« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
fect place Denmark in a situation of aiding the hostilities of that power.-It so nearly concerns the safety of both powers to cultivate the most friendly understanding, in order to prepare the means of defence against a danger which equally threatens both, that this alone ought to obliterate the jealousies which have too much prevailed between the courts of Stockholm and Copenhagen.--So obvious and so pressing a consideration, it is, however, but too evident from the tenor of your dispatches, has not had its due weight; and your constant attention and good offices will be employed to remove, as much as possible, the causes of that mutual suspicion and distrust, which must favour the designs of the common enemy. The evident necessity of providing for the security of his own dominions must, as I have formerly stated, suthiciently account for the preparations of the king of Sweden. Situated as he is, it is as clearly necessary for his Swedish majesty to require an explanation of the intentions of the court of Copenhagen. You will therefore support any requisition of this nature, which may be made in a friendly manner by the Swedish minister, with a view to those preparations of defence so imperiously called for by the present crisis.
cipal persons, and repel the confidence they seem willing to manifest.-The explanation into which I have entered, will, I hope, guard me from the supposition of not endeavouring to give the proper effect to the Instructions in question, on any change of circumstances leading to the supposition of your lordship's dispatch. If I have already expressed some alarm on the chances of so bold an attempt on the part of the French government as that to which I allude, it has not been from apprehension of dishonourable compromise on the part of Denmark, but of the consequences of timidity and inadequate preparation, by which the enemy might be enabled rather to seize the fleet than treat for it.-Your lordship's dispatch No. 7. having been written on the presumption that the French troops had entered Holstein; and probably after your lordship had received the report of the enquiries I had made as to the retreat of those of Denmark (in my No.) I have also for the present desisted from a formal application on the subject of that dispatch; and humbly hope that my conduct in both these instances will not have met with his majesty's disapprobation.-I find it difficult to obtain precise information as to the number of Danish troops in Holstein, because it is not ascertained how far the regiments still there have been reduced. Two regiments have returned to Funen. The Sleswick and Jutland regiments have also returned. Two regiments belonging to the ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord St. John garrison of this place, are left at Kiel, Ploen, rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring forand Gluckstadt. Count Bernstorff tells ward his Resolutions respecting the Orders me that four thousand men are on the line in Council. His lordship took a review of between those places; but these must be the explanations given by the French goin the towns and villages. The garrisons vernment of the Decree, and of the docujust mentioned, and that of Rendsburgh, ments shewing the manner in which it was compose therefore the only remaining ac- understood by the American government, tive force against the enemy. I shall re- for the purpose of proving that the latter sume this subject without delay. I have &c. government never acquiesced in the French B. GARLIKE. decree, considered as affecting neutrals, No. XII.-Extract of a Dispatch from and thence concluding, that this governvisc. Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq.ment had no right to issue Orders affecting dated Downing Street, 22d Jan. 1807. the American trade. He contended also, Upon the points referred to in your dis- that there was no sufficient evidence of the patches, I have already sent you full in- execution of the French Decree, in making structions. However desirous his majesty captures on the high seas, according to the may be of preventing any embarrassment terms of it, which could alone be evidence to the court of Denmark with respect to of such an execution of the decree as could the neutrality which that government is be considered a violation of the law of nadesirous of preserving; this consideration, tions. The information laid on the table it is evident, can only apply to a real neu- was in this point defective, and did not trality, and cannot be carried so far as to appear to him to afford any sufficient reaadmit of a succession of measures dictated son for issuing the Orders in Council, which by the fear of France, which would in ef- he considered a gross violation of the law
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, February 26.
