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

POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE,

Lord SANDON moved that a message be sent to the
Lords, requesting that the Marquis of Lansdowne, the
Earl of Lon3dale, and the Earl of Besborough, might
attend to be examined before the Secret Committee on
opening the letters at the Post-offiee.—Agreed to.
GUERNSEY.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would, if there were no objec-
tion, at once move for copies of the correspondence
which had taken place between the Home Secretary and
the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey, since the Ist
August last.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the same reason
which had induced the Honourable. Gentleman to post-
pone the motion of which he had given notice, on the
subject of the affairs of Guernsey, still existed. The
whole of the circumstances connected with the recent
unfortunate disputes in Guernsey would speedily be
brought judicially under the notice of the Committee of
the Privy Council ; and wh;le that cause was pending,
he thought it would not be for the interest of the pub-
lic service to produce the correspondence.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would postpone his motion
until this thy fortnight.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—POST-OFFICE.
Messengers from the Lords brought (I,Avn certain
Bills, and also brought down a message requesting that
permission might be given to Lord John Russell and to
Sir James Graham to attend before the Lords' Com-
mittee on the Post-office, in order to be examined.

The SPEAKER informed the messengers that the
House would send an answer by messengers of its own.

IRISH MARRIAGES BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the first reading of
the Irish Pres'lyterian Marriages Bill, which had been
brought down from the Lord —Agreed to.

DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. CHRISTIE rose to submit his motion on the
Danish claims, of which he had given notice :—" That
this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider
of an address to her Majesty, praying that she will be
graciously pleased to take into her early and most
favourable consideration the case of the claimants for
losses sustained by the seizure of British ships and cargoes
by the Danish Government in 1807, and reported to
have been established by the Commissioners, to whom it
was referred to examine and adjudicate on all such
claims, in their report bearing date the 12th day of May,
1840." He said, " this question has been so often before
the House that I shall be justified in doing that which I
should otherwise have done as a matter of policy, and
detain the House but a short time in dealing with the
subject. I cannot but remember that when this ques-
tion was formerly brought forward in this House, it
came recommended by all the weight of the talents and
great abilities of Mr. Cresswell. After that gentleman
ceased to be a Member of this House, it was brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt).
That gentleman's avocations, however, prevented him
from bringing it forward this session. This is the reason
that lam here to undertake it. I expect, of course, to
hear it said that it is high time we should have done
with these Danish claims.—(Hear, hear.) That it
is a very old motion which has been often discussed ;
but I bog to remind the House in the present state of
the question, that these are the third and last of three
classes of claims, the first two of which have been satis-
fied, first one and then the other, but both after long
and determined opposition from succeeding Governments;
and that this third and last class of claims have already
had their justice affirmed by majorities of this House.
I know it will be said that on the last occasion when the
question was brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Lambeth, he (Mr. Hawes) was in a minority. I know that
he expected a larger majority than had ever before been
recorded in support of his motion, but to his great sur-
prise he found himself in a minority. But still the
Danish claims put forward four victories in opposition to
this minority ; and whatever opinion the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, as an individual, may entertain on this
subject—and I know that Right Hon. Gentleman has
always, both in and out of office, consistently voted
against those &aims—l am sure he cannot deny that
there must be some strength, even if not suffi-
cient strength, in claims which have before
been so earnestly and perseveringly advocated by so dis-
tinguished a member of his own party as Mr. Cresswell,
and supported by so large a number of members of his
own party, and which, on several occasions, have been
supported by members of the present Government. At
different times I find that no less than ten Members of

the pi.e;enidoverni;aentlTaW voted for these claims. I
am sorry to see that several of those Members are not
now in the House ; but I begin by mentioning the
name of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Inland,
whom, I see, in his place. I believe I am correct
in stating that the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Ireland, who began by opposing the Danish claims,
after giving more mature attention to the sub-
ject, in the year 1841 voted in their favour, but voted
against them when they were brought forward last year.
The Hon. Member for Wenlock, a Lord of the Trea-
sury, who voted on three successive occasions in
their favour, and the Honourable Member for
Belfast, were away from the division. Next,
there was the Solicitor-General, who, I presume,
investigated those claims with a lawyer's mind, and who,
I hope, will give his assistance on this occasion. Next,
there were the Hon. Member for Selkirk, the Hon. and
Gallant Member for Chippenham, the Hon. Member for
Southampton, who was Under-Secretary for the Colo-
nies, and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Scarborough,
who, in 1838, said, " I shall support this motion, as it is
not a question as to the length of time which has elapsed,
but whether the House will do justice. No time will be
allowed as a bar against justice." The last on the list is
the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for
Kent. Under these circumstances, I hope it will
be admitted that the Danish claimants are justified in
once more bringing forward their claims, if only
to ascertain whether the adverse majority by which
they were met last year, after several successive
victories, was the result of accident or not ; and whether
the Government really intended, after the encourage-
ment which was given to the claimants on previous
occasions, to persevere in making a question of this
sort, involving the pecuniary claims of individuals—
which to some individuals is a question of thousands of
pounds, and to others involving a question of
comfort or beggary for the remainder of their
lives—whether such a question is really to
be made a party question and an official question ?
These claims, as is notorious, arose out of the well-
known capture of the Danish fleet off Copenhagen in
1807, when we were at peace with Denmark. An
English fleet suddenly appeared off the coast of
Denmark, and the Danish fleet fell into our
hands. In consequence of this capture, Denmark
made reprisals, and seized the property of British sub-
jects, taking our merchant ships in the Baltic by way
of reprisal. From the date of the 15th of August to tUk
middle of December no declaration of war was made. Ilia

that interval the ships of the claimants, whom Irepresent;
were seized, and for that seizure they claimed compen-
sation. At that time there were British ships in the
harbour of Copenhagen, the owners of those ships
having had no intimation that there was any
likelihood of war, from the secret manner in
which the hostile proceedings of this country
were carried on ; and they came to their own Govern-
ment for compensation, as individuals who had suffered
for the public benefit. In other cases, also, losses were
sustained in the Baltic Seas in consequence of the