Sitting of 28 April 1812

PETITION FROM THE DYERS IN FAVOUR OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
A Petition of the Dyers of the honourable united East India Company, was presented and read; setting forth,
"That the petitioners have viewed with the liveliest apprehension the Petitions from the various outports to the House, for laying open the trade to India; and that it is by a strict attention to regulations which ensure the superior execution of the different operations in the India Company's exports, that the confidence with which they are received by the consumers has been established, a confidence so complete that a bale of goods marked V. B. I. C. passes in the India market as current as a Bank note does here; and that, by these regulations, the petitioners are obliged to have been a certain length of time in the business before they can be appointed Dyers to the India Company: that, with most of them, it is the only business in which themselves, and their fathers before them, are and have been engaged, and by which they procure subsistence for their families, and those of other trades immediately dependent on them, together giving employment to some

1087
thousands; and that, by the same regulations, they are obliged to have their dye-houses and plants furnished and fitted up in a particular manner, to facilitate and insure the same object; that this is attended with very great ex-pence; and that their property, to the extent of upwards of 200,000 l. is embarked in these establishments; and that there is no other trade in which they could employ their knowledge of the business and these establishments; and that the removal of this branch of commerce to the outports would thus take from them the trade in which they have been brought up, and to which alone they are competent, and, by rendering useless the establishments, would deteriorate almost to nothing the large property invested in them; and praying, that no alteration may be made in the long-established system under which the India trade has been, under the repeated sanction of the legislature, hitherto conducted; and that the petitioners may not be deprived of the means by which they earn their livelihood; that their property may not be annihilated; and that speculative and possible advantage to one class of individuals, may not be founded on positive ruin to another."
Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITIONS FROM SOMERSET, AND KIDDERMINSTER, RESPECTING THE RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
A Petition of several woollen manufacturers, resident in the county of Somerset, was presented and read; setting forth,
"That the petitioners have no desire to infringe the property of the East India Company, or to prevent them from receiving such compensation as the wisdom of parliament shall consider to be due for their mercantile claims; and that, as loyal subjects, taking a deep interest in the fate of their country, the petitioners ardently hope to see the United Kingdom rise triumphant from the contest in which it is engaged; and that the petitioners conceive the present opportunity of discontinuing the commercial monopoly of the East India Company, and of opening the trade of the East to the people of the United Kingdom, is one of the means which Providence has given to the legislature for defeating the attempts of the enemy to impair the commercial prosperity of Great Britain; and that, at the present period, unexampled in history, when Britain has the undisputed empire
1088
of the sea, and the sole possession of the commerce of the East, when the field of enterprize which lies open is too extensive for the management of any company of individuals, when the common enemy despairs of making any impression on the country, except by impeding its commerce, at such a moment, if ever, it appears to the petitioners that all narrow views and commercial jealousies should be abandoned; and they confidently rely on the wisdom of parliament, to form such regulations respecting trade with the East, as, by giving ample scope to British capital and exertion, will most conduce to raise this country to the eminence to which by its situation it is entitled; and that the petitioners beg leave humbly to represent, that the restrictions on the trade to the East proposed by interested persons may possibly be intended to defeat the liberal intentions of the House, and to substitute the shadow for the substance; and that the petitioners, therefore, desire respectfully to express to the House, what they believe to be the wish and the confident expectation of the majority of his Majesty's subjects, that the wisdom of parliament will devise such measures for the future conduct of East India affairs as, without either injustice or undue partiality to the East India Company, will most effectually promote the trade and the prosperity of the kingdom at large."
A Petition of the gentlemen, freeholders, manufacturers, and other inhabitants of the borough and neighbourhood of Kidderminster, in the county of Worcester, was also presented and read; setting forth,
"That, in the exercise of those inestimable rights with which the constitution of the country has invested them, the petitioners most respectfully approach the House on subjects of the highest importance to their national and individual welfare: in the institution of the authorities of the House, they behold that link which unites them to the throne; and to the House, as representatives of the people, they direct their confidence and expectations; their immediate connection with those whose suffrages have entrusted to the House the preservation of their interests, naturally leads them to look to their sympathy for commiseration, to their wisdom for direction, and to their measures for redress; the petitioners will therefore state, with respectful submission, the circumstances and wishes to which

1089
they would claim the attention of the House, and which, they are persuaded, will be found to prevail in the case of a great majority in every part of the united empire; and that the petitioners, residing in a town and district, than which none in their county ranks higher in manufacturing importance, and but one in population, possess the means of accurately observing the effects of protracted war and restricted commerce; in illustration of these effects, they would submit to the attentive consideration of the House the high price of all the necessaries of life, the multitudes of the labouring classes of the community thrown out of employment, the consequent difficulty, if not impossibility, of their obtaining honestly, and without parochial aid, the means of subsistence, and the too well founded anticipation of consequences, which (by adding to physical moral evils) must prove still more calamitous both to the individual sufferers, and to the country at large; in thus adverting to the peculiar distresses of one particular class, the petitioners would by no means have it inferred that they are the only sufferers; it must be obvious to the House that the unprecedented number of failures and bankruptcies in the higher departments of commercial society, and in all its descending gradations, are immediately owing to the same causes, which in their ultimate but severest operation affect the labourer and mechanic, war (and especially when conducted on the principles of that in which we are at present involved) being more injurious to a commercial nation like our own, than to one which possesses within itself greater physical resources; and the petitioners pray, that the House will do all that in them lies for the attainment of an honourable peace; but if this great and truly desirable object proves at present unattainable, the petitioners will still feel an anxious solicitude (a solicitude which has increased with each succeeding day's experience) that the House should give due attention to the importance of public œconomy, and to the removal of all obstacles in the way of commercial intercourse with neutral nations, excluded as this country is in a great degree from the European and American markets; the necessity is sufficiently obvious of widening every remaining channel for the free employment of the commercial capital of the empire; the petitioners therefore most earnestly intreat the House not to allow of any prolongation to the present term of that great national
1090
grievance, the East India monopoly, but to resolve that, on the principles of a liberal œconomy, the ad vantages of that trade shall be enjoyed by the nation at large, without exclusion or limitation; lastly, before the evils, which now press so severely on the various classes of the community, are extended and multiplied in a degree, from the contemplation of which in its various aspects the mind revolts, the petitioners beseech of the House to investigate the causes, to ascertain effectual means of counteraction, and, from motives of humanity, of policy, of patriotism, and of justice, to administer the appropriate remedies."
Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM ESSEX RESPECTING REFORM.
Mr. Westerne presented a Petition from the freeholders and inhabitant householders of the county of Essex, setting forth,
"That the petitioners, impelled by a strong sense of the duty they owe to themselves and to their country, at this eventful and unprecedented conjuncture of public affairs, avail themselves of their right of petitioning the House, in order to lay before them their sentiments on the present very imperfect and inadequate representation of the people in parliament under the existing forms of election; and that the petitioners conceive, that one excellent part of the constitution consists in the representative system, by which the people are allowed a due share in the government; but, after they have seen it distinctly stated, in a Petition presented to the House, on the 6th day of May, in the year 1793, and evidence tendered in proof of the facts, that three hundred and seven of the members, for England and Wales only, are not sent to parliament by the suffrages of the people, that they are, on the contrary, returned by one hundred and fifty-four Peers and Commoners; and when they find that these allegations stand at this day on the Journals of Parliament uncontradicted, they cannot but conclude that the House has lamentably departed from its original and constitutional character, "a full and free representative of the Commons of these realms;" and that to this alarming defect the petitioners ascribe the far greater part of their national calamities, therefore it is they would bring to the recollection of the House the blood that has been wasted in wars, which to say the least, wiser councils might have avoided; therefore they would remind the

