The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-11 00:00:00

fi!

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1846.

The House of Colpmons list night came to a deci-
sion 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, five 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 votl4an a difficult and compli-
cated question of international law, of the real merits of
which a vast proportion of them must be wholly and
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 a
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 giVe 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 last night, 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 to England.
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.
PIRCEVAL allowed that the property so taken
possession of, amounting, as we have said,
to over 1,300,0001. sterling, should be reserved for the
claims of those who had lost their property by con-
fiscation or seizure. These claims were threefold,
viz.—lst, 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 ; -wad abcordingly, in 1835
and 1836, the two
.IrErst classes were dis-
charged (after only twenty-nine rears' suspense
and delay), but to an amount fluless 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 yesterday 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 4)eit on . the honour and integrity
settlement of tile4l6tattas
of their country for such an amount. In 1841
address to theAdiow.n—wis again carried for the
entitled, who4/41„vrr-t Nam the parties
but in • •
themselves safe in the vote
of a British House of Commons,v.ectatnwere still left to pine
confirmed ttheirthproved in vain and fruitless ex
de-
mands, sanctioned and
tribunal
constituted by the Government for tylle
time being,
by whom they were appointed, were still with-
held ; four times did the House of Commons sanc-
tion by their vote the 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. On 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
vote of that House ; Init, if such exhibitions are re-
peated, 11111 not a we (`'.founded distrust of the House
take place ? Whol,will depend on a vote which
without hesitation may be rescinded and altered ? Are
subjects of policy to be laboriously worked, like the
web cf Penelope, for the sole purpose of having the
original labours undone on a subsequent occasion? We
have not alluded in this articla 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
perusal a letter on the subject which will be found