The Sun. — London, England, 1812-07-31 00:00:00

, Of Performers ) and on the merits of Mr. Alathews and other eminent actors they might be about to e ngage —thus - controverting the judgment of his Lordship at every step, instead of submitting-to it. gorris had refuied to pay Mr. Winston's salary of !Ist year, beCause he was appointed -Stage manager without his concurrence, which by the terms of the articles, they were bound to have.— lie had also retained in his hands this sum of 7301. In consequence of the- improvident manage /tent of Messrs. Colman and Winston, by which he had suffered that loss, and which by the ex ress terms of the articles, he had aright to Mr. Morris,' had 'moreover, paid into the bank evety shilling he had in his possession except the - 4tlot. weekly, and this he 'retakned to meet the contingent expences of the concern, which. were variable, and without which it was impossible for - the Theatre to go on. fle had also paid the mo ney into the Bank in his own name, ~becaus,e when he paid it in the name of the joint concern, lessrs. Colman and Winston served notice on the not to pay any drafts which were not sign ed by all the parties, and by this means defeated the objects of the Theatre, which must be closed, unless Mr. Morris had the power, as Treasurer, of f laking the • necessary disbursements.. Under t hese circumstances they submitted the motion ought to be refused. The LORD CIIA&CELLOR said, that if he should - make an y or d er upon M r. M orr i s to. pay these -"lts of nioni - y into the Bank, it should be. Kt the xpresS' terms, that the other partieS would not Prevent his having the power _to make the neces- „ lary disbursements (without which the concern 'Would not go on for one hour), by serving these S ort of notices on their Bankers. These causes ' had now- been pending in that Court near five - Years, and unless the ,parties were determined to , tally to ruin the concern, in requiring the inter ference of the Court upon all these applications', ' t hey would bring their cause to a hearing as s peedily as possible, and any order the Court l aould make, would be with this view. It vas not until of late years that the Courts had inter fered in questions of this 'sort ; but since Lord Thurlow fell in love with the Royal Circus; they had been frequently brought before it. in the Present case the _ parties had entered into a Partnership, which by the terms of it, was per , Petual, that was, it was to last to all eternity ; end in their great wisdom in forming tilis indisso luble union, they had introduced matters into .their articles of - agreement, Which he defied any l oan in the world to understand—and he doubted tiuch, whether tie and the Master of,the Rolls, With the assistance of all the Masters in Chancery, • eonid.make any thing of it.. it WAS - to be wished, therefore, that the same rule prevailed with regard to the'se matters in this Court, as- in the Court of king' s Bench and other Courts, when in nautical Tiestions they had the -power of calling to their kssistance the elder brothers of the Trinity House, 414 1 that in deciding • upon these questions, he could have the assistance of some experienced l 'ianage r . F or hi mse lf, h e co nf esse d h e Was en - ti rely incompetent to decide them .; and so bad teas his taste in ttese matters, that he. should refer the performance on the East side of the 41ayniarket to that on - the West—he repeated ! I ' ls , although be was aware that in giving ip e r at opi n i on u p on a forme. occasion, be eame the subject of much calumny and °l ihnadversion. If this sort of litigation was 1 ° Continue mdieh longer in th e wa y it h a d gone on ,°,r some years-, it would be expedient f or thos e . 11 0 were so anxious t o ex p e dit e th e b us i ness o f the Court, by the interference of the Legislature, erect a branch of the. Court 'between the- two Theatres, onthe east and the west sides of the Hay 7 karket, for during the last two Seals, the greater Portion of the time of the -Court had been taken P • in controversies of this nature, while the more 'alportant business of the public was delayed. In ‘ /I. der, therefore, 'to decide this question, with a e 'ew of exediting the hearing of. the cause, he - uould read over the articles of agreement, and the 4ltdavits on both sides attentively, and give his Pinio n on a future day. FASHIONS FOR LADIES. 404 ACKERMANN'S REPOSITORY OF ARTS, FA. , SHIONS, MANUFACTURES, &C. e 1:17 E44M0 DRESS.—A white . crape robe, with short 1 1 le e sleeves and demi-high waist, with full frills of lace—the te worn over a white satin slip. Epaulets of variegated t°'d ball-fringe, ornamented at the feet, and bottom of the eist to correspond. A Moiirish turban of Indi-an'gold mus vu, with a cluster of flowers on the left side. Necklace, n ear- and br a celets of brilliants, pearl, "or sapphire set in „, ° " ( I. Gloves of .white French kid below the elbow. Slippers . 4e -4 white satin, with gold rosettes and fringe. Occasional 4 fs of white lace. hiTitoNIENADE CosTUME.—A plain jaconot or imperial brie musl i n muslin round dress, formed high in then eck, and trim - I\V round the bottom, up the frogtreollar, and sleeves, kith f , rl borders of plaited muslin. A white satin hussar cloak, f a mented with deep crapes and a n ti que fl oss t r i mm i ng an d e el s. A Lavinia hat of fine moss str a w—a .sma ll ca p o f ti,beneath, ornamented with a small lyinch of flowers on ti;„ e s ide: and tied with cerulean blue riband on one side. A It 6 - rY cross and-bracelets of the eoquilla nut. Boots, or 4laati shoes :of blue kid. Gloves a lemon colour ; and pa -8..°!. of corres p ondent shot sarsnet, with deep ball-fringed - SNIITHFIELI) MARKET, JULY 31. f This d a y' s M ar k e t h a d a s h ort supp l y o f dif :erent kinds of Cattle ; Mutton is cheaper ; Veal . . 1 41 d Lamb were clearer; Beef- and Pork sold at tt 4 st prices; and the trade in general was somewhat P a t The sales in the Haymarket were trifling,. rat __has dropped in price ; Clover h as - go t up i n I. re; Straw. obtained last prices.—The following le es and numbers are an accurate statement 'To sink the Offal, per Stone of Slb. 11 f 43 ss. 4d. to 6. 2d. Mutton, ss. 4d. to 65.,4d. Veal. )(1. to 7s, 6d. Lamb, 6s. Od. to 75.6 d. Pork, ss. Od.sto 6s. Bd, 43tasts) 690. Sbc;ep and Lambs, 7,600. Calves, 140. Pigs,.23o. SMITHFIELD HAYMARKET. ~ 4..105. to 51.105. Straw, 21. 15s, to 31. Bs. Clover, 61. " Zisr - EXCHANGE,. JULY 31.—T0-day we have gain but f ew arr i va l s o f Wh eat , and the trade for , 13 I S quoted at a small fu r th er i ncrease i n price.; tiarley with Malt fully support the last quota " ; Rye and Whit e 'Y eas at l ess ; B eans o f ell sort lik ew i se k e e p their prices. In Oats we 4. 4 tiuue to have sh or t sup pli es , , an d sa l es there aret also name d f u ll y at t h e l ate a d vanCe ; Flour e ins without variatio Feat - 14 . 05. 1525. 11;le ditto _ - 1565. :60s. lja e r i a ; - - - - bOs. 4 140 -- -60 s. 663. t „ 90s. - . - ease 70:3. 765. 4 14 Y d itto - _. _ 73q. 785* • • 764. 823. Tick Beans - - 745. 80s. Oats - - - - 565. 60s. 625. Poland ditto - - 635. 645. Potatoe ditto - - 655. —s. Rape Seed - - - 431. 541. Fine*FlOur - - i 15s. 120 s. Sec - ouds - - -110 s. 1152. Apmnb.,tls7 totirt, suet so JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE-SHIP Sir \V. SCOTT pronounced the judgment oldie Court in the case of the American ship Snipe, the arguments upon which lasted several days. We regret that the space afforded by our columns will enable us to give but a faint sketch of the very lu minous and eloquent speech of the Learned J udge on this occasion. He began by stating that, sensible of the great importance of-the decision in this case, the princi ple Of which involved several other cases of 'cap ` ture under the Orders in Council before the 20th of May, 1812, he had directed his utmost atten tion to the arguments which had been urged with great zeal and ability on both sides, and was now prepared to give his judgment. The captors had . contended that the Ship was liable to condem nation under the Orders in Council, she having been taken on the 28th of March last, mitering the river of Bourdeaux ; while on the other hand the claimants contended, that those Orders . in Council had ceased to operate before the capture, on account Of a French Decree, bearing date the 28th of April, 1811, having repealed the Berlin and Milan Decrees, to which those Orders had only been retaliatory measures, which the BritiSh Go vernment were pledged to annul from the date of the repeal of the French Decrees. :Without feel ing it necessary to dwell minutely on the history of all th - me transactions, he should state general / ly, that in November,,l 806, the Ruler of France published; in the most solemn and authentic man ner, his Berlin Decree, by which all neutrals tra& ing to these countries were liable to capture. In January mid November, 1807, the British Go vernment published its retaliatory Orders, which were not a ftill and complete retaliation, but which were founded on principles which appeared to him consistent with those of