It is clear, however, that in England, foreign ships are liable to forfeiture for offences against certain Municipal Laws, as for instance, under the “Foreign Enlistment Act,” and the "Customs' Consolidation Act;" moreover, the "Chinese Passengers Act 1855,” which is in pari materiâ, subjects a foreign ship leaving Hongkong Harbor with more than 20 Asiatics on a voyage of more than 7 days' duration, to forfeiture unless the Master be provided with the Emigration Officer's Certificate.
It appears to me, therefore, that there is no objection in principle to the passing of such a Law by the Colonial Legislature, its action being expressly confined to the limits of the Colony.
## SECTION X
This Provision is already in force by the Criminal Law of the Colony (See Sec. VII of No. 5 of 1865), but it was thought desirable to insert it as a caution or warning, especially as it is inserted in "The Kidnapping Act, 1862." It will apply to the case of Brokers and Middlemen.
## SECTION XII
The language of this Section was slightly altered, so that it should not appear that the intervention of the Naval or Military Authorities was made obligatory upon them by the Ordinance.
## SECTION XVI
I re-drafted this Section in consequence of the doubts expressed in Council by the Chief Justice as to the sufficiency of the Clause as originally framed, to give him the necessary powers to deal with cases of forfeiture.
I should mention here, that a strong objection was made by the Honorable Mr. BALL, throughout the sittings of Council upon this Ordinance, to the power of dealing with the forfeiture of ships being vested in the Supreme Court. While admitting that the Colonial Legislature could not impose new duties upon the Vice-Admiralty Court, or pass a measure affecting that Court in any way, he contended that the jurisdiction over the forfeiture of ships appertains specially and exclusively to Courts of Admiralty, and that the powers vested in the Supreme Court by the Ordinance are an encroachment upon or an invasion of that special jurisdiction.
He also urged that the rights of innocent Mortgagees should be protected by the Ordinance, as they would, according to his opinion, be protected in case of the condemnation of the ship in a Court of Admiralty.
With respect to the first objection, it seems to me that the reason why the Court of Admiralty exercises special jurisdiction over cases of forfeiture of ships, is because they are to be classed with maritime causes which arise on the high seas out of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Law; but I cannot see that there is anything so exclusive in the jurisdiction of the Courts of Admiralty, as to prevent the Colonial Legislature from conferring upon local Courts the power of entertaining causes of forfeiture of ships, where the offence is committed within their jurisdiction.
With regard to the second objection, I apprehend that in the case of the forfeiture of a ship in the Admiralty Court for violation of an Act of Parliament no legal claim to relief could be preferred by any Mortgagee of Ship or by any person entitled to a maritime lien thereon, but that the security collapses by the forfeiture, and the claims of such persons can only in such a case be enforced in personam.
The inconvenience of calling upon the Supreme Court to adjudicate upon claims of foreign mortgagees, and others on foreign ships, in cases of forfeiture, would be extreme, and I think the Council wisely decided to leave the consideration of such claims to the discretion of the Executive.
## SECTION XVII
The last lines of this Section are taken from Section XX of "The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870," (33 and 34 Vic., c. 90).
## SECTION XXVI
This is the last Section which calls for any remark. It was unanimously approved of and agreed to in Council, and will obviate the possibility of any undue advantage being taken of so stringent an Ordinance, to harass persons who may be legally but not morally guilty of an offence against its Provisions.
Hongkong, 9th May, 1873.
JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Attorney General.
Page 351