The Sun. — London, England, 1821-11-21 00:00:00

'2 ,041(19 ~~~• L;.-): - ; 110 N :.I 0.1; 11N 'ALS, DAILT. XXT4I,ACT'S FROM Tlir MOIIN I tiG November '2l. • [NEW TIME F,.] The intelligence from Turkey is as unsatilac- • tory as usual. There are various reports, but no sufficient authority is given for any of them. Au action bet Ween the, Greek and Turkish fleets off the island of 113 rite is mentioned under the date of Leghorn, Nov. 2. It is said to have been wit-1 nessAl by a number of:- the inhabitants of the island assembled on the shore, who, when the Turkish flag was struck in some of the ships, and the banner cf the Cross hoisted in its stead, expressed their joy" by loud acclamations and clapping of hands. " The-English, on perceiv ing this," if the account is to be believed," gave orders for the guns of the fortress to fire on the Greek ships, but, while they were airs engaged, the .inhabitants revolted, and the English were' obliged to shut themselves up in the castle." The improlability of this story is striking-At the -- very first glance, as it is perfectly well known th a t th e .nost rigid neutrality has been the lead ing f ea tire of the policy of Great Britain through out th' contest between the Greeks and the Turks. [MORNING CHRONIC LE.] ::hat a bat - tie between the Turkish and Greek 1.1 ets took place off the island of Zante, which lifted in the defeat of the. former, seems to be placed beyond all doubt. An extract of a letter from Leghorn, in the Dutch 'Mail, giving an ac count of this battle, that is stated to have been fought on the Bth October, is fully confirmed by a letter from Trieste. One Turkish corvette was boarded and taken, seven other ships sunk, another in . the Port of Cheri, in the island of Zatrte. The inhabitants of Zante are said to have obligedthe English Authorities,af ter killing 4 Eng lish* soldiers, to send off the 40 Turkish ships that had taken shelter in their port, so that hopes are entertained the shattered remnant will be entirely deStroyed. According to the letter from Leghorn, the inhabitants of Zante were in a complete . stale of revolt, and had forced the English to shot theAnselves up in the Castle, though troops had afterwards arrived from Col fo.—By a Pro claroation. of the oth October, to the inhabitants of ; the lonian Islands, threats are held out to " those Imprudent ministers of religion, who, in contravention of the pure principles of that Gos pel, which inculcates universal charity and bene volence, on 'this occasion put up,. under the very eye of the Government, public prayers for the destruction of the Ottoman Power, thus wick edly employing the voice of religion to inflame a fatal enthusiasm already of itself too exten sive.". The unfortunate Parguinotes, who, with their brave countrymen, the Suliotes, had 'failed in an attempt to re-possess themselves _ _ _ of Parga, their expulsion from which forms such a stain on the history of this country, are. also by this Proclamation declared to have forfeited their right of citizenship in the lonian Islands, and are to be refused ad mission into any of the lonian States. These harsh and tyrannical measures speak sufficiently for themselves. Throughout - Europe, through out the civilized world, they must excite only one unmingled feeling of detestation. But how came the British Authorities to take these steps ? We have only the protection .of these Islands. Pro tection surely does not mean the offering violence in every one respect to the feelings and interests of the inhabitants ? The restraining even the Ministers of Religion from offering up prayers for their Christian.brethren against their bloody op pressors ? Is this British protection ? But then all this is done with the concurrence of the Presi dent of the Senate ? 0 yes, we had forgot the lonians have a Constitution—and under that Constitution a Senate, we suppose, something like the Jury which King John Bernadotte, with the consent of his Swedish Nobles, wished to give to his good Norwegians—a Senate which sits in one of the Lord Commissioner's rooms, and is as attentive to his nods as his domestics. This is English protection, and this is the way the taxes wrung from the people of England are spent. [MORNING POST.] An extraordinary degree of indifference seems to pitfall amongst the French Deputies, which is not easily reconcileable with the strict dis charge of the important trust , reposed in them by their constituents. Day after day the Cham ber had met without being able to proceed, not only with public business, but with the appoint ment of its own officers, through want of a suf ficient attendance of members, although it was known that,they abounded in the capital. It had consequently not yet been able to take the King's Speech into consideration, or to prepare an Ad dress in reply to his Majesty, a mark of respect which ought not to have been so long withholden. The Dutch Papers contain an article from Leg horn, which we must consider a gross libel upon the Government of the lonian Islands, and upon the British character itself. It states, that dur ing an 'engagement between the Greek and and Turkish fleets off the Island of Zante, the advantage appearing on the side of the Greeks. and the Zantiots along the shore expressing their joy by loud acclamations and clapping of hands, orders were given for the guns of the fortress to fire on the Greek ships. Much as we disap prove of the Proclamation issued by Sir Thomas Maitland, in which he reproves the Clergy for putting up prayers for the destruction of,the Ot toman power, and banishes from the lonian Isles the brave Parguinotes, who lately failed in an attempt to recover the city of their forefathers, so unfeelingly delivered by us to the Turks, we cannot believe that he would authorise an act of military hostility towards the Greeks. His plea for adopting measures of ultra severity, is the wish of being strictly .pentral, and he would certainly not deprive• his own declarations of all their weight and effect, by being the first to in fringe them. [MORNING UERALD.] ' Although there is nothing new in the recent arrivals from the north and east of Europe, the pending negoclations seems to be looked to at ptlesent with something of a — iinickenea intereFt An impression, prevails that hostilities canhatdly be avoided. We never put faith in the confident, if not presumptuous assurance .of the continuance,. .of • peace, which have been so. -frequently given, with authoritative pretension. But, at the same tithe, when we consider the .vast proportion of the power and population of Europe, which has a cOnthitin interest in the continuance of traquillity, %re cannot persuade ourselves that even the thirst of conquest and military conceit -of Russia will defy the force of opinion which is opposed to 116% There :appear to be many persons who overlook the calamities of War, and the ambitious views of Russia, from a mistaken view of the situation and interests of Greece. It is, we think, an error, toldentify the. emancipation of the Greeks with the expulsion of the Turks by Russia. The change Of dominion from a Mahornetan to a Chris tian despotism would afford, perhaps, some tem porary alleviation ; but the interested policy of Russia, though less contemptuous, would rather check than- promote the actual progress of the Greeks in wealth and improvement: Under the clumsy, negligent dominion of the Turks, they have improved Muth more rapidly than they would do in double the time under the watchful, selfish, and deceitful policy which has, under so many Sovereigns, marked the conduct of the Russian Government. It is also a mistake to suppose that the Greet nation looks to Russia exclusively for liberation. The Russian party in Greece is not the .most influential or enlightened. The Greek population has for many years been di vided into three parties—one which looked to France for liberation from the Turkish yoke; the insular and commercial party, which regarded England as the quarter to which they should look for assistance; and thirdly, the common people, who have a prejudice in favour of the Russians from similarity of religion. [BRITISH PRESS.] It begins, we find, to be tardily confessed in some of the Papers of the South of Ireland, that the accounts published of alleged acts of vio lence committed in that part of the Kingdom hav,e been in many instances exaggerated. The public credulity has been abused either by per-. sons who had some sinister interests to pursue, or by others who, without being actuated by mo tives morally reprehensible, could not resist the infatuation of telling something which might ex cite a feeling of general anxiety. The narrators of great or singular events seem, for the mo ment, to acquire amidst their circles an import ance, second only to that which they assign to the heroes of their tales, and hence arises too fre quently that disposition to strain and exaggerate circumstances which the lenity of society fa miliarly reproves by the ludicrous designation of " drawing a long bow." Our private sources of information respecting the real state of affairs in the county of Limerick prevented us from re posing an easy belief in the assertions repeated in the public, prints, respecting the great force and numbers of the disturbers. 'We were well assured that the banditti were as inconsiderable in numbers as they were in reputation and character ; 'and from this circumstance, con nected with some others to which we have more than once referred, we drew the con clusion that the state of the country was one which required rather the interference of an ac tive body , of policemen, directed by intelligent and enterprising Magistrates, than the presence of a large army, provided as if on active service with a train of artillery, a commissariat establish ment, aid a camp equipage. In the statements of individual outrages, which we have seen in the Irish Papers, there were incidents occasionally mentioned well calculated to cast an air of mys tery over the state of the south of Ireland, which to some minds must have been ineffably delight ful ; and it was no doubt to heighten the effect of the picture, and to add increased terrors to the awe which those accounts were supposed to inspire, that a learned writer, in a Morning Mi nisterial Paper, united in the close bonds of Ja cobin fraternity the banditti of Limerick with the Carbonari of Naples. [THE TIMES.] The present position of the Ministers, who are in want 'of one of their efficient members, so far as - voting is concerned, in the person of the Lord Chamberlain, gives rise to various conjectures and theoretic plans for the new Modelling of the whole body. The place to be filled up is, as we have just hinted, that of Lord Chamberlain ; but the new guest may not take his seat in that pre cise situation, others may move till a place is left vacant for him in a different part. The following is the manner in which we have heard the Mi nistry arranged :—Lord Wellesley, it is said, and Mr. Canning, are both to be admitted—t* former to the home Department, the latter to the' Admiralty; Lord Sidmouth being to take the Privy Seal, and Lord Melville to go to India : Lord Westmoreland is to become the new Lord Chamberlain; and, lastly, Lord Bucking. barn is to go out to Ireland. We give this merely as a report, somewhat more particular and con sistent than others which we have heard; we are not answerable for its accuracy, but shall yet bestow a few