Droits of Admiralty. third of the Dutch ship Frederick, taken at the Cape. This item is remarkable, because at the time Sir George is represented capturing ships at the Cape, he was serving in parliament as member for Honiton, filled a lucrative situation, and on failing in a subsequent election, was appointed governor of that colony. The Earl of Dunmore, father-in-law of the Duke of Sussex, is also down for the sum of £2792, under similar circumstances. Sir William Scott, brother of the Lord Chancellor, is inserted for £932, “for services in deciding upon cases relative to American captures." There are two grants to Lord Keith of £20,521 and £1800, to make up losses he had sustained from an action brought against him for wrongfully detaining an American ship at the Cape of Good Hope. There is a grant of £700 to one Captain Temple, to defray the expenses of a prosecution for the alleged murder of a seaman, of which crime he had been acquitted; and another grant of £219 to a Turk, for some losses he had sustained at Constantinople. The objects for which all these grants have been made, appear very questionable and mysterious. Let us now come to the larger sums. To that pious nobleman, Lord Gambier, the great patron of Bible Societies, and to Lord Cathcart, is the enormous sum of £348,621, as their share of the prize-money, or rather plunder, at the memorable expedition to Copenhagen. There is another enormous payment to one John Alcock, "to be by him paid over to the merchants, &c. trading to Spain, whose property had been sequestered in 1796 and 1797.” Another singular item of £54,921 is entered, as an "indemnification to sundry commanders of his Majesty's ships for condemnations, by a Court of Vice-Admiralty, at Cape Nicola Mole, afterwards found not to have jurisdiction." There is another grant to Sir Home Popham of £20,000, as a compensation for losses he had sustained from having embarked in a smuggling voyage. A sum of £887 to Captain Spencer, in the year 1807, pursuant to his Majesty's warrant; £10,000 and £1900 to William Bourne and others, as commissioners of Spanish and Portuguese property. We shall now speak The complexion of all these grants is bad enough. of the immense sums taken out of this fund by the different branches of the Royal Family; and the reader must bear in mind that these grants are independent of the enormous sums they derive from other sources, The Droits have formed an inexhaustible mine for relieving the necessities of the King, the Regent, the Princes, and Princesses, in all their embarrassments. The facility with which money was granted by different ministers from this fund, and by none more so than the Whigs, rendered economy on their part wholly unnecessary. Prior to 1812, there had been taken from the Droits Droits of Admiralty. the enormous sum of £760,000, simply for the payment of tradesmen's bills. The whole of the sums granted in aid of the Civil List, from 1793 to 1818, amounted to £1,324,000. The total sum paid, during the same period, to different branches of the Royal Family, amounted to £266,331: 17: 3. Besides these sums, there is a grant of £40,000 in aid of the 44 per cent. Leeward Island duties. A sum of more than £58,000 to defray expenses of additional buildings and furniture at Brighton. The sum of £14,579 for additional expenses in different departments of the household, occasioned by the visits of foreign princes. Lastly, from the same inexhaustible fund of Droits of Admiralty, the Prince Regent's munificent donation of £5000 to the poor of Spitalfields. Doubtless this act of charity would have heen much more gracious had it proceeded out of the Regent's privy purse, than out of a fund, which, if it does not belong to the nation, unquestionably belongs to the officers and seamen of the navy. With the exception of payments to captors, we have mentioned the principal objects to which the Droits have been applied since the commencement of the French war. We shall hereafter insert some documents to illustrate and authenticate our statements; but it will be first proper to say a few more words as to the origin and right of the Crown to this enormous fand. 、 From the sources whence the Droits have originated, they evidently appear little better than buccaneer or piratical plunder, obtained under circumstances disgraceful for any government to sanction. Ships detained previously to a declaration of war, coming into port ignorant of hostilities, or taken before the issuing of a proclamation, are all considered lawful prizes, sold, and their profits form Droits of Admiralty. The sufferers in these cases violate a law of which they are ignorant, and of which it is impossible they should have any knowledge. They are caught in a spider's web impervious to the sight. An ex post facto law, or the laws of the Roman tyrant, who placed them so high that they were illegible to the beholder, were not more unjust and tyrannical. In the case of the Danish and Spanish wars, we have two memorable instances to what base purposes this principle has been applied. In the attack upon Copenhagen, government might be actuated by its fears as well as its love of plunder; they might dread the Danish ships of war falling into the hands of the enemy; though in either case it was equally disgraceful to a great nation to be stimulated to such a flagrant outrage on the law of nations. But what can be urged in defence of the attack on the Spanish ships in 1805? The object, in this case, unquestionably was plunder for the Droit Fund. There could be no fear of the Droits of Admiralty. Spanish ships joining the enemy, because they were merchantmen, and not ships of war. We were at peace; the Spanish envoy in London, and the English ambassador at Madrid, were carrying on a negotiation, and yet, under these circumstances, a squadron of ships of war was fitted out; the homeward-bound Spanish fleet, from South America, loaded with treasure, -attacked, the crews massacred, and the ships burnt, and the proceeds of this unhallowed enterprise condemned as rights of the crown. Posterity, in looking to the foreign and domestic policy of England for the last thirty years, will be at a loss which most to condemn—the machinations of her rulers against the liberties of the people, or their atrocious attacks on the right of other states. The balance of injustice and wickedness seems nearly equal. At home, the liberty and property of the people have been assailed by the Bank Restriction Act, Seditious Meeting Bill, new Treason Acts, and a thousand other iniquitous measures. Abroad, we may reckon among the black catalogue of crimes, the piratical attack upon Copenhagen, and the Spanish fleet; besides our still more diabolical efforts to stifle the liberties of the people in South America, and to re-establish the corrupt and tyrannical governments of the old world. To return, however, to the Droits of Admiralty. We were going to speak on the objects to which this fund was originally applicable. Perhaps we cannot better illustrate this part of our subject, than by making an extract from a speech of Mr. Brougham, on the Admiralty Droits, on the 21st of January, 1812. Leaving (says he) the general question, he would ask in what shape these Droits were vested in the crown? They were so vested, (and all the great law authorities proved the fact) for the attainment of certain specific purposes; and the specific purposes in this case, the guarding and maintaining the rights and privileges of the seas. In the 4th institute of my lord Coke, it was laid down, that tonnage and poundage were specifically granted to the crown for safeguard of the seas, and that it pertained to the lord high admiral to see this droit administered; and, quoting from the archives of the Tower, he had further observed that the guard of the sea belonged to the high admiral, and to private adventurers also who fitted out vessels for the purpose. In the 7th and 9th Henry IV. the right of private merchants was also recognized. But there were other instances where the appropriation of those different funds, which went under the general name of Droits of Admiralty, were mentioned; and it would be found that wrecks at sea became one of the sources; and in the 2d institute, the reason of Droits of Admiralty. wreck being given to the crown, was stated to be, because the crown had to keep the narrow seas free from cruizers, the expense of which was to be defrayed by that fund.*-Parl. Debates, vol. xxi. p. 245. The resolutions moved by Mr. Brougham on this occasion, as they exhibit the legal and constitutional view of that gentleman, on this important subject, we shall here insert. It is unnecessary to say they were negatived by a large majority. The resolutions were as follow: "That the possession, by the crown, of funds raised otherwise than by the grant of supplies from the commons in parliament assembled, and applicable to purposes not previously ascertained by parliament, is contrary to the spirit of the constitution, liable to great abuses, and full of danger to the rights of the subject and the interests of the country. "That it is the peculiar duty of the Commons House of Parliament to investigate the nature and foundation of all such funds as are pretended or asserted to be vested in the crown in the manner above-mentioned. "That the funds arising from wreck, whether at sea or on shore, goods of pirates, prizes made before proclamation, prizes made by non-commissioned captors, vessels and cargoes detained in port before the commencement of hostilities, or forced into port by ignorance of war having taken place, or through stress of weather, and all other profits from the sea accruing to the king, either in right of his crown or in virtue of his office of Lord High Admiral, and pretended or asserted to belong to his Majesty as a separate property, over which parliament hath no control, have risen to such an amount during the last and present wars, as calls for the most serious consideration of this House. "That it appears from the papers on the table of this House, that the net and clear proceeds of the aforesaid funds, which had accrued between the 1st day of February, 1793, and the 30th day of May, 1810, amounted to the sum of £7,334,679; and that in all probability it has since that time been considerably augmented. "That these monies have been received by the crown at different times in large sums, and not in any regular proportion by the year; and that these sums have been at the disposal of the crown without any interference or control of parliament, though parliament had, during the whole course of that period, not only provided the supplies for the prosecution of the war, and raised the sum necessary for the internal administration of the country, but provided the supplies estimated to be necessary for the support of his Majesty's household and family, and the dignity of the crown, and paid large sums for defraying such debts as had arisen in those departments. That this House, taking these things into its consideration, will forthwith proceed to inquire into the most fit and efficacious means of bringing the aforesaid funds under the immediate control of parliament, for the purpose of applying the same to the public service, and of providing such additional sums, if any, as may appear to be necessary to the maintenance of the household, and of the honour and dignity of the crown." Droits of Admiralty. In a legal question, the authority of Mr. Brougham is of considerable importance; and from his statement, we may learn that the Admiralty Droits were originally granted to the King in his capacity of lord high admiral; and the specific objects for which they were granted, was the guardianship of the seas; so that the whole of this fund, according to law, ought to have been expended on the ships, officers, and men of the English navy. How differently it has been applied we have sufficiently shown; instead of being devoted to these national objects, it has been employed in discharging the arrears of the Civil List-advances to different branches of the Royal Family-paying tradesmen's bills-defraying the expense of visits from foreign princes-and, in general, in discharging any casual debt or expense which the caprice or extravagance of royalty might incur. The management of this fund is not less singular than the objects on which it is expended. It is not paid into the Exchequer, like the taxes, but remains in the hands of the registrar of the high court of Admiralty, the receiver-general of Droits, the commissioners of prizes, and the Bank of England. There is no responsibility attaches to the persons receiving or issuing this money. No account is kept of the receipts and outgoings at the treasury. It is drawn out of the Bank of England, not on the authority of the privy seal, but of a warrant under the sign manual only. In short, it is a fund wholly out of the control of parliament; and it is entirely at the disposal of the minister of the crown: It may be expended on the hirelings of the press, in rewarding spies and informers, in purchasing votes of members of parliament, in bribery at elections, in minions or mistresses, or any other purpose of royal or ministerial corruption. A fund performing so many important offices in the borough system, and which for the last 26 years has placed at the absolute disposal of ministers near £200,000 per annum, is not likely to be abandoned. It will be retained under the pretence of supporting the splendour of the crown, the maintenance of the royal dignity, or some other splendid illusion under which the people are daily plundered. For these important purposes every grant is inadequate; there is always a deficiency; and Bentham says, the "Droits of Admiralty are sent by Almighty Providence to feed, though never to fill up for nothing can ever fill up-the deficiency. The persons, for the reward of whose merit more and more of that object is universally wanted-these persons join with one another, not only in commencing groundless war, but in commencing that war in a groundless manner,—in a manner in which the monarch may add millions to the conjunct splendour ;—not only the foreigners, who then and for this purpose have been converted into |