Lords Sitting of 7 April 1808

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
bell then proceeded briefly to sum up and comment upon the evidence.—On the question for the third reading of the bill,
Earl Bathurststated 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
earl to have been received, that house knew nothing of it, and therefore it could not form a ground for supporting this measure.
Lord Boringdoncontended, 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 whollyreprobated 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 Westmorelandcontended, 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
and that therefore that measure must stand upon the same principle as the present. When the noble lords talked of the distress inflicted upon the enemy, it should be recollected that the enemy had by his decrees endeavoured to ruin the commerce and manufactures of this country, and thereby to inflict the greatest misery upon thousands of persons employed in them. Was it, then, to he regarded as an act of inhumanity to prevent him from obtaining an article of which he stood in need, unless he took with it a portion of those manufactures which he endeavoured to ruin? Was it not rather an act of policy, consistent with and required by the interests of the country? He concluded with observing, that the arguments of the noble lords on the opposite side, tended, as they had done during the whole sessions, to favour the views of the enemy.
Lord Hollandcombated 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 Mulgravevindicated 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 Lauderdalecould 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
not believe that any British peer, or, indeed, that any British subject, could be found, at the present moment, vile enough even in idea to countenance the enemies of the country. If however such a sentiment could he imputed to any one, it must be to those who could support an administration capable of introducing measures like the present.
Lord Redesdalesupported the bill, as consistent with sound policy, and the law of nature.
Lord Grenvilletook 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
act of the administration of which that noble lord was a member, by which the importation of provisions into France was prohibited, and asked, if it was possible for any person to have acquiesced in that measure, and yet to argue as the noble lord had done against that now under consideration?
Lord Hawkesburydefended 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 Rosslyncould 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?
The question was now eagerly called for, and the house divided on the third reading of the bill. Contents, 54; Proxies, 56—110: Non-contents, 22; Proxies, 22—44: Majority, 66.
Lord Grenvillepresented 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.
[PROTEST AGAINST THE JESUITS BARK BILL.] "Dissentient; 1. Because the jesuits' bark, the exportation of which is prohibited by this bill, has been found by long experience to be a specific for many dangerous diseases which war has a tendency to spread at d to exasperate; and because to employ as an engine of war the
1326
privation of the only remedy for some of the greatest sufferings which war is capable of inflicting, is manifestly repugnant to the principles of the christian religion, contrary to humanity, and not justified by any practice of civilized nations.—2. Because the means to which recourse has been hitherto had in war, have no analogy to the barbarous enactment of this bill; inasmuch as it is not even contended that the privation to be created by it has any tendency whatever to self-defence, or to compel the enemy to the restoration of peace; the only legitimate object by which the infliction of the calamities of war can in any case be justified.—3. Because the only possible answer to these objections is, that the bill will not produce the privation which is held forth as its ostensible object, inasmuch as the jesuits bark may be exported under licences front the crown; but such an answer would only prove the bill to be wholly useless to its purposes, whilst it would still leave in its full operation the odious precedent of having resorted, in cold blood, for the mere speculative sale of our manufactures, even to the possible infliction of miseries not to be vindicated but by the view of self-preservation, or, in the extremities of war, directed to that justifiable object.—4. Because, as no scarcity of the jesuits' bark appears to exist in France, and as, in the contrary case, no possible exertion on the part of this country could effectually prevent its importation into the numerous ports under the dominion or controul of the French government, the bill appears to us to be grossly vicious in principle, whilst it is absolutely nugatory in practice, and therefore in every point of view, disgraceful and absurd.—5. Because if it were even just, expedient, or practicable, to force the importation of our manufactures upon our enemies, by withholding the jesuits' bark but upon condition of their permitting such importation, that principle should have been distinctly expressed in the bill, and the conditions specifically declared in it, instead of vesting in the crown an arbitrary discretion to dispense with the prohibition by licences, a power destructive of the equality of British commerce, and dangerous to the freedom of the British constitution. (Signed,) Erskine, Cholmondeley, Upper Ossory, Bedford, Ponsonby, (earl of Besborough), Albemarle, Ponsonby, (of Immokilly), EsSex, Carrington, Grenville, Rosslyn, Lauderdale, Clifton, (earl of Darnley.)"