Sitting of 20 January 1807

MINUTES.
The house at its meeting, proceeded, pursuant to the order of the day, to a ballot for a committee, to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of the election and return for the borough of Malden. The members returned upon the reduced list, and who were sworn as the committee, are the following: R. M. Phillips, esq.; L. P. Jones, esq.; hon. W. E. Eden; W. Biddulph, esq.; B. Hall, esq.; W. L. Hughes, esq.; lord Clive; sir G. Heathcote; hon. H. Caulfield; lord Forbes R. Benyon, esq.; J.
464

M'Donald, esq.; sir W. Lemon; nominees; Hervey C. Combe, esq.; John Simeon, esq.—Mr. J. Smith, having been returned for the town of Nottingham, and the borough of Midhurst, informed the house, that he had made his election to sit for Nottingham; and a new writ was ordered for the borough of Midhurst, in the room of Mr. Smith. Another writ was also ordered for the borough of Midhurst, in the room of the right hon. W. Wickham, who having been returned for that borough, and Callington, had made his election to sit for Callington.—The adjourned debate, on the motion for enlarging the time for receiving recognizances, on the petition against the return of the right hon. H. Grattan, was resumed, on the motion of Mr. S. Bourne, and the time ordered to be enlarged to the 10th of February.—The Secretary at War presented, pursuant to orders of the house, an Account of the effective strength of his majesty's regular militia forces; also, an account of the number of men raised for the regular army in each month, since the 1st of Jan. 1805, exclusive of foreign levies or colonial corps. On the motion that they be laid on the table, lord Castlereagh submitted to the right hon. gent. whether it would not be for the convenience of the house to defer the printing of these papers, until after the discussion of the Army Estimates to-morrow. The papers were then ordered to be laid on the table.—Mr. G. Johnstone adverted to a practice that had been recommended in a former session, and had been acted upon, of having duplicates of papers presented, so that when one copy should be taken off to the printer's, another should lie on the table for the use of members. The hon. member submitted, whether it would not be desirable to adopt a similar regulation. The Speaker observed, that it might be for the convenience of the house to come to some understanding on this head. The practice adverted to had prevailed to a considerable extent, though not universally, in a former session. It was for the house to decide how its convenience would be promoted by such a practice, and if they were to come to any understanding on the subject, the clerks in the public offices would take care to regulate their conduct accordingly. There were some papers on the table which had been presented in that form, but the practice had not been observed in all. Lord H. Petty admitted that it would be desirable that the practice should be con-

465
formed to in every instance in which it could be carried into effect, but was apprehensive that it might not be possible to act upon it in all.—Mr. H. Thornton presented a Petition from the directors of the Sierra Leone Company, praying for leave to bring in a bill for re-investing in his majesty the possessions that had been granted to that company, and to limit the duration of the company. The Speaker desired to be informed, whether the prayer of the petition involved any application for a grant of public money? Mr. Thornton replied, that it might be taken to have that effect, as the expences which the company had heretofore been enabled to defray by annual grants from parliament, would hereafter be to be defrayed by the government. The speaker then observed, that in any case of a direct application for public money, the house could not receive from any individual a petition, without the consent of the crown; though, where the interests of his majesty were only indirectly concerned, such consent might be signified in any stage of the measure, which was to be founded on the petition. The house was therefore not precluded from receiving this petition. The petition was then brought up, and referred to a select committee.—Mr. Jacob observed, that an account had been moved for, and ordered on a former day, of the number of ships engaged and registered, in the British trade, and stated his desire to move for another paper, that would be supplemental to that, and was necessary in order to put the house in possession of the whole subject. The paper he proposed to move for, was, an Account of the number of British ships that had been captured by the enemy, and without being re-captured, had been admitted again to British Register. The practice was, to have such vessels taken into the enemy's ports, where they were sold to neutrals, and afterwards were allowed to be replaced on the British Register. This practice he contended amounted to a premium to the enemy for the capture of British vessels, as the neutral would not give half the price for the ships if he had not the power of placing them again on the British Register Lord H. Petty was not aware of any particular objection to the motion, as a paper of a similar description was already on the table. It was then ordered, that there be laid before the house an Account of the number of British ships captured by the enemy, and afterwards without re-capture,
466
admitted to British Register, from the commencement of the present war to the 5th of January, 1807.

