as if she were a recognised British ship.” Well now, I think—I am taking an extreme case that the ship has never been registered at all, I am not giving my judgment on the view that she was registered and then partially altered, I am taking a bald case of a ship not being registered at all—that the effect of the consequences is pointed out by sect. 106. These are the consequences: namely, that she shall not be entitled to any benefits, privileges, advantages, or protection, usually enjoyed by British ships, and shall not be entitled to use the British flag or assume the British national character, and that because she has not been registered she loses those advantages, and though she loses them there shall be still attached to her all the pains and penalties and punishments for offences as a recognised British ship. I see that is the view taken by a learned writer on shipping—MacLachlan on _Merchant Shipping_ (4th ed.), at p. 96—and it appears to me, though it was not necessary for his judgment, that Brett, L.J., in the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China _v._ The Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., 10 Q. B. D. 521, takes exactly the same view. It is true that he speaks of a contract outside of the statute, but he is speaking of the statute. He said that it was contended that the ship was not a British ship, and was a Dutch ship because registered in Holland; but he says he does not think the contention has any foundation at all. If the ship is owned by a British subject, that makes it a British ship, and the flying of a flag and the registration, wherever made, are not material. The question is, who is she owned by? The fact that she is not registered deprives her of advantages, and leaves her open to pains and penalties. On that ground alone I am prepared to overrule this point, because this ship, the _Alert_, was owned by British subjects, and that being so, I feel tolerably clear that she was a British ship, and a British ship within the meaning of sect. 103. I think it absolutely immaterial whether she was registered or not. That is the main ground for my judgment. There are other grounds which it is difficult for the defendants to get over. For the purpose of saving expense, an interrogatory was delivered to the defendants asking, “Were you at the date of the accident the registered owners of the _Alert_?” and the defendants on their oaths said “Yes, we were”; and in addition to that there is no doubt about the fact that for years since the alteration of her three masts to one, the _Alert_ has been going in and out of port and enjoying every advantage as if she were a British ship; and now at a very late stage, and for the purpose of defeating an action, they say we were not. But I do not base my judgment so much on that ground as on the main ground. I think the new trial should take place.