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

ports of that country were estimated at 101 .
of dollars. Of these, 48 Millions were domestic pre.
&tee, 19 of which came to this country, or were sent
to its West India Colonies; of the remaining 24, bee
tween 7 and 8 millions Were exosil- to France or'
its Colonies. War it nothing to leave America in the
48,07 Pen- of thir trade ? Had it been struck *at a
Voae, these.who lamented the hardships imposed up-
'on 'American commerce by the Orders in Council
might have some reason for complaint; but as that
was notahe case, he could not perceive the justice 41
-the imputation, that Ministers were not so much
aliie as .they should be, to the value and importance
of American connection. He did not believe, that
the people of that country would view the Orders in
Council in the same unfavourable light that • they
were regarded by the sanguine advocates for Aug
rican connection in this country. According to the
latest accounts from America, the impression made
by the new interpretation of the French Decree was,
that it must be retaliated by England ; and instead of
a modified restriction of their trade, as contained in I
the Orders in Council, nothing short of a total inter-1
diction of all commerce with the Continent of Europe
was apprehended. He trusted that these Orders
would be considered in the United States, as they
were really intended, a measure of self-defence- and
not of hostility; that their object was to -counteract
the violent system adopted by France, and not to
destroy the rights or oppress the commerce of neutral.
Powers.
Lord ERSKINE, in an energetic speech, of consi-
derable length, strongly expressed his disapprobation
of the conduct of the Government of this country.—
He was amazed to hear Noble Lords talk of the ne-
cessity, or even policy, of the measures under digcus,
sion. Did they shelter themselves under the princi-
ple of retaliation ? If so, the House had been long
since apprised, that,this measure of our Government
far outstripped that of the enemy. It could not un-
doubtedly be defended on the principle of policy, for
here it met the most direct opposition from the com-
mon consent of mankind, in the institutes of national
law. Perhaps some would be bold enough to assert
our right, when we possessed the power, to violate
even this sacred compact between men, provided
it were for our own convenience. Such a defence
would, he acknowledged, be fair and consistent, com-
ing from the lips of those who had advised and sanc-
tioned such a flagrant act of national injustice; but it
certainly would never be heard with patience by any
who regarded the honour of his Majesty's crown, or the
dignity of the empire. The French decree, as far as it
affected ,America; had, he maintained, been satisfac-
torily cleared up to the Minister then in France, and
.was deemed so even by the President of the United
States, and by him communicated to the Senate.-
-Hence he concluded, America was no party whatever
'in the decree of the French Emperor. This was evi-
dent also from her subsequent conduct ; when unaware
even of our Orders of Council here, she ordered a
general embargo on all the vessels then in her har-
bours. Much had been said of the right of retalia-
tiOn, on which there Orders were founded ; nobody
denied the right to resort to such a system, when the
conduct of the belligerent justified its necessity—but
even that law had its limitations. It should not over-
step the nature of the evil which it went to redress •
yet, in• these Orders, all limitation was lost sight of,
and convenience alone regulated the extent. It would
seem, that if the French Emperor declared the Moon
in a state of blockade, this country would have a
meeting of the Board of Longitude and our most ce-
lebrated astronomers, to retaliate, by a prohibition on
the satellites of Jupiter ; when he commanded a ces-
sation of the lunar motion, of her conjunctions and
opposites, they would react by a declaration that the
whole planetary system should step still. (A loud
laugh jean the Ministerial Bench.) He really conceived,
notwithstanding the manner in which the comparison
was received, that the cases were, in a great degree,
similar : inasmuch as he believed Bonaparte had as
much efficacy over the Moon, as he had in his decla-
ration of placing the British Isles in a state of block-
ade. The Learned Lord cautioned the House how
it accorded with a system calCulated to provoke the
hostility of America. This country would feel,
through every branch of its trade, the evil consequences
of such conduct. It would then find, when too late,
that it was cutting ip one of the principal sources of
its prosperity, and that, by an unfortunate and unjus-
tifiable policy, it had destroyed the hen that laid the
golden egg.
The Lord CHANCELLOR took a view of the'
various objections made to those Orders of Coun-
cil, which be contended- were not violations, either of
the public law of nations, or the municipal law of
this country. They were founded on the most para-
mount of all rights—that of self-preservation. He
considered it inconsistent with his Majesty's late Mi-
nisters to raise objections against a system of conduct,
which they were the first to institute, and which every
man must admit was called for by the violent and
unjustifiable decree of the French Government.
Lord KING considered that it was necessary, be-
fore those outrages upon neutral rights were carried
into effect, to have at least proof that they had ac-
iquiesced in the provisions of the French decree. No
such evidence was before the House. America had
disclaimed any such disposition, and yet the King's
Ministers had treated that country with the same se-.
verity as if she had acquiesced. He was strongly
impressed with, the injustice of those Orders, and
therefore should give his vote in support f the
motion of his Noble Friend (Lord Auckland.)
LOrd GRENVILLE observed, that it was fre-
quently the object of public Speakers, in order to
iriterest the attention of their auditory, to magnify
the importance of the subject upon which they, ad-
dressed them. But on the topic then before the.
House, it was out of the power of the most eloquent
to exaggerate the magnitude of this question, consi—
dered in all its bearings, whether to the justice, the
constitution, or the policy of these Orders. Indeed
it amounted to an absolute impossibility to bestow
on them, in one desultory debate, the attention they
so forcibly mei iced, and that was, amongst others, a
strong reason for acceding to the motion for going into
a Committee. It was contended, that those Osders
were founded on.the same principle' ps the order of
the 7th of ivwxy, introduced-during the late Admi.
nistratipo; although the rwo measures stood upon to-
tally idv: greunds. Let it he temenitiered, that the
°rile of the 7ill of January was founded on a-known
assumption of the Law of Nationi. It first made
a declaration of the blockade, and next took the steps