The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, Fntim 1, MAY 25, ins j:

the meantime. He thought, howe, r, that this case was entirely distinct '
from any such parallel. The goods of the petition&s weiv seized in the
Danish harbours at the time when thl.i Zountt y was supposed to be at
peace with Denmark; in time of peace became the aggressor. There
was, i.eletlsi, a calamitous war going on, in which the sufferers must bear
the consequences ; but this case, as far as he understood it, was an excep-
tion. The British Consul was at the time resident in the Danish port,
and Admiaal Gambier gave licenses to those vessas to sail. The British
Government. however, upon sonic principle which he did not understand
and did not think it necessary to discuss, thought proper to seize the
Danish fleet, and carry off the vessels to England. It was even then
affirmed that this was not a hostile measure, but one of protecticti and
friendship. Upon this assurance the British merchants trading in the
Baltic had relied. Relying uptim these assurances the British vessels
sailed into the Danish harbours, and the acts of aggression Were corn
mated, the vessels were seized and confiscated by an exiisperatell enemy.
And, under these circumstances, would any Member maintain that the
case was at all similar to that of a ship going from a distant port being
carried away by a enemy, hostilities having in the meantime been com-
menced ? This country attacked Denmark without any declaration of
war, without even pretending that any offence had been committed, only
upon the plea:of State necessity. Was not this exactly the case which
had been referred to by the celebrated writers on the international law,
by whom it was laid down,'that in such a case the State was bound to make
compensation to its subjects. The Solicitot-General had endeavoured
to draw a distinction between ships or goods on board ships ;—and
goods which had been transferred to the shore. No such distinction was
to be found in the eminent writers—Vathel and Grotius—both of whom
laid it down in express terms that the State is bound to make compensa-
tion to its subjects for wrongs arising from reprisals which have been
provoked by the state.--(Hear, hear.) If the case went no further than
this, lie (Mr. Hutt) submitted that the case of these claimants was fairly
made oul ; but at the time when the seizures of British property was
made, the British Government seized a far larger amount of Danish
property in this country; and the proceeds of this property was for
Some time applied to the compensation of these sufferer*. That fund
was now dissipated, under the sanction of the British Legislature, and
the claimants had no other fund to apply than the resources of the
State. If it had been his (Mr. Hutt's) fate to be connected with a port I
which suffered most grievously from these circumstances. It hail been '
said that these claimants came, after an interval of thirty years, to the
House for compensation, but there had been no cessation of these
claims. There had been no lathes by these parties. These claims had
been repeatedly pressed upon the attention of the Government. In
15:34, compensation was made to-the book debtors. In 1837, another
class of claims was recognised, and surety it was but shuffling to say
that these parties came after an interval of thirty years. That was no
reason for refusing justice. He was sure the House would, even at this
distance of time, recognise these claims. The parties had appealed
from one minister to another—they had waited tong and anxiously ; and
for thirty years they had waited in vain. They now came to this
House, which had so often redressed the wrongs of the injured, and he
trusted that the representatives of Great Britain would not now with.
hold them redress.—(Cheers ).
' "

