Lords Sitting of 17 May 1808

DANISH MERCHANT SHIPS DETAINED IN BRITISH PORTS.
The order of the day having been read,
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that he was at length enabled to submit to their lordships' consideration a subject highly important to the interests of many individuals, both foreigners and natives, as well as to the honour and reputation of the country.—But before he entered upon the details to which it would be necessary for him to call the attention of their lordships, he was desirous of being understood, as having no intention to re-agitate a question, which had been already decided; much less to aim at rescinding a judgment, which had been solemnly pronounced: for that in fact, between the merits of the subject to which he particularly referred, namely, the Attack on Copenhagen, and of that then before the house, there was no necessary connection; and all he had to ask, (and he assured their lordships that what he asked of them should be observed on his part,) was that the opinions entertained on this point, might be kept in their proper place, and not brought forward to bear upon arguments, and conclusions, to which they had no direct or regular application.—It could not, he said, be denied, that according to the principles of natural

301
justice, and the established law of nations, safety and protection were due to the merchant ships and cargoes of all neutral states engaged in the peaceable pursuit of a lawful commerce. Following up this just and salutary principle, our municipal laws held out the promise of security to the ships, persons and property of merchant strangers, eundo, morando, et redeundo, in carrying on a legitimate traffic with this kingdom; and this right to security and protection could not be forfeited, except by the misconduct of the individuals themselves, or of the state to which they belonged. It could not be forfeited, except in consequence of such antecedent injuries as, if unredressed, would afford just grounds of war, or reprisals; of which last it had been said by high and undoubted authority, that 'the law of nations does not allow them but in case of violent injury, directed, or supported by the state, and of justice in re minimè dubiâ, absolutely denied' The seizure and detention of ships and property belonging to the subjects of a foreign state could therefore only be justified by a previous act of aggression; and, except in the instance to which he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the house, it could not be shewn that an order for that purpose had ever been issued under the authority of the British government, unless it had been preceded by the existence of a real, or supposed cause of war.—It would be recollected, that in the month of July last, when a large armament was assembling on the eastern coast of this kingdom, its probable destination was a subject of general and anxious speculation; and it appeared that a rumour had reached the masters of Danish merchant ships, then in our ports, that it was directed to the Baltic, in consequence of a misunderstanding between this country and Denmark. An immediate enquiry was accordingly made of the British government through the Danish Minister, Mr. Rist: the answer, whatever it was, certainly was not one which confirmed, or created apprehension: their enquiries were then directed through the same channel to the government of their own country, from whom, on the 10th of August, an answer, of which the following is an extract, was received through the College of Commerce at Copenhagen, and communicated to them by the Danish Consul, Mr. Wolff:—In reply to your letter of 14th inst. (July), stating that it is currently reported in London, that a misunderstanding
302
is likely to arise betwixt Denmark and Great Britain, we acquaint you herewith, that such report is entirely without foundation, and that nothing has been done on our parts, whereby the good understanding hitherto subsisting betwixt both courts could anyways be considered lessened or interrupted. We request therefore, that you will positively contradict such unfounded rumours, and quiet the apprehensions of our sea-faring countrymen, assuring them, that they have no reason to fear, as the College will not fail, should any unforeseen event have a detrimental influence on Denmark's hitherto maintained neutrality, to give the earliest information thereof, through the Royal Consuls, to all our sea-faring countrymen.—To Mr. Wolff; London.—This communication had the intended effect; the fears of the sea-faring subjects of Denmark then in our ports, were completely quieted; and they remained in this state of confidence and delusion till the end of August. Nothing indeed occurred to alter it; on the contrary, it was known, that after the sailing of admiral Gambier, on the 30th of July, many ships had cleared out for Danish ports, and some with admiralty licences; and so little apprehensive was the Danish consul of approaching hostilities, that, in many instances in which offers were made to release, upon the payment of certain charges, Danish ships which had been brought in, under the expectation of a rupture, he positively rejected all such offers, being resolved that the captors should abide the consequences of their own violence and injustice. In Denmark too, a similar degree of confidence and delusion prevailed. The appearance of the British fleet produced no alarm at Copenhagen, nor any degree of caution with respect to ships, then preparing to proceed to British ports. In proof of this, lord Sidmouth read the following extract of a letter from the captain of the Danish ship, Frederica:—I received a letter from my agents, Messrs. J. P. Suhn and son, dated Copenhagen, 7th of Aug. stating that ail Danish ships might proceed to England in safety, as he was assured, that the British fleet lying at anchor before Copenhagen, had no hostile intention towards Denmark; that according to information, it was his opinion, that it was bound to Cronstadt. In assurance of the above account, I left Dram the 13th of Aug. with a cargo of timber and deals, shipped and loaded for

303
the accounts of Messrs. Joshua and Thomas Carroll, merchants, of Cork, in Ireland. I was detained in the north-sea the 28th of Aug. before any orders from the British government for the detention of Danish ships had been given, and likewise prior to the bombardment of Copenhagen.—On the 25th of August, however, many days before information was received of the commencement of hostilities, and at a time when it was not pretended that there was any hostile intention on the part of Denmark, orders were issued by the Board of Admiralty, in consequence of directions from one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, to detain and bring in, provisionally, all Danish merchant vessels; and these orders were not confined to the Channel, but sent to all our naval officers, commanding-in-chief, in every part of the world. On the 2d of Sept. a similar order was issued, under the authority of his majesty in council; accompanied by orders, that no ships belonging to any of his majesty's subjects should clear out for any of the ports of Denmark; and that a general embargo should be laid on all ships and vessels belonging to subjects of that country, together with all persons and effects on board. It appeared, that the account of the commencement of hostilities was not received till the 4th of Sept. and it was admitted, that previous to that time, there was no ground for imputing a hostile disposition to his Danish majesty; so that at the period of issuing these orders, Denmark was considered, although not treated, by the British government, as a neutral and friendly power. In consequence of these orders, 320 ships were seized and detained before information was received of the commencement of hostilities; and after the issue of orders for general reprisals, which took place on the 4th of Nov. the whole were condemned as prize to the crown.—Lord Sidmouth said, that on a former occasion, when he had stated a report, that the value of the ships and cargoes, &c. so seized, was little short of two millions, the noble secretary of state (lord Hawkesbury) declared, that this was an exaggerated statement. He had mentioned it at that time, in the hope that it might be contradicted from authority; but he had not mentioned it upon light or frivolous grounds. On the contrary, he then knew the number of ships which had been seized; and that 53, with their cargoes, had been sold by auction, and had
304
produced, upon an average, 5,200 l. each. Supposing these ships to be of the average value of the whole that had been seized, 320 ships would produce above 1,060,000 l; and it was well known that when prizes were sold in this manner, the auction price was in general far below the real value. It was usual to estimate this difference at one third: upwards of 550,000 l. must therefore be added to the above-mentioned sum; making an aggregate of more than 2,000,000 l. as the value of seizures in our own ports, exclusive of those which took place under the Orders of the 25th of August, and the 2d of Sept. in all other parts of the world. He would close this statement by repeating the hope which he had expressed on a former occasion, that the declaration of the noble secretary of state, might prove more correct than the report which he had taken upon himself so positively to contradict.—To justify a measure of such severity, it was absolutely necessary to shew that it was occasioned by an antecedent aggression on the part of Denmark; for it would not be contended, that the seizure of merchant ships and of commercial property, was called for by the urgent and imperious duty of self-preservation; but it had been distinctly acknowledged that on the part of Denmark there was no hostile aggression, and the difference between the present case, and all others which preceded it, consisted in the absence of that which had been the immediate cause, and which had solely and exclusively constituted the justification of every similar measure. True it was that the king of Prussia at the commencement of the seven years war had entered Saxony, when there had been no public act of aggression on the part of the elector; but he found in the palace, of Dresden a copy of a treaty, the known existence of which had occasioned his irruption into the electorate, and which was of itself a sufficient cause of war. It was also well known, that lord Chatham quitted the councils of his sovereign in the year 1761, because his colleagues refused to concur with him in advising his majesty to proceed, without a formal declaration of war, to acts of hostility against Spain: but lord C. proceeded upon intelligence (which was afterwards verified) of an agreement on the part of that country to make common cause with France.—From the uniform tenour of our history it would be found, that such measures as those of the 25th of Aug. and 2d of Sept. were

