Croke, in reply, began with the proposition that: "it is not an encroachment or abridgement of the natural rights of the inhabitants of an uncivilized country, that civilized persons should plant a colony in their territory, that is the territory of the uncivilized, provided the colonists so settling do so under sanction of the government of the mother country." Croke argued – like Barry basing his argument on Vattel's "The Law of Nations" – that international law validated such acquisition of sovereignty over "uncivilised" peoples, providing that adequate territory were left to them for their sustenance, and said that that was certainly the case in the Australian colonies. Croke argued that it was the location of the crime, and not the nationalities of the people involved, which determined the jurisdiction, and that anyone present in an English territory "owes a local allegiance to the Queen of England, receiving protection at her Majesty's hands whilst within the district, and consequently reciprocally bound by the laws that prevail within that district". Croke posed as a rhetorical question whether, supposing Bonjon had instead killed Yammowing in England, or similarly, supposing one Frenchman had killed another Frenchman in England, "my learned friend [could] deny that the slayer would be amenable to the law of England?" Lastly, Croke advanced an argument "derived from the laws of nature herself", saying that the laws of a sovereign power must extend to everyone within the territory, in order to give effect to the maxim in that "whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed". This applied to all persons within a territory because all of them were also entitled to the protection of those laws. Judge Willis opened his judgment by stating that "I do not consider myself bound by the opinion of either Mr. Chief Justice Forbes, Mr. Justice Burton, or Mr. Chief Justice Dowling in the present case." He then noted that it was not disputed that the colonial courts had jurisdiction over crimes committed by Aboriginal people against the colonists, or vice versa, giving several examples of such cases. He also emphasised the duty of a judge, not only to fully exercise their jurisdiction, but also to refrain from doing so where there is reasonable doubt about that jurisdiction. Judge Willis frequently referred to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines throughout his judgment. He quoted from the testimony before the Committee of William Broughton, the Anglican Bishop of Australia, who was of the view that the early settlers were wrong to presume that the Aboriginal people were lacking in intellect, that rather their way of life was attributable to their "love of erratic liberty".