HC Deb 30 April 1846 vol 85 cc1295-323

Sir, once more I venture to make an appeal to the House, and once more make the Motion which I have placed on the Paper of to-day, to consider of those Danish claims which arose out of transactions which occurred in Denmark in the year 1807. Sir, after the arguments which have been adduced against this question, and the many discussions which have taken place upon it, I should hardly feel myself justified in occupying the time of the House, unless I entertained the strongest conviction of the equity and justice of these claims. I will endeavour, Sir, to compress what I have to say into a narrow compass. Now, Sir, the arguments which have been raised against these claims have merely, so far as I have been enabled to consider them, resolved themselves into two in number. One objection was of a financial character, which has been urged upon the House from time to time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think, rather looked to the difficulty of meeting the claims, than to the justice of the case. The other objection was of a far more important character, and one that I own I feel much difficulty in contending with. I own that the legal objections which have been raised, especially by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has exhibited considerable knowledge of law—especially international law—are difficult to meet. I know, also, that there are many difficulties surrounding this question. Nevertheless, those difficulties have not deterred the House, on many occasions, from affirming, by considerable majorities, the justice of the claims that were urged on the attention of the House. The circumstances out of which these claims arose I may state in a very few words. In the year 1807, the British Government having been informed that the Danish fleet was to be placed at the disposal of Napoleon, adverse to the interests of this country, determined, upon the information which they had received, to take measures for seizing that fleet. The expedition was one that was got up with the greatest secrecy and the greatest promptitude; and I need only refer to the duties relating to the fitting out and arrival of the expedition on the coast of Denmark, in order to show to the House that the expedition was so prompt and secret that the British merchants could not by possibility have had any intimation of it. That expedition sailed from this country on the 27th of July, and arrived with the British Minister, at Copenhagen, on the 1st of August; the troops were disembarked, and on the 18th Copenhagen was invested. This expedition went not for the purpose, as it has since transpired, of making a hostile aggression on Denmark, but for the purpose of enforcing a negotiation. A negotiation was entered into on the arrival of the fleet off the coast of Denmark, before any act of hostility commenced. It continued even for a considerable time after. The Danish fleet was seized, and Denmark, of course, placed an embargo on British property and British vessels; and Danish property and vessels were in turn seized by the British. Our Government took property to the amount of 300,000l., and the Danish Government seized property to half that amount. Negotiations were commenced before a single shot was fired, as I have before said, and continued long after the surrender of the fleet, and the seizure and confiscation of property. This negotiation came to no satisfactory conclusion, and Denmark declared war against this country on the 4th of November following; but it was not until the 24th of November Great Britain declared war against Denmark. It had been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that this declaration of war had a retroactive effect which he could not admit, particularly as to the confiscation of property. The fleet of Denmark was seized, and Copenhagen attacked by British arms, while a convention was pending; and this convention declared that all hostilities were to cease, and that all public and private property was to be respected. I allude to this convention for the purpose of showing that it must have been in force up to and at the period of the declaration of war. The declaration of war did not set aside the provisions of the convention to which I have alluded, and therefore the parties for whom I seek the protection of the House were entitled to the benefits of its provisions. The debts arose out of the confiscations incident to war. Some time after these transactions took place, Mr. Canning made a remarkable declaration on this subject. It was in answer to Mr. Perceval, who brought the question of these claims under the consideration of the House. Mr. Canning had said— As the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a communication made by him to M. Rist, the Danish Chargé d'Affaires, he would briefly state the fact to the House. He had been commanded by His Majesty, after the Danish fleet had surrendered, to make an official communication to that gentleman, desiring that he might procure powers from the Crown Prince to negotiate an accommodation, or to procure passports for a Minister to go to Kiel for that purpose. When he communicated this fact to the House, he thought it necessary to state why he did not produce the Papers. As all negotiations were resumed on the terms upon which they had last been broken off, and though he and his Colleagues had thought it right to make such offers in the first instance, it would not follow that they were bound to grant the same conditions at a future time. In the hope of some such accommodation, His Majesty had even been induced to delay directing the condemnation of the Danish shipping, as well as his declaration of war. But now that war had taken place, it could not be contended that the capture of the Danish navy did not, pro tanto, diminish the means of the enemy, whilst it added to our own security. Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the transaction at the time which it happened, it was certain since that time Parliament had on several occasions admitted that the applicants who had suffered during that war, and under the convention to which he had referred, were entitled to consideration. The claims put forward were of three kinds. The first claim was that of those who had debts owing to them by Danish subjects. The second kind of claim were those preferred by merchants who had goods seized on the occasion; and the third claims were those of parties who had an interest in ships and cargoes that suffered in the war. When this subject was first brought before the House, in consequence of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Treasury minute was brought up, and the Treasury minute of 1834 said distinctly it was referred to Parliament to decide whether one or all of these claims were to be admitted to compensation. By the words of that minute, the claims of those three classes were all of them admitted in principle to be worthy of the consideration of Parliament, and the progress of subsequent events had confirmed that principle. In 1835 and 1836 the first and second classes had their demands settled. In 1838 the claims of the third class had been brought under the notice of the House, on the ground that Government had funds out of which to pay the debt. Government had received the sum of 1,300,000l., and had never paid any part of it to those claimants; therefore there were funds somewhere out of which to satisfy this claim. In the year 1839, the subject was again brought before the House; and who brought it forward? It was brought forward, not by an humble individual like myself, whose opinions, whatever they may be, would be scarcely worthy of recollection, but it was brought under the notice of the House by a most accomplished lawyer, who would not have committed his reputation to the support of claims which he had regarded as illegal. He submitted these claims to the House, and the House again sanctioned their justice; but the then Chancellor of the Exchequer still delayed the settlement of them. With the view, however, to ascertain the legality of these claims, a Commission was appointed, met, and reported upon the claims of those parties. To that report I shall shortly call the attention of the House. It was laid on the Table on May 12, 1840, was signed by the three Commissioners, and addressed to the Lords of the Treasury. It stated that the Commissioners had proceeded to consider the merits of the several claims submitted to their consideration, and that they came to the following result:—The claims amounted to half a million, which was reduced to two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds: of the reduction in the amount I make no complaint. This sum of money was obtained from the sale of several cargoes which had been seized and sold, and which consisted of goods imported from the Baltic. In 1841, Mr. Justice Cresswell moved and carried an Address to the Crown that the question would be speedily settled; and had not Mr. Justice Cresswell been convinced of the legality of these claims, he would not have ventured to have risked his professional reputation by insisting on them. I must say that this case ought not to rest on strictly technical grounds. At the time those seizures were made, the Government were exposed to considerable danger; it thought it necessary to fit out several secret expeditions; and those who were losers by them were, of course, those chiefly connected with the mercantile interest. And the House should never forget that Government had received money to the extent of 1,300,000l., and that they never distributed more than one-half of that sum. The remaining sum must be still in existence, and could be applied to the purpose for which it was originally appropriated. I am unwilling to enter into the legal argument, but I think if any one will take the trouble—if any one has taken the trouble to refer to all that has transpired on this subject, he must be convinced that these claims are founded in justice, inasmuch as the public policy which induced the Government to take the part which they did, involved the people concerned in these losses. It is not necessary for me to say whether that policy were just or unjust. But, supposing that policy to be just, it was perfectly impossible for the Government to pretend that it did justice to the merchants, when they gave no public notification to them that they were about to enter upon the course which they took. The Admiral on the station received no intimation of that policy, and the merchants took no other precautions for their safety than they would under ordinary circumstances against sea risks. The trade in the Baltic was considered safe, and they therefore entered into nothing more than the ordinary insurance against sea risks. Sir, under these circumstances, when the British merchants were not forewarned by any public act, or warned by any official notice, they have, I contend, a perfect right now to ask this House and the Government of this country to give their sanction to a Committee of this House for investigating those claims. Sir, I have endeavoured to go as little over the whole ground as possible in submitting the case of the claimants. You will not, I will venture to say, refuse the Committee for which I ask. I hopc that those hon Members who have attended to this subject from year to year will again give the vote which they formerly gave in favour of a Committee of investigation. I am perfectly aware that the Government was placed in great difficulty by the opinions delivered by the law officers of the Crown. But I submit that this question is not a mere matter of law. It is a mixed case of law, equity, and justice. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to the Claimants for losses sustained by the seizure of British Ships and Cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807, the amount of their respective losses, as ascertained by the Commissioners appointed for the investigation of Danish Claims, and reported upon the 12th day of May 1840, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the same. [Sir W. GOSSETT, the Serjeant-at-Arms, soon afterwards appeared at the bar and said—"Sir, I have to acquaint the House, that, in obedience to the Order of the House, and in conformity with your warrant, I have taken Mr. WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN into custody."]


I hold in my hand a petition from the town I have the honour to represent; and I take the opportunity of expressing in a few words the reason why I consider this question should be speedily decided. I do not think that it is altogether quite a proper question for the consideration of Parliament. I cannot say that I look with any considerable favour upon this continued renewal of the question, and I feel earnestly that justice should be done, and that a final decision upon the question shall be arrived at—and that a complete, clear, and strong expression of Parliament should be come to on the subject. As to the merits of the question it appears to me that they lie in a very narrow compass. In the case of these claims, all compensation for them was formerly denied. At that time it was stated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, that the large and respectable body of individuals who had suffered upon the occasion, and who now claimed compensation for their losses, had no right to come to Parliament, or be compensated by the Government. I think that Government chose properly to compensate two classes of the Danish claimants. They were those claimants who could not be supposed to withdraw easily, and at a short notice, from the port of Denmark during the war: people who owned good debts in the town of Copenhagen, or possessed cargoes and valuable goods in the warehouses of Denmark, were possibly prevented from setting sail with their ships, and getting out of the reach of those who wished to obtain possession of them. Such was the argument used by the then Solicitor General. However, I do not think that we can sustain that opinion; but I think if an embargo was laid upon these ships before any official public notice was given to merchants in this country—if no intimation was given that the state of the relations of Denmark with this country were about to be disturbed—I do think—and I do not advance this opinion because I am Member for Hull—that such claimants have a fair reason to be compensated for the losses which they sustained from the proceeding. If a fair notice was given to them, I would not insist on their right to receive compensation; but if no official notice was afforded, those persons have a right to be considered as not having started upon a vague expedition, against which there was no impediment, and the unfortunate termination of which was beyond their conception; then, I think, they are entitled to that compensation. Now, Lord Sidmouth, on the 17th of May, 1808, on which occasion a similar Motion to that now before the House was discussed in the House of Lords, showed that no such notice had been given by the Court of Denmark; and he said that on the 2nd of September, a similar order to one previously issued by the Admiralty was afterwards issued by His Majesty's Government in Council, accompanied by orders that no ships belonging to His Majesty's subjects should clear out for any of the ports of Denmark, and that a general embargo should be laid on all ships and vessels belonging to the subjects of that country. Now, if that notice was issued in this country on the 2nd of September, and ships sailed afterwards, then, I think, they are not entitled to the compensation sought; but those which had sailed before, and were neither named by our own nor the Danish Government, are entitled to compensation. The opinion of Lord Sidmouth, in which I agree, is very favourable to the compensation of those who incurred losses. The noble Lord said, on the subject of compensation, there could not be the smallest difference of opinion; and Lord Sidmouth had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Prime Minister, and was competent to give an opinion on the matter. Now, Sir, I have stated the only arguments on which I intend to rest. I say that I find on the 2nd of September an order was issued by His Majesty's Government; after which no person had a right to compensation. Now, I think the issuing of that order was a sufficient proof that the merchants had no right to clear out of the Danish ports before that time. I beg leave, Sir, to second the Motion.


