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

this country until the 20th or 22d of November, and Mr.
Canning said that we were then proceeding with negotiations.
But if this was to be argued on the ground that some British
vessels had also been taken, then I say it should not be for-
gotten that the Danish Government did not confiscate our
vessels until the month of December, that is to say until we
had confiscated theirs, and then the Danish Government re-
solved upon the course they adopted by the issue of what I
way call an order in council. Well, then, we have had
it stated to us by a British Minister of the
present day that we were at war with Denmark when this
was done. But suppose we were, a negotiation subsequently
took place, and yet, notwithstanding that, in one month
after, or rather more, the English Government confiscated
the Danish vessels one month before they confiscated ours;_
that is to say, we confiscated their vessels in the month of
November, and they confiscated ours in the month of f
that there
De-
cember. But, supposing the Right Hon. Gentleman to be
right in what he states, let him not forget
matters right. I beg to refer the Right Hon. Gentleman to,
was a convention immediately after which should have set
the 7th rule of the convention.—[the Hon. Member read the
rule he referred to, which was to the effect that from the daf e
of that document each power shousldhoaut dbethae o ther protec
tion to property-, and that there good under-
standing and a hatrnony of feeling between the two nations.]
I therefore say, that if it be an: argument as against me,
that there had been a declaration of war, then I
say there can be no doubt but at the time when this act was
done we were not in a state of war or hostility with Denmark,
or that the avowed hostility alleged to have existed was not
such as could warrant this proceeding. I say further, that
even if the facts were as the Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
presentedshoerpeewcueireiarciaractitmo sttaakneceist coountneocrtethdewiiit,ht
a naturel t
this
esse ofa them,u
Again, the
tw tiro
entl
e nationsm a n , opposed to
an to eaeother.cs f
all
Rights Hon.of
argu-
ment against my proposition, that there was no surplus left
out of which to pay this l • c ann, and therefore there were no
funds from which to pay them ; he also stated that 60,0001.
had already been paid, as well as certain grants, the amount
of which he has not named ; then I say, if the Right Hon.
Gentleman admits that, he cannot say that there was no sur-
plus fund. If there was no surplus fund, I ask why were
these claims referred to a commission, in order that the
claimants should have an opportunity afforded them of
making out their claims, and to produce proof of them, and
then to bring up their report before this House? That
commission did sit, and heard the nature of the claims, which

they reported upon, to the effect that, amongst other
matters, they had reduced the amount of claims
from 524,000/. to 225,0001., which amount tley re-
ported to have been proved. If, then, there were
no ;claims, why was this Commission appointed to adjudi-
cate upon them?—(Hear, hear.) Let the House bear in
mind this fact in reference to these claims, that upon five
distinct occasions you have, by your vote, recognised the
justice and fairness of those claims ; and that they
were not deemed to have been illegal or unjust by
the Commission to which they were referred, is proved
by the fact that that Commission, after having
heard the whole state of the case, reported that
claims to the amount of 225,000/. had been made good ; and
on these grounds, then, I say that the present Government
have no right now to withdraw from that report. If the
Government now adopt this argument then it would be
arguing that the Commission appointed by the Government
to make the inquiry had come to an erroneous or an
unjust conclusion. But, surely, after this House had
decided upon the justice of those claims no fewer than
five times, and after a Commission appointed by this
House had reported to the effect that those claims were just
and fair, the present Government should not now turn round
and say that this was a seizure which had been made ac-
cording to the law of nations, and that, therefore, there
should be no inquiry at all granted now. Ido say that such
a course would not be correct or becoming to adopt.
But there are other circumstances connected with
this case to which I would wish to call the attention of the
House. I think I have now satisfactorily shown the House
that that which has been stated by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to have been a declaration of war, was not a declara-
tion of war; or that if there was, this louse did consider the
case one of such grvat peculiar hardship that it was re-
ferred to a Commission for examination, and that Commis-
sion reported in its favour. I must now refer the
Home to what Dr. Lushington said upon the subject. (The
Hon. Member then read an extract, which was to the effect
that though this seizure of the vessels was not contrary to
the law cf nations, yet it was not fair or equitable.) I want
to know then (continued the Hon. Member) upon what
grounds am Ito rest these claims, if not upon these grounds?
The Right Hos. Gentleman has stated that the public bore
their portion of the expense of that war, but the Right Hon
Gentleman should not forget that those claimants also bore
a portion of those expenses.—(Hear, hear.) If this were an
ordinary case perhaps I would not be warranted in thus
urging it on the attention of the House, but I contend that
this is not an ordinary case, but that, on the contray, it is
one such as never occurred before, and such as perhaps
never would occur again, and therefore no precedent
could be quoted in support of it. And here I
must say that it appears to me that the Right
Honourable Gentleman has deserted his old arguments
with great facility. I remember the Right Hon. Gentleman
urging, as an objection against those claims,'that such a pre-
cedent should not be established ; but that is a point upon
which no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer ever said a
word ; and when an opportunity offered when this
question might have been easily settled to the satisfaction
of all parties, that opportunity was suffered to pass
and was neglected.—( Hear, hear.) When this question was
first argued before this House, Lord Althorp was Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and he acceded to this motion, and expressed
a wish that all just and fair claims should be paid. It has
been said that those claims were not legal, and that if they
were not, then the ground was taken from under me. Upon
this point we have the opinion of a distinguished lawyer, the
late Sir W. Follett, who said that they were not legal,
but that they were just and equitable. Well, it
is not upon the grounds of the legality of these claims that I
advocate them, but upon the grounds of their equity and
justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has
said that it was very important that these claims should be
resisted, lest any canvassing should be going on, and other
similar claims be brought before the House. Undoubtedly
there may have been some " canvassing " going on; but if it
was practised on one side, so it was on the other. Ido not
think that any of my friends have canvassed in my favour,
though I venture to say that the Right Hon. Gentlemen has
taken the ordinary means of securing an attendance of his
supporters. I say, then, that Ido think that these claims
are just and equitable, and therefore I ask the Govern-
ment now, after this House has already decided four
or five times in favour of these claims, to grant
this inquiry. But in whatever way you deal
with it, let it be done as it has not been

one before. Heretofore it has been dealt with in a
slovenly and careless manner, but let it now be dons clearly
and distinctly. My Hon. Friend near me will resist the
application upon the ground that there had been a declara-
tion of war when this occurrence took place, but take that
argument away from him, and no other remains ; and in order
to defend that argument, I do not now see any law officer of
the Crown in his place ; but I still say that this is a question
which does require a little more attention than has hitherto
been given it, and if it does not receive that attention now it
never will receive it. With regard to the declaration of war,
if my Hon. Friend contends for that, then he must encounter
the opinion of the Attorney-General and other eminent
authorities, expressed in the year 1807 ; for it appears
that at that time there could have been no state of
hostility between the nations, for some of the British
ships, in passing by the Danish batteries, were actually
saluted by a discharge from their guns.—(Hear, hear.)
I do not think my Right Hon. Friend can even find a techni-
etl ground on which to refuse this motion But Ido not put
it on anything like a technical ground—l want him, and I
ask him, to put it on a large and comprehensive ground. I
hope my Right Hon. Friend will take the case of these
merchants and shipowners into their consideration simply on
the grounds of justice. On the 27th of July Lord Cathcart
set sail, and the bombardment took place on the 29th. It
is true that the Hon. Member for Hull called the attention of
the House to a very important document, which made out that
a declaration of hostilities had taken place. If that was the
case, it should be remembered that it was not by the inter-
ference of the British authorities, and therefore
the parties who suffered must be considered en-
titled to our protection. I have endeavoured to .con-
fine myself to the legitimate limits of this case, and I
trust that after the House itself having allowed the justice
of the claim by the proceedings on a late occasion, it will
not now stultify itself by refusing a Committee. I trust it
will not be considered unreasonable of me in asking
that the House shall now allow a Committee to settle these
claim. One word more—this case has been brought for-
ward by men of great authority, and the equity of the
claims has never been denied, but it has been set aside
simply on the grounds that it was a dangerous one, and that
to comply with the justice of the claims would be setting up a
dangerous precedent. This is a most unworthy view of the
case, for it should be borne in mind that justice never
sleeps, and that though not at one moment to be had, yet it
would in the end assert itself.
