Commons Sitting of 8 February 1808

EXPEDITION TO THE DARDANELLES.
Mr. T. Grenvillebegged the attention of the gentlemen opposite for a few moments. The house would recollect, that as the late administration quitted office before the result of the Expedition to Constantinople was known, it was impossible for him to judge what Papers had or had not been received on the subject by the admiralty. It was well known that the greater part of communications from the admiralty originated in letters to and from the first lord, who caused all such letters to him, and duplicates of all such letters from him, as he conceived to be fit subjects of official resort, to be laid before the board of Admiralty. He had not now the opportunity of knowing whether several papers of considerable importance to the elucidation of this subject, had been laid before the board. One was a Letter from lord Collingwood to the first lord of the admiralty, containing sir T. Louis's report of the state of the Dardanelles, and of the Turkish fleet and batteries on the 5th of Dec. Two others were Letters from himself to lord Collingwood, on the subject of Alexandria and Constantinople, of which he had thought proper to lay before the admiralty certified copies, that they might become the subjects of official resort. Having so done, he thought it his duty to call the attention

385
his majesty's ministers, before they made up their minds on the Papers, to be produced, and to express his hope, that when those papers were produced, a sufficient time would be allowed for the discovery of any deficiencies that it might be found necessary to supply.
Mr. Secretary Canningobserved, that he had on a former occasion sufficiently evinced his wish, that all the information on the subject, which the gentlemen opposite were desirous of having, should be produced, although the expression of that wish had been so ungraciously treated, that he should feel much disinclined again to enter into a private communication on that or any other subject with the gentlemen opposite.
Mr. T. Grenville,in explanation, declared that the first intimation which he had had of the private communication to which the right hon. gent. alluded, was when on his legs in that house.

EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.
Mr. Whitbreadrose to make his promised motion for the production of certain Papers, extracts from which had been quoted by the right hon. secretary, in his speech, in defence of the expedition to Copenhagen. (p. 272.) The hon. member observed, that the subject was of the highest importance in itself. The right hon. secretary in his speech, had carried the practice of making partial extracts from papers not before the house, to an extent to which it had never been pushed before. In the course of his speech, which certainly none but an able man could have spoken, he had resorted to a practice of partial extract and comment, which probably no other man besides himself would have had recourse to. In the course of the last war, lord Melville, then a member of that house, and high in office, had set the example of a similar practice; but he well remembered that the practice had then been reprobated as unfair, as derogating from the dignity of the house, and as calculated to produce an impression, in most cases, totally different from that which the papers given at full length would bear. He would do Mr. Pitt the justice to say, that he had never descended to such a practice. The right hon. gent. should recollect the situation of high trust and responsibility which he held, and that it was most unbecoming that situation to put any thing like a false gloss on the written opinions of his predecessors in office. He had the authority of his noble friend (earl Grey)
386
to declare, that he felt injured by the partial extracts and comments which he had made from the dispatches which he had sent to our envoy at the Danish Court. These extracts, he was convinced, would not have been read, had that noble lord continued a member of that house; or, if they had, the meaning affixed to them would have been flatly contradicted. There were gestures which would throw an air of ridicule on the most serious matters, and what was stated only hypothetically might be so read as if absolutely true, thus giving a totally different complection to what would result from the perusal of the whole. These were the acts which the right hon. secretary had had recourse to. He had also followed a similar method with regard to some dispatches of lord Hutchinson, and of Mr. Garlicke, the British envoy at the court of Denmark, selecting detached passages from their correspondence, and making them say, in fact, what he pleased. These two noble lords, however, had the opportunity of explaining their own meaning, and of refuting that interpretation which was put upon their words, while Mr. Garlicke was so situated, that it was not possible he could obtain that redress to which he was justly entitled. He also conceived that the partial extracts which had been made tended to calumniate the Crown Prince of Denmark, in as far as they represented him as desirous of putting an end to his neutrality; for, from all that he had heard and known of the conduct of that prince, he believed it to be his wish to remain perfectly neutral. On some occasions, when it served his purpose, the right hon. secretary had urged the great inconvenience of producing diplomatic papers; but he had not found it inconvenient to make such partial extracts from papers in his possession, as might enable him to attain his purpose, of gaining a vote of the house, even though such extracts gave a totally different colour to that which the papers not thus garbled would have had. If the right hon. secretary had given a false impression, as he contended that he had, by his partial quotations, he had neither done his duty to the public, to those persons connected with the late administration, nor to the much-injured Danes; for he should always view them in that light. There was one way of doing justice, however, and only one, and that was, to lay before the public the dispatches from which he had made such garbled quotations, At the same

387
time, while he demanded this act of-justice, he was authorized by his noble relative to declare, that he would rather he contented to suffer in his character and feelings than that the public service should be injured by any disclosure; but he was at the same time authorized to say, that his noble relative was of opinion, that no inconvenience would arise from laying the papers before the house.—The hon. gent. concluded with moving for the following papers: 1. Copy of the Dispatch from lord Howick to Mr. Garlicke, dated London, Dec. 3, 1806, an extract from which was read by Mr. Secretary Canning in his place in this house on Wednesday last, and the Answer of Mr. Garlicke thereto: 2. Copy of the Note delivered by Mr. Rist to lord Howick, relative to the Order in Council of Jan. 7, 1807, and the Answer thereto, extracts from which were read by Mr. Secretary Canning in his place in this house on Wednesday last."
Mr. Secretary Canningcontended, that when in the course of his speech on Wednesday last he was led to consider the disposition of the Danes towards this country, and the means which they had, whether of offence or defence, about the latter end of 1806, he availed himself of that information of unquestionable authority on these subjects, which had been left by his predecessor in office. The circumstance of the continuity of the government being disturbed, did not detract from the value of that information. It should be recollected what it was that gave occasion for the extracts which he had made. He had contended, that the seizure of Holstein by the French would have a dangerous influence upon Zealand; first, by the possibility of an actual transfer of French troops to that island; and, 2dly, because it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Danish army to retreat in the face of a victorious French force. But the seizure of Holstein would have also had a moral influence upon the Danes, in disposing them to join that power by which they were overawed. To illustrate this, he had made an extract from a dispatch of his noble predecessor, in which the contingency of this event was foreseen, and in which our envoy was ordered to notify to the Danish government, that if any promise was made to surrender their fleet to the French, his majesty would resent it. This extract was not made, however, by way of recrimination or imputation upon the noble lord; on the contrary, it was
388
certainly the opinion and advice which he should have suggested in the same circumstances.—There was another subject on which he had quoted lord Howick, with regard to the offer of 25,000 Swedes for the defence of Denmark; and that was the advice which he himself should have offered. He was at a loss to conceive how that noble lord could feel himself hurt by the extracts which he had made; and he was equally at a loss to conceive how he could have altered that opinion with regard to the dispositions and power of Denmark to maintain her neutrality, if he ever entertained it.—He had also said, that the mode in which the Danish government had remonstrated with this country on the subject of the Order in Council, which was a measure of partial retaliation for the French decree, discovered any thing else rather than a disposition to cultivate impartiality, and that it appeared in the same light to the late administration. He therefore had no objection to the production of the Note of Mr. Rist, since it would tend to throw light on the nature and propriety of the late Orders in Council. But, in his opinion, no case whatever was made out for the production of the other papers, since he had only quoted them as a confirmation of those suspicions which were so reasonably entertained with regard to the conduct of the Danes. The extracts which he had made from Mr. Garlicke's dispatches related to that particular period of time after the fatal battle of Jena, and the violation of the Danish territory by France; and were principally made for the purpose of buying that many persons in official situations in Denmark, had that bias towards the interests of France, which it was the business of the British government to counteract, if possible. He was confident that no person could charge him with having made any false statement of what was contained in Mr. Garlicke's dispatches. But his chief objection to the present motion arose from this principle, that it would go to establish a precedent for publishing all papers and foreign dispatches whatever. The depositaries of the public confidence must judge in every instance, whether they ought to be produced or not. There would be no end to distrust, and from the sample which was now exhibited, there would be no end to the demand and production of papers. To the jealousy which the hon. gent. discovered, no other exposition of papers would be satisfactory, but

389
that of putting him into the Foreign Office, and letting him rummage at pleasure. With regard to the dispatches of lord Howick, it was highly probable that the noble lord had copies of them in his own possession; but if not, he should be happy to furnish him with copies from the Foreign Office. In observing upon the state of Denmark at a particular period, he had taken the opportunity to state that the possibility of a junction between France and Denmark had been contemplated by his noble predecessor, and that orders had been, in consequence, communicated, how to act, in the case of such an event. It appeared that the house was convinced of the propriety of the measures adopted by government, from what had been already produced; and it was for those members who thought otherwise to bring the same question again before the house, if they thought fit.
Earl Templewas astonished at the speech of the right hon. secretary the other night in many parts of it, and still more so, at the manner in which he attempted to defend himself to-night, by denying the information which the motion before the house was calculated to convey. He had referred to extracts from the dispatches of lard Howick in his own defence the other night, and in support of his own argument. He must be excused when he called these extracts, garbled extracts of documents to which he had access from his official situation. In the course of the debate, the right hon. secretary gave a part which suited the purpose of his own argument, and concealed the rest. He should have expected, that a man of the talents and station of the right hon. secretary would not have stooped to the artifice of garbling scraps of paper, to give a false colouring to a transaction of such importance as that of which he was treating the other night; for most indisputable it was, that the whole matter would have appeared in a very different light from that in which the speech of the right hon. secretary placed it. My lord Grey felt himself aggrieved by this proceeding, and declared that if the dispatch sent by him to Mr. Garlicke had been all read, instead of the partial extract which the right hon. secretary gave to the house, the whole transaction would have a different colour from that which the reading of that partial extract gave it. What was the point in debate? There had been an inquiry respecting Denmark, and the Expedition to Copen
390
hagen had been attempted to be justified from certain circumstances. Gentlemen on one side of the house contended, that the account which ministers had given of that matter was not satisfactory. Upon that occasion, the right hon. secretary read part of a letter from lord Grey to Mr. Garlicke, and in that extract he left off at the end of a paragraph which suited his own purpose, and the very next would have explained the whole context, and given an entirely different colour to the matter. This was grievous to my lord Grey, who was a public man, who had held an high official situation, and in whose character the public had a great interest. He conceived this to be a perfectly fair and sufficient ground for calling for the production of public documents; and he was sorry to say, that referring to the estimation in which he had hitherto held the right hon. secretary for candour, in that part of his character he had been greatly deceived.
Mr. Herberttook a general view of the expedition to Copenhagen, which he considered as setting an example, which would in future have the effect of involving neutral powers in war, whatever might be their interest or inclination.
The Secretary at Wardefended the measure, and conceived it plain to the common sense of every man, that from the power of France and the weakness of Denmark, the latter power would not have been permitted to remain neutral.
Mr. Tierneyalluded to the speech of the right honourable the secretary of state on a former night, the eloquence of which he admired, but he could not help saying, it was a speech most of the force of which was derived from the extracts which he took from certain documents to which he referred. And here he must take leave to lament that a secretary of state should avail himself of the command he had of the documents of office, and which none but a secretary of state could have taken; and here he must also declare, that the extracts which the right hon. gent. read, were garbled extracts. Lord Grey was well known to be hostile to the Expedition to Copenhagen, and by the extract which the right hon. gent. gave of the dispatch of lord Grey (then lord Howick) to Mr. Garlicke, it would appear as if lord Howick had recommended that expedition. He really did not see what his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) could do less than bring forward the present mo-

