infers from these words that British subjects on foreign vessels to which they do belong are not within the . . section.'

Seamen, &c. under quasi-admiralty jurisdiction] By 57-8 V. 60, 687: 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, 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such offences had been committed within the jurisdiction of the admiralty of England'; the rest of the s. on costs is superseded: see Costs.

Military, &c. persons] See under Military.

International law] No inference can be drawn from foreign territory to a foreign private ship, for the theory that in law a foreign privato ship is part of the foreign country is an inadmissible, fiction,' for, if it were, the sovereignty of the owning state would continue in foreign territorial waters, which it is admitted, it does not. If any one on board infringes the local laws, the ship can even be pursued into the open seas and brought back by the offended state. Hall, Internl. Law, 7th ed., Pt. 2, ch. 4, p. 212; ch. 6, p. 262; whence it also appears that foreign private vessels lying in ports, do in fact, enjoy a varying amount of immunity from the local jurisdiction by the practice of most and perhaps of all states,' and that there is probably a concurrent jurisdiction of both states.

Foreigners on foreign ships-Admiralty jurisdiction] At any rate, it is clear that foreign subjects on foreign vessels on the high seas are not subject to our jurisdiction. Keyn (The Franconia), 2 Ex. D. 63; 46 L. J. M. C. 17, 63; 13 Cox C. C. 403, 1876: C. C. R. It was sought by six judges to extend the jurisdiction of the admiralty beyond the rivers, &c., to three miles below low water mark, but seven held against them that there was no jurisdiction in this country to try a foreigner for manslaughter committed on a foreign ship within (or without) the three-mile limit.

Territorial Waters Jurisdiction A. 1878] But by 41-2 V. 73, 2, an offence committed either by a British or foreign subject on the open sea, within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions, is an offence within the jurisdiction of the admiral, although it may have been committed on board or by means of a foreign ship-that is, 'any part of the open sea within one marine league [three nautical miles] of the coast measured from low water mark' (s. 7); 'territorial waters' means 'such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of the United Kingdom,' &c. 'as is deemed by international law to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty.' But only within that area this A. removes the difficulty felt in J. Lewis, D. & B. C. C. 182; 26 L. J. M. C. 104; 7 Cox C. C. 277, 1857: manslaughter of a foreigner, who died at Liverpool, by a foreigner on a foreign ship on the high seas: c. q. Nor does it seem that such a case was intended to be or is within 24-5 V. 100, 10. In this A. United Kingdom' includes all adjacent islands (Channel, Man, &c.). Quære, whether any offence

is triable under this A. 'except an offence committed on a ship' as defined' therein: 9 Halsbury, 276 e. In the case of a foreigner the certificate of the secretary of state or the governor of a colony to the effect that it is expedient that proceedings should be instituted must first be obtained.

Vessels of war] There is now a great preponderance of authority in favour of the view that a vessel of war in foreign waters is to be regarded as not subject to the territorial jurisdiction,' Hall, above, p. 204, so that offences on board these are offences against the municipal law of the country to which the ship belongs, and in this country would be cognisable by the court of admiralty. But everyone on board must respect the local laws: ib. If, for instance, one of the subjects of the local state committed a crime on another aboard, the captain ought to surrender him.

Summary] The criminal jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England attaches: 1. In the case of piracy... [see that title]; 2. To all British ships, public or private, on the high seas, outside the territorial waters of any state; and 3. To all vessels, British or foreign, within British territorial waters, including all ports, havens and rivers below bridges where great ships go. To some extent the jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the common law courts in the case of waters which are within the body of a county; and 4. To all British public vessels in foreign territorial waters. The jurisdiction is probably exclusive of the jurisdiction of the state to which the waters belong; and 5. To all British vessels, public or private, within foreign territorial waters. This jurisdiction is concurrent with or perhaps subordinate to the jurisdiction of the state to which the waters belong.' 1 Russ. Cri. 31. It seems impossible to reconcile the statements in 4 and 5 about the jurisdiction over public ships. The doubt expressed in 'probably' in 4 arises from the implied view of Best J. in Forbes V. Cochrane, 2 B. & C. 467, 1824-that if slaves took refuge on a British warship within waters in which slavery was legal, they would not thereby gain their freedom. But he does not say so-the waters here were not such-and later he said (at 471), 'If the right sought to bo enforced is inconsistent with either of these [the law of nature and the revealed law of God '], the English municipal courts cannot recognise it-nor can it, the comity of nations, where it violates the law of our own country.' Contrast the admitted right of the Chilean Government in Leslie, 1860. Probably the only limitation in the case of public ships is that expressed by Hall, above. It is clear that the jurisdiction on a British ship extends to foreigners.

