Sitting of 18 February 1808

PETITION RESPECTING THE COLD-BATH-FIELDS PRISON.
Mr. Sheridanrose to present a Petition upon a subject which he should recommend to the serious attention of the house, and of his majesty's ministers. The subject was not new to that house, for in the year 1800 he had taken a considerable share, with a worthy and hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) whom he did not then see in his place, in the inquiries which had been made into the management of the Coldbath-fields Prison, and which brought the abuses in the government of that prison under the consideration of parliament. They had, on that occasion, established the case so clearly, that the distinguished person now no more, (Mr. Pitt,) who was then at the head of his majesty's government, was obliged to give way, and consent to a full investigation of the whole transaction. Accordingly a commission was issued under his majesty's sign manual, appointing commissioners, most of them members of that house, to prosecute the inquiry; and a report was made, which entered very much into the detail of the subject. But unquestionably the defect or error of that report was not, that it exaggerated the abuses complained of in the interior administration of the government of the prison. He found, however, that the means recommended in the report, for the redress of the abuses complained of, had not been carried into effect, nay, had been abandoned, and he very much feared, that the abuses had increased in consequence. The allegations contained in the petition, he had not felt it necessary to enquire into, previous to his presenting it to the house, because he had received the Petition from such a respectable quarter, and upon such high authority, that he could not entertain any just doubts of the correctness of the statements it contained, The Petitions was signed by Mr. Stevens, foreman, and by the other members of the grand jury of the county of Middlesex, as well as by Mr. Phillips, one of the sheriffs, a gentleman, who, infinitely to his credit, applied himself, with the most laudable zeal, to the execution of all the duties of his arduous office. He could assure the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, that this matter was not brought before parliament by him with any party views, nor had the petitioners any such object in their contemplation. On the contrary, it had been his practice, on every occasion when he had a petition to present, praying for a

663
redress of grievances, to submit the subject to the consideration of his majesty's ministers, whenever the redress could be effectually administered by them, rather than bring the matter forward publicly in parliament. This course had been followed in the present instance. A communication had been made to his majesty's government by the foreman of the grand jury, in an interview which he had with one of his majesty's ministers. As no steps had since been taken in consequence of such communication, he had thought it his duty to present the petition to parliament. But, he should, for the present, content himself with moving, that the petition do lie on the table, leaving the whole credit of the business to his majesty's ministers, if they should think proper to take it up, though at the same time he was bound to state, that if, after a reasonable time, no step should appear to have been taken, he should think it his duty to bring forward the subject by a specific motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not mean to give any opposition to the bringing up this Petition, though after the statement of the right hon. gent. he felt called upon to make one or two observations. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that when questions of this description arose, the proper course to take was, to see at first how far the executive government might be disposed to interfere for the redress of the abuses complained of. An appeal to the government was, therefore, the most correct proceeding in the first instance, because it was competent to the executive to direct a thorough investigation into the matters complained of, and if the circumstances of the case should be such as to warrant the proceeding, to order a criminal prosecution against the offending parties. This was the view which he had of the subject, and the right hon. gent. himself seemed to acquiesce in it. The communication that had been made to government was conveyed in a private form, which could not regularly be acted upon, and he had, in consequence, recommended that the matter should be officially communicated to the executive; in which case, he pledged himself, that so far as he was individually concerned, no time should be lost, nor any means left untried to ascertain the justice of the complaint. He had thought this a course far preferable to bringing the subject at once before parliament; because whatever prosecutions the executive might find it necessary to order,
664
upon an investigation of the matter, must come before the grand jury, who would of course come to the consideration of the charge, with less prejudice upon their minds. After he had recommended this mode of proceeding, and upon the grounds he had stated, the petitioners, whether from a just or an unjust distrust of the government, had thought proper to bring the matter publicly before parliament. Though the presentment, it appeared had been made at the Michaelmas Sessions, it was not till after the commencement of the present session of parliament that the matter had been communicated to government. An inquiry too had been made by the magistrates, which, though he could not say whether the result of that inquiry was right or wrong, seemed, from the silence of the parties, a satisfactory answer to the complaint, and therefore no farther steps had been taken till the present time. It had even been inferred, from their not having made the official communication recommended, that the gentlemen themselves, who preferred the complaint, were satisfied with the result of that inquiry. He was sure the right hon. gent. would concur with him, that it would have been much better to have left the business, in the first instance, to the executive government; but now that the Petition had been brought forward, he had no objection to its lying on the table.
Mr. Sheridanobserved, that the petitioners had not shewn any unfair distrust of government, remembering as they did that no efficient measures of redress had been adopted, founded on the report of 1800, and because there could be no efficient redress without the dismissal of Mr. Aris. As to an official communication, it was impossible for the petitioners to make it, because the grand jury had been dissolved previous to the communication. It was as private individuals that they appeared as petitioners before parliament, and not in any aggregate capacity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrepeated, that the only communication made to government was of a private nature, and, consequently, was not a sufficient ground for a public proceeding. As to the report of 1800, he had only to observe, that it had been laid on the table of the house, and might have been made the foundation of parliamentary measures by any hon. member who might have thought such a course necessary.—The Petition was then brought up and read.—After which Mr.

665
Sheridan moved, that it do lie on the table, at the same time stating, that many more facts had since came to the knowledge of the petitioners, which however, he should on that occasion abstain from detailing to the house.—A short conversation then took place, as to the propriety of allowing the petition to lie on the table, with a description of the petitioners that was not borne out by the fact. Mr. Sumner first took the exception, on this ground, as even the right hon. gent. himself had admitted, that the grand jury had been dissolved previous to the inquiry, and certainly, before the presenting of the petition. Without any wish to oppose the petition, he thought the house could not entertain it, with such an unfounded designation of the parties who presented it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended to the right hon. gent. on this ground, to withdraw the petition for the present, in order to have one prepared to present to-morrow, with the proper designation of the parties, in which case he should himself be ready to second the motion, that the petition should lie on the table. After a few words from Mr. Sheridan, who thought that the house ought not to be too critical as to the wording of petitions, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn, in order that it might be prepared to be presented to-morrow in a more correct form.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.
On the order of the day being moved for the 2d reading of the Orders in Council bill,
Mr. Edensaid, that he could not allow this bill to go through another stage without declaring his sentiments upon it. He thought that our retaliation upon our enemies ought to be conducted in such a manner as not to injure unoffending neutrals. He was of opinion that the note delivered to the American negociators on the 31st of Dec. 1806, was still binding on the government of this country, as there was no appearance that America had submitted to the controul which the French government had attempted to impose on the commerce of neutrals with Britain. On the contrary, there was ample evidence that America had remonstrated against the French decree, and had obtained an exemption from its operation according to the explanation given by the French minister of marine, Decrés. To impose a tax upon neutrals was illegal by the law of nations, and by the statute law also. The measure would do no injury to France, but it would
666
grievously injure those who were entitled to our forbearance, and as far as could be to our protection.
The Advocate-Generalthen rose and spoke nearly as follow: Sir, the house will naturally expect I should lay before them my opinion upon the subject of this bill, and the grounds of that opinion, upon this occasion. In doing this, it is necessary for me to look to the policy and the legality of the present measure, both of which have been charged against it by the hon. member who has just now set down. In taking a comprehensive view of this matter, I am afraid it will be necessary to trace back some of the circumstances which led generally to its adoption, because we must not consider a measure like this detached from the circumstances which preceded or accompanied it. Its policy and legality can only be fairly appreciated by such a consideration of the circumstances out of which it arose. It is evident then, that the Decree of the French government, of the 21st of Nov. 1806, is the foundation of the present proceeding. That decree purported to declare the British isles in a state of blockade, and to prohibit all commerce whatever, even with neutral nations, in the manufactures of this country. The effect of that decree was to exclude us from all foreign powers whatever; and to prevent them not only from carrying on their accustomed trade with this country, but even to exclude the possibility of one neutral nation trading with safety to another. An American vessel trading from one neutral port to another, was subject to be seized by that Decree of the French government.—Sir, it has been said, that we have misconstrued this Decree, and that it does not in effect blockade this country. In regard to its prohibiting the carriage of Our produce or manufactures, there can be no doubt; but it has been alleged that there could have been some other mode of avoiding its consequences. In my opinion, I do not see any great difference whether the threatened blockade was included in it or not; for if foreign ships had only been allowed to come to this country with their foreign produce, and not enabled to take away our goods in return, that surely amounted very nearly to a similar blockading declaration. I cannot but he surprised that any person can read this French Decree, and doubt its construction. The very Preamble of it recites what has been done by this country; but it must be admitted that

