|
1 Oct.
Dom. Geo. III., v. 1, No. 30 a to g. |
1471. Lords of The Admiralty to the Earl of Halifax. |
|
Enclosing a copy of a letter, dated the 1st of last month, from
Capt. Palliser, Commander-in-chief of H.M.'s ships at Newfoundland. |
|
Capt. Palliser's letter. Arrived at St. John's in H.M.S. "Guernsey,"
the 18th of June. To prevent the encroachments which the
French are ever endeavouring to make, so that they may afterwards
claim them by right of usage, his attention has been directed to
the following:— |
|
1st. Last year a French ship-of-war, the "Unicorn," visited
several ports in the north part of the Island, and interfered in the
Government, by hearing disputes between the English and Frenchmen. To prevent a recurrence of this, has issued an order to the
captains not to admit any French military forces into any part of
the Government. (A copy of the order, marked A., enclosed.) |
|
2nd. Soon after his arrival, was informed of several large French
ships, apparently men-of-war, having been seen outside the banks
steering for the coast. Sent thereupon the "Spy" sloop to
St. Pierre, carrying the regulations to the Governor, to see what
force they had in those parts, and to test the truth of the following
article. |
|
3rd. That upon the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon they
had mounted cannon, and that engineers had arrived from "Old
France" with materials for erecting works not solely for the use
of the fishermen. He remonstrated in a letter to the Governor.
(A copy of which letter, with the Governor's reply, marked B., is
enclosed.) |
|
4th. Was informed that they pretend to a right of fishing,
landing, and drying on the coast lying between Point Riche and
Cape Ray, and that it was probable they would send ships there
this year. He therefore issued an order to prevent this (copy
enclosed, marked C.), taking care throughout to describe the true
situation of Point Riche to be in lat. 50° 30' N., and giving them
to understand that he intended visiting those parts himself. When
at the bay of the Three Islands, saw sufficient proofs of their encroachments, even if it had been within the limits allowed for
fishing. They have erected dwelling-houses, and, besides the cod
fishery, have carried on a large salmon fishery up the rivers, and
there still remains an infinite number of their traps for catching
furs. Hence there is no doubt that they remained there all the
winter, and that from thence they encouraged the Indians from
Cape Breton (the same as were last year at Caderoy) to cross over
to the east of the Island to kill the English engaged in the winter
seal fishery. When he sent the "Spy" to St. Pierre, he went to
Placentia, where the sloop met him. Her commander, Capt.
Phillips, informed him of the French force at St. Pierre. The
French Commodore told Capt. Phillips that he intended visiting
the ports of the Island where they were allowed to fish, intending,
no doubt, to establish certain privileges. He (Capt. Palliser)
immediately, therefore, sailed to St. Pierre, and forbad him by
letter entering any port in this Government with an armed
force, at the same time offering to furnish a passport for any
person whom he might think necessary to send for regulating any
disputes among themselves, if sent in a civil and not military
capacity, and in an unarmed vessel. He said such a person was
already there. Sends a copy of the letter and answer enclosed,
marked D. Thinks it very probable the ships under the protection of the men-of-war were intended to have fished between
Cape Ray and Point Riche. |
|
The documents referred to in Capt. Palliser's letter, and his
orders issued to the captains, &c. 32 pp. |
3 Oct.
Criml. Papers, v. 10, 1760–66, p. 259. |
1472. Mr. Richard Phelps to the Mayor of Exeter. |
|
As the letter relating to Thomasine Hall, sent down to the
Sheriff of the county of Devon, his deputy, the keeper of the gaol,
and all others whom it may concern, was only a respite till further
orders, there is no occasion for any fresh letter for suspending her
execution. The pardon will, of course, be directed to the Justices
of the gaol delivery for the city and county of Exeter. |
3 Oct.
Ordn. Entry Bk., 1760–76, p. 291. |
1473. Earl of Halifax to the Master General of the
Ordnance. |
|
Directing him to refer the principal officers of the Ordnance to
Sir Jeffrey Amherst, now in England, for the truth of the facts
alleged by Capt. Urings, of the ship "Polly." They are to
advert to the orders in a former letter, in case the facts should
come out as stated, notwithstanding their report. [See report,
28 Sept., No. 1467.] |
6 Oct.
Admiralty, v. 149, No. 15. |
1474. Mr. Ph. Stephens to E. Sedgwick, Esq. |
|
The two ships, the "Thunderer" and the "Edgar," ordered to
be got ready in consequence of Lord Halifax's letter of 29 Aug. ult.,
are ready to proceed to sea. 1 p. |
8 Oct.
Admiralty, v. 147, 1761–65, No. 27. |
1475. Dey of Algiers. |
|
Capt. Archibald Clevland's report on the differences with the
Dey of Algiers as to the manner in which they should be dealt
with by the Government. It relates to the treatment, &c. of
several individuals, for which, he says, satisfaction ought to be
demanded, and to the passes for trading ships. He recommends a
re-examination of the different articles of former treaties, to be
worded so as to prove non-equivocal in any point. |
10 Oct.
Scotch Correspnce., 1763–95, pp. 6–9. |
1476. Earl of Sandwich to the Lord Advocate of Scotland. |
|
Sends a copy of a representation, signed John Mackenzie,
transmitted by H.M.'s Envoy at the Court of Sweden. To report
whether the property therein mentioned is entirely vested in the
Crown, and, if so, upon whom the succession would naturally fall,
supposing there was no bar to prevent its passing through the
regular channel. |
|
The representation. It relates to the Roystown property devised by George Earl of Cromartie. |
|
Memorandum, that "the report of the Advocate General will
be found in the Treasury Book, page 104." |
11 Oct.
Dom. Entry Bk., v. 23, p. 275. |
1477. The Same to the Committee of the Russia Company. |
|
Requesting them to send, for the information of Mr. Macartney,
H.M.'s Minister at Petersburg, who is about to set out thither,
copies of their memorial delivered to the Board of Trade, containing
their plan upon the improvements of the commerce with Russia,
and of their Lordships' answer. |
15 Oct.
Dom. Entry Bk., v. 22, p. 279. |
1478. Mr. Stanhope to the Chairman of the East India
Company. |
|
The Earl of Halifax has a despatch of great consequence to send
to Mr. Grenville, H.M.'s Ambassador at Constantinople, improper
to be sent by the post; can he point out an immediate safe conveyance to save the expense of a special messenger? |
|
Similar letter to the Chairman of the Turkey Company. |
15 Oct.
Mil. Entry Bk., v. 28, p. 82. |
1479. Earl of Halifax to the Secretary-at-War. |
|
Enclosing a copy of a letter from Capt. Legg, commanding officer
at Tobago, and its enclosure. |
15 Oct.
Treas. Entry Bk., v. 1, 1763–75, p. 58. |
1480. Mr. L. Stanhope to C.Jenkinson, Esq. |
|
Enclosing, for the information of the Lords of the Treasury, an
extract from a letter from the Earl of Hertford, H.M.'s Ambassador
at Paris, relating to the franchises of ambassadors; also a copy of
a letter from Capt. Legg, commanding officer at Tobago, and its
enclosures. |
16 Oct.
Dom. Entry Bk., v. 22, p.279. |
1481. The Same to the Clerk of the Council in waiting. |
|
Enclosing translations of three letters from the Dey of Algiers
to the King; of one from the Dey's physician to Capt. Duncan,
relating to passes and passavants improperly given to ships in the
Mediterranean by the Governors of Gibraltar and Minorca; also
extracts from letters from Consul Bruce and others, relating to the
same. |
|
A list of the enclosures sent. |
16 Oct.
Dom. Entry Bk., v. 23, p. 281. |
1482. The Same to the Chairman of the East India
Company. |
|
Enclosing an extract from a letter from the Earl of Rochford,
Ambassador at Madrid, relative to the demands of the Company
on Spain. |
18 Oct.
Dom. Geo. III., v. 1, No. 31 a,b. |
1483. Lords of the Admiralty to the Earl of Halifax. |
|
Sends an extract from a letter from Rear-Admiral Tyrrell, Commander-in-chief of H.M.'s ships at Barbadoes and the Leeward
Islands, stating that he had received complaints from the British
merchants who were collecting their debts at Guadaloupe, against
the Governor, Baron de Copley; also copies of several papers
ralating thereto, enclosed in his letter. |
|
The extract referred to. 5pp. |
19 Oct.
Ordnance, v. 5. |
1484. Mr. Boddington to Mr. Stanhope. |
|
The arms of the reduced battalion of the Devonshire militia
have been delivered up without further trouble.—Office of Ordnance.
1 small page. |
22 Oct.
Dom. Geo. III., pcl. 76, No. 76b. |
1485. Solicitor to the Treasury. |
|
Extract from the Roll of Foreign Accounts of the third year of
the reign of King George the Third, endorsed, "Anglia. Philip Carteret Webb, Esquire, decesed, late Solicitor for the affairs of His
Majesty's Treasury, upon his account thereof for a year, to 22nd
October 1764, is indebted the sum of vijmvijelxvij. l. ix. s. ii. d. ob." |
|
Part of the account relates to sums expended for prosecutions
for libels, riots, assaults, &c. on His Majesty's behalf. 4 memb.
stitched together. |
23 Oct.
Admiralty, pcl. 153, No. 7 a, b, c. |
1486. The English Admiralty Court and the King of
Spain. |
|
Report of James Marriott, Advocate General, to the Earl of
Halifax on the following questions:— |
|
1st. Whether the "Sanctissima Trinidad," [captured in Oct.
1762,] although the ship belonged to the King of Spain, and the
cargo to his subjects, is not, with respect to both, liable, as all
other prizes taken in time of war, to the solw judgment and decision
of H.M.'s Courts of Admiralty in the first instance, and Court of
Appeals in the second; or, whether the Spanish King can refuse
to submit the case of this ship to that mode of decision? |
|
2nd. Whether, as sentence of condemnation has been passed by
the Court of Admiralty, both on ship and cargo, an appeal from
that sentence to the Lords Commissioners of Appeal, though
brought only by the parties interested in the cargo, does not submit
the whole matter to the decision of that Court, and effectually
bind all parties interested? |
|
3rd. Whether, if the judgement of the Court of Appeal should
confirm the Court of Admiralty's sentence of condemnation both of
ship and cargo, such judgment will not be equally decisive and
final with respect to both; and whether if will be in His Majesty's
power to grant any relief with regard to either? |
|
To the first, he answers that the distinction taken by the
ministers of the Court of Spain between the claim of the cargo as
belonging to Spanish subjects, and the demands of the ship as the
property of his Catholic Majesty, is a distinction taken without
any real difference in the eye of the law of nations; and both the
one and the other, as a maritime case of prize, cannot otherwise
be determined than by the ordinary course of justice. The Court
of Spain admits this doctrine in respect to the cargo, as in
a case between the subjects of one nation and the subjects
of another, and accordingly submits to it, as appears by his
Excellency the Prince de Masseran's letter of the 20th Sept.;
but his Excellency departs from this doctrine in respect to the
ship, on the supposition of a principle which does not exist,—the
principle being, that the case of Sovereigns demanding reparation
to be done to themselves, or to their subjects, is a distinct case, in
point of the respect due to sovereignty, and that the demands of
this ship is between Sovereign and Sovereign only, and personal,
and not between the King of Spain and the subjects of the British
nation. If the case were so, then the demand of the ship by his
Catholic Majesty might be decided extrajudicially by the King as
desired; but his Excellency and the Court will reflect on what
they cannot but know, that the royal assent in Parliament to an
act of State, having passed over to captors, subjects of the Crown,
all that originally inherent right to prize of war which belonged to
the Sovereign, His Majesty cannot consider the case in question as
appropriate to his own person as Sovereign distinct from his people.
On this ground his Catholic Majesty is legally left to prosecute
both his particular and national demands conjunctively on British
subjects in this case, by the ordinary channel of public justice, viz.,
the Maritime Courts, to which only the persons can be amenable who
are in possession of the object reclaimed. [The Advocate General
here recites the authority, constitution, &c. of the Court] The idea
which his Excellency entertains of the illegality of a decision by
a British tribunal of this kind can only be attributed to an opinion
that it proceeds by the municipal laws of England; whereas the
contrary is true, that they judge all causes of this nature by the
practice and enlarged principles of law equally acknowledged by
all nations. And to such final judicial proceeding, it can be no more
derogatory to the dignity of his Catholic Majesty to submit than
it is to that of other Sovereigns respectively to have established
such a mode of decision among themselves, or than it is to the
dignity of the King himself to proceed against any one of his own
subjects, as is frequently done in matters of property, and to be
made a party before judges in the ordinary course of law. If
the dignity of the King of Spain is not hurt by his subjects appearing before the tribunals of another kingdom, it cannot be more
affected by his suffering his own particular right to be tried before
them, by a parity of reason, the right of the subjects being always
the right of the Sovereign. Lastly, the personal honour of his
Catholic Majesty cannot be lessened by any claim to be given to
the Court of Appeal for the ship as his property, because it is
usual to give such claims not in the direct name of the Sovereign,
but in the name of the commander of the captured vessel. |
|
To the second question:—It is very immaterial whether the ship
is claimed or not, upon an appeal brought from so much of the
sentence of the inferior court as relates to the cargo, because the
Lords Commissioners of Appeal will determine ex officiowhether
the ship, which is the vehicle of the cargo, no less than the cargo
itself, was legally taken and condemned as prize of war; because
there are instances of restitutions decreed ex officio by Courts of
Admiralty and of Appeal, where no claim has been entered, or
where the claimant has deserted his claim or appeal made on
behalf of the proprietors; commanders being understood to be as
trustees for owners, and, as such, their neglect or non-appearance
has been supplied by the Court ex officio, by constructions of the
highest equity, in favour of the owners. So that it should seem
not to be doubted in this case but that the Lords Commissioners
of Appeal, when they determine upon the principal cause, may
determine also finally upon the accessory to it, which, according to
the maxims of civil law, adheres to the principal. In such light
the decision of their Lordships on the totality of this cause will
comprehend the ship not less than the cargo, and their decree
effectually bind all persons having interest. |
|
To the last question:—The determination of the Lords of Appeal
being final and decisive in the last resort, to press His Majesty to
grant any relief, after such decision, will be to make requisition of
an impossibility, because nothing can supersede the determinations
of a court not subject to the will of a Sovereign, but which, as an
august tribunal indifferent between the parties, is the final arbiter
of differences between friendly nations by virtue of the mutual
and solemn compacts of the respective Sovereigns who by such
treaties have divested themselves of their own original rights and
judge such causes in person, and submitted their own rights and
the rights of their subjects, which are inseparable, to decisions
which only can be final, in order to preserve amity and good faith
inviolable, by a strict observance of equity. The civil law, in
conformity to that equity, has established the rule, which the consent of nations has confirmed, viz., "Actor sequitur forum rei;"
which maxim refers the party reclaiming to the court of the party
in possession. [Here he recites cases of English claims referred to
the Spanish Court, and vice versê]
|
|
On all the circumstances of the case, and the letters and
memorials, is of opinion that the fact of the breach of the capitulation, whether true or not, is extra litemin this case, and, if proved,
would not affect it; because the capitulation then being void,
as contended by his Excellency in his memorial of March 6th,
would make void a demand which his Excellency also contends
for, but founds upon a construction of the capitulation; and so,
either way, his demand must fall. But the fact appears by the
capitulation that the "Philippina," not the "Santissima Trinidad,"
the ship in question, is the object of the capitulation. In case
the fact of the plundering of the place after the capitulation
should be proved to His Majesty's satisfaction, it may be a consideration that may affect the demand of the British commanders
for bills drawn for the surplus of the ransom on the King of Spain,
and which the King and his Catholic Majesty may settle extrajudicially in the ordinary method of correspondence between the
two Courts; but the case of the capture in question being entirely
maritime, can only be determined by maritime law. The suggestion in his Excellency's memorial, "that the capitulation is void
