The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-05 00:00:00

N,''esittrinstet. Hall had been of opinion, an prii-.Ci-
ples of policy, that not only Insurance of Property
before: the War should be allowed, fo protest Pro.
perry after the War, against ,the force of that very
State, bat even that Enemies' Property; duting the
War, pight"be made the. subjed of insurance. But
though he
,admitted that celebrated perSZM.(Lord
Mm.rar lELD) was of opinion, that this was consist-
ent with good policy, his Learned Brother could
produce no authority of that Learned Person; sitting
in a Court of Justice, and suggesting that &thine, as
a doctrine agreeable to the law of this land. That was
not an opinion given in any Court of Justice; but
was an opinion given by him in his place in Parlia-
ment, and before he had a seat on the Bench: But
whatever respect was due to that opinion, it was
possible to contend, at this time of day, that it was
consistent with"good policy to insure the Ptoperty
of Enemies during the War. The great point at
vhich Lord NIANSEIELD looked was, the keeping of
the Box and recei,ving the Premit;,'74; and though
it might possibly be advantageous to Trade, ,it
did not therefore follow, that it ought to be
allowed. Many Trades might be extremely gainful,
and yet it might be inconsistent with the interests
of the State that they should exist; inasmuch as the
inconvenience resulting from these trades; con-
sidered in a political point of view, must con-
siderably counterbalance any advantage that might
arise from them. This opinion of Lord IMAIS-
FT ELD was regarded almost with contempt by
Foreign Writers on this subject, who considered
that the subjeCts of this Country, insuring enemies'
property, •in time of war, had their interests placed
in &red opposition to the interests of the State.
He knew it had been said, that in consequence T
the Gentlemen at Lloyd's being. allowed ,to insure
Enemies' property, important information had been
sometimes procured. He believed the Gentlemen
at Lloyd's were very good subjeCts, but they must
be soinething, more than good. subjeas before they
could turn spies to the Government to enable thein
to arrest the ships of the Enemy at the very mo-
ment when they had insured them, and when con-
sequently they were directly interested in their et-
riving in safety at their ports ofdestination. Ano.
ther point deserving consideration 'was 'this. It
could not possibly be for the advantage of the
Country that the effea of War ;should be .com
pletely defeated, but this was a necessary conse_
. quence of allowing the subjects of this Country to
insure the property of, Enemies. On whom does
.the loss fall ? •Ncit -on the Enemy, but on the
subjeas of this Country. The object of War was
to distress and harass the Enemy, in order to bring
that Enemy to terms, but it would not have this
; it did rot tend to 'ruin the Enemy, but it
did tend to. ha've that effea on our own subjeas.
If this sort of, contract were permitted, the Ene-
mies of the Country might defend themselves
against all the effects of .War, at an, infinitely less
expence :than we must be at in prosecuting it against
them. By arithmetical calculation they could as-
certain. the means whereby they could defeat all
the attempts of the Force of this Country.
_Was
it possible that any man should be placed in the
situation in which the carrying into effea this
policy would place him ? His interest would be to
fight against the State. It would be making one
part of the subjects of this Country, place them..
selves in direct hostility against the State ; and,
therefore, whatever advantage Commerce, might
possibly derive by the adoption of -such a mea-
sure; in a political point of view, it would be
extremely prejudicial. One of the first steps com-
monly taken at the commencement of a war, was
to seize all
,the property of the Enemy in all the
British ports. But the interests of the State and
the bbjea of War were completely defeated by this
contract, if carried into effea, as was contended
for by his Learned Brother, inasmuch as the loss
would fall on the British Underwriters, instead of
falling upon the Enemy. The War, therefore, by
this practice,. must bring ruin on those whom it
was its object, as well as the first duty of Govern.,,
ment, to protect ; and the effea of it must neces-
sarily be, to palsy the efforts of the Country against
its enemies. To hold this a risk within the policy,
must be directly against the general interests of
the State in every way in which it could-be viewed,
by. inducing the subjeas of this Country to do
every individual act which War was intended to
prevent. What was the great, object of War ?_ To
injure the Commerce of the Enemy.
Lord ALVANLEY (interposing) " To annihilate
their -Commerce if possible."'
•

Mr. Serjeant BEST observed, that the great ob-
jeti of In:>uranCe was to enable the subjects of this
Country to tarry on Commerce to a greater extent
than it- was possible they could -if the risks of it
were cast wholly on themselves, instead of; being
divided among the Underwriters. The object of
Insurance was to encourage Commerce ;' the object
of War was to destroy the Commerce of another
country, and, therefore;
,the effe& of insuring
enemies''property must be to encourage them to en-
gage in, speculations and enterprises to bring pro-
perty into their Country, to increase their strength,
to aid, to assist them, and to enable them to resist
us ; although the ()Ned of War was• to destroy
them. When it was to be considered, that War,
in modern times was carried on chiefly by the finances
of a State, and, that Money was the sinew of War,
it was impossible for any man not to see, that this
policy of assurance was in direa opposition to she
best and most important interests of the Coun-
try.

Mr. Serjeant BATLEY replied ;—after which,
such was thought the impertance of the case, that
it was agreed, to turn it into a Special Verditl, in
order that it may receive the most solemn decision
possible.
Mr. justiceßooKE, "It would be for the honour
of the Underwriters if they were not to take the
costs hitherto incurred from this Foreigner; as it
is very well known this has'been always paid in
former times." •

Mr. Serjeant BEsT, on the part of the Under-
writers, said, they would not take the costs from
the Plaintiff. If they were entitled to the judg-
ment of the Court, they would, of course, have