The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

IRELAND.

..---- -
Mr. WYSE begged.. to give notice, that in accordance
with an arrangement between himself and the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, it was his intention to defer his motion about
the Irish State trial, which stood upon the paper
for that evening, until Monday next, which,
being . a Government day, the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had himself• conceded to him.
He had further to give notice that his other
motion which also stood upon that day's paper, and
which had reference to the University of Dublin and the
College of Maynooth, he should likewise defer until the
vote for Maynooth came regularly before the House.
Could the Right Hon. Baronet inform him when he pro-
posed to go into a Committee of Supply.
Sir R. PEEL said, after the kind manner in.which,
on a former occasion, the Right Honourable Gentleman
(Ur. Wyse) had waived his right of precedence at the
request of the Government, he felt bound to place the
.earliest day possible after the hearing of the appeal in
the other House at the disposal of the Right Hon.
Member.—(llear, hear.) As to the question which bad
been put to him, he was not prepared at that moment
to state when he pioposed to go into a Committee of
Supply, but in the course of .the present week he would
endeavour to name a day for- that purpose.
SHAREHOLDERS IN RAILWAYS.

Mr. WALLACE gave notice that when the House
divided on the Railway Bill, he should propose that the
names of -Hon. Members interested in any of those un-
dertakings should not be received. He would take the
directors first, and the shareholders second.—(Loud
laughter.) He begged to inquire of the Speaker what
would be the proper time and course to take in this
matterf as there was a difference of opinion upon the
subject.—(Loud laughter.)
The SPEAKER said the: proper time for making the
objection was after the tellers:hadtakenthe numbers, but
before the, numbers were declared from the chair.
. POOR LAW.

Captain PECHELL gave t otice that on bringing up
the._report of the Pour Law.Amendrnent Bill he should
more the omission of the 11th clause, which assigned the
duty of apprenticing pauper children to the Poor Law
Commissioners, instead of the Board of Guardians.

• ittpr•OFFICE COMMITTEE.
Lord BANDON moved that a message be sent to the
Lords, requesting that the Marquis of Lansdowne, the
Earl of Lonsdale, and the Earl of Besborough, might
attend to be examined before the Secret Committee on
opening the letters at the Post-office.—Agreed to.
• GUERNSEY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would, if there were no objec-
tion, at once move for copies of the correspondence
which had taken place between the Home Secretary and
the. Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey, since the Ist
August last.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the same reason
which had induced the Honourable Gentleman to post-
pone the motion of which he had given notice, on the
subject of the affairs of Guernsey, still existed. The
whole of the circumstances connected with the recent
unfortunate disputes in Guernsey would speedily be
brought judicially under the notice of the Committee of
the Privy Council • and while that cause was pending,
be thought it would not be for the interest of the pub-
lic service to prciduce the correspondence.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would postpone his motion
until this day fortnight.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—POST-OFFICE.

Messengers from the Lords brought down certain
Bills, and also brought down a message requesting that
permission might_be given to Lord John Russell and to
Sir "James Graham to attend before the Lords' Corn-
mittee on the Post-office, in order to be examined.
The" SPEAKER informed the Messengers that the
House would send an answer by Messengers of its own.

