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

TEE' SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 10, J 641,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN7.

HOUS.4' 0137. i---.-TONS, June 9.

Tile SPLAIIER took the Chair at the usual hour.
The Totness Small Debts Bill, the Bourne Ditinage
Bill, the London and Greenwich Railway Bill, the Dublin
Wide' Streets Bill, the Woodside and Hoylake Road Bill,
and: the Tralee Navigation and Harbour Bill, were re-
pi;rtel
Clay's Estate Dill and the Atherston Small Debts Bill
were read a oec9nd time.
The Drogheda Harbour Dill and Wemyss Estate Bill
were read a third time and passed.
The Lords Amendments to the Bristol and Exeter
Railway 13111 and Monkland Canal Bill were agreed to.
Sir MATTHEW WOOD presented a petition from
the Ward of Farringdon Within, in favour of the proposi-
tions of her Majesty's Ministers.
Sir R. DATESON presented two petitions from
Londonderry against Church patronage in Scotlitucl.
Mr. VIVIAN presented a petition from Cornwall.*
favour of a modification of the Import Duties.
Mr. GREIG presented a petition from Perth, signed by
Mr. VERNON presented a
4,000 inhabitants, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
petition in favour of the
present Corn-laws.
Colonel G. LANGTON presented several petitions in
favour of the reduction of the duties on sugar, timber,
and corn.

Mr. GILLON presented petitions from. Ayr, Lanark,
Dumbarton, Falkirk, Biggar, 'Hamilton, Dundee, Glas-
gow, Edinburgh, Perth, and several other places, signed
by 7,000 persons, many of them emanating from large
public meetings, and signed by the chairman on their
behalf, all praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. O'COI. NELL presented a petition from an indi-
vidual complaining of ill usage from the Portuguese Go-
vernment ; also a petition from the old Dublin police,
praying for compensation ; and a petition from the Ca-
tholics of Dundee, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws
and of the import duties on timber and sugar.
Sir E. FILMER presented a petition from Kent
against any alteration of the Corn-laws.
Colonel SALIVEY presented a petition from 1,314
inhabitants of Madeley and Broseley, in Shropshire,
agreed to at a public meeting, praying for a small fixed
duty on corn in lieu of the present fluctuating scale,
and in flavour of the measures now before Parlia-
ment with respect to the import duties ; also pe-
titions from 1,982 inhabitants of Coalpit Bank,
Oakengate, and Ironbridge, Salop, for the immediate
abolition of the Corn-laws ; from Bridgnorth, to the
same effect ; and a petition from 460 females of Bridg-
north, praying the House to pass into a law the proposi-
tion recently made by her Majesty's Ministers in refe-
rence to the cruel Corn-laws, and thereby humanely
suffer them not to die the inhuman death of starvation.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented several petitions from the
counties of Monmouth and Montgomery, in favour of
the Corn-laws ; also twelve petitions praying for the
repeal of the Catholic Relief Bill •, and a petition from
Leicester, praying that railways and canals might be pro-
hibited all traffic on the Lord's Day.
Colonel SIBTHORP presented several petitions
from places in Lincolnshire against any alteration of the
Corn-laws.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented several petitions
from places in Kent against the proposal of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers for an alteration of the Corn-laws.

Ilr. PHILIP HOWARD presented a petition from
the Catholics of Carlisle in favour of the measures of her
Majesty's Ministers with respect to the import duties on
corn, sugar, and timber.

Mr. CAVENDISH presented several petitions pray-
ing for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. CRESSWELL presented a petition from the Town
Council of Liverpool praying that certain clauses in
.the
Metropolitan Police Act might be made applicable to
the kingdom generally ; also, from the same body, pray-
ing that Liverpool might be made the station for the
American packets ; also a petition from the West India
merchants of Liverpool to the same effect.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
farmers of the North Riding of Yorkshire against any
alteration of the Corn-laws.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from various
districts in London, and from Leamington Priors, in
Warwickshire, praying for the liberation of all persons
confined for political offences : also a petition from an
individual in Nottingham, whose name we could not
catch, denying the allegations of the petition of Edward
Penh= Cox, and stating that gross bribery had been
committed at the last Nottingham election by the agents
of the sitting Member. As the subject was to be brought
under the consideration of the House to-morrow, he
hoped there would be no objection to have the petition
printed with the votes.
Mr. ESTCOURT, under the peculiar circumstances of
the case, saw no objection to the motion of the Hon.
Member.

