nister to make peace with this country; she sent her troops to defend Hamburgh, and that was the moment when ministers announced to her that they had become parties to her spoliation. The noble lord

But

been put forward in that quarter, but the old French ground of a moral and physical connection which made Norway the natural appendage of Sweden. Would their lordships stamp with hypocrisy all their own declarations against the un-next took a view of the policy of the treaty. principled ambition of France? Bearing That a powerful diversion on the side of in mind the annexation of Belgium, Savoy Pomerania would have been highly deand Holland to France, which annexation, sirable could not be denied; but this by the way, with respect to Savoy at least, Swedish diversion was perfectly useless, had the professed sanction of a demand unless the co-operation of Denmark were from a great portion of the people of those first secured. The hostility of Denmark countries. Was it necessary for him to completely neutralised the efforts of Sweadd any thing to the indignant language den. The noble lord then took a view of the in which the grounds of such annexation political relations of the northern powers, were reprobated by Mr. Burke, which and contended that it was by no means a language it was impossible to forget? In- just policy to aggrandise Sweden. deed the mere statement of such grounds had it been shewn to be advantageous, all was sufficient to revolt every heart suscep- communities must equally condemn a detible of any regard for justice or policy. parture from the principles of justice, and He would only for a moment make the he contended, that a departure from them, case our own. Suppose that Russia and in this instance, was not less disadvanSweden had demanded from our sovereign tageous than dishonourable. He ascribed the surrender of Hanover. On this point the signal discomfiture which Buonaparté he spoke disinterestedly, for he thought it had experienced last winter, to his making would have been better for this country, his military operations dependant on pohad Hanover been at the bottom of the litical speculations, over which he had no sea; but a sense of the honour of the controul. The retreat from Moscow had crown would have induced him rather to annihilated the mightiest army which risk war, than to accede to such a proposal. France had ever sent forth; her palaces But supposing these powers had added, had been filled with lamentations, and her we will give you Calais and Boulogne land covered with mourning: yet such in exchange for it, he should have thought were the resources of that man's mindthat they joined insult to injury. Instead such the power of the country over which of any rational inducement being held he ruled, that he had absolutely re-created out to Denmark to join the allies, she his army; and by two great battles, ren. was told, that she must pay, as the pre-dered his supremacy in Germany more mium of our friendship, the very price complete than ever. The spring, he which wonld be exacted from her as the thought, ought to have witnessed some atpunishment of hostility; and then follow-tempt at negociation. Had such an effort ed that hypocritical provision, that the been made, the war might have probably robbery was to be carried into effect, with been happily terminated. The situation all due regard to the happiness of the of Buonaparté was such, that it was likely people of Norway. But if the Norwe- he would not have refused to attend to gians, mindful of their allegiance, and of moderate propositions had fair offers been their duties to their sovereign, should re-made, and terms beneficial to every power sist their forcible separation, then ministers in Europe might have been obtained.-To bound themselves to carry fire and sword the imbecility of ministers was to be ascrib. into the peaceful homes of a people really ed the contrast between the present situaattached to this country, and to visit them tion of France, and that which she exhiwith all the miseries of war, because their bited at the close of the last campaign. Sovereign refused to barter them like cattle. With his noble friend he agreed an opBut it was said, that Denmark had been portunity had been lost never to be reuniformly hostile to this country, and that called. A disposition towards peace might her weakness was no excuse. Certainly if have been shewn with dignity and effect, a weak power became a ready instrument showing equally the moderation and jusin the hand of our enemy, we were en- tice of the country. Moderation in suctitled to deprive her of the means of injury. cess was an infinitely superior policy to But the overwhelming influence of France solicitation after failure. Such a line of was withdrawn: Denmark sent her mi-conduct would have enabled ministers

either to make peace advantageously, or | carrying on, the fact was known to France, to carry on hostilities with increased vigour and effect.

who notwithstanding continued to stile Denmark its good and faithful ally, and to keep its minister resident at Copenhagen. This may be considered with reference to the sincerity and objects of the court of Denmark in the transaction; whose real design, however, in his opinion, seemed to be to keep well at the same time with both France and England; but in all situations of that kind it must naturally be expected that a little falsehood might be told to at least one of the parties. Recurring to the conduct of ministers in acceding to the treaty in question, the noble earl contended it was justifiable in point of justice and morality, warranted by sound policy, and called for by the particular circumstances of the case. The noble earl pronounced a warm eulogy upon the conduct of the Russian people, and more particularly upon the cabinet which had placed the fleet of the empire in the hands of the British government, thereby erecting a splendid monument of the liberality of Russia, and of the honour of Great Britain.

Earl Grey alluded to the terms employed in the treaty, particularly the wording of the articles respecting Norway and Guadaloupe, contending that it was a guarantee in perpetuity of both to the Swedish government.

Earl Bathurst observed, that the noble earl had displayed, nay, exhausted a great deal of ingenuity and eloquence; but in his mind had advanced little of argument applying to the real merits of the case. With respect to the ships which were detained by Sweden, and not liberated until fines were imposed, as mentioned by the noble lord, the fact was, that a number of British ships were driven into Carlsham and other of the Swedish ports: the countries were then at peace, but before the vessels could sail they became hostile, and their detention was the consequence. This country had acted so in similar circumstances. He granted that if our acquiescence in the treaty was morally wrong, it could not be truly politic: but that it was the former, not one word of the noble earl's tended to prove. We were at war with Denmark at the time, and therefore, with out moral reproach, we might have attacked Norway ourselves, and kept possession of it, as well as of their West India possessions, or the isle of Heligoland; and in that view an attack, if necessary or expedient, in concert with our allies, was equally justifiable. In treaties of alliance no one of the parties could fairly treat but in conjunction with the rest-a consideration that operated with others in the late negociations at Denmark. An acquiescence in the treaty in question was equally founded in political expediency as in morality. If it were withheld, in what a situation would the country be placed. The Crown Prince might then have demanded the 35,000 men from Russia, and with all the forces of Sweden in addition, have attacked Norway. That force was now otherwise employed and without such a diversion the allies may have been driven from the Oder to the Vistula! If they had guaranteed the dominions of Denmark, this country might have been ere now in a state of war with Russia and Sweden; or in a situation, in VICTUALLERS RELIEF BILL.] Mr. Rose which, whether Russia or France were moved that the House should go into a comvictorious, all would be loss to this coun-mittee on the Victuallers' Bill. try: whereas by acceding to the treaty, Mr. Giddy opposed the Speaker's leavthese complicated difficulties were avoided; and they would be enabled by it to bring a force of 65,000 men to act against France in the present campaign, which Could not otherwise have been so employed. The whole time the negociation between this country and Denmark was

The Earl of Liverpool, on the contrary, contended, that it was only a virtual guarantee, contingent upon the performance of certain stipulations on the part of Sweden. He detailed to the House the particulars of the Resolutions themselves in support of his position.

A division then took place, when the numbers were: Contents 78; Proxies 62-140. Not Contents 40; Proxies 37-77. Majority in favour of the original Address, 63.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 18.

ing the chair, on the principle that the object of the Bill was beneath the attention of the legislature. A sounder maxim could not be laid down than that well known one, De minimis non curat lex. It also interfered improperly in a private transaction between individuals, in itself

perfectly harmless, for their mutual accommodation. It was said in the preamble, to be one object of the Bill to take away the temptation to the crime of stealing pewter pots, to which children were now regularly trained, and for which they were constantly convicted. He had looked at the ages of some of those infants, whose morals the right hon. gentleman was so anxious not to have contaminated, and he found some of them as follows:-John Jones, 73; Sarah Davies, 69; Thomas Ladbrook, 54, &c. Upon an average, the ages of the supposed infantine offenders exceeded 50. So much for the care of the friends of this Bill for the rising generation. Besides, if the mere possibility of the temptation to commit crime were a sufficient ground for a law of this kind, we might shut up the jewellers' shops, and ought not to carry watches or silk handkerchiefs about our persons. He believed the secret motive for the desire of the publicans for the Bill, was the hope that by preventing the sending out of beer in pots, it would lead to tippling in ale-houses. He moved as an amendment that the Bill should be committed on that day three months.

any vessel, whether pewter, silver, or otherwise, in less quantity than one or two gallons, but this had nothing to do with the species of vessel used. The hon. gentleman then entered into a general argument against the present Bill, for the necessity of which he contended no just cause had been assigned. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) himself knew nothing of those who had signed the allegations. He (Mr. Croker) thought the foundation of the Bill was altogether as unsound as the superstructure was ridiculous.

Mr. Rose defended the Bill, and read a part of the former Act, which he contended was expressly directed against stealing pewter pots. He said, he was sorry the hon. gentleman seemed disposed to add insult to injury.

Mr. Whitbread said that, as he had been unexpectedly made an umpire in this dispute, he must say that the word 'pots' appeared to be in the former Act. Mr. Croker had objected to his right hon. friend, that he had no acquaintance among the class of persons whom the Bill professed to relieve he would, perhaps, object to him, that he had too much acMr. Rose said, that notwithstanding quaintance among them, though he by no the contempt with which the hon. gen- means thought so, and wished to extend tleman had treated his Bill, an Act of the it as much farther as possible. But he same kind had passed in the reign of could say from personal knowledge, that George 2, under the auspices of no less the present practice was a serious injury men than sir R. Walpole and lord Hard-to the publican, and he should strenuously wicke. This Act did not now operate, support their claim to relief. merely because the King's printer had, by mistake, written over against it repealed. The injury to the publicans, which he wished to prevent, was not a possible or imaginary evil. They had the positive allegations of a hundred individuals, that they suffered a loss amounting to about 351. annually by this practice. The reason why most of the persons by whom the offence was committed appeared in the returns to be old people, was, that it was generally committed by children, who were too young to be prosecuted.

Mr. Croker ridiculed the idea, that this offence was committed generally by children, though the returns gave us only a list of veteran delinquents. He denied that any such Act as that which the right hon. gentleman had said was repealed by the King's printer, had ever passed. In one of the Excise Acts of sir Robert Walpole, indeed, a clause was inserted to prevent publicans from sending out beer in

The House then divided, when there were for Mr. Giddy's Amendment, 42; Against it, 67; Majority for the Bill, 25.

LOCAL TOKENS BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Local Tokens Bill.

Mr. Huskisson thought this a proper opportunity to ask the right hon. gentleman whether it was intended by the present Bill to prohibit the circulation of the local tokens of copper? Of this description of tokeus there was an immense quantity issued in various populous neighbourhoods in the country, and from the spurious metal of which they were formed, they had a direct tendency to enhance the price of the first necessaries of life to the poorer classes of society. These tokens, which were generally issued by large manufacturers, and were exchanged at par for bills at twelve months after sight, so that when they were taken by shopkeepers in

markable thing in the treaty concluded between Sweden and Russia, to which treaty his Majesty was advised to accede, the most remarkable thing that strikes us in that treaty is-the object of it as professed by the two contracting parties. The object of that treaty (as stated in the document laid before the House, which the noble lord has told us comprises the substance of the Convention) is" for the purpose of securing reciprocally their states and possessions against the common enemy." This is the professed object of the stipulations of the treaty concluded by the emperor of Russia and the king of Sweden, "the security of their states and possessions against the common enemy;" meaning France; for, I believe, there is no other power with which they were then unitedly at war. Sir, in the course of the last war between Russia and France, which was terminated by the peace of Tilsit, certain negotiations subsisted be

could present no Address to the throne on the subject-nor could any of our proceedings, beyond the mere vote of Supply, appear on the Journals. As it is my wish to present to the crown an Address from this House, on the subject of the Treaty, calling on the Prince Regent to take such steps as may be consistent with the honour of the crown and the public faith of the country, to suspend the execution of such parts of the Swedish Treaty, as may be suspended; and, finally, to enter into negociations to disengage himself, if it be possible, from the Treaty altogether, I think the most proper period for moving such an Address, is previous to your leaving the chair. Sir, I believe this is the first instance in which a treaty, containing the cession of a valuable possession of the crown of Great Britain, has been laid on the table of either House of Parliament, the minister of the crown in such House not having expressed a desire to take the sense of parliament upon it.tween these governments, and a certain If it were merely a treaty of subsidy, the necessity of that subsidy might be examined in a Committee of Supply; and the House, by granting or withholding the subsidy, might signify their appro bation of, or dissent from, its propriety. But the present is not merely a treaty of subsidy; it is also, among other things, a treaty of cession on the part of Great Britain, for the island of Guadaloupe. And I did suppose, when a treaty for the cession of that island was laid on the table, that his Majesty's ministers would immediately have moved an Address to the crown, by which the House would have had an opportunity of expressing either its satisfaction or disapprobation, with reference to that cession. The noble lord has, however, followed another course. In the other House of Parliament, as far as we are cognisant of its proceedings, the minister of the crown cannot pursue the course adopted by the noble lord. He must move an Address to the crown, either approving or disapproving any treaty which it may have entered into-and, on that motion, the sense of the House may be taken. But, in the present case, where the minister of the crown has forborne to move any Address-in the present case, where his Majesty's cabinet have remained silent on that subject-I am obliged to have recourse to this rather unusual mode, for the purpose of taking the sense of parliament on the merits of this treaty. Sir, the first and most re

understanding took place between them on particular subjects, which were not then divulged to the rest of Europe. But soon after the conclusion of peace, Russia attacked Sweden, and acquired the dominion of Finland; a dominion long desired and ardently sought for by that power, in the course of different wars and negotiations. Russia having obtained Finland, by the connivance, if not by the open assistance of France, as soon as ever she found herself likely to be involved in a new war with that power, she determined to secure herself in the possession of Finland, which she had acquired from Sweden. That object she did not attempt to attain by force, but by buying over and conciliating the state to which the province originally belonged-by transferring to her part of the dominious of another power. In order to induce Sweden not to insist on the restitution of Finland, Russia entered into an understanding with her, and ultimately concluded the Convention, the substance of which is contained in the paper laid before the House. By this Convention it is stipulated, that the cession of Norway to Sweden, by the crown of Denmark, is to be procured either by treaty or by force-And, for this purpose, Russia is bound to provide a force, of from 15 to 20,000 men, to co-operate with Sweden. By a subsequent convention, dated the 30th of August, 1812, the Russian auxiliary force is to be carried to 35,000 men. This latter convention, I believe, was entered