the continent, should find an asyJuru in Great Britain, and be bere cherished and supported; thus rendering our conduct, as stated from the throne in 1794, a contrast to that of the enemy, ultimately maintaining and exalting our cha racter, and contributing to our real security. His lordship concluded, by moving the following resolutions: "That it appears to this house, that ships and other property to a large number and amount, belong ing to subjects of his Danish majesty, have been seized and detained under orders and instructions, issued before information was received by the British government of the commencement of hostilities with Denmark; and at a time when there was no alledged or supposed cause of war or reprizals, and when in pursuit of a peaceable and lawful commerce, there was an unusual accumulation of Danish ships and cargoes in our ports, under the most perfect confidence of secury; and that the said ships and other property have been since condemned as prize to the crown. "That in consideration of the extraordinary circumstances under which the said orders and instructions were issued, it is highly expedient, that except for the purpose of indemnifying such British subjects as may have suffered from the sequestration of their property in Denmark, the appropriation of the proceeds of the said ships and other effects should be suspended, so that no obstacle may be occasioned thereby to such eventual compensation to the original owners as circumstances may appear to admit of, and as his majesty in his justice and liberality may be pleased to direct. "That it would be highly honourable to the character of this country, that considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, all mariners and others detained and taken in consequence of the orders and instructions aforesaid, should be released upon such terms and conditions as his majesty may think fit to require. That at the time of issuing the orders and instructions aforesaid, there were also in the ports of this kingdom many ships and cargoes belonging to subjects of his Dauish majesty, which having been unjustly and wrongfully brought into the said ports, had been decreed to be restored to the owners; and that many more then under adjudication must, as it appears, have been in like manner decreed to be restored: that freight-money, to a large amount, had been, and other sums of the like nature must have been, pronounced to be due; all which ships, cargoes, and freightmoney have, in consequence of the supervening hostilities, been condemned as prize to the crown. "That it is essential to justice and to the honour of the British name, as well as conformable to the an cient practice of our courts, and to the established principles of the law of nations, that effectual means be adopted for giving to the owners of the said ships, and other property, the full benefit of the de crees pronounced in their favour by the high court of admiralty, or by his majesty's high court of appeal for prizes; and the adoption of such means is rendered the more obligatory on the faith of this na[E 4] tion, tion, inasmuch as the positive stipulation of a treaty then subsisting between this country and Denmark, was intended to provide against a delay, which, however unavoidable in the present instance, has proved so injurious to the interests of the subjects of Denmark. "That it is equally essential to justice and to the honour of the British name, that the crews, or such part of them as had remained in this kingdom, for the better custody and protection of the ships and cargoes so as aforesaid ordered to be restored, should no longer be considered as prisoners of war. "That the principles of the foregoing resolutions be considered as extending to the proceedings of all his majesty's courts of prize, wherever the facts of the case, which at present are not before this house, shall warrant their application." Lord Sidmouth's motion was supported by lord Erskine, lord Ellenborough, earl Stanhope, and the earl of Lauderdale. Lord Erskine maintained, that those who combated the present proposition must shew that there was an actual necessity for detaining and keeping these trading vessels; otherwise the owners were entitled, in justice, to a compensation. Lord Lauderdale maintained, that there was never any thing in the history of our wars, that bore the smallest resemblance to the present transaction. The motion was opposed by the lord chancellor Eldon, and lord Hawkesbury. Lord Eldon maintained, that as the law stood, a vessel detained, although there might be no reason for the detention at the time, became forfeited to the crown. This might operate as a hard case in many instances on individuals: but he had great doubts, whether there could be any thing like a commercial peace, and a political war at the same time. Such a system, and the idea of compensation for losses, would only lead towards speculations on the part of individuals. Lord Hawkesbury went over the same ground, contended that the war on the part of Denmark was entirely optional, and in fact courted by that country, and also, that the seizing of the Danish ships was not without precedent. Lord Sidmouth's first resolution being moved, the house divided.Contents 16-Against it 36. And on the fourth resolution, which related to the ships that had been previously ordered by the admiralty courts to be restored, another division took place. Contents 16-Non-contents 37. CHAP. III. Relations between Great Britain and Russia, with other Powers, particularly Russia.-Motion in the House of Commons by Mr. Whitbread for sundry Papers relating to this Subject.-Motion by Mr. Whitbread after reviewing the Information now before the House, for entering immediately into a Negotiation for Peace.-Opposed by Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Canning, &c. &c.-Supported by Mr. Sheridan-negatired.-Resolutions moved by Mr. Adam respecting the Law of Parliament.-Supported by Mr. Windham and Mr. Whitbread.Opposed by Mr. Canning, Mr. Perceval, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Sturges Bourne.-Expedition to the Dardanelles, brought into Discussion in the House of Commons by Mr. W. Taylor.-Motion for sundry Papers relating to that Affair.-The Expedition defended by Mr. T. Grenville.-Censured by Mr. Canning.