ney may be brought over to England rpose of being applied to the payment tion of any such claims," ims " "to and among the several claimants whose names are duly entered in the said registers." To no other persons had the Commissioners any authority to make such payment. The money, by being paid over by the Commissioners, did not get into the hands of the Crown as trustee for any unsatisfied claimant; it was paid to the Lords of the Treasury for public purposes. But even e mentioned, not merely registered if the money had so found its way into the case all such claims shall be paid or -d,” possession of the Crown, that would not dispense with the necessity of proving a claim to it in the manner required by the statute. Before it was so paid over, the claimant, if he had any legal title to it, had a legal remedy to enforce that title, and there is nothing either in the conventions or the statute which allows the money to be disposed of, except by such tribunals as are thereby constituted. Lord TRURO, L.C.: It is admitted law, that if the subject of a country is spoliated by a foreign government, he is entitled to obtain redress from the foreign government through the means of his own government. But if, from weakness, timidity, or any other cause on the part of his own government no redress is obtained from the foreigner, then he has a claim against his own country. Here is a compromise of the two governments: the question is, how far his claim is affected by it. Attorney General: The question has never been put by the claimant in that way; but if so put, then the answer is, that he has waived any such mode of putting his claim by having preferred it under the terms of the conventions entered into between the two governments. If his case is not within this statute, then he must go on the conventions, and then he is not in a condition to satisfy them. Lord TRURO, L.C.: Suppose a sum of money to be in the hands of a public officer, destined to a given purpose, and with directions that should there be a surplus, he was to apply it as A.B. might direct; and A.B., before the destined purpose was fully answered, induced the public officer to pay over the fund, by which the officer was rendered incompetent to discharge his duty. Might not a person thereby injured maintain an action against A.B., who had rendered the public officer unable to discharge his duty? could maintain would be an action of Attorney General: The only action he tort, and tort is not maintainable against the Crown; so that the two cases are not analogous. Besides which, the Lords of the Treasury in this case did not act as servants of the Crown, but as sioners. In one case (a) the Commis. sioners of Woods and Forests, who had taken certain lands expressly in the name of the Crown, were treated as statutory officers, and a mandamus was for that reason granted against them by the Court of Queen's Bench, on the ground that they had a particular statutory duty to perform, and were not the mere servants of the Crown. That case applies here, and shows that the only remedy of the claimant is under the statute. Manning, Serjt., in reply: The fact of an adjudication by the Commissioners unfavourable to the claimant having taken place, is no answer to him here. That ad judication proceeded on three grounds, two of which have now been found to be false in fact; the third was false in law. The omission to register the name was the fault of the Commissioners, not of the claimant. Now, suppose the Crown had never issued a commission at all, when of course no names whatever could have been registered, surely it cannot be said that that would have barred the right of those who have claims under the conventions. The enactments of the statute have not been properly complied with by the Commissioners, and they, therefore, or the Crown, whose servants they were, cannot set it up against the claimant, for he did all in his power to obey its enactments; but being by their wrongful or negligent act deprived of its benefits, he is now en titled to avail himself of this common law remedy. : Lord TRURO, L.C. The argument which has been addressed to your Lordships relates to a case, the discussion of which has extended over a long period of time, and has involved many intricate questions. But the case, as it is now presented to you, was decided in the Court below on the construction of the 59 Geo. 3. c. 31.; and if the construction then put on that statute is correct, and is one which you ought to adopt, it goes to the decision of the whole matter. For that reason it was thought right, as a matter of convenience, to call on the counsel to argue that point first. Upon that argument I propose to put the following question to the judges: "Has an individual who claims to be entitled to compensation under the treaties mentioned in the Statute of 59 Geo. 3 c. 31., or one of them, or under the same treaties or one of them, and the said statute, or under the statute, any other and what remedy, by which to recover such compensation, except by application (a) Reg. v. Commissioners of Woods and Forests. 15 Q.B., 761 note. See also The King v. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 4 A. & E., 286. to the commissioners, and by appeal from their decision to the King in Council, according to the provisions of the statute?" That question will raise the point whether he is barred by what has been done under the statute, and the decision on that point, in one way, may save the necessity of discussing any other question. The question was put and agreed to. POLLOCK, C.B., in the name of the rest of the judges, required time to answer it, which was granted. POLLOCK, C.B.: Your Lordships having proposed to the Judges the following question: [The learned Judge read the question] I have to report to your Lordships the unanimous opinion of the judges present, that, according to the construction of the statute, all the money received from the French government, by virtue of the treaties or conventions referred to, ought to be applied according to its directions, and that the suppliant has no claim except under the statute, and in the mode pointed out by its pro visions. We think that there is no foundation for a claim under a petition of right, and we are all clearly of opinion that the statute does dispose of the whole fund, and direct how it is to be applied. The argument for the suppliant is, tha it disposes only of such part of the fun as would be sufficient to satisfy all th claimants whose names were on th register before the passing of the Ac leaving the surplus in the hands of th Crown, liable to the claims of tho British subjects which had been preferr by them within three months, accordi to the conventions; and that the su pliant's claim, though not entered in t register before the Act, was preferr within three months (two facts found the inquisition to be true). If such v the construction of the statute, it wo be necessary to consider what was liability of the sovereign of this coun and his successors if the Act had passed. But we are all satisfied that s is not the construction of the Act, but it meant to provide for the applicatio the whole fund, and leave no part to dealt with except under its enactme Any claimant, therefore, upon the f must, in our opinion, proceed accor to the provisions of the statute, and no other remedy. In answering the question propose your Lordships, we have not thoug necessary to state our reasons in d because we unanimously concur in judgment pronounced by the Cou Exchequer Chamber, and in the re given for that judgment. TRURO, L.C. My Lords, the in this case being simply a of law, that is to say, the cona of the statute referred to in the of the learned judges, and the judges having now given to the their opinion that, by the true ction of the statute, the only which persons have who make laim for compensation upon the of the particular treaties menin the statute, is according to the ons of that statate, the whole en raised by the writ of error before Lordships is disposed of by that n. The learned judges have stated view of that statute. They have ed also to the judgment of the of Exchequer Chamber, in which easons upon which that construction nded are contained more at large. - such a question, and under the mstances, having the unanimous on of the judges, it does not appear e that any thing can be added which ad elucidate the question or the proy of the opinion of the learned judges. all therefore recommend to your Lordes that, in this case, the appeal should ismissed, and the judgment below be In re THE ISLAND OF CAPE BRETON. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON A PETITION FROM THE ISLAND OF CAPE BRETON, REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE CROWN,(a) APRIL 1, 6, 7, 10, 1846. (Reported in 5 Moo. P.C. 259.) In 1763 the Island of Cape Breton, which had been ceded by France to Great Britain, was annexed by Royal proclamation to the government of Nova Scotia, and subsequently made part of the county of Halifax. In 1765 it was constituted a separate county, to return two members to the General Assembly of Nova Scotia, but no members were returned, as the franchise was in the freeholders, and there were no freeholders in Cape Breton; and in 1770 the Island was re-annexed to the county of Halifax. In 1784 the Governor of Nova Scotia received a new commission, providing for the government of Cape Breton by a Lieutenant-Governor, Council, and General Assembly of the Island; but the accompanying instructions provided that, as the situation and circumstances of Cape Breton did not then admit the calling of an Assembly, until it should appear expedient to call such Assembly, the government of the Island should be vested in the Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor and Council, with powers to make rules and regulations for the peace, order and good government of the Island, but so as not to affect life, limb, or liberty of the subject, or to impose any duties or taxes. No Assembly was ever called for Cape Breton, and in 1820, by the terms of a new commission to the Governor of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton was re-annexed to the province of Nova Scotia, and afterwards returned two members to the Assembly at Halifax. Some of the inhabitants having in 1843 petitioned against such annexation to Nova Scotia as illegal, on the ground that the Crown could not by the exercise of the prerogative revoke a constitution once granted to a colony and annex it to another colony, and prayed for the restoration of the constitution granted by Letters Patent in 1784, the petition was referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Held by the Judicial Committee That the inhabitants of the Island of Cape Breton were not by law entitled to the constitution purporting to be granted to them by the Letters Patent of 1784.