391
tion; he ought to do it for the sake of the house of commons, he ought to do it for the sake of the public, who had a right to be fairly informed upon this matter; he ought, lastly, to do it for the sake of the character of lord Howick; for every public man was entitled to a fair consideration by the public. The right hon. secretary consented to lay before the house the correspondence of Mr. Rist, because that appeared to answer the party motives of the right hon. gent. He made a partial extract from the dispatch of lord Howick for the same reason, but he repressed the rest of lord Howick's dispatch, because it would put an end to those party motives by placing the subject in another light, and explaining the whole matter to the public. The general objection to the production of papers, was the inconvenience to the public service by producing them; but here it was not contended that any such would be the case if the whole dispatch of my lord Howick was produced. Here the house was called upon to recognize a right in the secretary of state to read what part he pleased of any document in his office, just as it might suit himself, and that out of pure confidence in the secretary of state. No man admired more than he did the talents of the right hon. gent. but he did not choose to put that sort of confidence in any man, as to allow him to make partial extracts out of documents as they might suit his purpose. Indeed, he had refused it to a person more considerable than the right hon. gent.; he meant the late Mr. Pitt. He did not object to the right hon. gent. taking to himself the temporary triumph of a debate by a little tricking, or perhaps to continue that triumph for the day after the debate, but it was too much that he should claim the continuance of the triumph for a week together; when the whole of it was founded upon a fallacy, it was too much to endeavour to keep the country in a state of delusion. There was this difference between ministers. and their opponents: the opponents of ministers had done every thing in their power to make the case clear to the public view—ministers every thing in their power to keep matters in the dark. They now talked of the thanks of the house and of the public, and indeed they were perhaps nearly as well entitled to them as some who had them. He would put them to the test. Would they desire any young man of warm wishes for them, to move the approbation of the house to
392
them for their conduct on the Copenhagen Expedition? He ventured to say they dared not. But ministers said, 'Why do not you move a vote of censure against us? Such a challenge, said the hon. gent. comes with a bad face from men who have the evidence of their conviction in their pockets, but will not produce it. If the right hon. gent. will give me the evidence upon which he founded his proceedings against Copenhagen, I pledge myself to bring forward the motion of censure; but he knows in his heart he has no such evidence to produce.—He wished to put the house upon its guard against being cajoled into a belief that ministers had a tittle of proof for their justification. There was no such thing in existence, and he dared them to the production of any thing that could warrant the bombarding a neutral town, and murdering innocent men, women, and children. But if the full documents were to be withheld upon this subject, what an idea would go down to posterity, when such a motion should appear on the journals to have been opposed by his majesty's ministers!
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the vote of the former night must have proceeded upon one of two grounds. It must either have proceeded from a conviction of the satisfactoriness of the extracts of the papers produced, or from a general conviction of the necessity of the measure. The nature of the war was now greatly altered from what it was. We were now fighting for nothing less than self-defence, and our existence as a nation. France had subjugated nearly the whole continent of Europe, and it did not behove this country to remain inactive, till she had collected means to form an attack against us. Ministers, he conceived, had acted wisely in anticipating the steps which France was known to have in contemplation. If we had the fullest proof of the good inclinations of Denmark to this country, but were at the same time convinced that she was unable to resist the confederacy formed against her, ministers, in his opinion, were justified in having acted as they had done. He should therefore oppose the production of the papers moved for.
Mr. Hornerbegged leave to recall to the attention of the house what was the real motion they were then debating. His hon. friend had moved for two papers, one of which had been granted, but as to the other it was to be refused, which was the

