from the Governor defending the seizure, he referred to the Treaty of Versailles (1783), which contains, amongst others, the following articles:

Art. 9. The King of Great Britain cedes in full right, and guarantees to his Most Christian Majesty, the River Senegal and its dependencies, with the forts of St. Louis, Podor, Galam, Arguin, and Portendie; and his Britannic Majesty restores to France the island of Gorée, which shall be delivered up in the condition it was in when the conquest of it was made.

Art. 10. The Most Christian King, on his part, guarantees to the King of Great Britain the possession of Fort James, and of the River Gambia.

Art. 11. For preventing all discussion in that part of the world, the two high contracting parties shall, within three months after the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty, name commissaries, who shall be charged with the settling and fixing of the boundaries of the respective possessions. As to the gum trade, the English shall have the liberty of carrying it on from the mouth of the River St. John to the bay and fort of Portendie inclusively: provided that they shall not form any permanent settlement of what nature soever in the said River St. John, upon the coast, or in the Bay of Portendie.

Art. 12. As to the residue of the coast of Africa, the English and French subjects shall continue to resort thereto, according to the usage which has hitherto prevailed.

In addition to the statutes above-mentioned, the Law Officers were referred to statute 12 & 13 Vict. c. 29, s. 20 ("An Act to amend the Laws in force for the encouragement of British Shipping and Navigation, 1849"), and they were requested to advise upon the legality of the seizures in question.

Opinion. We are of opinion that the seizures in question are not warranted by law.

These not being British vessels, there is nothing in the Acts in force relating to customs and navigation at the time of the seizure which renders any but British vessels liable to forfeiture; although, by the 24th section of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89, the goods on board the vessels in question became forfeited, and the master of each incurred a penalty of £100.

There appears to be nothing in the Treaty of Versailles (to which we are referred) which gives any right of seizure.

It may be worthy the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether such violation of the law of nations, and the spirit of our own statutes, ought not to be made punishable by statute with the forfeiture of the offending vessel.

Doctors' Commons, April 3, 1852.

J. D. HARDING.
FRED. THESIGER.'
FITZROY KELLY.

(6.) JOINT OPINION of the Queen's Advocate, SIR J. D. HARDING, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR A. E. COCKBURN and SIR RICHARD BETHELL, as to what constitutes loss of Nationality in a Ship.

Doctors' Commons, August 6, 1853. MY LORD DUKE,-We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Mr. Merivale's letter of the 20th of April last, stating that he was directed to transmit to us copy of a despatch, with its enclosures, received from the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, and to request that we would jointly report to your Grace, whether we agree in the view of the law taken by the Judge of the Admiralty Court at Halifax, in the case of the Creole, and if not, in what respect we differ from it?

Whether, also, it appears to us that such amendments of the law, as suggested by the Judge in his letter of the 31st of March, are called for or advisable ?

We are also honoured with Mr. Merivale's letter of the 4th of June, stating that, with reference to the Queen's Advocate's letter of the 23rd of April, he was directed by your Grace to transmit to us the copy of a further despatch from the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, supplying the documents and other information required to enable us to report our opinion upon the case of the Creole, seized for the infraction of the Fishery Regulations.

In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken the papers into consideration, and have the honour to report

That we do not agree with the view of the law taken by the Judge of the Admiralty Court at Halifax, in the case of the Creole; and that we are of opinion that, inasmuch as the Creole, although

originally a British ship, yet had fallen into the hands of foreigners, and been altered so as not to correspond with her original certificate, and not re-registered; and inasmuch as she was not navigated according to the British Navigation Laws, she had lost her nationality and become a foreign ship. We are further of opinion that the colonial statute on the subject is valid, for reasons hereafter given by us in our answer to the questions, and that the Creole was, on these grounds, liable to condemnation and forfeiture.

With respect to the several questions on the case of the Creole, framed by Mr. Attorney-General Uniacke, appended to his letter to Sir G. Le Marchant sent with the papers, we are of opinion

1. That, with respect to forfeiture, under 59 Geo. 3, c. 38, although both cases are equally within the mischief which the Act was intended to guard against, yet, as the language of the Act is ambiguous, and as the Act is of a highly penal nature, we are of opinion that it will not be advisable to forfeit under it any but foreign vessels.

