mine whether he stated correctly, what was contained in them. But what was the case which he cited? Mr. Fox accused Mr. Pitt of not having had pacific dispositions; Mr. Pitt, in reply, says, I had pacific dispositions, and to prove it, he takes from his pocket a dispatch nine years old, and reads it to satisfy Mr. Fox, who had made a personal charge against Mr. Pitt's inclinations to peace, which Mr. Fox says, he is sorry he had not made public earlier. Now is this in the least like the case in question? Mr. P. was not required to lay the paper on the table; Mr. P. was not influencing the decisions of the house by the paper; but he was satisfying an individual objection to the pacific character of his admi--I said nothing vindictive or personal, nistration, and to confirm his assertion, he and I have put no coarse expression in read the dispatch of nine years old, and the motion. But the vindictive spirit of he read it throughout; how can this be the defence, and my being falsely ac compared with the conduct to which my cused of a vindictive spirit, entitles me to motion refers? Does this drive me from say now with truth, that he did garble the the principle stated by Mr. Pitt in 1792? dispatches which he read, and that having quite the reverse, it leaves his conduct and assigned false causes for his attack on Cothe principle I contend for quite untouch-penhagen, he could not refuse informa ed. Why did not the right hon. gent. tion on the ground of confidence, but was follow it? why, because his previous mis- obliged to have recourse to garble the conduct and misrepresentation had made dispatches, which he read to this house. it quite impossible for him to rest on con- The gentlemen on the other side say, that stitutional ground, and to comply with the the cases I quoted do not bear me out, and usages of parliament. He had published that as no motion was made on them, that a declaration, in which he made his ma- it proves there was nothing irregular jesty tell all Europe, that the affair of done, and that Mr. Fox, being a political Copenhagen was justified by the secret enemy of lord Melville, his reprimand is article of the treaty of Tilsit-so it stands no authority Sir, I deny the accuracy of in the first declaration-in the second de- this reasoning--the cases to be found are claration respecting Russia, the talk of se- but two-they are slight transgressions, cret arrangements at Tilsit, as justifying compared to that which I am now centheir measure-but in his majesty's speech suring, and the mere notice was thought they drop these justifications entirely, and sufficient to check them But what was they call it a painful-(not a just-the the conduct to which my motions refer? usual expression)-but a painful and ne- -A secretary of state for three hours tocessary measure. It was incumbent upon gether, taking from his box state paper them to answer all this in parliament; they after state paper, reading them partially, had publicly declared the ground on commenting upon them, and replacing which they had attacked Copenhagen, and them in his box, and thereby influencing they had declared false ground-they could debate and decision-refusing, and prenot have recourse to Mr. Pitt's consti- vailing on the house to refuse, information tutional defence in 1792-he had made no by these very statements, on which he false declarations to embarrass him, there- rested his case. Was this like the transfore when he refused papers he desired action in 1725? The duke of Newcastle the house to confide in him, that there stated but a short passage, and that was were secrets of state, the disclosure of objected to, as contrary to parliamentary which would injure the public-that he re-usage.-Lord Melville read but a passage, quired not a base and servile, but an ho- and that was immediately objected tonourable and constitutional confidence. but it was objected to by his political eneBut the conduct of the right hon. gent.my, Mr. Fox. I ask, in answer, was it jusby his previous unfounded justification had tified by his political friend Mr. Pitt?deprived him of all right to confidence, No, never-It therefore remains a reproand of all means of using it-that consti- bated and an unjustified transgression. I am

tutional argument for secrecy. He must refuse the papers, and the only ground he had for inducing the house to agree with him was, to state parts of those very papers which he refused. Sir, the manner in which the right hon. gent. has attacked me in defending himself makes it necessary for me to state the truth.—[A laugh from the government benches.]— Sir, if I have committed a lapsus linguæ in the hurry of speaking, it argues no folly in the person speaking, whatever folly may be attached to those who raise the laugh. Sir, I have in my motions and in my opening stated nothing but truth, but I stated it in temperate and civil language.

