use of such a hard word as "starvation." Such an allegation ought not to go forth uncontradicted. It was true that Birmingham suffered in common with all other places in the empire, but the want of employment had hitherto not been felt there. At the same time he was aware, that distress of that kind must soon attach to the manufacturers, as, from their immense stock on hand, they must either find a market, or cease to employ their workmen. As a proof that they had not yet been severely afflicted, he corroborated the statement of the right hon. gentleman who preceded him, that the Poor's Rates had decreased, and noticed that the recruiting service was very slack. As for America, she could not do without Birmingham-she could not even shave herself, or catch her mice without their aid. He had only further to notice, that the signers of this Petition were loyal men, who, if they were convinced that even their immediate privations were for the good of the country, would be content to retire from trade, and dig potatoes in their gardens.

Mr. Whitbread conceded that the hon. baronet had given a true description of the condition of Birmingham; but while he gave credit to the hon. baronet, he was also bound to believe what was stated by the petitioners, who were Birmingham men, and whose account in some points varied very much from his. They stated, that if the Orders in Council were not revoked ruin would follow, and he perfectly believed the fact. It was true the labourers had not yet felt what it was to be out of employment, because the manufacturers, in an exemplary manner, and highly to their honour, had in these perilous times forgone all those advantages to which commercial men usually looked -they had exhausted their capital for the sake of employing their men, and avoiding those dreadful consequences and disorders, the end of which it was not easy to foresee, but of which every moment was bringing them tidings from various quarters of the kingdom. In such circumstances, the House was peculiarly called on to do all that in them lay, to ward off impending ruin from persons of this meritorious description. All these things demanded enquiry, and proved the expediency of referring it to a committee to ascertain, by their deliberative wisdom, if in their complaint these manufacturers assigned the true causes, and what could be done for their relief. The House would

compare the march of the right hon. gentleman this year with his march the year preceding. Last year, when a calamitous case was stated, though by no means comparable with the present, out of respect to the petitioners, although he knew that their prayers could not be attended to, he had agreed to, or rather himself proposed, the appointment of a committee to examine that case. But now all enquiry was refused. He asked the right hon. gentle. man to say, if he would consent to allay the exasperated feelings of the country; and if it was his intention, now when he saw the whole heart of England in confusion, to refer the matter to a committee to enquire if the complaints made were well founded, and, if it must be so, to tell the unhappy complainants there was no relief? Last year, upon a most extraordinary report as ever came from a committee, exchequer bills for the relief of our great manufacturers had been issued, the whole of which had been employed in continuing the labours of the poor. Of these bills one instalment had fallen due, and was paid-another instalment was due to-morrow. Now had not the right hon. gentleman been told, that so great was the distress of the persons assisted, that having expended the money in the creditable way he had mentioned, they were unable to make good or meet this payment? Birmingham, they were informed, had not suffered actual distress; but if not so, it was on the very verge of suffering. The House had been taught by the calculations of the right hon. gentleman to expect that the master manufacturer would be completely relieved, and instead of that they found he could not repay the money advanced for his aid! Was it not a time then to take these petitions into consideration? and did it not become the right hon. gentleman to consent to a committee to enquire into the effects of the Orders in Council, and to ascertain whether or not they were the causes of these calamities? He could not help thinking the hon. baronet had been rather indiscreet in the way in which he had spoken of America. If America was shut, Birmingham must be idle; and if idle, the population would starve. Her ports then must be opened, either by necessity or by policy. Policy had hitherto had a contrary effect; and he disliked the taunting tone in which it was said, that America could not even shave herself, or catch her mice without our aid. It was insulting to America, to

tell her, she was so dependant on Birmingham, that she could not do the most trifling thing without aid from that place. The hon. baronet might until lately have told us that America could not ride her horse, that she could not shoe her horse, that she could not drive a nail without Birmingham. America however had learned to ride and shoe a horse, without the aid formerly asked; and, if they looked at the latest orders to Birmingham, they would find that bridle-bits and nails were excluded from those orders, America having been induced to manufacture these articles herself. This shewed the progress of the arts in America-and so they would continue to progress, if Great Britain continued her policy; from making nails, she would arrive at the manufacture of the most important articles. In short, if they shut America now, they shut it for ever. For these reasons, and on account of all the frightful things passing in the interior of the country, he demanded enquiry.-The accounts from Sheffield, from Manchester, from Leeds, from Huddersfield, were such, that if the House read in the newspapers similar intelligence from Ireland, they would at once conclude that that country was in a state of insurrection and rebellion. But in England these events did not seem to make the same impression, and because they were new and uncommon, they were not considered to be of the importance they were. Let them do something to soothe the feelings of the country, and not be told, when they pressed for enquiry, that they were using inflammatory language, and not falling into the proper loyal course; let them not be told that their petitions were treasonable, and that they were influenced by persons with whom they had never communicated: that they did not feel their sufferings, but were persuaded by party men to violent acts. And what were these violent acts? Petitioning parliament and the Regent for relief. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would declare, if a Committee was moved for, if he would consent to its appointment. One topic had this night surprised him he alluded to the licences. He was astonished to learn, that after importing all the manufactures of France, a vessel was only required to export to the value of 51. per ton of import, instead as he had before understood from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose), of being obliged, in the first instance, to export to that amount, and, on returning, to put her im(VOL. XXII.)

