CO885-(10-11) — Page 876

2210.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

EPEREC.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

No. 691. (ВАНАМАН.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, March 2, 1871. MY LORD,

We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 28th ultimo stating,

1st. That with reference to our Report of the 5th of October* as to the disposal of the proceeds of the forfeiture of the "Lilian" under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 which had been adjudicated in the Vice-Admiralty Court in the Bahamas, he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the enclosed copy of a Despatch from the Governor of the Bahamas protesting against the payment of the moiety of the proceeds into the Colonial Treasury, as in the case of forfeitures for breaches of the Colonial Revenue Laws.

2nd. That the public revenue in the Bahamas was twofold, (1) general revenue, principally derivable from taxes imposed by the Colonial Legislature, and disposable by that Legislature; (2) Crown revenue derived from sales and rents of Crown land, &c., and disposable by the Crown, and that your Lordship understood the requirement of the Colonial Act of 17 Victoria, cap. 3, sections 76 and 81, to be that the moiety of proceeds of forfeitures for breach of the Colonial revenue laws should go to the general revenue.

3rd. That Sir Frederic Rogers was desired, however, to suggest the following points for our consideration:

*

1. That the clause in the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 is not imperative but permissive. Every such ship and vessel, &c. may be prosecuted and condemned "in like manner and in such courts as ships and vessels may be prosecuted or "condemned for any breach of the laws made for the protection for the customs " and excise or of the laws of trade and navigation," and that in the Bahamas the Colonial Act, 17 Victoria, cap. 3, is the law made for the protection of customs.

2. That by section 68 of that Act (copy annexed) procedure is directed to take place It was apprehended that those in the "general court or other superior court.'

court as distinguished latter words referred to any "other superior Colonial from what might be termed "Imperial" courts. Ordinary Colonial courts are constituted by Colonial laws, having purely Colonial attributes and jurisdiction, but Vice-Admiralty Courts are constituted by Imperial authority, prerogative or statutory, and have Imperial attributes and jurisdiction.

3. That forfeitures for the breach of Colonial revenue laws had been tried accordingly

in the "general court."

4. But that this case of the "Lilian" was not tried under the Foreign Enlistment

Act of 1818 by the "general court" but by the Vice-Admiralty Court.

5. That there is ground therefore for contending that the Colonial Government did not avail itself of the permission given by the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819, to try the matter under the law of customs, that it was tried as a breach of Imperial maritime law in the Imperial Court of Vice-Admiralty, and that the clause of the Foreign Enlistment Act did not apply to it.

4th. That Sir Frederic Rogers was to request that we would take those points into consideration and inform your Lordship whether the opinion expressed by us on the 5th October last was at all modified by them, and whether under the special circum- stances of this case the proceeds might not be considered to form part of the Crown revenue, Imperial or Colonial.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That although we do not concur in the suggestion that the Vice-Admiralty Court at Nassau is not included under the term "superior court" as used in section 68 of the Colonial Act 17 Victoria, cap. 3, we are of opinion that the moiety of the proceeds of the Lilian which we advised should be paid into the public Treasury of the Colony

• No. 664.

0 16279.-380. 95.-5/86.