§ The Earl of Carlislemade 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 III. and the provision of the Order in Council respecting the Isle of Man, concluded by stating, that the latter was a manifest violation of the former.
The Lord Chancellorcontended 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 Grenvilleobserved, there was an end of the constitution of parliament, if the privy council assumed to itself the power of legislation.
§ Lord Hawkesburyopposed 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.
[PROTEST.] Against the rejection of the above motion of the earl of Carlisle, the following Protest was entered in the Journals: viz.
"Dissentient—Because the proposition stated in this motion is evidently and undeniably true.—We conceive the Proper mode of interpreting the laws of our country, and the acts of its government, to be according to the plain sense of the words therein contained., —The Words of the Order stated in the motion expressly declare, That the articles therein mentioned may be exported to certain. places there referred to; and the statute of the seventh of his present majesty does, in terms equally explicit, prohibit such exportation.— "And we conceive that any case of an Order issued by his majesty in council, contrary to the statute law of the realm, is a matter of such importance as to require the most serious attention of this house. (Signed) Carlisle, Grenville, Erskine, Spencer, Lauderdale, Gray, Auckland, Wentworth, Fitzwilliam."