not be received in evidence. Or to come nearer, What International and Municipal Law. if C heard of the conspiracy to kill him, and sought protection against the conspirators, would not evidence of the admission of both or either of them be admissible in evidence of such conspiracy, and equally admissible in a prosecution to forfeit the weapon, if the law imposed that forfeiture as a consequence of the meditated offence?

If therefore" any person" in Her Majesty's dominions contract with the enemy of any country at peace with this, to fit out and furnish a ship of a warlike character to be used against the friendly power, and does so with a full knowledge of the object, although he may not put the guns on board until the ship is beyond the league, it is difficult to maintain that he has not infringed the law, and that previous statements by him sufficient to condemn the ship, had he been defendant on the record, are inadmissible in evidence as to the ship's liability to forfeiture, merely because. the claimant or nominal defendant, sec. stat. was not present and assenting when the statements were made. In a proceeding in rem any evidence showing that any person" having power and control over the ship was doing, or knowingly concerned in the doing of anything with it contrary to the act, would seem to satisfy the requirements of the case, and be fairly admissible.

When proceedings are taken against a ship forfeitable by reason of the acts of any person in connexion with it, and having an unlawful intent, what evidence can be more conclusive of the intent, which exists only in the mind of the wrong-doers, than his own declarations of such intent, and how can the ends of justice be attained if this evidence of his acts and intentions be

offence.

International and inadmissible? In proceedings "in personam" the case Municipal Law.. is so obviously different as to require no comment. Locus in quo of The offence must be committed "within the United Kingdom," or in "Her Majesty's dominions." Very much turns upon this, it having been held by lawyers whose opinions are entitled to great respect, that the offence contemplated by the Act is limited to the equipment, furnishing, fitting out, and arming, as totally distinct from the building of the ship, and that it is no offence against the act to build for and sell a ship (were it even a first-rate man-of-war) to any purchaser, so long as the builder is no party to the actual equipment, armament, and preparation of the ship, within Her Majesty's dominions, for warlike purposes, and has no interest or participation in any such hostile designs of the purchaser. If, therefore, although a complete ship be built and delivered within Her Majesty's dominions by the builder, and thence removed by the purchaser, whether afterwards equipped, fitted out, and armed or not, the builder has committed no offence within the meaning of the act.

quipment, fitting out, &c.

แ

To bring the person charged with the offence within the purview of the act, it must be shown that he did, within Her Majesty's dominions, "equip, furnish, fit out, or arm” the ships, or that he "attempted or endeavoured" to do so, or "procured" it to be done, or that he did "knowingly aid or assist" or was concerned” in so doing. The words are comprehensive, and they are disjunctive throughout, although the Chief Baron strongly insisted that "equip, furnish, fit out, or arm” meant the same thing. The law officers of the Crown, and particularly the Solicitor-general, contended that each of these words might have a distinct signification, and that the expression, "fit out," as contradistin

the act.

guished from "arm," was capable of a broader interpre- International and Municipal Law. tation than the mere fitting up with additional appliances, arms, &c., of an already prepared ship of war; and in fact that if a person fitted out a ship for warlike purposes, though stopping short of arming, he was violating the law if he did this with the known intent that the vessel should be used by or in the service of the belligerents for whom it was so fitted out against any other power at peace with the queen. Certainly this would seem to be an act opposed to the spirit if not to the letter of the law. But the intention of the act, Real intention of according to the context, appears to be to prevent Her Majesty's subjects from actually engaging in and taking part in hostile operations against countries in amity with this. They are interdicted from joining in the ranks of the enemy of a friendly state; they must not enlist to serve personally in foreign service without the permission of the state; they must not become personal belligerents by taking part in hostile operations, either by arming and equipping ships to be used by or for one foreign country against another. They must neither equip, furnish, fit out, nor arm British ships, nor augment the armament of foreign ships of war in our ports, They must take no commission to serve in such ships or otherwise as belligerents against a foreign state; but notwithstanding all this, the actual building of ships of any kind, either on speculation or to order, is not prohibited by the act— certainly not expressly forbidden; nor indeed does the word "build," or any synonymous term, occur in a single instance throughout the Foreign Enlistment Act. If it had been contemplated by the Legislature to interdict the building of ships, the omission is most remark- Reason for omitable. But that this omission was intentional appears ting ships.

International and probable, and may find its solution in the fact that Municipal Law. ships of war have for centuries been classed with contraband articles, which may, like arms and ammunition, ay be supplied by neutrals to belligerents at their own risk (ante, pp. 21, 22, 23, and 30).

Neutral rights of shipbuilding.

Such being the received doctrine of international
law and its consequences as to ships, long antecedent
as well as subsequent to the passing of the Foreign
Enlistment Act, a reason is at once furnished for the
non-prohibition of the building and supply of ships,
which, in common with arms and other munitions of
war, were already subject to the risks and penalties
incident to such adventures. From this the argument
as to the parallelism with respect to the equal right of
the foreigner to invoke the exercise of the municipal
law for prohibition of arms, &c., as much as that re-
specting ships, derives additional force. Ships, being
contraband of war, were liable to seizure and confisca-
tion, but no punishment attached to the enlisting and
engagement of neutral subjects as actual participators
in illegal warlike operations, for remedy whereof alone
the passing of the Foreign Enlistment Act appears to
have become necessary, since the exercise of the acknow-
ledged right of neutrals to trade in contraband of war
at their own risk could not endanger the peace and
welfare of the kingdom.

It would seem that the inherent rights of the British
shipbuilder, of the ironfounder, the armourer,
the gun-
smith, &c., to pursue their relative avocations, and to
dispose of their products in the ordinary way of com-
mercial business, are not interfered with; nor is British
enterprise, in seeking to avail itself of the best markets
(though not without risk), paralyzed by statute law,
unless their operations be conducted by them in the

spirit of partisans, and with such an illegal intent as to International and Municipal Law. render them criminal.

out armament.

To constitute the equipping, &c., of a ship an offence Illegal intent. it must be committed with intent, and in "order that "such ship shall be employed in the service" of some foreign belligerent against some foreign state in amity with Her Majesty. If then a ship-builder in this country builds a ship with all the requisite adaptations War ships withand appliances, short only of putting arms on board, for belligerent purposes, and with a knowledge that it is to be used in hostilities against a particular state in amity with the queen, and that the ship when ready in all other respects for offensive operations, is, in order to evade the law, to receive her armament as soon as she gets clear of Her Majesty's dominions-it is contended that this is so far making common cause with the enemy of the friendly state as to establish the illegal intent, and constitute an act of hostility within the meaning of the statute. In short, it is argued that in the application by him (though in the actual construction of the ship) of appliances which are as essential to her use for warlike purposes as are arms, guns, powder and shot, he is de facto fitting out a ship in contravention of the statute.

If, however, this be sound law, the intention must certainly be clearly established, because when in ordinary cases the shipbuilder merely executes a contract-no matter with whom, or whether he is acquainted with the purchaser's intentions or not-the moment he has completed his contract, received his price and delivered his ship, his interest in the vessel is gone, his control over her is entirely at an end, and he can hardly be held responsible for the subsequent acts of the purchaser or perhaps sub-purchaser, or other persons into whose hands she may pass.

E