siderably, by allowing her to treat for the other Northern Powers.

Lord Glenbervie said, that the learned gentleman (Dr. Lawrence) was mistaken in a point of fact. The Northern Powers had for a considerable time showed a disposition to resist by force our claim to the right of search. A Danish ship had resisted by force, and a Swedish captain had been broke for not doing so.

Mr. Erskine cordially approved of the treaty. It had been called a judicious compromise, upon which he would observe, in the language of a man whose name would be always heard in that house with reverence (Mr. Burke), that " almost every human benefit is founded on a compromise, and it is better that we should give and take than be too rigid with each other, for that if we would be wise, we should not endeavour to be too subtle disputants." If we had endeavoured to impose harsh terms upon the late confederacy, those powers would have contested with us again, the first opportunity that offered; but by our moderation the business had been better settled. In every controversy between man and man, or nation and nation, that reconciliation is the sincerest where the honour and interest of both parties are attended to: had it not been for this arrangement with the Northern Powers, peace with France would have been perhaps unattainable. Mr. Erskine then very cloquently congratulated the country on its prospects of a secure and lasting peace, and concluded by giving his most hearty approbation of the conduct of his majesty's ministers.

Sir William Scott expressed his

entire approbation of the sentiments expressed by the learned gentleman (Mr. Erskine), who had just sat down. He then briefly reviewed the treaty nearly on the same grounds as lord Hawkesbury had considered it, and concluded with voting for the address.

Mr. Tierney also concurred in the address, and expressed his approbation of the conduct of ministers, in whom he began to place confidence.

The question was then called for, and the address was voted without a division.

However material to the real interests of the British empire the subject matter of the foregoing debate, with whatever ability the question had been discussed, or how ably soever the public law of Europe, as connected with our maritime dominion, had been laid down in the course of a long and animated opposition of sentiment; it excited very little sensation in the public mind. The result of the contest with the Northern Powers had been glorious; it was universally understood that concession would follow victory, and that, from the character and temper of the young sovereign with whom we had negotiated, every thing equitable and conciliatory was to be expected. The known ability of lord St. Helen's, who had conducted the convention on our part, and a willingness to confide in the political skill and integrity of the ministers at home, who had concluded an unhoped for peace with France, and who now claimed from the nation praises for having, in the words of the address, "secured to us those essential rights for which we had contended," and which all agreed

E 3

were

S the of OME days after this discussion the thanks of both houses of parliament were voted to sir John Hely Hutchinson, and the general officers who commanded the army in Egypt, as also to lord Keith, and the admirals commanding the flect employed in that expedition. The votes of thanks passed unanimously in both houses, but several distinguished members, in each house, took the opportunity of paying the highest compliments to the gallantry of our army and navy, who had rendered such distinguished services to their country.

The next public business of importance which engaged the attention of parliament at the commencement of this session, was the consideration of the terms of the convention with the emperor of Russia, signed at St. Petersburgh, the 7th of June 1801, which terminated the northern confederacy, aimed at the vital interests, and even the very existence of the British empire, by a violent though insidious effort to extinguish our mautime rights and regulations, and to deprive us of our naval dominion, at a moment when we were deemed incapable of bearing up against the extraordinary and unexampled difficulties we

were then contending against. Bat, however well-grounded the hopes of our new adversaries, they had found in the vigilance and vigour of Mr. Pitt and his colleagues, and in the public spirit and magnanimity of the British nation, the complete frustration and overthrow of their hostile attempts. The victory of Copenhagen, the particulars of which we have detailed in our preceding volume, which, though fought under the auspices of a new administration, was the immediate fruit of the prompt and decided measures of the old, taught our adversaries that in the defence of our legitimate rights we were invincible, at the same time that our wisdom and moderation in the moment of victory rendered us truly worthy of it. The convention now to be considered was the consequence of this proud and glorious day. And it remained to be decided, by the investigation of both houses of parliament, whether we had followed up the brilliant success of our fleet, by securing on a solid and equitable basis the rights we contended for, or whether in negotiation we had bartered those rights for specious but futile advantages.

On the 13th of November this question

question came on to be discussed, and when the order of the day for the consideration of it in the house of lords was read,

The earl of Darnley rose to move an address which would amount to an approbation of the conduct of his majesty's present ministers: he could not withhold his approbation of their conduct since they came, into office, especially when contrasted with that of their predecessors, whose servile imitators they had proved themselves not to be, as he had expected. The convention on the table was a striking instance of that. It was evident from that document, that they had not continued to bully and insult the powers of Europe; but that, by a judicious mixture of firmness and moderation, they had induced them to lay aside their unjust pretensions, and had finally settled, upon an equitable and permanent basis the maritime law of nations. Upon the principles of the law of nations depended the greatness and prosperity of Great Britain as maritime power. And yet this law of nations, although clearly ascertained by the ablest ministers of all countries in Europe, has yet been frequently violated and broken in upon by reason of the political interest and prejudices of the different countries. It was not surprising that in the last war our unparalleled successes at sea, and the vast extension of our commerce, should awaken the jealousy of other powers, and dispose them to join in a coalition contrary to our interests. He thanked God, however, that ministers had firmness and energy enough to convince then that they did not want spirit to maintain

a

the just rights of the country. [His lordship then complimented lord Nelson who sat near him.] Among the parts of the treaty, particularly to be attended to, the first and most important was, the abandonment of that false and dangerous proposition that "free ships made free goods." This was effectually donc away by the third article of the convention, which discriminated what was to be reckoned contraband and liable to seizure. The second point of importance was, "the right of search of ships under convoy, with the exception of privateers." The third important point regarded what was called

The

the contraband of war." convention in this respect differed as with respect to Russia, and with respect to Sweden and Denmark. With Russia, this contraband of war extended only to military warlike stores; whereas with Denmark and Sweden this point was settled according to ancient treaties subsisting between the countries, by which treaties were also ascertained what should be termed a blockaded port: this is now settled to mean a port so blocked by the enemy's ships, as that it cannot be entered with safety. The principal merit which he thought belonged to this treaty was, that it prepared the way for the peace with France, which, although he was aware that this was not a time for its discussion, he considered as absolutely necessary for the country. concluded by moving an address, "thanking his majesty for his communication, and assuring him of the cordial concurrence and approbation of that house, as the most effectual means of reestablishing

He

friendship

friendship with the Northern Powers, and maintaining the maritime rights of this country."

Lord Cathcart, in seconding the address, took a general view of the events which preceded this convention with Russia. He considered that on no single occasion did this country gain such an accession to its character, as by the spirit and decision with which it broke the combination that was forming against it. A glorious victory opened our way into the Baltic, and the moderation as well as firm ness of our government had secured, as the fruits of it, the maritime rights of the country. He considered the conduct of his majesty's ministers throughout the whole of this arduous transaction as worthy of the highest degree of praise.

Lord Grenville said, it was impossible for him to agree in that unanimous approbation recommended by the noble lords who had just spoken. In the first place, he conceived it highly premature to give their approbation to a treaty which must still be a subject of discussion between this country and the Northern Powers (the ratification of all those powers not being yet obtained): but he had another and much more forcible objection; it did not secure for this country the objects for which the war was commenced, and which the treaty professed to have ob. tained. The consi leration of this treaty was widely different from that of the treaty lately concluded with France. The latter being a treaty of peace made with an enemy, was absolutely binding on the national faith, and parliament had little more to consider than the conduct of ministers in making it.

This, however, being a convention with a state in amnity, if there was any thing defective in the treaty it might be a subject of future explanation and amicable arrangement; he therefore felt particularly desirous of pointing out the consequences which would result from the treaty in its present shape, and anxious that his majesty's ministers would settle, by future arrangement, what was defective in the present. As the question of neutral rights had been agitated, he wished it might be for ever put to rest, and that the treaty should constitute a code of laws, which might be appealed to on any future occasion. In order to judge whether the present treaty had succeeded in obtaining the objects of the contest with the Northern Powers, he should state what those objects were, which he thought might be reduced to five distinct points.

The first point which was asserted on the part of this country was, that neutral nations should not be permitted in war time, either to carry coastways, from one port of an enemy's country to another, the commodities of that country; nor convey home to an enemy's country the produce of its colonies; and that such property, although in a neutral bottom, was seizable under the maritime law of nations. Were neutrals allowed to exercise such privileges with respect to belligerent powers, the enemy could carry on every species of commerce without the least interruption or annoyance from this country in war time.

The second point was, that free ships did not make free goods: if the contrary principle, which the Northern l'owers contended for,

was

was once admitted, France could in war time derive supplies of every thing necessary for her support in war, in defiance of all our efforts to prevent them.

The third principle related to the contraband of war, by which neutral nations were not to be allowed to supply an enemy with those necesseries of war, which it might be in want of either for offence or deSence, and among those articles naval stores are the most important. The fourth point related to convoy, and under this it was asserted that neutral vessels, even sailing under convoy, should not be exempted from the liability of search.

The fifth point related to blockaded ports. The principle which we contended for under this point was, that no vessel should be suffered to enter a port blockaded by a cruising squadron, inasmuch as by throwing in supplies they might enable the port to hold out longer against us, and that any vessel attempting to enter, and bound to such blockaded port, was liable to seizure. The neutral powers, on the other hand, wished to restrict the signification of a blockaded port, to that before which a blockading squadron was so placed, as to render it apparently unsafe for a vessel to

enter.

Having recapitulated those, as the grounds of the original contest between Great Britain and the Northern Powers, his lordship proceeded to consider how far the terms in the present treaty went toward's obtaining them. In the first place he observed, that the expressions used in this treaty were ambiguous, and drawn from a document mest hostile to us, namely, the convention of the armed neutrality. One of

the first articles would, from its wording, secure the free conveyance of the colonial produce of the enemy, on the ground of its being the acquired property of neutrals. Aithough this appeared to be only conceded to Russia, vet Sweden and Denmark would derive the same power if that was made the basis of a general treaty, and in their hands this privilege would be essentially injurious to the country. Another advantage which this clause gave to neutrals was, that it gave them privileges in war which they had not in peace, namely, that of transporting the produce of the colonies to the mother country: this was a privilege which the navigation laws of every state which had colonies reserved to the mother country. As to the second point, the renunciation of the claim that "free bottoms made free goods," this certainly had been obtained, which was only a confirmation of the existing law of nations. The third point, that of contraband of war: he was sorry to see that this part of the treaty went on the ground of the treaty with Russia in 1797. With Russia, a power that had no mercantile navigation, it was an object of no moment; but to grant the same indulgence to other powers would be most dangerous. It was also most strange in the enumeration of warlike stores to leave out those articles which Russia, might be expected to supply, namely, pitch, tar, hemp, cordage, sail cloth, ship timber, and even ships themselves. The fourth point respecting blockaded ports had been in a great measure abandoned by this treaty. Formerly a port was considered to be blockaded, when it was declared to be so, in consequence of a squa

dron