The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-10 00:00:00

as that individuals who had not some, views of them
would not have suffered their property and goode to re-
main in those ships upon any idea that circumstances
sk osid elter the position in which they were then placed,
nod that protection would be afforded them. Was it a
ground for coinpensat ion i (env department of the Govern-
ment of the day itad left that or any part of the world
without protection, whereby the property of the country
was hostilely seized—was that the ground upon which the
:douse would vote public money by way of compensation?
flame might be paseed'en such a Government for this
net.; but he (the Solicitor-General) did not recollect
ever to have heard or read that because protection had
not been afforded in some. parts of the world that those
who had suffered were to receive compensation by a
vote of that House. The complaint that protection had
not been afforded had been repeatedly made and brought
before the House; but he believed it had never been fol-
lowed up by a vote of public money for compensation.
Another ground urged was that if the House thought fit
to grant compensation for the loss sustained by the con-
fiscation of the debts and goods, that it ought, there-
.'ore, to do equal justice and to extend compensation to
chips and goods. He believed that the House was in-
flayed to vote such compensation upon very distinct prin-
ciples—on a public principle, not taken up for the oc-
casion, but one that was supported by the books and au-
thorities. After compensation had been afforded to those
"who had sustained losses in respect to what he had ad-
Terted, it was urged, on the part of the present claim-
ants, that those individuals had no just claim. If it was
true that the confiscation of goods on shore was contrary
Jo the law of nations—if that was true, said they, you
resantod compensation when the principle Was not calledre
fofor when you made your treaty with Denmark
you .made it to the effect that debts should not
e recoverable, notwithstanding compensation ; but that
statement was never made to the House till long after
the compensation was granted by the House. The
House granted the compensation on the grounds he
had stated, and it was urged by Sir .Tames Mackintosh
in the first instance, and that argemsnt was after-
werds granted byother Hon. Members, twat the country
had stipulated' !or the redress. Now, if that argument
was well founded, the subsequent stipulation overrode
the original claim. In that instance the House, in ei•
lowing compensation, acted lc lon a distinct ground, but
then it was stated, that though 1,!", House had granted
,compensation, and though the country .!lad stipulated for
the redress, that it could not be maintaineZ..4; p:nd it was
subsequently stated that the subjects of this country did
net desire it. Ho (he Solicitor-General) knew not how that
might be, but he did know that many had applied for Pe
He repeated that the House had never sanctioned the
~ principle on which the present claim was founded, and
that the former claim .had been granted on entirely dif-
ferent grounds. There was another fact which had been
stated, and ho apprehended it was one which had made a
considerable impression, on the House, and probably wont.
far- in indaciug it to accede to the late motion upon
.thi,subject ; it, was this, that this,country at the time4ict seized Danish property to 4 very great amount ; and
?ttt!an said that as we ,had then possessed ourselves of
pro rty amounting to upwards of one million sterling;
Chit ssentioners who tad si*red by the acts of hostilities
,ought to be compensated out of thst fund. That argu-
ment appeared plausible . enough, but:).t appeared to hits,
,*o rest upon precisely-.the , same geOunds as the claim
*440 the subjects ,of ,:a country might make for their
leleseS they had sustained froth 'ail enemy, while
they sought to be indemnified out of the property
which the country had got as the fruits of the war.
it did not appear to him that the proximity in point of
date of the seizure of the Danish to the seizure of the
British property in any respect asserted the principle.
It was no just ground of compensation that that country,
fis the course of its hostilities with another, acquiredpro-
pert7 of great value—that, certainly, was no ground for
putting forward a claim for compensation. Such a prin-
ciple would lead to very extensive consequences, and
very great embarrassment, The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Lord Althorp) said that these claims not
having been made for thirty years afterwards, the fund
had been long since exhausted, or if not, that a very
small and insignificant sum remained available. Let
,not
the House act upon the presumption that that country.
had had the benefit of a large surplus amount of pro-
perty taken from the Danish nation beyond the pay-
nissnts appropriated to the subject. From his inquiries
on t:ie matter, in order to ascertain what was his duty
with respect to these claims, he had learned that no such
fund nos sexisted, and it would be a gross injustice to
ecne away Des public money under the erroneous impres-
sion that such a fund existed. He believed he had stated
she various arguments that had been urged in the discus-
sions that had taken place on the subject. His Hon. and
Learned Friend had referred to some authorities which he
said sanctioned these payments. If his Hon. and Learned
Friend thought there were any such authorities, let him
coint them out, for he (the Solicitor-General) had not
been able to ascertain that such claims as the present
were anywhere mentioned by the law of nations. If the
Danish Government, in seizing the goods and ships,
were in the course of legitimate warfare—if they com-
mitted that infraction according to the laws and rules by
which the civilized nations conducted their warfare, then
what was there in that case whereby, according to ge-
tters! principles, the subject' of this country were entitled
to compensation at the public expense for losses sustained
in the course of legitimate warfare? Nobody had ever
attempted to deny that the warfare was legitimate on the
nart of the Danes. He heard the echo of the word legi-
. eis nate, Probably an impression existed in the quarter
frOssi ich that sound emanated that the warfare could
not he gitimate on the part of the Danes if that war-
fate wits induced by a wrongful act on the part of our
ekti.
Govern nt. Tho question was, had the Danes, in
seizing the property, committed any act by which the
claim of those who suffered was justified. Many persons
differed as to the propriety of the act of this Government
in commencing hostilities, but nobody had denied
that the Dane* were justified, if they thought fit,
Ls seizing the property of the subjects of this
countrr. It was of great importance when
thset Kruse voted large sums of money as compensation
to persons standing in a situation analagous to that of
the present petitioners, that the act should be intelligibl
on general principles. The House should not, in it
lutes, give rise to the probability of an opinion arising,
that it was influenced by favour to this or that class of
sasrsons. The vote should be given on broad intelligible
Iteiblic principles., He was satisfied that if that came to
iYe distinctly stated, his Hon. Friend, who advocated the
cause of those petitioners, would perceive that there was
no just foundation for those claims. He (the Solicitor-
General), therefore, had called the attention of the House
to the facts' out of which those claims arose, and he cer-
tainly failed to discover any ground upon which this
House would vote compensation in the present instance,
which could not be advanced by any set of persons who
might suffer by war. He did not think that those claim-
ants suffered as much as the persons from whom Russia
had made its immense seizure. He did think it would
oho difficult to prove that the claims of those who suffered
liy the Russian seizure stood higher titan the present
elaiins. For it was more than doubtful that the Rus-
piens acted according to the laws of war when
they seized the property he alluded to. He trusted.
the House would address its attention to those ge-
neral public grounds on which the claims of
compensation was made, and say whether it was one
--which they could impartially and honestly grant. He
would be the last man to stand in the way of compensa-
Ition, if those individuals could sustain a well-founded
riaim. Ile thought no fresh grounds. existed, and he
'hoped that the House would perceive that the first reso-
lution adopted with respect to the claim, whereby it was
rejected, was a fitting one ; and that the last arose from
:ome such cause as the eloquence of the gentlemen who
advocated the claim. As there were no fresh grounds
for sustaining the claim, he hoped the House would op.
Tose going into Committee on the question.
Sir STRATFORD CANNING, who was almost in-
tidible, said he wished to say a few words on this ques-
ran. Ile considered the frequent discussions of this ques-
ion and the votes to which the House had previously
some respecting it, was a sufficient justification fir the
?resent notion—(llear, hear)—for the House had already
--cissed three subsequent votes on this subject, not in pre-
rims Parliaments, but during the existence of the pre-
.nt House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Without re-

