Lords Sitting of 30 May 1808

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
Viscount Sidmouthrose for the purpose of calling their lordships' attention to a question of considerable importance, as it regarded a fair and true statement of what might in the course of discussion be uttered in that house. It was a standing order (although their lordships very properly did not enforce it) that no report should be given of their debates. Yet if their lordships permitted these reports to be given, still it was incumbent upon every person giving such report, that he should do it in a fair, correct, and impartial manner. His lordship thought himself very much misrepresented in having sentiments attributed to him which he abhorred and detested. The misrepresentation he complained of was contained in 'The British Press' newspaper, published last Saturday, giving an account of what passed in debate in their lordships' house on Friday night, during the

707
discussion of the Roman Catholic Petition. In that paper sentiments were imputed to him the very reverse of those he uttered. His lordship here read the passages to which he had already alluded. The one was where it was said he had uttered the following sentiments:—"The grand object of legislative care should be the body of the Irish population, who are in the habit of looking exclusively to their priests, from whom they derive scarcely any information, and whose interest it is to detach them from their allegiance to the country and king. This is at once the cause of their ignorance and disaffection."—Now, he never did utter such sentiments, and he did not wish that profession in Ireland should have it so understood. He would trouble their lordships with quoting another passage, where he was represented to have, said—"The Protestant Church must be maintained in all its dignity and privileges, if we expect to make proselytes. Without persecution we should make no Protestants in Ireland, without persecution the Established Church would be overwhelmed." Such sentiments he utterly disavowed and detested; he never did express himself to that effect; but, as their lordships would recollect, he had on that occasion spoken language of an opposite meaning. He had contended, that it was impossible for any church to exist with persecution. Thus far he thought it proper to make this statement to their lordships, before whom he might not be disposed to bring any distinct motion, whatever mode of conduct he might think proper to pursue hereafter in regard to this subject.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Lord Aucklandmade a few observations on what he conceived to be the tendency of the Orders in Council, as proved by the documents on the table, to injure the trade of the country; it appeared by an Account upon the table, of Exports and Imports for the quarter ending the 5th of Jan. last, that our exports had considerably diminished, compared with those of the corresponding quarter in the preceding year. He thought it highly necessary, that the house should be in possession of the fullest information upon this subject; and for that purpose he should move for an Account of Exports and Imports from and into the port of Loudon, with the duties and drawbacks, distinguishing British manufactures, &c. for four months, up to the 1st of May 1808, and similar accounts for Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and another port.
Earl Bathursthad no objection to the motion, but contended that the Orders in Council ought not to be represented as the cause of the diminution of our trade in the quarter ending the 5th of Jan. as that was effected by orders given in the preceding quarter, which orders were issued in consequence of the rigorous execution of the enemy's decrees against our commerce. It was as a remedy for the latter evil that the Orders in Council were resorted to.
Lord Grenvillecontended that it was clear, from the documents on the table, that our trade had materially diminished; our exports in the quarter ending the 5th of Jan. 1807, being 5,500,000 l. and in that ending the 5th of Jan. 1808, only 4,170,000 l. To what other cause could this be imputed, except to the orders in council? and he was convinced that proof upon proof would continually accumulate of the highly injurious effects of these orders. How would the country be enabled to carry on the contest in which we were engaged, if those resources failed which we drew from our commerce? The object of the enemy, therefore, was to injure that commerce by every possible means. Surely, then, it was a most fatal policy for the government of this country to adopt measures which had a direct tendency to depress and diminish that commerce; and which, it, appeared, had actually had that effect. With respect to the United States of America also, the policy of the ministers appeared to have an equally injurious tendency. Fortunately, however, the effects of their rashness appeared likely to be counteracted by the rashness of the enemy, whose conduct, it might be reasonably hoped, would tend to throw America into the arms of this country. Every day's experience must more and more convince his majesty's ministers of the ruinous tendency of this measure. With respect to America, understanding that a negociation was now pending, he should abstain at present from asking any explanation upon that subject. His lordship concluded by repeating his conviction of the malignant influence of this measure, and expressing a hope that his majesty's ministers would be induced to act with magnanimity in rescinding these Orders in Council, from a conviction of the necessity of so doing; and in the hope of its speedy accomplishment, his lordship intimated that it was not his intention at present to press the motion upon this subject of which he had given notice previous to the recess.
Lord Hawkesburycontended, that the diminution of exports alluded to could not be fairly imputed to the Orders in Council; as there was only one month in the quarter, that of Dec., which was subjected to their operation, and in that month there was no diminution compared with the corresponding month in the preceding year. The diminution, therefore, was to be attributed to other causes, and these were the effects of the decrees of the enemy. With respect to America, he denied that the Orders in Council had any effect in producing the embargo, it being now well known that that measure was resorted to in consequence of the new and more rigorous decrees issued by the French government, and the expectation that retaliatory measures would be adopted by the British government. It could not of course be expected, that he should say any thing respecting the present state of the relations between this country and the United states; but this he was entitled to say, that it was the earnest wish of his majesty's ministers to maintain that friendship and good-will with the United States, which was so beneficial to both countries, and to adopt, every measure for that purpose that was consistent with the maintenance of the dearest rights and the best interests of this country.
The Earl of Lauderdalemaintained, that the Orders in Council were held out as a measure of immediate efficacy, in inducing the enemy to revoke his decrees, and that, they had failed in their intended effect.
The Lord Chancellorurged, that, whenever the question was argued, it ought to be argued in this point of view, namely, what would have been the effect of the enemy's decrees upon our commerce if the decrees in Council had not been issued, ft was not enough to say there was a diminution of commerce now; but the question was, what would have been the diminution under the continued operation of the enemy's decrees, if the measure of the Orders in Council had not been resorted to?
Lord Hollandcontended, that the diminution being shewn after the Orders in Council had operated, it lay upon those who supported those orders, to prove that such diminution resulted from some other cause.
Some further conversation ensued, in consequence of the lord chancellor's having stated that the motion had been put and carried an hour and a half ago. Some astonishment was expressed by some
710
noble lords, that the putting the question had not been heard. Earl Stanhope said, that the noble and learned lord had put and carried them in a parenthesis. The lord Chancellor observed, that he had merely said, "ordered," conceiving there was no objection to the motion. Here the conversation dropped; and earl Bathurst moved for Accounts similar to those moved for by lord Auckland, from all the ports of Great Britain, which were ordered.

INDICTMENT BILL.
On the question for the third reading of this bill,
Earl Stanhopethought it ought not to be proceeded upon in so thin a house, and moved to discharge the order.
Lord Ellenborough,after having insisted, as he had done on a former occasion, that the principle of the bill was misunderstood and misrepresented, and that he considered the opposition to it no better than a tub thrown out for the purpose of catching popular applause, added, that he could not avoid observing, that he, as chief justice of the king's bench, was entitled to some degree of respect, but he had been grossly calumniated by an individual of that house having compared him to those monsters, who in former reigns had disgraced the bench of justice, such as Scroggs, Jeffries, &c. But he should treat the calumny and the calumniator with contempt. On a former occasion he had been blamed for his taciturnity, for which he would not apologise to that individual, but he would explain the reason to that house.
Earl Stanhopedisavowed any intention, on his part, to impute the smallest misconduct to the noble and learned lord; he had said, and he had a right to say, that such monsters and villains as Scroggs and Jeffries had filled the office of judge; but it was impossible for him to have found any resemblance between them and the noble and learned lord; and if that noble and learned lord felt any resemblance, it was more than any other noble lord was disposed to do in that house. The rash misconception and precipitancy which had been applied to what had fallen from himself, convinced his mind that it might be improper to delegate the power proposed by that bill even to that noble and learned lord.
The motion for discharging the order was negatived. On the question being put for the third reading of the bill,
The Earl of Moiraobjected to it, observing that the operation of the bill would

711
bear hard upon the poor. A wealthy man, if arrested on a charge of misdemeanor, would find no difficulty in procuring bail, but a poor man might find it impossible; and in that case he would be sent to gaol.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the noble lord's objection was too general, inasmuch as it would apply to the general operation of the law in holding to bail; but the fact was, that reference was always had to a man's circumstances, and the amount of bail regulated accordingly. His lordship shortly detailed the provisions of the bill, respecting which it was for the house to decide.
Lord Erskinerepeated several of his former objections to the bill, and contended that no necessity had been shewn for making any alteration in the law as established by our ancestors. He particularly objected to that part of the bill which placed the attorney general on a level with a grand jury, and authorized the holding to hail upon information filed ex officio.
Lord Ellenboroughwent over some of his former arguments in favour of the bill, and with respect to informations filed by the attorney general, contended, that the reason of the thing required that it should neat be merely a notice to the party to run away, but that there should be the means of compelling the party to answer. With respect to the objection, that the attorney general was not compelled to receive affidavits of the facts on which he filed an information, it perhaps might be thought expedient by the court of king's bench not to hold a man to bail on such an information unless it was supported by an affidavit.
Lord Hollandcontended, that no inconvenience had been shewn to have resulted from the present practice which it was at nil necessary to remedy. He objected therefore to making an unnecessary alteration in the law. He had a right to suppose in arguing this question, the case of an attorney general being the instrument of a tyrannical government, and then the provisions of this bill might prove highly injurious to the liberty of the subject.
Earl Stanhopeobjected to the bill upon similar grounds. He had expected that the noble and learned lord would have acknowledged the statement respecting the expressions used by him to have been erroneous.
Lord Ellenboroughstill thought that the expressions were improperly applied to him.
Earl Stanhopeagain denied that the expressions were intended to be applied to the noble and learned lord, and objected to any reference to expressions used in a former debate.
After some further conversation, the house divided on the question for the third reading: Contents 53; Non-contents 0.—Majority 7.