Mr. Canning had returned a mere assertion; in which, as usual, he was confident just in proportion as he was deficient in proof and argument. He had stated, that even were the papers applied for laid before the house, the gentlemen who supported the motion would not find what they wanted. They wanted some proofs to contradict the statements which appeared in the Moniteur, and to vindicate the character of the country; which would be very imperfectly vindicated indeed, if it rested on the mere assertion of the right honourable gentleman. If he thought the papers would support his assertion, was it not natural to infer that he would produce them? And was it not equally natural to infer the contrary from the pertinacity of his refusal? He took a view of the animadversions which had appeared in the Moniteur, and maintained that they were in some parts particularly just, though not expressed in very happy terms.

The earl of Temple thought the matter under consideration might be decided by a single question. Was there, or was there not any negotiation with Sweden, or any other foreign power, to occupy ZeaJand after our troops were bound to evacuate it?

Mr. Canning repeated, that it was the determined purpose of ministers to evacuate Zealand, and literally according to the capitulation; but when he said literally, he meant not according to the letter, but the spirit of the capitulation. The doubts entertained by ministers as to the construction of that capitulation, would not be considered as unreasonable by any candid man, who looked back to the

period at which it took place, and who reflected, that it was concluded in the utter ignorance of the declaration of war by the Danish go

vernment.

Lord Temple said, the question was, whether it was proposed to any other power to occupy Zealand, after our troops should have evacuated it? '

Mr. Canning asked, if the noble lord meant to enquire, whether after all hopes of a termination of the war with Denmark had ceased, ministers had it in contemplation, or had actually provided to take any hostile steps against that country?

The question having been loudly and repeatedly called for, the house divided.-For Mr. Sheridan's motion 85-Against it 184.

House of Lords, March 3.-The earl of Darnley, after a suitable preface, moved that an humble address be presented to his majesty,

"That after attentively considering all the public documents before us concerning the late attack on Copenhagen, and the war which it has produced, we have found the information which they afford extremely imperfect and unsatisfactory.

"That in a matter in which both the honour, and the interests of our country are so deeply concerned, we had hoped for the fullest explanations. The principles of our constitution, and the uniform practice of his majesty, and the sovereigns of his illustrious house, require that parliament should be distinctly apprised of the true grounds of entering into new wars, especially in a situation of our country wholly unprecedented.

"Had Denmark been a party to

any

any hostile confederacy against the rights or interests of the British empire, our resistance would have been necessary, and our warfare legitimate. Under such circumstances we should only have had to regret, that the ports and arsenals of that country should so lightly have been abandoned, when advantages so very considerable had been derived from their temporary occupation; and when, by our continuing to hold them during the war, all real danger from that quarter might have been effectually averted.

"But we cannot doubt that Denmark, instead of engaging in hostile leagues, had resolved still to maintain her neutrality. This fact is proved even by the imperfect documents which have been laid before us, and is confirmed by the proclamation issued by his majesty's commanders immediately before the attack.

"Certainly Denmark was no party, nor does it appear that she was privy, to any confederacy hostile to this country. We are not even satisfied that such a league did really exist.

"The conclusion of any secret articles at Tilsit, affecting the rights or interests of the British empire, appears to have been uniformly denied both by Russia and France.

"The correspondence of his majesty's secretary of state, and the dales of the transactions them selves, prove that his majesty's ministers could not be in possession of any such articles, when the attack was ordered against Copenhagen; and it has been distinctly admitted in this house, that they have not yet obtained a copy of them.

"The king's ambassador at PeVOL. L.

tersburgh, in an official note, rested the defence of the measures not on any hostile purposes either of Denmark or Russia, but solely on the designs, which it was said, the French government had long since been known to entertain.

"His majesty's ministers not only forebore to advise such measures as would have been necessary to repel any real hostility of Russia, but they actually solicited the mediation of that power to extinguish a war, and ber guarantee to defeat projects, in which it is now pretended they knew her to have been a principal and contracting party.

"Allegations thus inconsistent with each other, and contrary to admitted facts, weaken, instead of supporting, the cause to which they are applied.

"With respect to the alledged necessity of the case, we beg leave to assure his majesty, that we cannot think so meanly of the power and resources of his empire, of the spirit of his people, or of the valour and discipline of his fleets and armies, as to admit that such an act could have been required for any purpose of self-preservation.

"Any temporary advantages which the possession of such ships and stores as were taken at Copenhagen can afford, are already much more than counterbalanced by the other consequences of a measure, which appears not less objectionable in policy than in principle. That measure has augmented the number of our enemies; it has countenanced the injurious representations circulated throughout Europe respecting our principles and designs; and has inflamed against us the warmest passions of neutral and of friendly nations. [E]

"But

"But it has, above all, shaken our own persuasion of the justice of our cause; a sentiment which had hitherto supported us through all our difficulties; commanding the respect of other powers, and encouraging us in an humble but confident reliance on the ultimate protection and blessing of Providence. "Unwilling as we are even yet to pronounce definitively on a subject, the full knowledge of which has been so pertinaciously withheld from us; and reluctant as we must ever be to admit conclusions unfavourable to the justice of those counsels by which his majesty's conduct has been actuated; we are yet compelled, on such an occasion, to speak to his majesty the language of truth. And we must, therefore, with all humility, and with the most unfeigned and heartfelt sorrow, represent, that in a case, which, above all others, required the clearest proof, every presumption is against us; and that no particle of evidence has yet been adduced by which our national character can be vindicated from the guilt of an unprovoked and premeditated violation of that good faith, justice, and humanity, which have hitherto been at once the glory and the safeguard of the British empire."

The address proposed by the earl of Darnley was supported by lord Holland, and opposed by the lords Elliot and Boringdon.-The house divided. For the motion 51-Against it 110.

After this, Lord Elliot moved for an address to his majesty, stating, "That this house, considering the declaration laid before them by his majesty's command; the state to which the continent was reduced, in consequence of the negotiation

and peace of Tilsit; the avowed declaration of the French government, to exclude the British flag from every port of Europe, and to combine all the powers of the contiment, in a general confederacy, against the maritime rights, and political existence of Great Britain, most highly approve the prompt and vigorous measures adopted by his majesty's ministers, for the purpose of removing out of the reach of his enemies, the fleet and naval resources of Denmark." The house divided. For the motion 125-Against it 57.

House of Lords, March 7.Viscount Sidmouth called their lordships' attention to a subject of great importance. He had heard that when a rumour prevailed of an intended attack upon Copenhagen, a representation had been made to government on behalf of the Danish vessels then in our ports, for the purpose of ascertaining, whether they were safe in completing their cargoes. The nature of this representation, or the answer to it, he did not know. But afterwards, intimation having been made by the chamber of commerce at Copenhagen, that there was no expectation of hostilities with this country, those vessels proceeded to complete their cargoes. Previously, however, to the sailing of the expedition, an order was issued under which all those vessels were detained, and others brought in, the whole of which he had heard were since condemned, and become droits of admiralty. The produce of these vessels and cargoes, he had heard, amounted to nearly 2,000,000l. If these statements were true, he could not help thinking the circumstances unexampled

in

in the annals of the country. Unless he had farther information, he must ever believe, that our expedition to Copenhagen caused the war with Denmark, and, therefore, that the vessels previously detained, ought to have been considered in a different situation from vessels detained in consequence of the previous hostile power to which they belonged. He wished to ask the noble secretary of state, whether it was true, that the vessels he had alluded to had been condemned in the manner stated, and also, whether the crews were detained as prisoners of war?

Lord Hawkesbury stated, that the same course had been adopted with respect to the Danish. vessels, as had been adopted with respect to the vessels of other powers detained in similar circumstances. No assurance of protection had been given either directly or indirectly by government to the Danish vessels in our porfs, at the time mentioned by the noble lord. As to the crews, they were as in other cases, detained prisoners of war, with the exception of some individuals, who had been under particular circumstances released. A cartel proposed to the Danish government had been hitherto declined. As to the value of the ships and cargoes it had been greatly exaggerated.

House of Commons, March 21. -The Baltic expedition was again brought into discussion by

Mr. Sharp, who considered all that had passed hitherto on this sabject, as only preliminary to the sentence which the house would now be called-upon to give. In a time of profound peace we bomtarded the metropolis of a neutral

power, while all her ships were in port, and all her stores were in her arsenals. An act of this prima facie injustice called for a frank exposition; and, indeed, in the words of his majesty's speech, it was due to Europe and the world. But had it appeared that ministers had not resorted to this act of violence, as long as a doubt of Denmark's hostility, as long as a hope of her neutrality remained? The grounds of justification had been threefold: First, the intention of France to seize upon Holstein, and to compel Denmark to depart from her neutrality; secondly, the co-operation of Russia with France; and thirdly, the collusion of Denmark with France, and the latent conspiracy of three powers against the maritime rights of Great Britain. Hav ing examined these three grounds, which appeared to him altogether unsatisfactory, he concluded a very animated and ingenious speech, with moving,

"That an humble address be presented to his majesty, submitting to his majesty, that we have attentively considered all the informa tion before us respecting the late attack on Copenhagen, and the war in which we have consequently been involved; and that we deeply lament to have found it imperfect, contradictory, and unsatisfactory, in all its parts.

"That respecting a transaction in which both the honour and the interests of our country are so deeply concerned, we had hoped for the fullest explanation,

"That the principles of our constitution, and the uniform practice of his majesty and the sovereigns of his illustrious house, require that parliament should be distinctly ap [E 2]

prized of the true grounds of entering into new wars, and especially in a situation of the country, so extraordinary and unprecedented as the present.

"That had Denmark been a party to any hostile confederacy, either for menacing his majesty's territories, or invading his maritime rights, our resistance would have been necessary, and our warfare legitimate; and that, under such circumstances, this house would only have had to regret that his majesty should have been advised so lightly to abandon the ports and arsenals of that country; for that, had the alledged danger been real, the possession of those ports during the war would have afforded the best security against that danger; whereas the abandonment of them has now left us more than ever exposed to it.

"But that we can entertain no doubt that, instead of engaging in hostile leagues, Denmark wished only to maintain her neutrality; that this fact is proved even by the imperfect documents which have been laid before us; and is distinctly acknowledged in the proclama tion issued by his majesty's commanders immediately before the attack.

"That not only was Denmark no party to such a league, but we see no ground to believe that she was privy to it; and the very fact of its existence is, to say the least, in the highest degree questionable.

"That the conclusion of any secret articles at Tilsit, affecting the rights and interests of this country, appears to have been uniformly denied, both by Russia and France; and that the correspondence of his majesty's secretary of

state, and the dates of the transactions prove, that if any such articles did exist, his majesty's ministers were not in possession of them, when the attack was ordered against Copenhagen.

"That his majesty's ambassador at St. Petersburgh, in an official note, rested the defence of that measure, not on the hostile purposes either of Denmark or of Russia, but solely on designs which it was said the French government had long been known to entertain.

"And that his majesty's ministers not only advised his majesty to abstain from those measures of hostility against Russia, which it was their duty to have recommended, had they really believed in the existence of such engagements; but they actually solicited her mediation to extinguish that war, and her guarantee to defeat those projects, in which it is now pretended she was known to have been a principal and contracting party.

"That allegations, thus inconsistent with themselves, and contrary to the admitted facts, rather weaken than support the case to which they are applied.

"That, with respect to the pretended necessity of the case, we beg leave respectfully to assure his majesty, that we cannot think so meanly of the power and resources of his empire, of the spirit of his people, or of the valour and discipline of his fleets and armies, as to admit that such an act would have been required for any purpose of self-preservation.

"And that, whatever temporary advantages the possession of the ships and stores taken at Copenhagen may afford, have been more

than