1091
House of the vast and fearful magnitude of the public expenditure, and of the accumulated increase of debt and taxation; and that to the same source they ascribe the decisions of the House, on various occasions, in manifest opposition to the declared sense of the country, and to its most essential interests, as well as in direct contradiction to their own recorded opinions; above all, the petitioners attribute to this unhappy cause the unwillingness hitherto shewn in parliament to enquire into and correct the corruptions and abuses which prevail, too notoriously for denial, in the procuring of seats in the House, and which tend, by diminishing its virtue, to destroy the confidence of the people in the Commons' House of Parliament; and that for these, as well as for many other powerful reasons that might be derived from existing circumstances, which the petitioners forbear to mention, lest they should too much mix their present feelings with discussion on the vital principles of the liberties of England, they beseech the House, that the Septennial Act, which, under a plea of public danger, was, in contempt of national right, passed by a House of Commons chosen only for three years, be forthwith repealed; and that, in addition to the land-owners, and in lieu of returns to parliament, in the name of depopulated or close or venal boroughs, the householders of Great Britain and Ireland, directly paying a certain assessment to the state, may, with the exception of the peers of the realm, have a vote in the election of members of the House, and under such regulations of the poll, as would prevent the ruinous expence of contested elections, but too often the result, as they are now conducted, a precaution, they will add, not more necessary towards the independence and integrity of parliament, than it is for the preservation of public morals; and that an efficient and constitutional Reform in the powers of election to the House, they are fully persuaded would afford a safe certain and speedy remedy for the numerous grievances under which the petitioners labour; and they are, moreover, persuaded, that it is the only efficient remedy to be found for them, because it is only by such Reform, and with the term of the representative trust considerably shortened, that the House can restore that identity of interest between the members of the House of Commons and the people at large, without which the petitioners have no rational as-
1092
surance that they shall enjoy the blessings of free and equal government under the safeguard of the English constitution; and that the disastrous times in which we live demand this open avowal of the thoughts and wishes of the petitioners, on a measure again and again brought before the House and in the language in which they have conveyed them, they intreat the House to believe they intend the House no disrespect, though the petitioners frankly con fess they are unacquainted with words too strong to express what they feel on a topic so intimately connected with their dearest rights and most valuable interests; and that in conclusion, they earnestly pray the House to undertake a constitutional Reform before it be too late, according to the provisions they have presumed to point out, or in such other mode, as to their wisdom shall seem more effectual, to the accomplishment of the important object which the petitioners have in view, so shall the affections of the people be conciliated, the House retrieve its due weight and influence on the public mind, the internal peace and independence of the country be secured, stability given to the throne, and our liberties, our best inheritance, be perpetuated."
Ordered to lie upon the table.

LORD STANLEY'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE PETITIONS AGAINST THE OHDERS IN COUNCIL.
Lord Stanleyon rising, expressed his regret that it had not fallen to the lot of an abler person than himself to bring the important subject on which he was about to address them before the consideration of the House. It was not his intention, however, to go at any great length into the general question of the policy of the Orders in Council, a subject so lucidly and eloquently treated on a recent occasion by his hon. and learned friend. He should limit him-self therefore to that view of those Orders which were connected with the immediate motion which he was about to submit. In the year 1806, the violent measures and decrees of the enemy induced the British government to take such steps as seemed best calculated by a counter operation to inflict upon the French government those commercial injuries with which it had endeavoured to assail us. Whatever might be the policy of the Order then issued, he must deny that the Decrees against which it was directed were constructed upon any novel or unprecedented principles. Simi-

1093
lar principles had been adopted in 1739, and 1756. They had been acted on during the American as well as the late wars. Never, however, had they been attended with those consequences which unfortunately now so distinctly depressed the trade and commerce of the country. Never had they been found to produce the practical result of destroying the manufactures, and annihilating the trading prosperity of the empire.—So far from their having been followed by any such effects, it was well known that until the present period, those manufactures continued to flourish more and more, and that prosperity progressively to increase. The measures therefore of 1739 and 1756 had been completely impotent in their effect on British commerce; and in his opinion there had been no reason to expect that the Decree of 1806 would have had a mere extensive operation upon it. Had Buonaparté any greater power than his predecessors in the government of France to enforce his hostile schemes against our commerce? Were his fleets so large, or his command over the ocean so entire as to enable him to do what the former rulers of his territories had never succeeded in accomplishing? But admitting his object to be the complete exclusion of commodities of British growth or manufacture, from all the ports of his dominion, what was this but acting on a policy which had been exercised by other continental powers as well as by the British government at various periods? What was it in short but adopting a principle of policy, and enforcing it with more than ordinary vigour, which every state had an inherent right to adopt, as a principle of mere municipal regulation? It remained for others to shew how any such regulations could affect the trade between neutral states and the belligerent, against whose interests they were directed. They had not operated in the present instance to raise the rate of insurance, and the remittances from Europe rose subsequent to their promulgation. What was the case after the system, the childish and impotent system of retaliation was adopted on our part? The face of things was at once changed.—The remittances fell in a short time in the ratio of 100 to 30; America, almost the only neutral nation, was disgusted; her ports were shut against us, all intercourse ceased, and not only the trade which we carried on directly with her, but that which we maintained circuitously
1094
through her means, and which it was beyond the power of the enemy to prohibit, before he was aided in his views by our own injurious and disastrous policy, were sacrificed together. But whether all the evils that were now so deeply felt, ought or ought not to be traced to the operation of the Orders in Council, it was undeniable that there was at present great and general distress, and as a member of parliament, and more particularly as the representative of part of one of the counties affected in a peculiar manner by that distress, he had deemed it his duty to call the attention of the House to the Petitions now lying on the table.—The distresses that at present existed no one could deny, whatever difference of opinion there might be with respect to the cause. In the Petitions with which their table was crowded, various remedies were suggested. It was thought, by some, that relief could be derived from the reduction or abolition of sinecure places, and the lessening of salaries, which were disproportioned to the services performed; but whatever might be his opinion upon the expediency of such a measure, he thought it would go a very short way towards the effectual relief of the country. Another suggestion was, the nonrenewal of the Charter of the East India Company, and the extension of the trade of that country and China to the merchants of the United Kingdom; but even that measure, great an effect as it appeared calculated to produce, could not take place for two years; and the distress of the country was such as could not wait the effect of an operation so distant.—He, therefore, was willing to hope, that something might be devised more likely to be efficacious. One of the Petitions complained of the insensibility which the petitioners declared a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) had shewn to their sufferings. Whatever might have passed on the occasion alluded to, he was ready to acquit the right hon. gentleman and the government of any decided insensibility to the distresses of the country; but while he abstained from attributing any improper motive to the right hon. gentleman, (which he was sure was far from his mind): he thought, at the same time, that, standing as he did, in the capacity of a confidential adviser of the crown, he should have been a little more cautious in the language he made use of; and he should have recollected, that though what he said might seem to contain nothing extraordinary in

