, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for several papers on the subject of the trade carried on by means of Licences, preparatory to the important discussion on the subject of the Orders in Council, which was soon to be brought before the House. He observed, that whatever opinions might be entertained by the cabinet, or by the Board of Trade, he would venture to assert that there was no member of the House at all connected with commercial affairs, who would defend the licensed trade as it was now, and as it had been for some time carried on. When the immense increase of influence it afforded to the crown, and the state of subserviency to the minister to which it reduced the mercantile interests of the country, were taken into consideration, he thought the House would at least pause before it refused the documents for which he was about to move, previous to entering upon the general inquiry. He did not now wish to anticipate any thing that would be stated on a subsequent and more proper occasion, and should do little more than move for the papers which were the object of his application. The first was the copy of any memorials presented to his Majesty's government from the merchants of Heligoland, complaining of the mode of granting licences for their trade, which he wished to be produced, in order to shew that even those individuals who were most benefited by the present system, were dissatisfied with the manner in which it was conducted.—It had also been his intention to move for a similar document from the merchants of Malta, but thinking that it might be fairly urged that its production would be detrimental to their commerce in future, he refrained from so doing. No such objection could be urged to the Memorials from Heligoland, as all trade there had ceased for the last eighteen months, although it might be extremely convenient for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to adopt such an excuse as a reason for refusing papers on which an accusation against them was proposed to be founded. The other document that he was desirous should be laid upon the table, was a return of any spirits imported from any of the ports of Holland since the 1st of October last, with copies of the licences in which such importations have been made. His motive for moving for these papers was, that he was informed that two cargoes of spirits had been introduced into this country under licence, at a time when such permission was generally refused. One of these cargoes had been sold, and the owner had derived an immense profit from it, but the other, owing to some informality, unconnected with the present question, had been seized and confiscated. It was not his design, should his motion be acceded to, to bring any particular cases before parliament, or to impute any intentional mal-practice to the Board of Trade, but merely to shew that the system of Licences was liable to abuses of this description. He did not mean to say that corruption existed any where, but it was not fit that such a temptation to it should be allowed. He concluded by moving that the papers he had referred to should be laid before the House.

said, that the hon. member could not be more anxious than he and his colleagues of the Board of Trade were, that the general question of Licences should be discussed in some intelligible and tangible shape as soon as possible, and he trusted the hon. gentleman who bad given a notice on the subject, would bring it forward without delay. With regard to the first paper moved for, the Memorial from Heligoland, he thought the publication of it would be attended with very serious inconvenience, and notwithstanding what had been said, he felt it to be his indispensible duty to resist it. Whether it were true or not, that no trade had been carried on there for the last eighteen months, he did not know, but the production of this document would expose to the enemy the means which had been formerly resorted to, and might prevent any intercourse between that island and the continent in future. As to the other documents moved for, he had not the slightest objection to the whole world being made acquainted with their contents. He, however, wished to say a few words in explanation of what was an irregularity regarding them. It was undoubtedly correct, that at the time these two licences for the introduction of spirits from Holland were made out, the general importation was prohibited by the Board of Trade, and they wholly originated in a mistake of the clerk, who, in making out about nine or ten thousand licences, had improperly inserted the words which allowed the admission of spirits, but the persons who obtained them had derived no advantage from this inadvertence. One of the cargoes, as had been stated, had since been seized and forfeited, as it appeared that fraud had been practised, the ship not having in reality come from the port for which the licence was prepared. In the other case (for only two existed), the person on whose account the spirits were imported had been compelled not to enter them for exportation, and was not allowed to dispose of them for home consumption, by which he had sustained a loss of 4,000l. Under these circumstances, it would, indeed, be a wide stretch of the imagination to point out in these two transactions any thing which could afford a colour for thinking that the Board of Trade had acted with a view to favour the individuals concerned. The hon. gentleman had said, that there was not a merchant who did not complain of the system of licencing. So general an assertion he was by no means prepared to meet; but whenever the subject was regularly brought under consideration, he should be ready to argue, what, in his opinion, was a very strong case. He trusted that the hon. member would not press his first motion.

