208 PART IV. The Executive
v. Pedlar (ante). An alien resident abroad may, of course, persuade
his Government to seek redress by diplomatic means.
An act of State authorised by a foreign ruler may empower a
British subject to seize British-owned goods on a British ship in
foreign territorial waters: Can v. Fracis Times and Co., [1902] A.C.
176. It will not, however, be regarded by a British court as a justi-
fication of a wrongful act committed under the British flag outside the
jurisdiction of the foreign ruler: The Queen v. Lesley (1860), Bell C.C
220.
B.
State Immunity.
The immunity of Heads of State and State property may be classi-
fied under three heads :
(a) Immunity of Heads of States.
(i) Diplomatic and consular immunity.
(c) Immunity in respect of public property of a foreign State.
The immunity is one from legal process, and its nature may be
illustrated by the following case:
Mighellv. Sultan ofJohore, [1894] 1 Q.B. 149.
The Sultan, while visiting this country, became engaged to a young
woman to whom he disclosed his identity as being that of Mr. Albert
Baker. The Sultan having failed to fulfil his promise of marriage, the
lady attempted to serve a writ on him for breach of promise of
marriage.
Held that as a ruler of an independent foreign State, Johore being
so regarded for this purpose, the Sultan was immune from process,
unless he submitted to the jurisdiction.
The Parlement Beige (1880), 5 P.D. 197, laid down the important
principle, that as a consequence of the independence of every
sovereign authority a State will decline to exercise any of the terri-
torial jurisdiction of its courts over the person of any sovereign or
ambassador, or over the public property of. any State destined for
the public use, or over the property of any ambassador, even though
the sovereign, ambassador or property be within its territory. This
statement was occasioned by the seizure, under process of the Ad-
miralty Division (to secure redress for collision damage), of a packet
steamer which had collided with a ship of a British subject. The
vessel was the property of the King of the Belgians and carried mails
for his Government, as well as private passengers and merchandise.
The immunity may be waived by an unequivocal act of sub-
mission: Duff Development Co. v. Government of Kelaman> [1924]
A.C 797; K. & L. 104. It is an immunity, not from liability, but
from local jurisdiction. Accordingly when a foreign diplomatic