305
never resorted to, unless they had been preceded by a real or supposed cause of war. The capture of the French ships in 1756, and of the Spanish frigates in 1805, were preceded by causes of war, the legitimacy of which has never been questioned, however the latter measure might have been censured on other accounts. The cases of Prussia and Holland had been mentioned: but previous to the detention and seizure of the merchant ships of the former power, she had actually received from France, whilst at war with Great Britain, the dominions of the elector of Hanover, and had excluded all British vessels from her ports;—and with respect to Holland, it was only necessary to refer to a few dates to shew that our measures of hostility towards that country were neither marked by precipitancy nor injustice. On the 18th of Jan. 1795, the French army entered Amsterdam. On the 19th, the revolutionary committee dismissed the established magistrates, and took on themselves the provisional administration of affairs. On the 30th, all ships and property belonging to enemies of the French republic were ordered to be seized and confiscated by a decree of the French commissioners confirmed by the provisional government of Holland. On the 9th of Feb. orders were issued by the British government for the provisional detention of Dutch ships and cargoes.—At the commencement of the year 1801, orders were issued to detain, provisionally, ships belonging to Russia, Sweden, and Denmark; not, however, till the conduct of the government of each of those countries had afforded a legitimate cause of War: but in that case, lord Sidmouth stated, he was one of those who had concurred in advising his majesty not to issue orders for general reprisals; and accordingly the ships and cargoes so detained, were not condemned as prize, but were all restored upon the re-establishment of peace. Lord Sidmouth said that some noble lords, who were then his colleagues, would admit that the beneficial effects of that conduct had not only been manifested at the time, but that they had been also experienced in the course of the present war.—It seemed, therefore, impossible to justify the measure of issuing the orders in question by attempting to bring it within the application of any admitted principle, or the fair analogy of any precedents afforded by countries, whose conduct it would not be disgraceful to cite as an ex-
306
ample.—But the motive of the measure was perhaps to be found in the view which ministers had taken of the necessity of the expedition against Copenhagen. Being convinced of that necessity, they thought no means unwarrantable, which, in their opinion, were likely to contribute in any degree, to its success. For this purpose, private property was seized, as an instrument of coercion and intimidation, and in the hope that the importance of recovering might induce Denmark to accede to the demands of the British government. Thus was the principle entirely disregarded and inverted, upon which, on all former occasions, such a proceeding had been resorted to. It was not a measure of just retaliation for an unredressed injury, nor of seasonable and provident vigour, founded on the knowledge of a hostile design, which it was intended to counteract, but an act in furtherance of our own measures of severity and violence towards a state, which, it had been distinctly admitted, was not, at that time, chargeable with any hostile intentions against this country. This however, feeble and futile as it was as an attempt at justification, was far the most favourable interpretation that could be given of the causes, which led to this unparalleled transaction. If this were the true explanation of it, nothing could be more obviously just, than that its effects ought to have ceased, as soon as its design was frustrated. To give a retrospective operation to hostilities, for the purpose of appropriating that which had come into our possession under such circumstances, and the seizure of which had not answered the novel and extraordinary purpose for which the measure was resorted to, was surely a most lamentable, and disgraceful extremity of injustice: which however was still aggravated by the fact, that we had ourselves occasioned the hostilities of which this retrospective advantage was taken, and that they were in no degree produced by any aggression on the part of that state, against which, and the unoffending subjects of which, these proceedings were directed. Under these impressions, lord S. said, it was to him a subject of the deepest regret, that when his majesty was advised to declare to Europe the motives which had led to the Danish expedition, a decisive proof had not been afforded, that the plea of necessity, upon which government had rested its justification, was sincere. A declaration that the

