« ПретходнаНастави »
The Danish Expedition.
curiosity farther gratified by the information—who of our allies have been most liberally subsidized-Emperors, Kings, or Traitors ?
Mr. CANNING in answer to a question put by Mr. WHITBREAD, respecting papers to be produced in justification of the Danish expedition, assured the house, “ that such papers as the right honour“ able gentleman appeared to consider necessary to remove what " he seemed to think a stain upon the character of the country, could “ not be produced !” Tlius the sevaté, the nation, and the world at large are insulted; our ministers are resolved, although their assertions are contradicted in the most positive manner, and they are challenged to bring evidence in their support, not to produce a particle. As to the indelible disgrace which rests on their own characters, it is of little consequence: the scandalous falsehoods they circulated over the nation at the time of their entrance into office, their notorious breach of promise to the Irish catholics, render it pretty evident that they had little character to lose: but the character of the nation has by their injustice, wickedness, and folly, received a deep stab, if not a mortal wound,
· The more the Danish expedition is discussed the more nefarious does it appear. We recommend to our readers a careful perusal of the remarks on the subject in an article in onr following pages taken from the Moniteur, said to be written by M. HAUTERIVE. We. are not now speaking of any part of it except that relating to the Danish expedition, 'Our ministers are here challenged to produce any evidence in proof of their allegations. "A very few reflections," the writer remarks, “ will prove that England does not believe in “ those secret engagements which she asserts were formed by Russia “ against her. If, in fact, the cabinet of London did believe in “ the existence of such engagements between France and Russia, “ why did it not, at the very instant that it made the discovery " which induced it to attack Copenhagen, assail the Russian squa“dron in the Mediterranean, instead of permitting it to clear the “ straits of Gibraltar? Why did three Russian vessels, which were -“ coming from the North Sea, pass through the English squadron “ which was blockading Copenhagen ? Why, if secret stipulations “ had been made at Tilsit, to the disadvantage of England, did the " cabinet of London have recourse to the mediation of Russia in “ order to conciliate its differences with Denmark? Let these mini*“ sters be at least consistent with themselves, and let them not assert,
a few pages lower, these, very words :-“ But until the Russian " declaration was published (that is, until November] his Majesty " had no reason to suspect that any opinions which the Emperor of “ Russia might entertain of the transactions at Copenhagen, could " be such as to preclude "his Imperial Majesty from undertaking, "at the request of Great Britain, that same office of mediator !"
ed it to attack», instead of Russian vessels in
The Danish Expedition “ Thus the Englisb have recourse to the mediation of Russia, in or“ der to come to an arrangement with Denmark, more than three “ months after the Treaty of Tilsit; and they pretend, that they “ undertook the expedition against Denmark, only to “ oppose the “ execution of the arrangements at Tilsit, and to defeat one of the “ objects of those arrangements!"
The justness of these remarks of the French writer are confirmed even by ministers themselves in a state paper, just laid on the table of both houses. If any thing in their conduci can excite astonishment it must be, on finding that after resting their justification of the Danish expedition, on the secret articles or engagements entered into at Tilsit, they, in a letter to the Russian ambassador dated the 5th. of August last, after the expedition against Copenhagen had sailed, thus express themselves :-—" His Majesty trusts that the
“ character of the stipulations of the treaty of Tilsit, and of the .“ principles upon which France is represented as being ready to ne
“gociate, may be found to be such as to afford to his Majesty a “just hope of the attainment of a secure and honourable peace:"-and yet the ministers who use this language have the unparalleled effrontery to declare, “ that they liad positive information that en“ gagements were entered into at Tilsit, to seize the Danish fleet for “ the purpose of invading this country, to prevent which they had “ resolved to commence hostilities against Denmark!"
It surely must now be evident to every one whose judgment is not weakened by strong prejudices, or depraved by corrupt passions, that this act of national cowardice, piracy, and murder has nothing to support it but bypocrisy and falsehood! Reflecting on all the circumstances, we are firmly of opinion, that a more base, and una principled proceeding never entered the heads of any cabinet council out of PANDEMONIUM!
Although even in the earliest expression of our sentiments on this subject, we were so confident of their truth and importance, that we resolutely determined firmly to niaintain and defend them without waiting for the opinion of any of our public men, it affords us a considerable degree of satisfaction to find, that under our present state of national degradation, so many of our senators in both liouses have expressed their decided reprobation of this internal transaction. Mr. WHITBREAD stated it as his firm opinion --" That ministers had never received either in sub“ stance or in form, the secret information which they alleged they “ had received, and to which they had attributed that fatal and dis“ graceful expedition.” Such was the abhorrence in which the hon. gentleman viewed the proceeding, that he declared “ he would ra“ ther have seen the feet of Denmark in forced hostility against us, « manned by her sailors, than he would, after what had happened,
Lorator; some lo win
The Danish Expedition.
vü “ see them moored in our own ports.” Mr. WINDHAM expressed himself in a similar manner:-"That he would rather Bonaparte had “ now possession of the Danish fleet by the means which he must " have resorted to, in the seizure of it, than that England should “ have got it in the way in which she did.” In answer to Mr. YORKE, who had been ridiculing the principles of right as applied to the affairs of nations, Mr. WINDHAM observed-He would still, “ however, venture to profess an attachment to the old maxim, of “ honesty being the best policy; a muxim which was just as true " when applied to the conduct of individuals, as of nations ; nor did “ he think it sufficient merely to profess it ; it was equally essential “ to act upon it. But an open and public renunciation of this prin“ciple was an alarming symptom indeed; and infinitely more fatal " to the cause of public morals than many practical deviations from « it. It was a state of most hopeless depravity, when people began “ to adapt their theory to their practice!"-In the house of Lords, we with pleasure observe one of the royal family, the Duke of GrocesTER, together with several other noblemen entering their protest against national iniquity; and that Lord ERSKINE has entered a ses parate protest in which he pleads with his usual argumentative eloquence, for the principles of national justice. Lord Grenville's speech, in particular, is an honour to a British seuator; some of the sentiments deserve to be written in letters of gold. The following extract will, we hope, be duly attended to, by those very wise politicians who affect to ridicule' the persons who have, in this day of degeneracy, stood firm to those grand principles which equally concern the welfare of states and individuals.--" Is this the day,” said his lordship, “ that we are to be to told, that for the last fifteen “ years we have suffered by following the principles of justice? I. “ am the more adverse to this sentiment, because it involves tliis pe. “.culiar danger, that it falls in with, and flatters a notion, too much “ growing among vulgar persons, who have not the capacity or the • time to reflect and form a just judgment, namely, that we ought " to fight the enemy with his own weapons—that we must oppose “ him by means as unprincipled and as unjust as he may employ. “ What inust be the mischievous tendency of such a sentiment, when “ proceeding from parliament, whose most important duty it is to “ teach the people the principles of morality and justice? If we are “ to hope in the aid of Providence, to carry us through the dangers “ that surround us—if we would with propriety pray for that aid, it “ must be by persevering in that unequal contest of justice against “ injustice, which the paragraph I allude to in the speech would “call upon us to abandon. It is to the principle which sustains that “ contest, we owe our consequence, character, and safety—it is that "principle which animates our army and navy-which upholds the
“ spirit of our people, and if we abandon it, we lose all that is valu“able, we sink into shame and degradation !**
We should regret that a division was not demanded on the address, . had it not appeared that some of our senators, wished to give midisters an opportunity of vindicatiug their conduct, hoping they had some facts to lay before the public, which might tend in some measure to justify their proceedings. As it is now clear to demonstration, they can offer nothing to excuse their wickedness and folly, we trust that those noble lords and gentlemen who have so honourably distinguished themselves, will early bring forward the subject of the Danish expedition, and in the first instance, move a censure on its authors. It will be their incumbent duty to divide the houses, and we earnestly hope that the names of the members on both sides, will be published, that the world may mark the friends of justice, and of injustice. We shall be anxious to see whether the bench of bishops can so totally lose sight of the first and plainest principles of christianity as to give their sanction to the most flagrant acts of public robbery? Whether Mr. WILBER FORCE, the THORNTONS, and those Protestant Dis- . senters who make a peculiar profession of religion, dare act so diametrically opposite to every principle of morality or christianity, as to approve of transactions, as flagitious as ever disgraced the British, or any other civilized state! Should there be a respectable number of our senators who are firmly resolved to the utmost of their ability to endeavour to redeem our national character, there is reason to hope the people out of doors may be roused from their lethargy, and afford them all possible support and encouragement. We look with raised expectations to the ensuing meeting of the WHIG CLUB. If ever the members were called upon to express their sentiments publicly, it is on the present occasion. If the spirits of the mighty dead, are conscious of what is passing on this globe, with what peculiar horror must those great and good men, the Whigs of the 17th century have beheld our recent proceedings ? Had the great ornament of the club, Mr. Fox been now living, all the powers of his mind, his utmost energy of thought and language, would have been employed in enforcing his favourite maxim-WHAT IS MORALLY WRONG, CAN NEVER BE POLITICALLY RIGHT!
THE LATE OVERTURES FOR A NEGOCIATION. The offers of mediation on the part of Russia and Austria have failed of success. The Austrian, Russian and Prussian ambas
* In our extracts from the speeches of the members of both houses, we have followed the reports in the Morning Chronicle of the 22d. and 23d. instant.
The late Overtures for a Negociation.
sadors have demanded and received their passports, and each of them are returning hoine to their respective sovereigns. By some documents just presented to the two houses, it appears that Russia offered her mediation immediately after signing the treaty of Tilsit. Our ministers declined accepting the proffered mediation unless they were put in possession of the secret articles, and information of the basis on which France proposed to negociate. No answer to this communication of our secretary for foreign affairs appears in the correspondence. Another offer during last summer was made to mediate on the part of Austria. An answer was returned similar to that returned to Russia. No farther correspondence on the subject, between the different powers seems to have taken place, till last November, when Austria in a very respectful communication endeavoured to impress the court of Great Britain with a sense of the importance of terminating the calamities of war, and again, with the express approbation of France, offered her mediation between the two hostile courts. The answer returned by our ministers, demanded the basis on which France proposed to negociate, and which if approved, Britain would have no objection to negociate jointly with her allies. The second communication from the Austrian ambassador expressed on the part of the French Emperor his satisfaction at the pacific language held by the British ministers, and proposed to them to nominate plenipotentiaries to meet at Paris, the plenipotentiaries of his Imperial Majesty, and that passports for the purpose would be immediately granted. To this communication, an answer was returned by Mr. CANNING, the sentiments of which are so hostile, ånd the style so haughty, that it is evident, ministers are determined not to negociate but upon such terms as the French Emperor never will consent to. Great offence appears to be taken that the Austrian ambassador should make such a proposal. Mr. CANNING expressly declares it to be the resolution of the cabinet not to negociate but jointly with their allies, nor with France but on the footing of “ perfect equality.” The request on the part of France to the court of London to send plenipotentiaries, so far froin being considered as a proof of the pacific disposition of France, is construed as an insult, “ implying " an unjustifiable doubt of the sincerity of his Majesty's professions." Ministers declare their resolution, not to enter on negociation till they are previously acquainted with a basis to be proposed by France, and “ that his Majesty will not again consent to send his * plenipotentiaries to the hostile city of Paris," but only to such place as he shall deem unexceptionable!
What do our ministers mean when they assert both in the speech froin the thrope, and in their pote to the Austrian ambassador