against the dependencies, Turkey has also been held liable for losses sustained at their hands; in 1783 for instance, Austria obtained a guarantee from Turkey against the "korsaren aus den Barbaresken-kantonen,"* and in 1826 Russia exacted an indemnity from the Porte for the damage to subjects and merchants of Russia "by the pirates of "the Regencies of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli." In proof also that the European Powers have never admitted these Dependencies to the jus legationis, none have ever accredited public Ministers to their Courts but only Consuls.‡ The relations indeed are said to be "of an anomalous and perplexing character," and "the necessity of the cases "and the reason of the thing have rendered this irregular "mode of international proceeding unavoidable."|| A suzerainty which perhaps more than any other interests this country, is that of Her Majesty over the Transvaal. By the Convention for the settlement of that territory, complete self-government was guaranteed to the inhabitants of the Transvaal, subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, with the reservation of the right to appoint a British Resident, of the right to move troops through the State in times of war, or when war is apprehended, of the control of the external relations of the State, including the conclusion of treaties and the conduct of diplomatic intercourse with foreign powers-a clear instance of a vassal State having full internal and no external rights. A case from the far East may be also referred to of the exercise of external rights by the Suzerain. In Japan, prior * Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général, XV., 459. Treaty of Ackermann, Art. VII. Hertslet, Map of Europe, I., 751. Phillimore, I., art. xc. § Ibid. I., art. lxxxvi. Boyd's Wheaton, p. 50. || Ibid. I., lxxxvii. ¶ See the Times, August 5th, 1881. to the suppression of their régime by the Mikado, in 1871,* the Daimios held apparently a practically analogous position to vassal princes in the West, subject to the suzerainty of the Mikado. The Mikado, in 1867, by treaty with the European Powers, threw open certain ports to foreigners for the purpose of trade, and this international arrangement he ordered by proclamation to be notified throughout, not only the government territory, but the territories of the Daimios, as an international arrangement affecting them, and lawfully made by him on behalf of those his vassal States. As bearing in the same manner on the Suzerain's right to control the international relations of States vassal to him, the action of the Chinese Government may be quoted with regard to the proposal of France to deal directly by Treaty with Tonquin. The Chinese Ambassador, acting on the instructions of his Government, at once remonstrated on the grounds that China was the suzerain State, and that in that character it could not view with indifference anything which might alter the international relations of Tonquin.§ It may be doubted whether, seeing that the independence of Tonquin has been stipulated by the Treaty with France of 1875, the objection can be maintained, but the fact that it has been put forward tends to confirm the principle of the Suzerain's right to the control of international arrangements which concern the vassal State. A similar remark may be made with reference to the threatened action of the Spanish Government with regard to the granting of a charter to the British North Borneo Company, giving power to it to trade, fly flags, &c., and exercise certain territorial and other rights somewhat * Bluntschli, art. 77. Sir Rutherford Alcock, The Capital of the Tycoon, &c. § The Times, October 8th, 1881. similar to those formerly exercised by the East India and Hudson's Bay Companies. Spain claiming suzerainty over North Borneo by reason of a Treaty with the Sultan of the Sulu Archipelago, a question has been raised in the Spanish Cortes as to the right of the Sultans of Brunei and Sulu to make over their jurisdiction to the Company on the grounds, it may be presumed, that such a transaction would be in contravention of the rights of Spain as Suzerain. In considering the subject of Suzerainty with reference to particular instances, it must be remembered that the status of a vassal State is liable to apparent modification hardly to be reconciled with any principle deduced from theory. Foreign interests, national instincts, the increase in strength of the vassal, the decrease in power of the suzerain State may, for a time, lead to the assumption on the part of the vassal or of the suzerain of rights not theoretically possessed by it. On the whole, however, it is submitted that the principles herein suggested are borne out not alone by theoretic deduction, but also by the practice obtaining among nations, and that if and so far as the practice in any particular case may appear to be not in unison with the theory, it will be found on further examination that the practice is temporary and peculiar, or otherwise abnormal, and in no wise disproves the truth of the deduced theory. Briefly recapitulating the results obtained from the consideration both of practice and principle, it will appear that vassal States are of two distinct classes, nominal and real, that from both classes there are due to the suzerain certain feudal duties; that these duties in no way interfere with or modify the exercise of the rights possessed by the vassal States; that these rights include, in the case of nominal vassalage, both all external and all internal rights, by reason of the nominal vassal being in every way sovereign; that in the case of real vassalage (the class including every vassal State lacking a single sovereign right), the rights, by reason of the non-sovereignty of the vassal, include none that are exterior, and only those interior rights which are expressly granted by the suzerain, and that the special duties engendered by the peculiar relationship are on the part of the vassal, fidelity, service, and respect, and on the part of the suzerain, the obligation to protect and defend the vassal, the duties being correlative and mutual. "Mutua quidem "debet esse dominii et homagii fidelitatis connexio, ita "quod quantum homo debet domino ex homagio, tantum "illi debet dominus ex dominio."* CHARLES STUBBS. IV. NOTES ON EARLY ENGLISH LAND LAW. VILLENAGE, VILLEIN TENURE AND COPYHOLDS. to in HE first condition for a clear understanding of the "base tenures" of our books is to keep in view the distinction between the tenure of the land and the personal condition of the tenant. For this, as recognised in the 13th century, the classical authority is Bracton. He mentions tenants on the king's demesne, whose ancestors held by free services, but were put out by the strong hand, and were allowed to take back their holdings to be holden in villenage by base but certain and assigned services (cp. as to this Dial. de Scaccario I., c. x.). These tenants are personally free, since they perform their services not in regard of their persons, but in regard of their holdings.” They cannot bring the ordinary real actions "but only the little writ of right according to the custom of the manor; that 66 * Glanvill, lib. IX., c. 4, sec. I. is, the jurisdiction was in the king, not as king, but as lord of the particular manor. They were called gleba ascriptitii, (cp. again the Dial. de Scacc., loc. cit.), but Bracton regarded this as expressing not a bondage, but a right; not that they might not go elsewhere, for "they shall not be enforced to hold such a tenement unless they will," but that the lord cannot remove them as long as they perform the services (fo. 7a). Again "the tenement changes not the condition of a free man any more than of a slave. For a free man may hold in mere villenage, doing whatever service. thereto belongs, and shall none the less be free, since he does this in regard of the villenage and not in regard of his person. Mere villenage is a tenure rendering uncertain and unlimited services, where it cannot be known at eventide what service hath to be done in the morning, that is, where the tenant is bound to do whatever is commanded him" (fo. 26a). Again, "Another kind of tenement is villenage, whereof some is mere and other privileged. Mere villenage is that which is so held that the tenant in villenage, whether free or bond, shall do of villein service whatever is commanded him, and may not know at nightfall what he must do on the morrow, and shall ever be held to uncertain dues; and he may be taxed at the will of the lord for more or for less yet so that if he be a free man he doth this in the name of villenage and not in the name of personal service but if he be a villein [by blood], he shall do all these things in regard as well of the villenage as of his person of his person" (fo. 208b). The only difference in the services was that the merchetum on marrying a daughter, being an incident of personal servitude (as a fine paid to the lord for depriving him of a slave) was not demandable from the free man holding in villenage. Privileged villenage is then described as the tenure of the personally free men already mentioned in the passage first cited. I suppose the personally free man who held in |