Star.
London, England, 1808-02-09 00:00:00

Thi con
.ally were obliged
orce of the enemy.
incalculable influ-
llowed, and which,
Mated in the peace
with Russia might
ittack upon Copen-
was astonished how
:ould have been put
igain repeat, that he
'fight not have taken
pinion that her hos-
The attack upon
:ontributc to confirm ,
C 46110 alienation mind . _ Emperor of Russia '1
this country in the ,
which, he would admit, might
toted its first foundation in other causes. On the
of July he left Memel, and arrived at St. Peters-II
01
the 17th of the month following. Two-
hurg on -
iree days after his arrival, the Emperor sent I
c'r oa admitted him to an audience, in,
for
which a conversation to the following effect took
place. The
a Emperor began with asking him, whether
li
he had rot admitted to Count Strogonoff, three days
he
the battle of Friedland, the necessity of makin
peace ? He allowed that he had. Upon this poii
cbseri ed his Majesty, we are both agreed. The
then,
Emperor
then communicated to him, that he had of-
e.ee his mediation between France and England ;
that in (104 so he was actuated by no vain glory
(004 was the French word), but by an earnest de-
ire to restore to Europe that repose which it so much
I observed," replied his Lordship, " that
:vented.
sufficient time had not been allowed to my Govern-
meat; that the events of the war, as far as respected
England, were highly favourable ; and that I was
convinced no comlitiore c f peace, but such as were
emourabie, and likely to be followed by permanent
tranquillity, would be listened to. The Emperor said,
that the time made no difference ; that provided his
mediation was accepted, the negotiation need not be
hurried; that it might take place in the course of
three or four months ; and that, from what he
knew of the French Emperor's sentiments, it would
be attended with less difficulty than might be sup-
posed." Oa the 4th of September he had another
interview with his Imperial Majesty, when he asked
him what he thought of the attack upon Copenhagen?
His Lordship answered, that he was persuaded his
Government would be able to justify the measure.
He replied, that it would be impossible ; " that if I
recollected the conversations at Bartenstein, I must
be convinced of the Crown Prince's determination
to maintain his neutrality. His Majesty asserted,
that there was no connection between the French
aed Danish Governments ; and that the determined
character of the Crown Prince was a sufficient guaran-
tee that he would not lend himself to such designs as
;ere imputed to him. I observed to him," said Lord
Hutchinson, " that Lord G. L Gower had delivered
a Note on the subject." He answered, that he was
aware he had, but that it was nugatory. His Ma-
jesty then stated, in the most peremptory tone and
language, that he would have satisfaction ; that he
was bound to Denmark by the most solemn engage-
ments, and that he would adhere to them. He sup-
posed, he said, that we intended to make an attack
npm :onstadt : let us ;he would defend it with the
best means in his power ; and, whether that defence
was successful or not, he would, navertheless, fulfil
the high destiny to which he had bean called. He
again expressed his determination to adhere to Den=
mark, to protect the independence of the Baltic, and
concluded by again declaring, in a most emphatic man-
ner, that he would ha ve satiyaction." After these con-
versations, can it, said his Lordship, be maintained
by any one, that the.attack upon Copenhagen had no
effect upon the Emperor of Russia? He would never
ceav to assert, as long as he existed, that that attack
was the immediate cause of the war with Russia.
The substance of these conversations he had commu-
i nicated to his Majesty's Ministers. Why was it not
• given to the public, among the other documents which
they had laid before Parliament? Because they well i
knew the attack upon Copenhagen was the immediate
cause of the hostility of Russia, and of the interruption
1 of those relations of amity and friendship, which, if
r . that unfortunate transaction had not occurred, might
have been preserved. There were, he would admit,,
parties in Russia, as well as in other countries ; but
there was not an enlightened man in Russia with whom
he had conversed, who did not regret and condemn 11
that transaction. If such were the feelings of his I,
Imperial Majesty, it might be asked why he did'.
not declare war immediately? He would state the
reason, because Russia had then two fleets at sea.
