The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-05 00:00:00

eept 'ef no tumult— (Cheers)—without a sigh, ex-
the misci cants whom we had robbed
:rfti.eeir.irlrigotten prey.—( Cheers.) I sacrificed to them one
h,..t_a largest professional emoluments ever received ; they
vs"., e, generously, nobly, more than repaid me.—( Deafening
th;iu:°_ll.37-continued cheering.) I stand before you, called in
,elemsple gratitude by the glorious name of " Liberator."
newed cheers.) And prouder am I of their voluntary
ZP..ensation than the titled nobleman of hie treasure.—(Loud
totoZs-) I stand before you a lover of my native land, but ready
join you in every struggle for freedom ; and I ask you to use
Zel_til discrimination in politics, which has led you on through
hi:a glorious march of discoveries and improvement in
attlees and arts. The Tories are execrable. The Whigs
‘ tit but (as we understood the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman),t not so bad.--( Cheers.) Or shall Igo back to
bia.°llll.rymen and say, that I appealed by the hour to English
nt,ticie in vain—that you shouted against the Whigs, and
prineOned Ireland—that in the selfish struggle for your own
ig_ntli You forgot ours. Oh, no 1—( Ti emendous cheering. )
Pend-children—(Loud
you, as for the beings I love best—l have some
Zatindechildren—(Lourl leughter)_not to take such a
igeT:e--eif you do, you will at least respect me—we will send
this answer, " we are seven millions —( Loud and long
thenntintied cheering)—and, having all the bed against us, and
II,: good, neutral or assisting-, us, only by their cheers and
'`zas, instead of practical efforts,— I will address them thus:
Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."
--(Tremendous cheeting.)
Sir ps
V-.• ...,RARAZON, M. P., was induced to say a few
to
f„"rust from being one of the Members who voted for Mr. Wak-
e's amendment the other night.—( Hear, hear.) Ile had
lihis earliest days been the streeuous advocate of Vote by
I„nt, Triennial Perliaments, and Extension of the Suffrage.
'(Cheers.) In Ireland they had not the benefits of Reform,
:lett the people of this country had ; for even in the county
hu,'Fh be represented, although it contained many thousand in-
habitants
ets, yet only two representatives were sent to Parliament
mr that county. He regretted th et a larger portion of the Members
House of Commons did not vote in favour of Mr.
ee'Lley's amendment, and he believed that many were already
rtY at their not having done so.—( Cheers.) He trusted,
d'wever, that when the lion. Member for London (Mr.
h rote) brought forward his motion in the House of Commons,
; would receive that support whit h would slice the people of
done
and Ireland they were not to desedr of having justice
the
to them. The lion. Baronet concluded by seconding
resolution amidst loud cheers.
Mr
• •-,WART then presented himself to the Meeting. and was
lOui-1-cheered. He was sure there was not a soul in that
eeting which did not burn with warmth and affection
rot the unhappy people of Ireland.—( Hear.) He (Mr.
plaWart) had supported her in the hour of adversity in his
ce in the Howe of Commons, and his Hon. and Learned
grad knew well that all around him wet e sincere and sym-
Pot,lilizing friends of Ireland.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
friend Connell.) He knew him to be a sincere and sympathizing
of the English people; but he confessed that when he
1,,4e his brilliant and eloquent speech in favour of the Ballot,
rionnial Parliaments, and Universal Suffrage, there arose
te:°ss his mind the spectre of the speech delivered by a Noble
"irci in the House of Commons, which directly denounced
all those measures. If they were not to gather grapes from
thorns, or figs from thistles, lie must confess that his zeal in
the cause of Ministers was damped and dismayed in the
,°P sort he had given and might give them as an elector,
4 he felt that they must previously repent of the son-
tt!inente so unequivocally expressed.—( Hear, bear, hear.)
:14 thought it right to say so much, summoned as he had been
n attend a meeting of his fellow-electors of Westminster,
tack 0
re he came to the resolution which had been entrusted to
him-
That resolution was founded on another declaration of
the Noble Lord (J•
Russell) in the House of Commons, to
effect that the. Reform Bill was made to maintain the
preponderance of the landed interest.—(oh, oh.) He would
srthose present, who had so ably supported Ministers in
that nleasure, if that was a proper return for the popular
tanusiasm and support they had given in former times ?
Vioud cries of " Hear, hear.") Upon him the Reform '
nisters rested for support. Was it not upon the city and
towni constituencies, who were by far the most enlightened in
thatesgreat country ? He must say that it would become any
Ministry to remember with gratitude now in their season of
power the assistance rendered them by those men in the day of
!neir adversity. He denied that there was any comparison
Point of intelligence and power between the towns and
boroughs and agricultural districts. It was from assemblies
tt!elt as the present, that light and truth emanated and were
diffusedi all over the country, illumining the path of liberty.
He would like to ask Lord John Russell, whether the lande I
like to
had not preponderance enough already ? He would
to ask him, whether they had not alreadylthe whole of the
'louse of Lords,which was completely and exclusively in favour
of the landed interests ? Did they not possess the Church ?
and to turn in another direction, had they not the controul of
the Universities, and the entire education of the country.
"--( Hear, hear, hear.) in all these the landed interest
was in the ascendency, and now the time was come
when the commercial and manufacturing interests which he
nad the honour of representing—now the time was come to do
them justice, and it was not fair to sink their preponderance
in that of the House of Lords. The House of Commons was
!ot the House of the Aristocracy, for when it was that, it was
little better than the concealed representative of the House of
He therefore felt injured, if not insulted, by the re-
tetion of Lord J. Russell, that the Reform Bill was intended
give a preponderance rather to one party than to another.
aeheers.) He hoped the people would vindicate themselves
public
longer submit to the dicta of the Noble Lord in the
Publicly °' Commons. He (Mr. E.) had never hesitated
prese :° express his opinion, and it was that the basis of re-
feoderati in that country was but a remnant of the
onsYstem and he was firmly convinced that until that
reese"untne.
was removed the people of England would never be
tPermanently free.—( Cheers.) Although in such an assem-
Y, and at so late an hour, he ought not to be in the habit of
quoting the say
e- ings of a member of the House of Lords, yet
1e could not help recomendin to them a simple and well
known phrase, " Let us steal by our order."—( Cheers. )
~ -.l.ne man who did not do that, the man of the democracy also
did not stand by his order, should forfeit his privileges
and immunities altogether. Should it be said that
the aristocracy stood up for their empty order, their
decorations, and titles, while they who had everything
at stake refused to do so? The people of England
I,!iust be prepared to act every one for himself.—( Cheers.)
Let them resolve to be united, and not allow themselves to be
cajoled by any aristocratic party in the State. They were
called on to act in behalf of the people of England, irrespec-
tive alike of Whig or Tory ; for upon themselves depended
the day of their salvation. It appeared to him that the present
was a period in the history of the nation which would settle in
wnat way society was to be finally adjusted. He saw in the
P,tnepective the aristocratic party marching off on one side, and
the Democratic party on the other. Let the people take their
Choice—let them follow on the one side, like slavish voters, in
."ic guarded train of the tyrants; or, on the other hand, assert
their rights like men determined to be free.—( Loud cheering. )
Mr. R. D. BROWNE then came forward to second the re-
R°liition. He did so with considerable difficulty, as it was the
trst time in the course of his life that he had ever addressed a
Popular assembly of Englishmen ; for he did not consider
the House of Commons, under its present constitution, was
deserving of the appellation of a popular assembly.--(Hear.)
'
They were not to measure his sentiments by the feeble expree-
. 2:!.ems he might use, but they would consider those who sent him
eere—the free and independent people of Mayo—and they
would not have sent him there unless he represented the opi-
'2'°ns of the people. They would also consider ha had been
nt there, attached to no Government, but for the purpose of
working out that democratic principle, which he considered
n
ist_ inseparable from the Constitution of England.—(Cheers.)
Was not attached to any Ministry. He was attached to
Liethe
people.—( Cheers.) lie thought the people had tbo
Prier of asserting their liberties; and ho thought, if the arm
of the people was not exerted to defend themselves, they
never could expect justice done them. The Constitution of
Was had been built upon democratic principles. This
ptaLeividenced b history. In. every contest, they read of the
3 e. e having asserted the right of government themselves,
11°`1 in every contest they found the aristocracy had been more
• tumiiliated. They would make the aristocracy again subniit
t° Humiliation.—(Loud cheers.) The struggle was between
I.w, aristocracy and the people. It was between the House of
rdp,s, and those attached to that order, and the people
England. Was he to be told that any politicianc
en-Auld be tolerated by the people, who said that Reform should
? Reform must progress according to the wishes of the
esePle ; and if the wishes of the people were subject to
pir.ge with times, all reforms must keep pace with time.
thy_ onsidered the declaration made by Lot d John Russell in
rile House of Commons, had given a very different cern-
elion altogether to Whig policy.—( Loud chem iog. )
dvC considered that Lord John Russell, in making the fatal
elaration he had done, had totally forgot the principles
tlsi°e years ago on so high a pinnacle of estimation among
puntrymen.—( Hear.) lie thought that the people would
be
the forgetful of themselves, and of their own interests, if
trusted
allowed that declaration to pass without comment. He
.0,65..,1ed that the people would show, by the course which they
adopt, that they were determined to defend their own
Hear,
and that they would not he cheated out of them.
th "ear, hear.) The present Government had assumed
the i 'eine of the Administration with every prospect of
hnei honour to themselves and fulfilling the expectations of
e
"lintry Why were the Government placed in the pe-
el -I's situation they at present were ? Why, because the re-
en,se ntativee of the people in the Commons Howe of perlia-
tit
(011 had allowed them to pursue a temporising po.icy—
ls,eers- ) Let the leaders of the people compel the present
tl,.e erinocnt to discharge their duty to themselves, and to
3ant for whom they held their trust—let them force them to
P, the extension of the Suffrage and the Vote by Ballot.
neje9ls'i, own part he cared not for the Vote by Ballot,
ses.(Cilit was accompanied with an extension of the. Suffrage.
et4t,' eering.) He would venture to predict that if a general
therel°n did not take place within three )ears in England,
leek would be such a demonstration of feeling in
The r.,d as there was in England some years sioce.—( Cheers.)
leg f "cm. Gentleman concluded by apologizing to the meet-
sen.°e the length at which he had trespassed upon their atten-
tiem These, he said, were the honest expressions of his poll-
ikaliti°P;nions—opinions which should ever be the guide of his
aI conduct, and which he hoped would yet be more gene-
ly ocaused amongst all classes.
Itserd Resolution was then put from the Chair, and carried
Te acclamations of the meeting.
11t,sso_ti i
Ltmeiseorl,us,tisohnouw be
to the effect, that a Petition, embodying the
,4
presented to both Houses of Parliament,
eoFrold to.
lietiost°nel EVANS, in propoaing the Resolution, said, that
h° co:Ild not entirely concur in all the sentiments that
it then expressnd by the different speakers, he quite agreed
great vinciples which were embodied in the

resolutions ; and would support them in the House of Corn-
n ons at any opportunity.—(C.leers.) Thanks were vnt-d
to the Gallant Chairman, who having acknowledged the com-
pliment, the meeting separated.

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBP,II 5. 1537

Hon. Friend. But if the proposition of his lion. Frier. l verc
rejected, he should certainly bring forward his own. lion.
Gentlemen did not seem to be aware of the esteem in which
their fellow-citizens of the Jewish persuasion were held ie
society. In the Corporation with which he was connsc-
ted, a Jew was proposed as his successor, said
the motion was seconded by Mr. Gurney, himself a Quaker.
Sir R. H. INGLIS opposed the motion of Mr. Grote.
The object of the proposition was to fill that House and the
other institutions of the country with persons who were not
only opposed to the Established Church, bu! the prineiples
of Christianity. He asked the Hon. and Learned Member
for London did he forget that ho was summoned to that
House on his oath to give advice to the Crown on grate
and important matters affecting the safety of the United
Kingdom and of the Established Church ?—( Hear.)
It
the House were to sanction such a measure it would offend the
feelings of the country, andbesides it could not pass in tire other
House of Parliament. The Jews, it appeared from what he
Lad heard that night, would find their way into Municipal
and Corporate offices, without the relaxation which the Hon.
Member for London was desirous to effect. He ( Sir R.
cil.
-
Inglis) would not then detain the House by going spe
cally into his objections to the proposition, but should reserva
what else he had to say until the measure appeared in a more
advanced stage.
Mr. C. FERGUSON had been quite prepared for the
speech of the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford,
aces's° he had always been the enemy to anything which
hal a tendency to put an end to intolerance.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) Upon a great quo stion of principle they had
no right to take into consideration what would be
the conduct of another (louse. It was a great principle,
because it involved directly the question of admitting or, ex-
cluding from civil office a most loyal portion of her Majesty's
subjects—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—it laid down the prin-
ciple that it would be dangerous to admit the Jews to
civil appointments on account of their political opinions.
