The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

■+

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAN, JUNE 11, 1841.

DANISH CLAIMS.

On the Order of the Day being read for the bringing
up the Report on the Danish Claims,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose
and said, that after the very able ani eloquent speech
of his Learned Friend last night, he had cer-
tainly expected to have heard some arguments
from Hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of this
motion. As, however, they had abstained from entering
into the question, he should not go into all the dif-
ferent grounds which had been so well disposed
of, but he would tell the House that it became
their duty to think very seriously before they
took the step of addressing her Majesty. After
the question had been so fully discussed, the House
would allow him to suggest that, in point of form, the
address to which they had agreed was bad—in fact, that
the House was about to ask her Majesty to do that which
she could not do. The address requested her Majesty to ad-
vance a quarter of a million, and they engaged the honour
of the House to make it good at a future period. Now
he would ask any gentleman in the HouSe, how her
Majesty could legally comply with that request ?
There was no legal power in the Crown to
do so, and the only answer that could be made
to such an.address was, that the Crown had no power to
comply with its request. If the House would listen to
him for a few moments, he would satisfy them that the
Crown had no power to advance any such sum of money
out 'of any funds whatever. No doubt precedents
could be shown for such a course—no doubt that at a time
when the Crown had large sums at its disposal, it was
in the power of the Crown to make advances on the faith
of the advance being repaid by that House. But they
had curtailed and most properly he thought, with the
concurrence of the Crown—they gradually reduced
those funds at the disposal of the Crown until there re-
mained nothing but the Civil List which was necessary
for its own expenditure, and a small sum of the civil
contingencies which had been granted for only six
months. Now, that being all that was at the disposal of
the Crown, he would ask the Honourable and Learned
Member, (Mr. Cresswell) or even the Honourable
Member for Kilkenny, how it could be expected
that the Crown could make such an advance ? He
was bound to tell the House that if a Treasury
Warrant, signed by her Majesty, and countersigned by
himself, were issued, and he were to take it to the Exche-
quer, the answer would be that there was no legal means
by which it could be paid ; that her Majesty had no power
to issue such a warrant; that they could not pay any sum of
money, unless they were directed to do so by a Bill passed
by that House, and concurred in by the rest of the Le-
gislature. Now, without going further into details, he
would call upon the House to take care that they did not
ask her Majesty to take a step which was against the law.
The House had always been. most properly jealous on
the matter,—the House had always looked carefully, so
as not to allow either the Executive or the Crown
to put its hands in the public purse without
regulations and restrictions ; and he would defy
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite
to tell him out of what funds the Crown could advance
the money. It was true that with regard to sums of
small amount the Crown might advance them out of its
hereditary revenues, or out of the Civil Contingencies.
There was the case of Mr. Farmer.—(" Hear," from Mr.
Cresswell.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not
appear to understand the peculiar distinction there
was in the case. Mr. Farmer had a claim against
the Post-office, and the House had addressed the
Crown praying it to pay the sum claimed to Mr.
Farmer. But what were the circumstances of the
case ? A contract had been entered into, as had
been alleged, between the Government and Mr. Farmer
relating to the collection of the Post-office revenue. But
in that case there was a specific provision in an Act of
Parliament authorising the Crown-to pay the expenses
attendant on the collection of the Post-office revenue
out of the revenue itself ; yet, although there was a
specific Act of Parliament authorising the payment, at
the time the application was thought so irregular that
the answer of the Crown was that when the means were
provided the money should be paid. Such was the answer
given to the Address of the House, although legally
the Crown had the power to do it. That was the
course which had been pursued in that case in
which there were means of payment, but here
there were not any means whatever provided by
which the address could be complied with, and he
trusted that the House, in its anxiety to remedy a sup-
posed injustice to certain parties, would not place the
Crown and itself in the position of asking her Majesty to
perform an act which by law she had no power to do.
He thought it more fair to bring forward this objection,
which had struck him since yesterday, at once, and he
should be glad to hear what answer the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny, or the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, could
make to it. _ _

Mr. HUME said—lt is true, Sir, that her Majesty
has no money but what this House affords to her. The
object of this motion is to enforce what the House has
more than once acknowledged to be an act of justice, and
I ask the Right Hon. Gentlemen why they voted
against the Government, and carried their vote,
for granting the first class of Danish claims ?
It is true that the House, against the wishes and efforts
of the Government, voted that the first class of the
claims should be paid. The same course was pursued with
regard to the second class of claimants; and the only dif-
ference between those two Governments and the present is,

that those two Governments acted in obedience to the
orders of the House of Commons, put those claims in
the estimates, and why does not the Right Hon. Gentle-
man do the same ? There are various ways in which
that could be done. Take the case which happened a
a few months ago. I objected to an address to her Ma-
jesty, praying that she would take means to settle
2,0001. a year on Lord Keane. I divided against the
motion, but I was in a minority—the House of Commons
decided against me. Was this objection taken then ? If the
objection is a proper one, the case of Lord Keane is open
to precisely the same objection. What I understood by
that vote was that it simply asked . her Majesty, if
she approved of the object of the vote, that she
would give directions to her Ministers to bring in a Bill
for the purpose of carrying that vote into effect.
That was done in the case of Lord Keane, and why is
not the same course pursued in the present instance ?
Is there any difficulty whatever in adopting the same
course ? or does the Right Honourable Gentleman
'Say than whatever the House of Commons may de-
termine Ministers will not adopt it ?—(Hear, hear.)
The late' Chancellor of the Exchequer said the
same, but Still he adopted it. Money had been paid
on the - same ground, and it therefore appeared to
him that the objection was utterly unworthy of
her Majesty's Government when on two previous occa-
sions they had paid similar claims. The first class of
claimants was immediately paid, and the second class
was paid also, although the Chancellor of the
Exchequer said that he would never Consent to it.
The question is, whether her Majesty's. Ministers, after
the expression of opinion by the House, five times
repeated, are determined to prevent its being car-
ried into effect. If so, the only course that re-
mains is for the Honourable Gentleman to ask leave
to bring in a Bill to carry out the intentions of the
o t
o eo
hs e a
ren,
lntiteiddidl
tpa
l:
es
sy thattoh
of the
havingmt
hOene y I
H.
actedou
se
i,snu
tbthwmeoiyt
casest
oo u gh in
0/Iht t
obl ae jdde sty's
Gioencsoe
on the present occasion, and not to counsel her
Majesty to' refuse her consent when the House had come
to the resolution by a majority of 540 against per-
5. I submit to them that that is not a be-
coming course to adopt towards a majority
of the House of Commons. The Government have
admitted that a majority of one is sufficient to test the
wish of the House; why, then, should they advise her
Majesty not to accede to that which, in the course
of justice, this House has thought proper to recom-
mend ?—(Hear, hear.) I am not aware of any other mode,
if Ministers refuse, than bringing in an Act of Parliament
and compelling them to adopt the course the House de-
sires to be pursued by that Act. I will state an instance
of a parallel case. A claim was made on the East
. India Company—the Company declared that the claim
was good, but it was not satisfied. Leave was thenasked to bring in a Bill—that Bill was brought in, and
a suni of 22,0001. was paid, not of public
but of the money of the East India Company to t.hensh
:ontieesrindivi-
dual in satisfaction for his claim for justice. yaru)u
instances have come to my knowledge, and might be stated
I submit to the Government, that after repeated indica-
tions of the opinions of large majorities oftliis House,
I they should not be stopped by technicalities from carry-
ing those opinions into effect.
Mr. CRESSWELL said
Gen-
tleman (the Chancellor of
.the Exchequer) com-
plains Honourable
erivti„;nthtehisliirgelsitoluHtioon-
was first proposed.
pnloauirnbsl e o fthe ine
S cri tonr-oGt enaendrst'il
certainly have done so,
-humoured
enoftlemmiasn-
pchairetifeulawriliyiehaftetiriethellisigighlooo:dl
s would
the
be
eirencloterde against
o Ishould
uhge4tHouitse
consonant thbeutforlm th°f
oppose it flrosnatidthaneyCohliahirg.
intlisitst
favour.soic one
NoiV with
motion
"wabseflibirite
respect to the objections stated to-day the Chancellor of
the Exchequer that I call upon the ou!# to adopt an
address to the Crown, asking her Majesty :to do that
-Which by law the has rower to do; I frankly
state that I am driveti to thjf cal se 17 the