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

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 GAMBIER, and carrying a large
military force under the orders of Lord Cant-
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,
without 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 betweeri the two countries, of a powerful
conjoint expedition of British sea and land forces,
who were already committing hostiiities 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. He 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
the beginning 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-
crecy with which Mr. CANNING had conducted all
the preparations for this vigorous, but very question-
able, coup d' etiit 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 DENMARK'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 corres-
pondence 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 all 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
reprisals' 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
which their owners now in like manner claim com-
pensation.
Thus it appears that the British subjects claiming
compensation for losses 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
goods, merchandise, and shipping seized in harbour
or afloat; 3. Ditto for book debts due to British sub-
jects, but confiscated to the Danish Crown. The first
and third classes of these claimants,—after incessant
efforts, continued, as Mr. HUME 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 mo-
tion was " for an address to her MAJESTY, praying
that she will be graciously pleased to take into her
early and most favourable consideration the case of
these claimants fur 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-
cious readiness to proceed to the payment of these
claims. On tix 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-tour. 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 62)'
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 state 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 o

er 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
Ministerial majority of FOUR.
Let us now see on what principle her MAJESTY'S