CO885-(10-11) — Page 829

2

sit, and would, he presumes, hold sessions whenever the Governor might think it expedient and necessary. But this is a very different thing from the Governor having power to direct the Court to hold sessions, a power which he certainly ought to have, but which we do not understand Mr. Montagu to contend that, as things are, he has. We agree with Mr. Montagu that the Court has the discretion to sit, but we think, with the Chief Justice, that the Governor has not the power to direct it to do so.

Under these circumstances we think an Ordinance should be passed giving him this power, and probably an Ordinance in two sections would be sufficient, first giving the Governor power in his discretion to order a monthly session of Oyer and Terminer for such period as he may think fit, and secondly, giving him a separate and independent power in the terms of the patent of October 1821, as set out in the second paragraph of the first letter of the Chief Justice.

The Right Hon. Earl of Kimberley,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We are, &c. (Signed) R. P. COLLIER.

J. D. COLERIDGE.

9655.

No. 660.

(SIERRA LEONE.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LOBD,

Temple, September 6, 1870. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Holland's letter of the 30th August ultimo, stating that with reference to the Report of the 20th July made by us, in which we recommended an Act extending British authority to the punishment of crimes committed against British subjects though not upon British territory, within some reasonable limits; he was now directed by your Lord- ship to transmit to us the copy of a further Despatch with its enclosures received from Sir Arthur Kennedy, reporting the murder of one Krooman by another at a place out of British territory, and requesting instructions how to deal with such matters; and further stating that it might be assumed that the Krooman who was murdered was not a British subject, though he had been resident in Freetown, and the case, therefore, would not fall within the terms of such an Act as was recommended in our Report.

Mr. Holland further stated that he was to request that we would favour your Lord- ship with our opinion whether the proposed legislation could be safely extended to cases of this kind where the offence is not committed against a British subject, and whether, for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the Colonial court, the fact of con- tinued residence in the Colony prior to the commission of the offence could properly be taken to supply the want of nationality in the person injured.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have considered this matter, and have the honour to

Report

That there is no objection in our opinion to give jurisdiction to the Colonial court in respect of offences committed at places out of British territory against persons who by residence within a British Colony, under circumstances which constitute a domicile by the law of nations, have acquired a British national character. The same principles of jurisprudence which warrant the extension of the jurisdiction of the Colonial courts- in respect of offences committed against persons entitled to British protection under our municipal law will in our opinion sanction the extension of that jurisdiction to the cases of persons upon whom the British national character is impressed by the law of nations.

We have, &c. (Signed)

The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,

&c.

&c.

&o.

• No. 651.

R. P. COLLIER.

J. D. COLERIDGE. TRAVERS TWISS.

0 14978-188.

25.-5/96.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

| COPYRIGHT PHOTOUTUU YAPHIC-|

BE REPRODUCED

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE