A.—2

8

factory to the commanding officers of the capturing vessels, if they were left to select for themselves, in each case, a legal practitioner to take the necessary proceedings in the Vice-Admiralty Court. Ho pointed out that Naval officers generally are indisposed to make sufficient allowance for the delays and difficulties which are inseparable from legal proceedings, and that when prosecutions in which they are interested do not progress as smoothly and rapidly as they desire, they are apt to ascribe it to the want of zeal in the prosecution, and to think that local influences are being brought to bear in the conduct of the case. Mr. Williams thinks that these suspicions w rould be strengthened if naval officers were required, or expected, in every case to employ a permanent Crown Prosecutor, and that it would therefore be better to leave them free to make their own selection. 4. But I think there is another view of the case fljkich is deserving the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In ordinary cases instituted in Vice-Admiralty Courts on behalf of Her Majesty's ships in the manner prescribed in Her Majesty's Order in Council of the 9th September, 1865, the proceedings would appear to be undertaken at the risk and expense of the captors, and in such cases it would no doubt be only right and fair that the seizing officer should be allowed to select his own counsel to take the necessary proceedings on his behalf. But it is understood here, whether correctly or not I do not know, that cases instituted in Vice-Admiralty, under the Kidnapping Act of 1872, are undertaken at the risk and expense of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, under the 19th section of the Act. If this view be correct, it appears to me that the Home Government, and not the seizing officer, is the party most interested in such cases, and that the only practicable check which Her Majesty's Government can exercise over such proceedings will be by the appointment of a proctor of high character to prosecute for the Crown in all proceedings under the Kidnapping Act. Such an officer might be instructed to institute and continue proceedings only in cases which may seem to him, after conferring with the senior Naval officer, to call for prosecution upon their merits, and in which there may appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the legal evidence available is sufficient for conviction. 5. The cases of the "Melanie" and the " Challenge," recently tried in the Vice-Admiralty Court here, appear to show the necessity for some such check as I have hero suggested. These vessels were not employed in the coolie traffic, which it was the object of the Kidnapping Act to suppress, but in the pearl fishery and becbe-de-mer trade, for which, apparently through oversight, no provision has been made by the Act. The Court held that these vessels had infringed the letter but not the spirit of the law, and, whilst formally condemning them, unanimously recommended their restitution. If these cases had failed, as they would have done if they had been tried on their merits, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury would have been called on to pay the costs on both sides, amounting probably to not less than £1,200. Even as it is, it appears possible that the Home Government may have to incur considerable expense, as, after the strong opinion expressed by the Court, it will perhaps be felt to be scarcely just to call upon the defendants in these cases to pay the Crown costs, which amount, as I have shown in another despatch, to over £550. I have, &c, The Eight Hon. the Earl of Kimberley. Hercules Robinson. Sub-Enclosure to Enclosure 1 in No. 11. John Williams, Esq., to Sir Heecules Bobinson. (No. 709.) Sic, — Crown Solicitor's Office, Sydney, 28th November, 1873. I have the honor to return herewith Despatch No. 53, upon the subject of my appointment to act as Queen's Proctor in the Vice-Admiralty Court in cases under the Kidnapping Act of 1872. It will be in the recollection of your Excellency that I have always advised that it is the right of any officer making a seizure to employ any Proctor he might think fit to take the necessary proceedings in the Vice-Admiralty Court to obtain a condemnation of his prize; and that I did not seek for the appointment of Crown Proctor, which was conferred upon me under the following circumstances : — When the officer in charge of the " Melanie" and the " Challenge "'arrived here, he brought with him an authority signed by Captain Moresby, and addressed to the Queen's Proctor, directing that proceedings on behalf of Captain Moresby and the officers and crew of the "Basilisk" should be instituted against the vessels. He called upon me on the subject, and I explained to him that there was no person in the colony holding that office ; and although the office I held was the one most nearly approaching that of the Crown Proctor, I did not in fact hold that office, and was therefore not justified in acting under the authorities addressed to the Crown Proctor, and I suggested that, in the absence of the Commodore, he should consult your Excellency. This he did, and eventually I was directed by the Attorney-General, as Crown Solicitor, to attend to the cases. I objected to this, as not being in any way part of my official duty as Crown Solicitor, as the suits against the vessels would not be at the instance of the Crown, but of the seizing officer, who had a considerable private interest in the result, and, under the Admiralty Regulations respecting prize suits, would be, I thought, liable personally for costs in the event of an adverse decision. As, however, there was no one in the colony empowered to act for Captain Moresby, I took the cases in hand, and, having been by your Excellency's letter appointed Crown Proctor, continued to conduct them until decrees were obtained. My chief object in wishing to be appointed Crown Proctor was to protect myself against being called upon to undertake suits of the description referred to as part of my duty as Crown Solicitor, and without reference to my own wish in the matter, or my having a claim for the costs if so acting. In the letter of Mr. Lushington to the Under Secretary for tho Colonies, of date 18th August last, it is stated that my Lords do not consider that it will be necessary to appoint cither a Queen's Proctor or an Admiralty Proctor in the Vice-Admiralty Courts of the colonies. I therefore resign the appointment of Queen's Proctor which your Excellency's letter conferred upon me, and respectfully request that you will be pleased to intimate your acceptance of such resignation.