Mr. INGHAM said the Hon: Gentleman opposite had overlooked the
principal claith on behalf of the shipowner. Every one must admit that
in case of a war breaking out, although by the usage of nations goods
might be seized, yet it was contrary to the usage of !matins, after the
cessation of hostilities, to seize goods and book debts. The argument of ;
the Hon. and Learned Member for Liverpool had been so powerfully and
concisely put, that it must remain fresh in the mind of every one. This •
was not a seizure of property on the breaking out of a war, hut it was •
the case of a reprisal—(Hear)--of provocation on the part of the
English Government for the purposes of the State.--(llear.) The case
advocated by the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets two Sessions
back, of the vessels seized by Spain in 1796, where the Government
granted th,g sum of 200,0004, was of a smaller description to the pre-
sent. Therefore, not only was the case on the principles of justice per.
fectly clear, but he thought his Hon. and Learned Friend had brough t
forward an exact precedent to justify the course he was now pur-
suing. The only other objection that could be urged was on the score of
revenue. But he would ask the Right lion. Gentleman opposite how
was the revenue to be maintained except by extending protection to the
commerce of the country?—(Hear, hear.) Nothing would tend so
much to promote their financial prosperity as the Government coming
forward on all occasions to indemnify the mecantile and maritime in-
terests whenever they were seized by foreign States.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was some-
thing necessary beyond a Government being liberal—it must be just
also. Just, not only in the sense of giving countenance to reasonable
claims, but inexorably just in resisting claims which appeared to it with-
out foundation, andiwhich could not be conceded without theintroduction
of a principle of the most dangerous nature.—(Hear, hear, hear )
He would take the liberty of looking back at the history of
this case, and he would bring before the House what the Govern
ment had done, and he would justify them in the course they were now
taking. Up to the year 1834 it was clear that the question had been
made a matter of ineffectual struggle inlParliament. His Hon. Friend
who sat below him and those who differed with him more broadly,
would, on a full statement of the case, declare that he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) showed no disinclination to state the grounds on which
they had acted. In the year 1834 the question was brought under the
con ideration of the House when Earl Spencer was Chancellor of the
Exchequer. At that period undoubtedly the motion was specially
directed to book debts ; true, the proposition which Lord Spencer un.
dertook to examine involved all the three classes—(Hear, hear, hear)—
namely, book debts, goods taken on shore, and goods on sea board.
That, however, was upon the understanding that he expressly reserved
to himself, as was stated in the Treasury Minutes, a full power &consi-
dering the cases. Upon the examination of the cases by the law dicers
of the Crown, both his Learned Friends that were near him, and the
civilians with whom they were associated, gave it as their distinct
opinion, that with respect to the book debts and the goods taken on
shore, that was a wrong sustained by British subjects contrary to the
law, the declared law of nations ; but with respect to the wrong sus-
tained by the seizure of ships and cargoes, that was an ordinary conse-
quence of war ; and there was no violation of the law of nations in that
case. Upon those opinions the Treasury affirmed that view of the case, and
in 1833 a sum of 112,000/. was voted in satisfaction of the book debts,
and in 1836 a sum of 78,3271. was voted under the second head. Thus
the matter had rested till the commencement of the present year, when
his lion. Friend the Member for Bridport brought forward a case which
did nut differ from the case already refer red to in the Treasury Minute,
alkiwing persons to come forward 'and claim within a certain time. ,
Certain parties made out a case to the satisfaction of the Member for
Bridport, but they were excluded by the Treasury Minute. His Hon.
Friend then stated among other things, although he could not state the
sum that would be required, that a week should be given to the parties to
put in their claim ; the time was given, and then came the present petition.
The House would be surprised to hear that the vote come to upon the
motion of the Hon. Member for Bridport had not stopped at 75,000/ ,
but that it had actually let in claims to the amount of 100,0001. That
vote however admitted no new principle ; but let the House look to
what was the principle they were now called upon to affirm. It was
admitted by the partits that this seizure was not inconsistent with the
law of nations. Yet they were called upon to affifm• that when hostili-
ties broke out, whatever might have been the wrongs of the subjects of
this country, still they were bound to grant compensation to all parties
who suffered from seizures made under the law Of nations. He called
upon them to remember that the former resolution of the House did
not contain the proposition before the House. On the contrary, this
teas the first impression, which had not been formed before. Was this
proposition to be affirmed on the ground of the war being unjust? If
they affirmed that propositfon how much farther were they to go? Were
they to investigate into the origin of every war ?—(Hear, hear.)
If they affirmed that proposition in one war then they might
be called upon to affirm it in every one. They might be called upon to
award compensation to all who had suffered from the breaking out of the
American war, or the revolutionary war. Suppose that several of those
who were now petitioners before the House had been insured, and had
been indeinnified by the insurers long ago, were they to give in-
demnity anew to those who had before received it ? Or were they
to pay back to those insurers, who had paid the amount to the as-
sured upwards of thirty years ago? He would not use the argu-
ment of time as a bar to a claim which was otherwise just, or he
would have used it as an argument against the book debts.—(Hear.)
The investigation of those claims—ascertaining what was just and what
was unjust—became infinitely more difficult in proportion as the time
had run. If the case had occurred in the year 18”, evidencs might
t hen be adduced, and he might have had the means of controverting it ;
but when a case occurred in the year 1807 he contended the House
ought nut to entertain the proposition, except on the most clear and un-
deniable grounds. He could not conclude without again endeavouring
to show to the House in what a position all these cases were brought
forward. Every person who had a claim, and every class of
persons who had claims, naturally, by the influence which
the constituent had over the representative the means of press.
!ng on the House the fullest and strongest state meth, on his
tehalf. On the contrary, those wha had to represent the public, as
he did in the matter, had no sympathies of that description in their fa-
vour. Efforts were made on every side for the purpose of making out
a case in favour of redress ; and on the other side there was nothing but
the dry abstract reasoning of those who opposed it. If the House
sanctioned this claim they would do that which was unexampled in
the history of nations. If the House admitted the principle of doing
this justice to their own subjects, (or similar reasons Foreign Powers
would bring forward cases—they were ready enough to do it. The'
Danish case was at first represented as a case quite of itself. No
sooner was the Danish case brought forward than cases that were alleged
to be similar were also brought forward. This ease was brought forward
upon a new principle—it was a sliest dangerous principle, and he called
upon the House to resist it, and if the House looked forward to the future,
and wished to become fair and legi!irnate guardians of the public inte-
rest and the public purse, they wou'd now assist him in resisting the mo-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Mem'esr for Liverpool.
Sir WALTER JAMES—Sir, I would not after the eloquent
speech of my Honourable and Learned Friend, if I had not
made myself diligently master of all the circumstances of the
ogles, from which I am perfectly convinced that justice is on the
side of the claimants—after the able and lucid statements of my Hon.
Friend the Member for Liverpool—l need not occupy the House any
length of time, but I wish to point out, as briefly as possible, how utterly
futile is the distinction attempted to be made. Suppose the case of a
ship going out to Denmark, the goods on board belonged to three differ-
ent persons, the goods of two of the parties are landed, and subsequently
seized by the Danish Government. To those two parties compensation
was granted, and I think most justly granted; but the property
of the third party which was seized on board was not com-
pensated. The reason assigned is that the confiscation of those
ships and goods was in conformity with the usages and practices of war.
I deny this ; there was no war. There is this material fact—the Danes
by their profession of the 17th of March, 1794, had pledged themselves
to maintain the neutrality of the p,altic, and they had agreed that both
parties should give six months notice of hostilities before the property of
individuals should be liable to seizure. But this was not a case of war.
It was a case of reprisal simply. I shall not trouble the House with
quotations from Grotius, Matthieu, or Vattet, nor will I venture to
tread upon such learned ground, which would be hazardous to
so young a Member as I am. But this case is plain, that those people
were deprived of their property fir the good of the whole nation. In
1807 they had committed an act of injustice towards Denmark, which
nothing but the extreme circumstances of the case could justify. They
had in their hands a large amount of Danish property, which was float-
ing on the Thames, or lying in the other ports of Greateritain. The
proceeds of those seizures had been paid into the Treasury, and Mr.
Perceval at the time made the distinct statement that that money had
been paid into the Treasury, in order that it might be there to meet
the demands of British merchants who had claims upon it.— (Cheers.)
What was the result? •The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the ExChequer would correct him if he were wrong—he believed that air
offer was made by the Danish Government of mutual restitution. Did
they accept that offer or not ? They rejected it; and he would ask the
Right Hon. Gentleman, was it right or just, having refused those offers,
that he should now adduce the claims of those who were justly entitled
to them ? Might it not be asserted that they had acted fraudulently, if
they now attempted to deprive those persons of their just claims ? He
would only trouble the House with one farther remark. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General had stated that these parties
might have protected themselves by insurances. Now, he did not think
that the policy would be worth much, when the property was destroyed
by an event not contemplated in that policy. In conclusion, he trusted
claTimhseoAf
TthereoseßiNll-Euysed_GiEndNiEvißduAaLls.—was(liseoarri:y)
that the Right Hon. Gentleman would see the justice of conceding the
he could not assent to the
proposition put forward by the Hon. Baronet opposite. The Hon.
Baronet had a full right to attack the opinions of the law officers of
the Crown, and lie (the Attorney-General) felt honoured at entering
into a contest with him. The Hon. baronet said that there was no
distinction between those goods in ships which were seized and book.
debts and goods seized on shore ; and unless he (the Attorney_
General) could make good that distinction, he would give up the case.
Ile had given an opinion that those having claims for book.debts had
a right to compensation, and upon that opinion the Government acted.
He would now state the reasons upon which he had given that opinion.
Those whose book.debts were seised came to the Gevernment and said,