felt no inclination to accede to the last request of the right hon. gentleman, since he could foresee no possible inconvenience which would result from the production of the Memorial from Heligoland, seeing that the trade of that island was completely terminated. It would be admitted that it was couched in very strong terms of remonstrance, and be thought that the right hon. gentleman would much more unequivocally shew his disposition to meet the pending inquiry, if he allowed papers to be produced which were necessary to its due consideration. With regard to his second motion, it was certainly true that the Board of Trade, when they discovered that an irregularity (not to give it a term more severe) had been committed by their servant, did every thing in their power to injure the individuals who had, for any thing that appeared, innocently obtained the licences, but this was by no means pursuing the course that should have been followed. The right hon. gentleman had asserted, that in the last instance the owner of the cargo had sustained a loss of 4,000l. But his information was far different, since he learnt on good authority, that sufficient profit had been obtained on the last cargo, more than to make up for the confiscation of the former. There indisputably was room for a great deal of fraud, and it would be well worth his, or any other merchant's while, to purchase licences for the importation of spirits at an expence of 15,000l.

did not believe that any mal-practices could be charged against any of the clerks of the Board of Trade, but the whole system of licensing was most injurious to the trade of the country. In order to substantiate this assertion, papers might, indeed, be useful, but they were not at all necessary, since the general facts were known to all, and the consequences felt by all. The forgery, perjury, and bribery on which our commerce now depended were admitted by nearly every person interested in commercial transactions, and the confiscation of our shipping provided with licences in various situations, to an enormous amount, had been the ruin of some of the most wealthy merchants in the city of London, besides filling the coffers of the enemy with the produce of the sale of their cargoes. He thought the production of the Memorial from Heligoland might be injurious, but before he gave his vote against it he begged to observe, that he entirely disapproved of the whole system of licensing.

felt that it was impossible to consider separately the important subjects of the Orders in Council and the system of licensing, and would therefore take the opportunity of fixing that day fortnight, for his motion on these two questions. He begged the House in the mean time to bear in its recollection one fact which had been disclosed in the course of the present discussion, namely, that the crown, by means of this traffic in licences, arising out of and connected with its traffic in Orders in Council and commercial prohibitions, was possessed of the power of employing for the augmentation of its influence ad libitum, these pieces of paper called licences, to any extent, and the value of that power might be easily estimated, when his hon. friend, perhaps the first merchant in the kingdom, had said he would not hesitate to give for one of them the enormous sum of 15,000l.

remarked that the fact, which had been just stated to be of such importance, must occur in every case where it was thought necessary to carry on trade with a nation with whom we were at war, and, therefore, whether it were more or less connected with the Orders in Council, it was clear that such an advantage as that noticed, might, at any time, under such circumstances, be derived. It was not insinuated that the Board of Trade in a single instance had been actuated by an improper motive to favour particular individuals, and in this instance the licences in question were less open to any animadversion upon such a striking fact than they would have been at any other period. With respect to the question before the House, it would be remarked, that the hon. gentleman who introduced it brought it forward as if the whole trade of the country was, and could only be, conducted by means of licences. From what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew of the proceedings of the Board of Trade from daily communications, he could assert, that there was hot a single instance of a licence being granted for a trade which could be carried on without it; and thus the whole question which the hon. and learned gentleman in his threatened motion, would have to discuss, would be this, whether, under the circumstances, involved as we were in war with a large portion of the world, it was or was not desirable that any trade should be carried on with such countries as were under the dominion of an enemy? If, indeed, the whole benefit resulting from commerce was to be put into the hands of foreigners, as some gentlemen seemed to wish, the licensing system should be discontinued; but as long as any man was willing that our own merchants should derive their share, it ought to be persisted in. Notwithstanding, therefore, the authority of the greatest merchant in the kingdom, or perhaps in the world, the House would observe that they had been much misled, since the only principle on which government acted was to secure to the natives of England that trade by means of licences, the profits of which without them would devolve to the hands of aliens. When he said that the Board of Trade had granted no licences to countries where intercourse could be maintained without them, he ought to have made some qualifications, since he did not mean to pledge himself as to a particular voyage, nor did he mean to say that licences had not been granted for countries where it was a matter of doubt, whether the commerce could or could not be conducted without their protection, but, generally speaking, they had only been conceded in cases where they were absolutely requisite. It was by no means true, that government endeavoured to keep all trade within their grasp; the contrary was the fact. No merchant in the country was more anxious than the Board of Trade to see the period arrive when all necessity for licences should be removed. He, therefore, in his turn begged the House, while they recollected the important fact stated by the last speaker, not to forget the satisfactory answer he had given to it.

rose, and said, he was anxious to state the grounds on which he should give the Bill his support. Those who opposed the measure insisted chiefly on the necessity which they conceived existed for going into a previous enquiry. If that enquiry should tend to ascertain the causes of the violation of the laws, it would certainly be beneficial; but he was against it because it would produce delay. The great cause of the disturbances he considered to be the decay of trade. The measures of the emperor of France were evidently their main causes; and it was nothing less than wilfully deluding the country, to hold out a hope that greater commercial embarrassments, greater severity of distress, than the country had hitherto felt, were not yet to be endured. As to the disputes between the masters and the workmen, he did not think it right to enquire into them, as causes of the riots;—such enquiry only tended to inflame the minds of the working-men, who generally concluded that they had rights which were infringed upon by the masters: and that they were justifiable in retaliating violence on thorn for the infringement of those supposed rights. The terror of death, he conceived, though it would have little effect on men habituated to guilt, would operate powerfully on the general mind. The atrocity of the offence against which the present Bill was intended, was as deep as any offence against property could be; and such, in his opinion, as called for the severest punishment. Another reason for having recourse to the punishment of death was, the difficulty of detection. When crimes became difficult of detection, the necessary and only resource was severity of punishment. As to the objections against the Bill, that it would involve persons who were within the letter, and not the spirit of it, there was little danger, he imagined, to be apprehended from any unfortunate result of that kind arising from it.

contended, that the Bill was not directed against the real danger, which was combination; it only looked to individual offenders. He did not think that ministers had used either the ordinary civil means, or the extraordinary military means which they possessed, to active and proper advantage. The poor deluded people who were the objects of this Bill were greatly to be pitied. They were in want of bread; and any measure of the legislature would not, he was afraid, be able to put down the risings of hunger. The great evil, and the spring of every minor evil, was the continuance of the war.

said the debates on this subject had disclosed two important facts; in the first place it appeared that the late disturbances were caused by the decay of our trade: in the next, that a large number of the inhabitants of one part of the county had been almost in a state of insurrection. Far from thinking that there was any merit in the conduct of his Majesty's ministers, to him it appeared that great demerit was there to be seen. He thought the subject was not treated by the honourable House as so grave a subject ought to be treated. It ought to be most carefully looked into, as ministers had brought the country into a situation, to extricate it from which all the wisdom of parliament was required. He was averse to increasing the number of capital punishments. Were the laws of Draco the best the world had ever seen, because they were written in blood? Experience had proved the reverse to be the fact.

defended ministers against the aspersions of the two last speakers. He was afraid that there was something of the spirit of party in the opposition made to the Bill. He did not profess to be the defender of ministers, except as far as truth and justice bound him; but if a charge should be brought against them on the head of supineness, in not using the means which they possessed 10 put down the disturbances, he was ready on that score to meet any hon. gentleman opposite. As to the crying, puling maxims so much insisted upon, and the noise made about humanity, and he knew not what, he asked, were not the sufferers by these outrages sufficient objects for that humanity? He wished not to be considered as agreeing by any means to the new doctrines on criminal law, which tended to cast reproach on the wisdom or humanity of our ancestors. The law proposed, appeared to him to be dictated by humanity; it was not like the laws of Draco to be written in blood. The dread of capital punishment might prevent the repetition of the offence, and if (as had been said would be the case,) no convictions should take place on it, no blood would be shed in. consequence of it. The conduct of ministers he thought had been perfectly correct, as they had done all in their power to put a stop to the evil by the means of the common law of the country.

