The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-11 00:00:00

nubiia, • _7,

LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 11. 1,344,

In the House of Lords the plead:ngs in the writ of
error relative to the Irish State Tria's, were bro:'ght
to a close a little before three o'clock, and their
Lordships adjourned till this (lily:when the Judges
will deliver their opinion,, and the appeal be filially
decided-

The Commons mot at twelve o'clock, and went
into Committee on the Joint-stock Companies Regis-
tration and Regulation Bill. A number of clauses
were adopted, and the Bid was ordered to be re-
committed on Friday.
A brief conversation took place betwren Sir C.
NAPIER and Sir G. COCKBURN relative to the state of
the navy, hut it led to no result.
Mr. T. DuNcomnn asked whether any arrange-
ments had been made for girinz julgarmt in the
Irish State Trials this session.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he knew nothing of
thivimpression made on the minds of the Judges by
the arguments,. and he could give no information
about the final decision.

The Field Gardens Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Wednesday.
The Court of Arches Bill was rejected by a
'majority of 30 to 17.
On the order of the day being read for the com-
mittal of the Gambling on Race Course Bill, Mr.
CHRISTI'S moved that CHARLES Ressni.t. be heard
at the bar against the Bill. The motion was rejected
by a majority of 30 to 14.
Mr. CIIRISTIE then moved that the Bill be com-
mitted that day three months.
A lengthened conversation—for it could not be
called a debate_ensued, which may be interesting to
gamblers.
After a division the Bill went through Committee.
The House resumed. The report to be brought up
this day.
'floe Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill went through
Committee. To be reported this day.
The House was then counted out.

The debate in tie House of Commons on Tuesday
night last, on the Danish claims, was not calculated
to retrieve the character of that assembly from the
fearful disparagement which it has been doomed to
sustain in this session of Farliameut• The cogageota

integrity—the moral consistency of a legislative body
which voted backwards and forwards on such me-
morable questions as the Factories Labour Regulation
and the British West India Sugar Duties Bills—re-
versing to-day at the instigation (half menace, half
entreaty) of the Minister its deliberate decisions of
yesterday, were again invoked on Tuesday. In a House
of 140 Members, exclusive of tellers, a magnificent
majority of FOUR demonstrated at once the strength
of the Government and the weakness of a case which
68 votes maintained against 72,—these latter includ-
ing the members of the Administration resisting it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL who, like CHARLES DICKENS'S
Pecksniff, had " a duty to perform to his country,"
discharged it with about as much sentimental inanity
and plausible injustice, as his white waistcoated pro-
totype in the novel acquitted his "duty to society" in
dismissing the " claims" of Martin Chuzzlewit the
younger. _ _ .

The history of these Danish claims is shortly told.
In the month of August, 1807, an English fleet,
commanded by Lord GAMBLER, and carrying a large
military force under the orders of Lord -CATH-
CART, suddenly appeared off the coast of Den-
mark. Failing a demand addressed through the
British commanders to the Danish Government,
to the effect that they should either deliver up to us
the custody of the Danish Fleet, which we had reason
to believe was, under a secret article of the Treaty of
Tilsit, about to be delivered up by Denmark to
France, to be by that power employed against us,—
or that they should formally deny the existence of any
such article in that treaty;—these terms being refused,
witho.ut any declaration of war on our part, hostile
and offensive measures were adopted. Our arma-
ment bombarded Copenhagen for three days, from the
.sth to the 7th of September, and the Danish fleet was
taken by us ; but it was not until the 4th of Novem-
ber, or even later, that England promulgated a decla-
ration of war against the Danish Sovereign. In the
meantime, and for the most part, as regards the
claimants now before Parliament, in the latter end of
August, 1807, reprisals were made, under the au-
thority of the King of DENMARK (who, incensed
at the appearance, in Danish waters, and in a
time—it cannot be disputed—of yet uncancelled
peace between the two countries, of a powerful
conjoint expedition of British sea and land forces,
who were already committing hostilities on Danish
property) had subsequently recommended his subjects
to take reprisals on British property, and merchan-
dise in the warehouses, or the territory of Den-
mark, or in British shipping in his harbours, or
afloat, and on such shipping wherever they could take
it. lie also directed that all book debts, or liabilities
on account of Danish subjects, to subjects of Great
Britain, should be confiscated. All these reprisals
were taken, to the very considerable loss of many,
and the utter ruin of not a few of our own subjects
trading with, or resident within the kingdom of
Denmark.