The Jews were a loyal people, and it was remarkable
that there was no instance upon record in this country of any
Jew ever having been convicted of a political offence. By
the enlightenment of the citizens of London they had
an example of two gentlemen in office who belonged to
the proscribed sect, and it was singular that in those instances
where the rule had beenbroken, the conduct of the gentlemen
had been so good that praises were showered upon them from
both sides of the House. He (Mr. F.) remembered when
the lion. Baronet was as decidedly opposed to the admission
of Dissenters—also of the Catholics—EU of whom were as
good Christians as themselves ; and now he had no
argument to use against the admission of the Jews,
but that they were not Christians. He ( Mr. F.) saw no ob-
jection to their admission to any corporate office, and be
trusted the amendment would be agreed to.
Mr. K ENIB LE said that as he had understood this Bill,
it was one simply to relieve Quakers under the Municipal
Corporation Act hem taking an Oath, substituting in
lieu of it a Declaration, as by several other Acts of Parliament
they were relieved in certain cases. That being so, the amend-
ment moved by the Hon. Member fir the City of London
had nothing whatever to do with the subject. He was
seeking too much under colour of a Quaker's Bill when
he asked for liberty for the Jews to sit in both Houses of Par-
liament ; therefore he should oppose the amendment.
Mr. GEORGE F. YOUNG was surprised at the mis-
takes into which the Honourable Member for Oxford had
fallen, self-evident as those mistakes were.—( Hear, hear.)
That Honourable Member had said this Bill was intended
not only to afford relief to the Jews, but also to persons of no
religion at all. It must be apparent that persons of no
religion at all could have no religious principles or views to
violate. Another mistake was, that of confounding the pre-
sent (as had the Hon. Member who had last sat down) with a
Jew Bill ; whereas upon no fair construction could it be so consi-
dered. Even if it were, would any man tell him ( Mr. Y.) that it
was consistent with common sense that a Jew should be elected
by his fellow-citizens to fill the office of Sheriff in the city of
London, and that he should be compelled to fill that office
or to pay a penalty of 6001. That when he came to take
upon himself the office he should be called upen to sub-
scribe to the tenets of Christianity, which refusing, be went
on in the office to discharge his duties under penalties which
were expressly onerous, and from which lie was only re-
lieved by an annual Act of Indemnity ? Such a system
was perfectly absurd. Under such circumstances, ho hoped
the House would negative the proposition of the lion. Mem
her for Leeds, and either leave the law as it now stood,
or at once consent to extend it in that way which every
fair and honourable mind ought to wish to see it extended to.
Captain PEC HE LL said, that, in answer to the state-
ment of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University
of Oxford, that the motion was contrary to the feelings of the
people of this country, he begged to observe that the
people of this country were by no means hostile to the prin-
ciple involved in that motion. The House had heard the
high character given to gentlemen of the Jewish per-
suasion, who, it was clear, enjoyed in an extraordinary de-
gree the favour and respect of their fellow citizens. He must
say that one of the gentlemen referred to came down into
a part of the country with which he was more particularly
nequainted, to canvas for votes for the representation in Par-
liament, although in that part country considerable
prejudice prevailed ; yet that gentleman did win very much
on the feelings of the people ; and he would appeal to the
lion. Member for Shoreham whether that gentleman would
not have been elected if a mistake had not got abroad that
if elected he could not have taken his seat in that House.
He must say that ho hoped the example of the Hon. Baronet
would not be followed generally by the Hon. Gentlemen be-
hind him, and that at length they would see the necessity of
conceding what had been long called fur by the vast majo-
rity of her Majesty's subjects. ( Loud cries of divide )
Sir C. BU 1111 F, LL—Having been appealed to by the lion.
and Gallant Member on the other side as to the character of
Mr. Salomon, he certainly could speak favourably of his ge-
neral conduct as a merchant, and of his, honourable character
as a gentleman ; but beyond that he could not say any thing,
and he had no hesitation in saying that he differed tote cwlo
from the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman on the subject of the
late election. lie would take upon himself to say that not a
single Clergyman of the Church of England had sup-
ported Mr. Salomon ; and though he certainly had many
vote; in his favour, yet the way in which those votes I
were obtained he ( Sir C. B.) should not state to the House.
The conduct of some parties who supported that gentleman
at the late election was also by no means creditable. This
was all he had to say in answer to the appeal of the Hon.
arid Gallant Member. As to the question itself, he conceived
the present motion was introduced in a manner contraryh to
Parliamentary usage, and he should for this, among oter
reasons, give Iris vote against that motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Baronet having pro.
flounced a vivid eulogy upon the constituency of Shoreham,
afterwards stated something rather inconsistent with the cha-
racter be gave them—(hear, and a laugh)—he (Mr. O'C.)
would not have risen on that occasion if he hail not reasons
for not giving a silent vote. If he rightly understood the
Hon. Member for East Surrey, that Hon. Member was fa-
vourable to the principle of the Bill.—( A laugh.)
Mr. KEaIBLE-1 never said any thing of the kind—
( Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. O'CONNELL had really thought that he must have
misunderstood the lion. Member. But if so, what right had
the lion. Member to argue from the principle of the measure
against the proposition of his lion. Friend tne Member for the
city of London ?—( Hear, hear.) For his part, he Mr. O'C.)
wished to see all those kinds of petty legislation for the con-
sciences of men done away with.—(Cheers.) Nothing could
be more paltry than religious tests for admission to civil offices.
Those tests wore always mere oaths of office, without any reli-
gious feeling.—( Hear, hear.) There were in that House men
of various religious professions. But surely in those days no
one claimed a right as a Legislator to enquire into the reli-
gious opinions of another.—( Hear, hear.) And out of the
House they should not look to a man's religious opinions, but
to his conduct ; and if his conduct in society entitled him to
civil rights, the more he was repugnant to taking oaths which
acre a violation of his conscience, the more he was deserving
of esteem—the more the Legislatuie should encourage such a
man. —( Cheers.) He (Mr., O'C. ) entreated the Hon. Mem-
ber fur Leeds to accede to the proposition of the Hon. Mem-
ber for London. Why should not the Hon. Member work out
his own principle, and allow the Bill at least to pass that
House ? He (Mr. O'C.) would support the proposition, as
lie would always support having for its object a motion to set
conscience free.
