The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

civil eases was different from that in criminal cases; but Fie question was, not whether such might or might not ; l ave bean th e i mpress i on o f any man , b u t what was the i:ithwOr England, founded on principle and consistent authority, on this point ? In the course of the Argument ea- both byhis I ed Friends approached the un , al, ' question which was before their Lordships; in stead of meting the arguments of his Learned Friends, th ey Went on to argue as to the effect of such appeal in rts of larc en y or common misdemeanour or murder. it Was vain to place this case upon the same Tour d. fie and his friends on the same side had been r us ed of putting hypothetically extreme cases. They ,Z e ( a l r y n o e t i cr,gone so far in hypothetical cases as his Friends on the other side had gone. Ther e°111 (1 be no doubt that, in all criminal, cases, it was ad* ..ted that no man could be accused of two distinct crimes in one indictment. The Learned Gentleman was Proceeding to cite some more cases, when The LORD CHANCELLOR said—Have you nearly rillished this head, Mr. Kelly ? kr. KELLY said he had still a few observations to make, izoTrrhoe„lL, o it a t D te C n u , AN CHANCEL LOR—Then we will hear them to • cl o ck. • en. .:..ordships then adjourned. }O USE OF LORDS.-YESTERDAY. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. The TILE Lord C SUSSEX PEERAGE.—JUDGENT. liter Chancellor entered the House o af w minutes r ten &clod- when Counsel were ordered in. The Judges Here . in attendance. The Earl of SitArrEssully having taken his seat as Chair- I tha of the Committee. o,Lord EhiefJustice TINDAL proceeded to read the opinion „ r the Jutlge s as to the construction which ought to be put rPon the Act of Parliament regulating the marriages of mem -I._rs of the Royal Family of England. After a very long °lsell:Won upon the technical legal bearing of certain of Vie provisions of the Act, the opinion proceeded to state, that in that portion of the law which more particularly affected the c a te under di scussion, the words of the statute were p rec ise un ambiguous. lt expressly stated that no one of the • "as therein d escr ib e d s h a ll b e ca p a bl e o f contracting mar- • age without the previous consent of his Majesty in Council, s uch ee ' nSettt to be recor d e d a t length in the license 5 mat • M the certificate of marriage, and in the register of tiage- e that any person ta w • It was not reasonable to suppose a tu th a 4 l . l . l3 . e competent to set aside the law by contracting tion lege abroad. •It was never in the contempla te • parliamentegislatur, when they passed this Act m that it should be evaded, or at th; Pteci t° be evaded. An Act of Parliament passed in tb : s ceantry will bind its subjects both within and without latl r r eal m• If such had not been the intention of the Legis thi_ then was it most futile andunnecessary to have passed marria,ge law at all. But the Act itself was comprehen- Z a enouh—the words themselves were clear, direct, and p us eno u gh to regulate these royal mania es as well • go ut as within the realm. But even if precise words _ e e not tbund in the Act bearing upon the q uestion, still the v°llstrection of the Act would clearly define the course to be pursued- The Act would be a mere dead letter, if from the hi em --en t of its passing any one of the Royal Family could feel eostlself empowered to go abroad and contract a marriage with oliethe authority and - consent of the Sovereign. Again the cand expediency of the Act were clear upon the face of b e o marriage which the head of the realm might hold to t aetrimental to the interests of the State, could be con- Jacteci lawfully either at home or abroad. The Sovereign of C ' o e . realm was by this statute specially entrusted with the f o g L ef these matters, but this power and authority—held ins"',e good of the State—would be at once put aside, if hoircli''ages thus contracted and solemnised were now to be for e, s „ good and valid. They (the Judges) thought, there their the eldest son of A B, under the instructions of to u r i i..ord s hi-_ , , ps could not make a good title as heir to A B k t e er •tands sought by him to be recovered. The pause— I h erh ar , L°l tt. CHANCELLOR (as we understood him) said— the . v „k's further postponement would not be required after r e " TIT able and lucid opinion of the judges of the land just 'oothzn by his Learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Stea 4 11 4% 'leas. Perhaps it would be stated what course it _ed to be pursue p o ZtlittonGuaat said d. he could see xo good that could by ' of th e ' d .tY accrue to any party by any further postponement Wo uld 311 ‘ dgment of thei r L or d s hip s . Such postponement ever t : t ii t lY cause heavy expense and be of no utility what own 0 claima n t. H e was qu i te prepared to give his cle a ?, t iu l° ll of the case at that moment. He had never had Th e T OPon the matter. • his ePie '4° i on itr ' Cl uNcELumt said he also was prepared to give doub t at once. He had never entertained the slightest Pei~tile.k e ° t l the scope and object of the Act. The language of mentioned not ben staken. It clearly incapacitated any tete;rage.entioned in it from going abroad and contracting a ra ce gm z Such marriage was not valid and could not be he Lo r a p ri English law. to R°l- l ottam said it was with the deepest sorrow that Forn P el led—reluctantly compelled to decide against de - aim p htt —tor no person who had heard the evi thwro enterAllticed before their Lordships could for one but that a wrong, a most grievous "U e • ' rert who " ri committed upon the mother of those hea r ease they had been hearing.—( Loud cries of regtur e a • ) t a l aw . h."at the „°Ppeared to him that the highest justice arliament which had made such a law -"that that p a ii r g h tl ,, t never to have been made— (Hear, hear) P ' dee • they Mjurea no ;' ° ent should give some reparation to those ir Lordships, 3°1 : 18 who had been asking for justice at fee T h he LOR D "c - It T t a lc r e • - ;(Loud cheers.) nx which dict LIAM most earnestly concurred in the his Noble and ated the latter portion of the remarks of Lord s D Learned F riend. The E n r f s sr 'tx and CAntreEt.t, having concurred, .COnte nts , -HAFTESBURY put the motion, and the • 4 non the ela• t be ing declared by him unanimously to " have it," of course l d°isfalSli o r w A ecl usustus Cl'Este to the Sussex Peerage is THE IRISH. STATE TRIALS. a) Yeste r d • a meeting of the Roman Catholics of Lon -9n was held at the Music Hall, Store-street, Bedford afillare, for the purpose of adopting an address of sym- I :1 411 Y to Mr. O'Connell and his fellow-prisoners, and L.° to adopt such measures, in case of the House of reco niAing the validity of the verdict of the gur i. t of Queen's Bench in Ireland, as would enable the fi . g,ush Catholics to manifest their appreciation of Mr. ;:'°llnell's efforts in the cause of civil and religious tee 'l° ,, ), by subscribing towards a fund for paying the e'leessive fines which were inflicted upon him and the other traversers. R•Cocke,‘Esq., having taken the chair, the Secretary touchedroeeeded to read the address to Mr.O'Connell, which was i n terms of the strongest affection and respect i_oward s th e lion. and Learned Gentleman, and which x pressed the c onv i c ti on o f t h e meet i ng t h at t h e ver di ct 'a obtained by the total perversion of justice, equity, and truth. the CunaamArt, in addressing the meeting, said that of o Cath o li cs of London were bound by every principle I°t gratitude and sympathy, during his incarceration, o,:vards him through whose medium their fetters had 13 -en struck off. He cautioned the meeting that it was not a repeal meeting, and trusted that no speaker would q r .. 9 etis this subject, as he thought it would be much mo re flattering to Mr. O'Connell to r ece i ve t h e unani mous address of 200,000 English C a th o li cs, i rrespective "` the varied views which they might entertain upon that Question. th e. IhnxWELL, Esq. proposed the first resolut i o n , t o I ;ie, effect that the late proceedings against Mr. O'Con :11 and the o th er p r i son e rs was mos t un j us t an d op iressive, and that the proceedings had been carried out i.Party and sectarian spirit. he Re v . R . C HAPMAN seconded the reso l ut i on, w hi ch as cartied with acclamation. ti 'JOHN BLOOMFIELD, Esq., proposed the next resolu ,e79 which assured Mr. O'Connell and his fellow-tra toCers of the sy m p at h y o f t h e E ng li s h R oman C at h o li cs t ,. 4 . 11 s them in th e i r capt i v i ty, an d o f t h e i r l as ti ng to.a titude to Mr. O'Connell for his past services pk ri t lie cause of Catholicity in general, and Irie n g the meeting that it would join with the at theribii.lg freed nation in the glorious privilege of purchasing the s ti b se ° ! l3 .of Mr. O'Connell and his brother sufferers, by to the amount so unjustly imposed upon them 1:!!!ee of their political ransom. p a , eq ".CoNNou. seconded the resolution, which was Istr. th acclam a ti on . Whieh determined AMRERS T prop o sed the n ex t reso l u ti on , wh iete rmined that a deputation should be appointed, sent ) hvic:ouhlNyait up on M r. O'C onne ll i n pr i son , an d pre seveaiwit.h the address. s Per , tt ot her gentlemen addressed the meeting, which p i at T o at ter a vote of thanks to the Chairman. Upon ter(zy toe we observed several of the most eminent 110 0 ,, a1 e ll and influential gentlemen belonging to the at hcdie persuasion in London. T 1),, LA ...J e d la ; YE W. H. STUCKE Y,heCau. author of th e „, st Ih ursdly, W. H. Stuckey, C. E., t , 15 Y his -- n V rh tel ll of Pilt ' ering large bodies of water, i t m h p a o t r g ta o n es t u iscov ei l' e • Ile was also the inventor of many Pneu li , 2,?5, especially one for a New Motive Pow . er } by .. a . P —,4C Proces s - which has obtained patents in 'A:l c ,. , -Trance, Holland, Belgium, another f h like his Filtra tion, or a Process of Tanning, whic , a . nd Austria ; and The de both it space, time, and money. • system for filtering water was recommended in liatinotiouses of Parliament, and Lords Broug er a n m ment stud th e especially called the attention of Gov to ~s Commissioners on the Health of Large Towns '',. great utility. In France it is about being . ded .! all the fountains of Paris, and here to the intended applied p unt in Trafalgar -square. thevi. Stuckey was born at Clierson, on the banks of I-I e : I PeT, where Howard, the philanthropist, .died. /),. as afterwards a civil engineer and merchant in St. rsburgh, where, having obtained the Governor's ‘ ount Essen's) approbation for his plan for . supplying t hat city '• that Y with pure water, he was doomed to endure _ e consequences of arbitary power. The son the l 7 e Cons of the Government finding ll :t .. t nded plan to be a profitable one, solicited the con do et, and obtai ne d it. Stuc was ordered to ta e reason.hs w orks and sacrifice his key capital. He asked the f p to ob ey, and The reply was characteristic—. It is your duty otnot put impertinent 'questions." Descen d fasulAnl.ish parents, and with English feelings, he re night''. Tne works were pulled down in the dead of ,bY 200 men of the fire-brigade. He petitioned an.e.nteen times without obtaining a single answer. His had seeing at seeing himself so treated where his brother ' 4 wen ennobled for his public services by the late thall?cror Alexander, and his father acknowledged to be ore.,llest builder