3. Admiralty offences-where tried] By 4-5 W. 4, 36 (Central Criminal Court A.), 22: 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 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 [now, any prison appointed by the Home Secretary in its place: 44-5 V. 64] 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.' (This ment made it unnecessary to hold the Admiralty Sessions tofore. . . held at the Old Bailey': 1 Russ. Cri. 38 k.)

enactthere

A more general provision was subsequently made by 7-8 V. 2 (Admiralty Offences A.), 1: her Majesty's judges of assize or others her Majesty's commissioners . . . 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 to deliver the gaol in every county and franchise within the limits of their several commissions of any person committed 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.' S. 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 preferred under this Act be averred to have taken place on the high seas.

By 24-5 V. 96, 115: 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 which the offender shall be apprehended or be in custody; and in any indictment for any such offence, or for being an accessory to any such 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.'

Thus, practically the whole of the admiralty criminal jurisdiction has been gradually transferred to the ordinary criminal courts. Defendants, speaking generally, are tried by the appropriate court which has jurisdiction over the spot where they are handed: e.g. Dudley, 1884, was committed at Falmouth to the Devon and Cornwall Winter Assizes, and tried at Exeter under a s. with which s. 686 is identical. C. 97, 72; c. 98, 50; c. 99, 36; and c. 100, 68—all of 24-5 V.— contain the provisions of s. 115. 'The enactments appear not to extend to attempts to commit the offences': 1 Russ. Cri. 41 (b).

The defendant having stolen goods in a British ship on the high seas was afterwards apprehended and tried in the borough of Southampton, it was held, under s. 115, rightly. Peel, L. & C. 231; 32 L. J. M. C. 65; 9 Cox C. C. 220, 1862.

Accessory] By 24-5 V. 94, 9: Where any person shall, within the jurisdiction of the admiralty of England or Ireland, become an accessory to any felony, whether the same be a felony at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, and whether such felony shall be committed within that jurisdiction or elsewhere, or shall be begun within that jurisdiction and completed elsewhere, or shall be begun elsewhere and completed within that jurisdiction, the offence of such person shall be felony; and in any indictment for any such offence the venue in the margin shall be the same as if the offence had been com

Offences partly on Land, partly at Sea.

223

mitted in the county or place in which such person shall be indicted, and his offence shall be averred,' &c. exactly as in s. 115, above.

Colonial admiralty jurisdiction] See 12-3 V. 96, 23-4 V. 122 and 53-4 V. 27.

Homicide-offences partly at sea, partly on land] By 24-5 V. 100, 10: Where any person being feloniously stricken, poisoned, or otherwise hurt upon the sea, or at any place out of England or Ireland, shall die of such stroke, poisoning, or hurt in England or Ireland, or being feloniously stricken, poisoned, or otherwise hurt at any place in England or Ireland, shall die of such stroke, poisoning, or hurt upon the sea, or at any place out of England or Ireland, every offence committed in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, or of being accessory to murder or manslaughter, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in the county, or place in England or Ireland in which such death, stroke, poisoning, or hurt shall happen, in the same manner in all respects as if such offence had been committed in that county or place.'

In 1785, however, standing on the shore and, from about 200 yards, firing at and killing a man in a cutter struck on a sandbank about a hundred yards at sea, was an offence committed entirely within the jurisdiction of the admiralty: Coombe, 1 Lea. C. C. 388, which, perhaps, however, only decided that the admiralty has jurisdiction, not that the common law has not; and, perhaps, according to Hawkins, this was a case of piracy: P. C. 1, 37, 17; and see East, P. C. 367 and the comments of Halsbury C. and L. Herschell, Badische Anilin, &c. v. Basle Chemical Works, 1898, A. C. 204, 209. This seems to be the only recorded admiralty case in which defendant was on land at the time of the offence: judges have laboured to support this decision, e.g. Cockburn C.J. and Denman J. in Keyn, at 234 and 103, 2 Ex. D.

