HC Deb 12 June 1834 vol 24 cc408-11
Lord Ebrington

said, that the Motion which he wished to submit to the House had for its object the satisfaction of the claims of certain British subjects for compensation, in return for the loss they sustained in consequence of the confiscation of their property by Spain, arising out of the seizure of six Spanish vessels. The Act of which they complained was considered by many persons at the time as one of very questionable justice, especially by the noble Earl now at the head of his Majesty's Government, who made it the subject of a specific Motion. He had no wish, however, to enter into the merits of the case, he was merely desirous of stating the facts on which he rested his case. Various applications had been made by those persons for remuneration. He himself was one of a deputation in 1818—at which period he represented the county which he had still the honour to represent—which waited on the Government, and he could undertake to say, that the justice of the claim was never disputed, but the remuneration was always thrown upon Spain. On the other hand, a variety of applications were made to the Spanish Government. That government equally admitted the justice of the claim, but stated, that it was to their own Government that these persons must look for redress. The last application made to the British Government on the subject, was when Mr. Canning was at the head of the Foreign Department; and it is somewhat remarkable that his principal reason for not conceding these claims was, that his acquiescence in them would involve the necessity of acceding to the claims of those persons whose property had been sequestered by the Danish government, and that a larger sum would be required for their satisfaction than the country could afford. The House admitted the justice of those claims by its vote on a former night. The sum required on this occasion, however, did not exceed one-fourth of the amount on account of the Danish claims; and that a seizure of Spanish property by Great Britain had been made to the extent of 800,000l. The same measure of justice ought, therefore, to be extended to these claimants. Without trespassing further on the attention of the House, he would beg to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the claims of certain British subjects, to be indemnified for the confiscation of their property by the Spanish government, in 1804 and 1805, previous to the declaration of war between Great Britain and Spain."

Mr. Baines

seconded the Motion, and contended that the cases of the Spanish and Danish claims were identical, and that the course taken with respect to the one furnished a precedent which ought to be followed in the other. The whole amount of the Spanish claims did not exceed 25,000l. or 30,000l., and when the Government had received 800,000l. from the captures that had been made, surely it was not too much for these claimants to say, that they were entitled to have their debts paid.

Lord Althorp

must protest against the course which his noble friend had adopted. Many Gentlemen who took an interest in the matter had left the House under the impression that the Motion would not come on that night. He must say, that there was no analogy whatever between these claims and the Danish claims. The two cases were distinct from each other; they stood upon totally different grounds, and if they were to entertain this case they would, by and by, be called upon to give satisfaction for every capture that had taken place, and every reprisal that had been made before war had been formally declared. The principle was one, however, which they could not possibly adopt. The Danish claims had not resulted from either capture or reprisals. In that case there was no confiscation of property, but only a sequestration of book debts, and this, he believed, was a case which had never before occurred. At the time, however, he thought the principle sought to be established objectionable, and all he could say was, that if it were adopted in the present instance, there would be no knowing to what inconvenience and expense it might lead. It was on this ground that he objected to his noble friend's Motion.

Dr. Lushington

said, that he felt the utmost difficulty in bringing his mind to any conclusion on the case which his noble friend (Lord Ebrington) had brought under the consideration of the House; but he could not agree with his noble friend (Lord Althorp) that there was so obvious a distinction between the two cases, as that the one should be treated differently from the other. It was contrary to the law of nations to confiscate property not afloat at the commencement of a war, and if the attack which this country had made upon Copenhagen had been justified would not the Danish claims have been rejected? He could see no distinction between the two cases on the ground of lapse of time, and he had yet to be convinced that the capture of the Spanish frigates, which had led to the sequestration of the property of these claimants, was other than a violation of the law of nations—an act of atrocious, cold-blooded cruelty, perpetrated during a time of peace. Such were his feelings with respect to this capture; and did not the massacre of some of the noblest families connected with Spain, who were returning in these frigates from South America to their native country, produce in the minds of the inhabitants of Cadiz a feeling that rendered it very difficult indeed to bring the negotiations for peace in 1808 to a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Vernon Smith

said, that as the seizure was made on the high seas, and not in the ports of Spain, and as there was a marked difference on that account between the present claim and the Danish claims, he would oppose the Motion. If claims of such long-standing were entertained, and of such a loose character, where could they stop? If the House chose to make an eleemosynary grant, very well; he would not oppose it. But to call on the House to grant a sum as a liquidation of such a debt, and as an act of justice, was what he could not sanction.

Mr. Robinson

condemned the practice of granting Committees for the purposes of giving individual redress without rigid proof of the just claims of the parties. He should protest, in behalf of his constituents, against a series of proceedings which he thought at once unconstitutional and injurious.

Mr. Richards

said, that on moral grounds there was no difference between the Spanish and Danish claimants. Both suffered injury in consequence of our attacking other countries without a declaration of war. A member of the Spanish Cortes was at that moment sitting under the gallery. ["Oh, oh."] He would, then, only suppose such a person was there, and what would his feelings be if he found that justice was not meted out to his country, and that the ties of amity and brotherhood were not, as they ought to be, drawn close between nations?

Mr. Hume

thought the whole proceeding very strange. No Committee was appointed—no petition was presented—but forsooth on a simple proposition of an hon. Member public money was to be voted away without remonstrance or inquiry, a course unheard of in Parliament. He would take the opportunity of observing, that the present Motion made it necessary to institute an inquiry into the appropriation of the droits of Admiralty, and necessary to introduce a very different practice with regard to them. It was high time that the plunder of innocent individuals on the high seas should not be considered as one of the prerogatives of the Crown.

The House divided—Ayes 28; Noes 62: Majority 34.

List of the AYES.
Attwood, T. Ewart, W.
Barnard, E. G. Heathcote, J.
Bewes, T. Lalor, P.
Blackburne, J. Morpeth, Lord
Brodie, W. B. Mullins, F. W.
Buller, J. W. O'Brien, C.
Collier, J. O'Connell, J.
Crawley, S. O'Reilly, W.
Parrott, J. Vincent, Sir F.
Pryme, G. Wedgwood, J.
Richards, J. Whitmore, W.
Scholefield, J. Young, G. P
Sheppard, T. TELLERS.
Staunton, Sir G. Baines, E.
Strickland, Sir G. Ebrington, Lord
Vigors, N. A.