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

~- W e ri ch Prisn ' t he objects of this Bill. He did hope - that that t , / 1,11 0 fact contain a cl a u se s i m il ar t o t h at t o whim Noole . Bsr ,n obj,ctsd woe! i n,st, pa-.s that [louse, but h was quit' -tug that it ever i t reac h e d th eir Lordship's table it would who either be larg .1v rn “lifi-d or alteoether rejected. lie was at the present time Prime Minister of the county,. and w ho had been mainly instrume 'tat in passing the Act id :,? 419 : had stated in th e ti niesty of his heart, and he believed "'! , heart w as h onest, that if ever any effectyo.l attempt were _ made to do a way w i t h thesmallall seCanty hich that Ae preserved, he would give it his sternest and most decided o k i- Position. The Bill in the other House had already passed the second readin g , b u t h e b e li eve d that it w ou ld be impos siblefor it to receive the sanction of the Legislature. In the Act of 1829 there was a section of what the Noble Baron termed petty relation, but which he himself conceived to b e o f l i t t l e Importance. 7 hat section imposed a penalty of 100. up on any 00 e assuming the title of bishop, archbishop, or dean of an; F r ":ince to whi c h t h ey were not ent i t l e d b y t h e law of t h e a nd. be. It was evident to their Lordships, that there cou ld no t vv .!'" bishops of the same province at on e ti me . Th e f act estahli4he i l and the law that ruled it was recognised ; an t it w as no derogation from it, that the offen ce h a d been repeat edly committed, because there was a difficulty in bringing the parties who h a d o ff en d e d under the penalties of the Act. It 7 , a -i !I:o.not because l e t ters - appeare d i n the newspapers, s i gne d n of Tuam,” that the parties were consequently convicted of the offence. 'they might certainly sub-. Pia the editors, but unless it could be shown that a letter nwartiltibnegen actually placed in their hands, signed in the hand of the p erson who claimed the title, they had no legal proof - of the offence. But there was another important conse quence which flowed from what the Noble Baron called petty legislation. This was the declaration, under the Act of 1829. that the Church of England arid Ireland was the Catholic Church i and that the Romanists either in this country or in Ireland, were in a state of schism —( Hear, hear.) He would now ask if the Roman Catholics were fit persons to be trustees to present to benefices? He was astonished that the refusal of the state to grant such a power could be con sidered a degradation. It was a gross anomaly in the law of the 14d'to allois any but members of the Established Chu rch to Make .s uc h presentations. Before concluding he would !allude briefly to the Bill itself in some of its provisions. This was not the first nor the hundreth time the qeestion of supremacy Was discussed. If the Bill passed in its present form they would be countenancing the assumption of the supremacy of the Pope in the most illiberal manner that any Pope chose to assert. He would be glad to concur with, the Noble and Learned Lord in mitigating th denalties of prsemuire and high trea , on, hut the enactment as torthe supremacy of the. Pope o u g ht to have been left un touched, and he considered the safest way would have been to mitigate these penalties rather than abolish them altogether. Nominally the,Pope had no direct temporal power, but the,. he had' that power indirectly. He had the power of de throning kings. It would be remembered that the Pope, when he aka elected to the pontifieal throne, sent letters to th• soveieigns of Europe announcing the fact. During the reig: of Napoleon, the Pope deposed eighty bishops because the' did not subscribe their allegiance. to him. Now this act. c the Pope was defended by the great friend of Roman Catholic- Mr. Charles Butler, who went into a very able and learns., argn)cent in support of this deposition of bishops, because the:- would not give the allegiance which they had sworn to Loni the Eighteenth, to the usurper of the throne. He was again's , taking off the statute book the penalty of supporting and extend ing the pernicious principles instilled by the supremacy of th, Pope. No difficulty had been experienced from the existence 0 these Acts except that they were declared to be a disgrace to th statute book, and if their Lordships gave them up, they would to att4 extant, be acknowledging thel supremacy of the Popp. The common law of the country discountenanced this supre .. Macy, and'he could see no reason why they should not do se in the present Act. It was difficult for him to say how the , should do this, but because it w a s surrounded with difficulty he would leave it in the hands of his Noble and Learnd Frier on the woolsack, believing that, his active and intelligent min woutd find some means for getting rid of the difficulty. Lord BEAUMONT wished to join with his Noble Friene who, sat next him, in thanking the Noble and Learned Lori' for introducing this Bill, and to say a few words upon th subject last alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate who had jest resumed his seat.—( Hear, hear.) Ho was not surprised that - the Government had thought it necessary to take some measure, for securing themselves against the supremacy of the Pope, but there were abundant means for guarding against any abase of their privileges which their priests might exercise. They might well avoid all this by a concordat, or by doing a• every other Government in Europe had done, by placing themselves in relation with the Government of Rome. Had they done so, all difficulty would have ceased, for to all thos Governments which had done so, rescripts had been forwarded empowering them to take the direction of the clergy into thei, owtglsands, and then it became their duty to be as obedient it all s - fatal matters as it was their duty to be in temporaL But in f 1 4 .,1.his dogma of supremacy was altogether regulated dill ":. , :;rules than those which were generally supposed to he. The oima of supremacy, in fact, had never been fully carried aut.*,X.het. was the course which the Court of Rome had pur sue, and to Spain? What. with regard to France ane 11.044-?.-:,,Why, it was well known that the Pope hat; ney ~ ' Attfi444o4-lhotie)ergy wtb a1 1 4 3 41.4k-athftsr4lo. - Who repudiated his anthority-,:. or : taken any steps tis - 'pussta-s; them. Thenoii gitTarcitlt7tiaeqssineiple-ofkascnt#lffikabis au premacy, the rule was, tit ths.bnll waiimyeitterseaeakistlie` bulls might• be itstted4- decidedly contrary texa4ney.,,,.44 . -:Un . WI was ever f o r L atally-wisisdrawn. - Thus itwas aupposed th ,a 40 .. gu t i was , s till,insistedUsion. but no.greater mistake could tic With. respeetto the Act ofcthe 13th of Eli theat its passing ; and Eli zabeth wl'ilas%irt.at all surprised when is looked track to the period, and o f those circums tances circurn staneesbYhewwas.h i no W" 6".* and'a t h t is A o c r t y pattinSr. nor could he charge the at attatietuaae.l athtnn it became law with the spirit of persecu, parties through w tionsvithiehslais'l s ( lo Friend had ascribed to them. As to th. t h no,of bulls, it need only be observed the• theyq amply Passe' clangor of pievetilga ' - 'llltrangh' the post-office 'end if there tastsf sa or .troasonaete matter in them, - the partie wereerty..4inge.rou equally . liable to t . with publis/Ainji In were prosecu►ion an ! othea iloctrinal offenders agonst the law. If the law of su premisey had been anything melt as it was represented to he, he would be a bad Catholic if he did not hold it op, and exto it as his Noble Friend had done, instead of utterly and entire' repAdiating it, as he emphatically did at the present moment He felt bound to say that the attempt to introduce Papal domi. nation in temporal affairs in all the continental countries, wa withont'snecess. He would askthem to repeal those numernu Aots with reference to persons pro•essing the Roman Catholi relitinit 4 ';ind to blot them out at once in the statute. Lel their laws eie - a little more in accordance with the other civilise,' Governments or 7urope t end let measures be adopted at one, to do away with the anornialy - Their Lordships might b assuecentat there was .nothing' to fear at the present momeo, with respeet to any attempted usur_pet ion of the Papal power this country. They knew little of the Roman - Catholic spiri' if they could think that any attempted interference on the par of the. Pope in teMporal affairs would not b' resisted. Wer they acquainted with the state of society on the Continent, a" situ the spirit which existed in the various Roman Catholi State's ? Did they know what was the general feeling whit. , reigned in the society in Italy and also in Spain within the la , year or two ? Had they read the writings of various learne :authors - in France? He was convinced there was no danger it the present measure, and would willingly in expungin,. tfkusevobrroziotts Acts from the statute-book. He would leave honker - the entire management of all ulterior arrangemen to 14i Noble and Learned Friends. L.iid - OpLCHES'TER said the Noble Lord had referred the Lemporal changers in the Pope's supremacy which had bee. inade-inwther countries. He thought that the Pope had acte ,, veevs isely in inteeering in Spain, Por!ugal, and other emir'. tries, because the state of men's minds in those countries wa such as not to admit of any interference en the part of the Pop, in their temporal affairs. He thought t hat very great change vr eretalcx'ng place among the clergy in our country, and i was isn't altogether clear that their domination might not u lteriotly . be lia greatly increase d if steps were not taken to preven s quite willing to acquiesce in the principles of tha .aout whit:lh pl,7ovided that no penalty should be inflicted on an.- Perla* profess up' any religion, whether he were a Roman Ca tholKa" LJecr, , of . a MabameAan• .- Li:Irct . ',CAMPBELL said he did not wish to thro-i any oh stacWin the ss'ay of his Noble and Learned Friend, hut h. thowlit at; all is.es - its he ought to have introduced the two Bills tegeaher, that they might be and their Lordthips might ha.:,re the opportunity o f P i as ng s o u f r both. Th. statf of the law with respect to Itiman Ca tholics oat dis graceful. Roman Colholies were obliged to sa cs b i ' l l a i a e g t v i n e t . w t as no partiof their religion .`a say that they did not believ e lawful to murder a man vim had been excommunicated i t ;h a ; Pope, Wore accepting any .office of trust. Noble Lords L • s pro. leasing the Roman Catholic religion, before they could take s seat in that House, were compelled to take an oath that they did i l ot think . it lawful, if her Majesty were excom mun i cate d that could be dethroned by her subjects. The Bill, in it , presaart form, met with his most hearty approval. 'He f.