The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-10 00:00:00

A I'
-
Irto 6 ti
' kW
• ti

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE DANISH CLAIMS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (in con-
tinuation from our Afternoon Edition) said—The fact is
that captures of cargoes at sea during war have always been
considered to be rightful captures.—(Hear, hear.) That has
been the uniform practice and rule with all nations at war,
and I have no doubt that it ever will be the practice in future.
And if you permit a sense and feeling of justice for these in-
d v:duals to be imported into this discussion, bear in mind
that by greeting their claims you impose a heavy tax
and great burden upon every other class of
the community, and you should also make them
compensation for what they have suffered during the
war by contributing to its expenses. I say, therefore, that
you will act most unjustly in granting these claims, for you
will thereby law a tax upon the people of this country.—
(Hear, bear.) If you think fit to remunerate one class,
you should also remunerate another, but you tell me
that the war itself was an unjust one, and that,
therefore, those claims should be paid. Whether the war was
just or not, I say the principle will equally apply.
inutile as a fact that it is perfectly just that theselnpw_aoreas
s:tould be compensated for the loss of their proper)tyhaemd;th
but
t
the sum of 250,000/. should be handed over t
whilst these merchants have lost their propertyb-ected to heavy
the people of this country have been. subject t,' the whole of
They have
burdens for the purpose of carrying ,_t
and in some twenty
borne those burdens, cheerfully, theya ,have paid the taxes
for the purpose of carrying on the war, wseveral persons engaged
years afterwards you discover t
in trade during the war have,_ r, lost their property, and you
agree to a vote for theaccording to the law of nations
and the on ,
livary practice wa
purpose of compelling those people
who have borne the burthen of that war to payanother tax of 250,00:1. I think in a claim of this sort you
are acting not only in contradiction to the ordina'y practice
of nations during war, but you are doing an injustice to this
country; and not only to the extent now demanded, but
von are establishing the principle that during all future wars
with this country compensation shall be made for the cap-
tures that may be made.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, this case has
really been so often argued that it is with great difficulty
that I can brine myself to enter into any further discussion
upon it. I think the ground upon which it has been stated
by the Hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the subject
is, that there was no war between Denmark and England.
If there was no war between this country and Denmark
without a declaration of war on the part of England, then
England has never been at war with any other nation. A
declaration of war was made on the part of Denmark on the
16th August, 1807. That declaration was made by the King of
Denmark, who said, " We do hereby make known, that on
the 13th of this month hostile operations commenced
between Denmark and England; and we therefore call upon
our faithful subjects to take up arms in the first instance
against the enemy, and to repel all hostile attacks." This
Danish declaration was made on the 16th day of
August, 1807 ; and, sir, it is perfectly true that a declaration
of war was not made on the part of England, for it is not
the policy of this country to make declarations of war. This
country has been in the constant habit of suspending for a
long time all hostile operations against othenations, and the
war does not commence until all hope of conciliation is
abandoned. Wars have, by these means been often prevented,
and, Sir, I should be unwilling that any course should be
taken by this country that should operate against that pi:ac-
tire. In the year 1812, when America declared war against
Great Britain, what was the course pursued in this country ?
Great Britain, as the House may remember, made
no declaration of war with America. Two or
three months elapsed while captures were made by
us on American property, as she had declared war, but we
not having declared war, remained so until the September
following. It is no argument in the case to say that we were
rot at war, and that we could not justify the capture of any
property until the 2d of November following, the date of
our declaration. Let ns see how this case has been construed
by competent authorities. I have looked back on many de-
tails on this subject which have never before been under my
consideration, and I will now state what was the view
taken by the Government at that time with
regard to the position of Denmark and this
country, in reference to this war. At the period of which
lam now speaking (August, 1807), certain privateers cap-
tured a number of Danish ships in different parts
of the high seas, near the shores of Great Britain,
on or about the 16th of August, 1807. On the 29th of
August in that year, the Treasury had before it under
its consideration the cases of the captures made by these Bri-
tish privateers. They had speculated on the chances of war
either with Spain or with Denmark, and had fitted out ves-
sels, thinking that in either case they should make some-
thing by it. The Treasury came to the conclusion that
their speculation on the chances of war was so bad a prac-
tice that they would give no captor of a ship under these
speculative circumstances any remuneration. The captors
of these vessels came to the Treasury, in order that
they might have the ships given over to them, and
also the property contained in :them What 'was the
decision of the Treasury ? They were referred to the law
officers, stating that the commencement of the Danish hos-
tilities had been pressed on by the circumstance of these
speculative attacks, and that there would be enough
to do to remove the imputation of rash pro-
ceedings. The declaration of hostilities by Denmark
has been ascertained to have been on the 16th of August,
1807, and the mission of Mr. Jackson was concluded on the
13th, and then an order was issued with reference to all his
Majesty's ships on the coast of Denmark. All these were public
events, and it was more or less known to all individuals
what would be the probable result. The Treasury said
tlat it was expedient to consider the 16th of August the
date of the Danish declaration of hostilities; and, in reference
to the decision they had already given, they acted against
their own interest to say that there had been
no declaration of war but they acted against
their own interest, and in conformity with the justice of the
case. They revoked the order with regard to the speculative
captures in favour of the individuals who made them;
they awarded to these private ships rewards in proportion
to the various sums taken. In short, everything affirmed I
the declaration of war upon the 16th. I see no doubt as to
the existence of that war ; it was acted on as a war by all of
our authorities, although no declaration of war was ever
issued by Great Britain until the 2d of November following.
