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

Government on account of those claimants; and, therefore, it
was simply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons so
claimieg. But perhaps the Chancellor of th-e Exchequer does
net wish to part with the money from the ct,ffers of the Ti Ca-
sury. Now, Sir, with respect to the other poiet—the question
of interrett.onal law. Ide not boast myseif of a very perieet
knowledge of the law, but I have looked at the opinions of
those !severs who hare en, sideted the question. and they
have come to the eonciuston that the parties are entitled to the
compensation which they seek, as the capture of their ships was
not a capture in war. There is not a better awyer than Mr.
Justice Cresswell, and it is not at. all likely that he would com-
promise his legal knowledge on this subject because he was
the Member for Liverpool.—(Hear, hear.) But there
aGeeesn e raalt—
this
General—because,
-I mean
are two great parties whom I have not the honour
tthoe Asteceorney in
nclthit; Solicitor p
';
anything erroneous in point of law, they would no doubt have
corrected me.—(Cries Of g• Why are they not here ?") I will
beT if I have stated
tell you why they are not here. Both the Attorney and the
Solicitor Generals voted for this motion on a previous occasion,
but have I not the opinions of Mr. Justice Cress well, one of the
most acute and just lawyers in England? I say it is not likely
that he would warp his legs! judgment on the matter; and if
the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General were here I am
sure they would not dispute the law, because they have voted
for the motion. The Hon. Member for Worcester (sir T.
Wilde, who voted against the motion) challenged Mr. Justice
Cresswell to produce any authorities in favour of his view, and
on the next night, the 10th of June, he did produce two au-
thorities, and said, in the course of his address, " I hare been
challenged that there is no authority on the subject ;" and he
then read an extract from Vattel, which stated, " those who
have by reprisals lost their property, are bound to get compen-
sation for their losses." In Grotius' Special Jury Cases it is
stated, "It is the duty of the state to give
compensation to those on whom reprisals hare fallen."
He says, " But bef ere she declares war' —I now beg the at-
tention of the House to this—t• Before she declares war, of
which we shall treat in the felliovinu book as there are various
methods practised smog nations." He says, "He seizes on
some property if he has an opportunity, aad declares it seized
until he has given him sufficient satistaction." Then he says,
" Ile takes possession of what belongs to another and keeps it
unt.l payment ;or he detains it as a pledge." Then he says,
" The effects seized upon are preserved while there is ally
hope of obtaining satisfaction or justice, but so swill as that
hope disappears they are confiscated, and the reprisals are then
complete." Now can anything be more clean than that? For
the purpose of satisfaction they seize, and when all hope of
satisfaction disappears the reprisals are complete and the goods.
are disposed of. " This is the last remaining effort previous to
the commencement of open hostilities ; then, indeed, is the
Sovereign to compensate hie subject on whom reprisals shall
have fallen." I say that Parliament and the monarch of Great
Britain ought to compensate those on whoiw reprisals fell by
the Danish transactions of 1807. "It is the duty of the state
or the nation to make this good, because each citizen ought
only to pay his quota." The Honourable Gentle-
man the Secretary for the Treasury is well versed
in law, and perhaps he will point out how,
seeing that war was nut declared until the 4-h of November,
the seizures were captures of war, and not merely reprisals.
There was a most extraordinary argument used here on a
former occasion, upon the decision of Lord Stowell upon the
seizure of property in Demerara, and the claim that was made
by persons, calling themselves British subjects, for restitution
of their property. These individuals were first British sub-
ject 3, then Dutch subjects, and afterwards British subjects
again; and Lord Stowell decided that, as the parties were
Dutch subjects at the time of the seizure, they had no locus
standi in the courts of law of this country, to obtain restitution.
Lord Stowell said that the question mainly depended on
whether the property was taken before or after the declaration
of war. Now, Sir, I say that this question originates on the
ground of public policy, public justice, and international law ;
and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons in-
juted were entitled to compensation, on the part of those
who had caused the inquiry. lam sorry I have troubled the
House so long on the subject, but it appears to me that justice
repires that the law should be justly and fairly put in practice
on this occasion.
Mr. CARDWELL—On no occasion should I have pre.
sumed to enter the lists with m' Hon. Friend opposite, for the
purpose of attempting to sanction an argument of a legal cha-
racter; but on the present occasion I shall not shrink from the
task, and I will endeavour to give a legal argument, which for
the first time since the commencement of this discussion,
has ever been submitted to the House. It will appear remark-
able to those not familiar professionally with legal subjects,that
with all the acumen of Sir James Mackintosh, and all the Crown
Lawyers that then held office under her Majesty, it has been
reserved for to-night to bring forward a legal argument against
the subject on which I feel it my duty now to speak.
For the sake of the parties who sustained injury,
arising from the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, this case
was raised be Sir James Mackintosh, and he stated that if any
portion of those goods were taken by Denmark in contraven-
tion of the established law of nations, it became our imperial
duty to vindicate that law en the part of the subjects who were
injured; and if for any reason whatever we failed in discharg-
ing that duty, it became our duty to compensate the subjects
who suffered by our refusing to discharge that duty. This was
',When the Danish claims were first raised, and Sir James Mac-
-kintoshand those who were engaged with him in their former
attempts, took care .to have nothing to dd with the
part of the claims now • the subject of discussion. They
felt that it was necessary, resting on that ground, carefully
to distinguish between those claims which advocated compen-
sation for property on shore, and books, debts, and those claims
on behalf of ships and cargoes, because they felt that in such a
position there wa,s one reply which could be made, if ships ant
cargoes were acknowledged to stand on the same footing as the
property on shore. Why did the Hon. Gentleman opposite
seek to bring this case within the law of nations, when the real
ground on which it rested was whether the reprisals were made
before or after the declaration of war? What follows has re-
lation to the subject of reprisals. The Hon. Gentleman has
grounded his position on a point of law, on which it is neces-
sary that the legal argument should be clearly understood be
each of us. The meaning of the words reprisals and captures
were eot to be used in the ordinary and popular sense, but in
a strict and legal sense. Now, the Hon. Member had taken the
ordinary and popular meaning of reprisals, and continued it
strictly and legally as the foundation of his argument. He
has laid down this diAinetion in the course of his address, and
on that construction contends, that if captures took place be-
fore the declaration of war, they are to be considered reprisals,
and compensated. With great deference to the Hon. Gentl -
man, I n ust say, Ido not agree with him in his 1-. gal defini-
tion ; and on that ground consider they are not entitled to

compensation. Reprisals between nation and nation are
allowed in order to enable them to do justice to each other,
in matters where they consider themselves aggrieved, and
when they have no other means of redressing themselves. If
a nation refuses to do justice to another, then the latter, accord-
ing to the law of nations, might seize the ships of the firmer,
and keep thorn in pledge till justice is done them ; or if they
fail to de so, then the eapturing party may keep the ships and
property seiz.-d, and declare them to be confiscated.—( Hear.)
It an open rupture in consequence takes place, and war ensues,
then are they Justified at once in confiscating all that has been
previously seized. This is the distinction between reprisals
and captures. Thus, if a capture takes place, and no warfare
arises between the countries in consequence, then is the Go-
vernment bound to take the claim of the injured parties into
consideration, and to grant compensation. —( Cries of
Hear, hear.) But when a declaration of war takes
place, the retro-active effect is, that captures
fall under the ordinary rules of war, and are not entitled to
compensation. The Hon. Gentleman sans there was no de-
claration of war; but it has been read this evening, ar.d is dis-
tinct enough. It tieclares on the part of the Danish Govern-
ment that war is actually broke out, and calls upon all faithful
subjects to come forward and take such steps as are best calcu-
lated to repel hostile attacks. This declaration of war is dis-
tinct enough, whatever may have been ,he acts of Denmark
before the period of its being issued ; and this declaration was
issued on the 16th of August, 1807, Well, but the Hon.
Memberngland w
saysas m
thatade on
the
thefir 4th
heocli warNaraotivoenmbofer, on the part of
England
1
I think, my Hon. and Learned Friend has
confi':uou7 ;
dedantdwohecir-
cumstances. A declaration of war, according to the practice
of this country, is an act of hostility, and I believe that no de-
claration of war, according to the sense of my Hon. and
Learned Friend, hail been issued at the very time when he
was on his way to take part in the battle of Waterloo. What
was the object contemplated by the proclamation of the 4th of
November, to which the Hon. Member has made reference?