of nations, and fraught with great injustice, towards Neutral States. His lordship concluded by reading the following Resolutions: "1. That previous to the 11th of Nov. last, his majesty's government was not in possession of any proof, nor supposed ground of belief, that the United States of America had acquiesced in or submitted to, or intended to acquiesce in or submit to, the execution of such parts of the Decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806, as purported to impose on Neutral Commerce, restraints inconsistent with the law of nations. 2. That it does not appear, that the said Decree, in so far as it may have been supposed to relate to captures at sea, was in any one instance carried into execution, by the Prize Courts of France, or her Allies, previous to the 11th of Nov. last. 3. That on the 18th of Oct. last, the ministers of the United States at this court, officially apprized his majesty's Secretary of State, that their government had received from that of France, satisfactory explanations and assurances, and that, in fact, the same never had been enforced against the Neutral Commerce of the United States. 4. That no official denial of the facts so asserted by the American ministers, appears to have been made on the part of his majesty's secretary of state; nor any grounds alledged by him in which the American ministers could be questioned. 5. That under such circumstances the issuing the Orders in Council of the 11th and 25th of Nov. last, which Orders purported to compel the trading vessels of the said United States in all their voyages to and from the Continent of Europe to touch at the ports of this country, and to be there subjected, by the authority of the British government, to many and grievous restrictions, and a manifest violation of the law of Nations, and of the rights and independence of a friendly Power." On the first Resolution being put, The Duke of Montrose rose and said, he perfectly agreed with the noble lord, that although the subject had been already before the house, it was one that merited discussion. He had forborne as yet to deliver his sentiments upon it, from a wish not to make up his mind without giving it the fullest consideration; and having so done, he should not hesitate to give it as his firm opinion, that the Orders in Council were wise, politic, and calculated to answer the great purpose of defeating the designs of our enemy, and ultimately convincing him of his error in the unjust system he was pur
It was the
suing in carrying on the war. government of France which had violated what was considered the law of nations, and it was prudent in that of this country to retaliate those measures that were aimed at our very existence; if the neutrals suffered any injury, it was France, and France alone, that they ought to look upon as the cause of that injury, and to which alone they ought to look for reparation. In his opinion, it was idle to talk of waiting to see whether the neutrals would have acquiesced in that Decree; for when the distance was considered, it would plainly appear that our forbearance might have continued 3, 6, nay even 9 months, during the whole of which time the enemy would have derived all the advantages they expected therefrom, and England sustained all the injuries that were levelled at her; for, light as some persons might treat the force of France, he could not but recollect that she had still fleets, frigates, and numerous privateers; from these, under that Decree, much injury might have been done, in defiance of that superiority which, he was thankful and happy G. Britain could boast. As to what the noble lord had urged relative to the answer which the minister of marine had given to general Armstrong, it amounted to nothing more than that he thought America was not to be included. But could any man suppose that the je pense of a French minister of marine was a sufficient security against a positive decree so plain and direct, that those who ran might read? No; the American Resident ought not to have rested satisfied with less than a formal renunciation, nor could our ministers consider less than that renunciation as a proof that the United States were not included. Nay,upon the question being afterwards put to another French officer, his reply was, that he saw no exceptions. For these among other reasons, he thought our executive government had acted wisely and politically in issuing those Orders in Council; that the Resolutions moved by the noble lord were unnecessary, and he therefore hoped the house would agree with him in his moving the previous question.
Lord Holland observed, that the Orders in Council fell far short of that clearness which would enable him who runs to read. He would not now enter into the question of the policy of these Orders, that being reserved for a subsequent discussion, but with respect to the question of the law of nations, he held a very different opinion
worst misfortunes that could befal country, and which he thought the Orders in Council tended to produce.
from the noble duke. If a belligerent adopted a mode of conduct towards a neutral, which amounted to an act of hostility, and in which that neutral acquiesced, then he would admit the right of the other belligerent to retaliate. But in the case of the Berlin Decree, it had not only not been acquiesced in by America, but there was no proof of that part of it being executed which alone was a violation of the law of nations, namely, capturing neutrals on the high seas, for violating the terms of the decree. He contended, therefore, that on neither of these grounds was there any jus tification of the Orders in Council. His ldp. commented on the Note of Mr. Canning to the American ministers, stating, that it was the duty of the neutral to endeavour to procure the revocation of the obnoxious decrees, a doctrine which he considered as tending to produce endless warfare.
Lord Redesdale contended that the Orders in Council of the 7th of Jan. and those of the 11th and 25th of Nov. were founded on the same principles, and were equally consistent with the law of nations.
The Earl of Lauderdale deprecated the mode of argument adopted by the noble and learned lord, by justifying one measure by another. He contended, that the information on the table not only did not prove an increased rigour in the execution of the French decree, but that a great part of it rather proved a relaxation of the provisions of that decree, and he believed, that his noble friends, had they continued in administration, would rather upon such information have been inclined to revoke the order of the 7th of Jan. than to have resorted to any harsher measure. As to the objection, that they discussed parts of the Orders, each part formed a question of the greatest magnitude to the country, and if they were not all discussed together, it was the fault of noble lords on the other side, who had refused to go into a committee on the Orders in Council. A noble duke had quoted the letter of his noble friend to Mr. Rist, to
the enemy into a state of blockade, as a matter of retaliation. If he had proceeded but four or five words farther, he would have seen that the noble lord's words were, "that G. Britain would have enforced such blockade by its maritime superiority," a thing which made the measure legitimate, and consistent with the law of nations; and there was not one word to shew that they meant it in mere retaliation.
