The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-01 00:00:00

ors." latisfitetionof stating to Hon. Gentlemen that he was in constant show to the House that the expedition was CO prompt and and c p o ounication with the auth or i t i es at t h e Post-office, secret that the B r iti s h merc h ants could not by possibility have . 't anpeared t h at there were circumstances at present had any i n ti mat i on of i t. That expedition sailed from this !Xisting which prevented them from diseharging. their duties country on the 27th of July, and arrived with the British in a ,.. . u emetient manner. They were, however, most anxious Minister, at Copenhagen, on the Ist of August. Copenhagen t ° talie every nossible means for the due discharge of the im- was invested on the B . h. This expedition went not for the Peorsrt‘o.nt, duties' ' which devolved upon them. purpose, as it has since transpired, of making a hostile aggres 'lM,(ll %E Y A NCR OF TROOPS TO THE COLONIES. sion on Denmark, but for the purpose of enforcing a nego'ia -2 't HU 1 lE. wished to ask a questinn of as hien he had given tion. A negotiati on was entered into on the arrival of the notice! n ha v i ng .oMely, whether sufficient provision had been made for fleet off the coast of Denmark, before any act of hostility tr o /ire-boats to accompany such ships as convayed our commenced. It continued even for a considerable th o ps to the colonies? The public were much interested in time after. The Danish fleet was seized, and Denmark, of ; e answer that might be given by the Government to this CollrqP, placed an embargo on British property, and British •trispoirrtant question. vessels, and Danish property and vessels were in turn seized bv M emb G• CO . CKBURN made some answer to the Hon. the British. Our Government took property to the amount ci - f the el', 'which was perfectly inaudible in the gallery. At the 1,300,000'. , and the Danish Government seised property to m e° cllYaion of his remarks, half that amount. The negotiations had commenced before a h. ".. 111, . - IME stated that the Hon. Baronet had quite mistaken single shot was fired, as I have before said, and continued lo . ng x.lis.,questi,a,a, with reference to the number of life-boats, after the surrender of the fleet and the seizure and cen , 6 . s e t e a c tio u n . meant vertich each ship was to be provided. He of property. This negotiation came to i n , t 'avily that one life-oat should be carried in each sion, and Denmark declared wa t r i agam s s n t of sP.,ilor the purpose of conveying a rope to the shore in case 4th of November billowing bu t w n ar a Trade ivreek. He would ask the President of the Board of December Great Britain declared Gentleman n o t o sh t ai ts u i s n ef a t o i cu l t to t ' he y ( 2 o 4 n t h tl o n ; "e,l He any provision had been made of this nature? is urged by the Right Hon. ,atgha,i,nFstirlisteLnomiadrkoi the t Sir G. CLERK stated that the subject had been under the Treasury, if he will permit me for a momenttoref a e n r d to ne h e i e m s: consitleration of the Board of Trade. that this declaration of war on our part was natural D THE BEERSELLERS. Me M p %Par t o t p a e e r k t e y d . b y Toe r i tfleetish ofarms e w n h m il a e r a k the ..; ' HILLIPS wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet was seized, and nary in defence o c f o o p u e r eh o a ta g • d that all public and private pro .Beeretary for the Home Department a question with re- convention was pending; and this convention declared that all 2 1xtet to certain petitions which had been presented from the hos•ilities were to cease, an beee.r,sellers of the country. The beersellers were anxious to pert) , waso t f o be respected. I allude to this convention for the showing that it must have been in farce whether it was the intention of the Government to legis the declaration provisions of war.the late 'rat all with reference to their claim to be placed upon an up to and .at the period not of set the e ide The declaration of war did equality with the licensed victuallers oh the country. Sir ntnhi• J AMES GRAHAM sa id h e h a d rece i ve d a grea t convent i on to w hich I have allud e d, an d t h ere f ore the parties rof memorials upon this subject. One of the privileges for whom I seek the protection of the House were entitled to h o o f _the( licensed .victuallers was, that they should keep their the benefits of its provisions. Not to give them that benefit .5 s open during the night. Of course, if the beersellers was a flagrant violation of that convention. The debts arose Wereplaced upon an equality, they would claim a similar right. out of the declaration of war. Some time after these trans. such a privilege extended, he had no doubt that it would actions took place, Mr. Canning made a remarkable de - a bused, and therefore he could not hold out the least ex- claration on this subject. It was in answer to Mr. Perceval, Peetation that any legislation would take place upon this is subject. who brought the question of l' ese claims under the considera it/r. BELEW wished to ask the Right Hon. Secretary for tion of the House. (The Hon. Member here read the extract, tie Home Departme n t w h e th er it was the intention of Govern- but from the noise that prevailed in the House it was impos t to ' act on the recommendation of the Landlord and Bible to catch the . words. Its purport was, as far as we could Tenant Commission, and consodate the offices of Clerks of the gather, an admission on the part of the Government, that the C ee r own. en counties pratennd, or replace them as the claims were founded in justice and ought to be entertained.) Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the trans- Sir J. GRAHAM (who was very imperfectly heard) said action at the time which it happened, it was certain since that the office of a Clerk of the Crown in Ireland was a very that time Parliament had on several occasions admitted, Har 'mp arra n t office in connexion with the constitution. Th e that the applicants who had suffered during th a t war, and i. member, as well as the House, must be aware that th e under the convention to which he had referred, were entitled Cle r k so f the 6rewa were appointed by the Crown on the re- to consideration. The claims put forward were of three 'Print ibility of the advisers of the Crown. The variety of kinds. The first claim was that of those who had debts offeiress entailed considerable expenses, and the Government was owing to them by Danish subjects. The second kind of lacer mring a Bill to consolidate thosee Ices, under the recom- claim we r e those preferred by merchants wh o h a d goo d s se i zed met idatio red to. n of the Commission thn. Member had re• on the occasion. A n d t h e t hi r d c l a i ms were those of parties kr who had an interest in ...hips and cargoes that suffered in the war. The words of the minutes of that convention acknowledged the justice of the claims advanced by the three classes; and in the years 1835 and 1836, the first two classes of claimants had their demands settled. In a year or two afterwards, the subject was again brought under the consideration of the Government and of the country, and the Government received upwards of 1,309,000/. in order to settle these claims. But the Govern ment, although allowing the justice of those claims, refused to enforce redress, although ,hey held property amply sufficient to satisfy the claimants. In the year 1839, the subject was again brought before the House, and who brought it forward ? It was brought forward, not by an humble individual like myself, whose opinions, whatever they might be, would be scarcely worthy of recollection, but it was brought under the notice of the House by a most accomplished lawyer, who would not have done so until he had well considered the consequences. He submitted these claims to the House, and the House again sanctioned their justice ; but the then Chancellor of the Exchequer still delayed the settlement of them. With the determination, however, to ascertain their le gality, a motion was made for a Committee, which was carried. The Committee met, and they reported upon the claims of those parties. To that report I shall shortly call the attention of the House. It stated that the Committee had proceeded to consider the merits of the several claims submit ted to their consideration, and that they came to the following result : —The claims amounted to half a million, which was re duced to two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds Scotch. This sum of money was obtained from the sale of several car goes which had been seized and sold, and which consisted of goods imported from the Baltic. In 1841, Mr. Justice Cress well moved and carried an address to the Crown that the ques tion would be speedily settled ; and had not Mr. Justice Cress well been convinced of the legality of these claims, he would not have ventured to have risked his professional reputation by insisting on them. I must say that this case ought not to rest on strictly technical grounds. At the time those seizures were made the Government were exposed to considerable danger ; it thought it necessary to fit out several secret expeditions ; and those who were losers by them were, of course, those chiefly connected with the mercantile interest. And the House should never forget that prizes were made to the extent of 13,000/., and that they never distributed. more than one-half of them. Sir, I am most unwilling, therefore, to touch upon that ques tion. I rather wish to deal with it as a question of an en tirely personal nature. I think if any one will take the trouble —if any one has taken the trouble to refer to all that has transpired on this subject, it is quite clear that these claims are founded in justice, inasmuch as the public policy which induced the Government to take the part which they did in volved the people concerned in their losses. It is quite im possible for me to say w h e th er th at po li cy was j ust or unjust. But, supposing that policy to be just, it was perfectly impos sible for the Government to pretend to anything like justice when they gave no public notification to the merchants of this country that they were about to enter upon the course which they took. The Admiral of the port received no intimation of that policy, arid the merchants took no other precautions for their safety than they would under ordinary circumstances against sea risks. The trade in the Baltic was considered safe. and they therefore entered into nothing more than the ordinary insurance against sea risks. Sir, under these cir cumstances, when the British merchants were not forewarned by any public Act, or warned by any official netice, they have, I contend, a perfect right now to ask this House arid the Government of this country to give their sanction to a Committee of this House for investigating those claims. Sir, I have endeavoured to go as little over the whole ground as possible in submitting the case of the claimants. You will not, I will venture to say, refuse the Committee for which I ask. I hope that those Hon. Members who have attended to this subject from year to year will again give the vote which they did in favour of a Committee of Investigation. lam perfectly aware that the Goverment was placed in great difficulty by the opinions delivered by the law officers of the Crown. But I submit that this question is not a matter of law. It is a mixed case of law, equity, and justice.— (Cheers. ) Sir J. HANDIER—I hold in my hand a petition from the town I have the honour to represent.—(The Hon. Member was proceeding with his speech, when the Sergeant -at-Arms appeared at the bar, and announced, " That in obedience to the orders of the House, and in conformity with the warrant of the Speaker, he had taken the Honourable William Smith O'Brien into custody.")—The Hon. Member recommenced by saying, I hold in my hand a petition from the town I have the honour to represent, and in present.. ing that petition I take the opportunity of ex pressing in a few words the reason why I consider this question should be speedily decided. Ido not think that it is altogether quite a proper question for the consideration of Parliament. I cannot say that I look with any considerable favour upon this con tinued renewal of the question, and I feel earnestly that justice t should be done, and that a final decision upon the question shall be arrived at—and that a complete, clear, and strong ex pression of Parliament should be come to on the subject. I am afraid that year after year we shall be going on further and further from arriving at such a result. A n d now, to approach th e mer i ts of the question itself, it appears to me that they lie in a very narrow compass. In the case of the Danish claims, all compensation for those Danish claims has formerly been denied. At that time it was stated by the Honourable Member for Portsmouth, that the large and respectable body of individuals who had suffered upon the occasion, and who now claimed compensation for their losses, had no right to come to Parliament, or be compensated by the Government. I think that Government had chosen properly to compensate two classes of the Danish claimants. They were those claim ants who could not be supposed to withdraw easily, and at a short notice, from the port of Denmark during the war ; people who owned good debts iu the town of Copenhagen, or pos sessed cargoes and valuable goods in the warehouses of Den mark, were possibly prevented from setting sale with their ship s ari d getting o r u ..t t Gh o ee f ,ne t e. h r e al re ua e c i l hi r . vr, o , f ea vs t e h r o t,h s lee do o w r i g h ne o o mt wished ei i i s t. h k e u d tsie, t ad o t b,y,we obtaincan ah ne , P t t :e s n ses S s o io li n ci o to f sustain that opinion altogether, but I think if an embargo was laid up on t h ese ships before any official p u bli c notic given t o merc h ants in this country, that the De wasanish fbdtbhe.io:ecurt because rru — reesbiae i ea f :tioli _ no_ n eal o : ut to intimationofabie, think—andmcDenmarkobme ri,,fnosa w , tile a til s ,hiu 1 di fi g ooh given vtsnhteohnoateot country were w e t r h o e a stateb about t be o - f Government wished British ships to leave their har advance claimants whichnit h a i n: o t b s u e have a opinion sus tained a tamed fr,n the proceeding. If a fair notice d was given to them o t o n set tho i their sail rig f for harbou r , a t n o oth re e c r eiv . I 1 would . not so strongly insist was afforded before etheoern2le)ednsaftion but if no official no ticehave a right to be considerbedicbaosthnot Feb. ll , a l v E i t n ) g 7, st t a h r o t s e e dul persons . n a avnagduteheeuxnpefodrittu'orleagtacirnmstinwation of ere was no impediment, conception ; then, I think, they are which t was beyond their on thel7ti e t f o \ t i ll a t c 1 orn p en swa whicha t s i c,ni di ma ssed, seceue N sas o sei w de ~ e saa iLords(ii,m.iS,l ai Such muniut motion i n , n in t. the e Courtous House, of Denmark, on the 2nd of September, and a similar order was afterwards issued by his Majesty's Government in Council, I r)ttointehawtansowabsseekY,h 8 1 r, on that no ships belonging to his Majesty's subjects should clear out for the port of Denmark, as a general embargo was in tended to be laid on them." Now, if that notice was issued in this country on the 2nd of September, and ships sailed afterwards, then, I think, they are not entitled to the compensation sought. The opinion of Lord Sidmouth, in which I agree, is very favourable to the compensation of those who incurred losses. He said, on the subject of compen sation,t opinion, which had there could not be the d , ff smallest tsvew e of of opinion. Unfortunately, there was a i h severalel settlementdyletaards,dealnadyeLt,redsid m o u t h o e f xi t s i t l ted q u u p es t t o io t n he f p uv res th en e t ve ti competent to give an opinion other countries, and was able and had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, concluded peace with m e , ' 9 d of Septem berwhich I intend to rest. I say that I find on the on the matter. Now, Sir, I have stated the only arguments on after Now, I which no person had a right to compensation. an order was issued by the his Majesty's Government;think the issuing of that order was a sufficient proof that time. I beg leave, Sir, to second the motion. mer chants had no right to clear out of the Danish ports before that On the question being put, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said I can assure the House, sir, that it is very painful to me to have again to repeat those opinions and those sentime n t s which I have so ofte n h a d occas ion to address to the Hou se on this particular subject ; sometimes when sitting on this side of the House, and sometimes when sitting on the other. But, Sir, I have had from these repeated discussions full opportunities of hearing all that can be urged on this particular subject, having had various opportunities of consideration and reflection ; and I adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed upon the subject, that it is one in which it is not consistent with public policy for the House to interfere, and that it is one in which it is not consistent with the duty of him to whom her Majesty has entrusted the finances of this country to acquiesce. Sir, 1 believe also, very strongly, that it is a matter of great delicacy on the part of th, House of Commons, in dealing with lGaieant,liao•rnwnan b p y r o t p h o o se n s o t n o st d it e n a t l io w n it , h tb i a t t . tiA;o rHuloenwseasofmcosotmwmisoeolys a question of this kind in the manner in which the, Hon. should not take upon itself, indenendentle of the Crown, to iltihtyisofru,laerstviea reties being expresslyboing urged,la i d dOroisgvninatote g aun a y rd gr a a g n a t in o s f t m t o h n e cy p , o s a s n ib i' raiher by persons who had a direct interest to com e to a vote of public money, which a consideration of the general interests of the country did not authorise, and the House, therefore, imposed the chmecokstiriintchoantverneisepnetcrt'.ositioßnuotf it h .willg pinlascteeadthcef as usual, to originate such a grant, to refuse it wain! Crown in that tecommend ed by a Committee of this House. I think that is a most in convenient position in which to place the C w casion, wher e grave l egal doubts as to the claims roexin st o a n ndasnvhocre - the questio n o f h ow f ar the right of the House to interfere ''s involved, to ca ll upon i t to make any grant upon such a matter. The lion. Gentleman commenced his speech by stating that these claims were refused on two special grounds —one of these grounds being financial, and the other being founded on inter national law, Ido not agree with the lion. Gentleman, when MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. Messengers from the Lords brought up several Bills, which dwere ordered to be laid on the table. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery, was understood to ask the Hon. Member for Lambeth to postpone the second reading of this Bill, be cause it would be quits impossible, on that evening, to give it the consideration which it merits demanded. qr. HAWES said he was quite ready to accede to the Hon. ar,d Learned Member's proposition, by postponing the second reading till that day fortnight. PRIVILEGE— VI R. W. S. O'BRIEN. Mr. ESTCOURT moved that the adjourned debate on the tsroceedings connected with the Hon. Member for Limerick be resumed. Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that it would be in the recollection of the House, that at the conclusion of the debate on the preceding evening it had been his duty—his painful duty—to come down to that House, instead of his Hon. Friend, in order to make a certain statement to the House. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite, acting, as he (Mr. Roche) admitted he did, is the fairest and most amicable spirit possible—( Cheers) — thought well to give his Hon. Friend eight-and-forty hours to consider his resolution. His Hon. Friend had considered What course he should pursue, but he complained, and he (Mr. Roche) considered that in that complaint he was justified— he complained that he had had no opportunity of explaining to the House the position in which he was placed, and the reasons which had actuated him in adopting the course he had followed under the circumstances. He did not know what course his Hon. Friend would have pursued, but what he would suggest was, that the House, either by a positive motion, or in some other way, would allow his Honourable Friend to come to the bar and explain the reason for his adoption of the course he had pursued on this occasion.—( Hear, hear. ) It might be true that he was asking the House to pursue an unusual course, inasmuch as it might be at variance with the rules and regulations of the House, but he was sure that when he appealed to the House on behalf of the Honourable Gen t stood in the painful prbition of not bei ng sustained by many individuals in that House, he stood in a painful position, because he had taken a course of action different from that adopted by those who usually acted with him. He was sure, however, that the House would see that, whateser might be the nature of the rules and regulations of the Hewn, he considered that, in justice and fairness, and With their usual desire to see fair play administered, that they would, in their indulgence and-kindness, grant the ' n otion eibith he. had risen to make. He had therefore m simply to move as an amendment, « That Mr: William Smith O'Brien should be heard in his place." Mr.ICYGONNELL seconded the motion. AM :RIME apprehended that there could be no objection to grant the amendment of the Hon. Member.—( Hear. ) He was anxious es.aoy ori.e to maintain the privile ges o f th e H ouse, but at the .i staine - thne, when a request was made in the way in which-it had-been made by the Hon. Member, he thought the House should assent to it, provided, however, that the grant ing dlfterFeetinht not materially interfere with the rules of the House. He hoped they would agree to the motion. Mr. R. YORKE said he had somewhat considered the ques tion, and if they wished to preserve the rules of the House inviolate, it would be absolutely impossible to grant the mo tion °No' Hon. Member.—(Several Members in the vicinity of the Member called ont, " Why," but he made no respoftl Mr. : 9' ONNELL said his Honourable Friend (Mr. Smith O'Brien.), would no doubt be satisfied at the way in which the subject had been brought before the House, but he ( Mr. O'Connell)) did not think his case had been put in a proper anannef before the House. Sir. ROBERT PEEL—Sir, it is my desire to relax the strict rues of the House as far as possible—( Haar, hear)—and•-- at the same time I do think that, as far as my private inclinations are concerned, I wish to act on that principle ; but in the position in which I stand I owe a duty to the House—(Cheers)—and therefore it is of the utmost importance to consider whether it would he advisable to establish a precedent, by granting the amend ment • of the Honourable Member. We must con sider' w h a t will be the effect of the r e l axa ti on o f the rules of h I must remind th e H onourable Member • te House. (Mr O'Connell) that the Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'lli=ieriYhad every opportunity offered to him to beg the order which the House made on the subject; and 1 do distinctly re collect that, in speaking on the subject, h e sai d t h at although he had 3101 an opportunity, he did not think he should obey `it;'• because his sentiments on the subject were already fsn record in the correspondence which had taken ,place on the subject, and to which he said he must refer as the grounds for refusing to attend. I find, being in his place, and having been called upon by the Speaker, he stated that he had already given his reasons, that he had no further observation to offer upon the matter, and that he still held his determination. He then withdrew. Now I apprehend, having declined to obey the ord ers o f t h e House, he i s i n , w h at is technically called, contempt. Whether- or not th ere were precedents for acceding to the motion which was made, I am not aware, but I beg that you will have the goodness to state what are the rules ol this House. If they are in favour of the extension, I should certainly be rejoiced, but if they are the reverse, I shall feel it my painful duty to support the rules of the House. The SPEAKER—I must state, with very great regret, I remember no precedent which would justify this House in acceding, to the amendment.—(Hear.) The Honourable Gentleman had an opportunity of being heard in his place, and that was the time to make any explanation he thought proper. The Hon. Member did not do that, and the House of Commons then resolved that he hid been guilty of a con tempt. I cannot call to my memory any precedent which would justify the House in acceding to this motion. Mr. ROCHE of course bowed to the decision of the House, and he would now beg leave to ask whether there was any reason why the Hon. Member should not be heard at the bar of the House? The SPEAKER said that there was no precedent for an Houe,Member appearing at the bar of the House unless as a criminal; --. I%fiTTIRATTAN said he had been requested by his Hon. Friend to state, that when he had the opportunity of being heard in his place, he was not aware of the motion which the Chairman of the Committee of Selection should propose. Mr. ROCHE—Of course I bow to the decision of the Speaker. The SPEAKER then put the question—that William Smith O'Brien, Esq., having been guilty of a contempt, by neglect ing to attend a railway Committee during the present ses sion, after having been summoned, resolved that a warrant do issue against him, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms do arrest him accordingly. Mr. M. MILNES, amidst great impatience, said he rose humbly to submit to the attention of the House whether it would not be possible to avoid the unpleasantness of agreeing to the course proposed. He believed it was perfectly clear, that if the Honourable Member should continue to remain in a state of contempt he could not take his seat in the House, nor of course take part in the proceedings. If this debate were adjourned till that day six months, he appre hended that the Honourable Member for Limerick would be able to take part in the deliberations of the House, and he did think that the best way of avoiding the unpleasantness that attended the course recommended by the Hon. Member that had made the original motion would be to agree to the adjournment of this debate Lill that day six months. _(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") No HON. MEMBEtt having seconded this amendment, the Hon. Member said, that as it appeared not to meet the views of the House he would withdraw it.---( Hear, hear.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. No division, however, took place is consequence of the motion being agreed te. It was then ordered that Mr. Smith O'Brien should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant -at- Arms, and that Mr. Speaker be directed to issue his warrant accordingly. THE aDmAidNISH CLAIMS. Mr. HAWES rose Ist much confusion, and spoke as follows : —Sir, ones m ore mare to make an appeal to the House, and once mere makvetnhe motion which I have placed on the paper of to-day, to considerw of those Danish claims ich occurred in Denmark in which arose out of transactions eanadr%uments which have been the year 1807. Sir,qua,ftsetrionT adduced against this discussions which have taken place upon it, I sh ti o ,, o u h s l e h ,a e ur r i ; i ' li an f y eel I entertains] the in occupying the time of the a‘avdi:jaussstice of these claims. myself justified strongest conviction of the equity and I will endeavour, Sir, to compress u m e l n i t ' s a vwela to say s h a n y v have been a narrow compass. Now, Sir, the ar as I have been raised against these claims have merel enabled to consider them, resolved themy,,eslvoeesfainr to two in num ber. They have been of a financial charger r, which have been urged upon the House from time to time b the Chancellor of difficulty of the Exchequer, who, I think, rather glace to meeting the claims than to the justice of the ease. The jaainudyoowbn own other objection was of a far more important char,a,;,astthepre. that I own I feel much difficulty in cont,,ndin neixiblibited that the legal objections whi,h haveptiveosenitpt,aiw,,ea, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman o considerable knowledge of law—especially internatiso are difficult to meet. I know, also, that there are many aZI7- culties surrounding this question. Nevertheless, those diffi enities which have been urged have not deterred the House, on many occasions, from affirming. by considerable majorities, the justice of the claims that were urged on the attention of the House. Now the circumstances out of which these claims arose may state in a very few words. In the y 4 year 1807, th e B r i t i s h G overnment h aving been informed that the Da n i s h fle, wog to be placed at th e di sposa l of Napoleon, adverse to th e interest t 1 )f this country, determined, upon the infor mation whicii (lacy had received, to take measures for seizing that fleet. The expedition was o ne th at was got up with the greatest secrecy and the greatest promptitude, and I r4irereidvaoinolfy t w o fer to the duti es re l at i ng to the f i tting out and expedition on the coast of Denmark, iu order to Government on account of those claimants ; and, therefore, it was simply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons so claiming. But perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish to part with the money from the coffers of the Trea sury. Now, Sir, with respect to the other point—the question of international law. Ido not boast myself of a very perfect knowledge of the law, but I have looked at the opinions of those lawyers who have considered the question, and they have come to the conclusion that the parties are entitled to the compensation which they seek, as the capture of their ships was not a capture in war. There is not a better lawyer than Dlr. Justice Cresswell, and it is not at all likely that he would com promise his legal knowledge on this subject because he was the Member for Liverpool.—(Hear, hear.) But there are two great parties whom I have not the honour to see in their places at this moment—l mean the Attorney and Solicitor General —because, if I have stated anything erroneous in point of law, they would no doubt have corrected me.—(Cries of " Why are they not here ?") I will tell you why they are not here. Both the Attorney and the Solicitor Generals voted for this motion on a previous occasion, but have I not the opinions of Mr. Justice Cresswell, one of the most acute and just lawyers in England? I say it is not likely that he would warp his legal judgment on the matter ; and if the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General were here I am sure they would not dispute the law, because they have voted for the motion. The Hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde, who voted against the motion) challenged Mr. Justice Cresswell to produce any authorities in favour of his view, and on the next night, the 10th of June, he did produce two au thorities, and said, in the course of his address, " I have been challenged that there is no authority on the subject ;" and he then read an extract from Vattel, which stated, " those who have by reprisals lost their property, are bound to get compen sation for their los s e s ." I n Grotius ' Special Jury Cases it is stated, "it is the duty of the state to give compensation to those on whom reprisals have fallen." He says, " But before she declares war"—l now beg the at tention of the House to this—" Before she declares war, of which we shall treat in the following book as there are various methods practised among nations " He says, "He seizes on some property if he has an opportunity, and declares it seized until he has given him sufficient satistaction." Then he says, " He takes possession of what belongs to another and keeps it until payment ;or he detains it as a pledge." Then he says, " The effects seized upon are preserved while there is any hope of obtaining satisfaction or justice, but so soon as that hope disappears they are confiscated, and the reprisals are then complete." Now can anything be more clean than that? For the purpose of satisfaction they seize, and when all hope of satisfaction disappears the reprisals are complete and the good: are disposed of. " This is the last remaining effort previous to the commencement of open hostilities ; then, indeed, is the Sovereign to compensate his subject on whom reprisals shall have fallen." I say that Parliament and the monarch of Great Britain ought to compensate those on whom reprisals fell by the Danish transactions of 1807. "It is the duty of the state or the nation to make this good, because each citizen ought only to pay his quota." The Honourable Gentle man the Secretary for the Treasury is well versed in law, and perhaps he will point out how, seeing that war was not declared until the 4'h of November, the seizures were captures of war, and not merely reprisals. There was a most extraordinary argument used here on a former occasion, upon the decision of Lord Stowell upon the seizure of property in Demerara, and the claim that was made by persons, calling themselves British subjects, for restitution of their property. These individuals were first British sub jects, then Dutch subjects, and afterwards British subjects again ' • and Lord St owe ll d ec id e d that, as the parties were Dutch subjects at the time of the seizure, they had no locus shin& in the courts of law of this country, to obtain restitution. Lord Stowell said that the question mainly depended on whether the property was taken before or after the declaration of war. Now, Sir, I say that this question originated on the ground of public policy, public justice, and international law ; and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons in jured were entitled to compensation, on the part of those who had caused the inquiry. lam sorry I have troubled the House so long on the subject, but it appears to me that justice requires that the law should be justly and fairly put in practice on this occasion. Mr. CARDWELL—On no occasion should I have pre sumed to enter the lists with my Hon. Friend opposite, for the purpose of attempting to sanction an argument of a legal cha racter; but on the present occasion I shall not shrink from the task, and I will endeavour to give a legal argument, which for the first time since the commencement of this discussion, has ever been submitted to the House. It will appear remark able to those not familiar professionally with legal subjects,that with all the acumen of Sir James Mackintosh, and all the Crown Lawyers that. then held office under her Majesty, it has been reserved for to-night to bring forward a legal argument against the subject on which I feel it my duty now to speak. For the sake of the parties who sustained injury, arising front the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, this case was raised by Sir James Mackintosh, and he stated that if any portion of those goods were taken by Denmark in contraven tion of the established law of nations, it became our imperial duty to vindicate that law on the part of the subjects who were injured; and if for any reason whatever we failed in discharg ing that duty, it became our duty to compensate the subjects who suffered by our refusing to discharge that duty. This was when the Danish claims were first raised, and Sir James Mac kintosh and those who were engaged with him in their former attempts, took care to have nothing to do with the part of the claims now the subject of discussion. They felt that it was necessary, resting on that ground, carefully to distinguish between those claims which advocated compen• sation for property on shore, and books, debts, and those claims on behalf of ships and cargoes, because they felt that in such a position there was one reply which could be made, if ships and cargoes were acknowledged to stand on the same footing as.the property on shore. Why did the Hon. Gentleman opposite seek to bring this case within the law of nations, when the real ground on which it rested was whether the reprisals were made before or after the declaration of war? What follows has re lation to the subject of reprisals. The Hon. Gentleman has grounded his position on a point of law, on which it is neces sary that the legal argument should be clearly understood by each of us. The meaning of the words reprisals and captures were not to be used in the ordinary and popular sense, but in a strict and legal sense. Now, the Hon. Member had taken the ordinary and popular meaning of reprisals, and continued it strictly and legally as the foundation of his argument. He has laid down this distinction in the course of his address, and on that construction contends, that if captures took place be fore the declaration of war, they are to be considered reprisals, and compensated. With great deference to the Hon. Gentl,... man, I trust say, I do not agree with him in his legal defini tion ; and on that ground consider they are not entitled to compensation. Reprisals between nation and nation are allowed in order to enable them to do justice to each other, in matters where they consider themselves aggrieved, and when they have no other means of redressing themselves. If a nation refuses to do justice to another, then the latter, accord ing to the law of nations, might seize the ships of the former, and keep them in pledge till justice is done them ; or if they fail to do so, then the eapturing party may keep the ships and property seized, and declare them to be confiscated.