of the Russian navy, laid the foundation , w , ''''e disease of which he died. He refused to state his r0 n .... , . h e _ gn nurin g the reeentvisit of the Emperor Nicholas, as a bout that the Emperor knew nothing personally the the conduct of his Ministry, though the letter of 17,a Starquis of Northampton, as the President of the 741 Society, stating that the Emperor ought to be twoett, received in this country, from the patronage afforded e o , 4l ;glisli men of science by the Russian Government, de u ni o e in bis own case and a hundred others be flatly trn (1. Ile died a martyr to science—a victim to arbi ""Y Power. t7rT lici t'u•--A great deal of excitement was caused .40nday at the Custom-house, in consequence of intelligence 4g received soon after the usual hour of attendance, that el, s ° l 4 ?g man named John Cooper, a clerk in the Long-room goltshment, had committed suicide at his residence. He d oung man of very gentlemanly manners, attentive to w hia: a 37. o un il t,les, and much respected • and no one can give any --v4 f or t 149 c9nunii , aion of the rash act, . es to the re. larly in t 9; b made by !ships tor prosecutio e, Persecutiea: lug over Is to gl: e the ution, nuct n istration ud upon 11' General fur , 8 Pos e to ha! t it was the Lcl a remota f they c° ll , t , end the P e ie eh alle o gg y the she ll " jury. the nes that td any r e l per m a rs t of Queer' [1 ,4, but the no jurisOci l° h. co „cre e th e box. 1-1 ' e d his L e ar- • I of a Mess - t he nt ca se, „ I o n to di"' IMPERIAL PARL lAIVIBNT. ROUSE OF LORDS, July 9. Their Lordships met at Five o't lock. DISSENTERi' CEIA.PIELS BILL. Lord BROUGHAM present , d a petition from the Rev. Dr. Shepherd, in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord RADNOR presented petitions in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Earl FITZHARDINGE pr esented petitions from several congregations against the Dissenters' Cha pels Bill. The Bishop of LONDON prey ented petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Earl of GALLO WAYpre seeded petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Bishop of NORWICH pr esented petitions, from places in Suffolk, against the Di asenters' Chapels Bill. The Earl of RODEN presented petitions from Ireland to the same effect. He heartily agreed in the seats ments expressed by the petitioners. The Bishop of EXETER presented similar petitions from various Baptists and other Dissenting congrega tions. He could not help remarking, that the measure, as returned to their Lordships, amended by the other House, was the most stultified in all its details that he had ever read. The deed stated that the worship of Almighty God should be celebrated in those chapels by Presbyterian Dissenters, and yet a Right lion. Gentle man in another place had stated that this was vague. Lord KINNAIRD wished to know whether the Right Rev. Prelate was in order in entering upon a discussion of the whole question, and in quoting speeches made by gentlemen in another place. The Bishop of EXETER said he had a perfect right when presenting a petition to give his views upon the subject-matter of that petition before it was laid upon the table. He had, however, stated the opinions he entertained on the subject, and would now lay the petition on the table. The Irish Marriages Bill was read a first time. DIVISION OF PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The Duke of HAMILTON prayed their Lordships to grant him their patience while he made a few re marks upon the pros: nt Bill. He had not been able to attend on any former occasion when this Bill came before their Lordships. The Noble Duke proceeded to expa- Vate upon the effect which the Bill would have in the country parishes of Scotland. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that discussion was un necessary, as the Bill was already passed. BANK CHARTER BILL. Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of the Bank Charter Bill. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday. BROTHELS SUPPRESSION BILL. The Bishop of EXETER moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Brothels Suppression Bill. Lord FOLEY moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read that day six months, :on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence of the evil. Lord GALLOWAY thought the Bill was presented in such a shape to the House, that they could not, if they wished to put down a vast amount of misery and crime, hesitate to give the Bill their utmost support. He felt that, in the whole catalogue of crime, there was none which more loudly called for the interposition of the Legislature than this. Lord MINTO thought that it was a paramount and incumbent duty upon her Majesty's Government to lay before the House the best and most authentic informa tion on this subject. He wished to know from the Noble Duke whether it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for the same pur pose as that of the Right Rev. Prelate's ? The Dukes of WELLINGTON said that, in reply to the question of the Noble Earl, he had to inform him that her Majesty's Government had informed themselves upon the subject before the House, and he should wish, in order to give time for further inquiry, and fur the introduction of a measure under the auspices of her Majesty's Government, that the Right Rev. Prelate would not press the third reading of his Bill. The Bishop of EXETER said that, under such circum stances, he would not press his measure. Lord 510LINTCASHEL, after alluding to the miseries induced by the houses which the Rigbt Rev. Prelate's Bill was intended to suppress, said that he would, session after session, bring this matter before them. The Bill was, after some discussion, withdrawn. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 9. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock. The Colonial Postage Bill, the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Exemption Bill, and the Assessed Taxes Compen sation Bill, passed through Committee and were reported. The Militia Ballot suspension Bill, the Stock in Trade Bill, and the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, were severally read a third time and passed. VAGRANTS' REMOVAL BILL. On the motion that the report on this Bill be brought up, Colonel RAWDON said that, under the operations of this Bill, many cases of hardship would occur. He thought it would be a hardship fur an Irishman, who bad lived in this country for a number of years, and had con tributed to the prosperity of the country, to be sent to Ireland in case of his becoming destitute. Sir J. GRAHAM said this Bill was merely to con tinue for one year more an annual Bill. With respect to the case of hardship instanced by the Hon. and Gal lant Gentleman, he could only say that such hardship might occur to an Englishman residing in Ireland. The subject, however, would be taken into consideration `by the Government next year. After a few words from Mr. Palmer, Col. Rawdon, and Mr. Brotherton the report was brought up. SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the second reading of this Bill. The Bill having been read a second time, Mr. BLACKSTONE moved that counsel b 3 heard at the bar against the Bill. Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., was then called in, and addressed the House on the part of the mayor, aldermen, and bur gesses of Sudbury against the passing of this Bill. He contended that the present Bill wholly differed in principle from any former Disfranchisement Bill. It proceeded on the assumption that certain facts which were set forth in a report of some Commission were true, and acting upon this assumption, and without any examina tion of witnesses, it was intended to punish a whole con stituency for offences which were charged upon a portion only of that constituency. This, he contended, was a case of peculiar hardship and injustice. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that, in his opi nion, the Learned Counsel who had just addressed the House had failed to make out a case to justify the House in refusing the second reading of this Bill. He (the So licitor-General) freely admitted that the extreme step of disfranchisement should not be taken but upon very strong and just grounds. But it had been clearly and indisputably proved that a majority of the electors of the borough of Sudbury were tainted by corrup tion. He admitted that if this strong fact had not been made clear and indisputable, he would not be enti tled to claim the support of the House to the second reading of the Bill. He (the Solicitor-General) had at that time nothing whatever to do with other cases, how ever analogous. He had singly to do with Sudbury and its corruption, as those corruptions had beer. proved. And if the Bill ;passed, as he trusted it would—as he was sure it would—it would undoubtedly act as a warn ing and an example to other places ; and this was one of the greatest advantages that might be expected to accrue from the Bill. It should be particularly impressed upon the recollection of the House, that the Bill which he now proposed was the third Bill for the dis franchisement of this borough that had been brought before that House. Two other Bills of disfranchisement had upon previous occasions passed that House, and been sent thence to the House of Lords, where unfortunately, from one circumstance or another, they had been stopped in their course. And yet, after all these warnings, there had at the very last election been practices of the most gross and profligate character—thus showing the pre determination of the voters in this borough that their elections should be carried by bribery and bribery alone. No less than three thousand pounds in gold had been received by a clerk and agent of Mr. Dyce Sombre, one only of the candidates, and the whole of this large sum had been expended in the most disgusting mode of bribery, by parties utter strangers to the borough. And yet the just and legitimate expenses attendant upon the election—such as the printers', and other necessary bills, were to this day absolutely un settled. There was a system in Sudbury of the most atrocious character, which it was well-known had ex isted for years and years, and which was this :—When an election was likely to take place every publican opened his house to the world at large. At each house a large debt was owing for expenses incurred at the last previous election, and which debts always remained unpaid from the close of that election to the time when another was about to take place. These debts were called "fixtures," and they were paid thus. When candidates came down at an election time to offer them selves as candidates for Sudbury ; the first thing they were presented with was a statement of these " fixtures.' If the candidates paid these "fixtures" or debts due from the last election then they were accepted as candidates, and stood a fair chance of being returned ; but if they declined to pay off these " fixtures," then all they had to do was to pack up and be off, for no chance would they have of ever repre senting the borough of Sudbury.—(Laughter.) Such was the system—the disgusting system—which prevailed in this notorious and profligate borough. All he asked the House now to do, was to proceed on the evidence in the book now upon the table, and at once to disfranchise a place in which there was no nucleus for honesty and public virtue. Where the franchise thus taken from Sudbury was to be extended to, was not then the question before the House. That was.. a matter for after consideration ; and therefore, confining himself to the only point strictly before them, lie thought Hon. Members could, upon the evidence now before them, have no difficulty in agreeing to the second reading of the Bill for at once disfran chising the borough of Sudbury. Mr. BLACKSTONE felt that if he attempted to op pose this Bill he would not be successful, as the Bill had been taken up by one of the law officers of the Crown, and came with the whole support of the Government. He did not, therefore, feel called upon to make any op position to the Bill, although he did not believe that the whole of the electors of Sudbury were corrupt. On the motion for the Committee on this Bill he should move, as an instruction to the Committee, that the right of voting should be extended to the hun dred in which Sudbury was now situated, which had been the course pursued by the Government with respect to Bassitlaw, that place having been extended to the hundred of East Retford. If he should be unsuccessful in this, he should take the sense of the House upon the principle of the Bill on the third reading. Mr. TUFFNEL expressed his satisfaction at this having been introduced. He trusted that the Govern ment would, on every occasion, do all they could to put down bribery and corruption. He congratulated the THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 10, 1644. Government upon their having introduced the Bill, and he sincerely hoped that it w , )uld be successful. Mr. DILLON BROWNE thought there were other boroughs in the country, besides Sudbury, which ought to be disfranchised on account of bribery and corruption. Mr. W. WYNN thought the House ought to be con sistent with itself, and proceed at once t'.) pass this Bill. He thought the evidence which had been adduced, with respect to this Bill was amply sufficient for the House to act in legislating on the subject. He looked upon. this Bill not merely as a penal but a remedial measure. He thought that no borough had ever exhibited such a sys tem of bribery and corruption as that which had been shown in the borJugh of Sudbury. The Bhll was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow at twelve o'clock. The House then adjourned until Five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. The report on the Great South- Western (Ireland) Railway Bill was further considered, and ordered to be engrossed. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presente 1 a petition from Bridg water, praying for an extension of the suffrage. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a pnition from Islington, praying that existing railways may be com pelled to have third-class carriages, as well as future railways.. sudden and unauthorised withdrawal (by the Admiral) of the fleet which w en t out f rom England" as a protecti sn for those ships, destined to Russian and other ports in the Baltic. The owners of those ships sly that they have, on this ground, an additional claim for com pensation, because they suffered their losses in con sequence of the conduct of the officer under whose guard these vessels went out. Those for whom I appear say that they have a elaitn for compensation, on the ground that their property was seized by way of reprisal, that being a case in which the right of the sufferers to compensation is established. What is tl.e answer ? It is said that the property of the claimants was not taken by way of reprisal, but that during all this time we were at war with Denmark, and that the losses of the claimants did not come under the same category as book-debts,and ships and cargoes in har bour. Now, how is it proved that we were during this time at war with Denmark ? Why, a document is brought for ward, not from the Foreign-office, but from the Annual Register, and it is said that that is a declaration of war. Last year my lion. Friend the Member for Lambeth moved for the production of this document in the original, with an authentic translation ; and it now turns out that this document, on which so much stress has been laid, has been mistranslated, and that the most warlike word in the translation is not warranted by the original. In the Annual Register it appears that there had been an order to seize all English ships as well as all English goods and merchandise. Now, if there had been an order to seize ships, goods, and merchandise, that would not perhaps, of itself, be sufficient to turn the document into a formal declaration of war; but certainly nn order to seize, or in othz r words, to confiscate, would be an order to institute a proceeding which was Only authorised after there had been a declaration of war. In this way it might be ar gued that the document amounted to a declaration of war. It turns out, however, the word or words trans lated in the Annual Register, " to seize," mean no more than to lay an embargo on the ships ; and the difference between an order fur an embargo and an order to seize or confiscate goods is a very wide one. There are many other reasons why this document should not be considered as a declaration of war. The only allu sion to war in the whole paper is in the preamble ; whereas, if the document had been a declaration of war, words, showing it to be so, would have appeared in the body of the document. Besides, it is not a document formally addressed to our Government, as it would have been in the case supposed, bat merely to the subjects of the King of Denmark, and not to all the subjects of the King, but only to a 'portion of them. Again, it did not emanate from the central seat of Government, but from a province, and this a very important circum stance. Besides these proofs that the document is not to be considered as a declaration of war, there are many others which are scarcely less striking. For instance, on the very day on which it is dated, viz., the 16th of August, an order appeared at Copenhagen, and about that order—l do not know whether or not the Right lion. Gentleman is aware of it—about that order there can be no doubt that it is a simple order to sequester property. In the capi tulation of Copenhagen, on the 7th of September, one of the articles relates to the English property which has been, not seized or confiscated, but sequestered. On the 23d of October a remonstrance was agreed upon, in reference to the order of sequestration. The Danish Minister remained at our Court till the middle of November, 1807. Was not that totally inconsistent with our being at war ? And so late as December, the 13th of December, in that year, the King of Denmark issued a proclama tion, in answer to merchants who had asked him to authorise the correspondence with England, in which he says the King, in c mfining himself to the sequestration ot property, had done all in his power to assist their mis fortunes. The merchants at once, by becoming privateers, might recover their property, and that was after he had stated he had authorised sequestration, he authorised reprisals on English property. Were the circum stances that had taken place between France and Morocco, a state of reprisals or war? M. Guizot, in the French Chamber, said that war had not been announced, but that the attacks that had taken place had rendered reprisals necessary, and that a strong force had been sent against some of the Moorish towns, which had been taken. The argu ment derived from the document in the Annual Register, that it was a declaration of war, was entirely errroneous ; that being so, the distinction that was set up between the claims satisfied and those that remained to be satisfied, fell entirely to the ground. But• I will suppose that there had been a declaration of war, would that have deprived these parties of their claims ? They had no reason for supposing that the war had not been brought on in a regular way, but in a peculiar manner. There is an instance, also, of individuals who have ap plied to the Admiralty for licenses for ships to call at the Danish, ,and other ports, and those licenses were granted, not only during the time, but afterwards. Those persons have suffered for the public good, and having suffered for the public good they have a right to come to the British Government to ask for redress and compensations. These are the chief points of the case I have to submit. I will just mention that the British Government obtained a very large sum of money—upwards of a million of pounds—by the sale of the captures. Mr. Percival announced in the year 1810, when giving an explanation of this matter, that a sum of money had in the first instance been set apart for the satisfac tion of those merchants who had suffered by the manner in which the war broke out. If that sum, was set apart for the merchants who suffered by the manner in which the war broke out, I submit that there is no body of claimants who come with stronger arguments for compensa tion from the British Government than those whose goods were confiscated during the time the war was being carried on. I have gorse into the question in this general manner, hoping that the Government may be disposed to undertake the con sideration of the merits of these claimants. I do trust that the Right Hon. Gentleman will see that they are worthy of consideration. It is not wy wish to divide the House on the subject of these claims if the Right Hon. Gentleman will give the slightest assurance that the matter will be consi dered by the Government. This is a question involving very minute points, and it is a question which cannot be sa tisfactorily disposed of in a debate of this kind. These claims, I will remind the House, have been confirmed on four different occasions by majorities of this House, and by large majorities. I have already spoken of the manner in which several members of the Government, on former occa sions, supported these claims. I know the Right Hon Baro net ( Sir R. Peel) has never gone so far as to vote for these claims. But I have the authority of a Danish claimant, who was closely watching the Right Hon. Gentleman from the gallery, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion, for saying, that during the whole of that debate the Right Hon. Gentleman was pre sen t, and was an, attentive listener ; s and when Mr. Cres swe ll fi n i s h ed, the R i g ht H on . G en tl eman turned round t o hi m, and expressed his approba tion perhaps only, h owever, o f t h e manner i n which that emi nent person had execute d hi s tas k . But let that be as it may, there is no doubt of this, that at the last mo ment the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) left the House without voting at all. That, said an e xperienced friend to the Danish claimant—that is a sign that when Sir R. Peel comes to be Minister your claims will pro bably be settled. I hope the Right Hon. Baronet and the House will be satisfied I have not stated the facts of this case in any unjust or strained manner ; and if the Government shall think proper to divide the House on this occasion, I do trust the Right Hon. Baronet will not think it can redound to the honour of the Government or the party which supports the Government, if they, on this occasion, make this question, the consideration of which cannot possibly have any connexion with party topics, a question of confidence. I trust they will not call on those members of the Government who have voted more than once in support of those claims, to turn round on their votes, and so allow it to go forth to the country that great and galling grievances are taken up and are abandoned only to suit the purposes of party.