"the Danish Government has done what they had no right to dO—We
call upon you to compel the Danish Government to do us
justice—or do us justice yourself." The English Government did
not comp-1 the Danish Government to do them justice, and therefore
those whose book debts were seized had a clear right upon the English
Government. It was allowed on all hands that it was contrary' to the
law of nations to seize book debts. The only one instance on record was
when Alexander the Great took Tyre—(Great laughter)—and that act
was held up to general reprobation. But with respect to book debts it
was said, you ought to compel the Danes to db us justice, for we have
no opportunity of indemnifying ourselves from the misfortune which
has befallen us. Now the Hon. and Learned Baronet was wrong when
he said that the underwriters were not liable because that being one of
the perils enumerated in the policy, they would clearly be liable. With
regard therefore tit those *hose Wok debts end golds were seized,
these two classes had 'clearly a right to recompense ; and
he would remind the House that in 182.8, when Sir James
Mackintosh, that great jurist, took the distinction that the owners of
ships had no claims to compensation, he contended that that was in
exact conformity to the law of nations, but that those whose goods and
book debts were seized had been treated contrary to the law of nations,
and therefore they had claims. Although this question had been brought
forward from time to time until the present day, when his Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Member for Liverpool, brought forward the claims
of those parties, no one had ventured to say that those whose ships and
goods were seized were entitled to compensation. His Hon. Friend,
the Member for Ilull, said there was no war, but he (the Attorney-
General) would say there was. They were flagranice bello—they had
blockaded Copenhagen, and it was after they had be mbarded their ships
that the Danes did what they were justified in doing—they seized the
British ships. He contended that the owners might have Saved themselves
by insurance. It was unfair eft!). e ship-brokers and underwriters to
come forward thirty years after t hese losses had been sustained, and ask
the Government to lay a tax upon the public for their indemnity. They
should have demanded a premium equal to the risk, and in all probabi.
lity they did, but they lost in that adventure. It seemed to him that
there was a broad and obvious distinction between those two descriptions
of claims. It rested solely upon this, that the attack made upon Copen-
hagen was unjust ; hut admitting that such was the case, would that
sanction the principle, that because the Government had acted unjustly,
these per-sons were entitled to compensation. Neither in Iblrotius,
Matth'eu, Vattel, or Puffendorf, was there any authority for such a
proposition ; and on these grounds he most decidedly opposed the pro.
position. .as
Mr. CLAY wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of the
Attorney-General, who said that this was the first occasion when these
claims had been brought forward before the House; whereas two years
ago he (Mr. Clay) had brought these claims before the House, and only
failed by the small majority of eight. It was with deep regret that he
(Mr. Clay) still found the Chancellor oft he Exchequer and the Govern.
mint persevere in their refusal to recognize these claims, resting as they
did upon the broadest grounds, as well of humanity as of justice. The
opposition now offered to these claims was precisely the same as that
which had been offered on former occasions. What was the nature
of that opposition ? It was said,—" The claims which we have ad-
mitted, the book debts an 1 the goods on shore,"—(by the way
when his Honourable Friend took credit for having conceded these
claims, he (Mr. Clay) would remind the House that it was under the
gentle compulsion of a strongly expressed opinion on the part of the
House—it was said the seizure of these book debts and goods on shore
was contrary to the law of nations ; but the seizure of the property for
which indemnity is now claimed is in conformity with the law of na.
tions, and if these claims are conceded a dangerous precedent would be
established. He (Mr, Clay) much doubted, though he would not enter
into authorities on the subject, whether the seizure of the book debts and
goods on shore was so contrary to the law of nations, or at least so
infinitely more opposed to the law of nations, than the seizure of ships in
cargo. It was not in the smallest degree necessary in his csse that he
(Mr. Clay) should make out that point. The Attorney-General had
said that the seizure of the book debts and the goods on shore was con-
trary to the law of nations, and the British Government was entitled to
call upon the Danish Government, upon the return of peace, to com-
pensate British subjects for the seizures so made. The British Govern-
ment failed in that, and therefore British subjects had a fair claim upon
their own Governinent. Now, in tips argument, the Attorney-General
seemed to have forgotten that the Danish Government were
called upon for those very book debts, and goods on shore, and
in the treaty of Kehl (as we understood) Denmark admitted
the-right of indemnity to those British subjects whose book debts
and goods on shore had been seized. That these claims
had not been enforced against the Danish Government, was
no answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of the danger
of establishing a precedent of compensation for the consequences of
g; ordinary warfare." Why, this warfare was wholly unparalleled, and
he (Mr. Clay) hoped that no future page of British history would be
polluted by the record of suds, an action.—(" Oh, oh," from the Oppo-
, sition.) As to the seizure of the Danish navy, he made no comment.
It was difficult to enter into the feelings of a people under the pressure
of a war such as that in which England was then engaged.—(Hear.)
But it was the atrocious act of seizing 3'20 Danish merchantmen in our
harbours upon the faith of treaties—it was this which provoked the Danish
reprisals, and it was this to which he hoped the future annals of Britain
would furnish no parallel.—(Bear, hear.) As to the insuring of the
vessels, it was not the custom to insure merchantmen out and home ; it
was the custom to insure the merchantmen for their homeward voyage
when advius were received of their being homeward bound, and he
(Mr. Clay) would state that vessels having gone out to the Baltic, and in-
telligence having been received of their being homeward bound, no in-
surance could he effected—no underwriter would take the risk.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) It was thought necessary in 1807 to make applies.
tion to the Government with respect to a vessel bound to Stock-
holm, whether it was safe for a British vessel to proceed to that
port? an the answer (we believe) was in the affirmative. The
vessel sailed in September, and aerived at,Stockholm 20th November.
On the Bth December she passed a ship of war, ran down without sup-
posing there was any danger, when the vessel boarded her, and she was
taken into Copenhagen. This was the state of ordinary war.—(Cheers.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked about the hardship of the
case. But was it an answer to a demand frequently urged—a demand,
the justice of which had been acknowledged—was it an answer to say,
that having refused it until the evidence was partly lost, that should be a
seas,: for now refilling to investigate it ?—(Cries of question.) He was
aware that at this hour Gentlemen wished to leave the House for the
purpose of getting their dinners—(Loud laughter)—and he would not
detain them longer than to say, that he had not heard any arguments
from his Learned Friend below him, except those, to which he hoped
he had offered something like an answer. He hoped, however, his friends
near him might consider themselves the guardians of the public purse;
they had done enough to satisfy the most conscientious scruples, and he
hoped they would consider the claims ofjustice and humanity which were
always paramount to any other.—(Cheers.)
Mr. \VA R BURTON rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." lie wished
to make a remark or two in reference to a statement made by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer as to what had fallen from him (Mr. Warburton)
on a former debate. Being pressed to state what the amount might be
he declined to give any information : but afterwards said that the parti-
cular claim to which he alluded might be from 70 to 80,000/. ; but in
consequence of some additional facilities having been given fo ascertain
the amount, it was found to be 100,0001. The whole argument urged
against the motion was that we were in a state of war at the time,
whereas we were in a state of peace; anal the Hon. Member for Cam_
bridge on a former occasion did not venture to say we were in a state of
war ; he said there was an indication that something like a declaration of
war was on foot. Now that appeared to him (Mr. Warburton) to be a
state of peace.--(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN said, whether he had used the expressions im-
puted to him on a former occasion he could not distinctly say. It was
not, however, a declaration of war preceding the seizure of vessels, on
which Great Britain acted in these cases. An embargo on vessels in
ports was the way in which Great Britain commenced hostilities, and if
they admitted the principle that seizures made in this manner were
seizures for which this country was afterwards to pay, they were deal.
ing not with the case of Denmark, but with every nation.—(Cheers.)
Sir F. TRENCH said the admirable statement of the Hon. Member
for the Tower Hamlets embraced the whole strength of the case. The
question in this case was not whether the time had elapsed for these
claims to be considered. No time should bar the cause of justice, and
he hoped this day to see the cause of justice triumphant.—(Cheers )
Mr. WHITE gave his hearty support to the motion of the Member
for Liverpool.
Mr. CRESWELL then rose to reply. He should do so hi a very
few words. He felt bound, in the first place, to notice what had been
said by his friend the Solicitor-General. He had complained against
him personally; now he could not but think that that complaint was
totally without foundation. His friend had said he had been taken by
surprise—that he had had no intimation by the notice of motion what
it was he asked. Now he (Mr. Cresswell) could not but think, when he
had stated that it was his intention to draw the attention of the House
to the petition, that he was not expecting too much in presuming that
his Learned Friend had read it. Perhaps, however, his Learned Friend
had read another petition, and fearing, that he might have done so,
he would just read a ward or two of its prayer.—(Laughter.) It prayed
for the compensation for goods afloat, stating also that compensation had
been already given for the loss of book debts and goods on shore. That
being the case, he was surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
should have complained of him as he had. He would now come at once
to the arguments'of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two Hen.
assistants. It certainly was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to be just to the public, but it was much more his duty to
be just to individuals; because, by injustice being done to an in-
dividual he might he ruined, whereas it would not be felt by a
body.—(Cheers.) He was surprised at many of the arguments of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was surprised. to hear
him say that the sum required was large. Did the Chancellor of the
Exchequer mean by that, that when the sum was large, justice was not
to be given.—(Cheers.) But where it could be obtained at a paltry price,
then that it was to be rendered.—(Great cheering.) The arguments of
the Attorneys General, that there was a distinction between the claim-
ants for goods ou shore and book debts, and those for goods afloat, was
totally without foundation. If there were no distinction, which he posi-
tively asserted that there was not, then there was no resource left but for
the House to be against the Government. And it would be bound to say
to the Government—" If you do not make compensation, we will either
compel you by force, or we will make compensation ourselves."--(Cheers.)
It was not to be said by the Government, that if reprisals were made,
then that they would wage war. Yet such were the arguments that hail
been made use of to-night, in order to avoid giving compensation. But
on the other hand it was said that by the Articles of War the act that
had been perpetrated was justifialale, He denied that there was war, and
such being the case, the acts that had taken place were totally uncalled-
for, and Government was bound to make compensation. He again as-
serted that there was no war, and his friends who had built their argu.
meets upon that supposition were mistaken. The Right Hon. Gentle.
had said, suppose the goods were insured ? Now he woutrranswer him
by supposing that they were not ; could justice in such a case be done to the
underwriters without compensation being given them? It was no answer
for a party to say that he had received the money from the underwriter,
because in that case he would be the trustee for him. So also in the
case of the collision of ships, it would be no answer to say, that the un-
derwriter had been paid. All he asked for the claimants was justice,
which he trusted the House would give him by its vote that night.
the House divided,
whSetnratthigeerersapwpeeraeretdh_en ordered to withdraw, and
For the Motion ...
Against it
SI
Majority — 34
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should not
take upon himself any responsibility in consequence of the vote which
had just been come to by the House.
DISQUALIFICATION OF HA WICK (ROXBURGH).
Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose, in pursuance of his notice, to bring
under the consideration of the House a subject which appeared to him
as one of great importance, as touching not only the freedom of election,
but as obstructing the salutary operation of those extended franchises
which had lately been the pleasure of the House to grant to the people
of Scotland. It had been his good fortune through life to enjoy the
friendship of his relation, Lord Archibald Hamilton ; and with that
Nobleman he had contributed to the extension of political privileges in
Scotland. He d.d not now regret those efforts; but, on the contrary,
rejoiced that the effect of Parliamentary Reform had been to grant a
large extension of the people's rights. But at the same time he thought
that the circumstances which it was now his painful duty to bring before
the House required the prompt and immediate intervention of Parlia-
ment ; for if the evils complained of remained unredressed his fears were
that the abuse of those privileges would bring the concessions he had
alluded to into disrepute.—(Hear.) It might be asked why it was not a
Scotch representative who brought forward this motion._His answer
was, that he lived on the confines of Roxburghshire, that many of the
partie, interested in it were his neighbours, some of them his friends;
and that he felt that a gross outrage had been committed, and that not a
moment should be lost in aprlying the proper remedy,—(Cheers.) Some
Hon. Gentlemen might speak from indistinct rumour, but he could assert
positively that the state of society in that neighbourhood had undergone
a serious change in consevence of the circumstances which he was
about to narrate—such a change as in his humble opinion rendered

