§ The Earl of Lauderdale moved for copies of the forms of Licences granted for the conveyance of cargoes from one foreign port to another, with the condition of touching at a British port, for the three years ending the 5th of January, 1812.
§ Earl Bathursttook the opportunity of stating, that licences granted for vessels sailing from foreign ports, to touch at British ports before sailing to their ports of destination, did not operate to swell the amount of imports and exports, as the cargoes were not entered amongst either.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he did not allude to vessels touching at a British port, but where they were entered in the progress of their voyage under licence from foreign port to foreign port. There was another case, however, of which he had just been informed, and which served to shew the fallacy of the accounts of exports and imports—a vessel sailing from America, under a licence from the emperor of France, bound to Bourdeaux, was captured by a British cruizer, and condemned as prize in the Admiralty Court, and then the cargo was sent under a British licence to the very same port to which it was originally destined.
§ Earl Bathurstsaid, he would not now enter into the question as to our right to capture a vessel bound to a port under blockade, and to condemn it as prize; but with respect to the alledged fallacy of the accounts of exports and imports, he denied the fact; the amount of the export of British produce and manufactures was distinctly stated in the accounts, and distinguished from foreign produce which had 1210 been imported for the purpose of being re-exported. It had been stated on a former occasion, that merchants entered at the Custom-house more than they intended to export, and that this rendered the account of exports fallacious. The fact was, however, that the quantity of goods actually exported was entered on the back of the cocket, and it was from these entries that the official account of exports was made up.
§ The Motion was then agreed to.