These Orders in Council are printed in Statutory Rules and Orders, Revised 1904, vol. v., and see supra, or in the case of orders since 1904 in the annual volumes of Statutory Rules and Orders under the title of the colony affected.

Besides these provisions there are also Orders in Council as to extradition from certain colonies in cases to which the Act of 1870 does not apply, e.g. Straits Settlements (St. R. & O., 1901; Order in Council, September 26, 1901; St. R. & O., 1896, No. 967). The treaties with China of 1850 (Kwok-a-Sing's Case, 1875, L. R. 5 P. C. 179), and with Siam of September 3, 1883, and November 30, 1885, do not fall under the Extradition Acts.

The extradition of British subjects from places to which the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, and prior Acts apply is regulated by the Orders in Council as to foreign jurisdiction affecting these places (see St. R. & O., Rev. 1904, vol. v., tit. "Foreign Jurisdiction," and the annual volumes under that title). Cyprus comes under this provision (see St. R. & O., Rev. 1904, vol. v. p. 418). Fugitives from British justice under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts do not appear to be within the Extradition Acts. This view has been taken in the United States.

The Acts are at present defective in that if a fugitive offender committed for extradition in a colony passes through the United Kingdom en route to the State of trial the extradition proceedings must be gone through again (Longdon's Case, 1896, 31 L. J. 252).

In New South Wales there is no local statute on the subject.

It is under the Imperial Act of 1870 that French escapees from the French settlement of New Caledonia are dealt with. . . . Upon receipt of a requisition from the consul of France requiring the extradition of a person supposed to be in the colony, accompanied by proof of the conviction of the person to be dealt with of an extradition crime, and upon production of an affidavit stating that it is believed he is at large in the colony, the governor, acting according to the powers given in England, issues his warrant for the appre hension of the accused. Upon the arrest being made, the prisoner is brought before the governor, who takes evidence upon oath as to the conviction of the accused of a crime for which he may be extradited, and of his sentence not having expired, and if satisfied upon these matters commits the prisoner to Darlinghurst gaol, etc.; the further proceedings being as prescribed by the Act of 1870 (see Legal Year-Book of Australasia, article by W. J. Williams, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales).

Extradition within British Empire.-For extradition between the different parts of the British Empire, see FUGITIVE OFFENDERS.

[Authorities.-Clarke, A Treatise on the Law of Extradition, 4th ed., 1903; Moore, A Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition, 2 vols., Boston, 1891; Kirchner, L'Extradition, London, 1883; Lammasch, Auslieferung und Asylrecht, Leipzig, 1887; Billot, Traité de l'Extradition, Paris, 1874; Holtzendorff, Die Auslieferung der Verbrecher und das Asylrecht, Berlin, 1881; Bernard, Traité théorique et pratique de l'extradition, Paris, 1883; Weiss, Etude sur les conditions de l'extradition, Paris, 1880; Spears, The Law of Extradition, Boston, 1880; W. B. Lawrence, Etude sur l'Extradition, Leipzig, 1880; Renault, Etude sur l'extradition en Angleterre, Paris, 1879; Calvo, Dictionnaire de Droit International, Paris, 1885; Vincent-Penaud, Dictionnaire de Droit International Privé, Paris, 1888; Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit International Public,

vol. iii., Paris, 1887; Ricci, Des effets de l'extradition, Paris, 1886; Lawrence, International Law, London; Craies, Extradition in England, 1899 and 1900; Clunet, J., 1901, 947.]

Extraordinary Traffic.-See HIGHWAYS.

Extra-territorial Crime.-Under the common law of England no person could be tried or punished for offences not committed within the body of the realm. Offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England or of the Constable and Marshal were tried and punished under the law and procedure in force in these Courts, or under the civil law as modified by the sea laws, or the lex amarus The jurisdiction of the Admiralty, fully discussed in R. v. Keyn, 1876, 2 Ex. D. 63, and in R. v. Carr, 1882, 10 Q. B. D. 76. It was not until the reign of Hen. VIII. that jurisdiction was given to try according to the course of the common law treason committed out of England (R. v. Lynch [1903], 1 K. B. 744; see 35 Hen. VIII. c. 2), and offences at sea (28 Hen. VIII. c. 15). These statutes created no offence, but merely a new mode of trial for offences as to which officers of the King already had jurisdiction; but they are important as indicating that the ordinary Courts cannot try extra-territorial crime without Parliamentary

sanction.

The common and statute law as to crimes undoubtedly applies to all persons, whether subjects or aliens (except those having diplomatic privilege, and perhaps prisoners of war), within the United Kingdom, or, since 1878, in its territorial waters; but outside these limits, except as to the offences already mentioned, does not apply even to British subjects, unless a statute so provides expressly or with sufficiently clear implication.

"All crime is local. The jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed, and except over her own subjects Her Majesty and the Imperial Legislature have no power whatsoever" (Macleod v. Att.-Gen. for N.S. W., [1891] A. C. 458; Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote, [1894] A. C. 670).

Parliamentary legislation is primarily territorial; and statutes of the British Parliament are prima facie applicable to persons within the United Kingdom or its territorial waters, and to no other persons (see Ilbert, Government of India, 2nd ed., 342; Legislative Methods and Forms, 251). From the point of view of international law the legislature is not justified in giving jurisdiction to its municipal Courts to try or punish aliens for offences committed outside British territory or waters, except piracy jure gentium, and the Courts in construing statutes will always lean strictly against the conclusion that Parliament has legislated in a manner contrary to public international law. But if the intention is sufficiently clear, the municipal Court must follow the municipal law, even if it admittedly violates the established canons of international law (see Mortensen v. Peters, 1906, 43 S. L. R. 872, where aliens were convicted of trawling within an area prohibited by the Herring Fisheries Scotland Act, 1889, but lying outside the territorial waters of Scotland).

The chief offences committed outside England as to which English

Courts are given jurisdiction by statute are stated in the annexed table:

Murder or manslaughter 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100,

on land out of the King's dominions by a British subject.

Bigamy by a British subject elsewhere than in England or Ireland.

Offences against the Slave
Trade Acts.

s. 9.

Cr. Pl., 23d ed., 39.

Offences against the Explo- 46 & 47 Vict. c. 3.

sives Act, 1883, by British

subjects in foreign parts.

Offences against the Foreign 33 & 34 Vict. c. 90, R. v. Jameson, [1896]

Enlistment Act, 1870, by

British subjects in foreign
parts.

Offences against the Official
Secrets Act, 1889, com-
mitted out of the United
Kingdom.

Offences abroad under the
Commissioners of Oaths
Act, 1889, or the Foreign
Marriage Act, 1892, or the
Marriage with Foreigners.
Act, 1906.

Offences on a British ship
on the high seas by a
person not a British
subject.

2 Q. B. 425.

Offences by a British subject on a British ship on the high seas, or in a foreign port or harbour, or on a foreign ship to which he does not belong.

Offences against property or person committed at any place ashore or afloat out of the King's dominions by any master, seaman, or apprentice, who at the date of the offence is for within 3 months before taken employed on a British ship.

Wrongfully forcing a seaman of a British ship on shore, and leaving him behind at any place ashore or afloat out of the King's dominions; or wrongfully discharging a seaman of a British ship at a foreign port; and offences generally under the M. S. Acts.

Offences against the Dockyards Protection Act, 1772, committed out of the realm.

Oppressions, crimes, and offences, being misdemeanors committed by British officials in the Colonies or out of England.

Offences by officials and others in India.

Besides these enactments there are also numerous enactments authorising the trial in British colonies and possessions of offences under Imperial Acts outside the territory of the colony or possession, e.g. :— The Admiralty Offences Colonial Acts, 1849, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 96,

and 1860, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 122.

Pacific Islanders Protection Acts.

The Slave Trade Acts.

The Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890.

The extent to which extra-territorial jurisdiction can be exercised by Indian Codes is discussed in Ilbert, Government of India, 2nd ed., pp. 353 et seq. As to Admiralty jurisdiction in India, see 23 & 24 Vict. c. 88.

The power of the legislatures of British colonies or possessions to confer jurisdiction to try crimes committed outside the limits of the land and waters of the colony or possession, have been considerably discussed, and cannot be said to be fully determined (Macleod v. A.-G. for N. S. W., [1891] A. C. 453; A.-G. for Canada v. Cain & Gilhula, [1906] A .C. 542; Re Bigamy Laws of Canada, 1897, 27 Canada, 461; R. v. Hilaire, 1903, 3 N. S. W. Rep. 228; Kingston v. Gadd, 1901, 27 Victoria L. R. 417, 429.

See FOREIGN ENLISTMENT; FOREIGN JURISDICTION; PIRACY; SLAVETRADE.

Ex vi termini.-The interpretation of a term by virtue of its own essential meaning, and not by extrinsic evidence, whether the term is used in a philological or a legal sense; e.g. in Christopherson v. Bare, 1848, 11 Q. B. 477; 75 R. R. 457, the word "assault" was said to negative, ex vi termini, the idea of permission.

Eyre. A judicial visitation of the counties by justices appointed for the purpose of hearing all pleas (ad omnia placita). In the reign of Henry III., when the eyre system reached its highest development, three or four professional judges, together with a noble, a bishop, or an abbot, would traverse a group of counties under a general commission. There were no regular circuits; the groups of counties varied in arrangement from eyre to eyre. At times, notably in the years 1240 and 1241, the sittings of the Bench at Westminster were suspended, and the administration of the law was carried out entirely by itinerant justices. The most important part of the eyre was the hearing of the Pleas of the Crown. A set of interrogatories, called the Capitula Itineris (see STATUTES OF THE REALM), were delivered by the Crown to the judges; and to those interrogatories juries of the different hundreds of each county were in turn sworn to make answer. According to their answers punishment was meted out to transgressors. It was a constitutional principle, though one not always observed, that an eyre could only be held once in every seven years. There is at least one instance in which an eyre was postponed because the necessary interval had not elapsed. In the reign of Edward 1. eyres became less frequent, and in the reign of Edward III. they fell into desuetude. The work which had formerly been performed in eyres was gradually transferred to the sittings of the justices of assize and justice of the peace.

[Authority.See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law.]

F. A. A.-These letters denote "free from all average" in marine policies (Aston v. Blundell, [1895] 2 Q. B. 196; [1896] 1 Q. B. 123). Fabrication of Evidence.-See FORGERY.

Fabrication of Tea and Coffee.-See COFFEE; TEA.

Fabrication of Voting Papers.-See BALLOT.