HL Deb 30 May 1808 vol 11 cc707-10
Lord Auckland

made 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 Bathurst

had 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 Grenville

contended 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 5,500,000l. and in that ending the 5th of Jan. 1808, only 4,170,000l. 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 Hawkesbury

contended, 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 Lauderdale

maintained, 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 Chancellor

urged, 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 Holland

contended, 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 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.