Page images
PDF
EPUB

traband trade, which all other neutral na- | papers, whether he had not a good cause tions would think they had a right to carry to make a search. Upon the whole, on. But the noble lord ought to have therefore, it appeared to him that the known that this was only a specific treaty question in the present case was, whether with one nation, which could not bind any treaty could be less objectionable than any other power, and had nothing to do the present? He was convinced in his with any treaty that might be entered into own mind that it was a treaty of conwith Denmark or Sweden; and which siderable merit, and tended to secure to could never hereafter give either Holland this country some of her best and most or America the right of carrying on a con- essential interests. traband trade. The treaty was confined to Russia alone; and we had no quarrel, nor were we at war with Russia. There was here a complete renunciation of the coasting trade: there was a clear, unequivocal admission of the right of search; and he would ask, on the whole, if the country had not established the right for which she had contended? With regard to the right of search, he must say, he wished he could see that right exercised by privateers as well as by king's ships, as these vessels formed a great part of the naval power of the country; and rejecting that false philanthropy by which the practice of privateering had been condemned in France, he would regard it as most essential to the interests of this country. As, however, the right of search by privateers might be resisted, and could not be exercised in some instances without a declaration of war on one side or the other, he thought it better to give it up altogether. The objection made by the noble lord as to the right of search on the part of Great Britain, applied not to the right itself, but to an undue detention after the search was made. The captain of the belligerent power would have the right to go on board the ship that guarded the convoy. If, then, he had no motive for suspicion, he might go away without making any search. But if he had a sufficient motive, he was not bound to declare what it was, but might proceed to his search. If, after the search, it appeared that there had been no justifiable motive for detention of the vessel, then he was responsible to no power for what he had done except his own, country. He contended, that not withstanding what the noble lord had said, a search might still be made; and that there would be as little danger of neutral vessels containing contraband goods now as formerly. From the nature of the thing itself, the ground of suspicion must depend on the discretion of the officer; and he was to determine from other circumstances, besides the examinations of

Lord Holland said, he certainly should vote for the address, but not upon any of the reasons assigned by the mover and seconder. He agreed with a great deal of what had fallen from the noble lord, who had so accurately divided the rights claimed by this country as her undoubted maritime rights, under five distinct heads. He owned that he did not consider those rights entitled to all the stress and importance which the noble lord had imputed to them; at least, he must strongly object to the manner and the moment in which they had been insisted upon, as he did not think it was any justification of the late war with the Northern powers on our part, to allege that we went to war merely to insist on some of the principles comprehended in those rights. The late ministers, he thought, had much to answer for, in having idly wasted the blood and treasure of the country in a war with the Northern powers, merely to maintain a speculative point. At the same time he declared, that the learned lord on the woolsack had not satisfied him that those rights had been effectually secured by the present convention. to the concessions that had been made in the convention, upon the manner of enforcing the observance of those rights, he highly approved of them, and should vote for the address, because he considered these concessions as likely to tend to the conservation of the peace. Having touched cursorily upon each of the five heads stated by lord Grenville, he spoke of the former treaties that existed between Sweden and Denmark and this country, and read several clauses of the two last treaties in respect to what was deemed contraband in those treaties. He read an extract also of a letter from Pensionary De Witt, dated 1654, upon the subject of commerce, and the carrying trade, as they were affected by them. After reasoning shortly upon these points, his lordship said, that upon the whole he approved of the convention, and thought it held out enough to bear out the assertion in the

With regard

latter part of the address; but that he still thought, that further explanations of the articles of the convention were necessary.

and in a bond of 3,000/. if they carried a greater number of hands. He entertained great doubts, whether it would not add to our naval strength, and assist commerce during a war, if privateers were abolished altogether. They took men from the navy, encouraged deserters, raised the price of seamen's wages in the merchants service,' and checked the ardour of those who would, but for privateers, have entered voluntarily into the navy. He could not agree with his learned friend that this was the best convention this country had ever entered into; yet, as his learned friend was satisfied that the construction was favourable to the rights claimed under the law of nations by this country, he would vote for the address.

