[blocks in formation]

Tuesday, March 22.

Lord Lauderdale rose to make a motion against the commercial policy of the orders in Council. In a speech of considerable length, the Noble Lord argued against the principles on which the orders had issued, and contended, that they would ultimately destroy our commercial interests with America, and the general prosperity of the country. He concluded, by moving eight resolutions, directed against the justice and policy of the orders in Council, as they appeared to his Lordship to distress the commercial interest of this country, and as they seemed calculated to depress our charac ter in the estimation of civilized nations.

Lord Bathurst, in a speech of consider. able length, commented upon each of the resolutions proposed, and maintained that the effects of the orders in Council had been beneficial.

The question being called for, the resolutions were rejected on a division 21 to 55. Monday, April 4.

[blocks in formation]

bill. Lords Albemarle, Erskine, and Hol land, reprobated in strong terms the measure, as being impolitic, cruel, and inhumane, It was supported by ministers as a wise and efficient measure, and provoked by the decrees of the Ruler of France. The bill was then read a third time and passed, on a division, 110 to 44.

Upon the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for the better Administration of Justice in Scotland, the Lord Chancellor rose, and observed, that from the great increase of commerce and manufactures, agriculture, and population, in that part of the United Kingdom, the business of the Court of Session in Scotland, and the appeals to this House, had increased to so alarming a degree, that it became necessary to adopt some measure for the better and more prompt administration of justice in that country. With this view, having given the subject the most mature and deliberate consideration in his power, he proposed the present bill, as the most effective measure that could be adopted. It was not his Lordship's intention to en ter minutely into the merits of the bill at present, but merely, after a few observations, to move the commitment of it before the recess. It was his wish to divide the Court of Session into two Courts of Judicature, instead of three: that eight of the Judges should preside in the one, to be called the Inner Chamber: and the remaining seven in the other, to be called the Outer Chamber; each to be a Court as to the other; and that the dernier resort should be by appeal to this House. He proposed this division in the first instance, wishing, in all such cases, where alterations were to be made in the administration of justice in any country, to introduce such alterations gradually. With respect to the trial by Jury, he considered, with the great Lord Mansfield, that this was a sort of innovation upon the constitution of the Scotch laws, which should, if made at all, be made with the utmost caution and circumspection; it was therefore his intention that the Commissioners who should be appointed under this bill, should, among various other matters, inquire how far, and in what par ticular cases, the trial by jury could with propriety and effect be introduced into Scotland. His Lordship concluded by mov ing the second reading of the bill.

Lord Grenville congratulated the House, that the necessity of adopting some measure for the better Administration of Justice in Scotland was at last thought advisable by noble Lords on the other side of the House. His Lordship still thought it would be most expedient to divide the Court

Court of Session into three, instead of two Courts. The trial by jury might, he conceived, be most beneficially introduced, and it was anxiously desired. He should not give any opposition to the bill at present; he hoped it would be so modified as to meet the ideas of those who were pecubarly interested in it, though he confessed he bad certain prejudices on this subject which would not easily be removed.

Lord Melville observed, that other persons might have similar prejudices in a contrary way, but he conceived reform and amendment should proceed progressively. He coincided with the noble and learned Lord, with respect to the introduction of trial by jury.

Lord Lauderdale warmly advocated the introduction of trial by jury in Scotland; and, after some observations in explanation from the Lord Chancellor, the bill was read a second time.

Friday, April 8.

ROXBURGH ESTATE APPEAL. The House met at two o'clock, pursuant to a special adjournment, to hear counsel in the important Scots appeal case respecting the estates of the Dukedom of Roxburgh, John Bellenden Kerr, Henry Gawler, and John Seton Karr, Esqrs. appellants. Sir James Norcliffe Innes, Bart. and Col. Walter Kerr of Littledean, respondents. Mr John Clerk was heard at great length for the appellants in this first division of the cause. The Counsel in this appeal are very numerous. Sir Samuel Romilly, Mess. William Adam, and J. Hargrave; the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, the Hon. Henry Erskine, Messrs John Clerk, Adam Gillies, James Moncrieff, William Horne, &c.

