The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

stv A,
t .
~s 1 01,1113% inn,
~• 1 ,

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1846.

The House of Commons on Wednesday came to a de-
cision adverse to that at which it arrived on the 30th
April last by a majority of 18, and again frustrated
the just expectations of the unfortunate Danish
claimants, whose demands, Ive times sanctioned and
affirmed by the house, have again been postponed.
We confess as Englishmen that we feel deep humilia-
tion in recording the vacillating conduct of one of the
branches of our Legislature, this truckling to the ipse
dixit of any man. Hope deferred, it is said, maketh

the heart sick. What can be said of those persons
who, for no less than thirty-nine years, have been
calling on the Legislature to accord to them that
equity and justice to which they are so fully entitled?
Why is it that persons in a public capacity will be
guilty of acts of meanness and injustice, at which they
would blush if perpetrated by themselves as individuals?
Why should persons rush in, at the beck of a Minister
to swell his majority, to vote on a difficult and compli-
cated question of international law, of the real merits of
which a vast proportion of them must be wholly and
entirelyd
entirely ignorant; and that against the recorded opi-
nions of some of the most able lawyers, and in the
significant absence of the legal advisers of the
Crown, whose especial duty it was to have been
present, and to have enlightened the House
with their honest opinions on this important legal
question? Was not that very absence evidence as strong
as any that could be adduced that their opinions were
hostile to those entertained by her MAJESTY'S Go-
vernment on the point in dispute, that they felt, as
lawyers, that they could not support the view put
forward, when they leave the defence of the Ministry
to a gentleman, who, whatever may be his talents,
cannot claim much weight as an authority on
question of pure law or equity ? Is it not certain
that if they could have conscientiously voted with
the Government, they would have given them
their support, which would be vastly more impor-
tant than that of any other individuals in the House ?
' Is it not a singular thing that gentlemen, who before
they accepted office pledged their high characters
to the justice of a claim, by giving it
their disinterested sanction and support, should
afterwards, when in office, shrink from avowing
their opinions on so grave a subject ? We find
that the Attorney and Solicitor-General have already
on former occasions given their votes in favour of
compensation being granted, and this, coupled with
their remarkable absence both on the 30th of April
and onWednesday, testifies that the Ministry have taken
a legal view different from that of their law advisers,
and have argued a legal point in opposition to the
opinions of those by whom they should be governed
on the subject.

The case of the Danish claims is a remarkable one,
and a short recapitulation of the grounds on which
they have been brought forward cannot be uninte-
resting on the present occasion.
- -

In the year 1807 it was considered indispensable
to the safety of England that measures should be
taken to prevent the Danish fleet co-operating
with BUONAPARTE against this country; for that
purpose an expedition was dispatched to
the Sound, and an envoy to the Danish
Court, to demand that the fleet should be delivered
over to the English admiral as a security against
its falling into the hands of France. That demand
was refused, and the consequence was that what had
been refused to be peacefully yielded up was taken
by force, and in October, 1807, the Danish fleet,
munitions of war, naval equipments, &c. &c., to the
value of 1,300,0001. sterling, were brought toEngland.
The Danes, on their part, were not idle, and
much injury was done to the property of
British subjects, who, without having been warned
by any public act on the part of the Government of
the day, had yet. been exposed to most serious losses
in consequence of the policy adopted by that Govern-
ment for the general welfare. The English Ministry
have generally adopted a high and honourable course
of conduct towards those who have been sufferers
under such circumstances ; and we find that Mr.
PERCEVAL allowed that the property so taken
possession of, amounting, as we have said,
to over 1,300,000/. sterling, should be reserved for the
claims of those who had lost their property by con-
fiscation or seizure. These claims were threefold,
viz.-Ist, of those who had book debts due to them ;
2dly, of those whose property had been seized on
shore ; and, 3dly, of those who had ships and car-
goes afloat, which were seized by the Danish Go-
vernment.

