ters on the law of nations, to prove that ministers had violated all the established and known principles on that head, and concluded by saying, that the attack on Denmark could neither be justified by state necessity or national security, and that the act would probably stand for ever unparalleled for national bad faith, and unprovoked violence and injustice! Lord Borringdon spoke in justification of the measure. Lord Buckinghamshire said, that what we had gained in point of strength, we had lost in national character. He feared this country would have cause to lament the capture of the Danish fleet. Lord Harrowby justified the measure, and said, if Bonaparte had declared his intention of seizing the Danish fleet, and of turning it against the shores of Great Britain and Ireland, and such declaration had reached the ears of ministers, they would have deserved the execration of their sovereign and the country at large, if they had hesitated for a moment in endeavouring to thwart the enemy in such his intention. In short, the security of the country rendered the measure indispensable, and they were every way justified in what they had done. Earl Moira rose and said, if he was to consider seriously all the transactions of government relative to the late expedition to the Baltic, he should think that the principles of public faith and national honour had been deserted for the adoption of principles which we had so often reprobated in the French ruler. A noble marquis (Wellesley) had ridiculed the supposition that the army of Denmark was to be stationed in Holstein, to oppose the French troops on their way to attack Co penhagen. But it was evident that the French would not have attacked Zealand, because Denmark would have been thrown into the hands of England. If France had attacked them, the Danes, headed by their prince, would doubtless have fought bravely; and, under the existing circumstances, he would rather have seen the fleet of Denmark in the hands of Bona parte. If the Danish navy had been seized by the French, the event could not have affected our dearest rights in the manner the attack on Copenhagen had. He wished the noble lords who attempted to justify the expedition had made out a case by the production of documents necessary for their defence; but it was only suspicion which they had advanced in vindication of their conduct. He was confident the voice of the country condemned those who proposed the expedition! It had been said by a noble marquis, that war in all countries entailed misfortunes on the inhabitants; but this expedition entailed worse calamities than any yet described. When the island of Zealand was attacked, parents were seen weeping over their murdered children, mothers in agonizing tortures, and scenes of distress witnessed sufficient to call forth sentiments of horror and commiseration. Those who had planned the expedition should have looked at the miseries likely to follow their orders; they should have felt for the situation of the sufferers. Government had justified their con duct on the ground of security. He should like to hear what excuse a highwayman would make for firing into a coach occupied by women. The robber would probably say, that the guard would not permit them to get out and deliver their property! The new doctrine of security and anticipation of danger might be used in support of villany and brutality on any occasion. This act deprived the country of every possibility of a successful termination of the war. Russia, who before the expedition to Copenhagen was an enemy in point of form, was now an enemy in fact: and Sweden was not in a situation as secure as she was before the Danes were attacked. Lord Hawkesbury never wished more to hear the sentiments of other noble lords upon any question that had been brought before their lordships, before delivering his own, than he did on the present occasion. He found himself called upon, how ever, to rise in this stage of the debate, not only because the measure now under consideration was one which he had a share in concerting, but because he had been accused of swerving from those great principles of morality and justice which were dearer to him than any interest on earth, and rather than deIviate from which he would shed the last drop of his blood. In order to resolve this question satisfactorily, three points were to be considered:-1st, Whether the enemy had the design of seizing upon the Danish fleet, and of converting it into an instrument of attack against this country.-2dly, Whether it was practicable for France to have obtained possession of the Danish fleet:-and, 3dly, Whether, supposing that such a design existed, and the execution of it was practicable, it was an object of sufficient magnitude to induce the government of this country to deviate from the ordinary rules of procedure, in order to frustrate it? Here his lordship made use of si milar arguments to those urged by marquis Wellesley, and concluded by declaring it his opinion that the expedition was necessary for the salvation of the country. Earl Grey observed, that ministers, so far from having saved the country by their expedition to Copenhagen, had deeply injured its honour, and consequently endangered its safety. It had been said by the noble lord who spoke lately, that it was the main object of France to combine against us all the navies of Europe; and that she entertained that design in regard to the fleet of Denmark. He was far from disputing the ambitious designs of France; but, in order to establish the other point, it was necessary to show either that Denmark was unable or unwilling to maintain her neutrality. It was the interest and the duty of this country to lend its aid to the defence of Zealand, and that, together with the force of Sweden, would have rendered the defence effectual. There was no ground for supposing therefore any inability on the part of Denmark to defend her insular territories. was of importance then to inquire whether she was disposed to avail herself of those means of defence which she might have had, or tamely to submit to France. On this point he could refer to the dispatches of Mr. Garlicke, the British envoy at the court of Denmark, a person of the greatest merit, and held in the highest estimation during his residence at Copenhagen. In these dispatches he had represented the crown prince and his ministers as having a spirit that would reject with disdain every demand on the part of France to surrender their fleet! When on this subject, he must observe, that a dispatch of his own, which he had sent to our envoy at Copenhagen, It had had been most foully and unfairly quoted in another place. The sentence which followed the quotation then made, would have shown, had it been produced, that the hypothetical case there stated, was not, in his opinion, likely to happen; and the conviction of ministers that the prince of Denmark would resist the demands of France. It was said, that Ireland was the destined object of attack, and the principal point of danger. With regard to the people of that country, he would say, Unite them, and you will produce an unconquerable people. That, however, was not the policy of ministers; they conjured up to them. selves fancied dangers, and overlooked those that were real. CHAPTER II. Orders in Council, Debate on in the House of Commons; another on the sam: sujeet in the Hose of Lords-Debate on the second reading of a B'll on the same-Lord Grenville's Moti ns- -Lord Sidmouth's Appeal to the House on the Danish Navy -Sir F. Burdett's Inquiry on the Droits of the Admiralty-Motion and Debate on the same-Sir Charles Pole's Motion on the same-Mr. Wb'tbread's Motion for Papers on the Russian and Austrian Mediation-Petition relating to Cold-Batb-Fields Prison-Mr. Dent's Motion relating to Sir Home Popham-Petition for Peace :-Debate on His Majesty's Message respecting Lord Lake's Pension: on Mr. Whitbread's Resolutions on Peace. A being to such LTHOUGH we despair of being able to give such an abstract of what passed in parliament respecting the "Orders of Council," the effects of which extend not only to the trade of neutrals, but necessarily also to that of our own country, as shall make the subject so clear as we could wish, yet it will be right to lay before our readers so much of the debates as all put them in possession of the arguments on both sides. The ille to gality of these orders, and their hostility to the principles of Magna Charta, were assumed and maintained by opposition, while the partisans of the existing administration appealed to the necessity of the case in their justification. On the 5th of February, in the house of commons, after Mr. Hase had appeared at the bar and presented an account from the commissioners for reducing the national debt, and stating the receipt and applica. application of 9,700,000l. for that purpose for the last year; together with the sum of 2,400,000l. for the next ensuing quarter: Mr. Percival moved, that the orders of his majesty in council, respecting neutral trade, be referred to the committee of ways and means. Lord H. Petty immediately rose, and observed, that as serious doubts were entertained of the legality of these orders, he considered it as the indispensable duty of ministers to have these doubts removed, by showing to the house, in the first instance, their necessity, and then by applying for an indemnity bill against the unconstitutional exercise of them. He contended, that the orders in council violated the laws of nations and the municipal law of this country; and further objected, that to enforce them was adopting a system of great impolicy. The chancellor of the exchequer, in reply, insisted, that the late orders in council were founded on the same principle as the order of the 7th of January 1807, and therefore, that it ill became ministers who issued that order to contend, that those which differed from it only by being more efficient, were violations of the laws of nations, and the municipal law of the land. -Their policy, he observed, consisted in the protection they afforded to our commerce, and in the inconvenience and distress which the enemy must experience from their operation. But these laws related to a state of peace not of war, as in both cases their violation was a measure of expediency, and justified by the king's war prerogative. The interests of America, he said, were the interests of this nation, and he trusted and believed that the present orders of council would 8 not interrupt the friendly inter course between the two countries. Mr. Windham, Dr. Lawrence, sir Arthur Pigot, and Mr. Eden joined in condemning the orders in council. The master of the rolls coincided with the chancellor of the exche quer in his view of those measures. The question was carried without a division. The house then went into a committee of ways and means, in which the chancellor of the exchequer proposed certain duties on foreign produce exported from England; and he observed, that the resolutions would be printed, and laid before the house. In the house of peers, lord Auckland had, on the preceding day, given notice of his intention to make a motion respecting these orders in council, in order, as he said, to bring into discussion the different bearings of these orders, as they related to neutral powers, to commerce, manufactures, &c. And on the 15th his lordship rose to make his motion. He considered the subject of high impor tance, and proposed to discuss it under four heads; namely, the policy, the legality, the violation of the navigation laws, and the laws of nations. In a speech of considerable length, he contended, that the last orders had been issued contrary to the principles of justice, and the good faith which ought to distinguish a powerful maritime nation. The operations of the order issued in 1797 had been severely felt by unoffending neutrals; the order of the 7th of January, 1807, also obtained the reprobation of America; but the subsequent orders had nearly annihilated the commerce of states never hostile to England. He deprecated the sy stem of retaliation adopted by go vernment vernment, in consequence of which friendly powers had been severely injured; and he contended, that the orders were contrary to policy and the laws of civilized states. The noble lord concluded his speech with moving, "that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the orders of government laid before the house by command of his majesty, and afford them their early consideration." Earl Bathurst opposed the arguments of the noble baron, and justified the orders which had been censured. It had been discovered by government, that neutrals, by a circuitous course, frequently rendered essential service to the enemy. The power exercised by France over neutrals being submitted to by them, they not only promoted the commercial views of the enemy, but acquiesced in hostile intentions. The import trade of America amounted annually to 101,000,000 dollars, 7,000,000 of which was gained by France; it was therefore of importance to deprive her of that beneat. The orders of council had effected that object, and government were justified in the adoption of them. Lord Erskine said, the question for the consideration of their lordships was not whether the orders, of council were founded on policy, but whether the government ought to act upon principles of justice; and he considered it a question of as great importance as any ever be fore the house. The laws of natiens, according to all authorities, peremptorily demanded that respect should be observed to neutrals. The order of the 11th Nov. 1797, did not say that government proceeded on the law of retaliation towards neutrals. The order might blockade the enemy's ports; but he would ask the noble lords, whether they could say with honour and candour, that the order extended to neutrals, who had never violated the laws of nations. The moment the emperor of France had contradicted his decree in favour of America, and Mr. Armstrong, the American minister, was informed that the trade of America should not be annoyed, the government of this country laid an embargo on American ships. This act he considered adverse to the established laws of nations. America had committed no act which justified such conduct. The oldest decisions on the subject of neutral capture and detention had said, that neutral property cannot be taken, unless an act was committed by the neutral, offensive, according to the law of nations, to the belligerent. The attack on neutrals was justified upon a principle of retaliation. He would suppose the French had decreed the blockade of the Moon, Venus, Mercury, and other luminous bodies; and England had blockaded the Sun and the satellites of Jupiter. Were the astronomer royal and all the disciples of Copernicus to be thrown into confusion, and the country darkened by the eclipse of the planets? The noble lord quoted the decisions of sir W. Scott, judge of the admiralty court, and other authorities, to prove that neutrals were not subject to detention, seizure, and confiscation, unless they committed acts contrary to the laws of nations. He called upon the noble lord on the woolsack to express his opinion relative to the law of nations applicable to neutrals; and observed, that if the orders of council then in discussion were a sufficient pretence for the general system of blockade, neutrals were without any protection whatever. The |