Sitting of 11 March 1808

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S AFFAIRS.
Mr. R. Dundasrose, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the present state of the Affairs of the East India Company. He stated, that the same causes which created the deficit which existed last year, still continued to operate, and that there was a deficit now to a very considerable amount. He wished, therefore, that a committee should be appointed to investigate the cause which had produced, and which tended to perpetuate this deficit, and to suggest the most proper remedy to apply to it. Advice, had been expected from the noble lord who now presided over the affairs of India, which might be useful in guiding the inquiries of the committee, but none had been as yet received. He thought, however, that the documents to which the committee might have access would be sufficient to enable them to make a report on the subject. He concluded by moving, "That a committee be appointed
1072
to inquire into the present state of the Affairs of the East India Company."
Mr. Creeveyrose, not for the purpose of opposing, but of supporting the motion; convinced as he was that it was only by a committee, that the situation of the East India Company could be properly investigated; and that the statements of the different budgets had been delusive from beginning to end. He asked, whether it was the intention of the right hon. gent. that the committee should confine their inquiries to the financial and commercial state of the company, or that they should extend their investigation to its territorial concerns?
Mr. R. Dundasreplied, that it was his wish that the inquiries of the committee should be the most comprehensive, though he did not imagine that they would consider it necessary to investigate the whole system of Indian policy under the different governments for many years past—The motion was agreed to, and a committee of 21 members appointed.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The order of the day was read, for resuming the adjourned debate on the Orders in Council bill.
Mr. A. Baringspoke against the bill. He thought it was unjust as to neutrals, and inexpedient as a measure. The chief ground taken by ministers was stated in the preamble to the Orders in Council, to be, that the government of France had issued certain decrees. The question was, how far we were justified in making neutrals suffer for this. No retaliation could, in his opinion, be justified on the principle assumed by ministers, that neutrals must take the consequences of the retaliation which had become necessary on the part of this country. Mr. Armstrong, the American minister at Paris, had applied to the minister of marine in France, on the subject, and was informed by him that the Decrees were not to be acted upon with respect to America. No better authority could be applied to, and it was not necessary for him to enquire farther. We had, therefore, rashly cast away the American trade. He answered the arguments that had been urged on the subject of premiums on insurance; he thought that we ought to have waited another month to see how the Americans would act, and was of opinion, that if the doctrine of ministers was admitted, it would be impossible that neutrals could carry on any trade whatever.
Mr. Rosedenied that any inflammatory language had been used on his side of the house with respect to America; and expressed a wish that the gentlemen opposite would beware of attempting to persuade America, that a disposition existed in the present government to provoke war with that country. No man deprecated such an event more than he did, and yet he denied that the benefits resulting from American neutrality were so great as they had been represented. It had been said, that the Americans were the chief instruments in conveying our manufactures to the continent. This, however, was not the fact, and there were many present who knew it as well is he did. The exports to America had been stated at ten millions. They were certainly upwards of nine millions, but of these not much above half were consumed there, and therefore, the Americans were our carriers to a considerable extent; but in case of a war with America, there were other channels by which the surplus above the consumption of America could be carried to the places where it was wanted.
The Solicitor Generaldeprecated the taunts and aspersions thrown out against the good faith, honour, and morality, of the existing government of the country; aspersions at all times mischievous, but at the present awful crisis, alarmingly dangerous, as calculated to excite a distrust in the people, that might be attended with fatal consequences. The learned gent. then contended, that the question of municipal law had been given up by the other side, and that there was not an authority in any one book, from the earliest times of the history of this country, to justify the objection of the law of nations being violated in the Orders in Council. He proceeded at length to invalidate the objections to, and justify the arguments in favour of the justice, policy, and legality of the Orders in Council.
Mr. Grattanwas of opinion, that the name of the country, and the character of the country, were the only strength which it retained upon the continent; and that whatever was fatal to its character, must be fatal to its interests. Viewing the measure before the house as inconsistent with justice, and of course, injurious to the character of England, he felt himself bound to oppose it. He deprecated the idea of acting upon the principles of France, by pursuing the system which gave birth to this measure, and thus taking away the best
1074
of our friends, by involving us in war with America. No measure should he more studiously avoided by England, than that which threatened to deprive us of the affections of America or was likely to lead to a war with America or was likely to lead to a war with country. For the effect of a war with America, would be to render the interests of America, would be to render the interests of France triumphant, and to engage our fleets in the service of the enemy. None of the arguments of the learned gent. who preceded him, served to shew that the empire would be benefited in its financial, commercial, manufacturing, or political interests, by these Orders in Council, while the evils they menaced were obvious. There were two capital faults in the speech of the learned gent. the one of law, the other of fact. He was erroneous in his definition of the law of nations, and his conception of the principles of the late ministers. For the law of nations could never sustain the notion, that because the decree of one belligerent might affect the interest of neutrals, the other belligerent was warranted in controuling the trade of neutrals altogether. And in order to understand the principles of the late ministers, gentlemen had only to look to the letter of lord Howick to Mr. Erskine, and to the memorial of lord Holland and lord Auckland to the American commissioners, from both of which it would be seen that the further proceeding which the late ministers proposed to take against neutrals, were only in case they acquiesced in the French decree. They did not call upon neutrals to resist that decree, as the learned gent. argued; and therefore the assertion was unfounded, that the present ministers acted upon the principles of their predecessors. According to these principles, America, not having acquiesced, should not have been proceeded against upon the grounds stated. Indeed, the faith of the British government was pledged to America in the dispatches he had referred to, that no such proceedings should be. taken.—The right hon. gent. laughed at the idea of reducing the tone of the enemy, or pressing him to peace, by any privations the operation of this bill might produce upon the continent. We might refuse our jesuits' bark to the French soldiers; we might inflict pains and penalties by the acrimony of statutes upon those who were saved from the severity war; but the calculation was contemptible, that by such an expedient, or by refusing tea and sugar, we could coerce the French or Spaniards, or least

