§ The Order of the Day for bringing up the report on the Danish claims was read; the report brought up, and resolution read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose and said, that after the very able and eloquent speech of his learned Friend last night, he had certainly expected to have heard some arguments from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in favour of this motion. As, however, he had abstained from entering into the question, he should not go into all the different grounds which had been so well disposed of, but he would tell the House that it became their duty to think very seriously before they took the step of addressing her Majesty. After the question had been so fully discussed, the House would allow him to suggest, that in point of form, the address to which they had agreed was bad —in fact, that the House was about to ask her Majesty to do that which she cannot do. The address requests her Majesty to advance a quarter of a million, and they engaged the honour of the House to make it good at a future period. Now he would ask any Gentleman in the House, how her Majesty could legally comply with that request. There was no legal power in the Crown to do so, and the only answer that could be made to such an address was, that the Crown had no power to comply with such a request. If the House would listen to him for a few moments, he would satisfy them that the Crown had no power to advance any such sum of money out of any funds whatever. No doubt precedents could be shown for such a course—no doubt that a time when the Crown had hereditary revenues and large sums at its disposal, it was in the power of the Crown to make advances on the faith of the advance being repaid by that House. But they had curtailed those revenues, and most properly he thought, with the concurrence of the Crown; they gradually reduced those funds at the disposal of the Crown until there remained nothing but the Civil-list which was necessary for its own expenditure, and a small sum of the civil contingencies which had been granted for only six months. Now, that being all that was at the disposal of the Crown, he would ask the hon. and learned Member, or even the hon. Member for Kilkenny, how it could be expected that the Crown could make such an advance? He was bound to tell the House, that if a treasury 1418 warrant, signed by her Majesty, and countersigned by himself, were issued, and he were to take it to the Exchequer, the answer would be, that there was no legal means by which-it could be paid, that her Majesty had no power to issue such a warrant, that they could not pay any sum of money unless they were directed to do so by a bill passed by that House, and concurred in by the rest of the Legislature. Now, without going further into details, he would call upon the House to take care that they did not ask her Majesty to take a step which was against the law. The House had always been most properly jealous on the matter—the House had always looked carefully, so as not to allow either the Executive or the Crown to put its hands in the public purse without regulations and restrictions; and he would defy the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to tell him out of what funds the Crown could advance the money. It was true, that with regard to sums of small amount, the Crown might advance them out of its hereditary revenues, or out of the civil contingencies. There was the case of Mr. Palmer. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to understand the peculiar distinction there was in the case. Mr. Palmer had a claim against the Post Office, and the House had addressed the Crown praying it to pay the sum claimed to Mr. Palmer. But what were the circumstances of the case? A contract had been entered into, as had been alleged, between the Government and Mr. Palmer, relating to the collection of the Post-Office revenue. But in that case there was a specific provision in an Act of Parliament authorising the Crown to pay the expenses attendant on the collection of the Post-Office revenue out of the revenue itself; yet, although there was a specific Act of Parliament authorising the payment, at the time the application was thought so irregular, that the answer of the Crown was, that when the means were provided, the money should be paid. Such was the answer given to the address of the House, although legally the Crown had the power to pay the money. That was the course which had been pursued in that case, in which there were means of payment; but here there were not any means whatever provided by which the request could be complied with, and he trusted, that the House in its anxiety to remedy a supposed injustice to certain parties, would not place the Crown and itself in the position of 1419 asking her Majesty to perform an act which by law she had no power to do. He thought it more fair to bring forward this objection, which had struck him since yesterday, at once, and he should be glad to hear what answer the hon. Member for Kilkenny, or the hon. and learned Gentleman could make to it.
