Star. — London, England, 1812-07-31 00:00:00

P 7--- LAX INMLIGENCEs. ADMIRALTY COURT, JULY Ses AMERICANSHIPPING. r omENT. IN THE CASE OF THE SHIP SNIPE. SCOTT pronounced the judgment of Sir Wiettara j the case of the American ship Snipe, t h e Couttnmeants upon which had lasted for several ar gij e re gret that the space afforded by our co. L a r s. , wil l enable us giv e but a faint sketch of the voluminous and eloquent speech of the Learned eidge on t his occasion. He began by stating, that 'ble of the great importance of the decision ia ea st t he principle which involved several t hi s case, cases of capture under the Orders in Council, cc her _. oil of May, .1812, he had directed his b ei°Te r: tte ption to the arguments, which had been al wrged u ll°6 ; t h - g reat zeal and ability on both sides, and ~ prepared to give his judgment. The cap• wi wah b o lgl a eon" tended, that the ship was liable to con. orn ' fia - den under the Orders in Council, she having, teen ta k en on the 28th of March last, entering the my, r of Bourdeaux ; while, on the other hand, the c ents contended, that those Orders in Council I ;d ea sed to operate before the capture, on account ea F re nch Decree, bearing date the 28th of April, gal, baring repealed the Berlin and Milan Decrees, to w hich those Orders had only been retaliatory mea so, which the British Government were pledged . 011 1 from the date of the repeal of the French - Without feeling it necessary to dwell nii rely on the history of all those transactions, he shed pate generally, that in November, 180 G, the Ruler of France published, in the most solemn and authentic manner, his Berlin Decree, by which all o r als, trading to those countries, were liable to capture. In January and November, 1807, the Bri-, 'sh Government published its retaliatory orders , t w hich were nut a full and complete retaliation, but w hich were founded t n principles which appeared xo i l ioconsistent with tht.se of natural justice and the Ins of nations. This was followed by the Milan de creed the enemy, denationalizing all vessels which .rwriora to our Orders in Calmed, or to be viited by British cruisers. In April, 1809, another modi fication of Our retaliatory measures took place in new Orders in Council ; and in March, 1809, America passed a Non.intercourse Act, both against France and this country, declaring, however, that it should it annulled with respect to either of the Powers that should repeal those instruments of which it com plained. In c ,nsequence of this, M. Champagny, (the Duke ef Cadore) µrote a letter to General Arm strong, sth August, 1810, informing him th at those Decrees were repealed, and would cease to operate against American commerce on the Ist of Novem ber in that year, accompanying this notification with the condition, "that it was to be understood that England also should abandon her Orders in Council, andher w principles of blockade." This notification was considered by the American Government as a repeal, and she, in consequence, repealed her Non intercourse Act as with respect to France. This ht er had been contended to amount to a repeal of the Decrees Jr) the arguments on the case of th. ship For; but in the decision of that case he had not con- Wend it as a repeal, Since that time, on the 10th of March, in the present year, the Duke of Baasano, in a State Paper. published in an o ffi cial manner, yoke of the Berlin and Milan Decr ees as still eibst ig in full force, calling them the fundamental laws tithe French empire, and boasting of their power operation against the commerce and the prospe rity of this country. On the 21st of April, the Bri tish Government published a Declaration, offering to aunul her Orders in Council from the day that the French Government should by a subsequeht Decree, repeal the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and en the 2(411 of May they received i‘orri . the American Minister a Par, purporting to be a copy of a French Decree, of that import, but bearing d.ste the 28th of April, 1811. The British Government, not recognizing the authenticity of this document, but wishing to cones- Bate America, did, en the 2ftd of June last, issue a Declaration, repealing the Orders in Council from the 20th of May. As to captures made prior to 'the 10th of May, to which class the present case belong ed, this Declaration was silent. It kit them to the elect of the: prior Declaration of April, which, con intently with the general law of nations, rested on the principle of retaliation. As the claimants now coq tideled that the Bei lin and Milan Decrees were ac tually repealed by the French Decree of 1811, •it Was for them to