The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-12 00:00:00

03 Arming ''t-itit

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1844.

In the House of Lords a brief dissussion took place
relative to the junction of the sees of St. Asaph and
Bangor. The Earl Powis intimated that, from a
conversation with the Duke of WELLINGTON, he had
learned that it was not likely her MAJESTY would
give her consent to the Bill which he had introduced,
and he, therefore, withdrew it.

The Bishop of SALISBURY trusted her MAJESTY'S
Government would reconsider the question, and in-
troduce a Bill to the same effect next session.
Lord CLANRICARDE said this was the first instance
hi which the consent of the Crown had been with-
held for the purpose of preventing their Lordship
,passing a Bill. . .

Lord MONTEAGLE thought the Government justi-
fied in the course they had pursued, and the Bill was
withdrawn.

Earl FORTESCUE postponed his motion relative to
the re-appointment of Mr. O'Daiscom, till Tuesday.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved an address to the Crown
praying that steps may be taken to ameliorate the
condition of pauper lunatics in Ireland.
The motion was negatived, and the House ad-
journed.

In the Commons Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a
petition from Signor MAZZINI, praying that he might
be examined before the Secret Committee appointed
to inquire into the system of opening letters at the
Poit-office.

On the order of the day for the adjourned debate
on the Railways Bill being read, Mr. BRIGRT spoke
against the Bill, and contended that if the object of
_Mr. GLADSTONE was obtained, the Government
throughout every district would obtain a Parlia-
mentary influence dangerous to the community. He
:approved of some of the clauses—those, fur instance,
tilait would make provision for the cheap travelling of
the lower classes ; but still, looking at the high
charges made by coach proprietors for the same class,
and the improvements which railway directors had
nade, he thought the poor were much better off than
they were before. He would vote for the amend-
ment that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months.

Lord SEYMOUR could not see the slightest objec-
tion to the principle of the Bill, and the objectionable
details might be amended in Committee.
,Mr. BERN AL and Mr. COLQUHOUN opposed the
Bill. The latter gentleman showed some asperity
against Mr. GLADSTONE and the Government, which
could leave little doubt that he considered them men

not entitled to his confidence. This is a happy
symptom. A Government that obtained the praises
and support of such a bigot as Mr. COLQUHOUN,
would soon excite a civil war.

Mr. WALLACE applauded the Government for the
manly course they had pursued on this important
measure, and would support them to the last.
Mr. C. BULLER spoke in favour of the railway
companies, and consequently opposed the motion.
A number of other speakers followed, and, on a
division, the second reading was carried by a majority
of 88. To be committed on Saturday next.
Several Bills were advanced a stage. On the order
for bringing up the report of the Gaming Disconti-

nuance Bill being read, Mr. CHRISTIE defended Mr.
RUSSELL (the solicitor in the qui tam actions) from
theattack made on him by Lord G. BENTINCK. The
report was received.
The other orders of the day were then dispo3ed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Two.