The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Colonel ANSON presented six petitions from places in
Staffordshire, and a petition from Wednesbury, in Shrop-
shire, signed by 2,000 persons ; and another from Dar-
lington, signed by 2,000 persons, all praying for the re-
peal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from the Pro-
testant Dissenters of Maryport, and also fifteen petitions
from different parts of the metropolis, all praying for a
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. SOTHERON presented two petitions from parishes
in Wiltshire, in favour of Church Extension.

Mr. VILIAERS presented petitions from Mansfieki,
Basford, and Langwith, in the county of Nottingham,
Devizes, Patney, and Great Cheverell, in the county of
Wilts, Aldbury, and Great BerlchampStead, in the
county of Hertford', aud.,M4luathork— 'Burnham, and
Moffat, Scotland, all praying for a total repeal of die
Corn-laws.

Mr. CLAY presented petitions from different parts of
the county of Middlesex, praying the House to pass the
Government measure for the alteration of the Corn-laws.
Mr.. HINDLEY presented petitions from the Abori-
gines Society, complainino•n of the instructions given to
Colonel Gawler, the Governor of South Australia,
to the police of that colony to retaliate summarily on the
natives for the supposed murder by them of the crew of
the ship Adelaide. He was sorry the Noble Lord the
Secretary for the Colonies was not in his place, as he
vished to draw his attention to the petition.
Mr. V. MAULE presented petitions from Edinkirgh,
Perth, and various other places in Scotland, in favour of
the Government measure for an alteration in the duties
on corn, sugar, and timber ; also petitions froth various
parts of the metropolis, praying for a repeal of the
Corn-laws.

Lord J. STEWART presented a petition from some
place, the name of which we could not catch, praying
'or a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. JOHN JERVIS presented a petition from Bangor
in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. DENNISON presented a petition from Epsom
praying for a removal of all taxes which pressed on the
food of the people ; also a petition from Pimlico praying
for the opening of the Waterloo and Vauxhall-bridges.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE 'presented a petition from a
place in Forfarshire, praying for the release of political
offenders, and the adoption of the people's Charter.
Mr. ALS TON presented a petition from a parish in Hert-
fordshire against any alteration in the present Corn-laws.
Mr. HINDLEY gave notice, that on the Order of the
Day being read for going into Committee of Supply on
Friday next, he should bring forward a motion callIno•
the attention of the House to the injustice done to thee
lower and middle classes of society by the existing sys-
tem of legislation, and especially by the present Corn-
laws.

Mr. WARD said, that as the Committee of the House
had reported that the Hon. Henry Thomas Manners
Sutton had been guilty of bribery at the last elec-
tion for Cambridge, he begged to give notice,
that on Friday next ho would move that the At-
torney-General be directed to prosecute Mr. Swann and
another agent whose name we could not catch, and that
he also be directed to prosecute the Hon. H. T. M.
Sutton for bribery at the said election.—(Hear; hear.)
MR. O'CONNELL.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said he had to request the
attention of the House for a few moments to a matter
which was personal to himself.—(Hear.) It would
be in the recollection of the House that in the debate
last week the Hon. Member for Dublin made an attack
upon the landlords of Ireland, in which he charged them
with harshness and cruelty to their tenants. It fell to
his (Mr. Sergeant Jackson's) lot to reply to the Ho-
nourable and Learned' Gentleman ; and in • doing so
he stated that he had been informed that the Hon. •and
Learned Gentleman himself was guilty of harshness in
his treatment of his tenants. He asked the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman to deny that he had in the month of
April distrained his tenants for rents due in the preceding
March. All the Hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell) said was,
that if it were so, it happened without his knowledge, and
he would make inquiries about it. He (Mr. Sergeant
'Jackson) felt it his duty now to read to the House a let-
ter that he had found on his table that morning. It bore
the post mark of Castle Connell, and was dated June 6,
1841. It came from' the Mr. Twiss in question, and was
to the-following effect :—" Dear Sir, I have read with
great pleasure the statement made by you in the House
of Cominons on the night of the 3d of June inst., in
which you stated that my notorious countryman, Daniel
O'Connell, distrained his tenants in the month of
April, 1838, for rent due - the month before.
This I know to be the strict truth, and 'I
heard it from the distrainer, and all the tenants.
I was on a visit at the time at my friend James Butler's,
who lives within four miles of Derrynane. I deem it
right to put you in possession of these facts, and you
are at liberty to make whatever use you choose of this
communication."
Mr O'CONNELL—What name ?
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—It is signed " Robert
Twiss." He was thus enabled to gratify the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman with the particulars he was so
anxious to obtain. He should likewise state that he
had that morning found the memorandum to which he
had referred, and which, as he had promised, he had
communicated to the son of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
wasanst due the AopfriAli 1838—Distress
arch preceding.
tle,mpan.
for re
Twiss."
Mr. O'CONNELL sad that if ever there was an in-
stance in which the usu tl rule ought to have been fol-
lowed, of not making attacks upon individuals without
first
Honourable
apprising
g 'and Learned of it, the present was that case.
The d L3arned Gentleman opposite had
made an attack upon him from no better information
than from that of a Mr. Twiss, whose Christian name he
did not know, and who had only come into his study,
and stated that he (Mr. O'Connell) had distrained upon
his tenants, Now he would put it to any Hon.
Member whether that was a ground for making such'
a charge.—(Cheers.) The name of Mr.' James Butler
had been introduced, and it had been stated that he
(Mr. O'Connell) bad claimed relationship with that-gen-
tleman ; he deniedliat he had ever done so ' • but, at
the same time, he confessed that he should have been
proud of such
en "Honour.—("Hear, hear," and
cheers.) He (Mr. O'Connell)
Pronounced the .state-
ments in the letter of Mr. Twiss to be an utter
falsehood, 'team it iyis impossible, if those distraints

had taken place in April, that he (Mr. O'Connell) should
not have heard of them. Now he would ask who was
this Mr. Twiss ? He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that at
one time he was a Magistrate, but he thought that he
was not so now. If he was rightly informed, he believed
that gentleman had had considerable misfortunes in life :
that he had 'taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act. Such
was, the person whose authority the Learned Sergeant
opposite had quoted against him, one who was
r proverbial in Kerry for the inaccuracy of his state-
ments—(Cheers)-and who had a denomination at-
tached to his name which was not very creditable to
any party—the appellation of " Lying tßob Twiss," an
appellation which he (Mr. O'Connell) believed he had
enjoyed for the last twenty-five years.—(Laughter.) As
he had said before he had never stated that Mr. Butler
was a relation of his. He-should have been most proud if
he had been. He (Mr. O'Connell) would leave it to the
House to say whether the Honourable and Learned
Member for Bandon had brought forward any ground
for the charge he had brought against him (Mr. O'Connell)
and that too without any intimation whatever to him. He
could easily account for the conduct of the Hon. and Learned
Member ; he had his motives and objects for what he had
done, and he was very near obtaining them.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON denied that he had openod
an office to receive complaints, but he could not prevent
gentlemen walking into his study.—(oh !) He could not
have given the Hon. Member notice, because he was not
aware that it was the intention of the Hon. and Learned
Member to bring forward the subject of the harshness of
the Irish landlords.

Mr. LOCKHART begged to ask whether it was the
intention of the Government to renew a circular they had
issued to the clerks of Justices of the Peace in Scotland,
to prevent their acting as political agents.
Mr. FOX MAULE said the Government had no
power to issue such an order at all. It was known that
many Justices' Clerks acted as political agents, and his
Noble Friend the Secretary of the Colonies issued a Cir-
cular stating that such cOnduct did not meet the approval
of the Government. Most of them intimated their in-
tention to refrain in future, but some refused, and the
Government, he found, had no power to compel them.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Orders of the Day
be read.

The first Order was for the second reading of the Col-
lege of Maynooth Bill, but as no Hon. Member made any
motion on the subject, it was passed over.

DOG-CARTS BILL.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Dog
Carts' Bill,

Mr. PRYME opposed the motion, on the ground that
it was an interference with a humble class of traders.
He was glad to see his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer in the House. If his Right Hon.
Friend would consent to allow an ass to be used—(Loud
laughter)—it might seem very ludicrous to the House
to name the animal; it might perhaps be more agreeable
to Right Hon. Gentlemen if he (Mr. P.) called thatanimal
by the name of donkey.—(Loud laughter, which con-
tinued for several minutes.) What he meant to say was,
that if an ass were allowed to be used with the same
license as was paid for using a dog, it would tend ma-
terially to lessen the number of dog-carts, at least by
one-tenth, throughout the country. He would con-
clude by moving that the Bill be committed this day six
months.

Mr. WARBURTON seconded the motion, because he
was satisfied that it was a waste of the time of the
House to legislate on such trivial matters. Last year it
had been attempted to excite a feeling on the subject by
appealing to their humanity, and stating that the
dog was not proper for a beast of draught.
Surely thbse who had made such a statement must
have forgotten the Kamschatka dogs. The object of the
measure was to prevent persons possessed of small means
and in humble life, who could not afford to employ other
animals, from doing their best to gain a livelihood. If
the reason for putting down these carts was, that dogs
were small animals and liable to throw down horses,
then they ought to graduate the dimensions of all ani-
mals suffered to draw in the streets, and to prohibit
Shetland ponies.—(Hear, hear.)

Sir R. INGLIS was one of those whose name was on
the back of the Bill, and he considered it an honour to
have his name there.—(Hear, hear.) The opposition
came entirely from the political economists. The
Honourable Gentleman who moved the amendment
was Professor of Political Economy in the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, and his. Quixotical friend,
the Member for Bridkor,t seconded it. The true way
to get rid of this subject would be to move for leave to
bring in a Bill to repeal the clause in the Metropolitan
Police Act, for he could not understand on what prin-
ciple the dogs of the town should be placed in a different
position from the dogs in the country.(A laugh.)
The Lapland and Kamschatka dogs drew on snow, and
not on a hard pavement. He should support the Bill.
Mr. HUME said that he had been a member of the
Committee before which the evidence was taken, which
led to the proposal of this Bill. Upon the evidence adduced
before that Committee he would not give it his support. It
the question were one of humanity, why should donkeys
be allowed to be ridden ?—(Hear.) He believed there
were no animals who were worse used than donkeys ;
and if the questior_ were put on the ground of
humanity, the Bill should be applied to them.
There was no doubt but any animals might be abused,
but that was no reason why they should never be em-
ployed. He therefore subinitted that the case was one
winch should be left to the good sense and to the humanity
of individuals.

Mr. EAST replied. He had introduced the Bill for
the purpose of suppressing those cruelties to doffs, which
took place no less in the country than in town. It should
41yrays be remembered that the feet of dogs were not
protecill by nature so as to enable them to bear heavy
weightf. The Bill was extremely simple, following closely
the provisions of the Metropolitan Act, but extending it to
the country.. He hoped therefore the House would al-
low it to be proceeded with.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared,
For going into Committee
Against it
• Majority -111
-The House then went into Committee.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. WARBURTON said that by that clause, if a child
were riding on a Newfoundland dog in a private garden,
a constable might enter the garden, take the parties be-
fore a single. Magistrate, and have them convicted in the
penalties of the Act. Nay, if a dog drew a kettle tied to
his tail—(Loud laughter)—the case would come under
the provisions of the Act. ,The Act made no distinction
between public roads and private grounds. It was ab-
surd enough to legislate on the subject at all, but he put
it to the House whether they could tolerate such a
tyrannical absurdity as this enactment.
Colonel SALWEY opposed the Bill on the ground that
it would put an end to the sport of shooting. In his
opinion it was altogether an absurd attempt at legislation.
Mr. FOX MAULE proposed to strike out the words
" or carrying any burden."
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
On clause 2 being put,
Mr. FOX MAULE moved that the penalty, instead of
being 40s. for the first offence and 51. for the next, should
be reduced to ss. and 31.

