Sitting of 7 March 1808

MINUTES.
The Speakeracquainted the house that he had received a letter from brigadier-general sir S. Achmuty, dated the 4th inst. in answer to one from him, transmitting the Resolutions of the house of the 16th of April last. He then read the Letter, which contained a brief but neat acknowledgment to the house, for the distinguished honour they had conferred on the general, on brigadier-general Lumley, and on the officers and
922
troops composing the army that attacked Monte Video, all of whom felt highly grateful for this mark of the approbation of their fellow-subjects, thus conveyed to them through the medium of their representatives.—Mr. Simeon brought up the report of the Grampound Election committee, which declared the election for that borough to be null and void.—Mr. Wilberforce brought op the report of the Newcastle-under-Line Election Committee, which stated that the sitting members were duly elected, and that the petition that had been presented against them was not frivolous or vexatious.—Mr. Parnell presented a Petition from the Freeholders of the Queen's County, praying for a Commutation of Tittles. He observed, that the freeholders of that county amounted to 4,000; that this petition expressed the unanimous sense of the county, being no party business whatever; that it was signed by several beneficed clergymen, and that every clergyman with whom he had conversed on the subject, had declared his decided approbation of the object which the petitioners sought. He trusted, therefore, that the petition would meet with that attention from the house to which it was entitled, for he was convinced, that no measure that could be proposed would tend more effectually to allay the discontents in Ireland, than the commutation of the tithes of that country. Under this impression he gave notice, that if his majesty's ministers should not take up this subject, he would, on an early day after the recess, move that that petition be referred to a committee of the whole house: he would delay his motion, because he understood that several other petitions of a similar nature were in preparations, and particularly from some of the Grand Juries.—The Petition Was ordered to lie on the table.—On the motion of sir F. Burdett it was ordered, That there be laid before this house, an Account of the total sum issued under Warrants from his majesty, out of the registry of the Court of Admiralty, being proceeds of Droits of Admiralty, or of Droits of the Crown, since the 1st of Jan. 1792, to the latest period to which the same can be made out; and also of the Balance of the Registry, arising from the said Droits.
MUTINY BILL.]—The Mutiny Bill was read a second time, and on the motion, that it be committed to-morrow,
The Secretary at Wargave notice, that a noble friend of his would to-morrow in

923
the committee move a clause to empower the enlisting men for life.
Sir John Newportexpressed his surprise, that a measure which was to undo the effect of the whole military system which had obtained the sanction of the legislature, was to be brought forward in the shape of a clause in the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaw nothing improper in the mode in which the alteration proposed was intended to be introduced by his noble friend, for two reasons; in the first place, because there was no other way in which it could be done; and secondly, because the change of system which had been introduced by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) had been done precisely in the same way, namely, in a committee on the Mutiny Bill.
Mr. Calcraftcontended that it might have been done, if not in a different way, at least at an earlier period, so that the house might have had an opportunity of frequently debating the question.
Mr. Windham,who entered the house shortly after, asked, whether it was true, that notice had been given of certain clauses to be inserted in the Mutiny Bill, the effect of which would be to overturn the military system which had been adopted some time ago?—On being answered by the Secretary at War, that some clauses altering the system of recruiting were to be proposed, he gave notice, that he would oppose them in every stage of the bill.

