fect place Denmark in a situation of aiding the hostilities of that power.-It so nearly concerns the safety of both powers to cultivate the most friendly understanding, in order to prepare the means of defence against a danger which equally threatens both, that this alone ought to obliterate the jealousies which have too much prevailed between the courts of Stockholm and Copenhagen.--So obvious and so pressing a consideration, it is, however, but too evident from the tenor of your dispatches, has not had its due weight; and your constant attention and good offices will be employed to remove, as much as possible, the causes of that mutual suspicion and distrust, which must favour the designs of the common enemy. The evident necessity of providing for the security of his own dominions must, as I have formerly stated, suthiciently account for the preparations of the king of Sweden. Situated as he is, it is as clearly necessary for his Swedish majesty to require an explanation of the intentions of the court of Copenhagen. You will therefore support any requisition of this nature, which may be made in a friendly manner by the Swedish minister, with a view to those preparations of defence so imperiously called for by the present crisis.

cipal persons, and repel the confidence they seem willing to manifest.-The explanation into which I have entered, will, I hope, guard me from the supposition of not endeavouring to give the proper effect to the Instructions in question, on any change of circumstances leading to the supposition of your lordship's dispatch. If I have already expressed some alarm on the chances of so bold an attempt on the part of the French government as that to which I allude, it has not been from apprehension of dishonourable compromise on the part of Denmark, but of the consequences of timidity and inadequate preparation, by which the enemy might be enabled rather to seize the fleet than treat for it.-Your lordship's dispatch No. 7. having been written on the presumption that the French troops had entered Holstein; and probably after your lordship had received the report of the enquiries I had made as to the retreat of those of Denmark (in my No.) I have also for the present desisted from a formal application on the subject of that dispatch; and humbly hope that my conduct in both these instances will not have met with his majesty's disapprobation.-I find it difficult to obtain precise information as to the number of Danish troops in Holstein, because it is not ascertained how far the regiments still there have been reduced. Two regiments have returned to Funen. The Sleswick and Jutland regiments have also returned. Two regiments belonging to the ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord St. John garrison of this place, are left at Kiel, Ploen, rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring forand Gluckstadt. Count Bernstorff tells ward his Resolutions respecting the Orders me that four thousand men are on the line in Council. His lordship took a review of between those places; but these must be the explanations given by the French goin the towns and villages. The garrisons vernment of the Decree, and of the docujust mentioned, and that of Rendsburgh, ments shewing the manner in which it was compose therefore the only remaining ac- understood by the American government, tive force against the enemy. I shall re- for the purpose of proving that the latter sume this subject without delay. I have &c. government never acquiesced in the French B. GARLIKE. decree, considered as affecting neutrals, No. XII.-Extract of a Dispatch from and thence concluding, that this governvisc. Howick to Benj. Garlike, esq.ment had no right to issue Orders affecting dated Downing Street, 22d Jan. 1807. the American trade. He contended also, Upon the points referred to in your dis- that there was no sufficient evidence of the patches, I have already sent you full in- execution of the French Decree, in making structions. However desirous his majesty captures on the high seas, according to the may be of preventing any embarrassment terms of it, which could alone be evidence to the court of Denmark with respect to of such an execution of the decree as could the neutrality which that government is be considered a violation of the law of nadesirous of preserving; this consideration, tions. The information laid on the table it is evident, can only apply to a real neu- was in this point defective, and did not trality, and cannot be carried so far as to appear to him to afford any sufficient reaadmit of a succession of measures dictated son for issuing the Orders in Council, which by the fear of France, which would in ef- he considered a gross violation of the law

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, February 26.

of nations, and fraught with great injustice, towards Neutral States. His lordship concluded by reading the following Resolutions: "1. That previous to the 11th of Nov. last, his majesty's government was not in possession of any proof, nor supposed ground of belief, that the United States of America had acquiesced in or submitted to, or intended to acquiesce in or submit to, the execution of such parts of the Decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806, as purported to impose on Neutral Commerce, restraints inconsistent with the law of nations. 2. That it does not appear, that the said Decree, in so far as it may have been supposed to relate to captures at sea, was in any one instance carried into execution, by the Prize Courts of France, or her Allies, previous to the 11th of Nov. last. 3. That on the 18th of Oct. last, the ministers of the United States at this court, officially apprized his majesty's Secretary of State, that their government had received from that of France, satisfactory explanations and assurances, and that, in fact, the same never had been enforced against the Neutral Commerce of the United States. 4. That no official denial of the facts so asserted by the American ministers, appears to have been made on the part of his majesty's secretary of state; nor any grounds alledged by him in which the American ministers could be questioned. 5. That under such circumstances the issuing the Orders in Council of the 11th and 25th of Nov. last, which Orders purported to compel the trading vessels of the said United States in all their voyages to and from the Continent of Europe to touch at the ports of this country, and to be there subjected, by the authority of the British government, to many and grievous restrictions, and a manifest violation of the law of Nations, and of the rights and independence of a friendly Power." On the first Resolution being put, The Duke of Montrose rose and said, he perfectly agreed with the noble lord, that although the subject had been already before the house, it was one that merited discussion. He had forborne as yet to deliver his sentiments upon it, from a wish not to make up his mind without giving it the fullest consideration; and having so done, he should not hesitate to give it as his firm opinion, that the Orders in Council were wise, politic, and calculated to answer the great purpose of defeating the designs of our enemy, and ultimately convincing him of his error in the unjust system he was pur

