Page:The Annual Register, or a view of the History, Politics and Literature for the year 1802.djvu/64

HISTORY OF EUROPE. 51 maritime law, which this treaty appeared intended to fix. Those concessions appeared to him of so much importance, that necessity alone could justify ministers for making them. They had struck that flag, which an honourable gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) had eloquently and truly declared ought never to disappear till the nation itself was overwhelmed.

Lord Hawkesbury began his defence of the treaty by stating, that he should not trouble the house at much length, but he found it necessary to mention the grounds upon which he differed from the honourable gentleman (Mr. Grey) and the noble lord (lord Temple). The honourable gentleman had conceived it irregular to move for such an address, until the official accession of Sweden and Denmark had been received; but although the house had been assured by his majesty of the acquiescence of those powers, yet it must be recollected, they were only now considering the convention with Russia as a separate treaty. He could not allow that this convention was a compromise, as the honourable member had called it, nor that we had given up all the objects for which we contended, as the noble lord supposed. We had maintained, in full force, all our maritime rights, as far as it ought to have been our desire. Some asked, What did the treaty give us which we had not before? He answered, that it was not to obtain any new advantages, but to support and preserve our incontestable and ancient rights that the dispute arose. The real state of the question he conceived to be this: the powers of the North had confederated to dictate a new code of maritime law to Europe. We went to war to dissolve this confederacy, and to defeat its purposes. Were not those objects obtained? Had not the coalition been dissolved, and had not we, maintained our ancient rights? Those were the only questions which he thought the attention of the house should be then directed to. In ascertaining properly the value of these rights, it might be necessary to recollect that it was to her maritime greatness this country was indebted for the successful issue of the last war, and it was to the same cause that Europe was indebted for whatever it still retained of independence. This maritime greatness was itself in a great measure the effect of that wise policy which dictated our navigation laws, and which always protected our maritime rights. The principle upon which Great Britain had always gone, was to extend her navigation as much as possible, and confine her commerce to her own shipping. In France the system was different; their navigagation being far inferior to their commerce, they were content to allow their commerce to be transacted by neutrals, that in time of war all their sailors might be employed in their navy. The principle therefore for which we had contended, was of the utmost importance to us, for our individual interests. At the same time it must be allowed, that we should make the exercise of our rights as little vexatious as possible. This was the object of the parties to the treaty which had been signed. He denied that this treaty was at all to be considered as a new code of maritime law. It was merely a settlement of disputes between this country and three of the Northern Powers. He