ported cargo under the king's lock, till a cargo of equal value in colonial produce was exported. Now he saw that a ship might go out in ballast, and that both etiquette and reciprocity were sacrificed. He concluded by expressing his hope and expectation of some relief being granted, and his anxiety for an answer from the right hon. gentleman.

Sir C. Mordaunt said, that when a motion was made for a Committee, it should have his support.

Mr. Rose, in explanation, stated, that vessels could not go out in ballast-they must take out to the value of 51. per ton, and if they imported wine or brandy, they must export an equal value of colonial pro-' duce.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he did not rise to enter into any general discussion on the Orders in Council; but after what had passed, he felt himself called on to make a few observations. The hon. gentleman had stated, that the petitions came from persons who had an opportunity of forming their opinions by experiment, upon the evils resulting from the Orders in Council; now this he apprehended they could not; for the very point upon which he and the hon. gentleman were at issue at the present moment, was, whether those evils proceeded from the Orders in Council, or from other causes? It was true that these persons were competent to state the pressure which was felt in trade, but he knew not how they could decide whether that pressure would have been less if the Orders in Council had never existed: or whether in fact the Berlin and Milan Decrees would have produced the mischief without them. He would say, that not only our difficulties had not increased since the adoption of these Orders, but that the whole trade of the country was in a better state. He was surprised to find the hon. gentleman's knowledge of trade so far overborne by his zeal against the measures of government, as to induce him to say, the Orders in Council were to prevent neutrals from trading with the enemy. He would maintain that the end was to open all trade, even to France itself, if France would trade with Great Britain. France bad prohibited trade with Great Britain, and Great Britain had prohibited all trade to France, but what should go through Great Britain. The result was a pressure upon France, such as must compel her to open her ports to the trade of this country. He (2 F)

would state that that very system of licences which was represented to be a departure from the Orders in Council, was a proof of their efficacy and effect. He agreed that when the question of licenses was before the House, this matter would be better discussed. As to the importation of wine and brandy, the French were obliged to take a considerable quantity of sugar and coffee in return; and with regard to laces, muslins, and other articles of the kind, they would be brought in illegally if there was no allowance granted. He was surprised that so much misinformation should exist with respect to the outrages perpetrated in different parts of the country; and that they should be ascribed to the Orders in Council, to starvation, and such causes. But was it owing to the Orders, or to starvation, that the mills were broken down? Was such misconduct to be excused, defended, and palliated? Was it fair to hold out to the House that the destruction of the most valuable property which was daily to be deplored, was to be attributed to the Orders in Council? Was such language consistent with a due regard for the peace and welfare of the country? Was it not as indefinite as it was mischievous? As to the town from which this petition was presented, they had heard the statement of the hon. baronet, who had told them, that, at the present moment, the want of employment was not severely felt. The hon. gentleman had recommended that the subject should be referred to a select committee, but the House should recollect that this was a case involving a great political question, which it was not the practice of parliament to delegate to any circumscribed committee, but to determine in a committee of the whole House. A detailed examination of evidence did not appear to him to suit a subject of that kind. He knew what an effect the shutting of the American market must have; but would the hon. gentleman state whether they would repeal the Orders in Council, and what they would expect from such a step? There was one time when gentlemen thought that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were done away, but that time was past. No man who knew any thing of the subject would say so now. It was notified by France herself that they should continue to operate, that they should be considered as the fundamental law of the continent, until we abandoned our system of blockade; and until Great

Britain conceded the doctrine that free bottoms made free goods. There was no man in that House who lamented the distresses that were felt in the country more than he did, but would any man say he was prepared to give up our maritime rights, by which Great Britain had risen to power and consequence? When this declaration on the part of France, with respect to the continuance of his Decrees, was known in America, he was not without a hope that America would not charge upon this country an unnecessary strictness in the measures to which she had resorted. But whatever the effect in America might be, this country ought to know that those Decrees were in full force now, and were to continue so until Great Britain should yield up those privileges upon which her prosperity was so strongly founded. The hon. gentleman had asked, him on the subject of the exchequer bills granted as a loan to commercial men, whether he knew that the next instalment due to-morrow would not be paid? He would answer, that he anticipated no such circumstance; so far was he from thinking so, that he was firmly persuaded, the instalment would be faithfully discharged. He had no doubt, indeed, that it would be an accommodation to the gentlemen concerned, to be allowed a further time for the payment, but this, consistently with the public interests, he could not allow. If the Orders in Council were repealed before the Berlin and Milan Decrees, the consequence would be, that France would have her neutral trade open with America, while we were denied the trade of the continent of Europe. Unless the House was prepared to say that this would be judicious, the present did not seem to him to be a period in which it was possible to do away the Orders in Council.