legislative interferenee itidisratiSahle. The principal of those facts re.
ferred to the late election, which iodic Place Aug. ; 1831, anti depended on
sworn testimony. But first it would be necessary for Mini() state tO the
House that at that: election the polling took place on the 3d and 4th of
August, and that previous to the poll he (Sir J Graham) had presented
a petition to that House from 600 freeholders of Roxburghshire. That
petition stated that at a meeting, composed of six magistrates and 95
freeholders, a memorial was agreed to, and presentcd to the Lord Ad-
vocate, through the medium of the sheriff of the county, in which the
petitioners stated their dread of injury to themselves and property, and
stated that a militarl force would be absolutely necessary for the sup-
pression of violence. Whether there was any communication with the
bailies of Ilawick he did not knrfw, but he knew that they were invited
to attend the preliminary meeting. These magistrates objected to par.
ticipate in any way in the maintenance of the peace, without the entire
Charge and responsibility were relinquished to them. It was necessary
for him to state here that these two officers were warm partisans—in-
deed, notoriously so.—(Hear.) The House *Mild also permit him to
state that he should be most unwilling to say anything Which would be
calculated to give pain to his Right Hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, of
whose cordial kindness he had frequently partaken, but he found him.
self bound to adhere to the course which a strong sense of duty imposed
upon him. He would, therefore, say that, in holding the chairmanship
of the Boxburghshire election it was impossible for him to dis-
charge the duty of the office without being more or less by
the zeal—he would say the honest zeal which must necessa-
rily in some degree bias and influence his judgment. Thus much by
way of preliminary. He would now proceed to the facts which charac.
terised the proceedings of the Roxburgh election. He would endeavour
to show that the conduct of the mob was brutal in the extreme, and he
thought he could prove by evidence that it was organized for the
purpose of overawing the freedom of election.—(Hear.) With re.
spect to the violence which took place on the evening antecedent to the
day of the poll, which was Wednesday, the 2d of August, he would re-
fer to the evidence of Mr. A. Berwick, who was examined as follows.
This gentleman arrived at Hawick by the mail from Edinburgh the
evening before the first day of the polling :
Did you proceed to Hawick to give your vote there at the late
election ?—Yes, from Edinburgh.
On what day 7—Wednesday, the 2d of August
That was the day before the poll ?--Yes.
At what tithe did you arrive at Hawick 7—About nine o'clock.
In the evening?—Yes.
Were you, or any of your party, assaulted by the mob ?—I was.
Were you the first party attacked by the mob 7—No.
Who was the first party attacked?—Mr. M'Donald.
Did you hear anything said by the mob at that time 7—Yes.
What was it 7—There were several voices called out to " Swear him
swear him!"
After the mob had called out that, did any particular individual in
the mob address you ?—Yes.
What did he say to you 7—He asked me if I would swear I would not
vote.

