§ Lord Grenville
re-urged several of his former arguments upon this subject, and contended that the evidence adduced in another place had proved the injurious effects of the Orders in Council, in the prevention of the export of our manufactures to America for the purpose of their being exported to Europe, and in the detention of American vessels bound to Europe, by which the remittances were to be procured, which Were to pay for our manufactures exported to America.
§ Lord Hawkesbury
contended that the Orders in Council were calculated to benefit the trade of the country, and that they tended to that object was the opinion of the greater part of the merchants of London, and of the merchants of Liverpool, even those of the latter who were engaged in the American trade; and if the manufacturers in Yorkshire, or any other part of the country, had sustained losses, those losses were not to be attributed to the Orders in Council, but to other causes.
§ Earl Grey
argued that the assertions with respect to the benefit to be derived from the Orders in Council were not proved.—The amendment was negatived.
A number of other amendments were subsequently moved by lords Auckland and Grenville, chiefly those which were moved and negatived in the committee. A long conversation took place upon them, which turned on the same points that formed the topics of discussion in the committee. The amendments were all negatived. —Upon the Clause for limiting the period for bringing actions again those who may have acted under the Orders in Council, Lord Grenville moved an extension of the time mentioned in the clause, 1255 as from the period specified it was impossible that any American who had reason to complain could seek redress. Upon this a division took place, For the Amendment 19; against it 52. The bill was then read a third time and passed.