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

Tilt SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MOitIVING, 11, 1846.

WORKING POWER AND SPEED
OF THE LOCOMOTIVE.
SEVENTY MILES PER HOUR WITH A TRAIN
OF NINETY TONS WEIGHT.
Much misconception exists and much error is current
respecting the extraordinary working power of a pas-
senger engine—the first of a class—that has been em-
ployed in propelling some of the express trains of the
Great Western during the past week. A few years•since
the world was unwilling to believe that 20 or 30 tons
could be taken at 13 miles per hour by a locomotive.
Learned men ridiculed the absurdity of the proposition.
They lectured and wrote with great display of scientific
knowledge about adhesion and the resistance of the
wind, and demonstrated " by mathematical data" that it
was absolutely impossible to reach a velocity of 20 miles an
hour with 20 or 30 tons. We.have now a new broad gauge
locomotive, scarcely in working order, daily taking the
Great Western heavy express trains, composed of first
and second class passengers, at a maximum speed of
sixty-nine and seventy miles per hour, and at
an average rate, exclusive of stoppages, of more
than sixty miles per hour, over a line nearly
200 miles in length. Some serious but quite uninten-
tional errors respecting the performances of the engine
heve been published by a morning contemporary, and as
a deep and general interest is felt in the progress of the
railway system towards perfection, we proceed at once
to give the actual working of the engine from the notes
of our own reporter, who was present and timed the
working of the engine.
The first trip of which our contemporary, upon the
euthority of a correspondent, gives the working, was an
experimental one, made from Paddington to Swindon
arid back. It is stated by our contemporary, in noticing
sane power of the engine as displayed in the journey,
that the engine and tender weigh fifty-six tone', and that
it was ascertained the engine could, with a load of 140
tons, travel at the average speed of 55 miles per hour.
This is incorrect. The engine and tender, taking the
average weight of the latter with her compliment of
water and coke over the whole distance run, weigh 43,
and not 56 tons; and the average speed to and from
Swindon, deducting time lost ill stoppages, was 50, and
not 56 miles per hour. Our contemporary states that
the engine, without her water, weighs 36 tons, whereas
it is, with water, 28i tons only. Her maximum speed,
with the 140 tons, un a falling gradient of four feet per
mile, was 57 miles per hour. But the trip in question
was an experimental one, for the purpose of ascertaining
how the engine would work with a heavy passenger
load. It was found that the engine did not work at the
required pressure; the blast pipe was therefore reduced,
end she is now in very good working order, and running
almost what the engine-drivers call " sweet."
The chief errors of our contemporary's correspondent
are in the details of the working of the ordinary 9h.
45m. morning express down train of Monday last. On
that occasion the new engine took the train from Pad-
dington through to Exeter. He states that the 1934
miles were performed in 214 minutes, whereas the
actual time was but 208 minutes. The extra six
minutes reduce the actual speed of the train nearly two
miles per hour. He makes the .ime occupied in run-
ning the 53 miles to Didcot 55 minutes, whereas it was
hut 52 minutes. This mistake reduces the rate of speed
hree miles per hour. The time from Didcot to Swindon,
24 miles, is stated to have beers 30 minutes, whereas it
was but 25m. 50s. This error makes the velocity above
four miles less than it really was.
It will be found that travelling at the speed attained
by the engine on Monday, and in fact every day
she has been at work, an engine loses about
five minutes in slackening her velocity when ar-
riving at, and getting it up when departing from
a station. The engine made five stoppages be-
tween Paddington and Exeter ; therefore 25 minutes have
to be deducted from her working, exclusive of the time
lost while the train was at a state of rest at the stations,
in order to arrive at the actual working speed of the
engine. Deducting, therefore, 25 minutes for the de-
crease of speed when arriving at, and the getting into
speed when leaving, the five stations, it will be seen
that her average tractive power, with the ordinary heavy
express trains of the Great Western, can accomplish
194 miles in 183 minutes, or at a rate of something like
sixty- three miles per hour. Bat even this does not
fairly show the real power of this extraordinary loco-
motive. If we exclude the comparatively slow rate at
which the engine driver ran down, not up, the inclines,
and the loss of time when arriving at and departing
from the stations, and if we also leave out of the
calculation the whole distance from Taunton. from
which place to Exeter the power of the engine was
reduced to prevent the train running into the latter
station too much before her time, the rate of travelling
varied from about sixty-two to sixty-nine miles per
hour. The 34 miles between the 13th and 47th
mile posts were performed in 31 min. 30 sec., in-
clusive of the time lost by shutting off the steam,
while going through the Slough station, at or nearly
65 miles per hour. In this distance there are about 4
miles of falling gradient of 4. feet per mile; about 8i
miles of level and about 20i miles of rising gradient, 18
of which are 4 feet per mile. At the 91st mile-post, we
come to a rising gradient of 8 feet per mile, which
