Sitting of 3 March 1808

MOTION RESPECTING MR, JOHN GIF- FARD.
Sir J. Newportrose, pursuant to notice, to move, "That there be laid before this house, a Copy of the patent by which John Giffard, esq. has been recently appointed to the office of Accomptant General of the customs in Ireland, together with a statement of the manner in which the vacancy of the said office took place."
Sir A. Wellesleywas of opinion, that the hon. baronet ought to have laid some parliamentary ground for the production of these Papers. He should have shewn, either that the person appointed to the office was an improper person to be appointed, or that he had been incapable of executing the duties of it, and therefore unfit to be appointed.
Sir J. Newporthad abstained from entering into the discussion more at length, in order to save the time of the house, but he would undertake to spew, if the papers should. be granted, both that the former dismissal of Mr. Giffard was right and proper, and that consequently, he was not a fit person to be advanced to the office he now held.
Sir A. Wellesleystated, that the gentleman to whom the hon. bart. alluded had been an old servant of the crown, and had never been dismissed for any reason officially stated. He undoubtedly held opinions upon the subject of the Catholics, in common with the majority of the inhabitants of the united empire, and though he might have urged these opinions indiscreetly, at a time when the subject was under the consideration of parliament, that was not a reason why he should be perpetually excluded front office. The office of which he had been deprived yielded him 700l. per annum, whilst that to which he had been since appointed produced only 600l. As no ground had been laid for the motion, he could see no use in producing the papers called for.
Mr. Crokerthought that the dismissal of Mr. Giffard was, if not an arbitrary, at least an indiscreet act upon the part of the Irish government, and that the restoration of that gentleman to office was a mere act of justice. Mr. G. was not apprised of the disapprobation felt by government at the line of conduct he was pursuing, until after he had made his motion as a corporator of the city of Dublin. In making that motion for a petition to parliament, he was exercising a constitutional right, and certainly the gentlemen opposite, who, on every occasion, professed themselves friends to the right of petitioning, would

879
not maintain that the exercise of that right ought to subject an individual to removal from an office purely ministerial. He was inclined to think that that great statesman, the late Mr. Fox, considered the conduct of the Irish government to Mr. G. as arbitrary.
Mr. Ponsonbyhad never had any political connection with lord Hardwicke, but had enjoyed the honour of his acquaintance, and from what he knew of his disposition, he believed him incapable of acting in an arbitrary manner. But if no parliamentary ground had been laid before, the statement of the hon. gent. was sufficient, when he asserted that the conduct of lord H. was arbitrary, and in this he seemed to have made a bull, for his argument went against his vote. The individual alluded to had uniformly taken a line of conduct, and uttered sentiments offensive and injurious to the Catholic body, and as he was an officer employed under the government, it was thought right to dismiss him, in order to guard the government from being considered as approving of such conduct. As to the question, whether the dismissal under such circumstances ought to give rise to a perpetual exclusion of the individual, the Irish and British public would decide, whether the conduct of the present government, or of lord Hardwicke, was the more meritorious. He had been frequently consulted by that great statesman, Mr. Fox, whose loss upon every account is so much to be lamented, on the subject of the Catholics. He had enjoyed a considerable portion of his confidence, but had never heard him say a word upon this subject.
Mr. Fitzgerald, Dr. Laurence. Mr. Grattan, lord H. Petty, Mr. W. Smith,and sir John Newport, in reply, argued in favour of the motion; and Dr. Duigenan and Mr. Perceval against it, when the house divided, For the motion 57; Against it 103; Majority against the motion 40.

SIR RICHARD STRACHAN'S SQUADRON.
Mr. Calcraftrose to call the attention of the house to a subject of as serious a nature as any that could he submitted to parliament: nothing connected with so leading a feature in the defence of our country as the British navy could possibly be deemed unimportant; nor could that house, or the country, exercise too strict a jealousy over that public board, to which the conduct and interests of the navy were at any time entrusted. He confessed, that not only in the instance with respect
880
to which he was now to move for certain papers, did he think the conduct of the noble lord at the head of the admiralty not the most judicious in the appointment of an hon. captain to so eminent a command as he lately held in the Baltic expedition, he did think that that noble lord had not exercised a sound discretion. This, how, ever, he only touched upon, and would pass to the business immediately before the house. In the first place then, he took it upon him to assert, that sir Richard Strachan had been compelled to abandon the blockade of the Rochfort Squadron by the want of a seasonable supply of provisions; and this assertion ho did not wish the house to take upon his Own bare statement: so far from it, that he now moved for the documents, which, when upon the table of that house, would either confirm or falsify that statement. The circumstances, he had reason to believe, were simply these: sir Rd. Strachan had been compelled, by the want of provisions, to abandon the blockade; and so very urgent was the necessity, that he was compelled to cruize in the offing for whatever he could meet; whether the long and vainly expected victuallers, or whatever chance might throw in his way. When that gallant officer met the Superb, the supply with which he was furnished from that vessel was not sufficient to enable him to follow in pursuit of the, enemy; but there could not be a stronger proof of the extreme pressure and extent of his necessity than the fact he was about to state to the house: that after the gallant admiral had come up with the Superb and Colossus, and after he had taken from them all they could possibly spare, he was obliged to apply to the Ferrol squadron, and get from them all they could give. Here it appeared to him as if the common routine had been lost sight of, which had prescribed the utmost vigilance and attention towards all blockading squadrons; not to mention what an extraordinary claim the peculiar situation of sir Rd. Strachan should have had upon their attention; and yet during the period that that squadron was suffering so much, ships were daily sailing from Portsmouth and Plymouth with fair winds. He was, therefore, at present, totally at a loss to conjecture how ministers could satisfactorily account for such unpardonable negligence; for if there was a situation more distressing in the service than another, of severer duty and more incessant fatigue, for a set of

881
brave men to Le placed in, it was that of a blockade; and accordingly, it had been hitherto the uniform practice of all former boards of admiralty to pay to all blockading squadrons the strictest and most active attention; to anticipate their wants, and not to abandon them to the chance of casual relief, while tossing in the bay of Biscay. The blockade service was a service of patient suffering to brave men, who could not have the hopes of honourable victory to animate their zeal; it was the barren discharge of a fatiguing duty; but how was that hardship aggravated by such cruel neglect as he had too much reason to fear had occurred in the present instance? Who could say of what this neglect might not have deprived the country? When the want of provisions had driven sir R. Strachan from his blockade, he was cruizing in Basque roads, at three miles distance from the enemy's squadron, and if he had not been sadly destitute of provisions he would have pursued them; and what the result would have been it needed no extraordinary spirit of prophecy to divine. —He did not think there could be a more important ground for parliamentary investigation; an officer of high professional character had been obliged to abandon a most important service and in consequence, the very effect, which it was the sole object of that service to prevent, had occurred; the enemy had taken advantage of the opportunity afforded them, and had escaped. There was no obstruction, no difficulty in the way of provisioning the squadron appointed to watch them, and the house and the country were vet to be satisfied why the lords commissioners had not done their duty. He, for his part, was at a loss to conceive upon what ground such neglect would be attempted to be justified. For the satisfaction of the house, the fullest information was desirable. He did not rest upon mere assertion, nor did he ask that house to be guided in their decision upon the question by any other evidence than that which would appear in the documents he should now move for; and he was satisfied that, unless he had laboured under gross mistake, he should be able from those papers to make out a case sufficiently strong to justify him in the part he had felt it his duty to take. In the resolutions he should have the honour of moving, it would appear that his object was to comprehend every information that could be thought necessary to a right understanding of the present question. If he was
882
wrong in his statement, the documents he called for would correct him; if he was right, parliament would insist upon inquiry. He could not readily anticipate a single objection to the production of these. papers; they would make no improper disclosure, reveal no secret information, betray no private confidence, endanger no foreign communications; and yet, he was sorry to state, that he had learned that a part only of the papers he asked for would be granted. The list of the ships under the command of sir R.Strachan, ascertaining the time for which each was victualled, would be granted. There was no objection either to the weekly accounts; but the letters from sir Rd. Strachan to lord Gardner, and the admiralty, complaining of the destitute state in which he had been left upon so important and harassing a duty, as well as the accounts given in those letters of the then state of the squadron under that officer's command; these, he was sorry to say, had been refused him, and reasons for that refusal he was yet to learn. The hon. gent. then concluded with moving for the lowing papers. "1. A List of the ships which were under the orders of rear-admiral-sir Rd. Strachan, on the 1st Dec. 1st Jan. and 1st Feb. last, stating against each ship the day when she last sailed from port, and the time for which she was then victualled. 2. Copies of all the several Accounts (commonly called Weekly accounts) which have been received at the admiralty, or by admiral lord Gardner, slewing the state and conditions of the ships under the orders of rear-admiral sir Rd. Strachan, between the 1st Nov. and 31st Jan. last. 3. Copies, or extracts, of all Letters received by the admiralty, or by admiral lord Gardner, from rear-admiral sir Rd. Strachan, dated in Nov. Dec. and Jan. last, which relate to the state of the water and provisions on board the squadron under his orders, or which may have described the actual or probable necessity of his putting the crews of the ships upon short allowance thereof, and of the replies thereto. 4. An Account shewing the time that the squadron under the orders of rear-admiral sir Rd. Strachan, or any of the ships belonging to it, was at short allowance of water and provisions, in Nov. Dec. and Jan. last; and to what proportions, and in what articles, the usual allowance to the crews had been reduced; and copies of any orders which had been given by the rear-admiral for that pur-

