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

triminn .7=111,1t

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1846.

The torn) 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 WELLLNGTON, Lord CAMPBELL, and several
ether Noble 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 dr. HENRY WALKER, who, he contended was in the
right, while the petitioners against it were in the wrong.
Lord Ertouolux introduced a Bill to amend the Insolven
Debtors' Act.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second reading of
the Religious Opinions Relief Bill, The Bill was for the re-
peal of many Acts 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 on account of their religious I;elief.
ziece, ••eze some Acts which it was proposed to repeal, about
____: • ' tilej..4.l4ky of repealing which there might be some
!-- - - 'differtioca .. . opinion ; but those were matters which might
•-:
be di- ' ~... in Committee, and therefore he trusted their
I 0 . : - Litidshio: *.uld consent to the second reading of the Bill.
r ..'"2ll* -.• . -COitiA - : ,Gaam supported the second reading of the Bill.
Cd-c:,.:1-‘ '''sllilie,,ittilt of LONDON would not oppose the second read-
' 'tl 7 i: ' ;el* ill, but he thought many of its clauses ought to
..........,"
.r._-
k- • ed. ,
a`" - I LoA CA.moys supported the second reading of the Bill, but
:thought it did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not
sPeal those statutes that prevented Catholics from presenting

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.
,The Bishop of EXETER supported the second reading of
the Bill, but trusted that the suggestions of the Noble Baron
(CAMoYs) would not be adopted by the Noble Lord on the
Woolsack. He thought the concessions made to the Roman
Catholics 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 to be
extolled, without penalty, the result would be another reli-
gious war.•
Lord Brutrmoyr supported the second reading of the Bill:
Lord COLCHESTER supported the second reading of
inthe
but trusted that some alteration would be made in it
Com-
mittee.
Lord CAMPBELL 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'BRIEN 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'BRIEN be heard at
the bar.

Mr. O'CoNNELL seconded the motion.
Mr. Hums 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. SSIITH 013 airs having re-
fused to attend the order of the House must be considered
in contempt. If there was any precedent for the motion he
would at once accede to it.
The SPEAKER said there were no precedent for the motion.
Mr. E. IS. Rocas bowed to the decision of the Chair, and
asked if Mr. SMITII O'BRIIM 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. MorrcE:row 3111.2 as 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. SMITH
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 toek 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 therefore 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 he was borne out in this
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 1839 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 1841, Mr. Cresswell 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 authority of Mr. Justice CRESSWELL
for 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 led 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. ll,corEn, 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 Parliament which had
taken place already, the Government should have propproposeda
grant for their liquidation. He understood that the distinc-
tion 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. This
was exceedingly fallacious. Until the 2d of September these
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 Sinseou'rss had
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 he 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 bzen of
a financial character, but it was an objection 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 under discussion.
The former claims were granted, because they were excepted
cases from general internal international law, as was admitted
by Sir James Mackintosh and all the high legal authorities
Who took part in that debate. Although he 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. CRESSWELL, at the time
he brought forward these claims, represented Liverpool, and
that his constituents were many of them interested in the re-
sult.was
bound of these captures
yteonceklaid down the principle that this
enwmearrek madew in August,
ftset,
The declaration of war by D
tral,paernido.d .111 foX
country
had no. notice from In e good all losses when merchants
Government of the • probandity of hos-
tilities, they would impose such a burden
might prevent us from going t upon the nation as
tional rights. The Hon. Member or war in defence of
our na-
those whose claims accrued since
September Hull admitted that
had no right to compensation, and lO, 1807,
the number of claimantsfrom that would reduce
the.
80 down to 10e Such a difference of opinion was sufficient to prove the .
ex-
treme
difficulty of the subject. The Right Hon. Gentlemanthen alluded to the minutes
which, as he contended, expresslyof 1834, of Lord ALTHORPE,
made according to the law of declared that captives
same category as book debts and nations, did not come in the
International law always
respected roperty captured on shore.
but never property afloat. Thethe property on shore,
con-
sideration was property afloat. propertynonow under
property was seized as reprisals. Nowhe
theseit was said this
either restored to the owners, or made prizes
reprisals are
the result of negotiations. If they resulted
according to
reprisals were restored ; if they resulted in worm peace, the
declared prizes, but never before had any merchants,te were
situated thought of coming to the Ho so
for
compensation, and he warned the House of the "exet
danger of setting such a precedent as was sought to be sreetnine
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 claipts 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 merchnats 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 Danes 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-
tinction was—were they captures or reprisals? This was a
simple debt due from the Treasury to the claimants, which
ought to be liquidated. Now, with regard to the opinion of
Mr. Justice CRESWELL, he would ask, was it probable that
he would risk his character as a lawyer, or misstate the law,
becauee he was Member for Liverpool. Neither the Attorney

