Lords Sitting of 28 April 1812

RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Lord Grenville presented a Petition from Bristol, praying that their lordships would not consent to a renewal of the exclusive privileges of the East India Company. The Petition was read by the clerk. Upon which
Lord Grenvillesaid, that in rising to move that this Petition do lie on the table, he could not avoid recalling their lordships' attention to what took place on a former evening respecting the intended discussion on the great national question to which the Petition referred. They were told it was intended to bring forward these discussions at an early ensuing period this session. They were all agreed that the question was not only of the greatest importance to the commercial interests of the country, but involved, at the same time, some of the highest interests on which the British legislature could be called upon to deliberate. This subject, great and extensive as it was, he held it would be utterly impossible, were they to confine themselves even to the commercial part of the question, to discuss in a fit and proper manner, such as its importance required, in what remained of the session. The subject was recommended to the attention of parliament from the throne at the beginning of the session. Four months had now elapsed without a moment of time being bestowed upon it: but now, when they were told the subject was very nearly ripe for consideration, their lordships were expected to remain in the same state of utter inactivity, with respect to it, waiting until they should receive lessons from the other House of Parliament on the subject, and until it was brought before them
1078
in the shape of a Bill. A noble friend of his had suggested a mode of proceeding, in which the subject could be brought before both Houses of Parliament, where the functions of the one House could not be necessarily excluded until the other branch of the legislature had taken its final leave of the business, but a mode and system of deliberation in which both Houses could reciprocally afford light and assistance to each other. He trusted some one of his noble friends would come forward this session, and bring the subject before the House in the shape of Resolutions, involving the consideration, whether, on just grounds, the trade, not only to the East Indies, but to every other part of the globe, should be prevented from becoming general, or confined exclusively to any part of the kingdom. In this train of discussion, he trusted they all wished to see it; and he again expressed his hope, that some noble lord would, were it not done by the King's government, bring the subject before the House in the shape of Resolutions. His lordship concluded by moving, that the Petition do lie on the table.
The Earl of Buckinghamshireaverred that his Majesty's government entertained the strongest desire and the most determined resolution, to propose nothing to parliament which they were satisfied in their own minds was, upon this great occasion, not conducive to the general interests of the country. His noble friend and the House were aware, it was a subject which involved such a collision of interests, that there could be no intention on the part of his Majesty's government to precipitate the discussion of the measure. With respect to the particular course of proceeding to be adopted, a variety of opinions might arise; but, with respect to those avowed by his noble friend on that head, he would beg to look to what was his own conduct on a similar occasion, while forming a part of the then government. He surely would not pretend to state that the subject was not equally important in the year 1793 as it now was. At that time, his noble friend discharged his duly in the manner he thought most advantageous for the purpose, when he pursued a course directly the reverse of what he now recommended. He was sure, if consistency were to be found in any individual, his noble friend could not object to the adoption of a similar course on the present occasion.