justice and the law of na tions. This was followed by the Milan Decree of the enemy, denationalizing all vessls which sub mitted to our Orders in Council, or to be visited by British Cruisers. In April, 1809, another mo dification of S our retaliatory measures took place in new Orders in Council ; and in March, -1809, America passed a. Non-intercourse ATct both against France and this country ; declaring, how ever, that it should be annulled with respect to either of the Powers-that should repeal those in struments of which it complained. In consequence Of this, - M. Champaguy (the Duke of Cadore) wrote a letter to General Armstrong, sth August, 1810, informing him that those Decreees were _repealed, and would cease to operate against Ame rican commerce on the Is,t of -November in that year, accompanying this notification with the con dition, " that it was to be understond that Eng: laud also should abandon her Orders in 'Connell, and her new principles of blockade.''' This noti fication Was considered uy the American Govern ment as a repeal, and she in consequence repealed her Non-intercourse Act as with respect to France. This letter had been contended to amount to a re peal of the Decrees, in the arguments, on the case of the ship Fox ; but . in the' decision of - that case, he had not considered it as a - repeal. Since that time, on the 10th of March, in the present year, - the Duke of Bassano, in a State Paper, published in an official manner, spoke of the Berlin and Milan Decrees as still existing in full force, call ing them fundamental laws of the' French Em pire, and boasting of their powerful operatiott against the commerce and prosperity of this ,country. On the,2lst of April, the British Govern- Ment published a Declaration, offering to annul the Orders in Council from the day that the French Government should by a . subsequent De cree repeal the Berlin and Milan Decrees ; and on the 20th of May they received-from the American. Minister 'a. paper purporting to be a copy of a French Decree, of that-import, but bearing date • the 28th of April, 1811. The British Govern ment, not recognizing the authenticity of this doetiment, but wishing to conciliate America, did on the 23d of June last issue a Declaration; re pealing the Orders in Council from the 20th of May. As to captures made prior to the 20th of May, to which class the present case belonged, this Declaration' was silent. It left them to the - effect of the prior Declaration of April, Which, consistently 'with the - general ,of nations, rested on the principle of retaliation. As the claimants now contended that the Berlin and Milan Decrees., were actually repealed by the French De cree of 1811, it was for them to Prove that those Decrees were so repealecl,and that they were repeal ed in such a manner as to imphse an obligation on other nations to take notice of such a repeal. This, sort of evidence, which was, only to be got in the enemy's country, was perfectly accessible to the clarnrants (if any' such evidence existed), but was not accessible to the 'captors. The Berlin 'and Milan Decrees had been ushered into the world with the greatest solemnity, anti published in the French official Papers. There was no one who could doubt their' existence and authenticity. If those Decrees were intended to . be repealed, why were they not repealed in a manner equally authentic - and official? In the month of March last, they , were, however, officially ,spoketi of by the French Governtnent as not only being in existence - , but as fundamental laws of the Empire. If that word " carried any, meaning ; it must imply that the 'French Government Would not abandon those Decrees. Those Decrees had been promulgated, to the world in the most authentic and public manner ; and if there had been any intention of repealing them, it might be expected, on every principle of good faith and honest polity, that the ' revocation should be made equally public, or, at least, thatit should be made public to all/those whom it might concern, The rule was always, decretum non obligat, sed promulgatio. This instru 'went should appear in such a shape as not to fal sify itself, or carry a fraud upon the face of it.