The Sun. — London, England, 1822-03-11 00:00:00

TIN WEST INDIA: IN'TERCOVRSE. 'THE SPEECH O 'SIR WILLIAM CRANT,AGAINST.TIIE AMERICAN INTERCOURSE RILL. - SESSIONS 1806. The MASTER of the Boats rose and said,—" One the observations of the Noble Lord (Petty), who spoke last, is the most extraordinary I ever - kneW to be used in a debate, Tutruely,—that what has passed on former occasions has ren dered tinneceeedry all argument in support of this Bill, and, as *he thinks, has rendered unavailing, all arguments against it. • 'Objections have, indeed, he says, been urged which might have had some foriT, but a satisfactory explanation has been given to them, and these the Noble Lord has left untouched. In his very outset, the Noble Lord has left untouched one-half of the argument urged against him, by which he has left un 'touched' one 'half of -his own Bill. All the arguments against one whole clause has entirely escaped the Noble Lord's obser vation,, and he. proceeded juse as if the provisions of that clause were not in the-Bill at all. Sir, 'when I compere the very limited purpose which the Bill profeseeion the face Of its preamblee. with the extensive powers which the Billrreates,*l am utterly, a loss to. guess at the ob ject of rte framers. It would be an affront to their 'understand ing to say they bed no object, 'and yee:to say that the granting such poWereto any government - is preper, is what lam not prepared to do, and what I rine sire the Noble Lord has not enabled meitoedo, .and whit, therefore " - I cannot consent to do. . Sir, the..Blllepeofeeses, in its peeamble, to be intended, and states iteelf a to he calculated, to meet a necessity of the most limitedleinde and the Noble Lord haSesaide :that the only ob ject ofehe.Bill is, to. de thatlegally, which has been for years found indispensably nee' essary to be. done in of the law : .such is stated, bosh; in - the preamble of' the Bill, and by the Nobla-Lord's explanation of it; but what 'does the Bill do'? By a foreeaud eoncisentss: beyond all exarnple, it strikes out of your statute books, or reduces to a dead letter, all the body of the levee -of this realut a made for the support of our neviga tion, the eufe of our colonial systen; and .every thing that de .pendeuri both ; this is said to be the effect of necessity. Is this a proYed necessity, or only . an alleged necessity ? When did this neceleitygtow up ? what is the extent of it ? it must have been of a very limited kind for these two months ; for the Secretary of Statesleiter is dated so far bade as April last; by which it appears, that' he felt no other necessity than that. the West. India Coloniei shoUld be eupplied with lumber, and with a few, but pot with:all, articles of proVisiOn • ; - and that: those. who do eupplyilitrokinies with ..this lumber, and with these few ar tieles.ofprovieion,, shall be all Owed to carry . with them rum and moliessee that is all the necessity which exists in the month of April; e but inthe month of May following, that is, in one - month, it is discovered that there is' a necessity for transferring from Parliament all the'controul it ever had over this important subject, and from the Colonial Government all shin discretion it ever had, and of vesting in the hands of his Majesty's Mini sters an entire, absolute, and uncontroulable power to exercise their discretion over the whole body of the Navigation Laws of this - realm, as far as 'those laws depend upon your colonial system, Now, will the Noble Lord tell me that he is arguing . the merits of this Bill when he leaves entirely unanswered all that haSbeen said on the other side with respect to this colonial system and the NaVigation Laws? Why, Sir, to say' that these diecussions.are not relevant, which apply to the very sub - ject of The Bill itself, chews the truth of what has been said on the billet side, that the 'Noble. Lord - himself is not in the secret of the:real 'meaning and true object of this Bill ; or that it contains 'meaning, and' has au object,. which the Itoble Lord does ruet think fit to disclose to Parliament; and here I take leave to ask, when a measure iS presented to Parliament, under a lase' character and description, is it not fair to infer, that -under its true charactet and description it would not be en dured 7 . But it is.said, in support of this Bill, that the power which has hitherto been entrusted to the Governors of the Islands, is now to - be transferred to the Privy Council. Sup posing ie did no more than that, and that the power so to be transferred to the Privy Council was tote confined in its exer cise to the 'objects specified 'in the Secretary of State's letter, - that ie a that the whole power was to be confined to'lumber, and the few. articles to, be imported into the.Coloniee,, and the rum and thelasseato be carried out of them, then there would not be intieb'Objection to it ; but that is nothing like the extent of the powee id be given by this Bill ; for, by - this Bill, the power Is without limit as it -regard's the regulation of -the whole of your colonial system, and the whole of your navigation' laws. And when did Parliament ever give • this power before ? did it ever giYe it, or any thing like it, to the Governors of the Islands ? I know it 'has from year to year passed acts of, indemnity for what they did, and this, is •stated to be like the'case of the King's prerogative to pardon a crilninaL Ceitainly, the royal 'prerogative extends to the pardon of a 'criminal for an offence, and a valuable prerogative, it is, wh'En judiciously exercised ; and, I have no doubt, that these.acts of indemnity, like the royal prerogative, have been -a jutlizious exercise o discretion ; but did we ever hear of any prerogative that empowered any body before-hand to commit an offence ? The power which Parliament gave to the Go -seniors of the West Indies, Parliament expected to be dis creetly exercised; confined to cases of absolute necessity, and that they would allow of none of those importations into the 'Colonies by strangers, except in cases of clear necessity. There is no instance of any bill of,indemnity passing or of being asked for upon any other foundation. • Parliamentnever meant eto grant any indemnity on any other conditions, nor is it too -much to assume that Parliament never would have granted any indemnity on any other condition,; for, in . every act of indemnity thai' ever passedon the subject, it is stated, ,that ' " it was necessary for the GoYernors of the Islands to allow ethe importation of 'lumber and provisions ; and that those who =imported them should be allowed to take away certain. articles .of colonial produce- in return for the same ; that is the limited edesteintion which you have - given-them, and the power is only ,given to the Governors in a case of absolute necessity ; but here it is provided, that you shall give the power to the Privy 'Council absolutely; and in the first instance. Now, I would • say; before I gave it any wherebefore I would say where the power should lodge, I would inquire whether it be neces •tary to lodge it any where ? and I would ask this .1-louse whe ther it be a matter of course to give, this power ? I say a matter -of course, to give the. Privy Council a power of suspending _,any law without laying the foundation of the, necessity of it eupon a previous inquiry into the matter. There may be a case of public notoriety on. which Parliament would act without a epreveous inquiry, but that is not this case; there may be such a ease as that which occurred in 1784, in which a previous in luiry may be unnecessary by the notoriety of the necessity ; 'hut that 'is not like the present case. How do I know whether '.hare has been lately, is now, or may hereafter be, at any given ,time, a competent supply'for the British Colonies by British ships from Great Britain, or from the British Colonies in North America by British ships ? -Bow e d° I know what the state of .ethetrade at home is ? Hew do I know what state the British ,Gelonies of North America are in? How do I know what the 'estate 'of British tonnage is at this moment ?. How do I know -Whet state'Wis 'likely to be in Some given time hence ? What -Pori know of the state in Which , Britieh tradeis without in * ? Will the etIVOCat43 for' this 'Bill say that inquiry Vitt)! . nothing, :at a momcnt when it'is 'most manifett, that without inquiry every Ole else is worse then nothing ?e -Will they 'giye us a staterhent fiets of their own framing, anti which ought to Tema& the:subject of inquiry, when that statement is disprited ? aii'l'et deny that inquiry to - those 'who offer to ertrove the tenth of - a- centrary•statement, and that at the very ,"time when they theitiselyeaare sliming the necessity of laying a greittiorfor Nth/Mier - leery investigation ? Sir, .I distrust ex tremely allegeneral argutilents . in this case; and, indeed, almost .all geeeral.ergumentsayhen they are made . to apply to particu ler cases; nothing ; is more easy than to _iittapt stathnient of Facts of your own -making :to general principleie - .and to apply -general arguments to that'stetement ; and therefore I distrust all generalargeirnetate,ivhen applied to this case;., mid for this reason, because' I' remember that the wet , ' Mane arguments, and the very same answers were Made, word foe Word, for this trade, as now, contended, for, in timoof• peace, that are now made id. time at is not one syllable said this day, time of Wee,. eii4e Was not advaneedin the year - 1784; to chew athaie the, opening, of` MIS trade was necessary ; that is to say, ,'that it is as necessary in thheorpeaeeaS in war time; a propo kition which 'Ministers, whstever they may wish, have not yet .thought fit .to go the length of,eontending ; but their argu ements, and so must 41 general, arguments, go that length. The Very language of the Honotttable Baronet is to be found in the answer which _was made in the year 1784 : the Noble Lord and the HenottFable Baronet have said, they thought it extraordinary that British shipping" could* he capable ffi of carrying on this trac, under all the, circumstances of -this trade; so it was said in 'as many words in the year 1784, that •the trade .for the supply of your colonies cannot 1)3 :carried on, by reason of the circuitous voyage which the British ships are obliged to take ; and that you are at once Obliged to come tee the direct American trade in American But my Noble Friend over the way, (Lard Castlereagh), •etated the ground of.what was ordered to be done in 1784, and of the non-application of it to this case; when the necessi of the measure them attempted appeared upon the very face of it ; there was, therefore, no necessity for inquiry into the particu lar facts on which the measure was founded ; it grkw out of the ~situation, the partieular situation,' in' hiCh things were placed by the American revolution ; and this skews the impropriety of the application of the argument of the Noble Lord who spoke .last ; who referred, by way of justification of elie.preseht men : sure, which he proposes for the adoption of - Parliament; to an -other measure which had been -proposed, : indeed; and offered too ; but which had been rejected by Parliament ; (alluding to :the draft of a Bill penned by Mr;Pitt, which had been referred .to by Lord Henry Petty, and partly quoted by-him;) and that. emeasure was .supported by much the same arguments as the. presia t is attempted t 0 be supported ; I say attempted, because now • ae futility, -of the systain is exposed. It was then said, " thare is no danger . froni - this ; let America remain on the foot at on which it stands; let its trade go on in its old chan nel: twill find its level, and can never . hurt es." Why, Sir, thie gas all very plausible general reasoning, but had no spe cifk application to the plain matter of fact of the case ; be cause it was well'known that it would injure the trade of- this country, and, with that sense of it in the opinion of those who were best qualified to 'form one, the proposed measure was a bad one, it was opposed by the -general, and almost unanimous voice of : the country ; and for that very good reason, no at tempt was made to- carry it into execution. So far from it, that the very first measure which the Privy Council adopted, was a measure of restraint to prohibit it, and they then ex. pressed their opinion, upon deliberation, to be, that this was a plan which it would be unwise to adopt, or rather that it was a measure in which it was wise to depart from its adoption ; and it was held still further, that if any thing was brought from America to us, or taken from us to America, it should never be done.but through the medium of British ships. So much for the similarity of circumstances in the two cases ; in one of which there was much emergency, and, in the other, none ; in one of which, all the circumstances were owing to a revolution in the affairs of a state ; in the other, all the cir cumstances arise out of an established course of things; and gentlemen do no even contend there is any emergency in them ; yet, eveti with all:1 1 11dg arguments for the proposed measure in the former case it w 14., rejected; and now, without any, it is proposed .for our ailoplion: But Gentlemen contend, it is needless to examine, or even to dispute, the necessity of this Measure; heeause it'is known—they contend it is knoam—they contend it exists beyond dispute ;—that the facts are so plain, it is idle to dispute their existence and that nothing can be a remedy but the provisions of the present Bill. Hence, they say, -arises the necessity. The facts, however,- on which this necessity is founded, they do not