I can assure the House, Sir, that it is very painful to me to have again to repeat those opinions and those sentiments which I have so often had occasion to address to the House on this particular subject; sometimes when sitting on this side of the House, and sometimes when sitting on the other. But, Sir, I have had from these repeated discussions full opportunities of hearing all that can be urged on this particular subject, having had various opportunities of consideration and reflection; and I adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed upon the subject, that it is one in which it is not consistent with public policy for the House to interfere, and that it is one in which it is not consistent with the duty of him to whom Her Majesty has entrusted the finances of this country to acquiesce. Sir, I believe also, very strongly, that it is a matter of great delicacy on the part of the House of Commons to deal with a question of this kind in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with it. A rule is most wisely laid down by the Constitution, that the House of Commons should not take upon itself, independently of the Crown, to originate any grant of money; and this rule is expressly laid down to guard against the possibility of parties being urged, rather by persons who had a direct interest, to come to a vote of public money which a consideration of the general interests of the country did not authorize, and the House, therefore, imposed the check in that respect. But it will place the Crown in that most inconvenient position of having, instead of as usual to originate such a grant, to refuse it when recommended by a Committee of this House. I think that it is a most inconvenient position in which to place the Crown, on an occasion where grave legal doubts as to the claims exist, and where the question of how far the right of the House to interfere is involved, to call upon it to make any grant upon such a matter. The hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by stating that these claims were refused on two special grounds: one of these grounds being financial, and the other being founded on international law. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, when he states that the objections to these claims are of a financial character. They never, let me observe, rested on that principle, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth had observed, for whether these claims be for 500,000l. or 200,000l., it is not the amount that we should regard in our decision, but the principle involved in it. The danger involved is not only the expense we should incur, but the expense we should expose ourselves to in respect to past wars, and our successors in respect of wars to come. The question rests in a great measure on international law not laid down in this House, by Gentlemen of the highest legal authority; and it also rests on the opinions of men who combated the former judgment on this important question. The Solicitor General expressed his opinion against it in this House, when the question was legally discussed, and I have never yet heard any answer to his opinion. The question does not rest only on the opinion of those hon. and learned Gentlemen who have lately given their opinions, but it rests on the authority of all those legal Gentlemen who have taken part in previous debates in this House, when former claims were urged. Those Gentlemen all said that the claims that were urged were only to be mantained where there was some conviction or proof of any violation of the law of nations; and they reserved to themselves the point that the circumstances on which this claim was founded, were of a totally different character from those laid down in the category of those who made the claims. This was the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, when he said that these claims should be decided by an exposition of international law. These claims have been supported by an hon. Gentleman formerly a Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cresswell); and in his constituency were large bodies of individuals personally interested in the question now before the House. Mr. Cresswell brought forward the question, as he considered he had a duty to perform to his constituency, and that he should present to the House the circumstances under which this case arose, in order that it might have the benefit of a discussion in the House of Commons. Great importance is attached to the opinion of Mr. Justice Cresswell, from his eminent legal abilities; but it ought to be borne in mind that he represented a large mercantile body, many of whom had an interest in the question. Whatever value is attached to the opinion of that eminent lawyer, the House should weigh against it the fact that he acted in that matter as it became his duty as a Representative in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this question lays great stress on the ground that this was a secret expedition, and the injury to which the merchants had been exposed in consequence of not having information so as to escape the danger. On this point the House should consider the extreme hazard which would grow out of giving information in such cases. I have not heard any sound reason given why compensation should be given in cases of this kind, and arising out of such circumstances. I have heard nothing advanced to convince me of the opinion that the captures for which compensation is sought took place after the declaration of war. The declaration of war against Denmark took place on the 16th of August, 1807, and no capture was proved to have taken place subsequent to that date. I have already referred to this declaration, and given its terms; and I now assert that it was issued on the 16th of August, and the captures were antecedent to that period. But it is said it was a secret expedition, and, therefore, compensation should be given. If you carry out that principle, what will be the effect? If you give compensation in the present instance, you are bound to give it in every other case. Grant the present claims, and whenever an enemy is attacked under similar circumstances, whenever a secret expedition is fitted out, you will be bound by such a precedent for every capture which is made at sea during the progress of the war. Let us see how the principle applies to other wars. See how it would apply to the last war with the United States. No notice was given them that our merchant shipping was in danger, yet, according to this principle, we should be bound to grant compensation for every capture, Such a ground of compensation now sought would establish a principle applicable not only to the Danish war, but to all other wars; and in all captures of merchant ships arising out of secret expeditions they would have Motions made and claims advanced for compensation. In every particular case the House would be called upon to make advances of money in order to satisfy the parties. It would be impossible for the country to go into war and defend its just rights without being subject to claims for damage done to private individuals in the prosecution of such expeditions as that out of which had arisen the present claims. But there seems to be great doubt among hon. Gentlemen who support this Motion. The hon. Member for Lambeth supported the claims of one class, while the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull supported the claims of another class. The hon. Member for Hull says, that no indemnity ought to be given in certain cases, because he has found out that an Order in Council was issued on the 2nd of September, 1807, that no British ships should clear out for Denmark, because they would be liable to be seized upon and confiscated by that Government; and therefore, argues the hon. Baronet, they have no claim for indemnity. What is the effect of this disagreement? Why, out of the eighty-five persons who, according to the statement of my right hon. Friend opposite, have claims, if the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull is taken, only ten can have any claim at all. Thus we see that these learned Gentlemen—learned in the doctrine of international law—are divided to the extent, that while the one would admit the rights of eighty-five claimants, the other would only give compensation to ten. Can a stronger proof than this be required that the subject is not of that very clear character that it was represented by the hon. Member for Lambeth to be? The hon. Member for Lambeth has, I think, not very fairly stated the opinions of Lord Althorp, as given in 1834. The Report of 1834 states— We are all aware that these claims are made for the losses sustained on this occasion by the act of the Danish Government; but we do not conceive that Parliament would be disposed to admit the principle that such claims could be entertained. As I have stated before, I am very little competent to argue the legal points as to what coustitutes the lawful seizure of property. It may appear that there is no valid reason why property on shore may not be captured as well as property at sea, and why the former should be safe, while ships and cargoes should be exposed to seizure; but I believe no one will deny that such is the principle of international law. They have respected property on shore, but never that on the sea. This property, like a great deal of other property, had undergone the chances of war. It is said that these were only reprisals; and that they, therefore, stand from other ships. Now, what is the question of reprisals? It is something of this kind. You lay your hands on whatever property you can legally take, in order to compel your enemy to accede to reasonable terms. Well, then, this property happens to consist of ships and merchandise. If the differences are settled, they are returned; if the war goes on, why, they are sold. But really, after the war has commenced, there is no distinction as to property captured after the declaration of war, and after the commencement of actual hostilities. All I wish to inculcate on the House is the danger to which the country will be exposed if they set a precedent that, if they went to war with a foreign nation, some six and thirty years after they could be induced to compensate all who had suffered any detriment. Standing in every respect upon the footing on which these cargoes and ships were taken, I contend that you are not entitled to ask the House of Commons for a Committee to inquire into these claims. Sir, I can assure the House that it is only from a sincere desire to avoid all the dangers which I see incident to an acquiescence in things of this kind, that I have on so many occasions expressed my opinion on this subject. I have abstained, as the hon. Gentleman has done, as much as possible, from repeating the arguments which I have used before with respect to this question. I do not rest, as the hon. Gentleman does, upon any technical grounds. It is upon a great national principle—it is upon the broad principle which I have already stated, that if you once lay down this principle, that you will protect all ships and cargoes during war, no limit can be placed to such claims hereafter. It is on these grounds that I must resist the Motion of the hon. Member opposite, for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the Danish claims.


