English College of Douay was confiscated, did not affect any French establishments (all which had been dissolved and disposed of as national property by the decrees of 5th November, 1790, and 8th March, 1793) but that it affected only British establishments and British property in France, whether held for the purposes of commerce or education. Therefore, this English secular college of Douay, for the property of which Mr. John Daniel claims compensation according to the treaties, was not considered or treated by the revolutionary government of France as a French establishment, any more than English commercial houses established in different towns in France, and having property in the French funds, were considered as French houses of commerce.

As the Reverend John Daniel was deprived of his college in October, 1793, because it was a British Establishment, and because he was a British subject, he had reason to expect, that if compensation should ever be made to British subjects for the losses they had suffered by the execution of the confiscatory decrees of the revolutionary government of France against British property and British subjects, he should be admitted to his share in the compensation.

On the 30th May, 1814, a treaty was made, and on the 20th November, 1815, a more explicit convention was concluded between the French and English governments, for granting compensation to all subjects of his Britannic Majesty who had been deprived of their property in France in consequence of decrees of sequestration or confiscation passed by the French government since the beginning of the year 1793. The late much esteemed and respected Marquis of Londonderry, was the English minister who carried on and perfected the said treaty and convention.

As the Reverend John Daniel is a British subject, and was deprived of the property of which he was in possession, on the 12th October, 1793, by the execution of the decree of 10th October in the same year, for the confiscation of the property of all subjects of his Britannic Majesty, it is submitted that he is included within the treaty and convention.

As the Rev. John Daniel has this clear and positive right to compensation, it is submitted that he cannot in justice be deprived of it, unless it can be shewn that by the express terms and conditions of the treaty and convention, he is excluded from the benefit of compensation thereby stipulated for in favour of all subjects of his Britannic Majesty, whose property had been confiscated.

The treaty makes no exception, the commissioners can make none.

The next question is, whether the claim to compensation for the confiscated property of this establishment of Douay College was not within the spirit of the treaty and convention, or whether the same was excluded therefrom in the intentions of the contracting parties, the French and English governments?

It is true, that treaties, like other compacts, are to be construed, where the construction admits of doubt, through the intervention of the intention of the contracting parties, if such intentions can be ascertained. But whether it was, or was not, the intention of the contracting parties to exclude from the benefit of the treaties made in favour of all subjects of his Britannic Majesty, this Claim presented by the Reverend John Daniel, a British subject, for the value of the property of his establishment, which had been confiscated like other British property in France, is a question of fact. No positive proof whatever of the

fact of this intended and alleged exclusion has been produced, and all that is said in the Judgment is, " Looking at the occasion and object of these treaties, we think it was not, and could not, have been in the contemplation of the contracting parties, that the British government should demand, or the French government grant, compensation for the 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."

Whether it could or could not have been in the contemplation of the contracting parties, to stipulate for compensation for such establishments, is a matter of speculation, but not of fact. The question is, whether both the contracting parties, with the knowledge of the nature of this establishment, positively meant to exclude it from the benefit of the treaty which was made in favour of all British subjects?

And whether it is not virtually comprised therein, as well as all other British claims admitted to be so comprised?

Two Roman Catholic seminaries, and two religious houses in Canada, had property in the French funds before the Revolution, which was confiscated, in 1793, by the same decree as confiscated the funded property held by Mr. Daniel for Douay College.-Did the contracting parties in the treaties actually intend to grant compensation for the property held in trust for Douay College? Can it be positively shewn by any document, that the latter was not as much in the contemplation of the contracting parties as the former? The Commissioners having awarded a compensation for the confiscated property held in trust for the seminaries and religious houses in Canada, why have they rejected the claim of Douay College?—The

compensation to the Canadian establishments was granted by an Inscription in the Great Book of the Public Debt of France, according to the mode of payment prescribed by the treaty. Would it have been inconsistent with any British law, if the Rev. John Daniel had received his compensation in France, according to the treaty, by a similar Inscription in the same Book?

Against the assertion, "That it was not in the contemplation of the contracting parties, that the British government should demand, or the French government grant, compensations for property held in trust for such establishments in France as Douay College," positive documents and proofs may be adduced.

I. ON THE PART OF THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT. The convention was signed November 20th, 1815. Considering that some sequestered property, belonging to Mr. Daniel's college of Douay, still remained unsold in 1816, and that there might be a considerable delay before the Commissioners appointed to execute the treaty would be able to put Mr. Daniel in possession of it, a petition was presented to the King of France for the immediate restoration of that unsold property to Mr. Daniel. It was restored to him in his quality of President of Douay College, by an ordinance of the King of France, dated 25th January, 1816. But lest this act, putting Mr. Daniel in possession of the property which still remained unsold, should prejudice his right to claim by the benefit of the treaty and convention, that portion of the property of Douay College which had been confiscated, the King added this clause in the first article of the ordinance: "Le tout néanmoins sans préjudice de l'Article IV. additionel du Traité de Paris, du 30 Mai 1814, et des Articles

1er et V. de la Convention de Paris, du 20 Novembre,

1815."

This was an affirmative acknowledgment on the part of the French government, that compensation should be granted through the treaty and convention for property which was held in trust for Douay College, and which had been confiscated as British property.

As the King of France, in 1814 and 1815, was the party made responsible, and who granted a compensation to British subjects for their property which had been confiscated by the revolutionary government in 1793, an official act on the part of His Most Christian Majesty, referring a British subject to the Commission appointed to execute the treaty and convention, in order to his receiving compensation for the value of his confiscated property, is surely a positive proof, that, in the intention of the French government, that person was included in the benefit of the treaty. Mr. Daniel was referred to that Commission for compensation for the value of that very funded property which has been claimed of the British Commissioners.

By the Ordinance of the 25th January, 1816, above alluded to, Art. I., Mr. Daniel was to be put in possession of all moveable and immoveable property, not sold, belonging to his college. It appeared to some, that the term moveable property might include the funded property of the college, or the Rentes sur l'Etat; an application was, therefore, made to the Minister of Finances to have the value of this funded property transferred by a new inscription to the name of the Reverend John Daniel, in the great Book of the Public Debt of France. The Minister answered, that this could not be done but through the Commission appointed to execute the treaty and convention made for the purpose of granting compensation to