was not a new arrangement with America. It was the continuance of an old one, an act of the 23d of the king, which we might alter as to us seemed proper. It was judged adviseable to continue it a short time longer, in order to shew a different spirit from that of America, and leave her time to consider coolly of the measure she had adopted in a moment of spleen. No inconvenience would result from passing both together.

On the reading of the second clause, Mr. Whitbread rose to move, that the words "Jesuits bark" be omitted. There was no reason whatever to suppose, that the pressure from want of common bark would be such as to induce the enemy to apply for peace. The continent was supplied with bark as well as sugar for two years consumption; so that it must be a long time before the right honourable gentleman's scheme could operate. It was, in fact, in the view that Mr. Perceval had of the subject, the most childish and nugatory that could be conceived. In another point of view, it was detestable, inhuman, atrocious, and might occasion severe retaliation.

If the committee agreed to the proposition of endeavouring to prevent bark from reaching the continent, instead of throwing the odium of a want of humanity on the character of Buonaparte, a reflection would be cast on the character of our own country, whereas much might be gained by mitigated rigour towards an enemy, exclusive of all ideas of principles of humanity.

The chancellor of the exchequer said, that the present bill only inposed a duty on bark. The pro

hibition was to be the subject of a separate bill. But as the honourable gentleman was of opinion, that no inconvenience would be felt from this on the continent, there appeared in his own view to be no good reason for his motion. He observed, however, that he had good information that the want of both bark and sugar was severely felt on the continent. In the bill for the prohibition, there was to be a provision to enable his majesty to grant licences for the exportation of bark under certain circumstances. It was intended thereby to prevent the bark from being exported, unless the enemy chose to admit other articles at the same time. If, therefore, they felt any great distress for the want of it, they had only to take it on the prescribed conditions. As to the fine sentimental view that had been given of a war of this kind, he should be glad to know the distinction between this and the privations in a besieged town.

Mr. Wilberforce observed, that the general of a blockading army might fairly hope, that he might be likely to make some impression on the besieged army, or of making the general of the garrison sympathize with the feelings of the suffering inhabitants; but could it be supposed that a similar impression could be made on the feelings of that general who at present commanded the great garrison of the French nation? The measure might possibly.excite a more general union of hatred against the English nation, amongst all ranks of the French people. It might add to the ferocity, or unfeeling character of the contest; but it could not possibly be the means of putting an end to it. [G 3]

On

On a division of the house, the amendment proposed by Mr. Whitbread was negatived. For the original motion 167—Against it 76. House of Lords, Feb. 26.-On the third reading of the American intercourse bill, lord Auckland objected, as he had done on sundry occasions before, to this bill, as being in many of its provisions in direct contradiction to the bill now before the other house, intended to carry into effect certain parts of the orders of council; and he urged the tendency of those orders to irritate America, and particularly remarked on the warning to be given to neutrals; and the object of which appeared to be to force them into our ports.

Lord Bathurst observed, that the warning was intended only for the purpose, that the neutral should refrain from going to a blockaded port; but the vessel so warned would be at liberty to proceed to a port not blockaded to the ports of this country, or to return to its own ports.

Lord Hawkesbury said, the object in passing the present bill was, to give time for making arrangements respecting American commerce; which if the former act was suffered to expire could not be carried on to this country in American vessels. The bill was read a third time and passed.

House of Peers, Feb. 29.-Lord St. John rose, in pursuance of no tice, to move certain resolutions respecting the orders in council. After reviewing the explanations given by the French government, of its decree of the 21st November, and of the documents tending to shew that the Americans had neither acquiesced, nor meant to acquiesce in

that decree, he read the following resolutions:

"That previous to the 11th of November last, his majesty's government was not in possession of any proof, nor supposed ground of belief, that the United States of America had acquiesced in or submitted to, or intended to acquiesce in, or submit to the execution of such parts of the decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806, as purported to impose on neutral commerce restraints inconsistent with the law of nations.

"That it does not appear, that the said decree, in so far as it may have been supposed to relate 10 captures at sea, was in any one instance carried into execution by the prize courts of France, or her allies, previous to the 11th of November last.

"That on the 18th of October last, the ministers of the United States at this court, officially ap prized his majesty's secretary of state, that their government had received from that of France, satisfactory explanations and assurances; and that, in fact, the same never had been enforced against the neutral commerce of the United States.

"That no official denial of the facts so asserted by the American ministers, appears to have been made on the part of his majesty's secretary of state; nor any grounds alleged by him, on which the declaration of the American ministers could be questioned.

"That under such circumstances, the issuing the orders of council of the 11th and 25th of November last (which orders purported to compel the trading vessels of the said United States, in all their voyages to and from the continent of Europe, to touch at the ports of

this country, and to be there subjected, by the authority of the British government, to many and grievous restrictions), is a manifest violation of the law of nations, and of the rights and independance of a friendly power."

On the first motion being read, the duke of Montrose contended, on the usual grounds, that the orders of council were proper, just, and necessary, and concluded by moving the previous question.

-A short debate ensued, into which (consisting mostly of the repetitions of what had been said again and again) we shall not enter any farther than to notice a shrewd argument, brought forward by the earl of Galloway, who contended, that the justification of ministers might be drawn from the speeches of noble lords on the other side of the house, who all of them, without exception, made the reservation, that the maintenance of our maritime rights ought to be paramount to every other consideration. The orders of council he considered as both a just and a wise measure, which should therefore have his support.

On the previous question, that the motions be now put, the house divided. Contents 47-Non-Contents 66.

