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

10, 1644.

directly opposite to what they were when not holding office, I
Just let the House reflect for a moment on what those claims
iVlly Are—the claims of shipowners whose property was on
the h?gh t'easi and which was committed defenceless to them
on the faith that it VVottid not be interfered with no exposed
to hostilities. I mast siiy that the refusal of compensatisin for ,
such a seizure is most unjust tom, 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 Bent Friend behind me, that I will not intrude on the
time and atteldind of the House. It is said we have no
legal right—well, we don't rni,e it—we don't appeal to
courts of law, and make our attplitsalion on grounds of
equity and justice. We say this is no common
dial, btst 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 ihitish merchants and British
shipowners who have been so unjustly plundered The
decision of this House has bean 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 SIBTIIOIIP—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 founded on justice, and, whatever the
Chancellor of the Exchequer may say on this sub •
ject—whatever obloquy may be imposed upon me—
tor 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
lion. 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—Gut/a cavort
lapidem, non vi, sed saepe cadendo ; and further hope that
the paltry consideration of 250,00V1. will not deter the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer from discharging such a debt of ho-
nour. I am 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 subtlety and the acuteness of lawyers, but that is no
ground fur us to overthrow a claim which is clearly founded in
equity.—( Hear, 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 1 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 'it is the duty of the Government frankly, freely, and
fairly to acknowledge these claims—to see them rightfully ar-
ranged.—( Hear, hear.) The Right I-lon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer also says there is a wide difference be-
tween the former clays 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 .vish, 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
Hon. Member for Weymouth, and I ask him to persevere in
his motion, on all occasions, year after year, till fair dealing
and equity prey: it. Let us proceed with energy and determi-
,,,,:tion, and depend upon it, before very long, we shall have
the ple;i:nre of seeing the Right Hun. Chancellor of the
Exchequer kno..::ls under to us.--(A laugh and cheers. )
Sir C. NAPIEtt--I am quite delighted to have heard the
Right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer de-
clare that the taking of Cope.:hagen was in itself a sufficient
declaration of war. On the first atts:ckon Canton I find that
the army and navy, who had one years additional batta for
that attack, and who carried on a series of bi2lllant operations
after that, under the command of Sir W. Parker, and received
the thanks of Parliament for their services, who we, e sent up
rivers, with orders to detain vessels, and who did detain Vessels
and ransom them in the most piratical manner, having receivssl
orders so to ransom them.-1 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 Chaneellsr 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 future
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
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 enter the service.
Sir R. 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 1841, 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 my vote in favour of the course 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 fur 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 lion. 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 had 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
Sir 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,
14 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 ease, 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 bad 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
r 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 Demerara.
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-
merit, 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 111
-
formance of the obligations they owe to the public, to take
that course which they took when they were in opposition to
the late Government, arid 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-
tion, not that I have any interest in it, though I hid an in-
terest in the Spanish affair, which was not a very different
case from the present. Both appeared to me to be unjust,
whether the taking of the Spanish vessels or the taking of
Copenhagen ; but that is not the question which we arc to ar-
gue. The question which we are to argue is whether the mer-
chants could take care of themselves, and whether they were
not placed in a false position by the declaration of the Admi.
raly. 1 must say, as a merchant, that we had a just dams
upon the Government for compensation, and I think that 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
justiciable —( Hear. )
After a few words frorri Mr. A. CIIAPMAN, wbo was un-
derstood to support the motion, strangers were ordered to
withdraw, and the House' divided :
__

For the motion
Against it

Majority against the motion ...
DOG-STEALING BILL.

- 4

Mr. LIDDELL called the attention-of the House to a
petition presented last session, praying for further protection