respect to flax-seed?

How is this country | as to cotton? Consider well before you give up a growing country, adding abundantly to her population, that was increasing your wealth by the consumption of your manufactures; a country where the tyrant mace of Buonaparté never strayed. To give up such a country requires great countervailing advantages: Where are they to be found, if you do? Can you coerce the continent of Europe by the exclusion of all colonial commerce? Impossible! You may banish luxury from Europe; you may abolish the refinements that enervate your enemy; you may convince him, that superfluities are not necessaries you may prove to him how many things he can live without; you may make Europe an univeral soldier; you may barbarize Europe, and in a degree martialize her, and England will fare the worse for it. Buonaparté knows this well: that superior man of mischief is glad to see you resort to his own weapons, for he calculates that as yet, and for a long season, your iniquities must be too shabby to affect him seriously. The hon. gent. who was second in this debate says, that America is indisposed towards us. I la ment it and would remedy it. Abolish that repulsive policy towards her that you have used too much, and that you have been glad to use towards her. You have gradually chilled her into a state of frozen alienation, and then you charge her with the ingratitude of coldness; and what have you done it for? To compel her to come over to this country, and pay a tax to us for allowing an independent country the privilege to trade! to pay us a tax for carrying on her own trade! But what effect must this have upon America? You will send her in quest of those resources that will ultimately make her independent of your manufactures. So that you make the enemy a nation of soldiers, and America a nation of manufacturers; and thus do all you can to enable the one to beat you, and the other to starve you (Hear! hear!). I say again, I lament the feeling of America towards this country. I la ment that you have provoked that feeling. With a sort of tedious pertinacity in ill offices-a teizing restlessness,-a kind of incapacity to be quiet, you have fidgetted yourselves out of the affections of America. You have not acted with wisdom, you have not acted with dignity; your strength lies in the entirety of your commerce. There has been too much of a meddling VOL. XII.

spirit of envy, that should have been foreign to so great a people. Why should we have been so jealous of the little trade of comparatively an infant state? You should have put such thoughts far from you: in entertaining such views you descended from the grand elevation that was peculiarly your own, to meddle in a little game with which your dignity should not have suffered you to interfere; you have lost much by dealing in small games. You have long been too great to profit by them; look back to the time when you possessed one continent and influenced another; you lost the one in a wanton effort to put about 100,000l. into your treasury! You call this pride; it is the reverse; it is the want of pride; for if you had a just pride, you would know how to pause in your own greatness, and not descend to trifle in a rivalry that would betray rather the craving of monopoly than the spirit of emulation. Let England be to America what she ought to be, and America will be to England all that we could wish her. Be warned by the infatuation that once lost you America, and let not the same infatuation drive her now into the arms of France.

Mr. Secretary Canning said, that in rising at that late hour in the morning it was not his intention to trespass long upon the patience of the house; but he must beg leave to observe, that most of what had been urged upon the subject before the house, led to no practical conclusion; led to no recommendation of measures which it might be thought safe and politic to adopt. Almost all he had heard was lost in vagueness of conjecture or splendour of declamation. The question really was between England and France; not between England and America; and, if the question involved matters of a delicate nature, which were not inconsiderately, or prematurely, to be exposed, the fault was with those who called for the Papers, and provoked the discussion; not with those, who, while they deemed it their duty to shrink from no inquiry into their conduct, still felt the impropriety of being forced into explanations, which it were more prudent to postpone. He most certainly should have opposed the production of those Papers, had they not already appeared in print in another country, because he was sensible that the discussion of them was premature, and that they were not in a shape for fit and seasonable discussion. The blame, as he had already observed, must rest with

