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

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—awl I know that Right Hon. Gentleman has
always, both in and out of office, consistently voted
against those claims—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 present Government have 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 Ireland,
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 lion. Member for Selkirk, the Hon. and
Gallant Member for Chippenham, the Hon. Member fur
Southampton, who was Under-Secretary for the Colo-
nies, and the Ilon. 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 the
middle of December no declaration of war was made. In
that interval the ships of the claimants, whom I represent,
were seised, 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 cafne 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 Sea, in consequence of the
sudden and unauthorised withdrawal (by the Admiral) of
the fleet which went out from England as a protection
for those ships, destined to Russian and other ports in
the Baltic. The owners of those ships say that they
have, on this ground, an additional claim for com-
pensation, because they suffered their losses in con-
sequence of the conduct of the officer under whose guard
these vessels went out. Those for whom I appear sly
that they have a claim for compensation, on the ground
that their property was seized by way of reprisal, that
being a case in which the right of the sufferers
to compensation is established. What is the
answer ? It is said that the property of the
claimants was not taken by way of reprisal, but that
daring all this time we were at war with Denmark, and
that the losses of the claimants did not come under the
same category as book-debts,and ships and cargoes in har •
hour. Now, how is it proved that we we re during this time
at war w;th Denmark ? ;Vhy, a document is brought for-
ward, not from the Foreign-office, but from the Annual
Register, and it is said that that is a declaration of war.
Last year my Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth
moved for the production of this document in the original,
with an authentic translation ; and it now turns out that
this document, on which so much stress has been laid, has
been mistranslated, and that the most warlike word in
the translation is not warranted by the original.. In
the Annual kgister it appears that there had
been an order to seize all English ships
as well as all English goods and merchandise.
Now, if there had been an order to seize ships, goods,
and merchandise, that would not perhaps, of itself, be
sufficient to tun the document into a formal declaration
of war; but certainly en order to seize, or in other words,
to confiscate, would be all feeler to institute a proceeding
whieh was only authorised after there had been a
declaration of war. In this way it might be ar-
gued that the document amounted to a declaration
of war. It turns oust, however, the word or words trans-
lated in the Annual Registry, " to seize," mean no more
Olen to lay an embargo on the ships ; and the
(linrence be•ween an order fur an embargo and
order to seize cr confiscate goods is a very wide one.
There arc many other reasons why this document should
not be coneiderel as a declaration of war. The only allu-
sion to ear in the whole paper is in the preamble ;
;eh !re se, i: the document had been a declaration of war,
sitawieg it to be so, would have appeared in the
body of the dec.unent. Besides, it is not a document
:Orintelly addressed to our Gov, rnment, as it would have
h.en in tile case supposed, but merely to the subjects of
the King of Denmark, and not to all the subjects of
the King, but only to a portion of them. Again, it
did not errianats from the central seat of Government,
but from a province, and this a very important circum-
stanee. Besides those proofs that the document is not to
be considCred es a declaration of war, there are
many others which are scarcely less striking.
For instance, on the very day on which it is
slated, viz., the 16th of August, an order appeared at
Copenhagen, and about that order—l do not know
whether or not the Right ilon. Gentleman is aware of
it —abeut that order there can be no doubt that it
is a simple order to sequester property. In the capi-
tulation of Copenhagen, on the 7th of September, one
of the articles relates to the English property which has
been, not seized or confiscated, but sequestered.
On the 23d of October a remonstrance was agreed
upon, in reference to the order of sequestration.
The Danish Minister remained at our Court till
the m'ddle of November, 1807. Was not that
totally ineenaistent with our being at war ? And se
late as Deeember, the 13th of Deeember,
in lhat year, the King of I )enniarlt i,suel a proelama-
tioe, in answer to merchants who had asked him to
authorise the correspondence with England, in which he
eyes the King, in c isfining himself to the sequestration
of property, had done all in his power to assist their mis-
fortunes. The merchants at once, by becoming privateers;
might recover their property, and that was after he had
stated he had authorised sequestration, he authorised
reprisals en English prnperty. Were the circum-
stances that had taken place between France and
Morocco. a state of reprisals or war? M. Guizot, in the
French Chamber, eaid that war had not been announced,
but that the attacks that had taken place had rendered
reprise's necessary, and that a strong force had
been sent against some of the Moorish
towns, which had been taken. The argu-
ment derived from the document in the Annual
Register, that it was a declaration of war, was entirely
errroneous ; that being so, the distinction that
was set up between the claims satisfied and those that
remained to be satisfied, fell entirely to the
ground. But, I will suppofsio that there hal been
a declaration of war, would that have deprived
these parties of their claims ? They had no
reason for supposing that the war had not been
brought on in a regular way, but in a peculiar manner.
There is an instance, else, of individuals who have ap-
plied to the Admiralty for licenses for ships to call at
the Danish, and other ports, and those licenses were
granted, not only during the time, but afterwards.
Those persons have suffered for the public good, and having
suffered for the public good they have a right to come to the
British Government to ask for redress and compensation.
These are the chief points of the case I have to submit. I
will just mention that the British Government obtained a very
large sum of money—upwards of a million of pounds—by the
sale of the captures. Mr. Percival announced in the year
IMO, when giving an explanation of this matter, that a sum of
money had in the first instance been set apart for the satisfac-
tion of those merchants who had suffered by the manner in
which the war broke out. If that sum was set apart for the
merchants who suffered by the manner in which the
war broke out, I submit that there is no body of
claimants who come with stronger arguments for compensa-
tion from the British Government than those whose goods
were confiscated during the time the war was being carried on.
I have gorse into the question in this general manner, hoping
that the Government may be disposed to undertake the con-
sideration of the merits of these claimants. Ido trust that
the Right Hon. Gentleman will see that they are worthy of
consideration. It is not wy wish to divide the House on the
subject of these claims if the Right Hon. Gentleman will
give the slightest assurance that the matter will be consi-
dered by the Government. This is a question involving
very minute points, and it is a question which cannot be sa-
tisfactorily disposed of in a debate of this kind. These
claims, I will remind the House, have been confirmed on
four different occasions by majorities of this House, and by
large majorities. I have already spoken of the manner in
which several members of the Government, on former occa-
sions, supported these claims. I know the Right Hon Baro-
net (Sir R. Peel) has never gone so far as to vote for these
claims. But I have the authority of a Danish claimant, who
was closely watching the Bight lion. Gentleman from the
gallery, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion, for
saying, that during the whole of that debate the Right Hon.
Gentleman was present, and was an attentive listener; and
when Mr. Cresswell finished, the Right Hon. Gentleman
turned round to him, and expressed his approba-
tion perhaps only, however, of the manner in
which that eminent person had executed his task.
But let that be as it may, there is no doubt of this,
that at the last moment the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R.
Peel) left the House without voting at all. That, said an
experienced friend to the Danish claimant—that is a sign that
when Sir R. Peel comes to be Minister your claims will pro-
bebly be settled. I hope the Right Hon. Baronet and the
House will be satisfied I have not stated the facts of this case
in any unjust or strained manner ; and if the Government
shall think proper to divide the House on this occasion, I do
trust the Right Hon. Baronet will not think it can redound
to the honour of the Government or the party which supports
the Government, if they, on this occasion, make this question,
the consideration of which cannot possibly have any connexion
with party topics, a question of confidence. I trust they will
not call on those- members of the Government who have voted
more than once in support of those claims, to turn round on