according to this Code. Section 4 contains a similar provision as to servants of the Queen who commit offences within the dominions of allied Princes. But neither of these Sections covers an equally important class of cases, that, namely, of persons who are not servants of the Queen, and who are triable in British India, not by virtue of any Act of the Legislative Council, but under Acts of Parliament. These would seem to be still left under the old law, which would in general be the English Criminal Law. On the other hand by Section 40 of Chapter II., the word "offence" is made to denote " a thing made punishable by this Code," except in certain special cases therein referred to. It seems difficult to understand why the restrictive words "by virtue of any Act of the Legislative Council of Calcutta" were introduced.

I shall now point out the law which governs the trial of offences committed beyond the limits of British India.

Section 4 constitutes one class of cases. Upon this it is necessary only to refer to Section 14 of Chapter II., which defines the words 'Servant of the Queen."

Act I of 1849 provides that

"All subjects of the British Government, and also all persons in the civil or military service of the said Government, while actually in such service, and for six months afterwards, and also all persons who shall have dwelt for six months within the British territories, under the Government of the East India Company, subject to the laws of the said territories, who shall be apprehended within the said territories, or delivered into the custody of a Magistrate within the said territories, shall be amenable to law for all offences committed by them within the territories of any Foreign Prince or State; and may be bailed or committed for trial, on the like evidence as would warrant their being held to bail or committed for the same offence, if it had been committed within the British territories." (See also 26 Geo. III. c. 57, s. 29, 33 Geo. III. c. 52, s. 67, 9 Geo. IV. c. 74, s. 127.)

The Charters of the late Supreme Courts of Madras, (§ 34, 2 M. Dig. 16) and Bombay (§ 44, 2 M. Dig. 667) gave those Courts jurisdiction over all offences "committed by any of our subjects in any of the territories subject to or dependent upon the Government of Madras (or Bombay respectively) or within any of the territories, which now are, or hereafter may be subject to or dependent upon the said Government, or within any of the dominions of the Native Princes of India, in alliance with the said Government." This jurisdiction was continued to the High Courts by s. 21 of the Letters Patent of 1862, and again by s. 22 of the Letters Patent of 1865. Accordingly the Madras High Court held that it had jurisdiction to try a European British subject for an offence committed in Bangalore, as being part of the territory of the Rajah of Mysore, a Native Prince in alliance with the Madras Governinent. (Reg. v. Watkins 2 Mad. H. C. 444.) No such clause exists in the Calcutta Charter, and as Mysore is foreign territory no tribunal except the High Court can take cognisance of offences committed within it, (6 Mad. H. C. Rul. 3) unless the case falls under Act I of 1849. (5 H. C. Rul. 13) Coorg, which is now a part of British India, is administered by the Bengal Government, and therefore offences committed in that territory by British subjects, were not within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. (Reg. v. Bain, 2 Mad. H. C. 448.) But now by order of the Governor General in

Council, made in accordance with 28 Vict. c. 15, s. 3, (see Fort Saint George Gazette, February 1867, p. 192,) the High Court of Madras is to exercise original criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects of Her Majesty in Coorg. The same Court is also to exercise original criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects, being Christians, resident in the Native States of Mysore, Travancore, Cochin, Poodoocottah, Bunganaputty and Soondoor.

Of course neither Act 28 Vict. c. 15, nor the orders of the Governor General in Council made upon it, take away the jurisdiction which an independent Native State, such as that of Travancore, has by reason of its own sovereignty over persons of any nationality, who commit offences against its laws while residing within its territory. It would be otherwise if by treaty any such State had surrendered its criminal jurisdiction, over any particular class of persons, or within any particular limits. (Reg. v. Venkanna, 3 Mad. H. C. 354.)

The ordinary Municipal law would give jurisdiction over foreigners for acts done by them within India, but not for acts done by them out of India. The above Act creates a new jurisdiction over foreigners in certain cases, provided they have dwelt for six months in India, subject to its laws. The six months' limit will in general prevent any of those questions which arise in England under the County Court Acts, as to what constitutes a dwelling. (Macdougall v. Paterson, 21 LJ. CP. 27; 11 C. B. 755. Alexander v. Jones, 1 LR. Ex. 133.) A foreigner who had his permanent dwelling in India for six months would, I imagine, come under this Section, even though he were occasionally absent from India, either for business or pleasure. (Kerr v. Haynes, 29 LJ. QB. 70.)

