The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-01 00:00:00

fliørnin_Suiv4

LONDON, FRIDAY) MAY 1, 1846.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE presented a petition from the
authorities of the Foundling Hospital against the Charitable
Trusts' Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGT" Lord CAMPBELL, and severs]
other Noble Lords, presented petitions to a similar effect from
the governing bodies of several chanties.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition in favour of the B;

from Mr. HEN, 1' WALKER, who, he contended was in the
right, while the petitioners against it were in the wrong.
Lord BROUGHAM introduced a Bill to amend the Insolvent
Debtors' Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second reading of
the Religious Opinions Relief Bill. The Bill was for the re-
peal of many Acts imposing certain disabilities upon persons
on account of their religious belie. There could be no doubt
of the propriety Of repealing many of those laws which bad
become obsolete, and mtich inflicted punishments, and
penalties on persons en account of their religions belief.
There were some Acts which it was proposed to repeal, about
the propriety of repealing which there might be some
difference of opinion ; but those were matters which might
be discussed in Committee,, and therefore he trusted their
Lordships would consent to the second reading of the Bill.
Lord BBOTIGOA3f supported the second reading of the Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON would not oppose the second read-
ing of the Bill, but he thought many of its clauses ought to
be modified. •
Lord CAMOTS supported the Econd reading of the Bill, but
thought it did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not
repeal those statutes that prevented Catholics from presenting
to livings. He trusted the Noble Lord on the Woolsack
would take that question into his consideration, as he feir
confident there was co danger to be apprehended from tht
repeal of those statutes.

The Biahop Of RUT= portal th 4 4ac9ad lig 0

the Bill, but trusted that the suggestions of the Noble Baron
(CA3unTs) would tot be adopted by the Noble Lori on the
Woolsack. He thought the concessions mad -to the Roman
Catholics by the measure of 1829, and of th, present
ought to satiny them, lie belkyed if it was.al wed et Ihe
pre-ient (by that the Fupreinney of the Pope wa4 t) be
extolled, without penalty, the result would be another reli-
gious war.

Lord 131cArmon supported the second reading of the Bill.
Lord CoLet/ESTER supported the second reading of the Bill'
but trusted that some alteration would be made ip it in Com-
mittee.

Lord CAMPBELL cordially supported the Bill. He trusted
the Noble Lord en the Woolsack would introduce. without
delay, the other Bill, to make the present measure complete•
After some observations from the LORD CHANCELLOR in
reply,
The Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.
The House then adjourned.

The SPEAKER took the ask at Four o'clock.
Mr. E. LascELLEs took the oaths and his seat for the
borough of Ripon.
On the question for proceeding with the adjourned debate
on the question for the committal of Mr. S. O'BarEx,
Mr. E. B. 110 CHE trusted that Mr. S. O'BRIEN would be
allowed to appear at the bar and explain the course lie had
pursued and intended to adopt. The Honourable Mem-
ber concluded by moving that Mr. S. O'BRIEN he heard at
the bar.
Mr. O'CowNELL seconded the motion.
Mr. Hmmtx thought the request ought to be granted.
Mr. R. YORKE thought that the strict rule of the House
ought not to be relaxed.
Sir R. PEEL said that Mr. S3IiTH O'BRIEN having re-
fused to attend the order of the House must be considered
in contempt. If there was any precedent for the motion he
would at once accede to it.
The SPEAKER s there were no precedent for the motion.
Mr. E. B. Room bowed to the decision of the Chair, and
asked if Mr. %mu O'Bargx might not appear at th bar ?
The SPEAKER said there was no przeedeot tor such a
course, unless the Hon. Member appeared at the bar as a
criminal.

Mr. atlowcwrose Maus then moved that the debate
should be adjourned for six months, but finding the House
against him withdrew his motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, the motion for the committal of Mr. SMITH
O'BRIEN being agreed to without a division.
The SPEAKER was then ordered to issue his warrant for the
appnlension of the Hon. Member.
Mr. HAwES then rose to bring forward the subject of the
Danish Claims. After a few introductory observations, in
the course of which the Hon. Gentleman reminded the
Reuse that the rights of these claimants had been repeatedly
admitted by successive majorities of the House, he proceeded
tegivethehistory of the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807,an
expedition got up with the greatest secresy. The expedition
went not fur the purpose of hostile aggresion, but for the
purpose of enforcing negotiations. The fleet of Den-
mark was seized, and then Denmark made reprisals
by seizing British property. Great Britain made
reprisals and seized Danish property to nearly double the
amount of the property seized by the Danish Government.
Negotiations, however, ;still continued. On the 24th of
November the Danish Government declared war, and it was
not until the 24th of December that England declared war.
It had been contended on a former occasion that those de,
clarations had a retrospective operation, but looking at the
convention which had Ven made at the`time the seizure
of the Danish fleet took place, lie found that it
was agreed that private property should be respected ;
that convention must have been a farce until the
declaration of war, and theref re lie had a right.
to assume that all the seizures of property which
had been made in the interval had been made
as reprisals and not as prizes; and he was borne out in this
assumption by a declaratiop, which had been made
by Mr. CANNING at the time these transactions
took place. The claims had been of three kinds, Ist, those
for book debts, 2d, those for goods seized on shore, and 3d.
those for ships at sea and goods seized ou board. In 1835 and
1836, the first and second classes of claimants had their
claims settled. In 1838 the third class of claimants urged
their claims, on the ground that the Government had fund-
out of which to pay them, for the Government had seized
inure than sufficient Danish property to liquidate all
these claim.. In 1839 these claims were again brought for-
ward by that accomplished lawyer, Mr. Justice CRESSWELL
and although they were opposed by the Government of the
day, it was determined that the claims should
be inquited into, and adjudicated upon. A com-
mission was appointed, a judicial examination took
place, and elaims, amounting to 225,0011., were admitted.
This judicial report was again disregarded by the
Government, and in 1841, Mr. Cresswell again urged their
claims upon the attevtion of the Ilouso, and again the right.
of claimants were affirmed in opposition to the Government.
If these claims were to be resisted on technical grounds,
he had the authority of Mr. Justice Criesswcu,
f r saying that they had a right in law; but
it was not on such narrow grounds that such
a question should be argued. The expedition had
been organized secretly, for a great national object
which object had teen accomplished, and be would
elk if it was right that the merchant should be sacrificed.
when it was proved that the Government had seized mare
property than sufficient to liquidate their claims. The Govern-
ment could not have given these merchants and shipowners
proper notice, and when on this occasion shipowners and mer-
chants applied to , the Government authorities of the day
they were led to believe that they only ran the ordinary
sea risks in going to the Baltic. Under these
circumstances he thought the merchants had a pa=. feet right
to come to the Government and ask for a Committee atilt
House to investigate and settle these claims. The Hon.
Member concluded by moving for a Committee.
At the conclusion of Mr. HAWES'S speech the Sergeant-
at-Arms announced that he had taken Mr. S. O'BRIEN into
custody.
Mr. J. HANMEIt, who presented a petition from Hull in
favour of the claims, expressed a hope that the question
-smuld new receive a final decision. He thought that after
the strong expression of the opinion of Parliament which had
taken place already, the Government should have proposed a
grant for their liquidation. He understood that the distinc-
tion drawn between the first two classes of claimants whose
laims had been allowed, and those whose claims were at
present under consideration was this—that the claimants of
the first two classes could not have withdrawn,
but other claimants could have withdrawn. This
was exceedingly fallacious. Until the 2tl of September these
claimants could have no possible notice. The fact that a
warning had been issued on the 2d of September, was a
proof that be:time that date no warning had been given,
and he thought it would be well to draw a line between
those losses accruing from the loss of ships sailing before
September 2, and those sailing after. Lord Sennorrir had
said, that if they compensated the two first classes or
claimants, they ought to compensate all, and for there
reasons he should second the motion.
The Cruxes:Lunt of the Excireourc assured the House,
that it wss most paieful to him to have again to repeat those
arguments which he had so frequently stated as his reasons
for opposing these claims. It would be impolitic
't•.o grant them, and he considered that it was
most inconvenient to place the Crown in the invidious posi-
tion of refusing a grant recommended by the House of
Commons. His opposition to these claim had never ben of
a financial character, but it was an (*cabin upon principle,
lnd rested solely on the great principles of national law,
-,rhich had been frequently laid down by the highest legal
aiktgities aq-PleareT- then comeeireder discussion •
The former cl.iints were-granted, because they were excepted
rases from general internal international law, as was admirtet•
)v Sir James Mackintosh and all the high legal authorities
oho took part in that debate. Although be attached the
.ighest authority to the opinion of Mr. Justice CRESSWELL,
lid although he could have little doubt as to the result-
the question were to be argued before him, yet
he could not but recollect that Mr. CIIESSIVELL, at the time
ire brought forwari these claims, represented Liverpool, and
that his constituents were many of them interested in the re-
sult.. Tanlide
tdmectlarotat:i:fntohfeswearcabpyturDeesnwlneraerkWns.
made iunnAtuilAaruitSet;
chizutnryn
tbat Period. If they once laid down the principle that this
wnaosticboe urnrctimitocizakurne good losses when merclnnts
~tirn,ent of the probability of hos-
ts burden upon the nation as
for in defence of our na-
tilities, they would im
The Hon. Mhnboernce__llull admitted that
might prevent us fn goine, 1
awreptember 10, 1807,
tional rights. T
would iodic,
!hose whose cl,imscornacp•c4runsaedinsiii
the number of claimants f:
bad no right to
um that
down such a difference of opinion was sufficient to to 10.
Creme difficulty of the subject. The Right Hon. prove the ex-
then allotted to the minutes of 1834, A"ntlema‘i
of Lord
_LTIIOItrE,
which, as he contended,
expressly declared that • • made according to the law of
nations, did tarnive.
!tame categ,ry as book debts and' not come in th,,;
property captured on shore.
International law always rex .e
cte
but never property afloat. The
ereto the property or. Khoo,
was p operty afloat property under con-
it was said this
property was seized as reprisals.
wh t
either restored to the owners, or in-lode
prizes
reprisals are
the result of negotiatiens. If they resulted' in peace,
to
I
reprisals were restored; if they resulted in war,
they were
the
declared prizes, but never before had any merchants
situated thought of coming to the linnzits ;t
-ompensation, end he warned the House Cf the extrem:
anger of setting such a precedent as was sought to be set in.
Lhe present instance. It was only the danger he feresaw that
must arise from the granting these claims that had induced
him to oppose the granting them on so many occasions.
Mr. WATSON trusted he should be able to show the Howe
that these claims must succeed in point of law, because they
were reprisals made before any declaration of war. A fleet
ailed secretly for Copenhagen. The trade continued with
the Baltic ; and when the merchnata asked the Admiral in
the Baltic if they might safely continue their trade, they
were told they might. The proclamation of the
Admiral issued to the Dares in August declared ex-
pressly we came not as enemies. The fleet was captured
and there was no declaration of war until November. The
Danish declaration of August 16 was not a declaration of
war, and 1p stated this on the authority of Lord STOWELL,
who had determined that there was no declaration of war
until the 4th of November, in a case which came on for trial
in the Admiralty Court, and on that ground decided on that
a capture made before that date was a droit of the Crown,
and not of the Admiralty. Then with regard to grounds of
public policy. Was it politic to stop all trade with any
nation, whenever there should arise the slightest proba-
bility of a rapture? Certainly not. There was no diffe-
rence between goods afloat and goods ashore; the dis-
tinction was—were they captures or reprisals? This was a
simple debt due from the Treasury to the claimants, which
ought to be liquidated. Now, with regard to the opinion of
34. Justice CRE.sSWELL, he would ask, was it probable that
he would risk his character aS a lawyer, or misstate the law,
hecause he was Member for Liverpool. Neither the Attorney
nor the Solicitor-General were present to-night, because t hey
'tad both formerly voted in favour of the motion, so that he
oul the authority of the law officers uf the Crown In favour
,1 these claims, and in answer to Sir f. WILDS, Mr. CRESS-
4'ELL had quoted VATTEL and GROTIUS, who both expressly
declare that a cation ie betmd to make compeneatiea for re-