Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 15.

30

true that Lord Stowell, when pressed with the individual hardship of décisions he was about to pronounce, sometimes referred to thefact, that any apparent injustice might be met by an exercise of the Crown's

bounty Whether his judgments were in any way based on that

consideration, or whether they would not have been the same if the possibüity of the Crown's bounty had not existed, is an arguable point. In their Lordships' opinion however, it is unnecessary to decide this point, for, after hearing the Attorney-General, they have come to the conclusion not only that the Crown had and was accustomed to exercise a power of bounty by way of redress of hardships, but that such power still exists unimpaired. Perhaps the most notable instance of the exercise of such power was the Order in Council made at the commencement of

the war with Denmark in 1807 [protection de ressortissants anglais

qui paraitraient avoir fait des avances de fonds sur des navires danois frappés d'embargo par les Anglais] .... If the Crown could order this generally, it must also have had the power to order it in particular cases. Further, if it could make such an Order in favour of British subjects, it must also have had the power to make it in favour of neutrals, and circumstances can easily be imagined in which the exercise of such a power in favour of neutrals might, as a matter of policy, be deemed desirable. If the Crown had and was accustomed to exercise the power of redressing hardship by way of bounty, such right must still exist unless taken away by Act of Parliament, and it must be remembered that the Crown's prerogative can only be abridged by express words or necessary implication. The argument to the effect that the power m question had ceased to exist is solely based on the effect to be given to the statutes, which have been from time to time passed m reference

to the Civil List [réfutation détaillée de 1'argument] .. .

Their Lordships therefore hold that the power in question still exists."

Comp. aussi la décision Emil (56) de la Cour des prises pour 1'Egypte:

(It is impossible) that this Court might exercise what is called the bounty of the Crown" in favour of these British mortgagees. The Crown has always listened favourably to the complaints of Bntish subjects who suffer hardship by reason of the strict enforcement of the rule, and it would seem that Lord Stowell sometimes himself exercisedthe Crown's bounty as Judge of the Prize Court, and ascertained the sum to be paid by enquiry in chambers.... But this practioe has not been continued and I think it must be admitted that if such jurisdiction ever existed it has fallen into desuetude andcannot be revivecl without legislative authority. The Government has recently created an

informal Court to deal with such claims "

Dans le même sens :

Hamm and Afolia, .n°. 4 {cargo ex) (78) : „There is no reason to beheve, in face of (the) statement by the Solicitor-General (m the

Sluiten