What did you say to him ?—I said, " I will not swear."
Could the persons in the mob round about you hear it ?—Yes.
What step did they take ?—They began to tear my clothes, and kicked
and jostled me, driving me always farther from the inn.
Whilst they were performing these operations, did they utter any
other expressions?—Yes.
did they say P—One of them called out, " Down with the
damned Tory, Berwick, and tramp him in the dirt."
What place did you make for tried to regain the mail.
Do you remember what took place upon your making that attempt
—Yes.

What w:,s it ?—There was one man came; I had my waterproof
cloak in my hand ; I had lost my umbrella before; one man came up to
me and raised his foot to give me a kick with all his force, but I saved
myself with my hand and cloak, or I do not know what would have been
the consequence; it was a most desperate blow.
Did you still make towards the snail ?—Yes.
Did you reach it ?—Yes.
Did you get into it 2-1 got my head and shoulders in.
Was any body in the mail P—Mr. Bull and another gentleman.
Did you require them to assist you to get in, or did they do it ?
They assisted me, both of them.
In what way ?—One took one arm and the other the other, to draw
me in.
Did they succeed in drawing you in P—No.
What prevented it ?—The mob outside hauled me ; I was very much
exhausted, and nearly all my clothes were off at this time.
Did they seize any particular part of your person ; your arm or your
leg ?—No particular part ; jostling, and tearing away, and kicking
my legs were all blue for weeks afterwards.
From the kicks you received ?—Yes ; and one cut that will never
leave me ; I had one cut across here (pointing to the side of his leg.)
Was that done by the sole of a shoe P—By a shod shoe ; at least the
surgeon thought so.
You stated you were very much exhausted when you attempted to
get into the mail; did that continue when )ou went towards the
inn ?—Yes.
Did any person at that time help you to get into the inn ?—Yes, there
were two other men joined hiss's, and carried me through the mob to the
kitchen door.
He (Sir James Graham) felt that he was trespassing on the time of the
House, but he had a painful duty to perform, and this evidence was ne-
cessary to show that extreme violence had been resorted to previously
to the polling days for the purpose of overawing the electors. Then,
with regard to the arrangement of the polling, it appeared that the
booths were so constructed as to afford every access to those who voted
for Mr. Scott, the unpopular candidate ; but in snaking their exit these
voters had no protection from the mob, being compelled to go through
the public market-place. This would be seen by the evidence of Robert
Pattison, in question 2,055.
After you had polled did anybody offer to go with you to see you safe
through the crowd ?—Yes, James Ilalliburton.
Did he go with you ?-1-le turned inc round by the under end of the
booth, and bade me run round to the front door of the inn.
Were there any constables standing near the door ?—There were
constables standing at the front door of the Tower; they almost filled
it up with constables.
When you were near the inn door, and the constables there, did the
mob seize you ?—There was a mob close by the back of the inn, and
they knoeked and pulled me round by this great crowd of people.
Did the constables fly to protect you ?—No protection.
What did the mob do then with you when they had got you in their
power ?—They carried me along to Slittrigg Bridge-end.
Did they do anything to you while carrying you along?—They kicked
me with their feet, and stripped the clothes off—coat, waistcoat, and
sark, and under sark , and my hat was knocked off when I was at the
Tower Inn door.
Did you endeavour to get away from him 11—There was one voice
cried, "Let him go," and another voice cried, " Hurl him over the
bridge."
Did you get away from them at last ?—Yes, I got away from them at
last.