883
pose. 5. Copies, or extracts, of all Letters received by the admiralty, or by admiral lord Gardner, from rear-admiral sir Rd. Strachan, stating any reason which made it necessary for him to quit his station before the port of Rochfort, prior to the sailing of the French squadron from that port, in Jan. last; and likewise the copies, or extracts, of all letters stating any reasons which have made it necessary for him, subsequent thereto, to take provisions and water out of the ships cruizing off Ferrol."
Mr. Wellesley Poleprofessed an inclination to grant every paper that could with propriety be given. The whole of the letters of sir R. Strachan to lord Gardner and admiral Young, could not with propriety be given, as they detailed the course which the commander of the blockading squadron thought it best, under such circumstances, to pursue. He had not seen the motions till he had entered the house. They had not been sent to the admiralty, nor any where else, for the information of the persons entrusted with the particular department, to consider how far it would be proper to comply with them. By the latest accounts received from sir Richard Strachan, which were dated Jan 18, it would be found that, on dividing the supplies, each line-of-battle ship had ten weeks bread, and 13 or 14 weeks meat, with a like quantity of every other necessary, and six weeks and five days water. The frigates were still better supplied than the ships of the line. The Mediator was not a transport, but a large man of war; the order for fitting her out was issued on Dec. 4, but it was impossible, from the tempestuous weather, to prepare her till the 21st of that month. The same cause prevented her sailing till the 8th of Jan. They joined on the 12th of that month, but it was not till the 18th that the clearing of the Mediator commenced, and it was not finished till the 19th. The Mediator, in addition to the other supplies, contained a large quantity of vegetables, and 40 bullocks. The hon. gent. was compelled to admit, that two line-of-battle ships joined sir Rd. Strachan's squadron on the 16th of January, the Colossus and the Superb, with the Lavinia frigate, one of the finest in the navy, victualled for five months. On the 23d the Cumberland joined; and there was then an average supply of ten weeks bread, 13 weeks of other articles, six weeks and five days water, 40 bullocks, and three
884
fresh ships. On the 23d, a transport and a gun-brig joined, with every species of provisions; but the admiral sent them back to Plymouth, not being in such want as to induce him to delay his pursuit of the enemy, of whose course he had got information. It was not true that sir Richard Strachan had been obliged to get supplies from the squadron off Ferrol, or that he had gone off that port. It was on the 23d that sir Richard Strachan had intelligence of the sailing of the enemy, and it was not till the 29th that he had reason to be certain of the fact. From the 23d it blew a gale of wind, and it was impossible to clear the bay. In the attempt to clear Oleron light-house, he carried away his main-yard, which was known to be no light mischief at sea. He stopped three days to distribute the provisions equally among the ships, but not to take any other supplies; and so far was he from being unable to pursue the enemy, that he was now probably far up the Mediterranean, having received intelligence of their having taken that course. Having said thus much as to the state of the squadron under sir Rd. Strachan, he would now come to the wanton, indecent, and unfounded attack which the hon. gent. had gone out of his way to make on the noble lord at the head of the admiralty. It was certainly to be lamented if supplies could not be sent in so regular and copious a manner as not to leave a wish or a want ungratified. But let gentlemen consider all that the admiralty had to do in addition to former duties. The fleet from the Baltic arrived at Spithead on the 6th Nov. having 16 sail of the line, 10 frigates, and 15 sloops, under its convoy, with a part of the British crews. This fleet had encountered much bad weather, and some of the ships were lost coining to the Downs from Yarmouth. Some time was required to put the ships and crews to rights, so as to be efficient for service; and he should surprize the hon. gent. by telling him how soon that was done. It the course of Nov. there were 12 sail of the line at St. Helen's waiting for the Russian fleet. Sir Sidney Smith was sent with six sail to Lisbon, and five sail were sent after him; a force by means of which he was enabled to rescue the Prince Regent and royal family of Portugal, and to send them to the Brazils with a convoy of four sail, and to continue the blockade of the Tagus in the most effectual manner. Four sail of the line were besides sent with sir S. Hood to

885
secure Madeira. With all these occasions, added to that of the blockade of Brest, other difficulties arose in sending supplies of provisions to sir Rd. Strachan's squadron, particularly from the tempestuous state of the weather. The best mode of relieving blockading squadrons was to send fresh ships; the men had thus an opportunity of being refreshed, and the wear and tear of ships was much diminished. He could not here omit paying a just tribute to the patience and zeal of the officers of the squadron under sir Rd. Strachan, who bore every hardship with cheerfulness for the good of their country. Every attention and relief was due to such men; but the admiralty could only appropriate such means of relief as they had. Was it consistent with the public service to allow sir S. Smith to rest idle from want of sufficient force? Was it desirable to keep back the expedition under sir S. Hood, and to suffer the Russian fleet, if it had come out, to proceed home unmolested? Certainly no Englishman would say so. Every relief competent with circumstances had been afforded to the blockading squadrons. The ships ordered to the relief of sir Rd. Strachan's squadron were the Bellerophon, which, when partly fitted out, was found to be so bad that it was necessary to take her into dock at Plymouth to be repaired. The Superb, Colossus, and Cumberland joined: the Spencer was prepared, but prevented from joining by an epidemic disorder breaking out among her crew. He would leave it to naval authorities whether a relief of five ships upon seven was not ample and adequate. Sir Rd. Strachan was driven from his anchorage in Basque roads by bad weather. He met the relief ships in the rendezvous appointed in his last general letter. Sir Rd. was now up the Mediterranean; Brest was blockaded; Madeira was looked to; the West Indies were safe; and we had a tolerable force to look the American gentlemen in the face if they should prove refractory. The admiralty, so long as it was directed by the noble lord now at the head of it, would not shrink from any attack that might be made by the hon. gent. opposite. Let the charges be brought forward upon the papers; but let not a premature and uncandid aspersion be cast upon a man who stood as high any other in the country. The hon. gent. concluded with reading a resolution which was nearly the same in substance as what had been Moved by Mr.
886
Calcraft, and expressing his willingness to grant any information which could, without danger to the public interest, be given.
Earl Templeobserved, that certainly the resolutions read by the hon. gent. could not answer the purpose of his hon. friend, as there was omitted in them the letter of sir Rd. Strachan to lord Gardner, applying for relief. He said that the weather could not have been so tempestuous at that time, as he knew that from the 6th of Nov. to the 25th of Dec. ships sailed daily west ward from Portsmouth. The charge brought against the board was sufficiently plain, arising out of the fact that sir Rd. Strachan was obliged to leave is cruizing ground to meet victuallers; but by remaining at Rochfort he would be obliged to capitulate for want of provisions.
Lord Castlereaghstated, that the Adrian cutter had sailed with victuallers on the 14th of Nov. and had arrived on the 30th.
Mr. W. Polerose to supply an omission in his statement. The Colossus joined on the 12th, and the enemy did not come out till the 18th of Jan. Our squadron and the Collossus did not communicate till the 18th, and on account of foul weather, the Mediator was not cleared till the 19th.
Mr. Calcraft, in reply, observed that he was not aware that any observations be had felt it his duty to make, deserved so harsh a character as the hon. gent. had been pleased to bestow upon them. In the little he had to offer at any time to the house, he was not much in the habit of indulging in charges, or making use of terms that could justly be stigmatized as indecent. He had questioned the conduct of the noble lord at the head of the admiralty upon two grounds; one was the appointment of sir Home Popham to an eminent command under circumstances that had excited a considerable irritation; an appointment which he had thought, and did still think, extremely ill judged: it was an appointment that had given rise to a very general sensation of well-grounded jealousy among the officers of the British navy. The public prints had recorded their dissatisfaction; it was a circumstance known throughout the country nor did the country think those officers had been well treated. His other ground of objection was the reprehensible neglect of our squadron off Rochfort. The hon. gent. had ingeniously steered clear of both these topics and thought the house would suppose he Was answering them when he was