accused, sir, by the hon. gent. who spoke last, with having myself committed a most violent offence against order, by having introduced a question with reference to a former debate, at the distance of a month. Sir, I have done no such thing. Your at-administration, who is charged with havtention to the orders of this house would ing done what I charged the right hon. have checked me if I had done so. My secretary to have done, by stating the mimotion is founded upon what appears on nute of cabinet which took place at the the journals of the 8th of Feb. On that change of administration. Has the hon. day a motion was made, and the question gent. and those near him, forgot that being put, "That an humble address be there is a news-paper called the Morning presented to his maj. that he will be gra- Post, that that minute had been previously ciously pleased to give directions, that published in that newspaper in a garbled there be laid before this house a copy of state; who furnished that garbled minute the dispatch from lord visc. Howick to Mr. to the Morning Post? perhaps the right Garlike, dated London Dec. 3, 1806, an hon. secretary can tell this, and if he can, extract from which was read by Mr. secre- shall we hesitate to be convinced that tary Canning in his place in this house he is himself the reader of garbled exon Wednesday last, and the Answer of tracts. But, sir, lord Grey stated here, that Mr. Garlike thereto," it passed in the he acted by the permission of the king. negative. Resolved, that an humble ad- What he stated (for he read nothing) 'dress be presented to his majesty, that was by his majesty's permission to coun'he will be graciously pleased to give di- teract a newspaper misrepresentation, and rections, that there be laid before this not to influence decision; to set himhouse copy of the Note delivered by Mr. self and his colleagues right in the eyes Rist to lord viscount Howick, relative to of this house; and it seems most extraorthe Order in Council of January 7, 1807, dinary that a case thus circumstanced and the Answer thereto, extracts from should be cited, as having any bearing on 'which were read by Mr. Secretary Can- this case, when papers were read for hours 'ning in his place in this house on Wed- together without any authority to read nesday last. Ordered, That the said them, in order to influence debate and deaddress be presented to his majesty by cision.-Now, sir, I insist that the conduct 'such members of this house as are of his of the right honourable secretary, which 'majesty's most honourable privy council,' I call in question, is against the usage -These entries are unparalleled in the his- of parliament-that this is proved by its tory of parliament. I will venture to say, never appearing to have been the practice that it is the first time that any such en- of the house, and by its being checked try appears; they establish, if allowed to each time on the occasions on which it stand unobserved upon, that a secretary was done. As to modern practice, whatof state read parts of dispatches, and did ever it may be, I care not, because, I deny not deliver them in-they do not appear that that justifies the practice, or defeats to be before us, in either of the legitimate the ancient usage, founded on the principles modes by which we get state papers; they that formed the common law of the counhave not been laid, by the command of try, the practice of the house, and the the king, and one set of them is refused acquiescence of the people; and, I conto be addressed for by this house on the tend that my doctrine is confirmed and 8th. They are produced since on the established by the entries of the 8th of motion of the secretary of state himself, Feb. which I have read to the house, being on the 26th, and he who had before re- the only entries of the sort to be found fused them, for reasons of state safety, now on your journals. Had it been otherwise, moved for their production for self de- there must have been hundreds of the fence. Where then is his ground for same sort. It is to check this practice charging me with a disorderly proceeding? that I have moved these resolutions, the But, sir, the gentleman is equally unfor- wording of which the right hon. secretary tunate in his precedent, which has produc- has chosen to criticize. As to his insigmuch solemnity; indeed I am nificant grammatical observations, I cerastonished, how he and those connected tainly shall not waste the time of the with him should have the boldness to al- house by entering on them. But as to lude to that transaction, considering that their substance and object, my meaning

some among them are guilty of the greatest violation of the constitution that ever was committed, by their conduct on that occasion. I mean the reference to the conduct of lord Grey on the change of

ed so

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, March 7.

[DANISH SHIPS DETAINED PREVIOUS TO HOSTILITIES.] Lord Sidmouth wished to call the attention of their lordships to a subject which he considered of great importance. He alluded to the case of those Danish ships which had been detained in or brought into the ports of this country, previous to the commencement of hostilities with Denmark. He had heard, that in consequence of a rumour of the destination of the armament subsequently sent against Denmark, a representation had been made to government on behalf of the Danish vessels then in our ports, for the purpose of ascertaining, whether they were safe in completing their cargoes. The nature of this representation, or the answer to it, he did not know, but afterwards, in consequence of its being intimated by the Chamber of Commerce at Co

