Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

any arguments that may be adduced in favour of the E. 1. Company's exclusive privilege, which would, if admitted, apply with equal force against the freedom of any and of every branch of British commerce, the whole of which might thus be paralized by monopoly, as this great arm of our strength has been, to the ruin of our naval greatness, and the consequent downfall of our independence; and that the petitioners beg leave humbly to submit to the House, that of all the effects of monopoly none is so injurious as its confinement of commerce to a particular port, and that the principal out ports of the United Kingdom have an undoubt ed right to equal privilege of trade with the port of London, bearing, as they do cheerfully, their full and common proportion of the burthens of the state, and the privations which the unexampled state of Europe has brought upon the trading and manufacturing classes of the community; and that trade, when confined to a single port of a great empire, must of necessity, from being cramped and narrowed, languish and decline; and that great and expensive improvements have, of late years, been made in most of the principal out-ports, with a view to the extension of commerce, and to the accommodation of a larger class of ships; and that the known loyalty, integrity, and opulence of the merchants resident in the out-ports, afford ample security for their care of the vital interests of their country, in respect of its national revenue, which the petitioners, with deference assert, is as diligently and faithfully collected, and as cheerfully paid, in those out-ports as in the port of London; and that the petitioners, however, far from having a wish to deprive the E. 1. Company of any right or claim they may have on the justice or liberality of parliament for indemnification, are most anxious that all such claims may be fairly examined and fully and liberally remunerated; but further humbly submit to the House, that the means of such remuneration should arise from a fair and equal impost on the trade in question, and should not be attempted by restrictions which can only serve to shackle and injare commerce, and to harass and perplex the merchant, without any solid benefit to the E. I. Company; and praying, that the House, taking the premises under their consideration, will refuse to comply with any application that may be made by the E. I. Company for a renewal of their exclusive pri

vilege, and will leave the trade to India and China fully and freely open to the enterprize, skill, and capital of the merchants of the United Kingdom, subject only to such salutary laws for its regulation and protection as the legislature, in its wisdom and paternal care, may deem necessary; and that the petitioners may be allowed to be heard, by themselves their counsel and agents, at the bar of the House, in support of the objects of this Pétition."

Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM RIPON AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.] A Petition of the mayor, burgesses, and commonalty of the borough of Ripon, in the county of York, in common council assembled, was presented and read; setting forth,

"That the petitioners, being fully sensible of the many blessings and advantages which all ranks and degrees of his Majesty's subjects enjoy under the present wise and happy constitution of these kingdoms, as by law established, which allows to all sects and persuasions of men full and free toleration in the exercise of their religious duties; and that the petitioners cannot, without a considerable degree of regret and alarm, behold the attempts which are now making with so much intemperate zeal in a sister kingdom by some of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects to pull down those ancient barriers of our constitution, the Test Acts, which upwards of 120 years experience have proved and fully convinced the petitioners are the best and surest guards and security of both civil and religious liberty, and from which epoch they may, with great propriety, date our national freedom, prosperity, and happiness; and the petitioners, therefore, humbly hope and rely on the wisdom of parliament that those great pillars of our constitution will be permitted to stand firm and remain fixed on their present basis, without alteration, to latest posterity, and that the present claims of the Roman Catholics may not be granted."

Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM THE PRISONERS OF WAR IN FRANCE.] Mr. Whitbread said, he held in his hand a Petition from the owners masters and mates in the merchant service, now prisoners of war in France, which though dated on the 15th of December, he had received but the day be

3611

Local Token Bill.

was

Lord Castlereagh said, the hon. gentleman could not be more anxious than himself to give effect to the prayer of the Petition.

The Petition was then brought up and read, setting forth,

fore yesterday. He should not now enter | selves and country; and that the situation into the discussion, whether the continued of the greater part of the petitioners, whose resources are now exhausted, is captivity of those unfortunate men owing to the government of this country become truly deplorable, and many have or to the enemy, but he hoped that some been reduced to the necessity of entering means would be taken to alleviate their into menial service for their present subsistence, not having any longer sufficient distresses. means of otherwise providing themselves with lodging clothing firing and other necessaries of life; and that their case is also more peculiarly discouraging, as they are not only without the consolation enjoyed by the prisoners of the royal navy of receiving an additional present support in consideration of their former services, but are obliged, from their diminished resources, to send occasional assistance to their apprentices captured with them; and that having dedicated their lives to a service of such acknowledged importance, both as a source of the public revenues and as a nursery for the royal navy, they humbly hope that the House will be graciously pleased to take their present distress into consideration, and afford them such relief for themselves and families as in their wisdom and goodness the House may deem expedient, until the return of peace or an exchange of prisoners, so ar

lease them from their long and unexampled detention, and enable them again to provide for their own support."