Mr. Brougham expressed his surprise at the speeches of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a moment when Petitions signed by so many thousands and tens of thousands were presented to the House. They had treated it as a new question. He remembered, when, two months ago, he had given the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of detailing his sentiments upon this subject, that he was referred to the returns of Mr. Irvine from the Custom-house docks, and told, upon their authority, that there was little or no misery. He hoped the House would not refuse to the people the poor

At

satisfaction of reasoning with them under their sufferings, and enquiring into the causes by which those sufferings were produced. It was not enough to give them a debate as an answer. The hardware manufactories were carried on by about 70,000 persons, not persons brought from the field, but men of skill, who had undergone a regular apprenticeship. If these men were sent to recruit our army, or to till the ground, that force would be irrecoverably disbanded, which was necessary to the working of the manufactories. present the master manufacturers kept them working a little at the reduced wages of 128. a-week, instead of from 25s. to 35s. This was not confined to Birmingham; in Leeds and other places they would find thousands out of employment. In Manchester alone, the poor who received relief from the parishes amounted to 25,000 persons, one-fourth of the population. As to the impropriety of allowing a committee on the subject, he would only ask, why might not the Orders in Council go before a select Committee as well as the question relating to the West India interests, in which evidence was gone into as to the evils that would arise from a war with America? That was a precedent which in a matter of such importance as the present, the House was called on to follow. He would tell the right hon. gentleman a remedy for the evils which now existed :repeal the Orders in Council as far as regarded America, and if that did not satisfy her, it would at least satisfy the people of this country, that every thing had been done consistently with the safety of the realms. Then the House would be met by the affections of the country, not by such symptoms of discontent as had lately burst forth. He conjured the right hon. gentleman not to refuse enquiry to a petitioning nation, when they came to the House with cries and groans. He warned him that he would not be suffered-the nation would not allow him to go to war with America, more than they would suffer Mr. Pitt to do so. The right hon. gentleman might not wish to take this warning, but he was bold enough to predict, that many months would not pass before he would be convinced of the

truth of it.

Lord Castlereagh said, he did not rise to discuss the policy and expediency of the Orders in Council, which would soon come under the consideration of parliament; that it had not come sooner, the hon.

gentleman must bear his portion of responsibility. For he deprecated the idea of calling the attention of the House from the true ground of the question, and imputing an inattention in government to the public misfortune. His right hon. friend had not said there was no commercial distress, but by comparing the trade and manufactures of the country with their state in former periods, had shewn that the evil was not so great as it was represented. The cotton manufactory had arisen to such a state of prosperity, as to export to the amount of from 12 to 18 millions in one year. The natural consequence of this was to bear on the other exports. Was it fair to endeavour to give this country a dislike to the war, when the war could not be prevented; and was it not proper, with a view to obviating such a result, to shew that the depression of trade did not exist to such an extent as had been stated? He maintained that our gain by America upon the surrender of the Orders in Council, would be trifling in comparison with our loss of the trade of the continent, which would follow such a step. He believed, that the impressions out of doors were greatly exaggerated. Many parts, he would allow, suffered; but it was chiefly owing to the failure of the harvest, and not to the Orders in Council; and he could never believe that the people of this country were so dead to those maritime rights by which they had been elevated to their present state, as ignorantly to surrender-them to the enemy, or even to neutral nations. The Berlin and Milan decrees were the fundamental law of France, not to be departed from, until we should abandon our Orders in Council, and what was called the new blockade, which was the measure of the late Mr. Secretary Fox, adopted in the year 1306. They were to be enforced against us as long as we refused to recognize the system of an armed neutrality. Such was the spirit of her last decree. He denied that there was any disinclination on the part of ministers to discuss the question; they had refused the committee before, thinking it to be unnecessary, but they were prepared to meet the subject on its own grounds. It was not by florid descriptions of distress that the country could be carried through its difficulties. His Ma jesty's ministers felt these difficulties as much as any one could feel them, but still they would not sacrifice the real in terests of the country to any temporary