of this case, was but too glaring and general. Even its warmest advocates betrayed their feeling of its real character, by their anxiety to rescue it from investigation, and to pronounce on it without evidence. When this measure was first talked of, it was attempted to be justified by the allegation of some secret articles in the treaty of Tilsit, tantamount to a stipulation for the surrender of the Danish fleet to France; and certainly that allegation had considerable weight with his mind, as no doubt it had with that of others. But the manner in which this allegation was afterwards sustained, the successive publications which served step after step to fritter away its force, speedily led him to the opinion, that the ground upon which the supporters of the expedition professed to act was utterly untenable.—With regard to the doctrine, that the unfriendly disposition of Denmark towards this country was a justifiable cause of war, the noble lord in the most impressive terms protested against it. According to the law
659
660
Lord Hawk sbury
said, he would not, at that late hour, trespass long on their lordships' time, but begged their attention, while he made a few observations, by way of very shortly giving his negative to the motion. The argument of the noble lord who spoke last appeared to him to be involved in great confusion; but he wished to recal their lordships' attention to the true state of the question; and he thought, when he did so, it would appear that it was neither more nor less than that, under a pretence of restoring the Danish fleet, the motion went directly to censure the conduct of ministers, in the expedition to Copenhagen, of which their lordships had already expressed their approbation. If we were obliged to act against a power as we had been against Denmark, could any such procedure be carried on with more caution than that whole transaction had been attended with? We made them every offer to conciliation that could be devised before the army landed, and met not only with a refusa1 to enter into a negotiation, but this refusal was repeated after the army landed; and even just before the bombardment commenced, the same offers at negotiation were again made and again rejected; and they not only refused the very conciliatory terms that were offered them, but even declared that they
661
Lord Sidmouth
replied with considerable animation. He felt gratified at the discussion which the resolution had called forth, although he must say that it had experienced, from the noble lords who opposed it, a good deal of misrepresentation. He contended, that the analogy attempted with respect to the Toulon fleet, and the capture of the Spanish ships, did not at all apply to the case of Copenhagen. In the former instances, circumstances of hostility had taken place sufficient to justify a declaration, but the attack against Copenhagen had the two characteristics of surprize and spoliation committed on neutral, independent, and friendly power. Madeira had also been alluded to, but it was out of all fair and legitimate comparison to make any such resemblance. The conduct of G. Britain, on that occasion, was that of a friendly power extending its protection to a weak but friendly nation in the hour of impending distress. In what fell from the noble secretary, there was nothing to convince his mind. His arguments alone went to say, that, because this country had commenced a career of injustice, therefore it ought to persevere in it. He felt the converse of the proposition, as due to the hitherto proud character of G. Britain, and with such an impression he alone came forward, unbiassed by any party hostility to his majesty's servants, to perform the duty he owed to himself and his country.—The motion being loudly called for, the house divided, when there appeared—
Contents
31,
Proxies
20—51.
Non-contents,
61,
44—105.
Majority against the resolution..—.54.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 18.
662
PETITION RESPECTING THE COLD-BATH-FIELDS PRISON.]Mr. Sheridan
rose to present a Petition upon a subject which he should recommend to the serious attention of the house, and of his majesty's ministers. The subject was not new to that house, for in the year 1800 he had taken a considerable share, with a worthy and hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) whom he did not then see in his place, in the inquiries which had been made into the management of the Coldbath-fields Prison, and which brought the abuses in the government of that prison under the consideration of parliament. They had, on that occasion, established the case so clearly, that the distinguished person now no more, (Mr. Pitt,) who was then at the head of his majesty's government, was obliged to give way, and consent to a full investigation of the whole transaction. Accordingly a commission was issued under his majesty's sign manual, appointing commissioners, most of them members of that house, to prosecute the inquiry; and a report was made, which entered very much into the detail of the subject. But unquestionably the defect or error of that report was not, that it exaggerated the abuses complained of in the interior administration of the government of the prison. He found, however, that the means recommended in the report, for the redress of the abuses complained of, had not been carried into effect, nay, had been abandoned, and he very much feared, that the abuses had increased in consequence. The allegations contained in the petition, he had not felt it necessary to enquire into, previous to his presenting it to the house, because he had received the Petition from such a respectable quarter, and upon such high authority, that he could not entertain any just doubts of the correctness of the statements it contained, The Petitions was signed by Mr. Stevens, foreman, and by the other members of the grand jury of the county of Middlesex, as well as by Mr. Phillips, one of the sheriffs, a gentleman, who, infinitely to his credit, applied himself, with the most laudable zeal, to the execution of all the duties of his arduous office. He could assure the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, that this matter was not brought before parliament by him with any party views, nor had the petitioners any such object in their contemplation. On the contrary, it had been his practice, on every occasion when he had a petition to present, praying for a
663
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not mean to give any opposition to the bringing up this Petition, though after the statement of the right hon. gent. he felt called upon to make one or two observations. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that when questions of this description arose, the proper course to take was, to see at first how far the executive government might be disposed to interfere for the redress of the abuses complained of. An appeal to the government was, therefore, the most correct proceeding in the first instance, because it was competent to the executive to direct a thorough investigation into the matters complained of, and if the circumstances of the case should be such as to warrant the proceeding, to order a criminal prosecution against the offending parties. This was the view which he had of the subject, and the right hon. gent. himself seemed to acquiesce in it. The communication that had been made to government was conveyed in a private form, which could not regularly be acted upon, and he had, in consequence, recommended that the matter should be officially communicated to the executive; in which case, he pledged himself, that so far as he was individually concerned, no time should be lost, nor any means left untried to ascertain the justice of the complaint. He had thought this a course far preferable to bringing the subject at once before parliament; because whatever prosecutions the executive might find it necessary to order,
664
Mr. Sheridan
observed, that the petitioners had not shewn any unfair distrust of government, remembering as they did that no efficient measures of redress had been adopted, founded on the report of 1800, and because there could be no efficient redress without the dismissal of Mr. Aris. As to an official communication, it was impossible for the petitioners to make it, because the grand jury had been dissolved previous to the communication. It was as private individuals that they appeared as petitioners before parliament, and not in any aggregate capacity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
repeated, that the only communication made to government was of a private nature, and, consequently, was not a sufficient ground for a public proceeding. As to the report of 1800, he had only to observe, that it had been laid on the table of the house, and might have been made the foundation of parliamentary measures by any hon. member who might have thought such a course necessary.—The Petition was then brought up and read.—After which Mr.
665
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.]
On the order of the day being moved for the 2d reading of the Orders in Council bill,
Mr. Eden
said, that he could not allow this bill to go through another stage without declaring his sentiments upon it. He thought that our retaliation upon our enemies ought to be conducted in such a manner as not to injure unoffending neutrals. He was of opinion that the note delivered to the American negociators on the 31st of Dec. 1806, was still binding on the government of this country, as there was no appearance that America had submitted to the controul which the French government had attempted to impose on the commerce of neutrals with Britain. On the contrary, there was ample evidence that America had remonstrated against the French decree, and had obtained an exemption from its operation according to the explanation given by the French minister of marine, Decrés. To impose a tax upon neutrals was illegal by the law of nations, and by the statute law also. The measure would do no injury to France, but it would
666
The Advocate-General
then rose and spoke nearly as follow: Sir, the house will naturally expect I should lay before them my opinion upon the subject of this bill, and the grounds of that opinion, upon this occasion. In doing this, it is necessary for me to look to the policy and the legality of the present measure, both of which have been charged against it by the hon. member who has just now set down. In taking a comprehensive view of this matter, I am afraid it will be necessary to trace back some of the circumstances which led generally to its adoption, because we must not consider a measure like this detached from the circumstances which preceded or accompanied it. Its policy and legality can only be fairly appreciated by such a consideration of the circumstances out of which it arose. It is evident then, that the Decree of the French government, of the 21st of Nov. 1806, is the foundation of the present proceeding. That decree purported to declare the British isles in a state of blockade, and to prohibit all commerce whatever, even with neutral nations, in the manufactures of this country. The effect of that decree was to exclude us from all foreign powers whatever; and to prevent them not only from carrying on their accustomed trade with this country, but even to exclude the possibility of one neutral nation trading with safety to another. An American vessel trading from one neutral port to another, was subject to be seized by that Decree of the French government.—Sir, it has been said, that we have misconstrued this Decree, and that it does not in effect blockade this country. In regard to its prohibiting the carriage of Our produce or manufactures, there can be no doubt; but it has been alleged that there could have been some other mode of avoiding its consequences. In my opinion, I do not see any great difference whether the threatened blockade was included in it or not; for if foreign ships had only been allowed to come to this country with their foreign produce, and not enabled to take away our goods in return, that surely amounted very nearly to a similar blockading declaration. I cannot but he surprised that any person can read this French Decree, and doubt its construction. The very Preamble of it recites what has been done by this country; but it must be admitted that
667
668
entrepôt
669
670
bona fide
671
672
673
674
675
676
Earl Temple
thought his hon. and learned friend, who had just sat down, had departed from the investigation of the question before the house. He contended, that the principle of self-preservation laid down by his hon. and learned friend in defence of these Orders in Council, was not made out. If it had been, he would admit it to be a justification of them. The injury done to neutrals, it was contended, was unavoidable, and was with a view to the ultimate injury and annoyance of the enemy. He contended, that we could have no right to attack neutrals directly in order to injure the enemy collaterally. The Order issued by his majesty's late government, in Jan. 1807, was issued on grounds totally distinct from the present Orders. The former was in perfect. conformity with the laws of nations; the latter in direct violation of them. In order to justify our conduct towards America, it would be necessary to shew that she acquiesced in the provisions of the French Decree. The contrary, however, appeared to be the fact. On the appearance of the French Decree, in Nov. the American minister required an explanation of it, stating, that it was contrary to the treaty of amity and commerce existing between America and France. The answer of the minister of marine was, that it was not in the contemplation of the French Decree to affect American ships. He had heard it said, that this was idle assertion; but he would be glad to ask, if the communication or the explanation of this Decree, by the President of the United States of America to Congress, was nothing more than idle assertion? It was a well-known fact, that the merchants of this country, whose opinions upon these Orders in Council were certainly the most correct, and who uniformly complained of them, had not, in consequence of the French Decree, been obliged to pay a single additional shilling insurance on the trade between this country and America. Spain was
677
678
Mr. Rose
defended the legality of the measure, contending that it had not violated any law whatever, but on the contrary was expressly provided for by act of parliament. When these Orders in Council were made, he assured the house, they were not pointed at America, but were intended as a direct and justifiable retaliation against France. He then adverted to the state of the navigation of America, and the immense increase of her shipping and carrying trade, her trade from the East Indies with all parts of the world, and the reduction in the sale of all East India goods, pepper, tea, &c. He repeated, that nothing was more desirable than to avoid warfare with America, and he could not help hoping, that when America came to consider coolly and deliberately upon the subject, she would be satisfied that these Orders were never intended against her; that to preserve peace with that country was most desirable; and he was well assured that government would see it in its true light—that of a measure of retaliation adopted through necessity.
Mr. Hibbert
had been anxious to thank his learned friend (the Advocate General) for his excellent speech, but could not omit, at the same time, to recollect with gratitude another speech of that learned gentleman,*in which he had ably defended the Order in Council of Jan. 1807, not only as founded on principles of natural justice, which were the basis of the law of nations; but as directly bearing upon the enemy and considerate towards neutrals. The principle of that measure was so clearly expressed in a State Paper which had been alluded to in the course of the debate,† that he begged permission to read the words; "Neutrality, properly considered, does not consist in taking advantage of every situation between belligerent states, by which emolument may accrue to the neutral, whatever may be the consequences to either belligerent party; but in observing a strict and honest impartiality, so as not to afford advantage in the war to either; and particularly in so far restraining its trade to the accustomed
*
†Lord Howick's Letter to Mr. Rist, see p. 402.
679
air boutiqueére,
680
681
Mr. W. Smith
felt particularly the injury that would be sustained by the interruption of the American corn trade, shut up and deprived as we were of all supplies of that essential necessary from the Baltic. The right hon. gent. who brought in this bill in one hand, ought, therefore to have brought in a General Inclosure bill in the other. He greatly rejoiced at the sentiments expressed by the right hon. gentlemen as to the value of the connexion with
682
Lord H. Petty
contended that America had submitted to no injury on the part of France, and therefore we were not entitled to inflict any injury on the ground of retaliation. He instanced two cases of the detention of American ships, one by a Spanish, and the other by a French cruiser; both were released with costs and charges after a hearing in a French and Spanish court of prize appeal. He hoped that the same sense of public duty which had in another place triumphed this night would here also put the public in possession of the necessary information upon this important point. It was not for the interest of this country to force a war between America and France; next to a war between England and America a war between France and America would be most injurious. The neutrality of America was the means of diffusing the manufactures of G. Britain. The retaliation of French prohibition would but deprive the more wealthy among the French people of a few luxuries, while the annihilation of neutral commerce would be most injurious to the manufactures of G. Britain. The accumulation of sugars that would be created here by the collected produce of the various islands conquered by this country; by the importation from the French islands, in American bottoms; and by the importation from the Brazils, now sanctioned by act of parliament; the arts of substitution which the French people would learn, and the privations to which they would accustom themselves, would be lasting injuries to this country and her colonies. Thus, this measure, which promised so much benefit at the outset, was attended with much mischief in the result. He deprecated proceedings which would involve the country in a quarrel with the only remaining neutral. He ridiculed the idea of those who abused the Order of the 7th Jan. as imbecile, and who now quoted it as authority of force in this question, and who, in like manner, censured as ruinous invasions of the navigation act, the provisions of the act of last sessions, for allowing the Americans to import the necessaries of life into our West India colonies. He trusted the house would pause, before it gave its sanction to a measure of such effect, and so little founded in right and law.
Lord Castlereagh
contended that the Orders in Council were founded on a principle
683
684
For the second reading
214
Against it
94
Majority
—120
For the question
147
Against it
55
Majority
—92
Adjourned at half past 3 on Friday morning.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 19.
685
PETITION RESPECTING THE COLD-BATH-FIELDS PRISON.]—Mr. Sheridan
held in his hand a Petition similar to that which he had yesterday withdrawn, in deference to what seemed to be the sense of the house. Yet though he had given way he could not help thinking that there was no sufficient reason for refusing to receive the petition. The doors of parliament ought to be thrown open as wide as possible, for the reception of the petitions of the subject representing his grievances; and if a petition was to be rejected merely because at the moment of presenting it the petitioners were not in the precise situation in which they described themselves to be, merely because they did not designate themselves properly, that designation being wholly immaterial to the subject of the petition, it would give rather an unfavourable impression as to the disposition which it was proper that parliament should be known to have to attend to all just complaints. The petitioners were, in part, grand jurors of the county of Middlesex on the day on which the petition was signed, the 3d of Nov. last, but on that day they ceased to be so. The present petition was from the foreman of that grand jury, Mr. Stephens, in his individual capacity. He wished to know however, whether he might not this day again offer to the sense of the house the petition which he had withdrawn yesterday.
The Speaker
recommended the right hon. gent. to acquiesce in the sense of the house expressed yesterday, as to the propriety of admitting that petition.
Mr. Sheridan
submitted, but he declared he would never again acquiesce in what he felt to be wrong. He then presented the petition, which was as follows:
686
687
688
align="right">A. STEPHENS."
Mr. Sheridan,
in moving that the Petition should lie on the table, felt it unnecessary to recommend it to that attention which he was sure his majesty's ministers would be disposed voluntarily to pay to it. But he begged more particularly to recal the recollection of those gentlemen the Report of the committee of the house of commons, in the year 1800. The facts and suggestions contained in that report were yet unapplied in the way of reformation or relief.
The chancellor of the Exchequer
contended, that the house could not with propriety, have received the petition of last might, on account of the petitioners presenting themselves under a designation which did not properly belong to them. If the house were once to admit the principle of petitioners approaching them under any other character than that to which they were strictly and properly entitled, it was possible to say what abuses might follow. Having stated thus much on the point of form, he would now state to the house, what had passed between him and the gentleman who had represented to him the matter contained in the Petition offered to the consideration of the house. He told that gentleman, that if he would give him the facts in an official form, he would lay them before the secretary of state for the home department, with the strongest recommendation which he could give, though he was sure no recommendation would be required to call the attention of that noble person to a case of such a nature, coming in a proper authenticated and tangible shape. The communication was, in fact, made to his noble friend: but it came in an unofficial form, marked 'private,' and he could not feel himself warranted in taking any public step upon it, not holding himself at liberty to mention the name, or to designate the source from which he had derived his information. He saw no necessity in presenting this petition, unless it were with a view to insinuate that his majesty's ministers were inclined to neglect what they were in fact perfectly disposed to do, if they were supplied with proper materials to proceed upon.
689
Mr. Secretary Canning
stated, that he also had received a letter upon this subject, which he had transmitted to his noble friend the secretary for the home department.
Mr. Sheridan
wished to know the distinction taken in this case between an official and unofficial form of communication. The individuals concerned could make the communication, as it appeared from all that had been said, only as private persons.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that when a communication was marked 'private,' no disclosure could with propriety be made of its contents, nor of the name of its author, nor could it in any way be used as a public document.
Mr. Sheridan
said there must have been some mistake on this head, as such privacy could never have been intended by those who put themselves so publickly forward in this and in other places, to correct the grievance.
Mr. Mellish
said a few words in vindication of Mr. Mainwaring, who had, in conformity with his duty, referred this matter to the magistrates—The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed to lay the same duty on the exportation from this country of cotton wool, the produce of British colonies, as now existed on the exportation from this country of cotton wool, the produce of any other part of the world. His object in proposing this was, not for the purpose of raising a revenue, but to effect a prohibition in the only way it could be effected. He had, therefore, calculated the duty so as to be just under the amount of the insurance which merchants would pay for the risk, if the article were prohibited. He therefore moved, 'That towards raising the supply there be laid on every pound of Cotton Wool exported from this country, being the produce of British colonies, the duty of ninepence'—The article of salt was in great demand in the north of Europe, where it could not be dispensed with. By the measures of the enemy the exportation from this country would be increased, rather than obstructed, for those measures empowered the country by the law of retaliation, to prevent the continent from getting salt any where but from G. Britain. He therefore moved, 'That towards raising
690
ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that in consequence of an amendment which he intended to introduce into the Orders in Council bill, he should propose that the bill should that night go through a committee, pro forma; that the report should be received on Monday, and that on Tuesday a recommitment should take place, when the bill might be discussed.
Mr. Ponsonby
expressed his satisfaction that the right hon. gent. had changed his opinion on the subject since 3 o'clock. on that morning. His objection, however, to the principle of the bill was so strong, that he could not allow the Speaker to leave the chair without taking the sense of the house upon it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said it was not his intention to protract the discussion of this measure. He was not until this day aware, that alterations were necessary. If the right hon. gent. had a desire to take the sense of the house he might. It appeared to him, that the reason for taking the sense of the house upon the present occasion might be, that the right hon. gent. looking at the strength of the house might think, from the thinness of what were called the ministerial benches, that he was sure of triumph.
Mr. Ponsonby
explained, and denied any such motive.
Mr. H. Martin
thought the measure was one of such paramount delinquency, that every opportunity should be taken to ex-
691
For the postponement
118
Against it,
32
Majority
—86
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday,Feb.22.
[MINUTES.] Col. Stanley
brought up the report of the Evesham Committee. The report stated that the sitting member, sir M. Lopez, bart. Was not duly elected; and ought not to have been returned; that the petioner,H. Howorth, esq. was duly elected. and ought to have been returned; and that the:Opposition of the said sir M. Lopez, bart. to the petition of the said H. Howorth, esq. was not frivolous or vexatious.
[SALTASH RIGHT OF ELECTION.]
Ordered, That Mr. Wharton do make the Report from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petition of James Buller, esq. Arthur Champernowne, esq. Matthew Russell, esq. the rev. John Buller, clerk, John Evans, gent. John Stephens Croft, and Isaac Toby, each of whom are seised of an entire ancient Burgage Tenement, situate Within the Borrough of Saltash, whereon an ancient Welling house now stands or formerly stood; and also of the Petition of W. Henry Fremantle and Tho. Francis Fremantle, esquires, respecting the Right of Election for the said borough.—.Mr. Wharton accordingly from the Said committee informed the:house, That 'the. said committee required the counsel for the several parties to deliver to the clerk of the said committee statements, in writing, of the Right of Election for which they respectively contened: That, in consequence thereof, the counsel for the Petitioners James Buller, esq. arthur Champernowne, esq.
692
PETITION FROM BOLTON FOR PEACE.) Col.Stanley
presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Bolton in Lancaster, setting forth, "That the petitioners suffer great privations on account of the depressed state of the manufactures, whereby the price of labour is reduced in the most unprecedented degree, and thousands of the petitioners threatened with the want of
693
Mr. Secretary Canning said,—
"Sir, I do not rise to object to the motion, satisfied as I am of the propriety of the terms in which the petitioners have claimed the attention of the house to a subject so highly interesting to the whole country; although I cannot but, at the same time, feel that it is a subject which must always be in the contemplation of this house, and of those whose duty it is to advise his majesty. I trust, sir, 1 shall not be considered as deficient in feeling for the situation of the petitioners, if I express my sincere opinion and conviction, that even were peace to be the immediate cure of the evils
694
[TREATY WITH SWEDEN.] Mr. Ponsonby
observed, that on the first day of the session he had noticed. a passage relating to Sweden, in the Speech of the lords commissioners, and having inquired of the right hon. secretary, whether by that passage it was implied, that the house should make good a subsidiary treaty with Sweden, the right hon. gent. had replied,-that he expected shortly to have his majesty's commands to lay on the table of that house, subsidiary treaty with Sweden. Above a month had elapsed, but no such treaty had been produced, although, it was rumoured, on what authority he knew not, that a considerable sum of money had actually been sent from G. Britain to that country. He
695
Mr. Secretary Canning
replied, that the reason why the passage in his majesty's speech had not been followed up by the presentation of the treaty was simply this until within these few days there had been, no arrivals from the continent. No less than eight or ten Gottenburgh mails had become due. Within these few days, however, dispatches had been received from the British ambassador at Stockholm, stating that the Treaty with Sweden had been actually signed. His majesty's government were in daily expectation of receiving it, and within as short a period as possible after the arrival of the treaty, he should feel it to be his duty to bring it down to the house. It was unquestionably true, that a sum of money had been sent to Sweden, not in pursuance of any prior treaty concluded with that country, but in the contemplation of the treaty that had recently been signed.
[EXPORTATION OE COTTON WOOL AND JESUITS BARK.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that he understood, by representations from various quarters, that it would be more acceptable to have a direct prohibition of the exportation of certain articles, the produce of neutral states as well as of this country, which it was intended to have prohibited by duty. The mode of prohibition under the Orders in Council was certainly generally intended to be that of imposing duties. However, as 'a direct prohibition of the exportation from this country of such articles as were produced by America as well as our own colonies appeared to be considered the preferable mode, he should adopt it. He would therefore, move for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the exportation of Cotton Wool and Jesuits Bark; with a proviso, however, that licences might be granted in certain cases for such exportation. As to the prohibition of the exportation of Bark, he was led to it by the information that the severest pressure was already felt on the continent from the want of that article. It was of great importance to the armies of the enemy, He understood that at Paris it had risen from 10
s
s
696
Mr. Tierney
objected to the bill on the ground of informality. This was a bill not only for imposing duties, but for the regulation of trade. But it was provided by a standing order of the house, founded upon that of 1703, that no bill for the regulation of trade should orginate, except in a committee of the whole house, called a Committee for the Protection of Trade and Navigation. That part of the bill which went to the regulation of trade, ought therefore, in his opinion, to have originated in such a committee. He had looked for precedents, and found one exactly its point in the Convoy Duty act. The course which had been pursued by the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Rose) in that instance was this —that part which was matter of commercial regulation was referred to a committee of trade; that which regarded the duties was referred to a committee of ways and means. The resolution of the ways and means was first reported and a bill ordered. The other resolution was then reported, and an instruction given to those appointed to bring in the Duties bill to make provision pursuant to that resolution. The present was a bill precisely of the same nature, and the same course ought to have been pursued. The right hon. gent. opposite (Foster) was to move resolutions of the same sort with respect to Ireland; and he would ask him, whether he would not feel it his duty to adopt the course which he had described?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that all that was required by the Standing Order of 1772, which had taken place of that of 1703, was that any regulation as to trade should originate in a committee of the whole house, and a committee of ways and means was such. But, besides this, there was a clear difference between the Convoy Duty act and the present bill. There the alteration in the trade was the work of the legislature: here it was the work of the king, and. to make the alteration, he contended the king was fully,
697
Mr. Tierney
mentioned some of the clauses which went to make new regulations in trade, and touched incidentally upon the pernicious custom the house was getting into, of overlooking the principle of confining the ways and means within the limits of the supplies. The words of the Property Tax act placed the proceeds from time to time in the hands of ministers, so that they might have the supplies under that act without any committee of ways and means at all. The war-tax act placed some millions in the hands of ministers beyond the estimated supplies. On the principle he had stated, he strongly objected to the bill going forward without an estimate of the expected amount of the duties imposed. Returning to the essential ground of his objection, he said, that the king might regulate the mode in which ships were to come to England, but,he could not regulate the mode of their going out. There was also a clause for remitting forfeitures which could not be regulated by the crown. The bill, therefore, ought to be divided in order to proceed in the proper way.
Mr. Rose said,
that there was a radical difference between the case of the Convoy. Duty bill and the present. There a distinct alteration in trade was made by the legislature, here it was made by the crown. The regulations in the bill were minute points, and it was customary in the committee of ways and means to allow such regulations as were not essential, in addition to the duties.
The Speaker stated,
that it was customary in the committee of ways and means to interfere in regulations respecting trade, such as in the instance of the expiring laws. Though the committee of ways and means was the only place for duties, yet, since 1772, the house had been in the habit of admitting there of certain minute regulations, closely connected with these duties. Unless they were thus connected, the house would order a separate bill, originating in another committee. This was the principle, the house would apply it as it thought fit.
Mr. Tierney said,
that the question was, whether the regulations in question were such as the. Speaker had said might he adopted in the committee of wags and means, along with. the duties?
698
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted
that there was something in the argument respecting forfeitures. He would therefore not object to the dividing of the bill when it came to the committee.ߞThe report was then received, and the bill ordered to be re-committed on Wednesday; and, on the motion of Mr. Tierney, it was agreed, that there should be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill if it thought fit. He also gave notice, that he would then move for the reference of the matter of regulation to 4 committee of trade.
[GREAT GRIMSBY ELECTION.] Mr. Horner
rose to move that the order for taking into consideration the Petition complaining of the undue election for the borough of Great Grimsby, should be discharged. The grounds upon which his motion rested were, that the standing order of the house had not been. complied with by the petitioner in the last session; that order requiring that the petitioner should give in a statement of his qualification within 15 days after notice to that effect had been served upon him, subsequent to the presenting his petition. Such notice had been given to the petitioner last session, but no qualification had been accordingly given in; and thus the qualification had, within the regular time after the renewal of the petition in the present session, been re, turned to the house, in the absence of any precedent, since the enactment of the Grenville act, that the house should be governed by the analogy of its practice, antecedent to the passing of that act, which would be fatal to the claim of the petitioner to be heard. He therefore moved that the order be discharged.
The Solicitor General
stated, that he agreed with the learned gent. as to the practice of the house antecedent to the passing of the 10th of the king, the Grenville act. But he contended, since the enactment of that statute, which transferred all jurisdiction on matters of controverted election from the house to. the committees chosen under it, it was not competent to time house to discharge any order for a committee to determine the merits of; an election, in any other manner than as prescribed by the act. The whole jurisdiction rested with the committee, which alone was to decide upon the question specting the qualification, and therefore the house could not have power to discharge the order pursuant to the motion of the hon. gent—After a few words from
699
[CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY.]—Lord Folkestone
moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the papers; and on the question that they be now take into consideration,
Mr. Creevey
rose to give his negative to the proposition,. for two reasons: in the first place, because it was impossible for the house to come to a decision upon the conduct of the marquis Wellesley, without at the same time deciding upon the general question of Indian policy; and in the second place, because it was quite impossible that gentlemen could so have digested materials which would fill seven volumes, and which had been collected from the administration of that country, during a Period of 17 years, which had been moved for by different persons, and with different views, and which brought into comparison the administrations of lord Teignmouth and the marquis Cornwallis with that of the marquis Wellesley, as to be able to decide upon the merits of that complicated system with which the conduct and character of the last mentioned nobleman were inseparably interwoven. The papers were in such confusion that it was indispensibie that they should be arranged before they. could be perused, so as to convey the information necessary to enable the house to form a judgment upon the facts to which they related; and though he was pretty generally acquainted with them; he had not met with three gentlemen. who had read them. The course, therefore, which he would recommend was, that they should be referred to a committee. He did not care how that committee was formed. He had no objection that the three brothers of the noble marquis should be members of it, and it should be appointed exclusively by the hon. gentlemen on the treasury bench. As matters now stood, the house could not enter into a discussion of the question, because it was connected with a variety of others which required a detailed examination. The question before the house was the propriety of the treaty by which the Nabob of Oude was dethroned and stript of his,territory. But this was not a solitary instance of this species of policy. He had concluded many treaties of the same kind, and each was referred to in his instructions to his agents as a model for the other. They could not, therefore, decide upon one treaty without also tak-
700
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
called the hon. gent. to order, upon the ground that at the opening of a proceeding, instead of arguing upon matters of fact, he was bringing forward the opinions of those who were to be considered in the light of accusers.
Dr Laurence
on the other side, contended, that his hon. friend was completely in order, because in stating his objections to the proceeding, it was certainly competent for him to mention the grounds of those objections, and his reasons for thinking that a different course should bet adopted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer asserted,
that it was irregular to refer to opinions which were not before the house.
The Speaker
then decided, that if this parliament had refused the document which the hon. member was quoting, it would never consent to receive that indirectly. which it had directly refused. But if the, paper had not been refused by this parliament, he was of opinion that the honk gent, was perfectly in order when he made use of it in the course of his argument.
Mr. Creevey
proceeded to read another part of the dispatch, in which the system adopted by the marquis Wellesley, for extending the territory and increasing the revenues of the company, was reprobated
701
702
Sir John Anstruther
called the attention of the house to the present state of the proceedings. Three parliaments age, a charge had been brought against marquis Wellesley, by an hon. gent. (Mr. Paull) who was no longer a member of that house; all the evidence necessary for supporting the charge, had been moved for and granted; an inquiry had been challenged by the friends of the noble marquis, the charge originally brought forward had been abandoned, but upon the papers that had been produced, other accusations had been founded by a noble lord, and this night had been fixed for the house to pronounce upon the justice or injustice of these accusations. Nothing had been said of any deficiency of evidence, or of any confusion of papers, till about ten days ago He contended, that the delay now proposed, was neither more nor less than an attempt to arrest the course of justice, in as far as lord Wellesley was concerned, for the purpose of entering into a detailed examination of the affairs of India, and to blend two subjects which were totally different and distinct. The Dispatch which had been read, ought to have no more weight with the house, than the opinion 24 printers, and it Would have been only fair in the hon. gent. when he read it to the house, to have read also the Answer to it, which was made by the Board of Controul, whose opinion he thought was as valuable upon such a question as that of the Court of Directors. Upon the general merits of lord Wellesley's admintstration, he should be ready to meet either the hon. gent. or any other person, When they came to be discussed. At present, that question, was not before the house, and after the delay which had already taken place, he thought the house could not consent to postpone their decision upon the particular and personal charges, without committing an act of gross injustice to the noble and distinguished individual character was implicated in them.
Mr. Robert Thornton
professed his decided disapprobation most highly of many of the political measures of the noble marquis, at the same time he wished that the house should decide upon the charges that had been brought against him with dispatch as well as with as boldness. For this reason he was against the appointment of a committee, because that mode of pro-
703
Mr. S. Lushington
contended, that the only mode of doing justice either to marquis Wellesley, to the injured natives of India, or to the character of the British nation, was to institute a general inquiry into all the measures of the noble marquis's administration,
Mr. Hall
thought that if the house had any sense of national justice, or any regard for its own character, it would not suffer any further delay to retard its final decision upon this question.
Mr.S. L. Lushington
asserted that already British India had to lament the measures which had lately been adopted in this Country. The charge in the present instance he maintained was personal, and therefore ought to be decided without finger delay.
Lord A. Hamilton
was of opinion, that as gentlemen were not Very forward to encounter the obloquy of taking up such charges, and the noble lord had undertaken this with such laudable attention, the business ought not to be taken out of his hands. If his hon. friend should hereafter propose a committee to inquire into the transactions in the Carnatic, or at Furruckabad, he would be ready to support him; but in the present instance he thought course proposed by his noble friend should not be rejected.
Mr. Grant
would have supported the motion for a committee, if that had been originally proposed; but as the noble lord had taken up the question with a view to
704
ex parte
Mr. Windham
rose, amidst a loud cry for the question. He said that he certainly should not be deterred from delivering his sentiments on this occasion by any such cry, more particularly as it was this importunity for the question which he was desirous to combat, and which he hoped to be able to do with somewhat better argument than mere clamour. He confessed, however, that he had little to say, on the present occasion, in addition to what he had stated on a former evening. The question now before the house was, whether it would come to a decision now upon a subject of the greatest magnitude and importance, or defer that decision till they were competent to judge of it? If it was asked, why the house was not competent to decide upon it now, he would leave it to every gentleman-to give an answer for himself. He believed, that not one in 20 members had read the papers, and if this was the case, it was a sufficient reply to all that had been said on the opposite side. He allowed that marquis Wellesley was a man of high rank, of considerable talents, and that his conduct had been arraigned e but none of these circumstances was sufficient to counterbalance the material consideration of the incapacity of the tribunal in its present state of information, to pass a decision upon the charges which had been brought against him. The accusations which had been lodged against him were what were incident to the lot of every great man. they were taxes which greatness and distinction had to pay, nor was the. noble marquis so destitute of friends, or so run down in the world, that they bore upon him with any peculiar degree of weight. On the contrary, if his conduct was arraigned it ought to be recollected that it was in the nature of that conduct to beget friends. He denied that there had been any unnecessary delay. It was not fair in calculating this to count the number of parliaments since the subject was first introduced to notice, for the present parliament was not supposed to be acquainted with the proceedings which had been instituted by any preceding parliament. And when
705
Mr. B. Bathurst
said, that if the house was unprepared to decide upon the question now, this want of preparation might be a good reason for adjourning the debate to some future day, but it did not appear to him that it furnished ground for instituting-a new proceeding. In proposing to appoint a select committee one or two objects must be in view, either that this committee should merely form an index to papers, or that it should enter into an investigation of the whole affairs of India, and report thereupon to the house. But, in either case, what security had they that those gentlemen who. had not read the
706
Sir T. Turton
exhorted the house not to hurry a proceeding of such great importance. This was not a case in Which a private person alone was interested. It affected the rights of a whole people, who had no tribunal but that house to whom to apply for justice. They had no friend but that house, and if it slighted the appeal now made, it forfeited its own character and honour, and the character and honour of the country. At all events, he trusted it was not meant to proceed to the consideration of the question to-night.
Sir S. Romilly
admitted that justice to the noble marquis required that no unnecessary delay should take place. Justice, however, could not be done to him, and, what was of still higher importance, to the national character. if the house came to a premature decision. A great deal had been said of the number of parliaments which had passed since the papers Were laid on the table; let it, however, be recollected, that there were many members in that house who had sat there for not more than seven months, not one of whom, of course, had heard a single word on the subject of these papers, which could enable them to form any idea as to the facts which they were meant to substantiate; and wet they were now called on to give a decision on evidence of which they did not know the bearing. This was said to be a question personal to the noble marquis, but still it-was no less a judicial question, and he had never yet heard of any proceeding by which a fair result of such a question could be obtained, unless those who were to judge of it, were previously acquainted with the facts charged, and the nature of the defence. Was there a man in that house prepared at the present moment to say, that he was ready to come to a right decision on the case? He had, with great inconvenience to himself, gone through a considerable part of these papers, and if obliged to come to his decision this night, he must give it against the noble marquis, though he did tot say, that in the mass of evidence before the house, there might not be evidence in the noble marquis's favour of which he was at present ignorant. He was of-opinion, that to send the evidence to committee to return a digested report of it to the house, would be the only means
707
Sir A. Wellesley
said, it was for the house to decide what mode of proceeding would best suit its own convenience and the ends of justice; but, he contended, that it had been always asked, and it was the only thing that was asked, on the part of the noble marquis, that the case should be brought to as speedy a decision, as a regard to justice and fair inquiry would allow. The propriety of this principle had been laid down and enforced by the highest authority on all sides of the house, and among others, by an hon. gent. now no more (Mr. Fox), whose opinion would weigh very much with the gentlemen on the other side. He did not suppose that every member had read the papers word for word: but he was satisfied there were very few who had not read them sufficiently to enable them to give a conscientious vote. All that he asked now, was what he had asked before, as speedy a decision as the house in its sense of justice could admit.
Lord Folkestone,
thought the house was sufficiently in possession, at least of the main facts of the case, to come to a decision on the Oude question at once, without going into the general policy of the system of government in India, which he thought belonged more properly to the general consideration of the Finances of India, of which the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Dundas) had given notice, or the other general view of that part of the empire to he brought Forward by the hon. gent. below him (Mr. Creevey). It was e-their own fault if any gentlemen were unprepared to come to the decision
Sir. F Burdett
thought it impossible to decide this night upon the merits of the case, when the minds of gentlemen were not made up as to the proper form of proceeding. He moved as an amendment to the motion, the insertion of the words "to-morrow se'nnight," instead of the word now."
Lord Folkestone
agreed in the impossibility of going into the merits of the case at so late an hour this night. He was ready to agree in the hon. baronet's motion, if the house thought fit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
allowed, that it was impossible to go into the merits of the case this night. He wished the
708
Sir F. Burdett
withdrew his amendment for deferring the further proceeding to tomorrow se'nnight.
Lord Folkestone
was ready, for his own part, to proceed to-morrow; but he understood the gentlemen about him preferred to-morrow se'nnight.—A division was then called for, when there appeared, For the ordinal motion, 21. For referring the bussiness to a committee 34.—While the gallery was shut a conversation took place about the proper time of taking the subject into consideration again, when it was agreed to make the order for to-morrow se'nnight.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 23.
PETITION FROM OLDHAM RESPECTING PEACE.] Col. Stanley
presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Oldham and its neighbourhood, in the county Palatine of Lancaster, setting forth, "That the petitioners experience great inconvenience from a considerable depression of their trade, a depression which causes a reduction in the wages of labour unprecedented in the most afflicting times heretofore known, and which renders it difficult for the most industrious and healthy workman to procure for himself and family the bare necessaries of life; that the manufacturer is unable to afford him any lasting relief, for, even with this reduced state of wages, he cannot find a market for goods that will return him a profit adequate to his expences and risks; that in the train of these distresses follow the increase of the poor rates, the numerous assignments, bankruptcies, and all the various acts whereby the property of others becomes injured and insecure; that the petitioners are persuaded, that the ultimate cause of most of the evils here complained of is the war in which we are unfortunately engaged, which has been prolonged to an unusual length, and which the powers of the continent alledge we intend to make perpetual,
709
JESUITS BARK BILL.] Mr. Whitbread
observed, that a Resolution had been passed the other night, upon which a Bill was to be founded, Prevent the exportation of
710
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that the bill would most probably be introduced to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 24.
AFRICAN COMPANY'S PETITION.] General Gascoyne
presented a Petition from the Committee of the Company of Merchants trading to Africa, setting forth, "That the Petitioners have laid before the house, an Account of the money granted to them for the year 1806, examined and passed by the cursitor baron of the exchequer, as required by an act of the 23d of his late majesty; and that, for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to maintain the British forts and settlements on the said coast, parliament has been pleased, for several years past, to grant the sum of 18,000
l
l
711
l
KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING AN ANNUITY TO THE FAMILY OF THE LATE LORD LAKE.] Lord Castlereagh
presented a Message from his majesty, which was read by the Speaker, as follows;
l
SIR RICHARD STRACHAN'S SQUADRON.] Mr. Calcraft
wished to know from his majesty's ministers, how far there was any foundation for the rumours so painful to the public feelings, upon that most important branch of the public service, which were lately in circulation. He alluded to the rumours of sir R. Strachan having been obliged to quit his station off Rochefort, in consequence of being short of provisions, and the concomitant report that the French squadron had been enabled to put
712
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no information of the fact alluded to by the hon. gent. If the hon. gent. wished for any information on the subject, or had received any that he conceived it right to authenticate, his object would be best answered by making a motion, of which he might now give notice. All he could now say, in answer to the argumentative statements and questions of the hon. gent. was, that he was not aware of any such fact as that alluded to by the hon. gent.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he certainly had received some information which had led him to put the questions he had addressed to the hon. gent. He gave notice that he would on Thursday se'nnight submit a motion, with a view to ascertain the state of the approvisionment of sir R. Strachan's squadron.
[DISTILLATION FROM SUGAR.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, in consequence of the notice which he had given, to move that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the best mode of granting relief to those engaged in the West India trade; and in directing the serious attention of the house to a subject which the whole house he was convinced, would agree with him in thinking worthy of the earliest inquiry, he did not think it necessary to use any arguments to press it upon their notice. Every gentleman, he was persuaded, would be of one opinion as to the propriety of obtaining all the information that could be collected upon the subject, in order that this information might be followed up by the remedy which might appear to be most applicable interested in obtaining relief. The first idea that had suggested itself was, extending the internal consumption of the staple article of West India produce, by renderaing it applicable to our home Distilleries. The select committee, which had already been appointed to inquire into the causes of the present embarrassments of the planters, had not, it was true, in their report been very favourable to the opinion, that
713
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND NAVIGATION.] Mr. Tierney
rose to move that the house should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole house upon the Trade and Navigation of the country, or, if a select committee was thought preferable, he should have no objection that that course should be The object which he had in view was, that the house should have a full opportunity of discussing the Orders in Council after they were put into a shape and form, in which they were capable of being discussed. At present he did not moan to express either approbation or disapprobation of them. The present was one of the very few instances, in which an administration had brought such a measure before parliament without producing any information, or proposing some step by which information could be obtained, calculated to guide the judgment of the legislature upon the measure on which it was called upon to decide. In other instances, ministers had been rather disposed to challenge, than to shrink from a discussion of their acts; but in the present, the papers had merely been recommended in the king's Speech to the consideration
714
715
716
717
718
719
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, if the objections so repeatedly made to the Orders in Council were only to prove vexatious to himself, he should not much regard them. With respect to these Orders they were expressly laid before the house, for the purpose of some practical measure being adopted upon them. He had been of opinion that this measure should be the imposing of certain Duties, and he had accordingly moved, that they be taken into consideration in a committee of ways and means. The right hon. gent. had said, it was sufficient to satisfy him if a fair opportunity was given for discussing the measure. Now, he would venture to say, that no man could have witnessed the proceedings in that house without acknowledging that such opportunity had been afforded in the most ample manner. How far these Orders in Council were agreeable to law; how far they were consistent with policy, not only had been open to discussion, but had actually been repeatedly discussed. On the first day, when he moved to have them referred to a committee of ways and means, both- these points had been argued. It was there open to any member of that committee to move any measure he chose upon them, and to endeavour, in any manner he thought proper, to prevail on the committee to adopt his view of the case. Supposing the committee to have been of opinion that the Orders in Council were so impolitic that they ought not to be acted on, could there be a doubt that they might have refused to sanction them, and might have ordered such information as they deemed necessary to support the opinion they had formed? But the right hon. gent, said, that ministers had acted with unbecoming boldness in taking this measure, intirely on their own responsibility. He denied they had done so. He referred to the house if, on the contrary, they had not submitted arguments to the house to show that, the measure was justifiable in law, and consistent with sound policy. The right hon. gent. had said, when petitions with 30 or 40,000 names adhibited to them,
720
Dr. Laurence
said he should be happy if by the discussion of the present question one day of reflection could be gained to the house to consider or the ruinous mea-
721
Mr. Adam
could not agree with the.right hon. gent. opposite (the chancellor of the exchequer), either in the answer he had given to the speech of his right hon. friend, or in the advice he had given to the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland. He thought the house had committed an error which it should correct; and that it would commit another error if it followed the advice of the right hon. gent. as to Ireland. The Grand Committees belonging to this house were introduced in the best days of our parliament. To involve the Committee of Finance, or the means of making good the Supply to his majesty, with the Committee of Trade and Navigation, was to root up and destroy one of the most salutary privileges of that house. When any measure, was to be brought before the house, they knew its different stages for discussing the principle and detail. But when Grand Committees were established, one additional stage was granted, attended with this advantage, that members were not limited as to the number of times they might speak on the principle of the measure in one sitting. The question was, had this been done in the present instance in the proper committee? It was said, it had been discussed in the committee of ways and
722
Mr. Rose
thought the hon. and learned gent. had confounded the Grand Committees with the Standing Orders of the house. When there was any material innovation made, then it was proper that the measure should go through a committee was no innovation: it was only a due exercise of the king's prerogative. He did not say that the exercise of such prerogative was not to be inquired into by parliament; but here opportunities of doing so had been afforded.
Mr. Ponsonby
said the practice of the house had been, that questions of navigation, trade, justice, religion, &c. should be considered by committees of the whole house. The right hon. gent. who spoke
723
724
Mr. Tierney
in reply, did not deny that the house had had opportunities of discussing the question as to the merits of these Orders in Council; what he complained of was, that they had never been allowed an opportunity of deciding on them. In a committee of ways and means they could have no means of deciding on any question. They could not command any materials for that purpose, nor could they effectually touch on any thing unconnected with finance, unless they had received special instructions to that effect. It had been said, that there -was nothing in this measure contrary to the navigation laws. He would ask, was it nothing contrary to the navigation acts to force a vessel out of her tract to this country, and then to tell her you may proceed to the place of your destination, but you must leave the most valuable part of your cargo behind you? This he considered to be not only a novelty, but also to be a novelty which was perfectly disgraceful to this country. He still maintained, that merely because measure related to trade it must originate in a committee of the whole house, and not in a committee of ways and means. If the committee of Ways and means, where no instructions had been given, would enable all proper steps to be taken for deciding on the justice and policy of the measure, as well as on its financial merits, then he was wrong; if it could not, then he was right. He recollected a bill having been introduced. by the lord advocate of Scotland, during the last parliament, for altering the practice as to Teinds in Scotland, in which the Speaker interfered, and put the learned lord to rights as to the form;
725
The Speaker
thought that the rules of the house were sufficiently clear on the subject, and that it was only the application of them that could be dubious. with respect to Grand Committees, near a 160 years had elapsed since any report had been made by one. The standing order of 1770 was the rule by which the house was now governed; that order said, that all matters of trade should originate in a Committee of the whole house. It was true, however, on the other hand, that until these very few years the committee of ways and means had not been so separately employed on ways and means alone as to exclude from their discussions every other subject. Now, certainly the practice of the house was, that not any thing should come before the committee of ways and means but what related to the duties to be granted to his majesty. In that committee, however, it was perfectly competent to any member to use all the arguments and inducements, direct and collateral, which were calculated to produce assent to or dissent from the question agitated. Undoubtedly, evidence could not be examined in that committee; but should evidence be deemed indispensible, the chairman might report progress, and the house, if they thought fit, might go into a larger scope of enquiry.
Mr. A. Baring
conceived the regulations in the bill to be a complete innovation of the navigation laws. It was a bill not of finance, for the right hon. gent. could not name the amount of the duties to be expected from it; but it was a bill of regulation and prohibition, which never could originate in a committee of ways and means. It was a financial measure in appearance only; in reality it was a measure of commercial regulation, and that, too, of the very greatest importance. He had only got the bill to. day, and hoped it would not be pressed forward this night; but that a committee of trade would be appointed to consider it.
Earl Temple
wished to know, whether the duties imposed by the bill could, if the bill were passed, be petitioned against by the persons interested, during the present year The answer would show what was the character of the bill.
726
The Speaker
observed, that the bill came before hint only as a revenue bill, and consequently that the duties could not be so petitioned against. The house then divided:—
For Mr. Tierney's motion
55
Against it
118
Majority
63.
Mr. Tierney
took an opportunity of censuring the incongruity between the bill and the American Treaty bill, that had been recently passed, which he contended were in direct contradiction to each other.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that there was no inconsistency in the bills to which the rt. hon. gent. had alluded. The American Treaty bill went merely to continue the provisions of an act that was shortly to expire, and as that was a measure to which America was no party, and contained a clause for its amendment or repeal in the present session, any alteration which th legislature might think fit to make in it could not be a violation of any engagement with America. The bill then before the house would have the effect of repealing only one or two clauses of that bill, whilst the remaining clauses it contained would still continue in force.— After some further conversation the clause was agreed to.
Mr. Whitbread
rose to move, that the words 'Jesuits Bark' be omitted. He did not think it very necessary to examine minutely the details or the bill, believing that it could never be executed, as a war with America would probably be the consequence. But he wished to mark his most decided disapprobation of the principle of the prohibition, as far as it regarded the bark. In the first place, the right hon. gent. was deceived in supposing that there was such a want of bark on the continent. He had said, that bark had risen in France from 10 to 70
s
727
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the arguments of the hon. gent. applied to the provisions of another bill which it was his intention to bring in, not to the clause under consideration, which went only to impose a duty on the exportation of Jesuits Bark. But the statement
728
Mr. Lushington
stated the price of bark at Amsterdam, at different periods since Nov. in order to sheen, that the price would not he enhanced by this measure, the price in Nov. having been 10
s
s
Mr. Herbert
said a few words against, the clause: he saw no insuperable obstacle to the restoration of peace, but the obstinacy of ministers.
Mr. Secretary Canning
justified the principle of the clause, because, though innocent persons might suffer by its operation, there was no mode of warfare in which that was not the case. if the hon. gent. could devise any mode of carrying on war, by which the injuries would be made to fall not on the innocent but on the guilty, they would bestow a benefit on mankind. He was at a loss to distinguish the privation under this measure, from the privation of necessary support from the civil inhabitants of a besieged town. We were justified in retorting his measures upon the enemy, and on this ground we should be justified in the complete prohibition of the exportation of bark. The measure was not intended to promote the greatest possible degree of affliction amongst our enemies; God forbid! the object was to endeavour to bring the system acted upon by the enemy to an end. The statement of the
729
Mr. Whitbread
observed, that if the committee agreed to the proposition of endeavouring to prevent bark from reaching the continent, instead of throwing the odium of a want of humanity on the character of Buonaparte, we might most probably find that there would be too just ground for founding a reflection on the character of our own country. The emissaries of Buonaparte might go to the hospitals, and say, here is an English act of parliament; you see what it is that prevents you from obtaining a remedy for your complaints.' He put it to the honourable feelings of gentlemen on the opposite side, whether the enemy would not at least have an opening here against us?, [Here some significant gestures were made use of by some of the gentlemen on the treasury bench.] He was not surprised that the editor of a celebrated Manifesto, or that the bombarders of Copenhagen, should express some disapprobation at the mention of this circumstance. For his own part, he recollected when it. was generally supposed, and by some, he believed, it was hoped for, that the French army were likely to be destroyed by a dysentery; and if he, who was rather favourable to the old morality, were to be asked what he would do, if in such a case he was in possession of such medicine as would be likely to relieve them, he would answer, he would. give it to them; he would do so not only from 'natives of humanity, but he was also convinced it would be beneficial, in a political point of view. Some gentlemen took up and laid down. the cloak of morality so frequently, changing as it suited their purpose, that he could not say what might be their opinion at the present moment. But he would say, that in a book which a right hon. gent. last week despised, it was related, that at the siege of Jerusalem, The famished inhabitants were permitted to come out. In
730
Mr. Wilberforce
was of opinion, that one consideration might alone decide the question. It was hoped, that we should be likely by this means in some degree to weaken the military force of Buonaparte. But, was it not to be fairly concluded, that he, both as an object of policy to preserve his strength, and with a view to increase his popularity with his soldiers, would at all events procure them this medicine if it were necessary. The odium would then be cast upon us, and his" character would be exalted, so that the means were not calculated to accomplish the desired end. The general of a blockading army might fairly hope to make some impression on the besieged army, or that he should be capable of making the general of the garrison sympathise in the feelings of the suffering inhabitants; but could it be supposed, that a similar impression would be made on the feelings of that general who at present commanded the great garrison of the French nation? The measure might possibly excite a more general union of hatred against the English nation amongst all ranks of the French people; it might add
731
General Gascoyne
observed, that with respect to the circumstances which an hon. gent. had related as having occurred at Copenhagen, it was to be recollected, that at courts martial appeals were frequently made to the mercy of the commander in chief; there might be some circumstances in mitigation of punishment which had not reached the ears of the lion. gent.
Sir A. Wellesley
reminded the house, that it was impossible to prevent acts of improper conduct at all times in an army. As to the facts alluded to, he believed that after the persons had been tried, some doubt remained on the mind of the noble lord who held the chief command. In that case it was not to be contended that the noble lord did wrong to hesitate, before he put judgment into execution. The case he was informed, was now under the consideration of high legal authority.
Mr. Whitbread
stated, that he alluded to three distinct charges, namely, robbery, rape and murder.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that it would have been much less grating to the feelings of the noble lord, whose name had been mentioned, and it would give him a fairer opportunity of instructing some member of that house, as to the particulars, so that he might be able to speak in his behalf, if it was made the subject of a specific motion, of which notice should he previously given. As to the case which the hon. member alluded to, there were some doubts as to a point of law, which was referred to the consideration of some of the highest legal authorities.
Mr. Whitbread
then gave notice that he would, on an early day, bring the question before the house.
The Attorney General
stated, in corroboration of what had been said by the hon. bart. that the powers of the commander in chief were now under the consideration of the highest authority in the kingdom, and the inclination of opinion was, that they did not authorise the execution of the punishment. In a country governed by law, it could not be matter of surprise that when punishment could not be legally inflicted, the individuals, however morally guilty, should escape punishment.
Mr. D. Giddy
spoke in favour of the Or-
732
Mr. Tierney
proposed to take the sense of the committee on an amendment which he should move, for leaving out the words "cotton wool, or yarn," after his hon. friend had taken the sense of the committee on the propriety of omitting the words "Jesuits Bark."
Sir C. Price
asserted, that the price of bark at Paris was, at present, what it had been stated to be by the chancellor of the exchequer, 70
s
Mr. A. Baring
observed, that gentlemen need not be so extremely tenacious of the provision, that was here alluded to; for if only one ship laden with bark were to arrive safe, it would be sufficient for the whole continent.
The Advocate General
supported the principle of the Orders in Council, and the enforcement of these prohibitions, on the maxims of the law of nations, which authorised a belligerent to re-act upon its enemy the severity of its own means of annoyance.
Sir A. Piggott
argued ably against the principle of the bill, as subversive of the essential interests of justice. He considered it nothing short of the most violent outrage, to arrogate a right of confiscation over an innocent neutral, although he had not violated the provisions of a blockade, or in any degree contravened the Orders this country had issued. Still such an effect did follow from the new system of ministers: and therefore he should take every opportunity of declaring his decided hostility to it.—The question being loudly called for, a division took place, first upon the amendment of Mr. Whitbread, relative to the prohibition of Jesuits Bark, when the numbers were—AyeS.78; Noes 165; Majority against the Amendment 87.— A second division then took place on Mr. Tierney's amendment, relative to the prohibition of cotton yarn, &c. when the numbers were—Ayes 76; Noes 167; Majority against the amendment 91.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 25.
BRAZIL TRADE BILL.]On the second, reading of the Brazil Trade Bill,
733
Earl Bathurst
observed, that some misapprehensions had existed with respect to sugar from the Brazils coming into competition with the sugar from our own colonies, in the home market, and thus injuring the West India interests. This, however, would be effectually prevented by the high duties imposed upon foreign sugar. His lordship urged the importance of the trade with the Brazils, whence might be derived cotton, tallow, and various other articles, and which might also be of essential benefit to our colonies, as a vessel trading from this Country to the Brazils might take in there a cargo of articles of provision and lumber, of the latter of which there was a plentiful supply in the Brazils, and carrying them to our colonies in the West Indies, it might from thence bring home a cargo of colonial produce.
Lord Auckland
adverted to the state of the sugar market, hoping that it would not be still further depressed. His lord ship stated from the information he had been able to procure, that the quantity of sugar produced in the Brazils, was about 73,000 hogsheads, the quantity produced in our own colonies, was about 280,000 hogsheads, the latter of which was already about 70,000 hogsheads more than our own consumption required, and with respect to the use of the surplus in the distilleries, he observed, that the whole distilleries of the united kingdom would not consume more than 12,000 hogsheads. With respect to cotton, he believed the produce of the Brazils to amount to 24,000,000 pounds, that of our own colonies was about 16,000,000 pounds: he was ready to admit this part of the trade to be of very great value to this country.
Lord Grenville
observed, with respect to the idea of making this country an entrepot for colonial produce, that it would be found impossible to force upon the continent, that quantity of colonial produce which it would consume under other circumstances, and with a direct trade. He did not View this bill precisely in the same light as his noble friend, and if considerations arising out of the situation of the prince regent of Portugal and his connection with this country, induced him not wholly to oppose it, he must still give a decided opinion with respect to some circumstances connected with it. As to the idea of the noble lord, that corn and lumber could be procured from the Brazils for our West India colonies, he thought it was not to be, expected, nor did be con-
734
Lord Hawkesbury
observed, that the trade in the Portuguese colonial produce, had been previously carried on through the mother country, and the colony having become the seat of government, there was no principle upon which these commercial arrangements could have been refused. As to the Slave Trade, his opinion upon that subject was well known;
735
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] The Earl of Carlisle
made his promised motion relative to the illegality of the Orders in Council. He adverted to the point which he had before stated to the house, respecting a contradiction between the Order in Council of the 25th of Nov. and the act of the 7th Geo. III. c. 43. By that act, certain enumerated articles were prohibited to be exported from the Isle of Man, under the penalty of the confiscation of the vessel. By the Orders in Council it was declared, that any articles might be exported from the Isle of Man to any ports except those of this country. This he conceived to be clearly a contravention of the statute. He did not mean to charge ministers with any thing else, but he thought it was incumbent on them to come to parliament for a bill of Indemnity. He trusted that against this the king's war prerogative, of which much had lately been said, would not be urged, nor the right of retaliation. It might be said, that his objection was trifling; but it should be remembered that it was the first fissure in a bank which let in the overflow, and thus the first contravention of the law, by the privy council, however trifling in itself, ought to be met in a decided manner, lest it might lead to consequences injurious to the constitution. His lordship concluded by moving a, Resolution, which, after stating the enactment of the act of the 7th Geo.
736
The Lord Chancellor
contended that the Order alluded to was not only not a breach of law, but actually within the comprehension of the very statute to which the noble earl applied the violation.
Lord Grenville
observed, there was an end of the constitution of parliament, if the privy council assumed to itself the power of legislation.
Lord Hawkesbury
opposed the motion, and considered the principle of those Orders to have been fully discussed, and their execution approved of by the assent of parliament.—Lords Erskine, Auckland, and earl Grey, supported the motion, and contended that the law of the land had been violated without any ground of necessity that could entitle ministers to ask parliament for a Bill of Indemnity.—The motion was then put and negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 25,
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] Mr. Sheridan
rose and observed, that out of regard to the convenience of others, he had more than once postponed his motion; and there were many considerations which made against its being brought forward at so late an hour. But even if the hour
737
738
739
740
k;
741
742
743
744
Mr. Secretary Canning
was not ashamed to confess, that he at all times felt considerable difficulty in disagreeing from his right hon. friend; and that, in this instance, his difficulty was much increased, not by the line of argument adopted by his right hon. friend, but by the humour with which he had treated subjects stated to be atrocious, and the gravity with
745
746
747
748
749
Mr. Windham
saw, very little in the speech of the right, hon. gent. that had any application to the question, and even in that little could discover no force. The right hon. secretary had laid down a doctrine with regard to the communication of papers to that house, which, even supposing it were admitted, could not operate against the motion. For according to the terms of that motion, ministers would be left the option of presenting such information only as could not militate against public con-
750
Mr. Ponsonby,
though sensible of the just rebuke of the right hon. secretary upon himself and his colleagues; that they
751
752
Mr. Canning
begged the indulgence of the house, merely to put a question, whether, if the Moniteur should make a charge against the government of this country, such a charge should become a ground for the opposition in that house to draw from his majesty's ministers a public disclosure of their confidential communications with friendly powers?
Mr. Laing
stated, that the king of Sweden indirectly confirmed the accusation in the Moniteur, by saying he would occupy Zealand with Swedish troops if he thought it necessary. Another confirmation was, that it had been matter of deliberation whether Zealand could be retained by British troops, and that the officers consulted declared against the practicability.
Earl Temple
thought the matter under consideration might be brought within a very small compass, and decided by a single question. That question he should put to the ministers; and it was of such a character that the country would draw its conclusion as much from silence as from an answer. Ministers were most seriously accused of intending to break or evade a solemn capitulation. Now, he would ask, was there, or was there not, any negotiation with Sweden, or any foreign power, to occupy Zealand after our troops were bound to evacuate it, pursuant to the terms of the capitulation?—No answer was made.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, Feb. 26.
753
[ARMY ESTIMATES.] The house having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply,
The Secretary of War
rose for the purpose of moving the Army Estimates. All that he thought it necessary to do was, to state the particulars in which the present Estimates differed from those of last year. The estimates now before the committee were classed under the following heads:
Numbers.
Great Britain.
Ireland.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Land Forces (including various Contingencies) 200,831
5,8892,922
9
1
1,385,057
11
6.
Regiments in the East Indies 30,884
691,525
8
9
Troops and Companies for recruiting ditto 437
25,281
12
9
Embodied Militia 108,384
2,236,462
0
4
816,408
17
6
Staff and Garrisons.
363,902
6
5
69,502
1
4
Full Pay Supernumerary Officers
32,213
2
8
778
1
9
Public Departments
188,680
19
6
8,921
14
—
Half Pay
209,750
—
—
26,732
8
1
In-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals
40,969
13
10
16,942
17
3
Out-Pensioners of Do.
329,619
9
2
46,878
8
6
Widows Pensions
40,495
10
6
6,000
—
—
Volunteer Corps
652,000
—
—
611,487
—
—
Foreign Corps 22,125
795,647
3
2
70,911
3
10
Royal Military College
21,525
17
4
Royal Military Asylum
19,908
9
3
Allowance to Retired and Officiating Chaplains
16,000
—
—
2,852
5
3
Medicines and Hospital Expences
100,000
—
—
18,676
8
9
Compassionte List
13,500
—
—
Barrack Department (Ireland)
412,262
13
5
Commissariat Department (Ireland)
190,253
7
4
Total 362,661
11,670,404
2
9
3,773,664
19
4
Deduct the Regiments in the East Indies 30,884
691,525
8
9
Remains to be provided 331,777
10,978,878
14
—
3,773,664
19
4
754
Mr. Calcraft
asserted, that all his apprehensions of the disorganization of the militia, and the increase of the bounties by the volunteering were made good;. of. 16,000 men that had volunteered from the British militia, only 1600 had entered for life, and most of them being superannuated, entered for life to get the additional bounty, in the confidence of being discharged again before the 7 years should elapse. He allowed the militia would he filled up again by May, but not without infinite hardship to those classes of the people that ought to be particularly spread.
Mr. Windham
admitted that the estimates, from the approaching expiration of the Mutiny act, must be voted without
755
[ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.] Mr. Ashley Cooper
next moved the estimate for Ordnance service, amounting to 5,300,000
l.
Mr. Calcraft
wished for some explanation how this estimate could exceed, by nearly a million and a half, that which he himself had brought forward when in office, about a year since.
Mr. Cooper
explained, that it arose from arrears of former years, and accumulated exceedings not provided for under the heads of debt to the navy departments for stores furnished; exceedings of former estimates for Ireland; expedition to Copenhagen; works at Chatham, Woolwich, and Dover, with various items, which he stated.
Mr. Calcraft
thanked the hon. gent. for the explanation which it was his own duty to ask; but there were some other points of enormous expenditure, and particularly the Drivers' corps, in which he was not satisfied, and which he should take another opportunity of bringing forward for discussion.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
vindicated the whole of the estimate, and said the artillery of this country had attained a pitch of efficiency under the auspices of lord Chatham, not only unparalleled at any former period, but superior to any other train of Ordnance now in Europe. It consisted of 6000 men, with 4000 horses attached, and all in such a state of discipline and equipment, as to enable them to oppose a force of artillery against any enemy who should land in this country, in one-third the time, and with more than triple the effect that could be done at any former period.—The question upon the estimate was then put and carried.
[PAPERS RELATING TO DENMARK.] Mr. Secretary Canning,
pursuant to notice, rose for the purpose of moving for copies or extracts of any dispatches that had been sent in Nov. or Dec. 1806, by Mr. Garlike his majesty's minister to the court of Denmark, to his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, relating to the ac-
756
Lord Folkestone
said, that he had been one of those who, on the former occasion, in part persuaded by the arguments of the right hon. gent. and in part from his own conviction, had resisted the production of these Papers. Nothing that had since occurred had altered his opinion. If these papers were necessary to be produced, a great many more would be necessary, in order to set the persons who were concerned right with the public. These would not be sufficient to justify Mr. Garlike, who could not be set right with the public but by the production of all his dispatches, down to the time of the expedition to Copenhagen.
Mr. Ponsonby
could with difficulty object to the production of any papers that might be necessary for the justification of any hon. gent.'s conduct. But he had not so much respect for the feelings of any individual, as to think that the public service should be sacrificed to them. The right hon. gent. had made his extracts from the papers, to shew that there had been a hostile feeling in Denmark, and that this opinion of the present ministers had been fortified by the opinion of the late administration. But Mr. Garlike's dispatches dated in Nov. and Dec. 1806, would not be sufficient for his purpose, it would be necessary to produce all the dispatches that had been received down to the time of the expedition. A suspicion might have been entertained in 1806, which had afterwards been removed, and something of this description had, he believed, taken place, because in the commencement of 1807, a large fleet had been collected, intended for the Baltic, which had afterwards been sent on various other destinations, when the suspicion respecting Denmark had been removed. The right. hon. gent. first endeavoured to justify the expedition, and then he came to justify himself but he could not justify
757
Mr. Tierney
felt compassion for the right hon. gentlemen opposite, whom he beheld in the pitiable situation of being called upon now to vote for what they had rejected but two or three weeks since. This was the first instance in which such a proceeding had taken place in parliament. The right hon. gent. had first resisted the production of the papers on public grounds, and afterwards when called for on private grounds, for the justification of his noble friend (lord Howick); but now that the right hon. gent.'s own character was touched, he was ready to produce the papers. He was glad the right hon. gent. at length shewed such a laudable attention to character, and thought it worth preserving. But, leaving private character out of the question, he saw no reason why more attention should be paid to the character of the right hon. gent. than to that of his noble predecessor, who had served his maj. in the same office, with as much fidelity, as the right hon. gent. The effect of the proceeding of the right hon. gent. would be to shew that that house was the instrument of the secretary of state. Had any thing occurred since the former vote, to shew that there was less danger in the production of the papers now than at that period? The character of Mr. Garlike, to whom public character must be so dear, could not be justified but by the production of all the papers. If right. hon. gent. should not consent to that, he would compromise the character of the house by the refusal. Let the house sec in that the danger of raising men too high, let them see the degraded and disgraced state to which they would be reduced, and which would sink them in the estimation of their country, and perhaps of the sovereign himself. (A loud cry of order.)
The Speaker
declared his disapprobation of the course pursued by the right hon. gent.; and for this reason, because he appeared to be expressing an opinion of the sovereign on the conduct of an individual in that house.
Mr. Tierney
was not conscious of having any such intention, but having been interrupted in the chain of what he had to state to the house, declined proceeding, declaring that nothing had occurred in the
758
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was at a loss to know whether the gentlemen opposed or supported the motion of his right hon. friend, [it was intimated across the table that they supported it.] Then, he could not see how his learned friend's question upon the order, by,requiring the entry of the vote of the 8th of Feb. to be read, could be construed into a support of the motion. The house would perceive, that the production of these Papers would be a source of disappointment to the gentlemen opposite, because it would deprive them of the foundation of much declamation, in accusing his right hon. friend of having made garbled extracts. The Papers had never been refused on public grounds. They had been asked for to prove that his right hon. friend had misrepresented the contents of lord Howick's dispatches, which he had not done, and it was on that ground that they had been demanded and refused, because the granting them on that occasion would have been an admission on his part of the misrepresentation. If the Papers had been demanded on other grounds, his right hon. friend would not have objected to their production. What had been said would, he trusted, be sufficient to satisfy the house of the propriety of his right hon. friend's motion.
Mr. Windham
observed, that the hon. gentlemen opposite shewed a disposition to laugh, though their mirth resembled the singing of children in the dark, to shew they were not afraid. He contended, with his right hon. friend, that the house would, by their proceeding, be placed in a situation of indignity, and he lamented that the forms of the house did not admit of
759
Lord Castlereagh
entered his protest against the doctrine laid down on the other side of the house, that no papers should be refused but such, as, if produced, would be prejudicial to the public service. Nothing was more common than to refuse papers when no adequate or sufficient ground was laid for the production.
Mr. Sheridan
had thought, when his right hon. friend introduced his motions without any observations, that it was a bad plan. But from the line of argument pursued by the noble lord, and the rt. hon. gent. on either side of him, he could not but applaud that course of his right hon. friend, and he was sure that his right hon. friend would have been well pleased, if his friends had practised the same taciturnity with himself. He defied the noble lord to produce any reason now that would not have applied equally against the papers in the former instance, and argued at some length to prove that the papers then moved for would neither be sufficient to the purpose of his right hon. friend, nor to acquit the character of Mr. Garlike; and concluded with an amendment for the production of all the communications which had been received in the course of last year—A conversation followed, in which Mr. Bankes observed, that the amendment could not be received, as being word for word the same as a motion already rejected.
The Speaker
confirmed the observation of Mr. Bankes, as to the point of order.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that though some papers which had been refused were included in his motion, the motion was in form, very different from any before offered.
Mr. Tierney
proposed to adjourn the debate, on the point of order.
Mr. Adam
by moving that the entry on the journals, with respect to the former motion, should be read, did not mean that
760
Mr. Sheridan
moved the amendment in a form different from that in which the papers mentioned in it had been formerly refused.
Mr. Secretary Canning
denied that he had made any accusation against lord Howick, by quoting his dispatch, consequently there was no necessity for producing the papers as a vindication, when no charge was made. He had merely made the quotation to shew that it was in lord Howick's contemplation, that if the French should enter Holstein, Denmark might possibly compromise for the occupation of Zealand by French troops. The present motion stood on different grounds; and he trusted the house would see reason to produce it, upon the principle on which it was now asked for, without at the same time passing the amendment. His majesty's ministers rested their defence of the proceedings against Copenhagen, upon the information already produced, upon existing circumstances, and the notoriety of what the enemy had done in similar cases. The whole of our diplomatic correspondence was not to be ripped up: it was enough, if what was material to the case in question was produced.—After some further debate, the house divided—For the Amendment 40. Against 110—Another division took place on the original motion. For the production of the Papers 140, Against 9, Majority 131.
PAPERS
RELATING TO DENMARK.
No. I.—Dispatch from, Benj. Garlike, esq. his majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the court of Denmark, to visc. Howick, dated Copenhagen, 11th Nov. 1806.—Received 29th Nov.
My lord; Your ldp. will have received accounts of an affair which has taken place on the Holstein frontier, between the Da-
761
B. GARLIKE.
No. II.—Dispatch from Benj. Garlike, esq. to visc. Howick, dated Copenhagen, 14th Nov. 1806.—Received 29th Nov.
762
My lord; The answer required by the prince royal of Denmark to his representations to M. de Murat, has been received. He retorts on the Danish troops the accusation of violating their neutrality, but declares that he had no intention to commit hostilities against Denmark; and has the more reason to regret the mistake, as he has lost one of his best officers in the action. This answer is considered as satisfactory. The loss on time Danish side amounts to 25 men killed. The French escort given to gen. Evald, on his return to the Danish advanced guard, carried off his horse, his watch, and some other articles. Two of the officers, maj. Gruner and lieut. Schow, are returned to their posts; but lieut. col. Kardorff is missing. The French troops (marauders) have also committed further depredations on the Danish territory, have burnt a village, plundered the estate, and destroyed the cattle belonging to count Bernstorff. I have, &c.
B. GARLIKE.
No. 3.—Extract of a Dispatch from Benj. Garlike, esq. to visc. Howick, dated Copenhagen, 14th Nov. 1806. —Received 29th Nov.
I have the honour to inform your. ldp. that I have used my utmost endeavours to impress count Bernstorff with the sentiments contained in your lordship's dispatch, of No. 3
*
*This Dispatch is verbatim the same with the Dispatch to Mr. Pierrepoint, No. 2. of the Papers presented to the House of Commons, by his majesty's command, in pursuance of their Address of the 16th;of Feb; with the variation only of "Court of Copenhagen" for "Court of Stockholm," See p. 621.
763
764
765
No. IV.—Dispatch from viscount Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq. dated Downing Street, 3d Dec. 1806.
Sir, your dispatches to No.—inclusive. have been received and laid before the king. The language of count Bernstorff and the Danish ministers, as described by you, is such as was naturally to be expected from their former policy, and from the effect of the recent events in the north of Germany. Any endeavour to induce
766
767
768
Howick.
No. V.—Dispatch from visc. Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq. dated Downing Street, 9th Dec. 1806.
Though no dispatches have been received from you since my last, the accounts which have reached this country of the retreat of the Danish Army from Holstein, and the advance of the French to the Eyder, from which river there is reason to apprehend that his majesty's flag has been excluded, render it necessary that I should instruct you immediately to require of the Danish government a frank explanation of the motives which have produced measures apparently so injurious to the interests of his majesty; and also of the system of policy which that government means in future to pursue in its relations with this country and with France.—This explanation you will require in the most friendly terms, but at the same time in such a manner as to prevent any delay. The interests of Denmark itself and the known character of the prince royal, encourage his majesty still to entertain a confident expectation that, notwithstanding present appearances, the answer will be such as the friendship which has so long subsisted between the two governments requires.—With respect to the views entertained by his majesty's government on the present alarming crisis, and the advantage which may be derived from the generous offer of the king of Sweden to assist in the defence of Denmark, I must refer you to my last dispatches. I am, &c.
HOWICK.
No. VI.—Dispatch from Benj. Garlike esq. to visc. Howick, dated Copenhagen, 24th Nov. 1806.—Received 11th Dec.
My lord; The reports of the declared intention of general Mortier to occupy Hamburgh, had been in circulation here for some days. The intelligence of his having entered the town with a number from seven to eight thousand men, was received last night. This government did not appear to believe the event was probable. There seems now to remain a stand of opinion, that the French troops will pro-
769
770
771
No. VII.—Extract of a Dispatch from Benj. Garlike, esq. to visc. Howick, dated Copenhagen, 29th Nov. 1806.—Received 11th Dec.
It was perhaps to be expected that as the Danish troops had remained on the Holstein frontier, when there was no war in the north of Germany, and had actually been engaged with those of France, their sudden retreat to the Eyder would give rise to the supposition of some arrangement between the Danish and French governments.—Mr. Pierrepont will have informed your lordship of the very unfavourable construction of that retreat, which has been transmitted to his Swedish majesty, and of the strong measures of precaution which that monarch has judged it proper to adopt against the new danger that would result to his own interests and to those of the allies.—Your lordship will have borne in mind, that the very essence of the neu-
772
773
begin
774
No. VIII.—Dispatch from visc. Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq. dated Downing street, 26th Dec. 1806.
Sir; The apprehension entertained here, at the time of writing my last dispatch, of the entrance of the French troops into Holstein, I am happy to find, was unfounded. But I cannot regard the respect which has hitherto been paid by the enemy to the neutrality of the Danish territory as any thing more than the effect of a policy which for the moment is more convenient to themselves.—It would be madness to trust to any assurances which may have been received from the French government on this point, so far as to neglect a timely preparation of those means of defence which to be effectual must not be left to be sought for in a moment of immediate and pressing danger.—I have urged the necessity of precautionary measures, which might be so conducted as neither to provoke nor to afford a pretext of hostilities on the part of the French, in the strongest manner to Mr. Rist. Above all, it is necessary that no time should be lost in concerting measures of common defence with the court of Sweden, to which so good an opportunity has been offered by the prompt and generous offer of his Swedish majesty.—You will continue therefore to request from the court of Denmark a frank communication of its views, and to urge their immediate attention to the important objects above stated. I have, &c.
HOWICK.
775
No. IX.—Dispatch from Benj. Garlike, esq. to viscount Howick, dated Copenhagen, 20th Dec. 1806.—Received 7th Jan. 1807.
My lord, I deferred the honour of writing to your lordship on my communication to count Bernstorff of the principal points of your dispatch of the 3d December till I had an opportunity of seeing that minister again, after he had submitted them to the cabinet ministers. I advert first, to the proposal of his Swedish majesty for the co-operation of 25,000 Swedish troops with those of his Danish majesty in Holstein. I cannot yet say in what manner this overture has been made to the prince royal; but on both the occasions which I have had of discussing the subject here, I have found it attended with the most undisguised aversion; as incongruous at this moment from a power at war to a power at peace; inapplicable with respect to time, if relied on when the attack of Holstein is no longer a problem; unseasonable when no new circumstance has occurred, except the repetition of friendly assurances on the part of France; and dangerous above all, as inviting, or rather immediately committing, the country to unavoidable war.—I endeavoured in the gentlest manner possible to rescue the Swedish proposal from the weight of objections, which thus tend to enervate every wise and provident scheme of self-defence, and carried one degree further, must leave the country prostrate to no good-will, but that of the enemy.— I think it natural to suppose, that the Danish minister urged his objections in this instance with more than usual quickness, from his consciousness that the resolution is already taken to withdraw the Danish troops from Holstein. I felt the conversation clogged on my side with the knowledge of that resolution; but it was not openly noticed on either.—Count Bernstorff than asked me, if 1 believed the king of Sweden could spare from his own dominions any number of men, which approached that of 25,000? This was not a question for me to answer; but I pressed the Danish minister to consider, as exceedingly probable, that when his Swedish majesty resolved on making the offer, he was alarmed for the safety of the Danish peninsula; and that if such a force could not well be spared from Sweden, nothing could be a stronger proof of his Swedish majesty's friendship, than the prompt desire which he must have enter-
776
777
B. GARLIKE.
No. X.—Extract of a Dispatch from visc. Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq. dated Downing Street, Jan 9th, 1807.
His majesty has received with satisfaction the assurances that the court of Denmark is determined to resist the demands of France, if pushed to a point that should be inconsistent with the honour and independence of that power. Of the sincerity and constancy of this determination his majesty's government will not allow itself to doubt. But it is necessary to repeat, that to make such determination effectual, timely measures should be taken.—An immediate junction of a Swedish force to the
778
No. XI.—Extract of a Dispatch from Benj. Garlike, esq. to visc. Howick, dated Copenhagen, 28th Dec. 1806.—Received 12th Jan. 1807.
My lord; In your lordship's dispatch of the 3d Dec. the passage relative to the possible sacrifice of a part of the Danish navy to the French, concludes with these words: "Should any question of this sort arise, you will at once state, distinctly, and unequivocally, the feelings of this government upon it."—I have presumed, that this passage gave me some latitude to judge of the propriety, as to time, of making the declaration which the chance of such a transaction would necessarily call for. It is therefore important that I should inform your ldp. that I have not communicated that part of the dispatch to the Danish government. The ground on which I have ventured on such a discretionary reserve is the strong belief, I trust I am justified in entertaining, not only that no proposition of the nature in question has as yet been submitted to the prince royal; but that the military progress of the French arms is not yet such as to suggest an arrangement so incompatible with the sentiments and principles which are known to predominate in that prince's character.—Without, therefore, some new and describable appearance to engage my attention, different from those which had possibly been conveyed to England when the dispatch was written, I humbly trust it is consonant to the feelings of his majesty's government towards that of Denmark, not to have taken a step, which might at this moment only wound the prin-
779
B. GARLIKE.
No. XII.—Extract of a Dispatch from visc. Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq. dated Downing Street, 22d Jan. 1807.
Upon the points referred to in your dispatches, I have already sent you full instructions. However desirous his majesty may be of preventing any embarrassment to the court of Denmark with respect to the neutrality which that government is desirous of preserving; this consideration, it is evident, can only apply to a real neutrality, and cannot be carried so far as to admit of a succession of measures dictated by the fear of France, which would in ef-
780
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, February 26.
ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord St. John
rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring forward his Resolutions respecting the Orders in Council. His lordship took a review of the explanations given by the French government of the Decree, and of the documents shewing the manner in which it was understood by the American government, for the purpose of proving that the latter government never acquiesced in the French decree, considered as affecting neutrals, and thence concluding, that this government had no right to issue Orders affecting the American trade. He contended also, that there was no sufficient evidence of the execution of the French Decree, in making captures on the high seas, according to the terms of it, which could alone be evidence of such an execution of the decree as could be considered a violation of the law of nations. The information laid, on the table was in this point defective, and did not appear to him to afford any sufficient reason for issuing the Orders in Council, which he considered a gross violation of the law
781
The Duke of Montrose
rose and said, he perfectly agreed with the noble lord, that although the subject had been already before the house, it was one that merited discussion. He had forborne as yet to deliver his sentiments upon it, from a wish not to make up his mind without giving it the fullest consideration; and having so done, he should not hesitate to give it as his firm opinion, that the Orders in Council were wise, politic, and calculated to answer the great purpose of defeating the designs of our enemy, and ultimately convincing him of his error in the unjust system he was pur-
782
je pence
Lord Holland
observed, that the Orders in Council fell far short of that clearness which would enable him who runs to read. He would not now enter into the question of the policy of these Orders, that being reserved for a subsequent discussion, but with respect to the question of the law of nations, he held a very different opinion
783
The Earl of Mulgrave
contended, that the French government having endeavoured to execute its decree of blockade against this country, by the confiscation of all neutrals conveying British produce or manufactures, or trading from the ports of this country, it became the duty of this government to adopt some counteracting measure, which should force the enemy to raise the blockade of this country. That which had been resorted to, was the most mitigated measure that could be adopted with a view to the continuance of neutral trade, and compelling the enemy to receive neutral vessels into his ports trading from this country. If the French decree and the Orders in Council were both executed, then of course there could be no trade between this country and that part of the continent of Europe under the influence of the enemy, some injury would result to us, but the greatest privations must be indured by the enemy. With respect to Mr. Canning's Note, his ldp. referred to the Note of lord Howick, stating that the measures adopted by the Order in Council of the 7th of Jan. would be continued till the decree of the French government was formally repealed, for the purpose of proving that the language in this note was similar to that used by Mr. Canning. His lordship deprecated the conduct adopted by noble lords on the other side, in discussing different parts of the Orders, and called upon them to discuss the whole policy of the measure.
Lord Auckland
deprecated a war with America, which he considered one of the
784
Lord Redesdale
contended that the Orders in Council of the 7th of Jan. and those of the 11th and 25th of Nov. were founded on the same principles, and were equally consistent with the law of nations.
The Earl of Lauderdale
deprecated the mode of argument adopted by the noble and learned lord, by justifying one measure by another. He contended, that the information on the table not only did not prove an increased rigour in the execution of the French decree, but that a great part of it rather proved a relaxation of the provisions of that decree, and he believed, that his noble friends, had they continued in administration, would rather upon such information have been inclined to revoke the order of the 7th of Jan. than to have resorted to any harsher measure. As to the objection, that they discussed parts of the Orders, each part formed a question of the greatest magnitude to the country, and if they were not all discussed together, it was the fault of noble lords on the other side, who had refused to go into a committee on the Orders in Council. A noble duke had quoted the letter of his noble friend to Mr. Rist, to shew that he threatened to put the coasts of the enemy into a state of blockade, as a matter of retaliation. If he had proceeded but four or five words farther, he would have seen that the noble lord's words were, "that G. Britain would have enforced such blockade by its maritime superiority," a thing which made the measure legitimate, and consistent with the law of nations; and there was not one word to shew that they meant it in mere retaliation.
The Earl of Westmoreland
said, that noble lords made the inconsistencies of which they complained. They would not divide the question of the Orders in Council into two points of view, in which it ought to be considered—into that which the crown did from its prerogative of war, and what was agreeable to the municipal law of the land.—In adverting to America, he warmly contended that the measures of the late government caused that irritation which appeared in the disposition and councils of that country; and concluded by expressing a sentiment of amity and friendship towards that country, whose very existence he considered to depend upon the greatness and prosperity of this.
Earl Grey
vindicated the late govern-
785
Lord Hawkesbury
entered at length into the pretended distinction between the Order of the 7th Jan. and the late Orders. He declared that he could not discover any difference in principle, and scarcely any difference in language. When noble lords said it was not an act of retaliation, they should look back to the Papers, where it was distinctly stated to be in retaliation of the enemy's Decree. But neither that measure nor the present, though in their consequences they touched neutrals, could be said to be against neutrals. They were against the enemy, and it was only by their consequences that they affected neutrals. This was the nature of all belligerent acts. A measure was taken by the enemy in hostility to us, and which in its result affected neutrals; we retaliated on the enemy and that also affected neutrals; but surely they could only complain of the original aggressor. With respect to the tardy reparation made to America for the affair of the Chesapeake, they had made instant reparation, even before any remonstrance or complaint was made. They expected that the American ministers would have been intrusted to settle the business here. And so they were; but their instructions were to mix so many other matters with it, that it was found to be impossible,
786
Lord Grenville
combatted the arguments on the other side. His lordship reviewed the decrees of France against the trade of this country, and cited the few instances in which they had been fully enforced: he admitted the right of fair retaliation, provided it did not extend to the injury of neutral powers. He adverted to the calamities which must arise to our merchants and manufacturers by enforcing these orders in council; and the mischievous consequences to our West India colonies, should the differences between this country and America long subsist; and concluded, by advising his majesty's ministers to adopt those measures now that would be considered as acts of generosity and conciliation towards that country, rather than wait for the time when they must adopt them through necessity.
The Earl of Galloway
contended, that the justification of ministers might be drawn from the speeches of noble lords on the other side of the house, who all made the reservation that the maintenance of our maritime rights ought to be paramount to every other consideration. The Orders in Council, he considered a just and a wise measure, which should therefore have his support.—The house then divided—For the
previous ques
66,
Proxies 71—137
Against it
24,
Proxies 23—47
Majority.
—90.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 29.
[KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING AN ANNUITY TO THE FAMILY OF THE LATE LORD LAKE.]
The house went into a Committee on his majesty's message respecting an Annuity to the Family of the late respecting Lake.
Lord Castlereagh,
in calling the attention of the committee to his majesty's most gracious Message, trusted that the propositions he had to offer in pursuance of that Message, would find but little
787
788
789
l
Mr. Whitbread
said, although he had no objection to go with the noble lord in the very high encomiums he had bestowed upon the military character of lord Lake, and to acknowledge that he had rendered important services to his country, yet, whatever might be his own wish that those services should be remunerated with liberality, still he felt it a duty paramount to all delicacy upon the subject to declare his sentiments, when the purse of the country, already so heavily burthened, was in question. His majesty's message proposed to the house merely a provision of 2000
l.
l.
790
l.
l.
Mr. W. Dundas
supported the claims to the pension and the monument. He thought it the strongest recommendation of lord Lake, that he had returned from filling one of the highest offices in India, comparatively poor.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
admitted that lord Lake had had liberal allowances to support his dignity in the station he had filled; but his expenses were fully equal to them. The splendour of his appointments, the hospitality of an open table for his officers, and the well-known acts of his private munificence, had prevented him from accumulating money; and when it was recollected, that, at his decease, the only provision he was able to make for his several daughters was 1500
l.
l.
Lord Castlereagh
had not thought it necessary to be so particular in stating the narrow circumstances of lord Lake's family; but he believed, that in fact, these ladies would take, under the will, little more than half the sum mentioned by the hon. member who had just sat down.
General Tarleton
supported the motion, and detailed the particulars of the storming of the trenches at Lincelles, defended by 6000 French troops, by 1600 British under lord Lake. It was an additional claim, that the noble lord had returned from India in circumstances that formed a direct
791
Lord Folkestone
said, he felt disagreeable sensations in opposing this resolution, but he did it upon general grounds. If the argument that had been used as to the late lord Lake's poverty was good for any thing, it must go to this, that if any person who had signalized himself in the service of his country, should, notwithstanding his lucrative situation, die, leaving his family poor, they were to become a burden upon the public. He should forbear discussing the general services and merits of lord Lake, as he had heard no arguments used that could justify the motion that had been made. He could not agree that a monument should be erected to his memory at the public expence, as that was an honour that ought not to be conferred on any officer who had not fallen in the moment of victory.
Earl Temple
differed from the noble lord who had just sat down, as he could not conceive there could be a greater claim to public gratitude than that which had been stated. In his opinion, lord Lake's having returned from India to this country, and dying under the circumstances that had been represented, not only entitled his family to the consideration of the public, but shewed that he had acted in a manner highly creditable to himself, and honourable to the nation. He trusted, however, that the house would not suffer his children to remain in such a state of honourable poverty.
Mr. Sumner
contributed his testimony to the eminent services and qualifications of the noble general. It was true, that the emoluments of his situation were great, but his private charities, and his generosity to the officers engaged in the same service, exhausted his fortune to an extent which it would be difficult to ascertain. As to the observation, that the application might have been made sooner, he should only remind the house, that so long as lord Lake was in the enjoyment of such emoluments abroad, his disposition was such that he disdained making any application for further rewards at home. This
792
Colonel Wood
said, that he never rose with greater satisfaction than he did in supporting this motion, for if ever there was a man entitled to the gratitude and esteem of his country, it was lord Lake. He was unwilling to detract from the merits of lord Howe, but he could not help thinking, that the eminent services of lord Lake, in India, were of infinitely greater importance to the country, and well entitled him to that monument which was proposed to be raised to his memory.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that he had information which induced him to believe, that although lord Lake might have died worth only 40,000
l.
l.
Sir A. Wellesley
said, that it was very true that lord Lake was greatly in debt previous to his going to India, and to the discharge of those debts, the residue of his pay and appointments, after the necessary expense of his establishment was deducted, was constantly applied, and paid over to an agent that went from England for that purpose. As to the circumstances of lord Lake's family, he knew that his family estate only amounted to about 800
l.
l.
l.
793
Mr. Whitbread
did not deny that lord Lake had performed great services; but still he did not think those services of so pre-eminent a nature as to be entitled to such extraordinary rewards. In the actual circumstances of lord Lake's family, he could not object to the usual pension of 2,000
l.
l.
Mr. Lushington
said, that, as it was stated that the fortunes of lord Lake's daughters did not exceed 1500
l.
l.
Sir F. Burdett
rose to enter his protest against the grant. He had two objections; one on personal grounds, and the other upon constitutional grounds. The personal objection was this, that when any individual came forward to claim a pension on the ground of services, those services should be of a very distinguished nature. There ought not to be any necessity for asking when and where those services were performed; but they should be services of that brilliant kind, that the fame of them should ring through the
794
795
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he should not feel it necessary to trouble the house with many observations, as the grounds stated by his noble friend appeared so generally to meet the approbation of the house. He perfectly agreed with the hon. baronet who spoke last, that the people of England had a right now, and at all times, to claim from that house a vigilant attention to the economical management of their affairs; but he believed the hon. baronet would not convince the house or the country, that parsimony in rewarding eminent services was the best or truest economy. If, as the hon. baronet had stated, the present times were times of great peril, there was the more necessity for marking their sense of distinguished military services. He could not see what practical object could be accomplished by declamations on the merits of the people of England, although it was undoubtedly true that they had considerable merit in bearing so well the burdens which the necessity of the times imposed upon them. But how was this merit to be rewarded? Was it by giving them pensions of this nature? If not, he did not see how that argument bore upon the present question. The hon. baronet had talked of the unexampled means which the crown possessed of rewarding merit of this sort. He knew of no such unexampled means; and the hon. baronet might have known, that the crown was limited in the power of granting pensions on the Civil List, and could not give a greater pension than 1,200
l.
l.
General Gascoyne
observed, that while the hon. baronet thought that the merit of lord Lake was no ground for the pension, a noble lord who sat behind him (lord Folkestone) had contended, that the ne-
796
Mr. Bankes
said, that, under all the circumstances of the case, he must agree in voting for the motion. He believed, in general, that the rewarding merit was the best economy; yet although he agreed in the propriety of the pension being now granted, he did not believe that the house could ever have been persuaded to agree to it, if it had been applied for immediately after the battle of Delhi, and when lord Lake held such important and lucrative situations. He believed that he carried his wishes as far as any man for every possible retrenchment in the public expenditure, but he disclaimed the idea of participating in the sentiments which had been delivered by the hon. baronet, and which he conceived would produce no other effect except to cause discontent. He disapproved, generally, of the want of discrimination on the part of ministers, in bestowing titles upon persons who had not sufficient fortune to support their rank, and who must then become either pensioners of the crown, or burdens upon the people. There were more pensions of this sort given to persons of the most distinguished rank than the country were aware of. As to a public Monument, he did not believe there was any case since the death of lord Howe, where that honour was conferred on any military officers, except those who died or received wounds in the field of battle. He begged leave, however, to assure the military men who were the personal friends of lord Lake, that in any observations he made, he was only actuated by public motives, and by no means wished to derogate from the character or services of that gallant officer, or
797
Lord G. Cavendish
agreed with the hon. member who spoke last, that titles ought not to be bestowed without great consideration, both of the services of the individual and of his means to support the dignity and independence of the peerage. He thought the peerage was often very improperly given to military men, whose services were by no means of the first order. This, however, was not the case with respect to the gallant officer, whose merits and whose claims were now under consideration. He should think the house would act in a niggardly manner, if they were to refuse what was now proposed for the family of lord Lake.
Mr. Lyttleton
said, that although he did not pretend to be a perfect judge of the military merits of lord Lake, yet every body had agreed that the merits of the noble lord were conspicuous, and that if they were not of the first class, they at least approximated very much to the first class. Instead of wishing that services of this nature should be rewarded by the crown, without the intervention of parliament, he should wish the rewards of merit and public service to flow more immediately from the people. He wished the patronage of the crown was retrenched; and he thought the ministers would have come down to the house with much more grace, if, when they made an application for this grant, they had pointed out a corresponding retrenchment.
The Secretary at War
bore testimony to the professional merit and important services of lord Lake. He thought, that upon constitutional grounds, it would be dangerous and improper that poverty and the peerage should be associated together.
Mr. Tierney
expressed a fear, that it would be considered, that the house sheaved too great a readiness to dispose of the public money. He agreed implicitly with the hon. baronet, that the house should anxiously watch over the expenditure of the public money; but he did not think the people would thank him for his anxiety in watching over the public expenditure, so far as to refuse a well-merited reward to a gallant officer. The first question which he thought ought to be considered was, whether he had deserved the peerage or not; and secondly, whether the grant proposed was a proper one. He would not however allow, that whenever a peerage was granted on account of military
798
l.
l.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that from the arguments he had now heard, he wished to retract the opinion he had expressed about the public monument. He defended the observations of the hon. baronet from the constructions which had been put upon them.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that he had been most entirely misrepresented by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer as to what he had said about the means which the crown possessed of rewarding eminent services. He had not alluded to the pension list, or thought of it; he alluded directly to the great offices, sinecures and reversions, which ministers always pretended were necessary, in order to allow the crown the means of rewarding eminent services. He was surprized that the right hon. gent. should have mistaken his mean-
799
800
Mr. Biddulph
stated his sentiments shortly against the motion, as he thought there was sufficient ability in the crown to grant the necessary reward.—The gallery was then cleared for a division. While strangers were excluded, the house divided twice. The first was upon the grant of the pension generally: Ayes 210; Noes 26.—The second division was upon the pension being granted from the date of the battle at Delhi: Ayes 202; Noes 15.
801
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 29.
MEDIATION OF RUSSIA AND AUSTRIA.]—Mr. Whitbread
rose and spoke nearly as follows:—Mr. Speaker; It has been announced, in the Speech delivered by the Lords Commissioners at the opening of the present session of parliament, that this is the crisis of the fate of the country; and I believe the assertion to be true. At various epochs of the war, persons speaking in this and the other house of parliament, have used the epithets alarming, disastrous, tremendous; and each has appeared to be appropriate to the period at which it was spoken, till at length an accumulation of events has brought us to the crisis of our fate. It still remains to be decided, whether that crisis shall lead to the destruction or the salvation of the empire. I profess myself to be of a disposition rather sanguine under the pressure of political difficulties; and I am so, not only from constitution of mind, but also upon the principle, that no man ought, to enter into the business of public life, without a determination never to despair of the public welfare. Such is the power of true wisdom, when once applied to the conduct of human affairs; such is what may be termed its
vis medicatrix
802
803
804
805
806
807
now
now
answer
808
809
810
his belief
811
to be convinced personally
812
813
was certain
belief
814
815
secret
816
know
know
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
with
against
avec
with
with
against
830
831
832
at
833
834
835
836
*
*
837
838
839
840
841
The lucky have their moments, those they use, Th' unlucky have their hours, and those they lose.
*
*
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
nations as well as men should do unto others, as they would that others should do unto them.
Mr. Herbert
rose and seconded the first Resolution.
Mr. Ponsonby,
expressed his sense of the disadvantage under which he rose, after the admirable speech of his hon. friend. As to the two first Resolutions, he perfectly concurred with him; and in the third likewise he agreed as to the letter, but differed as to the spirit and effect, and as to the propriety of passing such a resolution at the present moment. With regard to the two first, no man who considered the conduct that had been displayed by ministers, as to the Russian and Austrian mediation, could doubt that they manifested a tone, a temper, and a language which were wholly adverse to peace. The right hon. secretary had demanded an impartiality from Russia, which it was impossible to attain or to expect; but it was needless for him to enter upon that point, after what had been said by his hon. friend. It was the most silly and absurd idea that could possibly be entertained, that because a power whose disposition was known to be friendly had suffered a momentary depression, its mediation ought not to have been accepted. Russia was our friend; Austria was also our sincere friend. Because events had reduced them to a low condition, could we believe that they loved Buonaparte more than
857
858
859
860
Mr. Wilberforce
agreed with the last speaker, but for very different reasons. As far as he could understand the object of the third Resolution, it went merely to say of ministers, that having misconducted themselves in transactions past, they were not entitled to confidence in future. He should not endeavour to go through the numerous papers that had been the subject of comment; but he conceived that there might be very fair grounds for doubting of the propriety of accepting the proposed mediations of Russia and Austria. A right hon. gent. had asked, whether we thought that those powers had transferred their affections to France? That might not be the case; yet they might be governed by a less generous sentiment. Russia might be led to consult her own security, at the expence of our interests. Austria might be in similar circumstances. He confessed, he could wish that our last answer had been different; but, under all the circumstances of the case, the offer could not be put upon the footing of former offers, and certainly not a fair mediation between us and France. In general, it might not be necessary to lay a basis in such a case in the first instance; but when we were called upon by a third power under doubtful circumstances, a case was afforded in which, if at any time, we were justified in entrenching ourselves behind certain general principles and particular considerations. He could see no reason for supposing why his right honourable friends should not wish for peace whenever a favourable opportunity offered.—He was desirous of speaking thus early, because it gave him
861
Lord Milton
expressed his surprise that his hon. colleague should have resorted to so strange an argument against the proposition of the hon. mover as that he had just alluded to; as if it was the business of gentlemen on that side of the house to propose measures for the defence of the
862
The Hon. J. W. Ward
expressed considerable regret that he should be under the necessity of differing from many of those valuable friends, with whom he was in the constant habit of acting and voting; yet, feeling so forcibly as he did, that some attempts ought to be made to obtain peace at this period, he could not do otherwise than support the whole motion of his hon. friend. The first and second resolutions he must support, because, in his opinion, ministers had shown the most extraordinary disregard to the real welfare and interests of this country, in so rashly rejecting the two opportunities they had of entering upon negociation through the several channels of Russian and Austrian mediation; but the third resolution was what struck his mind as by far the most important, though disavowed by so many of his hon. friends, because in that the feelings and fortunes of almost every one in the kingdom, who possessed either, were most intimately and deeply concerned. He believed there were many persons in this country who had, from the arguments that were daily and hourly advanced respecting the ruler of France and his views, imbibed the false and ridiculous idea that they would be safer in war than they could be in peace; but nothing could be more Mistaken than that notion. These people seemed to form their opinions, that our safety was peculiarly owing to the number of our ships; but this was not the case. France, Spain, and Holland combined, might be able to build more ships than we could; but what gave us the proud superiority we had so long been able to boast, was the invincible spirit, the native hardiness, and the excellent training of our men to the science of navigation and the practice of gunnery, which, aided by their native courage and bravery, rendered them an overmatch on the ocean for any seamen in the world. The French revolution had shown that an army might be raised and
863
864
865
Mr. Blachford,
in a maiden speech, lamented the prejudice and perversion of opinion and talent to which a spirit of party and faction seemed capable of deli
866
Lord Mahon
observed, that all the maxims which were laid down on the opposite side had a tendency to support the principle of eternal war. There was not an argument that was advanced this night in opposition to the motion which might not with equal propriety be urged in favour of any other war, at any other time, or under almost any other circumstances. Every
867
Mr. John Smith
wished to know how long ministers meant the war to continue. If it continued two years longer, was there any prospect of negociating for peace on more honourable and secure terms than at the present moment? He certainly would be sorry to present the subject of peace to that house, were there not one particular circumstance to induce it to be immediately procured, namely, Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Canning
did not think it proper to intrude himself upon the house at an earlier period, because he conceived it to be the duty of his majesty's ministers on this subject, to leave it to other members of the house to express their sentiments before they should themselves take any part in the debate. He expressed his readiness to enter at any time into negociations for a peace, consistent with the honour and the dignity of the country; but he maintained, that until certain information was received that the French government was prepared to enter into negociations on an equitable basis, it would be imprudent to attempt any. It was obvious, that if any negociation which might be undertaken, should fail, peace would be placed at a still greater distance, and the sufferings of the people, which had been so much exaggerated, instead of being diminished, would be augmented.—He could not help making a few observations on the subject of the Austrian offer of mediation. The first offer of mediation on the part of Austria might have been worthy of attention, if the fortune of Bonaparte had not taken a different turn. Austria fell under the controul of France; and no security existed in negotiation. The last offer of mediation proved palpably fallacious, and both attempts exploded together. It was the intention of the British government to enter into negociations for peace, but in the official notes which
868
Mr. Wm. Smith
thought the two first resolutions involved in so much difficulty, that he could not vote for them; but if
869
Mr. Sheridan
did not agree with his hon. friend who had just sat down. He would vote for all the three propositions. He contended, that ministers had shewn an aversion to peace in two instances, and that they ought not to be trusted to reject a third offer. He was sorry to hear a great deal stated respecting commercial distress, from a very respectable quarter: but he was certain that the picture which had been drawn was greatly overcharged. He knew there was no such distress in the country; and if it did exist, he never would avow it: for to hold such language was to capitulate at once. It had been said, to vote the third resolution would be to encourage petitions for peace. In his opinion it would completely put an end to them. As it did not appear that the discussion could be terminated this night, he moved that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.
Mr. Adam
wished that his right hon. friend would withdraw his motion for adjournment. He declared that he would vote for all the three propositions.
Mr. Sheridan
withdrew the motion of adjournment.
Mr. Whitbread
replied; after which the house divided on each of the three Resolutions, which were all negatived. The following are the numbers which appeared on each division: 1st division, Ayes 70; Noes 210; 2d division Ayes 67; Noes 211; 3d division Ayes 58; Noes 217.
List of the Minority on the third Resolution.
Abercromby, Hon. J.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Adam, W.
Craig, James
Anson, G.
Combe, H. C.
Antonie, W. L.
Creevey, T.
Aubrey, Sir John
Dundas, Hon. C. L.
Bewicke, C.
Dundas, Hon. R. L.
Biddulph, R. M.
Fergusson, R.
Bouverie, Hon. G.
Greenhill, R.
Bradshaw, Hon. A. C.
Halsey, J.
Brand, Hon. T.
Herbert, H. A.
Browne, Anthony
Hibbert, G.
Burdett, Sir F.
Horner, F.
Byng, George
Johnstone, G.
Caicraft, Sir G.
Jekyll, T.
Cavendish, Lord G.
Lambe, Hon. Wm.
Cavendish, W.
Lambton, R. J.
Cavendish, G. H. C.
Latouche, J.
870
Latouche, R.
Piggott, Sir A.
Leach, J.
Russell, Lord W.
Lyttleton, Hon. W.
Scudamore, R. P.
Lloyd, J. M.
Sheridan, Rt. h. R. B.
Macdonald, J
Smith, J.
Madocks, W. A.
Stanley, Lord
Martin, H.
Walpole, Hon. G.
Marle, Hon. W.
Ward, Hon. J. W.
Milbanke, Sir R.
Wardell, G. L.
Miller, Sir T.
Wharton, J.
Mosely, Sir O.
Whitbread, S.
Ord, W.
Tellers.
Parnell, H.
Mahon, Viscount.
Peirse, H.
Smith, William
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 1.
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] On the
order of the day being read for the 2nd reading of this bill,
The Earl of Lauderdale
called the attention of the house to those passages in the speeches of his majesty to parliament; on the 27th of April, and the 26th of June, expressing a desire that the inquiries, with a view to public economy, should be continued. The committee of finance which had existed in the former parliament had been re-appointed in this case; which committee had recommended this measure. His lordship adverted to the circumstance of this bill having been thrown out in the last session, when none of the ministers were present, except the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; and expressed a hope that, under all the circumstances in which this bill was again pressed on their lordships' attention, they would not now reject it.
Lord Arden
opposed the bill, on the ground of its being a direct and unnecessary infringement on the king's prerogative. He also objected to the resolution of the house of commons subsequent to the rejection of the bill last session, which he considered rather as a species of legislation. He was aware that his opposition to the bill was liable to much misrepresentation; but that should not deter him from performing what he conceived to be an act of public duty.
Earl Spencer
was perfectly convinced of the purity of the motives which actuated the noble lord. He did not think this bill of any essential or vital importance; but under the circumstances in which it was before the house, he thought their lordships ought to pause before they again rejected it. He thought it rather tended to support the prerogative of the crown, than to infringe upon it.
871
The Lord chancellor
objected to the bill in its present shape, as wholly unfit to pass into a law, from the vague manner in which it was drawn up, and the general enactments which it contained. He was willing, however, to vote for the 2nd reading, if there was any prospect of so modifying it in the committee as to free it from those objections to which at present he thought it liable.
Lord Hawkesbury
wished the bill to go to a committee, on the grounds that it might be expedient to regulate the granting of offices in reversion, so as to prevent abuses; and also to give time for the maturing of any plan of economy which it might be wished to propose, and which might, therefore, render it adviseable to suspend for a certain time the granting of offices in reversion, that in the mean while it might be ascertained whether there were any offices which it would be expedient to regulate or abolish.
Earl Grosvenor
approved of the bill in its present shape, and hoped that no compromise would take place, but that the bill would pass as it was.
The Earl of Westmoreland
supported the 2nd reading on the same grounds as lord Hawkesbury. As to ministers not attending on the discussion of this bill last session, why did not noble lords on the other We attend that discussion; and why had not this bill, if it was so important, been sooner taken up by them?
Lord Redesdale
objected to the bill altogether, and thought it incapable of any modification which could render it fit to be passed into a law.
Lord Holland
deprecated that species of recriminatory observations, which could tend to no possible good. Noble lords on his side of the house had not previously taken up the bill, only because they did not wish to shew a want of candour towards ministers for the sake of catching at a little popularity. He could not help observing, that those noble lords who had opposed the bill in toto had acted with the greatest fairness. His lordship defended the vote of the house of commons, which, being merely for an humble address to his majesty to suspend the granting of offices in reversion until six weeks after the commencement of this session of parliament, he could not conceive liable to the objections of the noble and learned lord.
The Duke of Montrose
opposed the bill in toto, thinking it incapable of any desirable modification.
872
The Earl of Darnley
supported the bill.
Lord Auckland,
from the unlimited enactments of the bill, was not prepared to assent to it.
The house then divided on the question,
Contents-34
Proxies-35—69
Non-Contents-36
-25—61
Majority-—8
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 2.
[LORD LAKE.]—Lord Castlereagh,
in calling the attention of the house to the notice respecting a Monument to be erected to the memory of lord Lake, which had been suspended by a notice, having a prior claim to the attention of the house, on a former night, did not mean to recur to that notice, or again to offer to the house the motion which was the subject of it, Having communicated with many persons devoted to the memory of Lord Lake, and participating in the high veneration in which he held the services of that gallant man, he found that it was the general wish of those persons to give way to the difficulties of parliamentary form that had arisen. The family of the noble lord, deeply penetrated with a sense of gratitude for the vote passed the other night, was willing to rest its claims on the public bounty there, than press a point upon which many of those who had voted in approbation of lord Lake's general merit and services, might be found in opposition. In this feeling he thought it his duty to concede; but he could not help lamenting, that parliament appeared to have laid it down as a principle, that the glorious testimony of a public monument was to be confined to the services of those who died in battle. Lord Howe's monument was the only exception to this rule, for that of lord Cornwallis's stood on entirely distinct ground. He admitted that the limitation to those who died in battle was a good and convenient general principle. But at the same time, When Monuments were held to be the most appropriate marks of public gratitude, as being at the same time most honourable to the deceased, and best calculated to excite emulation in the minds of posterity, it seemed to be a strange exclusion that prevented a lord Lake, a lord Rodney, and a lord Duncan, from being found among the illustrious heroes thus, consecrated to fame, while many persons of much inferior rank and merit were so honoured. The distinction would never be
873
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 3.
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.]—Earl Darnley
rose to make his promised motion on this subject. His lordship took a review of the principal circumstances connected with this, expedition; and contended, that the only ground on which it could be justified was actual necessity; which was not proved to exist by any documents before the house, nor by ministers, who, on the contrary, continually shifted their ground of justification, and had made out no case which, in his opinion, was at all satisfactory. It had been said, that an option was given to the prince regent to deliver up the Danish fleet; but could it be said to be an option, when it was evident, that if he had delivered up the fleet, Holstein and Jutland would immediately have been seized by France? This expedition, it had been said, was sent to ward of off danger from this country; but how had that danger been prevented? The danger was not of an invasion of this country, but of the Baltic being shut against us; and instead of precluding this danger, the expedition had accelerated it. Possession of Zealand had not been retained, and Denmark had been thrown completely into the arms of France. The national character had, in his opinion, been degraded, and the national. honour stained by this expedition; and what had we gained? 16 ships of the line, which could be of little service and as to stores, they did not amount in value to the stores expended in the expedition; and the whole was not equal to the expence of the expedition.—The noble earl concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, submitting, That after attentively considering all the public documents before us concerning the late attack on Copenhagen, and the war which it had produced, we have found the information
874
875
Lord Eliot
rose to oppose the Address. So far from any fair ground existing in support of such an address, to him it ap-
876
Lord Holland
highly regretted the degree of national dishonour that had been brought upon the country by the shameful conduct of ministers, in sending a large armed force to attack the territories, and seize the shipping of a neutral power. It was unaccountably strange, that ministers should still persist in asserting the necessity of that odious measure in order to frustrate the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit, of which ministers pretended to have known the substance. We were publicly challenged by the enemy to produce the least evidence of the assertions which ministers had put into the sacred mouth of his majesty: yet we were totally incapable of supporting them by the least shadow of evidence. The noble lord said, he detested to hear the plea of necessity and self-preservation urged in our defence. It was particularly calculated to instil into the British people passions and opinions subversive of that liberality and generosity that distinguished our ancestors. Had France even got possession of the 16 Danish ships, the acquisition could not materially injure this country, or increase our alarms of invasion, whilst we should have been secure of the friendship and attachment of the Danish people, and their indignation at the French for forcing them to abandon their esteemed neutrality, and become a party in an unnatural war. Without possessing the hearts of the Danish people, Buonaparte could do us little injury through their means; whilst under their present circumstances, they must be filled with the utmost resentment by our unparalleled outrage. His lordship then entreated the house to vindicate the tarnished honour of the country, and shew to the nation, to Europe, and to the world their abhorrence of so flagrant a breach of the laws of civilized nations.
Lord Boringdon
defended the expedition, and contended that, after the battle of Friedland, it was evident that Denmark was unable to defend the neutrality, and must make her election between England and France; and that it was also evident
877
Contents-26
Proxies 25—51
Non-contents-56
-54—110
Majority—59
Contents-64
Proxies-61—125
Non-contents-29
Proxies-28— 57
Majority—68
[PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE ADDRESS PROPOSED BY LORD DARN-LEY.] "Dissentient; For the reasons which are assigned in the proposed Address to his majesty; and which we are desirous of recording as a memorial of our sentiments on a measure which has, as we fear, fixed an indelible stigma on the honour of our country." (Signed by the peers whose names appear to the following protest.)
[PROTEST AGAINST THE RESOLUTION PROPOSED BY LORD ELIOT.] "Dissentient; Because we hold it highly unbecoming for this house to pass a Vote of Approbation of ministers, without any proof of the allegations adduced by those ministers in their own cause, upon so momentous a proceeding. (Signed,) Wm. Frederick (duke of Gloucester,) Vassall Holland, Derby, Spencer, Ponsonby, Rawdon (earl Moira,) Essex, Clifton, (earl of Darnley,) Stafford, Crewe, Jersey, Bedford, Grenville, Albemarle, Carysfort, Sidmouth, Grey, Ponsonby, (Besborough,) St. John, Hutchinson, King, Breadalbane, Fitz-william, Lauderdale, Ailsa, Erskine, Suffolk and Berkshire, Auckland, Buckinghamshire."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 3.
[MOTION RESPECTING MR, JOHN GIF-
878
rose, pursuant to notice, to move, "That there be laid before this house, a Copy of the patent by which John Giffard, esq. has been recently appointed to the office of Accomptant General of the customs in Ireland, together with a statement of the manner in which the vacancy of the said office took place."
Sir A. Wellesley
was of opinion, that the hon. baronet ought to have laid some parliamentary ground for the production of these Papers. He should have shewn, either that the person appointed to the office was an improper person to be appointed, or that he had been incapable of executing the duties of it, and therefore unfit to be appointed.
Sir J. Newport
had abstained from entering into the discussion more at length, in order to save the time of the house, but he would undertake to spew, if the papers should. be granted, both that the former dismissal of Mr. Giffard was right and proper, and that consequently, he was not a fit person to be advanced to the office he now held.
Sir A. Wellesley
stated, that the gentleman to whom the hon. bart. alluded had been an old servant of the crown, and had never been dismissed for any reason officially stated. He undoubtedly held opinions upon the subject of the Catholics, in common with the majority of the inhabitants of the united empire, and though he might have urged these opinions indiscreetly, at a time when the subject was under the consideration of parliament, that was not a reason why he should be perpetually excluded front office. The office of which he had been deprived yielded him 700l. per annum, whilst that to which he had been since appointed produced only 600l. As no ground had been laid for the motion, he could see no use in producing the papers called for.
Mr. Croker
thought that the dismissal of Mr. Giffard was, if not an arbitrary, at least an indiscreet act upon the part of the Irish government, and that the restoration of that gentleman to office was a mere act of justice. Mr. G. was not apprised of the disapprobation felt by government at the line of conduct he was pursuing, until after he had made his motion as a corporator of the city of Dublin. In making that motion for a petition to parliament, he was exercising a constitutional right, and certainly the gentlemen opposite, who, on every occasion, professed themselves friends to the right of petitioning, would
879
Mr. Ponsonby
had never had any political connection with lord Hardwicke, but had enjoyed the honour of his acquaintance, and from what he knew of his disposition, he believed him incapable of acting in an arbitrary manner. But if no parliamentary ground had been laid before, the statement of the hon. gent. was sufficient, when he asserted that the conduct of lord H. was arbitrary, and in this he seemed to have made a bull, for his argument went against his vote. The individual alluded to had uniformly taken a line of conduct, and uttered sentiments offensive and injurious to the Catholic body, and as he was an officer employed under the government, it was thought right to dismiss him, in order to guard the government from being considered as approving of such conduct. As to the question, whether the dismissal under such circumstances ought to give rise to a perpetual exclusion of the individual, the Irish and British public would decide, whether the conduct of the present government, or of lord Hardwicke, was the more meritorious. He had been frequently consulted by that great statesman, Mr. Fox, whose loss upon every account is so much to be lamented, on the subject of the Catholics. He had enjoyed a considerable portion of his confidence, but had never heard him say a word upon this subject.
Mr. Fitzgerald, Dr. Laurence. Mr. Grattan, lord H. Petty, Mr. W. Smith,
and sir John Newport, in reply, argued in favour of the motion; and Dr. Duigenan and Mr. Perceval against it, when the house divided, For the motion 57; Against it 103; Majority against the motion 40.
[SIR RICHARD STRACHAN'S SQUADRON.]— Mr. Calcraft
rose to call the attention of the house to a subject of as serious a nature as any that could he submitted to parliament: nothing connected with so leading a feature in the defence of our country as the British navy could possibly be deemed unimportant; nor could that house, or the country, exercise too strict a jealousy over that public board, to which the conduct and interests of the navy were at any time entrusted. He confessed, that not only in the instance with respect
880
881
882
883
Mr. Wellesley Pole
professed an inclination to grant every paper that could with propriety be given. The whole of the letters of sir R. Strachan to lord Gardner and admiral Young, could not with propriety be given, as they detailed the course which the commander of the blockading squadron thought it best, under such circumstances, to pursue. He had not seen the motions till he had entered the house. They had not been sent to the admiralty, nor any where else, for the information of the persons entrusted with the particular department, to consider how far it would be proper to comply with them. By the latest accounts received from sir Richard Strachan, which were dated Jan 18, it would be found that, on dividing the supplies, each line-of-battle ship had ten weeks bread, and 13 or 14 weeks meat, with a like quantity of every other necessary, and six weeks and five days water. The frigates were still better supplied than the ships of the line. The Mediator was not a transport, but a large man of war; the order for fitting her out was issued on Dec. 4, but it was impossible, from the tempestuous weather, to prepare her till the 21st of that month. The same cause prevented her sailing till the 8th of Jan. They joined on the 12th of that month, but it was not till the 18th that the clearing of the Mediator commenced, and it was not finished till the 19th. The Mediator, in addition to the other supplies, contained a large quantity of vegetables, and 40 bullocks. The hon. gent. was compelled to admit, that two line-of-battle ships joined sir Rd. Strachan's squadron on the 16th of January, the Colossus and the Superb, with the Lavinia frigate, one of the finest in the navy, victualled for five months. On the 23d the Cumberland joined; and there was then an average supply of ten weeks bread, 13 weeks of other articles, six weeks and five days water, 40 bullocks, and three
884
885
886
Earl Temple
observed, that certainly the resolutions read by the hon. gent. could not answer the purpose of his hon. friend, as there was omitted in them the letter of sir Rd. Strachan to lord Gardner, applying for relief. He said that the weather could not have been so tempestuous at that time, as he knew that from the 6th of Nov. to the 25th of Dec. ships sailed daily west ward from Portsmouth. The charge brought against the board was sufficiently plain, arising out of the fact that sir Rd. Strachan was obliged to leave is cruizing ground to meet victuallers; but by remaining at Rochfort he would be obliged to capitulate for want of provisions.
Lord Castlereagh
stated, that the Adrian cutter had sailed with victuallers on the 14th of Nov. and had arrived on the 30th.
Mr. W. Pole
rose to supply an omission in his statement. The Colossus joined on the 12th, and the enemy did not come out till the 18th of Jan. Our squadron and the Collossus did not communicate till the 18th, and on account of foul weather, the Mediator was not cleared till the 19th.
Mr. Calcraft
, in reply, observed that he was not aware that any observations be had felt it his duty to make, deserved so harsh a character as the hon. gent. had been pleased to bestow upon them. In the little he had to offer at any time to the house, he was not much in the habit of indulging in charges, or making use of terms that could justly be stigmatized as indecent. He had questioned the conduct of the noble lord at the head of the admiralty upon two grounds; one was the appointment of sir Home Popham to an eminent command under circumstances that had excited a considerable irritation; an appointment which he had thought, and did still think, extremely ill judged: it was an appointment that had given rise to a very general sensation of well-grounded jealousy among the officers of the British navy. The public prints had recorded their dissatisfaction; it was a circumstance known throughout the country nor did the country think those officers had been well treated. His other ground of objection was the reprehensible neglect of our squadron off Rochfort. The hon. gent. had ingeniously steered clear of both these topics and thought the house would suppose he Was answering them when he was
887
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord H. Petty
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for information, tending to shew what measures had been taken to insure the collateral execution of the Orders in Council by the powers in alliance with his majesty. Unless Sweden imposed similar restrictions, the restraints imposed by us were nugatory. Gottenburgh might be made a depot from which American produce and the produce of the French colonies might be sent to all the southern shores of the Baltic, and thence circulated through Germany and Russia. Sicily also might be made an entrepot for a similar transaction; so might Sardinia. In order to ascertain what ministers had done on this point, he moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that there be laid before the house the substance of alt communications with powers in amity with his majesty, touching the Orders in Council of the 11th November."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose to
888
Sir A. Piggott
asked if it was not proposed to levy a tax upon the exportation of sugar? he understood this to be the intention; and, if so, it might be carried direct from America to Sweden: and as Sweden had no sugar colonies except the small island of Saint Bartholomew, and consequently had no sugar monopoly to protect, he did not think it probable that the government of that country would concur in imposing a duty upon this article merely to secure the British monopoly. He wished to know therefore, what assurances ministers had received that Gottenburgh would not be converted into a depot for supplying the continent with colonial produce.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that government had received general assurances of the readiness of Sweden to concur in giving effect to the measure.
Mr. Ponsonby
said, that if the king of Sardinia co-operated in the measure, the result of this co-operation, as to him, would be to deprive him of the only part of his dominions of which he-was still in possession; and if Sweden refused to co-operate, which he thought not at all improbable, the right hon. gent. had told the house that she was to be compelled to concur in it. And this was the reward which was to be conferred upon our only remaining ally! this the encouragement which we held out to other nations, to attach themselves to our cause! this the motive which we presented to those powers by whom we had been deserted, to return to their old connection with us!
889
Mr. Secretary canning
stated, that the king of Sardinia was not an, ally of this country and that he had never been asked to concur in the measure; and that from the king of Sweden, who was our ally, the most satisfactory assurances on this head had been received.—After a short reply from lord H. Petty, a division took place: For the motion 71. Against it 130.
LIVERPOOL PETITION RESPECTING THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] General Gascoyne
presented a Petition from the Merchants of Liverpool against the Orders in Council bill. He said he was sensible of the readiness with which parliament and ministers attended to the petitions of the people, and the high respectability of the Liverpool merchants would, he was persuaded, obtain for them all due attention. He was aware that the forms of parliament might operate against his motion for receiving the present petition, and he was far, from wishing for any departure from its rules. The petition, however, did not go to oppose the duties, but the spirit of the bill, while it expressed apprehensions that from the nature of the warfare, we might lose much, and the enemy gain. Liverpool at present possessed three-fourths of the trade with America; and the disbursements amounted to 150,000l. annually for the last three years. Front bearing so great a portion, Liverpool would be most particularly affected; and he therefore hoped there would be no objection to receiving the petition against the present bill.
The Speaker
asked if the Petition was against the bill which provided certain duties under the Orders in Council?
General Gascoyne
answered, that it only went to oppose certain chases, but not the bill in the general view.
The Speaker
stated the usage of the house to be, not to receive any petition against a duty bill. If the hon. general could satisfy the house that his petition did not come under this description, it might be received; not otherwise.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that the house was obliged to the speaker for the distinct manner in which he had stated the usage of the house. This was most important petition. Interests of the greatest magnitude were concerned in it; yet these petitioners were now to be told, that they could not be heard. Where then could they be heard? Was there any course for them to pursue to obtain a hearing? Or did the house stand in this unfortunate
890
891
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed that the bill before the house went to levy certain duties to carry on the war, aid she petition, in opposing the bill, obviously went against levying those du-
892
Mr. Ponsonby
considered that the petition, both in form and substance, was admissible, and contended that from the great interest the petitioners had in the bill, they had a right to be heard upon the subject.
Lord Castlereagh
insisted that the usages of parliament, which it was so necessary to hold sacred in respect to the necessary supplies for the public service, would not admit of the petition being received, and enforced the other arguments adduced by the chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Sheridan
could see no good reason for refusing to receive the petition; and entered into some general arguments against the tendency of the measure of which the petitioners complained.
General Tarleton
wished the petition to be received, although it was not signed by any one of the 1461 voters who supported him at the last election; nor was he requested by any one of those voters to interfere in its behalf. The hon. officer took occasion to inveigh against the want of national spirit on the part of opposition; and on their disposition to panegyrize the talents of foreign generals, while they overlooked the merit of their own countrymen. These gentlemen were, in his apprehension, pursuing a dreadful course; which, although perhaps their only object was to turn out ministers, would tend to turn out the country [a laugh.] The hon. officer bore testimony to the respectability of Mr. Rathbone, the delegate from Liverpool, but-he did not like his sectarian principles.
Mr. Whitbread
observed, that his gallant friend seemed to allude to some remarks of his on a former evening, relative to the talents of foreign officer; but however
893
Mr. Huskisson
observed, that every proviso of the bill against which the petition was levelled containing the imposition of a duty, it was completely a money bill, and therefore the motion could not at all be acceded to, consistently with the usage of the house.
Lord H Petty
said, that his object was to rescue the petition from the representation made of it by the hon. member who had just sat down, and to shew it was a petition against the bill by its title, and therefore not within the meaning of the established usage of the house. The title of the bill was, 'a Bill more effectually to carry into execution certain Orders in Council.' He contended, therefore, that there was no ground of usage that could preclude the merchants of Liverpool from being heard upon so important a question. The Hawkers and Pedlars bill had not been divided, but referred to a committee of the whole house, in which the petitioners were heard by their counsel against the bill, the counsel having been warned to confine themselves to the matter of the regulations, and not to meddle with the part of the bill granting duties. Were the merchants of Liverpool not to be allowed that privilege which had been granted to chapmen, hawkers, and pedlars? Was the house to have its doors hermetically sealed against the petitions of the people? He trusted, however, that they would not suffer themselves to be led away from their duty by his majesty's ministers, but decide that they would hear the petitioners then at the bar, on a question of such vital importance to the trade and prosperity of the empire.
Mr. Rose
contended, that the usage which precluded the reception of the petition, had never been departed from. The Hawkers and Pedlars bill, had been rather of regulation and police than of duties, and therefore was not analogous to the present case. If the house were to throw open its doors in the present instance, they would never be able to close them; for whatever might be the nature of a tax hereafter to be proposed, their table
894
Mr. Sheridan rose
to a point of order. He said that it had been declared from the other side of the house in the course of the debate, that the authority of the Chair had decided against the claims of the petitioners to be heard in this instance, and that authority had been quoted, and made the ground of arguments in the discussion. Now, the point of order to which he rose was, that as he had not heard any such opinion stated from the Chair, he wished to know whether the question had been so decided upon from the Chair?
The Speaker
then rose and said, that the house must perceive he was called upon in no usual way; however, he should not shrink from the performance of his duty, whenever he should be called upon to perform it. He apprehended that any member of that house, who might have had the honour of being appointed to the chair, had two duties to perform. The first was, when a member thought proper to consult him upon any question touching the forms of that house, or the nature of its proceedings, he was always ready, as, indeed, it was his duty, to state to him his personal opinion, upon the point submitted to his consideration. It was also his duty, whenever a question arose in the course of their proceeding, respecting the orders, forms, or usages of that house, to explain the rules of its conduct, and the nature of the particular order or usage that might bear upon the question, always leaving it to the house to make the application. It was not for him by an avowal of his opinion to attempt to sway the debates of that house. If, however, it should be the pleasure of the house, to call upon him for his opinion, he should be ready to declare it; for he did not fear to state his opinion. But the matter was still a question in the house, and upon it the house alone could, by a vote, decide. He had stated what the usage was, and that, if the bill under consideration was a Money bill, pursuant to such usage no petition could be received against it. But he had understood the house to have been debating the question, whether the bill was a Money bill or not. Upon that point, a vote of the house alone could be decisive; and if, in the only case in which he could be called on for an opinion upon it, in the case of a balanced opinion in the house, it should be his duty to pronounce that opinion, he would know how to do his duty; but, until then, it
895
Mr. Sheridan,
in justice to himself, to the house, and to the chair, was bound to explain the motive which induced him to put the question to the chair. He had not the most distant idea of putting his question from any feeling of disrespect to the chair. He had heard the hon. gentlemen opposite assert, that the opinion had been decisively given by the chair, which statement he very much questioned, and he was happy to find that his opinion was confirmed by what had fallen from the chair.—A division then took place,
For receiving the Petition
80
Against it
128
Majority against it
—48
List of the Minority,
Abercromby, J.
M'Kenzie, general
Adam, W.
Maddocks, W. A.
Anstruther, Sir J.
Mahon, viscount
Aubrey, sir J.
Martin, H.
Baring, A.
Miller, sir T.
Bring, Thos.
Mosley, sir O.
Bernard, S.
Newport, sir J.
Blackburne, John
North, Dudley
Blackburne, John J.
Ord, W.
Bouverie, E.
Ossulston, lord
Bradshaw, A.C.
Parnell, H.
Browne, Anthony
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Byng, G.
Petty, lord H.
Calcraft, J.
Piggott, sir A.
Calcraft, sir G.
Ponsonby, G.
Cavendish, lord G.
Porchester, lord
Colborne, N. W. R.
Prittie, F.
Craig, J.
Quin, W. H.
Dundas, hon. C. L.
Russel, lord W.
Dundas, hon. R. J.
Sharp, R.
Ebrington, viscount
Sheridan, R. B.
Eden, W. F. E.
Shipley, W.
Elliott, W.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, S. C.
Stanley, lord
Fitzpatrick, R.
Stanley, Thomas
Greenhill, R.
Tarleton, B.
Griffenhoff, J.
Taylor, M. A
Herbert, H. A.
Temple, earl
Hibbert, G.
Tierney, G.
Horner, Francis
Tracey, H.
Howard, W.
Walpole, hon. G.
Hume, W. H.
Ward, hon. J.
Jekyll, Joseph
Wardel, G. F.
Knox, T.
Warrender, sir G.
Lamb, W.
Western, C. C.
Latouche, R.
Whitbread, S.
Lawrence F.
Windham, W.
Leach, John
Wynne, sir W. W.
Leman, Charles
Lloyd, J. M.
Tellers.
Lushington, S.
Gascoyne, Isaac
Macdonald, James
Creevey, Thomas
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 4.
896
LIVERPOOL PETITION AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] Mr. Tierney
held in his hand a Petition against the Orders in Council Bill, framed in consequence of the rejection of the petition from the merchants of Liverpool offered last night. That petition being incompatible with the orders of the house, the present was framed to suit those forms, and that was the reason why it was signed only with the names of the three gentlemen who acted as delegates, instead of the 400 merchants who had signed the other.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
having heard the prayer of the petition read, feared it still militated against the forms of the house, as adverting and being applicable principally, if not exclusively, to the bill before the house. If the petitioners would state their grievances under the Orders in Council generally, the petition might be received and attended to.
Mr. Tierney
defended the petition against this objection of applying to the bill before the house. It applied simply to the Orders in Council.
Mr. Huskisson
argued that the petition applied substantially to the bill before the house.
Sir John Anstruther
contented, that the undoubted right of the subject to petition for redress of grievances was trifled with, when the petitioners were told one day, that it was exceptionable to petition against the bill, and another day that it was equally exceptionable to petition against the Orders in Council; to which he contended this petition exclusively applied.
Mr. S. Bourne
argued against the petition. If his majesty recommended a vigorous prosecution of the war, it would be competent to petition against the continuance of the war, but not against any tax that might be imposed to carry on the war.
Mr.Whitbread
maintained, that the petition in its present form ought to be received. The present petition was, in fact, altered from a form which was objected to, to a form deemed unexceptionable. If the petition in its present shape was objected to, he wished to know in what shape the aggrieved persons who signed it could apply for redress.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
felt it his duty to oppose the petition equally as the last, if it was in terms contrary to force. There was no objection but in point of form; and if the petition were put in
897
Mr. W. Smith
represented the extraordinary situation in which the house would be, if by any captious objections in point of form, the grievances of the petitioners should not be taken into consideration till the bill had gone out of the house. He understood the chancellor of the exchequer had represented the measure in some of his conferences with the merchants, to be not a measure of revenue: why then should it be now put on such a footing in order to preclude the petition? But, in the present form the prayer was general, and therefore the petition ought to be received.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought it possible that in his conferences with the merchants, he might sometimes have said the measure was not intended as a revenue measure, neither was revenue the object, though revenue may be the means of carrying the other objects into execution.
Dr. Laurence
thought the present attempt to get rid of the petition a trick not unworthy of the worst attorney, or the worst exciseman, in the country. He hoped the house would not be involved in such absurdity as to come to a decision, and afterwards find themselves under the necessity of hearing evidence. It was their duty to give that degree of redress to the grievances that they could, and reject that part that was objectionable on account of form.
Mr. Adam
blamed the cruelty of barring the petition in every shape. The petitioners might have applied to the king in council, they might have applied to parliament before the bill was introduced; but now they could not apply to the king because the measure was before parliament, and they could not apply to parliament because it was a revenue bill.
The Solicitor General
understood it to be the received sense, that, as applying to the bill before the house, the petition could not be received; as distinct from that measure, it was unexceptionable. The remaining question was merely on the construction of the petition before the house, which he referred to the bill, and was of course of opinion that it could not be received. If a petition not applying to the bill should be offered, it must be received; but whether the petitioners should, after all, be heard by counsel, was a separate question for the discretion of the house.
898
Sir Arthur Pigott
contended that the petitioners ought to be heard, and evidence examined at the bar, for the purpose of putting the house in possession of the valuable information which the petitioners could give. It would be too late for them to present their petition when the bill should have passed, and therefore they ought to be heard in this instance. The bill had been originally introduced, not as a revenue bill, but for the purpose of carrying the Orders in Council into effect, and therefore the petition should be considered as applying against the Orders in Council.
Mr. Bankes
agreed in the principle laid down in yesterday's debate; but was of opinion, that the petitioners could not suffer any material injury by having their petition deferred to Monday.
Mr. Tierney
declared, that no eloquence nor any earthly influence should induce him to depart from the line he pursued with respect to this Petition, because he had never stood upon a broader principle than when pressing it. The reason why the title of the bill was rehearsed in this Petition, was because the petitioners were the same parties who had been last night before the house, and they felt it necessary to state a reason for their appearance again as petitioners. The petition yesterday had been rejected, because it had been laid clown by the chair that no petition could be received against a Money bill, but no such authority bore upon the present petition; and he had the authority of the petitioners to state, that they did not petition against the bill, but against the Orders in Council; and the rejection of this petition would lower the house of commons in the estimation of the public.—A division then took place:
For receiving the Petition. 57
Against it 111
Majority—54
LAW OF PARLIAMENT RELATIVE TO OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.]—Mr. Adam
rose pursuant to the notice he had given on a former evening, to propose a motion somewhat new in its nature, because the circumstances which had induced him to bring it forward were novel, and, he might say, unprecedented. Before stating the terms of this motion, he found it necessary to enter into some discussion of general principles, and to state the facts upon which he intended to found it. The object was, to prevent the repetition of a practice which the house had had occasion
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he rose with more confidence than he expected he should have done. When he considered the profound legal knowledge, the deep parliamentary research, the great experience and the great eloquence of the hon. and learned gent. he feared that he should sink under the combination of all these acquirements. He expected something would have come from the honourable and learned gent. which would have entirely changed the nature of the question. If the hon. and learned gent. was satisfied with his speech, he was no less so; for with whatever confidence he had delivered himself to the house, he could assure him it had entirely relieved him from the doubt and anxieties so natural to a person in his situation. The hon. and learned gent. according to the tactics of accusation, had bestowed great part of his argument to prove that no advantage was to be taken of official situation, and that no information was to be communicated to parliament but in a regular form, either by command of his majesty, or in consequence of an address. If this principle was to be adopted in consequence of the hon. and learned gent.'s motion; if the doctrine was now to be laid down, that no minister was to convey any information, except in that particular form—it would be impossible for the business of the country to go on. Where would the hon. and learned gent. draw the line? Would he say, that to answer a question would be perfectly correct, but to receive voluntary intelligence would be inadmissible? But if communication according to the practice which, he was confident, he would be
906
907
908
909
Mr. Windham
and Mr. Whitbread contended, that this was not a case when it was necessary for the right hon. secretary to withdraw, and appealed to the authority of the chair.
The Speaker
said, that he had looked into precedents on this point, and found that the uniform custom on such occasions was for the person accused to withdraw.
Mr. Windham
lamented, that the circumstance of the right hon. secretary having withdrawn from the house, prevented him from answering as fully the arguments of that right hon. gent. as he should have felt himself bound to do if he had been present: He then proceeded to touch lightly on the different precedents, as they were called, which the right hon. secretary had called in to his aid; and maintained, that not one of them was such as could bear out that right hon. gent. in the inferences which he had drawn from them. From the rarity of those instances which that right hon. gent. could, with the utmost stretch of his ingenuity, suppose to be at all analogous, it was pretty evident that, at least, such was not the general practice of parliament. But, putting all question of authority or precedent aside, the right hon. gent. said, Would it be argued that, in no case whatever, a person who was in an official situation, should make any communication to that house, of what came to his knowledge, in his public capacity as a servant of the crown? The fact was, that his hon. and learned friend who made the motion, said
910
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
concurred in every principle and sentiment that had been laid down by his right hon. friend, and did not hesitate to declare, that of all the charges and accusations he had ever heard, none appeared to him to have so little foundation in argument or precedent as that now made against his right hon. friend. His hon. and learned friend had alluded to the profession he had formerly followed, and he would now answer him in the language of that profession, that all his arguments went only to open a non-suit, and that every step he advanced, the deeper he laboured to involve himself in difficulties. The charge now stated in the
911
Mr. Whitbread
declared that he lamented the absence of the right hon. secretary on his own account; as he was, owing to that, deprived of the pleasure of witnessing the change in the conduct of his right hon. friend (the chancellor of the exchequer) towards him since the 8th of Feb. when he (Mr. Canning) was entirely deserted, not only by that right hon. and learned gent. but by all his colleagues. The right hon. gent. might have gone away satisfied in some degree with the effect of his own lively speech; that speech, however, he must confess, had made no impression on his mind.
Lord Castlereagh
said, the arguments urged by his two right hon. friends were so extremely forcible and convincing, that he should only say a very few words. He then went over his former argument, that his right hon. friend had refused the motion of the 8th of Feb. for those papers, because he had been charged with reacting them for a purpose which he disclaimed; and the noble lord thought if the motion was agreed to, it would so bind the house up, that it would be next to impossible to read any information to the house. He should therefore support the amendment, and vote for the order of the day.
Mr. Sturges Bourne
was sorry, that in all arguments of this kind a great deal of party spirit and party animosity was too often introduced. In the instance he was about to introduce, he declared he did not mean to impute any blame to the noble lord for having done as he did; but as so much stress had been laid on reading extracts of dispatches by the other side of the house, he could not help mentioning a case of that nature which happened not a year ago. At that time a change of ministry having recently taken place, lord Howick, in the absence of ministers, who were then in the country attending their elections, had produced, and read to the house, an extract from an official document, made on the subject of a private interview between his sovereign and himself. He repeated that he did not men-
912
Mr. Adam.
—Sir; it is now my privilege to rise in reply; and considering the manner in which this subject has been treated by gentlemen on the other side of the house, and particularly by they right hon. gent. who has left the house, I have no doubt but that I shall be heard with attention.—I have to regret, from the very bottom of my heart, that the right hon. gent. has thought it proper to retire before he heard my answer to some of his statements, because I detest the idea of saving behind a man's back, that which affects himself personally. But he is the cause of this, and not me. I must desire his friends who remain to report to him, and to state the positive contradiction which I am about to give to a matter which he stated respecting myself. Which I shall do, I can assure you, sir, much as I feel the injury of his misrepresentation, in language perfectly parliamentary. Sir, I must begin with this, because I am determined to set myself right, not only from the misrepresentation of the fact, but from being supposed capable of having accused another of a transgression which I had myself committed. The right hon. gent. was pleased to say, that I had myself, on a former occasion, transgressed the usage which I now contend for in the motion I have now made. The right hon. gent. chose to introduce this with a despicable witticism. "A pension during pleasure (he said) oh, no, it was not, it was the profit, not the pleasure, that the learned gent. who made this motion, looked to."Sir, I challenge him, or any other man, to cite an instance, in my life, that could serve to justify any unworthy insinuation on that score, or that can warrant a charge on my independence. That right hon. gent. may look to profit and power, and insinuate against others, what he feels in himself. But I will not permit him to charge me with such motives of action. But, to return to the subject, sir, the representation which has been made by the right hon. gent. respecting my conduct about lord Cullen's pension, is not supported by the fact. A fact which passed in the presence of the house and of which I have the most perfect recollection. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, in moving the finance committee, threw out, most injuriously, some reflections
913
914
915
916
lapsus linguœ
917
918
919
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 7.
920
[DANISH SHIPS DETAINED PREVIOUS TO HOSTILITIES.] Lord Sidmouth
wished to call the attention of their lordships to a subject which he considered of great importance. He alluded to the case of those Danish ships which had been detained in or brought into the ports of this country, previous to the commencement of hostilities with Denmark. He had heard, that in consequence of a rumour of the destination of the armament subsequently sent against Denmark, a representation had been made to government on behalf of the Danish vessels then in our ports, for the purpose of ascertaining, whether they were safe in completing their cargoes. The nature of this representation, or the answer to it, he did not know, but afterwards, in consequence of its being intimated by the Chamber of Commerce at Copenhagen, that there was no expectation of hostilities with this country, those vessels proceeded to complete their cargoes, Previous, however, to the sailing of the expedition, an order was issued, under which all these vessels were detained, and others brought in, the whole of which he had heard, were since condemned, and had become Droits of Admiralty. The produce of these vessels and cargoes, he had also heard, amounted to nearly two million. If these statements were true, he could not help thinking the circumstances unexampled in the annals of the country. Unless he had further information, he must even believe, that our expedition to Copenhagen caused the war with Denmark, and therefore that the vessels previously detained, ought to have been considered in a different, situation from vessels detained in consequence of the previous hostile conduct of the power to which they belonged. He wished to ask the noble secretary of state whether it was true, that the vessels he had alluded to had been condemned in the manner stated, and also, whether the crews were detained as prisoners of war?
Lord Hawkesbury
stated, that the same course had been adopted with respect to the Danish vessels which were detained on receiving information of the hostile intentions of Denmark, as had been adopted with respect to the vessels of other Bowers detained under similar circumstances. He thought it necessary also to state, that no assurance of protection was
921
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that some of these vessels had been previously brought into our ports, having been detained as neutrals under different pretences; and that, in several instances, there were decrees of the court of admiralty in their favour; but, by the Order alluded to by the noble viscount and the subsequent proceedings, all these were also condemned, which formed a peculiar case of hardship upon the individuals whose property was thus taken from them.
Lord Sidmouth
was not satisfied with the explanation given by the,noble secretary, contending, as he did, that the Danish vessels were in a different situation to those of any other power detained previous to hostilities. His noble friend had omitted to answer one of his questions, whether the crews of these vessels were detained as prisoners of war?
Lord Hawkesbury
contended, that the case of the Danish vessels was the same as those of other vessels detained previous to hostilities. As to the crews, they were, as in other cases, detained prisoners of war, with the exception of some individuals, who had been, under particular circumstances, released. A cartel had been proposed to the Danish government, but had been hitherto declined.
The Earl of Suffolk
wished to be informed how the money produced by the sale of these vessels and cargoes was to be applied? and whether any account of its application would be made known?
Lord Hawkesbury
said, the amount had been greatly exaggerated, but whatever it was it would be known.
Lord Sidmouth
said, he had only stated the amount from report.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 7.
[MINUTES.]— The Speaker
acquainted the house that he had received a letter from brigadier-general sir S. Achmuty, dated the 4th inst. in answer to one from him, transmitting the Resolutions of the house of the 16th of April last. He then read the Letter, which contained a brief but neat acknowledgment to the house, for the distinguished honour they had conferred on the general, on brigadier-general Lumley, and on the officers and
922
The Secretary at War
gave notice, that a noble friend of his would to-morrow in
923
Sir John Newport
expressed his surprise, that a measure which was to undo the effect of the whole military system which had obtained the sanction of the legislature, was to be brought forward in the shape of a clause in the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
saw nothing improper in the mode in which the alteration proposed was intended to be introduced by his noble friend, for two reasons; in the first place, because there was no other way in which it could be done; and secondly, because the change of system which had been introduced by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) had been done precisely in the same way, namely, in a committee on the Mutiny Bill.
Mr. Calcraft
contended that it might have been done, if not in a different way, at least at an earlier period, so that the house might have had an opportunity of frequently debating the question.
Mr. Windham,
who entered the house shortly after, asked, whether it was true, that notice had been given of certain clauses to be inserted in the Mutiny Bill, the effect of which would be to overturn the military system which had been adopted some time ago?—On being answered by the Secretary at War, that some clauses altering the system of recruiting were to be proposed, he gave notice, that he would oppose them in every stage of the bill.
[COMMERCIAL LICENCES.]— Mr. Horner
rose to move, "That such part of the Papers presented to the house on the 10th and 11th Feb. as related to the Fees and Gratuities paid on Licences for Navigation and Trade, he referred to the Committee on Public Offices." The subject of these Licences resolved itself into two parts. The first, and by far the most important, was the acknowledged anomaly in our commercial system which they had occasioned, and the encroachment which they had made upon the constitution, by placing the whole of the foreign trade of the country under the controul of the executive government, than any interference by whom in commercial affairs all authorities concurred in declaring that nothing could be more prejudicial. But it was not to this great branch of the subject he at present wished to draw the attention of the house: should his majesty's ministers, who, from so many Circumstances, must be infinitely better qualified to bring it under the consideration of parliament, neglect to do so,
924
l
s
d
l
l
l
l
Mr. Rose
observed, that so long since as Aug. last, his majesty's ministers had instituted an inquiry into this subject, and that some weeks ago the privy council Ending the amount of the fees to be so considerable, had taken the matter into serious consideration, and had entered into a strict investigation of it. Before the reference of the subject to the Committee of Finance, he thought it would be most desirable to have before the house proceedings of the privy council, and he therefore recommended to the hon. gent. to postpone his motion for a short time, in order to give an opportunity in a few days of moving an address to his majesty for the production of the proceedings of the privy council. Nothing could be further from his wish, than to suppress enquiry on this subject, which, on the contrary, he was desirous should be thoroughly sifted.
