CHAP. II.

1814.

BOOK XIII. it was a manifest act of usurpation, on the part of Prince Christian, under a delegated authority. There were a number of Danes in Norway, who acted under the authority of the Prince of Denmark, who, on his part, had completely assumed the sovereign power. The question hitherto had never been fairly stated to the Norwegians, as all the proclamations of the King of Sweden had been industriously suppressed, and Prince Christian had assured them of the support of the British government. The present conduct of the Norwegians was no national act, but that of a few designing individuals, as many of the principal parts of Norway were friendly to a connection with Sweden. The case of Spain that had been quoted by the noble earl was not all in point. The treaty then made with Bonaparte was made by the king in a foreign country, and under the influence of terror; and by the fundamental laws of the realm, the king had no power to alter the succession to the crown. With respect to Sweden, that country had amply paid for all the stipulations in her favor. In marching her troops to Holstein she had been guilty of no bad faith, as that movement had taken place with the consent of the allies; and a considerable body of troops had been placed under the command of the crown-prince by the Emperor of Russia. Never had so extensive a confederacy taken place as that betwixt the allied powers, in which so few grounds of complaint had arisen. This was to be ascribed to the magnanimity of the allies, and their determination to sacrifice all minor objects, when put in competition with the great objects which had been so successfully attained. If any measure were wise when first adopted, this country was bound in justice to adhere to it, though the state of affairs might have since materially changed. Norway had resisted the cession to Sweden, and with that part of Denmark we were in a state of war; and he trusted, that the house would be of opinion, that government should be armed with powers sufficient to enable them to fulfil the solemn obligations of a treaty.

Lord Holland replied at some length to the last speaker, and defended the motion of his noble friend. The noble lord (Liverpool), by his own confession, had placed the house in an unfortunate dilemma, either of committing an act of flagrant injustice, or of violating a solemn treaty. The free construction of the treaty had been wholly overlooked by the noble lord; as the employment of force to effect the annexation of Norway to Sweden was distinctly disclaimed, except in the event of the King of Denmark refusing to join the allies. The King of Denmark had not refused to join the allies, and consequently no pretence existed for making use of force. It was an unhappy and cruel situation for this country, that wherever the work of generosity and clemency, and magna

nimity was to be performed, there the allies were to be seen conspicuously foremost; but where the painful task of punishing an unoffending people was to be undertaken, where the most odious measures were to be enforced by the most odious means, then England was to stand forward preeminent, while the allies, who were to reap the chief benefit, took scarcely any part in that hateful scene. He ridiculed the idea of guaranteeing a constitution, as if we were to keep watch over the peace like so many constables; and said, that instead of having recourse to such excuses, it would have been more manly in his majesty's ministers to have come forward and have allowed that they had in a moment of haste consented to a treaty which could not be observed without disgrace to the country. He conjured their lordships to consider that if it could be discovered that Sweden had not to the utmost fulfilled her part of the treaty, we were not bound to ratify what was so injurious and disgraceful. Any thing short of going to war ought to be adopted, rather than submit to tarnish the national character by the observance of such a compact.

Lord Boringdon said he should vote against the resolutions, on the ground that circumstances might arise of so imperative and paramount a nature, as to leave no option for action, though every liberal mind might feel, that the sentiments of right and justice went the other way.

Lord Grey replied. He regretted that his majesty's ministers, who had so manfully and gloriously exerted themselves against the aggressions of France, should now support a set of opinions on which all those aggressions had been built or justified: nor could he hear without astonishment the doctrine of the noble lord, that paramount occasions might overturn the very, nature of justice. He had himself thought that it was a moral maxim, fiat justitia, ruat cælum.' But the noble lord reversed the maxim: he said, cultivate your interests, cherish your own advantage, and then ruat justitia. It was the first and he hoped would be the last time such a doctrine would be uttered in a British parliament.

His lordship stated, that though Prince Christian had acted by a delegated authority at first, he had afterwards acted as sovereign by the appointment of several of the most considerable persons in Norway. A Norwegian diet had been fixed for the 10th of April, and the assembly had offered the crown of Norway to Prince Christian, upon the express condition that he should give up Denmark altogether.

Lord Liverpool, in explanation, said, that what he had stated with respect to Denmark was this, that either the acts of Prince Christian were the effects of Danish treachery; or, as he was more inclined to suppose, his conduct was an usurpation of the crown of Norway.

In the house of commons, on the 12th of May, Mr. Wynne, after a very luminous speech respecting the state of Norway, in which he added many forcible arguments to the grounds already taken on this important subject by Earl Grey in the house of lords, moved, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the prince-regent, humbly to request, that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to interpose his mediation, to rescue the unoffending people of Norway from the dreadful alternative of famine, or of subjugation to the yoke of a foreign and hostile power: and that during the discussion of such proposals as his royal highness may be advised to make for this most desirable object, all hostile operations on the part of this country against a people struggling for the sacred right of national independence may be discontinued." Mr. Lambton seconded the motion. Mr. Stephen was decidedly of opinion, that that which was inconsistent with duty could never be conducive to interest. We could never pursue our true interest by violating the laws of God or of nature. Those who attempted to do this threw the gauntlet to Almighty justice; and he should fear, in such a case, even if he could not immediately see the connection between cause and effect, that the supreme governor of the universe would not fail to take it up. We were bound to perform the treaty we had concluded, by doing all in our power to annex Norway to Sweden, unless we were released from the obligation by Sweden herself. Nothing was more repugnant to common sense and to common principle, than to argue, because Norway had been ceded to Sweden, though the cession was successfully resisted by the Norwegians, that we had done all the treaty required, and were bound to do nothing more in the business. By the terms of the treaty we engaged not only not to oppose the annexation of Norway in perpetuity to Sweden, but to co-operate with Sweden and Russia to secure it to the former power, if Denmark did not join the allies. It was now said, after a sanguinary campaign, because at last Denmark had been compelled to change her system, that we were not bound by the stipulation of that treaty. He should not be surprised to hear this from persons unacquainted with those great writers on the law of nations, Grotius, Puffendorff, and Vattel; but he was astonished to hear it from those who

CHAP. II.

1814.

were familiar with their writings. He proceeded BOOK XIII. to show from Vattel, that the course taken by ministers, with respect to Norway, was in every respect justifiable. It would have been but a mockery on our part to have acceded to the treaty concluded between Sweden and Russia, had we offered to introduce a proviso, that if the people of Norway resisted, it should not be carried into effect. On such terms our assent would not have been accepted by Sweden. But it was said that Sweden had not fulfilled her engagements, and therefore we were not bound, to perform ours. It would come with a very bad grace from us to say this now, if we had made no remonstrances to this effect before. The services of the crownprince at Leipsic, his defence of Berlin, &c. had greatly forwarded the plans of the allies. He did not think ministers deserved more praise in any one thing, than for having discovered that confidence could be placed in the Crown-prince of Sweden, at a time when the prevailing opinion of this country was much against it. After the services required of Sweden had been performed, it was not just, because, now the danger was past, doubts could be raised on the conduct of the crown-prince, that we should put aside the engagements we had made. If this treaty were a violation of eternal justice, and of the law of nations-if it were a transgression of the law of God -then, if that were made out, he would admit it ought not to be fulfilled. If we sinned in making it, we should not sin in breaking it, if we made the party suffering from our doing so all the reparation in our power. The conduct pursued towards Norway he again vindicated, by referring to the public writers he had quoted before. Norway, as belonging to Denmark, with whom we were at war, we had a right to conquer if we could, and we had a right to contract with another power to effect its subjugation. If it were proved that this was contrary to the law of nations, he would give up the argument. A ceded people, it was said, must consent to the cession before it could take place: but how was this expressed but through their legitimate organ, the king? The King of Denmark had consented to the cession of Norway, and we were bound by solemn treaty to carry that cession into effect. But it was said that Norway was part of Sweden, or part of Denmark. If part of Denmark, it had been ceded to Sweden, and we had nothing more to do; if it was part of Sweden, with that country we were at peace. He should avoid both horns of this dilemma. If it was part of Denmark, it was bound to obey the law of Denmark. If it resisted to fulfil the treaty made by Denmark, it placed itself by such conduct in its former state of war with this country. They could in that case have no right to benefit by the peace be-. tween the two powers. It was said that the plan

CHAP. II.

1814.

.

