HOUSE OF Lords.

Thursday, Feb. 11. LORD Hawkesbury laid on the table a a copy of Mr Jefferson's late message to the American Congress; and also copies of certain communications from the British Minister in America. Ordered to be printed.

Lord Grenville moved for an address to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to give orders for laying before the House a copy of the late treaty concluded with the American Plenipotentiaries.-Agreed to.

Lord Grey rose to move for a variety of papers relating to the Austrian and Russian offers of mediation. He did not approve of any attempts to agitate petitions for peace, because that was not the surest way to obtain that ob ject; but it was highly important to ascertain that no practicable opportunity had been neglected for obtaining it. Complete impartiality was not at all times to be looked for in a mediator; all that could be required was, that the mediator was not under hostile engagements with respect to one of the belligerents, and a fair presumption that he was desirous of effecting a reconciliation. It was therefore of the highest importance to know what answer had been return ed by Lord Gower to the note, in which Count Budberg, though he complained of the conduct of this country, still of fered his Sovereign's mediatorial offices. His Lordship contended that no engagement had been violated by the late Ministers, and that they had never given other ground of hope than a general assurance of their readiness to cooperate in any practicable way which Russia could point out, on such a scale as was proportioned to the military means of this country. His Lordship briefly touched on the various events which had occurred, from the breaking out of the war between Prussia and France, down to the period when he and his colleagues left office, to prove that, from the state of the season, from the complete dispersion of the Prussian April 1808.

army, and from the ineffective and ill provided state of the Russian army, this country could not have given any efficient aid in continental operations. Lord Hutchinson had indeed, on the 9th March, forwarded a dispatch, pressing the sending of a body of troops up the Baltic to join the Russians; but when he reached their camp, and saw their true condition, he was soon convinced that such an aid would be of little avail. So little of foresight was there on their side, that while the enemy abounded in supplies of every kind, though in a hostile country, the Russians were actually reduced to the greatest-distress. The late Ministry had not thrown any obstacle in the way of the proposed loan to Russia; but when the sum demanded was six millions, it would not seem surprising that,with the experience of the Austrian loan before them, they had declined to guarantee the repayment of such a sum; and without such guarantee the money could not be raised. His Lordship concluded with moving for the production of the several documents connected with the principal topics on which he had touched.

He

Lord Hawkesbury vindicated the conduct of Ministers, in not entering, in their declaration against Russia, into the details of the complaint which she brought forward in her declaration, any further than to shew that they formed no valid justification for her conduct. Ministers had not rejected the mediation of Austria or Russia; but they con. ceived it their duty to require some basis previous to negociation. must do the late Ministers the justice to state, that they had violated no stipulation with Russia; and he completely concurred in what had been stated by the Noble Lord, as to the impracticability of giving effectual aid to the continent, for some time after the rupture between Prussia and France; but he blamed them much for having given a general assurance of readiness to co-operate, not only without preparing the means of transporting an army to the

con

continent, but while they were actually diminishing the number of transports. From the moment that Russia and Sweden were disposed to risk every thing for the deliverance of Europe, it was their duty to strain every nerve to aid them by men and money.-He was ready to admit that the sum of six millions was too large to be advanced, either as a loan or subsidy, but thought that three millions might have been granted in either way. The result of not giving any assistance to Russia had been, to impress the people on the continent with the idea that we goaded them on to hostilities with France for British interest alone. His Lordship expressed a readiness to assent to the production of many of the papers moved for.

Lord Moira remarked upon the incongruity of Ministers rejecting the mediation of Russia with France, on the ground of secret articles hostile to this country, while they yet applied for her mediation with regard to Denmark. He contended, that the largest force we could have spared, which was about 30,000 men, with the aid of 15,000 Swedes, could have produced no alteration in the fate of the last campaign. The only chance of turning the tide of victory consisted in Austria's accession to the coalition.

Lord Hutchinson entered into a long detail of the events of the last campaign, and contended, that, at no period of it, did there appear any hope of success. The question was then put on the different motions, some of which were agreed to, and others negatived.