-tt. sa ti, Led, that unless some understanding' was come to between this country and the Pope of Rome, the Raman Catholic clergy in Great Britain would never be at rest wish respect to the re ligioise power s they might possess and exexcise. An arrange ment might easily be made which would settle all differences. He hoped that the Bill would pass with the almost unanimou, opinion of the House, and trusted that the Noble and Learne Loral on the Woolsack would bring his other Bill before the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said he would dea' - with the case of supremacy. It had been suggested by a Right :Rev,. - Prelate, that tie Judges should be summoned, in order to give their opinion upon that point. He objected to such a pro sceeding, because that point was so clear, that the Judges would it a mere waste of time for them to attend. A very high otati.',ority had been consulted, and his opinion was clearly io ac.eoi-clance with his own, which had been expressed on a former occas ion. Another question with re-peat to the promulgation of bu 111 from the see of Rome, had arisen. nulls had, however, been imported with impunity into Scotland, and no harm had ariset ~ nor had any harm been anticipated. Why, then, was there any danger to apprehend from their importation En gtand ? The harm was purely imaginary, and was no ,- vrortlh a moment's consideration. Lo rd CAMPBELL wanted to know when they might ex • pest ;to see the other Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend? Thi e LORD CHANCELLOR said that perhaps his Noble and Leaaned Friend would take charge of it himself. — (Hear. ) He' believed that " bulls" were included in the e w• tai.iff, and would perhaps be admitted under a Custom nou ae regulation. T was then read a second time, and ordered to he comva The it Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COAX M ..._ ONS, April 30. THE DANDANISH CLAIMS. M t .:. HAWES ros e once more Ist much confusion, and spoke as follovesi,. -- - - -Sir, „re make venture to mak e au a pp ea l t o the House, and once in on tiL paper of to-day, tothe motion which I have placed sir, after . .. which a occurred in Denmark in which arose out of tran.aetions C onsider of those D an i s h c l a i ms canarrents which have bten the :fear 1807. adde med. against this que st ii m u : discussions which • folio's place upon it, I should haeridillany have in o. twin ing the time of the House, n l y feel m y self j ustified stror 'gest conviction of the equity am ii . ess I entertaine.l the I will endeavour, Sir, to compress whajusltice of these claims. narro vs • compass. Now, Sir, the argu m entsthave to say into a which have been r a i ie di: against these claims have mere! enab , iet 1 to consider them, resolved there%Loe far as I have been s into two in num ber. ' They have been of a financial eharacter, urged it pon the H ouse from ti me t o time by the w hich have b een Chancello r o f the * thequer, who, I think, rather looked to th e eetiwg--- the claims than to the justi ce o f difficulty of rn the case ' f he other, pcharacter, o+t jection was of a far more important * and one that I , "in I feel much di ffi culty in contending w that 'the legal objections whi'-h have been raised , e spec ially"'l own the f ilon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, who has ex h ib ited by e ons . id era Ne knowledge of law—especially international aw are d iffiCtiit . to meet. I kno . v. also, that the re are many diffi euttip is surroum2ing. this question. Nevertheless, those diffi enlti. as which have been urged have not deterred the House, on fl an, 7 occasions, frond affirming. by considerable majoriti es , th e Asti. ee of the c h i i : . a s that were urged on the attention of Ile Howe. Now the circumstances out of which these alt ° 3 arose T may 'tate in a very few words. In the yearcll; 4 8 117, the British Go Nernment having been informed that - " 4 nish fleet A AA • t o be , 'llse d at the disposal of Napoleon, adverse to the %West sof this country, determined, upon the in; 41113 ationwhi c h had •eived, to take for Tiity r . e: measures I lemlß g that 'ion was one that wag got tie fleet. The expedi. w ith' the ae0 ,,, , ___, greatest secrecy and the greatest promptitude , and I ".• -- - 'uY . viefer to th e d u ti es r e lating to the fitting out and ire halfof the expedition on the coast of Denmark, in order to show to the fintise that the expedition was so prompt and cret that. the British merchants could not by possibility have aid any intimation of it. That expalii en sailed from this -every on the 27th of July, and arrived with the British 'slinkier, at. C•prnit,gen, the lst of August. Copenhagen ves invested on the 8' h. This expaeitien went not for the ,•urpese, a, it. has since; transpire of making a hostile aggress to on Demo trk, bu'_ fir the purpose of eilforeiog a neeo oon. A negotiation was entered into on the arrivol of the :}dot off the coast of Denmark, before any act of hostility maseenced. It continued even for a considerable ime after. The Danish fl et was seized, and Denmark, of sourse, placed an embargo on British property, and British vessels, an Danish property and vessels were in turn seized by •he British. Our Government took property to the am mot of !,3' o,oao , and the Danish Government seized property to ialf that amount. The negotiations had commenced before a sintrle shot was fired, as I have before said, and continued long :titer the surrender of the fleet and the seizure and confiscation if property. This negotiation came to no satisfactory ri, c on : he ion, and Denmark declared war against this c• r iSeeember Great Britain declared war against. of him, the 4th of November following; but it was not until n o til n t m he a Y r 2 k 4th o lt f i r s r u e r a g s e n t r l y b , y t t f h h e e ft w ig i h il t and neces.. that this declaration of war on our parr was natural s ii ier m alit G an er e lt f le or m a an m , s m h e e n F t i t r o st re L fe o r rd to attacked by British arms while a vas seized, anti Copenhagen • ary in defence of our own property. The fleet of Denmark os• Hues were to cease, and that lld all public convention was pending; and this aive n i t t i l o t : a d n ella p r r e t d va t t h e at pr a o l . l to this convention for the ; Jerry was to be re,pected- a been i o n t. force have e lara b t war. up to and at ,urpose o d f s a t t iow t i h n e g p t e h r a io t d l theitofumeu st I have alluded, and therefore the parties Hie declaration of war did not set aside the provisions of the convention to which for whom l seek the protection of the Hou-e were entitled to he benefits of its provisions. Not to give them that benefi t .vas a flsgrant violation of that convention. The debts arose lit of the declaration, of war. Some time after these trans. actions took place, Mr. Canning made a remarkable de elaration on this subject. It was in answer to Mr. Perceval, who brought the question of ti , ssse claims under the eonsidera `ion of the House. (The Hon. Member here read the extract, sat from the noise that prevailed in the House it was impos ..ible to catch the. words. I's purport was, as far as we could gather, an admission on the part of the Government, that the -!aims were founded in justice and ought to be entertained.) Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the trans .stion at the time which it happened, it was certain since hat time Parliament had on several occasions admitted, hat the applicants who had suffered during that war, and ander the convention to which he had referred, were entitled o consideration. The claims put forward were of three kinds. The first claim was that of those who had debts swing to them by Danish subjects. The second kind of 21aim were those preferred by merchants who had goods seized to the occasion. And the third claims were those of parties "rho had an interest in ships and cargoes thatsuffered in the war. he words of the minutes of that convention acknowledged the 'save of the claims advanced by the three classes; and in the fears 1835 and 1836, the first two classes of claimants had their emands settled. In a year or two afterwards, the subject was 'gain brought under the consideration of the Government and of the country, and the Government received upwards of 1,300,00i1/. in order to settle these claims. But the Govern elent, although allowing the justice of those claims, refused to iiforee redress, although they held I roperty amply sufficient to • atisfy the claimants. In the year 1839, the subject was again isought before the House, and who brought it forward ? It "as brought forward, not by an humble individual like myself, ;hose opinions, whatever they might be, would be scarcely sorthy of recollection, but it was brought under the notice of he House by a most accomplished lawyer, who would not have ine so until he had well considered the consegm - nces. He übmitted these claims to the House, and the House again anctioned their justice ; but the thee Chancellor of the .xchequer still delayed the settlement of them. With he determination, however, to ascertain their le.- :ality, a motion was made for a Committee, which vas carried. The Committee met, and they reported upon he claims of those parties. To that report I shall shortly call he attention of the House. It stated that the Committee had iroceeded to consider the merits of the several claims submit -ed to their consideration, and that they came to the following result :—The claims amoanted to half a million, which was re faced to two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds Scotch. This sum of money was obtained from the sale of several car ;toes which had been seized and said, and which consisted of etiods imported from the Baltic. In 1841, Mr. Justice Cress sell movetl and carried an address to the Crown that the ques tion would be speedily settled; and had not Mr. Justice Cress vell been convinced of the legality of these claims, he would on have ventured to have risked his professional reputation by insisting on them. I must say that this case ought not to rest in strictly technical grounds. At the time those seizures were •nade the Government were exposed to considerable danger ; thought it necessary to fit out several secret expeditions; and those who were losers by them were, of course, those chiefly tonnected with the mercantile interest. And the House should lever forget that prizes were made to the extent of 13,0001., and that they never distributed more than one-half of them. sir, I am most unwilling, therefore, to touch upon that ques s_o9.- I rather wishttto deal with it as a eginessioessof an en., ttaeifetlyperisonalmature., •al think ifaany,orse will talietSbe•trOuble l teriflalawsitt.laisAinthgn the trouble. to refer to all th.at has 7.