It was the

suing in carrying on the war. government of France which had violated what was considered the law of nations, and it was prudent in that of this country to retaliate those measures that were aimed at our very existence; if the neutrals suffered any injury, it was France, and France alone, that they ought to look upon as the cause of that injury, and to which alone they ought to look for reparation. In his opinion, it was idle to talk of waiting to see whether the neutrals would have acquiesced in that Decree; for when the distance was considered, it would plainly appear that our forbearance might have continued 3, 6, nay even 9 months, during the whole of which time the enemy would have derived all the advantages they expected therefrom, and England sustained all the injuries that were levelled at her; for, light as some persons might treat the force of France, he could not but recollect that she had still fleets, frigates, and numerous privateers; from these, under that Decree, much injury might have been done, in defiance of that superiority which, he was thankful and happy G. Britain could boast. As to what the noble lord had urged relative to the answer which the minister of marine had given to general Armstrong, it amounted to nothing more than that he thought America was not to be included. But could any man suppose that the je pense of a French minister of marine was a sufficient security against a positive decree so plain and direct, that those who ran might read? No; the American Resident ought not to have rested satisfied with less than a formal renunciation, nor could our ministers consider less than that renunciation as a proof that the United States were not included. Nay,upon the question being afterwards put to another French officer, his reply was, that he saw no exceptions. For these among other reasons, he thought our executive government had acted wisely and politically in issuing those Orders in Council; that the Resolutions moved by the noble lord were unnecessary, and he therefore hoped the house would agree with him in his moving the previous question.

Lord Holland observed, that the Orders in Council fell far short of that clearness which would enable him who runs to read. He would not now enter into the question of the policy of these Orders, that being reserved for a subsequent discussion, but with respect to the question of the law of nations, he held a very different opinion

the

worst misfortunes that could befal country, and which he thought the Orders in Council tended to produce.

from the noble duke. If a belligerent adopted a mode of conduct towards a neutral, which amounted to an act of hostility, and in which that neutral acquiesced, then he would admit the right of the other belligerent to retaliate. But in the case of the Berlin Decree, it had not only not been acquiesced in by America, but there was no proof of that part of it being executed which alone was a violation of the law of nations, namely, capturing neutrals on the high seas, for violating the terms of the decree. He contended, therefore, that on neither of these grounds was there any jus tification of the Orders in Council. His ldp. commented on the Note of Mr. Canning to the American ministers, stating, that it was the duty of the neutral to endeavour to procure the revocation of the obnoxious decrees, a doctrine which he considered as tending to produce endless warfare.

Lord Redesdale contended that the Orders in Council of the 7th of Jan. and those of the 11th and 25th of Nov. were founded on the same principles, and were equally consistent with the law of nations.

The Earl of Lauderdale deprecated the mode of argument adopted by the noble and learned lord, by justifying one measure by another. He contended, that the information on the table not only did not prove an increased rigour in the execution of the French decree, but that a great part of it rather proved a relaxation of the provisions of that decree, and he believed, that his noble friends, had they continued in administration, would rather upon such information have been inclined to revoke the order of the 7th of Jan. than to have resorted to any harsher measure. As to the objection, that they discussed parts of the Orders, each part formed a question of the greatest magnitude to the country, and if they were not all discussed together, it was the fault of noble lords on the other side, who had refused to go into a committee on the Orders in Council. A noble duke had quoted the letter of his noble friend to Mr. Rist, to

the enemy into a state of blockade, as a matter of retaliation. If he had proceeded but four or five words farther, he would have seen that the noble lord's words were, "that G. Britain would have enforced such blockade by its maritime superiority," a thing which made the measure legitimate, and consistent with the law of nations; and there was not one word to shew that they meant it in mere retaliation.

The Earl of Mulgrave contended, that the French government having endeavoured to execute its decree of blockade agaiust this country, by the confiscation of all neutrals conveying British produce or manufactures, or trading from the ports of this country, it became the duty of this government to adopt some counteracting measure, which should force the enemy to raise the block-shew that he threatened to put the coasts of ade of this country. That which had been resorted to, was the most mitigated measure that could be adopted with a view to the continuance of neutral trade, and compelling the enemy to receive neutral vessels into his ports trading from this country. If the French decree and the Orders in Council were both executed, then of course there could be no trade between this country and that part of the continent of Europe under the influence of the enemy, some injury would result to us, but the greatest privations must be indured by the enemy. With respect to Mr. Canning's Note, his ldp. referred to the Note of lord Howick, stating that the measures adopted by the Order in Council of the 7th of Jan. would be continued till the decree of the French government was formally repealed, for the purpose of proving that the language in this note was similar to that used by Mr. Canning. His lordship deprecated the conduct adopted by noble lords on the other side, in discussing different parts of the Orders, and called upon them to discuss the whole policy of the measure.

Lord Auckland deprecated a war with America, which he considered one of the

The Earl of Westmoreland said, that noble lords made the inconsistencies of which they complained. They would not divide the question of the Orders in Council into two points of view, in which it ought to be considered-into that which the crown did from its prerogative of war, and what was agreeable to the municipal law of the land.-In adverting to America, he warmly contended that the measures of the late government caused that irritation which appeared in the disposition and councils of that country; and concluded by expressing a sentiment of amity and friendship towards that country, whose very existence he considered to depend upon the greatness and prosperity of this.

Earl Grey vindicated the late govern