- Mr. WARBURTON complained of the summary ju-
risdiction with which it was proposed to invest the Ma-
gistrates.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the clause authorising constables to apprehend of-
fenders without a warrant, and take them before a Ma-
gistrate; being`put,
Mr. .WARBURTON proposed that it should be
omitted altogether.
Mr. C. BULLER said that a policeman had no power
to take up aperson guilty of an assault without a war-
rant, but in the graver offence of employing a dog
to draw a cart it appeared that he was to have the
power.— (Hear, and a laugh.) He complained of this
great legislative enactment that it was imperfect,
inasmuch as it made no provision for the objects of its
peculiar care. When they had taken up the man, what
did they propose to do with the dog?—(A laugh.) He
was deprived of his only natural protector, and did they
intend to leave him to the wide world, without any food
but such as he could get without attacking any unfortu-
nate passenger?—(Cheers and laughter.) A Bill had
been brought in by a worthy Alderman some years since,
for the prevention of hydrophobia, which had been
treated with great ridicule by the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth. One clause of that Bill em-
powered a constable to take up any mad dog.—(Roars
of laughter.) In consequence of various imperfections,
that Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the mem-
bers of which had, he supposed, been chosen for their
names. These were Mr. Lamb, Mr. Fox, and him-
self (Mr. " Bull"er)L-(Loud and continued laughter)—
who was at the time a very young Member. That
Committee, however, had elicited some most im-
portant medical testimony, from which it appeared that
hydrophobia was one of the rarest diseases known, and
that it never originated spontaneoisly, but was always
the consequence of absolute contagion. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Shoreham supported the measure on the ground
of humanity to bad riders, as dog-carts made horses shy
-and unhorse gentlemen who were not very firm in their
saddles ; but if they were to legislate for the safety of
gentlemen who could not ride well, they ought to go
further. Many horses shied at a wheelbarrow-4A
7laugh)—and he never knew a horse who would pass a
knife-grinder's wheel without shying.—(Loud laughter.)
Therefore, if they wished to carry out their legislative
foresight for gentlemen who could not ride well to the
full, they ought to follow up this great measure--(Loud
laughter)—by a Bill against knife-grinders' wheels and
wheelbarrows.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The clause was then agreed to, and the House
resumed.
DANISH CLAIMS. •
Mr. CRESSWELL moved :that the House do resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House, to address
her Majesty on the subject of the Danish claims.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it was undoubt-
edly true that a resolution had been adopted by the
House for an address to the Crown on the subject of
these claims, the amount of which was somewhere
about 270,000/. He was sure it would be gratifying to
the House to afford relief to any persons who had sus-
tained loss, but he did not think they ought to vote
away so large a sum of the public money without taking
into consideration the circumstances under which, these
claims were made. On the Tresent occasion he felt that
the amount was of very little importance, compared
with the principle involved in it. The House
was no doubt aware of the general nature of these
claims. On two occasions lately it had been discussed in
that House. It appeared to him that the arguments
did not embrace the entire princiPle. The compensation
asked for on the present occasion was compensation for
the loss of certain ships and goods, which were seized by
the Danish Government, in 1807, in consequence of the
attack that had been made on Copenhagen by this coun-
try. About 30 years afterwards was the first time an
application was made to the House of Commons on the
subject. The first application was made for compensa-
tion for the loss sustained by certain individuals in the
confiscation of debts which had been owing by Danish

subjects to the subjects of this country, and which had
been confiscated in consequence of the events to which
he had alluded. Subsequently there was a compensation
for goods on shore, which had been seized by the Da-
nish Government. A discussion took place, and it ap-
peared to the House that they might, with propriety,
sanction these claims for compensation.--(Hear,
hear.) The grounds on which these claims were
urged by Sir James Mackintosh were very
general, but they were to the effect that the goods seized
and the debts confiscated were seized and confiscated
contrary to the law of nations, and that where the Go-
vernment did not enforce redress, they were bound to
make good the claims of their own subjects. That point
was discussed more than once, and, undoubtedly it did
seem that the principle which had been laid down
and acted upon, 'was that if the subjects of one
country. did .not think it tight to enforce compensation
from the offending Government, the burthen was trans-
ferred to the Government to which the party belonged.
The concession of those claims gave rise to an applica-
tion, he thought in the year 1834 or 1836, on behalf of the
owners of ships and goods which had been seized afloat;
encouraged. by the success of the previous application,
petitions were presented on behalf of this claim. Various
statements had been made to the House in relation to the
facts, on a former occasion, when the subject of the
claim was brought before the House, when it was nega-
tived. It was since advocated by several able Members
of the House. Although the principle he had referred to
was adopted by the House in relation to debts and goods
on shore, no such authority was applicable to- the pre-
sent question, because it stood on a different footing, and
involved a principle• which was totally different. He
would now call the attention of the House to a distinct
statement of the facts, as many speeches had been made
in that House on the subject which varied somewhat
as to the true statement respecting the origin of these
claims. It would be material for the House to attend to
the state of relations existing between this country and
Denmark at the time of the seizure of the ships and
goods. On the 27th of July, 1807, the English fleet sailed
from this country with sealed orders, and arrived early
in August in the Great Belt, and cut off all communica-
tion between Zealand and Europe. From the 3d of August
negotiations were prosecuted by Mr. Jackson, seeking for
the surrender of the Danish fleet for the security of this
country. Upon the 16th of August—a most important
date—the Danish Government issued a proclamation,
stating that the Danish Envoy had on the 13th declared
that hostilities would commence, and therefore that
the two countries were at war ; and then
gave orders for the seizure and detention of
British property.. Now, as very much had been
said on every occasion on the subject of want of
notice of caution on the part of those in possession of
the ships and goods which were ultimately seized by the
Danish Government, and for which compensation was
claimed, he wished to impress upon the House the cir-
cumstances which occurred at this date, the 16th, long be-
fore the seizure of the property. A proclamation was
issued by the Danish Government stating that the two
countries were at war at the same date. Admiral Gam-
bier published a document explaining the objects of the
expedition, and seeking the possession of the Danish
fleet, and threatening capture in case of refusal. On the
24th the Danish Government issued a further manifesto;
and on the 25th of August the Admiral, who
was the officer of that country, issued an order
for the detention of the Danish vessels. On the 2d of
September the bombardment of Copenhagen took place,
and on the same day there was an Order in Council for
the seizure of the Danish ships. On the 23d of Sep-
tember a manifesto was issued by Great Britain, and on
the 4th of November there was a declaration of war.
Now in the course of the discussion which had taken
place on this subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had protested against being supposed to sanction the
claim. The matter was referred to a Committee, in order
to ascertain the facts connected with the claims ; and
a report was ultimately obtained in July last upon these
facts. That report gave the dates on which the seizures
had taken place. He had called the attention of that
House to the date of the 16th of August. One vesssel
was seized on the 23d of August, and four on the 25th.
In the month of September there were five. The whole
of the remainder were seized at a later period, extend-
ing to September, October, and November, and the
claim to which he had referred embraced the whole of
those captures down to the month of Dececmber. Now what
was the ground upon which the House was justified in
imposing a burthen exceeding a quarter of a million on
'm
uch
it public in respect of these captures? However .much
it might be lamented that public events" should in-
flict loss upon individuals, it was not a received prin-
ciple that taxes should be imposed, and that compensa-
tion should be paid by the public to individuals who un-
fortunately suffered from the operations of war. It
required something more than that an enemy should
have seized the property to warrant the House in voting
public money to relieve the sufferers. If these vessels
had been seized according to the laws of war as ob-
served amongst civilized nations, what was the ground
upon which the Rouse could distinguish the Danish
claims from the immense class of ruined persons who had
suffered from the seizures of France, Russia, and other
nations ? It was most material to see whether there was
any real ground of distinction. He had cautiously attended
to the grounds urged at various times in order to induce
the • House to vote the public money. First of all
it ha‘d been stated that these individuals had a claim to
compensation, because they had no notice of the inten-
tion of this country to commence hostilities with Den-
mark ; that they embarked upon their voyage, and re-
mained in the Baltic in full confidence that the amicable
relations between this country and Denmark were not
likely to be disturbed. He presumed that something
more must be shown than that the Government did not
give notice to the merchants of this country when they
were about to commence hostile operations, or to commit
a hostile act, or to commence a war against another
Power.—(Hear, hear.) Whoever attended to the cir-
cumstances attending the seizure of the Danish fleet
would perceive that the slightest previous intimation of
the intention of the Government, if it had not totally
defeated the immensely important obje2t which was
gained by the seizure of the Danish fleet, would at least
have added very greatly to the difficulty of the enter-
prise. It was impossible, consistent with public duty
and with public policy, that the Government could have
been justified in giving such information. No notice
therefore was given prior to the sailing of the fleet, ex-
cept what was afforded by those public acts to which
he had referred. He presumed that when the British
fleet appeared off Copenhagen, and occupied the
station which it did, no man in his senses would draw
any other inference than that it was extremely probable
that hostilities would take place. The vessels did not
arrive there certainly with any view to preserve peace in
any sense which could induce persons to suppose that
they were secure. . But this fleet arriving there at the
date he had mentioned—on the 3d of August—these
vessels continued there. He would not say that by such
conduct they had acted imprudently. While the fleet
was there, he would not deny but that they were safe
enough ' • but when they traced the course of events, and
found these vessels remaining after the English fleet had
left the Baltic, taking with them the Danish fleet and
stores, no one could contend but that they had had abun-
dant information given to them, sufficient to put any
prudent persons on their guard ? He begged the House
to notice what the principle was on which this
compensation was claimed—(Hear)—and to what that
principle would lead. If that country found it necessary,
on a sudden emergency to make an attack on a Foreign
Power, and the Foreign Power should seize on British
property—thus circumstanced, would that make a claim
for compensation. He beseeched the House to look to
the public consequences to which such a principle
I must lead. He therefore thought that the argument
that they had not had sufficient intimation was
one which was not applicable in the present instance.
But it was said that they ought to consider the peculiar
circumstances under which that fleet had gone to Den-
mark. As far as he could gather them the circum-
stances were these. The Government of the day, having,
no doubt, obtained secret information of the fact,
understood that the Danish Government had agreed
to give Bonaparte the use of their fleet to serve against
this country. In fact there was a secret article to that
effect in the Treaty of Tilsit. The British Government
having obtained information of that fact, acted in antici-
pation of the secret article. They found the Danish Go-
vernment was a weak Government compared with the
French, and knew that they had agreed to aid the French
against this country by the loan of the Danish fleet, and
undoubtedly, and he thought rightly, before that secret
article could be known, the Government thought it right
to save this country from the dangerous position in which
it would be placed by the execution of that secret article
of the Treaty, by sending to Denmark and seizing the
fleet. If, said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, a weak
man possessed an instrument capable of destroying you, and
a strong man, your enemy, had induced the weak man
to lend him that instrument, and you knew it beforehand,
who would hesitate to wrest the. weapon from his hand ?
It was not possible to discuss such a question on narrow
grounds. But he did not apprehend that the propriety
or impropriety of that war had anything to do with the
legal part of the question. They were not to decide on
claims for compensation by looking back to the history
of the justice or the injustice of the war. That ques-
tion was to be decided on other principles. He knew
that some persons considered the seizure of the Danish
fleet an act of great aggression, but it would be a most
unfortunate result for the country if they should lay it
down as a principle that because in the opinion of a
certain portion of the community hostilities were unjus-
tifiable, that therefore parties thus situated should
be entitled to compensation. Allusion had been
made to a conversation stated to have taken place be-
tween Admiral Gambier:and certain persons interested
in these claims at the time the fleet were in the Baltic.
'lt had been stated that two persons asked the Admiral
if they might not safely go up the Baltic, •and that the
Admiral had told them they might. Now that con-
versation had been brought forward thirty years after it
was stated to have taken place, when Admiral Gambier
was dead, and when the only witnesses to it were the
persons interested in making the claims. He thought
no one could doubt that such evidence was not sufficient
to warrant them in coming to a decision on the subject,
more especially when they had no knowledge of the
dates when, or the circumstances under which such con-
versations
took place. He knew that the Government had
caused search to be made among the public documents,
in order to ascertain if any douments could be
discovered to justify the opinion that the Government
of the day had misled the merchants, but no
such document could be found. Hei would therefore
say that neither the recent nor previous motion, nor the
justice or injustice of the war, formed any ground for
granting compensation in the present instance. The
next ground alleged was that the English fleet was in
the Baltic for a certain time and had left it without pro-
tection. Now he (the.Solicitor-General) presumed that
those who were there were not in a situation in which
facts so notorious and open to the public as the British
fleet being in the Baltic and having the whole Danish
fleet in its possession were not known to them. The
very fact of its leaving the Baltic was too notorious for
such a state of things, and the state of affairs was such

