mours had flown about town that the noble | wished to omit the clause which obliged Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) and those who persons to remain in their own houses from acted with him had made an offer to the sunset to sunrise. On further considering noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) to this Bill, he thought it would be the fairer support him in opposing the second reading and more direct course to oppose the seof this Bill. Rumour had no name; but cond reading of the Bill, rather than so to as the noble Lord appeared to dislike the mutilate it as to leave none of its important imputation, he would beg leave to show clauses. He stated on the 25th May, the him how he might easily disprove it. If day on which this Bill stood on the Orders any blame attached to the noble Lord or of the Day, that he wished the right hon. his party for taking that course, it was not Gentleman opposite to state whether he for proposing to do it, but for actually meant to bring it forward, or whether it doing it; and, therefore, if the division was not to be brought forward in the course should ultimately show that a large portion of the present Session; and he stated at of the Gentlemen in that House who voted the same time, that he thought it fairness in favour of the Bill on its first reading to him to state that when he did bring it should vote on its second reading directly forward he should think it right to oppose against it, he contended he should be jus- the second reading. It was true that tified in assuming that rumour to be well some of his intimate friends had since that founded. time asked him what it was his intention to do with regard to the Bill, and whether they were authorized to state his intentions to any person who might apply to know what his intentions were. He did not use any contemptuous silence; he said, "I have already declared in the House of Commons my intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill; and you will declare those intentions to whatsoever person or party may ask." With regard to the noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, he had come to his conclusion on grounds which were satisfactory to him; and he (Lord J. Russell) had come to the same conclusion with regard to this Bill, on grounds which were satisfactory to himself. He trusted he should have an opportunity of stating them in the further course of the debate; but those grounds were entirely public, and they rested on this, that he thought it would be injurious to Ireland and to the protection of life to allow this Bill to pass.

MR. E. YORKE observed that it had been most distinctly stated that a negotiation had been declared to have been carried on. He appealed to the House whether any other construction could be put upon the words made use of by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, that some application had been made to the noble Lord; and he asked the House to judge impartially, whether, if an application had been made, that application was not made by some one? If the application had been made to the noble Lord, he trusted the noble Lord would say so, for the sake of the House and the party by whom the application was made. This would give the person an opportunity of stating upon what authority he made it. If they had a denial on the part of the noble Lord that any such statement was made, then it gave good ground for knowing that they could have no possible confidence in a Government which sought to abandon a Bill for the Protection of Life for the purpose of carrying one which abolished the Corn

Laws.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, that he would answer the hon. Gentleman who sat on his bench (Mr. Stafford O'Brien), and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. No application or proposition had been. made to him on the part of the noble Lord, or of any other hon. Member. He might, perhaps, be permitted to state that the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland seemed not to be aware of the objections which he had stated to the House on the first bringing in of this Bill; that he then stated that he had objections to some of the clauses; that he particularly

Third

VOL. LXXXVII. {}

MR. S. HERBERT said, that after what had passed, it was due to the hon. Gentleman who had first put the question to say that the noble Lord's statement was conclusive on the subject: he was misinformed.

Debate adjourned till Friday.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. SIR R. PEEL said, it was his intention to move that from and after Thursday, the 18th June, Orders of the Day should have precedence over Notices. It had been the uniform course to move, at the present period of the Session, that a third day should be devoted to the transaction of the public business which belonged to the Government. He begged leave, therefore, to

II

MR. R. YORKE apprehended that the PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from proposed course had been usually adopted every year, and had been found to work well. If the matter went to a division, he should, therefore, vote with the Government.

when these claims have been brought be- | justice whatever in the claims which are fore the House, there has been stated, in submitted to the House. Sir, this House the course of the debate, some new cir- has very wisely determined that they will cumstance apparently calculated to influ- not admit any grant of money, or any reence the decision of the House, adduced at mission of duties due to the Crown, unless a period when it is difficult to afford a reply it come down to the House recommended to them-statements are made for the pur- by the respectful suggestion of the Crown; pose of inducing the House to support the and they have done it for the best of all propositions which are made to them with reasons, in order that the House may not respect to these claims, yet on another day be imposed upon by specious or plausible those very statements turn out to be alto-statements made in the course of a debate gether void of a just foundation, and to be on an uninvestigated claim. The object of such as should not influence the decision of that determination has been, that individual the House. Now, for instance, on the for- Members may not be influenced that they mer occasion the hon. Gentleman opposite, may not rashly vote away the money of the in the course of his reply, adduced an addi- people to parties who, by means of great tional argument which we had not heard exertion, active canvassing, and constant of before the support of these claims. He representation of facts more or less accudid not for a moment dispute that there had rate, have acquired an influence over the been a war between Great Britain and Den-minds of Members, and who persuade them mark; but he stated that a declaration to vote away the public money. And, Sir, was made in the same year which cured the this House has laid down a wise rule, and previous declaration of war, and restored I am not quite prepared to get rid of it by peace to Denmark; and that, therefore, a side-wind proceeding. When the case Great Britain made no attempt to declare was submitted to the predecessors in the the illegality of the capture, because the office that I hold, and when it had been declaration of war was not issued until No- submitted to me also, we each of us, acting vember. He impressed, therefore, upon under a sense of our public duty-which is the House that it was just and proper that not to recommend to Parliament to make a the House should restore to their former grant of money unless we are satisfied that position those persons that had suffered in the grounds on which the claim is made consequence of the war. But, Sir, was are just-have refused to assent to the pethere no foundation for that judgment? tition to this House praying for the grantOf course, when Copenhagen was surren- ing of these claims. And upon the same dered, there was a capitulation which pro- principle, I will not willingly consent that vided for the restoration of such goods as the Crown should be placed in the situation had been taken during the war. The Danish of having an address presented to it, when Government itself issued an order in which the Crown has not been advised to recomit was stated that during the war certain mend to Parliament the payment of these regulations were to be observed as to Eng- claims. Sir, this is a very dangerous exlish subjects, expressly nullifying the asser-periment. It is, in fact, virtually getting tion of the hon. Gentleman, when he wish- rid of the control which the House has esed the House to believe that these capitula- tablished for the purpose of preventing an tions were not made during the war; ex- undue expenditure of the public money. It pressly nullifying the declaration of the Go- is truly a dangerous experiment, because vernment in seven days afterwards, that the it would not put a limit to the extent to war was then in force, and that certain which these claims may go. If during the hostile measures with respect to British war with Denmark you are prepared to subjects were to be taken in consequence of give the sufferers by that war the sum of the war. A new case was adduced by the 250,000l., or a quarter of a million of hon. Gentleman on the former occasion, for money, because the country with whom the purpose of inducing the House to agree you were at war did not make certain to his propositions. Sir, I have thought regulations as to the capture during the it my duty on various occasions to oppose war, there is no telling to what extent an Address to the Crown for the purpose of these claims may now, and at future remunerating the claimants on account of times be made; for if the principle of the Danish losses; and I have done so, Sir, this grant of money is good with refirst, upon what I consider to be a most im- gard to Denmark, the principle is good portant constitutional principle; and next, with respect to every country with which because I do not admit that there is any you may be at war, whatever their

case of America, which had been referred to, was altogether different, for there no one doubted that a declaration of war had been made.

position may be, and however ample | tions continued long after the time it was their means as to trade; and I say, there- asserted the war had broken out. The fore, that it is the duty of those who have any care for the mode in which the public money is to be expended, to oppose this first step, which shall introduce But the right hon. the Chanthis new principle that you are to indemnify cellor of the Exchequer said there was no your own subjects for losses at sea during surplus; and, therefore, if any payments a war between this and any other nation. were made they must come out of the Sir, observe I am not here standing up to public purse. He was not so sure that no defend the rights of the Crown. I am surplus could be found; but even if that defending the rights of the people of this were so, why did the Government refer country generally. You tell me there is these claims to adjudication, and call on justice in the claims of these individuals the parties to produce proofs ? Let it be whose property has been sacrificed at sea; remembered that the Government had been and that those merchants, who have lost beaten by the decision of the House of their ships and cargoes during the war, Commons on five successive occasions. At have sustained a loss for which you are length the matter was referred to Commisbound to show them some commiseration, sioners. What did they do? They called and to make them some compensation. all the parties before them, and ultiSir, whether it be right or wrong, captures mately cut down their claims, 425,000l. to at sea during war are the invariable prac-225,000l. If the claims which they had tice of nations, and that, as a totally adjudicated upon and adjusted were legal, different question from captures on land, is and these not, he would admit the force of not the question now before the House. the opposition now made to his Motion; The right hon. Gentleman concluded by but they had the opinion of the late Sir moving that the House will, on this day W. Follett, that the former claims were six months, resolve itself into the said not of a legal but of an equitable nature; Committee. and these present claims stood precisely in the same situation. The only strong arguments urged against these claims came from his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Sir T. Wilde), and rested on the assumption that there had been a declaration of war. But supposing that there had been a declaration of war, there remained the convention of the 7th of September to be got over. If there had been a declaration of war, why were not seizures made instead of being detained pending negotiaat once, and ships confiscated and sold, tions? But he would not argue the question on technical grounds: he called on the right hon. Gentleman to take an enlarged view of the interests of British merchants and shipowners, and not to allow innocent parties to suffer on account of the sudden adoption, on the part of the Government, of a policy deemed necessary to counteract the designs of Napoleon at the time when these transactions occurred. It had been stated that a proclamation had been issued, warning parties of the danger of hostilities; but against this was to be set the subsequent declaration of the British authorities, that the two countries were not in a state of hostility, and the continued residence of the Minister at our Court. He trusted that some of the law officers of the Crown would think it worth while to answer his

MR. HAWES said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a somewhat novel discovery, that, as a question was debated year after year, new arguments were advanced in favour of it. There was a distinct opinion from the Solicitor General that there was no declaration of war on the part of Denmark, which he should take the liberty of reading to the House:

"I am of opinion that the instrument of the 16th of August, to which reference has been made, is not a declaration of war, and that it merely orders an embargo on British ships, and not the confiscation of them. There is a distinction between an embargo and a confiscation. It is stated by the law of England and of nations, that an embargo directs only the detention of the property from the owner; and a confiscation takes away the property altogether. There is nothing in the instrument in question which authorizes the taking away permanently any British property." The right hon. Gentleman assumed the justice of the war, and that Denmark declared war. If that were so, all he could say was, that every State paper published at the time was in contradiction to the assumption. The Danish Minister did not leave till the 20th of November. The Danish Government had not confiscated any of our property until we had commenced to confiscate theirs; and negotia

call, and by disposing of his argument and understand them." So much then for render it unnecessary for him to divide.