I trust I shall be able to show the House, on principles of public justice and national law, the justice of these claims. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who represent large commercial constituencies have a peculiar mode of looking at the question of international law in this House. Will he allow me to make a retort, that the right hon. Gentlemen who have visited the purlieus of the Treasury seem also to have a very extraordinary view of the public policy and the public justice of international law? Now, Sir, let us see first of all what the facts are in this case, and the grounds on which this claim must succeed. These cargoes and ships were taken before any declaration of war whatsoever. This country having ascertained that a party was about to seize the Danish fleet, sent out a fleet under sealed orders and perfect secrecy, so that not a single merchant of this country could know where that fleet was. The relations between Denmark and England continued; the merchants continued in their intercourse with the Baltic. They continued in their intercourse with Denmark all the time. The fleet went to the Baltic, and on the Admiral being asked whether or not they might safely trade in the Baltic, he distinctly communicated to the merchants that they might do so. Well, Sir, that being so, I ask on what ground of publicity it is that these claims are attempted to be resisted? Should it not be our public policy to encourage the merchants in carrying on their trade? I say that by our national law they are clearly entitled to those claims. But what was the declaration that was made to the Admiral when they entered the Baltic? They said, "We come to your shores inhabitants of Zetland, not as enemies—(this, I believe, was dated August, and I have not the exact date)—not as enemies, but in self-defence, and to prevent those who are willing to destroy Europe from using your forces for that purpose." "We come not as enemies;" and yet the right hon. Gentleman has said they are not entitled by international law to make these claims. War was declared on the 4th of November. The Danish ambassador demanded his passports on the 16th November. It has been attempted to say that the declaration of war took place on the 14th August, in the declaration of Gluckstadt. In the case of a declaration of war between two countries, the inhabitants of each country would have warning not to trade with each other; if they were to do so, they would then be guilty of a breach of the law of their country, and vessels going to Denmark might be justly captured by English vessels, on the ground that they were attempting to trade with an enemy. On the 7th of August, it was declared by the British Envoy that war was upon the point of commencing between the two countries, and at the same time demanded his passport, on the ground that war between the two countries might be considered as having already broken out. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that this was a declaration of war between the two countries. I will prove, by the decision of Lord Stowell, that this was a declaration of reprisals, and not a declaration of war; and in the declaration issued by the Danish Government, the following words occurred:— We merely call upon our faithful subjects to take up arms to defend themselves and their property, and to ward off this violent attack; and this document further states that an embargo would be laid upon foreign vessels. Now, that point has been decided by Lord Stowell, in the Admiralty, in the case of the "Orion." The case was, whether the capture was the right of the Crown or the Admiralty. He said, that if the capture was made before the declaration of war, it was the right of the Admiralty; but it reverted to the Crown if taken after the declaration. The capture was, therefore, the right of the Crown, inasmuch as there was no declaration of war until the 4th November. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the House, and says we must resist these claims, because the hon. Members for Lambeth and Hull may entertain some little difference of opinion upon the subject. The real question is, when was war declared? It has been stated by some hon. Members, that there is great danger if we compensate these Danish claimants we shall also have to compensate the French and other claimants for losses which they may have sustained in a war with England. A little reflection will tell those hon. Gentlemen that such could not be the case, because after a declaration of war is made, the prizes are the prizes of war. Such prizes are not entitled to compensation when the war has broken out, for everybody knows the situation in which they were placed—every ship captured by the Danish and French are not entitled to compensation. Now, let me look at the justice of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown some impediment in the way of this matter. He says it is not respectful to the Crown—that it is a question that reflects on the Ministers. In 1834, the hon. Member for Sheffield brought the matter forward; and again in 1837 and in 1838. In 1841, the Commons voted that in justice the compensation sought for should be given to the parties; but, however, it was not acceded to; and now the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make out a vast distinction with respect to the rights of the claimants, and says it is not respectful for us to address the Crown. Now, I say, it is altogether respectful for us to address the Crown upon the subject, when justice can be obtained by so doing; for, up to this time, no justice has been meted to the parties. The Treasury at this moment has many thousands of pounds which were paid by the Danish Government on account of those claimants; and, therefore, it was simply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons so claiming. But perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish to part with the money from the coffers of the Treasury. Now, Sir, with respect to the other point—the question of international law. I do not boast myself of a very perfect knowledge of the law; but I have looked at the opinions of those lawyers who have considered the question, and they have come to the conclusion that the parties are entitled to the compensation which they seek, as the capture of their ships was not a capture in war. There is not a better lawyer than Mr. Justice Cresswell; and it is not at all likely that he would compromise his legal character on this subject because he was the Member for Liverpool. But there are two great parties whom I have not the honour to see in their places at this moment—I mean the Attorney and Solicitor General; because, if I have stated anything erroneous in point of law, they would no doubt have corrected me. [An hon. MEMBER: Why are they not here?] I will tell you why they are not here. Both the Attorney and the Solicitor Generals voted for this Motion on a previous occasion; but have I not the opinions of Mr. Justice Cresswell, one of the most acute and just lawyers in England? I say it is not likely that he would warp his legal judgment on the matter; and if the Attorney General or Solicitor General were here, I am sure they would not dispute the law, because they have voted for the Motion. The hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde, who voted against the Motion) challenged Mr. Justice Cresswell to produce any authorities in favour of his view; and on the next night, the 10th of June, he did produce two authorities, and said, in the course of his address, "I have been challenged that there is no authority on the subject;" and he then read an extract from Vattell, which stated— Those who have by reprisals lost their property, are bound to get compensation for their losses. Grotius too stated— It is the duty of the State to give compensation to those on whom reprisals have fallen. Vattel further said, speaking of the mode of settling national disputes— But before a State declares war"—[I beg the attention of the House to this]—"before she declares war, of which we shall treat in the following book, as there are various methods practised among nations of obtaining justice, she seizes on some property if she has an opportunity, and declares it seized until she has had sufficient satisfaction. Then he says— She takes possession of what belongs to another, and keeps it until payment; or he detains it as a pledge. Then he says— The effects seized upon are preserved while there is any hope of obtaining satisfaction or justice; but so soon as that hope disappears, they are confiscated, and the reprisals are then complete. Now can anything be more clear than that? For the purpose of satisfaction they seize, and when all hope of satisfaction disappears, the reprisals are complete, and the goods are disposed of. This is the last remaining effort previous to the commencement of open hostilities. Then, indeed— Is the Sovereign to compensate his subject on whom reprisals shall have fallen? I say that Parliament and the Monarch of Great Britain ought to compensate those on whom reprisals fell by the Danish transactions of 1807. It is the duty of the State or the nation to make this good, because on this principle each citizen ought to pay his quota. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury is well versed in law, and perhaps he will point out how, seeing that war was not declared until the 4th of November, the seizures were captures of war, and not merely reprisals. There was a most extraordinary argument used here on a former occasion upon the decision of Lord Stowell upon the seizure of property in Demerara, and the claim that was made by persons calling themselves British subjects, for restitution of their property. These individuals were first British subjects, then Dutch subjects, and afterwards British subjects again; and Lord Stowell decided that, as the parties were Dutch subjects at the time of the seizure, they had no locus standi in the courts of law of this country, to obtain restitution. Lord Stowell said, that the question mainly depended on whether the property was taken before or after the declaration of war. Now, Sir, I say that this question originated on the ground of public policy, public justice, and international law; and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons injured were entitled to compensation, on the part of those who had caused the inquiry. I am sorry I have troubled the House so long on the subject; but it appears to me that justice requires that the law should be justly and fairly put in practice on this occasion.


On no occasion should I have presumed uninvited to enter the lists with my hon. Friend opposite, for the purpose of attempting to sustain an argument of a legal character; but on the present occasion as my hon. Friend has called on me I shall not shrink from the task, and I will endeavour to give a legal argument, which for the first time since the commencement of this discussion, has ever been submitted to the House. It will appear remarkable to those not familiar professionally with legal subjects, that with all the acumen of Sir James Mackintosh, and all the crown lawyers that then held office under Her Majesty, it has been reserved for to-night to bring forward a legal argument against the subject on which I feel it my duty now to speak. For the sake of the parties who sustained injury arising from the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, this case was raised by Sir James Mackintosh; and he stated that if any portion of those goods were taken by Denmark in contravention of the established law of nations, it became our imperial duty to vindicate that law on the part of the subjects who were injured; and if for any reason whatever we failed in discharging that duty, it became our duty to compensate the subjects who suffered by our refusing to discharge that duty. This was when the Danish claims were first raised; and Sir James Mackintosh and those who were engaged with him in their former attempts, took care to have nothing to do with the part of the claims now the subject of discussion. They felt that it was necessary, resting on that ground, carefully to distinguish between those claims which demanded compensation for property on shore, and book-debts, and those claims on behalf of ships and cargoes, because they felt that in such a position there was one reply which could be made, if ships and cargoes were acknowledged to stand on the same footing as the property on shore. Why did the hon. Gentleman opposite seek to bring this case within the law of nations, when the real ground on which it rested was whether the reprisals were made before or after the declaration of war? What follows has relation to the subject of reprisals. The hon. Gentleman has grounded his position on a point of law, on which it is necessary that the legal argument should be clearly understood by each of us. The words reprisals and captures are not to be used in the ordinary and popular sense, but in a strict and legal sense. Now, the hon. Member has taken the ordinary and popular meaning of reprisals, and continued it strictly and legally as the foundation of his argument. He has laid down this distinction in the course of his address, and on that construction contends, that if captures took place before the declaration of war, they are to be considered reprisals, and compensated. With great deference to the hon. Gentleman, I must say, I do not agree with him in his legal definition; and on that ground consider they are not entitled to compensation. Reprisals between nation and nation are allowed in order to enable them to do justice to each other, in matters where they consider themselves aggrieved, and when they have no other means of redressing themselves. If a nation refuses to do justice to another, then the latter, according to the law of nations, might seize the ships of the former, and keep them in pledge till justice is done them; or if they fail to do so, then the capturing party may keep the ships and property seized, and declare them to be confiscated. If an open rupture in consequence takes place, and war ensues, then are they justified at once in confiscating all that has been previously seized. This is the distinction between reprisals and captures. Thus, if a capture takes place, and no warfare arises between the countries in consequence, then is the Government bound to take the claim of the injured parties into consideration, and to grant compensation. But when a declaration of war takes place, the retroactive effect is, that captures fall under the ordinary rules of war, and are not entitled to compensation. The hon. Gentleman says there was no declaration of war; but it has been referred to this evening, and is distinct enough. It declares on the part of the Danish Government that war is actually broken out, and calls upon all faithful subjects to come forward and take such steps as are best calculated to repel hostile attacks. This declaration of war is distinct enough, whatever may have been the acts of Denmark before the period of its being issued; and this declaration was issued on the 16th of August, 1807. Well, but the hon. Member says that the first declaration of war on the part of England was made on the 4th of November, 1807; and here, I think, my hon. and learned Friend has confounded two circumstances. A declaration of war, according to the practice of this country, is an act of hostility; and I believe that no declaration of war, according to the sense of my hon. and learned Friend, had been issued at the very time when he was on his way to take part in the battle of Waterloo. What was the object contemplated by the proclamation of the 4th of November, to which the hon. Member has made reference? That was not a proclamation of war, but a proclamation for the distribution of prizes; and before such proclamation had been issued, such prizes became droits to the Admiralty, and were carried to account of the Consolidated Fund. As between England, therefore, and Denmark, the bombardment of Copenhagen was the declaration of war; as between the Government of England and the captors of prizes, I believe that to them only had the proclamation of the 4th of November reference; and I am astonished that my hon. and learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord Stowell in support of his position. This is a simple question between the Government of Great Britain and its subjects; not between the Governments of England and Denmark, and, therefore, not bearing on these Danish claimants. I do not know whether I have succeeded in fixing the attention of the House to the conclusion I would seek to establish. I consider that my hon. and learned Friend has, in some degree, confused the question as between the Imperial Government of Great Britain and the subjects of Great Britain making captures, and the Governments of Great Britain and of Denmark. This, I think, is the complete answer to the legal arguments which my hon. and learned Friend has for the first time submitted to the House; an argument which has escaped the attention of Sir James Mackintosh, which has not come under the notice of Mr. Justice Cresswell, and which has not been observed by any of the hon. Members who have introduced this matter before the House. Having taken up so much time in rebutting this argument, I will proceed very shortly to notice the other arguments of my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. Friend says, that Gentlemen connected with the Government take a peculiar view of this question. I would remind the hon. and learned Member, that Lord Althorp had the subject under his consideration. These claims were brought forward for the first time in 1838. Those who had other claims to advance were too prudent to embarrass themselves with these. Therefore, this was the first time this subject was introduced. Lord Campbell and the hon. Member for Worcester did advise the Government what course to take; and the Government had not been influenced in the determination which they came to by any other considerations than those of public policy. Now, Sir, I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that, if his point of law cannot be sustained, he has no ground to rely upon in regard to the principles of general public policy. I think my hon. Friend must see the vicious precedent which he is about to set. Sir, the law of nations is established for useful purposes, and on principles which should not, and ought not, to be departed from. Observe the precedent you are about to set with regard to future wars. But is it only in regard to future wars? Why, these claims are more than thirty years old. Thirty years after the Danish expedition are these claims brought forward. Those persons who had substantial claims upon the Government, never thought of embarrassing the case by bringing in the present one; and it was not until thirty years after the war that this case was brought under the notice of Parliament. And, Sir, if after that length of time the law has been against these claims, you are prepared to grant the justice of the claim in any individual cases of the kind, the precedent that you set does not apply only to future wars; but I know of no ground of justice, of policy, or of national practice, on which you can refuse to deny compensation in the case of any war that has occurred in the history of this country, upon which anybody can bring evidence of loss that has the semblance of truth in support of a similar claim. Sir, having therefore, as I humbly trust, satisfactorily answered the novel argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon an erroneous distinction, and having cursorily gone over the more general arguments of the hon. Gentleman who moved for this Committee and brought the matter before the House, I do hope that the House will see the necessity of resisting the hon. Member's Motion.


Sir, it is not necessary on this occasion to enter, after the debate that has now taken place, into details on this subject. I only wish, Sir, to say, that there is no fear of any precedent of this case ever occurring again. I trust that England will never be guilty of such harsh conduct towards any country, as she was guilty of towards Denmark. I do not believe there is any chance whatever of that. It is one of those measures which were most pernicious and disgraceful to the English nation; and I think that those who were the parties to this transaction should have acquitted themselves as soon as possible of the claims against them. The learned Gentleman says, that this is the first time that this class of claims was admitted. Why, Sir, we know that all these claims were put on the same footing. I believe I have stated them twenty times, or at least as many times as this subject has been brought forward; and does the hon. Gentleman make any distinction when he knows that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting by him did not make any distinction between these claims? That right hon. Gentleman rejected them all in the first instance as unjust; and the distinction now made is ridiculous. It is true, Sir, that those who advocated these claims did, in consequence of some intimation, make a division between these three classes; but I cannot see any distinction between them whatever. I think the learned Gentleman on this side, who has stated the case, has drawn a line; but I have always objected to the Government insisting that a declaration of war was then made. I have only to say, that an argument more inconclusive could not be brought forward on any question. I consider that we should by no means reject these claims, from any fear of a precedent being made out for future or past cases. I state that there is no fear of any claims of this sort being hereafter made. I consider that the parties who make these claims are asking for nothing but justice, and that the Government would be acting most unfairly in refusing a Committee to inquire into these claims. Government has been in possession of funds to the amount of upwards of 1,200,000l., and this they have had in their possession ever since the year 1807. I consider that ample funds are still remaining in the hands of the Ministers to pay all these claims; and I think Ministers should be compelled to pay them. I think this should be the rule, that on whatever ground Government may think themselves warranted in commencing hostilities, they should not allow some portion of the people to suffer by such proceedings, and that if any expenses should be incurred they should be divided equally amongst all classes of the community. One or two individuals should not bear the loss. I think this clear from documents of this House, that the merchants, before they left the river Thames, asked the Admiralty if there was any danger in sending their vessels to Denmark. After arriving in the Baltic, they also inquired of the English Admiral on the station; and the answer they received from him was, "No danger." The merchants were deceived by the Government. Government concealed their plans by giving answers which they knew were erroneous. Some time since it was alleged, and strong arguments held in this House, that the merchants were not entitled to compensation, as they might have been insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have I heard a single valid argument brought forward to-night in opposition to these claims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taken as any precedent. No war can take place upon such principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we may throw that on one side. I ground my vote, as I always have done, upon these two plain facts, that English merchants trading to Denmark considered that they were trading under the protection of the English Government, when the Government had commenced hostilities. They had no advice, and received no information on the subject, till after their property had been seized. Upon these grounds, I think that these individuals have a right to demand of the Government payment of their claims; and I only wish that I could add, and interest. The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the whole amount of their claims. It would be only justice to add the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any of the claimants are gone to the grave, their relations may now come forward and justly ask of you compensation for their claims. All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. My opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, principal and interest, as fairly and as justly as any individual having any claim against any other individual. I trust the House will support the Motion of the hon. Member, as it did formerly, and that the Ministers will not act as they have heretofore done, but will agree to the Motion and cheerfully carry it into effect.