1095
its import, yet, its levity, on minds agitated by the feelings of distress, was calculated to produce the worst effects.—The Petitions on the table were unanimous in stating the distress of the country, and most of them ascribed that distress to the operation of the Orders in Council, of which the petitioners appeared to be likely to form an accurate judgment. As a reply to those allegations, he presumed that the late Declaration had been issued by the government of this country, which proceeded on the statement of the French minister to the Conservative Senate. This Declaration contained, in effect, most decidedly the precise purport and meaning of the expressions attributed to the right hon. gentleman; it stated in effect, though not in terms, that Great Britain and France were in the situation of two persons whose heads were immersed in a bucket, to try which could bear suffocation the longer. This document declared, that the government of Great Britain were determined to persevere, on the punctilio of priority in the Orders in Council; and that however great the distress of the people might be, there was no hope of relief, support, or redress, from their own government. But, in a more statesmanlike point of view, who were to be the judges of the continuance of the system? Was the option to be taken out of the hands of this government, and transferred to those of Buonaparté, whose strongest interest it was that we should continue a system so conducive to his advantage? What was this but surrendering our own free will, pledging ourselves to a particular policy, and resolving to make our own future measures, under any circumstances, dependent on those of the enemy? He could see no ground on which such a determination was to be defended. He had felt it his duty to enquire minutely into the extent and magnitude of those distresses, under which the manufacturing classes of the community were now labouring, and from every quarter he had received accounts, varying as to the particular degree in which they were felt in different places, but all agreeing as to their universal existence. From all parts there were statements of the want of employment, scantiness of food, and high price of provisions. The food of the manufacturers in that part of the kingdom which he had the honour to represent, was chiefly potatoes and oatmeal: two hundred and forty pounds weight of pota-
1096
toes could until lately be purchased for seven shillings; they were now advanced to seventeen shillings. The same quantity of oatmeal could until lately be purchased for forty two shillings; it was now advanced to sixty-seven shillings. The average wages of a manufacturer were from nine to eleven shillings a week; and how, out of that sum, an individual could support and clothe himself and family and pay his house rent, he was at a loss to conceive. In other parts they were rather higher, but they were obtained only by working over hours and beyond the usual habits. He then referred to some letters from different parts of the country, confirming these statements. A magistrate of one district, whose letter he held in his band, declared it was impossible in his neighbourhood, that a weaver, with a wife, and two or three children, even though they were in good health, could earn a subsistence, not so much from a depression of wages, which were rather higher than at the same time last year, but from the great increase in the price of provisions. Another letter from Liverpool, stated that the number of vessels in the docks was only 62, the number of carts employed 66, while 127 were idle, the number of ships in the graving docks 11, though they were capable of holding 27, and in the year 1810 were quite full, besides many waiting to go in, and many on the banks—not one-third of the sail makers were employed, and but 24 block makers, with a variety of other particulars, all showing the depression of commerce. The Petitions before the House, and the statements made by several gentlemen in the House, proved that the distress was not merely confined to the commercial and manufacturing towns, but extended to Leicester, Nottingham, Stafford, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Liverpool, &c. &c. and almost through the whole extent of that line of country. Under those circumstances, his lordship thought that there was but one course which presented it-self, namely, a committee to consider the Petitions which had been laid on the table. That appeared to be the only means to have a full, fair, and open view of the subject, and to obtain explicit information upon it. If the House should think it right to recommend to the government and to the Prince Regent, the repeal of the Orders in Council, which had been productive of so much distress, he would feel proud of having been, in any way, the

1097
humble instrument of bringing about so desirable an event. But if the House should decide otherwise, he would have the consolation of reflecting, that he had endeavoured to discharge his duly to his constituents and to the country. He might in that case regret the decision; but he should submit to it, and he hoped that others out of the House would submit also, and that there would be no repetition of those disturbances which had disgraced many parts of the country. But at the same time he could not help saying, that it was almost too much to expect a starving population, deprived of the possibility of getting employment, to submit, without a murmur, to an accumulation of distress. It were much to be wished, that the people should always proceed by the proper and constitutional mode of Petition; but he was not surprised at enormities committed by those who seemed to be influenced by no idea but that of their sufferings; and as he believed they acted entirely from the impulse of the moment, in consequence of the distress they laboured under, he thought that there was much to be overlooked in the misguided conduct of those persons. He would not take up the time of the House any further, but would proceed to move, "That the several Petitions which have been presented to this House, in this session of parliament against the Orders in Council, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House."
Mr. Roseexpressed his satisfaction that the time was come when the subject could be fully discussed. From what had fallen from the noble lord, it appeared that he was wholly unacquainted with the real nature of the Berlin Decree. The noble lord bad described it merely as a municipal regulation, and that of a nature by no means novel. In May, 1806, in consequence of prior efforts of France to distress British commerce, the late government of this country issued orders to blockade ail the ports from Brest to the river Elbe. In the wisdom and justice of this order he perfectly concurred. At that period we had a naval power sufficient to enforce the blockade, and it was consistent with the law of nations to do so. The consequence was, however, the promulgation of the Berlin Decree. This Decree denied our right to take merchant ships at sea, who were endeavouring to violate the blockade. Was that not novel? It declared that a blockade could extend only to fortified
1098
places, actually besieged, a denial extended by a subsequent explanation on the part of the duke of Cadore, to places besieged by land as well as by sea. Was that not novel? It declared the British islands to be in a state of blockade, prohibited all continental intercourse with them, proclaimed all British subjects, wherever found, to be prisoners of war, and what was more extraordinary and unprecedented in the history of the world, all British merchandize, wherever found, to be forfeited. If British goods for instance were found on board of an American ship trading between America and China, by this Decree they were to be confiscated. Was all this not novel? Was it a municipal regulation? Nothing could be more unlike any former proceeding. He had often been told that the Berlin Decree was nugatory, and that our ships had traded after its promulgation as uninterruptedly as before it. He readily admitted, that from the time of its promulgation, in November, 1806, until after the peace of Tilsit, in July, 1807, the Berlin Decree did actually remain a dead letter; because, during that time, the enemy had no means of enforcing it. But what followed? Immediately that the peace of Tilsit placed his army at the disposal of the French emperor, he marched troops into all the ports of the continent, for the purpose of carrying the Berlin Decree into effect. This active operation of the Decree commenced in August, 1807, and it was well known that two months afterwards no less than 65 British vessels returned, heavily laden, from Heligoland, having been unable to get rid of their cargoes. In consequence of this interruption of British commerce, the Order in Council of 1807 was issued, which recited that the former Order had been found ineffectual, and declared all the ports of Europe in a, state of rigorous blockade. This was followed in the succeeding month by the Milan Decree, which enacted that a neutral of any nation, having touched at an English port, or having allowed herself to be searched by an English ship, should for that act be denationalized, deprived of the protection of her king, and treated as English property. These were the two Decrees which the noble lord had characterized as having nothing new in them, nothing that had not been common in former wars; which ought not to have put us on our defence, or led us to retaliate. In April, 1809, the Orders in Council of 1807 were so modified as to confine the prohi-

1099
bition which they were issued to announce to France, and the countries immediately under her domination. This was followed by the Decree of Rambouillet, which confiscated all the American property within the grasp of France. This was an act unexampled in the history of the world; but in answer to a representation made on the subject to the French government by general Armstrong the American minister, it had been stated by the duke de Cadore, "that the imperial decrees were conformable to the eternal principles of justice;" and on the complaint of general Armstrong that 100 American ships had been seized without any notice being previously given of their danger, he was told that the conduct of England had been such that it could only be regarded as a declaration of war against America, and that war was accordingly considered as declared between England and America from the day on which the English Order in Council was issued. He wished the conduct of France towards America to be compared with that of England.—Here, when a number of American vessels were brought in, to save the expences and delays attendant on the ordinary process, a commission had been immediately appointed to investigate the losses sustained by America, in consequence of which, no less a sum than 400,000 l. had been paid to Americans. This was certainly a contrast to the conduct of the French government. An objection had been started as to the late declaration issued by government, that it was founded on nothing more than a newspaper statement. But what was the nature of that newspaper? The message inserted in it was as well intitled to be considered authentic as any thing published in the Gazette of this country. Why it was but the other day that the government were blamed for not acting on verbal authority. This last proceeding, on the part of France, was that of issuing a Senatus Consultum, in which it was declared, that till the British Orders in Council were rescinded, and the principles of the Treaty of Utrecht restored to full force, every neutral vessel touching at any British port, would be considered as denationalized, and the Berlin and Milan Decrees enforced accordingly. Much had been heard in that House of the Berlin and Milan Decrees having been actually repealed. He had on former occasions stated cases of American vessels being captured, which be conceived justified him in coming to a
1100
different conclusion; but now they had a positive authentic instrument to refer to, which confirmed those Decree, and which declared all nations to be denationalized who suffered their merchant ships to be searched. The right of searching merchant vessels had never before been questioned. The late declaration of the English government, which the noble lord appeared to view with much dissatisfaction, as he thought the rescinding of the Berlin and Milan Decrees ought not to be the measure on which the resumption of our commerce with America should depend, appeared to him (Mr. Rose) to be most satisfactory, as it declared our Orders in Council to be repealed whenever the Decrees of France should cease, and repealed retrospectively, so as to have effect from the very day on which those measures were actually at an end. Having thus shewn what were really the proceedings of France and England, with a view to correct what appeared to be a very general misunderstanding on the subject; he came to consider what would be the effect of the repeal of our Orders in Council. Would any man say, that if repealed tomorrow, America would open her ports to us? That it was certain she would do so he denied. She had repeatedly told England that that alone would not satisfy her, as she required that we should give up our present system of blockade—Why then we were to purchase our intercourse with America by giving up our maritime rights. These, he contended, by complying with her wishes, would be given up, and given up for, at best, but a precarious commercial advantage. From the moment at which these were given up we should suffer most severely in our trade. The instant these Orders in Council were repealed, the ports of almost all the world would be thrown open to France, to furnish her with raw materials necessary to carrying on her manufactures. The whole French manufactures of last year, of every kind whatever, amounted in value only to 54 millions of livres. This was entirely owing to their not being able to procure raw materials. It was well known that France had a very flourishing cotton, woollen and silk manufacture before the war. Now, if the ports of France were to be open, she would receive cotton from Brazil, and other parts of South America. It was true there was at present a duty on the importation of cotton into France almost amounting to a prohibition. This