667

these imputations are groundless and false. It states that this country had blockaded various ports against neutrals, and argues the necessity of retaliation, and of declaring the British isles in a state of blockade. The fact, however, is falsely assumed, that this country ever declared any port in a state of blockade, without previously investing that port. I shall do the late government of this country the justice to say that when they blockaded any of the enemy's ports, they anxiously inquired whether those ports had been in the first place regularly invested. The French government, in their decree, avowed their intention of retaliation, without previously investing our ports, and therefore all the consequences of that blockade must be presumed to follow that declaration. It goes on through six articles, and then states, that any vessel coming from the British ports with British goods, shall not be admitted into any port of that country, meaning France itself. Now there does seem something of an inconsistency between this article, and the first one in that Decree; the one, in a certain degree, doing away the effect of the other. It might, indeed, be doubted whether this was not done on purpose that no vessel should be admitted direct from our ports to those of France, till they touched at some intermediate one. It surely, at least, would bear such a construction: but still the previous part of it justified us in a contrary conclusion. That Decree of the French government avowed itself to mean a retaliation for an imaginary offence; and what, then, became the duty of this country, and other countries, in consequence of this outrageous measure? It surely became their duty to render such a mode of unaccustomed warfare to be retaliated and retorted upon the enemy. It was our duty to do this with as much forbearance as possible against other countries. Although it be a just principle in the law of nations that other countries must naturally suffer, in a certain degree, by the measures adopted, by belligerent powers; yet it is surely the duty of each to render that suffering as little injurious as possible. I certainly must justify the forbearance of the former ministry; but in doing so, I think it cannot be argued that if their measure was found insufficient for the purposes intended, others more vigorous should not be adopted, in order to remove those inconveniences this country was likely to undergo in consequence of French measures. What, then
668
followed the measure of the last government, dated the 7th of Jan.? Did neutral nations interpose? Did the three nations whom the French Decrees materially affected interpose, in order to get them removed? Did Denmark, Portugal, or America interpose? I have not understood that any of these powers did endeavour to do so. On the contrary, I think we have a pretty strong Note now laid before the house, which was presented by the Danish government, complaining of the injustice of the Decree issued by G. Britain, but no inclination was evinced to revoke the previous Decree of France, nor intimating any sense of the forbearance of this country. That Note I think seems to be sounding pretty much of an Armed Neutrality, the favourite measure which Denmark has all along been aiming at; a measure on a principle which, once adopted and carried into effect, so as to increase the maritime power of the nations on the continent, must put an end to the maritime power of G. Britain. Such has all along been the disposition of Denmark. As to Portugal, such was the unfortunate situation of that country, that with every disposition to do justice to her allies, it could not be supposed that she could venture to interfere to procure a revocation of the French Decree, when she was obviously udder the necessity of endeavouring to purchase her own neutrality. So far from her being able to do so, it was well known that the port of Lisbon was made the entrepôt for violating the Decree we issued upon the 7th of Jan. and breaking through the prohibition of trading from one port to another. The country from which we had reason to expect the effectual interposition, was the United States of America. Upon a former occasion that country attempted what it was called upon to do, at least so far as respected its own honour. It may be in the recollection of the house, that there was a Decree somewhat similar to the present one issued by the French government in the beginning of Jan. 1798, when that decree was noticed in the President's speech, as most injurious to America, and stated to be a measure that could not be suffered to exist, without violating the independence of their country. That speech strongly showed what were then the feelings and the intentions of the United States upon this subject. It showed that it was then deemed to be an unjust attack against neutral rights, and that they owned that nothing but a thorough resist-

669
ance to it could rescue them from its pernicious effects. Such was the sense of America upon the Decree of 1798. What, now, has been the sense of America upon the Decree of 1806? We have a right to look to that Government for the same sort of conduct upon that subject, when there was the same sort of Decree issued by France, with the addition of declaring the British Isles in a state of blockade. Was it too much to expect of America, that on being informed of that Decree, she should consider it as a measure issued totally regard less of her rights and independence? Was it too much to expect that she would make a firm resistance to oppose its consequences? We shall suppose, then, that America did actually interpose, and the question must come to this, was it done in such a manner as to satisfy her honour and her interest as connected with G. Britain? As it was a measure of warfare against this country, was it not tending to affect America remotely? She owed her interposition, undoubtedly, not only for her own honour but for her interest, and those duties she should have observed towards the belligerent power that was thus attacked, and with whom she was in perfect amity. It has been asked, upon a former occasion, in order to shew the illegality of our measures, has this French Decree been at all enforced in France? But I apprehend the question ought to be—has the measure been revoked by France? Are we to resort to the ministers of France for the purpose of knowing whether they can exercise their own Decree or not? After the discussion that has already taken place upon the subject of M. Decres' Letter, can any body consider that it contains that sort of revocation that ought to have satisfied America?. Has there been any Decree declaring that America was excepted out of the Order of the 21st of Nov.? If France chose to give a doubtful and prevaricating answer to America, was that to assure America that her commerce would be free from interruption? Did not the tenor and the maxim still continue? Were not her vessels, as well as those of other countries, obliged to pay higher insurance, in consequence of that Decree still existing? Undoubtedly it must be conceded that a private assurance of this sort ought not to have been considered any thing upon which America could rest satisfied. But, even let it be granted, that there had been a public assurance to America that she alone was to be exempted from its influ
670
ence, would that have been a sufficient ground for us not to look further to our interest? What! because France chooses to except America from her injurious decrees, are we to consent to their continuance? If France thinks proper to violate the territories of several neutral powers and not to act in a similar manner towards another neutral, does it follow that those other nations are to submit and endure a misconstruction of her conduct? Such, then, is the construction that can be put upon her conduct by the law of nations, which is the principle of natural justice, honestly and bona fide employed. It is not by manœuvre and management of this sort that we are to be bound to make the same exception in our conduct towards France, that she may be pleased to make towards America, by that private assurance, if it may be so called, that passed through M. Decres.—What took place upon the 17th or 19th of Feb.? The Spanish Decree was then issued, and it may be looked upon as the act of France. Was there any exception in favour of America? If it was to be understood that America was excepted out of the Decree of the 21st of Nov. is it to be supposed that in that subsequent decree we should not have had some notice of that exception? This, surely, was a pretty strong proof that America was never intended to have been exempted. Did not the capture of the ship Sanson, by the Spanish officers, evince what was their understanding of the blockade of England? She was taken upon the sole ground of her violating that blockading decree. Now, let us go on to another point that will yet further elucidate the nature of that Decree. I allude to the Treaty of Tilsit. France now had consumated partly her object; Russia and Prussia had made their peace with France and were become neutrals; but do they call for a revocation that Decree? No; they are converted into the allies of France; and can any one doubt that it. was part of the system of that Treaty, that Denmark, Russia, and Prussia, were all to be condemned to comply with the confederacy? France now had accomplished what she deemed a grand object towards excluding the commerce of G. Britain from all the continental ports. What was the answer of Buonaparte himself, as to America? He expressly disavows any intention of excluding her from his measures, even when he began to feel that the blockade of this country might tend to

671
retort upon him the evil of his own injustice. Now, let us look a little into the situation of this country and Europe, as affected by the Treaty of Tilsit, in the latter part of Oct. or beginning of Nov. last, when these Orders in Council were issued. The fact was, that with regard to England, she was excluded from every port of Europe, except the island of Sicily. Her produce and manufactures were completely interdicted. Yet, it has been stated, that these Orders have been the ruin of our commerce. Look at our situation without these Orders, and then let us consider the question. Not a port was open at the period they were issued. The continental market of Europe was completely shut against us. But then it is said, that those vigorous measures of the French government would not have been carried into execution, had not our Orders been adopted. Now, I answer to this, that we have not read a single news-paper, for many months back, that did not bring us accounts of fresh measures being taken for the rigorous and strict observance of that original decree. Besides this, let us look to the probability of the fact. It might very probably have been the case, had France continued at war with some of the other continental powers, that she would, from necessity, have softened the rigour of her Decree, and connived at neutrals introducing British commodities upon the continent; but, when Buonaparte has consummated his grand scheme for the destruction of our maritime power, can any person believe, that he would any longer have suffered this connivance? Would he not have done every thing to forward his grand object of excommunicating G. Britain from the society of nations? We have only to refer to the newspapers of the month of Oct to find, that at the very moment when Buonaparte restores to their legitimate sovereigns the districts of Mechlenburg and Oldenburg, it is upon the express condition that they shall exclude British commerce. If this, then was the case, what was the situation of this country? We might send our manufactures for the consumption of our colonies, and in return we could brim home our colonial produce, but there our commerce ended. Not one article of British manufacture could find its way to the continent of Europe. Will any person say, that this situation would not be the destruction of the resources of this country: We could have nothing to do, but either to at-
672
tempt to force open the door to the continental market, or submit to those terms of peace which France was willing to impose upon us. If France had the means of obtaining from other sources those articles of which she stood in need, is it at all probable that she would ever have consented to admit our produce? When France is deprived of those articles, is it not natural to suppose that she will become the violator of her own prohibitions? Will she not then be induced to receive our commerce into her territories? Is there any chance of her doing this, if she could be supplied by other means? It is true, that before these Orders in Council were issued, there was a considerable degree of benefit, in my opinion, derived by the effect of the Order of the 7th of Jan. That Order pressed very considerably upon the continent of Europe; and the more so as the powers gradually came under the dominion and controul of France, as there was then no neutral intermediate power through which they could violate those Orders. We must be aware, however, that the coasting trade of Europe was necessarily open to very considerable evasion, by stealing along their shores in small vessels; and besides, that there were means of communication through the great rivers of Europe, by which with considerable inconvenience to themselves, they might be supplied with the various products of the continents. But with respect to the foreign commerce, they were actually under no inconvenience whatever, notwithstanding all our boasted maritime superiority. Our enemies had, in fact, better opportunities for procuring foreign commerce, than if they had employed a great maritime force to protect their trade. This may, indeed, appear paradoxical, but the truth is, that by means of neutral vessels they could bring home, not only all the produce of their islands, but even the produce of America, as securely as if they had not been in a state of warfare: under neutral names they enjoyed a complete supply of all the products from the various quarters of the world. They collected the duties upon the export of them from their colonies, and they were even doing something more than this; they were granting bounties for the carrying of those very products to the mother country. Wines and brandies and other products of France, went in exchange for oils, soap, and other products of their colonies, without being in the slightest degree ques-

