« PredošláPokračovať »
finds it still invited to a more ample investigation. He hears the bishop preach from his episcopal chair; who, instead of arrogating any power to himself, declares that he, too, is the
organ of a Church, from whose decisions he cannot depart. The immutable decisions of this Church, to which the sincere and docile Christian is ultimately referred, he finds written in her liturgies, and embodied with her public worship. They are identified with her ceremonies, they are palpable in her festivals; and, if he can trace back her history, they will meet him in every period of her existence. Thus he discovers nothing isolated or solitary in his inquiry ; nothing partial or mutilated in his faith. Every testimony which he consults, is only a link which connects his belief with some other monument; thus, as it were, stretching through every age, and spreading over every country; in a word, he finds that the faith which he drank in his infancy, was but a partial stream, conveyed to him from the pure, the ancient, and the universal doctrine of the Catholic Church.”—Dr. Machale's Evidences and Doctrines of the Catholic Church, Vol. I. pp. 268-279, 365-366, 379-386.
Observations on the Claim of the Reverend John
Daniel on the French government, rejected by the British Commissioners; and which rejection has been confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council.
The Claim of the Reverend John Daniel, President of the English Secular College at Douay, to compensation for property confiscated by the execution of decrees passed in France since the beginning of the year 1793, was duly presented within the time prescribed by the treaty of 30th May, 1814, and by the convention of 20th November, 1815, to the honourable Commissioners appointed to execute the said treaty and convention.
It has been shewn, to the satisfaction of the British Commissioners and of the Lords of the Privy Council, that the Reverend John Daniel was a British subject; and that the property held by him at the time of its confiscation, on the 12th October, 1793, and then seized in execution of the decree passed on the 10th October, 1793, for the confiscation of the property of all subjects of his Britannic Majesty in France, was confiscated in consequence of his being a British subject.
The claim of the Reverend John Daniel having been rejected by the British Commissioners, not for want of evidence in the documents produced to support it, but on the ground (as alleged) that the English college at Douay was deemed a French establishment, and was not included in the view of the treaties; reasons which the claimant deemed unsatisfactory:- an appeal was preferred to his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, against the award of rejection given by the Commissioners.
On Friday, the 25th November, 1825, the judgment of the Lords of the Privy Council was pronounced by Lord Gifford, confirming the rejection of the Claim.-The following is a correct extract of the judgment, taken from Mr Gurney's short-hand notes.
Lord Gifford. — “ In considering this question, it is necessary to attend to the nature and object of these establishments, and to the intent and meaning of the treaties under which the indemnity is asked.-Now the institutions in behalf of which the Claims are made, although their members were British subjects, and their property derived from funds constituted by British subjects, were in the nature of French corporations : they were locally established in a foreign territory, because they could not exist in England; their end and object were not autho rised, but were directly opposed to the British law; and the funds dedicated to their maintenance were employed for that purpose in France, because they could not be so employed in England; and if other circumstances were wanting to fix their character, it appears that these establishments, as well as their revenues, are subject to the control of the French government; and the conduct of that government, since the restoration of the monarchy, shews, that if all had been suffered to remain entire during
the period of the revolution, the monarchical government would have taken the whole under its superintendance and management. We think, therefore, that they must be deemed French establishments.
“ Then are such establishments, though represented by British subjects, to claim under the treaties? — Treaties, like other compacts, are to be construed according to the intention of the contracting parties; and looking at the occasion and object of those treaties, we think that it was not, or could not have been in the contemplation of the contracting parties, that the British government should demand, or the French government grant compensation for property held in trust for establishments in France, and for purposes inconsistent with British laws, and which were subject to the control of the French government. We therefore think that, having regard to the nature and character of the establishments which the claimants allege themselves to represent, and to the purposes to which the property, in respect whereof compensation is claimed, was dedicated, the claimants have not brought their case within the meaning or spirit of the treaties; that the rejection of their claims, therefore, by the Commissioners was right, and that consequently the award must be confirmed.
“ Upon the hearing of the appeal, however, it was further insisted, that the appellants are entitled to compensation for the loss they have individually sustained, by having been deprived (in consequence of the seizure of the possessions and property of the establishments) of the salary and income enjoyed by them as members of those establishments, and that it should be referred back to the Commissioners, to reconsider their award in that respect. It is to be observed, that no such claim appears to have been
made before the Commissioners; and therefore that, in strictness, it cannot be urged upon this appeal; but supposing that it could, we are of opinion that, as no compensation can, for the reasons already given, be demanded for the corpus of the property seized, no valid claim can be sustained by any members of those bodies for the income derivable from it.”
Though the claims of the Reverend John Daniel for the English college at Douay, of the Reverend John Bew for the English seminary at Paris, and of the Reverend Francis Tuite and others, for the English college of St. Omer, were presented as distinct and unconnected claims, yet they were confounded together by the Commissioners and by the Privy Council.
The English secular college of Douay, for the property of which the Reverend John Daniel claimed competisation, merely existed on French soil as an isolated English establishment, and was foreign in every respect to France; to the government of which country neither the members nor superiors were ever bound by any oath or promise of allegiance. It had continued, from its beginning to the period of the French revolution, in the free exercise of its administration, and of the administration of its property, independently of any authority, superintendance, or control in France. It was, indeed, subject to the municipal laws of the town in which it was situated, as any English commercial house in France would be subject to the same. This college was never connected with any French establishment or institution. It was not incorporated in the university of Douay, neither was it subject to the rector or master of the university. The presidents of this college, all subjects of his Britannic Majesty, were never chosen, nor presented, nor nominated, nor appointed by any per