393
occasion of the present discussion. The right hon. gentlemen, however; who were thus pleased to refuse the production of this paper, had not attempted to say there was any parliamentary ground for their refusal: on that head, or that it would be betraying any secret intelligence, or that it would be dangerous, or produce any public inconvenience, the house had not heard any thing. Now, the parliamentary ground for producing it was, that it was intimately connected with a very important measure, with the whole circumstances of which that house ought and was desirous to be acquainted; and therefore he was surprised beyond expression that it should be attempted to be refused. If the right hon. secretary could shew that its production would cause any public inconvenience, he would do well to state it; but till he did, he hoped the house would incline towards the motion, and insist on its being given. What was the course the right hon. gent. had pursued? In justifying a great and important measure to the house, he had read part of this document to the house, which part had induced many to suppose that the opinion of the noble lord who wrote the letter was in favour of the measure, by holding forth the same opinion of the Danish government as the present ministers had formed, whereas the reverse would have proved to be the case, had the whole of that document been read, and would be still proved if the whole paper, then the subject of debate, were to be produced.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermaintained, that there was no foundation for the supposition that the extracts made by his right hon. friend out of the dispatch of lord Howick to Mr. Garlicke at Copenhagen, made the unfavourable impression against that noble lord which some gentlemen apprehended; for they seemed to think that the object of making these abstracts was merely to impress the house with the idea that lord Howick was now complaining against this expedition, only because he was in opposition, but that if he were in power, he would have done as ministers did. But it was not the intention of his right hon. friend to produce any such impression. There was no such interference warranted by the extracts of the dispatch of the noble lord. It was not denied that the noble lord was against the expedition. But the opinion of lord Howick was, that if Denmark gave up her fleet to secure Holstein from the seizure
394
and gripe of France, that such a submission would not be assented to by his Britannic majesty; that was the sentiment of lord Howick in the Dispatch alluded to, and that was all that his right hon. friend meant to impress upon the house the other night. As to the challenge thrown out by a right hon. gent. he had only to say, that ministers were satisfied with the vote upon the king's speech. They thought their defence sufficient as it stood; nor did he believe they should owe much to the forbearance of the right hon. gent. either in the house, or out of it, if he thought he could attack them with success, notwithstanding his apparent magnanimity, in saying that he should not attack them until they were prepared with their defence.
Mr. Windhamcomplained that ministers had swindled the house out of an appearance of approbation of the Danish expedition, in the Address to his majesty, although it was then understood, that that Address was a mere matter of form, not conveying any actual opinion. The grand ground for the production of the papers moved for by his hon. friend, was that the house having, irregularly in his opinion, allowed a flagrant injustice to be done to an individual, were bound to repair it as far as lay in their power.
Sir John Ordewas desirous that ministers should not be fettered. The gentlemen opposite seemed to wish that we should give the sword to our enemy, and content ourselves with the scabbard.
Mr. Lyttletondid not think that the resistance to the present motion rested on the same grounds as the resistance to the motion of Wednesday last. Although he voted for ministers on that day, common justice would compel him to vote for the hon. gent. on the present occasion.
Mr. Sheridanwas glad to hear the challenge thrown out by the other side. As to a vote of censure, he should be happy to vote two censures; the one on the disrespectful manner in which all information relative to the Danish expedition had been withheld from the house; the other on the expedition itself. He contended strenuously for the production of the papers moved for by his hon. friend. Before the meeting of parliament he had made up his mind to support his majesty's ministers on the subject of the expedition to Copenhagen; fully expecting that they would be able to prove, either that a collusion existed between Denmark and France, or that Denmark could not have resisted the

395
compulsion of France. Neither of these points had been established; and with regard to the first particularly, he pledged himself, when the subject was resumed, to make it incontrovertibly manifest, that there never had been any collusion whatever.
Mr. Sharpesaid, he thought the motion ought to be acceded to on every principle of fairness and justice; and so convinced was he of the partiality and injustice of reading garbled papers, that if no other person accepted the challenge given to that side of the house, he would himself bring forward a motion, for a vote of censure; though from the slight connection he had in the house, and the short time he had been a member of it, he could not boast even so much parliamentary courage as to flatter himself with success, and could wish it to fall into abler hands.
Mr. Whitbreadcongratulated the house on the idea, that whether they lost the motion or not, it would have the good effect of preventing the right hon. gentleman from again making use of garbled letters. The chancellor of the exchequer had clearly shewn, that he had never had a cause in a court of justice in which he found it so difficult to defend his client; for all he could say in his behalf was, that he did not mean to draw that inference which others had done for him. The right hon. gent. had said, does the noble lord mean to say, that I have cast any imputation on him, by reading his letter?' He would answer for the noble lord, yes,—the imputation of holding one language while in office, and another when out of it, and in so doing palming an imposition on that house and the public. Ministers and the noble lord were, then, at issue: produce the paper. Was there any public inconvenience arising from it? He would answer boldly, no; it had not even been pretended that there was the most distant risk of it. Ministers were willing to give Mr. Rist's letter, because it might serve their purpose on another occasion, but that which made against them they withheld. The right hon. secretary hat said on Wednesday last, that whenever he saw the footsteps of those incapable servants he turned round to avoid them, as a path to be shunned; he wished, however, the right hon. gent. would imitate them in their candour and fairness. He had seemed to think he was dealt hardly by, in its being insinuated that he had represented the Danes as humiliated and treated contemp-
396
tuously by France; but he appealed to the recollection of the house, that he tried to give every appearance of ridicule in the story he had told of the Danish officer who was taken prisoner by the French, and treated with so much contumely; and stopped short there to make the house believe that no satisfaction had been demanded. But the fact was otherwise; the Crown Prince had made a demand of satisfaction, and obtained it from prince Murat. If the right hon. gent. had gone on and told the house that fact, it would have taken away all the force of his story; so, when he read the passage he had selected from the noble lord's letter, and at the end of which he was so heartily cheered, if he had but given one single word more—the word but—with the same emphasis that he concluded the sentence preceding it, that word but would have effectually knocked down all those cheers, by shewing that the opinion conveyed was directly contrary to that he wished to have believed. If no other man in the house would bring it forward, he would himself move for a vote of censure; for never was censure so abundantly merited.
Mr. Montaguewas proceeding, but the house became so clamorous, that he was obliged to sit down. On a division, there appeared—For the motion 73: Against it 157. Majority 84—On our return to the gallery,
Mr. Sharpegave notice of his intention of submitting to the house certain Resolutions relative to the Expedition to Copenhagen, and the Conduct Ministers therein; but refused to name the day.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby,James

Greenhill, Robert

Baring, Alexander

Griffinhoofe, B.