307
ships of war, taken at Copenhagen, should be held in deposit, with a view to eventual restitution, and that private property seized and detained under such circumstances as those which had been described, should be instantly restored, would have placed the motives which had influenced the British government out of the reach of suspicion, and guarded, if not exalted the national character.—With respect to ships of war, the house had already decided, and he would not now re-enter upon that subject: with respect to the merchant ships, and their crews, his sentiments were expressed in the three Resolutions, which he submitted to the house.—[Lord Sidmouth then read the three first Resolutions.]—On the subject of compensation to those British subjects who had consignments and effects in Denmark at the time of the commencement of hostilities, (which effects were afterwards sequestrated,) he was convinced there could be no difference of opinion: they had an indisputable claim, not merely on the liberality, but on the justice of their country; that claim might be fully satisfied out of the proceeds of Danish ships and cargoes, which had been condemned and sold; and this deduction would be counterbalanced by what might be termed a set-off arising from the sale of British property sequestrated in Denmark; so that justice, to a certain extent, might be done to the aggrieved parties in both countries. But to reach the limits of justice, compensation must proceed farther: all British subjects were entitled to it for losses sustained in consequence of any lawful adventure entered upon previous to the commencement of hostilities. Losses from such a cause could not be said to come within the reasonable scope of mercantile calculation. They were occasioned by a measure of the British government founded upon a supposed necessity, and directed to the object of self-preservation, to which it was contended that all other considerations must give way. But those who applaud, and who believe that they have derived security from this policy, must surely be willing to pay the price of it. A few individuals could not justly be made the victims of a measure, which could only be warranted by its tendency to provide for the security of all. The mode of indemnifying that class of sufferers, whose property was sequestrated in Denmark, had been suggested and was obvious: the claims of others on the justice of their
308
country, was not less forcible. The means of satisfying them must be left to the discretion of government, and the wisdom of parliament.—But this measure, extraordinary and harsh as it was both in its origin, and in its general operation, was attended with circumstances of peculiar severity and injustice. Amongst the ships and cargoes detained under the orders of the 25th of Aug. and the 2d of Sep. were many which had been wrongfully brought into British ports by our cruizers and privateers, the masters and crews of which were too generally actuated by a spirit of rapacity, by which individuals were cruelly injured, and the country disgraced. These, to a considerable amount, had been ordered to be restored by decrees of the high court of admiralty, or of the supreme court of appeal; but in consequence of the supervening hostilities, the benefit of these decrees was withheld, and the property, the restitution of which had been directed by judicial authority, was condemned in the same court as prize to the king. Other ships and effects which were under adjudication at the commencement of hostilities, and which, as appeared from the proceedings concerning them, must also have been decreed to be restored, were condemned, and shared the same fate:—thus was an advantage taken of an original and admitted wrong, and the fruits of it became the property of the crown.—It was in vain to set up in such a case the undoubted right of the crown, under other circumstances, to the effects of an alien enemy; the principles of natural justice, implanted in the heart of every man, must, in this instance, revolt at such a claim; and this sentiment was happily sanctioned by ancient practice, and the highest authorities. In the year 1753, a memorial from the court of Berlin was referred by his late majesty to his principal law-officers; namely the judge of the admiralty, the king's advocate, and the attorney and solicitor general; which situations were then respectively filled by sir George Lee, Dr. Paul, sir Dudley Ryder, and Mr. Murray (afterwards lord Mansfield). Their report, in answer, was declared "to be founded on the principles of the law of nations, received and acknowledged by authorities of the greatest weight in all countries." Of this report, it was said by the president Montesquieu, that it was "une rèponse, à laquelle il n'y a pas de replique:" and such was its authority, that the present learned and

309
