« PreviousContinue »
support the amendment of his honourable friend, because he thought, that if any effect at all were to be expected from the measure, it must be by adopting that amendment. But as he was an enemy to the measure in any shape, he should feel himself bound to oppose the resolution in chief.
Mr. Coke declared his intention to follow the example of his honourable friend, and to vote for the amendment, and against the resolution.
The gallery was then cleared, after which strangers were not re-admitted ; but we understood, that the amend. ment was carried (which fixed the 10th of June as the immediate period of the prohibition, and the 1st of De-, cember as the remote period), after a division, on which the numbers were: For the amendment
89 Against it
18 After which, and some discussion, we learnt that the period of the commencement of the prohibition was fixed for the 15th of June for Scotland, and the 20th for Ireland. The two first resolutions were then reported, and a bill ordered pursuant thereto; and the third resolution was ordered to be referred to the committee of supply ; after which the house adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
SATURDAY, MAY 28. The house met to proceed in the further hearing of the competition of brieves in the Roxburg appeal case.
The bills on the table were forwarded. Adjourned.
MONDAY, MAY 30. The military inquiry bill, and the duchess of Bruns. wick's annuity bill, passed tbrough committees, and were reported.
Some private bills were brought up from the commons, by Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Shelley, Mr. French, and other members, and read a first time.
Lord Hawkesbury laid on the table returns respecting the residence of the clergy, which were ordered to be printed.
Viscount Sidmouth complained of his speech on Friday having been misrepresented in a morning paper of Saturday, in which sentiments had been imputed to him that he never uttered, and which he was anxious to disclaim. His lordship declined making any motion, observing, that that would be a subject for further consideration.
ORDERS OF COUNCIL. Lord Auckland made a few observations on what he conceived to be the tendency of the orders of council, as proved by the documents on the table, to injure the trade of the country; it appeared by an account upon the table, of exports and imports for the quarter ending the 5ih of January last, that our exports had considerably diminished, compared with those of the corresponding quarter in the preceding year. He thonght it highly necessary, that the house should be in possession of the fullest information upon this subject; and for that pur. poșe he should move for an account of exports and imports from and into the port of London, with the duties and drawbacks distinguishing British manufactures, &c. for four months, up to the 1st of May, 1808, and similar accounts for Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and another port.
Earl Bathurst had no objection to the noble lord's motion, but contended that the orders of council ought not to be represented as the cause of the diminution of our trade in the quarter ending the 5th of January, as tbat was effected by orders given in the preceding quar, ter, which orders were issued in consequence of the rigorous execution of the enemy's decrees against our commerce. It was as a remedy for the latter evil that the orders of council were resorted to.
Lord Grenville contended that it was clear, from the documents on the table to which his noble friend had al, luded, that our trade had materially diminished ; our exports in the quarter ending the 5th of January, 1807, being 5,500,0001. and in that ending the 5th of January, 1808, only 4,170,0001. To what other cause could this be imputed, except to the orders of council ? and he was convinced that proof upon proof would continually ac, cumulate, of the highly injurious effects of these orders. How would the country be enabled to carry on the contest in which we were engaged, if those resources failed which we drew from our commerce ? The object of the enemy, therefore, was to injure that commerce by every possible means. Surely then, it was a most fatal policy for the government of this country to adopt measures which had a direct tendency to depress and diminish that commerce; and which, it appeared, had actually had that effect. With respect to the United States of America also, the policy of the ministers appeared to have an equally injurious tendency. Fortunately, however, the effects of their rashness appeared likely to be counteracted by the rashness of the chemy, whose conduct, it might be reasonably hoped, would tend to throw America into the arms of this country. This point relating to America, under present circumstances, and not knowing the state of the relaiions at the present moment between this country and the United States, and this also being the most important point connected with the orders of council, he found it impossible to argite upon, and therefore must give up the motion of which he had formerly given notice for addressing his majesty to revoke these orders. He had little doubt, however, that ministers, in the mean time, would see the necessity of revoking these orders, from the increasing injurious effects upon the trade of the country produced by their operation, whilst, at the same time, they had no effect in inducing the enemy to revoke his obnoxius decrees.
Lord Hawkesbury contended, that the diminution of ex ports alluded to could not be fairly imputed to the oro ders of council; as there was only one month in the guar. ter, that of December, which was subjected to their oper. ation, and in that month there was no diminution compared with the corresponding month in the preceding year. The diminution, therelore, was to be attributed to other causes, and these were the effects of the decrees of the enemy.
With respect to America, he denied that the orders of council had any effect in producing the embargo, it being now well known that that measure was resorted to in consequence of the new and more rigorous decrees issued by the French government, and the exe pectation that retaliatory measures would be adopied by ibBritish government. It could not of course be expected, that he should say any thing respecting the present state of the relations between this country and the United States ; but this he was entitled to say, that it was the earnest wish of his majesty's ministers to maintain that friendship and good-will with the United States, which was so beneficial to both countries, and to adopt every measure for that purpose that was consistent with the maintenance of the dearest rights and the best interests of this country,
The Earl of Lauderdale maintained, that the orders of council were held out as a measure of immediate efficacy, in inducing the enemy to revoke his decrees, and that they had failed in their intended effect.
The Lord Chancellor urged, that whenever the question was argued, it ought to be argued in this point of view, namely, what would have been the effect of the enemy's decrees upon our commerce if the orders of council had not been issued : it was not enough to say there was a dininution of commerce now; but the question was, what would have been the diminution under the continued operation of the enemy's decrees, if the measure of the orders of council had not been resorted to ?
Lord Holland contended, that the diminution being shewn after the orders of council had operated, it lay upon those who supported those orders, to prove that such diminution resulted from some other cause.
Some further conversation ensued, in consequence of the Lord Chancellor's having stated that the motions had been put and carried an hour and a half ago. Some astonishment was expressed by some noble lords, that the potting the question had not been heard. Earl Stanhope said, that the noble and learned lord had put and carried them in a parenthesis. The Lord Chancellor observed, that he had merely said, “ ordered," conceiving there was no objection. There being no further objection, the conversation dropped; and Earl Bathurst moved accounts similar to those moved by lord Auckland, from all the ports of Great Britain, wbich were ordered.
Earl Stanhope thought it ought not to be proceeded upon in so thin a house, and moved to discharge the order.
Lord Ellenborough, after having insisted, as he had done on a former occasion, that the principle of the bill was misunderstood and misrepresented, and that he considered the opposition to it no better than a tub thrown out for the purpose of catching popular applause, added, that he could not avoid observing, that he, as chief justice of the king's bench, was entitled to some degree of respect, but he had been grossly calumniated by an indivi. dual of that house, having compared him to those mon. siers, who in former reigns had disgraced the bench of justice, such as Scroggs, Jeffries, &c. But he should treat the "calumny and the calumniator with contempt. On a former occasion he had been blamed for bis taciture nity, for which he would not apologize to that individual, but he would explain the reason to that house.
Earl Stanhope disavowed any intention, on his part, to impute the smallest disrespect to the noble and learned lord (Ellenborough); he had said, and he had a right to say, that such monsters and villains as Scroggs and Jef. fries had filled the office of judge ; but it was impossible for him to have found any resemblance between them and the noble and learned lord ; and if that noble and learned lord felt any resemblance, it was more than any other noble lord was disposed to do in that house. The rash' misconception and precipitancy which had been applied to what had fallen from himself, convinced his mind that it might be improper to delegate the power proposed by that bill eyon to that noble and learned lord.
Some further conversation respecting the former speech of earl Stanhope took place, in which his lordship and Lord Holland contended that lord Ellenborough misunderstood what had been said in debate.
The motion for discharging the order was negatived.
The Earl of Moira objected to it, observing that the operation of the bill would bear hard upon the poor. A wealthy man, if arrested on a charge of misdemeanor, vould find no difficulty in procuring bail, but a poor man might find it impossible, and in that case he would be sent to gaol.
The Lord Chancellor observed, that the noble lord's objection was too general, inasmuch as it would apply to the general operation of the law in holding to bail, but VOL. III.-1808.