Baring. Thomas

Herbert, H. A.

Bathurst, rt. h. C.B.

Hibbert, G.

Bernard, Scrope

Horner, F.

Bradshaw, A. C.

Howard, col.

Bruce, P. C.

Howard, W.

Burdett, sir F.

Knapp, G.

Byng, G.

Knox, 'rho.

Calcraft, sir G.

Lambe, W.

Cavendish, lord G.

Lambton, R. J.

Cavendish, W.

Laurence, French

Cavendish, G. A.H.C.

Lloyd, colonel

Cocks, hon. E. S.

Loftus, general

Colbourne, N. R.

Lyttleton, W. H.

Craig, J.

Macdonald, James

Crevey, Thomas

Mackenzie, gen.

Cuthbert, J. R.

Martin, Henry

Ebrington, visc.

Mathew, M.

Eden, W.

Maule, W. R.

Elliot, W.

Milbank, sir Ralph

Fergusson, general

Miller, sir Tho.

397

Milton, viscount

Russell, lord W.

Moore, Peter

Scudamore, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sharpe, Richard

Mosley, sir O.

Sheridan, R. B.

Neville, R.

Smith, G.

Newport, sir John

Taylor, M. A.

Ord, William

Temple, earl

Ossulston, lord

Tierney, G.

Parry, Love

Tracy, H.

Peirse, Henry

Vansittart, N.

Petty, lord H.

Vernon, G. G. V.

Piggott, sir A.

Ward, J. W.

Ponsonby, F.

Wardel, col.

Prittie, F. A.

Western, C. C.

Quin, W. H.

Whitbread, Sam.

Romilly, sir S.

Windham, W.

PAPERS RELATING TO DENMARK AND THE ORDER IN COUNCIL OF JAN. 7, 1807.
The following are copies of the Papers relative to Denmark and the Order in Council of the 7th Jan. 1807, moved for this day, by Mr. Whitbread.

PAPERS
PRESENTED BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, FEB. 15, 1808.
No. I.—Note from M. Rist to Lord Viscount Howick, dated London, March 9, 1807.
The undersigned, Charge d'Affaires of his majesty the king of Denmark, in transmitting in due time to his court by the Note, by which his excellency viscount Howick acquainted him, on the 10th of Jan. with the Order in Council, (p. 126.), issued by his Britannic majesty, prohibiting all commerce between the different ports of the enemy and those subject to the influence of the French government, foresaw at that time the deep and painful impression which that Order could not fail to produce upon the court of Denmark.—He has this moment received its orders to express to the ministers of his Britannic majesty the surprise and grief which the court of the undersigned has felt in taking notice of a resolution, which, founded upon a principle in itself inadmissible, attacks one of the chief sources of the commercial prosperity of Denmark, and seems to give a blow, as direct as it is unprovoked, to her most sacred rights, and to the treaties which connect her with G. Britain He has received the orders of his court, to detail to his Britannic majesty's government the fatal consequences of this measure, and finally to require its suppression.—The undersigned, in quitting himself of these orders of his excellency. visc. Howick, takes the liberty of demanding from him all the serious attention
398
which the importance of the object requires, for this exposition; which will be dictated by that frankness and moderation (worthy of an independent government, and one friendly to G. Britain,) by which the court of Denmark has been constantly actuated in her proceedings and discussions with that of London.—Of all courts, whose duty and interest it is to defend the rights of neutrality, that of the undersigned is called upon to do so on this occasion more particularly, as well by its situation, as by the nature of the Order in Council in question: It is against her interests principally that it is directed; her subjects chiefly will suffer by its consequences. Almost exclusively in possession of the advantageous coasting trade between the different ports which will henceforward become inaccessible to them, they are menaced with the deprivation of a branch of their navigation, which has occupied until the present time hundreds of vessels, thousands of sailors and industrious workmen, and considerable capitals. Henceforth the Mediterranean will, for the most part, be shut against their enterprises: a voyage from Holland to France, from Italy to Spain, from the Hanse towns to the ports of the Mediterranean, will render their vessels and their cargoes subject to confiscation. Excluded from the greatest part of the ports of the continent of Europe, it is wished that they should renounce, not only the considerable advantages which the neutrality of their flag insures them in carrying on the coasting trade, but also the continuance of an essential part of their direct and legitimate commerce with the ports above-mentioned. After having sold the produce of their country, planks, fish, or corn, in one of the Northern ports of Holland, France, or Spain, they will be obliged to return in ballast, because they will not be allowed to seek, in the Southern ports of those countries, and of Italy, such merchandize as the countries of the North have occasion for, and which can alone produce returns sufficiently advantageous to reimburse the expences of their voyages. In order to procure salt, wines, brandy, and oil, it will be necessary for them to sail from Danish ports for the most part in ballast, in order to fetch them from the ports of the Mediterranean; if they do not prefer, which, according to all appearance will be the case, to renounce altogether a traffic, which would henceforward become a ruinous speculation.—And how can the subjects of his Danish majesty

