under the Ionian flag, destined to Taganrog, a Russian port, which was not blockaded, laden with an innocent cargo; that the question raised was, whether this vessel, so sailing, laden and bound, was liable to capture, Great Britain and Russia being at war; that the points bearing upon this question, determined by the Court of Admiralty, were these, shortly stated:

1st. That the declaration of the Ionian Senate, warning all protected subjects of the Queen of Great Britain belonging to the Ionian States to be guided by Her Majesty's declaration, dated London, 28th March, 1854, was not an act placing the Ionian States in the state of warfare with Russia.

2ndly. That with reference to the Treaty of Paris, 1815, which settled the national status of the Ionian Islands, those islands were declared to form a single, free, and independent State, and the Ionian flag acknowledged as the flag of a free and independent State; that consequently it was not the intention of the contracting Powers, or the construction of the treaty, that the Ionian islanders were to be taken either as British subjects, or as necessarily the allies of the Crown of Great Britain in any war, and particularly in a war with one of the Powers which guaranteed that very treaty.

3rdly. That, as in the Convention with the Netherlands in 1852, and in the treaty with Tuscany in December 1854, it was deemed necessary to mention expressly and distinctly the Ionian Islands; so, in order to affect Ionian islanders with any obligations or duties consequent upon a state of warfare between Great Britain and Russia, they should be specially named.

4thly. That no such special reference has been made in respect to the present war with Russia. That, incidentally, reference was made to the Order in Council of the 15th of April, 1854; and that the Court held that Ionian vessels were not "British vessels," within the terms of that order :-1st, under the municipal law; 2nd, under the British flag; 3rd, or as British-owned, though under neutral flag;—and that reference was also made to the provision requiring that every Ionian vessel should be navigated under the pass of the Lord High Commissioner; that the final decision was that Ionian subjects had a right, in the existing state of things, to trade with Russia, and the ship and cargo were restored.

Mr. Merivale was pleased to refer us to the opinions given by us

on the 19th of May, 1854, and on the 10th of May last, on the subject of the position of the Ionian States and Ionian subjects in the present war, and to annex a copy of a despatch from the Lord High Commissioner on the case of the Leucade, with the enclosure; that in the judgment in question, Dr. Lushington says: “I am strongly inclined to think that the necessary and inevitable consequence of such a condition (that created by the second article of the Treaty of Paris, November 5, 1815), is that the King of Great Britain has the right of making war and peace." And Mr. Merivale was further pleased to request that we would report to your Lordship our opinion whether we agree in the view here indicated by Dr. Lushington; and if we do so agree, in what manner should the exercise of this right be declared, so as legally to constitute a state of war (assuming, for the present, on the authority of the judgment, that such a state does not now exist) between the Ionian States and Russia, and by what authority publicly notified in the Ionian Islands? If, on the contrary, we are of opinion that any declaration, or other formal notification of war, should be made by the authorities of the Ionian States, then we are requested to advise in what manner, and by what authorities, regard being had to the language of the Ionian charter?

In obedience, to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to report that, although the questions put to us refer more immediately to the right of the Sovereign of Great Britain of making peace and war with reference to Ionia, and, if such right exists, to the mode in which it should be exercised; yet we infer, from the reference to the case of the Leucade, and the judgment of Dr. Lushington thereon, that it is desired that we should state our view as to the liability of vessels belonging to Ionians, trading with an enemy of this country, to seizure and condemnation.

As regards the right of the Sovereign of Great Britain to prescribe to the Ionian State its course of political action, we fully adhere to the opinion contained in our report of May 19, 1854, as to the relation of the Ionian Islands to this country. We are, however, of opinion that a mere declaration of war by the Sovereign of Great Britain, will not have the effect of placing the Ionian Republic in a state of warfare with the foreign Power against which such declaration of war is made. It is necessary to

observe that the relation between the Crown of Great Britain and the Ionian Republic is certainly anomalous in its character, and questions regarding it scarcely admit of being tried by the application of ordinary rules and principles. The right of appointing the supreme Governor of the States, the military occupation and possession of the islands, the command of the Ionian forces and the power of augmenting them in time of war, the right of conducting all the foreign relations of the Republic, and the power of convoking and dissolving the Senate, are the chief prerogative rights secured to and vested in the Crown of England by the Treaty of Paris and the charter of the Ionian States; and we think they necessarily involve the power of declaring war and making peace. On the other hand, the internal government of the country is in the hands of the Ionian Legislature and of the Senate, in the latter of which bodies (independently of the British Commissioner), the civil executive is vested. Thus the Ionian State is, as regards its foreign relations, dependent on this country, while with reference to its internal government it remains an independent State. Hence a double executive-the British Commissioner representing the State in its foreign relations and military government, the Senate conducting the civil affairs of the country.

