122] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



which they belonged? His Lord- 

 ship then went into a considera- 

 tion of the manner in which Prince 

 Christian had prochdmed the inde- 

 pendence of Norwa)', still calling 

 himself its regent, and presump- 

 tive heir of Denmark ; in which, 

 if the court of Denmark was privy 

 to his plans, it was gross dupii- 

 citj-^ and falsehood on its part ; if 

 otherwise, it was an act of usurp- 

 ation on that of Prince Christian. 

 He intimated that there were a 

 number of Danes in Norway who 

 had stimulated the people to re- 

 sistance, 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 j 

 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 



to notice them. The House at 

 length divided on the motion, 

 contents 27, proxies 7, total 34. 

 Non-contents 86, proxies 29, total 

 115. 3Iajority against the motion 

 81. A dissentient protest was 

 afterwards entered on the Journals 

 signed by eleven peers. 



On May r2th, the same subject 

 was brought before the House of 

 Commons by Mr. C. fV. Wi/nne, 

 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 avow- 

 ed more openly than in the other 

 house, their disapprobation of the 

 measures adopted against the Nor- 

 wegians, and resisted an interfer- I 

 ence with them solely on the 

 ground of the obligations we had 

 incurred by the treaty with Swe- || 

 den, which they regarded as incap- 

 able of being done away by any 

 explanation consistently with pub- 

 lic faith and national honour. On 

 the division there appeared, for the 

 motion 71, against it 229; majo- 

 rity 158. 



