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

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Colonel T. WOOD presented a petition from a place (the
name of which we could net hear) comp'aining of the law of
settlement at present existing, and praying for its abolition.
SALMON FISHERIES.
Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from the owners of
salmon fisheries in Ireland, stating that some of them had re-
cently lost 5,0001. in consequence of the recent enactment, for-
bidding the fishing of salmon during more than one season is
the year, and praying that this stringent enactment might be
removed, and the laws relating to salmon fisheries in Ireland,
assimilated to laws of England on the same subject.
SELLING SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS ON THE

SABBATH.~
Mr. LAWSON presented a petition against the selling of
spirituous liquors on the Sabbath.
THE DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. G. HUDSON presented a petition in favour of the
Danish Claims.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE COERCION BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE•
QUER, the motion of the day for resuming the adjourned de-
bate on the Irish Coercion Bill was read for the purpose of
being:postponed till to-morrow.—Agreed to.
THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.

petition to present from
Sir J. G said had he a
himself.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Baronet could not present a
petition from himself.—(Laughter. )
Mr. S. HERBERT, under these circumstances, presented
the petition from the Right Hon. Baronet. It was concern-
ing the Caledonian Railway.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. SPOONER postrmed his motion relatin,„if to the peti-
tion of Mr. Toulmin Smith from the 12th till the 14th May'
Dr. BOWRING moved for a copy of a petition of the in'
habitants of Malta to the Queen in Council, on the subject of
their grievances, and especially complaining of the interference
of the police at the last Carnival.—Agreed to.
Captain VIVIANTHE POST-OFFICE.
wished to draw the attention of the House
to the great irregularity which took place in the transmission
of letters and newspapers from the General Post-office, and
upon this subject he would desire to ask a question of the
Right Hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasurir
whether the Government were prepared to make ac./
arrangements on the subject ? A friend of his, only
living five miles from London, was accustomed to receive his
letters and papers eight-and-forty hours after the proper tin?e:
He wrote to his news-agent, a Mr. Smith, who, in reply
formed him that B',o sacks of newspapers, posted in the morn-
ing, were retained till the evening. He (Captain Vivian)
believed that it arose from a deficiency in sorters.
Mr. CARDWELL was rather surprised to hear any conlf
plaint against the delivery of letters. He was aware u.
some irregularity in the transmission of newsP3Per:f
There had hien a very great increase in the circulation °f
the London daily papers by the morning mails within the
two months, ari, he thought that Hon. Gentlemen wound 1,110
surprised when he stated to them that he held i
orin
hand a return in is 1116 it was stated that in
week within the present year the number of
news-
papers carried by the Post-office was no less than 729,0005
Perhaps some Hon. Gentlemen were not aware of the be
some of those newspapers. He held in hi> hand one of. t_
"one
newspapers, and 729,000 of those had been forwardedred of,
week alone !—( Hear, hear.) The irregularities comPlal woos
as he had already stated to the House, were by
with that
general at the Post-office, or in any way connected scoe
department. They arose from many other causes:s,.._ected
newspapers wore sent without covers, and some were mter'_"-many
Some were sent at the very last moment. There c
w
not
irregularities for which the Poet-office authorities w_ ere
post-
accountable. With regard to the responaibility nf
.tnl taken
office, he had already stated the great increase which
enauas, two
place in the dispatch of the morning mails within th in tbi!
months, and there had also been a considerable increaccich had
public business. There had been new machinery! ad-
only recently been put into operation. There had been
nec_creasing
ditional number of persons appointed to discharge th
duties, and he had every reason to believe that the uTc./so to
ties complained of would soon be removed. 119 lard

ors."
latisfitetionof stating to Hon. Gentlemen that he was in constant show to the House that the expedition was CO prompt and
andcpoounication with the authorities at the Post-office, secret that the British merchants could not by possibility have
. 't
anpeared that there were circumstances at present
had any intimation of it. That expedition sailed from this
!Xisting which prevented them from diseharging. their duties country on the 27th of July, and arrived with the British
in a,.. .
u emetient manner. They were, however, most anxious Minister, at Copenhagen, on the Ist of August. Copenhagen
t° talie every nossible means for the due discharge of the im- was invested on the B.h. This expedition went not for the
Peorsrt‘o.nt, duties' 'which devolved upon them. purpose, as it has since transpired, of making a hostile aggres-
'lM,(ll %E Y A NCR OF TROOPS TO THE COLONIES. sion on Denmark, but for the purpose of enforcing a nego'ia-
-2 't HU 1 lE. wished to ask a questinn of as hien he had given tion. A negotiation was entered into on the arrival of the
notice! n
having
.oMely, whether sufficient provision had been made for fleet off the coast of Denmark, before any act of hostility
tr o /ire-boats to accompany such ships as convayed our commenced. It continued even for a considerable
tho ps to the colonies? The public were much interested in time after. The Danish fleet was seized, and Denmark, of
; e answer that might be given by the Government to this CollrqP, placed an embargo on British property, and British
•trispoirrtant question.
vessels, and Danish property and vessels were in turn seized bv
Memb G• CO. CKBURN made some answer to the Hon. the British. Our Government took property to the amount ci-f
the el', 'which was perfectly inaudible in the gallery. At the 1,300,000'. , and the Danish Government seised property to
me°cllYaion of his remarks,
half that amount. The negotiations had commenced before a
h. ".. 111,.-IME stated that the Hon. Baronet had quite mistaken single shot was fired, as I have before said, and continued lo.ng
x.lis.,questi,a,a, with reference to the number of life-boats, after the surrender of the fleet and the seizure and cen,6.seteactioun.
meant
vertich each ship was to be provided. He of property. This negotiation came to i n,t 'avily that one life-oat should be carried in each sion, and Denmark declared watr
iagamssnt
of
sP.,ilor the purpose of conveying a rope to the shore in case 4th of November billowing bu twnara
Trade
ivreek. He would ask the President of the Board of December Great Britain declared Gentleman
no toshtai tsui s nef atoicul t tot' hey (2o4nt htl on;
"e,l He
any provision had been made of this nature? is urged by the Right Hon. ,atgha,i,nFstirlisteLnomiadrkoi
the
t
Sir G. CLERK stated that the subject had been under the Treasury, if he will permit me for a momenttorefaenrdtoneheiems:
consitleration of the Board of Trade. that this declaration of war on our part was natural D
THE BEERSELLERS.
Me M p
%Par totpaeerkteyd. b
yToe r i
tfleetish ofarms ewnhmilaer
ak
the ..; ' HILLIPS wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet was seized, and nary in defence ocfoopuerehoatag•
d that all public and private pro-
.Beeretary for the Home Department a question with re- convention was pending; and this convention declared that all
21xtet to certain petitions which had been presented from the hos•ilities were to cease, an
beee.r,sellers of the country. The beersellers were anxious to pert), wasotfo be respected. I allude to this convention for the
showing that it must have been in farce
whether it was the intention of the Government to legis-
the declaration
provisions
of war.the
late 'rat all with reference to their claim to be placed upon an up to and .at the period
not of
set the
eide The declaration of war did
equality with the licensed victuallers oh the country.
Sir
ntnhi• JAMES GRAHAM said he had received a great convention to which I have alluded, and therefore the parties
rof memorials upon this subject. One of the privileges for whom I seek the protection of the House were entitled to
hoof
_the( licensed
.victuallers was, that they should keep their the benefits of its provisions. Not to give them that benefit
.5 s open during the night. Of course, if the beersellers was a flagrant violation of that convention. The debts arose
Wereplaced upon an equality, they would claim a similar right. out of the declaration of war. Some time after these trans.
such a privilege extended, he had no doubt that it would actions took place, Mr. Canning made a remarkable de-
- a bused, and therefore he could not hold out the least ex- claration on this subject. It was in answer to Mr. Perceval,
Peetation that any legislation would take place upon this is subject. who brought the question of l' ese claims under the considera-
it/r. BELEW wished to ask the Right Hon. Secretary for tion of the House. (The Hon. Member here read the extract,
tie Home Department whether it was the intention of Govern- but from the noise that prevailed in the House it was impos-
t to ' act on the recommendation of the Landlord and Bible to catch the
.words. Its purport was, as far as we could
Tenant Commission, and consodate the offices of Clerks of the gather, an admission on the part of the Government, that the
Ceerown. en counties pratennd, or replace them as the claims were founded in justice and ought to be entertained.)
Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the trans-
Sir J. GRAHAM (who was very imperfectly heard) said action at the time which it happened, it was certain since
that the office of a Clerk of the Crown in Ireland was a very that time Parliament had on several occasions admitted,
Har
'mp arrant office in connexion with the constitution. The that the applicants who had suffered during that war, and
i. member, as well as the House, must be aware that the under the convention to which he had referred, were entitled
Clerk sof the 6rewa were appointed by the Crown on the re- to consideration. The claims put forward were of three
'Print ibility of the advisers of the Crown. The variety of kinds. The first claim was that of those who had debts
offeiress entailed considerable expenses, and the Government was owing to them by Danish subjects. The second kind of
lacer mring a Bill to consolidate thosee
Ices, under the recom- claim were those preferred by merchants who had goods seized
met idatio
red to. n of the Commission thn. Member had re• on the occasion. And the third claims were those of parties
kr
who had an interest in ...hips and cargoes that suffered in the war.
The words of the minutes of that convention acknowledged the
justice of the claims advanced by the three classes; and in the
years 1835 and 1836, the first two classes of claimants had their
demands settled. In a year or two afterwards, the subject was
again brought under the consideration of the Government and
of the country, and the Government received upwards of
1,309,000/. in order to settle these claims. But the Govern-
ment, although allowing the justice of those claims, refused to
enforce redress, although ,hey held property amply sufficient to
satisfy the claimants. In the year 1839, the subject was again
brought before the House, and who brought it forward ? It
was brought forward, not by an humble individual like myself,
whose opinions, whatever they might be, would be scarcely
worthy of recollection, but it was brought under the notice of
the House by a most accomplished lawyer, who would not have
done so until he had well considered the consequences. He
submitted these claims to the House, and the House again
sanctioned their justice ; but the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer still delayed the settlement of them. With
the determination, however, to ascertain their le-
gality, a motion was made for a Committee, which
was carried. The Committee met, and they reported upon
the claims of those parties. To that report I shall shortly call
the attention of the House. It stated that the Committee had
proceeded to consider the merits of the several claims submit-
ted to their consideration, and that they came to the following
result : —The claims amounted to half a million, which was re-
duced to two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds Scotch.
This sum of money was obtained from the sale of several car-
goes which had been seized and sold, and which consisted of
goods imported from the Baltic. In 1841, Mr. Justice Cress-
well moved and carried an address to the Crown that the ques-
tion would be speedily settled ; and had not Mr. Justice Cress-
well been convinced of the legality of these claims, he would
not have ventured to have risked his professional reputation by
insisting on them. I must say that this case ought not to rest
on strictly technical grounds. At the time those seizures were
made the Government were exposed to considerable danger ;
it thought it necessary to fit out several secret expeditions ; and
those who were losers by them were, of course, those chiefly
connected with the mercantile interest. And the House should
never forget that prizes were made to the extent of 13,000/., and
that they never distributed. more than one-half of them.
Sir, I am most unwilling, therefore, to touch upon that ques-
tion. I rather wish to deal with it as a question of an en-
tirely personal nature. I think if any one will take the trouble
—if any one has taken the trouble to refer to all that has
transpired on this subject, it is quite clear that these claims
are founded in justice, inasmuch as the public policy which
induced the Government to take the part which they did in-
volved the people concerned in their losses. It is quite im-
possible for me to say whether that policy was just or unjust.
But, supposing that policy to be just, it was perfectly impos-
sible for the Government to pretend to anything like justice
when they gave no public notification to the merchants of this
country that they were about to enter upon the course which
they took. The Admiral of the port received no intimation of that policy, arid the merchants took no other precautions for
their safety than they would under ordinary circumstances
against sea risks. The trade in the Baltic was considered
safe. and they therefore entered into nothing more than the
ordinary insurance against sea risks. Sir, under these cir-
cumstances, when the British merchants were not forewarned
by any public Act, or warned by any official netice, they
have, I contend, a perfect right now to ask this House arid
the Government of this country to give their sanction to a
Committee of this House for investigating those claims. Sir, I
have endeavoured to go as little over the whole ground as
possible in submitting the case of the claimants. You will
not, I will venture to say, refuse the Committee for which I
ask. I hope that those Hon. Members who have attended to
this subject from year to year will again give the vote which
they did in favour of a Committee of Investigation. lam
perfectly aware that the Goverment was placed in great difficulty
by the opinions delivered by the law officers of the Crown.
But I submit that this question is not a matter of law. It is a
mixed case of law, equity, and justice.— (Cheers. )
Sir J. HANDIER—I hold in my hand a petition from the
town I have the honour to represent.—(The Hon. Member
was proceeding with his speech, when the Sergeant-at-Arms
appeared at the bar, and announced, " That in obedience to
the orders of the House, and in conformity with the warrant
of the Speaker, he had taken the Honourable William Smith
O'Brien into custody.")—The Hon. Member recommenced by saying, I hold in my hand a petition from the town
I have the honour to represent, and in present..
ing that petition I take the opportunity of ex-
pressing
in a few words the reason why I consider this question
should be speedily decided. Ido not think that it is altogether
quite a proper question for the consideration of Parliament. I
cannot say that I look with any considerable favour upon this con-
tinued renewal of the question, and I feel earnestly that justice t
should be done, and that a final decision upon the question
shall be arrived at—and that a complete, clear, and strong ex-
pression of Parliament should be come to on the subject. I
am afraid that year after year we shall be going on further and
further from arriving at such a result. And now, to
approach the merits of the question itself, it appears to me that
they lie in a very narrow compass. In the case of the Danish
claims, all compensation for those Danish claims has formerly
been denied. At that time it was stated by the Honourable
Member for Portsmouth, that the large and respectable body
of individuals who had suffered upon the occasion, and who
now claimed compensation for their losses, had no right to
come to Parliament, or be compensated by the Government.
I think that Government had chosen properly to compensate
two classes of the Danish claimants. They were those claim-
ants who could not be supposed to withdraw easily, and at a
short notice, from the port of Denmark during the war ; people
who owned good debts iu the town of Copenhagen, or pos-
sessed cargoes and valuable goods in the warehouses of Den-
mark, were possibly prevented from setting sale with their ships
ari d getting oru..ttGhoeef,nete.hrealreua
ecilhir .
vr,o,fea
vstehrot,hs
lee
do
owri
ghneoo
mt wished
eii
ist.hkeudtsie,tadot
b,y,we
obtaincan
ah ne,
Ptt:esnsesSsoiolinciotof
sustain that opinion altogether, but I think if an embargo
was laid upon these ships before any
official public notic
given to merchants in this country, that the De wasanish
fbdtbhe.io:ecurt
because
rru—reesbiaeieaf:tioli _
no_nealo:
ut
to
intimationofabie,
think—andmcDenmarkobme
ri,,fnosaw,
tileatils,hiu 1
di
figooh given vtsnhteohnoateot
country were
w etrhoe a stateb
about
t be
o-f
Government wished British ships to leave their har
advance
claimants
whichnit ha
in: otbsue have a opinion
sus-
tained a
tamed fr,n the proceeding. If a fair noticed was given to them
ot on settho i
their sail
rigf for harbour,atnoothreecreiv. I 1
would . not so strongly insist
was afforded before etheoern2le)ednsaftion but if no official no-
ticehave a right to be considerbedicbaosthnot Feb.ll,
alvEitn)g7,sttahrotseedul persons. n
a
avnagduteheeuxnpefodrittu'orleagtacirnmstinwation of ere was no impediment,
conception ; then, I think, they are which
twas beyond their
on thel7ti etfo
\till a t c 1 orn p en-
swa
whichatsi c,ni
di
massed,
seceueNsasoseiwde
~e
saa
iLords(ii,m.iS,l
ai
Such
muniut
motion
in,n
int. thee Courtous House,
of Denmark, on the 2nd of September, and a similar order
was afterwards issued by his Majesty's Government in Council, I
r)ttointehawtansowabsseekY,h 81r, on
that no ships belonging to his Majesty's subjects should clear out for the port of Denmark, as a general embargo was in-
tended to be laid on them." Now, if that notice was issued
in this country on the 2nd of September, and ships sailed
afterwards, then, I think, they are not entitled to the
compensation sought. The opinion of Lord Sidmouth, in
which I agree, is very favourable to the compensation of
those who incurred losses. He said, on the subject of compen-
sation,t
opinion, which had
there could not be thed ,
ff smallesttsvew e of
of opinion.
Unfortunately, there was a i h
severalel settlementdyletaards,dealnadyeLt,redsid
m o u t h
oefxitsitltedquupesttoiotnhefpuvresthenetveti
competent to give an opinion
other countries, and was able and
had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, concluded peace with
m e
,
'9d of Septem-
berwhich I intend to rest. I say that I find on the
on the matter. Now, Sir, I have stated the only arguments on
after
Now, I
which no person had a right to compensation.
an order was issued by
the his Majesty's Government;think
the issuing of that order was a sufficient proof that
time. I beg leave, Sir, to second the motion.
mer-
chants had no right to clear out of the Danish ports before that
On the question being put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said
I can assure the House, sir, that it is very painful to me to
have again to repeat those opinions and those sentiments which
I have so often had occasion to address to the House on this
particular subject ; sometimes when sitting on this side of the
House, and sometimes when sitting on the other. But, Sir, I
have had from these repeated discussions full opportunities of
hearing all that can be urged on this particular subject, having
had various opportunities of consideration and reflection ; and
I adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed upon
the subject, that it is one in which it is not consistent with
public policy for the House to interfere, and that it is one in
which it is not consistent with the duty of him to whom her
Majesty has entrusted the finances of this country to acquiesce.
Sir, 1 believe also, very strongly, that it is a matter of great
delicacy on the part of th, House of Commons, in dealing with
lGaieant,liao•rnwnan
bpyrotphoosensotnostditenatliownit, htbiatt.
tiA;o rHuloenwseasofmcosotmwmisoeolys
a question of this kind in the manner in which the, Hon.
should not take upon itself, indenendentle of the Crown, to
iltihtyisofru,laerstviea
reties being
expresslyboing
urged,la i d
dOroisgvninatotegaunayrdgraagnatinosftmtohnecyp,osasnibi'
raiher by persons who had a direct interest to come to a vote
of public money, which a consideration of the general interests
of the country did not authorise, and the House, therefore,
imposed the chmecokstiriintchoantverneisepnetcrt'.ositioßnuotf ith .willg pinlascteeadthcef
as usual, to originate such a grant, to refuse it wain!
Crown in that
tecommend-
ed by a Committee of this House. I think that is a most in-
convenient position in which to place the Cw
casion, where grave legal doubts as to the claims roexin
st oanndasnvhocre
-
the question of how far the right of the House to interfere ''s
involved, to call upon it to make any grant upon such a matter.
The lion. Gentleman commenced his speech by stating that
these claims were refused on two special grounds—one of these
grounds being financial, and the other being founded on inter-
national law, Ido not agree with the lion. Gentleman, when

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought up several Bills, which
dwere ordered to be laid on the table.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who was very indistinctly
heard in the gallery, was understood to ask the Hon. Member
for Lambeth to postpone the second reading of this Bill, be-
cause it would be quits impossible, on that evening, to give it
the consideration which it merits demanded.
qr. HAWES said he was quite ready to accede to the Hon.
ar,d Learned Member's proposition, by postponing the second
reading till that day fortnight.
PRIVILEGE— VI R. W. S. O'BRIEN.
Mr. ESTCOURT moved that the adjourned debate on the
tsroceedings connected with the Hon. Member for Limerick
be resumed.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that it would be in the recollection
of the House, that at the conclusion of the debate on the
preceding evening it had been his duty—his painful duty—to
come down to that House, instead of his Hon. Friend, in order
to make a certain statement to the House. The Right Hon.
Baronet opposite, acting, as he (Mr. Roche) admitted he did,
is the fairest and most amicable spirit possible—( Cheers)—
thought well to give his Hon. Friend eight-and-forty hours
to consider his resolution. His Hon. Friend had considered
What course he should pursue, but he complained, and he (Mr.
Roche) considered that in that complaint he was justified—
he complained that he had had no opportunity of explaining to
the House the position in which he was placed, and the reasons
which had actuated him in adopting the course he had followed
under the circumstances. He did not know what course his
Hon. Friend would have pursued, but what he would suggest
was, that the House, either by a positive motion, or in some
other way, would allow his Honourable Friend to come to
the bar and explain the reason for his adoption of
the course he had pursued on this occasion.—( Hear, hear. )
It might be true that he was asking the House to pursue an
unusual course, inasmuch as it might be at variance with the
rules and regulations of the House, but he was sure that when
he appealed to the House on behalf of the Honourable Gen-
t stood in the painful prbition of not
being sustained by many individuals in that House, he stood
in a painful position, because he had taken a course of action
different from that adopted by those who usually acted with
him. He was sure, however, that the House would see that,
whateser might be the nature of the rules and regulations of
the Hewn, he considered that, in justice and fairness, and
With their usual desire to see fair play administered,
that they would, in their indulgence and-kindness, grant the
'notion eibith he. had risen to make. He had therefore m simply
to move as an amendment, « That Mr: William Smith O'Brien
should be heard in his place."
Mr.ICYGONNELL seconded the motion.
AM :RIME apprehended that there could be no objection to
grant the amendment of the Hon. Member.—( Hear. ) He was
anxious es.aoy ori.e to maintain the privileges of the House, but
at the.istaine-thne, when a request was made in the way in
which-it had-been made by the Hon. Member, he thought the
House should assent to it, provided, however, that the grant-
ing dlfterFeetinht not materially interfere with the rules of the
House. He hoped they would agree to the motion.
Mr. R. YORKE said he had somewhat considered the ques-
tion, and if they wished to preserve the rules of the House
inviolate, it would be absolutely impossible to grant the mo-
tion °No' Hon. Member.—(Several Members in the vicinity
of the Member called ont, " Why," but he made no
respoftl
Mr. :9' ONNELL said his Honourable Friend (Mr. Smith
O'Brien.), would no doubt be satisfied at the way in which
the subject had been brought before the House, but he ( Mr.
O'Connell)) did not think his case had been put in a proper
anannef before the House.
Sir. ROBERT PEEL—Sir, it is my desire to relax the
strict rues of the House as far as possible—( Haar,
hear)—and•-- at the same time I do think that,
as far as my private inclinations are concerned, I wish
to act on that principle ; but in the position in which I
stand I owe a duty to the House—(Cheers)—and therefore it
is of the utmost importance to consider whether it would he
advisable to establish a precedent, by granting the amend-
ment • of the Honourable Member. We must con-
sider' what will be the effect of the relaxation of the rules of
h
I must remind the Honourable Member
•
te House.
(Mr O'Connell) that the Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S.
O'lli=ieriYhad every opportunity offered to him to beg the order
which the House made on the subject; and 1 do distinctly re-
collect that, in speaking on the subject, he said that although
he had
3101 an opportunity, he did not think he should
obey `it;'• because his sentiments on the subject were
already fsn record in the correspondence which had
taken ,place on the subject, and to which he said he
must refer as the grounds for refusing to attend.
I find, being in his place, and having been called upon by the
Speaker, he stated that he had already given his reasons, that
he had no further observation to offer upon the matter, and
that he still held his determination. He then withdrew. Now
I apprehend, having declined to obey the orders of the
House, he is in, what is technically called, contempt.
Whether- or not there were precedents for acceding
to the motion which was made, I am not aware,
but I beg that you will have the goodness to state what are the
rules ol this House. If they are in favour of the extension, I
should certainly be rejoiced, but if they are the reverse, I shall
feel it my painful duty to support the rules of the House.
The SPEAKER—I must state, with very great regret, I
remember no precedent which would justify this House in
acceding, to the amendment.—(Hear.) The Honourable
Gentleman had an opportunity of being heard in his place,
and that was the time to make any explanation he thought
proper. The Hon. Member did not do that, and the House
of Commons then resolved that he hid been guilty of a con-
tempt. I cannot call to my memory any precedent which
would justify the House in acceding to this motion.
Mr. ROCHE of course bowed to the decision of the House,
and he would now beg leave to ask whether there was any
reason why the Hon. Member should not be heard at the bar
of the House?
The SPEAKER said that there was no precedent for an
Houe,Member appearing at the bar of the House unless as a
criminal;

--.I%fiTTIRATTAN said he had been requested by his Hon.
Friend to state, that when he had the opportunity of being
heard in his place, he was not aware of the motion which the
Chairman of the Committee of Selection should propose.
Mr. ROCHE—Of course I bow to the decision of the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER then put the question—that William Smith
O'Brien, Esq., having been guilty of a contempt, by neglect-
ing to attend a railway Committee during the present ses-
sion, after having been summoned, resolved that a warrant do
issue against him, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms do arrest
him accordingly.
Mr. M. MILNES, amidst great impatience, said he rose
humbly to submit to the attention of the House whether it
would not be possible to avoid the unpleasantness of agreeing
to the course proposed. He believed it was perfectly clear,
that if the Honourable Member should continue to remain
in a state of contempt he could not take his seat in the
House, nor of course take part in the proceedings. If this
debate were adjourned till that day six months, he appre-
hended that the Honourable Member for Limerick would
be able to take part in the deliberations of the House,
and he did think that the best way of avoiding
the unpleasantness that attended the course recommended by
the Hon. Member that had made the original motion would
be to agree to the adjournment of this debate Lill that day six
months. _(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
No HON. MEMBEtt having seconded this amendment, the
Hon. Member said, that as it appeared not to meet the views of
the House he would withdraw it.---( Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. No division,
however, took place is consequence of the motion being
agreed te. It was then ordered that Mr. Smith O'Brien should
be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms, and
that Mr. Speaker be directed to issue his warrant accordingly.
THE
aDmAidNISH CLAIMS.
Mr. HAWES rose
Ist much confusion, and spoke as
follows : —Sir, ones more
mare to make an appeal to the
House, and once mere makvetnhe motion which I have placed
on the paper of to-day, to considerw of those Danish claims
ich occurred in Denmark in
which arose out of transactions
eanadr%uments which have been
the year 1807. Sir,qua,ftsetrionT
adduced against this
discussions which
have taken place upon it, I shtio,,ouhsleh,aeurri;i'lianfyeel
I entertains] the
in occupying the time of the
a‘avdi:jaussstice of these claims.
myself justified
strongest conviction of the equity and
I will endeavour, Sir, to compress
u m elnit'sa vwela to say
shanyv have been a
narrow compass. Now, Sir, the ar
as I have been
raised against these claims have merel
enabled to consider them, resolved themy,,eslvoeesfainr to two in num-
ber. They have been of a financial charger r, which have been
urged upon the House from time to time b the Chancellor of
difficulty of
the Exchequer, who, I think, rather glace
to
meeting the claims than to the justice of the ease. The
jaainudyoowbn
own
other objection was of a far more important char,a,;,astthepre.
that I own I feel much difficulty in cont,,ndin
neixiblibited
that the legal objections whi,h haveptiveosenitpt,aiw,,ea,
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman o
considerable knowledge of law—especially internatiso
are difficult to meet. I know, also, that there are many aZI7-
culties surrounding this question. Nevertheless, those diffi-
enities which have been urged have not deterred the House, on
many occasions, from affirming. by considerable majorities, the
justice of the claims that were urged on the attention of
the House. Now the circumstances out of which these
claims arose may state in a very few words. In the
y 4
year 1807, the British Government having been informed that
the Danish fle, wog to be placed at the disposal of Napoleon,
adverse to the interest t 1 )f this country, determined, upon the
information whicii (lacy had received, to take measures for
seizing that fleet. The expedition was one that was got up
with the greatest secrecy and the greatest promptitude, and I
r4irereidvaoinolfy
twofer to the duties relating to the fitting out and expedition on the coast of Denmark, iu order to

Government on account of those claimants ; and, therefore, it
was simply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons so
claiming. But perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does
not wish to part with the money from the coffers of the Trea-
sury. Now, Sir, with respect to the other point—the question
of international law. Ido not boast myself of a very perfect
knowledge of the law, but I have looked at the opinions of
those lawyers who have considered the question, and they
have come to the conclusion that the parties are entitled to the
compensation which they seek, as the capture of their ships was
not a capture in war. There is not a better lawyer than Dlr.