—( Hear.) If an open rupture in con sequence takes place, and war ensues, then ar e they justified at once in confiscating all that has been previously seised. This is the distinction between reprisals and captures. Thus, if a capture takes place, and no warfare arises between the countries in consequence, then is the Go vernment bound to take the claim of the injured parties into consideration, and to grant compensation- —( Cries of Hear, hear.) But when a declaratiou of war takes place, the retro-active effect is, that captures fall under the ordinary rules of war, and are not entitled to compensation. The Hon. Gentleman saes there was no de claration of war; but it has been read this evening, and is dis tinct enough. It declares on the part of the Danish Govern ment that war is actually broke out, and calls upon all faithful subjects to come forward and take such steps as are best calcu lated to repel hostile attacks. This declaration of war is dis tinct enough, whatever may have been the acts of Denmark before the period of its being issued ; and this declaration was issued on the 16th of August, 1807. Well, but the Hon. Member says that the first declaration of war on the part of England was made on the 4th of November, 1807 ; and here, I think, my Hon. and Learned Friend has confounded two cir cumstances. A declaration of war, according to the practice of this country, is an act of hostility, and I believe that no de claration of war, according to the sense of my Hon. and Learned Friend, had been issued at the very time when he was on his way to take part in the battle of Waterloo. What was the object contemplated by the proclamation of the 4th of November, to which the Hon. Member has made reference? That was not a proclamation of war, but a proclamation for the distribution of prizes ; and before such proclamation had been issued such prizes became droits to the Admiralty, and were carried to account of the Consolidated Fund. As between England, therefore, and Denmark, the bombardment of Copen hagen was the declaration of war; as between the Govern ment of England and the captors of prizes, I believe that to them only had the proclamation of the 4th of November reference ; and I am asto )e n m is b h ar ed ra t s h sth a t t eh,,fie m omr my Honourable and Learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord Stowell o in support of his position. What this is, is a simple question between the Government of Great Britain and its subjects; not between the Governments of England and Denmark, and, therefore, not bearing on these Danish claimants. I do not know whether I have succeeded in fixing the attention of the House to the conclusion I would seek to establish. I consider that my Hon. and Learned Friend has, in some degree, confused the question as between the Imperial Government of Great Britain and the subjects of Great Britain making captures, and the Governments of Great Britain and of Denmark. This, I think, is the complete answor to the legal arguments which my lion, and Learned Friend has for the first time submitted to the House; an argument which has escaped the attention of Sir James Mackintosh, which has not come under the notice of Mr. Justice Cresswell, and which has not been observed by any of the Hon. Member s who have introduced this matter before the House. Having taken up so much time in rebutting this argument, I will proceed very shortly to notice the other arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend.—( Hear, hear.) My Honourable Friend says, that gentlemen con nected with the Government take a peculiar view or this question. I would remind the Hon. and Learned Mem tion. These claims were brought forward for the first time in Those who had other claims to her, that Lord Althorp had the subject u an n d de st, r etihstv h eieitnr i s s :liwlci tita c ti considera tion. hink Hon. Friend i b ran ot y it so set. Sir, s sub ject.Bl ( v 3 : l, n i 7c ae wereChear.) ie too Therefore r N ud e ' n n t t ject was introduced. Lord Campbell Worcester did advise the Government what croeugrasreddteotpoatarttkhee, and the Government had not. boon influenced in the determi nation which they carne to by any other considerations than those of public policy.—( Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentleman will admit that, if his point of law cannot be are more than thirty principlessustained,of has generalpublic ground policy. t on regardwars? years Hear, hear.) Mr. lIUTT—Oh, no, by no means ; they w ere were before the Treasury five-and-twenty years ago. Mr. CARDWELL—It was not until thirt l m em " an .er i e s Da A n i i r s . h expedition iuTr Th th e t o h n e . se G c e l n a t i they brought before the Treasury. Mr. CARDWELL—I believe lam stating a fact. Those persons who had substantial c l a i ms up on th e Government, "c" thought of embarrassing the case by b r i ng i ng in the never one, and it was not until thirty years afte r th at this casePre 9 ,, n t brought under the notice of Parliament. A nd, sir, ifafter that length of time, when the law was against you, Mr. WATSON—No, no, the law is not against a s. Mr. CARDWELL—You are prepared to grant the • • Justic e of the claim in any individual eases of the kind, the precedent • s that you set does not apply only to future wars , but I know of national of practice on which you can refuse to deny in am case of any war, that ha s occurred in the history of this country, up on ;, which anybody can bring evidence their,as the semblance of truth in support of a similar claim. having, therefore, a s I hum' 1 tr satisfactorily answered the novel argumnaent of the H ust on. , Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon an erroneous dis tinction, and having cursorily gone over the mom general arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who moved f or t hi s Committee and has brought the matter before the House, I do hope that the House will see the necessity o f resisiting the Hon. Member's motion. Mr. HUME—Sir, it is not necessary on this occasion to enter, after the debate that has now taken place, intop t ar icu lars after the lengthy details that have been alread y given. I only wish, Sir, to say that there is no fear of any p roudeot of he states that the objections to these claims are of a financial character. They never, let me observe, rested on that prin ciple, as the Hon. Member for Portsmouth had presumed, for whether these claims be, as they were now, fur 500,0001. or 200,000 t., it is not the amount that we should regard in our decision, but it is the principle involved by coming to such a decision. The danger involved is not only the expense we should incur, but the expense we should expose ourselves to in 1 law now laid down in this House, by gentlemen of the to respect , o f past Thewars questiona rad u r o es r t esuccessors great n e measurer sp ect of those e nint wars er t.; na ons lion. The Solicitor-General had expressed his opinion agai ns t m high n e w s legal hto combated authority; and it also the former judgment rested on the on this important ert opinions ant q of u e s.. House, w y h e e t n h t e h a e r d q u a e n s y ti o n answer was legallyte his discussed,epinien. and T it h i e n q lt u h e his s a t v i liu o e n does not rest only on the opinion of those Hon. and Learned Gentlemen who have lately given their opinions, but it rests on the authority of all those legal gentlemen who have taken part in previous debates in this House, when former claims were urged. Those gentlemen all said that the claims :hat scare then urged were only to be maintained where there was some conviction or proof of any violation of the law of na tions; and they reserved to themselves the point that the cir cumstances on which this claim was founded, were of a totally different character from those laid down in the category of those who made the claims. This was the argument of th e H on . Member fo r Sh e ffi e ld, w h en h e said that thse claims should be decided by an exposition of international law. These claims have been supported by an Hon. Gentleman formerly a Mem ber for Liverpool ( Mr. Cresswell), and in his constituency were large bodies of individuals personally interested in the question now before the House. Mr. Cresswell brought forward the question, as he considered he had a duty to perform to his con stituency, and that he should present to the House the cireum stances under which this case arose, in order that it might have the benefit of a discussion in the House of Commons. Great importance is attached to the opinion of Mr. Justice Cresswell, from his eminent legal abilities ; but it ought to be borne in mind that he represented a large mercantile body, many of whom had an interest in the question.--( Hear, hear.) Whatever value is attached to the opinion of that eminent lawyer, the House should weigh against it the fact that he acted in that matter as it became his duty as a, representative in Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who brought forward this question lays great stress on the ground that this was a secret expedition, and the injury to which the merchants had been exposed in consequence of not having information so as to escape the danger. On this point the House should consider the extreme hazard which would grow out of giving information in such cases. I have not heard any sound reason given why compensation should be given in cases of this kind, and arising out of such circum stances. I have heard nothing advanced to convince me of the opinion that the captures for which compensation is sought took place after the declaration of war. The declaration of war against Denmark took place on the 16th of August, 1807, and no capture was proved to have taken place subsequent to that date. I have already referred to this declaration, and given its terms, and I now assert that it was issued on the 16th of August, and the captures were antecedent to that period. But it is said it was a secret expedition, and, therefore, compensation should be given. If you carry out that principle what will be the effect? If you give compensation in the pre sent instance, you are bound to give it in every other case. Grant the present claims, and whenever an enemy is attacked under similar circumstances, whenever a secret expedi tion is fitted out, you will be bound by such a prece dent for every capture which is made at sea during the progress of the war. Let us see how the principle applies to other wars. See how it would apply to the last war with the United States. No notice was given then that our merchant shipping was in danger, yet, according to this principle we should be bound to grant compensation for every capture. Such a ground of compensation now sought would establish a principle applicable not only to the Danish war, but to all ether wars; and in all captures of merchant ships arising out of - secret expeditions they would have motions made and claims advanced for compensation. In every parti cular case the House would be called upon to make advances of money in order to satisfy the parties. It would be impos sible for the country to go into war and defend its just rights without being subject to claims for damage done to private in dividuals in the prosecution of such expeditions as that out of which had arisen the present claims. But !here seems to be great doubt among Hon. Gentlemen who support this motion. The Hon. Member for Lambeth supported the claims of one class, while the Hon. Baronet the Member for Hull supported the claims of another class. The Hon. Member for Hull sass, that no indemnity ought to be given in certain cases, because he has found out that an Order in Council was issued on the 2nd of September, 1807, that no British ships should clear out for Denmark because they would be liable to be seized upon and confiscated by that Government ; and therefore argues the Hon. Baronet they have no claim for indemnity. What is the effect of this disagreement? Why, out of the eighty-five persons who, according to the statement of my Right Hon. Friend opposite have claims, if the opinion of the Honourable Baronet the Member for Hull is taken—( Hear, hear)—only 10 can have any claim at all. Thus we see that these learned doctors—learned in the doctrine of international law—are divided to the extent, that while the one would admit the rights of 85 claimants, the other would only give compensation to 10. Can a stronger proof than this be required that the subject is not of that very clear character that it was repre sented by the Hon. Member for Lambeth to be ? The Hon. Member for Lambeth has, I think, not very fairly stated the opinions of Lord Althorp, as given in 1834. The report of 1834 states—" We are all aware that these claims are made for the losses sustained on this occasion by the act of the Danish Government, but we do not conceive that Parliament would be disposed to admit the principle that such claims could be entertained." As I have stated before, I am very little competent to argue the• legal points as to what constitutes the lawful seizure of property. It may appear that there is no valid reason why property on shore may not be captured as well as property at sea, and why the former should be safe while ships and cargoes should be exposed to seizure. But I believe no one will deny that such is the principle of interna tional law.—( Hear, hear.) They have respected property on shore, hut never that on the sea. This property, like a great deal of other property, had undergone the chances of war. It is said that these were only reprisals, and that they therefore stand from other ships. Now, what is the question of repri sals? It is something of this kind. You lay your hands on whatever property you can legally take, in order to compel your enemy to accede to reasonable terms.