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

Werich Prisn'the objects of this Bill. He did hope- that that
t, /1,110 fact contain a clause similar to that to whim
Noole. Bsr ,n obj,ctsd woe! i n,st, pa-.s that [louse, but h
was quit' -tug that it ever it reached th eir Lordship's table it
would
who either be larg .1v rn “lifi-d or alteoether rejected. lie
was at the present time Prime Minister of the county,.
and w
ho had been mainly instrume 'tat in passing the Act id
:,?419: had stated in the ti niesty of his heart, and he believed
"'!,heart was honest, that if ever any effectyo.l attempt were
_ made to do away with thesmallall seCanty hich that Ae-
preserved, he would give it his sternest and most decided oki-
Position. The Bill in the other House had already passed
thesecond reading, but he believed that it would be impos-
siblefor it to receive the sanction of the Legislature. In the
Act of 1829 there was a section of what the Noble Baron termed
petty
relation, but which he himself conceived to be of little
Importance. 7 hat section imposed a penalty of 100. upon any
00e assuming the title of bishop, archbishop, or dean of an;
Fr":ince to which they were not entitled by the law of the
and.be. It was evident to their Lordships, that there could not
vv.!'" bishops of the same province at one time. The fact
estahli4heil and the law that ruled it was recognised ; an t
it was no derogation from it, that the offence had been repeat-
edly committed,
because there was a difficulty in bringing the
parties who had offended under the penalties of the Act. It
7, a
-i !I:o.not because letters- appeared in the newspapers, signed
n of Tuam,” that the parties were consequently
convicted of the offence. 'they might certainly sub-.
Pia the editors, but unless it could be shown that a letter
nwartiltibnegen actually placed in their hands, signed in the hand-
of the person who claimed the title, they had no legal
proof-of the offence. But there was another important conse-
quence which flowed from what the Noble Baron called petty
legislation. This was the declaration, under the Act of 1829.
that the Church of England arid Ireland was the Catholic
Churchi and that the Romanists either in this country or in
Ireland, were in a state of schism —( Hear, hear.)
He would now ask if the Roman Catholics were fit persons to
be trustees to present to benefices? He was astonished that
the refusal of the state to grant such a power could be con-
sidered a degradation. It was a gross anomaly in the law of
the 14d'to allois any but members of the Established Church to
Make .such presentations. Before concluding he would !allude
briefly to the Bill itself in some of its provisions. This was
not the first nor the hundreth time the qeestion of supremacy
Was discussed. If the Bill passed in its present form they
would be countenancing the assumption of the supremacy
of the Pope in the most illiberal manner that any
Pope chose to assert. He would be glad to concur
with, the Noble and Learned Lord in mitigating th
denalties of prsemuire and high trea,on, hut the enactment
as torthe supremacy of the. Pope ought to have been left un-
touched, and he considered the safest way would have been to
mitigate these penalties rather than abolish them altogether.
Nominally the,Pope had no direct temporal power, but the,.
he had' that power indirectly. He had the power of de-
throning kings. It would be remembered that the Pope, when
he aka elected to the pontifieal throne, sent letters to th•
soveieigns of Europe announcing the fact. During the reig:
of Napoleon, the Pope deposed eighty bishops because the'
did not subscribe their allegiance. to him. Now this act. c
the Pope was defended by the great friend of Roman Catholic-
Mr. Charles Butler, who went into a very able and learns.,
argn)cent in support of this deposition of bishops, because the:-
would not give the allegiance which they had sworn to Loni
the Eighteenth, to the usurper of the throne. He was again's,
taking off the statute book the penalty of supporting and extend
ing the pernicious principles instilled by the supremacy of th,
Pope. No difficulty had been experienced from the existence 0
these Acts except that they were declared to be a disgrace to th
statute book, and if their Lordships gave them up, they would
to att4 extant, be acknowledging thel supremacy of the Popp.
The common law of the country discountenanced this supre..
Macy, and'he could see no reason why they should not do se
in the present Act. It was difficult for him to say how the,
should do this, but because it was surrounded with difficulty
he would leave it in the hands of his Noble and Learnd Frier
on the woolsack, believing that, his active and intelligent min
woutd find some means for getting rid of the difficulty.
Lord BEAUMONT wished to join with his Noble Friene
who, sat next him, in thanking the Noble and Learned Lori'
for introducing this Bill, and to say a few words upon th
subject last alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate who had
jest resumed his seat.—( Hear, hear.) Ho was not surprised
that-the Government had thought it necessary to take some
measure, for securing themselves against the supremacy of the
Pope, but there were abundant means for guarding against
any abase of their privileges which their priests might exercise.
They might well avoid all this by a concordat, or by doing a•
every other Government in Europe had done, by placing
themselves in relation with the Government of Rome. Had
they done so, all difficulty would have ceased, for to all thos
Governments which had done so, rescripts had been forwarded
empowering them to take the direction of the clergy into thei,
owtglsands, and then it became their duty to be as obedient it
all s -fatal matters as it was their duty to be in temporaL But
in f 14.,1.his dogma of supremacy was altogether regulated
dill ":.,:;rules than those which were generally supposed to he.