399
be deprived of their legitimate traffic, of one of the principal branches of their industry? By what right can they be stopped in the pursuit of a peaceable occupation, the exercise of which is guaranteed to them by the public law of nations, and by the sacred faith of treaties; which insure to Denmark, on the part of G. Britain, the unlimited liberty of the seas in all cases in which Denmark has not herself consented, by express stipulations, to renounce the exercise of a part of her rights?—They will be so deprived, according to a principle of retaliation, not against Denmark, for she has never swerved from the strict execution of her treaties, or from her duties towards England; but against a third power, whose example G. Britain seems but too ready to follow, in order to render the stipulations of treaties, and the pacific relations between states, subordinate to a right of war, indefinite in its principle, unlimited in its extent, incalculable in its consequences, but completely foreign to, and by no means binding on, a neutral power, independent, and protected by solemn and recent treaties.—The undersigned has received express orders from his court, to declare, in its name, that it regards the right of retaliation, upon which the Order in Council of his Britannic majesty is founded, as absolutely inadmissible, in its principle and in its consequences. To establish this right, it would be necessary to begin by destroying the first notions of general and public law. It must be intended to lay down as a principle, that every power has a right arbitrarily to renounce engagements, and to derogate from solemn stipulations with another power, for no other reason than that its relations with a third power have changed their character.—It must be intended to insist that the privileges, interests, and property, of a neutral nation, are at the disposition of every other power, although connected with it by treaties, as soon as the course of events, or the inclinations of that power should engage her in a war entirely foreign to the neutral nation.—The palpable inconsistency and falsehood of such reasoning cannot be equalled but by its fatal consequences with respect to society. It cannot escape the penetration of his Britannic majesty's ministers, that a principle, which would render the relations and mutual obligations between two countries dependent upon any acts whatsoever of a third power, or rather which would constitute a state
400
of war, the supreme regulator of all the relations of human society, would destroy the very basis of that society, in order openly to sanction the right of strength, and, in the end, to pave the way for that of universal anarchy.—This (the undersigned regrets to avow it) is nevertheless the tendency of the principle upon which the resolutions adopted by the French government against the commerce of G. Britain are cited, as motives to induce his Britannic majesty to set aside the treaties subsisting between England and Denmark, and especially that of the 17th June, 1801, which guarantees to the latter power,in the case expressly foreseen, of any maritime war whatever, the entire liberty of its commerce, with the exception only of those restrictions mentioned in the third article. This is the spirit of a measure, which inflicts upon the commerce of Danish subjects the most severe wound of which the history of neutrality offers an example.—The undersigned does not apprehend that he has said too much in advancing this assertion: he has done so purposely, and entirely foreseeing that the French Decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, together with all its pernicious consequences to the commerce of neutrals, will be cited to invalidate it. The undersigned would have esteemed himself fortunate, if he could have avoided the necessity of making a comparison between the two measures, or of drawing a parallel between their effects, more or less pernicious to the commerce of Denmark; but the weighty and important nature of the task which he has to fulfil, imposes this duty upon him. He will, however, in order to make the ministers of his Britannic majesty acquainted with the measure of the impression which these two Decrees, in opposition to each other, must have produced in Denmark, content himself with stating, that, according to the official explanations which the undersigned has just received from his court, the French Decree does not, as we were led to suppose from its expressions, bear upon all vessels carrying on commerce with England, but only upon those which, coming from an English port, are desirous of entering a port of France; that it enacts the confiscation of those vessels only which refuse to submit to the notification of the Decree at their entry into one of the said ports, or which are desirous of concealing their having lately put into a port of G. Britain; that therefore the provisions of the French

401
Decree, a great part of which cannot, from their nature, be carried into effect, have not as yet caused any sensible interruption to the commerce of Denmark with G. Britain.—The undersigned must also observe, that the Decree of the 21st of Nov. limited as it is in its application, turns evidently against France herself and her allies; or at least obliges them to participate in the greatest part of the evils and annoyance directed against the commerce of neutrals: That it therefore seems to carry with it the guarantee of its lenient execution, and probably of its short duration.—The undersigned feels it his duty to add, that his court has nevertheless made urgent representations to the French government against a measure, the principle of which it cannot but consider as a direct and manifest violation of its rights: That, far from being willing or able to acquiesce in it, his court thought that it employed the best weapons which its situation and the justice of its cause afforded, when it protested solemnly against the subversion of principle, and the contempt of the law of nations, of which this Decree gives so fatal an example.—But the greater the disgust of the court of the undersigned at the spirit of the Decree of the 21st Nov. and particularly at the motive alleged for its justification, namely, that of retaliation, the more profound was its regret on seeing G. Britain, in her late measures, follow the footsteps of her enemy, and take advantage of his example, to sanction a doctrine, the principle of which seems more to be feared in itself, than the more or less enlarged scale of the regulations which determine its effect and extent.—The court of Denmark cannot dissemble her apprehensions, that the French government will reckon among its triumphs, the having engaged England in measures which, while they justified its own proceeding, necessarily weakened the ties of friendship which attached the neutral nations to G. Britain, and that it will find in the Order in Council of his Britannic majesty, a new motive, or at least a pretext, not only for persisting in its fatal measures, and for enforcing their dormant rigour, but also for augmenting, if possible, its original violence, and completing the ruin of nations, which, until the present time, had preserved the blessings and the prosperity of peace. The undersigned abstains, but too willingly, from completing the terrible picture which the perspective of such a contest appears to present.—
402
Authorised to declare, in the most precise manner, that. the court of Denmark can never acquiesce in any degree in the Order in Council of his Britannic majesty, which has been communicated to the undersigned on the 10th of Jan. nor consent that her vessels should be treated in conformity to it, and to protest formally against its principle and its consequences; the undersigned, however, feels pleasure in transmitting to his excellency visc. Howick, and in partaking, the hopes of his court, that his Britannic majesty will not give effect to the resolution in question; but that, by suppressing it, he will continue and cement the relations of amity and good understanding which attach to his interests the court of Denmark, whose constant efforts have been directed to the observance of her engagements, and to the preservation of her relations with G. Britain.—This hope receives additional vigour from a knowledge of the liberal way of thinking and acting of the enlightened minister to whom the undersigned has the honour to address the representations in favour of neutral rights, which have already more than once found in him their advocate.—The Undersigned has the honour, &c. J. RIST.
No. II.—Note from Lord Visc. Howick to Mr. Rist, dated Foreign-Office, 17th March, 1807.
The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for Foreign affairs, has the honour of informing Mr. Rist, that he has lost no time in submitting to his majesty's government his Note of the 9th inst.; and that it has received all the attention which the magnitude of the subject, and the various and important considerations which it involves, certainly required.—It is much to be wished that the Danish government, before it had suffered itself to indulge in the representations contained in the above official paper, had considered with more calmness the nature and objects of the Decree of the French government of the 21st of Nov. last, and the Order in Council which, in consequence of that Decree, has been, issued by his majesty.—The undersigned is under the necessity of thus calling, in the outset, the attention of the Danish minister to the original state of the question; because M. Rist, in his reference both to the Decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, and to his majesty's Order in Council, seems to have misconceived the tenor and effect of both; uniformly excusing and palliating

403
the one, and in no less a degree heightening, and aggravating the supposed tendency and consequences of the other.—By the Decree of the 21st Nov. which upon the falsest allegations is justified by the principle of retaliation, the enemy has presumed to declare the British isles in a state of blockade, prohibiting at the same time all commerce with them, and all trading in English merchandise; and by the same instrument, the Prize Courts of France are directed to enforce these regulations. Neutrals are consequently interdicted from all commercial intercourse with G. Britain, and all trading in her commodities.—The French government, in adopting a measure at once so violent in itself and of such injustice with respect to the consequences which must necessarily have been expected to result from it, committed a manifest act of hostile aggression (though immediately directed against G. Britain) against the rights of every state not engaged in the war, which, if not resisted on their part, must unavoidably deprive them of the privileges of a fair neutrality, and must suspend the operation of treaties formed for the protection of neutral rights, thus fundamentally violated in their first and most essential principles.—The injury which would be sustained by G. Britain, if she suffered her commerce with foreign nations to be thus interdicted, whilst that of the enemy with them should remain unmolested, is so manifest, that it can require no illustration. It never could have been presumed that his majesty would submit to such an injury, waiting in patient acquiescence till France might think proper to attend to the slow and feeble remonstrances of states not engaged in the war, or that he should forbear to take immediate steps to check the violence of the enemy, and to retort upon him the evils of his own injustice.—Had his majesty at once determined to exact the full measure of retaliation to which he was justly entitled, (and which nothing but the most generous regard for the commercial interests of neutral powers could have induced him to forgo) let Denmark reflect upon the effect which such a determination would have had upon her commerce, taking into her consideration at the same time, the means which G. Britain possesses of enforcing it; and then let her compare it with the measure of forbearance and lenity which has been adopted.—His maj. would unquestionably have been justified in resorting to the fullest measures of retaliation,
404
in consequence of this unparalleled aggression; and other powers would have no right to complain, if the king had immediately proceeded to declare all the countries occupied by the enemy to be in a state of blockade, and to prohibit all trade in the produce of those countries; for, as the French decree itself expresses it, the law of nature justifies the employing against the enemy the same arms which he makes use of. if third parties suffer from these measures, their demand of reparation must be made to that country which first violates the established usages of war, and the rights of neutral states.—The British government, however, was neither hasty nor rigorous in its measures. His majesty waited nearly two months before he had recourse even to the mitigated measure of retaliation, which a due regard for the dignity of his crown and the interests of his subjects has at length exacted from him.—Whether in the mean time any such steps were taken by Denmark as were required by the insult which had been offered by the enemy to her sovereignty and independence, and the injury done to her neutral rights, this government is altogether ignorant. All that is known here is, that a formal communication of the Decree of the 21st of Nov. was made by the French minister at the court of Kiel; the answer of the Danish government has not transpired; but no intention of resistance has appeared in any public document, or in any steps taken by the Danish government: whilst, on the other hand, it has observed a conduct not apparently calculated to enforce the respect due to the rights of a neutral nation, nor in consistency with the character of a power determined equally to resist any measures affecting those rights, from whatever quarter they might proceed.—The troops which were stationed in Holstein, whilst those of the allies were near that frontier, have been immediately withdrawn on the approach of the French army; and the general intercourse between this country and Husum, never refused in any former war, has been the subject of continual complaint and remonstrance on the part of the Danish ministry.—Having made these preliminary observations, it will be necessary to enter into a candid and dispassionate investigation of the general nature and effect of the Order in Council of the 7th Jan, of the causes which produced it, and of some of the principal objects which it had in

405
view. in doing this, the undersigned is first led to consider the probable extent of its operation, as it affects the carrying and direct trade to Denmark, and of other neutral Powers; and this will be the more necessary with regard to the latter and more important description of commerce, inasmuch as impediments are supposed to be thrown in the way of it by the Danish minister, which have no real existence, and which the eases assumed by him in his official note, are very far from establishing. From the natural, obvious, and equitable construction of the instrument in question, it will be seen that these cases are altogether exempted from its operation. For wherever it can be shewn that a Danish or other neutral vessel, after having delivered her outward cargo, or any part of it, at one of the ports in possession of France or her allies, or occupied by that power, shall bona fide propose to proceed to another, solely for the purpose of shipping a cargo, consisting of such articles as she may require for her homeward voyage, it is clear that such vessel would not be considered in our Courts of prize as liable to the penal consequences of the order. In framing the Order in Council of the 7th January, his majesty's government has indeed studiously endeavoured to avoid distressing nations not engaged in the war. The neutral is still at liberty to carry his own products to a market in hostile countries, to procure from thence articles for his own consumption, and to engage in mercantile speculations, from hostile countries to other neutral countries, or to the British islands.—The object of the Order in Council was, to prevent the enemy from carrying on his coasting trade through-the means of neutral bottoms, at a time when the naval superiority of G. Britain precluded him from effecting it in vessels navigated under his own flag, and belonging to his own subjects. But the trading from hostile port to hostile port, at the same time that it was so beneficial and even necessary to the enemy,was comparatively of little benefit to the neutral and hardly entitled to the character of neutral commerce.—The coasting trade of the enemy in time of peace is carried on by his own navigation. Even the other branches of trade referred to, viz. from Holland to France, to Spain, and the hostile ports in the Mediterranean, in time of peace, chiefly pass by the navigation of those countries respectively.—It is prin-
406
cipally from the success of the British maritime force, which has almost annihilated the navigation of the enemy, that the ships of Denmark and other neutral states are employed as carriers from hostile port to hostile port, in order to relieve the enemy from his distress; and it is notorious that the trade thus carried on, is supported by the shameful misconduct of neutral, merchants, who lend, their names for a small per centage, not only to cover the goods, but in numberless instances to mask the ships of the enemy.—The Danish minister, in his note, seems, indeed, so intent upon asserting neutral rights, as apparently to forget that there also exist corresponding neutral duties.—Neutrality, properly considered, does not consist in taking advantage of every situation between belligerent states, by which emolument may accrue to the neutral, whatever. may be the consequences to either belligerent party; but in observing a strict and honest impartiality, so as not to afford advantage in the war to either; and particularly in so far restraining its trade to the accustomed course which it held in time of peace, as not to render assistance to one belligerent in escaping the effect of the other's hostilities. The duty of a neutral is—"non interponere se bello, non hoste imminente hostem eripere;" and yet it is manifest, that lending a neutral navigation to carry on the coasting trade of the enemy, is in direct contradiction to this definition of neutral obligations, as it is, in effect, to rescue the commerce of the enemy from the distress to which it is reduced by the superiority of the British navy, to assist his resources, and to prevent G. Britain from bringing him to reasonable terms of peace.—To put a stop therefore to this species of trade, is a measure which might easily have been justified without reference to the late conduct of France; and even if the Danish navigation were likely to suffer some inconvenience from it, there would not exist any just ground of complaint: but when it is the only step in the way of retaliation which has hitherto been adopted on the part of the British government, his majesty's forbearance and magnanimity must appear eminently conspicuous.—If, after all, the probable consequences of this measure are contemplated with any degree of temper, they will appear rather likely to prove beneficial than otherwise to the Danish nation. The products of the hosi le countries will of necessity find. their

407
way into Neutral countries, not only for consumption but for re-exportation: Denmark will then become a great entrepot; her navigation will not have the less employment; the real bona fide commerce of her subjects will be extended, and her revenue at the same time will be considerably benefited.—The enemy, it is true, will suffer by the enhanced price which he must pay for the articles Which he imports, when obtained in this circuitous mode, and by the reduced price at which he will be obliged to dispose of his exports, as well as by the increased difficulty of covering his commerce under a neutral flag. But it is presumed that these considerations cannot furnish any just cause of complaint on the part of Denmark, the real trade of which country will, in all probability, be eventually rather benefited than exposed to any injury from the measure in question.—Upon the whole, the undersigned is instructed to declare to M. Rist, that his majesty cannot be induced to revoke the Order in Council of the 7th Jan. till France shall not only have desisted from acting on the Decree of the 21st Nov. but shall have publicly and formally repealed it. Should Denmark adhere to the resolution she has expressed, of resisting the unjust pretensions of the enemy, and manifest a sincere disposition to maintain a real and honourable neutrality, it is very far from his majesty's wish or intention to deprive her of any of the advantages which fairly belong to that relation; but if unfortunately it shall appear that this neutrality consists in mere assertion, and displays itself only in remonstrances on her part, against such measures as his majesty is justly authorized to adopt, in support of the dignity of his crown, and the interests of his subjects, and on the other hand, in the most complete and unqualified acquiescence in every demand which the enemy may think proper to advance, the king would consider himself as wanting in the regard which he owes to his own honour and the welfare of his dominions, were he to omit taking, on his part, such measures as may be necessary to secure both, against the injury which must necessarily arise from a continuance of such conduct on the part of the Danish government. HOWICK.