COMMERCIAL LICENCES.
Mr. Hornerrose to move, "That such part of the Papers presented to the house on the 10th and 11th Feb. as related to the Fees and Gratuities paid on Licences for Navigation and Trade, he referred to the Committee on Public Offices." The subject of these Licences resolved itself into two parts. The first, and by far the most important, was the acknowledged anomaly in our commercial system which they had occasioned, and the encroachment which they had made upon the constitution, by placing the whole of the foreign trade of the country under the controul of the executive government, than any interference by whom in commercial affairs all authorities concurred in declaring that nothing could be more prejudicial. But it was not to this great branch of the subject he at present wished to draw the attention of the house: should his majesty's ministers, who, from so many Circumstances, must be infinitely better qualified to bring it under the consideration of parliament, neglect to do so,
924
he pledged himself, at some future period of the session, to undertake the task. At present, all he desired was, to investigate the minor branch of it, namely, the amount of the Fees obtained through the medium of the Licences, and the nature of the authority by which those fees were claimed. It appeared to him, that if these licences were considered as generally necessary, it would be much better to come to the legislature, and render the trade, to the carrying on of which they were the sanction, legal for a time to be limited; in imitation of Mr. Pitt in 1798, at whose instigation the importation of Spanish goods was permitted by act of parliament. Adverting to the returns of the fees, gratuities, &c. he observed that they were not quite satisfactory. It was stated in those returns, that the fee for a licence amounted only to 12 l. 9s. 6d.; now, he knew that on every licence that had been granted, the fees had exceeded 15 l. and sometimes 20 l.; and that where one merchant had obtained licences for several ships, instead of an additional guinea only having been charged for each vessel, as stated in the returns, not less than 65 l. or 66 l. had been charged for a licence for six ships.
Mr. Roseobserved, that so long since as Aug. last, his majesty's ministers had instituted an inquiry into this subject, and that some weeks ago the privy council Ending the amount of the fees to be so considerable, had taken the matter into serious consideration, and had entered into a strict investigation of it. Before the reference of the subject to the Committee of Finance, he thought it would be most desirable to have before the house proceedings of the privy council, and he therefore recommended to the hon. gent. to postpone his motion for a short time, in order to give an opportunity in a few days of moving an address to his majesty for the production of the proceedings of the privy council. Nothing could be further from his wish, than to suppress enquiry on this subject, which, on the contrary, he was desirous should be thoroughly sifted.
The Advocate Generalremarked, that the ground on which these licenses had been granted, was, not for the purpose, of placing foreign trade under the controul of the executive, but to permit British subjects to trade with the enemy. In 1805, a General Order in Council had been issued, to enable British merchants to trade with the enemy, in certain articles of great importance to agriculture and to manufac-

925
tures. In Feb. 1807, an extension of that Order had been made; but the merchants had nevertheless continued voluntarily to take out licenses, although they had been repeatedly told that they were unnecessary.—After some further conversation, Mr. Horner agreed to postpone his motion.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the farther consideration of the report of the Orders in Council bill.—On the motion that the Bill be engrossed, a short conversation took place between Mr. Ponsonby, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and lord H. Petty, relative to the provision for bringing neutral vessels, having East India articles on board, to the port of London, instead of allowing them to land their cargoes, and to export from the most convenient out-ports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the meaning to be that, when American vessels, for instance, contained a portion of tea, &c. amounting to one fourth of the cargoes, then the whole cargo must come to London; when the portion should be less, then only the particular portion should be required to be brought to this port. This not being perfectly satisfactory, notice was given by lord H Petty that some amendment should be proposed on the third reading.
Mr. A. Baringasked whether the duties imposed upon the exportation of neutral property were to extend to the article of fish?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, that they were, and contended that it would deserve serious consideration before such encouragement should be given to the neutral fisheries in preference to our own.
Mr. A. Baringreplied, that this measure would go near to ruin our own Newfoundland Fishery, for a great part of the fish caught there was sent to America, and from thence carried to Spain and Portugal. This was the, only channel by which it could now be sent, and it would be scarcely possible to exempt our own fish from the duties, without also exempting that of America.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that every step in the progress of this measure demonstrated, that it would have been better if the Liverpool Petitioners had been heard at the bar; for it clearly appeared, that there were many points of which ministers themselves had not been able to perceive the consequence. They had not clearly
926
understood the value of American neutrality, even as to our own fisheries; and yet they had the good fortune to persuade the house, to shut out the commercial subjects of the kingdom from being heard. He had once thought this measure quite original, but lately he had found a precedent for it. One of the West India islands had been in want of provisions, and only one person had any to dispose of. That person had another article for which he could get no sale; but he told the inhabitants that they must have the other article, or they should have no provisions. By this expedient he got rid of his grindstones, and was, all his life after, called 'Grindstone Lynch.' He stated, that of the primum for the linen manufacture of Ireland, 4-5ths came from America; and adverted to the danger that would result from the stoppage of this supply. The interests of Ireland ought the more to be considered on this occasion, because the linen manufacture had been forced on her instead of the woollen, for which she had the primum. He also adverted to the consequences to our silk manufacture here. Of the primum for this there was not in the country more than six weeks supply, and at the end of that period 60,000 men might be driven out of employment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the inconvenience with respect to Ireland existed from the American embargo, and did not arise from the Orders in Council. As to silk, part of that was brought from the Mediterranean and the East Indies The Italian silk was excluded, not by the Orders in Council, but by the French decrees. The only effect of these observations would be to apprize America of the injury she could do us by holding out.
Mr. Ponsonbyadmired the candour of the right hon. gent. Did he think tile Americans ignorant of the amount of their supplies to Ireland? Did they sell them for nothing? Or did they throw the flaxseed into the sea, and leave it to float from America to the Irish coast? As to the embargo, his right hon. friend's argument went to this, that by our measures we should induce the Americans to continue it; and as to the article of silk, he knew that it was prohibited by the French decrees; but the complaint was that,these Orders had locked up the continental ports still faster, and finished what Buonaparte had left undone.—The Bill was