4 H

those who recommended, and would en- | tence of the existing law of nations, but force a parliamentary consideration of an upon the extension of that law, an extenincomplete and undecided question. An sion just and necessary, that his majesty's hon. gent. who had condemned the course ministers were to rely in the present inpursued by his majesty's ministers had stance for justification. The Order of the argued, that there was no necessity to take 7th of Jan. asserted the principle of retaa retrospective view of the subject, and that liation, but limited and restrained its apthe case was clearly laid open. He thought plication; the old rule of 1756 was adit impossible, on the contrary, fairly to mitted, though contrary to his expectation; consider the question, without seeing in and when France knew no distinction bewhat state it was when his majesty's mi- tween slave and slave, he thought England nisters came into power. The hon. gent. was justified in refusing to recognize any seemed to consider himself as some great distinction between port and port.-It planet surrounded by satellites, to which should not be supposed, he said, that the he gave motion; if so, he fancied he was Order of the 7th of January was one jot not within his power of attraction.--When more conformable to the ancient law of the hon. gent. brought forward a motion, nations, than those for which the present he certainly should not have pointed out governinent was responsible.—Any deviathe course others were to pursue; and, tion from law was as much a deviation as if for his own part, he was free to own, that it had been made to any larger extent. he particularly would not wish to be The Orders in Council were to be defendguided by him. The question before the ed upon this ground, that the present state house, however, resolved itself into three of the world required the application of prominent points; the justice of the cause; new principles, or the extension of old its policy and expediency; and its manage- ones. When he and his colleagues came ment. It was a statement between belli- into power, they had found that the pringerent France and belligerent England, in ciple of retaliation was acted upon by which unfortunately America was involv- their predecessors, mitigated in its extent, ed, owing to our avowing a right of retalia- and limited and corrected in its degree, tion upon our enemy. The right of re- but manifestly and expressly intended to taliation, or self-defence, was that which be farther enforced when circumstances gave the means of resisting an attack from and occasions should challenge the enwhatever quarter or source it might come. forcement. But while he went so far with If the enemy attack you through com- the former ministry as to admit the justice merce, you must resist him; if he seize of the principle upon which they had on neutral territory to attack you, you acted, he confessed that he could not unhave a right to pursue him through that derstand one part of their conduct in the neutral territory; if through a neutral negociation with America. He did not fortress, you have a right to destroy that understand why, on the 30th of Dec. they fortress. It was upon this principle of should appear to entertain doubts, and self-defence we had acted towards Ame- hold forth expectations as to the policy rica; which principle, if not true, might they should adopt; and on the 7th of Jan. subject us to censure. If we are attacked all of a sudden, acquire such new lights through neutral nations, we must retaliate; upon the subject, as to determine, without and this doctrine had been distinctly act- farther hesitation, upon the adoption of the ed upon, not only by his majesty's pre- principle upon which that Order was foundsent ministers, but by their predecessors. ed. He did not understand why, after The Order of the 7th of Jan. laid the a promise of waiting the result of certain foundation of a broad general principle, contingencies, they should in about a week which had only been acted upon in the decide without waiting for that result. It subsequent Orders, so much the subject of was a point in their conduct which he hoped animadversion with the hon. gent. opposite. the noble lord (H. Petty) could explain; he And here he begged leave to appeal to owed the explanation to America; he the principles and the language laid down owed it to his friends, and to his country. by his noble and able predecessor (lord-It seemed to be a question, whether the Grey), whose authority he did not imagine the gentlemen opposite him would dispute. Much was said about observance of the law of nations. He was willing to admit that it was not upon the poor pre

act of the Berlin Decrees was an act of hostility or not. He was much surprised how any one could consider it a question. It was said to be a mere municipal regulation, instituted by France for her own

convenience; but what was that municipal | was justified by the rule upon which it was regulation, and where was its pretence to the character it had thus assumed? It was urged in support of its title to that character, that the Navigation Act of England was considered a municipal regulation; and it was asked, where was the distinction that should exclude the latter from the same class? The distinction was manifest, the regulation of the Navigation Act was a permanent one; it was one of long standing; it was known to all the world, and acquiesced in by all nations; it was not a regulation adapted to a particular exigency, arising out of the circumstances of the moment, and partaking of the partial and fleeting stamp of the occasion out of which it originated. Such was the distinction, which was obvious to his understanding, and he hoped would appear equally clear to that of the house. There was a principle which said that no right should be pressed by a neutral during war, but such as neutrals had a right to press during peace. America had said, in effect, that if France had omitted part of the declaration, she might still have retained her hostility to England, and America would be assisting her measures of depression towards this country. This was a justification of the principle upon which ministers had acted. As to whether France was or was not the aggressor, he thought that question would obviously be decided by a slight review of the case. He was willing to allow, that if G. Britain had departed from the law of nations, if she had violated those principles that must ever be held sacred among nations as among individuals, and that the Berlin Decrees were justly deemed are taliation for that conduct; if this was the case, he admitted, that even the severity of the retaliation, could not justify the conduct of G. Britain, or afford the slightest palliation of the crime of which she would thus have been guilty. But in the papers transmitted from America upon this question, there appeared an anxious solicitude to give to Great Britain the priority in wrong; there was a sedulous endeavour to establish what never could be established-that there were violations on her part, previous to the Berlin Decrees, and that it was as a reprisal upon those violations, the Decrees were resorted to. Among these violations were enumerated the orders for impressing American seamen, founded upon the rule of 1756, and the proclamation of a nominal blockade. With respect to the former, it

