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

cumstances, it should be put upon some great and intel-
ligible ground, such as could not be mistaken on future
occasions. Now what was the pecularity here ? His
friend's said that they were taken by stirprise—that no
notice had been given of hostility to enable them to
escape—was that the peculiarity ? How often would it
happen? He hoped never to see such days as that,
but if the experience of the past was mat-
ter of caution for the future, looking at the
course of events what answer, he would ask, could they
give to the numerous claims which stood upon the same
foundation ? He denied that they had not sufficient
notice, and even if they had- not, if it was said that
the abSence of notice furnished a ground for compensa-
tion, then he said that the present case was peculiar for
absence of any such ground. But he asserted that the
parties had as much notice as was necessary. It was
stated in the course of the debate that an individual of
the name of Harrison had applied to Admiral Gam-
bier to know if he might safely go to the Baltic. It was
said that the Admiral told him he might go. This
might be the case, but the supposed conversation was
given thirty years after the period referred to. But
let them mark what followed. That individual wrote
home to England to obtain an insurance. What did that
writing home for an insurance show ? Did it show that
he might remain there without fear of war ? Certainly
not. The merchants who traded to the Baltic were a
very adventurous set of men—they chose to speculate—
they stayed to load their cargoes, but they stayed too
long. The British fleet was detained for a time to put
the Danish fleet in a state to come to England. Why
did not the vessels come away with the fleet ? It was
argued that the British fleet did not leave sufficient pro-
tection for the vessels in the Sound. That would be no
groinuf for compensation. A large fleet such as that
was must have been some time preparing to sail. Could
those in the Balticbe ignorant that such a fleet was about
to depart or had already departed ? Decidedly not. If
they chose to remain they did so at their own risk, as
they did for their own profit. That, then, would form
no ground on which to sustain these claims. Something
had been said about a conversation which took place
at the Admiralty. Would that House say that on the
ground of a conversation said to be held at the Admi-
ralty, about which nothing certain existed, they should
vote away a large sum of money ? That was certainly
too futile a ground to be upheld. No application on the
subject existed in writing. It was asked if they had
thought it fit to take the fleet, why did they give any
compensation at all ? Compensation was given in the
former cases, because it was intended at the time the fleet
was taken to return it in perfect safety. When the
Danes refused to surrender their fleet, and assumed a
hostile attitude, we were obliged to consider them as
enemies, and the ships were therefore taken in state of
of warfare. It was to the Danish captains that compen-
sation was given for their private expenses and freightage.
It could not for a moment be contended that the property
seized by the British Government from its enemies
should be applied to the payments of the losses of pri-
vate individuals. He regretted the loss these parties
had sustained in the pursuit of their commercial specu-
lations ; but there must be some broad and intelligible
' ground on which such an application should be made.
The Spanish case had been referred to as forminc, a pre-
cedent, but lie denied that there was any analogy be-
tween these cases. Before the House granted the pre-
sent application they would do well to consider what was
the precedent which they were about to lay down; and he
was satisfied that on every principle of justice and ho-
nesty the parties now before the House had no claim
whatever upon the public funds.—(Cries of " Hear.")
Mr. A. CHAPMAN contended that the Government
was bound to remunerate these parties for the losses
they had sustained, because, when application was
made to them, they stated that there need be no appre-
hension whatever, and, acting upon that advice, one of
his constituents, with his family, had been entirely
4• He eoutended that these claims stood upon pre-
-gine footing as the book debts and the goods
He himself had sent out a ship which
-‘enhagen, but it had been after-
-ved up to him by Admiral
e4overnment would see
- withholding the

mine—

cisely the ;,

seized on shore.

had been seized at Co,

wards re-taken and
Gambier. He trusted that the

the justice and expediency of no longe.
settlement of these claims.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, at
House divided, when there appeared—

For bringing up the Report
Against it
Majority
SUPPLY.

64
-11

The Report on the Committee of Supply was brought
up, and the resolutions agreed to.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Committee on the
Bribery at Elections Bill stood upon the Orders of the
Day, and he wished to state what his feelings were with
regard to that Bill. If he could expect to obtain the
attention of the House, the present was a period at which
it would be most important to carry it. He owned he
very much feared that having to go through the whole
of the clauses, they would not be able to give it that
attention at the present advanced period of the Session
which it required. These were his feelings ; but if it
was the wish of the House he should have no objection
to proceed with it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had voted for tho second read-
ing of the Bill, because he was most anxious that the
law with regard to bribery and treating should be pro-
perly defined. Many parties innocently offended against
the law because they did not know what bribery and
treating was. On the whole, however important as the
Bill was at the present moment, he thought it would be
a great misfortune to pass it in a hurried manner. On
the whole he was inclined to think that, considering but
a few days would elapse before the House was dissoved,
tFe Noble Lord had exercised a sound discretion in not
attempting to pass ity and he had no objection to share
in the responsibility.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

On the question that the Municipal Corporations Bill
be read a third time,

Mr. CRESSWEII opposed the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. MACKINNON and Sir J.
Y. BULLER,

The House divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading 54
Against it 9
Majority
On the motion that the House go into Committee on