The Reverend Charles Pilkington, William Thomas Williams, and J. Newland, - Appellants; The Award of the Commissioners for Liquidating Claims of British Subjects and Others, against the Government of France
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1821 |
| Date | 08 February 1821 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 12 E.R. 381
Privy Council
Mews' Dig. tit. War: 4 War Indemnity, In respect of what matters. On point (i.) as to exercise of dominion by French government, distinguished in De Tastet's Case, 1834, 2 Knapp, 359; and Bourdieu's Case, 1834, 2 Knapp, 356; and cf. Drummond's Case, 1834, 2 Knapp, 300; Salvin's Case, 1834, 2 Knapp, 351; Webster's Case, 1834, 2 Knapp, 386; (ii.) as to currency, followed in Johnston's Case, 1834, 2 Knapp, 344. See also De Bode v. Reg., 1851, 3 H.L.C. 453, as to indument confisques (2 Knapp, 13); and as to depreciation of currency, Story, Conft. of Laws, 313, 313 a.; Phillimore, Int. Law, 3rd edit., vol. 4, 586. Legal tender in the United Kingdom is regulated by the Coinage Act, 1870, 33 and 34 Vict., c. 10, as amended by 41 and 42 Vict., c. 49, s. 86; and cf. Weights and Measures Act, 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 21), and Coinage Act, 1891 (54 and 55 Vict., c. 72.
PILKINGTON V. COMMISSIONERS FOR CLAIMS ON FRANCE [1821] II KNAPP, 7 l_ -I [7] The Reverend CHARLES PILKINGTON, WILLIAM THOMAS WILLIAMS, and J. NEWLAND,-Appellants; The AWARD of the COMMISSIONERS for LIQUIDATING CLAIMS of BRITISH SUBJECTS and OTHERS, against the GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE * [Feb. 8, 1821]. A state having issued a decree confiscating all the debts due to the subjects of its enemy's country, held that the confiscation was complete of a debt, which a subject of the confiscating state acknowledged before the proper authorities to be due from him to a subject of the enemy, although he was excused from actually paying it over to the state [2 Knapp, 15, et seqJ\, and the decree of confiscation was subsequently repealed. After the repeal of the decree of confiscation the debtor paid into the National Treasury of the confiscating state, in the name of his creditor, the amount of his debt, in the currency of the time; which, however, was very much depreciated since the date of his declaration of his debt under the decree of confiscation: Held, that the confiscating state, having entered into' a treaty to make compensation for all undue confiscations and sequestrations, were answerable for the debt in the currency at the time of the debtor's declaration, it not being a case between a debtor and creditor, but of reparation by a wrong-doer [2 Knapp, 18]. By the 2d Article of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and France, of the 26th of September 1786 [Chalmers' Collection af Treaties, vol. i. p. 519], it was agreed, " that in, case of a rupture between the two Governments, (which rupture should not be deemed to exist until the recalling or sending home of the respective ambassadors and ministers,) the subjects of each of the two parties residing in the dominions of the other should have the privilege of remaining and continuing to trade therein without any manner of disturbance, so long as they should behave peaceably, and commit no offence against the laws and ordinances; and in case their conduct should render them suspected, and the respective Governments should be obliged to order [8] them to remove, the term of 12 months should be allowed them for that purpose, in order that they might remove with their effects and property, whether intrusted to individuals or the state " (see this treaty in Annual Register for 1786, p. 267 [and Chalmers' Collection of Treaties, vol. i. p. 517]). Notwithstanding this treaty, the French Republic, on the commencement of the revolutionary war, confiscated, by a decree bearing date the 10th of October 1793, all property and debts belonging to , or owing to subjects of the King of Great Britain; and every holder and debtor of such property or debts was required by this decree to make a declaration of them within 24 hours after the publication of the decree to the administration of his district, under pain of a fine equal in amount to the value of the property not disclosed, and 10 j^ears' imprisonment (see Oxholm v. Wolff, 6 Maule and Selwyn, 92, for a decision on a similar decree by the Danish Government). Messrs. Lalanne and Co', of Bayonne, were, at the time of the publication of this a,s new discovery or fraud concealed, a-nd therefore the petition was rejected. In 1806 a petition for a rehearing, drawn by Mr. Hargrave, was presented, in the case of Beckford v. Wade (17 Ves. 87), from Jamaica, and was rejected. Sir Wm. Grant, in delivering the opinion of the Committee, said that ha was happy that nothing had been suggested in the petition to alter the opinion the Committee had formed, as he was extremely doubtful whether a rehearing could be granted after the Report of the Committee had been confirmed by his Majesty in Council, any more than a rehearing could be granted by the House of Lords. See Hargrave's Jurisconsult Exercitations, vol. 2, p. 394. The practice with regard to petitions of this kind has of late years been as stated in the text, * The Reporter has been favoured by Mr. West with his notes in this and the following case, and has, from their importance, been induced to print them. 381 II KNAPP, 9 PILKINGTON V. COMMISSIONERS FOR CLAIMS ON FRANCE [1821] decree, indebted to Messrs. Williams and Newland, of Chichester, in a considerable sum of money, and they made, in obedience to it, two declarations of the amount of their debt to the administration of their district. By the latter of these, which was made on the 10th of November 1793, in order to correct some errors of the former one in the calculation of the rates of exchange, they declared that they owed to Messrs. Williams and Newland the sum of 769,666 livres tournois, 19 sous, 3 dealers, in French money, which remained in their hands, ready to be deposited in the public chests when required. In consequence, however, of the representations they made to the French Government of the difficulty they would have in paying into the public [9] chests so large a sum, the immediate payment was dispensed with, and they were ordered to hold it in readiness to pay it into1 the Treasury when required, except such part of it as they had in their hands in coin or cash, which they were to pay into the Treasury immediately. They had, however, no- part of the sum in coin or cash, and no payment was therefore made by them until the 3d of January 1795, when another decree was passed by the Kepublic, directing that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baron de Bode v R
...following authorities were referred to :- Earl of Leicester v. Heydon, Plowd. 384, 398 ; Pilkington v. Commissioners for Claims on France, 2 Knapp, 7 ; Countess Conways case, 2 Knapp, 364 ; Daniel v. Commissioners for Claims on France, ib. 23 ; Drummonds case, ib. 295 ; Websters case, ib. 3......
-
Celia (S.S.) v Volturno (S.S.)
...ArgentinoDID=ASPM 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 433 13. P. Div., per Bowe L.J. at pp. 202, 203 Pilkington v. Commissioners for Claims on FranceENR 2 Knapp, 7 Marburg v. Marburg 26 Maryland, 8 Delegal v. TaylorENR 7 Bing. 460 Collision Damage Loss agreed in foreign currency Order of Court of Appeal a......
-
Colonel Benjamin Gumbes, - Appellant; an Award of the Commissioners for Liquidating the Claims of British Subjects on France
...hands. The intention of the treaties wa^ only to provide compensation for those who were injured by violations of the treaty of 1786 [see 2 Knapp, 7], which solely provided for the protection of those British subjects [382] who should be living during the time of war in the dominions of the......
-
The Representatives of Peter Webster, deceased, - Appellants; an Award of the Commissioners for the Liquidation of the Claims of British Subjects on France
...Holland, for by the law of nations every state is answerable for th'i acts it suffers another to commit in its territories. Pilkington's [2 Knapp, 7] was a case of confiscation of property under the protection of the French Government, and seized by them in [389] breach of the treaty of 178......