---( Hear, hear. ) Mr. HUME—I did not, Sir, intend to address the House upon this question ; at all events, at the present moment ; but, as I second the motion, I will take the opportunity of offering a very few words upon the subject. For thirty-six years these claims have been before the country, and for twenty-six of these years all attempts to obtain a remedy from this House for the wrongs inflicted have wholly failed. It is now twenty six years since I first supported these claims, and on every sub sequent occasion that offered I have done the same, being per fectly convinced, after the most accurate examination of all the facts of the case, of the injustice that has been done. Orr four successive occasions, though wholly unsupported by Ministers, these claims have been admited by the deliberate opinion of the House. On six different occasions, now that I recollect right, have they been acknowledged by the House. In the time of Lord Althorps when he was Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and using every power of the Government against these claims, their justice was acknowledged. At a subsequent period a commission was appointed to ascertain the extent of the claims—to report how far they were founded in justice—and what portion of them ought to be paid. On that occasion a majority of 34 decided, against the opposi tion of Ministers, that the claims should be ascertained. In 1839 a motion was made for the payment of those claims, and the motion was carried, in spite of the opposition of the Mi nistry of that day, by a majority of 34, the numbers being 62 to 94. Again, in 1841, when a motion was brought forward that these individuals in the third class should be paid the amount of the property which they had lost, and which they could not guard by insurance, the question was decided iu fa vour of the claimants by a majority of 127 to 93. Notwithstand ing this majority the Ministry of the day refused to pay these claims, and on the 10th of June a motion was made for an ad dress to her Majesty, praying her to take the case into her consideration, and to order payment, and assuring her that the House would make good the means for the payment of them. The Ministry of the day opposed that motion, but they a majority of 75 is 64. Her Maj es ty r e turn e d her readiness to li qu id ate the claims. There has werenever, been any great er a d vocate f or economy an answer b at a n t I abtiyeg believe, in this House thsn I am , bu t I do say that the refusal to pay these claims is a disgrace to the country.—( Hear, hear.) con of our infamo u s p o li c y, are , who could not protect t h emselves b y i Those persons who have suff ere d in consequence of our unholy and ns l attack ura nhucapevoeangaalasytCopenhagen, contended sequences that th ey h ave b een, entitled to full compensation for their sufferings and losses.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth brought for ward this motion last year, and the result was most anomalous. It is all very excusable for party spirit to have sway in this House on political questions, but when the rights ot private individuals are concerned, party spirit should not be permitted to have power to induce Members to forget the claims of honour and of justice.--(Hear, hear.) The motion was brought forward by Mr. Hawes on the 20th June, 1843, and on that occasion 42 voted for the motion, and 57 against it, being a majority of 15 against the motion. But out of the 57 who voted against it I could name at least 15 who, on former occasions, had voted in favour of these very claims —( Hear , hear) - -and if those 15 a re a dd e d t o the 42, that will make the number of voters in favour of the 52j and leave only 42 vo ti ng aga i nst t h em, ority in favour o f t h e c l a i ms. Th at i s claims which will amount give to a a one ground for defding justice in this case. The House has decided already in ifavour of these claims, and the denial of them is a denial of justice. The late Government broughei down Sir Thomas Wilde to argue the case on technical groundst against the claimants. We a l l know the talents of that all know hi s i ngenu i ty and h i s re exertion of hi s t a l ents , t h e ma j or i ty ;t i hw n ee favour of justi ce , an d I h ave a r i g h t so L ef e a ar thisre n h e d Hb G O v l e t s n e t after 1 decidede m a a n i to say that majority of this House has decided, over and over spin, in favour of these claimants, and that i s one ver y strong point in their favour. I say they were i m p ar ti a l majorities, because they were gained against the Ministers of the day, and there are always individuals who, whatever their own feel ings may be, are ready to go with the Ministers for the time. The consequence is, if the House had left the decision of the question to justice between the two parties, the majority on each occasion would have been greater. On that ground I support the motion of my Hon. Friend with great satisfac tion, and I hope he will take the sense of the House on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) I have no idea of a question of this importance being passed over. I can only say to the Danish claimants, as I have said to them ever since the year 1818, when I advocated their cause—never give up your claims, I ad the satisfaction twenty six years after that time of seeing two classes of those claims settled, and as to this third class, if the present House of Commons and th" present Ministers are not honest enough to allow them, another House of Commons may be. At all events, let it be recorded now who are in favour of the motion and who are not, and for the rest, let it be left to those chances which never fail to attend a good cause. The question having been put, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose. He said, I hold this to be precisely one of those occasions on which the Government of a country is called on to esercise that au thority which the Constitution vests in it, of endeavout ing to control the disposition of a popular assembly to vote money, not justly due to those who claim it. While I hold the situa tinn I do, from the kindness of her Majesty, I never shall be wanting in courage to maintain what 1 believe is right, though I may be opposed both to those who put forward these claims and those who are acted on by their representations. If lam net satisfied the claims are just, I sill resist them. On this principle, whether I was in the Government or out of it, I have equally resisted the payment of these claims, and whatever opinions I may have before entertained, perhaps with little effect in another quarter of the House, I am bowed by my duty in the office I haw the honour to hold, to resist the motion on the present occasion. The Hon. Member who opened the debate told us truly that this House is not a satis factory tribunal, before which to try questions of a pecuniary nature. I agree with the Hon. Gentleman. It is not the fault of the Government, which has given every consideration to these claims; they have been duly submitted to the legal authorities to ascertain what is the true construction of the law, as applicable to the ease put before them, and the uniform opinion of the case, as submitted to the legal authorities com petent to investigate and decide on questions of this nature, has always been this—that under the ordinary usages of ear, as established between civilized nations, they cannot be acceded to If 3 ou accede to it you open a door not merely to the payment of those 225,0001., but to all payments of a similar kind in all fteure wars. It is the constant practice of war, that ships taken at sea are considered in a different light from ships seized in harbour and property taken on land, for when taken in harbour they are exempt from confiscation ; hut it is not so at sea. I am not here to argue that this distinction is just, but I am here to argue that if it be unjust in the case of the Danish wa-, it is unjust in the case of every war in which this country has been engaged. The Hon. Gentleman who made this motion commenced his speech by stating that rran y Members had changed their opi nions upon this question. It may be so, and lam not surprised at it, for in the first instance the general y of persons do not consider the distinction made between the various classes of claimants—between those who lost property in book debts— those whose property was taken on shore in the Danish States, and those whose ,property was captured at sea. But when persons saw the course of proceed ings in that House, and how differently the law of nations applied to the different classes of property, they, as was natural and just, reviewed the judgment they formed, and came to a different decision on the subject. But, in eddition to those who changed their opinion, the Hon. Gentleman thought he could make out a case against some gentleman who did not oppose them on former occasions, but who are now prepared to oppose them, and he says that the Right Hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, gave an expectation to those claimants that he would consent to their claims, because upon a discussion on the subject, after Mr. Cresswell's speech, he was observed by a gentleman to turn round and make an ob servation to Mr. Cresswell, and then walk out without giving a vote in his favour. And this is the ground on which he says he is justified in entertaining a favourable decision. It has been said that there was no declaration of war when this capture took place, and there being no declaration of war, that the parties were entitled to have a different rule applied to them from that which would be applied in ordinary cases. Now to that proposition I give a distinct and positive denial, as strong as it is possible to give. At the time when this capture was made, on the 16th of August, 1807, war was ad mitted to exist between England and Denmark ; and that fact has been disputed only by those who wish to make the non declaration of war a ground for demanding that this payment should be improperly made. The Hon. Gentleman has re ferred to the Danish proclamation of the 16th of August, 1807. Now I will read some of that proclamation.—(The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the proclamation, which was to the effect that the English Ambassador (Jackson) declared that hostilities between England and Denmark had commenced, and demanded passports and safe conduct for himself and suite.) Therefore the war might be considered as actually begun. The Hon. Gentleman has also adverted to the proclamation, which was published at Copenhagen, bearing the same date, the 16th of August. Now, that proclamation could lead to no other inference than that it was a declaration of war.