1808.] 
property is to be taxed—on the inclination of 
our allies to sacrifice their interests to our 
views—and on the consent of our enemies to 
contribute to the increase of those resources 
which it is their known objeét to annihilate: 
as a measure of warfare, it is destructive of 
our resources—jnjurious to the interest of our 
friends, but wholly ineffectual against our 
enemies, whom it enables, by payment of the 
projected duties, to purchase a complete ex- 
emption from the distress which it professes 
to bring upon them 
7th. Resolved, That it appears to this 
House, that his Majesty’s Ministers, by ad- 
vising his Majesty to adopt such a mode of 
warfare, are co-operating with the govern- 
ment of France to deprive the inhabitants of 
the respective countries of the comforts to 
which they are habituated, and even of the 
means by which they have existed ; and that 
in so doing they are concurring in an experi- 
ment which puts the great contest now at is- 
sue betwixt the two nations, on a ground 
highly disadvantageous to the British empire ; 
for it is obvious, that this system of depriva- 
tion must bear much harder on the people of 
this country, where property has been 
uniformly respected, and the profits of 
industry held sacred, than onthe people of 
France, who have been habituated to the ex- 
tremes of distress, during the convulsions 
which the revolution has created. 
In the House of Commons, Mr. Sharpe 
moved, on the 22d of March, the fol- 
lowing resolutions relative to the Expedi- 
tion against Copenhagen, which were 
negatived by 224 against 64:— 
That an humble Address be presented to 
his Majesty, submitting to his Majesty, that 
we have attentively considered all the infor- 
mation before us, respecting the late attack 
on Copenhagen, and the war in which we 
have consequently been involved; and that 
we deeply lament to have found it imperfect, 
Contradictory, and unsatisfactory, in all its 
parts. 
That respecting a transaction in which both 
the honour and the interests of our country 
are so deeply concerned, we had hoped for 
the fullest explanation. 
That the principles of our constitution, and 
the uniform practice of his Majesty, and the 
sovereigns of his illustrious house, require 
that Parliament should be distinetly apprized 
of the true grounds of eutering into new 
wars, and especially in a situation of the coun- 
try so extraordinary and unprecedented as the 
present. 
That had Denmark been a party to any 
hostile confederacy, either for menacing his 
Majesty’s territories, or invading his maritime 
rights, our resistance would have been ne- 
cessary, and our warfare legitimate ; and that 
under such circumstances, this House would 
oly have to regret that his Majesty should 
have been advised so lightly to abasidon the 
Mon tury MaG., Noe 169, 
State of Public Affairs in March. 
25S 
ports and arsenals of that country ; for, that 
had the alleged danger been real, the pos- 
session of those ports during the war would 
have afforded the best security against that 
danger; whereas the abandonment of thera 
has now left us more than ever exposed to it. 
But that we can entertain no doubt, that. 
instead of engaging in hostile leagues, Den- 
mark wished only to maintain her neutrality ; 
that this fact is proved even by the imperfect 
documents which have been laid before us 5 
and is distinctly acknowledged in the proela- 
mation issued by his Majesty’s commanders 
immediately before the attack. 
That not only was Denmark no party to 
such a league, but we see no ground to be- 
lieve that she was privy to it; and the very 
fact of its existence is, to say the least, in 
the highest degree questionable. 
That the conclusion of any secret articles 
at Tilsit, affecting the rights or interests of 
this country, appears to have been uniformly 
denied, both by Russia and France; and. 
that the correspondence of his Majesty’s se- 
cretary of state, and the dates of the transac- 
tions, prove that if any such articles did ex- 
isty his Majesty’s ministers were not in pose 
session of them, when the attack was order- 
ed against Copenhagen. 
That his Majesty’s Ambassador at St, Pe- 
tersburg, in an official note, rested the defence 
of that measure, not on the hostile purposes 
either of Denmark or of Russia, but solely on 
designs which it was said the French govern- 
ment had long been known to entertain. 
And, that his Majesty’s ministers not only 
advised his Majesy to abstain from those mea- 
sures of hostility against Russia, which it was. 
their duty to have recommended, had they: 
really believed in the existence of such en-: 
gagements, but they actually solicited her 
mediation to extinguish that war, and her 
guarantee to defeat those projects, in which it 
is now pretended she was known to have been 
a principal and contracting party. 
That allegations, thus inconsistent with 
themselves, and contrary to admitted facts, 
rather weaken than support the case to which 
they were applied. 
That with respect tothe pretended neces 
sity @f the case, we beg leave respectfully to 
assure his Majesty, that we cannot think so 
meanly of the power and resources of his 
empire, of the spirit of his people, or of the 
valour and discipline of his fleets and armies, 
as to admit that such an act would have been 
required for any purpose of self-preservatioa. 
And that, whatever temporary advantages 
the possession of the ships and stores taken at 
Copenhagen may afford, they have been more 
than counterbalanced by the increased dangers 
arising from the manner in which they 
have been obtained, 
That this measure, so highly objectionable 
both in policy and in principle, has augmented 
the number of our enemies; has animated 
agiinst us the passions of whole nations, whe 
Li before 