• - ranstaiwia.thicsnfiject, it is quite clear that -these claims aria futianteit in justice, inasmuch as the public policy which ndtired.he:Grovertititent to take the part which they did in solved the people concerned in theis losses. It is quite im masible forme to say whether that policy was just or unjust. glut, supposing that policy to be just, it was perfectly impoa oble for the Government to pretend to anything like justice %hen they gave no public notification to the merchants of this iountry that they were about to enter upon the course which hey took. The Admiral of the port received no intimation if that policy, and the merchants took no other precautions for heir safety than they would under ordinary circumstances atrainsttfea - • risky. The trade in th e B a lti c was cons i dered :afe. and they therefore entered into nothing more than the wdinary insurance against sea risks. Sir, under these cir u:nstances, when the British merchants were not forewarned ay any public Act, or warned by any official notice, they are, I contend, a perfect right now to ask this House and he Government of this country to give their sanction to a ;ominittee of this House for investigating those claims. Sir, 1 lave endeavoured to go as little over the whole ground as ses,ible in submitting the case of the claimants. You will tot, I will venture to say, refuse the Committee for which I •k. I hope that those Hon. Members who have attended to his subject from year to year will again give the vote which hey did in favour of a Committee of Investigation. lam aerfectly aware that the Goverment was placed in great difficulty the opinions delivered by the law officers of the Crown. ilet I submit that this'question is not a m suer of law. It is a 'nixed ease of law, equity, and justice.— (Cheers.) Sir J. HANIIER—I hold in my hand a petition front the •own I have the - honour to represent.—( The Hon. Member as proceeding with his speech, when the Sergeant -at-Arms ;speared at the bar, and announced, " That •in obedience to to orders of the House, and in conformity w:th the warrant st the Speaker, he had taken the Honourable W,l!iam Smith }'Brien into custody.")—The Hon. Member recommenced by ,yin;;, I hold in my hand a petition from the town I have the honour to represent, and in present.. .og that petition I take the opportunity of ex treating in a few words the reason why I consider this question hould be speedily decided. Ido not think that it is altogether lithe a proper cuiestion for the consideration of Parliament. I ::annot say that I look with any considerable favour upon this con - inue I renewal of the question, and I feel earnestly that justice , hould be done, and that a fi..al decision upon the question .hall 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 en further an d irther from arrivi ng a t suc h a resut. And now, to ipproach the merits of the question itself, it appears to me that - hey lie in a very narrow compass. In the case of the Danish tlaiins, all compensation for those Danish claims has formerly 'seen denied. At that time it was stated by the Honourable 'alerfoer for Portsmouth, that the large and respectable body if individuals who had suffered upon the occasion, and who now Claimed .compentation for their losses, had no right to came to Parliament, or be compensated by the Government. 1 think that Government had chosen properly :to compensate two classes of the Danish claimants. They were those claim ants who could not he 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 -essed cargoes and valuable goods in the warehouses of Den mark, were possibly prevented from setting sale with their ships mod getting ou t o f t h e reach of those who wished to obtain' pesseasion of them. Such was the argument used by the then Solicitor-General. However, I do n o t thi n k t h at we can sustain that o pi n i on altogether,ut I think if an embargo was laid upon th ese s hi ps before any official publi c notice was given har bour given to mer c h an t s i n this country, that the Danish i oyehtmf n en o t wished intimationheii British ships to that leave the their state of was disturbed!— on ar r es b ea e:l o I - -- n to bei the r e l a ti ons of Denmark with this country were about to be ir tu u a l ni d oset compensated Member ef a no n rs d a tHed I u i d lr o ort n ht o ha t et a ls, r ,u l s y (s, a eh n s c c wl e ahtime t h h:i i n s tthse o l i t a a i r y i i e o n a twined f rom the proceeding. If a fair notice was given toythsuen% to set s a il f or another harbour, I would no t so strongly insist on th e i r r i g h t to receive compensation ; but if no offi c i a l no tice was afforded bef ore t h e 2nd of Feb., 1807, those persons tvittagarenea erxipgehdtittioon.beagloinnsstidewtcrhh ed as not ha v i ng starte d upon a there was no imp e di ment, and the unfort unate termination of whieh was beyond their conception ; then, I think, they are entitled to that comp n atation. Now, Lord Sidmouth, on the 17th of May, 1808, on which occasion a s i m il ar motion to that now before the House, was discussed, said, " Such a notice was passed in the Court of Denmark, on the 2nd of September, and a similar order was afterwards issued by his Majesty's Government in Council, that no ships bekmging 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 issuett in this country on the 2nd of September, and ships sailed afterwards, then, I think, they are not entitled to the cornpensatien sought The opinion of Lord Sidm•tuth, in which I agree, is very favourable to the compensation of those who incurred losses. He said. on the subject of compen sation, there could not be the smahest difference of opinion. Unfortunately, there was a d.ff n t- d re h n a c d e of tilcehmheanitl ,xi.sted up to the present time, and of the question for years, ‘'e a l t a :a v Lird Sidmouth h years, ancluded peace with tither Countries, and was able an had been ChancellortohfestehesevEexrci e e t ° a " t l e P d the only arguments on fitent to give an opinion find on the 2d of Septem t,cmhit(lthle Imianttteenr to rest. Sir, s l ay h a th a a e t s i her an order was issued by Now, I think which no person had a right to compensation. his Majesty's Government ; after proof that the mer chants issuing ofthat order was a sufficient to second the motion. time. beg leave, 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 it is very painrul to me to I can assure the House, sir , tha t have again to repeat those opinions and those sentiments which I have so often had occasion to address to the Howe on this e t Sir, I House, and sometimes when sitting on the other. particular subject ; sometimes when sitting on this id of the But, have had from these repeated discussions full opportunities_ of hearing all that can be urged on this particular subject, havtri, T had carious opportunities of eonsiderati ;n and reflection ; and I adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed upon toe subject, that it is one in which it is not consistent with public policy for the House to interfere, arid that it. is one in whieli it is not consistent with the duty of him to whom her Majesty has entrusted the finances of this country to acquiesce. Sir, I believe also, very strongly, that it is a matter of great delicacy on the part of the House of Commons, in dealing with a question of this kind in the manner in winch the Hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with it. A rule was most wisely laid down by the constitution, that the House of Commons should not take upon itself, independently of the Crown, to originate any gran t o f money, and this rule was expressls laid down to guard aga i ns t t h e possibility of parties Laing rather by p ersons w h o h ad a direct interest, to come to ua-r. gvote , of public money, which a consideration of the general interests of the co un t ry dil not authorise, a n d th e House therefore, y!' imposed the c h ec k i n t h at respect. But it Al' place the Crown in that most i nconvenient position of having , instead o f as usual, to originate such a g ran t, to refuse it whenrec ed by a Committee of this Hou se . I t hi nk that it isaommomsettl'ind convenient positio n i n which to pl ace t h e Crown on an oc ca sion,where gravelegaldouhts as to the claims exist, and where the question of how far the right of the House to interfere is invelved, fo eall upon it to make any grant upon such d matter. The Hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by stating that these claims were refused or, two special grounds —one of these grounds being financial, and the other being founded on inter- IlationAl law. Ido not agree with the Hog. Gontltinan, Trim he states that the objections to these claims are of a financial character. Tl,ey [wain-, let me observe, rested on that prin ciple, as the lion. Member for Portsmouth had presumed, for wi:eiher these claims be, as they were now, fir 500,000:. or 200,0W+1., it is not the amount that we should regard in nor l decision, but it is the principle involved by coming to sue a decis'on. The danger involved is not only the ex p ense o i we &maid incur, but the exl,ense we should expose oursiilves to wars respect of past wars, and our successors in resp ect of those wars to cerise. Th qnestion rested in a great rnets,ure on inte-na tional law now lain down in this House, by gentlemen of the hi g hest legal authority; and it also rested on the opinions of men who combated the former jtaigment on this important ques tion. The Solicitor-General had expressed his opinion against it in this House, when the question was legally discussed, and I have never yet heard any answer to his opinion. The question does not rest oily on the opinion of those lion. and Learned Gentlemen who have lately given their opinions, hut 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 were 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 Mr curnstanees on which this claim was founded, were of a totally different eharacier from those laid down in the category of those who made the claims. This was the argument of the Hon. Member :or Sheffield, when he said that these claims should be decided by an exposition of international law. Thests.claima 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 ne considered he had a duty to perform to his con stituency, and that he should present to the House the circum 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 bee imc, his duty as aj 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 this 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 extreire hazard which would grow nut of giving information in such cases. I have not heard any sound reason given why compensation should be given in cas-s 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 'he 16th of August, 1807, and no capture was proved to have taken place subsei i uent 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 he 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 other wars; and in all captures of merchant ships arising nut offseeret expeditions they would have motions made and claims advanced for compensation. In every parti cular ease the House would be called upon is make advances of money in order to saris), the parties. It would be impos sible for the country to go into war and-defend its just eights 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 there seems to be great doubt among Hon. Gentlemen who support this motion. The Hon. Member for Lambeth supported the claims of one c'ass, while the Hon. Baronet the Member for Hull supported the claims of another class. The Hon. Member for Hull says, 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 seised 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 lion. Friend opposite have claims, if the opinion of the Honourable Baronet the Member for Hull is taken—( He a r, hear)— on ly 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 0f.8.5 elaimants, the other scout only give, compensation to 10, , ' , Can5 sirong , r, - .prdrff than this be required that-ih, subject is 'not 'of that very 61ear character that it_sias repres 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 ♦ery 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 es 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 - pro,-erty on shore, but 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 prope►ty 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 deelaratiou of war and after the com►nence►nent 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 Kith a foreign nation, some six-and-thirty years after they could be induced to co►npensate all who had suffered any detriment. Stinding 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 acipliescence in things of this kind that I ,have on so many occasions expressed my opinion on this subject. I have .tbstained, as the H in. 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, tip•tn any technical grounds. It is upon a great national principle, it is upon the bread 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. I. 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 Bight:Hon. Gentlemen who have visited the purlieus of the Treasury seem also to have a very extraordinary view of the Pubic policy and the public justice of international law.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, Sir, let us see first of all what the f ac t s are i n t hi s case. and the grounds on which this el dm 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 secrecy, 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 on the Admiral being asked whether or not they might safely trade in the Baltic, he distinctly communicated to the mer chants that they might do so.--( Hear, hear.) Well. Sir, that being so, I a'k on what ground of publicy it is that these claims are attempted to be resisted ? Should it not be our pub lic policy to encourage the merchants in carrying on their trade? I say that by our national law they are clearly entitled to those claim.. But what was the declaration that was made to the Admiral when they entered the Baltic? They said, " We come to your shores as inhabitants of Zetland, not as enemies —(this, I believe, was dated August, and I have not the exact date)—not as enemies, but in self-defence, anti to prevent those who are se willing to destroy Europe from doing so." "We come not -as enemies," and yet the Right Honourable Gentleman has said they are not entitled by international law to make these claims.—( Hear, hear:) War was declared nri the 4th of November. The Danish bassador demanded his passports on the 16th November. It has been attempt-cl to say that the declaration of war took place on the 14th Att.tust, in the declaration of Ctoristadt. 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 o7her ; 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 that they were attempting to trade with an enemy. Oa the 7th of August, it was declared by the 13..itish Envoy that war was upon the point of commencing between the two countries, and at the same time demanded his passport, on the ground that war between the two countries might be considered as having already broken out. It has been said by Hon. Members oppo tthriaets. thisl will w a p a rove a , by oppo site th a t t hi s was a declaration of war between the two Lordcoun tries. rireprisals, i detcillaeradtieo'n'ision of of not a declaration of war; and in the declaration issued by the Danish Government, the following words occurred :—" We merely call upon our faitheil 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 embarco would be laid upon foreign vessels. Now that point has been decided by Lord Stowell, in the Admi ra lt y , i n the case of the " Orion." The eas e 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 wa r , it was the right of the Admiralty, but it reverted to the C rown i f taken after the declaratai. . n The capture was , th ere f ore, th e right of the Crown, ins,much a: there wa: nt, deelaration of war until the 4th November. The Chancellor of the Exche quer comes down to the House, •and says we must resist these Mmbers for Lambeth, and Hull, claims, because the Hon. Me , may entertain of opinion upon the some little difference subject. The real question is, when was war declared? It M bers that there is great has been stated by some Hoe. em danger if we compensaie thes e Danish claim , nts we shall also have to compensate the French and other claimants for losses which they may have sustained io a war with England. A little reflecion will tell those Hon. Gentlemen of war is made the such could that not be the case, because after a &clatan 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 cace. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer has thrown some impediment in the way of this matter. He says it is not respectful to the Crown —that it is a question that reflects on the Ministers. In 18.3 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. Gon tleman wishes to make out a vast distinction with respect to c t h an e f r obte ig . h i : b s tt o :in ft a, h dd e r ; b l s a ys s imants. and says it is not respectful for us to address the Crown. Now, I say, it is altog e ther respect ful t, doing ; h ) eCr() for, up up upon the e thiss übje t ( i l e, whenno justice has been meetod to the parties. The Treasury at this moment has many " 144 6 of pourlcij Rhinh were paid )1 the pahieh THE SUNi-I.4OIVDONt , FRIDAY EVENING, MAY" 1,. 1846. Government on account of those claimants; and, therefore, it was simply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons so claimieg. But perhaps the Chancellor of th - e Exchequer does net wish to part with the money from the ct,ffers of the Ti Ca sury. Now, Sir, with respect to the other poiet—the question of interrett.onal law. Ide not boast myseif of a very perieet knowledge of the law, but I have looked at the opinions of those !severs who hare en, sideted the question. and they have come to the eonciuston 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 awyer than Mr. 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 a G ee e s n e raalt— this General—because, -I mean are two great p ar ti es w h om I have not t h e h onour t t h o e Asteceorney in ncl thit ; Solicitor p '; anything erro neous in point of law, th e y wou ld no doubt have corrected me.—(Cri es O f g• Why are they not here ?") I will beT if I have stated 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 Cress well, one of the most acute and just lawyers in England? I say it is not likely that he would warp his legs! 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 hare 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 losses." In Grotius' Special Jury Cases it is stated, "It is the duty of the state to give compensation to those on whom reprisals hare fallen." He says, " But bef ere she declares war' —I now beg the at tention of the House to this—t• Before she declares war, of which we shall treat in the felliovinu book as there are various methods practised smog nations." He says, "He seizes on some property if he has an opportunity, aad declares it seized until he has given him sufficient satistaction." Then he says, " Ile takes possession of what belongs to another and keeps it unt.l payment ;or he detains it as a pledge." Then he says, " The effects seized upon are preserved while there is ally hope of obtaining satisfaction or justice, but so swill 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 goods. are disposed of. " This is the last remaining effort previous to the commencement of open hostilities ; then, indeed, is the Sovereign to compensate hie subject on whom reprisals shall have fallen." I say that Parliament and the monarch of Great Britain ought to compensate those on whoiw 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 nut 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 ject 3, then Dutch subjects, and afterwards British subjects again; and Lord Stowell decided that, as the parties were Dutch subjects at the time of the seizure, they had no locus standi 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 originates on the ground of public policy, public justice, and international law ; and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons in juted 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 repires 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 m' 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 from the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, this case was raised be 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 en 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 -kintoshand those who were engaged with him in their former attempts, took care .to have nothing to dd 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 wa , s one reply which could be made, if ships ant 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 be each of us. The meaning of the words reprisals and captures were eot 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 diAinetion 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 n ust say, Ido not agree with him in his 1-. gal 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 firmer, and keep thorn in pledge till justice is done them ; or if they fail to de so, then the eapturing party may keep the ships and property seiz.-d, and declare them to be confiscated.—( Hear.) It an open rupture in consequence takes place, and war ensues, then are they Justified at once in confiscating all that has been previously seized. 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 declaration 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 sans there was no de claration of war; but it has been read this evening, ar.d is dis tinct enough. It tieclares 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 ,he 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. Memberngland w saysas m thatade on the the fir 4th h e o cl i war N ara o ti v o e n mb of er, on the part of England 1 I think, my Hon. and L earne d F riend has confi':uou7 ; dedantdwohecir 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, hail 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 hail 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 or war; as between the Govern to nt 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 astonished that my Honourable and Learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord Stowell in support of his position. What this is, is a simple question between the Government of Great Britain and iis 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. 1 consider that my Hon. and Learned Friend hae, in some cl-gree, 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 answer to the legal arguments which my Hon..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 net been observed by any of the Hon. Members 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.) M r Honourable Friend says, that gentlemen con nected with the Government take a peculiar view of this question. I would remind the Hon. and Learned M ‘m fort h h e i his rcsatntsiimdeerain ber, that Lord Althorp had the tion. These claims were brought nsidcrations than tt) Those who had other claims to 183-.1.-4 Cries of " No, no. was the first time this sub -( Hear, hear.) Therefore Campbell and the M ' Marquis of about so set. Sir, re subject forward under Government what course to a . ':v t an w ce as w i e n r t e rod to u o ce p d ru . den L t o t r o d e th m is barrass themselves with these Worcester did advise the ... take, and the Government had not been influenced in the deferral those of public policy.—( Hear, if .. . , Sir, I think the Hon. Gentleman will admit that, his point of law cannot be I in regard to the nation which they came to by princi, lea of general public policy. regard to Hon. Friend ahneya:. other ) N e ,: w ' the law of nations is established for useful purp:lea, and on in sustained, u t s t h h e e v has ici o vicious no p r g e r c o e u d n e l t t to which rely t h i e po i r s i , to be departe.l from. Hear hear. ) Observe the t ee , i But of you are about to sot with regard to future wars. is it only i principles which should not, and ought not future wars? Why, these claims are more than thnirty Years before. Hear. hear.) Mr. HUTT—Oh, no, hy no means ; they were ere brought before the Treasury five-and-twenty years ago. Mr. CARDWELL—It was not until thirty Danish expedition that these c l a i ms were brought. Years after th e Mr. HUTT—The Han. Gentl e m an is mistaken, the brought before the Treasury.y were ca nuonttic i let(h)firptyar y li e a a n t l s ent. after t A ha n t d, th si i rs was , it se after that length of time, when the law was again s t )0u— Mr. CARDWELL—I believe lam s t at i ng a fact. Those persons who had substanti a l c l a im s up on t h e Gove rn m - nt, n er thought of embarrassing the case by bringing, in the case b o r n o e Ug a h n t d u i n t de w r as th n e ot Mr. WATSON—No, no, the law is not against us. Mr. CARD WELL—You are prepared to grant the justice of the claim in any individual e.;ses of th e ki n d , the h e that you set does, not apply only to future wars; but I know of no ground of justice, of policy, or ~f national prael-i ce on which you can refuse to deny in the case of any war, that has occurred in the hi,tory of this country, upon which anybody can bring evidence that has the semblance of truth in support of a similar claim. Sir, having, therefore, as I humbly trust, satisfactorily answered the novel argumm ent of the Hon. Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon an erroneous dis tinction, and having cursorily gone over the more general arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who moved for this Committee and has brought the matter before the Howe, I do hope that the House will see the necessity of resisiting the Hon. Member's motion. Mr. 1-1 U lIE —Sir, it is not necessary on this occasion to enter, after the debate that has now taken plaee, into particu lars afrer the lengthy detail. that have been all. g d y given. I titnl7 vriah, sir, to pay that there is 119 teas Cor Any pr tee d ut 9f . this case ever occuring again. I trust that England will never lately excited the attention of the House? The House, on be guilty of such har s h conduct towards Denmark. Ido not firmer aneasioes, has repeatedly decid e d in favou r of these" believe there is any chance whatever of that. It is one of claims, yet the Government has treated them with contempt. three measures which I have considered most pernicious and un- —(Hear, hear.) A legal argument has arisen,, and out.of: graceful to an English nation, and I think that those w ho w e r e that wildernes s it appears we shall not get, fur the Hen, Ontelt the parties to this transaction should have ecquitted the mse l ves i L earne d Member behind me, when he commenced his speech ? as soon as possible of the claims against them. The Learned said that, in every principle of ju,tice and of inter* - Gentle man LAYS that tie s the first time that this class of natemal law, this m oney ought to be paid, end he queted claims was admitted. Why, Sir, we know that all these claims as his authorities Grotius and Vattel ; but up rises an were put 'iii the same footing. I believe I have stated them Honourable and Learned Gentleman on the other twenty times, or at least as many times as this subject has been side, and he says that, un every principle of international law, brought forward, and does the Hen. Gentl eman ma k e ally di, th e m one y ought nut to be paid ; and he also quotes as his unction when he knows that the Right Hon. Gentleman the authorities Grotius and Vattel.—( Laughter.) It was per- Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting by him never made any fectly ridiculous to pursue a course like this. These claims distinction between any of these claims. He rejected them ought to be examined on a strict principle of justice. The all as unjust, and that distinction now made is perfectly ridicu- Hun. Gentleman the Member for Lamb et h stated this evening leus f or hi m to attempt to Make any separation. It is true, Sir, that he would confine his case to those in which adjudication that those who advocated these cla.ms did, in consequence had already taken place. .Me said that he would not carry his of rosne intimation, draw a line end make a division b. tween case further; anti a, the House hail already four times decided these three clase s , but. Sir, I cannot seeany d stinction between that t hese claims were just, he wi s h e d the House to vi n di cate them wh a t ever. 1 think the Learned Gentleu an on this side, that opinion, and thus prevent any necessity for their being who has stated the case, has dra vn a line ; but I have alwa. further troubled on the matter. objected t o t h e Government insisting that a declaration of war Colonel SIIITHORP said, I have always voted for these was then made. I have only to say, that an argument more in- claims, and I shall always vote for them.—( Laughter. ) conclusive could not b e brought forward on an - yquestion. I M r . HA WES sa id , I s h a ll occupy th e ti me o f t h e H ouse consider th a t we s h ould by no means reject these claims. from but for a very short period, in reply tome or two of the obser any fear of a precedent b eing ma d e out for future or past eases , vatiens of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. A great deal has I state that there is no fear of any debars of this sort being been hereafter made. I consider that the parties whin make these Learned this as a main point in th;s said about this ration of war; and my Hon. and Friend .s has relied upon (aims are asking for nothing but justice, and that the Govern- case. Now, will the House hear one circumstance in reference to ment would he acting most unfairly in refusing a Committeet that . inquire into these claims.—( Hear.) Government haheeo.no declaration, declaration. The expedition left this country in July, and no Thethe cnvention was siened on the ith September v, this they have had in their possession ever since the year 1 . 807, Denmark, and it, therefere, had put an end tceany previous de. end when 1 look at the small sums granted, I might say d f c o f r oo th d e: claration heco d of war, if such existed. Hostilities, might, therefore, Ministers, by votes of this House, Ido consider that am • nsi e d red as ceased, and each country was supposed to be are still remaining in their hands to repay all their i claims, on mgstoo understanding with the other. Now, under those and I think Ministers should be compelled to pay these claims. circhuaAeancte.s,Twhat becomes of the declaration of war on the I think this should be the rule, that on whateverground Govern- 16. ment may think themselves warranted in commencing homilies, Council siti ns the 4hlr Was put an end to. The declaration of the November was headed in the annual regis they should not allow any portion of the British subjects to ter "A declaration of th . War," but that was merely an order in suffer by such proceedings, and that if any expenses should be Council, authorising do e issue of letters of marque for the pur then, that the declaration of war incurred they should be divided equally. One or two indivi- poses of reprisal. duals should not bear the loss. I think it is clear from docu- on the 16th August was s s a t ie t rseded by the convention which unifies. I did not say one ments of this House, that the merchants before they left the was afterwards signed b t, h because it was put an River Thames, asked the Admiral, yif there was any danger word about it, and I puryposely wleofte? wa not a technical in sending their vessels to Denmark. After arriving in the end to by their subsequent conduct. t ß o u n t Baltic, they also inquired of the English Admiral on the question ; it ought not to be decided on techn i caltis grounds. You stotion, and the answer they received from him was "No." have received the money, you have applied th(etinezy say it The merchants were deceived by the Government. Govern- own purposes, and you ought to pay it.— ment concealed their plans by giving answers which they knew is a clear case of justice. lam not to be met by the te s ch y ni l - t were erroneous, and they did it upon these grounds, that calities of law, and if you do resort to law, what was the opinion English merchants and shipown ers were t o b e mu l c t e d o f Si r W m. F ollett and Dr. Lushington ? I hold.in my hand and fined of their property. Some time since it was the opinion of Sir Wm. Follett, in which he states that these alleged, and strong arguments held in this House, that they very claimants whom you have paid, have no real claim at all. were not entitled to compensation as they might have been Why did you pay them then? It was on the principles of equity insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have you did so. The words of the opinion are these :—" This I heard a single argument brought forward to-night in opposi- question is not a question of law, nor have either classes of the tion to these claims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimants any legal claim upon the British Government." You need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taken paid the debt—well, why did you do it ? You felt that there as any precedent. No war can take place upon such were higher claims upon you than those of law ; you felt that principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we there were claims of equity and of justice, which you could not may throw that on one side. I ground my vote, as I always dispute. The highest men in the realm have been the advo have done, upon these two plain facts, that English merchants cafes of these claims. Mr. Wilberforce spoke for them, and I trading to Denmark considered that they were trading under ask you was he a man to speak for anything that was unfair or the protection of English laws, when the British Government unjust ? Why, what have you done? you have granted had commenced hostilities. They had no advice, and received a solemn investigation into the ease, and after no information on the subject till after their property had having cut down their claim from 5 00,0001. to been seized. Upon these grounds, I think that these indivi- 225,000/., are you prepared to turn round and say, duals have a right to demand of the Government payment of we will not pay you ? Why, if you stand upon the high ground their claims—and I only wish that Lcould add, and interest. of law, you had no right to have put them to this expense. The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the You had no right to have investigated and made a mockery of whole amount of their claims. It would be only justice to add justice. It is not on a mere question of law i argue ; I argue the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any here as a plain man of business connected with trade, and Ido of the claimants are now gone to the grave, their relations now say, that the trade and interests of this country have been ceme forward and justly ask of you compensation for their claims. treated with injustice, and it is agait.st that injustice that I All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. My move for this Committee of Inquiry.—(Cheers, and cries of opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, principal and "Divide, divide.") interest, as fairly and as justly as any individual having any The House then divided, claim against any other individual. It is on these grounds, For the motion Sir, that I do hope every man in this House will see justic e Against it 59 41 done to those who have so long suffered, seeing that there are Majoeity f or the motion -. ample funds for the purpose. I tru s t the House will do as it RAILWAY LABOURERS. did before, support the motion of the Hon. Member, and that Mr. BOUVERIE moved for a Select Committee to inquire the Ministers will not act as they ha v e h ere tofore done, but will i n t o t h e con di t i on of the labourers employed in the constrtc cheerfully come forward and agree to the motion.—(Hear.) tien of railways, and other public works, and into the reme this Msubject,r. F. . because I invariably offered the m BARING—I am anxious to say otion my deter- a few words on di f filet any, es which may be cordition calculated to l essen t h e peculiar evils, if o. mined opposition; and I must, in the first place, express a hope Mr. EWA RT seconded the motien. that whether you have m o ney in the Treasury or not. Sir J. GRAHAM was much obliged to the Hon. Member for if this claim is a just claim, I think we are bound having brought this eubject under the consideration of the House. to accede to it. I have never taken it as a mere He had no doubt that the inquiry would be must valuable. financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, He hoped that steps would be taken to check the truck sys but whether the claim was founded on justice or not.—( Hear. 'em being established among labourers ; and, at the same time, hear.) Certainly, if it had been founded on justice, no feel- he hoped that additional powers would be given to railway ings of economy would have prevented the Government, of companies to maintain the peace upon their works. which I was a member, doing justice to the parties. My Hon. Mr. HUME th oug h t t h e l ess they interfered between mas- Friend says that th ese cases —l am sure hi s memory fails him— ters and workmen the better. he says that the cases before the House must be held to be in- Mr. HUDSON believed that the result of this inquiry eluded in the other cases decided by the House on a previous would redound to the credit of those who were promoting rail occasion ; and my Hon. Friend is good enough to say that the ways. In the railways with which he was connected, the ut- House ought not to have a divided opinion on these case., be- most care was paid to the religious wants of the labourers en cause there was no division of opinion on the others. But to :raged upon the lines. The companies had placed money in the last cases, which present themselves in a new form, and are the hands of clergymen to provide religious instruction for the different from those specified by Sir James Mackintosh, I shall men, and labouring on the Sanday was prohibited. He did feel it my duty to offer every opposition in my power. I think not believe there was any necessity for this inquiry. it is no want of respect on my part to do so ; for I feel myseli' Lord EBRINGTON believed that there was no necessity bound, looking at the great consideration which - was given to the for the inquiry, because that inquiry had been threatened, subject when I was in office, to do so. But there were circum- and therefore the various railway companies had taken pre stances connected with party which made it possibly no matter cautions. He thought this was a subject which required full of regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was beaten on investigation, from which investigation important results might the question. It may he said that we have a Treasury feeling be anticipated. on the subject, but my Noble Friend, Earl Spencer, not only Mr. MANGLES could not agree with his Hon. Friend entered into it himself—and no one was better able to give an the Member for Sunderland in thinking that this inquiry was opinion, on account of his fair and upright mind, of what was unnecessary. He would certainly support the motion, as an equitable claim—and I know he came to a decided he believed a great deal of good would result from it. opinion that these claims ought not to be allowed; and, Mr. AGLIONBY w i s h ed to express an opinion respecting as in duty bound, I . f e lt it my d u t y to consult the the class of men called navigators. He believed a great Law Officers of the Crown—namely, Lord Denman and amount of the evils complained of arose from want of proper Lord Cottenham ; and with every respect to the Hon. Gentle- supervisions. He did not believe they were worse than other man who sits behind me, I must say that I think we should bodies of men, at least as far as his experience went. Still an not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were inquiry ought to be made as to the best means of dealing with advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert these large bodies of men. Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advocate, was amongst the number. Mr. WAKLEY could not see any good that would arise out Besides, the Hon. Member for Worcester ( Sir T. Wilde) of this inquiry. What was complained of was, that the men considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied preferred seeking pleasure on Sunday instead of going to hours upon hours in comparing the dupleateeof the original church ; and he could not see how any legislation of theirs documents on which the claims were founded, in order to test could meet the state of things complained of. The real evil, their accuracy, and to be enabled to give a decided opinion on however, was, they had neglected the education of the people. the matter. Then there is Sir William Follett, whose name That was well known, and needed no inquiry. Their la can never be mentioned in this House withoutrespect, he voted, bourers had not been taught self-respect, and hence it was I believe, in favour of these claims; and I recollect that, when they did not show that propriety of conduct which was de he was appointed Solicitor-General, he was taunted with sirous. He could not see how, after neglecting the petitions changing his opinions, and he stated distinctly that he gave his of the working c;asses for factory legislation, they opinion on the case that was submitted to him, but that when could attempt to control bodies of men like those who were he heard the arguments of the Hon. Member for Worcester, the subject of the present inquiry. he said he could not vote for the motion of Mr. Cressvvell, as Sir GEORGE GREY thought the subject was an impor he had not the shadow of a doubt upon the case. The Hon. tent one, and one that oug h t to b e i nqu i red into. As far as he Gentleman (Mr. Watson) h as s t a t e d wh a t i s no d ou b t t h e understood it, the object in view was not to coerce or restrain main point of his case, that these were reprisals, and these labourers, but to surround them with efficient moral and not captures. Now, in the first place, allow me to religious influences. Mr. Peto, the extensive contractor, had suggest to him, that I believe the question of adopted most effective means in this respect, and his arrange declaration of war has been very much altered. If the Hon. ments might be introduced with great effect in other works Gentleman were called upon to give a level opinion out of throughout the country. A Committee of Inquiry would, in doors, he would say that the' old authorities could nut now be his opinion, have a most beneficial effect. adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no Sir W. JOLLIFFE concurred with the Right Hon. Gentle deelaration of war wanted now to constitute war. That is P men who had just sat down. Bricklayers and other kind of crotchet that is gone be. Open hostilities constitute war, and labourers were protected, but this glass of labourers were not, no declaration is necessary. But the Hon. Gentleman says and they had a most especial claim on their attention, especi that if the declaration of the 1651 i Augu-t be considered as a ally as they suffered a great deal from the truck system. declaration of war, then the case tails to the ground. He says Sir. O'CONNELL thought the inquiry would do nothing the declaration of the 16th August was not a declaration re but good, and he would support it. With regard to the truck war—l mean the declaration of Gluckstadt. Now, in the first system, against which Hon. Members expressed such horror, he place, what does he give as a definition of a declarati , n of war? believed that, in many cases, it was attended with benefit, as Just look to that declaration of the 16th August. In the first persons with large capital could supply goods cheaper than small place, I will just read that passage which states that war had shopkeepers. actually commenced. If the House would actually read the Mr. B. DENISON was of opinion, that though those of declaration of war, they would find that the property of English large capital could supply goods cheaper, it did not f o ll ow they subjects w as con fi scate d , and that all trade was prohibitec did so. He did think the labouring classes were enititled to between the two countries. There is no necessity for a protection. He agreed that some means should be taken to particular form of words in the declaration of war ; but protect them as well as to supply them with moral and religious this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries. instruction. He, therefore, supported the motion. The Hon. Gentleman