The Earl of Mulgrave contended, that the French government having endeavoured to execute its decree of blockade agaiust this country, by the confiscation of all neutrals conveying British produce or manufactures, or trading from the ports of this country, it became the duty of this government to adopt some counteracting measure, which should force the enemy to raise the block-shew that he threatened to put the coasts of ade of this country. That which had been resorted to, was the most mitigated measure that could be adopted with a view to the continuance of neutral trade, and compelling the enemy to receive neutral vessels into his ports trading from this country. If the French decree and the Orders in Council were both executed, then of course there could be no trade between this country and that part of the continent of Europe under the influence of the enemy, some injury would result to us, but the greatest privations must be indured by the enemy. With respect to Mr. Canning's Note, his ldp. referred to the Note of lord Howick, stating that the measures adopted by the Order in Council of the 7th of Jan. would be continued till the decree of the French government was formally repealed, for the purpose of proving that the language in this note was similar to that used by Mr. Canning. His lordship deprecated the conduct adopted by noble lords on the other side, in discussing different parts of the Orders, and called upon them to discuss the whole policy of the measure.
Lord Auckland deprecated a war with America, which he considered one of the
The Earl of Westmoreland said, that noble lords made the inconsistencies of which they complained. They would not divide the question of the Orders in Council into two points of view, in which it ought to be considered-into that which the crown did from its prerogative of war, and what was agreeable to the municipal law of the land.-In adverting to America, he warmly contended that the measures of the late government caused that irritation which appeared in the disposition and councils of that country; and concluded by expressing a sentiment of amity and friendship towards that country, whose very existence he considered to depend upon the greatness and prosperity of this.
Earl Grey vindicated the late govern
ment from the aspersions that had been, thrown upon them, by asserting that the Order of the 7th Jan. was an act of retaliation, and that it avowed the principle upon which the Order in Council of the 11th Nov. was founded. He distinctly shewed, that there was not the slightest similiarity, and he strongly animadverted on the disingenuous manner. in which a noble and learned lord had partially quoted and misrepresented his note to Mr. Rist. He also explained the course of proceeding which had been taken with respect to America, and shewed that the declarations made to them by the late government, had been satisfactory, as would have been proved to the house, if the Answer to Mr. Madison had been laid upon the table. He observed, on the reparation made by the present ministers for the affair of the Chesapeake, that it had at least been tardy, since several months had elapsed before the departure of Mr. Rose, and he expressed his fears, that at the very time they were now debating the Orders in Council, as they applied to America, ministers might be in possession of the determination of the American government on the point.
Lord Hawkesbury entered at length into the pretended distinction between the Order of the 7th Jan. and the late Orders. He declared that he could not discover any difference in principle, and scarcely any difference in language. When noble lords said it was not an act of retaliation, they should look back to the Papers, where it was distinctly stated to be in retaliation of the enemy's Decree. But neither that measure nor the present, though in their consequences they touched neutrals, could be said to be against neutrals. They were against the enemy, and it was only by their consequences that they affected neutrals. This was the nature of all belligerent acts. A measure was taken by the enemy in hostility to us, and which in its result affected neutrals; we retaliated on the enemy and that also affected neutrals; but surely they could only complain of the original aggressor. With respect to the tardy reparation made to America for the affair of the Chesapeake, they had made instant reparation, even before any remonstrance or complaint was made. They expected that the American ministers would have been intrusted to settle the business here. And so they were; but their instructions were to mix so many other matters with it, that it was found to be impossible, VOL. X.
and so at length they determined to send Mr. Rose to America. He defended the measure of the Orders in Council as indispensible on our part,and argued that the proofs of the submission of neutrals to the Decree of the French were clear and manifest. The answer of M. Decrès to the application of Mr. Armstrong was by no means satisfactory. He stated only his own opinion, whereas he ought to have given the explanation of the government.
