DANISH CLAIMS. (Hansard, 26 June 1851)

§ MR. ROEBUCK
rose to move a Resolution, of which he had given notice, on the subject of the Danish claims. He wished in the first instance to ascertain from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the grounds on which he objected to these claims. By Danish claims he did not mean foreign claims, but the claims on the part of British merchants for the loss they had sustained in 1807, in consequence of the conduct of the British Government. Napoleon having struck down Austria, Prussia, and Russia, and the Treaty of Tilsit having been entered into, England was desirous of striking a blow which should in some way cripple his power; and in order the more effectually to manage that point, every means had been taken to prevent English merchants from understanding what the Government were about to do. The merchants had been solicited to go to the Baltic. They had asked if they would be safe in going there, and they had received assurances that they were perfectly safe. A large number of them proceeded to the Baltic under that impression, and a considerable amount of property had been sent to the Baltic and to Denmark. Very soon afterwards the English fleet was sent to the Baltic. In consequence an embargo was placed on all British property, even to the book debts of the merchants. Copenhagen was then bombarded, and a capitulation took place; but what happened? All the property on which an embargo had been laid had been confiscated by the Danish Government; and, although compensation had since been granted for the book debts and the property on shore, no compensation had been given for the other property afloat. An embargo had been previously laid on all Danish vessels, and no Danish vessel was allowed to depart from an English port. In the month of November of the same year, England chose to confiscate all the property on which the embargo had been laid. This property, which had amounted to about 3,000,000l., had been taken by the Crown, and had not been distributed as prize money, as would have been the case had there been at this time a regular declaration of war. Ships floating on the waters appeared to be peculiarly matters of prey; and England had, it appeared, considered she was not bound on any principle of international law or common justice to pay her own subjects for 1266 the loss they had in this matter sustained. He held that from the circumstance of the English Government having deceived their own merchants, they were bound to make good the loss. He knew the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose him, on the ground that he was the steward of the public purse, and was only acting for the public interests; but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew better than that. At the bottom of every opposition of this sort, there was personal vanity. He admitted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the most self-denying of all Chancellors of the Exchequer; but there was, in fact, nothing so pernicious to the reputation of a Chancellor of the Exchequer as a surplus. The right hon. Gentleman would say he could not apply that surplus to the proceedings of his predecessors; but he would ask whether it was for the interests of this country to deal with her merchants after that fashion? Was there anything in this case to prevent them doing what ought to be done? And what ought to be done? Why, that they should do with the ships afloat the same justice that they did with property on shore. The only answer that could be given to him was, that it was against international law. His reply to that was, that the English Government misled the merchants. Now, he wanted that to be answered. Could they say that the merchants of Great Britain, in 1807, before the time that Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier went out to the Baltic, were not told that there was no danger of a rupture; and was there not at the time of the seizure of their property by Denmark an understanding on the part of England that she was not going to war with Denmark? The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Card-well), on a former occasion, said the case of goods afloat was distinguished from the case of goods ashore; and he further said that there were reprisals. Now, a reprisal could only be made in time of peace; the very form of the expression meant that there was no war; and the nation that was supposed to be injured, took that means of forcing the nation so at peace with it to render it justice. When afterwards it happened that the nation against which reprisals had been made, did not do that justice that the other nation desired, the reprisals were reduced into possession, they became a prize of war, and then were applied to remedy the mischief for which the reprisals were made. Now, England had 1267 at that time in her hands something approximating to 3,00O,000l. of Danish property, seized before Denmark made any confiscation of the property of English merchants. What had occurred since? After many applications made to that House, at length the book debts and the value of the property on shore were paid. Year after year application had been made to Parliament for the payment of these claims, and Mr. Cresswell succeeded in carrying his Motion on the subject five or six times; and the last time the claim was brought before the House, it was submitted by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), whose vote he trusted he should receive on the present occasion. When the House addressed Her Majesty On the subject, in June, 1841, a Message was brought to the House in the following words:— V. R. It must at all times be my most oar-nest desire to attend to the wishes of the House of Commons, and I shall be ready to give effect to thorn in this instance whenever the means shall be provided by the House. From that time to this nothing had been done. These claims had been adjudicated upon, and they amounted to 225,000l. He now asked the House simply to adhere to their former decision, and say that the merchants who lost their property ought even at this late hour to be paid.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he should imitate his hon. and learned Friend in the conciseness with which he should address the House, be-cause he thought the case was in a very small compass; and, after the speech made five years ago by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), which was so decisive an answer to the question, he was surprised that it should have been again brought forward. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roe- 1268 buck) that no personal vanity actuated him in the matter; but bethought it incumbent on him to show that there was no good ground why these claims should now be paid by the people of Great Britain, to make good claims for which, he believed, there was no foundation. In 1807, war took place between Great Britain and Denmark, and, of course, the usual consequences followed that war. He entirely put aside the question which his hon. and learned Friend only incidentally touched upon—namely, that of a declaration of war. The House was perfectly aware that, in these days, the formal mode of sending a herald from one country to another to declare war had long been discontinued. His hon. and learned Friend said, there were three classes of claims: the book debts, the goods ashore, and the ships and cargoes afloat. Those who had before advocated the Danish claims, had always drawn a wide distinction between the two first of these classes and the latter; and Parliament had recognised that distinction, and had paid the two first, and had not paid the latter. And why this distinction? Because no civilised nation in a state of war justified confiscation of hook debts or property ashore; but, by the practice of civilised nations in a state of war, ships afloat were seized. He should not enter into the question as to whether that was a right practice or not. The question was, what was the custom in 1807. Whether any alteration might he made since 1807, was perfectly irrelevant. Well, war occurred with its ordinary consequences; and the question was, whether at the time those seizures were made, war existed or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the merchants were not warned in time. He fully admitted that before the sailing of Admiral Gambler's fleet, the merchants were not warned; but he thought it was attributing but little sagacity to the English merchants to suppose that when they saw the fleet anchored off Copenhagen, they did not judge that hostilities would take place. Let him remind the House of a few dates:—On the 1st of August, 1807, Admiral Gambier's fleet anchored before Copenhagen. On the 16th of August a Danish proclamation declared, that "war between England and Denmark may be considered as actually broken out." On the 23rd of August the first English ship was seized. On the 2nd of September the bombardment of Copenhagen took place. On the 7th of the same month 1269 there was the capitulation, which had been so much referred to in this subject; but that capitulation merely declared—"Hostilities shall cease throughout the island of Zealand;" but this did not apply to Don-mark, where the war continued, as was shown by the Danish proclamation of the 9th of September, setting forth "Orders respecting the conduct to be observed during the present war;" and by the British declaration of the 28th of September, which said, "It remains for Denmark to determine whether war shall continue between the two countries." The entire evidence on the subject proved, in a word, that at the time these vessels were seized, there was war between the country to which they belonged, and the country by which they were seized, and that therefore, by the clear law of all civilised nations, they were liable to seizure without the smallest claim to indemnity. It was really preposterous to ask that House to give to a certain number of individuals 225,000l. of the public money, which the public were not in the least degree, or upon any principle, bound to pay.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he would never shrink from his duty, whether the performance of it pleased or displeased any Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Government. The shipowners in that case had been led to believe they might safely send their vessels to Denmark; and that was a strong reason why their claims should be allowed, however late in the day it was proposed to do them justice. He would, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Roebuck). He wished to know whore then was the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Hawes), who had formerly voted for those claims? He was at the Crystal Palace, perhaps, patronising the industry of all nations, when he ought to he in his place in Parliament. As to Chancellors of the Exchequer, of course they backed one another in all these matters. "Scratch me, and I'll scratch you," was the word with these gentry.

List of the AYES.
Alcock, T	Bass, M. T.
Anderson, A.	Bellew, R. M.
Anson, A.	Berkeley, Adm.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.	Bernal, R.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Littleton, hon. E. R.
Bowles, Adm.	Locke, J.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Mackie, J.
Brotherton, J.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Brown, W.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Bunbury, W. M.	Marshall, W.
Campbell, Sir A. I.	Matheson, Col.
Cardwell, E.	Mcux, Sir H.
Carew, W. H, P.	Milnes, R. M.
Carter, J. B.	Morris, D.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Childers, J. W.	Mundy, W.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Palmerston, Visct.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Parker, J.
Coke, hon. E. K.	Patten, J. W.
Colvile, C. R.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Crowder, R. B.	Peel, Col.
Dalrymple, J.	Pinney, W.
Davie, Sir II. R. F.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Davies, D. A. S.	Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A.
Dawes, E.	Powlett, Lord W.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Price, Sir R.
Denison, J. E.	Pusey, P.
Divett, E.	Ricardo, O.
Dodd, G.	Richards, R.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Romilly, Col.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Russell, Lord J.
Duncuft, J.	Seaham, Visct.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Seymour, Lord
Ellis, J.	Shafto, R. D.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Smyth, J. G.
Evans, W.	Somers, J. P.
Farnham, E. B.	Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W
Floyer, J.	Spearman, H. J.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Stanley, hon. E. H.
Freestun, Col.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Freshfield, J. W.	Stanton, W. H.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.	Sutton, J. H. M.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Tancred, H. W.
Grenfell, C. P.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Thompson, Col.
Grey, R. W.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Grosvenor, Earl	Trevor, hon. T.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Tyler, Sir G.
Harris, R.	Vane, Lord H.
Hastie, A.	Vivian, J. H.
Hatchell, rt. hon. J.	Wall, C. B.
Headlam, T. E.	Watkins, Col. L
Heald, J.	Whitmore, T. C
Heathcote, Sir G. J.	Willyams, H.
Hope, Sir J.	Williamson, Sir H.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Wilson, J.
Hughes, W. B.	Wilson, M.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Jones, Capt.	Wood, Sir W. P.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Wrightson, W. B.
Lawley, hon. B. R.
Lemon, Sir C.	TELLERS.
Lewis, G. C.	Hayter, W. G.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Cubitt, W.
Barrow, W. H.	Duff, G. S.
Blake, M. J.	Duff, J.
Boldero, H. G.	Duncan, G.
Boyd, J.	Dunne, Col.
Bremridge, R.	Ellice, E.
Bright, J.	Ewart, W.
Cobbold, J. C.	Farrer, J.
Cocks, T. S.	Forster, M.
Corbally, M. E.	Fox, W. J.

Geach, C.	Rice, E. R.
Goold, W.	Rumbold, C. E.
Henry, A.	Rushout, Capt.
Hodgson, W. N.	Sibthorp, Col.
Kershaw, J.	Spooner, R.
Lushington, C.	Stanley, E.
Lygon, hon. Gen.	Strickland, Sir G.
Macnaghten, Sir E.	Sullivan, M.
M'Cullagh, W. T.	Talbot, J. H.
Mangles, R. D.	Tollemache, J.
Martin, J.	Wakley, T.
Mullings, J. R.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Neeld, J.	Williams, W.
Neeld, J.	TELLERS.
Ogle, S. C. H.	Roebuck, J. A.
Plumptre, J. P.	Hume, J.