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

,

entered into ;—yet leave was asked to bring in the
Bill without any of these things having been done, the
former Bill having been thrown out in another Place.
If the Bill were allowed to pass, persons' property
might be taken away without there being any funds
from which to obtain compensation.—(Hear, hear.) He
stood upon the orders of the House and upon the regularity
of the proceedings, and then he was sure that the motion
could not be agreed to.

Sir A. L. HAY said he was surprised at the
speech of his Hon. Friend the Attorney-General. By
it it was made to appear as if the Bill had been
thrown into in another place upon its merits ; and
that there was no precedent for its re-introduction.
The real situation of the case was this—the Bill
had passed the Committee of the other House, but with
such amendments as would have invalidated it altogether if
sent back to the Committee—therefore the Noble Chair-
man of the Committee had moved that the Bill be read a
third time that day three months, with the intention of
its being introduced again. The Honourable Chairman
cited a case in 1827, and the Glasgow Gas Bill, as in-
stances in point, and precedents for the re-introduction of
the Bill. Under these circumstances he would take the opi-
nion of the House upon the question, in order to see whether
theywould deviate from the practice upon previous occasions.
The measure he asked leave to propose was the same as that
formerly passed, and which bad been thrown out upon
a mere technical objection. It was not a Bill which
would require discussion, or one which would be likely
to receive any opposition in the other House. Under these
circumstances he hoped they would permit him to bring in
the Bill as a matter of justice and right.
Mr. WI LKS said the question was whether the
House would deviate from its uniform practice, and
create a precedent which was wholly unknown in
the annals of Parliament. • The amendments were
merely formal, and did not at all alter the circumstances
under which the Bill was passed before. Nothing could
be so graceless as the opposition now offered to the Bill,
and he hoped it would be fruitless.

Sir GEORGE CLERK thought the opposition to the
Bill was most disinterested. Was it not a most astonishing
fact that no person connected with commerce had any
.connection with it? He did not mean to say anything against
the promoters of the Bill, hut he thought the names of those
persons were far better known in 'Change Alley than in
Scotland. He trusted that though whilst the question was
uncertain, the Government would take no part in the dis-
cussion of a private Bill ; yet that now, under the altered
state of the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would, for the sake of the public interests, stand
forward and oppose this Bill. He hoped the House would
not permit a second Bill to be brought in.
Sir E. CODRINGTON thought the objection of the
Earl of Shaftesbury had been made at an extraordinary
period, and he considered it was not very fair for the Hon,
Baronet to make the objection, he himself having been
the cause of the objection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
There was the opinion of two Admirals besides himself in
favour of the locality of the harbour. It was a good harbour
not only in point Rf locality, but as a refuge for men of war.
He therefore hoped they would be permitted to bring in
another Bill.

Mr. HUME considered that the Honourable Ba-
ronet was not justified in accusing the promoters of the
Bill of blunder.—(Hear, hear.) The real truth was
this : a copy of the clause that had been objected to was
sent to the Noble Lord to know whether he approved of
it? He had approved of it so long as he thought the
Bill would not pass the House.(Hear, hear.) But
when the Bill had passed the House in spite of all
opposition, then came the objection.—(Cries of " Order,
order," and " Chair, chair.") He did not impute motives ;
he was only giving his interpretation.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) It was merely a question whether they
would adopt a certain harbour which would give that
fair protection to the trade of Scotland which it required.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For leave to bring in the Bill 73
Against it

Majority for leave to bring in the Bill
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
SCOTCH MUNICIPAL BILL.

