'The territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions' is defined as meaning in reference to the sea 'such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of the United Kingdom or the coast of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions as is deemed by international law to be within. the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty; and for the purpose of any offence declared by this Act to be within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, any part of the open sea within one marine league of the coast measured from low water-mark, shall be deemed to be open sea within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions.'

'Offence' is defined as an act, neglect, or default of such a description as would, if committed within the body of a county in England, be punishable on indictment according to the law of England for the time being in force.'

'Ship' includes every description of boat or other floating craft, and foreign ship' means every ship which is not a British ship. (r)

By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, s. 12, All offences prosecuted in the High Court of Admiralty of England shall upon every first and subsequent conviction be subject to the same punishments, whether of death or otherwise, as if such offences had been committed upon the land.'

Each of the Consolidation Acts 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 115; c. 97, S. 72; c. 98, s. 50; c. 99, s. 36; and c. 100, s. 68, contains the following clause:

All indictable offences mentioned in this Act which shall be committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England or Ireland shall be deemed to be offences of the same nature and liable to the same punishments as if they had been committed upon the land in England or Ireland, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, and determined in any county or place in England or Ireland in which the offender shall be apprehended or be in custody, in the same manner in all respects as if they had been actually committed in that county or place; and in any indictment for any such offence, or for being an accessory to such an offence, the venue in the margin shall be the same as if the offence had been committed in such county or place, and the offence shall be averred to have been committed on the high seas:" Provided that nothing herein contained shall alter or affect any of the laws relating to the government of Her Majesty's land or naval forces.'

These enactments were framed on the similar clauses contained in the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 77; 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 43; 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 32; 9 Geo. 4, c. 55, s. 74 (I.); 9 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 55 (I.); and 10 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 41 (I.); together with the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2. Some of these enactments simply provide for the trial of offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty; whilst others provide, in addition, that the offences mentioned in the Act, which shall be committed.

(r) This Act was passed in consequence of the decision in R. v. Keyn (The Franconia), 2 Ex. D. 63. In that case the prisoner, who was a foreigner and in command of a foreign ship, whilst passing within three miles of the English shore, ran down and sunk a British ship and drowned one of her passengers, under circumstances which

in English law would amount to manslaughter. He was tried at the Central Criminal Court, but on appeal it was held by the whole court that there was no power to try offences committed by foreigners on board foreign ships while within the three miles limit.

within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, shall be deemed to be offences of the same nature, and liable to the same punishments, as if they had been committed upon the land in England or Ireland. It seems clear that, wherever an Act creates new offences, this is the proper enactment; for, though in the case of offences against the laws of nature and nations, such as murder or piracy committed on the seas, the general course of legislation has been simply to provide for their trial, and no doubt correctly, because, in the eye of the law of England they were offences of the same nature as if they had been committed on land in England, yet it may well be doubted whether that be sufficient in the case of newly created offences; and it is certainly much safer to have the provision with which this clause commences. The 39 Geo. 3, c. 37, s. 1, no doubt provides generally, that every offence committed upon the high seas shall be of the same nature, &c., as if it had been committed on shore, but it is by no means clear that that enactment applies to any offence created by a subsequent statute, and it was much better not to leave the matter open to any such question.

Under these clauses the Court of Quarter Sessions has authority to try any offender apprehended or in custody within their local jurisdiction for any offence committed on the sea, which they might have tried if it had been committed within that jurisdiction. A prisoner committed a larceny on board the British vessel Candia whilst on the high seas, and was apprehended within the borough and county of Southampton, and it was held that the Court of Quarter Sessions for that borough and county had authority to try him for that offence. (s)

A prisoner was charged at the Liverpool Assizes with the wilful murder of the captain of the hulk Kent in the Bonny River, Africa. It was proved that the Kent had been a sailing ship, and was registered as a British ship though not British built. She had been for eighteen months dismasted and used as a floating depot in the Bonny River for a line of steamers trading from Liverpool. She floated in the tideway of the river and hoisted the British ensign at the peak. The prisoner was proved to have seized the captain and thrown him overboard, and he was not seen again. Archibald, J., held that there was sufficient evidence that the Kent was a British ship to give the court jurisdiction, and that it was not necessary that the crime should be wholly completed on board such ship. (t)

As to the trial of a murder or manslaughter where the act causing death took place out of England or Ireland, &c., see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 9 and 10, noticed post, Murder.

