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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY' 10, 1644.

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 Mentrose 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,
bat 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 225,0001. 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 offace I new hold. I be-
lieve it is my duty, whatever the sufferings of these parties may
be, that when ships arc captured at the time of war, to resist,
on public grounds, the repayment to 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? N., 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. HAWES—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 into to 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 Right Hon. 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. HAWES—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 of Sir William Follett.
Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Yes, I per-
fectly understand that el-seer; but what was the opinion of
Sir William Follett. Not when be was Attorney-General
but 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. Lushiugton 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 sad 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
case, 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 awl British
shipowners who have been so unjustly plundered. The
decision of this House has been reversed, but I hope British I
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 MT 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 founded 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 Ilinister 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
;
0
House upon it, and I hope the measure will be forced upon the
attention of Parliament until they arc conceded— Gotta cavat
i
e2se aod,oe
on'll° and further hope that
. will not deter the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer from discharging such a debt of ho-
tahPe id
paemltr'y non
consideration vi‘ sod
'a
ofeP
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 for 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 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 tall,—and what was the
answer? The answer of the Admiralty was this:—" They may
proceed will the greatest safety."—( Cheers. 1 Under the
sanction of the Admiralty, then—the first quarter to apply to
—there 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 eres 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 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
Hun Member near the Gallant Colonel said " Hear, hear,"
in a peculiar tone.) I do not wish, and I never do wish to
treipass 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 cordialty 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 prevail. 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
Right 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 batta 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 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 that
they are not entitled to prize-money.
Sir. C. NAPIER-1 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 mach 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 foment. 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

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 j at all events, at the present moment ; hut,
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. On 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 Althorp, when be 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, iu 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 96. 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
were beaten by a majority of 75 to 64. Her Majesty returned
an answer stating her readiness to liquidate the claims. There
has never, I believe, been any greater advocate for economy
in this House than I am, but I do say that the refusal to pay
these claims is a disgrace to the country. —( Hear, hear.)
Those persons who have suffered in consequence of our unholy
attack upon Copenhagen, who could not protect themselves by
insurance against the consequences of our infamous policy, are,
and I have always contended 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 of 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. Ilawes on the 20th June, 1843, and
on that occasion 42 voted for the motion, and 57 against it,
1 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
claims amount to 57, and leave only 42 voting against them,
which will give a majority in favour of the claims. That is
one ground for defending justice in this case. The House has
decided already in favour of these claims, and the denial of
them is a denial of justice. The late Government brought
down Sir Thomas Wilde to argue the case on technical grounds
against the claimants. We all know the talents of that
Learned Gentleman ; we all know his ingenuity and his re-
search ; but after all the exertion of his talents, the majority
of this House decided in favour of justice, and I have a right
to say that a majority of this House has decided, over and over
again, 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 die 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 had 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
the 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
o attend a good cause.

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 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
Sit 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. Arc 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-
ration 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 owe 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-
tion, not that I have any interest in it, though I had 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 are 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.
ratty. 1 must say, as a merchant, that we had a just claim
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
justifiable.—( Hear. )
After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, wbo was un-
derstood to support the motion, strangers were ordered to
withdraw, and the House divided:—
For the motion 6B
Against it
Majority against the motion
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
appointment of a Committee might prove inconvenient.
THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
Mr. HUME moved that an humble address be presented
to her Majesty, as patroness and comptroller of the
Royal Academy of Arts, pra3ing 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 80,0001. The build-
° cost more than 1(:0,001;1.
An Hose. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, and
there being only thirty Members present, the House adjourned
at Eight o'clock.

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 exercise that au-
thority which the Constitution vests in it, of endeavouring to
control the disposition of a popular assembly to vote money,
not justly due to those who claim it. While I hold the situa-
tion I do, from the kindness of her Majesty, I never shall be
wanting in courage to maintain what 1 believe is right, though
I
ay
bi7seefi
ewodhp
opt ohasereeda
claimsebtoetdh noa
rtbehyo
just,s et
rpewuptirl
eftforwardo
nttslhi.eesmel.cf, claims
andmnot s ot
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 bound by
my duty in the office I have 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 case 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 3on accede to it ycu open a door not merely to the payment
of those 225,000/., but to all payments of a similar kind in all
future 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 th 2. Danish war, it is unjust in the
ease of every war in which this country has been engaged.
The Hon. Gentleman who made th:s motion commenced his
speech by stating that many 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 generality 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
differetst decision on the subject. But, in addition 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
cap: urc took place, and these bring no declaration of war, that
the parties were entitled to have a different rule applied to
thtnn 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 these who wish to make the non-
declaration of war a ground for demanding that this payment
should he improperly made. 'The Hog. 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 also this
proclamation, which was to the effect that " hostilities
having commenced on the part of England, the Vanish. 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, war commenced 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-
loo 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 Gover-
nment 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
wore pending, that hostilities would be prevented, was it ever
contended that those who lost ships in the American war were
entitled 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 armee
ment, stationed in a sea 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 you are prepared to make payments on such
grounds as these, if you are prepared to yield to the claims of those

the late Government took, directed by a sense of the duty in TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. chester, Aug. ',at twelve, at the Manchester District Court--
refusing these claims in opposition to that personal and private FOREIGN-OFFICE, JULY 5, 1844. L. and J. Rostron, merchants, Manchester, Aug. 1, at twelve,
canvass of which I myself have had so many reasons to corn- The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. Michael Ken- at the Manchester District Court—C. S. and W. Heywood ,
plain. Now look at what has been said of the opinion of the
nedy as Consul at Galway for the United States of America. warehousemen, Manchester, Aug. 1, at one, at the Alan-
Attorney-General. Why any one who heard the speech of the
WHITEHALL, Jui.v G. chester District Court —A. T. Tebbitt, wholesale tea
dealers, Birminam, July 31, at eleven, at the Birmingham
Hon. Member for Lambeth, must have inferred that Sir W. Fol- The Queen has been pleased to present the Rev. Donald
lett had given his opinion in Parliament in favour of these claims.
M‘Connochie to the church and parish of Durness, in the District Court—R. P. Atcherley, mercer, Whitehureh,
The Hon. Member for Lambeth has referred to the-opinion of
)resbytery of Tongue and county of Sutherland, vacant in Shropshire, Aug. 2, at twelve, at the Birmingham District

•y
csnsequence of the Rev. William Finlater, late minister thereof,
having ceased to be a minister of the Church of Scotland.
WHITEHALL, JULY 8.
The Queen has been pleased to present the Reverend Neil
Mackenzie to the church at Duror, in the parish of Appin, in
the presbytery of Lorn and shire of Argyll, vacant by the
transportation of the Rev. Donald 111‘Naughton, late minister
thereof, to the church and parish of Kahn, in the presbytery of
Weem.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire.
Derby Militia.—Major R. B. Leacroft to be Lieutenant-
Colonel, vice Gladwin, deceased, Juno 27.
The Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury having
certified to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Na-
tional Debt, in pursuance of the Act, 10th George IV.,
c. 27, see. 1, that the actual surplus revenue of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, beyond the actual
expenditure thereof, for the year ended the sth day of April,
1844, amounted to the sum of two millions and ninety-
five thousand four hundred and twenty-seven pounds,
nine shillings and sevenpence, the Commissioners for the Re-
duction of the National Debt hereby give notice, that the sum
of five hundred and twenty-three thousand eight hundred and
fifty-six pounds seventeen shillings and fourpence (being one-
fourth part of the said surplus of two millions and ninety-five
thousand four hundred and twenty-seven pounds nine shillings
and sevenpence) will be applied, under the provisions of the
'said Act, between the 7th day of July, 1844, and the 10th day
of October, 1844, to the following purposes, viz. :
£ s. d.
To be applied to the purchase of stock ...... 23,856 17 4
To be applied to the purchase of Exchequer
Bills, made out in pursuance of the Act of
57th George 111., cap. 48 ...