Now, what was the case of these subjects as to the
proceedings they had taken in respect of their own
property and interests ? From the 15th of August to
thebeginning of December—as they contend—the be-
ginning of November, as Sir GEORGE CLERK. affirms—
no declaration of war had been made by us. In either
case, their property was seized in the interval, and
prior to such declaration. From the profound se-
cresy with which Mr. CANNING had conducted all
the preparations for this vigorous, but very question-
able, coup d' alit against Denmark, our fellow-coun-
trymen, there, were not:more profoundly ignorant than
the owners here of the confiscated British shipping,
&c., " that there was any likelihood of a war with
the Danes. They received no such intimation from
our Government." The King of Dusiatenx's Minister
remained at our Court till the middle of November,
1807. The KING, his master, did not issue
his proclamation, in answer to the solicitation
of merchants, who prayed that the cures-
rindence with England might be re-established,
until 13th December following. In that document
his Danish MAJESTY asserted, that " in confining
himself to the sequestration' of British property, he
had done aq in his power to assist their misfortunes.'
The " merchants at once," said Mr. CHRISTIE, on
Tuesday night, in stating the substance of the pro-
clamation, " might, by becoming privateers, recover
their property ; and it was after stating that he had
authorised sequestration that.his MAJESTY authorised
repriasis' on English property." Besides the Bri-
tish :ships at this time, in the harbour of Copenhagen,
there were others trading to the Baltic sea, which
being suddenly left without any protection, by the
abrupt withdrawal of the Admiral of the station, and
his ships of war —were also taken by the Danes, and for
•-rhich their o',vner.i now in like manner claim com-
pensation.
Thus it appears that the British subjects claiming
compensation for los!es incurred by them in conse-
quence of the proceedings of the Government and
subjects of Denmark against their property, prior to
any declaration of war between the two countries,
are classed under three sections :-1. Claimants for
goods and merchandise seized ashore ; 2. Ditto for
g)ods, merchandise, and shipping seized in harbour
or afloat; 3. Ditto for bock debts due to British sub-
;ects, but confiscated to the Danish CroWn. The first
and third classes of these claimants,—after incessant
efforts, continued, as Mr.l-lumn tells us,"for six-and-
twenty years, ever since 1818," have triumphed over
the ungenerous opposition of successive Administra-
tions, and obtained a settlement of their claims. The
second class—claimants for shipping seized in har-
bour and afloat, are still unsettled with, and have
again appealed to Parliament. Mr. CHRISTIE'S me-
I:1M was " for an address to her MAJESTY, praying
Lhat she will be graciously pleased to take into her
early and most favourable consideration the case of
tht.se claimants fo'r 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, upon all such claims, in their report
bearing date the 12th May, 1840." It is to be ob-
served that her MAJESTY, in answer to a former
"address" from the Commons, intimated her gra-
,dous•readiness to proceed to the payment of these
claims. On six different occasions, as Mr. HUME
remarked, had these claims been acknowledged by
the House of Commons. While Lord ALTIIORP, with
unbounded influence in the Reform Cabinet, was Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, they were affirmed on
a division. Again, on the motion at a subsequent
period for the appointment of a Commission of
Inquiry, the strenuous opposition of Ministers was
defeated by a majority of thirty-four. Again, in the
year 1838, on a motion for the payment of these
claims, the Government, who fiercely opposed it
were beaten by a majority of thirty-two—(94 to 8.2):
In 1841, on a motion that this very class of claims,
now once more before the House, should be com-
pensated, the question was carried in their favour by
a majority of thirty-one—(l27 to 96). On the 10th
of June following, their demands being still neglected,
an address to her MAJESTY, undertaking on the part
of the House to make - good the amount re-
quired for the payment of such demands which were
left still in stain quo, was affirmed by 75 against 61,
and to this address her MAJESTY returned the gra-
cious answer already noticed. But votes of Parlia.
ment, addresses to the Throne, and the solemn pro-
mises of the Sovereign, are not, it appears, under
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S, any more than under former
Governments, to be allowed to override the miser-
able haggling of some official red-tapery cun-
ning, which still contrives to mock the united
voice of the people and the Legislature, and to
pass by unnoticed the dignified acquiescence of
her MAJESTY in the recorded wishes of the
great council of the nation. The unhappy
claimants still defrauded, still spurned, from the doors
of the Treasury, which neither the authority of Par-
liament, nor the undertaking of the Sovereign, appear
to be powerful enough to unbar against one of the
most sordid-spirited set of officials who ever conducted
the government of this country—were compelled, on
the 26th of June, last year, to bring their case again
before the House. By the PEEL whip, a majo-
rity was at last flogged up of 15 against these claim-
ants, and thus, after three or four successive victories,
they suffered a defeat by the accession of the mere
mercenaries of office to the ranks of the Ministerial
majority. Mr. HUME undertook to show, that deduct-
ing these, the majority on that occasion would have
been again in favour of the claimants. On Tuesday
last, as we have said, the claimants were worsted—if
worsted such a mere chance result can be called, by a
Miniiterial majority of FOUR.
Let us now see on what principle her ltausrfs

