82] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



stages, in sixteen of which the 

 captures had taken place before 

 July 1815. The act of parlia- 

 ment of that date could therefore 

 apply only to five of them ; and 

 four of these were still in a course 

 of litigation, on which no judgment 

 had been given. Only one case, 

 then, could be attempted to be 

 included in the provisions of the 

 act, and this was that of the 

 Rosa. This had not been cap- 

 tured by our cruizers, but had 

 been driven by stress of weather 

 on the coast of one of the Bahama 

 islands, and had been taken be- 

 cause some slaves were on board. 

 There were only five judgments, 

 and those were against the cap- 

 tors ; and surely the claimants, 

 as to the remedy now afforded to 

 them, compared to their prospect 

 of recovering from the captors, 

 had no right to complain of this 

 country for turning them over to 

 the justice of their own. Upon 

 the whole, he trusted that he had 

 satisfied the House that no doubt 

 had hitherto existed with regard 

 to the sovereign power of a state, 

 upon all the principles of inter- 

 national law, to conclude a treaty 

 with another foreign power, of 

 the nature of that under consi- 

 deration. He had shown that it 

 had been recognized on two so- 

 lemn occasions, and that there 

 was no ground of charge against 

 the navy board, as having placed 

 itself between a judgment on a 

 statute law, and its execution. 

 He had only to remind them, 

 that the Spanish flag had been 

 made use of by the subjects of 

 other states as a cloak to their 

 violation of the law, and that the 

 Spanish courts must necessarily 

 be the fittest place for deteimia- 



ing any question which might 

 arise out of that practice. 



Mr. IVynn said, he would not 

 dispute the abstract proposition, 

 that a sovereign had a right to 

 adjust with another potentate the 

 claims of any of his subjects ; a 

 power vested, and necessarily so, 

 in the head of any state, whether 

 republican or monarchical. He 

 also admitted, M'ith the noble 

 lord, that the question here was, 

 whether the power so vested had 

 been properly applied in the par- 

 ticular case. But when the legis- 

 lature, by a special act, prescribed 

 the mode of pursuing a legal in- 

 quiry to correct a wrong, and 

 where the sufferers had followed 

 the course laid down, and obtain- 

 ed an adjudication after making 

 out their demands to the satisfac- 

 tion of the court, then both 

 equity and justice required that 

 they should be protected in their 

 rights. He thought that the in- 

 terest of the claimants should in 

 the present instance, be defended 

 by the courts in which the pro- 

 ceedings relative to them had 

 been instituted, and not transfer- 

 red to another jurisdiction pro- 

 ducing additional expense and 

 delay. 



After the remarks of some 

 other gentlemen. Dr. Phillimore 

 spoke in reply. 



He said, the question upon 

 which he went was, whether those 

 claimants who were in possession 

 of the verdict of a British court 

 of justice in their favour, ought 

 not to be indemnified for their 

 losses in the first instance, and 

 the subsequent heavy expenses 

 incurred in the prosecution of 

 their claims ; and whether there 

 was not a difference between the 



cases 



