respect, the special conditions of ordinary homage being resort to the jurisdiction of the lord, liege homage requiring in addition to this that the service should be personal.

In the older English books only two species of homage are spoken of the Homagium Feodale, which was in fact the plain or simple homage, and the Homagium Ligeum.*

If it be necessary to determine which of the three kinds of homage was the one due from a sovereign vassal, it will appear that it could only be the plain or simple homage, the homagium feodale. Réal, indeed (iv., 159), says that the simple homage is the kind rendered by those who, without being by the nature of their fiefs in any dependence on another prince, yet render homage for the purpose of obtaining protection. This is exactly the case of sovereign vassal States.

It is clear that liege homage could not be due. In the famous Calvin's Case, a case argued in the time of James I., before all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Chief Justice Coke, it was laid down that "homagium ligeum is as much as ligeance," and "ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign."

Réal also (iv., 158) says the oath of liege homage is that which a subject owes to a sovereign, and the general usage of the word bears out the statement. It is, therefore, not applicable to a sovereign seignory. It is true the word liege appears in some of the forms of homage rendered by sovereigns to other sovereigns, but this had reference to their obligations, not as sovereigns of their own kingdoms, but as holding also possessions unconnected with their kingdoms, as dukes, counts, etc. As, for example, the form of oath taken by Edward III. of England to Philip of Valois : Le Roy d'Angleterre ayant les mains jointes entre les mains du Roy de France, & celuy qui parlera pour le Roy de France dira au Roy d'Angleterre. Vous * Calvin's Case, 7 Rep., 7.

devenez homme lige du Roy de France, qui ici est comme Duc de Guyenne et Pair de France Comte de Poitou et de Monstrueil et luy promettez foy et loyauté porter: dites Voire, et le Roy d'Angleterre dira Voire" (Bodin, L., ch. ix., 170).

In taking this oath, Edward III. bound himself personally, not in his sovereign capacity as King of England, but in a subordinate capacity as Duke of Guienne, a part of the kingdom of France, this homage being, in fact, identical with that rendered by the other Peers of France.* The same observations are applicable to the vassalage of some of the Scottish Kings to England if, as appears most probable, the homage they rendered was liege. Malcolm IV. of Scotland did homage to Henry II. of England in 1157 and 1163 ;† but it was for the county of Huntingdon, or "for the lands of Cumberland, Northumberland, and Huntingdon," as Hollinshed says, "under condition that it should in no maner wise prejudice the franchises and liberties of the Scottish kingdome."§ William the Lion, who succeeded Malcolm, took an oath of allegiance to Henry II., without any reservation, the charter containing the words "Wilhelmus Rex Scotia devenit homo ligius domini Regis Angliæ; "|| but at that time Scotland was practically deprived of all title to sovereign rights, her chief castles being surrendered to Henry, and the Scottish bishops and barons compelled to take a direct oath of fealty to the English Crown.¶ Richard I. having freed Scotland from this bondage,** homage was again done to the Kings of England,ft but with the distinct protest that it was rendered for lands

* Réal, IV., 159.

+ Hollinshea's Chronicles, by Hooker, III., 69. Stubbs, I., 555.

Stubbs, I., 555.

§ History of Scotland, p. 185.

|| Hollinshed, Chronicles III., pp. 95, 96. Scotland, p. 189.

tt To John in 1200. It was also rendered to Henry III, in 1251 and 1257, &c. Hollinshed, Chronicles III., pp. 245, 254, &c.

held in fief within the realm of England.*

After 1291

the Scottish kingdom fell for a time entirely under the control of England, and her kings of the House of Balliol, sovereign in name alone, took, as might be expected, the liege oath without any reservation.†

Again it would appear that ordinary homage could not be due. A characteristic of both liege and ordinary homage was the obligation to resort to the jurisdiction of the lord, and this again could not attach to sovereign vassalages. This obligation appears, according to the French authorities to be the distinguishing mark of certain inferior non-sovereign fiefs or seignories. There is some danger of falling into an error in reading the earlier authors on this point owing to a confusion in the nomenclature under which they refer to the superior seignories. Loyseau is the origin of this danger, for he calls those seignories Suzerain which have superior power but yet acknowledge a supreme, that is, it is presumed, a sovereign overlordship, of course incorrectly according to the present system of nomenclature, where the former is styled Vassal and the latter Suzerain. This seignory, he defines as the dignité d'un Fief ayant Justice;" (IV. Sec. 2) that is therefore not subject to resort to the jurisdiction of the superior lord. This definition is adopted by the later authors, and is affirmed as correct by Merlin in his Répertoire de Jurisprudence. Whether by this seignory with superior power is meant a sovereign vassal State or not is not quite clear-if it is so it is a direct assertion that such States possess unrestricted jurisdiction, and that ordinary homage was not due from them. If, as seems most probable, a non-sovereign vassal State is meant, the inference is to the same effect, the addition of sovereignty could, of course, not derogate in any way from the rights

* Green, History of the English People, p. 182. Stubbs, I., p. 556.
† See Hollinshed, Chronicles III., pp. 290, 350, &c. Scotland, p. 208.

of the seignory, and if the superior seignory, non-sovereign, were distinguished by being not subject to the jurisdiction of the supreme, or as we should term it, the suzerain seignory, a superior sovereign seignory must a fortiori be also so distinguished; the sovereignty cannot add to, though it may diminish, the obligations of the seignory. Whether the form of simple homage was that adopted in the case of sovereign vassalages or not is, however, of little consequence. It is sufficient to recognise that the special characteristics of the other two kinds of homage were from the nature of the seignories absent in the case of sovereign vassalages, and that their duties were therefore only fidelity, respect, and such service as one sovereign State can render to another.

Many instances in proof that these, and these alone, were in fact the conditions of tenure might be given. A few only will be referred to.

That service was a condition, even in the case of a sovereign vassal State, is shown by the case of the Papal See and its vassal State Naples: whenever the Popes declared war against anyone, the Kings of Naples were in arms for the defence of the Papal Power.* That it, in modern times, has been considered a condition of vassalage generally the instance of Egypt sending a military contingent to the assistance of Turkey in the TurkoRussian war of 1877-78 sufficiently demonstrates.

:

Again, in proof of the non-liability of vassal States, whether sovereign or not, to the jurisdiction of the suzerain Scotland prior to 1291, although, as already pointed out, not subject to liege homage, was nevertheless in some sort vassal to the Crown of England; † but except during the short period of complete subjection to the power of Henry II. there was no appeal from the Scottish

* Bodin, I., ch. ix., p. 174.

+ Stubbs, I, p. 555; Green p. 180

Courts to the jurisdiction of the English suzerain.*

Also, in the case of the King of Sardinia, when a vassal of the German Empire for the Dukedom of Savoy and his Piedmont and Montferrat possessions, from the judgments rendered in these States there was no appeal either to the Aulic Council or to the Chamber of Wetzlar. To come down to later times, Egypt, the Barbary Regencies, Servia, Greece, Moldo-Wallachia, all have been, or are vassal, yet not subject to the jurisdiction of their suzerain, the Porte. It may here be noted that when the Transvaal received its freedom, subject to suzerainty, the right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council ceased.‡

Admitting the correctness of the deductions as to the rights and duties of vassal States drawn from the authorities, and the analogy of the tenure of feudal fiefs, and referring back to the definition of sovereign rights, it appears that without express conditions, vassal States, where they are considered to be de facto sovereign, possess in full all the rights consequent on the attributes of sovereignty,§ with the simple restriction against the exercise of the same in any manner derogatory to the rendering of the fidelity, service, and respect due to their suzerains.

It is clear that the exercise of internal rights cannot in any way interfere with the proper rendering of these duties, sovereign vassal States must therefore hold them as entirely as do other sovereign States.

With respect to the internal rights, there may be cases in which the rights, though possessed may be partially

*Green, pp. 181, 183.

† Réal, IV., 139.

The Att-Gen., Sir Henry James, in answer to Sir Henry Peek in the House of Commons, May 2nd, 1881.-Hansard's Debates, vol. 260, p. 1534.

That this is so the consideration of any one right peculiar to sovereignty shows. To take one, the right of legation: Gentilis gives this right to those qui pares sunt."-De Legationibus, Liber Secundus, cap VII.-X. Twiss, Peace, sec. 186, to those "qui summi imperii sunt (compotes inter se," or to those "sui juris," specifying thereby by paraphrases the two attributesEquality and Independence.