Sitting of 10 March 1808

KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.
Mr. Secretary Canningpresented a Message from his majesty relative to the Swedish Treaty, being the same with that presented in the house of lords. Mr. Canning then moved, that the Message be referred to the committee of supply to-morrow; observing, that in the course of the present evening he should have it in his power to lay on the table of the house a copy of the Treaty.
Mr. Whitbread,remarking that the policy of the treaty might be a subject of important deliberation, recommended that a longer time should be allowed to elapse after the house were put into possession of the treaty, before they were called upon to consider his majesty's Message.
Mr. Canningmaintained the propriety of referring the Message to the committee of supply to-morrow. If such a serious difference of opinion should then appear to exist, as would lead to a protracted discussion, that discussion might be postponed.
The Speakerstated, that it was essentially necessary that a Message of this nature should be referred to the committee of supply, and it was a customary mark of respect to the sovereign, to make that reference at as early a period as possible.—The Message was then referred to a committee of supply.

CONVENTION WITH SWEDEN.
Mr. Secretary Canningshortly after presented to the house by his majesty's command, a Copy of the Convention between his majesty and the king of Sweden: viz.
CONVENTION BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY AND THE KING OF SWEDEN, signed at Stockholm on the 18th of February, 1808. " The consequences of the Treaty of Tilsit between Russia and France unfolding themselves more and more in such a manner as to threaten Sweden with a speedy invasion, for the purpose of forcing her to accede to the French system; and his Swedish majesty finding himself therefore under the necessity of bringing forward, to resist its effects, a greater force than he has at his ordinary disposal, his Britannic majesty, animated with the constant desire of contributing to the defence and security of his ally, and of supporting him by every means in a war undertaken for the mutual interests of both states, has determined to give to his Swedish majesty an immediate aid in money, as being the most prompt and efficacious, to be paid from time to time at fixed periods; and their majesties having judged it expedient, that a formal Convention with regard to their reciprocal intentions in this respect, should be concluded, they have, for this purpose, named and authorised their respective plenipotentiaries ; that is to say.—In the name and on the part of his majesty the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Edward Thornton, esq. his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to his majesty the king of Sweden; and in the name and on the part of his majesty

1055
the king of Sweden, the Baron d'Ehrenheim, president of his chancery, and commander of his order of the polar star, who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, have agreed upon the following articles:—Art. 1. His majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, engages that there shall be paid to his majesty the king of Sweden, the sum of 1,200,000 l. in equal instalments of 100,000 l. sterling each per month, beginning with the month of January of the present year inclusively, and to continue successively in the course of each month, the first of which instalments shall be paid on the ratification of the present convention by his Swedish majesty. H. His majesty the king of Sweden, engages on his part to employ the said sum in putting into motion and keeping on a respectable establishment, all his land forces, and such part as shall be necessary of his fleets, and particularly his flotilla, in order to oppose the most effectual resistance to the common enemies. III. Their said majesties moreover engage to conclude no peace or truce, or convention of neutrality with the enemy, but in concert and by mutual agreement. IV. The present Convention shall be ratified by the two high contracting parties, and its ratifications shall be exchanged at London within the space of six weeks after the signature of the said Convention, or sooner if it can be done. In faith whereof, we the undersigned plenipotentiaries of their said majesties, have signed the present Convention, and have caused the seal of our arms to he affixed thereto. Done at Stockholm, the 8th of Feb. in the year of redemption, 1808. EDW. THORNTON. F. EHRENREIM.
Separate Article.—The two high contracting parties have agreed to concert, as soon as possible, the measures to be taken, and the auxiliary succours to be stipulated for, in the case of a war actually taking place between Sweden and the Powers her neighbours; and the stipulations which may thence result shall be considered as separate and additional Articles to this Convention, and shall have the same force as if they were word for word inserted therein. In faith of which, we the under. signed Plenipotentiaries of their said majesties, have signed this Separate Article, and have caused the seal of our arms to affixed,thereto. Done at Stockholm, the 8th of Feb. in the year of redemption, 1808. EDW. THORNTON. F. EHRENHEIM,"

PETITIONS FROM LONDON AND LIVERPOOL REPECTING THE ORDER IN COUNCIL
Mr. Alderman Combepresented a Petition from the Merchants and Manufacturers of London, interested in the trade to America, praying to be heard by evidence and council. The Petition Was read by the clerk; it stated,
"That the petitioners contemplate, with the greatest anxiety and apprehension, the alarming consequences with which they are threatened from certain Orders in Council, purporting to be issued 'for the protection of the Trade and Navigation of Great Britain,' but on which they are induced, after mature consideration, to believe that they must be productive of the most ruinous effects; and that the petitioners are duty sensible of the necessity of making every sacrifice of personal interests to promote the strength and resources of the country in the present extraordinary crisis of public affairs; and, if the total change introduced into the whole commercial system of this country, and of the world, by the Orders Council, could be conducive to so desirable an object, the petitioners, great as their losses must be, would submit without a murmur; but, understanding that these orders are principally, if not wholly, recommended by an opinion that they will prove beneficial to the commercial interests of this, country, they feel it to be their duty humbly to represent their conviction that this: opinion is founded in. error, and that, if the prayer of their petition be granted, they shall be able to prove, that they must be productive of the most fatal consequences to the interest not only of the petitioners, but of the commerce and manufactures of the empire at large; and that the petitioners will abstain from enforcing, by any details, their apprehensions that these measures are likely to interrupt our peace with the United States of America, our intercourse with which, at all times valuable, is infinitely more so since we are excluded from the continent of Europe; to this only remaining branch of our foreign intercourse we must now look for a demand for our manufactures, for many of the most important materials for their support, and for supplies of provisions and naval stores necessary for our subsistence and defence; and the petitioners feel assured, that they will be able to prove, to the satisfaction of the house, that the neutrality of America has been the means of circulating, to a large amount,

1057
articles of the produce and manufactures of this country in the dominions of our numerous enemies, to which we have no direct access; and that the annual value of British manufactures exported to the United States exceeds ten millions sterling; and that, as our consumption of the produce of that country falls far short of that amount, the only means of paying us must arise from the consumption of the produce of America in other countries, which the operation of the Orders in Council must interrupt, and in most instances totally destroy; and that the people of America. even if they remain at peace with us, must, by a want of demand for their produce, and. by the general distress our measures must occasion, be disabled from paying their debts to this country, which may fairly be estimated to amount to the enormous sum of 12 millions sterling ; and that the neutrality of America, so far from being injurious to the other commercial interests of Great Britain, has promoted materially their prosperity; and that the produce of our colonies in the West Indies, of our empire in the East, and of our Fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, has frequently found a foreign market by this means; and that, by the destruction of the neutrality of the only remaining neutral state, all possibility of intercourse with the rest of the world being removed, trade cannot possibly be benefited, but must necessarily be annihilated; and that the petitioners, feeling as they do most sensibly with their fellow-subjects the pressure of a war in .which their commerce has principally been aimed at by the enemy, would scorn to plead their distress in recommendation of measures inconsistent with the honour and substantial interests of their country; but they humbly rely upon the wisdom of the legislature, that this distress shall not be increased by our own errors; and they confidently believe, that if they are permitted to illustrate, by evidence, the. facts they have stated, and to explain many others which they shall here refrain from enumerating, they cannot fail to establish the conviction with which they are so strongly impressed, that the Orders in. Council Are founded on the most mistaken opinions, of the commercial interests of the empire, and must be particularly fatal to those of the petitioners; and therefore praying, that they may be heard, by themselves, or counsel, at the bar of the house, and he permitted to pro-
1058
duce evidence in support of the allegations of their petition, or that the house will examine into the nature and extent of their grievances in any mode which may appear advisable, with a view of affording such relief as the house may think proper."
Mr. Alderman Combemoved that the Petition do lie on the table.
Sir W. Curtisdid not rise to oppose the motion, but because he thought that the house ought to be acquainted with all the circumstances under which the Petition had been framed. For some days an advertisement had appeared in the public prints, signed by many respectable gentlemen, requesting a meeting on that morning of merchants, manufacturers, &c. interested in the trade with America. Above 1000 persons had accordingly assembled; a fair discussion took place; an amendment was moved to the original motion for presenting a petition to parliament; and on the division, the chairman candidly declared, that the amendment was carried by a majority. He had not himself been present, but he understood, from the most respectable authority, that at least three parts out of four of the persons assembled were against the petition.
Mr. Alderman Shawhaving been present at the meeting alluded to, felt it his duty to state, that the petition just presented was not the petition of the majority of the meeting. On the contrary, a majority of at least two to one, declared against presenting any petition, and in favour of the amendment, which stated, that in the present critical situation of the country, and pending the important discussions with America, it would be inexpedient to present a petition to either house of parliament: On the subject of the Orders in Council, as well as on the merits of his. majesty's present servants generally, and particularly on the merits of the expedition to Copenhagen, he was convinced, that in the population of England 99 out of 100 were decidedly in their favour.
Mr. Alderman Combeobserved, that this last observation came with singular grace from the worthy alderman, who, during his mayoralty, had invited his majesty's late ministers to his table, and as the first toast after dinner, had drank success to them.
Mr. Alderman Shawobserved, that in the peculiar circumstances under. which he was then placed, he. had, on the occa-

1059
sion alluded to by. the worthy alderman, thought it his duty as chief magistrate, to invite all his majesty's ministers, and also his majesty's ex-ministers, who had been the ministers of the crown When he had been admitted into the mayoralty. For Many of the members of the rate administration he felt the highest respect, and in particular, he should never forget the eminent services of one noble lord, whose support of the interests of his country at a most critical period, would be ever remembered by him with gratitude.
Mr. A. Baring,having been chairman of the meeting alluded to, thought it but proper to state what was his opinion concerning it. The numbers, he should conceive, were between 4 and 500, and the majority about 4 to 3. If others had observed the same forbearance with the worthy .alderman (Curtis), and had abstained from attending a meeting with which they had no, connection, he had no hesitation in declaring that the result would have been very different from what it had turned out. The argument with many persons who attended the meeting seemed to be, 'we are connected with the West Indies; the west Indies are connected with America; so we are entitled to attend this meeting as persons interested in the trade to America.' The arguments of those who moved ,and seconded the amendment, however, he thought were somewhat curious, though probably they might not be peculiarly gratifying to the framers of these Orders in Council. They did not oppose the petition because they approved of these regulations, but because they were absurd and impracticable.
Mr. Maryattsaid, he was at the meeting of this day; and as the hon. gent. who Spoke last seemed to direct his eye so particularly towards him he must explain why he thought he had as good a right to be present as the hon. member himself. He said, he had property both in America and Jamaica: he had commercial interests and family connections with America; but these should not induce him to forget his great and paramount duty to his country. He thought the meeting concerned all who had commercial interests or connections with America, direct or circuitous. Persons therefore had a right to attend who had even no trade there. He believed a number not only of such persons, but of American citizens, were present; and they were heard with attention in the delivery of their Sentiments; and
1060
he believed also their opinions were quoted by others who spoke after them.
Sir. C. Pricesaid, he held in his hand a petition of a directly opposite description, from the merchants of London trading to the continent of Europe, who desired to express their confidence, that the Orders carried vigorously into operation would be the most likely means of inducing the enemy to abandon the system of exclusion to British commerce, which created the necessity of those orders.—The hon. baronet, however, was reminded by the Speaker, that the petition he proposed to offer must be deferred till the other was disposed of.
Mr. Sharpshould not have interfered in the discussion had it not been for what had fallen from the worthy aldermen. One of these hon. members declared, that his information was, that the majority was equal to three to one. The other, who was present, that it was two to one. This was a diminution in a moment of 50 per cent. The same hon. gent. however, had made a wonderful discovery in consequence of the result of that meeting; for although there, even according to his own account of the matter, the majority was only two to one, it enabled him to make this ingenious calculation; that 99 out of every 100 throughout the whole population of the country, not only approved of these Orders in Council, but of the whole conduct of ministers, and particularly of the attack on Copenhagen. This, however, only went to show how great reliance was to be placed on the hon. gent.'s computation, as to the comparative numbers at the meeting in question. The hon. gent. who was the chairman of the meeting, had estimated them at four to three; and, for his part, he had no hesitation in thinking that he viewed them more accurately in stating them at six to five. Such, however, had been the monstrous calculations made by gentlemen who disapproved of the petition! A great many, too, of those who did attend, were not interested in the trade. Even the two principal supporters of the amendment had described the Orders in Council by a very harsh but characteristic expression, that they were extremely foolish, but they conceived the situation of the country to be such as rendered it inexpedient to interfere in the measures of government.
Mr. Whitbreadwas convinced the worthy alderman opposite (sir W. Curtis), after the description he had heard of the gentlemen who composed the meeting,

1061
would regret much that he had not attended it. His mercantile transactions were certainly equal to those of most gentlemen; and in point of zeal for ministers he yielded to no man. Another worthy alderman (Shaw),who did attend the meeting, had favoured the house with a discovery which he had made, that not only the majority of that meeting, but that 99 out of every 100 of the population of the country, approved of the Orders in Council; not of them merely, but also of the conduct of the present ministers in general; not of the general conduct of the present ministry but of the attack on Copenhagen in particular. The worthy alderman was well known to have a particular regard for 'the present ministers,' and to think that 99 out of 100 of the population of the country must approve of whatever they do. So he thought of the late ministers when they were the present minister; so he had now declared he did of their successors. It was to be hoped for the salvation of the country, that other ministers would again succeed to those now in office; and he had no doubt, if the worthy alderman lived to see that day, and were a member of that house, he would still continue to be eager in their praise, and ready to lend his testimony to the public feeling, in favour of the present administration.'
Mr. Hibbertsaid he had great interest in Jamaica, which was much connected with America; but still he did not feel himself entitled on that account to attend the meeting.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the house was obliged to the worthy baronet for the information he had given it, as the petition might else have been supposed to have come from a numerous meeting, instead of being, as it was, the petition of a few individuals, who, however respectable, were unquestionably the minority of the meeting.
Mr. Gordonhad formerly dealings with America; and though he had none at the present moment, he still thought himself entitled to attend the meeting, which he accordingly had done. He was mistaken, if, besides merchants trading to America, there were not at the meeting of this day, a number of American citizens.
Sir R. Peeledid not attend the meeting, because conceiving it to be called especially for the purpose of petitioning, and being of a contrary opinion, he esteemed himself excluded.
Mr. Mellishhad transactions with Ame-
1062
rica, and also lands there, of course he esteemed himself entitled to attend the: meeting.
Mr. Baringsaid, that persons connected with the Spanish colonies could, not be fit persons to attend such a meeting. The room was absolutely filled with persons not interested in the American trade, and some gentlemen even brought down their clerks to increase the number.
Sir A. Piggottthought, if thanks were due to the worthy baronet who started the present discussion, they were much more due to his hon. friend (Mr. A. Baring) who had :furnished the house with so. many important facts relating to the meeting; particularly, that it consisted, in a great measure, of persons not interested in the trade, and that the mover and seconder of the amendment, so far from thinking the Orders in Council to have displayed wisdom, treated them as foolish and impracticable. He put it to an hon. baronet (sir Peele) to say if there were not thousands of manufacturers at this moment without employment, or only with half employment?
Sir R. Peelesaid that this was not attributable to the Orders in Council, but to the measures or rather no-measures of the late ministers.
Sir John Newportsaid, what our manufacturers complained of was, that being distressed from other causes, their situation was made irremediable by these Orders of Council. He should, on a future occasiod, bring the state of Ireland, in consequence of these Orders in Council, before the house. It was impossible that America should be ignorant of the great quantity of flax-seed, the grand staple of Ireland, which she got from that country.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Alderman Combo moved, that the prayer of the petition for hearing counsel be granted. The Speaker stated, that by the forms of the house no two steps on the petition could be taken in one night. Mr. Combe then moved, that the petition be taken into further consideration to-morrow. Mr. Perceval wished it to be postponed, on account of the other important business which stood for that day. Mr. Combe said, he had discharged his duty, and he should not press. it unnecessarily on the house.
General Gascoynesaid, that he had a petition from the merchants of Liverpool to the same purport as that of hon. alderman. It was against the Orders in Council. He would take care not to fall into

1063
the error of the hon. aldeman; but move that it be taken into Consideration, with a view to propose Monday as the day.
General TarletonObserved, that though he was as desirous of popularity as any man, yet he would not compromise his duty on that account. He thought himself bound to declare, that the majority of his constituents were averse to measures that served only to embarrass government.
Mr. Sheridansaid, that the hon. general had fallen into a greater error than his hon. friend. The third reading of the bill stood for this day; and according to the proposed plan of proceeding, the measure might be out of the power of the house before the petition was presented. He asked, in what situation would the house he placed, in case the evidence should convince the house that the measure was a wrong One?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerspoke to order, and the Speaker concurred with him, that the question then was merely, whether counsel should be heard in support of the petition?
General Gascoyneobserved, that his constituents who were in town had only got the petition that morning, and had had no time to instruct their counsel so fully as they wished to do. It was their desire that-their petition should go hand in hand with that of the American merchants; and as the consideration of that petition had been-postponed, he thought himself acting in. conformity with the wishes of his constituents, when he proposed a future day. In allusion to what his colleague had said about popularity, he remarked, that when a number of respectable merchants of Liverpool put a petition into his hands, he thought it his duty to present it, and not only that, but to procure them a hearing as soon as possible. He then. proposed Monday, but being told that both this and the two following days were pre-occupied, he chose Thursday as the day for hearing counsel.
General Tarletonagain said that he was desirous of popularity. If it was a sin to covet honour, he was the most offending Man alive.
Mr. Sheridan,though sorry to interrupt the colloquy of the two colleagues, insisted upon the. awkward situation in which the house was placed, by the proceeding, and observed, that counsel must have, been instructed when the first petition came, and ought now to be ready.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that hed seen counsel waiting in the lobby not an hour ago: and upon this information general Gas coyne expressed his hope, though the counsel could not be so well prepared as the importance of the case required, that the house would allow him to-expunge the word 'Thursday,' for the purpose of inserting 'now'.
Mr. Whitbreadadverted to the course which had been taken with respect to these petitioners, and contended that they had a right to be heard in a manner that might be efficacious. They ought therefore to be heard now, unless ministers would agree to postpone the third reading of the bill. These merchants were the most competent in England to give information on this subject. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that this delay was vexatious: to him it might be so; but it was the duty of those who thought the measure a bad one, to support every thing which tended to procure additional information on the subject; and, besides, it was of no importance that the bill should pass immediately. He concluded by moving, that counsel should be heard now, instead of Thursday.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the principle and the spirit of the rule of the house for bad any petition being received against a tax bill; and the bill for carrying into effect the Orders in Council was a tax bill, and ought not to be delayed for this petition. The petitioners might have two remedies. There was a clause in the bill permitting it to be altered or repealed in this session, and petitioners might have that remedy if they made out a case sufficiently strong to induce the house to think that eligible. The house might also apply to his majesty by address to forbear acting upon the bill. The bill might therefore proceed, and the petitioners be heard on the day most convenient for them.
Mr. Ponsonbycould not but admire the advice given by the noble lord to the house, which was to proceed to pass a measure which might be proved to be a very foolish one, before hearing what was to be said against it, and then address the king to make it a mere nullity. This would not add much to the respectability of the character of the house.
Sir. A. Piggotargued, that the petitioners ought to be heard before .the passing of the bill, because they ought bona fide to have such a hearing as-would be efficacious, No,.inconvenience would result

1065
from the delay of the bill, as the trade was in the mean time carried on by licences.
Dr. Laurenceadverted to the. awkward situation in Which the house would be placed by the mode of proceeding proposed by minister. Though their object professedly was to starve the continent, yet they were in a hurry to give freedom to the trade to it. They had long slept over tins measure without assembling parliament to carry it into effect, and yet now they grudged the delay of a few days.
Mr. Morriswas anxious to promote any proceeding, which would afford an opportunity of being more fully informed on this measure; which seemed to be founded on French principles, and would be attended with the greatest mischief to all civilized nations.
Mr. Windhamcondemned the proposed mode of proceeding, on account of its palpable absurdity. It was exactly this: that the house should decide first, and hear the objections afterwards. It resembled a police bill, which provided that a party might be whipped, and then allowed him the right to appeal to the session. The noble lord said that the spirit of the bill precluded petitioning against it. But it had no spirit, it was all letter; two grains of wheat .in two bushels of chaff; two grains of finance, in two bushels of trade. The trade was the spirit, the finance was only incidental; and yet the noble lord talked petitioning being contrary to its spirit, and objected to the delay of a few days!
Mr. Stephenssaid, that there were two parties in this question. There were not only the petitioners but the public who were deeply interested in the bill. The petition appeared to him to be brought forward for no other purpose than to create delay. The hon. member very successfully replied to the last speaker.
Lord H. Petty, Mr. Adam, and Mr. Pole Carew supported the amendment. The latter, however, professed himself a decided friend to the bill, but thought it due to the petitioners, now that they had put themselves in the proper form, to hear what they had to say.
The question being loudly called for, a division took place: Ayes 66: Noes 99: Majority against the Amendment 33.—The petition was then ordered to be taken into consideration on Thursday.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL] The question that the bill be read a third time,
1066
was then put, and an amendment moved, that it be read a third time Monday se'might. Sir W. Scott rose, began to speak on the merits of the measure; but was called to order by Mr. W. Smith, who said that this was only a question of time; and in this he was supported by the Speaker.—After some the house divided, upon deferring the third reading of the bill till Monday se'nnight.

Ayes

59

Noes

122

Majority

—63

The question being, then put, that the bill be now read a third time,
Sir William Scottentered into a learned discussion upon the law of nations, which being in its nature conventional, was no longer binding than when the rules of this convention were adverted to by all parties concerned. When they were departed from by one party, the other was left to the guidance of natural justice; and by the laws of natural justice, retaliation was authorised as an essential part of self-defence. The right of retaliation the learned judge shewed to be limited only by the extent of the annoyance which called forth the exercise of it. If an enemy restricted himself to the ordinary mode of warfare, then it was incumbent upon the other belligerent to carry on hostility under the same restrictions; but if he resorted to unusual modes of warfare, then it was competent for his adversary to pursue hint even to neutral ground. The right was unquestionable; the only question was, the prudence of exercising it. The learned judge then proceeded to apply the general doctrine that he had laid down, to the present situation of this country, in relation to France and the other powers of Europe. He shewed that the French decree was intended to cut us off from all communication with the other European states; that it had been acted upon; that the interpretation of M. Decres was wholly. unauthorized; that this exposition stood formally. contradicted by decree of the supreme court of prizes at Paris; and that if there were any exceptions made to its general operation, those exceptions would only prove, that the government of France now was, what it had been always, even in its best times, fluctuating Arid capricious. He further contended, that even if it was not acted upon, which rested with the other party to prove, it was nevertheless an injury, because it was an insult to the country; which, in the opinion of an eminent person now no more (Mr. fox),me

