Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

apprized of the true grounds of entering into new wars, and especially in a situation of the country, so extraordinary and unprecedented as the present.

"That had Denmark been a party to any hostile confederacy, either for menacing his majesty's territories, or invading his maritime rights, our resistance would have been necessary, and our warfare legitimate; and that, under such circumstances, this house would only have had to regret that his majesty should have been advised so lightly to abandon the ports and arsenals of that country; for that, had the alleged danger been real, the possession of those ports during the war would have afforded the best security against that danger; whereas the abandonment of them has now left us more than ever exposed to it.

But that we can entertain no doubt that, instead of engaging in hostile leagues, Denmark wished only to maintain her neutrality; that this fact is proved even by the imperfect documents which have been laid before us; and is distinctly acknowledged in the proclamation issued by his majesty's commanders immediately before the attack.

"That not only was Denmark no party to such a league, but we see no ground to believe that she was privy to it; and the very fact of its existence is, to say the least, in the highest degree questionable.

"That the conclusion of any secret articles at Tilsit, affecting the rights and interests of this country, appears to have been uniformly denied, both by Russia and France; and that the correspondence of his majesty's secretary

of state, and the dates of the transactions prove that if any such articles did exist, his majesty's ministers were not in possession of them, when the attack was ordered against Copenhagen.

"That his majesty's ambassador at St. Petersburgh, in an official note, rested the defence of that measure, not on the hostile purposes either of Denmark or of Russia, but solely on designs which it was said the French government had long been known to entertain.

"And that his majesty's ministers not only advised his majesty to abstain from those measures of hostility against Russia, which it was their duty to have recommended, had they really believed in the existence of such engagements; but they actually solicited her mediation to extinguish that war, and her guarantee to defeat those projects, in which it is now pretended she was known to have been a principal and contracting party.

"That allegations, thus inconsistent with themselves, and contrary to the admitted facts, rather weaken than support the case to which they are applied.

"That, with respect to the pretended necessity of the case, we beg leave respectfully to assure his majesty, that we cannot think so meanly of the power and resources of his empire, of the spirit of his people, or of the valour and discipline of his fleets and armies, as to admit that such an act would have been required for any purpose of self-preservation.

"And that, whatever temporary advantages the possession of the ships and stores taken at Copenhagen may afford, have been more

than

than counterbalanced by the increased dangers arising from the manner in which they have been obtained.

"That this measure, so highly objectionable both in policy and in principle, has augmented the number of our enemies; has animated against us the passions of whole nations, who before were amicably disposed towards us; and has, above all, shaken our own reliance on the justice of our cause; the only sentiment which has hitherto upheld us in all our difficulties; commanding the respect of other nations, and inspiring our own people with a confident expectation, under the blessing of Providence, of a successful termination of a long and arduous contest.

"That we are ever unwilling to pronounce definitively on a measure, the whole grounds of which are not before us; but that, in a case which, above all others, required the clearest proof, we have the deepest mortification at being compelled to acknowledge, that every presumption is against us; and that no evidence has yet been adduced on which we can safely rest the defence of our country, from accusations the most injurious to our national character.

Mr. Sharp's motion was sup. ported on the usual grounds, by Mr. Orde, Mr. H. Lushington, Mr. Abercrombie, Dr. Lawrence, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Whitbread, and lord Henry Petty. As to the Russian war, ford Petty was willing to concede, that this might have arisen even if the Danish expedition had not taken place; but, it would have been a war of a different character. We should not have had the opinion, and the people of Russia

against us. The secretary for foreign affairs, and his advocates, in a manner confessed the inefficacy of a war of justice against injustice, and to proclaim to the world this dangerous and degrading doctrine, that England was warranted and resolved to employ the worst weapons used by France, for the purpose of overcoming what it called French iniquity. The motion was opposed by

Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Porcher, lord L. Gower, Mr. Robert Thornton, the Secretary at War, Mr. Croker, and Mr. Canning. The secretary at war adverted to a fact, which appears indeed, in the present question, to be of great weight. He read an extract from official papers, to shew that at one period some steps had been taken by the Danish government for enabling its fleet to oppose the passage of the French from the continent. But these had been abandoned, and when the moment of danger came, it was perfectly unprovided and unprepared for resistance.

Of all the arguments used on the other side of the house, Mr. Sharp conceived the plain translation to be this, that any belligerent power is entitled to seize upon any means of attack and defence that a neutral power may possess, lest those means should be seized by another belligerent. He entreated the house to consider to what consequences the establishment of such a doctrine must lead. The house divided.-For the motion 64-. Against it 221.

House of Lords, March 24.The earl of Suffolk, who had not as yet heard any satisfactory explanation of the ground on which

such

[ocr errors]

such a violent attack had been made on Copenhagen, moved an address to his majesty, praying that directions might be given to lay before the house such correspondence as had taken place between Mr. Garlicke and the secretary of state, from November 1806, to July 1807, respecting the designs which Denmark, in conjunction with Russia, was supposed to be meditating against this country.

Lord Hawkesbury observed, that the papers now moved for by the noble lord, had already been refused, and that the motion for which they were wanted had been negatived, after mature consideration and long discussion.

Lord Grenville contended, that on the subject to which the motion referred, the house were still very imperfectly informed. The motion was also supported by earl Grey. The question being put, was negatived.

House of Commons, March 29. -Lord Folkestone, after a suitable preface, moved an address to his majesty of the same tenour as that proposed by lord Sidmouth in the house of lords; the main drift of it being, that his majesty might be pleased to give directions, that the Danish fleet should be kept in such a state of repair and preparation, as to render it possible that it might be restored as soon as it could be done, consistently with the security of his own dominions, and to declare his intention of so doing.