says, take the proclamation of 16th Au- Dr. BOWRING cordially concurred in the inquiry. He gust. I will quote some words of that proclamation, to show could see no evil that could come of it, but much good. that England did not enter on this affair with a view of carry- The motion was then agreed to. ing on the war, but it was to obtain the negotiation by fair Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that he had two notices on the mean., and, if not, by force. I will use the language used by raper. One was No. 9 ; the other No. 22. Now the latter an Admiral and by a General, who are fair authorities to quote number should have been No. 9, it having been, by mistake, from. The House will allow me to quote their view of the printed No. 22. He hoped, therefore, the House would look state of affairs as they then existed. They stated that the over the mistake, which did not arise from him, and allow him country was then not the theatre of a negotiation, but of a to proceed with No. 22. war. There was a declaration issued on the 16th August, Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to this course, as establish and in December following a declaration was issued on the part ing a bad precedent and one that might be attended with great of the British Government, that hostilities were already corn- inconvenience, He must resist the Hon. Member going into menced, and these two commanders said that their country was any other motion than that at No. 9, the next in order on the the theatre of a war, anti yet the Hon. Gentleman will take this paper. as only a ease of reprisal, and says it was no war. The declare- Mr. J. O'CONNELL intimated, that believing the House tion of war in 1807, by the Crown of England, was not the would have overlooked the mistake, and having served a notice commencement of this hostility. The King of Denmark on the Clerk of the House last night, to correct it in the votes issued a declaration against his Majesty, and that was the de• this morning, but which had not been done, he had prepared claretion of the 16th of August, to which the Crown of Eng- himself for No. 22, and was not ready to go en with No. 9. land, in its own declaration of war, alluded. It was said that DR. FITZGERALD. this was no declaration of war. I must say it is sometimes diffi- Mr. O'CONNELL then moved that there be laid before this cult to say what conclusions may be come to on legal questione. House a copy of the correspondence between the Irish Govern but when any man of sense reads these papers, and looks them ment and Dr. Fitzgerald, stipendiary magistrate in the county through, 1 cannot conceive that he can have a doubt that the of Waterford, on the subject of the trial of persons of the name opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Ch ance ll or , L or d o f Keyly, w h o were tried at the last assizes of Waterford, Campbell, Sir W. Follett, and his Hon. and Learned Friend the before the Lord Chief Baron, and upon which the Chief Member for Worcester, were right, that this was a declaration pronounced severe censure on the conduct of i t , be u st d id ß :D ria ri of war, and that these were fair and legal reprisals. lam Fitzgerald. Also, copy of the report o_ afraid that on those occasions only those who are interested furnished by the Lord Chief Baron to the Ir i l d f sh D t G:ev F e i r t n zg in e e r n al t d . in the case, and those who have constituents interested in the Also a copy of the depositions taken by the said case. were present in the House. and that comparatively a verb against the prisoners previous to the tri a l. Also copies of the small number of independent Members of the House took any a ffi davits placed on the motion or . adm itt ing the said prisoner interest in the question thens efore the House. He was sorry Keyly to bail previous to the trial, with the decision of the to have troubled the House, but he need not apologise as he Court thereon. The Hon. Gentleman said the conduct of was anxious to support the real and correct view of the case. the magistrate in question had been such as to call forth the Mr. MILNER GIRSON said, Sir, I have been, amongst severe condemnation of Lord Chief Baron Grady, who others, requested to support these claims, and in giving them had charaeterised his conducwtasichi,llweehaelnafnudrnuinsicioendnittuytiaosnhali.s my support, I assure you , t h at Id o not do so without some re- He moved for these returns h , servation, I will not trespa s s l ong on t h e a tt en ti on o f t h e House, intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the but confine my remarks to the meaning of the Hon. Gentle- matter. 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 Pict 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 " hear, hear.") I understood it to be to stated, and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W. Follet, as far as ttni other two eases were concerned.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot see how the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Government can admit these claims as they have done, with out giving up the position of the declaration of war. I can see no reason why the present claim can be rejeted, having conceded the other claims, on the ground of the declaration of war; and you must, therefore, argue the case upon totally different grounds. With regard to the opinion 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 opinions when in office to what they give when they are independent Members. When the Government asks them for an opinion they are more disposed to give a favour. able opinion than when they are out; as, occupying the position they do, they are pledged to support the Government. When they are out of office, when they give an opinion, their legal character is at stake, but when they are in office it is well known that 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 in favour 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 uncommott 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 ire the House, in order to support the Government. I must further observe, that the legal character of both 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 occasion, to give my support and vote to the Hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the present mation. of the Mr. WAKELY said, I wish to ask a sinsg7 , question of Right Hon. Gentleman who represents the the Government pay the money if the hear.") The House ear decides ve in favour of the motion.—(Loud cries of " H question has been decided several timeesotbgeifvoereo, effect to to vn i t t e . In its favour, yet the Government hrfillty. of contempt to the In doing that had 'they not been gn ey . o_t_lia r b b le o t e o ca so n lit h a a r cl y Houso—(Loud cheors). , .!-and were il eric q_ mallifinNat 114 *IA - as She Hen. V YrUP" 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 Leatneti Gentleman had referred to a statement of the Lord Chief Baron, characteri•ing the conduct of Mr. Fitzgerald as unconstitutional and illegal. The magistrate had been removed from the district where the man was given into eustody. 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 .th a large income, and who had been several years acting, and who could, therefore, not plead ignorance, who had conducted himself in this tman ner. H e (M r. O' Connell) should at present de no mor e t han to allo w th e two f i rst motions to be negatived, and to pr ess b th e ' two latter. Th e Right. Hon. Baronet could have no ° to o h u i s s e m . etio n for a copy of that letter to be l a idbefore jscion the H The motions were then put, and the two first were nega tived, and the two latter motions carried. Mr. HUME moved that the following gentlemen be chosen to form the Committee on Private Bills :—Mr. Home, Mr. Greene, M,. Loch. Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Strutt, Sir William Somerville, Sir William Clay, Sir George Grey, Cap tain Junes, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Wortley, Viscount Ebrington, Mr. Estcourt, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. James Wortley, with power to send for 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 1845 for obtain ing the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 73, of last session (Newcastle upon-Tyne Coal Turn), and law business generally, whereby the sum of 1,985/. 2s. 2d. of the trust moneys Were expendetl. al3o under what authority (if any) the snm of 3791,163. 6d. was 6 , paid to the Committee for erecting a memorial to the late Lord Collingwood, with a beacon in co nnexion therTith at the mouth of the Tyne as a landmark for the shipping ; ' the cost of erecting the beacon 4if erected), and whether erected by the authorities of the conservators of.,tirs 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 0'3,91. 163. 6d. was voted. Mr. HUME was glad to see that the attention of his Hon. T r i a d boo aallad ti? Oil object, for he had Mg doupt tha% PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Co,) THURSDAY, API:IL 30. DANISH CLAIMS. Motion made, and Question put, " That this House will, vpott Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider c: wn Address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be gracions:y 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 losses, 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, H. A. Gibson, Thomas M. Ogle, S. C. Seine, Walter Bannerman, A Barclay, David ( Barnard, E. G. Borthwick, P. Hamner, Sir John Ord, William .i.otham, Lord Hudson, G. Hume, Joseph Ilumphery, Aid, Palmer, G. .., Pechell, Captain Powell, Caleb Richards, Richard BouVoile, E. P. Hutt, William 3 1Cj i ae m mm te ebs n ie ri 'S a ri Mackenzie , ri.:T. John Rumbold, C. E. Broadley, ir. Spooner,Si I d o i s , iTI Colonelch oanßichard' a, Browne, B. D. W arburton, o d n Sir kie G ir:Ty Browne, W. mia Mitchell,rnigsoleiis GeneralTl t..A. Buller, Charles Cayley, E. S. y ;:a ., rd, 11. G. Chapman, Aaron Christie, W. D. D'Eyncourt, C. T. Neeld, Josephinth Duke, Sir J. IC Ol rr ri e rn s , 1 S ''r D. Wawn J '.• Duncan, George Esmonde, Sir T. O'Connell, Daniel . vrce4.6r. Marquis Ewart, William O'Connell, Maude. Fielden, John O'Connell, Joint Forster, Mathew O'Conor, Don Trztrits Ilavres, Hew. Watson, ifeni7 MINORITY-NOES. 41. . - A'Court, Captain Crippo, William Neville, Ralph Barkly, Henry Darner, Colonel Patten, J. W. Baring, I. T. Douglas, Sir C. E. Pell, Sir R. Baring, W. B. Duckworth, Sir J. Peel, Jonathan ItowLs, Admiral. Escott, Bickham siityt he, George Brooke, Lord Fitzr.y, Henry Somerset, Lord G. Bruce, Lord E. Plower, Sir J. Sutton, 11. M. Buckley, Edmund Goulburn Henry Trench, Sir F. Cardwell, E. C . a P p . tain I G T r a e , e i r ~ s T i rl iE o m. J. S. C. Graham, Sir James Tufnell, Henry C Ca ar r e n v eg -, ie W , Clerk Sir George Hope, G. W. ' riart. Wortley e- , y .1 Coe,burn, Sir G. Jermyn,`Earl Compton, IL C. 3PNeill, Dun can Young, TELLERS. John Corry, U. 3f eyn 11, Carain Baring, 'lvry COURT CIRCULAR, The Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Buckingham,; Duke of Cleveland, and the Earl of Lonsdale, had audience yesterday o f th e queen at Buckingln..m Palace, t o p resent ad 'dresses. 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 Alic.•, and attended by the Dowager Lady Lyttelton, took an airing yesterday in an open carriage and lour. His Royal Iligline*s Prince Allot. was on horseback, and the Equerries in Waiting, the Hon. Colonel ck. Grey, and Lieut. - Colonel Seym our , attended on horseba His Royal Highness Prince Alfred took an airin g yestez_ day in the pleasure grounds of the Palace. Her Majesty the Queen Dowager took an airin g Yesterday in a carriage. Their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Glou cester and the Duke of Cambridge visited her Majwtyyester. daY at Marlborough House. her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, accompanies the Baroness de Speth, left town yesterday morning for Fri g.. more House, Windsor. Her Royal Highness returned to ket residence, Clarence House, St. James's, at half -past fire 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 iesi deuce in Dowhing- 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 Diemen's Land. _ COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT. (ruost orn OWN CORRESPONDENT.) ROTA!,YACIIT SQUADRON INTELLIGECE. APRIL :30.—The annual general meeting of the members of the squadron is to take place at the Thatelud House Tavern, on the Bth of May, when there will he eight candidates ballottcd tor. The Commodore's yacht is ordered to be got reacl,y-with all possi/ le dispatch. We are happy to say that his Lordship continues to im prove in health, and is expected to leave the Royal Yacht Squadron .• Mouse for Appuidurcomb, to-morrow. On Monday the cutter yacht Corsair, the property of John Congt eve. Esq., was launched from liansen's patent slip. She has been lent tor the season to the Marquis of _Ol - monde. On Tucgday was launched from Mr. Rai sey's yard the cutter yactt Sultana, ter R. C. Naylor, Esq. Tim Gondola, building in the same yard, will be launched Dent • 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. Beacon, Esq., .o. 1 ; Mrs. Wiggins, Sea-view llouse. Iced Fevershatit and several other fa , hionables have applied for houses. The Emperor of Russia's yacht, building in White's yard, is neatly complete, as is the Earl of Cardigan's ; the other yachts are nt t2O forward. VERY LIRE BRAIIAM.-1 was once in the theatre royal of a large city where the principal vocalist, for nth an Were sive establishment, was mediocre indeed. The house was miseratly attended. The singer advanced to the front lights, hat in hand, arki evidently imagined that he was no seta beer. After the first verse, whilst the musicians were playing the symphony, an urchin from •he upper gallery thrust his wicked head through the rails, and the stir. nest of the house rendering his juvenile voice audible and distinct. " Mr. 8., Mr. II.," cried the joking youngster, and the vocalist looked aloft as bland as man could do. " Mr. 8.," contlnued - the embryo wag, " Mr. 8., you put me very much in mind of Mr. 13rahaff ." The singer's face was covered with smiles, he fett inwardly that ke was a great man, and no doubt would have bowed his politest ac knowledgments had the interrogator been the only auditor.- " 1 it do put me in mind of Mr. Braham," continued the tougish young dog, " that is, Mr. 8., you hold your hat very like Mr. Braham,i that is all you do like him." The smiles vanished, the self•satisficei face gave way to the most demoniacal contortions, and furiwsiy stamping the stage with his foot, as if he would have sunk the theatre, he made a hurried and melo - dramatic-exit amidst the loude laughter of the slender auditory.--From the .31*S. Memoirs of John Easby. _ - ifAMSOATE, APRIL 30.—0 n the opening of the branch of the South-Eastern Railway from Canterbury to this town, toe splendid fast steamers, the Princess Mary and Princess Maude, were Placed here to run regularly between this port and Ostend, sites which the number of passengers has regularly increased, and tl-e communication with ildgium has daily become greater. This mornr ing upwards of forty passengers, with seven horses and two car riages, were landed here, and proceeded by railway without lose el - - time. When the facilities of embarking and landing here at a:1 times of tide, without the risk and unpletwantness of boats, are more generally known to the public, we have no doubt that a very - considerable intercourse with the Continent and ltarnsgate will follow, more especially as it is the nearest British port to Ostend. BAPTIST MISSIONAhY SOCIETY.—Iase great ann u a l i m . e ll e . tin T g i o ie f c t h h a l i s r r ‘ e v s . pe t c a t k a e b z l i e by soc itt ie r t . y p l e v t a o s . hg e yesterday, to to c Ex id e l t , eri . The highest spirit of liberality animated th number of Subscriptions, extent, and ministers from all quarters of thop assemblage, e at c h o ,e r a d t 1 ::::: 1. .(of which there were varying ftnin l ' taken altogether, • many) MILITARY into 2t 0 r . spirited LavingF FOOT-RACE "°?; 7R" ghlern' t eE l d: "1 Guards,e's': drei o nT 1 l i i gicb:Hcrstutwas°:;l:aa‘eehsniNiadSrolin°t:YeWeorient:o7atenosrdslemhbeledt:: T i trth h e e 2osLf ground was beautlfullv kept throughout the Blues, on the side Oi MasOn us line doing ditty on the sloe ot melt chin). off i l a ,e tt i e l r n toe attempts, and th of ( l aal l i il r u lgug il r a dhn: t r i dhle d i yM s rede s p i.il i nc e l o era e mal :l e e ly lnT , Vdra i t r b t t : l l B : ce i n s i ll: u l k l o ffro yard and a nTdhae half he e w g a o s t g a a t i u s e i d raring' by nr ,l a" P a r a c e 7 d a ttrou en.co gho n u te t s t t l e i distance, and he finally was haileilethe vic.tor, and fast run race. The whole arrangements reflected the high* credit on all concerned in this manly rivalry of activity and apeed., PEDESTRIANISM 11. Mitehell and W. Jones (of Marylebone) ran their match of 150 y Is on Monday, at Actce ttt fi c t i t i y , Jo y i a ie rd s giving two yards start , the al ;Like was ten sovereigns. s Jones was shoulder . and shoulder with h man. Shortly after he drew a little a head Mitchell, however, run well. Eventually Jones was the winner by a yard or so, after what Ni cannot call other than a doubtfully run race. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —The 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 acqu i res that unnatural red or purple tint common to .......! all other dies. Ross and Sons can, with the greatest eo h nt . de e n st e a e ! recommend the above dye as infallible, if done at it their , re,. . blishment • and ladies or quested to ' bring a friend or servant w i th h afterwards without the used, which will enable them to do it apartments devoted en.. chance of failure. Several private _ . see establishment gentlemen t,emto hew stag They that by attending strictly to the in. think it necessary to add, given with each bottle of dye, numerous per h ti a r v e i l n y g t° us t e h d e i a t, o th y tt . structions effect produced 0 d a n u e e d d some canb o e f a t t h o e n ir es seen. persons have co. • d Sons 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, Lo n don, the Koss an , - - succeeded equally well without coming to them. Address . lebrated Perruquiers, Perfumers, Hair-cutters, and Hair-dyers. Dye. Ross and a form the public that they have succeeded in produeingS4 nd Sons improvement nsmost respectfully to R a 55 ... aPd ia.. ..... ~...: S A on m s' o tiqu i i m d P° H r a t i a r n D t made, that•after the hair has once been thorough! dyed l Y orden anti • trouble than AP` I prevent it again showing grey, with no m ore This most astonishirm . r. plying any other sort of grease to 1 their Atrapilatory, will keep it in the most beautifu l . . N themselves tne following To Gentlemen who shave t cutlers In Europe use and • Why do an the Ars Razor 64rop ? ne query is proposed— , Four-sided Tablet invention is only to be had of them, as above. recommend Saunders it floyN i t t , gives to a razor a ct. e n v g e tl i t l. a h l t id th v e i P fi rdia DV A44lK Zß Tlige3f" d r ;Leal, :IninEinesls.Aottlight4,*(ferainTg°eLdlsTowmAacht,Y g E ou a r st in i c u al di e ca : I debilitated emstitationa, . . .P.' , ", d ' is , in ., ra t t..,--t cu i r t s v e ° _,T..rkewlse is in ‘o re g e r t e o a r t ing th s a t t re of the d i ff eren t castes of natives are taking lint littl e O ther medicines than these famous pills. One native agent in the Presidency cf Bombay sold, lately, retail fitly-three dozen boxes in fifteen days. The extra,,rdmary cures performed by tlwse pills, when all other moans fail, ie truly wonderful. Females will find this a most admi rable bl s hade 244 sold by all ,h• ugg i sta, and at Professor Holloway's Estament, , ' , trend, London. HucLA.—Two geologists have been dispatched t Iceland by the Hanoverian Goverment, at the instance of the Roy* Society of Sciences of Gottingen, to study the ph enomena of tb eruptions, and a na l yse the volcanic substances emitted. Herrn Berg and Waltershausen, the gentlemenchosen, win set out without _ .. ~ _, the delay for Copenhagen, whence they are to embark for lt CV 45 capital of Iceland. • GRAND REGATTA AT OSTEND.-- The Town Council! of Ostend hav e vo t e d a sum of ,5434.14 far ,rifd the prizes agrand regatta., 12th ofJu.s to take pla ce th ere b etween the 29th of The great E expressed their lutelitieli clubs have ngliiiih yacht Clu AttAlld. •-• 7 " a great deal of the public money was squandered in that way. aan - mins should be taken to Bill. prevent such procee di ngs ) thiqj ' Z, After a few words from Sir G. CIi'RK, the rnystiorps:k put and c arr i e d. MR. SMITH O'BRIEN. •':., ." .. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, circumstances ha ezt_rlf ; . come to myknowledge in which it appears desirabl q o'ag • _ 7 _ , no n , )tice has been given of a motion, that A1e&:....347:7 - ;:. should be come to on the part of this House. Th stances are these, a Committee of the House of Lo 4 %1 inquiring into the operation of the poor-law in IreianckSaylt expressed a wish some time since, that Mr. Smith owed should have leave from this House to attend on tr.at Committee to give evidence. Mr. O'Brien expresses' his readiness to attend, and the House gave rite permission to do so. The Committee is fixed :or to morrow, and I have reason to believe that to-morrow is .(h; last day on whit% they will sit, and there will be no other e l s. portunity of giving his evidence to the House of Lords. I fjral two precedents whieh appear to me to be bearing on this rout. and on which the House may raake an order in this uratter ---- - These two sass are, where persons being in the custody of the s .'ergtant-at-Aim s , the House had given orders to the Ser. , geant to permit their pre!ence to give evidence in the Howe . Lords. Under that opinion I propose to move that the record of the 16th of March, 1841, be read. And I also propose cat. this House do give leave to Mr. Smith C'Brieu to attend :mu 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 ti - A House adjourned at. Ten o'clock.