words in the discussion of that arrangement which it describes. Mr. Canning, it was thought, had given too much offence in a certain quarter, by the honourable testimony which he bore to the character of our late injured Queen, to be hastily admitted into any Adminis tration. But no matter ! it is well known to the country, that the dignified personage to whom we allude has long tried to rid himself of the Mi nistry altogether ; and as he has not been able to succeed in 'that effort, the addition of one more to the number of those he does not like, is no new, and therefore no intolerable, grievance. Ile has found out what others knew long ago, that the word "" . ,loyalty" does not mean attachment to the King, but attachment to the Ministers,_ the dispensers.of all favours, the authors of all British greatness, and 44 within these our domi nions, supieme." With respect to Mr. C anning and Lord Wellesley, the plan , whether real or fictitious, is a sagacious one which admits' them both into office : their ancient conflicts for th a t honour, when it was thought it could only be im parted to one at a time, will be avoided. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 20. • • TILE ATTOUNEY-OENEIIAL V. THE COOVERS' COMPANY. 011 coming into Court his LordsHp p:oceefted to give judg ment'on Dr. Jeans's petition in this cas , ,whitli was argued last week. - He decidedly olbjected to that part of the petition which prayed that it might he referred to the Master to in quire whe ther girls as well as boy S might not be instructed at the free school at Eghant. He was of opinion that it was the intention of the founder of the schOol that bays only should be educated there. All he could do with respect 'to the other parts of the petition was to direct that in the scheme which sh o uld be adopta l fur the future management of the funds of the charity, considfration.should be had as well to theby-lone and accumu lated rents as to the anticipated rents, and that such a distribu.: tion of the funds should be made as would include the past ser vices of the Master of the school. It might also be referred to the Master to inquire what necessary repairs of : the i;chool had been effected by Dr. Jeans, and the Court would 'act as it thought proper upon the consideration of the Master's report. He would decide how the costs of the application were to be paid to-morrow. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE SKINNERS' COMPANY: The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed his argument of yes terday, and contended, that the Skinners' Company were bar red by their own declaration from the surplus rents in the Acts of the 14th and 31st of Elizabeth, that the Grammar School at Tunbridge were entitled to the . whole estates purchased by Sir Andrew Judd from Messrs. Gates and Thorogood, and that they were only the trustees Of the charity. By this.means the will of A. Judd was established, and the devise did not depend on the Act of the 43d of Elizabeth, declaring that all ,bequests to Corporation's in trust for charitable purposes, bequeathed pree vious to.the passing of the Act, should be valid. The LORD CHANCELLOR—" In my opinion the intention of the Act of the 43d of Elizabeth is not perfectly understood as I understand it, it was passed to assimilate the law, on the subject of bequests to corporate bodies for charitable uses in Courts of Equity and Law--for the latter, before the passing of the Act,.held.they were invalid and contrary to the law, and in the former Courts they were in the habit of decreeing that they Were Valid, contrary tc. the existing laW of the land." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ' in continuation, said, that throughout his argument he had abstained from *casting anyre flection on.the Skinners' Company : be did not doubt but they acted from a conviction that they were doing r:glit ; if he di:- fered. in opinion from them, and left the question of right or ' wrong to the decision of the Court, it could not be said that he reflected on the conduct of the Company. Ile believed theiti to be as honourable a Cornpany as any in the City of LondOn, and -did not feast more ; hut it was his duty, as his Majesty's At tomey-Gederal, to prevent their doing so on funds that ought to go for the maintenance and support of the grammar school at Tunbridge. It was necessary for him to reply to the observa-. tion of his Learned Friend, Mr: Sugden, " That it was - very extraordinary that no question should have arisen with respect to the charity funds for two centuries and a half, until the Com missioners of Education made their circuit thro' the kingdom." lie would tell him, that after the great labours of the Com missioners, there were but very few instances where they found there was a misapplication of the Funds of a charity. 'Then it was not likely, as had been stated by his Learned Friend, that every Corporation in the Kingdom would be brought into ,trouble, however proper their conduct might have been; lie concluded by contending that the decree of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor was right, and ought not to be disturbed. Nir. HART and Mr. TROWER followed on the same side.— The latter Learned Counsel had not concluded his argument when the Court rose at three o'clock. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 20. Nothing of particular interest to the public occurred in this Court to-day. • COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 20. The Court this day heard special arguments, but none of the cases had any public interest. • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 20. POLICY OF INSURANCE.