Mr. CARDWELL—My Hon. Friend who has addressed
the House said that he was willing to have this question settled
by fair and legal argument, and for .that reason he has
quoted the opinion of the late Sir William Follett. Now,
the Honourable Member should have borne in mind
that that opinion was not given upon legal, but
upon equitable grounds. The Honourable Member, how-
ever, did not quite forget that the opinion was
only an opinion on equitable grounds, and for that alone is
it that he now asks this House to have the question argued
upon comprehensive grounds. My Hon. Friend has laid
much force upon the opinion of Sir W. Follett,
and_j cannot help thinking that he has
relied sr 4tle too much upon it. The whole
of those clatata-turn upon the fact, that if a com-
pensation was due to the .laimants by any act of the British
authorities, that that compensation should be granted to
those subjects. Were those ships taken when the law of nations
was respected by both the British and Danish Governments,
and in open defiance of the law of nations, or were they taken
eut a time when no such law existed, and was not respected,
'Weap:areintt,9tti:oaet
eon alwraht
\ivemtluelar
gwe
i_ihele:ntairo hood. tish
tisnnicarttiioo
jiniasmweseremaatekwinatro:h Thattook
be made between the seizure two. lie took care twoasl between these two
of the
distinction which should
a great difference between the
iuerhesteoo k place Honourable Gen-
ance of the law of nations, sad the cargoes of ships in defi-
ance
hostilities. The merits of uethseeizure of ships during
e.cument
turned upon this point aline. present question
Memberhantgroundsa the
that juhs-e
tlemon said that when
like war existed, and upon
hat war did exist, and that h
which proves t ostilities had
tice of the present claim. . Illhoon.lod
lace e ween ng and D
b t E land Denmark.
the urinablnley
I would remind
a most dangerous
establish precedent,
is about to
well consider of the door which he
he and I beg he will
actually taken p
b the arguments which he has
open up in such cases Y
advanced.
explained, but in so low a tone as
Mr. HAWES rose and
not to be heard in the gallery wrong when
Mr. CARDWE Member was LL—The lion. broken up,
he said that. even if a:war had existed, that it nas
or considered to be broken up by the convention which had
taken place. Now, he should have remembered that this was
ur of
a convention which had been come to for the p pose
saving the town of Copenhagen from all the evils which
would otherwise accrue to the property of the inhabitants,
I
and it was such a convention as was rendered necessary to
the safety of the people. On the 9th of the month after this
notable convention the hostilities recommenced. Now there
is a document which shows that, if a declaration of
war was not made, hostilities and all the accompani-
manta of a war existed. The Hon. Gentleman has said
that no declaration of war was made by Great Britain by
proclamation ; but should it be contended that Great
Britain was to wait till a proclamation of war before she is
to defend herself from the aggression of an enemy ? ( The
Hon. Gentleman proceeded to read several documents in
support of his arguments, but so rapidly and indistinctly as
not to be clearly understood in the reporter's gallery.) The
Hon. Gentleman said that the opinion of a great lawyer was
taken on the subject and that that opinion was in favour of
the claimants. Now he should remember that when the
opinion of Sir W. Follet was taken it was a period
when he was not in that House, and when he had not an
opportunity of'hearing the question argued on all its merits
—it wee taken when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was

not a member of the Governmhiemnt,inwhzeinvihz haandonpointhioinn upongl
an official capacity to guide
the true bearings of the whole subject. In fact, it was an
opinion given in answer to a case laid before him as a pro-
fessional man, and it was well known how the cases
for such opinions were prepared, and it was also
known that on the manner in which they were
prepared depended the opinion of the counsel. Was that
opinion expressed after Sir William Follet had heard the
speeches on the matter in that House ? Was it given after
hearing the speech of the Hon. Member for Worcester? On
the contrary, it was given without knowing the grounds
upon which the case rested, and simply upon equity, and not
law. The Hon. Gentleman has said that after cutting down
this claim very considerably, we now refused to pay it.
This is not the fact, for the justice of the claim is not made out
But the Hon. Member has adverted to a document quoted
by the Hon. Member for Hull, and he admitted,, not only
on former occasions, but on the present, that if that document
was not got over it was fatal to his case. He, however, said
he considered that that document was cured by the notice of
the second of September. Now, Sir, I put it to the House,
and I put it to the Gentleman himself, has he not been under a
mistake in the view he has taken of that notice
from the documents which I have quoted, which plainly
prove that war existed on the 9th, two days after the
friendly state of things which he alleged existed? Does not
this then prove the Hon. Gentlemen in error, and on his
own showing, I put it to the House, has he made out his
case? nay, has he not shown that he has failed? I will
not further go into any legal arguments, as I should weary
the House by their repitition, and I will entirely leave
out that part of the case which depends on written
or published documents, which are beforethepublic, and there
are only one or two other observations with which I shall
trouble the House. The Hon. Member has said that my
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has com-
plained that new arguments have been introduced into this
question. Now the Hon. Gentleman was not quite right in
that assertion. What my Right Hon. Friend com-
plained of was, that new arguments were introduced in
the Hon. Member's reply, which it was impossible to re-
ply, to, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) only
desired that the House would review a hasty and erroneous
decision to which they were induced to come by specious
arguments.
Mr. HAWES—There has been no decision yet.
Mr. CARDWELL—Yes ; that decision, which now calls
upon us to go into Committee, which de-
cision, I say, was palpably influenced by new
arguments introduced and brought forward by the
Hon. Gentleman for the first time in his reply. In the cases
where compensation was given and refused by the Treasury
the decision turned upon the same point—whether there
was or was not a state of war existing between Great Bri-
tain and Denmark. The Treasury, if a state of war did not
exist, would have refused to have made the payments which
had then been made if there was not some claim, founded upon
justice, for the demand—and they would have equally been
ready to meet other claims also founded in justice. The pre-
cise question at issue was, whether there was, or was not a war ;
and, in 1810, when the decision was given that there was
one, although it was then adverse to the Treasury, they
abided by it, and have done so to the preent moment. The
Honourable Gentleman called upon them to reverse
a decision on grounds upon which Sir James Macintosh
had never ventured to rely—(Hear, hear)—grounds from
which he was most anxious to disconnect his case, and on
grounds which are now for the first time brought under the
notice of Parliament. The Hon. Gentleman says that the
question has been always kept alive. But the question was
first brought under discussion in 1839—the war existed in
1807—nearly thirty years after the time of the occurrence,
not to mention that the grounds on which the House are
required to come forward to give their decision have been
carefully kept back. I, therefore, Sir, believing that the pre-
cedent will be dangerous, beg leave to second the proposi-
tion of my Right Hon. Friend that the House resolve itself
into a Committee on this question this day six months.
Colonel SIBTHORP—I wish to call the attention of the
House to those Members who did vote upon the question in
1841, and who are not present now. I find that, on the
occasion of the division in that year (1841), the ayes were
127, and the noes 96 ; and I find on that occasion the names
of the following gentlemen, who are not present now :
The Solicitor-General (Fitzroy Kelly), Sir Frederick Trench,
the Attorney-General, Sir Charles Douglas, and Lord Eliot,
who is now Lord St. Germans.—(Laughter.) Where are
all the Hon. Gentlemen gone ?—(Hear hear.) Will no one
tell me ?—(Laughter.) But I would say on this occasion
that you have spent sums of money in ornamenting Tra-
falgar-square and other public places, but that it
would be much better for you to be just
before you become generous. I do look upon
this whole transaction as a mean one on the part of the Go-
vernment. Your merchants, who are paying an income-tax
of five millions a year, have a right that their pro-
perty should be protected. Let us pay our debts, and
when we have a surplus let us give away, This will
be the proper mode of proceeding with oar business.
I have nothing whatever to do with these claims; I am no
way interested in them, but I think them founded on justice,
and as such ought to be discharged.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 5B
Against it B5
Majority against going into Committee —27
The House consequently by this division reversed its
former decision.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. FOX MAULE then move the second reading of the
Places of Worship and Sites (Scotland) Bill. The Right
Hon. Gentleman after going at considerable length into the
disruptions that had taken place in the Church of Scotland,
stated that the present measure had been rendered necessary
by the course that had been pursued by many of the
landed proprietors in Scotland refusing to grant sites in that
country for the erection of churches by the members of the
Free Church in Scotland. Among those who had refused to
grant sites were Lord Macdonald, who had large property
in the Isle of Skye. Sir James Riddell, Lord Murray, Lord
Seafield, Mr. Campbell, of Lochnell, Lord Ailsa,
Lord Cawdor, Lord Forbes, the Duke of l3uccleuch,
and the Duke of Richmond—all these persons had in
his opinion acted with great intolerance, and inflicted
hardships upon the people of Scotland that were unworthy of
them. He contended that the honour of Scotland was en-
gaged in the refusal by these noble personages of sites forplaces
of worship for the members of the Free Scotch Church.
It was necessary that some remedy should be applied to the
evil, and the only remedy he could devise was
that which he had laid down in this Bill.