4. Offences in India] See India.

Abroad-Foreign Jurisdiction A.] Criminal acts committed by a British subject abroad are usually left to the courts of the local sovereign, who is in general much more interested in their due punishment than is the country of the criminal. But there are few states which refuse to take cognisance of any criminal act done by their subjects when in foreign territory; the principle of concurrent jurisdiction is maintained; and certain crimes, ordinarily of a kind more or less affecting the state, can be punished on the return of the criminal to the jurisdiction. Though Great Britain has acted to a very limited extent upon the principle, and has not had frequent occasion to give effect to it of late years, the liability of a subject to be made answerable for crimes committed out of the jurisdiction has been affirmed by statute for more than three centuries and a half.' Hall, Foreign Power and Jurisdiction of the British Crown, 1894, Pt. 1, ch. 1, p. 12; citing 35 H. 8, 2, treason, still in force, and 33 H. 8, 23 (rpd. 9 G. 4, 31, 1, and 74, 125); and Governor Wall, 28 St. Tr. 51, 1802, under 33 H. 8; and Azzopardi, 2 Moo. C. C. 288; 1 Cox C. C. 28, 1843, murder, under 9 G. 4, 31, 7, a consolidating A. (rpd. 24-5 V. 95, 1). The Foreign Jurisdiction Acts were consolidated by 53-4 V. 37. By 8. 1, the crown may exercise any jurisdiction it has within a foreign country in the same and as ample a manner as if' it 'had acquired that

jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory.' Under this A. and an Order in Council an Afghan, enlisted in an Indian regiment stationed at Canton, in China, who murdered a native fellow-soldier there, was tried at Hong Kong. Ibrahim v. R. The O. in C. included in 'British subject' one who enjoys His Majesty's protection in China,' and on this the P. C. insisted.

6

Among the more important cases' enumerated by Mr. Pitt-Cobbett, 1 Leading Cases, 219, 1909, in which extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction has been conferred by statute' are offences committed by British subjects in countries without regular government and coming within the terms of the Foreign Jurisdiction A. 1890 and the Orders in Council . . . thereunder' [May 9, 1891]. He adds that the list of such offences in Stephen, Dig. Cr. Proc. 1-5, is 'complete' (i.e. in 1883).

For acts done abroad either being an offence, or having an effect, here, see Oliphant, and Index 'Abroad.'

6

Conspiracy here-overt act abroad] Kohn, a Prussian ship's carpenter, was indicted for conspiring at Ramsgate with certain other Prussians to scuttle a Prussian ship, which was done. He confessed to the scuttling. The question left to the jury by Willes J. was, whether it was agreed and consented to by and between him and any other person at Ramsgate, that the ship should be destroyed whether at sea or in port, and it was distinctly laid down that the offence of conspiracy would be complete if the conspiracy was in this country, although the overt acts were abroad' (which must here include the high seas, as, in fact, the principal offence . casting away the vessel' was committed there; for which, as it was not piracy, defendant could not be indicted here): acquittal. Kohn, 4 F. & F. 68, 1864; see Most, 1881. Stephen J. (7th ed. of this work, p. 244) thought (in view of the alternative in italics above) Kohn did not expressly decide whether a conspiracy in England to injure on the high seas is a crime when all the parties are foreigners, but upon principle' it ought to be criminal'; but Willes J. certainly did not say, if you find conspiracy to scuttle on the high seas, you must acquit, as he ought to have done if the law in that case was different from that 'in port.'

Homicide abroad] By 24-5 V. 100, 9: 'Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen's dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of her Majesty, in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, or of being accessory to murder or manslaughter, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in any county or place in England or Ireland in which such person shall be apprehended or be in custody, in the same manner in all respects as if such offence had been actually committed in that county or place; provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such persons might have been tried before the passing of this Act.'

Extradition] This subject is not within the scope of this work, but