« PreviousContinue »
made in the eighteenth and not in the twentieth year of the reign. But the Note Book gives us no dates, and it is conceivable that it is, in substance, an accurate account of the sequence of events. It is possible that the baronial Nolumus was not uttered at the Merton parliament ; it may, as Bracton states, have preceded the ordinance, and the ordinance may have been intended as a settlement of the dispute. One argument against this proposition is that there was no settlement; the bishops did not consent to answer the question to be referred to them under the ordinance. Another argument is a writ, dated 9th May, 1236, addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin and the Justiciar of Ireland. It states that in the preceding year it had been provided that such an issue should be settled by the bishops; that afterwards the bishops refused to determine the issue in the manner which had been provided ; and that it was to be determined, in future, by the King's Courts. The writ is strong evidence that Bracton's story is false, both as regards dates and the sequence of events; and the learned Editor of his Note Book arrives at the conclusion that the Nolumus did in fact follow, and not precede, the ordinance. In spite of this, the evidence that the Nolumus clause belongs to the Provisions of Merton is not very strong.
The Provision which follows that dealing with special bastardy is in these words :
Provisum insuper quod quilibet liber homo qui sectam debet ad comitatum thrithingam hundredum et wapentachum vel ad curiam domini sui libere possit facere attornatum
ad sectas illas pro eo faciendas. The writ to the sheriffs already mentioned says nothing about the appointment of attorneys There is no such clause in the Provisions of Merton as they are stated in the history of Mathew Paris, nor in the Annals of Burton, nor in either of the two* codices at the British Museum, which contain early transcripts of the Provisions of Merton. In point of fact there had already been legislation about attorneys and of the same nature. Early in the eighteenth year of Henry III., almost two years before the Merton parliament, an ordinance issued from St. Edmunds, which treated the subject more fully. The instrument is enrolled upon the Close Rolls, and there can be no possible doubt as to its date.
Rex vicecomiti Kancie Salutem Scias quod per commune consilium regni nostri prouisum est quod quilibet liber homo qui sectas debet nobis in comitatibus hundredis wapentacis et aliis curiis nostris libere faciat attornatum suum coram balliuo nostro ad sectam illam faciendam et curias domini sui et libertates exigendas et ad loquelas prosequendas et defendendas pro dominis suis motas in comitatibus hundredis wapentacis et aliis curiis nostris sine litteris nostris Prouisum est eciam quod quilibet liber homo qui sectam debet ad curiam cuiuscunque siue ecclesiastice persone siue laice attornatum suum faciat sine difficultate ad sectam pro eo faciendam et ad curias domini sui et libertates exigendas et ad loquelas prosequendas et defendendas pro dominis suis motas in curiis predictis sine litteris nostris ut predictum est, precipue cum in carta de libertatibusconcessis probis hominibus regni contineatur quod tales libertates quales nos pro nobis et heredibus nostris eis concessimus tales teneant suis et aliis in curiis et libertatibus suis. Et ideo tibi precipimus quod hanc prouisionem nostram et concessionem clamari facias et teneri per totam balliuam tuam et si quis distringatur ad sectam faciendam in curiis vel libertatibus alicuius uel impediatur quominus possit
* That is Julius D., vij., and Harleian, 746.
attornatum suum facere ad loquendas prosequendas et defendendas pro dominis suis motas sine litteris nostris in curiis et libertatibus predictis contra hanc prouisionem nostram tunc aueria sua propter hoc capta sine dilacione deliberari et plenam iusticiam inde exhiberi facias Teste me ipso apud sanctum Edmundum xij. die Februarii.
Eodem modo scribitur omnibus vicecomitibus Anglie. In the face of this ordinance, it is hardly possible to contend that the ninth clause of the Provisions of Merton, as printed in the Statutes of the Realm, is a genuine piece of legislation. It can, indeed, hardly be represented as anything else than a brief statement of the law made two years earlier. This leaves the Nolumus clause in suspicious company. It follows the provision dealing with the date of limitation of writs of right, which was undoubtedly made after the Merton parliament. It is followed by another clause which almost certainly is a mere statement of a law made two years earlier. Though there is, as has been seen, strong evidence in favour of the Nolumus having been proclaimed at Merton, that evidence is hardly conclusive ; and it may be that early in the eighteenth year of the reign special bastardy was under discussion, and the barons refused to alter the laws of England. If this could be established, then the ordinance on the coram rege roll was, as Bracton thought, no doubt intended to be a termination of the dispute; and the intention of the ordinance was only defeated by the bishops individually refusing to make the inquisitions which it required. Unfortunately for this theory Bracton himself mentions the Nolumus as having been uttered at Merton; and one of the two early transcripts of the Provisions at the British Museum contains the clause.
G. J. TURNER.
V-CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL
The War Between Turkey and Greece. Several points of interest to Students of International Law arose in connection with the recent war between Greece and Turkey, though the absence at present of authoritative information precludes comment upon some of them. It is noteworthy that contemporaneously with the order to Edhem Pasha to advance into Greece, an Iradé was formally issued by the Porte,* recalling the Ottoman minister from Athens, intimating that the Greek minister at Constantinople had received his passports, and requiring all Greek subjects in the Turkish Empire to leave the country within 15 days. The last-mentioned point evoked a protest from the Greek Government, which denounced it to the Great Powers as “ contrary to the principles of modern civilization," and with a praiseworthy consistency refused to retaliate by issuing a similar order to Ottoman subjects in Greece.
The French, Russian, and British Ambassadors resolved to grant joint protection to Greek residents in Turkey, and the French Minister went so far as to immediately issue letters of protection to various persons. At the same time the three ministers presented to the Porte a Collective Note, protesting against the Decree of Expulsion. Shortly afterwards the Porte replied, resenting foreign interference in the matter, and claiming that the step was necessary for the maintenance of public order.Ş A few days later, however, the Turkish Government consented to the Ambassadors according protection to Greek subjects, and
* Times, 19th April.
Times, 29th April.
+ Times, 23rd and 24th April.
issued a decree postponing the expulsion for a further 15 days.* In spite of this, it appears that the original order was actually enforced in a considerable number of cases in spite of the protests of the Ambassadors.t The armistice, however, following upon the offer of mediation made by the Great Powers, postponed indefinitely the question of general expulsion.
There seems to be no doubt that the Ottoman Decree was an extreme measure not justified by modern practice. Theoretically, no doubt, a State can at any time expel aliens resident in its territory, and in case of outbreak of war even detain them and confiscate their property. Even so recently as 1803 Napoleon made prisoners of war all British subjects travelling in France; but such an exceptionally harsh instance is hardly to be quoted as a precedent. Prussian subjects in France, at the commencement of the Franco-German war, were permitted to remain, though it is true that later on the permission was in part rescinded owing to the exigencies of the war. I
There is at all events no modern precedent for an immediate general order such as that issued by the Porte, and it is in some respects a pity that the intervention of the armistice prevented a definite enforcement upon the Ottoman Government of the views of the Ambassadors.
It would appear that a more or less “ effective” blockade of the Gulfs of Volo and Arta was maintained by the Greek fleets during the greater part of the war. A British steamer loaded with oil was prevented from entering the Port of Volo, § and it is stated that an Austrian Lloyd steamer proceeding to the same place with 72 Turkish
Times, 6th May.
† Times, 8th May. See the excellent notes in Halleck's “ International Law," 3rd edition, Vol. I., p. 531 et seq., by Sir Sherston Baker.
§ Times, 14th May.