Monday, Feb. 15.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL. (See p. 189.) Lord Auckland rose for the purpose of calling the attention of their Lordships to a subject, perhaps of as much importance as ever came before them. It was a subject concerning materially the whole of that system upon which the commercial prosperity of the country was founded. There were four points in the Orders of Council which he proposed to consider. These were their legality; their policy and expediency; the time and manner of issuing them; and, lastly, their intelligibility. With respect to the first, his Lordship contended that the Orders in Council were in direct contradiction to the received

maxims of the law of nations. Upon what grounds could ministers justify their system, the execution of which must operate as a complete interdiction of all neutral commerce? The orders also were as little to be justified on the score of policy and expediency, for they tended to embroil us with the only state that deserved the name of a neutral power. And at what a time too had Ministers chosen to have recourse to this system of restriction? It was at a period when negociations of the greatest importance were pending between us and that power who would be most affected by the execution of these orders. His Lordship here stated a num. ber of hypothetical cases, to prove the absurd and contradictory nature of the Orders in Council, and their injustice as applying to vessels under the American flag. His Lordship having dwelt some time on the inefficacy of such a system, concluded with moving, that the Orders in Council, which were recommended in his Majesty's speech to the serious and early attention of Parliament, should be referred to a Committee.

Lord Bathurst defended, at considerable length, the policy of the orders is. sued by his Majesty, at a period when France had insultingly dared this country to its utmost. On the bare principle of retaliating the hard conditions of France on her own head, the Ministry were justified in the conduct they had adopted. They had enacted, pro tempore, a species of modified blockade, which, it was to be wished, should as soon as possible be removed, but which had originated, and must also cease with the disposition displayed on the part of the enemy. It had ever been a princi ple that neutrals should not relieve or supply an enemy.

Lord Erskine strongly expressed his disapprobation of the conduct of Government. He was amazed to hear Noble Lords talk of the necessity, or even policy, of the measures under dis. cussion. Did they shelter themselves under the principle of retaliation? If so, the House had been long since apprised, that this measure of our Govern. ment far outstript that of the enemy. It could not undoubtedly be defended on the principle of policy, for here it met the most direct opposition from

the

the common consent of mankind, in the institutes of national law.

The Lord Chancellor contended these orders were not violations, either of the public law of nations, or the municipal law of this country. They were found ed on the most paramount of all rights that of self-preservation. He considered it inconsistent with his Majesty's late Ministers to raise objections against a system of conduct, which they were the first to institute, and which every man must admit was called for by the violent and unjustifiable decrees of the French Government.

Lord Grenville, in an eloquent and argumentative speech of upwards of two hours, took a view of the measure in all its bearings. He considered the question as the most important that ever came before Parliament, whether as it regarded justice, the constitution, right, or policy; nay, as involving not only the prosperity, but the very existence of the state. He contrasted the order of Council of the 7th January 1807 with the recent orders. The former, he said, embraced the means of retaliation, which it kept within the boundary of the law of nations; whereas the latter, while they violated all those laws, were so contradictory and unintelligible that they could not be acted upon. The French decrees for the bluckade of the British islands, &c. were made the ground of these orders; but it ought to be recollected that these deerees were not, and could not be acted upon. The Noble Lord continued, in a most animated appeal to the House, to interpose between this country and its destruction, to retread its steps, as the path through which it moved led quickly to the grave. He warned them against the renewal of a system of taxation, either directly or indirectly, upon American trade; and conjured them to seize the opportunity afforded them, by the pre-eminence of France in this rivalry of injustice, of erasing from the mind of the people, the least intention of acting upon a system of policy rashly introduced, and wantonly pursued, calculated for no other purpose than to involve this nation in an unjust war.

Lord Hawkesbury said, if ever there was a question material for the consideration of that House, it was the present one; the measure was founded

upon an example furnished by his Ma jesty's late Ministers, and surely it was unjust in them to find fault with an act that originated with themselves. The order of Council of 1807 laid the foun dation for the orders they were then discussing, and when a rule was once laid down, it was generally unwise to depart from it.

