spect of both moral law and sound poncy, it was again and again brought into discussion, and continued to be at different times, and on different occasions, a subject of very animated controversy for almost the whole of the present session of parliament. In the house of lords January 28th, lord Hawkesbury moved a vote of thanks to the officers employed in the attack of Copenhagen. His motion, he premised, related merely to the service on which the expedition to Copenhagen was sent, and not at all to the policy of the expedition, the object of which, undoubtedly of great magnitude and importance, was attained by the skill and ability of the officers employed. Here he gave an account of the origin, progress, and issue of the expedition. He praised the promptitude and rapidity with which the Danish ships were fitted out and brought away, and concluded by moving the thanks of the house to lieutenant general lord viscount Cathcart, K. T. for the prompt and decisive measures adopted by him in the attack on Copenhagen. Lord Holland contended that the magnitude and importance of an object alone, was not a sufficient ground for the thanks of parliament to those who had been employed with success in obtaining it. In the present instance there was no opportunity for the display of skill and science. Had there been an opportunity, there could not be a doubt but these qualities would have been eminently displayed. Had it been proposed only to thank the army, he might, perhaps, have been induced to give it no opposi tion; but when it was proposed also to thank the navy employed in this expedition, he could not but oppose the motion, as there was no opportunity for the display of military naval skill. The high and peculiar honour of the thanks of parliament ought not to be rendered too common. In order to preserve its value it ought to be reserved for great occasions, for brilliant ex-, ploits and great victories, as in the Roman republic triumphs were never granted but for the most splendid achievements.-Earl Grey spoke to the same effect.-Lord Auckland observed that there was no information before the house to shew the policy or propriety of attacking an unsuspecting and defenceless people; but with respect to the execution of the service, it had displayed great ability, energy, and skill. Lord Mulgrave, in reply to lord Holland, said, that he could not see on what ground, in the present question, any distinction could be made between the army and the navy. The most skilful distributions were made by lord Gambier in the disposal of the fleet under his command; that part of it which was entrusted to rear admiral Keates was extended for 200 miles, and had for its object, to cut off the communication between Zealand and the continent. By this means the Danish army in Holstein was prevented from passing into Zealand. The skill therefore of admiral Gambier had been conspicuously manifested. But in any case when the army and navy were conjointly employed, to vote thanks For a narrative of which see chapter XIV. of our last volume. to to the one and not to the other, could not tend to any possible good. 'It had, besides, always been the practice to unite them in votes of thanks where they were jointly employed. The motion being put and carried, and the issue ordered to be communicated to lord viscount Cathcart, on his taking his seat in the house, lord Hawkesbury moved thanks to sir Harry Burrard, bart. the earl of Rosslyn, the honourable sir G. L. Ludlow, K. B. sir David Baird, the major generals, brigadiers and other officers employed, and an approval and acknowledgment of the services of the non-commissioned officers and soldiers; which motions were agreed to, and ordered to be communicated by the lord chancellor to lord viscount Cathcart. His lordship then moved the thanks of the house to the right honourable lord Gambier, for the judicious distribution of the fleet, thereby contributing to the success of the expedition after all negotiation had failed, and for the promptitude displayed in fitting out the Danish ships, and shipping the stores. The duke of Norfolk objected, that the words relative to negotiation tended to prejudge the question of which notice had been given, and of which the object was to ascertain the nature of the previous negotiation*. tion was agreed to, and ordered to be communicated to lord Gambier when in bis place in the house. Lord Hawkesbury next moved thanks to vice admiral sir H. E. Stanhope, bart. rear admirals Essington, Sir Samuel Hood, K. B. and Keates, captain sir Home Popham, K. M. captain of the fleet, and the other officers. The duke of Norfolk asked, if it was usual to include in a vote of thanks, the captain of a fleet by name? A conversation ensued about precedents, The earl of Lauderdale observed that it would be a most singular circumstance if sir Home Popham were to be made the first instance of the captain of a fleet being thanked by name. Some precedents were produced, and the motion was agreed to. So also was a motion for ap proving and acknowledging the services of the seamen and marines, and the result of both motions was ordered to be communicated by the lord chancellor to lord Gambier. On the same day thanks to his Majesty's army and navy employed in the Baltic expeditions were moved in the house of commons by lord Castlereagh, who expatiated on the magnitude and importance of the exploit, the difficulties that were surmounted in performing it, and the prompt exertions of the board of ordnance, to whose great exertions it was in a great measure owing that a British force was assembled, ready to act in the Baltic before the middle of August. Lord Hawkesbury replied, that the negotiation alluded to in the motion was merely that entered into by the commanders in their military capacity, and had no reference to political negotiation. After a short conversation the mo* The duke of Norfolk had given notice on the day before that he should to-mor row se'nnight move for certain papers respecting the expedition to Copenhagen. Mr. Windham observed, that in the present question, it was thie province of the house to decide generally upon the merits of the C 3 service, old adage, “that when the king loses the knave wins," and when by the admission of the noble lord himself, the service was of such a nature that even its success must be contemplated with pain, he was far from thinking it a proper occa sion for the legislature to bestow what ought always to be accounted the highest honour, and a reward paramount to every other. He was willing to allow that the army and navy had done every thing that could be either required or expect ed of thein, and that their services might rank with a case of either a gallant defence or a successful retreat; but he denied that they possessed those ingredients which alone could entitle them to a vote of legislative thanks. Mr. Windham adverted to the title conferred on admiral Gambier, which did not record the nature or character of the service for which it had been granted, as in the instances of lord Nelson and lord Duncan, where the title was borrowed from the respective scenes of their achievements. of a Nor had he heard of any medals being distributed on the present as on former occasions. He then replied to that part of the noble lord's speech in which he had described the high state of preparation of the Danish ships, at the same time that he claimed credit for the vast activity in putting those ships in a state for being brought off. Either his premises must be false, or the inference he attempted to draw from them unfounded. In the same inconsistent strain the noble lord had asserted the force sent against Copenhagen to be so formidable as to make resistance unavailing, while, with the same breath, he called upon the house to pass a service, but in coming to this decision, it was necessary to make a distinction between the merits of the ministers who planned, and of the navy and army who performed the expedition. The justice and policy of the expedition would come under consideration at an other time. The question now be fore the house simply was, whether the service was of such a nature as to rauk it among those instances of distinguished and successful exertions for which any vote of thanks of that house had been recorded, and in his opinion it did not come under that description of service by which the rules of national gratitude ought to be governed, nor was at all of that nature to which they ought to be applied. He conceived that the only fit occasion for the two houses of parliament to pass a vote of thanks for the services of either the army or navy, was, the achievement of some exploit which afforded matter of general and unmixed joy and exultation when, for example, it was bestowed in consequence victory obtained over the first troops in the world, and over legions which had arrogated to themselves the title of invincible, not with superior numbers, but with a force not even equal to that of the enemy. There was no man who did not feel a pride and glory in joining in it. But in circumstances like the present, in which one ostensible part of the expedition had been entrust ed to an officer who could plead in his own behalf only the approbation of a self-created tribunal, in opposition to a sentence of condemnation lately passed upon him by one legally constituted, and who, in his fortune had exemplified the vote of thanks, founded on the skill, bravery, and enterprize of the officers employed in a service where no such talents and qualities were wanted. It was incumbent on a British house of commons, particularly in times like the present, to assert its dignity, and to maintain the credit attached to its opinion of what constitutes a great national exploit. Neither did he conceive, from what he knew of the two noble lords who were embarked in the expedition, that they would think the present worthy to be ranked among the achievements of their former life. There was nothing in the name of Copenhagen, (which signifies literally a harbour of merchants) calculated to call forth the energies of a soldier, the son of a soldier, and the father of a soldier, like lord Cathcart, wliose former services were well known, and with justice highly appreciated. And the very circumstance of admiral Gambier's having advantageously distinguished himself as a captain in the glorious action of the first of June, was sufficient of itself to make him set, comparatively, but a small value on his services on the present occasion, Mr. Windham next drew the attention of the house to the conduct of ministers in moving such a reso lution, the effect of which was, not indeed to encrease the taxes on the people, but what was still a more serious evil, if the people could only be brought to understand it, to diminish the great fund of honour, the best incentive to honourable exertions, and what was worse still, not only to apply it injudiciously, but to destroy the value of the whole capital. Granting that an improvident pension was had, be cause it was squandering away the public money; still, though one pension was granted improperly, the next was not the worse on that account. But when honour was once depreciated, its value was altogether lost. It was not difficult however to perceive the object ministers had in view, in this heaping rewards on those who had a part in the service.. It was to give it a fictitious value, and an importance in the eyes of the public that did not belong to it. Mr. Windhamn concluded, with solemnly protesting against this misapplication of the sacred deposit committed to the house, of dealing. out with fairness and impartiality expressions of the public gratitude to those who were employed in its, service. Mr. Brand, after adverting to the alledged weakness of Denmark to defend herself, had she been attacked by France, conceived that it would be altogether inconsistent to pass a vote of thanks for a service which derives its principal importance from the degree of resistance which those employed in it had to encounter. The chancellor of the exchequer thought, that if Mr. W's. objections to giving thanks in certain cases were admitted, they would be very prejudicial to the service. Mr. W. had admitted, that it was highly meritorious, by a judicious retreat, to secure the safety of an army or a navy; but that the house had never contemplated such a service as a proper object of their thanks. The right honourable gentleman seemed to have forgotten the case of admiral Cornwallis, who had received the thanks of parlia ment, not for a victory, but a retreat, "for the ability, judginent [C 4] and and bravery which he had displayed in the presence of a superior fleet of the enemy." He mentioned other instances in which the house of commons had voted their thauks, which were of a different description from that to which Mr. W. was desirous of confining it.-Mr. Tierney shewed that the precedents cited by Mr. Perceval were not applicable to the present case. The cases were by no means parallel. The motion for thanks to lord Cathcart being read from the chair, the house divided.-For the motion, 100; against it 19. After which, motions for thanks to lord Gambier, &c. &c. the same as those in, the house of peers, were agreed to. Mr. Ponsonby rose to move for such papers as his majesty's ministers were disposed to lay before the house relative to the expedition to Copenhagen. The house would thus learn what papers they were not disposed to graut; and thus a subject of unmixed debate would come before the house. He was sorry to say, that from a communication he had had with the secretary for foreign affairs, he could not call for more papers than what he should now move for. He should first move, that an humble address be presented for copies of the proclamations issued by the commanders of his majesty's naval and military forces, while before Copenhagen; and also copies or extracts of the communications with the Danish government, touching the surrender of the Dau sh fleet by capitulation. Secondly, that there be laid before the house, copies of the articles of capitulation concluded between the commanders of his majesty's naval and military forces, or either of them, and the officers commanding his Danish majesty's forces in the island of Zealand: and thirdly, for the substance of such information as had been received from his majesty's naval officers, and the officers of the dock yards, with respect to the state and condition of the Danish ships at the time of their surrender. or subsequently to their arrival in British ports. House of commons, February 3. -Mr. Ponsonby, pursuant to notice of a motion respecting the expedition to Copenhagen, stated its object. He proposed to consider this sub-* ject in the three distinct relations of Denmark, Russia, and France; to ascertain the disposition of the Danish government towards this country, for some time previous to the attack on Copenhagen; to be enabled to decide whether immediately after the treaty of Tilsit, Russia had entirely abandoned herself to the councils of France; and with respect to France, to ascertain what means France had to compel Denmark to depart from her system of neutrality; and especially how far France could have succeeded in any attempts to annoy us in the Baltic. In either case it was his object to ascertain the means of France. It was idle to talk of the disposition of France; but her means he took to be in this case, as doubtful as her disposition was unquestionable. As a justification of the expedition, it was insinuated that Denmark was unable to defend her own neutrality. One of the resolutions therefore he should submit to the house, would be for copies of all communications between this country and the Danish government at the close of the last war, wherein the Danish government avows, as its apology for departing |