887
giving his very accurate details of what he and his colleagues had done; with what? the British navy! There was, no doubt, great reason for boasting what a man could do with such an instrument as the British fleet. He had told them that Brest was now blockaded; but did he forget that the abandoning of that very blockade was one of the consequences of the neglect of the Rochfort squadron? that sir John Duckworth, on hearing of the escape of the enemy from Rochfort, set out in pursuit of them, and that Brest was left open for 7 or 8 days? As to what had fallen from the hon. gent. as to the propriety of sending him a previous communication of what resolutions he had to submit to the house, he reminded the hon. gent. that the moment he got a copy of the resolutions he shewed it to him; and that he had yesterday a personal communication with him on the substance of what he meant to move for; therefore the hon. gent. could not be taken by surprize. But, as to the propriety of sending a copy to the board of admiralty, or any other board whatever, he conceived himself under no such obligation. He made that motion in his place, as a member of parliament; and he would not descend from that character, or compromise its dignity, by assenting to such a position. He concluded by pledging himself to the house to make good his statements, when the papers moved for were laid upon the table. —The question was then put and carried.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Lord H. Pettyrose, pursuant to notice, to move for information, tending to shew what measures had been taken to insure the collateral execution of the Orders in Council by the powers in alliance with his majesty. Unless Sweden imposed similar restrictions, the restraints imposed by us were nugatory. Gottenburgh might be made a depot from which American produce and the produce of the French colonies might be sent to all the southern shores of the Baltic, and thence circulated through Germany and Russia. Sicily also might be made an entrepot for a similar transaction; so might Sardinia. In order to ascertain what ministers had done on this point, he moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that there be laid before the house the substance of alt communications with powers in amity with his majesty, touching the Orders in Council of the 11th November."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to
888
give his negative to the motion of the noble lord, upon the following grounds: in the first place, the observations of the noble lord were applicable to the article of cotton only: and, in the next place, he informed the house, that there was no disinclination whatever on the part of his majesty's allies to concur in the system which government had found it expedient to adopt in the present period of the war; and that assurances had been received from Sweden, in particular, of the willingness of that government to give every facility for carrying that system into full effect. A general assurance of this nature had been received, but it could not be supposed, that any distinct and decisive expression of approbation of the whole details of the measure had been received, because those details were not yet finally arranged, and were still subject to the decision of parliament.
Sir A. Piggottasked if it was not proposed to levy a tax upon the exportation of sugar? he understood this to be the intention; and, if so, it might be carried direct from America to Sweden: and as Sweden had no sugar colonies except the small island of Saint Bartholomew, and consequently had no sugar monopoly to protect, he did not think it probable that the government of that country would concur in imposing a duty upon this article merely to secure the British monopoly. He wished to know therefore, what assurances ministers had received that Gottenburgh would not be converted into a depot for supplying the continent with colonial produce.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that government had received general assurances of the readiness of Sweden to concur in giving effect to the measure.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that if the king of Sardinia co-operated in the measure, the result of this co-operation, as to him, would be to deprive him of the only part of his dominions of which he-was still in possession; and if Sweden refused to co-operate, which he thought not at all improbable, the right hon. gent. had told the house that she was to be compelled to concur in it. And this was the reward which was to be conferred upon our only remaining ally! this the encouragement which we held out to other nations, to attach themselves to our cause! this the motive which we presented to those powers by whom we had been deserted, to return to their old connection with us!
Mr. Secretary canningstated, that the king of Sardinia was not an, ally of this country and that he had never been asked to concur in the measure; and that from the king of Sweden, who was our ally, the most satisfactory assurances on this head had been received.—After a short reply from lord H. Petty, a division took place: For the motion 71. Against it 130.

