Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

BOOK XIII. to be so far prolonged as to enable the diet to the general effect, at least render doubtful the

close its deliberations without interruption. concurrence of his Swedish majesty. CHAP. I. “I require of you to guarantee, so long as the “Without entering into any details which could

armistice shall continue, the raising of the block- only give rise to fresh discussions, they feel them . 1814.

ade by the maritime forces of England and Rus- selves obliged to declare, that the concessions de-
sia, in order that commerce and free navigation, manded as bases of the union are not compensated
both with regard to importation and exportation, by any advantages afforded by the proposed ar-
be restored to the ports of Norway; and, likewise, mistice.
that permission to ship grain and other provisions “ The undersigned are therefore compelled to
for Norway be immediately given in Deninark, and rest their hopes of the success of their negoci.
in the ports of the Baltic, as well as in England, Holc ation upon the generosity of the King of Sweden;
land, and the White Sea. If the exportation of corn' and painful as it is to see all their efforts for the
from Archangel for the province of Drontheim, accomplishment of a pacific union frustrated, they
for Nordland, and Finmark must be limited, I are still happy to submit entirely to the conscience
require 25,000 zetverts.

of his Swedish majesty the acceptance of his bigh* I would again call your attention to the situa-' ness's propositions, in order thereby to furnish him tion of the King of Denmark, as it affects this

mark, as it affects this with an occasion of commencing by a signal be. country. You will admit that the King of Den nefit the exercise of his influence over Norway. mark has done the utmost in his power to carry “ With respect to the guarantee of the bases of the treaty of Kiel into effect. The evils which union, the arinistice, and of all the points that he assists in imposing upon his antient subjects, shall be definitively arranged and accepted by who have given to him unexampled proofs of their Sweden, the undersigned are convinced, that fidelity, exceed those limits which humanity pre none of the powers of whom they are the

repre. scribes to sovereigns. It is fit that be revokesentatives, nor even Sweden herself, will object these rigorous measures. The circumstances in to this act of justice. Indeed, the raising the which I am placed direct my conduct; the King blockade, if his Swedish majesty shall consent ta of Denmark can have no influence on the fate of it, necessarily involves the revocation of all those Norway. It is consequently cruel to make him belligerent measures which were taken against answerable ; and I invite you to employ your good Norway. The observations added by bis highoffices with your respective sovereigns to relieve ness, with respect to the painful situation of Denhim from this obligation, and that his subjects, mark, induce the undersigned to remark, that the after so many sufferings, may have no more nu resolution of the prince to place himself at the merous and foreign armies to maintain.

head of an illegitimate opposition, is the sole " I require your answer to this note, gentlemen, cause of the misfortunes of his true country, and before you quit Norway, accompanied, be assured that he might at once have spared to Denmark the by the good wishes of all those who have had the suspicions

of the allied powers, and to the underopportunity of knowing you, and who have learn- signed the chagrin of stating this in an official note. ed to esteem you as highly as does,

“ At the close of this communication, the under “ Your's, &c.

sigued have the honor to ask of his highness a “ CHRISTIAN FREDERICK. last proof of his frankness, in the publication of “ Christiania, July 13, 1814.”

their official notes as speedily as possible. They

demand this on the principle that Norway should Answer of the Envoys to his Highness Prince be informed of all the dangers to which she is esChristian Frederick.

posed, and of the real object of their mission. “ The undersigned have received the communi “ The departure of the undersigned being irre. cations which bis highness Prince Christian Fre- vocably fixed for Sunday, the 17th of July, they derick, of Denmark, has thought proper to trans have the honor to present to his highness their mit to them.

homage, and the reiterated assurances of their “ In presenting their note of the 7th ult. they profound respecte

“ STEIGENTESCH, had flattered themselves, that in entering into

ORLOFF, the view of his highness for the convocation of the

FORSTER, diet, and the negociation of an armistice, they

MARTENS would probably succeed in removing every con “ Christiania, July 15, 1814." siderable difficulty, and obtain a confidence which might admit their propositions without restriction. The envoys had their audience of leave on July Not one of the three points, however, submitted 17, and returned towards Sweden. Prince Chrisby the undersigned, has been fully accepted as tian departed on the 21st to Moss, whence he was part of the basis of an armistice. Each has suf

to repair to head-quarters. His letter to the King fered modifications which, if they do not annul of Sweden was afterwards returned unopened.

