he cannot execute himself any jurisdiction, touching life and limb, upon them, because he has no such commission, and he is under a necessity, from circumstances, to deliver them up of his own movement to be tried by the jurisdiction of the country in which he and they are resident, because otherwise the criminal would go unpunished, inasmuch as the criminal, being sent home, could not, by the common law of this land, be tried for crimes committed out of the realm, and which cannot be laid in the indictment to be done against the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and dignity.

There is, indeed, in our constitution a jurisdiction of the constable and marshal for things done out of the realm, but it appertains only to matters touching war and arms, and appeals from the provost-marshal or other military jurisdiction in the King's armies in a foreign territory.

With respect to murders, when persons die in a foreign country of a wound received within this realm, or die in this realm of a wound received in a foreign country, in either alternative the party giving the wound, and his accessory or accessories, by 2 Geo. 2, c. 21, must be tried in England, the statute considering the cause and effect as one continuity of action without interval, in order to found a domestic jurisdiction and to reach the crime.

To conclude, the law of nations does not delegate to any accredited minister, as Sir James Wright supposes, a full judicial power to determine, without appeal, upon all acts of violence and theft committed within the circle of his supposed district, by which only the walls of his own house can possibly be meant, which, by the law of nations, protects its inhabitants from insult, without having in it their definitive tribunal.

(2.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR PHILIP YORKE and SIR CLEMENT WEARG, on a trial for Murder committed at Sea. 1725.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Worsley, Governor of Barbadoes, to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, dated the 24th of January, 1724–5 ::

"I have the honour to present to your Lordships an account of an accident that has lately happened here. On the 4th of December last, the St. Christopher's galley, James Newth, commander, sailed out of this port, and the forts fired some random shot at her to bring her to, in that she had not put up the proper signal that was given her, or any other, which is to show that she had cleared out of all the offices and had liberty to depart. The master, instead of bringing to, hoisted more sail, whence a matross of James's Fort, suspecting she had done something irregular (as they often do in this part of the world, one about twelve months ago attempting to carry away a custom-house officer), fired a shot into her when she was about two miles off, which happened, unfortunately, to kill the mate, and wounded another man. The vessel immediately returned into port, and as soon as the master informed me of it, I inquired into the fact, upon which I found she had not put up her signal, the master complaining it was not a proper signal, being a tarpauling hoisted upon the flagstaff; and though I found such signals had been sometimes given and had been put up, nevertheless, as 1 thought it a very improper one, that there might be no such precedents for the future, I suspended the captain of the fort for some time. However, if the master of the vessel had not liked the signal, he ought not to have gone under sail till he had got another, and ought to have brought to upon the fort's firing. The difficulty at present I lie under, is to know whether, and where, the matross that fired the shot from James's Fort is to be tried, or what court can take cognizance of it. The person that was killed by a gun from the shore was upon the high seas two miles off of the shore, where, I apprehend, my jurisdiction does not extend, and his Majesty's Attorney General here is of the same opinion."

Opinion. We are of opinion that the matross who fired the shot cannot be tried for the death of the mate in any court of common law, but that he ought to be tried for the same either in the Court of Admiralty at Barbadoes, or by special commission under statute of 11 & 12 Will. 3, c. 7, which is now the most known and usual method of proceeding in cases of felonies done upon the sea in these parts.

April 17, 1725.

P. YORKE.

C. WEARG.

(3.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR SAMUEL SHEPHERD and SIR ROBERT GIFFORD, as to the Jurisdiction of the Superior Court of New South Wales, in case of Persons not resident within the Territory; and as to the disability to sue of Prisoners convicted of Felony.

Serjeants' Inn, May 13, 1818.

MY LORD,-We have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of the 4th of May, transmitting to us the copy of a letter which has been addressed to your Lordships' under-secretary by the Judge Advocate and Judge of the Supreme Court of the colony of New South Wales, inclosing a case for consideration, viz.: whether, by the present charter of justice under which the courts of civil jurisdiction are established in the colony, any person can sue or be sued therein, unless he be resident within the territory or its dependencies at least at the commencement of the action, as also whether convict prisoners, even though in the employ of Government, cannot sue and be sued in the courts there under the general terms of the legal charter; and your Lordship is pleased to request that we will take the same into consideration, and report on the cases in question.