tt But he would ask whether Ministers werenot apprised
that it was then a question, whether an embargo should
is not be laid on the British shipping in the ports of Rus-
e- ua,and whether that vas not to be considered as a proof
id of the dissatisfaction of his Imperial Majesty. He had,
td to his very great mortification, while abroad, read
of some observations in the papers of this country, the 11
style and tendency of which he reprobated with in-
er dignation. These libellous effusions were directly
ld aimed at his Russian Majesty : they held him out to
ak the contempt of Europe, and of his own country.
ms There was a time when such daring and insolent
ce, libels would not he permitted. He was astonished
D3e *low any one could have asserted that the Continent
of id not feel indignant at the attack upon Constanti-
aid .nople. Have the nations of Europe no wish for an
its interval of repose ? The measure, he had learned,
he vas at present popular in a certain degree ' • but
ere sooner or later England would wake frem her dein-
te eon, and that rash and ill-advised proceeding would
es- then be estimated as it deserved. So far from its
Wit being approved in any part of the Continent he had
iese lisited, he could, from personal observation, take up-
Nee cn him to say, than it was universally reprobated in
gtk the North of Europe.
Lord ERSKINE observed, that if Ministers did
the not produce proofs sufficient to satisfy the House that
1 he the
attack upon Copenhagen was a case of extreme
OD necessity, he had a right to presume that they had
eerf hem not, and that they had no existence in point of
with tact. The gre at, the only principle upon which they
the could attempt to justify themselves was, that of the
if:er lam of nations. By that law, and the materials before
!the the House, and the materials referred to, were
nee. Ministers to be tried. And what were those mate-
le' rials Was there a single fact contained in them
e: 14.1c11 went to prove that Denmark was hostilely in-
rY en--w
aroes England, and that she lucent to for-
t 4 vied the designs of our inveterate enemy. He would

say to Ministers, is this all the defence ?on hare ?
It is none at all. We seek to justify the honour and cha.'
ratter of the country, and we call for farther proofs.
He was sorry to see the British Government degene-
rate into the servile imitator of the Ruler of France.
The first great breach which had been made in the
public moral code of Europe was by revolutionary
France. That example we were following. She
assigned the Treaty of Pilnitz as a reason for burit-
ing in upon and over-running Germany, and we as-
signed the Treaty of Tilsit as a cause for attacking
Denmark, and seizing her fleet. So that we, who first
engaged in this war, as the conservators f political
morality, became in the end its flagrant violators.—
Instead of being held in abhorrence by the Continent
we should, if we had stood true to our principles,
commanded the admiration of the world. And what
&el we gain by this attack ? Instead of obtaining se-
curity, it was absolute ruin. The law of nations, he
would allow, sanctioned the principle of self-protec- .
don. If a fire took place within a short distance, an
individual would be Justified to pull down his neigh-
bour's house to preserve his own, and to prevent the
, conflagration from spreading. But if the fire began
1 at the Haymarket for instance, a person who lived at
Hyde-park Corner would be hardly justifiable in pul-
ing down all the intervening houses. But the in-
-I.,ustice of this would be much stronger, if it should
turn out that there was no fire—that the person was
only told by some one, whose name he refused to
disclose, that there was a fire—or that he ha .l
heard perhaps it was the intention of some mis-
chievous fellow to produce one. There would be
to the full as good arguments to justify the destruction
of the houses, as the proofs, if such they could be cal-
led, produced by Ministers to justify the attack upon
, Copenhagen. This atrocious instance had but one
1 parallel in the history of the world, and that instance,
[ he was sorry to find, was to be found in the annals of
this country. In the reign of Ethelred, an invasion
was expected from Denmark, though the means of
Swaine, then Sovereign of that country, were just as 1
, inadequate to that purpose as those of the Court of
Copenhagen lately were. A number of Danes had I
previously settled and intermarried in this country, 1
it
and Ethelred, from a fear that they would take part
with their countrymen in case of an invasion, had
them all assembled, under pretence of a religious ce-
, remony, and barbarously murdered. This was some-
thing of the nature of this famous exploit for which
i Ministers took such a credit to themselves. They
violently seize upon the fleet of Denmark, wrap her
capital in flames, expose it to all the consequences of
a bombardment, and then endeavour to justify all
these atrocities by their apprehensions, by their fears
that Denmark would have joined with their enemy.
If they must build their arguments upon these facts,
on what ground do they stand ? They do that by the
violence of their fleets, which France might possibly
have done by the violence of her armies. They bring
home the Danish Navy, and give new names to the
ships, as gipsies do to the children whcm they happen to
steal. Is this the manner in which a great, a proud
and an exalted nation should conduct itself i Instead
of following this pitiful line of conduct, we should
have stood upon our maritime superiority. Our na-
val thunder, under the direction of our great captains,
should have overwhelmed the enemy if he had ven-
tured to come out. Of the result there could be no
fear. He called on Ministers to produce farther in-
formation, if they had it. Let them make it out,
some sort of case. Their conduct had placed the
whole world in array against us. They kad not esta-
blished that necessity by which alone they would be
justified upon any principle of the law of nations ;
for the plea of security was not sufficient for that
purpose.
Lord BORINGDON opposed the motion. He
adverted to a dispatch written by the Noble Baron,
(Lord Hutchinson) who had spoke last but one, and
asked whether it was possible, after having signed
his name to that fact, he could say that it was owing
to the attack upon Copenhagen, and not in conse-
quence of the secret articl, sof the peace of Tilsit,
that we were at war with Russia. The seizure of
the Danish fleet was to be justified by necessity, and
by necessity alone. In this sentiment he fully agreed
with the Noble Lord who spoke last. No one could
stand up in that House, and say that principles c r
morality were to be trampled upon. He assimilated
the attack upon Copenhagen to the seizure of Ma-
deira, and the transactions at Constantinople. There
might be some little shades to distinguish them from
each other, but the principle was the same. If Mi-
nisters had hesitated to take possession of the Danish
Navy, if they had deferred the expedition one fort-
night longer, they would have deserved to appear as
cnminals at their Lordships' bar.
The Earl of BUCKINGHAMSHIRE remarked
upon the inconsistency which appeared in the manner
in which Ministers defended themselves. They stated
one reason in their speeches for the attack upon Co-
penhagen, and assigned another in their public decla-
rations ; but it was only by the papers which they
had laid before Parliament that their conduct was to
be judged. He had heard, indeed, that they once had
it in contemplation to justify themselves by the con-
duct of Prussia in the seven years war. The Noble
Lord combated the fact stated by a Noble Marquis,
relating to currents in the Baltic, and asserted, upon
what he termed high naval authority, that large ships
could at all times anchor within the Belt, and prevent
the passage of troops. If the Danes felt an interest to
defend Zealand against the French, the taking of it
would not, as it had been said, be a mere matter of
course. He trusted that the day would not arrive,
when Ministers, in speaking of the spoils of Copenha-
gen, would have reason to exclaim with the dying
warrior in the lEneid,
"'Porno tempos exit, map° cum optaverit empturn
" Intacturn Pallanta et spolia ipsa, diemque
" Oderit."
Lord HARROWBY began by referring to the dis-
solution of the maritime confederacy in 1801, and pre-
sumed that it was the recollection of that splendid
:Achievement by which it was effected, which made us
suppose ourselves in such profound security, and speak
with such contempt of the naval power of Denmark.
How were Ministers to draw the extremely nice and
evanescent line, between probable and meditated
hostility ? Were they to anticipate the danger, or
stand with their arms folded until it came upon them ?