CHAPTER II.

Interesting Debates in the Imperial Parliament, on the Conduct of the British Government towards

the Norwegians.

It was naturally to be expected, that the eondi ance of them might have become. He entreated BOOK XIII. tion of the Norwegians, transferred, by a treaty their lordships to believe that no authority, no in which they had no participation, to a new sove consideration, should induce bim to depart from Chap. II. reign, and on their unwillingness to consent to its engagements, much less to violate them ;

1814. this change threatened with compulsion, should and if it could be shewn that this treaty cominterest the friends of freedom and independence pelled us to assist the King of Sweden in subjuin the British parliament; and as soon as it was gating the inhabitants of Norway, why then their understood that the English government was lordships would do well to reject his motion. If, likely to take a part in the system of force to be on the contrary, it should appear that government adopted against them, tokens appeared in both had contracted no such engagement, and if the houses of an intention to make the subject a mat system now pursued was in direct contradiction to ter of discussion. Accordingly, on the 10th of the principles of natural right and of social justice, May, it was brought forward in the house of lords. be trusted he should not plead in vain to a Bri

Earl Grey began by observing, “ That even in tish parliament. Leaving, then, the treaty with the eventful era in which we lived, and amidst all Sweden perfect in all its obligations, the first the numerous and extraordinary vicissitudes which question would be, whether it required from us were at last about to terminate in the tranquillity such measures as were now pursued towards Norof Europe, he much loubted whether their lord way: secondly, whether these measures were such ships had ever been called upon to discuss any in themselves as could be justified, according to all subject of greater importance, in point of prin- the doctrines which had been laid down by all the ciple, than that to which he now begged leave to writers on public law : thirdly, whether Sweden call their attention. The maxims of good faith, bad so acted as to be entitled to call upon us for of moral and political justice, the doctrines of pub- the execution of these measures: and, lastly, whelic law, and the interpretation of treaties,—all ther sound policy would justify us in complying these their lordships would be called upon to with such demands. The first question to which consider, before they pronounced a verdict on the he had to call their Jordships attention was, as proceedings of mioisters towards Norway ; before to the construction of the treaty itself. He wished they decided on the case of the people of that coun them to consider wbether, when fairly construed, try, a people who had done us no injury, who were it did contain such an obligation as the blockade only known to us by their patriotism, their industry, of the ports of Norway. It was unnecessary to call and their virtues, and who had always shewn a their attention to the circumstances in which the disposition to cultivate friendly intercourse with treaty between Sweden and Russia originated. On the British nation. He should now proceed to lay the suggestion of Russia, we were invited to acbefore their lordships those views, which, in his cede to this treaty; and one of the conditions unmind, should induce them to pause before they doubtedly was, not only that we should not oppose sanctioned the proceedings of government on this the annexation of Norway to Sweden, but even interesting subject. There was one thing, bow- employ force to compel Denmark to accede to it. ever, which he must beg leave to premise before. Still, this was to be only in the case of Denmark he proceeded to the argument. It could not be refusing to join the coalition of the north. This necessary to recal their lordships' attention to the was the condition on which the annexation was to treaty with Sweden, which was sanctioned last take place; and it was directed against the King year by parliament, notwithstanding his opposi- of Denmark alone. If we did all that rested tion, and that of several of his friends, to the mea with us to compel his assent, the obligation consure: he remained, however, unalterably fixed in tracted on our part was fulfilled. Their lordships the opinion which he then expressed, that British must observe, that our treaty with Sweden did not policy never sustained a greater shock, nor the guarantee the peaceable possession of Norway to British character a deeper stain, than was inflicted that country. This was done in the treaty beby that treaty. But he knew his duty too well to tween Russia and Sweden : but was not at all recommend its recal, or any evasion of its sti mentioned in our accession to it. This guarantee,

Chap. II.

if the tyrant

sent case.