In 1834, a Treasury minute was at length ob-
tained, referring it to Parliament to decide whether
all or any of those claims should be admitted
for compensation ; and accordingly, in 1835
and 1836, the two first classes were dis-
charged (after only twenty-nine years' suspense
and delay), but to an amount far less than the

,300,0001. which had been obtained ; so that a sum

remained in hand far exceeding the amount of the
claims of the third class, which alone remained,
and which the Legislature on Wednesday again post-
poned. The third-class claims were brought forward
in 1838 and 1839, by an eminent lawyer, now one of
the brightest ornaments of the judicial bench, and,
although opposed by the Government of the day, were
sanctioned and approved of by the House of Commons,
in consequence of which Commissioners were ap-
pointed to inquire into the legality of these claims,
and to report judicially respecting them. The
parties were accordingly put to all the trouble and
expense of proving their claims before those Com-
missioners. They did so, and on the 12th of May,

1840, a report was made, reducing the amount to
nearly one-half ; in other words, from 425,0001. to
225,0001., and, large as the latter sum un-
doubtedly is, we do not think there
are many Englishmen who would permit
a stain to rest on the honour and integrity
of their country for such an amount. In 1841
an address to the Crown was again carried for the
settlement of these claims, but in vain ; the parties
entitled, who considered themselves safe in the vote
of a British House of Commons, were still left to pine
in vain and fruitless expectation ; their proved de-
mands, sanctioned and confirmed by the tribunal
constituted by the Government for the time being,
by whom they were appointed, were still with-
held ; four times did the House of Commons sanc-
tion by their vote tke justice and the equity of the
claim. In 1844, it was for the fifth time brought for-
ward, and all the strength of the Government, at that
time one of the strongest which had ever ruled the
country, having been exerted against it, it was defeated
by a majority of, four. Oa the 30th of April a clear
majority of eighteen again affirmed the principle which
was yesterday rejected ; such contradictory decisions
are not creditable to the House. It has been said

that no person would refuse to advance money on a
vete of that House ; but, if such exhibitions are re-
peated, will not a well-founded distrust of the House
take place ? Who will depend on a vote which
without hesitation may be rescinded and altered ? Are
subjects of policy to be laboriously worked, like the
web of Penelope, for the sole purpose of having the
original labours undone on a subsequent occasion? We
have not alluded in this article to the strong legal
points of the case, but merely to the proceedings which
have already taken place thereon. We cannot, how-
ever, conclude without commending to an attentive
!eal a letter on the subject which will be found
'n our columns,
We shall only say
your exertions—
and which speaks of the conduct pur-
sued in ajust-tone
of indignation.
" Magna eat veritee et pr
Their case is only postponed
to the claimants, persevere in
,azzlenablit."
attend that of which the foundation and bash is truth,
equity, and justice. success must

The consideration of the Corn Bill was resumed
last evening in the House of Lords. This is, tshee,Broen:id
fore, a seasonable moment for offering a few observo._
tLitoNnus
Tuupxo, nwthhiec
hr
ce cl
oesnetd s
tplei
ee cdhi s
coufs
stilluen
uDpuoknet
hoef l‘c
cur
naciosm. m
I etn
reading. This speech has been muh
has
upon, as well by our own as foreign
been observed that the speech was an exceedingly
meagre one, only remarkable for the dictatorial tone
usually assumed by his Grace whenever he addresses
his hereditary colleagues, and also, that it aimed at
securing a majority by working upon their fears.
We differ from the whole tenor of these observa-
tions. The speech in question was short, effective,
and full of sound counsel.
We admit that, habitually, the Duke couches his
observations in terms of decision, savouring almost
of command. On this occasion, however, the advice
which he tendered, whilst it left no doubt as to the
conviction on his own mind, was offered in a modest
and becoming manner.
We have heard it stated, that the late Marquis of
WELLESLET, whose mind was so gifted, and whose ac-
quaintance with and experience of mankind was so ex-
tensive,remarked that, throughouthis long political life,
he had never met with any man possessed of strong
common sense—the true foundation for all the other

