1804 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 



bors or to anchor in tbem for tbe pnrpose of shelter. I say that nations 

 have such absolute right, and that there is no law of nations, no inter- 

 national law, or any other law anywhere, by which fishermen or any 

 other class have the'privilege of coining within those waters and fishing 

 without the permission of the nation to whom, those territorial waters 

 belong and whose coasts they wash. 



Let me now turn the attention of your excellency and honors to the 

 case of the Queen r. Keyu, upon the authority of which Mr. Dana very 

 much relies. In that case the prisoner was indicted for the crime of 

 manslaughter alleged to have been committed by him on board a for- 

 eign ship, of which he was the captain, in the English Channel, and 

 within three miles of the British shore. He was tried in the central 

 criminal court of London, and convicted. A novel point of law was 

 raised by the prisoner's counsel and reserved by the judge. In order to 

 understand the bearing of that point, I think it right to explain to the 

 Commission that, in order to clothe English courts of assize with the 

 common-law jurisdiction to try offenders', the offense must have been 

 committed within the body of a county. Unless so committed no grand 

 jury could indict and no petit jury try or convict a prisoner. Those large 

 bodies of sea-water within English headlands, called "King's Chambers," 

 were considered to lie within the bodies of counties, as the case of the 

 Queen r. Cunningham cited in the " British Brief" shows. Xo formal 

 decision had ever, so far as I am aware, determined that the territorial 

 waters lying around the external coasts of England were within bodies 

 of counties. Over offenses committed upon the seas, and not within 

 bodies of counties, the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral attached, 

 and he or his deputies, sitting in admiralty court, tried and punished 

 the offenders. 



By a statute passed in the reign of William IV, the criminal jurisdic- 

 tion of the admiral was transferred to judges of assize, and to the cen- 

 tral criminal court. The substance of the objection raised by Captain 

 Keyn's counsel was this : The realm of England over which the common 

 law jurisdiction extends does not reach beyond the line of low-water, 

 and therefore the court has no common law right to try the prisoner. 

 In regard to the admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute 

 of William, that cannot affect the question, because the admiral never 

 bad jurisdiction over foreign vessels or over crimes committed on board 

 of them. The court of appeal quashed the conviction, holding, by seven 

 judges against six, that the realm of England did not at common law ex- 

 tend on her external coasts beyond the line of low-water. But the judges 

 icho gnashed the conviction all held that the Parliament of Great Britian 

 had the undoubted right to confer upon the courts of the kingdom full au- 

 thority to deal irith all questions arising within' her territorial icaters 

 around the external coasts. Owing to the absence of such legislation, 

 Captain Keyn escaped punishment. 



The court of appeal in this case was composed of thirteen judges, and 

 s well to bear in mind that the authority of the judgment is greatly 

 weakened by the fact that six were one way and seven the other. 



Mr. DANA. One of them died. 



Mr. THOMSON. Judge Archibald died, I think ; and after his death 



e decision of the court letting the man go free, and holding that the 

 tral criminal court had no jurisdiction in the matter, was given by 

 the casting vote of the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Alexander 

 Cock burn. 



I was surprised at Mr. Dana, who, whilst commenting on this case I 