927
then order to be a third time on Thursday.

DANISH SHIPS DETAINED PREVIOUS TO HOSTILITIES.
Lord Sidmouthwished to call the attention of their lordships to a subject which he considered of great importance. He alluded to the case of those Danish ships which had been detained in or brought into the ports of this country, previous to the commencement of hostilities with Denmark. He had heard, that in consequence of a rumour of the destination of the armament subsequently sent against Denmark, a representation had been made to government on behalf of the Danish vessels then in our ports, for the purpose of ascertaining, whether they were safe in completing their cargoes. The nature of this representation, or the answer to it, he did not know, but afterwards, in consequence of its being intimated by the Chamber of Commerce at Copenhagen, that there was no expectation of hostilities with this country, those vessels proceeded to complete their cargoes, Previous, however, to the sailing of the expedition, an order was issued, under which all these vessels were detained, and others brought in, the whole of which he had heard, were since condemned, and had become Droits of Admiralty. The produce of these vessels and cargoes, he had also heard, amounted to nearly two million. If these statements were true, he could not help thinking the circumstances unexampled in the annals of the country. Unless he had further information, he must even believe, that our expedition to Copenhagen caused the war with Denmark, and therefore that the vessels previously detained, ought to have been considered in a different, situation from vessels detained in consequence of the previous hostile conduct of the power to which they belonged. He wished to ask the noble secretary of state whether it was true, that the vessels he had alluded to had been condemned in the manner stated, and also, whether the crews were detained as prisoners of war?
Lord Hawkesburystated, that the same course had been adopted with respect to the Danish vessels which were detained on receiving information of the hostile intentions of Denmark, as had been adopted with respect to the vessels of other Bowers detained under similar circumstances. He thought it necessary also to state, that no assurance of protection was

921
given either directly or indirectly by government to the Danish vessels in our ports, at the period mentioned by the noble viscount.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that some of these vessels had been previously brought into our ports, having been detained as neutrals under different pretences; and that, in several instances, there were decrees of the court of admiralty in their favour; but, by the Order alluded to by the noble viscount and the subsequent proceedings, all these were also condemned, which formed a peculiar case of hardship upon the individuals whose property was thus taken from them.
Lord Sidmouthwas not satisfied with the explanation given by the,noble secretary, contending, as he did, that the Danish vessels were in a different situation to those of any other power detained previous to hostilities. His noble friend had omitted to answer one of his questions, whether the crews of these vessels were detained as prisoners of war?
Lord Hawkesburycontended, that the case of the Danish vessels was the same as those of other vessels detained previous to hostilities. As to the crews, they were, as in other cases, detained prisoners of war, with the exception of some individuals, who had been, under particular circumstances, released. A cartel had been proposed to the Danish government, but had been hitherto declined.
The Earl of Suffolkwished to be informed how the money produced by the sale of these vessels and cargoes was to be applied? and whether any account of its application would be made known?
Lord Hawkesburysaid, the amount had been greatly exaggerated, but whatever it was it would be known.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, he had only stated the amount from report.