Justice Cresswell, and it is not at all likely that he would com-
promise his legal knowledge on this subject because he was
the Member for Liverpool.—(Hear, hear.) But there
are two great parties whom I have not the honour
to see in their places at this moment—l mean
the Attorney and Solicitor General—because, if I have stated
anything erroneous in point of law, they would no doubt have
corrected me.—(Cries of " Why are they not here ?") I will
tell you why they are not here. Both the Attorney and the
Solicitor Generals voted for this motion on a previous occasion,
but have I not the opinions of Mr. Justice Cresswell, one of the
most acute and just lawyers in England? I say it is not likely
that he would warp his legal judgment on the matter ; and if
the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General were here I am
sure they would not dispute the law, because they have voted
for the motion. The Hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T.
Wilde, who voted against the motion) challenged Mr. Justice
Cresswell to produce any authorities in favour of his view, and
on the next night, the 10th of June, he did produce two au-
thorities, and said, in the course of his address, " I have been
challenged that there is no authority on the subject ;" and he
then read an extract from Vattel, which stated, " those who
have by reprisals lost their property, are bound to get compen-
sation for their losses." In Grotius' Special Jury Cases it is
stated, "it is the duty of the state to give
compensation to those on whom reprisals have fallen."
He says, " But before she declares war"—l now beg the at-
tention of the House to this—" Before she declares war, of
which we shall treat in the following book as there are various
methods practised among nations " He says, "He seizes on
some property if he has an opportunity, and declares it seized
until he has given him sufficient satistaction." Then he says,
" He takes possession of what belongs to another and keeps it
until payment ;or he detains it as a pledge." Then he says,
" The effects seized upon are preserved while there is any
hope of obtaining satisfaction or justice, but so soon as that
hope disappears they are confiscated, and the reprisals are then
complete." Now can anything be more clean than that? For
the purpose of satisfaction they seize, and when all hope of
satisfaction disappears the reprisals are complete and the good:
are disposed of. " This is the last remaining effort previous to
the commencement of open hostilities ; then, indeed, is the
Sovereign to compensate his subject on whom reprisals shall
have fallen." I say that Parliament and the monarch of Great
Britain ought to compensate those on whom reprisals fell by
the Danish transactions of 1807. "It is the duty of the state
or the nation to make this good, because each citizen ought
only to pay his quota." The Honourable Gentle-
man the Secretary for the Treasury is well versed
in law, and perhaps he will point out how,
seeing that war was not declared until the 4'h of November,
the seizures were captures of war, and not merely reprisals.
There was a most extraordinary argument used here on a
former occasion, upon the decision of Lord Stowell upon the
seizure of property in Demerara, and the claim that was made
by persons, calling themselves British subjects, for restitution
of their property. These individuals were first British sub-
jects, then Dutch subjects, and afterwards British subjects
again ' • and Lord Stowell decided that, as the parties were
Dutch subjects at the time of the seizure, they had no locus
shin& in the courts of law of this country, to obtain restitution.
Lord Stowell said that the question mainly depended on
whether the property was taken before or after the declaration
of war. Now, Sir, I say that this question originated on the
ground of public policy, public justice, and international law ;
and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons in-
jured were entitled to compensation, on the part of those
who had caused the inquiry. lam sorry I have troubled the
House so long on the subject, but it appears to me that justice
requires that the law should be justly and fairly put in practice
on this occasion.
Mr. CARDWELL—On no occasion should I have pre-
sumed to enter the lists with my Hon. Friend opposite, for the
purpose of attempting to sanction an argument of a legal cha-
racter; but on the present occasion I shall not shrink from the
task, and I will endeavour to give a legal argument, which for
the first time since the commencement of this discussion,
has ever been submitted to the House. It will appear remark-
able to those not familiar professionally with legal subjects,that
with all the acumen of Sir James Mackintosh, and all the Crown
Lawyers that. then held office under her Majesty, it has been
reserved for to-night to bring forward a legal argument against
the subject on which I feel it my duty now to speak.
For the sake of the parties who sustained injury,
arising front the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, this case
was raised by Sir James Mackintosh, and he stated that if any
portion of those goods were taken by Denmark in contraven-
tion of the established law of nations, it became our imperial
duty to vindicate that law on the part of the subjects who were
injured; and if for any reason whatever we failed in discharg-
ing that duty, it became our duty to compensate the subjects
who suffered by our refusing to discharge that duty. This was
when the Danish claims were first raised, and Sir James Mac-
kintosh and those who were engaged with him in their former
attempts, took care to have nothing to do with the
part of the claims now the subject of discussion. They
felt that it was necessary, resting on that ground, carefully
to distinguish between those claims which advocated compen•
sation for property on shore, and books, debts, and those claims
on behalf of ships and cargoes, because they felt that in such a
position there was one reply which could be made, if ships and
cargoes were acknowledged to stand on the same footing as.the
property on shore. Why did the Hon. Gentleman opposite
seek to bring this case within the law of nations, when the real
ground on which it rested was whether the reprisals were made
before or after the declaration of war? What follows has re-
lation to the subject of reprisals. The Hon. Gentleman has
grounded his position on a point of law, on which it is neces-
sary that the legal argument should be clearly understood by
each of us. The meaning of the words reprisals and captures
were not to be used in the ordinary and popular sense, but in
a strict and legal sense. Now, the Hon. Member had taken the
ordinary and popular meaning of reprisals, and continued it
strictly and legally as the foundation of his argument. He
has laid down this distinction in the course of his address, and
on that construction contends, that if captures took place be-
fore the declaration of war, they are to be considered reprisals,
and compensated. With great deference to the Hon. Gentl,...
man, I trust say, I do not agree with him in his legal defini-
tion ; and on that ground consider they are not entitled to
compensation. Reprisals between nation and nation are
allowed in order to enable them to do justice to each other,
in matters where they consider themselves aggrieved, and
when they have no other means of redressing themselves. If
a nation refuses to do justice to another, then the latter, accord-
ing to the law of nations, might seize the ships of the former,
and keep them in pledge till justice is done them ; or if they
fail to do so, then the eapturing party may keep the ships and
property seized, and declare them to be confiscated.—( Hear.)
If an open rupture in consequence takes place, and war ensues,
then are they justified at once in confiscating all that has been
previously seised. This is the distinction between reprisals
and captures. Thus, if a capture takes place, and no warfare
arises between the countries in consequence, then is the Go-
vernment bound to take the claim of the injured parties into
consideration, and to grant compensation- —( Cries of
Hear, hear.) But when a declaratiou of war takes
place, the retro-active effect is, that captures
fall under the ordinary rules of war, and are not entitled to
compensation. The Hon. Gentleman saes there was no de-
claration of war; but it has been read this evening, and is dis-
tinct enough. It declares on the part of the Danish Govern-
ment that war is actually broke out, and calls upon all faithful
subjects to come forward and take such steps as are best calcu-
lated to repel hostile attacks. This declaration of war is dis-
tinct enough, whatever may have been the acts of Denmark
before the period of its being issued ; and this declaration was
issued on the 16th of August, 1807. Well, but the Hon.
Member says that the first declaration of war on the part of
England was made on the 4th of November, 1807 ; and here,
I think, my Hon. and Learned Friend has confounded two cir-
cumstances. A declaration of war, according to the practice
of this country, is an act of hostility, and I believe that no de-
claration of war, according to the sense of my Hon. and
Learned Friend, had been issued at the very time when he
was on his way to take part in the battle of Waterloo. What
was the object contemplated by the proclamation of the 4th of
November, to which the Hon. Member has made reference?
That was not a proclamation of war, but a proclamation for
the distribution of prizes ; and before such proclamation had
been issued such prizes became droits to the Admiralty, and
were carried to account of the Consolidated Fund. As between
England, therefore, and Denmark, the bombardment of Copen-
hagen was the declaration of war; as between the Govern-
ment of England and the captors of prizes, I believe that to
them only had the proclamation of the 4th of November
reference ; and I am asto)enmisbharedratshsthatteh,,fiemomr my Honourable and
Learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord Stowell
o
in support of his position. What this is, is a simple question
between the Government of Great Britain and its subjects;
not between the Governments of England and Denmark, and,
therefore, not bearing on these Danish claimants. I do not know
whether I have succeeded in fixing the attention of the House
to the conclusion I would seek to establish. I consider that
my Hon. and Learned Friend has, in some degree, confused
the question as between the Imperial Government of Great
Britain and the subjects of Great Britain making captures, and
the Governments of Great Britain and of Denmark. This, I
think, is the complete answor to the legal arguments which
my lion, and Learned Friend has for the first time submitted
to the House; an argument which has escaped the attention of
Sir James Mackintosh, which has not come under the notice
of Mr. Justice Cresswell, and which has not been observed by
any of the Hon. Members who have introduced this matter
before the House. Having taken up so much time in rebutting
this argument, I will proceed very shortly to notice the other
arguments of my Hon. and Learned Friend.—( Hear, hear.)
