of our Police, and wished in a small compass to include for their information knowledge requisite for the due performance of their every-day duties. In achieving that object his success was without parallel.

CONTEMPORARY FOREIGN LITERATURE.

Venire contra Factum Proprium. By E. RIEzler. Leipzig: Dunker and Humblot. 1912. The Author traces the origin and gradual growth and development of the doctrine of "Venire contra proprium factum nulli conceditur," i.e., of that Roman-Canonistic doctrine which, cum grano salis, forms the equivalent of the English doctrine of estoppel, at first in Roman, then in Canon, and lastly in that later Civil and Canon law which has been brought about by the labour the glossators and consiliators have spent in interpreting and modernising those two legal systems. He then discusses the English doctrine of estoppel and the modern German doctrine of the "Unzulässigkeit des Widerspruchs mit dem eigenen Handeln." On pages 62 et seq. he raises the interesting question whether there has been a historical connection between the first beginnings of the English doctrine of estoppel and the Roman-Canonistic doctrine of Venire contra proprium factum. In favour of an affirmative answer to this question are, in his opinion, the facts that those early English jurists who may be considered as the fathers of English law, Glanvill and Bracton, have, to a great extent, been influenced by Roman-Canonistic ideas and conceptions, and that, as regards Canon law, one of those decretals of the Liber Extra which emphasize the doctrine of Venire contra factum proprium, has been addressed to an English bishop, viz., c. 5, X, de fil. presb., 1, 17. Furthermore, in Glanvill's Tractatus de legibus, lib. X, cap. 12, there are clear traces of the later estoppel by deed. These short remarks will suffice to show that Prof. Riezler's book contains many points of interest for English lawyers, especially for those who like to dive into the still mysterious depths of early English legal history.

Die Advocatur unserer Zeit. By E. BENEDICT. Berlin: O. Liebmann. 1912. The book is mainly addressed to members of the German and Austrian legal profession, but it contains several

passages which will be of interest to English lawyers. Noticeable is the Author's eulogy of English advocacy. He attributes the high standard of the English Bar and the great admiration which the English Judicial Bench enjoys at home as well as abroad, chiefly to the division of the English legal profession into barristers and solicitors. I should like to advise those English "reformers" who wish to do away with this distinction, carefully to study Dr. Benedict's little book.

Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, Vol. XVII, Nos. 3 to 8 (1 Feb.—15 Apr. 1912). Berlin.-On p. 243, the well-known German internationalist, Prof. Niemeyer, contributes an article on "The Tripolitan War and the Law of Naval Warfare." He points to the fact that, although the Declaration of London has not yet been ratified by any of the contracting countries, Italy, a party to the Declaration, as well as Turkey, a non-party, have actually adopted and applied the principles as laid down in that document, and that, as regards the capture of the neutral vessels Carthage and Manouba, both parties involved contemplate an appeal to the Hague Tribunal. He concludes his interesting study with the following remark: "The Tripolitan war already shows most clearly that in modern naval warfare the legal position of neutrals, as expressed in the Declaration of London, is a reality with which each belligerent has to reckon." On p. 298, the famous Romanist and senior of the Heidelberg law faculty, Prof. E. J. Bekker, writes on "International Treaties against Espionage." He begins with the following words: "Espionage and prosecutions for espionage are some of the most disgusting features in the peaceful intercourse between the different countries. Exaggerated by a daily press longing for sensational news, praised by some as heroic deeds, condemned by others as meanest felony, they are, more than any other occurrences, likely to be an obstacle to a reasonable rapprochement, and a bar to a mutual understanding which might lead to a healthy relationship, and in the end to a well-regulated co-operation between States. A nation often forgets the blows of a cudgel more readily than pin-pricks." Now, his proposal is that the modern countries should come to an international agreement by which each of the contracting parties undertakes not only to refrain from any kind of espionage, but to punish any such act committed against any of the parties to the agreement, whether the culprit be a native or a foreign subject. For instance, let Germany and Switzerland enter

into an arrangement by which they promise that Germany will punish any act of espionage committed against Switzerland in the same manner as an act of espionage committed against Germany, and vice versa. On p. 380, Dr. Martin of Hamburg gives an interesting study of Art. 5 of the Maritime Convention of Brussels, 1910. His proposal to grant legal personality to a ship-in other words, to treat a ship on the same footing as a body corporate— will hardly meet with approval wherever English law prevails.

G. C. F. S.-M.

Books received, reviews of which have been held over owing to want of space:-Nys' Le Droit International, Vols. I and II; Chitty's Statutes, Vol. VI ; Every Man's Own Lawyer; Warren's History of the American Bar.

