« PreviousContinue »
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-
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.
Interesting Debates in the Imperial Parliament, on the Conduct of the British Government towards
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,
if the tyrant
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
He was almost ashamed to, combat
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
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.
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-
Lord Grey next adverted to the documents,
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