1067
rited more to be chastised than any other species of injury whatever. As to the pleasure. of the Orders. in Council, he asserted that it was merely following up the principle which had been adopted in the Order in Council of Jan. 1807, and founded upon the doctrine which had been so ably maintained in the note of lord Howick to Mr. Rist; and even though the authors of these official papers chose to disclaim them, still he would .maintain the tenets which they set forth. Upon the morality of the measure, therefore, there was. no doubt. The question of its policy was more complex, and of its effects it was impossible to speak with certainty. He should lament exceedingly, if it should have the effect of producing any irritation in the American government. But he hoped, that they would, not only look to the act, but to the causes of the act, and that it would be viewed not as a measure of hostility against America, but against France. The present bill had his most decided support.
Dr. Laurenceentered into an extensive view of what was the law of nations, as expressed by the best writers on that subject, and, as it was to be deduced from the uniform practice, not only of this country, but also of France, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and other countries, from these earliest period. From these authorities. he shewed, that the Orders of the 7th of Jan. were justified by the established usage and avowed concurrence of all civilised nations, on the principle that one belligerent had an undoubted right to prevent a neutral front lending herself to another belligerent for the purpose of carrying on her coasting trade. But, with respect to the Orders of the 11th of Nov. he maintained, that though they were professedly founded on a principle of retaliation, they mere not actually so founded; as it was not what was expressed by ministers, an acquiescence in the orders of the enemy (if such had been the fact), but an adherence to the cause of the enemy, which was the legitimate ground of measures of retaliation.
Mr. Stephensasserted the necessity which called for the Orders in Council, a necessity, in his opinion, so imperious, that it would have justified measures even of a more extensive nature.
Mr. Ponsonbyargued, that the Orders were absurd, and incapable of being carried into execution.
Sir c. Pricestated, that he had brought
1068
a Petition down to the house, which an informality alone had prevented him front presenting. It was from a number, of persons interested in the trade to America, and avowed their firm conviction, that the Orders in Council were a wise and salutary measure.
About three o'clock in the morning lord H. Petty proposed an adjournment of the debate, on the ground of the lateness of the hour, and the number of gentlemen who were anxious to deliver their sentiments. Mr. Windham supported the motion for adjournment.—On a division there appeared,

For the adjournment

71

Against it

145

Majority

71

While the Opposition members were in the lobby, Mr. Ponsonbv addressed them, and observing that they had ineffectually proposed the. postponement of the Mutiny bill from this day, for the purpose of allowing an opportunity for resuming the debate on the Orders in Council bill, requested that they would not quit the house, as the only justifiable resource left to them, was to force ministers to consent to an adjournment by repeated and incessant motions to that effect.—We were not re-admitted, but were informed, that Mr. Sheridan, after having reminded the house that on the Bill for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, he had moved the question of adjournment 17 times in one night, moved that the house do now adjourn.—The house immediately divided

For the adjournment

67

Against it

140

Majority

74

On a motion that the Orders in Council be read, Mr. Henry Martin called for a division, which was as follows:

For reading the Orders

65

Against it

140

Majority

75

After some further discussion, it was at length agreed that the debate should be adjourned until to morrow.—Adjourned at half past five on Friday morning

KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.
Lord Hawkesburypresented the following Message from his majesty; "G. R. His majesty thinks it proper to acquaint the house of peers that the king of Sweden having resisted every threat that had been employed to induce him to join the hostile continental confederacy against. Great Britain, and having thereby exposed his dominions to increasing and imminent danger, his majesty felt it his duty to afford that monarch the most prompt and efficacious support and assistance. His majesty has, therefore, entered into a convention with the king of Sweden, a copy of which he has directed to be laid before

1043
the house; and he relies on the wisdom and liberality of his faithful commons, that they will enable his majesty to make good his engagements with an ally of such approved firmness and fidelity."
His majesty's message was ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday, on the motion of lord Hawkesbury, who stated that copies of the treaty would probably be delivered to their lordships before they separated. The earl of Lauderdale asked if there was any article in the treaty, for imposing duties, similar to those in the bill for carrying into effect the orders of council? Lord Hawkesbury answered in the negative.

EXPORTS.
Lord Aucklandheld in his hand, and perused with satisfaction, a paper lately laid before their lordships, of the amount of the exports from this country; which almost reached the sum of 40 millions. He had already observed to their lordships what a very large proportion of those exports were taken by America; and hence he had urged how ruinous to our commerce the operation of the Orders in Council must prove, especially if carried to their utmost extent against the trade of the United States. It would be found, that between the account now in his hand, and a similar one presented last year, there was a difference of between three and four millions, but of this falling off he was not disposed to complain; but at the same time, he must advise their lordships to prepare their minds for a very different statement next year, should the measure of the Orders in Council be unfortunately persisted in to their present extent. The noble lord further observed that, in order more precisely to ascertain the difference between the two years in the different branches of our manufactures, he should now move, "That there be laid before the house an account of the amount of the value of the Exports for the last three months, ending the 5th of Jan. 1808."
The Earl of Westmorelandwould not object to the motion of the noble lord; but he could not help remarking the difference of tone which the noble lord assumed on the same subject this year, from what he had assumed in the preceding year. Last year his observations were accompanied with a warm panegyric on the late administration. This year there was no panegyric on his majesty's present ministers.
Lord Aucklandsaid it was too much for
1044
the noble earl to expect a panegyric on the present occasion, unless he should praise ministers for the diminution in the exports of the country to the amount of nearly four millions. He had indeed adverted to that falling off; but he had said, he did not complain of it. To panegyrise ministers must surely have savoured of irony.
Lord Stanhopeadvised ministers not to provoke comparisons between their own conduct and that of their predecessors. In the conduct of the latter there was every thing good, in that of the former nothing but mischief.—The question was then put and agreed to.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the house resolving itself into a committee on this bill,
Lord Arden roseto oppose the measure altogether. Nothing had occurred to his mind since the question was last agitated to induce him to depart from the opinion he had then expressed; he should, therefore, still persist in considering the bill as an infringement of the prerogative of the crown; and, in the manner in which it was brought before their lordships, he might also fairly contend that it was an encroachment on the privileges of their lordships' house. He could not but express his apprehension of what might be the consequences of their lordships' acquiescing in the measure. He would, however, refer them to the measures that were witnessed in this country in the year 1641, and to the consequences with which they had been attended. They afforded so strong a lesson to him on the present occasion, that he must give his decided negative to the bill going into a committee, as he completely despaired that it would be possible, by any amendment, to free it from the objections to which he thought it liable. He should therefore move, that the order be discharged.
Lord Boringdonwas at a loss how the bill could be viewed in the light in which the noble lord seemed to consider it. It was not in the contemplation of the bill to infringe the prerogative of the crown. Its object merely was to suspend the granting of places in reversion for a time to be limited; such at least he understood would be one of the amendments proposed in the committee? and on the ground of that intended amendment it was that he should vote that the bill be committed. That suspension of the exercise of the prerogative he could not view as an infringement

1045
of it; nor could it be fairly supposed that the measure was unacceptable to the crown. It must be remembered by all their lordships, that in the last session of parliament it was recommended by his majesty, in the speech delivered by the commissioners, that both houses of parliament should pay an early attention to the best means of introducing economy into the public expenditure. The recommendation proceeded, no doubt, from the address of the house of commons to his majesty, praying that his majesty would not in future grant any places in reversion. Here then it appeared that the measure, as proposed by the other house, was a part of a system of economy which the present situation of the country seemed justly to call for; and that, as such, it was recommended from the throne. How then could noble lords object to the bill in toto, as an infringement on the prerogative? If it was intended to make it a permanent legislative measure, he should object to it also; and look upon it be, in some measure, an encroachment on the usage of the prerogative. But the reason, as he already stated, for the bill going into a committee, was, that in the committee he expected its duration would be limited. He did not expect any great saving would be made by it to the public; nor would he allow it to be a permanent legislative measure; but he was anxious it should be fairly entertained out of respect to the opinion of the other house, and to the recommendation that opinion had received. from the throne. He did not conceive that any inconsistency would be imputed to him on account of any difference in the opinion he had expressed of this measure, when it had in a former session been before the house. His opinion was then, as it was now, guided by the same principle and the same spirit; and under that impression, he should vote for committing the bill.
Lord Redesdaleargued, with great warmth, against the bill. It was not only an infringement of the prerogative, but an encroachment on the privileges of that house. The increasing influence of the crown was a topic which, in all times, it had been fashionable to dwell upon. Since Mr. Burke's famous bill, he would, however, contend that the influence of the crown had been. diminished rather than increased. Since that period, the commercial wealth of the country had very considerably augmented; and, with it, the price of land had also risen. So that,
1046
upon due consideration, it would appear that the influence of the other orders of the community had increased, while that of the crown remained stationary, or, in comparison, seemed to decrease. The, form and manner in which the bill was brought in, had also much in it to alarm their lordships: it appeared to him in the shape of a threat, or as the commencement of measures the consequence of which we might too late deplore. He agreed with his noble friend (lord Arden) in representing it as one that might remind their lordships of the year 1641, and of the calamities that ensued. He could see nothing to fear in the influence of the crown; it was no more than it ought to be for the Maintenance of its own dignity, and for the security of the privileges of that house, with which the security and authority of the throne were so nearly connected. As in other things, the terrors of the influence of the crown continued after the cause of these terrors had long ceased. There was nothing now in that influence justly to alarm the country. It was fully counterbalanced by the growing influence of the other estates. But we were told it was not the intention of the measure to go any further than to a temporary suspension of the prerogative. Whether the bill was for one, or two years, or four years, was just the same to him. It was the principle, not the duration of the measure; he objected to; in the principle was the mischief of it, and he would oppose it in the very beginning. It was the beginning of every evil that ought to be resisted, because resistance might afterwards be fruitless. Let their lordships look to the beginning of the French revolution. Let them consider what irreparable mischief followed the advice of M. Neckar to increase the number, and consequently the weight of the tiers etat. The tiers etat prevailed; the nobility were soon proscribed, despoiled of their possessions, and driven into beggary and exile; and what was the pretext arid cause of that violent change? The reform of abuses; the adoption of an economical system. If their lordships were therefore wise, they would meet this first attempt of a similar nature, and not yield to it. For his part, here he should make his stand. The other house might propose such measures of reform and economy, but he was determined not to submit.
The Lord Chancellorleft the woolsack merely to observe, that he had delivered

1047
his sentiments fully on a preceding day; that he continued in the same persuasion; and that this bill should not, with his individual concurrence, go into a committee.
Lord Hollandurged the expediency of agreeing to the bill, and defended the conduct of the house of commons, which he conceived to be perfectly constitutional, the amount of it merely being an address to his majesty not to grant any offices in reversion until six weeks after the commencement of this session of parliament. He differed with the noble and learned lord as to the causes of the evils which followed the transactions of 1641; he thought they were rather produced by high prerogative lawyers stretching the prerogative too far. As to the fears of what had been once formidable remaining when the danger had ceased, it might be to that sentiment that we might attribute the terrors some people even now had of the pope, and their fears for the return of queen Mary. He intreated their lordships not to reject the bill; but, on the contrary, by agreeing to it, to show their disposition to concur in measures of public economy.
The Earl of Carlisleobjected to the bill, on. the ground that no necessity for it had been proved; there was nothing but the mere statement in the preamble that it was expedient, but why it was expedient was not shewn; and that, in his opinion, was not a sufficicient ground for calling upon the king to give up a long-used prerogative. He thought the bill ought to be discussed there on its own merits, without mixing with it any question about the conduct of the house of commons.
The Earl of Moiraalso objected to the bill, on a similar ground. He did: not think the bill at all a measure of public economy; or that it had any greater connection with public economy than with the Greenland whale-fishery. The prerogatives of the crown must be always considered to exist for the benefit of the people; but in this case there was, in his opinion, no object of public benefit to he attained. Under the circumstances, however, in which this bill came to the house, he intended, if the order was discharged, to move that a message be sent to the house of commons, requesting a conference, in order that they might state their reasons for passing the bill.
Lord Harrowbystrongly urged the expediency of agreeing to the bill, with the limitation intended to be proposed by his noble friend, in order that it might be
1048
considered in the interim, whether any of the offices granted in reversion ought to be regulated or abolished. Their lordships had an important; public duty to perform; they ought not to be swayed by influence on the one hand, or by clamour on the other; but do steadily that which seemed the best mode of removing any grievance, or carrying into effect any proper plan of public economy. He could not see any danger in agreeing to this bill; if any other measures should. be proposed which were inexpedient or improper, as his noble and learned friend seemed to apprehend, it would be competent for their lordships to reject them.
Earl Grey.— My lords; the noble lord who has just sat down, has delivered observations so marked by political prudence, that I should have felt it unnecessary to have troubled your lordships, were I not unwilling to give a silent vote on a question of such vital importance at the present moment. I have heard fall from a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) such strange inferences, that I really feel at a loss in what manner to account for them, unless by supposing him to be influenced, on this occasion, by as strong. a political bigotry, as recently he was by a religious bigotry, so violent as not to have permitted his majesty's ministers to venture his return to Ireland. That learned lord has declared his decided hostility to this measure, principally upon three grounds; first, that its advocates have afforded to this house no proofs of its expediency; next, that it is a direct invasion of the royal prerogative; and finally, that it is objectionable, from the manner in which, he asserts, the otter house of parliament has attempted to force it upon the consideration of your lordship. My lords, in the first place, its expediency has appeared manifest to those who, by the vote of the other house, a vote recommended by the Speech from the throne. had, in consequence of very accurate investigation and very mature inquiry, found that, in order to effect all the objects of a salutary and practicable economy, an end ought to be put to the granting of offices in reversion. It was found, that whilst such grants continued to be made by time crown, it was impossible either to abolish or regulate those offices, which, from a change in circumstances, had considerably varied in the nature of their importance, and the extent of their duties, from the period when they were originally bestowed. Did

1049
the noble and learned lord not know, that there were offices now enjoyed by persons, under such grants, wherein, from a variety of causes, such a considerable advance in the salary and profits had taken place, as never could have been in the contemplation of the crown when it bestowed them, or in the view of the public when it assented to that prerogative, in virtue of which the power of conferring them was exercised. Indeed, in the case of the noble lord who has thought proper to move the amendment of this night, I find the strongest illustration of this proposition. And here, my lords, give me leave to assure you, that in adverting to this fact, I am as sincerely impressed as any man who hears me with the valid and just title of the noble lord (Arden) to the benefits of the situation which he holds under this species of grant. Neither can I be supposed to attribute to him any other motive for the line of conduct he has adopted on this occasion, than the conviction that he entertains of the injustice and impropriety of infringing on the prerogative; a consequence which lie, in my opinion, has so delusively attached to this measure. But, is there a man who hears me who is not fully convinced that the salary of the reversionary office which he holds, has, by the operation of unexpected and recent causes, totally changed its original extent, and advanced in profit far beyond any estimate that ever was entertained either by the person who granted or him who received the office originally? If I am not much misinformed, that place has advanced in income, from comparatively a very trifling amount, to the enormous sum of 20,000 l. per annum. Can the noble and learned lord still complain of the want of proofs, in order to establish the expediency of this prohibition? or can the house believe that this is a solitary case, or one not sufficiently strong to induce your lordships to interpose a legislative correction against the continuance of such a dangerous system ? Every inquiry that is made will more fully prove the variety of similar cases which exist, and in what a powerful manner they operate as impediments to the necessary and expected reform of the public offices, and consequently to the alleviation of the public pressure.—We next proceed to the objection arising from the infringement this measure is supposed to make on the prerogative of the crown. To the constitutional prerogative of the executive authority I profess my-
1050
self a sincere friend, and therefore it is that I anxiously call upon the house to put an end to a system, above all others calculated to strip the crown of those rights which are so necessary to its honour and security. Let me ask, in what manner this bill operates against that prerogative? Is not the crown the fountain of honour? Has it not the sole power of the appointment to great offices? What else, then, does this bill effect, but to reduce those places and offices to the standard by which at their original formation they were regulated? What change does it introduce, what inroad does it make, but in lopping off those enormous profits, which never were in the contemplation of the grant, even when serious and active services were to be performed? But, says the noble and learned lord, I cannot reconcile myself to support the principle of this measure, because in its operation, or in being made the precedent for succeeding innovations, it might possibly or probably be attended with most mischievous and dangerous consequences. Really, my lords, it is impossible to answer this argument, but by others which have heretofore on many occasions been introduced into discussion. It, indeed, such an objection was to succeed, if the spirit of improvement was to evaporate from the influence of possible dangers and probable apprehensions, if errors were not to be corrected or evils remedied from an overweening dread of innovation, then this country would have to lament the want of all those great and glorious privileges and securities which constitute, so deservedly, our national boast and our most essential safeguard. For what was Magna Charta but an innovation? What else was the Right of Petition? What else the Revolution, that glorious epoch, when this country obtained a recognition of its liberties? Indeed, I would ask the venerable bench of bishops, whom, on this occasion particularly, I see in such formidable numbers arrayed against me, whether, if this dislike to innovation, this hostility to improvement, had existed some centuries past, this country would have participated in the enlightened wisdom and numerous benefits of the Reformation; or whether they themselves would have ever had a seat within these walls, with power to decide on this measure of reform, which they are now perhaps prepared to oppose? The noble and learned lord, in his recital of the evil effects which might probably

