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

MORNING- EDITION.

persevering opposition of himself , and his pre-
decessor to the wish of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Therefore I thought I was justified—nay, Sir, I
think I was bound in justice to those on whew
behalf I have undertaken this question, thinking them
justly entitled to the compensation which they ask—
I considered that I was bound to bring it before-this
House in every shape which the form of the House
made legitimate for the purpose of following out that
successful motion which I made four years ago in behalf
of these unfortunate sufferers. And I cannot help
thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman has not been
quite correct in his solution of the case of Mr. Palmer. He
was well aware I should relyupon Mr. Palmer's case as a
precedent. Undoubtedly, before I troubled the House,
I was bound to look for some precedent, and I
found one in. • the • case of Mr. Palmer ; in that
case- I found an address to the Prince Regent
praying his Royal - Highness to direct certain sums
to be paid which the House pledged itself to make
good. The Right Honourable Gentleman says that
that is no precedent, because the Prince Regent had the
power by Act of Parliamentthat funds were, already
at his disposal by Act ofTarliament, and he was authorised
to pay the money out of the Post-office revenue. If so,
how came his Royal Highness's advisers to bring
back this answer,—that they would order the
money to be paid when funds existed?—(Hear, hear.)
I think Mr. Palmer's case does present a prece-
dent for this, but whether it does or not, I
shall certainly persevere in my motion and divide
the House, in order that I may have a decla-
ration on the part of this House, whether they
do or do not coincide in the propriety of
making compensation. And now I will endeavour
to meet the arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General, and if I had. heard them
for the first time last night —if that had
been the first occasion of this matter being
brought before the House, when my Hon. and Learned
Friend got up and told me that he thought I
was under some misapprehension, that I had mis-
conceived the facts in reference to this subject,
and had drawn false conclusions from the premises that
I had advanced, I should have been very apt to suppose
that I was in some error, if the matter had
not been fully discussed on three several oc-
casions. In listening to my Honourable Friend
afterwards, I found that he had been extremely
diligent in reading what had passed on former occasions,
and put all the scattered fragments of argument into
.a
connected form last night; yet, in truth, he had recounted
nothing new ; not one single argument, nothing in fact
was added except one or two dates, and as I think the
Hon. Member for Bridport laid some stress upon those
dates, I beg his attention to one or two, which were
not mentioned by the Solicitor -General. On the 27th
July, as stated by my Hon. and Learned Friend
the expedition sailed. At that time an embargo had
been laid upon all Danish vessels. Danish
vessels were afterwards seized and brought in. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman has stated that on the 16th
of August a proclamation was issued by the Danish Go-
vernment stating that they considered hostilities had then
commenced. Now I beg to draw the attention of the House
to a proclamation which was issued by the Commander Of
the Ilritish forces before Copenhagen; and let us see what
was stated by the Commander of our own Forces
as to there being war or not, because the whole.
case has been rested by my Hon. and Learned Fsretnedd..
upon the fact of these ships and vessels being What was the proclamation issued by thit'eommander
of the British Forces on August 16, the-Wry date given by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General)?
I thirill they then 'said that they came to the i)anish
shores no; as enemies—" We come to your shores,
inhabitants of Zealand, not as enemies, but in
.self:-
defence, to prevent those who have so long de-
stroyed the peace of Europe--to prevent you,
from turning the course of your navy against
us."—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
had said that if a weak man, having a deadly weapon in
his hand, met with a strong man, and upon his
attacking him, and his using that weapon, it was
wrested from him, was it to be said that he
was to be entitled to compensation ?—(Hear.) I should
say yes. What right, I would ask, have we to take,
Danish vessels without giving compensation to them ?
I have shown that the commanders of the British ves-
sels had disclaimed being at war in August, 1807 ; what
was said? Why. that because of the acts against the Danish
property theßritish nation were bound to compensate there,
6o justly was that felt by the British Government that in
Septeniber it was thought necessary to issue a State paper
in order to justify the proceedings of the Government.
So the matter rested ; but before that what took place on
the 7th of September ? The Honourable and Learned
Gentleman said these parties were very incau-
tious after these proceedings in sailing up the
Baltic ; but on the 7th September, when the
stipulation of Copenhagen was sanctioned, it WAS
stipulated that all hostile acts should cease, and that
nothing like war took place 'till November. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said this doctrine was
new in the House—that heretofore it had been conceded
that there was war at that time. Now, for my own part,
I may say that I have never conceded any such
thing, for on the very first occasion on
which I brought this question before the House
I said that there was no war. In war we might give other
nations the opportunity of making reprisals, but those
things became debts of the State,and ought to be paid by it.
But when it was a case of State necessity it became
much more important. My Honourable and Learned.
Friend has quoted the opinion of Sir James Macintosh,
an opinion always entitled to great respect, which
Was given in this House, that the parties who had
goods or debts that were confiscated were entitled to
compensation on this principle,. that if the subjects of this
country were injured in a_Foreign State by seizure of
their property, if the Government did not obtain re-
dress, the Government were bound to make compensation.
Now, Sir, that may be very true, but I do not find
that principle was ever enunciated in this House
till it was used by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, when that office was filled by Lord
Monteagle. It was a very convenient argument, in-
deed, for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the princi-
ple was first made use of by Lord Monteagle, as Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, in 1834. It is a principle
which was never held by Lord Althorp ; nor was it ever
mentioned till introdUced in debate to answer the
claims with respect to the seizure of goods and ships, •
which was brought before this House. When an
Hon. Gentleman tie guardian of the public purse gets
up and says that this act was done during the war,' I
say, grant that we were at war, still we are
entitled to have our claims attended to; and
if there was no war, we are also entitled to be pro-
tected against such a seizure. I say the principle was
never acknowledged by the Government until it suited
the purposes of Government, in _ order to defeat
the claims advanced. -But we have several in-
stances which were treated of by the Hon. and
Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, when an ap-
plication was made with respect to the state of
affairs in the Baltic after the attack on
Copenhagen. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the
Solicitor-General) said that those applications were made
to the Admiral who is dead, and therefore that no informa-
tion could be obtained on the matter. But one of those ap-
plications referred to by the Right Honourable and
Learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Ham-
lets was made to the Admiralty, and not to the Admiral
I believe that the insurances were made in order that
the dock-yards might be supplied with the produce of
the countries bordering on the -Baltic.—(Hear,
hear.) The Government at the time encouraged
seamen to go up the Baltic, in order to bring home goods.
It was said there was extreme imprudence in going up the
Baltic at the period alluded to. What imprudence could
there be in so doing ? Those who sailed there had in-
formation to the effect that all hostilities had ceased—
that they might go in perfect safety. The lion. and
Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) asked me for
my proofs. I have had recourse to two or three authorities
bn the subject, which I mentioned on a former occasion.
I beg the lion, and Learned Gentleman's attention to the
Third Book of Grotius, De Jure Belli, and the Second
Book of Vette], chapter 18. I there find the following
passage Those who have given occasion for reprisals
are bound to grant compensation to those who have suf-
fered by them." (The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
,
then quoted a pwhom
assage from Grotius to the effect that
was the duty of a State to compensate those on .10
reprisals had fallen.") I think that those passages.
w
that as the seizure of the Danish property
was
in itself
friendly
opposed to the laws of nations, they being
arney.o t or
Power, and they not having denied us
done us any wrong, for which they had
goods't sect.l think
com-
pensation, when we seized on their
that under ntdheer
rtehseposencsiircbilitutnysotafntehees
had been de-
If, under these circumstances, compensa
attacked merely because they would not
and their
armaments, their capital was bombarded,
not liable for the
mended from the Danes, they would say tthhaestntrhree3n-
surrender
rd
theirbeen
were
citizens slaughtered, and they
consequencesNvwe
areteli eof upont
e -ear;
, consequences of such a state of t There is but
one other topic to which I shall advert. The Hon. and
iLoerarnofetdheGEenxtelheemciaune,r,anhdadthsae
y were ; but whet
id
tees of the public purse. Yes' fund ?—(Hear, hear.)
Righti
thatle they Hon. theere Cthheantrucels:
had they done with the
Lord Chancellor, an expres-
sion
fell from him which, in my
had been in dispute b
honour. A large sum
nthenattetrhineg minotoneya
of
Inoforn.fei:mtbeck. The Attorne3e tween parties of the name
trust
General statedhat upon the
was
gone, and t
'On on the subject. " But," said Lord Brougham,
twheaseenocasusieeni
dis-
eautsestshe money is gone, it is not gone according to law.
It ought to be here to abide the result of the suit ; and
I will not allow you to put that in argument." I, too,
say, that when there was a trust fund, it should be
used for the purpose of that trust. On the last oc-
casion when I had the honour of submitting the
subject for the consideration of the House, I read to the
House a letter placed in my hands by my friend Mr.
Wilberforce. On a former occasion, when a discussion
had come on in the House respecting the detention of
the Danish vessels, and the claims of our subjects, Mr.
Wilberforce had voted with the Government, and in
favour of the detention of the vessels. A remonstrance,
however, had been addressed to him upon the subject,
and he had then stated that he had acted with great re-
luctance, but he could not resist the argument that
those vessels would constitute a trust fund for the
purpose of making compensation to those among our
own subjects whose property might have been seized
by the Danes. I say, therefore, that was a trust
fund ; and though it had become a trust fund
some thirty years ago, and was not applied to the pur-
pose to which it ought to be applied, that forms no ar-
gument against the claimants, and they have not by
their neglect, or by a want of due notice, lost their title.
I trust, then, the House will sanction the motion to
which I have called its attention. Whether the House
adopts or rejects this motion, I have done my duty.
The House will make its decision upon its own respon-
ibility, and it reap with it to rescind or abide by the
decision it 11114 on so many occasions afready (vine to