was this, and I contend that I have executed it-to resolve the fact in the first, and draw the conclusion in the second. The right hon. gentleman has retired, because they criminate him and you, sir, have sanctioned his act. I can only say what my meaning was. I will not assert that, in nice construction, the latter part of the second resolution may not be connected with the fact stated in the beginning of the first, namely, that the secretary of state being charged with having done the thing, the offence may not be referred to him personally, stated at the end of the second resolution. But my meaning was, by using the words confidential servants of the crown,' to make it a general proposition as to all, and not a breach of trust by one, as my object was a general resolution to prevent the grievance in future. Sir, I am now, notwithstanding the tone in which this has been taken up, perfectly satisfied that I have discharged a most important duty in bringing this most impor-penhagen, that there was no expectation tant question of the law and constitution of parliament into discussion; both to counteract the entries on the journals, and to check a course of proceeding which places the means of swaying the decisions and acts of this house, by misrepresenting facts, and withholding the evidence of them intirely in the hands of the ministers of the crown. If this object is obtained I am satisfied, and I am confident that in future what has been done now will put a stop to any such proceeding hereafter; and that in our time at least, no minister will dare to do what was done on the third of Feb. last. That being my conviction, I have no desire to take the sense of the house at this late hour, and after this very fatiguing week, upon the question. It is sufficient for me that it remains on record that I have interfered to check this most injurious and unconstitutional practice.

The house then divided upon the motion for the previous question, Ayes, 168; Noes, 67; Majority, 101.-While the Minority were in the lobby, Mr. Ponsonby addressed them.. He observed, that the order of the day, relative to the Orders in Council Bill, was yet to be disposed of. He supposed that ministers would not attempt to bring forward such a question at so late an hour. But if they would go into it, he hoped gentlemen would remain, and convince the chancellor of the exchequer that they could stay up as well as he or his colleagues. [A cry of hear! hear!]

of hostilities with this country, those vessels proceeded to complete their cargoes. Previous, however, to the sailing of the expedition, an order was issued, under which all these vessels were detained, and others brought in, the whole of which he had heard, were since condemned, and had become Droits of Admiralty. The produce of these vessels and cargoes, he had also heard, amounted to nearly two million. If these statements were true, he could not help thinking the circumstances unexampled in the annals of the country. Unless he had further information, he must even believe, that our expedition to Copenhagen caused the war with Denmark, and therefore that the vessels previously detained, ought to have been considered in a different situation from vessels detained in consequence of the previous hostile conduct of the power to which they belonged. He wished to ask the noble secretary of state whether it was true, that the vessels he had alluded to had been condemned in the manner stated, and also, whether the crews were detained as prisoners of war?

Lord Hawkesbury stated, that the same course had been adopted with respect to the Danish vessels which were detained on receiving information of the hostile intentions of Denmark, as had been adopted with respect to the vessels of other powers detained under similar circumstances. He thought it necessary also to state, that no assurance of protection was

given either directly or indirectly by government to the Danish vessels in our ports, at the period mentioned by the noble viscount.

| troops composing the army that attacked Monte Video, all of whom felt highly grateful for this mark of the approbation of their fellow-subjects, thus conveyed to The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that them through the 'medium of their represome of these vessels had been previously sentatives.-Mr. Simeon brought up the brought into our ports, having been de- report of the Grampound Election comtained as neutrals under different pre-mittee, which declared the election for tences; and that, in several instances, there were decrees of the court of admiralty in their favour; but, by the Order alluded to by the noble viscount and the subsequent proceedings, all these were also condemned, which formed a peculiar case of hardship upon the individuals whose property was thus taken from them. Lord Sidmouth was not satisfied with the explanation given by the noble secretary, contending, as he did, that the Danish vessels were in a different situation to those of any other power detained previous to hostilities. His noble friend had omitted to answer one of his questions, whether the crews of these vessels were detained as prisoners of war?

that borough to be null and void.—Mr. Wilberforce brought up the report of the Newcastle-under-Line Election Committee, which stated that the sitting members were duly elected, and that the petition that had been presented against them was not frivolous or vexatious.-Mr. Parnell presented a Petition from the Freeholders of the Queen's County, praying for a Commutation of Tithes. He observed, that the freeholders of that county amount ed to 4,000; that this petition expressed the unanimous sense of the county, being no party business whatever; that it was signed by several beneficed clergymen, and that every clergyman with whom he had conversed on the subject, had declared Lord Hawkesbury contended, that the his decided approbation of the object case of the Danish vessels was the same which the petitioners sought. He trusted, as those of other vessels detained previous therefore, that the petition would meet to hostilities. As to the crews, they were, with that attention from the house to as in other cases, detained prisoners of war, which it was entitled, for he was convinced, with the exception of some individuals, that no measure that could be proposed who had been, under particular circum-would tend more effectually to allay the stances, released. A cartel had been pro- discontents in Ireland, than the commutaposed to the Danish government, but hadtion of the tithes of that country. Under been hitherto declined.

this impression he gave notice, that if his majesty's ministers should not take up this subject, he would, on an early day after the recess, move that that petition be referred to a committee of the whole house: he would delay his motion, because he understood that several other petitions of a similar nature were in preparation, and particularly from some of the Grand Juries.-The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.-On. the motion of sir F. Burdett it was ordered, That there be laid, before this house, an Account of the total sum issued under Warrants from his majesty, out of the registry of the Court of Admiralty, being proceeds of Droits of Admiralty, or of Droits of the Crown, since the 1st of Jan. 1792, to the latest period to which the same can be made, out; and also of the Balance of the Registry, arising from the said Droits.