— If its promulgation was not a matter of notoriety, but wrapped up iu obscurity, it ceased to be a publication. There was no Ordinary occasion in the transactions of life in which an instrument; having fraud and . falsehood on the face of it, would be allowed to have any operation in a Court a Law. The letter of the Duke of Cadore, dated the sth of August, 1810, began by stating, " he was authorised to declare the Berlin and Milan Decrees at an end. These .words were general ; but afterwards came the condition,— " it being understood that Great Britain will re- !Sell bier Orders in Couneil and her new prinei pies of blockade, or that neutral nations cause their flags tobe respected." . A letter merely paanising the repeal of those Decrees, under cer a tans qualificatiOni rind conditions„ could never be considered an actualreVbCation. if any Decree for repealing the Berlin and Milan Decrees was ever sued, why was it not published to the world in the same authentic manner that those Decrees were? or why, when it was se.often called for both by our Government and the American MinisterS, was not such a Decree produced, or any evidetrce pro cured of its .existence ? Surely, nothing could: be more reasonable, than the. demand for such evidence on the part of the American Minis . ters. The revocation was held out as a boon to Acne- .rica ; and when the fate of so. much American property depended on the proof of the existence of this revocation, why was not this proof fur nished, if it really existed ? If it had existed, nothing would have been easier than to produce it. It must have existed in an hundred quarters, —in general directions to Prize Courts,—in the instructions to French cruizers,—and in a variety of modes which would be easily proved. - NO, proof of that sort was ever attempted. When the case of the Fox g ame to be argued in the • year 1811, the claimants did not attempt to set up any other, case except the Duke of Cadore's letter, and that the opinion of the American Go vernment that this letter amounted to a revoca tion'as far as America Was concerned. The opinion of the American Government would, no doubt, re gulate their practice; but it was no evidence to de termine him, sitting in a Court of Law, to say that letter amounted to a repeal of the Berlin and Mi lan Decrees. The claimants in that case' were al , lowed abundant time - to procure evidence ; and if they could have procured any evidence - sufficient to satisfy the jadieial conscience of the Court that those Decrees were rivaled, he had no doubt but that such evidence would have satisfied the British Government. No evidence had been given of any practice which could induce a belief that the De crees, even with respect to America, had been re voked at the time mentioned in the Duke of Ca dore's letter, On the contrary, there was the let ter of'Mr. Russel, the American Minister. at Paris, datedin May, 1811, which stated, " that no ship brought into the ports of France since the Ist of November, 1810, had either been. released or ,- brought to trial." If the Orleans packet was after wards released, still he should ask, how could it happen that that vessel should be seized at Bour deaux some months after the Orders were said to be revoked, and detained for - such a considerable time, if ever any revocation of those Decrees had 'been made public ? What would be said in this country, if two months after the repeal of our Or ders in Council, an American ship were to be seized under them at Liverpool, and detained for many months The thing %vas almost impossible. If such a seizure wa.re to take place here, the owners would immediately know that they were entitled, not only to restitution, but to damages for the detention, and to costs. The captors would also know it immediately, and would be advised to lose no time in offering satisfaction. If the Decrees were really revoked, it appeared to him absolutely im possible that such revocation should not have been known at Bourdeaux, or that it should .have required such a length of time to determine on those cases. In March, 11312, the Duke of Bas sano mentioned in an official paper) . that " the Berlin and Milan Decrees were i n final force, and that they were fundamental laws of the Empire," In this assertion there was no exemption stated 1 with respect to America; although that is now by far the most considerable, if not the only neutral Powor likely to be affected by them. 13v his Ma jesty's Declaration of the - 21st of April, the Court was empowered to receive, evidence h om the claim-, ants themselves of the repeal of those Decrees, if they could procure any evidence to that effect. - By the order of the 23d ofjune,theßritishGovernment - revoked the Orders in Council, and annulled their operation troth the 20th of May last, leaving all the - cases - of capture before that period to thaOpera tion of the law.' The British Government, how-- ever, by no means recognised