CO885-(11-13) — Page 642

13,806.

MY LORD,

No. 20.

(QUEENSLAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Bramston's

Royal Courts of Justice, 12th, August 1884. letter of the 3rd ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to acknowledge the receipt of our letter of the 19th June* relating to the question whether a British subject, who had been brought to Brisbane in a Swedish vessel in which he was serving, could be given up under the provisions of the Foreign Deserters Act of 1852.

That the Colonial Government inquired generally as to the effect of that Act in reference to British sailors deserting from foreign ships, but that your Lordship limited the previous inquiry to the case which had actually occurred, your Lordship not being aware of the restrictive words in the Order in Council which related to deserters from Swedish vessels.

That our opinion was requested whether, under an Order in Council issued under section 1 of that Act, and not containing similar words of restriction, British subjects who, being seamen on board vessels belonging to subjects of foreign States, desert from such vessels could legally be surrendered to such foreign States.

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

Report

That we think that under an Order in Council issued under section 1 of that Act, and not excluding British subjects, in case such subjects, being seamen on board vessels belonging to subjects of the foreign power to which the Order relates, desert from such vessels, they may be apprehended, and conveyed on board the vessel to which they belong, or be delivered to the master or mate or owner of the vessel or his agent to be so conveyed, upon an application being made in good faith for such apprehension.

We may add that from the Order in Council now before us, it would appear that we were in error in stating that British subjects, being seamen on board Swedish ships, were excluded from the operation of the Foreign Deserters Act by the Order made under it. It is so stated in Maude and Pollock's work on Merchant Shipping, but unless some other Order in Council has been substituted for that of the 18th August 1852 this statement is erroneous.

We have, &c.,

The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby, K.G.

(Signed)

HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.

&c.

&c.

159 7.-16, 35.—12/05.

&c.

• No. 14.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.885

Reference :-

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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