The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-03-19 00:00:00

!t"

I.

•

an-_ _

~~

r

illear !]-- rho o.lly question therefore was (for'
the right of the Sosereien to make the arrangement
was, he apprehended, indisputable), whether the sr-,
rangement was a wise and proper one for this coun-
try. It was, of course, no consideration here, bow.
far the King of spore hod guarded the rights of his
own subjects. It was clear that the stipulation did
,not destroy, as had been said, the rights of the in-
' &widgets to obtain redress, neither did it impeach
_ the tribunals before which the cases were pending ;
. It merely went to transfer the effect of these judg.
meats to the Crown of Spain. It was north consi-
tiering, with reference to she jedgments'in question,
. that they were held on so slender • ground, that
the parties bad offered some of them for sale at a dig-
- routs, of a few shilliegs in the pritinil,[ near !]—
. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated two
4 •classes of Claimants—one class consisted of those
whose appeals sere actually lodged, the other, rhat
class which was precluded from the right of appeal
by being extra the time the law.altowa,. With respect
to the tiro, their claim was for the value of the col-Aare',
. end not for the property itself, for the slates could
not be restored, as they were necessarily dispesedof in
an early stage of the proceeding from considerations
of benignity, which dictated the proptinsy of not
, bolding them in duresse pending the litigation. Now
tinder this class of claimants the House squid be sur-
prised to learn theft; was but one of the cases &Boded
to by the Hon. and Learned Peet. There were lit
all 21 cases in different stages in the Coats of. Ap-
peal—to sixteen of these this Act in no way ap-
plied, and it could only be pouibly,brought to bear
on the remaining five. The Act was pissed since
the capture of the 16, and had no retrospective ope.
ration. Of the remaining five, four were in pro.
gress of examination, and on the fifth only hod judg.'
merit been obtained ; and in that case (the Ross), the
question of the capture stood on grounds ,distinct
from the Treaty. The case there was this ihe ship
bad not been captured at sett, she was driven by
stress of weather into one of the small islands near
the Bahamas, and the slaves on board were put
ashore ou English ground. The seizure was the
, consequence, but it was thought at home too strong
an application of the Act to enforce it against a
•, vessel in such a situation, and the adjudication was
accordingly given in the manner stated by tha
. lion. end Learned Gentleman. It was, however,.
quite erroneous to suppose, that the tight of in-
divideals could be allowed to interfere with inter-
national arrangements, made between two States
for the benefit of the whole, But there was no.
thing in the Treaty to prevent the parties going
to Madrid with their recorded claims, and obtain-
ing the liquidation of those claims which they had in
progress here, and for which Spain had received en
eqtdraldnt for her subjects. The Court of Madrid
was bound, and had taken on itself to give a full
and complete equivalent; and no Spanish subject
could hare the least difficulty as to the mode of ob.
taining redress prUsided for his case. If among these
parties there were subjects of other States, who,
under Spanish colours, pursued a traffic front which
they viere interdicted by the Governments to which
they owed allegiance, the Court of Spain would have
a better mode of detecting such persons, and septum-
: ing them from the real Spanish trader, than existed
In the Courts of Great Britain ; and he thought it
no unnecessary ingredient its, this Treaty, that it
was open to Spain to decide on the merits of her
101,11 subjects, and separate their claims from those
of parties who were, in violation of law, conducting
an illicit traffic. The Noble Lord concluded by re-
suming the principles of international law. which
, vested the power in Sovereigns of contracting for the
claims of their subjects, and which rendered such a
motion as this wholly unnecessary- lie would, there-
fore, give it his negative.
Lord A. HAMILTON was of opinion that gross
. injustice had been done to the Claimants somewhere.
This he had not heard the Noble Lord deny. The
case of the American Treaty cited by the Noble
Lord, he contended, was by na means in point. Arid
with respect to the assertion of the Noble Lord, that
the Claimants might apply to Spain under the Treaty,
it appeared to him that the Cerregpondence on the
table between the Noble Lord and the parties alined-
ed a sufficient proof that they had no claim on Spain
under the Treaty. lie should certainly vote for the
motion ; at the same time he imputed the blame, not
to the Courts iu this country, but to the Ministers
by whom the Treaty had been arranged.
Mr. WYNN, while be admitted that the sovereign
authority of a State must bare the power which the
Noble Lord attributed to it, contended, that the
way in which that power was exercised was quite a
different thing. Where we had pointed out to the
parties in question the mode by which they could oh;
lain a legal remedy, and they had adopted those
means, we were not entitled to shut them out from
the remedy.
Mr. BROUGHAM wss of opinion, that if the
consent of the Court of Spain to abolish the trade
were the only result of the payment of 400,0001. it
would be sufficient ; but he considered that the ad.
ditional arrangement relative to the right of search
(without which the abolition of the trade would be
impossible), was of itself worth the whole sum.—
It was albs, to be recollected.that the Sottish Go,
vernment received this money partly in considera-
tion of their making good the Tosses sustained by
their subjects by captures ; to which, indeed one-
half of it would probably be applicable. The 110.
noorable and Learned Gentleman argued at con-
siderable length, that the act of our Government was
not the cause of any injustice that might he appre-
hended ; for if no Treaty had been concluded, it
would have been competent to the Spanish Govern-
ment to bar the claims of the parties in question by
an act of State. It was certainly a case of great
hardship on the parties who had brought actions and
obtained judgments, and on the credit of those judg-
ments had perhaps obtained advances ; but there were
many other cases of hardship arising out of the este-
blished principle, that subjects were bound by he
acts of their Sovereign. Up to the final adjudica-
tion, the wqrile claim of a
_captor might be aban-
doned for him by his Government ; saddling him
with all the costs of his action. lle thought, how-
ever, that it would have been much better had resort
been had, in the instances in question to the Droits
of Admiralty. In conclusion the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman expressed his earnest and anxi-
ous bop, and indeed his snobs expectations that