the authenticity of the instrument put into their hands on, the 20th of May, or acknowledged that paper. as a bona fide decree of repeal, bearing the date prefixed to it ; but revoked the Orders in Council as a mea sure •of conciliation to America. The date of this paper was neither subsequent to his Majesty's declamation of the 21st of April, nor had it been pUblicly promulgated, nor had it been acted upon. To meet the terms -- of the declaration of April, it ought to have been a repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees generally, and not merely with re spect to America. It ought to have been uncon ditional, and its authenticity regularly proved. — This was, in fact, the title-deed under which the parties claimed ; and its authenticity was there -fore the first thing to be proved . by , them. The usual proofs of authenticity were either from in ternal good faith, or external. legitimacy. What Was the external proof This doctuneat bad never been published in the official papers of France : it had• never been communicated to the American or any other Government. The American Minister did not say when he got it, or from whom he got it. If • the Court were to receive it as an act of the French Government, it could only be out of deference to Mr. Russel. Supposing this to be a sufficient ex ternal proof, how was it verified internally ? In stead of bearing.the appearance of good faith, it was stamped with all the characters of fallacy and fraud. The paper had no, appearance of au thenticity on the face of it,_ as it bore date in April, 1811, and had never been produced or heard of till May 1812. The date of the instrument was of " great importance, when it was considered whether it was or was not a bona fide instrument. An un true date being found attached to it was a falsifi cation of a fatal nature, when the deception was evidently intended for the purpose of fraud. There was every reason to believe that the instrument, never had existed/until the French Government had received the Declaration of the 21st of April. There was no individual who ventured to assert any knowledge of its previous existence. Every motive of just and honourable policy required that - the greatest publicity should have Veen given to suci a Decree, if it had really been in exist ence, and that it was intended to be acted up ona If it had existed, and the American Mi nister knew of its existence, how could he have , -kept it back till the43oth of May,.1812 ? avd;ai, had taken place rJetv; , .-: America and. , this country on the subject, the c(ir responLilec On ~ i ur part consisted Very much of a demand for the production of any authentic doeu , ment repealing' those Decrees. No such do':unient was known by the American Ministers,;---no such docUment was known to the 'Tribunals or Prize Courts .of France, or to those persons - who were principally adected.by it. Now in this country, every order which wastgiven from the 'Govern ment to the Prize Court was accessible,to every body who was.interesthd in it. Allowi.;1;; to the French Tribunals as much dishonest secrecy of their : principles as any one could allow them, still it was evident, from their conduct, that they knew of no-such document. He would be coin,,; a great injustice, indeed, to Mr. Russel ) if he . were to attribute _hiS silence upon this head . to • any _thing s but , his complete ignorance of tilt existence of such a locuinent : he was the Ame rican - Minister in France at the date of this deci.ce,, awl yet he had never made any. allusion to document in answer to the many pressing sotiei-- .tations which bad been made' to him to procure evidence. of the repeal. In the case of a ship taken under our Orders in COUncil, where the crew afterwards rose upon the captors, an i Carried the vessel into 4lavre, giving up nine Englishmen as prisoners of jvar to the cm:, my, the Captain claimed the liberation of' his:,ship, not in virtue - of the pretended de cree of repeal, but for this meritorious ser-: vice ; and the claim was finally al , lowed, yet Mr. Russel could never learn whether this liberation was 'not a special exemption‘frorn those Decrees which had been said to have been repaled for many months. Neither had Mr, Bartow heard of the existence of this paper, any more- than' Mr. Russel. If even this paper h• existed, it would have. no validity in law, for want of promulgation. When the Ruler of F'ran,.e, 'chose to send this paper into the world, antedat( by above a year, it was evidently one of those eY.