NEUTRAL TRADE, BUENOS AYRES, &c.
Sir T. Turtonseeing a noble lord (Howick) in his place, rose for the purpose of putting two or three questions to his lordship on certain points which appeared to him to require explanation. That noble lord, in his answer to a question from a learned gent. (Mr. Perceval) on a former night, stated, that his majesty's ministers had, in the treaty which they had concluded with America, reserved to themselves the right of protecting the trade of this country against the measures of the enemy. If he understood the noble lord's answer right, it amounted to this, that his majesty's ministers had reserved the right to act for the protection of British trade, by the adoption of such measures towards neutrals, as they should submit to at the hands of France. If he was correct in his interpretation of his lordship's answer, he wished to be informed whether, in the event of its being necessary to adopt more vigorous measures than were authorized by his Majesty's proclamation, there was any thing in the late treaty with America, which would prevent his majesty's ministers from resorting to such measures? He was induced to ask this question because of the opposition that had been stated to the learned gent. for the production of a copy of his majesty's proclamation. Besides, it would be desirable for the house to be informed upon this head, previous to the debate that was to take place on the learned gent.'s motion, and it was peculiarly necessary to know whether his majesty's ministers could act with the vigour which circumstances might require on account of the artful and insidious understanding which seemed to exist between the French and American governments. He Wished to know whether they could adopt measures for the blockade of the ports of the enemy in the West Indies? The second question was relative to a late issue of money to the continent. It was notorious to every person, that an issue of money, to the amount of 3 or 400,000 l. had been transmitted to the continent; and he Wished to ask the noble lord upon what vote of that house such money bad been issued. The last subject upon which he wished for information was one which had greatly agitated the public mind for the last three or four days, he meant the situation of Buenos

467
Ayres. He wished to ask whether his majesty's ministers were in possession of any real information respecting the actual state of that colony? He did not see the right hon. gent. (Mr. T. Grenville) in his place, to whom this question ought particularly to be addressed, as relating principally to his department. He trusted, however, it would not be imputed to him as any want of fairness, if he put the question in that right hon. gent.'s absence. The hon. baronet here began to comment with some severity on the letter that had been sent to the mansion house, on Saturday, when he was interrupted by a general cry of "order! order!" and concluded by apologizing for any irregularity he might have fallen into, and requesting to know whether ministers had any real information on the subject?
Lord Howickin answer to the explanation desired by the hon. baronet, of his answer to a question of a learned gent. on a former night, had only to restate what he had said on that occasion. The treaty with America would not prevent his majesty from resorting to such measures for distressing the trade of the enemy, as neutrals should submit to on the part of the French government. Whether this was provided for in the late treaty, or otherwise, it was not for him then to state. The house would be aware that this was not the time for the publication, or discussion of the terms of a treaty, which was still subject to eventual ratification. This was all he thought necessary in answer to that part of the hon. baronet's enquiry: but he could not pass by without an observation on the extraordinary ground upon which he had thought proper to found his question, namely, that the house should be put in possession of the express stipulations of the treaty with America on this head, preparatory to the discussion of the motion of the learned gent. opposite (Mr. Perceval). To a question put on such a ground he could not be bound to make any answer, because he would not be justified in any premature disclosure of terms of that treaty: with regard to the right of blockade, that was a general right resulting from a state of war, and which his majesty's ministers could not be supposed to have given up. The exercise of that right, however, must be in a great degree left to their discretion, and he trusted the house would not interfere, until they should see strong grounds of suspicion that such discretion had been abused. With respect to the issue of
468
money to the continent, he could answer the question of the hon. baronet, that it was the balance due to the court of Russia, under the provisions of a treaty then upon the table of the house. As to the last question of the hon. baronet, which, the hon. baronet himself had admitted, would more properly have been addressed to a right hon. friend of his, not then in the house, all he had to say upon that subject was, that the letters, which had been received concerning it, had already been communicated to the public. He was not aware of any other information on the subject, which his majesty's ministers thought necessary to be produced to the public.
Sir T. Turtonthanked the noble lord for the manliness and candour of his answers. He wished only to know, whether his majesty's ministers had actually reserved the right of adopting more vigorous measures; because the answer of the noble lord on the former occasion, had. been variously stated to him. As to the issue of the money, he wished to be informed on what particular ground that measure had been founded? He now perceived that it was founded on the treaty of 1805, which was no longer in force; and as this did not seem satisfactory to him, he proposed, on some future day, to submit a motion to the house on the subject.
Lord Howickdesired it might be distinctly understood that the money sent was only the balance due to Russia for services performed under the stipulations of that treaty.
Mr. Percevaldid not mean to prolong this conversation, but as his notice had been adverted to in the course of it, he took that opportunity of intimating his intention, in consequence of the unavoidable absence of an hon. friend, to put off his motion, from the Thursday for which it was then fixed, to the Tuesday following. The learned gent, at the same time disclaimed any wish to force the terms of the treaty with America into premature discussion.