The Counsel were heard for their repective clients for 36 days; and on the 28th of June, the Hon. Henry Erskine was heard for General Ker, and Sir Samuel Romilly for Sir James Innes Ker, in the question whether Lady Essex Ker, and Mr Bellenden Ker, should be heard in the Committee of Privileges on the right of Sir James Innes Ker, or General Walter Ker, to the Roxburgh Peerage

The Lord Chancellor then addressed the House at some length. From a review of the arguments on all sides, he laid it down, that Lady Essex Ker did, in fact, claim the dignities in question, for she asserted her right to be better than that of the other two claimants. No petition, it was true, had been presented for her, but still the House had been in the use to hear parties having an interest against the claims of others, even although they did not, at

the same time, endeavour to substantiate their own right. As to Mr Bellenden Ker, the case was different. He did, indeed, under the charter 1646, and under the devolution clause in the deed 1648, maintain, that neither Sir J. N. Ker, or General W. Ker, were heirs called to the dignities; but he did not even alledge, under either of these deeds, that he had any claim to the dignities whatever. The property he claim ed under a different deed. The House, no doubt, had a right, if they chose it, hear parties claiming only a negative interest, such as Mr Bellenden Ker's was, but this was resorted to merely to protect themselves from the chance of recognising a claim which ought not to be sustained. There was little probability of any thing of the kind occurring here, where the Lord Advocate was to be heard for the publie interest in Scotland, and the Attorney Ge neral for the public interest in this country. His Lordship therefore moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that Lady Essex Ker is entitled to be heard in the Committee of Privileges, but that Mr Bellenden Ker is not; reserving to him, however, to be heard on the import of the words Eldest Daughter," and Heirs Male." His Lordship expressed some doubt as to the possibility of finishing this case during the present session. Unquestionably it would be impossible, if their Lordships did not attend. In that, however, he begged it to be recollected, that no blame was imputable to him. He hoped they would be pointed in their attendance on Thursday, at one o'clock.

Earl Suffolk concurred in enforcing the necessity of a pointed attendance on Thursday; the more particularly when the im portance of the case was considered, and when it was understood that the cause cost the parties One thousand pounds every day it stood for hearing, and that there were not Members to form a House this day till four o'clock,

On Thursday June 30. in the Committee of Privileges, Mr Brougham was heard on behalf of Lady Essex Ker, and the Lord Advocate and Attorney General for the Crown.

[merged small][ocr errors]

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, Feb. 26.

DANISH NEUTRALITY. Mr Canning said, that as many misrepresentations had gone abroad respecting the papers from which he had read extracts, he was anxious to lay them before the House, as far as was consistent with the public good. He therefore moved" for copies and extracts of the correspondence betwee Lord Howick and Mr Garlicke, our Minister at Copenhagen, in November and December 1806, and January 1807, about the actual or expected violation of the neutrality of Holstein by the French armies.'

Some conversation ensued of a desultory nature, when Mr Sheridan, in a long speech, supported the motion, and moved an amendment, calling for all information received last year by Ministers respecting Copenhagen, and the equipment of the Danish fleet for the purposes of France. He also moved for papers in vindication of the conduct of Mr Garlicke.

After a short debate, the amendment was rejected, and the original motion carried on a division, 140 to 19.


The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the army estimates,

The Secretary at War was happy in being able to state, that at no former period had the army of this country been superior in spirit and discipline, and at no former time had it been equal in numbers, the whole establishment amounting to no less than 300,000 men. The regular infantry establishment of 1807 was 109, 000, and that for the present year was 132,000 men, and the difference between the actual numbers and this establishment was now only 13,000 men, whereas last year it had been no less than 53,000. In the cavalry there was a slight reduction, but it was hardly worth mentioning. The royal waggon train was reduced to 500 horses, and though last year it was intended to reduce the whole of that corps, when it was recol. lected that these horses were actually employed in the public service, in the works carrying on about the different royal palaces, and on the military canals, and that the service which they performed was done at a cheaper rate than could be done by hiring horses, he did not think that any rea. sonable objection could be made to the maintenance of this body. The militia was nearer to its establishment than it was last year, notwithstanding that 24,000 men had been drafted from it into the regular army.

In the Staff there was a small variation. from the increase that had taken place in the Staff abroad. The volunteer corps were nearly in the same state in which they were last year. The foreign corps were somewhat increased from an addition that had been made to the German legion. The Royal Military College, and the Compassionate List, were both somewhat augmented. The general result of comparison was, that the estimates for the present year exceeded those of the last 592,000l.; but after deducting from the estimates now before the Committee the various items of expence which used formerly to be introduced among the extraordinaries of the army, the real difference was reduced to somewhat less than 100,000l. He concluded with moving his resolutions conformably with the estimates.

