duct has hitherto been founded; and I confess I do not expect that he will succeed in such an attempt. I do not believe there are any among us who sat in this House in the last session of parliament, who do not recollect the discussions which took place upon every subject which the hon. gentleman has commented upon in his speech, (except one, which forms the more immediate question before the House, and to which I shall come by-and-by);-I do not believe, I say, that any of these gentlemen can lightly forget the opinions which they formed, and the principles upon which they acted. I do not believe, Sir (being one of those who think as highly as my hon. friends who moved and seconded the motion for the address, of that important measure which has consolidated the strength of the empire), that these hon. gentlemen whom we have this day, for the first time, the happiness of seeing among us, will disappoint the sanguine expectations that we formed of benefits to result from that important event. I am sure they have brought with them the same zeal, and the same principles which have supported us against an host of enemies. These gentlemen have had, in another place, the severe duty imposed upon them of contending with Jacobinism on their own soil, and I am sure they would not wish to infuse that timidity into us, the least mixture of which would have been certain ruin to them. Whatever may be the confident language which the hon. gentleman may think proper to use upon this occasion, I cannot but believe that the present is a proper time for the discussion of that great and important question which is prepared for us by events, which we could not control, but which we must

meet.

The hon. gentleman has, in the course of his speech, introduced several topics, which he says, have been frequently dis. cussed before, and which he expresses his hope will again be investigated. Upon both these grounds, I am not disposed to trouble the House at length, upon any of these subjects, at present. There is, indeed, but one new question before the House, I mean that which has been announced to us in the Speech from the throne, respecting our differences with the Northern powers. Sir, I must confess that the manner in which the hon. gentleman has treated every part of this subject, has really filled me with astonishment, both

when I consider the general plan of his speech, and the particular statements into which he went in support of his argument. The hon. gentleman thought it right, in the first place, to express his doubts of the justice of our claim with respect to neutral vessels; and in the next place (which appeared to me fully as singular) to question the importance of the point now at issue. But though the hon. gentleman seemed disposed to entertain doubts on points upon which I believe there is hardly another man to be found in this country who would hesitate for a moment, yet there were other points upon which his mind appeared to be free from doubt, and his opinions completely made up. If, after a full discussion of this question, it should appear that the claim which this country has made is founded on the clearest and most indisputable justice-if it should be proved that our greatness, nay, our very existence as a nation, and every thing that has raised us to the exalted situation which we hold, depends upon our possessing and exercising this-if, I say, all this should be proved in the most satisfactory manner, still the hon. gentleman is prepared seriously to declare in this House, that such are the circumstances in which we stand, that we ought publicly and explicitly to state to the world that we are unequal to the contest, and that we must quietly give up for ever an unquestionable right, and one upon which not only our character, but our very existence as a maritime power depends. This is the conduct which the hon. gentleman advises us to pursue at once, without determining, without investigating, whether it is compatible with our safety. I really find much difficulty, Sir, in reconciling this language to that sort of spirit which the hon. gentleman talks of in another part of his speech, in which he says, he is far from wishing to make the country despond.[Mr. Grey here said across the table, that he had been misunderstood.]-Sir, I am stating what the hon. gentleman said, and I shall be happy to find that he did not mean what he said.

I shall now, Sir, endeavour to follow the hon. gentleman through his argument, as far as I can recollect it, upon the important question of the Northern confederacy, In following the order which he took, I must begin with his doubts, and end with his certainties; and I cannot avoid observing, that the hon. gentleman. was singularly unfortunate upon this sub

ject, for he entertained doubts where there was not the slightest ground for hesitation; and he contrives to make up his mind to absolute certainty, upon points in which both argument and fact are decidedly against him. That part of the question upon which the hon. gentleman appears to be involved in doubt, is with respect to the justice of our claim in regard to neutral vessels. In commenting upon this part of the subject, the hon. gentleman gave us a lesson in politics, which is more remarkable for its soundness than its novelty, viz. that a nation ought not to enforce a claim that is not founded in justice, and that nothing would be found to be consistent with true policy that was not conformable to strict justice. I thought, however, I heard the hon. gentleman in another part of his speech, where he was arguing the question of the expediency and propriety of our negociating a separate peace with France, contend that no consideration of good faith to Austria ought to prevent us from entering into such a negotiation.-[Mr. Grey said, he had not laid that down as a principle, but merely with respect to the circumstances under which we stood with regard to Austria.]-I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman contradict me, but I certainly understood him to say so. I am also glad to find, that when the issue of fact is found against him, he has no demurrer in reserve upon the principle. Upon the justice, however, of our claim, the hon. gentleman states himself to be wholly in doubt. There is, Sir, in general, a degree of modesty in doubting, that conciliates very much, and a man is seldom inclined to bear hard upon an antagonist whose attack dose not exceed the limits of a doubt. But, Sir, when a gentleman doubts that which has been indisputably established for more than a century when he doubts that which has been an acknowledged principle of law in all the tribunals of the kingdom, which are alone competent to decide upon the subject, and which parliament has constantly known them to act uponwhen he doubts principles which the ablest and wisest statesmen have uniformly adopted-I say, Sir, the doubt that calls in question principles so established, with out offering the slightest grounds for so doing, shows a great deal of that pert presumption which, as often as modesty, leads to scepticism. I wish to ask every gentleman in the House whether it has not been always known that such was the princiキ

