The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-17 00:00:00

DANISH CLAIMS.

manner.
V. The House might allow the damages awarded in
this case to be paid, but might at the same time declare
that it would permit no further actions of the same kind
to be brought, and that it would immediately commit for
contempt any parties by whom such actions should be
commenced or promoted.
These are the only modes of proceeding which have
been suggested to your Committee, and which appear to
them to deserve to be brought under the consideration of
the House, and they will now endeavour to state shortly
the opinion they have formed on these different courses.
I. With respect to the first, the proceeding by writ of
error, your Committee cannot but apprehend that its
adoption might be construed to involve a new and ex-
ceedingly dangerous recognition of the principle—that
the privileges of the House of Commons are subject to
the determination of the Courts of Law, and ultimately
of the House of Lords. They also conceive that as
the result of an appeal must be doubtful, while its failure
might greatly increase the difficulty of a subsequent
assertion by the House of its right of publishing its
proceedings, they would not be justified in recommending
to the House to take a step which would expose to such
serious hazard its future possession of a power which they
believe to be absolutely indispensable for the due discharge
of its duties.
11. The second course which has been suggested is
open to the same objections, with this addition, that
the House of Lords might object to pass a declaratory
Act for the purpose of over-ruling a unanimous decision
of the Court of Queen's Bench, which had not been
appealed from in the ordinary manner, and which had been
allowed to be carried into effect.
111. The passing of an Act to enable the House
for the future to publish its proceedings without
having them questioned in a Court of Law would, in the
opinion of your Committee, be a virtual abandonment of
the right which they have no doubt now belongs to
this in common with the other House of Parliament,
and which ought not, as they conceive, to he surrendered.
IV. Should these objections to the modes of proceed-
ing above described appear to be well founded, the next
course to b e considi red is that of resisting the execution
of the judgment obtained against Messrs. Hansard, by
committing, if necessary, for contempt, the ministerial
officers of the Court by which this judgment has been
pronounced. Your Committee are not insensible to
the many difficulties which might probably arise in thus
adopting measures of an extreme kind, to which for many
years the House has not been compelled to resort;
but at the same time they have to remark that it is
chiefly by using this power of commitment for con-
tempt against the ministerial officers by whose agency
other authorities of the State have invaded the rights
claimed by this House, that some of those which are now
its most undoubted privileges, have in former days been
asserted with success, and they are, upon the whole, of
opinion, that this would be the course must consistent with
ancient Parliamentary usage and with the dignity of
the House.
It is, however, the duty of your Committee to state,
that although a majority of their number have concurred
in this opinion, they are well aware that the course re-
commended is one not likely to be successful, unless it
should meet with very general concurrence and support,
:rod they must not therefore conceal the fact that some
even of those Members of the Committee who are most
-teeply persuaded of the necessity of maintaining the valu-
able privilege of the House which has been disputed, are
yet of opieion that in the present instance it is too late
to do so in the manner which has just been recommended.
These Members of your Committee conceive that the
House, by directing the Attorney;-General to appear
:n the action, and to defend Messrs. Hansard, has
placed itself, so far as regards this particular case,
in a situation in which it will be better to abide los
,he result of the trial, which has been permitted to take
glace, and to allow the damages to be paid, deter-
,nining at the same time that any future proceedings
of the same nature should be arrested in their earliest
stage by committing for a contempt of the House, not
ruff the parties by whom similar actions may be brought,
hut the agents and counsel they may employ.
Having anxiously considered this important matter, your
Committee have come to the conclusion that if the House
be resolved to trust ultimately to the exercise of its own
powers for the assertion of the privilege it claims, the
objections urged to resisting the execution of the judement
of the Court in the present action are not of such force
that they ought to prevail against those which in that case
exist to any further concession ; and they are of opinion,
that upon a comparison of the difficulties lay which either
line of conduct must be attended, the advantages will be
tound to be on the side of not deferring to a later period
the stand that must at last be made, unless the right of the
House is to be surrendered. In giving this as the opinion
of the majority of their number, your Committee must at
The same time state, that they feel it to be a very nice and
difficult question which line of conduct should, under
all the circumstances of the case be preferred ; and they
therefore submit it, with all deference to, the determination
of the House.
In conclusion, your Committee beg leave to express
'heir regret that the haste with which this Report has
been unavoidably prepared, has compelled them to present
ro the House what they are sensible is a very imperfect
view of the important subject of their inquiry ; but they
trust that the necessity under which they were placed of
bringing the course now to be pursued under the imme-
diate consideration of the House, will be a sufficient
apology for their not having been as yet enabled to enter
upon a fuller and more comprehensive examination of the
whole matter referred to them.
Lord MAHON hoped the report would be presented
and circulated without the least delay, and he hoped the
Clerk would now read the main question, which was dis-
cussed yesterday, with the names of those Members who
voted for and against it.
Lord HO W ICK said the report would be in the hands
of Members on Monday morning; it was not usual to read
to the House the names upon divisions in Committee.
Lord MAHON hoped he would be in order when he
stated that the main question was put to the vote yesterday,
and that in the minority would be found the names of the
Solicitor-General, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel.
Mr. Alderman COPE LAND said it might look like
presumption on the part of an humble individual like him
to make any observations upon such a question, but as in
the discussion which must ensue upon it, he would
not dare to interfere, he could not Asia' that opportunity
to pass without entering his protest against one of
of the schemes mentioned in the report. He must protest
in the strongest manner against that part which recom-
mended that in the event of the Sheriff entering up judg-
ment—obeying the writ of the Court, he should be com-
mitted for contempt.—( Hear, bear.) What had the
Sheriff to do but to obey the Court's orders—he was
bound to enforce the law, and in obeying the
writ he did no more than enforce the law, which it was
his bounden duty to do. What did the Sheriff know of
that House, or of its privileges, when in the execution of
that duty which the law threw upon him? He must pro-
test against such an act being committed by that House,
which if committed would by many be considered an act
of tyranny.
Lord HO WICK said that it was most inconvenient ,o
attempt to discuss the subject now, as it was utterly impos-
possible that Honourable Members could be prepared to
state their views upon the subject. He trusted, therefore,
that the House would wait till the documents were
printed.
Mr. FRE SHFIELD agreed with the Noble Lord
that it would be extremely inconvenient to discuss the
question now, but at the same time he thought the report