(b) (a) Present, Duke of Buccleugh (Lord President), Lord Lyndhurst, L.C., Lord Cottenhan Lord Langdale, M.R., Lord Campbell, Dr. Lushington, and Pemberton Leigh (afterwards Lo Kingsdown). (b) The severance of the Turks Islands from the Bahamas in 1848 was effected by act of t Bahama Legislature. The islands were then constituted a separate government by the Crown Order in Council. Afterwards, it having been decided to annex them to Jamaica, an Imper Act, 36 & 37 Vict. c. 6., was obtained to enable Her Majesty by Order in Council to effect t annexation. This was a petition presented to the Crown by certain of the inhabitants of Cape Breton against a Proclamation annexing that island to Nova Scotia, and praying for the restoration of the constitution granted to the island by King George III. in 1784. The petition, which raised the question of the power of the Crown to sever and unite colonies enjoying constitutions previously granted by the Crown, was filed on the 2nd February 1843, and referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. material facts were as follows:: The Under the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, Nova Scotia or Acadia was ceded by France to England, and Cape Breton remained a French possession. In 1719, Nova Scotia was erected into a separate province by Letters Patent, appointing Richard Phillips governor of Placentia in Newfoundland, and captain-general and governor-in-chief of the province of Nova Scotia or Acadia. In 1720, Governor In 1 Phillips, in accordance with his instr In February 1762, under the Trea Paris, the Island of Cape Breton was o by France to Great Britain. On October 7, 1763, King George issued a proclamation regulating government and constitution of th minions in America acquired by Treaty of Paris: "We have thought fit with the advice Privy Council to issue this our royal pro tion, hereby to publish and declare to loving subjects that we have with the ad 1 Privy Council granted our letters nder our great seal of Great Britain, within the countries and islands ceded irmed to us by the said treaty four disid separate governments, styled and y the names of Quebec, East Florida, lorida, and Grenada, and limited and I as follows" : proclamation set out the boundaries said four new governments, which t include either Cape Breton or Nova , and proceeded : e have also with the advice of our Privy 1, thought fit to annex the Islands of an and Cape Breton, or Isle Royale, with sser islands adjacent thereto, to our ment of Nova Scotia. e have also with the advice of our Privy il aforesaid, annexed to our province of ia all the lands lying between the rivers tamaha and St. Mary. And whereas it will greatly contribute to the ng of our said new governments that our g subjects should be informed of our nal care for the securing of the liberty properties of those who are or shall be einhabitants thereof, We have thought o publish and declare by this our proclaon that We have in the Letters Patent under great seal of Great Britain, by which the governments are constituted, given exss power and direction to our governors our said colonies respectively that, so soon the state and circumstances of the said onies will admit thereof, they shall with the wice and consent of the members of our uncil, summon and call General Assemblies thin the said governments, respectively, in ch manner and form as is required and rected in these colonies and provinces in merica, which are under our immediate (a) overnment." In accordance with the clause in the bove proclamation relating to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, a commission ssued under the great seal in October 763, which, after revoking the commission of the previous Governor of Nova Scotia and everything therein contained, appointed Montagu Wilmot Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the province of Nova Scotia, including the Islands of Cape Breton and St. John's, and proceeded: "And We do hereby require and command you to do and execute all things in due manner that shall belong unto your said command, and the trust we have reposed in you, according to the several powers and authorities granted or appointed you by the present commission, and the instructions herewith given you, or by such further powers, instructions, or authorities as shall at any time hereafter be granted or appointed you under our signet and sign manual as by |