The House then divided-Contents 48-Non-contents 106-Majority 58. Adjourned at four o'clock on Tuesday morning. Thursday, Feb. 18.

ORDERS OF COUNCIL.

On the motion of Lord Grenville, for copies and extracts of all information received by Government, shewing the effect produced by the French decrees

on which the orders of council had been

made, a short debate took place.

Lord Hawkesbury said, the information demanded by the Noble Lord could not readily be granted.

the motion, and expressed an opinion, Earl Grey and Lord Erskine supported that the papers might be produced by the Noble Secretary, with omission of individuals from whom information had names and locality likely to injure those

been received.

The Lord Chancellor argued, that a disclosure of private information, omitting names, would materially injure the individuals from which the intelligence had been received.

The motion, however, on a division, was carried-47 to 38.

THE DANISH Navy.

Lord Viscount Sidmouth considered it of the highest importance to the honour of England, that the pledge we had given for the restoration of the Danish ships should be minutely and conscientiously attended to. When he saw reports from the surveyors of the navy respecting the ships, and he understood from authority that they were to be joined to the British force, he felt concerned for the honour of the country. We had proceeded to Zealand with the sword in one hand, and peace in the other. The Crown Prince could not in honour consent to deliver up his navy, without making a struggle in its defence. The event of that struggle had placed the Danish navy in our possession; but it did not give us the right of appropriat

ing it to our service. If, by a great national misfortune, our navy had suffered considerable diminution, Government might be justified in employing any ships in our ports for the general service; but, in the present state of our maritime strength, we want no assistance of such description. The Danish ships were not fit for our service. He spoke from authority. They were not capable of standing the perils of the sea, therefore the employ of them would not be justified on a plea of necessity, or general utility. If it was the intention of Government to make these ships our own, we were about to do an act which the world would condemn. The Noble Viscount concluded his speech with moving, "That it was expedient, for the honour of this country, that the Danish navy should be kept in preservation, to be restored to Denmark when peace should take place."

Lord Boringdon expressed his surprise that, with the keen and vivacious sensibility now exhibited by the Noble Lord, he had omitted to move a similar resolution respecting the Toulon fleet and the Spanish frigates. The only effect of such a resolution, if acceded to, would be to fetter the hands of Ministers when they came to negociate for a general peace. It should be recollected, that the expedition to Zealand rested not merely on the ground of necessity, but also on the malus animus of Denmark for a considerable length of time, and on the assertion of his Majesty's Ministers, who were entitled to credit, that France had resolved to possess herself of the Danish fleet. Without meaning to disparage the general character of the Crown Prince, he must say that, towards us, he had not so acted as to give him any additional claim to our consideration or esteem.

Lord Ellenborough had been accustomed to preside over criminal cases in Courts of Judicature, and, from his conception of right and wrong, he had no hesitation in saying, that the detention of the Danish ships would be an act of injustice.

The Lord Chancellor expressed his sur prise that the Noble and Learned Judge should impute injustice to the conduct of Ministers towards Denmark.

Lord Erskine spoke in favour of the motion, and, in a speech of considerable

length, argued against the detention of the Danish navy after peace should be established.

Lord Selkirk supported the present motion, though he approved of the expedition.

Lord Darnley conceived that the honour and interest of the country should have prevented us, in the first instance, from carrying the plan conceived against Copenhagen into execution; but it did not follow, that, because that act of violence and unjustifiable aggression had been committed, we were to add infamy to iniquity.

Lord Grenville took a short view of the general heads of arguments urged by his Majesty's Ministers, and concluded with stating, that he was decidedly of opini on, that the greatest service would result to this country from the restoration of the Danish fleet, even under existing circumstances, if that power could be thus conciliated. Nothing, in his miud, could be more ridiculous than the notion, that by taking 15 or 18 ships from the Danes, we had established our own security, and completed the ruin of their navy.

Lord Hawkesbury said, that having put ourselves in possession of the fleet of Denmark, were we to be called on at this moment to surrender it, when the Danish Government had declared for Bonaparte, and entered most cordially into his views of ruining us both by sea and land?