Lord Grenville combatted the arguments on the other side. His lordship reviewed the decrees of France against the trade of this country, and cited the few instances in which they had been fully enforced: he admitted the right of fair retaliation, provided it did not extend to the injury of neutral powers. He adverted to the calamities which must arise to our merchants and manufacturers by enforcing these orders in council; and the mischievous consequences to our West India colonies, should the differences between this country and America long subsist; and concluded, by advising his majesty's ministers to adopt those measures now that would be considered as acts of generosity and conciliation towards that country, rather than wait for the time when they must adopt them through necessity.
The Earl of Galloway contended, that the justification of ministers might be drawn from the speeches of noble lords on the other side of the house, who all made the reservation that the maintenance of our maritime rights ought to be paramount to every other consideration. The Orders in Council, he considered a just and a wise measure, which should therefore have his support.-The house then divided-For the previous ques.... 66,... Proxies 71-137 Against it.. 24,... Proxies 23- 47
difference of opinion as to the propriety of acceding to it. When his majesty called upon parliament to substantiate those marks of his royal favour and approbation which he conferred upon distinguished naval and military characters, the house of commons always answered the call with promptitude and liberality. The reason why this application was not made immediately on the intelligence of the service done, and at the same time that the highest honour his majesty could confer was bestowed on lord Lake, was, that lord Lake was then absent in India, and it was not known that his circumstances were such as to require the aid of public liberality. After the return of the noble lord, which was soon followed by his much lamented death, he received such marks of the favour of the crown, and other distinguished branches of the royal family, that he felt himself in some measure able to support his dignity without public aid, and he, of course, felt unwilling to come forward with such an application as that which gave rise to his majesty's gracious Message, now under consideration. This country had by his unfortunate death lost one of its most valuable military officers, and on inquiry into his circumstances, they were found inadequate to support the hereditary honours his majesty had bestowed as the reward of his services. Thus, while the services were of that distinguished nature as to afford the strongest claim to parliamentry reward, the circumstances of the family were such as to strengthen that claim. Lord Lake's military life had been a succession of brilliant and meritorious actions, from the time of the American war down to his last campaigns ir. India. Some of his lordship's acts were such as to bring home to him personally, the whole merit of the success of some of the most distinguished victories gained, among which he was bound to particularize that of Lincelles by the British arms. Never, in fact, did any man present to his troops, in the day of battle, more striking examples of every quality that were calculated to inspire valour and to lead to victory. The same principle to which the French generals owed most of their victories in the late wars, that of exposing their own persons in every point of imminent danger and apparently doubtful issue, was eminently conspicuous in lord Lake's military conduct. Whatever difference of opinion might exist, with respect to the policy pursued in the recent government of India, certainly
there was room for no difference as to the importance of the services rendered by lord Lake in the military department. This would be particularly felt at the present moment, when the French, meditating an attack upon our Indian empire, were obliged to wait to establish a footing, and to break ground in Persia, instead of commencing at once on the banks of the Jumna or the Ganges, with a Mahratta army disciplined and commanded by French officers. To lord Lake belonged the merit of dispersing and destroying that army, and thus establishing the security of our Indian empire on a basis more solid. He did not think it necessary to enter more at large on the subject, as he felt that every one must be sensible of the value of the services of the illustrious deceased. He should also, to save the time of the committee, state now another motion which he intended to offer after the one founded on his majesty's message should be disposed of. This was a motion for a monument to be erected to the memory of lord Lake. He was aware that this was a testimony of public gratitude, seldom asked but when the individual fell in battle, in the moment of victory, or died of wounds received in the country's cause. But, there were some few instances which were particularly distinguished from this rule, and when repeated signal victories had been gained without depriving the country of the life of the person who had achieved them. Lord Howe's life of glory had been thought worthy of this distinction, and he trusted there would be found equal ground to make a similar exception in favour of lord Lake. This was a reward the most cheap, and an incentive the most powerful. He had further only to add, that as it was just and customary, that the pension should commence from the time of the act that called for the exercise of the royal prerogative and bounty, lord Lake's forbearance from preferring his claim, should be no bar to the benefit being enjoyed from the date of the battle of Delhi, from which he derived his title. This extension of the grant would afford the means of making some arrangements for the benefit of the female part of the family, who, he was very sorry to say, were left in a most unsatisfactory state. The late lord Lake having died before the application to parliament could be made, his life was not counted as one of the three for which it was usual to grant provisions. of this kind. The grant would be to the present lord and the two next heirs. The