The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-02-19 00:00:00

MISR RCH.
O'CoNma.t. said that upon the motion of the hotil
idge a return had been last night ordered tt of all);
1 in which divine service according to the forms 0
es of England and Ireland has not been celebrated
'ears ending the 12th of February, 11433." No,,Y
itly consisted of two or more parishes in irel,o,„
tell) would move fur an amended return, by inoc,'
all the parishes in Ireland" in which divine sersl.
ted within the period specified, so as to obtain tho
lith it was desirable the house should have upon tY,
;MILBURN said, that such a return would afford
iecies of information, as in the case of two united?
to one benefice divine service could be only perfotC
, though the parishioners of both parishes had thr
ig it. As he understood the proposition of the nod
was that where in the instance of a benefice no du;
Led during the last three years, it would be in. the r°,",
nnissioners to-suspend the appointment to such be
or the purpose of obtaining accurate information,
at he (Mr. Goulburn) had moved for the return
He did not understand the noble lord to apply hisf
les.
VCONNELL said, that the result of the two returns
e that they would have correct information bath 05.,
e of duty in the benefices and in the different pat
mself 01 one benefice which was more than twen!l
1)'",;
t. There were about sixty Protestants in the 4
point of it, and in the other parish of which it col*
her a Protestant nor a Protestant church.
LLTHORP said, that his proposition certainly ap,10.1,1
1 not to parishes, and there could he no doubt that
parishes were united under one benefice divine sel;
believed was usually the case, only performed„,
ierefore, it did appear to him that the return 111°,'
ed gentleman would give a fallacious view of the 0F)
:tur such extreme eases, just such as that which Od,.
entleinan had mentioned, but the return he had
t point out suet, cases, while it would enumerate
rine service had nut been performed, but the parts
d full means of attending divine service in the pas'

Ke,ar, hear.) It was the known practice of the other house
re ornament to receive the affirmation of Quakers on Inclo-
ter and bills of Divorce. The 22nd of George 11.
Aeuunaerating the disabilities under which Quakers la-
.-ateet.'!, went on to enact " that in all cases, wherein by any act
oath is,
Parliament now in force, or hereafter to be enacted,
ie is, or shall be allowed, authorized,. or required, &c.
lose inrmation of a Quaker is to be taken—in all cases except
3rie therein excepted." The right hou. gentleman said, in
louse that
unit n, that it appeared to him to be the bounden duty to
r Ir, Pease to make his affirmation at their table. (Cries
anger, ear, hear, hear.") He would not detain the house auy
fotlse but begged to move " That it is the opinion of this
-Pease, Esq., is entitled to take his seat in this
Le oath louse, his solemn asseveration and declaration, in place of
, taken at the table." (Loud cheering.)
11,.°5 6ouctroß-GENERAL said, that after having studied the
tri.Pery closely, be had come to the clear conclusion that
ear, ale Was fully entitled to his seat in that house. (Hear,
mis 4 „:Lie had that right according to the common law. The
~ akim,ul bear in mind that there existed no oath upon
-that ti
in that house before the act of the sth of Elizabeth
he eoiiis-ture that time members took their seats by right under
hat 0414104 law of the land ; and all acts which went to remove
Ton witlx:°,l law, might, had been, and ought to
.be, looked
I b eraliv jealousy, and in all cases ought to be interpreted
° Roi 4„ Whatever might have been the feeling with respect
'atlbev " Catholics in former times, the loyalty of the quakers
'ore, !ll' been doubted. Under alethese circumstaces, here-
lnattirno"°Ped and trusted that the house would comet to an
Lire iod Lis decision in favour of the motion, (hear, hear) and
°„ ebh„rudence and satisfaction to so great, so humane, and
fhe ° Leued a portion of their fellow-subjects. (Cheers.)
/e,,. question was then put from the chair, and agreed to,
co„,.

7,ONNELL said he would withdraw his motion for t:
i notice of it for the purpose of shaping it in sac'.
iformatiou which he desired should be laid before,

the s LAW REFORM.
'II3 to ,:IiCITOR-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in five
'lles sirc'edy abuses in the law. The first was a bill to abolish
lext r.aa-' reeoveries,and to make' a simple deed sufficient. The
Llivers' -„8 a general limitation of twenty years, and that, afte!•an
lira weestession of that duration, all claims should
‘cease. The
"id a h 7, 'that a father should be entitled to inherit to his son,
14d a riTaer to his brother. The next was, that where a wife.
out ergtit of dower, out of real property, she should only derive
41 not dispose
of which her husband died siesed, and which he
clain, uisPose of by will. Lastly, that the husband should have
tit th;,°.Pen his wife's estate, whether she had children or not;
tike ',lf she had had children by a former marriage he should
il th()„/11Y, half Mr. O'Connell begged to suggest that
" 'ins should be made to include Ireland. Leave given.
The c, CORPORATION REFORM.
kith'HArccELLoß of the EXCH EQUER said, they heard. on-
id di complaints of malversation in corporations ; of quarrels,
irpo sa;rreernents, and hostilities ; so that, in cases of riot, the
to rtiration (not assisted by the community) were blamed for
leot I,hief. (Hear, hear.) On the present occasion goverri-
tetoo,:iidr not pro o-e, to brig in a bill on their own responsibt-
I ' `L'ey thoughtit best to submit the subject to a committee.
,t4teuunittee-would not only have a laborious, but a tedious
but the advantages which would accrue from
~ se of proceeding more than counterbalanced the incon-
teree. It was not his custom to trespass on their. time by
' liesaPeaking, when he did. not apprehend any opposition.
heiencir," and a laugh.) The inquiry into the corporations of
hi,
0, ,hould be made conjointly with that into the. corpora-
IA LltglaDd and Wales, that the institutions of the two
d brie' should be assimilated as much as possible.. (Hear.)
ts tl'eause, if the committee consisted entirely of Irish mem-
' 't, 'ere might be a feeling in it which would render the de-
nte n°t• quite so impartial as if the committee were composed
•herohers of the United Kingdom. (Hear, hear.) His lord-
t`
red for the a ipointment of a committee.
eh • ViveAN (Aisto9 was amazed that, when there was, so
p,, 4rid such important business pressing for the consideration
41-ov,e,rainent, it should nevertheless, at so early a period, and
e 1-1: I°tice, have thought proper to charge a committee of
ilii_use with a matter of such vast importance and such mul-
tien"Us details as the inquiry contemplated respecting corpo-
kens' ne thought it would be better, as the government hahadthe 8: much on itself upon other occasions, it it were now, as
its ow of the reform bill, to propose a measure to the house
o 11 responsibility. He did not consider it right that men.
oe‘dvcre
„prejudiced against corporations—men who were re-
-01111 t° earliarnent during a period of extreme excitement-
-3„ lb be elected into a tribunal to pronounce judgment respect-
-Ir. se orporations.
hi h `-'sw ALD (Glasgow) moved an amendment, the object of
steadas to extend the inquiries of the committee to Scotland
.Minof leaving that kingdom to the abused and disrespectful
ion,., of a Lord Advocate. Great as might be the iniquities
Ilarp which the English and Welsh corporations might. be
41.,V those of*
totnd were not a whit inferior; neither
peoi-CeY, inferior the iniquities which the hon. and learned
i M er t"r Dublin stated to prevail in the corporations of Ireland.
r• lirat,
The L L seconded the amendment.
feso °RD ADVOCATE said he had prepared a measure for the
e ..,1 of the Scotch municipal corporations, which would be
tt,„"i forward at an earlier period and in a simpler mode than
i'filelt would emanate from the committee of the house.
4ie'rY,, which was the duty- of the committee for England and
a nail been done in 179.3 for Scotland. In England there
11,8 ~,- great number of differently constituted and independent
neelaluus therefore no one measure could apply to all. Now,
tll-trisA in' Scotland, the whole liberal constitution of the
'te • 1," was annihilated. This was effected by a single sta-
pth:Y its baleful operation the whole form and substance of
oe eT.I. elections was smitten and laid prostrate. The nomina-
-1 inn Tagistrates had originally been in the people; but it was
en ir,t',l in this statute, that, to prevent tumults, &c., simple
Pero `" laugh) were no longer to have a part in the election, but
tir thenceferward the
timingexist magistrates, should nominate
ki ,seeeessors. Well, ere was the grievance; wha
On„ tee reinedv? Simply to abrogate that ancient act, and to
at popular constituencies in the boroughs. (Hear, hear.)
st,e,,lleet of the committee would be, first, to discover and
e
eddy 1 the evil—next, to provide the remedy. They vi•er
Ile,';.rthhoth those cases with respect to the Scotch boroughs.
bAto ear-)
•e,,ll,,Luilent withdrawn._
vilei "i• W K i (Newcastle-on-Tyne), asked if it were
dit to:denoluencEeYa committee before its members had been
brp,,, kor himself he rose as one connected with a large
to state, upon behalf of that corporation, they were
to th ): reacty to meet the inquiry of the 1-louse of Commons
, kr ei,lt„lnatiageinent.
!iltssi `-'',irs• NELL must take the opportunity of personally ex-
lircilef to the noble lord his extreme gratification at the cur-
Ireland being included in the same inquiry with
41111i1:11:41111tisit:1:gland and Cies He felt more strongly upon the
Irit,llet because he trusted 'that they were not only about to
L'ai. ateenquiry but determined to correct abuse.s. (Hear,
uae 'tk 'le aid no't know a more serious griev.ance in Ireland
he lie houe existence of the corporations in their present
atist, Pe of having these evils abated would give the. gresateest.
oref"' to Ireland. The post which annouriced it rioutldrdeo-
ilee,Tward.tratiquillizing Ireland tban the arrival of tilren y
el „-s• The present condition of the Irish corporattons was
1 3 16,;-11,°Ient of the ingratitude of the English government to
' • :shu„ subject Catholics there were excluded from the cor-
Pete4l,l,,Ts, under the same pretence as in Scotland—namely, to
era,toinult's. The Stuarts gave the proclamations of tfie
• e,e -,ieutenant the force of law.
Thev made ihe executive
14v, pi .
isle4lllenL alt owerful. Thus were (he Catholics, who had
V their lives and fortunes to the house of Stuart, ex-
f the fro-
,. ~ el the corporations, which were thrown into the hands
rigrai,.\-rerriwellianci, who fought against them. This was. vile
4,; Arte`l,,tude, such as,' he trusted, they would never see- again.
ittr'l. pvi.l".,lrew words
.from Sir F. BI:A{DErf, Mr. BARRON, and
• Pliiitter, the motion was put and carried, and the committee
THE CASE OF MR. PEASE.
TYNN, who was loudly called for, rose alliillisini;l:l NAVAL AND MILITARY
.SINECURES.
tliE then brought forward, in a dvasble sfieeecrhe,_
ontinued cheering. lie said he had now troiferre, lion respecting military and sloenaval_lui
the house to the case of the hon. member_
,proeltleo theB 0 and to the
ie oaths usually administered to membe,s.,oevery parliamentary proceedings of I
then recognized by a committee, that economy in
sin that house. He conceived that thaPeo;,„,ot digauch of the Wilk ex.pendi!ur{: great aud import-
question—(hear,)—and that they were
d. not in a legislative capacity. (Hear.)
,iet•tti_liiintied
fhe ce--!, and that sinecures in civil departments ought not to
bad found it necessary to look into se% he
naei service-s. He was against payments where there Were not
ons. The first act relating to Quakers itiou ci!ssitv of ecHnenomy;
ct for preventing the Alisetriefs and DO, .1,, °L tialial and nailltary sinecures.
d'
moved
tthweo
sreceseonl
au
,t iroenese;mt
mh ee first,ed ie g declaringthe
obo-
e,
by certain persons caved Quakers, reel I.l)oiti CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he should not
lbs.' The fi-rst and only case which the c.
lave arisen as to the question of admissi et,i.siu
••
1) ' l'evl°4 ' 'These offices annually came under the
s question. es°
had constantly
tin that house, was that of John Arch' he ~._ll of pailiament, and, therefore, the house had
thesec offieei
rough of Chipping Wvcomb, who, on h r,,';;Ter to check abuse; but, even, as
_regal. regarded
of William III:, refused to take the 0
i
pse tile list resolution ; but the second he should meet with
ie. uttlents were in progress, particularly with fespeet to the
t . eteim,... once. prevented f-ser. taking hiP

THE EMI:UW.4O.
IERT PEEL said he had meant to avail himself of
the question for the house resolving itself into a]
to make spine observations upon the order in cow
jcsty to prevent British subjects trading with ao
g forcible detention of vessels belonging 11,
;aw neither the noble secretary for Foreign AdILL
General, our the learned civilian, the member for
lalst of "whom had spoken with great conticlene
Constictitional nature of the measure), in their
pone his remarks to another opportunity, which
sent, itself on Friday. He wished it to be al
not his intention to enter into any discussion
eral foreign policy of the government; he wow
the order in council authorizing the forcible tic

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
ING seeing the right hon. President of the Board 0L
wished to know when he thought it likely that!
bring the question of the East India Company
1
:onsideration of the house. He ventured to sal
oportance of the question to every part of the kin),
nterests connected with it, rendered it necessati,
inch magnitude should not be brought forward
to session. lie was aware that there were alrel
the house which would prevent this subject frO,
rward at present ; but he was desirous of exprel
• have a subject of such vast importance brought,
!kat of the session. The noble lord had stated Ow,
.ntion to move for the re-appointment of the P:,
he (Mr. Baring) must say it appeared to him that t
in possession of sufficient information upon the 51'
ha question ; indeed, his objection was rather to t''`
the scantiness of evidence on the subject.
tam. said that the importance of the question t°.,
=ober had referred could not be overrated. It era'
,
the consideration of the government and the `'`,
Che introduction of the subject into the .house
deferred to a late period of the session ; indc
n to bring it before them at no distant period f,.,1%
Of course he could not pledge himself to t'
he expected it would be before k:aster.
lURTON observed that a large portion of the eeti
the committee in the last Parliament was not y
nbers, and desired to know when it would be F.
RANT replied that the report of the comno
.ed to members a fortnight since. With respe7,
,
the appendices, they were so voluminous that
mposstble to complete the printing of them. -Th
owing to any want of exertion on the part of the
en indefatigable.
then resolved into a Committee of Supply, and
in; a supply to his Majesty was agreed to.
then resumed.

USURY LAWS,
NEDY asked whether the Chancellor of the El'
that the question of the repeal of the usury layq
rr occasions been brought forward by the rt,';'
lanehestir, might not with propriety be introdu'
lezisure 1

me answered, that it was not the intention of 'l',
ad any measure for etreetin; an alteration of
He had never brought forward the question ''
A frequently supported it when it was agitat,
!man, formerly a member of that house (Mr.

•
I.IIIIIISDAY.
ru.s were brought in—to enable the trustee
to amend and improve them, by Mr. ToWT
for the better employment of the' poor of a P
Ird HENNIKER—for a railway between London Or,
Grey Sktrvvint—to amend and improve• a f,
o r.
Lord INIoLYNEux—to repair a road in the parish 0,4'
Iti
an—to light the town of Congleton, with ,
[tae—for the better assessing and collecting
rish of St. Giles, Camberwell, by Mr. HAWES---t'''
waterworl:s bill, by Mr. HoDosoN.
rere presented for the immediate abolition of
congregation of Protestant dissenters at Idle, in
Morpeth—for some legislative provision for the 1
he Sabbath, from Ewell, by Sir J. R. RE •
NO RT n—from Dumbarton, by Mr. CotAirHou''ej
ej
Ir. WIGN Er —against the grand jury laws, tit!,
ruin Edgworth's-town, (Ireland,) by Mr. g‘)',
on soap, from the soapmakers of Kilmarnock,',

;LERK presented a petition from certain
WWI understood, of the incarceration of the Re
account of his religious opinions.
took that opportunity' of observing that a !10
ice appeared to he dealt out to differentindi~'!
is imprisoned for endeavouring to unchristiall
etition which had been presented in favour of ON
since, had, to his great surprise, been receiveuit
cheers. That petition called for a removal of
under which the Jews now laboured. Such sle 1:
them to sit on the bench,—to act as justices tri,
t, to do every thing that Christians could 04,1
oposition of• tnat nature came before the ho?:,
as well as every other attempt to unchristianlPl

el he was sorry to hear the sentiments to whit
r Oldham had just given expression ; and he
's Government would immediately take the el
to consideration.

LL thought that government would not overloe
is no friend to blasphemy, but still he was of or,
ition of men on account of their relicrious or
rdance with real christian feelings. 'The hoe',
riled to the case of Carlile, and observed that they
ted against him had increasad his profits : bt'j
e system of prosecution was abandoned, his
,ased. In his opinion, the best way would
luals with silent contempt.
Lid that, as a member of a number of inig'`'/
cone
ere constantly sending out individuals to eoj
nations which had long followed other desery,p
iew not how he could, consistently with free
~"f
nv person who happened to argue in favour at
w'hich were opposed to those generally adopt'

said that the prosecution of Taylor was not a god
. He thought nothing could be more unfair 0,'4
ty attempt to put down fair argument, but
,ttacked by ribaldry and the grossest exhibitiOaw,
a different character.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
REMANTLE moved for some returns connected
Ti which

*erved that if they would compel farmers to re
of unmarried labourers into their houses, as
of the distress and misery of that class of Pe

be stood—was, in his humble judgment, contrary to good faith,
and in violation of the law of nations. (Cheers.) He con-
cluded by expressing an earnest hope that the house would take
into its most earnest consideration the consequences likely to
arise from the continued operation of this order in council.
(Hear.)
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that it was the bounden duty of this
country to adhere to those principles of national law and justice
by which the interests of weaker and smaller states were pre-
served from the injustice and aggression of the greater. If it
were admitted that the peace of Europe was likely to be .endan-
gered by the continuance of hostilities between Belgium and
Holland, it was the undoubted right of Great Britain to inter-
fere to prevent those hostilites, whether by negotiation, by em-
bargo, by reprisal, or even by a declaration of war. (Hear,
hear.) That he would lay down as his fundamental position.
(Hear, hear.) No person could deny that a treaty which was
to be enforced by armies on land, by the combined fleets of the
two contracting powers—by reprisal and by embargo in the
ports of these two powers, that a treaty which was said to be en-
forced might lead to hostilities. (Hear.) The authority of Lord
Stowell fully established the right of laying an embar,go in con-
sequence of a difference between two powers, though that dif-
ference might not be likely. to lead to hostilities. The right of
imposing an embargo was, indeed, of the utmost importance to
the commercial interests of England,. and
,one which should not
be exercised, except when great and important objects were at
issue. But he contended, that the right of imposing an embar-
go, existed in every case where there was the least probability
of international differences terminating in actual hostilities.
In case of a civil embargo imposed by the crown, it was con-
tended by some high authorities, that it was the duty of the
crown 7* come down to this house, and sit a bill of indemnity.
But that was a question which they could not then determine,
and which it was not the time to argue. This he would assert,
that the house and the country would find that this embargo
and this-intervention on the part of the British government, so
far from being undertaken with a view to hostilities, would be
the most certain means of averting them. (Hear.)
Mr. BARING said, the merchants of England, feeling that they
were in a state of profound peace, had indulged in transactions
that Were completely overthrown by the measures of government.
The measures of the present government had completely dis-
turbed the commercial relations between this country anti Por-
tugal and Holland, which were always in amity with us, and
where commerce had always been peculiarly British. No Bri-
tish interests had been attacked, and he thought, that it was not
justifiable, according to the law of nations, that for the purpose
of forwarding a diplomatic negotiation, an embargo should be
imposed. He was anxious to 'have the power ofimposing this
embargo properly defined. • The effect of the policy had been
to alienate from us the feelings of a country where formerly
everything English was hailed with warmth and regard, but
where now, in consequence of those measures, no Englishman
could walk the streets without insult. (Hear.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL.—When ,the right honourable
baroeet addressed the house, he thought that he would have
endeavoured to prove that the acts of government were such as
to call down the indignation. of the country, and was surprised
that he did not call for a vote of censure upon them. They had
to consider the question on the constitutional grounds of the
prerogative .of the Crown. He apprehended that the statute
Law only applied to times of peace. The right honourable
gentleman had chpracterised the embargo as barbarous, and
barbarous indeed would be the state of the country, if we had
not the right antecedent to a declaration of war, to settle any
existing differences without an appeal to the sword, by au ami-
cable adjustment or a preventive measure. The embargo of
1706 was unconnected with any question of war or peace. The
proclamation stated that there was a large quantity of corn in
the port of London about to be exported. This was merely a
municipal regulation; the people had a clear right to export
corn, and were prevented by that embargo. Before the present
administration came into oiiice the sep.aration between Holland
and Belgium had taken place,itnd their predecessors had recog-
nised the principle of making that separation perpetual. If
this di..-ision was to be perpetual, because it was essential to the
peace o Europe, then it became the duty of government to
give it fall effect. A treaty was entered into by France and .
England to carry into effect a former treaty, to which three
other powers were parties. Notice of this treaty had been
given to Holland and Belgium, calling upon them to do certain
acts within a certain time, and in case or the refusal of either,
compulsory measures would be resorted to. He would ask
whether this treaty. did not bind this country to blockade
Antwerp, and France to send an army for its capture in the
event of a refusal on the part of Holland? After referring to
the position laid down by Lord Stowell, the hon. and learned
gentleman contended that the embargo was not an infringement
of the law of nations.

Mr. PoLLocx said, if nothing more was said in favour of
the proceedings of government than had been urged by his hon.
and learned friend, he was prepared to say that very little was
necessary to be said in answer. He had looked in vain for any
other instance in which a similar measure had been resorted to.
If there was a good reason for resorting to this measure, why
slid it not appear upon the face of the proclamation ? The case
of 1769 was founded upon an address of both houses of parlia-
ment, and petitions from London, Bristol, Norwich, and other
corporations. The proclamation stated why it was resorted to.
In -1801 an embargo was laid upon Russian, Swedish, and
Danish ships, and the reason assigned was the hostile proceed-
ings of those governments " against his Majesty's just rights." i
In this case, f they had any facts to ground this embargo upon,
why were they not stated? On the authority of his hon. and
learned friend, the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, an em-
bargo was issued against the property of Dutch subjects. These
may be reasons of state and of sound policy ; if that be so, the
earliest information ought to be given to the subjects of this
realm' so that they may know why they are deprived of a right
which was inherent in them. They had been told that we were
not at war, and that all their proceedings were of a mediatorial
character; the bombardment of Antwerp was only a gentle
hint to retire and leave it in the possession of the Belgians. If
the transaction ended in hostilities, it would be no longer peace,
he supposed. To his apprehension, the animus was hostile ab
initio. He defied his honourable and learned friend (Horne)
to prove that Lord Stowell ever contemplated an embargo
under the present circumstances. He would ask his hon. and
learned friend, whether Holland had ever been a party to any
treaty, agreeing to give up Antwerp. The right hon. bart. had
been asked if it were wise to press this question. He (Mr.
Pollock) would ask, was it generous, was it just to treat Hol-
land as we had treated her? The voice of those who feel for
Poland was loud in the country and in that house ; but, was no
voice to be raised for • the most ancient ally that this country
possessed? He trusted that they would never cease to exclaim
against forcing our mediation upon that country. ( Hear, hear.)
-The SOLICITOR GENERAL could not but deplore the appeals
of his learned friend (Mr. Pollock) who, in following the
course of the right hon. bart.- must produce a mischievous
effect to the country, whose cause they advocated. But for
this interference, but for such discussions, the settlement be
tween Holland and Belgium would long since have been madel
His hon. and learned friend (Mr. Pollock) had attempted wha

ipteo.
was called in the courts of law a special demurrer—that is, he
had argued that the embargo was bad because it wanted a pre-
amble. The hon. and learned gentleman then referred the
cases of 1766 and 1807, and said that for issuing the latter no
reason was given. He also quoted Vette! and Grotius on the
subject of the detention of the goods belonging to the people of
a foreign state, and referred to the Iliad to prove the antiquity
of reprisals..
Sir JA,iES SCARLETT said that his right hon. friend (Sir R.
Peel) had argued the case in a manner that would have done
honour to the profession. The question appeared to him to be,
had they a right to lay an embargo against a country with
whom it was said we were not at war, against whom a war was
not contemplated, by way of a little gentle coercion. A
difference existed between 'Holland and Belgium. This country
had a right to take the part of either, but no right, in the ab-
sence of any, to claim to be at war and at peace with either at
the same time. An embargo had not only been laid on Dutch
ships in our ports, but cruisers had been sent out to bring in the
ships of that nation to our ports. If this taking of Dutch ships
were not war, it was piracy, and had such an act been com-
mitted by Algiers or Tripoli, instead of a great navalloower,
all Europe would be roused to resent the wrong. Magna
Charta had been referred to in the course of the debate ; in his
opinion the King could have uo prerogative against Magna
Charta.
Sir R. VYVYAN, at considerable length, condemned the em-
bargo, and commented on the policy of the government towards
Holland. It was not for ministers to argue on the law of nations
or the interests of Belgium; the question was not one of mere
legal difficulty—casuistry and sophistry were alike needless.
The real question was, How_ was the interest of Great Britain
•. had