Castlereagh sought the aid of Lord Cathcart to find a dodge by which his Government could inveigle the Danes to commit a breach of the Convention, but the latter stood firm by the conditions, and the commanders, being disgusted with the whole affair, declined to aid their Chiefs in the Government in any act of double dealing.  But they had the Emperor Alexander of Russia to deal with.  He offered to act as intermediary between Great Britain and France in order to bring about an honourable peace.  The British Government refused, and it is stated on incontrovertible authority that Alexander was furious, and upbraided the British with having used troops, which should have been sent to Russia’s aid, to crush Denmark.  The outrage of attacking a small State which was at peace and with which she had no quarrel was powerfully denounced by Alexander.  He accused the British Government “of a monstrous violation of straight dealing, by ruining Denmark in the Baltic, which it knew was closed to foreign hostilities under a Russian guarantee.”

This caused Alexander to break off relations with Great Britain and annul all treaties he had with her.  Canning feebly replied to the Russian Emperor’s taunts, and, amongst other things, accused him of throwing over the King of the Huns.  No wonder that Russia and some of the other Powers resented the perfidious conduct of British statesmen, employing British military and naval forces to overthrow and destroy not only a friendly Power, but one of the smallest and most strictly neutral States in Europe!  Alexander jibed at them for using their resources for this unjust purpose, instead of sending them to help him when he was being so desperately driven to defeat by Napoleon.  What a loutish trick it was to imagine that any real political or practical benefit could be derived from it!  The seizure of the Danish fleet was a low-down act, for which those who were responsible should have been pilloried.  The reasons given could not be sustained at the time, and still remain entirely unsupported by fact.  There is no more disgraceful proceeding to be found in the pages of history than our raid on this small and highly honourable, inoffensive, and brave people.

This bad statesmanship was deplorable.  It set the spirit of butchery raging.  It made a new enemy for ourselves, and in an economic sense added hundreds of thousands to our national debt, without deriving a vestige of benefit from either a military or political point of view.  It undoubtedly prolonged the war, as all those squint-eyed enterprises are certain to do.  It made us unpopular and mistrusted, and had no effect in damaging Napoleon’s activities, nor of taking a single ally from him.  There are occasions when nations have forced upon them cruel stratagems and alternatives, revolting in their abominable unworthiness, but in the case I am discussing I have found no substantial justification, nor has the deed been backed up to now or supported by a single real