CO885-(10-11) — Page 112

PUBLIC RECO

2

44

In order to justify British Colonial or naval officers in treating as pirates by the law of nations" vessels commissioned as privateers of the Confederate States, and claiming to act as such, such officers must have either positive proof or the strongest ground of suspicion, founded on adequate evidence, that those on board of such vessels have not merely been guilty of irregular conduct (for which redress may be required from their Government, or its prize courts), such irregularities being too often inoi- dental to the employment of privateers, but of conduct clearly amounting to "piracy "by the law of nations," as above explained, as (for instance) deliberate plunder, appropriation or destruction of property which they well knew was not enemy's property, and which they did not attempt or intend to take before any prize court for adjudication.

With respect to the assumption or use of the British flag, it is to be borne in mind, 1st, that the mere use of a neutral flag cannot of itself protect a vessel from capture if she has enemy's property on board, or is suspected with probable cause of belonging wholly or in part to enemies.

2ndly. It must be presumed that a prize court will correctly administer the law of nations, and will do right and justice between all parties in such cases, awarding costs and damages where they may be due.

The Earl Russell,

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

·

J. D. HARDING. WM. ATHERTON. ROUNDELL PALMER.

9222.

MY LORD DOke,

No. 85.

(BERMUDA).

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Doctors' Commons, October 15, 1861. We are honoured with your Grace's commands signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 13th ultimo, in which he stated that he was directed by your Grace to request that we would furnish your Grace with our opinion on the following question, viz., Whether a British subject who has received episcopal ordination in the United States of America could, by an Act of the Legislature of Bermuda, be rendered capable of holding ecolesiastical preferment in that Colony?

Sir Frederick Rogers was also pleased to enclose copies of the Despatch raising this question which had been received from the Governor of Bermuda as well as of the documents refered to in that Despatch.

In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken these papers into our con- sideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we understand your Grace's question as referring to persons, who, like the Rev. Mr. Lightbourne, have received episcopal ordination from bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and assuming that such persons are to be considered as "persons admitted to the order of deacon or priest by any “successors or successor" of the bishop who was consecrated for the United States under the statute 26 Geo. 3. c. 84. (which is probably the fact, and which we conceive must be assumed until the contrary is shown), then we are of opinion, that the in- capacity of such persons to hold ecclesiastical preferment within Her Majesty's dominions being created by an Act of the Imperial Legislature cannot be removed by any Act of any Colonial Legislature on which power to repeal Acts of the Imperial Legislature may not have been conferred by that Legislature itself. Any disability resulting solely from Colonial legislation and Governor's instructions, may be cured by local legislation adequately expressed, and by altered instructions; but the existing disability appearing to us to be created by an Imperial statute, we are of opinion that the question put to us in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 13th September must be answered in the negative.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

&o.

His Grace the Duke of Newcastle,

&c.

&c.

J. D. HARDING.

WM. ATHERTON. ROUNDELL PALMER.

16970.-31. 95,--2,86.

OFFICE

C.O

Reference :-

the

885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

: