Page images

Corrigenda to Part II.

Page xii., Table of Contents, line 24, for 'Bankruptcy Act, 1889,' read ‘Bank

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

11, the last marginal note should be deleted.

[ocr errors]

20, first marginal note, after 'punishment for' insert 'breach.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

26, first marginal note, for 'loc' read 'local.'

27, line 8, delete '[s. 686]' before the word 'case'; line 10 from bottom,

for 'with deals' read 'deals with.'

31, line 4, for 's. 687' read's. 686'; line 14, for 'for' read 'in.'

36, line 24, for Mariana' read 'Marianna.'

[ocr errors]

51, line IO,

the colon should be replaced by a comma.

[ocr errors]

56, line 11, for 'mabe' read' made.'

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

89, line 6 from the bottom, for 'enactment' read' enactments.'

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

98, line 13, for 'c. 93' read 'c. 98.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


100, line 20, the year number of the statute should be 7 & 8 Geo. IV. C. 28.'

IOI, the headline should be 'The Extra-territorial Criminal Law of


[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

110, line 24, for 'Akabia' read 'Arabia'; lines 20 and 21, the return bracket should come after 'c. 38,' and the 'and' between '42' and '43' replaced by '&'

112, line 2, for 'Explosives' read' Explosive.'

119, line 8 from the bottom, for 'constructed' read' construed.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

129, line 2 from the bottom of the text, for 'claims' read' claim'; line

3 of footnote, for maritimes' read' maritime.'

130, line II, for 'much' read' more.'

131, line 8, delete' of.'

134, line 2 from the bottom, delete the inverted comma before 'to the.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Page 146, last marginal note, for 34 & 34' read' 33 & 34.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

158, line 18, for 'He' read 'The Lord Chief Justice.'

162, line 5, for 'Will. II' read 'Will. III'; line 5 from the bottom, for 3 Geo. I'read' 8 Geo. I.'

163, line 1, after Will. III' read 'c. 7.'

165, line 7, for 'refere' read' refers.'

168, line 1, for 'brougth' read 'brought'; line 7 from the bottom, for 'recite' read' recites.'

[ocr errors]

175, line 7 from the bottom, for 1870' read' 1890.'

176, line 1 of Note, for ' 1881 'read' 1861'; and for 'c. 35' read ' c. 31'; line 13 from the bottom, for c. 68' read 'c. 69.'

179, line 3 from the bottom, for 1886' read' 1883.'

188, line 7 from the bottom, for 'Offences' read' Protection.'

191, line 13, delete sufficiently.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

192, line 10 from the bottom, for 'his' read 'the.'

[ocr errors]

193, line 1, for 'not' read 'nor.'

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

201, line 13, limitoffences' should be two words, the comma following


219, last line of the text, for 'Fabre' read' Favre.'

220, line 7 from the bottom, delete the comma after ' s. 2.'

[ocr errors]

221, line 7 from the bottom, for 'sions' read' sion."

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

222, line 11 from the bottom, for 'construced' read 'construed.'

[ocr errors]

223, line 12 from the bottom, delete the comma before which we,' and

insert a comma after and which.'

227, line 25, delete the comma after 'It is true.'

231, line 20, for '177' read' 1877.'


248, line 10, for ' Jeffrys' read ' Jefferys.'

252, line 5 from the bottom, for '1845' read 1842;' line 14, for

'unmistaken' read' unmistakable.'

260, line 7, for 'as' read' we'; line 23, for 'Lands' read' Land.'

270, line 6 from the bottom, after 2 Q. B.' insert' p.'

272, line 24, after usual' insert' residence.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

273, line 3, after 'but' insert' one.'

[ocr errors]

274, line 6, delete the second 'is.'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

280, line 18 from the bottom, delete the comma after 'kingdom.'

298, line 10 from the bottom, for 'puting' read' putting.'


Of the Extra-Territorial Consequences of British


The subject of Nationality, and consequently of Naturaliza- Introduction. tion, would be incompletely treated unless special consideration were given to the consequences attaching thereto according to English law.

So long as we have only to deal with the territorial limits of the realm, the consequences may be stated in one short sentenceobedience to the law. But legislation does not, nor could it, end with the territorial limits of the realm. It becomes necessary, therefore, in order completely to understand the consequences of British nationality, to study the laws which affect British subjects when they are " beyond the sea "--that is to say, beyond the area of the normal application of Acts of Parliament, and of the jurisdiction of the Courts.