-17

• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, seeing the Lord
Advocate of Scotland in his place, wished to ask
whether it was his intention on the Scotch Municipal
'Corporation Bill to include Edinburgh ? His constituents
in that city were most anxious to know the determination
of the Learned Lord.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that it was not his in-
tention to include Edinburgh in the Bill, but a separate
Bill would be introduced for the purpose.
DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. CLAY then rose to move for the appointment of
a Select Committee on the Danish claims. He should
occupy the attention of the House for but a very short
time. The facts lay in a very small compass, and they
were, moreover, of such a nature that he felt quite satisfied
a bare statement of them would suffice to answer the
purposes of his motion. The bare statement of the case
of the petitioners would, in his opinion, be quite enough ;
and he could not enhance effect which a simple and un-
adorned statement of the petitioners' case would produce.
The case of the petitioners involved the cases of a great
number of British subjects who suffered severe losses in
1807. A large portion of that body had already received
from the bounty or the justice of that House compensation
for their losses. Money was voted in the miscellaneous
estimates for 1835 and. 1836, but those who now claimed
had hitherto been admitted to no participation in those
funds. The Government, no doubt most honestly, bad
supposed that there were certain grounds of distinction be-
tween the different classes of claimants, and they had de-
cided that the petitioners had not a fair and equitable claim
upon the fund. It' the House would honour him with its
attention for a very short time, he would satisfy them that
such a conclusion was unfounded, and that the petitioners
had a good claim to have been admitted to a participation
in the money which had been so awarded. He would
advert to the ground upon which the Government had re-
jected the claims of the petitioners, but first he would call
the attention of the House to the history of the case. In
1807 the British Government, either having, or supposing
they had reason to believe that the French were
about to take possession of the Danish fleet in order
to be used in acts of aggression against this country,
sect out a fleet under the orders of Lords Gambier
and Cathcart, who were instructed to ask for the fleet
as a deposit. which was refused.—(Hear.) They were
however, fully empowered, and enjoined to get posses-
sion of the fleet at all events. The fleet left in
August, 1807 ; all negotiation failed, and in September
Copenhagen was bombarded and set fire to in
many places. A capitulation was entered iuto,
and the fleet and town was given up to the English.
In consequence of the stipulations then made, the Danish
fleet, and the whole of their naval stores were given up,
and he entreated the attention of the House to a state-
ment of what was given up as somewhat material.—(Hear.)
In the dispatch of Lord Gambier it was stated that in con-
sequence of these stipulations there were delivered up to
the British fleet, 19 sail of the line, 9 frigates, 14 sloops,
with all the large shipping, cont6nine with the rest 92 car-
goes. On the 3d of October the British armament came
away, and the British commerce in the Baltic was thus left
totally unprotected. The Danish Commandant then
issued a proclamation to the effect that hostilities
having been commenced on the part of England,
he declared, by virtue of the highest authority, that all
English property should be placed under sequestration. In
the meantime there was an Order in Council of the 2d of
September, 1827, to the effect that all Danish vessels in
ports of England should be laid under an embargo, and
orders were directed to all captains in his Majesty's service
to bring in all vessels belonging to Denmark, that should
be found on the high seas, and coming from the Colonies,
or other ports, and that such vessels should be placed under
an embargo. It happened that at this time the commerce
of this country and of Denmark was in a state of unusual
activity. Under that Order in Council 300 Danish ves-
sels, some of which had admirable cargoes on board, were
taken. The claims of British subjects to be reimbursed
out of the proceeds of, Danish vessels condemned, was re-
peatedly urged to the Government. At length, on the
16th of May, 1834, his Hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield brought forward the case of the British subjects
who had suffered loss by the confiscation of property in
Denmark. He had brought forward the subject in a very
able speech, and although the House had come to no formal
decision on the motion, yet' the opinion of Parliament was
so clearly expressed, that Lord Althorp said ho should
he should no longer oppose the compensation to parties
who had suffered loss, and the matter was in consequence
referred to the Board of Commissioners who were then
sitting to investigate the claims of British subjects under
the Conventions of 1815 and 1816. He was bound to
state that his Hon. Friend principally insisted on the pro-
priety of compensating those persons who had suffered
loss by confiscation and sequestration of book debts. At
that period the matter had not been thoroughly looked
into, yet the feelings of the House were excited in favour
of the claims which were granted in justice and equity.
The Government having thus had the authority of the
House for submitting the claims of persons under these
circumstances to investigation, referred them to the Com-
missioners appointed to consider the claims of persons
under the Conventions of 1815 and 1816. On that first
reference the Commissioners had been told that no claim
should be received or entertained or enquired into by the Com-
missioners, but such as were indisputably for loss occasioned
by the confiscation and sequestration of book debts. Subse-
quently the Commissioners had been authorized to receive
all kinds of claims whatsoever. Under those powers the
Commissioners had made a Report, dated the 28th March,
1835, in which they stated that, in obedience to the in-

