Sitting of 16 March 1808

SUSSEX ELECTION PETITION.
Sir A. Piggott,pursuant to notice, rose to move, that the petitioners who prayed by petition, yesterday, to be admitted as parties to defend the seat of Mr. Fuller against the petition of Mr. Sergison, the defence of which had been abandoned by the sitting member, do, on or before the 21st of March, exchange lists with the original petitioner, of the persons whose votes were to be objected to, together with the several heads of the objection against the names of each person intended to be objected against, to be delivered to the agent or agents of the respective parties. The petition of Mr. Sergison, he observed, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 24th, and the Election Judicature bill enacted, that petitioners claiming to be heard as parties in defence of an aban-

1157
doned seat, were to be considered, to all intents and purposes, in the place of the sitting member. As the resolutions of the house, therefore, required that lists of objectionable votes should be exchanged between the sitting member and the petitioner against his return, within a reasonable time, he trusted that the house would, in this instance, see the necessity of appointing some day for the exchange of such list between the original petitioner and the parties who had succeeded to the place of the sitting member in the defence of the seat. He should therefore move, that the said lists be exchanged on the 21st instant.
Mr. Huskissonthought that the house had to consider two points upon the present question; 1st, Whether it was competent to the house to fix any day for the exchange of the lists demanded; and 2dly, whether there was sufficient time for so doing. The petition against the election of Mr. Fuller, had been within the proper period presented in last session, and had been regularly renewed in the present. It was not the duty of the sitting member to call for any exchange of lists, and the petitioner had neglected to do so until the sitting member had declared his intention to abandon the defence of the seat, which was on the eve of the day on which the petition was ordered to be taken into consideration. If the sitting member had persevered in the defence of his seat, no lists could be exchanged, because a motion to that effect could not be made without notice; and the house was aware that, as no such notice had been given before the eve of the day for taking the petition into consideration, it could not be available if given on that day, because the ballot for the committee must precede all other business on the subsequent day. As the petitioners, therefore, were by the act placed, to all intents and purposes, in the place of the sitting member, and no lists could be demanded under these circumstances from the sitting member, he contended that no lists could, according to the provisions of the act, or the usage of the house, be demanded from the petitioners. They were required to defend the seat only against the other allegations of the original petition, and were not obliged to enter into any scrutiny of objected votes. The house, too, would do well therefore to reflect, as to the second question, respecting the time mow remaining for exchanging, what a situation they would place the petitioners
1158
in, if they should call upon them within three days from this day to exchange lists of a poll that lasted 15 days, in a county 80 miles long, and in which 8000 electors had polled. The petitioners too had had the opinion of very eminent professional characters to direct them in the course they had taken, and the impression they entertained, that they should not be called upon to give or exchange lists.
Mr. Tierneydid not pretend to be lawyer enough to determine how far the opinion of the counsel alluded to by the hon. gent. was correct; but of this he was certain, that if the house consulted its own honour, it would not give effect to the present attempt. It was well known a month before Mr. Fuller gave in his declaration in writing, that he did not intend to defend his return. It was natural therefore for col. Sergison to say, 'Why should I put myself to expence, or the house to trouble, till I see if any other person will undertake to defend the return? If the freeholders do so, I know I have 30 days within which to demand an exchange of lists.' The effect of precluding col. S. from this right, would just amount to this; that a sitting member, against whom a petition was presented, had only to allege his resolution not to defend his seat; give in a declaration to that effect, immediately before the day fixed upon for the ballot; and prevail on a freeholder to step forward and ask leave to defend the return; thus the petitioner complaining of his return would no longer be at liberty to attack him, and the house itself would be made a party to the imposture.
Mr. C. Wynnethought the present a question of considerable importance. It had occurred rather unexpectedly, and therefore, he wished the debate on it postponed till to-morrow, that gentlemen might he better prepared on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to indulging the hon. gent. with the delay proposed. As to the point itself, however, he had no doubt. The question was simply this; should col. Sergison stand in a better situation now, than if Mr. Fuller were himself defending the return? If Mr. F. had not declined, col. S. not having in due time applied for an exchange of lists, could not afterwards have insisted on it.
Mr. Ponsonby and sir A. Piggott resisted the position that the petitioner against a sitting member was not, at any time before balloting for the committee, entitled to

1159
an exchange of lists: such exchange was made partly for convenience, and partly for the dispatch of business; and even if omitted to be applied for in that house, or there refused, the committee had a right to inquire into the legality of votes, and even to order the exchange of lists; they being by their oaths required to declare the person having a majority of legal votes duly elected, not to exclude all evidence on the subject.—After some farther discussion, the debate was adjourned till to-morrow.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL IN IRELAND.
Lord H. Petty begged to know when it was the intention of ministers to bring in the Bill for carrying into effect the Orders in Council in Ireland?
Mr. Fosterdeclared, that as the bill for Ireland was to be the same in every respect with the bill for carrying into effect the same Orders in Council in this country, he only waited to know finally what the regulations of the bill for this country would be, in order to bring forward the bill for Ireland.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that as the bill was to be founded on the resolution of the committee of ways and means, which had passed some time since, there was no occasion for delay in bringing it forward. Whatever alteration might be made in the bill for this country, the resolution upon which the bill for Ireland was to be brought in was clear, and there was no reason whatever for waiting for any changes or regulations which might be made in another measure in another place.
Mr. Fosterreplied, that he should undoubtedly bring forward the bill founded on the resolutions of the committee of ways and means, and with such provisions and regulations as should appear to him most likely to be effectual for the collection of the duties to be imposed by the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that gentlemen on his side of the house were anxious to bring in the bill in question as early as possible. If gentlemen on the other side were surprised at the delay which had taken place in doing so, he must be allowed to be equally surprised that they should now regret any delay which took place—delay having hitherto been so much their object.
Several gentlemen rose at once, and, amongst; Others, M r. Tierney, who proceeded to address the house, but was called to by the Speaker, who submitted that
1160
there had been no question for some time before the house.
Mr. Fosterrose, now that this conversation was finished, to move the order of the day for the house going into a committee on the Fourth Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry in Ireland.
Mr. Tierneywished still to be heard on the former subject.
The Speakerinformed the hon. member, there was now a question before the house on which he might be heard.
Mr. Tierneythen observed, that he should take the opportunity of calling the attention of the house to the manner in which he had been prevented from replying to a personal observation made upon him.

KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING SWEDEN.
The house having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and his majesty's Message being referred to the said committee,
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that as he did not expect that any opposition would be made to the proposition which he should have the honour to make, he did not think it necessary to preface it with many observations. He should, therefore, simply mention the circumstances connected with the subsidy stipulated to be granted to the king of Sweden, together with the grounds on which the engagement had been entered into, trusting that the liberality and wisdom of the house would enable his majesty to make good these engagements. The fidelity and steadiness of the king of Sweden in adhering in every circumstance, and under every change of fortune, to his connection with this country, was matter of universal admiration. It was true, that the circumstance of' this fidelity, exciting admiration, was not of itself a sufficient ground on which to grant pecuniary assistance. But the fact was, that the former treaty of Subsidy which had for its object the defence of Pomerania alone, expired as soon as the king of Sweden withdrew his force from Germany. The engagements which it contained were formed with a view to his co-operation with this country and the other powers of the north of Europe in that particular spot, and this force having been withdrawn in the month of Oct. last, the arrears of subsidy were paid up, and from that time down to the signing of the late treaty, his Swedish majesty had neither asked nor received any pecuniary succours from G. Britain. In

1161
the interval, a case had arisen in which his Swedish majesty had been called on, not merely to conclude a peace with France, but to join the confederacy against this country; which proposition he had not hesitated to reject, and, in consequence of the rejection of this proposition, he was now placed in the situation of being obliged to defend his own dominions. In these circumstances, this country, he thought, was bound by every consideration, whether moral or political, to come forward to his aid, and trusting that upon this general proposition there would be no difference of opinion, he should simply state the engagements that had been contracted. In the greater number of treaties of subsidy which had been contracted with foreign powers, the subsidies had been granted to procure the active co-operation of such powers in carrying on offensive hostilities against the common enemy. But in the present case, certain pecuniary succours were stipulated to be granted to a power not for the purpose of achieving conquest, but to enable that power to defend its own dominions, which were attacked in consequence of its steady attachment to British interests. Such a treaty of subsidy was not, however, unprecedented in its nature. A similar subsidy had been granted to the king of Prussia in the 7 years war. In other treaties of subsidy it had been usual to stipulate the amount of the force to be employed by the power subsidized, and the particular periods at which that force was to be brought into the field. But in the present case, as well as in the treaty of subsidy with the king of Prussia, to which he had just referred, it had been thought unnecessary to clog the treaty with any such stipulation. The only difference there was between the present treaty and the model on which it was formed was, that in the present instance government had reserved to itself a power of controul, by making it payable in monthly instalments, which was not reserved in the other, the whole sum having been advanced to the king of Prussia at once, leaving him to dispose of it as he judged proper. The whole sum stipulated to be advanced was 1,200,000 l.; 100,000 l. of which had been already advanced out of the vote of credit of last year, he therefore concluded with moving a Resolution, that 1,100,000 l. be granted to his majesty, to enable his majesty to fulfil the engagements contracted with the king of Sweden.
Mr. Whitbreadrose for the purpose, not of objecting to a subsidy to the king of Sweden, but of declaring his sentiments respecting the actual situation of that monarch. Much as he admired the fidelity of his Swedish majesty, he did not think it superior to that which had been displayed by Austria; and if the king of Sweden was reduced to the same situation in which both Austria and Russia had been reduced, by the pressure of the war, he did not think it would be any impeachment of the honour and character of that prince, if he were to conclude a peace as they had done. He was of opinion, that the wisest policy which the king of Sweden could pursue in the present circumstances, would be to conclude a peace with France. And it was highly important for the government of this country to consider, that by offering him an inducement to persevere in the war, it might be contributing to bring him into a situation in which be might be obliged to accept of terms of peace much more disadvantageous than those he might now obtain. He reprobated in strong terms that article of the treaty which stipulated that the king of Sweden should not conclude a peace, or even a truce, with his enemies, without the concurrence of this country. Either this article was meant to be observed, in which case it might be attended with ruinous consequences to that monarch; or it meant nothing at all; and in this view he thought it highly blameable to bring such engagements into disrepute, by making them merely for the purpose of being broken. If it was binding upon one party, it was binding also upon the other; and would the right hon. secretary contend, that if a favourable opportunity occurred for this country's negotiating a peace with France, and the advisers of the king of Sweden should object to our availing ourselves of it, the British government ought to consider such an interference as an insurmountable obstacle in the way of negotiation? A similar engagement was contracted in the course of the last war with the king of Sardinia, by which we had bound ourselves not to conclude a peace with France, but upon the express condition, that he was to be reinstated in the whole of his dominions. This engagement was violated by the treaty of Amiens, and thus had brought disgrace upon the country. He did not mean to say, that we had acted wrong in concluding the peace of Amiens, but he insisted that we

