The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 10, 1644.

Government upon their having introduced the Bill, and
he sincerely hoped that it w,)uld be successful.
Mr. DILLON BROWNE thought there were other
boroughs in the country, besides Sudbury, which ought
to be disfranchised on account of bribery and corruption.
Mr. W. WYNN thought the House ought to be con-
sistent with itself, and proceed at once t'.) pass this Bill.
He thought the evidence which had been adduced, with
respect to this Bill was amply sufficient for the House to
act in legislating on the subject. He looked upon. this
Bill not merely as a penal but a remedial measure. He
thought that no borough had ever exhibited such a sys-
tem of bribery and corruption as that which had been
shown in the borJugh of Sudbury.
The Bhll was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

The House then adjourned until Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.

The report on the Great South- Western (Ireland)
Railway Bill was further considered, and ordered to be
engrossed.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presente 1 a petition from Bridg-
water, praying for an extension of the suffrage.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a pnition from
Islington, praying that existing railways may be com-
pelled to have third-class carriages, as well as future
railways..

sudden and unauthorised withdrawal (by the Admiral) of
the fleet which went out from England" as a protecti sn
for those ships, destined to Russian and other ports in
the Baltic. The owners of those ships sly that they
have, on this ground, an additional claim for com-
pensation, because they suffered their losses in con-
sequence of the conduct of the officer under whose guard
these vessels went out. Those for whom I appear say
that they have a elaitn for compensation, on the ground
that their property was seized by way of reprisal, that
being a case in which the right of the sufferers
to compensation is established. What is tl.e
answer ? It is said that the property of the
claimants was not taken by way of reprisal, but that
during all this time we were at war with Denmark, and
that the losses of the claimants did not come under the
same category as book-debts,and ships and cargoes in har-
bour. Now, how is it proved that we were during this time
at war with Denmark ? Why, a document is brought for-
ward, not from the Foreign-office, but from the Annual
Register, and it is said that that is a declaration of war.
Last year my lion. Friend the Member for Lambeth
moved for the production of this document in the original,
with an authentic translation ; and it now turns out that
this document, on which so much stress has been laid, has
been mistranslated, and that the most warlike word in
the translation is not warranted by the original. In
the Annual Register it appears that there had
been an order to seize all English ships
as well as all English goods and merchandise.
Now, if there had been an order to seize ships, goods,
and merchandise, that would not perhaps, of itself, be
sufficient to turn the document into a formal declaration
of war; but certainly nn order to seize, or in othz r words,
to confiscate, would be an order to institute a proceeding
which was Only authorised after there had been a
declaration of war. In this way it might be ar-
gued that the document amounted to a declaration
of war. It turns out, however, the word or words trans-
lated in the Annual Register, " to seize," mean no more
than to lay an embargo on the ships ; and the
difference between an order fur an embargo and
an order to seize or confiscate goods is a very wide one.
There are many other reasons why this document should
not be considered as a declaration of war. The only allu-
sion to war in the whole paper is in the preamble ;
whereas, if the document had been a declaration of war,
words, showing it to be so, would have appeared in the
body of the document. Besides, it is not a document
formally addressed to our Government, as it would have
been in the case supposed, bat merely to the subjects of
the King of Denmark, and not to all the subjects of
the King, but only to a 'portion of them. Again, it
did not emanate from the central seat of Government,
but from a province, and this a very important circum-
stance. Besides these proofs that the document is not to
be considered as a declaration of war, there are
many others which are scarcely less striking.
For instance, on the very day on which it is
dated, viz., the 16th of August, an order appeared at
Copenhagen, and about that order—l do not know
whether or not the Right lion. Gentleman is aware of
it—about that order there can be no doubt that it
is a simple order to sequester property. In the capi-
tulation of Copenhagen, on the 7th of September, one
of the articles relates to the English property which has
been, not seized or confiscated, but sequestered.
On the 23d of October a remonstrance was agreed
upon, in reference to the order of sequestration.
The Danish Minister remained at our Court till
the middle of November, 1807. Was not that
totally inconsistent with our being at war ? And so
late as December, the 13th of December,
in that year, the King of Denmark issued a proclama-
tion, in answer to merchants who had asked him to
authorise the correspondence with England, in which he
says the King, in c mfining himself to the sequestration
ot property, had done all in his power to assist their mis-
fortunes. The merchants at once, by becoming privateers,
might recover their property, and that was after he had
stated he had authorised sequestration, he authorised
reprisals on English property. Were the circum-
stances that had taken place between France and
Morocco, a state of reprisals or war? M. Guizot, in the
French Chamber, said that war had not been announced,
but that the attacks that had taken place had rendered
reprisals necessary, and that a strong force had
been sent against some of the Moorish
towns, which had been taken. The argu-
ment derived from the document in the Annual
Register, that it was a declaration of war, was entirely
errroneous ; that being so, the distinction that
was set up between the claims satisfied and those that
remained to be satisfied, fell entirely to the
ground. But• I will suppose that there had been
a declaration of war, would that have deprived
these parties of their claims ? They had no
reason for supposing that the war had not been
brought on in a regular way, but in a peculiar manner.
There is an instance, also, of individuals who have ap-
plied to the Admiralty for licenses for ships to call at
the Danish, ,and other ports, and those licenses were
granted, not only during the time, but afterwards.
Those persons have suffered for the public good, and having
suffered for the public good they have a right to come to the
British Government to ask for redress and compensations.
These are the chief points of the case I have to submit. I
will just mention that the British Government obtained a very
large sum of money—upwards of a million of pounds—by the
sale of the captures. Mr. Percival announced in the year
1810, when giving an explanation of this matter, that a sum of
money had in the first instance been set apart for the satisfac-
tion of those merchants who had suffered by the manner in
which the war broke out. If that sum, was set apart for the
merchants who suffered by the manner in which the
war broke out, I submit that there is no body of
claimants who come with stronger arguments for compensa-
tion from the British Government than those whose goods
were confiscated during the time the war was being carried on.
I have gorse into the question in this general manner, hoping
that the Government may be disposed to undertake the con-
sideration of the merits of these claimants. I do trust that
the Right Hon. Gentleman will see that they are worthy of
consideration. It is not wy wish to divide the House on the
subject of these claims if the Right Hon. Gentleman will
give the slightest assurance that the matter will be consi-
dered by the Government. This is a question involving
very minute points, and it is a question which cannot be sa-
tisfactorily disposed of in a debate of this kind. These
claims, I will remind the House, have been confirmed on
four different occasions by majorities of this House, and by
large majorities. I have already spoken of the manner in
which several members of the Government, on former occa-
sions, supported these claims. I know the Right Hon Baro-
net ( Sir R. Peel) has never gone so far as to vote for these
claims. But I have the authority of a Danish claimant, who
was closely watching the Right Hon. Gentleman from the
gallery, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion, for
saying, that during the whole of that debate the Right Hon.
Gentleman was present, and was an, attentive listener ; sand
when Mr. Cresswell finished, the Right Hon. Gentleman
turned round to him, and expressed his approba-
tion perhaps only, however, of the manner in
which that eminent person had executed his task.
But let that be as it may, there is no doubt of this,
that at the last moment the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R.
Peel) left the House without voting at all. That, said an
experienced friend to the Danish claimant—that is a sign that
when Sir R. Peel comes to be Minister your claims will pro-
bably be settled. I hope the Right Hon. Baronet and the
House will be satisfied I have not stated the facts of this case
in any unjust or strained manner ; and if the Government
shall think proper to divide the House on this occasion, I do
trust the Right Hon. Baronet will not think it can redound
to the honour of the Government or the party which supports
the Government, if they, on this occasion, make this question,
the consideration of which cannot possibly have any connexion
with party topics, a question of confidence. I trust they will
not call on those members of the Government who have voted
more than once in support of those claims, to turn round on
their votes, and so allow it to go forth to the country that great
and galling grievances are taken up and are abandoned only to
suit the purposes of party.---( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HUME—I did not, Sir, intend to address the House
upon this question ; at all events, at the present moment ; but,
as I second the motion, I will take the opportunity of offering
a very few words upon the subject. For thirty-six years these
claims have been before the country, and for twenty-six of
these years all attempts to obtain a remedy from this House
for the wrongs inflicted have wholly failed. It is now twenty-
six years since I first supported these claims, and on every sub-
sequent occasion that offered I have done the same, being per-
fectly convinced, after the most accurate examination of all the
facts of the case, of the injustice that has been done. Orr four
successive occasions, though wholly unsupported by Ministers,
these claims have been admited by the deliberate opinion of
the House. On six different occasions, now that I recollect
right, have they been acknowledged by the House. In the
time of Lord Althorps when he was Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and using every power of the Government against
these claims, their justice was acknowledged. At a subsequent
period a commission was appointed to ascertain the
extent of the claims—to report how far they were
founded in justice—and what portion of them ought to be paid.
On that occasion a majority of 34 decided, against the opposi-
tion of Ministers, that the claims should be ascertained. In
1839 a motion was made for the payment of those claims, and
the motion was carried, in spite of the opposition of the Mi-
nistry of that day, by a majority of 34, the numbers being 62
to 94. Again, in 1841, when a motion was brought forward
that these individuals in the third class should be paid the
amount of the property which they had lost, and which they
could not guard by insurance, the question was decided iu fa-
vour of the claimants by a majority of 127 to 93. Notwithstand-
ing this majority the Ministry of the day refused to pay these
claims, and on the 10th of June a motion was made for an ad-
dress to her Majesty, praying her to take the case into her
consideration, and to order payment, and assuring her that the
House would make good the means for the payment of them.
The Ministry of the day opposed that motion, but they
a majority of 75 is 64. Her Majesty returned
her readiness to liquidate the claims. There
has werenever,
been any greater advocate for economy
an
answer b at
an t I
abtiyeg
believe,
in this House thsn I am, but I do say that the refusal to pay
these claims is a disgrace to the country.—( Hear, hear.)
con of our infamous policy, are,
who could not protect themselves by
i
Those persons who have suffered in consequence of our unholy
andnsl
attackura
nhucapevoeangaalasytCopenhagen,
contended
sequences
that they have been, entitled to
full compensation for their sufferings and losses.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth brought for-
ward this motion last year, and the result was most anomalous.
It is all very excusable for party spirit to have sway in this
House on political questions, but when the rights ot private
individuals are concerned, party spirit should not be permitted
to have power to induce Members to forget the claims of
honour and of justice.--(Hear, hear.) The motion was
brought forward by Mr. Hawes on the 20th June, 1843, and
on that occasion 42 voted for the motion, and 57 against it,
being a majority of 15 against the motion. But out of
the 57 who voted against it I could name at
least 15 who, on former occasions, had voted in favour of
these very claims —( Hear, hear)--and if those 15 are added to
the 42, that will make the number of voters in favour of the
52j and leave only 42 voting against them,
ority in favour of the claims. That is
claims
which
will
amount
give to a
a
one ground for defding justice in this case. The House has
decided already in ifavour of these claims, and the denial of
them is a denial of justice. The late Government broughei
down Sir Thomas Wilde to argue the case on technical groundst
against the claimants. We all know the talents of that
all know his ingenuity and his re-
exertion of his talents, the majority
;tihwnee favour of justice, and I have a right
soLef ea ar
thisre nh e dHbGO v
let
sne t
after 1
decidede m aani
to say that majority of this House has decided, over and over
spin, in favour of these claimants, and that is one very strong
point in their favour. I say they were impartial majorities,
because they were gained against the Ministers of the day,
and there are always individuals who, whatever their own feel-
ings may be, are ready to go with the Ministers for the time.
The consequence is, if the House had left the decision of the
question to justice between the two parties, the majority on
each occasion would have been greater. On that ground I
support the motion of my Hon. Friend with great satisfac-

