The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-01 00:00:00

tab) inttlitynct.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Present: the Lord thane Iler, Lord,. I.3nilLturet, Brougham, and

Tnr Dux' Or BRUNSWICK v. TIM KING Op HANOVER.
—GUARDIAN AND WARII.—ACCOt•NTS —JURISDICTION.—
FORRION SOVEREIGN.--MA,TEILS Or STATE.—This aorta
against an ordl•r of the Master of the Rolle, allowing n de-
murrer to the appellant's bill, wan opened by Mr. Roll.
on behalf of the appellant, on the 25th of July, sea
Mr. Heath& hl, second counsel for the appellant, having
now coec uded his argument, the Lord Chanceller, without
exliing on the counsel for the respondent, meld all the noble
and learned hurls present, after listening with great atten-
thin to the very at le arguments which they heard from the
bar, were of ~pinion that the ju 'gnient of the Master
of the Rolls was rigl t. It was very clear to his own
mind that a foreign sovereign coming to this country,
whether a sovereign or subject, ceuld not be ho
id
responsib'e in our mine for sets done by him abroad, and
those aeto here complained of and done abroad were not
done, or alleged to be done, by the defendant as a British
subject. It may be a question even how far a foreign Roil--
reign can be held Halite to the jurisdiction of our courts; but
it wan not necessary to decide that qut 'lion in this cane, for
the bill did not state such facts as would raise the question.
The bill stated various facts, but not such 64 raised thatques
tion; and it was the duty of the pleader, if that question was
to be raised at all, to state such facts. The Master of
the Rolls appeared to think that there was a balance, and
that tht ra was some dofliculty in deciding whether the acts
alleged as done abroad were of a private or public character;
but he decoded COO they were ARM IR state. The statements
on the bill appeared to him (the Lord Chancellor) not to
leave the character of the acts in any ambiguity, for th( y
clearly showed that the acts surged and complained of were
acts done by tl e ilelendent in his character o 1 sovereign, and
in a foreign country. Ilia lordship read pa• even from the in-
troductory stete merits in the hill, and said th it in his mind
there wan Lot soy doubt that the instrument set forth in the
hill, and under which the acts there complained of were
dune, was an instrument of state, made by sovereign rrinoea
in the ( itemise of their sovereign power; tied t• at being so, it
was impeocinle for the courts of this country to interfere with
such arts, or exercise any jurisdiction over them. It may be'
true, as it was contended at the bar, that these acts are con.
Vary to the lawn of Jimmy, r and of Brunswick ; but still, if
the acts were done by sovereign authority, in a foreign
country, as they undoubtedly were, the courts of this
country cannot deal with them. No court in this
country can entertain questions between sovereign princes
or mates. If the facts in this bill wo re correctly stated, the
Master of the Itolln very properly allowed the deniurren—
Lord Lyndhurst said he entirely o greed with the Lord Chen-
cell .r. None of the acts complained 01 were dune in this
country, but they were all done abroad by sovereign princle
in their sovereign character. Nothing was stared in the bill
that could justify the interference of our courts or subject the
defendant to their jurisdiction. lie Iwo clearly of opinion
that the jeLginent of the Master of the hulls was right, and
ought to be affirm( I.—Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell
also severally expressed their enure concurrence in the opi-
nions of the Lord Chancellor, and the order of the Master of
the Rolls was affirmed, and the appeal agaivat it dismissed,
with costs.