Lord Mulgrave said, he approved of the address, but could not agree in the ground his learned friend had taken to defend all the articles of the convention, and to exult over it as the most advantageous convention that this country had ever made. He said, it often happened, in the joy of the moment, on a sudden obtainment of peace, after an expensive and bloody war, that through inadvertency omissions escaped unobserved in a treaty, that led to future altercation and war. Thus he could, he thought, trace the commencement of the armed neutrality of 1780 so far back as a century and a half Lord Nelson rose to say a word or two ago. At the end of the war in the middle upon the convention, which he highly apof the seventeenth century, in a treaty proved. It had put an end to the prinwith Holland, an unguarded relaxation of ciple endeavoured to be enforced by the our maritime right gave the Dutch the armed neutrality in 1780, and by the late power of carrying the goods of belligerent combination of the northern powers, that powers under their flag, both coastwise free ships made free goods-a proposition and from the French colonies to France, so monstrous in itself, so contrary to the and that continued for a considerable law of nations, and so injurious to the matime. Upon that very point it was that ritime rights of this country, that, if it the armed neutrality of 1780 was founded; had been persisted in, we ought not to and he feared that, through not expressly have concluded the war with those powers prohibiting the carrying of naval stores, while a single man, a single shilling, or as contraband of war in the present con- even a single drop of blood remained in vention, it might hereafter be taken an the country. That abominable proposiundue advantage of by neutral powers tion was now set at rest, and abandoned during some future war. He however by Russia. The rashness and violence of regarded the convention as having secured the emperor Paul had formed the confeseveral of our essential maritime rights. deracy against us to support and enforce It put an end to the principle, that free that proposition; but the good sense, ships made free goods; it established the moderation and temper of his successor, right of search, and it ascertained that a the present emperor, had consented to cruising fleet destined to blockade a port give it up and renounce it. By the conwas a blockade. With regard to the res-vention, military stores had been stated as tricting the right of search of ships under convoy of a neutral flag to our ships of war, and not suffering such right of search to be exercised by privateers, he highly approved of that prohibition. Privateers in all former wars, had been in some in stances guilty of cruelty, of plunder, and of various abuses of the right of search: whereas, in the last war, he defied any man to state an instance in which the officers of the navy had not acted in the exercise of the right of search with great caution. He said, it was clear that privateers had at an early period abused their powers, since in the middle of the seventeenth century they were compelled to give security for their good conduct in a bond of 1,500%. if they carried 300 men, B

the only contraband of war stipulated with Russia to be considered as such, and much had been said in the course of the debate about naval stores, which were not stipulated to be deemed contraband, because Russia had neither produce of naval stores, nor shipping enough to have freighted them for France. He almost wished she had possessed both during the latter years of the war; because, in that case, France would have been enabled to send their fleets out of port, which we should have fought, and the war in all probability would have been much sooner at an end. But, certainly, to allow other neutral countries, and those maritime states, to carry naval stores to the ports of the enemy, might prove highly inju

rious to us, by furnishing those at war with us with the means of strengthening their marine. He approved of the article restricting the right of search of ships under the convoy of a neutral flag ship of war to our navy only during hostilities; and stated what would have been his own conduct if he had met with such convoy, declaring that he should have endeavoured to discharge his duty with all possible civility to the captain of the neutral frigate, should have inspected his papers, and if, from the information of any seaman, he was led to entertain a suspicion that the papers were fraudulent or fabricated, and that the convoy did contain what was contraband or illicit, he should in that case have insisted on a search; and if he found any contraband articles on board, he should have detained such ship or ships. The Address was then agreed to.

Debate in the Commons on the Convention with Russia.] Nov. 13. On the order of the day being read, for taking into con sideration the Convention with Russia, earl Temple wished to know if the accession of the courts of Denmark and Sweden to the treaty had been received? Lord Hawkesbury said, the formal accession of those powers to the treaty had not been received; but that the Danish and Swedish ambassadors had signified the readiness of their respective courts to accede to the convention.

and Sweden have declared their readiness to accede; to express our grateful sense of the happy issue of his majesty's exertions in support of the maritime interests of this kingdom, by which the essential rights for which we have contended are effectually secured, and provision made, that the exercise of them should be attended with as little molestation as possible to the navigation and commerce of the contracting powers."

Mr. Ryder concurred most heartily in the sentiments of the Address. The subject was not new to the House, for it was one with respect to which every member was called upon to make up his mind at the end of the last session. The House then gave a just support to our maritime rights, and to the energy at that time displayed by the House and by government, the country was indebted for the advantageous situation in which we were now placed with regard to the neutral powers. To form a proper opinion of the merits of the present treaty, it was necessary to consider what was the nature of the new questions agitated, and the pretensions set up by the confederacy. It was not necessary for him to remind the House of the alarm which the convention of the northern powers created. A new description of blockade was laid down: it was pretended, that neutral flags should make free goods; and that they should bear freely the property of one belligerent power, without being liable to interruption from another. But that which was the most dangerous feature of the whole was, the principle on which that treaty affected to be founded: by this principle it was boldly assumed, that a few states had the right to legislate for the rest of Europe. This pretension, under which the three northern powers wished to reserve to themselves the right of violating treaties that they had formerly entered into with this country, and of protecting the like violations in others, was completely done away by the present treaty. And here he could not help stating his approbation of the conduct that ministers had followed in the negotiations which had terminated this dispute. They had acted with a firmness and mo»

Lord Francis Osborne then rose to move an address to his majesty, and prefaced his motion with a few observations, in which he briefly recapitulated, the different articles of the convention, and remarked, that the stipulations contained in each were calculated to terminate the dispute in a manner perfectly consistent with the honour and the interests of this country. The relations that we had always maintained with neutral powers were re-established by this treaty, and there was no longer any danger of their becoming the subject of dispute. We were placed on the same footing that we had always stood with respect to Russia, Denmark, and Sweden, and our just maritimel rights were amply secured. His lordship concluded by moving, " That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, to re-deration which could not be too highly turn his majesty the thanks of this House for having been graciously pleased to communicate to them the convention entered into by his majesty and the emperor of Russia, to which the kings of Denmark

praised. The victory at Copenhagen, and the abandonment of the confederacy by the emperor of Russia, were sufficient proofs of the energy and diplomatic skill of those in whose hands the affairs of the

country were trusted. Of their modera- the nations at war. They are therefore de tion, the treaty on the table afforded the prived of the means of carrying on the most ample evidence; and when the trade of the enemy, while every opportuHouse had considered it, he was confident nity is given them of fairly conducting they would not like it the worse, that it their own. The third article of the conwas entirely confined to the settling of the vention of 1800 stipulated, that the effects pretensions set up in the convention of of neutral states should be freely navithe confederacy, and did not attempt to gated, and that the neutral flag should be decide many points which might have considered complete evidence of the efbeen adverted to, but which that conven- fects being the property of subjects of tion did not bring into question. Look- those powers. This the House would reing at the treaty, he must observe, that it collect formed the foundation of the armwas not to be considered as forming a ed neutrality of 1780. But this claim new law of nations, but as terminating a was completely renounced by the present dispute, by a return to old and established treaty. The next article he should noprinciples. If it should be found that all tice was that which related to ports in a our just rights were fully maintained by state of blockade. According to the conthe present treaty, and that every thing vention of 1800, it was requisite, in order essential was secured to us, the House to constitute a blockaded port, that there would doubtless testify their approbation should be a line of ships stationed in the of the measure, by unanimously voting for front of the harbour, disposed in a manthe address. He was also confident that ner somewhat similar to the investment of the House would not be the less satisfied a fort by troops. This article, which was with the treaty, if they should find that it directed against our naval superiority, was gave up any part of claims which were completely disclaimed by the present evidently useless, and tended only to irri- treaty. A blockaded port was now chatate other powers. Such a concession he racterized to be that in which the disconceived to be consistent with the dig position of the ships of the attacking nity and moderation which had always power produce an evident danger of encharacterized the councils of this country. tering. The treaty on the table, howIn order to show the advantages of the ever, stipulated no particular mode of inpresent treaty, he should briefly contrast vestment, nor determined any number of its principal stipulations with those of the blockading ships. The last article to convention entered into by the three which he should call the attention of the northern powers. The third article, it House was one of great importance. It would be observed, determined what was would be observed, that this article, in to be considered a blockaded port; what the convention of 1800, was carried to an articles were contraband of war; and it extent far beyond what was given to it by regulated the trade of neutrals on the the treaty of 1780, though that was procoasts of belligerent powers. These were fessed to be the basis of the convention. three of the most important articles in dis- That article stipulated, that the declarapute. The conventionof the northernpowers tion of the officer commanding a neutral in 1800, in stipulating that neutral bottoms, squadron should be considered sufficient should make free goods, assumed the right evidence that there was no contraband of setting aside all the existing treaties of merchandise or enemy's property on commerce between this country and those board his convoy. On the contrary, the powers. But the present convention with corresponding article in the present treaty Russia brought things back to their former rendered such a declaration insufficient, state, and fixed, as contraband of war, those and the right of search was preserved to articles which were so considered by the our ships of war, in all cases where there treaty of commerce concluded between shall appear a just cause to exert it. As the two crowns in 1797. The second ar- it was the object of the right of search to ticle of the convention of 1800, gives a guard against unfair practices of the subright to the ships of neutral powers to jects of neutral powers, no alteration could trade freely to and from the ports of pow-be admitted with respect to it, and, acers at war. The convention on the table, cordingly, no modification of the princihowever, made an important alteration ples appeared in the present treaty. in that respect. The ports sailed from are was, indeed, so regulated, as to render omitted, and permission is only given to the exercise of the right more practicable; neutral shipstothe ports upon the coasts of but nothing was granted that could tend

It

to diminish our security, or compromise our honour. He trusted, therefore, that the treaty would not only put an end to the dispute at present, but prevent the tranquillity of Europe from being ever again disturbed by it. He congratulated the House and the country, that the advice given by some gentlemen at the close of the last session had not been followed. It was fortunate that administration had neither listened to those who expressed doubts of our rights, nor those who thought that the question ought to be left undecided, as in 1780. He rejoiced that our temporising conduct at that period had not been followed on the present occasion. It was to that unfortunate disposition that the late pretensions of the neutral powers were to be ascribed. From every view of the subject that he had taken, it appeared to him impossible that there could be any opposition to the address.

Mr. Grey said:-I rejoice, Sir, most sincerely, that the convention has taken place, and I am little disposed to examine its terms critically. The hon. gentleman congratulates the House, that they did not follow the advice of those who expressed doubts of our rights, nor of those who thought they had too much sense to doubt of those rights. Yet thought that the question should not be tried. I am sure, Sir, that on the present occasion I have no reason to regret the opinion I then gave; and if the House compared what might have been lost by the convention, with what has been gained by it, they will not find much reason to rejoice that my advice was not followed. I must, however again state, that I most sincerely rejoice in the present convention; for, had it not been concluded, I am convinced that we should have had no peace with the French republic. I consider it merely in the light of a judicious compromise; for I cannot agree that the dispute is settled. We are called upon to thank his majesty for concluding this treaty with Russia, but there is no absolute certainty that Denmark and Sweden are willing to accede to it. Notwithstanding what has been said, I do not think this convention has done away all possibility of dispute. The noble lord who moved the address, and the hon. gentleman who seconded him, adopted a singular method of proving their assertions in this respect. They went over each article of the treaty; and said, this has left us just as we were; that just places things as they were before.

Now it appears to me rather a singular mode of putting an end to a dispute, to leave it just as it was found. It reminds me of a dying gentleman, who, when making his will, remarked that he was leaving a fine occasion for a law-suit. But it is supposed that no dispute may arise upon the construction of this treaty with Denmark and Sweden. The latter country never considered naval stores to be contraband of war, in consequence of the treaty with this country; and I have no hesitation in stating it as my opinion, that, upon the fair construction of that treaty, naval stores are not contraband. As a proof that the court of Sweden considers that treaty in the same light, they expressly claimed the right of carrying naval stores under it. With respect to the question of free bottoms making free goods, I shall not examine whether more is not lost than gained on that point. The hon. gentleman seems to think that we have gained a great deal by the definition of a blockaded port. I should rather be inclined to believe that we had adopted the definition of the neutral powers, than insisted upon one of our own. This description of a blockade is certainly by no means that which we insisted upon in the course of the war, when the coast of Holland was blockaded by ships lying in Yarmouth roads. I am as little inclined to agree with the hon. gentleman in his opinion respecting the coasting trade. The leaving out the words," from port to port," is of no great importance. It appears that though neutral ships may not carry the property of the enemy from port to port, they may carry it when it becomes their own by purchase. How is this purchase to be ascertained? With regard to naval stores, the case is not better than before. The French, it is true, cannot bring naval stores from Petersburgh; but the subjects of neutral powers may ship them on their own account, and send them to France. As to the right of search, I approve very much of the regulations which the treaty contains with respect to it. It is proper that those causes of irritation, of which neutral powers had so much reason to complain, should be completely done away.

Earl Temple said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that there were five points in dispute with the neutral powers. The first related to the colonial and coasting trade; the second, to the right of search; the third, the blockade of

« PreviousContinue »