—HUDSON V. HARRISON. This was an argument upon a special case.. The plaintiff. had insured the ship Swallow from the Cape of Good Hope bound to Liverpool and Dublin; freighted with a cargo of Cape wine, valued at 7,9001. There were 241 pipes .and 71 half pipes. The ship was wrecked near Bristol, and the cargo for six hours under water : a. hole was made in her side, through which several pipes were drawn out ; many of them were found staved, and the salt water had penetrated others ; 71 pipes and 43 half pipes were, however, saved free from injury. The wreck was Made on the 23d Dec. ; and three days afterwards, the Captain gave notice of an abandonment to the underwriters, who agreed (at a Meeting where three only attended) to send doyn an Agent to Bristol, to examine the partof the cargo saved, and to assist in the necessary arrangements for. making it produclive. The . .defendarit did not attend the Meeting of the underwriterS ; but at the end of the month of February, and . just as the sale of the saved part of the cargo was about to take place, he sent a notice to the owners of, the vessel, that he would not accept the abandonment ; he also transmitted a notice to prevent the sale then about to take place. Mr. Sergeant PADDY, for the defendant, contended, that though he did not object to thenbandonment the moment it was made, he was still in time to interpoie his objection before the sale. He had never acquiesced, nor was he an attending party at the Meeting at Lloyd's, where only three of the underwriters attended. One quarter of the cargo had been saved in an un damaged state, and with that ft vessel ought to have been freighted to the ultiinate destination of the original cargo. Mr. Sergeant HuLtocx contended, that the defendant had due notice of the abandonment, and ought to have attended the Meeting at Lloyd's. Not attending, he was still, however, bound to object to the abandonment at the time it was made ; and by not doing so, had disentitled himself from interposing on the eve of the sale. At the end of December the notice had been given him, and he never stirred in the matter until the end of February ; and then he complained that the wine and the salt water should be sent on to Dublin. Chief-Justice DALLAS said, that the great question of, under what circumstances, generally speaking, an assured had a right of abandonment, so as to open a principle which would be ap plicable to all cases, the Court were not now called upon to con sider—that was a question of great and difficult consideration ; so all the text writers thought, and with them the Court con curred ; but here there was no necessity of considering what ought to be the groundwork of that broad principle. That the assured might abandon under certain circumstances was quite clear. That the abandonment might also be superseded if the voyage could be proceeded upon, for instance, in such a case as a re-capture, was equally clear. But where a damage was done, and a proportion of a cargo saved, was the assured bound to go on with the part 5o saved or not ? If he be bound to make his election, then in what proportion of injury does the right of stopping or proceeding onwards rest, so as to have a regulating principle ? This was a rule of very difficult attainment, and was laid down differently in the commercial codes of different na tions. France held one rule, other nations held other rules, and each case as it arose must depend upon the particular law of the country where it occurred. Whether the principle laid down by Lord Mansfield was or was not broken in upon by that subsequently stated by Lord Ellenhourgh, the Court we: now driven to the necessity of inquiring by . the particularcase before them. The Court were now most anxious to avoid being; understood as laying down any general rule ; they applied them selves solely to the particular case, and meant not to apply any principle to govern other cases where the circumstances were of a different complexion. The reason of such a precaution was evident ; because so importantageneral rule must affect a great system of law, and must follow a detailed examination and com parison of the different decisions which had been held upon the subject. The.case did not require that examination, for it was limited to the specific ground of the right of the assured to re cover under the particular facts of his case. Was he entitled to abandon ? That what he had done was for the benefit of all the parties concerned there could be no doubt; but then,if so,carne the question—Had the underwriters or any of 4,7lein any right to interpose a legal or technical objection to the course which had been taken ?'ln the first place, the party contesting with the assured here had due notice of abandonment. What did the law impose upon the assured ?—that he should after reasonable time give notice to the underwriters of his having abandoned. The assured was bound, if he determined to abandon, not to wait and take an ultiniate view of what it would be more profitable for him to do ; but at once to make his election, and give im mediate notice to the underwriters. The Court could easily con ceive that different duties devolved upon the assured according to the place where the abandonment occurred ; for instance, if in a foreign country where there was no agent, the Captain was entitled to use his discretion ; but in this case, where the aban donment took place in this country under the eye of all the par ties, it was the duty Ef the underwriters, to whom the abandon ment was made, to see if it had been duly done, and at the mo ment to ascertain how far the facts and the state of the cargo justified the abandonment. Be should pass over to the meet ing at Lloyd's, and the question whether the three who attend ed could bind those who had not attended, and