present Government are content to pursue their piti
ful game of throwing over, by all manner of quibbling
and management, the just demands of four-times
solemnly recognised creditors of the State. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer says the law officers
of the Crown have determined, that " under the or-
dinary usages of war, as established between civi-
lised nations, these claims cannot be acceded to."
That " 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 ; but this is not so at sea."
We shall, to-morrow, demonstrate from the argu-
ments of the Members who supported Mr. CHRISTIE,
the utter futility of the pretext on which this distinc-
tion is attempted to be raised ; and the invincible title
of the claimants to what they seek, if the country be
unwilling to abandon every tittle of its pretensions to
a character for national honour, public faith, and un•
biassed justice.

The Dublin Pilot gives an account of the present
condition of Toryism in Ireland, which is anything
but encouraging to the professors of that egregious
political faith. " The once Orange north," says our
Contemporary, " has hardly made a manifestation on
its favourite anniversary. The Conservative Society
is dissolved. In fact, instead of a stimulated Tory
agitation at present, never was there a time when
Toryism was so divided, so doubtful in its adherence,
or when so many of its best spirits were hanging
loose, or totally estranged from the craft. The causes
of this are fully as important as the fact itself. Every
day the Protestants are sun' ing in common with the
Catholics from the neglect and injustice done the
country, and the deterioration consequent on both ;
and they have at length begun, with their Catholic
brethren, to discover the cause. The Repeal agita-
tion, therefore, is now looked upon by almost all
Protestants with indulgence; by many with approval,
as at least preventing the total neglect of Ireland ;
and by some, and these not a few, with cordial con-
currence." The cold, distrustful, and desponding tone
adopted by the majority of the Irish Tory journals
for some time past, warrants the belief that there is
much truth in the above remarks of our Dublin Con-
temporary. But not only in the sister country is
genuine Toryism in a state of all but complete
paralysis ; here, in England, it is at an equally low
ebb, dissatisfied with the present, doubtful of the
future, having no faith in the sincerity of the Go-
vernment, none in the sympathies of the people, and
scarcely any even in itself. Even in its mitigated
shape of Conservatism, it is utterly without boldness
and confidence, and being compelled from the pres-
sure of inexorable necessity to give in its adhesion to
a chief on whom it places little or no reliance—know-
ing well that he will send it to the right-about the first
convenient opportunity—it is filled with all sorts of
gloomy forebodings, and in sullen resignation awaits
the hour that shall see it numbered among the things
that once were. We rejoice at the contemplation
of this inevitable issue, for none can deny that modern
Toryism, or Conservatism—or whatever other alias
it may please to assume—is at best but a shuffling
political creed—a sophism, not a truth—a shallow
make-believe, that has not even the sorry virtue of
ingenuity to recommend it. The Conservatives have
been often asked the question what it is they propose to
conserve, but they have never yet been able to give
any satisfactory answer. Moreover, when questioned
about their principles they have been equally at a loss
for a reply ; and no wonder, for their conduct during
• the three last sessions—more especially during the
present one—clearly shows that principle has never
once entered into their calculations, but that they
have been influenced in their speeches and votes
solely by the consideration of what was most
likely to accord with the views of their
imperious task-master, Sir ROBERT PEEL. It is a
humiliating fact that though the Tories, or Conser-
vatives, as they prefer calling themselves, have more
than once ventured to show something like a spirit of
independence, and even to array themselves in hosti-
lity to the Premier, yet every effort they have made
has had no other effect than to rivet his chains still
closer upon them, and place them more completely
within his power. At the present moment they are
in the most abject state of political thraldom, with-
out, apparently, the slightest prospect of their being
able to emancipate thernselve; ; nor is there one
servant in his establishment over whom Sir Bo-
rten's. PE EL exercises so undisputed a mastery
as he does just now—and we suspect, will long
continue to do—over the Conservatives. And these
degenerate creatures, who dare not call even their
thoughts their own, once constituted the power-
ful, energetic, tyrannical Tory party—that party of
which the Premier was for upwards of twenty years
of his life the pliant, submissive tool ! Verily the
tables are turned now. He who was once the slave
is become the master; and they who once laid down
the law to him, are now content, humbly and obse-
quiously, to receive the law from him. How long.
this state of things is to continue—how long a
Minister who, laughing at the idea of political
principle, takes expediency as his sole guide
of action, is to he permitted to govern the country
through the agency of a party as devoid of political
principle as himself, it is impossible to say ; but if we
may judge from the signs of the times which are daily
developing themselves with more significance, we
should say that England—as Ireland has long been—
is beginning to be heartily sick of the domina-
tion of Sir ROBERT PEEL and his sycophantic
Conservatives, and is anxious to
,be governed
Ministry that can rightly appreciate the character of
the age ; that is, not too proud, or tco timid, or too
hedged in by party prejudices, to place a manly
reliance on the people; that knows how to act with
energy and decision at the fitting season, that prefers
to move forward rather than to retrograde ; and, above
all, that repudiates the expediency system of action,
and legislates solely in accordance with principle.

The friends of Sir lionrwr PEEL ought to use
their best exertions to accelerate the termination of
the present session. He is a species of " perishable
commodity," which deteriorates rapidly in this warm
weather. He will not " keep." If he be not speedily
withdrawn from the corrupting moral atmosphere in
which, as a public man, he seems to " live, and move,
and have his being," we would not.give many weeks'
purchase for his official existence. Besides all the
indications of premature weakliness which his Minis-
terial deportment has afforded for the last twelve
months or so, some of the symptoms of organic dis-
ease, apparent in his Ministerial psychology, are be-
coming, almost daily, more and more aggravated, to
the serious alarm of his friends. His overweening
vanity has degenerated into a confirmed obstinacy.
His obstinacy assumed, on the "Bank Charter Bill
discussion, a character of discourteous recklessness;
and his peevish impatience of opposition to that dis-
graceful measure vented itself in a sort of bullying
discouragement of all hostile discussion on a measure
which, of all others that had been introduced into the
House of Commons since the commencement of her
MAJESTYS reign, most imperatively called for ear-
nest, ample, mature, and unfettered deliberation. To
say the truth, the proximity and example of Sir J.
GRAHAM appear to have communicated to the once
most dulcet of Premiers not a little of the stubborn
acerbity and arrogant reserve which characterised Sir
JAMES'S responses in the House, as Home Secretary,
until the recent untoward Post-office discoveries.
These have so remarkably assuaged and moderated
his tone, that we wonder, so much the more, at the
authoritative manner of his leader's refusals on Mon-
day evening to answer some of the most important
questions which were ever addressed, in a national
assembly, to a Prime Minister. Yet, in truth, a
House of Commons, which has twice within little
more than twice the same number of weeks, rescinded
its own most solemn decisions at the simple dictation
of that Minister, has little right to complain if this
facility and obsequiousness have produced their natural
effect upon him. Sir ROBERT PEEL, as we shall
show, treats the solicitude of the House for informa-
tion, on questions of the deepest public interest, with
a reserve savouring of the indifference of official
irresponsibility. But the House had, in the first in-
stance, carefully supplied him with the justification for
such conduct towards it.

On Monday last Mr. SHE'D asked the following
questions :—The first, whether Lord ABERDEEN had
received any answer from the French Government to
his dispatch of the 28th of January, 1842, and if so,
would there be any objection to lay that upon the
table of the llclnse ; the second, had the British Go-
vernment applied to the French Government for an
exequatur for our Consul at Algiers; and the third,