founded. And as to the latter, he could state, that there was force sufficient for the conducting of the blockade; which being the case, the charge of America against this country must fall to the ground. He was happy to have it in his power to vindicate the character of G. Britain; but it was a reflection, that interfered to moderate and depress his exultation, when he saw, that that vindication must involve the conduct of America in this censure, that she had brought a false charge, and persisted in it. The hon. gent, opposite had expressed a love for his country, in which he was certain that he was sincere; that hon. gent. must think favourably even of the prejudices that attached us to our native land, and therefore he was of opinion that he would join him in preferring the exculpation of his own country, and agree even to admit the operation of his prejudices towards it; that he would let them act to the influence of his judgment in a case where there was a doubt as to the justice, much more in a case where that justice was distinctly marked, and unequivocally ascertained.-If it were true that France was the aggressor, and that the Berlin Decrees were acts of an hostile nature, the case of ministers was established. When the Order of the 7th of Jan. was made out, the preamble that accompanied it, avowed the principle of retaliation, at the same time distinctly reserving the full extension of that principle to another period. In Nov. it appeared to government that the Order of the 7th of Jan. had not, nor was not producing its proper effect, and that the extension of the principle recognized in it, was called for at that moment. The hon. gent., to prove that they were wrong, must shew that there was a distinction between the principle of the two Orders, which he would find impossible. As to the offer respecting the embargo, he thought that enough appeared from the Papers, to put it out of all doubt that the Orders had not produced the embargo. The hon. gent. had quoted Mr. Pinkney's letter; but Mr. Pinkney's expressions were such, as, if he had been anxious to select words to prevent such misapprehension on this subject, he could not have been more successful; he had done all that the language could do, to pronounce it a precaution against an anticipated measure. In the letter of the 30th of April, addressed to Mr. Pinkney from his government, he was desired, if G. Britain complied

ing. Those who accused ministers of a disinclination to adopt pacific measures respecting America, must surely have lost sight of the line, temper, and manner in which his majesty's government had acted towards America since differences had unfortunately arisen between the two governments. Ilad they not sent a special mission to explain and apologize for the affair of the Chesapeake; and was not the mere sending of a special mission to such an effect ever deemed a sufficient atonement even by the proudest nations? Yet even then, was not the vessel that carried out our minister compelled to submit to the degrading ceremonial imposed by the Embargo? In short, we had rather gone too far, than done too little. We twice offered to negociate; yet the Non-Importation Act was not revoked. Would the late administration have done more? The present discussion, however, was imprudent, at a time when negociation was pending for the adjustment of differences.

Lord H. Petty supported the Address, and declared himself a decided friend to measures of conciliation towards America. He said his majesty's ministers, instead of

with his request of rescinding the Orders in Council, to give her to understand that the embargo might in some time be withdrawn. Could there, he asked, be a greater degree of difference than between the positive offer ascribed to the American government, and this expression of a possible expectation, this doubtful holding out of an indefinite promise? And was it wonderful that he should desire a distinct oflicial statement, rather than trust to his own memory, and be satisfied with a statement that seemed studiously loose? Mr. Pinkney, he adınitted, did go very far in his conversation with him; but when he referred him to the ground on which he rested those promises and terms, it was to a document bearing no such instructions, but only proffering those vague assurances of which he had already expressed his disapprobation. As to the notice that he was censured for having taken of some newspaper misrepresentations, he could assure the hon. gent. and the house, that the sentiments of news-papers in that country were not to be regarded so lightly as in this; the fact was, they were a kind of document upon which the government itself acted, and by which it frequently trans-acting upon the Order in Council as issued mitted its orders and sentiments to minis- on the 7th of Jan. 1807, which merely inters resident in other countries. This made terdicted the neutral trade of American a misrepresentation from them more serious ships between port and port, in the counthan it might first appear to be, and, even tries of Europe under the domination of then, it was Mr. Pinkney who volunteer- France, extended it to all the seas of the ed to explain, not he who called for expla- world, and thus forced America to the Emnation. But when the proposition was bargo. The American government in the made to Great Britain that the Embargo late negociation, as was obvious from the should be withdrawn, it was upon the sti- papers on the table, evinced a friendly dispulation that she should withdraw all her position towards this country, and a conOrders, including that of the 7th of Jan. and trary one towards France. She offered to abandon the rule of 1756; the inevitable take off her Embargo in respect to this consequence of which would be to exclude country, if we would rescind towards her our armed ships from the ports in which our Orders in Council. And if we were we carried on our trade, while the armed disposed to this proposition, and only hesiships of the enemy had access to them; tated from a doubt of her sincerity, why thus exposing to capture and to ruin what was not some endeavour made in the course it should be our endeavour, and was our of negociation, to secure the exclusion of dearest interest to defend. But if the Em-American ships from French ports, and obbargo with respect to England was raised, how could America put it in force against France? with what effect could she expect to do so? Did America know nothing at all of false papers? If the Embargo was raised with respect to England to-morrow, he would lay a wager, if it was consistent with parliamentary decorum, that, in the course of the next week, he would ascertain at Lloyd's the terms of a policy to France. The proposal was illusory; he might add, in the language of Mr. Maddison, it was insult

tain the consent of the American government for ourselves to secure that point, by making prize of all vessels of that nation, found approaching the ports of the enemy. It was the obvious policy of this country to excite hostility between France and America, and this would be the almost inevitable consequence of a cessation of the Embargo in favour of England, while it was continued towards France. The noble lord then commented upon the spirit of the communication, and the effect produced in

America by the letter of Mr. Canning to | wave that privilege of reply, to which, by Mr. Pinkney, dated the 23rd Sept. 1808. the courtesy of Parliament, he was enThat communication reached America pre- titled as the original mover of the Address. vious to the election-a time in a democra- However, he could more freely dispense tic country of great heat and political zeal. with the exercise of the right, inasmuch What was its effect? It was to be traced in as every argument that was used by his the following circumstance: It was well opponents was ably met by the hon. friends understood that in the various states, pre- who supported him; and where there vious to the election of a President, each was such a manifest deficiency in meeting state elected an Inspector, to whom was his observations, he could not, at that delegated the vote of that state for the hour, trespass on the house, even for the election of a chief magistrate. It was well purpose of exposing the absurdity of such known that on the appointment of the In- attempts. The only point on which he spectors, previous to the late election for a meant to remark was that on which so President, persons from the federal, other- much stress had been put by the hon. and wise the English interest, were almost uni- learned gent. who followed him in the versally returned. But such was the effect debate, respecting the evidence taken at of the able and well-timed communication the bar of the house last session upon the of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that effects of the Orders in Council. He had the whole public mind of America was in- not lately perused that evidence, or he sulted by his ill-placed irony; and the believed he might have produced as strong consequence was, that a revolution of pub- testimony in support of his opinions as the lic opinion took place, by which the party hon. gent. produced to the contrary; but in America presumed not most friendly to he recollected perfectly well the manner English influence, was intrusted with the in which Mr. Maling gave his testimony, sovereignty of that growing and extensive and that he was admonished by the chair nation. Concurring, therefore, as he did, to be less extravagant in giving his opiin all the sentiments of his hon. friends, nions; which circumstance, together with and wholly disapproving of the conduct of the whole tenor of his evidence, rendered his majesty's ministers towards America, his testimony of very little consequence, he felt himself bound to vote for the Ad-on whichever side it was given. dress.

The Question was then put, when there

For the Address

Against it.

Majority

Adjourned at 7 o'clock on Tuesday morning.

Mr. G. H. Rose entered into some ex-appeared, planation upon the business of his diplomatic mission to America, and said, that notwithstanding the sole object of his embassy was to make satisfaction in the affair of the Chesapeake, he found it impracticable to conclude the business without leading to protracted discussions, the nature of which were incompatible with the honour of this country. And even the very vessel on board of which he went, was not suffered to remain in an American port, but under the direction of the commissioner of customs, and in such station as he should point out. This was so totally incompatible with the nature of the situation he held, as to induce his departure.

Mr. Whitbread then rose and said, that in consequence of the anxiety expressed from all parts of the house for the question, he should not detain them longer, but

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, March 7, 1809.

[MINUTES.] Colonel Longford presented a Petition from the Corporation of Cork, against the Claim of the earl of Ormond to the Prisage of Wines imported into Ireland.-On the motion of the Secretary at War the Mutiny Bill was re-committed, when various amendments relative to the licensing canteens by the commissioners of Excise, with their exemption from billeting of soldiers, were agreed to.

END OF VOL. XII.

Printed by T..C. HANSARD, Peterborough-court, Fleet-street, London.