That was not a proclamation of war, but a proclamation for
the distribution of prizes ; and before such proclamation hail
been issued such prizes became droits to the Admiralty, and
were carried to account of the Consolidated Fund. As between
England, therefore, and Denmark, the bombardment of Copen-
hagen was the declaration or war; as between the Govern-
to nt of England and the captors of prizes, I believe that to
them only had the proclamation of the 4th of November
reference ; and I am astonished that my Honourable and
Learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord Stowell
in support of his position. What this is, is a simple question
between the Government of Great Britain and iis subjects;
not between the Governments of England and Denmark, and,
therefore, not bearing on these Danish claimants. I do not know
whether I have succeeded in fixing the attention of the House
to the conclusion I would seek to establish. 1 consider that
my Hon. and Learned Friend hae, in some cl-gree, confused
the question as between the Imperial Government of Great
Britain and the subjects of Great Britain making captures, and.
the Governments of Great Britain and of Denmark. This, I
think, is the complete answer to the legal arguments which
my Hon..and Learned Friend has for the first time submitted
'to the House; an argument which has escaped the attention of
'Sir James Mackintosh, which has not come under the notice
of Mr. Justice Cresswell, and which has net been observed by
any of the Hon. Members who have introduced this matter
before the House. Having taken up so much time in rebutting
this argument, I will proceed very shortly to notice the other
arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr Honourable Friend says, that gentlemen con-
nected with the Government take a peculiar view of
this question. I would remind the Hon. and Learned M ‘m-
fort
hhei his
rcsatntsiimdeerain-
ber, that Lord Althorp had the
tion. These claims were brought
nsidcrations than
tt) Those who had other claims to 183-.1.-4 Cries of " No, no.
was the first time this sub-
-( Hear, hear.) Therefore
Campbell and the M '
Marquis of
about so set. Sir,
re subject
forward under
Government what course to
a. ':vtanwceaswienrterodtouocepdru. denLtotrodethmisbarrass themselves with these
Worcester did advise the ... take,
and the Government had not been influenced in the deferral-
those of public policy.—( Hear,
if .. . , Sir, I think the
Hon. Gentleman will admit that, his point of law cannot be
I in regard to the
nation which they came to by
princi, lea of general public policy.
regard to
Hon. Friend
ahneya:. other
) Ne,: w'
the law of nations is established for useful purp:lea, and on
in sustained,u t
s t hhee v hasici o
vicious
nop
rgercoeudnel
tt to
which rely thi
epoirsi
, to be departe.l
from. Hear hear. ) Observe the tee, i
But of
you are about
to sot with regard to future wars. is it only i
principles which should not, and ought not
future wars? Why, these claims are more than thnirty Years
before. Hear. hear.)
Mr. HUTT—Oh, no, hy no means ; they were ere brought
before the Treasury five-and-twenty years ago.
Mr. CARDWELL—It was not until thirty
Danish expedition that these claims were brought. Years after the
Mr. HUTT—The Han. Gentleman is mistaken, the
brought before the Treasury.y were

ca
nuontticilet(h)firptyar ylie aantlsent. after tAhantd,thsiirs was
, it se
after
that length of time, when the law was against )0u—
Mr. CARDWELL—I believe lam stating a fact. Those
persons who had substantial claims upon the Governm-nt, n er thought of embarrassing the case by bringing, in the
case
bornoeUgahntd uintdewrasthneot
Mr. WATSON—No, no, the law is not against us.
Mr. CARD WELL—You are prepared to grant the justice
of the claim in any individual e.;ses of the kind, the he
that you set does, not apply only to future wars; but I know of
no ground of justice, of policy, or ~f national prael-ice on
which you can refuse to deny in the case of any war, that has
occurred in the hi,tory of this country, upon which anybody
can bring evidence that has the semblance of truth in support
of a similar claim. Sir, having, therefore, as I humbly trust,
satisfactorily answered the novel argumment of the Hon.
Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon an erroneous dis-
tinction, and having cursorily gone over the more general
arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who moved for this
Committee and has brought the matter before the Howe, I do
hope that the House will see the necessity of resisiting the
Hon. Member's motion.

Mr. 1-1 U lIE —Sir, it is not necessary on this occasion to
enter, after the debate that has now taken plaee, into particu-
lars afrer the lengthy detail. that have been all. gdy given. I
titnl7 vriah, sir, to pay that there is 119 teas Cor Any prteedut 9f

.

this case ever occuring again. I trust that England will never lately excited the attention of the House? The House, on
be guilty of such harsh conduct towards Denmark. Ido not firmer aneasioes, has repeatedly decided in favour of these"
believe there is any chance whatever of that. It is one of claims, yet the Government has treated them with contempt.
three measures which I have considered most pernicious and un- —(Hear, hear.) A legal argument has arisen,, and out.of:
graceful to an English nation, and I think that those who were that wilderness it appears we shall not get, fur the Hen, Ontelt
the parties to this transaction should have ecquitted themselves i Learned Member behind me, when he commenced his speech?
