wished to put a question to the noble lord opposite, relative to a circumstance which had very recently transpired, affecting, in some degree, as many people considered it, the construction which ought to be put upon that Declaration, which minister some six or eight weeks ago advised his Royal Highness to issue in the name of his Majesty. That Declaration stated, that the Orders of Council would be ipso facto annulled, as soon as an official document was published by France to inform Europe and the world that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were generally and unconditionally revoked. It had now been stated unexpectedly, and somewhat unintelligibly, that such document did exist as to America. A paper, dated April 1811, which was certainly a good mature age, was offered in answer to our recent Declaration. He could not say whether this date was inserted from a mere clerical error in the French chancery for foreign affairs, or whether from some of the practices of their diplomacy, which to him were unintelligible. This Decree, however, dated in April, 1811, did contain a revocation of the Berlin and Milan Decrees; and our Declaration did also bear, that our Orders in Council were to be discontinued from the period of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees. The latter did, no doubt, contemplate a subsequent repeal; but still this was clearly within the spirit, though not within the words of the Declaration, and it would only require a Gazette proclamation, to set things to rights. It was clearly not an object of consideration, when the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, but only that an official, unqualified, and unconditional revocation of them should take place. Then the next question was, whether the Decree which was stated to have been lately communicated to this government, was such an unqualified and unconditional repeal of the enemy's Decrees, as made our Declaration attach to the effect of repealing our Orders in Council? (Hear, hear, from the ministerial side.) Was he to understand, then, that it did not so attach? The repeal of the French Decrees, it appeared, was confined to America; was this, however, to be held as sufficient to prevent our Declaration from taking effect? This was what he wished to know from the noble lord; he heartily wished the noble lord's answer might be such as the House and the country wished:—that was, that it might import compliance with the expectation now expressed by him; but, if this should not fortunately be the case, still there was a necessity for some further step being taken on the part of the government of this country. He meant that a publication of the annulment of those Orders in Council would become necessary. If this was not done, then must every individual case come into a prize court, or into a court of law, and the parties be exposed to a harassing and expensive litigation. It was with the view of entreating ministers to take this into consideration, and to rectify the Declaration, that he now brought the subject under consideration. With this view he begged to ask of the noble lord, first, if according to his conception of the French Decree, the date was of consequence? 2dly, if he agreed that this act of the French government was esteemed enough, so as to operate as a repeal of our Orders in Council? 3dly, if both of these points were at an end, then he begged to suggest that it should not be left to speculation what the nature of the Declaration was meant to be; but that an explanation should be published on that subject. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this House, an Account of all sums issued for the clothing of the Army and Marines during ten years ending the 5th of January 1812; distinguishing each year."

had no objection to the motion.

felt every disposition to give the hon. gentleman every informa- tion in his power, but he must say his questions were put in a more argumentative manner than was customary in that House. He acknowledged, that the government had very lately received a communication of the nature alluded to. The American government had not been able, to the latest period, to procure from the French government any official revocation of the Decrees in question, but now for sinister purposes the French government had thought proper to produce a Decree, dated in April, 1811. Certainly this was an extraordinary step in the diplomacy of France, and was disgraceful to the government of any civilized nation. By this Decree, however, the Berlin and Milan Decrees were not generally and unconditionally repealed, as was required in his Majesty's Declaration, but they were only repealed as far as related to America. He had no objection to state it as his own opinion, that this French Decree, so issued, made no manner of alteration in the question of the Orders in Council. This partial repeal with respect to America, was only declared for sinister and hostile purposes, and it was altogether a trick disgraceful to any civilized government. He could not imagine that the cruelties practised by France towards American vessels would make the less impression upon that country, for so palpable a juggle as this was. He should, therefore, say, that whether he looked to the date of the instrument, or the instrument itself, there was no thing in it to satisfy the Declaration issued by government as to the condition on which the Orders in Council should be annulled. If any individuals thought otherwise, the Declaration assigned a legal redress, if the condition stated in it was complied with.

begged to be understood as only repeating what he had originally meant to express, that if there was not a clerical error in the date of the document in question, it must be considered as one of those acts which were most unworthy of a great nation. As to the condition, however, on which the Declaration bore that the Orders in Council were to be repealed, he once more implored that it might be reconsidered, and submitted, that though not in the words, yet in the spirit of their Declaration, the government of this country were now warranted in repealing the Orders in Council as to America. The French Decrees being repealed as to the Americans, this was, as to them, the same as if there was a repeal of those Decrees generally.

disapproved of the premature manner in which the matter had been brought forward. The paper alluded to seemed to him to be singularly disgraceful to the government by whom it was issued; but he was surprised that his hon. and learned friend should, in the present state of affairs, have been so anxious to draw from his Majesty's present ministers, their opinions on the subject of the effect had by that paper on the Declaration by this country. Did he do so, from an impression that those measures which he so strenuously supported, would not be so much in favour as he could wish with that government which was yet unborn?

regretted, that the noble lord should have expressed any decided opinion on so important a point as the policy of continuing the Orders in Council, so far as America was concerned, pending the evidence now in the course of proceeding at the bar of that House, and before there had been time for weighing the importance of that evidence in all its bearings.

said, he had given no opinion as to the policy of continuing the Orders in Council, as far as regarded America. He had only answered some questions put to him on matters of fact.

The motion was then put and agreed to.

also moved, "That there be laid before this House, an account of all sums issued for the purchase of gun and pistol barrels, swords and bayonets, for the use of the navy and marines, for ten years ending the 5th of January, 1812; distinguishing each year."—Ordered.

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Petitions against the Orders in Council.