nor the Solicitor-General were present to-night, because they
had both formerly voted in favour of the motion, so that he
had the authority of the law officers of the Crown in favour
of these claims, and in answer to Sir T. WILDE, Mr. CRESS-
WELL had quoted VATTEL and GROTIUS, who both expressly
declare that a nation is bound to make compensation for re-
prisals, made before a declaration of war. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman then quoted voluminously from writers
on international law, for the purpose of showing
that sovereigns were bound to compensate those of their
subjects upon whom reprisals felL On the grounds of public
justice, of public policy, and of international law, these claim-
ants were entitled to compensation.
Mr. CARDWELL would endeavour to deal with the
legal argument which had now for the first time
been brought forward in the course of these dis-
cussions.
sttcoeldatihmehanilsatws
waedasfv,otchaactyt
nations;hoo fs
ea
nts hediez
ut
hr fie
se rys thcaadtuwti oo
beenu
s cl
ylma sas
de
escussions. The ground upon which Sir JAMES DIACYDZ-
'roc
contrary ira
ab-
stained from having anything to do with the present class
of claims. Now, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
stated that if this were a reprisal before the declaration
of war, they were entitled to a compensation ; if
a seizure after the declaration of war, they were
not so entitled ; but the real distinction was if re-
prisals were made and there was no declaration of war
the Government was bound to compensate its subjects, but if
there was a declaration of war then it had a retro-active
effect, and they were not reprisals bat prizes. The declara-
tion of the 16th of August was clearly a declaration of war,
for it expressly said the war had broken out, so that there
was an express declaration of war before these captures
were made. As between England and Denmark there was a
state of hostility before the 4th November, so between
England and the captures of prizes, the declaration of
the 4th of November wag the first declaration of war.
He contended that the distinction sought to be drawn by
his Hon. and Learned Friend was erroneous, and he sub-
mitted what he had stated as a complete answer to the
novel argument of his Hon. and Learned Friend. Then with
regard to the grounds of policy and justice. This was not a
party question. It had been submitted to Lord AIMIORPE,
who, while granting other claims, repudiated the grounds
upon which it was sought to
establish their claims. They
were first made in 1838, and had been rejected by every
Government since, because it would be contrary to public
policy to grant them. These claims were more than
thirty years old before they had been submitted to Parliament.
They might have claims made from losses accruing from any
war in which the country might at any time have been en-

gaged.
Mr. Hut thought there was no fear of any such claims
occurring again, because he did not think that 'England
would again act in such a disgraceful way as she had done
towards Denmark. 11-If, three classes of claims were origin-
ally in the same boat, and ;:ad all been equally rejected by
successive Governments, as equally unjust ; and it was only
of late years that this division into &I-saes had been made.
It was one of the most important duties of th e House of Commons
to see that justice was done to the subject, and in this case
they were only asked for a small portion of that which was
justly due. The Government ought not to suffer losses ac-
cruing from the commencement of hostilities to fall upon
individuals ; those losses should fall equally upon all alike.
The merchants were deceived by answers given by the Ad-
miralty, the authorities at the time knowing those answers
to be erroneous. Not one of the arguments by the Hon.
Gentleman, who had just sat down, had invalidated the
position of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale, and
on grouni s of justice and of good policy, these claims ought
to be liquidated. He only wished that he could add to the
principal claimed the interest due from the day the claim
accrued.
Mr. F. BARING admitted that if the' claim was a just
one it ought to be granted independently of financial con-
siderations_ He denied that there had ever been any division
on the other two classes of claims. The Government gave
way upon those two classes, but resisted these claims. On
the advice of Lord DENMAN and Lord CorrrxnAsi, then the
law officers of the Crown, in this opinion, Lord CAMPBELL,
and Sir T. WILDE, and Sir H. JENNER concurred; and Sir
W. FOLLETT, who had given formerly an opinion in favour
of the claims, declared that on a re-consideration of the case
he felt they were unfounded. He thought the Honour-
able Gentleman would agree that a declaration of
war was not wanting to constitute war— a state of
war was sufficient without any declaration whatever.
But the Danish declaration of August was most
assuredly a declaration of war, and if that were proved
the whole of the Hon. Gentleman's case fell to the ground.
The declaration of the two British commanders issued in
August, also expressly declared that the island of Zetland
was about to become the theatre of war; and the English
declaration, in allusion to the Danish declaration of the 16th
of August, says, " Whereas his Majesty the King of Den-
mark has declared war against England," and therefore lie
thought it clear that the declaration of August was a declara-
tion of war.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON said he had, after some considera-
tion given to the subject, come to the determi-
nation of supporting those claims. With regard
to the question of the declaration of war, he believed that it
had been admitted, that by granting the other claims that
question had been given up. He would rather take the opi-
nion of a legal gentleman out of office than of one in office ;
and as he found that out of office these legal gentlemen de-
cided in favour of the claims, and that in this case the law
officers of the Crown shrunk from appearing in the House
on the present occasion, he felt the case was so strong that
he was bound to support the motion.
Mr. WAKLEY asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would pay the money if the motion were agreed to? It was
a contempt of the House, on the part of the successive
Governments, to refuse to carry into effect the decision of the
House, and the Hon. Gentleman below ought not to be left
in solitary confinement. It was absurd to discuss these parts
of international law—the question was, whether the claim was
just or not; if just, it ought to be liquidated.
Colonel SIBTHORP always had, and always would, vote in
favour of these claims.