come at once tti the other facts in the case. The damage took place in one of the harbours of this country • the earliest possible notice is g iven of the abandonment grounded upon that loss the party to whom the abandonment was made took no notice of it for two months . afterwards, until the time of sale arrived. Now did the law ,authorize the Tarty to remain passive for such a space of time, and thereby afford the assured rational grounds to believe that he had acquiesced in the notice of abandonment ? Surely there could be no justice in permitting him to take such a course ; it would be in fact to permit him to delude the assured. In the opiniOn of the Cc - art he ought to late interposed earlier, if h meant to ieterpcse at all ; and not having so interposed, he could not now afect_the act of the assured. Nareowing the question to that point, the Court were-of.. opinion that. the as sured had a rigi t to recover, and under all thocireamstances for a total - lose. . 3 . The other Jiir..GEs con eur red entirellyhi the opinion-pronoun.: . ced by the (':tine itIST ICE, who after Wards remarked, that when the cases of,, ,Bainbritige and and Faulkner and - Ritchie, were beibre the House or Lords, tlie• - •taird Chancellor rernerked upon au.expression of thotext writers upon- - insurance (of course he must have meant the old text writers), who boasta cd that there was no doubt upon the principle df the lalv as ap plicable to their puipose, that he . tholight there was as much uncertainty. upon it as on any other branch of law with which he was acquainted. This observation excited some laughter in Court. - HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 20. • • • SHIT. NANCY. • On the 4th September last, a warrant was granted by this Court against the ship Nate}', and stores: 'Three defaults hav ing already passed, -• - Dr. 1)01mo:a now prayed the fourth and last default, pre viously to the execution of the said warrant—Defaith granted. . THE . ' EMILY. The Rise's..laDvocar observed, that this case had been already once or twice, before the Court; the Court being ap plied to, to call upon 'M r. a substituted agent, to bring into the registry certain sines of money, the present prayer was contained in an allegation responsita- to that of `.]r. Abbott. The latter gentleman affirmed that he had delivered the re- I quired accounts into the hands of an individual named. at a particular time; and the affidavits which. the Court was row prayed to admit would prove that the individual in Ovation gaye a different account of this very ill - Tot:tent point from that which had been furnished by Mr. Abbott. Dr. Lusarraroroer; in objecting to this motion, thought the Court would recollect that this was the case of a monition which had been taken cut lag the Treasury - of his Majesty's Navy, calling upon Mr. Abbott to pay into the registry-certain sums of money, the proceeds of prize.. As . to the. facts, they had never been disputed ; and the question for the Court's decision was purely one of law. The matter having been some time since argued before his Lbrdship, his Lordship was pleased to ,direct that Mr. Abbott's accounts should be given- in. The exhibit, which'his MaiestY's Advocate was moving the Cone, to admit, bore date on the I2th of. Feb. 1821 ; and to that evi dence he (Dr. Lushington) must most decidedly object, on every ground upon which the - introduction 'of evidence was usually re gulated. The case was heard before. the Court on the•lfith Jan. 1821 ; yet the exhibit itself was dated on the 12. th February 1821 ; and was not therefore to-be estimated as if it we're a paper given in at any . reascnable period of the cause, or - anterior to it. Another objection to this evidence Was; that it sought to affect Mr. Abbott, by the contents of a letter written by an indivi dual with whom Mr. Abbott had.no connexion whatever ; and who refused to verify them, moreover, upon bath: • Lord STOWELL said, he was' very .much in the dark as to the admissibility or otherwise of the letter in question as evidence, because he did not 'atoll know the. contents of it. . • . Dr. LUSIIINGTON had no sort of objection to the letter being read, in order that the Court might'decide'whether it was or was not admissible. Lord STOWELL directed shat the matter should stand over to a more-convenient opportunity, the day's .paper being very-full. THE CARL JOHAN. • Lord SToWELL proceeded to give judgment in thiamatter. A . Swedish vessel the Carl Johan was charged-to have run down a British vessel called the James, which was totally lost, some of her crew being with difficulty saved, on the ,12th of Sept. 1819. Proceedings were comMencedirnorediately by the British owners against those of the Swede, and a judgment obtained against them (certainly under, the interposition of all the delay which either the use or the abuse of the law .could supply) on the 26th of November of the last- year. , By that decree of- judgment it was found that the losi. in question had not, in fact,- been occa sioned by virtue- of any uncontrellable accident, but by the mis conduct and mismanagement of the Swedish vessel ; for which her owners were answerable to the extent at which the losses were charged. An appeal' was prosecuted ; it lingered on in the Court of Appeal till nearly the time at which the hearing in that Court Would have taken place.' was then desetted by the parties, dismissed witheosta, and the cause remitted 't6 tills Court. But this Court proceeding upon its former sentence, re ferred it to the registrar and merchants -fo ascertain' the amount of the damage. This had been done : and their report, as now brought in, was attacked upon the ground that a wrong measure of compensation had been taken, the