Ordered to lie upon the table.

Mr. Whitbread gave notice, that he should, on the 4th of March, bring forward a distinct proposition on the subject of peace.

"That the undersigned owners masters and mates of British merchant vessels, prisoners of war in France, humbly beg leave, in behalf of themselves and fellow prisoners of the same class, to represent to the House the unhappy situation to which they and their families are reduced; and that the greater part of the petitioners have been deprived of their liberty for five six and seven years, some have been even eight years in captivity, during all which time they have received no more from the French government than twenty nine francs and fifteen centimes per month each, and that they have occasionally partaken of the charitable donations remitted from home for the relief of the pri-dently and so anxiously desired, shall resoners in general, but in consequence of the great number of seamen soldiers and others to whom these distributions have been necessarily extended, the total sum received by the petitioners in different payments from the first general distribution in July 1808, and including the last payment on the 25th of November 1811, amounts only to 90 francs, except in cases of illness or particular distress, unless they include those masters captured in vessels under 80 tons register, who receive from The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, this charitable fund a regular allowance of nine francs per month, as they are treated that before the adjournment he had given by the French government only as sea- notice of a Bill for the purpose of allowmen; and that several of the petitioners ing the Local Tokens already issued to were prisoners last war in France, and ac- remain in circulation for some time longer, cording to an ancient custom received a and at the same time to prevent any addiregular gratuity, said to be queen Anne's tion being made to the quantity now in bounty, but even this bounty has been circulation. Many objections had been withheld from them, except one payment made to the suppression of this species of in 1804: under these painful circum currency; but, even if no chance existed stances they have been obliged to draw of the place of it being adequately sup their chief subsistence from home, from plied by any other kind, it would be the small resources which they had ac-wrong to continue a currency so entirely quired by their former industry, and which out of the controul of government, so they had hoped to have reserved for the much debased, and confined, from the lisupport of their declining years, and for mited credit of the issuers, to certain disestablishing their children in such branches tricts. As, however, temporary inconveof commerce as might be useful to them-nience might arise from the act in ques.

LOCAL TOKEN BILL.] The House resolved into a Committee on the Local Token Bill.

tion, the measure which he should now propose might be desirable. The House was acquainted with the improvement in the state of the exchange, from which there was a prospect of an influx of bullion, by which the means of remedying the evils arising from the species of currency under consideration, might be increased. The time which he intended to propose for the operation of his Bill was six months, but the proper occasion for discussing the period would be in the committee on the Bill. He should move that the chairman do report to the House their opinion, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Local Token Act.

Mr. Whitbread said, that six months might possibly be objected to, as at the end of that time the House would not be sitting. The proper time for discussing it, however, would be in the committee on the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he was unwilling to hold out any probability of a long term being granted, as he was convinced of the mischievousness of the currency in question.

The motion was then put and carried.

DECLARATION OF War with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.] Lord Castlereagh presented, by command of his royal highness the Prince Regent, the Papers relative to the discussions with America on the subject of the French Decrees and the Orders in Council subsequent to the 20th of May 1812: together with the following

DECLARATION OF HIS ROYAL HIGH-
NESS THE PRINCE REGENT RELATIVE
TO THE CAUSES AND ORIGIN OF THE
WAR WITH AMERICA.

The earnest endeavours of the Prince Regent to preserve the relations of peace and amity with the United States of America having unfortunately failed, his Royal Highness, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, deems it proper publicly to declare the causes, and origin of the war, in which the government of the United States has compelled him to engage.

No desire of conquest, or other ordinary motive of aggression has been, or can be with any colour of reason, in this case imputed to Great Britain: that her commercial interests were on the side of peace, if war could have been avoided, without the sacrifice of her maritime rights, or without

an injurious submission to France, is a truth which the American government will not deny.

His Royal Highness does not however mean to rest on the favourable presumption, to which he is entitled. He is prepared by an exposition of the circumstances which have led to the present war, to show that Great Britain has throughout acted towards the United States of America, with a spirit of amity, forbearance, and conciliation; and to demonstrate the inadmissible nature of those pretensions, which have at length unhappily involved the two countries in war.

It is well known to the world, that it has been the invariable object of the ruler of France, to destroy the power and independence of the British empire, as the chief obstacle to the accomplishment of his ambitious designs.

He first contemplated the possibility of assembling such a naval force in the channel as, combined with a numerous flotilla, should enable him to disembark in England an army sufficient, in his conception, to subjugate this country; and through the conquest of Great Britain he hoped to realize his project of universal empire.

By the adoption of an enlarged and provident system of internal defence, and by the valour of his Majesty's fleets and armies, this design was entirely frustrated; and the naval force of France, after the most signal defeats, was compelled to retire from the ocean.

An attempt was then made to effectuate the same purpose by other means: a system was brought forward, by which the ruler of France hoped to annihilate the commerce of Great Britain, to shake her public credit, and to destroy her revenue; to render useless her maritime superiority, and so to avail himself of his continental ascendancy, as to constitute himself in a great measure the arbiter of the ocean, notwithstanding the destruction of his fleets.

With this view, by the Decree of Berlin, followed by that of Milan, he declared the British territories to be in a state of blockade; and that all commerce, or even correspondence with Great Britain was prohibited. He decreed that every vessel and cargo, which had entered, or was found proceeding to a British port, or which, under any circumstances, had been visited by a British ship of war, should be lawful prize: he declared all British

goods and produce, wherever found, and however acquired, whether coming from the mother country or from her colonies, subject to confiscation: he further declared to be denationalized, the flag of all neutral ships that should be found offending against these his Decrees: and he gave to this project of universal tyranny, the name of the Continental System.

tested and appealed; he called upon the United States to assert their own rights, and to vindicate their independence, thus menaced and attacked; and as France had declared, that she would confiscate every vessel, which should touch in Great Britain, or be visited by British ships of war, his Majesty, having previously issued the Order of January 1807, as an act of mitigated retaliation, was at length com

For these attempts to ruin the commerce of Great Britain, by means sub-pelled, by the persevering violence of the versive of the clearest rights of neutral nations, France endeavoured in vain to rest her justification upon the previous conduct of his Majesty's government.

Under circumstances of unparalleled provocation, his Majesty had abstained from any measure, which the ordinary rules of the law of nations did not fully warrant. Never was the maritime superiority of a belligerent over his enemy, more complete and decided. Never was the opposite belligerent so formidably dangerous in his power, and in his policy to the liberties of all other nations. France had already trampled so openly and systematically on the most sacred rights of neutral powers, as might well have justified the placing her out of the pale of civilized nations. Yet in this extreme case, Great Britain had so used her naval ascendancy, that her enemy could find no just cause of complaint: and in order to give to these lawless Decrees the appearance of retaliation, the ruler of France was obliged to advance principles of maritime law unsanctioned by any other authority, than his own arbitrary will.

The pretexts for these Decrees were, first, that Great Britain had exercised the rights of war against private persons, their ships and goods; as if the only object of legitimate hostility on the ocean were the public property of a state, or as if the edicts, and the court of France itself had not at all times enforced this right with peculiar rigour; secondly, that the British orders of blockade, instead of being confined to fortified towns, had, as France as- serted, been unlawfully extended to commercial towns and ports, and to the mouths of rivers; and thirdly, that they had been applied to places, and to coasts, which Deither were, nor could be actually blockaded. The last of these charges is not founded on fact, whilst the others, even by the admission of the American government, are utterly groundless in point of law.

Against these Decrees, his Majesty pro

enemy, and the continued acquiescence of neutral powers, to revisit, upon France, in a more effectual manner, the measure of her own injustice; by declaring, in an Order in Council, bearing date the 11th of November 1807, that no neutral vessel should proceed to France or to any of the countries from which, in obedience to the dictates of France, British commerce was excluded, without first touching at a port in Great Britain, or her dependencies. At the same time his Majesty intimated his readiness to repeal the Orders in Council, whenever France should rescind her Decrees, and return to the accustomed principles of maritime. warfare; and at a subsequent period, as a proof of his Majesty's sincere desire to accommodate, as far as possible, his defensive measures to the convenience of neutral powers, the operation of the Orders in Council was, by an Order issued in April 1809, limited to a blockade of France, and of the countries subjected to her immediate dominion.

Systems of violence, oppression, and tyranny, can never be suppressed, or even checked, if the power against which such injustice is exercised, be debarred from the right of full and adequate retaliation: or, if the measures of the retaliating power, are to be considered as matters of just offence to neutral nations, whilst the measures of original aggression and violence are to be tolerated with indifference, submission, or complacency.

The government of the United States did not fail to remonstrate against the Orders in Council of Great Britain. Although they knew, that these Orders would be revoked, if the Decrees of France which had occasioned them, were repealed, they resolved at the same moment to resist the conduct of both belligerents, instead of requiring France in the first instance to rescind her Decrees. Applying most unjustly the same measure of resentment to the aggressor, and to the party aggrieved, they adopted measures of com

mercial resistance against both-a system of resistance, which, however varied in the successive Acts of Embargo, Non-Intercourse, or Non-Importation, was evidently unequal in its operation, and principally levelled against the superior commerce, and maritime power of Great Britain.

The same partiality towards France was observable, in their negociations, as in their measures of alleged resistance.

Application was made to both bellige rents for a revocation of their respective edicts; but the terms in which they were made, were widely different.

A proposition so hostile to Great Britain. could not but be proportionably encou raging to the pretensions of the enemy. As by thus alleging that the blockade of May 1806, was illegal, the American government virtually justified, so far as depended on them, the French Decrees.

taliatory measures of Great Britain,

After this proposition had been made, the French minister for foreign affairs, if not in concert with that government, at least in conformity with its views, in a dispatch, dated the 5th of August 1810, and addressed to the American minister resident at Paris, stated that the Berlin Of France was required a revocation and Milan Decrees were revoked, and that, only of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, al- their operation would cease from the 1st though many other edicts, grossly violating day of November following, provided his the neutral commerce of the United Majesty would revoke his Orders in Coun States, had been promulgated by that cil, and renounce the new principles of power. No security was demanded, that blockade; or that the United States would the Berlin and Milan Decrees, even if re- cause their rights to be respected; meanvoked, should not under some other forming thereby, that they would resist the rebe re-established: and a direct engagement was offered, that upon such revocation, the, American government would take part in the war against Great Britain, if Great Britain did not immediately rescind her Orders. Whereas no corresponding engagement was offered to Great Britain, of whom it was required, not only that the Orders in Council should be repealed, but that no others of a similar nature should be issued, and that the blockade of May 1806, should be also abandoned. This blockade established and enforced according to accustomed practice, had not been objected to by the United States at the time it was issued. Its provisions were on the contrary represented by the American minister resident in London at the time, to have been so framed, as to afford in his judgment, a proof of the friendly disposition of the British cabinet towards the United States.

Great Britain was thus called upon to abandon one of her most important maritime rights; by acknowledging the order of blockade in question, to be one of the edicts, which violated the commerce of the United States, although it had never been so considered in the previous nego ciations; and although the President of the United States had recently consented to abrogate the Non-Intercourse. Act, on the sole condition of the Orders in Council being revoked; thereby distinctly admitting these Orders to be the only edicts, which fell within the contemplation of the law, under which he acted.

Although the repeal of the French Decrees thus announced was evidently con tingent, either on concessions to be made by Great Britain, (concessions to which it was obvious Great Britain could not submit,) or on measures to be adopted by the United States of America; the American President at once considered the repeal as absolute. Under that pretence the Non-Importation Act was strictly enforced, against Great Britain, whilst the ships of war, and merchant ships of the enemy were received into the harbours of America.-The American government, assuming the repeal of the French Decrees to be absolute, and effectual, most unjustly required Great Britain, in conformity to her declarations, to revoke her Orders in Council. The British government denied that the repeal, which was announced in the letter of the French minister for foreign affairs, was such as ought to satisfy Great Britain; and in order to ascertain the true character of the measure adopted by France, the government of the United States was called upon to produce the instrument, by which the alleged repeal of the French Decrees had been effected. If these Decrees were really revoked, such an instrument must exist, and no satisfactory reason could be given for withholding it.

At length, on the 21st of May 1912, and not before, the American minister in London did produce a copy, or at least what purported to be a copy of such an instrument.

« PoprzedniaDalej »