who by marrying a foreigner acquires his nationality, must within a year dispose of his or her interest in an Italian ship in excess of the third which foreigners are entitled to own (Art. 41).

Art. 71 of the Code requires that in fitting out an Italian ship the master and at least two-thirds of the crew must be Italians. In foreign ports, however, consular authorities may, in case of necessity, permit foreign seamen to be shipped in excess of the allowed proportion. Then follows a declaration that it is not permissible to let foreigners fill the office of master or mate, unless this has become necessary from the impossibility of procuring Italians. Failing qualified foreigners, or when the consul does not think it advisable to employ them, an Italian of inferior grade may be put in command of a ship.

It is worth noticing that, except in the case of a judicial sale, the sale of an Italian ship to an unqualified foreigner is null and void, unless the permission of the maritime authority if the ship is in the realm, or that of the consular authority if she is abroad, has been obtained. This permission will not be given if there be registered mortgages or bottomry bonds on the ship, or if the sale be opposed by privileged creditors (Mercantile Marine Code, Art. 48). Privileged claims are claims which take priority over other debts and even over mortgages. They include claims for certain law costs, for wages, for debts due to the State, etc. (see Civil Code, Arts. 1950–60).

Law of Holland.—The ownership of Dutch ships is regulated by a Law of the 28th May, 1869. A remarkable feature of the Dutch law is that domicil in the country, instead of nationality, is the qualification for owning Dutch ships. A ship may be registered under the Dutch flag when it belongs as to more than one-half to (1) persons domiciled in Holland; (2) partnerships or commandite companies established in Holland, provided that at least one half of the partners or personally responsible members are domiciled in Holland; (3) limited liability companies or corporations established in Holland in conformity with Dutch law, provided that at least one-half of the directors are domiciled in Holland.

For the purposes of this Law persons domiciled in Holland include (1) Dutchmen residing in Holland; (2) all other persons who have resided. there for a year when registration is applied for. The certificate of registry becomes void when the ownership of the ship becomes entirely vested in foreigners. In other cases, when unqualified persons become interested while the ship is abroad, the certificate does not become void until the ship returns to Holland.

Law of Sweden. -By the Maritime Code of 1891, a Swedish ship must as to two-thirds be owned by Swedish subjects, or by a partnership of Swedes and Norwegians, or by a company divided into shares having its principal place of business in the kingdom and consisting of Swedish subjects. The manager must always be a Swede and be domiciled in Sweden (Art. 1).

A sale of a share in a Swedish ship to a foreigner without the consent of

all the co-owners is null and void, when by reason of such sale the ship forfeits its national character. When by succession a foreigner has become the owner of such an interest in a Swedish ship as entails the loss of Swedish nationality by the ship, or when the same result would be caused by the naturalisation of a part-owner in a foreign State, he must sell such a part of his interest as will enable the ship to remain under the Swedish flag; otherwise his co-owners may compel a sale thereof (Art. 5).

The master, mate, and three-fourths of the crew must be Swedes or Norwegians; but in foreign parts alien sailors in excess of one-fourth may be shipped (Royal Ordinance of the 31st December 1891).

Law of Norway.-Art. 1 of the Maritime Law of the 20th July, 1893, requires a Norwegian ship to be owned exclusively by Norwegians or, provided that the managing owner is a Norwegian domiciled in Norway, by Swedes and Norwegians. When a ship is owned by a limited liability company (Aktieselskab), the chief place of business must be in Norway, and all the directors must be shareholders and Norwegians. As in Sweden, a share in a ship may not be sold to a foreigner without the consent of the co-owners when it entails the loss of nationality, and a foreigner must sell an interest in a Norwegian ship which he has acquired by succession (Art. 20).

NAVAL OR VICTUALLING STORES: THE

RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION

[Contributed by R. G. MARSDEN, ESQ.]

Naval Prize Bill, 1902, s. 34: Its History.-S. 34 of the Naval Prize (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill now before Parliament has a history which takes us back directly to the war of 1744, and possibly much earlier to the Scottish war of Henry VIII. It purports to enable the Admiralty to purchase "naval or victualling stores" on board a foreign ship "taken or brought into a port of the United Kingdom," and to enable the Commissioners of Customs to "permit the stores purchased to be entered and landed within any port." If this clause passes into law, it is probable that during the next naval war its purport and effect will become the subject of discussion in the Courts and Chanceries, not only of this, but of other countries, both neutral and belligerent. The action of the English Government in this matter-namely, preventing the supply of victuals to the enemy in time of war-has varied, considerably during the past three centuries; and the records of our Admiralty Court, the most authentic source of information upon this subject, throw upon it some light which does not seem to have been hitherto noted.

Scottish War in time of Henry VIII.: Pre-emption of Contraband.-The right of pre-emption was asserted by a proclamation of Henry VIII. declaring that he would seize ships "laden with victualls or artillary or any other thing comyng out of France to Scotland to the intente to ayde or succour the same realme of Scotland. . . gyffyng the merchaunts thereof the hole sumes that so shulde arise or growe of the same goods so taken." This lenient treatment of neutrals, who supply the enemy with munitions of war, has never since been adopted; but the seizure and compulsory purchase of victuals destined for the enemy's country generally is more severe on neutrals than is usual in modern times.

Spanish War in time of Elizabeth.-About forty years after Henry VIII.'s Scottish war, the United Provinces, having revolted from Spain, and being at the time assisted by Elizabeth, in 1584 issued a proclamation prohibiting the supply of war material or victuals to ports of the Spanish Netherlands. This received the assent of Elizabeth and her emissary, the Earl of Leicester, and it was enforced by the Admiralty Court of England. A

few years afterwards, in 1587, when open war between England and Spain was imminent, a fleet of Easterling ships bound to Spain was stayed by Elizabeth at Falmouth, and searched for "Spanish preparations, munitions, or victuals." In 1589, the year after war had broken out, Elizabeth warned the Hanse towns, from which Philip had drawn most of his naval supplies for the Armada of the previous year, that she would seize and condemn as prize ships carrying war or shipping materials or victuals to Spain. In 1591 she fulfilled her threat; four Hamburg ships were captured by the Earl of Cumberland, and their cargoes of corn, canvas, and other naval stores were condemned. Ships and cargoes belonging to the Mediterranean States and other neutral Powers were treated in the same way. Munitions of war and shipping materials were invariably confiscated; but in the case of provisions a concession was made to neutral shipowners in restoring to them their ships and paying them freight. As regards the Hollanders a curious state of things prevailed. They were at war with Spain and were allies of England; but this did not prevent their carrying on a lucrative trade with Spain, in the course of which they supplied Philip with war material, ships, and victuals. Elizabeth was furious at what she held to be the treason of her allies; their ships were captured and the cargoes of corn, munitions of war, and shipping material condemned. In vain the Hollanders protested that they could not live without their carrying trade, and that if Elizabeth seized their ships they must leave her protection and submit to Spain. Restitution of their ships and payment of freight of corn cargoes did not satisfy them. That this was a concession to neutrals and more than their due, in the opinion of Dr. Cæsar, the judge of the Admiralty, is evident from a letter which he wrote to the Council, by whose direction he was compelled unwillingly to pass sentences of restitution of ships and freight. By the law of nations, as he understood it, the captors were entitled to condemnation of both ship and cargo as prize. In the letter above referred to, after protesting that "the due consideration of this point of policie is farre above the rech of his poor capacitie," he writes that if the Queen would only order "that no man should meddle in Admiralty causes, but only the said admiral and his judge, and that only by ordinary course of justice, which is by the civill and maritime law, the truest and most indifferent judge between all nations, then justice would be equally administered both to strangers and subjects; the Flemings should have no juste cause for further complaints, and the poor Englishmen should find sufficient cause of sound and full contentment; and, above all, her Majesty shall reape the greatest benefit, whose Highness shall enjoy contented neighbours, rich subjects, and full coffers, things most acceptable in these times."

Whether Dr. Cæsar was right in his view that by the law of nations, as then understood, ships carrying war material and victuals to the enemy were, together with their cargoes, good prize, is not quite clear. Probably he was

right, but Elizabeth and her Council were not prepared to go that length. The Admiralty Court of that day was scarcely an independent tribunal. Its judge had to take much of his law from the Council, and the orders of the Council as to what ships and goods should be condemned had to obeyed by him. By orders of the Council issued in 1591 and 1592 innocent goods and neutral ships were directed to be restored and freight to be paid on corn cargoes; and, except in special cases, as where the neutral ship resisted search, Dutch, Hamburg, and Venetian ships were invariably restored, with freight.

In 1599 a Hamburg ship was brought in with corn on board for Spain. For some reason which does not appear, the owners of the corn received more favourable treatment. The Queen was advised to buy it, and it was discharged for her use. A difficulty arose in consequence of the previous order of the Council as to payment of freight. The commissioners appointed to discharge the corn asked who was to pay the freight. They were told that they were raising needless difficulties; as to the freight, "you might easilie conceive that there is none payable by her Majestie "—for she might, if she pleased, confiscate the corn; and if, out of grace, she paid for it, the shipowner must look for his freight to the "receivers of it "-meaning apparently the receivers of the purchase money. This appears to be the only case in which pre-emption was exercised until the eighteenth century. No similar case has been found amongst the records of the Admiralty Court, either during the Scotch war of Henry VIII. or subsequently; but it is possible that some cargoes were paid for during the war of Queen Anne's reign, under the Order in Council mentioned below.

Spanish War in time of Charles I.-By the treaty of Southampton, concluded in 1625 between England and Holland, munitions of war and victuals (munitions de bouche et de guerre) were declared contraband, and ships carrying them to be prizable. By a proclamation of the following year this was explained to mean that corn, grain, victuals of all sorts, together with a number of articles enumerated as munitions of war, if destined for a Spanish port, were contraband, "according to Acts of State in the time of Queen Elizabeth."

Dutch Wars of Charles II.-Instructions issued to privateers in the Dutch wars of 1665 and 1672 declared ships carrying victuals to Holland, together with their cargoes, to be good prize. Seizure and condemnation of French ships immediately raised a difficulty with France. The French Ambassador objected strongly to the seizure of victuals as contraband, as well as to the condemnation of French ships carrying Holland goods.

Wars of William and Mary.-Privateers' instructions issued for the French war of 1689 contained no express declaration as to corn or contraband. They merely directed the bringing in of French ships and goods, "and such other ships, vessels, and goods as are or shall be liable to confiscation." No case in which corn was condemned as contraband has been discovered;