this country, and to be there subjected, by the authority of the British government, to many and grievous restrictions), is a manifest violation of the law of nations, and of the rights and independence of a friendly power."

On the first motion being read, the duke of Montrose contended, on the usual grounds, that the orders of council were proper, just, and necessary, and concluded by moving the previous question.

A short debate ensued, into which (consisting mostly of the repetitions of what had been said again and again) we shall not enter any farther than to notice a shrewd argument, brought forward by the earl of Galloway, who contended, that the justification of ministers might be drawn from the speeches of noble lords on the other side of the house, who all of them, without exception, made the reser vation, that the maintenance of our maritime rights ought to be paramount to every other considera. tion. The orders of council he considered as both a just and a wise measure, which should therefore have his support.

On the previous question, that the motions be now put, the house divided. Contents 47-Non-Contents 66.

House of Commons, March 3.Lord H. Petty, after adverting to the importance of every topic connected with a subject of so great magnitude as the orders of council, said, that the house must be desirous of obtaining as much information respecting them as could be given. Their object was, to impose duties on the re-exportation of certain articles, which were to be imported into this country before

they could be carried to the continent; but without the co-operation of our allies this object could not be attained, and the orders would be as completely nugatory as if they had never been issued or acted upon. The Americans, for instance, might carry cotton, and the other articles on which it was proposed to impose a duty, to Sweden; and what assurance had ministers, that the government of Sweden, instead of imposing corresponding duties, would not avail themselves of the opportunity, afforded by the system which we were adopting, to convert that country into a commercial depôt, for supplying the continent with those very articles, which it was the object of ministers to prevent from reaching the continent.

On this ground, lord Petty moved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, for ordering to be laid before the house, the substance of all communications which have passed between this government and the powers at enmity with this country, in Europe, on the subject of the orders in coun cil, of the 11th of November last, previous or subsequent to their being issued.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the house, that there was no disinclination whatever on the part of his majesty's allies, to concur in the system which government had found expedient to adopt in the present period of the war; and that assurances had been received from Sweden in particular, of the willingness of that government, to give every facility for carrying that system into full effect. Besides, the measure itself was not, as had been stated, dependant for

effect

effect upon the co-operation of Sweden, or of any other power; for its principle extended to a declaration, thatalltheports subject tothe control or dominion of the enemy were held in a state of blockade; and this blockade might be enforced with regard to the allies of this country, as well as neutrals. The difficulty, therefore, which the noble lord had started, was in the first place unfounded in point of fact; and, in the next place, if it did arise, we had the remedycompletelyinour own power. A debate took place, in the course of which Dr. Lawrence wished to know, whether any communication on the subject of the orders in council had been made to the Dey of Algiers, who, of all foreign potentates, was the one to whose general policy the present

measure was most consonant.

On a division of the house, there appeared For the question 71 Against it 139.

General Gascoigne stated, that he had in his hand a petition against the regulations of the orders in council, from some hundreds of the most respectable merchants in Liverpool, not more respectable for their extensive dealings than their excellent characters in private life. One half of the whole trade of Liverpool would be endangered by the new regulations.

The Speaker asked, whether it was a petition against the duty bill under the orders in council.

General Gascoigne could only say, that the prayer of the petition was not particularly against the

duties.

The Speaker stated the usage of the house to be not to receive any petition against a duty-bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

too stated, that according to the established rules of the house, it was impossible that the petition could be received.

Mr. Ponsonby observed, that when the chancellor of the exchequer was first asked, if duties were his object, he answered, "Oh, no! it is all matter of regulationit rests entirely on the king's prerogative. The duty is not the object of the bill." But now, it seems, the chancellor of the exchequer is driven to another shift, and says the duty is every thing; and for that reason, as it is a money bill, the people of England must not be allowed to petition against it; and it was supposed that they would rest satisfied with this quibbling sort of argument.The whole substance and design of the petition, as might have been collected from the speech of the honourable gentleman who made the motion, was directed against the orders in council and not against the paltry duties.-Then how could it be objected to on the ground of its being a petition against the raising of duties?

After a good deal of farther debate, the house divided. For receiving the petition 80-Against it 128.

Next day, Mr. Tierney, at the request, and in the absence of general Gascoigne, offered a petition against the orders of council, framed in consequence of the rejection of the petition from the merchants of Liverpool. The petition being incompatible with the forms of the house, the present was framed to suit those forms; and this was the reason why it was signed only with the names of the three gentlemen who acted as delegates, instead of

the

the four hundred merchants who had signed the other.

The chancellor of the exchequer, having heard the prayer of the petition read, feared it still militated against the forms of the house, as adverting and being applicable principally, if not exclusively to the duty bill.

Mr. Tierney said, it was applied simply to the orders of council, and that he had the authority of the petitioners to state, that they did not petition against the bill, but against the orders of council.

After not a little farther debate, in which other speakers took a part, on the opposite sides of the question, the house divided. For receiving the petition 57-Against it 111. Other petitions were presented against the bill, with no bet

ter success.

House of Commons, March 10. -After a long debate, the question, that the bill be now read a third time, was carried by 140 against 67.

Many were the petitions presented, and repeated and long the discussions that took place on the subject of the orders of council, in the house of peers, which discussions were the same in substance with those that had so often and so zealously occupied the house of

commons.

The principal opponents of the measure, were the earl of Lauderdale, lord Auckland, lord Erskine, lord Vassal Holland, and lord Grenville.

The principal supporters, the lord chancellor, the earl of Bathurst, and lord Hawkesbury.

On the 25th of March, the orders of council bill was read and passed, by 52 against 19.

