no case whatever had been made out to justify the harsh measures resorted to by ministers in attacking a defenceless people in a state of avowed neutrality.

Lord viscous Sidmouth contended, in the first place, that there was no reason to suppose that the Danes were hostilely inclined to wards us; and in the next, even admitting that they were, that this would not in itself justify the measure of the expedition. He commented on the glaring anachronism of imputing the expedition, which sailed in July, to intelligence not received here till the 8th of the following month, and the indecency of putting such an assertion in the mouth of his majesty. As to the designs of the French in the Baltic, Russia would never have suffered France to have established any serious influence in that sea. With respect to the danger to this country, he considered it first, with respect to its certainty, and next, with respect to its magnitude. Its certainty had not at all been made out, nor was it greater in point of nagnitude than of certainty, nor was its urgency greater than either. He gave it as his opinion, that the Danish ships should be kept in a state of readiness for restoration. He conjured their lordships to pause before they decided on a question involving so deeply the national character; and that they would bear in mind, that if, as had been said, the expedition had been hitherto generally approved of by the country, it was because the country looked with confidence to ministers, for the fullest justification of their conduct. The house then divided For the duke of Norfolk's motion, 48. Against it, 105.

House of commons, February Sth. Mr. Whitbread called the attention of the house to a subject of the highest importance. Alluding to the conduct of Mr. secretary Canning, in quoting partial extracts in support of the opinions he was maintaining, in the late debate of February 3d, on the subject of Copenhagen, he said, a practice had crept into that house which, he thought, had been carried to an immoderate extreme. He considered the right honourable gentleman to be bound by every tie of honour and of policy, to prove by the production of the papers he should move for, that the feelings, honour, and character of our ministers abroad and at home were safe in the hands of the secretary of state for foreign affairs. The first extract he should allude to, was that referred to by Mr. C. in his speech, February 3d, from lord Howick's official dispatch to Mr. Garlicke, bearing date the 3d of December, 1806. He would move for a copy of that dispatch; for he had authority to state, that lord Howick had reason to think himself not done justice to in this instance. He did not mean to say that the right honourable secretary had forged such extracts; but he did say, that by stopping short in the midst of a sentence, and omitting the subsequent part, that wholly qualified the preceding, by reading as absolute what was meant hypothetically; he did say, that this was reading a man's evidence against himself, and against the true nature of the evidence. It was neither more nor less than falsifying the statements of another person, whose situation should have commanded more delicacy. Mr. Garlicke had been hardly treated.

Lord

Lord Howick might stand up in his place and vindicate himself, but where could Mr. Garlicke vindicate his dispatches, from garbled misrepresentations. And how anxious must he be to vindicate his character to the Danish court, and every other? But independently of any personal relations, Mr. C. was placed in a most important one to the public. The Copenhagen expedition was not yet justified. The bonourable secretary for foreign affairs had been driven from reason to reason, and it was for him to prove, that the last he had resorted to, the extracts he had read, were not falsified. Mr. Whitbread concluded, with moving, "that a copy of a dispatch from lord Howick, dated the 3d of December, 1806, from which extracts had been read in the debate, on Wednesday the 3d of February, be laid before the house; and also a copy of a note from Mr. Rust to lord Howick, from which extracts had been read, &c.”

Mr. Canning asked, if Mr. W. recollected with what view he had cited the dispatch of the 3d of December? It was probable that existing circumstances might have led to a compromise, by which the fleet of Denmark would have been surrendered to France. In support of this assertion, he had very naturally read part of a dispatch from lord Howick to Mr. Garlick, in which the latter was instructed, if any disposition should be manifested on the part of the Danes to enter into such a compromise, distinelly to state, that it would be resented by his majesty. He had an objection whatever to the production of the notes to and from Mr. Rist. They contained an able

discussion of the French decree of the 21st of December, and of the English order of council of the 7th of January. For the production of these papers he would vote cheerfully, but not for the dispatch of the noble lord, for the production of which there had not been laid any sufficient ground.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that Mr. C. in his statement of the instructions to Mr. Garlicke, had left off where the very first word of the next sentence, the word but, would have completely knocked down all his reasoning on the subject. Mr. W's. motion was supported by lord Temple, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Horner, Mr. Windham, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Sharp. It was opposed by the secretary at war, Mr. Lockhart, the chancellor of the exchequer, sir John Orde, and sir M. Montague. On a division of the house, there appeared for the motion 73; against it 127.

House of lords, February 11th. -Lord Sidmouth gave notice of a motion he intended to make, on a fit opportunity, for an address to his majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to give directions that the Danish fleet be kept in such a state, as not to preclude the possibility of restoring it, should circumstances occur under which it might be expedient to restore it. Agreeably to this notice, the noble viscount rose to make a motion to this effect, on February 18th.; but he requested, previously, that the summons sent by the British commanders to the governor of Copenhagen, on the 16th of August, and a subsequent letter from them might be read; which was done. His object he said, was to propose to

their lordships, to come to a resolution stating the importance of preserving the Danish fleet in such a state that it might be eventually restored to Denmark, on the restoration of peace, or sooner, if possible. He said eventually,' as it was possible that such a situation of affairs might exist, that to restore the Danish fleet might be giving it to France, and also because he did not wish to bring forward any motion that might interfere with the prerogative of the crown. He had also used the terns the restoration of peace, or sooner, because circumstances might occur, notwithstanding the continuance of the war, in which the restoration of the fleet might be proper. He should not have brought forward the motion if he had not seen by the votes of the house of commons that the Danish ships had been surveyed, for the purpose of being taken into the Bri tish service. To adopt a resolution of the nature proposed, would set us right in the eyes of Europe, and evince our desire to be just. We should have at some period either to restore the fleet or to make compensation for it; and it was better to come at once to a resolution, declaring a decided opinion on the subject. Not all the victories of the ruler of France, nor all his conquests, could give him so much pleasure as to obtain a victory over the honour and integrity of this country. He had, upon consideration, thought it better to propose a resolution of the house, than an address to the throne. His lordship concluded, by moving," that it was highly important to the honour of this country, that under present sircumstances, no measures should

be taken with respect to the ships of war now in the possession of his majesty, in consequence of the capitulation of Copenhagen, that might preclude the eventual restitution of them to the government of Denmark, agreeably to the spirit of the requisition referred to in the proclamation issued on the 16th of August, by the commanders in chief of his majesty's sea and land forces, employed on that occasion; and renewed in their letter of the first of September, to the commander in chief of the forces of his Danish majesty

Lord Boringdon thought the proposition of the noble viscount of a novel and extraordinary nature, and such as if adopted, must lead to the most prejudicial consequences. Had such a proposition as this been adopted with respect to the Spanish frigates, would it not have greatly embarrassed the earl of Lauderdale in his negociations at Paris? Such a proposition could be adopted only on the ground, that the Spanish expedition was wholly unjustifiable, and the house had already decided on both its justice and necessity.

Lord Ellenborough thought, that every consideration of jus tice and regard for the interests and welfare of the country were in support of the motion of his noble friend.

The lord chancellor contended, that both by the law of precedent, and by that of the constitution, the present motion must be resisted. The ships we had taken from Hol land had not been restored, nor those from Spain, nor those taken at Toulon. But the constitution of the country was decisive upon this point. Captured ships became the property of the crown, and the present

Lord Holland contended, that the question did not at all affect the prerogative of the crown. It was only, 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. He was not inclined at present to enter into any exposition of the shifting, prevaricating testimony that had been resorted to, in vindication of the Baltic expedition. One time Denmark was represented as sincere in ber professions of neutrality, but too weak to act up to her tentions. 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 grounds of the expedition were the secret arrangement of the treaty of Tilsit; and when it was attempted to trace the alledged information to any authentic source, Portugal was at one period brought forward as the informer; and at another, the disaffected Irish. This short of shifting naturally created suspicion in the mind of every impartial man. Considering the present motion, with a reference to the question of peace, he appealed to the feelings of the noble lords, whether it would not be more for the bonour of the country, if they could commence a negotiation, after a voluntary cession on their parts, rather than the subsequent degradation of a forced surrender, exacted by the stipulations of a treaty ?

Lord Harrowby opposed the motion of the noble viscount, be

lities in a negociation for peace, it would better our government, and prevent them from obtaining the terms which they might otherwise secure. The arguments of the noble lords opposite went too far for their purpose; for, if they proved any thing, they proved, not that the Danish feet should be kept in order, that it might be restored at some subsequent period, but instantly and without delay.

Lord Erskine observed, that we had gone to the Danish shores in an amicable character, and treated with the Danes on an amicable footing. We took them. by surprize, when they were lulled into security, and then proposed that they should purchase the temporary protection of a foreign power, by the surrender of their independence as a nation for ever. With respect to the law." of precedent he dissented from his noble and learned friend on the sack. The cases cited by his noble friend, were not, in his opinion, applicable to that before their lordships. There was no obligation whatever, on the part of this country, to restore to revolutionized Holland the ships taken from the stadtholder. With respect to the precedent of Toulon, the Toulon feet was deposited in our hands on the express condition of its being restored on. the restoration of monarchy. And in the treaty of Amiens, there was not one syllable said by France, indicative of any claim to that fleet. But there was nothing for which lord Erskine was more anxious than to shew to the world, that what we did was indeed the work of mere necessity; and that this necessity being once at an end, we scorned to enter into any pitiful calculation

of

of turning it to our own advantage.

The earl of Selkirk, though he was a friend to the principle of the Danish expedition, thought it his duty to support the motion before the house.

Lord Redesdale thought, that the original proposition of our commanders to restore the Danish fleet, was completely done away by the subsequent conduct of the Danish government, in rejecting the terms of that proposition, and entering into hostilities with this country.There was no nation in Europe to which Denmark had been so adverse, for several years back, as to this country. She would have acted hostilely towards us if she could; and our government acted wisely in depriving her of her means. Such a pledge as that for the restoration of those means would, instead of tending to conciliate, serve to produce an opposite effect, as it proposed to concede that before hand, which ought to be left for matter of treaty.

The earl of Darnley conceived it to be peculiarly becoming that house to stand forward, for the purpose of rescuing the national character from the imputation naturally to be affixed upon it, by the Danish expedition.

Lord Mulgrave, to the assertion, that we did not want ships but men, replied by alledging, that we could have men enough at any time, but that we might stand in need of shipping.

Lord Grenville denied, that the house had yet come to any decision on the merits of the Danish expedition; the evidence relative to which had not yet been laid before it. He explained the object of the

motion; it was by no means proposed, that the Danish fleet should be restored under any particular circumstances; but merely that, in order to facilitate a reconciliation, and with a view to œconomy also, it should be kept in such a state as to prevent any obstructions to peace with Denmark, by enabling us to restore it with the least possible expence and difficulty. After deprecating the principle, that a state of war should cancel moral obligations, or that we should shrink from doing justice lest it should lead to loss, he proceeded to comment on the conséquences likely to result from the nature of our attack on Copenhagen. So far from destroying, by that attack, the naval resources of Denmark, we had, particularly by the spirit we produced, contributed to promote and extend them. Her ports and arsenals were still remaining, with a vast quantity of naval materials; and any supply she wanted, she could without difficulty obtain. The profit to be derived from our iniquity was, in fact, immaterial while we had created a spirit, valour, and animosity to fight against us, which must furnish powerful aid to the common enemy.

Lord Hawkesbury opposed the motion, as tending to fetter the executive government, in case of a negotiation with Denmark; as casting an oblique censure on the conduct of ministers; and as affixing a stigma upon a measure, which was both just and necessary.

Lord Sidmouth replied to lord Hawkesbury, on the usual grounds, that the Baltic expedition was neither just, necessary, or politically necessary; and that at any rate the ships, under certain circumstances,

ought