1051
ensue from the adoption of this bill, or from any curtailment of the royal prerogative, has alluded to the history of this country in the year 1641, and to the French Revolution. In reviewing the dreadful occurrences of those unhappy times, and particularly in the period of our own history, we are induced to overlook the errors of that unfortunate monarch, Charles I. in the tragic catastrophe which befel him. But were the calamities of that reign to be attributed to any concessions to the claims of the people? Unhappily, the melancholy fate of that prince can be traced, to the obstinacy with which every improvement was opposed, to the unbending disinclination to conform to the spirit of the times, and to the progress of mental advancement. And let it not be forgotten, that when forced into a momentary acquiescence to the desire of the nation, the first opportunity was seized to add perfidy to refusal. And, my lords, with respect to the French Revolution, where can we find a more signal and melancholy exemplification of the danger of not yielding to those plans of salutary and wholesome correction which the defects of all human institutions render absolutely necessary? And here I call upon those who are so particularly attached to the court, I call upon those illustrious and royal personages opposite to me [the dukes of York, Cumberland, and Cambridge] who are so active in their opposition to this measure, to reflect upon the fallen and prostrate state of the legitimate sovereigns of Europe, to consider the lamentable change which has befallen some of the most illustrious families on that continent-some expelled from the thrones of their forefathers, or degraded into the lowest vassalage to the great and inordinate power of France. Be assured, that much as the unrivalled conqueror of the European continent owes to his own extensive talents for success, much as he is indebted to the undisputed sagacity of his plans, and to the rapidity and discipline of his armies, for his gigantic elevation, he has had great and powerful auxiliaries in the selfishness, the sordid views, the illiberal. jealousies, of the dynasties he has subverted; in the apathy and torpor of the oppressed and despised population over whom he has triumphed. Convinced as I am of these truths, I conjure this house to hesitate before it commits itself with the country, by the rejection of a measure which the people expect, and which, in
1052
its operation, must teed to alleviate the pressure of the severe, though unavoidable, burdens under which they labour.
Lord Hawkesburyanxiously wished that the bill should go into a committee. He agreed entirely in the sentiments expressed by the noble lord who spoke last but one, and thought that it was no improper interference with the prerogative, for either branch of the legislature to give the advice that appeared to them to be good for the exercise of the prerogative in the manner the most advantageous to the people. It might perhaps have been as well if the bill had been merely for the suspension of the exercise of this branch of the royal prerogative for a time to be limited, but he was bound to vote for the bill going into a committee.
Lord Aucklandsaid, that in the Whole course of his political life, he bad constantly opposed every innovation, which could not be clearly proved to be necessary. The preamble of this bill stated that the measure was expedient; but the house was not informed why it was expedient. If the house of commons were to send up a bill, Whereas it is expedient that tithes he abolished, without pointing out why it was expedient, he certainly should not consider himself at liberty to vote for it.
Lord Hoodstrongly objected to the bill, upon the grounds of its inutility. No case of necessity, in his mind, had been made out to induce the house to adopt such a measure, and the length of time which the former bill had been before the house was a convincing argument against passing the present one, the former having lain upon the table until it was almost suffocated by the papers which overwhelmed it, until it was rescued from obscurity by a noble duke; then not in his place (the duke of Norfolk).
The Earl of Lauderdalevindicated the late government from the charge of apathy and indifference towards the fate of the Reversion-bill of last year. He himself had, upon the 18th of June, moved the second reading. He and his noble friends, however, had every reason to expect that this measure would have been patronized by the present government, who had put into the king's Speech, upon two occasions, an exhortation to the parliament in favour of public economy. The noble lords, therefore, on his side of the house, might not think it their duty. to anticipate the avowed intention of ministers, unless

1053
any unreasonable delay took place in carrying such intention into effect.
The house then divided on lord Arden's motion:

Contents - 52

Non-contents 45

Proxies - 32—84

Proxies - 39—84

The numbers on each side being equal, the non-contents. according to the usage of the house, carried it.—Upon the re-admission or strangers, lord Redesdale was on his legs, proposing to the committee, that the preamble of the bill should not be postponed; which was negatived without a division.
Lord Hawkeskerythen moved, as an amendment, that the following words be inserted in the first clause of the bill, until the 1st day of June, 1810'.
Lords Grey,Holland, and Spencer, opposed this amendment; but said that, rather than give up the bill itself, or risk the chance of losing it altogether, they should not he, if the sense of the house should be for the amendment, disposed to oppose the bill so amended.
Lord Mulgraveentirely approved of the amendment; as, in the course of the time so limited, the public would have a practical experience of the advantages likely to result from the bill, and parliament would be enabled to ascertain how far the principle might be extended, and to what specific abuses it might be applied.
The Lord Chancellordisapproved of the amendment; and said that if his noble and learned friend on the cross-bench had thought proper to divide the house upon his amendment, he should have voted in support of it.
The question was then put upon the amendment, and the house divided:
Contents 21; on-contents 59: Majority against the amendment 38.—The several clauses were then read and agreed to.