it would be impoflible to pronounce on this affidavit and claim, that it is the property of the person for whom it is claimed: It is faid that the fhipper was ignorant of the perfon ftanding behind the Spanish confignee; but how can this be maintained confiftently with what is ftated in the affidavit? the transaction arofe on an authority given to recover the amount of an order on the Treafury of Buenos Ayres, purchafed in Spain, and the first agent delegates his authority to another; but there must have been an intercourse between the original and the fubftituted agent; and the fhipper at Buenos Ayres must have been apprised that the debt was due to British merchants, and that the perfons at Corunna were merely agents for them; the foundation of that folution then totally fails; he was a correfpondent, and the conti nuance of the correfpondence fhews that the ship❤ ment could not have been made in this form through ignorance. Mr. Dubois farther ftates, "that he had received advice of fhipments of part of the money owing to him on board other packets; and that 2000 more dollars would be shipped in this packet for his account." It appears from this paffage that there was not a fingle dollar fhipped on this account otherwise than in packets; and this ftrongly confirms me, in confidering this trade as an exclufive and appropriate trade. The letters are not produced; but the affidavit ftates "that the correfpondent informed him, that he hoped to fettle the account by the Prinseffa ;" and all that he is able to state, is, " that he had received an account that 2000 dollars would come on board the Princessa." The Princessa is takenand the inference is, that he had received no intimation E 3 The PRINCESSA. August 30th, $799. The PRINCESSA. mation of the actual fhipment till after the fhip was known to have been captured, and then it comes not August 30th, from the fhipper, but from the merchant at Corunna, in whose name it was shipped. 1799. Now is there any paper on board to was in fatisfaction of a British debt? And fhew that it Every paper points to Gonzalez at Corunna as the owner. what is there to fhew that this perfon who recommended the agent to Mr. Dubois, might not have concerns of his own, and fhipments made for him, through the hands of that agent? I think there is reason to suppose that Mr. Gonzalez endeavoured to fhift off the intereft in the money captured on Mr. Dubois; and I therefore think there is no more reason to convince me that the property belonged to Mr. Dubois, than there is authority to fatisfy me on the point of law. I am under the neceffity of condemning this property; but as captured before Spanish hostilities it will be condemned to the Crown; to whose liberality Mr. Dubois may ftill refort, if he can make out his claim; but I feel myself bound to add, that unless Mr. Dubois can give better proof, than he has made before me, he can have no great right, as far as I am capable of judging, to expect the recom mendation of those persons whom the Crown ufually confults, in fupport of his claim. THE DORDRECHT, Admiral LUCAS, HIS THIS July 9th, 1799. capture, on the cap. A claim of joint part of Land Forces, affert was the flag fhip of a Dutch fquadron, tured by Admiral Elphinstone in Saldanah Bay, August the 17th, 1796. The cause came on, to ing to have codetermine the question of joint capture between the British fleet, and the land forces from the Cape Good Hope, afferting, to have co-operated in the rejected. capture. operated in the of Dutch fleet in capture of the The fubftance of the feveral articles of the allegations on the part of the army having been opened, The King's Advocate. It may perhaps fave much time to ftate at firft, as the opening on the part of the navy, the grounds on which it is intended to refift this claim. The navy is, we fubmit, alone entitled to the benefit of this capture on these grounds: It is a capture of a ship at sea, in no degree protected by any land forces; it is made by a fleet at fea, and, as fuch, is to be considered as a pure naval prize. The claim on the part of the army is unprecedented; no inftance can be produced of a fimilar claim. To fupport the principle of joint capture between the army and navy, it is always required that fome direct and actual affistance shall be fhewn to have been given, not merely for the purpose of preventing deftruction, but for the purpose of compelling the furrender. There is no fuch affistance afforded in this cafe by the army, nor is it proved that they contributed in any degree, even to prevent the deftruction of the Dutch fleet; it is pleaded for the army that there was a pre-concert, but no fuch thing E 4 Saldanah Bay, The DORDRECHT. July 9th 1799. thing is established in proof; there was fome com- "The miral Elphinstone that he had concerted measures with General Craig; but that must be a mistake, for General Craig's letter to Admiral Lucas begins, "Although I have had no communication with Admiral Elphinstone, yet from fignals I am induced to believe that a negociation is going on between you." Admiral Lucas ftates the wind to have blown a heavy gale from the South, the army was pofted to windward, fo that it would have been impoffible to have run the fleet on shore in that place; and it is further ftated that just where the army lay, there were fand banks which would have prevented the measure: in a cafe of this fort, where the chief reliance of the gentlemen on the other fide, is on the intimidation which they affert to have been produced in the Dutch fleet by the presence of the army, it will be material to fhew the impreffion of the captured. It appears on the ninth article, of the allegation, that Captain Rymbende thus addreffed his crew: "My lads, we have taken care of your wives and children, and you shall be sent home: We have been obliged to capitulate because the Englifh fleet is too ftrong for us:" nothing is here mentioned as a caufe of the furrender but the fuperiority of force; and it is only neceffary to advert to their comparative force, to fhew that every other confideration was unneceffary; the Dutch had nine fhips, three only being of the line: the English fourteen, of which eight were of the line. In addition to this fuperiority, it is faid by Admiral Lucas, "That one inducement to furrender arose from the mutinous difpofition of the Dutch crew, who declared they would not fight the English fquadron." These are the grounds on which we mean to contend, that in The DORDRECHT. July 9th, 1799. fact |