give us now; they either do, or they do not, know of the existence of this necessity. If they do know of the existEnce of this necessity, they can con= vey it to Parliament; and if they can, they ought, to convey it to Parliament. • It:is their duty to convey it to Parliament, to justify the adoption of a measure so repugnant to our esta blished laws. If they have no knowledge of this necessity, we are legislating in the dark ; because 'they ask, us to do so, and that against every principle of policy by which this .country has been guided, and by which it has hitherto so sig nally prospered. • No*, Sir, under these impressions, I could say, that Instead of pursuing the system recommended by the Noble Lord, we ought to call on him, and those who, with him, are the frienda of this Bill, to point out to us the instances in which this House has sanctioned, or even countenanced, a departure from the Navigation Laws. Sir, it has hitherto been the policy of this country to regard with jealousy every proposi tion to that effect ; to require a reason for any measure that has that aspect ; and to regard every measure with distrust, if it has that apparent tendency. But the friends of this Bill take a course directly the contrary ; they take up the navigation laws as a hostile system, and if they can find any measure in our legislative history, which they think has any tendency to oppose it, they consider it as a matter of useful discovery, and exult in it as a matter of triumph, as if an attack on the Navigation Laws was not only perfectly fair, but even laudable. They think they h a ve made a valuable discovery, if they find out a precedent for an attack upon the Navigation Laws ; -and so far do they carry the spirit of hostility into action, that if they 'do but find an instance in our Parliamentary history of a tempo rary infringement on the Navigation Laws, they insist upon it, as a proof of their right to pursue a measure for their perma nent suspension, which is but another word for their total de struction. They find a case which has no resemblance in its circumstances to the present, but no matter how dissimilar, it is an instance iv which the Navigation Laws have been inter rupted in their course, and therefore they tell us, " we ought to be allowed to pursue it as a precedent, because the Naviga tion Laws arc of a nature o odious, I suppose; that it is our in terest to have diem entirely destroyed." But it seems there is a peat concern and compunction felt by the Governors of the West India Islands, on account of the violation of their oaths, in the instances wherein they are called upon to consent to the suspension of the Navigation Laws ; that they are sworn to preserve all the laws of the realm inviolate ; that a suspension of' the laws is a violation of the laws ; and that a violation of the laws is a vjolation of their oaths. Now, Sir, this may be very laudable morality in the supporters of this Bill ; but I cannot help observing, that this tenderness for the consciences of the Governors of the West India Islands is a little whimsical, considering how they were treated on former occasions. When the Colonial Governors dispensed with the Navigation Law, in cases of absolute necessity, and . Parliament never gave them an indemnity for any 'ether, they were not told of this point of conscience, if the Act is blameable. But how does the Right Honourable Secretary of State treat them by the instructions contained in his letter ? lie tells the Governors of the Islands it is not necessity which I regard ; it is not your consciences I. regard; I regard nothing but what appears to me to b e conve nient ; and 1' will skew you; that what you thought was an ex cuse as a matter of necessity, shall be continued as a matter of convenience ; and you shall suspend the law, however your conscience may be affected by it, on account of the necessity of doing it, not only during war, in which it may possibly be thought necessary, but until six months shall have elapsed after I shall have directed notice to be given of the discontinuance of the practice. Now; what are the Governors to do all this time, after the necessity, which alone is said to be the excuse, has ceased? They are to continue in the uniform practice of the violation of the law ; and thus, according to the argument of Gentlemen on the other side, violate their - oaths in obedience to the.order of the Secretary of State, And the Secretary Of State, in the plenitude . of his power, grants to the Governors of the islands an indulgence to commit that very sin, which the friends of this Bill so much deplore ; and not only does he grant this indulgence to commit sin, but lie gives them an encouragement, nay, still more, lie commands them to commit sin; and yet these are the Gentlemen who now turn up their eyes to Heaven, and deprecate the evil of Governors being placed under the former system, in a situation in which they were made, so immorally, to tamper with their oaths. Now, with regard to the question, " How far it is necessary to lodge the power which this Bill gives any where," (which is not proved,) I ani of opinion that, supposing it to be n ecessary to lodge it any where, it would be better to lodise it with the Privy Coun cil than any where else. I have no difficulty in saying, that if it must he given to an( body, I had much rather it were given to the Privy Councila tan to the Governors of the-West India Islands ; because I am of opinion, that the Privy Council could, and would, exercise such a power more discreetly than the Governors of the Islands could ; or perhaps I should say, that the Privy Council would make a more discreet use of their power than any other body of men would, supposing them to be equal to others in information upon the facts on' which their power was to operate. But I doubt the possibility of their being able to possess that knowledge. which will be requisite for the due discharge of the function with which this Bill is to invest them ; for the question is not a question of dry, abstract competency, in the Privy Council, to do justice to any trust that may be. reposed in them : upon that none of us . can entertain any doubt : but unless you place them in a situation in .which the competency may come into action, that compea tency can be of no use .to them, or to the public. I do nor know whether they can do more than my Lord CaMden did, whose instructions to the Governors of the Islands' have been so often alluded to in the discussions which have taken place on this subject tand here it is observable, that whatever power you may give to the Privy Council, whatever responsibility you may attach to the Privy Council ; however you may take away the responsibility of the Governors ; however you may affect to take away their discretion ; it is most manifest', that they must act on their discretion, while - they have any Power W act at all ; Its this . Bill will not -.alter • the necessity-- under which they are to act. They nuist, after all the instructions which you may give to them from hence, act according to their discretion upon -the circumstances of the case,•as circumstances may arise ; and you must indemnify them too, just, as yoit did before this Bill was thought of ; and for the same reason you always did it, because it is impossible to avoid it. This has been verified by the fact ; for when power was in the hands of the Privy Council, - to regulate the whole of the trade be tween America and th West India Colonies ; when it was in finitely important - that the Privy Council should exercise their authority e'and 'When they did exercise their authority; and an Act of Parliament passed for the purpose ; when the directions of the Privy Council were sent to the Governors of the West Indies ; when that power, so given to the Privy Council, and by them de legated, necessarily and unavoidably delegated ; to the Governors of the West India Islands; and that power so delegated was abused by some of those Governors, still the power was not taken away, but left with those same Governors, even although it was abused by them— why ? Because Parliament knew it was impossible to take it away. But now, instead of allowing the Governors to act upon their own conviction, you are going to order them what they are to do before hand, when- you may not possess the information requisite for the purpose ; and when after all your directions ere given, they must, in many cases, at least, act upon their own discretion, even though it should be contrary to the orders of the Privy Council I should say, that even if this Bill were passed, and the Privy Council were acting under its authority, _there might be circumstances in which it was not less the duty of Parliament to institute an inquiry on that account.; because, although the power may have been granted by the Legislature, yet a question might arise -upon the propriety of its continuance—and a question might arise, whether the discretion should be left with the Privy Council or with 'the Governors ?—Supposing, that the Legislature did not take pains to make a proper inquiry in the first instance, it does not follow= they should not make it in the second. I have heard of such a thing as a possibility of the Legislature having conducted itself =properly ; but if, after having done .to, ,we were .to say that the thing should never be altered, because of the reverence we all ought to have for the Legislature, that would be equivalent to saying, that -if the Legislatu r e has once conduculd itself imprudently, it Must conduct itself imprudently to the end of time. Now let us. suppose, instead of this being a bill about to be passed into alaw, it had been a law • that instead of our having to con sider whether we shall make this law, we were considering a law already made ; and the greatness of the shipping interest of this country were to come forward, and to complain to Par ' liament of the destructive effect of the Act of Parliament, would you refuse to hear the complaint ? Would you think,it -a fair, or even a Sensible answer to say, " We have followed the pre tice prescribed by this Act now for 13 years—you tell us that you are competent to the ample supply of the West India Colohies—you tell us, that the great interest of the em pire requifres that you should have the exclusive right of fur nishing these supplies ; that the navigation requires it ; that without it the country will decay in strength, and dwindle into weakness, and finally be ruined." Would you, I say, think it a semfibleanswer to say, G°lnasmuch as we have done this for 13 ybart, we will go on ?" Do you conceive that these con secutive acts would he an excuse for their own continuance, and release you from the duty of entering into an inquiry on the subject when these matters are s t a t e d to you ? Is it too much to say, that you ought to inquire whether, and to see whether, the public interest does, or does not, really demand a change of such a system ?—I apprehend, Sir, that in such a case, even if we had an Act of Parliament under which we had thus acted for thirteen years, it would be the duty of Par liament to institute the proposed inquiry ; and if so, how much more is it the duty of this House to institute an inquiry into the propriety of a mere practice, which is not a law, before you sanction the practice by law—and that is all which the shipping interest ask of you. They do not de s i re y ou t o sa y th a t thi s measure is not necessary, or that it ought not, under any cir cumstances, to be adopted ; they only desire you not to adopt it without ascertaining that it is necessary. Upon this prac tice the Noble Lord's argument is, that Parliament ought to declare, immediately, that the power cannot-but be necessary in time of war. I am afraid it would turn out, upon in quiry, to he necessary - to do something of this description in time of war ; but of this I am quite sure, Parliament ought not to deliver that opinion without hearing those who rue of another. lam not callitng on you to say that this prat= tice of thirteen years, on which you rely so much, is not neces sary to be continued; I am not saying that it is not absoltitely necessary that an intercourse should-subsist between our West India Colonies and America, and that that intercourse should take place through the medium of American shipping; but I am saying, that I do really think it is extremely important to ascertain whether it is necessary or not;' and supposing it was totally unnecessary, I have no more wish than the Noble Lord has, to say any thing that may savour of an illiberal' spirit with regard to America. Far be it from me to say any thing by which any commercial jealousies should prevent you from en joying those advantages which may arise from good amity with America, and that you should not relax, for your own conve nience, your own laws. Let America profit as much as she may, by any system which we adopt, while that system is ser viceable to ourselves ; or, still more, let America profit as much as she may by our adopting that which our own interest requires. But while I say this, I cannot shut my eyes to the principle on which America proceeds in a sort of discussion, by which she appears not to rely on the force of reason, neither does she refer to the last resort of nations to enforce their will— the thunder of the cannon. But she says, " that she can make a commercial war upon you." It is one of the propositions which are most current in America—" that, by shutting up her ports, and by denying her produce to our Colonies in the Virett Indies, she can reduce Great Britain to her own terms."