1101
duty was continued, because the emperor of "France knew very well that cotton could now be manufactured only for home consumption, and he was careless what duty was laid on, as it would all be paid by his own subjects. But the moment the ports of France were opened, the French would be able to meet us on our own ground. America would be the carrier, and France would have the means of sending her manufactures to Brazil and ail South America—she would be easily enabled to do this from her large population. Now what would those who were so strenuous advocates for our trade say to this?—That the commodities of Birmingham, and other manufacturing towns, would find an immediate vent and a considerable market he did not deny, but it was necessary to consider what would be the consequence to our trade in other respects;—what effect it would have ultimately on our trade to other parts.—The trade at present carried on with the north of Europe, amounted in the last year to 18,500,000 l. being 1,000,000 l. more than its amount in 1806, and he had the satisfaction to state, that within the last eight weeks it had been increasing 100,000 l. per week on what it was at the corresponding period in the last year. Was this then the time at which we should risk the whole of this trade? The exports to America had formerly amounted to about 12 millions annually. Of this about half had been carried on on account of foreign colonial settlements. The fair consumption of the United Slates might then be taken to have been six millions. In the last year our exports to the United States were 2 millions. In 1805, their amount was 11,500,000 l. In 1800, and 1807, 12 millions. In 1808, they fell to 5,300,000 l. His opinion had been, that as the trade fell off with the United States, it would increase with other parts of America; and this opinion had been borne out for three years, as the exports to other parts had increased from 11,000,000 l. to 18,000,000 l. in 1808. In 1809 they were nearly the same; and in 1810, they amounted to 17,000,000 l. In the last year (1811), they had however again fallen to 11,803,000 l. the exports of the United Slates being but 2,000,000 l. So that if we could get over the great stumbling block, the Orders in Council, and the trade of America were again open to us, all we ought to expect was, that our exports to the United States would be raised from 2,000,000 l. to 6,000,000 l.
1102
annually. If, however, we suffered a loss of 4,000,000 l. from the want of an open trade to America, what did America suffer herself?—From a paper which had been presented to congress by Mr. Gallatin, it appeared that her exports in 1810–1811 amounted to about 45,000,000 of dollars.—Of these 3,000,000 were to Prussia, 20,000,000 to England, 18,000,000 to Spain and Portugal, 1,190,000 to France, and to all other parts of the world between 2 and 300,000. Compare the importance of her customers. To France her exports were under 2,000,000, to England and her allies 38,000,000, out of 45,000,000, the total amount of her exports. This was the state of American commerce, and if the measures which she had thought proper to adopt were injurious to us, what were they less than ruinous to her? The whole revenue of America, with the exception of the post-office, amounting to about 60,000 l. was raised on the imports. There were no internal taxes, they being all repealed a few years ago. America must, therefore, be suffering in her resources and revenue in every direction.
Much had been said of what we had suffered in our shipping; but a much larger part of it was employed in the continental trade, than in the trade with America. There was an account of all the shipping employed by Great Britain, on the table. It had been said, nothing but foreign shipping was employed in the carrying trade, and that not a ship of our own was to be seen at sea. The shipping of 1811, was higher than that of 1806. In 1811, there were 12,774. In l806, 12,239. In the last year he admitted there was a falling off of 300 British ships; but in 1810, there were 6,000 foreign ships employed, and this year they had fallen down to 3,000. It had been stated by the member for Hull, that government stores were frequently carried in neutral ships—but he could say, that the government had always acted sacredly on this principle, never to employ a neutral ship, when a British ship could be found to go. He proceeded to notice the state of the manufactures in this country, and adverted to the West India interests, which he contended, would suffer from an opening of the ports of France. With respect to the license system, it had its origin with the last government, but he thought it perfectly justifiable and necessary, to prevent the trade of the country being cramped. Many of the objectionable oaths had been