The Advocate General
remarked, that the ground on which these licenses had been granted, was, not for the purpose, of placing foreign trade under the controul of the executive, but to permit British subjects to trade with the enemy. In 1805, a General Order in Council had been issued, to enable British merchants to trade with the enemy, in certain articles of great importance to agriculture and to manufac-
925
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.]—The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the farther consideration of the report of the Orders in Council bill.—On the motion that the Bill be engrossed, a short conversation took place between Mr. Ponsonby, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and lord H. Petty, relative to the provision for bringing neutral vessels, having East India articles on board, to the port of London, instead of allowing them to land their cargoes, and to export from the most convenient out-ports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the meaning to be that, when American vessels, for instance, contained a portion of tea, &c. amounting to one fourth of the cargoes, then the whole cargo must come to London; when the portion should be less, then only the particular portion should be required to be brought to this port. This not being perfectly satisfactory, notice was given by lord H Petty that some amendment should be proposed on the third reading.
Mr. A. Baring
asked whether the duties imposed upon the exportation of neutral property were to extend to the article of fish?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
answered, that they were, and contended that it would deserve serious consideration before such encouragement should be given to the neutral fisheries in preference to our own.
Mr. A. Baring
replied, that this measure would go near to ruin our own Newfoundland Fishery, for a great part of the fish caught there was sent to America, and from thence carried to Spain and Portugal. This was the, only channel by which it could now be sent, and it would be scarcely possible to exempt our own fish from the duties, without also exempting that of America.
Sir J. Newport
said, that every step in the progress of this measure demonstrated, that it would have been better if the Liverpool Petitioners had been heard at the bar; for it clearly appeared, that there were many points of which ministers themselves had not been able to perceive the consequence. They had not clearly
926
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that the inconvenience with respect to Ireland existed from the American embargo, and did not arise from the Orders in Council. As to silk, part of that was brought from the Mediterranean and the East Indies The Italian silk was excluded, not by the Orders in Council, but by the French decrees. The only effect of these observations would be to apprize America of the injury she could do us by holding out.
Mr. Ponsonby
admired the candour of the right hon. gent. Did he think tile Americans ignorant of the amount of their supplies to Ireland? Did they sell them for nothing? Or did they throw the flaxseed into the sea, and leave it to float from America to the Irish coast? As to the embargo, his right hon. friend's argument went to this, that by our measures we should induce the Americans to continue it; and as to the article of silk, he knew that it was prohibited by the French decrees; but the complaint was that,these Orders had locked up the continental ports still faster, and finished what Buonaparte had left undone.—The Bill was
927
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 8.
AMERICAN TREATY.] Lord Grenville
rose to put a question to the noble secretary of state, before the house entered on the important discussion which was this night to engage their attention, respecting a topic which of late had been alluded to in the course of debate. The subject to which he referred was the assertion made by the noble secretary, most assuredly with no design to mislead, that the Treaty signed with America by the late administration had been received in America previous to the separation of congress; and that the treaty was refused to be ratified, and was sent back by the .president of the United States. Now, he believed he might safely venture to assert, that neither of these assertions was founded in fact; and if the noble secretary had advanced any such assertions without due consideration, he was convinced that his usual candour would incline him to acknowledge the inadvertence. This, in his mind, was a topic that could not be too much insisted upon, and which was likely soon to come before their lordships in a variety of shapes. Not only, he believed, the Treaty in question had not been received in America before congress separated; but that might very well be the reason why it was supposed the president had refused to ratify, and why a number of insinuations were studiously sent abroad of the predetermined hostile disposition on the part of America. But it was not in America only that such notions were propagated. Every thing here seemed anxiously to be seized that could stir up a spirit of animosity against America, and prepare the public mind for hostilities with that country, than which there was nothing he felt more disposed to deprecate.
Lord Hawkesbury
was not aware that any thing which had fallen from him on any former occasion, could be so interpreted; and he was desirous to rectify any error or mistake into which he may have fallen upon this subject. To the best of his recollection, what he had before stated on this point, in answer to a question put to him, was this: that an official copy of the Treaty, together with a dispatch from the noble secretary of state (lord Howick), had been received in America antecedent
928
Lord Auckland
thought this a matter of such importance, that it could not be too fully discussed and understood. He contended the Treaty was still in America, and that the president betrayed no other wish than to continue and follow up the treaty until it was brought to an amicable conclusion. As to the marginal notes which accompanied the copy of the Treaty, they were not notes added by the American government as the ground of a new treaty, but merely an indication of the points upon which it was desired to have further discussion and information.
Lord Hawkesbury
stated, that the official copy arrived on the 2d of March, and the senate separated on the 3d. As to the marginal notes, they had been presented to the house in the same shape in which they had been received from the American ministers here.
929
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord Erskine
rose and spoke nearly as follows:—My lords; the Resolutions, which I had the honour on a former day to read in my place to the house, and which I am presently about to propose to your lordships to adopt, involve a higher and more extensive consideration than even the justice and effect of the late Orders in Council, as they regard the United States of America, momentous as that consideration undoubtedly is. They involve no less a question, (I speak most advisedly when I say it,)—they involve no less a question, than the very existence of that whole system of conventional public law, which has contributed so much to advance the civilization, and to secure the happiness of the world. They involve no less a question, than whether the tyranny of revolutionary France shall terminate its destructive career in the temporary sufferings of the nations now subject to its dominion; whether it shall exhaust its force upon the persons and properties of the present generation in the temporary exactions of conquest; or, whether that dominion shall extend itself over the human mind in all countries and in all ages; whether it shall repeal and trample in the dust all the sanctions of morals and policy, which the wisdom of ages has ripened into universal law, for universal security and peace.—G. Britain alone can answer this question for the world: she alone can pronounce, whether the injustice of France shall be received as a warrant for universal injustice, or whether, standing as we do, upon this proud eminence, surrounded by that impregnable moat with which the Divine Providence has fortified this island, we can say, as the instrument of that providence, to the portentuous evils which so remarkably characterize this unexampled period, 'Thus far shall ye advance, and no farther.—My lords, although this momentuous subject has been repeatedly, and in various shapes, presented for your consideration, I am sorry to be obliged to observe, that it has not as yet been received by his majesty's ministers in such a manner, as either the house or the public, but, above all, as other nations, had a right to expect from a British parliament. The breach of the law of nations by ministers has been put aside by irrelevant recriminations upon supposed breaches of the same law by others; and the facts, from the establishment of which the legal argument could alone be brought to a
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
re
talio
like for like.
938
939
940
941
vis animœ
942
943
944
945
946
totidem verbis:
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
Usus Bellici,
960
he
no
nothing;
as an individual,
961
'secundum subjectam wateriam;
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
The Lord Chancellor
maintained that the Orders in Council were not only conformable to the precepts of the law of this country, but to the principles of the law of nations. The first part of this proposition he rested upon what he described as a fair interpretation both of the common and statute law, from the enactment of Magna Charta down to the last statute which applied to the subject. As to the second part, he would beg the house to consider what was meant by the law of nations. It was formed of an accumulation of the
dicta
972
Lord Grenville
rose. He began by observing, that the whole of the speech of the learned lord who had just sat down, was a laboured attack upon the late ministers under cover of an ironical defence, Such a speech might do very well for a party purpose; but it contained no illustration of principle, no deduction of argument applicable to the great question before the house. He totally denied the analogy asserted by the noble lord, between the Orders in Council, and the Order of Jan. 1807. For the latter was perfectly consonant to the law of the land and the law of nations, while the former was a gross violation of both. The latter indeed, amounted to nothing less, in his judgment, than an assumption on the part of the crown to
973
974
Lord Hawkesbury
had often lamented the great distance of America, which had been very inconvenient in our negociations with that country; but he was glad, on the present occasion, that the distance was such that America would decide the question upon their own grounds. One would have thought that we were upon the eve of a war with America, and that the noble lord's speech was a declaration against it; but whatever disputes existed with America at present, arose chiefly out of the measures of the former government, and not from any thing done by the present ministers. He contended, that the Order in Council, of the 7th of Jan. proceeded exactly upon the same principle as the present, and that it would have been the most futile in the world if it had not done so. He then proceeded to consider the statutes that had been referred to; and affirmed, that they only provided against the king's meddling by his prerogative with matters of trade, without confining it with regard to other matters. He was clearly of opinion that we had a full right of retaliation, by the law of nations. The injury which the neutral sustained consequently was no violation of that law. The French decree, in the obvious sense of it, justified that retaliation. The noble lords on the other side had quoted precedents and authority. He would make use of that privilege, and re-
975
Lord Erskine
observed, that the noble lords on the other side had not even attempted to answer the arguments of his noble friend, but had run away from the question; he adverted to the decision in the case of the Sampson, and said that it was the most extraordinary that ever was heard of, since the judge had avowed that he had never seen the Spanish Decree, upon which that decision must have been founded. He did not impute this to his learned friend, the judge of the admiralty court; but to this Sampson who had been
976
Contents
30
Proxies
31—61
Not Contents
67
—
60—127
Majority against the Resolutions—66.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 8.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL, AND NAVAL ASYLUM.] Sir C. Pole,
pursuant to notice, rose to submit his motion to the house, founded upon the 14th Report of the commissioners of Naval Inquiry. The object of the bill, which he had to propose, was to carry into effect, both the spirit and letter of the charter of Greenwich Hospital. Before he proceeded to make his motion, he begged that the report of the commissioners, who had been appointed on a former occasion to inquire into the state of that hospital, should be read. By the charter of the hospital, which was granted in the 16th Geo. iii. it was required, that all the officers of the hospital should be persons who had served his majesty in the navy, and had lost limbs or been disabled in the service. The provisions of the charter it appeared had not been complied with; but it was not the object of his bill to interfere with any of the existing appointments, or emoluments; its sole purpose being to provide that the charter should in future be complied with both in letter and in spirit. Another part of his bill would provide for a public saving, by requiring persons holding such offices to give up their half pay. His bill was also to extend to the institution of the Naval Asylum. which had been established for the encouragement of the naval service, and if ever there had been a time when they ought to do every thing consistent with economy and the interest of the service for that object, it was the present. These were the
977
Mr. Rose
stated, that immediately after his appointment to the office he then held, he had inquired into the facts stated in the report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, and that in consequence of the representations made by him to the admiralty, prosecutions were now carrying on against, the persons who had been guilty of malversation in that department. But having said this, he did not think that the hon. baronet had made out any case to induce the house to accede to his motion. About, 30 years ago, an inquiry had been made into the state and management of Greenwich Hospital, but no legislative enactment was thought necessary. There were various offices, such as that of organist, surveyor, and architect, which persons of naval education would not be competent to fill. The auditor was an officer who required a competent skill in the law. The noble lord who now held that office had succeeded lord Thurlow, who must be allowed to have been skilled in the law. Besides, the revenues of the hospital exceeded 160,000
l.
978
Mr. Whitbread
was of opinion, that many musical persons where disabled in the navy, who might be competent to the office of organist; and observed, that the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, and another gentleman, a member of that house, were proofs that a naval education did not render persons unfit for such offices as those he had mentioned. At any rate seafaring men might hold sinecure offices as well as any other description of persons, and it appeared that the barber of the hospital, Mr. Henry Clew, a Swiss, employed six deputies, and derived an income of 150
l.
Mr. Lockhart
regretted that the hon. baronet had connected the two establishments, which were so different in their object and nature. The Naval Asylum had been instituted by public spirited persons, as strongly attached to the naval service as the hon. baronet, who had subscribed a sum of 50,000
l.
Mr. Ponsonby
observed, that the arguments employed applied only to that part of the motion which concerned the Naval Asylum, and not against that which applied to the carrying into effect the charter of Greenwich Hospital. That charter bad, it appeared, been departed
979
Sir C. Pole
acceded to the suggestion of the right. hon. gent. and confined his motion to the first object.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
as the question had been narrowed, should then only say, with respect to the Naval Asylum, that it would be competent to the hon. baronet to move an address to his majesty for the Regulations of the Commissioners, and to make them the subject of any further proceeding he might think necessary. But as to the remaining part, of his motion, he did not think the house could agree to it, without having the charter of the hospital before it. It was as much the duty of the trustees, under the charter, to correct any abuses that might exist, as it would if an act of parliament were to pass for the purpose. But the question was, whether it would be desirable, if only a single candidate, who had been connected with the navy, should offer for an office, who might not be as well qualified as other candidates, that any peremptory order for his appointment should be enacted. He contended that there was no necessity for an act of parliament. The hon. bart. himself had been whilst in the office of a lord of the admiralty, in a situation to correct these abuses, and if he had not done so, it was not matter of blame to him, as he had followed the course pursued by his predecessors, and if any mischief had arisen, it must have been only from inadvertency on his part. The house he was sure would not accede to the motion, until it should have the charter of the Hospital before it.
Sir John Newport
contended, that every statement of the right hon. gent. shewed the necessity of the bill. As abuses existed, it was highly necessary that an act of parliament should be made to correct them. And many of the trustees would be glad to be protected against the applications of their friends by the provisions of an act of parliament. The hon. baronet appeared to him to deserve the thanks of the house and of the country, for his accurate attention to the interests of a profession to which he was an ornament; and as to the
980
Mr. M. Montague
stated, from his local and personal knowledge of an estate belonging to the Hospital, that no naval man, unless locally acquainted with the circumstances and nature of the property, could he capable of conducting or managing it for the interests of the hospital.
Mr. Pole Carew
contended, that either there were rules in the charter, requiring persons holding offices to be seafaring men, or there were not; and that in either case, it would be necessary for the house to interfere, to allow qualified persons to be appointed, or to prevent persons not qualified from being appointed.
Sir John Ord
could not agree to the motion, as he thought it could neither be consistent with justice nor promote the advantages of the institution, to take it out of the hands of the trustees.
Sir F. Burdett
was extremely surprised at the opposition given to this bill, which was to remedy gross abuses acknowledged to be existing. All that had been said applied solely to the bill, the exceptionable parts of which, if any, might be left out. The principal object he had in rising, was to thank the hon. baronet for the course he was pursuing in spite of all obstacles. He could not suppose that the house could object to the introduction of the bill, because no negative had been given to the statement of the hon. baronet. He never had been more astonished, than at the frivolous objections which had been made to the motion. The object of the bill was to inflict a penalty on those who should violate the provisions of the charter, and he did hope, that the house would never come to any determination that would preclude the hon. baronet from bringing forward his bill.—A division then took place, For the motion, 52. Against it, 78. Majority, 26.
[MUTINY BILL]
The house resolved itself into a committee on the Mutiny Bill.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he would explain shortly the reasons on which, he was induced to recommend the proposition he intended to submit to the house. All the reasonings and statements connected with the Army were so familiar to the house, that he would have held himself bound, in regard to the time of the house, to offer his motion without any preface, if the
981
982
l.
983
984
l.
Mr. Windham
spoke at considerable length against the clause, the substance of which he contended, was not only mischievous in itself, but also as it was intended to do away the system established two years since with the full approbation of the house, after long and deliberate consideration and mature discussion.—He objected to the mode in which that system was thus covertly undermined, by those who did not dare to make it the object of open attack. A clause of this kind was rejected in 1806, because it went to counteract the general effect of the measure; and a great part of the house had declared the same opinion since. He did not complain that this proceeding was brought forward in the shape of a Clause in the Mutiny Bill, but that it was brought forward in so late a stage, without any notice, and at a time when the Mutiny Bill must be passed with so little delay as to allow no adequate length of deliberation or discussion. It was only on this day se'nnight that an indistinct declaration of his intentions on this head was wrung from the noble lord by him; and only last night that he had seen the noble lord's motion in the form in which it was to be offered to the house. His measure had been, like the present, brought forward in the shape of a clause in the Mutiny Bill. But the nature of that measure had long before been detailed to the house, and the clause itself had been printed and circulated among the members, and repeatedly discussed, long before the house was called to decide upon it. The present proceeding was like putting a parcel into the hands of the driver of a stage coach, while he was yet going on, with a hint that he should suffer no one to examine its contents, but plead, against every call to stop, the lateness of the hour and the necessity of his arrival at the pointed minute. It was a species of proceeding which he supposed he must not call a trick, but which, in strict legal definition, he must be allowed to call a fraud,
985
quod aliud agit, aliud simulat.
986
l
l
l
l
987
988
989
General Tarleton
said, that in any other country he should think the principle of limited service a good one; but in this country he thought it would be dangerous to adopt it, on account of the extent of its colonies. There was likewise another point of view in which he considered it as very objectionable, namely, the necessity that there was of having a large army at all times in readiness to oppose those schemes of invasion which it was beyond a doubt Buonaparte never for a moment lost sight of, in the prosecution of the present war. The hon. general, however, did not confine himself to the question immediately before the house, but availed himself of the latitude of debate permitted in a committee, to take a general view of the defence of the country. And in order to establish its security on a firm basis, he Was of opinion that it would be highly expedient to assemble all the regulars, militia, and volunteers, in different camps round the metropolis, and there to keep them in constant exercise, so that when the hour of danger came, every man might know his place. He wished also, that a part of the artillery should be thrown into the rear of the army; and, for this purpose, he should be extremely glad if the half of Woolwich could be transferred to Nottingham. From England the hon. and gallant general passed over to Ireland;
990
The Secretary at War
was not sorry for giving precedence to the gallant general. The sentiments that fell from him were just and correct, and he fully concurred in them. It was not his intention to follow the right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) through the long speech delivered by him, which was as usual characterized by brilliancy and eloquence. The right hon. gent. had dwelt at considerable length on the shortness of the notice given, and on the mode of proceeding adopted; but when it was considered that this subject had been frequently before debated, and had excited much of the public attention,
991
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 9.
[EXCHEQUER BILLS.] The house went into a committee of ways and means.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in pursuance of the notice he had given on a former day, was about to propose to the house, to fund a certain portion of the Exchequer Bills now outstanding. The object he had in view, was to fund four millions of these exchequer Bills; and as the five per cent. stock was that with respect to which the contractors for loans made most difficulty, being desirous, as much as possible, to exclude it from their bargains, and to make their biddings as much as possible in the three per cents. he thought a considerable facility and advantage towards the negotiation of the ensuing loan would be gained, if it could be so arranged as that these 4,000,000
l
l
l
992
l
l
l
l
s.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s.
l
l
993
[CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY—OUDE CHARGE.] The order of the day being read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Oude Charge,
Lord Folkestone
rose, and began by stating some alteration in his Resolutions. He then observed, by way of preliminary observations, on the complaint made by marquis Wellesley's friends of the delay in bringing forward this question. For his own part, he had used as much haste as was consistent with the importance of the subject, and the time indispensably necessary to read and maturely consider the voluminous documents produced and printed on the subject. He also disclaimed any attempts to prejudice the public mind against marquis Wellesley by means of the press; but he doubted extremely whether the friends of the noble marquis could say as much. He had seen but three pamphlets on the subject, only one of which appeared in any degree hostile to the noble marquis; and the other two were written to bias the public mind in his favour, and were distributed gratis, not only to the members of that house, but in like manner through all the principal taverns and coffee houses in London. Even some of the Resolutions which he himself had first offered to the house, had been published in the Papers with Alterations and Comments; and this publication he could with certainty trace to the friends of the noble marquis, from the circumstance, that they were precisely in the form in which he had transmitted these Resolutions to them, but in which he had subsequently made some verbal alterations. He did not complain of this; he left the house and the country to judge of the fairness and decency of such a proceeding, and of the strength of the cause which required such assistance; but he did say, that those, who held such a conduct themselves, should have been the very last to cry out at any attempts to prejudice the public mind.—All attempts, however, of the sort he utterly disclaimed for his part; and he equally denied the knowledge of any such by any other person.—Having premised thus much, the noble lord proceeded to his Charges against the noble marquis, to which he entreated the serious attention of the house. If he should not be able to establish this case, no man would more sincerely regret than himself that he had ever trespassed upon the time of the house; but should he be able to sustain his case, he trusted the
994
995
l
996
997
998
reasonable
l
bonâ fide,
999
l
1000
"That it appears to this house, that on or about the 21st of Feb. 1798, the nabob, Saadut Ali, ascended the musnud of the province of Oude; and that he then entered into a treaty with the East India Company, whereby it was agreed, that the said Company should defend his territory against all enemies whatsoever, and for this purpose should constantly keep up, in the province, a force of not less than 10,000, nor more than 18,000 men; in return for which defence, the said Company was to receive from him an annual subsidy of 76 lacks of rupees, paid by monthly kists, (or instalments): that in case the defence of the country should at any time demand a greater number of the Company's forces than 18,000 men, the nabob should defray the expence of the difference; that, in case the monthly kists should fall in arrear, the nabob should undertake then to give security for the future payment of the same; that the said nabob should maintain correspondence with no foreign state, unless with the knowledge and consent of the Company: but that he was to be allowed to 'possess full authority over his household affairs, hereditary dominions, his troops, and his subjects."
"That it appears that the nabob's
1001
—"That it appears that the nabob was scrupulously punctual and regular in the discharge of the monthly kists (or instalments) of the subsidy; and that 'whilst he was determined to fulfil with minute regularity the peculiar engagements with the company, his views were directed to the enjoyment of a full authority over his houshold affairs, hereditary dominions, and subjects, according to the most strict interpretation of the clause of the 17th Article of the Treaty executed at Lucknow.'"
—"That it appears that notwithstanding this good disposition of the nabob, the marquis Wellesley, soon after his arrival in Bengal, formed a plan for 'the total reduction of the troops of the nabob, with the exception of such part as might be necessary for the purposes of state, or the collection of revenue;' and, on or about the 5th of Nov. 1799, proceeded to take steps for putting the same into execution; —that, for that express purpose, he ordered troops to march into the territories of the nabob, and to take possession of particular posts in the same; and that he persisted in this measure, though it was not even insinuated that any danger from foreign invasion existed at the time; and, though 'the late defeat of the pretended Gholaum Hadier had considerably weakened the pretexts which his as sembled numbers and first success afforded;' in opposition to the remonstrances and wishes of the nabob, and in direct violation of the spirit and stipulations of the treaty."
—"That it appears, that the said troops were so marched into the province of Oude, under the belief that the funds of the nabob being insufficient to defray this additional charge, he would be thereby compelled to disband his own troops; —that accordingly, about the 18th of Dec. 1799, the nabob having vainly attempted
1002
—"That it appears, that on or about the 22nd of Jan. 1801, the marquis Wellesley proposed to 'interfere more actively and decidedly in the affairs of the province of Oude;' and that he accordingly directed the British resident at Lucknow, to offer to the nabob two propositions, either, first, 'to transfer to the company the exclusive management of the civil and military government of the country;'—or, 2ndly, 'to cede to the company in perpetual sovereignty, such a portion of territory as should be fully adequate, in its impoverished condition, to defray the amount of the subsidy to the full extent of the augmented force.'"
—"That it appears, that the nabob positively and repeatedly rejected both these proposals; but that he was finally compelled, by threats and menances, to yield a portion of territory of the alledged annual income of one crore and 35 lacks of rupees, in the terms of the second proposition; and furthermore, to bind himself to establish in his remaining dominions, a system of police under the advice and controul of the company's officers, and in all affairs to submit to the opinion of the British resident."
—"That it appears, that the demand of a territorial cession was made under the pretence of obtaining security for the regular payment of the subsidy; but that the nabob Saadut Ali was always punctual, not only in discharging the monthly kists, but also in satisfying the further demands made upon him on account of the additional troops, and incessant in his applications to the British resident for advice and assistance in providing permanent funds for the payment of the same; and that therefore the said demand of territorial cession was unjust, and in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty."
—"That it appears that, pending the negotiations respecting the territorial cession, demands were urged upon the nabob
1003
—"That it appears, that the demand of territory in perpetual sovereignty, to the amount of one crore and 35 lacks of rupees of annual revenue, was exorbitant and unjust, inasmuch as it was perpetual possession in annual income to the full amount of a temporary and occasional demand; and inasmuch as the said temporary and occasional demand was in part calculated on the supposition of the necessity of the presence of troops—1st, to overawe the licentious disposition of the nabob's battalions, and to repress the disorders arising from the bad police of his reserved dominions; which necessity was however removed by the very treaty itself, whereby the nabob was bound to disband all his troops not necessary for the purposes of state, and of collection of revenue, and to establish in his reserved dominions a system of police, under the advice and controul of the company's officers; and, 2ndly, to defend the province of Oude against the dangers arising from the invasion of Zemaun Shah, though the nabob was at the same time called upon by the marquis Wellesley, to defray a 'proportion of the expences at 'tending the embassy into Persia,' which had been employed 'in negociating there an arrangement to prevent any return of the same danger.'"
—"That it appears that the demand of the specific territory of the alledged annual revenue of one crore and 35 lacks of rupees, was exorbitant and unjust; inasmuch as it was capable of immediate increase, and actually did yield, in the year immediately succeeding, the actual revenue of one crore and 57 lacks of rupees; and the settlement thereof for the 3 next succeeding years was at the average annual amount of one crore and 80 lacks of rupees, independent of the profit derivable from the monopoly of salt, estimated at 11 lacks; inasmuch as the said revenue was regularly and progressively increasing from year to year; and inasmuch as Mr. Henry. Wellesley, the governor of the ceded provinces, stated, that he had no
1004
— "That it appears from the whole of the transactions related in the Papers now under consideration, and from the negotiations carried on by the marquis Wellesley with the nabob Saadut Ali, in the year 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, and 1802, that the said marquis Wellesley, actuated by unjustifiable ambition and love of power, had formed schemes of aggrandizement and acquisition of territory, in direct opposition to the established policy of the East India company;—that he pursued this object by means offensive, and with a spirit irritating to the nabob, with a total disregard of the recorded opinions of this house, and the provisions of two several acts of parliament; and that he finally succeeded in wresting from this unfortunate prince, against his will, a large portion of his territory, and in depriving him of all effective government over the remainder; in direct violation of every principle of good faith, equity, and justice, and in open breach of the sacred obligation of a solemn treaty; and that he has thereby affixed a lasting stigma and reproach on the British name and character, and contributed to destroy all confidence in the moderation, justice, and good faith of the British government in India."
Mr. Whitshed Keene
rose and said:— Sir; The noble lord has informed the house, that the Resolutions he has moved, are founded on the information he has drawn from the documents which have been laid before it to illustrate the transactions that took place in the province of Oude, during the administration of lord Wellesley. I by no means agree that those documents bear out these Resolutions, on the contrary, to my conviction they justify the very reverse. But, sir, what has induced me at this moment to obtrude myself on the house, is a persuasion that in order to form a sound opinion on this important subject, it is necessary to go much deeper into it than the noble lord has thought proper to do. I apprehend every gentleman will agree that ascertaining what has been the real relation between the British nation through its represen-
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
Sir John Anstruther,
rose to reply to the speech of the noble lord. As far as that
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
Col. Allen
rose and spoke as follows:—Sir; It is with great diffidence I venture to offer myself to your notice, and to trespass on the attention of the house; but having passed the greater portion of my life in India, having been there during the early part of the administration of the noble marquis whose conduct is the subject of investigation; having held an official, and I may say confidential, situation, which gave me opportunities of knowing something of the motives and principles which governed
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
Mr. Grant
differed from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, because he thought the measures of the noble marquis had been extremely prejudicial to the interests of the company. He thought the trans-
1035
1036
Sir John Anstruther,
in explanation, denied that he had thrown out any aspersion on the administration of lord Teignmouth, although he thought it a government more of mildness than of vigour.
Mr. Wallace
declined entering into any detailed examination of the Papers on the table, but vindicated lord Wellesley's conduct from the great feature of his administration. With respect to the Resolutions of the noble lord, they kept short a moving an impeachment; but lord W. was not much obliged to him for that,
1037
1038
Mr. S. Lushington
(Member for Yarmouth)
contended, that the observations made by the hon. gent. who preceded him, did not, in great part, apply to the question then submitted to the consideration of the house. Without following him throughout the extensive circuit he had taken, the paramount question was, whether the character of Great-Britain, for good faith, had been preserved? It was, whether the marquis Wellesley, in those treaties, which pledged the honour and credit of this country, had not, without any pretext on the part of the nabob of Oude, violated their spirit and letter,and consequently deteriorated our character with the native powers of Hindostan? The hon. gent. had asked, what benefit could marquis Wellesley acquire in keeping possession of the principality of Oude? That was not the question; but the fact was, that he had continued in possession of that principality from 1801 until 1805. The noble marquis had disdained to regulate his policy in the government of India by that system which the East India directors had recommended; regardless of the voice of the British legislature, of two acts of parliament forbidding the extension of territory, he had, confident in his own talents, and in gratification of his own ambitious views, abrogated the solemn provisions of ratified treaties, and committed, by his disregard of the recorded injunctions of parliament, the good faith of the British character, and the security of our possessions in India. It had been said that such a system of action was executed for the public good, that it was not only calculated to produce benefit to Great Britain, but to
1039
l
1040
l
l
1041
Mr. Bankes
thought that the house had no jurisdiction on the subject. He deprecated, at all times, the house taking upon itself judicial functions, as he conceived they generally, in such cases, judged badly. He thought it highly improper. He remembered the house once being occupied for a long time in judicial investigations about sir Thomas Rumbold, which ended by the members absolutely ceasing to attend; and, on the last resolution upon that business, there were precisely 40 members in the house. The delay in Mr. Hasting's business also shewed the necessity
1042
Mr. W. Smith
suggested the propriety, of adjourning the debate, on the consideration of the lateness of the hour, and the many members who had yet to deliver their sentiments upon the extensive question then before them.—After a few words from the chancellor of the exchequer and lord Folkestone, the debate was adjourned to Tuesday next.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, 10, March 1808
[KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.] Lord Hawkesbury
presented the following Message from his majesty; "G. R. His majesty thinks it proper to acquaint the house of peers that the king of Sweden having resisted every threat that had been employed to induce him to join the hostile continental confederacy against. Great Britain, and having thereby exposed his dominions to increasing and imminent danger, his majesty felt it his duty to afford that monarch the most prompt and efficacious support and assistance. His majesty has, therefore, entered into a convention with the king of Sweden, a copy of which he has directed to be laid before
1043
[EXPORTS.] Lord Auckland
held in his hand, and perused with satisfaction, a paper lately laid before their lordships, of the amount of the exports from this country; which almost reached the sum of 40 millions. He had already observed to their lordships what a very large proportion of those exports were taken by America; and hence he had urged how ruinous to our commerce the operation of the Orders in Council must prove, especially if carried to their utmost extent against the trade of the United States. It would be found, that between the account now in his hand, and a similar one presented last year, there was a difference of between three and four millions, but of this falling off he was not disposed to complain; but at the same time, he must advise their lordships to prepare their minds for a very different statement next year, should the measure of the Orders in Council be unfortunately persisted in to their present extent. The noble lord further observed that, in order more precisely to ascertain the difference between the two years in the different branches of our manufactures, he should now move, "That there be laid before the house an account of the amount of the value of the Exports for the last three months, ending the 5th of Jan. 1808."
The Earl of Westmoreland
would not object to the motion of the noble lord; but he could not help remarking the difference of tone which the noble lord assumed on the same subject this year, from what he had assumed in the preceding year. Last year his observations were accompanied with a warm panegyric on the late administration. This year there was no panegyric on his majesty's present ministers.
Lord Auckland
said it was too much for
1044
Lord Stanhope
advised ministers not to provoke comparisons between their own conduct and that of their predecessors. In the conduct of the latter there was every thing good, in that of the former nothing but mischief.—The question was then put and agreed to.
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.]—
On the order of the day being read for the house resolving itself into a committee on this bill,
Lord Arden rose
to oppose the measure altogether. Nothing had occurred to his mind since the question was last agitated to induce him to depart from the opinion he had then expressed; he should, therefore, still persist in considering the bill as an infringement of the prerogative of the crown; and, in the manner in which it was brought before their lordships, he might also fairly contend that it was an encroachment on the privileges of their lordships' house. He could not but express his apprehension of what might be the consequences of their lordships' acquiescing in the measure. He would, however, refer them to the measures that were witnessed in this country in the year 1641, and to the consequences with which they had been attended. They afforded so strong a lesson to him on the present occasion, that he must give his decided negative to the bill going into a committee, as he completely despaired that it would be possible, by any amendment, to free it from the objections to which he thought it liable. He should therefore move, that the order be discharged.
Lord Boringdon
was at a loss how the bill could be viewed in the light in which the noble lord seemed to consider it. It was not in the contemplation of the bill to infringe the prerogative of the crown. Its object merely was to suspend the granting of places in reversion for a time to be limited; such at least he understood would be one of the amendments proposed in the committee? and on the ground of that intended amendment it was that he should vote that the bill be committed. That suspension of the exercise of the prerogative he could not view as an infringement
1045
Lord Redesdale
argued, with great warmth, against the bill. It was not only an infringement of the prerogative, but an encroachment on the privileges of that house. The increasing influence of the crown was a topic which, in all times, it had been fashionable to dwell upon. Since Mr. Burke's famous bill, he would, however, contend that the influence of the crown had been. diminished rather than increased. Since that period, the commercial wealth of the country had very considerably augmented; and, with it, the price of land had also risen. So that,
1046
The Lord Chancellor
left the woolsack merely to observe, that he had delivered
1047
Lord Holland
urged the expediency of agreeing to the bill, and defended the conduct of the house of commons, which he conceived to be perfectly constitutional, the amount of it merely being an address to his majesty not to grant any offices in reversion until six weeks after the commencement of this session of parliament. He differed with the noble and learned lord as to the causes of the evils which followed the transactions of 1641; he thought they were rather produced by high prerogative lawyers stretching the prerogative too far. As to the fears of what had been once formidable remaining when the danger had ceased, it might be to that sentiment that we might attribute the terrors some people even now had of the pope, and their fears for the return of queen Mary. He intreated their lordships not to reject the bill; but, on the contrary, by agreeing to it, to show their disposition to concur in measures of public economy.
The Earl of Carlisle
objected to the bill, on. the ground that no necessity for it had been proved; there was nothing but the mere statement in the preamble that it was expedient, but why it was expedient was not shewn; and that, in his opinion, was not a sufficicient ground for calling upon the king to give up a long-used prerogative. He thought the bill ought to be discussed there on its own merits, without mixing with it any question about the conduct of the house of commons.
The Earl of Moira
also objected to the bill, on a similar ground. He did: not think the bill at all a measure of public economy; or that it had any greater connection with public economy than with the Greenland whale-fishery. The prerogatives of the crown must be always considered to exist for the benefit of the people; but in this case there was, in his opinion, no object of public benefit to he attained. Under the circumstances, however, in which this bill came to the house, he intended, if the order was discharged, to move that a message be sent to the house of commons, requesting a conference, in order that they might state their reasons for passing the bill.
Lord Harrowby
strongly urged the expediency of agreeing to the bill, with the limitation intended to be proposed by his noble friend, in order that it might be
1048
Earl Grey.
— My lords; the noble lord who has just sat down, has delivered observations so marked by political prudence, that I should have felt it unnecessary to have troubled your lordships, were I not unwilling to give a silent vote on a question of such vital importance at the present moment. I have heard fall from a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) such strange inferences, that I really feel at a loss in what manner to account for them, unless by supposing him to be influenced, on this occasion, by as strong. a political bigotry, as recently he was by a religious bigotry, so violent as not to have permitted his majesty's ministers to venture his return to Ireland. That learned lord has declared his decided hostility to this measure, principally upon three grounds; first, that its advocates have afforded to this house no proofs of its expediency; next, that it is a direct invasion of the royal prerogative; and finally, that it is objectionable, from the manner in which, he asserts, the otter house of parliament has attempted to force it upon the consideration of your lordship. My lords, in the first place, its expediency has appeared manifest to those who, by the vote of the other house, a vote recommended by the Speech from the throne. had, in consequence of very accurate investigation and very mature inquiry, found that, in order to effect all the objects of a salutary and practicable economy, an end ought to be put to the granting of offices in reversion. It was found, that whilst such grants continued to be made by time crown, it was impossible either to abolish or regulate those offices, which, from a change in circumstances, had considerably varied in the nature of their importance, and the extent of their duties, from the period when they were originally bestowed. Did
1049
l
1050
1051
1052
Lord Hawkesbury
anxiously wished that the bill should go into a committee. He agreed entirely in the sentiments expressed by the noble lord who spoke last but one, and thought that it was no improper interference with the prerogative, for either branch of the legislature to give the advice that appeared to them to be good for the exercise of the prerogative in the manner the most advantageous to the people. It might perhaps have been as well if the bill had been merely for the suspension of the exercise of this branch of the royal prerogative for a time to be limited, but he was bound to vote for the bill going into a committee.
Lord Auckland
said, that in the Whole course of his political life, he bad constantly opposed every innovation, which could not be clearly proved to be necessary. The preamble of this bill stated that the measure was expedient; but the house was not informed why it was expedient. If the house of commons were to send up a bill, Whereas it is expedient that tithes he abolished, without pointing out why it was expedient, he certainly should not consider himself at liberty to vote for it.
Lord Hood
strongly objected to the bill, upon the grounds of its inutility. No case of necessity, in his mind, had been made out to induce the house to adopt such a measure, and the length of time which the former bill had been before the house was a convincing argument against passing the present one, the former having lain upon the table until it was almost suffocated by the papers which overwhelmed it, until it was rescued from obscurity by a noble duke; then not in his place (the duke of Norfolk).
The Earl of Lauderdale
vindicated the late government from the charge of apathy and indifference towards the fate of the Reversion-bill of last year. He himself had, upon the 18th of June, moved the second reading. He and his noble friends, however, had every reason to expect that this measure would have been patronized by the present government, who had put into the king's Speech, upon two occasions, an exhortation to the parliament in favour of public economy. The noble lords, therefore, on his side of the house, might not think it their duty. to anticipate the avowed intention of ministers, unless
1053
Contents - 52
Non-contents 45
Proxies - 32—84
Proxies - 39—84
Lord Hawkeskery
then moved, as an amendment, that the following words be inserted in the first clause of the bill, until the 1st day of June, 1810'.
Lords Grey,
Holland, and Spencer, opposed this amendment; but said that, rather than give up the bill itself, or risk the chance of losing it altogether, they should not he, if the sense of the house should be for the amendment, disposed to oppose the bill so amended.
Lord Mulgrave
entirely approved of the amendment; as, in the course of the time so limited, the public would have a practical experience of the advantages likely to result from the bill, and parliament would be enabled to ascertain how far the principle might be extended, and to what specific abuses it might be applied.
The Lord Chancellor
disapproved of the amendment; and said that if his noble and learned friend on the cross-bench had thought proper to divide the house upon his amendment, he should have voted in support of it.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, 10. March 1808.
[KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.] Mr. Secretary Canning
presented a Message from his majesty relative to the Swedish Treaty, being the same with that presented in the house of lords. Mr. Canning then moved, that the Message be referred to the committee of supply to-morrow; observing, that in the course of the present evening he should have it in his power to lay on the table of the house a copy of the Treaty.
1054
Mr. Whitbread,
remarking that the policy of the treaty might be a subject of important deliberation, recommended that a longer time should be allowed to elapse after the house were put into possession of the treaty, before they were called upon to consider his majesty's Message.
Mr. Canning
maintained the propriety of referring the Message to the committee of supply to-morrow. If such a serious difference of opinion should then appear to exist, as would lead to a protracted discussion, that discussion might be postponed.
The Speaker
stated, that it was essentially necessary that a Message of this nature should be referred to the committee of supply, and it was a customary mark of respect to the sovereign, to make that reference at as early a period as possible.—The Message was then referred to a committee of supply.
[CONVENTION WITH SWEDEN.]—Mr. Secretary Canning
shortly after presented to the house by his majesty's command, a Copy of the Convention between his majesty and the king of Sweden: viz.
1055
l
l
1056
[PETITIONS FROM LONDON AND LIVERPOOL REPECTING THE ORDER IN COUNCIL] Mr. Alderman Combe
presented a Petition from the Merchants and Manufacturers of London, interested in the trade to America, praying to be heard by evidence and council. The Petition Was read by the clerk; it stated,
1057
1058
Mr. Alderman Combe
moved that the Petition do lie on the table.
Sir W. Curtis
did not rise to oppose the motion, but because he thought that the house ought to be acquainted with all the circumstances under which the Petition had been framed. For some days an advertisement had appeared in the public prints, signed by many respectable gentlemen, requesting a meeting on that morning of merchants, manufacturers, &c. interested in the trade with America. Above 1000 persons had accordingly assembled; a fair discussion took place; an amendment was moved to the original motion for presenting a petition to parliament; and on the division, the chairman candidly declared, that the amendment was carried by a majority. He had not himself been present, but he understood, from the most respectable authority, that at least three parts out of four of the persons assembled were against the petition.
Mr. Alderman Shaw
having been present at the meeting alluded to, felt it his duty to state, that the petition just presented was not the petition of the majority of the meeting. On the contrary, a majority of at least two to one, declared against presenting any petition, and in favour of the amendment, which stated, that in the present critical situation of the country, and pending the important discussions with America, it would be inexpedient to present a petition to either house of parliament: On the subject of the Orders in Council, as well as on the merits of his. majesty's present servants generally, and particularly on the merits of the expedition to Copenhagen, he was convinced, that in the population of England 99 out of 100 were decidedly in their favour.
Mr. Alderman Combe
observed, that this last observation came with singular grace from the worthy alderman, who, during his mayoralty, had invited his majesty's late ministers to his table, and as the first toast after dinner, had drank success to them.
Mr. Alderman Shaw
observed, that in the peculiar circumstances under. which he was then placed, he. had, on the occa-
1059
Mr. A. Baring,
having been chairman of the meeting alluded to, thought it but proper to state what was his opinion concerning it. The numbers, he should conceive, were between 4 and 500, and the majority about 4 to 3. If others had observed the same forbearance with the worthy .alderman (Curtis), and had abstained from attending a meeting with which they had no, connection, he had no hesitation in declaring that the result would have been very different from what it had turned out. The argument with many persons who attended the meeting seemed to be, 'we are connected with the West Indies; the west Indies are connected with America; so we are entitled to attend this meeting as persons interested in the trade to America.' The arguments of those who moved ,and seconded the amendment, however, he thought were somewhat curious, though probably they might not be peculiarly gratifying to the framers of these Orders in Council. They did not oppose the petition because they approved of these regulations, but because they were absurd and impracticable.
Mr. Maryatt
said, he was at the meeting of this day; and as the hon. gent. who Spoke last seemed to direct his eye so particularly towards him he must explain why he thought he had as good a right to be present as the hon. member himself. He said, he had property both in America and Jamaica: he had commercial interests and family connections with America; but these should not induce him to forget his great and paramount duty to his country. He thought the meeting concerned all who had commercial interests or connections with America, direct or circuitous. Persons therefore had a right to attend who had even no trade there. He believed a number not only of such persons, but of American citizens, were present; and they were heard with attention in the delivery of their Sentiments; and
1060
Sir. C. Price
said, he held in his hand a petition of a directly opposite description, from the merchants of London trading to the continent of Europe, who desired to express their confidence, that the Orders carried vigorously into operation would be the most likely means of inducing the enemy to abandon the system of exclusion to British commerce, which created the necessity of those orders.—The hon. baronet, however, was reminded by the Speaker, that the petition he proposed to offer must be deferred till the other was disposed of.
Mr. Sharp
should not have interfered in the discussion had it not been for what had fallen from the worthy aldermen. One of these hon. members declared, that his information was, that the majority was equal to three to one. The other, who was present, that it was two to one. This was a diminution in a moment of 50 per cent. The same hon. gent. however, had made a wonderful discovery in consequence of the result of that meeting; for although there, even according to his own account of the matter, the majority was only two to one, it enabled him to make this ingenious calculation; that 99 out of every 100 throughout the whole population of the country, not only approved of these Orders in Council, but of the whole conduct of ministers, and particularly of the attack on Copenhagen. This, however, only went to show how great reliance was to be placed on the hon. gent.'s computation, as to the comparative numbers at the meeting in question. The hon. gent. who was the chairman of the meeting, had estimated them at four to three; and, for his part, he had no hesitation in thinking that he viewed them more accurately in stating them at six to five. Such, however, had been the monstrous calculations made by gentlemen who disapproved of the petition! A great many, too, of those who did attend, were not interested in the trade. Even the two principal supporters of the amendment had described the Orders in Council by a very harsh but characteristic expression, that they were extremely foolish, but they conceived the situation of the country to be such as rendered it inexpedient to interfere in the measures of government.
Mr. Whitbread
was convinced the worthy alderman opposite (sir W. Curtis), after the description he had heard of the gentlemen who composed the meeting,
1061
Mr. Hibbert
said he had great interest in Jamaica, which was much connected with America; but still he did not feel himself entitled on that account to attend the meeting.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought the house was obliged to the worthy baronet for the information he had given it, as the petition might else have been supposed to have come from a numerous meeting, instead of being, as it was, the petition of a few individuals, who, however respectable, were unquestionably the minority of the meeting.
Mr. Gordon
had formerly dealings with America; and though he had none at the present moment, he still thought himself entitled to attend the meeting, which he accordingly had done. He was mistaken, if, besides merchants trading to America, there were not at the meeting of this day, a number of American citizens.
Sir R. Peele
did not attend the meeting, because conceiving it to be called especially for the purpose of petitioning, and being of a contrary opinion, he esteemed himself excluded.
Mr. Mellish
had transactions with Ame-
1062
Mr. Baring
said, that persons connected with the Spanish colonies could, not be fit persons to attend such a meeting. The room was absolutely filled with persons not interested in the American trade, and some gentlemen even brought down their clerks to increase the number.
Sir A. Piggott
thought, if thanks were due to the worthy baronet who started the present discussion, they were much more due to his hon. friend (Mr. A. Baring) who had :furnished the house with so. many important facts relating to the meeting; particularly, that it consisted, in a great measure, of persons not interested in the trade, and that the mover and seconder of the amendment, so far from thinking the Orders in Council to have displayed wisdom, treated them as foolish and impracticable. He put it to an hon. baronet (sir Peele) to say if there were not thousands of manufacturers at this moment without employment, or only with half employment?
Sir R. Peele
said that this was not attributable to the Orders in Council, but to the measures or rather no-measures of the late ministers.
Sir John Newport
said, what our manufacturers complained of was, that being distressed from other causes, their situation was made irremediable by these Orders of Council. He should, on a future occasiod, bring the state of Ireland, in consequence of these Orders in Council, before the house. It was impossible that America should be ignorant of the great quantity of flax-seed, the grand staple of Ireland, which she got from that country.
General Gascoyne
said, that he had a petition from the merchants of Liverpool to the same purport as that of hon. alderman. It was against the Orders in Council. He would take care not to fall into
1063
General Tarleton
Observed, that though he was as desirous of popularity as any man, yet he would not compromise his duty on that account. He thought himself bound to declare, that the majority of his constituents were averse to measures that served only to embarrass government.
Mr. Sheridan
said, that the hon. general had fallen into a greater error than his hon. friend. The third reading of the bill stood for this day; and according to the proposed plan of proceeding, the measure might be out of the power of the house before the petition was presented. He asked, in what situation would the house he placed, in case the evidence should convince the house that the measure was a wrong One?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
spoke to order, and the Speaker concurred with him, that the question then was merely, whether counsel should be heard in support of the petition?
General Gascoyne
observed, that his constituents who were in town had only got the petition that morning, and had had no time to instruct their counsel so fully as they wished to do. It was their desire that-their petition should go hand in hand with that of the American merchants; and as the consideration of that petition had been-postponed, he thought himself acting in. conformity with the wishes of his constituents, when he proposed a future day. In allusion to what his colleague had said about popularity, he remarked, that when a number of respectable merchants of Liverpool put a petition into his hands, he thought it his duty to present it, and not only that, but to procure them a hearing as soon as possible. He then. proposed Monday, but being told that both this and the two following days were pre-occupied, he chose Thursday as the day for hearing counsel.
General Tarleton
again said that he was desirous of popularity. If it was a sin to covet honour, he was the most offending Man alive.
Mr. Sheridan,
though sorry to interrupt the colloquy of the two colleagues, insisted upon the. awkward situation in which the house was placed, by the proceeding, and observed, that counsel must have, been instructed when the first petition came, and ought now to be ready.
1064
Mr. Creevey
said, that hed seen counsel waiting in the lobby not an hour ago: and upon this information general Gas coyne expressed his hope, though the counsel could not be so well prepared as the importance of the case required, that the house would allow him to-expunge the word 'Thursday,' for the purpose of inserting 'now'.
Mr. Whitbread
adverted to the course which had been taken with respect to these petitioners, and contended that they had a right to be heard in a manner that might be efficacious. They ought therefore to be heard now, unless ministers would agree to postpone the third reading of the bill. These merchants were the most competent in England to give information on this subject. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that this delay was vexatious: to him it might be so; but it was the duty of those who thought the measure a bad one, to support every thing which tended to procure additional information on the subject; and, besides, it was of no importance that the bill should pass immediately. He concluded by moving, that counsel should be heard now, instead of Thursday.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the principle and the spirit of the rule of the house for bad any petition being received against a tax bill; and the bill for carrying into effect the Orders in Council was a tax bill, and ought not to be delayed for this petition. The petitioners might have two remedies. There was a clause in the bill permitting it to be altered or repealed in this session, and petitioners might have that remedy if they made out a case sufficiently strong to induce the house to think that eligible. The house might also apply to his majesty by address to forbear acting upon the bill. The bill might therefore proceed, and the petitioners be heard on the day most convenient for them.
Mr. Ponsonby
could not but admire the advice given by the noble lord to the house, which was to proceed to pass a measure which might be proved to be a very foolish one, before hearing what was to be said against it, and then address the king to make it a mere nullity. This would not add much to the respectability of the character of the house.
Sir. A. Piggot
argued, that the petitioners ought to be heard before .the passing of the bill, because they ought bona fide to have such a hearing as-would be efficacious, No,.inconvenience would result
1065
Dr. Laurence
adverted to the. awkward situation in Which the house would be placed by the mode of proceeding proposed by minister. Though their object professedly was to starve the continent, yet they were in a hurry to give freedom to the trade to it. They had long slept over tins measure without assembling parliament to carry it into effect, and yet now they grudged the delay of a few days.
Mr. Morris
was anxious to promote any proceeding, which would afford an opportunity of being more fully informed on this measure; which seemed to be founded on French principles, and would be attended with the greatest mischief to all civilized nations.
Mr. Windham
condemned the proposed mode of proceeding, on account of its palpable absurdity. It was exactly this: that the house should decide first, and hear the objections afterwards. It resembled a police bill, which provided that a party might be whipped, and then allowed him the right to appeal to the session. The noble lord said that the spirit of the bill precluded petitioning against it. But it had no spirit, it was all letter; two grains of wheat .in two bushels of chaff; two grains of finance, in two bushels of trade. The trade was the spirit, the finance was only incidental; and yet the noble lord talked petitioning being contrary to its spirit, and objected to the delay of a few days!
Mr. Stephens
said, that there were two parties in this question. There were not only the petitioners but the public who were deeply interested in the bill. The petition appeared to him to be brought forward for no other purpose than to create delay. The hon. member very successfully replied to the last speaker.
1066
Ayes
59
Noes
122
Majority
—63
Sir William Scott
entered into a learned discussion upon the law of nations, which being in its nature conventional, was no longer binding than when the rules of this convention were adverted to by all parties concerned. When they were departed from by one party, the other was left to the guidance of natural justice; and by the laws of natural justice, retaliation was authorised as an essential part of self-defence. The right of retaliation the learned judge shewed to be limited only by the extent of the annoyance which called forth the exercise of it. If an enemy restricted himself to the ordinary mode of warfare, then it was incumbent upon the other belligerent to carry on hostility under the same restrictions; but if he resorted to unusual modes of warfare, then it was competent for his adversary to pursue hint even to neutral ground. The right was unquestionable; the only question was, the prudence of exercising it. The learned judge then proceeded to apply the general doctrine that he had laid down, to the present situation of this country, in relation to France and the other powers of Europe. He shewed that the French decree was intended to cut us off from all communication with the other European states; that it had been acted upon; that the interpretation of M. Decres was wholly. unauthorized; that this exposition stood formally. contradicted by decree of the supreme court of prizes at Paris; and that if there were any exceptions made to its general operation, those exceptions would only prove, that the government of France now was, what it had been always, even in its best times, fluctuating Arid capricious. He further contended, that even if it was not acted upon, which rested with the other party to prove, it was nevertheless an injury, because it was an insult to the country; which, in the opinion of an eminent person now no more (Mr. fox),me
1067
Dr. Laurence
entered into an extensive view of what was the law of nations, as expressed by the best writers on that subject, and, as it was to be deduced from the uniform practice, not only of this country, but also of France, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and other countries, from these earliest period. From these authorities. he shewed, that the Orders of the 7th of Jan. were justified by the established usage and avowed concurrence of all civilised nations, on the principle that one belligerent had an undoubted right to prevent a neutral front lending herself to another belligerent for the purpose of carrying on her coasting trade. But, with respect to the Orders of the 11th of Nov. he maintained, that though they were professedly founded on a principle of retaliation, they mere not actually so founded; as it was not what was expressed by ministers, an acquiescence in the orders of the enemy (if such had been the fact), but an adherence to the cause of the enemy, which was the legitimate ground of measures of retaliation.
Mr. Stephens
asserted the necessity which called for the Orders in Council, a necessity, in his opinion, so imperious, that it would have justified measures even of a more extensive nature.
Mr. Ponsonby
argued, that the Orders were absurd, and incapable of being carried into execution.
Sir c. Price
stated, that he had brought
1068
For the adjournment
71
Against it
145
Majority
71
For the adjournment
67
Against it
140
Majority
74
For reading the Orders
65
Against it
140
Majority
75
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 11.
[DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.] The Earl of Moira
on moving the second reading of this bill, urged the necessity of resorting to some measure for the amendment of the law of debtor and creditor,
1069
Lord Ellenborough
condemned any attempt to innovate upon a long established law, without taking a clear and comprehensive view of the whole of the bearings of the question. This had not been done in the present bill, which had been drawn up (not, of course, by the noble earl) with a great ignorance of the law, and with provisions which could not be carried into effect without great injustice and injury. His lordship went through the different clauses of the bill, for the purpose of shewing that they were wholly inadequate to their proposed object. A plaintiff was at present obliged to declare within two
1070
Lord Holland
combated the objection of innovation. To hold that every thing which fell from judge Hale must be correct, was rather paying too high a respect to the doctrines and opinion of that learned judge. If his lordship recollected well, judge Hale had been hostile to the repeal of the laws against witchcraft; and indeed, the doctrine of the noble and learned lord went to this, that no alteration whatever, in our law or practice, ought to take place; in fact, that their lordships and the other house ought not to meet for the purposes of legislation. He hoped as opinions of celebrated men were to be quoted, he might be allowed to notice the opinion of a justly celebrated man, and who in the latter years of his life, at least, could hardly be suspected of favouring innovations. That able and enlightened man was well known to have been peculiarly partial to the general principle of the measure now proposed by his-noble friend. Another great man, Dr. Johnson, had also expressed himself decidedly on this subject, and declared that imprisonment for debt ought not to be suffered, unless for the purpose of compelling a surrender of the debtor's effects. As to the evils resulting from the present system, they were so numerous, and at the same time so apparent, that it was hardly necessary for him even to allude to them. One striking proof of the absurdity of the present law was to be found in the frequency of insolvent acts. If the legislature were not aware that there was something peculiarly offensive in continued imprisonment for debt, why should it pass these acts of insolvency? All suspensions of any established law were to be reprobated, and it was infinitely preferable that the law should be at once repealed, than that it should be repeatedly violated. Surely, it would not be said that these insolvent acts were passed merely as a matter of convenience, and that-one set of persons were liberated solely for the purpose of making room for another. The number of persons at present confined for debt in the metropolis, was, stated as being by no means compa-
1071
Earl Moira
replied generally to the arguments of lord Ellenborough, when the house divided on the question for the second reading: Contents 5: Non contents 9: Majority 4.—The bill was accordingly thrown out.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 11.
[EAST INDIA COMPANY'S AFFAIRS.] Mr. R. Dundas
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the present state of the Affairs of the East India Company. He stated, that the same causes which created the deficit which existed last year, still continued to operate, and that there was a deficit now to a very considerable amount. He wished, therefore, that a committee should be appointed to investigate the cause which had produced, and which tended to perpetuate this deficit, and to suggest the most proper remedy to apply to it. Advice, had been expected from the noble lord who now presided over the affairs of India, which might be useful in guiding the inquiries of the committee, but none had been as yet received. He thought, however, that the documents to which the committee might have access would be sufficient to enable them to make a report on the subject. He concluded by moving, "That a committee be appointed
1072
Mr. Creevey
rose, not for the purpose of opposing, but of supporting the motion; convinced as he was that it was only by a committee, that the situation of the East India Company could be properly investigated; and that the statements of the different budgets had been delusive from beginning to end. He asked, whether it was the intention of the right hon. gent. that the committee should confine their inquiries to the financial and commercial state of the company, or that they should extend their investigation to its territorial concerns?
Mr. R. Dundas
replied, that it was his wish that the inquiries of the committee should be the most comprehensive, though he did not imagine that they would consider it necessary to investigate the whole system of Indian policy under the different governments for many years past—The motion was agreed to, and a committee of 21 members appointed.
Mr. A. Baring
spoke against the bill. He thought it was unjust as to neutrals, and inexpedient as a measure. The chief ground taken by ministers was stated in the preamble to the Orders in Council, to be, that the government of France had issued certain decrees. The question was, how far we were justified in making neutrals suffer for this. No retaliation could, in his opinion, be justified on the principle assumed by ministers, that neutrals must take the consequences of the retaliation which had become necessary on the part of this country. Mr. Armstrong, the American minister at Paris, had applied to the minister of marine in France, on the subject, and was informed by him that the Decrees were not to be acted upon with respect to America. No better authority could be applied to, and it was not necessary for him to enquire farther. We had, therefore, rashly cast away the American trade. He answered the arguments that had been urged on the subject of premiums on insurance; he thought that we ought to have waited another month to see how the Americans would act, and was of opinion, that if the doctrine of ministers was admitted, it would be impossible that neutrals could carry on any trade whatever.
1073
Mr. Rose
denied that any inflammatory language had been used on his side of the house with respect to America; and expressed a wish that the gentlemen opposite would beware of attempting to persuade America, that a disposition existed in the present government to provoke war with that country. No man deprecated such an event more than he did, and yet he denied that the benefits resulting from American neutrality were so great as they had been represented. It had been said, that the Americans were the chief instruments in conveying our manufactures to the continent. This, however, was not the fact, and there were many present who knew it as well is he did. The exports to America had been stated at ten millions. They were certainly upwards of nine millions, but of these not much above half were consumed there, and therefore, the Americans were our carriers to a considerable extent; but in case of a war with America, there were other channels by which the surplus above the consumption of America could be carried to the places where it was wanted.
The Solicitor General
deprecated the taunts and aspersions thrown out against the good faith, honour, and morality, of the existing government of the country; aspersions at all times mischievous, but at the present awful crisis, alarmingly dangerous, as calculated to excite a distrust in the people, that might be attended with fatal consequences. The learned gent. then contended, that the question of municipal law had been given up by the other side, and that there was not an authority in any one book, from the earliest times of the history of this country, to justify the objection of the law of nations being violated in the Orders in Council. He proceeded at length to invalidate the objections to, and justify the arguments in favour of the justice, policy, and legality of the Orders in Council.
Mr. Grattan
was of opinion, that the name of the country, and the character of the country, were the only strength which it retained upon the continent; and that whatever was fatal to its character, must be fatal to its interests. Viewing the measure before the house as inconsistent with justice, and of course, injurious to the character of England, he felt himself bound to oppose it. He deprecated the idea of acting upon the principles of France, by pursuing the system which gave birth to this measure, and thus taking away the best
1074
1075
1076
Mr. Bankes
maintained, that, as far as any other nation was concerned, we were not guilty of any violation of the principle of justice by our adoption of the present measure. But, when he looked at it in a commercial view, as far as regarded our own manufactures, he confessed that he, for one, was deficient in information as to that point; it was not unlikely that some other gentlemen might he in a similar predicament.—After some further debate the house then divided for the third reading of the bill; Ayes, 168; Noes, 68; Majority 100.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 14
[KING'S MSSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.] The order of the day being read,
Lord Hawkesbury
rose to move an address of thanks to his majesty for his most gracious message. After the proofs of unshaken firmness and fidelity which his Swedish majesty had displayed to his engagements with this country, there could scarcely be any other sentiment in the minds of noble lords, but that the conduct of this country towards Sweden should be marked by that justice, generosity, and good faith, which characterised the relations of this country with its allies, and which were so signally called for and deserved by the uniform steadiness and spirit exhibited by his Swedish majesty. The object of the subsidies and of the support which it was proposed now to afford to Sweden, was not the formation of any confederacy, but to enable his Swedish majesty to defend his dominions against the formidable confederate attacks with which he was threatened. He should repeat it, that it was to enable that gallant monarch to make a stand in the defence of his kingdom, and not with a view to entangle him in any alliance that should prevent him from making peace with the enemy if any opportunity occurred of his obtaining terms he might consider as equitable and honourable. His maj's. government had never interfered to prevent his availing himself of Such an occasion. The subsidy of 1,200,000l. which was to be furnished to Sweden, would not be paid, in one sum,
1077
Lord Grenville
was satisfied with the ground on which the noble secretary rested his motion; and so far he was not disposed to make any opposition to it. He heard with pleasure and approbation, that no attempt was made by ministers to prevent Sweden from making what peace it might be in her power to negotiate; and that the subsidy now offered her was promoted only by justice, generosity, and good faith. So far it was endeavoured to uphold the character of the country in the eyes of Europe. He was sorry, however, to see the treaty encumbered with the article that provided that the two countries should negotiate conjointly. There was no reciprocity between the interests and situation of the two powers; and where there was no reciprocity, it was idle to tie down either of them to a joint negotiation; besides, there was a sort of contradiction in saying that Sweden was left free to negotiate if an opportunity offered to enable her to make peace, and next, to require that she should not make peace except in conjunction with Great Britain.—The motion was then agreed to.
[DISMISSAL OF MR. JOHN GIFFARD.] Lord Hardwicke
, pursuant to notice, called the attention of the house to a transaction, during the discussion upon which some observations had lately been made upon his conduct, which he was conscious were wholly unfounded. The transaction he alluded to, was the removal of a Mr. Giffard from a place which he held in the revenue office in Ireland. He was only anxious to offer a candid statement of the matter, as it really stood, and that statement, he trusted, would fully vindicate his character, as far as it was implicated in this matter. The noble earl then observed, that he would not insist on reading extracts from the letters of the noble secretary of state on this subject, as that, he understood, would be objected to; but he believed he was. at liberty to read extracts from his own letters in answer to those of the noble secretary. The noble earl then read a variety of extracts from his correspondence in 1805, with the noble secretary (lord Hawkesbury), respecting the business of the catholic petition, and the measures which the Irish government was
1078
1079
Lord Hawkesbury
acknowledged, that nothing could be more candid than the statement of his noble friend, but still he felt himself not bound to produce the correspondence moved for, because some of it was of a private nature, and because, it produced, it could answer no purpose. It was true, the conduct of his noble friend in displacing Mr. Giffard was looked upon as rather harsh by some of the protestant gentlemen in Ireland, and in this country: and indeed, when it was recollected what Mr. Giffard had suffered during the rebellion, and on other occasions, with respect to persons naturally most dear to him, these sufferings would carry with them some excuse for his intemperate behaviour.
Lord Grenville
highly approved of the conduct of the noble earl, on that occasion, and thought that the statement he had just made, abundantly justified that conduct.—After a short explanation from lord Hawkesbury, lord Hardwicke withdrew his motion.
Lord Grenville
signified that he had an objection in form to any further proceeding in this measure. it was in direct contradiction to the standing order of the house, of 1702; and if their lordship's allowed that order to be infringed, there would be an end of their best privileges, and of their deliberative capacity. This the noble baron proceeded to shew from a variety of cases, and from the nature and necessity of the standing order to which he had referred.
Lord Hawkesbury
confessed that the objection was an important one, and that sufficient time should be allowed to take it into consideration. He thought, however, the bill should first be printed.
Lord Grenville
would not object to the printing of the bill, but was of Opinion that the debate which had arisen on his objection to the form of the bill should be adjourned to Wednesday.—This suggestion was, acquiesced in.
1080
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 14.
[MUTINY BILL.] The Secretary at War moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Mutiny bill.
Sir Francis Burdett
, pursuant to the notice given for him a few days since by a noble friend of his (lord Folkestone), had to offer a clause, to prevent officers from being dismissed from the army by any other means than the sentence of a court martial. He thought such a provision of essential importance to the army, to the interests of the crown, and those of the country. The form of the proposition he had to make was so moderate, that he did not conceive any objection could be made to it. He was not aware of any opposition being intended, except from some loose ideas that had been thrown out, of its trenching on the prerogative. He did not think it did. But even if it were true that it did, he should not think that would be a reasonable objection with the house, if he could shew that the power, so far as he meant to correct it, had been exercised in a manner detrimental to the honour of the crown, and the interests of the army and of the country. The army itself was constitutionally looked upon .as a great infringement made by the crown on the prerogative of the people. He did not say it was an unnecessary infringement. But as the army was constitutionally an invasion of the liberties of the people, the principle of limiting in some respects the arbitrary power of the crown, with respect to the army, could not be looked upon as trenching on the prerogative of the crown, which held the army only by the indulgence of parliament. He contended that no prerogative of the crown, ought to infringe on the liberties of the people. The clause he should propose had nothing in view but to secure that justice and fair dealing which should always mark the proceedings of the crown toward the people. He proposed to restrain only that which no king, if well advised, would ever do. It was due to the officers of the army, to afford them that legal protection for their fortunes and lives, and what was of stilt more importance to them, their Characters, which persons of other classes enjoyed. They were wholly at the mercy of those malicious whispers, by which the ears of persons high in authority were ever liable to be abused. Officers of the army should certainly be no worse situated in- this. res-
1081
1082
The Secretary at War
complimented the hen. baronet on the moderation which he had. displayed; but objected to the clause, because he had laid no ground for it. He urged the bad consequences of changes in the military system without the strongest reasons for it; and the necessity that the army should be dependent on the crown. It was so necessary, that even if it were not the case at present, he should have proposed it now for the first time. He would wish, if it were possible, that the military should have the advantage of the common law; but it was inconsistent with the constitution and discipline of the army. The history of the world proved the necessity of strict discipline in an army, and for this it must look to a head. The instances in, which the power alluded to had been exercised were of late extremely rare; but the best effects resulted from the existence of the power. Every part of the prerogative pushed to extremes would produce abuses —such as in the making of peace or war. But this was no reason for diminishing that prerogative. An army independent of the sovereign was contrary to common sense. Such an encroachment on the prerogative would subvert the constitution. He allowed that in former times officers had been deprived of their regiments for voting against ministers. But there were no instances of this abuse in modern times. He therefore gave his decided negative to the proposition.
Lord Folkestone
adverted to the extraordinary mannner in which the hon. secretary had answered the arguments of the honourable baronet on his side. He had complimented him first, for not stating past abuses, and then objected to the clause, because no grounds had been laid for it. The honourable secretary very
1083
Colonel Duckett
said, there was no time, no country, no army, in which the power here complained of did not exist. To abridge the power of the crown in this point would not add to the liberties of the people, but to the independence of that army which was so much the object of constitutional jealousy.
General Fitzpatrick
thought that all innovations on the constitution of the army ought to be attempted with the most cautious deliberation, and never without strong facts to warrant and call for them. The hon. baronet had adduced no such facts, and he himself knew of none. He should therefore give the clause his decided negative, if the hon. baronet should bring it up. The constitution of the army was as much an object of nice attention as the constitution of the state. The trial by jury was preferable to the trial by court martial in point of justice; yet nobody, thought of introducing it into the army. He hoped, if the honourable baronet withdrew the clause to bring it forward in the shape of a bill, he would atleast make out a case.
Sir F. Burdett
found in the speech of the hon. general, arguments to induce him to persevere in bringing forward his clause, rather than to withdraw it. He had maturely weighed the clause before
1084
Mr. Calcraft
rose to move an amendment, the object of which was to reduce the Mutiny bill to the state in which it was last year, and to take from his majesty's ministers the power of enlisting men for a term longer than that which the bill had hitherto prescribed. He replied to the arguments that had been used against limited service. In the East Indies the example of the company was a sufficient inducement for its adoption. In the West Indies, a regulation of that sort was absolutely necessary to enforce the regular relief of regiments. The character of the soldier was improved by the introduction of limited service; the greatest part of the army who conquered in Egypt, were composed of men who enlisted from the militia for a term of years. The success of his right hon. friend's system was rendered undeniable. He reprobated the mode in which it was attempted to subvert that system. Adverting to the 16,000 men that had enlisted from the militia into the regular service, he contended that each man cost the counties, upon the average, 25
1
l
l
l
The Secretary at War
restated the opinion which he expressed on a former night, that the plan of the right hon. gent. had met with no success Whatever, and that the former system from the second battalions was infinitely superior to it; producing every advantage of his system, while it was totally free from the inconveniences of that system.
Mr. Windham
entered into an examination of the nature of that system, which, he contended, it was the plan of the present administration secretly, covertly, and clandestinely, to undermine. The measure which they proposed was impotent as
1085
Lord Castlereagh
spoke at length against the motion. Lord G. Cavendish and sir Ralph Milbanke spoke shortly in favour of Mr. Windham's measure, amidst frequent calls for the question. The house then divided, when there appeared: For the clause proposed by lord Castlereagh 189; For the clause proposed by Mr. Calcraft 116. Majority 73.
List of Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Bathurst, C. B.
Adam, Wm.
Bewicke, C.
Agar, E. F.
Biddulph, R. M.
Althorpe, viscount
Blackburne, John J.
Anson, G.
Bowyer. sir G.
Antonie, W. L.
Bradshaw, A. C.
Babington, Thos.
Buller, J. of Exeter
Bankes, Henry
Burdett, sir F.
1086
Calvert, N.
Milbanke, sir R.
Campbell, lord J.
Miller, sir T.
Campbell, John
Milner, sir W.
Cavendish, Lord G.
Morpeth, vise.
Cavendish, G. H. C.
Mosely, sir O.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Neville, R.
Combe, H. C.
Newport, sir John
Craig, James
North, Dudley
Creevey, Thomas
O'Callaghan, J.
Cuthbert, J. R.
Ord, William
Dundas, Hon. C. L.
Parnell, Henry
Dundas, Hon. R. L.
Petty, lord H.
Ebrington, viscount
Piggott, sir A.
Eden, Hon. N. S. E.
Ponsonby, G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W.
Porchester, lord
Ferguson, R. C.
Power, B. R.
Fitzgerald, M.
Prettie, F. A.
Fitzgerald, lord-H.
Pym, F.
Fitzpatrick, R.
Quin, W. H.
Folkestone, lord
Ridley, sir M. W.
Frank land, W.
Russell, lord W.
Gell, P.
St. Aubyn, sir J.
Grattan, H.
Scudamore, P.
Greenhill, It.
Shelly, H.
Grenfcll, P.
Sheridan, R. B.
Griffenhooffe, B.
Shipley, W.
Herbert, H. A.
Smith, George
Hibbert, G.
Smith, S.
Hippesley, sir J. C.
Smith, Wm.
Hobhouse, B.
Stanley, lord
Howard, Henry
Taylor, W.
Howard, hon. W.
Temple, earl
Hume, W. H.
Templetown, visc.
Howorth, H.
Thompson, H.
Jackson; John
Thornton, H.
Kensington, lord
Tierney, G.
Knapp, George
Vansittart, N.
Knox, Hon. T.
Vernon, G. G. V.
Lambe, Hon. Wm.
Walpole, G.
Lambton, R. J.
Waid, J. W.
Leach, John
Wardell, G. L.
Leman, C.
Wharton, J.
Lemon, J.
Whitbread,'S.
Lemon, sir W.
Wilberforce, W.
Lloyd, sir G.
Wilder, colonel
Lloyd, J. M.
Williams, sir R.
Lushington, S.
Windham, Wm.
Lyttleton, W. II.
Wynn, C. W. W.
Macdonald, James
Wynn, sir W. W..
Madocks, W. A.
Tellers.
Martin, H.
Calcraft. J.
Mawle, Hon. W. R.
Warrender, sir G.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 15.
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] On the order of the day being read, for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Redesdale
renewed his former objections to it. His lordship in the course of his speech entered into a defence of himself against a charge made against him on a former evening, of political bigotry, and argued, that political bigotry was rather to be found amongst those who
1087
The Duke of Norfolk
defended the bill, Which he thought rather tended to support than to attack the king's prerogative.
Earl Grey
combated the arguments of lord Redesdale, and observed, that political bigotry consisted in a blind adherence to old notions, and bringing them forward in opposition to reform rendered necessary by an alteration of circumstances. From the arguments advanced by the noble and learned lord, he must, on the same principle he now urged, have opposed the abolition of the star chamber, as an innovation most dangerous to the constitution. The noble earl vindicated himself and his friends from the attack made upon the Friends of the People by the noble and learned lord, and observed, that he had always been and still remained the advocate of moderate and temperate reform; which he considered the best means of maintaining the constitution, and of averting the danger which might ultimately arise from long continued abuses.
Lord Hawkesbury
said, that the proposed amendments having been rejected by the committee, he must give the bill his decided negative.
Contents
26
Non-contents
69
Proxies
22—48
Proxies
59—128
Majority against the bill
80
1088
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 15.
[IRISH EXPRESSES.] Mr. Parnell
moved, that there be laid before the house an Account of the sums expended for the establishment of government Expresses between the ports of Holyhead and Dublin, from the 1st of Jan. 1801, to the 1st of Jan. 1803. The hon. gent. said it was too general for expresses to pass between the two countries, for no other purpose than to give a favourite government newspaper a priority of intelligence over their less dependant competitors, The paper he particularly alluded to was an evening paper, which had been very active in its disapprobation of the late changes in his majesty's ministers. But the same paper was now the warmest advocate in support of the measures of the men it had not long since opposed.
Sir A. Wellesley
though he did not object to the motion, could not think the object of so much importance as it appeared to the hon. gent. it appeared to him to have no other object than to ascertain what newspapers in Ireland had or had not prior intelligence the London news, and to prevent papers From having thirty or forty hours prior intelligence. The paper alluded to had some ground of preference, as it was the only daily evening paper in Dublin, and had an extensive circulation.
Mr. Parnell
contended, that the unjustifiable partiality of government, in procuring for that paper prior intelligence by extraordinary expresses, was what had increased the circulation of that paper, and injured that of others, to such a serious degree, that one paper had already suffered a loss in circulation of no less than 5000 copies weekly.
Sir A. Wellesley
said, that the expresses cost government 201. a day, whether they went or not, and that therefore the dispatching them could not be productive of any additional expence.—The motion wag then agreed to.
1089
Sir Thomas Turton
spoke as follows:— Mr. Speaker; considering this question as intimately connected in its policy with that which it will be my duty shortly to submit to the house, (the Carnatic Question)—viewing it as one great link of the same chain of Eastern policy, (if policy it cart be called) that distinguished the administration of lord Wellesley, I cannot content myself with giving a silent vote on the motions of the noble lord. Before, however, I enter upon the question itself, I must submit to the house a few observations on the very extraordinary objections to the motion, which were advanced by an hon. gent. on the floor, (Mr. Bankes) who concluded the debate at its adjournment. The objection of the hon. gent. to our proceedings, was founded on the incompetency of this tribunal to take cognizance of the subject. I think the hon. gent. stated, 'that its functions were of a legislative, not of a judicial nature.' Without entering into a minute investigation of the powers and constitution of parliament, the history of which would fully demonstrate the extent of its judicial, as well as legislative functions, for the purpose of instituting criminal proceedings—I would ask that hon. gent. if, on reflection, he can entertain a doubt of the right, and even of the expediency of parliament, to receive this application to its justice. Even, I think, in the experience of the hon. gent. many, very many instances must hare occurred, of this house entertaining, nay encouraging, applications of a similar nature. Let me ask the hon. gent. where, or to whom in this particular instance, could the appeal against British injustice and oppression be made?—Not to our courts of law and equity; there it has been already determined, that an independent sovereign (yes a dependent nabob', as he is called) can neither institute or defend a suit. To the sovereign, in council, can he appeal?— The constitution of our Indian government permits not this Where then can he apply, with a possibility of success, but to a British parliament, and to parliament only? Do we not invite this appeal against the misconduct of our Eastern governors and servants, by the act of placing on the table of
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
l.
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
dazzles
1110
1111
Mr. Henry Wellesley
said, that it was with the greatest reluctance that he ventured to obtrude himself upon the time of the house, upon a question of such importance, as that now under its considera-
1112
1113
1114
1115
forty
1116
1117
Mr. C. Grant
in explanation said, that the war with Tippoo was one of defence. Here the measures were those of aggression.
Mr. George Johnstone,
felt great difficulty in offering his opinion upon the conduct of a person, who, on some occasions, had done great service to the country, and to whose motives he did the amplest justice. He had at the outset of the noble marquis's government in India, been one of the first to offer his tribute of praise to his splendid actions, and it was not till he saw him enter upon a line of policy bad in itself, and disapproved of by the company at home, that he changed his opinion. It should appear from the papers on the table that our frontier was in danger, and it was necessary to secure it; that would be a full justification of the noble marquis's conduct; but if, on the other hand, it was evident that no further security was necessary, and that his system went only to destroy the independence of every native power in alliance with us, and to interfere with their internal government, a double portion of censure ought to Fall on him. In order to shew this to be the case, he would consider the subject under four heads; 1. The rights of the nabob of Oude by treaty. 2. His conduct under these stipulations. 3. The negociation which was pursued for the purpose of procuring the disbanding of his troops; and 4. The negociation which compelled him to cede the half of his territory in commutation of his kilts. The hon. gent. then entered upon a detail of the circumstances that led Saudut Ally to the musnud, and went through the articles of the Treaty concluded between him and. the company in 1798, and contended, that the danger of invasion from Persia was as great at that time as it was at any future period. From this circumstance he drew the conclusion, that as the territory of Oude was not seized when the treaty was concluded by sir John Shore, there never was a future occasion for re-
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
l.
s.
l.
s.
1123
1124
Mr. S. R. Lushington
(Member for Rye) was perfectly aware of the difficulty under which he rose to address the house upon this important and extensive question. If local knowledge, obtained during a long residence and service in India, should lead him into much detail, he should incur the hazard of wearying the patience of the house; and if he altogether neglected that detail, he might sacrifice the real merits of the case. He should endeavour in deference to the feelings of the house, to be as concise as possible, at the same time not to abandon the substantial justice of the question. After all the declamation the house had heard, their judgment upon this question must be founded upon the treaty made with the nabob of Oude by lord Teignmouth in 1798; but as that treaty confirmed all former treaties, not contrary thereto, it was necessary to review the principal stipulations of those treaties, and the practice of successive governors-general, as approved by lawful authorities in this country.—The first treaty made between the vizier and the company was in the year 1765, when, after an unjust war against the English, his dominions and his person were in possession of the British army. In such a situation, it was not very probable that lord Clive should treat with him as an independent sovereign; in fact, he prescribed to him such terms as were, at that time, judged best for the company's interests; and many articles of that treaty bear the stamp of his subjection, and of the company's superior power.—The second article of that treaty expressed that the company should defend the province of Oude, according to the exigency of the nabob's affairs, and so far as might be consistent with their own security. In this case, of the English company's forces being employed in his highness's service, the extraordinary ex-pence of the same was to be defrayed by him. In like manner, if the company should be attacked, his highness shall assist them with a part or the whole of his forces; but the company are not to pay for forces.—Here then was an obvious distinction in the relative situation of the two states:—The company, as sovereigns, were to protect the dependent state of Oude, and they are to be paid for it. The nabob, as a protected ally, should defend
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
Sir James Hall
observed, that the charge before the house was defective in one very important circumstance which seemed to have escaped observation. Lord Wellesley is charged with having greatly injured an individual; but this individual has never complained. Saâdut Ali, the nabob of Oude, has sent no remonstrance to the British government, though that measure was suggested to him by a person who undertook to become his agent, and he rejected the proposal
in toto
1143
l.
1144
Lord Castlereagh
thought the question now before the house of such importance, as to interest the feelings of every member. The chief object of the resolutions moved by a noble lord was to impeach a distinguished character not in that house. The noble marquis who was the object of these resolutions, had received great honours, both from his majesty, from his country, and from the court of directors, for the very same conduct which it was now wished to make the ground of parliamentary censure. The noble marquis was charged with crimes of no common magnitude, he was charged with tyranny, breach of treaty, and contributing to throw a stigma of reproach upon the British character. These were charges which he believed were entirely unfounded in truth, and incapable of proof. He considered the noble marquis had a right now to expect the decision of the house. The business had already been 3 years under discussion. He did not mean, however, to say that any unnecessary delay had taken place. The papers connected with the business were so volumnious, they required a considerable length of time to be got in readiness, and the house could not be called upon to the evidence, till they had had time to canvass and examine it. Gentlemen on the other side of the house seemed to mistake the real situation of the prince of Oude. They considered him al com-
1145
l.
l.
1146
Mr. Robert Thornton
said, he could not in all points in this question, join speakers on either side. He would endeavour to express his private sentiments upon the question, in as few words as possible. When the noble marquis went to India, as governor-general, the yearly revenue amounted to 7,000,000
l.
l
l.
l.
1147
Lord Milton
said the house ought to be cautious how it gave its censure or thanks; it was to be remarked, that it was considered to be the policy of our government, and also that of the East India Company to look to commerce, and not to the acquisition of territory; on this ground he Would give his vote.
Mr. Whitbread
said, he was astonished at the conduct of the friends of lord Wellesley, who had rested their defence upon the policy of the noble marquis, and not upon the treaty. The injustice was too strong to forego examination. For what was the case? Lord Cornwallis had left our possessions in India in a flourishing state. The noble marquis had, by his conduct, destroyed what lord Cornwallis had effected, and had left the country in the greatest distress. So much so, that had some bullion not arrived at the same time with his lordship, when he went again to resume the command, there would have been no funds for the exigencies of the state, nor money to pay the troops. He contended that we had violated the treaty of Oude, as by that treaty we had acknowledged the independence of that country, and could not, without injustice, seize upon the territory. He would go the full length of the Resolution, and the motion upon it.
Earl Temple
defended marquis Wellesley from the unfounded calumnies circulated against him. He compared his administration with that of marquis Cornwallis and lord Teignmouth, in order to show that they all interfered alike, and considered Oude as dependent upon the company. He would not only vote against the Resolution, but for the motion of sir J. Anstruther.
Mr. Morris
acknowledged that the treaty was violated, but asserted it was owing to the failure of the nabob to pay his kists; he would therefore vote against the Resolutions.
Lord Folkestone
denied that ever the nabob failed in his payment, and replied to the arguments on that side at consideable length.
The Resolution
31
Against it
182
Majority
—151
1148
List of the Minority.
Antonie, W. Lee
Lushington, Stephen
Astell, W.
Lyttleton, hon. W
Babington, Thomas
Malocks, W.A.
Brand, hon. T.
Milton, lord
Burdett, sir F.
Sheridan, R. B.
Byng, George
Smith, George
Campbell, lord J.
Smith, Wm.
Cavendish, lord G.
Smith, Hugh
Cavendish, G. H. C.
Thellusson, George
Combe, Harvey C.
Thornotn, Robert
Fitzgerald, M.
Tracey, Hanbury
Grant, Charles
Turton, Hanbury
Howorth, H.
Wharton, John
Hughes, Wm. L.
Whitbread, Samuel
Johnstone, George
Tellers.
Lambton, R. J.
Folkestone, lord
Lloyd, sir Edward
Creevey, Thomas
Sir John Anstruther
then moved, "That it. appears to this house, that the marquis Wellesley, in carrying into execution the late arrangements in Oude, was actuated by an ardent zeal for the public service, and by the desire of providing more effectually for the prosperity, the defence, and the safety of the British territories in India."
For the Resolution
180
Against it
29
Majority
—151
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 16
ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The order of the day was read for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of lord Grenville, for rejecting the Orders in Council bill.
Lord Grenville
, having on a former evening stated his reasons for moving the rejection of this bill, declined again urging them, but trusted to the indulgence of their lordships to allow him to reply to any arguments that might be urged in the course of the debate.
Lord Hawkesbury
objected to the strictness of construction given to the Standing Order by the noble lord, on a former evening, and contended, that the practice of the house was in direct opposition to the principles urged by the noble lord in support of his motion. His lordship quoted several precedents support of this proposition, some of them in the reign of queen Anne, soon after the passing of the Order; some in the beginning of the reign of his present majesty, and others of recent date, consisting of Bills of Aid and Supply, which contained clauses either not necessary to the object of the bill, or
1149
Lord Erskine
contended, that whatever the practice of the house might have been, it could not set aside the written Orders of the house; practice might decide with respect to unwritten law, because, in that case, the decisions upon the subject declared the law, but where there was a written statute, no practice could set it aside; the written law remained to be referred to, and to shew the course to be pursued. Thus it was with the Standing Order; and he could not conceive what the noble lord meant in arguing that the general application of the order would defeat its object. Was it to be argued, that an order general in its nature, and clearly stating its object, was only to be applied to particular instances, or was it to shew what instances it ought to be applied to?
1150
Lord Mulgrave
insisted that a rule of the house, like a law, in courts of justice, might be explained by long practice. He perfectly concurred with the argumentative speech of his noble friend, the secretary of state; and trusted that their lordships, always regardful of their own privileges, would not, from any mistaken notions in point of form, delay a bill of the highest importance to the welfare of the British empire.
Lord Holland
animadverted on the speech of the noble lord who spoke last, who he said, had repeated more feebly the arguments of the noble secretary of state. He said the instances adduced in explanation of the order were not contemporaneous with it, that they were eight or ten years posterior, and that the example of the 9th of queen Anne, on which so much stress had been laid, was after lords Somers and Cowper had left the woolsack, and the seals were in commission; so that it could not be supposed the house could receive the able assistance to
1151
Lord Harrowby
contended for the interpretation of the Order as evinced in the practice of the house, immediately subsequent to passing it, as well as in bills of more recent date.
Lord Sidmouth
said, that it was necessary to say a word or two upon the origin of the Standing Order which had been read. During the reigns of Charles II. and William III. in the progress of half a century, numerous attempts had been made by the house of commons to introduce into the house of lords objectionable measures, by connecting them with Money Bills; so that unless their lordships condescended to such measures, the aids for the service of the state were refused. Urged by this endeavour, the house of lords, for the preservation of its own independence, entered on the Journals this Standing Order, and when so adopted it must either be obeyed or repealed. The order itself might require some explanation. The Money Bills therein referred to were easily distinguished: they always originated in a committee of ways and means, as did the Bill now under consideration: they had the preamble, in which the name of the lords' house was excluded, as in this Bill; and when the royal assent was given, it was not 'le roi le veut,' but le roi remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veut;' and so it would be given to this Bill, if it proceeded to that state of maturity. The instances adduced ought to be Money Bills of this description; and if they were not, the Standing Order had no reference to them whatever. Trying, then, the examples or precedents stated by this test, he found that out of eight submitted to the attention of the house, only two or three in the course of a century were applicable to the purpose to which they were referred. If their lordships regarded their own consistency, independence, and dignity, he. thought they could not dispense with the Standing Order on the present occasion, and that the Bill must be rejected.
Lord Melville
contended, that the practice of the house ought to be taken as the interpretation of the Order, and that therefore, even upon this ground, the bill ought not to be rejected. He had, however, examined the bill, and had put the question to himself, whether there were any clauses in it which were foreign to, or different from its object as a Bill of Aid
1152
The Earl of Lauderdale
contended, that. no argument had been advanced by the noble lord, to shew that the last clause in the bill, that of indemnity, was a natural part of the bill of Aid and Supply. The noble lord had advanced no reason that could convince any man; he had made it a matter between himself and his conscience—and his conscience was satisfied; but he had not satisfied the understanding of noble lords who heard him.—The noble earl went over the other regulations of the Bill, to shew that they were now totally unconnected with the Supply; and appealed to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, whose peculiar duty it was to watch over the Orders of the house, to say whether this important Order of 1702 would not he totally violated if they entertained this Bill?
Lord Grenville
began by expressing his surprise, that upon a question of this nature, the house had not yet heard the opinion of the person whose duty it more peculiarly was to study, to explain, and to enforce those Standing Orders which were enacted for the regulation of its proceedings, and which were as binding upon it as the laws of the land were upon the courts below. That a Standing Order of the utmost importance was, in the instance under consideration, attempted to be violated, the noble lord endeavoured to prove, by shewing, that several of the clauses were foreign to, and different from the matter of a bill for Aids and Supplies. For this purpose, he referred particularly to those clauses which prescribed commercial regulations. Upon the merits of the bill itself the noble lord animadverted with his usual ingenuity and force. Under the terms of the clause which related to the East India Company, he contended that they could not dispose of any goods whatever for home consumption. But the most objectionable feature in the measure was that provision by which ministers were enabled to exempt any merchant from all its operations upon such conditions as they might think proper to settle. The idea of investing any ministers with such an extraordinary discretion, appeared to his mind utterly irreconcileable with the freedom of commerce. It would indeed go to arm them with such a degree of power over the mercantile body, as never was assumed or possessed by the most despotic government upon the
1153
The Lord Chancellor
asserted, that no part of the bill before their lordships was inconsistent with the Standing Order alluded to by the noble lord who had just sat down. On the contrary, he maintained, that the whole stream of their lordships' proceeding, for a series of years, was in direct conformity to the practice objected to by the advocates for the motion. This was his opinion at the time the noble lord first stated his objection, but yet he thought it becoming in him to postpone the declaration of that opinion, until he should have heard all those noble lords who were disposed to speak upon the question. That course, he perceived, had exposed him to some animadversions, in the course of which it had been observed, that where a man who held a judicial situation doubted, he was unfit for that situation. Now, his opinion was directly the reverse of that observation; for he thought the man who entertained doubts in a judicial situation was the most fit for such a situation.—The noble lord entered into an enumeration of the several precedents referred to by the advocates of the motion, and contended, none of them in any degree bore on the conclusion which those noble lords would deduce from them. There was not, he maintained, a single provision in the bill upon the table which was not in strict alliance to and in pursuance of its main object. Therefore it could not be held, that it contained any thing foreign to and different from a bill of Aids and Supplies. So thinking he could not of course agree in the notion, that their lordships would in passing such a bill infringe the letter or spirit of the Standing Order alluded to. Indeed clauses directly similar to these, objected to as inconsistent with a bill of Supply, were be found in almost
1154
Earl Grey
said, that the cases cited by the noble lord on the woolsack did not seem to him to warrant the opinion his lordship had delivered, and he believed that many cases might be found in the Journals of the house that even justified a contrary opinion, He would therefore propose that a committee of precedents should be appointed to select such cases as might be found applicable to the matter then under their lordships consideration, and then the house could more easily judge from those cases than from the partial ones produced during the debate.
Contents
25
Proxies
34—52
Non contents
66
Proxies
63—120
Majority
—70
1155
1156
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 16.
[SUSSEX ELECTION PETITION.] Sir A. Piggott,
pursuant to notice, rose to move, that the petitioners who prayed by petition, yesterday, to be admitted as parties to defend the seat of Mr. Fuller against the petition of Mr. Sergison, the defence of which had been abandoned by the sitting member, do, on or before the 21st of March, exchange lists with the original petitioner, of the persons whose votes were to be objected to, together with the several heads of the objection against the names of each person intended to be objected against, to be delivered to the agent or agents of the respective parties. The petition of Mr. Sergison, he observed, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 24th, and the Election Judicature bill enacted, that petitioners claiming to be heard as parties in defence of an aban-
1157
Mr. Huskisson
thought that the house had to consider two points upon the present question; 1st, Whether it was competent to the house to fix any day for the exchange of the lists demanded; and 2dly, whether there was sufficient time for so doing. The petition against the election of Mr. Fuller, had been within the proper period presented in last session, and had been regularly renewed in the present. It was not the duty of the sitting member to call for any exchange of lists, and the petitioner had neglected to do so until the sitting member had declared his intention to abandon the defence of the seat, which was on the eve of the day on which the petition was ordered to be taken into consideration. If the sitting member had persevered in the defence of his seat, no lists could be exchanged, because a motion to that effect could not be made without notice; and the house was aware that, as no such notice had been given before the eve of the day for taking the petition into consideration, it could not be available if given on that day, because the ballot for the committee must precede all other business on the subsequent day. As the petitioners, therefore, were by the act placed, to all intents and purposes, in the place of the sitting member, and no lists could be demanded under these circumstances from the sitting member, he contended that no lists could, according to the provisions of the act, or the usage of the house, be demanded from the petitioners. They were required to defend the seat only against the other allegations of the original petition, and were not obliged to enter into any scrutiny of objected votes. The house, too, would do well therefore to reflect, as to the second question, respecting the time mow remaining for exchanging, what a situation they would place the petitioners
1158
Mr. Tierney
did not pretend to be lawyer enough to determine how far the opinion of the counsel alluded to by the hon. gent. was correct; but of this he was certain, that if the house consulted its own honour, it would not give effect to the present attempt. It was well known a month before Mr. Fuller gave in his declaration in writing, that he did not intend to defend his return. It was natural therefore for col. Sergison to say, 'Why should I put myself to expence, or the house to trouble, till I see if any other person will undertake to defend the return? If the freeholders do so, I know I have 30 days within which to demand an exchange of lists.' The effect of precluding col. S. from this right, would just amount to this; that a sitting member, against whom a petition was presented, had only to allege his resolution not to defend his seat; give in a declaration to that effect, immediately before the day fixed upon for the ballot; and prevail on a freeholder to step forward and ask leave to defend the return; thus the petitioner complaining of his return would no longer be at liberty to attack him, and the house itself would be made a party to the imposture.
Mr. C. Wynne
thought the present a question of considerable importance. It had occurred rather unexpectedly, and therefore, he wished the debate on it postponed till to-morrow, that gentlemen might he better prepared on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no objection to indulging the hon. gent. with the delay proposed. As to the point itself, however, he had no doubt. The question was simply this; should col. Sergison stand in a better situation now, than if Mr. Fuller were himself defending the return? If Mr. F. had not declined, col. S. not having in due time applied for an exchange of lists, could not afterwards have insisted on it.
1159
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL IN IRELAND.]
Lord H. Petty begged to know when it was the intention of ministers to bring in the Bill for carrying into effect the Orders in Council in Ireland?
Mr. Foster
declared, that as the bill for Ireland was to be the same in every respect with the bill for carrying into effect the same Orders in Council in this country, he only waited to know finally what the regulations of the bill for this country would be, in order to bring forward the bill for Ireland.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that as the bill was to be founded on the resolution of the committee of ways and means, which had passed some time since, there was no occasion for delay in bringing it forward. Whatever alteration might be made in the bill for this country, the resolution upon which the bill for Ireland was to be brought in was clear, and there was no reason whatever for waiting for any changes or regulations which might be made in another measure in another place.
Mr. Foster
replied, that he should undoubtedly bring forward the bill founded on the resolutions of the committee of ways and means, and with such provisions and regulations as should appear to him most likely to be effectual for the collection of the duties to be imposed by the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that gentlemen on his side of the house were anxious to bring in the bill in question as early as possible. If gentlemen on the other side were surprised at the delay which had taken place in doing so, he must be allowed to be equally surprised that they should now regret any delay which took place—delay having hitherto been so much their object.
1160
Mr. Foster
rose, now that this conversation was finished, to move the order of the day for the house going into a committee on the Fourth Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry in Ireland.
Mr. Tierney
wished still to be heard on the former subject.
The Speaker
informed the hon. member, there was now a question before the house on which he might be heard.
Mr. Tierney
then observed, that he should take the opportunity of calling the attention of the house to the manner in which he had been prevented from replying to a personal observation made upon him.
[KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.]
The house having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and his majesty's Message being referred to the said committee,
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that as he did not expect that any opposition would be made to the proposition which he should have the honour to make, he did not think it necessary to preface it with many observations. He should, therefore, simply mention the circumstances connected with the subsidy stipulated to be granted to the king of Sweden, together with the grounds on which the engagement had been entered into, trusting that the liberality and wisdom of the house would enable his majesty to make good these engagements. The fidelity and steadiness of the king of Sweden in adhering in every circumstance, and under every change of fortune, to his connection with this country, was matter of universal admiration. It was true, that the circumstance of' this fidelity, exciting admiration, was not of itself a sufficient ground on which to grant pecuniary assistance. But the fact was, that the former treaty of Subsidy which had for its object the defence of Pomerania alone, expired as soon as the king of Sweden withdrew his force from Germany. The engagements which it contained were formed with a view to his co-operation with this country and the other powers of the north of Europe in that particular spot, and this force having been withdrawn in the month of Oct. last, the arrears of subsidy were paid up, and from that time down to the signing of the late treaty, his Swedish majesty had neither asked nor received any pecuniary succours from G. Britain. In
1161
l
l
l
1162
Mr. Whitbread
rose for the purpose, not of objecting to a subsidy to the king of Sweden, but of declaring his sentiments respecting the actual situation of that monarch. Much as he admired the fidelity of his Swedish majesty, he did not think it superior to that which had been displayed by Austria; and if the king of Sweden was reduced to the same situation in which both Austria and Russia had been reduced, by the pressure of the war, he did not think it would be any impeachment of the honour and character of that prince, if he were to conclude a peace as they had done. He was of opinion, that the wisest policy which the king of Sweden could pursue in the present circumstances, would be to conclude a peace with France. And it was highly important for the government of this country to consider, that by offering him an inducement to persevere in the war, it might be contributing to bring him into a situation in which be might be obliged to accept of terms of peace much more disadvantageous than those he might now obtain. He reprobated in strong terms that article of the treaty which stipulated that the king of Sweden should not conclude a peace, or even a truce, with his enemies, without the concurrence of this country. Either this article was meant to be observed, in which case it might be attended with ruinous consequences to that monarch; or it meant nothing at all; and in this view he thought it highly blameable to bring such engagements into disrepute, by making them merely for the purpose of being broken. If it was binding upon one party, it was binding also upon the other; and would the right hon. secretary contend, that if a favourable opportunity occurred for this country's negotiating a peace with France, and the advisers of the king of Sweden should object to our availing ourselves of it, the British government ought to consider such an interference as an insurmountable obstacle in the way of negotiation? A similar engagement was contracted in the course of the last war with the king of Sardinia, by which we had bound ourselves not to conclude a peace with France, but upon the express condition, that he was to be reinstated in the whole of his dominions. This engagement was violated by the treaty of Amiens, and thus had brought disgrace upon the country. He did not mean to say, that we had acted wrong in concluding the peace of Amiens, but he insisted that we
1163
1164
Mr. Secretary Canning
put it to the house, whether it would be liberal and wise to dole out its bounty in small and illiberal pittances as had been proposed by the hon. gent. and whether it was not going far enough to make our assistance gradual, though it was not also arbitrarily bestowed. All that was meant by the article in the treaty by which it was stipulated that Sweden should not conclude a separate peace was, that this should not be done without the consent of the British government. And as to the omission of an express stipulation respecting carrying into effect the Orders in Council, he said that government had not only received the most satisfactory assurances on this head, but that the Swedish minister in this country was to be empowered by his government to arrange the details connected with this business, which could be more conveniently done here than in Sweden.
Mr. Ponsonby
was of opinion, that it would have been better to have given a sum at once to the king of Sweden, proportioned to his claims upon this country, than to give him a monthly subsidy, which, by inducing him to persevere in the contest, might lead eventually to his ruin. He had never had but one opinion respecting the subsidies which this country had granted to the powers of the continent, viz. that it would have been better for us to make a voluntary sacrifice of some advantages, than to have bestowed money in inducing them to enter into, or to persevere in, a contest, the invariable result of which had been to promote the aggrandizement of France. The wisest thing which ministers could do in the present circumstances, was to advise the king of Sweden to make peace with France as soon as possible: for even supposing, that in consequence of this event, that power should be compelled to join the confederacy against us, her co-operation would be feeble and reluctant, and therefore much less formidable to this country, than after France and Russia shall have succeeded in getting possession of all her means, and be thus enabled to employ them as they may think fit.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, the present treaty was intended to enable Sweden to defend herself, not by any instigation of ours, but, from a sense of the fidelity and
1165
Mr. Ponsonby
said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. gent. allowed Sweden was brought into her present situation not by any persuasion of ours, but by the events of the war: she had, therefore, no call on us. He was happy to find there did not appear to be in the mind of the right hon. gent. any wish to induce Sweden to make an obstinate resistance.
The Secretary at War
cited the case of Portugal, to prove that no purchased peace could afford security against the arbitrary proceedings of France. Portugal had repeatedly purchased her neutrality, yet after all that country was seized and subdued by Buonaparte. As long as Sweden could defend herself, it was an advantage to G. Britain as well as to herself to enable her to hold out.
Lord H. Petty
wished the money to be given to his majesty's ministers in the shape of a vote of credit, to be by them applied according as they should find it necessary and proper to make the advances. The right of either party to make peace, ought to have been kept perfectly free. If the Orders in Council were to be the law, it was essential to take the best measures for their complete execution. He had great satisfaction in thinking that this money was advanced to Sweden merely for the purpose of defending herself and procuring peace, and not for the purpose of exciting useless and destructive wars.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it seemed to him that which way soever ministers had made the treaty, they would have been, equally unlikely to meet with the approbation of the hon. gentlemen opposite; for they all differed in opinion with each other. The first hon. gent. thought it better to keep the money under the controul of parliament. The second was for granting it all at once to buy a peace; and the noble lord came in between these two extremes, and wished to have it as a vote of credit. In one part of the argument, they had contended, that Sweden could not make any effectual struggle, but must be compelled to make peace; and in another they insisted, that if we wished to make peace, Sweden might refuse to do so, and reproach us for at-
1166
Mr. W. Smith
thought that as this was a bare treaty of subsidy, there ought not to be tacked to it any stipulations about binding this country not to conclude peace but in concert with Sweden. He thought, at all events, that at the same time that those political negotiations were going forward, there ought to have been a convention for arranging commercial objects.
Mr. Whitbread
then moved the following Address, which was negatived without a division: viz. "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty, that his faithful commons, always desirous of supporting the dignity of his majesty's crown, and the faith of engagements contracted by his majesty with foreign powers, will make good the Subsidy granted by his majesty to the king of Sweden. Nevertheless, his majesty's faithful commons feel it be their duty, to represent to his majesty; that in the present state of the contest with his majesty's enemies, his faithful commons would have been better satisfied to have answered such calls for pecuniary aid as his majesty might have thought expedient to make upon this house, for the purpose of assisting the king of Sweden, under such exigences as his fidelity to G. Britain may bring upon him, rather than to make any grant resulting from the terms of a specific convention. Humbly to represent to his majesty, that his faithful commons have seen, with great concern, by the 3d Article of the Convention with the king of Sweden, which his majesty has been most graciously pleased to direct should be laid upon the table of this house, that his majesty has bound himself 'not to conclude any peace or truce, or convention of neutrality with the enemy, except in concert and by mutual agreement with the king Of Sweden.' A species of engagement, which, as it appears to his majesty's faithful commons, ought never to be entered into excepting upon the most mature deliberation, and when the relative-situation of the contracting parties is far different
1167
1168
Mr. Whitbread
repeated his objections to the bill, which he characterised as a moat abominable measure, calculated only to hold the country up to universal execration. It was the first attempt to put on the statute book any of those ideas which evidently shewed that the moral character of England had been gradually deteriorating. One of those ideas was that infamous one, some time ago so prevalent, that in case of invasion no quarter should be given to the French troops, but that they should be all massacred, or confined for life to work, in mines and coal pits. The object of the bill was, like the old one of hedging in the cuckoo,' impossible. Great quantities of bark were on the continent, and he read a Parisian price current, to shew that bark was much lower in price there than what had been stated. There were, in this country, above a million of pounds of bark, which, in another sense of the word, had become a mere 'drug,' and it was impossible to sell it on any terms whatever. This bark had been imported under licenses from government. Several persons had invested their whole property in this article, and had, in his opinion, a right to call on his majesty's ministers to require that the public should take it all into their hands. Were they to be consumed for the purpose of carrying into execution the vengeance of the country? Were they to be treated as shells, the explosion of which involved their own destruction? The bill united in itself detestable cruelty with absurd folly. He therefore opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair.
Sir C. Price
defended the policy of the measure, and contended that it was perfectly justifiable as a mode of warfare. To his certain knowledge, yellow bark had been purchased in London at 10s. per lb. and after having paid 30 per cent. insurance had sold for a considerable profit in France. The withholding of this article must give a facility to the introduction of our manufactures, and in this point of view the measure was most humane, as it tended to relieve the distresses of our manufacturers. The opposition to this measure was part of that systematic plan of thwarting the measures of govern-
1169
Mr. M. A. Taylor
asked by what right the hon. aldermen accused any member of a disposition to thwart the measures of government. Such an insinuation should never deter him from expressing his sentiments on any bill that might be submitted to the consideration of the house. This bill contained a proposition most degrading to the country, namely, to carry our hostility into the chambers of the sick. He denied that any attempt had been made on his side of the house to promote petitions for peace; on the contrary, they had discouraged such petitions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
entered into a general defence of the bill, which he contended was not more devoid of humanity, than the bill for prohibiting the exportation of cotton wool, or any other measure which must operate in the first instance most heavily upon the poor of the enemies country, and only circuitously on the government whom it was most desirable to affect. He repeated, that the evils would not he attributable to this country, for that the French government would always have it in their power to remove them by pursuing a reasonable line of conduct.
Mr. W. Smith
argued against the bill, which he contended would extend those evils by which war was rendered so horrible, and would tend to re-plunge the world into a state of barbarism.
Sir W. Elford
defended the bill. The principle on which it had been opposed went to this length, that we ought to turn our artillery from the enemy, for a bullet was at least as fatal as a dysentery. We had a right to use every means by which the government of a hostile country might be induced to conclude a reasonable peace.
Mr. S. Lushington
said, that the principle of the bill met with his most severe reprobation. It would have been better to have withheld from the French the cloathing which it was well known they had obtained from this country.
Mr. Gordon
defended the bill. There was at present a depot of bark in this country equal to the consumption of 3 years; and he was convinced that France, and the other nations of the continent, must eventually resort to us for a supply of that article.
1170
[RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDUCT OF THE SPEAKER.] Mr. Secretary Canning
wished, before the house rose, to put a question to a right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney) on the opposite bench. Feeling, as he was persuaded the house also did, a very great interest in every thing which related to the conduct of the person who filled the Chair, and discharged its very arduous duties so highly to their satisfaction, he could not reconcile it to those feelings to have that conduct arraigned, without—
Mr. Tierney
said, he rose to order, and observed that there was no question before the house.
Mr. Canning
contended, that by the practice of the house he was entitled to put the question he intended. The question was, whether the right hon. gent. in consequence of what had occurred in an early stage of the sitting proposed to give notice of any motion on the subject?
Mr. Tierney
avowed that it was his intention in future to prevent that species of debate which was called conversation, unless there was some specific motion before the house, or some understanding established as to the latitude which should he allowed in it. He had felt the inconvenience of being interrupted, at a moment when he was extremely anxious to rescue himself from the charge of inconsistency. The attacks made upon him in that house by the right hon. gent. in perfect good humour, no doubt, he could have well passed by; but he felt some solicitude to obviate the impression which they might make out of doors, if they were allowed to go unrefuted. It was not his intention to make any motion on the subject, but to avail himself of his privilege, as a member of that house, and take the remedy into his own hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
detailed the circumstances attending the conversation, and inferred that the irregularity commenced with the right hon. gent.'s observations on what he termed the inconsistency of his majesty's ministers. He felt it his duty to retaliate the charge, and here the conversation was stopped, and he conceived properly stopped, by the Chair.
Mr. Secretary Canning
observed, that a
1171
Lord H. Petty
maintained that his right hon. friend, by a rigorous exercise of the orders of the house, had been deprived of an opportunity of refuting a charge preferred against him.
The Speaker
addressed the house nearly in the following terms:—My conduct having been brought before the judgment of the house, accompanied with no indistinct charge of partiality, I trust I shall be excused for offering a few words to the house on the subject. It has ever been the usage of the house, and it has been found a most convenient usage, to permit questions to be asked, tending to facilitate the arrangement of business. An occurrence of this nature took place this day. The noble lord put a question to a right hon. gent. to which question an answer was given. A right hon. gent. then rose, whose knowledge of the forms and customs of the house induced me to presume, that he would not pass beyond the limits which the occasion prescribed. I find no difficulty in saying, more especially as that right hon. gent. has himself made the acknowledgment, that before the termination of his address, he did pass those limits. The language which that right honourable gent. used called up a right hon. gent. on the opposite side, who replied to him. At that moment several hon. members rose. Had that which then took place not occurred, I frankly state I should have felt it my duty to have put an end to the conversation; but when one of the hon. gentlemen who rose distinctly spoke of the conversation, no choice was left me on the subject. I therefore interrupted the conversation, and on proceeding to read the orders of the day, a question being open, the right hon. gent. rose in his place, and declared that which he had just stated. This was the proceeding as accurately as I can relate it to the house. I appeal to their judgment whether my conduct is liable to the charge of partiality. It may be so, but if it is I own I am not conscious of it. Having been four times raised by the free choice
1172
Mr. Secretary Canning
thought the discussion would not be satisfactorily terminated, unless the house came to some declaration of their opinion. He rose, therefore, for the purpose of submitting a resolution expressive of the high sense which the house entertained of the services of the right hon. gent. who filled the Chair. They were all witnesses to the ability and impartiality with which he discharged the arduous duties appertaining to it, in times of as violent contentions of parties and turbulent debate as had ever occurred in that house. The right hon. gent. concluded with moving "That this house does highly approve of the upright, able, and impartial conduct of the right hon. C. Abbot in the Chair of this house."
The Speaker
having put the affirmative of the question in a very low tone of voice, and obviously much agitated, was answered by a vehement burst of Aye from all sides of the house. When he was about to put the negative branch of the proposition),
Mr. Tierney
rose and said, that as an independent member of parliament, and anxious to preserve the privileges of the British parliament, he felt himself bound in honour to say 'No.'
1173
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 17.
[COLD BATH FIELDS PRISON.] Mr. Sumner
wished to know, whether it was the intention of the right hon. gent. to found any proceeding upon the petition which he had presented to the house; because if such was his intention, he would not take the business out of his hands.
Mr. Sheridan
said, that he had stated, when the petition was presented, that it was his wish that some enquiry should be instituted into the grievances complained of in the petition, by his majesty's government, and that if some remedy was not speedily applied to these grievances by them, he should submit some proposition on the subject to the house. For this purpose he wished to give a reasonable time to ministers to suggest some remedial measure. But, after what had happened on a former occasion, he had no great hopes from that quarter, and if nothing was proposed by them in the interval, he should bring forward some specific proposition upon the subject in the course of next week.
Mr. Sumner
had the fullest confidence in the government, and was sure the members for Middlesex would not lose sight of a matter that called so particularly for their attention. But the character of the magistrates of that county was involved, and his anxiety to do justice to these respectable men, could not give way to his deference for. any person or persons whatsoever. He questioned whether any steps that would be privately taken by his majesty's government, would satisfy the opposition. He thought it extraordinary that the petitioners, passing by the regular and proper modes of addressing their representations to the magistrates at the quarter sessions, to the magistrates who formed the jail committee, and to the secretary of state for the home department, had come in the first instance to parliament. He could attribute such a proceeding to no other motive than a desire to obtain a bad popularity, by exciting public clamour to the injury of the characters of others. Though the result of whatever investigation should take place would, he was well satisfied, be very far from substantiating the charges made, the petition would yet remain on the journals an eternal libel on the magistrates of Middlesex. He adverted to the former inquiry
1174
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of a thorough investigation of the grounds of complaint stated in the petition, though he did not feel disposed to acquiesce in the proposition of the hon. gent. who had just sat down. The right hon. gent. who presented the petition, had intimated his intention to wait till he saw what steps were adopted by the executive government; and he had now to state that a commission was preparing, in which all the persons, now alive, who had been on the former commission, would be re-appointed, and such names added, as he was sure, from their respectability, would give satisfaction both to the house and the public.
Sir F. Burdett
confessed, that he stood in the predicament of differing in sentiment with all those who had spoken upon the subject. In the first place, he protested against the doctrine of leaving the grievances of the people to be redressed by what one hon. gent. had pompously denominated his majesty's government,' or in other words, by the administration of the day. The hon. gent. who had brought forward the present motion, seemed to entertain the most perverse notions of the nature of the petition, which it was
1175
1176
Mr. Sheridan
thought the proceedings of the hon. gent. who brought forward the motion, the most extraordinary he had ever witnessed. The hon. gent. on rising asked him whether he meant to bring forward any motion upon the subject of the petition which he had presented some time ago? He had replied, that it was his intention to make a proposition on the subject in the course of next week; but instead, on that account, of waving his motion on this evening, as he expected, he had now made. precisely that motion which he intended then to submit to the house. Mr. Sheridan avowed that he was by no means fond of an inquiry into public grievances being conducted by a commission acting under the authority of the king's sign manual. He had no objections to the characters of those who had acted under the former commission; but they had not sufficient powers, and what was worse, the result of that inquiry shewed that the same attention was not paid to such a commission as was usually paid to the report of a parliamentary committee; for certainly, upon the face even of that report, there were sufficient grounds for the removal of governor Aris from this office. He was by no means sure, therefore, that the petitioners would be satisfied with the appointment of another commission under the king's sign manual, from which so little advantage had accrued in a former instance. He should, however, make it his business to inquire, whether they would be satisfied with such a proceeding, or not; and if they were not, he should still follow up his original intention of submitting a motion to the house in the course of next week. He had no objection in the mean time, that the paper moved for by the hon. gent. should be produced; but he mentioned a circumstance, to show how little weight any representation from the magistrates ought to have in circumstances like the present. A poor girl had brought a charge against a lawyer for a rape; this
1177
Mr. Mellish
expressed his astonishment that the report moved for was said to corroborate the allegations of the petition. It, on the contrary, contradicted them, both as to the getting the woman with child in the prison, and as to the weight of the bread. He preferred a committee of the house to a commission by government, because, he frankly owned, that it would be more satisfactory to the public.
Mr. Sumner
repeated his desire to have a parliamentary committee in the first instance, and proposed to read a list, which his hon. friend would find to be candidly formed.
Mr. Sheridan
wished to propose a list of his own. In addition to the other cases of abuse, he would mention that of a foreigner, who was insane, and who had been beaten and confined to a cell.
Mr. Mellish
said, this foreigner, who was committed to prison for being a spy, was not confined to a cell, and there was every reason to suspect that his derangement was counterfeited.
Mr. C. Wynne
could say nothing as to the treatment of that foreigner, but his commitment was perfectly just and proper; and it was necessary he. should not leave this country, as he had information that would affect the lives of others.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that he could not go the length of owning, that he should be perfectly satisfied though the report of the present state of the prison should be favourable, for he could not forget that Aris himself had confessed, that he had borrowed money of his prisoners, beat them, whipped them, and taken bribes from them. There was something mysterious in the support which this gaoler had received. He was notoriously a bad .character. A dramatist, he recollected, had exhibited a lawyer who had been entrapped into a good action, as desperately
1178
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
agreed, that there had been neglect somewhere, as nothing had been done upon the report of the former commissioners; but the administration had no connection with the gaoler. He thought that a commission by government was the best mode of proceeding in the first instance.
Lord Folkestone
thought that, under the circumstances of this case, a parliamentary commission would be preferable.
Mr. Wilberforce
said, that many happy effects had resulted from this system, though it might be liable to abuse. He thought it would be better to take this matter out of the reach of party feelings, and submit it to such magistrates and others as had bestowed considerable attention upon the subject. He therefore preferred a government commission.
Mr. Holford
said, he had visited the prison, and found every thing in the best order.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that there was something mysterious in the circumstance, that nothing had been done upon the report of the former commission. He suspected that party feeling had had a great deal more weight than it ought to have had in that affair. He expressed his preference of the mode of a committee of the house.—Mr. Brand and sir John Newport also aruged in favour of a committee. The motion for copies of any presentment, &c. was then agreed to.
Mr. Sheridan
then moved for a select committee to examine the allegations of the petition, and report to the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
preferred a commission in the first instance, and would therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. Whitbread
declared his preference of the parliamentary mode.
The house then divided on Mr. Sheridan's motion: Ayes 50, Noes 74; Majority 24.
1179
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 18.
[DANISH SHIPS.] Lord Sidmouth
brought forward the motions of which he had given notice, respecting the Danish ships captured, or detained by our cruizers, previous to any declaration of war. He did not foresee there would be any objection to the production of the accounts he should move for; he only looked for them as the grounds on which to build a future and general motion respecting these proceedings. The noble viscount concluded with making four distinct motions, the object of which was, to ascertain the number of ships and vessels belonging to Denmark, which were found and detained in the British ports, previous to the issue of any Order in Council for their capture or detention; also of the ships captured and brought in pursuant to that order, and that declaration of war; also, of the number of Danish ships that had been condemned and confiscated, in consequence of the decisions of the courts of admiralty and of appeal; and of the number of ships whose case was now pending before those courts —After a few words pending the earl of Suffolk and lord Hawkesbury the motions were agreed to.
[MUTINY BILL.]
The house resolved itself into a committee on the Mutiny bill. On the clause being read for allowing men to enlist for life,
The Duke of Gloucester
restated the opinion he had delivered on a former occasion, on the merits of the system of limited service. It was a system almost universally approved, not only by the ablest generals of foreign nations, but by the most experienced military men of this country. It was a system that was gradually improving, and that promised the fairest results. He was sorry that such a moment as the present should be seized to interrupt its progress; and so convinced was he of the mischiefs that must arise from that interruption, that he must beg leave to propose as an amendment, That the words granting the power of enlisting for life, be left out of the clause.
Lord Boringdon
was a friend to the system of limited service; but various reasons concurred to induce him to agree to the clause, because it must be obvious that a very different system was necessary with respect to our colonial and our home defence. If the house but duly considered the extent and distance of our settlements,
1180
Lords King
arid Darnley supported the plan for limited service, and complained that the present clause was inserted in the bill only with an insidious intention to undermine it.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire
was convinced from experience that a mixture of the two systems, of limited and unlimited service, was best calculated for the various circumstances of the defence of the empire.
Earl Grosvenor
was loud in the praises of the limited system. It alone could gain us the hearts as well as the arms of soldiers, and without their hearts, their arms would be of little avail, in the moment of difficulty and danger to which the country might perhaps be soon exposed.
Lord Melville
took a retrospective view of the state of the army, and of the various plans that had at different times been devised for recruiting it. He disliked the frequent interference of the legislature in what regarded our military establishment. In his opinion, it was best entrusted to the care and management of the chief executive magistrate; and it was found of late to improve and flourish under the auspices of the illustrious personage to whose hands the sovereign had confided it. The country never had an army so numerous and well appointed as that it had to boast of at the present moment: and how was that army acquired? Not by any one plan or exertion; not by metaphysical recruiting, and a philosophical investigation of the moral propensities and habits of men; but by a combination of various plans and various exertions, adapted to the nature and employments of men as they were to be found, and to the varying situation and exigencies of the country. Of all the plans to which the present flourishing state of the army might be ascribed, the Additional Force bill, and the enlisting from the supplementary militia into the line, he conceived to have been the most efficacious. But as no one system or exertion had raised our military force to its present amount and perfection, so no one plan or exertion would be sufficient to maintain it in that desirable state. A variety of systems and exertions must conspire to accomplish this wished-for object. He was,
1181
Lord Sidmouth
agreed with the noble viscount, as to the advantages derived to the army from volunteering from the militia, but differed with him in his opinion as to the present system of enlistment. His lordship entered into a detail of the measures adopted for recruiting the army during the last and present wars; and contended that the system of recruiting now in operation was the only measure to which the late administration could look with confidence for keeping up the army, without resorting to compulsory service, Which, on every ground that could be stated, it was so desirable to avoid. His lordship said he had entertained doubts as to the system introduced two years ago, though he had given it his support as an experiment then necessary, in consequence of the failure of the Additional Force act. That system had succeeded in the most ample manner, and had more than equalled the ordinary mode of recruiting and the additional force bill put together. He Was satisfied that the old mode of recruiting would never be sufficient of itself, without some subsidiary system, such as the army of reserve. By the new system we had procured a force better in quality, in stature, and in morals. He was, therefore, of opinion that any thing which might go to deprive the country of any part of the benefit arising from the system of limited service must be prejudicial, and ought to be avoided.
The Earl of Moira
shewed, in a contrasted point of view, the advantages of engaging men for a limited period of service, rather than for life, as affecting the soldier himself and his family; and, from a view of the picture, gave a decided opinion in favour of Mr. Windham's system.
The Earl of Westmoreland
denied that there was any intention to put an end to the new system. All that was sought by the present clause was, to give the old and established military practice a fair and equal chance with the system lately introduced.
Lord Holland
said the house and the country had heard a good deal of a ship projected by a noble friend of his (earl Stanhope) which possessed the property Of sailing against wind and tide. After all that the system of a right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) had done, his lordship was convinced no adequate, idea of its
1182
The Duke of Gloucester
replied to the different arguments which had been adduced in support of the clause; which, on being put, was carried, and the amendment negatived without a division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 18.
[PETITION FROM MANCHESTER RESPECTING PEACE.] Colonel Stanley
presented a petition signed by 50,000 persons, inhabitants of Manchester and its vicinity, praying the house to address the king, to neglect no opportunity of entering into a negociation for peace; and to afford such relief as in their wisdom might appear suited to the emergency of the case. The petition contained a vivid description of the distressed situation of the persons whose names were subscribed; and stated their conviction that their distress arose from' the continuance of the war.
Mr. Whitbread
said that this petition, signed by 50,000 persons, in addition to the thousands who had petitioned before, laid a great weight of responsibility on ministers. An insinuation had been thrown out, that some gentlemen on his side had had recourse to artifice, in order to encourage these petitions. He knew nothing of any such artifice; and firmly believed, that this petition was wrung from the persons subscribing it by their distresses. The language of the petition was unexceptionable, and even highly respectful. Unless ministers, therefore, shelved a serious disposition to enter into a negociation, it would be the duty of the house to interfere, and address the throne on the subject.—The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
[PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS COUNCIL.] Mr. Alderman Combe
moved the consideration of the London, Liverpool, Manchester, &c. petition, against the Orders in Council. This was agreed to, and counsel was ordered to be called in. Mr. Brougham was heard at the bar, as counsel in behalf of the merchants, traders, and others, concerned in the trade between America and this country, and resident in the city of London, and towns of Liverpool and Manchester. The learned counsel, having stated the case of the petitioners with perspicuity and conciseness,
1183
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, March 19.
[PROTEST ON THE MUTINY BILL.] The Mutiny Bill was read a third time and passed. When the question for the third reading was put earl Grey rose and said, that he should move that the words "allowing individuals to enlist for unlimited service" be left out of the bill. His lordship said he did not mean to discuss the point, and only made the motion that his opinion of the clause might be inserted in the journals of the house. The motion was then put, and it was negatived without a division.
The following Protest was entered upon the journals.—"Dissentient: 1st. Because the words proposed to be omitted, by establishing an option between limited and unlimited service, effect, an alteration in a system, the success of which has always appeared to us to depend on a long, scrupulous, and uninterrupted adherence to the principles on which it was originally formed. The inducement held out to enlist, by limiting the term of service, is founded on no immediate bounty or reward, but on the hope, of future and distant advantages. A confidence in its stability is, therefore, absolutely necessary to its success, and any alteration must tend to shake that confidence, and to create an apprehension in the minds of the people, that changes from time to time will be introduced, that faith to individuals will not be scrupulously maintained, and that the ad-
1184
1185
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 21,
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.] Mr. Sharp rose
and addressed the house as follows:—I am now, sir, to, intreat your attention, and the attention of the house, to a motion of which I some time since gave notice; but, sir, in giving that notice then, and now in rising to perform the promise implied in it, I am afraid that I have suffered myself to be too much influenced by irresistible feelings of disapprobation respecting the expedition to Copenhagen, and by those of deep regret for its consequences, and too little by a proper regard to my own want of pretensions to that indulgence from the house, which I have risen to solicit. I will not, however, sir, diminish that small claim to the accustomed generosity of the house, which every member may hope that he has not forfeited, by occupying one moment of its time with a topic that must be so little interesting to it, as the feelings and difficulties of an individual.—And yet, sir, the difficulties are neither few; nor inconsiderable, which must be surmounted by any man who has to request that the thoughts of parliament may again be directed to a subject already so frequently discussed in many of its parts, and on which most of the distinguished persons in this country have communicated the information which they had to give, declared the sentiments that they had formed, and detailed, too, at so much length and with so much ability, the arguments by which they supported such sentiments. Yet perhaps, sir, it may not be wholly useless, perhaps it may be very advantageous that parliament should be reminded, (though by me very briefly) of some of those facts, opinions and reasonings, in a stage of this important business, which it was impossible to omit, without leaving the discussion imperfect, and the sentiments of parliament undeclared.—But, sir, in truth these several debates, to which I allude, have rather been of a preliminary and preparatory nature, clearing the way for a final and solemn examination of the conduct of ministers, by which they have had the courage to say (courage is not the word, sir) that they have saved their country, but by which, in a transaction of the greatest importance to the national character and interests, the former may have obviously been disgraced, and the latter destroyed.—There are however, sir, other reasons rendering it highly proper to bring this subject again before the eyes of parliament for mi-
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
Liberavi animam meam.
1214
1215
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, the whole of the criminality imputed by the hon. member who had just sat down, rested upon an erroneous supposition, that his majesty's Ministers charged Denmark with being in collision with France. The Copenhagen Expedition was undertaken, and justified, on the grounds of the unquestionable and declared intentions of the French government to turn the whole power of the continent against England; and the inability of Denmark to resist the coercion of France, and her unwillingness to irritate, by any appearance of a disposition to resist. The hon. gent. went through all the arguments advanced in the former discussions relative to this subject, to shew that France was determined and prepared to force Denmark into her system; and that Denmark was unprepared and undetermined to make any opposition. He stated, from high authority, that if the Expedition to Copenhagen had not taken place, France would have had under her controul, and at her disposal, a fleet of 70 sail of the line, from Antwerp, North, including Dutch, Danes, Russians, and Swedes; for when menaced by Russia on One side, and France and Denmark, with the whole of the Danish fleet on the other, Sweden could not long, hold out. He concluded, from a view of all the arguments, that the capture of the Danish fleet was not only necessary and justifiable, but highly commendable. In that view he thought the house bound to set a fixed mark of its approbation on a measure Which it had repeatedly sanctioned with its full assent in a variety of forms. He there-
1216
Mr. Porcher
highly approved of the expedition to Copenhagen. He expected to have found some novelty in the arguments advanced to bring the house to decide against the merits of the measure, after it had so often sanctioned it with its unlimited approbation. But when he reviewed the whole speech of the hon. gent. on the other side, he found nothing in it but old friends with new faces.
Mr. Orde
thought that ministers had no ground, of justification for their attack on Copenhagen. If they really meant to counteract the projects of Buonaparte, they should have co-operated with Denmark in resisting his forces, instead of having committed a most violent act of aggression. Our conduct on that occasion, he considered to be the greatest triumph gained by the enemy during the present contest, because it was a proceeding which justified all his oppressions and other measures of rigour, violence, and plunder. How degraded must Great Britain have appeared after the perpetration of such atrocity! We who had shed our blood, and expended our treasure, in support of the laws of nations and of justice, had, after a struggle of many years, debased ourselves by a violation of every principle which had raised Our Character in the eyes of the world, and held us up as the guardians of the rights of nations. It was fortunate, however, that the people could still maintain their weight, and that we might be able to rescue the country from the dishonourable condition in which it had been placed by ministers. In the hope of accomplishing this desirable ob-
1217
Lord G. L. Gower
hoped the house would indulge him while he stated a few facts, on the ground of which he felt himself bound to dissent from the Resolution and to support the Amendment which it was proposed to introduce upon it. He had listened to all the arguments advanced to support the resolution, and there was not one among them which gave him reason to doubt, that if the expedition to Copenhagen had never taken place, we should now have been equally at war with Denmark as we are. It was the known and avowed determination of the French government to force all the continental powers to take a part in the war, and Denmark, it was notoriously known, wanted strength and resolution to resist the appeal. He had no doubt that Denmark would have preferred neutrality, if left to her option: but when the alternative of chusing between Great Britain and France would have been put to her, he had as little doubt that her inclination and her fears would have led her to prefer France. The house would recollect, from the correspondence of lord Howick with Mr. Rist and Mr. Garlike that when the court of Denmark was most loud in complaint of the Order in Council of the 7th of January, which was in strict conformity with the law of nations, it was, at the same time, taking all possible pains to palliate the French Decrees, which went to violate the neutrality of every nation. He would also bring to the recollection of the house, that all English letters had been prevented from passing to and from the continent by means of the Danish post; and that Mr. Thornton had been, in consequence, obliged to make use of special messengers, when he wanted to send any dispatch of ever so little moment. It was also material to consider; that the new system of maritime law announced by Buonaparte was in perfect conformity with the known policy of the court of Denmark, with the principles which had employed the pens of the ablest Danish writers, and with the feelings and interests of the whole Danish people. From all these considerations, there was no doubt on his mind, that if Denmark was put to the alternative, as she certainly would have been, she would have preferred the alliance of France to that of Britain. It was said, that the emperor of Russia was, in the feelings of his mind, favourable to
1218
1219
Mr. Abercromby
supported the Address. The expedition against Copenhagen was admitted on all hands to be a departure from the acknowledged rule and practice of nations; and in order to justify this deviation, ministers ought to have proved that they neglected no means which might be calculated to stimulate Denmark to active exertions in her own defence; that Denmark was incapable of defending herself with the assistance of this country, which could only be done satisfactorily by the report of military officers; that in consequence of the expedition they had procured for the country a substantial and permanent security. They ought also to have proved that the expedition was defensible, as well on the ground of policy as of justice. But as there was no evidence in the papers which had been laid before the house to prove any one of these positions, he should certainly vote fur the Address.
Mr. Thornton
vindicated the conduct of government, and thought it not right to do so by a silent vote, but to state his reasons, that he might not seem to contradict his vote on a former night, relative to the subject of a treaty made in our India possessions. He said that France had issued her decree over the continent; "the house of Brunswick has ceased to reign." He defended the conduct of ministers in the attack upon Copenhagen from the hostile, sentiments which Denmark was known to entertain against this country on the late occasion, and which she had likewise manifested in 1780 and in 1801. A great deal had been said upon the morality of the measure, but he reminded the house that ministers had a moral duty to perform to their own, as well as to other countries; which was, to vindicate its rights, and to watch over its security and independence. Gentlemen also had talked much of the law of nations, forgetting the important circumstance, that now there were no nations on the continent of Europe but one. They had all been swallowed up in the vortex of France. Russia was France, Germany, was France, Prussia was France, Denmark was France;
1220
The Secretary at War
considered the proceedings at Copenhagen as no breach of the law of nations. There was an engine of war which an enemy meant to turn against us, and we anticipated him by getting possession of it first. He shewed that the Danes were totally incapable of making any resistance in Holstein, and their having taken no step to remove their army to Zealand, or to put that and other islands into a state of defence, even when a large French army had entered Hamburgh, was a proof that no resistance was intended. No other object could be assigned for this assemblage of French troops at Hamburgh, but to compel Denmark to coincide in the views of France Even the naval force of Denmark, which was essential to the defence, of Zealand, was in such a condition, that it required six weeks preparation to lit it to encounter the sea. From there circumstances, it was evident, that there was in the court, of Denmark, a want of power and exertion to defend itself, and a disposition to yield, which it became our duty to anticipate, so far as the effects of it might be detrimental to us.
Dr. Laurence
observed, in answer to what had been said by the hon. member, that there were still some nations existing, such as Sweden, Sicily, Sardinia, and America. And though all nations had been ingulph-
1221
1222
Mr. Fitzgerald
(knight of Kerry,)
said that he had been anxious to obtain the attention of the Speaker at an earlier period of the debate, because he was conscious that, having no claim on the attention of the house from ability to do justice to the question, he was little able to encounter that impatience which naturally prevailed at so late an hour.—He was, however, glad that the hon. and learned gentleman, (Dr. Laurence) had preceded him, for by laying down the laws of nations with his superior authority and talent, he had spared the house from hearing those principles more feebly urged by him, and left him only the duty of deducing, from what had been so ably stated, some principles which should guide the house in their decision on that night.—He .could now venture with more safety to argue, that other nation
1223
1224
de facto
1225
1226
1227
1228
Mr. Croker
supposed it was to enable himself to make the singular boast of perfect impartiality in so vital and national a question, that the right hon. gent. who had just sat down had neither attended to the former debates on this subject, or read the papers which lay upon the table; he had (Mr. Croker supposed) taken great precaution that his first impressions should not be effaced, for surely no man who had heard the everlasting debates, or perused the voluminous papers which this business had produced, could now have ventured to repeat the obsolete and defeated sophisms of former nights, and persuade himself that he was saying any thing that at all related to the question—but Mr. Croker could not attribute this to the mere wish to preserve the right hon. gent.'s mind undisturbed by party conviction, the fact rather seemed to be, that, driven as gentlemen on the other side had been from every inch of firm argument, they had fled to find what footing they might in those shifting sands of declamation into which no body would think it worth while to follow them. There, at least, he, for one, would leave them. It was absurd, in debating this matter, in this particular view, to talk of Danish-good will, and the Danish desire to preserve neutrality. He dirt not doubt that selfish desire; but he was convinced, if it at all bore on the question, that there bad been long since a tendency in Denmark to favour France at the expence of this country—but on that he would not rest; but on the undeniable assertion, that there had long been in France a resolution to unite Denmark with the rest of Europe against England, and that her fleet was looked to as the chief weapon of the confederacy. No acts of ours increased the desires of France or accelerated the submission of the North. Whether we had been vigorous as we had been, or listless as gentlemen would have had us be, it was evident that Denmark must have yielded to the requisitions of France. A right hon. gent. had said it was not enough to persuade the majority of the house of this, we should persuade the majority of the nation and of Europe. The majority of Europe he should hardly hope to be able to do that—to.satisfy this majority of Europe, over which France has spread herself, that We have clone right in striking a blow, one of the most decisive and irrecoverable that that power ever
1229
1230
1231
Mr. Whitbread
took a comprehensive view of the subject, and answered all the arguments that had been urged at different times in favour of the expedition. The term 'shabby iniquity,' he maintained, was completely suited to the conduct of ministers on that occasion; its application was supported by the manner in which such an expression Would be likely to be used in common life. If a person was to be guilty of a petty theft against a poor weak person, when at the same time it was seen that the thief had refrained from the commission of a robbery where more booty was to be gained, but with a greater risk, it might fairly be said, t hat such a man was a shabby thief; that he was detestable for his iniquity, and contemptible for his cowardice.—After slightly noticing some observations that fell from other members, he dwelt with much force upon what had been stated by a noble lord near him (lord G. L. Gower): that noble lord, with that degree of authority which attached to the situation which he lately held, came forward in that house, if he conceived his meaning rightly, to throw an imputation on the sovereign with whom he but a short time back held intimate communications, and to contradict those friends with whom he lately acted, without using a single argument in support of the-position he assumed—the presumption that we should certainly have had a war with Russia, if the expedition to Copenhagen had not taken place; this conjecture he supported by the confederacies of 1780 and 1801, in both of which cases Sweden took the lead of Denmark; and when it was universally acknowledged, that no great measure was adopted by the powers of the north of Europe, without the concurrence, the hearty and sincere approbation, or a positively agree-
1232
Mr. Secretary canning
vindicated the conduct and consistency of his noble friend, and asserted, that though, from the communications received from him, he had not any sanguine expectation that hostility with Russia could he avoided, it had been his and his colleagues wish to avail themselves of every opportunity that might offer of restoring a perfect good understanding between the two countries. The
1233
1234
1235
Lord H. Petty
replied to the observations of the secretary for foreign affairs. The Noble lord chewed, by referring to the dispatches of Mr. Garlike, that Denmark was taking no measures that could warrant the slightest suspicion of any design on her part to act against this country. As to the Russian war, the noble lord was willing to concede, that even if the Danish expedition had not taken place, that war would have arisen; but yet it would have been a war of a different character. We should not have had the opinion and people of Russia and of the civilized world against us, which the Danish expedition had produced. Upon the nature of the arguments adduced by the right hon. secretary and his advocates, the noble lord animadverted at some length. He conceived those gentlemen, as it were, to confess the inefficacy of a war of justice against injustice, and to proclaim this dangerous and degrading doctrine to the World, that England was warranted and resolved to employ the worst weapons used by France, for the purpose of overcoming what it called French iniquity.
After a short reply from Mr. Sharp, the house divided: For the motion 64; Against it 224; Majority 160.—Strangers were not readmitted, but we understood, that Mr. Stuart Wortley moved a resolution of thanks to ministers for their conduct, &c. on the Danish expedition, and Upon this a division took place: Ayes 216; Noes 61; Majority 155.—Adjourned at 6 o'clock on Tuesday morning
HOUSE OF LORDS
Tuesday, March 22.
[COMMERCIAL POLICY OF THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] The Earl of Lauderdale
in calling the attention of their lordships to this subject, observed, that the important question now for their consideration was, whether that system of mercantile policy under which the commerce prosperity of this country had so greatly increased until the issuing of the Orders in Council, should at once be done away, and the whole commerce of the country put to hazard, for the sake of the novel and dangerous principles contained in the Orders in Council. Upon this measure he was compelled to argue without the species of information which ought to have been before the house, namely, that which could be given by the merchants and manufacturers whose interests would be
1236
1237
l
l
1238
1239
Earl Bathurst
denied that the commerce of the country had, previous to the issuing of the Orders in Council, shown that increasing prosperity stated by the noble lord; on the contrary, the experts, which in 1806 amounted to 27,000,000
l
l
1240
Lord King
commented on the apparent inconsistency of endeavouring to make the Orders in Council at once a measure of a belligerent nature and of commercial policy.
Lord Holland
entirely concurred with the noble lord as to the inconsistency he had stated; but it was not the only one: when the measure was censured as unproductive, they were told that it was not a measure of revenue; and yet when the
1241
Lord Grenville
said, he did not rise to prolong the debate. Upon a former occasion he had taken an opportunity of stating fully and distinctly his sentiments upon the commercial policy of these Orders. His object in rising, was, to resist altogether the idea of any similarity between these Orders and that of the 7th of Jan. He contended that they were not only not alike, but essentially different. Sardinia, it was true, had been excepted; but Sardinia was not the only exception. At that time Denmark (would to God she were so now !) was neutral, and engrossed by much the greater portion of the neutral trade of Europe. The able and statesman-like note of his-noble friend (earl Grey) to the Danish minister, was a sufficient commentary upon the nature and object of that Order: but this mode of justifying by recriminating, involved the noble secretary in a strange dilemma. That Order was either right or wrong; if wrong, why attempt to justify the present Orders by proving their similitude to that? and if right, why make it the object of such extraordinary censure, that even his majesty in council was made, in the preamble to those Orders, to censure that act as injudicious and ineffectual, to which he had been advised to give his royal sanction? With respect to their effect on America, he should not now say any thing: the event would be shortly known, and he trusted that when it should be known, the result would not verify his apprehensions. As far as he could judge from such private advices as persons were pleased to communicate to him, he was, he confessed, inclined to believe that the intelligence of his majesty's ministers' intentions, with respect to the measure of the Orders in Council, was known in America several days before the measure of the embargo had been resolved on: and if so, it was not unreasonable to conclude, that that intelligence must have had no inconsiderable influence in producing the adoption of that measure.
Lord Hawkesbury
said, that ministers had received no intelligence, from any authentic source, that could lead them to believe, that the Americans knew any thing of the
1242
Lord Grenville
said, that he had no secret advices, nor did he know what the noble secretary meant by the words 'secret advices.' His information was as public as the public papers of the country could make it. A commercial house here had sent information to America of the intention to issue these Orders, and of their nature and tendency, and that information was perfectly accurate. Their correspondents in America acknowledged the receipt of the intelligence on the 16th of Dec. being six days before the embargo was laid on. He desired the noble secretary not to take this statement upon his authority, but to call the merchant to the bar, who would confirm it on oath.
The house then divided on the question of agreeing to the first Resolution: Contents, 21; Non Contents, 56; Majority, 35.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 22.
[WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION.] The time appointed for taking into consi-
1243
[GREENWICH HOSPITAL.] Sir C. Pole
, pursuant to notice, called the attention of the house to some appointments on the establishment of this hospital, in which due regard was not had to the preference which ought to be shewn to persons who had served in the navy. He cited all the commissions relative to Greenwich Hospital, from the first under William and Mary, to shew, that such a preference ought always to be given; and concluded with moving an Address to his majesty, praying, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions, that all the appointments belonging to the said hospital should henceforth filled with persons who had served in the navy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said it must be the object of every one to promote as much as possible what the hon. baronet was desirous to accomplish. But there were offices for which persons properly qualified could not be found in the navy, such as clerk of the works, who should be an architect; auditor, who should be a lawyer; organist, brewer, clerk of the cheque, surveyor, and others. With these exceptions, he thought no other office should be filled otherwise than from the navy, except when, after a month's notice in the newspapers, no naval person should present himself with proper qualifications to fill the office vacant. He should propose an amendment, adopting the hon. baronet's idea, with this limitation, and he should, in the event of the amendment being adopted, propose an Address to his majesty, praying that he would cause a corresponding alteration to be made in the Charter of Greenwich Hospital.
1244
[PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house went into committee, in which the adjourned consideration of the Petitions against the Orders in Council was resumed. The following witnesses were then called in and examined, Mr. Wm. Bell, Mr. Thomas Martin, Mr. Alex. Forrester, and Mr. Abraham Mann. On account of the lateness of the hour, and there being then five other witnesses to examine, the further consideration of the question was postponed till tomorrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March, 23
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord Auckland
rose to offer a motion to the house, which, in his opinion, might afford an opportunity of bringing the house to a decision on the long contested point, whether the Petitions against the operation of the Orders in Council, which had been presented to the house, were to be attended to or not. After insisting on the right which the subject undoubtedly had of being heard against measures which aggrieved him, and after enumerating a number of precedents, to shew that the object of his motion was strictly conformable to the standing orders of the house, and the best practice of parliament in the best times, his lordship concluded with moving, "That the Orders in Council be referred to a committee of the whole house, and that the petitioners against them be heard by themselves and counsel, as to such points in which the petitioners could shew they had a distinct and direct interest."
Lord Auckland,
after complimenting their lordships on at length adopting ,some mode of hearing the petitioners, then
1245
The Lord Chancellor
attacked the late administration for their Order in Council of the 7th of Jan. and asserted that it was the foundation of the late Orders.
Lord Erskine
said, that this charge repeatedly made reminded him of Swift's Tale of a Tub. We produce, said lord Erskine, a piece of bread, we eat it in their presence, we bring the baker who baked it; every body round agree it to be bread, but the noble lords answer that it is not bread, but the fattest mutton that ever came out of Leadenhall Market, and the only proof they give of the proposition is, that if any man ventured to assert the contrary, they hoped that God might eternally damn him. Lord Erskine said, that these Were the words of the rev. Dean Swift, and not his, and therefore the bishops must pardon the profaneness. He said, he had no doubt, that if it were convenient to establish that his lordship's black coat was any green colour, it might easily be accomplished. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye'—would give it in a moment any colour in the rainbow.
1246
Lord Grenville
moved that the chairman should report progress, but this was resisted. The preamble after a good deal of controversy was agreed to. It was ordered that the house should resume, and the chairman ask leave to sit again. The house accordingly resumed, and after receiving the report of the chairman of the committee, adjourned at four o'clock on Thursday morning.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 23.
[PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] After the other orders of the day were disposed of, the house Went into a committee on the Petitions against the Orders in Council. Mr. Brougham, the counsel for the Petitioners, Was called in and the examination of Mr. Mann, which
1247
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 24.
[EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.]The Earl of Suffolk
rose pursuant to notice, to move for the Correspondence which had passed between his majesty's ministers and Mr. Garlike, respecting the hostile designs of the court of Denmark against this country, which it had been asserted, were made evident by that correspondence. It was desirable indeed that satisfactory evidence should be laid before the house, in proof of the expediency or necessity which induced ministers to embark in such a violent and unwarrantable measure as the
1248
Lord Hawkesbary
observed, that if the noble earl had attended former debates, he must have known that the Papers he now moved for had already been refused, and that the motion, the object of which was to have them produced, had been negatived, after a mature and long discussion: such Papers having been produced in another place, was no reason why they should be laid before their lordships, the more so, as no special grounds had been stated for producing them, and as the subject to which they related had long since been thoroughly investigated and solemnly decided on. As no necessity whatever was shewn for the production of such papers at the present moment, he thought himself perfectly justified in opposing the motion which had been proposed by the noble earl.
Earl Grey
argued in support of the motion. When these very documents were moved for in another place, they had been refused on the plea that the production of them might be detrimental to the public interests; yet, when the same papers were afterwards moved for in order to vindicate the character of an individual, all apprehensions of public danger vanished, and in order to clear the character of that individual, the correspondence was produced. The noble lord concluded with a warm panegyric on the conduct of Mr. Garlike, which in all the situations that gentleman had been placed in, was uniformly marked by ability, integrity, and zeal.
Lord Hawkesbury
most cheerfully coin-
1249
Lord Grenville
supported the motion, contending that the house were still very imperfectly informed upon this subject. He did not approve of making public a whole series of diplomatic correspondence, of that they had in one instance experienced the ill effects, but in this case he thought it important that the information asked for should be granted, in order that the house might be better enabled to discuss these points immediately connected with it.
Lord Mulgrave,
conceiving that the noble lord had alluded to the correspondence laid before parliament when he (lord Mulgrave) quitted the foreign office, entered into a justification of his conduct upon that occasion, and said, that if there was any thing to blame in that transaction, noble lords ought to have made it the subject of inquiry. In the course of his speech he alluded to the appointment of Mr. Adair to Vienna, and to the rumours respecting the supposed secret mission of that gentleman upon a former occasion to St. Petersburgh, which probably a noble lord on the other side (the relation of the person who sent him) could explain.
Lord Holland
rose considerably agitated by the allusion reflecting on the conduct of Mr. Fox, in a transaction which happened nearly 20 years ago, and of which he was certainly too young at the time to know the circumstances. The insinuations upon it, however, had been so repeatedly proved to be absurd, that nothing but the perverse spirit which had been manifested that night, could have again brought it up. The noble lord had said, that if the conduct of the ministers who had made the coalition that ended so fatally for Austria was criminal, it ought to have been questioned. To this lord Holland replied, that probably his friends ought to have instituted an inquiry into it. Their motives of forbearance, he thought, would have been obvious to every noble lord, viz. that as the administration who bad made that coalition, had lost the person who was most distinguished for talents, they thought it illiberal to pursue the rest of the body.
1250
Lord Mulgrave
disclaimed the slightest intention of wounding the feelings of the noble lord.—The question was then put, and negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 24.
[WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION.] The Speaker
informed the house, that the Petition, complaining of an undue election and return for the city and liberty of Westminster, having been appointed to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday last, at half an hour after three in the afternoon, the right hon. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the petitioner, did not appear before the house, by himself, his counsel, or agents, within one hour after the time so appointed; and that, in pursuance of an act, made in the 28th year of his present majesty, he had certified into the court of exchequer the Recognizance entered into in respect of the said petition, and had also certified the default which had been made in the performance of the condition of the said recognizance.
[IRISH GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS.] Mr. Fitzgerald
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers relative to the mode of raising money by the Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland. He wished to avoid any discussion on the subject till the papers were laid on the table; but he would state the course he meant to pursue, and the object he had in view, in order to prevent misconception. He moved for these papers on two grounds: first, with reference to the amount of the sums raised, and secondly, with respect to the mode of raising them. He did not mean to question the powers of the Grand Juries, or to transfer these powers to any other quarter. But he wished to have some more equal mode of collecting the tax, and a better mode of accounting for the money. He intended once to include all this in a bill relative to the Irish roads; but the subject was so extensive and important that it would be better to refer it to a committee of the house, by which means it might come more particularly under the review of such as were acquainted with the mode of raising, applying and accounting for county money in England. An account of the amount had been already laid on the table. What he wanted now was an account of the mode of application, of the way in which the money was accounted for, and of the time the grand juries had for the
1251
[PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
after moving the order of the day for going into a committee on the Petitions against the Orders in Council, thought it right, before he should move that the Speaker do leave the chair, to state the course which he proposed to recommend to the house to adopt, on the subject of the examination of other witnesses, and which, upon inquiry, he found to be conformable to the precedents of the practice of the house on similar occasions. It was therefore not his intention to move this day for the production of other evidence, but according to the practice of the house to allow the present petitioners to close their case, and afterwards to hear the observations of their counsel, upon the evidence produced by them. It would then be competent to the house, if the evidence should not appear sufficient, to call upon the other petitioners, or upon other witnesses, and to examine them, touching the subject. But as it might not be fair, to call upon the learned counsel, suddenly, to submit his observations to the house, upon the evidence, he proposed, that, however short the time might be, which would be occupied this night in the examination of the remaining witnesses, the business should stand over till Tuesday, when the learned counsel should he heard upon the evidence.
Mr. Tierney
thought, that even the course proposed on the preceding evening, by the right hon. gent. that of hearing the contrary evidence, and of being present by their counsel to cross-examine the witnesses that should be brought forward, before he was finally to sum up, would have been much more desirable for the petitioners than that now suggested. It would be peculiarly hard upon the petitioners, if evidences should be brought forward to disprove the allega-
1252
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
insisted that the proceeding was perfectly regular, and adverted to the precedent of the course adopted upon a Petition against the Tobacco bill in the year 1790, as fully in point; on which occasion the petitioners evidence and counsel had been heard at the bar; and the house had afterwards thought fit to call for other witnesses, and to examine with respect to the matter of the petition and the evidence brought forward in support of it.
Mr. Tierney
acquiesced for the present, but reserved to himself the right to oppose the course proposed by the right hon. gent. if it should appear to him not to be regular.
The Speaker
then laid down the practice of the house in a clear and satisfactory manner. Whatever course it should ultimately please the house to adopt, the proceeding, he observed had been hitherto perfectly regular. In the opposition which had been given to the Boston port bill, and the bill to restrain the Trade of New England, petitioners had been heard by their counsel at the bar of this house, and evidence examined in support of their petitions, but that had not precluded the house from taking such other steps as were deemed expedient to investigate the allegations of the petitioners. There were many instances of the examination of witnesses upon petitions, at the bar of the house, but the later practice had been to examine witnesses at the bar in a committee of the whole house. As to the proceeding in a Committee of Trade, when petitioners presented themselves to that house, and prayed to be heard by their counsel, the practice was, if their petition was received, to accede to the prayer of it, and by the habit of the house, after hearing evidence, to permit the counsel to sum up the whole at the conclusion of the case. The house had then many courses, any one of which it might adopt, but it was quite impossible that a committee of the whole house should be tied up by the
1253
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 25.
[PATENTS.] The Earl of Lauderdale
presented three motions with respect to applications for continuing the terms of Patents, directing that notice of every such application should be given in the London Gazette, 6 weeks previous to the meeting of parliament; that no application should be received, unless the term of the patent should be within two years of expiring; and that the person applying should bring proof that he was either the inventor or the representative of the inventor of the invention specified in the patent. His lordship moved, that these motions should be taken into consideration
1254
[JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.] Lord Grenville
took up the idea which of late had been frequently adverted to by many noble lords, Viz. that of taking some measure for procuring a more regular printing of the journals of that house, together with fit Indexes to the same; and concluded with moving an instruction to that effect to the standing committee of the journals.
Lord Hawkesbury
most cheerfully concurred in the motion of the noble baron, and promised every support on his part, and on that of his colleagues, towards the accomplishment of so desirable an object.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.]
The Orders in Council bill was read a third time.
Lord Grenville
re-urged several of his former arguments upon this subject, and contended that the evidence adduced in another place had proved the injurious effects of the Orders in Council, in the prevention of the export of our manufactures to America for the purpose of their being exported to Europe, and in the detention of American vessels bound to Europe, by which the remittances were to be procured, which Were to pay for our manufactures exported to America.
Lord Hawkesbury
contended that the Orders in Council were calculated to benefit the trade of the country, and that they tended to that object was the opinion of the greater part of the merchants of London, and of the merchants of Liverpool, even those of the latter who were engaged in the American trade; and if the manufacturers in Yorkshire, or any other part of the country, had sustained losses, those losses were not to be attributed to the Orders in Council, but to other causes.
Earl Grey
argued that the assertions with respect to the benefit to be derived from the Orders in Council were not proved.—The amendment was negatived.
1255
[PROTEST AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.]
The following Protest against this Bill was entered upon the journals:
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 25.
[INDICTMENT BILL.]
The Attorney General moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for amending the law with regard to the course of proceeding on Indictments and Informations in the court of King's Bench in certain cases; for autho-
1256
[SUGAR DISTILLERY COMMITTEE.] Sir John Sebright
gave notice, that he would, on Monday, move, that the names of some additional persons be annexed to the Sugar Distillery committee.
Lord Binning
thought it proper on this occasion to call the attention of the house to certain statements which appeared in the public newspapers, purporting that the Sugar Committee had come to a resolution to recommend the prohibition of the use of grain in distillation, and that the report would be made in a week. The committee had come to no resolution, nor could it be presumed what resolution they would come to. All he could say was, that the committee was pursuing the investigation of the subject with the diligence which the importance of the subject required, and the fidelity that the trust reposed by the house demanded. He could not say at what time the Report would be made, though the committee, for its own sake, would be anxious to terminate its sittings as soon as possible. He thought it right to say thus much, in order to correct any false or premature statements that might have gone abroad.
The Speaker
informed the noble lord, that it would be his duty to apply to that house for summary redress against any persons that should again so violate their privileges.
Lord Binning
pledged himself to the house, that if such a circumstance should again occur, he would bring it forthwith before the house.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 28.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Biddulph
the chairman of the committee appointed to take into consideration the Petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Penrhyn, reported, that the sitting member, Charles Lemon, esq. was duly elected, and that the said petition was frivolous and vexatious.—Mr. M. Pitt, the chairman of the committee appointed to take into consideration the Petition complaining of an undue return for the brother of Stirling, reported that A. Campbell, esq. the sitting member, was duly elected, and that the said petition did not appear to them to be frivolous or vexatious.
1257
[IRISH EXPRESSES.] Mr. Parnell
made his motion on this subject. During the last four years above 25,000
l
l
Sir A. Wellesley
had no objection whatever to the motion. As to the communications which had been made by the Irish government to the editor of a Dublin newspaper, they had been made, because when an express did arrive, it was deemed expedient not to withhold from the Irish public the intelligence brought by it : they had been made to the editor of that paper, because it was the only daily evening paper published in Dublin; and they had been made to him alone, because it was not practicable to send one set of papers to more than one place. He repeated that the paper in question was by no means in the interest of government, but was totally unconnected with it. With regard to the information respecting the improvement of the ordinary intercourse between the two countries, the subject had engaged the serious .attention of Government, who had for some time been concerting measures with the Post-master General for the attainment of so desirable an object. He trusted therefore, that the hon. gent. would not press his mot on on that subject.
Mr. Parnell
acquiesced in the wish just expressed by the hon. bart. On the other
1258
[AUSTRIAN MEDIATION.] Mr. Whitbread
rose to ask a question he had once before put to the right hon. secretary, and to which, if he understood it well, he had then received an answer in the negative. The question was if no communication had passed between the court of Vienna and this country, from April to Oct. last? Since he had received the answer to which he alluded, the Declaration had appeared, and it afforded information, that in July certain propositions had been submitted to this country from the court of Vienna; and that an answer to them had been returned front this country, which he (Mr. W.) should suppose must have gone through the hands of the right hon. secretary. He now wished to ask that right hon. gent. if he had any recollection of such intermediate communication; or, if he was to understand that the assertion in the Austrian Declaration was false? He had two other questions to put to a noble lord, whom he now saw in the house (lord G. L. Gower); first, if the expression stated on, a former night, to have been used to him, 'il faut pour le moment menager I'Angleterre,' had been communicated to ministers at home, in any of his dispatches at the time? The other, if he believed that such letter or other communication was in existence, that he would favour hint with the date of it, as it was his (Mr. W.'s) intention to move for it, that it might be seen who the person was who used that expression?
Mr. Secretary Canning
said he could only repeat, that as to the best of his recollection, no communication on the point alluded to by the hon. gent. had taken place. He did not say, that no communication had passed within the period alluded to; but certainly nothing like that stated by the hon. member. As to the questions
1259
Lord G. L. Gower
said, the expression had been communicated by him to some person in this country, he believed, in a private letter.
Mr. Whitbread
gave notice that he should move for this communication, with the date of which he hoped the noble lord would favour him, on the first open day.
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] Mr. Bankes
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent, for a time to be limited, the granting of Offices in Reversion, or for joint lives, with the benefit of survivorship. Two principal reasons had originally actuated the committee of which he had the honour to be chairman, in recommending a bill of this kind to the consideration of the house. The first was an opinion that there was no utility in granting Offices in Reversion, but that it would be of infinitely greater advantage, both to the persons performing services to the state and also to the government itself, that an opportunity should be afforded, at the time a vacancy happened, of considering who was best qualified to supply it, than that it should be disposed of long before there was any prospect of a vacancy, thereby affording an opportunity to those in power at the time, of bestowing such offices on persons not meriting by their services any mark of public favour. The other was a consideration merely financial; it appearing to the committee to be advisable that the power of granting Offices in Reversion should be suspended, till they should have concluded their inquiries as to what offices were fit to be abolished, and what to be reformed. In what he should state to-day, he begged it to be understood, that he did not depart from any thing he had said when he first introduced this measure; he trusted the house would be actuated by similar sentiments, and would not so suddenly and lightly depart from what, in a former parliament, they had resolved unanimously, and in the last and present parliament had passed, though not unanimously, yet nearly so. He was one of those persons who wished to do all the good he could, where he was not allowed to do all the good he wished. Therefore, he should not to-day give any opinion on the first of the two points to
1260
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
though he had no objection whatever to the motion of his hon. friend, thought it, but can did to state to him, that, in all probability
1261
1262
The Hon. J. W. Ward
after having stated the benefits which the adoption of this measure would afford, observed, that the principal cause of his regret at its having been lost in the other house was, that it showed that that branch of the legislature was not disposed to assist the house of commons in redeeming the pledge which they had a few years ago given the people to enquire into and to reform public abuses. That their lordships had been actuated by the sincerest wishes for the public advantage, he would not deny; but he certainly did not think that the wisdom of their decision corresponded with the purity of their motives. He was ready fairly to own, that he did not look upon. economy as a means of considerably alleviating the public burthens. But although it would not do so much as some expected, and as all wished, it would be consoling for the house to reflect, that under the present circumstances of the country, when the people were called upon for such extraordinary sacrifices, every thing had been done by the legislature to prevent an unnecessary aggravation of their hardships. There existed in the country a description of persons encreasing with the weakness of the country—persons unconnected with any party in parliament, but whose great object was to decry parliament altogether. The leaders taught, and the followers believed; that parliament disregarded the interests of their constituents. This was a danger daily augmenting; the only way of meeting it was, by a conduct that should not only be free from guilt, but also free from suspicion; by adopting measures that should show unequivocally the disposition of parliament to correct public abuses,
1263
1264
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explanation repeated, that in his opinion—an opinion which he had before expressed in the house, the measure was, not of considerable importance. The amendments which he had described he should propose to the house for the express purpose of endeavouring to carry into effect more securely the objects in view.
Mr. W. Dundas
professed to entertain the highest respect for the Committee of Finance, but he could not help thinking, that the rights of the crown ought to be held equally sacred with the rights of the people, and that by sanctioning a bill of the nature of that now moved for, these rights would be essentially invaded, for the circumstance of its operation. being restricted to limited time, did not at all change the obnoxious nature of its principle. Whether it was to be of perpetual or only temporary duration, it was equally an infringement of the legitimate rights of the crown. The hon. gent. who had supported the measure, talked as if he had been arraigning the other house of parliament in rejecting the former bill for sanctioning some enormous abuse, or for usurping some prerogative which did not belong to it; whereas no abuse had ever been proved to exist, and the house of lords had merely exercised a right which was vested in it by the constitution. He gave it as his opinion, that the bill, either in its for-
1265
Mr. Ponsonby
made an apology for troubling the house, after the most admirable speech which had been made by his hon. friend (Mr. Ward), but after what had fallen from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, he could not refrain from making a very few observations. The hon. gent. had talked as if the prerogative of the crown was something independent in its own nature, and granted entirely for the sake of the reigning prince, without any reference whatever to the community over which he reigns. The hon. gent. also contended, that no abuse of this part of the prerogative had been proved. Mr. Ponsonby admitted that the Committee of Finance had not entered into any details of abuses flowing from the exercise of this prerogative, but he appealed to the understanding and information of every person who heard him, whether any part of the royal prerogative had been more abused than that of granting offices in reversion. The hon. gent. had reprobated the doctrine, that the house of commons was entitled to interfere with the prerogative of the crown, as a doctrine which, if once admitted, would reduce the constitution of the country to a mere shadow and pretence. Parliament had often interfered, and he hoped that parliament would continue to interfere with this prerogative, as often as the occasion called for it, and that it would always take care that the royal prerogative was exercised for the good of the people. Mr. Ponsonby admitted that there was considerable weight in what the chancellor of the exchequer had said, of the propriety of guarding against any thing which might tend to create a serious misunderstanding between the two branches of the legislature. But he reminded the house, that they were the constitutional guardians of the public purse, and that in this capacity it was peculiarly their duty to watch over every thing connected with the public expenditure. The power of granting of
1266
Mr. Biddulph
thought that the proceedings of the house of lords upon the former bill, went upon a principle which was unfavourable to all reform; and the clauses which the chancellor Of the exchequer had
1267
l
Mr. Hawkins Browne
considered the present Bill to be valuable as constituting a part of a general plan of reform, which he hoped would be pursued with zeal and constancy. He had seen what the people suffered from the burthens of necessary taxation, and while he lamented and sympathised with these sufferings, he had had great pleasure in witnessing the patience. with which they were supported. It was most desirable, however, that both houses of parliament should concur, for without an agreement of the two branches of the legislature, no Plan, however beneficial, could be carried into effect. He did not mean
1268
Sir R. Salusbury
said that the bill should have his warm support.
Lord Porchester
contended, that the clauses which the chancellor of the exchequer had intimated his intention of proposing would go completely to defeat the object of the bill; but as they were not before the house, he declined entering into a particular discussion of their merits. He deprecated the idea of the house of commons being deterred from doing its duty, from an apprehension of displeasing the other house of parliament. Neither could he agree with those, who thought that the object of the bill was so unimportant as had been represented, when it was recollected, that the late chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland had stated that it was impossible to carry some measures of reform in that country into effect, from the circumstance of some improvident grants having been made of Offices in Reversion. He thought also, that it would be much better for the house directly to negative the present measure, than to render its operations ineffectual by indirect means.
Mr. Bankes
in reply, expressed a hope that the chancellor of the exchequer would give sufficient notice of the precise nature of the clauses which he meant to propose, and also of the time when he meant to propose them. As far as he now understood them, he was of opinion that their. tendency went completely to disappoint the object which he had in view in moving for the bill.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
[LOTTERIES.] Mr. scroop Bernard
pursuant to notice, moved, "That a committee be appointed to inquire how far the evils attending Lotteries have been remedied by the laws passed respecting the same, and to, report their observations thereon to the house, together with such further measures as may be necessary for remedying the same." The hon. gent. prefaced his motion by several observations, which, from the low tone in which they were delivered, we feel it impossible to detail. The general purport of them was, to show the loss sustained by the public from the present mode of contracting for Lotteries, and the artifices used to seduce the lower
1269
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not mean to oppose the motion, though, at the same time, he was not prepared to say that if it was the object of the hon. gent. to abolish the present system of Lotteries, by which the public gained to the amount of 5 or 600,000
l
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 29.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL, AS CONNECTED WITH AMERICA.] Lord Holland.
My lords;
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
The Earl of Westmoreland
contended, that the Order of blockade, issued by the late administration in May, 1806, produced the Berlin decree in Nov. 1806, which gave birth to the Order in Council of the 7th of Jan. 1807, which produced the further and more severe decree of
1278
Lord Auckland
maintained, that the true interpretation of the Order of the 7th of Jan. was to be found in the Note of lord Howick to Mr. Rist, and contended, that ministers ought to have made that interpretation the basis of a communication on the subject to the American government.
The Earl of Darnley
followed on the same side, and contended, that the Order of the 7th of Jan. was strictly within the law of nations, whilst the Orders of Nov. last were wholly contrary to that law.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he had not intended to have troubled their lordships any more on this subject, as it had been most ably discussed by his noble friend; but, what fell from the noble earl opposite by way of invective, and to raise a laugh against the late ministers, induced him to break silence. The noble lord had stated," that the cruel attack on Copenhagen was caused by his majesty's late ministers: the argument that had been adduced to prove it, was too weak to require an answer, and he would pass the assertion with what it deserved—contempt. But the great question for noble lords to consider was, whether the measure of the late Orders in Council was a good one or not?
Lord Mulgrave
denied that the interpretation given by noble lords on the other side, to the Order of the 7th of Jan. was consistent with its fair and legal construction. With respect to Russia, the noble lord contended, that the conduct of the
1279
Lord Grenville
observed, that were it not that ministers were eager to catch at any thing which could enable them to avoid the particular subject under consideration, and to distract the attention of their lordships, they would never have wandered so much from the point as to enter upon the discussion of the merits of the conduct of the. late government towards Russia. They having adverted to that, however, he might be allowed to say a few words by way of reply. Assurances of aid, it was said, had been given to Russia, which were not followed up by corresponding efforts. Where did that appear? Russia might naturally be anxious to obtain, but it was for the government of this country to consider whether it ought to promise or to grant. The whole correspondence was a Series of refusals—refusals justified in every view of sound policy by the then situation of affairs. With respect to the refusal of the loan, his lordship stated, that the late government had seen no hopes of such advantages resulting from a compliance as would counterbalance the additional pressure on the people which it would occasion, if granted in the manner solicited. It was required that it should be raised at 5 per cent. and that it should be guaranteed by parliament. Was there any man who could say that this was a requisite which ought to have been complied with? With regard to the point of co-operation, he said, that whoever considered the state of the contending parties at the time, coolly and dispassionately, must be convinced, that it would have been madness to have sent an army to the continent. It was not money that Russia wanted, nor the comparatively feeble aid which we could have sent her. The resources of that great empire had not before been well organized: France had from the other corner of Europe, met Russia, with equal or superior numbers on her own "frontiers; France had for 17, years been engaged in war, and there was a difference, therefore, in the experience of the officers and the soldiers. These were the causes of failure on the part of
1280
1281
1282
Lord Hawkesbury
expressed his belief, that there was some ground for expectation in Russia that she would receive some assistance from this country. As to the exact nature or amount of that assistance, it was not for him to determine what it might have been; whether an expedition ought to have been sent to this point or the other, or at what precise period of the year it ought to have been equipped. A noble lord had dwelt with peculiar force upon the circumstance of a loan having been refused by this country to be granted to Russia. He lamented as sincerely as that noble lord, the burthens to which the people of this country were necessarily subjected; but, though-it might not suit the convenience of the country to advance six millions as a loan or subsidy to Russia, was the government of this country to consider itself so far restricted by the proposition of an advance to that amount being made to us, that it was not at liberty to say what sum it could afford, or what amount of money the nation would advance towards the support of the common cause of Europe? This, he contended, ought to have been done; for, on Russia, and on the assistance that it received, in order to enable it the more effectually to resist that overwhelming power which had now almost deluged the continent, depended the welfare of almost every other state. If Russia had received sufficient assistance, the emigration of the court of Lisbon might have been prevented; and if Russia had been properly supported, it might not have been neces-
1283
Lord Holland
replied to the arguments and assertions of noble lords on the other
1284
The question was then put on the first Resolution, when the house divided: Contents, 25: Non-contencs, 53. Majority, 28.—The other Resolutions were put, and negatived without any division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 29.
[DANISH FLEET.] Lord Folkestone
rose, pursuant to notice, to submit to the house a motion on the subject of the Danish Fleet. He professed himself to be one of those who had approved of the expedition. against Copenhagen; but, the frivolous manner in which that expedition had been since defended by his majesty's ministers, had contributed considerably to shake his original opinion upon the question. When the expedition was undertaken, he thought it warranted as a measure of self-defence on our part, considering the situation of the continental powers at that time, and the probability there was of the Danish Flees being added to the other acquisition of France. He confessed, that so strong an act as this was, could only be justified by a most pressing emergency; and, therefore, it seemed to him that we were called upon by every principle of equity as well as of policy, not to appropriate the Fleet to ourselves in perpetuity; but to restore it, as soon as that could be lone consistently with the maintenance of our own security. He was aware, that a preposition had been made to Denmark to restore it, provided the Danish government would consent voluntarily to surrender it into our custody; but this proposition was so degrading in its nature, that it could not be expected that the Danish government would accept of it, and he was of opinion, that that people ought not to be placed in a worse situation, than if such a proposition had never been either made by us or rejected by them. If we were to retain the pos-
1285
1286
Mr. Brand
expressed much regret, at seeing so thin an attendance upon a discussion of so much importance. Upon the question of the Copenhagen expedition, he had all along differed with those with whom he was in the habit of agreeing upon most political questions. He thought that expedition justifiable upon every principle of national and public law; but the grounds of defence which had been adopted by his majesty's ministers, he had no hesitation in pronouncing to be wholly untenable. A nation was certainly entitled to seize upon any instrument of hostile attack which was in the hands of a weak neutral, and which was likely to fall into the hands of a powerful enemy, and to be used by him for the purposes of further aggression. And, this being incontrovertibly a general principle, perfectly consonant to the law of nations, he contended, that there never were circumstances which more loudly called for its application, than those in which this country stood in relation to France and Denmark, when we took possession of the Danish fleet. But, having gone thus far in justifying the measure, he argued that the same reasons which rendered it necessary and proper that we should take possession of the fleet for a time, did not make it either necessary or proper that
1287
Mr. S. Thornton
expressed an opinion that the seizure of the Danish fleet could only be justified by an urgent necessity, and that, had no other measures of hostility taken place between this country and Denmark, that act on our part ought to have been limited by the necessity that gave rise to it. It ought to be remembered, however, that it was in the power of Denmark, at one time, to have secured the restitution of the fleet, but that she did not chuse to accept the proposition. that had been made to her with this view. As matters now stood, the fleet had come into our possession by conquest, and it appeared to him, that publishing a declaration avowing our intention of giving it up, without any knowledge whatever of the future state of Europe, would be a step dictated neither by policy nor justice. The address was also, to say the least of it, the more unnecessary, as it was not known what intentions his majesty's ministers might have without the interference of the house of commons.
Sir T. Turton
said, that if the weakness of Denmark had been the only reason why we should have had recourse to the seizure of the Danish fleet, in order to prevent its falling into the hands of France, a declaration of this kind would be very proper. But that was by no means the case, for there was proof of a hostile disposition on the part of Denmark ever since the French revolution, He denied that any new principles of morality had been maintained on that side. It had only been said, that circumstances might alter the mode of acting upon the old and real principles. Government might, per-
1288
Mr. Davies Giddy
supported the Address, not that he looked upon the restoration of the ships to Denmark as a matter of right; but that he thought it an act of generosity becoming the character of the British nation.
Mr. Wilberforce
professed himself one of those who thought that ministers had conscientiously and ably discharged their duty towards the country, in taking possession of the Danish fleet. He was satisfied they were aware of all the objections in point of morality; but that a paramount duty had compelled them to over-rule those objections. He would not allow that any consideration of time or circumstances warranted a deviation from the great principles of morality. In the expedition to Copenhagen, there was no such deviation. A superior duty had outweighed a lesser; and that was itself one of the first principles of moral duty and moral reasoning. The transactions with respect to Portugal involved the same principles, and the result made no difference. It might have been said that Portugal should be controuled by force, and that Denmark might have accepted the proffered alternative of amity and protection. Denmark was unwilling to take any measure whatever of defence against France; and if she had been willing, all she could have done would have been inadequate. It was, therefore, perfectly allowable in us, to secure the arms, which, if directed against us, might be dangerous. But, he was unwilling to carry violence beyond what the necessity of the case required. He would not have the high character of the nation sunk, by shewing a disposition to retain a valuable possession, when the exigency that caused us to seize that possession should have passed away. He wished, therefore, to take no step, with respect to the application of the ships, which might make it matter of difficulty for his majesty to restore them, when circumstances should render that proceeding perfectly consistent with the public safety. The naval and military officers might be compensated as they usually were, by a compensation from the public purse. He
1289
Mr. Hawkins Browne
entered fully into the generous feelings of his hon. friend, and agreed that all he had said would have been applicable, if the Danes had no hostile feelings to this country, and if their weakness alone had been the ground of danger to this country. But Denmark had acted like an enemy, and was treated as such, and her fleet was as lawful prize as any of the enemy's ships captured at sea. The motion was, besides, imprudent, even if there had been a ground for it; for who was to judge when Denmark might be completely neutral or not?
Mr. Hanbury Tracey
concurred in the motion. But, as to the ministers restoring the ships at the end of the war, he hoped that would not be exactly applicable; for he expected that before that time they would be out of power.
Mr. Babington
though he thought the expedition justfied, concurred in the address, on the same grounds as his hon. friend (Mr. Wiberforce).
Mr. Simeon
argued that there. was no ground for such an address, either in point of justice, policy, or generosity. We were justified in seizing the fleet, on the ground of necessity, whether Denmark should be considered as weak or as hostile; and therefore could not be bound in justice to restore the ships after the course which Denmark had taken at the time, and subsequent to the event. The policy also would be, absurd, flagrante hello; for it would prove an obstacle to future negotiation, and to our obtaining peace on such good terms as we might otherwise do. It would be regarded, in fact, as a censure on the expedition, and, therefore, he could see no ground for the motion, but a romantic generosity, which was of no use.
Mr. Bathurst
could not agree with an hon. gent. on the other side, that the ships in question, whether our lawful prize or not (for into that question he should not now go), were to be considered as the same sort of capture as if they had been taken on the high seas, durante hello. He denied, that any conviction was entertained of any previous hostility on the part of Denmark toward this country. Gentlemen, in saying so, said more than was
1290
Mr. Stephens
thought the present motion went to bind the future discretion of the country, by promises and stipulations which might ultimately prove more injurious and restrictive than it could now be possible to foresee. If the ships were to be restored, merely on the plea generosity, he did think that the object of the present motion would be to rob that generosity of its grace.
Sir James Hall
had never spoken with any gentleman upon the subject of the Baltic expedition, who did not, however strongly its advocate, seem to think that some degree of shame attached to it. That was a feeling rather foreign to the success that crowned the British arms in general; and, as he thought that the conditional restoration of the ships in question might serve, in some measure, to do away that imputation, he should feel it his duty to vote for the motion of the noble lord.—The house then divided: Ayes 44, Noes 105; Majority against the motion 61.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 31.
[NABOB OF OUDE.] Lord Archibald Hamilton
made his promised motion, for compensation to be made to the Nabob of Oude for the losses he had sustained by the seizure of one-half of his territories, and the very embarrassed state of his finances, occasioned by the measures of marquis Wellesley's government in India. The noble lord spoke at considerable length, but in so low a voice that it could not be heard distinctly from the gallery; but, as far as we could collect, it was to the following effect: He observed, that the Papers laid before the house, and the recent debates upon the Oude question, relieved him from the necessity of trespassing again upon their patience by farther details; the house had, indeed, come to a resolution upon this subject—final, he would admit, as far as concerned the conduct of the marquis Wellesley. To this resolution, as it was the sense of a majority of that house, he was bound to
1291
1292
1293
Mr. R. Dundas
said, that he was surprised that the house should now be called upon to discuss the same question which had been already decided on, by a resolution, in which the last resolution of the noble lord was not only negatived, but on which the house pronounced an opinion, approving of lord Wellesley's administration. He should, therefore, do little more than refer the noble lord to that decision, convinced, that were he now to go over again the arguments formerly adduced, he should be trespassing unnecessarily upon the time and patience of the house. Were the house of commons now to agree to the noble lord's resolutions, they would contradict their own decision. The noble lords did not shew, in any part of his speech, how this inconsistency could be avoided. The noble lord had not stated to the house how he intended that the nabob should be indemnified. If he meant that the territory which had been taken from him should be restored, he would find it very difficult to transfer the people of India from the governor of the East India Company
1294
Mr. H. Martin
took a view of the state of the parties in 1801, and of the circumstances which led to the treaty. He contended, that there was not the smallest ground at that time for the interference of the governor-general in the affairs of the nabob, who had religiously observed, all the stipulations of the treaty concluded in 1798, by sir John Shore. He expected, at least, that some necessity for the violation of this treaty would have been attempted to he established; but no such attempt had been made, and it appeared to be infringed merely to give effect to a system of aggrandisement which lord Wellesley had adopted, and was determined at all events to pursue. The kists were not even in arrear, and the company had derived all the advantage from the treaty of 1798 that ever was expected from it. It was said, indeed, that by this treaty the nabob would have contributed as much as he did at present. But, in answer to this he stated, that the company were obliged to keep up a force of not less than 11, and not more than 13,000 troops for 75 lacs of rupees, to be paid by the nabob; and till the subsidy was refused to be paid, which it never was, we certainly had no right whatever to seize upon his territory. We were called upon to consult the feelings of the natives of
1295
Mr. R. Thornton
lamented to see so thin an attendance upon a discussion so interesting to the national character. He thought the house on a former night had behaved worse even than lord Wellesley himself, in the manner in which they had got rid of the charges brought against him. He was not fond of renewed debates upon the same question, but he thought there was better grounds for renewing the debate on the present question, than on many others, though he did not flatter himself that the result would be different from what it had been. The treaty which was now under discussion, he declared, did not deserve that name, for to a treaty the assent of two parties was requisite, and the nabob certainly never had voluntarily given his assent to that of 1801. It was alledged, that it would be difficult to rescind the treaty, but nothing should ever be considered as difficult which was right, and if we had any regard to justice or national character, certainly some compensation ought to be granted to the nabob for the wrong he had sustained, however difficult it might be to find out the proper mode of compensation. The treaty was said to have originated in friendship, but if it began in friendship it ended in cruelty and injustice. The noble marquis seemed to have carried a sample of French fraternization to India. The treaty was really a sort of Gallican hug, in which the noble marquis had squeezed the nabob to death. One might as well call a robbery committed by a footpad on a traveller on Hounslow-Heath, a treaty! If the tyrant who had desolated Europe should ever reach our East India possessions, and find the hearts of the people alienated from us, and our name connected with injustice and oppression, he called upon the house to reflect what an advantage he would have over us. When Trajan put a sword into the hands of the prefect of the Pretorian Bands, he made use of these words, 'As long as I govern well, use it in my
1296
Mr. Howarth
Sir, I am not accustomed to address this house, or to speak in public, and therefore I should do it with great embarrassment at any time, but particularly now, when many gentlemen are calling for the question, and seem to wish to put an end to the debate. I shall, therefore, contract the little I intended to say on this occasion, and yield as soon and as much as I can, to the impatience of the house. Even that little is exposed to so many discouragements, that I should probably have confined myself to voting on the question, if my long residence in India had not furnished me with information, which I hope will be thought to deserve some attention.—I am not surprised that the hon. President of the Board of Controul should have shewn a vigorous disinclination to any further discussion of the subject. I have no doubt that, if the whole of the transactions in Oude were to be buried in oblivion, it would afford peculiar satisfaction to the friends of the noble marquis. Sir, we must look to the exhausted state of the treasury in Calcutta for the secret spring and first movement of his lordship in Oude. Beggary begot necessity, and necessity created the measure of quartering a great part of the Bengal army on the country, or providing for it at the expence of the nabob. Want of money, and no other, was the true cause of this and every other injustice done to the nabob. All manner of pretences have been set up in defence of these measures, except the true one. Distress drove you into these courses, and who was the author of the distress? who, but the noble marquis himself? Extravagance produces violence, and then you defend the violence by the extravagance. When political necessity
1297
1298
1299
1300
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 1.
The Duke of Norfolk,
after referring to the fate of the Offices in Reversion bill, presented a Petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council of the city of London, expressive of their regret, that the bill which had this salutary object in view, should have been defeated, and praying that steps might be taken for carrying into effect a Bill so necessary under the present circumstances of the country. Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 1.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Bankes
reported, from the Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petitions complaining of an undue Election and return for the county of Sussex, that John Fuller, esq. had been duly elected, and that the petitions were not frivolous nor vexatious.—The bill for preventing the grant of Places in Reversion, for a time to be limited, was read a second time.
PETITION FROM LONDON, RESPECTING THE OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] The Sheriffs of London
presented to the house, a Petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London, in common council assembled, setting forth, "That the petitioners have, during a long course of public events, productive of so many calamities, patiently submitted to unexampled burthens, and are still ready to make such further sacrifices as may be necessary for maintaining the honour and independence of the realm; and that these burthens have been considerably augmented by gross abuses in the management and expenditure of, the public money, and by a profusion of sinecure places and pensions, which have not only greatly added to the
1301
1302
[ASSESSED TAXES AND GAME DUTIES.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in a committee of ways and means, rose, to submit the propositions, of which he had given notice, respecting the transfer of the duty for licences to shoot game, from the Stamp Duty to the Assessed Taxes, and for consolidating the additional 10 per cent. with the Assessed Taxes, to the consideration of the committee. As to the first point, he should only observe, that it was notorious that the duty was evaded in a variety of cases, a circumstance which could not take place when the duty was transferred to the Assessed Taxes, in consequence of the mode in which the Assessed Taxes were collected. Upon this head, therefore, he should propose a Resolution to the committee, that the present duties on Game licences do cease, in order that others should be granted in the Assessed Taxes in lieu of them. When the Bill that was to be founded upon this resolution, should be brought in, gentlemen would have an opportunity of considering how far the provisions it was to contain would be efficient to its object. Under the present system, much inconvenience was felt by those gentlemen who happened to reside at a distance from the county town, in obtaining their certificates from the clerk of the peace. This inconvenience would be wholly removed by the arrangement which he proposed, for the certificates would be forwarded to the collector of the district, to be issued on the production, by the person requiring it, of the receipt for the payment of the duty. Since the subject had been under his consideration, several communications had been received, which represented that the evasions were chiefly practised by persons pretending that they were shooting woodcocks and snipes, whilst, in reality, they were engaged in pursuit of game. In order to remove this source of evasion, therefore, it was deemed desirable to include woodcocks and snipes in the enumeration of game. The other proposition that he had to submit to the committee, was a resolution for the consolidation of the 10 per cent. additional to the Assessed Taxes granted the year be-
1303
l
l
l
l
s
d
s
d
s
d
l
Mr. N. Calvert
thought the regulations proposed by the right hon. gent. for transferring the duties on Licences for shooting game, from the Stamps to the Assessed Taxes very good, but suggested, that there should be duplicates of the receipts given for the amount of the duty, in order that the person who paid the duty might have something to shew in proof of his having paid it.
Mr. Spencer Stanhope
expressed his regret there was no clause in any of
1304
Mr. T. Jones
also complained of the wanton manner in which surcharges were often made, and wished that some mode of prevention might be found consistent with the bona fide collection of the revenue.
Mr. Biddulph
said, there were other objects worth the right hon. gent.'s attention, before imposing new taxes; he meant measures of reform. He would go along with him certainly in preventing frauds and evasions. But he thought it would be better if the right hon. gent. had come down with a paper in his hand of the defaulters of former years.
Mr. Huskisson
could not conceive in what possible shape an account of this kind could be brought before the house, or of what use it would be to the revenue. If it could be made out, it would of course be granted like other accounts, relating to the public money, on a motion for that purpose.
Mr. Biddulph
was not then prepared to specify the heads, but would inquire into the subject with a view to a specific motion.—The Resolutions were then agreed to.
[PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.]
The house resolved itself into a committee of the whole house, for the further consideration of the Petitions against the Orders in Council. Mr. Brougham was then called to the bar, and addressed the house in a very able and eloquent speech of three hours length in support of the prayer of the Petitioners.—After the learned counsel had finished, he withdrew, and a conversation arose on the expediency of hearing further evidence.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Stephens, and sir C. Price, contended, that if the house were then to take any step on the evidence that had already been adduced, it would be in complete ignorance of the subject. It was therefore proposed by them to examine witnesses, who might fill up the chasm left by those who had been examined. Mr. Tierney, Mr. Whitbread, Dr. Laurence, Mr. Ponsonby, and Mr. A. Baring, expressed their satisfaction to find, that it was at length intended by the hon. gent.
1305
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 4.
[CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY.] Mr. H. Wellesley
said he was under the necessity of trespassing for a few moments upon the time of the house, in consequence of a gross misrepresentation (inserted in a morning paper called the Times) of several passages in the speech delivered by an hon. director on Thursday last. Mr. Wellesley observed, that the statement contained in the paper which he held in his hand, was directly and absolutely contradictory to the whole tenor of the hon. gent.'s speech, at least as far as it related personally to lord Wellesley and himself; as whatever opinions that hon. gent. might have expressed with respect to the general arrangements in Oude, he entirely disclaimed any imputations of a personal kind. He was persuaded that the house would feel with him, that to suffer misrepresentations of such a tendency to go forth uncontradicted in a paper of a general and extensive circulation, could not fail to be highly injurious to the character of the individuals alluded to; and therefore that he need to make no apology for having brought the subject before the house. As, however, he was willing to believe that the misrepresentations of which he complained were not intentional on the part of the persons concerned in the paper to which he alluded, he should, with the leave of the house, rest satisfied with having brought the subject under its notice, in the hope that this would be a sufficient warning to those persons to be more cautious and more accurate in future.
Mr. R. Thornton
said, he understood his speech on a former evening to be the one
1306
The Speaker
hoped the house would excuse him for remarking, that however the practice might have been tolerated, the house was always at liberty to limit, and if necessary, to punish, any abuse of its privileges, in the publication of what purported to be reports of its proceedings. At present, he did not understand that any complaint was about to be made with a view to the animadversion of the house.
[SUSSEX ELECTION PETITION.]
Mr. C. Wynne
rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the minutes of the committee appointed to try the merits of the Petition against the election and return for the county of Sussex, should be laid before the house. As the motion was one rather unusual in its nature, he thought himself called on to state the grounds on which it was made. A motion was made, before the committee was appointed, for an exchange of the lists of objectionable votes on both sides, which motion was negatived. The consequence was, that when the committee met, and proceeded to investigate the merits of the petition of Mr. Sergison, they were obliged to decline entering at all into an examination of its merits, because they considered themselves as precluded, by the resolution of the house, from examining the validity of those
1307
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was of opinion, that before the house acquiesced in the motion which had been now submitted to them, they should be put in possession of facts different from those with which the hon. gent. had prefaced his motion. It was not usual for the house to agree to such a motion, except upon some resolution of the election committee, or upon some report made by this committee to shew its propriety or necessity. With respect to the decision of that committee, he was certainly as averse from questioning its propriety as the hon. gent.; and if he were to deliver an opinion upon the subject, he would say that they had acted right in paying attention to the resolution of the house. Whether the standing order ought to be altered was another question, and one which might be discussed, whether the minutes of the committee were or were not before the house; because, if a doubt existed, either respecting its propriety or interpretation, the proposed alteration might take place, as well upon the existing doubt as upon the proceedings of a committee, in their application to the individual case. He was of opinion, that the proceedings now moved for were not only unnecessary, but that their production would be attended with considerable inconvenience: because the debate which might afterwards take place upon them, would then involve the propriety of the decision of the committee, which, agreeably to the spirit of the Grenville act, ought in no case to be called in question.
Mr. Tierney
said, that as he had been a member of the committee on the Sussex election, he should shortly state to the the house the circumstances under which that committee decided upon the merits of the petition; and this statement he prefaced with a declaration, that nothing was fur-
1308
1309
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explained, that when he said that the committee had done right in attending to the resolution of the house, he did not mean the decision of the house with regard to an exchange of lists in the present case, but the standing order of the house regulating their exchange to 21 days before the trial of the election.
Sir T. Turton
allowed that there was a great hardship in the present case, which ought to be prevented from recurring in future, by an alteration in the law: but he objected to the present motion, as tending to call in question the decision of the committee, and thus to destroy the purity of the Grenville act.
[FINANCE COMMITTEE.] Mr. Biddulph
rose, agreeably to notice, to move that Rd. Wharton, esq. having been elected chairman of the committees of ways and means and supply, be excused from giving his attendance on the Committee of Finance, of which, previous to his appointment to the chair of the public committees of this house, he had been a member, and that the name of John William Ward be inserted as a member of the Committee of Finance in his place. The hon. gent. in alluding to the appointment of Mr. Wharton to the chair of the public committees, expressed his confidence that there was management in that nomination; and also expressed a hope that the hon. member
1310
1311
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had supposed that the hon. gent. would have adduced some precedent, or would have made out some strong case, ere he had submitted to the house a motion which semed to cast no slight imputation on the hon. gent. against whom it was directed, more especially when it was connected with one of his last observations. By that observation it appeared, that a majority in the Committee of Finance had been recently occasioned by the presence of the chairman of the committee of ways and means, and that had not that circumstance occurred, the hon. mover's attention would not have been directed to the subject. To him it appeared impossible, without the establishment of some grave charge, to remove a member from a situation to which he had been chosen by the house. The hon. gent. said he thought it necessary to do this, because he imagined the chairman of the committee of ways and means was an officer appointed by government. It was not so. He was appointed by the house, who voted him into that situation. As to the recommendation of his majesty's ministers, the hon. gent. might as well apply his reasoning on that subject to any other act of the house. The hon. gent. fancied it possible, that in a committee composed, at the commencement of a session, of 25 members holding no official situations, the whole, at the close of the same session, might become possessed of offices. But, was not the honourable gentleman aware that by an appoint-
1312
Mr. Whitbread
agreed with the right hon. gent. in deprecating the idea that every placeman must be a man of bad character. An office of trust, well and faithfully executed, was unquestionably a post of honour. It was only because offices were not always faithfully executed that placemen grew into disrepute. As to the allusion to his noble friend not now
1313
Mr. H. Browne
opposed the motion. There was a narrow and vulgar prejudice against persons in place, which he did not wish to see encouraged. It was disparaging to office, it was disparaging to the country. If the hon. gent. who was the object of this motion, were to be removed from the committee of finance, that committee would lose one of its most valuable members. He was surprized that the hon. gent. should have mentioned what had occurred in the committee. With respect to the transaction to which he had alluded, it was a question of small importance, on which the committee happened to be equally divided, and on which the chairman of the committee of ways and means happened to be on one side rather than on the other.
The Hon. J. W. Ward
was anxious that it should be distinctly understood, that this proposition was the spontaneous act of his hon. friend. He stated this merely, lest he should be suspected of having stimulated him to make a motion, the ultimate object of which was, to appoint him to a situation, to the duties of which he felt himself incompetent. With respect to the subject immediately before the house, he could not be expected to offer any opinion. He would only add, that if he had any influence with his hon. friend, he would recommend to him to withdraw his motion, or at least not to press it to a division.
Mr. Ponsonby
could not help expressing his surprise that no motion could come from his side of the house without giving
1314
Mr. Biddulph
rose to correct a misconception which seemed to prevail on the other side of the house. He did not, as it was said, bring forward this motion, because the hon. member who was the subject of it had outvoted him in the committee of finance, but it was because that hon. member had scarcely ever attended that committee. When he entered it, on the occasion alluded to, he was so much a stranger, that the clerk applied to him to know whether the hon. member belonged to the committee. It was in consequence. of this that he then took the resolution to make the motion he now proposed.—He denied that he had pledged himself to move at the end of the session, that no remuneration should be given to the chair-
1315
Mr. Stephens
proposed to adduce evidence on two points: 1st, To shew that the export trade from this country to the continent was at a stand anterior to the passing of the Orders in Council: 2d, That the trade of this country was greatly affected in the article of insurance, by the Berlin decree. On the first of these points, he proposed to examine Mr. John Hall, a ship-broker. This gentleman was accordingly called in. In the course of Mr. Hall's examination, a discussion took place on the propriety of a question proposed by Mr. Whitbread as to the authenticity of the witnesses information, respecting certain ships, alleged to be neutrals, and sequestered by virtue of the Berlin decree.—After some further observations from Messrs. Rose, Tierney, Marriott, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. A. Baring, the witness was called in, and in answer to Mr. Whitbread's question, could only speak to his belief. The purport of his remaining evidence went to shew the reality and extent of the injuries sustained in the export trade to the continent, in consequence of the Berlin and other decrees, prior to issuing the Orders of Council.—Other witnesses were then examined, and the house resumed, the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 6.
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] Mr.
1316
if no objection existed to the proceeding, was anxious that the order for committing the Reversion bill, which was dropped yesterday in consequence of there having been no house, should be taken up to day, and that the bill should be committed.
Mr. Tierney
said, he should be the last man to occasion any unnecessary delay in the discussion of a subject that had excited so much of the attention of the public, but he did think, that in proportion to its importance it should be entitled to a fair arid adequate consideration. There were several gentlemen now absent who had taken a particular interest in that measure, and who, had they known that the discussion would have conic on to-day, would have attended in their places; they did not, however, think that it would have come on, nor had they any right to expect it would, as it was the established usage of that house, whenever an order had dropped, not to revive it without a specific notice. If this was a general rule, it should hold particularly in a case of such importance as the present. The bill in question had deservedly excited a great portion of the public interest; and that interest had not been lessened by the rumours that had been so very prevalent, perhaps unfounded, but not altogether discredited, that the great principle of the bill would be compromised. He was anxious, therefore, that the public should be satisfied that every advantage of a full, fair, and adequate discussion, had been afforded to the measure. He hoped that on these grounds the hon. gent. would have the goodness to let the order for going into a committee stand for to-morrow, and he was sure that his hon. friend near him (Mr. Whitbread) would have no objection to give way, by postponing his motion that stood for to-morrow, to a future day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he was very far from being disposed to give any obstruction to the motion of his hon. friend; and could not conceive why the right hon. gent. who had just sat down should think that there could not be as full and as ample a discussion of the measure, in so very full an attendance, as at a future day. However, he did not wish to press the motion at present, since the right hon. gent. seemed to think it would be attended with so much inconvenience to his friends. He did entirely agree with him, that the bill had excited a great portion of the public attention; for that rea-
1317
The Speaker
thought it necessary to apprize the house, that no order being dropped was revived of course, unless a general understanding in any particular case dispensed with the general usage: it was otherwise competent for any hon. member to object to any motion grounded on such order.
Bankes
Mr. Tierney,
before the question was put, wished to know from the right hon. gent. opposite, if it was his intention to propose in the committee any amendments, of a nature so important as to affect materially the principle and constitution of the bill? He wished, in short to know the
1318
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that in any amendments he might feel it his duty to offer, his sole object would be, to prevail upon that house to let the bill so go out of it as to ensure, as far as could be done, the concurrence of the lords; to make the bill now before the house substantively different from that which had been already rejected by the upper house. He knew not that it would be necessary for him to suggest any amendment to the committee; nor was he at all anxious to engraft any amendment on the bill, but in the way and for the purpose he had already stated.
Mr. Calcraft
really felt for the embarrassment under which the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer laboured. Having given notice of two precise amendments, he thought that in courtesy to the house, and in justice to his own consistency, the right hon. gent. ought to explain his intentions more specifically.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could only repeat what he had already distinctly stated on the subject, with respect to the principle by which his conduct would be regulated. The manner in which it would be proposed to fill up the blanks in the committee, must unquestionably influence his determination. He thanked the hon. gent. for his kind sympathy, in what he was pleased to term his embarrassment. He was, however, conscious of no embarrassment; but on the contrary, believed, that the embarrassment was on the part of the hon. gent. and his friends, who were apprehensive that the measure, about which they professed to be so anxious, should go to the house of lords with less obstruction than they anticipated.
Mr. Calcraft
declared it was his most anxious wish that the bill should go to the lords in such a shape, as to give it a chance of being passed by their lordships. It was on that account that he was glad to find the hon. mover intended to limit the operation of it to two years. He could not at all comprehend the right hon. gent.