(From the Times.)
For the last 150 years at the least a money vote of the
House of Commons ha been held to have the force of law

(Ilatsells' Precedents, vol. iii. p. 139.) During that
period there may have bceu one or two instances of dis-
honest, shuffling, " shabby" Ministers attempting to evade

such a vote by a sidewind ; but we believe no instance
could be adduced of any Ministers setting it at defiance.
Yet something exceedingly like this has been done of late
by the present Ch. JIM or of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring
Rice. The case is this—On the 16th of May, 1834.
Mr Parker brought forward the following motiun in the
House of Commons :—" That a Select Committee be ap-
pointed to examine into the claims of certain British sub-

jects, to be indemnified for the confiscation of book debts
and other property by the Danish Government, and to re-
port tt.e same with observations, to the House."
On the 4th of December, 1837, Mr. Warburton brought
forward the following motion :—" That an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be gra-
ciously p:eas:zd to give directions that the Commissioners
to whom it was referred to examine the claims of certain

British subjects fur losses sustained on account of book-
debts and other property confiscated by the Government of
Denmark in 1807, shall receive, entertain, and examine the
claims of certain British subjects for losses sustained on
account of the seizure by the said Government in the same
year, and subseqm'nt confiscation, of merchandise ashore,
which claims, or the e%idence by which they are supported,
may not hove been delivered in to the said Commissioners
before the 12th of February, 1835, and that the said Com-
missioners snail report on such claims to the Lords Com-
missioners of her Majesty's Trea►sury."
In the cases of these two motions, ♦;z., of Mr. Parker
and Mr. Warburton, the respective Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer, viz., Lord Althorp in 1834, and Mr. Spring Rice
in 1637, yielded to the clearly expressed opinion of the
House. The motions were accordingly withdrawn, and.
the claims of which satisfactory proofs were adduced were
paid. On the 24th of May, 1838, Mr. Cresswell brought
forward the following motion :—" That an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will
be graciously pleased to give directions to the Commis-
sioners to whom it was referred to examine the claims of
certain British subjects for losses sustained on account of
book-debts and other property confiscated by the Govern-
' merit of Denmark in the year 1607, that they shall examine
the claims for losses sustained on account of seizures of
ships and cargoes by the said Government in the said year,
and that the said Commissioners shall report en such claims
to the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury."
Tois motion, on a division of the House, was carried by a
majority of 34.
Now, even if the words of the several motions quoted
above did not show that they were all precisely equivalent
in import, the debate cf the House, and Mr. Cresswell's
speech on the occasion of his motion, made it perfectly
notorious that his object and the object of the large ma-
jority of the House who voted with him was precisely the
same as the object of those who brought forward and sup.
ported the motions quoted above of 1634 and 1637, via., an
etamination of the several claims individually, and, in the
words of Lord Althorp, " the payment of such as should