reaches beyond the 98th mile, post. The 91st mile-post
was passed at 11 hours 45 min. 53 sec., and the engine
came abreast of the 98th at 11 hours 52 min. 46 sec.,
performing, therefore, the 7 miles up the incline in 6min.
53 sec., or at rather more than 61 miles per hour. The
train left Bristol (118 miles), at 12 hours 39 min., and
by the time it reached the 125th mile, it was proceeding
At nearly 70 miles per hour. A portion of the road from
Bristol to Taunton is practically a level, the remainder
being steep undulating gradients. The engine took the
train over the line, between the 125th and the 161st
mile-posts—viz., 36 miles, in 33 min. 25 see., orat a rate
of more than 64 miles and a half per hour. The jour-
ney from the 166th to the 191st mile-posts, running up
in incline of 1 in 70, and 1 in 80, at an average speed of
nut quite 48 miles per hour, was performed in 28 min.
18 sec., or at the rate of 53 miles per hour. The power
of the engine was, as we have already stated, reduced
after passing Taunton. But with this reduction of speed
the train got into Exeter 9 minutes before time.
Between Swindon and Bath the engine was worked
much below her power. The distance, 294, was done
in 33 min. 15 sec., hat it could have easily been gone
over in 28 minutes. The keeping back the train between
Taunton and Exeter, occasioned a loss of about 6 min.
The time lost in stopping at the stations was, in conse-
quence of the engine arriving at them before the stated
time upwards of 52 minutes, whereas the time should
not exceed 22 minutes. If we therefore deduct from
the 4 hours and 21 min. occupied by the journey from
the station at Paddington to the station at Exeter, the
30 min. unnecessary delay at the stations, and the 10
or 12 minutes that might very easily have been saved
between Swindon and Bath and Taunton and Exeter,
we see that this class of engine could work the express
train over the 194 miles in 3 hours and 40 minutes, in-
cluding the refreshment stoppage of 10 min, at Swindon,
as well as the four other stoppages, or at an average rate
between platform and platform, of nearly 53 miles
per hour. With engines such as this Birmingham
might be reached in about two hours, Liverpool and
Manchester in four hours, and Edinburgh in eight
hours. Dover, by its present circuitous and most incon-
venient route might—as only one stoppage to take in
water would be requisite—be reached with ease in an
hour and a half, and with a direct line in an hour and a
quarter. Upon a line worked with these powerful en-
gines, the traveller might leave London at six o'clock in
the morning, reach Edinburgh at two in the afternoon,
remain an hour in the city, and return to London by
eleven o'clock at night. In other words, he might
breakfast in London, luncheon in York, dine and trans-
act business at Edinburgh, and yet eat his supper in
London on the same day. On Thursday the express
train, weighing 90 tons, and worked by the same en-
gine, travelled from Didcot to Paddington, 53 miles, in
51 minutes—that is, from station to station. The speed
between the 47th and 2d mile posts averaged seventy
miles per hour ; and yet, twenty years ago, it was de-
monstrated to be impossible to make a locomotive take
20 or 30 tons at 13 miles per hour.—Herald.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 10.
The SPEAKIR took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
REPORTS.
The reports on the following Bills were then brought up,
and agreed to :—Banffshire Roads; Belfast and County Down
Railway; Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway ; Hud-
dersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway (Darfield Branch);
London and Blackwall Railway (Widening); Marquis of
Donegal's Estate; North British Railway (Carlisle Exten-
sion) ; Sir George Dunbar's Estate; Sheffield, Ashton-uniler-
Lyne, and Manchester Railway. (Barnsley Branch) ; Sheffield,
Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Worsborough
Branch); Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield, Hud-
dersfield, and Goole Railway; Stockton Gas; Airdrie and
Bathgate Junction Railway; Argyll Canal; Birming-
ham, Lichfield, and Manchester Railway; Blackburn,
Clitheroe, and North Western Junction Railway;
Caledoniaa Railway (Glasgow Termini and Branches);
Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway; Fleetwood, Pres-
ton, and West Riding Junction Railway ; Glas-
gow Municipal, Police and Statute Labour ; Glasgow,
Airdrie, and Monkland Junction Railway ; Glasgow
Southern Termini Railway ; Glasgow, Paisley, and Gree-
nock Railway (Polloc and Govan Branch) ; Gloucester and
Dean Forest Railway ; Grand Junction Railway (Huyton
to Warrington); Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and
Aston, and other Branches); Great Grimsby and Sheffield
Junction Railway and Grimsby Dt.cks Consolidation ; Har-
rogate Waterworks; Huddersfield and Manchester Railway
and Canal ( Huddersfield Diversion and Cooper Bridge
Branch); Lesmahagow, Dalserf, and Coatbridge Mineral
Junction Railway ; London and Croydon Railway (Thames
Junction Branch); Monkland and Kukintilloch Railway
(Chapel Hall Branch); Midland Railway (Burton-on-Trent
a(.amNborrfidoglke
RtoailteyedoEn) ;
Ex-
tensions to Nuneaton Branch and Ashby Canal Purchase) ; Midland
C°untiesanßd Rilwaialywa Cy
and E
Morecambernaste
Harbourtensions (Yarmouth Extension); Railway;
Pier and Rail-
way; Schoolmasters' Widows' Fund • Sheffield, Ashton
under Ly-ne, and Manchester Railway (Whaley Bridge and
Hay field Branches); South Wales Railway (No. 2) ; Yeovil
Market and Fairs.

SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time :—Midland
Great Western of Ireland Railway (Mullingar to Galway);
Scottish Central and Caledonian Junction Railway (by
order).

THIRD READINGS.
, The following Bills were read a third time and passed :
Ayrshire, Bridge of Weir, and Port Glasgow Junction
Railway ; Ballochney Railway (Shotts. Branch) ;
Bridgwater and Taunton Canal, Railway, and Harbour;
Bristol and Exeter Railway (Crewkerne'Branch); Bronas-
, grove Improvement and Small Tenements (No. 2);
Buckingham Railway (Tring to Banbury) ; Edinburgh
Paving ; Great Griin.by Gas ; Leeds and Thirsk
Railway (St. Helen's Branch and Deviation); Leeds
and Thirsk Railway (Knaresborough Branch Extension);
Leeds and Minsk Railway (North Eastern Extension—
Wrath to Hartlepool); Leith Paving; London and South
Western Railway (Farnham and Alton Branch); London
and Birmingham Railway (Camden and Euston Stations
Enlargement); Manchester, Sheffield, and Midland Junction
Railway ; Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland Junc-
tion Railway; Midland Railway (Leicester and Swanning-
ton Alteration and Branches); Midland Railway (Notting-
ham and Mansfi&d); Newcastle-upon. Tyne Improvement;
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway; Scottish Central
Railway (Alloa Branch); Scottish Central Railway (Perth
Termini and Stations); SittinAbourne Improvement.

gerous experiment. It is, in fact, virtually getting rid of the
control which the House has established for the purpose
of preventing an undue expenditure of the public money. It
is truly a dangerous experiment, because it would rot put a
limit to the extent to which these claims may go.—(Hear.)
If during the war with Denmark you are prepared to give
the sufferers by that war the sum of 250,000/., or a quarter
of a million of money, because the country with whom
you were at war did not make certain regulations as to the
capture during the war, there is no telling to what extent
these claims may now, and at future times be made,
for if the principle of this
grant of
with regard to Denmark, the princi lemo iney is
good
respect to every country with which you
s good with
may bel at war,
whatever their position may be, and larnvev
means as to trade ; and I say, therefore, that ietrisaht edutth;oirf
those who have any care for the mode in which the public
money is to be expended, to oppose this first step,
which shall
introduce this new principle that you are to indemnify your
own subjects for losses at sea during a war
between
this and any other nation. Sir, observe I am not
here standing up to defend the rights of the
Crown, I am defending the
rights
justicethe people
of of this country generally. You tell me there is
claims of these individuals whose property has been c
los t °tab er
i
fired at sea, and that these merchants who have
ir
ships and cargoes during the war have sustained a loss for
which you are bound to show them commisseration
and to make them some compensation. Sir, whether it be
right or wrong, captures at sea during war are the inva-
riable practice of nations, and that, as a totally different
question from captures on land, is not the question now before
the House. In fact, captures of cargoes at sea during war have
always been considered to be rightful captures. 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-
dividuals to be imported into this discussion, bear in mind
that by granting 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 lay a tax upon the people of this country.—
( Hear, hear.) 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. I would
assume as a fact that it is perfectly just that these parties
should be compensated for the loss of their property, and that
the sum of 250,000/. should be handed over to them; but
whilst these merchants have lost their property, the whole of
the people of this country have been subjected to heavy
burdens for the purpose of carrying it on. They have
borne those burdens cheerfully, they have paid the taxes
for the purpose of carrying on the war, and in some twenty
years afterwards you discover that several persons engaged
in trade during the war have, according to the law ofnations
and the ordinary practice of war, lost their property, and you
agree to a vote for the purpose of compelling those people
who have borne the burden of that war to pay
another tax of 250,0001. I think in a claim of this sort you
are acting not only in contradiction to the ordinary practice
of nations during war, but you are doing an injustice to this
country; and not only to the extent now demanded, but
you 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 hat
really been so often argued that it is with great difficulty
that I can bring 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 other nations, 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 prac-
tice. 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
not 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 us 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 th 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.
sell, 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
that 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
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
amount 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 fact—it is no greater ground for remuner-
ating these 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.
Two of these accounts are, however, quite clear. The
Danish 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 348,0001., 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
private 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 sus-
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
footing 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 one, 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 from time to time the advocates of the Danish claims
have forced a few arguments in their favour, and have then
ventured to refer them to this House. It is the natural
course of debate, that as
.you find an argument
adduced against you to examine those arguments you
have already urged before, and if you can find matter to
overcome the arguments against you, so to do. If I were
compelled to communicate beforehand all that I am going
to urge to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (and I would do
so with great pleasure), he would naturally seek in any place
for argument to refute it. The Right Hon. Gentleman has
exerted himself to show that there was a declaration of war,
and a declaration of war on the part of Denmark ; he has
adhered in all points to the faith held when the declaration
of war took place, and with that faith he has endeavoured to
decide that question. I have here before me the of
which her Majesty's Solicitor-General on this case, _
was sub-
mitted to him, and which I will give to the House, as it is
very short. He stated his opinion that the declaration on
the part of Denmark, on the 16th of August, 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-
tuous in me, against the experience of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and against the opinions of the law-officers of
the Crown, to enter upon a legal argument ; but, in
order to entitle myself to the consideration of the
House, I can quote the opinion of her Majesty's
Solicitor-General, in answer to the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The case must not, however, be allowed to rest there. The
Right Hon. Gentleman has said that I have never raised the
question of the justice or the injustice of the war. I
have never argued that question in the discussion of the
Danish claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman has assumed
the complete justice of the war, and on that he has proceeded
to argue that, supposing the war to be just, and the
Danes to have declared the war, that all that was
taken was the prize of the captors. Against the Bight