• orbitant demands which that person is in the habits of making on the credulity of mankind. was hardly to be doubted that this paper owed its existence to the declaration of the 21st of April last;' and to claim now under such a document from the date it bore, was to require that it should have operation long before it existed. The Court would not now admit farther proorof such a document having been in existence. f'Such proof could only be sought in the qfficina fraudis, whence the fabrication first issued with every stain of in bred corruption on its front. Some auxiliary proof had, indeed, been felled on, viz. two letter a to the Council of Prizes in December, 1810. It _was a little remarkable, that these letterS were not produced in evidence in the case of the Fez; but, it might, perhaps, be accounted for, from their affordinm a complete falsification of the Doke of Cadore'S letter. They in their turn were fal sified by Mr. Itussel's letter of May 8, 1811, which stated, that no American 'vessel brought ! in since the Ist of November had either heen re leased or brought to trial. It is true that he stated that two months after, they had all been restored in the beginning'of July. Mr. Russel had since come to this country, and had put in an affidavit, in which he states, " that he believed that no American' vessel had. been condemned in the • French ports since November, 1810, as he is of opinion, that in such case he must have heard of it." This affidavit was only, however, as to hip belief and opinion: If 'any Orders in Coons it were repealed in this country, there would be no doubt or uncertainty about the matter. He sliOnld . next proceed make some observations on tliose cases which were said to prove that those Decreei were in fact repealed as to America. There was first the case of the Aeastus,bound from Norfolk to Ton - ningen ; and which after a very long detenfion, was at last discharged by the Fre:scl' Emperor, on txmdition that it should be proved imt to haVe violated the French navigation laws. 'On this • case he could-only say, ,that it appeared strange ;how a neutral ship coming directjy from its own country to the ports of another neutral, could, for , a moment, be supposed to i ..be violating any French navigation laws: The next cases were. those of the schooner Fey; from New York, ostensibly bound to .Petersburgh, and. which seas carried in to Cowes, but afterwards proceedLl to Havre ; and the case of the Fhcebefrom Boston to France. As to the first of those cases, he would say, that as it was a fraud in favour of France, it was not iurgrising that the vessel was not seized; buthoth those two cases were cases of vessels sailing with French licenses. In fact, of the seven cases which had been relied on, three were of vessels sail ing under French licenses 3 two were of vessels re stored, not by the judgment of any tribunal, bat from the mere pleasure of the Sovereign ; and on e , (that of the ,i:lnnu Mpria), where no proof was given that the French tribunals had any know ledge at all of that vessel having acted in violation of those Decrees. There, therefore, did not re main one single case which had any authority at" all ; 'as acts merely of the grace and pleasure of the Ruler of France could never be cited as the law 9f that'country, or the rules which guided. their tribunals. If there bad been a practice in the French Courts, founded upon this supposed decree, there must have - been numerous cases _which would have been determined by it lint of such, n o evidence had been given. Ile would hoe allow that even the non-execution of the Berlin and Milan Decrees could be properly considered as a repeal of them. The cessation in the exereil;e might arise from some inotivd-of temporary pol;,- ey but a repeal otvlit to be publicly promulglat ed, and the cases which would be •ireal authority in favour of the.repeal must be the liberation -of vessels by tbejudgment.of the proper tribunals • and not by the special favour of the French :Em peror. It had been stated, that three American `vessels bound to British ports were visited by French cruizers, and suffered to proceed to their destination. Such things as that had sometimes happened from particular circumstances even to British vessels, when the French cruizers had more prizes than they could man, or any circum stance made it inconvenient to them to take pos, session of them. The statements, however, proved rather too much, as two of those three vessels were laden with naval stores, which- are already contraband of war ; and it might as well be in ferred from this, that France meant to abandon be;