tion, and I hope he will take the sense of the House on the
subject.—( Hear, hear.) I have no idea of a question
of this importance being passed over. I can only
say to the Danish claimants, as I have said to them
ever since the year 1818, when I advocated their cause—never
give up your claims, I ad the satisfaction twenty six years
after that time of seeing two classes of those claims settled,
and as to this third class, if the present House of Commons and
th" present Ministers are not honest enough to allow them,
another House of Commons may be. At all events, let it be
recorded now who are in favour of the motion and who are not,
and for the rest, let it be left to those chances which never fail
to attend a good cause.
The question having been put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose. He
said, I hold this to be precisely one of those occasions on which
the Government of a country is called on to esercise that au-
thority
which the Constitution vests in it, of endeavout ing to
control the disposition of a popular assembly to vote money,
not justly due to those who claim it. While I hold the situa-
tinn I do, from the kindness of her Majesty, I never shall be
wanting in courage to maintain what 1 believe is right, though
I may be opposed both to those who put forward these claims
and those who are acted on by their representations. If lam
net satisfied the claims are just, I sill resist them. On
this principle, whether I was in the Government or out
of it, I have equally resisted the payment of these claims, and
whatever opinions I may have before entertained, perhaps with
little effect in another quarter of the House, I am bowed by
my duty in the office I haw the honour to hold, to resist the
motion on the present occasion. The Hon. Member who
opened the debate told us truly that this House is not a satis-
factory tribunal, before which to try questions of a pecuniary
nature. I agree with the Hon. Gentleman. It is not the
fault of the Government, which has given every consideration
to these claims; they have been duly submitted to the legal
authorities to ascertain what is the true construction of the
law, as applicable to the ease put before them, and the uniform
opinion of the case, as submitted to the legal authorities com-
petent to investigate and decide on questions of this nature,
has always been this—that under the ordinary usages of ear, as
established between civilized nations, they cannot be acceded to
If 3 ou accede to it you open a door not merely to the payment
of those 225,0001., but to all payments of a similar kind in all
fteure wars. It is the constant practice of war, that ships
taken at sea are considered in a different light from ships
seized in harbour and property taken on land, for when
taken in harbour they are exempt from confiscation ;
hut it is not so at sea. I am not here to argue that
this distinction is just, but I am here to argue that
if it be unjust in the case of the Danish wa-, it is unjust in the
case of every war in which this country has been engaged.
The Hon. Gentleman who made this motion commenced his
speech by stating that rrany Members had changed their opi-
nions upon this question. It may be so, and lam not surprised
at it, for in the first instance the general y of persons do not
consider the distinction made between the various classes of
claimants—between those who lost property in book debts—
those whose property was taken on shore in the Danish
States, and those whose
,property was captured at
sea. But when persons saw the course of proceed-
ings in that House, and how differently the law of nations
applied to the different classes of property, they, as was natural
and just, reviewed the judgment they formed, and came to a
different decision on the subject. But, in eddition to those
who changed their opinion, the Hon. Gentleman thought he
could make out a case against some gentleman who did not
oppose them on former occasions, but who are now prepared
to oppose them, and he says that the Right Hon. Gentleman
the First Lord of the Treasury, gave an expectation to those
claimants that he would consent to their claims, because upon
a discussion on the subject, after Mr. Cresswell's speech, he
was observed by a gentleman to turn round and make an ob-
servation to Mr. Cresswell, and then walk out without giving
a vote in his favour. And this is the ground on which he
says he is justified in entertaining a favourable decision. It
has been said that there was no declaration of war when this
capture took place, and there being no declaration of war, that
the parties were entitled to have a different rule applied to
them from that which would be applied in ordinary cases.
Now to that proposition I give a distinct and positive denial,
as strong as it is possible to give. At the time when this
capture was made, on the 16th of August, 1807, war was ad-
mitted to exist between England and Denmark ; and that fact
has been disputed only by those who wish to make the non-
declaration of war a ground for demanding that this payment
should be improperly made. The Hon. Gentleman has re-
ferred to the Danish proclamation of the 16th of August, 1807.
Now I will read some of that proclamation.—(The Right
Hon. Gentleman then read the proclamation, which was to
the effect that the English Ambassador (Jackson) declared
that hostilities between England and Denmark had commenced,
and demanded passports and safe conduct for himself and suite.)
Therefore the war might be considered as actually begun.
The Hon. Gentleman has also adverted to the proclamation,
which was published at Copenhagen, bearing the same date,
the 16th of August. Now, that proclamation could lead to no
other inference than that it was a declaration of war.—
( The Right Honourable Gentleman read alio this
proclamation, which was to the effect that ' hostilities
having commenced on the part of England, the Danish Govern-
ment declared all British property to be laid under sequestra-
tion, and that all Danish subjects were enjoined to assist in that
sequestration, with respect to all British property whatever)
Did not that amount to a declaration of war? I look upon that
proclamation as irrefragable proof that, as far as Denmark was
concerned, warcommenced from that moment. Coupled with
that, the taking of the capital would have been sufficient inti-
mation of the war. I should think that the battle of Water-
luo would have been a sufficient intimation of war between this
country and France, without any declaration of war, and there
had been none at the time. I think that the House will agree
with me, that as far as the fact. on the part of Denmark, is
concerned, the war commenced from the 16th of August, 1807.
But the Hon. Gentleman says that the British Government
did not make any declaration, and that this Government is to
be bound by its own acts, and not by those of Denmark. But,
Sir, on the 25th of Sept., in the British declaration of war,
there is a statement confirmatory of the statement which I have
made to the House. It was, that notwithstanding the de-
claration of war,on the part of Denmark, it remained still for the
Danish Government to determine whether war should actually
take place. Can there be a stronger proof that the British Govern-
ment considered Denmark to have made the declaration of war of
which I have already furnished the House with the details ? But,
Sir, look at the declaration of Denmark, which was sent round
to the different States of Europe at a period antecedent to the
British declaration. The Danish Government say that without
danger and dishonour they have no chance but to commence
war. Every document to which we have access shows that
the war commenced on the 16th of August, 1807. It is ad-
mitted by both parties engaged in the war ; and yet, forsooth,
in order to establish a claim which cannot be maintained
unless you deny that there was war, all these documents are
overlooked, and the House is called upon to pay an enormous
sum of money to persons whose only claim is founded upon the
hypothesis that the seizures took place before the declaration of
war. But, said the Hon. Gentleman, this war, if it were a
war, is to be treated upon different principles from others, be-
cause due notice of it was not given—it was a secret war.
Why, will any man contend with respect to the wars between
different nations, that when you observe that a Power is
placed in a situation to do you an injury, you should
immediately give the Government notice that within six
months afterwards, you intend to commence warlike operations?
Is that the way in which this country has acted towards other
nations with whom it has been engaged in war ? or is it the
way in which civilised nations usually act towards each other?
Quite the contrary. How did the war with America take
place? War was declared on the part of the United States
long before it was declared on the part of Great Britain ; and
when Great Britain expected, from the negotiations which
were pending, that hostilities would be prevented, was it ever
contended that those who lost ships in the American war were
entitle] to come before the House to claim compensation? It
would be difficult to prove that there was not, in the case of the
war with the United States, the same want of information as
in that of the Danish war. But, says the Hon Gentleman,
the claimants in this case are entitled to compensation, because
the British Government withdrew their fleet from the Baltic at
an early period, instead of leaving it to protect British subjects.
Why was such a thing ever heard of, as that a British arma-
ment, stationed in a tea like the Baltic for warlike pur-
poses, should remain there exposed to all the dangers
of such a situation, in order to protect British ships,
and that if it did not remain, and any loss ensued,
the merchants should be entitled to compensation ?
All I can say is this, and it is what I have already repeatedly
stated, that if von are prepared to make payments on such
grounds as these, i f you are prepared to yield to the claims of those
who have suffered on such occasions, if you are prepared to
permit their representations to you to prevent your feel-
ings of your sense of duty to the public, there will be no limits
to the demands made on the revenue of the country and the
taxation of the people. The Hon. Member for Montrose tells
us that we have acted most unjustly in not acceding to these
claims. I beg to dispute that point with him. I think that
the Hon. Gentleman has during the whole of his public
life—l do not intend to dispute the usefulness of his
labours—but he has, during his whole life, given up his time to
attack little expenditures, but leaving large ones to themselves.
He will object to the giving of 5,0001. or 10,000/.
additional in the navy estimates to carry on war,
but when you come to the question, whether we shall, in
deference to private application and individual feelings, ad-
vise the House to incur an expense on behalf of the public
of 225,000/. he then has no objetion ; and, perhaps, on
the next occasion, he will consent to a much greater sum.
Now, Sir, that is not my view of my public duty, and it is not
the ground on which I accepted the office I new hold. I be-
lieve it is my duty, whatever the sufferings of these parties may
be, that when ships are captured at the time of war, to resist,
on public grounds, the repayment tie the parties of the losses
they have sustained. On that ground, Sir, I shall resist the
motion of the Hon. Member opposite; and I am sure that
those who have given their attention to the subject will be of
the same opinion, and will not permit the Hon. Gentleman to
succeed in his motion.

