1454 IMPERIAL UNITY [PART VIII 
lian nationality by the High Court of Australia! but it does 
recognize that a person has a home of his own, and that such 
a person if he returns to that home is not an immigrant whose 
entry can be regulated by the Commonwealth under its 
general power to regulate immigration. There is also some 
recognition of it in the New Zealand immigration law which, 
as a rule, though not always, allows a domiciled New Zea- 
lander to return to the country after absence, and the immi- 
gration bill of the Union of 1911 also recognizes this principle. 
There are, of course, other manifestations of the doctrine : 
it was at one time held in the Canadian Courts 2 that Canada 
could punish bigamy committed outside Canada by a British 
subject resident there, and Lefroy ® makes out that this is 
consistent with the decision of the Privy Council in Macleod 
v. Attorney-General for New South Wales,* by holding that 
the invalidity of the conviction in the latter case was due 
to the fact that the Act was held to be in too wide terms as 
applying to any persons and not merely to British subjects 
domiciled in New South Wales. This interpretation of the 
statute, besides being very far from being supported by the 
language of the Court, is open to the fatal objection that if this 
were the view taken by the Court they would have dealt 
with the question of domicile in the case of Macleod which 
was discussed in the Court below. But in New Zealand 
the tendency clearly is for the Supreme Court to hold that a 
New Zealander is subject over all the world to the jurisdiction 
of New Zealand, and that thus New Zealand has a special 
and peculiar nationality of its own adherent to it.5 
Cf. 4C. L.R. 949, at p. 951; 7C.L. R. 277, at p. 288. But contrast Mr. 
Pearce’s views in Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 1910, pp. 4326 seq. 
® Reg. v. Brierly, 14 0. R. 525 ; 4 Cart. 665 ; in re Criminal Code, Bigamy 
Sections, 27 S. C. R. 461. * Legislative Power in Canada, p. 329. 
* [1891] A. C. 455. Lefroy’s view is supported by én re Criminal Code, 
Bigamy Sections, 27 S. C. R. 461. 
§ Cf. in re Award of Wellington Cooks and Stewards’ Union, 26 N. Z. L. R. 
394. Jenkyns, British Rule and Jurisdiction, p. 31, seems to hold this view, 
relying on a misunderstanding of 57 & 58 Vict. ¢. 60,5. 265. The reference 
on p. 27, n. 3, to 9 Geo. IV. c. 31 as justifying the trial of bigamy committed 
outside a Colony in a Colony is a blunder.