MUTINY BILL.-The Mutiny Bill was read a second time, and on the motion, that it be committed to-morrow,

The Secretary at War gave notice, that a noble friend of his would to-morrow in

the committee move a clause to empower the enlisting men for life.

Sir John Newport expressed his surprise, that a measure which was to undo the effect of the whole military system which had obtained the sanction of the legislature, was to be brought forward in the shape of a clause in the committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer saw nothing improper in the mode in which the alteration proposed was intended to be introduced by his noble friend, for two reasons; in the first place, because there was no other way in which it could be done; and secondly, because the change of system which had been introduced by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) had been done precisely in the same way, namely, in a committee on the Mutiny Bill. Mr. Calcraft contended that it might have been done, if not in a different way, at least at an earlier period, so that the house might have had an opportunity of frequently debating the question.

he pledged himself, at some future period of the session, to undertake the task. At present, all he desired was, to investigate the minor branch of it, namely, the amount of the Fees obtained through the medium of the Licences, and the nature of the authority by which those fees were claimed. It appeared to him, that if these licences were considered as generally necessary, it would be much better to come to the legislature, and render the trade, to the carrying on of which they were the sanc tion, legal for a time to be limited; in imitation of Mr. Pitt in 1798, at whose instigation the importation of Spanish goods was permitted by act of parliament. Adverting to the returns of the fees, gratuities, &c. he observed that they were not quite satisfactory. It was stated in those returns, that the fee for a licence amounted only to 12l. 9s. 6d.; now, he knew that on every licence that had been granted, the fees had exceeded 154. and sometimes 201.; and that where one merchant had obtained licences for several ships, instead of an additional guinea only having been charged for each vessel, as stated in the returns, not less than 651. or 667. had been charged for a licence for six ships.

Mr. Rose observed, that so long since as Aug. last, his majesty's ministers had instituted an inquiry into this subject, and that some weeks ago the privy council finding the amount of the fees to be so considerable, had taken the matter into seri

Mr. Windham, who entered the house shortly after, asked, whether it was true, that notice had been given of certain clauses to be inserted in the Mutiny Bill, the effect of which would be to overturn the military system which had been adopted some time ago?-On being answered by the Secretary at War, that some clauses altering the system of recruiting were to be proposed, he gave notice, that he would oppose them in every stage of the bill. [COMMERCIAL LICENCES -Mr. Hornerous consideration, and had entered into a rose to move, "That such part of the strict investigation of it. Before the rePapers presented to the house on the 10th ference of the subject to the Committee of and 11th Feb. as related to the Fees and Finance, he thought it would be most deGratuities paid on Licences for Navigation sirable to have before the house proceedand Trade, be referred to the Committee ings of the privy council, and he therefore on Public Offices." The subject of these recommended to the hon. gent. to postLicences resolved itself into two parts. pone his motion for a short time, in order The first, and by far the most important, to give an opportunity in a few days of was the acknowledged anomaly in our moving an address to his majesty for the commercial system which they had occa- production of the proceedings of the privy sioned, and the encroachment which they council. Nothing could be further from had made upon the constitution, by plac-his wi-h, than to suppress enquiry on this ing the whole of the foreign trade of the subject, which, on the contrary, he was country under the controul of the execu- desirous should be thoroughly sifted. tive government, than any interference by whom in commercial affairs all authorities concurred in declaring that nothing could be more prejudicial. But it was not to this great branch of the subject he at present wished to draw the attention of the house: should his majesty's ministers, who, from so many circumstances, must be infinitely better qualified to bring it under the consideration of parliament, neglect to do so,

The Advocate General remarked, that the ground on which these licenses had been granted, was, not for the purpose of placing foreign trade under the controul of the executive, but to permit British subjects to tra le with the enemy. In 1805, a Geueral Order in Council had been issued, to enable British merchants to trade with the enemy, in certain articles of great importance to agriculture, and to manufac