registrars and met-chants having considered the measure of loss actually Sustained by the injured party. On the other hand at was contended that this was not the true measure of restitution ; but that the injured . party's loss ought to be measured by the - value of the ship that had done the injury. Now,- to be ghte,- at first sight this appeared- to be a most inapplicable principle; for how could the value of the vessel that had done the injury be any measure by which to as certain the extent of injury done to the vessel which - had Suf fered ? It hadno connexion with it,- and it bore no assignable proportion to it. It was putting the,matter on the same footing with the " compensation" of ruder times--a compenSation . Which, in modern days, bore the name 'of deodand." Coma pensation, however, was, that which restored to the sufferer what property he had lost. But-how was its value to be ascer-. tained by any property which the 'other party might appear to possess ? In this case they were ' in no degree commensurate, and so far from being correlative with -each other, they might be disproportionate in the highest degree.. Thus, the value of a collier or a coaster could furnish no measure of value" to a ship which it might encounter, laden with the rich productions-of the east, whether these should be precious stones or the precious me tals. It -was, in truth, but very lately that such a law had been introduced into the maritime laws of this country. Usually, they went, like the general maritime laws of Europe, to pro tect ship-owners from the liability to damages arising.from un avoidable accident ; but they fixed them to the extent of render ing such owners liable for the inability or - miscondUct of those whom they employed. Several cases had occurred- under the ancient rule of law, where this responsibility had be..n re ' cognised ; yet the interests of navigation had not been ineffi,- eiently conducted in this country, while the influence of the an cient rule had prevailed ; at least not so inefficiently as to call for any alterations, until the Statute was passed of the 29th of his late Majesty, which discharged the owners of the - vessel oc casioning such damages to another from all liability beyond the value of the ship, and of the freight accruing upon the voyage, in the-course of which they might happen to arise. A later Statute, the 53d of his late Majesty, protected them to tile same extent with respect to any losses or damages, with such excep. tions, that they might occasion to other ships, or to the goods laden on board of them. A similar regulation, the Court observ. ed, had been made in the maritime law of sonv: of the other minor but commercial and maritime States. The avowed purpose, of it was to protect the interests of those who were engagul in the mercantile shipping of the State, and to remove the terrors which would otherwise discourage people from embarking in the maritime commerce of a country, in .consequence of thein definite responsibility which the old law attached on them. But the new rule of responsibility . was really none at all. Though that word had found its way into the statute, yet to give this law that title was Something of a misnomer both as to intention and effect. It was a law of protection to the ship-owners, but framed with a very moderate regard to the compensation to be made for the real injury sustained. It was, as the Court had already observed, no compensation in itself. It was a measure evidently of policy, and • established by coun tries for the encouragement of their own maritime inte rests. The results of it were only to be vindicated on the ground, perhaps, that it wasa common benefit, and a common burden to those whom it applied to. The British law operated equally upon all the commercial subjects of the country; and lie who was affected by it to-day might be benefited by it to-mor row: If all the commercial states adopted the same law by common consent, it would nave the same mutuality to support it. There could be no question as to its relative effect upon each. But it would be the grossest injustice to apply it to other states who had no such mutuality ; and who could not apply it against British subjects for any injury which they might have sus tained from them. If, therefore, this British statute were ap plied to foreigners by the Legislature of this country, it would be a disgrace, and an enormous act of injustice, which were not to be imputed to it but upon the strongest evidence of facts. But nothing of this sort was to be presumed upon this sta tute ; for it could not be supposed to be any secret to theßritish legislature, that foreigners, sustaining an injury of this kind, had a right, under the maritime laws, to full and real compen sation ; and that for the legislature to say that foreigners had no - such right, would be a gross violation of all justice, and a gross excess of all the authority that belonged to them. If, in deed, ally two countries chose by law to apply such a regula tion to their own subjects—if they contracted by treaty, to communicate that mutual regulation respectively to each other; then it would stand on a footing of mutual justice and authority; but no one country had a right to prescribe laws which were to limit the absolute rights of the subjects of other in , dependent states ; for they would be no laws to them, and could have no binding effect on them whatever ; and therefore the British laws, it was evident, disclaimed any such intention. Those laws throughout contemplated only our domestic policy-- the improvement and encouragement of our own domestic navi gation. They purposed neither to impose the same burden, nor to conifer the same benefit oh foreigners as on their