— That is the favourite topic in America. Why, then, I would, say, that I would not put myself more in her power; I would not become more dependent on her than I could. help. Now, every body must admit that this Bill, and especially the argu ments by which it is supported, make us very dependent upon her ; because they both proceed on the probability that we are in her power with respect to the very existence of our West India Colonies ; and if you proceed on a recognition of that principle, every day your inability will increase; because, in proportion as America gets hold of this trade, in the same pro portion exactly your North - American Colonies are excluded front it. For it is quite impossible for your North American Colonies to come in competition with America in trading to the West India Colonies. You are informed, by papers on your table, that the ability of your North American Colonies will decrease, day after day, and that of America will increase in exact proportion to it; and therefore you see, in this partieular, as your power is decreasing in our North American Colonies, your dependence on America is becoming greater. But satisfy yourselves first of the existence of the necessity ; and do not let us, by argument and presumption, without proof, put our selves under America, and at her mercy, and in the state in which we are to be told, as in the year 1734, that we could not do without America. It may be said, and we are to argue' upon it, that this measure is not to touch any negotiation upon which public rumours are on foot, but we must act as if there had been no such thing; I say, that if you go on with this trade, the British colonial system will come to an end alto gether ; you will be disabled from carrying it on, because in time the whole of the British shipping will have vanished; for, in time of peace even, ships cannot be restored. In the first place, it will take a course of years to bring you into the situa tion in which you were; for that reason you should enter into an inquiry, that you may ascertain what you now have left, and what you are in possession of; for, under this system, every hour your situation grows worse, and more and more difficult. This is not like the operation which the war has upon your seamen ; for when the war terminates, by the pro vision of the Navigation Acts, you have your seamen ,again provided you have your shipping, all is well, your trade will go on. For, ,under the Navigation Acts, you permit only a given proportion of fOreign . seamen to navigate your ships, even in time of war ; and so, - when the war ceases, there your ships are, and you have your men to navigate them. You do not, in any case, even in time of war, permit your ships to be entirely manned by foreigners ; you being, by your Navigation Laws, bound to continue arid 'keep up the proportion of British sea men on board them. But what will you say to the operation of the system of this Bill, which tends to annihilate the British shipping ? for, under this system, every ship that is used up is so much dead loss, which can never be repaired ; as not another will be built to supply it. What motive can there be to do when there is no employment for it ? is like living on your capital, instead of subsisting upon the produce of it; for there can be no fresh produce to supply the deficiency as it ,arises ; you render it impossible to renew your shipping. Nor is this all. Although this is enough to bring on your inevitable ruin, should the war continue, yet it works more rapidly to wards your destruction in another way ; for not only does it prevent your seamen from being reared up, by taking away the source of their future employment, but it creates an immediate drain upon those you have already ; because, by enlarging the scope of the American' shipping trade, you enlarge her demand for seamen ; and by this system America is already so over grown in the shipping trade, that her own seamen, fast as she is rearing them, are by no means equal to her wants ; and the natural effect of that is, that she will take away yours ; and the truth of this the Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Young), who spoke from under the gallery in support of this measure, admits he has told you, in as many words, that a . great many British sea men are daily brought up by America in open markets, so that you are not to suppose that the evils of this system will cease with the war. Therefore, arguing this Bill upon the suppo sition of the Noble Lord, that it only is ,to reserve to the Privy Council the power which has hitherto been given to the Governors of the 'West 'lndia Islands ; I say, since the effects of it are stuli as I have stated, you ought not even to do that without inquiry. -But, when we come to look at the true - description- of thi, Measure; it is 'utterlyimPos sible that -a British Parliament can be any party to it in its present state. Can a British Parliartient be reconciled to this Act, the *suit of which is, to take away all the British shipping, and with it all the British seamen, for the one follows the other, and both are absolutely inevitable, supposing the war to be of long continuance ? I should like to hear any man argue this ;point. I was very anxious to hear what the Noble Lord had to say upon this part of the subject; and, says the Noble Lord, the Americans are not blind enough not to know that your colonial system is an artificial system, an artificial and a constrained system.—(No, no, no ! from Lord Henry Petty.)—l should be very happy to be satisfied that I have mistaken the meaning of the Noble Lord, but I certain ly did understand him tb say, that the Americans well knew our colonial system to be an artificial and constrained system. It would be very gratifying, undoubtedly, to me to suppose, Or rather to be satisfied, that the Noble Lord's meaning, as contreyed, or intended to be conveyed by his words, did not give any degree of countenance to the provisions of this Bill, aslfiar as it has the effect of promoting that impression; and I should be glad if the forms of' debate could afford to me the sa tisfaction of hearing the Noble Lord at once disavow that senti ment. But that I must be content to wait for in its turn, ac cording to the rules which, for general convenience, are made to govern our debates. If the Noble Lord did mean that, or any thing like it, -then I say we must be content to surrender the whole of our navigation-laws, and do a great deal more than this Bill professes to do ; for, after this Bill passes, the West India Colonies are no more ours than they are the Colonies of North America,—l will venture to say not ohe half so much, except that of the burthen of them all the profits of them will go to America, and the burthens and disadvantages of them will alone remain to us. For there are disadvantages, and very great disadvantages, in all cases, to a mother country from her Colonies, and those belong to. ours in the West Indies. It is always a question of balance between the advantages and disad vantages of a Colony, on which tlepends the policy whether you part from it or retain it ; for we are obliged to defend it in time of war, and we are under the necessity of affording a great and expensive force for that purpose : nay, in some cases, we are obliged, not only to carry on, bait to commence war, on ac count of our Colonies ; and it is ,historically correct that many of our wars have been onaheir account.—Many of our wars, I say, are of that description : Nor is this the only inconvenience we stiffer on account of our Colonies; for it has been a princi ple_ of our policy to impose restraint on ourselves, for the pur pose of giving our Colonies an advantage in our m ar k e t s over the produce of other countries ;—and we have often been obli ged, indeed we are in the daily habit of obliging our own peo ple, to pay dearer for the articles of our Colonies than we can buy them for of other countries. Why ? Because we have ad- F vantages from thein which we cannot claim from those coun tries who are not dependent upon us ; and the advantages, up on a view of all the circumstances, are ' ()Teeter than the disad vantages. But what does this Bill do ? It proposes to give up all the trade, and all the benefit of the Colonies, to America ; and that we shall keep the expences and the burthen of them. I will ask his Majesty's Ministers, whether, after the passing of this Bill, there will be any security that one ounce of Colo nial produce will ever again come into Great Britain ? - Sup pose the Americans, who, by this Bill, are empowered to carry your Colonial produce where they please, should choose to car ry your Colonial produce to all the markets of Europe, (for that, most undoubtedly, they may do, under the provisions of this Bill,) not one hogshead of the sugar of your Colonies would come into this country. You may thus lose, at Once,. all the advantages, while you retain all the inconveniences l . of our Colonial system.—You are obliged to burthen your people with very heavy duties, for the purpose of supporting this Colonial produce ; and you are now giving tip the advantages of that produce to America,—you are now giving to America more than if you were about to enter into a treaty to cede to her the . whole of your Colonies for ever ; f or , i n t h at case, you wou ld say to her, since you must have the Colonies to yourselves, you `must take the burthen of them as . well as the advantages; but, 'instead of that, we give to -America the choice, at least, of taking all the advantages, without their being liable to one of the burthens, of the West India Colonies. But the IlOn. Baronet (Sir W. Young) was pleased to state, that it was wise to repeal your navigation laws in part, for the sake of restoring your commerce. I will not argue the general proposition of what is of a superior, or what of a subordinate or secondary . nature, —whether commerce is not essential to the suppprt of the nation, and, consequently, to our naval strength, —and, whether, without commerce, ve could support the state, or could have a navy. These are general propositions, which, as I have said already, I have no inclination to dispute ; for I always distrust them in argument, because 1 am never sure that they apply to the case in discussion. The general proposition of the Honourable Baronet therefore, that theFprotection of trade is essential to the welfare of the empire, Ido not dispute ; but the qtiestion is this—is the Bill now before us of that description which will tend to the pro tection of trade in the manner which the Honourable Baronet supposes ? Of ,what use is it that we should hear stated and established these general propositions,which are true in all cases, unless the measure now before us falls within their policy ? I may, on the other hand, with as much truth say, and - insist upon it, as a counter-proposition, that just- in proportion as you surrender your navigation, you surrender your commerce. • But the question is, whether the case, as it arises out of this Bill, comes under the one or the other of these propositions. I alledge it does : I do say that, by this Bill, you lay the foundation of the ruin of your trade, by the surrender of your navigation to a degree that is absolutely extravagant, besides being a total surrender of the power of Parliament to revise what may be done under it, such as hitherto hai been the habit from year to year. See what the necessity Which Ministers contend to be the "foundation of this Bill will lead them to, and does le a d th em to—that of surrendering the navigation of this country, so as to put the American shipping on a footing with the British. That would be a pretty strong thing for a British Parliament to consent to ; btu this is much stronger, for here you relax your navigation laws, in favour of American shipping, to a degree to which it never was relaxed in favour of British shipping . . Sir, Ido not know that the framers of this Bill know it, but it most unques- • tionably is the fact, that the trade to be carried on with the Co. . . . lonies in British shipping is confined to certain specified ar ticles; whereas to the American shipping it is unconfined and unlimited. For, when once the American • ships are got into your Colonies, they may take the produce of these Colonies WHITHEIISOEVER THEY PLEASE, ALL OVER THE WORLD,. and they are npt restricted so much even as the British shipping is. ,Good GoD ! what a spectacl e i s thi s t o ex hibi t to t h e world ! am I in a British Parliament beseeching and imploring it not to pass a Bill which has for its object such enormous effects as that of taking off restrictions upon a trade to be carried on with British Colonies by foreigners, which are continued with re gard to British subjects! Why, Sir, this willingness to erase out of the statute-book the very name of your navigation-law, is a disposition, GUIDING THE COUNCILS AND CHANGING THE ANCIENT POLICY OF GREAT Paturaix—it is, a change, indeed, which the French Statesman himself would enjoy. He could have wished no other ; he had no other desire, as he has often expressed, although our commercial law affected France less than any other maritime power in Europe ; for they never were our rivals in the carrying trade, and, yet, they called our Navigation Laws an odious hostile eode, by which England made war on the industry of all Nations. [Here the Right Honourable Gentleman added anotherde scription of the Law Of Navigation, from the same French Au thor,* which I could not hear.] What a triumph to our enemies must it be, if the Parliament of Great Britain agree to give up these laws, which their ene mies have so long regarded as their bane, while they are the foundation of our greatness. .But, then, it may be said, that although the powers given by this Bill are so enormous, still you will not impute to the Privy. Council any intention to use such powers to the ruin of their country ; and it is as well for the Privy Council to adopt mea sures for the general advantage of our trade and navigation as for Parliament to do so; and it ca nnot b e su pp ose d that these powers will be used by the Privy Council for any other purpose than that of the interest of their country, however enormous these powers may appear to you to be. Why, Sir, if these are powers unfit to be used, as most certainly they are, they are un fit to be asked for • and if asked for, they are unfit to be grant ed. And, certainly, in the very extensive sense in which power is here claimed, it is impossible it can be executed; and why should any set of men have a power by Act of Parliament to ruin their country ? Is it to be considered as a ground on which concessions may be made by us ? Is it because Ministers must be supported ? and that it is not to be supposed Miniters would use the power in the latitude with which it is given, in order that Parliament may shew that there is no bound to the liberality of its concession ? There certainly may be in some cases a great difficulty, in others an impossibility, to define pre cisely or exactly what is necessary to be given by way of dis cretionary power to Ministers, or to express specifically what power should be withheld from them ; and, therefore, a general and undefined power must be given, and we must trust to the discretion of Ministers in the use of it ; such was the case when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. At the time when that measure took place, the country was put to the disagreeable ne cessity of defending itself in that mode ~,gainst a few conspira tors, and put for that purpose th e li'oeities of all the subjects of this realm under the care of the Executive. Government of the Country : you could not accomplish your object in any other way. For, although you had every reason to be assured that the conspirators - were but few in number ; 'yet you • could not draw a distinction between them and the rest of the King's sub jects until after they were tried ; and, therefore, from the ne cessity of the case, you were obliged to make the poWer general, leaving the exercise of it to his Majesty's Ministers, and they were to detain only those against whom there were founded sus picions. But this general power is never necessary to be given, when the thing to be done can be specified ; so here, in the ar ticles to be carried away by neutral ships from your Colonies,, what is to hinder you from specifying rum and molasses ? par ticularly after what has been said by an Honourable Baronet, by which itappears that there has been a specification and an enumeration of all the articles allowed to be taken away from the Colonies in neutral ships? if 50,,, specification and enume ration are possible; therefore there can be no necessity for these unqualified and sweeping powers. Sir, when I am called upon to,agtee to the giving of power to others, which power may be exercised discreetly, perhaps, bat very differently from that which I expect at •the time of granting it, a question necessarily arises in my mind, what is thought upon that subject by those who demand the power, and by whom it is to be exercised ? Hoiv do I know what power Ministers think necessary to exercise, except the power which they claim ? [lave lony other criterion to go by ? And that is a power which no man will say can be tolerated, if exercised to its full extent.: In the hands of one man this power may be an absolute nullity ; for he would use no part of it, and, there fore, it is useless to give it ; in the hands of another it may be executed to a ruinous extent ; and, for that reason, dangerous to give it, and, therefore, under this artificial and constrained system, (for I cannot help retaining the use of these words) it is impossible to go on, and therefore much better to give it up. How do I knoss% that the idea of the use to which any of the powers to be given by this Bill, is that which they would wish to make of it ? I own Ido not know what they mean by this Bill ; and, as I have said already, it would be an affront to them to suppose that they have no meaning, which is ' of itself, a reason why I should not assent to this Bill. Sir, I see no bounds whatever to the power which the Privy Council is to have to give an unlimited indulgence to American shipping ; an I see nothing whatever., in this Bill which gives to the Privy Council any authority to make the slightest regulation with reference 'to British ship; ping, so that the indulgen,ce is all to the Ainericad, and the • Hauterive, rigoutis all to thei:Pritish shipping.—[Here he read a clause in the Bill to prove tiis observation.] Sir,' is it not monstous that such a provision should exist, in any shape whatever, in a British Act of Parliament, and, yet, here it is; a power :o grant, in favour of American shipping, that which cannot lit granted to British shipping; is it possible that such power can be given by a Mush Parliament ? Sir, I really have no ides that Ministers are aware of the meaning of it. These, Sir, are the reasons I have to show that this Bill ought not to pass into a law. I have shewn the danger of as senting to any measure of this kind without inquiry ; I have shewn that it is different from any measure that ever was yet adopted in Parliament ; I have shewn that no situation in which this country can be placed can ever require such powers to be given to any body of men in it ; I have shewn the into lerable insult which it offers to the British shipping by placing it below that of a foreign state ; I have shewn the ruin which will attend an attempt to put in force any 'thing like the extent of its provision. Is it then, after all this, is it too much to ask of a British House of Parliament, not to destroy the best in terests of the British empire by destroying its navigation, and that without the regularity of an inquiry ? If you thought the thing. was One worth,!you ought to observe more decorum in the detruction of it. Ii- gentlemen will contend it is im probable the Privy Council will exercise, improperly, the power to be given them by this Bill, I answer that the prospect is not flattering in that particular, by . the disregard and contempt which you have shewn for the law already ; when you your selves will - mot venture to define the use . - which you intend to make of the power when you have obtained it, and when •you shew that you regard your colonial system as an artificial and constrained system ; .so that, after this, there may be a total abandonment of the old system of