as soon as possible of the claims against them. The Learned said that, in every principle of ju,tice and of inter*
-
Gentleman LAYS that tie s the first time that this class of natemal law, this money ought to be paid, end he queted
claims was admitted. Why, Sir, we know that all these claims as his authorities Grotius and Vattel ; but up rises an
were put 'iii the same footing. I believe I have stated them Honourable and Learned Gentleman on the other
twenty times, or at least as many times as this subject has been side, and he says that, un every principle of international law,
brought forward, and does the Hen. Gentleman make ally di, the money ought nut to be paid ; and he also quotes as his
unction when he knows that the Right Hon. Gentleman the authorities Grotius and Vattel.—( Laughter.) It was per-
Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting by him never made any fectly ridiculous to pursue a course like this. These claims
distinction between any of these claims. He rejected them ought to be examined on a strict principle of justice. The
all as unjust, and that distinction now made is perfectly ridicu- Hun. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth stated this evening
leus for him to attempt to Make any separation. It is true, Sir, that he would confine his case to those in which adjudication
that those who advocated these cla.ms did, in consequence had already taken place. .Me said that he would not carry his
of rosne intimation, draw a line end make a division b. tween case further; anti a, the House hail already four times decided
these three clases, but. Sir, I cannot seeany d stinction between that these claims were just, he wished the House to vindicate
them whatever. 1 think the Learned Gentleu an on this side, that opinion, and thus prevent any necessity for their being
who has stated the case, has dra vn a line ; but I have alwa. further troubled on the matter.
objected to the Government insisting that a declaration of war Colonel SIIITHORP said, I have always voted for these
was then made. I have only to say, that an argument more in- claims, and I shall always vote for them.—( Laughter. )
conclusive could not be brought forward on
an-yquestion. I Mr. HA WES said, I shall occupy the time of the House
consider that we should by no means reject these
claims. from but for a very short period, in reply tome or two of the obser
any fear of a precedent being made out for future or past eases, vatiens of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. A great deal has
I state that there is no fear of any debars of this sort being been
hereafter made. I consider that the parties whin make these Learned this as a main point in th;s
said about this ration of war; and my Hon. and
Friend.s has relied upon
(aims are asking for nothing but justice, and that the Govern- case. Now, will the House hear one circumstance in reference to
ment would he acting most unfairly in refusing a Committeet that.
inquire into these claims.—( Hear.) Government haheeo.no
declaration,
declaration. The expedition left this country in July, and no
Thethe cnvention was siened on the ith September v,
this they have had in their possession ever since the year 1.807, Denmark, and it, therefere, had put an end tceany previous de.
end when 1 look at the small sums granted, I might saydfcofroothde: clarationheco dof war, if such existed. Hostilities, might, therefore,
Ministers, by votes of this House, Ido consider that am • nsi edred as ceased, and each country was supposed to be
are still remaining in their hands to repay all theiri claims, on
mgstoo understanding with the other. Now, under those
and I think Ministers should be compelled to pay these claims. circhuaAeancte.s,Twhat becomes of the declaration of war on the
I think this should be the rule, that on whateverground Govern- 16.
ment may think themselves warranted in commencing homilies, Council sitinsthe 4hlrWasput an end to. The declaration of the
November was headed in the annual regis-
they should not allow any portion of the British subjects to ter "A declaration ofth
.War," but that was merely an order in
suffer by such proceedings, and that if any expenses should be Council, authorising
doe issue of letters of marque for the pur-
then, that the declaration of war
incurred they should be divided equally. One or two indivi- poses of reprisal.
duals should not bear the loss. I think it is clear from docu- on the 16th August was ssatietrseded by the convention which
unifies. I did not say one
ments of this House, that the merchants before they left the was afterwards signed b
t,hbecause it was put an
River Thames, asked the Admiral, yif there was any danger word about it, and I puryposely wleofte?
wa not a technical
in sending their vessels to Denmark. After arriving in the end to by their subsequent conduct. tßount
Baltic, they also inquired of the English Admiral on the question; it ought not to be decided on technicaltis grounds. You
stotion, and the answer they received from him was "No." have received the money, you have applied th(etinezy
say it
The merchants were deceived by the Government. Govern- own purposes, and you ought to pay it.—
ment concealed their plans by giving answers which they knew is a clear case of justice. lam not to be met by the teschynil-t
were erroneous, and they did it upon these grounds, that calities of law, and if you do resort to law, what was the opinion
English merchants and shipowners were to be mulcted of Sir Wm. Follett and Dr. Lushington ? I hold.in my hand
and fined of their property. Some time since it was the opinion of Sir Wm. Follett, in which he states that these
alleged, and strong arguments held in this House, that they very claimants whom you have paid, have no real claim at all.