TRISH MARRIAGES BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the first reading of
the Irish Presbyterian Marriages Bill, which had been
brought'down from the Lords.---Agreed to.
. DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. CHRISTIETose-iO submit his motion on the
Danish claims, of which he had given notice :—" That
this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider
of an address to her Majesi.y, praying that she will be
graciously pleased to take into her early and most
favourable consideration the case of the claimants for
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 on all such
claims, in their report bearing date the 12th day of May,
1840: He said, this question had been so often before
the House that I shall be justified in doing that which I
should otherwise have done as a matter of policy, and
detain the House but a short time in sealing with the
subject. I cannot but remember that when this ques-
tion was formerly brought forward in this House, it
came recommended by all the weight of the talents and
great abilities of Mr. Cresswell. After that gentleman
cm! ed to be a Member of this House, it was brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt).
That gentleman's avocations, however, presented him
from bringing it forward this session. This is the reason
that I am here to undertake it. I expect, of course, to
hear it said that it is high time we should have done
with these Danish claims.—(hear, hear.) That it
is a very old motion Which has ben often discussed.
But tbeg to remind the House in the present state of
the 'question, that these are the third and last of three
els saes of claims, the first two of which have been satis-
IY:d, first one and then the other, but both after long
'aid determined opposition from succeeding Governments;
and that this third and last class of claims have already
had their justice affirmed by majorities of this House.
I know it will be said that on the last occasion when the
question was brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Larnbeth (Mr. Hanes) he was in a minority. I know that
he expected a larger majority than had ever before been
recorded in support of his motion, but to his great sur-
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—and 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. Creswell,
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 sided for these claims. I
am sorry to see that several of ttiose Members are.not
now in the House; but I begin by rMlticeing's the

name of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland,
whoni, 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 elaims with a lawyer's mind, and who,
I hope, will give his assistance on this occasion. Next,
there were the Hon. Member for Selkirk, the Hon. and .
Gallant Member for Chippenham, the Hon. Member for
Southampton, who was Under Secretary for the Colo- _
nies, and the Hon. 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 officicial question.
These claims, as is well known, 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 seized, 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 came to their own Govern-
ment for compensation, as individuals who lied suffered
for the public benefit. In other cases, also, losses were
sustained in the Baltic Sea, in conseqnence 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 say
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
during all this time we were at war with Denmark, and
that the losses of the claimants did not come under the
same catagory as book-debts,and ships and cargoes in har-
bour. Now, how is it proved that we were during this time
at war with Denmark ? Why, a document is brought for-
ward, not from the Foreign-office, but from the Anneal
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 turnsout 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 Register " 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 perh'aps, of itself, be
sufficient to turn the document into a formal declaration
of war; but certainly an order to seize, or in other words,
to confiscate, would be an order to institute a proceeding
which was only authorised after there. had been a
declaration of war. In this way it might be ar-
gued, but the. documented amounted to a declaration
of war. It turns out, however, the word or words trans-
lated in the Annual Register, " to seize," mean no more
than to lay an embargo on the ships • and the
difference between an order for an embargo and
an order to seize or confiscate goods is a very wide one.
There are many other reasons why this document should
not be considered as a declaration of war. The only allu-
sion to war in the whole paper is in the • preamble,
whereas, if the document had been a declaration of war,
words, showing it to be so, would have appeared in the
body of the document. Besides, it is .not a document
formally addressed to our Government, as it would have
been in the case supposed, but merely to the subjects of
the King of Denmark; and not to all the subjects- of
tire-King,' but only to a . portion of them. Again, it
did not emanate from the central seat of Government,
but from a province, and this a very important circum-
stance. Besides these proofs that the documentlis not to
be considered as a declaration of war, there are
many others which are scarcely less strikin.
For instance, on the very day on which it is
dated, viz., the 16th of August, an order appeared at
Copenhagen, and about that order—l do not know
whether or not the Right Hon. Gentleman is aware of
it—about that order there can be no doubt that' it
in 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 middle of November, 1807. Was not that
totally inconsistent with our being at war? And so
late as December, the 13th of December,
in that year the King of Denmark issued a proclama-
tion, in answer to merchants who had asked him to
authorise the correspondence with England, in which he
says the King, in confining himself to the sequestration
of property, had done all in his 'sewer to assist their mis-
fortunes. The merchants at once, by becoming privateers,
might recover their property, and that was alter, he had
stated he had authorised sequestration, he authorised
reprisals on English pioperty. Were the circum-
stances that had taken place between France and
Morocco, a state of reprisals or war? M. Guizot, in the
French Chamber, said that war had not been announced,
but that the attacks that had taken place had rendered
reprisals necessary, and that a strong force had
been sent against some of the Moorish
towns which had been taken. The argu-
ment derived from this 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 suppose that there had 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, also, 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.