1800 "rejoice at the prospect which presents itself; if we perceive the inte "rior of our country prosperous, free, and happy; if all enjoy in safety, "under the protection of laws emanating only from the general will, the "fruits of their own labour, we ought to fortify and cling to those insti"tutions, which have been the source of such real felicity, and resist, " with unabated perseverance, the progress of those dangerous innovations, "which may diminish their influence. "To your patriotism, gentlemen, has been confided the honourable duty of guarding the public interests; and while the past is to your country a sure pledge that it will be faithfully discharged, permit me to "assure you that your labours to promote the general happiness will "receive from me the most zealous co-operation.” State Papers. 301. GREAT GREAT BRITAIN, DENMARK, AND SWEDEN. 1801. WE are now entering upon a new period of our history, commenced by the assembling of the imperial parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And the sincere friends to their welfare may take occasion from it to invoke the genii of our islands, the Providence which has protected us in every exigency, that the era of union may be the era of tranquillity and harmony; may lead to an increase of personal industry, comfort, and happiness, and consequently of national strength and prosperity: that we may henceforth consider ourselves as one people, enjoying the same rights, partaking of the same advantages, and united by our common interests: and that national prejudice and party spirit may give place to rivalship in industrious exertion and patriotic virtues. The necessity of adopting every measure which had a tendency to strengthen the hands of government became daily more evident to those who considered the present state of the kingdom. We now behold Great Britain, by the misfortunes which had befallen the confederates in, the late campaign, again deprived of her Austrian ally: and when standing alone against a power which had been pronounced the common enemy of crowned heads, instead of receiving that succour from the European monarchs which she had reason to expect, we find her embroiled with a confederacy of the northern powers, which were preparing to contest her right of searching neutral vessels, suspected of carrying warlike stores to her enemies. VOL. IV. 2 G It 1801 1801 It is proper here to take a retrospective view of the occurrences and transactions which relate to this affair. We have seen the powers of Europe, during the last ten years, standing in dread of the principles and power of France. Opposition to them appears to have been the ruling principle of their conduct. So thoroughly were the late empress of Russia and Gustavus king of Sweden, as well as the governing powers in the countries bordering on France, persuaded of the necessity of opposing them, that we find these potentates forgetting the enmity which they bore to each other, and preparing to unite in hostilities with France. And the emperor Paul we have seen actually becoming a member of the confederacy against that state, from a persuasion that it was necessary for the preservation of their general safety and independency. Prevalent, however, as these feelings were, we now see them overpowered by those of jealousy and self-interest. Actuated by these, the northern powers became the dupes and tools of a dictator, whom they considered, at the same time, as their common enemy, labouring incessantly the establishment of an ascendency subversive of their rights and liberties. The question of mare liberum, or mari clausum, or whether any restriction shall be laid on navigation, has been for ages disputed by the maritime powers of Europe: and civilians and politicians have displayed their learning and ingenuity in the discussion of a subject in which nations have felt themselves so deeply interested.-But, without considering the merits of their reasonings, or adverting to the abstract question of right, it concerns us more in an historical view, to inquire what has been the general practice in past ages. The practice of nations has been that of individuals. If a man is engaged in single combat, or a nation in war, and the antagonist of either endeavours to derive aid from a third party, the combatant or belligerent state will endeavour to prevent it. Upon this principle, which is in fact nothing more than the natural principle of self-defence and self-preservation, upon the practice of nations, and the sanction of treaties, Great Britain founded her right of searching neutral vessels, suspected of carrying stores to her enemies. And notwithstanding those maritime states which have been much benefited by trading with different powers at war have ever cla moured moured against the practice of searching, yet it has been seen that a change of circumstances has induced a change of sentiments. This is very notorious in the conduct of Russia within the last twenty years, During the American war, the late empress became a member of an armed neutrality with the professed intention of maintaining the freedom of the seas, and her pride was flattered with the idea of being the head of it; although it really was a scheme devised by the French ministry to distress Great Britain. But when that princess, twelve years after, was about to embark in war with France, regardless of her former principle, her regard for the freedom of trade, she entered into a treaty with that same power against which she had combined, wherein she engaged "to unite "all her efforts to prevent other powers, not implicated in this war, from giving any protection whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in consequence "of their neutrality, to the commerce or property of the French on the "sea or in the ports of France:" and, in pursuance of this treaty, she sent out a fleet, with express orders to her admiral to search all Danish merchantships sailing under convoy. Conformably with the same principle, the emperor Paul, when a member of the coalition, threatened vengeance against the Danes, should they afford assistance or protection to France under the neutral colours of the Danish flag." In like manner almost every power in Europe had either directly or virtually renounced the principles of the league of 1780 by subsequent edicts or treaties. A convention was signed between the courts of Sweden and Denmark in 1794, for the mutual preservation of their neutral commerce during the war which then raged in Europe. In this, which was communicated to the court of London," they declared their adherence to "their respective treaties with all the different powers at war, without "exception. And, by the third article, they bound themselves to each "other and to all Europe, that in all matters, not expressed in their exist ing treaties, they would not pretend to any other advantages than those "which were founded on the universal law of nations, such as it was recognized and respected up to that moment by all the powers and "sovereigns of Europe."" It is evident that the conduct of these powers accommodated itself to their 1801 1801 their circumstances; and that they all acknowledged the right of search except at such periods when they derived an advantage from denying it. But Great Britain, being oftener engaged in naval war than any other state, and, from her superior strength, more benefited than others in maintaining the right, was destined to be opposed on this ground, by the neutral powers, in every war. We have seen the effects of these motives of jealousy and self-interest in them during the contest between Great Britain and her colonies: and these were on the present occasion far more fatal. They then affected the interests of this country only. Whereas now, by affording our enemy an opportunity of intriguing against us at the northern courts and stirring them up to war with us, they enabled that power to establish her ascendency in Europe, to the manifest subversion of its independency. - The first power with which Great Britain was embroiled, in the course of the present war, was Denmark. The occasion of the dispute, which took place at the close of the year 1799, was thus related by Mr. Merry, the British minister at Copenhagen, in a letter to the Danish minister, count Bernstorff. † "An English frigate met the Danish frigate in open sea, having under her a convoy of vessels. † The English commander, thinking it proper to exercise the right of visiting this convoy, sent on "board the Danish frigate, demanding from the captain his destination. "The latter having answered, that then he was going to Gibraltar, it was replied, that since he was going to stop in that bay, no visit should be paid to his convoy, but that if he did not mean to cast anchor there, "the visit should be paid. Captain Van Dockum then informed the officer "who went on board him, that he would make resistance to such a step. Upon this answer, the English commander made the signal for examining "the convoy. A boat from the emerald frigate was proceeding to execute "this order: a fire of musquetry from the Danish frigate fell upon them, " and one of the English sailors was severely wounded. This frigate also took possession of a boat of the English frigate the flora, and did not "release it till after the English commander had given captain Van "Dockum to understand, that if he did not immediately give it up, he "would commence hostilities. The Danish frigate then went with her 66 convoy + April 10. 1800. |