Hon. Gentleman I am sorry to oppose this argu-
ment. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that it
was a great war on the part of England, and that Denmark
declared war. If that be so, every state paper published at
the time of the war is in direct contradiction to the Hon.
Gentleman's statement. We went to the Court of Denmark
and said that we wanted, as friends, to continue the nego •
tiations which were pending before we went there. We have
seen 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 the state papers
of the time—thatwe were not at war, that we went as friends,
and desired to continue FO. The Danish Minister never left
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 bad 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
may 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;
ceVilarnavtbeiemsr.tboerß,sauidswutephpayoc
so
iennot
gins
fic :abet
eea dt
eßtd
g. eohi
urt r
svHei
os sn ei
tl
ha
Ge ie nnmttiohenme t
hma
no
onfttohDbeoe
right in what he states, let him not _f
*forget that there
was a convention immediately after which should have set
matters right. I beg to refer
......thepl.ktiegHhtoHn.oAt
ni.emnetl Gentleman to
the 7th rule of the convention.
re
rule he referred to, which was to the effect that fromr taiddthaee
of that document each power should afford the other
protecl tion to property, and that there should be a good under-
standing and a harmony 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 hostilitywith 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-
presented them, still there were circumstances connected with
this case of a nature so peculiar as to take it out of the list
of all ordinary cases of two nations opposed to each
other. Again, the Right Hon. Gentleman urges as an argu-
ment against my proposition, that there was no surplus left
out of which to pay this claim, 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 hare 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
•ommission 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 524,0001. to 225,0001., which amount they 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. Bat, 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 House did consider the
case one of such
.great 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
House to what De. 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 of 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 Hon. 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 than

this is not an ordinary case, but that, on the e,ontray, 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
mutt 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 be it has not been
done before. Heretofore it has been dealt with in a
slovenly and careless manner, but let it now be done 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, ind if it does not receive that attention now it

never will receive it. With regard to the declaration of war,
if my Hon. Friend centends 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-
cal 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 hastilities 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

claims. 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,
HognoeurnabulepoMn
the Honourable Member should have borneemlebiier,l,
how
ud.t
uthpaotn
etqhuaitteholopigrnioonundwe.as
Thenot v
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 I cannot help thinking that he has
relied a little too much upon it. The whole
of those claims turn upon the fact, that if a COM-
pensation was due to the claimants by any act of the British
authorities, that that compensation should be
granted to
those subjects. Were those ships taken when the law ofnations
was respected by both the British and Danish Govemmate,
and in open defiance of the law of nations, or were they
es
at a time when no such law existed, and was not respected,
in fact, at a time when both nations
were at war ? That
was the whole question. Sir. James
. Mackintosh took
care to draw a clear distinction between these two
points, for there was difference between the
distinction which should
cargoes of ships in defi-
ance of the
law of nations, and the seizure of ships during
btweo MadHe ebe tookws en care
the t o s
ei makezurae
frn great difference
theat
hostilities. The merits of the present question
upon this point alone. The lonourable Gen-
d that when the seizures took place nothing
like war
existed,
and upon that he grounds the jus-
f the present claim. I hold in my hand a document
Gen-
tleman an sai
tice o
which proves that war did exist, and that hostilities had
actually taken place between England and Denmark.
I would remind the Honourable Member that he
is about to establish a most dangerous precedent,
and I beg he will well consider of the door which he would
open up, in such cases by the arguments which he has

advanced.
Mr. HAWES rose and explained, but in so low a tone as
not to be heard in the gallery.
Mr. CARDWELL—The Hon. Member was wrong when
he said that, even if a:war had existed, that it was broken up,
or considered to be broken up by the convention which had
taken place. Now, he should have remembered that this was
a convention which had been come to for the purpose of
saving the town of Copenhagen from all the evils which
would otherwise accrue to the property of the inhabitants,
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
we. vnia not mule, hostilities and gll the Accompani.