Mr. HAWES—Sir, I am extremely sorry to detain the
House, but it is utterly impossible that a question of this im-
portance can be made subservient toa particular hour. I will,
therefore, endeavour briefly to state the views I entertain upon
this subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman has added nothing
whatever to the present subject. He looked at the case on
two grounds. He says the capture took place in the
time of the war; and, further, that the law officers of the
Crown had given several opinions adverse to the claim.
Let the House recollect, that with whatever force the Right
Hon. Gentleman's arguments apply to the third class of
claimants, they apply with equal force to all former claimants
—( Hear, hear)—and, therefore, permit me to say, that the
claims now before the House do stand upon grounds which
really entitle them to the sympathy and consideration of this
House. Now, was it a state of war under which these cap-
tures were made ? It is now admitted that it was a state of
war, but it was a state of war which peculiarly distinguishes
this case from all former similar cases, and I hope will pecu-
liarly distinguish it from all future cases. You say that in
July, 1807, hostilities had commenced. In July hostilities
commenced, and British troops were landed on the shores of
Denmark. Was that a formal declaration of war? No, says
the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was in August, but that is the
disputed point? The English declaration of war was not made
until the 4th of December.
Sir GEORGE CLERK—The 4th of November.

Mr. HA'WES—WeII, take the 4th of November, if you please,
but that is not the 16th of August, allow me to say. These
captures took place between the 16th and the end of August.
If the declaration only took place on the 4th of November, then
the captures took place before the declaration of war. Now,
I want to know what is to be taken as a declaration of war to
British merchants? The Right Hon. Gentleman says, take
the attack upon Gluckstadt and Copenhagen as the declara-
tion of war. Now, the troops sent out were not for the purpose
of carrying on a war, but for the purpose of supporting nego-
tiations that were being entered intoto prevent war. The sending
troops therefore was not a declaration of war to the British
merchant. The Right Hon. Gentleman says that the battle
of Waterloo is a case in point. He asked were we at war with
France then. I will ask, were we at war with China ?
( Cheers.) We took towns and ships there, and the navy
were refused all prize money because there was no war.—
(" Hear, hear," from Sir C. Napier.) Will the Right Hon.
Gentleman condescend to meet meet me on that ground. It
was very convenient to the Treasury then to say that this was
no war, and it is now convenient to say that in the present case
it was a war.—( Cheers.) In both cases there were conflicting
declarations, and it is now convenient for her Majesty's Go-
vernment to meet the present honest claimants in that way. I
challenge the Right Hon. Gentleman to point out a single
similar case to this in the whole history of the country. This
expedition was secretly sent—the expedition was sent before
any declaration of war—and by that expedition this country
gained a million of money by the seizure of ships. I call upon