structions they had received, they bad proceeded to ar-
range the claims arising from the confiscation of book
debts, goods actually landed, and of all ships and cargoes
seized. His Majesty's Government had, in the estimates
of 1835, voted a sum of 125,000/. on the first head. They
were subsequently disposed to concede the claims of
persons who had sustained loss by confiscation of
goods absolutely landed, not remaining as cargoes in
the ships in which they had been brought to Den-
mark, but goods that had been absolutely landed on the
coast of Denmark. Upon that second class, in the esti-
mates of this year, the Government had recommended the
vote of the House for a sum of 78,0001. With regard to
the third class of claimants, namely, those persons who
claimed for loss occasioned by the confiscation of ships and
cargoes in the ports of Denmark and on the seas, prior to
any declaration of war on the part of Denmark, the recog-
nition of those claims had been refused. It appeared for-
tunately, however, that they knew the grounds on which
his Right Hon. Friend refused to recognise those claims.
In answer to a memorial that had been sent to the Lords
of the Treasury, there was a letter from the Treasury
dated tl.e 6th of October, 1835, in which it was stated the
confiscation of ships and cargoes, whethei on land or on
the high seas, was in conformity to the practice and usage
of war prevailing among the nations of Europe, and that
upon these grounds their Lordships had come to the deci-
sion which had been communicated. In answer to the second
application, a copy of the Treasury Minute had been
communicated to the same parties, dated 1836.—( Hear.)
He need not trouble the House with reading them over,
but he begged leave to assure the House this was a matter
of no small moment as it regarded the parties themselves.
( Here the Hon. Member read two letters from the Trea-
sury, refusir6a the demand.) We have thus in these two
documents both the fact of the refusal and the grounds on
which it was made. The first ground was, that the present
claimants did not stand in the same circumstances as the
confiscation of book debts did ; and secondly, that it would
be establishing, a dangerous precedent. Now he had not
the slightest doubt that he should prove to the entire satis-
faction of the House that those objections were good for
nothing, and that no sufficient reason had been shown why
these parties should not partake of the compensation which
it had pleased Parliament to award. First, with regard to
the confiscation of book debts being contrary to the law of
nations—now it had been decided by Lord Ellenborough
that the seizure of hook debts was contrary to the law of
nations, and after that decision it would not become any
.gentleman in that House to assert what ought to be
the interpretation of the law of rations, and therefore he
must take it that the confiscation of book debts was con-
trary to the law of nations. The parties, then, who had
suffered in that way, had a demand upon the Danish Go-
vernment. The parties however here did not know that
England was at war with Denmark. Not only had no cau-
tion been used, but he would state distinctly that there were
recommendations on the part of the British Government—
that there was a sanction given on their part to the British
subjects to pursue their peaceful intercourse with Denmark,
and which led to the losses they had sustained. If there
be one thing more remarkable than another in that transac-
tion, it was the care with which the British Government
had all through escheazed the character of belligerents.
In the first place, it was quite notorious there was no decla-
ration of war previous to the sailing of the armament under
Admiral Gambier. In the next place, that armament sailed
with sealed orders, and the best proof that there was no
hostility intended towards Denmark, was that the river
Thames was at the time crowded with Danish vessels.—
( Hear, hear.) There was another point to which he
would refer, and that was the proclamation issued before
they landed. The Hon. Member here read the proclamation.
He would beg the House to remark that no hostile act was
charged against Denmark in that proclamation. There
was a constant strain of authority in the documents issued
about that time, spewing that the British Government did
not consider they were in a state of war with Denmark,
and it would appear as if they were particularly anxious to
make it manifest that they were riot so. With respect to
the vessels laid under embargo—but he should first trouble
the House by reading an extract from a still more remark-
able document emanating from the English Cabinet in
September, 1820. [The Hon. Member here read the Order
in Council of that date.] He would request the House to
observe that this docuMent went to justify the expedition to
Copenhagen on one sole ground—namely, to prevent the
French taking possession of the Danish fleet. There was
every presumption that this country had no intention to make
war upon Denmark. With regard to the claims of the 800 un-
fortunate vessels which had been seized, there were a
number of Orders in Council, which can be taken only as
intimating that these vessels•were to 63 ultimately released.
The first Order was dated the 2d of September, and which
had reference to all vessels taken before that date.—[The
Hon. Member here read the Orders in Council of the 2d,
29th, and some other dates.] He would say, without a
moment's hesitation, that the only rational inference that,
could be drawn from these successive acts was, that there