MORNING EDITION.

as that individuals who had not some views of them
would not have suffered their property and goods to re-
main in those ships upon any idea that circumstances
would alter the position in which they were then placed,
and that protection would be afforded them. Was it a
ground for compensation if any department of the Govern-
ment of the day had 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
House would vote public money by way of compensation?
Blame might be passed on such a Government for' this
act ; 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-
fore, to do equal justice and to extend compensation to
ships and goods. He believed that the House was in-
duced 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-
verted, 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
to the law of nations—if that was true, said they, you
granted compensation when the principle was not called
for, for when you made your treaty with Denmark
you made ' it to the effect that debts should not
be 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 James Mackintosh
in the first instance, and that argument was after-
wards granted byother Hon. Members, that the country
had stipulated for the redress. Now, if that argument
was well founded, the subsequent stipulation overrode
the original claim. In that instance the House, in al-
lowing compensation, acted upon a distinct ground, but
then it was stated, that though the House had granted
compensation, and though the country had stipulated for
the redress, that it could not be maintained, and it was
subsequently stated that the subjects of this country did
not desire it. He (the Solicitor-General) knew not how that
might be, but he did know that many had applied for it.
He repeated that the House had never sanctioned the
principle on which the present claim was founded, and
that the former claim !had been panted on entirely dif-
ferent grounds. There was another fact which had been
stated, and he apprehended it was one which had made a
considerable impression on the House, and probably went
far in inducing it to accede. to the late motion upon
the subject ; it was this, that this country at the time
had seized Danish property to a very great amount ; and
it was said that as we had then possessed ourselves of
property amounting to upwards of one million sterling,
the petitioners who had suffered by the acts of hostilities
ought to be compensated out of that fund. That argu-
ment appeared plausible enough, but it appeared to him
to rest upon precisely the same grounds as the claim
which the subjects of a country might make for their
losses they had sustained from an 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,
in the course of its hostilities with another, acquired pro-
perty of great value—that, certainly, was no ground for
putting forward a claim for compensation. Such a prin-
ciple would lead to very extensive cmsequences, and
very great embarrassment, The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Lord Althorp) said that these elaims not
having been made for thirty years afterwa.ids; 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 ray-
meats appropriated to the subject. From his inquiries
on the matter, in order to ascertain what was his duty
with respect to these claims, he had learned that no such
fund pow existed, and it would be a gross injustice to
vote'away the public money under the erroneous impres-
sion that such a fund existed. He believed he had stated
the 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
point 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-
neral principles, the subjects 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
part of the Danes. He heard the echo of the word legi-
tunate. Probably an impression existed in *the quarter
from which that sound emanated that the warfare could
not be legitimate on the part' of the Danes if that war-
fare was induced by a wrongful act on the part of our
Government. The 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 Danes were 'justified, if they thought fit,
in seizing the property of the subjects of this
country. It was of great importance when
that House 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 intelligibi e
on general principles. The House should not, in it s
votes, give rise to the probability of an opinion arising ,
that it was influenced by favour to this or that class of
persons. The vote should be given on broad intelligible
public principles. He was satisfied that if that came to
be 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
be difficult to prove that the claims of those who suffered
by the Russian seizure stood higher than the present
claims. For it was more than doubtful that, the Rus-
sians 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-
tion, if these individuals could sustain a well-founded
claim. He thought no fresh grounds existed, andlie
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
some 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-
pose going into Committee on the question.
Sir STRATFORD CANNING, who was almost in-
audible, said he wished to say a few words on this ques-
tion. He considered the frequent discussions of this ques-
tion and the vote,s<to which the House had previously
come respectingit, was a sufficient justification for the
present motion---(Hear, hear)—for the House had already
passed three subsequent votes on this subject, not in pre-
vious Parliaments, but during the existence of the pre-
sent House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Without re-
curring to any previous knowledge of the proceedings he
considered he was at least bound to support the votes he
had given. After the House hadgone this length it was
for the Government to consider whether there were any
circumstances such as would not warrant them to take
those steps which could carry the votes of the House
c
into effect. As on those former occasions he had voted
with the majority he should vote with his Learned Friend
eu
(Mr. Cresswell) on the present occasion. He was. N •
aware of the distinction the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-
General had drawn between these claims, as related to
one part of the property concerned, and those which re-
lated to the other part. If he rightly understood the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman he admitted that the
former claims rested on this ground, thatthteh the lDanes
aw in
confiscating this property had not exceeded
nations. He was perfectly well aware of _
the pe-
culiar relations between England and Denmark, at th a
breaking out of the war in the year 1807. That principle,
not think . and
the non
left this ease
With an exception.
iffairly
regardapplied
to
nt was valid, for the other
Learned Gentleman's argument
claims that were satisfied were not brought forward until
tthoeotthimeie• chaeses,
did
30 years after they had accrued. It depended entirely
upon the circumstances under which that war commence
that this
and he must be allowed to observe being estab-
lished all that had been said about the danger of intro-
ducing bad precedents t aside. It would appear
that D
on that occasion the Danish Government had
thought it right to exercise what, in the opinion of the
Hon.'and Learned Gentleman opposite, was a legitimate
right, and they appeared to have exercised it with every
wish to maintain pacific relations with us. Wehad shown
our specific intentions by the armament We had sent out,
so as to take away from the Danes all excuse for resist-
ance. 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 leasthave sufficed for their protec-
tion.--(Hear.) These circumstances justified his Hon.
Friend in bringing forward the subject. ,th(re were
great peculiarities in this case—pecuharities so great as
to render persons concerned entitled to indemnity, to
which, under other circumstances, they would not be en-
titled.—(Hear.) If it were not for theie -:extreme pe-
culiarities, he should be one of the first to recognise the
danger of acceding. to these claims ; but he felt that he
was justified in giving his vote for this motion. Whatever
might be their ulterior proceedings, he thought the
House was bound to follow up the votes thiThad already
given.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said—Sir, this 'subject has been so often
before the House, and so well argued her both partie‘
that I really do not consider that much Anne ought now
to be occupied. I cannot but express my regret that
the Learned Solicitor-General did not favour us on
former occasion with his views on this -subject,' that we
might, in the first instance, have had the benefit of his
learning and research, and an opportunity of looking
into those facts to which he has alluded, although I