House of Commons, March 3.Lord H. Petty, after adverting to the importance of every topic connected with a subject of so great magnitude as the orders of council, said, that the house must be desirous of obtaining as much information respecting them as could be given. Their object was to impose duties on the re-exportation of certain articles, which were to be mported into this country before

they could be carried to the continent; but without the co-operation of our allies this object could not be attained, and, the orders would be as completely nugatory as if they had never been issued or acted upon. The Americans, for instance, might carry cotton, and the other articles on which it was proposed to impose a duty, to Sweden; and what assurance had ministers, that the government of Sweden, instead of imposing corresponding duties, would not avail themselves of the opportunity, afforded by the system which we were adopting, to convert that country into a commercial depôt, for supplying the contineut with those very articles, which it was the object of ministers to prevent from reaching the continent.

On this ground, lord Petty moved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, for ordering to be laid before the house, the substance of all communications which have passed between this government and the powers at enmity with this country, in Europe, on the subject of the orders in council, of the 11th of November last,previous or subsequent to their being issued.

The chancellor of the exchequer informed the house, that there was no disinclination whatever on the part of his majesty's allies, to concur in the system which governnient had found expedient to adopt in the present period of the war; and that assurances had been received from Sweden in particular, of the willingness of that government, to give every facility for carrying that system into full effect. Besides, the measure itself was not, as had been stated, dependant for [G4]

effect

effect upon the co-operation of Sweden, or of any other power; for its principle extended to a declaration, that all the ports subject to the control or dominion of the enemy were held in a state of blockade; and this blockade might be enforced with regard to the allies of this country, as well as neutrals. The difficulty, therefore, which the noble lord had started, was in the first place unfounded in point of fact; and, in the next place, if it did arise, we had the remedy completely inour own power. A debate took place, in the course of which Dr. Lawrence wished to know, whether any communication on the subject of the orders in council had been made to the Dey of Algiers, who, of all foreign potentates, was the one to whose general policy, the present measure was most consonant.

On a division of the house, there appeared-For the question 71Against it 139.

General Gascoigne stated, that he had in his hand a petition against the regulations of the orders in council, from some hundreds of the most respectable merchants in Liverpool, not more respectable for their extensive dealings than their excellent characters in private life. One half of the whole trade of Liverpool would be endangered by the new regulations.

The speaker asked, whether it was a petition against the duty bill under the orders in council.

General Gascoigne could only say, that the prayer of the petition was not particularly against the duties.

The speaker stated the usage of the house to be not to receive any petition against a duty-bill.

The chancellor of the exchequer

too stated, that according to the established rules of the house, it was impossible that the petition could be received.

Mr. Ponsonby observed, that when the chancellor of the exchequer was first asked, if duties were his object, he answered, "Oh, no! it is all matter of regulation-it rests entirely on the king's prerogative. The duty is not the object of the bill." But now, it seems, the chancellor of the exchequer is driven to another shift, and says the duty is every thing; and, for that reason, as it is a money bill, the people of England must not be allowed to petition against it; and it was supposed that they would rest satisfied with this quibbling sort of argument.— The whole substance and design of the petition, as might have been collected from the speech of the honourable gentleman who made the motion, was directed against the orders in council and not against the paltry duties.-Then how could it be objected to on the ground of its being a petition against the raising of duties?

1

After a good deal of farther debate, the house divided. For receiving the petition 80-Against it 128.

Next day, Mr. Tierney, at the request, and in the absence of general Gascoigne, offered a petition against the orders of council, framed in consequence of the rejection of the petition from the merchants of Liverpool. The petition being incompatible with the forms of the house, the present was framed to suit those forms; and this was the reason why it was signed only with the names of the three gentlemen who acted as delegates, instead of

the

he four hundred merchants who ad signed the other,

The chancellor of the exchequer, aving heard the prayer of the peition read, feared it still militated against the forms of the house, as adverting and being applicable principally, if not exclusively to the duty bill.

Mr. Tierney said, it was applied simply to the orders of council, and that he had the authority of the petitioners to state, that they did not petition against the bill, but against the orders of council,

After not a little farther debate, in which other speakers took a part, on the opposite sides of the question, the house divided. For receiving the petition 57-Against it 111. Other petitions were presented against the bill, with no better success.

House of Commons, March 10. -After a long debate, the question, that the bill be now read a third time, was carried by 140 a gainst 67.

Many were the petitions presented, and repeated and long the discussions that took place on the subject of the orders of council, in the house of peers, which discussions were the same in substance with those that had so often and so zealously occupied the house of

comnions.

The principal opponents of the measure, were the earl of Lauderdale, lord Auckland, lord Erskine, lord Vassal Holland, and lord Grenville.

The principal supporters, the lord chancellor, the earl of Bathurst, and lord Hawkesbury.

On the 25th of March, the orders of council bill was read and passed, by 52 against 19.

It was not a little curious to observe the difficulties to which both the opponents and the supporters of the orders of council bill were reduced; while the former endeavoured to reconcile a strict adherence to the principles of justice, honour, and the law of nations, to the interests and exigencies of the state in any situation; and the latter, at the same time that they did not hesitate to exercise the greatest severities against unoffending neutrals, contended that they still respected and obeyed the law of nations.

There would have been no difficulty on either side, if the ministerialists had boldly asserted, with Mr. Hobbes, that mankind, or at least that nations (and this last position seems to be pretty near the truth) are by nature, in a state of war; and if their opponents had maintained with the stoics, the principle of Fiat Justitia Ruat Cælum. This sublime doctrine was not, indeed, altogether inconsistent with that of lord · Erskine, who, when the orders in council were brought into discussion in the house of peers, on the 23d of March, recommended, instead of domineering at sea, a circumnavigation of charity, like that of the late Mr. Howard; and maintained, that an adherence to the orders of council would subject Great Britain to the final, everlasting curse of "I was sick and ye visited me not*."

This doctrine of lord Erskine's must be very agreeable to Buona

parte: