The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-03-23 00:00:00

TH 11.- ST.

direct answer to question so (then proposed..
Did it proceed from a consciousness thatibey could
not answer it in a way that would acquit them
of the imputation in the Moniteur? Instead of
tbectioic it fairly; they sheltered themselves under
the stile, -Old generalities of a pending negocia-
tiqw. And. yet .even on this point • they could not
• .
speak out: He did not underitand- the Noble
Baron or the-Noble Earl to have distinctly stated
that a negotiation on this subject was pending.—
The French positively state, that a proposal for
an exchange of prisiners was made and rejected.
'bitl.hisldaiesty's Ministers deny that it .was 2
•Should they not have explained themselves frankly
and clearly on the subject ? It was the bounden
duty of their Lordships to clear np this scads.
tion, were it only in compassion to the brave-Mee
who were pitting in the enemy's prisons • and even
from consideration fur. the enemy. What pre-
vented the Noble Lord from stating whether equi-
table propositions had been made by the French
Goverotnatont, and whether they had been enter-
tained? This sorely might be done without pre-
judice to the negotiation. [The Noble Earl here.'
read the.ltesetution of the Committee of the Coon.
Intuits in 1797, to justify the interference of Par-
o Hameln]. Hitherto he kneyr it was always the
wish of Government to obtain a reasonable prin.
ciple df adjustment respecting the exchange of pri.
sinters, which was always resisted by the enemy.
.But it was possible that this unjust pretension of
the enemy might either be abandoned from impe-
rious reasons, or removed from motives of policy.
—Lilo had, however, a proposal to make, which
would post the sincerity of Ministers.to the test.—
Let Mioniterseither agree to tkeappointmcnt of a
Secret Committee, as in 1797, or Consent to lay
bef-ore their Lordships the dates when these pro.
positions were received, and
.the answers returned.
If they would consent to either of these propo-
sals, lie would recommend to his Noble Friend to
,withdraw his motion. _ _

Lord MULdRkVE would not accept the al. 1
tentative offered by the Noble Earl. He would
never consent to take the negotiation out of the
constitutional channel, and put it in the 'moils of a
Committee of that House. In answer, however,
to the question so often put by the Noble Baron
and his friends, he would state, that no proposi-
tions for the nomination of Conutiissionf.ra to re-
pair to Morlaix, to negotiate an exchange of pri-
soners of war, had been made by the- French Go-
vernment, or refused by his Majesty's 'Ministers.
Lord HOLLAND was not yet satisfied with the
Noble Baron's.answer' Would ha consent to lay
the dates of the negociatiou before Parliament ?
These, surely, could not d close any thing that,
might, by possibility, prejudice the negociation.—:-
They might, indeed, disclose the culpable neglect
of one of his Majesty's Ministers. The manner
in which the proposition was received, convinced;
him that there was serious ground fur the charge
in the French papers. He had another propossl
to make. He would agree to withdraw his mu.
tion, if Ministers would consent to an Aiddre.s to
his Majesty, praying him to order to be laid be-
' fore the House the copies of any communications
from the French Government relating to the ex
change of prisoisei4 of war, since Septewbev, 1809,
together with the dates of the answers thereto.
Lord M UGG RLtV E laving declined this pro-
posal,
Lord GRIN VILLE moved, that the Resolu-
tion of the Cutunttis, in 1797; shout.' bc read, •
Lord LIVERPOOL observed, thar.that Roe-
Ittliou w passed when no negociation was pend-
ing.
Lord SPENCER stated that, as well as he
could recollect, there was a riegociatiou at that

time.
Thi House then divided.
For the Motion - 27
Aaaiast it 39
• Majority . -
is
• On the re-aklnsission of Strangers,
Earl SPENCER was speaking in favour of
Lord Holland's motion for au Address to his Al.,
'jetty, praying fur the dates of those pope's. lie
contended that comtnatsicatitsg the dates could not
ho attended with any inconvenience, but that it
might convey most isuportaut issfurusation to that
House.
The Earl of ESSEX also supported the Motion
for obtaining the dates of the communications. Ile
could not see any inconvenience in produe-
, don ; and be thought if there was a
,delicacy uu
the other side upon the subject, it was rather a
.dplicacy to themselves than a delicacy to the
country.
Lord NIL' LG RAV E resisted the communication
of the dates, which he ttaought would lead to no
!useful purpose. Ile did not see how any Motion
pould be grounded upon the dates, even if they
Were before the noose ; and under the present
circumstances, he did not think it would be right
to grant them.
. Lord HOLLAND said, that the dates might bo
AR themselves of great importance. For. example,
sif on the production of thedates, it slsoulklappeat.
that an overture from the French Goverousent was
for a long time unattended to, this circumstance
:might be sufficient to ground a motion on, even
although the papers were 'sot previously *anted.
• Lord LIVERPOOL spoke againit the model's.
. and Lord Grey in favour of it. . .
Lord KING said, he would wish to put it fairly
to the sincerity of Ministers, whether they intend-
ed, when the negociatiuu was at an end, to pro.
duce the papers as well as the dates. ,
No answer was given from the Ministerial side.

Tho Earl o( said, that the country
could never be satisfied if the question was evaded.
He believed that it would appear to the Gent!earn
btlow the liar (d toad cry of order, order!)
On the Noble Lord repeating the expression,
Lord MORETON moved that the house
should be cleared.
Strangers consequently were ordered to with.
draw.
We understand that afterwards thi motion for
data was negatived by a majority of 37 to 29. ,
simere=seeng
HOUSE Or GOADIONS, Manua EL
The /*Wrists litlitay Toll DUI was read a third
time, after a few words from Mr. EIEJLBEAT, and passed.

-.1. --••••••

lAN•

• ~.

r----.,,.-~---~.

• •

A Petition wai presented against the South London, nr
Rotherbithe Duck Bill.—Orikied to lie ou the table till the
second rending of the Bill.
• Mr. SUMN ER then moved the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. H. MARTIN opposed. site Mill, on the -round that,
by the adoption of the measure, the itilmoitants the pasittit
of Rotherhithe wnohl be subject to the greatest ineoovetil-
ence by imolation, as the Dock would be coasitierably be-
low water-mark. Mr. Dodd, the projeitor, was to gain
.19,00d1. by the_pa‘sing of the bill, yet it was on his testi-4
mousy that the House were called upon to sanction the tura-
sure. Cuasideriug this as a mere speculatioit, only t tarot:lied
' to enrich the suggestor. he begged leave to mote, as: au
amendment, that the Bill should be read a second tithe on
that day six months.
Mr. HEN lt Y TIMItNTON objected to the systennow
so much patronized, of granting caarters for the establish-
ment of large companies, to the detriment of private
duals, by which industry was paralyzed, and the exertions
of the Poor rendered nugatory; he theietime opposed toe
Bill. • t
Mr. It. WARD supported the Bill.
The question was then put, and a division took place
In favour of the Amendment - J. 3
Against it 37
• Majority in favour Of the Bill 4
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
A Message from the Lords requested the permission of the
House, for T. W. COKE, Esq. a Member of that [loose, to
attend a Select Cionittittee of the Lords on Tue•tia) inr.t, ap-
pointed to consider the expediency of the Curti Distillery
Prohibition Bill.