523,856 17 4

Add Interest receivable on account ofkDona-
tions and Bequests, to be applied to the
purchase of Stock 3,546 6 10

£527,403 4 2
S. HIGHAM, Comptroller-General.
National Debt-Office, July 5, 1844.
BANKRUPTS.

CORNELIUS BE AVIS, carpenter, Shirley, Hampshire,
to surrender July 16, at twelve, and August 24, at eleven, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook-
court, Basinghall-street ; Hillier, Lewis, and Hillier, Ray-
mond-buildings, Gray's-Inn ; Usher, Southampton.
AUGUSTUS PORT WAY, tea dealer, Braintree, Essex,
July 16. at two, and August 20, at twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms-yard,
Moorgate-street ; Hardwick and Davidson, Basingliall-street.
JAMES PAGE, builder, Devonshire-terrace, Fulham-
road, July 16, at half-past one, and Aug. 8, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee, Basinghall-
street ; Richardson, Smith, and Jones, Golden-square.
HARRY MORGAN SHAW, jeweller, Newport, Isle of
Wight, July 16, and Aug. 21, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street-buildings ;
Taylor and Collisson, Great James-street, Bedford-row.
ALBERT POTTER, carpet manufacturer, Kidderminster,
July 17, at half-past eleven, and Aug. 14, at one, at the Bir-
mingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birming.
ham ; Boycott and Lucy, Kidderminster; Reece, Birmingham.
JOHN CROWDER and JOHN GREEN, jun., trimming
manufacturers, Macclesfield, July 24, at one, and Aug. 9, at
eleven, at the Manchester District Court. Post, official as-
signee, Manchester ; Hacker, Leek ; Oliver, Manchester ;
Falcon, Elm-court, Temple, London.
WILLIAM COWARD, baker, Hartlepool, Durham, July
15, at eleven, and Aug. 26, at one, at the Newcastle-upon-
Tyne District Court. Baker, official assignee, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne ; Harle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; Chisholme, Hall,
and Gibson, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London.
JACOB WOOD and WILLIAM NORTON, fancy cloth
manufacturers, Kirkheaton, Yorkshire, July 19, and Aug. 9,
at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official as-
signee, Leeds; Lever, King's-road, Bedford-row, London;
Robinson, Huddersfield ; Sanderson, Leeds.
CHARLES BENJAMIN REYNOLDS, tailor, Devizes,
July 23, at twelve, and Aug. 23, at eleven, at the Bristol Dis-
trict Court. Hutton, official asssignee, Bristol; Turner, Ba-
singhall- street, London.
NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY.
R. Nash, Great Yarmouth.
A. G. Hamilton, agent, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
C. Harding, schoolmaster, Wakefield-street, Gray's Inn-lane.
G. Robinson, boot maker, Althorpe, Lincolnshire.
R. M'Gregor, coach-wheel maker, Manchester. •
S. B. Parsons, York-road, Lambeth.
T. S. Dear, baker, Bow-street,
_Covent-garden.

Court—C. Harrington, glazier, Kidderminster, Worcestershire,
July 31, at one, at the Birmingham District Court—T. New-
ton, cattle dealer, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, Aug. 2, at half-past
twelve, at the Birmingham District Court—J. Jones, grocer,
Wellington, Shropshire, Aug. 2, at half-past eleven, at the
Birmingham District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the
contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
F. Banner, provision merchant, Upper Thames-street, July
30—R. Wi'ls and R. Davy, drapers, Oxford-street, Aug. 1--
C. Williams, furrier, Sutton-street, York-road, Aug. 2—C.
Robinson, oil merchant, Great Trinity-lane, City, July 31--T.
Wimtanley, commission agent, Laurence-lane, City, July 31--
C. Nichols, bookseller, Wakefield, Yorkshire, Aug. I—VV.
Thompson and J. Mellis, merchants, Neweastle-upon- Tyne,
July 31—J. Falkingham, bacon factor, Bradford, Yorkshire,
Aug. 2—J. S. Tolson, fancy cloth manufacturer, Hudders.
field, Yorkshire, Aug. I—T. Newton, cattle dealer, Holbeach,
Lincolnshire, Aug. 2—J. Hellcwell, dyer, Salford, Lanca-
shire, July 31—F. P. Everett, draper, Reading, Berkshire,
July 30—W. Monteath, linen draper, Oxford-street, July 30
—P. Seddon, coal dealer, Middle Hutton, Lancashire, July 30
—J. Etock, linen draper, Leeds, July 30—S. Bettison, wine
merchant, Leamington Priors, Warwickshire, July 30—E.
Holmes, warehouseman, King-street, Cheapside, July 30—
G. and J. Wilkinson, curriers, Bishop Auckland, Durham,
July 30.

J. Mash, coal dealer, Hoxton Old Town.
J. Williams, silk dealer, Sclater-street, Bethnal-green.
G. Brown, blacksmith, Maldon, Essex.

J. Drake, boot maker,'Halifax;Yorkshire.
J. Cottee, cabinet maker, Maldon, Essex.
J. Brown, hackney driver, Liverpool.
M. May, silk velvet manufacturer, Fuller-street, Bethnal-green,
H. Cosins, furniture broker, Water-st., Arundel-st., Strand.
F. Newenham, artist, Soho-square.
T. Rogers, tailor, New North-street, Red Lion-square.
J. Rason, blacksmith, Liverpool.
G. Bristow, sen., carpenter, Little George-street, Bermondsey,
J. Oakes, traveller, Liverpool.

J. Drinkhall, porter, Manchester.
J. R. Miller, estate agent, Liverpool.
W. Raley, (lancing master, Elm-lane, Bayswater.
J. F. Redshaw, upholsterer, Great Portland-street.
C. Pashley, plumber, Rayleigh, Essex.
J. Faithfull, gardener, Grove-end-road, St. John's-wood.
W. and G. S. Scoble, bakers, Topsham' Devonshire.
R. Wellicombe, butcher, Church-street; Camberwell.

S. Gale, Boston-street, Dorset-square.
G. Heffill, tailor, Chenies-street, Bedford-square.

W. Childs, grocer, Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk.
T. C. Blick, surgeon, Islip, Oxfordshire.
A. Clarance, potato dealer, Itomford.
J. Allanson, corn miller, Kirby Malzeard, Yorkshire.
W. Smallwood, pawnbroker's shopman, Manchester.
J. Birley, commission agent, Bawtry, Yorkshire.
J. Fleming, carpenter, Halifax.
S. H. Sale, commission agent, Ashton-under-Lyne.
F. Drake, machine-maker, Huddersfield.
I'. Arundale, colliery agent, Whitkirk, Yorkshire.
J. Sibley, blacksmith, Luton, Bedfordshire.
G. Wimshurst, carpenter, Chrisp-street, Poplar.
A. Bray, perfumer, Hoxton New-town.
R. Dwaber, tailor, Liverpool.
H. Beasley, stone-mason, Walcot, Somersetshire.
W. Rowland, farmer's assistant, Llaneilan, Anglesea.
R. Higgins, meat-salesman, Nevvgate-market.
R. Derbyshire, butcher, Liverpool.
H. Laundy, law-stationer, Thanet-place, Strand.
J. Tyler, ahopman, Walcot, Somersetshire.
T. W. Dobby, cutler, Myddleton-street, Clerkenwell.
W. E. Adams, painter, St. Chad's-row, St. Pancras.
J. Friend, shoe-maker, Hytte, Kent.
J. Cotterell, beer-seller, Banbury, Oxfordshire.
li. Isabel', builder, Swansea.
W. Lewis, baker, Heston, Middlesex.
S. Collins, blacksmith, Heswall, Cheshire.
J. Dawn, porter, Birkenhead, Cheshire.
J. I'ickard, saddler, York.
A. Hodpon, machine-maker, Bradford, Yorkshire.
H . Hustler, cloth-manufacturer, Yeadon, Yorkshire.
J. Forrest, victualler, Bradford, Yorkshire.
SECOND NOTICES.

A. Norfolk, porter, Reigate, Surrey, July 13, at eleven, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee.
F. Hillen, assistant warehouseman, Shepperton-cottages,
Islington, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
'l'urquand, official assignee.
J. E. Adams, schoolmaster, Marylebone workhouse, July
13, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official

assignee.
H. Jennings, Princes-road, Lambeth, July 16, at twelve
at the Court Etßankruptcy. Groom, official assignee.
L. Woodlands, carpenter, Princess-street, Bedford-row,
July 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official

assignee.
.17 Davies, fellmonger, King Sutton, Northamptonshire,
July 17, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official
assignee.
J. F. Muckleston, baker, London-road, Southwark, July
20, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official
assignee.
J. Overton, attorney, Tavistock-place, Tavistock-square,
July 20, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson,
official assignee.
J. Cato, wine-cooper, Wellington-street, Shoreditch, July
24. at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson,
official assignee.
J. Clark, bailiff, Orsett, Essex, July 20, at half-past eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee.
W. Blake, carpenter, Upper Holloway, Islington, July 15,
at half-past eleven, at the Cuurt of Bankruptcy. Turquand,
official assignee.
J. Walker, tailor, Fetter-lane, City, July 15, at eleven, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee.
W. W. Bradley, clerk, St. James's-cottage, Old Kent-road,
July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, offi-
cial assignee.
W. Coker, shoe-maker, Loddon, Norfolk, July 15, at half-
past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official
assignee.
J. Price, jun., grocer. Cotton-street, Poplar, July 15, at
half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, offi-
cial assignee.
W. W. G. Norman, printer, King-street, Bloomsbury,
July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham,
official assignee.
T. Paragreen, foreman to a coach proprietor, Richmond-
street, Maida-hill, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Graham, official assignee.
H. T. Archer, attorney, John-street, Adelphi, July 16, at
half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, offi-
cial assignee.
J. Prout, hair-dresser, Castle-court, Birchin-lane, City, July
24, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell
official assignee.
F. T. B. Dumelow, clerk, Shepperton-place, Islington, July
20, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official
assignee.
H. Harris, sheet-iron roller, Gothersley, Staffordshire, July
16, at half-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court.
Valpy, official assignee.
J. Smith, manager of a silk-mill, Leek, Staffordshire, July
20, at half-past ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittle-
ston, official assignee.
W. Wilson, farmer, Long Sutton, Lincolnshire, July 18, at
half-past ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Whitmore,
official assignee.
J. Barnett, farmer, Twerton, Somersetshire, July 16, at ele-
ven, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee.
M. Hughes, snuff dealer, Birmingham, July 12, at half-past
ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official
assignee.

•W. Barber, engraver, Hermes-street, Pentonville, July 16,
at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official
assignee.
E. Maltby, Sneinton, Nottinghamshire, July 13, at half-
past ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittleston, offi-
cial assignee.
J. C. Hudson, Burley, Yorkshire, July 12, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court. Freeman, official assignee.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
W. Burton, upholsterer, King-street, Soho, July 30, at
twelve—J. Butterworth, leather factor, Bermondsey, July 30,
at half-past twelve—T. Harris, merchant, John-street, Ame-
rica-square, July 31, at one—F. J. H. Muller, furrier, Addle-
street, Wool-street, July 30, at eleven—H. Thorpe, linen
draper, Kensington, July 30, at half-past one.
In the Country.
D. Hague, paper manufacturer, Horeforth, Yorkshire, Aug.
14, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—C. S. Jackson,
cloth merchant, Leeds, Aug. 1, at eleven, at the Leeds Dis-
trict Court—A. R. Hickman, victualler, Abergavenny, Mon-
mouthshire, July 30, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court—
J. and G. Ewart, auctioneers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Aug. 2,
at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—G. E.
Phillips, saddler, Plymouth, Aug. 2, at eleven, at the Exeter
District Court—W. and J. Warrocks, machine makers, Mau-