The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-06-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TIIESDAY

Mr. CRAWFORD opposed the further proceedings of the
Commercial (" London and Blackwall") Railway bill. This
led to considerable discussion. The result, however, was
favourable to the report of the bill, which, after a division,
was received and agreed to.

DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. CRESSWELL, on rising to move, pursuant to his
notice, " that an humble address be presented to her majesty,
praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct the com-
missioners to whom it was referred to examine the claims of
certain British subjects in respect of losses sustained by the
seizure of ships and cargoes by the Danish government in
1807, to proceed to adjudicate upon the claims which they
have received, and upon which they have made a report to
the Lords of her Majesty's Treasury," said the simple ques-
tion which he had to put to the house was to inquire what
was the meaning of the house when it came to the vote of
last year upon the subject of the Danish claims. In the
reading of that vote, he (Mr. Cresswell) and the right hon.,
gentleman opposite (Mr. Rice) were at issue, but if he (Mr.
Cresswell) was right in his interpretation, he could not doubt
but that the house would follow its vote of last year by
agreeing to the resolution which it was his intention to con-
clude by moving. He contended, that on the terms of that
address of last year, it was the manifest intention of the
house that the cases of the class of claimants to which his
present motion referred should be adjudicated upon, and
though in point of form it could not be so expressed, that
compensation for their losses should be paid them. (Hear.)
The instructions to the commissioners, as laid before the
house, were the same in respect to all classes of claims. Upon
the other classes they had adjudicated, and compensation
had been afforded; but with respect to the class to which he
now called the attention of the house, the result (whether
from private instructions, or from any other cause, he knew
not) had been different: What he wished to inquire from
the house was this,—did the house, or did it not, by the vote
of last year, adopt the principle that compensation ought to
be afforded to those British subjects whose goods and ships
had been seized by the Danish government ? If so, the
house could not have any difficulty in following up that vote
by the address of which he had given notice. The right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Rice) said that the present was
altogether a different question from that which had been dis-
cussed last year; but he (Mr. Cresswell) submitted that the
question was identical. The right hon. gentleman then dis-
cussed the matter, and, with the law advisers of the crown
by his side, endeavoured to persuade the house that a differ-
ence existed between the classes of claimants. Upon that
point the house sat in judgment, and decided it against the
right hon. gentleman; and now, should it be that a minister
of the crown, having appealed to the judgment of the house,
and that judgment having passed against him, should choose
to say, " 1 will not act on that decision and judgment, but
will impede it by all the means in my power?" On these
grounds he confidently hoped the house would agree to his
motion. The honourable and learned gentleman concluded
by moving the address. -
Mr. HUTT seconded the motion.

Mr. RICE, said, that knowing the anxiety of the house to
go into the discussion of the question fixed for this evening,
he would shortly confine himself to the grounds on which, in
the execution of his duty, he had directed his course in this
matter. He thought the matter, however, of so much im-
portance, that he could have wished that a night had been set
apart for its full, calm, and efficient discussion. On a former
occasion he had stated his views to the house ; but he must
now set himself right with the house and the country as to
the grounds on which he had proposed votes in the estimates
for the relief of certain Danish sufferers, and on which he had
resisted the claims whivh were embraced in the present mo-
tion. In the year 1835 he had proposed a vote of £113,000
for the relief of the Danish claimants ; and in 1836 he pro-
posed a. vote of £78,000 for the same purpose ; and in the
estimates for the present year he had proposed a vote of
£87,481; making an entire sum of £278,481. He alluded to
this for tie purpose of showing that there had been no un-
willingness on his part, if a case was made out, to propose
compensation to the sufferers. But there was a difference
between the cases in which relief had been granted and those
in which the claims had been resisted. He had contended
that when the wrongs sustained by British subjects were done
by acts which were contrary to the usages of civilized Eu-
ropean war, the government unless they obtained compensa-
tion for those wrongs from the foreign country which had in-
flicted them, were bound to take the responsibilities on them-
selves, and in those cases the government has so taken it
upon themselves. But with respect to the present class of
claimants, the report of the legal authorities, both civil and
common aw, had been that this class had not sustained any
wrong in consequence of any act that was contrary to the law
of nations as known and practised in Europe, but wrongs
arising from the usual and accustomed course of ordinary
hostilities. That being so, what was the question opened to
the house? Was it to sanction the principle that individual
subjects of the crown, sustaining wrongs or injuries in war,
but not contrary to the law of nations, were to come to par-
liament and ask for indemnity ? If that principle was as-
sented to, where, he begged to inquire, was it to end ? If
that principle was assented to, no person living could put a
limit by possibility to the amount of claims that might be
made in case of war. This was the ground of distinction be-
tween the two cases, and he called upon the house to hesitate
in taking any step which would affirm the liability of this
country in respect of losses sustained from the ordinary acts
of warfare. It must be remembered in that proposition a
general principle was involved, but if any doubts existed on
this subject, those doubts were turned into certainty by the
statement of the honourable and learned gentleman opposite,
for the honourable and learned gentleman, because the house
had affirmed an address to which the assent of the crown had
not been given, appealed to the house whether, in voting that
address, it did not mean and intend to vote the money
claimed.

Mr. HUME said that the government having received
£1,260,000 of Danish money, and refusing to give British
subjects a shilling of it in compensation for their losses, was
a direct robbery of the public. The government had recog-
nised the principle that if the parties could make out a claim
they were entitled to compensation. He agreed with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the vote of the previous
session was not a money vote, but it pledged the house to an
inquiry to be made by competent persons into the nature and
amount of these claims. He admitted that, if this were an
ordinary case of loss in war, the parties would have no claim,
but if ever there had been an extraordinary case in the annals
of the British empire, the conduct of the British government
in this case was most extraordinary. After a lapse of thirty-
two years, it was high time that an inquiry into these claims
should be entered upon.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was of opinion that the length of
time was to be held as a strong ground of inquiry into claims
for compensation, and that, if such a principle should be laid
down, they would perhaps Ilave claims laid as far back as the.
seven years' war in the time of Charles 11.
Lord SANDON supported the motion, and complained that
the commission' which had been appointed to investigate the
claims had never reported them fully to the house, so as to
give information as to what claims appeared to be well found-
ed, and what were not. _ _ _

Sir STRATFORD CANNING thought it most unfair to refuse
to take any step towards an inquiry into those claims, for the
purpose of ascertaining which were well founded and which.
were not. An inquiry of some sort was more incumbent be
cause many were, misled into commercial speculations, who
would not have undertaken them but for the secresy which
was preserved before the commencement of the war. -
Mr. GouLmin.N opposed the motion, as it was calculated
to entail upon the house a body of similar proceedings. With
respect to the secresy which attended the commencement of
the war, he apprehended that the Foreign-office was not
bound to afford information to every person who,thought to
ask questions as to the course intended to be pursued by
government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON thought that it was quite natural for the
claimants to suppose that, when the commission was granted
to inquire into their claims, something was intended to be
done for them by the government. What other object could
there be in granting the commission, and directing them to
make a report? Having gone thus far, he thought the go-
vernment should not stop at that point.
After a few words in reply from Mr. CRESSWELL the
house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 32 -
Major'. —63

On our return to theiallery we found

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stating that it was
due to the house and to the public to say, that, until the
question was affirmed, as to a money vote, he should never
be a party to anything which would appear to countenance
these claims•