It is very doubtful whether the outrage imputed, in this instance, to the Dutch Governor, was perpetrated, or even attempted. The buccaneers, English, French, and Dutch, began by uniting their efforts against the Spaniards. After a time they "fell out" (as thieves will sometimes do), and, turning from the common enemy, they directed their marauding operations against each other. It was doubtless during one of these that the Dutch captured the English ship in question; detaining the passengers and crew at St. Martin, in the hope of extorting some considerable ransom for their release. When, therefore, the English Governor threatened to complain to the States-General of the "reduction to slavery of English subjects," we must presume that, by the words "reducing to slavery," he meant to describe the forcible _detention_ of the passengers and crew; and that, in doing so, he merely resorted to the expedient of magnifying a common act of piracy into an outrage of a more heinous character, with the view of frightening the Dutch authorities into a compliance with his wishes, and obtaining the restitution of the property and subjects of his "dread Sovereigne Lord y^e King." The annals of that period are replete with similar adventures; and Labat relates several of them which he witnessed during a voyage to Guadaloupe in a vessel belonging to the French buccaneers. As to the English, the daring exploits of Sir Henry Morgan and his followers, and the encouragement which they received, both at home and in the colonies, show that _we_ were not behind our neighbours in those days of marauding notoriety. HENRY H. BREEN. St. Lucia. * * * * * Replies to Minor Queries. _Royal Assent, &c._ (Vol. vi., p. 556.).-- 1. No such forms as those referred to by Clarendon are usual now. 2. The last time the prerogative of rejecting a bill, after passing both Houses of Parliament, was exercised, was in 1692, when William III. refused his assent to the bill for Triennial Parliaments. Two years after, however, he was induced to allow the bill to become the law of the land. J. R. W. Bristol. _Can Bishops vacate their Sees?_ (Vol. v., p. 156.).--R. C. C., in his reply to this Query of K. S., writes, that he has never heard of any but Dr. Pearce who wished so to do. There is another instance in the case of Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, who, having failed in his attempt to exchange his bishopric for some canonry or headship at Oxford, applied to the Secretary of State for his majesty's permission to resign his bishopric. So extraordinary a petition excited his majesty's curiosity, and caused his inquiry from whence it came; when, learning that the person was his old acquaintance, Dr. Berkeley, he declared that he should die a bishop in spite of himself, but gave him full power to choose his own place of residence. This was in 1753. The above is taken from Bp. Mant's _History of the Church of Ireland_, vol. ii. p. 534. RUBI.