, .
assign to any previous knowledge of the-proceedings lie
considered he was at least bound to support the votes he
*tad given. After the House had gone this length it was
efor the Government to consider whether there were any
circumstances such as would not warrant them to take
-hose steps which could carry the votes of the House
into effect. As on those former occasions he had voted
‘eitli the majority ho should vote with his Learned Friend
Cresswell) on the present occasion. He was well
.we:•e of the distinctifin the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-
Genefal had drawn between these claims, as related to
,aie part of the property concerned, and those which re•
'fated to the other part. If he rightly understood the
'Hon. and Learned Gentleman he admitted that the
'former claims rested on this ground, that the Danes in
confiscating this property had not exceeded the law of
'nations. He was perfectly well aware of the pe.
-cellar relations between England and Denmark, at the
breaking out of the war in the year 1807. That principle,
of fairly applied to other cases, left this case an exception.
With regard to the time he did not think the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's argument was valid, for the other
,e'aims that were satisfied-were not brought forward until
.31) years after they had accrued. It depended entirely
)te en the circumstances under which that war commenced,
-ed he must be allowed to observe that this being estab-
I: :led all that had been said about the danger of inteo-
.Leing bad precedents was set aside. It would appear
• that en that occasion the Danish Government had
fiiought it right to exercise what, in the opinion of the
ft ,n.:and Learned Gentleman opposite, was a legitimate
,c.!:;0t, and they appeared to have exercised it with every
to maintain pacific relations with us. We had shown
our :p:eville intentions by the armament we had sent out,
,-zo as to Like away from the Danes all excuse for resist-
ence. It appeared that no embargo was made in this
country till long after the squadron was withdrawn, and
the merchants might have presumed that negotiations in
the presence of so large a squadron would have had a
peaceable effect, or at least have sufficed for their protec-
aion.—(Hear.}' These circumstances justified his Hon.
Friend in bringing forwaid the subject. There were
,treat peculiarities in this case---peculiarities so great as
to reikler persons concerned entitled to indemnity, to
' which, niteler other circumstances, they would not be en-
illed.—(Hes.r.) If it were not for these extrema pie-
curairities, he should be of the first to recognise the
,:.ng.cr of acceding to these claims; but he felt that he
was., ”stified in giving his veto for this motion. Whaterer
mi7ht be• their ulteri9r proceedings, he thought the
fey 444 ;beady

