The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-16 00:00:00

111 E SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 16, 18M.

a friendly power was almost. indefensible ; it was a base,
a pitiful, a traitorous, a robber-like transaction. He said
so without hesitation ; it was a disgrace to the country.
There could be but one excuse for it, and that was, that
the Government should, out of the proceeds of the property
so seized, reimburse our fellow-subjects whose pro-
perty had been seized in retaliation.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) if they refused these claims, they deprived
themselves of the only excuse for the darkest transaction
which had ever taken place in the history of England. lie
held that they were bound to repay British sufferers under
such circumstances, even if we had not taken any property
at all—then, why should they hesitate now, when they had
upwards of two millions and a half in hand ? He did not
blame the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he
only thought he was acting in accordance with his duty ; he
would not part with the public money, without the autho-
rity of Parliament. He hoped he would now have such
authority, and that the House would do itself justice by
doing justice to these claimants. He hoped such would be
the case, and that that would be the last occasion upon
which the House would be troubled with the matter. • He
then moved that the petition be referred to a Select Com-
mittee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
' that there was no part of the duty he had to perform
which occasioned him more pain, but also no part which it
was more .important should be executed with fidelity, than
that of resisting pecuniary claims on the public, unless he
conceived they were founded on justice. He wished to
bring the case fairly under the consideration of the House.
He should be quite willing to include these claimants in
the number of those for whom Parliament had provided
compensation for the losses they had suffered by the con-
fiscation of their property by the Danish authorities, if he
did not demonstrate that by admitting them the principle on
which their admission was founded was liable to an indefinite
extension, and that such an acknowledgment could not fail
to have the effect of acting in an injurious manner upon
our diplomatic relations. The book debts which were con-
fiscated amounted to ,112,000/. ; the goods to 78,3271., and
the amount of the claims now under consideration for the
loss of ships and cargoes was 6,641/. Parliament had already
provided 112,000/. for the first class of claimants, and
75,0001. for the second ; and now it was asked to grant
6,641/. for the third. He would tell the House the rea-
sons for the distinctions which had been made. The opinion
of the Crown Lawyers and of the civilians as to the point
whether hostilities were justifiable under the circumstances
had been taken, and they said that the confiscation of ships
and cargoes, whether in port .or on the high seas, was in
conformity with the established laws and usages of nations.
His principle was, that if a subject of his Majesty was
injured by an act done by a foreign Power contrary to
the law of nations, it, would in such case be the duty of
the Government, by war or negotiation, to obtain redress
for individuals so injured, and if not redress at the hands
of the offenders, at least to indemnify the parties injured ;
but he never could consent to the establishment of the
principle, that for an act done in a manner pronounced to
be not contrary to the law of nations, a party ought to he
indemnified. The parties now before the House had re-
ceived full information, not only of the decision of the
Government in respect to their claims, but also the grounds
of that decision had been communicated to them. A se-
cond interview had also taken place, and he (Me. Rice) at
that interview agreed that the petitioners' own statement
of their case should be submitted to the same law autho-
rities of the Crown to whose opinion he had already al-
luded. This was done, and the law officers reported that
they saw no reason to change the opinion they had already
expressed upon the matter.—(Hear.) It was no argument
to dwell upon the origin of the war, which had led to the
events forming the cause. of the subject now under consi-
deration. He himself was of opinion that the origin of the
American and the French revolutionary war was unjust ;but
he held as in this case that their unjust origin afforded no
reason why a future Government should be called upon to
make indemnities to individuals for injuries consequent
upon that warfare.—(Hear.) He had hoped, that having
come forward with votes for 112,000/. and for 78,000/. to
indemnify the first and second classes of the parties injured,
and after the full investigation which had taken place as to the
claims of the parties forming the third class, and now before
the House, he should not have heard this matter again
urged upon the attention of the House or the Government.
For the reasons he had stated, he felt it to be his duty to
resist the proposition of the Hon. Member for the Tower
Hamlets.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, that he felt himself called
upon to support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for the ToWer Hamlets. The transactions which had
given rise to this cause of grievous complaint were a stain
upon the records of this country. He warned the House
not to be guided by the opinions of the high law authorities
cited by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
for he (Mr. G. F. Young) understood that one of the
highest law functionaries in the coutry,wholiy dissented from
that opinion, and held that the transaction in question was
in direct contravention of the law of nations.

Mr. HUME said, he: should support the motion of his
Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He
regretted that his Majesty's Government had determined
to oppose a proposition which, in his judgment, was
based on justice.--(Hear, hear.) Deipite the autho-
rities whose opinions were relied upon, he maintained
that at the time these occurrences took place, Den-
mark was not engaged in any war, and the best proof
that the fact was so, was afforded by the circumstance that
par ties in this country trading to Denmark, and being
about to despatch cargoes to that country, applied to the
Government to know whether the warlike preparations then
on foot were directed against Denmark, and that they were
distinctly answered in the negative. Now, after these indi-
viduals had taken so much precaution, he thought it was
most unjust that they should suffer, as had been their mis-
fortune. On the principle that every British subject ought
to be p.rotected in the exercise of his lawful commerce with
other countries, he gave his support to the motion of his
Hon. Friend near him (Mr. Clay), and he trusted the
House, would extend the same justice to the third class of
claimants which it had already shown to the first and second
classes, and by so doing make them reparation for the in-
juries they had sustained.
Mr. HUTT, in a low tone of voice, was understood to
express a hope that the HouSe would not give its sanction to
the techical objection taken by the Right Hon. the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to that which was neither more nor
less than an act of common justice. He bore testimony
to the accuracy of the statement made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Middlesex as to the application made by the parties
now claiming from the Government in respect to the posi-
tion of Denmark, and added that similar applications were
made by them to the Danish Ambassador, and that from
both they had received the fullest assurance that they
might with perfect safety engage in commercial traffic
with that country. Under such circumstances, common
justice demanded that relief for the injuries they had re-
ceived should be afforded to them.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that though he concurred in
many of the arguments which had been urged by the Right
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he drew from
them a very different conclusion from that to which the
Right Hon. Gentleman had arrived. He (Dr. Lushing-
ton) was one of the few members still in the House, who
nearly 30 years ago, had expressed a strong opinion on the
subject of the attack upon Copenhagen in 1807, and how-
ever right or wrong that attack might be, he still thought
the claims of the individuals now before the House stood
on a just and solid foundation. He regretted that this
country should have set the nations of Europe the example
of such transactions in the instance of the seizure of the
Spanish ships in 1804, a course which if pressed would lead
to a total disregard of treaties, and tend to injure that safe
prosecution of commerce which was the strength of the na-
tion. He hoped that for the sake of the sum claimed,
the present, or any other Government, would not stop short,
and by refusing indemnification commit an endless wrong
upon private individuals circumstanced like the present pe
titioners.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed, that having
been one of the paties consulted by the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he begged to state that it had
been the opinion of those with whom he had advised that
nothing had been done at all in contravention of the law of
nations. However desirable it might be-thought to alter
and change those laws, and however hard they practically
might, under circumstances, press upon individuals, still they
were the laws existing, and being so must be obeyed.
Sir J. R. REID expressed his gratification at the calm
spirit with which the question had been discussed, and
thought that the best course for the House to adopt wouli
be to grant the Committee.

Mr. J. PARKER was understood a speak in support
of the motion.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that after what bad fallen from
the Hon. and Learned Solicitor, General, it became neces-
sary to remind those who voted against the present motion,
that they voted in favour of that abominable system of
plunder on the high seas which it had been argued was
strictly in accordance with the law of nations. That
system never could have been tolerated by this country had
it not been the greatest naval power ; and having found an
advantage in the system, it felt bound to sanction it with
regard to others.

Mr. GOULBURN felt so strongly the statement made
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the various
demands made on a person in his situation for compensation,
that he conceived it to be his duty to rise and declare that
the present was not a claim which, in his opinion, the
House ought to comply with. He felt it the more neces-
sary to make this declaration after what had fallen from
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Kil-
kenny. The doctrine laid down by that Hon. and Learned
Member would, if admitted, not only establish the right
of the Danis claimants to compensation, but would justify
every narann in malrincr n domnncl An AA CrnvPrnmant fnr

--- -
money, who, no matter ktr,v/i torie, ago, might have had
their property seized-on the higri' by
.the ships of
Powers in hostility with us before they were that any
declaration of war had been made.
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr.
GOULBURN in mutual explanation, the House divided,
when the numbers appeared—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority
CHURCH OF IRELAND.

On the motion of Lord MORPETH the Church of
Ireland Bill was read a third time.

In reply to a question of Mr. F. BUXTON,
Lord MORPETH was understood to say that be should
do his best to enforce the rules made, keeping exclusively
Catholic books out of the schools.
The Bill was then passed.
SUPPLY.

Oa the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee
of Supply, and agreed to resolutions proposed by him,
which were inaudible in the Gallery.
The House then resumed.

CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND).
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill passed
through Committee, and was ordered to be reported.
In reply to a question of Colonel PERCEVAL,
Lord MORPETH was understood to say that all bona
fide transfers of corporate property in the nature of fair and
honourable transactions, which had taken place since the Ist
of June, would not be included in the operation of the Bill.
CHARITABLE TRUSTEES.

Mr. V. SMITH moved the further consideration of the
report of the Charitable Trustees Bill.
Sir R. PEEL objected to its being proceeded with, as
he had some observations to make on it generally, but es-
peCially on the principle of connecting charitable trusts
with political bodies. The Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for‘the Home Department was not in the House,
and be (Sir R. Peel) did not choose to make these obser-
vations in his absence. He, therefore, hoped the Hon.
Member would name another day for taking the discussion.
The principle of the Bill, in point of fact, had not been
debated, and it was only right that an opportunity of de,
bating it should be given.
Mr. V. SMITH was inaudible in the gallery, but he
was understood to decline the responsibility of naming a
day, en the ground of the Noble Lord's absence at that
moment. He denied that the Bill connected charitable
trusts with political bodies. On the contrary, its object
was to dissever them from one another.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, under all the circumstances, he should take upon
himself to move that the Bill stand over till Tuesday next.