between Great Britain and Denmark since the commencement of the year, with a view to a pacific arrangement between the powers.

two

The Earl of Liverpool said, he should confine himself strictly to the motion; and he would repeat that the documents moved for had no connection with the subject that was this night to be debated, since the treaty with Sweden was substantially concluded before Denmark had made pacific overtures to Great Britain. The first communication was received from the Danish minister at Stockholm on Feb. 25th. An answer was returned on the 28th, which did not reach Stockholm till March 4th, the day subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty now on the table.

Lord Grenville spoke in favour of the motion; after which the House divided, contents 27; not contents, 72; majority against the motion, 45.

The Earl of Liverpool then rose to speak on the main question. He began with adverting to the terrible storm which was impending over Russia, in the last year, when he was invaded by a greater force than was ever before brought against any country. Two things, he said, were necessary to give her a chance of successful resistance; peace with Turkey, and the cooperation of Sweden. The first was effected chiefly by the mediation of this country. With regard to the second, France had, by seizing Pomerania, tried the effect of intimidation on Sweden, whilst on the other hand she made large offers to engage her friendship. She, however, preferred making

common cause with Russia against the enemy; and was she not entitled to some indemnification for her loss and hazard! There were three considerations to be attended to in discussing the merits of the treaty in question: 1. Were Russia and Sweden justified in entering into their engagements? 2. Was, or was not, Great Britain justified in acceding to that treaty? 3. Did she act wisely and politically in acceding? With respect to the first, it was not to be forgotten that Denmark formed part of the confederacy against Russia. She engaged to Buonaparte to occupy the north of Germany with her troops, of which some countries were in alliance with Russia, and thus as completely co-operated with the French as if she had marched with them to Moscow. She made her election, and was to stand by the consequences. As to the justice of the accession of Great Britain to the engagements between Russia and Sweden, were we not at war with Denmark? Danish seamen manned the French ships; their ports were shut against us, their privateers were annoying our commerce. Could it be asserted that we were not as much justified in conquering Norway, as in conquering any other place belonging to Denmark? The idea of annexing Norway to Sweden was not new. The purpose of sir John Moore's expedition had been to co-operate with Sweden in the conquest of Norway as an indemnification for the loss of Finland. The nominal war which afterwards ensued with Sweden, had indeed released this country from any preceding engagement; but as she had now

shewn such a determination to cooperate in the common cause, she had a strong claim on our liberality to promote her views in any legitimate contest. With respect to the policy of our acceding to the engagements between the two powers, there was no object, except the independence of the Peninsula, so important to Great Britain, as that Norway should belong to a power able and willing to preserve its independence against France. It was a country full of harbours, from which we procured a considerable part of our naval stores. He did not mean to say, that for this reason solely Denmark ought to be deprived of it; but till that nation was prepared to sacrifice its German dominions for its insular security, it must be dependant on France. The noble lord then made some observations to show that even in the last the conduct of Sweyear den had been of material service to Russia, and that Denmark had made no overtures till after the almost complete destruction of the French invading armies. The question, he said, came to this; how far the Swedish government had shewn a disposition to perform the treaty? and he endeavoured to prove from facts that its exertions had been hearty and zealous. As to the compensation given to Sweden by the cession of a West India island, he said it was not a new idea, and that there never was an occasion in which such a measure was more important or less detrimental to this country. The return, that of opening a depôt for British commerce in Sweden, was such an effectual reversing of the continental system, as

deserved to be purchased at almost any price. He concluded by moving an address of thanks to the Prince Regent for laying this treaty before parliament, and to assure his Royal Highness of their readiness to co-operate with him to carry.1 y.the same into effect.

Lord Holland, after some preliminary remarks on the moral na ture of the question, as affecting the reputation of the country, observed that the noble earl had somehow overlooked the million of English money that was to be paid to Sweden.

