Lords Sitting of 26 April 1809

AMERICA.
The Earl of Selkirkmoved for an Address to his majesty, praying for some Papers relative to the Mission of Mr. Rose to America. These Papers were necessary to the discussion of his motion, and he thought there could be no objection to their production, as they had been already laid before the other house.
The Earl of Liverpoolprotested against the principle, that because papers had been laid before the other house of parliament, that therefore they were to be produced in their lordships' house. He contended that there ought to be some intelligible rule on the subject. For instance, in order to elucidate any Bill on the table, or with a view to a discussion of any subject, the discussion of which had been previously acceded to by ministers, papers were readily granted. In this case, however, he was wholly inimical to the introduction of the discussion proposed by the noble earl in his intended motion; protesting, as he did, against any attempt to take the negociation with America out of the hands of his majesty's ministers.
258
He must, therefore, oppose the production of papers moved for with a view to that discusssion.
Viscount Sidmouthexpressed his astonishment at what had fallen from his noble friend, and contended that there were other cases besides those mentioned by his noble friend, in which, in conformity with the practice of the house, papers had been granted, and particularly for the purposes of inquiry and investigation. He thought in the present case, a mission having been sent to America which had failed, that there was no ground for refusing the papers asked for, with the view of explaining the circumstances attending that mission.
The Earl of Selkirkurged the propriety of granting the papers, the mission of Mr. Rose having terminated, and because he had reason to believe that ministers were on that occasion disposed to sacrifice the most important rights of the country. If so, would it not be fitting to address his majesty, praying him to maintain those rights, and in that case, would it not be proper to have before the house information upon the subject?
The motion was negatived.