My Honourable Friend says, that gentlemen con-
nected with the Government take a peculiar view or
this question. I would remind the Hon. and Learned Mem-
tion. These claims were brought forward for the first time in
Those who had other claims to
her, that Lord Althorp had the subject uannddest,retihstvheieitnriss:liwlci
titacti considera-
tion.
hink
Hon. Friend
ibranotyit so set. Sir,
s sub-
ject.Bl
(v3:l, ni7c
ae wereChear.) ie
too
ThereforerNud e' nn
t t
ject was introduced. Lord Campbell
Worcester did advise the Government what croeugrasreddteotpoatarttkhee,
and the Government had not. boon influenced in the determi-
nation which they carne to by any other considerations than
those of public policy.—( Hear, hear.)
Hon. Gentleman will admit that, if his point of law cannot be
are more than thirty
principlessustained,of
hasgeneralpublicgroundpolicy.
t
on
regardwars?
years
Hear, hear.)
Mr. lIUTT—Oh, no, by no means ; they were
were
before the Treasury five-and-twenty years ago.
Mr. CARDWELL—It was not until thirt
lmem"an.eries
DaAniirs.h expeditioniuTr Ththe tohne.seGcelnati
they
brought before the Treasury.
Mr. CARDWELL—I believe lam stating a fact. Those
persons who had substantial claims upon the Government, "c"
thought of embarrassing the case by bringing in
the never
one, and it was not until thirty years after that this
casePre 9,, n t
brought under the notice of Parliament. And, sir, ifafter
that length of time, when the law was against you,
Mr. WATSON—No, no, the law is not against as.
Mr. CARDWELL—You are prepared to grant the • • Justice
of the claim in any individual eases of the kind, the precedent
• s
that you set does not apply only to future wars , but I know
of national of
practice on
which you can refuse to deny in am case of any war, that has
occurred in the history of this country, upon ;,
which anybody
can bring evidence their,as the semblance of truth in
support
of a similar claim. having, therefore, as I hum' 1
tr
satisfactorily answered the novel argumnaent of the Huston., Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon an erroneous dis-
tinction, and having cursorily gone over the mom general
arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who moved for this
Committee and has brought the matter before the House, I do
hope that the House will see the necessity of resisiting the
Hon. Member's motion.
Mr. HUME—Sir, it is not necessary on this occasion to
enter, after the debate that has now taken place, intop t-
ar icu-
lars after the lengthy details that have been already
given. I
only wish, Sir, to say that there is no fear of any proudeot of

he states that the objections to these claims are of a financial
character. They never, let me observe, rested on that prin-
ciple, as the Hon. Member for Portsmouth had presumed, for
whether these claims be, as they were now, fur 500,0001. or
200,000 t., it is not the amount that we should regard in our
decision, but it is the principle involved by coming to such a
decision. The danger involved is not only the expense we
should incur, but the expense we should expose ourselves to in
1 law now laid down in this House, by gentlemen of the
to
respect,o f past
Thewars
questiona rad u
roesrt
esuccessors
great
n e
measurer sp ect of those
e nint wars
er
t.; na-
ons
lion. The Solicitor-General had expressed his opinion against
m highn ews legal
hto combated
authority; and it also
the
former
judgment rested on the
on
this
important
ert opinionsant qof
u e
s..
House, wyheetn
htehaer
dq uaens
yti o n
answer was legallyte
his discussed,epinien.
andTithienqltuhehissatviliu
oen does not rest only on the opinion of those Hon.
and Learned Gentlemen who have lately given their opinions,
but it rests on the authority of all those legal gentlemen who
have taken part in previous debates in this House, when former
claims were urged. Those gentlemen all said that the claims
:hat scare then urged were only to be maintained where there
was some conviction or proof of any violation of the law of na-
tions; and they reserved to themselves the point that the cir-
cumstances on which this claim was founded, were of a totally
different character from those laid down in the category of those
who made the claims. This was the argument of the Hon.
Member for Sheffield, when he said that thse claims should be
decided by an exposition of international law. These claims
have been supported by an Hon. Gentleman formerly a Mem-
ber for Liverpool ( Mr. Cresswell), and in his constituency were
large bodies of individuals personally interested in the question
now before the House. Mr. Cresswell brought forward the
question, as he considered he had a duty to perform to his con-
stituency, and that he should present to the House the cireum-
stances under which this case arose, in order that it might have
the benefit of a discussion in the House of Commons.
Great importance is attached to the opinion of Mr. Justice
Cresswell, from his eminent legal abilities ; but it ought to be
borne in mind that he represented a large mercantile body,
many of whom had an interest in the question.--( Hear, hear.)
Whatever value is attached to the opinion of that eminent
lawyer, the House should weigh against it the fact that he acted
in that matter as it became his duty as a, representative in
Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who
brought forward this question lays great stress on the ground
that this was a secret expedition, and the injury to which
the merchants had been exposed in consequence of not
having information so as to escape the danger. On this point
the House should consider the extreme hazard which would
grow out of giving information in such cases. I have not
heard any sound reason given why compensation should be
given in cases of this kind, and arising out of such circum-
stances. I have heard nothing advanced to convince me of
the opinion that the captures for which compensation is sought
took place after the declaration of war. The declaration of
war against Denmark took place on the 16th of August, 1807,
and no capture was proved to have taken place subsequent to
that date. I have already referred to this declaration, and
given its terms, and I now assert that it was issued on the
16th of August, and the captures were antecedent to that
period. But it is said it was a secret expedition, and, therefore,
compensation should be given. If you carry out that principle
what will be the effect? If you give compensation in the pre-
sent instance, you are bound to give it in every other case.
Grant the present claims, and whenever an enemy is attacked
under similar circumstances, whenever a secret expedi-
tion is fitted out, you will be bound by such a prece-
dent for every capture which is made at sea during
the progress of the war. Let us see how the principle
applies to other wars. See how it would apply to the last
war with the United States. No notice was given then
that our merchant shipping was in danger, yet, according to
this principle we should be bound to grant compensation for
every capture. Such a ground of compensation now sought
would establish a principle applicable not only to the Danish
war, but to all ether wars; and in all captures of merchant-
ships arising out of-secret expeditions they would have motions
made and claims advanced for compensation. In every parti-
cular case the House would be called upon to make advances
of money in order to satisfy the parties. It would be impos-
sible for the country to go into war and defend its just rights
without being subject to claims for damage done to private in-
dividuals in the prosecution of such expeditions as that out of
which had arisen the present claims. But !here seems to be
great doubt among Hon. Gentlemen who support this motion.
The Hon. Member for Lambeth supported the claims of one
class, while the Hon. Baronet the Member for Hull supported
the claims of another class. The Hon. Member for Hull sass,
that no indemnity ought to be given in certain cases, because
he has found out that an Order in Council was issued on the
2nd of September, 1807, that no British ships should clear out
for Denmark because they would be liable to be seized upon
and confiscated by that Government ; and therefore argues the
Hon. Baronet they have no claim for indemnity. What is the
effect of this disagreement? Why, out of the eighty-five persons
who, according to the statement of my Right Hon. Friend
opposite have claims, if the opinion of the Honourable
Baronet the Member for Hull is taken—( Hear, hear)—only
10 can have any claim at all. Thus we see that these learned
doctors—learned in the doctrine of international law—are
divided to the extent, that while the one would admit the
rights of 85 claimants, the other would only give compensation
to 10. Can a stronger proof than this be required that the
subject is not of that very clear character that it was repre-
sented by the Hon. Member for Lambeth to be ? The Hon.
Member for Lambeth has, I think, not very fairly stated the
opinions of Lord Althorp, as given in 1834. The report of
1834 states—" We are all aware that these claims are made
for the losses sustained on this occasion by the act of the
Danish Government, but we do not conceive that Parliament
would be disposed to admit the principle that such claims could
be entertained." As I have stated before, I am very little
competent to argue the• legal points as to what constitutes the
lawful seizure of property. It may appear that there is no
valid reason why property on shore may not be captured as
well as property at sea, and why the former should be safe
while ships and cargoes should be exposed to seizure. But I
believe no one will deny that such is the principle of interna-
tional law.—( Hear, hear.) They have respected property on
shore, hut never that on the sea. This property, like a great
deal of other property, had undergone the chances of war. It
is said that these were only reprisals, and that they therefore
stand from other ships. Now, what is the question of repri-
sals? It is something of this kind. You lay your hands on
whatever property you can legally take, in order to compel
your enemy to accede to reasonable terms.--( Hear, hear. )
Well, then, this property happens to consist of ships and mer-
chandise. If the differences are settled, they are returned;
if the war goes on, why, they are sold. But really,
after the war has commenced there is no distinction as
to property captured after the declaration of war and after.
the commencement of actual hostilities. All I wish to in-
culcate on the House is the danger to which the country will
be exposed if they set a precedent that if they went to war
with a foreign nation, some six-and-thirty years after they could
be induced to compensate all who had suffered any detriment.
Standing in every respect upon the footing on which these
cargoes and ships were taken, I contend that you are not entitled
to ask the House of Commons for a Committee to inquire into
these claims. Sir, I can assure the House that it is only from
a sincere desire to avoid all the dangers which I see incident
to an acquiescence in things of this kind that I
.have on so
many occasions expressed my opinion on this subject. I have
abstained, as the Hon. Gentleman has done, as much as pos-
sible, from repeating the arguments which I have used before
with respect to this question. I do not rest, as the Hon.
