it being requisite that such bill, as affect-1 The Speaker thought that the rules of Mr. A. Baring conceived the regulations in the bill to be a complete innovation of the navigation laws. It was a bill not of finance, for the right hon. gent. could not name the amount of the duties to be expect ed from it; but it was a bill of regulation and prohibition, which never could originate in a committee of ways and means. It was a financial measure in appearance only; in reality it was a measure of commercial regulation, and that, too, of the very greatest importance. He had only got the bill to day, and hoped it would not be pressed forward this night; but that a committee of trade would be appointed to consider it. Earl Temple wished to know, whether the duties imposed by the bill could, if the bill were passed, be petitioned against by the persons interested, during the present year? The answer would show what was the character of the bill. Mr. Tierney took an opportunity of censuring the incongruity between the bill' and the American Treaty bill, that had been recently passed, which he contended were in direct contradiction to each other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that there was no inconsistency in the bills to which the rt. hon. gent. had alluded. The American Treaty bill went merely to continue the provisions of an act that was shortly to expire, and as that was a measure to which America was no party, and contained a clause for its amendment or repeal in the present session, any alteration which the legislature might think fit to make in it could not be a violation of any engagement with America. The bill then before the house would have the effect of repealing only one or two clauses of that bill, whilst the remaining clauses. it contained would still continue in force.After some further conversation the clause was agreed to. On the clause enacting certain duties cn Cotton Wool or Yarn, and Jesuits bark, being read, Mr. Whitbread rose to move, that the words Jesuits Bark' be omitted. He did not think it very necessary to examine minutely the details of the bill, believing that it could never be executed, as a war with America would probably be the conscquence. But he wished to mark his most decided disapprobation of the principle of the prohibition, as far as it regarded the bark. In the first place, the right hon. gent, was deceived in supposing that there was such a want of bark on the continent. He had said, that bark had risen in France from 10 to 70s. the pound;—but that which bore the higher price was not the common bark, but the red bark, which was always dearer. There was no reason whatever to suppose that the pressure from want of common bark would be such as to be an inducement to the enemy to apply for peace. The continent, according to the intelligence which he had re ceived, was well supplied with bark, and [ with sugar for two years consumption, so that it must be a long time before the right hon. gent.'s scheme could operate. Sugar was cheaper there than it had been this time 12 months. Upon the view which the right hon. gent. had of the subject, therefore, his measure was the most childish and nugatory that could be conceived. In another view, however, it was most detestable, for it was a war with the helpless, the sick, and the hospitals,-one at which the feelings of all mankind would revolt. It was reviving the savage practices of remote antiquity, and substituting them for that modern civilization which rendered even war itself less horrible. Bark grew in our enemy's colonies, and though the right hon. gent. should send ens of thousands of poor sick persons to their graves, yet the enemy would have the means of a severe retaliation, for they might say, that we should have no bark from their colonies. But, did the right hon. gent. know so little of the science of medicine, as not to have heard, that there were many substitutes for bark? There were many instances in history to illustrate the bad effects of an atrocious and malicious hostility of this kind, and the good effects of generosity. It was not very long since an application was made for bark by France to this country; and the answer was, that they might have as much as they could carry away. But this turned out to be a mere private speculation; for so little was it wanted, that the French government prohibited its entrance. He sincerely hoped that this part of the bill would be given up. If you prevented the removal of disease, you must, on the same principle, wish its increase; and this principle would lead to the promotion of pestilence, poison, and assassination. If it once became the policy of this country to starve the continent, the evil might be visited on ourselves. The ports of the Baltic were shut; and we were provoking a war with America, while we might be in want of corn. If we pressed this, they might say that we might starve; and reap in that fatal vengeance the fruits of our own detestable policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the arguments of the hon. gent. applied to the provisions of another bill which it was his intention to bring in, not to the clause under consideration, which went only to impose a duty on the exportation of Jesuits Bark. But the statement of the hon. gent. refuted itself. If France had the supply he asserted, France could suffer no practial inconvenience from the measure. The information upon which he acted, however, represented France as much in want of bark, and that there were many orders received in London for the supply of that article to the continent. As to the policy of the prohibition, he should state that his object was, that as the exportation would be permitted by licence, under certain circumstances, France should not be allowed to receive that article, without taking, at the same time, other articles from this country. The effect expected, was to break down that barrier which France had raised against the commerce of this country. There would be no difficulty felt in obtaining any quantity of this article, the moment the enemy took off his prohibition from the importation of other articles; the inconvenience, therefore, which might be felt, was not to be imputed to this country: what difference, he would ask the hon. member, was there between this article and articles of necessary sustenance? Mr. Lushington stated the price of bark at Amsterdam, at different periods since Nov. in order to shew, that the price would not be enhanced by this measure, the price in Nov. having been 10s. per pound, and at the latest account, 25s. for the very best quality. Mr. Herbert said a few words against the clause: he saw no insuperable obstacle to the restoration of peace, but the obstinacy of ministers. Mr. Secretary Canning justified the principle of the clause, because, though innocent persons might suffer by its operation, there was no mode of warfare in which that was not the case. If the hon. gent. could devise any mode of carrying on war, by which the injuries would be made to fall not on the innocent but on the guilty, they would bestow a benefit on mankind. He was at a loss to distinguish the privation under this measure, from the privation of necessary support from the civil inhabitants of a besieged town. We were justified in retorting his measures upon the enemy, and on this ground we should be justified in the complete prohibition of the exportation of bark. The measure was not intended to promote the greatest possible degree of affliction amongst our enemies; God forbid! the object was to endeavour to bring the system acted upon by the enemy to an end. The statement of the hon. gent. that France had sufficient bark for two years consumption, depreciated the whole of the other part of his argument. Even on the shewing of the hon. gent. (Mr. Lushington) opposite, the price of bark had risen considerably on the continent, and the statement respecting the plentiful supply of sugar on the continent was so improbable in itself, that it could not be credited without the strongest evidence. A war of this kind was detestable, he admitted, but unfortunately it was the only means left for procuring a solid peace. The guilt rested with the enemy. more modern times, we might recollect a circumstance which was more immediately applicable. The French convention decreed, that no quarter should be given; did the English government retaliate by the passing of a similar decree? no: What was then the consequence? The consequence was, that the French soldiers refused to put the sanguinary order of their government into execution. Here, then, was an object of policy likely to be gained by mitigated rigour towards an enemy, exclusive of all ideas of principles of humanity. But the house would here pardon him for mentioning a circumstance which this brought to his recollection. He was informed, that soldiers were convicted of acts of gross misconduct whilst they lay before Copenhagen. He was not aware of the facts to which he now alluded, at the time of the Thanks being voted to lord Cathcart, or he should have mentioned them. For he was informed,that after these men to whom he alluded were tried and convicted, they were not only not punished immediately before the enemy, but they were released and suffered to go at large. This was a subject which required further elucidation, for the sake of the honour of the nation, which was sufficiently, he should have thought, tarnished by the attack itself, without such acts of aggravation. Mr. Whitbread observed, that 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, we might most probably find that there would be too just ground for founding a reflection on the character of our own country. The emissaries of Buonaparte might go to the hospitals, and say, here is an English act of parliament; you see what it is that prevents you from obtaining a remedy for your complaints.' He put it to the honourable feelings of gentlemen on the opposite side, whether the enemy would not at least have an opening here against us? [Here some significant gestures were made use of by some of the gentlemen on the treasury bench.] He was not surprised that the editor of a celebrated Manifesto, or that the bombarders of Copenhagen, should express some disapprobation at the mention of this circumstance. For his own part, he recollected when it was generally supposed, and by some, he believed, it was hoped for, that the French army were likely to be destroyed by a dysentery; and if he, who was rather favourable to the old morality, were to be asked what he would do, if in such a case he was in possession of such medicine as would be likely to relieve them, he would answer, he would give it to them; he would do so not only from motives of humanity, but he was also convinced it would be beneficial, in a political point of view. Some gentlemen took up and laid down the cloak of morality so frequently, changing as it suited their purpose, that he could not say what might be their opinion at the present moment. But he would say, that in a book which a right hon. gent. last week despised, it was related, that at the siege of Jerusalem, the famished inhabitants were permitted to come out. In Mr. Wilberforce was of opinion, that one consideration might alone decide the question. It was hoped, that we should be likely by this means in some degree to weaken the military force of Buonaparte. But, was it not to be fairly concluded, that he, both as an object of policy to preserve his strength, and with a view to increase his popularity with his soldiers, would at all events procure them this medicine if it were necessary. The odium would then be cast upon us, and his character would be exalted, so that the means were not calculated to accomplish the desired end. The general of a blockading army might fairly hope to make some impression on the besieged army, or that he should be capable of making the general of the garrison sympathise in the feelings of the suffering inhabitants; but could it be supposed, that a similar impression would 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. He therefore supported the amendment. General Gascoyne observed, that with respect to the circumstances which an hon. gent. had related as having occurred at Copenhagen, it was to be recollected, that at courts martial appeals were frequently made to the mercy of the commander in chief; there might be some circumstances in mitigation of punishment which had not reached the ears of the hon. gent. Sir A. Wellesley reminded the house, that 'it was impossible to prevent acts of improper conduct at all times in an army. As to the facts alluded to, he believed that after the persons had been tried, some doubt remained on the mind of the noble lord who held the chief command. In that case it was not to be contended that the noble lord did wrong to hesitate, before he put judgment into execution. The case he was informed, was now under the consideration of high legal authority. Mr. Whitbread stated, that he alluded to three distinct charges, namely, robbery, rape, and murder. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it would have been much less grating to the feelings of the noble lord, whose name had been mentioned, and it would give him a fairer opportunity of instructing some member of that house, as to the particulars, so that he might be able to speak in his behalf, if it was made the subject of a specific motion, of which notice should be previously given. As to the case which the hon. member alluded to, there were some doubts as to a point of law, which was referred to the consideration of some of the highest legal authorities. ders in Council, as consistent with the law of nations and the municipal law of the land, and consequently should give his support to the clause. Mr. Tierney proposed to take the sense of the committee on an amendment which he should move, for leaving out the words "cotton wool, or yarn," after his hon. friend had taken the sense of the committee on the propriety of omitting the words "Jesuits Bark.". Sir C. Price asserted, that the price of bark at Paris was, at present, what it had been stated to be by the chancellor of the exchequer, 70s. per pound, and that there were unlimited orders at this moment in London, for any quantity of that article that could be supplied. Mr. A. Baring observed, that gentlemen need not be so extremely tenacious of the provision, that was here alluded to; for if only one ship laden with bark were to arrive safe, it would be sufficient for the whole continent. The Advocate General supported the principle of the Orders in Council, and the enforcement of these prohibitions, on the maxims of the law of nations, which authorised a belligerent to re-act upon its enemy the severity of its own means of annoyance. Sir A. Piggott argued ably against the principle of the bill, as subversive of the essential interests of justice. He considered it nothing short of the most violent outrage, to arrogate a right of confiscation over an innocent neutral, although he had not violated the provisions of a blockade, or in any degree contravened the Orders this country had issued. Still such an effect did follow from the new system of ministers: and therefore he should take every opportunity of declaring his decided hostility to it. The question being loudly called for, a division took place, first upon the amendment of Mr. Whitbread, relative to the prohibition of Jesuits Bark, when The Attorney General stated, in corrobo- the numbers were-Ayes 78; Noes 165; ration of what had been said by the hon. Majority against the Amendment 87.bart. that the powers of the commander in A second division then took place on Mr. chief were now under the consideration of Tierney's amendment, relative to the prothe highest legal authority in the king-hibition of cotton yarn, &c. when the dom, and the inclination of opinion was, that they did not authorise the execution of the punishment. In a country governed by law, it could not be matter of surprise that when punishment could not be legally inflicted, the individuals, however morally guilty, should escape punishment. Mr. Whitbread then gave notice that he would, on an early day, bring the question before the house. Mr. D. Giddy spoke in favour of the Or numbers were-Ayes 76; Noes 167; Majority against the amendment 91. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, February 25. BRAZIL TRADE BILL.] On the second reading of the Brazil Trade Bill, ceive it possible, that under the present circumstances of the Brazils, any attention could be paid to the cultivation of corn or the cutting of lumber, particularly under that system of cultivation which would be adopted there, namely, by means of slaves, continually imported; it was rather to be apprehended that, from the fertility consequent upon breaking up new lands, so large a quantity of sugar might be produced, as greatly to diminish the price of that article. It was upon this system of Earl Bathurst observed, that some misapprehensions had existed with respect to sugar from the Brazils coming into com petition with the sugar from our own colonies, in the home market, and thus injuring the West India interests. This, however, would be effectually prevented by the high duties imposed upon foreign sugar. His lordship urged the importance of the trade with the Brazils, whence might be derived cotton, tallow, and various other articles, and which might also be of essential benefit to our colonies, as a vessel trad-importing slaves that he founded his prining from this country to the Brazils might take in there a cargo of articles of provision and lumber, of the latter of which there was a plentiful supply in the Brazils, and carrying them to our colonies in the West Indies, it might from thence bring home a cargo of colonial produce. Lord Auckland adverted to the state of the sugar market, hoping that it would not be still further depressed. His lordship stated from the information he had been able to procure, that the quantity of sugar produced in the Brazils, was about 73,000 hogsheads, the quantity produced in our own colonies, was about 280,000 hogsheads, the latter of which was already about 70,000 hogsheads more than our own consumption required, and with respect to the use of the surplus in the distilleries, he observed, that the whole distilleries of the united kingdom would not consume more than 12,000 hogsheads. With respect to cotton, he believed the produce of the Brazils to amount to 24,000,000 pounds, that of our own colonies was about 16,000,000 pounds he was ready to admit this part of the trade to be of very great value to this country. Lord Grenville observed, with respect to the idea of making this country an entrepot for colonial produce, that it would be found impossible to force upon the continent, that quantity of colonial produce which it would consume under other circumstances, and with a direct trade. He did not view this bill precisely in the same light as his noble friend, and if considerations arising out of the situation of the prince regent of Portugal and his connection with this country, induced him not wholly to oppose it, he must still give a decided opinion with respect to some circumstances connected with it. As to the idea of the noble lord, that corn and lumber could be procured from the Brazils for our West India colonies, he thought it was not to be expected, nor did he con cipal objection to the bill. His lordship briefly recapitulated the proceedings of parliament with respect to the abolition of the Slave Trade; and observed, that that act would confer immortal honour on the parliament that agreed to it, and would be remembered when all party disputes and dissentions were forgotten. Ministers, he contended, ought to have followed up that act, and the address to his majesty then voted, by refusing to enter into any commercial engagements with the Portuguese government unless it consented to abolish the Slave Trade; otherwise British capital would be employed to a great extent in carrying on this detestable traffic to the Brazils, which would thus derive great benefit from which our colonies were excluded. The legislature had decided, that whatever commercial benefit might be derived from that trade, nothing could justify the inhumanity of its continuance. The Brazils must exist as an independent state, by the protection afforded by the British navy; was it then to result, that notwithstanding the act of the legislature, this trade was to be allowed to be carried on by British capital, and under the protection of the British navy; and this too for the still further increase of produce, of which there was, unfortunately, too great an accumulation in our own colonies? Every consideration of humanity, justice and policy, required in his opinion, that ministers should have made the abolition of the Slave Trade a previous condition to entering into any commercial engagement with the Portuguese government. Lord Hawkesbury observed, that the trade in the Portuguese colonial producé, had been previously carried on through the mother country, and the colony having become the seat of government, there was no principle upon which these commercial arrangements could have been refused. As to the Slave Trade, his opinion upon that subject was well known; |