own sub jects. If it could he shewn that Sweden had adopted the same policy with regard to British subjects which Swedish subjects were now attempting to plead, that might somewhat extend their cases,' and might furnish some ground of equity, upon which such a plea might be argtled. But that Sweden was to lay hold• of a British regulation, intended and maintained exclusively for British subjects, and only claimed by her in a particular case where it might be for her own benefit to do so, though gene rally it - Might affect her tittit.e the other way,- !via a prepasi- . tion utterly insupportable ; and he (Lord" Statecil) coulti not excite his mind to the sli , Liltest hesitation upon thia subject. Ile thought that he shdeld libel the legislature,of his country if he did. But he went further,. and hetilought he ought sat, , iNti-thout, any degree of rashness on. his 'part, that it was-clean, from their own manner of actin!;, that teat: foreign sah . tectsta 'this case never imagined that such a plea could be available. to themselves. 'Lordship here adverted ti.) that past of the :*" history of this case which related to the survey that had-been taken at Ramsgate of the Carl Johan, without the knowledge of :,n l the other parties, but se'_ at the disc: and with the privity of her owners or their agents ; and after remarking . on toe fairness and ex-parte character of that survey, he proceededd--" It appeared impossible . that all this could have been so managed . by the 41.waers, if they had really felt the sligi:tcst confidence in their own plea. They must have been sensible that if that plea was good in point of fas.s,', no Court cduld possibly apply it to a valuationso made. But after this, what in truth parsed? Nothing at all of this was said till at the distance of seine years or so, after the long .pilgritnage ofthc suit through this Court and the Court of Appeal. From the Court of Appeal; this unquiersuit travelled lather ; the parties, by their Own confession, acknow- F.Pedging that they could nest support their case there. With a sentence of costs against, them, therefore, they returned to this Court. But, in the mean , time, nothing Or this proposed esti- . mate of value was .suggested by them. They were next sent to the registrar and Merchants to have the value of the damage ascertained ; and before ti:eM rot a word, .as the Court under- : stood, had transpired the award rr.% , .1e : no protest was affirmed, but the parties suffered the who'.t4 goon ID an undis turbed course. ‘Viien the registrar's report 87 a S returned to this Court, then,' for the firsttime, the Court Wes told that the whole of it proceeded upon a wrong principle ; that a different course , ought to have been taken; that the owners of the Swedish ves sel were prepared to support it by argument, and to illustrate it by decisions. The Court, however, must brush away !eoth the one and the other. They proved nctiting but that their's was a mere struggle for time--an attempt to ss.Ve money by a pro- • traction of time. After sa.m-'further obszon-ttions, in which his Lordship affirmed the award of six mouths' inttrist on . the re puted value, his Lordship added, that Le shoul,'enter no Par- ther into the parties' e tiora, but should prOritiunce for the award of the registrar and merchants, with costs ; and he de sired to add, that he thought he should not inr. - r0i,!:1 , 7 limit the circa o appeal by declaring. th2t if t7;ava again into the Court of Appeal, ar!d afterwards ag4in return hither, he should"certainly meet it at its return wits: that attention to costs whichhe thought such a suit would merit.- TIIE ItELEASE. Dr. Donsox opzhed case.—lt was a questioh whether a monition should issue against certain prop;rty, which it was. prayed might be released upon bail. lie understood- that it was to be urged in objection to the motion which he had to submit, —that bail might not be directed to be taken in this case, that this would then become a proceeding " in rem." Now in termer Ernes the proceedings of this Court wen toot only against the thing. itself, although he was well ayzare that in modern times the rule. wigs, that bail migi.. lie substituted for property, -in order that the ship might proceed on her voyage. The principle h a d beep. very fully laid down by.his Lordship in the case of the Peggy. (Robinson's Admiraltyßep. vol. 4), and also in the caseatheCo-, T,)enhar,ien; (3d Robinson), upon which he (Dr. D.) meant to found his motion. The Court had said " cargo shall: not• be. permitted to be delivered up on bail, unless the ca p tors - Consent thereto." In this present instance, the release had been detained, and the . question shortly was, ." should she be - allowed tb proceed upon her voyage, no bail being given by Aaron her master, and part owner ?" . His parties apprehended that it would be very dan gerous if she should 'he so allowed. happeared that Mr. Aaron, who usually resided at Hull, had handed• to the Marshal of this Court several names, in order to know whether they would be-accepted or not as good and proper names for his bail The Marshal,' 'acting in the - eonscientions discharge of'his duty, - made the necessary Inquiries, and he found that they ought not to be accepted. : Several of the Dames in question were entered on. the lists Of a society called " The Guardians of Trade against Swindleri and Sharpers;" - and were therefore highly ineligible for any purposes of real bail. But the Court ttould further be pleased to observe, that this was not the first time that Mr , .laron had attempted'to elude its vigilance. It appeared on the register of - the Court's proceedings,. that in the-year 1817, Mr_ Aaron being then part owner of the ship Wakefield, did tender