1352 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI 
Court is not as constituted a Colonial Court of Admiralty 
within the meaning of the Act of 1890, though it can be 
given Admiralty jurisdiction by a Commonwealth Act under 
8. 76 (iii) of the Constitution. Appeals lie from the State 
Courts in their Admiralty jurisdiction direct to the Privy 
Council, or alternatively to the Commonwealth High Court, 
but not presumably in the case of New South Wales and 
Victoria, while the Courts were Imperial Courts and not 
Colonial Courts. In (Canada the Court of Exchequer has 
Admiralty jurisdiction under Revised Statutes, 1906, c. 141; 
it has been discussed but not decided whether the Court has 
only jurisdiction in Admiralty causes arising in Canadian 
waters, or in all Admiralty causes wherever arising! There 
is also doubt as to the Admiralty jurisdiction on the great 
takes, which is claimed by the United States Courts.’ 
With regard to the provisions of s. 8 no Orders in Council 
have yet been issued as contemplated in subsection 2, but 
it is clear from the Imperial Constitution Acts of New South 
Wales and Victoria of 1855 (18 & 19 Viet. ce. 54 and 55) 
that the droits in question have already been surrendered 
by the Crown ; the same remark applies to Queensland in so 
far as the Act of 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 44) expressly confirms 
the Queensland Letters Patent of June 6, 1859, and those 
letters patent contain the same provisions as in the case of 
New South Wales. In the case of Tasmania (18 Vict. No. 17) 
and South Australia (No. 2 of 1855-6) the position is much 
more doubtful, for though those Acts have been validated 
ex post facto by Imperial Acts, the validation seems rather 
to have been a validation of their enactment as Colonial 
Acts and not the giving of Imperial validity totheir provisions 
in such manner as to affect the provisions of other Imperial 
Acts. In the case of Western Australia apparently s. 64 
* Above, pp. 376, 377. The former view is supported by Bow, McLach- 
lan & Co. v. Ship ¢ Camosun’, [1909] A. C. 597, where the view is taken 
of the identity of the English and Canadian Courts. 
t The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555. See Canada Sess. Pap., 1877, Nos. 
17, 54; Act 40 Viet. ¢. 21,8. 1; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 29, 5. 3; Gray, Journ, 
Soc. Comp. Lea., xii. 41-3. (R. v. Sharp, 5 P. C. 135, is a false reference.)