with stupid and ignorant astonishment, to exhaust ourselves in terms of rash indignation, and prepare for blind vengeance: there is unquestionably ample matter, and well calculated to create our astonishment and regret; but surely it is not a just statement of our parliamentary duty, to represent these things not only as affording no necessary ground for inquiry, but to state inquiry itself under these circumstances of ignorance as dangerous. Are we seriously to be told that under the administration of the same men the nation may fall from the highest situation of exaltation and hope in which we stood last year, to the lowest state of despondency, under which this imperial parliament meets, and yet that we owe nothing but astonishment and regret to our country, and blind confidence to his majesty's ministers; that we are to plunge, at their desire into a war with our old friends and allies, without inquiry into the cause, or its justice. Last year we saw this nation, surrounded by friends and allies, pursuing one common cause successfully, against a common enemy; and the desirable object of an honourable peace, almost at our command; and now we are suddenly deserted by our friends and allies, and become the object of their enmity, and hostility; and placed at the eve of an alarm ing war with all the world, without a friend or ally, and without the most distant hope of peace. We have nothing but the assurances of government, and the confidence which ministers appear to have in themselves, on which to repose, and on which to deliver up the remaining resources of an almost exhausted country. I do not mean to impute blame to ministers; it is within the possible range of human events, that all these calamities, which surround us, may have been in evitable; and inquiries may lead us to reasonable hope, that from the wisdom of his majesty's ministers, these hitherto inevitable evils may be still averted; but surely this is a most forcible argument for inquiry. I hear it laid down by the supporters of government, that the claims of the Russians, Swedes, and Danes, as neutral nations, are so unreasonable, and so contrary to the unvaried practice and immutable principles of the law of nations, and so obviously rooted in the hostile and ungenerous wish to destroy the naval im portance of this country engaged in con test for their benefit, that it requires no investigation to prove it, and admits no better proof to establish the injustice, than the claim itself. If I comment on this observation from the information I derive from the uncertain materials above stated, I am obliged to say that I have great doubt on the subject: waving, for the moment, the question of the real and true cause of ill-will and enmity between our former allies and us, which may be very different from the grounds of the quarrel which is made the subject of ostensible rupture; waving this subject of inquiry, I cannot but think that the justice of the ostensible quarrel, is not so clearly with us, as to preclude the necessity of examination, before we plunge into a war; for if it be true, that the refusal of Russia, to suffer their ships to be searched for goods contraband in time of war, is in part grounded on the objection, that we have by treaty, for certain commercial advantages ceded to us, relinquished to one nation, our right of searching the ships of such contracting nation, during our warfare (with France for instance) and thereby authorized such nation, freely, and without interruption from us, to supply France with warlike ammunition: I should feel no difficulty in saying, that such single exception by treaty, destroys our right to search the ships, or impede the commerce of any nation with France, in similar articles, notwithstanding our warfare: for our right is founded in nothing, but a natural right arising from the necessity imposed on us (by a state of war), to defend ourselves from destruction, and consequently of considering, as an enemy, that nation, who enables our foe to maintain his hostilities against us. The law of nature dictating self-defence imposes it so equally on all nations, that it has been acquiesced in by the law of all nations; and the only difficulty which has ever arisen is to ascertain with precision, on what belligerent situation this necessity attaches, and requires of all neutral nations to submit their commerce naturally independant to such necessary shackles. The moment we admit by a treaty with some one nation that the nature of our warfare with France does not put us into a situation in which the freedom of neutral commerce is incompatible with our defence against our enemies, such admission necessarily deprives us of the only ground on which we could claim the right of interfering amicably with the commerce of independant nations. Nothing less than the law of na L ture, and as such become the law of nations, namely, the inalienable right of self-preservation, could amicably vest in us the right over independent commerce, and it is a contradiction in terms to say that it gives this right over one nation more than over another; it is unalienable and universal, and arises from the existence of a given situation in which it is necessary to our self-preservation. The act of converting it into commercial advantages from some one nation by treaty, is an admission, that it is not necessary to self-preservation, and consequently not due from any nation: for the state of warfare does not give to us a right to sell licences to trade with our enemies to neutral nations; or to give a preference in such trade to a favoured nation. It would be an act of direct hostility against the nation whose commerce was thus partially impeded and would thereby put an end to any question respecting neutrality. I state this, not