The Sun.
London, England, 1801-02-03 00:00:00

hkdly'another man to be found in this Cotintry
who would hesitate for e moment, yet there were
°Mgr points up'on which his -mind appeared to be
free from doubt,,and his opinion completely made
up. If, after a full discussion of this question,
-it should appear that the Claim which this. Coun-
try has made is founded on the clearest and most .
indisputable justice—if it should be proved that
our greatness, nay; our. very existence as a
Nation, and every thing that has raised cis to
the exalted situation which we hold, depends
upon our possessing and exercising this-Lif,
1, say, all this should be provd' in the most
satisfailory manner, still the. Hon. Gentleman is
prepared seriously to cleclare.in this House, that
each are the Circumstances in which we stand,
that we ought. publicly and explicitly to state to
the world that we arc unequal to the Contest,
and that we must quietly give up for ever an on.
questionable right,and one upon which not only out.
character,
.but our leery existence as a Maritime.
Power,, depended. '!'leis is the' conthia which
the Hon. Gentleman ad vises_ us to pursue it once,
without v est igat i ng,:wi thout deterinining,'whe:
thee it is compatible. with our safety. I really
find much difaculty,..Sit, in reconciling this lan-
guage to that sort' of spirit which the Hon. • Gen,
tlernan talks of in another part Of his Specch, in
which he says, he is far
.from wishing to make
Country . despond.-- {Mr; Grey here- said
across the Table,' that he .had been. miss/viler-
tood.).-Sir, I am stating what the Ron. Gentle-
man said, and I shall,be happy. to find thai he did
:lout/can what he said., ,I shall. now,' Sir, en-
deBv,our to follow. die on. Gentleman dumb
his argument, as fur as I' can recoiled it, upon
tic important question of the Northern confe-
ile.,-acy. following-, the order which he. took,
I must begin with his doubts, and end with his
certainties ; and cannot avoid observing, that
the. Ilon;•Gentlernan -Was` singularly unfortunate
uparLt4is:subjea; for he entertained doubts where
there was not the Slightest for'hesitation
Aral he.contriees to make.,up his mind to absolute
certainty, Upon points in whiCh both argurnent
and fail are decidedly against him. That, part
of the question upon which the Hon. Gentleman
appears to be involved in doubt, is with respect
to the justice of our claim with regard to Neu.
tral Vessels. In Commenting upon this part of
the sithjea, the Hon: Gentleman gave us a lessori
in politics, .which is 'more remarkable for its
4ounciness than • its novelty, viz. that a Nation
fought not to enforce a claim tisat,is not founded
in justice, and that nothing would,befqund to be
consistent with true policy that' was not eon.
formable to stria justice.- I thought, however,
X heard the Hon, Gentleman in another part of
'ills Speech, where he was arguing the qUestion
cf the expediency and propriety of our negotiat-
ing a separate Peace with France, contend. that
pu consideration of good fai th to Austria ought to
prevent us from entering into such a Negotiation.
1/11)..Grey said be hart not laid that down as a prin-
t-;'lr, but merely with respea fc t fie circivvistances
under ,which ,we stood with rcgard,to Atistria.)-
1 am glad to, hear the Hon. Gentleman contradiel
me, but I certainly understood hiM to aay I
am also glad to find, that when the issue of 'fail
is found against hiM, he has no demurrer in 're.
Aerie upon the principle. Upon the justice,
however, of our claim, the Hon. Gentleman
erateF, himself to be wholly in doubt. Ihere h,
Sir, in general, a degree of modesty in doubting,
That conciliates very much, and a man is seklqin
nclined to bear hard upon an „antagonist whose
attack doe; norexceed the liMits of a doubt. Bet,
Sir, whet) a Gentleman doubts that which has
been indisputably established for more than a
—, Centurywhen he douhrS that whichhas been an
;acknowledged principle of Law in all the Tribu.