BOOK XIII. treaty with Sweden. So far as to the construction which all thrones rested ?-or, were the people

of the treaty on the face of it; but he would refer of Norway liable to be justly transferred without to still higher authority, that of the framers of the any consent of theirs, like cattle attached to the treaty themselves,--he meant bis majesty's mi. soil

, from one proprietor to another? Speaking 1814.

nisters. In the treaty of peace with Denmark, in the nineteenth century, speaking to a British
a document unfortunately not yet before the house of parliament, it was only necessary to state
house, it was stated in the tenih article, that such a proposition, to shew that it was absurd !
his Britannic majesty promises to make efforts It was a clear priuciple of public law, that a
at a general Congress, that Denmark may re- sovereignty could not be transferred without the
ceive a full indemnity for the loss of Norway, consent of the people. Thrones were founded
implying, that our duty was fulfilled when Den on the right of protection on the oue band, and
mark relinquished that country. And here, if he obedience on the other; and a soverigo had
might be permitted to refer to wbat passed in no title to obedience unless he gave protection.
that house last year, all guarantee of the peace. This was the principle of the revolution in this
able possession of Norway was disclaimed by country: Upou this principle his present ma-
ministers. Sure he was, that in another place, jesty reigned; and their lordships enjoyed there
where doubts were stated as to the existence of the freedom of debate, which, if the tyrant who
such a guarantee, it was expressly stated, by a reigned before the revolution had succeeded in
noble lord at the head of the foreign depart- bis designs, they would not have enjoyed. Their
ment, that there was no such guarantee; and lordships sat there upon this foundation, that he
surprise was expressed, that any one should sup wbo had violated the compact between prince
pose that a guarantee could be understood, un and people had, speaking in the language of their
less it was broadly laid down. Nay, it was even ancestors, forfeited his crown.
stated, that the guarantee in the treaty between James had attempted to transfer this country to a
Sweden and Russia was expressly excepted and foreign power, would that have been a less viola-
concluded in that with this country. If this ac tion of the rights of the people? Would that have
count were correct, and the noble lord opposite been a less palpable breach of the compact upon
seemed by his gestures to assent to it, why, then, which the king reigned and the subject obeyed ?
a plainer case never existed on the construction “ There was no patrimonial right in the pre-
of a deed than this. What did the treaty in ques-

He was almost ashamed to, combat
tion bind us to? It was merely to every possi- such an argument. But still, even at this late
ble exertion that Denmark should agree to the period, it might be useful to clear up
transfer of Norway to Sweden. And now, when to those, if any such there were, who doubted.
Denmark had not only ceded all her claims to He maintained, then, that the King of Denmark's
that country, but had fulfilled her part of the rights over Norway were those of a sovereign,
treaty, by actually joining the confederation with and not of a proprietor; that the sovereignty of
her troops—at this moment we were resorting to Norway was not transferrable without the people's
further and most obnoxious measures for compel- consent. He might withdraw himself, and set
ling the submission of Norway. By the treaty them free from their allegiance; but to attempt
with Sweden we engaged to assist in compelling to transfer that allegiance and sovereignty to
the King of Denmark to do all in his power to another, against their consent, was a flagrant vio-
effectuate the transfer of Norway. That he has lation of law and justice. They had happily
now done, and thus the obligations of the treaty survived the times when they were told, that the
were fulfilled on our part. Would the noble and maxims of public law did not apply to the cir-
learned lords, at the bead of the law, permit one to cumstances of the present times; and this coun-
come into court, and recover upon a contract try was indebted for the situation in which it at
which was, ab initio illegal? The plaintiff might present stood, to an adherence to these ancient
say, that he must suffer severe loss, unless the maxims. Grotius, in writing on this subject, had
contract were enforced. What would be the stated his opinion at length; but the clear prin-
answer? You entered into a contract contrary ciple to be deduced from the wbole was this, that
to law; it is void, ab initio ; and if you acted the sovereignty was given to the king for the
contrary to law and good faith, you must bear good of his subjects, and that it could not be
the loss! In the case of nations, the principles transferred without their consent, either express
were the same, though there too often power vio or implied. Puffendorf also stated it to be a
lated right; but still the principles were the same, clear principle of public law, that the sovereign
and equally necessary to be attended to for the had no right to transfer the sovereignty without
safety of all.