were not entitled to compensation as they might have been Why did you pay them then? It was on the principles of equity
insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have you did so. The words of the opinion are these :—" This
I heard a single argument brought forward to-night in opposi- question is not a question of law, nor have either classes of the
tion to these claims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimants any legal claim upon the British Government." You
need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taken paid the debt—well, why did you do it ? You felt that there
as any precedent. No war can take place upon such were higher claims upon you than those of law ; you felt that
principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we there were claims of equity and of justice, which you could not
may throw that on one side. I ground my vote, as I always dispute. The highest men in the realm have been the advo-
have done, upon these two plain facts, that English merchants cafes of these claims. Mr. Wilberforce spoke for them, and I
trading to Denmark considered that they were trading under ask you was he a man to speak for anything that was unfair or
the protection of English laws, when the British Government unjust ? Why, what have you done? you have granted
had commenced hostilities. They had no advice, and received a solemn investigation into the ease, and after
no information on the subject till after their property had having cut down their claim from 500,0001. to
been seized. Upon these grounds, I think that these indivi- 225,000/., are you prepared to turn round and say,
duals have a right to demand of the Government payment of we will not pay you ? Why, if you stand upon the high ground
their claims—and I only wish that Lcould add, and interest. of law, you had no right to have put them to this expense.
The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the You had no right to have investigated and made a mockery of
whole amount of their claims. It would be only justice to add justice. It is not on a mere question of law i argue ; I argue
the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any here as a plain man of business connected with trade, and Ido
of the claimants are now gone to the grave, their relations now say, that the trade and interests of this country have been
ceme forward and justly ask of you compensation for their claims. treated with injustice, and it is agait.st that injustice that I
All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. My move for this Committee of Inquiry.—(Cheers, and cries of
opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, principal and "Divide, divide.")
interest, as fairly and as justly as any individual having any The House then divided,
claim against any other individual. It is on these grounds, For the motion
Sir, that I do hope every man in this House will see justice Against it 59
41
done to those who have so long suffered, seeing that there are Majoeity for the motion -.
ample funds for the purpose. I trust the House will do as it RAILWAY LABOURERS.
did before, support the motion of the Hon. Member, and that Mr. BOUVERIE moved for a Select Committee to inquire
the Ministers will not act as they have heretofore done, but will into the condition of the labourers employed in the constrtc-
cheerfully come forward and agree to the motion.—(Hear.) tien of railways, and other public works, and into the reme-
this
Msubject,r. F. .
because I invariably offered the m BARING—I am anxious to sayotion my deter- a few words on di f
filet any, es which may be
cordition calculated to lessen the peculiar evils, if
o.
mined opposition; and I must, in the first place, express a hope Mr. EWA RT seconded the motien.
that whether you have money in the Treasury or not. Sir J. GRAHAM was much obliged to the Hon. Member for
if this claim is a just claim, I think we are bound having brought this eubject under the consideration of the House.
to accede to it. I have never taken it as a mere He had no doubt that the inquiry would be must valuable.
financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, He hoped that steps would be taken to check the truck sys-
but whether the claim was founded on justice or not.—( Hear. 'em being established among labourers ; and, at the same time,
hear.) Certainly, if it had been founded on justice, no feel- he hoped that additional powers would be given to railway
ings of economy would have prevented the Government, of companies to maintain the peace upon their works.
which I was a member, doing justice to the parties. My Hon. Mr. HUME thought the less they interfered between mas-
Friend says that these cases—l am sure his memory fails him— ters and workmen the better.
he says that the cases before the House must be held to be in- Mr. HUDSON believed that the result of this inquiry
eluded in the other cases decided by the House on a previous would redound to the credit of those who were promoting rail-
occasion ; and my Hon. Friend is good enough to say that the ways. In the railways with which he was connected, the ut-
House ought not to have a divided opinion on these case., be- most care was paid to the religious wants of the labourers en-
cause there was no division of opinion on the others. But to :raged upon the lines. The companies had placed money in
the last cases, which present themselves in a new form, and are the hands of clergymen to provide religious instruction for the
different from those specified by Sir James Mackintosh, I shall men, and labouring on the Sanday was prohibited. He did
feel it my duty to offer every opposition in my power. I think not believe there was any necessity for this inquiry.
