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

persevering opposition of himself and - his pre-
decessor to the wish of the House.—:(rlcar, hmr.)
Therefore I thought I was justified—nay, Sir, I
think I was bound in justice to those on whose
behalf I have undertaken this question, thinAitig theca
justly entitled to the compensation which ;ley
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 iulehalf
of these unfortunate sufferers. And I citiitiqt help
thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman has not bred
quite correct in his solution of the case of. Mr. Palmer. He
was well aware I should rely upon 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 Parliament—that funds were already
at his disposal by Act ofParliament, 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 1 will endeavour
to meet the arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General, and if 1 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 (sot 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 bren 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 bad recounted
nothing new ; not one single argument, nothing in fact
was added except one or two dttes, 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 ISth
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 British forces before Copenhagen; and let us see what
was stated by the Connnander of our • own Forces
as to there being war or not, because the whole
case has been rested by my Hon. and Learned Friend.
upon the fact of these ships and vessels being seized.
What was the proclamation issued by the Commander
of the British Forces on August 16, the very-date given by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General)?
I think they then said that they earnest° the lianish
shores no: us 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, wss 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 Yes-
. sels had disclaimed being at war in August, 1807 ; what
was said? Why. that because of the acts against the Danish
property theßri tish nation were bound to compensate them .
So justly was that felt by the British Government that in
September it was thought necessary to iSsne aState 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 respell*, 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 compenstion.
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 the 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 mule 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 Hon.- and
Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) asked me for
my proofs. I have had recourse to two or three authorities
on the subject, which I mentioned on a former occasion.
I beg the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's attention to the
Third Book of Grotius, Dc Jure Belli. and the Second
Book of Vette], chapter 18. I thee find the following
passage :—.'.Those who have given occasionfor reprisals
.
are bound to grant compensation to those who have sus
fered by them." (The Hon. timl Learned Gentleman
then quoted a passage from Groans- to the effect that "it
el
was the duty of a State to compensate those on
whom
reprisals had fallen.") I think that those passag'ls
that as the seizure of the Danish property "lisl
lf
opposed to the laws of nations. they being a friendly
Tower, and they not hal he• denied
retuseu com-
done us any wrong, for which thq ha.
ds think
pensation, when we seized on their
go(1)se; on that under these circumstances us any. right,, or
we are to
on
p
of the war.
our-
selves the responsibility of
the
cwiseqsulon
they
been de-
. If, under these circumstances, coulee'',
sa)lot surrender tl
that they had been
waws.oub°-eae not liable fOr the
amtataendkededfrnolienretll7bDeaeanuess,ethtieleyywould
bombarded, and the
eairtniizaemnsenstlsa,ugthhteeirer
things. There is but
consequences of such a state
advert. The Hon. and
one other topic to which I shall
Right Hon. the Ch
slaughtered, theyofsi
Learned Gentleman, and the _ • ancel-
tees of the public purse.
had been in dispute lor of the Exchequer, had slat,rieduss,tthtifiltuetnytdheN?ly,--ewriHr;eea-btrhue,t terr.what-)
had they done with the
Lordin my
as
eCphi 11111071 I odri,d
mexpres-
siongreat efnelLol
frrdemßhiromugh:n,
o
be-
tween parties ttorney-
General stated upon the occasion that the money was
d that there was no use in entering into a gone, an A lame
i.th
the name
nelforin,er3o,
hicwh
dis-
cussion on the subject. " But," said Lord Brougham,
a is the 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 mad 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.respoz-
bibility, and it rests with it to rescind or abide by the
decision it has on so many occagom ski cow to