The subject of the special application of laws beyond the realm divides itself into two broad heads: legislation for the high seas, and legislation professing to operate on land beyond the seas.

A comparative study of different systems of extra-territorial legislation reveals no general principles of common acceptance. There is agreement on one point only: that all persons within any country owe obedience to its laws, irrespective of their own nationality and from this agreement there results as a corollary, that a nation surrenders its subjects to the laws and jurisdiction of the State in which they are, during the continuance of their presence therein. Diplomatic intervention could not take place in consequence of the condemnation to death of an Englishman for a crime punishable by death in another country though diplomacy might watch the manner of the trial, and perhaps, should occasion arise, criticise the partiality of the finding. This might conceivably be extended to the method of carrying out the death sentence: but the intervention would inevitably be limited. to" good offices": it could not be based on any ground approaching a right.


But even this corollary has limitations of its own. It does not follow, because a foreigner in England is admittedly subject to the laws of England, and an Englishman in a foreign country to the laws of that country, that therefore the country of origin in either case abandons its own authority over its subject. If any act be an offence by the extra-territorial laws of that country, as well as by the laws of the country in which the act has been committed, it does not follow that the offender may not be put upon his trial when he comes within reach of the laws of his own country. If he has been tried in the foreign country, the effect of the foreign verdict may be the subject of special legislation, or of judicial ruling. In England the Courts have worked out a principle for themselves: and acting on the fundamental rule that a man may not be twice in jeopardy for the same offence, have extended the scope of the defences autrefois acquit and autrefois convict, to acquittals and convictions by foreign [3 Strange, Courts administering foreign laws (per Lord Chancellor King in Burrows v. Femino); limiting (as it would appear from the reasoning of Crosswell J. in R. v. Azzopardi), their own enquiry to the question, whether the offence with which the accused is charged is of the same gravity as that for which he has already stood his trial abroad.


[6 St. Tr.: N. S. 21.]

Beyond this point, with the exception of national ships on the high seas, agreement as to the proper scope of extra-territorial legislation ceases. Some countries require obedience to all laws from subjects wherever they may be. The English principle has been to limit this extra-territorial obedience to laws dealing with the gravest offences-high treason and murder; and to certain others which the occurrences of the moment have shown to be expedient, such as, in old days sedition, and incitement to mutiny in modern times, those dealing with explosive substances, and with the protection of women and girls from kidnapping for purposes of prostitution? It cannot even be said that there is any agreement that extra-territorial laws should be limited to the subjects of the nation which enacts them. This question is a thorny one, and much argument must be devoted to unravelling it. In the opinion of the author, the law of England has not hesitated, in the case of high treason, to extend its operation to foreigners abroad; and this, as will be seen in the course of the enquiry, is not the only example.


The examination of such a question as the one I have just Introduction. propounded-What is the legitimate scope of extra-territorial legislation ? takes us into the region of first principles, and there we find little unanimity of opinion. The question has been approached often suggestions have been thrown out as to what the principles are, or at least ought to be: but there is no definite decision covering the whole ground. As a rule the question has been avoided, wherever it has been found unnecessary to apply any principle to its full extent. The inevitable consequence of this is, that so far as the ultimate principle itself is concerned, the dicta may always be treated as obiter. Another difficulty, not uncommon in English law, stands in the way of a clear statement of the law. Such a question can only be solved by a process of evolution in which the Judges of many periods must take their share. It is inevitable that the older opinions must be abandoned in favour of those which have resulted from a longer study of the subject by the Judges; but there is a reluctance to admit. the necessity. In no branch of law, I think, is this more noticable than in the present case: the most striking example occurring in connection with the question of a foreigner's right to copyright in this country.


Much of the discussion turns on questions which were dealt with in the Lord Chief Justice's judgment in the "Franconia case. The main thread of argument was elaborated with infinite learning and care: but many questions which lay on the outer edge of the subject were referred to, which could not be treated with the same elaboration.


The main question with which Sir Alexander Cockburn dealt was the existence or non-existence of the 3-mile limit. Of the subordinate questions, one was of the greatest imporWas there any jurisdiction inherent in the Admiral to deal with foreigners on board foreign ships on the high sea? The importance of the first question has passed away, as it is now governed by statute. Whether the second question has not also passed into the region of statutory law is a point which the Court might have decided in Anderson's case: but it was avoided.

Perhaps the most curious point in connection with the Chief Justice's judgment is, that the concentration which he brought to bear on the question of high sea jurisdiction over foreigners, thrust out of sight the more important question of high sea juris

« PreviousContinue »