1075
of all Buonaparte. On the contrary, we should only enable that potentate to injure our reputation and inflame the prejudices of his subjects against us. Therefore this measure would not injure the enemy, while it would expose us to odium.—With regard to the commercial effects of the bill before the house, the question was, whether it would be politic in us to deprive France of her commerce? Such might be the policy -of Buonaparte, but it could not be ours; for France deprived of commerce, would become more formidable to us; she would become a nation of soldiers. But if the commerce of the continent were done away, what was to become of the commerce of England? France and England would return to their natural relations, and if so, the advantage must be on the side of the enemy; therefore it was quite absurd for England to talk of destroying commerce.—But the effect of this measure upon Ireland was peculiarly alarming, and must be more so. Flax seed, so essential to her staple trade, was, in the proportion of four-fifths of her annual consumption, imported from America, as appeared from accounts on the table. It was said that the stoppage of the continental trade would give the Irish trade an advantage, by excluding the competition of the linens of Germany; but what was the fact? At the last Irish market the sale of linen was not beyond one-fifth of its usual quantity, while its price was depreciated at the rate of ten per cent. for home consumption, and twenty per cent. for the foreign market. Another, and a serious injury to Ireland, would result from the loss of its commerce with America, in consequence of the supply of staves; one of those articles which she annually used in her provision trade, and for other purposes, and imported from that country. Ireland, therefore, must be peculiarly affected by an American war; indeed, she suffered so much by the Orders in Council, that should they be persisted in, some separate provision ought to be made for that country.—An American war, however, appeared to the right hon. gent. to be much more dangerous on other grounds than any that could arise out of mere commercial considerations. He called upon the British parliament to consider the consequences of separating Great Britain and America, and thus dividing and weakening the only force that remained in the world, to sustain the character of liberty, to hol5d out hopes to the continent. The
1076
right hon. gent. concluded with exhorting gentlemen to reflect, that any loss to America or England, would but add to the accumulated gains of France, would but advance the strength of that power which was equally the enemy of both.
Mr. Bankesmaintained, that, as far as any other nation was concerned, we were not guilty of any violation of the principle of justice by our adoption of the present measure. But, when he looked at it in a commercial view, as far as regarded our own manufactures, he confessed that he, for one, was deficient in information as to that point; it was not unlikely that some other gentlemen might he in a similar predicament.—After some further debate the house then divided for the third reading of the bill; Ayes, 168; Noes, 68; Majority 100.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.
The Earl of Moiraon moving the second reading of this bill, urged the necessity of resorting to some measure for the amendment of the law of debtor and creditor,

1069
and for the prevention of that misery, and those numerous ill effects, which resulted from long continued imprisonment for debt. The noble earl explained the objects of his bill, as relating to arrest on mesne process, and imprisonment in execution, in both of which the intention was to shorten the duration of imprisonment; in the former, by compelling the plaintiff, where the writ was issued in one term and returnable in the next, to declare in the term of the return, and to proceed to trial in the succeeding term; and in the latter, by releasing the debtors at certain specified times, at the quarter sessions, on assigning over their property in possession and reversion, and also rendering their future property liable. The latter mode was the principle of the cessio bonorum introduced into the Roman law by Cæsar, and subsequently, after a long experience, adopted- by Justinian. A similar law had long prevailed in Holland and in Denmark, where it had been found equally efficacious. His lordship stated a variety of instances, in which persons imprisoned for small debts had experienced a great aggravation of their imprisonment by the costs with which they were charged; and instanced many cases where prisoners were unable to raise the money necessary to obtain that relief to which they were entitled by law. Thus, out of 700 annually released by the Thatched-house society, there were, on the average, about 130 who were unable to pay the expences of suing for the allowance under the lords act; and about 50 who, though supersedable, were unable to raise the money necessary to sue for their supersedeas. He condemned generally the principle of placing a debtor to the mercy of a creditor, who might indefinitely imprison him; and trusted their lordships would agree to the proposed alteration in the law.
Lord Ellenboroughcondemned any attempt to innovate upon a long established law, without taking a clear and comprehensive view of the whole of the bearings of the question. This had not been done in the present bill, which had been drawn up (not, of course, by the noble earl) with a great ignorance of the law, and with provisions which could not be carried into effect without great injustice and injury. His lordship went through the different clauses of the bill, for the purpose of shewing that they were wholly inadequate to their proposed object. A plaintiff was at present obliged to declare within two
1070
terms; and as to arrest, it was, generally speaking, the best means of producing a payment or a composition of the debt, and did produce that effect in five cases out of six. The creditor was more frequently an object of compassion than the debtor, from the frauds practised on him. He was decidedly hostile to the bill, and thought it ought riot to go to a committee.
Lord Hollandcombated the objection of innovation. To hold that every thing which fell from judge Hale must be correct, was rather paying too high a respect to the doctrines and opinion of that learned judge. If his lordship recollected well, judge Hale had been hostile to the repeal of the laws against witchcraft; and indeed, the doctrine of the noble and learned lord went to this, that no alteration whatever, in our law or practice, ought to take place; in fact, that their lordships and the other house ought not to meet for the purposes of legislation. He hoped as opinions of celebrated men were to be quoted, he might be allowed to notice the opinion of a justly celebrated man, and who in the latter years of his life, at least, could hardly be suspected of favouring innovations. That able and enlightened man was well known to have been peculiarly partial to the general principle of the measure now proposed by his-noble friend. Another great man, Dr. Johnson, had also expressed himself decidedly on this subject, and declared that imprisonment for debt ought not to be suffered, unless for the purpose of compelling a surrender of the debtor's effects. As to the evils resulting from the present system, they were so numerous, and at the same time so apparent, that it was hardly necessary for him even to allude to them. One striking proof of the absurdity of the present law was to be found in the frequency of insolvent acts. If the legislature were not aware that there was something peculiarly offensive in continued imprisonment for debt, why should it pass these acts of insolvency? All suspensions of any established law were to be reprobated, and it was infinitely preferable that the law should be at once repealed, than that it should be repeatedly violated. Surely, it would not be said that these insolvent acts were passed merely as a matter of convenience, and that-one set of persons were liberated solely for the purpose of making room for another. The number of persons at present confined for debt in the metropolis, was, stated as being by no means compa-

1071

ratively great. He begged it to be remarked, however, that the Thatched House society was not a national institution; of course, any relief granted by them did not proceed from the benignity of our laws, which had thus provided a partial remedy for a great evil. It was calculated that this society liberated 700 persons annually, who, but for this institution, must have formed an addition to those at present confined for debt, and from the best computation his lordship could make, would increase that number to about 10,500. His lordship did not pretend to be, by any means, so well qualified as his noble and learned friend, to judge what would be the best mode of giving effect to the measure now proposed; he could not, however, abstain from expressing his surprise and concern that those noble and learned persons, whose peculiar province it was to endeavour to render the law of the land as unexceptionable as possible, should shew so great reluctance to bring forward a bill which might meet their own ideas on the subject.
Earl Moirareplied generally to the arguments of lord Ellenborough, when the house divided on the question for the second reading: Contents 5: Non contents 9: Majority 4.—The bill was accordingly thrown out.