Lords Sitting of 29 April 1808

DANISH VESSELS DETAINED PREVIOUS TO HOSTILITIES.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, he was; under the necessity of again calling the attention of their lordships to the papers for which he had moved on a former occasion, respecting the detention of Danish vessels, previous to the declaration of hostilities against Denmark, and the condemnation of those ships subsequent to that declaration. On a closer examination of the Papers which were laid on the table yesterday, he found that no return had been made to two of their lordships orders; that which regarded the number of ships detained before the declaration of war against Denmark, and that which regarded the number of Danish subjects detained before that declaration. He had seen, indeed, a letter from the Admiralty to the Transport Board, stating the order by which the return of the number of prisoners was required; but no exact return had been made to that order, though the answer was not sent, back for six days after the receipt of the order. Under these circumstances, which would prevent him from bringing forward his motion on this subject as soon as he had expected, he must now renew the motion he had made immediately before the recess, and move That a return be made forthwith to the third and fourth orders of their lordships of the 18th March last.
Lord Hollandrose to express his wish, that the noble viscount would not be dissuaded from persisting in his motion, even if the papers he had moved for should not be produced to the extent he had desired. There would still remain matter of great importance in the object of the motion, and which nearly concerned the honour and character of this country. It appeared, that many of the Danish ships which had been detained previous to the declaration of hostilities, had been brought before the Admiralty Courts, and had been ordered to be released; but that on the declaration of war being issued, these same ships were again detained, and afterwards condemned. Was not this stimulating the

87
avarice and rewarding the rapine of individuals? Against such violence and injustice he could not but raise his voice, and that more earnestly than against the Droits of Admiralty, which were now ascertained to amount to more than the enormous sum stated on a former occasion by the noble viscount. He must therefore again request his noble friend not to relinquish the object of his motion, which was to put an end to so flagrant a system of plunder and injustice, as that to which he had been just alluding.
Lord Hawkesburywould not now enter into the discussion of the question which his noble friend's motion must involve on a future day. He should only remind the noble viscount of the circumstance of the detention of some Prussian ships under similar circumstances, when the noble viscount himself was a member of the government at the time. He should at present only wish, that when the Papers were produced, the noble viscount in giving notice of the day on which he should bring on his niotion, would have the goodness to state somewhat more precisely the nature of the motion he intended to make, as the subject on which it turned was one of great magnitude and extent.
Lord Hollandin explanation complained, that ministers seemed to think of nothing but crimination and recrimination. He blamed the conduct of no particular minister, but only reprobated a system of iniquity which had grown into practice of late years.
Lord Sidmouthassured his noble friend that he would not abandon the motion. When he alluded to it yesterday, he had observed that it had nothing of crimination in view, but that it would only go to stop the progress of the practice that had been resorted to and in his opinion was highly unjust, and to prevent further injustice being done to individuals. Whenever he should have the honour to bring forward that motion, he should not despair of being able to prove, that the object in its nature was wholly different from the case to which the noble secretary had referred. As, however, some delay might occur in producing the returns he had moved for, he must defer his motion to a more distant day than Tuesday next.