LIVERPOOL PETITION RESPECTING THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.
General Gascoynepresented a Petition from the Merchants of Liverpool against the Orders in Council bill. He said he was sensible of the readiness with which parliament and ministers attended to the petitions of the people, and the high respectability of the Liverpool merchants would, he was persuaded, obtain for them all due attention. He was aware that the forms of parliament might operate against his motion for receiving the present petition, and he was far, from wishing for any departure from its rules. The petition, however, did not go to oppose the duties, but the spirit of the bill, while it expressed apprehensions that from the nature of the warfare, we might lose much, and the enemy gain. Liverpool at present possessed three-fourths of the trade with America; and the disbursements amounted to 150,000l. annually for the last three years. Front bearing so great a portion, Liverpool would be most particularly affected; and he therefore hoped there would be no objection to receiving the petition against the present bill.
The Speakerasked if the Petition was against the bill which provided certain duties under the Orders in Council?
General Gascoyneanswered, that it only went to oppose certain chases, but not the bill in the general view.
The Speakerstated the usage of the house to be, not to receive any petition against a duty bill. If the hon. general could satisfy the house that his petition did not come under this description, it might be received; not otherwise.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that the house was obliged to the speaker for the distinct manner in which he had stated the usage of the house. This was most important petition. Interests of the greatest magnitude were concerned in it; yet these petitioners were now to be told, that they could not be heard. Where then could they be heard? Was there any course for them to pursue to obtain a hearing? Or did the house stand in this unfortunate
890
predicament, that though well disposed to listen to the petitioners, they could not, in point of form, attend to them? If so, it was the only instance that ever had occurred in the history of parliament where petitioners were rejected, without some other mode being pointed out by which they might state their complaints. He professed his respect for the usage of admitting no petitions against tax because, if petitions should be received against them in the session in which they passed, every one would be so anxious to shift the burthen from himself that the public business could not be carried on. But this petition was not against the duties, but against the regulations; and though it was contrary to the letter, it was perfectly consistent with the spirit of the usage. This tax was besides, not within the principle of duties, for it was merely a tax on foreigners, laid with a view not to revenue, but to the carrying into effect certain commercial regulations. Against these this petition was presented, and the petitioners would have the strongest ground of complaint if they were shut out from bringing evidence to prove their allegations. The house too had much reason to complain. Hitherto the responsibility of these Orders rested with those who advised them; but when the bill passed it would rest with the house. Could the members say that they had sufficient evidence from commercial men, that they were just and proper? Had the ministers satisfied them with their speeches? There were grounds to suppose from what had passed that some of the provisions would be changed, so little had ministers themselves matured their measure. But all that the petitioners had in the world was at stake. The ministers said, that this was a bill 'for the protection of trade;' the petitioners said, that they would shew that it was a bill not for the protection, but for the destruction of trade. Would the house take upon itself the intolerable responsibility of this measure, without listening to such a heavy complaint preferred from such a quarter? It was an intolerable hardship on the petitioners, to be sent back unheard, merely through the negligence and blunders of the ministers. They might, upon a pretence of this sort, deprive a man of his estate, without allowing him to be heard, by inserting in the bill a duty upon the stamp for the conveyance. Our ancestors had prevented such things, by confining the duties to the

891
committee of ways and means, and originating other things in such a way as to allow petitioners to be heard. Mr. Pitt had been scrupulous in avoiding the committee of ways and means where he could; and of this the cases of the consolidation of the duties, and the two-penny post duty, were instances. Oh, that the gentlemen on the other side would imitate Mr. Pitt in what was just and proper, as well as in his mistakes! All that the petitioners desired, was to be heard some way. He had given the right hon. gent. some credit for his mistake in this business; but he could not even give him that now, since he found that he persevered in his plan, and so shut out petitioners. Was this to be endured, especially with such petitions on the table, where it was stated, that thirty or forty thousand people were deprived of bread? The present petition was not a party one, nor could such a thing be even alleged, for it was known, that many who signed it were friendly to administration; Would ministers thus aggravate the distress of the people? He had given them credit for pitying them; but if they rejected this petition, he would give them no such credit. Here we were told, not of forty thousand people, as in the other petitions, but of four hundred thousand, who would be deprived of bread by the destruction of the Liverpool trade; a circumstance that would spread devastation over all the surrounding country. Usage in such a case as this ought to stand by, as the petitioners had been shut out by the neglect of the house. He said, that the same course ought to have been taken here as in the case of the convoy tax, where a committee of trade and navigation had been appointed. He had thought this from the beginning a most important point, and now the difficulty began to be felt. The forms of the house were the perfection of wisdom for the convenience of business, as the common law had been called the perfection of reason. The departure from these had placed the house in this unpleasant predicament. But it was impossible that the house could, with any shadow of justice or prudence, refuse to hear the petitioners in some way orother
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that the bill before the house went to levy certain duties to carry on the war, aid she petition, in opposing the bill, obviously went against levying those du-
892
ties, and could not, therefore, consistently with regard to the usages of parliament, be received. The precedent would prove injurous, by establishing a deviation from so wise and necessary a principle of not admitting petitions against supplies immediately necessary for the service of the state. He lamented as much as any man the pressure attendant upon the war; but there could be no general good in such cases, without some partial evils; and the interests and safety of the state would be sacrificed, if we permitted ourselves to be diverted from general purposes, by yielding to complaints of a local nature. Under these considerations he was sorry to be under the necessity of opposing the motion for receiving the petition.
Mr. Ponsonbyconsidered that the petition, both in form and substance, was admissible, and contended that from the great interest the petitioners had in the bill, they had a right to be heard upon the subject.
Lord Castlereaghinsisted that the usages of parliament, which it was so necessary to hold sacred in respect to the necessary supplies for the public service, would not admit of the petition being received, and enforced the other arguments adduced by the chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Sheridancould see no good reason for refusing to receive the petition; and entered into some general arguments against the tendency of the measure of which the petitioners complained.
General Tarletonwished the petition to be received, although it was not signed by any one of the 1461 voters who supported him at the last election; nor was he requested by any one of those voters to interfere in its behalf. The hon. officer took occasion to inveigh against the want of national spirit on the part of opposition; and on their disposition to panegyrize the talents of foreign generals, while they overlooked the merit of their own countrymen. These gentlemen were, in his apprehension, pursuing a dreadful course; which, although perhaps their only object was to turn out ministers, would tend to turn out the country [a laugh.] The hon. officer bore testimony to the respectability of Mr. Rathbone, the delegate from Liverpool, but-he did not like his sectarian principles.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that his gallant friend seemed to allude to some remarks of his on a former evening, relative to the talents of foreign officer; but however

893
transcendant those talents were, or however much was to be apprehended from them to any part of the empire, he had the consolation to think, there was one place which defied their attack; that at least Berwick was safe. [A laugh, general Tarleton being now governor of Berwick.] The hon. member argued forcibly in favour of the motion.
Mr. Huskissonobserved, that every proviso of the bill against which the petition was levelled containing the imposition of a duty, it was completely a money bill, and therefore the motion could not at all be acceded to, consistently with the usage of the house.
Lord H Pettysaid, that his object was to rescue the petition from the representation made of it by the hon. member who had just sat down, and to shew it was a petition against the bill by its title, and therefore not within the meaning of the established usage of the house. The title of the bill was, 'a Bill more effectually to carry into execution certain Orders in Council.' He contended, therefore, that there was no ground of usage that could preclude the merchants of Liverpool from being heard upon so important a question. The Hawkers and Pedlars bill had not been divided, but referred to a committee of the whole house, in which the petitioners were heard by their counsel against the bill, the counsel having been warned to confine themselves to the matter of the regulations, and not to meddle with the part of the bill granting duties. Were the merchants of Liverpool not to be allowed that privilege which had been granted to chapmen, hawkers, and pedlars? Was the house to have its doors hermetically sealed against the petitions of the people? He trusted, however, that they would not suffer themselves to be led away from their duty by his majesty's ministers, but decide that they would hear the petitioners then at the bar, on a question of such vital importance to the trade and prosperity of the empire.
Mr. Rosecontended, that the usage which precluded the reception of the petition, had never been departed from. The Hawkers and Pedlars bill, had been rather of regulation and police than of duties, and therefore was not analogous to the present case. If the house were to throw open its doors in the present instance, they would never be able to close them; for whatever might be the nature of a tax hereafter to be proposed, their table
894
would be covered with petitions against it, on the authority of this precedent.
Mr. Sheridan roseto a point of order. He said that it had been declared from the other side of the house in the course of the debate, that the authority of the Chair had decided against the claims of the petitioners to be heard in this instance, and that authority had been quoted, and made the ground of arguments in the discussion. Now, the point of order to which he rose was, that as he had not heard any such opinion stated from the Chair, he wished to know whether the question had been so decided upon from the Chair?
The Speakerthen rose and said, that the house must perceive he was called upon in no usual way; however, he should not shrink from the performance of his duty, whenever he should be called upon to perform it. He apprehended that any member of that house, who might have had the honour of being appointed to the chair, had two duties to perform. The first was, when a member thought proper to consult him upon any question touching the forms of that house, or the nature of its proceedings, he was always ready, as, indeed, it was his duty, to state to him his personal opinion, upon the point submitted to his consideration. It was also his duty, whenever a question arose in the course of their proceeding, respecting the orders, forms, or usages of that house, to explain the rules of its conduct, and the nature of the particular order or usage that might bear upon the question, always leaving it to the house to make the application. It was not for him by an avowal of his opinion to attempt to sway the debates of that house. If, however, it should be the pleasure of the house, to call upon him for his opinion, he should be ready to declare it; for he did not fear to state his opinion. But the matter was still a question in the house, and upon it the house alone could, by a vote, decide. He had stated what the usage was, and that, if the bill under consideration was a Money bill, pursuant to such usage no petition could be received against it. But he had understood the house to have been debating the question, whether the bill was a Money bill or not. Upon that point, a vote of the house alone could be decisive; and if, in the only case in which he could be called on for an opinion upon it, in the case of a balanced opinion in the house, it should be his duty to pronounce that opinion, he would know how to do his duty; but, until then, it

895
was not for him to express any official opinion.
Mr. Sheridan,in justice to himself, to the house, and to the chair, was bound to explain the motive which induced him to put the question to the chair. He had not the most distant idea of putting his question from any feeling of disrespect to the chair. He had heard the hon. gentlemen opposite assert, that the opinion had been decisively given by the chair, which statement he very much questioned, and he was happy to find that his opinion was confirmed by what had fallen from the chair.—A division then took place,

For receiving the Petition

80

Against it

128

Majority against it

—48

List of the Minority,

Abercromby, J.

M'Kenzie, general

Adam, W.

Maddocks, W. A.

Anstruther, Sir J.

Mahon, viscount

Aubrey, sir J.

Martin, H.

Baring, A.

Miller, sir T.

Bring, Thos.

Mosley, sir O.

Bernard, S.

Newport, sir J.

Blackburne, John

North, Dudley

Blackburne, John J.

Ord, W.

Bouverie, E.

Ossulston, lord

Bradshaw, A.C.

Parnell, H.

Browne, Anthony

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Byng, G.

Petty, lord H.

Calcraft, J.

Piggott, sir A.

Calcraft, sir G.

Ponsonby, G.

Cavendish, lord G.

Porchester, lord

Colborne, N. W. R.

Prittie, F.

Craig, J.

Quin, W. H.

Dundas, hon. C. L.

Russel, lord W.

Dundas, hon. R. J.

Sharp, R.

Ebrington, viscount

Sheridan, R. B.

Eden, W. F. E.

Shipley, W.

Elliott, W.

Smith, W.

Fergusson, S. C.

Stanley, lord

Fitzpatrick, R.

Stanley, Thomas

Greenhill, R.

Tarleton, B.

Griffenhoff, J.

Taylor, M. A

Herbert, H. A.

Temple, earl

Hibbert, G.

Tierney, G.

Horner, Francis

Tracey, H.

Howard, W.

Walpole, hon. G.

Hume, W. H.

Ward, hon. J.

Jekyll, Joseph

Wardel, G. F.

Knox, T.

Warrender, sir G.

Lamb, W.

Western, C. C.

Latouche, R.

Whitbread, S.

Lawrence F.

Windham, W.

Leach, John

Wynne, sir W. W.

Leman, Charles

Lloyd, J. M.

Tellers.

Lushington, S.

Gascoyne, Isaac

Macdonald, James

Creevey, Thomas

EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.
Earl Darnleyrose to make his promised motion on this subject. His lordship took a review of the principal circumstances connected with this, expedition; and contended, that the only ground on which it could be justified was actual necessity; which was not proved to exist by any documents before the house, nor by ministers, who, on the contrary, continually shifted their ground of justification, and had made out no case which, in his opinion, was at all satisfactory. It had been said, that an option was given to the prince regent to deliver up the Danish fleet; but could it be said to be an option, when it was evident, that if he had delivered up the fleet, Holstein and Jutland would immediately have been seized by France? This expedition, it had been said, was sent to ward of off danger from this country; but how had that danger been prevented? The danger was not of an invasion of this country, but of the Baltic being shut against us; and instead of precluding this danger, the expedition had accelerated it. Possession of Zealand had not been retained, and Denmark had been thrown completely into the arms of France. The national character had, in his opinion, been degraded, and the national. honour stained by this expedition; and what had we gained? 16 ships of the line, which could be of little service and as to stores, they did not amount in value to the stores expended in the expedition; and the whole was not equal to the expence of the expedition.—The noble earl concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, submitting, That after attentively considering all the public documents before us concerning the late attack on Copenhagen, and the war which it had produced, we have found the information
874
which they afford extremely imperfect and unsatisfactory.—That in a matter in which both the honour and the interests of our country are so deeply concerned we had hoped for the fullest explanations. The principles of our constitution and the uniform practice of his majesty, and the sovereigns of his illustrious house, require, that parliament should be distinctly apprized of the true grounds of entering into new wars, especially in a situation of our country wholly unprecedented.—Had Denmark been a party to any hostile confederacy against the rights or interests of the British empire, our resistance would have been necessary, and our warfare legitimate. Under such circumstances, we should only have had to regret, that the ports and arsenals of that country should so lightly have been abandoned, when advantages so very inconsiderable had been derived from their temporary occupation, and when by our continuing to hold them during the war, all real danger from that quarter might have been effectually averted.—But we cannot doubt, that Denmark, instead of engaging in hostile leagues, had resolved still to maintain her neutrality.—This fact is proved even by the imperfect documents which have been laid before us, and is confirmed by the proclamation issued by his majesty's commanders immediately before the attack.—Certainly Denmark was no party, nor does it appear that she was privy to any confederacy hostile to this country. We are not even satisfied that such a league did really exist.—The conclusion of any secret articles at Tilsit affecting the rights or interests of the British empire appears to have been uniformly denied both by Russia and France.—The correspondence of his majesty's secretary of state, and. the dates of the transactions themselves; prove that his majesty's ministers could not be in possession of any such articles when the attack was ordered against Copenhagen; and it has been distinctly admitted in this house, that they have not yet obtained a copy of them.—The king's ambassador at Petersburgh, in an official note, rested the defence of the measure not on any hostile purposes either of Denmark or of Russia, but solely on the designs which it was said the French government had long since been known to entertain.—His majesty's ministers not only forbore to advise such measures as would have been necessary to repel any real hostility of Russia: but they actually solicited the mediation of