Another argument of great weight is that the Danes
made their captures because we made captures to a large
am, un' on the Danish property. The Danes succeeded in
taking from you a large amount, and you took a large
amount from them, which was paid to the public account. I
do not admit that tact—it is no greater ground for remuner-
ating there parties than any other favourable circumstance
they can allege. It is unfortunate that from the mixed mode
in which the accounts of the registry in the Court of Ad-
miralty were kept it is not possible to devise what is the
amount which was paid on account of the Danish prize-money.
Tw© of these accounts are, however, quite clear. The
Dalai ,h claims realised a property of a million sterling, and
out of that sum Parliament has voted to parties suffering
from the confiscation of book debts no less a sum than
278,0001., and the proportion of the captors' share in respect
of the remainder is very considerable. We gave to the cap-
tors in the navy concerned in the capture 348,000!., making
a sum of 626,000/. out of the gross sum of a million. No ac-
count of what was specifically paid to individual captors of
priva e vessels can be obtained, but it appears to
have been considerable. The accounts laid on the
table of the House say that it varied from
one-half and two-fifths to four-fifths, according to the
amount taken; so that if we take from the total amount
paid into the registry, and apply that to the total amount
paid in compensation to parties who had suffered, and other
expenses, the balance would possibly give an idea of what
the average proportions paid to private individuals were.
We are now called upon to make a serious inroad en the
public revenue, and are called on also to impose on the
country a tax of 250,0001. to repay those people who uns-
tained losses of property in the war. The Honourable
Member, as I understand, says that he has abandoned
the question of the justice or injustice of the war. I am
very glad to hear him say so; we have had enough of that
argument, and on that point I shall not address the House,
but I shall content myself with proving to the House that
these captures made during this war stand on no different
feoing from those captures made during any other war. If
you are prepared to remunerate those merchants who have
lost their property during the war, you must after-
wards extend the principle to persons who have suf-
fered in property during any other war. These are
the peculiar circumstances which entitle me to your con-
sideration. On these grounds I think it my duty
to oppose this grant. It is important that the payment of a
vast amount, and the great expense also, should not be en-
tailed on the country. The principle is not a safe ene, and
it is for the House of Commons to consider well before they
allow such a measure to pass.
Mr. HAWES--Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman who has
just sat down has made certainly a singular assertion. He says
that frern time to
time the advocates of the Danish claims
have forced atew arguments in their favour, and have then
ventured to
referarse a deba them to this House. It, is the natural
Le, that as you. find an argument
adduced against
urgzil,, to examine those arguments you
have already
Jure, and if you can end matter to
overcome the argu,
conapelle.l to communicate against you, so to do. If I were
eftreebar.d—all that I am going
to urge—to the Chancellor
so with great pleasure), he w„,,utEnxachequer (and I would do
seek in anlace
there waa a Gentleman has
for argument to refute it. The Rigjent
to sh)w that
exerted himself aration of war,
and a declaration of war one atihthe art of b
faith held ntatk ; he has
adhered in all points to owhenhas theei declaration
of veer to )k place, and with that faith he '
I have here before me thell' eavo.urea to
opinion o
decide that question.
al on this case, which was sub-
mitted.
her Majesty's Solicitor-General
will give to the House, as it is
to him, and which I
A his opinion that the declaration on
very short. He stated
the part of Denmark, on the 16th f Angus' was not a ,
decla-
ration of war; the language is precise and explicit, and I
will take the liberty of reading it very shortly; this is his
opinion :—" I am of opinion that the instrument of the 16th
of August, to which reference has been made, is not a
decla-
ration of war, and that it merely orders an embargo on Bri-
tish ships, and not the confiscation of them." (I beg the
House to
mark that.) " There is a distinction between an
embargo and a confiscation. It is stated by the law of Eng-
land and of nations, that an embargo directs only the de-
tention of the property from the owner, and a confiscation
takes away the property altogether. There is nothing in
the instrument in question which authorises the taking away
permanently any British property." It would be presump-
tams in me, against the experience of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and against the opinions of the law-officers of
the Crown, to eater upon a legal argument ; but, in
order to entiiie myself to the consideration of the
Hou.re, I can quote the opinion of her Majesty's
Solicito -General, in answer to the Right lion. Gentleman.
Tne case must no', however, be allowed to rest there. The
Right Hon. Gentleman has said that I have never raised the
question of the justice or the inju,tice of the war. I
have never argued that question ie the discussion of the
Danish
claims. The 'tight lion. Gentleman has assumed
the complete • lush= of the war, and on tl •the 1 has proceeded
to argue that, supposing
Danes to have declared the war, that all that was
taken was the prize of the
Hon. Gentleman I am captors. Against the Right
sorryGentlenan to
oppose this argu-
ment. The Right Hoe.
was a great war on the part of England, and t
saidas that it
Denmark
declared war. If that be so, every state paper published
the time of the war is in direct contradiction to the Hon.at
Gentleman's statement. We went to the Court of Denmark
and said that we wanted, as friends, to continue the nmegok
tiations which were pending before we went there. We have.
teen the declaration that passed between the two nations, and
we have seen the convention, on the part of Denmark, was
kept. Now, then, can we say that it was a just war on our
part? We went there for the purpose of effecting a particular
object by means of negotiation, but had not declared war at
the time—so it is asserted and recorded in all
thesttae papers
of the time—that we were not at war, that we went as friends,
and desired to continue so. The Danish Minister
never left