We concluded our yesterday's notice of the debate
on the " Danish claims " by quoting the doctrine laid
down by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, touch-
ing the distinctive character of the circumstances
under which their property had been taken and confis-
cated by Denmark. This character, the Right Hon.
Gentleman contended, took this case out of that class
of claims for property confiscated by a foreign State,
in consequence of acts done by the British Govern-
ment, in which the law and the practice of Parliament
would grant compensation to the aggrieved owners.
It is clear, however, as Mr. CHRISTIE stated, that, in
consequenA of our proceedings in the present case,
"Denmark made reprisals, and seized the property of
British subjects, taking our merchant-ships in the
Baltic by way of reprisal." It is not less clear that
the distinction thus attempted to be drawn by the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, is one " without a
difference" as to any justification it supplies for the
resistance of her MAJESTY'S Government to the
present motion. Mr. HAWES thus summarily dis-
posed of it :—" The Right Honourable Gentleman has
added nothing whatever to the present subject.
He looks at the case on two grounds. He says,
the :capture took place in time of war; and further,
that the law officers of the Crown have given several
opinions adverse to the claims. Let the House re-
collect that with whatever force the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman's arguments apply to this third class of
claimants, they apply with equal force to all former
claimants." That is, to the two other sections of
Danish claimants with whom the Government has
already settled, under the especial recommendation
of the House of Commons. Now this question of
" war or no war" being common to the three classes
of Danish claimants, has been disposed of by the act
of her MAJESTY'S Government in dealing with two of
them—and cannot be revived in order to repudiate
the third. It does not appear to us worth while to
dwell more largely on the Right Hon. Gentleman's
legal refinements, albeit he attempted to establish
them on some fancied analogy in the fact of the
battle of Waterloo in 1815. That was fought
without our having made any declaration of war
against France in the period that had inter-
vened since the peace of 1814 : yet who, the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER triumphantly asked,
would deny that we were at war with France
when this great battle took place ? But the force of
this analogy was demolished by the Hon. Member for
Lambeth, in reply to it, referring to our late hostile
operations on the coast of China. " I will ask," said he,
" were we at war' with China? We took towns
and ships there ; yet the navy have been refused all
prize money in that instance, because there was no
war.'—(" Hear, hear," from Sir C. NAPIER.)
Will the Right Honourable Gentleman condescend to
meet me on this ground? It is all very convenient
to the Treasury to say that in the China business
it was no war, but in the Danish business it was a
war. In both cases there are, doubtless, conflicting
declarations or opinions ; but it now suits the purpose
of Government to meet these honest claimants with
a pretence of this kind—thus inconsistent with their
own declarations." There are two additional circum-
stances carefully to be noted, as applicable to the pre-
sent class of claims, as well as to the two others,
which are no longer in question ; the first is, that our
captures of ships and stores from Denmark realised a
fund of upwards of 1,000,0001. sterling. If British
subjects, damnified by this extraordinary and
almost unprecedented act of aggression by our
Government, were • not to be compensated, in
the intention of the English Ministers of that day,
for the loss of their property consequent on the " re-
prisals," or " the war" (the quibble matters not),
made upon us by the Danes in revenge for such ano-
malous hostilities, why were those prizes and stores
sold at all ? (Our captures, if we rightly remember,
consisted of some eighteen sail of the line, fifteen
frigates, six or seven brigs; and more than twenty gun-
boats, with an immense quantity of naval stores.) 2.
If it was not in the contemplation of our English admi-
nistration, within three years after the memorable ex-
pedition to Copenhagen, that the present, and all other
such rightful claimants should be indemnified for
such losses, what was the meaning of Mr. PER-
CEVAL'S announcement in 1810 (in giving certain
explanations in Parliament, that had been demanded
of him, as to this affair, and the subsequent measures
that had been adopted in relation to it), " that a sum
of money had, in the first instance, been set apart
for the satisfaction of those British merchants who
had suffered by the way in which the war had broken
out." The case put by Mr. CHRISTIE, in alluding to
this announcement, is irresistible. "If that sum was
thus set apart for such a purpose, I submit that there
is no body of claimants who come with stronger
arguments for compensation from the British Govern-
ment, than those whose goods were confiscated during
the time the war was being carried on." And, in
truth, let us add, the British Government have irre-
vocably affirmed the principle that the present claims
are binding upon them by what they have done, or
have been compelled to do, in reference to the other
classes of claimants.
But the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER affects
not only to have found a justification of the Govern

ment's refusal to pay this legacy of their Tory prede-
cessors' precipitation, but a justification (still more
difficult) of the renegade voters on these very claims
for the apostasy with which, conformably to the politi-
cal ethics of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S highly honourable
Government, they now turn round upon the claim-

ants, and either desert, or act against them, after
having formerly supported them by their recorded
votes in the House of Commons. For this justifica-
tion he relies on the opinions of the law officers of
the Crown, which are all adverse to the claim-

ants.

To be sure they are.

In the little

world beyond Downing-street it is a notorious

that you may _ get any opinion you

- -
want from any counsel—if you have sagacity

enough to shape the case you submit to him accord-
ingly. But the Right Hon. Gentleman, with an
amusing simplicity, admits the apostacy, and actually

;akes credit for it, of the parties who vote in the teeth of
heir former avowals and convictions, since they have

ceased to be in opposition, or have taken office under

the present Government; because "they have now the
benefit of information which they could not get be-

fore," and " of course" their opinions are so much the
better founded. In the little world beyond Downing.