the consent of the people, except in cases of ex“ Wbat

, then, were the rights of the King of treme necessity; and then he proceeded to conDenmark? Were they founded upon the com sider these cases of extreme, as in the case of a mon advantage and the consent of the people, on town reduced to the last extremity, or wbere a

this point

sovereign was compelled to withdraw his protec- the history of Norway, to see whether it did not BOOK XIII. tion from a people by foreign force, to which be stand in that situation. It was at first divided should presently call their lordships' attention. into several principalities, which were united into CHAP. II. If a prince, as was the case with the King of one kingdom by Harold Harefoot. It was at Denmark, was compelled by the necessity of bis times united to Denmark, and at other times a 1814. affairs to give up a sovereignty to another, and separate kingdom, till it was finally united to the people refused, he might, according to Puf- Denmark in 1680 by the marriage of the sovefendorf, withdraw himself; but he had no right reigns. . Norway had retained an independent to compel them to surrender themselves, nor to government like Ireland, till the people, barassed place them under any obligation not to resist. by the nobility, were prevailed upon to deliver up The people in such a case had a right to resist, if the whole power to the king. The government they could, and to erect themselves into a com was, therefore, differently administered; but still monwealth. Was this intelligible, or was it not? rested on the original compact of protection and Then the principle was clear upon the authority obedience. It could not, therefore, be contended, of Puffendorf

. Vattel, writing on the same sub- that the situation of Norway precluded the appliject, said, that the sovereignty was inalienable, cation of those principles of laws which applied to appeared from the very nature and constitution other sovereignties. Norway was an indepenof society. It might be said that some principa- dent crown, inalienable and untransferrable withlities had been transferred without their consent, out the consent of the nation. All then that Great but these were not properly sovereignties, but Britain could bind itself to do, was to get from the only fiefs of the empire, enjoying a greater or King of Denmark whatever he had a right to give; less degree of liberty; and the conclusion from and he had no right to make this transfer without the whole of Vattel's writings on this point was, the consent of the Norwegians. that sovereignties could never be with justice “But then it might be objected to this, that such transferred except with the consent of the people. transfer had been made without consent of the

6 These authorities were conclusive; but he was people. Grotius enumerated several—twenty ciaware that with respect to the two first a distinc- ties by King Solomon. It could not be contended tion might be taken, as Grotius and Puffendorf that the practices of these times were of much said, that sovereignties which were patrimonial authority. But then modern instances were might be transferred. But in the sense in which stated,-Franche-comte, Lorraine, &c. These, these writers used the term, no great state was however, were mere dependencies, and not dispatrimonial. Besides, Barbeyrac, in a note upon tinct sovereignties. Besides, no force was emGrotius, noticed the distinction, and held, that it ployed to compel them to transfer their allegiwas perfectly absurd, upon their own reasonings. ance, and therefore their consents might be preThey said, that a state was to be considered as pa sumed. But this argument had been well antrimonial which was alienable, and that which was swered by Barbeyrac, who said that such examples alienable was patrimonial, and thus went ou reason only proved that there had been abuses of power. ing in a circle. Vattel, writing on that point, said, They should have produced an instance where a that a state could not be a patrimony, and that this state had been thus transferred, and had resisted, was a proposition which no writer of authority would and where such resistance had been deemed rebelhave dared to advance in an enlightened age. Setting lion. Hungary was united to Austria. Ireland and aside, then, that futile distinction, there was no Scotland had been united to England, in the ground whatever in public law for a right to trans same way as Norway was to Denmark. If the fer a sovereignty against the consent of the people. King of England had attempted to transfer the But even if such a distinction could be admitted, sovereignty of Ireland or Scotland, would not the the noble lords on the other side must shew that people have resisted? and would not their exerNorway was a patrimonial sovereignty: but to tions have been attended with the good wishes of see how little applicable the distinction was in every friend of freedom and national independence? most cases, even in the opinion of Grotius bimself, He hoped that none would talk of Franchebe referred to another passage in his writings, where comte, and other places of that description, which he stated, that France, Spain, England, Sweden, were not properly sovereignties, and which, beand Denmark, furnished instances of kings baving sides, offered no resistance to their transfer. In been dethroned, and others raised in their stead, the early history of our own country, there oco by consent of the people, whose consent was there curred instances of these atteinpts at transfer, fore beld to be necessary to a transfer of the so which were resisted. When King John bad vereignty; and he also stated, that there were given up the sovereignty to the pope's legate, the but few sovereignties existing where the sove barons had maintained the principle that the king reigns had not acquired their right by consent of had no right to make the transfer. Richard II. the people. Then their lordships would attend to had transferred Gascony, but the Gascons ra.