673
tioned. In short, they were in the full enjoyment of all the advantages of peace, by having an ample supply of all sorts of goods. The regular tea sales at Amsterdam went on without any the smallest interruption, just as if the Dutch were in a state of the most profound peace; ships that traded from Amsterdam to China being allowed to navigate with the greatest facility. Even the capital of every Dutch Merchant was fully employed. Most of the houses in Amsterdam have houses in America, or have agents in that country, so that the money was advanced in many instances before a single bale of goods left America. They had then colonial and other produce conveyed to them just in the same manner as if we had not the enjoyment of any maritime superiority at all. I do not know whether or not I have been succesful in my view of the subject, but it does seem to me, that looking to the situation of Europe, and of this country, at the time of issuing these Orders, it was ruinous to us in the extreme. While this country was in this state of blockade, America could not take from us a single bale of British goods without the risk of her vessels being lawful prizes to the French. Our commerce and colonial produce might have remained in our warehouses and rotted there; as I cannot help thinking that the more Buonaparte acquired of the continent, the more rigorously would he be inclined to enforce his measures. And be it recollected, that our commerce constitutes the sinews of war, and therefore those measures of retaliation which we adopted were absolutely necessary for our preservation and defence. We have only imposed those privations upon France which would induce France, or at least the inhabitants of that country, (for I am not supposing that we could compel their government to agree to these measures), to become the violators of their own decrees. Now, upon the ground of retaliation we are perfectly justified. It has been said, that our Orders have been a violation of the law of Nations; but need I revert to any other authority upon this subject than that of the late government themselves? I confess that I cannot see any difference in the principle, although there may be some in the degree, between these Orders and that of the 7th of Jan.; they were founded upon the principle of retaliation. This principle was completely set forth by a noble lord (Howick) in a note to Mr. Ris,[p.402,] in which he strongly re-
674
presents the injustice of the French Decree of Nov. 1806, and justifies the conduct of his majesty in issuing the Order in Council, of 7th Jan. which Order was founded upon the just principle of retaliation. This principle seems to have been asserted by France herself. I do not feel it, notwithstanding these authorities, necessary to plead the justification of these Orders, by the precedent of that issued by his majesty's late governments—No; think, and I am sure, this house will feel, that they are perfectly justifiable; and, I will add, founded on the law of nations. In 1798, Russia feeling at that period the aggressions and overweening tyranny of France, did issue an Order of a much stronger stamp than those issued by G. Britain, and so much complained of; that Order authorised the seizure of all ships proceeding to France. I do contend, that the question of the conformity of these Orders to the law of nations, cannot be viewed in the abstract. It may be asked, will you repel injustice with injustice? No. —But, I would ask, is it to be endured, that one belligerent shall be suffered to act towards another in a manner the most unjust, and the most contrary to the laws of nations, and that the other belligerent shall be bound to observe the accustomed usages and conduct towards her? I do contend that France has acted towards this country in open violation of every law of nations; and I do maintain that this country is justified in retaliating upon her. If it be said that the law of nations ought not to be observed, I do from my heart protest against such a principle. I do think that nothing but the most urgent necessity can warrant its nonobservance. If, however, your enemy will not be bound by it, I do think that you have no other resort but that of going back to first principles, and looking to self-preservation.—Much has been said of the infringement of neutral rights, but I have heard very little said of neutral duties. In the operation of these Orders in Council, it never was in the contemplation of the framers of them to oppose neutral rights. If America suffer, it is what is unavoidable where her interest is so connected as in the present war between this country and France. These measures against America were alone intended to annoy France, not to injure or infringe upon the rights of neutrals. Every concession, that was compatible with the defence of the country, I do maintain was

675
made in favour of neutrals. America was, as before, admitted to go to the colonies and bring back their produce for her own consumption. I cannot consider it a hardship to require or a neutral whom you admit to go to an enemy's colony, to be subject to certain restrictions for such admission. If you have a right to interdict it, you have a right to point out such regulations as you think fit. It has been said that the measures adopted towards America will be likely to produce misunderstanding between her and this country. I do not believe it; on the contrary, I am thoroughly persuaded that America will feel, when she views these measures with that temper and coolness that I think she will, that this country has been actuated by no hostile feeling against her, but that whatever injury she may sustain, was absolutely unavoidable on our part, and indispensable to our preservation and existence. It is impossible that America should not see that this country has done every thing in its power compatible with its security, to accommodate and convenience her. I am proud it has been so; convinced as I am, that the prosperity of the one country is the prosperity of the other. Different has been the treatment of France to America. All communication with G. Britain has been interdicted, under the threat of destroying her independence. The conduct of France towards America, I do contend, has been one continued scene of insult and injury. G. Britain has, on the contrary, uniformly acted with moderation and forbearance, and with every wish to cultivate amity and friendship between the two countries. I am satisfied, from all these considerations, and from the good sense of the people of America, that no rupture will take place between us and her. A great deal of objection has been raised against the shape of these Orders in Council, against the particular time at which they have been issued, and against their being too rigorous; but I do trust the house will feel the weakness of these objections, and agree that they have been founded both upon policy, justice, and law. These Orders, I am satisfied, will cause severe privations on the continent, and visit upon the head of its tyrant the evils intended to be entailed upon us. The period in which we live is awful beyond example, and the contest in which we are engaged, great beyond precedent. We are possessed of the dominion of the sea; France of the land; so far we are on a
676
footing of complete equality. I regret to hear that so much clamour has been raised, by I know not what infatuation, for peace at the present moment. Are those who are such advocates for that measure, satisfied that it would be a lasting, solid, and safe one? I very much fear that no peace of the kind could be obtained at present. I am satisfied, that by carrying on the contest with that spirit and energy that become a free people, the issue, will be speedy, honourable, and glorious.
Earl Templethought his hon. and learned friend, who had just sat down, had departed from the investigation of the question before the house. He contended, that the principle of self-preservation laid down by his hon. and learned friend in defence of these Orders in Council, was not made out. If it had been, he would admit it to be a justification of them. The injury done to neutrals, it was contended, was unavoidable, and was with a view to the ultimate injury and annoyance of the enemy. He contended, that we could have no right to attack neutrals directly in order to injure the enemy collaterally. The Order issued by his majesty's late government, in Jan. 1807, was issued on grounds totally distinct from the present Orders. The former was in perfect. conformity with the laws of nations; the latter in direct violation of them. In order to justify our conduct towards America, it would be necessary to shew that she acquiesced in the provisions of the French Decree. The contrary, however, appeared to be the fact. On the appearance of the French Decree, in Nov. the American minister required an explanation of it, stating, that it was contrary to the treaty of amity and commerce existing between America and France. The answer of the minister of marine was, that it was not in the contemplation of the French Decree to affect American ships. He had heard it said, that this was idle assertion; but he would be glad to ask, if the communication or the explanation of this Decree, by the President of the United States of America to Congress, was nothing more than idle assertion? It was a well-known fact, that the merchants of this country, whose opinions upon these Orders in Council were certainly the most correct, and who uniformly complained of them, had not, in consequence of the French Decree, been obliged to pay a single additional shilling insurance on the trade between this country and America. Spain was

677
obliged to issue a similar decree at the time France issued hers. An American ship was brought into a Spanish port for a violation of this decree; she was brought to trial in the Prize Court, and ordered to be released. Another instance occurred in France, when an American ship, under the same circumstances, was released. What? he would ask, could be so convincing as these facts? and what could more strongly shew that it was not the intention of France to injure or restrict American traders? There were other facts which proved Mr. Munroe's letter to Mr. Secretary Canning, [p. 598] stating it not to be the intention of France to interfere with the trade of America. In the teeth of all this evidence, and three weeks after the receipt of Mr. Munroe's letter to Mr. Canning, these Orders in Council appeared. It was said that America did not obtain the revocation of the French Decree—but how could that be expected? It might not be, nor was not in her power to do so.—The noble lord proceeded to consider the Orders in Council as contradictory to the established principles of municipal law; quoting part of Magna Charta, with the commentary of Montesquieu, to prove that this country ever had considered the rights of even foreign merchants as part of their own constitutional liberty; hence, he maintained, the exertion of the king's prerogative in the publication of these Orders, and their enforcement, had effectually violated the established law of the land. The rights of war should only be exerted by the king on the property of the enemy, and by no means should they be extended to that of neutrals. This measure had even proceeded so far as to raise a tax, and levy supplies, Without the consent of parliament.—With respect to the policy of the measure itself, if the inexplicable nature of the Orders permitted him to say he could form any just idea even of their tendency, he must acknowledge his decided conviction of their tendency to injure our trade, to depreciate our character among other nations, and to deprive us of the means of meeting the pressing emergencies of the times. These Orders, as affecting the sugar and cotton trade, had the worst possible effect. He could never comprehend how this measure could be denominated a retaliation, since it affected primarily ourselves, and next our allies. The French would contentedly suffer some embarrassment and inconvenience, being well ap-
678
prised that the sinews of our strength laid in our commerce. Hence the whole force of this injurious system reverted on ourselves.—He concluded with entering his formal protest against the measure.
Mr. Rosedefended the legality of the measure, contending that it had not violated any law whatever, but on the contrary was expressly provided for by act of parliament. When these Orders in Council were made, he assured the house, they were not pointed at America, but were intended as a direct and justifiable retaliation against France. He then adverted to the state of the navigation of America, and the immense increase of her shipping and carrying trade, her trade from the East Indies with all parts of the world, and the reduction in the sale of all East India goods, pepper, tea, &c. He repeated, that nothing was more desirable than to avoid warfare with America, and he could not help hoping, that when America came to consider coolly and deliberately upon the subject, she would be satisfied that these Orders were never intended against her; that to preserve peace with that country was most desirable; and he was well assured that government would see it in its true light—that of a measure of retaliation adopted through necessity.
Mr. Hibberthad been anxious to thank his learned friend (the Advocate General) for his excellent speech, but could not omit, at the same time, to recollect with gratitude another speech of that learned gentleman,*in which he had ably defended the Order in Council of Jan. 1807, not only as founded on principles of natural justice, which were the basis of the law of nations; but as directly bearing upon the enemy and considerate towards neutrals. The principle of that measure was so clearly expressed in a State Paper which had been alluded to in the course of the debate,† that he begged permission to read the words; "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
*See vol. viii. p. 633.
†Lord Howick's Letter to Mr. Rist, see p. 402.