, notwithstanding what had fallen from the last speaker, was still of opinion, that ministers had mean which were not used promptly or beneficially in quelling the riots. As to the argument deduced from the terror expected to be produced by the punishment of death, he had one curious fact to state to the House, by which they might judge what effect it would have. In the county of Cumberland, it was made a capital offence to steal lead, and what was the consequence? Why, that no conviction ever took place under that law, because witnesses were shocked at the disproportion between the crime and the punishment, and would not come forward. He was sorry to hear hon. gentlemen say, that no hope ought to be held out to the country of escape from the pressure under which it at present laboured. He believed that there existed other causes of these disturbances, besides the measures of the emperor of France; and those were the measures of his Majesty's ministers. He saw in their mistaken policy grounds enough for the decay of trade; and he was of opinion, that there were measures of moderation and wisdom, by the adoption of which the country might escape from its present embarrassments. Measures of moderation and wisdom were not, however, to be expected from his Majesty's present ministers. He attributed the decay of trade, and the consequent ruin of the country, to the mistaken policy of ministers. The sufferings of the people were great. They were great in many parts of the county with which he was personally acquainted; but their forbearance was also great. He should vote against the bill, because he did not think it would effect what it pretended to.

begged leave to adopt the sentiments of the hon. gentleman who spoke first (Mr. Lamb.) He particularly selected that hon. gentleman's speech, not only for its eloquence, but because all the other speakers for the Bill were opposers of the measures of an hon. and learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) relative to the Criminal Laws, which measures Mr. C. was inclined to favour. But he thought the present an atrocious crime, worthy of the very highest punishment, and should therefore vote for the Bill.

observed, that as the clause stood, it would appear, that a person tossing an old woman's lace cushion into the fire would constitute a capital offence. He asked whether it was to be so understood?

did not think that such an act as that instanced by his hon. and learned friend could be prosecuted to conviction, because the bench and the jury would both be of opinion that the malicious intent to destroy that trade would not have been sufficiently made out.

said, that if the case supposed by his hon. and learned friend did not come within the meaning of the act, he conceived that it might still operate in a manner in which it was not intended to act. If an individual in a passion should damage or injure one of his master's tools used in that trade, as the clause at present stood, such conduct would come within the meaning of the act. It might be that in such a case the law would not be executed, but was it for parliament to make laws so cruel in their operations, that persons convicted on them were suffered to escape on that account? He would submit it to the right hon. gentleman, whether it might not be better to alter it, by inserting the words "any three or more combining maliciously to break, &c."

thought, if the proposition of his bon. and learned friend were adopted, the mischief would not be put a stop to by this act, as the rioters at Nottingham had acted throughout with so much system and contrivance, that he had no doubt but if that amendment were made, they would evade the law, by sending into the different cottages one man only to destroy the frames. However they might regret that to which the letter of the law might by possibility lead, he thought they ought to proceed on the established principle of comprehending to a certainty, that which the law was intended to meet, at the risk of including what it was not designed to include.

supported the amendment.

objected to the generality of the word "damaged," which he thought might be given up, as the Bill would be completely efficient without it.

supported the clause as it stood, and was of opinion that the amendment would destroy the effect of the Bill.

thought that if the object of the Bill was merely to increase the punishment, the former act ought to be fallowed up to the letter in every thing else.

supported the clause.

apprehended that the object of the rioters was to prevent the work from going forward, and therefore maintained it was of the utmost consequence to check them. No inconvenience could follow from leaving a discretion to the judges.

declined pressing the amendment.