We have the honour to report to your Lordship, that by the present charter of justice under which the courts of civil jurisdiction are established in the colony, it is necessary that the person sued should be resident within the territory or its dependencies at the commencement of the suit, but we do not think it is necessary that the party suing as plaintiff should be so resident, the restriction with respect to residence not applying to them; and the provisions of the statute 54 Geo. 3, c. 15, fortify us in this opinion. We think that prisoners convicted of felony, even though in the employ of Government, cannot sue in the courts of the colony; for, though the words of the charter are general, "any person or persons," yet we think they must be taken to mean any person or persons capable of suing, and felons convict are not so capable; but though they cannot be plaintiffs in a suit, they may be sued as defendants, since they cannot take advantage of their own disability.

S. SHEPHERD.

R. GIFFORD.

(4.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JOHN S. COPLEY and SIR CHARLES WETHERELL, on the Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 Geo. 3, c. 69.

Serjeants' Inn, October 13, 1825.

MY LORD,-We have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of the 30th ultimo, stating that his Majesty's Government having received such information as induces them to believe, that some of his Majesty's natural-born subjects, at present resident in this kingdom, have either enlisted or intend to enlist themselves to serve against the Government of Turkey, in the war at present carrying on in various parts of Greece; and it being deemed expedient that measures should be taken to prevent this violation of the law, your Lordship was pleased to request our attention to the questions. which your Lordship proposed to us with reference to that subject, and which questions are stated in the following terms:—

Supposing that any person, while resident in England, should either enlist, or agree to enlist, in the service of the Greeks, or should accept a commission as an officer or commander of a privateer in that service, or should contract to go to Greece with an intent to serve in the military operations of that country either by sea or land, or should hire persons to enter into such service; and supposing, further, that in the prosecution of any such engagement or design, such a person should arrive at Malta or Gibraltar, could he be prosecuted and tried in the superior courts of criminal jurisdiction at those settlements, or must he be sent for trial to England? If the trial might lawfully take place at Malta or Gibraltar, are the civil authorities there to proceed precisely in the same manner as in the ordinary administration of justice they would proceed on the trial of any other offenders; or is any particular mode of proceeding required by the statute? Or if, on the contrary, the trial is to take place in England, in what method are the civil authorities in Malta or Gibraltar (where the office of justice of the peace is unknown) to proceed for the apprehension of the offender, and what measures may they lawfully take for sending him to England?

In the case already supposed, would it be competent to the civil authorities at Malta or Gibraltar, in pursuance of the statute 59 Geo. 3, cap. 69, to arrest or detain the vessel in which any such

offender might arrive at those settlements; and is any particular course of proceeding to be observed for the purpose of effecting such arrest or detention; or are the supreme courts of justice to proceed for the arrest or detention of the vessel, in the same manner as in other ordinary causes, where vessels may be seized in those settlements under judicial process? And in what manner is the vessel to be disposed of after she had been thus seized and detained? And your Lordship requested that we would report to your Lordship, for his Majesty's information, our opinion upon the questions thus proposed to us at our earliest convenience.

In obedience to your Lordship's request, we beg leave to report, for the information of his Majesty, that if any person, while himself in England, should enlist or agree to enlist in the service of the Greeks, or should accept a commission as an officer or commander of a privateer in that service, or should contract to go to Greece with an intent to serve in the military operations of that country either by sea or land, or should hire persons to enter into such service, such offences would be complete in England, and could only be tried here; and that if such a person should arrive at Malta or Gibraltar in the prosecution of any such engagement, he could not, we think, be tried in those settlements for any of the offences above enumerated. In the same section, however, of the statute, it is enacted that if any natural-born subject of his Majesty shall without leave, &c., go to any place beyond the seas with intent to serve in any warlike or military operation, whether by land or sea, in the service, &c., he shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor. We conceive, therefore, that if any of the above-mentioned persons should, in the prosecution of their engagements, touch at Gibraltar or Malta, places beyond the seas, they would, under this part of the section, commit an offence for which they might be tried at such places; for they would have gone to those places with intent to serve in the military or naval operations of the Greeks.

No person offending against the Act could in any case be sent for trial to England.

No particular mode of proceeding is required by the statute. The civil authorities in the above-mentioned settlements must proceed in the same manner as in the ordinary administration of justice against other offenders guilty of what in the law of England