Mr. HUME said time Right Hon. Baronet had supported
the East India Bill, in which was a clause distieetly opening
any office to all Jews, Turks, or Mahornedans. There re
we
offices of great trust ; and, therefore, he hoped, for the sake of
consistency, the lion. Baronet would now vote for the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for London.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, with respect to the amend-
ment before the House, his vote would depend upon what
opinion the lion. Member for Leeds bad formed respecting
the effect it would have upon his Bill. If the principle of it
could be established in any way he would at once support it.
but the question was, the effect it would have upon the
.11a-
-111
before the House. It might be contended that the
Legis.
tore intended to prevent the admission of the Jews by add.ng,
to the declaration the words, " upon the faith of a Christian,'
which gave it the nature of an oath, and did not intend.t to
prevent the admission of persons who only objected to taking
an oath. If the Honourable Member for Leeds though his
h !r
would be safe to allow the amendment to be added to
Bill, he (Lord J. Ruesell) would be most happy to declare
the principle ; but on the other hand, if he thought it would
injure his Bill, then he must vote against the amenernen t.
That would leave the case as regarded the Jews open, and in
the mew time their cause would be much strengthened.
Mr. B A INES felt that he was bound both in duty and 130-
hey to adhere to the line he hail adopted. In introducing
this Bill lie had stated distinctly th it it was a measure for the
relief of the Quakers and Moravians. So far from being op-
posed to relief to the Jens, be was also extremely favourable
to that, arid if he considered that his present proceeding
would be at all likely to prejudice the introduction and pass-
ing of a Bill for their relief, he should consider that as a very
grave subject of consideration for himself ; but he could not
look upon is Bill as at all calculated f
of the Jews. Let histo dam anea-
ure for time relie Hon.nif Fry iendy s m
alio
were desirous of affording relief to the Jews bring forward a
Bill for that purpose, and introduce the subject boldly to thee
notice of the 'louse. Assenting to the proposition now mad
would subjeot him to an aeousatien of introducing that by a
side wind which he had never any intention of d;ing•
measure could in no way whatever injure any application
hereafter to be made on behalf of the Jews ; and as to saying
that this was a bit-and-bit relief, his reply to that was that
every measure of this description had been a bit-and-bit re-
lief measure; and he should not only be thankful for it, but he
considered it to be the best course he could adopt.
The Hoise l•ben diviOq• wtmen there appm,444--
For the Motion 172 I For the
. Amendment 156 [Majority 16
The Bill was then coinnutted,

On the .notion of Mr. BAINES a verbal amendment was
introduced into the second clause of the Bill, for the purpose
of applying it to Separatists.
The remaining clauses having lee i agreed to, the Bill
passed through Committee.
CUSTODY OF INSANE PERSONS.
On the motion of Mr. BARNEBY this Bill passed through
Committee.
ELECTION PETITIONS.
The consideration of several Election Petitions, amongst
which were those from Flint, Oxford county, Bedford, Edin-
burgh, Beverley, Gloucester, Norwich, &c., was fixed by the
Speaker for the 12th of December.
COPYIIOLD-LANDS BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL postponed the considers.-
tiori of this Bill until after the recess.
WILLS BILL.
Sir E. SUGDEN begged to move for leave to bring in a
Bill to suspend for three months, from the end of December,
1837, an Act passed in the last Session for amending the law
relating to Wills. He could bear an humble yet a willing tes-
timony to the talent and industry of the Real Property
Commissioners, on whose report this measure was mainly
grounded, as well as to the merit of Mr. Tyrrell, by whom
the Bill was prepared. It might nut perhaps be considered
proper to recount the names of all his Learned Friends in
that House and the House of Lords by whom the mea-
sure was brought forward and supported ; but he could not do
justice to his own feelings if he were to omit to notice the
part taken by h;s Noble and Learned Friend the Mas:cr
of the Rolls in reference to this 13111, and to state
his conviction that, setting aside his legal c -mpetence
to the task, no man could enter upon it with a more
conscientious desire to fulfil the duties of the position
which he filled.—( Hear, hear.) lie felt bound to observe
that this subject had been several times brought before that
House and referred to Committees upstairs. It had also been
submitted to the other House, and twice considered by it in
Committees. It was the law that ❑o person could pass real
property without having witnesses to his will and other cere-
monies. Ever since the reign of George I. attempts had been
made to impose the necessity of having two witnesses to wills
conveying stock and funded property. That provision was
continued successively in many acts, down to a late period.
What was the consequence? Why, the previous habit of
the people caused the Act never to be attended to, and the
Courts of Equity were compelled to evade it, because it
was opposed to the feelings of the community, Stock was
thus vested in the executor, who took a trust to which
he was not legally entitled. It was impossible to turn
the current of public opinion. The only effect of attempting
to drive it from the channel in which it was accustomed to go

was to bring what would perhaps be under other circumstances
considered a wholesome measure, into odium. There was
another rule which should bind those who proposed legal
changes : it was this—that we should not give an arbitrary
meaning to words which did not admit of a fixed signification.
