Star.
London, England, 1808-02-16 00:00:00

reign chose to act as his own Minister, and held con-
ferences pith him. If the conferences were held with
the Minister of that Sovereign they must then be made
public. If Foreign Sovereigns became their own Mi-
nisters what were we know of the conduct of gap
Ministers abroad ?—Nothing at all. \Vcre the people ,
of Fngland then to be told that there was an end to all '
inquiry, because Bonaparte compelled the Sovereign
of Europe to confer with Ambassadors personally
and not through their Ministers ?
Mr. CANNING explained. '•
Mr. WINDHAM said, the House and the country
might now be congratulated on having.a new defender
of those rules of propriety which he had lately broken.
Sometimes- a smuggler made a very good ,custom-
house officer. This was analagous to the Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman who spoke withl such animation
against the practice of disclosing confidential commu-
nications. The House then divided.—For the mo-
t on 82—Against it 142—Majority 60.
When strangers were admitted, Lord HENRY PETTY was
on his legs, and after a few remarks, his Lordship moved—" That
an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that there be
laid before this House Copies of the Communications between this
Government and that of 'the United States, with relation to the
Commercial Treaty proposed to that Republic."
This proposition, after some observations from Mr. Sesretary
CANNING, was agreed to.
Affidavits were then ordereilfiT the verification of the papers.

On the motion of Dr. LAWRENCE, it was ordered that an
humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that there be laid
before this House copies of the papers containing the Message of
the President of the United States, on the 9th Feb. 1807.
Adjourned at half past 12 o'clock. •

' HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 15.
The Earl of CAssiLts took the Oaths.
The Exchequer Bills Payment Bill was brought up from the
Commons, by Mr. VeAaror and others, and read a first time.
Lord GRENVILLE moved for a Return of the Number of
Ships brought into the different Ports of the United Kingdom, in
consequence of the Orders in Council. His Lordship stated, that
tt was his intention to move to-morrow, if the debate should not
he continued till too late an hour this evening, tor several Palm-3
relating to these Orders.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
The Order of the day having been read—
Lord AUCKLAND rose, for the purpose of call-
ing the attention of their Lordships to a subject of
as much importance, perhaps, as any that ever came
before them. It was a subject concerning materially
the whole of that system upon which the commercial
prosperity of the country was founded. There were
live points in the Orders of Council which he proposed
to consider : four of them were important • the last
not so much so as the others.,,, These were their lega-
lity, their justifiableness, theibpolicy and expediency,
the time and manner of issuing them ; and, lastly,
their intelligibility. With respect to the first, his
Lordship contended that the Orders in Council were
in direct contradicion to the received maxims of the
law of natk us. They pushed the rule of the war of
1756, which was considered as the foundation of our
law with respect to neutral commerce, to as unwar-
rantable extent. He maintained, that the Berlin De-
cree of the 21st November was rather of the nature of
a commercial regulation than a measure of hostility.
Such was the explanation given of it by the French
Government to General Armstrong, the Minister -of
the United States. The practice of the French was
conformable to this explanation, for he believed there
was no instance of the confiscation of an American
vessel, because she had touched at a British port.—
Upon what grounds, therefore, could Ministers jus-
tify their system, the execution of which must operate
a complete interdiction of all neutral commerce? It
_odd not be called retaliatioa, for the principle of the
Berlin Decree could never be strained to such an ex-
-.ess. The Orders also were as little to be justified on
score of policy and expediency, for they tended to
Abroil us with the only state that deserved the name

a neutral power. And at what a time too had Mi.
.sters chosen to have recourse to this system of re.
ariction ? It was at a period when negociations of
'te greatest importance were pending between us and'
tat power, who would be most affected by the exe.
ttion of these orders. His Lordship here stated a
lumber of hypothetical cases, to prove the absurd and
ontradictory nature of the Orders in Council, and
teir injustice as applying to vessels under the Ame-
:an flag. The great object which Ministers profes-
d to have in view, was to starve the Continent into
abandonment of the principle of restriction, de-
tared in the decree of the 21st November. And how
id they propose to effect this ? Why, by compelling
:utral vessels, loaded with the produce of the French
donies, and bound to France, to touch at the ports
• this country, from whence, after paying a trifling
ity on their cargoes, they were afterwards to be per-
itted to proceed on their respective destinations.—
isLordship having dwelt some time on the inefficacy
such a system, concluded with moving, that the
riders in Council, which were recommended in his
Aajesty's speech to the serious and early attention of
'ornament, should bereferred.to a Committee.

Lord BATHURST explained the principles of the
/stem contained in the Orders in Council. There was
►ot the least doubt upon his mind, that the French De-
are, of the 21st of November, went to the complete ex-
.lesion of all neutral commerce from this country.
—Circumstances at the time might have induced
'le Government of France to make some relaxation
from k in favour of America; bat that this was the

linal intention was evident from the explanation
winch was subsequently givet of it by M. Regnier to
the American Minister. In this he declared, that
the principle of-the Decree admitted of no restriction
favour of vessels sailing under the• flag of that
iuntry. By that Decree the British islands were.
ieclared in a state of blockade ; and consequently
ithout any specific declaration to that effect, all
:ssels proceeding to a British port were liable to
infiscation for breach of blockade. Such was the
!neral interpretation of the Decree on the Continent,
101 Was its interpretation in America, and such, he
resumed, was the interpretation put upon it by the
\te 'Ministers, at the time they advised his• Majesty
issue the Order in Council, of the 7th of January,
807. From the 21st of November 1806, up to the
19th.of last September, the date of Regnier's expla-
nation to General Armstrong, the American Go-
,enurent had acquiesced in the principle sanctioned
that Decree, and was therefore to be considered as
;onfedirating with the belligerent. But his Majesty's
Ministers were so far from resenting this conduct, that
hey framed the Orders in Council as favourable to
merica as they could consistent.with a spirited and
!ffectual retaliation of the French .Decree. The Or-
lers in Council, in fact, were, under the circurn-
'ances,'. a boon bestowed upon America: The ex-

vesso
tUiry
as a
c our
Berl
cess.
the
emb
of a
flint
stric
thej
that
cuti4
nun
cont
their
ricat
sed
an ;
clan
did
neut
cold
of tl
chit)
mitt
His
cf Si
Ord
Alaj
Parl
L
SySt(
not
tree,
clusi
the
fmn
orig
whu
the
the
in I
tout
dccl
witl
vess
con:
gen
suc!
pre
late
toi.
180
191
nati
in ven
con
- Mil
the:
An
elk
der
423