it is no want of respect on my part to do so ; for I feel myseli' Lord EBRINGTON believed that there was no necessity
bound, looking at the great consideration which-was given to the for the inquiry, because that inquiry had been threatened,
subject when I was in office, to do so. But there were circum- and therefore the various railway companies had taken pre-
stances connected with party which made it possibly no matter cautions. He thought this was a subject which required full
of regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was beaten on investigation, from which investigation important results might
the question. It may he said that we have a Treasury feeling be anticipated.
on the subject, but my Noble Friend, Earl Spencer, not only Mr. MANGLES could not agree with his Hon. Friend
entered into it himself—and no one was better able to give an the Member for Sunderland in thinking that this inquiry was
opinion, on account of his fair and upright mind, of what was unnecessary. He would certainly support the motion, as
an equitable claim—and I know he came to a decided he believed a great deal of good would result from it.
opinion that these claims ought not to be allowed; and, Mr. AGLIONBY wished to express an opinion respecting
as in duty bound, I. felt it my duty to consult the the class of men called navigators. He believed a great
Law Officers of the Crown—namely, Lord Denman and amount of the evils complained of arose from want of proper
Lord Cottenham ; and with every respect to the Hon. Gentle- supervisions. He did not believe they were worse than other
man who sits behind me, I must say that I think we should bodies of men, at least as far as his experience went. Still an
not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were inquiry ought to be made as to the best means of dealing with
advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert these large bodies of men.
Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advocate, was amongst the number. Mr. WAKLEY could not see any good that would arise out
Besides, the Hon. Member for Worcester ( Sir T. Wilde) of this inquiry. What was complained of was, that the men
considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied preferred seeking pleasure on Sunday instead of going to
hours upon hours in comparing the dupleateeof the original church ; and he could not see how any legislation of theirs
documents on which the claims were founded, in order to test could meet the state of things complained of. The real evil,
their accuracy, and to be enabled to give a decided opinion on however, was, they had neglected the education of the people.
the matter. Then there is Sir William Follett, whose name That was well known, and needed no inquiry. Their la-
can never be mentioned in this House withoutrespect, he voted, bourers had not been taught self-respect, and hence it was
I believe, in favour of these claims; and I recollect that, when they did not show that propriety of conduct which was de-
he was appointed Solicitor-General, he was taunted with sirous. He could not see how, after neglecting the petitions
changing his opinions, and he stated distinctly that he gave his of the working c;asses for factory legislation, they
opinion on the case that was submitted to him, but that when could attempt to control bodies of men like those who were
he heard the arguments of the Hon. Member for Worcester, the subject of the present inquiry.
he said he could not vote for the motion of Mr. Cressvvell, as Sir GEORGE GREY thought the subject was an impor-
he had not the shadow of a doubt upon the case. The Hon. tent one, and one that ought to be inquired into. As far as he
Gentleman (Mr. Watson) has stated what is no doubt the understood it, the object in view was not to coerce or restrain
main point of his case, that these were reprisals, and these labourers, but to surround them with efficient moral and
not captures. Now, in the first place, allow me to religious influences. Mr. Peto, the extensive contractor, had
suggest to him, that I believe the question of adopted most effective means in this respect, and his arrange-
declaration of war has been very much altered. If the Hon. ments might be introduced with great effect in other works
Gentleman were called upon to give a level opinion out of throughout the country. A Committee of Inquiry would, in
doors, he would say that the' old authorities could nut now be his opinion, have a most beneficial effect.
adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no Sir W. JOLLIFFE concurred with the Right Hon. Gentle-
deelaration of war wanted now to constitute war. That is P men who had just sat down. Bricklayers and other kind of
crotchet that is gone be. Open hostilities constitute war, and labourers were protected, but this glass of labourers were not,
no declaration is necessary. But the Hon. Gentleman says and they had a most especial claim on their attention, especi-
that if the declaration of the 1651 i Augu-t be considered as a ally as they suffered a great deal from the truck system.
declaration of war, then the case tails to the ground. He says Sir. O'CONNELL thought the inquiry would do nothing
the declaration of the 16th August was not a declaration re but good, and he would support it. With regard to the truck
war—l mean the declaration of Gluckstadt. Now, in the first system, against which Hon. Members expressed such horror, he
place, what does he give as a definition of a declarati ,n of war? believed that, in many cases, it was attended with benefit, as
Just look to that declaration of the 16th August. In the first persons with large capital could supply goods cheaper than small
place, I will just read that passage which states that war had shopkeepers.
actually commenced. If the House would actually read the Mr. B. DENISON was of opinion, that though those of
declaration of war, they would find that the property of English large capital could supply goods cheaper, it did not follow they
subjects was confiscated, and that all trade was prohibitec did so. He did think the labouring classes were enititled to
between the two countries. There is no necessity for a protection. He agreed that some means should be taken to
particular form of words in the declaration of war ; but protect them as well as to supply them with moral and religious
this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries. instruction. He, therefore, supported the motion.