There were two or three rules to which he should advert, es
worth consideration in a question of this nature. One was,
that no alteration should be made with respect to existing- con-
tacts and wills He should n)t at present point out how that
evil had result from the Act to which he directed their atten-
tion. And the next and last rule which he should take the
liberty of submitting for their adoption was, that they should
r.ot attempt too much in any one Bill. He had invarieb!y ob
served that where the grasp of a measure was too great for any
penmanship, there were not embraced within the compass of a
Bill such distinct language and provisions as to meet all the
difficulties which it was intended to remove. If they attempted
too much in one clause, other subjects were left unexplained
and unprovidsd for, on which the meaning of the law should
be clear and certain. When he considered the talents, the
learning, and the efficiency of the Hon. Gentleman who had
breught forward and sustained the late Bill, he felt no little
hesitation in saying that it had miscarried in certain parts; but
if it had been found so ineffectual, the failure was owing, he
ventured to say, to a departure from some one of the rules
which he had laid down. That measure did not leave well
alone, but attempted to make it better. It did run counter to
the habits of the people. It attempted to fix construction on
words which bore different senses at different times. It was
intended by it to found a system, and to lay down an univer-
sal plan, in order to meet a particular mischief. He would
not enter upon a detailed view of the opinions of others, but
merely state his own general impression of the necessity of
reconsidering some points, and certainly altering others. The
first great alteration which was made in the law upon this
subject was in relation to infants. For a long time infants
had been allowed to make wills of personal estate. This
right, so far as it related to real property, was confined to
those persons who had reached the age of twenty-one. It
was observed, by his Noble and Learned Friend who intro-
duced the question in the other House of Parliament, that it
was not allowed to a person having illegitimate children to
provide for them, and that it was hard that such a disqualifi-
cation should be continued.—( Hear.) The law being al-
tered, how did it now stand? An infant might have very
large property, and might be desirous of bestowing it on
those to whose kindness and goodness he was deeply in
delsted ; but this right was now denied to him. He
might marry and have children to succeed to his property, but
he could not bequeath it. When a person reached the age of
seventeen, the right was taken from him, which he had hith-
erto enjoyed, and given to whom ? To the Crown. He could
not think that ajudicious alteration. Before, it was not neces-
sary to have any witnesses to wills conveying mere personal
estates; but und.e. this Act every wail, if only for a matter o
ten pounds, would require two witnesses. He admitted it
was necessary to make some alterations in the law as it stood,
but the alterations made by the Act, would increase the exist-
ieg difficulties, while it would give rise to endless vexations and
ennoyanee. It was a notorious fact th it very few persons not
actually engaged in the profession of the law understood all the
arcane of will-making. He was then addressing not the least
intelligent part of the community. Now he should he glad to
know how many Members of either House of Parliaineet, not
lawyers, were aware that by an Act pasted in the reign of
George 111., legacies of moneys vested in the public;
funds were invalid unless the will granting them was witnessed
by two persons of credit? This was a most important point, and
yet few even of the most enlightened class were aware
of it. And why were they not Because most men wont
with Vie stream, and practice once stamped was not
easily departed front. He now came to another important
point. Under the old law, if a man made his will
regularly, and hid the required witnesses, he might after-
wards add to it as many codicils as he pleased, with-
out having each codicil again attested. Now this
was altered by the Act; for i:a future not even a
verbal alteration WAS to be made, or )11y/thing explanatory
added, unless the attorney was at the rime's elbow, with his
two 'clerks as witnesses. Now, such clauses ho affirm 2d could
never be retained. He would next call the attention of the
House to the character of the witnesses to a will, as altered
by the Act of last Session. By the law as it stood before the
passing of that Act, it was sta el that those witnesses should
be credible witnesses. Insane persons, felons, or parties in-
terested in the will were not considered credible witnesses.
When the Act of last Session was first brought in, the quali-
fication of witnesses that they should be credible was compre-
hended in it ; but in its progress through Parliament, either
in the Committee or by some mistake or other, that qualifica-
tion was omitted. The signatures of persons as witnesses to
a will were therefore rendered valid by that Act, although the
law would not permit such persons to be examined in a Court.
By the Act of last Session, also, the execution of wills
would be rendered in many cases much more diffi-
cult than it was at present, and in some cases it would
be rendered impracticable. A greater violation of all legis-
lative principle was never committed than that which was com-
prehended in the Act or last session, by which all the testamen
Lary powers, which existed under the law as it had hitherto
stood, were rendered void, and those powers were to be made
conformable to the provisions of that Act, and that Act alone.
The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman then went into a
variety of details involving matters of pure legal technicality,
matters into which, he said, he could not expect the House to
enter, and which would oely be understood by the Hon. and
Learned Gentlemen (the Attorney and Solicitor General), to
whom he more particularly addressed himself. He maintained
that many of the most essential clauses of the Bill were in-
volved in an ambiguity that could not fail of producing much
inconvenience, and in many instances, perhaps, much injustice.
Ho must further remark, that the Bill did not extend to the
Colonies. It applied only to Great Britain and Ireland, so
that a person residing in this country aced having property in
the Colonies, would be under the necessity of making two se-
Iterate and distinct is ills, or otherwise his heirs would find that
the will which operated one way in England, would have a
totally different operation in the Colonies. As it appeared to
him that the imperfections of the present Bill might be re-
moved if a short time were allowed for its reconsideration, he
begged leave, in conclusion, to move " for leave to bring in a
Bill to suspend for three months from the end of December,
1837, an Act passed last Session for amending the law relat-
ing to wills."—( Hear, )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the course pro-
posed to be taken by the Right Honourable and Learned
Gentleman was wholly unprecedented, and, as he thought,
wholly unjustifiable. He did not cemp!ain of the want of
courtesy that the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman
gave him no notice, nor even conveyed to him any communi-
cation whatever that could afford him the most distant concep-
tion its the world of the course which the Right Honourable
aside, he thought he might
and Learned Gentleman intended to pursue ; but, setting that
should now be called upon to appoint a Committee to sit
upon the details of a Bill after that Bill had become the law
complain a little that the House
the laud.—( Hear, hear.) The principle; of the Bill and
all its main enactments were recommended first by the Eccle-
siastical Commission, and secondly by the Real Property Com-
mission ( Sir Edward Sugden " No.") He (the Attorney-
General) repeated the remark ; the principle of the Bill and
all its main enactments were recommended be the first instance
by the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Real Property Com-
mission followed. He (the Attorney-General) had the
honour of presiding over the deliberations of that Commission,
sion, and after a melt painful investigation, after taking
all the means in their power to come to a just conclusion,
the Real Ploperty Commissioners concurred in the opi-
nion pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and
confirmed the recommendation of those principles upon
which the Bill acts framed. They also approved of every one
of the provisions which almost, clause by clause, consti-
tuted the Bill as it now stood. Before the Bill was presented
to the House it was printed and circulated amongst all the
conveyancers and chief legal practitioners both in London and
the provinces. The Bill vas not introduced into Parliament
until rather late in the Session of 1834. It was read a first and
second time, and then referred to the consideration of a Select
Committee. The Session of 1834 concluded lrfase the Bill
could be brought to a third reeding. In 1830; the Bill was
again ititroduced—again read a first and second time, again
generally approved of, and again referred to a Select Com-
mittee, It would be remembered that at the commencement

.., &:.--1 IA t.,.'
•
• !:-.7' ..5..,:•1---,'L---.;
i
tt7jii
,‘ ,-,4,-j-'•'t;:!!`
--) s,•,:',l :-.21,2
A.-. \ i • •-•)' -'"‘
' -

'w:T /

of the Session of Isle, the Right lionoerable Baronet (Sir 1-I)use and the Treasury, that Lord Althorp, NehOseees
Robert Peel) opposits was in office, and that Lord Lynd that time Chancellor of the Excheqer said flirt plAylivansm...m;
hurst was Chancellor. Lord Lyndhurst at that time wrote possible to roast the claim, and that if tl.e
em-
to him (the Attorney-General) statino that h.: entir&y ber would withdraw his motion for a Cs mmit:ee, the Tres.
approved of the Bill, and that he should be ready to brine it sury would make a satisfactory arrangerreet. This referre.l
into the Meese of Lords. With hardly a single exception to the sufferers for losses by the cottiscaticn of the book debts,
the Bill then stood in exactly the same shar as that in and is the Judy of the same year the Government refcrrei
which it was subsequently passed into a law. Ildvieg been their ievesttation to the Commissioners, and a notice was ie.
introduced into the House of Commous, and real a fir t and sued by th e Firing parties who had suffered tosses to de,
second time, it was, as he already state]. again r, ferred liver in the particulars of their claims within three. months,
to a Select Committee. Upon that Committee sat Sre Fre- It was contended that the claims for merchite ifs • tetecti were
deriak Bullock, Sir William Follett, Mr, Sergeaht Jackson, in prec sett the same situation as threw, for hook tietAi. Tll4
Dr. Lefioy, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. llogg, Mr. Pemberton, and Coma ilioncra reported the doubt upon title point for the tiftl.
all the most eminent Members of the &tallish and Irish bar. nion of the law of fl ers of the Crown, and Tour dap Within
The Committee so appointed went through the Bill clause by the expiration of the first three months, another toitice Way
clause, and most carefully considered every one of the issued, stiting that the Government would not ohly outertma
points which the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman claims for the book debts already etaierteJ, but lON grant.ct
had alluded to, and partially discussed. The Right lion. further three months for the tielleery of other claims for 'nook
tw!.•ntary
and Learned Gentleman hil in fact started nething new ; debts or °thee property. By the ParliAn -Iteturns of
every point that he had raised had been thoroug;,ly discussed 13:3 it appeared that the Treasury iniendecifrilse on shore; the words
in the Committee. In 183 d it was introduced into the "other claims" to extend the tern for mereb nd
House of Lords b that very great judge Lod Lang. but at the end of the there was a 1:..-aragraph in which it
y
dale. It was referred to a Select Committee of the was stated that oils extension was not 'to be treated as an
.ad-
House of Lords, compared, amongst others, of the present inisgi'2:a of the right to compensatiols till the question had been
Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, Los'', mentioned in Parliament. By this proceeding, however, the suf..
Lyndhurst, Lord Wyndford, and Lord Abinger, Those Noble ferers by the confiscation of the book debts were allowed se
Lords took the whole measure into their consideration, but additional three raanths, making together six months, but tem
could not make up their minds upon several most import- sufferers by the hes of merchandise on shore had only the
ant chu,es. They thought that some further time was three months greeted by the last notice. Yet by the admis_
required for consideration, and, consequently, the Bill did sion of the Government, and by the vote of a aura of money by
not pass in 1836. In the beginning of 1837 it was again in- Parliamert.:the claimants for merchandise had participated in
troduced by Lord Langdale, who in the recess had paid the the second vote of 78.0001. allowed to the sufferers; and all
greatest attention to all its details, having consulted every lie would ask of the House was, that the owners el the confis-
-9112 within his reach who could give any information or ad- sated merchandise should be placed in the same situation as
vice upon the subject. It was again referred to a Select were the losers by book debts. Why, having a'rnit!ed them
Committee, which sat day after day, bestewing the utmost to send in their claims in the vote for ireaemnity, ware they not
attention to every part of the Bill. Some few altsrstions to be allowed the same terms as the other claimants? Why
were made ; but the effect of those alterations was to restore were they not to have all the edeewtasses of the six months):
the Bill to exactly the same state as that in which it had especially when they considered the greater difficul;y of col.
originally pased the. House of Commons. in 1837 the Lords leering the evidence to suhesantiate the claims for merchandise
sent down, without the difference of' a single bee, the very than there was in prGving the loss of book debts ? The
Bill that was sent up to them by the Commons in 183 a. Danish Government ordered all the bosh debts to be paid
Under these circumstances, could the House agree to suspend into the public treasury, and a correct register was kept, thorn
the operation of the Bill, in the belief that it was mischievous which all the necessary evidence was easily supplied; but the
—that it wanted amendment? It might want amendment; direct cent:ary was the case wil'e respect to the other class of
and whatever his Right Hon Friend might hereafter propose claims. The merchi,edise was scattered very widely in
with th view would, of course, be most seriously considered. Altona, Holstein. and Norway, and it was confiscated not
He would not follow his Right lion. Friend through the only in warehoeses, but also in transitu, and there was, there-
several provisions of the Bill. His Right lion. Friend had for.., very great difficulty in collecting the elements of claim.
said that the law of wills, as regarded the form of attestation, Why did sh-y not at least extend the tame facilities to
ought to be 1. ft unaltered. The law, as it at pr:sent stood, claims for merchandise as to the other subject of indemnity ?
tit's most incongruous and barbarous law—a law that was never These w. re the arguments of the petitioners whose case ho
maintained in any country ;it was quite a elisgrace to any then rep:eseiited to the House. But was there no precedent
civilized society.—( Hear, hear, and Oleo's ) His Right for entertaining those claims, and, instead of shortening the
Honourable Friend had alluded to forfeitures incurred, period in which they were to be male, cu.& it cot to have
and to property devolving to the Crown. Ile (the At- been ex ended ? lie applauded the Government for the li-
torney-General) had had the honour to he it law-officer of mitation of titre in the first instance, because he knew full
the Crown for five years, and he could say that whenever any well how easily papers r light be di,covered and bad claims
property devolved to the Crown ender the circumstances trade if great time had been &lost ed ; but when they dis-
stated by his Right Hon. Friend, the Croon had always covered that great iejesiee had accrued from the course
acted merely as a trustee for those who would have been the adopted, were they within a reasonable period to act over ri-
objects of the bounty of the testator. He a screed that this gorousl ? This was the history of the case ;he would not
was the case. Suppose a man died intestate without next of enter ueon the question of the justice or injustice of the war,
kin, but leaving illegitimate children, the Crown always gave but the works of all writers en the law of nations had held that
the property to them. Though there might be some difficulty parties situated like these claimants were entitled to relief from
in the operation of the present Bill, he could only say the this nation. This case was clearly within the doctrine ; the
Bill proposed by his Right lion. Friend would ha. e been much seizure of the Danish ships entitled the Government of that
more liable to difficulty. Another objection made by his country to retaliate, and confiscate the British ships and cargoes
Right Honourable Friend was as to the mode in which afieat, and the merchandise of Englishmen. The declaration
powers were to be executed. Now he (the Attorney- of war was on the 4th of November ; the seizure by the
General) avowed that of all the clauses in the Bill, that English Government was in August ; and the confiscation by
which was the most valuable was the clause regarding the Dente erk was on the 7th of September. The international
execution of powers. He was quite aware that that law was clear. If an injury were done by one nation to ano-
clause would render of no importance many decisions titer, the nation injured might seize upon the property of the
of the Courts respecting the execution of powers, and other, whether it belonged to the State or to the private
he was sorry to say also that it would render of very little citizens of the country perpetuating the injury. Vatel
laid
value some excellent treatises that had been publLhed upon down this doctrine, and added that compensation ought to be
that subject—(Laughter);—because the law had certainly by awarded by the State to these subjects on whom the reprisals
the new Bill been very much altered, and he thought very fell. This he laid down es the general rule for injuries re-
beneficially altered. The donor of a power sometimes esived, whether there was or was not property seized by the
annexed the most fantastic) conditions as to the mode ia which other nation ; and so if no money had been received from the
the person who was to execute the power was to carry it into seizures to Danish property, and if no fund had arisen from
effect. The donor might, for instance, say that it should be it, England was bound to indemnify her citizens for their
executed in the presence of seven witnesses, all of whom losses. In the years 1807 and 1808 claims were put in by
Should have yellow hair—( Laughter)—or should have only the su'd'erers ; and what was done with the Danish property
one eye or one leg.—(Laughter.) It might then become a seized ? It was not treated as droits of the Admiralty. Mr.
question in a court of law whether the hair of the witnesses Perc•eeti, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in
was yellow, or whether each of them was blind of one eye, that House that the produce of this property was paid
and should it turn out that one of the witnesses had brown into the public treasury, and that this had been done
hair, or had both eyes, it was quite clear that the power was because several merchants had sent in claims for cons-
not well executed. With a view to put an end to this, the pensation on account of the losses which they had Ml-
lay required only certain formalities, which were easy of oh- tamed by reason of the extraordinary circumstances under
servance, and which would avoid infinite evils. He was him- which the war was commenced. Such were the claims
self counsel in a cause now pending, in which Sir F. Burdett of the parties under the law of reprisals. They
was interested, where the witnessns to the execution of the had put in their claims at the earliest period ; the Chancellor
power did see it signed, sealed, and delivered, but it was not so of the Exchequer of that day had stated that the produce was
stated in the attestation, and the disposition of a very con- not treated es droits of the Admiralty in consequence of that
siderable estate depended upon that defect. New, if the law claim ; and would that House allow the lapse of time which
of last session had been in operation, the question never could had taken place to be pleaded against and defeat the parties
have arisen. The question had been in litigation for four who were entitled to the indemnity ? But another ground
years, and would in all probability go to the House of Lords might be taken under which to rest these claims. Under
before it was decided. Let not the House suppose that be- the then exiting treaties between Denmark and England,
cause his Right Hon. Friend was a great lawyer, that he was if war broke out between the contracting parties, six months'
the only greet lawyer of which this country could boast. notice was to be given to the citizens of each country to
Sr E. "SUDDEN had not been guilty, that he was aware, remove themselves and their property. Denmark seized
of any want of courtesy towards his lion. and Learned Friend, the British book debts and merchandise in direct violation
in not communicating to him his ( Sir Edward Sugden's) ob- of this stipulation in the treats.. Did this country call
jectiona to this Bill, because a book had been published which upon Denmark to account for this breach ? He did not
his lion. and Learned Friend must have well known was pub. know why this had not been done; but perhaps the eir-
Ilehed with his (Sir E. Sugden's) approbation, which contained curnstanees under which the enemy had been laid pros-
all the objections he hal to-night stated to the Bill of last trate, and considering that England had taken the brightest
session. The Right lion. Gentleman concluded by saying jewel from the crown of Denmark—that she had been
that he should carefully watch the operation of the Bill, and despoiled of Norway, England was prevented through very
time would decide whether he was right or not in his opinion shim ! from demanding redress ; or it might not be con-
respecting it. yeteent to seek reparation, because the *hole amount of
The motion was then negatived without a division. British property confiscated did not amount to more than
DANISH CLAIMANTS. 303,0001., whilst, including what was taken at Copen-
Mr. WARBURTON said although it was a very late hour, hagen ,England did trot seize less than three millions from
yet as many Honourable Members elm took an interest in the Denmark.-Hear, hear.) But if the Danish Government
question he was about to introduce expected that lie should were not called to. account, were the sufferers to be, therefore
po desled of them property;without compensation ? Why
bring is forward, he thought it his duty to do so.
Mr. F. BARING was sorry to interrupt his lien. Friend, wee they not protected by the Government ? He had only
but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to be fib- repeated Odifsets and recapitulstA the arguments which had
sent upon urgent private business that evening, and had not been adduced on former occasions—( Hear, hear)—but he had
yet returned to the House, he begged to request, on the part done to that all the present Members of that House might
of his Right lion. Friend, that the Hoe. Member would peat- fully understand the true stale of the case. He begged to
pone his motion till to-morrow. call the retention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one
Mr. WARBURTON had examined the order book, and circumstance. Ail the evidence of the class of cases to which
.found it so full of orders that it would be absolutely impossible I his motion referred was already collected by the parties, and
for him to bring his motion on to-morrow. The question was time were only given them—two or three days was all ho
not a complicated one, and could not suffer it the Secretary would ask—to put in their claims, he would be contented.
of the Treasury were to argue it on the absence of the Chao- But it might be inquired whether that was all —(the Right
cellor of the Exchequer. The question had been repeatedly Hon. Gentleman need not be alarmed lest he should be going
before Parliament, and 75,0001. had been conceded to a por- to demand a further sum)--all he required was that the claims
tion of the Danish claimants, coming under the category of all those persons whose demands were already prepared
with those he proposed to bring forward. It was impossible might be received, or that some measure might be taken to
he could postpone it. ensure justice to them The justice of the case was admitted,
.Mr. F. BARING said that the Chancellor of the Ex- and surely the neglect of the claimants in not sending in their
chequer was obliged to attend a consultation with counsel in a demands ought not to operate so seriously against them. He
case which was coming on for trial to-morrow, in which he would ask the Right lion. Gentleman to cons'eler the motion, and
was personally interested. he waited to know any reason which could be given why ono
Mr. WARBURTON said that many Members who haul class of claimants should be relieved while the demands of
been instructed by their constituents to attend to this qucstien another class received no attention.—( Hear. )
were about to leave London, it was therefore impossible for The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was a
hint to postpone it. No doubt it was true that the Chancellor mere individual member of that House, and whether its
of the Exchequer's absence arose from the necessity of attend- Members chose t ) vote 150,0001. for the Danish claims, was
ing to an important case in which lie was personally interested; a question solely for their consideration, and one in which he,
but let the House look to the enormity of the sufferings of otherwise than as a Member of the Government, was not into-
those "whose interest he now undertook to advocate.—(llear.) re.' ed. It was a question relating to the property of British
He did not feel that he was justified in putting off the ques- sul j etas and it was for the House to consider whether such a
tian.—(Cries of "Go on.") In order that no objection se had been made out as would entitle them to make a
might be made in any subsequent period of the debate, he deerand upon the public funds. The lien. Member had drawn
would read the terms of the motion with which he intended r ;viler largely upon the supposition that there were very few
to conclude. He did so, because he understood from his lion. Members who were acquainted with the subject, and he hail
Friend the Secretary of the Treasury that the Chancellor of taken care t i explain to them the nature of the Copenhagen
the Exchequer intende I to object to the form of his motion. expedition, tow ther with the law of nations and the other
His motion would be to move, " That an humble address be points affectiog it. But upon those poin:s there was no issue.
presented to her Maj sty, praying her Majesty to be gra- The Honourable Member had deolt on the circumstances at-
ciously pleased to give directions to the Commissioners to t -nding the exped;tion, and had shown that there were
whom it was referred to examine the claims of certain Bri- some which inflicted great wrongs on some indiviivals ; but,
ti4l subjects for losses sustained on account of book debts as in all such c ises, the injury fell on the wrong-doers. He
and other property confiscated by the Government of Den- had proved the deed to be atrocious, no doubt ; but what
mark in the year 1807, that they shall examine the claims for that had to do with the real question, he (the Chancellor
losses sustained on account of seizures by the said Government of the Exchequsr) should take the liberty of inquiring.
in the said year, and for the subsequent confiscations of mer- Now, if there were any young Members in the House, he
chants' stores, and which claims or evidence by which they are would put them in possession of two fats which the Hon.
supported, may not have been delivered into the said Corn- Member had almost put out of sight. At two different
missioners before the 12th of February, 1835, and that the said times there had been votes in the Howe of Commons for
Commissioners shall report on such claims to the Lords' Corn. the benefit of the claimants ; the one for 113,0001., and the
missioners of her \lajessy's Treasury." other 78,000/., making in all 191,000/. It was hue that
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no these were not for the same persons; but they were in satis-
objection to the form in which the Honourable Member meant faction of the results o: wrongs committed. If any
to bring forward the present motion, but he (the Chancellor claimants had been told before these votes were
of the Exchequer) wsuld tell him the mode in which he in- passed that a vote for 200,0001. would be granted
tt nded t ) meet it, namely, by calling for the production of al; by the Ilouse to meet their demands—detnands which
he minutes of the Commissioners and of the established rules from the year 1807 to the year 1835, had been in abeyance—
d' ld b tee • not one who would not have been too glad, too

under which the money had been istribute- y them ; and
when the louse was is possession of these minute?, and
knew what had been don,, it would be able to say whether
it acquiesced in it or not. If they discussed the question
at that time, he had no objection to the form of the mo-
tion if it were meant to be restricted to the anlication of
the money which had been already voted; but if it were in-
tended to include any application for a new grant, then he
undoubtedly did object.
Mr. WARBURTON—The motion did r.ot include any
application for a fresh grant.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, under
such circumstances, had not the least objeztion to offer on the
mere matt r of form.
Mr. WARBURTON felt compelled to bring the matter
forward, either by a motion for papers, or for a Committee of
Inquiry, or by a reference back to the Da:.ish Commissioners,
becaus, in consequence of the directions of the Treasury,
they had been prevci.ted from going into several of those
claims ; and as the original Commission was still in existence,
he thought it best to refer the subject back to the Commis-
sion?rs, who had already investigated a portion of those
claims ; and had only been precluded from entering into the
whole in consequence of the limitation put upon their pow.trs
by the Treasury. In August 1807, England sent a secret
expedition to Copenhagen. The town was bombarded ; we
seized the Danish fleet and her navol st.,res. His Majesty's
cruisers were ordered to scour the seas for Danish vessels ;
many prizes were brought into our port,, and rwaritilantmen
were seized, the whole value of the property thus taken
amounting to 1,397,000/. As tl matter of course the Danish
Government made reprisals, and on the 7th of September is.
sued orders for Oka confiscation of all vessels and cargoes
afloat; of all merchandise on shove, and of all book-debts from
British to Danish subjects. The Honourable Member for
Sheffield, in the year 1821, presented a petition to the House
in which the claims of British the subjects whose property had
been thus confiscated were plainly set forth, and the pla;n
statement of the facts made such an impression on the

acre Vk' E. -
grateful, to have closed with the proposition; but now having
obtained that, they turned round and made a new demand,
after one of a precisely similar description had already been
discussed. Every party who had a claim was actively em-
ployed in bringing it for wai d from 1807 to 1834, and in 1834,
for the first time, they were entertained by the Government,
fur Lord Stanley said that he was willing to look into them.
In that state he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) found them,
the inquiry still going on. Ile took the opinion of the law
officers of the Crown on the claims which were made, as to
whether the Acrs on which they proceeded were done against
the law- of nations, and he was told that the two first, the
b ok-debts and the property on shore, bad been
confiscated contrary to the law of nations, and that if
the nation allotted its subjects to suffer a wrong, and did not
p .ocure a remedy for it, it was in justice liable to satisfy, from
its owa funds, the injured parties. It was on that ground
that he lut the gra its to Parliament, and on that ground that
they were: toted. Now, what would be the fair and legiti-
mate construction to be put on the argument of the Hon.
Mover ? That six months we o give.) to the claimants of
hook debts,and thatthree months crusty having been given to
those who required satisfatior, for goads seized on shore, to
vend in their claims, the time for the latter should be doubled.
But this was not so, the motion was to extend the time to all
clasps of claimants, not only those who had already been al-
lowed only three months, nor to those who had had six
months, but to those who had had, from the year 1834 to
1837, to p, epare the evidence of their demands. He repeated
that this was no party question, nor was it one in which he was
not bound to act ; for otherwise be might easily have got rid.
of the whole affair, of the motion of the Hon. Member, and of
the great mass of correspondence which took place on dm
subject, by se.) ing, " Let it be looked to by the Committee.".
He was bound to act in his capacity, however ; and he would
say tha: more than the amount already voted would ar,
claimed if this motion were to be allowed by the Hemet E.,4
of this fact the Hon. Member was aware.