ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 51 



The iutimate comiection between tlie national law and 

 the international law is indicated in the Judgments now 

 quoted. 



QUOTATIONS FROM ENGLISH JUDGMENTS. 



In the case of " Le Louis," Lord Stowell said : 2 Dodson, 239. 



Neither this British Act of Parliament nor any Couiniission founded 

 on it can affect any right or interest of foreigners unhjss tliey are 

 foinided on principles and impose regulations that are consistent with 

 the law of nations; that is the only law that Great Britain can apply 

 to them, and the generality of any terms employed in an Act of Par- 

 liament must be narrowed in construction by a religious adherence 

 thereto. 



57 So in Cope v. Doherty, Lord Justice Turner said : j 2^^)^ gcx. and 



This is a British Act of Parliament, and it is not, I think, to be pre- 

 sumed that the British Parliament could intend to legislate as to the 

 rights and liabilities of foreigners; in order to warrant such a conclu- 

 sion, I think that either the words of the Act ought to be express or the 

 context of it very clear. 



So in Jeffreys v. Boosey, Baron Parke said: ^^.^^ h. l. cases, 



The Legislature has no power over any persons except its own sub- 

 jects, that is, persons natural-born si;bjects, or resident, or whilst 

 they are within the limits of the kingdom ; the Legislature can iiujiose 

 no duties except on them, and when legislating for tlie beuetit of 

 persons must ;j)v»)« /((c/e be considered to mean the benelit of those 

 who owe obedience to our laws, and whose interest the Legislature is 

 under a correlative obligation to protect. 



A remarkable application of this principle occurred in 

 the case of ex parte Blain re Sawers. The question arose 

 as to the application of the Eng^lish Bankruptcy Law to 

 foreigners in England; the deiinitions of acts of bank- 

 ruptcy in the Statute include the commission of certain 

 acts "in England or elsewhere;" yet it was held by the 

 Court of Appeal that a foreigner iu England, althongh on 

 general principles he was subject to English law, could not 

 be made bankrupt unless he had committed an act of bank- 

 ruptcy in England. The words "or elsewhere" were held 

 not to apply to such a foreigner on the principles above 

 stated. 



It is unnecessary further to cite authorities; one more 

 quotation from Chief Justice Cockburn's judgment in Eeg. 

 V. Keyn will suffice: 



The argument is that the language of the Statute fof Llenry VIII 

 as to offences on the sea) being general in its terms, it must be taken 

 to have included foreigners as well as subjects. No doubt these words 

 are large enough to include foreigners as well as subjects, but so they 

 are to include the entire ocean as well as the narrow seas; and it 

 cannot be supposed that anything so preposterous was contemplated 

 as to make foreigners liable to the law of this country for offences 

 committed on foreign ships all over the world. 



It is submitted that the Statute under which the British 

 vessels were seized and condemned was either wrongly 

 interpreted, or was ultra vires. 



L. K. 12Ch.D. 



500. 



L. E., 2 Ex. D. 

 63. 