— ( The Right Honourable Gentleman read alio this proclamation, which was to the effect that ' hostilities having commenced on the part of England, the Danish Govern ment declared all British property to be laid under sequestra tion, and that all Danish subjects were enjoined to assist in that sequestration, with respect to all British property whatever) Did not that amount to a declaration of war? I look upon that proclamation as irrefragable proof that, as far as Denmark was concerned, warcommenced from that moment. Coupled with that, the taking of the capital would have been sufficient inti mation of the war. I should think that the battle of Water luo would have been a sufficient intimation of war between this country and France, without any declaration of war, and there had been none at the time. I think that the House will agree with me, that as far as the fact. on the part of Denmark, is concerned, the war commenced from the 16th of August, 1807. But the Hon. Gentleman says that the British Government did not make any declaration, and that this Government is to be bound by its own acts, and not by those of Denmark. But, Sir, on the 25th of Sept., in the British declaration of war, there is a statement confirmatory of the statement which I have made to the House. It was, that notwithstanding the de claration of war,on the part of Denmark, it remained still for the Danish Government to determine whether war should actually take place. Can there be a stronger proof that the British Govern ment considered Denmark to have made the declaration of war of which I have already furnished the House with the details ? But, Sir, look at the declaration of Denmark, which was sent round to the different States of Europe at a period antecedent to the British declaration. The Danish Government say that without danger and dishonour they have no chance but to commence war. Every document to which we have access shows that the war commenced on the 16th of August, 1807. It is ad mitted by both parties engaged in the war ; and yet, forsooth, in order to establish a claim which cannot be maintained unless you deny that there was war, all these documents are overlooked, and the House is called upon to pay an enormous sum of money to persons whose only claim is founded upon the hypothesis that the seizures took place before the declaration of war. But, said the Hon. Gentleman, this war, if it were a war, is to be treated upon different principles from others, be cause due notice of it was not given—it was a secret war. Why, will any man contend with respect to the wars between different nations, that when you observe that a Power is placed in a situation to do you an injury, you should immediately give the Government notice that within six months afterwards, you intend to commence warlike operations? Is that the way in which this country has acted towards other nations with whom it has been engaged in war ? or is it the way in which civilised nations usually act towards each other? Quite the contrary. How did the war with America take place? War was declared on the part of the United States long before it was declared on the part of Great Britain ; and when Great Britain expected, from the negotiations which were pending, that hostilities would be prevented, was it ever contended that those who lost ships in the American war were entitle] to come before the House to claim compensation? It would be difficult to prove that there was not, in the case of the war with the United States, the same want of information as in that of the Danish war. But, says the Hon Gentleman, the claimants in this case are entitled to compensation, because the British Government withdrew their fleet from the Baltic at an early period, instead of leaving it to protect British subjects. Why was such a thing ever heard of, as that a British arma ment, stationed in a tea like the Baltic for warlike pur poses, should remain there exposed to all the dangers of such a situation, in order to protect British ships, and that if it did not remain, and any loss ensued, the merchants should be entitled to compensation ? All I can say is this, and it is what I have already repeatedly stated, that if von are prepared to make payments on such grounds as these, i f you are prepared to yield to the claims of those who have suffered on such occasions, if you are prepared to permit their representations to you to prevent your feel ings of your sense of duty to the public, there will be no limits to the demands made on the revenue of the country and the taxation of the people. The Hon. Member for Montrose tells us that we have acted most unjustly in not acceding to these claims. I beg to dispute that point with him. I think that the Hon. Gentleman has during the whole of his public life—l do not intend to dispute the usefulness of his labours—but he has, during his whole life, given up his time to attack little expenditures, but leaving large ones to themselves. He will object to the giving of 5,0001. or 10,000/. additional in the navy estimates to carry on war, but when you come to the question, whether we shall, in deference to private application and individual feelings, ad vise the House to incur an expense on behalf of the public of 225,000/. he then has no objetion ; and, perhaps, on the next occasion, he will consent to a much greater sum. Now, Sir, that is not my view of my public duty, and it is not the ground on which I accepted the office I new hold. I be lieve it is my duty, whatever the sufferings of these parties may be, that when ships are captured at the time of war, to resist, on public grounds, the repayment tie the parties of the losses they have sustained. On that ground, Sir, I shall resist the motion of the Hon. Member opposite; and I am sure that those who have given their attention to the subject will be of the same opinion, and will not permit the Hon. Gentleman to succeed in his motion. Mr. HAWES—Sir, I am extremely sorry to detain the House, but it is utterl y impossible that a question of this im portance can be made subservient toa particular hour. I will, therefore, endeavour briefly to state the views I entertain upon this subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman has added nothing whatever to the present subject. He looked at the case on two grounds. He says the capture took place in the time of the war; and, further, that the law officers of the Crown had given several opinions adverse to the claim. Let the House recollect, that with whatever force the Right Hon. Gentleman's arguments apply to the third class of claimants, they apply with equal force to all former claimants —( Hear, hear)—and, therefore, permit me to say, that the claims now before the House do stand upon grounds which really entitle them to the sympathy and consideration of this House. Now, was it a state of war under which these cap tures were made ? It is now admitted that it was a state of war, but it was a state of war which peculiarly distinguishes this case from all former similar cases, and I hope will pecu liarly distinguish it from all future cases. You say that in July, 1807, hostilities had commenced. In July hostilities commenced, and British troops were landed on the shores of Denmark. Was that a formal declaration of war? No, says the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was in August, but that is the disputed point? The English declaration of war was not made until the 4th of December. Sir GEORGE CLERK—The 4th of November. Mr. HA'WES—WeII, take the 4th of November, if you please, but that is not the 16th of August, allow me to say. These captures took place between the 16th and the end of August. If the declaration only took place on the 4th of November, then the captures took place before the declaration of war. Now, I want to know what is to be taken as a declaration of war to British merchants? The Right Hon. Gentleman says, take the attack upon Gluckstadt and Copenhagen as the declara tion of war. Now, the troops sent out were not for the purpose of carrying on a war, but for the purpose of supporting nego tiations that were being entered intoto prevent war. The sending troops therefore was not a declaration of war to the British merchant. The Right Hon. Gentleman says that the battle of Waterloo is a case in point. He asked were we at war with France then. I will ask, were we at war with China ? ( Cheers.) We took towns and ships there, and the navy were refused all prize money because there was no war.— (" Hear, hear," from Sir C. Napier.) Will the Right Hon. Gentleman condescend to meet meet me on that ground. It was very convenient to the Treasury then to say that this was no war, and it is now convenient to say that in the present case it was a war.—( Cheers.) In both cases there were conflicting declarations, and it is now convenient for her Majesty's Go vernment to meet the present honest claimants in that way. I challenge the Right Hon. Gentleman to point out a single similar case to this in the whole history of the country. This expedition was secretly sent—the expedition was sent before any declaration of war—and by that expedition this country gained a million of money by the seizure of ships. I call upon the fight llon. Gentleman to find me a similar case to that; I say that in the speech which the Right Hon. Gentleman has made he has been guilty of flagrant inconsistency. I ask if there was any prize money allowed to our navy serving in China ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes. Mr. HA W ES—I am told not. The Gallant Commodore near me ( Sir Charles Napier) says there was none. Surely that cannot be a matter of dispute. Were we at war with China—for that will settle the whole question. Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman will allow me to treat his arguments with reference to points of law. I will quote a high legal authority. I will refer to the opinion cf Sir W.lliam Follett. —( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Yes, I per fectly understand that cheer; but what was the opinion of Sir SVilliam Follett. Not when he was Attorney-General bit before he was so. Why, favourable to these claims. But have we no other great law authorities in our favour ? What were the opinions of Dr. Lushington and Sir Frederick Pol lock ? Their opinions were likewise favourable to the Danish claims.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right Hon. Gentleman might quote the opinions of law-officers of the Crown, but some of their opinions were directly opposite to what they were when not holding office, Just let the House reflect for a moment on what those claims really are—the claims of shipowners whose property was on the high seas, and which was committed defenceless to them on the faith that it would not be interfered with nor exposed to hostilities. I must say that the refusal of compensation for such a seizure is most unjust and contrary to justice and equity ; and I further say that to refuse such compensation is false economy, and discreditable to this country. The grounds upon which this appeal is made have been so well stated by my Hon. Friend behind me, that I will not intrude on the time and attention of the House. It is said we have no legal right—well, we don't raise it—we don't appeal to courts of law, and make our application on grounds of equity and justice. We say this is no common else, but a very special one, the parallel for which the history of this country does not furnish. On these grounds, and wishing to keep faith with this House, I earnestly hope the House will do justice to these British merchants and British shipowners who have been so unjustly plundered. The decision of this House has be n reversed, but I hope British honour and British justice will be relieved by the decision of the night from the foul blot which the refusal of these just de mands has hitherto cast upon it. Colonel SIBT HORP—I always felt it my duty to attend in the House on these important occasions, and to record my vote in favour of justice, for I consider the claims of these individuals blinded on justice, and, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say on this sub • ject—whatever obloquy may be imposed upon me— ter the course I have taken, and will take ; I will never shrink from the fearless and manly avowal of my opinion, whatever views a Minister may entertain. The House has already de cided by a majority in favour of these claims. I hope the Hon. Member will persevere, and that he will divide the House upon it, and I hope the measure will be forced upon the attention of Parliament until they are conceded— Guita cavat lapidem, non vi, sed saepe cadend o ; and further hope that the paltry consideration of 250,0001. will not deter the Chan cellor of the Exchequer from discharging such a debt of ho nour. lam sure the British public would be glad if these claims were equitably arranged—they are the claims of their fellow-creatures and of their fellow-subjects. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks of law— that the law is against these claims. Law, Sir, law ! Why, I know we all know how often law and justice are alike perverted by the sub'lety and the acuteness of lawyers, but that is no ground for us to over hrow a claim which is clearly founded in equity.-- ( Year, hear.) Then, Sir, that Right Hon. Gentle man talked of a declaration of war, and we all know what that is to go for. The point, the proper point, and the only point, for this House now to look at, is this, and I shall put it to you. I ask, did, or did not, the merchants of England go to the Admiralty, and ask in that, the legitimate and proper quarter, whether their vessels might sail,—and what was the answer? The answer of the Admiralty was this:—" They may proceed with the greatest safety."—( Cheers. ) Under the sanction of the Admiralty, then—the first quarter to apply to —these merchants went forth with their ships and their car goes. Instead of the Government warning them from going, they advised them to go. How could they presume to recom mend merchants to go forth, and then, forsooth, deny the lia bility of which they were the cause? Such conduct, I say, shows a want of generosity —yes, and I must add, a want of feeling too.—( Loud ores of " Hear, hear.") Therefore, I assert • i it is the duty of the Government frankly, freely, and fairly to acknowledge these claims—to see them rightfully ar ranged.--( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer also says there is a wide difference be tween the former class of claimants and the present. It mat tered not one whit about classes. They all went forth on the faith and under the sanction of the Government, and that faith ought to have been held inviolate.—( Hear, hear.) I will not trespass longer on the attention of the House.—( An Hon Member near the Gallant Colonel said " Hear, hear," in a peculiar tone.) I do not wish, and I never do wish to trespass upon the patience of the House, but I shall stay as long on my legs as I consider right for the discharge of a duty I hold to be a solemn one.—("Query," by the Honourable Member.) Duty, Sir, before pleasure.—(Laughter and cries of " Hear, hear.") 1 have often before supported these claims. I have never changed in respect to them, and I never will, so long as I have the power of judging between right and wrong. —( Hear, hear.) I most cordially support the motion of the Hoe. Member for Weymouth, and I ask him to persevere in his motion, on all occasions, year after year, till fair dealing and equity prey: il. Let us proceed with energy and determi nation, and depend upon it, before very long, we shall have the pleasure of seeing the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer knock under to us.—(A laugh and cheers. ) Sir C. NAPIER—I am quite delighted to have heard the Bight Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer de clare that the taking of Copenhagen was in itself a sufficient declaration of war. On the first attack on Canton I find that the army and navy, who had one year's additional batty for that attack, and who carried on a series of brilliant operations after that, under the command of Sir W. Parker, and received the thanks of Parliament for their services, who were sent up rivers, with orders to detain vessels, and who did detain vessels and ransom them in the most piratical manner, having received orders so to ransom them.—l find, Sir, that after the lapse of this time they were compelled to give these vessels up, and to give up the ransom money also, in order to enable the Chinese Government to pay the expense of the war to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who received that money, and the army and navy were deprived of the prize money which they were entitled to after the attack upon Canton, on the ground that war had not been declared. Now the Chancellor of the Ex chequer says that the attack on Copenhagen was a sufficient declaration of war in the Baltic, and I hope that he will act on the same rule in the case of Canton, and give those seamen and soldiers the prize money which they are entitled to • and if they are not paid it how can you e x p ec t th a t on a to; occasion men will come forward and volunteer in the navy ? They will say, "No! The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say there is no declaration of war, and will deprive us of that prize-money which we have fairly earned." Sir R. PEEL—I do not belive, Sir, that the navy will ever act upon the principles just enunciated by the Gallant Officer opposite. I believe, that whenever ordered on service, they will do their duty to their country without reference to any pe cuniary consideration. If that consists in performing such ope rations as were performed in China, they will not refuse to do it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer may determine that they are not entitled to prize-money. Sir. C. NAPIER—I did not say the navy would refuse to do its duty. I said that if the navy were treated with regard to prize -money as they have been treated in China, you would not get volunteers to cuter the service. Sir 11. PEEL-1 hope the House will not be turned aside from the consideration of real question at issue, by any reference to the Chinese proceedings. The real question is, whether the House of Commons shall vote a sum of upwards of a quarter of a million on account of alleged captures upwards of 37 years since. The attention of the House has not been called on the present occasion so much to the origin of these claims, as it has been on several previous occasions when they have been submitted to the House ; but an attempt has been made to refer to the votes of various Members of the House on former occasions, when these claims have been brought forward. Now it has been said that I retired from the House on a former occasion with out voting. When I was in opposition to the late Government, I uniformly gave them my support in resisting these claims. In 1:341, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion in favour of these claims, I was in opposition to the Government. Mr. Cresswell, at that time was seated on the benches behind me. In 1841, I recorded nay vote in favour of thecourse which the late Government took, directed by a sense of the duty in refusing these claims in opposition to that personal and private canvass of which I myself have had so many reasons to com plain. Now look at what has been said of the opinion of the Attorney-General. Why any one who heard the speech of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, must have inferred that Sir W. Fol lett had given his opinion in Parliament in favour of these claims. The Hon. Member for Lambeth has referred to the opinion of the Attorney-General, and quoted him as an authority in fa vour of the Danish claims. But what was the Attorney-Ge neral's explanation ? It was given in 1840, in the presence of the Hon. Member, and he would ask the House if it was fair to attempt to lead it to believe he was in favour of the claims. Sir William Follett said in 1840, " The Hon. Mem ber has pleased to refer to an opinion he bad been alleged to have given with respect to these claims. An opinion of a lawyer depended entirely on the case put before him, but since the real facts of the case been before him he had never had the slightest doubt on the sub ject. A few years ago the matter was brought before the House of Commons by his Hon. Friend Mr. Cresswell, who asked him (the Solicitor-General) to support him ; but on hearing the facts of the case in that House, he was not satis fied that the claim had been made out, and he considered the Government was right in resisting it." And here (continued Sii R. Peel) was his Right Hon. and Learned Friend's vote recorded in the division list of that year, directly in opposition to the motion. When, in opposition to the then Government, he could not have been under any undue influence, and yet, instead of voting with Mr. Cresswell, he voted against him, stating, that when he came to look at the case, he thought the Government was right in resisting it. Are we at liberty to discuss the justice and policy of the war with Den mark? If that is the case, if we are at liberty to discuss the justice and policy of the war, I know no limit that can be placed to such claims, I have never heard of a war the justice of which was admitted by all parties. The question is, was there war at the time ? This country believed that Denmark was about to deliver its fleet over to France. We then sent a naval force to clam from Denmark either a denial of that charge or the delivery of their fleet, as there was a secret article in the Treaty of Tilsit, by which Denmark had stipu lated to deliver its fleet up to France. This country demanded the Danish fleet from the control of Bo naparte. On the 16th of August, 1807, Denmark declared war ; on the 14th of November following, this country declared war against Denmark, in these terms : " Whereas the King of Denmark has issued a declaration of war against his Majesty, and his Majesty has ineffectually endeavoured to obtain a revision of that declaration against this country, his Majesty hereby declares war against the King of Denmark." Now, what was the opinion of Sir W. Scott, the very highest authority, on the retro-active effect of a declaration of war?' Many causes have been decided in the courts much more strong in equity than these claims. There was the case of the seizures at Demarara. The question was, whether it was a prize or not. It was a claim made by persons said to be British subjects, because the seizure was made before the declaration of war, but the decla ra'ion of war was subsequently made, and the opinion of Lord Stowell was, that the declaration of war had a retrospective effect, and that all property previously detained was liable to be considered the property of enemies taken in time of war, and that all seizures made became prizes. So in this case, I say there was a declaration of war previously to a great part of the seizures, namely, a declaration of war on the part of Denmark on the 16th of August, that there was a hostile fleet before Copenhagen, and a declaration of war on the part of Great Britain on the 4th of November, and that this declaration had a retro-active effect in the words of Lord Stowell. I say we are not at liberty to determine now whether there were sufficient motives to demand the surren der of the fleet, and the opinion of her Majesty's Government is, that those claims are not well-founded ; that to admit them would be to admit a dangerous precedent, and would revive other claims as strong as these. And her Majesty's Govern. ment, as guardians of the public purse, which is assaulted by so many claims, of which the House of Commons is not always the most effective protector, feel it to be their duty, in per formance of the obligations they ewe to the public, to take that course which they took when they were in opposition to the late Government, and to offer every opposition to those claims which they did not believe to be founded in justice. Mr. MUNTZ—I will make a few observations on this mo• • 1,-Ni tion, not that I have any interest in 3t, thOtt44 an in terest in the Spanish a ir, wheel.. as' a iifferent case from the present. Mtiv.:apieatektit i i, . "to •e unjust. wheiher the taking of fish:4l/10 ,vpssels . • taking of Copenhagen ; but that is notligAirtltViAtlitairwe are to ar gue. The question which we are to argue isltirelher the mer chants could take care of themselves ' and whether they were not placed in a false position by the declaration of the Admi. rail. I must say, as a merchant, that we had a ju.,t clams upon the Government for compensation, and I think tilat in a question between the Government and individuals, the nation ought not to sacrifice an individual for so small an amount. I think that if one case could be justified, this claim is equally justifiable.