street, Mr. GOULBURN, all your ingenuity will not
make this tergiversation pass for anything but what it

really is—a shocking sacrifice of conscientious
opinion to interested considerations of place or ex-
pediency. Since all the leading members of a Ca-
binet may be supposed to take their tone from the
Premier, we suppose we shall not err in assuming
that Sir ROBERT PEEL must have stood sponsor for

the lofty and dignified sentiment embodied in this
admonitory exhortation from Mr. GOULBURN to
Parliament :—" If you accede to it, you open a
door, not merely to the payment of this 235,0001.
but to all cues of a similar kind in future

wars." And, if the payments be justly due,
by reason of your own misconduct, or your
own policy—no matter which—or that of your
predecessors in Government, why should they not

be made to righteous claimants ? Sir ROBERT thinks

that such questions are best disposed of by being left
to Governments, instead of Parliaments. What did

the Government of GEORGE IV. do with the money

realised by sales of Danish captures? Will Sir
ROBERT object to ascertain how much of it, and

under what orders, was appropriated to [palace build-

ing, furnishing, and decorating? He will not tell
us f vet the claims of British subjects are as much
consecrated b (3:7 rs of unsuccessful agitation, as
y
b
the menus plaisirs of a govereigi; _y as many of

concealment. These are odd ideas of honesty and
justice in a statesman. What are Mr. GOUL-
BURN'S opinions of the constitutional uses of a navy ?
That our ships of war should be exclusively devoted
to the transport, backwards and forwards, of Royal,
and Serene, and Imperial visitors, or the attainment
of any given object of offensive warfare by
separate or combined operations on the coasts, or
against the fleets and harbours of an enemy ?
Certainly the protection of our vast and beneficial
commerce and mercantile marine would seem not to
enter into Mr. GOULBURN'S category of a fleet's occu-
pation or uses :—" The Hon. Gentleman has said that
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 armament, stationed
in a sea like the Baltic for warlike purposes, 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 ?"
These horrors of such an ignoble appropriation of
naval service we could understand in some inferior
clerk at the Navy-office or' in the Admiralty, whose
technical notions they might reasonably outrage, but
in a Privy Councillor of the Sovereign in the first
commercial empire in the world they are ludicrous.
Passing over the manly speech of Col. SIBTHORII,

of which we must say that it was distinguished by a
spirit of justice, and an uncompromising vindication of
what he deemed to be the rights of a certain body of
his fellow-countrymen, which reflect upon him a
degree of honour not assailable by any suggestions
of personal or party dislikes ; we must next notice
the valuable assistance the claimants derived from the
consistent advocacy of Mr. HUME. His rapid review
of former debates and former votes on these claims
will be acceptable, we should think, to every reader
of the debate, excepting the little knot of " Jim -
Crow jumpers," noticed in Mr. CHRISTIE'S muster-
roll of deserters, absentees, or new opponents.
Among these (prohpudor I) were Lordiarar, Mr.
MILNES, Mr. E. TENNENT, Mr. PRINGLE, Captain
BOLDERO, Sir F. TRENCH, &c. On the prudential
argument of Sir R. PEEL and Mr. GOULBURN, we
beg to ask whether they intend to take a leaf
out of the book of certain Federal States,
on the other side of the Atlantic ? Do they call upon
the House to repudiate these claims in reference to
their amounting to a quarter of a million—not to
their justice or equity—with a view of cancelling the
political guilt of such a measure by the merit of
supplying future Governments with a precedent
for similar repudiations under similar circum-
stances ? Sir ROBERT PEEL, however, we con-
dole with. He tumbled down in the middle of
a sentiment which was meant to be very
effective ! Sir C. NAPIER having complained of the
treatment our naval forces had received by being de-
nied prize money for their services in China, Sir
ROBERT got up one of his most plausible and in-
genuous gesticulations, in protesting that he was sure
these gallant men would always acquit themselves
with honour, and not fail in their duty because of
their not being rewarded in the manner alluded to.
"I did not say," interrupted Sir CHARLES, " that
the sailors would not do their duty. That they will
always do. But I said, if they had known you would
treat them in this way, they would not have en-
tered your service." Sir ROBERT made a feeble
but fruitless attempt to carry through his misunder-
standing. The Gallant Commodore would not let
him ; and so poor Sir ROBERT fell through his in-
tended "effect," protesting angrily against being
diverted (which he had not been) into a discussion
of the war in China on a question of Danish claims."
This was not his only peccadillo of the evening. He
raised a cry of "out of time" against the claimants.
On a former occasion, Lord MoNTEAGLi, we re-
member, beaten from all the grounds he had occur
pied in resisting these claims, put this touching con-
sideration to the Legislature, as one which (judging
from his own impressions probably), must operate
conclusively against the case of the petitioners.
" Look at the amount. Why it is about 250,0001."
Well, too, we remember Lord BROUGHAM'S indig-
nant retort. " Was national justice to be done
or withheld, according to the tale and measure
of the claims upon it ?" But Sir ROBERT PEEL—
improving even upon the lofty tone of Lord MONT-
EAGLE'S political morality—throws in a lapse of time
as an additional plea to excuse the defrauding these
claimants of their rights. " The real question," said
the Premier, " 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 perfection of Ministerial justice,
then, it would seem, consists in closing the
doors of the public treasury on those who have suf-
fered vast losses, by no lathes of their own, but by
the acts of the predecessors of her MAJESTY'S
Government or the Councils of the Crown—for
thirty-seven years consecutively—against the entrea

