HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, February 18. ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord Grenville alluding 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 Hawkesbury said, 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 Grey was 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 VOL. X. 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 Montrose opposed the mo tion, 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 Erskine contended, 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 Chancellor contended, 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 15-38 Non Contents 23 .... Majority for ld. Grenville's motion-9. List of the Majority. Gloucester, Norfolk, Somerset, Bedford, Essex, Carlisle, Albemarle, Jersey, Spencer, 1 Cholmondeley, Cowper, St Grey, Sidmouth, St. John, Darnley, King, Somers, Holland, Grenville, Auckland, Erskine, Moira, Hutchinson, Ellenborough, Lauderdale, Selkirk. Bute, Froxies. Hereford, Thanet, Bulkeley, Lucan, Ossory, Carnarvon, Shaftesbury, Blandford, Rosslyn, Guilford, Buckinghamshire, Mendip, Derby, RESTITUTION OF THE DANISH FLEET.) - Lord Sidmouth desired that the clerk should read the proclamation issued by two noble lords prior to the attack upon 2 T Copenhagen, and his majesty's Declara-'| tion. 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 the 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 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 from 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 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 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 renewed in their letter of the 1st of Sept. to the commander in chief of the land forces of his Danish majesty."* Lord Boringdon could 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 be 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 not 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. a proposal; and the French ceased to in- | nish minister appeared in all things to sist upon it. If, however, a resolution similiar to that which was now proposed had heen 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 properunder 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 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 required that the Toulon fleet should be | taken led to hostilities, England was not 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 with drawing 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 eart (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 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 Ellenborough differed 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 instance 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 of 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 L 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 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 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 Chancellor said, 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 |