The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-19 00:00:00

DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. CRE SSWELL said that knowing the interest that
was taken in the motion of which the Hon. Member for
the City of London had given notice for that evening, it
was with great reluctance that he pressed himself upon
the attention of the House, but he feared that he should
not get another opportunity of bringing forward this sub-
ject. Ho would not detain the House long, be could state
the facts to the House, in a few minutes—the question
was a perfectly simple one. It was not his intention to
enter into the particulars of the losses which had occurred
in 1807. The question had been discussed last year, and
settled by the opinion of a considerable majority, and as
he could not believe that the House would now consent
to rescind the vote to which it had come last year. he
would not enter into the discussion of that part of the subject,
unless he should be forced to do so by the con-
duct which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might pursue.
The simple question was what was the meaning of the
vote of last year—as to the meaning of that vote the Right
Hon. Gentleman and himself were at issue. If he were
right the House, should follow up the vote of last year by
aereeing to his motion. It was well-known that several
merchants, subjects of this country, ha:l suffered losses in
consequence of the seizure of their property by the Danish
Government in 1807, at the time of the attack on Copen-
hagen by this country. From time to time the subject
had been brought forward, and other persons had put for-
ward their claims, stating that they were entitled to receive
compensation for these losses. In 1834 the Government
yielded, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord
Althorp, stated that he was satisfied of the justice of those
el aims. In consequence, directions were given to the Com-
missioriers for examining French claims to receive and exa-
mine the Danish claims 'I he Commissionersconsidered these
directions as empowering them not only to receive these
claims, but to investigate them for the purpose of escer-
tainitig whether they were just or unjust. Every one must
feel that it was incumbent on them to have taken that
course ; what signified it being informed that there were a
certain number of persons who had made claiMs for com-
pensation to a certain amount, unless they were at the same
time informed whether those claims were just or unjust.
The Commissioners had stated that claims had been made
amounting to five or six hundred thousand pounds, and
they had adjudicated on about 140,0001., which they had
decided were just claims. There were two separate
classes of claimants which the House had determined were
entitled to compensation. The first class consisted of
those English merchants who were owed debts at the time
by Danish subjects, which debts were confiscated, the Da-
nish Government having ordered these debts to be paid into
the public treasury. Another class consisted of those
whose goods on shore had been seized—this class was at
first objected to, but it was afterwards allowed that theirs
constituted a case for investigation. Some of these per-
sons had omitted to brine- forward their claims within the
time allowed by the Order in Council for their so doing,
and, in 1837, the Hon. Member for Bridport bad brought
forward their case in that House. The Hon. Member for
Bridport, on that occasion, moved that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Mujesty
would be graciously pleased to direct the Dansh Commis-
sioners to enter upon the examination of those claims. That
address was agreed to, and her Majesty had been graciously
pleased to comply with its prayer. That instruction
must have authorised them to proceed to adjudication,
because on the occasion of that address the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had provided funds for the purpose of meet-
ing those claims. He could not see any difference in
principle between those whose goods had teen seized and
confiscated on shore, and those whose goods had been
seized and confiscated on board ship, together with the
ships on board which were those goods. The House had
adopted his views in that address to her Majesty, and he
hod couched his address in precisely the same terms as
those of the address of the Hon. Mentberlor Bridport.
Therefore the instructions were the same, the Treasury
Minutes were the same in substance, but the results pro-
duced a most extraordinary difference—whether there were
any private instructions or not he did not know, but it was
most curious, but no less curious than true, that the results
had been different. He could undersfand that there might
have been some reason why the House should not be told
what the amount of the claim was, because the -House
might have been terrified by its being a large amount.
He would ask the House whether they did or did not in
their vote of last year adopt the principle that
those who had their ships seized should be indemnified ?
If they did adopt that principle, then Ile would ask why
should they not adopt the course he proposed to pursue,
namely granting an address to her Majesty, praying
that she would betraciously pleased to direct the Com-
missioners to adjudicate upon this claim? The Right
Hon. Gent. opposite, upon his asking the question had
told him that he bad not directed the Commissioners to
adjiidieete, because the case was very different from that
which was before Parliament. Uuless the House was
pre eared to rescind the vote that it came to last session,
they must follow it up by voting the address. He