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

this case ever occuring again. I trust that England_will never.
be guilty of such harsh conduct towards Denmark. I'do nut
• believe- there is any chance whatever
those measures which 1 hate eulealered most eernieioas and nn-
-graceful to an English nation, and I think that those who were
athe partieuto this transaction should hate acquitted themselves
as soon as possible of the claims Kainst them. The Learned
Gentleman save that th:s is the first., time that this class of
claims was arliiitted. Why, Sir, we know that. a.:l
- • were put on the same footing. I believe I have eased them
twenty times, or at least as many. times as this subject has been
• brought. forward, and doe, ;het Hen. Gentleman make any dis-
tinction when he knows that the Right Hoe. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer entire! by him never made any
distinctitin between any of there rtima. He' rejected them
all as unjust, and that distinction row made is perfectly tidicu-
, lens for him to attempt to make any separation. It is true, Sir,
that those who advocated these claims did, in consequence
et some intimation, draw a line tint mak- a division b tween
these three slates, but, Sir, I cannot see any d.stinction between
. them whatever. 1 think the Learned Gentien an on this side,
- who has stated the case. has era an a line; but I have always
•• objected to the Grcernrn. ns insisting that a declaration of ear
was then made. I have ony to say, that an argument more in-
eoeciu•ive could not be brought forward on any question.
consider that we should by no means reject these claims, froni
.: any fear ot a precedent h trig made out for future or past eases.
. I state that there is no fear of any claims '44 this sort being
hereafter made. I conairi..r that the parties wlri m.,ke these
:aims are asking for nothing but insece, and th t the Govern-
ment would r e acting most unfairly in refu-irg a Cemeettee to
inquire into these clams.—( Hear. ) Goverament ha- been in
possession of funds to the amount of upward. of 12.,(4 o_ooo and
this they have had in their possession ever since the ye, r 1807;
and when I look at the email sums granted. I might say for the
Mini•tera, by votes of ihil H. use, I do consider that ample funds
are still reesaining in their hands to repeat all their claims,
•• and I chink Ministeis uld coulee-1W to pay these claims.
• I think this should be the ru e,t hat on whatever grcund Govern..
• merit may think themsel C.'4 w <rranted in ceinmeecing bovine*,
• they should tot al'ow any porno,' of the British aubk•cts to
suffer by such pros; ediegs, and that if any expenses ahoted he
incurred they should be seeded eqiially. One or two inttivi-
:, duals should not bear the loss. 1 think it is clear from docu-
ments of this Mouse, that the merchants beftee they left the
River Thames, asked the Admiral y if there was .any dagger
- . in se ding their vessels to Denmark. Ater arriving in the
Baltic, thsly also inquired of the English Admiral on the
st,lion, and the answer they received from him was "No."
• The merchants were deceived by the Government. Govern-
. meat concealed their plans by giving answers which they kretw
were err-owe:me and they did it upon these grounds, that
English merchants and shipowners were to he mulcted
and fined of their property. Some time since it was
alleged, and strong argumeats held in this House, that t et
were not entitled to compensation as they might have been
insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have
I heard a single argument brought forward to-night in °post-
. tion to these cleims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taker.
as any precedent. No war can take place upon such
principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we
may throw that on one tide: I ground my vote, as I always
have done, upon these two plain facts that Eng.'s% nercharits
trading to Denmark considered that they were true:, g under
• the protection of a eglish laws, when the British Government
had cammeneed .stilitias. They had no at-tyke, and I eceivi d
no information on the sul.jeet fill after their property had-"
been seized. Upon these grounds, i think that these indivi-
duals have a right to demand of the Government pas ruent of
their clams—and I only wish that I could at:d, anti interest.
The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the
whole amount of their claims. It would be oily justice to add
the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any
of the claimants are now gene to the grave, their relation: now
seine forward and justly ask of you compensation for their claims.
All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. MY
opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, princ,pal
and
interest, a' fairly and as justly as any individual having any
• claim against any other individual. It is on these grounds,
Sir, that I do hope every man in this House will see justice
done to those who have SO long suffered, seeing that there are
ample funds for the purpose. I trust the Hons.! will do as it
did before, support the motion of the Hen. Member, and that
the Ministers will not act as they have heretofore done, but will
cheerfully come forward arid agree to the 'notion. —( Hear. )
Mr. F. T. BA RING—I am anxious to say a few words on
this subject, because I invariably offered the motion my deter-
mined opposition; and I must, in the first place, express a hope
that whether you have money in the Treasury or not.
if this claim is a just claim, I think we are bound
to tweed' to it. I have never taken it as a mere
financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence,
but whether the claim wag founded on justice or ( Hear,
hear.) Certainly, if it had been founder' on justice, no feel-
ings of economy would have .prevented she Government, of
which I was a member, doing justice to th parties. My Hon.