Mr. HAWES, in reply, repeated the history of the negotia-
tions which had taken place at Copenhagen, and reminded
the House that, in September, a convention had been signed
between Great Britain and Denmark, which put an end to
the declaration of war of the 16th of August. The mer-
chants, in consequence of the policy of the Government, had
lost their property. The Government had money to pay
these claimants, and in justice they ought to pay. Sir W.
FoLLErr had given it as his opinion, that these claims had
quite as good a foundation as those which had been already
admitted. Lord ALTHORP'S Treasury minute left the de-
cision of all these classes of claimants to the decision of Par-
liament. Time after time these claimants had made their
claims. Mr. WILBERFORCE had taken up the cause of the
claimants, and these very claims had been investigated by
the Government and cut down, and now they were re-
fused. Why, this investigation was a mockery of justice if
the payment of these claims was now to be refused.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion

Against it
Majority in faveur of the claims... .........
On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. HAWES on his
legs, expressing a hope that the Government would give way,
to the repeatedly expressed declaration of opinion on the
part of the House, and take measures to liquidate their
claims.

Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he should to-morrow
move that Mr. Smith O'Brien be discharged from custody.
Mr. BoUVERIE then moved for a Select Committee to inquire
into the condition of the labourers employed on railways.
Sir J. GRAHAM 1,4 CA much obliged to the Hon. Gentleman
for bringing the subject before the House, and would not
oppose the application of the Committee.
The House was then addressed by
Mr. HUME and Mr. HUDSON who said there existed no
indisposition on the part of railway companies to provide
for the religious and moral instruction of those employed
in their works, but denied that there was any necessity for
inquiry.
The motion was agreed to. _ _

Sir R. PEEL stated that circumstances had come to his
knowledge which rendered it desirable that the House
should come to a decision on a motion which he begged to
propose; and he therefore moved, that that House de give
leave to Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN to attend and give evidence in
the Lords' Committee, now inquiring into the operation of
the poor-law in Ireland, as he himself was desirous of doing.
—Agreed to.
The House rose at Ten o'clock.

The House of Commons has, for the fifth time, re-
corded its opinion in favour of the justice of the Danish
claims. The guardians of the public purse have, for a
fifth time, admitted that the debt which these claimants
demand as due to them from the State is a just debt,
and one which ought to be liquidated. Will the
Government, under these circumstances, continue
to refuse to take the necessary steps to carry into effect
the repeatedly expressed wishes of the House of Com-
mons ? Sir ROBERT PEEL has always expressed himself
as entertaining-the greatest respect for the well-ascer-
tained opinion of the House of Commons—as willing,
nay anxious, as far as possible, to defer to the
opinion of that House. In this case the opinion of
the House of Commons has been well ascertained,
In 1841, the last House of Commons, in spite of the
othpaptodsiat3i.o,ndeocf the
ided liVnhifgavCohuarnocfelltohresoef tchlaeiExmachequ
nts.Leraostf
night another House of Commons, in spite of the oppo-
sition of the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer
of the present day, also decided in favour of these
claimants. How is it possible to ascertain the opinion
of the House of Commons if it has not been effectually
ascertained in the present instance ? And, we trust,
therefore, that Sir ROBERT PEEL, the Minister who
possesses the confidence of the House of Commons, and
who has declared over and over again that he would not
retain office an hour after he lost that confidence, will
see the propriety of at once carrying into effect the well-
elinnljdowyo .isnTfi
oohrue octfhl taehi
msaenawst arestheorsl
ye uc or
an ndafienrdnegreat
intoibswlhihgi
isaebht
iooahns
est
att hos ca
met r hrt ea.
brought the subject before the House. His speech was
replied to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
commenced his speech by assuring the House " that
it was very painful to him to have again to repeat those
opinions and those sentiments which he had
spotloonri
erhs.
atsoftenGhivoieons
lb
particular
uratßdri
ceNug,
slroaechrtci agssohuincbanjnet
dch
subject." We
honourableaard t dress to the House
o f believeffe re.linGg
ost
uhtLiosm
jfießnxNd-
heilsla tiommffisue
awt
hbdiecuht
easiantrofeu
come
oftomouean
founded
dawn a
orondf
hasimstehlet coopmpnopnealeil:ecdterb
0;1
justice ; and it wai to this feelingad of the
ou uthnastwnedantetsrsibutoefhis
jucdaguesde,
anhdeillw.tiams
dv oucan
jtiunsgt
attack upon Mr. Justice CRESWELL—an attack,.more:.
over, infinitely more damaging to thespreakGeoErß
r himself
than
to theh
satt object
he t
CR ofc
LtrRN
Of believed
mr. Justice intu;atefclor aifs mto the
motivesiEnsiSSWELL in advocating the
wue
cause of the Danish claimants, most assuredly Mr.
GOULBURN himself was very culpable for advising,
as a Minister of the Crown, the elevation of that
learned person to the bench. The legal question was
argued on behalf of the claimants with great learning
by Mr. WATSON. As laymen, it is not for us
to sit in judgment on the legal arguments
of men learned in the law, but, judging from
appearances, we opine that the
these claimants is clear and undenigb
ileegalln rtighhetfiroof