'Pals of the Kingdom, which are alone competent
to decide upon tie subjeil, and which farliiment
has constantly known them to eta upon—when
jie doubts principles which the ablest and wisest
Statesmen-have uniformly adopted—l say, Sir, •
the dinibt that 'call's; in. question principles' so
'established, without offering the slightest ground
for 3.1-.) doing, spews a great deal of that pert pre_
Silt-option-wok!) as often as modesty leads to seep.
t:eisnl,r4 Wish, to ask,every Gentleman in the
pause, whether it has not been always known
that such was the principle opon which our Courts
were ailing from ,the commencement of the.pre.
se. ntWat up to the Momeet.that I am speaking ?
ask whether that principle has not been main-
tained in every• War ? Let me at the same time
ask whether, in the course of the speeches . of
the .opntlemen on the other- ,side of the Houk,
'any one topic: of alarm-has been omitted, 'which
either fart could furnish, or ingerittity supply ? I
Le:level shall not be answered -in the negative,
and yet I believe I may safely assert, that it
never occurred to any one Member to increase
the difficulties of the Country by stating a doUbt
-upon the Question'of Right; and it will be a
raost singular eireumstance,. that the ?knowable
'Gentleman arid hit Friends should only have
begun to doubt when our, EneMies are ready to
begin to combat. But though I hive heard
doubts expressed upon a SubjeCt;on which it ap-
peared to me that a doubt could hardly have
entered the mind of an Englishman, I haVe
not heard one word to shew on what ground-
-there can exist a doubt upon the justice pf
'our claim, a claim- .which, until this House
'decides the conriery, I shall 'consider as part•
of the Law of the Land. For I consider
the Maritime Law, and the Law of Nations,
as aaed upon in our Courts, to be part of
:the Law,of the Land. I speak in the presence
of *orne, Learned Gentlemen, who are conversant
-Li the praitice of the COUtts to I allude,
And who, I Am sure, will contradia me if I state
that which is 'mortal. I ask any 'of these
Learned. Gentle:nen, whether they would suffer
the principle upon which Our claim rests to be
called in question- in any of their Courts ? Bqt
When we come to consider this question as ap.
plying to the Contest in which we may be Cu.:
'gaged, there am so many consideration's that 'are
decisive blots the subject, that I am really con-
_

•
, .
vinced from the manner in which the Hon. Gen.
tlemnn treated it, that his doubts have all arisen
from, his not having lookedinto the question.—
There are two ways io which this subject is to
be considered ; the first is, whatehas been the ge-
neral Law of Nations upon this sußjed, indepen.
dent of any particular Treaties which may have
been made. The next is, how. far. any
.precise
Treaties of ed it, with regard to the particular
Powers who 'are the objeds of the present dis-
pute ? With roped to the
.Law of Nations, I
"know that the principle upon which we are now
'afting, and for which I am now contending, has,
been universally admitted and aced upon, except
in cases'where it has been restrained or modified
by'particular 'Treaties between diffefent States.
And here I must observe, that the Hon. Gentle.
man has tallm into the same error which consti-
tutes the grat fallacy in the reasoning of the M.
vocates for the Northern PoWers, namely, that
every exception frOm the General Law by a
.par.
ticullir Treaty, ;proves the' Law to be as it is
stated in 'that Treaty .; whereas the very cir-
cirmstances of making en exception by Treaty,
proves wTat the General Law of Nations would
be, if no Such Treaty were made tomodify or alter
it. The Hen. Gentleman alludes to the Treaty
:Made between this Country and France in the year
• 1787, • known, by the name of the Commercial
-Treaty. In that Treaty it certainly was stipulated,
that in the event of Great Britain being engaged
in a war, and France being neutral,that she should
• have the advantage now claimed, and ,vice Terra ;
hut the Hon. Gentleman confesses,'that he recol-
leds that the very same objection was made at
that time,. and. was fully answered, and that it
was clearly proved, that no part of our stipula-
tion in that Treaty tended to a ,d.erelidion of
the principle for which we'are now contending.
Besides, when it is considered: how far the inte-
rests of this Country can be implicated ilea Naval
War in which France is neutral, it will not afford
any proof, either that we considered the principle
as unimportant, or that we gave it up. I could,
without in the slightest degree weakening the
cause which I am endeavouring to support, give
to the Hon. Gentleman all the benefit he can
possibly derii.e from the Commercial Treaty with
France, and from particular Treaties with other
States, and I should be glad to know what advan-
tage he could derive from auclean admission, If
he could shew Treaties, with any given number.
of States, still, if there were any State in Europe
with whom no such Treaty was in existence, with
that State the Law' of Nations, such -as I am now
contending for, must be in full force. Still more, it
• willebe- el lowed to: me, that if there-is any Nation
that has forborne to be a party. to *se 'Treaties,
that maintained this principle and has enforced its
rights ; in such a case, no inference that can be
drawn from Treaties with other Powers, can have
any weight. The utmost the Hon. Gentleman
could argue, and even in that I do not think he
• would be founded in justice, would, be this—that
if there was no general consent with respect to
the principles, that particular .Treaties ought to
serve as a guide in other cases. But what will
the Hon. Gentleman eay, if, instead. of my
stating an imaginary. case, I give to him this',
short answer, That with every one of the ibree
Northern Powers with whotti we are at .present
in. dispute,. independent of the Law of Nations,
of our uniform predict, and of the opinions of
our Courts, we have the stria Letter of En.
gagements by. which they are bound to us ?--
What willehe say, if I shew, 'that their pre-
sent conduit to us, is as much a violation 'of.
positive Treaties with us, as it is of the Law of
Nations ? With respell to Denmark and Sweden,
nobody here, I am -sure, has to learn
.that the
Treaties of 1661 and 1670 are now in full force,
and nobody can read those Treaties without seeing
that 'the right of carrying enemies' property is
completely given up.. , With regard to Russia,
the right of this country never was given up by
us. It • uudoubtedly was very much discussed
during the time that the Treaty of Commerce
with Russia was negotiating; but I will not' rest
my argument. upon negative' evidence. 'ln the
Convention signed between Great Britain, and
Russia at the Commencement• of the preselet-War,
the letter hound herself not (merely tai observe
this principle by a Convention,, (not done away,
unless that we have unjustly commenced hostili-
ties against her), -bet she engaged io use her
efforts to prevent Neutral Powers from protOlitig
the Commerce of France on. the Seas or_ in the
Pores of France. Laying aside then'every other
ground upon which I contend that the principle
am now maintaining is supported, still I say,
that ..the Treaties with Oleic three Powers, Rus-
sia, Sweden, and Denmark, are now in full force;
and I ask, whether it is possible to suggest any
one ground, upon which it can be contended that
these Powers • are released . from their engage-
ments to us ? So much foie:the justice of the claim.
I will not, Sir,' take up much 'more of the time
of the House, because. there will he PApers laid
before the. House which will place the subjeft in
a clearer point of view than can be dune in the
course of a Debut ;—but I must say, that with',
eegard to these Powers, the case does not stop
here. What will the Hon. Gentleman say if I
shew him, 'that in 'the course of the. present
War both Denmark and. Sweden have distind-
lee expressed their readiness to agree in that
very principle against which they are now dis-
posed. to contend, and that they, made acknow-
ledgments to us for not carrying the claim so
far as Russia was disposed to carry it ? 'What
will the Hon. Gentleman say, if T shew him that
Sweden,. who in the year; s7BO agreed to the
Armed Neutrality, has since then been at• War
herself, and then ailed upon a principle diredly
contrary to that which she ngreed to in the year
1780, and to that :upon . which she is 'now die.
posed to ail ' In the War between Sweden and,
'‘Russia, the farmer distindly aded upon that very
principle for which we are now .eontending.—
What will the Hon. Gentleman say, if 1 shew
him that in the last Autumn, • Denmaik,', with
her fleets and Arsenals•at our mercy, entered

i,G4N,DU N : P ccited by 1111 CI lANAN M`lll I 1.1.‘1N, (of Low-Sircet, Covenr.cia
At tlit:Svti-Ovrici, No. t is, Strand ; where Adweritsenvereet, Orders I