Mr. Bankes
trusted that his conduct in the whole of this transaction would be free from any suspicion that he would admit of a dishonourable compromise on the subject. He repeated his former statements, that he had never in the most remote degree abandoned the original principles in which he submitted this bill to the house; he hoped that the house would never abandon them;
1319
Mr. Tierney
disclaimed all intention of imputing to the hon. gent. any improper motives.
Mr. Whitbread
thought the house had not been fairly treated by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. He had formerly stated two specific amendments which it was his intention to propose; amendments which would certainly render the bill nugatory, but which had nothing on earth to do with the limitation of time in the operation of the bill; and now the right hon. gent. said, that he should be regulated by the filling up of the blanks in the committee, when in fact there was but one blank in the bill, and that blank related solely to the limitation of time. This bill had attracted great attention throughout the country. It was a bill of considerable public moment, and that had been much increased by the manner in which it had been opposed in the other house. As the house of commons could have no security that the bill, however modified, would be agreed to by the house of lords, he thought it most important that they should at least preserve their consistency, even at the hazard of giving offence to their lordships; it had always been his intention, therefore, and he now formally notified it, when the bill had passed through the committee, to move that the limitation of time should be left out altogether. For the purpose of allowing the bill to be committed to-morrow, he would cheerfully postpone his motion for papers respecting Russia to Friday.—The bill was then ordered to be committed to-morrow.
[PAUPER LUNATICS.] Mr. C. Wynne
moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better care and maintenance of Pauper and Criminal Lunatics. The hon. gent expatiated with much feeling on the misery to which these unfortunate beings were at present exposed. It appeared by the returns on the table, that there were at the present moment, above 1800 pauper and criminal lunatics, confined in places where they were precluded from all possible chance of recovery. When it was known, that of the lunatics in Bedlam, St. Luke's, &c. about half were annually restored to a sane state of mind, the consideration that so many unhappy wretches as the criminal and pauper lunatics should be doomed to irremediable misery was a
1320
Sir J. Newport
perfectly agreed with his hon. friend that some measure was loudly called for in Ireland, to relieve the distress of the pauper and criminal lunatics, the imprisonment and treatment of whom, in that country, afforded a most disgraceful spectacle. He could never be reconciled to the grounds on which the bill that he had, himself, submitted to the house on this subject, had been rejected.—Leave was granted to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 7.
[JESUITS BARK BILL.] On the Petition of Mr. de Testat against the Jesuits Bark bill, Mr. Campbell appeared as counsel for the petitioner, and stated the circumstances under which Mr. de Testat would be a great sufferer if this bill was carried into effect; and several witnesses were examined in support of the petition. Mr. Campbell then requested till to-morrow, or such other day as their lordships should please to appoint, to sum up. The lord chancellor called upon him to sum up now.—Lord Grenville suggested, that in fairness and justice to the petitioner, time should be given till to-morrow, to enable the learned counsel the better to consider the evidence.—Lord Hawkesbury saw no reason for delay; the ease was not of a complicated nature, and did not in his opinion, require any further postponement. —A conversation of some length ensued, in which lord Holland moved, that the counsel should sum up to-morrow. Lord Auckland moved as an amendment, that the counsel should be called upon to state what delay he asked, and the reasons for asking it. This amendment was opposed by lord Hawkesbury, and supported by lords Grenville and Erskine. The amendment was negatived.&—The house then divided on the main question for hearing the counsel to-morrow: Contents, 15: Non-contents, 32. Majority, 17.—Mr. Camp-
1321
Earl Bathurst
stated the object of the bill, which, he said, had been miscalled a bill of privation, as it went to allow the exportation of bark upon certain conditions. Information had been received, that the French government, wishing to obtain a supply of this article, had given directions that this article should be. admitted into the French ports, although coming from this country, provided it formed the sole cargo of the vessel. It was thought a little too much, that the enemy should not only obtain this article of which he stood in need, but should also obtain it upon his own terms; and therefore this measure was resorted to, in order that the enemy might be prevented from obtaining a supply of this article, unless he took with it British colonial produce, or British manufactures. He could not conceive, therefore, that this bill was liable to any of those objections which had been urged against it. A noble and learned lord had, on a former night, urged an objection to it on the ground of religion; but surely there could be nothing inconsistent with the dispensations of Providence in assisting and promoting human industry.
Lord Erskine,
notwithstanding the arguments of the noble earl, still maintained the opinion which he before urged, that this measure was contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity; and so strongly did he feel upon this subject, that he intended, in case the house agreed to the bill, to embody the reasons which operated in his mind against it in the form of a protest, that they might remain upon the journals of the house, and go down to posterity. It could not be said to be analogous to the case of a siege, because there the object was, in forcing the besieged to endure privations, to compel them to surrender, by which they might put an end to those privations; but by this measure, sickness and disease were to be bereft of a medicine, which was an effectual remedy, and this without any object to be attained, but that of distressing the innocent inhabitants of the continent. Such a mode of warfare was inconsistent with the dictates of the christian religion; and he rejoiced, that on this occasion, the reverend prelates who usually attended that house, did not attend to vote in favour of this measure. As to the information stated by the noble
1322
Lord Boringdon
contended, that the principle upon which supplies were cut off from a besieged town equally applied to this measure, and to the measures of which it formed a part: and he thought it highly probable, that they would have a similar effect with the cutting off supplies from a besieged town, within a period not longer even than some of the sieges during the last war, by forcing the enemy to repeal his decrees against the commerce of this country. The principle of prohibiting the exportation of bark, was not here in question; as, under the operation of this measure, France might have bark if she chose, that is to say, if she chose to take along with it articles of British manufacture or commerce.
The Earl of Albemarle wholly
reprobated this measure, which he considered as utterly indefensible, it being contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity, highly impolitic, and at the same time inefficacious, even in the view of those who proposed it. What effect could it have on the armies of France? It was merely to operate on the sick and disabled; it was earring on war with hospitals, and not so much with the sick and disabled soldiers, as the innocent peasant. It had been said in a former debate by a noble lord, that if we had the hands of Europe against us, we had with us the hearts of many of its inhabitants; but if this measure was to be carried into effect, we should have both the hands and hearts of all Europe against us. It would be besides of no. avail: there was already a sufficient quantity of bark on the continent. The noble earl quoted the prices of jesuits' bark in Feb. at Paris, to prove that it was not higher at that period, than the price in this country. This bill therefore could not have the effect attributed to it by a noble lord, of operating with any compulsory effect upon the enemy, he having already a sufficient supply of this article; it could only have the effect of displaying a principle of warfare wholly inconsistent with those feelings of justice and honour, which had hitherto formed distinguishing features in the British character.
The Earl of Westmoreland
contended, that noble lords on the other side, when in administration, had by their blockade excluded bark, as well as other things (bark not being excepted), from the continent,
1323
Lord Holland
combated the general principle of the measure, which was not calculated so much to affect the armies of our enemies, as to distress the women, children, and peasantry, in Spain and Portugal, in which countries it was well known with what care and humanity the landholders made it their business to provide their tenantry with this necessary article. The French armies, it must be known to every one, would not want, so long as a supply was to be had; it must, therefore, be by the helpless and oppressed inhabitants that this privation would be chiefly felt.
Lord Mulgrave
vindicated the present bill as one of those measures which were called for by the aggressions of our enemy. If he would resort to an unusual and unauthorised mode of warfare, nothing remained for us but to follow his example, and, by retaliation, to compel him to return into the common and established track.
The Earl of Lauderdale
could not forbear noticing the highly unparliamentary conduct of the noble lord who bore his majesty's privy seal, in charging noble lords on that side of the house, with having made it their business, for the last month, to do nothing else but repeat the language of the enemies of the country. Such language was highly indecorous at any time; but it was still more so, at a moment when the manufacturers and merchants of the country were seen at their lordships bar, professing, and adducing evidence in support of similar arguments to those which he and other noble lords had maintained, His lordship could
1324
Lord Redesdale
supported the bill, as consistent with sound policy, and the law of nature.
Lord Grenville
took a comprehensive view of the subject. He particularly cautioned the house to look well at the consideration they were to receive as the price of the honour, justice, and humanity of the country. The assertion of the noble lord (Mulgrave) that we were entitled to resort to whatever species of warfare might be adopted against us, he confessed surprized him not a little. Were we, if at war with a nation of Indians, because they might scalp our men who fell into their hands, to retaliate on them by scalping their people in return? If at war with the Persians, and they poured poisoned weapons into our tents, were we too to poison the weapons with which we fought? If they poisoned our streams of water, were we to retaliate by poisoning their fountains? If they employed assassination against us, were we to turn our swords from fair and honourable warfare, to match them in deeds of treachery and disgrace? Such, he thanked God, had never been our system of waging war; nor, till the present measures were introduced, had we ever sacrificed a particle of our national character. It had been remarked, that one of the greatest ornaments of the city of Lyons was an hospital for the sick and infirm; when that city was attacked by Robespierre, he ordered his cannon to be directed principally against this structure, as being an object the destruction of which gave peculiar delight to his sanguinary and inhuman disposition. In adopting the present measure, we endeavoured to assimilate ourselves to that monster of inhumanity; for what else was the present bill, but a cannon directed against the hospitals on the continent? The bill, however, had this additional disadvantage, that it was completely futile and inadequate. So that all we should gain by the measure would be, to evince the inclination, without possessing the power, to do evil.
The Lord Chancellor,
in answer to the noble lord who spoke last, referred to an
1325
Lord Hawkesbury
defended the bill with great force and animation. He contended, that in no respect was it inconsistent with justice and humanity, or sound policy, but conformable to the practice of this country at all times. The present measure was but a link in the series of measures which had been imperiously called for, by the urgent necessity of retaliation, and of the agency of every means that could bring the enemy to a sense of his own blind violence and injustice; in short, it was one which promised to operate the salvation of the country—an effect which experience already began to prove had taken place to no small extent. As to the charges of inhumanity and cruelty which were affixed to the measure by the noble lords opposite, he could not but be surprised to hear them from the lips of the noble baron (Grenville), who was himself the author of a measure in 1794, which evidently tended to starve the population of France without any distinction.
Lord Rosslyn
could not help making this observation; that the price at which bark had been procured for the British army in 1805, was only one shilling lower than that at which it was known to be now selling at Paris. What, then; could be expected from the pressure which it was likely to produce on the enemy?
Lord Grenville
presented a clause by way of rider, with a view to indemnify individuals, who should be injured by the bill. Lord Hawkesbury opposed the clause, as laying down a bad precedent. It was rejected without a division.—The bill was then passed.
1326
1327
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 7.
[ASSESSED TAXES BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the order of the day, for the second reading of the Assessed Taxes bill.
Mr. Biddulph
begged to call the attention of the house to this bill, which was about to pass without that degree of notice which its importance required. This bill went to repeal all the existing Assessed Taxes, and to grant others in lieu thereof, and as the constitutional mode of proceeding had not been taken with respect to it, and no parliamentary ground had been laid for the imposition of new taxes, however unusual it was to take such a course, he should oppose the further progress of the bill, unless some satisfactory ground should be shewn in support of the measure. The forms of the house were the constitutional barriers against innovations, such as this measure; and he should therefore oppose the measure, unless a constitutional ground should be laid for its adoption.
Mr. Huskisson,
not understanding what the hon. gent. meant by constitutional ground, begged to state to the house the grounds upon which his right hon. friend had brought forward this measure. The house would be aware that it was due to the public creditor, when an addition was made to the public debt, to make a provision for the interest and charges accruing from such an addition. It would be recollected that a sum of four millions of Exchequer bills had been funded in the course of the present session, the charge for interest and sinking fund upon which amounted to 252,000
l
l
Mr. Biddulph
was not satisfied with the explanation of the hon. gent. who had not communicated any thing but what the house knew before. Parliament was a great council of finance to the government,
1328
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not sensible of any unconstitutional circumstance connected with this measure. If the hon. gent. believed that he could point out a mode of providing for the payment of the interest of the addition to the public debt, without new taxes, that was a sufficient reason for his taking the course he adopted, or preferring his own suggestion. But the house must expect that the hon.*gent. should state his proposition before it would interfere with the progress of the measure. It was desirable, if the bill was to pass in the present session, that it should be passed with all convenient expedition. When the bill should go into the committee, the hon. gent. would have an opportunity of making any suggestion that occurred to him upon it. But the house would not interrupt the progress of the bill upon the bare assertion of any hon. member, that there was a something preferable to the bill, which, upon another occasion, he would state to the house.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that the house had not been called upon, on this occasion, to vote new taxes. The notice referred merely to regulation. As the right hon. gent. had before voted regulations under the pretence of duty, he now voted duties under the pretence of regulation. He would not say that this was absolutely smuggling the measure, but certainly the, proper course had not been taken. His majesty's speech had congratulated the house that a mode had been discovered by which the public service could be carried on without any additional taxes; and yet the right hon. gent. had proposed a new and heavy tax, without notice of his intention in that particular, without laying any ground for it, and without having brought forward the budget in the usual way. He merely disputed the regularity at present, but, whatever mode might ultimately turn out to be the proper one, he thought there were good reasons for delaying the progress of the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the design of the bill was to regulate the collection of these taxes, to lower the rates in some cases, and raise them in others,
1329
Dr. Laurence
observed, that the objection was to the principle, and not to the specific bill. Money was to be raised answer a new charge on the consolidated fund, without any statement in the committee of ways and means that it was for that object. The whole that was wanted for the year ought to be brought under the review of the house at once, in order that it might judge whether any, and what taxes were necessary.
Mr. Rose
said, that the great principle was, not to allow the ways and means to exceed the supply, and this principle we not violated in the present instance. The consolidation act went a great deal further than this bill, and yet no objection had been made to it.
Mr. Whitbread
observed, that the notice which had been given of the design to lay this duty was not at all sufficient, even in point of fairness to those who were to be subject to it. There was certainly no occasion for any particular haste, in providing for the interest of the four millions, considering the flourishing state of the consolidate fund, as stated by the gentlemen on the other side. As to the consolidation act, he recollected that there had been a great outcry among the public that taxation was carried on under cover of consolidation This bill was less extensive in its operation, but both were liable to strong objecjections. No injury would result from delaying this bill.—The Bill was then rear a second time.
[OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL] Mr. Bankes
moved the commitment of the Offices in Reversion bill.
Lord Ossulston
rose, and spoke for some time; but so inaudibly, that it was impossible to collect even the general purport of what he said. He seemed to argue against the amendments of which the chancellor of the exchequer had given notice.
Mr. Bankes
rose, and requested leave to remind the committee of the situation in which they now stood, from the former bill having been rejected by the lords. They were thereby precluded, in point of form, from bringing forward exactly the same measure this session. It was on
1330
1331
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was unwilling that the house, in pursuit of the measure which it thought necessary to be adopted on this occasion, should send back to the lords a bill so entirely similar to that they had before rejected, that their concurrence could not possibly, with any regard to their forms or consistency, be expected. On this ground, he had, on a former night, when his hon. friend proposed a bill similar, if not altogether the same as that so recently rejected in the upper house, intimated in what respects he considered the mode adopted by his hon. friend improper. He admitted then, as well as now, that the limitation in point of time, proposed by a noble friend of his (lord Hawkesbury) in the other house, had his entire concurrence. He therefore could have no objection to that feature of the bill now before the house, otherwise than as being conveyed in a manner in which it could not be expected to pass the other house. He had at that time intimated his intention of proposing a clause, the object of which was entirely mistaken. Understanding that one great ground of complaint against grants in reversion was, that the want of notoriety attending them was likely often to give occasion to their being given to improper persons, he suggested as a remedy, that every future grant of the kind should be published in the gazette. This proposition for regulating the mode of granting, was supposed to imply a determination that grants in reversion should be made, whereas the object of the committee of finance was to keep every office as free and open as possible to any reform they might think proper to introduce. His proposition was by no means intended to impede this object; but having been so
1332
1333
Mr. Whitbread
could not help making a few observations upon what had fallen from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. He began with doing him the justice to say, that he had acted with perfect consistency throughout the whole course of the proceedings upon the present measure, because he had professed it to be his opinion, from the beginning, that little advantage was likely to be derived from it. He had all along contended, as he had done this evening, that little benefit was to be expected from it in the way of economical reform, and that those who held it up as a desirable measure in this point of view, either completely misunderstood or misrepresented it. He (Mr. W.) did not think that it would be productive of much present good, but he did think that it might be productive of great ultimate good. The burdens which the people had to support were various in their nature, there were burdens of feeling as well as burdens of taxation, and to their feelings it would certainly prove no small alleviation.—The hon. gent. expressed his satisfaction that the rt. hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had abandoned his amendments; from whatever motive he had been induced to do it, whether from a proper deference to the sense of the people, or from the recommendation of the higher classes of the people, or from the advice of some of his colleagues in office. From whatever motive he had done it, he rejoiced at it, because the amendments, had they been introduced into the bill, would have rendered it worse than nugatory. They had no more connection with the limitation of time, than with any other subject to which they might have been applied. The first, which related to giving
1334
1335
1336
Mr. Davies Giddy
threw out some ideas respecting a plan for remunerating public services, by which, without diminishing the sources of national liberality, an immense saving might be effected. A sum, not exceeding 166,000
l
Mr. Fuller
considered the measure as a tub thrown to the whale, and left by his majesty's ministers to float its own way. The late ministers managed their tubs better; time bill for abolishing the Slave trade, for instance: their chancellor having remained in to give it the final sanction, after all his colleagues had resigned. Though he thought the bill of no use, he was willing to gratify the public by passing it. He respected the people, and felt for them, and thought that they ought to be gratified as much as possible, even in their follies; particularly in a case like the present, when this could be done without much injury to their interests. For his own part, he was of opinion that the power of granting reversions was of great service to the public, as a mean of rewarding public services; and infinitely preferable to granting pensions, which, when they fell vacant, a minister might either put into his own pocket, or give to a child at school.
Sir John Newport
expressed his surprise to find the present measure considered by
1337
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1338
Mr. Biddulph
made a few observations in reply to some suggestions thrown out by Mr. Davies Giddy, for the establishment of a fund for the purpose of remunerating distinguished public services.
Mr. Tierney
whether he was to, understand that the bill, in its present form, would have the full and cordial support of his majesty's ministers? [No answer was given.]
Lord Porchester
contended, that after the abuses which had been enumerated by the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport), whose accuracy could not be questioned, and which he had given as but a small specimen of those which he knew to exist, it
1339
1340
Mr. Wilberforce
complimented his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) for having, in the conduct of the present measure, shewn himself to be animated with the truest spirit of patriotism. Those who wished to prevent a breach between the two branches of the legislature, and who were anxious at the same time to carry into effect an important measure of public reform, would, he was firmly convinced, agree with him in opinion, that for the alterations which had been introduced into the bill, his hon. friend was entitled to the thanks of that house, and of the country. He asked those who seemed to object to any modification of the bill which might tend to remove the objections which were felt to the former bill in the house of lords, to bear in mind that there were two branches of the legislature, and that it was impossible to carry any measure into effect without the concurrence of both. This being the case, if they really had it at heart to do some effectual and substantial good for the country, they must be desirous to pursue the object which they had in view in the way which was least objectionable, and which was least likely to shock the prejudices of the other house. How, then, did the matter stand? A bill, prohibiting the grant of offices in reversion, had been repeatedly sent up to the other house, and repeatedly rejected; and all that now remained for them to do, with a view to a more fortunate practical result, was to frame the present measure in such a way as to obviate those objections which had produced the failure of the two former bills. He was far from thinking the present a measure of small importance; because it was impossible to say to what length the vicious principle which it went to eradicate might grow. Pensions might come to be granted in reversion as well as places. There was another view in which it struck him as important. The granting of reversions was peculiarly liable to abuse, and on that account singularly calculated to excite public odium. When a place was bestowed only for one life, there was a barrier in public opinion against its being improperly conferred, because the character
1341
Mr. Tierney
thought it an erroneous ground of argument to suppose, that the alterations now made would conciliate the lords. There was no good reason to think that would be the case. He gave full credit to the motives which had induced the hon. gent. to make the alterations now before the house; but he could not help thinking these alterations an abandonment of the principle the house had so frequently asserted, without any one thinking of limiting it in point of duration. If he could be sure the bill, as amended, would pass, he would not press his sentiments. But he looked in vain for any thing like such an assurance. He had a respect for the lords, but he was bound more to respect the feelings of the people; and the lords were as much bound to do so as he. Both houses had the same means of judging of the feelings and sentiments of the people. He had asked his majesty's mi-
1342
1343
1344
Mr. Whitbread
gave notice, that as the hon. gentlemen opposite persisted in their silence on the subject, he should persevere in his original intention, and move tomorrow such alterations in the bill, as would restore it precisely to the state in which the last bill quitted the house for the house of lords.
The Speaker
apprised the hon. gent. that such a proposition would be contrary to the course of parliamentary proceeding.
Mr. Whitbread
then intimated, that he should propose to make the bill literally different from the last, though substantially the same.
The Speaker
still declaring, that it was irregular to make such a proposition,
Mr. Whitbread
stated, that he should probably move to extend the limitation to a term of 99 years. He expressed his desire, that the hon. gent. would postpone the bringing up of the report until Monday, to give time for a due consideration of the most effectual steps for the attainment of his object.
Mr. Bankes
replied, that as the subject was one of great public interest, and one which had excited considerable public attention, he was anxious that the bill should proceed with as little delay as possible.
1345
Mr. Whitbread
said, that he would prepare himself with some suitable amendments for to-morrow, as he was determined not to allow the bill to pass through another stage without submitting to the house his opinion on the subject.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 8.
[SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.] On the question for the second reading of this bill, touching the administration of justice in Scotland,
The Lord Chancellor
explained at some length his views upon this subject, and the objects of the bill; which were to divide the court of session into two chambers of seven and eight judges, to give those courts certain powers of making regulations with respect to proceedings, and with respect to interim executions, whilst appeals were pending; and also to issue a commission to ascertain in what case it might be proper to establish a trial by jury. With respect to this mode of trial, his lordship observed, that he had been upbraided out of doors with using language upon this subject which he had never applied to it; he joined in all those eulogiums which had been passed upon the trial by jury, and to which, in this country, he felt that we owed our happiness and our liberty; but it did not follow that it was equally applicable to Scotland; nor was it a politic or proper mode of proceeding to force that mode of trial upon a country where, in civil cases, its benefits were not understood or appreciated. He thought it would require considerable deliberation and caution to ascertain to what cases the trial by jury might be properly applied. With respect to the bill, he wished it to be committed before toe recess; but that the house should not stand committed by the amendments then made, and therefore that the bill should be recommitted after the recess.
Lord Grenville
still thought that it would be better to divide the court of session into three chambers, than two. Upon a subject of this nature, he thought it was the preferable mode to consult the interests of those to whom justice was to be administered, rather than the opinion of those by whom it was administered, however re-
1346
Lord Melville
referred to an opinion of lord Mansfield, respecting a proposition, to introduce gradually the trial by jury in civil cases into Scotland, and observed, that after the doubts expressed upon this subject by that eminent lawyer, he might well hesitate with respect to the policy of introducing that mode of trial into Scotland. He thought that the recommendation of that mode of trial in the bill was already rather too strong.
The Earl of Lauderdale
was unwilling to enter into any discussion of the general merits of the bill, after the understanding of their lordships as to the proper time. Still, he could not assent to the changes which had taken place in the present bill, from that submitted to the house on a former occasion. It was intended, that the two chambers of the court of session should not sit at the same time. This he considered unnecessary, or rather improper, because, it was to be remembered, that the great proportion of business in actions in that court, was chiefly done in writing; and, therefore, the time of the judges, whose presence daily was not wanting, would be much better employed in reading the pleadings on the various causes upon which they would be subsequently called upon to pronounce judgment. The noble lord thought there was not that necessity for caution and circumspection so much recommended. This measure had obtained the fullest investigation of almost every description of people in Scotland. It was debated ably and fully in that house; and, therefore, as the evil of the present system was acknowledged, the reformation and remedy ought to be prompt and efficient. The bill was then read a second time.
[COTTON BILL.]
On the third reading of the bill prohibiting the exportation of Cotton,
Earl Bathurst
observed, that in consequence of the embargo in America, there had been some ground for apprehending that a sufficient supply of cotton would
1347
Lord St. John
contended that the real ground upon which this bill had been sent to that house was, that it was the intention to injure the manufactures of the enemy, upon the supposition that our own would thereby be benefited by ensuring to them a monopoly. It was, in this point of view, one of those visionary measures, some of which had been already before the house, and which could only tend to the injury instead of the benefit of our manufactures.
1348
Lord Auckland
thought the ground urged by the noble earl in support of this bill fallacious, inasmuch as the market here would by the operation of the bill become glutted, the price of cotton would consequently fall, and thus the growers of it, particularly in our own colonies, would be seriously injured; nor was it to be supposed that after that had taken place, any more cotton would be brought here, where the market was already over-stocked.
Lord Redesdale
supported the bill as a measure conducive to the interests of our manufactures, and as a check on the growing cotton-trade of the enemy.
The Earl of Lauderdale
remarked, that the noble earl, at the head of the board of trade, had given up the present bill
1349
Lord Hawkesbury
in alluding to the power conferred on the government of granting licence to certain persons, stated, that this had been the practice for the last 14 or 15 years. He had never heard that it had been abused, and he trusted the present government might receive equal credit with their predecessors, for not entertaining any intention to act with favour or partiality, in granting this privilege where it might seem to be required. His lordship did not intend at present to enter into the merits of the Orders in Council, though he must protest against the interpretation put by the noble lord who spoke last, on what had fallen from his noble friends, as if they had given up the present bill as a measure of warfare. They had not done so. It was well known, that there was a deficiency of cotton in France, and, at the same time, that one of the most increasing trades in that country was the cotton manufacture. An opportunity, however, of canvassing this subject would occur, when the noble lord opposite (Grenville) brought forward his promised motion; at which time he should be at no difficulty to shew, that there were more mercantile men in this country who approved than there were who disapproved of the Orders of Council.
The Earl of Darnley
concurred in the arguments against the bill.
Lord Grenville
begged to be understood, as objecting in the most pointed manner to the noble lord's (Hawkesbury) bringing forward any secret information of which he might suppose himself to be possessed,
1350
1351
[PROTEST AGAINST THE COTTON BILL.]
"Dissentient; 1. Because, as this bill prohibits the exportation of all cotton wool, and the Orders of Council of the 11th and 25th of Nov. 1807, force into British ports the whole of that commodity sent by America for the supply of foreign states, the quantity brought by these and other means into the British market must be so great, in proportion to the demand, as to reduce the value of that commodity to a trifle. When we consider, therefore, that the usual exportation of cotton wool from America, is 250,000 bags, amounting, at 12
l
1352
1353
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 8
[PAPERS RELATING TO RUSSIA.] Mr. Whitbread rose
pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers which had been Alluded to by the noble lord (G. L. Gower), in a debate which took place on the 29th of March, upon a motion of an hon. friend of his (Mr. Sharp). The house had heard a great deal of discussion respecting the propriety of quoting from any documents not before the house. He should not now go into a question which had been so often and so fully discussed; but he apprehended, that the right hon. gent. would agree with him in thinking, that communications, in whatever form they were made, should be made by his majesty's confidential ministers, and by no one else, under any pretence whatever. The noble lord, therefore, alter communicating the information to which he alluded in debate, whether in a mere official or less official shape, to his government at home, had put it beyond his own controul, and ought not publicly to have disclosed it. The motion which he meant now propose, pointed to two objects; the first of which was, the production of a paper which accompanied the treaty of alliance between this country and Russia, in. 1805; the other was connected with a communication made by the noble lord to his majesty's secretary of state, in the course of his last mission in 1807. After the overthrow of the confederacy of 1805, and the conclusion of the peace of Presburgh, a large mass of papers relative to that confederacy had been thrown upon the table, by lord Mulgrave, then foreign secretary of state, perfectly unsolicited, but quite as voluntary
1354
1355
1356
Lord G. L. Gower
said, that the house could not be surprised at the anxiety which he felt to express his sentiments upon the present motion, after the representations which had been given of what had fallen
1357
1358
Mr. Whitbread
most willingly concurred in the amendment proposed by the nobler lord in the first part of the motion, for it was his wish, that all the correspondence relative to the Russian Declaration in question, should be made public. But he could not assent to the amendment so far as it went to negative the production of the private letter, or an extract from it. What would be the consequence of refusing to communicate such letters, when previously made public in order to influence the vote of the house, and serve the purpose of ministers? Because the noble lord was the ambassador, and the right hon. gent. secretary of state, the correspondence was to be carried on by private letters, so
1359
1360
Sir T. Turton
deprecated severely this perpetual recurrence to subjects undertaken for the purposes of party spirit and personal enmity.
Mr. Whitbread
here called the hon. bart. to order; disclaiming at the same time the unworthy motive which were so ungenerously imputed to him.
The Speaker
having intimated to the hon. baronet the impropriety of such language,
Sir T. Turton
felt extremely sorry that any thing which fell from him should have given the hon. gent. offence, for whom he felt the sincerest and most cordial esteem: when he said personal enmity, he meant only political enmity; and was unfortunate in his mode of expressing himself. He supported the amendment on the ground of the confidential nature of diplomacy. He would ask, if the state of Europe was again restored, what credit ambassadors would gain at foreign courts, who made it their practice to divulge secret communication. He thought the hon. gent was condemned by his own argument, for if the papers laid before parliament by lord Mulgrave excited throughout Europe such lively indignation, why endeavour, by the same cause, to excite the same sensation now?
Mr. Herbert
thought it most important that the motion should be agreed to. He was one of those on whom the speech of the noble lord, and the expression alluded to, 'il faut menager l'Angleterre pour le moment,' had made a strong impression, and if he had thought the authority on which they rested incontrovertible, he should not have voted as he had done upon the question of the Danish expedition. He once thought, that ministers were ready to prove their allegations in the declaration, in answer to Russia; but the right hon. secretary, whose speeches were more remarkable for their brilliancy than their solidity, had waved these, and resorted to other matters of a more indeterminate sort; however, the subject was brought back again to its former state, by the information communicated by the noble lord. It was therefore of the greatest moment to have it clearly known, upon what authority it rested; what was its precise import, and what credit ought to he attached to it.
Mr. Windham
observed, that the subject of discussion lay within a very narrow compass, being limited to the point, whe-
1361
1362
Mr. Sturges Bourne
denied that his noble friend had used this letter for the purpose of influencing the decision of the house. He had been present when his noble friend made the speech which caused so considerable an impression, and he well recollected, that his noble friend stated the general fact of which he was in possession; and that it was not until in reply to a question put to him by the hon. gent. opposite, that he added that he had communicated that fact in a private letter to the right hon. secretary of state. If he abstained from going any further into this subject, at present, he begged to be understood, that he was not deterred from doing so by the high and dictatorial tone which the hon. mover, on this as well as on many other occasions, chose to assume. The house and the public, would judge of the consistency of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who, when they were in office, had refused to produce, on the only two occasions on which they were required to produce them, papers moved for by his hon. friends, but who now, after having exhausted their motions for public documents, were driven to the necessity of moving for the unwarrantable production of private correspondence.
Dr. Laurence
observed, that the dictatorial tone and manner of the last speaker did not suit well with his complaint against a dictatorial tone and manner in another person. It would have come better from the right hon. secretary opposite, who was so remarkable for levity and jesting, that no one could pretend to equal him, unless he had a jest-book in his hand. As the expressions alluded to had been put in writing, every one must desire to see the whole of the paper, or at least as much as could be produced without detriment to the public service; for though they might have been very fairly stated by the noble lord, as far as he went, yet, in the letter they might be so qualified as to make a different impression. He allowed that stronger ground ought to be laid for the production of a private letter, than for the production of a public dispatch; but, if it was said that a private letter ought not to be produced at all, the doctrine was contrary to the principles of the British constitution; which held publicity, though attended with some disadvantages, to be, on the whole, preferable to secrecy. Information of the most secret nature had often, upon this ground, been produced, with only a concealment of names. The
1363
Mr. Hawkins Browne
denied that the noble lord had in a former debate made any quotation from a private letter. He had used the fact in the way of argument, leaving it to the house to give what degree of credit they pleased to his assertion. He thought the production of the letter without the name would not be a sufficient guarantee for the safety of the person from whom the communication was received, and would therefore support the amendment.
Mr. Secretary Canning
would fairly state, that he had hitherto abstained from speaking on the subject, because whatever might have been the course of the debate, if it had been possible that the argument of the hon. gent. should have influenced the house, or that the arguments of his noble friend should not have influenced the house on what he conceived to be the clear question before them; if the inclination of the house had shewn itself to be unfavourable to his view of the subject; he should then have stood up, not merely to argue against the motion, but to entreat the house, that if they did not place in him that confidence, without which it was impossible for him adequately to fulfil the duties of his situation, they would permit him to retire, retaining his honour. Not one spark of that honour should he conceive he retained, if he were to divulge that which at the time when it was communicated, and since, and now, he felt, was communicated in confidence. Under that impression, however great the deference which he entertained for the house, and however anxious he was to bow to their decision, were that decision to call for the production of the paper in question, he would rather incur their displeasure, than thus compromise his own honour and character. Having said thus much, he should proceed to remark on some of the arguments that had been urged by the opposite side of the house. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) had imagined a possible case in which the private correspondence between the secretary of state at home and the minister abroad, might be pushed to such an extreme, that all official intercourse might be carried on in that manner, and
1364
1365
1366
1367
Mr. Whitbread
adverting to the personal imputations that had been cast upon him
1368
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
America, Dispute with, 311, 431.
American Treaty, 927.
B
Brazil Trade Bill, 732.
C
Copenhagen Expedition, 156, 340, 873, 1247.
Cotton-Wool Exportation Prohibition Bill, 1346.
Curates Suspension Repeal Bill, 148.
D
Danish Fleet, Restitution of the, 642.
Danish Ships detained previous to Hostilities, 920, 1179.
Debtor and Creditor Bill, 1068.
Dispute with America, 311, 431.
E
Expedition to Copenhagen, 156, 340, 873, 1247.
Exports, 1043.
G
Giffard, Mr. John; Dismissal of, 1077.
J
Jesuits Bark Bill, 1320.
Journals of the House, 1254.
K
King's Message respecting Sweden, 1042, 1076.
King's Speech,
see
L
Lords Commissioners Speech on Opening the Session, 1.
M
Mediation of Russia and Austria, 434.
Mutiny Bill, 1179, 1183.
O
Offices in Reversion Bill, 870, 1044, 1086.
Orders in Council, 149, 465, 641, 735, 780, 929, 1265, 1244,, 1269.
Orders in Council Bill, 1079, 1148, 1254.
P
Patents, 1253.
R
Restitution of the Danish Fleet, 642.
Reversion Bill, 870, 1044, 1086.
S
Scotch Judicature Bill, 1345.
Sweden; King's Message respecting, 1042, 1076.
V
Vote of Thanks to the Officers &c. employed in the Expedition to Copenhagen, 156.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Admiralty, Droits of, 409, 412, 449
America, Papers relating to, 553
American Treaty Bill, 162
Army Estimates, 753
Assessed Taxes and Game Duties, 1302, 1327
Austria, Mediation of, 601, 801, 1258
B
Bank, Arrangement with the, 232, 415
C
Cold-Bath-Fields Prison, 662, 685, 1173
Commercial Licenses, 185, 923
Committee of Finance, 184, 1309
Committee on Trade and Navigation, 713
Constantinople, Expedition to, 384, 487
Copenhagen Expedition, 164, 190, 229, 252, 314, 385, 736, 1185
Curates' Suspension Repeal Bill, 413
D
Danish Fleet, 1284
Dardanelles, Expedition to the, 384, 487
Denmark; Papers relating to, 755
Droits of Admiralty, 409, 412, 449
E
East India Company's Affairs, 1071
Exchequer Bills, 991
Exchequer Bills Regulation Bill, 461
Exchequer, Sums issued out of the, 463
Expedition to Copenhagen, 164, 190, 229, 252, 314, 385, 736, 1185
Expedition to the Dardanelles, 384, 487
F
Finance Committee, 184, 1309
G
Giffard, Motion respecting the Dismissal of Mr. John, 877
Great Grimsby Election, 698
Greenwich Hospital and Naval Asylum, 976, 1243
I
Jesuits' Bark Bill, 695, 709, 1168
Irish Expresses, 1088, 1257
Irish Grand Jury Presentments, 1250
K
King's Message respecting an Annuity to the Family of the late Lord Lake, 711, 786, 872
King's Message respecting Sweden, 1053, 1160
King's Speech,
see
L
Lake, Lord, King's Message respecting an Annuity to the Family of the late, 711, 786, 872
Law of Parliament, respecting Official Communications, 898
Licences, Commercial, 185, 923
Liverpool Petition, respecting the Orders in Council Bill, 889, 896
Lords Commissioners' Speech on opening the Session, 37, 83
Lotteries, 1268
M
Mediation of Austria, 1258
Mediation of Russia and Austria, 601, 801
Mutiny Bill, 922, 980, 1180
N
Nabob of Oude, 1290
Navy Estimates, 189
O
Offices in Reversion Bill, 96, 194, 1259, 1300, 1315, 1329
Orders in Council, 126, 154, 314, 887, 1056, 1159, 1182, 1244, 1246, 1251, 1304
Orders in Council Bill, 665, 696, 698, 726, 889, 925, 1065, 1072
Ordnance Estimates, 755
Oude Charge, Conduct of Marquis Wellesley relative to the, 410, 699, 993, 1089
Oude, Nabob of, 1290
P
Parliament, Law of, respecting Official Communications, 898
Peace, Petition from Bolton respecting, 692
Peace, Petition from Manchester respecting, 1182
Portugal, Papers relating to, 535
R
Reversion Bill, 96, 194, 1259, 1300, 1315, 1329, 1368
Russia, Mediation of, 601, 801, 1353
S
Saltash, Right of Election, 691
Speaker, Resolution approving the Conduct of the, 1170
Strachan, Sir R. on the State of his Squadron, 711, 879
Sugar, Distillation from, 712
Sugar Distillery Committee, 1256
Sussex Election Petition, 1156
Sweden, Treaty with, 694
Sweden, King's Message respecting, 1053, 1160
T
Treaty with Sweden, 694
W
Wellesley, Marquis; Conduct of, 410, 699, 993, 1089, 1305
Westminster Election Petition, 1242, 1250
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Aberdeen, Earl of, 15
Albemarle, Earl of, 1322
Arden, Lord, 870, 1044
Auckland, 150,. 160, 313, 465, 733, 783, 872, 928, 1043, 1244, 1278, 1348
B
Bathurst, Earl, 153, 443, 469, 733, 1239, 1321, 1346
Boringdon, Lord, 356, 646, 876, 1044
Buckinghamshire, Earl of, 30, 357, 1180
C
Carlisle, Earl of, 735, 1047
D
Darnley, Earl of, 382, 656, 872, 873, 1278, 1349
E
Eldon, Lord,
see
Eliot, Lord, 875
Ellenborough, Lord, 648, 1069
Erskine, Lord, 354, 471, 642, 653, 929, 975, 1149, 1245, 1321
G
Galloway, Earl of, 6, 786
Gloucester, Duke of, 1179
Grenville, Lord, 16, 31, 153, 311, 431, 444, 445, 446, 477, 641, 658, 733, 736, 786, 927, 972, 1077, 1079, 1148, 1152, 1241, 1242, 1249, 1253, 1279, 1324, 1345, 1349
Grey, Earl (late Lord Howick) 161, 376, 434, 444, 641, 784, 1048, 1087, 1154, 1183, 1248
Grosvenor, Earl, 871, 1180
H
Hardwicke, Earl of, 1077
Harrowby, Lord, 363, 652, 1047, 1151
Hawkesbury, Lord, 28, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 312, 313, 368, 434, 438, 445, 483, 641, 660, 734, 736, 785, 871, 920, 921, 927, 928, 974, 1052, 1053, 1076, 1079, 1087, 1148, 1241, 1248, 1253, 1282, 1323, 1325, 1349
Holland, Lord, 152, 154, 158, 313, 651, 782, 871, 876, 1070, 1150, 1181, 1240, 1249, 1260, 1283
Hood, Lord, 1052,
Hutchinson, Lord, 350, 443, 446
J
Jersey, Earl of, 368
K
Kenyon, Lord, 11
King, Lord, 476, 1240
L
Lauderdale, Earl of, 30, 149, 485, 784, 870, 921, 1052, 1152, 1235, 1253, 1278, 1323, 1346, 1348
Limerick, Earl of, 367
Lord Chancellor (Eldon), 149, 444, 473, 642, 650, 756, 871, 971, 1046, 1053, 1153, 1245, 1324, 1345
M
Melville, Lord, 1151, 1180, 1346
Moira, Earl, 159, 364, 441, 1047 1068, 1181
Montrose, Duke of, 642, 781, 871
Mulgrave, Lord, 31, 160, 380, 446, 449, 656, 783, 1053, 1150, 1249, 1250, 1278, 1323,
N
Norfolk, Duke of, 11, 149, 340, 443, 1087
O
Oxford, Bishop of, 148
R
Redesdale, Lord, 655, 784, 871, 1045, 1086, 1324, 1348
Rosslyn, Earl of, 1325
S
Selkirk, Earl of, 654
Sidmouth, Lord, 13, 382, 485, 642, 661, 920, 921, 1151, 1179, 1181
Spencer, Earl, 870
Stanhope, Earl, 1044
St. John Lord, 780, 1347
Suffolk, Earl of, 921, 1247
V
Vincent, Earl St., 375
W
Wellesley, Marquis, 342
Westmoreland, Earl of, 654,784, 871, 1043, 1181, 1277, 1322
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abbot, Right Hon. C.
see
Abercromby, J., 535, 1219
Adam, W., 460, 463, 536, 759, 898, 912
Advocate General (Sir John Nicholls), 450, 456, 457, 666, 732, 924
Allen, A., 1024
Anstruther, Sir J., 702, 896, 1018
Attorney General (Sir Vicary Gibbs), 731
B
Babington, T., 1289
Bankes, H., 96, 421, 1041, 1076, 1259, 1268, 1318, 1329
Baring, A., 725, 732, 925, 1059, 1072
Bathurst, C. B., 69, 297, 705, 1289
Barnard, S., 1268
Biddulph, A., 431, 800, 1266, 1304, 1309, 1314, 1327
Blachford, B. P., 865
Bourne, S., 911
Brand, T., 176, 458, 1286
Brogden, J., 431
Browne, I. H., 1267, 1289, 1313, 1363
Burdett, Sir F., 409, 410, 412, 449, 450, 456, 707, 793, 798, 980, 1080, 1083, 1174, 1178
C
Calcraft, J., 711, 754, 755, 879, 886, 1084, 1318
Calvert, N., 1303
Canning, Mr. Secretary, 61, 93, 267, 310, 385, 387, 488, 536, 606, 613, 614, 682, 693, 695, 728, 744, 752, 755, 759, 760, 867, 889, 905, 1160, 1164, 1170, 1172, 1232, 1258, 1363
Castlereagh, Lord, 164, 494, 786, 790, 872, 892, 911, 980, 1064, 1144
Cavendish, Lord G., 797
Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Right Hon. Spencer Perceval) 71, 154, 176, 184, 188, 194, 231, 321, 393, 409, 413, 415, 416, 449, 454, 459, 462, 496, 663, 664, 688, 689, 690, 696, 698, 700, 707, 712, 719, 726, 727, 731, 758, 795, 887, 891,
Combe, H. C., 1058
Cooper, C. A., 755
Creevey, T., 410, 412, 699, 700, 1072
Croker, J., 496, 878, 1228
Curtis, Sir W., 1058
D
Dickenson, W., 413
Duckett, G., 69, 1083
Dundas, W., 97, 790, 1264
Dundas, R., 410, 412, 1071, 1293
E
Eden, W., 86, 163, 339, 665
Ellis, C., 45
F
Finch, E., 192.
Fitzpatrick, R., 1083
Fitzgerald, M., l222, 1250
Folkestone, Lord, 410, 412, 456, 699, 707, 756, 791, 993, 1082, 1284
Foster, J., 1159
Foster, J. F., 298
Fuller, J., 83, 1336
G
Gascoyne, I., 731, 795, 889, 1063
Gibbs, Sir V.
see
Giddy, D., 309, 429, 731, 1288, 1336
Gordon, W., 1061, 1169
Gower, Lord G. L., 605, 620, 1217, 1259, 1356
Grant, C., 703, 1034, 1117
Grant, Sir W.,
see
Grattan, H., 1073
Grenville, T. 384, 490
Grosvenor, T. 192
H
Hall, B., 703
Hall, Sir J., 1142, 1290
Hamilton, Viscount, 37
Hamilton, Lord A., 703, 1290
Herbert, C., 390, 728, 1360
Hibbert, G., 84, 678, 1061
Horner, F., 99, 185, 187, 392, 461, 698, 923
Howorth, J., 1296
Huskisson, W., 427, 461, 893, 1157, 1327
J
Johnstone, G., 493, 496, 1117
Jones, T., 1304
K
Keene, W., 1004
L
Laing, M., 752
Laurence, F., 330, 411, 616, 700, 720, 897, 1065, 1067, 1220, 1329, 1362
Lockhart, J., 392, 413, 978
Lushington, S. R., 308, 703, 1124
Lushington, S., 414, 452, 451, 703, 728, 793, 1038, 1169
Lyttleton, W. H., 302, 394, 797
M
Macdonald, J., 83
Mahon, Lord, 866
Manning, W., 430
Martin, H., 463, 690, 1294
Maryatt, J., 1059
Master of the Rolls, (Sir W. Grant) 332
Matthew, M., 82
Milnes, R., 53, 295
Milton, Lord, 47, 861, 1147
Montague, M., 92
Morris, E., 301
N
Newport, Sir J., 99, 878, 923, 925, 979, 1320, 1336
Nicholls, Sir J.,
see
O
Ord, W., 1216
Orde, Sir J., 394
Ossulston, Lord, 1329
P
Palmerston, Lord, 300
Parnell, H., 1088, 1257
Peele, Sir R., 1061
Perceval, S.,
see
Petty, Lord H, 68, 154, 314, 415, 429, 463, 682, 887, 893, 1165, 1235
Piggott, Sir A., 339, 732, 888, 1062, 1156
Plomer, Sir T.,
see
Pole, W., 411, 492, 755, 883
Pole, Sir C., 450, 460, 976, 1243
Ponsonby, G., 48, 252, 309, 537, 611, 613, 615, 694, 722, 750, 756, 856, 879, 888, 892, 926, 978, 1164, 1265, 1313
Popham, Sir H., 193, 453
Porcher, J. D., 1216
Porchester, Lord, 1268, 1338
Price, Sir C., 309, 732, 1060, 1168
Pulteney, Sir J.,
see
Pym, F., 87
R
Romilly, Sir S., 194, 706
Rose, G., 162, 163, 186, 187, 462, 678, 697, 722, 893, 924, 977, 1073
S
Salusbury, Sir R., 1268
Scott, Sir W., 1066
Secretary at War, (Sir J. Pulteney) 753, 797, 990, 1082, 1165, 1220
Sharp, R., 395, 1185
Shaw, J., 1058
Sheridan, R. B., 72, 394, 414, 454, 455, 462, 536, 662, 664, 685, 689, 736, 759, 869, 892, 894, 895, 1173, 1176
Simeon, J., 1289
Smith, W., 92, 631, 792, 798, 868, 1166, 1169
Smith, J., 867
Solicitor General (Sir T. Plomer) 698, 898, 1073
Speaker, (Right Hon. C. Abbot) 37, 191, 455, 697, 700, 725, 726, 757, 889, 894, 1160, 1171, 1252, 1306, 1317
Stanhope, S., 1303
Stephens, S. 1290, 1315
Sumner, G. H., 791, 1113
T
Tarleton, B., 790, 892, 989, 1063,
Taylor, C., 487
Taylor, M. A., 86, 790, 1169
Temple, Earl, 389, 411, 676, 725, 752, 791, 886, 1147
Thornton, H., 231, 428
Thornton, S. 426, 1287
Thornton, R., 702, 1146, 1219, 1295, 1305
Tierney, G., 178, 231, 390, 423, 495, 696, 713, 724, 726, 732, 756, 797, 889, 896, 898, 1158, 1160, 1170, 1172, 1251, 1307, 1316, 1328, 1341
Tracy, C. H., 1289
Turton, Sir T., 617, 706, 1089, 1287, 1360
W
Wallace, T., 1036
Ward, J. W., 862, 1262, 1313
Wellesley, Sir A., 192, 410, 707, 731, 792, 878, 1088, 1257
Wellesley, H., 1111, 1305
Whitbread, S., 58, 93, 98, 302, 385, 395, 414, 601, 614, 617, 709, 726, 729, 731, 789, 793, 801, 892, 896, 911, 978, 984, 1060, 1064, 1147, 1162, 1166, 1168, 1182, 1231, 1258, 1312, 1319, 1333, 1344, 1353, 1358, 1357
Wilberforce, W., 730, 860, 1288, 1340
Windham, W., 69, 90, 170, 288, 337, 394, 411, 493, 537, 704, 749, 754, 758, 909, 1065, 1084, 1360
Wood, T., 792
Wortley, S., 1215
Wynne, C., 1158, 1306
Y
Yorke, C., 88
END OF VOL. X.