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

EVENING EDITION.

subjects to the, subjects-of. this _coun try,,.and which
_bad
been confiscated iii consequende of the events- to
I. he had alluded. Subsequently there was a cuinpensation
for goods on shore, which had been seized by the Da-
nish Government A discussion took 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 confiscakd
contrary to the law of nations, and that where the Go-
vernment did not enforce redress, they were hound 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 hid been laid down
and acted upon, was that if the subjects of one
country did not think it right 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 anplica-
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 tha% .
the two countries were at war ; and then
gave orders for the seizure and detention en
British property. - Now, as very much 3:aid been •
of
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 ul. t4lmately seized by the
Danish Government, and for
claimed, he wished to impr '-enich compensation was
iss upon the House -the cir-
cumstances which occu'eed at this date, the 16th, long be-
fore the seizure of -
ale property. A proclamation was
issued by the P- :
anis., Government stating that the two
countries,
nre at war at the same date. Admiral Gam-
bier put;ished a document explaining the objects of the 4
exintition, and seeking the
.possession of the Danish
Peet, and threatening capture in case of refusal. On the _144;
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 was.. •
Now in the course of the discussion which had taktis
place on this subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had protested egainst 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 or. the 25th.
In the month of September }mere were five. The who
of the remainder were seized at'a laterperiod, extent'
ins. to September,
October and Y.ovember, and:l3
claim to which_ he had referred 'inbracecl the whole of
tA~}apte:ees down to the MOD tIA. of Dececmber. Now what.
ee ground upon wbiel the House was justified in
ie
„aposing a burthen exceeding a quarter of a million on
the public in respect of these captures? However mutih
it might be lamented that public events should in.
Iflict loss upon individuals, it was not a receive-a prin-
ciple that taxes should be imposed, and that compensa-
I 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 *hese vessels
had been seized according to the laws of war as ob-
served amongst civilized nations, what was the ground
upon which the House 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 vete the public money. First of all
it had been stated that these individuals had a claim to
compensation, because they had no notice of the inten-
tion of t'nis country to commence hostilities with Den-
'Mee ; 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
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 seFrFt
article could be known, the Government thought it right
to save this country from the dangerous position in whiul
it would be placed by the execution of that secret article
ve
of the Treaty, by sending to Denmark and seizing the
fleet. If, said the lion. and Learned Gentleman, aak
man possessed an instrument capable ofdestroyinug.eyako u,maanad
a strong man, your enemy, had induced the
to lend him that instrument, and you knew t beforehand,
who would hesitate to wrest the weapon rn his hand ?
It was not possible to discuss such a questiont on narrow
the
propriety
or impropriety of that war had anythingn to decide on
claims for compensation by looking ot to do with the
grounds. But he did not apprehend that
legal part of the question. They
of the justice or the injustice of the war. That ques-
tion was to be decided on other principles. He knew
the seizure of the Danish
wereb
ak to the history'
c
that some persons considered
if they should kyle
unfortunate result for the couny
in the opinion of a
down as a principle that becauseunity
hostilities were linjus-
fleet An act of great aggression, but it would be a most
certain portion of the comm
btiefiabelnet,itlethdat parties thus . situated.Atould
on. Allusion had :brtet.i.
made to a conversation stated to have taken.place
I GambierTand certain persons interested
tween Admire
the time the fleet were in the Baltic.
in these claims at
It had been stated that two persons asked the Admiral
tothecroe
if they might notsafely go up
mfbpreensa
the Baltic, and that the
Admiral had told them they might. Now that con-
sation had been brought forward thirty years after it
:eras 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. He would therefore
previous motion, nor the
say that neither the recent nor prei
justice or injustice of the war, formeda a
nground
The
granting compensation in the present instance.__
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
in
those who were there were not in a situation 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 theka,
4‘Tha
very fact of its leaving the .Baltic was too notorious fOr
such a state of things and the state of afairi
- 2-4 2./
dfootrt,

.

*.,,T