The Sun.
London, England, 1817-12-16 00:00:00

t ASV rl
N itL CI G ENCt.

iTIGHTOURT OF ADMIRALTY, DOCTORS' COMMONS.

eft LOUIS, FRENCH SLAVE SHIP, CAPTURED OFF
CAPE MAsSURADA, BY HIS MAJESTY'S, CEUIZEI
THE CiESAR.
Sir WILLIAM SCOTT gave "judgment yesterday
upon this important appeal front sentence of cOn-
detonation passed by the Judge of Sierra Leone.
This ship was taiten oil the flth March, 1815,
after a severe 'engagement, followed' by en attempt
to escape, in which 11 persons were killed on one
Side, and 24 on the other ; besides several ‘vieunid-
ed on both sides. The cause of 'this inelaneholy
contest was a right of search aikd visitation -set
up by the Caesar, on suspicion that this vessel Was
engaged in the Slave 'Trade,; denied and rejected
by the Louis, who thereupon resisted that de-
mand, which had produced such a calamitous and
tragical result. There was no doubt of this vessel
being owned by French subjects ; and the mere
circumstance of having. English and other seamen.
on board was easily accounted for in time of_
peace. , With respect to the intention to deal in
slaves being contingent, it amounted to the same
as if slaves had beers on board, from the number
of irons and other manacles that Were" found, the
quantity and quality of the provisions. The mys-
terious passages in their instructions, respecting
negotiations with the natives of Massurada, all
went to shew the intended traffic was in,slavea ;
-such proof being absolute; The question of ju-
risdiction of Sierra Leone.was not of impottarece
further than locality was concerned. %The Caesar
stated itself as commissioned to capture all vessels
acting in contravention of ~the abolition lawS.
But this authority could only be founded on the
51st of Geo. 111, to seize all British vessels evad-
ing, or acting against that Act. The word cap-
ture does not occur in it. Here it was necessary
to observe that.this;.as well as all other British
Acts of Parliament, could only affect the subjects
of other nations as was consistent with the gene-
ral law of nations,- and could only be narrowed -•
and construed in adherence thereto. The Judge
of Sierra Leone carrying with him a liberal eri-
cation, and no doubt actuated by a laudable zeal
for the enforcement of those laws respecting the
abolition of the slave trade, had .done that which
he considered justice .between the parties ; but
he, Sir W. Scott, was called upon to direCt an
equal -adorinisircion of justice to all parties, not
only moon the common principles .of law, but
npon every rational principle upon which there
was evidence produced by either party. It was
enough for the Judge of Sierra Leone to`produce
such evidence as that his decision should escape
censure; but he, Sir W'. Scott, was bound to say,
that if the right of visitation and search was
ille-
gal in time of peace, this information so obtained,
though in answer to interrogatories put to the
captured, could. not be legal evidence thus by force
e3O ratted. If there was no right of search, then
the party was tot only entitled to resist (with all
the melancholy,consequiences that ensued), but
such resistance was•in itself lawful. .11.-no right
of search existed in his Majesty's cruiser, then all
the evidence so obtained, as well as the right of
srizoic nod condertinatiOn, was at an end C,i)e-
cause there were !nerdy the effects of the unlawfull
acts of the seizing. II the right of seiiieb existed,
Then the question vas, whether the information
sn obtained bad established the facts—first,' that
:this ship was engaged in the slave trade—second-
ly, that this was in contravention of the French
laws.

In time of peace there were two principles of
English law which were recognised as funda-
mental. One is, ate entire independence of all
foreign States The relative power and greatness
Of one State to another gives no additional rights,
but all nations have an equal right to the unin-
terrupted navigation of, all and every the wrap-
propriate,l parts of the ocean. This freedom in
time of peace was the fOundation of all public law,
'and which it concerns all men and all nations,
both in their public and private character, to
maintain. And since no one country has a right
to exercise authority over the property or sub
jects of another, therefore nothing could Rive au-
thority over those general rights to navigate the
seas, but the rights of war, as against neutrals.
This right of visitation and search was found-

• ed in necessity and self-defence, in time of tear ;
'as:upon seeing other nations engaged in the ser-
• vice„of-- the .enemy, supplying them with. provi-
sions or with warlike.stores,,and in cases. of illegal
detention, there was always allowed a compensa-
tion to the parties ilk that of costs and damages.
Another old exploded practice was, to issue let-
ters of marque lo.ninlie captures, whence the sub-
jects of one.nation had been injured .hy.those of
another, without being enabled to obtain redress ;.
but by the law of nations as now established, no
nation:could' exercise the right of visitation and
search. towards another. upon the. sea, except as
belligerent. Powers in times of war.—The reason
why.it did not exist in times of peace. was, because
• there was not the same necessity. The claims set up
by Spain. and Portugal in this respect as to right
of search; were not only treated as vain, but ex-
ttavag ant, pretended io be founded upon some.,
grants of their Kings, or of the Pope, or upon
some usitipatiuns. If,. however, adjoining. to their
shores all nations, and this country in particular,
claimed the tight of search of. foreign vessels uo,
der the VA.Cise Laws, such as vessels clearing out
from this country, this had nothing to do with
the. right of visitation and search upon unappro-
priated parts of the ocean in tune of peace. Swe-
den (although in the cage of foreign ships and fo-
reign property) claimed this exemption, which
was resisted by the British Government,. but such

search hcing since considered unlawful by our Go-
vernment, that right was finally withdrawn.
Upon the question then, how this right of
seareb in time of peace can be legalized, it must
be upon the ground that the eaptured-can be taken
to have.acted as pirates. This -vessel Quill! not
Ife taken as a pirate, for she was not the property
of sea-rovets, .htit at domiciled,..French.snhjecte.
She could therefore only be taken as a slave trwler.
Then the qqestion was, whether She was subject,
as such, to seizure or condemnation by the Bri
tish laws. The law of this country made it a
transportable offence, not a capital felony ;,.these
were the -distinguishing; features of the offence. ,
Then it is put to the Cturt upon this very
strong ground, that it is to be considered a