Sir Charles Mordaunt represented 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. Baring observed, 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. French government should substantially APRIL 28, 1812. [1106 repeal its Berlin and Milan Decrees. place in such a manner as to call upon us Whether that repeal had really taken ther consideration; but it was maintained to revoke our Orders in Council, was ano. that America was so hostile in its government towards this country, that the mere repeal of our Orders in Council would not admit, if that case could be proved, it now satisfy the United States. He would would be a strong argument why the Orders in Council should not be repealed, supposing them to be beneficial to the country.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 how. respondence between the American and Whoever would look into the corBritish governments, would find it distinctly stated by the former, that upon the repeal of our Orders in Council, their nonimportation act should be rescinded. The the only thing America required; there repeal of those Orders, he contended, was issue, upon the principle of blockade aswas no difference with her-no question at serted by this country. The correspondthe result which every person must draw ence would abundantly prove that; and from a perusal of that correspondence was, that the whole depended upon the repeat of our Orders in Council. ever. French Decrees had been actually reAnother question was, whether the pealed, 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 With regard to the expression which tion with this subject, a hostile mind expoint, however, was whether, in connechad been so often mentioned that evening, isted in the American government tohe would only say, that he could hardly wards this country, which nothing could be induced to believe on any evidence, satisfy ? He maintained, however, that at that the right hon. gentleman would treat the time America declared that France with levity and disrespect such respect- had revoked her Decrees, she had fair able persons as those who composed the grounds for saying so, and therefore just deputation from Birmingham; but if the right hon. gentleman had really wished to commencement of conciliation on the part reasons for expecting us to follow up the characterise the proceedings of govern- of France, by a revocation of our Orders ment, he could not have done it more aptly than by those words. As to the proper mode of communicating from one in Council. What, he would ask, was the matter before the House, the only part of country to another an act of the governit that was at all interesting, was not how ment? " In the Moniteur, or the Gazette," the Orders in Council had originated, not said the right hon. gentleman-he, howwhat had been their progress, but whether ever, (Mr. Baring) thought a direct comthe period had now arrived when an end munication from one minister to another ought to be put to them. And this view of the question had a particular reference communication the American government was just as legitimate, and that direct to America. It had been certainly held had had. But, it was argued, the French out to America that we were ready to re-government was not to be trusted. Was peal our Orders in Council when the that language to be used from one country (VOL, XXII.) (4 B) 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 Conncil 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. to another? Was it not a sentiment cal- | really prosperous, he should be satisfied culated to destroy all confidence between of their utility and expediency; but was nations, and to interpose an impassible such the state of the trade; or rather, 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 Lord Castlereagh said, the vote heshould 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 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%. the amount of the former for the same period, 62,000,000l. for the year before, 66,000,000l. and the preceding year, 49,000,000l. 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 1 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. Brougham said, 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 wise and strong declaration of ministers on the | 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 complained 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. 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 wasa 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 go-gative. Consulting his friends, however, vernment 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 stating 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 iu 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 Exchequer replied, 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 Mr. Tierney thought 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 ne 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, Now 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 Castlereagh replied, that, in his opinion, this matter had been very unfairly brought forward by the American : government. He thanked the hon. gen- | before this House, a detailed Account of tleman 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. Whitbread read 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 Castlereagh was 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. Whitbread said, 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. Ponsonby also 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 Castlereagh said, he had not found this letter among sir J. Craig's correspondence. Mr. Whitbread then gave notice of a motion for the production of these papers to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. EXPENCE OF PUBLISHING PROCLAMATIONS IN THE IRISH NEWSPAPERS.] Sir John Newport moved, "That there be laid the expenditure of the sum of 10,2051. 128. paid from the Treasury of Ireland, for publishing Proclamations, and other matters of a public nature, in the Dublin Gazette, and other newspapers in Ireland, from the 5th of January 1811 to the 5th of January 1812, specifying the titles and dates of the Proclamations so published and paid for." In making this motion, the right hon. gentleman reprobated the wasteful manner in which the public money was expended, by the publication of these Proclamations, which, he said, were frequently given to the proprietors of newspapers, as a remuneration for their services, in supporting the measures of the government. Mr. Wellesley Pole felt no disposition to object to the motion, although the right hon. gentleman had not given any regular notice of his intention to bring it forward. With respect to the wasteful manner in which the right hon. gentleman had stated the public money had been squandered, he had only to observe, that during the last year, for the first time, the expenditure for the purposes alluded to, had been much less than on any former occasion, having been within the sum allowed by parliament for that purpose. When the right hon. gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, the expenditure was 17,000l per annum, and was never less than 15,000l. The newspaper in which the proclamations were generally inserted, was The Dublin Journal, which it was known had been the channel through which the Irish government had issued their orders for fifty years. As to the assertion, that the Irish government had rewarded or encouraged the conductors of newspapers who had thought proper to support their measures, by any unnecessary expenditure of public money, he begged leave to give it the most unqualified contradiction. Mr. Parnell gave full credit to the right hon. gentleman, for the economical measures which had been pursued by the present government of Ireland. He, however, observed, that it had been candidly admitted by his predecessor in office (lord Wellington,) that those proclamations were given to certain papers as a reward for their advocating the measures of go vernment. The motion was then agreed to. BILL FOR PREVENTING THE COUNTER |