Other Publications received:-Report of Register of Copyrights 1910-11 (Library of Congress, Washington); Subject Catalogue of English and American Law, prepared by R. H. Hupper (Government Printing Office, Washington); Bar Final Examination—(1) Carriers, by D. M. Kerley; (2) Master and Servant, by G. H. B. Kenrick (Sweet & Maxwell); Lowrie's Corrupt Practices at Elections; Trefenthaler's State Legislation concerning Tuberculosis; Scott's Certified Public Accountants (Wisconsin Library Commission); Richards' Progress of International Law and Arbitration (Henry Frowde); Shearwood's Bar Examination Questions; Butterworths' Workmen's Compensation Cases, Quarterly Advance Sheets; Roscoe's The Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (Stevens & Sons); La Legge (Società Editrice Laziale, Rome); The Mercantile Law Journal (Vas & Co., Madras); Srinivasa's Leading Cases on Hindu Law, Part I; Civil Judicial Statistics 1910; The Royal Society of Literature: Commemorative Addresses (Henry Frowde); The Rights of Minorities, by A. M. and T. Baty (P. S. King & Son); Gordon's Cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Part I; American Bar Association Reports, Vol. 36.

The Law Magazine and Review receives or exchanges with the following amongst other publications :—Juridical Review, Law Times, Law Journal, Justice of the Peace, Law Quarterly Review, Irish Law Times, Australian Law Times, Canada Law Journal, Canada Law Times, Chicago Legal News, American Law Review, American Law Register, Harvard Law Review, Case and Comment, Green Bag, Madras Law Journal, Calcutta Weekly Notes, Law Notes, Law Students' Journal, Bombay Law Reporter, Medico-Legal Journal, Indian Review, Kathiawar Law Reports, The Lawyer (India), South African Law Journal.

THE

LAW MAGAZINE AND REVIEW.

No. CCCLXV.-August, 1912.

IT

I. INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNAL LAND
TENURE IN RUSSIA.

PART I.

T was in the VIIth century that the peopling of the Russian plains by Slav tribes commenced. They settled chiefly along the banks of the Don and the Dnieper. According to the descriptions given by contemporary writers this territory consisted of gigantic forests and impassable marshes. It was owing to the character of the country and also to the fact that the River Dnieper formed part of the "great road" from the Variags (Normans) to the Greeks, that the Slav population (called "Rus") were, as recorded by travellers in the Xth century, a warlike and a commercial people, and congregated in towns, devoting little or no attention to the cultivation of the soil.

The centre of their commercial life was Kiev, "the mother of Russian towns," and the principal traffic was in slaves. It was only in the XIth century that the retainers of the Russian princes (boyare) began to receive land in remuneration of their services.

The first Russian Code, "Russkaya Pravda," in the XIth century, makes mention of the boyare as privileged landlords who cultivated their lands chiefly by slaves, kholopi; and by tenants, zakoupi, who were in a position of semi

slavery; that is to say, they were free, but in return for the use of the land and means of cultivation they paid a certain proportion of the produce to the landlord.

If such a tenant left his landlord, however, without having fulfilled his obligation, he could be claimed as a slave.

There is also mention in "Russkaya Pravda" of smerdi, or free labourers, who cultivated the State lands and paid a tax in kind to the prince. It is worth noting that, although these three different classes of persons connected with land tenure-boyare, smerdi, and zakoupi—are specified in "Russkaya Pravda," there is no mention of land itself as the subject of transactions or inheritance, showing that at that time the right of ownership in land was unknown, and it is not before the XIIth century that indication of private landowners can be found. There were three classes of landowners at that time: (1) princes and members of their families; (2) boyare; and (3) churches, monasteries and episcopal sees; and the lands owned by them were hereditary (votchina), and were worked by slaves. The proportion of land thus owned was small, the rest of the vast territory belonging to the Rus being free to all.

The princes, as rulers of the "Russian lands," had supreme rights over this land, and taxes were paid to them by the smerdi, or free labourers; but they had no right of property in the land, this right being confined to the votchina. The smerdi themselves had no right of property in the land they worked; they held it only while they cultivated it.

Land has never been regarded by the Russian people as the subject of proprietorship, and the peasants still say that "the land belongs to no one, it is God's."

The exact form of tenure of land for agricultural purposes at that time is uncertain. The new conditions in which the Slavs found themselves after their occupation of the Russian plains caused a gradual break up of the Clan system under which they had formerly lived, and it was probably followed