Friend says that these eases—lam sere his memory fails him—
be says that the caaea before the ilieu-e must be held to be in-
cluded in the other eases decided by the House on a previous
- occasion ; and my Hon. Friend is good enough to say that the
'House ought not to have a rhvided oeinion on these ease-, Le-
- . cause there was no of opinion on the others. But to
• - the last eases. which ptesent themselves in a new form, and are
• different from those sr ci6ed by Sir James Mackinto4i, I •hall
feel it my duty to offer every oppo,it ion in my power. I -think
it is no want of 'respect on my part to do so ; for I feel marten
hound, looking at the great censideratten which w as given tti the
subject wheel I was in ffiee, to do so. But there were ciretim-
stances connected with tarry which made ii possibly no ma,tts-
of regret that the ChiLeettor of the Eisele quer was beaten ot.
the question. It, may be •aid that we have a Tree:elle free g:
on the subject, but my Noble Friend, Fail Spencer, net red)
entered iuto it himself—and no one was bet•er able to give an
opinion. on account of his fate and upright mind, of wear it
an eque-
able claim—and I knew he came to a deride,'
s•
opinion that these claims ought rot to be allowed ' • and,
• ats in duty beund. I fait it my duty to consult the
Law Officers of the Crown—anamely, Lord Demean and
Lord Cotrenham : and with every re.per t to the Hon. Gentle-
man who sits behind me, I must say that I thick we should
not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were
advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert.
Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advacate, was amongst the number.
Besides, the Hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde)
considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied
hours upon hours in compariag the dup•icates of the original
documents on which the c.aims were fourele e in order to test
their accuracy. and to be enabled to give a decided opinion or
the matter. Then there is Sir William Follett, whose name
can never be mentioned in this House wit hout respect. he voted,
I believe, in favour re the-c claims; and I recodeet that, alien
he was appointed Solici or• General, he errs tauntee with
chang•ng his opinions, and he s•atett distinctly that he gave his
opiniun_on the ease that was submiite I to him, but that when
Ire heard the arguments of the Hon. Member for Worcester
lie said he could not vote for the motion of Mr. CressevelL as
be had not the shadow of a doubt uaon the ca.e. The [ion.
Gentleman (Jr.a Watem ) has stated what is no doubt the •
main point of his ease, that these were reprsals, and
not captures. Now. in the first place, allow me to
enegesi to him, that 1 believe the question of
declaration of war has been very muck altered. If the Hon. •
Gentleman were called wan to give a legal opinion out of
doors, he would say that the old au; Purities could not now be
adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no
declaration of war wanted now to constitute war. That is a •
crotchet that is gone b . Open hostilities constitute war, and
so de laration is nece-sary. But the Hon. Gentleman sass
that if the declaration of the 16tli August be considered as a
declaration of war, then the case falls to the ground. He says
the declaration of the 16th August: was rot a declaration of
war—l mean the declaration ot Gluckeadt. New, in the first
;dace, what does he give as a definition of a declaratien of war?
lust look to that declaration of the 16th Augast. In the first •
place, I will just read that passage which states that war had ,
actually commenced. If the House would actually read the
declaration of war, they would find that the property of English
subjects was confiscated, and that all trade was prohibited
between the two countries. There is no necessity for a •
particular form of words in the declaration of war ; but •
this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries.