ple upon which our courts were acting from the commencement of the present war up to the moment that I am speaking? I ask whether that principle has not been maintained in every war? Let me at the same time ask, whether, in the course of the speeches of the gentleman on the other side of the House, any one topic of alarm has been omitted, which either fact could furnish or ingenuity supply? I believe I shall not be answered in the negative, and yet I believe I may safely assert, that it never occurred to any one member to increase the difficulties of the country by stating a doubt upon the question of right; and it will be a most singular circumstance, that the hon. gentleman and his friends should only have begun to doubt when our enemies are ready to begin to combat. But though I have heard doubts expressed upon a subject on which it appeared to me that a doubt could hardly have entered the mind of an Englishman, I have not heard one word to show on what ground there can exist a doubt upon the justice of our claim-a claim which, until this House decides the contrary, I shall consider as part of the law of the land; for I consider the maritime law, and the law of nations, as acted upon in our courts, to be part of the law of the land. I speak in the presence of some learned gentlemen who are conversant in the practice of the courts to which I allude, and who, I am sure, will contradict me if I state that which is incorrect. I ask any of these learned gentlemen, whether they would suffer the principle upon which our claim rests, to be called in question in any of their courts? But when we come to consider this question as applying to the contest in which we may be engaged, there are so many considerations that are decisive upon the subject, that 1 am really convinced by the manner in which the hon. gentleman treated it, that his doubts have all arisen from his not having looked into the question.

There are two ways in which this subject is to be conisdered; the first is, what has been the general law of nations upon this subject, independent of any parti. cular treaties which may have been made? The next is, how far any precise treaties affect it, with regard to the particular powers who are the objects of the present dispute? With respect to the law of nations, I know that the principle upon which we are now acting, and for

which I am now contending, has been | universally admitted and acted upon, except in cases where it has been restrained or modified by particular treaties between different states. And here I must observe, that the hon. gentleman has fallen into the same error which constitutes the great fallacy in the reasoning of the advocates for the Northern powers, namely, that every exception from the general law by a particular treaty, proves the law to be as it is stated in that treaty; whereas the very circumstance of making an exception by treaty, proves what the general law of nations would be if no such treaty were made to modify or alter it. The hon. gentleman alludes to the treaty made between this country and France in 1787, known by the name of the Commercial treaty. In that treaty it certainly was stipulated, that in the event of Great Britain being engaged in a war, and France being neutral, she should have the advantage now claimed, and vice versa; but the hon. gentleman confesses that he recollects that the very same objection was made at that time, and was fully answered, and that it was clearly proved, that no part of our stipulation in that treaty tended to a dereliction of the principle for which we are now contending. Besides, when it is considered how far the interests of this country can be implicated in a naval war in which France is neutral, it will not afford any proof either that we considered the principle as unimportant, or that we gave it up. I could, without in the slightest degree weakening the cause which I am endeavouring to support, give to the hon. gentleman all the benefit he can possibly derive from the commercial treaty with France, and from particular treaties with other states, and I should be glad to know what advantage he could derive from such an admission, If he could show treaties with any given number of states, still, if there were any state in Europe with whom no such treaty was in existence, with that state the law of nations, such as I am now contending for, must be in full force. Still more, it will be allowed to me, that if there is any nation that has forborne to be a party of these treaties, that maintained this principle and has enforced its rights; in such a case, no inference that can be drawn from treaties with other powers, can have any weight. The utmost the hon. gentleman could argue, and even in that I do not think he would be founded in justice, [VOL. XXXV.]

would be this-that, if there wasno general consent with respect to the principles, particular treaties ought to serve as a guide in other cases. But what will the hon. gentleman say, if, instead of my stating an imaginary case, I give to him this short answer, that with every one of the three Northern powers with whom we are at present in dispute, independent of the law of nations, of our uniform practice, and of the opinions of our courts, we have the strict letter of engagements by which they are bound to us?-What will he say, if I show, that their present conduct to us is as much a violation of positive treaties with us, as it is of the law of nations? With respect to Denmark and Sweden, nobody here, I am sure, has to learn that the treaties of 1661 and 1670 are now in full force, and nobody can read those treaties without seeing that the right of carrying enemies' property is completely given up. With regard to Russia, the right of this country never was given by us. It undoubtedly was very much discussed during the time that the treaty of commerce with Russia was negociating; but I will not rest my argument upon negative evidence. In the convention signed between Great Britain and Russia at the commencement of the present war, the latter bound herself not merely to observe this principle by a convention (not done away, unless we have unjustly commenced hostilities against her), but she engaged to use her efforts to prevent neutral powers from protecting the commerce of France on the seas or in the ports of France. Laying aside, then, every other ground upon which I contend that the principle I am now maintaining is supported, still I say, that the treaties with these three powers, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, are now in full force, and I ask, whether it is possible to suggest any one ground, upon which it can be contended that these powers are released from their engagements to us? So much for the justice of the claim.

I will not, Sir, take up much more of the time of the House, because there will be papers laid before the House which will place the subject in a clearer point of view. than can be done in the course of a debate :-but I must say, that with regard to these powers the case does not stop here. What will the hon. gentleman say if I show him, that in the course of the present war, both Denmark and Sweden have distinctly expressed their readinessto agree in that very principle against [3 N]