« ZurückWeiter »
Mr. Borough, who asked him if that was the girl called Judy Iynch, his daughter. The father replied in the affirmative; then go and bring her to me, added Mr. Borough. The affrighted and no less astonished parent complied, and no sooner did so, than the unhappy girl was seized by Mr. Borough's men and by his order dragged to a boat just by. The distracted father asked Mr. Borough why he acted thus; who, combining stratagem with force, said that he had a summons for her from major Warburton, the chief of the police at Kilrush, within three miles of which this happened. This was unanswerable; and all that was then implored was, that his poor daughter might be permitted to go a few yards to her miserable dwelling, that she might procure from her ill-supplied wardrobe such clothes as might enable her to appear as well-attired as she could in answering the fictitious summons, and to relate to her mother this inexplicable and hos. tile proceeding but ferocious, inexorable, and mysterious, as any officer of the inquisition of Goa during its most dreadful epoch, this Mr. Borough denied: —and observe, my lord, what followed. This ill-fated girl was conveyed in the boat, into which she had been first forced, to an American vessel then under weigh in the Shannon (on the bank of which it happened), and bound direct to the United States; whither, without judge or jury, or crime, she was literally transported. Perhaps you will agree with me, my lord, in thinking that the emigration to that
country is sufficient without using force to decrease our population, and conveying to that republic what will be received with avidity as a specimen of our laws, yet is no more than the unprecedented act of an individual. Now, my
lord, you must naturally con
clude that even in the most depraved mind something must have occurred to provoke ferocity like this towards a helpless young female; and as it is not my wish to conceal a tittle of what I know, I shall relate candidly what instigated this cruelty. This girl was accused of being intimate with a man whose wife had sufficient influence, through others, to induce this modern Nero to inflict summary punishment on the object of their vengeance by banishing her from the realm; and as a further proof that this act was not premature, another character has (the unfortunate Lynch says) been implicated in the affair. A man (if he deserve that title) of the name of Jephson, pro-collector of the port of Limerick, was three days on board this ship, using every means in his power to persuade the master to take a necessary part in this kidnapping transaction, and was on board, it is stated, when the girl was conveyed there by Mr. Borough. Quere: My lord, had the surveyor of the port of Scattery done his duty could this traffic in human blood have taken place? No, my lord, had this vessel been cleared out of the river, this girl would have been freed from transportation. I call it a traffic in human blood, because the diabolical master, however remumerated, will, consistent with his iniquity, dispose of the devoted wretch's freedom for five or seven years for a sum adequate to the expense of her passage, denying (should it be so) that he received from the authors of her ruin any compensation for the same. How peculiarly unfortumate that major Warburton, close to whom it happened, should be ignorant of this affair: for ignorant he must be, or it could not escape with impunity, as it has done, when a crime of less magnitude would call forth the vigilant zeal of this hitherto-supposed impartial officer; for I’ll venture to assert, that since his appointment to his situation in that county, a more flagrant breach of the laws has not called for his interference, and particularly when his name and authority were abused in accomplishing the nefarious deed. One of your excellency's privy counsellers, the right hon. J. O. Vandeleur, can obtain every information your excellency may require on this subject, as I am informed it happened on his estate. To you, my lord, from whom justice emanates, and in whose power it is to redress this much injured pauper by restoring his stolen child to him, it is most proper to address this. Sums of money are now offered and threats held out, in order to seduce and deter the miserable parent from pursuing any means whatever by which he may recover his lost child. Fifty pounds have been offered the father for the liberty of his daughter, and to sink in oblivion what has past. As yet he has withstood the temptation; but should his silence even be purchased, it
will not, cannot operate as a Lethean draught upon every mind. “THE FRIEND of The - OPPREssed. “To Earl Talbot, LordLieutenant and General-Governor of Ireland.”
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
The Ship Dolores, Carbonel, Master.—In this case the courtesy of the Court permits the commanding officer of a station to moot the question of his right to the flag's proportion of oneeighth of the bounty allowed by the act of parliament of 47th of the king (for the abolition of the slave trade), “to the officers, seamen, mariners and soldiers, on board of any of his Majesty's vessels of war at the capturing of any other vessels which shall be by them taken engaged in the slave trade, and afterwards prosecuted and condemned as prizes of war,” at and after certain rates for men, women and children, respectively. It was stated in the course of the argument, that few or no cases of a similar claim were to be found on the records of the Court, the bounty or head money having been awarded generally to the actual seizers of the prize; which the learned counsel for the captors contended was the intention of the Abolition act, as a farther encouragement to the vigilance and exertions of captors. . His Majesty's ship Ferret, commanded by captain Stirling, was on her return voyage from St. Helena, whither she had accompanied the squadron under the orders of admiral sir George Cockburn, Cockburn, appointed to convey the person of Buonaparte to that island. On the 4th of April 1816, the Ferret captured the American armed schooner Dolores, capt. Carbonel, engaged in the prosecution of the slave trade. She was carried into Sierra Leone, having on board no less than 250 unfortunate Africans of all ages, men, women and children, and was condemned on the 13th of May following as English and American property, and consequentl aS o lawful : #. 47th of the King provides, that bounties in such cases of capture and condemnation shall be paid by the navy board, in the same manner as “head money” is directed to be paid under the 45th of George 3rd, to the officers, seamen, &c. on board, according to the proclamation for the distribution of prize-money already issued and extant. Now, on the 16th of March 1808, there issued an order in council, which directs the distribution to be made in the manner we have already mentioned. As no other order in council on the subject was promulgated until the month of July 1817; distribution in this case, it was contended, must follow that of March 1808. It appeared that captain Stirling's instructions, which were dated from on board his Majesty's ship Northumberland, were simply to reach Spithead with all possible diligence, and upon his arrival to convey sir George Cockburn's dispatches, of which he was the bearer, immediately to government. No mention was made of any course to be pur
sued in case of prizes that might be captured, nor was any such event contemplated by them. Dr. Adams and Dr. Dodson, on the behalf of sir George Cockburn, contended, that as the flagofficer of the station from whence the Ferret was dispatched, he had a legal claim to one-eighth of the bounty awarded by act of parliament, in the same way as he was to his proportion of the nett proceeds of lawful prizes. In reply to the great number of analogies which the learned gentlemen on the other side might resort to for the purpose of proving that the distribution of prizemoney for bounty allowed for
slaves assimilated to the distribu
tion of property flowing out of revenue seizures, they were defective in the very point where it was to be required that the analogy should bear most strongly. In the very part which ought to respect the reward of flag-officers there was a total failure, not only as regarded the proportion itself, but as regarded the fund also out of which flag-officers were to be so rewarded. Dr. Jenner and Dr. Lushington, for the seizers, observed, that bounties severally of 20l., 15l., and 5l. each, were given by government for every man, woman and child found on board slave-ships, in substitution of prize-money. The original proclamation by which the distribution of prize-money was regulated was dated in 1764, and directed three-eighths to be paid to the actual captors; the admiral, “if entitled to it,” to have the remaining one-eighth, or king's share, theretofore allowed to the crown. The money was to be paid to the seizing officer, who was to proceed to make such distribution as might be directed by his Majesty by an order in council. This was, the learned counsel observed, the first instance in which a claim of the sort had been made. (The other learned counsel observed, that if so, it was because such captures had not been usually made under flagofficers.) No. with respect to the limits of the admiral's station, it was not necessary in time of war that the capture should be made within those limits to establish his claim. In this case, however, the reward was specifically directed to the seizers; and the flag-officer had no right to share, because his claim, if allowed, would be a diminishing of the reward contemplated by act of parliament. The 47th of the King decidedly assimilated cases of capture #: the present, to seizures made under the Revenue Acts. The 13th section, the Court would observe, expressly appropriated the penalties and profits in the same manner. Sir William Scott said, a most particular distinction was to be observed in this case. The money or bounty was to be distributed at the pleasure of his Majesty. The bounty itself he considered to be given in substitution of proceeds. The learned counsel admitted the distinction, considering that in the case of illegal importation of slaves, the Crown was entitled to a moiety of the proceeds; the admiral was only entitled to share out of that moiety which
was so given to the Crown by the proclamation of 1764. Dr. Adams observed, that the difference in this case was, that there was no fund out of which the flag-officer could be so remunerated. The learned counsel denied that in this instance the necessity of his remuneration existed, as in the case of actual war. The same “animus capiendi’’ could not be supposed to actuate him, as in times when it was his duty to be upon the look-out for objects upon which he might exercise it. Under these circumstances they submitted that the claim of sir George Cockburn could not be sustained. Nothing could be more clear than that this case had nothing to do with war; and the only question for the Court was, ... the legislature, in issuing their proclamation of 1807, intended to give the flag-officer his flagshare P From the year 1764 up to the passing of the Abolition Act, a period of more than forty years, no case like the present had occurred;—a fact which went to show that seizures of this nature were not subject to the deduction of any flag-officer's share of one-eighth. And what would be the consequence of such deduction? Why, that the seizers would thus take a less share of the property seized than they would have done before the passing of the Abolition Act, a most startling proposition indeed. This act,which surely intended further encouragement and reward, contained rules and regulations for the remuneration .# captors and seizers under particular circumstances. cumstances. The Act gave 40l. a head in the case of vessels of his Majesty which should capture, as prizes of war, other vessels engaged in the slave trade. Next
came the case of seizures in port:
the proportions were 13l. per head, to be divided thus:-one share of 13l. to the actual seizer, one other 13l. to the King, and one other 131. to the commanding officer, according to the ancient practice. The third case was, the case of vessels seized upon the high seas during a time of peace. The 11th sect. after first giving 13l. per head in the case of an such seizure made at sea by his Majesty's officers, went on to say (this was in the stat. 4 of Geo. 3rd), there should be paid to the commander or officer who should so seize or inform or prosecute, 20l. for every man, 15l. for every woman, and 5l. for every child so seized in vessels captured and so condemned. Now, the bounty was 40l. in the case of seizure in a time of war. Then the whole was given. In this other case the Court would observe it was divided into three portions of 131. each, where the vessel was seized in port; 391. being the nearest amount to 40l. which could be so divided without a fraction. In the case of a seizure made in time of war, 201, were assigned, which was the moiety of the 40l. Now, would the learned counsel contend, that by diminishing, the moiety of the seizers they follow
ed the spirit of the Act? The statute expressly recognized the persons who were to receive the bounty, and provided for its distribution by the Crown. Not one word was there about the flag-officer's claim of one-eighth. The Court had observed that this bounty was substituted for prize property; so it was held in Mr. Macauley's cases, argued before sir Wm. Grant. Suppose the case of a ship captured; the admiral shall be held (in this case the capture was beyond the limits of his station) to have no right to the flag-eighth of its value; but to the value of the slaves captured in her, his claim of oneeighth shall be held to avail. How absurd this would be : the moiety of the ship's value to be the property of the seizer, without any deduction for the flageighth, while the moiety of 20l. for the substituted value of the slaves shall be liable to the flag's claim. Why was not the flagofficer equally assisting and aiding in the capture of the vessel as of the slaves. As to the importation of slaves, the importation of one bale of illegal goods would be equally liable to the penalty of the condemnation.
The learned judge declared his intention of pronouncing in this case at a future day; in #. meanwhile he must acknowledge that the impression upon his own mind was in favour of the flagofficer's claim.