2. Even if the Imperial Act, 59 Geo. 3, c. 38, should be insufficient to give Her Majesty power to impose all or any of the rules and regulations in question (a question which we need not now consider), the authority of the local legislature appears to us to be sufficient to make them valid in effect, by its express legislative enactment of them. The authority of the local legislature extends (like that of the Imperial Parliament) over the space of the three miles upon the high seas next the coast, which is, by the comity of nations, part of the country to which it is adjacent; and we are of opinion that, upon this general principle, and irrespective of the convention, the imperial statute, or the regulations of the Sovereign in Council, the colonial legislature was legally entitled to legislate as it has done relative to the fisheries, and that its enactments are valid and binding.

3. We are of opinion that such a vessel is, under the circumstances stated, liable to forfeiture under the express provisions of the colonial statute already referred to.

4. We are of opinion that the effect of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 is controlled by 12 & 13 Vict. c. 29, s. 17, and that it is no longer necessary that the owner of a vessel shall be resident within the

Queen's dominions in order to satisfy the requirements of the British Navigation Laws.

5. The master in all cases, and, besides the master, either threefourths of the crew, or one seaman to every twenty tons, by the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 29, s. 27, must be British subjects.

6. A foreign fishing-vessel, duly registered and manned as a British vessel, may legally prosecute the fishery, as suggested, by virtue of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 29.

7. Such a ship will be liable to forfeiture and condemnation, if deficient in any requirement absolutely necessary to her nationality -as, for instance, if she be not registered or navigated as a British ship; but she will not be liable to forfeiture for deficiencies in other points of mere regulation, which involve only specific penalties-as, for instance, if she has not her tonnage carved on her beam, or her name painted on her stern.

His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, &c. &c. &c.

J. D. HARDING.
A. E. COCKBURN.
RICHARD BETHELL.

(7.) JOINT OPINION of the same Law Officers in the same Case, that indemnity for unauthorized seizure of a Foreign Vessel in Colonial Waters, for contravention of a Convention between Great Britain and a Foreign Country, ought to be paid by Great Britain.

Doctors' Commons, November 12, 1855. SIR, We are honoured with your letter of the 22nd September last, stating that, with reference to our report of the 6th August, 1853, on the subject of the judgment given in the Vice-Admiralty Court at Halifax, in the case of the Creole, you were directed by the late Sir William Molesworth to send us a copy of a despatch from Lieutenant-Governor Sir Gaspard Le Marchant, enclosing a petition from Mr. Elliot, one of the claimants of the vessel in that case, for indemnity for damages; and to request that we would take the same into consideration, and report our opinion whether we consider such pecuniary indemnity ought to be given, and, if so, whether by the Home Government or by the Government of Nova Scotia.

In obedience to the above commands we have the honour to report

That, in our opinion, the pecuniary indemnity sought by the owner of the Creole ought to be given. The question, in order to decide which the Creole was captured, arose out of a Convention between Great Britain and the United States, and she was captured by one of Her Majesty's ships, under instructions from the Imperial Government. The matter was therefore one of imperial concern, and we are of opinion that the indemnity must be paid by the Imperial Government, and not by that of Nova Scotia.

To Fred. Elliot, Esq. &c. &c. &c.

J. D. HARDING.

A. E. COCKBURN.
RICHARD BETHELL.

(8.) OPINION of the United States Attorney General, MR. CUSHING, on the seizure by the French Authorities in the Port of Marseilles of Seamen on board an American Ship charged with Crime (1).

Attorney General's Office, September 6, 1856. SIR,-I have examined the correspondence between Mr. Mason, the envoy of the United States in France, and the President of the Council of State of the French Empire, charged, par interim, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, M. Baroche, as communicated to me by your note of the 5th instant, and have reflected on the pertinent questions of public law which you suggest for my consideration.

Without entering into recapitulation of all the facts involved in the discussion, it will suffice for the present purpose to state such only as are essential to the right understanding of the points now remaining to be determined.

It appears that while the American merchant ship Atalanta was on a voyage from Marseilles to New York, and on the high seas, out of the municipal jurisdiction of any Government, acts of insubordination and violence occurred on the part of her crew, by whom the ship was forced to put back to Marseilles.

On her arrival in port, the criminal parties were, on the appli(1) 8 Attorney Generals' Opinions, 73.