679
course which is 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."—Here was no assumption of the principle of retaliation, but a measure purely belligerent; the justice of which could not be affected by the variable and occasionally relaxed practice of nations. It did, indeed, treat as France, all that France held in absolute control; an extension consistent with the principle by which alone it was to be tried, as in practice it was not even strictly true that neutrals in peace had no share whatever in the coasting trade of individual France. They had shared in that trade before the revolution in the proportion of about 6,000 in one million of tons of shipping.—But the recent Orders in Council, retaliating upon the enemy his vain threat of blockade, which so far as America was concerned he had not attempted to execute, pronounced upon a large portion of the world, including nearly the whole of Europe, a constructive blockade, and then proceeded, with our immense naval force, to act towards neutrals as offensively as if such blockade were actually carried into effect. We boasted, indeed, of our relaxations, as we were pleased to call them, by which confiscation was commuted for revenue, but these provisions were in his opinion a vicious feature in the measure; they stamped upon it that air boutiqueére, which would ensure its condemnation by neutrals. It was in vain we declared that revenue was no part of our object; America would not believe us. He would leave however the question of legality to others who would, he was sure, most satisfactorily discuss it.—As to the expediency of the measure, it was one principal motive in his rising to state; that the West India interest had neither promoted, nor approved it. There was an erroneous opinion on this subject among the public, not among his majesty's ministers, for they must well know that in Dec. last the West India Committee had unani-
680
mously and decisively expressed in a communication to the chancellor of the exchequer their belief, that these Orders in Council could afford to our own colonies no relief, but might, on the contrary, facilitate and legalise the supply and support of the enemy's colonies. The British West India planters had been also accused of suggesting and promoting a quarrel with America. This, also, was false; for a great majority of them felt and acknowledged that war with America would be one of the greatest calamities to which our colonies could be subjected. They had, indeed, been sorely grieved by the abuses of the neutral trade, and as America was chiefly instrumental in those abuses, expressions of anger and irritation had been wrung from them in their distress. But, the remedies they had so long and earnestly suggested, were, that the colonies of the enemy should, in their turn, be subjected to the chances of war; that they should be blockaded by a portion of our great naval force, or that the rule of the war of 1756 should be enforced. And, objectionable as the latter of these measures might have appeared to America if suddenly resorted to, he was persuaded that it would have proved less so than the measures we had adopted. It might have been alleviated by conceding to her a temporary traffic in so much of our own colonial produce as must otherwise be wasted or brought hither to the ruin of the planter, and it might have been justly defended as a belligerent measure, most consistent with our own situation as masters of the sea, and with our unquestionable right to impoverish those sources to which the enemy must look for establishing himself as a rival maritime power. What was it we were dreading, in the event of peace, so much as that France should thereby obtain a navy? and was it not true that to her colonies principally she must look for that purpose?—It would be found on attentive survey, that the naval force of France had always kept pace with the prosperity of her colonial trade, and yet, without regarding on whom the reproach might fall, he must say, that in the long course of this contest we had been very little solicitous to prevent her from receiving back her colonies at a peace, in a condition much more prosperous than that in which we had maintained our own.—If our West India colonies were not to be benefitted by this measure, he was at a loss to conceive by what description of traders

681
the advantage was to be derived. It was the commencement of a war of privation by the greatest commercial nation in the world, and it must be remembered that in this conflict there might be two kinds of distress: distress from the need of buying, and distress from the need of selling; in his opinion, the latter feeling was more likely to press upon this country than the former upon France. We could not accomplish both objects, that of distressing the enemy by subjecting him to wants, and that of relieving our own trade by supplying him; one of these aims we might partially attain; but, in proportion as we should approach to it, we must recede from the other. The policy of wantonly rushing into a contest with the only remaining neutral, while we were so dependant upon foreign demand, he could not see. The conciliatory language held a few nights ago by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had been hailed by him as the promise of a better disposition: that right hon. gent. had said, that the prosperity of America was the prosperity of G. Britain; and he might have added, that the prosperity of the world was the prosperity of G. Britain.—Such language was not the mark of despondency or submission, it was more apt to spring from confidence in moderate views and in a just cause. Why should it not be used in speaking of other foreign relations? it might invite or cultivate dispositions of returning amity, and he trusted could never be interpreted as an inclination to surrender one essential or important interest of the country. Such language, too, would discourage Petitions for Peace. The course we were pursuing must prolong our own commercial distresses, and, in his Opinion, would have no other effect on the enemy than that of furnishing him with a new stimulus to the enthusiasm of his immense armies, in maintaining the contest against us until what he would denominate our maritime tyranny should be effectually controlled.
Mr. W. Smithfelt particularly the injury that would be sustained by the interruption of the American corn trade, shut up and deprived as we were of all supplies of that essential necessary from the Baltic. The right hon. gent. who brought in this bill in one hand, ought, therefore to have brought in a General Inclosure bill in the other. He greatly rejoiced at the sentiments expressed by the right hon. gentlemen as to the value of the connexion with
682
America, but he feared their acts contradicted their sentiments.
Lord H. Pettycontended that America had submitted to no injury on the part of France, and therefore we were not entitled to inflict any injury on the ground of retaliation. He instanced two cases of the detention of American ships, one by a Spanish, and the other by a French cruiser; both were released with costs and charges after a hearing in a French and Spanish court of prize appeal. He hoped that the same sense of public duty which had in another place triumphed this night would here also put the public in possession of the necessary information upon this important point. It was not for the interest of this country to force a war between America and France; next to a war between England and America a war between France and America would be most injurious. The neutrality of America was the means of diffusing the manufactures of G. Britain. The retaliation of French prohibition would but deprive the more wealthy among the French people of a few luxuries, while the annihilation of neutral commerce would be most injurious to the manufactures of G. Britain. The accumulation of sugars that would be created here by the collected produce of the various islands conquered by this country; by the importation from the French islands, in American bottoms; and by the importation from the Brazils, now sanctioned by act of parliament; the arts of substitution which the French people would learn, and the privations to which they would accustom themselves, would be lasting injuries to this country and her colonies. Thus, this measure, which promised so much benefit at the outset, was attended with much mischief in the result. He deprecated proceedings which would involve the country in a quarrel with the only remaining neutral. He ridiculed the idea of those who abused the Order of the 7th Jan. as imbecile, and who now quoted it as authority of force in this question, and who, in like manner, censured as ruinous invasions of the navigation act, the provisions of the act of last sessions, for allowing the Americans to import the necessaries of life into our West India colonies. He trusted the house would pause, before it gave its sanction to a measure of such effect, and so little founded in right and law.
Lord Castlereaghcontended that the Orders in Council were founded on a principle

683
of forbearance towards America, and not likely to injure their commercial interests in any degree, as much as the adoption of the rule of the war in 1756. The statement contained in the answer of lord Howick to Mr. Rist, that the government of this country would not cease to act upon the order of the 7th of Jan. until neutrals should procure the revocation of the French Decree, but ill accorded with the sentiments expressed by the noble lord opposite (lord H. Petty). Whatever relaxation of the rigour of its decree the French government might have found it covenient to adopt at home, it was most rigidly enforced in all the French colonies. It was not till after the peace of Tilsit that France found herself in a condition to execute that Decree generally over the continental countries subjected to her controul. While she was excluding our produce from all parts of the continent, was this country to submit without throwing any impediment in the way of her supply of her colonial produce? If the rule of 1756 were to be applied to America, it would deprive her of full one half of her exports. Could the noble lord contend that it was not an advantage to America that we had not declared the enemies colonies in a state of blockade? The Americans would have no right to complain of the duties proposed to be laid on, because they were only the carriers, and the duty would, of course, fall upon the consumers. As to the effect that might be produced upon the commerce of this country by the state of the continent, he admitted that its exports might for a time be checked, but that could not last long, because no pressure could keep down the vast extent of territory under prohibition, in such a manner, that the interests of individuals would not induce them to procure such articles as might be necessary for them. As to the question relative to our relations with America, he could assure the house that he and his colleagues were extremely anxious to avert the interruption of peace and amity with that country. If the calamity of war should unhappily take place, whenever the conduct of his majesty's ministers should be brought under consideration, it would be seen, that no effort had been spared in order to prevent it. If war should be the consequence, it would appear, that no concession or submission could have prevented it. The arguments of the noble lord came with a bad grace from those who had
684
held the language contained in lord Howick's answer to Mr. Rist; rather should they now maintain the principles which they then professed, at a time, too, when the dangers of the country were not so imminent as at present. The consequence of a war would be the loss to America of her whole export trade, whilst only one-fourth of our exports would be endangered by that event. Our means of shutting American produce in her ports, in consequence of our vast marine, were far more extensive than her internal means of excluding us, and, consequently, a considerable portion of what this country now exported to America, would find its way into that country notwithstanding a war. We were not, from the mere apprehensions of a war with that country, to shrink from the assertion of those maritime rights which were so essential to our national strength and prosperity. The question now was, whether we were to be conquered by the French or not? Buonaparte had essayed his military warfare against us ineffectually, and he was now trying the success of a commercial warfare. It was an attack upon the public spirit of the country, and he was convinced the nation would not decline the contest. In order to obtain any peace with France, in order to made her live in peace, we must prove to her that she can make no impression on us. The only prospect of living with that country in civil or political intercourse, was afforded by a perseverance in the war, till by a proud defiance of all her means, we should convince her of her inability to destroy or weaken ours: so might we enjoy relations of amicable intercourse, not of suspended warfare with her; but that could never be expected, till we should have established the proof that no instrument she could employ, would avail for the reduction of the power or the resources of this empire.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the numbers appeared—

For the second reading

214

Against it

94

Majority

—120

While strangers were excluded, another division took place upon the question, That the Bill be committed this day

For the question

147

Against it

55

Majority

—92

Adjourned at half past 3 on Friday morning.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Lord Grenvillealluding to the expressions contained in the Orders in Council, which stated amongst the reasons for issuing them, that the French Decree had been executed with increased rigour, said, that it was important the house should be in possession of the information on which this assertion was founded, particularly as a contrary statement was contained in the Note of the American plenipotentiaries, which was on the table, and as a contrary inference was to be deduced from those circumstances which were publicly known. He did not wish that any secret should be revealed, which it would be dangerous to disclose; but, merely that the substance of such information should be laid on the table, and which might be disclosed without any danger. He therefore moved for Copies or Extracts of all information received by government, previous to the 11th of Nov. 1807, shewing that the French government had begun to execute its Decree with increased rigour.
Lord Hawkesburysaid, it must be obvious, that it was scarcely possible there could be any information upon this subject received from any accredited person, or in any official shape. The information received by ministers, had satisfied them with respect to the increased rigour exercised by the French government; but it might be attended with serious inconvenience and danger to many persons, if information received through the medium of commercial houses, or various other sources, was to be laid on the table of that house. It was besides, he contended, a matter of notoriety from the answers of M. Regnier, which were mentioned in all the newspapers two or three days after the 18th day of Oct. that the French Decree was then executed with increased rigour.
Earl Greywas surprised to hear the noble secretary of state contend, that it must be obvious it was scarcely possible to have any accredited information upon this subject. He, on the contrary, thought, that it was precisely that subject on which if there was any neutral minister remaining, or any British minister at a neutral court, it was likely to receive information from accredited persons. He had never understood, that the increased rigour of the French government was a matter of notoriety previous to issuing the Orders in
642
Council. He could not conceive, that there could be any danger in laying the substance of the information received by ministers upon the table.
The Duke of Montroseopposed the motion, and observed, that it would prevent persons from giving information to government, if an example was given of laying information so obtained upon the table of the house.
Lord Erskinecontended, that the objection of danger did not apply in this case, all that was desired being the date and substance of the information received. The term, increased rigour, implied that there had been not only a rigour, but afterwards an additional rigour, and he thought the house ought to be in possession of the substance of the information which had authorised the use of this term.
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that communicating the date and substance, would in many instances as effectually betray the source from which such information was derived, as if the names of the parties had been given, and might be productive of great danger to individuals, and prevent government from in future receiving important information.—The house then divided—

Contents

27

Proxies

20—47

Non Contents

23

15—38

Majority for ld. Grenville's motion-9.

List of the Majority.

Gloucester,

Ellenborough,

Norfolk,

Lauderdale,

Somerset,

Selkirk.

Bedford,

Proxies

Essex,

Bute,

Carlisle,

Hereford,

Albemarle,

Thanet,

Jersey,

Bulkeley,

Spencer,

Lucan,

Cholmondeley,

Ossory,

Cowper,

Carnarvon,

St. Vincent,

Shaftesbury,

Grey,

Blandford,

Sidmouth,

Rosslyn,

St. John,

Guilford,

Darnley,

Buckinghamshire,

King,

Stawell,

Somers,

Mendip,

Holland,

Braybrooke,

Grenville,

Derby,

Auckland,

Carysfort,

Erskine,

Fife,

Moira,

Southampton,

Hutchinson,

Foley.

RESTITUTION OF THE DANISH FLEET.
Lord Sidmouthdesired that the clerk should read the proclamation issued by two noble lords prior to the attack upon

643
Copenhagen, and his majesty's Declaration. Both documents having been read accordingly, the noble lord said, that he rose to submit to their lordships the motion of which he had already given notice. The purport of that motion referred to the eventual restoration of the vessels captured at Copenhagen to Denmark; he would say, the eventual restoration, for it was possible that circumstances might arise which would render such an arrangement impracticable. It was not impossible but that Denmark might fall as much under the power of France as any of the continental. states, in which case no one would think of advising the restoration of the Danish navy; for to restore it to Denmark would be to place it at the disposal of France. In the proposition which he had to make, it was far from his intention to interfere with that incontrovertible prerogative of his majesty which placed at his disposal, all captures; neither was it his intention to contravene any expressed opinion of that house. Their lordships, by their vote on the first day of the session, had recognized the justice of the measure which placed the navy of Denmark in the possession of this country, and they had sanctioned and corroborated that decision by their subsequent vote, that no further papers were necessary. He was not, he would repeat, disposed to contravene these determinations. He was only acting on the principles of his majesty's Declaration; on the principles of the Proclamation issued by the two noble lords who commanded the expedition against Copenhagen; and on the principles upon which ministers justified that expedition, when he endeavoured to persuade their lordships, that the honour, the character, and the interests of this country were involved in eventual restoration of the Danish navy. Necessity and self-protection were the grounds upon which the seizure of the fleet of Denmark was justified. The rejection of an inadmissible offer was assigned as the reason for destroying the capital of a neutral state. We offered to take the fleet in deposit—an arrangement to which the court of Denmark could not possibly listen, without Compromising its honour, and exposing itself to the resentment of France. To this principle, he conceived, we were in honour bound to adhere. The offer of restoring the Danish navy upon the re-establishment of peace, was even made a fortnight after the declaration of war by the Crown Prince. But it might
644
be argued, that that prince refused to ratify the capitulation, and that by so doing he had precluded himself from any advantages derivable from the proclamation of our commanders, or the summons previous to the commencement of the bombardment. It was certainly true, that that high-minded personage had refused to ratify the capitulation; but did it appear that he acted in any manner to impede it? We were, he would contend, bound to act upon that principle upon which we had set out, namely, that of taking the Danish navy in deposit. To this we were no less bound by honour and policy than by the strictest interpretation of the law of nations. He would, with the permission of their lordships, read to them an extract from the ablest writer on that important subject, and which, though an extract, had nothing he could assure them in it which was not warranted by the context. His lordship here read several passages front Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, tending to support his argument. The conduct of the court of Denmark, he contended, could not be considered as hostile. The war began from us. We left the Crown Prince no alternative but that of war.— There was another reason which made him anxious that their lordships should adopt his motion at present. He had learned, that the Danish ships were ordered to be fitted out for the service of this country. He was anxious to prevent so precipitate and impolitic a measure. The ships, by what he had heard, were quite unqualified, or at least not qualified in the manner our ships were, for the wear and tear of our service. To render them so, would require an expence which could be applied, with far greater advantage, to the various ships now constructing, or under repair in our own dock-yards. But even if the Danish ships were in a state fit to proceed upon any service, he would still protest against their being employed. There was but one circumstance, the destruction of a great part of the navy of England, which would induce him to consent to our making any use of the Danish navy, with our present maritime superiority. We did not want ships. We had enough to contend with the united navies of the world. He could not perceive, therefore, the policy of fitting out this new accession to our maritime strength; but he could anticipate some probable advantages from following another course: he could devise no system of policy more likely to_conci

645
liate the Danes, and to draw them, by degrees, into that close and friendly connection with us in which they were formerly united. It would also tend to bring back the emperor of Russia to his natural connection with this country—a connection which was dissolved no less by imperious necessity, than the rash and unwarrantable attack upon the Danish capital. He also looked, he confessed, with great expectations, to the impression which a resolution of such magnanimity, justice, and consistency would make upon the nations of the continent. He could not anticipate any act of ours which could be more likely to shake that enormous influence which France had acquired over the rest of Europe. It was by arming all the nations of the continent against us, by placing them in array, by exciting their feelings against what was called our tyranny and injustice, that that man, who now wielded all the force of those nations, expected to prevail against us. The destruction of this country was the great object of his ambition: compared with this, his victories at Lodi, at Austerlitz, at Friedland, and at Auerstadt, were nothing in his estimation: to accomplish this, all his great talents, his genius, and his policy, were unceasingly directed. What more effectual mode could there be of counteracting this design, than to render the instruments by which he proposed to effect it unavailing in his hands? As long as England should preserve her ancient honour, magnanimity, and disinterestedness, it was not to be credited that the nations of the continent would zealously co-operate in any plan to destroy her.— He would no longer detain their lordships. It was not, as he stated at the commencement of his speech, his intention to interfere in the smallest degree with the exercise of the royal prerogative, or to suggest any thing calculated to lower the country in the estimation of foreign powers. His wish was, not to bind the government to any measure inconsistent with the dignity of the nation, but simply that the Danish navy should be kept in salva custodia. His lordship concluded with moving the following resolution: "That it is highly important to the honour of this country, that, under present circumstances, no measures be taken with respect to the Ships of war now in the possession of his maj. In consequence of the Capitulation of Copenhagen, which may preclude the eventual restitution of them to the government
646
of Denmark, agreeably to the spirit of the requisition referred to in the Proclamation issued on the 16th of Aug. last by the commanders in chief of his majesty's forces by sea and land employed on that occasion, and land employed on that occasion, and land employed on that occasion, and renewed in their letter of the 1st of Sept. to the commander in Chief of the land forces of his Danish majesty."*
Lord Boringdoncould not suppress the anxiety he felt to enter his protest, as early as possible, against the resolution submitted to the house by the noble visc. He conceived that a proposition more novel in its principle, more unsuitable to the circumstances of the case, or the interest of the country, could hardly he submitted to the consideration of the house. The external enemies of the country had pledged themselves to obtain a restitution of those ships; but he now, for the first time, had the mortification of seeing within those walls, a noble peer. rise up and support the arguments they had used, and in this respect aid their designs. It certainly was not within the walls of parliament that he had expected to have heard such arguments defended. It was not doing justice to the motion itself, to discuss it as if it were to be construed altogether literally, or as if the spirit of it would not go to the actual restoration of the Danish fleet; for if the house were to agree to such a resolution, it would be considered by all the World as an acknowledgment that we had acted unjustly, and a pledge that we would make a restitution as soon as it was compatible with our security. If we were now to give such an acknowledgment, it could be supposed that foreign nations would not take advantage of it at the moment of negociation for a general peace, and it would then appear as if we had no right to refuse it. The noble viscount had considered this as a case per se, and that there was nothing like it in our history. He might, however, have remembered the case of the ships taken at Toulon last war, which were surrendered to us by Frenchmen in trust only, and which were promised to be restored to the king of France. The French government gave every harsh epithet to this transaction; they called it perfidy, treachery, and piracy; and at the commencement of the negociation for a peace, required that those ships should be restored to them. The British government, however, would never listen to such
*See page 221.

647
a proposal; and the French ceased to insist upon it. If, however, a resolution similiar to that which was now proposed had been adopted on that occasion in parliament, the French government would never have receded from its claim, and those ships must have been restored to France. The noble viscount, however, under whose auspices the treaty of Amiens was concluded (a treaty which, whatever might be now said against it, he always thought and still did think, was proper under the circumstances in which it was made)— that noble lord himself did not think at that time that there was any thing in justice, morality, or the law of nations, which required that the Toulon fleet should be restored to France. There was another case somewhat similar, which occurred in the beginning of the present war with Spain. When the four Spanish frigates were taken previous to any declaration of war, the French inveighed bitterly against this act of piracy, as they called it, and yet they never thought of making it a condition of peace, that we should restore the ships and. dollars taken upon that occasion; but if, in either of those cases, a resolution had been passed in the British parliament similar to that which was now proposed, there could be no doubt but they would have demanded it, and insisted upon it. Besides, ill consequences would follow from pledging the country to restore the ships to Denmark, or in other words, to France. He must contend, that the act of seizing them was not an act of the character that had been described, but that it was an act of necessity justified by all the circumstances of the case. Denmark had, for a considerable number of years, shewn a hostile disposition towards G. Britain, and at the same time a sort of predilection for France, or at least an absolute acquiescence in every thing which that power did. This was exemplified, in their making no remonstrance when a Danish general was taken prisoner on their own frontiers; by their withdrawing their troops from the frontiers of Holstein, in obedience to the desire of France; by their submission to the Decree of Buonaparte, and in various other ways. If this predilection for France could be doubted by any noble lord, he should refer him to the very able dispatch of a noble earl (Grey) in answer to M. Rist, the Danish minister [p. 402] That noble earl, in the strongest and best-selected terms, had complained, "that the Da-
648
nish minister appeared in all things to excuse or palliate all the injuries received from France, but to exaggerate in the highest degree every complaint which Denmark could have against this country." Was this the conduct of a power really and sincerely neutral, or was it to be supposed that a feeble nation, which had such dispositions towards the two countries, would resist the demands of France after the treaty of Tilsit, and that its fleet would be safe under its own protection? If the danger was then imminent, the necessity of guarding against it was apparent; and if the measures of precaution which were necessarily taken led to hostilities, England was not to be blamed. It was to those powers, and to those circumstances which produced the necessity, that what had happened was to be attributed. He therefore most decidedly objected to the resolution proposed; first, because he thought it would be acknowledging that we had done a wrong, when in fact we had done no wrong; and, 2dly, instead of leading to a peace, he thought it would shut the door to peace, by engaging ourselves, as a preliminary, to give up that which neither justice required, nor security permitted to be given up.
Lord Ellenboroughdiffered entirely from the sentiments of the noble lord who spoke last, and found himself called upon to support the motion. As to the cases referred to by the noble lord, as bearing a near analogy to the present, he must say that he did not see that analogy. He had often heard it said, that there was nothing more dissimilar than a simile, and he thought the noble lord had given an in, stance of the truth of that saying, by the cases which he had quoted. The case of the Spanish frigates, taken at the beginning of the war, was as unlike it as any case could be, for we had against Spain, at that time, at least reasonable ground of war. He, for another reason, never approved of the seizure or those frigates. This country had so much encouraged that particular sort of trade by licences, that he thought it unjust to seize upon as a prey, that property which was probably coming home on the faith of our implied permission.—As to the ships taken at Toulon, they were taken from a nation with Whom we were at war; and although, we were assisted in the capture by Frenchmen, who were adverse to the government then subsisting, yet there could be no pretence for

649
requiring those ships to be giving back again to France, except that we entered into an agreement with Frenchmen in opposition to the then subsisting government, by which we engaged to restore the ships to Louis XVIII when he should be restored to the throne of France. It could hardly be contended that such an agreement, either by its letter or its spirit, bound us to give back the ships to other persons than those for whom we took them in trust. The case of the capture of the Danish fleet was totally different, as it was taken not from enemies but from neutrals. In considering the propriety of adopting the present resolution, he should argue on the ground of the necessity being completely acknowledged, although his own opinion of it was very different. If he were to decline however, stating what his opinion was of the justice and policy of the measure, he feared he should be thought to be, in some measure, coquetting with the house. He.should therefore declare, that, in his opinion, there was no act that had ever been committed by the government of this country, which so much disgraced its character and stained its honour; and, as an Englishman, he felt dishonoured, whenever the national honour was tarnished. He could not avoid reprobating in severe terms the expedition to Copenhagen it reminded him of
The ill omened bark, Built in th' eclipse, and rigg'd with curses dark. He thought the object it had in view was most unjustifiable, and that even in the success of that object, it would bring great calamity upon the country. When it was attempted to be justified on the plea of necessity, it should be recollected, that by that word was meant an urgent necessity, and not a mere predominating convenience. It appeared to him, that many persons considered it justification enough to say, that it was very convenient for the country, in this instance, to appropriate to itself that property which another, who had the right, was possessed of. This was a sort of doctrine which he was so much in the habit of reprobating at the Old Bailey and other places, that he could not avoid expressing himself with some warmth when he heard that principle urged as an ample justification to the nation, which never could be admitted among. individuals. As to what was stated of hostilities afterwards taking place with Denmark, he thought that circumstance made no difference. If he
650
were to refer to the case so often quoted, of a person being justified by necessity in pushing another off a plank into the sea, it must still be allowed that the other was equally justified in retaining possession of the plank if he could, and that his endeavouring to retain it was no act of hostility against us. It appeared to him, that the right of Denmark to a restitution of the property so taken was by no means altered by any subsequent hostilities; and that this right was so clear, that we might make up our minds to the restitution being demanded at the conclusion of peace. He therefore thought that we should keep them in such a state, as that the restitution might be made with as little expence or inconvenience as possible. He was perpared for doing justice; but he would wish in some degree to exercise a penurious justice, so that the restitution should not be more burthensome to the country than was absolutely necessary. For these reasons, he entirely coincided in the motion of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that from the high respect he felt for his noble and learned friend, and from the weight his opinions always carried, he felt anxious to remove the impression which his noble and learned friend had made. The noble and learned lord had appeared to dispose in a very summary manner, both of the justice and morality of the Copenhagen expedition, and of the cases cited by his noble friend. He should however, take the liberty, on the former point, of expressing his sentiments in the same decisive tone, and say, that so far from feeling himself dishonoured, as an Englishman, by the expedition, he should have felt himself dishonoured, if, under all the circumstances of the case, he had hesitated to concur with his colleagues in advising the expedition. His noble and learned friend did, indeed, recommend a 'penurious' justice; for if indeed the expedition was unjust and dishonourable—if it stained the national character and was contrary to honesty, then, instead of keeping the ships in any particular way, and at any given expence, they ought immediately to be restored, and ample satisfaction made; but he was always ready to contend, and he believed the feelings of the great majority of the country was with him, that the national character had not been dishonoured by an act which the circumstances of the times had rendered necessary. He believed the country would feel that this

651
great national question ought not to be decided altogether by the ordinary rules which governed the decisions at the Old Bailey; but at all events he should hope, that if his noble and learned friend was reprobating the principles before a jury at the Old Bailey, he would not forget, when he stated his opinion, to detail the evidence on which that opinion was founded. He could not agree with his noble and learned friend, that the cases referred to by a noble friend of his, were quite foreign to the present question. As to the Toulon business, unless we were entirely to throw aside the musty records of the law of nations, it would at first sight have appeared, that the French government might justly claim that restitution; for it was a rule acknowledged by all writers on the law of nations, that what was public property, belonging to a state belonged still to that nation, whatever changes might take place in its government. The capture of the Dutch prizes, in the last war, was somewhat of the same principle: we took them from the Dutch while they were under the absolute influence of France, intending and engaging to restore them when Holland should again recover her freedom. After that period, we made a treaty of peace with Holland, in which her independence was completely acknowledged, and yet there was no restitution of the prizes taken from the Dutch before a declaration of war. He mentioned those cases, to shew that the instance then before the consideration of the house, was not, as had been represented, a case per se. He considered that the resolution would be highly improper, as pledging the country to make restitution of what there was no pretence to restore, after the hostilities which has since taken place between this country and Denmark; and he thought it would be much more improper, as it would be an acknowledgment that we had acted improperly on an occasion, where our conduct could be strictly justified by the principles of self-preservation, by the law of nations, and the circumstances of the case.
Lord Hollandthought it necessary to recal the attention of noble lords to what really was the true question before the house. It had been considerably misrepresented and mis-stated. The question did not, as had been apprehended by the noble and learned lord upon the woolsack, at all intrench upon or in any degree affect, the prerogative of the crown. It
652
was, whether that house would resolve that it was expedient that the government should reserve to itself the power of restoring, eventually, the ships seized by us at Copenhagen, to the Danes. But noble lords swerved from this question, and had gone to that of the justification of the expedition itself. He certainly did think still, as he had always thought, that that expedition could not be warranted but upon the ground of necessity, and no case of necessity had been yet made out; that house, at least, was in possession of no evidence whatever to warrant them in deciding that expedition to have been the result of hard necessity. He was not inclined at present to go into any exposition of the shifting, prevaricating testimony, which had been resorted to in defence of that measure; at one time Denmark was represented as sincere in her professions of neutrality, but too weak to act up to her intentions; at another, they were told, that as her sincerity was questionable, her means of annoyance were to be feared and provided against; again, it was pretended that the sole ground of the expedition was the secret arrangements of the Treaty of Tilsit, and when it was attempted to trace their alledged information to any authentic source, Portugal was at one period brought forward as an informer; and at another the disaffected Irish. This sort of shifting naturally created suspicion in the mind of every impartial man. The noble lord then proceeded to consider the present motion in reference to the question of peace, and appealed to the feelings of noble lords, if it would not be more for the honour of the country, if they could commence a negociation, after a voluntary concession upon their parts, rather than the subsequent degradation of a forced surrender, exacted by the stipulations of a treaty?
Lord Harrowbydefended the expedition, and opposed the resolution, which he considered would not only be dangerous to adopt, but improper in its principle. A noble and learned lord had begun by saying, that he should argue the question, as if the necessity had been proved; and yet he took occasion to reprobate both the justice and policy of the measure, in the most severe and unqualified terms. The only reason which he had assigned for departing from the line of argument which he himself had laid down, was, that he feared he might be considered as 'coquetting' with the house,

653
if he did not let them know his entire opinion. The house might, perhaps, have excused a little of that sort of coquetting. The noble lords who entertained the same opinion that he did, might also have excused it. They might have applied to the noble and learned lord the well-known lines—
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But why should you kick us down stairs?
It appeared to him most undeniable, that a case of necessity was so made out, as fully justified the expedition, and the possessing ourselves of the Danish fleet; but as hostilities had since broke out between this country and Denmark, in spite of all our efforts to avert it, he did not see on what principle, or from what precedents we could be called upon to restore what we had taken from a neutral, but which was condemned as the property of an enemy after hostilities had broken out. As he therefore thought the expedition just, because it was necessary, and as he thought the ships had been fairly condemned, when the power they were taken from became an enemy, he could not support a resolution which implied that the seizure was unjust, and which would, in a manner, pledge the country to make restitution of that which he did not think we could be justly called upon to restore.
Lord Erskineargued at considerable length to shew the injustice and impolicy of the expedition to Copenhagen, and the expediency of agreeing to the noble visc.'s motion. He concurred with his noble and learned friend, as to the Old Bailey kind of necessity urged in its defence. And with respect to eventually retaining the fleet in our possession, it was surely impossible that we could think of doing so, after the declaration made to the Danes, in which it was expressly stated, that their fleet was required as 'a deposit' in our hands. Were We to attempt ultimately to keep them, we should act like a man, who, from the apprehension of being attacked by thieves on the road, should, for his defence, seize a fowling-piece from a neighbour, who was too weak to resist him, and afterwards point the identical weapon against its master's breast, and go out sporting with it for a whole season. His noble and learned friend had been accused of kicking his majesty's ministers down stairs in the debate. This he certainly had not done, for the former discussions on this subject had long left them at the
654
bottom. He congratulated himself, that he had at least entered a solemn Protest against the measure adopted by his maj.'s government, and by that means had escaped the accusation of being a partner in their guilt. This country had formerly been the day-star of Europe. To her Europe had looked for an example of steady fidelity and honour, and adherence to the law of nations. If from this proud eminence of reputation, she should be hurled by the criminal conduct of his majesty's ministers, we should irrecoverably sink into the gulph of ruin and infamy, and no one would say 'God bless us.'
The Earl of Westmorelandopposed the motion of the noble viscount, and deprecated the conduct of that eighth wonder of the world, the last administration, who having by their weak counsels, and total inaction, placed the country in a state of the utmost peril, censured the wise and energetic measures of his majesty's present government, by which we had been rescued from the danger. The necessity for the steps which had been taken by us was notorious. His majesty, in his most gracious speech, had declared that information of that necessity had been received by him; a declaration which, constitutionally speaking, ought to have been received without hesitation. This information was of a nature that could not be communicated to parliament, but, did it follow, that the executive government were not justified in acting upon it? If the executive government were restricted from acting but on information that they could communicate to parliament, the country might soon become like the wrestler, so beautifully alluded to by Demosthenes, who, instead of defending himself from blows meditated against him, was occupied in guarding against blows already struck.
The Earl of Selkirkargued, that the question had not been fairly met. The motion did not go to pledge this country to the restoration of the Danish ships, but merely to keep it in our power, if circumstances should hereafter enable us to do so with safety. It must be a matter of doubt whether that situation of things would or would not arise; but to look to its probability could not imply a censure on the expedition to Copenhagen. It had been said, that the motion was only an indirect censure, and could not meet the concurrence of any, but those who reprobated the whole of our conduct towards

655
Denmark.—The noble earl said, that in his own individual case, he found a proof of the reverse. He considered the seizure of the Danish navy as justifiable, on the ground of the notorious interest of France to make use of that navy against this country, and the notorious incapacity of Denmark to resist her demands. The expedition had, indeed, an appearance of deviating from the usual moderation of the British government, and, on that ground, he had felt at first a repugnance to the measure. But, after a fair consideration of the arguments on both sides, he could not deny that the urgency of the case, and the necessity of our own preservation, formed a sufficient apology for the aggression. Since, however, it was only on the plea of necessity and of self preservation that we justified the harshness of our conduct towards a peaceable and unoffending state, our measures ought not to be carried farther than this necessity required. So far from being inconsistent, the very principles of the expedition should dictate the adoption of the motion. The necessity of withdrawing the navy of Denmark from the grasp of France, could not imply any necessity for employing the Danish ships in preference to our own: it was due to the national honour to shew that the conduct of this country had not been actuated by motives of rapacity, and that the conciliatory offers, made by our commanders at Copenhagen, were not mere pretexts, which we intended to disregard, as soon as we had secured our object.
Lord Redesdaleperfectly coincided in opinion with the noble earl near him, that the present motion went to pass a censure on his majesty's ministers; and as such he could not agree to it. It had been said by a noble lord, that Denmark had been friendly towards this country. He denied the truth of this assertion. It fell to his lot to know that Denmark had not been friendly towards us. He had it on the authority of persons who resided a considerable time at the court of Copenhagen, that the Danes, so far from being friendly, had for many years past entertained hostile sentiments towards this country. They had uniformly submitted to every aggression on the part of France, while they never gave up any point to England. When almost all the other powers of Europe had confederated against France, Denmark uniformly resisted every attempt that had been made to induce her to take

656
a part in the confederacy. When an armed neutrality was formed against this country in the North of Europe, Denmark was almost the first to take a part in it. And upon the late occasion, when we called upon her to give up the fleet as a deposit in our hands, did she not obstinately resist every overture that might lead to an accommodation? What other inference could be drawn from all this, but that Denmark was secretly favouring the views, and would not resist any demand made by France to get possession of her fleet. Under all these circumstances, the seizure of that fleet was not only justifiable, but ministers would have acted with the most criminal negligence, had they not sent an armament to seize that fleet. But as to any idea of restoring this fleet, how could it be done with persons who were in a state of open hostility with us? Was it fit to propose such a measure, at a time when the emperor of Russia was arming his fleets against us, and when the Danes themselves were leagued with France? To offer such a thing now, would be holding out beforehand those terms of accommodation, which ought only to form the subject of future negociation.
Earl Darnleydid not think that ministers had made out a case to justify the steps they had taken. They no doubt flattered themselves that John Bull, looking no farther than the capture of 16 ships of the line, would think it a glorious achievement. But they were mistaken, and would find that the people of this country were not to be so easily deluded. He condemned the expedition in toto, and heartily concurred in the motion.
The Earl of Mulgravebegged leave to call their lordships' attention to the true state of the question. It had been stated by the noble visc. who brought forward the motion, that the measure of the Expedition to Copenhagen was out of the question; but still he had couched his motion in such a manner, as to make it neither more nor less than a direct condemnation of his majesty's ministers for their conduct with regard to that expedition. He desired the paper, or summons to surrender, No. 3, to be read, [p. 223.] which was read accordingly, and purported, that if the terms then offered were not agreed to, the conditions stipulated with respect to the fleet must cease. His lordship said, that after hearing that, he would put it to the house whether the whole argument as to the ships being taken as a deposit, and

657
not as a capture, was not entirely at an end. With respect to the argument of the fowling-piece, used by the noble and learned lord, he thought it made directly against the motion; for the person whom his lordship stated to have the fowling-piece, attempted to defend it against his intended protector, and said, that rather than surrender it he would join with the person who attacked him; so, in like manner, the neutral who put himself under the protection of the enemy, became liable to seizure. The question of to night, he said, came at the very worst period it possibly could come. It was called on at a time when it was acknowledged, that even a restoration of peace would not do away the hatred of the Danes: at a moment when it was evident the emperor of Russia was anxious to revive the old system of the armed neutrality, which every one of their lordships might be convinced it was so much the interest of this country to resist and to destroy by every means in her power: at a moment when it had been clearly shewn, that Denmark was ready and willing to throw herself into the arms of France; and it ought to be remembered, that Denmark, by the late expedition and seizure of her fleet, had been deprived of the power of carrying her hostile intentions into effect, for she was not in a situation to replace or restore such a fleet. It had been said, by those who supported the motion, that we did not want ships but men; but on what data was this taken up? He did not think it necessary to enter into a detail on that subject, but would content himself with reminding those who used it, that the history of this country had invariably proved that men would spring forward, and have done so on all occasions when the service of their country required them so to do, but that ships were very difficult to be procured. On the contrary, the enemy did not want men, but they were in the greatest want of ships; and, therefore, depriving them of 16 sail of the line was of the utmost importance in the present state of affairs in Europe. If the arguments of the noble and learned lord were true, that 40 shipwrights could build a ship of the line in 12 months, and that from the number the ruler of France had it in his power to employ, he might obtain 100 sail of the line in a year, it was the more necessary to deprive him of all contingent assistance. The supporters of the motion did not, he said, condescend to bestow on him and his colleagues, who
658
were poor weak men devoid of talents, the same portion of allowance they had given to others in similar circumstances. When the so-much-talked-of capital of Denmark was attacked on a former occasion, during the administration of the noble visc. in consequence of the court of Denmark having become a party to the armed neutrality, a ship had been taken. Did the noble visc. in his generosity, dignity; and magnanimity, give up that ship; No; she was taken into actual service; and the same circumstance took place respecting her, which had been so much the subject of sarcasm and censure in that house; her name was changed, and from the Holstein she was christened the Nassau. It was evident, therefore, that what was now found so much fault with in the conduct of the present ministers, had been actually the practice of their predecessors; and as he could not view this motion in any other light than a palpable and downright censure of the expedition, which had received the approbation of their lordships, he must give his decided negative to it.
Lord Grenvilledenied that the house had yet come to a decision on the merits of the expedition to Denmark; the evidence relative to which had not been laid before it. If, therefore, the house had decided, it must have decided without evidence, from which, indeed, it seemed too willing to turn aside. The unwillingness to look at, much less to examine the merits of this case, was but too glaring and general. Even its warmest advocates betrayed their feeling of its real character, by their anxiety to rescue it from investigation, and to pronounce on it without evidence. When this measure was first talked of, it was attempted to be justified by the allegation of some secret articles in the treaty of Tilsit, tantamount to a stipulation for the surrender of the Danish fleet to France; and certainly that allegation had considerable weight with his mind, as no doubt it had with that of others. But the manner in which this allegation was afterwards sustained, the successive publications which served step after step to fritter away its force, speedily led him to the opinion, that the ground upon which the supporters of the expedition professed to act was utterly untenable.—With regard to the doctrine, that the unfriendly disposition of Denmark towards this country was a justifiable cause of war, the noble lord in the most impressive terms protested against it. According to the law

659
of nations, the noble lord contended, that there were only two legitimate causes of war, namely, the evident disposition of a state to engage in war, or the actual commencement of hostilities. But in pleading for the Danish expedition, its projectors, aware that no one adequate reason could be assigned for their conduct, seemed to look for support to the accumulation of a number of small reasons. They could not certainly maintain that the treaty of Tilsit was the cause of their attack upon Copenhagen, for to that treaty Russia was a party, towards which government they professed an amicable disposition after that attack had terminated. It had been insinuated, that in urging this point he, and those who thought with him, were pleading for the enemy, while, in point of fact, they were pleading the cause of their country, and of their king, whose name had been used to allege that which the enemy had it in his power to contradict, and to contradict with truth. For, as it was now manifest, there were no secret articles or secret arrangements at Tilsit, as had been originally stated, to justify the Danish expedition, credulity itself could no longer attend to any such statement, after the conversation which a noble friend of his had mentioned to have taken place between him and the emperor of Russia; but if these much talked of secret articles had really existed, or been seriously suspected by ministers to have an existence, it would surely have been natural to look for some allusion to them in the Declaration of our ambassador at Petersburgh, when accounting for the attack upon Denmark. He, however, did not state a word about them; on the contrary, he alledged that one gentleman had for a long time reason to suspect the intention of the enemy to take possession of the Danish fleet, for the purpose of employing it against this country.—The noble lord explained the object of the motion, which appeared to be much misunderstood by some of the noble lords on the other side. It was by no means proposed that the Danish fleet should be restored under any particular circumstances; but merely, that in order to facilitate a reconciliation, and with a view to economy also, that it should be kept in such a state as to prevent any obstructions to peace with Denmark, by enabling us to restore it with the least possible expence and difficulty.—After deprecating the principle, that a state of war should cancel moral obligations, or that we
660
should shrink from doing justice lest it should lead to loss, the noble lord proceeded to comment upon the consequences likely to result to us from the nature of our attack upon Copenhagen. So far from destroying, the naval resources of Denmark by that attack, we had, he contended, particularly by the spirit we had produced, contributed to promote and extend those resources. Denmark could easily repair the loss she sustained by the captures we had made. The ports and arsenals were still remaining, with a vast quantity of naval materials, which naturally belonged to her; and any supply she wanted, she could obtain without difficulty. We were not, therefore, to suppose that we had, by the success of our unjust attack upon Denmark, rendered the naval resources of that state much less formidable than they were before. The profit derivable from our iniquity was, in fact, immaterial, while we had created a spirit, and valour, and animosity to fight against us, which must furnish powerful aid to the common enemy.—The noble lord concluded with expressing his cordial concurrence in the principle and object of the motion.
Lord Hawk sburysaid, he would not, at that late hour, trespass long on their lordships' time, but begged their attention, while he made a few observations, by way of very shortly giving his negative to the motion. The argument of the noble lord who spoke last appeared to him to be involved in great confusion; but he wished to recal their lordships' attention to the true state of the question; and he thought, when he did so, it would appear that it was neither more nor less than that, under a pretence of restoring the Danish fleet, the motion went directly to censure the conduct of ministers, in the expedition to Copenhagen, of which their lordships had already expressed their approbation. If we were obliged to act against a power as we had been against Denmark, could any such procedure be carried on with more caution than that whole transaction had been attended with? We made them every offer to conciliation that could be devised before the army landed, and met not only with a refusa1 to enter into a negotiation, but this refusal was repeated after the army landed; and even just before the bombardment commenced, the same offers at negotiation were again made and again rejected; and they not only refused the very conciliatory terms that were offered them, but even declared that they

661
would make common cause with our enemy. If they had shewn any disposition to negotiate or to keep on amica terms with this country, there might be some ground for the present motion; but having acted in the very manner they had done, they certainly had forfeited all claim to such treatment as was intended to be held out to them. In this view of the matter, he thought the motion was extremely illtimed, and that it ought to be resisted. A case had already been made out, which, in the face of parliament, and of the world, would justify ministers, who, in this, as in the instance of Portugal, had rescued the country from an impending and most imminent danger.
Lord Sidmouthreplied with considerable animation. He felt gratified at the discussion which the resolution had called forth, although he must say that it had experienced, from the noble lords who opposed it, a good deal of misrepresentation. He contended, that the analogy attempted with respect to the Toulon fleet, and the capture of the Spanish ships, did not at all apply to the case of Copenhagen. In the former instances, circumstances of hostility had taken place sufficient to justify a declaration, but the attack against Copenhagen had the two characteristics of surprize and spoliation committed on neutral, independent, and friendly power. Madeira had also been alluded to, but it was out of all fair and legitimate comparison to make any such resemblance. The conduct of G. Britain, on that occasion, was that of a friendly power extending its protection to a weak but friendly nation in the hour of impending distress. In what fell from the noble secretary, there was nothing to convince his mind. His arguments alone went to say, that, because this country had commenced a career of injustice, therefore it ought to persevere in it. He felt the converse of the proposition, as due to the hitherto proud character of G. Britain, and with such an impression he alone came forward, unbiassed by any party hostility to his majesty's servants, to perform the duty he owed to himself and his country.—The motion being loudly called for, the house divided, when there appeared—

Contents

31,

Proxies

20—51.

Non-contents,

61,

44—105.

Majority against the resolution..—.54.