ties and reproaches of the creditors themselves, the re•
monstrances of the public, the recommendations 01

the Parliament, and the favourable consideration of the
Crown, as intimated by the Crown itself; and then
turning round on the claimants with a dignified
sneer at the remote date of the wrongs on which they
claim compensation and redress !

We exhort the claimants to a determined unflinch-
ing perseverance. The majority of four against the
motion is a legion in favour of the justice of their
claims. They must triumph : and they have had the
glory of compelling the present Government to record
their own want of generous policy and humanity by
the most humiliating victory a Government ever
achieved !

Accounts from Madrid of the 4th inst. state that
the Government have given orders for the march of
6,000 troops for Cadiz, where they are to embark for
Ceuta. A brigade of mountain artillery, con-
sisting of 24 pieces, has been organised at that port,
and is about to proceed to the same destination. The
object of the expedition is said to be the occupation
of Tangiers. General Don JUAN VILLALONGA is
appointed to the command of the expedition.
According to a letter from Barcelona, a decree was
to be issued on the 10th inst., dissolving the Cortes,
and assembling new Chambers for the 10th of Octo-
ber ; and in the same decree the Government was to
make known its system of government.
The Three per Cents. were done at 26 for cash,
and 26i at 60 days ; and the Five per Cents. at 19t,
at 60 days, with premium.

In the French Chamber of Peers on Wednesday
the Prince DR LA MosKowA brought forward his
motion relative to the affairs of Morocco. Sir Ro-
BERT PEEL, he said, in the House of Commons, de-
clared that he had received the most complete and sa-
tisfactory explanations on the affairs of Morocco.
These communications, according to the English
Minister, were without reserve, even with regard to
the instructions given to the young Admiral, whose
appointment was sufficient to excite the susceptibility
of England. He thought that this was an impru-
dence which was not even justified by any risk the
entente cordiale might run. He then attacked the
portions; of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S speech which he said
might be injurious to the French possessions in
Africa. The declarations of Sir R. PEEL could not
do otherwise than raise the courage of the Emperor
of Moaocco and ABD-EL-KADER, and encourage
them to persevere in their hostility to France. He
contended that there was a flagrant contradiction be-
tween the assertions of the English Minister and
those of M. GUIZOT in the Chamber of Deputies, in
answer to M. DE LAROCHEJAQUELIN. He waited for
the explanations of M. GUIZOT.
In reply, M. GUIZOT said—" None of the instruc-

tions given to admirals or generals had been divulged
to the British Government. Sir ROBERT PEEL could
merely have alluded to political instructions. The
policy of the French was known. They did not
want territorial aggrandisement or conquest, and this
was stated to Sir ROBERT PEEL. The Government
had demanded three things of the Emperor of
Moßocco : Ist. That no collection of troops should
take place on the frontier. 2d. That those who
provoked the collision should be punished. 3d. That
ABD-EL-KADER should be sent away from the fron-
tier. On the second point, satisfaction had already
been given. The son of the Emperor of MOROCCO
had given orders for the dismissal and imprisonment
of the two Kaids who had authorised the violation of
our territory."
The Chamber of Deputies was still occupied with
the Budget. The usual vote for public instruction