valuable qualities of the mind—to the same degree as
his brother AUTBUE. Prince TALLEYEAND was once
asked, when Ambassador in England under LOUIS
PHILIPPE, what he thought of the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON. Ile gave no direct answer, but related an
anecdote. At the celebrated Congress at Vienna,
where such large national interests had to be arranged,
and when everything seemed, after much discussion,

to be in a state of inextricable entanglement, th•
Duke gave his advice in a few terse sentences, and
immediately every difficulty appeared to vanish. The
same masculine strength of mind, as is easily discernible,
pervaded his speech on the important measure for
bringing the corn-laws to a final settlement. He took

a solid and practical view. It was not to be expected
that a man of his ripe years, rising at between three
and four o'clock in the morning, to speak upon a sub-
ject, which had been statistically exhausted, and which

did not fall within his own peculiar department,

would minutely enter into the - merits of the Bill.

They had been sufficiently substantiated by antece-
dent speakers. He therefore assumed them at once
to be, as far as reason and experience were concerned,
placed beyond the reach of further controversy. An
attentive listener to the entire debate, he had, with
his usual acuteness, observed, that the sum andsubstance
of the arguments of the Opposition, duly analyzed,
rested upon the propriety and necessity of forcing an
appeal to the country. From first to last this was
the chief gun his adversaries kept continually firing.
The Duke determined to silence it. He made a
constitutional speech, and completely dismantled it.
Lord STANLEY had said the constitutional value of
the Upper House consisted in interposing a salutary
obstacle to rash and inconsiderate legislation, but it
had never resisted a continued and deliberately-
formed public opinion, and that their Lurdships
always had, and always would have, to bow t) the ex-
pression of such an opinion. His Lordship also
added, that, though the constitution had not
provided for such a contingency, it was the
duty of the Peers to protect the people
against the treachery of those whom they
had chosen to be their leaders. The Duke and his
colleagues had resigned office. The two other parties
—the Literals and the Protectionists—had sub-
sequently had the opportunity of forming an Admi-
nistration, which was respectively declined. These
facts at once destroyed the charge of treachery.
Besides, in the commencement of his speech, Lord
STANLEY passed the highest encomiums on the cha-
racters of the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir R.
PEEL. If these two are not, par excellence, the
chosen leaders of the people, as appertaining to the
Government, we should like to know who are.
Again, if treachery had really prevailed, one would
naturally have expected the House of Lords to have
been inundated with petitions preferring the charge
from all parts of the country. But such, we know,
has not been the case.

Sir ROBERT returned to office, and announced
to the Duke his determinations to submit to
Parliament the identical measure upon which
he had recently failed to secure the approval
of his Cabinet. Sir ROBERT, no doubt, pointed out
to his Grace, that, as he had, after re-
signation, in his private capacity of a Member
of Parliament, given Lord JOHN RUSSELL
to understand he would support him in any similar
measure, he could not question but that Lord JOHN
RUSSELL would, in turn, aid his own endeavours to
carry a gradual abolition of the corn-lams;
that the measure, statistically recommended by
the experience of the last three years, would
therefore pass the Commons ; but that, without
the co-operation of the Duke, it might fail to
pass the Lords, in the first instance, though it would
do so eventually, the current of public opinion having
so strongly set in in its favour. 'We can coneeive,
moreover, that Sir ROBERT adverted to the period of
the Reform Bill, when both himself and the Duke
had, in the language of Lord STANLEY, learnt the
lesson, that the House of Lords could not resist
a continued and deliberately-formed public opinion,
but must bow to its expresai®n ; that then
he enlarged upon the impolicy of embarking the
Upper House in a hopeless struggle, which would
neutralise the happy effects of the moderate course it
had pursued for the last fifteen years, under the
especial auspices of the Duke himself. The Duke
was convinced, and was gained. Persuaded that the
measure would pass, his sense of duty to his SOVE-
REIGN dictated the desirableness that it should be in-
troduced by a strong Government, so as to insure to
it the best chance of its being harmoniously supported
by the separate branches of the Legislature. Much
of this, and more, is embodied by the Duke in a few
pithy sentences. To those who read the speech, to
which we are referring, without bearing in mind
political antecedents, we can readily fancy it would ap-
pear meagre enough; whereas, to such as are mindful of
preceding facts, the effect will be quite different.
"My Lords," said the Duke, "I have already, in
this House, adverted to the circumstances which gave
rise to this measure. In December I considered my-
self bound, in duty to my SOVEREIGN, not to with-
hold my assistance from the Government, knowing
that the First Lord of the Treasury could not do
otherwise than propose to Parliament this very mea-
sure, stated at the Cabinet previous to the period at
which it resigned early that month. It is not neces-
sary I should say more on that subject. The course
I felt myself bound to take I would take again to-
morrow."