Gentleman does, upon any technical grounds. It is upon a
great national principle, it is upon the broad Principle which I
have already stated, that if you once lay down this principle
that you will protect all ships and cargoes during war, no limit
can be placed to such claims hereafter. It is on these grounds
that I must resist the motion of the Hon. Member opposite
for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the Danish
claims.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WATSON—I trust I shall be able to show the House,
on principles of public justice and national law, the justice of
these claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that
those who represent large commercial constituencies have a
peculiar mode of looking at the question of international law
in this House. Will he allow me to make a retort that the
Right Hon. Gentlemen who have visited the purlieus of the
Treasury seem also to have a very extraordinary view of the
public policy and the public justice of international law.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, Sir, let us see first of all
what the facts are in this case, and the grounds on which this
claim must succeed. These cargoes and ships were taken
before any declaration of war whatsoever. —(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") This country having ascertained that
a party was about to seize the Danish fleet, sent
out a fleet under sealed orders and perfect secresy, so
that not a single merchant of this country could know
where that, fleet was. The relations between Denmark and
England continued ; the merchants continued in their inter-
course with the Baltic. They continued in their intercourse
with Denmark all the time. The fleet went to the Baltic, and
cbto,
trade
idntmhege:
easAorte,dhme i r.Ba lalbtei
Baltic,
ghasked s t
eheet
ityh e re 0
tao ralnuont i
et
ahteeyd
toin
igthhet safely
trade in tlae Baltic, he distinctly eommunicateil to the mer-
ch ant s that they might do so.—( He aerfs,
Should
it
niltoVtiss,bl Sir,let,hoaut rtphtuhebsae_t
attempted
a ask o n
tow hhaet r ground ndd?
lic policy to encourage the merchants in carrying on their
to
Wtt
hheeo scAe.
come
claims.aswas i
enteredn thhaeb declaratione that was made
trade? I say that by our national law they are clearly entitled
to
etlanTdh,eynostaiad;
ow uh Butr
e h otwhr what
asy t
enemies—(this, I believe, was dated August, and I have not the
exact date)—nut as enemies, but in self-defence, and to prevent
those who are so willing to destroy Europe from doing so."
"We come not as enemies," and yet the Hight
Honourable Gentleman has said they are not entitled
by international law to make these claims.—(llear, hear
War was declared on the 4th of November. The Danish .)
am-
bassador demanded his passports on the 16th November. It
has been attempted to say that the declaration of war took Place
on the 14th August, in the declaration of Cronstadt. In the
case of a declaration of war between two countries, the in-
habitants of each country would have warning not to trade with
each other ; if they were to do so, they would then be guilty of
a breach of the law of their country, and vessels going to Den.
mark might be justly captured by English vessels, on the ground
7thwas ou fp
upon
tghues August,
pointt w aesf
edeemc declared
ibnyg
h thee t
wßereint sht
the
Envoytweeetheaattrwietr
that they were attempting to trade with an enemy. On the
and at the same time demanded his passport, on the ground thaq
war between the two countries might be considered as having
already broken out. It has been
said by Hea
lembers oppo-
site that this was a declaration of war between the two coun-
tries. I will prove, by the decision of Lord Stowell,
that this was a declaration of and
not a declaration of war ; and in reprisals,
e declaration
issued by the Danish Government, the foil • owing: words
occurred :—" We merely call upon our
faithful subjects to
take up arms to defend themselves and their property, and to
ward off this violent attack ;" and this document further states
that an embargo would be laid upon foreign vessels. Now that
point has been decided by Lord Stowell, in the Admiralty, in
the case of the " Orion. ' The case was, whether the capture
was the right of the Crown or the Admiralty. He said, that
if the capture was made before the declaration of war, it was
the right of the Admiralty, but it reverted to the Crown if
taken after the declaration. The capture was, therefore, the
right of the Crown, inasmuch as there was no declaration of
war until the 4th November. The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer comes down to the House, and says we must resist these
claims, because the Hon. Members for Lambeth, and Hull,
may entertain some little difference of opinion upon the
subject. The real question is, when was war declared? It
has been stated by some Hon. Members, that there is great
danger if we compensate these Danish claimants we shall also
have to compensate the French and other claimants for losses
which they may have sustained in a war with Er.gland. A
little reflection will tell those Hon. Gentlemen that such could
not be the case, because after a declaration of war is made the
prizes are the prizes of war. Such prizes are not entitled to
compensation when the war has broken out, for everybody
knows the situation in which they were placed, every ship cap-
tured by the Danish and French are not entitled to compensa-
tion. Now let me look at the justice of the case. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has thrown some impediment in the
way of this matter. He says it is not respecttul to the Crown
—that it is a question that reflects on the Ministers. In 1831,
the Hon. Member for Sheffield brought the matter forward,
and again in 1837 and in 1838. In 1841, the Com-
mons voted that in justice the compensation sought
for should be given to the parties, but, however,
it was rot acceded to, and now the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman wishes to make out a vast distinction with respect to
the rights of the claimants, and says it is not respectful for us
to address the Crown. Now, I say, it is altogether respect-
ful for us to address the Crown upon the subject when justice
can be obtained by d • • f
so mg , or, up to this time, no justice
has beets mooted to theTh Tat this parties, e reasury
has
many thousand; of pounds which were paid by the Danish

THE SUNI_LONDON,
_FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1846.

this case ever occuring again. I trust that England will never
be guilty of such harsh conduct towards Denmark. Ido not
believe there is any chance whatever of that. It is one of
those measures which I have considered most pernicious and un-
graceful to an English nation, and I think that those who were
the parties to this transaction should have acquitted themselves
as soon as possible of the claims against them. The Learned
Gentleman says that this is the first time that this class of
claims was admitted. Why, Sir, we know that all these claims
were put on the same footing. I believe I have stated them
twenty times, or at least as many times as this subject has been
brought forward, and does the Hon. Gentleman make any dis-
tinction when he knows that the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting by him never, made any
distinction between any of these claims. He rejected them
all as unjust, and that distinction now made is perfectly ridicu-
lous for him to attempt to make any separation. It is true, Sir,
that those who advocated these claims did,
in consequence
of some intimation, draw a line and
make adivision between
these three clases, but, Sir, I cannotseeany distinction between
them whatever. I think the Learned Gentleman on this side,
who has stated the case, has drawn a line; but I have always
objected to the Government insisting that a
declaration of war
was then made. I have only to say, that more
in-
conclusive could not be brought forward question.ms
froml
consider that we should by no means reject these claims,
any fear of a precedent being made out for future or past cases.
I state that there is no fear of any claims of this sort being
hereafter made. I consider that the parties who make these
justice,
laims are asking for nothing but
and that the Govern-
ment would be acting most unfairly in refusing
a Committee to
inquire into these claims.—( Hear.)
Gevernnlentchaoooi.
bee,nanidn
possession of funds to the amount of upwards 0f12,0 o
this they have had in their possession ever since the year 1807;
and when I look at the small sums granted, I might say for the
Ministers, by votes of this House, Ido consider that ample funds
are still remaining in their hands to repay all their claims,
and I think Ministers should be compelled to pay these claims.
I think this should be the rule, that on whateverground Govern-
ment may think themselves warranted in commencing hostilies,
they should not allow any portion of the British subjects to
suffer by such proceedings, and that if any expenses should be
incurred they should be divided equally. One or two indivi-
duals should not bear the loss. I think it is clear from docu-
ments of this House, that the merchants before they left the
River Thames, asked the Admiralty if there was any danger
in sending their vessels to Denmark. After arriving in the
Baltic, they also inquired of the English Admiral on the
station, and the answer they received from him was " No."
The merchants were deceived by the Government. Govern-
ment concealed their plans by giving answers which they knew
were erroneous, and they did it upon these grounds, that
English merchants and shipowners were to be mulcted
and fined of their property. Some time since it was
alleged, and strong arguments held in this House, that they
were not entitled to compensation as they might have been
insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have
I heard a single argument brought forward to-night in opposi-
tion to these claims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taken
as any precedent. No war can take place upon such
principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we
may throw that en .one side. I ground my vote, as I always
have done, upon these two plain facts, that English merchants
trading to Denmark considered that they were trading under
the protection of English laws, when the British Government
had commencedhostilities. They had no advice, and received
no information on the subject till after their property had
been seised. Upon these grounds, I think that these indivi-
duals have a right to demand of the Government payment of
their claims—and I only wish that I could add, and interest.
The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the
whole amount of their claims. It would be only justice to add
the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any
of the claimants are now gone to the grave, their relations now
come forward and justlyask of you compensation for their claims.
All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. My
opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, principal and
interest, as fairly and as justly as any individual having any
claim against any other individual. It is on these grounds,
Sir, that Ido hope every man in this House will see justice
done to those who have so long suffered, seeing that there are
ample funds for the purpose. I trust the House will do as it
did before, support the motion of the Hon. Member, and that
the Ministers will not act as they have heretofore done, but will
cheerfully come forward and agree to the motion.—( Hear.)
Mr. F. T. BARING—I am anxious to say a few words on
this subject, because I invariably offered the motion my deter-
mined opposition; and I must, in the first place, express a hope
that whether you have money in the Treasury or not,
if this claim is a just claim, I think we are bound
to accede to it. I have never taken it as a mere
financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, aence,
but whether the claim was founded on justice er not.-(Hear,
hear.) Certainly, if it had been founded on justice, no feel-
ings of economy would have prevented the Government, of
which I was a member, doing justice to the parties. My Hon.
Friend says that these cases—l am sure his memory fails him—
he says that the cases before the House must be held to be in-
cluded in the other cases decided by the House on a previous
occasion ; and my Hon. Friend is good enough to say that the
House ought not to have a divided opinion on these cases, be-
cause there was no division of opinion on the others. But to
the last cases, which present themselves in a new form, and are
different from those specified by Sir James Mackintosh, I shall
feel it my duty to offer every opposition in my power. I think
it is no want of respect on my part to do so ; for I feel myself
hound, looking at the great consideration which:was given to the
subject when I was in office, to do so. But there were circum-
stances connected with party which made it possibly no matter
of regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was beaten on
the question. It may be said that we have a Treasury feeling
on the subject, but my Noble Friend, Earl Spencer, not only
entered into it himself—and no one was better able to give an
opinion, on account of his fair and upright mind, of what was
an equitable claim—and I know he came to a decided
opinion that these claims ought not to be allowed • and,
as in duty bound, I felt it my duty to consult the
Law Officers of the Crown—namely, Lord Denman and
Lord Cottenham ; and with every respect to the Hon. Gentle-
man who sits behind me, I must say that I think we should
not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were
advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert
Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advocate, was amongst the number.
Besides, the Hon. Member for Worcester ( Sir T. Wilde)
considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied
hours upon hours in comparing the duplicates of the original
documents on which the claims were founded, in order to test
their accuracy, and to be enabled to give a decided opinion on
the matter. Then there is Sir William Follett, whose name
can never be mentioned in this House without respect, he voted,
I believe, in favour of these claims ; and I recollect that, when
he was appointed Solicitor-General, he was taunted with
changing his opinions, and he stated distinctly that he gave his
opinion on the case that was submitted to him, but that when
he heard the arguments of the Hon. Member for Worcester,
he said he could not vote for the motion of Mr. Cresswell, as
he had not the shadow of a doubt upon the case. The Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Watson) has stated what is no doubt the
main point of his case, that these were reprisals, and
not captures. Now, in the first place, allow me to '
suggest to him, that I believe the question of
declaration of war has been very much altered. If the Hon.
Gentleman were called upon to give a legal opinion out of
doors, he would say that the' old authorities could not now be
adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no
declaration of war wanted now to constitute war. That is a
crotchet that is gone by. Open hostilities constitute war, and
no declaration is necessary. But the Hon. Gentleman says
that if the declaration of the 16th August be considered as a
declaration of war, then the case falls to the ground. He says
the declaration of the 16th August was not a declaration of
war—l mean the declaration of Gluckstadt. Now, in the first
place, what does he give as a definition of a declaration of war?
Just look to that declaration of the 16th August. In the first
place, I will just read that passage which states that war had
actually commenced. If the House would actually read the
declaration of war, they would find that the property of English
subjects was confiscated, and that all trade was prohibited
between the two countries. There is no necessity for a
particular form of words in the declaration of war ; but
this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries.
The Hon. Gentleman says, take the proclamation of 16th Au-
gust. I will quote some words of that proclamation, to show
that England did not enter on this affair with a view of carry-
ing on the war, but it was to obtain the negotiation by fair
means, and, if not, by force. I will use the language used by
an Admiral and by a General, who are fair authorities to quote
from. The House will allow me to quote their view of the
state of affairs as they then existed. They stated that the
country was then not the theatre of a negotiation, but of a
war. There was a declaration issued on the 16th August,
and in December following a declaration was issued on the part
of the British Government, that hostilities were already com-
menced, and these two commanders said that their country was
the theatre of a war, and yet the Hon. Gentleman will take this
as only a case of reprisal, and says it was no war. The declara-
tion of war in 1807, by the Crown of England, was not the
commencement of this hostility. The King of Denmark
issued a declaration against his Majesty, and that was the de-
claration of the 16th of August, to which the Crown of Eng-
land, in its own declaration of war, alluded. It was said that
this was no declaration of war. I must say it is sometimes diffi-
cult to say what conclusions may be come to on legal questions,
but when any man of sense reads these papers, and looks them
through, I cannot conceive that he can have a doubt that the
opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Campbell, Sir W. Follett, and his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Worcester, were right, that this was a declaration
of war, and that these were fair and legal reprisals. I am
afraid that on those occasions only those who are interested
in the ease, and those who have constituents interested in the
cage, were present.in the House. and that comparatively a very
small number of independent Members of the Hou_ie took any
interest in the question then before the House. He was sorry
to have troubled the House, but he need not apologise as he
was anxious to support the real and correct view of the case.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, Sir, I have been, amongst
others, requested to support these claims, and in giving them
my support, I assure you, that I do not do so without some re-
servation. I willinot trespass long on the attention of the House,
but confine my remarks to the meaning of the Hon. Gentle-
man who in his speech argued there was a declaration of war.
The main point, it seems to me, to be considered, is whether
or not there was a declaration of war. It appears to me, the
fact of two of the other claims having been declared as good,
is an admission that there was no declaration of war.—( Cries
of " No, no," and " hem, hear.") I understood it to be so
stated, and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W.
Follet, as far as the other two eases were concerned.—( Hear,
hear.) I cannot see how the Right Hon. Gentleman and the
Government can admit these claims as they have done, with-
out giving up the position of the declaration of war.
see no reason why the present claim can be rejeted, having
conceded the other claims, on the ground of the declaration of
war; and you must, therefore, argue the case upon totally
different grounds. With regard to the opinio of the
law officers of the Crown, I must say that great
care should be exercised in taking their opinion. I
have uniformly observed that legal gentlemen give dif-
ferent opinions when in office to what they
give when
they are independent Members. When the
Governtn er tasks
them for an opinion they are more disposed to
give a favour.l
able opinion than when they are out; as,
occupying the position
they do, they are pledged to support the Government.
When they are out of office, when ty give an opinion, their
legal character is at stake, but when they are in office it is
well known that they are expected to support the Government
and their opinion is expected to be accordingly. In as far as
I learn, legal gentlemen when out of office, have given an
opinion in favour of these claims. But on
this occasion it
appears that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General
shrinks from coming forward to support the Government.
This proves they must think the case one of uncommon strength.
If the Government had a leg to stand upon, the law officers would
no doubt have been here to support them. But instead, we
find the case so strong and convincing, that the law officers are
unwilling to appear in their places in the House, in order to
support the Government. I must further observe,
that the
legal character of both these gentlemen, when they, were in-
dependent Members, was distinctly pledged to support these
claims, on the ground of international law.—(Hear, hear.)
On the grounds of justice, therefore, I am compelled, on the
present occasion, to give my support and vote to the Hon.
Gentleman who has brought forward the present mation.
Mr. WAKELY said, I wish to ask a single question of the
Right Hon. Gentleman who represents the Government.
favour
the Government pay the money if the House decides in
The
in faou
of the motion.—(Loud cries of " Hear, .nea
question has been decided several times before, by a vote
in its favour, yet the Government had not given effect to it.
In doing that had they not been guilty of contempt to the
House—(Loud cheers)—and were they .not liable to solitary
00alOment a 3 much all the lion. Gentleman whose case hail

lately excited the attention of the House? The House, on
forms r occasions, has repeatedly decided in favour of these
claims, yet the Government has treated them with contempt.
—(Hear, hear.) A legal argument has arisen, and out of
that wilderness it appears we shall not get, for the Hun. and
Learned Member behind me, when he commenced his speech,
said that, in every principle of justice and of inter-
national law, this money ought to be paid, and he quoted
as his authorities Grotius and Vattel ; but up rises an
Honourable and Learned Gentleman on the other
side, and he says that, on every principle of international law,
the money ought not to be paid ; and he also quotes as his
authorities Grotius and Vattel.—( Laughter.) It was per-
fectly ridiculous to pursue a course like this. These claims
ought to be examined on a strict principle of justice. The
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth stated this evening
that he would confine his case to those in which adjudication
had already taken place. He said that he would not carry his
case further ; and as the House had already four times decided
that these claims were just, he wished the House to vindicate
that opinion, and thus prevent any necessity for their being
further troubled on the matter.
Colonel SIBTHORP said, I have always voted for these
claims, and I shall always vote for them.—( Laughter. )
Mr. HAWES said, I shall occupy the time of the House
but for a very short period, in reply to one or two of the obser
vations of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. A great deal has
been said about this declaration of war; and my Hon. and
Learned Friend has relied upon this as a main point in this
case. Now, will the House hear one circumstance inreferenee to
that declaration. The expedition left this country in July, and no
issued.
The expressing any hostile intention was then
The convention was signed on the 7th September with
Denmark, and it, therefore, had put an end to any previous de•
claration of war, if such existed. Hostilities, might, therefore,
be considered as ceased, and each country was supposed to be
ontel_c,6l
or
tuch;a:mcAAi gslu
todgfenundetlteah. understanding
htoehharnstaNt t aowonfhvaedeNvicoi
November
put
:tewith the other. Now, under those
of reprisal. Ido say, then,rs,a
nowb but
stnt
that
hdhtheetaaodtd. declaration aeihrnea ttdi
the
ene l
ao:rfnaanwtnivaoarnl
orderoronef
regis-
ter theti his
in
waso merelyf
Council, authorising the issue of letters marque
to.r the pur-
poseson the 16th August was superseed by the e convention.ar aio n of
whichw ar
andsubsequent Ipurposel y
conduct.left it
B ouuttt,
hbiseca
waslu because
not
tt nawo
tat
es: say
t.o
an
nle
was afterwards signed by the two couniries
ewnodrdtoabbyoutht
eitir,
question ; it ought not to be decided on technical grounds. technical
have received the money, you have applied the money to your
own purposes, and you ought to pay it. —( Hear.) I say it
is a clear case of justice. lam not to be met by the techni-
calities of law, and if you do resort to law, what was the opinion
of Sir Wm. Follett and Dr. Lushington ? I hold in my band
the opinion of Sir Wm. Follett, in which he states that these
very claimants whom you have paid, have no real claim at all.
Why did you pay them then? It was on the principles of equity
you did so. The words of the opinion aro these ;—" This
question is not a question of law, nor have either classes of the
claimants any legal claim upon the British Government." You
paid the debt—well, why did you do it? You felt that there
were higher claims upon you than those of law ; you felt that
there were claims of equity and of justice, which you could not
dispute. The highest men in the realm have been the advo-
cates of these claims. Mr. Wilberforce spoke for them, and I
ask you was he a man to speak for anything that was unfair or
unjust? Why, what have you done? you have granted
a solemn investigation into the case, and after
having cut down their claim from 500,0001. to
225,000/., are you prepared to turn round and say,
we will not pay you ? Why, if you stand upon the high ground
of law, you had no right to have put them to this expense.
You had no right to have investigated and made a mockery of
justice. It is not on a mere question of law I argue ; I argue
here as a plain man of business connected with trade,
_ and I do
say, that the trade and interests of this countryhave been
treated with injustice, and it is against that injustice that I
move for this Committee of Inquiry.—(Cheers, and cries of
.‘ Dividerdi vide.")
The House then divided,
For the motion
Against it . 59
........ ... ........ . ..............
' Majority for the motion. 41. ... —lB
RAILWAY LABOURERS.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved for a Select Committee to inquire
into the condition of the labourers employed in the construc-
tion of railways, and other public works, and into the reme-
dies which may be calculated to lessen the peculiar evils, if
any, of that condition.
Mr. EWART seconded the motien.
Sir J. GRAHAM was much obliged to the Hon. Member for
having brought this subject under the consideration of the House.
He had no doubt that the inquiry would be most valuable.
He hoped that steps would be taken to check the truck sys-
tem being established among labourers ; and, at the same time,
he hoped that additional powers would be given to railway
companies to maintain the peace upon their works.
Mr. HUME thought the less they interfered between mas-
ters and workmen the better.
Mr. HUDSON believed that the result of this inquiry
would redound to the credit of those who were promoting rail-
ways. In the railways with which he was connected, the ut-
most care was paid to the religious wants of the labourers en-
gaged upon the lines. The companies had placed money in
the hands of clergymen to provide religious instruction for the
men, and labouring on the Sunday was prohibited. He did
not believe there was any necessity for this inquiry.
Lord EBRINGTON believed that there was no necessity
for the inquiry, because that inquiry had been threatened,
and therefore the various railway companies had taken pre-
cautions. He thought this was a subject which required full
investigation, from which investigation important results might
be anticipated.
Mr. MANGLES could not agree with his Hon. Friend
the Member for Sunderland in thinking that this inquiry was
unnecessary. He would certainly support the motion, as
he believed a great deal of good would result from it.
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to express an opinion respecting
the class of men called navigators. He believed a great
amount of the evils complained of arose from want of proper
supervision. He did not believe they were worse than other
bodies of men, at least as far as his experience went. Still an
inquiry ought to be made as to the best means of dealing with
these large bodies of men.
Mr. WAKLEY could not see any good that would arise out
of this inquiry. What was complained of was, that the men
preferred seeking pleasure on Sunday instead of going to
church ; and he could not see how any legislation of theirs
could meet the state of things complained of. The real evil,
however, was, they had neglected the education of the people.
That was well known, and needed no inquiry. Their la-
bourers had not been taught self-respect, and hence it was
they did not show that propriety of conduct which was de-
sirous. He could not see how, after neglecting the petitions
of the working classes for factory legislation, they
could attempt to control bodies of men like those who were
the subject of the present inquiry.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought the subject was an impor-
tant one, and one that ought to be inquired into. As far as he
understood it, the object in view was not to coerce or restrain
these labourers, but to surround them with efficient moral and
religious influences. Mr. Peto, the extensive contractor, had
adopted most effective means in this respect, and his arrange-
ments might be introduced with great effect in other works
throughout the country. A Committee of Inquiry would, in
his opinion, have a most beneficial effect.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE concurred with the Right Hon. Gentle-
mtn who had just sat down. Bricklayers and other kind of
labourers were protected, but this class of labourers were not,
and they had a most especial claim on their attention, especi-
ally as they suffered a great deal from the truck system.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the inquiry would do nothing
but good, and he would support it. With regard to the truck
system, against which Hon. Members expressed such horror, he
believed that, in many cases, it was attended with benefit, as
persons with large capital could supply goods cheaper than small
shopkeepers.
Mr. B. DENISON was of opinion, that though those of
large capital could supply goods cheaper, it did not follow they
did so. He did think the labouring classes were enititled to
protection. He agreed that some means should be taken to
protect them as well as to supply them with moral and religious
instruction. He, therefore, supported the motion.
Dr. BOWRING cordially concurred in the inquiry. He
could see no evil that could come of it, but much good.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that he had two notices on the
paper. One was No. 9, the other No. 22. Now the latter
number should have been No. 9, it having been, by mistake,
printed No. 22. He hoped, therefore, the House would look
over the mistake, which did not arise from him, and allow him
to proceed with No. 22.
Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to this course, as establish-
ing a bad precedent and one that might be attended with great
inconvenience. He must resist the Hon. Member going into
any other motion than that at No. 9, the next in order on the
paper.

- -Mr. J. O'CONNELL intimated, that believing the House
would have overlooked the mistake, and having served a notice
on the Clerk of the House last night, to correct it in the votes
this morning, but which had not been done, he had prepared
himself for No. 22, and was not ready to go on with No. 9.
DR. FITZGERALD.
Mr. O'CONNELL then moved that there be laid before this
House a copy of the correspondence between the Irish Govern-
mentt and Dr. Fitzgerald, stipendiary magistrate in the contiantw:
of Waterford, on the subject of the trial of personso of h
of Keyly, who were tried at the last assizes. flVtateerford,
said Dr.
_pronounced severe censure on the conduct of . . .
the said trial
before the Lord Chief Baron, and upon which the Chief Baron
Fitzgerald. Alsn, copy of the report o
Also a copy of the depositions takteEebtyiet
furnished by the Lord Chief Baron to thee
against the prisoners previous
affidavits placed on the motion
Keyly to bail previous to the trial, with h :arid Dr. Fitzgerald
-r 1. Also copies of the
Irish Government.
'. to
ofor admitting the said prisoner
the decision of the
Court thereon. The Hon. Gentleman said the conduct of
the magistrate in question had been such as to call forth the
severe condemnation of Lord Chief Baron Grady, who
had characterised his conduct as illegal and unconstitutional.
He moved for these returns, which, when furnished, it was his
intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the
matter.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not deny the importance of
the question involved, and had no objection to the depositions
being furnished, but he could not accede to the other returns
sought. The Hon. and Learner? Gentleman had referred to a
statement of the Lord Chief Baron, characterising the
conduct of Mr. Fitzgerald as unconstitutional and illegal.
The magistrate had been removed from the district where
the man was given into custody. He was sorry to say that
this conduct was not all singular on the part of the magis-
trates. He hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would not
press his first motion, as under the present circumstances of
the case it would be unnecessary.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he must persist in putting the
motion, in order that they might appear to have been
negatived, as they had an ulterior object. Were a magis-
trate of the quarter sessions in England not to give a prisoner
an opportunity of cross-examining a witness, he would not re-
main half an hour in the commission of the peace. Here was
a stipendiary magistrate, w tth a laige income, and who had
been several years acting, and who could, therefore,
not plead ignorance, who had conducted himself in this man-
ner. He (Mr. O'Connell) should at present de no more
to than
the
to allow the two first motions to be negatived, and p
before the
two latter. The Right Hon. Baronet could have no
to his motion for a copy of that letter to be laid House. objectiones

The motions were then put, and the two first were nega-
tived, and the two latter motions carried.
Sir. HUME moved that the following gentlemen be chosen
to form the Committee on Private Bills : Mr. Hume,
Mr. Greene, Mr. Loch, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Strutt, Sir
William Somerville, Sir William Clay, Sir George Grey, Cap-
tain Jones, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Worsley, Viscount
Ebrington, Mr. Estcourt, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. James
Wortley, with power to send far persons, papers, and records;
five to be a quorum.
Mr. WAWN moved for a return, in detail, and a true and
correct copy of the solicitor's bill for the year 1345 for obtain-
ing the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 73, of last session (Newcastle.
upon-Tyne Coal Turn), and law business generally, he
by
the sum of 1,985/. 25. 2d. of the trust moneys were expended !
also under what authority (if any) the sum of 3791. 16s. 6d.
was " paid to the Committee for erecting a memorial to the
late Lord Collingwood. with a beacon in connexion therewith,
at the mouth of the Tyne as a landmark for the shipping ;"
the cost of erecting the beacon (if erected), and whether
erected by the authorities of the conservators of the river, or
by any other and what authority ; also the date of the meeting
and a copy of the resolution and the names of the Commis-
sioners present when the sum of 379/. 16s. 6d. was voted.
Mr. HUME was glad to see that the attention of his lion.
Friend had been called to this subject, for he had no doubt that