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

,
`liwt betnin

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 WELLINGTON, Lord CAMPBELL, and several
itherNoble Lords, presented petitions to a similar effect from
the governing bodies of several charities.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition in favour of the Bill
from Mr. HENRY IVALHan, 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 Lotto CHANCRLLOR
the Religious then moved the second reading of
gious Opinions Relief Bill. The Bill was for the re-
peal of many A
cts imposing certain disabilities upon persons
on account of their religious belief. There could be no doubt
of the propriety of repealing many of those laws which had
become obsolete, and which inflicted punishments and
penalties on persons en account of their religious 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 BROUGHAM 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 aught to
be modified.

Lord CAMOTS supported the second reading of the Bill, but
bought it did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not
epeal those statutes that pro-elated Catholics ft prosentiDg

to livings. He trusted the Noble Lord on the Woolsack
would take that question into his consideration, as he felt
confident there was no danger to be ap rehended from the
repeal of those statutes.
fc,The Bishop of EXETER supported the second reading of
he Bill, but trusted that the suggestions of the Noble Baron
'Camovs) would not be adopted by the Noble Lord on the
Woolsack. He thought the concessions made to the Roman
Jathulics by the measure of 1829, and of the present Bill,
ought to satisfy them. He believed if it was allowed at the
present day that the supremacy of the Pope was W be
extolled, without penalty, the result would be another reli-
gious war.
Lord BEAUMONT supported the second reading of the Bill•
Lord COLCHESTER supported the second reading of the Bill'
but trusted that some alteration would be made in it in Com-
mittee.
Lord CANIPBELL cordially supported the Bill. He trusted
the Noble Lord on 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 clair 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'BRIEN,
Mr. E. B. ROCHE trusted that Mr. S. O'Bairs would be
allowed to appear at the bar and explain the course he had
pursued and intended to adopt. The Honourable Mem-
ber concluded by moving that Mr. S. O'BRIE.N be heard at
the bar.
Mr. O'CoNmr. seconded the motion.
Mr. Hops 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. SMITH O'BRIF..sr having re-
fused to attend the order of the House must be considered
in contempt. Ifthere was any precedent fur the motion he
would at once accede to it.
The SPEAKER said there were no precedent for the motion.
Mr. E. B. Room bowed to the decision of the Chair, and
asked if Mr. Smut O'BRTEN might not appear at the bar?
The SPEAKER. said there was no precedent for such a
course, unless the Hon. Member appeared at the bar as a
criminal.
Mr. MowcitTow Mn•mes 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. Sswru
O'BRIEN being agreed to without a division.
The SPEAKER was then ordered to issue his warrant for the
apprehension 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
House that the rights of these claimants had been repeatedly
admitted by successive majorities of the House, he proceeded
to give the history of the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, an
expedition got up with the greatest secresy. The expedition
went not for 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 been made at the time the seizure
of the Danish fleet took place, he 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 he 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 be was borne out in thl,
assumption by a declaratioN, 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 on 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 funds
out of which to pay them, for the Government had seized
more than sufficient Danish property to liquidate all
these claims. In 1639 these claims were again brought for-
ward by that accomplished lawyer, Mr. Justice CRESWELL,
and although they were opposed by the Government of the
day, it was determined that the claims should
be inquired into, and adjudicated upon. A com-
mission was appointed, a judicial examination took
place, and claims, amounting to 225,000., were admitted.
This judicial report was again disregarded by the
Government, and in 11141, Mr. Cresawell again urged their
claims upon the attention of the House, and again the rights
of claimants were affirmed in opposition to the Government.
If these claims were to be resisted on technical greunds,
he had the author?), of Mr. Justice CRESSWELL
fur 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 been accomplished, and be would
ask if it was right that the merchant should be sacrificed,
when it was proved that the Government had seized more
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 let to believe that they only ran the ordinary
sea risks in going to the Baltic. Under these
circumstances he thought the merchants had a perfect right
to come to the Government and ask for a Committee of the
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.
Sir J. HANDIER, who presented a petition from Hull in
favour of the claims, expressed a hope that the question
would new receive a final decision. He thought that after
the strong expression of the opinion of Parliamet.t which had
taken place already, the Government should have proposed a
grant for their liquidation. He understood that the distinc-

lion drawn between the first two classes of claimants whose
claims 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. Thi,

was exceedingly fallacious. Until the 2d of September thes,-,
claimants could have no possible notice. The fact that a
warning had been issued on the 2d of September, was a
proof that before 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 Sinmouni bad
said, that if they compensated the two first classes of
claimants, they ought to compensate all, and for these
reasons he should second the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured the House,
that it was most painful 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
to grant them, and lie 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 claims had never b ,en of
a financial character. but it was an of jeetion upon principle.
and rested solely on the great principles of national law,
which had been frequently laid down by the highest legal
authorities whenever these claims had come underdiscussion.
The I..rmer claims were granted, because they were excepted
cases from general internal international law, as was admitteO
by Sir James Mackintosh and all the high legal authorities
who took part in that debate. Although be attached the-
highest authority to the opinion of Mr. Justice CRESSWELL,
and although he could have little doubt as to the result
if the question were to be argued before him, yet
he could not but recollect that Mr. CIiESSWELL, at the time
he brought forward these claims, represented Liverpool, and
that
his constituents were many of them interested in the re-
sult. The declaration of war *by Denmark was in August,
that period. If they oncethese
ea capturesieod
alt wereios.o madewi muntil afterh t,
country waR bound to rski
1807, and not one of
probability
that
h this
thos-
tilities, hadit I
en::
goingnationGovernmentdownthethethey
would
to war in defence of our na-
sHull admitted that
might prevent us from
eptember 10, 1807,
tt iho,n, :el rightswhos.e
e'll' he
claims
oaccrued since
efeor •y of oa-
had no right to compensation, and
Btiliat woul redual
the number of
opinioncliantwsas
,fsroffici.ent too prove the ex-
treme difficulty of the sub
Such a difference of
ect. The Right lid Gentleman
to 10.
then alluded to the minutes of 1834, of Lord AernonrE,
expresslyef declared that captives
• madewhich,
according nt
toe thende die nations, did not come in the
pe
same category as book debts and
ro '
International law always respeciti.edtrlly captured on shore.
but never property afloat. The property
property on shore,
con-
sideration was property afloat. But ta'nniot was said this
w under
property was seized as reprisals. Now these
reprisals are
either restored to the owners, or made prizes
according
the result of negotiations. If they resulted inp e' the
to
reprisals were restored; if they resulted in war, theyeac
declared prizes, but never before had any merchants
situated thought of coming to the House for
compensation, and he warned the House of the extreme
danger of setting such a precedent as was sought to be set in
the present instance. It was only the danger he foresaw 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 House
that these claims must succeed in point of law, because they
were reprisals made before any declaration of war. A fleet
sailed secretly for Copenhagen. The trade continued with
the Baltic; and when the merchnate 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 he 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 rupture? Certainly not. There was no diffe-
rence between goods afloat and goods ashore; the dis-
inetion was—were they captures or reprisals? This was a
simple debt due from the Treasury to the claimants, which
ought to
oe liquidated. Now, with regard to the opinion of
• j ustlee CuEs,swEtt., he would ask, was it probable that
he would riok
bw,u3e he is character as a lawyer, or misstate the law,
114 Memberl9r LiTtrPoca. ;Neither the Attcuey