Lord Grenvillemust protest against any comparison of the importance of the question in 1793, and at the present period. At that time there did not exist that great, immense, and extensive difference of opinion which now evidently existed. The question then was, whether it were proper to continue, for a limited time, the system then in existence. At present the strongest difference was manifested, as appeared by the numerous Petitions and applications to the legislature from every part of the country. Those who, on the former occasion, were of opinion that no change ought to be made, might have considered the period of the session at which they came forward, abundantly sufficient for agitating the operation; in that point of view might, on the same principle, now consider a similar period for discussion totally insufficient. Whatever the difference of opinion might be upon almost all other points, they were all decided that a great and effectual change must take place in the whole system; a consideration which would bear no comparison with the mere question of continuance. But there was another consideration which it was impossible any noble lord could overlook, namely, that which was presented by a view of the distresses of the country, by the cries and lamentations of their fellow subjects for opening new markets, when the trade and commerce of the country were in the lowest and most distressed situation ever known—a situation to which the weak and wretched policy of ministers had reduced them.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he must be allowed to observe, that there was no disposition whatever, nor any reason to suppose there was, on the part of the King's servants, to avoid any course of proceeding that would give to parliament and to the country the fullest opportunities of deliberating on the subject in question. Even if the course adverted to was adopted, it would still be at the option of any noble lord to bring forward any of the great branches of the subject under separate discussion. With respect to what was said of the occasion in 1793, if he were not mistaken, there were also at that time the strongest representations from all the manufacturing towns, soliciting that the trade might then be thrown open to the country at large; and an arrangement had been proposed, by which it was thought that considerable benefits in the way of trade might be derived by individuals
1080
through the medium of the Company. He was far from being insensible to all the difficulties and dangers of the present moment; but this was the first time he ever heard the year 1793 pointed out as one of great prosperity. On the contrary, it might be doubted, whether there was ever a period in which the universal commercial distresses of the country were greater than at that very period.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended, that a great and striking difference existed in the state of the question at present, and at the period of 1793. They had not then, as now, a prospect of India being a burthen upon the finances of the country. A noble marquis, then in his eye, had most ably demonstrated the great benefits which would result from a free trade to India; the military and political parts of the question also constituted an essential difference. Neither was there any comparison between the state of this country at the period alluded to and at the present time.
Earl Greyobserved, that ministers continued to say, that there was every disposition on their part that this most important subject should have the fullest discussion, but still they delayed bringing forward any measure relating to it. Not even a notice had yet been given as to when it was to be proposed, whilst the session was advancing to so late a period, that there would be a moral impossibility of giving the subject that deliberate discussion which its extreme importance so urgently demanded.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

MR. HENRY'S SECRET MISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.
Lord Hollandsaid a rumour had been in circulation for the last twenty-four hours, of a Message having been sent by the President of the United States to Congress, charging that an agent from this country had been employed, by the governor of the adjacent British territories, to foment discontents in the United States, with the view of separating the Union; and the Message was stated to be accompanied by documents comprising the correspondence, which proved, as asserted, the existence of the agency. He believed there was no foundation for this statement, and he trusted that such was the case; but it would be satisfactory to the House and the public, if the noble lord opposite would give a contradiction to it.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he had no hesitation in answering, that no person had been employed by this government to foment discontents in the United States, nor had there existed any intention on the part of government to foment discontents there, or to make any attempt to separate the Union. As to the person alluded to as an agent, he was persuaded that he could only have been employed for the purpose of obtaining information with a view to the defence of Canada., in the event of hostilities.
Lord Hollandasked, if there was any objection, on the part of the noble earl, explicitly to state, for the satisfaction of the public, whether captain Henry (for there could be no secret about the name) was or was not employed by this government? Or whether they knew of his being employed by Sir J. Craig?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he had no hesitation in stating, that captain Henry was not employed by government at all, nor did they know of his being employed; and he was persuaded, from what he knew of sir James Craig, that sir James could only have employed him for the purpose of obtaining information with a view to the defence of Canada, under the impression that hostilities might perhaps soon commence.
Lord Hollandobserved, that there was probably some correspondence between sir J. Craig and the government, and suggested the propriety of laying that correspondence before the House.

GOLD COIN AND BANK NOTE AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the second reading of this Bill,
Earl Bathurstwas proceeding to observe upon the tacit acquiescence of some, and the feeble opposition of others, in another place, to this Bill, who last session vehemently opposed the measure, when he was called to order by
Lord Holland,who observed, that another place could only mean the House of Commons, and that it was irregular to comment in that way upon their proceedings, or to use what passed there as a means of influencing opinions in that House.