Did you go into any house ?—I ran into a house.
Whose house was it ? Walter Turnbull's, a stocking-maker.
When you got into Mr. Turnbull's the mob were at the door; did
you hide yourself any where ?—Yes.
Where ?-1 hid myself below the bed.
Did the mob come in ?—Yes, the mob came in.
Did they search for you and find you ?—They searched for us and
found us out.
Did they compel you to come from under the bed ?—They struck us
while I was below the bed.
What was said ?—There was one .administered an oath, to make me
swear that I would not vote again; I cannot recollect the words; life
was left in me, and that was all.
(Hear, hear.) He would read one more case, which was equally strong
with the foregoing. It was the testimony of William Young, and was
as follows :
The night before thepolling began where were you; at home 2—Yes,
at home.

Where is your house?—At the east end of the town.
During the night, that is, before twelve o'clock, did any persons
come to your house Did any mob of persons come about your house ?
—Yes.
Did they do anything ?—Yes.
What ?—Broke my windows.
Were your children in the rooms at the time in bed 7—Yes.
Were you obliged to remove them from the rooms 7—Yes.
To the back of the house?—Off the window where the stones were
'coming in.
After the mob went away, did you go anywhere ? After the mob went
away I went to the Tower Inn.
What time (lid you poll on the next day ?—A little after two o'clock.
Were there any offers of protection made?—l heard no offers of pro-
tection made.
Did you endeavour to leave the booth ?—Yes.
Which end of the booth did you try to get out at ?—I asked the pro-
tection of the bailies to go to the eastern door first, and they told use
to stop a little ; but they never said that they would give me any pro-
tection,
What did you do 7—l went to the other door, the west door.
Did you succeed in getting out at the west door ?—I went up to the
west door, and was up two steps of the door of the Tower Inn.
In consequence of not being able to get in what happened to you 7--
They catched me by the tails, and pulled me backwards.
Who do you mean by they 7—The mob.
Did any of the constables interfere to protect you 7—l did not notice
any of them.
When they had got possession of you what did they do with you ?
They commenced pulling the clothes off my back.
Where did they take you to first ?—To the end of the old bridge.
When you were at the bridge did the mob do anything to you there?
—The cry was, "throw him over the bridge."
Did they do anything else 7—They asked me if I would ever go in
and vote for the Tories again.
Did you try to get away from the mob ?—Several times.
What became of you afterwards; did you get away from them ?
—I got into Alexander Mayer's house, the currier, by the Tower dyke.
side.

Now this evidence was sufficient to shew that the mob were in full pos.
session of the town, and that the authority of the magistrates was entirely
superseded.—(Hear, hear.) What was the account of the state of the
town given by Major Napier ?
Upon arriving at Hawick did you find a great crowd in the street ?
Yes there was a great crowd.
I believe the coach was going to the Tower Inn P—lt was.
Could the coachman make his way to the Tower Inn ?—He could not.
Why not 7—The mob prevented him.
In what way did the mob prevent the coach going in ?—They got close
round by the horses, so that it was impossible.
What did the coachman do upon that?—He threw the reins on the
horses' back, and left the coach. He said he could do nothing with them.
Then you were left alone on The box ?—I was left alone.
Did the coachman shortly afterwards return and mount the box?—Yes.
Did he endeavour to drive into the inn yard ?—He wished to do so,
but seeing it impossible he got down.
Did you see the mob go to the coach itself?—Yes, I did ; they walked
• sirund it and looked in at the windows.
Could you gather from any of the expressions they used whorh they
were looking for ?—Yes, 1 could, it was Lord John Scott ; they wished
to know whether he was in the coach or not.
Was the mob a numerous one ?—Yes.
Did you observe whether the people had any colours or any ribbons of
aey kind ?—I only saw one colour, a blue ribbon, which I believe the
greater part of them had.
Did any of the crowd address you ?—Yes, they did.
What did they say to you P—One of the crowd said to me, " lf you
value your life for a minute do not attempt to come off the coach," or
some words to that effect.
Did you give any answer to that 7—My answer to that was, I hu d no-
thing to doirith it, I was no elector, but going to this House.
Was anything said or done upon that ?—Yes ; upon that a man said,
" Really not ;" I said, " Really not ;" upon which he took a ribbon
out of his coat and gave it me, and told me to put it into mine,
which I did; he then said, "Now, your life is safe ;'' and the mob
gave a cheer.—(Hear.)
Did you see Lord John I did.
Did you see him get out of the coach ?—No; I saw him the mo_
ment he was out ; he was on the steps.
Were they able to take Lord John into the Tower P—No, that would
be impossible; they took him at the back of the coach, and carried
him into a baker's shop.
Did it appear to you to be a violent mob P—l think I never saw
such a mob, though it was a quiet snob, you may say ; they appeared
to be worked up into a state of frenzy; I never expected Lord John
Scott could have reached the baker's shop in a state of safety from the
situation I was placed in.
He would next read to thellousea Portion of the evideiice of theßev.
CharkS Thomson, who was staying on a visit with Mr. Ballantine, at
Hawick :
Were you at Hawiek during the last election P—l was.
I believe you ;sere staying at Mr. Ballantine's house P—During the
election.

Shortly

'ter the polling commenced was your attention called to the
f occurred ?—lt was.
••;on 7—There was a great noise at the
att,r having voted, were to
-.dar place, and a great
-ery long perk('
where I

booth by any noise t 0...
What attracted your atteo—
eod Of the booth out which the vote,,
come; the crowd cruphed towards that pare.._

deal of tumult and coneusitlt went na, an,: in no

a number of individuals name running towards the house

was, towards the bridge over a small stream, called .the Sliltrl b,
they
_went and looked down the street, and soon after that, or about
the same time, they came rushing towards the bridge; a number of
persons came towards me, and I saw an elderly man in the hands of

the mob, who maltreated him very much.
Before you saw the mob running in this way to the bridge did you
observe any person upon the hustings, whom you took to be the bailie,
get up to make an address to the mob ?—I think I did ; but I could not

sadtiy make the assertion that I saw such a thing. '
Could you observe that the constables di.t anything during this con.
fusion ?—I never observed them interfere in the slightest degree.

