there and everywhere else, so that over the whole globe the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, which is the jurisdiction of the Crown, extends to every British subject both as to matters civil as well as criminal-for what can be so high a degree of property as a man's life, for which he is tried for offences committed on the high seas? Therefore, I conceive that the same analogy of the law of the realm that holdeth for treasure-trove upon land, holdeth for ships and goods found upon the high seas. The law in both cases, as I conceive it, goes upon the feudal principle of vassalage—all property being an emanation of the supreme power paramount, which is the complex of all association and government centred in the person of the great public representative. And, therefore, the rule is just "quicquid acquiritur servo acquiritur domino," unless the former holds it by privilege of especial grant expressed by writ ten deed, or tacit which is the common usage. For all these reasons I am induced to be of opinion that the ship and cargo in question, being found within the narrow seas, and within the dominions of the Crown of Great Britain, are a public acquisition by British subjects to the use of the Crown, and the same are to be deemed to be, according to the course and style of the High Court of Admiralty, a droit of Admiralty, but that the finders thereof are entitled to the usual salvage, in the discretion of the Court, according to the circumstances of the case. I have further to observe to your Lordships, that although things so found are styled droits of Admiralty, yet the same are not necessarily inherent in the Lord High Admiral, nor in the Commissioners of the Admiralty, to whom, by the statute and commission in consequence, the power to execute the office of Lord High Admiral is granted; but that all droits and perquisites of Admiralty, by the terms of his Majesty's present commission, appear to be reserved "to the only use and behoof of his Majesty, although," as it is therein set forth, "they were heretofore granted to the Lord High Admiral by express words."

In consequence of all which, I am of opinion that the cargo of the ship in question must be proceeded against in the High Court of Admiralty, according to due course of law, in his Majesty's name, and that all persons having interest therein may appear to show cause why the same should not be condemned as a droit and perquisite of the Crown; otherwise, in pain and in default of appear

ance, the sentence of condemnation to pass as usual with salvage to the finders.

Doctors' Commons, July 25, 1772.

JAMES MARRIOTT.

P.S.-Vide Britton, fol. 26. This distinction, grounded upon the authorities of Britton & Bracton, is taken by Lord Coke between treasure found at sea and land: 2 Instit. p. 168. But, says he, if treasure be found in the sea the finder shall have it at this day. Doubtless if foreigners find anything upon the main ocean, being independent of the King, they shall have it; but quære, as to a subject in the narrow seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England. As to treasure found in the sea, the finder may have it, although a subject, because that is not fortuitous, but gained by the peril and labour of the person in diving or fishing.

(3.) JOINT OPINION of the Queen's Advocate, SIR JOHN DODSON, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JOHN CAMPBELL and SIR THOMAS WILDE, on the seizure of a Spanish Vessel which had put into a port of Jamaica in distress with Five Slaves on board.

Doctors' Commons, March 2, 1841.

MY LORD,-We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Vernon Smith's letter of the 27th ultimo, stating that he was directed to transmit to us the copy of a despatch from the Governor of Jamaica, with its several inclosures, reporting the proceedings adopted in the case of a Spanish schooner, named the Industria, which had put into the port of Black River in that island in distress, with five slaves on board.

Mr. Vernon Smith further states that the vessel was seized by the local authorities, and subsequently released by order of the Governor; but doubts having arisen whether the vessel was not liable to seizure, the Governor referred the case to the Attorney General of Jamaica, who reported that he should not advise the re-seizure of the Industria, although his opinion seemed to be that she was liable to confiscation.

Mr. Vernon Smith is pleased to request that we would report to vour Lordship, whether the vessel was liable to seizure and confis

cation, and whether, after having been released, she could lawfully have been again seized and brought to adjudication?

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have taken the papers into consideration, and have the honour to report that, assuming the Industria to have come into Black River, in the island of Jamaica, through distress, we apprehend that she could not be deemed to have thereby committed any offence against the laws of Great Britain, and therefore think that she was not liable to seizure and confiscation by the civil authorities of the island. We are, however, of opinion, that she might have been seized by a British cruiser, duly commissioned, under the treaty with Spain for the abolition of the slave-trade, and carried before a Court of Mixed Commission for adjudication.

The prior release of a vessel does not prevent a subsequent lawful

seizure.

The Right Hon. Lord J. Russell,

&c. &c. &c.

J. DODSON.

J. CAMPBELL.
THOS. WILDE.

(4.) Extract from OPINION of the United States Attorney General, MR. LEGARE, in the case of the Creole, an American Vessel, which under stress of weather put into port at the Bahamas with Slaves on board (1).