I am anxious to say a few words on this subject, because I invariably offered the Motion my determined opposition; and I must, in the first place, say, that whether you have money in the Treasury or not, if this claim is a just claim, we are bound to accede to it. I have never taken it as a mere financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, but whether the claim was founded on justice or not. Certainly, if it had been founded on justice, no feelings of economy would have prevented the Government of which I was a Member doing justice to the parties. My hon. Friend says that these cases—I am sure his memory fails him—he says that the cases before the House must be held to be included in the other cases decided by the House on a previous occasion; and my hon. Friend is good enough to say that the House ought not to have a divided opinion on these cases, because there was no division of opinion on the others. But to the present claims, which present themselves in a new form, and are different from those specified by Sir James Mackintosh, I shall feel it my duty to offer every opposition in my power. I think that no want of respect on my part; for I feel myself bound, looking at the great consideration which was given to the subject when I was in office, to come to that conclusion. It may be said that we have all a Treasury feeling on the subject; but my noble Friend Earl Spencer closely examined the question for himself—and no one was better able to give an opinion, on account of his fair and upright mind, of what was an equitable claim—and I know he came to a decided opinion that these claims ought not to be allowed; and, as in duty bound, I felt it my duty to consult the law officers of the Crown—Lord Denman and Lord Cottenham; and with every respect to the hon. Gentleman who sits behind me, I must say that I think we should not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advocate, was amongst the number. Besides that, the hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied for several days in comparing the duplicates of the original documents on which the claims were founded, in order to test their accuracy, and to be enabled to give a decided opinion on the matter. Then Sir William Follett, whose name can never be mentioned in this House without respect, voted, I believe, in favour of these claims; and I recollect that, when he was appointed Solicitor General, he was taunted with changing his opinions, and he stated distinctly that he gave his opinion on the case that was submitted to him, but that when he heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Worcester, he said he could not vote for the Motion of Mr. Cresswell, as he had ceased to have a shadow of a doubt upon the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Watson) has stated what is no doubt the main point of his case, that these were reprisals, and not captures. Now, in the first place, allow me to suggest to him, that I believe the doctrine of declaration of war has been of late much changed. If the hon. Gentleman were called upon to give a legal opinion out of doors, he would say that the old authorities could not now be adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no declaration wanted now to constitute war. That is a crotchet that is gone by. Open hostilities constitute war, and no declaration is necessary. But the hon. Gentleman says that if the declaration of the 16th August be considered as a declaration of war, then the case falls to the ground. He says, the declaration of the 16th August was not a declaration of war—I mean the declaration of Gluckstadt. Now, in the first place, what does he give as a definition of a declaration of war? Just look to that declaration of the 16th August. In the first place, let the House read that passage which states that war had actually commenced. If the House would read the declaration of war, they would find that the property of English subjects was confiscated, and that all trade was prohibited between the two countries. There is no necessity for a particular form of words in the declaration of war; but this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the construction which he said had been put upon the proclamation of 16th August, 1807, by Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier; and he quoted several words from that proclamation, with the view of showing that, although this declaration had been issued, it was not with a view of carrying on the war. There can be no doubt, however, that it was the intention of the English Government at that period to obtain their demands, if possible, by fair means; and if not, that forcible ones would be resorted to. What was the language of the two officers commanding on that occasion? They stated that the country was not then the theatre of a negotiation, but of a war. Yet the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale stated that this was only a case of reprisal, and not of war. There is another document, and a very important one, to which I must briefly refer. It is the one bearing date the 4th Nov., 1807, the declaration of war by the Government of this country. How did this document commence? What was the construction put upon the declaration of 16th August? It said, "That whereas the King of Denmark has issued a declaration of war against this country;"—and then, to return to the declaration of the authorities of Denmark of 16th August, we found it stated that war had actually commenced. I cannot see how any other conclusion could have been come to by men of common sense, after reading the papers, than that there had been a positive declaration of war. I am at a loss, in fact, to conceive how any human being, looking through the whole of these papers, can have any doubt that the opinion expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, by the Lord Chancellor, by Lord Campbell, by Sir W. Follett, and the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, is right—that a declaration of war had been made—and that these had been fair and legal captures. Whenever questions of this character come on for discussion in the House, generally it is only those hon. Members whose constituents are directly interested in the result who are to be found in their places; whilst upon the present there is, as well as on previous occasions there has been, but a very scanty attendance of independent Members, arising, I presume, from the circumstance that it is considered by them to be of a very tiresome nature. I must conclude by expressing my intention of voting against the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth.


said: Sir, I have been, amongst others, requested to support these claims, and in giving them my support, I assure you that I do not do so without having given the subject some consideration. I will not trespass long on the attention of the House, but confine my remarks to the meaning of the hon. Gentleman who in his speech argued there was a declaration of war. The main point, it seems to me, to be considered is, whether or not there was a declaration of war. It appears to me, the fact of two of the classes of claims having been declared to be good, is an admission that there was no declaration of war. I understood it to be so stated; and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W. Follett, as far as the other two cases were concerned. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman and the Government can admit these claims as they have done, without giving up the position of the declaration of war. I can see no reason why the present claim should be rejected, having conceded the other claims, on the ground of the declaration of war; and you must, therefore, argue the case upon totally different grounds. With regard to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, I must say that great care should be exercised in taking their opinion. I have uniformly observed that legal Gentlemen give different opinions when in office to what they give when they are independent Members. When the Government asks them for an opinion, they are more disposed to give a favourable opinion to the Government, than when they are out of office; for, occupying the position they occupy, they are pledged to support the Government. When they are out of office, when they give an opinion, their legal character is at stake; but when they are in office it is well known that they are expected to support the Government, and their opinion is expected to be accordingly. In as far as I learn, legal Gentlemen when out of office, have given an opinion in favour of these claims. But on this occasion it appears that the Attorney General and Solicitor General shrink from coming forward to support the Government. This proves they must think the case of the claimants one of uncommon strength. If the Government had a leg to stand upon, the law officers would no doubt have been here to support them. But instead, we find the case so strong and convincing, that the law officers are unwilling to appear in their places in the House, in order to support the Government. I must further observe, that the legal character of both these Gentlemen, when they were independent Members, was distinctly pledged to support these claims, on the ground of international law. On the grounds of justice, therefore, I am compelled, on the present occasion, to give my support and vote to the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the present Motion.