highly respectable judge of the admiralty, sir William Scott, upon being applied to in the year 1795 by Mr. Jay, the American minister in London, for an account of the principles which govern our Courts of Admiralty, and of the mode of proceeding in those courts, answered the enquiry by transmitting to him an extract from this able and luminous state paper. This document was transmitted by the duke of Newcastle, the first lord of the Treasury, accompanied by a letter from himself, addressed to the Secretary of Legation from the court of Berlin; of which the following was an extract:—The late war furnished many instances which ought to have convinced all Europe how scrupulously the courts here do justice upon such occasions. They did not even avail themselves of an open war to seize or detain the effects of the enemy, when it appeared that those effects were taken wrongfully before the war'.—In the Report itself was the passage, which he was about to quote, and upon which he would offer no other comment than that it most distinctly and forcibly affirmed the principles for which he was now contending, and which he trusted would be solemnly recognized by their lordships this night. Having stated that the conduct of civilized nations towards each other was regulated by the principles of natural justice, and that the proceedings of our courts had been uniformly governed thereby, and not by motives of national convenience, it thus concludes: Upon this principle of natural justice, French ships and effects wrongfully taken after the Spanish war, and before the French war, have, during the heat of the war with France, and since, been restored, by sentence of your majesty's courts, to the French owners. No such ships or effects ever were attempted to be confiscated as enemies property here during the war; because, had it not been for the wrong first done, these effects would not have been in your majesty's dominions.—He would offer to their lordships only one other authority, but it was not inferior to that of the former, if authority was to be founded on knowledge, probity, and experience: it was that of sir W. Wynne, who in the year 1784, soon after the conclusion of the war, returned this answer to a case which had been submitted to him, as king's advocate, by the lords commissioners of the Treasury:—'I think that this ship and
310
cargo, having been seized before the hostilities between England and France commenced, and having been decreed by the Court of Admiralty to be restored to the claimant, and again seized in a port of his majesty's dominions, ought not to have been condemned under such circumstances. The sentence is however conclusive, no appeal having been interposed in due time; but the proceeds are at his majesty's disposal, and I should conceive, that as the sentence of condemnation could not be supported, if the owner was in time to appeal from it, it would be proper that his majesty's interest in them should be given up, and some person nominated to receive the proceeds for the use of the French owner. (Signed) Wm. Wynne. Doctors Commons, 18th Nov. 1784.'—In consequence of this opinion, the proceeds of this ship and cargo were given up, and paid to the agents of the French owners.—Lord Sidmouth concluded by saying, that the subject upon which their lordships had to decide, was now before them: he had been impelled to submit it to their consideration by a sense of justice towards individuals, and by an ardent anxiety for the honour of the country. The inducements to take this step, he felt to be the more urgent, on account of some new doctrines and opinions, unwarrantable, as he thought, in themselves, and most dangerous in their tendency, which were too likely to gain ground, as they appeared to be countenanced by the declared sentiments and evident policy of the government. It seemed to be imagined, that the flagitious conduct of France, and the consequences which had resulted from it, had absolved us from the obligation of a strict adherence to those principles of good faith and justice, that have been heretofore considered as necessary to keep together the great fabric of civil society; and further, that the existence of a gigantic power, created and maintained by violence and fraud, not only gave the right of resisting and retaliating upon that power, by means similar to those by which it had been established, but also justified us, with a view to our own immediate interests, in employing the same weapons against unoffending states, not parties in our quarrel: in fine, that, for the purpose of enabling ourselves to maintain an equal contest, with France, and to counteract the danger arising from her extended dominion, it was become necessary for us to follow her

311
example.—Against such doctrines he would ever protest, in the name of all that had hitherto given dignity to our councils, or lustre to public or private character; of all that, by making this country the object of just and general confidence, had contributed to establish its reputation, and to preserve and extend its influence and power. He well remembered that, in the year 1794, we were exhorted from the throne, to render our conduct a contrast to that of our enemies: an exhortation worthy of the high quarter whence it came, and which made upon his mind a deep and lasting impression. In proportion as our adversary extended his systematic violation of all the principles of public law and natural justice, it should be our object, by our conduct towards other states, to manifest more strongly, if possible, our determination to observe and to uphold them. He, indeed, could command nearly the whole population of the continent: but the spirit by which it was to be actuated might depend, in a great degree, upon ourselves. Let it therefore be our endeavour to influence that spirit, by commanding universal confidence in our honour and good faith, as well as respect for our naval and military power: let it appear that, at least in this country, justice would find a sanctuary until the storm was overpast, and the authority of public law could again be diffused throughout the civilized world. It had been under these impressions, that he had so frequently felt it to be a duty to address the house in the course of the present session: it was under these impressions that he brought foward the resolutions, which he had now to propose; and he would only add, that he should consider the present, as one of the most fortunate, because he was convinced it would be one of the most useful days of his life, if the principles upon which they were founded, and the measures they suggested, sanctioned as they were by the practice of our ancestors, and by recorded opinions of the highest authority, should meet with their lordships approbation and support.—Lord Sidmouth then proposed the following Resolutions; I. "That it appears to this house that ships and other property, to a large number, and amount, belonging to subjects of his Danish majesty, have been seized and detained under orders, and instructions, issued before information was received by the British government of the commencement of hostilities with Denmark, and at a time when
312
there was no alleged or supposed cause of war, or reprisals; and, when in pursuit of a peaceable and lawful commerce, there was an unusual accumulation of Danish ships and cargoes in our ports under the most perfect confidence of security; and that the said ships and other property have been since condemned as prize to the crown.—2. That in consideration of the extraordinary circumstances under which the said orders and instructions were issued, it is highly expedient, that, except for the purpose of indemnifying such British subjects as may have suffered from the sequestration of their property in Denmark, the appropriation of the proceeds of the said ships and other effects should be suspended, so that no obstacle may be occasioned thereby to such eventual compensation to the original owners, as circumstances may appear to admit of, and as his majesty, in his justice, and liberality, may be pleased to direct—3. That it would be highly honourable to the character of this country, that, considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, all mariners and others, detained and taken under the orders and instructions aforesaid, should be released upon such terms and conditions as his majesty may think fit to require.—4. That at the time of issuing the orders and instructions aforesaid, there were also in the ports of this kingdom, many ships, and cargoes, belonging to subjects of his Danish majesty, which, having been unjustly and wrongfully brought into the said ports, had been decreed to be restored to the owners; and that many more then under adjudication, must, as it appears, have been in like-manner, decreed to be restored; that freight-money, to a large amount, had been, and other sums of the like nature must have been, pronounced to be due; all which ships, cargoes, and freight-money, have, in consequence of the supervening hostilities, been condemned as prize to the crown.—V. That it is essential to justice, and to the honour of the British name, as well as conformable to the ancient practice of cur courts, and to the established principles of the law of nations, that effectual means be adopted for giving to the owners of the said ships, and other property, the full benefit of the decrees pronounced in their favour by the High Court of Admiralty, or by his majesty's High Court of Appeal for prizes; and the adoption of such means is rendered the more obligatory on the faith of this na-

313
tion, inasmuch as the positive stipulation of a treaty then subsisting between this country and Denmark, was intended to provide against a delay, which, however unavoidable in the present instances, has proved so injurious to the interests of the subjects of Denmark.—6. That it is equally essential to justice, and to the honour of the British name, that the crews, or such part of them as had remained in this kingdom for the better custody and protection of the ships and cargoes, so as aforesaid ordered to be restored, should no longer be considered as prisoners of war.—7. That the principles of the foregoing resolutions be considered as extending to the proceedings of all his majesty's courts of prize, wherever the facts of the case, which at present are not before this house, shall warrant their application."
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that the real question before the house was not with respect to those principles of justice alluded to by the noble lord, but with respect to their application, under certain circumstances; it being quite clear to his mind, that there were circumstances under which the application of those principles must be very different to what it would be under other circumstances. With respect to the opinion of those eminent men whom the noble lord had quoted, it was quite clear that it was not the opinion upon which the state had acted, as in the year 1761 a diametrically opposite doctrine was held, and this country would not subsequently make peace with France until she gave up the demand that no vessels should be considered as captures which were taken previous to hostilities, or the issuing of reprisals. With respect also to the opinion of sir W. Wynne, a decision of the court of admiralty in 1779, was in direct opposition to it. An article upon this subject was formerly inserted in the several treaties, and from forming part of the conventional law of nations, had been confounded with the unwritten law. There could be no doubt, however, that as the law stood, all enemy's property was forfeited to the crown; a vessel therefore detained, although at the time there might be no reason for the detention, yet from the circumstances of hostilities commencing, became forfeited to the crown. This might operate as a hard case in many instances upon individuals: but he had great doubts that there could be any thing like a commercial peace and a political war at the same time; he thought such a system, and the
314
idea of compensation for losses, would only lead to ruinous speculations on the part of individuals. He saw no ground for the interposition of the house, and should therefore move the previous question.
Lord Erskineadmitted that the vessels detained must be forfeited to the crown as enemy's property, and that the court of admiralty could give no relief; but that was no reason why the crown Could not give relief. On the contrary, that was the very object of his noble friend's proposition in this case, to address the crown, with the view of relieving those who had suffered from the application of this principle of law. This proposition had his full and entire approbation, and those who combated it must shew that there was an actual necessity for detaining and keeping these trading vessels; otherwise the owners were entitled in justice to a compensation.
Lord Hawkesburycontended, that neither the noble viscount, nor the noble and learned lord, had proved that there was any departure in this instance from the usage and practice with respect to other nations, or that, being consistent with such practice and usage, there was any injustice committed. There could not be any doubt as to the law, that enemy's' property was forfeited to the crown, and therefore, that detained vessels in the event of the commencement of hostilities became forfeited.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the motion of his noble friend did not go to ask a favour of his majesty, in surrendering any thing to which he was entitled jure coroœ; but purely to demand from the justice and honour of the country the restitution of those ships, which had been seized at a period when peace and amity existed between the two countries; when we were holding out inducements to them to confide in our assurances of continued friendship; at a period, in fact, when their ships were in a manner domiciliated in our courts of admiralty.
Earl Stanhopecould not avoid making some observations upon the question before the house. His lordship proceeded to quote different passages from Magna Charta, as to the kindness and hospitality to be exercised by the people of this country towards strangers trading towards our coasts; and comparing these passages, and the inducements held out to the Danes to consider the amicable relations between them and this country secure, asked, if our afterwards seizing, as

315
lawful prizes, on the vessels which, in time of peace, we had detained, could be regarded as any thing short of chousing and rascality? He thought the motion did great honour to the noble viscount, and must raise him still higher than he at present stood in the opinion of the country and every honest man.
The Earl of Lauderdalepressed upon the consideration of the house, the peculiar claim which the Danes had upon our performing some act of remuneration for the losses which they had suffered. They had been particularly impressed with the good faith of this country, and entertained a strong sense of its honour and integrity. By no other means could any people in their situation have been led to send their ships to the ports of England. G. Britain had hitherto been celebrated for her love of justice, her honour, and her sincerity; in this disposition the Danish merchants unwarily confided, and were ruined.—The house then divided on the question, that lord Sidmouth's motion be now put: Contents, 16; Non-contents, 36. Majority, 20.—And, on the fourth Resolution, another division took place: Contents, 16; Non-contents, 37. Majority. 21.