70 z 
such as in the case of an individual would 
justify homicide, or destructive of grace for 
self preservation: and because the observance 
of thisrule should, if possible, be held more 
sacred by great-and powerful mations, it being 
the very end and object of universal law, 
#0 give perfect security to the weakest cony- 
munities under the shadow of an impartial 
jastice. 
Because, the fate attack upon Copenhagen, 
im a season of profound peace with the crown 
and people of Denmark, and immediately fol» 
Jewing the solemn declaration by the Crown 
Prince, of his resolution to maintain his neu- 
trality, and to consider any nation as an ene- 
‘my which should seek to disturb it, -would, 
without'some just cause, which in this case is 
wholly unsupported by proof, be a most mani- 
fest and unprincipled departure from the whole 
system or maral policy and justice, which the 
British government had, as above, professed 
to act upon, inasmuch as any contempt or vio- 
Tation of public law by the government of 
France, though it might release Great Britain 
from all observance of it, as far as regarded 
such offending belligerent, could not possibly 
destroy or affect its protective sanctions in her 
‘ Imtercourses with friendly and peaceable States. 
©n the contrary, it ought to have invested 
«he Law of Nations with a mote binding and 
“-sacred obligation, since the professed object 
‘and justification of our war with France, at 
that very Moment, was to restore toa suffer- 
ing world the soul faith and security which 
‘fad been lost by a contentot of its dominion. 
Because, information of a projected confe- 
‘deracy between France and Denmark, assum- 
‘ed, without evidence, to have been commu- 
micated to ministers through channels which 
cated, on their parts, for inviolable secrecy, 
“might be a foundation fer acquitting them from 
‘blame, ifthe question before the house had been 
“thepropriety oftheir acquittal or condemnation, 
yet it cannot possibly justify, in the absence of 
‘all proof, an address to his Majesty, pronoun- 
cing their attack upon Copenhagen to be an 
act of indispensibte, duty ; because, giving cre- 
#it to the declarations of ministers, that they 
had information of such projected coniede- 
¥acy, it is impossible for this house to know 
whether they ought to have been acted upon, 
‘€o so dreadful an extent, without having be- 
fore it, most precisely and distinctly, the spe- 
-€tfic nature of such communications, so as to 
be able to estimate the credit due to them, 
not only from the facts themselves, but f:om 
“the situation and characters of the persons by 
whom they were made. 
Phe eondaee, _ besides, of ministers, in the 
whole transaction, is in Manifest opposition 
to this principle of the attack. They made 
“go such charge upon Denmark when before 
€openhagen, nor even pretended to have in- 
‘gaded her with a cause of wat,—Their lan» 
goaze upon the spot, and even in thé address 
~ proposed to his Majest y is the language of re- 
State of Public Affairs in January. 
[Feb. 3, 
gret, a language utterly inconsistent with the 
vindication of a proceeding. which would have 
been as mild and forbearing against an enemy, 
as-itrwas barbarous and ‘treacherous against 2 
friend. The position also of Denmatk, wher 
the assault was made upon her, ‘is the strong- 
est evidence to resist the presumption of an 
understanding with France. Her army was 
‘m Holstein, which France was menacing, 
whilst Zealand was left defenceléss, and the 
ships dismantled, at a momert when the con- 
sciousness of a treaty or confederacy must have 
suggested toall the contracting or confederat- 
ing parties; the necessity of concentrating the 
whole force of Denmark, to defend her capi- 
tal, and to secure her fleet. 
Beoatses no evidence whatevér has been. 
laid before the housé, to establish any hostile 
“confederacy beiwten Denmark and France, 
‘por any design-on the part of the former to 
“depart from the strictest neutrality; on the 
“contrary, thé above-mentioned solemn decia- 
ratién of the Crown Prince to the British mi- 
Mister ought to have been received by his 
—— 8 servants as the pledge of a firm 
resOiuiion to maintain neutrality; and be 
cause nothing short of a hostile design in the 
“government of Denmark could justify the 
-demand of her fleet, or the bombardment of 
“Copenhagen to enforce the surrender of it. 
Because, it was completely in the power 
of Great soci to have protected the Danish 
fleet from any hostile attack of France, which 
‘destroys the pretence of such an indispensible 
necessity as could alone justify even the 
slightest’ trespass upon a peaceable and un- 
ofiending state. 
Because, still ame in the absence of 
all evidence to the contrary, that the govern- 
ment of Denmark was faithful to her neu- 
trality, no speculation of the probable fall of 
‘her fieet into the possession or power of France, 
could possibly justify its hestile seizure by 
Great Britain. Such a principle would be ut- 
terly subversive of the first elements of public 
law, being destructive of the independence 
of weaker states, in as much as it would create 
a jurisdiction in the stronger nations to sub- 
stitute their own security and cenvenience for 
the general rule, and invest them also with 
the sole privilege of determining the occa- 
sions upon which they might consider them to 
be endangered 5 and because to justify the at- 
. tack and plunder ofa weak unoftending power, 
upon the assumption that a stronger dellige- 
-rent might otherwise attack and plunder her, 
. would be te erect a new public Jaw upon the 
foundations of dishonour and violence, making 
the tyranny of one nation a warrant for ow 
stituting the dominion of. oppression for the 
“sacred obligations of morality, ‘humanity, and 
"justice. : 
Because, supposing it to have been not only 
probable, but even certain, that France could 
have succeeded in carrying away ip the winter 
the ships and stores from ‘Copenhagen, But 
without 