After a short recapitulation and reply from Lord Sidmouth, their Lordships divided,-For the motion, siAgainst it, 105.

Adjourned at two o'clock.

Thursday, Feb. 25.

Lord Bathurst rose to move the second reading of the Brazil trade bill. The only object of the measure was to make such an alteration in the general navigation laws as to admit the produce of the Brazils, when imported in Portuguese ships, on the same footing as if imported in British vessels; or, in other words, to place the colony, under the present circumstances, in the same relation towards us as the mother country. It was unnecessary to go at present into any of the speculative views. whether favourable or otherwise, which had been entertained in regard to the commercial

effects

effects of the new situation in which the Brazils and this country were now placed. He trusted that it would prove such as, instead of injuring our colonial interests, would materially benefit them; and, at the same time, furnish additional employment for our manufactories and shipping. To the Brazils we might resort for cotton for the home market; and lumber, rice, and provisions in general for the West India market.

Lord Auckland said, the measure would require the most serious investigation when it came to be considered with a view to a permanent arrangement. The imports from the Brazils must enter most materially into competition with those from our own colonies. The Brazils furnished for exportation yearly about 73,000 hogsheads of sugar, and 24,000,000 lbs. of cotton. The produce of all our colonies was, of the former article, 280,000 hogsheads, of the latter, 16,000,000 lbs. It therefore struck him as a policy extremely questionable, to give facility and encouragement to the importation of foreign colonial produce to such an extent, at a period when we had a dead surplus of 80,000 hogsheads of sugar, and immense quantities of other commodities, lying in the West India Dock warehouses. He did not think the evil would be removed by the permission to distill from sugar; for, if the distilleries were confined to that article alone, the demand would not exceed 12,000 hogsheads.

Lord Grenville concurred as to the im, policy of permanently encouraging the cultivation of the Brazils in such a way as to affect the interests of the West India planters; more particularly as the inevitable tendency of such a system would be, not only to frustrate the act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, such as it was at the period of passing the act, but to revive and extend it in a tenfold degree. He conceived that Par liament, and his Majesty's Ministers, were bound to interpose in the most prompt and efficacious manner, to prevent this lamentable consequence of the emigration of the Portuguese Government; and thought the present period eminently favourable to a negociation with the Prince of the Brazils, to put an end to that detested traffic.

Lord Hawkesbury stated the purpose of the bill to be no more than that of

placing the colony, which had now become the seat of the Portuguese Government, in the same situation with the mother country; a change which he conceived to be strictly conformable to the spirit of the Navigation Act. What further arrangement should take place, must depend on a deliberate view of all the circumstances arising out of the new relations of the two Governments. With regard to the Slave Trade, though he had differed with the majority of the Legslature on that point, he conceived it to be the duty of his Majesty's Government to make every exertion to give the completest effect to what had become the law of the land. The bill was then read a second time.

Lord Carlisle then directed their Lordships attention to the Order in Council of the 25th of November, as bearing upon the act respecting the trade to and from the Isle of Man. By that act, teas, wine, &c. could not be exported from that island, but to Great Britain; whereas the Order in Council permitted the free exportation of all articles legally imported. His Lordship contended, that this was an assumption of a dispensing power, and urged Ministers to apply for an Act of indemnity; conceiving that the breach of the law committed was the result of inadvertency. He concluded with proposing a resolution, declaring the regulation referred to a manifest breach of the law.

The Lord Chancellor contended, that the words of the Order did not carry the meaning annexed to them by the Noble Lord, and therefore that no violation of law had taken place.

Lords Grenville, Erskine, Lauderdale, and Auckland, supported the motion on the same grounds stated by the Noble Mover; while Lord Hawkesbury contended for the interpretation given by the Lord Chancellor. The motion was negatived without a division.

[A protest was entered against the rejection of the Earl of Carlisle's motion, signed, Carlisle, Grenville, Erskine, Spencer, Lauderdale, Grev, Auckland, and Wentworth Fitzwilliam.]

Monday, February 29. ORDERS IN COUNCIL. Lord St John, after several observations on the late Orders in Council, expressive of the sense his Lordship en