cHAP.11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 385
subjects ; more than any persons who may be within the
jurisdiction of the Colony by any means whatsoever ; and
that therefore, if that construction were given to the statute, it
would follow as a necessary result that the statute was ultra
vires of the Colonial Legislature to pass. Their Lordships
are far from suggesting that the Legislature of the Colony did
mean to give to themselves so wide a jurisdiction. The more
reasonable theory to adopt is that the language was used,
subject to the well-known and well-considered limitation, that
they were only legislating for those who were actually within
their jurisdiction, and within the limits of the Colony.
Though some of the expressions which have been quoted
are not without some slight ambiguity, it is really clear that
the Privy Council were of opinion that the legislation of the
Colony must be restricted within its territorial limits, includ-
ing, of course, the territorial waters.
There are recent colonial cases which entirely bear out
this view. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia
in the case of McKelvie v. Meagher? has expressly asserted
the limitation of the jurisdiction of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth to the territorial waters of the Common-
wealth. Moreover, in a judgement in the case of The
Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v. Archibald Currie
and Company Proprietary, Limited? the Chief Justice held
in the clearest terms that, apart from the effect of s. 5 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the legislation
of the Commonwealth was restricted within the three-mile
limit. The Chief Justice said: ‘Of course, the jurisdiction
' Contrast Trial of Earl Russell, [1901] A. C. 446, where the Earl was
convicted of bigamy because of his marriage in America after an invalid
divorce based on an imaginary change of domicile. The judges who
advised were all of opinion that there was no substance in the argument
for the defence that the Act (24 & 256 Vict. c. 100, s. 57) did not apply to
a marriage outside the Dominions. This shows the difference of colonial
and Imperial law.
* 4G. L. R. 268, at p. 274. Cf. also D’Emden v. Pedder, 1C. L. R. 91,
at p. 118 ; Hughes v. Munro, 9C. L. R. 289, at p. 294 (per Griffith C.J.), at
p- 297 (per O'Connor J.) ; Keith, Journ. Soc. Comp. Leg., xi. 236, 237.
? 5C.L. R. 737, at pp. 742-4. Sce Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Bill (Wyman, 1900), pp. 142, 150 ; Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates,
1904, pp. 2069 seq.; Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 260 seq.; below, pp. 400. 401.
1279 Ne
