justice. An individual seeking the fulfilment of a contract depending upon an unlawful obligation, would not be listened to in a court of justice, and the principles between states must be the same, although there is no superior tribunal to appeal to. Now, the rights of a Sovereign over his subjects are not the rights of property; they do not confer the privilege of transferring them from one owner to another, like cattle attached to the soil.His Lordship here read passages from Grotius, Puffendorf, and Vattel, all clearly maintaining the doctrine, that the sovereign of a state could not transfer the allegiance of the people: that he might, in case of necessity, withdraw his garrisons from their towns, and give up all claim to their obedience; but that it then rested with the people to determine to whom they would submit. Some difference might be suggested between a sovereignty and a patrimony, but with respect to Norway, it was certain that the King of Denmark was sovereign only, and not proprietor, and that it was an integrally independent state. To transfer the allegiance of that people was therefore what he had no right to do, and consequently no country had any right to interfere to bring it about by compulsion. The noble Lord proceeded to consider the assistance furnished by Sweden to the common cause in pursuance of the treaty; the papers on the table did not, how ever, afford the requisite information on this point. But it appeared that after the battle of Bautzen, when the cause of Europe seemed Jost, Sweden had not a man in the field, or in progress to the field, although her engagements with this country to supply her contingent was signed in the preceding March. So late as the battle of Leipzic, did not Sir Charles Stewart write to the ministers that the Crown Prince had failed in executing his engagements? What has he done since that battle? Did he move to support the Allies in their attack of France? He had not made a single movement in conjuction with them till April 16, when he thought proper to visit Paris. The last consideration was the policy of annexing Norway to Sweden; and on this head his Lordship observed, that the augmentation of Sweden could not be deemed wise with any view to permanent policy, since, in all probability, she will still, as formerly, incline to the interest of France. From the resources possessed by Norway with respect to naval supplies, it would be of more advantage to this country that she should be independent, than annexed to any power. His Lordship then observed, that it had been stated that Denmark has not acted bona fide in the execution of her treaty of cession. but has underhand fomented the resistance of the Norwegians. He said, he was instructed distinctly to deny that any Danish troops have assisted the insurrection of the Norwegians. All the garrisons consisted of their own soldiers, who were animated with the spirit of independence. To strengthen the charge against Denmark it has been urged that the King, whom the people of Norway have chosen, is presumptive heir to the crown of Denmark. But what proof does this afford of the co operation of the Danish government? Norway is the better half of the Danish dominions. Prince Christian therefore took his choice; and, said the noble Lord, I should have made the same. Earl Grey concluded a long and eloquent speech with moving“That an humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, humbly to request that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to interpose his mediation to rescue the unoffending people of Norway from the dreadful alternative of famine, or of subjugation to the yoke of a foreign and hostile power: and that during the discussion of such proposals as his Royal Highness may be advised to make for this most desirable object, all hostile operations on the part of this country, against a people struggling for the sacred right of national independence, may be discontinued." The Earl of Harrowby in reply first considered the intention of the parties at the time of contracting the treaty with Sweden. It was the desire of this country, at a time when the co-operation of Sweden was most essential to the interests of Europe, to obtain the assistance of that power against the common enemy, for which purpose we engaged to put it in possession of Norway, which, belonging to a hostile state, rendered it insecure for Sweden to withdraw its military force from its own territories. There could, therefore, be no doubt that we were bona fide held to secure the possession of it to Sweden; and unless in the Dature of the treaty there was something which rendered it null and void, or in the conduct of the other contracting party something which might absolve us from our engagements, we ought not to stop at a nominal cession. As to the justice of the treaty in question, though grave authorities had been quoted by the noble Earl, yet writers were not unanimous on the subject of the law of nations. Dr. Paley said that the law of nations depended on the fact of its being established, no matter when, or by whom. Looking therefore at those treaties by which long wars had been concluded, as the practical exposition of the law of nations, we shall find that on many occasions cessions had been made of whole states. Of these he gave instances; and affirmed, that almost every state, except the great countries of Europe, had at times been transferred from one power to another. No Sovereign, he allowed, could cede the whole of his dominions; but when much pressed by war, he might cede a part for the salvation of the remainder, the inhabitants of which, were bound to submit peaceably for the general good. His Lordship dwelt somewhat at large upon this idea, and applied it to Norway. He then replied to the observations which had been made on the failure of due co-operation on the part of the Crown Prince of Sweden, and on the impolicy of the treaty; and he concluded with saying, that if the Norwegians were in some degree sacrificed, considering our engagements with Sweden, and that this was the only sacrifice to the general liberty of Europe, while liberty was secured to the Norwegians by the Prince to whom they were ceded, and guaranteed by one of the most powerful nations of Europe, he trusted their lordships would not think it consistent with policy, honour, or justice, to interrupt the government in its proceedings. Lord Grenville, after expressing with great force his sense of the cruel injustice of compelling the people of Norway to submit to a power against which that country entertained the strongest national antipathy, as one, which during a long course of years had been her unrelenting, unforgiving, and unremitting enemy, and from which this country has repeatedly protected her, entered into a particular consideration of the arguments of the last speaker. Among other points, he drew an important distinction between the cession of a country already conquered and occupied by an enemy, and that of a territory still free and uninfluenced. He further affirmed that it was a gross misrepresentation to compare the cession of Norway to that of a mere province or town; it was in fact a whole, and in yielding it, Frederic VI. had given up no part of the kingdom of Denmark, for he was King of Norway by a distinct and separate title. After many other observations, in which he supported the arguments advanced by Earl Grey, he stated the case in the following manner. You have signed a peace with Denmark, and you acknowledge that that country has fulfilled all the conditions of the treaty. The consequence is the necessary admission of one of those three things; that Norway is a part of the kingdom of Denmark; that it is independent of that kingdom; or that it is a dominion now de jure under the crown of Sweden. If Norway be a part of Denmark, you have made peace with her if an independent state, what has she done to you that you should reduce her by famine? if under the Swedish dominion, what pretence have you for interfering between that kingdom and its rebellious subjects. The Earl of Liverpool, in defending the measures of government, confined himself to the special circumstances of the case. He began with considering those under which the cession of Norway was made, and shewed that Sweden actually gave up Gluckstadt and Holstein which she had conquered, whilst Jutland lay open to her arms, as the price of the cession made by the King of Denmark for the preservation of the remainder of his dominions. He contended, that that sovereign, as an absolute monarch, ceded no rights which he did not himself possess; and that, if the principle of cession was applicable under any circumstances, there never was a case in which it could be considered less in the light of a grievance than the present, when an offer had been made to the people of Norway either to be governed by the existing laws, or to be incorporated with the constitution of Sweden. But it was said they had not chosen to accept this offer, and wished rather to erect themselves into an independent kingdom. But after having during eight years been at war with us as part of the Danish dominions, had they now a right to assume independence for the purpose of preventing the allies from receiving a compensation for the conquests made by them from the state to length divided on the motion, contents 27, proxies 7, total 34. Non-contents 86, proxies 29, total 115. Majority against the motion 81. A dissentient protest was afterwards entered on the Journals signed by eleven peers. which they belonged? His Lord- to notice them. The House at ship then went into a consideration of the manner in which Prince Christian had proclaimed the independence of Norway, still calling himself its regent, and presumptive heir of Denmark; in which, if the court of Denmark was privy to his plans, it was gross duplicity and falsehood on its part; if otherwise, it was an act of usurpation on that of Prince Christian. He intimated that there were a number of Danes in Norway who had stimulated the people to resistance, and that they had been studiously kept in the dark, and allured by an assurance of the support of England. He said, that it had been taken for granted by the noble lords that the general sense of the people of Norway was adverse to an union with Sweden; but in fact there were consider able parts of that country perfectly willing to agree to it. He made some remarks in defence of the conduct of Sweden with respect to her services in the common cause; and as to the impolicy of adding to her strength, he observed, that the loss of Finland had placed her in different political circumstances. The remaining speeches being chiefly a recapitulation of former arguments, it is unnecessary here On May 12th, the same subject was brought before the House of Commons by Mr. C. W. Wynne, who, after an introductory speech, made a motion verbatim the same with that in the House of Lords. In the debate which ensued, the train of argument pursued was so perfectly similar to that of which we have given a summary above, that to enter into particulars would be needless repetition. It may however be remarked, that some of the opposers of the motion avowed more openly than in the other house, their disapprobation of the measures adopted against the Norwegians, and resisted an interference with them solely on the ground of the obligations we had incurred by the treaty with Sweden, which they regarded as incapable of being done away by any explanation consistently with public faith and national honour. On the division there appeared, for the motion 71, against it 229; majority 158. CHAPTER XI. Bills to suspend and discontinue certain Proceedings against Clerical Persons.-Debates and Bills relative to the Corn Laws.—Proceedings relative to the Slave Trade. A CIRCUMSTANCE in which the clerical body was interested became the occasion of frequent discussion in the present session of parliament. An act had passed about ten years before, brought in by Sir William Scott, for the purpose of remedying the evils arising from the prevalent non-residence of the clergy on their cures, to the provisions of which heavy penalties for default were annexed. These penalties attached not only to non-residents without excuse, but to those who should neglect to make returns to the bishop of the diocese of the claims to exemption as allowed by the act. It had happened that a Mr. Wright had been successively registrar of the bishopricks of Norwich, Ely, and London, and being dismissed from his office in the last, he had availed himself of the knowledge he had acquired in his station, to institute prosecutions against a number of the clergy for violations of the act, of which the penalties to which he was entitled as informer, would amount, if levied, to 80,0001. As a great majority of these actions was founded on mere omission of the returns, an alarm was excited among all who were conscious of any neglect of form in this particular, and who saw themselves exposed perhaps to absolute ruin at the pleasure of an informer. To obviate this hardship Mr. Bathurst, in the last autumn session, moved for leave to bring in a bill to suspend for a limited time the proceedings in actions under the act above-mentioned, which passed both houses. The period of the operation of this bill being near expiring, Mr. Bathurst, on March 24th, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to discontinue the proceedings on certain actions already commenced, and to prevent vexatious actions, under the 43rd of the king." He introduced his motion with the observations he had formerly made on the great hardships to which the persons against whom the actions had been brought were exposed; and in proof that their offences in general consisted only in the neglect of duly applying for licences, he said, that in a list of ninety-two persons in the diocese of London, against whom Mr. Wright had instituted prosecutions, only two were destitute of a rational excuse. |