must say I have not been able to discover any novelty or
discrimination in the remarks which he has addressed
to the House.) It is now nearly twenty years since I first
took part in these discussions. On the first class
the justice of the claim was still more manifest, but the
same arguments which have been used by the Learned
Solicitor-General were urged against the first class. The
House of Commons, however, decided in favour of the
claim. The same arguments were adduced against the
second class ; and yet the House of Commons agreed to
the vote. The same arguments have been brought
against the third class ; the matter has undergone con-
siderable discussion, and three votes have been taken
upon it. Sir, I am sorry that the lion. and Learned
Gentleman should have attempted to induce the House
not to accede to this motion, by stating that the funds
received from Denmark are now exhausted. We know
full well that 1,200,0001. came into the British Exche-
quer, and of this sum not more than 600,000/. has been
paid. The interest alone would have doubled that
amount.—(Hear, hear.) From the circumstance that the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman has resorted to that
thrt adbare argument, I infer that he is conscious that he
has no other to act upon.--(Hear.) Let us not forget
the circumstance which attended the commencement of
the war. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and his predecessors in office, have
contended that by admitting this claim you would be
establishing a dangerous precedent The war against
Denmark was commenced in the most atrocious manner.
Nothing but overpowering fear on the part of the Bri-
tish Government—political feelings we have nothing to
do with, or dealing with individual interests—could have
induced them to adopt the course which they did. I
quite agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
that when the Government had undertaken an expedition
which they supposed to be necessary for the interest of
Great Britain, it would have been improper to answer
inquiries-1' Are we going to war or not ? May we
trade or may we not ?" If the Government had given such
information they would undoubtedly have risked the
' success of the expedition.—(Hear, hear.) Ido think
that the circumstances which have been mentioned by
the Solicitor-General, circumstances whieh place the
claimants, in this ease, in a peculiar position, and make
it almost impossible any similar case should occur—con-
sidering what Parliament has already done, the long and
elaborate discussion which has taken place, and remem*
bering that with reference to dates and facts the op-
position had been found defective I for although I do not
recollect the whole of the dates alluded to by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, I think the Hon. Baronet who
has spoken, stated very correctly that many, if not all of
the seizures were made at a time when British subjects
had A right to expect security—under all these circum-
stances, I must say that it would only be an act of justice
to these individuals, who have suffered for so many years,
that we should atiast compensate them as far as we can
for the losses to, which they have been subjected. I hold
theie-to,be entitled to receive both the principal and the
interest, but is the principal only is concerned, let us
grant one part of the justice to whieh they are' entitled.
At any rater 1 shall certainly vote, as I have-done, for
going into Committee, in order that justice may be ob-
tained by these individualsi:--(Hear, hear.) •
_ The CHANCELLOR of the-FACREQUMR- said the
was rather disposed teconsent-to•the appointment of the
Committee than -to :divide, the'Heuse on the _question.
ge,was determined, that ,the inatterishould ',come fairly
More the House. The parties had before stated that they
did not go for the money, but fir the principle. It
was now made a question of actual money.
He did not think he need discuss the question et length
as it had been exhausted in the arguments of his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who had, he
should say, completely demolished the case of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Liverpool. He should com-
plain that he had not.on a former occasion been treated
with courtesy by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He
had applied to him when the question came last under
the consideration of the House to defer the discussion in
the absence of his Hon. and Learned Friends the Attor-
L ney and Solicitor-Generals, considering that the debate
could not well be conducted without them, the one of
them being absent upon business, and the other from ill-
ness • but the Hon. and Learned Gentleman refused to
, accede to the request, and he thought he had a right to
complain of that. He would not, however, oppose the
motion for goinginto Committee, but he would take the
opportunity of stating his views on the bringing up of
the Report.
Mr. CRESSWELL was surprised that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had complained of his want of personal cour-
tesy towards him in a former debate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes,
personal.
Mr. CRESSWELL--Will the Right Hon. Gentleman
tell me the date ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
on the occasion of the last debate, on his asking the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman to postpone it, in the ab-
sence of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman told him that he would not, and that
he thought he was justified in sot granting the request,
He had, acoordingly, brought forward the question,
which left him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) under
the inconvenience of answering, in the absence of his
Hon. and Learned Friends.

Mr. CRESSWELL said that he had not the slightest
recollection of the occurrence ; but if it had taken place
he thought he was perfectly justified in taking such a
course, because the subject had been argued on two oc-
casions before. It had been argued under the Right
Hon. Gentleman's predecessor, by the Attorney and
Solicitor-Generals ; and he had himself at that mo-
ment• a not* of the arguments they had used. He could
not, therefore, understand why he should have been
called on to put off a motion of the kind from day to
day, and from night to night, while a number of per-
sons, who had entrusted him with their case, were look-
ing for justice. If, therefore, he had acted as
was said, he was justified in doing so.—(Hear,
hear.) But after the House had twice affirmed the
princtpla of the-motion, and when increasing majorities
had declared in favour of its principle, he should say
the Right Hon. Gentleman had no mason to expect that
he (Mr. Cresswell) should postpone its consideration in
the abseiice of the Law Officers of the Crown. As,
however, tha Bilht Hon. Gentleman would not oppose
the motion for goi►.g into Committee, he would not al-
lude further to the matter. _ _

Sir CHARLES GREY distinctly recollected that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in the former
debate, that he was placed in a very inconvenient situa-
tion by the absence of his two Hon. and Learned Friends,
and that another occasion for the discussion would be
more convenient to himself ; but he had not put it as IL
matter of personal favour to the Hun. and Learned Gen-
tleman, who said that as the matter had been argued be-
fore, ho would not consent to the request.
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD said that it appeared to
him that his Right Hon. Friend bore too hard upon the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, because his Right Hon.
Friend must be aware that it was his duty, as guardian
of the public purse, to make the best defence which he
could, while the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was
equally justified in injuring his case. He had on more
than one occasion voted against the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, hut he did not see anything in his conduct which
he could not applaud. - _ _