It was not a little curious to observe the difficulties to which both the opponents and the supporters of the orders of council bill were reduced; while the former endeavoured to reconcile a strict adherence to the principles of justice, honour, and the law of nations, to the interests and exigencies of the state in any situation; and the lat ter, at the same time that they did not hesitate to exercise the greatest severities against unoffending neutrals, contended that they still respected and obeyed the law of nations. There would have been no difficulty on either side, if the ministerialists had boldly asserted, with Mr. Hobbes, that mankind, or at least that nations (and this last position seems to be pretty near the truth) are by nature in a state of war; and if their opponents had maintained with the stoics, the principle of Fiat Justitia ruat Cælum. This sublime doctrine was not, indeed, altogether inconsistent with that of lord Erskine, who, when the orders in council were brought into discussion in the house of peers, on the 23d of March, recommended, instead of domineering at sea, a circumnavigation of charity, like that of the late Mr. Howard: and maintained, that an adherence to the orders of council would subject Great Britain to the final, everlasting curse of "I was sick, and ye visited me not."

This doctrine of lord Erskine's must be very agreeable to Buonaparté :

parté :* on the other hand, all the subtle argumentation of those who attempted to reconcile measures of oppression towards neutral nations with the principles of good faith and justice, amounted to little more than this, that the British government would observe the law of nations to such states as were will ing and able to enforce that law in their own behalf.

House of Commons, Feb. 22.The order of the day having been read, for taking certain papers relative to the connexions between the East India company and the nabob of Oude into consideration,

Lord Folkestone moved, that these papers should be now taken into consideration.

Mr. Creevy rose to give his negative to the proposition. Were parliament to come to a decision upon the conduct of the marquis of Wellesley (which was the object of the motion), by that night's vote, he asserted that it would commit an act of injustice towards that noble person, and be wanting in its duty both to itself and the country; and in proposing some farther delay, he fully expected the support of those gentlemen who had not made themselves masters of the papers, who, he was convinced, formed a large majority of the house.

Sir John Anstruther called the attention of the house to the proceedings in question. Three parliaments ago, a charge had been brought against the marquis of

Wellesley, by an honourable gentleman (Mr. Paul) who was no longer a member of that house. All the evidence for supporting the charge had been moved for and granted. An inquiry had been challenged by the friends of the noble marquis. The charge originally brought forward had been abandoned; but upon the papers that had been produced, other accusations had been founded by a noble lord, and that night had been fixed for the house to pronounce on the justice or injustice of these accusations. Several members were of opinion, that the house ought not to hurry a proceeding of such importance; but a large majority declared for coming to an immediate decision. The debate was accordingly opened pro forma. But as it was allowed that it was impossible to enter into the merits that night, the house was adjourned to the 9th of March; when the order of the day being read, and the question put and carried that the debate on the Oude papers should be now resumed,

Lord Folkstone rose, and in a speech of great length as well as animation throughout, arraigned the conduct of lord Wellesley, in his transactions with the nabob of Oude. There was a treaty entered into in February 1798, between the nabob of Oude and the East India company, abrogating all former treaties, and regulating the grounds of all subsequent dealings between the two parties. By that treaty the nabob was certainly deprived of all political

political power, but as certainly guaranteed in the exercise of all authority in the control of his household affairs, and most relations of the internal economy of his empire. The nabob's punctual performance of the treaty was placed beyond controversy, by the fact, that colonel Scott was commissioned by lord Wellesley to give his thanks for his great punctuality in the payment of the kists, though it was in general said, that there had been before great arrears. In the earliest period of that noble lord's government, his design upon the territory of Oude betrayed itself. There was a letter before the house, in which his lordship lets himself, at great length, to show the great advantages likely to result to the company, from the an. nexation of that territory to their possessions; and also of the policy of compelling the nabob to reduce his military force, prospectively to his more easy subjugation.

On the 5th of November, 1799, lord Wellesley wrote a letter to the nabob of Oude, in which he declared it to be the undoubted right of the East India company, to increase, according to their discretion, the number of British troops in the nabob's territory. The pretence was, the danger which was threatened by Zemaun Shah, a Persian prince. This danger, however, was very remote, and the company were bound to assist only in case of actual and immediate danger. Thirteen thousand troops were sent in; and it was agreed, that if a greater number should be added, they should be paid by the nabob: but it was insisted on by lord Wellesley, that with a view to this very distant danger, it was

necessary that an extraordinary force should be at all times maintained within the territory.

Lord Folkstone proceeded to detail the various oppressions and exactions practised on the nabob, while he was compelled, not only to receive an extraordinary foreign force, but to pay them. By vari ous arts his expences were rendered so great, that he was at last worried into a proposal of abdicating the government, on condition of his son succeeding him. The Bengal government jumped at this proposal, but the late condition stipulated was absolutely and sternly rejected. Lord Wellesley required of the nabob to give up all into the hands of the East India company; and when the nabob prefixed the condition on which the proposal was founded, he was charged by lord Wellesley with having made the proposal for the mere purpose of vexatiously deferring the reduction of his battalions, and ultimately defeating the proposed system of reform: and he was expressly given to understand, that if he refused to make the territorial cession required, the company could not do their duty if they did not take his country entirely into their own possession.Lord Folkstone then proceeded to give a detailed account of the establishment of a police and a president at Oude, with the conse quent remonstrance of the nabob, and the hardships that produced them.-Lord Folkstone concluded with moving a number of resolutions: the first of which contained a statement of the treaty to which he had adverted.

This question concerning the transactions of lord Wellesley with

the