1163
had acted extremely wrong in contracting an engagement which we were then obliged to. violate. Upon that article of the treaty, which stipulated, that an auxiliary force shall be sent to the king of Sweden, he observed, that a rumour had gone abroad, that a large force was to be sent by government to the Baltic, and now it was reported that this expedition was countermanded. He did not pretend to know the intention of the king's ministers upon this subject; but the particular mention made in the treaty, of the king of Sweden keeping his flotilla in readiness to act, shewed that there had been some idea of co-operation on the part of this country; a measure from which no good could possibly result either to him or to us. The hon. gent. next adverted to what he considered as a great omission in the treaty, namely, that it contained no stipulation on the part of the king of Sweden to co-operate in giving effect to the Orders in Council. This omission he thought the more remarkable, as the treaty concluded in 1801 at Stockholm, between this country and Sweden, did contain certain commercial articles; and he could not conceive, if his Swedish majesty's dispositions were such as they had been represented, why some stipulation of the nature of that to which he alluded, had not been introduced into the present treaty. He was of opinion also, that it would have been better, that ministers should have applied to the house of commons from time to time, to enable them to grant such pecuniary aid to the king of Sweden, as circumstances might require, than to ask the house to vote a large sum at once. If an Address had been moved to his majesty, he meant to have moved an amendment to that Address, in the spirit of the sentiments which he had now expressed; but as he understood, that it was not the intention of the right hon. secretary to adopt this mode of proceeding, he had himself drawn up an Address conformably to these sentiments, which, he should move when the Speaker resumed the chair, for the purpose of recording his opinion. In this Address he expressed his disapprobation of that article in the treaty in which it was stipulated, that the king of Sweden should not conclude a separate treaty with France; and his surprize at the omission in some stipulations in the treaty on the part of Sweden, to co-operate in giving effect to the Orders of Council; it also contained an opinion, that it would be better to vote pecuniary
1164
succours from time to time to the king of Sweden as circumstances might arise, than to vote a large subsidy at once.
Mr. Secretary Canningput it to the house, whether it would be liberal and wise to dole out its bounty in small and illiberal pittances as had been proposed by the hon. gent. and whether it was not going far enough to make our assistance gradual, though it was not also arbitrarily bestowed. All that was meant by the article in the treaty by which it was stipulated that Sweden should not conclude a separate peace was, that this should not be done without the consent of the British government. And as to the omission of an express stipulation respecting carrying into effect the Orders in Council, he said that government had not only received the most satisfactory assurances on this head, but that the Swedish minister in this country was to be empowered by his government to arrange the details connected with this business, which could be more conveniently done here than in Sweden.
Mr. Ponsonbywas of opinion, that it would have been better to have given a sum at once to the king of Sweden, proportioned to his claims upon this country, than to give him a monthly subsidy, which, by inducing him to persevere in the contest, might lead eventually to his ruin. He had never had but one opinion respecting the subsidies which this country had granted to the powers of the continent, viz. that it would have been better for us to make a voluntary sacrifice of some advantages, than to have bestowed money in inducing them to enter into, or to persevere in, a contest, the invariable result of which had been to promote the aggrandizement of France. The wisest thing which ministers could do in the present circumstances, was to advise the king of Sweden to make peace with France as soon as possible: for even supposing, that in consequence of this event, that power should be compelled to join the confederacy against us, her co-operation would be feeble and reluctant, and therefore much less formidable to this country, than after France and Russia shall have succeeded in getting possession of all her means, and be thus enabled to employ them as they may think fit.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, the present treaty was intended to enable Sweden to defend herself, not by any instigation of ours, but, from a sense of the fidelity and

