to it my homage, I must confess, that, as a precedent, it is entirely inapplicable to the present case. * * * * * Putting aside these two several classes of cases, we are brought back to the original principle, that there can be no legal claim to damages for property situated in an enemy country, and belonging to a person domiciled there, when taken for the exigencies of war. If the conclusion were doubtful, I should deem it my duty to exhibit at length the costly consequences from an allowance of this claim. The small sum which you vote will be a precedent for millions. If you pay Miss Sue Murphey, you must pay claimants whose name will be Legion. Of course, if justice requires, let it be done, even though the Treasury fail. But the mere possibility of such liabilities is a reason for caution on our part. We must consider the present case as if on its face it involved not merely a few thousands, but many millions. Pay it, and the country will not be bankrupt, but it will have an infinite draft upon its resources. If the occasion were not too grave for a jest, I would say of it as Mercutio said of his wound: “No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough.” If you would have a practical idea of the extent of these claims, be taught by the history of the British Loyalists, who at the close of our Revolution appealed to Parliament for compensation on account of their losses. The whole number of these claims was five thousand and seventy-two. The whole amount claimed was £8,026,045, or about thirty-eight million dollars, of which the commissioners allowed less than half.[23] Our claimants would be much more numerous, and the amount claimed vaster. We may also learn from England something of the spirit in which such claimants should be treated. Even while providing for them, Parliament refused to recognize any legal title on their part. What it did was in compassion, generosity, and bounty,--not in satisfaction of a debt. Mr. Pitt, in presenting the plan which was adopted, expressly denied any right on grounds of “strict justice.” Here are his words:-- “The American Loyalists, in his opinion, could not call upon the House to make compensation for their losses as a matter of strict justice; but they most undoubtedly had strong claims on their generosity and compassion. In the mode, therefore, that he should propose for finally adjusting their claims, he had laid down a principle with a view to mark this distinction.”[24] In the same spirit Mr. Burke said:-- “Such a mode of compensating the claims of the Loyalists would do the country the highest credit. It was a new and a noble instance of national bounty and generosity.”[25] Mr. Fox, who was full of ardent sympathies, declared:-- “They were entitled to a compensation, _but by no means to a full compensation_.”[26]