§ Mr. Humesaid, it was true that her Majesty had no money but what this House afforded to her. The object of this motion was to enforce what the House had more than once acknowledged to be an act of justice, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman why they voted against the Government, and carried their vote for granting the first class of Danish claims? It was true that the House, against the wishes and efforts of the Government, voted, that the first class of the claims should be paid. The same course was pursued with regard to the second class of claimants, and the only difference between those two Governments and the present was, that those two Governments acted in obedience to the orders of the House of Commons, and put those claims in the estimates, and why did not the right hon. Gentleman do the same? There were various ways in which that could be done. Take the case which happened a few months ago. He objected to an address to her Majesty, praying that she would take means to settle 2,000l a-year on Lord Keane. He divided against the motion, but he was in a minority—the House of Commons decided against him. Was this objection taken then? If the objection is a proper one, the case of Lord Keane was open to precisely the same objection. What he understood by that vote was, that it simply asked her Majesty, if she approved of the object of the vote, that she would give directions to her Ministers to bring in a bill for the purpose of carrying that vote into effect. That was done in the case of Lord Keane, and why was not the same course pursued in the present instance? Was there any difficulty whatever in adopting the same course, or did the right hon. Gentleman say, that whatever the House of Commons might determine, Ministers would not adopt it? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same, but still he adopted it. Money had been paid on the same ground, and it therefore appeared to him, that the objection was utterly unworthy of her Majesty's Government, when, on two previous occasions, they had paid similar claims. The first class of claimants was 1420 immediately paid, and the second class was paid also, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he would never consent to it. The question was, whether her Majesty's Ministers, after the expression of opinion by the House, five times repeated, were determined to prevent its being carried into effect. If so, the only course that remained was, for the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to bring in a bill to carry out the intentions of the House, and pay the money. He submitted to her Majesty's Government, that having acted in two cases in obedience to the address of the House, they ought to do so on the present occasion, and not to counsel her Majesty to refuse her consent when the House had come to the resolution by a majority of 540 against perhaps 5. He submitted to them that was not a becoming course to adopt towards a majority of the House of Commons. The Government had admitted, that a majority of one was sufficient to test the wish of the House; why, then, should they advise her Majesty not to accede to that which, in the course of justice, this House had thought proper to recommend. He was not aware of any other mode, if Ministers refused, than bringing in an Act of Parliament, and compelling them to adopt the course the House desired to be pursued by that Act. He would state an instance of a parallel case. A claim was made on the East-India Company—the Company declared that the claim was good, but it was not satisfied. Leave was then asked to bring in a bill. That bill was brought in, and a sum of 22,000l. was paid, not of public monies, but of the money of the East-India Company, to the individual, in satisfaction for his claim for justice. Various other instances had come to his knowledge, and might be stated. He, therefore, submitted to the Government, that after repeated indications of the opinions of large majorities of this House, they should not be stopped by technicalities from carrying those opinions into effect.
Mr. Cresswelllsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, complains of me for not answering the right hon. the Solicitor-general, when this resolution was first proposed. I should certainly have done so, particularly after the good-humoured piece of mischief which the right hon. Gentleman directed against me, but I thought it would be more consonant with the form of the House, as the motion was put from the Chair, that some one should oppose it before I said anything 1421 in its favour. Now, with respect to the objections stated to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I call upon the House to adopt an address to the Crown, asking her Majesty to do that which by law she has no power to do. I frankly state, that I am driven to this course by the persevering opposition of himself and his predecessor to the wish of the House. Therefore, I thought I was justified—nay, Sir, I think I was bound in justice to those on whose behalf I have undertaken this question, thinking them justly entitled to the compensation which they ask. I considered, that I was bound to bring it before this House in every shape which the form of the House made legitimate for the purpose of following out that successful motion which I made four years ago, in behalf of these unfortunate sufferers. And I cannot help thinking, that the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite correct in his solution of the case of Mr. Palmer. He was well aware, I should rely upon Mr. Palmer's case as a precedent. Undoubtedly, before I troubled, the House, I was bound to look for some precedent, and I found one in the case of Mr. Palmer; in that case, I found an address to the Prince Regent, praying his Royal Highness to direct certain sums to be paid which the House pledged itself to make good. The right hon. Gentleman says, that that is no precedent, because the Prince Regent had the power by act of Parliament—that funds were already at his disposal by act of Parliament, and he was authorized to pay the money out of the Post-office revenue. If so, how came his Royal Highness's advisers to bring back this answer—that they would order the money to be paid when funds existed? I think Mr. Palmer's case does present a precedent for this, but whether it does or not, I shall certainly persevere in my motion, and divide the House, in order that I may have a declaration on the part of this House, whether they do or do not coincide in the propriety of making compensation. And now I will endeavour to meet the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-general, and if I had heard them for the first time last night—if that had been the first occasion of this matter being brought before the House, when my hon. and learned Friend got up and told me, that he thought I was under some misapprehension, that I had misconceived the facts in reference to this subject, and had drawn false conclusions from the premises that I had advanced, I 1422 should have been very apt to suppose, that I was in some error, if the matter had not been fully discussed on three several occasions. In listening to my hon. Friend afterwards, I found, that he had been extremely diligent in reading what had passed on former occasions, and put all the scattered fragments of argument into a connected form last night; yet, in truth, he had recounted nothing new; not one single argument, nothing, in fact, was added, except one or two dates, and, as I think, the hon. Member for Bridport laid some stress upon those dates, I beg his attention to one or two, which were not mentioned by the Solicitor-general. On the 27th July, as stated by my hon. and learned Friend, the expedition sailed. At that time, an embargo had been laid upon all Danish vessels. Danish vessels were afterwards seized and brought in. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, that on the 16th of August, a proclamation was issued by the Danish government, stating, that they considered hostilities had then commenced. Now, I beg to draw the attention of the House to a proclamation which was issued by the commander of the British forces before Copenhagen; and let us see what was stated by the commander of our own forces as to there being war or not, because the whole case had been rested by my hon. and learned Friend, upon the fact of these ships and vessels being seized. What was the proclamation issued by the commander of the British forces on August 16, the very date given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general? I think they then said, that they came to the Danish shores not as enemies—" We come to your shores, inhabitants of Zealand, not as enemies, but in self-defence, to prevent those who have so long destroyed the peace of Europe—to prevent you from turning the course of your navy against us." The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that if a weak man, having a deadly weapon in his hand, met with a strongman, and upon his attacking him, and his using that weapon, it was wrested from him, was it to be said, that he was to be entitled to compensation? I should say, yes. What right, I would ask, have we to take Danish vessels without giving compensation to them? I have shown, that the commanders of the British vessels had disclaimed being at war in August, 1807; what was said? Why, that because of the acts against the Danish property the British nation were bound to compensate them. So justly was that felt 1423 by the British Government, that in September it was thought necessary to issue a State Paper, in order to justify the proceedings of the Government. So the matter rested; but before that, what took place on the 7th of September? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, these parties were very incautious after these proceedings in sailing up the Baltic; but on the 7th of September, when the stipulation of Copenhagen was sanctioned, it was stipulated, that all hostile acts should cease, and that nothing like war took place till November. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said this doctrine was new in the House—that heretofore it had been conceded, that there was war at that time. Now, for my own part, I may say, that I have never conceded any such thing, for on the very first occasion on which I brought this question before the House, I said, that there was no war. In war, we might give other nations the opportunity of making reprisals, but those things became debts of the State, and ought to be paid by it. But when it was a case of State necessity it became much more important. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the opinion of Sir James Mackintosh, an opinion always entitled to great respect, which was given in this House, that the parties who had goods or debts that were confiscated were entitled to compensation on this principle, that if the subjects of this country were injured in a foreign state, by seizure of their property, if the Government did not obtain redress, the Government were bound to male compensation. Now, Sir, that may be very true, but I do not find, that principle was ever enunciated in this House till it was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when that office was filled by Lord Monteagle. It was a very convenient argument, indeed, for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the principle was first made use of by Lord Monteagle, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1834. It is a principle which was never held by Lord Althorp; nor was it ever mentioned till introduced in debate to answer the claims with respect to the seizure of goods and ships, which was brought before this House. When an hon. Gentleman, the guardian of the public purse, gets up and says, that this act was done during the war, I say, grant that we were at war, still we are entitled to have our claims attended to, and if there was no war we are also entitled to be protected against such a seizure. I say, 1424 the principle was never acknowledged by the Government, until it suited the purposes of Government, in order to defeat the claims advanced. But we have several instances which were treated of by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, when an application was made with respect to the state of affairs in the Baltic after the attack on Copenhagen. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-general) said, that those applications were made to the Admiral, who is dead, and, therefore, that no information could be obtained on the matter. But one of those applications referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, was made to the Admiralty, and not to the Admiral. I believe, that the insurances were made, in order, that the dock-yards might be supplied with the produce of the countries bordering on the Baltic. The Government at the time encouraged seamen to go up the Baltic, in order to bring home goods. It was said, there was extreme imprudence in, going up the Baltic, at the period alluded to. What imprudence could there be in so doing? Those who sailed there had information to the effect, that all hostilities had ceased—that they might go in perfect safety. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general, asked me for my proofs. I have had recourse to two or three authorities on the subject, which I mentioned on a former occasion. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the third book of Grotius, De Jure Belli, and the second book of Vattel, chapter 18. I there find the following passage —
Those who have given occasion for reprisals, are bound to grant compensation to those who have suffered by them.(The hon. and learned Gentleman then quoted a passage from Grotius to the effect that "it was the duty of a State to compensate those on whom reprisals had fallen.") I think, that those passages show, that as the seizure of the Danish property was in itself opposed to the laws of nations, the Danes being a friendly power, and they not having denied us any right, or done us any wrong, for which they had refused compensation, when we seized on their goods, I think, that under these circumstances, we are to take upon ourselves the responsibility of the consequences of the war. If, under these circumstances, compensation had been de- 1425 manded from the Danes, they would say, that they had been attacked merely because they would not surrender their armaments, their capital was bombarded, and their citizens slaughtered, and they were not liable for the consequences of such a state of things. There is but one other topic to which I shall advert. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said, that they were the trustees of the public purse. Yes, they were; but what had they done with the trust fund? When Lord-Brougham was Lord Chancellor an expression fell from him which, in my opinion, did him great honour. A large sum of money had been in dispute between parties of the name of Troutbeck. The Attorney-general stated upon the occasion, that the money was gone, and that there was no use in entering into a discussion on the subject. "But," said Lord Brougham, "if the money is gone, it is not gone according to law. It ought to be here to abide the result of the suit; and I will not allow you to put that in argument," I, too, say, that when there was a trust fund, it should be used for the purpose of that trust. On the last occasion, when I had the honour of submitting the subject for the consideration of the House, I read to the House a letter placed in my hands, by my friend Mr. Wilberforce. On a former occasion, when a discussion had come on in the House respecting the detention of the Danish vessels, and the claims of our subjects, Mr. Wilberforce had voted with the Government, and in favour of the detention of the vessels. A remonstrance, however, had been addressed to him upon the subject, and he had then stated, that he had acted with great reluctance, but he could not resist the argument that those vessels would constitute a trust fund for the purpose of making compensation to those among our own subjects whose property might have been seized by the Danes. I say, therefore, that was a trust fund, and though it had become a trust fund some thirty years ago, and was not applied to the purpose to which it ought to be applied, that forms no argument against the claimants, and they have not by their neglect, or by a want of due notice, lost their title. I trust, then, the House will sanction the motion to which I have called its attention. Whether the House adopts or rejects this motion, I have done my duty. The House will make its decision upon its own responsibility, and it rests with it to 1426 rescind or abide by the decision it has on so many occasions already come to.
§ Mr. Warburtondid not regret, that the aid of the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had been called in, but it would not induce him to vary the vote he had given on a former occasion. He thought it had been established to the satisfaction of the House, that those were reprisals, and not captures, and that the parties were entitled to compensation. He need not refer to the case of the Spanish vessels which had been seized at the breaking up of the war in Spain, and in which compensation was granted to the owners. On the 22nd of July, an embargo was laid on all the Danish vessels' in the English ports, and an armament was sent out to seize all vessels on the high seas belonging to that government. The armament ascended to the mouth of the Baltic, which everybody knew was a close sea, and he thought it only reasonable, fair, and just, that where the British Government derived so large a sum of money from the capture of the fleet and stores, and the condemnation of vessels seized in British ports, it was only reasonable and just that compensation should be afforded out of that large sum. It was nothing for him to hear that he funds had been misapplied; it was no answer to say, that thirty years had elapsed since the occurrence; that was only a stronger reason why the parties should immediately receive the small pittance of compensation to be awarded to them. He relied upon the want of notice to the British, who were sending their vessels to the Baltic, and upon the withdrawal of the British fleet, thereby rendering capture certain. That was enough to justify him in departing from the usual rules, in voting for compensation.
The Solicitor-Generaldid not wish for a moment to take credit to himself for anything he was not entitled to, therefore he must disclaim the credit given him by his learned Friend, that his statements of last night were merely the arguments used in former debates, and put in a clearer form; he supposed the superior intelligence of his learned Friend had enabled him to find it out. Sir James Mackintosh had distinctly laid it down, that book debts and goods seized ought to be compensated because they were seized against the usages of war and the law of nations; in such a case, he laid it down that it was the duty of the Government to enforce compensation by arms, or to make com- 1427 pensation out of their own funds. The application of the principle, however, he limited to seizures made against the law of nations, and against the usages of war. That was an authority upon the present occasion. When he addressed the House yesterday, he had refrained from reading the documents, contenting himself with stating them, and waiting until he heard whether they were contradicted. He would then read them. The first was a clear declaration of war upon the part of Denmark against England; and he said distinctly, that that declaration was made on the 16th of August. He would now state the facts; he would recapitulate them to the House. His hon. and learned Friend had stated, that there had been an embargo previous to the 27th of July. Now, he could discover no such thing, and he should be glad if his hon. and learned Friend, would refer him to the authority on which he made such statement. [Mr. Cresswell: It was so stated on bringing forward the motion in 1831.] He would refer his hon. and learned Friend to the orders of the Admiralty for laying on the embargo, which were dated the 25th of August. He had inquired at the Admiralty, and there was no document there to show, that any embargo had been laid on before the 25th of August; nor could he find at the Admiralty any trace of any application having been made there, as stated by one of the persons interested in supporting these claims, by any persons for information, or that any information had been given by any persons on the subject. On the 25th of August, the orders of the Admiralty authorising the detention of vessels were issued, and affairs continued in that state until the 2nd September, when those orders were confirmed and extended by an Order in Council. On the 3rd of August, the British fleet arrived off the coast of Denmark, and cut oft' all communication between the island of Zealand and the continent of Europe. Now, what effect on the mind of any man of ordinary intelligence must the appearance of a British fleet off the coast of Denmark have produced? If it were unexpected, the more likely was it to excite alarm; find he contended, that the appearance of that fleet, accompanied at it was by ft great body of troops, was abundant intimation to the merchants, that they could not remain safely in the proximity of such a 1428 fleet, and that if they did so remain, they must do so at their own expense and risk, and not at the expense and risk of the nation. From the 5th of August until the 13th, negotiations were going on between Mr. Jackson, the representative of the British Government at Copenhagen, and the Danish Government, relative to the surrender of the Danish fleet to the care of Great Britain. On the 16th of August, the Danish government issued the following proclamation, which would be found in the 14th volume of the "Annual Register," page 173. (The hon. and learned Gentleman here read the declaration of Christian 6th, in which, after reciting the demands made by the British resident, Mr. Jackson, he stated, that the resident, on the refusal of the Danish Government, to comply with those demands, had demanded passports for himself and his suite, and that, consequently, the war between England and Denmark might be considered as actually broken out, and he called upon all his faithful subjects to arm to repel the English aggression. He further ordered, that all English ships and property wherever found should be seized, and that all English should, until they could be sent out of the country, be placed under arrest; and the declaration finished by stating, that, as a matter of course, all English ships and boats found upon the coast, should be considered as hostile and that all correspondence with English subjects should cease until further orders.) When the King of Denmark issued a proclamation on the 16th of August, that war was actually broken out, could any man say, that he was justified in remaining in the Baltic to prosecute commercial speculations, on the belief, that pacific relations would not be interrupted? No relations of peace and amity subsisted between the nations after that proclamation; and on that day Admiral Gambier and Lord Cathcart issued an address, in which they stated, that they were ordered there by command of his Majesty, to obtain by pacific negotiation, if possible, the surrender of the Danish fleet. That surrender was refused; and, on the 24th of August, the Danish government issued a further proclamation, in very hostile terms. On the 2nd September, the bombardment of Copenhagen commenced. From that time, there was no pretence for the statement that anything like a cessation of hostilities had 1429 taken place. On the 9th September, the decree was issued, which gave rise to the claims for compensation, namely, that respecting the confiscation. On the 23rd of September a British manifesto was issued, showing the two nations distinctly to be at war. Now, when were these vessels seized? On the 6th of August, and on the 5th of September: but the great majority late in October, through November, and down to the 23rd of December. On the 4th of November, Great Britain, never having entertained hostile feelings towards Denmark, but having acted on the principle