certain elapses as bail Tilt the ship, which he was then command ing. Thai hail was taken, but'it did occur, that one of these parties became shortly after a bankrupt,. that Mr. Aaron took the benefit .of .the insolvent act; and that the parties interested lost all their money in consequence. - He (Dr. Dodson) appeared 'for the owner of one of two.bottomrY . bonds - which 'had been 'granted on the-release; and, under these circumstances, he trusted the Court would be of opinion that a monition for taking bail in the country ought not to COurt sari , with what reasonable apprehension his Parties -were. disposed to look,on the bail offered by Mr.Aiiron, after what had occurred ; arid it would be aware that the Ma shal could not be. on the spot to exercise the same vigilance ana diseretion in the country, by which he had been enabled to re :port that the bail proffered in London ought not to be accepted. Dr. LUSHINGTON i on behalf of the owner of the other be&- tomry bond, addressed the Court to the same etrect. ;Dr. JESSE ADDAMS, on the - part of the master replied. Lord STowELL held, that he should be taking the safest-- course by not suffering this ship to go on bail :, and directed Ma ship's register to be brought into the registry of the Court. THE JOHANNA. This was a case of salvage. The ship Johanna, on her voyage from the Mediterranean to Emden, laden with rectified spirits, took fire, on the 7th June last, at the back of the Isle of %Vigil . • Destruction appearing to be inevitable, from the fury with which the flames were raging in the hold, , the Cantain, as a last re source, ordered the vessel to be scuttled.. ThiS desperate remedy ' had nearly proved effectual in extinguishing the flames, when the water rushed in in such a flood, that . she went over, and lay on her bearaends. The Captain,. mate, and. crew, had happily been fortunate enough to hail a Dutch pilot-bpat, and the slew per and his 'men endeavoured to render them every assistance ; but just before the Johanna went over, the Dutchman insisted • that there was imminent danger hi staving in or near the wreck any longer, took the crew out, and landed. 1)r. rIIILLIMORE appeared for the New Eagle anti Rebecca,, two pilot boats. The New Eagle 'arrived just after the Dutch vessel had gone away ; and found the Johanna, to all intents and purposes, as he should contend, a complete derelict—" sine spa recuperandi." She had already begun to eflixt the righting of the ship, and salvage of a part of her cargo, when the Re becca came up and assisted her ; and some tune after th e y were joined by his Majesty's revenue cutter the Dolphin : under the orders of the commanding officer of the cutter, the wholenf the parties acted throughout the remainder of this service, which consisted in righting, clearing, towing, &c. The principal question was as to the proportion asalvage ; and as he submit ted that the exertions of the two boats in question had been the most meritorious, he should hope they would be adjudged the largest salvage reward._ Dr. JESSE ADDAMs followed on the same side. Dr. ADAMS addressed the Court on the part of the officers and crew of the King's cutter. It Atas clear from the eircmn- , stances of her superior force and strength, and from the main business having been performed under the orders of the Lieute nant of the Polphin, that she had rendered the most effective aid, and was entitled to the highest proportion of salvage. Dr. LusuisrcroN, for the owners, admitted that here wars case of meritorious salvage, though its claims had been much exaggerated by both of his Learned Friends. He was perfectly content to leave it to the Court's discretion to apportion the amount of salvage due. • Dr. HAGGARD followed for the same parties; and on this authority of the Trioenfo, in 180 g; the Two Brothers, in 1808 ;- the Frances, in 1809 ; and the Eglantine, in 1810, in all which cases the Court had given either 1-3 d, less than 1-3 d, or 1-4th of the value, he relied that his Lordship would not think this 3 case which called for a larger apportionment. Lord STowELL thought this a case of very meritorious sae vage, seeing the salvers had incurred very miniineitt dange;• - His Lordship, after observing on the facts evidence, fcrand that the estimated value of ship and cargo was 6,5161. Ws. tel He should allot to the salvers 3,000 h at the following rates : To the King's cutters, officers and crew (in ali 2/ men) '1'2,30 0 To the crew of the New Eagle (in ell 4 men) e • 400 To the crew of the Rebecca (in all 2 men) 300 Being a total of - " £l,OO O Dr. LUSUINUTON then prayed that the Court, acting under the authority of the Act of Parliament, would he.pleased direct the Commissioners of the Cttstorns to allow so much o the cargo of The Johanna to be sold, free of duty, as might suffice to cover the amount of salvage allowed by the High Court of Admiralty.—The Court decreed accordingly. THE SPARTAN. This was also a salvage case ; but the facts were without any public interest. The Counsel for the owners admitting tha t this was moreover a case of derelict, and that the estimated valli`" was 1,2001. Lord ST DWELL granted for salvage the sum of 6001. i n tlx 5 following proportions : ' To the master of the vessel effecting the salvage, :£ the Hylos - - - - - 100 To the mate of ditto - - - _ ;JO To the two men who went on board the Spartan (found abandoned) with the mate, 4,11. each - To the remaining salvo:s (several in number) - 32(/‘ . . . .1:i;00 . . . • On the Motion of Dr. Lusa MGT oN, the Court directed the same order to issue to the .Ctsnunissioners of his MajestO Customs as in the preceding e.ase.'' . ' ' -00 Printed and Published, for the rnoPitiETolts, ac ine OFFICE, 112, Strand, by J. B. CARSTAIrizs: