tured by an ally; and the British, as having had force employed to obstruct a legal right, and having had British subjects wantonly sacrificed in an unnecessary contest. In the following August, Lord Whitworth was sent on a special mission to the Court of Denmark, and a correspondence ensued between him and Count Bernstorff, in which neither party being able to obtain reparation from the other's court, and Lord Whitworth threatening to leave Copenhagen in eight days if the matter were not previously settled, a convention was signed on the 29th August, 1800, in which a compromise was effected, each party abandoning something of their pretensions. It was agreed, by art. I., that the question of right relative to the search of neutral vessels under Convoy, should be referred to ulterior discussion. By art. II., the Danish frigate and her Convoy were to be released, and the frigate to be repaired in the British ports. By art. III., to prevent the renewal of contests of the same description, the king of Denmark was to suspend his Convoys until future negociations should have effected a definitive convention. By art. IV., if similar contests should have occurred before instructions to prevent them had arrived, they should not be attended with any consequences, but should be regarded as settled by the present arrangement. By art. v., ratifications to be exchanged within three weeks.

Before this convention had been signed, or could be Conduct of known, the Emperor Paul had issued a note dated Russia.

16

27

August, 1800, to the Courts of Sweden, Denmark, and Prussia, inviting them to join the Court of Russia in a new Armed Neutrality, and mentioning our condnct, in the case of the Danish Convoy, as making such a demonstration incumbent on the neutral powers. On the 29th August, an embargo was laid on British property in Russian ports. This was in clear and direct violation of the twelfth article of our treaties with Russia in 1766 and 1797, which expressly declared, that in case of rupture,

British embargo.

the persons, ships, and commodities of the subjects of the contracting parties should not be detained or confiscated. (1) On our convention with Denmark becoming known at St. Petersburgh, the embargo was taken off, in September; but in the November following an embargo was again laid on British vessels in Russian ports, on the ground of our retaining possession of Malta, of whose knights, it will be remembered, the Emperor Paul was Grand-Master. This measure, though not amounting to a commencement of hostilities, yet placed our relations with Russia in a state of equivocal amity, and a junction, at such a time, with such a power, for the purpose of resisting what we considered our undoubted maritime rights, was a measure of provocation certainly inconsistent with friendship, and perhaps with neutrality. The northern powers, however, were induced to become members of the proposed confederacy, of which the object was de. fined in five articles, the first four being similar to the four articles which embodied the principles of the Armed Neutrality of 1780, and the fifth article being a new one, engaging that the declaration of an officer in the navy, in the command of Convoy, that the merchantmen under his escort had no contraband on board, should suffice to prevent any visit from taking place either to his vessel or to the ships convoyed. Conventions to this effect were signed between Russia and Sweden on the December, 1800; between Russia and Denmark on the same day; and between Russia and Prussia on the December, 1800.(2)

On the 14th January, 1801, our government laid an embargo on all Russian, Danish, and Swedish vessels in British ports; stating as a reason that British subjects and British property had been in the same manner seized in Russia, and that while this was being done an alliance

(1) See De Martens, Rec. I. 396, and VI. 363.

(2) See the treaties in De Martens, Rec. VII. 172—194.

with the Court of St. Petersburgh had been formed by the governments of Denmark and Sweden, of a nature hostile to the rights and interests of Great Britain.

A correspondence ensued between our government and those of Denmark and of Sweden, in which we asserted that we had always considered the confederacy of 1780 as of a hostile character, and that we could not otherwise regard the present alliance, framed for the same purpose of forcing us to abandon some of our most cherished maritime rights, an alliance formed with a government which had, during the correspondence, removed from a state of negative ill-will to a state of positive hostility.

12

23

Shortly after, on the February, 1801, was issued an ukase by the Emperor Paul, prohibiting commerce between Russia and Prussia, on the ground that Russian goods so exported to Prussia were subsequently re-exported to Great Britain. Thus Prussia had no great reason to vaunt any increase of either respectability or advantage from her junction with the confederacy, being at once insulted and excluded by the leader in the alliance, for whom she had thought proper to neglect a friend of such tried constancy as Great Britain.

Notes on this subject.

Trade between
Russia sus-

Prussia and

pended.

and Danish measures.

In March, in the same year, measures of unequivocal Prussian hostility were resorted to by the courts of Berlin and Copenhagen; a Prussian force entered the electorate of Hanover, while a Danish force entered Hamburgh, under the command of the Prince of Hesse who issued a manifesto, declaring that the arbitrary and violent measures resorted to by the British government, "in contempt of all the principles of the Law of Nations," had determined the neutral powers to recal our government to juster sentiments; that the most efficacious method of attaining this end seemed to be by preventing all British commerce with the Elbe: that for this purpose the occupation of

Considerations

the free city of Hamburgh was absolutely necessary: that the King of Denmark had therefore given orders for such occupation by a Danish force, and that every care would be taken that the inhabitants should not be molested or disquieted by the troops under his command. As supplementary measures for the annoyance of our commerce, the buoys in the Elbe were taken up, and the lighthouse at Heligoland was disused.

These measures reflected no credit on their originators. regarding them. It was a petty hostility to such a country as England to think of making us waive what we considered our undoubted maritime right, by the occupation of Hanover by Prussia; or by the stopping our commerce on a single river by Denmark, at a time when we were supreme on all the seas. Acts so incommensurate with their purpose weighed against their instigators, by denoting the presence of hatred but the absence of power. But the want of dignity was not the worst feature in the proceeding. The occupation of Hanover was perhaps suspicious, coming from a power whose commerce was too insignificant to make the protection of a small portion of that little advisable by a measure likely to entail war; while, on the other hand, the contiguity of the two states, and the desire to possess the electorate displayed both before and since, make the published reason for the occupation appear less like a cause than a pretext.

The occupation of Hamburgh.

But the occupation of Hamburgh was the most curious part of the proceedings, and was a sort of satire on the whole confederacy. If there be any single principle in the Law of Nations of indisputable truth, it is that neutral states have the right of pursuing their customary trade with belligerents during war. The occupation of Hamburgh by Denmark was, at best, an attempt to defend the Law of Nations by directly breaking through that law; it was an attempt to assert a doubtful principle by dis

regarding principles everywhere recognised; to vindicate a questionable right by the infliction of a certain wrong; and to enlarge the immunities of neutrals by a flagrant violation of neutrality.

On the 29th March, 1801, an embargo was laid on British propery in Danish ports. This was a mere equivalent retaliation for our embargo on Danish property. The next day our fleet passed the Sound, and on the 2nd April occurred the battle of Copenhagen, when our victory laid the Danish capital at our mercy. An armistice was concluded, for the duration of which Denmark was, by art. II., to suspend her connection with the Armed Neutrality. As far, therefore, as this power was concerned, we forced an acquiescence in our limitation of neutrality.

Battle of Copenhagen in 1801.

About the same time, the tyranny of Paul was termi- Death of Paul. nated by one of those events which occasioned the witty definition of the Russian constitution as "un despotisme limité par l'assassinat." The successor of his father, Alexander, immediately on his accession renewed the friendly intercourse between the Courts of London and St. Petersburgh, and Prussia and Sweden soon after returned to their former relations of amity with this country.

17

and Russia.

A convention was signed between Russia and Great Treaty between Britain, on the June, 1801,(1) in which the principle of Great Britain "free bottoms free goods" was abandoned by Russia, while, on the other hand, the principle that the presence of ships of war should exempt the merchantmen which they conveyed from search was recognized by Great Britain. This treaty was acceded to by Denmark on the 23rd October, (2) and by Sweden on the 30th March 1802. (3)