of great State necessity—a necessity founded on the most absolute justice—if self-protection be consistent with justice—the Government of the day was restrained from presenting a perfect defence, because we know, that at certain times private information which the Government may procure, may not be disclosed with safety to the individual who furnished that information, nor consistently with the means of obtaining further information which it might be desirable that they should possess. But, afterwards they discovered, that France and Russia had determined to seize the Danish fleet, and use it hostilely against Great Britain; and when the British navy arrived at Copenhagen, that place was in a state absolutely defenceless, so as to give every facility to the objects of Russia and France. It was complained that the English had taken the fleet when the Danes were not in a situation for defence. But that was their justification, for it became the imperative duty of the Government of the day to take wise, prompt, and decisive measures, that that fleet should not be used for the invasion of Great Britain, and the British Government would have deserved impeachment if, on the information they possessed, they had not wrested from the power of Russia such powerful means as the Danish fleet afforded. The hon. and learned Gentleman denied that they were at war. Hi" acute nod intelligent Friend behind him (Mr. Warburton) had looked too closely into the question to make such an Assertion; he had retired from that position. What constituted war? One nation appeared with a powerful armament on the shores of another nation, demanding of that other to surrender its fleet; that demand was resisted, and the Government so required, published to its subjects that the two na- 1430 tions were at war, and immediately directed the commencement of hostile acts. Did not that constitute war? Were the Danes to say whether they were at war, or his hon. and learned Friend? In their proclamations they stated, that the war was begun. It was not a paper war, a proclamation was issued by the Danish Government, that the two nations were at war. What was the foundation for the statement that the two nations were not at war? There was not the slightest, unless his hon. Friend could erase from the records this declaration of war on the part of Denmark. It was a most material fact for the House to bear in mind, and to adopt a distinct conclusion upon, were the two nations at war, prior to the seizure of these vessels? His hon. Friend seemed to think that he had imputed to him a want of accuracy in reference to the books. He had read the speech of his hon. and learned Friend attentively, and after reading it, he was astonished at the result. Nothing but his happy manner of delivering what he had to say, could have made that speech effectual to convince the House. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think, that he (the Solicitor-general) was mistaken in supposing, that he had drawn an incorrect inference. His hon. land learned Friend had not made any quotation from Grotius. He would refer the House to the authority of Vattel on the subject of reprisals. Reprisals were those things which were taken by nations which had a complaint against other countries, prior to the breaking out of a war, and with a view to obtain justice, upon a matter of complaint. (The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to the authority of Vattel with respect to reprisals, in justification of the course the Government had pursued.) Now what was the date of the seizure of the vessels in question, what were the dates as compared with the declaration he had heard that the two nations were at war? A few in the month of August, still fewer in September, and fewer still in October and November. The two nations Were at war after the 4th of November. Apologies were made for the act done, but Stating that it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the country by reason of the coalition of France and Russia. If his learned Friend called that an apology he was at perfect liberty to do so; but, in his (the Solicitor-general) opinion, it was justice to the nation. These 1431 seizures, therefore, he said, were all of them after war, and there was no ground for calling into the subject any recognised principle, for the case of goods and debts stood upon different grounds. Now, he wished to understand the ground upon which this was put, was it enough to say, that it was the peculiar circumstances of the case; if such was to be the ground it might be said, and said truly, that every case had its peculiar circumstances; no two cases could be identical; if it was to be put on the ground of peculiarity of circumstances it should be put upon some great and intelligible ground, such as could not be mistaken on future occasions. Now, what was the peculiarity here? His friends said, that they were taken by surprise— that no notice had been given of hostility to enable them to escape—was that the peculiarity? How often would it happen —he hoped never to see such days as that, but if the experience of the past was matter of caution for the future, looking at the course of events what answer he would ask could they give to the numerous claims which stood upon the same foundation? He denied that they had not responsible notice, and even if they had not, if it was said that the absence of notice furnished a ground for compensation, then he said, that the present case was peculiar for absence of any such ground; but he asserted that the parties had as much notice as was necessary. It was stated in the course of the debate, that an individual of the name of Harrison, had applied to Admiral Gambier to know if he might safely go to the Baltic. This might be the case, but the supposed conversation took place thirty years after the period referred to. But let them mark what followed. That individual wrote home to England to obtain an insurance. What did that writing home for an insurance show? Did it show that he might remain there without fear of war? Certainly not. The merchants who traded to the Baltic were a very adventurous get of men—they chose to speculate—they Stayed to load their cargoes, but they stayed too long. The British fleet was detained for ft time to put the Danish fleet in ft state to come to England. Why did not the vessels come away with the fleet? It was argued that the British fleet did not leave sufficient protection for the vessels in the Sound. That would be no ground for compensation. A large fleet such as that was must have been some time preparing o sail. Could those in the Baltic be ignorant that 1432 such a fleet was about to depart or had already departed? Decidedly not. If they chose to remain they did so at their own risk, as they did for their own profit. That, then, would form no ground on which to sustain these claims. Something had been said about a conversation which took place at the Admiralty. Would that House say, that on the ground of a conversation said to be held at the Admiralty about which nothing certain existed, they should vote away a large sum of money. That was certainly too futile a ground to be upheld. No application on the subject existed in writing. It was asked, if they had thought it fit to take the fleet? why did they give any compensation at all. Compensation was given in the former cases, because it was intended at the time the fleet was taken to return it in perfect safety. When the Danes refused to surrender their fleet and assumed a hostile attitude, we were obliged to consider them as enemies, and the ships were therefore taken in state of warfare. It was to the Danish captains that compensation was given for their private expenses and freightage. It could not for a moment be contended that the property seized by the British Government from its enemies, should be applied to the payments of the losses of private individuals. He regretted the loss these parties had sustained in the pursuit of their commercial speculations; but there must be some broad and intelligible ground on which such an application should be made. The Spanish case, had been referred to as forming a precedent, but he denied that there was any analogy between these cases. Before the House granted the present application they would do well to consider what was the precedent which they were about to lay down; and he was satisfied that in every principle of justice and honesty, the parties now before the House had no claim what ever upon the public funds.
§ Mr. A. Chapmancontended that the Government was bound to remunerate these parties, for the losses they had sustained, because, when application was made to them, they stated that there need be no apprehension whatever, and, acting upon that advice, one of his constituents, with his family, had been entirely ruined. He contended that these claims stood upon precisely the same footing as the book debts and the goods seined on shore. He himself had sent out ft ship which had been seized at Copenhagen, but it had been afterward re-taken and delivered up to him by Admi- 1433 ral Gambier. He trusted, that the Government would see the justice and expediency of no longer withholding the settlement of these claims.
§ The House divided: Ayes 75; Noes 64; Majority 11.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Alexander, N. | Humphery, J. |
| Antrobus, E. | Hutt, W. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Bagge, W. | Irton, S. |
| Baldwin, C. B. | Kemble, H. |
| Bannnerman, A. | Lambton, H. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Langdale, hon. C. |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Lascelles, hon. W. S. |
| Bell, M. | Liddell, hon. H. T. |
| Bethell, R. | Lowther, hn. Colonel |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Lygon, hon. General |
| Broadley, H. | Mackenzie, T. |
| Buller, Sir J, Y. | Maclean, D. |
| Burr, H. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Chapman, A. | Neeld, J. |
| Chute, W. L. W. | Ord, W. |
| Collier, J. | Pakington, J, S. |
| Craig, W. G. | Palmer, G. |
| Darlington, Earl of | Parker, M. |
| Douglas, Sir C. E. | Perceval, Colonel |
| Dunbar, G. | Philips, M. |
| Duncombe, hon. W. | Pryme, G. |
| Egerton, W. T. | Reid, Sir J. R. |
| Feilden, W. | Round, C. G. |
| Ferguson, Colonel | Round, J. |
| Filmer, Sir E. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Freshfield, J. W. | Smith, J. A. |
| Gaskell, J. Milnes | Style, Sir C. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. | Thesiger, F. |
| Grimsditch, T. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Hawes, B. | Verner, Colonel |
| Hawkes, T. | Wakley, T. |
| Henniker, Lord | Wemyss, Captain |
| Hepburn, Sir T. B. | Williams, W. |
| Hinde, J. H. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Hindley, C. | Worsley, Lord |
| Hodgson, R. | TELLERS. |
| Hotham, Lord | Cresswell, C. |
| Hume, J. | Warburton, W. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Armstrong, A. | Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. |
| Baring, rt. hn. F. T. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Barry, G. S. | Guest, Sir J. |
| Bernal, R. | Hastie, A. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Hector, C. J. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Herries, rt. hon. J. C. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. |
| Buck, L. W. | Hobhouse, T. B. |
| Buller, C. | Hoskins, K. |
| Busfeild, W. | Howard, P. H. |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Howard, hn. C. W. G. |
| Carew, hon. R. S. | Labouchere, rt. hn. H. |
| Childers, J. W. | Listowel, Earl of |
| Corry, hon. H. | Lushington, rt. hn. S. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Marshall, W. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon, H. | Morpeth, Viscount |