A long desultory conversation ensued, of no great interest, between General Fitzpatrick, Mr Long, Mr Huskisson, Mr Calcraft, Lord Henry Petty, Mr Lushing ton, and Mr Robinson, which turned chiefly upon the merits of the different systems of recruiting for a limited time, or for life.

Mr Windham complained of the precipitancy with which public business was carried on, and particularly on the manner in which Ministers pressed the consideration of this subject.

The Hon. C. A. Cooper then moved the different sums necessary for the ordnance department, amounting in the whole to somewhat upwards of 5,300,000 1.

After some conversation, the resolutions were severally put and agreed to.

Monday, Feb. 29.

Lord Castlereagh moved the order of the day for taking into consideration his Majesty's message, for bestowing a pension on the family of the late Lord Visc. Lake, (which was agreed to) and said, an application of this nature had been deferred during the life of the late Lord, from a personal delicacy on his part, and a magnanimous feeling of pride, in maintaining, by his own private fortune, the dignified station his merits had procured him from his Sovereign, and heightened by the intimacy and favour of that Noble Branch of the Royal Family (the Prince of Wales.) This motion now became necessary; it was so, to prove the gratitude of his country: No General had ever performed more gallant and useful exploits, in which he had always followed the example so usefully held out by the Commanders of the French ar. mies, which was placing himself as a con. spicuous mark of boldness and enterprise to his own soldiers; ever prodigal of his own blood, he insured victory after victory in

India, where his acquisitions were immense, no matter what were the objections existing against our system of government in that country. His family had been left destitute by his death, and he hoped it would be needless to enforce the claims of the family through their illustrious head, at least to be continued for two successive generations. He then moved the pension of 20001. per annum.

My Whitbread said, the Noble Lord had enjoyed a very lucrative situation, and had, at a particular period, received a sum of 50001 for his services; he could not, then, with decency himself have made such a demand. He admitted he was a great soldier, but by no means superior to British soldiers in general. He thought the family by no means so much in distress, but he would accommodate the family, if needful, with a supply, but certainly inferior in income to that proposed by the Noble Lord.

Mr Wharton spoke highly in favour of Lord Lake's claims, and considered it much in his favour that he had, though he possessed such powerful influence and great emoluments, returned home in rather indigent

[blocks in formation]

The House divided twice. The first was upon the grant of the pension generally. Ayes 210--Noes 26. The second division was (as we understand) upon the pension being granted from the date of the battle at Delhi. Ayes 202-Noes 15. RUSSIAN MEDIATION.

Mr Bankes said, that, under all the circumstances of the case, he must agree in Voting for the motion. He disapproved, generally, of the want of discrimination on the part of Ministers, in bestowing titles upon persons who had not sufficient fortune to support their rank, and who must then either become pensioners of the Crown, or burdens upon the people.


Mr Whitbread felt that he would require a great portion of the indulgence of the house. He should think it necessary to bring in review the public transactions of the last year on the continent. Much time had been already occupied, but unnecessarily, in getting information.-He must therefore proceed upon the inquiry with such information as we have. It will not be contended by the Gentlemen opposite, that the House have, by their address to the throne, prevented themselves from agreeing to the resolutions which he had to propose. With respect to the time of bringing the question forward, he thought there could not be a better period than when symptoms of distress ran high. Of this the petitions for peace lately presented to the House were unequivocal proofs. These petitions were not influenced by any individuals of consequence, nor by any parties, but were the effusions of public calamity and distress. The language of them was the most respectful to the House, and the most dutiful to the Sovereign. Towards the close of the American war, what turned the current of war towards peace but the sufferings of the people? I hope those sufferings will now meet with attention; and if I am not able to impress upon his Majesty's Ministers, or the House, the necessity of a peace, I trust the people will persevere in their endeavours to be heard. I stand up the determined enemy of eternal warfare (Hear! heur ! bear!)-the determined advocate of peace, if it can be obtained with honour. He considered peace as more likely than war to prove our safety. They called it a war purely defensive. But what probability is there of their being able to curb the enemy? Have we any means of attacking France? If all the abilities of the nation were united for the purpose, where could their ingenuity discover a point of attack? In the speech from the throne it was said, that the peace of Tilsit was a most disastrous event to Russia. So far from that, it was the saving of the remnant of the Russian army. The French Emperor, if he had followed up his victories merely as a soldier, might have annihilated it. The offer of mediation by Russia has been represented as a consequence of an agreement made at the peace of Tilsit; whereas the offer had been made to a Noble Lord (Lord G. L. Gower) three days previous to the sign

