donderry, and the other six months in his chambers in Piccadilly (he rejoined the bench of the Middle Temple in 1878), reading a great deal, taking a keen interest in the bar, and in the rising young men, and dining daily at Brooke's. He died in 1883, at the age of eighty-two. His epi taph, he would jestingly say, he wished to" Here be —lies a judge who never left a remnant."
robustness, and in other ways, he was not unlike Dr. Johnson, but without his learning. His strongly-marked individuality, with so little of the conventional judge about him, made him a very noticeable figure on the bench, and he will be remembered when more able judges have been forgotten. For the remaining ten years of his life he lived six months of every year in Ireland on his estate in his native counts' of Lon
MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW PROBLEMS. I. EX-TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION AND JURISDICTION. NO problem of modern international law is more interesting or more likely, in some countries at any rate, to give rise to practical difficulties in the near future than that of the right or claim of States to legis late, or exercise jurisdiction, beyond their own territories, or with ex-territorial effect. In England and the United States there has been a practically unanimous accept ance of the view that international law pro hibits the legislature from passing laws for the punishment of foreigners for offenses committed on foreign soil, or from erecting courts on foreign territory, and the English parliament has been extremely cautious in legislating with regard to offenses committed even by British subjects on such territory.1 An examination of the cases in which Eng lish law has an ex-territorial range may be of some value. 1 It is pointed out by Sir Courtenay Ilbert in his admir able work on the " Government uf India," p. 407, note I, that continental states have asserted the right to punish for eigners for offenses committed in foreign territories, espe cially for acts which attack the social existence of the state in question, and endanger its security, and are not provided against by the penal law of the country in whose territories they take place.
I. Offenses at sea. The jurisdiction of the Court of the Admiral formerly extended, and that of the ordinary courts of criminal jurisdiction now extends, to offenses commit ted ou board a British ship, whether on the open seas or on foreign territorial waters be low bridges, and whether the offender is or is not a member of the crew, and although there may be concurrent jurisdiction in a foreign court. See R. v. Anderson, 18 L. R., i C.C.R. 161; K. v. Carr, 1882, ю Q. B. D. 76. This provision does not apply to alien enemies or aliens on board a British ship against their will (11 Steph. Hist. Crim. Law, 4-8 ) . By the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878(41 and 42 Viet. c. 73) an offense committed by any person within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's do minions is an offense within the admiral's jurisdiction (and therefore, now within that of the ordinan- criminal courts) although committed on board, or by means of, a foreign ship (giving effect to opinion of mi nority of judges in R. v. Keyn, 1876, 2 Ex. D. 76). But jurisdiction is not exercised or claimed in respect of offenses committed by a British subject on board a foreign ship