Adverting to Lord STANLEY'S statement (in which
he concurred), that it was the duty of the Lords to
protect the public from rash and inconsithrate
measures, his Grace disposed of it in a way that
clearly indicated his belief of the measure
itself, and of the manner in which it had come up
from the Commons, to be such, that, regard being had
to the consequences of rejecting it, rashness and in-
considerateneas were terms which would be fairly
applied to those who looked to produce such a result.
"My Lords, it is the duty of each to place himself

in the situation of the House before he determines to
give his vote, and to consider what would be, under
all the circumstances, the consequence if the House
were to follow the course he may be about to do en
this occasion." This was a pretty significant hint to

their Lordships to he guarded against being biassed
by a feeling of personal interest, and to confine them-
selves alone to what a sense of constitutional duty
should dictate. "Look," continued the Duke, " a
little to the measure, to the manner in which it has
come before you, and to the consequences likely to
follow from a rejection. 1 myself once prevailed upon
the House to vote for a measure against which
it had pronounced positive opinions by former
votes." This was in so many words telling his hearers
to recollect the history of the Catholic Relief Bill,
and especially that of the Reform Bill, when
no doubt a desire to preserve a borough-
mongering influence had swayed the vote
of many a Peer, in opposition to a measure, crowned
by a commanding majority of the Commons; to
remember how degraded was their position when
Earl GREY, backed by his Sovereign and public
opinion, threatened to swamp them ; and how, to
avoid a revolution, they had been ignominiously com-
pelled to beat a retreat. When the Duke begged
them to consider the manner in which the Corn Bill
had come before them, he meant them to bear in
mind how long this great question had been agitated
bwnye.trhehe
was. public,an another
howbintlarget o
an wasenl
enlightened,
the t e majorityned, th ou
gb y
h
el
jitnehegtaeldids:t listener. True it
ulahnadwirl adsuse:tghethoethlearstbranch of the Legislature.
cures sent up fromwfifatse,etnheyeiairso,umsetionfylm'eeears.
measures not to be compared ai Commons,redi,l
th
t hbeut
magnitudethosevs.e were
the Corn Bill, had been
,ynitvieartyed
slbeyndaerwemaka Admi-
nistration,
epliaesfseßdilli and the Reform Bill were
rnriislteractaiothn,oliacnßd
y practical statesman
,hviosutolrdiesatluapyre:etdtehnetsp,r
ewhichsent The Duke had had
ample knowledge of the working of each. His mind
had received a fruitful lesson. It would have been
naturally distasteful to him to have enlarged upon the
past.
He, therefore, only took a hasty glance, amis.
tied that his audience would perceive he drew his
counsel from the fountain of all wisdom—enlarged
experience.
The Duke mildly rebuked Lord STANLEY when he
told him that, constitutionally, their House could not
take into consideration the inconsistency of the votes
of Members in the other House. Nothing could be
more dangerous than for either House to enter into
such an inquisitorial proceeding. Lord STANLEY,
however, preferred to take the decision of the House of