—( Hear. ) After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, lib° was un derstood to support the motion, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided:— For the motion 6B Against it ... Alajority against the motion ... 4 DOG-STEALING BILL. Mr. LIDDELL - called the attention of the House to a petition presented last session, praying for further protection against the depredations of the dog stealers in this metropolis; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the alle gations of the said petition, with a view to the correction of the evils complained of therein. Sir JAMES GRAHAM was unwilling to refuse inquiry, but at the same time at this late period of the session—(An Hon. Member, " The dog-days"—Laughter)—he thought the vppointment of a Committee might prove inconvenient. THE ROYAL ACADEMY. Mr. HUME moved that an humble address be presented to her Majes'y, as patroness and comptroller :of: the Royal Academy of Arts, pra)ing that she will be gra• ciously pleased to take into consideration the laws and regulations of that institution, with a view of ren dering it more conducive to the advancement of the fine arts, better suited to the spirit and circumstances of the present age, and.more consonant with the intention of its royal foun der, George the Third. The Hon. Member said that the Royal Academy had failed to promote the object for which it was established, and eminently demanded reformation in many of its departments, as it had grown into an odious mono poly. The Royal Academy had received 80,000/. The build ing cost more than It 0,0:KI. An HON. MPMBER moved that the House be counted, and there being only thirty Members present, the House adjourned at Eight o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedzngs of the Howe of Commons.) MONDAY, JULY 8. MIDDLE LEVEL DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION BILL. Report considered ; Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Amendments made by the Committee to the Bill be now read a second time :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words " That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " Bill be re-committed," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question :" The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES,' 116. Allix, John Peter Elphinstone, Howard Mundy, E. M. Bailey, Joseph Lstcourt, T. G. B. Napier, Sir Charles Baring. F. T. Evans, W. Ogle, S. C. H. daring, Thomas Farnham, E. B. Ord William Barnard, E. G. Flower, Sir James Packe, C. W. Barron, Sir H. Forman, T. Seaton Palmerston, Vis. Beckett, William Forster, Matthew Parker, J. Bellew, It. M. Fuller, A. E. Peel, Jonathan Benett, John Gill, Thomas Philips, G. It. Berkeley, Captain Gladstone, W. E. Itash:eigh, Wm. Bouverie, E. P. Gore, Montague Round, John Bright, John Goring, Charles Russell, J. D. W Brisco, M. Greene, T. Sandon, Lord Sroadley, H. Grey, Sir G . Shaw, F. Brotherton J. Guest, Sir Jo hn Sheil, R. L. J Buller, Sir J. Yarde Hamilton, Lord C. Shieey, E. P. Burrell, Sir C. M. Heathcote ' G. J. Somerset, Lord G. Campbell, Sir H. Hodgson, Frederick Sotheron, T. H Cavendish, Hon. 0. Houldsworth, T. StuartAVilliers Chapman, Aaron Howard, Lord Strickland, Sir G. Chapman, B. Howick, Lord Strutt, Edward Cholmohdeley, Hugh Hughes, W. D. Thesiger, F. Christie, W. D. Hume, Joseph f homely ' Thomas Christoph-r, R A Humphery, J. Thornhill, G. Cobden, Richard Hutt, W. Tr olls p e, Sir John Cockburn, Sir G. Irton, Samuel 11;:rnor, C. Colebrooke Sir T. James, William Vane, Collett John Kerr, D. Lord Harry villi ers Charles P. Craw ford, W. S. Labouchere, H. Vivian, ' J. a Dalrymple, Captain Langston, J. H. Walker, R. Dawson, T. V. Layard, Captain Wall, B, Denison, E. Beckett Lowther, Hon. CoL Wawn, John T. Dickinson, F. H. Macaulay, T. B. Williams, W. Divett, E. M'Geachy, F. A. Wood, Charles Duncan, George Mangles, It. D. Worsley, Lord 1 Duncombe, T. S. Manners, Lord J. Yorke, It. H. Dundas, Frederick Masterman. John Easthope, John Miles, P. W. S. TELLER& Eaton, Richard J. Mitcalfe, Henry Pusey, Philip Ebrington, Viscount Morrison James Hayter, W. G. MINORITY—NOES, 26. Bagge, Wm. Copeland, W. Ramshottem, J Beresford, Major Dougla , , Sir C. Rushbrooke,eolo nsa Blacks'one, W. Ellis, Wynn Seyrneur, Lord Blandford, Marquis Gisborne, Thomas Smyth, Sir G. II . Bowes, John Hawes, is . Towne ley, John Bruce, Lord Ernest Hussey, Thomas WodehoUse, Edmond Buller, C. Ingi s, Sir R. Carnegie, Captain Knight, Henry Gaily TELLEna: Chute, W. L. tv. Lowther, J. H. Jocelyn, Vis-ount Cole, Hon.H. A. Manners, Lord C. S. Bentinck, Lcrd G SPORTING INTELLIGENCE: At a General Meeting of the Jockey Club, held on Saturda last, July 6, _ _ It was resolved— " That it being now proved that Running Rein was three yrs old when he ran for the Two yrs old Plate at Newmarket, Crenoline must be considered the winner of that race, andi that the Duke of Rutland is entitled to the Plate. " That the thanks of the Jockey Club are eminently due, and are hereby offered to Lord George Bentinck, for the energy, perseverance, and skill which he has displayed iii detecting, exposing, and defeating the atrocious frauds which have been brought to light during the recent trial respecting the Derby Stakes. " That it is the opinion of this meeting that no publication of the proceedings of the Jockey Club should be made without the consent of the stewards." The annurd general meeting of the club will take place at the New Rooms, Newmarket, on Wednesday next, July 10, after the races. INTELLIGENCE EXTRA. NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1844. Mom)Ay.—Duke of Bedfrn•d's Minotaur, Bst 81b, agst Mr. ist 71b ; T.Y.C. 150, h ft. Fili6T SPRING MEETING, 1847. FRIDAX.—Three yrs old Sweepstakes of : 50 sous. each, for fillies out of mares that never bred a winner of 501., &c. R.M.—Duke of Bedford's by The Saddler, out of Monceda, and Fistiana—General Grosvenor's by Dcedalus, out of his Brocard mare—Mr. Batson's by The Doctor, out of Revelry —Lord Exeter's ch by Hetman Platofr, out of Macremma— Sir W. W. Wynn's by Gladiator, dam by Buzzard, out of Emma, by Orville. NEWMARKET JULY MEETING. NEwmATIKET, MONDAY NIGIIT.—The Handicap did not fill. The July Stakes.—The following have paid :—Tunick. Jet, sister to Canadian, Hersey, sister to Cameleon, and Glee, The match between Glen Fishie and Ntrowna completes the days sport, which commences late. (RECEIVED LAST NIGHT.) NEWMARKET JULY MEETING—TuEsDAy. The July Stakes of 50 sovs. each, 30 ft, for two vrs old ; colts Bst 71b, and fillies Bst 51b. New T.Y.C. The second to save his stake. (15 Subs.) Mr. J. Day's Old England (J. Day, jun.) 1 Lord Albemarle's Scarmentado Colonel Peel's f by Slane, out of Sea-kale Lord Exeter's Deodora 2 to 1 on Scarmentado. Old England made all the running till half way up the cords, where Scarmentado, who had fol lowed him, challenged; a good race home was won by a neck. Sea-kale and Deodora had no chance in any part of the race. Old England ran unkindly all the way. Duke of Bedford's Glen Fishie, Bst 121 b, received from Lord Exeter's Petrowna, 6st 121 b. New T.Y.C. 100 h ft. The weather favourable, and the course in excellent order, but a thin attendance, and the betting in keeping with the poverty-stricken character of the sport. The two year olds and yearlings belonging to the late Mr. Thornhill, and seve ral other horses, will be put up for sale to-morrow morning. NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1844. Lord E. Russell's Nat, 9st 41b, agst Mr. Payne's Walpole (Nininka colt), 7st 41b. T.Y.C. 100 h ft. NEWMARKET HOUGHTON MEETING, 1844. Duke of Bedford's Minotaur, llst 101 b, agst Mr. Osbaldes ton's Sorella (sister to Martingale), 10st 71b, Mr. Osbaldeston to ride. A.F. 200, 11 ft. Tun NATIONAL GALLERY.—On Monday the two picturcg, purchased on Saturday by Mr. Eastlake, at the sale at Messrs. Christie and Manson's, for the National Gallery, were placed in that institution, and were greatly admired by the numerous visitors. They are numbered 193 and 194, and are placed in different rooms, the "Judgment of Paris" being in the second large room, and immediately facing Rubens'a " Rape of the Sabines." This picture, it was stated at the sale on Saturday, by Mr. Manson, was painted by Rubens for Cardinal Richelieu ; it was subsequently in the Orleans Gallery, from which it was brought and sold to Lord Kin naircl, who gave 3,000 guineas for it. It afterwards came into the possession of Mr. John Penrice, at whose sale of pic tures, on Saturday, it was bought for 4,000 guineas, as stated in this journal yesterday. The other picture, by Guido, of " Lot and his Daughters," is placed in the large room at the extreme end, in the north-east corner. This picture was formerly in the Lancilotto Palace, at Rome. It was brought from Rome by the second Marquis of Lansdowne. In addi tion to the above, the National Gallery has recently been enriched by three new pictures, purchased at the sale of the late Mr. 'Harman's collection. They are numbered 190, 191, and 192, and consist of the Portrait of a Jew, by Rem brandt; the " Infant Christ and St. John e m b rac i ng ," by Guido ; and an exquisite little portrait of Gerard Dow, painted by himself. THE GIRLS.—They think on: Hymen and can't help sighing. When their lovers forsake them they can't help crying. They sit at the window and can't help spying. Into private matters they can't help prying. To get each a beau they can't help trying. When together their tongues they can't help plying. At the mirror they can't help twist ing, and turning, and trying. They screw up their corsets, bring on the consumption, and can't help dying.—American paper. 'THE CHINESE RANSOM.—On Monday afternoon, shortly after one o'clock, a special train on the South-West ern Railway arrived at the terminus, Nine Elms, containing nine tons and a half of Sycee silver, which had been brought from Portsmouth under convoy of a detachment of the 47th Regiment of Foot. The above specie is part of the money agreed upon by the Chinese Government to be paid to this country for the ransom of Canton, and arrived at Portsmouth a few days ago in her Majesty's ship Childers. The specie was conveyed in seven of her Majesty's Artillery vans to the Mint. HISTORIC FANCIES.—BY THE HON. GEORGE SYDNEY SMYTHE, M.P.—This volume is calculated to at tract a considerable share of public attention, not merely because it exhibits great talent, and indicates a greater promise, but because it represents, in its various pages, a picture of that youthful and stirring mind which has re cently so much engaged the observation, and, in a great degree, the sympathy of the public. The charm of the book is full of freshness and vigorous fancy. The writer has surveyed the past and present, disembarrassed of those conventionalities that are crumbling . around us, and has arrived at results, which may be, .in some in stances, crude, but which are always genuine. He de livers himself of his strong convictions in a style pas sionate, yet chaste and precise ; .and whether he blazons the achievements of the great aristocracy of France, or celebrates the superhuman energies of the Jacobins of Paris—whether he charge the Roundhead with the Ca tholic Cavalier, or canonize Armand Carrel in lyric of almost unrivalled grace, we find everywhere the real feeling and language always sustaining the sentiment, as prompt, as passionate, and picturesque. The finest; thing in this volume is— " The merchants of Old England, the seigneurs of the seas." It is may a great national strain,— Times. NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Mr. HUME gave notice that he should that day three weeks make a motion respecting the correspondence between the British Government and the Raja of Satara. IRELAND. Mr. NYSE begged to give notice, that in accordance with an arrangement between himself and the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Illaesty's Govern ment, it was his intention to defer his motion about the Irish State trials, which stood upon the paper for that evening,, until Monday next. which, being a Government day, the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had himself conceded to him. He had further to give notice that his other motion, which also stood upon that day's paper, and which had reference to the University of Dublin and the College of Maynooth, he shouhi likewise defer until the vote for Maynooth came regularly before the House. Could the Right Hon. Baronet inform him when he pro posed to go into a Committee of Supply ? Sir R. PEEL said, after the kind manner in which, on a former occasion, the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Wyse) had waived his right of precedence at the request of the Government, he felt bound to place the earliest day possible after the hearing of the appeal in the other House at the disposal of the Right Hon. Gen tleman.—(Hear, hear.) As to the question which had been put to him, he was not prepared at that moment to state when he proposed to go into a Committee of Supply, but in the course of the present week he would endeavour to name a day for that purpose. SHAREHOLDERS IN RAILWAYS. Mr. WALLACE gave notice that, when the House divided on the Railway Bill, he should propose that the names of Hon. Members interested in any of those un dertakings should not be received. He would take the directors first, and the shareholders second.—(Loud laughter.) He begged to inquire of the Speaker what would be the proper time and course to take in this matter, as there was a difference of opinion upon the subject.—(Loud laughter.) The SPEAKER said the proper time for making the objection was after the tellers had taken the numbers, but before the numbers were declared from the chair. POOR-LAW. Captain PEC HELL gave notice that on bringing up the report of the Pour-law Amendment Bill he should move the omission of the 11th clause, which assigned the duty of apprenticing pauper children to the Poor•law Commissioners, instead of the Board of Guardians. POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE, Lord SANDON moved that a message be sent to the Lords, requesting that the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Lon3dale, and the Earl of Besborough, might attend to be examined before the Secret Committee on opening the letters at the Post-offiee.—Agreed to. GUERNSEY. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would, if there were no objec tion, at once move for copies of the correspondence which had taken place between the Home Secretary and the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey, since the Ist August last. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the same reason which had induced the Honourable . Gentleman to post pone the motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of the affairs of Guernsey, still existed. The whole of the circumstances connected with the recent unfortunate disputes in Guernsey would speedily be brought judicially under the notice of the Committee of the Privy Council ; and wh;le that cause was pending, he thought it would not be for the interest of the pub lic service to produce the correspondence. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would postpone his motion until this thy fortnight. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—POST-OFFICE. Messengers from the Lords brought (I , Avn certain Bills, and also brought down a message requesting that permission might be given to Lord John Russell and to Sir James Graham to attend before the Lords' Com mittee on the Post-office, in order to be examined. The SPEAKER informed the messengers that the House would send an answer by messengers of its own. IRISH MARRIAGES BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the first reading of the Irish Pres'lyterian Marriages Bill, which had been brought down from the Lord —Agreed to. DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. CHRISTIE rose to submit his motion on the Danish claims, of which he had given notice :—" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an address to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to take into her early and most favourable consideration the case of the claimants for losses sustained by the seizure of British ships and cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807, and reported to have been established by the Commissioners, to whom it was referred to examine and adjudicate on all such claims, in their report bearing date the 12th day of May, 1840." He said, " this question has been so often before the House that I shall be justified in doing that which I should otherwise have done as a matter of policy, and detain the House but a short time in dealing with the subject. I cannot but remember that when this ques tion was formerly brought forward in this House, it came recommended by all the weight of the talents and great abilities of Mr. Cresswell. After that gentleman ceased to be a Member of this House, it was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt). That gentleman's avocations, however, p r evented him from bringing it forward this sess i on . This is the reason that lam here to undertake it. I expect, of course, to hear it said that it is high time we should have done with these Danish claims.—(Hear, hear.) That it is a very old motion which has been often discussed ; but I bog to remind the House in the present state of the question, that these are the third and last of three classes of claims, the first two of which have been satis fied, first one and then the other, but both after long and determined opposition from succeeding Governments; and that this third and last class of claims have already had their justice affirmed by majorities of this House. I know it will be said that on the last occasion when the question was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Lambeth, he (Mr. Hawes) was in a minority. I know that he expected a larger majority than had ever before been recorded in support of his motion, but to his great sur prise he found himself in a minority. But still the Danish claims put forward four victories in opposition to this minority ; and whatever opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as an individual, may entertain on this subject—and I know that Right Hon. Gentleman has always, both in and out of office, consistently voted against those &aims—l am sure he cannot deny that there must be some strength, even if not suffi cient strength, in claims which have before been so earnestly and perseveringly advocated by so dis tinguished a member of his own party as Mr. Cresswell, and supported by so large a number of members of his own party, and which, on several occasions, have been supported by members of the present Government. At different times I find that no less than ten Members of the pi.e;enidoverni;aentlTaW voted for these claims. I am sorry to see that several of those Members are not now in the House ; but I begin by mentioning the name of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Inland, whom, I see, in his place. I believe I am correct in stating that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, who began by opposing the Danish claims, after giving more mature attention to the sub ject, in the year 1841 voted in their favour, but voted against them when they were brought forward last year. The Hon. Member for Wenlock, a Lord of the Trea sury, who voted on three successive occasions in their favour, and the Honourable Member for Belfast, were away from the division. Next, there was the Solicitor-General, who, I presume, investigated those claims with a lawyer's mind, and who, I hope, will give his assistance on this occasion. Next, there were the Hon. Member for Selkirk, the Hon. and Gallant Member for Chippenham, the Hon. Member for Southampton, who was Under-Secretary for the Colo nies, and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Scarborough, who, in 1838, said, " I shall support this motion, as it is not a question as to the length of time which has elapsed, but whether the House will do justice. No time will be allowed as a bar against justice." The last on the list is the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Kent. Under these circumstances, I hope it will be admitted that the Danish claimants are justified in once more bringing forward their claims, if only to ascertain whether the adverse majority by which they were met last year, after several successive victories, was the result of accident or not ; and whether the Government really intended, after the encourage ment which was given to the claimants on previous occasions, to persevere in making a question of this sort, involving the pecuniary claims of individuals— which to some individuals is a question of thousands of pounds, and to others involving a question of comfort or beggary for the remainder of their lives—whether such a question is really to be made a party question and an official question ? These claims, as is notorious, arose out of the well known capture of the Danish fleet off Copenhagen in 1807, when we were at peace with Denmark. An English fleet suddenly appeared off the coast of Denmark, and the Danish fleet fell into our hands. In consequence of this capture, Denmark made reprisals, and seized the property of British sub jects, taking our merchant ships in the Baltic by way of reprisal. From the date of the 15th of August to tUk middle of December no declaration of war was made. Ilia that interval the ships of the claimants, whom Irepresent; were seized, and for that seizure they claimed compen sation. At that time there were British ships in the harbour of Copenhagen, the owners of those ships having had no intimation that there was any likelihood of war, from the secret manner in which the hostile proceedings of this country were carried on ; and they came to their own Govern ment for compensation, as individuals who had suffered for the public benefit. In other cases, also, losses were sustained in the Baltic Sea s in consequence of the ~. U