The Hon. Gentleman says, take the proclamation of 16th Au- Dr. BOWRING cordially concurred in the inquiry. He
gust. I will quote some words of that proclamation, to show could see no evil that could come of it, but much good.
that England did not enter on this affair with a view of carry- The motion was then agreed to.
ing on the war, but it was to obtain the negotiation by fair Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that he had two notices on the
mean., and, if not, by force. I will use the language used by raper. One was No. 9; the other No. 22. Now the latter
an Admiral and by a General, who are fair authorities to quote number should have been No. 9, it having been, by mistake,
from. The House will allow me to quote their view of the printed No. 22. He hoped, therefore, the House would look
state of affairs as they then existed. They stated that the over the mistake, which did not arise from him, and allow him
country was then not the theatre of a negotiation, but of a to proceed with No. 22.
war. There was a declaration issued on the 16th August, Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to this course, as establish-
and in December following a declaration was issued on the part ing a bad precedent and one that might be attended with great
of the British Government, that hostilities were already corn- inconvenience, He must resist the Hon. Member going into
menced, and these two commanders said that their country was any other motion than that at No. 9, the next in order on the
the theatre of a war, anti yet the Hon. Gentleman will take this paper.
as only a ease of reprisal, and says it was no war. The declare- Mr. J. O'CONNELL intimated, that believing the House
tion of war in 1807, by the Crown of England, was not the would have overlooked the mistake, and having served a notice
commencement of this hostility. The King of Denmark on the Clerk of the House last night, to correct it in the votes
issued a declaration against his Majesty, and that was the de• this morning, but which had not been done, he had prepared
claretion of the 16th of August, to which the Crown of Eng- himself for No. 22, and was not ready to go en with No. 9.
land, in its own declaration of war, alluded. It was said that DR. FITZGERALD.
this was no declaration of war. I must say it is sometimes diffi- Mr. O'CONNELL then moved that there be laid before this
cult to say what conclusions may be come to on legal questione. House a copy of the correspondence between the Irish Govern-
but when any man of sense reads these papers, and looks them ment and Dr. Fitzgerald, stipendiary magistrate in the county
through, 1 cannot conceive that he can have a doubt that the of Waterford, on the subject of the trial of persons of the name
opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor, Lord of Keyly, who were tried at the last assizes of Waterford,
Campbell, Sir W. Follett, and his Hon. and Learned Friend the before the Lord Chief Baron, and upon which the Chief
Member for Worcester, were right, that this was a declaration pronounced severe censure on the conduct of
it,beustdidß:Driari
of war, and that these were fair and legal reprisals. lam Fitzgerald. Also, copy of the report o_
afraid that on those occasions only those who are interested furnished by the Lord Chief Baron to the IrildfshDtG:evFeirtnzgineernaltd.
in the case, and those who have constituents interested in the Also a copy of the depositions taken by the said
case. were present in the House. and that comparatively a verb against the prisoners previous to the trial. Also copies of the
small number of independent Members of the House took any affidavits placed on the motion or. admittingthe said prisoner
interest in the question thens efore the House. He was sorry Keyly to bail previous to the trial, with the decision of the
to have troubled the House, but he need not apologise as he Court thereon. The Hon. Gentleman said the conduct of
was anxious to support the real and correct view of the case. the magistrate in question had been such as to call forth the
Mr. MILNER GIRSON said, Sir, I have been, amongst severe condemnation of Lord Chief Baron Grady, who
others, requested to support these claims, and in giving them had charaeterised his conducwtasichi,llweehaelnafnudrnuinsicioendnittuytiaosnhali.s
my support, I assure you, that Ido not do so without some re- He moved for these returns h
,
servation, I will not trespass long on the attention of the House, intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the
but confine my remarks to the meaning of the Hon. Gentle- matter.
man who in his speech argued there was a declaration of war.
The main point, it seems to me, to be considered, is whether
or not there was a declaration of war. It appears to me, the
Pict of two of the other claims having been declared as good,
is an admission that there was no declaration of war.-- (Cries
of " No, no," and " hear, hear.") I understood it to be to
stated, and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W.
