Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-07-28
FOREIGN.
British House of Commons Nm Q

DIR. Ptilllinore argued that there was no
necessity for any such enactment az ,i,,i
which the bill contained, 10 enable tne
ships al The Kings Navy 10 seize Poriil-
guesc ships engaged in The Slave Trade
under certain circumstances. The hing
beng the representative of The sovereign
power of the nation In all transactions
with foreign states, twas perfectly com,
pefeni for him to give orders tor ilic cap
tnre of those ships Of foreign natioi,s
which those nations had agreed should be
forfeited. He instanced the case Of AN
embargo, which might nuA happen 10 end
IN var yet no one could conteud that an
aci OF parliament was necessary 10 in
demnliy the capiors against the cousc-
queDccs of that act. The enactment be-
lfrs supertiuouS, was therefore mischieyous
IN a constitutional view, IFS il i,iitr!rre,
with thu prerogaiive, and might be drawn
into precedent. He should, therefore,
alter ihc ihird reading, move tl,ai II be
omitted. There was another ciro umstaGcc
IN the bili he wished ia advert 10, viz the
appointment of CommiSsary Judges and
Commissioners Of Arbitration 10 defer
pine on the lawfulness Of The seizure Of
vessels. The Commissary Judges we're ia
be half Portuguese, half English. The
commissioners TO be drawn by oi from
the Judges of the Two naiious, ard we're
10 he the final appellate jurisdiction. This
WAS ii new power of immense importance,
as II did away with that principle Of The
law OF nations, always SO infieAibly MAIN
tanned by this couniry-that claims 10 YES.
sells seized should always be decided Oh
III the country ofthe seiZor. twas in the
recollection Of the House, how frequently
neutral nations had demonstrated with
This country on the proprieiy OF appoint
ing a different jurisdiction especially
the famous PrusSian Memorial Of 1853,
and low strongly ii had been resisted by
this country as absurd and impraclicablc.
Though this principle had been departed
from in the case of Spain, he had hoped
that Portugal would have had faith enough
IN the justice of Great Britain 10 have n.
bided 10y the decision of her ordinary tri-
bunals OF international law.
Lord Casilereagll contended, that the
acts which the King was 10 authorize his
navy TO perform, did not arise out of bel
lgerent rights, but of peculiar and anon
alous provisions OF d treaty which might
never occur again. Ii had been held by
the law 9th ers, who had been consulted,
that though some of the acts mentioned
III ihe treaty might be done by HE ordi-
nary authority of the king, Others would
require legislative enactMtnt therefore il
was judged best 10 recite the substance
OF The treaty, and auihorse his Majesty
TO give orders accordingly. lie therefore
hoped the learned gentleman would with
draw his amendment. The I'd objection of
the learned gentleman vas 60 mixed ill.,
fisdiction, and in this case lie had been
mlsled by the analogy drawn from the
conduct OF belligerent towards presum-
nd IL
was obvious that in smsh case, the
claims must be determined, 10 have a
chance of justice, i'll the country of the
seizor, but the case before The House was.
that of all amicable mutual arrangement
between two allies. Ii was necessary 10
hold out the inducement OF such iuris-
dlction TO nations, who otherwise would
no, enter INTO any arrangement at all. Ii
was an alternative which had been chosen.
the hint of which had been taken from
the Commissioners on the English claims
in France.
DR.. PbillimOre explained, that The king
was not only the representative of then
ton in questions of peace and war, but i'm
all transactions with foreign states.
The Attorney General argued in sup
port of the provisions Of the hill, and CON
tended, that unless tie bill passed, the
seizOr of The Portuguese vessel would be
subject toan action III court Of common
law. The only bar 10 such an action was,
that vessel was taken as a prize while
The vessel seized under this treaty, could
not be said To be so. Ii would not be
enough TO plead the treaty without an aci
of Parliament. He defended The principle
OF the mixed jurisdiction, as HE only one
which either of lie contracting nations
could have agreed to.
MIR. Smith wished 10 know whether any
steps had been taken 10 induce Poriuga
10 fix a term for the abolition of her trade
IN slaves Spain and Portugal were the
only nations which now continued the
slave trade; but Spain had contracted to
put an end 10 IL IN May, 1920. Portugal,
though she had siigmaized the trade as
having desolaIed Africa and afflicted lir-
manly, had, with whal lie could oniy d.,
signaie rs hypocrisy, continued 10 carry
il on, without any pledge for lis termisd-
ton. lie agreed that the restriction Of
the trade to the South Of the Line was a
great object accomplished, but much re-.
NAMED To- he done. II had been provid-
ed al Vienna, that the Allied powers slIonld
concert measures 10 put an end ia this
traffic, and it Portugal PERSISTED in it. il
was fiji this stipulation should be carried
into effect. He merely WISHED 10 add,
that Portugal had no, The slightest claim
10 pecuniary compensation.
Lord CastlcreagIi merely wished TO state
The facts which bad occurred. In conse-
quence Of The conference at Paris, Spain
has been induced 10 put an end 10 The
trade. The Ministers of The Allied Powers,
Immediately on the conclusion of thai
treaty, had taken steps TO represent il 10
The King OF Portugal, and urge his most
faithful majesty TO agree to a similar trea-
ty. This was about two months ago he