1165
attachment which she had uniformly shewn to this country throughout the war, to assist her to make the best struggle in her power to extricate herself from the state into which she had fallen, from the circumstances and events of the war, without any responsibility of ours.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. gent. allowed Sweden was brought into her present situation not by any persuasion of ours, but by the events of the war: she had, therefore, no call on us. He was happy to find there did not appear to be in the mind of the right hon. gent. any wish to induce Sweden to make an obstinate resistance.
The Secretary at Warcited the case of Portugal, to prove that no purchased peace could afford security against the arbitrary proceedings of France. Portugal had repeatedly purchased her neutrality, yet after all that country was seized and subdued by Buonaparte. As long as Sweden could defend herself, it was an advantage to G. Britain as well as to herself to enable her to hold out.
Lord H. Pettywished the money to be given to his majesty's ministers in the shape of a vote of credit, to be by them applied according as they should find it necessary and proper to make the advances. The right of either party to make peace, ought to have been kept perfectly free. If the Orders in Council were to be the law, it was essential to take the best measures for their complete execution. He had great satisfaction in thinking that this money was advanced to Sweden merely for the purpose of defending herself and procuring peace, and not for the purpose of exciting useless and destructive wars.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it seemed to him that which way soever ministers had made the treaty, they would have been, equally unlikely to meet with the approbation of the hon. gentlemen opposite; for they all differed in opinion with each other. The first hon. gent. thought it better to keep the money under the controul of parliament. The second was for granting it all at once to buy a peace; and the noble lord came in between these two extremes, and wished to have it as a vote of credit. In one part of the argument, they had contended, that Sweden could not make any effectual struggle, but must be compelled to make peace; and in another they insisted, that if we wished to make peace, Sweden might refuse to do so, and reproach us for at-
1166
tempting such a measure without her consent. He thought the very able and ample manner in which his right hon. friend had explained the subject, was a sufficient elucidation of it, and was convinced ministers were not likely to have obtained the entire acquiescence of the hon. gentlemen opposite, let them have acted how they would.
Mr. W. Smiththought that as this was a bare treaty of subsidy, there ought not to be tacked to it any stipulations about binding this country not to conclude peace but in concert with Sweden. He thought, at all events, that at the same time that those political negotiations were going forward, there ought to have been a convention for arranging commercial objects.
The Resolution was agreed to, and the report was ordered to be received tomorrow.
Mr. Whitbreadthen moved the following Address, which was negatived without a division: viz. "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty, that his faithful commons, always desirous of supporting the dignity of his majesty's crown, and the faith of engagements contracted by his majesty with foreign powers, will make good the Subsidy granted by his majesty to the king of Sweden. Nevertheless, his majesty's faithful commons feel it be their duty, to represent to his majesty; that in the present state of the contest with his majesty's enemies, his faithful commons would have been better satisfied to have answered such calls for pecuniary aid as his majesty might have thought expedient to make upon this house, for the purpose of assisting the king of Sweden, under such exigences as his fidelity to G. Britain may bring upon him, rather than to make any grant resulting from the terms of a specific convention. Humbly to represent to his majesty, that his faithful commons have seen, with great concern, by the 3d Article of the Convention with the king of Sweden, which his majesty has been most graciously pleased to direct should be laid upon the table of this house, that his majesty has bound himself 'not to conclude any peace or truce, or convention of neutrality with the enemy, except in concert and by mutual agreement with the king Of Sweden.' A species of engagement, which, as it appears to his majesty's faithful commons, ought never to be entered into excepting upon the most mature deliberation, and when the relative-situation of the contracting parties is far different

1167
from that in which G. Britain and Sweden now stand. That the experience of such contracts, made in the course of the late war with France, tend to prove that they cannot be binding on the weaker of the two contracting parties, because no manner of obligation can bind a state to its utter ruin; and in the peculiar situation in which Sweden now stands, it appears to this house, but too probable, that all the efforts of his majesty may not be sufficient to preserve her from submission to her enemies, whilst, on the other hand, the perseverance of Sweden in the contest, can in no way be beneficial to G. Britain, and the article in question may throw difficulties in the way of negociation for the restoration of the blessings of peace.—To represent to his majesty the surprize of this house, at not finding in the Treaty submitted to its consideration, any Article of Commercial Regulation between the two countries. His majesty's ministers having represented to this house, that the best hope of success, in the present contest, depended upon certain measures affecting the commerce of neutral nations, which are manifestly and avowedly impracticable without the co-operation of Sweden. It was natural to expect, that at a time when Sweden is to be defended with the blood and treasure of G. Britain, some stipulation should have been required from her, that she would not render totally ineffectual the measure which his majesty's ministers have repeatedly declared to be most efficacious, now remaining to be used against France.—That his majesty's faithful commons are the more disappointed at this omission in the present Treaty, because by the 5th Article of the Secret Convention entered into between his majesty and the king of Sweden, and signed at Stockholm on the 3d of Dec. 1804, it appears that commercial arrangements had become matter of discussion between the two powers, and that 'New points, whereby the commercial interests of the two countries might be more closely connected, were reserved for a particular act.'—ln these circumstances his majesty's faithful commons do freely grant to his majesty the supply necessary to make good the promise of his majesty's royal word, but at the same time they deeply lament, that such engagements should have been entered into as may tend to embarrass this country in negotiation: and, that stipulations are altogether left out, the omission of which may defeat the means now relied
1168
upon by his majesty's ministers for the successful prosecution of the war."
[JESUITS' BARK BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Whitbreadrepeated his objections to the bill, which he characterised as a moat abominable measure, calculated only to hold the country up to universal execration. It was the first attempt to put on the statute book any of those ideas which evidently shewed that the moral character of England had been gradually deteriorating. One of those ideas was that infamous one, some time ago so prevalent, that in case of invasion no quarter should be given to the French troops, but that they should be all massacred, or confined for life to work, in mines and coal pits. The object of the bill was, like the old one of hedging in the cuckoo,' impossible. Great quantities of bark were on the continent, and he read a Parisian price current, to shew that bark was much lower in price there than what had been stated. There were, in this country, above a million of pounds of bark, which, in another sense of the word, had become a mere 'drug,' and it was impossible to sell it on any terms whatever. This bark had been imported under licenses from government. Several persons had invested their whole property in this article, and had, in his opinion, a right to call on his majesty's ministers to require that the public should take it all into their hands. Were they to be consumed for the purpose of carrying into execution the vengeance of the country? Were they to be treated as shells, the explosion of which involved their own destruction? The bill united in itself detestable cruelty with absurd folly. He therefore opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair.
Sir C. Pricedefended the policy of the measure, and contended that it was perfectly justifiable as a mode of warfare. To his certain knowledge, yellow bark had been purchased in London at 10s. per lb. and after having paid 30 per cent. insurance had sold for a considerable profit in France. The withholding of this article must give a facility to the introduction of our manufactures, and in this point of view the measure was most humane, as it tended to relieve the distresses of our manufacturers. The opposition to this measure was part of that systematic plan of thwarting the measures of govern-

