The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-05 00:00:00

GAME LAWS.

On the motion of Mr. S. WowrtrY, the House
resolyed itself into.ACaremittee-on the Game Laws.
The several clauses of the Bill were agreed to, with
some verbal alterations.

Mr. BENETT objected to giving to landlords the
power of giving unqualified individuals leave to sport
over commonable lands. He should, therefore,
move that the words " commonable lands" be left
out.

After a desultory conversation between several
Members, Mr. BENETT postponed his amendment
until the' bringing up of the Report. The House
resumed,,then and the report was ordered to be re-
ceived on -Monday next.
. Sir J. MACKINTOSH -presented a petition
from 105 English Gentlemen, prosecuting the study.
of surgery and anatomy in Paris, complaining of the
impediments to the cultivation. of anatomical know=
ledge in England.—Ordered -to be referred to the
Committee on Anatomy.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH also presented three
petitions from Bath and its neighbourhood, against
Slavery.
DANISH CONFISCATION.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH had another petition,to
present of great importance. It related to tke claim
of an individual on the: Government of this country,
and if the facts were true the petitioner had a claim
in moral justice, though there might be no legal
means of enforcing it. A' case of this kind was
peculiarly for the consideration of the Muse. The
petitioner (Mr:. Shillito) was one-of the few per-
sons who survived the vexations and "oases to which
British merchants trading to Denmark and Norway
were subjected by the confiscation which took place
in 1807. In consequence of the bombardment of.
Copenhagen in• that year, the King of Denmark
published an edict, confiscating the property of all
British subjects. in Denmark and Norway,' and
not only confiscating property in their possession; but
confiscating all claims of British subjects on the
subjects of Norway and SWeden. 'The subjects of
these two countries were ordered to pay into the
Danish Treasury all the amount due by them to
British merchants so that the British merchants trad-
ing to Denmark loSt both their property and claims.
He particularly wished to call the attention of Go-
vernment to the fact, that at the time the petitioner's
property was thus confiscated, the Government
of this country had in their hands the - sum of
1,200,0004, as Droits of Admiralty, the pro-
ceeds of Danish ships, and goods, and he •(Sir J.
Mackintosh) wished to know whether there could be
a claim to the liquidation of which those Droits of
Admiralty could be more
justly applied, without
any reference Whatever to the fact that out of Droits
Of Admiralty generally simihir claims %%ere liqui-
dated. Indeed. the stro
heard urged in nP stground which he had ever
that House for continuing to the Crown
the Droits of Admiralty, vas,.thit this- fund afforded
r irte-
ga to the Crown the naeasis ofitwarding compensation
to
ul r and British
subjectsiliesml hostilities. —The sufferers who-had •suffered loss
'ferred .their. claim • to indemnification out of pre-
the
• Droits of' Admiralry,-,hut it was• then found that
this fund was exkitusted,' and had in- fiict -been'
ap-
plied to' ther-'pritSst!!, would
,then remark,
that if the ships, 04 the pypceeds of which
were considetea to be oGAdmiralty, had
not been' foie& the Goeetninent,_ they.
robablirs-414 fume been applied. by Abe Danish:
debtors in liquidation of their debts teo British ere&
tors, and therefore the sufferers had a stronger claim
upon _this fund. He did ,not mean -to say that
those Droite of Admiralty were not applied to liW-
ful and laudable purpo..es, but what he complained
of was that this fund (one-twentieth part of which
would satisfy the claims in question) being exhausted,
the British Government did net take other means to
indemnify the petitioner and others in similar situa-
tions. The Treaty of Keil was .concluded between
England and Denmark in the year 1814, and
:upon, that . oceasimu the . Kdnglish Government
might surely hive procured indemnification for the

,snfferers ; but that opportunity wig 'suffered to pass,
and thus the petitioner was left wholly and
`entirely without redress, except an appeal to
the British nation. That the act. Of the Danish:
Government . was contrary -to the law of nations,
there could be no doubt,' blif if any, such doubt existed
the opinion of Lord Plenborciugh in the as of
Wolff v. Axholme," tried in • the Court of
King's Bench in the year 1816,- would set that
doubt at rest, -for that Noble and Learned Lord. upon
that occasion, expressly said that the 'Ordinance of
the Danish Government in 1807 was a Contraven-
tion' of the law- of' nations. trusted he had
satisfied the House that ;the Brrlich Governthent had
in 1807. a fund, out of which those claima might and
ought to have been satisfied,, and that they
had afterwards neglected their duty during the. nego-
chitions preceding- the treaty of Kiel by -not
proiridingiudeninification for British Subjects, and that
this "Was a case of moral claini which could not
be enforced in a Court of Law, and thereforiniore fit
for the favourable consideration of a British House
of Commons..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
(who spoke in.a ,very. low' tone) said, this case, as-
the House must be aware, was one of very old stand:
ing. In 1807 this country. though herself jai&
fled in. preventing Denmark from lending aid to
other powers who were le4ued . against England,
and a hostile declaration. was: published. The Go-
vernment of Denmark .thought it right, in conse-
quence, to direct all. Danish subjects owing debts to
British' subjects, whether they.resided in Denmark
or in this country, to pay those debts into the Danish
treasury. This was done, and the persons who, in
consequence, suffered losses, conceived they. had a
claim on . the British Government. He believed
it was perfectly true, that when this petitioner
brought his claim before the Government, he re-
ceived this answer, that he must wait until' the period
came for the negotiation ,of peace;. and he did not
mean to, deny that expectations were in consequence
excited. It was equally true that when• the treaty
of Kiel case to be negotiated, the claims of these
persons did net . form any part of that negotiation.
He was not, however, prepared to admit, that the
.British Government had in that respect acted im-
properly. It was very important in 1814 that peace
should he concluded with Sweden; and it would
not have been right to have suffered comparatively
trifling obstacles to stand in the way of the attain-
ment of that object. The general .interests of the
country must, be allowed to predominate over those
of a private nature.' This was the simple principle
on which the-whole of this case was decided, with-
out any reference to the country where the loss was
said to have been Sustained.

Mr. WARBURTON said, the elaim of the pre-
sent petitioner was not upon the Danish or Norwe-
gian, but upon the British Government.. With
respect to the step taken by the Danish Govern-
merit, at the commencement of the war in question,
they had certainly had great provocation to take it.
It was true, that in consequence they confiscated a
small portion of the property due 'by individuals in'
Denmark to English merchants. But the amount
thus confiscated bore a very small 'proportion, in-
deed, to the amount of property actually due. At
the breaking out of the war above two Millions of
property were seized by the British GoVernment. in
British ports. That property did not really belong
to Denmark; for it was actually the property out of
which the English merchants hoped to receive pay-
ment of the debts due to them from Denmark. By
that act many Englishmen of spotless:integrity were
suddenly and entirely ruined ;. and these droits ought
to have been set apart until the arrival of peace,
when such an arrangement might hive been made
as would.have relieved the sufferers.'
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, that. where there existed
a claim of substantial justice it ought to be attended
to; especially after the late discussion, in which it.
was stated that a large sum of money advanced, to
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was ad-
vanced as a loan. He trusted that if ever that loan
should•be. repaid, some part of it would be. applied
to the relief of the class of persons to which the peti-
tioner belonged.
Mr. HUME had been requested to support the
petition, and `!:lid so with great satisfaction. What
had-taken plaCe was in plain terms a downright rob-
bery committed upon individuals. 'He trusted that
it would induce'the House, without delay, to put an
end to. the ancient but barbarous system of Droits
altogether. •He. thought that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman ought to attend to the suggestion of the Hon.
Member for'BoSsiney ; for if any of the money ob-
tained from the French Government, and advanced
to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, should
make its re-appearance, in what way could it be bet-
ter applied than in relieving those who had thus suf-
fered spoliation?

Mr. TRANT declared, that 4 case more folly
made put—a demand more strongly' appealing to the
natio:sll4l honour and justice-=he had never in his life
met with.

The 'petition was then wad.
On moving that it be printed,

Sir JAS. MACKINTOSH would trouble the

House with a few words. , He wondered to , hear
the Right,Hon -Gentleman represent him as not
having laid any stress on, the subject of the Droits.
On the contrary, that appeared .to lam to be an ex-
ceedingly important point. What is the fact as re-
specting these. Droits ? That the English, Govern-
meat seized, in the ports of, this comirtrr, the property
of Danish and Norwegian merchants, intended to pay
the debts due by.Dauish to English merchants. That
property was carried pff by the English. Govern-
ment, and converted. into Droits of Admiralty. In
other words, a debtor, on his way to pay his credi-
tor, had a hand suddenly thrust into his pocket, and
the money with, which it was his intention to pay
his debt forcibly taken away. Under such circum-
stances, could it be contended that the English Go-
vernment had contracted. no moral responsibility-to-
wards English creditors, whose ruin they had caused
by intercepting the, assets in their Way, to the pay-
ment of ;those creditors' demands ? The :fast une-
quivocally was, that the proceeds of the Danish
property confiseated our,Government ought, in
the first instance, to haye been applied to the indem-
nification Of the sufferers in this country. On those
grounds, he really hoped that, they would seriously
consider the subject.,. If not, he should probably
deem it his duty, by;a motion for papers, to bring
the subject before the Honse in a more formal shape.
The petition was ordered to, be printed.

Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a similar petition
from the Master, Warden, -Btc., of the Corporation
of Cutlers, at Sheffield, and hoped the Right Hun.
Gentleman would not hesitate to propose to the
House to compensate the .claimants for the losses
which they had sustained.
Similar petitions •were. _presented by Mr. S.
WORTLEY, from certain merchants at Leeds ; and
by Mr. THANT, from Messrs Latham and Co., of

Dover.
Sir G. NOEL presented a petition from the
Woolgrowers of the county of Rutland, praying for
•preteetten against foreign wool,
Sir G. LIEATHCOTE presented a similar pe-
tition from Llanrwst ; and took. that opportunity• of
stating,that great distress still prevailed among the
wool-growers in the county of Rutland and its
neighbourhood. He trusted that ,the petitioners
,would obtain substantial relief. • •
• • Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petitionn, from
the- Coroner of Bury St. Edmunds, complaining of
the inadequate rate of remunerating his office. The'
petitioner stated, that in the course of the yedr he
had travelled 1,110 miles, had been forty slays in
performing his duty, and that the annual amount of
his fees was not 604
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Aber-
deen, very numerously signed, praying that the
House would take effectual means for the abolition
of negro slavery.
Mr. WESTERN presented a similar petition
from Witham, in Essex.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. • • -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

inOved the Order of the Day for the House to re-
solve itself into a.Committee of Supply.
Mr. HUME: wonld take the present as the only
opportunity whiCh t:.e lateness of the Session would
present; of, putting a question
,to the Right' Hon.
Gentlemah" opposite (Sir G.-Murray), which con-
cerned a subject of great interest -to thecountry. By
'the ,newspapers it appeared "that the Governor of
Trinidad; Sirß.alph WoodfOrtle, had lately died, and
-he (Mr. Hume) was•anxious to pat a question to the
Colonial Secretary respecting the expenses attendant
on the establishment of that island, He,was :desirous
'Of-asking. the' Right Hon. and Gallant Secretary,
whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Go-
vernment to make •any reduction in those Colonial
Establishments during the. vacation ? The. Hon.
Gentleman here drew a comparison between the
islands ,of Trinidad and Grenada, the latter of which
he said. possessed a Constitution on the British mode,
while the former Was. a cOlOny under the King's orders,
Without an executive government.. He then went-on to
say these and every establishment on the two islands
proved the advantages 'of giving the Colonies repre-
sentative- Legislatures; for where •these • did not
exist, the taxes were heavy and the expenditure ex-
travagant.':
,'•
Sir G.' -MURRAY said, 'hereafter it might be
properto introduce into 'those Colonies a system of
.Representative Legislatures, but under the present
Circumstances he-thought that the absence of such a,
system was lireferable. As far his influence could
extend; he would certainly go into the sources of ex-
penditure in the 'Colonies, and would' reduce all
offices as far as they could be dispensed with, without
material injury to the public service.(Hear,)
Mr. STUART would take the opportunity of
calling. the attention Of Ministers to the extremely
high duties that had ,beers imposed upon British
goods , imported into the United States of North
America.. These imports were so high, that in many
instances they amounted 'almost to; an absolute pro-
hibition of British commerce. The American Go-
vernment had levied upon iron an import duty equal
to 100 per cent. in the prices which the articles
would sell for in this country—on coarse woollens,
a duty of 300 per cent.; on cotton manufactures, 87
per cent. ' They could not blame America for pro-.
tecting her own manufactures, .but it behoved this
country to exam►ne how far they could' be. supplied
with cotton from Brazils, Egypt, and her own Colo-
nies. The import duty on raw cotton from Ame-
rica, was. 'only six per cent., which was merely no-
minal.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
looked to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade
(Mr. Courtenay), for a reply, but the Right Hon.
Gentleman remaining quiescent, the subject passed
sub silentio, and the House resolved itself into a Com-
mittee of Supply. •