1103
now done away. The licensing system had been treated as if new in its nature, but the fact was, that it had always been had recourse to in former wars, in trading with the West India colonies. Notwithstanding what had been said of the unfavourable situation of the country, and all that the French emperor had done to injure us, he hart the satisfaction to state that the exchanges had risen since last April, 15½ per cent. with Hamburgh, 9¼ with Amsterdam, and 12 per cent. with Paris. He thought upon the whole, he had made it clear to the House, that notwithstanding all the power of the enemy, the trade to Europe was still carried on with considerable advantage, and that it would be great indiscretion in us, to give up a more extensive trade than that with America, for the uncertain advantages which might possibly result from opening the French ports, and renewing our intercourse with America.
Having said so much on the question, he hoped he might be excused for trespassing for a few moments on the attention of the House with respect to what concerned himself personally. There was a Petition on the table of the House, in which he was described as holding a large sinecure office, and totally insensible to the miseries of the country. The noble lord had said he had made use on a certain recent occasion, of very indecorous expressions. He owned if he could have been guilty of treating lightly the sufferings of any class of men, he deserved the severest reprehension. It was the first time in his life that such a charge had ever been brought against him—the first instance in a political life of 30 years;—and how far the gentleman who had made it, in the face of the country, could reconcile the declaration to his conscience, it did not belong to him to say. He thought he had not in the slightest degree, either in his words, or in the manner he uttered them, given occasion for offence of any sort. He was not at the period he alluded to, in the discharge of his official duty; but happened to call on his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a very different purpose—he was literally an intruder there. Whatever words therefore might be uttered by him, surely ought not to be imputed as a charge against government. However inconsiderate they might be, surely to make them a matter of complaint in a Petition to that House, was without example in the his-
1104
tory of the country. He certainly did say to the gentlemen from Birmingham something like this,—that it might happen that the distress they felt was very great, but still if the relief to them in particular was not consistent with the general good of the country, it could not be granted. If he could not accede to the Petition, his next duty was not to mislead gentlemen. It had happened to him to have more intercourse with the lower orders, than any man either in or out of the House. His doors were always open to all classes, and he never sent any away unanswered. He then produced and read extracts from several votes of thanks from the Spitalfields weavers and the committee of journeymen mechanics, for his kindness to them on several occasions, which instances he selected from a great many for the purpose of shewing, that he was a very unlikely man to treat the sufferings of any classes of the community with levity or disrespect.
Nothing short of an accusation of having committed some horrid crime, could be more revolting to his feelings, than what had been charged against him, and he denied that he had exhibited any such levity. The petitioners from Birmingham he believed to be honest, worthy people, and he was far from charging upon them the malignity of the accusation: but the mind that suggested it was certainly malignant.
With regard to the question immediately before them, there seemed to be a general delusion in the country as to the Orders in Council. "Repeal them, and all will be well: persist in them, and ruin must ensue." That was the general language held upon the subject. Hence, if the House should refuse to go into a committee, the people would think that their sufferings and representations were not attended to; and if the committee was granted, they would then conclude every thing would be accomplished, for parliament was at work in their behalf. He was disposed to admit, however, the propriety of going into a committee; yet he did not wish the people to be deluded by vain and extravagant expectations; he should therefore state it as his firm and unbiassed opinion, that if the Orders in Council were repealed, our trade would be infinitely worse than it then was. But it was due, he thought, to the wishes of the petitioners that their prayers should be taken into consideration; and therefore he should not oppose the motion of the noble lord.
Sir Charles Mordauntrepresented the great increase which had taken place in the poor rates in Birmingham, in consequence of the depressed state of the manufactures of that town.
Mr. Dugdale,in answer to a question which was put in the course of the discussion yesterday, upon the subject of the Orders in Council, stated, that, from his recollection of the conversation between the manufacturers of Birmingham, and the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. gentleman did assimilate the state of this country and France to two persons in a bucket of water. He did not recollect the exact words which had been used, but he certainly could bear testimony to the respect and attention with which the deputation was received. And he denied, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman had treated it with any thing like levity or insult.
Mr. Baringobserved, that all the efforts which had been made on that side of the House to obtain a committee proved fruitless; but he was glad to see, that now petitions had arrived from almost every district in the country, that now the voice of the nation spoke aloud, government had so far yielded as to consent to enquiry. Such being the case, he should certainly not go into that length on the subject, which it was otherwise his intention to have done, but should confine himself to a few observations in reply to some part of the speech of the right hon. gentleman, which he thought calculated to deceive the House.
With regard to the expression which had been so often mentioned that evening, he would only say, that he could hardly be induced to believe on any evidence, that the right hon. gentleman would treat with levity and disrespect such respectable persons as those who composed the deputation from Birmingham; but if the right hon. gentleman had really wished to characterise the proceedings of government, he could not have done it more aptly than by those words. As to the matter before the House, the only part of it that was at all interesting, was not how the Orders in Council had originated, not what had been their progress, but whether the period had now arrived when an end ought to be put to them. And this view of the question had a particular reference to America. It had been certainly held out to America that we were ready to repeal our Orders in Council when the
1106
French government should substantially repeal its Berlin and Milan Decrees. Whether that repeal had really taken place in such a manner as to call upon us to revoke our Orders in Council, was another consideration; but it was maintained that America was so hostile in its government towards this country, that the mere repeal of our Orders in Council would not now satisfy the United States. He would admit, if that case could be proved, it would be a strong argument why the Orders in Council should not be repealed, supposing them to be beneficial to the country. The fact was not as stated however. Whoever would look into the correspondence between the American and British governments, would find it distinctly stated by the former, that upon the repeal of our Orders in Council, their non importation act should be rescinded. The repeal of those Orders, he contended, was the only thing America required; there was no difference with her—no question at issue, upon the principle of blockade asserted by this country. The correspondence would abundantly prove that; and the result which every person must draw from a perusal of that correspondence was, that the whole depended upon the repeal of our Orders in Council.
Another question was, whether the French Decrees had been actually repealed, and he was willing to admit that there were some circumstances which, in his mind, made him think that France had not acted up to her professions. The point, however, was whether, in connection with this subject, a hostile mind existed in the American government towards this country, which nothing could satisfy? He maintained, however, that at the time America declared that France had revoked her Decrees, she had fair grounds for saying so, and therefore just reasons for expecting us to follow up the commencement of conciliation on the part of France, by a revocation of our Orders in Council. What, he would ask, was the proper mode of communicating from one country to another an act of the government? "In the Moniteur, or the Gazette," said the right hon. gentleman—he, however, (Mr. Baring) thought a direct communication from one minister to another was just as legitimate, and that direct communication the American government had had. But, it was argued, the French government was not to be trusted. Was that language to be used from one country

1107
to another? Was it not a sentiment calculated-to destroy all confidence between nations, and to interpose an impassible barrier to conciliation; but whatever grounds we might have for disbelieving or for doubting the sincerity of the French declaration, America was bound to receive it, as she would the declaration of any other government. Under those circumstances, therefore, and at the period of time to which he was alluding, America was justified in demanding from us the repeal of our Orders in Council, and it was impossible to read the correspondence between Mr. Monro and Mr. Foster, without feeling that there was a strong anxiety on the part of the American government to repeal her commercial restrictions. He had dwelt upon these particulars with the more earnestness, because he was extremely solicitous to convince the House, that there had been nothing in the conduct of America towards this country, at all indicatory of a hostile disposition on the part of her government; and that the construction which America had put upon the declaration of France, that her Berlin and Milan Decrees were substantially repealed, was such as she was justified in putting. For a considerable time after that declaration, nothing occurred on the part of France to prove that her Decrees were not revoked; and when our minister in America maintained that they were not revoked, he was immediately required to shew that any capture of any American vessel had taken place, or any act of the French government, avowed, subsequently to the alleged revocation, which proved his assertion. This he could not do, and therefore at that time America had good grounds for believing in the revocation, and for requiring of us to fulfil our agreement, by repealing our Orders in Council. Nay, even to this day, he did not hear of any condemnation in the French courts of prize, of vessels taken under the provisions of the Berlin and Milan Decrees; captures he knew there had been, since their alleged revocation, but he was not aware of any condemnations.
There was another important question which the House had to consider. Admitting that France had completely put a stop to our commerce on the continent, what remedy did the Orders in Council offer to us? The right hon. gentleman said, that to them we owed the present prosperous state of our trade; if that were the case, if our trade were at this moment
1108
really prosperous, he should be satisfied of their utility and expediency; but was such the state of the trade; or rather, who would venture to maintain that it was, in defiance of all those Petitions, coming from almost every manufacturing district in the country? He would, therefore, say, that if the experiment could at all be justifiable, the state of our trade now justified it, and it was worth while to try the experiment of repealing those Orders in Council. We certainly had nothing to risk, but probably had much to gain; that must be the inference, if we looked practically at the state of things. But, it was said, if we repealed our Orders in Council France would then be able to obtain raw materials from America to carry on her trade. In answer to that, he would reply, that there was nothing in our Orders in Council as they now stood, which at all prevented France from receiving those raw materials to any extent she pleased into the Weser, the Elbe, and the Ems. He should not, however, go further into the general question, as ample opportunity would be afforded for that when the House resolved itself into the committee on the subject.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the vote he should give was not an admission upon the merits of the question, but merely a concession to the wishes of the country, to go into enquiry on the subject. The Orders in Council were not mere commercial regulations, but measures of just retaliation against France; and as an effort against the enemy, they had been proved efficient. He thought too, that the country ought not to abandon such a system on account merely of any temporary pressures, which, however, had not been, in his judgment, at all as heavy as might, under all circumstances, have been reasonably expected. The Berlin and Milan Decrees, he contended, were in full force, and England was always prepared to say, that the Orders in Council should fall when those Decrees were withdrawn. The condition, however, declared on the other side, was, that their Decrees should fall with the surrender of our system of blockade. He trusted that if there was any hostile feeling in America towards us, the conduct of France would bring her back to more mild and favourable sentiments. We should not revoke our system in favour of one neutral to the manifest injury of all others. He would allow that Mr. Monroe did not contend against the prin-