the fight llon. Gentleman to find me a similar case to that;
I say that in the speech which the Right Hon. Gentleman has
made he has been guilty of flagrant inconsistency. I ask if
there was any prize money allowed to our navy serving in
China ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes.
Mr. HA W ES—I am told not. The Gallant Commodore
near me ( Sir Charles Napier) says there was none. Surely
that cannot be a matter of dispute. Were we at war with
China—for that will settle the whole question. Perhaps the
Right Hon. Gentleman will allow me to treat his arguments
with reference to points of law. I will quote a high legal
authority. I will refer to the opinion cf Sir W.lliam Follett.
—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Yes, I per-
fectly understand that cheer; but what was the opinion of
Sir SVilliam Follett. Not when he was Attorney-General
bit before he was so. Why, favourable to these claims. But
have we no other great law authorities in our favour ? What
were the opinions of Dr. Lushington and Sir Frederick Pol-
lock ? Their opinions were likewise favourable to the Danish
claims.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right Hon.
Gentleman might quote the opinions of law-officers
of the Crown, but some of their opinions were
directly opposite to what they were when not holding office,
Just let the House reflect for a moment on what those claims
really are—the claims of shipowners whose property was on
the high seas, and which was committed defenceless to them
on the faith that it would not be interfered with nor exposed
to hostilities. I must say that the refusal of compensation for
such a seizure is most unjust and contrary to justice and
equity ; and I further say that to refuse such compensation is
false economy, and discreditable to this country. The grounds
upon which this appeal is made have been so well stated by
my Hon. Friend behind me, that I will not intrude on the
time and attention of the House. It is said we have no
legal right—well, we don't raise it—we don't appeal to
courts of law, and make our application on grounds of
equity and justice. We say this is no common
else, but a very special one, the parallel for which the history
of this country does not furnish. On these grounds, and
wishing to keep faith with this House, I earnestly hope the
House will do justice to these British merchants and British
shipowners who have been so unjustly plundered. The
decision of this House has be n reversed, but I hope British
honour and British justice will be relieved by the decision of
the night from the foul blot which the refusal of these just de-
mands has hitherto cast upon it.
Colonel SIBT HORP—I always felt it my duty to attend
in the House on these important occasions, and to record
my vote in favour of justice, for I consider the claims of
these individuals blinded on justice, and, whatever the
Chancellor of the Exchequer may say on this sub •
ject—whatever obloquy may be imposed upon me—
ter the course I have taken, and will take ; I will never shrink
from the fearless and manly avowal of my opinion, whatever
views a Minister may entertain. The House has already de-
cided by a majority in favour of these claims. I hope the
Hon. Member will persevere, and that he will divide the
House upon it, and I hope the measure will be forced upon the
attention of Parliament until they are conceded— Guita cavat
lapidem, non vi, sed saepe cadend o ; and further hope that
the paltry consideration of 250,0001. will not deter the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer from discharging such a debt of ho-
nour. lam sure the British public would be glad if these
claims were equitably arranged—they are the claims of their
fellow-creatures and of their fellow-subjects. The Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks of law—
that the law is against these claims. Law, Sir, law ! Why, I
know we all know how often law and justice are alike perverted
by the sub'lety and the acuteness of lawyers, but that is no
ground for us to over hrow a claim which is clearly founded in
equity.-- ( Year, hear.) Then, Sir, that Right Hon. Gentle-
man talked of a declaration of war, and we all know what that
is to go for. The point, the proper point, and the only point,
for this House now to look at, is this, and I shall put it to
you. I ask, did, or did not, the merchants of England go to the
Admiralty, and ask in that, the legitimate and proper
quarter, whether their vessels might sail,—and what was the
answer? The answer of the Admiralty was this:—" They may
proceed with the greatest safety."—( Cheers. ) Under the
sanction of the Admiralty, then—the first quarter to apply to
—these merchants went forth with their ships and their car-
goes. Instead of the Government warning them from going,
they advised them to go. How could they presume to recom-
mend merchants to go forth, and then, forsooth, deny the lia-
bility of which they were the cause? Such conduct, I say,
shows a want of generosity—yes, and I must add, a want of
feeling too.—( Loud ores of " Hear, hear.") Therefore, I
assert •iit is the duty of the Government frankly, freely, and
fairly to acknowledge these claims—to see them rightfully ar-
ranged.--( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer also says there is a wide difference be-
tween the former class of claimants and the present. It mat-
tered not one whit about classes. They all went forth on the
faith and under the sanction of the Government, and that
faith ought to have been held inviolate.—( Hear, hear.) I
will not trespass longer on the attention of the House.—( An
Hon Member near the Gallant Colonel said " Hear, hear,"
in a peculiar tone.) I do not wish, and I never do wish to
trespass upon the patience of the House, but I shall stay
as long on my legs as I consider right for the discharge of a
duty I hold to be a solemn one.—("Query," by the Honourable
Member.) Duty, Sir, before pleasure.—(Laughter and cries
of " Hear, hear.") 1 have often before supported these claims.
I have never changed in respect to them, and I never will, so
long as I have the power of judging between right and wrong.
—( Hear, hear.) I most cordially support the motion of the
Hoe. Member for Weymouth, and I ask him to persevere in
his motion, on all occasions, year after year, till fair dealing
and equity prey: il. Let us proceed with energy and determi-
nation, and depend upon it, before very long, we shall have
the pleasure of seeing the Right Hon. Chancellor of the
Exchequer knock under to us.—(A laugh and cheers. )
Sir C. NAPIER—I am quite delighted to have heard the
Bight Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer de-
clare that the taking of Copenhagen was in itself a sufficient
declaration of war. On the first attack on Canton I find that
the army and navy, who had one year's additional batty for
that attack, and who carried on a series of brilliant operations
after that, under the command of Sir W. Parker, and received
the thanks of Parliament for their services, who were sent up
rivers, with orders to detain vessels, and who did detain vessels
and ransom them in the most piratical manner, having received
orders so to ransom them.—l find, Sir, that after the lapse of
this time they were compelled to give these vessels up, and to
give up the ransom money also, in order to enable the Chinese
Government to pay the expense of the war to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who received that money, and the army
and navy were deprived of the prize money which they were
entitled to after the attack upon Canton, on the ground that
war had not been declared. Now the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer says that the attack on Copenhagen was a sufficient
declaration of war in the Baltic, and I hope that he will act
on the same rule in the case of Canton, and give those seamen
and soldiers the prize money which they are entitled to • and
if they are not paid it how can you expect that on a to;
