Star.
London, England, 1818-05-29 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

---- - - -
The House was summoned to the House of Lords.—On their
return the Semmes. acquainted the House that the Royal As-
sent had been given by Commission to several public and pri-
vate Bib, for which see our Report of the Lords.
The Report of the Greenwich Prize Money Bill was received
and agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third date on
Saturday.
The Chancery Clerks 818 was read a third time and passed.
Mr. WROTTESLEY gave notice, that on Saturday he
would move for leave to bring in a Bill to Repeal sn much of the
Bankrupt Acts as relater t to the meetings of the Commissioners
of Bankrupt being held at Guildhall.
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW presented the Report of the Select
Committee on the Usury Laws, and'gave notice, that early in
the next fi;:sslon he would move for leave to bring in a Hill to
Repeal the Usury Laws, founded on this Report.—The Report
was ordered to lie on the Table add to be printed.
The Irish Auctions' Bill was reatra third time and passed.
Colonel ELLIS presented a Petition from the City of Lin-
coln, against the Pour Settlement Bill. Read and ordered to
lie on the T:lde.
The Scorch Churches Building BM was read a third time
and passed.
A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships As.
sent to the Duke of Kent's Provision Bill.
On the Motion of Mr. JOHN SMITH, it was ordered that
the House should, on Saturday, resolve itself into a Committee,
to consider of granting Salaries to Commissioners of Bankrupt,
in lies of fees; and also to consider of the erection of some
proper. Building wherein the business of the said Commissioners
migh be transacted.
The Irish Sock Transfer Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. GOULBURN presented the Papers, ordered sonic time
ago relative to the Trial in the island of St. Christopliers.—Or-
dend to lie on the Table, and'to be printed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to expiate and amend the Acts of the 47th and Stst Gen.
111. for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. The Bill was brought
in and read a first time, and ordered to be read asecond time on

Saturday.
The Report of the Cutlery Tiade Bill was received and agreed
to. The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Saturday.
The Appropri.tion Bill was read a third time and pauod.
TREATY WITII PORTUGAL.

On the motion of Lord CASTLEREAGHthat the
Portugal Slave Trade Treaty Bill be read a third time,
Dr. PHILLIMORE said he thought the Bill very
objectionable, because it authorised officers of the
King's ships to seize and detain the subjects of a fo.
reign Power. He admitted that it was necessary that
the Bill should give the power of detaining British
subjects ; but as the Bill now stood, he considered
it very dangerous, from the probability of its being
drawn into precedent hereafter. The King being the
head of the Marineof the country, and representing
the whole nation in his own person, in all cases of
peace and war, did not need an enactment of the
Legislature, such as that contained in the present
Bill, to authorise his officers to seize foreign sub-
jects, under the circumstances mentioned in this
Bill. An embargo was an analogous case. It was
the sole act of the Crown, and such a thing was
never heard of as an Act of Parliament to indem-
nify persons employed to enforce the embargo. This I
Bill, therefore, interfered with the Constitutional
doctrine that peace and war were the prerogatives of
the Crown, and that if they were abused the Minis-
ters were liable to impeachment. He did not wish
to extend the prerogatives of the Crown, but this cme
of peace and war was an indisputable one, and ought
not to he interfered with, or destroyed. He there-
fore intended to move, that this objectionable clause
of the Bill should be expunged. There was another
thing to which he objected. It had been clearly es-
tablished, ever since the answer to the Prussian Me-
morial in 1759, that no question as to a capture
could be fairly decided in the country to which the
captured vessel belonged. Yet by this Bill such ques-
tions were to he tried before a mixed tribunal of both
countries. These was only one case, namely, that
of Spain, in which the general rule had been de-
parted from ; hut surely the exception ought not to
become the rule. He moved that the first enactment
of the Bill be left out.

Lord CASTLES EAGII thought he would be able
to shew the Honourable Member that he had not,
taken a correct view of the question. The Honour•
able Gentleman had argued it as a question of belli-
gerent right. Now, as to well rights, the preroga-
tive of the Crown was unquestionable. But the pre-
sent Convention could not be looked upon as going
to supersede the established principles of the Law of
Nations. On the contrary the Convention was made
to provide for an anomalous case, and intended to
provide for the special circumstances of such a case.
The only right to perform that which the Conven-
tion justified, was given by the Convention itself.—
The Honourable Gentleman also objected to refer-
ring the questions of seizure under this Treaty to a
mixed Tribunal. But there was no analogy between
this, which was a matter of pacific regulation, and
the•established rule on which this country had always
acted in time of war. The Honourable Gentleman
wished to have all the questions under this Conven-
tion decided before British Courts. But surely the
House would see at once that in this pacific Conven-
tion it could not have been expected that the foreign
Power could accede to such an arrangement. In the
case of France and Spain, the tribunals before which
questions on the treaties with these Powers were to
be decided, were mixed tribunals. He hoped, as to
the first part of the Honourable Gentleman's objec-
tion that he would see that this Convention did not
arise out of the prerogative of the Crown in matters
of peace and war. When this Convention was pre-
sented to the Law Officers of th. Crown, it appeared
to them to be the onlY safe course in the lerslauval

measure, that h should recite the whole Convention,
and then make enactments to covet every pact 0: it.
The right given to oar ships by this Treaty was not
one to which we were entitled under the Law of Na-
tions merely, without the assent of the power al:,
fected by them. He therefore hoped that it would
be felt that this Bill did not touch in any way the
prerogative of the Crown. He trusted the Honour-
able Member would withdraw his amendment.

Dr. PHILLIMORE explained. He would not press
the amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was no-
thing in the Bill which interfered with the preroga-
tive of the Crown. In the time of peace, in order
tc carry this Treaty into effect, it was absolutely ne-
cessary that there should be such an enactment as
that objected to, because otherwise the party whose
ship was seized would have an action in the Courts
of Common Law in this country against the party
seizing and detaining. As to the question of the
proper tribunal, it was to be considered, that unless,
a tribunal was created before which questions on this
Treaty could be decided, there would be no tribu-
nals before which such questions could be tried at all,
for there was no tribunal in existence which could
have the jurisdiction.
Mr. SrITII, of Cambridge, wished to know whe-
ther any steps had been taken by Portugal for the ul-
timate and total abolition of the Slave Trade. Spain
and Portugal were now the only countries in Eu-
rope which had not abolished the Slave Trade, and
Spain had agreed to abolish it in 1820. He thought
the Treaties made with these countries of incalcula-
ble importance, especially from their providing for
the abolition of the Slave Trade North of the Line.

Lord CASTLEREAGH replied,. that when Spain
had ratified the Treaty by which the total abolition
of the Slave Trade was stipulated by that Power to
take place from the month of May, 1820, a joint
communication was sent by the Allied Powers to the
Court of Portugal, announcing the Treaty thus made
by Spain, and expressing a hope that his Most Faith-
ful Majesty would accede to a similar Treaty. What
tht result of this communication was he could not in-
form the House, as no accounts had yet been received
on the subject.--The Bill was then read a third time
and passed.