--( Hear, hear. ) Well, then, this property happens to consist of ships and mer chandise. If the differences are settled, they are returned; if the war goes on, why, they are sold. But really, after the war has commenced there is no distinction as to property captured after the declaration of war and after. the commencement of actual hostilities. All I wish to in culcate on the House is the danger to which the country will be exposed if they set a precedent that if they went to war with a foreign nation, some six-and-thirty years after they could be induced to compensate all who had suffered any detriment. Standing in every respect upon the footing on which these cargoes and ships were taken, I contend that you are not entitled to ask the House of Commons for a Committee to inquire into these claims. Sir, I can assure the House that it is only from a sincere desire to avoid all the dangers which I see incident to an acquiescence in things of this kind that I .have on so many occasions expressed my opinion on this subject. I have abstained, as the Hon. Gentleman has done, as much as pos sible, from repeating the arguments which I have used before with respect to this question. I do not rest, as the Hon. Gentleman does, upon any technical grounds. It is upon a great national principle, it is upon the broad Principle which I have already stated, that if you once lay down this principle that you will protect all ships and cargoes during war, no limit can be placed to such claims hereafter. It is on these grounds that I must resist the motion of the Hon. Member opposite for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the Danish claims.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. WATSON—I trust I shall be able to show the House, on principles of public justice and national law, the justice of these claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that those who represent large commercial constituencies have a peculiar mode of looking at the question of international law in this House. Will he allow me to make a retort that the Right Hon. Gentlemen who have visited the purlieus of the Treasury seem also to have a very extraordinary view of the public policy and the public justice of international law.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, Sir, let us see first of all what the facts are in this case, and the grounds on which this claim must succeed. These cargoes and ships were taken before any declaration of war whatsoever. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") This country having ascertained that a party was about to seize the Danish fleet, sent out a fleet under sealed orders and perfect secresy, so that not a single merchant of this country could know where that, fleet was. The relations between Denmark and England continued ; the merchants continued in their inter course with the Baltic. They continued in their intercourse with Denmark all the time. The fleet went to the Baltic, and cbto, trade idn t m h eg e : eas A orte, d h m e i r .B a lalbtei Baltic, g h asked s t e h e e t i t y h e r e 0 ta o r al n u o n t i e t ahteeyd toin igthhet safely trade in tlae Baltic, he distinctly eommunicateil to the mer ch ant s that they m i g h t d o so.—( He aerfs, Should it ni l to V ti s s , b l Sir,l et , hoaut rtph t u h ebs a e_ t attempted a ask o n tow h h a e t r ground n dd? lic policy to encourage the merchants in carrying on their to Wt t h h ee o scAe. come clai ms. as was i enteredn t h h a e b declaratione that was mad e trade? I say t h at by our national law they are clearly entitled to etlan T d h , ey no s t ai a d ; o w uh But r e h otwhr what a s y t enemies —(thi s , I believe, was dated August, and I have not the exact date)—nut as enemies, but in self-defence, and to prevent those who are so willing to destroy Europe from doing so." "W e come not as enemies," and yet the Hight Honourable Gentleman has said they are not entitled by international law to make these claims.—(llear, hear War was d ec l are d on the 4th of November. The Danish .) am bassador demanded his passports on the 16th November. It has been attempted to say that the declaration of war took Place on the 14th August, in the declaration of Cronstadt. In the case of a declaration of war between two countries, the in habitants of each country would have warning not to trade with each other ; if they were to do so, they would then be guilty of a breach of the law of their country, and vessels going to Den. mark might be justly captured by English vessels, on the ground 7th was o u fp upon t g h u e s August, pointt w a e s f e d e e m c declared i b n y g h the e t w ß e r e i n t sht the Envoy tweee th ea at tr w ie tr that they were attempting to trade with an enemy. On the and at th e same time demanded his passport, on the ground thaq war between the two countries might be considered as havi ng already b ro k en out. It has been said by Hea lembers oppo site th at t hi s was a declaration of war between the two coun tries. I w il l prove, by the decision of Lord Stowell, that this was a declaration of and not a declaration of war ; and in reprisals, e declaration issued by the Danish Government, the foil • owing: words occurred :—" We merely call upon our faithful subjects to take up arms to defend themselves and their property, and to ward off this violent attack ;" and this document further states that an embargo would be laid upon foreign vessels. Now that point has been decided by Lord St owe ll , in the Admiralty, in the case of the " Orion. ' The case was, whether the capture was the right of the Crown or the Admiralty. He said, that if the capture was made before the declaration of war, it was the right of the Admiralty, but it reverted to the Crown if taken after the declaration. The capture was, therefore, the right of the Crown, inasmuch as there was no decl ara ti on o f war until the 4th November. The Chancellor of the Exche quer comes down to the House, and says we must resist these claims, because the Hon. Members for Lambeth, and Hull, may entertain some little difference of opinion upon the subject. The real question is, when was war declared? It has been stated by some Hon. Members, that there is great danger if we compensate these Danish claimants we shall also have to compensate the French and other claimants for losses which they may have sustained in a war with Er.gland. A little reflection will tell those Hon. Gentlemen that such could not be the case, because after a declaration of war is made the prizes are the prizes of war. Such prizes are not entitled to compensation when the war has broken out, for everybody knows the situation in which they were placed, every ship cap tured by the Danish and French are not entitled to compensa tion. Now let me look at the justice of the case. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer has thrown some impediment in the way of this matter. He says it is not respecttul to the Crown —that it is a question that reflects on the Ministers. In 1831, the Hon. Member for Sheffield brought the matter forward, and again in 1837 and in 1838. In 1841, the Com mons voted that in justice the compensation sought for should be given to the parties, but, however, it was rot acceded to, and now the Right Hon. Gen tleman wishes to make out a vast distinction with respect to the rights of the claimants, and says it is not respectful for us to addr ess th e Crown. Now, I say, it is altogether respect ful for us to address the Crown upon the subject when justice can be obtained by d • • f so mg , or, up to this time, no justice has beets mooted to theTh Tat this parties, e reasury has many thousand; of pounds which were paid by the Danish THE SUN I _LONDON, _FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1846. this case ever occuring again. I trust that England will never be guilty of such harsh conduct towards Denmark. Ido not believe there is any chance whatever of that. It is one of those measures which I have considered most pernicious and un graceful to an English nation, and I think that those who were the parties to this transaction should have acquitted themselves as soon as possible of the claims against them. The Learned Gentleman says that this is the first time that this class of claims was admitted. Why, Sir, we know that all these claims were put on the same footing. I believe I have stated them twenty times, or at least as many times as this subject has been brought forward, and does the Hon. Gentleman make any dis tinction when he knows that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancello r o f t h e Exchequer sitting by him never, made any distinction between any of these claims. He rejected them all as unjust, and that distinction now made is perfectly ridicu lous for him to attempt to make any separation. It is true, Sir, that tho se w h o advocated these claims did, in consequence of some i n ti mat i on, draw a line and make adivision between these th ree c l ases, but, Sir, I cannotseeany distinction between them whatever. I think the Learned Gentleman on this side, who has stated the case, has drawn a line; but I have alway s objected t o th e G overnment insisting that a declaration of war was then made. I have only to say, that more in conclusive could not be brought forward question.ms froml consider that we should by no means reject these claims, any fear of a precedent being made out for future or past case s . I state that th ere i s no fear of a n y claims of this sort being hereafter made. I consider that the parties who m a k e th ese justice, laims are aski ng f or nothing but and that the Govern ment would be ac ti ng most unfairly in refusing a Committee to inquire into the se c l a i ms.—( Hear .) Gevernnlentchaoooi. bee , n an i d n possession of fund s t o t h e amount of upwards 0f12,0 o this they have had in their possession ever since the year 1807; and when I look at the small sums granted, I might say for the Ministers, by votes of this House, Ido consider that amp l e f un d s are still remaining in their hands to repay all their claims, and I think Ministers should be compelled to pay these claims. I think this should be the rule, that on whateverground Govern ment may think themselves warranted in commencing hostilies, they should not allow any portion of the British subjects to suffer by such proceedings, and that if any expenses should be incurred they should be divided equally. One or two indivi duals should not bear the loss. I think it is clear from docu ments of this House, that the merchants before they left the River Thames, asked the Admiralty if there was any danger in sending their vessels to Denmark. After arriving in the Baltic, they also inquired of the English Admiral on the station, and the answer they received from him was " No." The merchants were deceived by the Government. Govern ment concealed their plans by giving answers which they knew were erroneous, and they did it upon these grounds, that English merchants and shipowners were to be mulcted and fined of their property. Some time since it was alleged, and strong arguments held in this House, that they were not entitled to compensation as they might have been insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have I heard a single argument brought forward to-night in opposi tion to these claims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taken as any precedent. No war can take place upon such principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we may throw that en .one side. I ground my vote, as I always have done, upon these two plain facts, that English merchants trading to Denmark considered that they were trading under the protection of English laws, when the British Government had commencedhostilities. They had no advice, and received no information on the subject till after their property had been seised. Upon these grounds, I think that these indivi duals have a right to demand of the Government payment of their claims—and I only wish that I could add, and interest. The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the whole amount of their claims. It would be only justice to add the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any of the claimants are now gone to the grave, their relations now come forward and justlyask of you compensation for their claims. All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. My opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, principal and interest, as fairly and as justly as any individual having any claim against any other individual. It is on these grounds, Sir, that Ido hope every man in this House will see justice done to those who have so long suffered, seeing that there are ample funds for the purpose. I trust the House will do as it did before, support the motion of the Hon. Member, and that the Ministers will not act as they have heretofore done, but will cheerfully come forward and agree to the motion.—( Hear.) Mr. F. T. BARING—I am anxious to say a few words on this subject, because I invariably offered the motion my deter mined opposition; and I must, in the first place, express a hope that whether you have money in the Treasury or not, if this claim is a just claim, I think we are bound to accede to it. I have never taken it as a mere financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, aence, but whether the c l a i m was f oun d e d on j ust i ce er not.-(Hear, hear.) Certainly, if it had been founded on justice, no feel ings of economy would have prevented the Government, of which I was a member, doing justice to the parties. My Hon. Friend says that these cases—l am sure his memory fails him— he says that the cases before the House must be held to be in cluded in the other cases decided by the House on a previous occasion ; and my Hon. Friend is good enough to say that the House ought not to have a divided opinion on these cases, be cause there was no division of opinion on the others. But to the last cases, which present themselves in a new form, and are different from those specified by Sir James Mackintosh, I shall feel it my duty to offer every opposition in my power. I think it is no want of respect on my part to do so ; for I feel myself hound, looking at the great consideration which:was given to the subject when I was in office, to do so. But there were circum stances connected with party which made it possibly no matter of regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was beaten on the question. It may be said that we have a Treasury feeling on the subject, but my Noble Friend, Earl Spencer, not only entered into it himself—and no one was better able to give an opinion, on account of his fair and upright mind, of what was an equitable claim—and I know he came to a decided opinion that these claims ought not to be allowed • and, as in duty bound, I f e lt it my d uty to consult the Law Officers of the Crown—namely, Lord Denman and Lord Cottenham ; and with every respect to the Hon. Gentle man who sits behind me, I must say that I think we should not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advocate, was amongst the number. Besides, the Hon. Member for Worcester ( Sir T. Wilde) considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied hours upon hours in comparing the duplicates of the original documents on which the claims were founded, in order to test their accuracy, and to be enabled to give a decided opinion on the matter. Then there is Sir William Follett, whose name can never be mentioned in this House without respect, he voted, I believe, in favour of these claims ; and I recollect that, when he was appointed Solicitor-General, he was taunted with changing his opinions, and he stated distinctly that h e gave hi s opinion on the cas e that was submitted to him, but that when he heard the arguments of the Hon. Member for Worcester, he said he could not vote for the motion of Mr. Cresswell, as he had not the shadow of a doubt upon the case. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Watson) has stated what is no doubt the main point of his case, that these were reprisals, and not captures. Now, in the first place, allow me to ' suggest to him, that I believe the question of declaration of war has been very much altered. If the Hon. Gentleman were called upon to give a legal opinion out of doors, he would say that the' old authorities could not now be adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no declaration of war wanted now to constitute war. That is a crotchet that is gone by. Open hostilities constitute war, and no declaration is necessary. But the Hon. Gentleman says that if the declaration of the 16th August be considered as a declaration of war, then the case falls to the ground. He says the declaration of the 16th August was not a declaration of war—l mean the declaration of Gluckstadt. Now, in the first place, what does he give as a definition of a declaration of war? Just look to that declaration of the 16th August. In the first place, I will just read that passage which states that war had actually commenced. If the House would actually read the declaration of war, they would find that the property of English subjects was confiscated, and that all trade was prohibited between the two countries. There is no necessity for a particular form of words in the declaration of war ; but this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries. The Hon. Gentleman says, take the proclamation of 16th Au gust. I will quote some words of that proclamation, to show that England did not enter on this affair with a view of carry ing on the war, but it was to obtain the negotiation by fair means, and, if not, by force. I will use the language used by an Admiral and by a General, who are fair authorities to quote from. The House will allow me to quote their view of the state of affairs as they then existed. They stated that the country was then not the theatre of a negotiation, but of a war. There was a declaration issued on the 16th August, and in December following a declaration was issued on the part of the British Government, that hostilities were already com menced, and these two commanders said that their country was the theatre of a war, and yet the Hon. Gentleman will take this as only a case of reprisal, and says it was no war. The declara tion of war in 1807, by the Crown of England, was not the commencement of this hostility. The King of Denmark issued a declaration against his Majesty, and that was the de claration of the 16th of August, to which the Crown of Eng land, in its own declaration of war, alluded. It was said that this was no declaration of war. I must say it is sometimes diffi cult to say what conclusions may be come to on legal questions, but when any man of sense reads these papers, and looks them through, I cannot conceive that he can have a doubt that the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Campbell, Sir W. Follett, and his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Worcester, were right, that this was a declaration of war, and that these were fair and legal reprisals. I am afraid that on those occasions only those who are interested in the ease, and those who have constituents interested in the cage, were present . in the House. and that comparatively a very small number of independent Members of the Hou_ie took any interest in the question then before the House. He was sorry to have troubled the House, but he need not apologise as he was anxious to support the real and correct view of the case. Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, Sir, I have been, amongst others, requested to support these claims, and in giving them my support, I assure you, that I do not do so without some re servation. I willinot trespass long on the attention of the House, but confine my remarks to the meaning of the Hon. Gentle man who in his speech argued there was a declaration of war. The main point, it seems to me, to be considered, is whether or not there was a declaration of war. It appears to me, the fact of two of the other claims having been declared as good, is an admission that there was no declaration of war.—( Cries of " No, no," and " hem, hear.") I understood it to be so stated, and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W. Follet, as far as the other two eases were concerned.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot see h ow t h e R i ght Hon. Gentleman and the Government can admit these claims as they have done, with out giving up the position of the declaration of war. see no reason w h y t h e present claim can be rejeted, havin g conceded th e o th er c l a i ms, on the ground of the declaration of war; and you must, therefore, argue the case upon totally different grounds. Wi t h regard to the opinio of the law officers of the Crown, I must say that great care should be exercised in taking their opinion. I have uniformly observed that legal gentlemen give dif ferent o pi n i ons when in office to what they give when they ar e i n d ependent Members. When the Governtn er tasks them f or an opinion they are more disposed to give a favour.l able opi n i on t h an when they are out; as, occupying the position they do, they are pledged to support the Gov ernment. When they are out of office, when ty give an opinion, their legal character is at stake, but when they are in office it is well kno wn th at they are expected to support the Government and their opinion is expected to be accordingly. In as far as I learn, legal gentlemen when out of office, have given an opinion i n f avour of these claims. But on this occasion it appears that the Attorney-General and Solicitor -General shrinks from coming forward to support the Government. This proves they must think the case one of uncommon strength. If the Government had a leg to stand upon, the law officers would no doubt have been here to support them. But instead, we find the case so strong and convincing, that the law officers are unwilling to appear in their places in the House, in order to support the G overnment. I must further observe, that the legal charact er o f b oth these gentlemen, when they, were in dependent Members, was distinctly pledged to support these claims, on the ground of international law.—(Hear, hear.) On the grounds of justice, therefore, I am compelled, on the present occas i on, to give my support and vote to the Hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the present mation. Mr. WAKELY said, I wish to ask a single question of the Right Hon. Gentleman who represents the Government. favour the G overnment pay the money if the House decides in The in faou of the motion.—(Loud cries of " Hear, . ne a question h as b een d ec id e d severa l times be fore, by a vote in its favour, yet the Government had not given effect to it. In doin g th a t h a d t h ey no t b e en guilty of contempt to the House—(Loud cheers)—and were they .not liable to solitary 00 alOment a 3 much all the lion. Gentleman whose case hail lately excited the attention of the House? The House, on forms r occasions, has repeatedly decided in favour of these claims, yet the Government has treated them with contempt. —(Hear, hear.) A legal argument has arisen, and out of that wilderness it appears we shall not get, for the Hun. and Learned Member behind me, when he commenced his speech, said that, in every principle of justice and of inter national law, this money ought to be paid, and he quoted as his authorities Grotius and Vattel ; but up rises an Honourable and Learned Gentleman on the other side, and he says that, on every principle of international law, the money ought not to be paid ; and he also quotes as his authorities Grotius and Vattel.—( Laughter.) It was per fectly ridiculous to pursue a course like this. These claims ought to be examined on a strict principle of justice. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth stated this evening that he would confine his case to those in which adjudication had already taken place. He said that he would not carry his case further ; and as the House had already four times decided that these claims were just, he wished the House to vindicate that opinion, and thus prevent any necessity for their being further troubled on the matter. Colonel SIBTHORP said, I have always voted for these claims, and I shall always vote for them.