occasion men will come forward and volunteer in the navy ?
They will say, "No! The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say
there is no declaration of war, and will deprive us of that
prize-money which we have fairly earned."
Sir R. PEEL—I do not belive, Sir, that the navy will ever
act upon the principles just enunciated by the Gallant Officer
opposite. I believe, that whenever ordered on service, they
will do their duty to their country without reference to any pe-
cuniary consideration. If that consists in performing such ope-
rations as were performed in China, they will not refuse to do it
because the Chancellor of the Exchequer may determine that
they are not entitled to prize-money.
Sir. C. NAPIER—I did not say the navy would refuse to do
its duty. I said that if the navy were treated with regard to
prize-money as they have been treated in China, you would not
get volunteers to cuter the service.
Sir 11. PEEL-1 hope the House will not be turned aside
from the consideration of real question at issue, by any reference
to the Chinese proceedings. The real question is, whether the
House of Commons shall vote a sum of upwards of a quarter of a
million on account of alleged captures upwards of 37 years since.
The attention of the House has not been called on the present
occasion so much to the origin of these claims, as it has been on
several previous occasions when they have been submitted to
the House ; but an attempt has been made to refer to the votes
of various Members of the House on former occasions, when
these claims have been brought forward. Now it has been
said that I retired from the House on a former occasion with-
out voting. When I was in opposition to the late Government,
I uniformly gave them my support in resisting these claims.
In 1:341, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion in
favour of these claims, I was in opposition to the Government.
Mr. Cresswell, at that time was seated on the benches behind
me. In 1841, I recorded nay vote in favour of thecourse which
the late Government took, directed by a sense of the duty in
refusing these claims in opposition to that personal and private
canvass of which I myself have had so many reasons to com-
plain. Now look at what has been said of the opinion of the
Attorney-General. Why any one who heard the speech of the
Hon. Member for Lambeth, must have inferred that Sir W. Fol-
lett had given his opinion in Parliament in favour of these claims.
The Hon. Member for Lambeth has referred to the opinion of
the Attorney-General, and quoted him as an authority in fa-
vour of the Danish claims. But what was the Attorney-Ge-
neral's explanation ? It was given in 1840, in the presence
of the Hon. Member, and he would ask the House if it was
fair to attempt to lead it to believe he was in favour of the
claims. Sir William Follett said in 1840, " The Hon. Mem-
ber has pleased to refer to an opinion he bad been alleged to
have given with respect to these claims. An opinion of a
lawyer depended entirely on the case put before him, but
since the real facts of the case been before him
he had never had the slightest doubt on the sub-
ject. A few years ago the matter was brought before
the House of Commons by his Hon. Friend Mr. Cresswell,
who asked him (the Solicitor-General) to support him ; but
on hearing the facts of the case in that House, he was not satis-
fied that the claim had been made out, and he considered the
Government was right in resisting it." And here (continued
Sii R. Peel) was his Right Hon. and Learned Friend's vote
recorded in the division list of that year, directly in opposition
to the motion. When, in opposition to the then Government,
he could not have been under any undue influence, and yet,
instead of voting with Mr. Cresswell, he voted against him,
stating, that when he came to look at the case, he thought the
Government was right in resisting it. Are we at liberty to
discuss the justice and policy of the war with Den-
mark? If that is the case, if we are at
liberty to discuss the justice and policy of the war, I know no
limit that can be placed to such claims, I have never heard of
a war the justice of which was admitted by all parties. The
question is, was there war at the time ? This country believed
that Denmark was about to deliver its fleet over to France. We
then sent a naval force to clam from Denmark either a denial
of that charge or the delivery of their fleet, as there was a secret
article in the Treaty of Tilsit, by which Denmark had stipu-
lated to deliver its fleet up to France. This country
demanded the Danish fleet from the control of Bo-
naparte. On the 16th of August, 1807, Denmark
declared war ; on the 14th of November following,
this country declared war against Denmark, in these terms :
" Whereas the King of Denmark has issued a declaration of
war against his Majesty, and his Majesty has ineffectually
endeavoured to obtain a revision of that declaration against this
country, his Majesty hereby declares war against the King of
Denmark." Now, what was the opinion of Sir W. Scott, the
very highest authority, on the retro-active effect of a
declaration of war?' Many causes have been decided in
the courts much more strong in equity than these
claims. There was the case of the seizures at Demarara.
The question was, whether it was a prize or not. It was a
claim made by persons said to be British subjects, because the
seizure was made before the declaration of war, but the decla-
ra'ion of war was subsequently made, and the opinion of Lord
Stowell was, that the declaration of war had a retrospective
effect, and that all property previously detained was liable to
be considered the property of enemies taken in time of war,
and that all seizures made became prizes. So in this case, I
say there was a declaration of war previously to a great part of
the seizures, namely, a declaration of war on the part of
Denmark on the 16th of August, that there was a
hostile fleet before Copenhagen, and a declaration of war
on the part of Great Britain on the 4th of November,
and that this declaration had a retro-active effect in the words
of Lord Stowell. I say we are not at liberty to determine now
whether there were sufficient motives to demand the surren-
der of the fleet, and the opinion of her Majesty's Government
is, that those claims are not well-founded ; that to admit them
would be to admit a dangerous precedent, and would revive
other claims as strong as these. And her Majesty's Govern.
ment, as guardians of the public purse, which is assaulted by so
many claims, of which the House of Commons is not always
the most effective protector, feel it to be their duty, in per-
formance of the obligations they ewe to the public, to take
that course which they took when they were in opposition to
the late Government, and to offer every opposition to those
claims which they did not believe to be founded in justice.
Mr. MUNTZ—I will make a few observations on this mo•

• 1,-Ni

tion, not that I have any interest in 3t, thOtt44 an in-
terest in the Spanish a ir, wheel.. as' a iifferent
case from the present. Mtiv.:apieatektitii, . "to •e unjust.
wheiher the taking of fish:4l/10 ,vpssels . • taking of
Copenhagen ; but that is notligAirtltViAtlitairwe are to ar-
gue. The question which we are to argue isltirelher the mer-
chants could take care of themselves' and whether they were
not placed in a false position by the declaration of the Admi.
rail. I must say, as a merchant, that we had a ju.,t clams
upon the Government for compensation, and I think tilat in a
question between the Government and individuals, the nation
ought not to sacrifice an individual for so small an amount. I
think that if one case could be justified, this claim is equally
justifiable.—( Hear. )
After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, lib° was un-
derstood to support the motion, strangers were ordered to
withdraw, and the House divided:—
For the motion 6B
Against it ...

Alajority against the motion ... 4
DOG-STEALING BILL.

Mr. LIDDELL-called the attention of the House to a
petition presented last session, praying for further protection
against the depredations of the dog stealers in this metropolis;
and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the alle-
gations of the said petition, with a view to the correction
of the evils complained of therein.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was unwilling to refuse inquiry,
but at the same time at this late period of the session—(An
Hon. Member, " The dog-days"—Laughter)—he thought the
vppointment of a Committee might prove inconvenient.
THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

Mr. HUME moved that an humble address be presented
to her Majes'y, as patroness and comptroller :of: the
Royal Academy of Arts, pra)ing that she will be gra•
ciously pleased to take into consideration the laws and
regulations of that institution, with a view of ren-
dering it more conducive to the advancement of the fine arts,
better suited to the spirit and circumstances of the present
age, and.more consonant with the intention of its royal foun-
der, George the Third. The Hon. Member said that the
Royal Academy had failed to promote the object for which
it was established, and eminently demanded reformation in
many of its departments, as it had grown into an odious mono-
poly. The Royal Academy had received 80,000/. The build-
ing cost more than It 0,0:KI.
An HON. MPMBER moved that the House be counted, and
there being only thirty Members present, the House adjourned
at Eight o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedzngs of the Howe of Commons.)
MONDAY, JULY 8.

MIDDLE LEVEL DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION

BILL.

Report considered ; Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That the Amendments made by the Committee to the Bill
be now read a second time :"—Amendment proposed, to leave
out from the words " That the" to the end of the Question,
in order to add the words " Bill be re-committed," instead
thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left
out stand part of the Question :" The House divided :

MAJORITY—AYES,' 116.
Allix, John Peter Elphinstone, Howard Mundy, E. M.
Bailey, Joseph Lstcourt, T. G. B. Napier, Sir Charles
Baring. F. T. Evans, W. Ogle, S. C. H.
daring, Thomas Farnham, E. B. Ord William
Barnard, E. G. Flower, Sir James Packe, C. W.
Barron, Sir H. Forman, T. Seaton Palmerston, Vis.
Beckett, William Forster, Matthew Parker, J.
Bellew, It. M. Fuller, A. E. Peel, Jonathan
Benett, John Gill, Thomas Philips, G. It.
Berkeley, Captain Gladstone, W. E. Itash:eigh, Wm.
Bouverie, E. P. Gore, Montague Round, John
Bright, John Goring, Charles Russell, J. D. W
Brisco, M. Greene, T. Sandon, Lord
Sroadley, H. Grey, Sir G. Shaw, F.
Brotherton J. Guest, Sir John Sheil, R. L. J
Buller, Sir J. Yarde Hamilton, Lord C. Shieey, E. P.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Heathcote' G. J. Somerset, Lord G.
Campbell, Sir H. Hodgson, Frederick Sotheron, T. H
Cavendish, Hon. 0. Houldsworth, T. StuartAVilliers
Chapman, Aaron Howard, Lord Strickland, Sir G.
Chapman, B. Howick, Lord Strutt, Edward
Cholmohdeley, Hugh Hughes, W. D. Thesiger, F.
Christie, W. D. Hume, Joseph f homely' Thomas
Christoph-r, R A Humphery, J. Thornhill, G.
Cobden, Richard Hutt, W. Trollspe, Sir John
Cockburn, Sir G. Irton, Samuel 11;:rnor, C.
Colebrooke Sir T. James, William Vane,
Collett John Kerr, D. Lord Harry
villiers Charles P.
Craw ford, W. S. Labouchere, H. Vivian,' J. a
Dalrymple, Captain Langston, J. H. Walker, R.
Dawson, T. V. Layard, Captain Wall, B,
Denison, E. Beckett Lowther, Hon. CoL Wawn, John T.
Dickinson, F. H. Macaulay, T. B. Williams, W.
Divett, E. M'Geachy, F. A. Wood, Charles
Duncan, George Mangles, It. D. Worsley, Lord
1 Duncombe, T. S. Manners, Lord J. Yorke, It. H.
Dundas, Frederick Masterman. John
Easthope, John Miles, P. W. S. TELLER&
Eaton, Richard J. Mitcalfe, Henry Pusey, Philip
Ebrington, Viscount Morrison James Hayter, W. G.

MINORITY—NOES, 26.
Bagge, Wm. Copeland, W. Ramshottem, J
Beresford, Major Dougla,, Sir C. Rushbrooke,eolonsa
Blacks'one, W. Ellis, Wynn Seyrneur, Lord
Blandford, Marquis Gisborne, Thomas Smyth, Sir G. II .
Bowes, John Hawes, is . Towneley, John
Bruce, Lord Ernest Hussey, Thomas WodehoUse, Edmond
Buller, C. Ingi s, Sir R.
Carnegie, Captain Knight, Henry Gaily TELLEna:
Chute, W. L. tv. Lowther, J. H. Jocelyn, Vis-ount
Cole, Hon.H. A. Manners, Lord C. S. Bentinck, Lcrd G

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE:
At a General Meeting of the Jockey Club, held on Saturda
last, July 6,
_ _

It was resolved—

" That it being now proved that Running Rein was three
yrs old when he ran for the Two yrs old Plate at Newmarket,
Crenoline must be considered the winner of that race, andi
that the Duke of Rutland is entitled to the Plate.

" That the thanks of the Jockey Club are eminently due,
and are hereby offered to Lord George Bentinck, for the
energy, perseverance, and skill which he has displayed iii
detecting, exposing, and defeating the atrocious frauds which
have been brought to light during the recent trial respecting
the Derby Stakes.
" That it is the opinion of this meeting that no publication
of the proceedings of the Jockey Club should be made without
the consent of the stewards."

The annurd general meeting of the club will take place at
the New Rooms, Newmarket, on Wednesday next, July 10,
after the races.

INTELLIGENCE EXTRA.

NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1844.
Mom)Ay.—Duke of Bedfrn•d's Minotaur, Bst 81b, agst Mr.
ist 71b ; T.Y.C. 150, h ft.
Fili6T SPRING MEETING, 1847.

FRIDAX.—Three yrs old Sweepstakes of: 50 sous. each, for
fillies out of mares that never bred a winner of 501., &c.
R.M.—Duke of Bedford's by The Saddler, out of Monceda,
and Fistiana—General Grosvenor's by Dcedalus, out of his
Brocard mare—Mr. Batson's by The Doctor, out of Revelry
—Lord Exeter's ch by Hetman Platofr, out of Macremma—
Sir W. W. Wynn's by Gladiator, dam by Buzzard, out of
Emma, by Orville.

NEWMARKET JULY MEETING.

NEwmATIKET, MONDAY NIGIIT.—The Handicap did not fill.

The July Stakes.—The following have paid :—Tunick.
Jet, sister to Canadian, Hersey, sister to Cameleon, and Glee,
The match between Glen Fishie and Ntrowna completes
the days sport, which commences late.

(RECEIVED LAST NIGHT.)
NEWMARKET JULY MEETING—TuEsDAy.