the Niivigatioh Laws. if ever there. was a time in which it was the duty of Parliament to guard against the introduction of theseaiestruetive principles, by which the Navigation Laws are threatened with annihila tion, and more particularly against giving any persons in the State the power Of producing that effect, the present moment is that very time; an d I thi n k t h a t th e necessity of caution is considerablyinereased by the very arguments which have been urged in support of this Bill to-night. Good God! Sir, what has been the ground on which this Bill has been defended ? Ministers are determined, it seems, to carry every thing by storm; for they do not reason on the wisdom or the policy of the Bill, but they recommend it to this. British licaise - Of Par liament,- by shriving that it is of the same kind as other acts of hostility which haVe, at different ttnies, and under different circumstances, been committed against the Navigation Laws of Gr6 - at Britain ; so that the recommendation to the Bill is, its msemblance to those measures wbieh are hostile to the Navi gation Laws ! I say, that if this Bill should pass into a law, a foundation will have been laid, by which Ministers may come to Parliament with. any claim which . the intoxication of suc cessful power may dictate or suggest. They may think it ne cessary to relinquish the Whole system, of 'our naval strength ; there is nothing which may not be justihed Under this ; and, if any body should attempt to resist the extravagance of the application, they have nothing to do but to hold up this Bill and say, "See here, the powers which the Legislature has confided in us.; we must have this measure ; it is essential to the system which Parliament has delegated to us in its_wis. dom, to which I know not what answer any one could make." Sir, I had much more to add, but after having trespassed en the patience of the House so long, I must pass it over. I can only express a confident hope that Parliament (a British Par liament) will not hold out such a spectacle to the world as the recognition of such a principle as this Bill contains would be : which would be Only doing that by a law of your own which your enemies, aiming at your destrttctioa, have hitherto endea voured in vain to accomplish ; who have, for upwards of a .century, been endeavouring to impress upon the world a con viction that your Navigation Laws are at war with the rights, and hostile to the interests of other countries, I trust that you will not do for your enemies that which they have never been able to accomplish for themselves : I trust that aiu will not deliver up to Ministers the wh o l e f oun d at i on ofd your great ness; I - trust you will not think that you:will triumph by teach : ing foreign powers to say the policy of Great Britain is changed ; they have given up the system of their Navigation Laws,- by an Act .orParliament, into the hands of the Ministers, who now' see it will not do-for them any longer : to maintain. that op pressivepreponderatice by which they were the masters of the ocean; they have given up that system, - and gradually it will be suffered to die away under the wisdom of a truly enlight ened Administration, who will not suffer that terror and death to the hopes of other- nations at sea, the Navigation Law, to stand in the way of those great, philosophically pacific arrange ments which they have formed. Sir, I trust that a British Parliament will never enable the enemies of Great Britain to hold out such language to the world : I trust that a British Parliament will not give up that guardian power it possesses over the interests of the British empire, by passing a Bill which contains provisions that no man has yet been bold enough to say he would infaree to their full extent ; I trust you will not gave up that system by which you have grown up into your present power ; a sys tem on the preservation of which it is my entire conviction that not only your prosperity, but your very existence, entirely de, pends. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, SATURDAY, lifanca 9. To-day their Lordships met about a quarter to four, when it was anticipated that certain Bills, including the Circuits • Commissions Bill, would be received from the Commons, but it now ap peared that they had not been passed, by the other House, to the requisite stage. The Attor neys and Solicitors Regulation Act Amendment Bill passed through a Committee, and was re ported without any amendment to the House.— Adjourned to Monday. The plan for reducing the NATIONAL DEBT, alluded to by Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, in the House of Commons, on Friday night, was sent round to the Members of Parliament by Mr. JOHN BRICKWOOD, formerly a banker in Lom bard-street. The plan which he proposes is simply a conversion of the present public funds into a new 5 per cent. stock of a higher denomi nation. It is ascertained to be perfectly prac ticable. It is also perfectly consistent with public faith. Indeed it is, all circumstances considered, for the interest of the Stockholder; because it will give his annuity a greater com mand over the necessaries of life ; it will increase the annuity of the present three per cents., and not so much reduce that of the 'four and five per cents. as it is intended by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER to reduce them next year. And although the annuity of the 3 per cents. will be augmented, the reduction of the interest of the 5 and fl perxents., which, according to law, are liable to reduction, will, upon the whole amount of the present dividends on 3,4, and 5 per cents taken together, effect a great saving to "the State. While the total 'mount of the national debt will be reduced, probably two hundred millions, without either violating public faith, or sup posing that the whole of the 3 per cent. holders would consent to the conversion. Making there fore ample provision for leaving a sufficiency of 3 per cents. for the Traders in Stock in the Stock market. The plan is deemed a most valuable discovery in Finance. Its simplicity, its practi. cability, and the importance of its results, esta blish, in a peculiar manner, its claims to the im mediate attention of Members of Parliament ; especially at a time of acknowledged difficulty among public men to devise the certain means of restoring prosi)erity and happiness to the com munity. The High Sheriff of Shropshire has, in answer to two requisitions for convening a county meet ing to petition Parliament on the subject of agri cultural distress, returned a positive refusal. A Requisition is now signing, to convene a meeting of the Livery of London, to' consider the present distress of the country, and to peti tion for a reduction of the present burdens of taxation, and a Reform in Parliament. t of INN 1....