Office of the Attorney General, July 20, 1842.

The principle is, that if a vessel be driven by stress of weather, or forced by vis major, or, in short, be compelled by any overruling necessity, to take refuge in the ports of another, she is not considered as subject to the municipal law of that other, so far as concerns any penalty, prohibition, tax, or incapacity that would otherwise be incurred by entering the ports; provided she do nothing further to violate the municipal law during her stay. The comity of nations-which is the usage, the common law, of civilized nations, and a breach of which would now be justly regarded as a grave offence—has gone very far on this point. The law of Europe, barbarous as it was in many respects (e.g., wrecks), furnishes examples of this exemption (see 2 Inst., 57; Coke's Com. on Magna

(1) 4 Attorney Generals' Opinions, 98.

Charta, and a citation of ancient Saxon laws). When a ship is driven into port by stress of weather, and there unloads her cargo, she is not bound to pay duties or customs in that place, because she came there by force; nor is she liable to forfeiture; neither are duties to be paid on goods forcibly driven into port. If there is a case in which the excuse of necessity would be regarded with suspicion, and received with disfavour, it is undoubtedly a breach of blockade, one of the extreme cases of the law of war, involving in its own nature a necessity that would seem to supersede all others. Yet Sir William Scott admits it to be a good plea when the facts fully support it (see 5 Rob. 27-the Fortune).

Under the English Navigation Act it has been settled, that coming in by stress of weather could not be an importation without reference to intention or mala fides (see the cases collected in 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, p. 245). What is this but an admission, by statute, that a ship in that category is, like a ship of war belonging to a friendly Power, considered by the law of England as not subject to the municipal law? This analogy of a ship of war, like that of a foreign Sovereign travelling in the dominions of a friendly Power, and of ambassadors of all classes, shows the principle of immunity, by reason of a quasi or fictitious extra-territoriality, to be familiar to the law. But put it on the ground of comity, it is plainly juris gentium. To show how sacred the duties of humanity have been considered in England, even as between enemies, Sir William Scott rejected with indignation a claim of capture by persons going on board in distress, allowing freight, expenses, and demurrage to the ship (1 Rob. 243-the Yonge, Jacobi v. Bannerman). Further, the distinction is plain between calling on the foreigner for help (though even that is not often refused in case of distress), and demanding of him only a temporary asylum. In the former case, we ask him to aid in executing our municipal law in his territory; in the latter, we ask to be exempted from his municipal law in our territory. Beyond all question, a ship on the high seas, beyond a marine league from shore, is part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs. Why should her being blown &c., within a marine league, by up our tempests, &c., make a difference? We affirm that to shut ports absolutely to vessels in distress, would be less hostile than to

admit them on such conditions. Hospitio prohibemur arena in either case, and the relation is one of covert hostility. Suppose the case of a British transport or cartel filled with impressed seamen driven into our ports, or a convict ship into those of France (1).

(5.) CASE and JOINT OPINION of the Queen's Advocate, SIR J. D. HARDING, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR FREDERICK THESIGER and SIR FITZROY KELLY, on the seizure of some French Vessels at the Gambia. 1852.

Case. In the year 1848 a French vessel and five canoes were seized (at separate times), and in March, 1850, another French vessel was seized, by order of the Governor of Gambia, in the neighbourhood of, or above, the French factory of Albreda, which is situate on the River Gambia, thirty miles above the town of Bathurst, which is a British settlement.

In an account given by the Governor of the seizures (in a letter addressed to Earl Grey), he said that he had seized the first of those vessels, the Nancy, because she was French-owned, Frenchmanned, without papers, and trading above the highest limits to which any French vessel was permitted to go in that river; and for a breach of the Navigation Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 88, s. 14, being neither British-owned nor British-navigated, s. 24 declaring, under such circumstances, her cargo forfeited, and the 4th section of the Registry Act declaring, under the same circumstances, the vessel forfeited. He next caused to be seized several canoes, laden with brown nuts, the produce of the Gambia river, and proceeding to the French Comptoir at Albreda. They were either owned by or hired by Frenchmen, and the seizure was made on the alleged ground that it was illegal for any French boat, or boat hired by the French, to trade or move, with or without cargo, on the waters of the river beyond Gambia. The last vessel seized was the Combo, a small cutter, which the Governor saw anchored in front of the French Comptoir, and she was publicly seized as being without papers or any avowed owner. No claim was made for any of the vessels or canoes so seized by the Governor. In a despatch

(1) See the debate on the case of the Creole in the House of Lords, Feb. 14, 1842 Hansard's Parl. Deb. vol. lx. p. 318.