The oima of supremacy, in fact, had never been fully carried
aut.*,X.het. was the course which the Court of Rome had pur-
sue, and to Spain? What. with regard to France ane
11.044-?.-:,,Why, it was well known that the Pope hat;
ney ~'Attfi444o4-lhotie)ergy wtb a114341.4k-athftsr4lo. -
Who repudiated his anthority-,:. or : taken any steps tis-'pussta-s;
them. Thenoii gitTarcitlt7tiaeqssineiple-ofkascnt#lffikabis au
premacy, the rule was, tit ths.bnll waiimyeitterseaeakistlie`
bulls might• be itstted4- decidedly contrary texa4ney.,,,.44.-:Un.
WI was ever forLatally-wisisdrawn.- Thus itwas aupposed
th ,a 40..guti was,still,insistedUsion. but no.greater mistake could
tic With. respeetto the Act ofcthe 13th of Eli-
theat its passing ; and
Eli-
zabeth wl'ilas%irt.at all surprised when is
looked track to the period,
and o
f those circumstancescircurn staneesbYhewwas.h i
no
W"
6".*
and'at
htisAocrtypattinSr. nor could he charge the
at attatietuaae.l athtnn
it became law with the spirit of persecu,
parties through w
tionsvithiehslais'ls
(lo Friend had ascribed to them. As to th.
th no,of bulls, it need only be observed the•
theyq amply Passe'
clangor of pievetilga '-'llltrangh' the post-office 'end if there
tastsf sa
or.troasonaete matter in them,-the partie
wereerty..4inge.rou
equally
.liable to t.with
publis/Ainji In were prosecu►ion an!
othea iloctrinal offenders agonst the law. If the law of su
premisey had been anything melt as it was represented to he,
he would be a bad Catholic if he did not hold it op, and exto
it as his Noble Friend had done, instead of utterly and entire'

repAdiating it, as he emphatically did at the present moment
He felt bound to say that the attempt to introduce Papal domi.
nation in temporal affairs in all the continental countries, wa
withont'snecess. He would askthem to repeal those numernu
Aots with reference to persons pro•essing the Roman Catholi
relitinit4 ';ind to blot them out at once in the statute. Lel
their laws eie-a little more in accordance with the other civilise,'
Governments or 7uropetend let measures be adopted at one,
to do away with the anornialy- Their Lordships might b
assuecentat there was
.nothing' to fear at the present momeo,
with respeet to any attempted usur_pet ion of the Papal power
this country. They knew little of the Roman- Catholic spiri'
if they could think that any attempted interference on the par
of the. Pope in teMporal affairs would not b' resisted. Wer
they acquainted with the state of society on the Continent, a"
situ the spirit which existed in the various Roman Catholi
State's ? Did they know what was the general feeling whit.,
reigned in the society in Italy and also in Spain within the la,
year or two ? Had they read the writings of various learne
:authors-in France? He was convinced there was no danger it
the present measure, and would willingly in expungin,.
tfkusevobrroziotts Acts from the statute-book. He would leave
honker- the entire management of all ulterior arrangemen
to 14i Noble and Learned Friends.
L.iid-OpLCHES'TER said the Noble Lord had referred
the Lemporal changers in the Pope's supremacy which had bee.
inade-inwther countries. He thought that the Pope had acte,,
veevs isely in inteeering in Spain, Por!ugal, and other emir'.
tries, because the state of men's minds in those countries wa

such as not to admit of any interference en the part of the Pop,
in their temporal affairs. He thought that very great change
vr eretalcx'ng place among the clergy in our country, and i
was isn't altogether clear that their domination might not ulteriotly .
belia greatly increased if steps were not taken to preven
s quite willing to acquiesce in the principles of tha
.aout whit:lh pl,7ovided that no penalty should be inflicted on an.-
Perla* profess up' any religion, whether he were a Roman Ca
tholKa" LJecr,, of. a MabameAan• .-
Li:Irct.',CAMPBELL said he did not wish to thro-i any oh-
stacWin the ss'ay of his Noble and Learned Friend, hut h.
thowlit at; all is.es-its he ought to have introduced the two Bills
tegeaher, that they might be and their
Lordthips might ha.:,re the opportunity of Piasngsoufr both. Th.
statf of the law with respect to Itiman Catholics oat dis-
graceful. Roman Colholies were obliged to sacsbi'llaiaegtvinet
.wt as no
partiof their religion .`a say that they did not believe
lawful to murder a man vim had been excommunicated it
;ha;
Pope, Wore accepting any .office of trust. Noble Lords L •
s pro.
leasing the Roman Catholic religion, before they could take s
seat in that House, were compelled to take an oath that they
did ilot think. it lawful, if her Majesty were excommunicated
that could be dethroned by her subjects. The Bill, in it,
presaart form, met with his most hearty approval. 'He f.-tt.sati,
Led, that unless some understanding' was come to between this
country and the Pope of Rome, the Raman Catholic clergy in
Great Britain would never be at rest wish respect to the re-
ligioise powers they might possess and exexcise. An arrange-
ment might easily be made which would settle all differences.
He hoped that the Bill would pass with the almost unanimou,
opinion of the House, and trusted that the Noble and Learne
Loral on the Woolsack would bring his other Bill before the
House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said he would dea'
-with the case of supremacy. It had been suggested by a Right
:Rev,.- Prelate, that tie Judges should be summoned, in order to
give their opinion upon that point. He objected to such a pro-
sceeding, because that point was so clear, that the Judges would
it a mere waste of time for them to attend. A very high
otati.',ority had been consulted, and his opinion was clearly io
ac.eoi-clance with his own, which had been expressed on a former
occas ion. Another question with re-peat to the promulgation
of bu 111 from the see of Rome, had arisen. nulls had, however,
been imported with impunity into Scotland, and
no harm had
ariset ~ nor had any harm been anticipated. Why, then, was
there any danger to apprehend from their importation
En gtand ? The harm was purely imaginary, and was no,-
vrortlh a moment's consideration.
Lo rd CAMPBELL wanted to know when they might ex •
pest ;to see the other Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend?
Thi e LORD CHANCELLOR said that perhaps his Noble
and Leaaned Friend would take charge of it himself.—
(Hear. ) He' believed that " bulls" were included in the
ew• tai.iff, and would perhaps be admitted under a Custom-
nou ae regulation.
T was then read a second time, and ordered to he
comva
The it Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COAX M ..._
ONS, April 30.
THE DANDANISH
CLAIMS.
Mt.:. HAWES rose
once more Ist much confusion, and spoke as
follovesi,.-----Sir,
„re
makeventure to make au appeal to the
House, and once in
on tiL paper of to-day, tothe motion which I have placed
sir,
after . .. whicha occurred in Denmark in
which arose out of tran.aetions Consider of those Danish claims
canarrents which have bten
the :fear 1807.
adde med. against this questiimu:
discussions which
• folio's place upon it, I should haeridillany
have
in o. twining the time of the House, n ly feel myself justified
stror 'gest conviction of the equity amii.ess I entertaine.l the
I will endeavour, Sir, to compress whajusltice of these claims.
narro vs • compass. Now, Sir, the argumentsthave to say into a
which have been
raiiedi: against these claims have mere!
enab,iet 1 to consider them, resolved there%Loe far as I have been
s into two in num-
ber. ' They have been of a financial eharacter,
urged it pon the House from time to time by the which have been
Chancellor of
the * thequer, who, I think, rather looked to the
eetiwg--- the claims than to the justice of difficulty of
rn the case ' f he
other,
pcharacter,
o+t jection was of a far more important *
and one
that I , "in I feel much difficulty in contending w
that 'the legal objections whi'-h have been raised, especially"'l own
the f ilon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, who has exhibited
by
eons. ideraNe knowledge of law—especially international aw
are d iffiCtiit .
to meet. I kno.v. also, that there are many diffi-
euttip is surroum2ing. this question. Nevertheless, those diffi-
enlti. as which have been urged have not deterred the House, on
flan, 7 occasions, frond affirming. by considerable majorities, the
Asti. ee of the chii:.as that were urged on the attention of
Ile Howe. Now the circumstances out of which these
alt °3 arose T may 'tate in a very few words. In the
yearcll; 48117, the British Go
Nernment having been informed that
- "4 nish fleet A AA • to be , 'llse d at the disposal of Napoleon,
adverse to the %West sof this country, determined, upon the
in;
41113 ationwhich had •eived, to take for
Tiity r.e: measures
Ilemlß g that 'ion was one that wag got tie
fleet. The expedi.
with' the
ae0,,,,
___, greatest secrecy and the greatest promptitude, and I
".• ---'uY . viefer to the duties relating to the fitting out and
ire halfof the expedition on the coast of Denmark, in order to

show to the fintise that the expedition was so prompt and
cret that. the British merchants could not by possibility have
aid any intimation of it. That expalii en sailed from this
-every on the 27th of July, and arrived with the British
'slinkier, at. C•prnit,gen, the lst of August. Copenhagen
ves invested on the 8' h. This expaeitien went not for the
,•urpese, a, it. has since; transpire of making a hostile aggress
to on Demo trk, bu'_ fir the purpose of eilforeiog a neeo
oon. A negotiation was entered into on the arrivol of the
:}dot off the coast of Denmark, before any act of hostility
maseenced. It continued even for a considerable
ime after. The Danish fl et was seized, and Denmark, of
sourse, placed an embargo on British property, and British
vessels, an Danish property and vessels were in turn seized by
•he British. Our Government took property to the am mot of
!,3' o,oao , and the Danish Government seized property to
ialf that amount. The negotiations had commenced before a
sintrle shot was fired, as I have before said, and continued long
:titer the surrender of the fleet and the seizure and confiscation
if property. This negotiation came to no satisfactoryri, con :he
ion, and Denmark declared war against this c• r
iSeeember Great Britain declared war against.
of
him,the
4th of November following; but it was not until notilntmheaYr2k4th oltf
irs
rueragsentrlyb,y
ttfhheeftwigihilt
and neces..
that this declaration of war on our parr was natural
siiiermalitGanereltfleormaanm, smheenFtitrostreLfeorrdto
attacked by British arms while a
vas seized, anti Copenhagen
• ary in defence of our own property. The fleet of Denmark
os• Hues were to cease, and thatlld all public convention was pending; and this aive nittilot:
adnellaprretdvattheatpraol.l
to this convention for the
;Jerry was to be re,pected- a
been ion
t. force
have
elarabt war.
up to and at ,urpose odf sattiowtihneg
ptehraiotdl
theitofumeu st
I have alluded, and therefore the parties
Hie declaration of war did not set aside the provisions of the
convention to which
for whom l seek the protection of the Hou-e were entitled to
he benefits of its provisions. Not to give them that benefi t
.vas a flsgrant violation of that convention. The debts arose
lit of the declaration, of war. Some time after these trans.
actions took place, Mr. Canning made a remarkable de-
elaration on this subject. It was in answer to Mr. Perceval,
who brought the question of ti,ssse claims under the eonsidera-
`ion of the House. (The Hon. Member here read the extract,
sat from the noise that prevailed in the House it was impos-
..ible to catch the. words. I's purport was, as far as we could
gather, an admission on the part of the Government, that the
-!aims were founded in justice and ought to be entertained.)
Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the trans-
.stion at the time which it happened, it was certain since
hat time Parliament had on several occasions admitted,
hat the applicants who had suffered during that war, and
ander the convention to which he had referred, were entitled
o consideration. The claims put forward were of three
kinds. The first claim was that of those who had debts
swing to them by Danish subjects. The second kind of
21aim were those preferred by merchants who had goods seized
to the occasion. And the third claims were those of parties
"rho had an interest in ships and cargoes thatsuffered in the war.
he words of the minutes of that convention acknowledged the
'save of the claims advanced by the three classes; and in the
fears 1835 and 1836, the first two classes of claimants had their
emands settled. In a year or two afterwards, the subject was
'gain brought under the consideration of the Government and
of the country, and the Government received upwards of
1,300,00i1/. in order to settle these claims. But the Govern-
elent, although allowing the justice of those claims, refused to
iiforee redress, although they held I roperty amply sufficient to
• atisfy the claimants. In the year 1839, the subject was again
isought before the House, and who brought it forward ? It
"as brought forward, not by an humble individual like myself,
;hose opinions, whatever they might be, would be scarcely
sorthy of recollection, but it was brought under the notice of
he House by a most accomplished lawyer, who would not have
ine so until he had well considered the consegm-nces. He
übmitted these claims to the House, and the House again
anctioned their justice ; but the thee Chancellor of the
.xchequer still delayed the settlement of them. With
he determination, however, to ascertain their le.-
:ality, a motion was made for a Committee, which
vas carried. The Committee met, and they reported upon
he claims of those parties. To that report I shall shortly call
he attention of the House. It stated that the Committee had
iroceeded to consider the merits of the several claims submit-
-ed to their consideration, and that they came to the following
result :—The claims amoanted to half a million, which was re-
faced to two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds Scotch.
This sum of money was obtained from the sale of several car-
;toes which had been seized and said, and which consisted of
etiods imported from the Baltic. In 1841, Mr. Justice Cress-
sell movetl and carried an address to the Crown that the ques-
tion would be speedily settled; and had not Mr. Justice Cress-
vell been convinced of the legality of these claims, he would
on have ventured to have risked his professional reputation by
insisting on them. I must say that this case ought not to rest
in strictly technical grounds. At the time those seizures were
•nade the Government were exposed to considerable danger ;
thought it necessary to fit out several secret expeditions; and
those who were losers by them were, of course, those chiefly
tonnected with the mercantile interest. And the House should
lever forget that prizes were made to the extent of 13,0001., and
that they never distributed more than one-half of them.
sir, I am most unwilling, therefore, to touch upon that ques-
s_o9.- I rather wishttto deal with it as a eginessioessof an en.,
ttaeifetlyperisonalmature., •al think ifaany,orse will talietSbe•trOuble
lteriflalawsitt.laisAinthgn the trouble. to refer to all th.at has
7.•-ranstaiwia.thicsnfiject, it is quite clear that -these claims
aria futianteit in justice, inasmuch as the public policy which
ndtired.he:Grovertititent to take the part which they did in-
solved the people concerned in theis losses. It is quite im-
masible forme to say whether that policy was just or unjust.