BOOK XIII. formed for starving them into submission was one not to be contemplated without horror. God forbid that he should wish any nation to be placed in this situation! but by unequivocally stating our intentions he thought we might save the Norwegians from the miseries of famine and protracted war. He thought it would be mercy to Norway to put forth our means in concert with our allies at once, in order to convince them that resistance would be vain. The situation of Norway he could not think likely to be at all deteriorated by its union with Sweden. This to him was a consoling reflection, though under other circumstances he should still have contended -that we were bound to fulfil the treaty we had concluded. On these grounds he most cordially opposed the motion, beleving that, instead of propitiating the supreme governor of the world by agreeing to it, to do so would only have the effect of heaping greater digrace on this nation than had ever fallen on any other country.

.

Sir J. Mackintosh, referring to the circumstances under which the treaty between Russia and Sweden had been concluded, eulogized in the highest terms the splendid exertions of the former power in the cause of Europe. He admitted the convention with Sweden, to which this country was a party, to be binding; but stated the question before the house to be this, whether this country was bound in fact, or by right, to compel the kingdom of Norway to submit to the domination of Sweden, by a treaty concluded with Sweden against the crown of Denmark? He contended that it could not bind us to make war on an independent power, which was not-in existence when the treaty was made. All that was asked by the resolution under consideration was, that a pause should be made to give time for inquiring into the real state of things in Norway, before the most odious measures of hostility were resorted to. Those who doubted whether the insurrection in Norway was unanimous, or who doubted of any of the facts which had been made public, were bound to vote for the address. It had been asked, if Sweden would have accepted our assent to the treaty between her and Russia, with a proviso that it should not be enforced if it met with resistance from the Norwegian people? He would answer, Sweden would, if she had read the law of nations, as laid down by Grotius, Puffendorf, and Vattel. Recognizing the universally-received writings of these men as the law of Europe, she was bound to admit the proviso, as much as if it had been inserted in the treaty. These he proceeded to support by quotations from those celebrated writers. For a prince to cede a million of men by one stroke of his pen was to carry on a white slave-trade, to outdo the worst scenes exhibited in Congou or Bohemia. The resistance of a people was not to be treated so

was more

lightly. One protest, he contended, than equal to a thousand acquiescences. He then adverted to the cession of the island of Corsica by the republic of Genoa, and traced from the circumstances which that cession led to, the production of that mind which had afterwards nearly destroyed the liberties of the world. The cession of the Tyrol by Austria be next noticed, and inquired if the gallant resistance of the Ty. rolese was to be stigmatized as a rebellion, and if that hero who, fighting for his country, had probably in his blood planted the seeds of European liberty, was at that time of day to be called a traitor. The vote of the house that night would decide whether he deserved to rank with Sydney and Hampden, or was one of the blackest traitors that ever prolonged the horrors of war. He wished to ask the learned gentleman, if there were no cases in which the people might with justice resist the attempts of their sovereigns to cede them to foreign powers? He put it to him, if the King of Spain were to cede the fine province of Andalusia to the barbarian called the Emperor of Morocco, or to the Dey of Algiers, would it be high-treason in the people to refuse their consent to such a transfer? The poor peasant of Norway had that artificial instinct, the love of his native land, without which he could be no man, without which the country could be no country, but merely a wretched bundle of slaves. A parallel case to that of Norway was furnished by Scotland. Had not her sons resisted Edward the First; had they suffered themselves to be made slaves, they could never have become useful friends to that great country to which it was now their honor and their glory to belong. It was because they had resisted, and because a Wallace had suffered martyrdom, that they had become what they were; and that from them the annals of Great Britain had been graced with the names of an Abercromby, a Moore, and a Graham. He proceeded to picture the hard case of the Norwegians, in being subjected to the horrors of famine for choosing their own government. He contended that, when the King of Denmark had abdicated the sovereignty over them, they had a right to act for themselves, as an independent power must commit some act of hostility before any nation could with justice declare war against them. The honorable gentleman wished to know whether the rising was par tial or general, and this he proposed to ascertain by starving the whole people. But it was said that they had been hostile to us. They had been so while it was their duty. Under the most trying circumstances, they had stood firm as their mountains, which he hoped would prove to them an unconquerable barrier. He expressed great sorrow at finding the navy was to be put on so abominable and nefarious a duty as that of block

ading the people of Norway. Of the navy he could not speak without enthusiasm. Those who composed it, adding the perfection of science to valour and generosity, had - raised themselves within these last twenty years, as a body, more than any other class of persons he could name. They had appeared to be without rivals, till the immortal Wellington made it doubtful whether our army or our navy was most to be admired. He mourned that such men were to be sent to persecute, under the profaned name of mercy, a people who would not believe them capable of acting such a part. He put it to the house, what must be the feelings of the Norwegian mothers, while gazing on their dying infants-their infants famished by the mercy of England; they pointed. to the British flag, which they had taught their children to admire, and saw in that, which had given independence and relief to others, the cause of their subjugation and misery.

Mr. Canning defended the character and conduct of the Crown-prince of Sweden. He thought we were expressly bound by treaty to assist in putting Sweden in possession of Norway. Then how was this assistance to be rendered? Our lofty ships could not scale the mountains of Norway, and of course the stipulated co-operation could only be by blockading the Norwegian ports. Therefore, the blockade took place in adherence to the treaty, and the consequences which followed were naturally to be apprehended, however much they might be deplored. But such consequences must ever be calculated upon in war; and however those intrusted with the weapons of war might feel, they must wield those weapons with effect for legitimate objects, or become unfit for their situation, and dangerous to their country. He regarded Sweden as a most important support to the common cause, as the very nucleus of the continental confederacy, by cementing the connection between Russia and England. The importance of Sweden might indeed be judged of from the testimony of Austria, which, in its original declarations in favor of the allies, distinctly stated that "Russia, Sweden, and England, formed the point of union round which the confederacy of Europe rallied." The rank here assigned to Sweden showed that the services of Sweden were bighly estimated. Why then should such services be slighted, or why should the price which this country had engaged to pay for them be refused? We had entered into this engagement in a period of difficulty, when the danger that me-` naced us was tremendous; and should we now, in a moment of comparative repose, when the danger had sunk into insignificance, refuse to fulfil our contract to that power which had materially contributed to remove that difficulty?The waters were out clouds covered the opposite shore

CHAP. II.

plain of an overcharge for our conveyance-should BOOK XIII. we refuse to pay the boatman? The circuihstances under which a treaty was concluded must, according to all jurists of authority, be taken into consideration, in order to judge of the propriety and duty of adhering to its provisions.

Mr. Whitbread said, that if the right honorable member who had spoke last had not been able as well as accustomed to weigh the meaning of words, he should have supposed that he had mistaken the purport of his honorable friend's motion. If there were any members in the house tonight who had never heard the right honorable. gentleman before, they would be lamentably disappointed by the very imperfect specimen which he had given of his eloquence and powers of imagination. His " roar of waters, his trickling stream, his ferry-boat, his ships climbing mountains," were not at all in that gentleman's usual style of oratory. As to the part we should take in the present contest, Mr. Whitbread contended that it would be perfectly gratuitous and voluntary; there were no obligations in the treaty to bind us; we were free as air as to the conduct we should pursue. The Crown-prince of Sweden had not fulfilled the stipulations of the treaty, by which we had agreed to assist him in the subjugation and annexation of Norway. This was his firm opinion; and it was, he believed, the opinion of the highest military authorities, that Swedenhad not given that assistance to the common cause which she was bound by the express conditions of this unprincipled contract to give. He should like to have had the opinions of Sir Charles Stewart, of Marshal Blucher, as to the effective co-operation of Sweden at the battle of Leipsic,. and after that battle, after the allies had entered France, or when they were under the walls of Paris. With respect to the charge of treachery against Denmark, in defeating the cession of Norway, which she herself had formerly made, it was sufficiently answered by the ratification of the original treaty with that country, so late as the 19th of April, when it was plain that the allies were perfectly satisfied with the conduct and good faith of the King of Denmark. Every one knew what blockade meant in the present instance. It was not intended to prevent the sending of arms or ammunition to Norway, but to cutoff her supplies of food, to inflict upon her that which had been described by Mr. Burke as the greatest of all possible calamities, as a calamity so dreadful that every humane mind shuddered and turned away from its contemplation. Would not the house panse, then, before they proceeded to this last act of aggravated injustice and cruelty?Yet ministers would not allow them to inquire, or were themselves most scandalously ignorant, whether the condition of a treaty, which could

1814.