signing of the treaty of peace. That Noble Lord, in his answer to a note of the Baron de Budberg, thus expresses himself respecting peace:"My Court will always be ready to concur in negotiations so founded; her only view in war being to obtain a solid and durable peace." Was this the only view of England during the last war?-The same Noble Lord was Ambassador when that destructive coalition was formed against France in 1805. The objects of this league were, 1st, the evacuation of Hanover; 2d, the restoration of the republics of Holland and Helvetia; 3d, the re-establishment of the King of Sardinia; and. 4th, guaranteeing the integrity of the Neapolitan dominions. I do not say that these objects were improper at the time; but was it possible to effect them? If they should now continue to be the objects of the war, I fear, indeed, that peace with France will be for ever impossible. But when the mediation of Russia was offered, it was a golden opportunity of entering into negotiation, which no wise statesman would have suffered to pass by. From the dispositions of the Emperor of Russia, there could be no doubt of his wish to promote the pacification on terms favourable to England; and there was a moral certainty that France would have accepted of that mediation. But this offer was treated with coldness and distrust. The Ambassador was instructed to demand, in the first instance, a communication of the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit. The very proposition was an affront. When they could not get the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit, they insisted on a commercial treaty. The acceptance of the Russian mediation, it was said, would be risking the safety of the country. Does accepting a mediation infer an obligation of acceding to the terms afterwards The measures of Ministers tended to persuade the Emperor of Russia to break the treaty of Tilsit, which would have been his ruin. (Hear! hear!)-It was gross political folly. In the whole of this affair the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs shewed such complete inconsistency as to prove that he was not the person fit to guide the foreign relations of the country in perilous times. To refuse the mediation of Russia with France, and afterwards solicit her mediation with Denmark, was not a bad specimen of this inconsistency. He expa tiated on the refusal of the Austrian mediation, took a comprehensive view of the whole subject, and concluded an able speech, by moving the following resolutions:

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this House, that the conditions stipulated by his Majesty's Ministers for the acceptance

of the mediation offered by the Emperor of Russia, were inexpedient and impolitic.

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this House, that the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, on the subject of the mediation offered by the Emperor of Austria, was unwise and impolitic, and not calculated to ascertain how far the restoration of the blessings of peace might or might not have been attainable, through the means of such mediation.

Resolved, That this House feels it incumbent upon itself to declare, that there is nothing in the present circumstances of the war, which ought to preclude his Majesty from embracing any fair opportunity of acceding to, or commencing a negotiation with the enemy, on a footing of equa lity, for the termination of hostilities on terms of justice and honour.

Mr Herbert seconded the first resolution on its being read from the chair.

Mr George Ponsonby rose under great disadvantages, after the admirable speech he had just heard. With the two first resolutions he perfectly concurred; but as to the third, he differed from his Hon. Friend as to the necessity of pressing it at that moment. Were it carried in that House, Ministers would be compelled to make some effort at negotiation; and though that was true policy, yet this might not be the fittest time to press it upon them. By such a measure, consequences might result unfavourable even to the views of the Hon. Mover himself. Were a peace made, and that peace a bad one, the Minister might reproach the House, and say, You forced me to it, You are the authors and makers of it. He certainly had no opinion of the sincerity of Ministers. And if Ministers, after their rejection of mediation, were now to apply immediately, Bonaparte might say, How is it that you, who refused proposals six weeks ago--you, who in fact sent away the Austrian Ambassador, come now with offers of peace? But this he did not say to encourage Ministers in their views. He thought peace our true policy, and he wished them to take every opportunity to procure it.

Mr Wilberforce considered, that no offer of mediation could have been more questionable than that of Russia, under the circumstances in which she was placed, and Ministers were consequently justified in the caution with which they had proceeded. He agreed with Mr Ponsonby, that it would be highly impolitic to enter into any resolutions at present, which, in their nature, could have a tendency to ex cite a clamour for peace; an object which, instead of being accelerated, would, by suck a proceeding, be greatly retarded. He con

« VorigeDoorgaan »