The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved 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. Baringasked whether the duties imposed upon the exportation of neutral property were to extend to the article of fish?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, 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. Baringreplied, 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. Newportsaid, 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 understood the value of American neutrality, even as to our own fisheries; and yet they had the good fortune to persuade the house, to shut out the commercial subjects of the kingdom from being heard. He had once thought this measure quite original, but lately he had found a precedent for it. One of the West India islands had been in want of provisions, and only one person had any to dispose of. That person had another article for which he could get no sale; but he told the inhabitants that they must have the other article, or they should have no provisions. By this expedient he got rid of his grindstones, and was, all his life after, called 'Grindstone Lynch.' He stated, that of the primum for the linen manufacture of Ireland, 4-5ths came from America; and adverted to the danger that would result from the stoppage of this supply. The interests of Ireland ought the more to be considered on this occasion, because the linen manufacture had been forced on her instead of the woollen, for which she had the primum. He also adverted to the consequences to our silk manufacture here. Of the primum for this there was not in the country more than six weeks supply, and at the end of that period 60,000 men might be driven out of employment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, 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. Ponsonbyadmired 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 then order to be a third time on Thursday.