because entered into by force," is singular, because no capitulation
was ever made with honour to the defenders, unless it was entered
into in consequence of extreme force and superiority; and the
utmost respect is due to the brave defenders of the Manillas. It is
not consistent with the equity of the Court of Spain, or any just
reasoning, that the capitulation should be urged as binding upon
the British commanders where it is insisted that it makes against
them, and as void or voidable where it apparently makes for them. |
|
The draft of the letter of reference, and a list of the papers sent
to the Advocate General. 9½ pp. and a slip
|
24 Oct.
Dom. Geo. III., pcl. 76, No. 77. |
1487. Mr. Thomas Whately to Lovell Stanhope, Esq. |
|
In reply to his letter transmitting an extract of a letter from
the Earl of Hertford relative to the franchises of ambassadors.
The rule mentioned by Lord Hertford has been established, not
for a few years only, but as far back as the books of this office can
show; and there are no traces of an exception in favour of Mons.
de Cambis, Mons. de Mirepoix, or any other French minister. But
the ministers of France always have enjoyed, and still do enjoy,
the same rights as all other foreign ministers at this Court. The
Lords of the Treasury think the answer given by the Earl of
Hertford to Mons. de Praslin with respect to the franchises
claimed, is very full and sufficient; and it is their opinion that
if any difference shall be made to the prejudice of the English
ambassador between him and other ministers of the same rank
at the Court of France, a like distinction should be made between
the French and other ambassadors residing here.—Treasury
Chambers. 1 p. |
26 Oct.
Dom. Geo. III., pcl. 76, No. 81. |
1488. Solomon Da Costa to the Same. |
|
Recommending the bearer, David Zemiro, who is skilful in some
of the Oriental languages, for employment in the service of the
Government. Mr. Da Costa does not know any other person at
present in England who understands some of these languages.
Mr. Da Costa employs him himself, and has recommended him to
Dr. Morton, of the British Museum, who also employs him.—Castle
Alley, Cornhill. 1 p. |
26 Oct.
Treas. Entry Bk., v. 1, 1763–75, pp. 58–9. |
1489. Earl of Halifax to the Lords of the Treasury. |
|
Mr. Bruce, H.M.'s Counsul at Algiers, despatched Mr. Ball, surgeon
to the British Factory, from thence to England upon H.M.'s special
service. Desiring them to pay the enclosed bill of travelling
charges, amounting to 92l. |
|
The bill entered. |
27 Oct.
Dom. Entry Bk., v. 22, p. 282. |
1490. Mr. Stanhope to Francis Dehane, Esq. |
|
Enclosing a packet for Major-General Gage to be delivered
into the hands of Capt. Chambers, Commander of the "Thomas
and Wadel," upon her arrival in the Downs. If the ship has
passed Deal, the packet is to be returned. |
31 Oct.
Admiralty, pcl. 153, No. 8 a, b. |
1491. Lords of the Admiralty to the Earl of Halifax. |
|
Send a copy of Capt. Eliot's answer to the complaint of the
Spanish Ambassador, of his having usurped a jurisdiction in the
harbour of Cadiz, by returning salutes to two Spanish shipsof-war. The fact was owing to a "mistake in his lieutenant"
while he was ashore. He acquainted the Spanish Admiral therewith, and gave directions to prevent the like for the future; with
which the Admiral seemed perfectly satisfied. |
|
The enclosure. 4 pp. |