Earl Bathurstobserved, that there were other places where opinions were expressed besides the House of Commons. After explaining what he intended by the argument he was about to use when interrupt-
1082
ed, his lordship proceeded to comment upon the arguments adduced against this measure last session, when it was predicted that it would produce a still further depreciation of the currency of the country, and a still more unfavourable state of the exchange. Those who used the argument of depreciation, urged that the paper currency was depreciated on account of the hgh price of bullion. Since the passing of the measure, however, of last session, the price of bullion was lower, and the exchange was less unfavourable. The measure, therefore, had not produced any of the effects which it was predicted it would. The unfavourable state of the exchange he attributed to our foreign expenditure, and observed, that that unfavourable state of the exchange, combined with a paper currency, enabled the country to carry on a profitable trade in the export of gold, until, from the demand here the price rose so high that the export ceased to produce a profit, and then the gold naturally returned. His lordship then entered into a history of the recoinages in 1695 and 1774, and of the acts of parliament and proclamations respecting the coin, for the purpose of shewing the effects then produced upon the circulation of the country and the state of the exchange, chiefly in answer to the arguments used by the earl of Lauderdale, in a book published by his lord-ship, and with the view of controverting the statements of the latter noble lord. Calculating the Gold Coin of the country at 39,000,000 l. and subtracting from it 9,000,000 l. exported in 1798, there did not now remain in circulation, his lordship observed, out of the 30,000,000 l. more than about 12 or 13,000,000 l. The deficit, therefore, was to be made up by a paper circulation, and he contended, that under all the circumstances of the increased trade of the country, there were no more Bank notes issued than were necessary for the circulation of the country. If, therefore, there was no excess in the issue of Bank notes, and he maintained that there was, it rested with those who supported the argument of depreciation, to prove that there was an excess.
Lord Kingobserved, that the noble earl had entered into a variety of minute statements, but had carefully kept out of sight the real object of the Bill, which was to-make Bank notes a legal tender. By the measure of last session, Bank notes were made a legal tender out of court, and now

1083
they came to be made a legal tender in court. Thus, whatever title they might choose to give the Bill, it was neither more nor less than to make Bank notes a legal tender. His lordship then adverted to some of the arguments used by earl Bathurst, and observed, that it was fallacious to state that an increased issue of Bank notes was in consequence of an increased trade and revenue; the revenue was in 1810, 65,000,000 l. and the issue of Bank notes 22,500,000 l. whilst in 1811, the revenue decreased to 62,600,000 l. and the issue of Bank-notes increased to 23,400,000 l. The depreciation of the paper currency was in fact acknowledged by ministers themselves in their conduct, though not in words. What was the reason for passing the Bill which had been that day read a third time, for increasing the annuity of the Princesses from 30,000 l. to 36,000 l. but because 36,000 l. now was only equal to 30,000 l. ten years ago? The same argument applied to Bills which were continually coming before them for increasing allowances of different descriptions. Was it not, therefore, manifestly unjust to pass such a Bill as the present, to compel persons to receive payments at a depreciated rate? His lordship alluded to the action he had brought against a Bank Director for 50 l. for rent, for the purpose of trying the question, and read a notice which had been served by his agent upon the officer of the court, cautioning him against taking Bank-notes in any payment into court, that being the question at issue, whether he (lord King) was to be compelled to receive Bank-notes, or could insist upon good and lawful money. The officer of the court did, however, notwithstanding this notice, receive the payment in Bank-notes; and his lordship contended that this was a power of dispensing with the law, which no officer of a court had a right to assume. His lordship maintained that this Bill would be characterized by posterity as a most iniquitous law, and must lead to the most ruinous consequences. They were called upon to make a legal tender the notes of the Bank of England, without any securities against an excessive issue, and a consequent excessive depreciation.—If the present measure was to be persevered in, his lordship contended that the practice of granting leases must cease. It was impossible to say how much in the course of six or seven years Bank-paper might be depreciated. He appealed to the noble earl with whom the present measure
1084
originated, who he knew felt for the labouring classes of the community, to reflect how cruelly this measure must militate against them; to noble lords on the other side it would be useless to appeal, they had already shewn, on the occasion of the Frame Breakers' Bill, that they were insensible to the sufferings of the labouring poor. To the noble earl, however, he thought he might appeal with safety on this head, and he asked of him, Did he not admit that, if we had a metallic circulating medium in this country, instead of a paper currency alone, the price of corn would at this moment have been less than it now was by at least one-fifth?