After a few words from Mr. WARBURTON and Mr.
O'CONNELL, the House went into Committee ; and the
resolution for an Address to her Majesty, was agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Report was agreed
to be taker into consideration to-morrow.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of the Charitable
Trusts Bill,

Sir E. SUGDEN objected to the third clause. The
Bill purported to be one for facilitating the transfer of
trust estates of charitable property ; but this clause was
introduced clandestinely, and went to declare that trust
estates vested in the old corporations should be now
vested in the trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor
under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act.
The clause was smuggled into the Bill for political pur-
poses. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proposed
certain amendments in the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause
was absolutely essential. There was no saying in whom
those trust estates would he vested, and it was for the
advantage of all.parties to have it known in whom the
legal estate was vested...
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
For the amendment 3O
Majority for the clause —s
The Bill then passed, and House went into
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

Mr. FOX MAULE moved a grant of 666,2301. for
defraying the expenses-of the embodied Militia in Great
Britain and Ireland.

The vote was agreed to, and the Report ordered to be
received to-morrow (this day).
The House then resumed, and on the motion of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, went into
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The following votes were agreed to :-6,200,000/.
from the Consolidated Fund ; 47,3681. 18s. surplus
grants of former years ; 500,0001. tranfer of aids.
The Report was. then ordered to bo brought up to-
morrow (this day).

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL
The amendments to this Bill were agreed to, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
In answer to a question from Mr. S, O'BRIEN,
Mr. F. MAULS said that it was the bona fide inten-
tion of the Government to proceed with this Bill to-
morrow.

NEW SOUTH WALES.

The Reports of the New South Wales, &c., Bill, and
the Western Australia Bill, were received, and ordered
to be read a third tiinato-morrow.
HOUSE OF INDUSTRY (IRELAND), &c., BILL.
On the motion for receiving the Report of this Bill,
Sir E. KNATCHBJLL complained warmly of the
conduct of the Government in bringing forward mea-
sures which were opposed to their declarations.
Mr, MACAULAY defended the Government, and
said they had made no declarations of the kind alluded to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland also de-
fended the conduct of the Government, and said that
this could not properly be considered a Government
measure,
Colonel SIBTHORP quite agreed with his Right Hon.
Friend (Sir E. Knatebbull) in the charge he had made
ttoglist the Government, and he was glad that his Right
Hon. Fri*:ld had exposed their humhng,--(Hear.) As
he had before 0,40, he believed a more We, a TM in-
efficient, and a mcite-iis"arable Government never exT
isted. He could not trust thmn V inch, and he would
ha. i T
watch and expose their proceedings as he had done.
s been so often heir F4peiplp was, " Let those laugh that win ,-..7-let us
~. /if tenthPaAlies, get our salanes, and ?lever mind ' the bnainess -of the
•Tne orgbt no* ',.country."--(Rear; bear.)
teh ~ ....
thias 1 my, F,ItrAELE accid- the observations of the Hen. and
It favour us on a L.,'• ' 'll3 '
mY regr" ' 11-.. nt ?.1,45" ber tie so Otterli below my conternpti that
I shall not ..,..
subject,that we
I
~t 10 ' notke thetn.l:' ,Aft6r a few
the benefit of his k. ---.. measure,
- (unity of looking other observations on ...... . 1 ham 91449101 in con'
alluded, although 1 1 Colonel SIBTHORP, who hau

.-
""'"' "`' -,und to follow up the
votes
}louse was 1/.4 z• - • • •
giyen.--(rtear„,l . t..'enypitet
Mr. llKl...tp:kaiil —Sir, t tit V. 416.1
"fore Ok-iiiernSC, and -.SO -WeIVAIA
.44,at I _ .,, Ily du nttei.ztqe.ile'r that'fouth
4 Ac. .b' , pi 1- i,., ', i‘itis:34li.:: eipkes.s
4;14'4 L - -
.1,... ~c : 'irPrlkr, diab' not
ormer
:TT.' lilt efifotilthis
singht, in
learning an sip:ear av had tl
ed!" an 1.11 opportt
ii,t,o those faet to fvhich ITh has .11,„