The July Stakes of 50 sovs. each, 30 ft, for two vrs old ; colts
Bst 71b, and fillies Bst 51b. New T.Y.C. The second to
save his stake. (15 Subs.)
Mr. J. Day's Old England (J. Day, jun.) 1
Lord Albemarle's Scarmentado

Colonel Peel's f by Slane, out of Sea-kale
Lord Exeter's Deodora

2 to 1 on Scarmentado. Old England made all the running
till half way up the cords, where Scarmentado, who had fol-
lowed him, challenged; a good race home was won by a
neck. Sea-kale and Deodora had no chance in any part of
the race. Old England ran unkindly all the way.
Duke of Bedford's Glen Fishie, Bst 121 b, received from
Lord Exeter's Petrowna, 6st 121 b. New T.Y.C. 100 h ft.
The weather favourable, and the course in excellent order,
but a thin attendance, and the betting in keeping with the
poverty-stricken character of the sport. The two year olds
and yearlings belonging to the late Mr. Thornhill, and seve-
ral other horses, will be put up for sale to-morrow morning.
NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1844.

Lord E. Russell's Nat, 9st 41b, agst Mr. Payne's Walpole
(Nininka colt), 7st 41b. T.Y.C. 100 h ft.
NEWMARKET HOUGHTON MEETING, 1844.

Duke of Bedford's Minotaur, llst 101 b, agst Mr. Osbaldes-
ton's Sorella (sister to Martingale), 10st 71b, Mr. Osbaldeston
to ride. A.F. 200, 11 ft.

Tun NATIONAL GALLERY.—On Monday the two
picturcg, purchased on Saturday by Mr. Eastlake, at the sale
at Messrs. Christie and Manson's, for the National Gallery,
were placed in that institution, and were greatly admired by
the numerous visitors. They are numbered 193 and 194, and
are placed in different rooms, the "Judgment of Paris" being
in the second large room, and immediately facing Rubens'a
" Rape of the Sabines." This picture, it was stated at the
sale on Saturday, by Mr. Manson, was painted by Rubens
for Cardinal Richelieu ; it was subsequently in the Orleans
Gallery, from which it was brought and sold to Lord Kin-
naircl, who gave 3,000 guineas for it. It afterwards came
into the possession of Mr. John Penrice, at whose sale of pic-
tures, on Saturday, it was bought for 4,000 guineas, as stated
in this journal yesterday. The other picture, by Guido, of
" Lot and his Daughters," is placed in the large room at the
extreme end, in the north-east corner. This picture was
formerly in the Lancilotto Palace, at Rome. It was brought
from Rome by the second Marquis of Lansdowne. In addi-
tion to the above, the National Gallery has recently been
enriched by three new pictures, purchased at the sale of the
late Mr. 'Harman's collection. They are numbered 190,
191, and 192, and consist of the Portrait of a Jew, by Rem-
brandt; the " Infant Christ and St. John embracing," by
Guido ; and an exquisite little portrait of Gerard Dow, painted
by himself.
THE GIRLS.—They think on: Hymen and can't
help sighing. When their lovers forsake them they can't
help crying. They sit at the window and can't help spying.
Into private matters they can't help prying. To get each
a beau they can't help trying. When together their tongues
they can't help plying. At the mirror they can't help twist-
ing, and turning, and trying. They screw up their corsets,
bring on the consumption, and can't help dying.—American
paper.

'THE CHINESE RANSOM.—On Monday afternoon,
shortly after one o'clock, a special train on the South-West-
ern Railway arrived at the terminus, Nine Elms, containing
nine tons and a half of Sycee silver, which had been brought
from Portsmouth under convoy of a detachment of the 47th
Regiment of Foot. The above specie is part of the money
agreed upon by the Chinese Government to be paid to this
country for the ransom of Canton, and arrived at Portsmouth
a few days ago in her Majesty's ship Childers. The specie
was conveyed in seven of her Majesty's Artillery vans to the
Mint.

HISTORIC FANCIES.—BY THE HON. GEORGE
SYDNEY SMYTHE, M.P.—This volume is calculated to at-
tract a considerable share of public attention, not merely
because it exhibits great talent, and indicates a greater
promise, but because it represents, in its various pages, a
picture of that youthful and stirring mind which has re-
cently so much engaged the observation, and, in a great
degree, the sympathy of the public. The charm of the
book is full of freshness and vigorous fancy. The writer
has surveyed the past and present, disembarrassed of
those conventionalities that are crumbling. around us,
and has arrived at results, which may be, .in some in-
stances, crude, but which are always genuine. He de-
livers himself of his strong convictions in a style pas-
sionate, yet chaste and precise ;
.and whether he blazons
the achievements of the great aristocracy of France, or
celebrates the superhuman energies of the Jacobins of
Paris—whether he charge the Roundhead with the Ca-
tholic Cavalier, or canonize Armand Carrel in lyric of
almost unrivalled grace, we find everywhere the real
feeling and language always sustaining the sentiment,
as prompt, as passionate, and picturesque. The finest;
thing in this volume is—
" The merchants of Old England, the seigneurs of the
seas."
It is may a great national strain,—Times.

HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.
Signor PUZZ I respectfully informs the Nobility, Subscribers to the
o,,era, his Friends, and the Public. that HI • B EN s'.FIT will take place
TO-MORROW EVENING, JULY 11,
On which occasion will be presented (for the First Time these IT r:.e
Years), Don i zetti's celebrated Opera,
ANNA BOLENA.
Henry VII 1., Sig. Laolache ; Percy, Sig. Moriani ; Smeaton,
Mdlle. Favanti; Anna Boirna, Mad me Grist; Janc Seymour,
Signora Giuseppina firsetti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her
trst appearance in London).
Ater the t opera, Signor etl72i will perform a Solo on the Horn.
Atter which, a " DIVERTMEMENT," in which will be intro-
duced a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. St,
Leon, Pas de Deux by Mdlles. Scheffer and Plunkett, and the
admired Spanish Dance " La Saragossa," by Mdlte. Fanny Elssler.
To be followed by the Second Act of
GUILLAUME TELL.
Matilde, Madame Persiani ; Arnold., Sig.:Mario; Walter, Sig.
Lablache; and Guil;aume Tell, Signor I' ornasari.
To conclude with a Divertissement, entitled LA VIVAN D IE RE,
intriducing the Redowa ; or Original Polka of Hungary, by Mdlle.
Cerito and M. It. Leon.
Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be m i I . to Signor
Puzzi, 39, Jerrnyn-strect, St. James's, and the Box.odice, Opera
Colonnade. Doors open at Seven. The Opera will conimence at
Hal Lpast Seven o'clock.

THEATRE ROYAL, HAY ItIMIKLT.
MR. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES EE.
THIS EVENING, JULY 10,
Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of
QUID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES.
With a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster.
Earl of Hunsdon, Mr. Stuart; Dint Eel:mom, Mrs. Nisbett ;
Jceiny Grizson. Mr. Strickland; Hen y, Mr. H. Holl ; Captain
Sip7ett, Mr. Buckstone; Sir George Mordent, Mr W. Fatten;
Countess of Hunsdoa, Mrs. W. Clifford ; Lady Mary Rivers, Miss
Julia Bennett; Mrs. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; Bridget I rim, Mrs.
Hamby.
Atter the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing" Fayre Rmamonde."
After which, will be repeated a New Farce, entitled THE MIL.
LINER'S HOLIDAY. Sir Simon Sparkes, Mr. euckstone ; Mr.
Penny vng, Mr. Strickland; Fanny Thompson, Miss Julia Bennett;
Miss Potts, Mrs. Humby.
To conclude with THE WHITE HORSE OF THE PEPPERS.
Ger Id Fever, Mr. Leonard.
orchestra Stalk, bs.; Boxes, NS.' ' Pit, tls. ; Gallery, 41.; Upper
Gallery, Is. 11Alf-price—Boxes,es. ; Pit, t2s. ; Gallery, is. ; Upper
Gallery, 6d. Doors opened at Half-past Six, and the Performances
commence at Seven.
fickets and Places to be had of Mr. L T. Arct er, nt the Box-
n 'ce, from Ten till Five.

PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STH FEZ
LESSEE, Mr. J. M. MADDOX.
THIS EVENING, JULY 10.
Will be performed the celebrat-d Opera, PENNI. I) AMORE.
Mina Miss Austin; Nemerino, Mr. Allen; Doctor Dulcamara,
Ms, Paul Bedford.
After which, a New Petite Comedy, called AGED FORTY. Sir
Harry Wilder, Mr. Walter Lacy ; Mr Dapper, Mr. Oxterzy ; Lady
Clift,n, Mrs. Stirling.
o conclude with a New aid Original Burlesque, entitled THE
WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated Version of Aladdin.
ithanazar, Mr. Paul Bedtbrd ; blr. Wright; Princess
Badroulbadour, Miss E. Stant y.

'I ILEA fIIE ROY AL LYCEUM. LATE ENGLISH OPERA-
HOUSE.
Under the Management of Mrs. KEELEY.
THIS EVENING, JULY 10.
Will be produced a New Drama, entitled MARTIN CHUZZLE-
W Ir. Principal characters by Messrs. It. lounge, F. Vining,
Emery, F. Mathews, A. Wigan, Meadows, Kinloch, Turner,
St inton, J. W. Collier, YarnolJ, Sanders, and Keeley ; Miss For-
fescue, Miss WoaLar, Mrs. A. Wigan, Mrs. Woollidge, Miss
trove; Mrs. Usher, Miss Turner, and Mrs Keeley.
To be followed by a ci.a..d Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called
OPEN SESAME; or, a Night with the Forty Thie, e 4. llassarac,
Mr Keeler; Moreiana, Mrs. Keeley.
To cinalude with an Apropos Bagatelle, called POLEAMANIA•
Characters by Mr.. F. Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. lleeley. Miss
Woolgar, and Mrs. Keeley.

A.STLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF A al S.
Prrinriene and Manager. Mr. BATTY.
SPLENDID JUVENILE FETES.
Great Success of the Chinese Feast of Lanterns, and N.w Military
and Naval Spectacle.
THIS EVENING. JULY 10,
Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian
Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or. The Conquests of 1
Amoy by B itish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments, ite.,.
to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and N, y. Feast.
of '250 Lanterns.
After which a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY t
COTILLION 'OF IRA NC IS THE Fl ttS or, the Beauties of the,
Louvre. Mar;uerite de Valois, Mrs Batty.
New and unequalled scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats.
of Ilorsomanthip by Monsieur Louil Tournaire, $ R. f:ennani, Herr',
Tiostiack, La Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, &c.l with Mr. R. Smith's.
highly trained Steeds.
To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLECHASE; or, Eng-.
land's Harvest Home.
Die doors will open nightly at six o'cloce, and the i ~r:ormances.
c,mmence at seven. Box-othne opened daily from ten till four. The-
private boxes have been recoi.structed and decorated wi,ti care and,
seleudcur.
Acting and stage.m in ager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot.

DA: IDGE'S ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.
THIS EVENING, JULY 10,
Will be performed an entirely new Aquatic Spectacle, introducing-
Three Scenes of Kcal Water, entitled THE MOUNTAIN CATA-.
RACY; o', The Enchanter's Spelt.
After which, a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled .‘ Napoleon'{ Gene-
rosity," in which the BrockStedt Family -three German
only 23, 32, and 38 inches in he!glit-will perform.
To conclude with a New Drama, called TziE CARPENTER Or
ROUEN, in which Messrs Hudson Kirby, Hicks' Neville, Vale,
Heslop, Johnson, Mrs. limy, Miss lerrey, and Mrs. R. Honner will_
per form
PI ices and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box-.
office, from Eleven to Four.

ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS.
Daylight View of
LONDON in the OLDEN/ TIME!
Painted by Danson and Telbin.
The sensation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond air.
to: :rut precedent; the artist, the amateur, the casual observer •
arc all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea-,
lion, and are unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex-.
hibdion ever witnessed. To view it only ar a vehicle for the terrific
display at Dusk is unjust ; it should be seen in the calm stillness of 7
the qu et Evening, with its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa..
cious Lake, to be fully appreciated.
The cv,ning PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Men.7ays, Tues.,
days, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, conducted by Mr. Godfrey„
are upon a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail in,
daingjuNtice to the awful representation of
THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON.
he fearful ch ‘racteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same,
Uwe so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the Pyrotechnic:
Alt, that delight is predominant over terror; and the Thousands:
who nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit
that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechnist, his achieved a matchless.
triumi.h.
The gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfect;
state, anti combining so many and interesting features, are by far •
,the most attractive lounge in or near the metropolis.
k ceding of the Animals at Five—Concert at Six—Conflagration at.;
.Dusk. Admitt ince, One Shilling.

EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCADILLY.
IMPORTANT NOTICE.
ONE SHILLING Admission to THE NAI OLEON MU-.
SEEM, the most magnificent and extensive Collactlon of Histo—
rical Curiosities and Works of Art ever known to have been formed,
by One Person, during Twenty-five years of elaborate research, at a.
cost of 60,000 guineas, and to completely illustrate, in lite most in—
structive and interesting manner, the most important part of Euro-.
Dean history, viz.—CHARLES 1., OLIVER CROMWELL, and.
1.3111:8 XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE lIL, and the EMPEROR.
NAPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been vitlted often,
during the last and present year, by the Royal FamiV, the Duke of!
Wellington, the Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, an i their Ladies,.
also, many thousands of the Nobility and Public; and lho Pro-.
rietor has recently been able to increase, by several very fine,
pictures, &c., his previous almost incredible number and variety of!
MSS., Wors of Art, and a multitude of valuable 'teller, and other •
:uriositics, in this most instructive and, as hundreds have said it;
night to be, a National Museum. Many thousand have inspected it,,
And THIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PUBLIC PRESS;
have stated that it ought to be seen by every one. The price of adults,
ton is reduced to ONE SHILLING.
The NA POLEON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the Egypt
Vail." Piccadilly, daily from Ten till Dusk.

TFIE WEATHER—Sum OFFICE, JULY 9.
NERMOMETER, Lowest, 58; Highest, 70: Noon, 68.
BAROMETER, 29.97.—Wnw, N.W.
NOTE.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the.
freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barometers fair is;
usually placed opposite 30, and rain at 29.

DIGIT WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE TIES DAY.
Morning ... 23 minutes after 9 1 Evening ... 0 minutes after 10

~., •;.,:, ,C - , -70 cj-;-17; SU!. ki ‘,. ',4.'.,
. • • • ~ ill t"*" ,1'
'444 ,Z,,,,, ‘• , .43 •ft• et (fi,id \7: ik: -
•" :: ntF. t; io, l ('-s
r •.'"! 0 S ' hitoiil77-' 7 '
, 17. 04, .
....,-