« PreviousContinue »
when Great Britain, France, and Russia intervened in the Greek revolution, there was a blockade by the fleets of those three Powers of Turkey, i.e., of the coasts of Greece occupied by the Turkish army. In 1850 the Greek ports were blockaded by Great Britain, and in the last instance in 1886 there was a blockade of Greek ports by the Great Powers, excluding France. With regard to the validity of “pacific blockade” from the point of view of International Law, it is at once obvious that its name is, to say the least, unfortunate. Blockade, which is stated to have been introduced by the Dutch towards the close of the sixteenth century, is a maritime warlike operation. Inasmuch as it cuts off neutral trade it is an important concession on the part of neutrals to the rights of belligerent States. The Power enforcing a blockade is admittedly a Power at war with the State to whose ports or coasts the blockade is applied, while “pacific blockade” is applied as a measure, in theory, falling short of war as regards the blockaded State; nevertheless, as Lord Palmerston asserted in the case of the “pacific blockade ’’ of the La Plata in 1845-1848, practically amounting to war, but is war undeclared and which other States are not bound notice as such, nor in case of its infringement to submit to attempted confiscation of their ships, the usual penalty for breach of blockade, by the Powers who are putting it in force. In adding operations on land to those by sea, the late “pacific blockade” appears to introduce a novel method of coercion. The Objections.
Thus there are serious objections from the standpoint of International Law, both to the agency which was attempting so lately to coerce Greece as well as to the means by which the coercion was being effected. While praising the six Powers for their “mission of peace” this
ought not to be left out of sight. That Greece or Turkey
Encyclopædia of the Laws of England. Under the General Editorship of
Contributo a Favore dei Giurati. By Umberto de Bonis. Tipografia Elzeviriana, Rome, 1896.
La Teorica del Danno Criminale. By Umberto de Bonis. Tipografia Elzeviriana, Rome, 1896.
Il Risarcimento del Danno Economico e la Pena. By Umberto de Bonis. Rome, 1897.
American Digest, 119 and 12o. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn., 1897.
Confederation Law of Canada; Privy Council Cases on the British North America Act, 1867; and the Practice on Special Leave to Appeal. By GERALD JoHN WHEELER, M.A., LL.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1896.
The writer has endeavoured to collect in this volume, of over 1,000 pages, all the data of importance with regard to the various steps taken by the Imperial Government, as well as by the Legislatures of the Dominion and Provinces of Canada, towards confederation of those Provinces. To this he has wisely added, as fully as possible, the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council bearing on the question. Under each section of the British North America Act, 1867, notes are given of all the leading appeals and petitions. Moreover, the Copyright Acts have been grouped together, and the American Copyright Act as amended in accordance with the Berne Convention, is included.
The leading appeal which touches on the vexed liquor question, was decided by the Privy Council last year, and has at last drawn a dividing line between the respective powers of the Dominion and the Provincial Legislatures. The value of this book is immense, comprising as it does, in a small compass, a most necessary erudition on laws and practice, which have hitherto been rudis indigestaque moles.
Domesday Book and Beyond. Three Essays in the Early History of England. By FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, LL.D., Downing Professor of the Laws of England, in the University of Cambridge, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Cambridge: at the University Press. 1897.
To those who desire to penetrate the deeper waters of our early history, the publication of this book will prove invaluable. Domesday Book must be mastered to understand our English History. When the Conqueror charged his barons, legates, and justices to collect a descriptio of his new realm, various documents were compiled for that purpose; of which we have two manuscript volumes, known as the Domesday Book. Little Domesday, as the second of these volumes is sometimes called, deals with Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk; the first volume relates to the rest of England. We also have the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigie, the Inquisitio Eliensis, the Exon Domesday, an account of Cornwall and Devonshire, and of part of Somerset, Dorset, and Wiltshire, and the Exchequer Domesday. The Domesday Book is not a treatise on law, although it contains mention of some provincial privileges, nor is it a register of title; but it is a Geld-book. Professor Maitland elaborates many obscure questions concerning Book-land and the Landbook, Sake and Soke, Boroughs, Manor and Will, and the Village community, to say nothing of Domesday statistics. Excellent is the compilation, and of immeasurable value to students of archaeology.
Encyclopadia of the Laws of England, being a new Abridgment by the most eminent Legal Authorities. Under the general editorship of A. WooD RENTON, M.A., LL.B., of Gray's Inn, and of the Oxford Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. Vol. I. London : Sweet and Maxwell, Limited. Edinburgh : William Green and Sons. 1897.
This, the first volume, commences with Abandonment and ends in Bankruptcy. Not a happy omen certainly. The scheme, however, is a well considered one, and the publishers have acted wisely in securing the services of Mr. A. Wood Renton for their editor, a gentleman who has already had experience in literary supervision, being for some time editor of our contemporary, The Law Żournal. The articles as a rule are not too lengthy, and thereby are the more serviceable. They are with some exceptions succinct enunciations of the law and trustworthy. The articles by Mr. W. F. Craies are especially good, although we notice from the title of his second article, that he has been forced to deal with some unsavoury subjects. Sir Walter Phillimore has written an article on Affreightment, interesting in its character, but rather too verbose; the same may be said of an article on Absolute Privilege by Mr. W. Blake Odgers, Q.C., which is remarkable so far as the preliminary text is concerned for its omission of all the earlier authorities upon which it is founded, and for a rather full verbatim adoption of an extract from the judgment of Lopes, L.J., in a modern case decided in 1892 (The Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson), which, however, was not one of absolute privilege, but of qualified privilege, depending on the absence of malice. Further, we regret to notice that in his reference to Parliamentary proceedings, he puts forward, after a quotation from the Bill of Rights, as his leading authority, a case decided in 1887 in the Irish Courts (Dillon v. Balfour); whereas, privilege is founded on the Statute 4 Henry VIII., c. 8, reference to which is entirely omitted, as also the leading cases on the subject, viz.:—R. v. Lord Abingdon and R. v. Creecy. Mr. Barclay has written on Ambassador and Alliance in a fairly creditable manner; and the other writers have done their part as a rule well. The work should commend itself to the profession as a useful epitome of the Law of England, up to date, and for ready reference. Perhaps the most unfortunate step taken by the publishers was in asking Sir F. Pollock, Bart., to write what he terms a “General Introduction” to this volume. Such an introduction was unneeded, for “good wine needs no bush.” The so-called General Introduction is not calculated to bring additional credit on the work, and it would have been better to have omitted it.
Select Cases in Chancery. A.D. 1364 to 1471. Edited for the Selden Society by WILLIAM PALEY BAILDoN. London: Bernard Quaritch. 1896.
The first part of this volume contains a selection of early Chancery petitions, while the second part deals with selected petitions, French petitions of various dates, or undated, and English petitions of various dates. The Petition or Bill varies little from those known in the Courts of Chancery before the Judicature Act, 1873. They are almost invariably in French until the reign of Henry V., when English forms became