who had full ability to aid the owners by bond or otherwise.

Further it does not appear who purchased the vessel, or what became of her. It may have gone back into the hands of the owners at a very reduced rate. There is a deficiency in the evidence in these respects, which might throw important light on the question of damage.

I am willing, however, on the case submitted, to comply with the spirit of the instructions issued by the department, and return to the owners the amount received from the sale of the vessel, and anything appertaining to her, and remit all damage for trespass on land and timber.

There is no reason why the Government, that has committed no wrong, should do more than this to a wrong-doer, and pay the owners of the "Albion" a large sum of money, which they now ask, to compensate them for the loss of the probable profits of the voyage, and for consequences necessarily arising from acknowledged illegal acts.

Mr. HORNBY, British Commissioner:

CONCURRED, in the main, with the views presented. He regarded the measure of redress as harsh compared with the wrong committed. The Government had been but newly established-existed but in name; there were no officers, and no Custom-House; the acts complained of occurred in a remote and in a wholly unsettled country; they were not of serious damage, and the master of the vessel could have had no expectation that the consequences would be so severely visited upon him; moreover, he was ready to purchase, and endeavoured to find somebody of whom to purchase. There was no trading with the Indians, the articles being given them in exchange for their labour.

It also seemed to him that the Government officers, before proceeding to the condemnation of the vessel, ought to have obtained specific instructions from Washington; or, at least, have allowed sufficient time before proceeding to extremities, to have learnt the answer made to the application which had been transmitted.

He considered the Commission bound to carry out, at least, the measure of clemency awarded by the Government, and was of opinion that a sum in damages should be allowed, that should place the owner in as favourable a position as though the instructions of the Secretary had been received at Astoria, before the sale of the vessel, and was willing to submit this amount to the consideration of the umpire.

THE "ALBION."

London, December 1, 1854.

THE umpire awards to the owners of the ship " Albion," or their legal representatives, the sum of twenty thousand dollars on the 15th of January, 1855, to be paid by the Government of The United States.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

MESSRS. ROGERS AND Co.

Mr. HORNBY, British Commissioner:

THIS claim is advanced on two grounds. The first, that the cargoes of rum, for alleged losses in connection with which the claimants now seek to recover compensation, were imported into the Colony of New Zealand prior to the assumption of the sovereignty of Great Britain over that island. The second, that these cargoes were made the special objects of an ex post facto legislation.

The first ground is untenable, as it is proved beyond all doubt that the British sovereignty of New Zealand was assumed and declared in the month of February, 1840, while the first of the cargoes did not arrive until the month of September in the same year; and that the second is equally so, a very superficial consideration of the facts in connection with the claim will show.

On examination of the Acts of the Legislative Councils of New South Wales and New Zealand, relating to the importation of spirits into the latter colony, it is perfectly manifest that the imposition of the duty of five shillings upon the rum belonging to Messrs. Rogers was authorized by law, and that had the law been directly enforced against Messrs. Rogers, their property might have been confiscated for an infraction of the revenue laws of the colony.

The claim, as originally presented by the American Minister in this country, was based upon the assumption that the rum had been landed in New Zealand before the assumption of British sovereignty. This ground must now, as I have already observed, be necessarily abandoned. I, therefore, confine myself for the present to the assertion that at the time of

the arrival no law was in force authorizing the imposition of duties.

In support of this proposition the claimants appear mainly to rely on an alleged decision of the Collector of Customs at Auckland, and their goods are spoken of as having been adjudged" by him to be liable to no duty, and it is argued that the transaction must, therefore, be considered as complete, and the goods having passed into the possession of the consignees without duty having been collected, must be considered as discharged from further liability. There is, however, a clear misapprehension in supposing that the collector intended to express the opinion ascribed to him; but, even if this were not so, it is obvious that the opinion of a local Collector of Customs cannot have the effect of abrogating Acts of the Legislature, and, therefore, without further discussion on this point, I proceed to call attention to the dates of the material circumstances of the case, and to the various documents and Acts of Legislature having relation to it, all of which are to be found in the "parliamentary papers" to which Mr. Davis alludes.

It appears from the papers relating to New Zealand, submitted to Parliament (No. 311), that by letters patent under the Great Seal, bearing date the 15th June, 1839, Her Majesty enlarged the previously existing limits of the territory of New South Wales, and appointed Sir G. Gipps Governor. The extended territory was described as "including any territory which is, or may be, acquired in sovereignty by Her Majesty within that group of islands in the Pacific Ocean, commonly called New Zealand."

This extension of territory was announced by Sir G. Gipps, in New South Wales, by a proclamation, on the 14th January, 1840.

By Commission, bearing date 30th July, 1839, Captain W. Hobson was appointed Lieutenant-Governor over “such territory as might be acquired in sovereignty in New Zealand."

This was also announced in New South Wales by proclamation on the 14th January, 1840, and Captain Hobson