1169
ment, so undeviatingly pursued by the hon. gentlemen opposite, who, in addition to their proceedings in the house, had, by letters and otherwise, instigated the presentation of petitions for peace.
Mr. M. A. Taylorasked by what right the hon. aldermen accused any member of a disposition to thwart the measures of government. Such an insinuation should never deter him from expressing his sentiments on any bill that might be submitted to the consideration of the house. This bill contained a proposition most degrading to the country, namely, to carry our hostility into the chambers of the sick. He denied that any attempt had been made on his side of the house to promote petitions for peace; on the contrary, they had discouraged such petitions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentered into a general defence of the bill, which he contended was not more devoid of humanity, than the bill for prohibiting the exportation of cotton wool, or any other measure which must operate in the first instance most heavily upon the poor of the enemies country, and only circuitously on the government whom it was most desirable to affect. He repeated, that the evils would not he attributable to this country, for that the French government would always have it in their power to remove them by pursuing a reasonable line of conduct.
Mr. W. Smithargued against the bill, which he contended would extend those evils by which war was rendered so horrible, and would tend to re-plunge the world into a state of barbarism.
Sir W. Elforddefended the bill. The principle on which it had been opposed went to this length, that we ought to turn our artillery from the enemy, for a bullet was at least as fatal as a dysentery. We had a right to use every means by which the government of a hostile country might be induced to conclude a reasonable peace.
Mr. S. Lushingtonsaid, that the principle of the bill met with his most severe reprobation. It would have been better to have withheld from the French the cloathing which it was well known they had obtained from this country.
Mr. Gordondefended the bill. There was at present a depot of bark in this country equal to the consumption of 3 years; and he was convinced that France, and the other nations of the continent, must eventually resort to us for a supply of that article.
1170
After some further discussion the house then divided, For the Speaker's leaving the chair 92; Against it 29; Majority 63. The bill then passed through a committee.

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDUCT OF THE SPEAKER.
Mr. Secretary Canningwished, before the house rose, to put a question to a right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney) on the opposite bench. Feeling, as he was persuaded the house also did, a very great interest in every thing which related to the conduct of the person who filled the Chair, and discharged its very arduous duties so highly to their satisfaction, he could not reconcile it to those feelings to have that conduct arraigned, without—
Mr. Tierneysaid, he rose to order, and observed that there was no question before the house.
Mr. Canningcontended, that by the practice of the house he was entitled to put the question he intended. The question was, whether the right hon. gent. in consequence of what had occurred in an early stage of the sitting proposed to give notice of any motion on the subject?
Mr. Tierneyavowed that it was his intention in future to prevent that species of debate which was called conversation, unless there was some specific motion before the house, or some understanding established as to the latitude which should he allowed in it. He had felt the inconvenience of being interrupted, at a moment when he was extremely anxious to rescue himself from the charge of inconsistency. The attacks made upon him in that house by the right hon. gent. in perfect good humour, no doubt, he could have well passed by; but he felt some solicitude to obviate the impression which they might make out of doors, if they were allowed to go unrefuted. It was not his intention to make any motion on the subject, but to avail himself of his privilege, as a member of that house, and take the remedy into his own hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdetailed the circumstances attending the conversation, and inferred that the irregularity commenced with the right hon. gent.'s observations on what he termed the inconsistency of his majesty's ministers. He felt it his duty to retaliate the charge, and here the conversation was stopped, and he conceived properly stopped, by the Chair.
Mr. Secretary Canningobserved, that a

1171
conversation of that kind became irregular as soon as it was formally taken notice of. By the observation of his right hon. friend (Mr. Foster), who had said, that 'the conversation being at an end, he would move, &c.' that notice had been taken, and the Speaker, in the impartial prosecution of his duty, was compelled, to prevent the right hon. gent. from proceeding.
Lord H. Pettymaintained that his right hon. friend, by a rigorous exercise of the orders of the house, had been deprived of an opportunity of refuting a charge preferred against him.
The Speakeraddressed the house nearly in the following terms:—My conduct having been brought before the judgment of the house, accompanied with no indistinct charge of partiality, I trust I shall be excused for offering a few words to the house on the subject. It has ever been the usage of the house, and it has been found a most convenient usage, to permit questions to be asked, tending to facilitate the arrangement of business. An occurrence of this nature took place this day. The noble lord put a question to a right hon. gent. to which question an answer was given. A right hon. gent. then rose, whose knowledge of the forms and customs of the house induced me to presume, that he would not pass beyond the limits which the occasion prescribed. I find no difficulty in saying, more especially as that right hon. gent. has himself made the acknowledgment, that before the termination of his address, he did pass those limits. The language which that right honourable gent. used called up a right hon. gent. on the opposite side, who replied to him. At that moment several hon. members rose. Had that which then took place not occurred, I frankly state I should have felt it my duty to have put an end to the conversation; but when one of the hon. gentlemen who rose distinctly spoke of the conversation, no choice was left me on the subject. I therefore interrupted the conversation, and on proceeding to read the orders of the day, a question being open, the right hon. gent. rose in his place, and declared that which he had just stated. This was the proceeding as accurately as I can relate it to the house. I appeal to their judgment whether my conduct is liable to the charge of partiality. It may be so, but if it is I own I am not conscious of it. Having been four times raised by the free choice
1172
of the house to the Chair which I now occupy, and in which I have sat for 7 years, I have the consolation to reflect, that this is the first time that any imputation of such a nature has been ascribed to me. I hope that as long as it is the pleasure of the house that I should occupy the honourable situation which I now hold, I may remain free from such an imputation. It is for the house to judge whether I am so free or not; and it is for the house to declare whether they will in future allow the continuance of that usage which has given rise to the present occurrence. When I am instructed what is their pleasure, it will be my duty to conform to those instructions, and to enforce obedience to them, as well as to all the other orders of the house. The house will, I am sure, pardon me for detaining their attention so long on a subject which I own has deeply pained me, although I am not conscious in the course which I have pursued, of having deservedly incurred the censure having bestowed on me.—[Loud and reiterated cries from all parts of the house of hear! hear!]
Mr. Secretary Canningthought the discussion would not be satisfactorily terminated, unless the house came to some declaration of their opinion. He rose, therefore, for the purpose of submitting a resolution expressive of the high sense which the house entertained of the services of the right hon. gent. who filled the Chair. They were all witnesses to the ability and impartiality with which he discharged the arduous duties appertaining to it, in times of as violent contentions of parties and turbulent debate as had ever occurred in that house. The right hon. gent. concluded with moving "That this house does highly approve of the upright, able, and impartial conduct of the right hon. C. Abbot in the Chair of this house."
The Speakerhaving put the affirmative of the question in a very low tone of voice, and obviously much agitated, was answered by a vehement burst of Aye from all sides of the house. When he was about to put the negative branch of the proposition),
Mr. Tierneyrose and said, that as an independent member of parliament, and anxious to preserve the privileges of the British parliament, he felt himself bound in honour to say 'No.'
The Resolution was then carried as if by acclamation; Mr. Tierney being the only dissenting voice.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.
The order of the day was read for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of lord Grenville, for rejecting the Orders in Council bill.
Lord Grenville, having on a former evening stated his reasons for moving the rejection of this bill, declined again urging them, but trusted to the indulgence of their lordships to allow him to reply to any arguments that might be urged in the course of the debate.
Lord Hawkesburyobjected to the strictness of construction given to the Standing Order by the noble lord, on a former evening, and contended, that the practice of the house was in direct opposition to the principles urged by the noble lord in support of his motion. His lordship quoted several precedents support of this proposition, some of them in the reign of queen Anne, soon after the passing of the Order; some in the beginning of the reign of his present majesty, and others of recent date, consisting of Bills of Aid and Supply, which contained clauses either not necessary to the object of the bill, or

1149
foreign to and differing from the purpose of the bill, and which were, notwithstanding, agreed to in that house. One instance he quoted was, the Act for carrying into effect the commercial treaty with France, on which a question of rejection on the Standing Order was moved in that house, and negatived. In the Annual Malt Bill, and in the Irish Stamp act passed in 1803, clauses were contained foreign to their purpose. His lordship entered into a detail of these precedents, for the purpose of proving the practice of the house to be in opposition to the noble lord's construction of the Order; and then went through those clauses of the Bill to which objections had been taken, contending, that in no instance could they be considered as bringing the bill within the meaning of the Order. Most of the clauses objected to were, in his opinion, evidently growing out of the bill, as a bill of Aid and Supply; and with respect to the limitation of action, on which most stress had been laid, he denied, that it at all contained an indemnity for issuing the Orders in Council; and that the question of legality might still be tried, although this clause was agreed to. He urged, that it would be unjust to apply the Order to this bill, after a continued practice of a contrary tendency so clearly proved, that the intention of the Order was to apply it in cases where there was an evident intention on the part of the commons to better the discretion of that house, by annexing clauses to Money Bills foreign to their purpose; that a general application of the Order would defeat the object of it; and that it could not, in any fair or just view of the cave, be applied to the present bill.
Lord Erskinecontended, that whatever the practice of the house might have been, it could not set aside the written Orders of the house; practice might decide with respect to unwritten law, because, in that case, the decisions upon the subject declared the law, but where there was a written statute, no practice could set it aside; the written law remained to be referred to, and to shew the course to be pursued. Thus it was with the Standing Order; and he could not conceive what the noble lord meant in arguing that the general application of the order would defeat its object. Was it to be argued, that an order general in its nature, and clearly stating its object, was only to be applied to particular instances, or was it to shew what instances it ought to be applied to?
1150

Either it ought to be applied according to the terms of it, as distinctly stated, or else it ought to be repealed. The precedents quoted by the noble lord were either not in point, as proving only that clauses inserted in bills contrary to this order, had been unnoticed by the house, or else they proved too much; for if they were to be taken as declaring the sense of the house upon this subject, then there was an end of this Standing Order. There were however two instances of recent date in which the house had acted upon this Order, the one in 1789, when lord Thurlow was chancellor, when a bill of Aid and Supply was rejected as containing clauses foreign to its object; and the other in Jan. 1807, when he had the honour of sitting on the woolsack, and of pointing out to the house the necessity of enforcing their Standing Order. As to there being no indemnity contained in the bill, he thought, on the contrary, that if it passed, and supposing the case of ministers being impeached for issuing the Orders in Council, that that house could not, after passing this act as it now stood, find them guilty. His lordship went through those clauses of the bill which were adverted to on Monday evening by lord Grenville, and contended that they were foreign to and different from the object of the bill, as a bill of Aid and Supply, and therefore that the bill, in conformity with the express words and meaning of the Order, ought to be rejected.
Lord Mulgraveinsisted that a rule of the house, like a law, in courts of justice, might be explained by long practice. He perfectly concurred with the argumentative speech of his noble friend, the secretary of state; and trusted that their lordships, always regardful of their own privileges, would not, from any mistaken notions in point of form, delay a bill of the highest importance to the welfare of the British empire.
Lord Hollandanimadverted on the speech of the noble lord who spoke last, who he said, had repeated more feebly the arguments of the noble secretary of state. He said the instances adduced in explanation of the order were not contemporaneous with it, that they were eight or ten years posterior, and that the example of the 9th of queen Anne, on which so much stress had been laid, was after lords Somers and Cowper had left the woolsack, and the seals were in commission; so that it could not be supposed the house could receive the able assistance to

1151
which it had been accustomed, for the preservation of the respect due to the Standing Orders.
Lord Harrowbycontended for the interpretation of the Order as evinced in the practice of the house, immediately subsequent to passing it, as well as in bills of more recent date.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that it was necessary to say a word or two upon the origin of the Standing Order which had been read. During the reigns of Charles II. and William III. in the progress of half a century, numerous attempts had been made by the house of commons to introduce into the house of lords objectionable measures, by connecting them with Money Bills; so that unless their lordships condescended to such measures, the aids for the service of the state were refused. Urged by this endeavour, the house of lords, for the preservation of its own independence, entered on the Journals this Standing Order, and when so adopted it must either be obeyed or repealed. The order itself might require some explanation. The Money Bills therein referred to were easily distinguished: they always originated in a committee of ways and means, as did the Bill now under consideration: they had the preamble, in which the name of the lords' house was excluded, as in this Bill; and when the royal assent was given, it was not 'le roi le veut,' but le roi remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veut;' and so it would be given to this Bill, if it proceeded to that state of maturity. The instances adduced ought to be Money Bills of this description; and if they were not, the Standing Order had no reference to them whatever. Trying, then, the examples or precedents stated by this test, he found that out of eight submitted to the attention of the house, only two or three in the course of a century were applicable to the purpose to which they were referred. If their lordships regarded their own consistency, independence, and dignity, he. thought they could not dispense with the Standing Order on the present occasion, and that the Bill must be rejected.
Lord Melvillecontended, that the practice of the house ought to be taken as the interpretation of the Order, and that therefore, even upon this ground, the bill ought not to be rejected. He had, however, examined the bill, and had put the question to himself, whether there were any clauses in it which were foreign to, or different from its object as a Bill of Aid
1152
and Supply, and in his conscience he believed there were no such clauses.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended, that. no argument had been advanced by the noble lord, to shew that the last clause in the bill, that of indemnity, was a natural part of the bill of Aid and Supply. The noble lord had advanced no reason that could convince any man; he had made it a matter between himself and his conscience—and his conscience was satisfied; but he had not satisfied the understanding of noble lords who heard him.—The noble earl went over the other regulations of the Bill, to shew that they were now totally unconnected with the Supply; and appealed to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, whose peculiar duty it was to watch over the Orders of the house, to say whether this important Order of 1702 would not he totally violated if they entertained this Bill?
Lord Grenvillebegan by expressing his surprise, that upon a question of this nature, the house had not yet heard the opinion of the person whose duty it more peculiarly was to study, to explain, and to enforce those Standing Orders which were enacted for the regulation of its proceedings, and which were as binding upon it as the laws of the land were upon the courts below. That a Standing Order of the utmost importance was, in the instance under consideration, attempted to be violated, the noble lord endeavoured to prove, by shewing, that several of the clauses were foreign to, and different from the matter of a bill for Aids and Supplies. For this purpose, he referred particularly to those clauses which prescribed commercial regulations. Upon the merits of the bill itself the noble lord animadverted with his usual ingenuity and force. Under the terms of the clause which related to the East India Company, he contended that they could not dispose of any goods whatever for home consumption. But the most objectionable feature in the measure was that provision by which ministers were enabled to exempt any merchant from all its operations upon such conditions as they might think proper to settle. The idea of investing any ministers with such an extraordinary discretion, appeared to his mind utterly irreconcileable with the freedom of commerce. It would indeed go to arm them with such a degree of power over the mercantile body, as never was assumed or possessed by the most despotic government upon the

1153
subject of commerce. He could not, in fact, conceive how the character of commerce could consist with such an arrangement. From this point, the noble lord proceeded to comment upon the clause, limiting prosecutions against those who acted under the Orders in Council. This limitation was so contrived both as to time and place, that any person who might have cause to complain, or spirit to appeal against any illegality in these orders, or any injustice in their execution, was intirely precluded from the possibility of obtaining redress. The noble lord concluded by declaring his opinion, that the adoption of the bill before the house must lead to inevitable ruin.
The Lord Chancellorasserted, that no part of the bill before their lordships was inconsistent with the Standing Order alluded to by the noble lord who had just sat down. On the contrary, he maintained, that the whole stream of their lordships' proceeding, for a series of years, was in direct conformity to the practice objected to by the advocates for the motion. This was his opinion at the time the noble lord first stated his objection, but yet he thought it becoming in him to postpone the declaration of that opinion, until he should have heard all those noble lords who were disposed to speak upon the question. That course, he perceived, had exposed him to some animadversions, in the course of which it had been observed, that where a man who held a judicial situation doubted, he was unfit for that situation. Now, his opinion was directly the reverse of that observation; for he thought the man who entertained doubts in a judicial situation was the most fit for such a situation.—The noble lord entered into an enumeration of the several precedents referred to by the advocates of the motion, and contended, none of them in any degree bore on the conclusion which those noble lords would deduce from them. There was not, he maintained, a single provision in the bill upon the table which was not in strict alliance to and in pursuance of its main object. Therefore it could not be held, that it contained any thing foreign to and different from a bill of Aids and Supplies. So thinking he could not of course agree in the notion, that their lordships would in passing such a bill infringe the letter or spirit of the Standing Order alluded to. Indeed clauses directly similar to these, objected to as inconsistent with a bill of Supply, were be found in almost
1154
every bill of that nature upon the Statute Book.
Earl Greysaid, that the cases cited by the noble lord on the woolsack did not seem to him to warrant the opinion his lordship had delivered, and he believed that many cases might be found in the Journals of the house that even justified a contrary opinion, He would therefore propose that a committee of precedents should be appointed to select such cases as might be found applicable to the matter then under their lordships consideration, and then the house could more easily judge from those cases than from the partial ones produced during the debate.
Their lordships then divided on lord Grenville's motion, for rejecting the bill.

Contents

25

Proxies

34—52

Non contents

66

Proxies

63—120

Majority

—70

[PROTEST AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The order of the day being read, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion to reject the Bill entituled "An Act for granting to his majesty until the end of the next session of parliament, Duties of Customs on the Goods, Wares, and Merchandize herein enumerated, in furtherance of time provisions of certain Orders in Council." The Standing Order No. 25. was read after long debate.—The question was put, whether the said Bill shall be rejected; it was resolved in the negative.
"DISSENTIENT: Because the annexing any clause or clauses to a Bill of Aid or Supply, the matter of which is foreign to, and different from the matter of the said Bill of Aid or Supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the constitution of this government.—Grenville, Vassal Holland, Cawdor, Lauderdale, Auckland, Ponsonby, Grey, Carysfort, Erskine, Jersey, Spencer, Nugent, (Buckinghamshire,) Cholmondeley, Crewe, Clifton, Stafford, Ponsonby, (Imohilly,) Albemarle, Cowper, Essex."
"DISSENTIENT: 1st, Because, such has been the anxiety to maintain inviolate the true spirit of the Standing Order of this house, No. 25, declaring 'The annexing any clause or clauses to a Bill of Aid or. Supply, the matter of which is foreign to or different from the matter of the said Bill of Aid or Supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the constitution of this government:' that Bills not of Aid or Supply, if they contained a clause imposing a duty upon his majesty's

1155
subjects, have been recently rejected, on the ground, that regulation, though not altogether unconnected with the purpose for which such duty was imposed, might be considered as foreign to and different from the aid given to the use of his majesty by such clause.—For we observe in the entry on the Journals of this house, on the 3d of Aug. 1807, that a bill entituled 'An Act for abolishing fees received by officers in the service of the customs in the several ports of Ireland, and for making compensation to the said officers, and for regulating the hours of attendance, and the number of holidays to be observed by them,' was, after reading the said Standing Order, rejected; the following lords being that day marked as present.—The duke of Cumberland, lord chancellor Eldon, the duke of Portland, viscount Melville, lord Redesdale, lord Erskine, viscount Sidmouth, Longueville, bishop of Oxford, archbishop of Canterbury, earl of Cholmondeley, Selkirk, Balcarras, Glasgow, Graham, Buckinghamshire, Grosvenor, Kingston, Limerick, Normanton, viscount Carleton, lord Napier, Holland, Walsingham, Hood of Cath, Arden, Rawdon, Lauderdale, Boringdon, Douglas of Lochleven, Stewart of Garlies.—2d, Because it appears to us, that the Bill entituled 'An act for granting to his majesty until the end of the next Session of Parliament, Duties of Customs on the Goods, Wares and Merchandize herein enumerated, in furtherance of the provisions of certain Orders in Council; the motion for the rejection of which has been negatived by this house, is a Bill of Aid or Supply, and that it contains, 1. A clause, which as it at present stands, clearly prohibits the merchants of England trading to the East Indies, from selling any of the goods or merchandize they may import, and compels them on bringing any of the said goods or merchandize into this country, to warehouse them under the king's lock for re-exportation. 2. A clause, for taking off, in certain cases, a duty of two shillings a ton, imposed on ships of the United States of America, by the act of the 37th of his Majesty's reign. 3. A clause, enacting that no action or suit shall be brought or commenced against any persons for any thing alone in pursuance of the Orders in Council, of the 9th and 25th of November, 1807, except such action be commenced within three calendar months after the fact committed and many other clauses which are, stronger and more direct violations of
1156
the said Standing Order, than any thing contained in the bill rejected on the 3d of August, 1807. 4. Because, when we reflect, that the bill rejected on the 3d of Aug. 1807, purports to be a bill for establishing Regulations tending greatly to the benefit of the fair trader and the security of the Revenue; and that the bill now under the discussion of this house, is a bill which appears from the votes of the house of commons, to have been complained of by numbers of petitioners, as destructive of trade and revenue, we cannot conceive any reasonable ground why this house should now disregard a Standing Order, which is of such fundamental importance to the preservation of the constitution, and which it has on all occasions, particularly in the instance above referred to, shewn so much anxiety to enforce, whenever any attempt to contravene it has attracted attention.—We are therefore apprehensive, that this departure from the established principle and recent practice of the house, may be suspected to have proceeded from a desire to hurry through parliament this complicated and dangerous measure, which threatens the destruction of our commerce, and to prevent the people of this country from being heard against the provisions of a bill, which may prove ruinous to their most valuable interests. Lauderdale, Spencer, Grenville, Auckland, Essex, Grey, Vassal Holland, Cowper, King, Jersey, Stafford, Erskine, Cawdor, Cholmondeley, Crewe, Clifton."