proposed a clause for the purpose of allowing the prisoners who should be tried under this act, the benefit of counsel. It was agreed upon all hands that the crime was great; by some it was represented as approaching to high treason, a circumstance which must expose those who were accused of it to the indignation of the community; but it occurred to him, that for that very reason the person to be tried should be afforded the privilege intended by his clause. All he asked was, that they should be placed on the same footing with those charged with misdemeanors. He never could find upon what principle persons tried for their lives were refused this benefit. It was stated by some, that the judge was counsel for the prisoner; but the judge was bound to state what made against him as well as what made for him; and therefore in that sense could not be said to be his counsel. In the case of Patch, it was stated by Mr. Serjeant Best, that the principle upon which counsel was refused was, that the case should be so clear against the prisoner as not to render counsel necessary. A third principle stated, was, that it would occasion the delay of causes. But neither of them appeared to him to establish the necessity of such refusal in all cases: he therefore should propose the clause as he had already stated.

seconded the motion.

said his hon. and learned friend had not stated any thing to shew that this case differed from ordinary cases of felony. With respect to high treason, it was an offence sui generis, and the reason why counsel were allowed was, because it might be made an engine of political oppression. He quoted the 6th of George the 3rd, to shew that for the protection of the woollen and velvet manufactories, enactments had been made similar to that which he had proposed in the present instance, and that no exception was made of the nature of that submitted by his hon. and learned friend.

proposed an amendment, for the purpose of altering the preamble of the bill, so as to shew that it was framed to meet a particular occasion; which, after some desultory conversation, was agreed to. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration tomorrow.

moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, upon the Bill for the more effectual preservation of the Peace within the county of Nottingham, and the town and county of the town of Nottingham.

suggested the propriety of extending the provisions of the Bill to any other county where similar disturbances existed, or were likely to exist.

wished that they might be extended to the county of Leicester.

observed, that the Bill had been suggested by, and drawn in the county of Nottingham, and then sent tip to him. After it had been revised by the law officers of the crown, he had sent it down again to the county of Nottingham, in order that he might be assured, before he submitted it to the House, that it had received the concurrence of the magistracy of that county. If any hon. member would declare that the magistrates of the county of Leicester, or of any other county, were desirous to have the provisions of the bill extended to them, he should have no objection to move an instruction to the committee to that effect; but it ought not to be forgotten that those provisions imposed a heavy mental and bodily duty on those who were to execute them.

, although certainly he was not distinctly authorised on the subject, had yet no hesitation in declaring, en the part of the magistrates of Leicestershire, that they were ready to execute the provisions of the act; and he was sore that they would do it ample justice.

was persuaded that his hon. friend was completely justified in the declaration which he bad just made. The magistrates of Leicestershire were never disposed to shrink from their duty.

pressed the necessity of extending the provisions of the bill to Derbyshire, and mentioned several instances of extreme outrage in that county. He certainly could not pledge himself for the opinion of every individual magistrate in Derbyshire, but he, for one, would use all possible exertion to enforce the measure.

, after what he had heard, felt no reluctance whatever in moving that it be an instruction to the committee that they be empowered to extend the provisions of the bill to any other county in Great Britain.

could (not see the impropriety that would attend the extention of the bill to all the counties in Great Britain, in which the magistracy might deem it expedient to put the provisions of it into execution. The instruction to the Committee was then agreed to. On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

observed, that the suggestion of the hon. and learned gentleman who had last spoken, was one which, in his opinion, might be attended to with advantage.

asked whether it was intended that the measure should be permanent or temporary; and whether there was any intention of extending the provisions of the bill to the counties of North Britain.

replied that whatever might be ultimately considered as expedient, in the first instance he conceived that the measure ought to be only temporary. It might be wise to extend the provisions of the bill to North Britain, but in that case it would be necessary to submit them to legal opinions in that country.

agreed with the right hon. gentleman that the measure ought to be temporary. But was it meant to confine the operation of the bill to such outrages only as those in which the necessity for it originated, or to extend it to other outrages? If there was any intention of extending the provisions of the bill to the counties of North Britain, such a measure would require deliberation. In his opinion a separate bill would be necessary.

remarked, that he had been induced, in the first instance, not to propose the extension of the provisions to all the counties of Great Britain, from the consideration that the pro- visions of it were chiefly, if not solely, applicable to the description of disturbance which they were framed to repress. The House then resolved itself into a committee on the bill. After discussion the blanks were filled up, and the House having been resumed, the Report was brought up and ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.