GENERAL HISTORY. 



[67 



should be revoked ; and the charge 

 d'affaires of the United States of 

 America having on the 20th of 

 May last transmitted to this court 

 a copy of a decree of the govern- 

 ment of France passed on the 28th 

 ofA|)ril, by which the decrees of 

 Milan and Berlin are declared to 

 be no longer in force with respect 

 to American vessels : the Regent, 

 although he cannot consider the 

 tenor of the said decree as satisfy- 

 ing the conditions of the order of 

 April 23, j'ct, being disposed to 

 re-establish the usual intercourse 

 between neutral and belligerent 

 nations, is pleased to declare the 

 orders in council of January 7, 

 1807, and April 26, 1809, revoked 

 as far as concerns American vessels 

 and cargoes. A proviso is, how- 

 ever, added to this concession, that 

 unless the American government 

 revoke their exclusion of British 

 armed vessels from their harbours 

 while those of France are admitted, 

 and their interdiction of British 

 commerce while that with France 

 is restored, the present order is to 

 be null and of no effect. 



Petitions against the orders in 

 council were in the mean time 

 pouring in from the towns most 

 affected by their operation ; and 

 on April 2Sth, Lord Stanley rose 

 in the House of Commons to move 

 for a committee for taking them 

 into consideration. In his intro- 

 ductory speech he dwelt upon the 

 effects experienced from these or- 

 ders, and the heavy distress to 

 which the working poor were re- 

 duced in many of the trading and 

 manufacturing parts. 



Mr. Rose, in reply, made various 

 ttatements to show the justice of 

 the orders in council, and to prove 



that though some branches of trade 

 were sufferers from the want of a 

 market, yet that others were 

 flourishing. He concluded with 

 declaring that as he thought it due 

 to the petitions that their prayers 

 should betaken into consideration, 

 he would not oppose the noble 

 lord's motion. 



Some further conversation en- 

 sued, in which the ministers and 

 their partisans continued to defend 

 the policy of the orders in council 

 by arguments often before repeat- 

 ed, but expressed a willingness to 

 consent to an examination of the 

 petitions presented. The question 

 being put, it was accordingly 

 agreed to, and it was ordered that 

 the committee on the orders in 

 council should sit to-morrow, and 

 be continued from day to day. On 

 the motion of Mr. Brougham, wit- 

 nesses were summoned from Bir- 

 mingham, Sheffield, Manchester, 

 &c. 



Earl Fitzwilliam made, in the 

 House of Lords, on May 5, a 

 similar motion for referring to a 

 committee the various petitions on 

 the subject of the orders in council. 

 The consent of the ministers to 

 the motion produced some obser- 

 vations from the lords in opposi- 

 tion, which were met by recrimi- 

 nations, charging the preceding 

 administration with having origi- 

 nated the measures complained of. 

 There was nothing, however, novel 

 in the remarks of either party on 

 this much agitated topic ; and the 

 motion was agreed to without 

 opposition. 



The examinations relative to the 



facts alleged in these petitions 



now went on regularly in both 



houses, till they were interrupted 



tF2] by 



