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

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.

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 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

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

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. j 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 had 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 Holland thought 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 m any degree affect, the prerogative of the crown. It

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 Harrowby defended 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,