Star. — 1807-11-27 (London, England)

VIII. for trying murders committed in foreign countries, re• laced only to offences committed by Britifh inhjees;. and the Al of the prefent King, which extended the principle to cafes of manflaughter, went no farther. If this offence had been committed either in this! country or even at Prince of Wales's Ifland, in loch cafe the p• ifoner, though a Spaniard, would be refponfibie to our laws, becaufe every man owes a temporary or local allegiance to that power in whole domini ms he !elides. This offence, however, was committed in China, where the local allegiance was due only to the Emperor of China. If he had volunteered on board a King's (hip, the cafe might' have been different, or at all events he would be, cognizable by a Court Martial. If the offence hadl been committed on the high fear, he would not take upon him to fay whether the Admiralty Court would have jurifdiftion or not ; but having been committed in China by a Spaniard, he mutt contend that it could not be legally tried before our Courts. This point appeared to him of the moll ferious importance, Sind deferving the greatelt attention, inafmuch as the lives of many Britifh fnbjeas in foreign countries might depend upon it. The principle of temporary and local allegiance to the Rate in whole territories a man refides, was a principle eafily under ftood and univerfally affented to ; but foreign nations would be very much at a lots to know upon what principle an alien enemy could be tried by our laws, for offences committed in another country. Mr. ABBOT, on the contrary, argued, that as he had enjoyed the proteCtion of the Britifh laws while he was on board the merchant chip, he mutt need farily owe an allegiance to that power whole protection he fo enjoyed. Lord ELLENBORnUGH afked Mr. Abbot whether he thought the Britifh laws would have enforced the contra°, if the owners of the merchant chip had not paid him the flipulated wages Mr. ABBOT allowed, that during the war they would not, as he could not fue while he was an alien enemy, and his property might be confifcated by the Crown. He mull, however, contend, that his life would have been proteCted by the Englilh laws, and that if, inilead of his killing Burn, Burn had killed him, he would undoubtedly have been liable to be tried here, although the offence was committed in China. (Some of the Judges expelled diffent.)— The A& of Henry the Eighth introduced no new principle in our law, as before the palling of it, murders committed in foreign countries were triable before the Conflable and Earl Mar(hal. It appeared to him, that the prifoner, in changing his fituation from a prifoner of war to a mariner on board a merchant (hip, had done an a 8 greatly to his own benefit, and that as he did obtain the proteftion of our laws, he ought to be refponfible as a Britifh fubjedt for the breach of them. The Learned Counfel con. chided by citing three cafes in canonic of the drolrine for which he contended. The first was of a French prifoner of war, v ho, in 1799, was found guilty and punifhed tor rnanflaugter committed on board the Triton Earl Indiaman ; the fecond was, that of jean Prevoft, a Frenchman, who was executed for the murder of Captain iVilcocks, of the Lady Shore packet, on the coati of Africa ; and the third was of a Cirinefe, of the name of Acow, who was tried tall year and executed for the murder cf a Lafcar, on board one of our Indiamen. Mr. 13u R Itr,Was, in reply, obferved, that thole cafes had never been fcrioufly argued, as the prilmers had no Counfel ; the point was, however, new-made, and would, he trulted, be deemed worthy of the null ferious confederation. As to the jurifdittion which the Admiralty exercifed on the high leas, he conceived that it did not depend on our common law, but on the right which the country had fo long puffeffed of a fort of lovereignty on the feas. Lord ELLENAnKOUGH and Sir JAMES MANSFIELD obferved, that this country never claimed any fovereignty except in the Narrow Seas. [As far as we could colic& from the obfervations thrown out by the different Judges, it appeared to us that the inclination of their minds was, that this Spann prifoner could not be tried here for an offence commiord in China. The Connie! were, however, informed, that if the Judges fhould think that it was neceffary to argue the point further, their defire would be fignified to the ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. BURROW Es.]