. ...,...
You say the first person -you saw maltreated on the first day of the
polling was an elderly man ? Yes, I so guessed from his head being
very bald.
In what way was he maltreated ?—lle arrears d completely in the
hands of the mob ; he appeared borne off his feet among their hands ;
I could only see the upp?r part of his body clown thus far (the breast).
They were pulling him about, and they seemed to me beating him with
their fists ; and I saw one individual lay hold of a killed of long rail,
which appeared to be torn off an outside stair close by, and strike over
the heads of two or three at the head of tit's old gentleman.
Did you observe any persons with blue colours mixing with the mob
at times 2—A great many.
Could you observe whether those persons• in Mr Elliott's colours
were restraining the mob ?—They did not appear to me to be doing so.
You have mentioned these two instances in the course of the clay ;
did you observe other similar instances ?—I did observe the instance of
another person If ho was very badly treated ; a violent crushing, and
crowding, and tumult, took place near the polling booth ; numbers came
running to this bridge to look down the Slittrigg, and by and bye a
person was carried by the windows where I was looking out ; the upper
part of his person I could see, the lower parr was concealed from me by
the persons round him ; the upper part of his body was naked, and as he
was passing his head fell back, and I witnessed the expression of his
countenance, which I shall not forget soon.—(Bear, hear.)
Such were the instances of violence resorted to. But, in addition to

this, there were also cases of robbery. Mr. Berwick was robbed of 151.
but the greater part of it was restored; and yet all this violence and ail
these outrages were not only not repressed, but seemed even to be sanc-
tioned by the authorities It was distinctly proved on oath that both
bellies wore the colours of one of the candidates on the day of polling.
—(Hear, 'hear.) To make no mistake on this matter he would refer to
the evidence of Lord John Scott, who proved that both Belie Good-
fellow and Bailie Wilson wore Elliot colours.—(Cheers.) But though
Bailie Wilson wore the Elliot colours, he at the same time professed him-
self bound aCe".l ready to afford protection to all patties. The next evi_
deuce he should pro,.
uce was that of the Rev. Angus Barton, with re-
spect to a speech made by :.I..me brother of the Hon. Gent. opposite (Mr.
n read the evidence. Ile begged to
Elliot). The Right Hon. Gent. b.:
as it ;:ould be seen in the evidence,
repeat the case of Mark Turnbull,
coat torn away up to
which was to the effect that he had the lappetof he: .
the waist—that alter going out of the railing his weiste,:.a t was torn off
—that hat, coat, shirt, and neckerchief followed—and that he eves` naked
down to the waist. The expressions used were of the most gross kinu ,
the man was beaten on the back and asked repeatedly, after each blow,
whether he would ever vote in that way again. " They gave it me;4'
says the witness, " full drive with open loof." Another instance was
that of a case in which Lord John Scott had been ill_treated. He es.
caped with his life on two occasions, and, although he was not a man to
be alarmed, it was not to be supposed that such perils could be escaped
a third time. The Right Honourable Baronet then read the evidence
of the Report, in which it was stated, among 'other matters, that the
crowd said, " I was a rank Tory, and if I proceeded on any further to
the poll the would 'strip me of my clothes and tear me all to pieces."
There were other instances of men being threatened with being stripped
of their clothes and dipped in the river, and in one case it was said by
the party that if a person voted in such a manner they were determined
it should not be without bloodshed.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Baronet then read to the House some extracts of the published evidence
of Mr. Craigie, the sub-sheriff of Roxburgh, as to the treatment of
electors and the treatment of Lord John Scott, confirmatory of the other
statements, among which it appeared that his Lordship could not leave
the town in safety without protection, and that none of the magistrates
or constables attempted to assist him. Ought it, he asked, to be allowed
that such proceedings should take place? Was it safe—was it decent ?
Yet they were sanctioned by the Committee, at which the Lord Advo.
cate fur Scotland presided—(Cheers)—and his voice, although not in a
special report, was given in its favour. Such proceedings were calcu-
lated to roll hack the tide of civilization; and if he knew his neigh-
bours, they would never go to vote at Hawick—(Hear)—so long as it
continued. If continued, the electors would go armed, and the injuries
and insults would be avenged in blood. This was not an ill advised
opinion, but confirmed by the language of the. Judges of the land. In
addition to what had been said b' Lord Cockburn, the following was the
language of Lord Mackenzie with respect to the election of 1837.
—(The Right Honourable Baronet here read the opinion of Lord
Mackenzie.) These were the opinions of Lord Mackenzie. He (Sir J.
Graham) should next call the attention of the House to the judgment of
Lord Cockburn, who had been Solicitor-General of Scotland, under Lord
Grey's Government;—" The chief aggravation of this case in my eyes,
in place of being a palliation of it—its chief atrocity in my eyes arises
from the circumstance of its being committed in the midst of an election
—committed not merely in the midst of an election, but for election pur-
poses—for the purpose of obstructed the freedom of election. I know
not what that freedom of election is which consists in this; but when
I give my honest vote according to my own opinion I may be turned out
on the streets of my native city in the, degrading plight alluded to—a
situation so degrading that there are thousands of men—perhaps
a majority of mankind—who would take the lives of their as-
sailants, and willingly lose their own rather than submit to it.
That freedom of election is not the freedom of election that
is meant by the law and constitution Of our country. We were told that
such scenes were not uncommon in popular England. I don't admit that
to be the fact. But it will be recollected that the scenes did disgrace the
popular elections of England were so extraordinary, and lasted for such a
time, that even independently of the recent change of the law, it amounted
almost to an absolute certainty that some minor changes would have been
introduced both to shorten the periods of election in that country, and
multiply the places where votes were given, in order to put au end to
them." He (Sir James Graham) would not attempt to impair any
part of the force of these expressions—expressions of the highest autho-
rity in Scotland, untainted by party feeling, uninfluenced by anything
save justice—by adding anything to them of his own. The Right Hon.
Baronet then moved for leave to bring in a B 11 disqualifying Hawick
from being a polling place for the county of Roxburgh, and enabling
the Sheriff of that county to appoint other polling places in lieu thereof.
Captain ELLIOT hoped for the indulgence of the House in his reply
to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He was aware that
the account of the ,assault on Lord John Scott was correct iu so far as
that stones and dirt were flung at but not as Lord John Scott be.
lieved himself in the statement he had made on the subject. The fact
of the case was that the provocation to this assault was given by Lord J.
Scott's servant, who struck at the people who were assembled there as he
was leaving the inn yard with his master.—(Hear.) This he (Captain
Elliot) said not from his own knowledy e, for he was in Bengal at the
time, but from the best authorities he soul 1 collect in the neighbourhood
during his residence there the whole summer. So much for 1832, in
which year it had been admitted even before the Committee that there
was no riot. He should pass therefore to 1835. 111'1835, the sheriff of
the county refused to make over to the bailies of Hawick the charge of
preserving the peace of the town, though they had represented to him
that it would be much better for him to do so. They also urged on
him that they could not answer for the result, unless he empowered them
in the manlier they desired. They thought, naturally enough, that as
all the authorities of the county, and even the sheriff himself, were
partizans of the other side, it would be impossible to perserve the
peace by their agency, arid that unless there eas a neutral power intro-
duced for the purpose, the consequences would be uecontrollable. This
they mentioned to the sheriff. \V hat was his answer ? lie replied, "If
you have any trouble or disturbance in your town I'll bring in the mill-
tary."—(Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Elliot) should remark that from the
commencement of the election proceedings that threat of " bringing in
the military" had been constantly held over Hawick.—(Hear, hear,)
During this election there was a great deal of misconduct on the part of
the populace he would allow—there were hootings, the windows of the
Tory party were broken, and, what was more objectionable still, the
friends of that party were ill_treated (as we understood the Hon. Gen.
tleman). Now, he never had approved, nor would approve, in public
or in private, of anything like violence or misconduct of this description,
and no man could condemn it more strongly or r, gret it with a
deeper regret than he did. But so it was. The Sheriff of the county
took the charge of the peace on himself; then were there disturbances—
but no bodily injury had been done to any one.—(Hear, hear, be:
In the course of that day on which these disturbances occurred the
sheriff, finding them go oil, placed himself in the windows of a Conser-
vative Committee-house—an unfortunate place for such a functionary
at such a time, to say the thing least offensive ofit—and from thence put
himself forward to read the Riot Act, the town being at the time free
from riot. The snow lay thick on the ground—it was a tempting thing
—some boys could not resist the temptation, and they gathered snow-
balls and made a cockshy of the sheriff.—(Great laughter and cheers
from the Opposition Benches.) It was a highly improper act, he (Capt.
Elliot) admitted—one that could be justified, however it might be exte-
nuated ; but all who heard him were once boys themselves—and
they would remember that such a temptation was strong at that
age—aye, even to full-grown men.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
election, then went on to its conclusion, and Lord John Scott was re.
turned. On the evening of that day, however, when the entire
town was quiet and the streets empty, the military were sent for,
under the pretence, or for the purpose, of escorting a body of Conser-
vative votes out of it At that time there was not the slightest ap-
pearance of riot. On this circumstance being made known the chief
Magistrates of the town went at once to the outskirts, and there met the
Marquis of Lothian at the head of a small body of cavalry. They en-
treated of him to delay his march, it' only for five minutes, that they
might first prepare the townspeople for the reception of the military.
The Marquis consented, and the Magistrates despatched messengers on
the moment to the town to say that the soldiers were Scoichmen,
come to be biltetted on them 'for time night after a long march, and
praying them to give them a kindly and hospitable reception and a
hearty welcome. It was done. The soldiers were so well received
that in their march through the slippery streets the men kept up the
horses from falling, and the women strewed ashes tinder the animals'
feet for the same purpose. Thus, by the judicious managelhent of
that very Mr. Walter Wilson, so often alluded to by the Right Ho.
pourable Baronet, this happy result was brought about. He (Captain
Elliot) should next come to the late election. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had stated that previous to that election having taken place
a body of electors, ninety-five in number, applied for a military
force to protect them in the exercise of their franchise. Now, he
(Capt. Elliot) would put it to any man, if the military were mentioned
on the eve of an election in any town in Englend, whether it would not
cause a serious riot?—(Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.)
Well, the military were ordered accordingly, and marched to a place
called St. Boswell's-green, about twenty miles from Ilawick. On this
being made known to them the bailies of that town declined to charge
themselves with the preservation of its peace, unless the power re'
moving the troops at their pleasure was placed in their hands. This,
however, was not acceded to. As a great deal had been said about the
constables and Mr. Bennett by the Right Hon. Baronet he, (Capt. Elliot)
felt called on to make one or two observations on the subject. It was
stated by the Right Hon Gentleman that a largebody of persons had as-
sembled for the purpose of assaulting Mr. Donald Horne, on his coming
into the town—
Sir J. GRAHAM—To kill him.
Captain ELLIOT—WeII, to kill him, then ; and that there was no
protection ft r him, and no preparation to prevent it. Now, what were
the real facts of the case ? On that night Mr. Donald Horne and a
large party of these poor voters, who required such protection, had a j 1-
lineation together at the Tower Inn, and anything that occurred after-
wards was the result of that meeting. He (Captain Elliot) would
ask any one whether it would not have been the more prudent
course of the agent of the Conservative party to have give
notice, if he meant to bring a large body of voters in that interest
into the town, for the purpose of giving those charged with the
preservation of the peace an opportunity of providing a sufficient force
of constables to protect then.—(Loud cries of " No," from the Opposi.
tion benches.) No such notice was, however, given ; but Mr. Donald
Horne came into the town, pulled his hat over his eyes, mixed himself
up with the crowd, and shouted aloud for the glorious victory of Gibson
and Craig in Edinburgh. It was natural, under these circumstances,
that Mr. Bennett should have been much irritated, and that the result
complained of should ensue. With regard to these assaults, no man de-
precated them more than he (Captain El'iot) did ; "and the best proof's of
his feeling to that effect was given in his vote on a question this Session),
which he supported, though at the same time he heartily deprecated it,
as the only thing calculated to protect time voter in the freedom of election.
But with respect to these assaults, what was the case ? The case was