250. M. Lisboa to the Earl of Aber- Nov. 27 M. de Oliveira Santos deen appointed Brazilian Arbitrator at Sierra Leone 270 252. Mr. Hamilton to the Earl of Oct. 19 Renewed demand for re 275. Mr. Porter to the Earl of Aber- May 2 Marabout Consular : 276 Consular: BRAZIL (PERNAMBUCO). 1843 307. Mr. Cowper to the Earl of Aber- Aug. 4 Report on Slave Trade 308. deen and Slavery in the province of Pernambuco.... 284 Aug. 4 Answers to Queries on Slave Trade and Slavery in the province of Pernambuco 294 No. NETHERLANDS. Date 313. The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir April 5 Negroes emancipated by Edward Disbrowe the Mixed Court at 5 Barbadoes Negroes held 301 331. The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Dec. 20 Slaves imported into SuEdward Disbrowe 1842 336. Mr. Mandeville to the Earl of Nov. 26 Establishment of Mixed CHILE. No. Date SUBJECT. 1842 367. Colonel Walpole to the Earl of Oct. 20 Ratification of the Treaty Aberdeen of 1839, and Additional and Explanatory Convention of 1841 Page 315 Oct. 21 Nov. 15 Penal law against Slave 316 Article as to the limits 320 Aberdeen Protests of Foreign Con- 380. Mr. Mandeville to the Earl of Jan. 13 Establishment of Mixed Ditto ditto 327 383. The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. July 24 Dale 328 384. The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Aug. 2 Establishment of Mixed Turner Courts 328 SPAIN. SIR, No. 2.-The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Aston. Foreign Office, January 28, 1843. ACTIONS have been commenced in the courts of law, in this country, against Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, R.N., for the destruction of certain slave-factories on the Western Coast of Africa; and on a recent consultation of the law-officers employed to consider the defence to be made to these actions, it was deemed expedient to procure the opinion of some eminent Spanish lawyer, on the following question, viz. : "Whether, considering that by the Treaty made between Great Britain and Spain, on the 28th June, 1835, the Slave Trade was declared, on the part of Spain, to be thenceforward totally and finally abolished in all parts of the world; any suit can be maintained before any tribunal of Spain, for compensation on account of any injury done in Africa to the property of persons engaged in carrying on the Slave Trade there, contrary to or in breach of the Treaty, and subsequent to the date of it; such property being used by them for the purpose of carrying on that trade.” I have, in consequence, to instruct you to submit this question to some eminent Spanish lawyer, and to obtain his opinion thereupon, with all convenient despatch, for the information of Her Majesty's Government. I am, &c. Arthur Aston, Esq. ABERDEEN. No. 4.-Mr. Aston to the Earl of Aberdeen.-Received March 15.) MY LORD, Madrid, March 6, 1843. REFERRING to your Lordship's despatch of the 28th January, instructing me to procure the opinion of some eminent Spanish lawyer upon a question growing out of the actions commenced in England against Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, Royal Navy, for the destruction of certain slave-factories on the Western Coast of Africa, I have the honour to inclose the opinions thereon of 2 eminent lawyers of Madrid, Señor Monreal, and Señor Pena y Aguayo, with translations of the same, both of which state that no suit of the kind instituted against Captain Denman can be maintained before any tribunal of Spain. I have, &c. The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T. ARTHUR ASTON. (Inclosure 1.)-Opinion of Señor Monreal. Madrid, March 2, 1843. (Translation.) Don José Maria Monreal, Knight of the Royal and distinguished Spanish Order of Charles III, late Solicitor-General of Her Majesty's Royal Household and Patrimony, late President of the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence of Madrid, Member of several Literary Bodies, &c. Having been consulted by the British Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Madrid, with regard to the interpretation and application of the Treaty of 28th June, 1835, for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in the affair of the Hon. Captain Joseph Denman, of the Royal British Navy, I proceed to state my opinion. It appears that the above-mentioned Captain destroyed certain Spanish factories, established on the Western Coast of Africa, which were employed in the Slave Trade, considering himself authorized to do so by the Ist Article of the Treaty of June 28, 1835, in which that traffic is declared anew to be totally and finally abolished in all parts of the world. The Ist Article is not sole nor absolute, but is modified and explained by the subsequent Articles of the Treaty, which it is necessary not to lose sight of, in order to understand the Ist. In this Article the general principle of the abolition of the traffic in slaves is established, leaving to the subsequent ones the explanation of the mode of carrying this object into effect, without injury to the contracting parties in the execution. Accordingly, in the IInd Article, Her Catholic Majesty bound herself to promulgate in all her dominions, 2 months after the ratification of the Treaty, a penal law, inflicting a severe punishment on all her subjects who should, under any pretext whatsoever, take any part whatever in the traffic in slaves. If this law had been passed, it would probably have comprised the cases in which, not only at sea but on land, Spaniards could be declared to be slave-traders; in the same law punishments would have been assigned against the contraveners, according to the circumstances, and in due proportion to the crime, and the limits would have been detailed in it of the powers of the captors by sea or land. But the law promised in Article IInd not having been promulgated, and an essential part of the stipulation having remained void and incomplete, I can only give my opinion by conjectural reasoning deduced from the Treaty, and the Annexes A. B., or the Instructions for the Vessels of the Royal Navies of England and Spain, and the Regulations for the Mixed Courts of Justice. Both in the Treaty and in the Annexes, whenever seizures of contraband in slaves are mentioned, it is on the supposition of their being made in vessels and at sea, without the factories or establishments on land being even once mentioned. For this reason these stipulations cannot have exact application to the case now under question; but from analogy it ought to be inferred that the rules established for the seas, should also serve for land. And in such a case the commanders of cruizing vessels not having powers further than to search and detain the contraband vessels, and convey them to the place where the Mixed Court is established, and not having authority to destroy or sink these vessels; for the same reason, neither ought the commanders to have power to destroy the factories on land, being only enabled to close them, and make a report to the nearest Mixed Court, that it should decide whether they ought or ought not to be destroyed. Applying these principles to the case in question, it appears to me that the Hon. Captain Denman was not authorised, by the Treaty and its Annexes, to destroy the factories on the Western Coast of Africa, but only to have closed them, and reported the same to the Mixed Court of Sierra Leone, which is the nearest, in order that it should decide if those factories were prohibited or not, and if they ought to be demolished. With regard to whether the Spaniards, who suffered injury can maintain a suit before any tribunal of Spain, for compensation on account of any injury done in Africa, my opinion is that they cannot. According to the Treaty and its Annexes, the demand for damages and injury caused by the cruizers, in the detention of vessels sus |