The free church of Scotland, in addition to all that it had
done since its establishment, was about to erect a noble col-
lege in the city of Edinburgh, for which institution
216 individuals had subscribed the magnificent sum
of 21,0001. This Bill to build gave the same powers
as were granted in Lord RolLsbury's Act, passed
a few years ago, fur the purchase of certain
sites. All disputes this Bill would leave to the decision of
the Sheriff of the county in which the site sought for might
happen to lie. He admitted that this Bill was an inter-
ference with the rights of property, but he conceived that
the circumstances in which the free church people were
placed by the owners of land justified such a measure,
and he conceived that if Parliament refused to adopt this
measure they would not be acting justly towards a portion
of the people,of Great Britain. The duties of private pro-
perty had been grossly abused by the landed gentry to
whom he had alluded. He would ask the House which
of the two alternatives they preferred ? Whether it was
not more desirable that the House should pass a Bill,
which, at the discretion of a certain judicial officer,
responsible to the Government, should convey half an acre,
an acre, or at the most two acres of a certain individual's
land,which was to be applied for the erection of churches ; or
was it better to adopt the other alternative of engendering,
by refusing to adopt this Bill, a spirit of discontent in
a large portion of the people of Great Britain—a spirit
of hostility to the Government and the landlord,
under whom they lived. He called upon them to endeavour
to put a stop to the present persecution towards the people of
Scotland, for some day or other it must end by some means
or other. He called upon them by sanctioning
this Bill to prevent the ignorance and barbarism
which must afflict in a short time a great
portion of the people of Scotland. Let them prevent
religious toleration, which was the boast of this empire, from
being nothing but a farce, and so secure the affection and
respect, not only of the class to which he belonged, but of
every right-minded man in the world. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could avow with great truth that
he approached the discussion of the subjeet a second time
with heartfelt pain. He thought that the conduct of the
Members who seceded from the Episcopal Church of Scot-
land was pure and disinterested.—( Hear.) He was also
prepared to admit many other grounds maintained by the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But it was
said that this sympathy on his part was only sympathy in
words on the part of the Government, but the Earl of Aber-
den was the very first landlord to grant a site for the
erection of a free church. Instances of refusal had been
adduced, but they were not many or important, for
the Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted that several of
the landlords who had been instanced as opposed to
the granting of sites, refused to give sites with
the hope that the disruption might be healed.
He would not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through all
the cases he had entered into. The Right Hon. Gentleman
here referred to the case of a Noble Colleague of his, and had
admitted that he had in every way promoted the moral and
religious education of the people, and had offered every
facilities to the building of places ("worship. He had also re-
ferred to the name of others, among whom was Dr. Chalmers.
In passing, he would observe that he could never hear the
name of Dr. Chalmers mentioned without bearing testimony
to that enlightened and christianlike zeal with which he hail
always promoted any measure calculated to be beneficial to
society in general. There were two causes which bad ope-
rated very much to cause the present ill-feeling. Those who
had originally seceded from the Church had inveighed
against it in no measured terms. Such terms being heard
by those who still remained with the Church and
revered it, naturally caused ill-will against those
who maligned an Establishment which they respected.
Another reason was, that a spirit of bitterness and anger had
been generated in consequence of the ministers of the church
having given way to their feelings, and denounced the pro-
prietors to their own tenantry. That such a course
had been taken was much to be regretted, and it was
the true cause of the angry and acrimonious feelings
which had lately shewn themselves. The Right
Hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Duke of Riche
mond. On his property there were twelve parishes, and to
eleven out of the twelve the Noble Duke had granted sites.
The promoters of the parish churches in Scotland had
built 600 churches, and 10 more were in progress, and a
million of money was in the hands of those entitled to
take care of the funds of the Society. If they extended
principle to Scotland, they should also extend it to Ire-
land. It It was the duty of a Legislature to have a church
under the sanction of the Legislature, within a
reasonable limit of ofwthevcentre of a district, in which
people
ehieh wouldos worship.
Ha could not 9.e any
benefitcorineoscientious belief was, that iftrornivouldsucerehate aan imine,uneunrst
theH is
deal of mischief; and, not seeing any necessity for it, lie
could not support it. There was no precedent whatever fur
legislation on such a subject, and the EsteblishedChurch it.
self bad not such a power; if it had, it was so strictly guarded
orkeiandg freedomt then,l
ata
andwhat
h Bai
rts ohße ROBERT
littlehßa Ed
RusedT stated,i tNhA Gahst
er
,i
wit
fsowa
rual sd
considereda
sa moveh meree thc
taohtu althenullity.dt see Bill
religiousßelieving,
bl
oe
day six months.
and religious toleration should be extended to all, without
any distinction.
arose ; and its t
fact,
members of the Free
they would find that
proportion of cases the grievance
away the invariablycongrega-
chosen for the sites of their churches
Church had
juxta-position with that on whick the olden church
itth
we a
sqounesl)t! question a
very small
AM act of injustice to grant this pro ,
tion. He called this a g
and say that no. property
grounds in
position ; but he would go further,
ta
hal also ol
purpose
ofdrawing
had been builtwfoairns
he would say, he did think
with. Under all circumstances . .
it would be consistent with the principles he had always ad-
vocatedof which possession had been taken, should then be interfered
time that day six months.
rnent of the debate to
Mr. BAINE proposed the adjourn
to vote for the motion, that the Bill be read a second
that day week, which,
After A few wc,rd4 from aEr. FOX MULE, wan agreed to.