He then stated the outline of the treaty, as he understood its stipulations. Besides this sum of money we were to cede the island of Guadaloupe, in perpetuity to Sweden, and assist her in despoiling her neighbour of a part of his hereditary dominions; and we were never to make peace unless Sweden voluntarily gave up her claims, or was put in possession of Norway. In return, Sweden was to do what she was already obliged to do by treaty, and to give us a right of entrepôt at three ports, but this only for 20 years, although the cessions made to her were for perpetuity. The treaty before the House refers to a former treaty concluded between Russia and Sweden last year; yet it is asserted to have been necessary to secure the co-operation of Sweden. Russia had in fact derived all the advantage from this treaty. By an act of robbery and plunder, she had wrested from her ally, part of his dominion; and instead of restoring it, had agreed with this ally to rob a third party. It had been asked, were not we at war with Denmark? He would ask, were the two allies so?

He

believed there was still a Danish minister at Petersburgh; there certainly had been one after the 3rd of March. What an argument would it afford for universal robbery, if a weak power was to be despoiled on the principle of this treaty! The Prince Royal had said that Norway was a necessary accession to him, and that he could undertake no expedition to the continent without this security from the designs of Denmark. Nothing of this is effected. Norway and Denmark have become his enemy, but he has got Guadaloupe and a million a-year, and all danger vanishes. By the treaty with Russia, Sweden was bound to furnish a certain force to cooperate in Germany, but not till 15,000 Russians should march against Norway, at a time when the greatest army ever assembled was marching to Moscow. It might be said, it was not their business to canvas engagements between two foreign nations; but when these were referred to in order to justify the excessive engagements we had entered into, they should be considered with relation to the principles and policy of these nations. The indemnity to be offered to Denmark was remarkable. It has been asserted that she must necessarily be dependant on France, whilst her territories were contiguous to the north of Germany; yet it was in Germany that she was to receive her indemnification. His lordship spoke in terms of warm encomium on the efforts which Russia had made to secure her independence; but, he asked, was not that principle as sacred when applied to Norway; was her independence to be ex

tinguished, and her people to be conveyed against their will to the rule and obedience of another sovereign? How we could reconcile the spoliation and dismemberment settled by this treaty, with our own policy with respect to the continent as set forth in our declarations against the infringements and violations of France, he should leave the noble earl to decide. He understood that this cession was made a sine qua non, and that Denmark had no option, but either to cede Norway with a good will, or to have it taken from her by force. If there were now a negociation for peace, Great Britain could no longer speak of the reestablishment of the ancient states of Europe, if she was pledged to the dismemberment of one of the oldest. After various other objections to the treaty, urged by his lordship with great force and eloquence, he concluded with moving by way of amendment a long address to the Prince Regent, the substance of which was, to express their deep regret and sorrow at the principles on which it was formed, principles irreconcileable with the laws of nations, and the true feelings of national honour and public morality; it also reflected on the cession of Guadaloupe as altogether unwarranted, and on the subsidy, as inconsistent with the financial difficulties under which the country was labouring; and it concluded with a request to his Royal Highness to suspend the execution of the treaty.

The Earl of Harrowby made a reply, which was chiefly a repetition of the arguments used by lord Liverpool.,

The Marquis of Buckingham spoke warmly against the treaty, on the ground both of its dishonesty, and its impolicy. At a time, he said, when the whole north of Europe might have been united against the common enemy, Denmark, while engaged in testifying her sincere desire to reestablish the relations of peace and amity with this country, was told, in language that could not be mistaken, that she had no alternative but to be hostile to us, and thus was forced into the ranks of the enemy.

Earl Grey took the same ground in condemning the treaty, and made some pointed remarks on the conduct of Sweden, which country, he contended, was more likely in future to be, as she had formerly been, a friend to France than to England. He concluded with blaming ministers for not. having in the spring made some attempts at negociation with the ruler of France.

Earl Bathurst spoke in defence of the treaty.

The Earl of Liverpool, in an swer to Lord Grey's assertion that, according to the wording of the treaty, it was a guarantee in per petuity of both Norway and Guadaloupe to the Swedish govern ment, argued, on the contrary, that it was only a virtual guarantee, contingent upon the perform ance of certain stipulations on the part of Sweden.

A division then took place on the original address, in which the numbers were, contents, 78; proxies, 62-140. Not-contents, 40; proxies, 37-77. Majority in favour of the address, 63.

The proceedings in the House

of Commons relative to this subject were so similar to those in the House of Lords, and the arguments used on each side followed so nearly the same train, that a general notice of them is all that our view of parliamentary history can require.

The debate in that House commenced on June 18th, when lord Castlereagh moved, 1st, That the House should resolve itself into a committee of supply; and, 2ndly, That the treaty with Sweden, presented to the House by command of his royal highness the Prince Regent, be referred to the said committee.

Mr. Ponsonby then rose, and said, that on the present occasion he conceived that the most conve→ nient method of raising the debate on the merits of the Swedish treaty would be, to proceed with the discussion prior to the Speaker's leaving the chair; and he intimated his intention of moving an address to the Prince Regent on the subject. He then observed, that he believed it was the first instance in which a treaty, containing the cession of a valuable possession of the crown of Great Britain, had been laid on the table of either House of Parliament, the minister of the crown in each House not having expressed a desire to take the sense of parliament upon it. After some remarks on this point, the right hon. gentleman proceeded to a discussion and censure of the treaty nearly on the same grounds with those taken by its opposers in the other House. He concluded with moving an address to the Prince Regent of a similar purpose with that of lord Holland.

Lord Castlereagh, after some complaint of the unusual mode in which the right hon. gentleman had brought on the subject, which im posed on him the task of attempt ing that explanation of the circumstances connected with the treaty, the detail of which he had expected to be called upon to give only in the committee, proceeded to an elaborate and particular vindication of it, chiefly founded on the arguments employed by lord Liverpool in the other House, but more opened and expanded. He said he could not but feel that he owed some explanation to the House on the subject of a treaty being concluded with any foreign power, and considerable advances made on that treaty, parliament being sitting, without making any communication to them respecting it; but the House would be satis fied when he should have stated the cause. He then gave some account of the circumstances which had occasioned the delay in its ra tification, and of those which afterwards prevented its being laid before parliament till this was actually done. In speaking of the affair of Norway, he said that modifications had been proposed by the British government to Sweden, which had relaxed so far as to say, "Though I feel the whole of Norway necessary to my security, yet, if the power of France be diminished, I will be content with the bishoprick of Drontheim."

Mr. Canning censured that part of the treaty which related to the separation of Norway from Denmark, and thought that although the word guarantee was not expressly mentioned, yet that in fact our obligation amounted to a gua

rantee. He also objected to the transfer of Guadaloupe during war, as a circumstance which might throw an obstacle in the way of peace. After a variety of remarks, he concluded with censuring a part of the conduct of ministers, but said that he could not think it right to record that portion of the right hon. gentleman's amendment which referred to the conduct of our allies.

Lord Castlereagh disclaimed any idea of a guarantee as making a part of the engagements of the treaty.

Mr. Whitbread spoke warmly against the treaty.

Mr. Canning moved an amendment, qualifying the address proposed by Mr. Ponsonby.

A division first took place on Mr. Ponsonby's motion. For it, 115: against it, 224. Majority for its rejection, 109.

The House then divided on Mr. Canning's amendment. For it, 121: against it, 225. Majority, 104. The House then went into a committee.

On bringing up the report of the committee, June 23rd, Mr. Bankes, who had not been present at the former debate, made a number of observations on the treaty, which he thought to be that of all others for which this country was to pay the most, and receive the least. He was replied to by lord Castlereagh in a repetition of former arguments; and the resolution of the committee was agreed to without a division.

A debate, or rather conversation, which took place in the House of Commons, respecting Orange Lodges,may deserve notice, though followed by no particular measures, as affording an indica