HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0126 and id is 1 raw text is: THETIS (THE) [1834]
of the framers to have been, that holders of immoveable property out of it should
receive the full compensation they were entitled to under the provisions of the
treaty of 1814 [Herts. Conm,. Treat. i. 263].
The King's Advocate (Sir H. Jenner), and Wightman was with hint, in support
of the Award.--If St. Martin's is to be considered as a country conquered by the
French arms, the confiscation would not be illegal in the, spirit of the treaty of 1814,
for a nation may deal as it thinks proper with a conquered territory. No treaty
ever existed for the protection of British subjects out of the French dominions. If,
however, St. Martin's is to be, considered as belonging to the Dutch, a power at that
time in alliance with France, the claimants must seek compensation, not from
France, but from Holland, for by the law of nations every state is answerable for
th, acts it suffers another to commit in its territories. Pilkington's [2 Knapp, 7]
was a case of confiscation of property under the protection of the French Govern-
ment., and seized by them in [389] breach of the treaty of 1786 [see 2 Knapp, 7]. It
was the intention, indeed, of the framers of the treaty of 1814 [Herts. Comm. Treat.
263] only to provide compensation for British subjects who had thus been injured.
This appears from the letters addressed by Lord Castlereagh to the first Corn-
missioners.
[One of these letters was read.*]
Mr. Baron Parke.-I believe their Lordships have no doubt but that the allowance
of compensation 'should be confined to the cases of loss arising from the seizure or
confiscation of property which shall be considered under the implied protection of
the French Government under the treaty of commerce of 1786 [see 2 Knapp, 7].
This property was not so situated. We think, therefore, that this appeal must be
dismissed.
[Mews' Dig. tit. WAR; 4. WAR INDEMNITY; In respect of what matters. See
Pilkin ton v. Commissioners for Claiins on France, 1834, 2 Knapp, 13.]
[390] APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND.
THE THETIS t [June 19, 20, 1834].
In a case of salvage of treasure, by great exertions, from a wreck derelict and
sunk under water, one-third of the amount saved awarded to the salvors.
An admiral who. had taken upon himself personal exertion and responsibility
in recovering such treasure by means of the ships under his command held
entitled to an eighth of the sum awarded for salvage.
The Admiralty held entitled to repayment for the pay, victualling and wear and
Foreign-office, 29 July 1814.
Gentlemen,-I have received your letter of the 27th instant, desiring to know
whether you shall receive claims for the recovery of British property illegally
sequestered or confiscated by French authorities in countries not within the limits
of France, as they existed on the 1st of January 1792.
It does not appear to me that requisitions or confiscations made by the arms
of France, without the: actual limits of France, can fall within the principle of the
4th additional article of the late treaty of peace with that country; it not being
the intention of those who were entrusted with the negotiation of that treaty to bind
the French Government to the restitution of any other property than such as had,
prior to its seizure or confiscation, been placed under the implied protection and
bona fide guarantee of that Government.-I have the honour, etc.
(Signed) Castlereagh.
The Honourable Charles Bagot and Archibald Elijah Impey, Esq.
t Present: the Vice-Chancellor [Sir Lancelot Shadwell], Mr. Justice Bosanquet,
Judge of the Prerogative Court (Sir J. Nicholl), and the Chief Judge of the Court
of Bankruptcy [The Hon. Thomas Erskine].
533
II KNAPP, 389](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0126&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)