be found just." Instead of this, whet does Mr. Spring
Rice d,? He directs the Commissioners to make en
illusory report, a report indeed which is no report at all,
tut merely a list of the claims which any merchants or at-
torney's clerk could have made out qu.ta as well as three
Commissioners.
All that the present report of these three Commissioners
does is this :—lt simply gives a list of the claims sent in,
with their amount, and the names of the claimants, and one
or two other particulars, but nothing to show whether any
given individual claim is a well-founded claim or not; in
short, in their own words, these commissioners " have not
felt themselves warranted by their instructions in proceed-
ing to a judicial determination of any of the cases which
have been laid before them."
Now, if a report does not contain something in the na-
ture of a judicial opinion, i. e., of a conclusion drawn from
a careful examination of evidence, it is no report at all, it
is a mere mockery ; and in this case it is a mockery, too,
of the most impudent and outrageous kind ; for it is a
mockerx of a solemn decision of the House of Commons, a
denial, in short, of the House's competence to deal with
the matter; in one word, a contempt of Parliament.
We observe that Mr. Cresswell has gives notice of an-
other motion on the subject for Tuesday next; and we trust
the British House of Commons will take that opportunity
of satisfactorily settling the question, whether at this time
a Chancellor of the Exchequer can set at nought its deci-
sions with impunity—whether Mr. Rice, in the hollow
pomp of his little bri.l tottering authority, can do what
the most powerful Minister since the revolution, and what
before the revolution the most encroaching and at littrary
of the Stuarts, in the plenituCt of their power, backed by
the prestige of forty generations of royalty, could rot do.
In 1608, in the case of Palmer, of Bath, the House had
voted Vie sum of 52 0001. in favour of Palmer's claims,
although opposed by the Treasury. On the 23d of June,
180 ti, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get
rid of this vote, moved for a separate Bill embodying this
vote, knowing that the House of Lords would throw it out.
In the course of the debate Mr. Windham said, " that
the House, having conic to a formal adjudication upon the
subject, has nothing now to consider but the
m proprietytinoo
House
ear
quelr
•istioPir)leattYthoef pdreeiseenndtingmoimtsenot whetherdecis what the is
decided was right, but whether, having so decided, it can,
as at present circumstancA, alter its decision."
Mr. Windham's words are applicable in their fulleit
sense to every particular of the present case. It is indeed
most truly no longer a question at the present moment
wintaer ghat the House decided was right or wrong, but
,Ahether, having so decided, Mr. Rice can set its solemn
decision at defiance.

LLOYDS' SHIPPING-(THIS DAY

!
DEAL, JUNE 15.—Wind N.E. 16, N.E., fresh breezes.—
Arrived from the River, and sailed, the Sarah, Moody, from
Barbadoes ; Latona, Sutton, Quebec; Liverpool steamer,
Burney, and Mininda, Artis, Liverpool ; Plantagenet Dou-
rett, Calcutta; Conrad, Campbell, Batavia; Harmony, Taylor,
Labrador , Resolution, Davis, Quebec ; Mary, Custanier,
Mogadore ; Archimede, Naples; Packet de Trieste, Cane-
pole, Trieste ; Catalina, Goldez, Bilboa ; Ulysses, Burford,
Quebec.
PORTSMOUTH, JUNE 15, 16.—Wind E.N.E.—Off port,
the Moffatt, Balton, Canton—sailed Feb. 19, St. Helela April
23; Saloon Verbond, Dreyer, Batavia; Wilton Castle, Can-
'ley, Jamaica—sailed April 22.
FALMOUTH, June 14 AND 15. —Variable,light breezes.—Ar-
rived, John Williams, Sierra Leone ; Iberia (steamer), Cooper,
Gibraltar and Cadiz, left on the 7th inst. Lisbon 10th, Oporto,
11th and Vigo 12th. Sailed, Sophia, Pinfold, Tampico; Ca-
meo, Pouplain, Marseilles. Off Port— Cuba, Kissack, Port-
au-Prince.
LIVERPOOL, JUNE 15.—Wind East, moderate, 16th, light
breezes, S. S.E. Arrived, Visitor, Moffatt, Barbadoes ;
Robert Brine, liackness, New Orleans ; Nonpareil.
Odessa; Harriet, Fisher, New York; Tally Ho, Virginia;
Magnificent, Whitty, St. John's, New Brunswick ; Prebene,
--, Copenhagen ; Jehn NVilliarn, Wulff, Dant zig ;
--, ditto. Sailed, Falcon Anstruthcr, Calcutta ;
Helen Stewart, Stewart, Canton; Tiber, Lamb, Rio Janeiro
Philomela, Sprott, Monte Video ; Medora, Harrison, Barbadoes.