prove that those Decrees were so re pealed, and that they were repealed in such a manner as to impose an obligation on other nations to take notice of such a repeal. This sort of evidence, which vas only to be got in the enemy's country, was per fectly accessible to the claimants (if any such evi dent; existed), but was not accessible to the cap- Wl ' . The &ilia and Milan Dccrees had been ush tied into the world with the greatest solemnity, and published in the French official papers. There was ne one who cr uld d.,ubt their existence or authenti city. If those Decrees were intended to be repealed, why were they not repealed in a manner equally • thentic and official ? In the month of March last they , were, however, tfficially spoken of by the French Go vernment as not only bsing in existence, but as flintier "al laws of the Empire. It that word carried any meaning, it must i mply that t h e F renc h Government Would not abandon those Decree's. Those Decrees had btu promulgated to the world in the most au thentic and public manner ; and if there had been any intention uf repealing them, it mielit be expected en every principle of good faith and honest policy, • that the revocation vb.uld he made equally public, Cit at least that it should be made public to all those whom it night concern. The rule was always de cretnm non olligat sell pro' n ulgaisio. This instrument should :wear in such a shape as not to falsify itself, et arty a traud upon the face of it. 11 its promul gation was not a matter of notoriety, but wrapped up is - obscurity, it ceased to be a publication. There sno ordinary occasion in the transactions of life which an instrument. having fraud and•falsekood the lace of it, would be 'allowed to have any ope r,sation in a C ow to f L aw . The letter of the Duke of "Tut; dated the sth August, 1810, began by stati n g ne at ,s a uthorized to declare the Berlin and Milan mecrees at an end." These words .were general ; but alcrwards came she. condition, 44 it being under- Itc!itail that Omar Britain will r: peal her Orders in nuncil and her new principles of blockade, or that nations will cause their flag to be respect:cr." 4 ' 44 merely promising the repeal of those De- ~J efts, 'puler certain qualifications and conditions, "could never be considered as an actual revocation.— If any Decree for repealing the Berlin and Milan Decrees was ever issued, why was it not published to the world in the same authentic manner that those Decrees were ? or why, when it was so often called for, both by our Government and the American Mi. misters, was not such a Decree. produced, or an' 'vi- . . ~ --.w .. ly e '. .Iment. He would b e d o i ng - a great injus (fence procured of . its existence ? Surely, nothing tice, indeed, to Mr. Russel, if he were to attribute hold be more reasonable than the demand for such his silence upon thi s h ea d to any t hi ng b ut hi s com evidei nce on the part of the Am er i can Mi n i sters ! . plete gnorancetf the existence of such i document : The revocation was held out as a boon to America ; : he was the American Minister in France at the date and when the fate of so much American property i of this decree, and yet he had never made any allu. depended on the proof of the existence of this revoca- 1 sion pa such a document in answer to the many press. thin, why was not this proof furnished, if it really ' ing solicitations which had been made to him to pro existed ? If it had existed, nothing would have been i cure evidence of the repeal. rn the case of a ship ea: er than to produce it. It must have existed ini taken under our Orders in Council, where the crew an hundred quarters— in general directions to Prize i afterwards rose upon the captors, and carried the Cenits—in the instructions to French cruizers—and ' vessel into Havre, giving up nine E ng li s h men as in a variety of modes whi c h wou ld b e eas il y prove d . pr i soners of war to ' the enemy, the Captain claimed . No, proof of that sort was ever attempted. When the liberation of his ship, not in virtue of the pre the case of the Fox came to be argued, in the year 1 tended decree of repeal, but f or thi s mer i tor i ous ser . 1811, the claimants did not attemp t to set up any I vice ; and although the claim was . finally allowed,' other case except the Duke of Cadore's letter, and ' yet Mr. Russel could never learn whether this Jibe. : the opinion of the American Government, that -this i l ration was not a special exemption from those De. letter amounted to a revocation, as far as America I trees which had been said to have been repealed for was concerned. The opinion of the American Go- ! many months. Neither had Mr. Barlow heard of vernment would, no doubt, regulate their practice ; the existence of this paper, any more than Mr. Russel. hut it was no evidence to determine him, sitting in a i —lf . even this paper had existed, it would have no Court of law, to say that this letter amounted to a • validity in law, for want of promulgation. When repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees. The claim- the Ruler of France chose to send this paper into ants in that case were allowed abundant time to pro- the world, antedated by above a year, it was evi. cure evidence ; and if they could have procured any dently one of those exorbitant demands which that evidence sufficient to satisfy the judicial conscience person is in the habits of making on the credulity of of the Court that those Decrees were repealed, he mankind. It was hardly to be doubted that this had no doubt but that such evidence would have paper owed its existence to the declaration of the satisfied the British Government. No evidknee had '2lst of April last • and to claim now under such a been given of any practice which could i n d uc e a be- d ocument f rom the date it bore; was to require that lief that the Decrees, even with respect to America, it should have operation long before it existed.— , bad been revoked at the time mentionxl in the Duke , The Court would not now admit far:her proof of such of Cadore's letter. On the contrary, there was the a document having been in existence. Such proof letter of Mr. Russel, the American Minister at Paris, could only be sought in the ?fficina fraudis, whence dated in May, 1811, which stated, " that no , ship ; the fabrication first issued with every stain of inbred , brought into the ports of France since the Ist of No- ' corruption on its front. Some auxiliary proof had, vember, 1810, bad either been released or brought to indeed, been relied on, viz. two letters to the Cour:- trial." It the Orleans packet was afterwards relea- cil of Prizes in December, 1810. It was a little re set!, still,..he should ask, how could it happen that markable, that these letters were not produced in that vessel should be seized at Bourdeaux some evidence in the case of the Fox ; but it might, pet-- months after the Orders were said to be revoked, and haps, be accounted for, from their affording a cont detained for such a considerable time, if ever any plete falsification of the Duke of Cadore's letter.— revocation of those Decrees had been made public ? They in their turn were falsified by Mr. Rusel's let. What would be said in this country, if, two months ter of May 8, 1811, which stated, that no American after the repeal of our Orders in Council, an Amer. vessel brought in since the Ist of November, had can ship were to be seized under them at Liverpool, either been released or brought to trial. It is true , and detained for many months ? The thing was al- that he stated, that two months after, they had all most impossible. If such a seizure were to take place been restored in the beginning of July. Mr. Russel here, the owners would immediately know that .they had since come to this country, and had put in an were entitled, not only to restitution, but to damages affidaVit, in which he states, " that he believed that for the detention, and to costs. The captors would no American vessel had been condemned in the aim know it immediately, and would be advised to lose ' French ports since November, 1810, as he is of opi. no time in offering satisfacti on . If t he D ec rees werenion, that in such case he must have heard of it."— really revoked, it appeared to him absolutely inspos- This affidavit was only, however, as to his belief and able that such revocation should not hap been known opinion. If any orders in Council were repealed in at Bourdeaux, or that it should have required such a this country, there would be no doubt or uncertainty lenbth of time to determine on those cases. In about the matter. He should next proceed to make March, 1812, the Duke of Bassano mentions, in an some observations on those cases which were said to official paper, that gg the Berlin 'and Milan Decrees prove that those Decrees were in fact repealed as to were in full force, . and that they were fundamental America. There was first the case of the Acastus, laws of the Empire." In this assertion there was bound froM Norfolk to 'ronnino•en ; and which after no exemption stated with respect to America, al- a very long detention, was at last discharged by the though that is now by far the most considerable,if not French Emperor, in condition that it should be the only neutral power likely to be affected by them. proved not to have violated the