said: I wish to ask a single question of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government. Will the Government pay the money if the House decides in favour of the Motion? The question has been decided several times before, by a vote in its favour, yet the Government have not given effect to it. In doing that have they not been guilty of contempt of the House; and are they not liable to solitary confinement as much as the hon. Gentleman whose case has lately excited the attention of the House? The House, on former occasions, has repeatedly decided in favour of these claims; yet the Government has treated them with contempt. A legal argument has arisen, and out of that wilderness it appears we shall not get; for the hon. and learned Member behind me, when he commenced his speech, said that, on every principle of international law, this money ought to be paid, and he quoted as his authorities Grotius and Vattel; but up rises an hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side, and he says that, on every principle of international law, the money ought not to be paid, and he also quotes as his authorities Grotius and Vattel. It was perfectly ridiculous to pursue a course like this. These claims ought to be examined on a strict principle of justice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth stated this evening that he would confine his case to those in which adjudication had already taken place. He said that he would not carry his case further; and as the House had already four times decided that these claims were just, he wished the House to vindicate that opinion, and thus prevent any necessity for their being further troubled on the matter.


had always voted in favour of these claims, because he conceived them to be founded in justice. He should pursue the same course upon the present occasion, and hoped all hon. Members on his side the House, whether they sat in the vicinity of the Treasury benches or not, who had ever supported them, would not shrink from doing so on this occasion.


said: I shall occupy the time of the House but for a very short period, in reply to one or two of the observations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. A great deal has been said about this declaration of war; and my hon. and learned Friend has relied upon this as a main point in this case. Now, will the House hear one circumstance in reference to that declaration? The expedition left this country in July, and no declaration, expressing any hostile intention was then issued. The convention was signed on the 7th September with Denmark, and it, therefore, had put an end to any previous declaration of war, if such existed. Hostilities, might, therefore, be considered as ceased, and each country was supposed to be on a good understanding with the other. Now, under those circumstances, what becomes of the declaration of war on the 16th August? That was put an end to. The declaration of the Council on the 4th November was headed in the Annual Register "A Declaration of War;" but that was merely an Order in Council, authorizing the issue of letters of marque for the purposes of reprisal. I do say, then, that the declaration of war on the 16th August was superseded by the convention which was afterwards signed by the two countries. I did not say one word about it; and I purposely left it out, because it was put an end to by their subsequent conduct. But the present was not a techical question; it ought not to be decided on technical grounds. The Government had received the money, had applied the money to its own purposes, and ought to pay it. I am not in such a case to be met by the technicalities of law; and if you do resort to law, what was the opinion of Sir W. Follett and Dr. Lushington? I hold in my hand the opinion of Sir W. Follett, in which he states that these very claimants whom you have paid, have no real claim at all. Why did you pay them then? It was on the principles of equity you did so. The words of the opinion are these:—"This question is not a question of law, nor have either classes of the claimants any legal claim upon the British Government." You paid the debt—well, why did you pay it? You felt that there were higher claims upon you than those of law; you felt that there were claims of equity and of justice, which you could not dispute. The highest men in the realm have been the advocates of these claims. Mr. Wilberforce spoke for them; and I ask you was he a man to speak for anything that was unfair or unjust? Why, what have you done? You have granted a solemn investigation into the case, and after having cut down their claim from 500,000l. to 224,000l., are you prepared to turn round and say, we will not pay you? If you stand upon the high ground of law, you had no right to have put them to this expense. You had no right to have investigated the matter and made a mockery of justice. It is not on a mere question of law I argue; I argue here as a plain man of business connected with trade; and I do say, that the trade and interests of this country have been treated with injustice, and it is against that injustice that I move for this Committee of Inquiry.

The House then divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 41: Majority 18.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Mangles, R. D.
Baine, W. Masterman, J.
Bannerman, A. Mitchell, T. A.
Barclay, D. Morison, Gen.
Barnard, E. G. Neeld, J.
Borthwick, P. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. O'Brien, T.
Broadley, H. O'Connell, D.
Browne, R. D. O'Connell, M.
Browne, hon. W. O'Connell, J.
Buller, C. O'Conor Don
Cayley, E. Ogle, S. C. H.
Chapman, A. Ord, W.
Christie, W. D. Palmer, G.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Pechell, Capt.
Duke, Sir J. Powell, C.
Duncan, G. Richards, R.
Esmonde, Sir T. Rumbold, C. E.
Ewart, W. Sibthorp, Col.
Fielden, J. Spooner, R.
Forster, M. Strickland, Sir G.
Gibson, T. M. Thompson, Ald.
Hanmer, Sir J. Thornely, T.
Hotham, Lord Wakley, T.
Hudson, G. Warburton, H.
Hume, J. Ward, H. G.
Humphery, Ald. Wawn, J. T.
Hutt, W. Worcester, Marquess of
James, Sir W. C. TELLERS.
Kemble, H. Hawes, B.
Mackenzie, T. Watson, J.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Barkly, H. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Greene, T.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Hayes, Sir E.
Bowles, Adm. Hope, G. W.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Jermyn, Earl
Bruce, Lord E. M'Neill, D.
Buckley, E. Meynell, Capt.
Cardwell, E. Neville, R.
Carew, W. H. P. Patten, J. W.
Carnegie, hon. Capt. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Peel, J.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Smythe, hon. G.
Compton, H. C. Somerset, Lord G.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Cripps, W. Trench, Sir F. W.
Damer, hon. Col. Tufnell, H.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Wellesley, Lord C.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Escott, B. TELLERS.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Young, J.
Flower, Sir J. Baring, H.