Earl Stanhopedisclaimed all connection with the manufacture of the swaddling cloaths in which the child, of which he was the parent, was now drest out. The child itself, however, he had no hesitation in acknowledging and supporting. Noble lords seemed not to know in what a pound sterling consisted. He would tell them first what it was not, and then he would tell them what it was. It was not a pound troy, or a pound averdupoise—they were measures of weight:—a pound sterling, was not a measure of weight but of value. In not attending properly to this distinction lay the greater part of the fallacy of the arguments on the other side. It was impossible for him to say that one of his hands was raised and another depressed, without comparing them to something that was fixed in its position. Noble lords who opposed this Bill had formerly contended that gold was of a fixed value; yet he now found an admission in a pamphlet by a noble earl (Lauderdale), that when gold began to be exported from a country, then that which remained rose in value. He declared it to be his firm conviction, that if he had not stopped his noble friend (lord King) by introducing the Bill of last year, we should soon have had Bank notes in this country where French Assignats were in France.
Earl Darnleysupported the measure, not seeing that any thing better could have been done.
The Earl of Lauderdaleargued against the Bill. After calculating the various profits of the Bank, he maintained that the principal effect of the measure would be, to put into the pockets of 600 bankstock holders the enormous sum of 17,525,000 l. by the most ruinous mode of taxation which could be devised. Every country in which a paper circulation had

1085
been forced on the people had been invariably ruined, and whatever evils might befal this country in a like attempt, their obstinacy against every kind of remonstration deserve it in some measure.
The Earl of Westmorlandspoke in support of the Bill.
Lord Grenvilleopposed the Bill. He compared the present proceedings of government to those of the French with respect to the assignats.—The noble lord dwelt at length on the evils which the people experienced by the depreciation of paper, which depreciation he attributed to an over issue on the part of the Bank.
The Earl of Liverpoolcontended that the existing circumstances of the country were to be ascribed to natural and simple causes, namely, the great foreign expenditure, and the considerable increase in the importation of grain. The argument of the noble baron who preceded him, was directed rather against the original measure of the suspension of cash payments, than against the present Bill, the object of which was to prevent the occurrence of injustice and oppression. Adverting to the supposition that there were two prices in the market, a cash price and a paper price, he denied the fact. On this point he was ready to meet the noble lords, guarding himself at the same time from the inference of maintaining that there might not have been a solitary instance or two of the existence of two prices. All he contended for was, that it was not a general practice.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday.
The Earl of Lauderdalegave notice, that before the House went into the committee on Friday, he would move an enquiry into the nature of the connection of the bank of England with government.

MR. HENRY'S SECRET MISSION.
Lord Holland,adverting to the conversation which had taken place early in the evening, observed, that he had since read the documents to which he had then alluded. If they were accurate as published, he must consider them as affording a most proper ground for parliamentary enquiry. If it should appear that Mr. Henry had been authorised to stir up the inhabitants of the Eastern States to rebellion and separation from the Western, such an act, on the part of one friendly power to another, could not be too severely censured or
1086
stigmatised. And whatever might be the sentiments of the noble earl, he was persuaded that he should have the concurrence in this opinion of the noble viscount who had lately acceded to his Majesty's government, and who had, at the commencement of the present unfortunate war, reprobated what he conceived to have been a similar attempt, as instanced in the case of the French consul at Dublin. He did not wish to take the business out of the hands of the noble Earl if he chose to bring it forward, but he was desirous to know, whether it was the noble earl's intention himself to lay on the table the documents alluded to?
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that he did not think it necessary to say any more at present, than that when the affair came to be enquired into, it would be found not to bear the construction set upon it by the noble lord.
Lord Holland,observing that the noble earl had refrained from answering his question, gave notice, that on Friday he would move for the production of the documents.