Follet, as far as ttni other two eases were concerned.—( Hear,
hear.) I cannot see how the Right Hon. Gentleman and the
Government can admit these claims as they have done, with-
out giving up the position of the declaration of war. I can
see no reason why the present claim can be rejeted, having
conceded the other claims, on the ground of the declaration of
war; and you must, therefore, argue the case upon totally
different grounds. With regard to the opinion of the
law officers of the Crown, I must say that great
care should be exercised in taking their opinion. I
have uniformly observed that legal gentlemen give dif-
ferent opinions when in office to what they give when
they are independent Members. When the Government asks
them for an opinion they are more disposed to give a favour.
able opinion than when they are out; as, occupying the position
they do, they are pledged to support the Government.
When they are out of office, when they give an opinion, their
legal character is at stake, but when they are in office it is
well known that they are expected to support the Government
and their opinion is expected to be accordingly. In as far as
I learn, legal gentlemen when out of office, have given an
opinion in favour of these claims. But on this occasion it
appears that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General
shrinks from coming forward to support the Government.
This proves they must think the case one of uncommott strength,
If the Government had a leg to stand upon, the law officers would
no doubt have been here to support them. But instead, we
find the case so strong and convincing, that the law officers are
unwilling to appear in their places ire the House, in order to
support the Government. I must further observe, that the
legal character of both these gentlemen, when they were in-
dependent Members, was distinctly pledged to support these
claims, on the ground of international law.—(Hear, hear.)
On the grounds of justice, therefore, I am compelled, on the
present occasion, to give my support and vote to the Hon.
Gentleman who has brought forward the present mation.of
the
Mr. WAKELY said, I wish to ask a sinsg7, question of
Right Hon. Gentleman who represents the
the Government pay the money if the
hear.") The
Houseear decidesve in favour
of the motion.—(Loud cries of " H
question has been decided several timeesotbgeifvoereo,
effect to tovnitte.
In its favour, yet the Government hrfillty.
of contempt to the
In doing that had 'they not been gney.
o_t_liarbbleoteocasonlithaarcly
Houso—(Loud cheors).,.!-and were ilericq_
mallifinNat 114 *IA- as She Hen. V YrUP"

Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not deny the importance of
the question involved, and had no objection to the depositions
being furnished, but he could not accede to the other returns
sought.. The Hon. and Leatneti Gentleman had referred to a
statement of the Lord Chief Baron, characteri•ing the
conduct of Mr. Fitzgerald as unconstitutional and illegal.
The magistrate had been removed from the district where
the man was given into eustody. He was sorry to say that
this conduct was not all singular on the part of the magis-
trates. He hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would not
press his first motion, as under the present circumstances of
the case it would be unnecessary.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he must persist in putting the
motion, in order that they might appear to have been
negatived, as they had an ulterior object. Were a magis-
trate of the quarter sessions in England not to give a prisoner
an opportunity of cross-examining a witness, he would not re-
main half an hour in the commission of the peace. Here was
a stipendiary magistrate, w .th a large income, and who had
been several years acting, and who could, therefore,
not plead ignorance, who had conducted himself in this
tman-
ner. He (Mr. O'Connell) should at present de no more than
to allow the two first motions to be negatived, and to pressb the
'
two latter. The Right. Hon. Baronet could have no °
toohuisse m. etion for a copy of that letter to be laidbeforejscion
the
H

The motions were then put, and the two first were nega-
tived, and the two latter motions carried.
Mr. HUME moved that the following gentlemen be chosen
to form the Committee on Private Bills :—Mr. Home,
Mr. Greene, M,. Loch. Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Strutt, Sir
William Somerville, Sir William Clay, Sir George Grey, Cap-
tain Junes, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Wortley, Viscount
Ebrington, Mr. Estcourt, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. James
Wortley, with power to send for persons, papers, and records;
five to be a quorum.
Mr. WAWN moved for a return, in detail, and a true and
correct copy of the solicitor's bill for the year 1845 for obtain-
ing the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 73, of last session (Newcastle-
upon-Tyne Coal Turn), and law business generally, whereby
the sum of 1,985/. 2s. 2d. of the trust moneys Were expendetl.
al3o under what authority (if any) the snm of 3791,163. 6d.
was 6, paid to the Committee for erecting a memorial to the
late Lord Collingwood, with a beacon in connexion therTith
at the mouth of the Tyne as a landmark for the shipping ; '
the cost of erecting the beacon 4if erected), and whether
erected by the authorities of the conservators of.,tirs river, or
by any other and what authority ; also the date of the meeting
and a copy of the resolution and the names of the Commis-
sioners present when the sum 0'3,91. 163. 6d. was voted.
Mr. HUME was glad to see that theattention of his Hon.
Triad booaallad ti? Oil object, for he had Mg doupt tha%