Finding that the Full Court decision was against them, Messrs. Huddart, Parker & Co.’s lawyers changed their tactics. With the object of quashing the whole proceedings, they raised the point that the _Alert_ was not a British ship within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act. This point was fully recognised on March 24, 1897, before the same Supreme Court Judges who decided the appeal case. Mr. Schutt (barrister) appeared for Huddart, Parker & Co., and Mr. W. H. Williams (barrister) appeared for Ponting. As the matter debated is of great importance to all concerned in shipping interests, it has been deemed advisable to adhere to the authentic verbatim reports of the proceedings as given in the _Herald_ newspaper, March 24, 1897, and the _Argus Law Reports_ of May 11th, 1897, hereto annexed:— “WHAT IS A BRITISH SHIP? SCHUTT for the respondents.—The plaintiff brings his action under sect. 103 of the Marine Act 1890. That section comes within Part VI. of the Act, and therefore has to be read with sect. 98, which says that the provision of that Part “shall apply to all British ships registered or being at any place within Victoria and to no others.” Thus, although sect. 103 only uses the word “ship,” it can only apply to a “British ship.” The Imperial Act, 39 and 40 Vict., c. 80, sect. 5, corresponds to our sect. 103; but this question could not arise in England, because there is no equivalent to sect. 98 in the Imperial legislation. We have, however, to refer to the Imperial legislation to find out what is a “British ship”; and we find that, by sects. 18 and 19 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, 17 & 18 Vict., c. 104, which two sections it is submitted are to be read together, a British ship must be owned by a British owner, and must be registered. By sect. 17 of the same Act, Part II. of the Act, under which sects. 18 and 19 are, is to apply to the whole of the British dominions. Again, if any alteration of the ship be made, re-registration is required by sect. 84 _et seq._, which, if not done by sect. 87, the ship shall not be deemed duly registered, and shall no longer be recognised as a British ship. In this case the _Alert_, when originally registered, had three masts. The number of her masts was subsequently altered, but she was never re-registered; she is, therefore, not now a British ship, and the plaintiff has no cause of action. [W. H. WILLIAMS referred to _Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China_ v. _Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co._, 10 Q. B. D. 521; 52 L. J. Q. B. 220, per Brett, L. J., as to the meaning of “British ship.”] That case is distinguishable, the question there being whether a certain rule of the Admiralty Court as to the equal liability of the two ships should apply, and, accordingly, whether Dutch or English law was applicable. The ships were there held to be English because owned by English owners, although registered in Holland. The question