Lords Sitting of 12 May 1806

Minutes.
The Duke of Norfolk reported from the Committee appointed for that purpose, several Regulations proposed to be adopted respecting the admission of Persons into the High Court of Parliament, which were agreed to.—Mr. Irving, Inspector General of Imports and Exports, presented several Accounts relative to the Slave Trade which were ordered to lie on the table.—Lord Grenville presented a Message from his Majesty respecting making a provision for earl Nelson, and the future possessors of the title. (Vide our report of the House of Commons.) His lordship observed, that there could be no difference of opinion upon this subject; but in conformity with the usual practice of the house, he would now merely move, that his majesty's most gracious message be taken into consideration to-morrow. Ordered.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.
The order for summoning their lordships relative to the propositions on this subject, which lord Grenville had, on a former evening, given notice of his intention to bring forward, being read,
Lord Grenville roseand observed, that he was under the necessity of still further postponing that which he had intended to submit to their lordship's consideration that evening. It must be obvious to their lordships, that a matter of so nice and complicated a nature as the new modelling the mode of Administration of Justice in a country must require deep and mature consideration, and much consultation with those persons who were most conversant with such topics. He had already devoted much time to the subject; but the variety of other important avocations which equally challenged his attention, prevented him from being able to bring forward the business in as perfect state as he could wish. When he did bring it forward, it would be in the shape of a series of resolutions, upon which he should not press any immediate decision, but merely that they be laid upon the table to be ma-
94
turely considered by their lordships till about the beginning of next session, when, perhaps, he should be able to submit them to the house in the form of a bill. He now thought it would take ten days or a fortnight's more preparation before he could well state his resolutions, but it should not much exceed that time. He should, however, now fix upon a day, and that he meant to be Friday, the 6th of June, for which day he moved that their lordships be summoned to attend.—Ordered.

AMERICAN INTERCOURSE BILL.
Lord Mulgrave presented a petition from certain ship owners and others of the town and port of Scarborough, against the above bill, and praying that it might not pass into a law. Ordered to lie on the table. The order being read for taking the report of the bill into consideration,
Lord Hawkesburyobserved, he had an amendment to propose to the bill, the effect of which would be, instead of suffering the duration of the bill to extend, as now fixed, until six months after the expiration of the war, to limit it to the first day of July, 1807, which might be about the period of the close of the next session of parliament. He thought that an amendment of this kind could not be seriously objected to. This would have the effect of leaving the subject open for farther investigation, and afford ministers a more regular opportunity of acting upon the occasion, than could offer, were the bill to pass in its present shape; for instance, it might in the proposed interval be ascertained how far the British Colonies, in North America, could supply certain articles of the consumption of the West-India Islands, and how far regulations, in the nature of protecting duties, may be expedient. He was aware of the difficulty of entering into such an extensive investigation at present, under such a pressure of public business, and in such an advanced period of the session; however, in the ensuing session, such an enquiry might be taken up with great advantage; and, in this view, he had shaped his proposed amendment. The noble lord then moved, "that instead of 'until six months after the expiration of the war,' the words '1st day of July, 1807,' be inserted." On the question being put,
The Earl of Suffolkmade a few observations in favour of the bill in its present shape. A noble and learned lord, said, he observed, on a former evening, that the Bill was new in its principle: it might be so, but it was a change of principle for the bet-

95
ter, as a reference to the experience of six or seven years would evince. The bill went to place the responsibility of the measures to which it referred, where it ought to rest; besides, the present state of the West-India islands required a regulation of the kind. The noble earl concluded with some remarks upon the superior policy of cultivating a good understanding with, and even the friendship of, the Americans, on the grounds of their similarity in habits, laws, language, origin, and dispositions, with the people of this country, to whom it had often served for an Asylum.
Lord Sheffieldobserved, that in almost every instance he perceived the incorrectness of the statements and assertions of the friends of the bill; and he was become still more anxious that the first court of judicature should not lie under the imputation of refusing to hear the complaints of the people, and how their concerns have been misrepresented. He should therefore, notwithstanding his objections to the principle and to the whole measure, agree to the amendment, if he could obtain a fair hearing for the petitioners, and an investigation of the subject. His lordship said, he would state, in proof of the necessity of examining the assertions to which he alluded, what the real state of ship-building is in the port of London. Noble lords had ventured to say, that shipbuilding flourishes even beyond what it has done at any former period, and that the increase of foreign shipping in our trade did not keep pace with the increase in our own shipping. His lordship then read an account of the ships which have been built, or are now building in the river Thames, since December, 1802, to the present period, viz. For the King's service eleven ships; East-India Company seventeen ships; merchants' only four ships; fisheries one; the whole in three and one-half years, except a very few small vessels; viz. one sugar, drogher, three hoys for the East-India Company's service, two ballast lighters, one mortar-boat, and one pleasure yacht. At this moment only two ships (part of the above four) are building for the merchants' service. This melancholy statement he was ready to prove at the bar of the house, and that it was in general the same in every port of the kingdom. As to the assertion, that British shipping in our trade has increased in proportion to the foreign, he should prove, even by the same documents as were made use of by his noble friend, (lord Auckland), and which were known to be exaggerated,
96
that in a period of ten years ending, 1803, the increase of foreign shipping was threefold, and the increase of foreign shipping so employed, compared with the increase of British shipping, was in the proportion of twelve to one. Or, to consider it according to a scale; in the year 1789 the proportion which foreign shipping employed in our trade bore to British was, as eight tons foreign to one hundred British; in 1801, it had increased to the proportion of sixty-eight tons foreign to one hundred British. He should add, that within the period from 1791 to 1801, both inclusive, the foreign shipping employed in our trade increased from 3,615 containing 179,630 tons, and employing 28,120 sailors;—to 11,123 vessels containing 1,585,035 tons, and employing 82,934 foreign sailors. He should make one more observation of a most serious nature; the ships in the West-India trade were wearing out, and as no ships were building to replace them, half the produce would be left in the West-Indies; the planters would then demand that the American shipping be allowed to carry home the produce; whereas, if British ships were now encouraged to make the circuitous voyage, loading lumber and provisions for the West-Indies, the shipping in that trade would be increased sufficiently to bring home the whole produce, and freight would be kept at a reasonable rate. His lordship said, he had always serious apprehensions respecting the loose opinions which were so often delivered on these subjects. But his alarm had become extreme since he had heard a noble lord (Grenville), distinguished for his great abilities and information, to whom neither levity nor imprudence could be imputed, hold a language which appeared to him intended to prepare us in consequence of a change of times and things for a relinquishment of the most essential parts of our navigation and colonial system. He wished that he might have mistaken him; but if he had not, he most solemnly declared that, if, instead of alluding to the sacrifices of the system in question, the noble lord had prepared us in consequence of the change of times and things, to gratify Buonaparté with a reduction and limitation of our ships of war, it would not so seriously have alarmed him; because, in the last, instance, the mischief might be temporary and retrievable; but in the other, it would be permanent and irretrievable. He should not presume to blame any man merely for entertaining such opinions; but if, without permitting exami-

97
nation or enquiry, and contrary to the well established opinion of the public, he should act on those opinions, he then should think him highly blameable. In the present instance, he was so far from blaming the noble lord, that he thought it highly honourably in him, to put us on our guard and prepare us to support our opinions. His lordship would state very shortly, what had passed since the independence of the American States, respecting the supply of the British West Indies. That great Man, whose death will long and deservedly be lamented, when chancellor Of the exchequer during lord Shelburne's administration, brought in a bill, founded on principles and opinions, as hostile to our navigation and colonial laws as those now adopted by the noble lords; and when it was understood that he received them from .Mr. Burke, whose partiality for the Americans induced him to represent them as a people sui generis, and therefore not to be treated as foreigners, but to enjoy the privileges of British subjects, although they had asserted their independence. The bill was brought into Parliament with a view of opening the West India ports to the people of the American states; which, however, meeting with highly, merited opposition, was wisely withdrawn with the concurrence even of Mr. Burke, when lord North and Mr. Fox were secretaries of state; and a temporary power was given to the crown, to regulate the intercourse with the American states. Mr. Pitt oh his return to office, referred the question to the committee of privy council for trade, of which lord Liverpool was then President. A very accurate investigation took place: lord Liverpool made, in 1784, that very able and excellent report which he had recommended to be laid on their lordship's table; he had also recommended another very able report by the same noble lord in 1791, on the subject of the intercourse with the American States, which their lordships, for reasons best known to themselves, had thought proper to decline. Mr. Pitt acted in conformity to these reports, and from that time our West India settlements were supplied as steadily and as completely, in British shipping, as they ever had been, until the commencement of the late war, when the navigation laws were greatly relaxed, especially in respect to, the admission of neutral vessels into the West India ports. But when Mr. Pitt had learned from experience the mischievous effects of the relaxations and suspensions of those laws, he very wisely began to reclaim and limit them, particularly within the last
98
two years. His lordship then read the circular letter from Lord Camden, secretary of state for the colonies, to the West India governors, on this subject; which instructs them, "not to open the ports of the ship ping of the American States, except in cases of real and very great necessity, and directs them to apprise him in every instance, and to state the reasons which induced them to adopt the measure" His lordship observed, that the instructions containedin this very judicious letter, would have effected every thing that was necessary for the present; but the measure now before them, seems intended to reverse every thing done in that respect by the late minister. The noble lords who support the bill affect to say, that it only transfers the power of suspending the laws from the governors to the ministers, and enables that to be done by law, which is now done contrary to law. But every man Who was informed on the subject, saw that it did much more; that it facilitated and systematically established the suspensions of our navigation laws; that it would reader the British West Indies dependent on the American States; that it would transfer the carrying trade to foreigners; that would ruin the British North American colonies; and that the power of suspending the laws must ultimately be delegated to the persons from whom the responsibility was removed. The author of that excellent work, "War in Disguise," truly observed, that few subjects were less generally understood by intelligent men, than that now before their lordships. He had often lamented the same circumstance, and the impossibility of making it understood in a debate; and he conceived that nothing but that kind of investigation which was proposed by the petitioners, could enable their lordships fairly to decide on the question.
Lord Aucklandshortly argued in favour of the bill, which he chiefly supported on the ground of the necessity of the case, and the policy of not recurring to the former practices which the bill went to remedy. The noble lord defended the statements he had on a former occasion made to the house respecting the state of our shipping, which, he contended, were, correct. He objected to the proposed amendment, because, from the shortness of the time, it would Materially interfere with that certainty which merchants should have of being allowed to sell their goods before they embarked in such a trade.
The Duke of Montrosewas decidedly in favour of the amendment, but would not

99
trouble their lordships with a repetition of the arguments he had the honour to address to them on a former night; the amendment proposed by his noble friend would not preclude ministers from doing hereafter, that which, on farther investigation, they might deem expedient; it would go to afford a regular opportunity for examining, and in that view, he thought it would be prudent in ministers to adopt it. He did not think his noble friend was inclined to press the amendment; in proposing it, he had done his duty, as he had previously, as well as himself, performed his duty with respect to the bill. He censured the provision which went to vest the responsibility in those, who, from their situations, must be incapable of judging with respect to a necessity which might arise six months before their orders could reach the place, and to take it from those who were on the spot, and had every means of Judging. Alluding to some observations which fell from a noble earl (the Earl of Suffolk), his grace seemed to say, he did not consider him one of those who were likely to consider America as an asylum, but to remain at home, and to abide the fate and fortune of his country, as became one bearing the illustrious name of Howard. With respect to the bill in question, his conduct was not owing to any desire to oppose the measures of his majesty's government, but to defend those principles and measures upon which he had himself acted, and which in his conscience, he believed to be right.
The Earl of Buckinghamshiredefended the measure in question, on the ground of its necessity, and thought the period originally proposed, preferable to that offered by the amendment. The responsibility was, he contended, placed where it ought to be, viz. in the Government of the Country. The noble earl denied that this could be considered a permanent measure, its duration being limited to the continuance of the war, and until six months after the conclusion of a definitive treaty of peace. The necessity of some such measure during war had, he thought, been agreed on all hands, and it was rendered the more necessanow, as from the observations which had been made respecting the conduct of the Governors of our West India Islands, if a measure like the present was not passed, they would be doubtful as to what mode of conduct they ought to pursue.
The Earl of Carnarvoncould not help making an obervation on what the noble lord (Duke of Montrose) had said. The
100
noble lord had considered the bill as producing only a change of responsibility, and according to his opinion, it removed the responsibility from one who acted on the spot, where his judgment would sooner be enlightened, and placed it with ministers at a distance, who could not so easily be apprized of the circumstances which should call for their interference. This was certainly not a true state of the case; there was at this moment no responsibility whatsoever; the governors could not act in the most perilous situation of the West India islands, but by breaking the law: they could not act without committing an offence against the law, which had lodged no discretion in their hands. His majesty's ministers, as the law now stood, might see the danger hanging over the West Indies, and they were not responsible themselves, nor could they throw responsibility upon the governors who might refuse to act under their orders, requiring disobedience to the navigation laws; they have a full and legal answer: that "laws prohibit us from doing as you desire; the West Indies may suffer, we cannot help it without a breach of the law." Whether they act from either an error in judgment, on the existing circumstances, or from a rigid discharge of their duty in obedience to the laws, to which they are sworn, they are exempt from punishment; they have in truth no responsibility; unless they break the navigation laws, the West India Islands may suffer most materially under this want of all responsibility, which, not existing in ministers cannot be transferred to governors. The West India islands may suffer, and nobody be legally to blame; that this possibility is not exaggerated id proved, for even on the probability of danger to the West India islands, the late ministers have proceeded, but still they have wisely acted under impressions where no legal responsibility compelled them, for if they had neglected to infringe the law, the good of the West India islands urged them, no legal responsibility could have subjected them to punishment; this bill has provided a responsibility in ministers, transferable in any extent to governors on the spot: they are bound to use sound and legal discussion, for an omission of which they are each responsible. This act provides a responsibility which did not before exist, it procures the certainty of security to the West Indies, which their governors might without legal offence refuse, and ministers could not legally order.—The proposed amendment was negatived, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.