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

Government nn account of these claimants ; and, therefore, it
was ;imply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons 50
claimieg. But perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer dote
not wish to part with the money from the c, ffers of the Trea-
sury. Now. Sir, with re=peat to the other poiet—the question
of international law. Ido not boast myself of a very perfect
knowledge of the law, but I -have looked at the °pinkies of
those lawyer, who have considered the question, and they
have come to the conrethion that the parties are entitled to the
consprnsetion which they seek, as the capture of their ships wail
not a capture in war. There is not a better !awyer than Mr..
Justice Cresswell. and ill is not at all likely that he would corn.
promise his legal knowledge on this !object Lecause he wall
the Member for Liverpool.—(Hear, hear.) But there
are two great parties whem I have not the honour
to see in their places at this moment-.-I mean
the Attorney and Solicitor General.—because, if I have stated
anything erroneous in point of law, they would no doubt have
collected me.--(Cries of " Why are they not here?") I will
tell you why they are not here. Both the. Attorney and the
Selicitor Generals voted for this m tion on a previous occasion,
but have I not. the opinions of Mr. Justice Cresseell, one of the
most acute and just: lawyers in England? I say it is not likely
that he weuln warp his legt'l judgment on the matter ; and if
the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General were here I ato
sure they w old net dispute the law. teeeuee they have voted
fer the motion. The Hon. Member for Worcester (sir T.
' Wilde, who voted against the melon) challenged Mr. Justice
Crrssw. 11 to pro,luce any authorities in flavour of his view, and
on ,he next nietit, the lOth of June, he did produce two au-
thorities, and said, in the course of his address, " I have been
clean-need that there is no autherity on the subject ;" and he
then read an extract tram Vattel, which stated. " those who
hAv,b; reprisals lost their property, are b iund to get compen-
sation for their hisses." In Grieue' Special Jury Cases it is
stated, " it- is the duty of the state to Rive
compensation to those on whom reprisals have fallen.
He say s, " But hef re she declares war"—l now beg the at-
'tuition of the House to this—'t Before she declares war, of
which we shall treat—ira the f !lowing book al there are various
methods practiced eyi:yeg nations " He says, "He seizes on
some property if he,. an opportunity, and declares it seized
until tie has give:, lei* sufficient satisfaction." Then he says,
Ile takes possesslon of what belongs to a either and keep it
utit•l payment ;or he detains it as a pledge." Then be sari
" The effects seized upon are preserved while there is any
hope ot obtaining satis action or justice, but so soen as that
hope ii. ppeirs they are confiscated, and the le priaaie are then
complete." Now ran any lung be more clean than that? For
the purpose of satistaction they seize, arid when all hope of
satisfaction disappears the reprisals are complete and the geo(l6
are disposed of. " Thu Is the lest remaining effort previous to
the c numeneement of open hostilities ; then, indeed. is the
Sovereign to compensate his subject on whom repriaals shall
have fallen " I say that Pelliatnent and the monarch of Great
Britain ought to conipensete those en whom rep• isals fell by
the Danish trarisaecion4 of 181.7. 't. It is the duty of this state
or the nation to make this t!oo,l, litteau, each eit,zen ought
only to pay his tiunt I." The Honourable Gentle.
man the Seeretary fir the Treasury is well versed
in law, arid perhaps he will point nut how,
seeing *hat vier was me declared until the 4 h of November,
the s IZU es were captures of war, and not merely reprisals..
There wis a .nest extraordinary argument used here on a
fan nor ()erasion. upon the de: ision of Lied Stowell upon the
seizure of priperty in Demerara, and the elaili that was made
by persons, calling themselves British subject., fur restitution
of their property. - -These individuals were first British sub-
jecte, then Dutch suhj res. and afterwards British subjects
again; and Lord Stowell ileeteed that, as the parties were
Dutch subjects at the time o' the seizure, they had no loos
stand' in the ceurts of law of his country, to iileain restitution...
Lord Stowell said that the question mainly depended on
w hither the property was taken before or after the declaration
of war. N. Sir, I say that this question originate oil the
ground of public pulley, public justice, and international law ;
and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons in-
juied were entitled to compensation, on the part of thous_
who had caused the inquiry. lam sorry I have troubled the
House so long on the s.uhji ct, but it appears to me that justice
rcqeires that the law should be justly and fairly put in practice
on this occasion.

Mr. CARDWELL—On no occasion should I have pree
surned to enter the hart with my Hen. Friend opposite, for the
purpose of attempthig to sancta to an argument of a legal cha-
racter; but on the ere sent ecca,iori I shall not shrink from the
task, and I will endeavour to give a legal argument, which fne
the first time since the cemmencen.ent of this diseussions
has ever been submitted to the Heuse. It will appear remark-
able to those not familiar prefetaianally with legal aubjeet4,that
ith all the acumen of Sir James Alackintosh, rind alt ; he Crown
Lawyers that then hi Id office ueder her Uajesiy, it has been
reserved for to-night to brine forward a legal argument againit •
the subject on which 1 feel it my duty now to speak.
For the . sake of the parties who sustained Herat.
strong from the expedition to Copenhagen in ISA', this case
was ratted by .ur James Mackintosh, and he stated that if any
portion of those goods e ere taken by Denmark in centraven-
tbm of the establisheit lain of 'wines, it became our imperial
duty to vinilteate that Lew en the part of the suljeets who were
injured; an if tor airy reason whatever ne felled in ditehur
Mg that • ut,, it became our duty to compensate the subjects
who sta., ed by our rowing to discharge that duty. This was
when the Danish claims were first raised. and Sir James Mac-
kititesh and these who were etigagett with him in their former
Atteurptt, took care to have nothing to do with the
Fart of the claims now the subject of diseussien. The,
felt that it was necessary, resting on that greund, carefully
to eistinguith between those eitims which advocated coulee°.
satire' for pro; erry in shere. and bake, deb's, and those clairni
en trehaS of Fsh •es acid reit, becaute they felt that in such 11,
position there wa onert ply which coal be made, it ships; an.'
cargoes were ackn••wledgeir to stand tin the tam? tooting at the
property oft shore. Wt y ,id the Hon. Gentleman opposite
osek to bring that case w thi the law of nazi tlas, when the real
ground on a hieh it rested was weether the reprisals were man°
before or after the declaration or war? What. follows has re
latien to the subject of reprisals. The Hon. Gentleman bat'
greeeeee his eriseiiin on a point of law, on which it is never
nary that the legal argument should he clearly understood 111
etch of us. The meseing of the words reprisals and capture°
vie tr rot to be used in the ordinary and popular 'elite, but ill
as • and legal eine,. Now, the Hee. Nlienber had taken th!,
ry arid e tiler meatnne of ere, isalt. and continued
e, :Loy ene h gall, as the female ion of Iris areu•nent. He
hat laid down tht;di•unvtiott in the eeurte of his addre St a"-
“1/ that censtructem entire. ds, teat if captures took place be.
I ire the declarari in of war, the, are to be censitiered repriee%
and cote, esatee 4 ith giant def slice to the Hon. 6' nil
nein I ust eay, Ido cot aeree with him in his I gal define'
; arid tia that gro nd consider they are not entitled to
coirrpensarion. Reprisalt between nation and nation are
al owed in order to en the them to do justice to each otherj
iir matters where they' consider themselves itiggrreved,
when they have n r other means at redressing themselves.
a nation re totes rel° justice to another, then the latter, accord
ins to tire law of ea' iotet, Hight seize the .hips of the fouler'
and keep them eri pledge till justice is done them ; or if thl
fail to de so, then the capturing parts mr) keep the ships ite,
property seized, arid dee' :re them to ceetisca•cd.—( Heart/
Iran open rut ore in e ns pence take' place, and war ewe':
then are th j ifie at ireee in terefitea r.g all hat has bee',
itrevieusly siezed. Tnt. ts the distinction between reproo°
and captures. Thu •. if a capture takes plane, and no warfare
arises between the countries in conseqee c•-. then it the GP;
verninew hound to !aka the claim of the injured parties twee
consider a t her, and to grant c impensation.— (Cries 1'
Hear, hear.) But when a re el ratiou of war tal,
0
plates, the retro-active etlec is, that cantata_
fall under the orthnary, rules of wa , and are not entitled
compeleation. The Hon. Gentleman says there was no de'
claration of war; but it has been read this evereng, and is dir
tinet enough. It declares on the vart of the Danish Goselli
m uponint that war is actuaila broke out, aid calls all faith (°i
subjects to come forware arel take such steps as are best ,
w
lated to repel hostile attacks. Ths declaration of war is °l4l,
Ciotti'. enough, whatever may have been the acts of Denials'',
before the period ef its beteg issued ; and this declaration v""
issued on the Nth of Aueust, 18117. Well, but the
Member says that the fira declaration of war on the part
England was made on the 4th or Neveerber, leo7 ; and beret
I think, my Hon, anti Learned Friend has conf •uuded two cir:,
cutnttanees. A declaration of war, accorritne to the prac';'"
of this country, is an act hastility, anal believe that no "eci
claration of war, according to the tense of my Hon. °ha
Learned Friend, had been issued at the very time whet,
eilt
was on his way to take part in the battle of Waterloo. '
was the object contemplated by the erochimation of 'the 4th a?
November, to which the Hon. Member has made reterent,ieor
" That was not a proclamation of war, but a proclamation
eild
the distribution of prizes ; and before such proclamation 4
been issued such prizes became ['rotes to the Admiralty' "lea
were carried to account of the Coesolidated Fund. • As bet°.
England, therefore, and Denmark, the bombardm nt of Celle:,
hirgen was the declaration of war; as between the Govere,
m ne of F:nglaill and the captors of prizes. I believe that :et'
them only had the proclamation of the 4th of Novelly,'
reference; and I am astonished that my Hoenurable an.ll
'Learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord St°°eoe
in support of his position. What this IS, is a simple etv'tite)
between the Government of Great Britain and i, s sulks d,
net between the Governments of England and Denmark. !Poe
therefore. not bearing on there Danish claimants. I do not kl'oe
whether I have succeeded in fixing the attention of the He o
to the core:ll39ton I would seek to establish. I conseter:b
my Hon. and Learned Friend has, in some degree, 000,...wat
the question as between the Imperial Government of Gr
id
Britain Britain and the subjects of (hen Britain making captureet. ,
the Governments of Great Britain and of Denmark. °blab
think, is the complete answer to the legal argun•entt %lvel
me Hon. and Learned Friend has for the first time sub' of
to the House; an argument wetter has eseaoed the atteutiontic,
Sir James Mackintosh, which has not cou.e under the lied by
of Mr. Justice Crestwell, and which has not been observf ter
any of the Host. Members who have introduced this 0064
before the House. Having taken up PO much trine in rebut ter
this argument. I will procrni;indd.,fivettrhishortly to notice the r,)
argurneuts of my Hon. and Leaned Friend.—( Hear, beetle
illy fieneuratee Friend says, that gentlemen
taken n- a a
riiidecLu,l peculiar
Learned
dieiti
re:"
tnheicstqedup,wtinitnh.
Ith:,,,u6idovree•
her, ilea Lord Althorp had the subjere under his cent!
ear
tion. These claims were breught forward for the first to
( Cries of " Nit, no.") Those who had other Oster
tel-vance were too pru(letit to embarrass themselves with t":0'
—( Hear, hear. ) Therefore 'hit was the first time the,
jest was introduced. Lord Campbell and the Alarlet'otet
Wercatter did advise the Government what course t" pt'
and the Government had not been influenced in the die 'bet
natien which they carne to by any otht r consulerationa,
the
those of public policy.—( Hear, hear. ) Now, Sir. I thittelt be
Hen. Gentleman will admit that, if his point of law 001°,115
sustained, he has no ground to rely upon in regard terieo
priori; lea of general public policy. I think my Hon.situ
mutt see the vicious precedent which he is about so eets'orl
od
the law of nations is established for useful purptseet seri
principles which -hould not, and ought not, to bedePslitt
from.—( Hear, hear.) Observe the precedent you Sile„srd
to set with regard to future wars. But is it only in I'7' feet'
tut ut•e wars? Why, these claites are more tbau thirtl
old.—( Hear. hear
Mr. HUTT— Or.) h, no, by no means; they were toote e
before the Treasury five-and-twenty years ago. t hef°Z
Mr. HAWES—They were never before Parlianlet'sfor
Mr. CARDWELL—It was not until thirty years ,le
Danish expedition that these claims were brought. tbeytr
Mr. HUTT—The Han. Gentleman is mistaken,
brought before the Treasury. a °lf
Mr. CARDWIeLL—I believe I am stating a foe
ne oe.
_4S
persons who had substantial claims upon the Geverlie pre'-0
thought of embarrassirig the ease by bringin4 tricalla ter
one, and it was not until thirty years after that et, oe.
brought under the notice cf Parliament. And* se
that length of time, when the law was against 3i°° ,--,:e efee.
Mr. WATSON—No, no, the law is not againt..' the jtteent
Mr. CARDWELL—You are prepared to grenthe preet;_ 01 •
of the claim in any individual cases of the kind, Lit I kefe 00
that you set does not apply only to future wars ''""eraett7t es°
no ground of justice, of policy, or of nationalwro, ttl.ebedf
wnich you can refuse to deny in the case of. anYwhich 001.06:$
occurred in the histery of this ceuntry,
can bring evidence that has the semblairce of
_t I'lloll4 Hoe;
upon
co in s io,
of a similar claim. Sir, having, therefore, a' t ditto dole
satisfactorily answered the novel argurnrae° eerooeueeeet,,
Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon 11.°_ woreSt tb:o
tinction, and having cursorily gone over thee Ito
arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who "the Houser IP
Committee and has brought the matter before of resist' to
hope that the Home will see the necessity
cca'i(ler
Hon. Meieheria motion. this " rtl
Mr. HUel V, —Sir, it is no' n. cowry woe:cep
enter, a.er the debate that has now• taken ittee',„ny gl_eeplv
lonlyars afterwails,
tteattathil tetrhuaits haaovekh;=enta...e. y preCeet•