1109
ciple of 1806, but there was a period in which America joined France, to call upon us for a revocation of those principles of blockade which we had hitherto maintained, and the adoption of the maritime rule of France. When such a demand was made, he hoped the House would not be inclined to look upon it as a mere commercial question. It was a question of great national right, and as such it ought to be looked at, and not as a mere calculation of imports and exports. America, he trusted, would not make our conduct a cause of war; but if she did, our duty would be to satisfy our own minds as to the justice of the case, and not to be deterred by our apprehension of war from the maintenance of what we knew to be our right. On the commercial part of the subject, however, he could not help observing, that there was a disposition in gentlemen greatly to exaggerate the difficulties experienced. To impute those difficulties to the Orders in Council, was neither logical nor fair. Looking to the documents on the table, they would find, that the whole state of the commerce during the present war, had experienced an increase rapid beyond example, extensive and unnatural in its degree. They would find that, at the present moment, the export of British manufactures within the year, exceeded the whole amount of the manufactures of France.—The amount of the latter for the last year was 54,000,000 l. the amount of the former for the same period, 62,000,000 l. for the year before, 66,000,000 l. and the preceding year, 49,000,000 l. Many of the present difficulties might be traced to this unnatural, and as he might call it, diseased and gigantic success, which recoiled back upon the merchants and manufacturers. There was something in the very prosperity of this country, which rendered it more liable to such difficulties, by rendering the individuals less willing to leave their own trades for others. The direct trade with the United States of America, he would allow, was diminished by the unfortunate commercial hostility; but the exports to the other parts of America had risen in proportion, so that the general trade across the Atlantic did not suffer. Notwithstanding the policy of the emperor of France, there was much of the trade of France now open to us, and even in the last year, when the pressure was the severest, we contrived to convey to the continent of Europe exports to the value
1110
of 18 millions sterling. He entreated that gentlemen would not throw out loose and general allusions upon this subject, calculated to embitter the feelings of those who suffered under difficulties which the remedy proposed must aggravate rather than diminish. He was glad that enquiry was to take place, but wished his assent to the motion to be considered not as any unwise disposition to surrender the rights of the country, but merely as a desire to shew the people that there was no intention to deceive them.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that nothing that had fallen from the noble lord should tempt him for a moment to deviate from his resolution of saying nothing upon the question till they had come out from the enquiry, which could alone, in his mind, render them competent to speak upon it. He deprecated, however, the exulting tone adopted by the noble lord in speaking of what the noble lord was pleased to term the prosperity of our commerce. As to the meaning put by the noble lord upon his own vote, it appeared rather inconsistent, that if that noble lord and his friends thought that the Orders in Council were not to be abandoned, they should vote to send those measures, as it were, to their trial, by voting to refer them to the consideration of a committee. It was, he thought, practising a gross delusion upon the public, to hold out to them a shew of relief if none whatever was ultimately intended. He could not divine the motives which had at length, after such a manifesto as they had lately issued, induced the ministers—to use no more invidious terms—induced the ministers to agree to the committee. He expressed a wish that the committee might be gone into tomorrow, and continue to sit from day to day, deferring all other less urgent business until the present was disposed of.
Mr. Stephen,in opposition to what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, denied that it was the intention of ministers that the Orders in Council should be put on their trial in the committee. The question to be there examined was, whether any part of the commercial distress complained of, was owing to them, and not whether the policy which dictated them was founded upon right or wrong principles, notwithstanding the petitioners from Birmingham had ventured to decide the question, by asserting that the government had overturned the clearest principles of national law. After the wiss

1111
and strong declaration of ministers on the subject just published, it would indeed appear inconsistent if they were to assent to the motion without entering their protest against the supposition that they concurred, because they entertained the slightest doubt as to the propriety of persisting in the Orders in Council. It was a foul libel to assert, that the Orders in Council had been resorted to for the extension of the commerce of Great Britain. He expressed his conviction, derived from experience of the proceedings of a committee four years ago, that little or no benefits would result from the enquiry about to be commenced. He therefore rather assented to the appointment of a committee as a negative good, and to prevent misconstruction; and he trusted that the investigation would be conducted in a fair, temperate, and candid manner. In reply to the speech of another hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) he maintained, that the government of the United States did insist strenuously not only on the repeal of the Orders in Council, but of the blockade of 1807. After noticing the impossibility that mechanics taken from their looms could be competent judges on a question of such vast magnitude, and asserting that the distresses of trade proceeded from the glut of 1809, and the disturbances from the high price of provisions, he concluded by staling his willingness to go into the committee, for the purpose of quieting the public mind. He reprobated the introduction of such topics as the riots in Nottinghamshire, and the scarcity, in a discussion on the present subject; nevertheless, if the yellow fever raged in the country, and it was the belief of many persons that it proceeded from the Orders in Council, he would consent that the subject should be examined, merely for the sake of removing the false impression.
Lord Stanley,in explanation, said he had not stated that the Berlin Decree was a mere municipal regulation. He wished to enquire whether, if it should appear that the Orders in Council constituted the principal cause of the present distress, his Majesty's government would give up the measure, or persevere in their former declaration?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he did not feel it necessary in this stage of the business, before any enquiry had been made, to enter into any pledge or promise as to his future conduct. Supposing, however, that it were proved that
1112
the distresses complained of were in some degree, or altogether, occasioned by the Orders in Council, it would still remain a question for parliament to decide, whether, weighing the disadvantages against the benefits, they should be abandoned. He was fully persuaded that the result of the examinations would be, that the distresses now felt (in the only year out of the four in which the Orders in Council existed in which they had been complain-ed of) originated in causes completely distinct, connected with the excessive commerce previously carried on. He would, therefore, give no pledge as to his future determination.
Mr. Tierneythought that he could answer his noble friend's question, though the right hon. gentleman would not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been asked whether he would consent to the committee?—His answer was in the negative. Consulting his friends, however, he found among them such strong symptoms of disaffection as induced him to alter his determination. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was now asked if he would repeal the Orders in Council after the report of the committee had been made? His answer was, No. If the right hon. gentleman should discover, however, that desertion was likely to ensue, and he should be left in a minority, when the time arrived no doubt he would be as ready to repeal the Orders as he was to consent to the committee upon them.
The question was then put, and agreed to, and it was ordered that the committee on the Orders in Council should sit to-morrow, and be continued 'de die in diem.' Witnesses from Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, &c. were summoned to attend on the motion of Mr. Brougham.

MR. HENRY'S SECRET MISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. Whitbread,referring to the accounts just received by the. American papers, of Mr. Madison's Message to Congress, relative to an authorised agent being employed by the British government to foment the separation of the Eastern State from the Union, and ascertain the sentiments of the people of Boston on that topic, wished to ask the noble lord opposite, if he avowed the authenticity of the letter stating this fact, or-knew of such agent so authorised?
Lord Castlereaghreplied, that, in his opinion, this matter bad been very unfairly brought forward by the American.

1113
government. He thanked the hon. gentleman for affording him this opportunity for explanation, and begged, on the part of the British government, to disclaim, most explicitly and peremptorily, having encouraged any disposition of the kind alluded to. It was true, that an agent had been employed by sir James Craig, without the privity of the government, who only heard of that circumstance in the dispatch—announcing, at the same time, that he had been recalled, on the appearance of a pacific understanding being come to between the countries—having only been sent for the sole purpose of receiving information necessary to the commander of a province threatened with invasion.
Mr. Whitbreadread a passage from a letter dated 26th Feb. 1809, mentioning the separation of the Union, and wished to know on its being communicated to government, what steps were consequently taken?
Lord Castlereaghwas not prepared to say that any blame had been attached to sir J. Craig. All that he had directed the agent to ascertain was, the temper of the States near that which he had to defend: and that he had no other objects but defence in view, was clear, from his immediately recalling the person when the apprehension of invasion was over.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he was not at all satisfied with this answer, and would be glad to know if government would produce the correspondence with sir James Craig, if moved for?
Mr. Ponsonbyalso referred to a letter from Mr. Ryeland, to the agent, Henry, in which he proposed to furnish him with a cypher, in which to carry on his correspondence, and authorized him to meet any leading men on the subject of the separation, if they shewed a disposition to come under the protection of the British government. He was desirous of information on this subject.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he had not found this letter among sir J. Craig's correspondence.
Mr. Whitbreadthen gave notice of a motion for the production of these papers to-morrow.

RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Lord Grenville presented a Petition from Bristol, praying that their lordships would not consent to a renewal of the exclusive privileges of the East India Company. The Petition was read by the clerk. Upon which
Lord Grenvillesaid, that in rising to move that this Petition do lie on the table, he could not avoid recalling their lordships' attention to what took place on a former evening respecting the intended discussion on the great national question to which the Petition referred. They were told it was intended to bring forward these discussions at an early ensuing period this session. They were all agreed that the question was not only of the greatest importance to the commercial interests of the country, but involved, at the same time, some of the highest interests on which the British legislature could be called upon to deliberate. This subject, great and extensive as it was, he held it would be utterly impossible, were they to confine themselves even to the commercial part of the question, to discuss in a fit and proper manner, such as its importance required, in what remained of the session. The subject was recommended to the attention of parliament from the throne at the beginning of the session. Four months had now elapsed without a moment of time being bestowed upon it: but now, when they were told the subject was very nearly ripe for consideration, their lordships were expected to remain in the same state of utter inactivity, with respect to it, waiting until they should receive lessons from the other House of Parliament on the subject, and until it was brought before them
1078
in the shape of a Bill. A noble friend of his had suggested a mode of proceeding, in which the subject could be brought before both Houses of Parliament, where the functions of the one House could not be necessarily excluded until the other branch of the legislature had taken its final leave of the business, but a mode and system of deliberation in which both Houses could reciprocally afford light and assistance to each other. He trusted some one of his noble friends would come forward this session, and bring the subject before the House in the shape of Resolutions, involving the consideration, whether, on just grounds, the trade, not only to the East Indies, but to every other part of the globe, should be prevented from becoming general, or confined exclusively to any part of the kingdom. In this train of discussion, he trusted they all wished to see it; and he again expressed his hope, that some noble lord would, were it not done by the King's government, bring the subject before the House in the shape of Resolutions. His lordship concluded by moving, that the Petition do lie on the table.
The Earl of Buckinghamshireaverred that his Majesty's government entertained the strongest desire and the most determined resolution, to propose nothing to parliament which they were satisfied in their own minds was, upon this great occasion, not conducive to the general interests of the country. His noble friend and the House were aware, it was a subject which involved such a collision of interests, that there could be no intention on the part of his Majesty's government to precipitate the discussion of the measure. With respect to the particular course of proceeding to be adopted, a variety of opinions might arise; but, with respect to those avowed by his noble friend on that head, he would beg to look to what was his own conduct on a similar occasion, while forming a part of the then government. He surely would not pretend to state that the subject was not equally important in the year 1793 as it now was. At that time, his noble friend discharged his duly in the manner he thought most advantageous for the purpose, when he pursued a course directly the reverse of what he now recommended. He was sure, if consistency were to be found in any individual, his noble friend could not object to the adoption of a similar course on the present occasion.
Lord Grenvillemust protest against any comparison of the importance of the question in 1793, and at the present period. At that time there did not exist that great, immense, and extensive difference of opinion which now evidently existed. The question then was, whether it were proper to continue, for a limited time, the system then in existence. At present the strongest difference was manifested, as appeared by the numerous Petitions and applications to the legislature from every part of the country. Those who, on the former occasion, were of opinion that no change ought to be made, might have considered the period of the session at which they came forward, abundantly sufficient for agitating the operation; in that point of view might, on the same principle, now consider a similar period for discussion totally insufficient. Whatever the difference of opinion might be upon almost all other points, they were all decided that a great and effectual change must take place in the whole system; a consideration which would bear no comparison with the mere question of continuance. But there was another consideration which it was impossible any noble lord could overlook, namely, that which was presented by a view of the distresses of the country, by the cries and lamentations of their fellow subjects for opening new markets, when the trade and commerce of the country were in the lowest and most distressed situation ever known—a situation to which the weak and wretched policy of ministers had reduced them.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he must be allowed to observe, that there was no disposition whatever, nor any reason to suppose there was, on the part of the King's servants, to avoid any course of proceeding that would give to parliament and to the country the fullest opportunities of deliberating on the subject in question. Even if the course adverted to was adopted, it would still be at the option of any noble lord to bring forward any of the great branches of the subject under separate discussion. With respect to what was said of the occasion in 1793, if he were not mistaken, there were also at that time the strongest representations from all the manufacturing towns, soliciting that the trade might then be thrown open to the country at large; and an arrangement had been proposed, by which it was thought that considerable benefits in the way of trade might be derived by individuals
1080
through the medium of the Company. He was far from being insensible to all the difficulties and dangers of the present moment; but this was the first time he ever heard the year 1793 pointed out as one of great prosperity. On the contrary, it might be doubted, whether there was ever a period in which the universal commercial distresses of the country were greater than at that very period.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended, that a great and striking difference existed in the state of the question at present, and at the period of 1793. They had not then, as now, a prospect of India being a burthen upon the finances of the country. A noble marquis, then in his eye, had most ably demonstrated the great benefits which would result from a free trade to India; the military and political parts of the question also constituted an essential difference. Neither was there any comparison between the state of this country at the period alluded to and at the present time.
Earl Greyobserved, that ministers continued to say, that there was every disposition on their part that this most important subject should have the fullest discussion, but still they delayed bringing forward any measure relating to it. Not even a notice had yet been given as to when it was to be proposed, whilst the session was advancing to so late a period, that there would be a moral impossibility of giving the subject that deliberate discussion which its extreme importance so urgently demanded.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

MR. HENRY'S SECRET MISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.
Lord Hollandsaid a rumour had been in circulation for the last twenty-four hours, of a Message having been sent by the President of the United States to Congress, charging that an agent from this country had been employed, by the governor of the adjacent British territories, to foment discontents in the United States, with the view of separating the Union; and the Message was stated to be accompanied by documents comprising the correspondence, which proved, as asserted, the existence of the agency. He believed there was no foundation for this statement, and he trusted that such was the case; but it would be satisfactory to the House and the public, if the noble lord opposite would give a contradiction to it.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he had no hesitation in answering, that no person had been employed by this government to foment discontents in the United States, nor had there existed any intention on the part of government to foment discontents there, or to make any attempt to separate the Union. As to the person alluded to as an agent, he was persuaded that he could only have been employed for the purpose of obtaining information with a view to the defence of Canada., in the event of hostilities.
Lord Hollandasked, if there was any objection, on the part of the noble earl, explicitly to state, for the satisfaction of the public, whether captain Henry (for there could be no secret about the name) was or was not employed by this government? Or whether they knew of his being employed by Sir J. Craig?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid he had no hesitation in stating, that captain Henry was not employed by government at all, nor did they know of his being employed; and he was persuaded, from what he knew of sir James Craig, that sir James could only have employed him for the purpose of obtaining information with a view to the defence of Canada, under the impression that hostilities might perhaps soon commence.
Lord Hollandobserved, that there was probably some correspondence between sir J. Craig and the government, and suggested the propriety of laying that correspondence before the House.