French navigation By his Majesty's Declaration of the 21st of April, : laws. On this case lie 'could only say, that it ap. the Court was empowered to receive evidence from: peared strange how a neutral ship coming directly the claimants themselves of the repeal of those De- , from its own country to the ports of another neutral, trust s if they cot.ld procure any evidence to that effect. could, for a moment, be supposed to be violating any By the Order of the 28d of June, the British Govern- . French navigation laws. The next cases were those ment remokt d the. Orders in Council, and annulled; of the schooner Fly, from New York, ostensibly their operation from the 23tb of May last, leaving all , bound to Petersburgb, and which was carried into the cases of capture before that pet iod to the operation Cowes, but afterwards proceeded to Havre ; and the of she law. The British Government, however, by , case of the Phoebe, from Boston to France. As to 1.0 means recognized the authenecity of the instru. I the first of those cases, he would say, that as it was ment lilt iuto their hands on the 20th of May, or ac. a fraud in favour of France, it was not surprising knowLdged that paper as a bona fide decree of repeal, • that the vessel was not seized ; but both those two bearing the date prefixed to it; but revoked the Orders cases were cases of vessels sailing with French licenses. in Council as a measure of conciliation to America. I n fact, of the seven cases which had been relied on, The date of this paper was neither subsequent to his i three were of vessels sailing under French licenses ; Majelty's declaration of the 21st of April, nor had it two were of vessels restored, not by the judgment of 'been publicly promulgated, nor had it been acted' any .tribunal, but from the mere pleasure of the,Scr. upon. To meet the terms ef the declaration of April,' vereign ; and one, (that of the Anna Maria), where it ought to have been a repeal of the Berlin and Mi- I no proof was given that the French tribunals had lan Decrees generally, and not merely with respect' any knowledge at all of' that vessel having acted in to America. It ought to have been unconditional, : violation of those Decrees. There, therefore, did and its authenticity regularly proved. This was, in ! not remain one single case which had any authority fact, the title-deed under which the parties claimed ; . at all ; as acts merely of•the grace and pleasure of and its 'authenticity was therefore the first thing to I the Ruler of France could never be cited as the law rbe proved by them. The usual proofs of authenticity of that country, or t h a rules which guided their tri were either from internal good faith, or external le-, bunals. If th ere had been a practice in the French gitimacy. What was the external proof ? This do. I courts, founded upon this .supposed decree, there cument had never been published in the o ffi cial papers ! m us t have been numerous cases which would .have of France ; it had never been communicated to the : been determined by it ; but of such, no evidence had American or any other Government. The American been given. He would not allow that even the non. Minister did not say when he got' it, or from whom 1 execution of the Berlin and Milan Decrees could be he got it. If the Court were to receive it as an act properly considered as a repeal of them. The ces of the French Government, it could only be out trf i satien in the exercise might arise from some motive deference to Mr. Russell. Supposing this to be a; of temporary policy ; but a repeal ought to be pub.' suffieient external pool, how was it verified inter.; licly promulgated, and the cases which would be real i :tally ? Instead of bearing the appearance of good , authority in favour of the repeal must be the fibers.' faith, it was-stamped with all the characters of fal- ' tion of vessels by the judgment of the proper tribunah r , lacy and fraud. 'l'lle paper had no appearance of i and not by the special favour of the French Emperor.' authenticity on the face of it, as it bore date in April, ! It had been stated, that three American vessels bound 1811, and had never been produced or heard o f till !to British ports were visited by French cru izers, aced thins May, 18!Q. The date of the instrument was of great I suffered to proceed to their destination. Such asp importance, when it vas considered whether it was ' as that had sometimes happened from par ticular cm or was not a lona Pe instrument. An untrue date cumstances even to British vessels, when the French being found attached to it was a falsification of a fa- : cruizers had more prizes than they could man, or tal nature, when the deceptioo was evidently intended; any circumstance made it inconvenient to them to for the purpose of fraud. There wits every reason to I take possession of'them. The statements, however, believe that the instrument never had existence until proved rather too much, as two of those three ves the French Government had received the Declaration eels were laden with naval stores, which are already of the 91st of April. There was no individual who contraband of war ; and it might as well be inferred ventured to assert any knowledge of its previous ex istence. Every motive of just and honourable policy required that the greatest publicity should have been given to such a Decree, if it had really been in exist ence, and that it was intended to be acted upon. If it had existed, and the American Minister knew of its existence, how could he have kept it back till the 20th of May, 1812 ? Ia the warm controversy which had taken place between America and this country on the subject, the correspondence on our part con sisted vefy much of a demand for the production of any authentic document repealing those Decrees. — No such document was known by the Americ4a Mi -1 nisters—no such document was knowq to the 'fribtr nals or Prize Ctiorts of France, or to those persons from this, that France meant to abandon her ac-1 knowledged and undeniable maritime rights, as that ' she meant to give up the Berlin and Milan decrees.— Whatever restitutions were made as mere acts of State, Land not from the judgments.. of tribunals, could not be received as any authority to prove how l the law stood in France. It might be said by sorne,l that neutrals had no right to prescribe the mode of restitution, provided the restitution was in fact made,' He, on the contrary, asserted, that they had a right to expect that in France,, as well as every civil.zed country, there should be regular tribunals where they might claim redress ex &bite jautilis, and not as a matter of Court favour, caprice, or State policy. It appeared that - the French Ruler kit the inestinii 041 • ' P"'''''''''' • s'.` ' 4 f? ''''.'"&" "sfitle..44 • 3 o lPieigeaNDMllr , who were principally•aTecteci by it. Now in this; restitution of American vessels to be determined by Gountry, every order which was given from the Co- his special pleasure. Now this country did demand, vernment to the Prize Court was accessible to every 1 and had-a right for demand, that there should be a body who was interested in it. Allowing to the , clear and definite rule of law, acting in a clear and French Tribunals as much dishonest secrecrof their definite manner ; and that matters of this girt should principles as any one could allow them, still it was nut be left in a state of uncertainty or perpetual flue. evident, from their conduct, that they knew of 'no I tuation. It, therefore, appeared to him, that there .. . - such doctr " . was no evidence that any legal revocation of those decrees had taken place; and that the instrument relied upon by the claimants as their title deed, had no marks of authenticity about it, but was evidently fabricated for a particular purpose. There were many considerations connected with these transactions which he did not feel himself now called upon to give an opinion on. He should not, therefore, say , how far a nation calling itself neutral was justified by the law of nations in separating itself from the ge neral society of neutral nations, and accepting as a boon fur itself an eaemptinn from a principle which went to the direct subversion of all neutral rights t•--• nor would he say to what extent this selfis!‘ favour would justify them, for not res;qing such violations of the law of nations. He should determine on the case before him, and on all those that depended on the same principle,, that the instrument purporting to be a French Decree, dated in April, 1811, did not take those cases out of the general operation of the law, as described in the Orders in Canned ; and that, • therefore, those vessels captured under them before the 20th of May last, could not be discharged frogs their operation. It was only to the vessels captured after the 20th of May, that the revocation of the Or ders in Council applied. He felt peculiaf satisfaction in thinking, that if his opinion on this important question should be erroneous, there was another Tribunal (the Court of Appeals) in which it might be reconsidered. COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 29. SIR I'. CLAROES, BART. V. ANNESLEY. Sir S. ROMILLY stated, that this was a motion for an injunction to prevent the defendant from ejecting the tenants of the plaintiff, and to oblige, him to give up a certain