glut, supposing that policy to be just, it was perfectly impoa-
oble for the Government to pretend to anything like justice
%hen they gave no public notification to the merchants of this
iountry that they were about to enter upon the course which
hey took. The Admiral of the port received no intimation
if that policy, and the merchants took no other precautions for
heir safety than they would under ordinary circumstances
atrainsttfea-• risky. The trade in the Baltic was considered
:afe. and they therefore entered into nothing more than the
wdinary insurance against sea risks. Sir, under these cir-
u:nstances, when the British merchants were not forewarned
ay any public Act, or warned by any official notice, they
are, I contend, a perfect right now to ask this House and
he Government of this country to give their sanction to a
;ominittee of this House for investigating those claims. Sir, 1
lave endeavoured to go as little over the whole ground as
ses,ible in submitting the case of the claimants. You will
tot, I will venture to say, refuse the Committee for which I
•k. I hope that those Hon. Members who have attended to
his subject from year to year will again give the vote which
hey did in favour of a Committee of Investigation. lam
aerfectly aware that the Goverment was placed in great difficulty
the opinions delivered by the law officers of the Crown.
ilet I submit that this'question is not a m suer of law. It is a
'nixed ease of law, equity, and justice.— (Cheers.)
Sir J. HANIIER—I hold in my hand a petition front the
•own I have the -honour to represent.—( The Hon. Member
as proceeding with his speech, when the Sergeant-at-Arms
;speared at the bar, and announced, " That •in obedience to
to orders of the House, and in conformity w:th the warrant
st the Speaker, he had taken the Honourable W,l!iam Smith
}'Brien into custody.")—The Hon. Member recommenced by
,yin;;, I hold in my hand a petition from the town
I have the honour to represent, and in present..
.og that petition I take the opportunity of ex-
treating in a few words the reason why I consider this question
hould be speedily decided. Ido not think that it is altogether
lithe a proper cuiestion for the consideration of Parliament. I
::annot say that I look with any considerable favour upon this con-
- inue I renewal of the question, and I feel earnestly that justice
,hould be done, and that a fi..al decision upon the question
.hall be arrived at—and that a complete, clear, and strong ex-
pression of Parliament should be come to on the subject. I
am afraid that year after year we shall be going en further and
irther from arriving at such a resut. And now, to
ipproach the merits of the question itself, it appears to me that
-hey lie in a very narrow compass. In the case of the Danish
tlaiins, all compensation for those Danish claims has formerly
'seen denied. At that time it was stated by the Honourable
'alerfoer for Portsmouth, that the large and respectable body
if individuals who had suffered upon the occasion, and who
now Claimed .compentation for their losses, had no right to
came to Parliament, or be compensated by the Government.
1 think that Government had chosen properly :to compensate
two classes of the Danish claimants. They were those claim-
ants who could not he supposed to withdraw easily, and at a
short notice, from the port of Denmark during the war ; people
who owned good debts iu the town of Copenhagen, or pos-
-essed cargoes and valuable goods in the warehouses of Den-
mark, were possibly prevented from setting sale with their ships
mod getting out of the reach of those who wished to obtain'
pesseasion of them. Such was the argument used by the
then Solicitor-General. However, I do not think that we can
sustain that opinion altogether,ut I think if an embargo
was laid upon these ships before any official public notice was
given har-
bour given to merchants in this country, that the Danish
i
oyehtmf n
eno
t wished
intimationheii British ships to
that leave
the their
state of
was
disturbed!—on
arresbeae:lo I - --n
to bei the relations of Denmark with this country were about to be
ir
tuu
alnid oset
compensated
Member
efanonrsda
tHed Iu
idlroortnhtohatet als,r,ulsy(s,aehns
ccwleahtimet hh:iinstthseolitaa i ryi ieo na
twined from the proceeding. If a fair notice was given toythsuen%
to set sail for another harbour, I would not so strongly insist
on their right to receive compensation
; but if no official no-
tice was afforded before the 2nd of Feb., 1807, those persons
tvittagarenea
erxipgehdtittioon.beagloinnsstidewtcrhh
ed as not having started upon a
there was no impediment,
and the unfortunate termination of whieh was beyond their
conception ; then, I think, they are entitled to that comp n-
atation. Now, Lord Sidmouth, on the 17th of May, 1808, on
which occasion a similar motion to that now before the House,
was discussed, said, " Such a notice was passed in the Court
of Denmark, on the 2nd of September, and a similar order
was afterwards issued by his Majesty's Government in Council,
that no ships bekmging to his Majesty's subjects should clear
out for the port of Denmark, as a general embargo was in-
tended to be laid on them." Now, if that notice was issuett
in this country on the 2nd of September, and ships sailed
afterwards, then, I think, they are not entitled to the
cornpensatien sought The opinion of Lord Sidm•tuth, in
which I agree, is very favourable to the compensation of
those who incurred losses. He said. on the subject of compen-
sation, there could not be the smahest difference of opinion.
Unfortunately, there was a d.ffnt-drehnacde of
tilcehmheanitl
,xi.sted up to the present time, and
of the question for years,‘'ealta:av Lird Sidmouth
h years,
ancluded peace with
tither Countries, and was able an
had been ChancellortohfestehesevEexrci e
et°a"tlePd the only arguments on
fitent to give an opinion
find on the 2d of Septem-
t,cmhit(lthle
Imianttteenr
to rest.
Sir,
slayh athaaetsi
her an order was issued by
Now, I think
which no person had a right to compensation.
his Majesty's Government ; after
proof that the mer-
chants issuing ofthat
order was a sufficient
to second the motion.
time. beg leave,
had no right to clear out of the Danish ports before that
On the question being put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said
it is very painrul to me to
I can assure the House, sir, that
have again to repeat those opinions and those sentiments which
I have so often had occasion to address to the Howe on this
et
Sir, I
House, and sometimes when sitting on the other.
particular subject ; sometimes when sitting on this id of the
But,
have had from these repeated discussions full opportunities_ of
hearing all that can be urged on this particular subject, havtri, T
had carious opportunities of eonsiderati ;n and reflection ; and
I adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed upon
toe subject, that it is one in which it is not consistent with
public policy for the House to interfere, arid that it. is one in
whieli it is not consistent with the duty of him to whom her
Majesty has entrusted the finances of this country to acquiesce.
Sir, I believe also, very strongly, that it is a matter of great
delicacy on the part of the House of Commons, in dealing with
a question of this kind in the manner in winch the Hon.
Gentleman proposes to deal with it. A rule was most wisely
laid down by the constitution, that the House of Commons
should not take upon itself, independently of the Crown, to
originate any grant of money, and this rule was expressls laid
down to guard against the possibility of parties Laing
rather by persons who had a direct interest, to come to ua-r. gvote
,
of public money, which a consideration of the general interests
of the country dil not
authorise, and the House therefore,
y!'
imposed the check in that respect. But it
Al' place the
Crown in that most inconvenient position of having, instead of
as usual, to originate such a grant, to refuse it whenrec ed by a Committee of this House. I think that it isaommomsettl'ind-
convenient position in which to place the Crown on an oc-
ca
sion,where gravelegaldouhts as to the claims exist, and where
the question of how far the right of the House to interfere is
invelved, fo eall upon it to make any grant upon such d matter.
The Hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by stating that
these claims were refused or, two special grounds—one of these
grounds being financial, and the other being founded on inter-
IlationAl law. Ido not agree with the Hog. Gontltinan, Trim

he states that the objections to these claims are of a financial
character. Tl,ey [wain-, let me observe, rested on that prin-
ciple, as the lion. Member for Portsmouth had presumed, for
wi:eiher these claims be, as they were now, fir 500,000:. or
200,0W+1., it is not the amount that we should
regard in nor
l
decision, but it is the principle involved by coming to sue a
decis'on. The danger involved is not only the expense
oi
we
&maid incur, but the exl,ense we should expose oursiilves to
wars
respect of past wars, and our successors in respect of those wars
to cerise. Th qnestion rested in a great rnets,ure on inte-na-
tional law now lain down in this House, by gentlemen of the
highest legal authority; and it also rested on the opinions of
men who combated the former jtaigment on this important ques-
tion. The Solicitor-General had expressed his opinion against
it in this House, when the question was legally discussed,
and I have never yet heard any answer to his opinion.
The question does not rest oily on the opinion of those lion.
and Learned Gentlemen who have lately given their opinions,
hut it rests on the authority of all those legal gentlemen who
have taken part in previous debates in this House, when former
claims were urged. Those gentlemen all said that the claims
„hat were then urged were only to be maintained where there
was some conviction or proof of any violation of the law of na-
tions; and they reserved to themselves the point that the Mr-
curnstanees on which this claim was founded, were of a totally
different eharacier from those laid down in the category of those
who made the claims. This was the argument of the Hon.
Member :or Sheffield, when he said that these claims should be
decided by an exposition of international law. Thests.claima
have been supported by an Hon. Gentleman formerly a Mem-
ber for Liverpool ( Mr, Cresswell), and in his constituency were
large bodies of individuals personally interested in the question
now before the House. Mr. Cresswell brought forward the
question, as ne considered he had a duty to perform to his con-
stituency, and that he should present to the House the circum-
stances under which this case arose, in order that it might have
the benefit of a discussion in the House of Commons.
Great importance is attached to the opinion of Mr. Justice
Cresswell, from his eminent legal abilities ; but it ought to be
borne in mind that he represented a large mercantile body,
many of whom had an interest in the question.--( Hear, hear.)
Whatever value is attached to the opinion of that eminent
lawyer, the House should weigh against it the fact that he acted
in that matter as it bee imc, his duty as aj representative in
Parliament.--(Hear, hear.) The Hon, Gentleman who
brought forward this question lays great stress on the ground
that this was a secret expedition, and this injury to which
the merchants had been exposed in consequence of not
having information so as to escape the danger. On this point
the House should consider the extreire hazard which would
grow nut of giving information in such cases. I have not
heard any sound reason given why compensation should be
given in cas-s of this kind, and arising out of such circum-
stances. I have heard nothing advanced to convince me of
the opinion that the captures for which compensation is sought
took place after the declaration of war. The declaration of
war against Denmark took place on 'he 16th of August, 1807,
and no capture was proved to have taken place subseiiuent to
that date. I have already referred to this declaration, and
given its terms, and I now assert that it was issued on the
16th of August, and the captures were antecedent to that
period. But it is said it was a secret expedition, and, therefore,
compensation should he given. If you carry out that principle
what will be the effect? If you give compensation in the pre-
sent. instance, you are bound to give it in every other case.
Grant the present claims, and whenever an enemy is attacked
under similar circumstances, whenever a secret expedi-
tion is fitted out, you will be bound by such a prece-
dent for every capture which is made at sea during
the progress of the war. Let us see how the principle
applies to other wars. See how it would apply to the last
war with the United States. No notice was given then
that our merchant shipping was in danger, yet, according to
this principle we should be bound to grant compensation for
every capture. Such a ground of compensation now sought
would establish a principle applicable not only to the Danish
war, but to all other wars; and in all captures of merchant-
ships arising nut offseeret expeditions they would have motions
made and claims advanced for compensation. In every parti-
cular ease the House would be called upon is make advances
of money in order to saris), the parties. It would be impos-
sible for the country to go into war and-defend its just eights
without being subject to claims for damage done to private in-
dividuals in the prosecution of such expeditions as that out of
which had arisen the present claims. But there seems to be
great doubt among Hon. Gentlemen who support this motion.
The Hon. Member for Lambeth supported the claims of one
c'ass, while the Hon. Baronet the Member for Hull supported
the claims of another class. The Hon. Member for Hull says,
that no indemnity ought to be given in certain cases, because
he has found out. that an Order in Council was issued on the
2nd of September, 1807. that no British ships should clear out
for Denmark because they would be liable to be seised upon
and confiscated by that Government ; and therefore argues the
Hon. Baronet they have no claim for indemnity. What is the
effect of this disagreement? Why, out of the eighty-five persons
who, according to the statement of my Right lion. Friend
opposite have claims, if the opinion of the Honourable
Baronet the Member for Hull is taken—( Hear, hear)—only
10 can have any claim at all. Thus we see that these learned
doctors—learned in the doctrine of international law —are
divided to the extent, that while the one would admit the

rights 0f.8.5 elaimants, the other scout only give, compensation
to 10,,',Can5 sirong,r,-.prdrff than this be required that-ih,
subject is 'not 'of that very 61ear character that it_sias repres
sented by the Hon. Member for Lambeth to be? The Hon.
Member for Lambeth has, I think, not very fairly stated the.
opinions of Lord Althorp, as given in 1834. The report of
1834 states—" We are all aware that these claims are made
for the losses sustained on this occasion by the act of the
Danish Government, but we do not conceive that Parliament
would be disposed to admit the principle that such claims could
be entertained:" As I have stated before, I am ♦ery little
competent to argue the legal points as to what constitutes the
lawful seizure of property. It may appear that there is no
valid reason why property on shore may not' be captured as
well es property at sea, and why the former should be safe
while ships and cargoes should be exposed to seizure. But I
believe no one will deny that such is the principle of interna-
tional law.--( Hear, hear.) They have respected -pro,-erty on
shore, but never that on the sea. This property, like a great
deal of other property, had undergone the chances of war. It
is said that these were only reprisals, and that they therefore
stand from other ships. Now. what is the question of repri-
sals ? It is something of this kind. You lay your hands on
whatever property you can legally take, in order to compel
your enemy to accede to reasonable terms.—( Hear, hear. )
Well, then, this prope►ty happens to consist of ships and mer-
chandise. If the differences are settled, they are returned;
if the war goes on, why, they are sold. But really,
after the war has commenced there is no distinction as
to property captured after the deelaratiou of war and after
the com►nence►nent of actual hostilities. All I wish to in-
culcate on the House is the danger to which the country will
be exposed if they set a precedent that if they-went to war
Kith a foreign nation, some six-and-thirty years after they could
be induced to co►npensate all who had suffered any detriment.
Stinding in every respect upon the footing on which these
cargoes and ships were taken. I contend that you are not entitled
to ask the House of Commons for a Committee to inquire into
these claims. Sir, I can assure the House that it is only from
a sincere desire to avoid all the dangers which I see incident
to an acipliescence in things of this kind that I
,have on so

many occasions expressed my opinion on this subject. I have
.tbstained, as the H in. Gentleman has done, as much as pos-
sible, from repeating the arguments which I have used before
with respect to this question. I do not rest, as the Hon.
Gentleman does, tip•tn any technical grounds. It is upon a
great national principle, it is upon the bread Principle which I
have already stated, that if you once lay down this principle
that you will protect all ships and cargoes during war, no limit
can be placed to such claims hereafter. I. is on these grounds
that I must resist the motion of the Hon. Member opposite
for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the Danish
claims.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. WATSON—I trust I shall be able to show the House,
on principles of public justice and national law, the justice of
these claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that
those who represent large commercial constituencies have a
peculiar mode of looking at the question of international law
in this House. Will he allow me to make a retort that the
Bight:Hon. Gentlemen who have visited the purlieus of the
Treasury seem also to have a very extraordinary view of the
Pubic policy and the public justice of international law.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, Sir, let us see first of all
what the facts are in this case. and the grounds on which this
el dm must succeed These cargoes and ships were taken
before any declaration of war whatsoever. —( Cries of
" Hear, hear.") This country having ascertained that
a party was about to seize the Danish fleet, sent
out a fleet under sealed orders and perfect secrecy, so
that not a single merchant of this country could know
where that fleet was. The relations between Denmark and
England continued ; the merchants continued in their inter-
course with the Baltic. They continued in their intercourse
with Denmark all the time. The fleet went to the Baltic, and
on the Admiral being asked whether or not they might safely
trade in the Baltic, he distinctly communicated to the mer-
chants that they might do so.--( Hear, hear.) Well. Sir, that
being so, I a'k on what ground of publicy it is that these
claims are attempted to be resisted ? Should it not be our pub-
lic policy to encourage the merchants in carrying on their
trade? I say that by our national law they are clearly entitled
to those claim.. But what was the declaration that was made
to the Admiral when they entered the Baltic? They said,
" We come to your shores as inhabitants of Zetland, not as
enemies—(this, I believe, was dated August, and I have not the
exact date)—not as enemies, but in self-defence, anti to prevent
those who are se willing to destroy Europe from doing so."
"We come not -as enemies," and yet the Right
Honourable Gentleman has said they are not entitled
by international law to make these claims.—( Hear, hear:)
War was declared nri the 4th of November. The Danish bassador demanded his passports on the 16th November. It-
has been attempt-cl to say that the declaration of war took place
on the 14th Att.tust, in the declaration of Ctoristadt. In the
case of a declaration of war between two countries, the in-
habitants of each country would have warning not to trade with
each o7her ; if they were to do so, they would then be guilty of
a breach of the law of their country, and vessels going to Den
mark might be justly captured by English vessels, on the ground
that they were attempting to trade with an enemy. Oa the
7th of August, it was declared by the 13..itish Envoy that war
was upon the point of commencing between the two countries,
and at the same time demanded his passport, on the ground that
war between the two countries might be considered as having
already broken out. It has been said by Hon. Members oppo-
tthriaets.
thisl will w
a parove a, by
oppo-
site that this was a declaration of war between the two
Lordcoun-
tries.
rireprisals,
i
detcillaeradtieo'n'ision of
of
not a declaration of war; and in the declaration
issued by the Danish Government, the following words
occurred :—" We merely call upon our faitheil subjects to
take up arms to defend themselves and their property, and to
ward off this violent attack ;" and this document further states
that an embarco would be laid upon foreign vessels. Now that
point has been decided by Lord Stowell, in the Admiralty, in
the case of the " Orion." The ease was, whether the capture
was the right of the Crown or the Admiralty. He said, that
if the capture was made before the declaration of war, it was
the right of the Admiralty,
but it reverted to the Crown if
taken after the declaratai. .
n The capture was, therefore, the
right of the Crown, ins,much a: there wa: nt, deelaration of
war until the 4th November.
The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer comes down
to the House,
•and says we must resist these
Mmbers for Lambeth, and Hull,
claims, because the Hon. Me ,
may entertain of opinion upon the
some little difference
subject. The real question is, when was war declared? It
M bers that there is great
has been stated by some Hoe. em
danger if we compensaie these Danish claim,nts we shall also
have to compensate the French and other claimants for losses
which they may have sustained io a war with England. A
little reflecion will tell those Hon. Gentlemen
of war is made the such could
that
not be the case, because after a &clatan

prizes are the prizes of war. Such prizes are not entitled to
compensation when the war has broken out, for everybody
knows the situation in which they were placed, every ship cap-
tured by the Danish and French are not entitled to compensa-
tion. Now let me look at the justice of the cace. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has thrown some impediment in the
way of this matter. He says it is not respectful to the Crown
—that it is a question that reflects on the Ministers. In 18.3
the Hon. Member for Sheffield brought the matter forward,
and again in 1837 and in 1838. In 1841, the Com-
mons voted that in justice the compensation sought
for should be given to the parties, but, however,
it was rot acceded to, and now the Right Hon. Gon-
tleman wishes to make out a vast distinction with respect to
cthanefrobteig.hi:bstto:infta,hdder;blsays simants. and says it is not respectful for us
to address the Crown. Now, I say, it is altogether respect-
ful t, doing;h)eCr() for,up up upon the
e thiss
übjet(ile, whenno
justice
has been meetod to the parties. The Treasury at this moment
has many "1446 of pourlcij Rhinh were paid )1 the pahieh