The, Hon. Gentleman s•vys, take the proclarnatiot. of 16th Au-
gust. 1 will quote some words of that proclamation, to show
that England did not enter on this affair- with a ele"of carry-
ing on t.hc war, but it was to obtain then emiation by fair
ratan', and., if nut, by force. I vell use the language used by
an Admiral and by a General, who are fair auttior:t (pore
from. The theuse will allow me to quote their ei's tit)
state of affairs as !hev then existed. They s.ate, butd"::1:: o h
tttfh::
country was their not the theatre of a negotiata n
war. There was .1 de,larath,n issued on the 16th August.a
ethreeiraler,emadnytrycowma-,
and in December releasing a deekratien was issued on theiir •
of the British Government, that hostilities
amseonncleyda, actiadsethofesre;.rwisoLetam;a:adyesrsi it•awidu
no
war.
the theatre of a war, and yet the Hon. Gentleman will take this
declara-
tion The
of war in 1807, by the Crown of England, was ,gotnea tdher.
isaued a declaration
clateition of the 16
commencement of this hostility. The Ring of
against his Majesty, and that wash
of August, to which the Crown of Ene_
land, in its to declaration of war, alluded. It was saed that
this was no declaration ot war. 1 must say it is sometimes dini_
cult to say what cenclusteeemay be come to on legal quieie.e3,
but when any man of fella read; these papers., and looks there
through, 1 cannot conewee that he can have a doubt that the
opinion of the Lord C aet Justice, the Lore! Chancellor, Lire
Campbell, Sir W. F et. tt, and his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Worcester, were right, that. this was a declaration
of war, and that these were fair and legal repri'alc. I am
afraid that on those occasions only three who arc interested
in the case, and those who have constituents interested in the
case. were present in the House. and that comparatively a vet,
small number of independent Members of the House took any
interest in the quest toil then b.-fore the House. He was sorry
to have troubled the House, but he need not apologise as lie
was anxi-oti to •uptinrt the real and correct view of the ease.
Mr. AIL ER GIIISON , Sir, I have been, amongst
others, retiu-,ied to support tt e claims, and in giving them
my support. I assure you, that I do tot do so withaut some re-
servation. I wiillnot treseaas long on the attention of the House.
but confine my rem ,rts to the meaning of the Hon. Gentle-
man who in hie speech argued there was a declaration of war.
The main point, it satins to me, to be considered, is whether
or not there was a declaration of 'war. It, appears to me, the
_fact of two of the other claims having been declared as good,
is' an admission that there was no declaration of war.-- (Cs ies
of Ja No, no," and "b.a -, hear.") I understood it to be so
stated, and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W.
'toilet, as far as th other two caeca were coacerned.—( Hear,
hear.) I cannot see how the Right lion. G. ntleman and the
Government can aernit these claims as they have done, with-
out giving
reason
up the position of the declaration of war. I can
eo e
edeason why the present claim can be rejeted, having
warc; d
all,;
he other claims, on the ground of the declaration of
different
law officers
yon must, therefore, argue the case upon totally
erearals
of . th regard to the opinion of the
Vi
care should ethzt
•Crown, I must say that great
hets• uniformly observee7dt
ferent opive sits when in elhfiaet
in taking their opinion. I
legal gentlemen give dif-
ferent to what they give when
they are incieeetetent die sets. When the Government asks
ho
(Yet eir e
to ut ; as,
more disposed to give a favour-
them for an opinion the
able opinion than whenpti
support the Government.
they do, they are
When they are out ef office• ,
when occupyiug the posi•i• n
legal character is at stake but n,Atill'eY give an opinion,
they are in office it is
well known tl.at they are expected t their
and their opinion ia expected to be to the Government.
I learn, legal gentlemen when out rttsf-e°Offidicneg,lYh.
But on this have given an
aa far as
opinion in favour of these. claima.
a occasion it
appears that the Attorney-General
shrinks from coming forward rand Soli i.c tor-General
° support
This.proves they must think the case the Government.
lithe Government had a leg tostand upon,clne of uneoremna stretsgth,
no doubt have been here to support the the law officers would
find the case so strong and convincing, thean But inste.td, we
unwilling to appear in their places in the t theta law
officers
are
support the Government, I must furtlser observe,
in order to
legal character of both these gentlemen, when 3ethrve, that the
dependent Members, was distinctly p'edged to seY were
in-
claims, on the ground of international law.—(
tineleternrth. tchaes• e
On the grounds of justice, therefore, I am compelled, on the
present occasion, to give my support and vote to the Hon.
Gentleman who has brought forward the present manor'.
Mr. WAKELY said, I wish to ask a single question of the
Right Hon. Gentleman who represents the Government. Will
the Government pay the money if the House decides in favour
of the motion.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The
question has been decided several times before, by a vote
in its favour, yet the Govartiment bed not given effect to
In don g that tied they wet tee, guiles of (tete, mpt to the
House--(Loud cheers)—and were they
.not liable to solitary
wens cement as much as the liun. Goldman whose MO bad

th se C!Blm9