Lord Folkestone's motion was supported by Mr. Brand, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Mr. Hanbury Tracy, Mr. Babington, Mr. Bathurst, and Sir James Hall; and opposed by Sir Thomas Turton, Mr. Simeon, Mr. James

Stephen, and Mr. Davy Giddy. On a division of the house, there appeared for Lord Folkestone's motion 44-Against it 105.

House of Lords, May 17.-Lord viscount Sidmouth rose, in pursuance of notice, to call their lordships' attention to the subject of the Danish vessels detained previous to hostilities. It was a principle of natural justice, acknowledged by the law of nations, that vessels carrying on trade in the ports of any country should receive protection, until some cause of hostility should have arisen. But the Danish vessels had been seized without any previous cause of hostility. He had stated on a former occasion, that the proceeds of the whole of these vessels and cargoes amounted to near 2,000,000l. He now proceeded to shew, by a statement of particulars, that he did not make that statement on light grounds. The amount of the sum, however, made no difference with respect to the principle on which the motion he was about to submit to the house was founded. He was aware that British property to a considerable extent had been sequestrated in Denmark, after hostilities had been commenced by this country; and he thought it fair that the proceeds of the Danish vessels should be answerable, in the first instance, for the amount of this property. Having stated the drift of the resolutions now to be moved for, he lamented that a disposition had lately been shewn to depart from those principles of justice which had hitherto characterized the conduct of this country, in order, as it had been alleged, to meet the injustice of the enemy. His wish was, that those principles, although driven out of every part of

the

the continent should find an asylum in Great Britain, and be here cherished and supported; thus rendering our conduct, as stated from the throne in 1794, a contrast to that of the enemy, ultimately maintaining and exalting our character, and contributing to real security. His lordship concluded, by moving the following resolutions:

"That it appears to this house, that ships and other property to a large number and amount, belonging to subjects of his Danish majesty, have been seized and detained under orders and instructions, issued before information was received by the British government of the commencement of hostilities with Denmark; and at a time when there was no alleged or supposed cause of war or reprisals, and when in pursuit of a peaceable and lawful commerce, there was an unusual accumulation of Danish ships and cargoes in our ports, under the most perfect confidence of security; and that the said ships and other property have been since condemned as prize to the crown.

"That in consideration of the extraordinary circumstances under which the said orders and instructions were issued, it is highly expedient, that except for the purpose of indemnifying such British subjects as may have suffered from the sequestration of their property in Denmark, the appropriation of the proceeds of the said ships and other effects should be suspended, so that no obstacle may be occasioned thereby to such eventual compensation to the original owners as circumstances may appear to admit of, and as his majesty in his

justice and liberality may be pleased to direct.

"That it would be highly honourable to the character of this country, that, considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, all mariners and others detained and taken in consequence of the orders and instructions aforesaid, should be released upon such terms and conditions as his majesty may think fit to require.

"That at the time of issuing the orders and instructions aforesaid, there were also in the ports of this kingdom many ships and cargoes belonging to subjects of his Danish majesty, which having been unjustly and wrongfully brought into the said ports, had been decreed to be restored to the owners; and that many more then under adjudication must, as it appears, have been in like manner decreed to be restored: that freight-money, to a large amount, had been, and other sums of the like nature must have been, pronounced to be due: all which ships, cargoes, and freightmoney have, in consequence of the supervening hostilities, been condemned as prize to the crown.

"That it is essentialto justice and to the honour of the British name, as well as conformable to the ancient practice of our courts, and to the established principles of the law of nations, that effectual means be adopted for giving to the owners of the said ships, and other property, the full benefit of the decrees pronounced in their favour by the high court of admiralty, or by his majesty's high court of appeal for prizes; and the adoption of such means is rendered the more obligatory on the faith of this na

tion, inasmuch as the positive stipulation of a treaty then subsisting between this country and Denmark, was intended to provide against a delay, which, however unavoidable in the present instance, has proved so injurious to the interests of the subjects of Denmark.

"That it is equally essential to justice and to the honour of the British name, that the crews, or such part of them as had remained in this kingdom, for the better custody and protection of the ships and cargoes so as aforesaid ordered to be restored, should no longer be considered as prisoners of war.

"That the principles of the foregoing resolutions be considered as extending to the proceedings of all his majesty's courts of prize, wherever the facts of the case, which at present are not before this house, shall warrant their application."

Lord Sidmouth's motion was supported by lord Erskine, lord Ellenborough, earl Stanhope, and the earl of Lauderdale.

Lord Erskine maintained, that those who combated the present proposition must show that there was an actual necessity for detaining and keeping these trading vessels; otherwise the owners were entitled, in justice, to a compensation.

LordLauderdale maintained, that there was never any thing in the

history of our wars, that bore the smallest resemblance to the present transaction.

The motion was opposed by the lord chancellor Eldon, and lord Hawkesbury.

Lord Eldon maintained, that as the law stood, a vessel detained, although there might be no reason for the detention at the time, became forfeited to the crown. This might operate as a hard case in many instances on individuals; but he had great doubts, whether there could be any thing like a commercial peace, and a political war at the same time. Such a system, and the idea of compensation for losses, would only lead towards speculations on the part of individuals.

Lord Hawkesbury went over the same ground, contended that the war on the part of Denmark was entirely optional, and in fact courted by that country, and also, that the seizing of the Danish ships was not without precedent.

Lord Sidmouth's first resolution being moved, the house divided.Contents 16-Against it 36.

And on the fourth resolution, which related to the ships that had been previously ordered by the admiralty courts to be restored, another division took place. Contents 16-Non-contents 37.

С НА Р.

« VorigeDoorgaan »