MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
A.D. 1808
Parliament met on the 31st of January, when the speech, which was delivered by commission, dwelt at great length upon foreign affairs, and mentioned nearly every country in Europe as in a state of hostility to England. Some light was thrown by it upon the system conceived by Napoleon for uniting all the navies of Europe against us: it was shown that he had counted upon obtaining the fleets of Portugal and Denmark; and regret was expressed that, in the latter case, we had been compelled to resort to force. The Hostility of Russia was attributed to the military successes and machinations of France. Allusion was made to the differences existing between England and the United States of America. Greater exertions were inculcated, and the determination was announced of never yielding to pretensions inconsistent with the maritime rights of Great Britain. Commerce, notwithstanding Napoleon’s Berlin and Milan decrees, was still in a flourishing state; for the produce of the taxes and duties was considered to demand his majesty’s congratulation to parliament. The speech concluded with asserting that the sole object of the war was to attain a lasting and honourable peace; that there never was a more just and national war waged than the present; that the eyes of all Europe and the world were fixed upon the British parliament; that his majesty felt confident that they would display the characteristic spirit of the British nation, and boldly face the combination which had gathered around us; and that his majesty was firmly persuaded that, under the blessings of Providence, Great Britain would ultimately triumph. The addresses were carried in both houses without a division.
The attention of parliament was early called to the expedition to Copenhagen; which was, by a large party, both in parliament and the kingdom at large, considered a disgrace to the administration from whom the plan emanated. The act was chiefly defended on the plea of necessity, arising from the powerful combination of European states formed against us after the treaty of Tilsit. Several motions were made on this subject by opposition; but in every instance they were outvoted by immense majorities. In these debates Mr. Canning was the great champion of the ministry; and his eloquence was such that he bore away the palm from every competitor, and carried conviction to every unprejudiced and candid mind. It has been well remarked, “A capital part of the case reduced itself simply to this:—if we did not make sure of the Danish fleet, Buonaparte was sure to get it, a little sooner or later. The justification adopted by our government may be explained with almost equal brevity: a man knows that his next-door neighbour has in his possession a large barrel of gunpowder; he may believe that his neighbour will not set fire to this powder so as to endanger his house and property, but he knows that there is an evil-disposed person living over the way, who has a design upon the powder, and the intention of blowing up his house with it; and knowing at the same time that the owner of the powder cannot defend it or keep it out of the way of the evil-disposed person, he demands that it should be put into his hands, which are strong enough to keep it, and which can put it beyond the reach of the evil-disposed party; offering to restore it when the danger shall be passed, or to pay the price of it: and when the weak neighbour rejects this proposition, he takes the powder by force, to prevent its being seized and employed against his own house and property.” Just so it was in the matter of Denmark. That country had a powerful navy which she would not have used against England herself, but Napoleon wanted it for that purpose; and to prevent his designs, England demanded it for a time till the danger was over; and this being refused, seized it sans cérémonie. It was the law of self-preservation which dictated this act of our government; and Grotius, a great writer on the law of nations, has remarked:—“I may, without considering whether it is merited or not, take possession of that which belongs to another man, if I have any reason to apprehend any evil to myself from his holding it. I cannot make myself master or proprietor of it, the property having nothing to do with the end which I propose; but I can keep possession of the thing seized till my safety be sufficiently provided for.” The instinct of duty and self-preservation suggests this course. And thus it was that our government was induced to seize the navy of Denmark. And it was seized without any declaration of war on our part, for the simple reason that dispatch was necessary. If we had delayed, the Danish fleet would soon have been in the hands of the enemy; hence his maledictions against what he termed our “aggressions:” we had anticipated him, and he was mortified with the bitter disappointment he thereby sustained.
DEBATES ON THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
On the 5th of February Mr. Perceval, the chancellor of the exchequer, moved that the orders in council should be referred to the committee of ways and means. The opposition took this opportunity of declaring that we ought not to retaliate by such measures; that these orders were unjust, and would do as much mischief as the Berlin and Milan decrees; that they were as contrary to justice as to policy; and that they went to violate both the law of nations and the municipal law of England. On the other hand it was argued, that we had a right to retaliate upon the enemy his own measures; that if he declared we should have no trade, we had equal right to declare he should have none; and that if he proclaimed British manufactures and colonial produce good prize, we were justified in doing the same with respect to France. This was inculcating the old worldy maxim of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth;” and ministers were supported in their line of policy by a large majority. Subsequently, a bill, brought in by the chancellor of the exchequer, for regulating the orders in council, as they affected neutrals, was carried through both houses. This had reference to the differences between England and America; and it was followed by a bill for regulating commercial intercourse with the United States, which was intended to give time for making some amicable arrangements with the Americans; continuing at the same time another act without which trade could not have been carried on with England in American vessels.