875
that power, to extinguish a war, and her guaranty to defeat projects in which it is now pretended they knew her to have been a principal and contracting party.—Allegations thus inconsistent with each other, and contrary to admitted facts, weaken, instead of supporting the cause to which they are applied.—With respect to the alledged necessity of the case, we beg leave to assure his majesty, that we cannot think so meanly of the power and resources of his empire, of the spirit of his people, or of the valour and discipline of his fleets and armies, as to admit that such an act could have been required for any purpose of self-preservation.—Any temporary advantages which the possession of such ships and stores as were taken at Copenhagen can afford, are already much more than counterbalanced by the other consequences of a measure which appears not less objectionable in policy than in principle. That measure has augmented the number of our enemies; it has countenanced the injurious representations circulated throughout Europe respecting our principles and designs; and has inflamed against us the warmest passions of neutral and of friendly nations.—But it has above all shaken our own persuasion of the justice of our cause: a sentiment which had hitherto supported us through all our difficulties, commanding the respect of other powers, and encouraging us in an humble but confident reliance on the ultimate protection and blessing of Providence. Unwilling as we are even yet to pronounce definitively on a subject the full knowledge of which has been so pertinaciously withheld from us, and reluctant as we must ever be to admit conclusions unfavourable to the justice of those councils by which his majesty's conduct has been actuated, we are yet compelled on such an occasion to speak to his majesty the language of truth. And we must therefore, with all humility, and with the most unfeigned and heartfelt sorrow, represent, that in a ease which above all others required the clearest proof, every presumption is against us, and that no particle of evidence has yet been adduced by which our national character can be vindicated from the guilt of an unprovoked and premeditated violation of that good faith, justice and humanity which have hitherto been at once the glory and the safeguard of the British empire."
Lord Eliotrose to oppose the Address. So far from any fair ground existing in support of such an address, to him it ap-
876
peared that there was abundant cause to commend, instead of censuring the conduct of ministers with respect to the Copenhagen expedition. The noble lord then took a survey of all the circumstances which had marked the transaction, and concluded with reading a Resolution of approbation, which it was his intention to move, if the Address moved by the noble earl should be negatived.
Lord Hollandhighly regretted the degree of national dishonour that had been brought upon the country by the shameful conduct of ministers, in sending a large armed force to attack the territories, and seize the shipping of a neutral power. It was unaccountably strange, that ministers should still persist in asserting the necessity of that odious measure in order to frustrate the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit, of which ministers pretended to have known the substance. We were publicly challenged by the enemy to produce the least evidence of the assertions which ministers had put into the sacred mouth of his majesty: yet we were totally incapable of supporting them by the least shadow of evidence. The noble lord said, he detested to hear the plea of necessity and self-preservation urged in our defence. It was particularly calculated to instil into the British people passions and opinions subversive of that liberality and generosity that distinguished our ancestors. Had France even got possession of the 16 Danish ships, the acquisition could not materially injure this country, or increase our alarms of invasion, whilst we should have been secure of the friendship and attachment of the Danish people, and their indignation at the French for forcing them to abandon their esteemed neutrality, and become a party in an unnatural war. Without possessing the hearts of the Danish people, Buonaparte could do us little injury through their means; whilst under their present circumstances, they must be filled with the utmost resentment by our unparalleled outrage. His lordship then entreated the house to vindicate the tarnished honour of the country, and shew to the nation, to Europe, and to the world their abhorrence of so flagrant a breach of the laws of civilized nations.
Lord Boringdondefended the expedition, and contended that, after the battle of Friedland, it was evident that Denmark was unable to defend the neutrality, and must make her election between England and France; and that it was also evident

877
from her previous conduct that her inclinations were with France.—The house divided:

Contents-26

Proxies 25—51

Non-contents-56

-54—110

Majority—59

Whilst strangers were excluded there was a short conversation on the motion of lord Eliot, for an Address to his majesty, stating, "That this house, considering the Declarations laid before them by his majesty's command; the state to which the Continent was reduced, in consequence of the negociations and peace of Tilsit; the avowed declaration of the French government to exclude the British flag from every port of Europe, and to combine all the powers of the continent in a general confederacy against the maritime rights and political existence of G. Britain; most highly approve the prompt and vigorous measures which were adopted by his majesty's ministers, for the purpose of removing out of the reach of his majesty's enemies the fleet and naval resources of Denmark."—The house then divided:

Contents-64

Proxies-61—125

Non-contents-29

Proxies-28— 57

Majority—68

PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE ADDRESS PROPOSED BY LORD DARN-LEY.
"Dissentient; For the reasons which are assigned in the proposed Address to his majesty; and which we are desirous of recording as a memorial of our sentiments on a measure which has, as we fear, fixed an indelible stigma on the honour of our country." (Signed by the peers whose names appear to the following protest.)
PROTEST AGAINST THE RESOLUTION PROPOSED BY LORD ELIOT.
"Dissentient; Because we hold it highly unbecoming for this house to pass a Vote of Approbation of ministers, without any proof of the allegations adduced by those ministers in their own cause, upon so momentous a proceeding. (Signed,) Wm. Frederick (duke of Gloucester,) Vassall Holland, Derby, Spencer, Ponsonby, Rawdon (earl Moira,) Essex, Clifton, (earl of Darnley,) Stafford, Crewe, Jersey, Bedford, Grenville, Albemarle, Carysfort, Sidmouth, Grey, Ponsonby, (Besborough,) St. John, Hutchinson, King, Breadalbane, Fitz-william, Lauderdale, Ailsa, Erskine, Suffolk and Berkshire, Auckland, Buckinghamshire."