GOLD COIN AND BANK NOTE AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the second reading of this Bill,
Earl Bathurstwas proceeding to observe upon the tacit acquiescence of some, and the feeble opposition of others, in another place, to this Bill, who last session vehemently opposed the measure, when he was called to order by
Lord Holland,who observed, that another place could only mean the House of Commons, and that it was irregular to comment in that way upon their proceedings, or to use what passed there as a means of influencing opinions in that House.
Earl Bathurstobserved, that there were other places where opinions were expressed besides the House of Commons. After explaining what he intended by the argument he was about to use when interrupt-
1082
ed, his lordship proceeded to comment upon the arguments adduced against this measure last session, when it was predicted that it would produce a still further depreciation of the currency of the country, and a still more unfavourable state of the exchange. Those who used the argument of depreciation, urged that the paper currency was depreciated on account of the hgh price of bullion. Since the passing of the measure, however, of last session, the price of bullion was lower, and the exchange was less unfavourable. The measure, therefore, had not produced any of the effects which it was predicted it would. The unfavourable state of the exchange he attributed to our foreign expenditure, and observed, that that unfavourable state of the exchange, combined with a paper currency, enabled the country to carry on a profitable trade in the export of gold, until, from the demand here the price rose so high that the export ceased to produce a profit, and then the gold naturally returned. His lordship then entered into a history of the recoinages in 1695 and 1774, and of the acts of parliament and proclamations respecting the coin, for the purpose of shewing the effects then produced upon the circulation of the country and the state of the exchange, chiefly in answer to the arguments used by the earl of Lauderdale, in a book published by his lord-ship, and with the view of controverting the statements of the latter noble lord. Calculating the Gold Coin of the country at 39,000,000 l. and subtracting from it 9,000,000 l. exported in 1798, there did not now remain in circulation, his lordship observed, out of the 30,000,000 l. more than about 12 or 13,000,000 l. The deficit, therefore, was to be made up by a paper circulation, and he contended, that under all the circumstances of the increased trade of the country, there were no more Bank notes issued than were necessary for the circulation of the country. If, therefore, there was no excess in the issue of Bank notes, and he maintained that there was, it rested with those who supported the argument of depreciation, to prove that there was an excess.
Lord Kingobserved, that the noble earl had entered into a variety of minute statements, but had carefully kept out of sight the real object of the Bill, which was to-make Bank notes a legal tender. By the measure of last session, Bank notes were made a legal tender out of court, and now

1083
they came to be made a legal tender in court. Thus, whatever title they might choose to give the Bill, it was neither more nor less than to make Bank notes a legal tender. His lordship then adverted to some of the arguments used by earl Bathurst, and observed, that it was fallacious to state that an increased issue of Bank notes was in consequence of an increased trade and revenue; the revenue was in 1810, 65,000,000 l. and the issue of Bank notes 22,500,000 l. whilst in 1811, the revenue decreased to 62,600,000 l. and the issue of Bank-notes increased to 23,400,000 l. The depreciation of the paper currency was in fact acknowledged by ministers themselves in their conduct, though not in words. What was the reason for passing the Bill which had been that day read a third time, for increasing the annuity of the Princesses from 30,000 l. to 36,000 l. but because 36,000 l. now was only equal to 30,000 l. ten years ago? The same argument applied to Bills which were continually coming before them for increasing allowances of different descriptions. Was it not, therefore, manifestly unjust to pass such a Bill as the present, to compel persons to receive payments at a depreciated rate? His lordship alluded to the action he had brought against a Bank Director for 50 l. for rent, for the purpose of trying the question, and read a notice which had been served by his agent upon the officer of the court, cautioning him against taking Bank-notes in any payment into court, that being the question at issue, whether he (lord King) was to be compelled to receive Bank-notes, or could insist upon good and lawful money. The officer of the court did, however, notwithstanding this notice, receive the payment in Bank-notes; and his lordship contended that this was a power of dispensing with the law, which no officer of a court had a right to assume. His lordship maintained that this Bill would be characterized by posterity as a most iniquitous law, and must lead to the most ruinous consequences. They were called upon to make a legal tender the notes of the Bank of England, without any securities against an excessive issue, and a consequent excessive depreciation.—If the present measure was to be persevered in, his lordship contended that the practice of granting leases must cease. It was impossible to say how much in the course of six or seven years Bank-paper might be depreciated. He appealed to the noble earl with whom the present measure
1084
originated, who he knew felt for the labouring classes of the community, to reflect how cruelly this measure must militate against them; to noble lords on the other side it would be useless to appeal, they had already shewn, on the occasion of the Frame Breakers' Bill, that they were insensible to the sufferings of the labouring poor. To the noble earl, however, he thought he might appeal with safety on this head, and he asked of him, Did he not admit that, if we had a metallic circulating medium in this country, instead of a paper currency alone, the price of corn would at this moment have been less than it now was by at least one-fifth?
Earl Stanhopedisclaimed all connection with the manufacture of the swaddling cloaths in which the child, of which he was the parent, was now drest out. The child itself, however, he had no hesitation in acknowledging and supporting. Noble lords seemed not to know in what a pound sterling consisted. He would tell them first what it was not, and then he would tell them what it was. It was not a pound troy, or a pound averdupoise—they were measures of weight:—a pound sterling, was not a measure of weight but of value. In not attending properly to this distinction lay the greater part of the fallacy of the arguments on the other side. It was impossible for him to say that one of his hands was raised and another depressed, without comparing them to something that was fixed in its position. Noble lords who opposed this Bill had formerly contended that gold was of a fixed value; yet he now found an admission in a pamphlet by a noble earl (Lauderdale), that when gold began to be exported from a country, then that which remained rose in value. He declared it to be his firm conviction, that if he had not stopped his noble friend (lord King) by introducing the Bill of last year, we should soon have had Bank notes in this country where French Assignats were in France.
Earl Darnleysupported the measure, not seeing that any thing better could have been done.
The Earl of Lauderdaleargued against the Bill. After calculating the various profits of the Bank, he maintained that the principal effect of the measure would be, to put into the pockets of 600 bankstock holders the enormous sum of 17,525,000 l. by the most ruinous mode of taxation which could be devised. Every country in which a paper circulation had

1085
been forced on the people had been invariably ruined, and whatever evils might befal this country in a like attempt, their obstinacy against every kind of remonstration deserve it in some measure.
The Earl of Westmorlandspoke in support of the Bill.
Lord Grenvilleopposed the Bill. He compared the present proceedings of government to those of the French with respect to the assignats.—The noble lord dwelt at length on the evils which the people experienced by the depreciation of paper, which depreciation he attributed to an over issue on the part of the Bank.
The Earl of Liverpoolcontended that the existing circumstances of the country were to be ascribed to natural and simple causes, namely, the great foreign expenditure, and the considerable increase in the importation of grain. The argument of the noble baron who preceded him, was directed rather against the original measure of the suspension of cash payments, than against the present Bill, the object of which was to prevent the occurrence of injustice and oppression. Adverting to the supposition that there were two prices in the market, a cash price and a paper price, he denied the fact. On this point he was ready to meet the noble lords, guarding himself at the same time from the inference of maintaining that there might not have been a solitary instance or two of the existence of two prices. All he contended for was, that it was not a general practice.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday.
The Earl of Lauderdalegave notice, that before the House went into the committee on Friday, he would move an enquiry into the nature of the connection of the bank of England with government.

MR. HENRY'S SECRET MISSION.
Lord Holland,adverting to the conversation which had taken place early in the evening, observed, that he had since read the documents to which he had then alluded. If they were accurate as published, he must consider them as affording a most proper ground for parliamentary enquiry. If it should appear that Mr. Henry had been authorised to stir up the inhabitants of the Eastern States to rebellion and separation from the Western, such an act, on the part of one friendly power to another, could not be too severely censured or
1086
stigmatised. And whatever might be the sentiments of the noble earl, he was persuaded that he should have the concurrence in this opinion of the noble viscount who had lately acceded to his Majesty's government, and who had, at the commencement of the present unfortunate war, reprobated what he conceived to have been a similar attempt, as instanced in the case of the French consul at Dublin. He did not wish to take the business out of the hands of the noble Earl if he chose to bring it forward, but he was desirous to know, whether it was the noble earl's intention himself to lay on the table the documents alluded to?
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that he did not think it necessary to say any more at present, than that when the affair came to be enquired into, it would be found not to bear the construction set upon it by the noble lord.
Lord Holland,observing that the noble earl had refrained from answering his question, gave notice, that on Friday he would move for the production of the documents.