The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 184 E.

Hamilton-place, New-road, is the man who fought the
duel with Lord Cardigan on the 12th September, on Wim-
bledon Common. L• there any doubt that it was the C.=p-
tato Tuckett who took the prem:les 29, in the Poultry ?
At the Irme he did that act he gave his reference
to No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road, and although
there is no evidence to demonstrate directly—
although there is not sufficient evidence to show that he
who took this place of business was the same Captain
Tuckett who held the house, No. 13, Hamilton-place,
New-road, and was the antagonist of Lord Cardigan,
we now have only one other stage, and that is, whether
the Captain Tuckett, who fought the duel, is the same of
whom Mr. Codd spoke, and whose name he proved to be
Captain Harvey Tuckett, and had been an officer in the
11th Hussars.
Sir W. Pot-LETT—There is no proof whataver of that
—there is no evidence that Lord Cardigan is Colonel of
the 11th Hussars. _

The ATTOItNEY-GENERAL—It was stated in evidence,
I think, by the policeman. He said so most distinctly,
but he was not cross-examined. Well, my Lords, the
Captain Tuckett whose name is Harvey, was proved by
Mr. Codd to have been an officer of the 1 lth Hussars,
Lord Cardigan's regiment. Ile gave him his card, with
11th Hussars upon it.
Sir W. FOLLETT—No, no; you are mistaken.
The ATTORNEY-GL'NERAL—WcII. This Capt. Tuckett
has the name of Harvey, and thus we have at least one
name corresponding with that of the person who fought the
duel on the 12th September on Wimbledon Common. Will
your Lordships require positively strict evidence as to this
gentleman's Christian name ? If there is evidence from
which the inference may be fairly drawn, is it not suffi-
cient for any Court of Justice? Well, then, here is
Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved to be Captain
Harvey Tuckett, who had bten in the 11th Hussars,
who retired some few years ago, and who receives half-
pay. May it not, then, be fairly inferred by any one of
your Lordships that this Captain Hervey 'cuckett,
who bad been in the 11th Hussars, who had retired some
three or four years ago, and who receives his half-pay
quarterly, i s the same Captain Harvey Tuckett who lived
at, or who had the place of business in the Poultry, who
had the house in Hamilton-place, New-road, and who
fought . the duel on the 12th of September on
Wimbledon Common? Is there not evidence, I say,
from which that identity may be fairly proved? Is the
prosecution to be stopped on the ground, that there is no
evidence to go to your Lordships—not a particle or scin-
tilla of evidence to show that this Captain Harvey Tuckett,
whose name I have proved to be such, is the same as the
antagonist of the Earl of Cardigan ? I believe there is no
human being who having heard the evidence out of
the Court of Justice, would hesitate in drawing the in-
ference. I believe that the same weight of evidence suffi-
cient to convince a reasonable man out of a Court of Jus-
tice, ought to convince a Judge or Judges sitting in a
Court of Jastice that that from which the inference is to
be drawn is to be received. According to the
rules of evidence, would any person out of a
Court of Justice doubt for a moment, that this is the same
individual who fought on the 12th of September. If the
inference would have been drawn out of a Cou-t of
Justice should it be said that in a Court of Justice there
was not a scintilla of evidence from which it could be
drawn ? This would be a most unsatisfactory conclusion
to this trial. Your Lordships will weigh the evidence fairly
and deliberately. If you think that this is not the same
individual of course you will say " not guilty upon ray
honour," but You will not stop the
,prosecution upon this
objection which must be considered a trivial one.
Sir W. FOLLETT in reply said, that certainly his Learned
Friend the Attorney-General had Idled in proving a very
eseential part of the prosecution. Their Lordships would
recollect whether the prosecutor had proved any essential
part of the posecution. Ile would show their Lordships
that no evidence at all had been given to prove the name
of Captain Tuckett. It was asked, should they call the
clerk of the parish, or the parents of Captain Tuckett, to
prove what his name might be? Now, that was not the
objection. What he objected to was, that they had
called a person named Codd, who proved that he knew a
person of that name, but he gave not a"scintilla" of evidence
(he would use the Attorney. General's own words) to con.
lila that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman who fought
the duel on Wimbledon Common. The question altoge-
ther depended upon Mr. Codi's evidence, and he (Mr.
Codd) was to show that a person of whom he spoke
was the maa who fought the duel. His Learned
friend had said that Captain Tuckett had been formerly in
the 11th Hussars. Now, would they leave to a Jury such
a question as the present to decide upon, on the fact that
he was formerly in that regiment? There was a statement
made by Mr. Codd, that on the 13th of September
Captain Tuckett was at his house; but the fact of his ap-
pearing there is inconsistent with the evidence given, that
be would be unable to appear before a Magistrate in con-
sequence of the wounds he received, at least, for some
considerable time. He ( Sir William Follett) must
say that his Learned Friend the Attorney-General
knew he had failed in proving his case, otherwise
his Learned Friend would not have so put his case. Might
he ask their Lord hips, WAS: that the way in which a trial
should be conducted? Were they to be led by what
eJinione a person out of Court might or might not
form. Their Lordships in that House must be satie-

: 3d that Captain Tuckett is the same person who
i .ught the duel on the P.2th of September, on
Wimbledon Common. Their Lordships were now
Bitting as Judges, and they should dismiss from
their minds any thing that they might have
heard before relative to the question of the
subject of the trial. Their Lordships were to say whether
because Captain Tuckett bore certain Christian names he
was the person who fought the duel. Captain
Tuckett may have lived in Hamilton-place, New-road,
or in the Poultry, but how did that prove that
it was he who fought the duel ? The whole of
the evidence of Mr. Codd was that he Ina; a per-
son of such a name who formerly received half-par.
But there is no evidence, my Lords, to show that this
Harvey Tuckett mentioned in the evidence of Codd is Cie
same Harvey Garn et Phipps Tuckett mentioned in this in-
dictment, as having been on Wim'oledon Common on the
occasion in question. No Judge sitting in a criminal
Court would leave such a question to the decisionof a jury.
There may be two Harvey Tucketts ; and since my Learned
Friend the Attorney-General hag referred to your Lordships'
knowledge of what may have occurred out of doors, I
would remind your Lordships that in the very regiment
commanded by the Noble De.fendant there were two
officers bearing the same surnames certainly, and I think
the same Christian names. I submit to your Lord-
ships that there is no evidence whatever to prove
that Captain Harvey Tuckett, mentioned in the
evidence of Mr. Codd, is the same person as the Har-
vey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, mentioned in this in-
dictment ; and however unpleasant it may be to the per-
sons con:teethe; the prosecution, I submit to your Lord-
ships that they have entirely failed in the proof of their
identity.
The Loan HIGH STEWARD—I stated when this objec-
tion was that taken that I thought strangers ought to
withdraw, and I am still of tint opinion. The
Learned Counsel, however, did not object to the
argument of the Attorney-General, and I did
not think it right to interrupt him ; but when similar
objections are taken in a Criminal Court, I believe the
Counsel for the prosecution is merely called upon to state
what portion of evidence he believes to be sufficient to
make out his c ase. Ido not recollect any case in which
an argument has been heard on the subject. I mention
this as a point which may be of consequence in the prac-
tice of the Courts of Criminal Law hereafter. I now
move, your Lordships, that strangers be ordered to
withdraw.

StraPigers were then ordered to withdraw, while their
Lordships considered the point raised by Sir W. Follett.
On uur return to the House, we understood their Lord-
ships to have decided the objection as valid ; and we found
the Lord High Steward at the Chair r.utting the
question to each Peer—Guilty or Not Guilty, e. g.—
John Singleton Lord Lyndhurst, how says your
Lordship, is Henry Tbouiss Earl of Cardi-
gan Guilty of this felony whereof he stands indicted, or
Not Guilty ?" Whereupon each Peer, upon his
name being called, rose, and placing his right hand
upon his breast, said, " Not Guilty, upon my honour,"
the only exception to the general rule being- the Duke
of Cleveland, who said—" Not Guilty,legallo, upon my
honour." After all the Peers had given their verdict, the
last of whom was the Duke of Cambridge,
The LORD HIOII STEWARD, standing on the steps of the
Throne himself, said, " Not Guilty, upon my honour."
The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS then said Yeoman Usher,
call in James Thomas Earl of Cardigan."
The Noble Esrl was then placed outside the Bar, when
The LORD HIGH STEWARD addressing him, said—

.4 Times Thomas Earl of Cardigan, you have been
indicted for a felony, for which you have been tried by
your Peery, and I have the satisfaction of declaring to
you that their Lordships have pronounced you Not
Guilty' by an unanimous sentence. The number I have
not precisely at this morntrit before me, or I would have
been glad to have stated to your Lonl3hip, but their
Lordships have unanimously said Not Guilty.'"
The Earl of Cardigan then bowed and retired.
The Proclamation dissolving the Commission was then
read, and his Grace, the Lord High Steward, standing in
front of the Throne, received the Staff from the Garter
King-at-Arms, and the Ueher of the Black Rod jointly,
held it in both hands and broke it in two, and so the Com-
mission was dissolved at Half-past Five o'Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEL 16e

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. MeeoaN took the oaths and his scat as Member
for Monmouthshire. The Han. Member was introduced
by Mr. Baillie and Lord Granville Somerset.
Mr. ANTRCBUS took the oaths and his seat as Member
for East Surrey.
Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from certain
mariners of the River Tyne, praying for an alteration in
the distribution of the Merchant Searnee's Fund.
Mr. ING HAM presented a similar petition from about
3,000 seamen of the port of Tyne.
Mr. DAVID ROCHE presented a petition from a pa-
rish in Limerick in favour of Medical Reform.
Sir R. H INGLIS presented petitions from various
parishes in Berkshire, Bedfordshire, and Wiltshire, pray-
ing for additional Church accommodation.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from the Hull and
Selby Railway Company, complaining of the manner of
levying taxation on railways.
Mr. COLQUHOUN presented a petition from the
East India Association in Glasgow, complaining that the
grievances with regard to their trade with Java had not
been redressed, and that the grievances on the subject
of their trade with Jamaica had been increased.

Lord R. GROSVENOR—presented a petition, nume-
rously signed, from the Mayor and inhabitants of the city
of Chester, in favour of the Bill for the abolition of the
punishment of death.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from Braintree, in
Essex, praying that the period of the appointment of the
Poor-law Commissioners might be for a limited period.
The petitioners also complained of the separation of chil-
dren from their parents in the Union workhouses.

Mr. FOX MA ULE presented petitions from various
parishes in Perthshire, praying for the abolition of Church
Patronage in Scotland. _ .

Mr. .MILES presented a petition from Horsinqbton in
Somersetshire, in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Clonrush, in the
county of Galway, against Lord Stanley's, and in favour
of Lord Morpeth's, Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ gave notice that in the Committee on the
Medical Bill he should move that all prescriptions be
written in English and at full length—(Laughter)—and
that all labe!s in druggists' shops should be written in the
same manner.

remunerated in other ways for the risk they had run.. But
why did not the underwriters pay the parties ? If they ran
the risks of war they were liable to the payment ; and
he would ask why they did not make it ? They risk they ran
was one which they willingly incurrred, and they ought
not look to the nation for the money which became so due.
lie did not think he need detain the House any further,
hut he would again state to the House that if they con-
sented to pass that vote they would agree to a resolution
which included a large sum of money to parties who had
already received a quarter of a million, and they would at
the same time agree to a principle the event end termi-
nation of which no man in that House could determine.—
( Hear, hear.)
Sir WALTER JAMES, who rose amidst cries of
" Divide," said that he would not detain the House long.
He hoped that in taking the subject into consideration they
woul i argue it on its own merits, and would not be misled
by those arguments foreign to the question, which the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had introduced in his speech. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man stated that the amount of these claims was extremely
large, and evidently endeavoured to make an impression
on the House by representing them as such. These
claims had undergone a most rigorous investigation, and
the House would perhaps be surprised to hear that the
amount of the debts amounted to nq more than 225,000/.
Perhaps it might be urged that fhe time for bring-
ing forward the motion was not well chosen
inasmuch as a large deficiency bad been experienced in
the public revenue for the last two or three years. But
he would submit to the House that that was no season
whatever for rejecting claims founded substantially on
justice and on equity. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that the payments which had been made into the Treasury,
and the money seized, were entirely eatezi up by the rums
paid to former claimants. But it should be remembered,
that the country would have been obliged to have gone to
other purees if it bad not received a large sum from the
Danish Government. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
said that the period chosen for the motion was an ex.
tremely inconvenient one, and that it was really too bad
that it should be brought forward before any of the public
estimates were voted. He could not help complimenting
his Hon. Friend on the period at'which he had thought
proper to bring forward this motion. It was an excellent
opportunity for the House to put in practice the maxim,
" Be just before you are generous"—(" Hear, hear," from
Colonel Sibthorp)—to practice that economy it was
ever so ready to profess. It appeared to him that these
parties had an unanswerable claim upom the House on aro
count of the two votes they had come to last year ; on the
24th May, 1338, and 18th June, 1839.—( Hear, hear.)
Let the House only consider the expense to which they
had put these parties. They had been put to all the ex-
pense of investigation, and it would be bard if thisimetisure,
which had proved the justice of their claims, was to be
made only an aggravation of injustice. Seeing the impa-
tience of the Houle he would not trouble them with some
further remarks he had intended to make, but he hoped
the House would support his Hon. Friend on the motion
he had made, because he was satisfied of the justice of the
claim itself, and because he thought that it would be con-
sistent with the honour, dignity, and character of the
[louse, having admitted the principle, not to recede from
carrying it into effect.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HAWES said he confessed his opinion was pre-
cisely the same as the lion. Gentleman's. He ( Mr.
Hawes) also had constituents who were interested in this
question, and he had to satisfy one part of those if be voted,
as he should, for the payment of these claims ; and all he
should say to them was, that the claim was a just enc.—
( Hear, hear.) He was not at all intimidated by the pros-
pect of being called to account at some future day
to which the Honourable Gentleman had alluded,
and which remark he (Mr. Hawes) thought had
been improperly thrown out, to disturb their judgment.—
( Hear. hear.) There were three classes of claimants,
two of whom were paid—those which. were founded on
book debts, and those which were founded on property 0n
shore, bad been paid. He thought if there was any pro-
perty more protected than another, it would have been
that which was classed as property on shore and book
debts. The only property respecting the claim of which
there could be any doubt by the law of nations, was that
which the Right Hon. Gentleman hesitated to pay. lie
(Mr. Hawes) asked him to point out any difference what-
ever between these classes. Hd (Mr. Hawes) had lis-
tened to him attentively to hear of any difference, and
had heard of none. He had heard nothing laid down in
justice or principle, to deter hint ( Mr. Hawes) from giving
his vote in favour of these claims.—( Hear, hear.) It had
been twice argued, and on a former occasion means had
been resorted to to postpone its payment, which he did not
think consistent with the honour of any Government to
pursue, When, on the 624th May, 1838, a motion for
this purpose was carried by a majority of thirty-four, in.
stead of complying with the rote, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer directed the amount of the claim should be
scheduled, but not examined. Now, the House had then
heard the whole claim argued, and had come to a deci-
sion upon it, and he (Mr. Hewes) had yet to learn the
propriety of any Minister afterwards opposing the pay-
ment. If there had been any doubt upon the subject, the.
Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been right in
opposing the claim to the utmost, but he (Mr. Hawes)
believed the claim to be a just claim. Two classes out of
the three had been satisfied by the Government, and he
should undoubtedly continue to vote for the payment of the
otner.—( Hear, hear.)
Alderman THOMPSON, who was but very indistinctly
heard in the gallery from the great Iloilo in the body of
the House, said (as we understood), with respect, to In-
surance Offices, when they insured property they received
premiums according to the risk which they underwent.
lie would join lame with the Right lion. Gentleman op-
posite as to the very grounds oa which these claims were
opposed-because those ships' cargoes were insured, the
claim ought to be refused. Now four or five times the
amount of premium would have been cliege.d had the ease
which took place been contemplated, and therefore the
Right lion. Gentleman's argument would not stand. He
( Mr. Alderman Thompson) conceived that when the
House, by a majority of three to one, in the year 1839,
dtractcd that the Commissioners should proceed and ad-
juslicate on the claims, it substantially decided that those
claims ought to he paid, and evere.jest.—( Hear, hear.)
Notwithstanding the difficulties which the Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman had thought fit to say he would con-
tinue to throw in the way of the payment of these claims,
he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) must say that he ought not
to represent that this was a question between the House of
Commons and the merchants of Liverpool. Now it was
a question that concerned all the traders ef the kingdom.
—( Hear.) The question to be decided was whether the
merchants and shipowners of England should have justice
done to them by the payment of 250,0001. or not. lie
would certainly give his most strenuous support to the
measure.

Mr. O'CONNELL was fully convinced that the claim
was a just one, and ought to be paid. Indeed the case
was a good deal stronger than the Learned Alderman had
put it, because, in the first place, the insurers never could
have contemplated the risk, although the general words of
the policy covered that defect. He really was surprised at
the opposition that had been given to the motion. Fora num-
ber of years the entire claims were contested, and then a
part was conceded on the ground that the seizure of debts
was against all international law—the seizure of goods on
shore was resisted in like manner; but the House decided
that the Government ought to pay them, and did make it
pay them. Now, in the present case, the shippers of
cargoes were informed at the Admiralty that no war
whatever was in contemplation against Denmark, and it
might be said that the Government actually induced them
to send out their cargoes, and yet that claim, in spite of
the repeated decisions of Parliament, the Government
now resisted. Economy was certainly an excellent virtue
in a Government, and one which ought to be in all cases
practised, but economy was one thing, and common
honesty another.—(Cheers.) It was said there was no
war whatever with Denmark, but there was something
very like it in practice, and something very advantageous
to those who got the Droits of the Admiralty, to the
amount of 1,300,0001., and out of which ample compen-
sation might be made to the merchants whom they de-
ceived into sending out their cargoes. The Government
had thought fit to make a present of the Droits of the Ad-
miralty for the purpose of making improvements at Wind-
sor. They deceived the British merchants, whe❑ they
sent out their cargoes, on the ground that there was no
apprehension of a violation of the peace, and now, in
spite of the repeated decisions of the House, the Govern.
ment hesitated in refusing these parties redress, lie
hoped, however, that the vote of that night would put an
end to the matter.—(Loud cheering.)
Mr. INGHAM wished to make a few remarks to the
House, in order to show why he thought the argument of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to weigh much
with the House. He considered that the objections of the
Right Hon. Gentleman did not apply to the case be-
fore them. The House had on two occasions solemnly
sanctioned the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend,
and it was shameful now it they had not the moral cour-
age to put the parties in the way of getting satisfaction
for their claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not
deny that the decision of the House had been in their
favour, but his objection was, that he himself had taken
a different view of the case. He thought it most unjust
in the Right Hon. Gentleman to withhold his assistance
from the parties in obtaining their money. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had relied upon the first division, in
1836, when the majority was against the elaims ; but the
Right Hon. Gentleman did not state what the amount of
the majority was, or what were the numbers in the House.
He knew that discussion had taken place at the close of
the Session, when there were not one hundred Mein.
to-rs in town—( Hear, hear)—and when the majority
did not exceed eight. Now it Was perfectly well known
that the greater number of the Members attending the
House at the close of the Session were the friends of Mi-
nisters, and it was therefore impossible to suppose that steel) a
decision would at all weigh against the decisions which the
House bad twice come to since. On those grounds he
would give his strenuous support to the motion of the
Hon. and Learned Member.

Mr. GOULBURN did not hesitate to say that his
opinion on the subject remained unchanged. He was
quite ready admit that the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down was equally entitled to hold his former opinions
t.u.the subject, and might very properly abide by that de-
mon to which the House had already come. He was not
influenced in his opinion by the amount of the demand if
the claim were a just one, and if it would
not be attended with fatal consequences he would
at once say to the Government pay it ; but his
ground was that if they made that particular payment
there never would be a war hereafter, or those circum-
stances which led ultimately to a war, which. would not
ultimately involve them in claims which it was impossible to
calculate, because it was impossible to calculate the ac-
tivity of the enemy's cruizers against their merchant ves-
sels. It was no uncommon case that an embargo was
laid on, and in particular circumstances that step might lao
followed by a war, and if in such cases they were to make
allowance to the underwriters, or those who insured in
consequence of the warlike measures taken by the coun-
try, he repeated that there would be no end whatever to the
expenses they would be called upon to defray.
.lie
thought such a step would strike at the beet energies of
the country, and he should therefore give, his vote against
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman§ motion.

Mr. WHITE said the notion of the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if these claims were
admitted, other similar ones would be brought forward on
future occasions ; but he contended that every claim
should stand upon its own foundation, and he believed that
the present one was founded in justice. •
Sir C. GREY wished to state on what principles and
grounds those who voted in support of these claims founded
this opinion. lie was also anxious that it should not be
suprpasrd, in voting for the present motions that be
should fall into the error of pledging himself, or commit-
ting himself, to a similar vote on future occasions. The
two first egSSCS :of claimants, of book debts and
property on shore, had been allowed compensation on the
ground that the confiscation of their property was con-
trary to the law of nations. The Gov, rniaent had in
these cases recognized the right of the claimants to re-
6reas ; and the House should recollect that the war was
begun in a manner different from that of any other war.
It was not the case of an embargo. England had come
forward acknowledging she had no cause fur making war
against Denmark., but understanding that there was a
design to seize the Danish fleet by their most deadly
enemy, it was thought proper to put it in cafe keep-
ing, and the Danish fleet was accordingly seized.
The whole question turned upon this pivot, whether under
such circumstances, the Danish Government having made
war upon this country, the British Government was justi-
fi:d in applying so large a portion of Danish property to
the purposes of revenue.—( Loud cries of " Divide, di-
vide.") Twelve hundred thousand pounds were so ap.
plied.—(Divide, divide.) That was the ground upon
which this question turned.—(Divide, divide.) He
thought the sufferers in this case bad a right to have their
losses made good, out of the proceeds of the vessels seized
under such peculiar circumstances.—( Renewed cries of
" Divide, divide.")
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not deny what had been
stated by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth,
that there was a great difference between the case now
before the House, and those other two in which compen-
sation had been given. But be thought his Honourable
Friend bad signally failed in making out a reason for vot-
ing for this motion. The Honourable Gentleman had
said that, with respect to the book debts and the goods
seized on shore, these did not come under the class of or-
dinary seizures in time of war; and that the Government
had therefore either of two courses to choose—either to
call on Denmark to make reparation, or to do so itself,
But his Hon. Friend admitted that the present case was
different from those. This was a case of ordinary capture
in time of war. It had been stated by the lion. Alder-
man the Member for Sunderland, and the Hon. Member
for Hull, that in all cases like the present, when the Go-
vernment had not made a public declaration of war, or
given notice to the insurers, of the approach of war, the
public money ought to be paid in compensation. ould
anything be more dangerous than this ? There might be
a great expedition preparing in the ports of another
country to invade this; and it might be necessary to take
steps to prevent the invasion. Would it be contended
that the Government was to give notice of the preparations
which it thought necessary to make, for intercepting
the armament before it reached our shores ?—(Hear.)
It was said that the sum now claimed was a very mode-
rate
one—no doubt it was so, but if they consented to
pay one quarter of a million they would be setting a pre-
cedent which would entail upon them claims to a much
greater extent. It was said by the Hon. Baronet that
Denmark was much irritated—no doubt she was, and he
thought she had much reason to be so. Her capital had
been bombarded—she was a great sufferer, so that, in fact,
she was very naturally much irritated, and he (Lord John
Russell) did not think it was either rashness or showed any
want of prudence in her going to war with the country
which had done her so much damage.—(Laughter.) His
Hon. Friend said they would be perfectly safe in paying
the present claims, because they would never again
meet with such a case. He could tell his Hon. Friend he was
much mistaken, for we might perfectly expect that we might
yet be thrown into war with other countries, and if the House
allowed themselves to be bound to refund anything but that
which was lost by anything done against the law of nations,
or the rules to just war, they would open a door to Most extra-
vagant claims—if they acknowledged the present claims they
would go much beyond anything which had ever been done
before. He felt bound to go much further, and say, that they
were not bound to indemnify any particular classes. If it was
necessary for the security of this country—of the whole com-
munity—if they should in certain cases be ooliged to step out
of the usual usages of war, the whole community had the be-
nefit of the act—the shipowners of Hull, Sunderland, and Li-
verpool had the benefit of it, and they had no right to come
forward as individual claimants, and say they had the benefit of
the general protection of their country, but their country
could not vindicate its honour without their claiming to the
very last farthing fur any losses sustained by them in
consequence of a due prosecution of a necessary war, and one
carried on strictly according to the law of nations. If the
House of Commons persisted in acknowledging such claims as
those now brought forward by the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, they would recognise claims for which no precedent was
to be found in past history ; but if the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman were to be agreed to, many would be found
in our future history.
Mr. CIIESSWELL rose to reply. The Hon. Gentlemen
said, that, notwithstanding what had been said by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was
sure the House would go along with him in saying that there
was nothing improper in the feeling which had brought
hint forward. (Hear, hear, hear.) Unless he had
been urged to it by his constituents, he would
never have brought before the House a question of that nature,
and he trusted that Hon. Gentleman would think that lie was
justified in speaking on behalf of certain firms in Liverpool.
He would say one word or two with regard to the time at-
Nvhich he had brought forward the question. The Right lion.
Gentleman, like many other persons who had disagreeable
things to encounter, was never pleased with the time which
was chosen for this discussion. If he (Mr. Cresswell) came
late in the session all imaginable objections were made ; he was
told that there was no money for him, and that he should not
have delayed his motion to so late a period. If he came early,
he was met with the objection that there was no money in the
Exchequer, and asked why be had come so soon. Now, he
thought the best plan was to bring it forward at an early period
cf the Session when he could expect a full House. At this
season of the year he would expect a large House, and lie
hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the
numbers on that occasion. He could not help remarking, in
reference to the speech of the Noble Lord, how
very prone they were to deal with that portion
of a Member's argument, which exactly coincided with
their own. The Noble Lord approved of that part of the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman which favoured his own case,
but he disapproved of the others, which opposed it. His (Mr.
Cresswell'e) opinion upon this subject was still that which he
had expressed when he first brought the subject before the
House. He, for one, could never understand that they had
any right to call upon Denmark to make compensation for the
book debts and the goads on shore. He never could under.
stand what pretence they had for such demands. Was there
any complaint against Denmark? Had she committed any
wrong against this country? Had we asked for redress fur
any wrong or injury which we had suffered? No. But, not-
withstanding that they hail no such complaints to make, they
had laid an embargo upon the ships of that country ; they had
seat out cruisers to capture her vessels wherever they could
find them ; they had sent out powerful armaments to slaughter
her subjects and to seize her fleet ; and they now said, that
because they had taken their book debts, they should continue
to suffer. This was not a case of war. He totally denied
that it was a case of war, and he hoped that this would never
be made a precedent for other cases ; that the country would
never be in the same straits again, and therefore would not
be induced to resort to similar practices. What was their own
statement to the Danes, at the time that this expedition was
undertaken ? What was the proclamation made? Why, that
they came to their shores not as enemies, but in the way of
self defence. Was there any war at that time ? Was it con-
sistent with the notion of a state of war? If it was a state of
war, and it took place according to the ordinary usages of na-
tions, why was that State paper put forward in 1837 to justify
these proeeedings ? Did the Government attempt to justify its
proceedings upon the ground of war? No such thing. He
trusted, therefore, that, under all the circumstances, the House
Would vote, as it had voted, for the compensation of the Dan-
ish claimants.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For
the Motion

Against it
Majority in favour of the Motion
The announcement was received with great cheering.
EXECUTION OF CRIMINALS.

Mr. RICH then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to
prohibit the public execution of criminals, and to provide for
their execution within the gaols in which they may no confined
before duly appointed authorities, and a limited number of
witnesses. The Hon. Member stated that he was actuated by
a desire to do away with what appeared to him to be a barba-
rous practice, and he proposed to keep clear of the abolition of
punishment of death, and the mitigation of our Criminal Code.
Hitherto all our public executions had partaken of the charac-
ter of public exhibitions, and nothing could lie more revolting
than the exhibition of torture, or at the same timemore useless,
This was proved by reference to our history. At the Restora-
tion the head of Charles 11. was not deemed to be seem e until
the embowelment of the regicides. In like manner, it was
supposed there could be no safety for the Hanoverian family
unless similar barbarities were inflicted upon the Jacobites.
At a later period it was thought there would be no safety for
husbands unless Catherine Hayes was burnt alive ; and, later
in 1713, women were dragged to execution in Smithfield
and burnt alive. All Hon. Gentlemen were ready to denounce
these barbarities, and to deplore the mistakes of our ancestors.
They could remember women being whipped in prison, and the
practice defended in that House. All this was now denounced,
and what was the inference? Was it not the fair inference that
that this gradual diminution had taken place, and this extreme
rigour been abandoned, because each successive generation
found the exhibition of terror was an erroneous practice,-erro-
neous not in degree but in principle. He might be told the
present system of executions was working well. What were
the facts? Who were the people that attended executions?
Where were the fathers who sent their children—the
masters who sent their apprentices ? (Cries of " Hier.")
What respectable person, who had witnessed an execntion, did
not think it necessary to snake some excuse for d3ing so?
But, perhaps, it would be said that the predominances of the
law was supported by the effect produced by public executions.
This was a curious argument, that the predominancy of the law
lay more in the exhibition of an execution than in the extreuse-
tion itself. Then who were the evil-disposed on
Wthothmat the
spectacles operated beneficially ? Was it not
worst
What of
were thievesthe
flogiar.th, and the
altivetirleeritthieesmenostthfirsesquuhejnetctarnTdaiLnftascliaetn.th6e,enni
tleman then quoted the works of Fielding!
executions. The Hon. Member next quote d
Rev. Mr. Cotton, to prove the demoralizindgfroerntietiitie(e)ivipublic
gate, who state that public
of Mr. Brown, the Keeper of New
executions could have no moral effect
oGnelootifce
tsht,emr,
tleman, who, in the course of thirty
years,;andialaldetattetrenfdroemd
taheGlears-t
amnodmieincthse of
tfe
rfifty.
Thatcriminals
ge n t
lienmtahne sgt
aateeids
that atß er set royl
had attended at least one public execution ; and most of them
had attended several. In the course of those thirty years, of
all the persons condemned to death, whom he had attended,
there were but three • who had not been present at
executions, and these three were respited. The effect
of example on the human mind was certainly very
great, but it was also very mysterious. The effect of execu-
tions, he had shown, was not to deter by example. On the
contrary, it seemed to invite to crime. The effects of
eimita-
tion were to lend to self-destruction and other crimes,
H
similar purpose,
she
re-
lated the case of a young woman, who, having been prevented
from-drowning herself, was taken afterwards to the spot where
another
shown w ore al r
In three weeks effectedad w
ea and the body
was
drowned her-
self in the same place, with the same kind of clothes
with the same amount of money upon her,
her pocket ,and with a simi-
lar bunch of flowers in her breast. The Hors. Gentleman
then related instances of parricide, and other crimes, having
been committed by persons
immediately after WitnessinFt the
execution of criminals for the
same. 4arrin gton, in his life f
_
utt
himself, said au exec •
o u was the most favourable occasion for