—( Laughter. ) Mr. HAWES said, I shall occupy the time of the House but for a very short period, in reply to one or two of the obser vations of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. A great deal has been said about this declaration of war; and my Hon. and Learned Friend has relied upon this as a main point in this case. Now, will the House hear one circumstance inreferenee to that declaration. The expedition left this country in July, and no issued. The expressing any hostile intention was then The convention was signed on the 7th September with Denmark, and it, therefore, had put an end to any previous de• claration of war, if such existed. Hostilities, might, therefore, be considered as ceased, and each country was supposed to be on tel_c,6l or tuch; a :mcAAi g slu todgfenundetlteah. understanding hto e hha r n s taN t t aowonfhvaedeNvicoi November put :te with the other. Now, under those of reprisal. Ido say, the n ,rs,a nowb b ut stnt that hd h th e etaao d td. declaration a eih r ne a ttdi the e n e l ao:rfnaanwtnivaoarnl order oronef regis ter theti his in was o merely f Council, authorising the issue of letters marque t o . r the pur poseson the 16th August was superseed by the e convention.ar aio n of whichw ar andsubsequent Ipurposel y conduct.left it B o u u t t t , h b is eca waslu because not tt n aw o ta t es : say t. o a n nl e was afterwards signed by the two couniries e w n o d rd to a b b y ou th t e it ir , question ; it ought not to be decided on technical grounds. technica l have received the money, you have applied the money to your own purposes, and you ought to pay it. —( Hear.) I say it is a clear case of justice. lam not to be met by the techni calities of law, and if you do resort to law, what was the opinion of Sir Wm. Follett and Dr. Lushington ? I hold in my band the opinion of Sir Wm. Follett, in which he states that these very claimants whom you have paid, have no real claim at all. Why did you pay them then? It was on the principles of equity you did so. The words of the opinion aro these ;—" This question is not a question of law, nor have either classes of the claimants any legal claim upon the British Government." You paid the debt—well, why did you do it? You felt that there were higher claims upon you than those of law ; you felt that there were claims of equity and of justice, which you could not dispute. The highest men in the realm have been the advo cates of these claims. Mr. Wilberforce spoke for them, and I ask you was he a man to speak for anything that was unfair or unjust? Why, what have you done? you have granted a solemn investigation into the case, and after having cut down their claim from 500,0001. to 225,000/., are you prepared to turn round and say, we will not pay you ? Why, if you stand upon the high ground of law, you had no right to have put them to this expense. You had no right to have investigated and made a mockery of justice. It is not on a mere question of law I argue ; I argue here as a plain man of business connected with trade , _ and I d o say, that th e trade and interests of this countryhave been treated with injustice, and it is against that injustice that I move for this Committee of Inquiry.—(Cheers, and cries of .‘ Divide r di vide.") The House then divided, For the motion Against it . 5 9 ........ ... ........ . .............. ' Majo r it y f or the motion . 41. ... —lB RAILW AY LABOURERS. Mr. BOUVERIE moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of the labourers employed in the construc tion of railways, and other public works, and into the reme dies which may be calculated to lessen the peculiar evils, if any, of that condition. Mr. EWART seconded the motien. Sir J. GRAHAM was much obliged to the Hon. Member for having brought this subject under the consideration of the House. He had no doubt that the inquiry would be most valuable. He hoped that steps would be taken to check the truck sys tem being established among labourers ; and, at the same time, he hoped that additional powers would be given to railway companies to maintain the peace upon their works. Mr. HUME thought the less they interfered between mas ters and workmen the better. Mr. HUDSON believed that the result of this inquiry would redound to the credit of those who were promoting rail ways. In the railways with which he was connected, the ut most care was paid to the religious wants of the labourers en gaged upon the lines. The companies had placed money in the hands of clergymen to provide religious instruction for the men, and labouring on the Sunday was prohibited. He did not believe there was any necessity for this inquiry. Lord EBRINGTON believed that there was no necessity for the inquiry, because that inquiry had been threatened, and therefore the various railway companies had taken pre cautions. He thought this was a subject which required full investigation, from which investigation important results might be anticipated. Mr. MANGLES could not agree with his Hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland in thinking that this inquiry was unnecessary. He would certainly support the motion, as he believed a great deal of good would result from it. Mr. AGLIONBY wished to express an opinion respecting the class of men called navigators. He believed a great amount of the evils complained of arose from want of proper supervision. He did not believe they were worse than other bodies of men, at least as far as his experience went. Still an inquiry ought to be made as to the best means of dealing with these large bodies of men. Mr. WAKLEY could not see any good that would arise out of this inquiry. What was complained of was, that the men preferred seeking pleasure on Sunday instead of going to church ; and he could not see how any legislation of theirs could meet the state of things complained of. The real evil, however, was, they had neglected the education of the people. That was well known, and needed no inquiry. Their la bourers had not been taught self-respect, and hence it was they did not show that propriety of conduct which was de sirous. He could not see how, after neglecting the petitions of the working classes for factory legislation, they could attempt to control bodies of men like those who were the subject of the present inquiry. Sir GEORGE GREY thought the subject was an impor tant one, and one that ought to be inquired into. As far as he understood it, the object in view was not to coerce or restrain these labourers, but to surround them with efficient moral and religious influences. Mr. Peto, the extensive contractor, had adopted most effective means in this respect, and his arrange ments might be introduced with great effect in other works throughout the country. A Committee of Inquiry would, in his opinion, have a most beneficial effect. Sir W. JOLLIFFE concurred with the Right Hon. Gentle mtn who had just sat down. Bricklayers and other kind of labourers were protected, but this class of labourers were not, and they had a most especial claim on their attention, especi ally as they suffered a great deal from the truck system. Mr. O'CONNELL thought the inquiry would do nothing but good, and he would support it. With regard to the truck system, against which Hon. Members expressed such horror, he believed that, in many cases, it was attended with benefit, as persons with large capital could supply goods cheaper than small shopkeepers. Mr. B. DENISON was of opinion, that though those of large capital could supply goods cheaper , it did not f o ll ow t h ey did so. He did thi n k th e labouring classes were enititled to protection. He agreed that some means should be taken to protect them as well as to supply them with moral and religious instruction. He, therefore, supported the motion. Dr. BOWRING cordially concurred in the inquiry. He could see no evil that could come of it, but much good. The motion was then agreed to. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that he had two notices on the paper. One was No. 9, the other No. 22. Now the latter number should have been No. 9, it having been, by mistake, printed No. 22. He hoped, therefore, the House would look over the mistake, which did not arise from him, and allow him to proceed with No. 22. Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to this course, as establish ing a bad precedent and one that might be attended with great inconvenience. He must resist the Hon. Member going into any other motion than that at No. 9, the next in order on the paper. - - Mr. J. O'CONNELL intimated, that believing the House would have overlooked the mistake, and having served a notice on the Clerk of the House last night, to correct it in the votes this morning, but which had not been done, he had prepared himself for No. 22, and was not ready to go on with No. 9. DR. FITZGERALD. Mr. O'CONNELL then moved that there be laid before this House a copy of the correspondence between the Irish Govern mentt and Dr. Fitzgerald, stipendiary magistrate in the co n ti a n tw : of Waterford, on the subject of the trial of pers on s o o f h of Keyly, who were tried at the last assize s . flV t at e erford, said Dr. _pronounced severe censure on the conduct of . . . the said trial before the Lord Chief Baron, and upon which the Chief Baron Fitzgerald. Alsn, copy of the report o Also a copy of the depositions tak t eE e b t y ie t furnished by the Lord Chief Baron to the e against the prisoners previou s affidavits placed on the motion Keyly to bail previous to the t rial, wi th h :a r id Dr. Fitzgerald - r 1. Also copies of the Irish Government. '. to o for admitting the said prisoner the decision of the Court thereon. The Hon. Gentleman said the conduct of the magistrate in question had been such as to call forth the severe condemnation of Lord Chief Baron Grady, who had characterised his conduct as illegal and unconstitutional. He moved for these returns, which, when furnished, it was his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not deny the importance of the question involved, and had no objection to the depositions being furnished, but he could not accede to the other returns sought. The Hon. and Learner? Gentleman had referred to a statement of the Lord Chief Baron, characterising the conduct of Mr. Fitzgerald as unconstitutional and illegal. The magistrate had been removed from the district where the man was given into custody. He was sorry to say that this conduct was not all singular on the part of the magis trates. He hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would not press his first motion, as under the present circumstances of the case it would be unnecessary. Mr. O'CONNELL said he must persist in putting the motion, in order that they might appear to have been negatived, as they had an ulterior object. Were a magis trate of the quarter sessions in England not to give a prisoner an opportunity of cross-examining a witness, he would not re main half an hour in the commission of the peace. Here was a stipendiary magistrate, w tth a laige income, and who had been several years acting, and who could, therefore, not plead ignorance, who had conducted himself in this man ner. H e (M r. O ' Connell) should at present de no more to than the to allow th e t wo fi rst motions to be negatived, and p before the two latter. Th e Ri g h t H on. Baronet could have no to his motio n f or a copy of that letter to be laid House. objectiones The motions were then put, and the two first were nega tived, and the two latter motions carried. Sir. HUME moved that the following gentlemen be chosen to form the Committee on Private Bills : Mr. Hume, Mr. Greene, Mr. Loch, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Strutt, Sir William Somerville, Sir William Clay, Sir George Grey, Cap tain Jones, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Worsley, Viscount Ebrington, Mr. Estcourt, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. James Wortley, with power to send far persons, papers, and records; five to be a quorum. Mr. WAWN moved for a return, in detail, and a true and correct copy of the solicitor's bill for the year 1345 for obtain ing the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 73, of last session (Newcastle. upon-Tyne Coal Turn), and law business generally, he by the sum of 1,985/. 25. 2d. of the trust moneys were expended ! also under what authority (if any) the sum of 3791. 16s. 6d . was " paid to the Committee for erecting a memorial to the late Lord Collingwood. with a beacon in connexion therewith, at the mouth of the Tyne as a landmark for the shipping ;" the cost of erecting the beacon (if erected), and whether erected by the authorities of the conservators of the river, or by any other and what authority ; also the date of the meeting and a copy of the resolution and the names of the Commis sioners present when the sum of 379/. 16s. 6d. was voted. Mr. HUME was glad to see that the attention of his lion. Friend had been called to this subject, for he had no doubt that a great deal of the public money was squandered in that way and means should be taken to prevent such proceedings by this Bill. After a few words from Sir G. CLERK, the motion was put and carried. . SIH O'BRIEN. Sir ROBERTMR PEEL M sai T d, circumstances have recently coma to myknou ledge in which it appears desirable, although no notice has been given of a motion, that a decision should be come to on the part of this House. The circum stances are these, a Committee of the House of Lords, now inquiring into the operation of the poor-law in Ireland, have expressed a wish some time since, that Mr. Smith O'Brien should have leave from this House to attend on that Committee to give evidence. Mr. O'Brien expressed his readiness to attend, and the House gave him permission to do so. The Committee is fixed for to-morrow, and I have reason to believe that to-morrow is the last day on which they will sit, and there will be no other op portunity of giving his evidence to the House of Lords. I find two precedents which appear to me to be bearing on this point, and on which the House may make an order in this matter. These two cases are, where persons being in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arnas, the House had given orders to the Ser geant to permit their presence to give evidence in the House of Lords. Under that opinion I propose to move that the record of the 16th of March, 1841, be read. And I also propose that this House do give leave to Mr. Smith O'Brien to attend and give evidence in the Lord's Committee, as he himself is de sirous of doing so. The motion was then put and carried. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Ten o'clock. PARLIAMEN TAR Y DI VISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) TRURSDAY, APRIL 30. DANISH CLAIMS. Motion made, and Question put, " That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an Address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to the Claimants for losses sustained by the seizure of British Ships and Cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807, the amount of their respective lasses, as ascertained by the Commissioners appointed for the investigation of Danish Claims, and reported upon the 20th day of May, 1840, and assuring her Majesty that this House will make good the same." The House divided:— MAJORITY -AYES, 59. Aglionby, Tr. A. Gibson, Thomas M. Ogle, S. C. Baine, Walter Harmer, Sir John Ord, William Bannerman, A .0 I - . otharn, Lord G. Barclay, David Palmer, Hudson, G. Pechell, Captain Barnard, E. G. Hume, Joseph Powell, Caleb Borthwick, P. Ilurnphery, Ald. Richards, Richard Bouverie, E. P. Butt, Broadley, I/. William Browne, H. D. a 11,131 1 ( 11 j fi ll i c a sa natineclesmeles;;lzS. a i i i Tou l n e r . ,: e. l An T jn v e.. .. r.iinai ITI, S 88 v : i t P :!::: Inib:eerlaisrylonodi:d,T,C, Colona ISui. Richarded i a sn . Browne, W. Buller, Charles Cayley, E. S. iv 1,1 1 11 V :,...a a rw nr k l e, esd , e , y lt eir.G:Tm. Thomas ar I Ills Chapman, Aaron Christie, W. D. D'Eyncourt, C. T. Neeld, Joseph y Duke, Sir J.. Duncan, George O'Brien, reYs r B l i r m p o ill Esmonde, Sir T. O'Connell, Daniel Evart, William O'Connell, Maurice Fielden, John O'Connell, John O'Conor, Dun r Mat hew TELLEns. Hawes, Benj. Watson, Rory MINORITY—NOES, 41. A'Court, Captain Cripps, William Neville, Ralph Barkly, Henry Darner, Colonel Patten, J. W. Baring, F. T. Douglas, Sir C. E. PelL:Sir R. Baring, W. B. Duckworth, Sir J. Peel, Jonathan Bowles, Admiral Escott, Bickham Smythe, George Brooke, Lord Fitzrry, Henry Somerset, Lord G. Bruce, Lord E. Flower, Sir J. Sutton, 11. 3!. Buckley, Edmund Goulburn, Baty Trench, Sir F. Cardwell, E. Graham, Sir James Tufnell, Henry Carew, %V. P. Greene, Thomas Wellesley, Lord C. Carnegie, Captain Nate;, Sir E. Bart. Wortley, J. S. Clerk Sir George Hope, G. W. Cockburn, Sir G. Jermyn,lEarl TELLERS. Compton, H. C. 11`Neill, Duncan Young, John Corry, 11. Meynell, Captain Baring, Henry COURT CIRCULAR, The Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Buckingham, the Duke of Cleveland, and the Earl of Lonsdale, had audiences Yesterday of th e Q ueen at Buckingham Palace, to present ad- His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by Mr. George Edward Anson, went yesterday morning to the office of the Duchy of Cornwall, in Somerset House. Her Majesty, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice, and attended by the Dowager Lady Lyttelton, took an airing yesterday in an open carriage and four. His Royal Highne - es Prince Albert was on horseback, and the Equerries in Waiting, the Hon. Colonel Grey, and Lieut.-Colonel Seymour, attended on horseback. His Royal Highness Prince Alfred took an airing yester day in the pleasure grounds of the Palace. her Majesty the Queen Dowager took an airing yesterday in a carriage. Their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Glou cester and the Duke of Cambridge visited her Majestyyester da at Marlborough H ouse . Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, accompanied by the Baroness de Speth, left town yesterday morning for Frog more House, Windsor. Her Royal Highness returned to her residence, Clarence House, St. James's, at half-past five o'clock in the afternoon. The Spanish Minister transacted business yesterday at the Poreign-office. Prince Castelcicala was present at the debate in the House of Commons yesterday evening. A meeting of the Metropolitan Termini Commissioners was held yesterday. There were present the Earl of Dalhousie, Sir Frederic Smith, and the Lord Mayor. The Solicitor -General of Ireland had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday at his official resi dence in Downing -street. The Earl of Radnor and Mr. Wilson had an interview with the Earl of Dalhousie yesterday at the office of the Board of Trade. Dispatches were sent off yesterday evening from the Colonial -office for the Governors of New South Wales and Van Diemeu's Land. COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON INTELLIGENCE. APRIL 30.—The annual general meeting of the members of the squadron :is to take place at the Thatched House Tavern, on the Bth of May, when there will be eight candidates ballotted ror. The Commodore's yacht is ordered to be got readywith all possible dispatch. We are happy to say that his Lordship continues to im - prove in health, and is expected to leave the Royal Yacht Squadron House for Appulchircomb, to-morrow. On Monday the cutter yacht Corsair, the property of John Congreve, Esq., was launched front Hansen's patent slip. She has been lent for the season to the Marquis of Ormande. On Tuesday was launched from Mr. Ralsey's yard the cutter yacht Sultana, for It. C. Naylor, Esq, The Gondola, building in the same yard, Will be launched next spring tide. Sir Edward Paget has taken . , Egypt House. We are happy to hear he is much improved in health. Sir Bellingham Graham has taken Lord de Grey's house ; Mr. Knight, the Small Pavilion ; Sir Shelly, No. 2,: Bath-buildings ; C. Deacon, Esq., No. 1 ; Mrs. Wiggins, Sea-view House. Lord Feversharn and several other fachionables have applied for houses. The Emperor of Russia's yacht, building in White's yard, is nearly complete, as is the Earl of Cardigan's ; the other yachts are not so forward. VERY LIRE BRAnkm.—l was once in the theatre royal of a large city where the principal voealist, for such an exten sive establishment, was mediocre indeed. The house was miserably attended. The singer advanced to the front lights, hat in hand, and evidently imagined that he was no small beer. After the first verse. whilst the musicians were playing the symphony, an urchin from the upper gallery thrust his wicked head through the rails, and the still ness of the house rendering his juvenile voice audible and distinct, " Mr. R., Mr. 8.," cried the joking youngster, and the vocalist looked aloft as bland its man could do. " Mr. 8.," continued the embryo wag, " Mr. 8., you put me very much in mind of Mr. Braham." The singer's face was covered with smiles, he felt inwardly that he was a great man, and no doubt would have bowed his politest ac knowledgments had the interrogator been the only auditor. " You do put me in mind of Mr. Braham," continued the rougish young dog, " that is, Mr. 8., you hold your hat very like Mr. Braham,a rt that is all you do like him." The smiles vanished, the self-satiSfled face gave way to the most demoniacal contortions, and furiously stamping the stage with his foot, as if he would have sunk the theatre, he made a hurried and melo-dramatic exit amidst the loudest laughter of the slender auditory.—From the HISS. Memoirs of John Easby. 4AMSGATE, APRIL 30.—0 n the opening of the branch of the South-Eastern Railway from Canterbury to this town, two splendid fast steamers, the Princess Mary and Princess Maude, were placed here to run regularly between this port and Ostend, since which the number of passengers has regularly increased, and the communication with Belgium has daily become greater. This morn ing upwards of forty passengers, with seven horses and two car riages, were landed here, and proceeded by railway without loss of time. When the facilities of embarking and landing here at all times of tide, without the risk and unpleasantness if boats, are more generally known to the public, we haven* doubt that a very considerable intercourse with the Continent and Ramsgate will follow, more especially as It is the nearest British port to Ostend. _ BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY.—The great annual meeting of this respectable society was held yesterday, in Exeter ball. The chair was taken by Mr. I'eto. The hall was inn t.. all Its si‘ t Li a ao k sw e o r n i_a o l t f o T g th e h t e h e i r l , !, :tn o e age, a large all T ex h t e en h t i , ig a h r i i e d st m sp in iri fs t ters of fr u o b l al i liberality i a a r r ii t m e i r i s at o e f d th t e he king .se cio ni m bl were present. number of subscriptions, varying from 5001. (of which there were "Ed a ed si aside, between . ll°'::T suns, Life Guards, came ffmyeenslaeirsdeanym,eleacr was most spirited meetings of a religious character on record. of many) tii, t o !. na at v tkt i s,ho g :fi b oT e tr e h- n eß2 l sA ia c. ground was beautifully kept throughout aahEdnilvdeicrolep: corporal :C T' r e aAa l . r dßsl T YVin h a e spirit of the officers and ° t e he Blues, on the side of Mason ; the Life 3 nd a ab ra le A e T i li t h ee i Ci ly i st e an n ce in t e ) Guards in one continuous line doing pion. The was • duty on the side of their C start gained by Masonll'72- yard and a half he got at .• atter two attempts, and the springing • • • distance, and be filially \ oft Le improved throughout the and fast run was hailed the victor aft race. The whole arr ,er a well-contested credit on all concerned in this manlyangements reflected the highest PEDESTRIANISM 11. rivalry of activity and speed. Mitchell and W. Jones (of Marylebone) ran their match of 150 ' Bottom, Jones giving two yards, on Monday, at Acton yards start ; the stake was ten sovereigns. At fifty yards Jones was should Shortly alter he drew a little ' a head er . a „i n i ci t , shoulder with his man. Eventually Jones was the winner by yardtcheoll, however, run ell ; or so, after whatw cannot call other than a doubtfully run race. EA DVERTISEM EN T.] —lll e Atrapilatory, or Liquid Hair Dye, the only dye that really answers for all colours, and does not require re-doing, but as the hair grows, as it never fades or acquires that unnatural red or purple tint common to all other dies. Ross and Sons can, with the greatest confidence, recoramend the above dye as infallible, if done at their esta blishment ; and ladies or gentlemen requiri ng i t are ew it i ,re quested to bring a friend or servant with them to see t h without the used, which will enable them to do it afterwar ds chance of failure. Several private apartments devote d en tirely to the above purpose, and some of their establishment be They having used it, the effect produced can at once seen. think it necessary to add, that by attending strictly to the in structions g iv en succeeded equally well without coming to them. Address Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, London, the ce lebrated Perruquiers, Perfumers, Hair-cutters, and Hair•dyers : A most important addition and improvement to Ross 1 2 Sons' Liquid Hair Dye. Ross and Sons most respenetfually_o. in form the public that they have succeeded in produc i n g g ..y .r._ _ Po made, that after the hair has once been thorou ghly_ order, and by and the most beautiful their Atrapilatory, will keep it in prevent it again showing grey, with no This most astonishing no mor e trouble than ap plying any other sort of grease to a, above. invention is only to be had of t h em, themselves tne following To Gentlemen who shave themselves t cutlers iu Europe e and d—WhY a° an the rs bl t Razor Strop? The query is propose , your-sided Tablet e recommend Saundorl i i s h ti onlY oug that gives tO a razor a answer is pininty became M t ko I, Y, 0, strtind. no: anutto keen and surhOth a 3 —THE FAME OF HOLLOWA Y ' S CALvERTIsinf ENT. ahead aches, dimness of sight, derang e d PILLS in the cure st om ach s, likewise in strewth a nd • • disordered livers, restoring , vigour in cases of and constitutions, is so great that even in.the East Indies the different castes of natives are taking but little other ruedieines than these famous pills. Ono native agent in the Presidency of Bombay sold, lately, retail fifty-three dozen boxes in fifteen days. The extraordinary curse performed by these pills, , when all other means fail, is truly wonderful. Females will find this a most admi rable medicine. —Sold by all druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, :Arand, London. irECLA.--Two geol, gists have been dispatched to Iceland by the Hanoverian Government, at the instance of the Royal Society of Sciences of Gottingen, to study the phenomena of the eruptions, and analyse the volcanic substances emitted. Berra Berg and Waltershausen, the gentlemen chosen, will set out without delay for Copenhagen, whence they are to =bask for Renstyak, t he capital of Iceland. GRAND REGATTA AT OSTEND. — T h e Town Council In a grand regatta, of Ostend have v ot e d a su m of 2,500 f. for pr ize s and the 12th of Jul y to take place there between the 25th of Jane The great English yacht d th I inteattou . !F clubs have expresse d ,e_r attend.