. 75

12 T

[ocr errors]

argu

6

BOOK XIII, sisted the transfer ; and the result was that the clear that they were not bound to assist in the

king revoked the grant. Here, then, was an in- subjugation of Norway by force; and this CHAP. II.

stance wbere the transfer had been resisted with ment became infinitely stronger, when, upon the

success. When Corsica was transferred to France, principles of public law, it was clear that the King 1814.

and the Corsicans resisted, did any man ever of Denmark' bad no right to transfer the sore-
think of holding out these acts of resistance as reignty of Norway, and when no one had a right
rebellion ? That was a case where the right of to compel the people of Norway to surrender
resistance was sanctioned by the universal consent agaiost their inclination.”
of civilized nations.

Lord Grey next adverted to the documents,
« But there was another remarkable case of re. “On those he had something to complain of-de-
sistance in our own history. He alluded to the fective information, and rather disingenuous treat-
resistance made by Scotland, when the crown was ment. He was told that in June there was on the
transferred by Baliol 10 Edward I. They all continent a force of 30,095, with some cuirassiers
knew the attempt that was made on Scotland by and the land-sturm. It was not explained whe-
Edward, a case only paralleled by that of Spain ther this alluded to the total force in Sweden and
in our own times. It was well known to iheir Pomerania, or that engaged. At all events the
lordships by wbat fraud and violence Edward person who gave this return should have remem-
got the resignation of the Scottish crown from bered his own previous one, which gave but
Baliol; and not only this, but he bad also got 28,000 in the following August. The noble lord
Bruce, the other competitor, on his side, yet the (Bathurst) said he had no reason to believe the
Scottish nation resisted, and had history ever Swedish contingent ever deficient. Now modesty
sanctioned the pretence that this was rebellion ? on matters of opinion might be natural and even
that the great and patriotic Wallace was a rebel, graceful in that noble lord, but really it was ra-
and that the subsequent execution of that hero as ther an inconveniert virtue, when standing in
a traitor was well-merited ? Did not this trans the place of the actual assurance and distinct
action form a deep and indelible stain upon the knowledge, which, not to have in matters of
reign of Edward, in many respects so splendid ? the state, was an actual crime. But would the
Bruce bad at last taken the better part.

noble lords absolutely pretend to say, that the • Scots, who have with Wallace bled ; crown-prince · had done his duty ? Would any Scots, whoin Bruce bas often led,

venture to call in question the testimony of Mr. • Welcome to your gory bed,

Thornton, the minister at his head-quarters, or • Or to Victory!

that of Sir Charles Stewart, iu bis military and “ Who have ever heard these divine strains

diplomatic capacity ? Would those persons be

offered as evidences of the crown-prince’s having without feeling his heart beat bigh at the contem

fulfilled his engagements in troops and service? plation of the glorious struggle then made for liberty and national independence? Where was

He (Lord Grey) wished he could examine at the heart which did not glow with the desire to

their lordships' bar that gallant veteran who

had contributed 50 nobly and so largely to have been a sharer in the noble efforts of Wal. lace and Bruce? Who had ever read that part of the glories of the day. He wished he could ex

amine Marshal Blucher, and ask his opinion on our history without following the steps of the heroes with breathless anxiety, and the most ardent

the services of the Crown-prince of Sweden.

On the 6th of June it was said, that the whole wishes for their success ?

Swedish power would be available. The battle Thy spirit, independence, let me share,

of Leipsic was gained by the gallantry and • Lord of the lion-heart and eagle-eye; devotedness of the allies; but did that battle con• Thy steps I'll follow with my bosom bare,

clude all? Was not Europe still in danger? Was • Nor heed the storm that howls along the sky' not the balance still trembling? Was not the tranThere a glorious resistance had been made to this quillity of the world still almost hopeless? But transfer of sovereignty, and that resistance had for the madness of that one man, would not peace at last been successful. What was the answer of have been made, and on terms, with a disproporthe Scottish barons to the pope, when he at tionate allotment of empire, which would have tempted to transfer their allegiance? That no only given him the means for new and more preking should be imposed upon Scotland without pared attacks on the continent ? And during their consent. Such was the language of the this eventful period, whoever heard of the crownScottish barons, and in this language the people prince? Was not the strongest discontent ex. of Norway now spoke. If their lordships would cited by bis inactivity ?

cited by bis inactivity? And when he did not hear them, they would act in subversion of move, where did he move? Did he press upon the principles of their own liberty, by which they enemy? Did he throw his sword into the scale ! lived, and moved, and had their being. Attend. Did he pour down to augment the mighty stream ing, then, to the construction of this treaty, it was of popular feeling and national valour that was

[ocr errors]

the

« PreviousContinue »