as knowing that it makes part of the present question, but as collecting from vague report, that the facts which might give ground to this reasoning have taken place, and in that case I can not admit that the justice of the supposed dispute is so clear, as to be willing, without examination, to plunge in a war on the subject. Lord Grenville said, that the House was not now called upon to inquire what was the previous cause of the quarrel between England and Russia, because the latter was bound by previous treaty not to act in the manner in which she had acted, with relation to British ships and merchandize, even in the event of hostilities between the two countries. The House was called upon to say, whether it would maintain his majesty in his just rights. He considered any difference of opinion on this subject impossible. With respect to the coalition into which Denmark and Sweden had entered in 1780, it was inconsistent, not only with the law of nations, but with particular treaties entered into by those very powers. When this convention was entered into in 1780, the country was in considerable difficulties; but, on receiving the intelligence of this coalition, our answer was, that the practice we should pursue was that which had been settled by treaties with these powers. It might be asked, perhaps, what would be the harm of now acquiescing in the demands of the northern confederacy? The harm would be, that we should again [VOL. XXXV.} have to discuss the point at a moment when we might be less able to do it with success. All forbearance, it might be seen had been of no effect, when edicts, conventions, and treaties had been found to be of none. Denmark and Sweden had concluded treaties expressly in recognition of these rights; but it was evident, that they waited only for the moment, when, from the embarrassments of this country our navy might be in a weaker state. If we are again to temporize on the subject, it is certain that the question will be revived at that moment when the northern powers may consider us, as most embarrassed-that it will be revived when it may be supported by our common enemies, France and Spain. That man must be extremely sanguine, who imagines that the naval power of France and Spain will ever be less able to assist that of Denmark and Sweden. The relative situation of France and Spain, was never so much reduced as at present. He was astonished at hearing noble lords, after avowing their ignorance on the subject, while they had such an authority to refer to on the case as the judge who presided in the Admiralty court, speaking in opposition to these points. It was the first time he heard a doubt expressed on the subject, or opinions entertained, that a special agreement with one power, was a renunciation of the right as to other powers. Those who supposed this to be the case, might satisfy themselves, by a reference to the instructions given by the American government to their ministers in France. If the ancient law was reverted to, the case was the same. The renewal of the treaty of 1780 was a breach of neutrality, since it was not merely an assertion of principles, but an engagement to impose them upon Great Britain by force. If the question were of slight importance, he should, under such circumstances, hesitate; but in a point of such magnitude, it was still more necessary to do so. The inquiry which the noble earl wished to promote, seemed to stand on the same footing as every other question of the same kind. On the one hand, it was to be considered what were the grounds for it; and on the other, what was the danger attendant upon it. It was to be taken into contemplation, how far it would be wise at present to interrupt the measures for the prosecution of the war, in order to carry on those for the inquiry. It had been said, that parliament [3 L] had reposed a confidence, and that, there- | on former occasions, this objection to it fore, the inquiry was necessary. But, had any weight, it must be considered as had not the vessel of the state been pre- having had much more force last year. served? A comparison of our situation But in the expeditions against Ferrol and with that of the proudest monarchy in Cadiz we did not succeed, and from the Europe would show this. We were, language of the noble lord, it might be indeed, supporting great burthens, but we supposed that some great evil had befallen were supporting them with increased us. These expeditions were, in fact, means. Ministers were called upon by planned with such a design, that, if they their opponents to prove this, not by the were successful, the advantages resulting general situation of the country, but by from them would be important; but if the general result of the war; and this at they were otherwise, it would soon be a moment when those who called for that perceived, and the attempt might be proof, admitted that the confidence which abandoned without loss. Was the House had been reposed in the naval adminis- prepared to censure the adoption of such tration was fully justified. Was it nothing plans? Was it prepared to say, that mito have gone through eight years war nisters were never to undertake any enwith such success-to have beaten the terprise but when they were sure of suc enemy at the mouth of their own har- cess? Would it be proper to expose bours? If we were called upon to give the men at the head of affairs to the an account of the war with France, the stigma and disgust of such an inquiry? It first question would be-What had been was undoubtedly the duty of the House our naval success? To this the answer to enter into inquiries, but never upon was readily furnished; and it was not less such light grounds as those which had triumphantly so to the second question- been now advanced. He asserted the What colonies had we lost? To the suc- ability of England to continue the war cesses which the answers to these ques- unassisted by any allies, at the same time tions would state, what is opposed?