The dwelling must also be voluntary. Custody in goal would not give jurisdiction. (Dunston v. Paterson, 28 LJ. CP. 97. 4 CB. NS. 279.)

"The Magistrate of the district, a Magistrate in charge of a division of a District, or a Magistrate of the first class duly authorised in that behalf and having local jurisdiction in such district or division of a district, may issue a summons or warrant for the apprehension of any person within such District or division of a District, in respect of any offence known or suspected to have been committed by such person in a different District or division of a District; or on the high seas, or in a foreign country, and for which, if committed within the jurisdiction of such Magistrate, he might issue a summons or warrant." (Crim. Pro. C. s. 157.)

It will be observed that Act 1 of 1849 only refers to offences committed " within the territories of any foreign Prince or State." Therefore if a murder were committed by a British subject in Pekin, he would be triable for it in Madras. But not if the same crime were committed by the same person in Hong Kong. He could only be proceeded against under the provisions of Act VII of 1854.

Act VII of 1854 provides for the apprehension and delivery up to justice of all persons, whether subjects of the British or of any foreign Government, who shall take refuge or be found in any part of British India, and be charged with having been guilty of heinous offences in any part of the dominions of Her Majesty, or in the territories of any foreign Prince or State.

There are three modes of proceeding under this Act. First, on the requisition of a foreign or other Government. Secondly, on the production of a warrant issued in any part of Her Majesty's dominions out of India; and thirdly, in emergent cases, by the independent action of a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace within whose jurisdiction the criminal is found.

Under the first mode of proceeding, a requisition must be made to the Government in India by the Government, whether British or Foreign, which seeks for the delivery of the Criminal. The Indian Government then, if it sees fit, issues an order, signed by a Secretary of State, and addressed to all Magistrates, directing an enquiry into the charge; (ss. 1, 2.) Upon this, the Magistrate, to whom the order is produced (s. 3.) issues his warrant, inquires into the case, and makes his order releasing, bailing, or committing the accused, as in ordinary cases. In the two latter cases, he makes his report to Government; (s. 13.) who may then order the accused to be tried under Act. I of 1849, if he comes within its provisions, or if not may deliver him up to the Government which has made the requisition. (s. 14.)

66

Requisitions of this character can only be acted on, where they allege a "heinous offence" as defined in ss. 21, 22, or any other offence which in the judgment of the Government to which the requisition shall be made, shall be serious or aggravated, and for which the person accused cannot be tried in India under Act I of 1849," (s. 22).

Secondly.-Where a Warrant is issued in any part of Her Majesty's dominions out of India, for the arrest of any person for any heinous offence which he is alleged to have committed, or of which he is alleged to have been convicted, then any Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, on proof of the signature of the officer signing the Warrant, and of his authority, may proceed to arrest, hold to bail or commit the person indicated, without any further order. But the person accused cannot be delivered over without an order of Government. (s. 18.)

Upon this Section it is necessary to remark, first, that the Warrant issued abroad must upon its face, and not by implication, allege the committal of, or a conviction for, a heinous offence under s. 21; s. 22 seems only to apply to proceedings upon a requisition under s. 1. Therefore, if the Warrant charged the accused with swindling, or defamation, no action could be taken upon it. In the next place, the Magistrate must have legal proof of the signature and official character of the person who has issued the Warrant. It will not prove itself, nor will it be sufficient that it is accompanied by a letter or any other document, which would itself be inadmissible as evidence.

Thirdly. Where a person is accused of a heinous offence under s. 21, and his immediate apprehension may, in the opinion of the Magistrate be necessary for the ends of justice, he may act on his own responsibility without either foreign Warrant, or order of Government. But the accused shall not be delivered up without an order of Government. (s. 19.) Nothing is said as to the mode in which the party is to be accused, but I presume the Magistrate would require an information to be laid before him, showing strong grounds for sup

posing that he had committed a heinous offence, and also that ho would escape, or that important evidence would be lost, if he were not summarily dealt with.

"Treaties between France and England, in August 1787 and March 1815 (Articles 8 and 9) contain reciprocal stipulations for the surrender of persons accused of offences cognizable in Courts of Law within their respective possessions in the East Indies." (1 Phill. Int. L. 419.)

Clause 9 of the treaty of 1815 is as follows:

"All Europeans and others against whom Judicial Proceedings shall be instituted within the limits of the Settlements and factories belonging to His Most Christian Majesty, for offences committed or for debts contracted within the said limits, and who shall take refuge out of the same, shall be delivered up to the Chief of the said Settlements and factories, and all Europeans and others whosoever against whom Judicial Proceedings, as aforesaid, shall be instituted without the said limits, and who shall take refuge within the same, shall be delivered up by the Chief of the said Settlements and factories, upon demand being made of them by the British Government."

The very wide terms of this treaty have become modified by subsequent usage, and it is now the established practice of both powers never to deliver up civil debtors, or criminal offenders unless on charges of a serious character.

There is also a later treaty with France, (13 Feb. 1843 confirmed by Act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 75) providing for the delivery up to justice of persons charged with murder, attempt to murder, forgery, or fraudulent bankruptcy committed within the jurisdiction of the requiring party, where the offender is found within the territories of the other party. But the British Government is only to make the surrender upon a formal judicial document issued by a Judge or Magistrate in France. (Ibid. 427.)

By a treaty with America in 1842, confirmed by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 76, persons "charged with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged paper, committed within the jurisdiction of either of the" two nations, are to be given up if found within the territories of the other. This Statute only applied to cases "where the guilty party could be tried and punished only within the jurisdiction whose laws have been violated;" and therefore the word piracy does not mean piracy jure gentium, as every nation has jurisdiction over it, but piracy by the Municipal law of each. (re Ternan, 33 LJ. MC. 201. 215.) So. also it has been held that the offences specified in extradition treaties must be made out by evidence of facts which constitute the offence by the general law of both the contracting parties. Therefore that a person could not be given up who was charged with an act which had been made forgery by the local law of New York, but which was not forgery by the general law of either Great Britain, or the United States. (re Windsor, 34 LJ. MC. 163.)

As to the proof of warrants and depositions transmitted by foreign officials in case of extradition, see 29 & 30 Vict. c. 121.

By the Merchant Shipping Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. s. 267,

"All offences against property or person committed in or at any place ashore or afloat out of Her Majesty's Dominions (see s. 2) 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 punishment respectively, and be enquired of, heard, tried, and 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." (See as to such costs, 7 Geo. IV. c. 64. s. 27, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2. s. 1.)

Complaints of offences coming under the above Section may be enquired into on oath by any British Consular Officer, who may thereupon send the offender in custody "to the United Kingdom, or to any British possession in which there is a Court capable of taking cognizance of the offence, in any ship belonging to Her Majesty or to any of Her subjects, to be there proceeded with according to law." Tho master of the ship "shall on his ship's arrival in the United Kingdom, or in such British possession as aforesaid, give every offender so committed to his charge into the custody of some Police Officer or Constable, who shall take the offender before a Justice of the Peace or other Magistrate empowered by law to deal with the matter, and such Justice or Magistrate shall deal with the matter as in cases of offences committed on the high seas." The expense of imprisoning the offender, and of conveying him and his witnesses to the place of trial shall be part of the costs of prosecution, or be paid as costs incurred on account of seafaring subjects of Her Majesty left in distress in foreign parts. (s. 268. See as to last clause, ss. 211-213.) See as to the admissibility of depositions where the witness is not producible, s. 270.

In a recent case it was intimated by the Judges that this Act would apply to an American citizen, who was serving on a British Ship, at the time the offence was committed. It was not however necessary to decide the point, as the jurisdiction at common law was made out. (Reg. v. Anderson, 1 LR. C. C. 161.)

Upon this Statute it is to be observed; 1st, that it only applies to Masters, Seamen and Apprentices on British Ships. The Statute applies in the case of a Ship which is in fact a British Ship, though it is not registered under the Merchant Shipping Act. (Reg. v. Sven. Seberg. 1 LR. CC. 264.) 2nd, that the Law and procedure applicable to the offence, and the Courts by whom it is so applied, are the same as if it had been committed within the English Admiralty jurisdiction. Therefore the case would be governed by English law and procedure, and triable only in the High Courts, which alone possessed Admiralty jurisdiction.

Stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 21, provides that

"If any person being a British subject, charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any 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