-The previous Question put and carried. VERY near akin to the long agitated question of the Balfic expedition, was that respecting our relations to Russia. In some stances they ran into one another and became the same; on the 26th of January, Mr. secretary Canning presented to the house of commons the papers relative to the Russian and the Austrian offers of mediation, which were ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Ponsonby wished to know whether it was Mr. Canning's intention to lay before the house the papers relative to the application made by the British government to the court of St. Petersburgh, to mediate between this country and Denmark. Mr. Canning replied, that though this had not been the intention of ministers, he had no objection to their production, provided any ction for them should be so geserally worded as to admit of it. For if it went the length of requring the specific answer given by Russia to the specific request, it could not be done, as there was no such paper in existence. Mr. Ponsonby then moved, that an humble address should be presented, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased to cause that there should be laid before the house, copies of extracts from the correspondence between his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and his accredited minister of the court of St. Petersburgh, as far as related to the request of his majesty to his imperial majesty to mediate a peace between this country and Denmark. Ordered *. Mr. Whitbread wished to be informed whether it was Mr. Ponson by's intention to move, that these papers should be taken into consideration on any particular day; and on receiving an answer in the negative, he gave notice of his intention, without naming the day, to take an early opportunity of bringing the foreign relations of the See State Papers. country country under discussion, with the view of inducing the house to come to a resolution on the propriety of commencing a negotiation for peace with France at the present moment. Accordingly, on the 16th of February, Mr. Whitbread rose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers, necessary to be before the house, previous to the discussions which he intended to introduce on Monday se'nnight. Minis-, ters, after various transactions, in which they had been engaged in the course of last summer, had laid upon the table, notes, dispatches, and extracts of dispatches, explanatory of their conduct. This he considered as deficient; and his design was to call on ministers to make up the chasm. His first motion would be for copies and extracts of dispatches from the secretary of state for foreign affairs to our ministers at Vienna, relative to the proffered mediation of Austria, as he understood that this was to be granted, he would say nothing on that point. His second motion was of great and paramount importance. It was for an extract of the dispatch containing the substance of the conversation that took place between the emperor of Russia and lord Hutchinson, on the 23d of August, 1807, relative to the offer of the Russian mediation for peace, &c. It had been insinuated, that it was a breach of duty, in any accredited minister, to mention the conversations he might have had with a sovereign. This was not the case in all circumstances; but at any rate, lord Hutchinson, a most distinguished individual, renowned for his military talents, and not less celebrated for his high sense of honour, was not Why an accredited minister; though, as a private individual, he maintained a communication with the emperor of Russia, with the knowledge of our accredited minister. The conversation which he held with the emperor on the 23d of August, was known well at the time, and had been conveyed to this country in a dispatch from lord Leveson Gower, to whom it had been communicated for this express purpose. then should it not be commumicated in an authentic and regular form to the house? The emperor confiding in the judgment and integrity of lord Hutchinson, asked him, whether, considering the situation of affairs, peace ought not to be concluded. Lord H. asserted that it ought. The emperor then said that he had offered his mediation for a peace with England, stating, at the same time, that, from what he knew, peace might be concluded on honourable terms. Was not this document necessary? Could there be any thing indiscreet in communicating it? The noble lord was not prevented by any obligation whatever of duty or expediency, to conceal the conversation. He then proceeded to state instances in which communications of conversations with sovereigns had been laid before the house. Mr. W. also wanted to have the substance of the verbal assurances, relative to peace between Russia and France, mentioned in the note of our ambassador of the 30th of June, 1807; the dispatch, containing assurances of satisfaction for a promised cooperation after a change of ministry; with several other papers, relative to the Russian loan, Sweden, &c. After a short debate, Mr. Whitbread withdrew his first mo House of commons, February 29th. Mr. Whitbread rose to make his announced motion, for entering immediately into a negotiation for peace. After some prefatory observations respecting the acknowledged danger of the present crisis, he said, that his present intention was to take a review of the information now before the house, respecting the conduct of ministers in refusing to enter into negotiation with France, thereon to ground a resolution expressive of what the state of the country might have been, had a different course been pursued. He had, a month ago, stated some of the symptoms of the present crisis of the country. Since that time, several petitions had been presented to the house, of which the statements were most distressing, the prayer most moderale, and the general tone most patriotic. He did not bring forward the motion he was about to make, in consequence of these petitions; but he was not sorry that they had been presented, because he was a friend to petitioning: much good had been produced by petitions. It was by the petitions of the people, that an end had been put to the AmeriCan war; and if the petitions of the people had been attended to in the early part of the last war against France, our situation now would have been far different from what it was. All projects were now given up of obtaining indemnity for the past, of dictating a constitution to France, or of curbing the power and ambition of Buonaparte. Our only aim now, was to defend ourselves. And what probability was there of obtaining a more honourable peace than might be concluded at the present moment? He called the attention of the house to the present situation of the country with regard to foreign powers. The peace of Tilsit had been treated in his majesty's declaration, and in the speech of the commissioners, most disastrous to Russia, and represented as the effect of despondency and alarm. But Mr. W. contended, that this peace had been the salvation, and had prevented the Russian army from being totally and completely extinguished. Before the peace of Tilsit, however, was concluded, an offer had been made by Russia, to mediate a peace between Great Britain and France: an offer which he had always considered as an effusion of Alexander's heart towards this country. Here Mr. Whitbread entered into a detailed analysis of the papers which had been laid on the table, relative to this offer, on the part of Russia, and the refusal of ministers to accept of it. In the course of many observations and comments, he adverted to general Bugberg's letter of the 20th June, in which he complains of Russia having been left unaided in the contest. On the justice or injustice of these complaints, he did not now mean to enter; but he contended that the language held in this note, which was that of a man who seemed to feel that he had been ill used, was itself a proof of the fidelity of the |