was no intention to act in a hostile way towards the Danes.
During the same period he should also state that licenses
were granted to vessels under the Danish flag to trade to
the enemy's ports. But was it merely by indications of that
sort that British subjects were led to believe that we were
not at war with Denmark ? So far from that, the British
subjects had a clear and distinct assurance that they might
go through the Baltic, and go on with their usual avo-
cations in peace.—(Hear, hear.) He held in his
hand the statement of a person, named Hale, who,
being in command of the brig John and Elizabeth,
Of Scarborough, sailed from the Humber, and on the 27th
September, went on board the flag ship of Admiral Gambier
for the purpose of tendering his vessel as a transport..
The Admiral stated that the fleet did not require any
transports, and on being asked whether he might go up and
down the Baltic with safety, the Admiral assured him that
be could. All differences with Denmark having been satis-
factorily settled, the brig accordingly proceeded towards
Stockholm ; but it coming on to b)ow hard, he came to an
anchor, and his vessel was immediately boarded, and himself
and his crew overpowered and seized, although he had ac•
wally been encouraged to proceed in such an expedition by
the British authorities. He (Mr. Clay) would assert dis-
tinctly, that if they were not compensated they had been
most shamefully entrapped, ensnared, and entangled into
the Baltic ; and no British cruizers being left to protect
them, escape was impossible, Denmark being hostile, any
more than Danish vessels in the Thames could escape had
the guns of the Tower been loaded. At that time the only
passage known was that through. the Sound and under the
guns of the Danish forts ; and no British cruizers being left
in the Baltic to protect them, lie would reassert that escape
was impossible. Not only were the British merchants justified
in.beheving that we were not at war, but they were led
by the positive declarations of the British Commander and
Admiral to go into a position in the narrow seas of the
Baltic, from which escape was impossible. Under these
circumstances, fifty-seven British vessels, some with va-
luable cargoes on board, were seized—about twenty-six of
them in the ports of Denmark, and others on the shores
and coming down the Baltic. He should also state that it
was impossible these vessels could have guarded against
these losses, for when any thing like apprehension arose,
orders were instantly sent home to effect insurances upon
the vessels and their cargoes ; but by that time it was as-
certained that a declaration of war had been issued, and
no insurances could be effected at any premium. In 1794,
the neutrality of the Baltic had been guaranteed, and was
officially notified by a note from the Danish Minister to
Lord. Grenville in the year 1801. That neutrality had
been observed and was acknowledged by all parties until
Denmark, at the period to which he had alluded, felt her-
self justified in breaking through that convention, from
the insidious aggression, and perfidious hostility of England.
It might be asked what right there was on the part of Den-
mark to invade the neutrality of the Baltic which she was
herself the first to break ; or it might be asked why did
not England, in 1814, insist upon a restitution of the pro-
perty which was so seized upon before any declaration of
war was announced. The Danish ladened vessels seized
upon by this country produced a sum exceeding a million
and a half—that sum was paid into the Admiralty. The
naval stores seized at Copenhagen were worth one million
more.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It had been, and might
again be said, that there was no precedent existing
for the payment of such claims. He believed that there
might not be in existence a precedent resting upon exactly
similar grounds, but there was one not very dissimilar.
When the war broke out between this country and Spain
in 1796, Spain laid an embargo on all British ships in
Spanish ports. In the war of 1805, which broke out with-
out any declaration of war, we compensated not only those
who lost their property before the declaration of war in 1805,
but those also who lost theirs in a similar mannner in 1796, to
the amount of 296,000/. ; that was a precedent in point,
but he preferred, to rest, not upon precedent but upon jus-
tice. He did not think they required a precedent in this
case, nor ought the House to be afraid of creating one, for it
was almost impossible that there could ever be a similar
case. He hoped there never would ; but if, unfortunately,
there ever should, lie should say that all persons were en-
titled to compensation who lost their property ; and he said
so in the present case. It was true that none of the parties
had any legal claim upon the Government, but they had an
equitable claim_one founded in justice. He rested his
claim upon intelligible, fair, just, and equitable grounds.
The petitioners sufered a severe loss of prope'rty in conse-
quence of an Act almost without a parallel in the history of
civilized warfare—of an Act which could only be jus-
tified on the ground of its being essential to the
welfare of the whole community—that being the case,
he held that the petitioners had an indisputable claim
Y ; they should not be the single
forsuupffeonrertshecountry
the
benefit of all. It might be proper for this
country to do all in their power to stop the career of
Buonaparte in his colossal scheme of warfare against this
count: -