GENERAL HISTORY. 



[119 



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 ap- 

 peal to. Now, the rights of a 

 Sovereign over liis 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 Vat- 

 lel, all clearly maintaining the doc- 

 trine, that the sovereign cf 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 sovereisrn 

 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 conse- 

 quently 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 informa- 

 tion on this point. But it appeared 

 that after the battle of Bautzen, 

 wheif the cause of Europe seemed 

 lost, Sweden had not a man in the 

 iield, or in progress to the held, 



although her engagements with 

 this country to supply her contin- 

 gent was signed in the preceding 

 March. So late as the battle of 

 Leipzic, did not Sir Charles Stew- 

 art write to the ministers that the 

 Crown Prince had failed in execut- 

 ing 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 con- 

 juction with them till April IG, 

 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 aug- 

 mentation of Sweden could not be 

 deemed wise with any view to 

 permanent policy, since, in all pro- 

 liability, she will still, as formerly, 

 incline to the interest of France. 

 From the resources possessed by 

 Norway with respect to naval sup- 

 plies, it would be of more advan^ 

 tage to this country that she should 

 be independent, than annexed to 

 an)' power. 



His Lordship then observed, 

 that it had been stated that Den- 

 mark has not acted bonajide 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 garri- 

 sons consisted of their own sol- 

 diers, who were animated with 

 the spirit of independence. To 

 strengthen the charge against Den- 

 mark 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- 