As to the trial of an accessory to a felony committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England or Ireland, see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 94, s. 9.

The Central Criminal Court Act, 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36, s. 22, enacts, that it shall and may be lawful for the justices and judges of oyer and terminer, and gaol delivery to be named in, and appointed by the commissions to be issued under the authority of this Act, or any two

(s) R. v. Peel, 1 L. & C. 231; 32 L. J. M. C. 65.

(t) R. v. Armstrong, 13 Cox, C. C. 184. See this case, post.

or more of them, to inquire of, hear and determine any offence or offences committed, or alleged to have been committed on the high seas, and other places within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and to deliver the gaol of Newgate of any person or persons committed to, or detained therein for any offence or offences alleged to have been done and committed upon the high seas aforesaid, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England; and all indictments found, and trials, and other proceedings had or taken by and before the said justices and judges of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery shall be valid and effectual to all intents and purposes whatsoever.'

An accessory before the fact to a felony committed on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, might be indicted and tried at the Central Criminal Court by virtue of the preceding section and the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 9 (now repealed), although the principal had not been committed to, or detained in,' the gaol of Newgate for his offence. (u)

The 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2, s. 1, reciting the 28 Hen. 8, c. 15, and that it is expedient that provision be made for the trial of persons charged with offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, enacts that Her Majesty's justices of assize or others Her Majesty's commissioners by whom any Court shall be holden under any of Her Majesty's commissions of oyer and terminer or general gaol delivery shall have severally and jointly all the powers which by any Act are given to the commissioners named in any commission of oyer and terminer for the trying of offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and that it shall be lawful for the firstmentioned justices and commissioners, or any one or more of them, to inquire of, hear, and determine all offences alleged to have been committed on the high seas and other places within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and to deliver the gaol in every county and franchise within the limits of their several commissions of any person committed to or imprisoned therein for any offence alleged to have been committed upon the high seas and other places within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England; and all indictments found, and trials. and other proceedings had, by and before the said justices and commissioners shall be valid.'

Sec. 2, 'in all indictments preferred before the said justices and commissioners under this Act the venue laid in the margin shall be the same as if the offence had been committed in the county where the trial is had; and all material facts which in other indictments would be averred to have taken place in the county where the trial is had shall in indictments prepared (v) and tried under this Act be averred to have taken place "on the high seas." (w)

by the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 34, and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 69, s. 31, which was repealed by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 93, s. 43, and the exam)ination and commitment of such persons are now regulated by the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 93. It seems, therefore, that sec. 3 of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2, is virtually repealed. Sec. 4 of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2, provides that the Act shall not affect

Where a larceny was alleged under this Act to have been committed 'on the high seas,' it was held that the indictment was sufficient, without adding within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.' (x)

An indictment tried at the assizes under this statute for murder committed on the high seas, need not conclude contra formam statuti. (y) By the Merchant Shipping Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 267,‘All offences against property or person committed in or at any place either ashore or afloat out of Her Majesty's dominions by any master, seaman, or apprentice who, at the time when the offence is committed, is or within three months previously has been employed in any British ship (2) shall be deemed to be offences of the same nature respectively, and be liable to the same punishments respectively, and be inquired of, heard, tried, determined, and adjudged in the same manner and by the same Courts and in the same places as if such offences had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England; and the costs and expenses of the prosecution of any such offence may be directed to be paid as in the case of costs and expenses of prosecutions for offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England.' By sec. 518, the court before which any misdemeanor under that Act is tried, may in England make the same allowances and order payment of the same costs and expenses as if such misdemeanor had been enumerated in the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, or any other Act that may be passed for the like purpose; and may in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions make such allowances and order payment of such costs and expenses (if any) as are payable or allowable upon the trial of any misdemeanor under any existing Act or ordinance, or as may be payable or allowable under any Act or law for the time being in force therein.' (a)

To a count for murder since this statute, which alleged the murder to have been committed upon the high seas,' it was objected that it ought to have averred that the prisoners were on board a British ship, or that they were British subjects; and to counts alleging that the prisoner was master of a British ship afloat in the river Elbe, and that he there committed the murder, it was objected that these counts did not allege the murder to have been committed on the high seas.' But Wightman, J., thought the provision in the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2, as to the high seas, only directory, and overruled the objections, and, as they were on the record, refused to reserve them. (b)

By the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 21, 'if any person, being a British subject, charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any

or assume the British national character, but so far as regards the payment of dues, the liability to pains and penalties, and the punishment of offences committed on board such ship or by any person belonging to her, such ship shall be dealt with in the same manner in all respects as if she were a recognised British ship.'

(a) Hunting seals in Behring Sea within a period prohibited by an Order in Council is a misdemeanor within this section. See 54 Vict. c. 19, re-enacted by 56 & 57 Vict. c. 23.

(b) R. v. Menham, 1 F. & F. 369.

British ship on the high seas or in any foreign port or harbour, or if any person, not being a British subject, charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any British ship on the high seas, is found within the jurisdiction of any court of justice in Her Majesty's dominions which would have had cognizance of such crime or offence if committed within the limits of its ordinary jurisdiction, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the case as if such crime or offence had been committed within such limits.'

By 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124 (the Merchant Shipping Act, 1867), s. 11, if any British subject commits any crime or offence on board any British ship or on board any foreign ship to which he does not belong, any court of justice in Her Majesty's dominions which would have had cognizance of such crime or offence if committed on board a British ship within the limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case as if the said crime or offence had been committed as last aforesaid.

A ship, public or private, on the high seas, is considered a part of the territory to which the ship belongs, and a foreigner committing an offence in it is amenable to the laws of such territory. Upon an indictment for wounding G. Smith, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, it was proved that the prisoner Lopez, a foreigner, being a sailor and one of the crew of the British ship Ontario, maliciously and unlawfully wounded Smith, also a foreigner and a sailor and one of the crew of the same ship, whilst on the high seas and in the same ship, on a voyage from London to the coast of East Africa. Lopez was tried and convicted at the Assizes at Exeter; and a case was reserved upon the question whether he was properly convicted of the offence committed on the high seas. (c) In another case, (d) upon an indictment for murder, tried at the Central Criminal Court, it appeared that the prisoner was a foreigner named Sattler and had committed a larceny in England, and then went with part of the stolen property to Hamburg. The owner of the property gave information to the London police, and the deceased, who was a detective officer of that force, and an English subject, went, and, with the assistance of the police of Hamburg, arrested Sattler there, and brought him against his will on board an English steamer trading between Hamburg and London, in order that he might be tried for the larceny. Hamburg is on the river Elbe, sixty miles from the sea; but the tide flows higher up than the place where the steamer was when Sattler was taken on board. The steamer left Hamburg on the 21st of November, Sattler being in irons, and on the 22nd, whilst on the high seas, he shot the deceased, who died of the wound. If the killing had been by an Englishman, in an English county, it would have been murder. The deceased had no warrant; and a case was reserved upon the question whether there was any jurisdiction to try Sattler at the Central Criminal Court. It was contended in both cases that there was no jurisdiction to try the prisoner under sec. 21 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91: Lopez was not found' within the jurisdiction of the Court at Exeter, but was brought into the jurisdiction in custody and against his will, having been found' in the ship. (e) The clause (c) R. v. Lopez, D. & B. 525; 27 L. J. M. C. 48.

(d) R. v. Sattler, ibid.

(e) The case did not state how Lopez came into custody; but this was the assertion in the argument.