The danger from Denmark was of that description,
that it was incumbent upon Ministers to take the ear-
liest opportunity to ward it off. Had France pro-
cliuned to all the world, that it was her intention to

itattelf of the maritime power of Denmark
to
destroy us, such a declaration would not convince him
More than he was already, from the whole tenor of
her conduct, that such was her intention. As to the
means of resistance possessed by Denmark, he was
surprised that any argument grounded upon them
would be attempted. How :setzuld single, isoland
Denmark expect to maintain ;Vet- independence and
political existence, when al)Xontinental Europe was
subdued ? For several yens that Power had mani-
fested a disposition far froln being friendly to this
country. Had she, since France acquired an ascen-
dancy on the Continent, ever shewed the least incli-
nation to resist that power ? It was to him most extea-
ordinary, that some Noble Lords should manifest so',
great a horror against our making exertions to ward
off the greatest danger by which the country was ever
menaced, and that they should not only approve, but
advise the expedition against Constantinople. He
could well conceive that a person, actuated by a truly
British spirit, might have approved the expedition to
Copenhagen, and condemned that against Constanti-
nople, or that he might have even disapproved of both,
although there was this material difference between
them, that one completely failed, and that the other
succeeded. In what Ministers had done, lie would
maintain they had violated no one principle whatever
of the law of nations. But even if they had, he
would still contend they were justifiable. France had
destroyed the public law of Europe, and if all the na-
tions of Europe acquiesced in that abolition, was it
b.: expected that we should adhere to it ? As it had
b en said formerly of Ireland, if we go to law with the
rebels, they will go to war with us. Nothing would
be so convenient for France, as that we should con-
tinue to venerate and act upon that code which was
rejected by her, or which, how much scevee she may
aect to revere its obligations, she had never hesitated
to break through whenever it was her interest to do so.
The Earl of MOIRA thought the last speech the
most extraordinary that had ever been delivered in a
British House of Parliament. Were we to renounce
the high principles upon which we had hitherto ac-
ted, and sanction, by following his example, all the
enormities and outrages of the ruler of France ? There
was not a doubt, he would admit, that that person
had turned his mind to every me ay which he could
injure this country. Thai e were no proofs necessary
to convince their Lordships of that. But what proof
had they of the hostile disposition of Denmark, or of
the probability of her fleet being placed at the dispo-
sal of France ? Denmark had maintained her neu-
trality throughout all the wars since the commence-
ment of the French revolution, and sheprobably might
hare continued, were it not for the recent atrocious
attack upon her, to do so. This was an advantage
arising rather from the relative situation of the parties
in these wars, than from her own particular strength.
The confidence of the Danes was, that France would
not have attacked them ; that if she did, he was per-
suaded they would have gallantly resisted. That suc-
cess did not always depend upon numbers, he had only
to refer for proof to the glorious atchievements of our
ancestors at Cressy and Agincourt. If France had
attacked Denmark, the consequence would have
been, that the latter would have thrown herself into
the arms of England, and that the Danes would have
ultimately accepted that assistance which in the first
instance had been offered to them. He would rather
see double, treble the number of the Danish fleet in
the possession of Bonaparte, than see the honour of
the country so wounded, as it was by the atrocious at-
tack upon Copenhagen. Supposing that there existed
a disposition in the Continent to throw off the yoke of
France, where was it to fnl a rallying point, when
the nation to whom it looked up, abandoned that
high honour, that unstained character which it had
hitherto preserved, and entered into a contest with
France, as to which should become the greatest vio-
lator of the public law of Europe. But the bombard-
ment of Copenhagen was attributed to the obstinacy
of the Danes. What ! was the Governor to betray his
charge ? If Ministers were to be justified, they must
be justified on necessity, and that must be a strict ne-
cessity. To ward off danger by anticipating it, may
be made the mischievous excuse for an atrocious act
of tyranny or extortion. Let us look to our enemy
as an enemy. We were engaged in a contest, in
which a false step was certain ruin. The question
before the House was one, in which the honour of the
country was more involved than the interest of Mini-
sters. Valuing that honour as he did—considering
that he and every one who heard him, and every one
in the country, not excepting the meanest individual,
had an interest in upholding it, he could not avoid
expressing his regret that Miaisters did not make a
better defence. If they had laid sufficient informa-
tion before Parliament, to satisfy it that Denmark was
hostilely disposed, that her Navy was to be placed at
the disposal of France, and justified the dreadful mea-
sure to which they resorted upon these grounds, they
would have been entitled to the thanks of the coun-
try. But as they had not—as they had not produced
one solitary proof of the existence of that necessity
which could alone justify them, he must say, that in-
stead of the applause, they deserved the reprobation
of the country.
The Earl of LIMERICK approved of the conduct
of Ministers, in not now putting their case on private
information, but upon its necessity ; and he hoped they
would not be goaded by any taunts or sarcasms, to lay
before the House documents which appeared to their
judgment to be improper to produce. He doubted
whether those conversations which the Noble Baron,
Lord Hutchinson, had stated, ought to have been laid
before the House. It appeared, that in the late war, as
well as in the present, Denmark was rather hostile than
friendly to this country. She had allowed and en-
couraged French privateers to send in their prizes to
Bergen, in Norway, where they were condemned
with very little ceremony, and sold for the benefit of
the captors. When Russia was in alliance with us
last war, the conduct of Denmark was so suspi-
cious, that when the Emperor Paul sent a fleet and
army to assist in the expedition to Holland, there were'
apprehensions that the Danes would have resisted ,
their passing the Sound ; and the Emperor Paul had
given particular directions in that case, that the
troops should land and possess themselves of Copen-
hagen, the Danish fleet, and arsenal. In fact, for
the last twenty years, Denmark appeared to be ac-
t uated by no friendly disposition to this country, but
rather to have entertained an animosity to us. In
such circumstances, who could deny that 20 Danish
ships of the line, joined to the sixteen Russian ships
in the Baltic, would have .beeu a very formidable.

accession to the ramitlihe power
these flied had effected a janctfon,
absolutely impossible for the Kir%
resisted such a combination of force.
been thrown out in different deb-
Ireland on account of religious,
the danger to be by no means
represented. He was sure the
who possessed property, wouk
other men to the fraternal emi
and that they would be anxious to dc
country from the grasp of France. He considered,
that the disaffected person, in Ireland were principally
the remains of the Jacobin set, the associates of the
men who had been tried at. Maidstone. He did n'ot
think, however, that they were sufficiently formidable
to excite any very serious apprehension.
The Earl of JERSEY supported the motion. He
thought it very sufficient proof tat Denmark medi-
tated nohostility against this counthry, to see that she had
taken no precautions against any attack-from us, but
laid Zealand open and defenceless, while her army
was forming a cordon in Holstein, to observe the mo-
tions of th! French army. The Noble Lord (Wel-
lessley ) had spoken of the forbearance and discre-
tion with which those orders had been executed: It
appeared to him that the forbearance of Ministers
was misapplied, and their discretion defective. We
had taken away the Danish fleet, but had left their
sailors ; and, for his part, he should much prefer see-
ing the Danish fleet manned by Danish sailors, than
give 16,000 Danish sailors to man the French navy.
Whatever he might believe of the wishes of Bona-
parte, or of his perseverance and consummate art, be
never could bring himself to believe that he would
have attempted to have forced Denmark to give up
her navy, as such an attempt would necessarily have
thrown her into the arms of England.
Lord HAWKESBURY said, he never felt more
desire to answer any observations made in that House,
than he did several expressions which had fallen from
the Noble Earl who spoke last. The Noble Earl had
stated, that Ministers had not acted on principles of
morality. It was never the intention of Ministers to,
act upon principles different from those of morality,
and the honour which has ever distinguished the Bri-
tish nation, and he would sooner lose the last drop of
blood, than admit that his Majesty's Government had
not proceeded on justifiable principles. A Noble Lord
had accused Ministers of advancing opinions not
founded on morality ; but he would say with confi-
dence, that Ministers had not stated opinions con-
trary to morality ; nor had they acted on principles
not founded on the basis of morality. Much had been
said respecting the violation of the laws of nations.—
It had been defined by the beg writers on the laws of
nations, that these laws were founded on the laws of
nature. The duty due from man to man, if there
was no tribunal, would be the eternal law of na-
ture. It was a principle of self defence, founded on
benevolence. To elucidate the position, he would
suppose that an individual existed adverse to all man-
kind. He would also suppose that this enemy of
human nature, after destroying many, intended to op-
pose him. There were arms which the savage in-
tended to use for his destruction : could any man
suppose he should not be justified in taking those
arms, knowing that they were to be used to de-
stroy him ? He also supposed his house was likely
to be attacked by robbers, and he had left servants
whe would not defend the house, was he not justi-
fied in placing himself on the threshold to protect
his premises ? It was on this principle that the Law
of Nations was founded, and Ministers had not ex-
ceeded the limits such laws prescribed. Their Lord-
ships were to consider the conduct of his Majesty's
Government under three heads. First, did their con-
duct come under the Law of Nations ? and whether
that description of law was to be observed tooclosely,
when the country was in danger ? Secondly, whether
it was practicable for the enemy to injure the country
by opposing the fleet of Denmark against us ? And,
Sdly, whether the danger was of sufficient magnitude
' to permit Ministers,to deviate for the public security
from established principles. Portugal had been called
upon to join her fleet to theconlederacy formed against
this country. Communications were made to the
Portuguese Minister, and documents put into his
hands, stating, that the undersigned was authorised
to declare that the Prince of Portugal must become
the enemy of England, by shutting her ports against
British ships, seizing and confiscating British pro-
perty, and joining the fleet of Portugal to that of
Denmark and France. Could Ministers believe,
after this document was read, that Denmark was to
be excepted in the Confederacy ? These declarations
were made before the 2d of August, and Den-
mark must have known the designs of France
before the British fleet sailed for Copenhagen.—
This document made it manifest that the de-
sign of France was to unite the Navies of the Con-
tinental Powers against England (hear ! hear ! ) On
the subject of the law of nations, great men who have
written and described the principles of those laws, did
not contemplate that nations could be placed in such a
situation as many were in at present. Their Lord-
ships had to look at the power of Austria ; how great
once ! but how little now ! In the reign of Louis XIV.
and at earlier periods, few instances occurred, where
there were not formidable powers to resist other
powers—but the will of France had lately laid pros-
trate all the Powers of the Continent, and no Power
remained to oppose her. Ministers, under these cir-
cumstances, were justified in providing against the
designs of France. There was no nation in Europe
governed by the strict laws of nations ; they were go-
verned by the laws of France, and, as he had said on
a former occasion, the law of England must be the
law of self-preservation. With respect to what a No-
ble Lord had said, relative to the difficulty France
would find in attacking Zealand, the Noble Lord
was rather mistaken. It was extremely difficult to
prevent the enemy from approaching from the Conti-
nent. He had consulted professional men on the sub-
ject, and had been informed, that it was practicable
for the enemy to land troops in boats in defiance of a
fleet. He had also important naval authority for this
assertion. He alluded to a very able and gallant
Officer, Admiral Keats, employed some time since in
the Baltic. That gallant officer, while stationed off
Zealand, commanded' formidable flotilla. The vessels
were stationed a mile asunder along the whole range
of coast ; and notwithstanding the greatest diligence
was observed, the enemy came out during the night
v.ith boats, passed the flotilla unobserved, and esca-
ped. A Noble Lord had made some observation

and yet all was unava
0,0.
efforts of her and her al
zice n-ay to the irresistible for
iiese events gave France
in the Negotiations which foil
Lordshs all know, termii
Tilsit. He never said, that war
hoe talen place if the att:
, had not been made, and he N
an unauthorized expression co
1) his mouth. I-le would aga
did say war with Russia mq
but it was decidedly his ()I
was hastened by that event.
collagen did most decidedly cot
,n the mind of the l

er 4 owl. eitelntes ?,t ,
'rots, it Vadulcl have Pe*,
:ing a Sweden to hatio.
orce. As to What
!bates of the dango :
differences, he ber .'
s as great as had
Catholics of fret
ld be as averse as air
embrace of Bonaparte*
ixious to defend their.