It becomes necessary to bear in mind this distinction and division of powers, in considering the effect of what has hitherto been done with respect to the relation of Ionia towards Russia, or what it may be further necessary to do. It appears that all that has hitherto been done is that Her Majesty's proclamation of war against Russia, as Sovereign of Great Britain, has been transmitted to Ionia, and has there been published by the Senate for the guidance of Ionian subjects.

It appears to us that this is insufficient to place the Ionian State in a state of war with Russia. The Ionian Senate possessing no authority whatever with reference to the foreign relations of the country, no act of theirs can have any efficacy towards placing the subjects of Ionia in a state of warfare with Russia. A proclamation of war, or an act of which the purpose is to place Ionia in such a relation, should proceed either immediately from the Sovereign of Great Britain as the protecting Power, or from the Lord High Commissioner as the representative of the Sovereign in

Ionia with reference to the external relations of the country. It remains to be considered whether a mere declaration of war by the Sovereign of Great Britain, as such, produces any and what effect with reference to the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands. By the criminal code of the Ionian State, it is declared to be high treason in an Ionian subject to adhere to the enemies of the Ionian State or of the protecting Power. We have no doubt that, after Her Majesty's declaration of war, an Ionian subject entering into the service of Russia, or otherwise assisting the enemy, would be guilty of high treason, and liable to be punished accordingly. This, however, does not lead to the conclusion that Ionian subjects are prohibited from trading with an enemy of this country. The criminal code to which we have referred, is minute in its enumeration of the particular acts which amount to an adhering to the foreign enemy. It does not include amongst them the trading with the enemy: and although by the general laws of this and other countries, the act of trading with an enemy, though not amounting to treason, is nevertheless prohibited, as incompatible with the duties of the subject during war; yet as the relation of the Ionians to Her Majesty is not that of subjects, we think it more than doubtful whether such a principle would apply to them as flowing by implication from the provisions of the criminal code to which we have above referred. No doubt, if by the exercise of the power vested in the Sovereign of determining the foreign relations of the Ionian State, the latter should be placed in a state of warfare with Russia, the right of trading with the enemy would thenceforth be determined; but it must be borne in mind that by the Order in Council of the 15th of April, 1854, liberty has been given even to British subjects to trade with the enemy, provided such trade be not carried on in British vessels: under such circumstances, it would probably be thought right (if Ionia should be placed in a state of war with Russia) to extend a similar permission to Ionian subjects.

With regard to the case of the Leucade, upon which the question as to the relation of Ionian subjects to this country has more immediately arisen, we are of opinion that that vessel was not properly subject to seizure and condemnation-firstly, because, for the reasons we have above detailed, we do not consider Ionians as British subjects, or as prohibited, under existing circumstances, from

trading with the enemy; secondly, because, if Ionians were to be considered as British subjects, and prohibited from so trading, they would be entitled to the benefit of the concession to the British subjects of the right to trade with the enemy otherwise than in British ships; and we are clearly of opinion that in no sense can an Ionian vessel be held to be a British vessel. Therefore, although we cannot bring ourselves to concur in much of the reasoning in the judgment of the learned Judge of the Admiralty Court in the recent case of the Leucade, we find ourselves compelled to concur in the conclusion at which he has arrived, that the ship of an Ionian subject trading with Russia, but without breaking blockade, is not, under existing circumstances, liable to seizure and condemnation.

The Right Hon. Lord J. Russell, M.P.,

&c. &c. &c.

J. D. HARDING.

A. E. COCKBURN.
RICHARD BETHELL.

(3.) JOINT OPINION of the same Law Officers, that the Queen can, by her Declaration of War, place the Ionian Republic in a state of hostility towards another country.

Temple, August 21, 1855.

SIR,-We were favoured with your letter of the 23rd ultimo,. stating you were directed by Lord John Russell to refer us to the following passage in our report of the 11th July on the case of the Leucade:

"A proclamation of war, or an act of which the purpose is to place Ionia in such a relation (i.e., of warfare with Russia), should proceed either immediately from the Sovereign of Great Britain as the protecting Power, or from the Lord High Commissioner as the representative of the Sovereign in Ionia with reference to the external relations of the country."

You also stated you were to request that we would inform Lord John Russell, whether it is our intention by this passage to affirm that the Queen, as protecting Power, has the right to constitute by her own act this state of hostility?

And whether, if such is our opinion, the annexed draft of a declaration (with any amendment we might suggest) appears to us