-The adverting to the pledge given in his maDutch expedition? True it is, that it jesty's speech of his disposition to peace. failed in overthrowing the government; The Earl of Moira said, he should vote but it had succeeded in the important for the amendment, because he thought point of rescuing from that government the going up with the address was by far the Dutch navy. The result of such an the most dignified way of assuring his inquiry would leave no doubt that it was majesty of the determination of that well planned, and well directed. It had House to support his majesty, by the most failed in consequence of two circum- vigorous exertions on their parts, against stances; first, the season which, owing all his enemies. The people of England to an unavoidable delay of six weeks, wished them to see that they were in became too advanced for our success; earnest in their assurances of support, and and secondly, the unhappy reverse which would draw the happiest prospects from befel the arms of our allies, till that mo- such an address. No man was more ment successful, and which enabled the ready to do justice to the extraordinary enemy to detach a larger force from Swit-merits of our fleets, officers, and sailors: zerland and its neighbourhood, than could otherwise have been spared. Of the expeditions to Ferrol and Cadiz, we have been told that it was very imprudent to attack them, and thus to irritate Spain; but Spain, it should be remembered, was our enemy, was a naval power, and allied with our inveterate enemy, France. To weaken it, was to weaken France itself. It should be remembered, that some Spanish ships were already in Brest, and that more might be carried there. Another noble lord had called upon ministers for the reason why they had not attacked France itself. Such a measure had formerly been combated by the very side of the House which now advanced it. If, no man felt more satisfaction than he had done, upon hearing of each of our naval victories; but he trusted that gallantry and enterprise were not more the charac teristic of our naval officers than those of the military, to which he belonged. They were as ready to risk their lives in the service of their country as any set of men whatever; but they had been placed in an invidious situation by the misconduct of ministers, who were, in his judgment, highly culpable for not having properly applied the large military force that was on foot. That alone was a necessary subject of inquiry, as well as a number of other very important events in the management of the war. He did not distinctly collect from his majesty's Speech what was the cause of the approaching hostilities with Russia and the northern powers. That was of too much importance to be suffered to be matter of guess work. But the necessity of an inquiry into the past was apparent, on a variety of different grounds. How came it that the war was commenced by this country in a confederacy with all the powers against France, and we now found ourselves in the strange situation of having that very confederacy combined with France against us? Where was Austria now? And how came it that Russia,our magnanimous ally was converted into our inveterate enemy? The noble secretary had said, that it was a glorious result of the war, that they were enabled to be sitting at that time in that House. Good God! was it a glorious event that they were not annihilated? If the enemy had made their threatened invasion, did the noble secretary imagine that there was a single lord in that House who would have been dismayed? In that case, the military would have convinced the invader what British soldiers were, and would have made them repent of their rashness. His lordship concluded by declaring, that, for the reasons which he had stated, he would vote for the amendment. Lord Mulgrave rescued the military from the imputation, that they had not been afforded any opportunities of distinguishing themselves; and asked, if the success of the expeditions to the West Indies had escaped notice, and whether the glorious achievements in the east had dropped from their lordships memory? He concluded with declaring that he should support the address. The Earl of Fife declared, that he could no longer give his support to ministers. He thought they had abused the confidence they had received. They had well nigh ruined the continent of Europe by their advice, and would infallibly ruin the British empire, if they persevered in their system. He deplored the state of scarcity to which we were reduced, and thought it was less to be ascribed to the dispensations of Providence than to the consequences of the war. He had risen to discharge his conscience, by thus declaring his sentiments of the men, whom he had, in common with other peers, so long and so improvidently supported. Lord Eldon began with saying, that he could not answer it to his conscience, or to his country, were he not to give his vote upon the present occasion; and he felt it equally his duty to state shortly his reasons for the vote he should give. The situation of the country was awful in the highest degree. Upon the conduct that we now should adopt, depended the present interests and the future existence of the empire. His lordship then took a review of the question now agitated by the northern powers against this country, and proved from the law of nations,, that the right of searching neutral vessels originated in the rights of nature, and that no convention or treaty could permanently destroy that right. It was interwoven, in fact, with the right of selfdefence; for, if a power professing to be neutral, conveyed the means of annoyance to an open enemy, that neutral nation did in fact, by furnishing the means of ourdestruction, become our active enemy. He then adverted to an authority that had been very favourably mentioned in that House, and to which he might naturally be supposed to be partial; but he knew that the character alluded to had not formed his opinion upon this question, till after the most mature deliberationtill after he had read every thing_written upon the subject, that existed in Europe. The person of whom he spoke was of all men the most open to conviction, and the most likely to forego an opinion which could be proved to him to be erroneously formed; but upon this important subject he could say, that the more he thought upon it, the more he was convinced of the solidity of the right which this country asserted, and for which we were now likely to contend; that the decision which was given in the case of the Swedish convoy, was founded upon the strict principles of the law of nations; and that that decision was not a decision for this country only, but upon broad and general principles. The right for which we now contend, is not a right established for this country only, but for all nations equally circumstanced as we are. lordship then expatiated upon the importance of asserting this right, as the foundation of our naval glory, our commerce, and our wealth. Two great evils presented themselves to our choice (for he would admit, that a new war, cir cumstanced as this country now was, was a very great evil); but of two evils it was always best to chose the least. War, with all its inconveniences and horrors, was surely preferable to the voluntary sacri His fice of that, without which the glory the independence, and even the existence of the nation must be extinct. Lord Holland imputed the untoward events of the war to the mismanagement of ministers. He did not expect them to foresee events beforehand; but they ought to have had foresight enough to be able to provide an adequate force to prevent any of the disasters that had hap. pened. He discussed, at some length, the conduct of ministers, with respect to their treatment of our allies, and said that it was the sole cause of the alarming confederacy against us. The House then divided: For the amendment 17. Against it 73. Majority 56. The Address was then carried without a division. "I thank you for this very loyal and dutiful address. Your conduct on this important occasion has realized the just expectations which I had entertained of the wisdom and firmness of the parliament of my United Kingdom, and has afforded to all Europe a new proof, that we possess both the determination, and the means of maintaining, against every aggression, those essential interests and long established rights, on which depend both our security and our honour." Debate in the Commons on the Address of Thanks.] After the Speech had been read from the chair. Sir W. W. Wynn_rose. He professed how very unequal he was to the task of doing justice to the various topics referred to in his majesty's speech, and intreated the indulgence of the House, trusting that it would consider rather the matter than the manner of what he had to advance. The occasion upon which he had the happiness of proposing to return thanks to his majesty for his gracious communica tion, was one of the deepest importance to the country; it was the first meeting of the united parliament of the two kingdoms mutually imparting their own peculiar advantages to each other. The blessings derived from their political union might be appreciated by the manner in which that union had been received by those who were to be affected by it. The advantages likely to result from it had been so ably stated when the measure was under consideration, that it would be presumption in him to repeat them; but he could not refrain expressing how highly gratifying it was to him to find the tranquillity, not only of the city of Dublin, but of the country in general, was restored by the operation of the measure. It was his firm hope that the harmony and union now established between the two kingdoms would be consolidated; that all petty distinctions and jealousies between the two countries would be obliterated, and that every gentleman would consider himself bound, without partiality, to legislate for the general welfare of the United Kingdom.-He lamented sincerely the unfortunate events on the Continent alluded to in his majesty's speech; regretted that the endeavours of the enemy should have succeeded in frustrating the earnest desire of his majesty to attain the blessings of peace, and expressed a full confidence that the House would assure his majesty of its determination to enable his majesty to preserve that national preeminence to which the commercial greatness and prosperity of the country was chiefly to be attributed. He could not too deeply lament the groundless attack of one of the Northern powers upon the ships, property, and persons of his majesty's subjects, not only in defiance of the general rights of nations, but of a late treaty between his majesty and the emperor of Russia, by which it was stipulated that, in case of a rupture between the two powers time should be allowed to the subjects of each nation for the removal of themselves and their property. He trusted the House would assure his majesty of its just concern at the attempts of the confederated powers of the north of Europe, to overturn the maritime ascendancy of the country, and the grateful sense it entertained towards his majesty for having resisted those attempts.-Adverting to the proceedings of the committee relative to the high price of provisions, he lamented their efforts had not been successful in reducing |