paper of settlement between them. It appeared that the plaintiff became the proprietor of the Theatre and Crcus at Brighton, w:iere he met the defendant. The former aas a Baronet, posses. sing vast estates in the North of England, and the latter an Attorney. He became acquainted with the defendant in 1808, and gave him up the manage ment of his estates. On the 13th of June, 18-9, the plaintiff and the defendant came to a settlement of their accounts, when a paper was produced by the defendant, by which it appeared that the plaintiff was indebted to him the sum of £5,571. The plain tiff gave him a mortgage on certain parts of his estate ; shortly after the defendant gave notice to the tenants that they should pay their rents to him as the mortgagee, on which the plaintiff filed a bill of dis covery, and prayed now for an injunction, and that the paper should be produced. The 'plaintiff also empowered the defendant to receive from his trus tees, Lady Clarges, his mother, and the Bishop of Durham, his uncle, £16,000, which were lodged in the Funds, which he received. The Learned Coun sel observed, the injunction was only asked on the terms that the plaintiff should pay the interest due on the mortgage. Mr. RICHARDS, for the defendant said, the paper applied for was not in the possession of his client, who had sworn in his affidavit on the file, that he believed it was in the hands of the plaintiff, as he had at dif. ferent times come to his chambers, and had taken se. veral documents away. The defendant had no wish to proceed on the deed of mortgage if the interest WAS paid up, which would make an injunction un necessary. As to the other part of the motion, he thought it would be too much fur the Court to order a man to produce a paper not in his posession. The LOUD CHANCELLOR—" I will look at the an. swer, and give my opinion on an early day. An At.. turney may take a mortgage of his client, but the Court will look at it with most anxious jealousy." JULY 30. hhe LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment on the mg)• tion made by Sir Samuel Romilly in this cause yes terday. His Lordship observed, he had read the bill and answer with the greatest attention, and was of opinion that the defendant had not a right to in terfere with the plaintiff's tenants, but that the plain tiff ought to pay up the interest due on the mortgage. He also observed, it would be an easy matter for the plaintiff th amend his bill; if he did so, he (his Lord ship) would expect the most full and explicit answer from the defendant. He perceived that the mort gage was not only for a debt due, but it contempla ted bills of costs, that might become due. The Court would look at that with a most jealous eye. HaeraaßaEr THEATRE.--WINSTON V. mottam, The discussion of the disputes between the Pro. prietors, Managers, and Treasurer of the Haymarket Theatre, occupied the attention of the LORD CHAN. CELLOR during a considerable part of the morning.-- His Lordship expressed himself quite wearied nut by the continual motions on this subject, and observed, that if the duty of managing Theatres was to be irna I l posed upon the Court of Chancery, it would not only be necessary far the Chancellor to have Assistants, but a branch of the Court must be transferred to the east and west side of the Haymarket. As the parties seemed disposed to ruin each other by litigation,, he. should look into the affidavits and papers with a view of putting an end to the suit altogether, if possible. The name of the unfortunate Gentleman who owl. denly expired in the Haymarket-Theatre on Monday, evening was WARNER. He filled a situation in his Ma. jesty's Household, and was much respected. The attention paid by Mr. MORRIS, one of the Proprie tors and Treasurer of the Theatre, to the deceased Gentleman, is beyond all praise. With great piompd. _ _ accident - tude, Mr. lvionats, when the .t - was made known to him, instantly di.patched a messenger for medical assistance, and after it was ascertained that the spark of lite had fled, he ordered two men to pass the night beside the body, lest the Medical Gentlemen might have been deceived by appearances. After ' the Cormier's Jury had sat open the body,l4r. Mot ets accompanied it the residence of land•strect,,and delivered r the various anti of the deceased. . Yesterda dreadfully .. and the wall WaVeie4 Ir . npanied it to the residetwe of the &vei l ed in • sect,,and saw it delivered to his sifter, with • as articles which were fount in the poetess. • :eascd. tay a tradesman in Drury-blue was mpbg y . rasned between the wheel of post-cl•ai,e rail of a stable-yard in Holboist. He was home with little signs of life. •